# Bush Campaign More Thought Out Than Iraq War



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

WASHINGTON, DC-Military and political strategists agreed Monday that President Bush's re-election campaign has been executed with greater precision than the war in Iraq. "Judging from the initial misrepresentation of intelligence data and the ongoing crisis in Najaf, I assumed the president didn't know his *** from his elbow," said Col. Dale Henderson, a military advisor during the Reagan Administration. "But on the campaign trail, he's proven himself a master of long-term planning and unflinching determination. How else can you explain his strength in the polls given this economy?" Henderson said he regrets having characterized Bush's handling of the war as "incompetent," now that he knows the president's mind was simply otherwise occupied.


----------



## pjb1816 (Sep 8, 2003)

:lame:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I see that Seabass is a fellow reader of The Onion, the best satirical newspaper on the planet. Relax folks, this is a joke.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

townhall.com

What's the worst that could happen?
Neal Boortz 
September 10, 2004

Barring some mental of physical disaster, you --- whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever you're doing, and whatever your economic and social status in life - are experiencing at this very moment the net result of the decisions, large and small, that you have made in your life up to this point. Decisions are the steering commands that we issue as we careen through our lives and careers. Most of the times (hopefully) we try to steer toward some positive and pleasant objective. Sometimes circumstances demand that a steering command be designed not so much to achieve a positive result, but to avoid a negative one.

Viewed in the context of the possible negative results of a decision, only the most partisan and disingenuous fool could suggest that President Bush's choice to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was the wrong one.

Bush had only two choices on Iraq. Invade and remove Saddam Hussein, or permit Hussein to remain in power by allowing the already-failed United Nations process to proceed. Creating a mental flow chart for the two options leads to the inescapable conclusion that the removal of Saddam Hussein was the only responsible choice.

First, the decision to invade: You have two foreseeable consequences. Saddam survives, or Saddam is replaced. Considering the fact that Jimmy Carter is not currently serving as our Commander in Chief, Saddam's survival would have been unlikely. Saddam would be history. This means that the U.S. and the rest of the world would have a new Iraqi government to deal with. Would it be friendly? Possibly so. All efforts would be made to replace Saddam's regime with a government more friendly to the West. However, an invasion could lead to a government unfriendly to Western interests. So be it. At least that government wouldn't have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in place and proven ties to Al Qaeda. A mere modicum of common sense would tell you that the new Iraqi government, modeled after a Western democracy or not, would seek friendly relations with the West so as to (a) sell it's oil and become insanely wealthy; and (b) avoid another forced regime change.

So &#8230; that brings us to option two: Leave Saddam alone and let the processes of the last 12 years continue.

If George Bush's decision was to back off and allowed "the process" to continue, would this mean that Saddam Hussein would suddenly start behaving? Would he become another Muammar al-Qaddafi and suddenly announce the cessation of all programs for the development of weapons of mass destruction? Sorry, but you really can't use Qaddafi as a model for a possible change in Saddam's behavior, since Qadaffi's change was brought about by a show of American resolve in invading Iraq.

No .. the more likely scenario would be that Saddam would continue to be Saddam. He would be emboldened by yet another failure of the U.N. or its member nations to enforce U.N. resolutions. Western inaction would be seen as weakness, and weakness is to be taken advantage of.

So, what if a decision not to replace Saddam leads to a possible worst-case scenario; an emboldened and more determined Saddam &#8230; a Saddam who has decided that our show of spinelessness was his signal to press his advantage and solidify his position?

These things we knew about Saddam Hussein. He had a program for the development of weapons of mass destruction. He enjoys killing. He had already used these weapons to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and his own people. He had contacts with Osama bin Laden, and he had a seething hatred of the United States. Do the math.

Saddam, encouraged by continued shows of weakness and a lack of U.N. resolve, steps up his weapons programs. Feeling that America will never screw up the courage to take military action against him, he makes arrangements to place a suitcase full of anthrax or a gallon or two of sarin gas into the hands of bin Laden's goons. A few weeks later thousands die on the New York subways as the deadly gas spreads through the system. Thousands more die when anthrax is introduced into the HVAC system of a Chicago skyscraper.

Then again &#8230; maybe Saddam would wait. Maybe he would wait just long enough to gather enough radioactive materials to fabricate a dirty bomb. Where would be a good place to detonate such a devise? How about a rental truck in Boston during the Democratic National Convention?

Was Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein the right one? Viewed in the context of the possible negative consequences of failing to remove Saddam Hussein, the rational person not consumed with an obsessive hatred of George Bush would have to say "yes." The only way to preclude the worst possible outcome was to remove Saddam Hussein. Any other decision would have been a gamble with much higher stakes.

Can we be sure of the worst possible outcome resulting from a decision to leave Saddam in place? Of course not. But the downside of replacing Saddam is certainly less onerous than the downside of leaving him to his devices. Of one thing we can be certain, however. If President' Bush's decision had been to leave Saddam in place, and if that decision had resulted in Saddam's weapons eventually being used on American soil, the hate-filled left would have held Bush responsible for his inaction. I would rather be held responsible for replacing a brutal dictator, the murderer of millions, than to be held responsible for allowing him to continue with his deadly plans.

