Kerry is advocating more funding for short-term anti-terrorist activities than Bush is.
We haven't been hit internally again (well, if you don't count internal terrorism, which has happened once or twice -- anthrax and possibly the snipers, if you consider them terrorists). The rest of the world and our embassies and nationals abroad have been hit at a much higher rate than at any time in recent history. Also, the country regularly goes for periods of this length and longer without terrorist attacks on our soil -- that it hasn't happened isn't exactly a huge mark in Bush's favor, its just saying "well, he hasn't managed to increase the normal rate of attacks on our soil, at least since 9/11".
Can we not go to war against terrorists because it causes more terrorism? No, but we sure can utilize strategies that are designed to minimize terrorist incitation, such as: concentrating our efforts in countries that actually have strong ties to terrorism, unlike Iraq; utilizing diplomatic solutions instead of provoking countries, such as NK, to increase their efforts to create WMD; getting strong international support so our war on terror is waged across a unified front (we had this before Iraq, and we tossed it away).
Regarding how a military can follow a man who described a war (accurately) as a Grand Diversion, I would ask you how a military can follow a man who has requested significant cuts in military benefits (per person), including massive closings of the already stressed VA hospitals?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I admire that he is sriving for 'international goodwill' and I agree that we need to be respected in the world, I also feel as though his concept (and maybe Americ[a's general concept) of the 'rest of the world' is very ethnocentric: that is, we want the help of the traditionally powerful Western European nations, and that's about it.
They set the tone for the international world. Everyone else is poor. I'm sure that there are some savvy counter-kidnapping experts in South America, but as ethnocentric as it is, we are talking about pushing western european values with western european money, if the western europeans don't help, we are in a bad way. And to an extent, I think we avoid doing everything we can to aid countries in South America on purpose. Not that I think it's right, but it's easier to number one that way.
Getting support from Western Europe is like candidate winning California and New York, and Russia is like Texas, and the rest of the world, with obvious exceptions, are like those states living off of farm subsidies.
posted
There is a difference between disagreeing with a policy, or more specifically with a person, and blaming troops for the mistakes of their CIC.
Kerry voted to give Bush the power to go to war if neccessary...but he feels that he was misled about Bush's motivations, and he disagrees with his decision to go to war at that point, before all other options were exausted (in his opinion).
That isn't the same as blaming the troops, or feeling that they have done something wrong.
If the troops can be led by someone who cauldn't evn be bothered to show up for his own military obligations (BTW, these days he would have been charged with either deriliction of duty or AWOL), there should not even be a question of Kerry's ability to lead those same troops.
posted
I'm surprised nobody has posted this yet, as its of very large import. Find it at the following link, and someone's likely got a no registration link somewhere, but I couldn't get one out of google news.
Its a 15 page investigative report by the New York Times that details how the White House abused intelligence on aluminum tubes that were used to bolster the otherwise completely flawed nuclear weapon argument (no other substantial evidence made it into the National Intelligence Assessment that was made).
Specifically, the foremost experts on the use of the tubes had pointed out that they did not match the specifications for any uranium centrifuge ever designed, that Iraq already posssessed better technology for uranium centrifuges, that unless used on a scale greater than any civilized country had yet done they could not create enough uranium for bombs with tubes of that design, that they exactly matched specifications for rockets Iraq (and other countries, including the US) were known to possess, that Iraq was not trying to hide their acquisition (it is legal for Iraq to possess that kind of rocket), and many other things.
There were other bits of evidence that were overstated as well, but this is the primary one. Even the CIA, which provided the only analysis that believed the tubes were likely for centrifuges (the competing analysis explained above was from actual nuclear experts and weapons inspectors in the energy department and elsewhere, the CIA's analysis was primarily based on the work of one analyst who had some experience in a few kinds of centrifuges), phrased all its papers in possiblies and potentialities.
White house officials who had not just been informed of the CIAs analysis, but the energy departments, including Rice, Powell, and Cheney, stated things such as that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs" (Rice) and other absolutes.
Powell in his testimony as to evidence said "Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts and the Iraqis themselves argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher" (not mentioning that the experts who disagreed were the foremost experts in the field, and whether or not most agreed is in a fair bit of dispute). Then he lied: he said they had a tolerance "that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets" when he had been explicitly briefed by his experts that this was not so in a memo two days earlier: "the most comparable U.S. system is a tactical rocket - the U.S. Mark 66 air-launched 70-millimeter rocket - that uses the same, high-grade (7075-T6) aluminum, and that has specifications with similar tolerances."
Bush also used absolute language to describe the tube's use in nuclear centrifuges, though it is not known whether or not he was ever told about the very high level of dissent as to their possible uses. However, each of the three other officials was told of the high level of dissent yet still used absolute language in describing their use, and heavily downplayed the possibility that they could be used for anything else.
Reports that reached members of congress in almost all cases spoke only about them being potential centrifuges, not about the dissent on other uses (these include classified reports). In fact, members of the energy department were specifically warned against volunteering information on the dissent on the tubes, even that based on non-classified evidence (to the press, and were not given a chance to speak before congress).
Even if you think this evidence should not matter in justifying a war on Iraq, the negligence involved in using intelligence so is abhorrent.
JHC! I can buy 3" diameter 7075-T6 tubes from McMaster-Carr with a single phone call! Well, maybe not 7075-T6, but still:
9056K243 (Same as 9056K24) Alloy 6061 Aluminum Round Tube 3-1/2" OD, 3" ID, .250" Wall Thickness, 3' Length In stock at $81.37 Each
7075-T6 is only slightly better than 6061-T6, which is used all over the place in theater, construction, you name it. 7075 is almost as easily available (and I consider 6061 to be as available as pine 2x4's).
