This poll should warm the hearts of many here.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

STING2

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
8,876
CNN/TIME POLL of registered voters September 3 and 4.

29% Definitely For Bush

41% Definitely Against Bush

25% Might Vote For or Against Bush


If this poll is in fact accurate, then I'd say Bush has already lost the election. The surprising statistic is the percentage that have already decided to vote definitely against Bush. The winner in 2004 is most likely not going to get a majority (50% or more). As long as the Democrats can prevent a third party candidate from taking away votes, this poll suggest they can coast to victory by picking up as little as 1/3 of the undecideds.

Still once the democrats pick a nominee and depending on if Nadar or other independents decides to run, the picture could look a lot different. Since many factors in the economy are "lagging indicators" with their effects only being felt by the public many months later, how the economy does in the next 6-8 months could decide the election.

Despite the various polls from early primary states here is how the democratic candidates rank among all registered democratic voters:

Kerry 16%

Lieberman 13%

Dean 11%

Gephardt 7%

Edwards 7%

Sharpton 5%

Graham 4%

Braun 4%

Kucinich 3%


I've seen polls that place Clark in 4th place. I'm definitely at this point voting for Bush, but if I had to vote for a democrat I would probably vote for Joe Lieberman. Despite the early excitement and money around Dean and Clark, I think Kerry is going to get to the democratic nomination.
 
Nader (love of my life) is not running. I believe there was (maybe still is) a move among some of the Greens to throw support to the Democratic candidate in an effort to get rid of Bush.

As for the poll: :heart:, but I wouldn't get too excited this early on in the game.
 
STING2 said:
I've seen polls that place Clark in 4th place. I'm definitely at this point voting for Bush, but if I had to vote for a democrat I would probably vote for Joe Lieberman. Despite the early excitement and money around Dean and Clark, I think Kerry is going to get to the democratic nomination.

If Kerry losed NH and Iowa I believe it will be difficult for him to do this.

If I am not mistaken, Dean is ahead in the Polls in NH and Kerry is currently running adds to combat this. I am not sure that he was thinking he needed to run ads in NH this early on.

I am like you on this issue Sting.

I am still leaning towards Bush. Lieberman has been my second choice. I have been intreagued by Clark.

I am curious because I would have expected you to be excited about the Clark campaign. What makes you place Lieberman over Clark?

In my case, I am like Lieberman's experience. He has shown an ability to cross party lines to get things done. With a General with no political background of working with a legislature I think it is a weakness. Other Generals have done it, but, some have been less successful in the political realm.

Bush is still where I am leaning. WE have months to think about it.
 
I feel all gooey inside after seeing this. But I'm not sure if its because of warmth or the mud that will probably be thrown in this election.

I want Bush out but the election is over a year away so let's wait and see.
 
STING2: everything is still open, don't forget how much p.r. the republicans can make with the money they collect.
More than that they have the possibility to bring "news" in the last week before the elections like "we found the WMD's" etc.

so even if the poll is corect, everything is still open
Klaus
 
I don't give a damn about polls at this point. It's way too early for any predictions. Kerry or Dean may be the front runner at this point but that could change. I like the news, but it's not going to stay this way. The American electorate is capable of being very fickle.
 
Dreadsox,

Clark looks very impressive based on his resume, but he was opposed to the war in Iraq. This suggest that he has a fundamental difference about what US foreign policy should be compared to the Bush administration which in my view has the best foreign policy team in our nations history. I could not vote for a person that, if they had been president the past 3 years, would have left Saddam in power there by risking and hurting US and International Security. Bush took the action to finally enforce the UNs most serious resolutions against Iraq, and that was the correct course in policy although it was a bit late. Iraq is a major undertaking, and I'm suspicious about someones commitment to the operation now and for the future who was opposed to the whole thing to begin with.

In addition, I have read that Clark had many differences with most of the other Generals in the military back in 1999-2000. Clark retired in 2000, and many claim it had to do with many of those "differences".

