Your right TK, I don't see your big picture. But its not that I don't try. I would venture to say that I spend a considerable amount of my free time following the news, media, etc to follow this war and I haven't gotten this picture.

Now, having said that, isn't that the President's job to paint that picture in such a clear way that ordinary Americans know why we're in Iraq? Then, Michael Moore can make whatever movie he wants, but it won't resinate with the American people because our President has built that foundation. The truth is, and you know it, that he has failed to communicate this properly.

Jeff'ed.

Bush has made real clear. I understand it everyone I know undersands it. It is real simple. Just because you don't want to listen or believe does not make it his problem.

Lets not make me go back to the 12 reasons he gave for the war and the 13 congress gave. All but one WMD remain valid. Did you miss that whole 6 month process before the invsasion?

The King - you said "Your side wants to wait and see what happens while they negoatiate, capitulate and comittee the thing to death."

I'd be very interested to understand just what you know about "my side". Care to enlighten??

Eddie,

Left of center. Anyone right of center knows there was more than WMD to justify Iraq. I think your priority list was close to being right on the Why Vote for Kerry thread. You should have had Iraq 1st . You pick the low hanging fruit first . All of the countries that mattered thought there where WMD in Iraq so they where the most likely target . Secondly they have the most willing populace and easiest army to take out. We would still be making the case for Iran had we used your list. All the while Sadam would have been playing games. Some say he was contained. If he was maybe they can tell us where the WMD went that the whole world knew he had? Not much containment when his whole arsenal dissapears in 12 years without a trace. If you have not been reading lately we can only manage to destroy 3 or 4 chemical weapons a day in Oregon and it took 15 years to set up the facility.

Most polls support what the "OP Ed column" identified at the top of this thread, that they question Bush's leadership / decisions on Iraq but are unsure about replacing him with Kerry (58% question Iraq, 34% support, 8% undecided). For you to assert that most Americans understand and fully agree with the Bush Policy for this war is pipe dream. I would say that of the 34% or so that support this, many are Republicans who are just walking in lockstep with their party and don't think for themselves.

Jeff'ed,

Your question was about "understanding " why we are in Iraq. If people do not understand why we are in Iraq they live under a rock. Only an idiot would say that most people agree with why we are in Iraq. But then again most people are idiots and have little understanding about the issues. So the polls reflect peoples lack of knowledge more than the truth. I would be willing to bet that more people if polled would know more about a top 10 TV show than they would about the reasons Bush gave for the Iraq war. Yet they feel informed enough to oppose or support it. I also doubt that those same people if given a blank map of the region could even point out a single country.

Eddie

None of this wonderful and enlightening stuff matters much. Kerry looks like he fell face down in the ketchup bowl. He looks damn scary!! Its the package not the contents nowadays isn't it...Sum the position of the left this way....Anyone but Bush....pretty simple so all the cut and paste stuff is just taking up cyberspace.

TK - If it takes over $200B to pick the low hanging fruit, then you make my case for me. We simply do not have the resources to pick all the fruit we need to pick. I don't think anyone can argue that Iran, Pakistan, & N. Korea - probably China too presents a more clear and present danger than did Iraq. Just as in business you look at risk and reward, cost and benefit and then decide where to spend your limited resources.

The one commonality among the 4 countries that I have named is that they have Nuclear capability and in most cases, Nuclear Inventory. Both Iran and Pakistan scare the sh!t out of me and will require us to be ready. North Korea has already shown that they sell their missle technology to Islamo Fascists. These are real threats - I have not been convinced that Iraq ever was a real threat to us. What will we have in the coffers (both money and personnel) when we have to preempt them or react to an overt action?

With all the gnashing of teeth over the UN one truth remains constant. The entire developed world is threatened by Islamic terrorism. It should have been relatively easy to gain allies in this fight - but GW and his Admin was more interested in following an ideology than in getting the job done (Old Europe comments, etc.) His decisiveness does not relieve him of the responsibility to be correct. I believe that he has failed.

Eddie,

"The entire developed world is threatened by Islamic terrorism. It should have been relatively easy to gain allies in this fight"

Should have is the key word. There was as much sympathy in Euorpe and China after 911 as there was in Seattle for the Yankees lwhen they lost the World Series. Euorpe and China do not want to see the US continue to dominate the world economically. If they would have allied with us on Iran, Syria,Pak and NK it would have cost more than 200 Billion in hand outs. We could have tried a bunch of things and think they would have been outraged at any of them. We will see what the developed worlds tastes are for dealing with Islamofacists shortly as Putin will have to hit back for the school bombings. We already know what Spains reaction was to iut,capitulation.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Eddie,

I know you have alot of faith in John "Pierre" Kerry's campaign promise to build a broader coalition of European allies (Fact: we already have more allies in the coalition in Iraq than we had in WWII to defeat Fascism) to in his words, "fight a more effective war on terror".

