Centerfield

Some of you probably don't know what Move On is, the organization Rick just singled out for supposedly elevating the national discourse. This organization had a short movie contest, their judges elevating to the finals one in particular which repeatedly compared Bush to Hitler. That pretty much sums up the perspective of Move On. They have received tens of millions of dollars from George Soros, a billionaire who -- compares Bush to Hitler. They spend more money on negative advertising demonizing Bush, than Kerry has for funding his entire presidential campaign. Their most recent defeatist advertisement, shows a US soldier surrendering with his arms over his head, while sinking into quicksand, as the word quagmire is repeated.

Rick, you feel Bush should resign for mistakes. Could you please be more specific? Which war has ever gone to plan?

John Kerry should also move on to ex-government employee. Resign his senate seat while running for president as most senators who are running for president have done.

Bush should move on to a 2nd term.

George W. Bush should be forced to take responsibility for his mistakes with regards to the Iraq War, and move on to the status of ex-President.

This argument resonates with me to a degree, but it also means that we should accept Kerry by default because he is ABB. I don't think that I have set an unfair bar for Kerry to clear to get my vote, but so far he has not come too close.

Yup, bad argument. If we could "move on" from GWB and hold open interviews to fill his position, then you might be on to something. But since it's just not the case that the electorate can simply "fire" Bush and replace him with a person of their choosing that is the best available replacement, the suggestion is just a silly mischaracterization of the situation.

If you are committed to choosing either Bush or Kerry, then the paradigm is picking whichever is less crappy in your view. As such, I agree entirely with Todd that this is just another way of stating ABB.

Of course, I wish more people would get on board the ABBOK train.

Susan,

I think MoveOn was right about the Clinton impeachment. I don't endorse the organizationa as a whole. I was using the name as a rhetorical metaphor.

I originally supported the Iraq War. Colin Powell's presentation before the UN was convincing to me. In hindsight, however, I see it as a big mistake. Not illegal or immoral, but a blunder.

The stated justification for the war (as presented by Powell) was the existence of WMD's. There was evidence to suggest they existed, but in fact they do not. Big mistake. Instead of admitting to error, Bush then shifted the mission (i.e. mission creep) to creating democracy. It's not even clear why that is in the US interest. It's not likely that a pro-American politician would win an election in Iraq.

If Bush were managing a private company, he'd have been fired long ago. I understand the dynamics of a political race make it trickier to punish failure. Kerry needs to pass the bar of credibility as a commander-in-chief. He does for me, though barely.

The thing is Rick is that when somebody moves on they are usually replaced with someone that can do the job better, and the American people aren't convinced John Kerry is it, and righfully so. Are you really sure that Bush's mistakes are his faults or would we be in the same situation with anyone else after the invasion of Iraq? Are we now saying that the entire invasion was wrong even with the evidence that we had at the time? Does anybody really think Colin Powell intentionally misled anyone?

Good point John! John Kerry has been in his job for one week this entire year. It is clear that his ambitions are more important to him than his job. Bob Dole had the integrity to resign, Kerry should to.

One more thing. I think Democratic operatives should MoveOn from this national guard story. Even though true in it's general outline, it's now irretrievably tainted by this forgery. But even if that wasn't the case, it doesn't have much salience, because Bush has purportedly changed since he found religion. That pretty much immunizes him from his youthful sins.

Kerry's problem, and this is something I mentioned some time ago, is that he has not made "personal growth" a part of his biographical narrative. Therefore, it is assumed that the anti-war activist he was in the 1970's is still the man he is today, which raises questions about his fitness for the Presidency.

In fact, I do think Kerry has changed, since 9/11 at least, but he seems tempermentally unable to admit that some of his past positions, like opposition to the 1991 Gulf War, were mistakes.

C'mon, if you are going to start criticizing politicians for being ambitious, then you will have no one running. Kerry presumably kept his seat so that the Republican governor couldn't take away a Democratic seat in the Senate. In a perfect world, should he have resigned? Sure, but in a perfect world, the governor would have appointed a Democrat. You know that was not going to happen.

