I have been reading the thread with interest and lucky for me that I was since on Saturday I was called by the CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll and spent a half hour answering all the questions offered by the interviewer. Since the conservatives on the thread have had the more compelling arguments I gave all conservative responses. Today's release shows the race deadlocked at 49/49, I am sure Kerry would be leading if it wasn't for my answers.
One open item here is the bi-lateral vs: multi-lateral issue in the debate. Kerry was definitively precise in calling for a "global" solution and multi-lateral cooperation on Iraq but when Bush answered a question on North Korea responding that there was a multi-lateral strategy with China, Russia, Japan and South Korea Kerry rebutted with his solution of bi-lateral discussions between the U.S. and North Korea, a strategy that Clinton employed which allowed the North Koreans to walk out on the process and disregard their commitments. I was very surprised by Kerry's position but even more surprised that Bush didn't jump right on this but he was having a bad night. Also, no politcal analyst/pundit on the post debate shows caught this contradiction either. It didn't get discussed for a couple of days.

Arlow,

I find it interesting that you can't even SPELL eloquent, or ridiculous! I said nothing to you that was disrespectful nor insulting, yet you feel the need to do so and resort to name calling. Very well, so be it. You can expect it back!

If a high ranking terrorist... you are assuming that he was known as such at the time.

Look, I am not defending Hussein, who was clearly an evil man, and good riddance to him. But the end does not justify the means. I am merely submitting that there was no imminent threat and Bush acted prematurely by resorting to military action and that he did so for political and self serving reasons, not to protect the U.S. as he would have us believe, and as so many of you still believe.

Where was the evidence that Hussein and Iraq were harboring/manufacturing terrorists? There was only innuendo and propaganda, later proven false, that Hussein had some connection with 9-11 and Al-Queda, spoken by El Presidente at his SOTU address and in various press conferences. More disinformation to pollute and sway public opinion. If I recall correctly, it was said that Hussein would not knowingly allow terrorists in Iraq, because he considered them just as big a threat to him and his regime, plus he did not want the international heat that harboring them would bring. He had enough problems of his own!

If a country is known to be a sponsor and supporter of terrorism, such as Afghanistan was, then I support appropriate action. But that info better be concrete and accurate, not like the BS Bush and co. put forth to the UN. I also disagree that that info was not tainted and manipulated, not to mention grossly misrepresented. Did you read today's papers?

And again, what about Saudi Arabia? I strongly disagree with what Baitrunner submitted, notwithstanding his enlightening history lesson. It was not so long ago that I saw a news report with video footage of a high ranking Saudi official clearly denouncing the U.S. and calling all muslims to act against "the great satan" or some such rhetoric. And the Saudi link to terrorism is well known, well documented, and factual.

The fact that Iraq is not ready for democracy is self evident. They are so divided along religious lines that no sub group will ever accept a majority rule and I predict civil and religious war and unprecedented instability there for decades to come. NO, I am not an expert on foreign matters, ARE YOU?!

The real question here is, is George W. Bush competent to handle our country's foreign affairs. The answer to that is again self evident, and a resounding NO!

Are you suggesting we went to war in 2003 because Hussein gassed 300k Kurds years ago? Little late, don't ya think? Again, it was politcial opportunism at its worst that led us to war with Iraq, not national security, and it was unnecessary, premature, and unjust, and undertaken for the self interests of Mr. Bush and his cronies.

Even if and when WMD's are dug up, that does not change the fact that Hussein had not the means nor the plans to attack the U.S. He may have had the means to attack Israel, or another of his neighbors, but we again lacked credible evidence that he had a plan or the intention to do so. And I remain skeptical that we did not at some point aid Hussein in obtaining WMD's or at the very least turn a blind eye to him doing so, until it became advantageous to object.

We never attacked the USSR, and they had nukes. We did not attack Germany or Japan until WE were directly attacked, and they were at war with our allies. (And Baitrunner, the Germans and Japanese started that war; we did not go over there to facilitate a regime change. That was a by-product of WWII, not the purpose.)

Why Iraq, and why at this time?

Scapegoating, political opportunism, and profiteering!

I am all for aggressive military action in Iraq at this point, whatever it takes, to bring about an end to that conflict. I am not suggesting tucking our tail between our legs and running. We are there now, right or wrong, and we must end it quickly and victoriously, and try to stabilize that nation. That in no way precludes me from speaking out and condemning the man who put us there in the first place, and seeking to end his folly of a presidency.

