Hmmm. I’m sorta pondering if Senator Kerry consumed a plastic turkey on Christmas Day, 1968…

Or did he just get the Wishbone stuck in his throat?

No problem. A BandAid will fix it.
Prolly a BlooperTurkey.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 15, 2004 06:02 PM

How about discussing the topic instead at sniping at an unrelated issue?

I think that he’s got a point about the lack of responsibility that this administration is showing for the less than possitive results of the past four year’s policies.

Also in Iraq, with security at an all time low how about a degree of responsibility for what is turning out to be a disaster. $3B dollars diverted from reconstruction to short-term security isn’t a sign of success for what was to be a short and ‘clean’ war.

Its quite likely now that elections WON‘T be held in January.

Posted by: symptomless at September 15, 2004 06:31 PM

Kerry is presiding over a “Hindenburgh Candidacy”.

Posted by: TL at September 15, 2004 06:52 PM

I went back and looked at some of my archives on several issues related to the President’s taken responsibility. The comments seem to show that while they are not naturally claiming victory, they are acknowledging that the results are less than desired. To the administration’s credit, they do point to progress on several fronts in the war on terrorism while at the same time admitting that there were mistakes in the attempts to turn Iraq into a democratic nation based upon constitutional laws and not ancient, religious-based tribal customs and warfare.

Even with this, the trend in the polls has been more positive lately. Apparently, the Democrats would love for a humbled President Bush to come forth and say he has failed and nothing that he and his administration has tried has worked. Not going to happen… to paraphrase a former President Bush. Nor do I expect to have Sen. Kerry come forth to admit in some form or fashion that he has not waffled on any major issue because in his mind and in the minds of his supporters, he has not done so… at least to the extent that the opposition has been able to portray him to be.

I would llike someone to take the time to go back and match up the words and statement of President’s administration during the dark days of 1942 -1943 with the current challenges and rethoric of today’s campaign in Iraq. And BTW, the Iraq action is exactly that… a campaign within a larger context of the global war on terrorism…. just as the decision to open up another front against the Nazis in Sicily instead of attacking France or Greece was a campaign within the larger strategy and prosecution of WWII. Iraq is but part of the bigger picture. Some agree with the President and some vehemently disagree with the decision to attack Iraq. The voters decide on Nov 2. Period.

Posted by: steve at September 15, 2004 07:31 PM

Well as far as Iraq is concerned it is, in the President’s words, [paraphrased] ‘the frontline in the war on terror’. It wasn’t before the war but it certainly is now as foreign terrorists come in and locals take up arms against the US forces. Its a self created problem.

P.S. the voters don’t decide if the invasion of Iraq was correct or not they decide who’s rhetoric they prefer.

Posted by: symptomless at September 15, 2004 08:15 PM

Bush is full of excuses? Was Kerry snowboarding while he said this?

If Lenin could see how poorly Kerry is using the Bolsheviks “attribute your failings on your opponent” trick, he would wet his pants.

Posted by: jones at September 15, 2004 09:32 PM

Hey sympleton, save it. Your candidate is an evasive bore who keeps complaining about Bush not facing up to the issues while he himself refuses to meaningfully address any of the issues and just constantly bashes Bush and has his surrogates do the same.

He, like you, has nothing meaningful to offer, so nobody takes him seriously. Congratulations on finding Dukakis II.

Posted by: TL at September 15, 2004 10:12 PM

Yeah Symptomless. Tell who is your candidate? Who are you voting for in this election? Would that be absentee voting?

Posted by: TexasGal at September 15, 2004 10:20 PM

Wait I though W stood for “wrong” but now it stands for “excuse”?

If I were JFKerry I would blame it on the speechwriters if this one doesn’t catch fire.

Posted by: ter0 at September 16, 2004 12:10 AM

Thanks, Symptonless for making my case about the parallels between President Roosevelt’s decision to open up a new “frontline” in the war on Facism in Sciliy and Italy and its modern day equivalent —- the current campaign in Iraq. Fighting in Scilily and later in southern Italy was characterized by German froces flowing into Italy and local Italians taking up arms to face the British and Americans invaders initially. Most of the Italians were decidedly against resisting the Allies but as long as Il Duce (Italy’s Saddam) held power they country resisted. After his overthrow, the country surrendered but the “foreign forces” of Germany along with die hard Italian Facists continued to fight… much like Al Qaeda and the Baathists are now in Iraq.

The resources flowing into the Italian campaign stretched the Axis forces very thin prevented the Axis forces from moving to Russia and fighting them on the Russian’s home turf. At the time, the President’s decision to move into North Africa (sort of like our initial move into Afghanistan) and Italy (similar to our pursuit of the enem into Iraq) were highly criticalized during the election in 1944 as not necessary, a diversion, a waste of manpower and resources and avoiding a confrontation with the main threat in France and Western Europe… only back then it was the Republicans voicing their displeasure at a Democratic incumbent president instead of today’s Democrats attacking a Republican incumbent. In the end, the country stayed with the war time President, Italy regained it’s freedom and Germany and the Nazis lost the war within 18 months. Had the Republicans won in 1944, things probably would have been very different. Things would have bogged down in Italy, the thrust across France would have stalled while a new administration assumed control. Hitler and Germany would have had time to develop their own arsenal of WMD’s (jet bombers that could deliver possibly an atomic bomb to America) and the Russians would have been facing increasing numbers of Axis troops in the interim.

Hence, the vote in November 1944 settled the debate as far as the outcome and history are concerned.

Thanks for the further highlighting the example I attempted to show. The war time president’s rehtoric was endorsed by the voters and the rest is history.

Posted by: steve at September 16, 2004 12:22 AM

Steve -

Another excellent post!

