Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

[chomerics]

Chom,

The problem with your argument is the fact that Bush specifically argued that we couldn't afford to wait for the imminence of the threat, post 9-11. Inherent in that line of argument is the understanding that the threat is not at that time imminent, though it may still be a grave and serious future threat.

We can't wait because for the threat to develop, so we have to invade now??? I beg to differ, but please show me that Bush said this.

Pardon me for expecting words to convey their actual meanings, I'm not from the party that has situational definitions of "is."

Still bringing up Clinton??? Well I will tell you what,I would rather my president gets a BJ from a fat chick and lies about it, then one sends off my fellow Americans to their death based on lies. . . which is worse???

[Underwater Ally]

Dont get me wrong we are all happy that Saddam is out of power... but do you have to invaded a country and lost how many lives doing so...

We liberated a country, yes. And we lost a few soldiers doing that, which is very sad. Now terrorists are trying to overthrow the popularly elected government and establish Iraq as a safe-haven for their operations inside the country, and internationally (ie the Ammon, Jordan hotel bombing), and we have lost many more soldiers trying to prevent this from happening. This of course is most regrettable, but the cost of defeat is far higher than the sacrifices of victory. Whatever it was before the Iraq war, Iraq is the center stage in the war on terror. To retreat from Iraq would be to surrender in the war on terror, and to invite further attack on our country - and it WILL happen if Zarqawi is allowed to operate uninterrupted.

September 11 - Never Again!

[Kilmer17]

Not doing something about Al Queda and Iraq for 8 years is worse.

Clinton and Bush 1 effed this up.

[chomerics]

Clinton and Bush 1 effed this up.

I agree, but it goes way back to Nixon and Johnson if you really want to get to the bottom of it.

[Kilmer17]

Yup, Tricky Dick and even Kennedy bear some blame as well.

Reagan does too.

[chomerics]

We liberated a country, yes.

This alone is not justification to go to war. Great for the Iraqi people, but not great for us as a country.

Since when did conservatives all of a sudden become interventionists? Since when did they start putting the well being of other nations before our own? Didn't Bush run on the plan of NOT building nations?

Honest question, because the brand of conservatism I was brought up with was nothing like this. Hell, my father would have gone through the roof if Reagan tried to use ousting a leader for the benifit of their citizens at the cost of our own as a justification for war.

[zoony]

nobody answered my question. :mad:

[Kilmer17]

This alone is not justification to go to war. Great for the Iraqi people, but not great for us as a country.

Since when did conservatives all of a sudden become interventionists? Since when did they start putting the well being of other nations before our own? Didn't Bush run on the plan of NOT building nations?

Honest question, because the brand of conservatism I was brought up with was nothing like this. Hell, my father would have gone through the roof if Reagan tried to use ousting a leader for the benifit of their citizens at the cost of our own.

Not alone. But coupled with removing a nutjob who was openly aiding and supporting terror groups justifies it.

Heck, we were justified simply by pointing out Saddam was violating the agreement he signed to end Desert Storm.

[Art Monk Fan]

We can't wait because for the threat to develop, so we have to invade now??? I beg to differ, but please show me that Bush said this.

President Bush, from his January 2003 State of the Union Address:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

The one and only time the President ever used the word imminent was this statement, in which he argues the opposite.

[Underwater Ally]

The problem is that any and all evidence which didn't corroberate what they wanted others to see was squelched. They eliminated any opposing opinion from all intel estimates. . . this is what they are being called on,

Because not filtering this evidence would mean believing that Saddam, for some unknown and unexplained reason, in fact did disarm and destroy those weapons - all while resisting and refusing to comply with inspections and UN resolutions. It made no sense then, and it still makes no sense now.

For purely political reasons??? Did you ever think their ideas are what they believe is BEST for our country??? Just because Bush puts his ideology in front of everything does not mean that others do.

