June 22, 2006

"G.O.P. Decides to Embrace War as Issue."

What a strange turnaround!
Just a few weeks ago, some Republicans were openly fretting about the war in Iraq and its effect on their re-election prospects, with particularly vulnerable lawmakers worried that its growing unpopularity was becoming a drag on their campaigns.

But there was little sign of such nervousness on Wednesday as Republican after Republican took to the Senate floor to offer an unambiguous embrace of the Iraq war and to portray Democrats as advocates of an overly hasty withdrawal that would have grave consequences for the security of the United States. Like their counterparts in the House last week, they accused Democrats of espousing "retreat and defeatism."
How did that happen? Jim Rutenberg and Adam Nagourney write:
[P]eople who attended a series of high-level meetings this month between White House and Congressional officials say President Bush's aides argued that it could be a politically fatal mistake for Republicans to walk away from the war in an election year.

White House officials including the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, outlined ways in which Republican lawmakers could speak more forcefully about the war. Participants also included Mr. Bush's top political and communications advisers: his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove; his political director, Sara Taylor; and the White House counselor, Dan Bartlett. Mr. Rove is newly freed from the threat of indictment in the C.I.A. leak case, and leaders of both parties see his reinvigorated hand in the strategy.

The meetings were followed by the distribution of a 74-page briefing book to Congressional offices from the Pentagon to provide ammunition for what White House officials say will be a central line of attack against Democrats from now through the midterm elections: that the withdrawal being advocated by Democrats would mean thousands of troops would have died for nothing, would give extremists a launching pad from which to build an Islamo-fascist empire and would hand the United States its must humiliating defeat since Vietnam.

Republicans say the cumulative effect would be to send a message of weakness to the world at a time of new threats from Iran and North Korea and would leave enemies controlling Iraq's vast oil reserves, the third largest in the world. (The book, including a chapter entitled "Rapid Response" with answers to frequent Democratic charges, was sent via e-mail to Republican lawmakers but, in an apparent mistake, also to some Democrats.)
Great strategy... except that last part. (Email is always breaking loose.) And let me say that it's not just a good political strategy, it's actually the correct analysis of the war.
A senior adviser to Mr. Bush said the White House had concluded that it was better to plunge aggressively into the debate on Iraq than to let Democrats play upon clear, public misgivings about the war. "This is going to be a big issue in this election," said the adviser, who was granted anonymity in exchange for agreeing to describe strategic considerations about the war. "Better to shape and fight it — as good and strongly as you can — than to try to run away from it."
Interesting the way the attitude toward political strategy resembles the attitude toward fighting the war itself. It seems to reinforce the impression that the Republicans are the ones to trust on national security. And, apparently, this impression was clear enough that it shocked the Democrats out of a position that they thought was great.

So, that email escaping into Democratic hands... was that an accident? The Democrat who got the the email was Nancy Pelosi.

96 comments:

McKreck said...

As a Republican I think this is very reassuring. Bush is too often silent, preferring to let his opponents hang themselves with their own bad arguments. But sometimes that means his opponents will frame the issue in a way that Bush and the Republicans cannot win the debate, so it's good to see Republicans fight back against this and try to frame the issue in a way that favors them.

And it highlights a lesson that can be drawn from Vietnam (and Beirut) that is not often discussed: never do anything that looks to our enemies like a retreat. It's a sure way to lose elections.

KCFleming said...

Pelosi's response on reading the "errant" e-amil:

1. "Aaaagh! My eyes! It burns!"
or
2. She wonders why it would possibly be bad to send a message of weakness to Iran and North Korea, and leave enemies controlling Iraq's vast oil reserves.
or
3. "I know, more Pell grants!"

Derve Swanson said...

"And let me say that it's not just a good political strategy, it's actually the correct analysis of the war."

"I haven't studied military strategy. I don't have any ideas of my own about how to do brain surgery either."

Grain of salt, anyone?

Unknown said...

Yes, Bush is TOO often silent. I guess the conventional wisdom still is that we cannot handle war and its burdens. This is the false lesson of Vietnam. After 9/11 many of us realize we cannot let the military insulate us from reality. We do have enemies. To the government I say, ask us to sacrifice, share our rage at the beheaders, include us in. Make this an American cause, not just a military one. Most of all, WIN!

Ann Althouse said...

Mary, your gotcha is wrong. Reexamine the archives. I've repeatedly said I favor doing what is needed to win, but that I can't give a specific strategy. This isn't inconsistent with that.

