The Big Three: mis ... mis... mis

Kerry Blasts Bush

Published on September 30, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Kerry blasted Bush for having:

Misled the nation into war with Iraq; miscalculated, the resistance there, despite innumerable warnings; mismanaged continually the prospect of peace once there.

It is true the UN was sitting on its hands with regard to Iraq because the flow of oil was uninterrupted and let Saddam, among others, profit by it; but that could be said of virtually all of OPEC. Furthermore, the administration had been sitting on its hands when contrasted with the relentless vigil of the no-fly zone by the Clinton administration.

Armed with congressional backing, Bush was able to jog the UN’s memory by recalling the evil of the man and his violent history and emphasized that if overlooked he would continue to develop a deadly arsenal. The UN promptly restored the inspection process and was making considerable progress to the satisfaction of most of congress but not to the administration. The result was a misleading rush to war under the pretense of imminent danger.

It has been spun often that had Kerry been president, he would still be wrangling with the UN and Saddam. The fact is that had he been in office, the subject would not have come up; he would have concentrated military action in Afghanistan and worked with other nations to counter terrorism round the world, including what pockets of Al Qaeda might have fled to Iraq and Iran.

Once decided, Bush miscalculated the strategic importance of an army division attacking from the north when Turkey objected. Instead, he opted for a light force of airborne troops, which was drastically inadequate without employing assistance from the Kurds as he had with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Under heavy bombardment from sea, land and air, Iraqi resistance took to the underground to fight another day. Duped, by the weak resistance leading to the illusory liberation, the administration did nothing to reinforce the heavy duty of securing the peace.

His mismanagement of civilian authority by actually thinking that Iraqis would surrender to the heavy hand of exiles backed by US military and civil authority, pulled the resistance out of its spider holes. The mild acceptance by the people of the invasion soon turned to hostile hatred which, not unlike Israel, has spread to the entire Muslim world. And now here we are — an ugly scenario that was tragically unnecessary.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

bakerstreet

on Sep 30, 2004

"It has been spun often that had Kerry been president, he would still be wrangling with the UN and Saddam. The fact is that had he been in office, the subject would not have come up; he would have concentrated military action in Afghanistan and worked with other nations to counter terrorism round the world, including what pockets of Al Qaeda might have fled to Iraq and Iran."

... ... which means that soon Saddam would be weaseling out of sanctions and starting up his weapon's programs, as even the Democrats agree he was biding his time and waiting to do...

You are over dramatizing. IF the overall will of the IRaqi people was for us not to be there, the whole nation would be a no-go zone. This is just more demoralizing spin, which will get more and more heinous the closer to November we get. It isn't dissent that I hate, it is the misrepresentation to make people more apt to agree with you. You want people to feel like Iraq is a losing battle, you want to make it into some sort of defeat. I'm sorry, but that is about as low as you can get on my own heirarchy of self-obsession.

If you can stomach propping up the arguments of terrorists and demoralizing America during a time of war, fine. I have absolutely no respect for the tactic, though. YOu ignore the troops that HAVE BEEN FIGHTING CONTINUOUSLY in Afghanistan, and show great disprespect for their sacrificies by pretending that we just left.

Express your opposition to Bush, express your opposition to the war, but the constant mischaracterization that this is a "losing battle", a "quagmire", etc., is insipid and frankly more damaging than terrorist rhetoric.

stevendedalus

on Sep 30, 2004

If you can stomach propping up the arguments of terrorists and demoralizing America during a time of war, fine. I have absolutely no respect for the tactic, though. YOu ignore the troops that HAVE BEEN FIGHTING CONTINUOUSLY in Afghanistan, and show great disprespect for their sacrificies by pretending that we just left.

You have completely misread it; there is no suggestion that the troops in Afghanistan have been abandoned, but they should be extended equal priority. And please don't preach dirt to a WWII vet that he has "great disrespect for their sacrifices."

You want people to feel like Iraq is a losing battle, you want to make it into some sort of defeat. I'm sorry, but that is about as low as you can get on my own heirarchy of self-obsession.

On the contrary, the argument is to prevent defeat.

Search your soul; you might find an incompetent president.

WiseFawn

on Oct 01, 2004

There is not one shred of disrespect for our soldiers anywhere in this article.

Wonderful article! Kerry did blast Bush and Bush has done nothing but mis mis mis.

Deference

on Oct 01, 2004

Well done, Steve! Sometimes this type of thing has to be spelled out for some...

stevendedalus

on Oct 01, 2004

There is not one shred of disrespect for our soldiers anywhere in this article.

Thanks for the support, Old Reliable.LOL

Yes, Deference, like spelling out what is truth is false.

LOL

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!