47 Comments

1. Terrye:

Thibauld mentioned this another thread.

I agree. And this is not really new.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:28 pm 2. mrp:

The debate excerpt (from the Washington Post’s transcript) for the thread’s topic:

KERRY: Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today.

And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11.

We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can’t cut the money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership.

And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.

Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

(emphasis added)

John Kerry creates an incredible moral equivalency between terrorists furtively seeking nuclear weapons, and a US Congressionaly-funded nuclear weapons program designed to deter rogue nations like Iran and NK from arming terrorists with nuclear weapons. What kind of message is he delivering to Kim Jong-il and the Iranian mullahs?

Here it is, short and sweet: In a Kerry administration, the United States will unilaterally disarm itself by eliminating the only weapons program capable of destroying your capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons and weapons-grade fissile material. You may continue to: defy international treaties; intimidate US allies; threaten US military forces in the region; and sell your WMD to the highest bidders. And please remember my long-standing opposition to the development of a US Star Wars program.

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:46 pm 3. richard mcenroe:

mrp ó This is a very important point for John Kerry,,, after all, if he doesn’t actually have the weapon, no one can criticize him for not using it when his country needs it… so, you see, it wouldn’t be Kerry’s fault… might be a bit rough on Tel Aviv or Disneyland, but hey, you have to look at these things in context…

Sep 30, 2004 - 8:54 pm 4. StevenT:

Kerry threw a softball right over the plate for bush on this

one and he let it go by. I nearly threw a softball right through the tv screen.

Hopefully, someone on the sunday talk fests or elsewhere will hit this pitch for him and ask,

“Senator Kerry, what do you think those bunker busters are for?”

On the bright side at least we can also ask,

“Senator Kerry, has there ever been an American weapons system you would have voted for?

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:16 pm 5. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The nuclear bunker buster’s aren’t as good as one might think. They fit a narrow niche in a weapons mix. Their primary disadvantage in the real world is that the create a lot of localized fallout to many kilometers out. The feel-good anti-nukers and their old fashioned anti-proliferation by agreement allies don’t like little nukes because they imagine that they lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which is an argument I have never taken seriously. I think they are also afraid that research in this area may lead to weapons that work and that don’t release much fallout, which lowers the threshold a whole lot – if it doesn’t spread a bunch of radioactivity around, why nont use it?

Unless you are willing to set off a pretty big bomb, you have a real problem taking out a bunker that is surprisingly shallow. Furthermore, the bunker busters are severely limited in how far they can get into the ground.

They are relatively useless against tunnels into mountains, where you can blow up the entrance but the goodies are hundreds of meters away in a sealed side room – like NORAD.

Scientific American (always very leftist on these issues and most others these days) had a recent interesting article on the subject with real numbers.

HOWEVER, having said that, it’s stupid not to have some of these around just in case there is a real need. As the world’s hegemon, we shouldn’t deny ourselves this sort of stuff.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:17 pm 6. Roberts:

I watched parts of the debate and read the entire transcript afterwards.

I thought Bush kicked Kerry’s tail contrary to the pundits. And I think it is in the transcript that it really stands out that John Kerry lost out.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:18 pm 7. MaDr:

Although not new, he put it out there for 70MM Americans – “pass the global test”. I think most Americans will worry about this more than the bunker busters.

In general Bush did a poor job of holding Kerry’s feet to the fire over statements he’d made tonight.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:32 pm 8. mwalls:

I’m not a big fan of bunker buster nukes. I’d personally prefer a variant of the old WW2 22,000 lb sub pen buster’s using modern materials, a better rocket booster, and dropping from low orbit so it comes in with an absolutely preposterous kinetic impact.

Sep 30, 2004 - 9:45 pm 9. John Clayton:

About those transcripts that will help Bush- not so much:

THE ENEMY WANTS TO TALK TO US- A LOT: ìThe enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That’s why they’re fighting so vociferously.î

THE ENEMY HAS THE ABILITY TO APPEAR WHERE THEY ALREADY ARE- AND MOREOVER- BIG SURPRISE- THEY WANT TO BEAT US: ìThey showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because they tried to beat us and they didn’t. And they’re showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They’re trying to defeat us.î

BUSH TO AMERICA: TERRORISTS ARE JUST LIKE YOU AND ME: ìWe’re facing a group of folks…î

BUSH THE CONSISTENT:

President: “You can not change positions in the war on terror if you expect to win”

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE… “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” (President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01)

…BUSH DOESN’T CARE ABOUT OSAMA “I don’t know where he is.You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” (President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02)

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM… “You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”([President Bush, 9/25/02)

…BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.” (President Bush, 9/17/03)

So if it’s “flip flopping” when Kerry does it, what is it called when Bush doesn’t stay the course on terrorism?