Sloanasaurus said...

Yes, these defeats against the Demcrats are great victories for the U.S. It shows where we stand as a nation - stay the course for now at least.

The enemy in Iraq has no real intelligence, thus they can only interpret from what they see on the ground, what they see in the U.S. and world press and what our government announces publicly.

I am somewhat disturbed by the recent announcement that more than 500 gas shells have been found in Iraq. I think the real answer (that was implied from the WMD reports) and news of some shells being found is that we know there are tons of WMD missing in Iraq and we would prefer that the enemny not waste resources to look for them. Thus, the notion that there are is no WMD in Iraq, which is being communicated everywhere (while being politically bad for Bush) is a great message for the insurgency. If the insurgency believes there is no WMD they won't go looking for the WMD. The worst thing that could happen is if the insurgency started using WMD on our troops.

Sloanasaurus said...

Mark, what kind of comment is that?

Your obviously an intellectual light weight.

Are you so twisted that you don't beleive Bush actually cares more about the country than his own approval rating?

Go read some history, you will learn some things about how wars are waged.

Troy said...

It's called commitment Mark. I realize many on the left (and way too many Republicans) don't understand the concept of finishing a job started, but to just pull up and out is unconscionable. This is not some marriage you can shitcan because you're "not happy" or a credit card you can bankrupt out of because the costs are too high.

No matter how ill-advised -- we cannot just pull out of Iraq. I'll grant Kos' full argument.

Let's assume the worst... Bush lied, criminally, and prosecuted the war in Iraq so we could have low gas prices or Big Oil could have record profits or avenge Daddy or any other tin-foil hat premise you want. So what? We still -- for national security, face-saving, etc. HAVE to WIN in Iraq. There is no wholesale tactical retreat here. The only option is withdrawal when victory is achieved. Defining "victory" is key no doubt.

If -- and it's a big "if" -- the Dems win; then they can investigate the hell out of Bush, et al. I don't think that will happen because whenever the Dems talk about pullout, the average American hears "We're pussies who can't stick it out". That is never a winning startegy in most Congressional districts except for Pelosi's and some others. San Fran apparently will punk out to anybody.

Brent said...

Ann,

This is not a "turnaround". The Republicans are smart enough to look at the polls and believe them - despite the national negative mood on the war in Iraq, the ONE ISSUE where Republicans still are ahead in the polls is "Who Do You Trust More to be in charge of National Security?"

C'mon, they are simply smart enough in the White House to take advantage of that. Anyone can see that.

Heck, even little ol' insignificant me wrote THIS in your comments section 3 days ago:

"The Democrats have convinced a large section of the American Public on one thing: elections are for serious business. And when Americans go into the voting booth, the rubber meets the road, and each family shakes hands with the future. That said, there is no Democrat on the national scene that is credible on military issues, or able to be trusted with the war on terror. And the American VOTER, despite the polls, knows THAT fact on Election Day."

Sloanasaurus said...

".....As parrots, they repeat that we need to "win", never bothering to consider that the presence of US troops is not contributing to any victory and is further flaming the insurgency....."

This is false. In fact they are considering this argument and rejecting it completely. The idea that aggrevating your enemy is the entire theory behind the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938 and in any appeasement. France and Britain were so scared that offending hitler would lead to war they were willing to appease him - and got war anyways.

To believe that our aggressive posture creates more terrorist and therefore we should not do it must be rejected.

It is true that our involvement in Iraq creates more terrorists and mroe resistance. It is also true our war against Germany and Japan probably mobilized these countries to put 10 million more men under arms than they would have if we would have negotiated a peace. However, to defeat the enemy you have to assume that the enemy will garner more resources in the fight. Just because the enemy increases their force does not mean you give up.

If we left Iraq today the terrorists would probably defeat the new Iraqi government and we would be back in the middle east fighting a third and more deadly war in the future.

Sloanasaurus said...

What a minute Mark. There is a report that just came out that they have found more than 500 warheads with WMD. Yes, I am making the assumption based on this report that they had WMDs because 500 warheads have been found. And the report concludes that they think more are there.

"Don't you think that whoever hid the WMDs (on the orders of Saddam) would have shared this information with insurgents long ago?...."

Maybe, but we captured or killed most of Saddams henchmen in the very early stages of the war. And the insurgency groups are on their second-third-fourth changes in management since then.

McKreck said...

Mark,

So what's your point exactly? That we are all a bunch of idiots and we should shut up and listen to you? Is that your plan for Democrats to win an election, badger everybody until they bow down to your wisdom?

