I'll stick my $0.02 in and leave it be. I'm not one for endless debate anymore.

I understand where you disagree with me, Diego. I'm totally cool with it, too.

As for Iran and North Korea: I honestly feel that Iraq was picked as the easiest of the three to assault, occupy, and pacify. Of course, it was done in a piss-poor manner. 1990 saw a troop outlay around double [give or take] what 2003 saw, and the military objectives were a lot grander in 2003. Yes, I know that there've been force multipliers put in place since then, but I have a really, really hard time looking at what's happened since Mar 2003 and saying, "Yeah, DoD did that one right." My biggest frustration with Bush here is that we don't have the head of Rumsfeld on a plate.

I think that pre-emption is right, even if it's not being executed well right now. I trust that eventually enough voices around Bush will realize that Rummy is part of the problem and not part of the solution and that he'll be shown the door.

Re: the strategy taken: these choices are the best of a bad set of options. In that area, you have to have at least one reasonably powerful Muslim country [or two] on your side. In this matter, realpolitik has long out-lived the Cold War as many expected. Sure, we'd love to have a democracy like ours in the area as an ally, but there's really only one democracy remotely close to ours in the world with any sort of power, and that's our British cousins.

With all my dissatisfaction about how things have been executed, why do I want to re-elect the Chief Executive? That's pretty simple: I don't think Kerry has the plans or the experience to do the job any better, and I'll take the devil I know over the devil that I don't know. Now, some people will probably want to point and laugh and say, "What an idiot for keeping this guy around," and that's fine ... if you want to make lots of assumptions about me based on one choice, fine.

I'm not an ardent Bush supporter. I'm just sad that we don't have any really good choices in this campaign ... felt the same way in 2000, too.

Well written, Diego (as always). Considering for the moment that the pre-emptive "strategy" is right and not just another sign of US arrogance ("why would anyone NOT want to be like us???"), the sheer incompetence of the way it has been done (selection of targets in order of importance, understanding the people in the target countries and their needs, plan for peace) should be reason enough to let somebody else try it. *Anybody*. Tearing down a blooming economy and creating an Orwellian atmosphere in "the land of the free" are bonus points on the way out.

Every voter has the right to re-elect Bush for whatever reasons, of course. Just stop trying to explain this by telling us how well he handled the "war on terror", for christs sake...

Geof: thanks for the comment.

In the end this might not be something that can be "argued". Someone can be looking at the same situation (or how they perceive it) and say that this proves what they are saying is right. After all, both campaigns say "with Bush, you will get four more years of the same". :)

To be more specific though. I understand the "Devil you know is better that the one you don't" theory. I also understand why you might be weary of getting into an argument on this. However, if you do agree with the strategy of preemption, wouldn't you say that Bush has harmed that strategy, perhaps irreversibly? If Iran had to be brought into check today, or tomorrow, the US is too overstretched to do it without resorting to extreme measures--so isn't it reasonable that the course has to change? Or at the very minimum that the problems have to be acknowledged so that they can start being solved -- something that Bush has not done.

Frank: while I agree with you, I think that some people honestly see more good than harm in Bush's strategy even with its failures. Which is why I focus on the disconnect between the rethoric (idealism) and the reality (pragmatism) of the strategy, which in my opinion means that Bush is in the end actually harming the strategy that he proposes.

1. Pre-emption makes sense when you can make a reasonable argument for the perceived threat.

N. Korea (like India and Pakistan) wants a seat at the nuclear table. I don't for one second believe they plan on using nukes to bomb anyone; even if they say they will.

Iran: if intelligence shows their involvement with terrorist organizations, then they're next on the US invasion list.

Suadi Arabia: one word - Oil, which is a core tenet of the Bush foreign policy. Protect oil to protect our economy. Could the US learn to live without so much oil? Sure, but no politician would dare gamble their careers on the transition.

This is why i would certainly choose Bush over Kerry: In the debates Kerry kept bringing up the fact that many places in the US are not secure and that he would try to direct money to that endeavor. That's foolish. Security 101: you can't make everything secure; therefore, try to remove the threats.