I would prefer to have the ideology there up front, rather than John Kerry's brand of "I have a plan for Iraq" - *wink wink, while refusing to specify what it is. Exactly what is best for our country? By all means, if it really is what is best for our country, please explain! I want to know about it. Or is it that when the ideology is revealed, most people wouldn't support it? Hence the need to avoid talking about it. For the past two elections, Democrats have been unable to clearly define their positions, and the fever pitch of criticism has only undermined their ability to do so, because in their zeal to blast Bush, they have often criticised him from both sides, contradicting eachother and giving the appearance of talking out of both sides of their mouth. I may be criticising the behaviour, but they have only hurt themselves by engaging in it.

Do you mean like the focus of Bush and Cheney for the past 5 years? I don't know about you, but if it was me, I would be firing the people who gave me bad intel, I would not start a fight with the people who want answers.

I agree with you in sentiment, but here is where someone in the President's position needs to walk a fine line. That bad intel was gathered by multiple agencies consisting of many employees over a long period of time. If the need is to improve our intelligence, telling everyone in the FBI and CIA "you suck, go find new jobs" really doesn't help.

You really don't follow Washington much do you? the dems have had plans for everything, but the republicans have not let the plans approach the floor for a vote. It is politics, but to say they have no plan, and they are not making their case, well then that's completely misguided by what actually happens.

Maybe a few Democrats have plans here and there, but are they broadly supported by their party? Who speaks for the party? Has the party really presented any policy of significance to the American people? We had an entire Presidential election and the Democrats couldn't agree on any substantive policy regarding the economy, jobs, or Iraq. Gephart and Dean supported protectionist policies, Kerry is an internationalist who blasted Bush for bending to labour unions by imposing steel tarrifs and damaging ties with Europe. Some Democrats like Dean took an anti-war stance, saying we should never have gone to war and that we should pull out immediately. Others like Gephart argued we were right to go in, but that we need to rethink our strategy now that we are there. Kerry sort of vascillated between the two opinions. For crying out loud, the party leader in the House is a pro gay-rights leftist from San Francisco and your leader in the Senate is an anti-abortion Mormon. See what I mean? If there is a method to the madness, please enlighten me.

[Underwater Ally]

This alone is not justification to go to war. Great for the Iraqi people, but not great for us as a country.

Since when did conservatives all of a sudden become interventionists? Since when did they start putting the well being of other nations before our own? Didn't Bush run on the plan of NOT building nations?.

This is a very good point. Bush himself admitted that 9/11 changed his outlook significantly. I'll gladly admit that Bush as a candidate was naive to speak against nation building. Heck, I agreed with him. But that was after seeing US troops dying in Somalia without any real tangible goal or mission other than to try to help the UN make things a little better. 9/11 made nation building in Afghanistan absolutely necessary. Time to ditch old political philosophies and confront the realities of the world.

Honest question, because the brand of conservatism I was brought up with was nothing like this. Hell, my father would have gone through the roof if Reagan tried to use ousting a leader for the benifit of their citizens at the cost of our own as a justification for war.

The Vietnam experience really dictates the conservative viewpoint on war: either you go all out, or not at all. As for Iraq, we went all out because we believed Saddam had WMD and posed a serious threat in light of what we experienced on 9/11. Given what we know now, no the Iraq situation is not ideal based on the conservative view. But given the reality of the situation there and the threat of strengthening terrorism if we pull out prematurely, we might as well fight it all out until we win. If accepting defeat isn't an option, then that is the only thing you can do.

Personally I'm a pragmatist, so when it comes to taking position on things like this, I really don't stop to ask myself, "what is the "conservative" position to take?" because thats not what I'm interested in.

[Commander PK]

Personally, I can't debate this topic anymore. What I want to know, is when are the Dems and Repubs, liberals, and conservatives going to COME TOGETHER to figure out how best to deal with the war on terror, which includes Iraq. American serviceman are DYING in Iraq, and they deserve a government that joins forces, and stops playing politics long enough to poll their knowledge, and experience into how best to meet the daily challenges our troops are facing over there. The years, decades to come will give us AMPLE time to discuss what went right, and what went wrong. Right now, I just want to WIN, and bring our troops home.

