Your point is not without some truth. But the terrorists are using our being there as a recruitment tool. "See, we told you the infadels would invade a sovereign Arab nation! Take up arms, join us in the fight!" If we pull out, the terrorists might have a new safe haven in Iraq. Let's not forget the fact that there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda connection before the war. We should have gone after Al Qaeda and Osama (and their financiers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), not Sadaam. We rushed into an unneeded conflict. And now we're damned if we stay, damned if we leave. You can name-call all you want and come up with reasons that you think Kerry would manage this conflict poorly. But remember this: Bush got us into this mess in Iraq. Now what do we do? Maybe regime change here at home will help us save face with some of our allies and bring this mess to a respectable resolution before it turns into the next Vietnam.

1) Kerry lied, people died. Kerry and fellow communist appeasers told a lot of lies during Vietnam, helping to hasten the deaths of thousands in southeast Asia.

2) It is simply untrue that there was no al Qaeda connection with Iraq. 9/11 happened because our intelligence agencies failed to imagine and prepare for the unimaginable. With Saddam sitting on (as far as EVERY intelligence agency in the world was concerned) WMDs is it hard to imagine those weapons getting into the hands of Al Qaeda (or any of dozens of other terrorist groups, since we are NOT fighting Al Qaeda we are fighting Islamofascism as a worldwide force)? Bush would have been irresponsible not to act as he did. And since when is a 18 month run up to war (which could have been avoided had France, Russia and Germany stood firm so that Saddam would know he was completely isolated) "rushing" into war? We don't need to "save face" with our allies. They need to save face with us. They let everyone down with their craven unwillingness to stare Saddam down, and their continued craven unwillingness to see the present conflict for what it is -- primarily due to their own domestic political (large and growing Muslim populations) and economic (Oil for Food and sweetheart deals with Saddam) reasons.
Kerry saying he will bring troops home early is what is killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqis because it emboldens the terrorists to think they must only hold out for a few more months and they will have it easier. Spain taught them how to influence elections. Ordinary Iraqis are more scared to fully support the current interim government in case Kerry wins and pulls troops out, increasing the odds the terrorists will regain power and punish those who were too cozy with the US.
Just like 1971 Kerry seems to have no idea of how his words can kill.
Kerry. Must. Not. Win.

Chris,
According to the bipartisan 9/11 commission, there was "no credible evidence" connecting Iraq and al Qaeda. Or so says Rupert Murdoch's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

Where are the WMD now? Before the way, the left wanted to let the inspections work. Give it time, let's avoid a costly and bloody war. Bush Jr only gave it a few months (yes, I say only).

You criticize other nations for opposing the war for "political and economic reasons." Yet you overlook the United States' economic reasons: oil, oil, oil.

Rupert Murdoch owns the Washington Post?

The correct quote you are probably referencing is the "no collaborative relationship" between the two that was all the NY Times cared to print. Any person who checked around and was not campaigning for Kerry for articles like this that detail all sorts of "connections" between the two.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm

Bush only gave inspections a few months? What about the entire 12 years from 1991 to 2003? Based on Saddam’s past behavior what good would more time do?

Where are WMDs? Bush’s “Rush To War” ™ gave him an awfully long time to dismantle, move and hide them. There was no intelligence agency in the world that thought Iraq was in compliance with the UN mandates. If Saddam was in compliance why didn’t he destroy the weapons in the open in front of God and everyone?

It is 1992. Your are president. You know that 1) a failure to imagine the worst led to the worst attack on US soil, 2) Saddam has WMDs, 3) groups like AQ want WMDs desperately and will stop at nothing to get them. What do you do? Sic Hans Blix on them and hope for the best? No. You recognize that war has been declared upon us on a global scale, that every year the war goes un-fought it gets worse and more massive (it would have been an easier war in the early 90’s, it will be harder 10 years from now), and that to win we must choose when and where we fight it. If we can liberate 25 million people from sheer daily terror in the meantime, so much the better.

Oil? Come on. It was about oil for the French, with politicians on the take from Total Fina Elf engineering a sweetheart deal for Saddam for the post sanction era. It was all about oil for Russia and Germany who profited handsomely under the Oil for Food scam. Everyone has made money off Iraqi oil except us.