"that the Iraq war had widespread support world-wide, that WMD were found in Iraq, that Iraq had an active nuclear program, and, finally (and more importantly), that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11"

The reasons we attacked Iraq: a) they had WMD and b) they would support terrorist activities with such.

Every administration for the past 12 years belives (b), including Kerry and Edwards. (a) For the last week the media, Kerry and Bush have been talking about the 370 tons of high-grade explosives, if someone still wants to say that Iraq does not and did not have WMD they must be drinking some strange Kool-Aid.

9/11 provided a springboard for the administration to enact an unpopular policy of pre-emption.

I, for one, hope the administration doesn't hold out for a second attack to justify further preemptive actions.

Has Bush harmed the preemptive strategy? No, Clinton did when he gutted the military and touted the fact that he had reduced 'government jobs' by 146,200.

2. I do not believe the freedom-strategy is a core tenet of the administrations foreign policy. It is a warm-fuzzy side-affect that tends to sell well to humanitarians.

In short, when it comes to foreign policy: Never listen to what someone says. While i'll vote for Bush, that doesn't mean that i drink his Kool-Aid.

James,

Thanks for the comment. You say that the "freedom-strategy" is *not* a core tenet of the Bush administration. I have heard Bush repeatedly make the case that it is. I have also read numerous op-eds from both conservative commentators and the famous "neocons" in the administration (and administration officials, such as Rumsfeld) that say that it is. So I don't quite get why you don't believe what Bush and everyone else on his administration have repeatedly stated as the goal. Besides, without the "freedom strategy" preemtion could go on forever no? Preemption on its own doesn't provide a long-term solution to the roots of terrorism. In fact, you mention Kerry's answer in the debates. Bush's answer kept coming back to his "I believe freedom's is God's gift to humanity". Are you implying that Bush is just making it up when he tells crowds time and again that this is what drives his decisions?

Related to one point you made: "you can't make everything secure; therefore, try to remove the threats". I agree with the statement as is, but not with your follow-up: I don't think that invading countries is a way to remove threats.

I think that Bush has harmed pre-emption, such as it is. If Iran became a problem the US could not respond today without resorting to the kind of innefective tactics that Republicans accused Clinton of when he used to just throw missiles at Al-Qaida camps. (And, btw, without getting into the subject of Clinton, you say he gutted the military, but as far as I understand a) it is Congress that is in charge of the budget and b) the Republicans controlled congress since 1994. Many republicans also supported reducing the military, Dick Cheney included, after the Berlin Wall fell, which at the time seemed like a good idea, since the Soviets where no more).

I do find it interesting that both you and Geof say (in different ways) that you don't really believe what Bush says, but you're for him anyway because Kerry would be worse. The conventional wisdom is that Bush supporters are "for Bush" rather than "against Kerry".

I always vote "for" someone. I try to discern whose values/morals and, hence, policies most match my own. If i don't have enough information to do that, then i don't cast a vote in a particular race.

I should clarify my view of the "freedom-strategy". Bush isn't going to liberate countries for the sake of the "freedom-strategy". He will certainly enact the "freedom-strategy" when it comes to nationalism after the use of military force. "Core" or "not core", i dunno, but that's how i view it. So, in a word, yes, i believe he is lieing when he says that's whats driving the decisions. In my analysis of things, its at least third of forth on the list.

Is invading always the answer, no; however, in Afganistan and Iraq you get two birds with one stone. 1) Remove terrorist hospitable governments (Bodily Protection) and 2) Get some insurance on our oil supply (Economic Protection). Then you get to throw around some "freedom-strategy". :-)

Had Hussain chilled out after the Gulf War, Bush would have certainly lived with his oppressive rule. ex. Omar Muammar al-Ghaddafi, Libya

Harmed a strategy of preemption? I still think not.

"However, if you do agree with the strategy of preemption, wouldn't you say that Bush has harmed that strategy, perhaps irreversibly? If Iran had to be brought into check today, or tomorrow, the US is too overstretched to do it without resorting to extreme measures--so isn't it reasonable that the course has to change? Or at the very minimum that the problems have to be acknowledged so that they can start being solved -- something that Bush has not done."

