Site Meter

« Franks on "Mission Accomplished" | Main | Sensing on Swift Boat Vets »

Friday, August 06, 2004



I don't know who Kerry thinks he is fooling. If Gore(or Kerry) was president during 911 we still would have invaded Iraq. Popular opinion polls showed that a vast majority(Allen could you help me with a %#?) of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, and if there's one thing the Dems(Gore especially) hold sacred it is the public opinion polls. Hell, Clinton ran the country based on public opinion polls for at least 6 years.

Gore would have invaded Iraq and if he had the Pubs would be the ones bitching about evidence. The only difference would be that Michael Moore would have kept his big fat mouth shut if Gore were president.

Easy Rider

Al Hurd

Actually, to the best that I can determine (remember, these are polls taken over a year ago and thus hard to track down) between 47% and 39% of Americans were in favor of invading Iraq.

I'm not so sure, even at the high end, that a Democrat would have invaded. And certainly not without spending a few more months (or years) allowing the UN to "inspect" (read search) for weapons (though I readily agree with you about the Clinton fetish for poll driven action.) The whole point of the Kerry campaign is to suggest that he would have given the UN "more time", he would have "tried harder" with allies. As Elaine was so fond of saying on Seinfeld - "Yada, yada, yada."

How much more time should Iraq have received? Was 12 years not enough? How many more UN resolutions should it have required before we finally said "enough" and made damn sure that there were no WMDs to sell or give to terrorists?

Kerry would have given them far more time, as I should think Gore would have as well. But that's not really the point. The point is, Kerry suggests that good will was squandered, that not enough time or effort was put forth to gain allies. I'm not sure what you call the UK, Poland, Italy, Spain, etc. but they seem like allies to me. And just because the French don't like us...well, what else is new?

By the way, good to have you back ER - I thought I'd lost you. :)


Lewis Maskell

If you want my guess Al is that it is because of the illusion - now being shattered - that in the EU (which people see as being all of Europe even thought it isn't) once France + Germany had decided something the rest would follow, and if they decided not to do something no one else would do anything either. For a long time this had at least som validity if you ignored the UK (which is ok because Britain is not really European in the continental sense of the word). Hence why France + Germany acquired a special significance in people's minds.

However, the situation is now changing. France and Germany merely split the EU over Iraq, and now in a couple of things their motor has now proven insufficient to bully the other Euroepan countries. But it is unsurprising that a party whose candidate campaign is so deeply rooted (probably unwisely) in the past cannot properly appreciate the changing reality of the modern-day.

Al Hurd

Lewis -

Agreed on the France + Germany equation, and agreed that such an illusion is being shattered. And thank you my Brit friend for pointing it out.

Actually though, I would suggest that France and Germany are in the minority. Most of the Eastern European countries are in line with the war on terrorism and outside of the above two countries and the ever pacifist Sweden, most of the Western European countries are behind our fight (until Spain so fecklessly pulled out.)

I readily agree with you that Kerry is anchored in the past, but I dare say not so much in theory but simply in rhetoric. His idea is not so much that of a world since passed but that which he might hoodwink the American people into believing. The vast majority of people voting in November will not think of such things. Why? Because they are perhaps the ones anchored in the past, thinking that France and Germany represent the majority opinion in the so-called EU.

God Bless your country for being at least semi-wary of such an amalgam. I would be interested to see your opinion of such on your site if your ever have the chance to write on such. It would be most illuminating.



I beg to disagree Al. Kerry himself has recently stated that he would have supported using force against Iraq even if he knew there were no WMDs.|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

My favorite Bush criticism from Kerry in this article is Kerry criticizing Bush for using "bad intelligence".

First off the British, Soviet, and Italian intelligence agencies told the president that Iraq was searching for WMD and uranium in some piss-ant, booga-booga, African country whose name eludes me. Secondly, Bush went to George Tennent(sp) and asked him if this information was not only correct, but a "slam dunk". Thirdly, there may very well be WMDs in Iraq. We know for a fact that they have had them in the past. Are we to believe that Sadam merely rid his country of the WMDs on his own accord without bothering to tell anyone when a public destruction of said WMDs would certainely have taken some of the heat off of him? The U.N. in particular could have become an ally of Sadam if he had publically destroyed even a small portion of his WMDs.

If Bush had not acted upon this information, the Dems would be criticizing for not doing enough to stop terrorism, just like they did for 911.

Basically, it comes down to the Dems criticizing any and everything the president does in hopes of getting themselves into power. Plain and simple, and a "slam dunk" of another sorts.

If I were a Dem I'd be spending more time on bringing to light the fact that our President and Vice President are most assurdley draft dodgers, which they are. Hell, the Pubs played the Clinton draft dodging hand as far as they could and look where it got them.....ooops, never mind.

Easy Rider

Al Hurd

ER - Yes, but that is a recent statement by Kerry (like this week), and I think your further points indicate why he has said such. It worked well for the audience of the moment. But in the end, there is no way to really know what anyone would have done. It's better to focus on what they indicate they might do, and I frankly have no idea which way a President Kerry might go - he flip-flops too much to tell.

Oh, and that country was/is Nigeria. As for the WMD's - I think they are in Syria. But let's not get on a discussion of whether or not to attack them. Iran would need to come first.


Alex Smith

Hey buddy! Nice blog that you maintain here.. I just chanced upon your blog surfing the blogosphere. I was thinking.. you could try out some interesting widgets on your page and spice it up with more relevant information.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2003

May 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31