Debate between freeper and currently undecided Bush '00 voter

[Czolgosz]

On another message board where I occasionally post, there is an interesting debate between a freeper and a Republican-leaning independent conservative who voted for Bush in '00 but who is currently undecided. I'm reposting it here because it shows an interesting dynamic that may lie at the heart of tonight's debate.

The freeper begins with a post of Rove's pre-debate talking points (the usual flip flop bullshit), and here is how the Bush '00 independent responds:

___

I with you.

Kerry needs to clarify.

If Kerry meant that we needed to remove Saddam Hussein in the same sense that we needed to remove Slobodan Milosevic (i.e., with an international coalition and without a shitload of US casualties or the US bearing over 90% of the cost by itself), Kerry should say so.

If Kerry meant that the he supported funding the war when the funding was proposed to come through a roll back of tax-cuts for the ultra-wealthy, but he voted against funding the war when the plan was changed to fund it with deficit spending, Kerry should say so.

If Kerry meant the cost is now too high because of bad decisions by Bush, but -- too high or not -- we still need to pay our debts and see this through, Kerry should say so.

If Kerry meant that he voted to give Bush the keys to the car, but he is is critical that Bush then drove off a cliff, Kerry should say so.

If this is Kerry's position, then I see no flip flopping and I can agree with his position.

There are a lot of conservatives who are disgusted with the deficit spending, the unilateral approach to the war in Iraq, and failure of prewar intelligence, but who are still waiting for clearer answers from Kerry. I WILL be watching the debate.

___

The freeper responds to the comparison between Saddam and Milosevic:

Do you know that the official Clinton position on going into the Baltic? "Together if we can. Alone if we must". That was strictly a NATO operation and we did encure most of the cost, while not having as much control over our military.

---

The undecided Bush '00 voter:

I see where you are going, but how many US troops died in liberating the Baltic? My heart wants to measure that against how many have dies in Iraq.

What did the US spend to liberate the Baltic and what percentage of the total cost was borne by the US? As compared to the way we went into Iraq, I have to conclude that Bush drove us off a cliff (and canceled our insurance on the day before the crash!).

[Goldmund]

1. The Baltic?

They mean the Balkans. But then again, if they really knew what's up, they wouldn't be a freeper and an undecided...

[rockymountaindem]

2. We didn't liberate the Baltic.

The Baltic is a sea between Scandanavia and the northern European coast. We fought in the BALKANS. That's an important distinction.

[Crunchy Frog]

5. We also didn't remove Slobodan Milosovic.

We limited the scope of his activities in Kosovo. We ultimately helped to weaken his position, and that probably helped the Serbian people to remove him, but they did it themselves with no direct help from us.

[Joe_VB]

3. I think its funny that they say Baltic instead of Balkans.......eom

[Wapsie B]

4. Interesting thread.

I believe the gop is such a splintered mess right now the only thing covering it up is a lap-dog media. If they had a strong standard-bearer who they could rally behind there wouldn't be doubters like this. Gallup doesn't even begin to measure people like this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. We Liberated Kosovo On The Cheap....

No loss of American life or treasure.....


It was worth it....


I supported the liberation.... My calculus might have been different if I needed to factor in the loss of one thousand plus American lives and two hundred billion dollars....

[Bandit]

7. Different situations entirely

The Balkans was an ongoing war that was killing thousands of people and was spilling over into the Mediterranean area. All of Europe was very worried about the escalation of the war. Iraq was doing nothing NOTHING. NATO needed the US to help. NATO does not want anything to do with Iraq. US casualties were very limited. ZERO if I remember correctly. Iraq...well we all know what is happening in Iraq.