This week when the 9/11 Commission issued their report, Linda Ronstadt got booed for saying nice things about Michael Moore in Las Vegas, MoveOn.org picked a silly fight with Fox News and Sandy Berger assured he won't be working in a President Kerry administration something important happened.

The 900th American soldier was killed in Iraq. Apparently nobody noticed.

The President didn't make any special mention of this event. However during a campaign trip to Iowa he did say this:

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.

With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq in decline, Bush cast himself as a reluctant warrior and assured Americans they were "safer" as he campaigned in the battleground states of Iowa and Missouri against Democrat John Kerry and his running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards.

"The enemy declared war on us," Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president... The next four years will be peaceful years." Bush used the words "peace" or "peaceful" a total of 20 times.

Bush has called himself a "war president" in leading the United States in a battle against terrorism brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America. "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said in February.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=...storyID=5723765

So can Bush have it both ways? Can he be a "peace president" when the threat of terrorism still looms over the nation? On what basis can the President say, "the next four years will be peaceful years?"

Perhaps the President is adhering to his campaign theme that he is optimistic about America's future and Senator Kerry is a pessimist. Or perhaps the President is just engaging in wishful thinking.

He loves being the War President....he just didn't like it when people started making fun of him for saying so. NOW he wants to be the Peace President...if he weren't so wrapped up in image and knew how to be real this wouldn't even be an issue.

Politics is a pretty disgusting thing sometimes.

GW know that most Americans are uncomfortable with the war in Iraq so he's promising the he won't do it again.

There goes the flip-flops issue against Kerry, nice goin' George.

I would rather have a president stand up for his principles, that goes for both of our prize weasels.

It is just wishful thinking and political maneuvering

When I say this yesterday, I convulsed into a fit of puking laughter. I found it SO amusing, that it made me sick to my stomach.

A classic example of the President telling Americans one thing while doing the exact opposite. And people still eat it up.......AMAZING.

So can Bush have it both ways? Can he be a "peace president" when the threat of terrorism still looms over the nation? On what basis can the President say, "the next four years will be peaceful years?"

I think he was speaking to Government contractors and Oil execs, and by "peaceful" he meant "fruitful". That basis would justify such an oxymoronic comment.

Perhaps the President is adhering to his campaign theme that he is optimistic about America's future and Senator Kerry is a pessimist. Or perhaps the President is just engaging in wishful thinking.

Again, Spin Bush Spin. It is the current President, Bush that is the pessimist. He is the one telling us we are in danger, that we need to fight, that the end is possibly near, so we have to be pre-emptive. Kerry on the other hand is very optimistic about America's future, and believes that he is the man to get us BACK on the road to prosperity.

My only hope is that we don't go from being the "Land of the Brave" to the "Land of the Gullible".

"Let him who desires peace prepare for war." Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Military Institutions of the Romans (390 A.D.)

There is no way to determine if there will be war or peace over the next four years. The President must hope for peace, but prepare for war.

War is brought on by outside events. Afghanistan by 9/11, Iraq by the fear of WMD proliferation (among other things). I don't recall Bush ramping up for war in January of 2001. So being re-elected is no indication that he will ramp up for another war.

On the other hand, Bush must be prepared for action. He must anticipate threats, counter them, all while trying to maintain the peace.

Don't anyone else find it reassuring that Bush has re-iterated his desire to peacefully resolve conflicts? We haven't jumped on Iran or North Korea, despite both being threats and powder kegs ready to blow. Bush has a diplomatic side, but apparently it remains hidden in the blind spot of certain groups' political field of vision.

So can Bush have it both ways? Can he be a "peace president" when the threat of terrorism still looms over the nation? On what basis can the President say, "the next four years will be peaceful years?"

Well, well, well, looks like Bush can't call Kerry a flip-flopper anymore (which is a good thing because that soundbite is so tired).

I don't think the president has any basis to say that the next 4 years will be peaceful years. For the past 3 years since 9/11 he has been telling us that terrorism is going to be a long fight and we are going to fight it (State of the Union - 2002):


So which is it Mr. President, are we going to continue to wage the war on terror even after your watch (and logically though your second watch) or are we going to be a "peaceful" nation? Are we just going to give up with Osama Bin Laden still at large and your administration still talking about "credible threats" which might disrupt the election or come at the end of the summer or whatever the reason-o-the-month to fear terrorists is?

