Three Ways The Dems Are Looking Bad

[Bruzilla]

After several weeks of watching political shows featuring Democrats, I think there are three issues that they are really making themselves look foolish with:

1. It's Good to Invade/It's Bad to Invade. Going into Iraq makes George Bush a marauding evil doer, but not invading or attacking North Korea makes Bush a weak leader. Either it's a good thing for the United States to take proactive action or it isn't.

2. We Should Have Given Inspectors More Time In Irag/Why Haven't We Found Any WMD Yet? There are still Democrats yelping about how we should have given the inspectors "another two months" before going to war. This despite the fact that now that two months have passed since major hostilities ended, and inspections that are far more expansive and less limited than any before the war, have yet to find anything. How in the world could any reasonable person think that another two months would have made any difference?

3. CIA and FBI Intel Should Be Acted On/CIA and FBI Intel Should Not Be Acted On. The Dems are simultaneously attacking Bush for not acting on weak intel before 9/11 AND for acting on weak intel in regards to Irag. Either we respond to the intel we get or we ignore it if it isn't 100% solid.

I think the Dems need to come to one side of each of these issues and quit trying to spin facts to support which ever case they are trying to make at the time.

 

[SmallTown]

only 3 ways they are looking bad? Look at the list of democratic hopefulls. You'll find more than three issues

 

[Larry Gude]

In the hands...

...of a "lesser" party, these may seem to be real problems. However, playing "Democrats Advocate" if I may...

The Big 3, Uncle Joe, Kept Kerrey and Dick, can and will say they support zapping terrorists, including the crew from Father Knows Best, aka "The Regime". Their issue will be the details. If it was done THEIR way then THIS or THAT would or would have not happened.

They are innoculated somewhat from "too left". Joe had harsh words for Clinton during impeachment, nevermind voting to do nothing about it. Kerrey was a soldier. Dick was all for war and helped the Prez early on. They can get past #1 on your list, especially Korea. They can say anything when that time comes because there is nothing requiring a stance right now.
"Hoo boy. Nukes are bad!"

#2 is really an extension of #1, I think. Notice none of the three are spending much time defending Hans or the Axis of Evil; The UN, Germany and France. Think "nuance". Not a problem.

#3 is an extension of #2 pretty much I think. Peoples eyes glaze over when you start in with the FBI and CIA. Ask anybody what was done to fix the FBI or ATF after Waco. The same kind of turmoil of doubt surrounded the Cole and the Embassies, not to mention the first World Trade Center Attacks. This is all a can of ambiguous worms they will all again be able to nuance by not really touching it hard.

Keep in mind, your vote and my vote are not exactly the tests they will be trying to pass.

The issue, the real hurdle is Howard Dean. One of the Big Three has to seperate from the other two and then essentially support President Bush four square to beat back Dean. Dean will call the last man standing "Bush Lite" and the Last Man will call Dean, Mr. Pro Gun, a wuss. I look for Dean to actually punch Kerrey out at some point, thereby making me deal with two things I like about this guy.

It all points to drama: Enter Hillary.

We know Dan or our new citizen Petey or Judy or anyone else in the major media are not going to somehow hold these fine folks responsible for their own "16 words" on the war and WMD's other than at opportune times where than help select a king of their choosing buy tripping somebody else.

 

[Ken King]

Man, glad you guys are talking about different "three-ways", I had horrific visions of Reno, Albright, and Al Gore that flashed to Tipper, Bill, and Monica that flashed to ....

 

[Boones6433]

A Dems Opinion....

1. It's Good to Invade/It's Bad to Invade. Going into Iraq makes George Bush a marauding evil doer, but not invading or attacking North Korea makes Bush a weak leader. Either it's a good thing for the United States to take proactive action or it isn't.

My opinion on this one is that it seems strange for George Bush to attack Iraq based on the chance that there are weapons, yet there is hesitation on attacking North Korea that readily admits to having weapons - shouldn't this be a greater threat???

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Boones6433
My opinion on this one is that it seems strange for George Bush to attack Iraq based on the chance that there are weapons, yet there is hesitation on attacking North Korea that readily admits to having weapons - shouldn't this be a greater threat???

There's not a chance of weapons - we know he has them. Don't you remember the inspectors getting kicked out of there during the Clinton Administration? When Clinton dropped bombs on Baghdad? So this isn't just Bush - Iraq has been a problem for quite some time.

It's my understanding that the reason we're so juiced up about Iraq having WMD is because there are UN sanctions against it, due to his poor behavior in the past. Are there the same sanctions against N. Korea? (That's a real question because I don't know.)

