Marshall on Bush, Kerry, Polls

Joshua Micah Marshall has a long, but interesting, piece on the latest poll numbers, and what they signify, and whether Kerry is doing the right thing by hanging back for now, rather than going after Bush more aggressively: The one point of solace Republicans find today….

31 Responses to “Marshall on Bush, Kerry, Polls”

  1. Mac Hunter Says:

    Kerry turned coat

    Bush is standing up against the enemy. Liberals hate anyone with spine.

  2. sandra col Says:

    Bush is a crook

  3. Charlie Says:

    Bush turned his back on the enemy, Ossama Bin Ladin, in his pursuits of oil interest and the many millions of dollars that Chaney’s company will get from the rebuilding Iraq contract-.

    Bush betrayed America. He is a coward.

    To those lying about liberals, I say, remember World War 2, when a liberal President lead us to victory against the Nazis.

    Kerry will set things right.

    For those who don’t know what “liberal” means, this is from

    lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)

    1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
    c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

  4. Tim Says:


  5. Maryam Says:

    Tim, is apparently an ignorant bigot, and I am sad for him for having to suffer from such extreme stupitity. Here is a blatent establishment of a person afraid of accuracy and shaded from the ‘tolerance’ of truth.

  6. Maryam Says:

    Tim, is apparently an ignorant bigot, and I am sad for him for having to suffer from such extreme stupidity. Here is a blatent establishment of a person afraid of accuracy and shaded from the ‘tolerance’ of truth.

  7. Greg Says:

    Kerry and Edwards are two shysters, that prey on the uneducated majority of America, who do not understand politics or government.These people think that the president has complete control over the economy,and do not realize if we do not fight terrorist overseas, then we will have to fight them here in America. Kerry simpily tells idiots what they want to hear,knowing he can not deliver on his promises. He want’s to quote Regan, but always voted aginst him. “Tell the people what the want to hear and they will love you for it.”

  8. Charlie Says:

    Bush is the one with no spine.

    He gave lip service to our capturing Osama Bin Ladin and Al Queda, saying we’d “smoke them out of their holes,” then sent insufficient troops to Afghanistan, fewer troops than we have police in Manhatten.

    Then he sent ten times that number into a defenseless nation with no weapons and no armed forces–Iraq.

    All the while, he’s done nothing to stand up to the real threat and the real supporters of terror: Saudi Arabia.

    Bush=spineless, cowardly.

    And by the way, Bush also=economically, a borrow-and-spend liberal who has exploded the national debt.

    Bush calls Kerry a liberal, but in terms of economy, he’s more liberal than Clinton or Kerry ever were, the only difference is that he does it with money borrowed from China and Japan instead of spending cuts and taxes for the wealthy–he cuts taxes for the wealthy, so that he and his friends profit.

  9. David Says:

    I harbor no great love or ill will for any of the candidates, but I did find it rather distasteful to listen to John Edwards speak of his empathy for the single mother wondering how she would care for her children when he has become a millionaire from people just like that single mother. He is a trial lawyer and has become rich from our insurance premiums. He is a true politician.

  10. Rob Says:

    This goes out to all of the numb minded conservative republicans out there: SADDAM AND IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, NOTHING. OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ATTACKED US ON 9/11 NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN. Your great leader Georgey and his Bushees have misled over half of all Americans into believing that Saddam attacked us. What kind of a leader misleads over half of his country into not even knowing who killed over 2,000 people on 9/11? If I were Kerry, I would ask that question.

  11. Jemille Hardy Says:

    It is amazing how many lies by Bush, Cheney et al have been swallowed whole by overly trusting Americans!! Some gross examples: Saddam and Iraqi terrorists behind 9/11, Iraq posing any threat to America whatsoever, Halliburton’s fraudulent charges to the US government/taxpayers…the list is long people. Now I don’t like Kerry much at all, but now the Bush camp is paying Vietnam stooges who admit they were not even in the company of Kerry to lie about him too!! I wish I had someone worth voting for!!

  12. page54 Says:

    No,900+ dead service men and women stood up against the enemy.Defeat the Chimp in 04.