As far as actions go, there is no way that we'll be free and clear of Iraq anytime in the near future. The so-called handoff on June 30th was just a political ploy. Iraq may be somewhat in charge but it is still our soldiers dying over there and it will be that way for some time to come. We are talking about calling more soldiers in and extending those soldiers that are already there -- I haven't heard anything about sending people home.

Given the tough talk about terrorist sponsoring nations and nations with WMD like Iran, North Korea, etc I don't think it is at all unrealistic to expect that if we have four more years of Bush we'll enter into at least one more war if not several.

A vote for this president is a vote for the neo-con agenda that President Bush looks highly upon. People like Wolfowitz would prefer an American hedgemony and I see no reason that Bush will ditch his administration if elected. This hedgemony isn't brought about with peace, it is brought about with conflict.

In order to be a "peace" president, Bush would have to have some kind of capacity as a diplomat -- he doesn't. Bush has burned our bridges with a lot of allies and the repercussions of his actions will be felt even in the countries that supported us (I wouldn't expect Blair to be in office much longer). You can't tell the UN to take a hike one day and then say that you are all for peace and international cooperation the next. You can't side against the world court with Israel and then expect to take a place at the peace table and be considered an impartial moderator. No, "peace" is not in this president's vocabulary or capacity.

Well I just rehearsed a lesson I learned long ago, never open your big mouth until you have all the facts.

I give you a link to the president's remarks in full.

Remarks by the President in 'Ask the President' Event
The president asserted several times that he has not given up the option of war. This, in my opinion, is good.

The peace remarks are still a bit of positioning but I find them less disgusting than when they were out of context in the Reuters article.


Except for the end is near part (about which I don't recall the president has spoken) all of that is simply the truth, realism not pessimism.

As for those who believe Bush will lead us into another war, why do you believe this?

You know what happens when we assume...

How about looking at his past actions and words turnea? What in the last 4 years of his administration has given you the impression that he won't lead us into another war? Are we just going to call it quits on this war on terror? If not then inevitably there is probably going to be another "pre-emptive strike" against some country we believe is a "grave and gathering danger" to our security.

None of us can say definitively that the president will lead us into war, because we cannot predict the future. But it doesn't take a reading of the tea leaves to look at the past actions and words of this president and conlcude with some certainty we haven't seen the last of war or pre-emptive strikes.

I'd love to be wrong about that, and if Bush does win another 4 years and this doesn't come to pass the record is right here. I'll be overjoyed that we managed to stay out of conflict. But to assume that we won't given past history of this administration is a very rose-colored glasses way of looking at things.

That doesn't follow at all.

George W. Bush isn't the first person to advocate (or carry-out) premptive unilateral strikes. Check my signature.

If the president doesn't see that a situation merits war he probably won't go. This doesn't mean he'll always judge correctly, but I see no likely target for another war.

This seems to me like an empty asspumtion.

I believe he will take us into more wars because that is part of the Bush War Doctrine and, as far as I know, he's still standing by that doctrine. He's refused to even see it as slightly flawed. That's all I need to know.

I believe that it does. How have we dealt with terror threats up to this point in the Bush administration? We have used military force.

We discovered that Afghanistan was harboring members of Al Qaeda. Reaction: We invaded and bombed them, deposed the government and are still there today.

Bush claims Iraq is a threat and has WMD. Reaction: We bombed and invaded them, depose the government and we are still actively dealing with military presence today. In fact we need more troops.

There have been several other countries that have been threatened with violence if they don't comply with our wishes. Note: I'm not arguing whether the above scenarios were right or wrong, I'm merely establishing a pattern.

What other presidents have done (past tense) isn't really relevant. The questions was specifically posed about what would Bush do if he were elected for another 4 years. Therefore we are trying to predict the actions of this president based on his past actions.

Now we all know bush won't drop the war on terror. We also know how he has responded to the problem in the past 4 years of his administration. Now, what scenario is more likely?

1. Bush makes a huge direction change, crawls back to the Un and people actually decide to help him out. He makes a big effort at international peace and focuses solely on policing terrorists, not eliminating them...

OR

2. Bush finishes up things in Iraq, leaves a small contingent of soldiers there to keep things under control and moves on to the next threat on his "list" (whatever that might be). We go through the same thing we did with Iraq in the international community except people are even less receptive this time and it ends in military conflict.