And we went to war over that?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, the article talks about how aluminum of that quality or better is routinely found in soda cans.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
What article was that? Lies! All lies, I tell you! How can you trust them to tell you anythinhg, if they don't even know what alloy soda cans are made from!?!
God Damned Liberal Jewish Media Morons don't even know what alloy a simple soda can is made of! What, doesn't Dr. Brown Come in Cans? ("Hello, Key Foods? Do you know that....")
Aluminum soda cans use alloy 3003-H3. It's a much weaker material, and a much softer temper than 7075-T6.
posted
Sorry, my mistake. They just stated that common industrial items, including aluminum cans, were made to specification as good or better. 'twas my mind that jumped to insert soda cans (when they were no doubt referring to more, well, industrial, cans).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All joking aside, I agree with Kasie. After listening to Kerry, I feel that he has a better understanding of America's long-term problem: that of steadily rising discontent towards America in the Muslim world. When Bush says he understands "the enemy", I wonder as I watch his goofy "How can you possibly doubt me!?" expression whether or not he understands who the real enemy is. It certainly wasn't Sadam Hussein, for all his despotic aspirations he was small potatoes in the true war against terror. You could make an argument that Iran or Syria is next and that Iraq was a strategic objective, but even so, I doubt anyone in the present administration ever gave serious thought to the long-term repercussions of America’s constant invasion of Muslim states.
Al-Qaida would be nothing without a steadily growing recruitment pool. The impressionable masses: the ones who just lost their jobs, their homes, their families in war. The irony is that as we continue doing battle in the Middle East, we actually agitate and increase worldwide terrorism by taking happy, affluent Muslims and turning them into bitter, jobless, homeless Muslims. Bin Laden could die tomorrow (if he's not already dead) and it simply wouldn't matter. The b****rd is already a martyr. He’s already done his job: galvanizing the unhappy masses and channeling their hatred towards America through a disinformation campaign and twisting the normally peaceful teachings of their religion into a call for jihad.
It makes us comfortable to think of those suicide bombers and warlords in Israel and Iraq as "them", "the terrorists", "Al-Qaida". Labels are always comfortable, and Bush knows this. He uses those words to great effect. It makes us feel like he knows what he's doing. After all, nobody knows Al-Qaida better than Bush. Right?
The more Muslim nations we invade, the less safe our country will be. Just because we haven’t seen another 9/11 doesn’t mean it’s not in the works. When your goal is to tear down an entire Civilization, history teaches us you have all the time in the world. As long as the discontent is there raging beneath the surface, it will eventually happen. We would be remiss not to consider the possibility that an intelligent general who could mastermind the 9/11 tragedy wouldn’t employ as his next step a hiatus: to wait years as your enemy scrambles and, effectively, does your job for you by increasing your numbers.
Without those numbers, Osama bin Laden would be just another angry fundamentalist. He would be nothing.
Ours is a failure of crosscultural relations. It’s a failure of morality when we use labels like “they” and “them” that lead the less educated to form assumptions, lumping “Islamic fundamentalist” with “Arab” and “Muslim”. It’s a failure to spend serious time, thought, and resources to a single purpose: the mitigation of overseas contempt for Americans. That is our true enemy.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe because all the spurious debates have sucked the chicken's souls through his trachial tube...
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't understand how can anyone in this nation still be undecided. It is completely bewildering to me. I admit Kerry is not the greatest candiate in the world but this election is not about him. It is about understanding that Bush in power is simply not good for America. It only takes becoming informed about what he has done to see he's made our country weaker, isolated and unsafe. It is not only more open to terrorism but the national debt has increase, Jobs are being outsourced to other countries, Medical insurance and school Tuition have doubled since he's been in power. Our military is spread so thin that the only way to maintain this war is if he orders a draft, and he will do it because he feels it is God's will that young Americans die in order to keep his army in the Holy Land. Please people just go out there an read a couple of books, from people like Chomsky, Clarke, Senator Bird or Graham. Any of those books will convince anyone that Bush is ANTI-AMERICAN!
Posts: 2 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our military is spread so thin that the only way to maintain this war is if he orders a draft, and he will do it because he feels it is God's will that young Americans die in order to keep his army in the Holy Land.
I'm sorry. This is raging paranoia.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:…school Tuition have doubled since he's been in power.
Um, no. Average Tuition, Fee, Room and Board has increased from $21,475 in 00/01 to $26,854 in 03/04, an $8,418 to $10,636. Figures can be found on page 9 in this link. Unless you speaking of some other kind of tuition, in which case could you be more specific and maybe provide a source or two?
I can’t find the links for medical insurance right now, but my memory is that annual increases in premiums have been around 14% at most, a trend that goes back a good long way. If the tuition statement wasn’t so ludicrous, I might spend time looking.
quote:On March 18 the Bush campaign updated their ad to include footage of Kerry saying "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry had co-sponsored an amendment, which was defeated, to pay for the measure by rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts. The Bush campaign said Kerry's words showed him equivocating.
It's not the cleanest win for Kerry, I will say that.
quote:Kerry has explained his vote on the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war by saying he voted for the original bill, when the cost would have been covered by a rollback of taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He voted against the final version when that tax provision was removed.
I have also heard that the Bush administration took the original bill (as co-sponsored by Kerry) and gutted it overnight to remove the critical provisions (like "how do we pay for this?"), and Kerry rejected it the following day. When I can back this up with more than just my memory, I'll post the links here as well. Anyone who has a link, I'd be most grateful.
--Steve
[edited for spelling: there's no "m" in "looking"]
posted
I don't know if you still need convincing, but you might find this interesting:
quote:Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared Monday to back off earlier statements suggesting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.
He also conceded that U.S. intelligence was "wrong" in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
"Why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
As recently as June, Vice President Dick Cheney was saying the opposite. CNN
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