And as far as treasonous, it is far more treasonous for YOU to suggest that exercising ones freedom of speech is EVER treasonous! The U.S. Constitution guarantees my right and everyone elses right to free speech and to criticize and disagree with the government. It is NOT limited to domestic affairs or preempted during time of war.

What really scares me about guys like you is, if you were a German citizen in 1939 you would have blindly supported Hitler, and anyone who questioned or opposed him would have been arrested and sent to a concentration camp, while you and others of your ilk applauded. You would no doubt have been a goose stepping, heil hitler shouting nazi criminal, in the name of patriotism and devotion to the fatherland!

That is precisely why the Constitution was written the way it was; to protect THE PEOPLE from THEIR GOVERNMENT! Again, you neo-cons REALLY JUST DON'T GET IT!! YOU are the real traitor, you would unravel the very fabric of our freedom and democracy!

(BTW, I also support the second amendmant and equally value my right to bear arms. But I don't need military level firearms, and am willing to undergo any necessary waiting periods to facilitate a background check. What are you gonna want next, claymores, C4, mortars.... the government certainly has the right to regulate this accordingly in the interest of balancing public safety with ones constitutional right to bear arms.)

If I see my government doing the wrong thing then it is my DUTY to speak out in protest, I don't give a good F**K what you or the terrorists think about it!

Henry L, if that is what you consider "extreme liberalism", tough s**t! Suck it up!! It is Constitutionally protected, and necessary for our democracy to function and endure. But I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand that!

I refuse to stand by silently and watch some power hungry, profiteering, self serving demagouge lead my country down the wrong path, risk the lives of our military, and throw away billions of dollars, not to mention diminishing our stature in the global community.

My loyalty is to my COUNTRY, NOT to it's government! Don't ever confuse the two! We, the PEOPLE, are the United States, NOT George W. Bush and those in elected office. THEY work for US! WE are runnin' this s**t, NOT THEM! And I have an EQUAL SAY in how we do so!

DON'T EVER CALL ME A TRAITOR AGAIN!

Beancounters should never run wars. I thought the U.S. learned learn it's lesson the first time with the former wiz kid McNamara, but no we repeat the same mistake all over again with the dethawing Rumsfeld from his cold war cryogenic time capsule to botch another war this time in Iraq. Wars can not be Won on the cheap.
Tough words like Resolve and Steadfast are not going to win the war either,and answers like tough work and workin hard don't provide sufficent information to a voter who is looking for answers about a plan in Iraq.
The bottomline is we either go full force or pull out, and Bush has been playing politics with this war from the start. What is the objective over there? Doesn't reconstruction usually start after the complete dececimation of the enemy and the war has been won. You can't rebuild a country when it was composed of 3 tribes that where held together artficialy by a dictator. The Bush administration failed to learned about the enemy just like Jfk/LBJ, they are also refusing to acknowledge the reality of how bad it is over there (55 dead everyday) is common now. Bush needs to be more specific in the next 30 days, and not speak in simple general themes. What is the goal and how do you plan on achieving it period.
Workin hard is fine on the ranch but it doesn't cut it at the White House.

well, this is pretty lively so better put in my two cents....being an independent for Kerry...

I firmly believe if Bush Jr had his way, there wouldn't be wilderness left to hunt on or fish in...the land would oil derricks and clearcut and mining wastelands and if you said a word that it was bad, you'd be out a job and in a small dark hole somewhere. He talks and it's plenty of the right words of rhetoric but what he does is another thing. I believe he's interested in himself and his rich buddies, not the rest of us. Acts just like one of those whitebread frat boys I use to have to run into (and worse, wait on at the local tap) at university, smiling pleasantly to your face (maybe) but in reality treating anyone not in the club like dirt.

Now I also believe political offices are a big club and the members are all a little rotton or they couldn't get there, but this is the best system that's ever been invented by the human beings and we all need to go out and vote our consciences. I'll be voting for Kerry.

Well, am off to go water the shiners down at Mike and Brian's baitshop- Bantam Bait & Tackle. I'm to be managing the place- the wacky old chick who you may have seen in there Saturdays.

(jeez hope i have a job come Saturday... ;o)!!)

I don't know about Goering but Henry likes to read biographies of other Nazi generals like Rommel. He finds it enlightening.

If only we could use the same tactics in Iraq that the Nazis used in Europe and North Africa during WWII, there would be no 'terrorists' by now. Just machine gun them all, women, children, old people. They are the ENEMY.

As to the internal enemies/liberals - Buchenwald