Given the way things are going the smart money is on #2.

Wrong. We have use military force in two incidences.

There are more than two terror threats to the US.

We have not gone to war with Iran, or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Indonesia.

I could go on...

We have dealt with different threats in different was. Diplomacy, threats of economic sanction, cooperation in training and finance, all the tools of foreign policy have played their part.


What "Bush War Doctrine"?! .

I'm still seeing nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions.

turnea Posted on Jul 21 2004, 11:22 AM



turnea Posted on Jul 21 2004, 11:46 AM


I guess to answer your first question, I would simply add the word YET into your last comment 5 times.

Action speaks louder than words, even if the speaker is the United States of America.

I wonder if he believes himself.



From people in this forum, or the President?

I voted number three, but I do think that Bush's style is very confrontational. After 9/11, much of the world stood behind America. Even in Iran, cleric-led chants at sports events of "down with the USA!" were met increasingly with "we love the USA!", and a government-sponsored anti-American exhibit at the old American embassy was closed within weeks because so few showed up to see it. Then, Bush had the 'axis of evil' speech, which made Khatami, who had been reaching out to us diplomatically, look like a fool.

Kerry might want to capitalize on the 'peace president' slogan, though. "I want to be the peace president" is pretty catchy....even better (at this point in time) than "courage to change" (which wasn't bad either).

You do understand that such a response would not constitute an answer at all, do you not?

Just an insinuation to repeat the assertion that is itself the subject of the question.

I'm guessing I am receiving no plausible answers to the question because there are none.



Take a wild guess...

This assumption that Bush in on a war roll is just silly.

A leader of this nation MUST BE both a 'war' and 'peace' president. Otherwise, how can he be effective?

So can Bush have it both ways? Can he be a "peace president" when the threat of terrorism still looms over the nation? On what basis can the President say, "the next four years will be peaceful years?"

All presidents have it both ways. They must be effective in times of peace as well as ready for times of war. By 'peace president' i think he means that we all want peace. We always want peace. But when it comes to times of war, he can also get the job done. I think his basis is that we are doing a good job in the war on terror and that we have severly hurt the infrastructure of Al Queda. Also, a dose of optimism to counter Kerry's constant pessimism isnt too bad.

Bottom Line: You can have it both ways. A President must have it both ways or else he isnt a good leader.

OMG.....does the news not arrive in braile where you live? (FYI, we are currently in the middle of 2 wars. No really we are. One is in Afganistan, and there is another little squabble going on in Iraq. THE PEACE PRESIDENT that you are defending led us to both of them). Assumptions????? JC, the guy's actions speak for himself.

You sound like a battered wife that belives her husband will change. No sympathy from me.



3 years 2 wars..........

What do you consider a "War Roll"? Would he have to had started 3 wars? 4 wars? 5 wars? When will you consider it a ROLL?

He is already bringing IRAN back into the picture.

OMG this is simply scary.

oh no, he won't take us to war, he is nice man that wants peace
yeah right

If we do end up with another 4 years of Bush, and we do enter another war, I will have to put the blame on the voters. We ALL should know better.

While I give Dubya all the credit for Iraq I really wouldn't lay Afganistan at his doorstep. The hunt for Al Quaeda led right there and so there we needed to go. No one in the world really had any problem with that. I fully supported Bush right up to there. Then he ruined it all with the iraq detour, faith based welfare, sorry drifting.
I am not so much worried about Bush leading us into another war but his(and the republicans) reaction when no one supports us or lets us use their territory for troops support. He is not exactly skilled at diplomacy and of the allies who supported him many of them are now finished politically.

We cannot strive for peace whilst preparing for war... (theres a quote of that somewhere...)



Why is Kerry stereotyped as constantly pessimistic. This is a political race and he is trying to usurp the most destructive and negative president in the history of the USA. Just because Bush likes to put a stupid smirk on all the time and lie through his teeth he doesn't qualify as optimistic. Its all a publicity game, so don't ever judge a politicians personality at face value.



