Michael J. Totten: Meeting in the Middle (Updated)

October 12, 2004

Meeting in the Middle (Updated)

I enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan in part because he teaches me new things, and also because I have something in common with him. He and I, at least for a while, were both undecided voters.

James Lileks thinks we’re strange creatures.

…the undecided voter, a creature whose existence I accept on condition that I am provided with photographic evidence, spoor from the wild and plaster casts of their footprints. But how can you be undecided? It's not as if we're dealing with two mysterious figures who suddenly burst onto the national stage with no preamble. Whoa, who's this Bush guy? What's he all about?

Ah, Lileks. Funny even when he’s making fun of moi.

Yeah, I felt pretty silly being an undecided voter and I’m happy to have moved on. (Doesn’t mean I’m happy with my options all of a sudden.)

Lileks gets it, though. At least he gets me and Sullivan.

Sorry; don't mean to insult the undecideds. But really. Please. There cannot be more than 3,482 voters in this country who will stroll into the voting booth and flip a coin. Some of the undecideds are no doubt people who don't like the guy who should be their guy, or like the guy who shouldn't be their guy, and they're really arm wrestling with themselves.

Yep. That’s pretty much it. Kerry should have been my guy, at least if the fact that I’ve never voted for a Republican president means anything.

Sullivan has always been a little more flexible and independent. But he was one of Bush’s biggest fans until recently when he decided (for reasons that make sense to me, if not to others) that he just couldn’t do it anymore.

I was alienated from my side. He was alienated from his. We have different backgrounds, but we meet in the middle. And because (at least partly because) we meet in the middle we see some of the same ironies.

Yesterday he wrote the following:

Kerry's is clearly the more conservative position here. Conservatives have traditionally been doubters with regard to the transmission of Western values easily onto non-Western societies. They certainly don't believe it can happen overnight. Bush is therefore running as a Gladstonian liberal in foreign affairs, which is why it's strange to hear some conservatives writing as if Kerry's candidacy is the equivalent of Armageddon.

He even used a similar title for his post that I used for mine when I made exactly the same point two days before he did.

The only difference here is that Sullivan thinks conservatives shouldn’t get bent out of shape by John Kerry’s conservatism while I think liberals should be happy with George W. Bush’s liberalism.

Left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. None of these labels mean the same things to me anymore. It’s no wonder I’m homeless. It’s no wonder the number of Independents keeps growing.

UPDATE: Via Sullivan (naturally) I found this interesting post by Cicero at Winds of Change. He says he's voting for Bush and rooting for Kerry. Why might he root for Kerry?

If there's solace to be taken from a Kerry victory, it will be the possibility that liberalism will be truly taken to task by historical forces, like conservativism has been.

Yes! So very few on the left have noticed or can even understand when I point this out. Conservatism has really been hammered by history - and it came out the other side better than it was. That's what my hawkish case for Kerry was really about - hoping the same would happen to liberalism if he wins.

I wonder how many conservatives have noticed their own sea change between Bosnia and Iraq since their president shifted along with them? Well, Pat Buchanan has certainly noticed. And boy is he unhappy about it. I disagree with Pat Buchanan about practically everything, but I will give him credit for being alert.

Cicero has more, and you should read the whole thing.

President Bush, who ran on a near-isolationist platform in 2000, redefined conservatism in 2001 because the world changed. That's why he's got my vote. Mr. Kerry, so far, seems reluctant to redefine liberalism in the context of the modern world. His heels are firmly planted on a mountain floating on magma. As president, liberalism, as we know it, will either be redefined or it will perish.

UPDATE: Patrick Lasswell argues with me without quite realizing that I agree with him. Yes, Patrick. That's why I'm voting for Bush and not for Kerry.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at October 12, 2004 06:44 PM

Comments

This sort of discussion is what gives me hope that we can keep the ongoing dialog from descending into worthless name-calling.

I have been through the situation that you and Andrew have been in many times since I first voted. I didn't like the choice between Nixon and Humphrey in 1968 (after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated by an Arab terrorist), and so as a protest, I voted for Eldridge Cleaver. In 1972, I couldn't stomache the Viet Nam anti-war protestors, so I voted for Nixon. In 1976, I voted for Ford, as he was a Republican from my home state (Michigan) (I was still a liberal Republican), beside the fact that I couldn't deal with a born-again Christian from the South. In 1980, I thought Reagan was too extreme, so I voted for John Anderson. In 1984, I voted for Reagan, as I couldn't stand anything associated with Carter (in this case, Walter Mondale). In 1988, I voted for Ron Paul (as a Libertarian), because I was concerned about the Iran-Contral scandal and George H.W. Bush but couldn't stand Dukakis. In 1992, I voted for Ross Perot, as I couldn't stand Clinton and was still angry at George H.W. Bush for his breaking the no-tax increase pledge. In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole, but felt like I was wasting my vote. In 2000, I voted for George W. Bush, partly because he was a conservative Texan, but mostly because I couldn't stand Albert Gore, Jr. In 2004, I will vote for George W. Bush because of his stance on the war on terror and because of his support for Israel. I am voting against John Kerry because of his stance on the war on terror and because of his activities from 1970 to the present (especially what he was doing in 1971).

Posted by: Jim Bender at October 12, 2004 07:03 PM

I question calling Sullivan's protracted shift to the left, open mindedness in action.

After all, it was one topic and one topic only that Sullivan made his chocie on... and that one topic is one he has always lost all reason on.

Posted by: Bithead at October 12, 2004 07:28 PM

Bithead,

That was just the proverbial last straw. He's been railing against the Religious Right and Bush's fiscal recklessness ever since I first started reading him several years ago.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 12, 2004 07:31 PM

"Left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. None of these labels mean the same things to me anymore. It’s no wonder I’m homeless. It’s no wonder the number of Independents keeps growing."

Such confusion is to be expected. To borrow a phrase from Thomas Paine: These are the times to try men's souls. You are confused about politics because the world is confused. Change is altering the landscape faster than the lexicon can adapt. The pace of events outstrips our ability to make sense of reality, and thus we are left bereft of confidence in understanding what means what. As the current rule set continues to be altered, this confusion will only increase. We will all be homeless before this is over.

Then the hard part: deciding what our heart truly lies...

Posted by: FH at October 12, 2004 07:31 PM

You don't have to have been voting for a long time to get confused by the changing of these words' meanings. I'm 22, this is the second election I've been able to vote in. Bush draws power from the Christian right (which includes me apparently), but I see Kerry's "conservative" foreign policy as being more perfectly in tune with the tenants of Christianity. He really is the conservative one. Bush's crusades of democracy really don't resonate with my "conservative" paradign.

Posted by: John Totten at October 12, 2004 08:03 PM

Once again, you say George W. Bush is liberal, and I reply:

a bankrupt federal government. the worst environmental record in recent memory, and arguably ever (if you measure change for the worse).

Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Extraordinary rendition--sending suspects to Egypt, Syria and Jordan where they are interrogated and tortured. Maher Arar. Waterboarding. Withholding of medical care as a means of interrogation. More Arab and Muslim immigrants deported than Eastern European immigrants deported during the Palmer raid--many deported on flimsy immigration charges after being brought in on suspicion of terrorism. Abuses of immigrants at the Brooklyn MDC, denied by the DOJ until their videotapes proved it, then prosecution declined because all the victims had been deported. Torture memo. Padilla. Hamdi. Ghost detainees. Abu Ghraib. "Stress and duress". Sleep deprivation. Approval of dogs used to intimidate suspects. JAG lawyers never called up. Abuses by civilian contractors who are never charged and are not even fired. Legal arguments against any restraint at all on executive power.

Law enforcement can look at library requests without patron's knowledge.

Rampant secrecy. Information classified and declassified for political reasons. Secret evidence used for deportation.

Prospect of civil war in Iraq. Heavy and increasing civilian casualties--which we refuse to count, and then Allawi forbids the Ministry of Health from counting. A few days after the transfer of sovereignty, Oregon National Guard troops come upon Iraqi security forces torturing prisoners, and separate them--then they are ordered to turn the prisoners back over to their captors. Allawi bans hostile media outlets, for reasons that include criticism of the President.

Deception of the public about the reasons for war and the content of almost every domestic policy.

The most regressive tax cuts possible.

Letting contributors write legislation. Huge giveaway to coal and oil companies in Energy bill. Huge giveaway to drug companies in Medicare Bill.

Deciding medical issues on religious and political rather than scientific grounds.

Federal marriage amendment. Declaring "marriage protection week" on the anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death.

I could go on. You get the idea. Some of you may argue that some of these things are justified or necessary. Okay, but what, exactly is liberal about any of it? And why does it do not even a little to shake your view of Bush the liberator?

Posted by: Katherine at October 12, 2004 08:21 PM

There are very few undecideds this year. The majority of them are morons who only just now started paying attention. A tiny minority of them are hyper-intellectual political junkies who have over-thought the whole thing. There was a good New York Observer about the second group last week. They included Walter Russel Mead, who is still undecided. They also included Sullivan, who I thought had firmly declared for Kerry but seems to still be saying he's undecided. They also incorrectly included Micky Kaus, who is voting for Kerry even though he hates him.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at October 12, 2004 09:16 PM

Thank you, Katherine. Those are wonderful examples. I can only suppose that all the fungal problems in the rainy northwest have affected
Michael's powers of reasoning. Maybe he will come to his senses after a trip to Libya.

Posted by: miriam at October 12, 2004 09:37 PM

Michael,

Lileks is correct. You and Sullivan are indeed strange creatures, in the best sense. You are both independent-minded and curious. And it is obvious you want what is best for this nation and the world, not just for yourselves or your political parties. That is one reason you are both such a joy to read. You are intellectually honest.

I used to think "liberal" and "left" were interchangeable, but in the process of my own political evolution I came to realize that is not the case - at least it is no longer the case - though it may have been so at one time.
When a "feminist" like Naomi Klein calls for jihad in America and allies herself with Islamo-fascists who regard women as personal property, and when a creep like Michael Moore basically refers to terrorists in Iraq as freedom fighters, then you know the Left has reached a dead end. Just ask Christopher Hitchens. Of course, Klein is also in the vanguard of the so-called "anti-globalization" movement, which is in reality the "anti-capitalism" movement. People like Klein, Moore and Chomsky woke up one morning, realized Marxism had died, and started throwing temper tantrums. Anyone who hates America - as Klein, Moore and Chomsky certainly do - must be on their side. Hence the budding alliance between the Left and Islamo-fascism. They deserve one another. Unfortunately, this residue has worked its way into the Democrat Party, because such people and their followers must be appealed to in order to get votes. Hence lies are spread on collge campuses about a pending military draft, Kerry engages in demagogery about "outsourcing", and so on.

May of today's Republicans have abandoned the small government philosophy of Reagan, but of course must appeal to the religous right to get elected. Hence the vile "marriage amendment", the "war on drugs" an explosion in federal spending ( vote buying ) and so on. Apparently, a lot of people on the religious right do not have much of a problem with big government, as long as we outlaw gay marriage and drug use.

Bill Clinton was a better president than Bush on domestic issues, with the one exception of Bush's tax cuts. Of course Clinton had a Republican Congress to keep some of his more statist tendencies ( or was it really sHillary's statist tendencies ? ;-) ) in check for his last 6 years in office. But Clinton was rather pro-business, and basically supported free trade ( at least the idea of free trade ). Bush, on the other hand, slapped on those ridiculous steel tariffs. Now Kerry wants to cut corporate taxes. Good for him !

Of course the Democrats will not be the true small government party anytime soon, because they have government bureaucrats, teachers unions, trial lawyers and the AARP breathing down their necks, always clamoring for more goverment and against any of the needed reforms in education and entitlement programs.

Kerry will "outsource" too many decisions to the corrupt UN bureaucrats. Bush will not. Neither Bush nor Kerry will persuade any more "allies" to join us in Iraq. If you believe that, stop smoking crack.

On Nov 2, I will enter the voting booth, hold my nose, and vote for Bush, and hope for a real choice in 08.

Posted by: freeguy at October 12, 2004 09:38 PM

He and I, at least for a while, were both undecided voters.

Undecided? This late in the campaign? Give me a break. Thats ridiculous.

What do you consider most important; it's as simple as that.

Posted by: David at October 12, 2004 09:44 PM

Personally since 2002 my decisions have been greatly simplified. I've been voting since 1980 and have always been an independent. I've never voted a Republican for president and only once a Democrat (Mondale '84). Otherwise I'd divvy-up my ballot between Democrats and third party candidates for all other offices. But all that has changed and I have the Democratic Party and their fellow travellers to thank for it. Now I just walk into the voting booth, punchout the chad for a straight Republican ticket, and voila! So here's a big thank you to the likes of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Terry McCauliffe, Ted Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Charlie Rangel, Tom Harkin, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, John Edwards, Carl Levin, and a whole litany of other fine Democrats who have completely and perhaps irrepairably alienated this voter from ever considering a Democrat to be fit for any office at any level.

Posted by: MB at October 12, 2004 09:48 PM

I'm still waiting for Jarvis to make up his mind. And he lives in NJ! This carrying the unbearable weight of being a swing voter.

Posted by: Yehudit at October 12, 2004 09:59 PM

Just wanted to say I too still link to Andrew Sullivan and
find myself reading his Daily Dish just about, well, daily.

I just wish I didn't sense an implied "tee,hee,hee" whenever he
points out an uptick in the Polls for Kerry.