Before you buy on to another one of Kerry's 'new- nuanced' focus group tested campaign promisses read this:
------------------------------------------------------------

No French or German turn on Iraq

By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington
Published: September 26 2004

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

That view reflects the concerns of many EU and Nato officials, who say the dangers in Iraq and the difficulty of extricating troops already there could make European governments reluctant to send personnel, regardless of the outcome of the US election.

A French government official said: "People don't expect that much would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry replaces Bush.

"A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then it's possible we would re-examine our position, but I don't expect a massive change either way."

A German government spokesman declined to comment on the outcome of the US presidential election. But the feeling in Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's office is that, if anything, Berlin is growing less rather than more likely to change its mind as security conditions deteriorate in Iraq.

Mr Schröder would also be unlikely to renege on his 2002 electoral commitment not to send troops as a new general election looms in 2006.

There is no sign that the German public, which loathes the US president, would accept risking German lives to salvage what is widely seen as Mr Bush's botched war.

In fact, high-ranking German officials are privately concerned at the prospect of Mr Kerry becoming president, arguing it would not change US demands but make it more difficult to reject them.

Both France and Germany, however, have said they would contribute to the reduction of Iraq's debt and participate in economic and environmental development programmes. Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so.

Mr Kerry is expected to make Mr Bush's record of alienating foreign capitals and undermining US credibility in the world one of the chief arguments on Thursday night when he confronts the president in the first presidential debate.

The televised debate, which is expected to be watched by more than the 46.6m people who watched the debate in 2000, will focus on foreign policy and national security.

In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead the US into Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in Afghanistan "I will lead our allies to share the burden."

He continued: "the Bush administration would have you believe that when it comes to our allies, it won't make a difference who is president. They say the Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I have news for President Bush: just because you can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done."

The German government continues to oppose sending troops to Iraq under any circumstance.

Berlin was one of Europe's most vocal opponents of the invasion of Iraq and, with sizeable forces in the Balkan and Afghanistan, it has also argued its troops are overstretched.

Although the government did not oppose Nato's decision to start training inside Iraq, it still thinks the deployment is counter- productive.

"Nato personnel will become targets for attacks," one official said on Sunday..

Rory, if you are operating under the assumption that the War in Iraq is truly "the frontline in the War on Terror", then your posting makes some sense. Because I don't feel that Iraq is that frontline, then I see the French and German position as being quite logical. War is at least a two way street. Remember, in the Spring of 1940, the French felt the Maginot line was their frontline. The Luftwaffe and the Panzer Divisions showed the fallacy. Just because GW has defined Iraq as the frontline does not make it so.

The $200B is sunk cost. Given this administrations either inability to estimate very well (I believe that they originally asked for $100B) or due to the elections, they are playing "hide the ball" again with the true cost of this "low hanging fruit."

Eddie,

What military conflicts has the United States been involved in over the last 55 years that you feel were justifiable?

Also, if you know where the country 'al-Quedaonia' is--please forward that info on to US Military Intellegece so they can make that the frontline on the war on terror.

BTW--If you think the French (who wouldn't even let us use their air space to attack Lybia after the Marine Corps barracks bombing) is going to be a country we can count on for military assistance on ANY frontline--you're not as smart as I thought.

OK Rory, I will play your game although I am uncertain what your question has to do with the topic before us

Last 55 yrs - justifiable military actions

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Maybe Grenada - but not sure it really qualifies
Bosnia
Afghanistan

Next!!

Eddie,

Is it not odd that we where not directly attcked in any of those but you call them justifed wars? What makes this one the exception, I thought it was the pre emptive action?

TK - I'm not saying that I liked all these wars only that they were justifiable. Korea, Vietnam, & Bosnia honored existing treaties and/or alliances. Afghanistan was a justifiable preemptive action based upon the Taliban support of terrorism. Panama protected vital interests. Grenada - I'm still not sure that was a real military conflict and was more of a joke to include on the list. It probably was not justified.

"Afghanistan was a justifiable preemptive action based upon the Taliban support of terrorism"

And Saddams support of terrorism was what? Oh thats right he was only killing Jews ,Kurds and Shia , they do not count. And that attempt to assinate an American president was just a Bathist fraternity party joke

Hahahaha.. what do you call all those UN resolutions and Saddam's agreement to provide proof of the destruction of his arsenal of WMDs if they aren't "existing treaties and alliances" to you? You think he was not allowing weapons inspectors into all those facilities over the years because he hadn't had a chance to sweep and dust and didn't want them to think he was a bad housekeeper?

Sure is funny how you righties HATE the U.N. and want it disbanded... but ALWAYS bring up the fact that Saddam was in violation of its resolutions. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why do you think that is?

4Salt,

We are trying to make you lefties feel better. we know you like to talk about things for many years and never take action. I am suprised you guys can even set the hook on a fish without a vote :p If it was up to the right Sadam would have been dealt with in the first gulf war.