I have not researched enough on who was primarily responsible for the conduct of the Kosovo war but I think Clark has to be near the top of the list if not the top since he was the NATO commander. Rather than have Clark be the one to independently determine the type and quantity of airstrikes and what to hit and what not to hit, these decisions were submitted to a vote by all 19 NATO nations. I always found it absurd that Clark would have to have a vote to see if NATO could strike a Serb Tank Factory or some other military or industrial/military type target. All this in the middle of a war. All it took was for one NATO country to say "NO" and the strike was off. While that might be good for diplomacy having continuing strong support, it is the most weak and innefficient way to conduct any miltary campaign. NATO should have voted to either go into Kosovo or not and then left the military decisions up to Clark.

While I support strong efforts at diplomacy and coalition building, I do not support it to such a degree that it compromises the US military operations or US National Security. I'm not totally clear about the above Kosovo senerio, but it suggest that Clark may be a little too eager at Coalition building at the expense of US interest.

NATO's 86 day campaign against Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was a success in that it eventually led to the withdrawel of all Serb forces. But the air war was was hampered by the decision making process among a few other things. After 86 days, the air war was only successful in taking out 50 Serb Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers, and Artillery out of a total of over a thousand in Kosovo itself. The Serbs withdrew primarily because of the damage that had been inflicted on Milosovic's various elements of power back in Serbia proper, such as various businesses and many other military related industrial targets.

Still the main goal of the removal of Serb forces from Kosovo was eventually accomplished. But in addition to the problems with the selection of targets, there is the question of the deployment of ground forces. During the Air War, the US and NATO did not have a ground force in place to invade Serbia if the Air War did not change Milosovics mind. By June 1999, the Clinton administration was begining to think about deploying ground forces to Hungary and Albania to prepare for an invasion. But this is something that should have already been done months prior to military action, especially since the movement of Armored forces can take a considerable amount of time. Had NATO had a credible invasion force in place along the borders of Kosovo and Serbia, Milosovic may have withdrawn is forces without the need for an Air War.

I am not completely sure about Clark's role in all of the policy making done during the Kosovo campaign, but it certainly raises a lot of questions. More important though in my opinion is the opposition to the war to finally disarm Saddam. I think the only way I could vote for Clark would be if he and Howard Dean were the only candidates, Republican, Democrat or independent, running for president.
 
STING2 said:
The Serbs withdrew primarily because of the damage that had been inflicted on Milosovic's various elements of power back in Serbia proper, such as various businesses and many other military related industrial targets.

That's on the right track. IMO, they withdrew because the Serbs, who supported a number of wars in the Balkans and then sat around in their cafes while people in Vukovar, Sarajevo and Srebrenica were slaughtered by their sons suddenly got a nasty taste of what it's really like to sit inside a cold, damp basement night after night and came to the conclusion it really wasn't all that pleasant.

Frankly, I think Clark was more hampered by the leadership of the Coalition than his own beliefs. That's how it always came across to me.
 
I'm not sure to what degree Clark shaped the entire Kosovo operation, but I definitely saw problems with the tactical movements during the operation. In the end, the goals were achieved though.
 
Tactical problems?? Sting, do you have military training or experience? (Not being sarcastic, your comment suggests perhaps you do?)

Here's an interesting article that addresses what you've said--from this morning's Wash Post

Clark Will Announce Run for Presidency
Retired General Joins 9 Democrats in Race

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 17, 2003; Page A01


LITTLE ROCK, Sept. 16 -- Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a prominent ex-military leader with no national political experience, has told friends and advisers that he will enter the presidential race on Wednesday, shaking up the wide-open fight for the Democratic nomination.

After months of deliberations, Clark, 58, will announce his candidacy here at a boys and girls club and immediately start challenging the nine other Democrats who have been running, with mixed success, for many months.

"I don't feel it would be too late" to enter the race and win, Clark said in a brief interview today. Clark said he has "confidence" he could quickly raise enough money and build a powerful enough political operation to eventually blow by the other candidates.

Clark's candidacy is adding even more unpredictability to what is already one of the most unsettled Democratic presidential contests in history. Clark rained on North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's entrance into the race today, as Clark's friends spread the word he would soon march into the campaign to take on Bush. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, the frontrunner in key early states, decided to cancel a major economic address planned for Wednesday, concerned that the Clark announcement would drown it out.