And the list of potentials goes on. Unsubstantiated assumptions are all we have turnea. Was there substance to assume four years ago, when the administration was telling us that Iraq is not capable of obtaining WMD's, that'd we'd be going to war there a few years later? Especially since all the B.A. had to do was create a ficticous hype around the very thing they said wasn't possible, and then capitolize on the publics post 9/11 fears. Could something like this happen again?? Probably not, to assume so would be a "Unsubstantiated Assumption" but if history is a lesson we shold realize that more war under the B.A. is not only possible, but definitly worth considering.



Although there is a plethora of real options, these sum up the two extremes. I think that #1 is absolutely never going to happen, as the last four years has established. The Bush administrations disdain for the public, as well as the world community makes something along the lines of #2 more likely, though I would hope that the public's skepticism over Iraq would make it harder. What Im most worried about is a #3 scenario, a perfect storm as you'd call it. 'Terrorists' attack near election time far worse than 9/11, the election is postponed, somehow Bush winds up 'winning' the election, and then we come full circle, with a new theatre for the "PEACE" president to play.

In closing, I hope we've established as a group here that Bush's attempt at re-labeling himself should disgust all of us. How could he possibly claim to want to be a "Peace" president when

A) He preaches a doctrine of pre-emptive war

B)He has 'led' us into an entirely illegal war with Iraq for no reason better than $$$ and Oil (see The "Whats the war about" thread) and

C) the kind of thinking that his 'movement' represents is absolutely the opposite of the peace movement.... Bush is far from hippy.

*Edited to answer:

Absolutely no basis, or at least as much basis as "mission accomplished" ...Im moving to France...

So can Bush have it both ways? Can he be a "peace president" when the threat of terrorism still looms over the nation?

Has life in the homeland been peaceful? Yes. So far we have not had another 911 type attack. President Bush has succeeded in taking the war to the enemy's soil instead of American soil. American soldiers are dealing with terrorist attacks instead of American firefighters, police, and civilians. We have American soldiers who are fighting terrorists so that we can enjoy peace and freedom back at home. The sacrifice they make is enormous, and I am deeply grateful for them.

Watch your wording buddy please. Success is an arbitrary measure in war. Everyone loses. And we didn't take the fight to the "enemy's" soil, we brought a was that Iraqi citizens DIDNT want to their backyards. And we have destroyed thousands of lives both Iraqi and American becuase of it.

We also had never been attacked at home Before Bush either there Dave.
The terrorists are stil running around,remember Al Quaeda?
I have yet to hear anything more on the Iraqi terrorists who were involved in 9/11?
Oh wait, there's a good reason for that huh, they were Saudis, Y'know where we buy so much of our oil from?
Well thats all right we have bi Laden about to stand trial....D'OH!
Thats Saddam huh.
Uhm,,,,,
But hey Bush has made the world a safer place right.
The world is standing firm with us in this War on Terror(again started by a religion created in and funded by and nurtured by Saudis----our allies ) Right?
Ri-ight.
He had better be a Peace President if re elected. Cause after Blair falls for supporting Bush we have squat left for allies.

GWB is simply playing more of the same game he is famous for.

The Clean Air initiative allows more pollution. The Healthy Forrest Initiative destroys most of the trees. We are going because of WMDs when none exist -- now the president whose administration is following the PNAC playbook says he wants to be the peace president. What a load of hooey.

The following quotes better illustrate Bush, I think.

We were attacked by Al Queda in 1993 in the first WTC bombing. We were attacked again by Al Queda with bombing of the USS Cole. Its a shame that it took an event such as 9/11 for a president to act on this terrorist group.

Also, Bush never said Iraq had ties with the 9/11 attacks. Just that they have supported terrorists and had some contatcs with Al Queda. (which has been proven to be true by the 9/11 commission) And lets not forget about our friend al-Zarqawi.

Furthermore, making the assertion that we should have gone after Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan because most of the hijackers were Saudi makes no sense. They were part of Al Queda. And Saudi Arabia has been a major help in the war on terror. The news just explained that the Saudi's foiled a possible terrorist plot against the West.



But you aren't weighing that against the lives we have saved and not taking into account the hundreds of thousands of lives Saddam killed. Furthermore, did you go up and ask an iraqi citizen if they wanted the war or not? Every media source has shown that the iraqis were highly in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein. Most of the insurgency in the country right now are Al Queda operatives and other groups that are from such countries as Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis once again "conveniently" happened to find some Al Quaeda. It follows a consistent pattern they seem to follw. We are never allowed to question them. They supposedly caught the guys who killed Jonhson but here is his head in someone else's freezer.
As for your "about time" I agree, ever since Reagan tucked tail and left all those dead Marines in Beruit unavenged it has been overdue.