As far as the choice coming up in about 3 weeks, I'll be the first to admit Bush has made
mistakes. Some of them have been rhetorical,such as with the "any-child-could-understand-it"
but vague and inaccurate term "War on Terror". Some of them have been tactical, such as his (I think unneccessary)
over-emphasis of the WMD issue in Iraq, which has really come back to bite him.

And I simply can't watch another debate,they've become a three-heineken stress fest,
like watching a retarded brother dodge bullets for an hour and half.

Still and all, I will be voting for him in a few weeks even though it's largely meaningless
here in Kerryfornia. The question in the election is not "is Bush perfect?", but "is Kerry better?",
and with his fantsyland view of the Middle East and Al Qaeda, his pompous and exaggerated anti-war rant back in the '70's and his constant use fo the qualifier "but" afterevery statement, I simply can't pull the lever for Kerry.

By the way, I read your blog just about everyday too. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: L. Lund at October 12, 2004 10:18 PM

I'm at least sympathetic to the notion that parts of Bush's foreign policy rhetoric are harmonious with liberal internationalism. An activist foreign policy committed to spreading small l liberal democracy is right up my ally. I fear, however, that Bush's actual foreign policy has too many similarities with the tragic excesses of cold war containment strategy than with truly liberal internationalism. It's the gap between the words out of his mouth and the policies laid down by State and Defense that leave me little room to find a comfortable liberal home.

It's that and that fact that we might soon have some chucklehead supreme court justice comfortable with erasing liberal precedent and happy to turn over more power to the executive that really leaves me shaking in my skivvies.

As for the impact of the fungal northwest on the capacity for decisive judgment: After two month in Portland, I can report no major lapses in my hardened convictions.

Posted by: harry at October 12, 2004 10:31 PM

Made up your mind but not at all happy about it...

That's pretty much where I'm at, too. Kerry would make a top-notch Secretary of State, what with the cultured mannerisms and love of diplomacy. He really would. Just not a top-notch President. I want a President who is both intellectual and down-to-earth, one with a healthy respect for the power of diplomacy AND the power of force. Kerry only fills half that bill. He's the Richard Nixon in this, our bizarro-1968. What I wouldn't give for a Bobby Kennedy right about now.

Posted by: Grant McEntire at October 12, 2004 11:43 PM

I'm with Chris Hitchens on this one. He would have made a nice Peace time president. That may sound confusing coming from me because for all his flaws I'm voting for Kerry anyway.

Posted by: Epitome at October 13, 2004 12:35 AM

Harry: little room to find a comfortable liberal home.

Gads. I'm not even remotely comfortable with this, as I said at your apartment the other night.

And boy do I hear ya about the Supreme Court.

I want Tony Blair!

After two months in Portland, I can report no major lapses in my hardened convictions.

Wait until Winter.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 13, 2004 12:48 AM

Bush is internationally Liberal -- exporting democracy.
is economically "liberal" -- bigger and bigger gov't.
is socially "Christian". Abortion on demand, up until the day before birth, has become a Constitutional Right based on the SC, so this is the current situation. Pro-lifers want to change it, to give unborn human fetuses more rights. The "conservative" PC position is to deny human fetal rights.
You say conservatives have been hammered, meaning the anti-Christian PC view has pretty much become law. But once it is law, supporting the law against change is a "conservative" behavior.
Today in the US, there is an established PC view, and the current elites are fierce about conserving it.

On gay marriage, not yet PC law, the Christian position is the conservative one, defining marriage as between man and woman. This is one of the last social conservative = Christian issues; on most social issues the current PC status, like no school vouchers, the PC folk are conservatively against change, against increased rights for parents to have other choices.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at October 13, 2004 02:47 AM

Tom: Abortion on demand, up until the day before birth

This does not exist anywhere in the US and it never has.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 13, 2004 02:50 AM

Perhaps I was imprecise -- what IS the oldest fetus allowed to be aborted, currently?

I think many, if not most, of the partial birth abortions are of babies that would survive as premature births, were they delivered by doctors trying to save their lives. The worst pictures are pretty horrific.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at October 13, 2004 02:54 AM

The Wikipedia does not answer this question, but certainly doesn't support your answer, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Do you have evidence that no late term abortions have occured on viable babies (that would survive if supported by doctors)?

In any case, the numbers of such abortion are fairly small. The principle is the question of when do human rights start? The pro-life position is at conception. The pro-abortion position is at birth, but with some vague right indications for third trimester fetal babies.

What is your position on when a fetus gets a right to life? You don't quite specify it. Do you think it's a moderate, center, conservative, liberal, Christian, or atheist positon? [My Christian libertarian position is at conception, but with less rights than the mother in a vague way; adoption should be the choice the mother makes when she doesn't want a baby in her life. ]

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at October 13, 2004 03:44 AM

Perhaps I am just too simplistic. I hope for a Bush landslide to discredit the far left, just as the far right were disavowed with Falwell, Robertson, and Buchanan.

Once the extremes are silenced, except for an occasional sound bite, we can build some kind of consensus on most of the issues at hand.

Posted by: Mike at October 13, 2004 04:23 AM

MJT,

That would be fine if the so-called "liberals" could be singled out for the hammering. However, in order to get the hammering you're looking for, we have to turn the country over to them so that we all get hammered together. I would prefer the "liberals" get hammered at the polls so that they go back and do some soul-searching.

It doesn't look like that is going to happen this election cycle. This election is going to be close. And even if Bush squeaks it out, the "liberals" will believe that the reason they lost was that they weren't strident enough.

***SIGH***

We have a greate ideological divide in this country. Republicans want us to be American. Democrats want us to be European. They WORSHIP the "nuanced" and "sophisticated" Europe and despise "simplistic" and "provincial" America.

I don't want to be European. My ancesters fled that God forsaken bone yard for a reason. It was a cess pool then. It is still a cess pool today. Only American power in the post-War era has created the illusion otherwise. That era is over and Europe is reverting to form.

The real problem is that the Democrats are not liberals. They are socialists. A Kerry victory would be a victory for socialism. If a Kerry victory would hammer America so severly that the Democrats would forced to abandon socialism and reclaim liberalism, it might be worth the pain our nation would experience. But that is not something I want to risk.

The thing that Buchanan and by extension Sulli don't get is that it isn't America that is trying to impose our system on the Europeans or the Islamists. It is the Europeans and the Islamists who are trying to impose THEIR systems on us. The Europeans do it through the UN. The Islamists through terrorism and colonisation. The problem for the Europeans is that they are far more vulnerable to the Islamists than we are. For the time, they have made common cause because of their shared anti-Americanism. Europe will pay a terrible price for this when their allies turn against them.