It's too early to tell whether Rumsfeld---Bush's incompetent proxy---has harmed it irrevocably, I think. I think the lesson of the Japanese onslaught in the Pacific in the 1940s is that pre-emption [read: Pearl Harbor] works when you have the force structure to back up the initial strikes in the long term. The U.S. does have that, and we're probably the only ones that do in the world.

I don't think that the US military is really all that overstretched so much as its improperly constituted. Whatever idiot in uniform that decided that we could safely draw down infantry in the 1990s needs to be shot. Really. They convinced the pols on BOTH SIDES that what they were doing was a good idea. It started with Bush pere and continued with Clinton. Peace dividend my ass.

As for the conventional wisdom re: Bush supporters: I think that many Kerry supporters are really in the "Anybody But Bush" crowd. Most true liberals that I know think that Kerry's credentials are impure, and most progressives realize that he hasn't been a significant leader. I'll be real honest: if I thought that the DNC had done a good job of finding a candidate, I'd vote for the guy. I just don't see Kerry being an effective leader of government, because he doesn't seem to be comfortable with any decisions that he makes. This is not a trait you saw in Clinton or Bush fils.

I see 2004 as the inverse of the 1996 race; I was dumb enough to vote for Bob Dole then, but I was 18 and under the influence of my very conservative male family members. Given an opportunity to re-vote that one, I'd vote for Clinton, even knowing all the messes he got into in his second term. Clinton was at least a leader of government, someone who stuck with a decision when he made it and changed only when he'd given his efforts a chance at success.

I find James' position both interesting and telling as it highlights one of the extreme flaws in a typical Bush-supporter ideology: When my candidate does something that I can't explain, it's just because that isn't what he "really means," he's just saying that so "those other people" will understand.

This position really begins to show a very self-important attitude, one which I have no doubt many bush supporters have so internalized that they would not be able to admit to it.

Secondly, the position indicates an unwillingness to admit when you're wrong. If your candidate starts to religiously defy your explanations and rationalisations, then it's time to start re-thinking your support.

This is the normal result of a functioning consciousness, the ability to notice when you're being had, and speak up about it. I also find it amusing that Geof seems to want to shift any blame off Bush and towards any other party (in this case, Rumsfeld), since, apparently, bush is incapable of failure, or, if he did fail, it wasn't his fault, or he meant to do it anyway, or he's just "pretending to fail" so all those "other people" will be pacified.

Also, to counter James' dumbing-down of "why we attacked iraq" and his all-too-common conclusion that "everyone thought the same thing" is just insulting to those of us working to push forward rationality, intelligence, and decent investigative journalism. Hell, we have an entire multi-national body whose job it is/was to keep tabs on Iraq's weapons, and from the looks of things, they did a pretty damn good job until the neighborhood bully came and smashed all the toys.

Another all-too-common assertion of late: WMD's? You want WMD's? How about this HMX!!!

...for god's sake, please at least read the "executive summary" about the recent developments involving the HMX coverup. These are not weapons of mass destruction, which is itself a misnomer that's become all-too-popular (saddam was a wmd himself, apparently...), and all-too-ludicrous.

Let's start from the top. Weapons of mass destruction do not include the HMX inventoried by the IAEA because those weapons were accounted for and under supervision. In practical terms, of course the HMX is capable of destruction, even mass destruction, but that isn't what this administration is charging. Were it, nearly all the countries in the world are guilty (us on the top of the list) of harboring WMD.

The issue was with WMD that were unaccounted for or not allowed. The HMX was allowed because it had already been inventoried, inspected, and tagged. WMD that had not been accounted for (which was the result of a ghost paper trail created by iraqi officials to cover up the fact that they were in fact impotent in comparison to their supposed equals).

Your notion that "everyone thought" what you did (or your candidate), is disingeuous. There are thousands who not only didn't -think- this, but -knew- it, as well, based on investigations and inspections that -they- participated in or helped to write.

"You say that the "freedom-strategy" is *not* a core tenet of the Bush administration. I have heard Bush repeatedly make the case that it is."