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:13 pm 10. Terrye:

John:

Oh puhleaze. One minute they are calling Bush stubborn for not changing his position and the next we are seeing these snippets taken out of context?

In 1997 Kerry called for the disarming of Saddam unilaterally if necessary. In 1998 the Democrats supported the Iraqi Liberation Act which not only stated that Saddam had weapons but that he would use them if not removed from power and as such advocated regime change. In December 2001 Kerry said Saddam should be next after the Taliban. In fact in September 2002 Al Gore said we should have final reckoning with Saddam and this time on our terms. I remember all this because I have been a life long Democrat and I was paying attention. Do you think this means anything to most partisan Democrats today?

Now Kerry says the president misled the nation into the wrong war at the wrong time and he was right to vote for it but Bush was wrong to do it but Saddam was a threat but Saddam was not a threat but Saddam should have been contained but we are better off without Saddam in power but invading Iraq was a mistake but there were not any terrorists in Iraq but Iraq is part of the war on terror but we outsourced in Afghanistan but we should outsource in Iraq and we should get Osama but in the 90’s it was too risky to get Osama… yada yada yada.

In the 90’s the Clinton people made a case in court that AlQaida was tied up with Iraq but did nothing substantial about it and now we hear the Democrats deny altogether there is a connection. I give up on them.

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:43 pm 11. Fresh Air:

John Clayton–

I don’t see your point. No one ever said we invaded Iraq because Saddam was involved. And every red-blooded American wanted Osama dead post September 11. The point Bush was making, and others have also made, but which you conveniently ignore, is that Al Qaeda and its terror derivatives live on irrespective of OBL. Does Osama’s bag of bones matter a whit to Zarqawi? It’s a cult of death. Get it? Islamic radicals want to kill us, and their motivation is not going to change by our scraping OBL’s remains off the wall of a dank cavern in the White Mountains. He may have had a pretty good command and control system before (I doubt it), but today there is no doubt he is communicating by carrier pigeon, smoke signals or, more likely, a spiritual medium.

Your “can’t distinguish” quote is another out of context canard. What Bush was saying (perhaps inarticulately–I don’t know) is exactly consistent with the first corrolary of the Bush doctrine, as he told the nation on September 14, 2001: “We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.” Abu Nidal was an honored guest of the state. Mr. Zarqawi and Saddam were buddies. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers $25,000 for each attack. Saddam sponsored terrorists and Bush said as much. I don’t see where that is at all inconsistent with your quote.

If you want flip-flops, visit the Bush-Cheney website and you can see a 25-minute video illustrating Kerry’s nine different positions on Iraq. As Glenn Reynolds would say, “Sheesh!”

I honestly don’t know what has caused you to put this tripe up on Roger’s site. No one here is going to buy any of your silly memes. In fact, you’re about four days overdue in responding to your critics from the other threads you littered with DNC talking points. I really don’t think blogging is for you. Maybe you should go run for public office or something?

Sep 30, 2004 - 10:54 pm 12. Fresh Air:

Terrye–

Now Kerry says the president misled the nation into the wrong war at the wrong time and he was right to vote for it but Bush was wrong to do it but Saddam was a threat but Saddam was not a threat but Saddam should have been contained but we are better off without Saddam in power but invading Iraq was a mistake but there were not any terrorists in Iraq but Iraq is part of the war on terror but we outsourced in Afghanistan but we should outsource in Iraq and we should get Osama but in the 90’s it was too risky to get Osama…

I stand in awe. You have captured Monsieur Le Poseur’s Kerryness in one paragraph. It took Mark Steyn three pages.

Sep 30, 2004 - 11:01 pm 13. john.cunningham:

Kerry did avoid a complete meltdown, and Bush appeared tired and rather distracted at times. A key substantive point is Kerry’s refusal to go forward to building bunker-busters, which can be of use in some situations. Kerry is consistent on one thing–reducing the military power of the United States, and doing whatever he can to cause the defeat of US armed forces. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies–where have I seen those words before?