Buchanan is an idiot (as increasingly Sulli is). He still believes in a world where if we leave everybody else alone, they'll leave us alone. The world doesn't work that way any more. That world is dead. Isolationism is dead. There is no going back.

Here is a good rule of thumb. If you suddenly find yourself in agreement with Pat Buchanan, you are probably wrong. It would be wise to start questioning whatever assumptions that you have made that led you to find common ground with Buchanan.

As for Sulli's change of heart, we all know that he changed his view of Bush because of Bush's support for the Constitutional amendment on gay marriage. In response, Sulli went through all kinds of contortions to justify supporting Kerry. That is why Sulli is becoming incoherent.

I have news for Sulli, the gay marriage is dead. He can now resume thinking logically instead of emotionally. There never was a chance, and there never will be a chance of a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. There wasn't even a majority of Repubicans who favored that because it violates the principles of federalism that some of them still believe in.

P.S. When I refer to Europeans and Democrats, I'm referring to the dominant ideological strains in those entitites that are setting their policy agenda. So don't start with the pedantic nitpicking about how not all Democrats are socialist European lovers, and not all Europeans are anti-American.

Posted by: HA at October 13, 2004 04:24 AM

To paraphrase what Bill Whittle said in a recent essay, the world didn't change on 9/11/2001, our perceptions about the world changed.

The Islamic Terrorist War has been waging for decades, Americans simply failed to perceive this war until the events on 9/11 forced us to change our Utopian perceptions.

That said, for numerous non-religious reasons, I am a female who believes abortion is weakening the female instead of empowering her. The perception that we 'liberated' females accept abortion as a means of empowerment is a perception I believe will one day change because those females who are aborting their offspring will eventually abort themselves out of existance.

Posted by: syn at October 13, 2004 05:48 AM

If neither party is truly addressing the long term interests of the United States than I can see being tormented by this election.
Besides what you vote for is not what you get.

The dynamics of the interaction between a President and the Congress are very unpredicatable.

Case in point: in 1992 I was a deficit hawk and was disgusted with both Clinton and Bush. I pulled the lever for Perot out of protest.

Clinton got elected, tried to push through lot's of spending programs including national health, and got hammered. By 1994 his political capital was so depleted, a Republican Congress was voted in.

Then came deadlock, a halt on spending increases, and a political triangulation where Clinton could point the finger at the nasty, stingy Republicans. He enjoyed flat fiscal spending and a booming economy and a surplus resulted: not his policies, but by a growing economy and a stalemate in Washington.

So, if I were smarter I should have voted for Clinton because he was going to so inept in his first two years that he would usher in a Republican Congress and create a deadlocked governent.

Go figure.

The way I see it, whoever loses will have to go into the woods, meditate for a long time, and retool their party to address long term problems in the United States. There is no way the winning party will do this.

So you have to ask yourself this question: which party is better positioned to retool to the realities of the 21st century?

The cave man in me wants to pull the lever for Bush. But I can understand being undecided.

Posted by: bob at October 13, 2004 06:37 AM

Undecided Voters are the natural outgrowth of the fact that Liberal and Left have ceased being the equivalent, in practice, of liberalism and Conservative and Right ceased being the equivalent of conservatism.

Who does one vote for if you support the idea of limited government? Who do you vote for if you support a hawkish policy toward national security? Who do you support if you believe in the social construct of live and let live provided doing so is of no harm to others? Who do you vote for if you believe that government can be a force for good in our lives but that it should be a distant second choice to non-government involvement in our lives, i.e.; freedom?

To me Kerry loses on all these issues: not strong enough on national defense, too quick to choose a federal/government solution to all problems, and weak on social policy. But Bush is, by definition of his policies, a profligate big government guy. He wins only on national security and even that is a win on principle rather than observed action (Mistakes Were Made). He loses big on the social issues of the day (for me) such as: abortion and gay marriage.

I think a relevant question is: How can you not be an Undecided (maybe conflicted is a better word) Voter?

Posted by: too many steves at October 13, 2004 06:52 AM

Michael:

I do think that you have been one of the more open-minded writers out there willing to be critical of all sides while maintaining your core principals. I do not think however that is true with respect to Andrew Sullivan. Yes, he has always been consistent on fiscal responsibility and same-sex marriage, but not with respect to the war. And by that, I do not mean his criticisms of tactical decisions and military developments in Iraq -- while I mostly disagree with him there, his points are largely defendable. But last week, he argued something that was completely contrary to what has been a core principal of his for the past few years -- the requirement for action in Iraq post 9/11. In the Underlying Fact, he posed the rhetorical question that if Bush so misjudged the rationale for the war -- i.e, WMDs -- how could Bush be re-elected. In fact, Andrew postulated, why should he be relected given, among other things, that error.

I know many people who share that point of view. But for Andrew to make that point is to me somewhat astonishing. If you read his posts leading up to the war, you get a very different perspective on not only the threat of Iraq, but the relevance of certainty with respect to WMD. For example, in August of 2002, he ripped the London Times for arguing that we needed certainty on WMD and its distribution by Saddam:

"But the critical issue is not certainty. It is whether, after terroristic forces have already massacred thousands of Americans, self-defense should get the benefit of the doubt. Bush and Blair are responsible if their own citizens are murdered en masse again. And they don't only have a right, they have a manifest duty to stop that happening. And the sooner, the better. Jenkins demands: "If We Must Go To War, for God's Sake Tell Us Why." Perhaps someone could arrange a trip for Jenkins to the site of what was once the World Trade Center, and he could get his answer."

So, self defense should get the benefit of the doubt ... but not now? Bush (and Blair) have a duty to defend us, .... but not if they were wrong? Then, a few days later on 8/3/02, he chided the NYTs because they said that any decision regarding Iraq should not be in response to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. You said:

"The only reason invading Iraq is being discussed at all is because of September 11 and what it taught us. It taught us that we are extremely vulnerable to terrorist assault, that these murderous fanatics are capable of anything, that they would use weapons of mass destruction in a heartbeat if they could get them. It is no secret that Iraq is the prime potential source of such weapons, and it is headed by a despot who has used them himself, and would dearly love to deliver them to America. What more do we need to know?"

What more did we need to know? Apparently, a lot, at least according to Andrew now. Again... a lot of people said things then that are like what Andrew is saying now ... I may disagree with them. But at least they were consistent. Andrew didn't however just change his mind...he lost it. There are so many posts in his blog leading up to and during the war like the above. A few months earlier (6/3/02), on pre-emption, he wrote:

"This is the new doctrine for American foreign policy. It needs to be. No responsible American administration can simply sit and wait until a rogue terrorist or terrorist state prepares to use weapons of mass destruction, or just weapons of destruction against citizens of the United States. ... What we need to see now is action - reform of the agencies that have been too passive in the past, and preparation for taking out the biggest single threat to our security, Saddam."

