The problem I suspect many Americans have with Democrats is that they have never been able to tell the rest of us the distinction between Kosovo and Iraq.

Democrats, like Kerry, supported military action in Kosovo. Why did we bomb Serbia into submission? Why do we have troops there?

I find it a lot easier to justify action in Iraq than to justify action in the former Yugoslavia where the US literally got itself in the Balkans.

Until the Democrats are able to put forward a clear, concsise distinction between action in Kosovo and action in Iraq, they will simply look intellectually dishonest in the eyes of many and continue to lose elections.  I sometimes am convinced that the movers and shakers of the Democratic party have such utter contempt for the "average American" that they think that we're too stupid to figure out their intellectual dishonesty on these issues. 

Another area the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot is the "Bush is lying" nonsense. This may work on the hysterical wing of the Democratic party, but Americans remember Clinton, members of congress, members of other countries all arguing that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

What about the attacks in Iraq in 1998? What were those over? They kicked out the UN weapons inspectors. The attacks were an attempt to "degrade" Saddam's WMD producting capacity. Remember? Was he lying?

Again: Until Democrats can start being honest about these issues, they'll continue to lose support in the mainstream. Calling people liars and such is a serious charge. Not one to be made lightly. The argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was made by both Bush and Clinton and the Democratic leadership of congress when they supported the 1998 resolution to use force on Iraq.

We bombed Serbia into submission becomes Slobadon Milosavich was commiting acts of genocide.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with that. The acts of genocide, the mass ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians only began AFTER the bombing had started. Prior to that, what was happening in Kosovo was a classic low-level guerilla war. The KLA was trying to split Kosovo from Serbia by attacking Serb police, military and civilian targets. Belgrade responded in an overly aggressive manner and innocent Kosovars were killed and injured. Serb actions were not defensible but they were far less severe than the actions of, for example, the Russians in Chechnya. Now what we have is a situation where Serbs are no longer safe to live in Kosovo (which is the cradle of their civilisation). One injustice has replaced the other.

"Another area the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot is the "Bush is lying" nonsense. This may work on the hysterical wing of the Democratic party, but Americans remember Clinton, members of congress, members of other countries all arguing that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
What about the attacks in Iraq in 1998? What were those over? They kicked out the UN weapons inspectors. The attacks were an attempt to "degrade" Saddam's WMD producting capacity. Remember? Was he lying?
Again: Until Democrats can start being honest about these issues, they'll continue to lose support in the mainstream. Calling people liars and such is a serious charge. Not one to be made lightly. The argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was made by both Bush and Clinton and the Democratic leadership of congress when they supported the 1998 resolution to use force on Iraq."

Good points made here that I'd like to respond to:

Noone is saying Saddam was not a threat at all. Clinton supported giving money and aid to Iraqi dissident groups, in fact he signed the bill into law. This, however is a far cry from essentially unliatterally attacking Iraq, putting 130,000 some odd troops on the ground, and of course occupying the country dfor the foreseeable future to the tune of some $200 Billion dollars so far. We also have to look at means of delivery for WMD. Iraq was contained. Colin Powell in early 2001 (after taking office) was quoted as saying containment was working.
Iraq had pretty much no airforce left. And yes Clinton bombed Iraq from time to time in the 90's, remember Monica and the wagging of the dog comments? But again Clinton bombed targets, he did not put boots on the ground. This is what the problem is. Occupying another country is a big deal. President Bush himself thought so. I refer you to the 2000 debates with Gore, where Bush goes out of his way to say that the U.S. doing "nation building" was not a good idea.( You can check the transcripts from the debates online, just do a search, you can also find Powells comments by doing a search)

How would Saddam deliver WMD without an airforce? Without missiles that could reach us here in the USA. The fact is that Saddam's missiles could never reach us here. There were some unmanned drones being talked about as means of delivery. But there's no chance of something like that (a remote controlled airplane essentially) flying all the way over here from Iraq.

The onlly other way WMD could be delivered is in the hands of terrorists. But we do know that Saddam was aiding Plastinian Terrorists. Yet we have not one incident of WMD (chemical or bio) being used in a terror attack against Israeli citizens. Considering that these people blopw themselves up , I find it very hard to believe, that given the oppurtunity to use WMD, Palestinain Terrorists would not use it.

Now as for Kerry, He voted against the war resolution in 1991, when Iraq had invaded Kuwait! Why? his explanation today seems to be that he wanted then President Bush to build a coalition first, Well without Kerry's vote, Bush did do just that. Yet in 2002 Kerry votes for this war. And read the bill it authorizes the use of force. No need to go get permission from the UN (of course we should never ask permission from anyone but thats another arguement) nothing about building suppport as a triggger for going etc. Kerry is tryingto have it both ways. He wants us to believe he was misled as well. Well since he wanted allies with us in 1991 and claims to have withheld his vote over it, doesn't it seem bizarre that in 2002 he'd vote for it, claiming The President said he'd build a coalition. Well Bush technically did. He also did go and work throught the UN. In a debate all Bush has to do is turn to KErry (who by the way.unlike Dean believes we are safer with Saddam in custody) and say, "Well John, how long should I have waited for Saddam? Yes the inspectors were back in, but Saddam was playing the same games with them and the UN he had been playing for some 12 years" and then Bush can say something like this "and if you were President, how long would you have given the inspection process knowing that the French and Germans and Russians were never going to authorize war at the UN?" "Would Saddam still be inpower today Mr. Kerry?"

Kerry is pandering to the Democratic voters who want to see Bush out of office so bad, they are willing to vote for a guy they think is more electable than anyone else, if you notice the media which was very critical of Dean, is laying off on Kerry, who is so obviously all over the map on the issue of the war. I think the media is also spreading the myth of electability. If Senator McCain a Vietnam POW (and war hero) could not beat Bush, how can Kerry?

