"The question was, do you think that what Kerry said is accurate? Was he telling the truth? Is there anything incorrect in his statement? Anything that can be argued with?"

Me, personally? Sure, I think he was dishonest about a lot of it. He takes a video camera with them to war spouting how someday they'll be the next JFK, comes back to attest to the horrors and atrocities he commited during the war, and then runs for President lauding his own heroism during that war. Please, this is a guy you'd trust for an accurate depiction of war?

No, I don't think everything he said was accurate or honest, but it is all we really have to go on. Regardless of how exciting it is, he can't just say he'll do this or that in Iraq, he needs to say how.

"Nonetheless, I think there's a huge, qualitative difference between his votes on Cold War weapons like stealth bombers and the missile shield, and votes on anti-terrorism funding."

Let's not forget that those stealth bombers and missile defense systems he voted against are now being actively used in combat by our military. I don't see how you can differentiate between funding for soldiers and funding for the weapons systems they use.

What the heck are you talking about? Your post seems to assume that the money isn't not being spent because there's no need for it. This is daft. It's not being spent because of simple incompetence.

"To date only $458 million has been spent, officials said, citing red tape."

Anyone who reads the news can see there's a need for it, sheesh.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my $1 billion comment... that was to illustrate how slowly it was being spent, not to argue in favor of thriftiness.

Let's not forget that those stealth bombers and missile defense systems he voted against are now being actively used in combat by our military. I don't see how you can differentiate between funding for soldiers and funding for the weapons systems they use.

Well, the missile defense system doesn't actually exist yet, so I don't think that our soldiers are actively using it.

But anyway, you have different weapons for different opponents. You don't fight Al Qaeda the same way you fight the Soviet Union. A stealth bomber is not useless against Al Qaeda... but it does things that a jet costing a twentieth of it's price could do just as well.

accurate depiction

What I was getting at was that the whole statement probably is accurate, if you read it carefully. That interdiction fire, etc. was is probably against the "letter of the law," as he put it.

Which "officials"? Was there a time-line on these expenditures? Any deadlines? Do you presume that we are leaving any time soon? You don't think *gasp* that these officials could have had political reasons for harping about red tape, do you? As if "officials" anywhere really have the right to preach about it since it is their bread and butter...

Like I said, the Iraqi government is barely up and running. Do you think, maybe, that IRAQIS should be the ones to decide what they need, or do you think that "anyone who reads the news" could do a better job sitting halfway around the world... sheesh yourself.

Hell, I likethriftiness, though I understand it isn't a big characteristic of the Left. I would much prefer slow spending enacted by what the Iraqi people request than throwing money at every problem like Washington Democrats...

Do you think, maybe, that IRAQIS should be the ones to decide what they need

So we approve the funding for a year, in October, for an Iraqi government that didn't even take shape until eight months later? What an odd idea.

You're *assuming* it's not being spent because it's not needed or wanted. I don't see any evidence for this whatsoever. Do you have any? Other than your odd belief that if it was needed, it would have been spent already?

I'm assuming it *is* needed, because Iraq still doesn't even have basic infrastructure like reliable electrical power. The Iraqis who you say should decide what they need have been begging for electricity ever since the invasion. Or the security situation. Iraqis have decided what they need. We aren't giving it to them, whether through incompetence or incapability or lack of will or some combination of the three.

sitting halfway around the world... sheesh yourself.

Hey, if you can judge their competence, so can I.

The irrelevant jab about me being a free-spending Democrat is a complete miss, too, btw. Also strange, coming from a Bush supporter.

"You're *assuming* it's not being spent because it's not needed or wanted. I don't see any evidence for this whatsoever. Do you have any? Other than your odd belief that if it was needed, it would have been spent already?"

, aren't you just assuming the opposite? Who has the complaint here, me? Who's the one that needs to provide evidence of wrongdoing? I don't think there is any...

"I'm assuming it *is* needed, because Iraq still doesn't even have basic infrastructure like reliable electrical power."

When your town doesn't have water or power, does the federal government charge in and build the infrastructure for you? No, your local government does. Should the US government do it for them, or get the Iraqis in place to do it themselves? You are trying to make this about what we do for them, not helping them do things for themselves.

"Iraqis have decided what they need. We aren't giving it to them, whether through incompetence or incapability or lack of will or some combination of the three."