So I'm not sure we have grounds to do anything about NK, just because they might have a nuke. If there's a real threat that they'll use it against us, THEN we'd have grounds to go in. Then the Dems can cry that Bush should have used diplomacy, inspectors, blah blah blah.

 

[Ken King]

The main difference between our going into Iraq and why we haven’t gone into North Korea is a little document that became Public Law 107-243 where Congress ceded their responsibility on declaring war against Iraq to the President. Nothing similar has been passed by Congress concerning North Korea as of yet.

 

[vraiblonde]

Ken, are there sanctions against NK the way there was against Iraq? I'll try to run it down on the web, unless you know offhand.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Ken, are there sanctions against NK the way there was against Iraq? I'll try to run it down on the web, unless you know offhand.

There are some but no where to the extent of what are/were in place against Iraq, remember technically the first Gulf War never ended because Iraq did not comply with the resolution calling for the cessation of hostilities.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

It's my understanding that the reason we're so juiced up about Iraq having WMD is because there are UN sanctions against it, due to his poor behavior in the past. Are there the same sanctions against N. Korea? (That's a real question because I don't know.)

In most of the correspondance coming from the whitehouse and the pentagon the days and weeks leading up to the start of the war, our focus was the danger he posed on the world with his weapons. We used the notion that the weapons are illegal to start the process, but by the end it had gone way beyond that.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
but by the end it had gone way beyond that.

In what way? The only thing I've ever heard come out of the White House is the same stuff they'd been saying since this all started. Heck, it's the same stuff Bush Daddy and Clinton said - that Iraq has WMD, there are UN sanctions against him having them, he hasn't complied with the sanctions, so he needs to get gone.

I mean, sure, the other stuff was brought up - how he treats his citizens, ties to Al Qaeda, etc. But the main point has always been making him comply with the UN sanctions or getting rid of him. Even those infamous 16 words in the SoU are along those same lines.

 

[SmallTown]

We were going to attack Iraq, period. The UN sanctions were simply a way to get the ball rolling and try to drum up support. Remember, it went from violating UN sanctions, to posing a threat to the world, to "liberating" the iraqi people. You don't hear anything now about how saddam was punished for violating UN resolutions. All you hear about is how we freed iraq. It was great to have legal justification for going in. But other countries "break the rules" as well and we aren't nearly as quick to move in. By saying the war was about the UN resolutions is about as bad as people saying it was about oil.

 

[vraiblonde]

By saying the war was about the UN resolutions is about as bad as people saying it was about oil.

Now I'm really confused. Throughout the Clinton Administration, the focus was on getting a rogue nation to comply with the law. Clinton wasn't particularly forceful about it - I assume it was because you use force as a last resort and he thought he could maybe negotiate with Saddam. Then Bush came in, 9-11 happened and they figured, now's the time, the time is now, and went for it.

"Freeing Iraq" sounds all idealistic and humanitarian - that's why it was even brought into the conversation. Libs like that sort of thing, whereas they DON'T like forcing the law on people. I would have to guess Bush was just trying to give every reason he could as to why going in was a good idea. What's wrong with that?

 

[vraiblonde]

And, actually, there were a BUNCH of good reasons to get rid of that butthead. Yet there were STILL some that didn't think we had enough cause. International law is an excellent reason by itself. What's the problem?

 

[Bruzilla]

Re: A Dems Opinion....

Originally posted by Boones6433
My opinion on this one is that it seems strange for George Bush to attack Iraq based on the chance that there are weapons, yet there is hesitation on attacking North Korea that readily admits to having weapons - shouldn't this be a greater threat???

Boones... you and I can both "claim" to have nuclear weapons, but until you conduct a viable test you've got nothing but threats. Nuclear weapons simple by nature of their parts and extremely complex by nature of how those parts have to work precisely together. If was as easy as some would have you believe to make a nuclear bomb there would be a lot more of them out there.

Second, what threat does North Korea pose to the United States? None. Their missiles have a theoretical range to hit the US, but once you add a heavy warhead (like a nuclear one) they fall into the Pacific well short of the US. If they attack their neighbors what's going to happen? They're going to get annihilated.

Bush is smart enough to know that despite all the huffing and puffing, North Korea poses no real threat to the US. Hussein did pose a risk because he had one goal in mind, and that was to conquer the Middle East and create a single Islamic country with him in charge (of course.) Had that happened Hussein would have easily been able to devastate the American economy. That's why he had to go.