"A lot of people underestimate how strong he'll be," said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager.

Clark's entry comes at a point when the race is still taking shape. Despite Dean's success, many Democratic voters are undecided, and many have not yet begun to pay close attention to the race.

While a number of party strategists once considered Bush virtually unbeatable, many now feel that the weak economy and instability in Iraq make him more vulnerable than he was only a few months ago. Those around Clark think his unique r?sum? and his standing as a non-politician make him an ideal candidate to take on Bush.

Clark was first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar, a four-star general and commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. He is considered handsome, telegenic, smart and full of self-confidence -- too full of it, according to his critics. He's also from the South, which has produced the past three Democratic presidents.

Yet Clark has never run for political office or offered his views on domestic concerns such as the economy and unemployment, issues that often dominate presidential elections. People who worked with Clark during the Clinton administration said he alienated colleagues by appearing too controlling and ambitious, though even his critics concede those aren't necessarily bad traits for a presidential candidate.

Clark will begin to lay out his domestic agenda Wednesday, including his support for abortion rights, affirmative action, better health care coverage and tax cuts for the middle class, advisers said. In an interview with CNN yesterday, Clark suggested he will break with Dean and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who want to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, by backing tax cuts for "ordinary people" and reviewing the others.

Clark's associates said he will run as a moderate southern Democrat in the tradition of fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. Clark is surrounding himself with key operatives from the Clinton-Gore White House and campaigns. Among those expected to play key roles are Eli J. Segal, a former Clinton administration official who was chairman of Clinton's 1992 campaign; Donnie Fowler, former vice president Al Gore's 2000 field director; Ron Klain, a strategist for Gore; and Mark Fabiani, a communications specialist for Clinton and Gore. Bruce Lindsey, a close Clinton friend and a lawyer in the Clinton White House. Mickey Kantor, who played a key role in the Clinton-Gore campaign and was Clinton's commerce secretary, will also be helping Clark.

"There's a lot of talent here,' " Clark said. "And [there] will be a lot in the future."

But it's unclear whether Clark can make the transition from military general to political leader. Even before Clark's official announcement, Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), previewed the attacks to come. "It's a strange profile for a Democratic primary: a career military with no domestic policy experience," Jordan said. Moreover, "some Democrats might find it unsettling he just decided in recent weeks to become a Democrat," he said. Clark announced he was a Democrat on Sept. 4.

But Jordan's candidate might have the most to fear from a strong Clark challenge, according to several Democratic strategists. Kerry is running as a war hero candidate, a Democrat who can challenge Bush on foreign policy because he, unlike Bush, served in combat and won several medals for his service.

With his experience in Kosovo and Bosnia and prominent role in the U.S. military, Clark, however, could steal much of Kerry's thunder, strategists said, including Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. "The guy most affected the most will be Kerry," he said.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Clark's military experience is an enormous asset, saying that Kerry and the other candidates greatly lack Clark's ability to challenge Bush's Iraq policy and "take national security off the table." In speeches and on television, Clark has been one of the most outspoken critics of Bush's Iraq policy. The veteran New York Democrat said every one of the dozen House members he's spoken with recently said they would rally around Clark.

Clark also has the potential to eat into Dean's base of support. Dean is leading in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two key early contests, and raising at least twice as much as his nearest competitor in recent months. Much of Dean's support is coming from the Internet, where activists, many of whom are new to politics, are changing the terms of traditional political campaigns. Clark, too, is taking hold in cyberspace, where a "Draft Clark" movement has won pledges of at least $1.5 million.

Fabiani said three top California party fundraisers called him to pitch in. People close to Clark said he will be able to raise several million dollars right away, but it remains to be seen if he can compete with Kerry, Edwards, Dean and Gephardt, all of whom are expected to raise upwards of $20 million this year. Clark also needs to get on the ballot in key states, no easy task with deadlines fast approaching, although officials from the Draft Clark operations across the country are ready to help with that.