There are terrorist groups out there and countries that are a far greater threat.
Iraq was not. N. Korea has nukes ready for sale,Saddam had a slingshot and some grenades.
The terrorists we face right now started in Saudi.
But since oil is a factor we couldn't cut ties with them now could we.
al-Zarqawi got some surgery supposedly in Iraq. Before the war he wasn't operating in Iraq. He is now.
and you fail to answer one point Lder---Where is bin Laden(the Saudi!)?
Where did the 9/11 terrorists come from?
I'll help S A U D ?

Also we seem to be running out of allies who will support us, so if we need their aid what do we do? Do you have faith Bush can actually negotiate aid?
Just send our troops in anyways?

I would hardly say that Clinton did "nothing" to combat Al Qaeda. In fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. As an example, the people responsible for the WTC in 1993 were caught and prosecuted for their crimes. Last time I checked Bin Laden was still at large. I'm not saying we have not made progress but your assertion that Clinton did nothing is completely false.


Actually that has been proven false too. I talked about it in this post, Tony Blair himself has admitted that claims of 400K dead bodies are completely false. In fact of the 55 (out of 270 grave sites) examined, there have only been about 5,000 bodies found.

By 'act' i meant actually take these guys out. Clinton may have tried to operate against Al Queda, but that fact remains that they gained power and followers in Afghanistan during the Clinton Administration. I was merely making a general statement that it was unfortunate that it took an event like 9/11 to make our leaders 'serious' about taking them out.



'Only' 5000 bodies...'found'. I am pretty sure you didn't mean it like it came out because i do not think anyone on these boards is like that, but that is not a good argument to make. Ok so 5000 bodies were found in mass graves. What about the 5000 Kurds he gassed in 1988? We are talking about the stretch of his whole reign. The thousands of people he killed. Just because he didn't put them all in the same place means nothing.



I do not find it 'convenient' at all. It is rather unfortunate. But i do not understand why you doubt there findings. When they find stuff relating to Al Queda, you call it 'convenient', yet if they found nothing, you would see it as expected. Just because you have a bias against the Saudi's ddoesn'tmake any of it true. The fact is that Saudi Arabia has been a valuable ally. Both in the war on terror and with our oil reserves. These conspiracy theories are baseless. You cannot generalize all SSaudiArabia for a few radicals.



Right....well all i can say is that N.Korea has NUCLEAR weapons. The situation has to be handled a little bit more delicately, especially with China patting the back of N.Korea.



Maybe we didn't lose allies, but rather find out who our allies truly were. Ever think of it that way? No, of course not. Furthermore, i think you have the scenario mixed up. THEY ask aid from us. We are the ones giving the hand-outs. One of the perks of being the only superpower.

I wonder who the flip-flopper is now. Bush is really an amazing guy. Does this guy even remember that he said he was a war President? Now he wants to be a peace President.

The world has to be laughing at the American people right now.
Heck, I'm laughing!

Indeed.



Alas, the correct answer to the poll is "None of the Above," as George Bush will not be re-elected. The country is weary of this mess, and is increasingly aware that Iraq was an unecessary distraction from the "War on Terror."

Afwhanistan was a nice opportunity to wipe out some midlevel operatives, with a great big, long-awaited pipeline deal as the cherry on top. By comparison, it is increasingly evident that Iraq is little other than a cherry pie.

The irony is that Kerry will be left, as many before him, to clean up George's mess.

There is no basis on which the President can say "the next four years will be peaceful years.

One of the best and wise sayings is: Action speaks louder than words.

Bush has a history of going to war plus naming the evil axis of Iran,Iraq and North Korea. Now in heavens name how do you get an assumption of a "PEACE" president from those actions.

turnea



As I mentioned in the above sentence (action and his history)

Mark Twain



Now in Bush's history he has shown a willingness to he rash,ignorant,undiplomatic and ready to go to war. I don't see any signs of peace in his actions.

Example: If for instance I walk by a house and a dog comes out and bites me. So I guess the next time I walk by that house, the dog will greet me peacefully and lick my hands. But we are assuming in your words. I would call that using the sense that the maker gave me and keep from have my hind parts bitten again.



