I agree with this. I agree that if Kerry had held on, the narrative would have been as you said.
However, having said that, and admiting that I am hoping that Kerry and his lawyers are still involved, there is absolutely no evidence that Kerry hasn't moved on. It's nice that his brother sent out a nice, supportive email. The implication is clear. It's nice that Kucinich says that there are Democratic lawyers everywhere. It probably matters not whether Kerry has 'moved on' or not.
However, we do not know for sure what is going on inside of Kerry's mind. We can hope that he was thinking as you say. But, we don't know.
What you might call 'spinelessness', I would call 'complicated.' Remember that it was Rove calling the voting shots. Votes had to be taken as they were dealt. Calling for war approval 3 weeks before an election was Rove's call. Either way one votes one can be made to look bad. Similarly with the $87B vote. It was an up or down vote on money that had no .
Kerry was perfect to take down bush. I don't believe that a single other candidate in the field could have done better. He was strong on defense, strong on 'character', strong on economic issues. Bush was completely weak everywhere. He couldn't 'escape' the flip-flopper label because bush put $500M of advertising into calling him that. It didn't matter whether it was Kerry (see: Gore, Al, 2000, Clinton, Bill, 1992 & 1996) or anyone else. That label was going to be put on the Democratic candidate. Pretending otherwise is just ignoring the obvious.
The issue of gay marriage was 'on the table' because Rove put it there. Why do you think that there were 11 states voting on it this year? There wasn't much that Democrats and Kerry could do. Blaming Kerry for Rove's manipulation of the voting process is ridiculous.
It is the Gore trip that is the head fake. Gore hasn't been doing any campaigning for Kerry that I'm aware of. Cheney, OTOH, has been busy whipping up the base in the red states. Now he is totally out of commission for the duration. Edwards is busy hitting multiple battleground states per day. That's a clear win for Kerry.
I'll trade an ex-VP for a current VP any day.
No, I think that it's clear that there are a lot of federal employees in positions of power who really don't like this administration. They are selectively leaking bad stuff day by day. If you look back over the last couple of weeks, we've been getting stuff on this administration pretty consistently. With luck, whoever it is probably has enough dirt on the bushies to last through the election. There are enough civil service employees in the justice department, the pentagon, the CIA, homeland security, etc who hate bush with enough passion to leak a ton of stuff.
And, no, this $70B outlay isn't going to touch Kerry. It's another indication of how much this disaster in Iraq is costing us.
I remember them from 2000. They were, obviously, arch-conservative. But, what is amusing this year is that they were on cspan a couple of days ago and they said/claimed that they were just right of center.
You should have put money on Kerry during the gop convention. Yum. I bought Kerry at .40 at both IEM and Tradesports. The last time that I looked at Tradesports, Kerry was .41/.42. Still a great return. (And, frankly, an unbelievable bet. It will have to contract very quickly once people realize how stupid they're being.)
And, don't play the share of the vote at IEM. Play the winner takes all. You're not going to make much money playing the vote share.
Exactly! A projected close race, even if Kerry is behind, won't hurt and could help the election turnout. However, these bogus polls from Gallup, Time, and Newsweek have a real effect, I think, on dampening Kerry enthusiasm and creating a ton of back-biting internal fights, which also doesn't help.
Those guys are only as high as they are because the media has promoted them (and promoted them)with this cbs story. (Nothing wrong with that btw, since it appears that they were right, for the most part.) I went over to a couple of those guys with the GOP convention. Ech. And, funny thing, their link list contained virtually no valid links. I think that it was powerline's blog links that I went through. I kept going because I was amazed that they were either dead, not topical, or doing something completely different. It was so odd.
What I want to know is what others have asked about Rasmussen. How the hell can he (rationally/logically/scientifically) poll Florida? The state is obliterated.
I don't expect to hear from Florida until Nov 2. (And, even then, I expect it to be stolen.)
ok. Fair enough.
Perhaps, the sentence ought to have been phrased differently.
Saddam gave no assistance to active terrorists. Further, there is plenty of evidence that he declined assistance to active terrorists when asked.
As you say, it's a minor point. Clearly, Saddam had nothing to do with AQ. He had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no reason at all to involve him in a legitimate war on terror. And, it is inexusable for the bush administration to continue, even today, to try to link him with AQ and 9/11.
After watching the massive outpouring of Democrats during the primary season, I have no doubt that when it's time to vote, Dems will be supporting Kerry at the 90+% mark. It is inconceivable to me that any Democrat would vote for bush (or, god forbid, Nader) or stay at home. This is an election with a downside that is too scary to even look at for more than a millisecond.
I appreciate this lucid, logical argument. Thanks. I completely disagree with it and take my best shot at defending my POV, but it's such a refreshing change to hear the other side presented in a rational, non-hyperbolic, non-strawman-ish manner.
International Law: The UN resolutions granted us the moral ability to wage war, if Saddam didnt' allow continuing series of inspectors. He did. There were inspectors everywhere. Furthermore, the IAEA had already made the determination that Saddam was not reconstituting his nukes. Thus, the possibility of real WMD did not exist. The rest is just discovering and getting rid of chemical and biological weapons. While Saddam was cooperating (due credit to bush for scaring the hell out of Saddam to allow the inspectors back into Iraq), war was not a moral option. Evidence of this is clear by the fact that we had nobody but the British (and Spain?) on the security council agree to a war, even with some incredible bribes and threats.
Agreed that Saddam was a monster. (Btw, mass graves alone do not constitute evidence of Saddam's brutality. Iraq engaged in an 8 year war with Iran that caused unbelievable number of deaths.) However, there are dozens of such tyrants around the world. Nobody, including you I bet, is screaming that we go in after them. Furthermore, if bush had tried to go to war just on the fact that Saddam was a tyrant, he'd have been laughed out the capital, which he should have been anyway.
That's what the inspections were for. Furthermore, there is no evidence at all that Saddam had any dealings with terrorists and there is plenty of evidence that he had no dealings with terrorists. If bush had paid closer attention to Pakistan's selling nuclear technologies to the entire world rather than this debacle in Iraq, we would have been in better shape. Even if Saddam had biological and chemical weapons, he wasn't doing anything with them. We had him in a box.
The true long term strategy is to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian problem. You get that solved and a major obstacle to peace in the middle east is solved. Iraq was not the stumbling block. And, now that we've invade Iraq, where are we? Are we in better shape over the long term now? I don't think so.
Without Iraq, there are plenty of wars that are justified. I supported the kicking Iraq out of Kuwait war. I don't think that a brutal dictatorship should own 50% of the world's resources of oil. I supported the incursion into Afganistan. A country that supports and funds terrorists and doesn't respond to international pressure should be overthrown. I think that it's criminal that bush left bin Laden and Kabul to go undermine the entire stability of the middle east by invading Iraq. Afganistan is now being taken over by the Taliban again. bin Laden is not only stronger than he was, his entire organization is stronger. We are clearly worse off now than we were before bush invaded Iraq. There is no evidence that says that what bush has done has made us or anyone safer.