"His liability -- that he isn't a politician -- is his greatest asset with this Democratic electorate," said Donna Brazile, who managed Gore's campaign in 2000. "But the proof is getting on the ballot, and he'll need some old gray beards around him" to make that happen."



? 2003 The Washington Post Company
 
Clark looks very impressive based on his resume, but he was opposed to the war in Iraq. This suggest that he has a fundamental difference about what US foreign policy should be compared to the Bush administration which in my view has the best foreign policy team in our nations history. I could not vote for a person that, if they had been president the past 3 years, would have left Saddam in power there by risking and hurting US and International Security. Bush took the action to finally enforce the UNs most serious resolutions against Iraq, and that was the correct course in policy although it was a bit late. Iraq is a major undertaking, and I'm suspicious about someones commitment to the operation now and for the future who was opposed to the whole thing to begin with.

Best foreign policy in US history? Laughable at best. But let's not forget he has close to no domestic policy.

And I love how those opposed to a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq means one would just sit back and do nothing.

How can you be suspicious about those who commit to an operation now but opposed the war? The war has already happened, there's nothing one can do about that, you expect us to sit back and watch this nation suffer out of principle. Just because one didn't support the means by which it happened doen't mean they don't support the goal. In fact it would be quite the opposite. There are many more colors in this world than black and white.
 
Clark was opposed to the way in which Bush handled the Iraq situation. He never said that NOTHING should be done. Just done differently. And I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. He's a 4 star general. Sorry Sting2, but I'm gonna take his word over yours.

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
 
womanfish said:
Clark was opposed to the way in which Bush handled the Iraq situation. He never said that NOTHING should be done. Just done differently. And I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. He's a 4 star general. Sorry Sting2, but I'm gonna take his word over yours.


That's right, there's a difference between agreeing with Bush and thinking that NOTHING should have been done. Generals can and do make mistakes. There are logical critiques about the way Iraq has been handled. I know you don't agree with this but some people think we are in deep :censored: in Iraq. Bush's $87 billion request is controversial. Heck, even the Afghans don't like this proposal.
 
Last edited:
womanfish said:
Clark was opposed to the way in which Bush handled the Iraq situation. He never said that NOTHING should be done. Just done differently. And I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. He's a 4 star general. Sorry Sting2, but I'm gonna take his word over yours.

Then what was Clark's suggested alternatives???

Criticism is one thing. Constructive criticism is another. If Clark had a better plan, wouldn't you want to hear it?
 
i have a friend of mine, a former college basketball teammate, who despises both bill clinton and wesley clark. he's not a republican though... not even an american citizen. born and raised in belgrade.

but seriously though, i really do hope the general who led a non UN-sanctioned attack against a nation tries to declare bush's war in iraq an illegal one. would make for some debate.
 
Sherry Darling,

The problems with the Kosovo campaign were brought up by a large number of former Military Generals, Military Experts, National Security and Foreign Policy Analyst. Its a fact that the Serbian military that entered Kosovo to conduct ethnic cleansing withdrew from Kosovo largely unscathed. Its a fact that NATO did not have ground forces in place in sufficiant numbers to invade Serbia if the Air War had failed in its goals. Its a fact that US pilots were not allowed to fly lower than 15,000 feet, making the targeting of military targets more difficult. Its a fact that prior to the crises, nearly all the humanitarian supplies ready in the region for a refugee crises was stored in Kosovo itself, and out of reach of the Kosovo refugee's when they were forced to flee into Albania. The Attacks done on military targets were slowed and often stopped, by the voting process that took place within NATO for each of the strikes.

To what degree General Clark would be responsible for any of the above I am not entirely sure as I have said before.

The article you posted does not deal with any of the problems I listed about the Kosovo Campaign, the opinion of many in the military at the time had differences with him, or his opposition to the Iraq War.(Correct me if I'm wrong about General Clark's support for the war, the media are saying he is opposed to it) It is a nice summery of his credentials and does give good comparisons to the other democratic candidates.