  13. R R GLASS Says:

    Who attacked us at Pear Harbour? Japan right? BUT FDR attacked Germany when They never attacked us.YET! WHY? PREEMPTIVE Strike on Japans Allies. Premptive WARFARE is NOT NEW FOLKS. Not invented by BUSH. When Clinton ATTACKED in Africa they hadn’t attacked the US nor were capable of it. Yet we had BLACK HAWK DOWN!

  14. R R GLASS Says:

    900 Dead YES and am praying for their families. BUT if we CUT AND RUN like BRAVE KERRY wants the dead servicemen will have died in vain. WE NUST stay and tuff it out till we can let democracy have a chance in the Moslem world. THE MOSLEM DICTATORS around the WOLRD are afraid of one thing more than any other. NOT Tanks, Smart Bombs, etc HAVING ONE SUCESSFUL MOSLEM DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY TASTING FREEDOM! It will spread like Wild Fire and they Know it. Russian couldn’t Stand up to Freedom. Neither will Turbin Terrorist Leadership when Freedom RINGS OUT ACROSS THOSE DESERT LANDS OF DICTATORS, DISPAIR, & DESTRUCTION.
    The cost of LIVE has been SAD. BUT is there NOT a CAUSE to fight for?

  15. eyesWIDEopen Says:

    CIVILIANS KILLED: EST. 11,500-13,500

    Mr. Glass, while I feel that all people agree Saddam Hussein is an evil man, very few remember past history. Iraq fought Iran during the 80’s. The United States backed Iraq. At that time, the U.S. isssued WMD’s, arms, and finances to Hussein. Relations were relatively good until it was discovered that the CIA also supplied arms to Iran(Iran/Contra Scandal). Russia invaded Afghanistan, U.S./CIA backed and trained Osama Bin Laden, as well as funded his actions…all of this occurring under Ronald Reagans presidency. The 91 Gulf War was a just cause, in that the U.S. defended a defenseless country, albeit, over financial oil interests versus humanitarian reasons. At that time, Bush Sr./CIA encouraged Southern Kurds(if I’m not mistaken) to overthrow Hussein, promising United States arms/financial backing. Once revolt was began, U.S. pulled support, thus leaving democratic revolutionaries at the mercy of Hussein.
    Hussein was an evil dictator, but…most of the countries on the continent of Africa are evil dictatorships. Most of the Middle Eastern countries are dictatorships. We all agree on this, but, is it our responsibility to overthrow every dictator in the world? I respect others beliefs, and basically, Muslim/Islamic people in general seek clerical leadership. They do not agree with capitalism and greed, and do not look favorably on what “democracy” brings. I believe that they have the right to pick their own form of government, and that the U.S. has no right to push our form of capitalistic society on someone else.
    I respect our servicemen and women who have put themselves in harms way, yet I truly regret the reasons that they were ever put into that path. This isn’t 1945, and it’s not a world war, it’s a frustrating effort against a faceless, ghostly enemy that lurks in the shadows of nearly every country of the world. Preemptive warfare, while not new, should be taken very seriously, and only executed after any and all evidence has been considered. I am for defending freedom, a just cause, but pre-emptive warfare for the purpose of financial gain, economic/political footholds, ect;, is not a “defense” action. It would warrant the people of this great country, in my opinion, to consider very closely what exactly we are representing, and our political leaders reasoning for pre-emptive actions.

  16. G Stephens Says:

    I feel I must respond to R R Glass in the interests of basic truth and accuracy. These are values which are of the lifeblood of a democratic society and for which the present US administration – an administration which the majority of Americans never wanted, which lied about non-existent WMD and equally non-existent links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in order to enrich its corporate friends at the cost of thousands of lives, and which has tragically brought much shame on a great nation in the eyes of the world – has a proven contempt. Accordingly, please note the following:

    1) Hitler declared war on America, not vice versa, and he did so following the attack on Pearl Harbour. He did not need to do so, and along with his disastrous decision to attack Russia, it was probably his biggest blunder of the war. Even after Hitler’s declaration, FDR would quite probably have preferred to concentrate on the nearer threat of Japan if possible. But American shipping was heavily attacked by U-boats throughout 1942 along the Eastern seaboard in an initiative called “Operation Drumbeat”; it was this, and not any doctrine of pre-emption, that forced FDR to take a more active stance against Germany than he might otherwise have wished, though in fact Churchill had been unsuccesfully pleading with him to come to Britain’s aid since 1940. R R Glass’s example of pre-emption is therefore false. I suggest that Glass have a look at the excellent book, “Operation Drumbeat” by the historian Michael Gannon to learn the truth about these matters, to say nothing of actually bothering to learn a few facts rather than publicly flaunting such embarrassing ignorance.