I would like to see some material on this. You have reference to the Iraqi government stating that they aren't being helped monetarily? You have reference to the US forces there saying that getting the money to them is the problem?

If you aren't talking about funding the military, and you aren't talking about funding the Iraqi government, who they hell ARE you talking about. You suggest we hand out cash to people on the street?

"Other than your odd belief that if it was needed, it would have been spent already?"

That one takes the cake. The simplest most logical answer is somehow odd..

Let's talk about "odd beliefs". You are the one saying that it is needed, and just being withheld, though you can't say why, or who is withholding it. I assume with pool of billions to spend that they will spend it as they need to, and if it is stalled, there must be a good reason.

How can people say on the one had that Iraq is full of greedy contracters wasting money, and on the other hand complain that enough isn't being spent. If you want to critique how things are being done, why not explain the problems with the system?

When your town doesn't have water or power, does the federal government charge in and build the infrastructure for you? No, your local government does. Should the US government do it for them, or get the Iraqis in place to do it themselves?

From the invasion until just a little while ago we *were* the government in Iraq. State, local, and federal. So yes, these problems like electric power and and reliable running water were indeed our problem and our responsiblity, and that means that it's our job to pay for them. We allocated the money for them. They are still not fixed. This is a problem. Fixing infrastructure is not mutually exclusive with getting a new government running.

Forget it, I'm done. I've got to get some work done. This is irrelevant to the original thread, or even the original tangent, anyway.

If a bleeding heart internally, a politician must show strength and rattle his canines; for this country, its bring on the goddamn world.

"and that means that it's our job to pay for them. We allocated the money for them. They are still not fixed. This is a problem. Fixing infrastructure is not mutually exclusive with getting a new government running."

Now, I never said we didn't need to pay, I simply said that we needed to help them do it themselves. They need to manage the rebuilding, and we need to get them into the position of managing it, which is what I think the last year or so has been about. Now that they are getting there, I would expect that money to be spent. Building more infrastructure for insurgents to blow up would have been pointless. Now that they are beginning to provide for their own stability, it would be money better spent to aid them with it.

Well, the missile defense system doesn't actually exist yet, so I don't think that our soldiers are actively using it.

You are wrong. Some elements of Missile Defense have been used as far back as the first Gulf War. And many more elements have become active since then. Many more will become active in the future, but to say that it does not exist and that our soldiers are not using it is simply speaking out of ignorance. I know this because I have helped build several of the systems and a year and a half ago I was training our soldiers to use missile defense systems (and it is systems, not system).

Yes there have been problems with red tape. I would think more congressional oversight would result in more red tape.

If a bleeding heart internally, a politician must show strength and rattle his canines; for this country

Actually, Kerry went from a very pro-war position to an ambivalent anti-war position to get the Democratic nomination.

Bakerstreet, I have to conceed to your argument. I am unsure how Kerry would go about doing the things he proposes, and I am not certain that they can be done. However, I want to believe that we can somehow get this monkey off our back. I have to believe that because my family has so much at stake in relation to the war(s).
PS - I meant to say "internationalize" - sorry about that

Texas Wahine: no arguement there. I think we need to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, but I think rushing it risks turning a contoversial decision into a complete smear. All we need is to have to look back on Iraq like we look back on Vietnam and Korea. It goes beyond saving face, I think. In order to remain relavant we have to stop leaving messes all over the world. If we go, we need to complete what we set out to do, in spite of all the opposition.

P.S. Every time I see your name it reminds me of the Junior Brown song "Hillbilly Hula Gal". , I know, I'm nuts. Cool name, though.

Never heard it . . . I will have to look it up. Let's see if you can guess . . . am I from Hawai'i and living in Texas or vice versa?
PS - I'm impressed that you know "wahine"

Additionally, Kerry has expressed a desire to international the effort and work towards a resolution. I don't read his statements as a desire to "continue the effort" as much as an intention to make things right and seek an end to the entanglement that continues to take the lives and limbs of more of our soldiers every day. Having said that, I do feel that Kerry has a long way to go toward having a specific and workable plan of action that he willingly shares with the American public.

Well spoken. Madine's point is to display a fickle Kerry; but all his comments are consistent in acknowledging that we cannot sit idly while the threat of terror continues. His posture as a senator does not a president make. JFK as senator was all over the lot, too.