I just like to say I understand others have different views, but I was just stating why I would vote for particular candidates or not.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i have a friend of mine, a former college basketball teammate, who despises both bill clinton and wesley clark. he's not a republican though... not even an american citizen. born and raised in belgrade.

but seriously though, i really do hope the general who led a non UN-sanctioned attack against a nation tries to declare bush's war in iraq an illegal one. would make for some debate.

Again, General Clark has never said it was illegal. Just that more time and consideration should have been given. Other countries concerns should have been taken more seriously, etc... And that so far the bulk of the destruction of WMD's had come from inpectors being in Iraq, far more than from the first Gulf War.

He was also very skeptical of the fact that the Bush administration kept linking Iraq to Bin Laden and his terrorist networks. Which we all now know is false. He was also privy to information concerning the discussions that the military and the Bush administration had before going into Iraq and he was aware that they were grasping for "reasons" to go in.

But yes, it would still make for an interesting debate. Although, I doubt Bush would last the first round against Clark in a head to head debate.

A great quote I remember from a journalist back when Clinton and Bush debated said that after he was soundly beaten in the debate that he was so angry that he had the look of a rabid possum that was being cornered (or something to that effect).

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
 
womanfish said:
He was also very skeptical of the fact that the Bush administration kept linking Iraq to Bin Laden and his terrorist networks. Which we all now know is false.

There was no connection between Saddam's regime and the 9/11 attacks. There are plenty of connections between Saddam's regime and terrorism.
 
Sting, can you recommend any books about the Kosovo campaign? I just want to read up on the topic. I remember during that war I was an emotional wreck. I felt horrible about all of the ethnic killings, etc, etc, and Slobodan Milosevic made me sick. What a :censored:. I wonder what we did to deserve all of these evil :censored:'s who've plagued the globe recently. BTW Kosovo is how I got into NGO fundraising.
 
BonoVoxSupastar,

"Best foreign policy in US history? Laughable at best. But let's not forget he has close to no domestic policy."

I understand thats your opinion. But Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condelezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, I feel form the best Foreign Policy team this country has ever had. Take time to read into each of their backgrounds before coming to this administration. The results I feel speak for itself. One of this countries most important foreign policy objectives for decades has been the security of Persian Gulf energy supply and this administration with removal of Saddam Hussein has met that goal better than any administration in history. The United States has not removed a dictator with this many human rights abuses since World War II. The 50 million people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the greatest chance for a bright future that they have ever had, do to the actions of the Bush Administration.

"And I love how those opposed to a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq means one would just sit back and do nothing."

1. The Strike was not Unilateral
2. The Strike was approved by multiple UN resolutions
3. The Strike was not pre-emptive but simply the long over due enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. The most serious resolutions the UN can pass.

I never said people would sit back and do nothing, just that the course of action would not have been one that removed Saddam, something I feel was required.

"How can you be suspicious about those who commit to an operation now but opposed the war?"

In terms of choosing who I vote for, I'm more likely to believe that one who chose to remove Saddam and plans to rebuild Iraq fully, than someone who would not have removed Saddam and is critical of the current reconstruction plans for Iraq.
General Clark stated today in an interview that he is concerned about the 60 Billion dollars going to Iraq when the money here could be used for childerns playgrounds. I have nothing against Childerns playgrounds, but I set a higher priority on making sure those childern in 20 years don't have to go into Iraq because it has failed as a State.

"The war has already happened, there's nothing one can do about that, you expect us to sit back and watch this nation suffer out of principle."

Iraq was already suffering massively under Saddam, nearly 1 million Iraqi's died because of his actions and policy's of the past 24 years. The Bush Administration in addition to addressing the important security concerns, has removed the enormous source of suffering for Iraq over the past 24 years. While I respect other's opinions on their policy for Iraq, it is the Bush Administration that has removed the source of most Iraqi suffering from the past and today, and is devoting the resources needed to rebuild the country. Because the Bush administration took "successful" action in this area, I feel they are better prepared and dedicated to rebuilding Iraq than those who would not have created this option for the Iraqi people to begin with. I respect those that wanted to continue the policy of containment. But I think that strategy had failed and the fact is, we would not be able to have a dicussion about rebuilding Iraq if Saddam were still in power.