I disagree with Rick to the extent I think the war was immoral to this extent. I think going to war under false pretenses is immoral. Bush (or the Administration) lied about the reason for the war. It was never WMD or any connection between Saddam and Al Quaida. It was, to be generous, about reconfiguring the Middle East. That might or might not have been a legitimate reason but it wasn't the primary reason Bush gave. The fact is that if Bush had been straight with the American people, there would have been little support for the war and we wouldn't be there.

I think sending soldiers off to get killed for no good reason is immoral. I realize a lot of people will disagree with the statement about no good reason but I don't think getting rid of Saddam by itself was a good enough reason to lose over 1000 soldiers.

Dan Rather should resign. But I wish people would stop seeing some grand conspiracy in the media to get Bush. I don't think it exists any more than the "vast right-wing conspiracy" existed to get Clinton.

Good points, Marc. I for one would sure have felt a lot better if the troops, treasure, and money that we've put into Iraq had been applied to, oh, I don't know, finding bin Laden and neutralizing Al Qaida. But that's just me....

MWS,

I would have agreed with your statements about Kerry resigning six months ago, but the guy has in comparison to others, gone above and beyond the average ambitous politician. If you are going to talk about integrity and leadership than politics shouldn't matter, which I agree is a fault of both candidates and a scenario that would only exist in a perfect world.

Rick,

I think that is an excellent observation about Kerry and Bush's youth. I would only argue that Kerry's war protesting wasn't neccesarily wrong or the actions of a misguided youth. It is the fact that he seems to want to ignore that it ever happened while telling us out of the other side of his mouth what a war hero he was. In my opinion he should not be on the defense about a protesting a war that so many rightfully believe should not have happened. It isn't Kerry's beliefs that bother me, it is the fact that he doesn't seem to be man enough to fight for them.

Amy,

Question:

If Al Qaeda where not fighting American troops in the Middle East, in a country that we rightfully removed an evil dictator, than where do you think we would be fighting them?

From the very beginning, the Bush Administration gave four reasons to go to war: spread of democracy, support for terror, present and future WMDs. And there was a shadow fifth that they didn't want to talk about to try and set a precedent - foolish, IMHO, it bit them in the foot - that Iraq felt itself to be at war with us and that, in fact, there was a shooting war WRT no-fly zones.

From the very beginning, the Bush Administration gave four reasons to go to war: spread of democracy, support for terror, present and future WMDs. And there was a shadow fifth that they didn't want to talk about to try and set a precedent - foolish, IMHO, it bit them in the foot - that Iraq felt itself to be at war with us and that, in fact, there was a shooting war WRT no-fly zones.

Many people (maybe you?) found the present WMD reason most compelling, and felt betrayed when it didn't prove out (I wonder if the present-WMD evidence came from tortured prisoners...). I found the combination of future WMDs in the hand of terrorists, given to them by a man who felt himself to be at war with us, to be most compelling, and so my support has always stayed strong.

But the Bush Administration gave out all four reasons repeatedly, at all points when trying to convince the people of the US and the world. And only the present-WMD reason has gone bad, of those four reasons. Iraq is now the only Muslim state in which people have hope.

We need democracy in Iraq to make the world safe for globalization. The Middle East is the one place in the world where people are no better off than their grandparents. That's because it's also the one region where globalization hasn't been let in - the rulers of the place like to be secure on their tinpot thrones, so they are unwilling to commit to the kind of liberalization that would improve their peoples' lives. A report on globalization that came out shortly after 9/11 observed that the Middle East is the one place where globalization isn't working. The report said that that was because Israel was the only spot people could visit easily and see that it's better (a similar dynamic can be seen in Tom Friedman's writing on globalization).

To stay on their thrones, Arab rulers pretty much universally blame the US and Israel for their peoples' woes, supporting media and even terrorist groups that follow the party line, like al-Jazeera and bin Laden. This pattern must be broken to progress on Middle-Eastern, anti-American terrorism.