And Andrew did not become convinced about the threat of Saddam during Bush's tenure. It is a position he held through for years.

For Andrew to go so strongly against his core beliefs on action in Iraq does not support the notion that he is somehow open minded on the subject. I think he has just become so disenchanted with the Bush administration on other issues, that it completely affects the way he perceives their actions and the merits of a Bush's candidacy.

Posted by: Peter at October 13, 2004 07:03 AM

Personally, I'm undecided in the sense that I don't think either of the two major-party candidates is deserving of my presidential vote, so I'm undecided whether to cast a vote for some third-party goofball or just abstain from the presidential portion of the ballot altogether. I'm in Maryland, which will most likely go for Kerry anyway, but even if voting in a swing state I don't think I'd care anymore at this point, since I'm unconvinced that either of the two major candidates would be worse than the other, overall. That is to say, each has so many glaring flaws in terms of the only issue I really care about (national security) that from my point of view they'd be just about as bad as each other, in different ways. To oversimplify my point of view: Kerry is too nuanced and overly willing to rethink, Bush is too one-track-minded and stubborn; Kerry cares too much about what the rest of the world thinks, and Bush doesn't care enough about what the rest of the world thinks. If I could mix the two of them together somehow, I'd either make the perfect candidate for me or else make the worst candidate ever.

Posted by: Combustible Boy at October 13, 2004 07:11 AM

Bush might talk a better game on bringing liberty to the Middle East and on using American force -- but what evidence is there that he is going to be any tougher on Iran than a President Kerry, hounded incessently by a Republican Congress and a press wondering whether he is "a tough commander in chief like Bush", would be?

Apparently the Bush Administration is already strongly signaling that they will adopt the Kerry plan on Iran:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=161108

Kerry adopting the Bush plan in Iraq, and Bush adopting the Kerry plan in Iran, indicates that Bill Clinton is right: Middle East policy and other foreign policy matters will NOT differ significantly no matter who is elected. Voters for whom foreign policy is paramount, therefore, can and should look at the other issues in making up their minds.

Posted by: Markus Rose at October 13, 2004 07:50 AM

Oh, and regarding Sullivan...I hope everyone voting for the guy who wakes up every morning thinking about how to make America safer takes a gander at the post on his blog today that links to this beautiful report on MISSING IRAQI NUKE MATERIAL:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20041011/wl_nm/iraq_un_nuclear_dc

The guys responsible for this are the guys that are going to do a better job of keeping me safe?

Posted by: Markus Rose at October 13, 2004 08:08 AM

Off topic, but two days ago Mike Silverman suggested we needed bumper stickers saying "We are all Americans." After wrestling Illustrator to the ground, I finally came up with the first design.

For Mike, and anyone else interested:

The Radical Center

A bumper sticker telling both sides to play nice.

I'll add variations over time, but I wanted to get the first up quickly. Suggestions for other themes, wording, etc. would be appreciated.

Posted by: Mark Poling at October 13, 2004 08:09 AM

If there's solace to be taken from a Kerry victory, it will be the possibility that liberalism will be truly taken to task by historical forces, like conservativism has been.

Sorry but I can't buy that bridge.

Yeah, W changed 180 degrees on 9/11. But so did I and others. What is the "mainstream Democrat's" (if we can use that) excuse. The September 12 people had September 11 to shock us into reality. How many additional casualties will it take to shock the September 10 people? Yes, that's harsh so I'll tone it down: Why should the presidency be a "growth experience" for anyone? It was bad enough that it became that for Bush 2.0 (but I'm supporting him because he's "grown up" compared to the Democrats). The presidency is too important to downgrade 5 years in the merchant marine or army or navy or anything that stereotypically turns boys to men?

Posted by: Bill at October 13, 2004 08:22 AM

It finally happened! On my car and on my husbands SUV we both have (had) two magnets (about 8inches long) that are symbols of our support for the troops in Iraq. One of mine said (support our troops) and the other said (operation Iraqi freedon)..Gone! My husband called me at work this morning to tell me to go look at the back of my car and see if mine were still there because his was not. Sure enough neither were mine.

On the same line, yesterday our local news ran a story about so many political signs being stolen from the area where I live. Today there is a sort of war of the signage going on around here. I have driven by homes that now have 3 Kerry/Edwards signs on their lawn and the house next door has responded by placing 4-5 Bush/Cheney signs in theirs. God, it is hopeless!

Posted by: Cathy at October 13, 2004 08:41 AM

"Kerry adopting the Bush plan in Iraq, and Bush adopting the Kerry plan in Iran, indicates that Bill Clinton is right: Middle East policy and other foreign policy matters will NOT differ significantly no matter who is elected. Voters for whom foreign policy is paramount, therefore, can and should look at the other issues in making up their minds. "

I don't buy this at all. I can easily argue that at least short-term Mr. Kerry will be in a very difficult position on foreign policy. Not because of what Americans back home think, but because of the mixed messages it sends to our military, allies, and most importantly to our enemies.

When George Bush says he is going to use force under certain circumstances, nobody doubts him. Kerry is untested under fire and you can bet that a Kerry victory will be seen by many enemies as a defeat of American policy. It will re-energize their efforts in Iraq and elsewhere. Meanwhile, since only about 17 percent of troops support Kerry and he has given mixed messages about his policy, they will be in a state of limbo. As will the Aussies, Brits, Pols, and Iraqis.

My guess is that the confrontations will increase dramatically if Kerry gets elected. Hence there is a real difference.

Posted by: bob at October 13, 2004 08:46 AM

Cathy,

Join the club. I parked my car downtown last night and came back to see the Kerry sticker (all of two days old and, yes, I'm no longer undecided either), torn 3/4's the way off...

Well, we haven't had a good civil war in 150 years, I suppose it must be time.

Blah!

Tosk

Posted by: Tosk at October 13, 2004 08:51 AM

Cathy:

It finally happened! On my car and on my husbands SUV we both have (had) two magnets (about 8inches long) that are symbols of our support for the troops in Iraq. One of mine said (support our troops) and the other said (operation Iraqi freedon)..Gone! My husband called me at work this morning to tell me to go look at the back of my car and see if mine were still there because his was not. Sure enough neither were mine.

If these are the yellow ribbon ones, be advised that some people take them not to be nasty but to just get their own. It's till trashy though to say the least.

The best way to counter it, is to go to the local USO, VFW or the like, and adopt a serviceman/woman. Along with your other "family duties," write their names in permanent Sharpie pen ink on the new ribbon. Those taking them to have them will think twice as they will be stealing from "family." It still may be stolen by a feverswamper (Trash will always be trash) but they'll know that you'll take it personally. If they have anything boarding on ethics they'll be more likely to leave it be (some may be whacked but they also may still believe in Karma).