Sep 30, 2004 - 11:04 pm 14. Fresh Air:

I wonder if the idea from the beginning to guard against Bush going ballistic. He obviously pulled his punches when he could have landed them.

At the same time, Kerry tossed some awfully rare meat over to Karl Rove with “The Global Test” and the anti-Bunker-Buster stuff. Ultimately, the ads that will be made about those comments may be more damaging than anything said last night.

Regarding media spin: Since we all know the media is in the tank for Kerry, what possible incentive do they have to say that Bush won, or even that the debate was a draw? My recollection of past debates is you only remember certain vivid lines and interchanges. The “There you go again…” line by Reagan; the wooden Dukakis answer to Bernie Reynolds hypothetical about his wife being raped and killed, etc.

Can anybody say for sure there was anything particularly memorable in tonight’s debate?

Sep 30, 2004 - 11:30 pm 15. Stephen_M:

Go read Lileks.A taste.

Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century

B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer

What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.”

So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasn’t, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we haven’t convened a summit so we could be castigated for ignoring the extralegal use of Israeli helicopters to turn Hamas kingpins into indistinct red smears. You’d think we nuked Paris and converted everyone to Lutheranism.

Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.

I love this guy.

Sep 30, 2004 - 11:34 pm 16. ras:

Slip of the Pen, which I found via Instapundit, provides the Kerry-ending argument:

” Did Kerry just say he would give nuclear materials to Iran?”

Why yes, yes he did.

Bush needs to run w/this.

Mr. Kerry wants to give nuclear material to the mullahs of Iran. “These are the same people who held Americans hostage when Jimmy Carter was president. Not just the same country or the same organizations, but for the most part the exact same people themselves! Mr. Kerry says he trusts theml I dont. Do you?”

If Rove runs with this properly, I just can;t see how Kerry expects to survive.

Oct 1, 2004 - 2:11 am 17. Terrye:

Well the pundits have it. The urbane Kerry wins over the disgusted president who actually has to do the job.

No great surprise there. All in all I thought it anti climatic.

Oct 1, 2004 - 5:22 am 18. Jamie Irons:

Terrye

As I said on another thread (from which I think you had moved on), I stand in awe of your intelligence and discernment.

Jamie Irons

Oct 1, 2004 - 7:08 am 19. Jamie Irons:

Look at the Gallup Poll post-debate breakdown cited at Lapsus calami…

Kerry had an enormous advantage in his style and presentation, but in every other category (except knowledge of issues, where the candidates tied) Bush won rather decisively.

In particular, respondents saw Bush as 17 points higher in “Tough enough for the job.”

Jamie Irons

Oct 1, 2004 - 7:45 am 20. Terrye:

Jamie:

If I am so smart how come I am so poor?

sigh. the injustice of it all.

I heard today on Fox from some stock analyst [the young guy from Capitalist Pig] that the markets want Bush to win and will be up if they think he was ahead or even. He thought Bush did well.

The Dow is up 94 points. What does that ell you?

Oct 1, 2004 - 8:16 am 21. Peter Boston:

I thought that Kerry’s “Global Test” comment during the debate was the most telling of Kerry’s character and plans for America. As a young man John Kerry went to Paris to receive the terms for America’s surrender and as President he would do exactly the same thing.

As Zell Miller so dramatically pointed out at the Republican Convention, Senator Kerry has voted against funding every weapons system he ever saw (probably including spitballs if it had ever came up). Why is that so?

Why do you think it is that Kerry so easily dismisses Britain, Australia and Poland as “Window Dressing” or doesn’t bother to separate even these WWII allies from the dung spattering of his “Coerced and the Bribed” invective? Why? Because they carry guns and His Kerriness and France do not have a place for guns in the new World Democracy that de Villepin is stumping for at every opportunity.

Take de Villepin’s words and put them in Kerry’s mouth and can start making sense of Kerry’s contradictory positions on Iraq, his incessant demands for “real alliances”, and how we would fight a “smarter” WOT.

The new collective-security system should be “founded on collective responsibility and world democracy,” de Villepin said. In particular, he said that France was now looking favorably to the idea of enlarging membership of the U.N. Security Council and vesting it with expanded powers. While he provided no specifics in his speech, aides later said that he believed Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and a major African power such as Nigeria all should be given permanent seats on the council, along with veto power over all Security Council resolutions, including those authorizing the use of force.