And so far, on the large, it's moving according to plan. Iraq is a place where people hope. And people all over the Middle East hope about it. And we've given a timeline for freedom. So far it looks good. Most of Iraq is getting better, except for the trouble spots that sell so many newspapers.

I'm sorry Mathew, it's still early in the Pacific Northwest (gotta get that latte into me), so it may just be me, but I'm not sure I'm understaning your question. Iraq and Al Qaida are not one and the same. Do I think Hussein was evil? Uh, yeah. Do I think that we should have gone in and removed him? No. If we're talking about removing him because he's an evil dictator who is guilty of slaughtering his people and of aggression against his neighbors, then *that* is a UN issue and the UN should have moved against him. But Hussein did not pose an immediate *imminent* threat to our safety, like we were told by our President. There were not nukes. Sanctions were working. Iraq and Al Qaida were two separate issues that the administration tried to link as one. Personally, I think the Iraq issue and the Al Qaida issue required different solutions. Now, of course, they really *are* intertwined, so we have to stay there until we get Iraq stabilized (assuming that's even possible in the way that we envision).

What I'm saying is, first and foremost we should have been pouring everything into Afghanistan and finding those bastards hiding out in those caves. We should have been pulling out all the stops to get Afghanistan stabilized and safe. Our work there has made a difference, to be sure, but imagine how much *more* we could have done had we put everything that we put into Iraq into Afghanistan, and *specifically* into finding the evil individuals who actually *did* strike against us and who will probably do so again. I think we bit off more than we can chew, and I'm not sure we needed the dessert that is Iraq.

Amy,

Latte in the northwest *sigh*. Have one for me.

I guess my point was do you think there is validity to the argument that because we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, we are not fighting them in the United States? I am really not arguing there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, nor do I think that we will ever prove there was. However, Saddam's relationship with terrorist organizations throughout his tenure is very well documented, whether or not that led to September 11th I agree is a theory at best.

I totally disagree that the Bush administration argued that Saddam was an imminent threat, I believe their statements where more along the lines of taking him out before he became an imminent threat, and I agree the evidence they used was obviously flawed, although in my opinion, that does not neccesarily mean that the war was completely unjustified. This was an evil man whose actions where not easily predicted.

I strongly agree with the policy that we should do something about unstable leadership before it becomes a direct threat to the lives of Americans, and I believe that our actions in Iraq have led to positive results not only in that country but in others such as Libya. Saddam's presence, while not an imminent threat, was dangerous for the entire world and we are better off with him gone, which John Kerry used to agree with. Is Iraq better off, that is a debate that I think Prime Minister Allawi will lend his opinion to this week, but whether or not Saddam's removal was a good thing, to me, is not even a valid question.

Many people (maybe you?) found the present WMD reason most compelling, and felt betrayed when it didn't prove out

Yes, Jon, you're right. I did find that the most compelling, and I *did* feel betrayed when it didn't prove out. The president scared the crap out of this nation by saying that we couldn't wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. You bet I feel betrayed. I want my infant niece to grow up in a world that's safe from nuclear terrorism, and it scares the daylights out of me that her little sweet life could be cut short because someone could use a nuke right here in Seattle. I don't appreciate that fear being exploited in order to justify a war that the nation was not prepared to fight. Or rather, I don't appreciate that fear being exploited when we hadn't fully figured out how we'd win the peace. In my opinion, the world is now *less* safe for my niece, and that *really* doesn't sit well with me.

I agree that democracy needs to spread throughout the middle east. I know that that is the way the war on terror will be won. But for heaven's sake, it can't be done in four years, or eight, or probably even 20, and it certainly can't be done without the help of the powerhouse nations on the planet. But Bush has been rash and he has seriously underestimated what kind of a challenge this would be. He's started with Afghanistan, moved on to Iraq, and now there's all kinds of noise about Iran (now that we're stuck in Iraq, do we have the resources to defend ourselves against Iran?), and he hasn't finished one before starting the other. Good lord, he's acting like he can democratize the middle east in whatever length of time his presidency lasts, and he's sugar coating everything! I agree with his democracy notion. But his approach has been reckless and rash, and I feel like we're careening on a downhill slope without any guard rails. So yeah, I'm a little bitter.