    2) Though Glass’s example is false, it is perfectly true that the doctrine of pre-emption was not invented by Bush. It has been deployed by numerous powers over the centuries, and has been especially popular with imperial powers seeking pretexts to expand and economically take over other nations for their own profit. (Thus, for example, the British started the Zulu War on the spurious grounds that the Zulu king was a danger to his people and the region). However, the reasons for the doctrine’s bad reputation derive precisely from the results of long experience. All law is based on the principle that agreements should be stuck to and procedures followed, including the principle that we should not attack others without cause. To declare that a group or nation should be entitled to attack others “pre-emptively” is to undermine this principle and hopelessly blur the distinction between defence and attack. If you or I were walking down the street and saw someone we thought MIGHT be threatening, but we lacked any evidence that they actually WERE threatening, do we then have a right to attack them on the grounds that we MIGHT otherwise suffer harm? Of course not – no law could be enacted, no person could be safe under such conditions, for it simply licenses anyone who has the ability to attack anyone else on the flimsiest of pretexts. Moreover, the fundamental principle of law, enshrined in the US Constitution, that a person or group should be assumed innocent until proven guilty is violated here, because it declares that, in principle, any kind of attack on others can be legitimated before evidence of agression is present. From this point of view, the Bush administration’s proven contempt for international law (and its contempt for the great principles of the US Constitution and of human rights, as demonstrated at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib) are of a piece.

    3) There is, however, one example of the doctrine of pre-emption that does apply to World War 2. This is that Nazi propaganda was geared in its earliest stages to maintaining that Germany was under threat, and thus that expansion was needed and “defensive” against the threat of pollution by other peoples who lacked the special qualities that this unique nation had to protect. Thus enlarged borders were necessary to unify the German people, and other nations had to be annexed to stop them being “threats” to the traditions of the nation’s way of life. The sense of threat and fear, allied to that of scapegoating social groups, was most important to securing unquestioned loyalty to the leadership, establishing the background for emergency powers and the ending of democratic institutions. It also helped mobilise the sense of shock and resentment against foreigners and chosen internal groups in the early stages of the regime, as well as setting the psychological tone within which aggressive foreign wars could be sold as nobly “defensive”. Since then, this sort of organised hysteria has been a standard political tactic in aggressive dictatorships, and a doctrine of pre-emption blends perfectly into it by blurring the lines between attack and defence. Any of this sound familiar, R R Glass? And are you happy to share the doctrine of pre-emption with such company?

    4) Alas, Iraq is not and will not be tasting “freedom” or “democracy” in any meaningful sense any time soon. This is indeed a very great pity, for the majority of brave troops who had to risk their lives, rather than dodge service through hereditary privilege like Bush and Cheney, undoubtedly thought that this was what they were doing it for. But sadly, the evidence seems to be that the Bush-Cheney axis couldn’t care less about how many lives are lost – so long as the lives aren’t their own, of course! – when preserving other people’s lives conflicts with expanding their business opportunities. Nor do they care about the truth, for Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, as the 9/11 commission has confirmed, and so those troops were forced to risk their lives for nothing more than lies and profiteering. As for democracy, poll after poll indicates that a majority of Iraqis want the US and other troops out of the country, where they are regarded as an occupying force. Are Bush’s neo-con war profiteers going to allow them that democratic right when that might mean Halliburton and all the big oil companies not getting control of the Iraqi resources? When it might mean – horror of horrors! – Iraqis actually controlling their own oil and other resources? Of course they are not! Democracy is the last value on the minds of those who deliberately sent in hired thugs to disrupt the democratic process of recounts in Florida. And for the Bushites in Iraq as in Florida, the democratic principles of majority rule are to be abandoned whenever going along with them might mean that rich corporate bosses don’t get their own way. Did you know, R R Glass, that Iraq now has a constitution written by people hand-picked by neo-cons and corporate placemen, a constitution that legally eliminates any possibility of its protecting itself in the global marketplace and that sets its economic trading rules in such a way as to ensure minimal worker protection and maximal profits to foreign corporations? And do you seriously believe that the setting up of that constitution was a “democratic” process? That ordinary Iraqis would want those measures if they were given the democratic choice? What nonsense! If they were given the choice, they would want something that economically benefited the Iraqi people rather than foreign corporations, wouldn’t they? And that’s not going to happen at all – hence the speed with which the terms of the constitution were set up, to make sure that if the Iraqis ever get out of the near civil war that afflicts much of the country, they won’t be in any position to go and do anything rash, such as instituting minimum wages for their own people. Under such circumstances, with a constitution produced of the foreign corporations, by the foreign corporations and for the foreign corporations, “democracy” does not get too much of a look in, does it? And then we might mention the sheer numbers of troops that are present, with no obvious exit strategy or even a clear intention of exiting by Bush & Co. Lacking an exit strategy makes no sense at all in a limited war that was designed to liberate a people for genuine self-government. But if the aim is to stay and control the oil, and perhaps scare or bully the neighbours, it makes perfect sense to have no exit strategy – the intention will be to stick around just in case the locals might decide to try to practice genuine self-rule. And in the meantime, the troops whose presence exposes them to constant danger from both resentful Iraqis on one side and the imperial dreams of the neo-cons on the other will be in the worst of situations – in continuous peril, despatched to war on the basis of lies, and deployed not to protect America, not to free Iraq, but merely to line the already overflowing pockets of Bush, Cheney and their friends.