What Kerry will never say during the election process is that America cannot participate in the new French led World Democracy until it gets cut down to size. Arrogance and exceptionalism have no place in a multicultural world where the sensitivities of the Islamist regime in Sudan must receive the same considerations as the democratically elected governments of the United States or Australia. How can the United States insist that Iran give up nuclear weapons when it will not do so itself? Sorry, folks, I never thought for a minute of my existence that playing fair was ever a foreign policy objective in a world where survival cannot be assured.

Is anybody in a position to do so going to press Kerry on these issues? This is serious folks. John Kerry is setting us up to become also rans in history, without debate, and without consent. Let’s stuff Kerry and his candidacy in an envelope and Fed Ex it to Versaiiles.

Oct 1, 2004 - 8:23 am 22. AlanC:

Re: Kerry wants to give Iran nuclear fuel for power generation.

Does this imply that Kerry is in favor of expanding the production of US nuclear generating plants?

As much as I hate to say it, this is right in line with all of Kerry’s positions of the last 30 years. My senator (cough, spit) has always been in favor of diminishing the power of the US and deferring to others. I have no doubt that the idea of NK or Iran having nuclear weapons does not bother him in the slightest.

Oct 1, 2004 - 9:39 am 23. Jamie Irons:

Terrye

You’re echoing my dad, who often says, “If he’s so damn smart, how come he ain’t rich?”

He’s kidding around when he says this.

After all, if there were a positive correlation between intelligence and wealth, I’d be moderately well off, and you’d be as rich as Tuh-RAY-suh.

(Come to think of it, there’s another counter-example. For her it ought to go, “If you’re so damn rich, how come you ain’t smart?”)

Peter Boston

This is serious folks. John Kerry is setting us up to become also rans in history, without debate, and without consent…

Yes, it is serious. John O’Sullivan had a fantastic piece on the Tranzis that I read yesterday (I can’t find the citation, though here is a talk he gave on some of the same material).

Jamie Irons

Oct 1, 2004 - 10:00 am 24. Terrye:

When I listen to Kerry I get the same feeling I get when I listen to a car salesman.

So… unilateralism in regards to war is bad, but in regards to disarming it is good. Where does this leave our allies? Should we do this without UK? Multilateral is good in regards to Iraq, if it includes money from Europe, bad if the subject is NK.

It seems that if it makes us weaker he is all for it, but if it makes us stronger, he is not so sure about it.

Oct 1, 2004 - 10:17 am 25. Jamie Irons:

From the kind of work I do, I have come to believe that human behavior is, at the deepest level, and often in a way that is obscure and even mysterious, consistent. (The exceptions may be behavior that is the result of psychosis, an “organic” condition like dementia or delirium, and that due to drugs.)

When people say Kerry “flip-flops,” in my view they are correct, but they are only looking at the surface.

I think Kerry’s behavior, and his every apparent shift in position on any issue, can be explained almost entirely by two hypotheses. (I make no claims for originality here.):

(1) He is deeply ambivalent about the application of American power.

(2) He sees himself as “entitled” to the Presidency of the United States (and much else, besides).

Jamie Irons

Oct 1, 2004 - 10:22 am 26. Peter Boston:

I’m lifting and paraphrasing this from David Horowitz but it’s too applicable to let it go. Kerry says that the US should not, must not, continue development of nuclear bunker-busters, but that the US should give nuclear fuel to Iran (was it NK?), and that the US President must pass a Global Test before defending the country.

Isn’t John Forbes Kerry, Democrat candidiate for President of the United States of America, advocating a platform that disarms America instead of defending it?

Jamie Irons

Thanks for the link.

Oct 1, 2004 - 10:28 am 27. Terrye:

Jamie:

I know people will think I am overreacting, but I think Kerry is nuts. Weird.. crazy… strange.. effected…

I think it was there before Viet Nam and was intensidfied by Viet Nam and he really believes that we are better off if the French approve of us. They have some mystical power for him.

Oct 1, 2004 - 1:05 pm 28. Brian:

I have no doubt that the idea of NK or Iran having nuclear weapons does not bother him in the slightest.

But America having bunker-busters causes him great pain.

Kerry’s stuff was all context-dropping and magical thinking: the Euro-cavalry is just over that hill, and they’ll come a-running when I blow my little trumpet. Snake oil. And he was rude and domineering, too.

Thoughts On Style: Style mattered in the TV age. Folk saw what they saw once only, and had to go with first impressions. But this is the internet and we can fact-check your ass, and Kerry’s is going to be tanner than his big orange mug by the time the week is up. So it’s the fact-checking which carries weight in the new media age, not the style.