I assume you meant assumption. Can I assume that? Give me one good concrete reason why that would be a empty assumption. You are very good at asking question. Maybe answering a question would not be too great a strain.



Not yet. China has 2.2 million in their military and maybe they will outsource a measly 500,000 to Bush for his future exploits.




I guess you will have to call me SILLY. There are a lot worse adjectives than SILLY.

If I'm not mistaken the statement you're referring to is one from Colin Powell below, I first heard about it from Cube Jockey who presented it in this form.
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Allow me to quote another post from Powell, also posted in another thread by CJ that may clear this up a little.
Powell pre 9/11 stated that Iraq did indeed have WMD but that they had no effective delivery system to project such power beyond the borders of the country. This overlooks the fact (which became suddenly evident four months later), that direct attack from Iraq was not the only danger.

As laid out by President Clinton (see my signature, and in case I change it, I'll include the quote), terrorists could be the "delivery system".
The point?

I don't think we have evidence of intent to mislead the American people into war, therefore I don't think we need fear "another" plot of that kind.

So when I say "unsubstantiated assumptions" I mean unsubstantiated...

and "assumptions" in case popeye47 is wondering.

...based upon knowledge of an existing threat, such a doctrine is neither revolutionary (Clinton made great use of it) nor, in my opinion, dangerous.


I have.

I explain there why I believe the "oil war" theory is illogical.

Because that is not all he's done. He has dealt with the other two through economic and diplomatic means, he has range.
He has lead the country into one unneeded war. What exactly makes you think he'd do it again? The last one was such a PR coup?

Happy to answer your question.

Because none of the evidence behind it has stood up to scrutiny.

Of course, maybe he understands that we can take on no more enemies. Our military is up to it's neck already. There will be no more pre-emptive wars, we just can't afford it.

Regardless of how individuals feel about Iraq they should recognize that Iraq is all we can handle. Furthermore, establishing a single shining country on the hill should be enough. We should have picked Qatar, instead of Iraq, to be that country.

Turnea, you have consistently said that Bush wouldn't lead us into another war saying the people that think he will are making incorrect assumptions. My question to you is -- what makes you so sure he won't lead us into another war? What evidence do you have to support that position?

I have seen a fair bit of evidence and thought put into proving why Bush will inevitably get us into another war if elected, but I haven't seen anything from the opposing side proving that he wouldn't. In fact the only thing I have seen is the "no he wouldn't do that, you're crazy" rhetoric.

I realize that none of us can read the future, but I think the side stating that Bush will lead us into another war has done a decent job of presenting some reasons why. I challenge you to do the same since you feel so strongly he won't, instead of just rebutting the opposite position.

I really don't feel this debate will be very productive unless someone is willing to step up and tell those of us that don't trust Bush why we should.

1. I've already amended my initial comment.

2. I'll admit I'm no military expert, but throughout this ordeal I never got the impression has reached its physical limits. After all, the tangible discomforts suffered by the country as a whole seemed to be hardly visible. The economy, far from being crippled, is on an up-swing of sorts.

We may have reached a psychological limit, seeing as this generation is not used to war, but physically and financially I believe we could go much farther if we wished to.
Edited to add:

None.

..but then it is not my position, I chose option #3. I simply am not so sure of anything.

I have seen almost none of this evidence stand up to scrutiny.

So I retain my undecided position.

Touche turnea, you have certaintly have my respect.



My only reply is can someone provide proof or quasi-proof that Iraq would have benefitted from or was contemplating a terrorist delivered attack on the US. Certainly Pre-Emptive war can be justified given a distinctly obvious threat, but I don't by it that Iraq was a threat solely because they had the ability make themselves a threat.


Although it feels good to us liberals, it isn't/wasn't necessary to to conclude that all of this was a "plot." I really believe that it was a matter of convenience, a series of events that was capitolized on, and a similar situation could present itself in the future. If Iran suddenly develops WMD potential, then by the exact same argumentation used in Iraq shouldn't we Pre-empt their potential assualt on America?



Sure, the oil war theory may be illogical. Im not well versed enough to argue this right now. That doesn't change the nature of our invasion of Iraq's legality. It doesn't change the bizzare lead-up to the war, and the B.A.s seeming manipulation of public fear. I can't prove it, but like a mole on your scalp it's ominously suggestive.