Anonymous said...

that the withdrawal being advocated by Democrats would mean thousands of troops would have died for nothing, would give extremists a launching pad from which to build an Islamo-fascist empire and would hand the United States its must humiliating defeat since Vietnam.

You should study a bit of econ to learn about sunk costs. The Dems would not be to blame for thousands of troops dyng for nothing, that would be George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Ann Althouse. The Dems would not be to blame for America's most humiliating defeat since Vietnam, that would be George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Ann Althouse. The Dems would not be to blame for giving terrorists a launching pad, that would be George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Ann Althouse.

The Dems would not be responsible when in future wars Americans are tortured: GWB, DR, AA.

The Dems would be responsible for allowing the Army to rebuild. Not responsible: GWB, DR, AA.

The Dems would be responsible for stemming the massive increases in our debt. Not responsible: GWB, DR, AA.

The Dems would be responsible for allowing DHS to refocus on threats to America's borders: hardening up our cities and infrastructure, port inspections, etc. Not responsible: GWB, DR, AA.

The Dems would be responsible for allowing the American and the Army to have the resources to focus on true threats: Iran and NK. Nrgwbdraa.

Ann, if I were to tell you my "analysis" of a Supreme Court decision, you would laugh. If you were to tell me your analysis of a real-time flight control system, I would laugh.

I admire your ability to analyse the war.

Nothing in that book or email seems to discuss the merits of the war. Everything appears to discuss the war in Iraq as a political strategy to keep control of Congress.

And no hat tip to me?

fyi: mark, mary, don't let sloan fool you, he is an automated bot.

Derve Swanson said...

Not a gotcha, just my observation. Seems logically inconsistent:

If you don't know military strategy, why would anyone give credence to your opinion of what is the "correct analysis of the war"?

Something -- a step or two -- is missing there.

"And let me say that it's not just a good political strategy, it's actually the correct analysis of the war."

"I haven't studied military strategy. I don't have any ideas of my own about how to do brain surgery either."

Like you saying to someone a few days post-op, "Oh the brain surgery went wonderfully. A complete success. Everything is progressing nicely."

If you don't know brain surgery, the missing step appears to be your reliance on the "experts" -- doctors who performed the surgery, or in this case, leaders who have an incentive to portray the current course and their work to date in a positive light.

Your opinions on this blog, and the nation's goals in accurately accessing leadership and true progress, are not necessarily the same. Most can see that. Hence, the grain of salt comment.

altoids1306 said...

Talk is cheap. Does America agree with Ann? Let's see how the elections pan out. I think the GOP will retain control of both the House and Senate, perhaps with slightly reduced majorities (you can't possibly expect the GOP majority to continue growing indefinitely...)

And even if the Dems take the House, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The GOP of late needs to be a taught a lesson, and shape up for 2008. As long as the GOP has the Senate, Bush can still get his judges through, and a Democratic House would throughly disabuse Americans from voting in Democratic 2008. Government would come to a grinding halt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Brent said...

Let me rephrase my earlier comments, especially for the sake of the anti-Iraq war commenters:

TAlk about the war all you want, but you CANNOT effect a change in the way it is being fought. There is NO Public Support, despite the "polls" for changing course to your position.

Do not expect to see Democrats take over either the House or Senate this fall - it just won't happen.

You can blame demographics, or "illegal (in the Democrat Dictionary spelled "Texas") reapportionment", or the Media, or Big Oil, or Big Food, or Big Toy's R Us or whoever (my personal favorite is "the stupidity of the average American voter") . . . but:

There are still NO Democrats on the national scene that the American Public believes they can vote for, trusting them to even be confident on National Security.

And that won't change between now and November.

Anonymous said...

Chuck Hagel: “Focus Group-Tested Buzz Words…Like ‘Cut and Run’…Debase the Seriousness of War”

This afternoon on the Senate floor, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) blasted conservatives who have turned to “catchy political slogans” to avoid having a serious debate about Bush’s Iraq policy. Hagel argued that using such focus-group tested words like “cut and run” demean the debate and “debase the seriousness of war.”

Congress fails in its duty when we do not probe, when we fail, we do not ask tough questions, and we fail when we do not debate the gate issues of our day. There is no issue more important than war. The war in Iraq is the defining issue on which this Congress and the administration will be judged. The American people want to see serious debate about serious issues from serious leaders. They deserve more than a political debate. This debate should transcend cynical attempts to turn public frustration with the war in Iraq into an electoral advantage. It should be taken more seriously than to simply retreat into focus-group tested buzz words and phrases like “cut and run,” catchy political slogans that debase the seriousness of war. War’s not a partisan issue, Mr. President. It should not be held hostage to political agendas. War should not be drug down into the political muck. America deserves better. Our men and women fighting and dying deserve better.