Oh, and what Jon said.

RE: Democracy spreading through the region, and the tangential but germane question of European support for Middle East democracy.

Rejecting Turkey, And the Future

Many European governments don't want democracy in the Middle East. Democracy is messy. Dictators are easier to deal with. More profitable and predictable. Non-threatening (to Europe, that is). Admittedly Turkey is a bit of an odd bird, not quite in the Middle East but still part of it, not quite in Europe but still part of it, but it's most certainly a Muslim country and a functioning democracy that is making tremendous progress. And the Old Guard Europe isn't too wild about Turkey's success.

While it's normal (and crucial) to review the past in an election year, the big buzz seems to be dedicted to re-hashing it and arguing over it and developing tactics for fighting battles now past. The question we should focus on is, given the current situation, what do we do now? What are the right courses of action? What will do the most to promote the safety and security of the United States and its people? And of the two candidates, which is the better choice for pursuing those courses of action?

You're right, Tully. Thanks for the reality check.

I understand Rick's position as far as making people accountable and replacing them when they don't meet expectations, but unfortunately I think we have a limited pool of candidates to choose from and just as important as accountability is competence.

I personally would enjoy seeing Dan Rather be replaced with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, but I doubt it would be a good choice for CBS News in the long run. Fortunately for CBS but unfortunately for us, there are more qualified news anchors than presidential candidates.

John Kerry just doesn't have the competence level needed to be president. In his senate career he was wrong on practically every national security issue, his stance on Iraq changes day by day, and his choice in advisors have been questionable and led to a terribly run campaign. It's not just one bad day behind the microphone that has been replayed by the GOP over and over again, but a continually changing stump speech.

I wish the Dems put a up a good candidate because I'd vote Democrat all else being equal, but instead they gave us a choice between a mediocre president and a dog.

I personally would enjoy seeing Dan Rather replaced with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog...

I vote for Zippy Pinhead, or Torg from Sluggy Freelance! I know they're cartoons, but could they do worse?

Susan,

You've made the grade! Now you're sounding EXACTLY like Ann Coulter!

Do you get an free toaster oven or something?

Democracy in the Middle East. I'm with Fareed Zacharia on this one: democracy will not be viable in a country that has not built up a set of institutions and traditions that will support it.

Focus on building those, first.

Erasmus, your last point is illustrated in a story that I heard about and read about today. I read this article in the Christian Science Monitor about a woman in Saudi Arabia running for elected office.

The attempt at democracy is there, but unfortunately, the inclusive democratic structure is lacking. It's not certain if women will be allowed to vote in the election, and it's not certain how this woman will be able to get her massage out there; women aren't allowed to mix with men, so there is no method in place that allows for her to participate in debates or committees.

Susan:

MoveOn DID NOT elevate the Bush/Hitler ads. In fact they pulled them and they were never considered in the final judging. To their credit, the ads did very poorly by those who did view them as well. Also..this going on and on about Soros is ridiculous.

And we're supposed to be upset that people have run negative ads against Bush? Give me a break, please. The Swift Boaters had TONS of free publicity on the cable talk shows...bashing Kerry and outright lying. And you're whining because MoveOn actually paid for it's advertising? Good grief!

And all this Dan Rather bashing. Where's the bashing of Brit Hume and Wolf Blitzer and Bill O'Reilly and Judy Woodruff and Judith Miller...who've all aired story after story of lies about Iraq and the Swift Boaters? Dan Rather actually took responsibility. Where's the mea culpa from the rest of them?

The Bush Administration did not give four reasons for going into Iraq from the very beginning. They gave two: WMD and Iraq being an immediate threat to the US. Neither were correct. The "bringing Democracy to Iraq" came much later as did trying to connect Al Qaida to Hussein. The only one that still seems to be in their talking points is Democracy for Iraq. That's a score of 1-4.