Posted by: Jim at September 16, 2004 12:37 AM

Nice post steve. What part of Roosevelt’s strategy involved invading another country that was not aligned with the Axis powers? I dont remember Roosevelt invading and occupying, say, Mongolia while leaving a skeleton force in Italy.

Perhaps you can address the topic of the post that going to war under what ends up as a false justification is somehow completely not the responsibility of the white house.

Posted by: dave at September 16, 2004 04:57 AM

First Dave I reject that Afghanistan has a skeleton force.

Anyway, you really show an ignorance of history. Japan attacked us, but the troops in the Pacific were short sheeted and expected to hold the line while we defeated Germany. They just overachieved.

The Marines in Guadacanal were dropped off and their baggage was tossed to them as the carriers took off. They may have starved had Tojo kindly not donated all of his supplies.

In Burma, allied forces were fighting with tanks that would have embarrased Joe Hooker because they were at the hind teat, supply-wise. They were fighting the Japanese.

Also, Mongolia was our ally in WW II. Don’t you have a library near your house?

Posted by: jones at September 16, 2004 06:40 AM

I’m not sure if John “Nuance” Kerry wants to bring up excuses. Kerry certanly has much more then Bush to explain and excuse then Bush. Moreover, all the stuff Kerry quotes is incorrect. Jobs are up, unemployment is better then Clintons, and the one who isn’t being responsible and owning up to their record is Kerry. Mr. Vietnam can’t seem to follow up on his promise to release all the records, and now the Navy is investigating his one claim to fame.
This new tactic of his will last as long as the “W = Wrong” rant.

Posted by: Brian at September 16, 2004 10:36 AM

Dave,

American forces invaded the French colony of Algeria in Operation Torch in 1942. France was officially non-aligned but had possesion of a formidable fleet anchored there. The also had two to three fighter squadrons and at least one squadron of medium bombers. The French fighter at the time was considered one of the best aircraft in the early stages of WWII. While Vichy France was officially non-aligned with Germany, the Nazis were pulling the strings from German-occupied Paris. Still the French army and naval units based in Algeria represented the second most powerful fleet in the Med next to the Royal Navy.

The parallels to modern day Iraq are also significant. The size and capability of the French fleet at Oran was comparable to WMDs in Iraq. The Allies knew that if they did not take out the French warships, they would eventually be flying the German Navy flag and crooked cross instead of the tri-color. German agents moved freely into and out of Algiers to spy and terrorize other allied interest overseas. Again, drawing the parallel to Baghdad as a depot for terrorists and spies is very intriguing.

I will not discuss Burma or Siam as other possible examples of invading “non aligned” countries in the process of attacking the Axis powers.

And, BTW, nice job on identifying Mongolia for me. As a matter of fact, the United States Navy maintained a combat outpost in Mongolia from 1943 to the end of the war. They were supported by friendly Mongolian tribesmen and were on the move constantly to avoid Japanese patrols sent out to find and destroy them. This group provided invaluable weather forecasts to the Allies in the Pacific in support of the naval and air force attacks on Japan and the Asian mainland. (Most of the weather patterns in that part of the world originate in the Mongolian desert plateau and flow generally NW to SE… right into the Japanes home islands.)

Also, when the President approved the invasion of southern France, it was officially non-aligned as the new Free French government was yet to be fully in control after having recently liberated Paris in the fall of 1944. And the troops and resources for this invasion —- guess where they came from? Yep, you nailed it… ITALY! though I doubt that Gen. Mack Clark’s forces in Italy would be considered a skeletal force. Still more aggressive advances up the spine of Italy to engage the Wermacht and Italian facists still fightin in Northern Italy were curtailed to force an new front upon the Axis powers.

I hope this helps you see the parallels a little more clearer.

Thanks for reminding me.

Posted by: steve at September 17, 2004 12:31 AM

Whooosh!

Guys, look up ‘analogy’ in your local library.

Posted by: symptomless at September 17, 2004 07:40 AM

Iraq clearly was a “depot” for international terrorists,I don’t understand truthfully how Bush has SO failed in making this clear.

The city of Halabja was nothing BUT a terror compound and it cost over 200 Kurd soldier’s lives retaking it,too. This with our air cover and special forces soldiers helping.

They had artillery,so it was a well prepared and defended enclave. Zarqawi was taken in and his life may have been saved by Saddam after he made it clear from Afghanistan barely with 1 leg missing.

If anyone can figure out Zarqawi & Ansar are NOT international Islamic terrorists after his suicide bombings all around Baghdad and attacks in Madrid,please explain it to little ignorant me.

Iraq was the most aggressive enemy we had with the exception of Afghanistan. Both Islamic societies. What was the USA supposed to do,allow Saddam to continue assisting international terrorists while our sanction regime was going down the tubes and watch Iraq recover from the disaster we had applied in 1991? Basically,the people claiming this war was immoral or wrong are saying we should have declared a loss and left the region,because eventually we were going to have to under the old set up.

Posted by: FireballXL5 at September 17, 2004 05:19 PM

The recent report of the Iraqi Survey Group is clear,while we did not find STOCKPILES of WMDwe found powerful evidence that Saddam was incubating everything for the day when the world forgot him and in all honesty,had 9-11 NOT happened,that day was fast approaching.

The sanction regime and no fly zones could not be a permanent feature of the region,they were becoming untenable. This is a tougher fight than anyone expected,but America has to prevail and those like Kerry saying what he is will help sap the morale of this nation’s people and youth,leading to a failure and withdrawal from the region,PERIOD.

We’re in danger of fulfilling Osama’s recruitment theorem that Americans will run when the going gets tough,I can sense it folks.

Posted by: FireballXL5 at September 17, 2004 05:38 PM