Sloanasaurus said...

That is your view General Mark, but you don't really know whether or not our withdrawing will make things better.

Besides, isn't a determination of this fact best left up to the Generals and the military. Should we let our politicians decide whether or not the troops are doing more harm than good. This sounds to me like politicans meddling in the tactical and strategic planning of a war - something politicans should stay away from. Instead politicans need to give a clear goal to the military and then provide the resources to reach that goal. (I believe General George Marshall said something like that). If the goal of the democrats is to win, they should communicate this rather than trying to tell the experts (the military) how to win (as you said by pulling out). If the Democrats want to lose, then they should order a pull out.

The difference you pointed out about Germany and Iraq is a non-sequitur. Being united doesn't make a differce to the argument. Besides there is no civil war. A civil war is when the institutions of a society line up against each other. In Iraq there are attempts to ferment a civil war by criminal gangs, but this has so far failed.

Derve Swanson said...

Mark,
It's early, but I like Hagel.

Derve Swanson said...

Sloan,
All due respect, I think the Iraqi people are in a better position to talk about their country, not you. Autonomy for all.

Paddy O said...

Mary, that's a great point. And since the majority of the people voted in a government, I think that government in Iraq should be the one asking us to stay or telling us to leave.

What does the new Prime Minister say on the subject?

Or do the Iraqi version of gangbangers get veto rights?

McKreck said...

Mark, you said "My point is that one should try to look beyond empty simplistic slogans such as "cut and run" or "we need to win"."

It sounds to me like what you have been saying is that if a person does not agree that withdrawal is the correct option, then that person must be a parrot who cannot look beyond empty slogans, a person who has not thought things through correctly who needs to be told to go back and start over.

In my opinion, if that is your logic, then that is merely a variation of the statement, "Your're an idiot, shut up."

Derve Swanson said...

"Mary, that's a great point. And since the majority of the people voted in a government, I think that government in Iraq should be the one asking us to stay or telling us to leave. What does the new Prime Minister say on the subject?"

Now we're getting somewhere patty. Instead of asking the new government though, why not ask the Iraqi people? They get to define success ultimately, and really get to vote with their actions, whether cooperative or heads down/survival mode. It must be miserable to have to live under some of those conditions, and then be told by foreigners like us just how good they've got it.

It's a good thing to keep in mind that a government can be distinct from a people. Might keep you alive one day.

Ricardo said...

"The meetings were followed by the distribution of a 74-page briefing book to Congressional offices from the Pentagon to provide ammunition for what White House officials say will be a central line of attack against Democrats...."

To what extent are Pentagon resources being used to "fight" the Democrats? As an ex-military officer, who was constantly told to avoid direct involvement in partisan politics, I find this highly disturbing (regardless of which party is in power). Am I just reading too much into this, or has the admininstration decided to use our military men and women to open another "front" against the Democrats? Who EXACTLY prepared this briefing book?

Brent said...

If anyone believes that "anti-Iraq War" Democrats can be elected to the Senate (not "RE-elected), thereby leading to a Democratic Senate takeover, or at the least, more pressure on the White House's war plans:

You will not see the Democrats field a winning, full "anti-Iraq War" Senate candidate. The successful Democrat (running the first time) will take numerous postions similar to the White House. Only those Democratic Senators running for re-elction will have the option of maintaining an "anti-Iraq War" position.

That said, the comments, bless your heart, that are rehashed every day throughout the blogosphere are:

- merely an exercise to articulate already strongly-held positions

- for receiving reinforcement in your position from others with similar views

- almost never successful at changing minds and positions . . . though the few that do are "certainly worth the effort".

Are you a believer that the anti-war efforts during the Vietnam war actually ended the war any sooner?
Michael Medved was a leader in that movement (a true leftist at the time) and today, believes that while America's morale was brought low by the anti-war effort, that the movement actually "pro-longed" the actual war. He is joined in his opinion by over 30 other left-wing (most still are) anti-war movement leaders.


Simply be aware that, while the back and forth has good purposes, this is the future factual reality of the Iraq War:

The Bush White House will prosecute the war exactly as the President sees fit for the remainder of his term in office. There will be no public or Congressional pressure that will alter his intentions or plans whatsoever.