Told ya Bush would win.

Oct 1, 2004 - 1:51 pm 29. Bostonian:

Slip of the Pen, which I found via Instapundit, provides the Kerry-ending argument:

” Did Kerry just say he would give nuclear materials to Iran?”

Why yes, yes he did.

Not only did he say this, he’s posted this fascinating idea proudly posted on HIS CAMPAIGN WEB SITE!!!

Has he got rocks in his head?! I really want to know.

Oct 1, 2004 - 3:04 pm 30. Yehudit:

” Did Kerry just say he would give nuclear materials to Iran?”

He said this about 6 mos ago and no one followed up on it. He ought to get hammered with it.

Also someone ought to ask him:

Why is his sister in Australia trying to persuade them to vote in their candidate who wants to pull out the troops? Kerry claims we don’t have enough allies who will send troops. So here is our best ally who likes us and supports us, and has troops, and sent them, and Kerry wants them to pull out. WTF??

Maybe someone on this thread can disguise yourself as a swing voter and attend the townhall debate and ask that.

Oct 1, 2004 - 4:31 pm 31. PeterUK:

If one postulates a hypothetical politician,who traduced his comrades and his nation during a bitter war,opposed every major armament program,even to the point of giving away a bargaining chip like the bunker busting bomb,has a school girl crush on a former great power,sends his sister to suborn your allies,plans to give nuclear capabilities to your deadliest foe,publicly deprecates your policies in a time of peril,wishes to dilute your self determination and share you governance with a corrupt world organisation,would you not be wondering who recruited him and when?

Oct 1, 2004 - 6:21 pm 32. RogerA:

PeterUK: I stand in awe, sir. The English scholastic tradition from John of Salisbury thru William of Ockham runs directly to you. You can cut thru the crap (apologies to Sir Thomas) and get to the heart of the matter. If I had more time, I would gather your posts and publish them.

Oct 1, 2004 - 8:44 pm 33. Peter Boston:

PeterUK

What’s even more amazing is that this guy still has a legitimate chance of winning, and remains the darling of the most influential media organizations.

Scary Kerry.

Oct 2, 2004 - 2:46 am 34. bruce:

About passing the global test for pre-emptive invasion — the global test is the standard embedded in the UN charter — nations only have the right to invade another nation if it poses an imminent threat. That is what Kennedy’s secretary of state was proving to de Gaulle about the cuban missle crisis, as Kerry pointed out. “Immenent threat” is a technical term in international relations. Kerry has never said that Saddam posed an imminent threat — he has said Saddam was a GRAVE threat, which is another matter altogether. Kerry has been consistent about that: Saddam poses a grave threat, and must be contained – Saddam is not an imminent threat, and war is not justified. See here for more.

Bush’s rebuttal to this was hilariously juvenile. For Bush, international relations are a freaking “popularity contest.” It was the clearest revelation of Bush’s dangerously John Wayne attitude toward our national security.

About the bunker-busters – I find it ludicrous that the US wants to design, build, and test new nuclear weapons at the same time we are trying to get Iran and NK to disarm. International relations and treaties have to embody a principle of fairness if the international community is going to buy in and mutually enforce them. We have no leg to stand on with Iran and NK if we go forward with this idiotic program.

But in the John Wayne universe, or course, it doesn’t matter a bit that we have no credibility to enforce nuclear proliferation. If someone complains, we can just shoot them.

Oct 2, 2004 - 9:58 am 35. bruce:

Of course, in that last sentence, I meant nuclear NONproliferation. Rather Bush-like of me to screw that up like that. (”The terrorists never stop thinking of ways to harm Americans, and neither do we.”) Forgive him his slips, and forgive mine too. Thanks.

Oct 2, 2004 - 10:01 am 36. PeterUK:

It is insane to go before the global community and ask permission to act militaraily.Many of the nations of the UN are totalitarian gangster states,others, are frankly, up for sale and most of the rest have their own agendas.

Presumably intelligence information would have to be revealed to justify military action,this information would be in the hands of your enemies by nightfall the same day,if not sooner.Those with their hands in the till would find any nimber of reasons for you to stay your hand and would obstruct you at every turn.

How do I know this,because that is exactly what happened before the Iraq invasion.The endless procrastination allowed Saddam Hussein to disperse weaponry and prepare for an insurgency.