So is the purpose of this post to say that Bush was wrong and Kerry was even wronger for agreeing with him?

I like Kerry but I dont agree that he should have made that vote. Of course at the time he (and the rest of the legislature) were using faulty intel. Remember that they were being told that nuke capable Iraq was imminent. We now know that that was false and signs generally point to the fact that the administration knew it was false. Having made the vote Kerry is under pressure to defend it by a public that still mostly believes that Iraq had something directly to do with the September 11th attacks. . .

Every freaking intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMDs. There's a reason for that: he did. He spent 15 years making damn sure everyone in the world thought he had them too.

If you want to believe that the intelligence was faulty, and that Bush knew it was faulty, and that he invaded Iraq for a) oil, b) fun, c) imperialism, d) revenge, e) all of the above, fine.

But if I am president, and 3,000 people died (which could easily have been 50,000) in a terrorist attack, and I have a dictator in Iraq who has devoted his life to amassing WMDs and I have intelligence reports of his capabilities, and I have got terrorist groups dying to get their hands on those weapons... I am not going to entrust the security of my country to Hans Blix. I am not going to wait for the next attack and then respond, as Kerry said he would do in his DNC speech.

As to the point of this post, it is to say that Kerry is actively endangering American and Iraqi lives by talking so much about bringing American troops home. This kind of talk is completely irresponsible. It tells the insurgents that they just have to play for time. It tells them that if the create enough US casualties we'll lose our will. It tells the Iraqi people that we aren't in it for the long haul. It tells them it would not be wise to support the process of building a democratic government too enthusiastically, because they would then be targets of whoever fills the power vacuum after Kerry brings the troops home.

All I wanted at the start of the process was a democratic candidate who understands this. Someone who would say I agree with Bush on the war, let's talk about stem cells, etc. That way the bad guys would know that whoever wins the election playing for time won't help. Their days are numbered either way. The people of Iraq would know we are with them to the end.

Instead I get this lying, opportunistic, loathsome candidate who at every military conflict during his lifetime did and said everything possible to subvert our interests and those of people seeking freedom.

The correct quote you are probably referencing is the "no collaborative relationship" between the two that was all the NY Times cared to print. Any person who checked around and was not campaigning for Kerry for articles like this that detail all sorts of "connections" between the two.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm

Brian,
My bad. Murdoch owns News Corp which owns the New York Post, not the Washington.

Lets get something straight: Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq. Since the beginning of his presidency, thats what he wanted. A lot of people who've read Path to War by Woodward focus on the following memorable quote from Tenet regarding WMD intelligence on Iraq: "Its a slam dunk." There's another quote from that book that I feel is even more important. Bush asks one of his cabinet members (can't quite remember who) in the days after 9/11 "What do we have on Iraq?"

I can go ahead and explain to you all what this means, but I feel like its pretty self-explanatory.

Now that we're in this horrible, fucked up situation, I strongly believe that the responsible thing to do is 'stay the course.' This is the case any time the US goes to war. Pulling out of any conflict would compromise our strenght to the point where we would have to make massive military expendiatures after the conflict just to feel safe. (for examples see Regan, circa 1982)

So we shouldn't cut and run, but does that mean we need to keep the leader who got us in this situation? I don't believe that we'll run from the conflict in Iraq if Kerry is elected. We'll consolidate our position and reduce our presence, but we'll stay and see it through - we have to. I don't worry so much about how Bush will screw up Iraq in a second term as much as I worry about how the world will fear an American public stupid enough to reward his actions with a second term.

Pre-emption has failed and needs a strong rebuke. Don't think that Bush and his campaign strategists in the lead up to the war never though "well, even if this goes bad, at least we'll boost our re-election hopes because the American public won't want to replace a president in war-time." THERE SHOULD NOT BE A REWARD FOR GOING TO WAR, especially when its unnecessary.

bush is a creep
bush is the worst thing to happen to america since joe mccarthy.

"Every freaking intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMDs. There's a reason for that: he did."

WMD as a broad term (shells with sarin type agents) yes.
Nukes, Sorry, he didnt, and no they didnt. In fact the only intellegence pointing to nuclear capability (and would we have really been convinced to go to war over chemical non-ballistic weapons? of course not)were several forgeries that even our allies decided long before the invasion were false.
Nice try.