"Just because one didn't support the means by which it happened doen't mean they don't support the goal. In fact it would be quite the opposite. There are many more colors in this world than black and white."

I understand that, but I also understand that in order to achieve that goal, Saddam had to be removed. The only way to remove Saddam was through a military invasion. Everything that had been tried before that had failed. The Bush administration recognized this and got the Job done, when others had not. Thats something that those planning not to vote for Bush in 04' should recognize.
 
nbcrusader said:


There was no connection between Saddam's regime and the 9/11 attacks. There are plenty of connections between Saddam's regime and terrorism.

terrorism yes, Bin Laden no. But that is what the Bush administration led the American public to believe. In fact two-thirds still believe it even though the CIA has come out and said there is NO concrete evidence linking Saddam with Bin Laden or Al-qaida.

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
 
womanfish said:
terrorism yes, Bin Laden no. But that is what the Bush administration led the American public to believe. In fact two-thirds still believe it even though the CIA has come out and said there is NO concrete evidence linking Saddam with Bin Laden or Al-qaida.

Did the Bush administration lead people to believe there was a connection, or did people want to make a connection between two evil men? Based on your comments, it sounds as if the administration was trying to show no concrete connection.
 
STING2 said:
BonoVoxSupastar,

"Best foreign policy in US history? Laughable at best. But let's not forget he has close to no domestic policy."

I understand thats your opinion. But Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condelezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, I feel form the best Foreign Policy team this country has ever had. Take time to read into each of their backgrounds before coming to this administration. The results I feel speak for itself. One of this countries most important foreign policy objectives for decades has been the security of Persian Gulf energy supply and this administration with removal of Saddam Hussein has met that goal better than any administration in history. The United States has not removed a dictator with this many human rights abuses since World War II. The 50 million people of Iraq and Afghanistan have the greatest chance for a bright future that they have ever had, do to the actions of the Bush Administration.

"And I love how those opposed to a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq means one would just sit back and do nothing."

1. The Strike was not Unilateral
2. The Strike was approved by multiple UN resolutions
3. The Strike was not pre-emptive but simply the long over due enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. The most serious resolutions the UN can pass.

I never said people would sit back and do nothing, just that the course of action would not have been one that removed Saddam, something I feel was required.

"How can you be suspicious about those who commit to an operation now but opposed the war?"

In terms of choosing who I vote for, I'm more likely to believe that one who chose to remove Saddam and plans to rebuild Iraq fully, than someone who would not have removed Saddam and is critical of the current reconstruction plans for Iraq.
General Clark stated today in an interview that he is concerned about the 60 Billion dollars going to Iraq when the money here could be used for childerns playgrounds. I have nothing against Childerns playgrounds, but I set a higher priority on making sure those childern in 20 years don't have to go into Iraq because it has failed as a State.

"The war has already happened, there's nothing one can do about that, you expect us to sit back and watch this nation suffer out of principle."

Iraq was already suffering massively under Saddam, nearly 1 million Iraqi's died because of his actions and policy's of the past 24 years. The Bush Administration in addition to addressing the important security concerns, has removed the enormous source of suffering for Iraq over the past 24 years. While I respect other's opinions on their policy for Iraq, it is the Bush Administration that has removed the source of most Iraqi suffering from the past and today, and is devoting the resources needed to rebuild the country. Because the Bush administration took "successful" action in this area, I feel they are better prepared and dedicated to rebuilding Iraq than those who would not have created this option for the Iraqi people to begin with. I respect those that wanted to continue the policy of containment. But I think that strategy had failed and the fact is, we would not be able to have a dicussion about rebuilding Iraq if Saddam were still in power.

"Just because one didn't support the means by which it happened doen't mean they don't support the goal. In fact it would be quite the opposite. There are many more colors in this world than black and white."

I understand that, but I also understand that in order to achieve that goal, Saddam had to be removed. The only way to remove Saddam was through a military invasion. Everything that had been tried before that had failed. The Bush administration recognized this and got the Job done, when others had not. Thats something that those planning not to vote for Bush in 04' should recognize.