    A “free sovereign nation”? Oh puh-lease! You’ll be reciting the rubbish about them greeting our troops with flowers next…

    5) The claim that other Muslim nations will want what the Iraqis have falls completely once you reflect on the points I have made under 4), and in any case, of the 21 countries that have been bombed by US forces since 1945 only 1, Serbia, has become democratic as a result. Hardly an inspiring record – indeed, no better than that of the old European empires. Considering what a mess Iraq is, I think it’s far more likely that seeing it will make other Muslim nations want to stick with the devil they know rather than risk the possibility of something worse. And the perception of Iraq as a Muslim country occupied by infidels, like the similar perception of Afghanistan as being such a country during the Soviet invasion, has been and quite clearly continues to be a huge recruitment boost to America’s real enemy, the terrorists of Al-Qaeda. When Bush attacked a regime that was one of the most secular in the Arab world, and which was at times almost as opposed to Islamic fundamentalism as it was to Israel, Bin Laden must have been delighted! For the truth is that Saddam was originally put into power by a CIA backed coup when Bush Sr was in charge of the CIA, and his major attraction to the West for many years was that he was so extremely unsympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists. That’s also why we supported and encouraged him to invade Iran, and why the Kurds who protested to Western newspapers at Saddam’s hideous gas attacks in the late 80s had difficulty getting an audience. And of course, it was Donald Rumsfeld who sold Saddam those chemical weapons….

    I suggest that R R Glass and his like start engaging their brains and looking about them with a critical eye to learn some facts about the world, rather than parrotting the sort of idiotic Fox News propaganda that has already been partly responsible for killing thousands of human beings. If that were to happen, then true democracy really would be protected, because lies and spin would be exposed and ridiculed more easily and the judgments of the people would be better informed.

  17. Bill Konrad Says:

    Faults are common to all of us including Kerry and Bush. But Character
    strength and honesty is something else. Bush has it Kerry doesn’t. Bush has taken more flack from liberals, M.Moore, Book after book on
    what a bad president Bush has been, Hours of rhetoric from Kerry and his merry band of followers like James Carville Ugh! and still the
    voters are not fooled by all the deception thrown out there by the Democrats and their liberal followers.

    In an interview a few months ago Kerry was asked, how much more should we spent on the Iraq war, his answer… much as it takes. Now both he and Carville have decided that the money should be spent on issues at home, again Kerry wants it both ways.

    Kerry gets the swift boat crowd on his case and his response is to have them shut up by any means but he wasn’t able to pull it off. Anything brought against Kerry is unfair or not true or a dirty plot by the Republicans to undermine him, he called on Bush to repudiate the swift boat crowd, why the hell should he, did Kerry repudiate Moore?

    Politics can get dirty and if you can’t take the heat without whining you should be in another game. The liberal democrats simply hate George Bush but hating Bush does not mean that he is unfit to command.