The sneering internationalists have blood on the lilywhite hands they are wringing.If they must stand and wave their shrouds let them at least have the decency to do it over Darfur.

By the way,nobody needs to ask France for permission to do anything anymore,that all changed in 1939.

Oct 2, 2004 - 10:45 am 37. PeterUK:

As for bunker busters,that is merely raising the stakes,it is the same successful technique that brought the USSR to its knees.It is idiotic to tell an opponent that you are unilaterally going to forego the means to destroy a weapons system they are building.

Iran is building the bomb to strike Israel,they have made any number of unambigous statements of intent.Now even a mono-testacular tranzi should be able to understand that somebody is more likely to do something if nobody can stop them.

To quote Sammy “The Bull” Gravano,”I’m a bad guy,I’m always going to have a gun”.

For those Tranzis who have lead a sheltered life,Sammy was a member of another international brotherhood,since retired.

Oct 2, 2004 - 11:09 am 38. bruce:

Peter you have a strange world view.

First, Kennedy had his man go to France in the 1960’s – that is far after 1939.

Second, you and the Bushies seem to think the “global test” is about asking permission. It is more about letting your allies know what the heck you are doing, so you don’t left them with egg on their face, keep their support, etc. As with the cuban missle situation, we were getting ready to invade cuba or deploy our nukes, possibly causing the next world war. That would be the kind of thing you want your allies on board with.

While we are no longer in the cold war, and the invasion of iraq was not likely to set off a world war (which is the key reason Bush is not waving the army at NK), it is plain ole common sense diplomacy that you want your allies with you when you do something as HUGE as invading another country.

But bull-headed John Wayne Bush couldn’t get the international community with him – barely tried – and, more imporantly, led us into a war that vast numbers of Americans did not support. The home-front piece of the Powell Doctrine was don’t go into a war that your people are not behind.

The result — we are 90% of the troops, 90% of the casualites, 90% of the money in Iraq, and our nation is terribly divided on the issue. Great leadership.

The whole ‘talking to other countries’ thing is not about “permission,” which is how the nationalistic folks want to portray it — it is about consensus, about having firm a firm base of support so that you can finish what you start, and have your alliances intact for the next challenge.

Bush is having trouble with the first, and is going to be in a heck of a lot of trouble if he wins and has to try to deal with a real crisis (as opposed to the one in Iraq, which he created).

Again, before we invaded, Saddam was contained by the no-fly zone, by the sanctions, and by the inspectors. America is in a more dangerous position now than we were before we invaded.

Oct 2, 2004 - 12:01 pm 39. Terrye:

bruce:

At least Bush does not change his principles with the polls which is more than can be said for the Democrats. After all they were the ones that made removal of Saddam from power our national policy.

How soon they forget.

As for allies I heard that the French president referred to the Iraqi insurgents who are killing our troops as France’s best allies.

The UN had been fleecing the people of Iraq for years and if Kerry had his way they would still be doing it. I would not vote for the man if you gave me a million dollars in Iraqi oil vouchers.

Oct 2, 2004 - 1:21 pm 40. PeterUK:

Bruce,

Which allies? France who strong armed and bribed former colonies to subvert the UN vote,who dangled EU entry before Turkey to deny US troops transit,who authored fake documents from Niger,who was providing arms to Iraq,who was busting sanctions,who had a deal to develop new oilfields,who was owed billions by Iraq,who refused overflight,that ally? If ever there was a case of throwing egg in an allies face the actions of France epitomise it.

Or the German ally who made anti- Americanism a plank of his election.

Belgium,who refused to supply ammunition for the the first Gulf War.

It is a historical fact that when the coalition went to the UN, France Russia and Germany did everything in their power to keeep it out of Iraq.

It is also fact that the same nations were working to have sanctions lifted.the no fly zones could not have been maintained indefinitely,planes were being fired on and it was only a matter of time before one got shot down.

Look at the figures,NATO,hasn’t got the troop numbers,the US probably constitutes 90% there as well.

World view? Bosnia provides a sad picture what allies could achieve in Iraq.

It is no use conjuring phantom armies out of thin air and straining your ears for the allied relief column that will never come,what you see is what there is.

Congratulations for sticking to the script they gave you,but it really is very standard.

Oct 2, 2004 - 1:42 pm 41. Roberts:

Bruce writes: “But bull-headed John Wayne Bush couldn’t get the international community with him – barely tried …”

Bruce, is there a reason you wanted to come here and post stuff that demonstrated that you have almost zero knowledge of events with respect to the Iraq War?