Posted by: Bill at October 13, 2004 09:10 AM

“...and you can bet that a Kerry victory will be seen by many enemies as a defeat of American policy. It will re-energize their efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.”

Yup, you can take that for granted. If Bush is defeated, the Islamic militants will celebrate---and then be further encouraged to commit more terrorists actions. A vote for Kerry is unintentionally and indirectly a vote for terrorism. Sorry, but that’s simply the way it is. One can argue abstract political philosophy until the cows come home in the evening. The concrete reality, though, is that a Kerry victory will be perceived by these scum bags as a reward for their evil behavior.

Posted by: David Thomson at October 13, 2004 09:15 AM

For Mike, and anyone else interested:

The Radical Center

A bumper sticker telling both sides to play nice

Cute!

Sort of reminds me of a cartoon network promo for the Powerpuff Girls where cutesy little Bubble's (I prefer "Hawkish" Buttercup myself) gets her sandcastle knocked over by a monster. She goes postal and in the end standing next to the now ex-monster, she screams

"Play NICE!!"

Classic.

Posted by: Bill at October 13, 2004 09:15 AM

'Well, we haven't had a good civil war in 150 years, I suppose it must be time.'--Tosk

Be careful what you say in jest,especially if on the WRONG side of history.Unless the fundamental devide between the sides can be lessened,an internal 'clash of civilizations'is not at all impossible.Some of us believe that this is in fact a WAR against a new world barbarism,and in wars,a defeatist appearing fifth column often finds itself in real difficulty.That is why we need a commonly accepted definition of what we are doing in this WAR.SOON.

Posted by: dougf at October 13, 2004 09:31 AM

dougf,

I wasn't wishing, or saying it in jest. The atmosphere is charged and the powder kegs are obvious to everyone.

Posted by: tosk at October 13, 2004 09:52 AM

That was your car Tosk?

Posted by: Eric Blair at October 13, 2004 10:07 AM

Bill, Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, it was teh yellow ribbon type. I don't have to go adopt a serviceman though, I gave birth to one. It couldn't have came from my neighborhood, as everyone here knows I have a son in Iraq right now and would not do that to us... So, it might have just been someone pasing by and seen them and decided to claim them as their own..I'm going to go get more right now and I will use the marker and put my son's name on it...:)

Posted by: Cathy at October 13, 2004 10:14 AM

"That was your car Tosk?"

Yes, you sadistic bastard ... and why did you pee on the tires? ;-)

Posted by: Tosk at October 13, 2004 10:31 AM

Bob -- Count me as one person who doubts George Bush will be any more likely to use force than Kerry. While Bush certainly is more philosophically inclined to act unilaterally and premptively, the opportunity to do this now that Hussein and a large portion of our armed forces are preoccupied in Iraq is gone is likely to be nonexistent in the next few years. This is particularly the case with Iran, given its size, and North Korea, given the inevitable Korean bloodbath that would ensue. The other possibilty would be defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion, but I see neither Bush nor Kerry getting the US into such an all-consuming conflict.

This leaves us with presently unknown new threats, or an actual attack or imminent threat. I see no reason why a President Kerry, running for reelection and needing to prove he's not a wimpy commander in chief, would turn into Jimmy Carter. On the contrary, even if preminently out of self-interest, he would be likely to respond at least as forcefully as a lame duck President Bush.

Your comment about the allegedly low support in the military for Kerry is irrelevant, or at least it better be. Officers and Enlistees take an oath to defend the country and follow the commander in chief no matter who he or she is.

David Thompson -- the terrorists will try to commit terrorist acts until their outrageous goals are reached or until they are dead or incapacitatied. They need NO additional "ENCOURAGEMENT" in order to try to do this.

Posted by: Markus Rose at October 13, 2004 10:50 AM

“David Thompson -- the terrorists will try to commit terrorist acts until their outrageous goals are reached or until they are dead or incapacitatied. They need NO additional "ENCOURAGEMENT" in order to try to do this.”

I completely agree with your first sentence. However, the defeat of George W. Bush will still be celebrated as a major victory---and a further encouragement to their nefarious activities. Deluding oneself does not negate this harsh reality.

“I see no reason why a President Kerry, running for reelection and needing to prove he's not a wimpy commander in chief, would turn into Jimmy Carter.”

Turn into Jimmy Carter? Since when has John Kerry been anything but another Carter? His whole adult life has been devoted to appeasing our enemies. Why are you so unaware of Kerry’s well established track record? Can you point to even one instance when the Massachusetts senator unambiguously supported America in its cold and hot military conflicts. Even one example would be nice? Oh well, I’ve handed you an impossible task. Let’s see what you can do with it.

Posted by: David Thomson at October 13, 2004 11:36 AM

Oh, and regarding Sullivan...I hope everyone voting for the guy who wakes up every morning thinking about how to make America safer takes a gander at the post on his blog today that links to this beautiful report on MISSING IRAQI NUKE MATERIAL: ...
The guys responsible for this are the guys that are going to do a better job of keeping me safe? - Markus Rose

I thought Iraq wasn't a problem? Were there or were there not dangerous weapons programs being maintained in Hussein's Iraq? Apparently, if it suits the purpose of proving Bush lied, there was little to worry about. If it suits the purpose of questioning Bush' competence, there were, and we let them slip away!

One thing is clear: If Bush wasn't in office these nuclear materials would be accounted for. By Saddam Hussein, that is.

Posted by: Zymurgist at October 13, 2004 11:39 AM

"This leaves us with presently unknown new threats, or an actual attack or imminent threat. I see no reason why a President Kerry, running for reelection and needing to prove he's not a wimpy commander in chief, would turn into Jimmy Carter. On the contrary, even if preminently out of self-interest, he would be likely to respond at least as forcefully as a lame duck President Bush."

Sure, but that's not the point I'm making. I am saying that the hostile activity will increase since Kerry is an unknown.

"Your comment about the allegedly low support in the military for Kerry is irrelevant, or at least it better be. Officers and Enlistees take an oath to defend the country and follow the commander in chief no matter who he or she is. "

Morale is an intangible that is very relevant to how well the military performs. People in the military take an oath, but they are under extreme stress, are human beings, and need leadership which they can believe in to be effective.

Effective leadership when it comes to life and deatch is not achieved simply by taking an oath or imposing a chain of command.

Posted by: bob at October 13, 2004 12:09 PM

Zymurgist,

"One thing is clear: If Bush wasn't in office these nuclear materials would be accounted for. By Saddam Hussein, that is."

Hrmmm, would I rather they be accounted for by an insane dictator, who had not used nuclear materials against the US, and apparently was not supplying the terrorists who attacked America with anything. Or, would I rather they be completely unaccounted for, missing in a country that is now, we are told by Allawi and Bush, overrun by the same terrorists who attacked America?

Hrmmm, what a difficult choice.