    Kerry would like voters to believe that he can do better, better than what and how would he do better? His platform is telling the voters how bad George is, how wrong he is, well I will tell you the wrong person in this race for the Presidency is most definitely John F. Kerry.

    Three puple hearts do not qualify you to be President particularly when they are awarded for minor wounds. There are hundreds of veterans with purple hearts and most of them are every bit as qualified as Kerry and their wounds are far more grave than those of Kerry.

    War heroes do not come home and give aid and comfort to the enemy by bad mouthing the war, your comrads in arms and your country in general. In short Kerry does not deserve to be the President, he did not deserve to be nominated but he was the best of a poor lot. God bless America and God bless George Bush.

  18. John Callender Says:

    “Faults are common to all of us including Kerry and Bush. But Character strength and honesty is something else. Bush has it Kerry doesn’t”

    You had me up until the last sentence. I could see a credible argument being made that Bush and Kerry are equivalent to each other in terms of personal honesty and character. I wouldn’t agree, but I think the argument could be made, using a certain wide-ranging defintion of “personal honesty and character.” And I think a very compelling argument can be made the other way, that Bush lacks personal honesty and character, while Kerry actually has those attributes. But the only way I could see making the argument you’re making is by being willfully blind to the reality of Bush’s character, while being willfully accepting of a lot of thoroughly discredited criticisms of Kerry.

    So yeah, if you want to believe anything badly enough, you can get yourself there. But this is your time on Earth: why waste it in a fog of lies you tell yourself? You should face reality while you have the chance. That’s the way I think about it, at least.

  19. paul Says:

    You democrats please remember who led us into Vietnam (a democrat)
    who led us into Kosovo (a democrat)
    who led us into war with germany (a democrat)
    who led us into the Korean war (a democrat)

    By the way, none of these countries invaded us either..

    We have to do what’s right as Americans.

  20. Wayne Reeves Says:

    Looks like Hillary’s vast rightwing conspiracy is at work again…BUSH will win by a large majority. Maybe character and
    leadership have something to do with the equation?

  21. stacey cooper Says:

    Actually, if you take an average of a large variety of polls, the popular vote is tied and Kerry is ahead (311 to 247) in the electoral vote. It is true though, that so many states are incredibly close that the election could go either way. As for Iraq, people should try to remember that many of our soldiers don’t even know what they are fighting for. The Iraqis on the other hand, rightly or wrongly, believe that they are fighting for their religion, their families and their homeland. The Iraqi prisoners who have been so horribly abused are not even criminals, yet most Americans think the abuse is ok. I spent 2 yrs as a correctional officer in a maximum security prison. If an officer there treated a serial killer the way the Iraqis have been treated the entire nation would have condemned them. Treatment that would have been considered inhuman there is considered ok by the military. After all, we aren’t talking about criminals – it was just a bunch of Iraqis. The real terrorists are still running free and I am probably being labled a “terrorist threat” as we speak simply for posting this message. The American public really should give a little more thought to the question of who the enemy is. I am sure that “character and leadership” have everything to do with the fact that the 3 men most hated world wide are Osama, Sudam & Bush.

  22. stacey cooper Says:

    One more thing – If the US government was warned about 911 as early as 1995, why was the “Intra American Air Force Academy” operating in 1997? This was where the US Air Force trained middle eastern officers to fly our planes. This was happening at Lackland Air Force Base in huge numbers and I saw it with my own eyes.

  23. Rob Says:

    George W. Bush was a cheerleader in high school, a drunk late into his thirties, and oh yea, he used drugs such as cocaine. Some of you may argue that no he didn’t use cocaine but when you ask Georgey, he replies ” my past is irrelevant to the future” why wouldn’t he just simply say “no” if he didn’t crack the coke??? Four years ago Dubya took office , since then the economy’s been down the crapper, 3 million jobs, health care lost by the millions, we haven’t caught Osama, 10s of thousands have died in Iraq, and for what? for WMD ? for support for al quaeda? It’s a damn shame none of that WMD turned out to be true, and the support for al quaeda was just a flat out lie. 1000 american soldiers dead now, Muslim groups who have hated each other for centuries are now uniting against the US, so yea , I guess Georgey is a “uniter, not a divider”, accept he’s only uniting more against the US, and dividing our allies away from us. What about the 24 bin Ladens quickly being evacuated out of the country days after 9/11? What about Abu Ghraib? What about Cheney making millions off the war in Iraq through Halliburton? What about over half of all americans not even knowing who attacked us on 9/11? What kind of a leader is this? What about the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of americans? If I were making over 200,000 bucks a year , I wouldn’t be bitchin about taxes. The PATRIOT Act? Maybe if we’ve already given up our liberties and freedoms as americans, then the terrorists have already won, if anyone would like to discuss this with me , please do, my AIM is jomomma4433, and my e mail is Defeat the chimp my friends, defeat the chimp.