What we should be arguing about right now, is how best to get the job done, and GET THEM HOME. This doesn't include cutting and running, or setting time tables. Getting the job done means leaving Iraq a far more stable, prosperous country then the one we invaded, and don't talk to me about how Saddam was governing a "stable" country until we showed up. Just because there is lack of "armed conflict," that doesn't mean there was stability. People died everyday in Iraq due to Saddam's regime. The proof of this is on rotten.com, take a look if you have the stomach.

I've tired of the political blame game. If you don't have a decent solution to our problems in Iraq, or you can't offer any constructive, or thoughtful ideas on how to best finish the job, then YOU ARE part of the problem! What I want to know, is what ideas have all the people finger pointing at Bush come up with to help win? If the Democratic party put as much effort into trying to offer realistic ideas, not apoligistic, "cut and run strategies" to help end our occupation of Iraq quicker, as they have into blaming Bush for the whole thing, our troops might be home by now.

End rant.

[Commander PK]

and for the record. Dictionary.com defines mis-lead as:

1.To lead in the wrong direction.

2.To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving.

No, I do not believe that Bush intentionally deceived America. I think he made an executive decision, based on the intelligence at hand. The congress agreed with him, and we went to war. Some try to re-write history, but that's the way it was.

and I don't believe Bush has erred in taking us to Iraq. Ultimately, in time I believe the benefits from this war will be substantial in more ways then one.

[Redskins Diehard]

We liberated a country, yes. And we lost a few soldiers doing that, which is very sad. Now terrorists are trying to overthrow the popularly elected government and establish Iraq as a safe-haven for their operations inside the country, and internationally (ie the Ammon, Jordan hotel bombing), and we have lost many more soldiers trying to prevent this from happening. This of course is most regrettable, but the cost of defeat is far higher than the sacrifices of victory. Whatever it was before the Iraq war, Iraq is the center stage in the war on terror. To retreat from Iraq would be to surrender in the war on terror, and to invite further attack on our country - and it WILL happen if Zarqawi is allowed to operate uninterrupted.

September 11 - Never Again!

UA, we fall on the same side of the issue. I think you may want to reconsider the way in which you worded your second statement. We have lost more than a few soldiers. I think the way in which you word that downplays the sacrifice that our military has made. Probably not what you intended, at least I hope not, but from someone that watched a few of the many that passed, it just doesn't sit well. Once again, I know that probably wasn't your intention.

[DjTj]

I've tired of the political blame game. If you don't have a decent solution to our problems in Iraq, or you can't offer any constructive, or thoughtful ideas on how to best finish the job, then YOU ARE part of the problem! What I want to know, is what ideas have all the people finger pointing at Bush come up with to help win? If the Democratic party put as much effort into trying to offer realistic ideas, not apoligistic, "cut and run strategies" to help end our occupation of Iraq quicker, as they have into blaming Bush for the whole thing, our troops might be home by now.

End rant.

Ask and you shall receive:

From Kerry: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html

October 26, 2005

Senator Kerry’s Speech at Georgetown University

Excerpts of remarks as prepared for delivery

Kerry speaks from his heart and conscience on Iraq:

“A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.

The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.

As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.

The Challenge in Iraq:

Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war -- a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists. We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.

Kerry Defends The Right to Dissent:

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

In fact, while some say we can’t ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no – in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism.

The Truth About How We Got Here:

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

Administration’s Mistakes Have Narrowed Our Options:

We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.

The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military.

When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed “We’re all Americans now,” the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today.

When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong – and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad.

When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson’s report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don’t know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time.

But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another.

When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the “insurgency was in its last throes.” He was wrong.

Bush Administration: The Real Cut and Run Republicans

Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.

And still today they cut and run from the truth.

The Kerry Plan: The Path Forward

This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.

To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.

In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

The Military Agrees:

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.

We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.

It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.

We Need A Political Solution:

Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.

We Need a Regional Security Agreement:

The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We’ve proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it’s their turn to do their part.