Also, "Were there or were there not dangerous weapons programs being maintained in Hussein's Iraq?"

The US government says that there weren't.

In every article I've read, the 'nuclear materials' talking about are KNOWN equipment that Saddam has had for some time, not dangerous weapons. These seem to be materials and equipment that, used in a particular fashion, could help someone make nuclear weapons.

Let's keep our facts straight and not run into LaLaLaLaLaLa Land.

Posted by: Ratatosk at October 13, 2004 12:13 PM

“Also, "Were there or were there not dangerous weapons programs being maintained in Hussein's Iraq?"

The US government says that there weren't.”

That’s not at all accurate. The Dalfour Report clearly showed that Saddam Hussein retained the intellectual capital and the infrastructure to renew his weapons programs in a mere few months---and he had every intention of doing so once the intense scrutiny died down.

Posted by: David Thomson at October 13, 2004 12:22 PM

Thanks Tosk. I forget sometimes the extent to which Bush-haters are willing to tie themselves in knots to arrive at their desired conclusions.

Hrmmm, would I rather they be accounted for by an insane dictator, who had not used nuclear materials against the US, and apparently was not supplying the terrorists who attacked America with anything. Or, would I rather they be completely unaccounted for, missing in a country that is now, we are told by Allawi and Bush, overrun by the same terrorists who attacked America? Hrmmm, what a difficult choice.

Hmmmm. Hmmm. Hrmmmmmmmmmmm. No one has ever used nuclear materials against the US, so that part of your comparison is moot. Saddam hated America. He attempted to assassinate a former president. He used WMD against his enemies, both internal and external. He invaded a neighbor. He funded suicide bombers in Israel. He harbored known terrorists.

But to suggest he would have had any devious intentions for those nuclear materials... such a conclusion could only be reached in lalalalala land.

Posted by: Zymurgist at October 13, 2004 12:38 PM

David -- "Can you point to even one instance when the Massachusetts senator unambiguously supported America in its cold and hot military conflicts."

Excepting the two wars against Saadam, I believe Kerry has supported or voted to authorize every military action initiated by a commander-in-chief while he has been in the Senate. That would include regime change in Afghanistan and Panama, as well the use of force in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan, Haiti...

bob -- Morale cuts both ways. My understanding is that a lot of our soldiers like and respect Bush. But a lot of them also are tired of being on the receiving end of stares, insults and occasional gunfire from people whom they were told need and want our help.

Posted by: Markus Rose at October 13, 2004 12:41 PM

“Excepting the two wars against Saadam, I believe Kerry has supported or voted to authorize every military action initiated by a commander-in-chief while he has been in the Senate. That would include regime change in Afghanistan and Panama, as well the use of force in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan, Haiti...”

You’re right. I should have asked when did John Kerry support military action if it might upset the liberals within the Democratic Party. He vigorously opposed Ronald Reagan during the Cold War. The Massachusetts senator opted for a policy of appeasing the Soviet leaders. Kerry is to the right of Dennis Kucinich and maybe Jimmy Carter---but that still doesn't say much. We know this much for sure: Kerry instinctively feels more comfortable appeasing our enemies instead of fighting them.

Posted by: David Thomson at October 13, 2004 01:14 PM

Zymurgist,

He very well may have intended to use nuclear weapons against the United States, however, we do not yet have evidence that this was the case.

We do however, have plenty of evidence that Al Queda (The people that Bush and Allawi tell us are in Iraq now) is willing to use whatever weapons it can against the US.

Now, logically, I would prefer the guy who MIGHT use nuclear material against, that the guy who WOULD use nuclear material against the US.

Saddam wasn't a good guy at all. He was very bad. But, we have no credible evidence that he ever planned to attack, or support terrorists who attacked the United States. The same cannot be said for Al-Queda.

If I HAD to choose between Saddam having control of nuclear material and Al-Queda having control of that same material... I'd have to pick Saddam. The current evidence makes him a lower risk to the United States.

Do you disagree?

Posted by: Ratatosk at October 13, 2004 01:57 PM

I draw no distinction between the intentions of Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. I believe both would use nukes against us given the chance.

I agree with Bill Clinton's assessment that Saddam would eventually use his arsenal against us if we didn't confront him directly and finally. He was a declared enemy of the US whose crimes are well documented. I for one was not willing to tolerate that threat any longer in a post-9/11 world.

How dangerous were the materials now missing? If very dangerous, why weren't they seized and trumpeted as evidence of Saddam's capabilities? "See! I told you Saddam was a threat! Look at all this nuclear building machinery!" My guess is that the importance of the equipment now "missing" is being exaggerated by either the IAEA or the author of the piece.

Like I said, if they were dangerous, they would have been used as proof of Saddam's capabilites. You can't have it both ways: "We incorrectly invaded Iraq where no dangerous WMD was found, and now that we did, all that dangerous stuff is in the hands of terrorists." Does not compute.

Posted by: Zymurgist at October 13, 2004 02:25 PM

Of course we have credible evidence that he would attack the United States. He'd been attacking the United States for years.

1) Paying suicide bombers in Israel who targetted American tourists.

2) Harboring the first WTC bombers, after the fact. Evidence that at least one was a member of the Mukarrabat.

3) Shooting at American planes on patrol.

4) Attempted suicide bombing of President George Bush.

5) Harboring known anti-American terrorists.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Look, vote for the man who consorted with domestic terrorists who heard plans for assassination of US Senators and did nothing about it if you want to. The man who worked against President Reagan when Reagan was finishing off the cold war. The man who wanted to let Saddam keep Kuwait. You're welcome to convince yourself that a man who insults Poland and Great Britain as "countries you can buy on eBay" is the Statesman America needs. But don't just repeat mainstream media lies about Saddam's innocence re. Anti-American terror to get you candidate of choice elected. Just because Dan Rather and the NYT say something, doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Matthew Cromer at October 13, 2004 02:46 PM

You’re right. I should have asked when did John Kerry support military action if it might upset the liberals within the Democratic Party.

Would that include Operation Desert Fox, which would not have passed Kerry's Global Test? It was considerably more unilateral, preemptive, based on the "big lie" that there was never any WMDs in Iraq etc.

Posted by: Bill at October 13, 2004 02:59 PM

I'm not undecided. I disagree with Bush on most domestic and economic issues, and find him personally distasteful, but I plan to vote for him. The threat of the Islamist movement trumps it all. He's a bungler, but he is a do-er.

Being surrounded in my workplace by wide-eyed babbling Bush-haters makes this unpalatable vote easier to swallow. I was for getting rid of Saddam and giving Iraq to its people in 1978. I was for getting rid of Saddam in 2003. Yet, somehow, I'm the "apostate" liberal.