  24. eyesWIDEopen Says:

    Just an interesting note that I read on CNN today. I seem to recall some rhetoric in the past about the true reasoning behind the Iraq War. Those intelligent enough to operate a pencil, or calculator (if able to manipulate extremities while being totally draped in the American flag), should maybe devote some of that superior intellect to adding up these recent numbers. I personally found them quite interesting.

    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — The United States announced it will shift more than $3 billion earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction to improve security and oil production, the State Department said Tuesday.

    The news came the same day that insurgents launched two deadly assaults at Iraqi police targets — killing 47 people in a car bombing at a police recruit line in Baghdad and 12 police officers in a drive-by shooting in Baquba.

    “Without security, there’s no possibility, as many power plants as you have, to actually get electricity, water, sewage, power to Iraqis,” said Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman. “And so that’s why so much of this money and the reallocation that you see is moving toward security.”

    In order to offset the redirection of money, the United States will reduce spending on water and sewage projects by $1.9 billion and electricity by $1 billion.

    Iraq has identified improving water, sewage and electricity as important reconstruction projects. Robin Raphel, a former ambassador who now works on Iraqi reconstruction issues at the State Department, acknowledged that few Iraqis have access to potable water and that most receive electricity for about half the day only.

    But Grossman said Iraqis “understand our priorities and certainly understand the issue that if there’s no security, nothing else is going to get done.”

    U.S. officials also plan to divert $450 million into Iraq’s oil sector to increase production during the next six to eight months in an effort to create extra income to pay for the shortfall caused by the redirection of funds.

    “The specific projects that they will target with this $450 million have an early payoff according to the engineers, according to the analysis that was done,” Raphel said.

    In October 2003, Congress appropriated $87 billion to help fund the war in Iraq — $18.7 billion of which was set aside for reconstruction. About $4.08 billion of that was allocated for sewage, water and electricity projects.

    The State Department said about $650 million of that $4.08 billion has already been spent.

    U.S. officials have said most of the funding earmarked for reconstruction was not being spent because poor security was preventing projects from being completed.

    *CNN’s Diana Muriel, Octavia Nasr, Kevin Flower, Arwa Damon, Mohammad Tawfeek and Abbas al-Kazani contributed to this report.

    Now…lessee’, if I’m not mistaken, did we not just allocate $87B toward something going on in this country(security)? Did we not send 100,000 plus troops there for a particular reason? A couple of other smart little numbers to chew on..oh yea, a billion has 9 zeros.

    $ 4,080,000,000 allocated for water,sewage, electricity
    – $ 650,000,000 already spent
    $3,430,000,000 subtotal
    – $2,900,000,000 Bush/Cheney Memorial Pipe Line
    $530,000,000 left for drinking water, sewage, electricity for the whole country.

    Interesting that we’d spend $87B, of that amount, allocate only $4B to rebuild basic civilized human needs, and of that $4B, divert $2.9B, or for those fractionally challenged, basically 3 out of 4 apples toward getting oil pumping out of the country. Again, I love my country, and I respect the men and women who serve in our armed forces, but honestly, what will it take for Americans to wake up?
    Invasion is invasion…and my guess would be, that if tables were turned, and Iraq were invading this country, many people writing in to this site would indeed take up the insurgency cause, versus siding with an Iraqi backed government aimed at furthering its own economic and political agendas, regardless of the needs, and concerns of the people.
    Nice narrow vision guys. Hope your grandkids enjoy paying for all of this, as well as spending a lot of time in the continental United States.

