Kerry doesn't "have the judgment to be president."

[dropKickMurphy]

Kerry Says He Wouldn't Have Ousted Saddam (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040920/D857LANG1.html)


......"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," he added. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.".....

......Kerry has sounded more hawkish, as in December when Democratic primary rival Howard Dean said the world was not safer with Saddam out of power. Anybody who believes that, Kerry said, doesn't "have the judgment to be president.".....


For once, I agree with Kerry. Anyone who believes that does not have the judgement to be president.

Here's another example of Kerry's leadership qualities:

Kerry said in August that he would have voted in 2002 to give Bush war-making ability, even had he known no weapons of mass destruction would be found. He stood by the vote again Monday, saying the president needed to use the threat of force to "act effectively" against Saddam.

He made a distinction between that vote to grant a president war-making authority and what he himself would have done as commander in chief with such power.

So, Kerry believes it would be effective to threaten to use force, but not to follow up by actually using force. That policy of endless idle threats sure has worked well for the UN, hasn't it? Who would ever take the UN's threats seriously? That organization has zero credibility, and has absolutely no ability to play an effective role in averting crises around the world....except when the US military gets involved.
As president, Kerry would apply that same weak strategy to US foreign policy. Threaten...but don't actually take action. What a wonderful world that would be.

[dchester]

Kerry has essentially taken up the Dean position. One of the points I was trying to make in another thread (although I didn't do a good job of it), was that Dean would have been a better person to articulate the Dean position, than Kerry is at it.
________
Suzuki Swift specifications (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_Swift)

[Ballbustah]

This is one of only a very few times that the President has prepared a pre-emptive attack on another nation. In the past the US has gone to war as a result of aggression from other countries. This is one of only a very few times the US has pre-emptively gone to war against a rag tag embargoed nation that could barely get out of it’s own way.

It may very well be that the fall out from this will have a great effect on how the Arab nations view the USA for a very long time. The activity brought forth by President Bush may not be helpful in the present situation. It may cripple the US in its resolve to create peace among nations.

The World as a whole does not have a very favorable view of what went down in Iraq.

I do not have much confidence in our President.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
It may very well be that the fall out from this will have a great effect on how the Arab nations view the USA for a very long time. The activity brought forth by President Bush may not be helpful in the present situation. It may cripple the US in its resolve to create peace among nations. Based on "all the love" that the Arabs were showing us before we went into Iraq, I can't see that we've lost very much. The Arabs blame us for Israel, as I suspect you know. They also don't like the fact that we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (land too holy to have "infidels" there). I could go on about other things that they dislike about us, but you get the idea. They had issues with us before Bush invaded Iraq.

If we are able to get Iraq to the point where they can have elections, and if the people there accept the results, we will have done something good (in my opinion). Granted, these are two very big "IFs".
________
Yamaha FS1E (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_FS1E)

[spiderman]

Kerry is trying to justify the following:

I voted in favor of using force in Iraq because at the time, everyone was in favor of ousting Saddam...then....

...I realized I could garner great support by positioning myself against the sitting President...but...

...The problem was that I had already voted in FAVOR of using force...so....

...I needed to justify that position, which is where I came up with this paper thin and ridiculous explanation that I have now.

This proves that Kerry puts the success of his career above what is best this country and the World.

[Ballbustah]

dchester
But are we in a better position now? Flailing about in a nightmare.

Spiderman.... I guess you have it all figured out. No use argueing with a man that knows everything.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spiderman.... I guess you have it all figured out. No use argueing with a man that knows everything.

Come on Bustah! Don't give up so easy! You're more fun when you're calling me a dumbass.:Poke:

[Ballbustah]

You seem to have it all figured out.

Bush can do no wrong but Kerry clumsily oversteps his boundaries at every turn.

There is no use arguing with a man who has his mind closed.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
You seem to have it all figured out.

Bush can do no wrong but Kerry clumsily oversteps his boundaries at every turn.

There is no use arguing with a man who has his mind closed.

Does this mean that you're going to stop following me around the "Political Playground" like a puppy dog???

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
dchester
But are we in a better position now? Flailing about in a nightmare. Unfortunately, I can't yet determine if we are in a better position or not. I honestly can't say that I think we'd be in a great position if we hadn't invaded Iraq, and we were just sitting here waiting for the next attack.