I’m curious because your statements basically have zero relation to the reality of recent history. The Bush administration worked extraordinarily hard to put together the support for UN resolution 1441. And worked very hard to put together the international support – both diplomatic and logistical – that got the Iraq invasion staged in record time and accomplished. But you come here with this silly “barely tried” nonsense?

Oct 2, 2004 - 5:10 pm 42. PeterUK:

Rand Simberg has the Global Test,via Instapundit

Oct 2, 2004 - 6:19 pm 43. bruce:

Dear Terrye -

Kerry does not flip-flop. That is a big Republican lie, that they have repeated over and over and over and now everyone believes it. The Republican strategy has been to try to focus the electorate on “values” and “character,” rather than the issues. They went after Clinton’s character (granted he left himself wide open) because his 3rd way scared the pants off them. Bush touted himself as a “compassionate conservative,” and in fact turned out to be a radical conservative. Now they are going after Kerry’s character with this whole flip-flop thing, which is so easy to do with a 20 year Senate record to pick over. That’s why senators have such a hard time running for president – their opponents can pick whatever they want out of the record, out of context, and make all kinds of attacks that are just plain stupid if you scratch the surface.

PeterUK – And you are not sticking to the Republican script? The US has done many of the exact things you accuse France of doing, and similar things to the rest. France did oppose the war, that is a no-brainer. Kerry’s argument is that he can get them and Germany to help fix the problem, as it is in their interest to do so — especially if they can get a cut of the reconstruction money, which Bush has barred them from. My comment about the “strange world view” was denying that France was a major power under deGaulle and even after words, and that “seeking support” is the same thing as ‘asking permission.’

And Roberts, I would be happy to test my knowledge of the events leading up to the war against you anytime. I know what I am talking about, too. The Bush administration made a half-assed effort to gain consensus – Colin Powell had a beastly time trying to hold back the dogs of war, and the best he could get to bring to our allies was, “Well, we’re going to do this whether or not you come with us, BUT, if you can get your weasely, selfish, cowardly asses moving on our time table, and will agree to put your troops under our control, and follow our war and post-war plans, sure.. you can come along.” That kind of uncompromising approach was barely worthy of our allies’ consideration. Which is why most of them told us “no.”

Oct 3, 2004 - 3:04 pm 44. Thought:

The perfect comeback to this Kerry argument against nuke bunker busters:

Mr. Kerry, terrorists and rogue states do not develop nuclear weapons because we develop nuclear bunker buster bombs; we develop nuclear bunker buster bombs because terrorists and rogue states attempt to develop nuclear weapons and other forms of WMD.

Oct 3, 2004 - 6:54 pm 45. PeterUK:

I’m not a Republican old son,chew on this,”A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nationsí oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it. The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.”London Times.Perhaps there were other reasons they told you no,like having the worlds biggest scam going

It was made plain at Suez that France and the UK for that matter were no longer world powers

Oct 3, 2004 - 8:33 pm 46. bruce:

Hi Peter:

Here is a list of companies and people – and their nationalities who benefitted from the bribes in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Germany isn’t even on it — while France and Russia are, so are Spain, the UK, and… the US. So having companies or individuals from your country on the list is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain opposition to invasion.

Yesterday’s NY Times had a 2-full-page article outlining the intelligence, and reporting of it to the White House, related to the infamous aluminum tubes. The article makes it clear that even after the White House knew the claims that the tubes were for nukes were very very weak, they went ahead pressing their case anyway. The most of the rest of world knew the case was weak, and were not buying into the Saddam-is-close-to-having nukes story.

My point in bringing that up is that I believe that countries that oppposed the war in Iraq looked at the evidence and did NOT see an imminent threat – and “imminent threat” is the global test for acceptable pre-eminent invasion of another country. Their opposition was not based solely on national interest (which is much more complex than some pay-offs from Iraq), but on careful weighing of the evidence.

Oct 4, 2004 - 5:24 am 47. PeterUK:

If you don’t think that France, for example, was not acting in her national interest,Total Elf Fina is the national interest.I suggest you examine the principles of Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin,the former is only impeded in the writing of his prison memoirs because he is president.

If you are going to judge nation states by your own principles it is probably not a good idea for you to go into politics,you’ll get eaten alive.

Please stop this juvenile googling of information,I’ve read it before.

Oct 4, 2004 - 12:30 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: