I have to say that I’m glad I’m not President. While I do wish, once in a while, that I could be some sort of “temporary supreme ruler” and make sweeping changes to the law and social fabric, I wouldn’t want the job for very long. Indeed, I would want to limit the scope of the job I would take.

I supported the war cautiously. It’s no secret that people die in war, and an order of magnitude more are disfigured, and an order of magnitude more are mentally affected. My support for the war was predicated on my general belief that Bush had weighed those facts with previous attempts to deal with the threat Saddam posed, the threats Saddam would likely pose in the future, and the chances of success.

While it may surprise people, my support for the war has strengthened since then. I believe that the facts have shown that Bush did weigh these things out. If he hasn’t hit the strange bar set by the media, that isn’t necessarily proof of failure (“Mr. President, why haven’t you captured Baghdad yet? It’s been four hours since you entered the country. Mr. President, you’ve found weapons labs in violation of the UN-imposed cease fire, and conventional weapons that violate the cease fire, but you haven’t found stockpiles of WMD that violate the cease fire. Why not? Mr. President, although the casualty rate has been roughly 1/5 of the rate in Viet Nam, people keep dying in this war. Why? Mr. President, my favorite countries aren’t part of your coalition, although several bona fide countries, such as Australia and Great Britain are, doesn’t that mean this isn’t a real coalition? …”).

And, yes, I agree that Iraq was a crisis, not the only crisis in the entire world. There are several important issues that must be dealt with and that have been allowed to fester for years. Anybody who disagrees with the order Bush has attacked those problems should consider that when voting in November.

I’m personally very worried about North Korea, but I have hope that a diplomatic solution can be found (although I don’t have much hope, since North Korea violated a diplomatic agreement it made with Clinton when building the nukes it has today). China has temporarily disrupted oil shipments to North Korea when the country wouldn’t agree to multi-lateral talks, so I believe we have a lever available. I’m very glad that Bush has been very patient with this one. However, you’re free to have your own views.

I wasn’t so much targeting your comments, but instead Grumpy’s comments like

You know, Tired, you�re right. Let�s spare the soldiers. Let�s let your teenage daughters get blown up in shopping malls by terrorists on our own soil. That�s a great idea! Why didn�t we stupid Republicans think of that? Let�s not wage war. I�m sure our enemies are reasonable people and will leave us alone. I�m not saying you�re stupid, but if you believe that, I thank God you�re teaching art history to junior high schoolers instead of designing navigation systems for the space shuttle.

God forbid soldiers should die on foreign soil when we have mothers, daughters and children by the millions that we can sacrifice on our own soil.

Real constructive, there.

Yes, Saddam was handing out checks to the families of suicide bombers, and, yes, he had a plot to assassinate GHWB. He’s firmly in the “bad guy who needs to be dealt with” category.

But I’m a scientific kinda guy. I look at a problem (or a set of problems) and try to deal with the worst ones first. Pakistan’s lead nuclear scientist was setting up a info bazaar, Russia’s got literally tons of bombs not accounted for, and Iran and North Korea are threatening to set up nuclear bomb assembly lines and flea markets.

Hunt down the Russian nukes, tell Pakistan to get serious about keeping its own house in order, and do what it takes to convince North Korea and Iran that building nukes is a Very Bad Thing for them. Don’t put ~150K troops into a country that can’t even get nuclear weapons for themselves, much less others.

Oh, and ferret out all the idiots at the UN who were abusing the oil-for-food program: American, French, German, Russian, and Kofi’s relatives (IIRC). Then put the screws down on oil-for-food funding.

[/soapbox]

I feel better now. And for my next trick, I’ll cure cancer. 🙂

First, while Saddam had no direct involvement in 9/11, and little connection to Al-Quaeda, 9/11 wasn’t the first terrorist act ever, and Al-Quaeda isn’t the only terrorist organization in the world.

Saddam’s best-known connection to terrorism is his undying support of terrorism in Israel. His second-best-known connection is his attempt to kill Bush Sr (if that counts as state-sponsored terrorism; it wasn’t an act of war, a diplomatic mission, or even a police enforcement act).

Second, I (personally) have a problem with Kerry on the war, because saying the country was “misled into war” is quite a bit different from simply not supporting the war. The only possible response to this is to list why going to war was right (well, another response is asking if Kerry really felt misled).

Third, I see no difference between my tone defending the war, and the tone of those critical of it. I harbor no hard feelings against any of the posters in this forum, and I don’t sense any in their responses. In all, I think this discussion has been very civilized.

Thanks for placing the blame for 9/11 sqaurely on Clinton again. I’m amazed that, despite the 9/11 Comission’s findings that the blame should fall on everyone from Bush to Clinton to Congress, that you have some inside knowledge, some silver bullet that it was all Clinton.

And your logic is just bang-up flawless. If someone doesn’t support a pre-emptive war against an evil dictator who had little or no connection to Al-Quaeda and no connection whatsoever to 9/11, then they obviously support terrorists planting bombs at your local Nordstrom’s and killing little girls. Nope, no middle ground in there. You’re either with the Republicans or you’re in favor of having Paris and Berlin set our foreign policy.

And, of course, Republicans are the only ones who have ever sent troops off to war, and they’re the only ones who have ever defended the U.S. Famous Republicans who served as role models for other Republicans such as Reagan. Famous Republicans who defended the world from fascism. Famous Republicans like FDR.

Oops.

And, we all know that Bush would never sue anyone who wrote an unflattering book about him.

Oops again.

I’m sure you’ve already categorized me as a “Bush-hater” or “useless liberal” (even though I’m a registered independent), but the bottom line is that neither Kerry nor Bush is a saint or the Sacred Defender of All That is Good, Holy, and American. They’re politicians –both of them — and their job is to distract you long enough to steal your baby’s candy after they’ve kissed their forehead and shook your hand. It’s just a matter of where the money goes after they’ve got it from you, period.

Now, can we

• Forget about Vietnam and the National Guard
• Talk objectively about foreign policy about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Islamic extremists
• Talk objectively about getting the deficit under control
• Talk objectively about things like education and health care,

and

• Talk objectively about how we can regain our respect and leadership role in the word?

Or is that just a pipe dream?

Lotharsson, I appreciate your views on freedom to question. And George Bush appreciates your support.

Tell me, is there a distinction between dissent and smear, between questioning policies and playing the man, between presenting facts and spreading libel? I know Bush doesn’t do nuance, and that seems to be the same for his followers. They do like it that way, because it allows them to claim moral equivalence for dissent and smear, between facts and libel…

Bush, as you recall, is the one who doesn’t threaten lawsuits against people who question him or write books about him.

Tell me again, who is it that’s seeking to quell dissent?

Keep up the good fight, Max. Take it easy on these libs, now. You know that one conservative brain against a dozen liberals is ganging up on them.

~poof~