Which was the nature of Irak's threat?

Washington Post | 10/1/04 | Becvarisi

[becvarisi]

At several instances during the debate Kerry conceded that Irak was a threat: "I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat... "I wasn't misleading when I said he [Huessein] was a threat. "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat "It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is what you do about it." Nevertheless he also said that Irak had no connections to terrorism, and no WMD. It would be interesting to know which was the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, since everybody agrees that his conventional army was no threat to anybody.

www.diletant.blogspot.com

[apackof2]

What is "Irak?"

[stockpirate]

Kerry stated that WMD are "Flowing over the borders", the question is what WMD?

He also lied about no connection between Al Q and Iraq. There was a connection and still is.

[mabelkitty]

spam

[becvarisi]

sorry. I am from Spain and my English is not perfect!
In Spanish we say Irak

[RedBloodedAmerican]

becvarisi
Since Oct 1, 2004

blog, not news.

troll

[stockpirate]

since everybody agrees that his conventional army was no threat to anybody

I don't think everyone agrees that there was no threat from his army, just liberals. Troll aleart!

[stockpirate]

From the American Spectator, which can actually spell IRAQ we read.

Bush won the debate last night.

Yes, yes, all the snap polls and focus groups, like most of the talking heads, say that Kerry won. It was stylistically his best performance in memory. He certainly passed the "looks Presidential" test. The lights indicating the time limit, which everyone, including me, thought would hurt Kerry, turned out to be great for him, forcing him to adjust his rhetorical style for the better; it was in fact Bush who went over time once.

But here's a quick test of last night's electoral effect: what do you remember a day later, off the top of your head?

Chances are, it's that Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." Or that it is bad to send "mixed messages" (or "mixed signals"). Bush said each of these things seven times (Kerry, attempting to parry Bush's thrusts, said "mixed messages" another three times). Kerry spoke competently on each point of debate, but swing voters aren't going to walk around with his talking points in mind -- he only brought up rushing to war three times, for example.

Kerry scored some real rhetorical blows, but he didn't hammer them home as he should have. The failure to catch bin Laden in Tora Bora is a real vulnerability, and while Kerry wisely brought it up early, he only mentioned it again once. While Bush may have the better half of the argument over the efficacy of bilateral vs. multilateral talks with Pyongyang, and the Clintonites may bear much of the blame for the progress of North Korea's nuclear program, but the fact that the missiles went online recently is, at bottom, a big problem for the President. By the time Kerry brought up North Korea, casual viewers -- and the typical swing voter is about as casual as they come -- may have already tuned out.

[dagoofyfoot]

Break out the "Troll Begone!"

[stockpirate]

From Spain, that says it all, you guys already surrendered to the Terrorists.