Since when have any (of most) politicians ever not twisted reality to project a more universally appealing image? Kerry is constantly touting himself as being pro-second amendment, even going to so far as to stage "geese hunts" for the media (idealisting strategy). Yet he is actually one of the biggest anti-2nd supporters around , having voted for every single gun control bill submitted to congress in the past 18 years (realism) .
How would the Kerry administration reconcile their statements about being pro-2nd while on the flip-side allowing unprecedented numbers of gun control laws to be passed? They wouldn't. Even when the gun crime rates soared, they wouldn't.

I didn't post before, because of your statement that you are desirous of "positive" reasons. Quite franks, quite a large number of people who will vote for Bush will not be doing so due to their intense support of the administrations policies. They are simple scared to death of what will happen if Kerry is elected. These are the people who I think you are really asking about. If this post ends up being too negative, feel free to not post it, no hard feelings.

John: Who brought that up? If the administration considered the high explosives to be WMD, wouldn't they have brought it up themselves a year ago? The fact is, they didn't. It was a "liberal" October suprise intended to convince some people on the fence that the US military (and/or those running them) were incompetent.
Which brings us to the next point:
Diego points to the survey that shows supporters of the administration who believe is utterly fanciful ideas. Who said that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11? I never heard that. No one I know ever heard that. So why would anyone believe that?
Simple, read the real study:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2372
It's a problem for all sides. In a country where pop starts and sports stars are revered and set as role models above all others, it's not going to change much. The vast majority of "voters" are simple going to stick to their "party" for no other reason than it's their party.

And a final comment to Frank:
"Tearing down a blooming economy ..."
The Clinton administration did not create that "blooming" economy and the Bush administration did not tear it down. Wall street caused the entire fiasco and 9/11 exaggerated it.
"creating an Orwellian atmosphere in "the land of the free"..."
So, did the jack-booted thugs accost you and demand your "papers" recently? The courts have almost always been quite effective in countering the effects of lazy law enforcement and I see nothing to indicate anything different in this case. Though you can rest assured that 3-4 non-constitutional SCOTUS replacements *would* make for a bad time for liberty.

Other John, if you want to get into an argument over the 2nd amendment, you might want to clarify your position on gun control. If you believe there should be absolutely no gun control, that's fine, but just say so first of all, so we know where you stand. The 2nd amendment does not discuss "guns" by name, so you should also clarify what you consider "arms" to be. Do you consider any weapon to be arms? Is this to say that you consider all weapons should be unregulated?

Again, this is just so I can get a better idea of where you stand. If you sincerely believe that it's better for society to have a government that regulates absolutely no weapons, then say so, otherwise, stop holding up reasonable legislation as an insult to Kerry by just saying "it's ANTI 2nd AMENDMENT!!..." it just sounds innane.

About the administration not bringing up the HMX as a WMD. They didn't bring it up because it would look bad since it was uncontrolled. Whether it's officially a WMD or not (it's not) is irrelevant, since it was under a controlled setting. Now that it's not under control, it's dangerous, no matter what you classify it as. That is the issue, that the substances are no longer under control, not what they should be named.

It does, indeed, show that the administration was incompetent or, at the very least, ignorant of basic facts. Here are those facts:

* The HMX was under control by the IAEA, it was inventoried and tagged. This meant that it was -proven- to be in a particular location, in a particular state. Control could have easily been maintaned, if the invasion was planned at all.

* The administration decided to instead instigate a "shock and awe" campaign of "targetted" bombing, rather than any type of responsible military intervention designed to secure important structures. Instead, they chose to wage a campaign of flash and glitz, to show off military might. You watched this on your TV.

* Military units stopped for the night to camp near the HMX storage bunkers. They entered them with film crews by snapping off the locks with bolt cutters. They left the structures insecure and moved on. This is not their fault, though, because there were never any orders to secure this facility, because it didn't fit in with the administration's "shock and awe."

* HMX from the facility began to disappear as a result of looting. Local iraqi authorities reported this to Bremer, who did not make any announcement of any effort to hamper the looting. In fact, if you ask Rumsfeld, free people are "free to do what they want," with regard to looting.

* Now that it's all gone, and countless Iraqi officials who were trying to do their job are really mad that nothing was done to secure the facility, they have gone public with the information. This is not a "liberal agenda," this is the direct result of incompetent mismanagement of this invasion.