On the contrary lederuvdapac your assertion of us taking these guys out is not completely true since there are many Al-Qaeda still out there all you have to do is listen to the Homeland Security Director to figure that out. For the USS Cole that was at the end of Clinton's term and all the evidence was not in. Yes there were assumptions of who did it but no clear evidence to work against. Hmm after Bush became President all the evidence was in finally and did Bush do anything about it? NO.

IISS Strategic Survey May 2004



Edited to add: Also I would not considering arresting and prosecuting the actual perpatrators of WTC 93 as nothing or thwarting the millinnium attacks. While I have never said that the Bush Administration was directly responsible for 9/11 they were responsible for being a sleep at the wheel when Clinton and aides said Al-Queda is going to be the thing you are most entralled in and even Richard Clark while working for Bush and never being given the opprotunity to voice his concerns pre-9/11.

I think Bush wants to be a peace president. But I also think he wants to defend America, even if making America safer means pre-emtive war. Bush will do whatever he thinks nessicary. And countries have already turned over weapons after Iraq. We need to remember that Clinton was a peace president, and over 450 Americans were killed by terrorist attacks and like Kerry, Clinton had no backbone.

When I saw this news report, I didn't know whether to laugh or be confused. How can the self-admitted war president now become the peace president? Did he have a sudden change of heart? Does he suddenly believe that peaceful action is the proper course of action? Or was it a slow and contemplative reworking of his political philosophy through days, weeks, months of introspection? What are the reasons for this change of opinion? Does he still believe homicidal dictators should be "taken out"? Does he think that possible WMD may in and of themselves deserve invasion? Does he think that "terrorist safe havens" no longer merit a military response? If he no longer believes in his reasons for war, where does that leave the true believers in Dubya?

Or, perhaps, Dubya is merely saying that he wanted to be a peace president but circumstances beyond his control forced him to be otherwise. Perhaps, Dubya feels like he isn't in control of his presidency, that the actions of terrorists have forced him into his reluctant warmongering, that it isn't the president who invades Iraq but the terrorists who made him do it.

So, here's how I see it for the forseeable future. Terrorist attacks will happen. Iraq will remain a quagmire. Countries will acquire WMD. The world will continue to distrust the US.

Dubya has empirically shown that he has war on the mind. Whether he reluctantly goes to war or desires war is immaterial. Given that Dubya uses war as foreign policy and that he believes that there are threats everywhere, I can only conclude that Dubya would commit the US to more war. Any other conclusion would deny the evidence.

If you want to cite an example of a peace president, Clinton isn’t your man. Carter is a better example. We were involved in several major combat operations (Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia) during those years. In point of fact, Many of the terrorist attacks in the figures you mention were directly related to our military interventions overseas, to include attacks on US soldiers in Somalia, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the attacks on two US military barracks in Saudi. We certainly didn’t incur those losses due to lack of military involvement.

No, Bush cannot call himself the 'peace president' and expect anyone to take him seriously, though there will likely be no more preemptive strikes, or non-UN-sanctioned military engagements, in the next four years...regardless of who is president.

Well Turnea, I will be the first to nominate you for any office. Your answers are like a politican: camouflaging answers with smoke screens and telling individuals with opposing views they are wrong with a few faces scattered here and there. PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED
For example:



Please explain to me what is "an up-swing of sorts". That sounds sort of ambiguous.



Now that is an excellent answer. When Bush was asked recently if he would invade Iraq again(after knowing there were no wmds and the links to Saddam and Osama were not substantial),his answer was yes. And when he was asked if he could think of any mistakes he had made. His answer was I couldn't think of any.

Now those examples are proof that he would make the same mistakes again. Bush has been quoted numerous times that he would do it again. Does that sound like a person that has learned his lesson or admitted he made a mistake. Duh!



So what is your position? You say you chose option #3, but you also said that Bush wouldn't make the same mistake of invading a country because of the PR of Iraq. Sounds more like a politican everyday. Straddle that fence.

Yes, economically we are not stressed. North Korea and the old Soviet Union have spent a lot greater share of GNP on the military. However, our current forces are stretched to the limit. This means the only way to be able to wage more wars is to increase the pay of recruits substantially or impose a politically harmful draft. The neo-cons have ground to a halt.

Let me add that it was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression. Wars are not harmful to the economy, until they hit your homeland.