We bombed Serbia into submission becomes Slobadon Milosavich was commiting acts of genocide.

As was pointed out, no acts of genocide or anything even remotely close to it was occurring in Kosovo prior to the bombings. In addition, even after the bombings, the biggest mass grave they found had fewer than 200 people in it.

By contrast, in Iraq, they've literally found prisons for children. PRISONS FOR CHILDREN. They've found mass graves that were full of children, some of which were clutching dolls which means they were buried alive. These are things we've actually found since the occupation began. 

If you want to split hairs, what exactly was the justiifcation for the United States invading French North Africa? How about invading France on D-day (Germany had a legal right to be there - they had a signed armistice with the legally recognized government of France). Saddam Hussein certainly considered Iraq at war with the US (they regularly fired upon coalition jets patrolling the no-fly zone).

The point of this is that these are things many, if not most Americans understand. When zealots on the left start yelling "Bush was lying" or "where's the WMD???" they alienate a broad swath of the electorate who long ago conlcuded "Saddam was a bad man and he needed to go." Period. End of story. Instead of accepting that Americans favored what we did, regardless of the semantics involved in justifyign the action, the left is fighting against this. And by doing so, it dooms itself.

The acts of genocide, the mass ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians only began AFTER the bombing had started

I disagree with that in principle, I am not arguing that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, I think any regime commiting acts of genocide, whether before or after bombings, should be removed from power.

The point about the invasion of Iraq is that Bush was in such a rush to go to war based on an "imminent threat" and had little interest in building a truly international coalition that would share the financial and military burden of the invasion.

No one denies Saddam's evil oppression of his people, but for the neocons to now, after the fact, claim this was chiefly a humanitarian military action is ludicrous. None of them were saying this leading up to the war (in fact most vehemently denied we were or should be going to war for humanitarian reasons). The hypocrisy of this position on Bush's part now is glaring. A favorite mantra of the pre-war neocons was how Saddam "used chemical weapons on his own people". True enough, but what did the Reagan and Bush (the first) administrations do when this mustard gassing in the course of the Iran-Iraq war came to light? Vetoed a censure by the Senate and continued to funnel aid to Saddam. I know this was a convenient alliance at the time, but this type of foreign policy must be examined and questioned. Where was our humanitarian intent at the time Rumsfeld was cozying up to Saddam with gold spurs (carried to Saddam as a personal gift from Reagan) in the early '80's? We had full knowledge of the atrocities Saddam was committing at that time and did nothing but continue to bolster him with military, technological and financial aid. If we continue to support and build up dictatorships when it's convenient (let's not forget we helped arm Bin Laden in Afghanistan as well) only to go to war with them once they turn on us we will be going to war left and right for decades to come. I love my country and do not blame the US for all the world's problems, but it is imperative that we carefully examine the alliances we enter into and not be driven chiefly by greed, oil or military convenience (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia anyone?). But I'm sorry, the humanitarian argument doesn't wash in the instance of Iraq because I remember what the neocons all said leading up to the invasion.

The fact (and we now know it to be fact) that no WMD were found in Iraq means there was no need to rush to war, on the basis of the WMD threat, without a coherent endgame as Bush and the neocons insisted. It wasn't fair to the men and women in our military, or to all of us US taxpayers who will continue foot the bill for the invasion (deficit building tax cuts notwithstanding). We should have and could have given it more time, and many of us said so at the time of the great rush to invade. I kept asking a year ago what the rush was and why we didn't let the weapons inspections continue (the way the neocons have demonized Hans Blix is inexcusable), and continue to focus on Afghanistan and capturing Bin Laden, and then take care of Saddam when we were able to build a broader coallition.

How would Saddam deliver WMD without an airforce? Without missiles that could reach us here in the USA. The fact is that Saddam's missiles could never reach us here. There were some unmanned drones being talked about as means of delivery. But there's no chance of something like that (a remote controlled airplane essentially) flying all the way over here from Iraq.


That is a rather naive view. To not secure the safety of America because we believe that Saddam dosen't have an Air Force is dangerous. It is obvious, after September 11th, that our enemy will go to every means necessary, and be pretty creative to do it, to harm the U.S.

yeah sure, Sharpton who, when asked by Hume to comment on the Federal Reserve, had no idea what the Federal Reserve is will be able to discuss the finer points of the economic structure of the nation. HAHA

The point about the invasion of Iraq is that Bush was in such a rush to go to war based on an "imminent threat" and had little interest in building a truly international coalition that would share the financial and military burden of the invasion.

First of all, Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. He said he could become one.

Looking back at foreign policy from 20 years ago, it is easy to see how we allowed the problems of today to develop, but you have to remember the situation at the time. We armed Bin Laden to hold back the Soviets, which at the time we saw as an enormous threat. We helped Saddam because we didn't like Iran. It all made sense at the time.

My reason for supporting Iraq was always humanitarian, and WMD's (which I still support and believe in by the way, I've posted reasons why a million times so I'd rather not again, if you want to start that argument with me go ahead). I think people were stupid for not using humanitarian issues right away as a big issue. I recently saw a show on the History Channel about Iraq. They were focusing on photographers that were there, and they showed pictures of people looking down manholes in the streets looking for loved ones Saddam had taken. They also had pictures of hundreds of dead bodies that were in mass graves. It really fortified in my mind that while the stated reasons for going in have not yet been validated, we certainly did a good thing.

On the subject of WMD delivery. There are several nonconventional methods that could be used by a government to deliver a WMD. Even if Saddam couldn't reach the US with his missiles, there are many (European) countries that may have been in his range.

John Kerry was a buddy of John Lennon.

That rocks.