Re: Looking forward to after the election - end of stupid posts like this one :-)

From: Robert Monsen (rcsurname_at_comcast.net)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 23:28:53 GMT

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
>
> Regarding the attack on Iraq he belonged to an overwelming majority of the
> congression that voted for the attack. BUT: later he voted against a
> suggestion to use 87 trillion $ to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan
>
> Isn't this correct Fred?
>

No, it's wrong. Kerry's position was more subtle. It was a vote to give
the president more clout for the purpose of negotiations. He said so at
the time. And, that clout was working, Saddam was capitulating, allowing
inspections of all facilities, and was even attempting backchannel
negotiations as the US rolled into Iraq. The vote worked, Saddam was
contained, and possibly was attempting to broker a deal to leave power.
If that had been followed up on, and Saddam had left peacefully, 100,000
Iraqi citizens would still be alive, 30,000 American troops would not be
injured or dead, and the middle east would be in a far better position
than it is right now. Bush just didn't want to wait; his war in
Afghanistan had gone so well that he was itching for more.

That vote was also based on information provided to the Senate by the
Bush administration, and that information was apparently seriously
biased, supporting a conclusion that we now know was totally false.
According to various reports now available, there was contention at the
highest levels of the intelligence community regarding whether Saddam
was trying for nuclear weapons. The evidence of this was apparently
hotly contested within both the CIA and the State department, and the
majority of analysts were convinced that Saddam had no weapons program.
The administration cherry-picked evidence to suit its position.

The fact that there was contention was supressed in the briefings that
the Senate (including Kerry) received from the CIA director prior to the
vote.

Kerry now believes that Bush abused the power given to him by the
congress, and so do about 50% of the people in the US. The other half
apparently believe that Bush acted in a reasonable way when he lied to
congress and the american people, started a war with a country who had
never attacked us directly, and then allowed chaos to destroy the
infrastructure of that country and put it on a path to civil war. That
same 50% of the voting public also seems to believe that the end
justifies the means, because their main argument now appears to be "Sure
he was wrong, sure its a mess, but isn't it better that that 'evildoer'
Saddam is in jail? He wouldn't be if Kerry had been President".

> Well, wrote this before I read the lines below. I rest my case, I won't get
> smart on US elections because I would not be the one to have sufficient info
> on this, but I was just fed up with the both of them. In my oppinion they
> should get Bill Clinton back.....
>

We may get a Clinton back if Bush is reelected. If Bush continues his
terrible economic policies of stealing from the poor to give to the
rich, there will probably be an economic collapse of confidence within
the next 4 years, leading to a major backlash against the Republicans in
2008. This could happen anyway if the middle class keeps being eroded by
a lackluster economy.

If this happens, Hillary Clinton could well be the first female
president of the United States. 

-- 
Regards,
   Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
     - Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
        on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

Relevant Pages

  • Capitol City Dementia (WashingHeimers Disease?) and Iran
    ... Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack ... Bush Is About to Attack Iran ... The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Yes, Bush lied
    ... included an executive summary for President Bush known ... * was not operating in concert with al-Qaida, ... If he "feared an attack that threatened the ... only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: NBC- What ever happened to secret meetings ?
    ... Everybody knows we're not ready (except maybe for Bush who thinks they won't come here because we're fighting them there - naw, he doesn't believe that either, he just hopes the rest of us will). ... Maybe it was time to let the citizens know what they know and Congress and the administration are ignoring. ... Monday to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States. ... It has since been operating with private funds at the 9-11 Public Discourse Project to monitor government progress. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: NBC- What ever happened to secret meetings ?
    ... Everybody knows we're not ready (except maybe for Bush who thinks they won't come here because we're fighting them there - naw, he doesn't believe that either, he just hopes the rest of us will). ... Maybe it was time to let the citizens know what they know and Congress and the administration are ignoring. ... Monday to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States. ... It has since been operating with private funds at the 9-11 Public Discourse Project to monitor government progress. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: OT - some perspective on history...
    ... compete text of Bushs reasons for regime change in Iraq. ... WMDs, not Bush, not Cheney, no mentions of mushroom clouds, never happened. ... Saddam were exactly the same after 9/11 as before, sure, 9/11 had nothing to ... He had nothing to attack with, the same guy who said Saddam wanted ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)