  25. barjockey Says:

    Yes – the 9/11 attackers were not Iraqis. Another thing they have in common? They’re all DEAD. The attack on Iraq was not directly in retaliation for what happened on 9/11. It was the beginning of a systematic assault on corners of the world where terrorism is being harbored. I won’t sit here and even begin to argue that Bush went about this in the most well planned way, or the most efficient. I, like many Americans, have issues with the president’s plan or lack thereof for the war. But, I see the reason for it. We are fighting global terrorism on a stage set in the middle east rather than a stage set in your backyard. If there has to be a war, and there does – Islamic fundamentalists have declared it so since the 1970’s – I would rather it be there than be here. We haven’t had another 9/11. I don’t give all the credit to Bush for that, but I think he’s truly got the best interest of our nation at heart.

  26. Rob Says:

    To barjockey,
    I really don’t understand why people say that we went into Iraq to bring the fight on terrorism there. I thought we were trying to oh i don’t know LIBERATE THE IRAQI PEOPLE , or so that is Bush’s excuse now that his other two reasons for invading were lies and the American people know it now. So if we are trying to liberate the Iraqi people do we really want to draw terrorists into it and create hell and chaos? You have to understand that they are people too, 95 percent of them are just normal people, gentle, caring, just trying to get by. Even if this “secret reason” to go into Iraq was to draw in all the terrorists and fight them there, why not Afghanistan??? Al quaeda was in Afghanistan, not Iraq after all. And NO barjockey, the terrorists are not all dead numbnuts, ever heard of OSAMA BIN LADEN???? My point is you can’t give a man a reason to go die for his country, and when he does so and it turns out that that reason was false, you can’t just make up a new one and say it’s ok. Another statistic, 35-40 other countries had more nuclear capabilities than Iraq. 35-40. I really don’t see why people are so stubborn about this war, and the ones who question why 10s of thousands of people are dead are “unpatriotic” . Defeat the chimp in 04′ . Defeat the chimp.

  27. Rick Says:

    I could debate this till the cows come home. Rather than point out all his lies, deceit, unrealistic “plans” (boy am I sick of his BS “I have a plan” statements). Here it is short and simple. The real John Kerry: Grab on to the popular opinion of spotlight issues, and be provocative; exaggerate, twist the truth, and outright lie to give people what they want to hear. Throw in some eloquence when debating it, mix in some lofty and totally unrealistic solutions that sound good to the common public, and then change opinion (stay neutral) on the real solution until something more important comes along. In the meantime, smile, exude as much confidence as you can, look pretty, and side with anyone that will support you and further your personal gain. That’s it. Ride the wind of success. He’s been doing it since he returned from Vietnam, and probably before then. Good plan. Bad thing is when it works, and you get to the top, people rely on you to lead them and know what to do. Is he prepared? If history is any indication, the answer is a resounding NO. Ignore the lies he’s made on this campaign (20+ just in the last debate), serious flaws in his character, his total lack of action and shunning of responsibility as a senator, his socialistic / borderline communistic thinking (read the detail on some of his “plans”), the personal associations, the lack of backbone, the insults and mixed signals he sends to our troops and the rest of the world, and the threat he is to the future of this countries safety, and you know what it boils down to? John Kerry still won’t make a good president. It’s highly predicted he’ll be the worst in history. Just when we need it, to.

    May God bless America and George Bush win this election.

  28. Paul Says:

    The “enemy” must be the American middle class, lower class, and true conservatives who support fiscal responsibility…

  29. Rob Says:

    Defeat the chimp in 04′. Rick, in my mind Dubya is the worst president of all time, then we got Paul who just commented about god knows what, please Paulie, verify what side you’re on.

  30. Willem Jones Says:

    I was among the undecided…Then I started thinking and asked myself what are the main resons people are supporting WBush. Two things came up: fear of terrorism, and religion. The unemployment rate is up, the economy is down. American soldiers are dying (1100 and still couting). Iraqi civilians are dying (15 000 and still counting). Health car costs are higher, education fundings is down. I finally made up my minds: there is no reason to vote for a man that, in the name of God, pours blood for oil. Kerry 4 president. November 2nd.

  31. Rob Says:

    To Willem

    Amen brother, amen. Finally an undecided with some common sense. And actually a new astonishing calculation is 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians and counting. I am confident that Kerry will win if Dubya and his bitches don’t steal it again. Millions of new registered voters, and more democrats in the country, therefore the majority of the new registered are going to be democrats. I believe Bush will be blown out of the White House. Defeat the chimp in ’04. Defeat the unevolved chimp.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.