Are there problems today in Iraq? Most certainly there are. But one of those problems is NOT a brutal dictator with weapons of mass destruction, a blinding hatred of the United States and a desire to become the leader of the entire Arab world, through force if necessary. *Besides, who's to say how much better things would be going in Iraq right now if the partisan hatred of all things "W" had not worked so diligently for the last year to provide comfort to the enablers of Islamic terrorism.* :eyeroll:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bob,

Do you think that Iraq, under the control of Saddam Hussein, would have mounted an attack on the U.S. with the U.N. people setting up a permanent residence in the country? The U.N. caravans were investigating many parts of the country at once, setting up survalleince, talking to people, etc. Would it have really been feasible for this guy to use any weapons against us with the U.N. combing the country side?

In another post you mentioned the "tax situation that is strangling the country." How much is this war costing the U.S. tax payers, since now it is up to us to pay for it all? How are we ever going to pay this off unless we drop every social program the govt. offers?

Please don't confuse what happened on 9/11 to what I'm talking about here. Clearly, they are separate incidences and Afghanistan and Osama need to be a focus of the U.S. military.

And the fact that Saddam is an "evil dictator" shouldn't be part of an answer either... mainly because there are plenty of these guys in the world. North Korea, for example. Should we be willing to invade North Korea? I see no real difference (in dictatorships) between pre-war Iraq and North Korea. Are we really at the point where we go to war with countries because their dictator's have a "seething hatred" of us?

I realize the classic answer is: "well, now we know he can't use any WMD's against us because he is in jail." But it wasn't WMDs that brought down the towers down...

Anyway, just some thoughts...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey man sorry it took me so long to respond I've been real busy lately.
I copied your post so I could answer point by point

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Bob,
> 
> Do you think that Iraq, under the control of Saddam Hussein, would have mounted an attack on the U.S. with the U.N. people setting up a permanent residence in the country? The U.N. caravans were investigating many parts of the country at once, setting up survalleince, talking to people, etc. Would it have really been feasible for this guy to use any weapons against us with the U.N. combing the country side


?

The UN is an anti American corrupt organization that has no gumption. They make resolutions and never act on them Unless the US does. The UN for for OIL scandle is just one of the latest, and take a look at the members of their council on human rights, the countries are some of the very worst committers of human rights violations. In current events take a look at the situation in the Sudan and tell me how the UN is helping there they sit by while thousands of women and childeran are being systematically slaughtered. The UN is a farce and we should kick them out of the US and quit supporting them. I really would like to know where our liberal media is on the Sudan issue as well, Afica is ignored by our media and whats going on there right now is hideous.


> In another post you mentioned the "tax situation that is strangling the country." How much is this war costing the U.S. tax payers, since now it is up to us to pay for it all? How are we ever going to pay this off unless we drop every social program the govt. offers?


As a percentage of GNP this is the least expensive war we have ever fought don't believe the BS in the media about its long term effect on our economy. AS for our tax system it is strangling our economy do you realized we have the highest capital gains taxes of any capitalist society and the net result is that capital is tied up due to silly tax policies that if released would create a tremendous booost of our economy. You would have to hide to not have a job if the capital gains tax was abolished. And its all based on anti rich sentiments by a segment our our government that more interested in their own power than the good of the country. Ask yourself if it makes any sense to have business people making decisions based on tax avoidance rather than growing their businesses. I could go on and on about taxes just let it suffice to say if our tax system was over hauled we would be able to pay for this small war and all the social programs we need not all the ones that exist ( because many of them need overhauling as well) without problem. The cost of the war must also be compared to the effect of another worse terrorist attack on our economy what do you think it would cost our economy if some muslim terroist takes a shoulder launched missle and shoots down an airliner at the end of a runway, or sets off a dirty bomb in one of our major cities. These types of incidents would cripple our economy for years.



> Please don't confuse what happened on 9/11 to what I'm talking about here. Clearly, they are separate incidences and Afghanistan and Osama need to be a focus of the U.S. military.
> 
> And the fact that Saddam is an "evil dictator" shouldn't be part of an answer either... mainly because there are plenty of these guys in the world. North Korea, for example. Should we be willing to invade North Korea? I see no real difference (in dictatorships) between pre-war Iraq and North Korea. Are we really at the point where we go to war with countries because their dictator's have a "seething hatred" of us?
> 
> I realize the classic answer is: "well, now we know he can't use any WMD's against us because he is in jail." But it wasn't WMDs that brought down the towers down...


Thats not my classic answer and its not the answer of anyone that really looks at the global implications of a terrorist using a WMD in the US. Its a real possibility and its for a big reason which is that these terrorists are the most dangerous foes we have ever faced, more than the Soviet Union, Red China or the pipsqueak in North Korea. Why?? do I say this you might ask. Well that one real big reason is *they are willing to die for their cause*, and they believe they have nothing to lose because they have no stake in their societies, in fact they even believe they will be better off if they do die for this cause. *They cannot be intimidated like previous enemies could *( and the idea that Saddam had no realtionship with them has been dispelled many times). WE will have to face all of the Middleeastern countries that have terrorists groups within their borders and either give those governments an incentive to destroy them or do it ourselves. We cannot allow the Iranians to become nuclear, their country is a birthplace of terrorists, we will have to do something quickly about this. They are close and if they succeed we will be in great peril. 


> Anyway, just some thoughts...


At least you are thinking about these issues most Americans are not and thats why we are in this situation, our dependence on foriegn oil has lulled our government into sense of false security and made them ignore the human rights violations occuring in the middle east over the last 60 years. 9/11 changed that and we better start working on the problem and change the entire social structure in the middle east or this will not ever go away.


----------