Maybe part of the reason that I have some sympathy for the position that Bush is in, is due to the fact that I've been in a position where I've had to make decisions with less information than I wanted, and with some information that I wasn't certain about. Granted, the situations I've been in didn't involved war and peace, but still, remaining employed is rather important to me.

My perception (without getting into the blame game) is that Bush inherited a lot of problems when he became president. Al-queda was planning to attack us, and the only one really telling him this was a big concern was Dick Clark. Others seemed to act like Clark was out in Left Field at the time. In any case, the CIA and FBI didn't know what a mess we were in.

After the attack occured (911), that changed a lot of peoples perception (including mine) of what was important to deal with. Terrorism had to be dealt with, and Bush I'm sure knew that if another big attack happened on his watch, he would be blamed for it (unlike the first one). I really think he has been trying to do what he thinks will prevent another big attack. First we went into Afghanistan, with the blessing of the UN. In my opinion we made some mistakes in that operation (going in too small, and letting the international community lead the rebuilding effort).

We then had the CIA director (Tenet) telling Bush that it was a "slam dunk case" for Iraq having WMDs. Tenet was supposed to know that kind of stuff. Obviously there were some "issues" with the intelligence Bush was getting, but I don't blame Bush for that. BTW, I haven't ruled out that Saddam didn't have the large stockpiles of WMDs, but it's clear that they weren't where the CIA said they were.

In any case, I can appreciate the predicament Bush was in. We knew Saddam had WMDs in the past (because he's used them), the UN thinks he has them, which is why they had inspectors in there. Saddam was stonewalling the inspectors, which certainly made people think he had something to hide. And the CIA Director says they have them. Based upon all that, I would have gone under the assumption that they did have them as well.

Here is where I think Bush made a big mistake. I think he should have waited under Hans Blix (the head of the UN inspection team) had exhausted his capabilities. Although I think this was more of a political mistake then an operational mistake, I still think it was the biggest thing I would have done differently from Bush. I would have gone in, just later. It would have been an easier sell if Blix had just said some thing like, there's no more we can do in Iraq, Saddam is not cooperating, we are leaving. After something like that, if would have been easier to call the UN's bluff, and then say, OK the UN won't do anything so now we will.

I do think we made some operational errors in Iraq, but I don't disagree with the decision to go in. I also don't think it's the end of the world with the current situation, in that every nutty muslim who thinks he can get his 72 virgins by killing an American, is now in Iraq. I would rather the Army fight those people in Iraq, then here. How it will all turn out, I don't know, but I hope we can eventually get elections there. I do feel that just leaving now is likely to be worse for us then staying there until after elections. I know you never wanted us to go in, but we are there, so I'm focusing on what we should do next. I do have more confidence in Bush on this then Kerry.

One of the real problems that the Iraqis have, is that most of the brave and honest people who would make good leaders, have already been killed by Saddam. The majority of the "leaders" left in Iraq, are the crooks, cronies, and "religious" pretenders. It will be difficult there for a while, but that doesn't make it wrong (at least to me).
________
BMW M535i (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_M535i)

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
Does this mean that you're going to stop following me around the "Political Playground" like a puppy dog???

Spidey
No... It means you are someone that doesn't know wrong from right. You let your love for Bush push aside all other obligations. You find solace in the fact that CBS published a report that Bush's military record was somewhat irregular but ignore the fact that his Daddy placed him out of harms way. You're blinded by Bush's light. You can see no wrong in Bush because you have convinced yourself he is a saint and can do no wrong.

Well I got news for you. He isn't that bright. He has run more companies into the ground then you can swing a cat at. And he will do the same with this country. The national debt is doubling at an alarming rate. That will cause inflation and a doubling of interest rates. The economy may be more of a problem in the future then Iraq ever could be.

I admit I do not like Kerry very much but considering the circumstances it would do this Country some good to get a "not so bright" President out of the White House.