The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.

To enlist the support of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.

Improve Training:

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

Win the Real War on Terror:

We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win – the war on Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. These are the make or break months for Iraq. The President must take a new course, and hold Iraqis accountable. If the President still refuses, Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months. There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can’t soon be on their way home, and no reason we can’t take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves. Only then will we have provided leadership equal to our soldiers’ sacrifice – and that is what they deserve."

-----------------

And from Edwards: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.

That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.

America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

The writer, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.

---

Unfortunately, it is the "cut and run" people that get most of the press, because the press loves conflict and sound bytes ... they are not interested in real solutions.

[Ignatius J.]

Good stuff djTj.

I like that kerry is tying his removal of troops to benchmarks, not to timetables.

[Thiebear]

This alone is not justification to go to war. Great for the Iraqi people, but not great for us as a country.

Since when did conservatives all of a sudden become interventionists? Since when did they start putting the well being of other nations before our own? Didn't Bush run on the plan of NOT building nations?

Honest question, because the brand of conservatism I was brought up with was nothing like this. Hell, my father would have gone through the roof if Reagan tried to use ousting a leader for the benifit of their citizens at the cost of our own as a justification for war.

Didnt we have a conversation about the Sudan and we both agreed it would be good for their country and good for our country?

[Underwater Ally]

UA, we fall on the same side of the issue. I think you may want to reconsider the way in which you worded your second statement. We have lost more than a few soldiers. I think the way in which you word that downplays the sacrifice that our military has made. Probably not what you intended, at least I hope not, but from someone that watched a few of the many that passed, it just doesn't sit well. Once again, I know that probably wasn't your intention.

Not at all what I intended. My "few soldiers" comment was referring to the initial invasion up until the time Saddam was deposed. The casualties we lost up to that point were relatively few compared to the overall total. The vast majority of casualties have been lost in the second phase fighting the insurgency which I referenced in my second comment saying "many more." I have friends over there, and in no way am disregarding the loss of even one life. I was merely breaking down the Iraq conflict into two phases in which the first had far fewer casualties.

Hope that clears things up.

And I take your comment of watching a few pass to mean that you served over there. If so, thank you for your service and your sacrifice. We are greatful and we will not forget.

[chomerics]

Because not filtering this evidence would mean believing that Saddam, for some unknown and unexplained reason, in fact did disarm and destroy those weapons - all while resisting and refusing to comply with inspections and UN resolutions. It made no sense then, and it still makes no sense now.

No, it made perfect sense to anyone who could think on a global scale. Saddam played a cat and mouse game to make it appear to his enemies, ie Iran, that he still had weapons, yet he also wanted the sanctions lifted. He needed to show the appearance of a man of strength, especially considering how all his neighbours hated him.

I would prefer to have the ideology there up front, rather than John Kerry's brand of "I have a plan for Iraq" - *wink wink, while refusing to specify what it is. Exactly what is best for our country? By all means, if it really is what is best for our country, please explain! I want to know about it. Or is it that when the ideology is revealed, most people wouldn't support it? Hence the need to avoid talking about it. For the past two elections, Democrats have been unable to clearly define their positions, and the fever pitch of criticism has only undermined their ability to do so, because in their zeal to blast Bush, they have often criticised him from both sides, contradicting eachother and giving the appearance of talking out of both sides of their mouth. I may be criticising the behaviour, but they have only hurt themselves by engaging in it.

You seem to fall from the same branch that others on your side are falling from. Kerry DID have a plan, and he explicitly laid it out step by step, it was on his website for the whole world to read, it isn't my fault you did not read it.

I agree with you in sentiment, but here is where someone in the President's position needs to walk a fine line. That bad intel was gathered by multiple agencies consisting of many employees over a long period of time. If the need is to improve our intelligence, telling everyone in the FBI and CIA "you suck, go find new jobs" really doesn't help.

Replacing compitent people in prominant positions with ideolog's doesn't help the situation either. And yes, the president did tell the CIA they suck, not in so many words, but it was definately implied.