 

[Larry Gude]

st...

...doesn't it hurt when you bend that way?

We were going to attack Iraq, period. The UN sanctions were simply a way to get the ball rolling and try to drum up support. Remember, it went from violating UN sanctions, to posing a threat to the world, to "liberating" the iraqi people. You don't hear anything now about how saddam was punished for violating UN resolutions

Iraq has been punished by some 14 UN resolutions over the last 12 years or so. Resrictions on weapons, oil and how the proceeds are to be used, etc, etc ad nauseum.

People who hate Bush have simply contorted Saddam Husseins negligence to his international responsibilities into Bush's and the US's responsibilities. They blame the jailer for locking up the prisoner, the cop for busting him, the judge for sentencing, the teacher, the boss, anyone, ANYONE but the person responsible for choosing to do wrong. THAT is modern liberalism. NO RESPONSIBILITY.

Unless of course, we can make some sort of argument about the import of a British Intelligence document in one 16 word sentence, one of THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence.

Blix and the UN were and are apologists for an evil regime. So are many Congressional Democrats, not to mention Howard Dean.

Why? These inane arguments about what we knew and when did we know it amount to letting Charles Manson go because the warrant was out of order. Saddam Hussein is not now nor ever will be a US citizen. He is not entitled to the same protections and due process.

He was tried, convicted and sentenced by the UN.

Why doesn't anyone hold the UN or France or Germany or Russia responsible? They supported, on paper, every sanction including force right up to the point where they had to actually do something. They have reasons of what they judge to be national security. IE: Oil. Boo!

It astonishes me to no end that the leader of the Democratic party, Bill Clinton actually has to go on TV and say, clearly "we should support America on this one..."

Support America??? OMG. What more does one need to know about this? The last straw is most of these people making stuff up have seen just about everything the President has seen, in one form or another. And they've seen evidence for 12 years. And they voted to support getting rid of some evil business.

And now they are against it. Kind of. Because it resonates with people who hate Bush. People they seek to represent.

Madness.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
We were going to attack Iraq, period. The UN sanctions were simply a way to get the ball rolling and try to drum up support. Remember, it went from violating UN sanctions, to posing a threat to the world, to "liberating" the iraqi people. You don't hear anything now about how saddam was punished for violating UN resolutions. All you hear about is how we freed iraq. It was great to have legal justification for going in. But other countries "break the rules" as well and we aren't nearly as quick to move in. By saying the war was about the UN resolutions is about as bad as people saying it was about oil.

There is only one thing to say about this,

 

[SmallTown]

Considering the conversations I have seen in the past, the responses to my post are not unexpected. We see things differently, and it seems like this argument comes up almost as much as the "somd sucks/ somd is great" debates.

 

[Boones6433]

Had that happened Hussein would have easily been able to devastate the American economy. That's why he had to go.

I'd say Bush is doing a pretty good job of devastating the American economy, hopefully he will go too!

 

[Bruzilla]

Think about this Boones: Saddam Hussein gets his WMD program back up to snuff. He does another blitzkrieg invasion into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and positions bio and chemical weapons in these countries. What options does the US have at that point? We would be forced to use WMD on friendly countries or risk losing thousands of troops trying to attack with conventional weapons. Most likely we are forced into a draw, and Hussein now has the two largest oil reserves under his control. Now the rest of the Middle Eastern countries, either because they are led by followers or because they are afraid of being attacked themselves fall under Iraqi control. That's a scenario that's a hundred times more likely than North Korea nuking the US by the way.

Once Saddam controls most of the Middle Eastern oil reserves, what does he control? Well, since the US only gets about half of our oil from the area we just take a 50% hit in imports. Were you alive in 1973 when a comparitively minor oil boycott caused mass havoc in the US? Think about that times a factor of four or five. Now, while we get 50% of our oil from the area, most of our allies get most of their oil from the area. So now Saddam can tell France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Russia, etc., that they either support the US and get no oil or support Iraq. We've seen how a few billion dollars in back loans have caused these countries to not support the US, imagine how much support we'd get if Hussein threatened their economies?

Why do you think that Hussein was willing to endure the sanctions as long as he did? Why was he so determined to keep his WMD? Because he was bound and determined to control the Middle East and WMDs were the only way for him to do it after 1991.

You think that Bush is doing as much damage to the economy as Hussein could have? You're either a stalwart Bush hater or a fool. Think about 50% unemployment, paying $15 for a gallon of milk or $10 for a loaf of bread, or having to trash a lot of vital wildlands to drill for oil like mad.