I was with Bush in Afghanistan. But expending 1000's of lives in a country like Iraq that was not a threat to the US is insane. Iraq was no threat to the US. Iraq was an embargoed country that had trouble feeding it's citizens let alone attack the United States. By what means could they attack...

dchester
You really think Saddam had the power in his hands to cause havoc in the United States?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spidey
No... It means you are someone that doesn't know wrong from right. You let your love for Bush push aside all other obligations. You find solace in the fact that CBS published a report that Bush's military record was somewhat irregular but ignore the fact that his Daddy placed him out of harms way. You're blinded by Bush's light. You can see no wrong in Bush because you have convinced yourself he is a saint and can do no wrong.

Well I got news for you. He isn't that bright. He has run more companies into the ground then you can swing a cat at. And he will do the same with this country. The national debt is doubling at an alarming rate. That will cause inflation and a doubling of interest rates. The economy may be more of a problem in the future then Iraq ever could be.

I admit I do not like Kerry very much but considering the circumstances it would do this Country some good to get a "not so bright" President out of the White House.

I was with Bush in Afghanistan. But expending 1000's of lives in a country like Iraq that was not a threat to the US is insane. Iraq was no threat to the US. Iraq was an embargoed country that had trouble feeding it's citizens let alone attack the United States. By what means could they attack...

dchester
You really think Saddam had the power in his hands to cause havoc in the United States?

I'll take this as a NO...:shrug:

[Ballbustah]

That's right.... It's a no.

By the way... I thought you put me on ignore.

I liked it better when you ignored me....

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
That's right.... It's a no.

By the way... I thought you put me on ignore.

I liked it better when you ignored me....

Come on Ballbustah...just admit it...you have a crush on me!;)

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
Come on Ballbustah...just admit it...you have a crush on me!;)

Only if you have no balls.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
dchester
You really think Saddam had the power in his hands to cause havoc in the United States? By himself, no. Although there was a time when didn't think that Osama could either. That's the tricky nature of these times, trying to avert risk while dealing with uncertainty.

The concern with Saddam was that he might provide assistance (like WMDs) to others that would attempt to do us harm. Obviously, Bush thought there was a credible risk. My question is, with the information we had at the time, was it credible to think that Saddam would have provided WMDs to terrorists, and how certain do you have to be of it before you act?

To illustrate this further, let me present a hypothetical (at least for now) scenario. North Korea has nuclear weapons, but we don't act on them. Why, because they understand that if they used them against us, they would not survive our response. Now let's say that we had evidence (not proof), that they were planning to ship a nuke over to Osama, or some other bozo in the Middle East, to eventually be used against us. To be more specific, let's say we have information (again, not proof), that the nuke was going to be placed on a specific ship headed for the Middle East, and the CIA rates the likelyhood of it being correct at about 50-50. Once the nuke (assuming it exists) gets to the Middle East, you will lose your ability to track it. What do you do if diplomacy fails? Would you have the Navy intercept the ship (an act of war) to inspect it? Do you just hope the intelligence is wrong (and it may be)? There are serious risks regardless of what you do. If that nuke ever made it to the US and went off, and later it came out that there was "intelligence" about it that wasn't "properly" acted on, that President would be held responsible and crucified in the media (and probably in history as well). And let's say you didn't care about history, could you live with yourself, if thousands of people died because you didn't take a chance and act when you had the chance? It's not an easy decision.

The deterrent that worked during the Cold War (the threat of retaliation), does not work so well with terrorists. This means you have to disrupt their ability to attack us. To me, it seems that pre-emptive actions will be required in some situations. Of course, the critical debate is over when.
________
iolite vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/iolite)

[Ballbustah]

The Intelligence community relied on Saddam’s enemies to gather information on his WMD. The info they got from these people was grossly exaggerated.
I believed at one time that the WMD were there. They were there a dozen years ago…. Where did they go? They still may be buried somewhere in Iraq for all we know.

The availability of nuclear weapons to Iraq was never really a problem. Israel bombed their one and only nuclear plant back in the 80’s because of the danger of nuclear weapons.

As far as finding nuclear weapons they can be had from multiple sources from the former Soviet Republic. Certainly South Korea may be a source. There are millions of containers entering the US everyday. How are we to stop them… Are we to pre-emptively attack everyone on the Earth in hopes of curtailing a disaster? Where does real intelligence information start taking the place of guesses? When is it that we start knowing what is going on?