Maybe a few Democrats have plans here and there, but are they broadly supported by their party? Who speaks for the party? Has the party really presented any policy of significance to the American people? We had an entire Presidential election and the Democrats couldn't agree on any substantive policy regarding the economy, jobs, or Iraq. Gephart and Dean supported protectionist policies, Kerry is an internationalist who blasted Bush for bending to labour unions by imposing steel tarrifs and damaging ties with Europe. Some Democrats like Dean took an anti-war stance, saying we should never have gone to war and that we should pull out immediately. Others like Gephart argued we were right to go in, but that we need to rethink our strategy now that we are there. Kerry sort of vascillated between the two opinions. For crying out loud, the party leader in the House is a pro gay-rights leftist from San Francisco and your leader in the Senate is an anti-abortion Mormon. See what I mean? If there is a method to the madness, please enlighten me.

Democrats vote for their constituients, not for their party, and that is the fundamental difference between them and the GOP. The repubs will stick to their ideology above all, and they will place it in everything they see and do, but the democrats won't.

I disagree with the dems fighting style, but they are starting to learn how to go low. They got a backbone, starting with the Levin e-mail, and it has been non-stop pressure on the GOP for thier ineptitude. They are holding Bushes feet to the fire, and making him play defense, something he can not do.

Has anyone realized that Bush has not rebuked any of the arguments the dems have attacked him with? Other then stating falsely that everyone saw the same exact things.

[chomerics]

Didnt we have a conversation about the Sudan and we both agreed it would be good for their country and good for our country?

What does that have to do with conservatives and nation building?

[Underwater Ally]

No, it made perfect sense to anyone who could think on a global scale. Saddam played a cat and mouse game to make it appear to his enemies, ie Iran, that he still had weapons, yet he also wanted the sanctions lifted. He needed to show the appearance of a man of strength, especially considering how all his neighbours hated him.

So he played 50/50 odds and lost. Interesting that he thought he needed WMD to scare his neighbors. Why not just keep playing that clip of his Republican guard doing a fast march in unison that the US media played ad nausium for 10 years. That always scared the crap out of our media :laugh:

You seem to fall from the same branch that others on your side are falling from. Kerry DID have a plan, and he explicitly laid it out step by step, it was on his website for the whole world to read, it isn't my fault you did not read it.

Guess I paid more attention to Michael Moore and Moveon.org. My bad! :laugh:

Democrats vote for their constituients, not for their party, and that is the fundamental difference between them and the GOP. The repubs will stick to their ideology above all, and they will place it in everything they see and do, but the democrats won't.

I'm surrounded by too many liberals to believe that.

I disagree with the dems fighting style, but they are starting to learn how to go low. They got a backbone, starting with the Levin e-mail, and it has been non-stop pressure on the GOP for thier ineptitude. They are holding Bushes feet to the fire, and making him play defense, something he can not do.

Going low isn't something I admire. Again, I'd prefer to see Bin Ladin and Zarqawi's feet to the fire. Protest and dissention are patriotic. Blind hatred of another political party is not.

Has anyone realized that Bush has not rebuked any of the arguments the dems have attacked him with? Other then stating falsely that everyone saw the same exact things.

Truth it would seem, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

P.S. :raidersuc

[chomerics]

Protest and dissention are patriotic. Blind hatred of another political party is not.

So you must despise the Bush administration right? People like O'Reily, Limbaugh, Savage, Novak, Colter, etc etc they ALL profess blind hatred of the other party, so you dislike them as well right?

BTW, love the Raiders Suck but. . . they REALLY S-U-C-K

[Art Monk Fan]

This line from Kerry's speach struck me as odd:

"The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise."

The truth is, Bush did question the intell he was getting. He went directly to George Tennet and asked him, "This is all we've got?" to which Tennet responded, "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President." Remember that Tennet was a Clinton appointee who Bush kept on (so much for his replacing "compitent" officials with "ideologues").