But I feel out of place in pure Republican pep rallies, or "conservative" war rooms. I can imagine a world where I would gladly vote for John Kerry over George Bush. In fact, if you subtract the war on Islamists from the current world, you've pretty much got that world.

About the only thing I'm absolutely certain of in this election is that I want TerAYsa Heinz Kerry for first lady. No matter what. Dress her up like the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland" play The Replacements' version of "Cruella de Ville" whenever she comes to the podium. What the hell, we vote for president, why not First Lady? They're just as important. I say Teresa would be a great helpmeet to Dubya. That's the ticket I want to hang my chad on: Cruella and the Cowboy; Hell is on the Way, America.

Posted by: Doug Harper at October 13, 2004 03:19 PM

Matthew, a great post you just wrote. I ditto every word.

Posted by: Cathy at October 13, 2004 04:11 PM

"He and I, at least for a while, were both undecided voters."

Umm, won't we be requiring citizenship this year?

Posted by: Steve at October 13, 2004 05:30 PM

Tosk,

Saddam tried to assasinate an ex-president. Doesn't that mean a god-damned thing to you? Forget the million other reasons why we had to get rid of Saddam, do you think it is acceptable to let foreign leaders try to kill our ex-presidents?

Posted by: HA at October 13, 2004 05:54 PM

But you don't have to choose. We can take on both at once. We are. If you think Saddam is such a bad guy and don't want him to have nukes, why don't you support the war?

Posted by: Court at October 13, 2004 08:20 PM

Wow Ha, that one is gonna smart in the morning!

Posted by: Matthew Cromer at October 13, 2004 08:35 PM

Bob way up above nails it "saying that the hostile activity will increase since Kerry is an unknown."

Either Iran will be allowed to get nukes, or there will be an ultimatum, some final chance, for them to agree to NOT get nukes. I'm pretty sure both Bush and Kerry will be giving such an ultimatum, and the wording may even be identical.

But the game theory response by the mullahs is likely to be different. Assuming they plan to not comply, they will either believe an attack is coming, or believe no attack.

If Bush is re-elected, they will much more strongly believe non-compliance means attack.
If Kerry is elected, they'll believe that the "last chance" will be followed by another last chance, since Kerry says use force only in the last resort.

Iranian non-compliance is MUCH more likely under Kerry -- meaning BOTH Iran invasion AND Iran getting nukes are more likely.

Similarly, the current allies, with a Kerry election, are likely to believe the US wants to cut and run, so more will plan on leaving in Jan-Feb 2005, no matter what. With Bush, they're more likely to stay, since the likelihood of stable democracy in Iraq is higher under Bush, and sharing in success is a normal desire of politicians.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at October 14, 2004 12:21 AM

HA,

HA, please stay on track here. We're discussing a very specific issue. Saddam has never used any WMD against the United States, he has never planned an attack on the United States. Al-Queda has.

Personally, whatever this nuclear material is, I would prefer it be in the hands of someone who might attack us, as opposed to someone who has and plans to attack us. In the best of worlds, I'd prefer that neither have them.

Remember too, (for those of you talking about WMD's) all we have heard is that there were 'nuclear materials', not nuclear weapons. I'm guessing that they're talking about equipment, or perhaps radioactive materials. I don't think we're dealing with missing ICBM's and nuclear warheads.

Let's hope that it's just been misplaced.

Posted by: Ratatosk at October 14, 2004 08:14 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=165239

Treasury Secretary John Snow announced Thursday that the government has begun using various accounting procedures to avoid hitting the $7.4 trillion national debt limit.

Snow made the announcement in a letter to Congress, which has not passed legislation needed to boost the government's borrowing authority, which now stands at a statutory limit of $7.4 trillion.

Wow, I wish I could just tell my bank to up my cash reserve credit whenever I got close to hitting the max.

Does anyone in Washington understand the word budget?

Posted by: Ratatosk at October 14, 2004 09:34 AM

Tosk,

You didn't answer the question. Is that because you can't handle more than one topic, or you don't like the answer?

Posted by: HA at October 14, 2004 05:44 PM

HA,

No, your question was a tangent and not connected with the point I was talking about. If you would like to converse about your question, thats fine. But, I'm not going to confuse the two seperate issues.

I do not think it is ok for forign leaders to try to kill ex-presidents. However, that should have been dealt with 10 years ago. If anything I fault Bush I and Clinton for not taking out Saddam when it was applicable.

But, as I said, thats completely tangential to what I was talking about.

Posted by: Ratatosk at October 15, 2004 02:23 PM

Tosk,

And I credit GWB for doing what should have been done by Bush Sr and Clinton. Saddam was living proof that you can defy America for 12 years and pay no price. What kind of message do you think that sends? Do you think there is some kind of statute of limitations here?

So in your world, Bush Sr. should have taken out Saddam. Clinton should have taken out Saddam. And every single Democratic leader between 1998 and 2002 supported taking out Saddam. But when GWB actually does take out Saddam, it was a mistake? Or is there some other explanation for the currrent Democratic position?

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

If you read the comments in the link above and try to reconcile what Democratic leaders said between 1998 and 2002 with what they are saying today, there is only one possible devastating conclusion.

The Democrats made a strategic political decision that to win the election in 2004 they would have to undermine the war in Iraq. They have put partisan interests and the pursuit of power above the interests of the country. There is only one word that describes what the Democrats have done to this country. But MJT doesn't like it when I use that word, so I won't.

So vote for Kerry if you want to. That is your right. But if you choose to do so, you are rewarding those who conspired to damage American national security in order to regain political power. And you do it knowingly. Don't pretend otherwise.

Posted by: HA at October 16, 2004 03:34 AM

It seems like the less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the
flag.

Posted by: Party Poker at November 4, 2004 01:56 AM

Posted by: mp3 at November 4, 2004 08:16 PM

Purchase Wellbutrin cheap online
at http://www.wellbutrin-online.org

Posted by: Wellbutrin at November 9, 2004 03:37 AM

Purchase Wellbutrin cheap online
at http://www.wellbutrin-online.org

Posted by: Wellbutrin at November 9, 2004 09:16 AM

human vandals suck

Posted by: Human Vandalism Sabotage at November 12, 2004 02:01 PM

@ rzniecie dziewczyny licealistki @ szybkie azjatek pierdolenie @ szkolne kurwy oral @ dziewczyny booby @ anime murzynki @ oddawanie erotic stories @ szkolne dziwki smoking sex @ julia toalety @ slodkie kobiety dupodajne @ dupodajki kylie minogue @ anime licealistki filmy @ prywatne eros anal @ darmowe sikawka @ sado maso bielizna @ dziewczyny foot sex @ gole zdjecia @ pornografia popychanie @ seksi fisting @ mloda i film @ kamery dupodajne suki @ dolores nastolatki xxx @ liwe gwalcenie @ dziewice za darmo @ szybkie podkapova