Blogs for Bush has a few great posts this Sunday.
Swing Voters Swinging tells the story of Robin Dahle, who asked the first question of President Bush.
Dahle has gone from undecided to 80-90% likely for Bush.
The reason he gave was that Bush was more "personable." He also said that Kerry blundered when he said that only 3 people in the room made $200,000/year. He said that Kerry had made that assumption based on the appearance of the audience and the location of the debate. Dahle found that condescending.
"Obviously none of you flyover-country bumpkins can possibly earn 200K!" Riza also pointed out that Senator Clinton was in the audience -- um, that makes it four, Senator.
It's little but it's not. He is so certain that he is raising taxes only on Daddy Warbucks and Theresa, it is telling that he doesn't see a small business owner or a couple of married professionals in Missouri susceptible.
Another great post is from Jason Smith. A comprehensive but readable exegesis of the Duelfer report and its intrinsic discrediting of Kerry's foreign policy directives.
No wonder France was threatening a veto supporting an invasion... even before the draft resolution had been circulated. They were not going to support ANY resolution... ever! And it wasn't because of anything George W. Bush did. It was plain and simply because France had been bribed by Iraq and they were going to fight like hell to save Iraq.... they were going to do what they'd been paid to do.
[...]
Kerry wants to deal with those paid by the enemy to oppose us? That says a lot.
I just want to make sure I have the reasons for invading Iraq down, in chronological order:
Because they have vast stockpiles of WMD's and direct ties to Al Quaeda.
Because they have stockpiles of WMD's and indirect ties to Al Quaeda.
Because the have WMD's and have ties to terrorist groups.
Because they have WMD programs and some ties to terrorist groups.
Because they have the capability to make WMD's and some ties to some terrorist groups.
Because they have WMD related program materials and at least financially support some terrorist groups.
Because they are actively working to remove sanctions and oversight so that they may restart WMD programs.
I think I've got it, at least until the next report comes out.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 12, 2004 11:47 AMNo. Because they were a dictatorial regime with a history of actual and implied use of force against multiple other nations including the United States.
Why does the American Left think the Iraq war was a bad idea? Mostly for ideological reasons, which we've discussed. (Uncertainty, moral equivalence in war, the immorality of self-defense, etc.)
Why does Old Europe think the Iraq war was a bad idea? Because it cost them their most reliable secret conduit of American wealth into their pockets: Daddy Hussein. Read this... ALL of it: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000435.html
See that smoke? Coming from the end of the gun?
Posted by: johngalt at October 12, 2004 01:18 PMNot a bad reading selection. Even better is to read the full text of the Duelfur report ( http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/cia93004wmdrpt.html )
Silence, the status quo in pre-war Iraq was untenable. I hear Senator Kerry say that inspectors would have found out there were no WMDs had the President not "rushed to war."
If you believe (and I think you might) that it would have been okay to leave Saddam in power, that's your choice. I think he was a supporter of terrorism and a threat to the (non-bribed) West.
I don't know how you could read the report and see another choice between what we have now and a world with sanctions lifted and the UN buyout complete. The report immerses the "other allies" canard in cold water. So the honest choice is:
-- Leave Saddam there, he's a bully but we keep our blood and treasure.
-- Regime change by force, with all the uncertainties that that entails.
I think American interests are best served by the latter but I'll consider honest debate.
Leaving Saddam in power or removing him is only half the choice JK. The other half is what replaces him. The goal here is increased national security for us against either an Iraqi regime or a terrorist group utilizing their resources. Now, to be fair their are uncertainties in either scenario, not just in the regime change one, as now evidenced by the reports of even more widespread corruption and outright bribery within the UN "containment" program. My argument against the war is that we did not plan strategically to limit or mitigate the uncertainties as much as possible. We need a stable friendly government in Iraq to achieve our strategic goal. This is a historic failing of US military intervention since WWII, we want to do the minimum possible with the minimum number of troops and thus often end up not fully achieving our objective.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 14, 2004 01:00 PM