Sting -
I appreciate your stance, and am glad that you at least educate yourself on these issues. And I am very glad that you see and understand the other point of view. I used to hold many of the same views at pre-war time. But I feel completely mislead and disenchanted by what we were told and what has come to pass.

While I learned today that I am being laid off from my job, that my nephew will have 40 kids in his gradeschool classroom this year, that one of my good friends who isn't wealthy by any means wasn't able to get any grants for college, I learned that Bush is sending his 87 billion dollar Iraq package to Congress. It turns my stomach.

What we were told before the war and what we now know:

1. Iraq has ties with Bin Laden and Al-qaida (thus in theory linking him to 9/11).
The CIA has since stated that there is no concrete evidence linking the two. Bush himself has now stated there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. (And he's puzzled where people got that idea :rolleyes: )
2. Iraq has WMD's. -
We don't know this for sure, but nothing has been found yet and the theory that Saddam lied about having them as a "power play" seems more likely every day.
3. We know where the WMD's are.
Now that's one we know for sure is false.
4. Iraq is an imminent threat.
I really don't think anyone truly believed this, even many in the administration.
5. Iraq was purchasing Uranium for nuclear weapons.
False

If the above things were true and we were truly in danger (not just made to feel scared) I would applaud Bush for going in. But these things were not true. Yes millions died under Saddam, and that is a heartbreaking thing. But this wasn't the reason Bush went in (until after the war was over - then it seemed to be the only reason we heard)

But guess what??? Millions more die in Africa from AIDS then died under Saddam's rule. So don't you have to ask yourself - why 157 billion dollars to go to war with a country and risk innocent lives and the hatred of the world, and only 15 billion (maybe) to Africa?? This wasn't a humanitarian effort and those who justify it as such are Bush apologists.

We didn't go in with enough information, we didn't go in with a plan, we didn't go in with hardly any REAL, SUPPORTIVE allies. And now we are paying for it with A LOT of money that:

should be going to schools, bankrupted states, electrical grids, crumbling infrastructure, police/fire/medical supplies and training, boarder security, ect...

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
 
Last edited:
Of course Saddam used terrorists, if not specifically Al-Qaeda. He tolerated Wahhabist Moslems in Iraq but told them not to get political. Well the dictator was removed, and presto, the Wahhabists got political, and started a campaign against the Shia Moslems, who were marginalized under Saddam. The Wahhabists are Sunnis. The hell of the situation is that Iraq has been either under a dictatorship (the Ottoman Empire, the monarchy, various "presidents", uh, dictators) or in a state of chaos for centuries. Now no one's "in charge" and while the Shia are greater numerically in Iraq, the Sunnis are used to running the show. The mosque bombing was a monstrosity that makes me a bit skeptical as to whether or not the Wahhabists are going to let the Shia live in peace. These people could inflict more bloodshed and wreak more havoc yet. What can *anyone* do to clean up this mess of Wahhabists vs. Shias?
 
I cannot describe how shocked and surprised I am to come into this thread and find it's turned to an Iraq debate....

Question: How popular is Bill Clinton in the US these days? Just the fact that Clark has announced he's running made it onto the front page of our newspaper here, and the article is very very positive, like he is the second coming or something. What the article and other news reports in the last 24hrs here about Clark are heavy on is how Clinton is supporting him, how alot of the people behind him are from the old Clinton team, and how he, policy wise, is virtually Clinton II. If voting for a US President was done only by everyone in the world except for US citizens, anyone described as 'Clinton II' would win in an absolute landslide. Bush would be voted out of the White House so fast he wouldn't have time to grab a change of underwear. So does Billy still have that kind of pull in the US?
 
Tyler, that's because we're debating Gen. Clark's position on Iraq and related stuff like Bush's request for $87 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's tough to keep Iraq out of any discussion of American politics!! How popular is Clinton? I'd answer that question "I don't think he's popular, he's controversial". That's partially due to his character as well as his policies. Even supporters (like yours truly) admit that character-wise he left a hell of alot to be desired. The press is going to play up the fact that Clinton and Clark are both from Arkansas, but their backgrounds, characters, and most importantly their careers are very different.
 
Back
Top Bottom