Thursday, October 07, 2004

I couldn't have said it any better myself

For those of you who are still undecided--and for those of you who support Bush--I think this entry by blogger Andrew Sullivan is a must-read:
THE UNDERLYING FACT: I have to say I have been enjoying and learning from this campaign in many ways - not least from you, the readers, and from the twists and turns we have seen and will keep seeing. But now and again, it's worth looking at the big picture. The fundamental question in this campaign is the war in Iraq. Was it worth starting? Has it been conducted well? Will it make us safer? My answers to those three questions are, briefly, yes, no, and, it depends. But from a broader perspective, the following facts are simply indisputable. The fundamental rationale for the war - the threat from Saddam's existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn't anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that.


At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us?"

Because the alternative has given no hint that they have a solution to the problem. Their "plan" is the same as the current administrations. Kerry's anti-war history (post Viet Nam, Gulf-war, his mixed message regarding the current conflict) is an indication that he lacks the resolve to see this thing through to its proper conclusion.

Another unsettling thought is that they have not indicated who would be a part of their administration should the unthinkable happen, and they are elected. Who will they call on to be secretary of state? Secretary of defense? National security advisor?

Mistakes have been made regarding Iraq. From a global intelligence failure, to the administration's failure to plan, to the military under-estimating how many troops they needed to do the job. But the biggest mistake would be to elect a candidate who has used this war for political gain for the past 11 months.

At 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

^ "That was Randall"

At 11:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

George Bushhooven, mayor of Staveren, in March of 2003:

"My fellow Dutchmen, Good Evening. The dyke that keeps the sea from our town is a grave and gathering threat. Even now, it is amassing weapons of mass destruction. If we wait until the dyke develops nuclear weapons, it will be too late. That is why, as we speak, I have ordered the Stavern constable to blow up the dyke. Thank you, and God Bless Staveren."

George Bushooven (standing in water up to his knees), October 2004:

"Repairing the dyke is hard work. I know that. It's hard. The people of Stavern see the water coming through the dyke on their TV's. But I'm a hopeful person. We are going to fix that dyke. Those people, they say that dyke is too hard to fix. Those are pessimists. I'm what I like to call an optimist."

Councilman John Van Kerry, mayoral candidate:

"I still would have voted to give the Mayor authority to blow up the dyke. It was the only way to make sure the dyke inspections were completed, to see whether the dyke really did have weapons of mass destruction. But the mayor cut the inspections short and blew a hole in the dyke. Blowing up the dyke was the wrong explosion at the wrong time."

Reporter: "Mr. Van Kerry, what is your solution?"

Van Kerry: "We have to patch the hole in the dyke. Otherwise, the town will flood."

Townsperson: "Hmm, Van Kerry's solution is to patch the hole in the dyke. But that's pretty much Bushooven's plan. I think I'll vote for Bushooven again."


At 11:12 PM, Blogger Randall said...

Another townperson: "Hmm, as bad as Bushverhoven (or whatever) flipped things up, he's ten time better than that Van Kerry over in the senate. If that guy wins, the town will from that dyke and a dozen other b/c he doesn't have the balls to confront all the potential dykes that pose a threat."

At 8:23 AM, Blogger jeffro said...

the town would be much cooler if Marah came there and rocked them out!

At 1:17 PM, Blogger Dan said...

Here's my Donald Rumsfeld impersonation:

Am I convinced that John Kerry will be a good president? No. Am I overjoyed at the prospect of President John F. Kerry? No. But will he be a much better president than Bush? You bet.

It's always difficult to predict what kind of president a candidate will make. To quote Rummy, "There are a whole series of unknowables." With Kerry, it's basically speculation. But we know exactly what we have with Bush. We've seen what he's done. And he's done a lot of damage.

We can't be sure that Kerry will be able to clean up the mess in Iraq, because he hasn't had to deal with it. But Bush has dealt with it. And he's really screwed it up. So why should we believe that he will suddenly be able to turn things around?


Post a Comment

<< Home