Kerry and the Dems want to make the case that Bush knew that the case against Iraq was weak, but all evidence shows that he believed it was a "slam dunk" becuase his top intell poeple told him so. Bush did not lie or mislead the nation, he acted on the intell he had, in the best interests of the country.

Regardless of any agency or agents opinion about any single piece of intell at the time, not one single member of any intell agency, the world over, believed that Iraq had completely disarmed. Bush made his decision to invade based on the accepted opinion of the entire world that Iraq had WMD and wanted more.

Please also note that, post-invasion, the picture that has become clear is not that Iraq had disarmed and wanted to join the world community, as Libya has done. The truth is that Saddam disarmed, but pretended to have arms to retain respect in the middle East. He planned to wait out the already crumbling sanctions regime and rearm once they were lifted. Bush never claimed the threat was imminent and the actual threat turned out to be even further down the road than most expected. But Hussein was still a future threat, have no doubt.

[JacktheMack]

The amount of misinformation in this thread is completely astounding, and the mad propaganda is flying like there is no tomorrow. Here are a few points I would like to make. . .

This was the first thing you said when entering this thread. . not a good way to get people to believe your opinion. :doh: I recon that a fair number of conservative posters here would even say that Fox News is anything but "Fair and Balanced"

As for your other arguments, I will pick out some of the "strange" opinions you have stated. . .

to mention a few. . .

TWA, spinsanity is a RW propaganda station that is wrong. . . from your link. . .

Here are their OWN WORDS on the so-called "imminent threat"

source

So to say that NOBODY EVER said the words Imminent threat, isn't exactly telling the truth now is it.

And by misinformation, you meant the misinformation coming from me. So I said that FOX News is fair and balanced. Do you want to know why you and all the other Democrats out there like to say it's not? Because it is one of the only station where they actually show both sides. They show what good and bad is going on in Iraq. Instead of bashing President Bush with every chance they get for every little thing they can find, they report what really matters, what our troops are facing, and the truth. You want to talk about propaganda? The liberal media and the people that buy into every word is full of propaganda against Bush and the Republican Party.

It is a known fact that people like to buy into what they think is the majority so that they fit in and feel strong in their opinions. Well every time you turn on the all you see is Bush bashing. So natuarly, many people who do not do the research or watch a balanced station like FOX News is going to believe everything and support mostly everything they hear. The liberal media actually blamed everything that went wrong during Hurricane Katrina on Bush!! He called the mayor of New Orleans, 2 days before the Hurricane hit and told him to evacuate but did he? No. And that is all on Bush. It's rare that you hear that on the news but I heard it on FOX News and it is a fact.

Misinformation is the propaganda against Bush coming out of the liberal stations everyday. It's sad to think that our country, based on rights, justice, and liberty, has become so corrupt by liberals putting out false and twisted information about our President just to gain office again.

What links are you talking about? All I posted was quotes, which I backed up with research to confirm that they were true. I never even gave a link.

All your quotes showed me was that the Bush administration is trying to help the viewers whose views are corrupted by the liberal media, that there was in fact a threat.

There was a threat, a big one. It's obvious that Iraq was harboring terrorists and we have caught many leading terrorists from Iraq as well as other parts of the Middle East. They are trying to stop us, right now, in Iraq because of the danger a democracy in Iraq would bring to their terrorist organizations.

There was no imminent threat? Do you know how many times this country has caught terrrorists in this country from Iraq, supported by Saddam Hussein, and other Middle Eastern countries, trying to kill off as many Americans as possible. There have been some on trains, subways, and cities and we stopped them. That's the threat we are dealing with and that's the threat we lowered when we went into Iraq.

[autographcollector]

Democrats vote for their constituients, not for their party, and that is the fundamental difference between them and the GOP. The repubs will stick to their ideology above all, and they will place it in everything they see and do, but the democrats won't.

Chom this will officially go down as your dumbest, most partisan post ever. It shows how politically biased you are. Sad thing is you are so biased you can't even get it. It's like Jessica Simpson thinking Buffalo Wings are from a Buffalo. She is to airheaded to understand.