There will continue to be public handwringing over new "evidence", on a regular basis, of "proof" that Bush (pick as many as you like):

- lied

- is in big with Big Oil

- can't admit he made mistakes

- insert your own complaint.


Folks, the writing Hand of History has already written at least the next two years...

...so, find a way to contribute something constructive. if you say you support the troops (whatever your war view) then please put your feet and money where your comments are, and adopt a serviceman or woman, contribute to military families time or meals, or a whole host of things.

Because, again, being angry about the war will not change ANYTHING about it in at least the next two years.

Sloanasaurus said...

"........There are many generals who off the record say that our presence is flaming the insurgency. Obviously they cannot say so on record because they would be immediately dismissed....
____

Mark that is such a load of Bull. You are trying to tell me there are generals who secretly believe that pulling out of Iraq would be better than staying because they are afraid. What a joke. If the military told Bush that we had a better chance of winning by pulling out, Bush would do it in a second. Pulling out now only means one thing - that the policy ahs changed from winning to accepting defeat. Do democrats want defeat?

Secret Generals?...now you are the one fantasizing.

The General Shinsheki reference is also bunk. Every tactical and strategic decision has critics in the military, which is why our military kicks butt. There were tons of critics regarding the D Day decision in World War II, tons of critics over campaigns such as market garden - so what. I dont recall the Congress seeking out these critics and then passing laws to adopt their points of views....

Derve Swanson said...

"Fighting an insurgency from a military standpoint is very difficult, as one's success is often more dependent on economic and political factors than on military power and technology."

Absolutely correct, rogera. Imo, of course.

And I for one, would welcome frank discussion about America's role in the Middle East. Long overdue. Geopolitics cannot be ignored, and we need to trigger discussion of the bigger issues -- starting with America's energy policy. Water resources in that region are also key, but that is an underlying issue to be addressed and not America's direct concern. Or more accurately, not America's problem to solve. We'd do better looking ahead here regarding the condition of our own natural resources, water included.

Anonymous said...

Mary, that's a great point. And since the majority of the people voted in a government, I think that government in Iraq should be the one asking us to stay or telling us to leave.

What does the new Prime Minister say on the subject?


Iraqi Prime Minister Announces Timetable: Full Security Takeover by End of 2007


On the eve of the meeting between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair today to discuss the next steps in Iraq, Iraq’s new prime minister Nuri Al-Maliki stated for the second time in the past week that Iraqi forces should be able to take over security within 18 months – by the end of 2007.

This is the same period of time outlined in Strategic Redeployment 2.0, the progressive plan for Iraq written by Larry Korb and myself at the Center for American Progress.

Signs are that Bush and Blair will avoid setting down a clear marker for withdrawing troops – yesterday White House spokesman Tony Snow pushed back against suggestions that President Bush might finally listen to the Iraqis and set a timeline.

But the call for a timeline for withdrawing troops should not come as a surprise. This is exactly what most Iraqis want. Last fall, Iraqi leaders from across the ethnic and sectarian spectrum called for a timetable for troop withdrawals at a conference in Cairo.

These leaders are voicing the opinions of their constituents – a recent poll found that 70 percent of Iraqis support withdrawing U.S.-led forces by the end of 2007.


Iraq’s Vice President Personally Asks Bush for Timetable

After returning from his surprise trip to Iraq, George Bush told the press that Iraqis opposed a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, syaing "the willingness of some to say that if we’re in power we’ll withdraw on a set timetable concerns people in Iraq." What Bush didn't say, however, was the the Vice President of Iraq, Tariq al-Hashimi, personally asked Bush to set a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces the day of his visit. Iraq’s President, Jalal Talabani, said he supported the request:

Iraq’s vice president has asked Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, the Iraqi president’s office said. Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday, when the U.S. president made a surprise visit to Iraq.

“I supported him in this,” President Jalal Talabani said in a statement released Wednesday. Al-Hashimi’s representatives could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.


So PaddyO, we have here the Prime Minister, the President, and the Vice President, and Iraqi leaders from across the ethnic and sectarian spectrum.

What does President Bush do?

Bush Claimed Iraqis Oppose Timetable the Day After Iraq’s VP Personally Asked Him for One

After Bush returned from his trip to Iraq this week, President Bush attacked those calling for a timetable for withdrawal. He said Iraqis had “concerns” that a timetable would disrupt their strategy to create a secure and democratic Iraq


So PaddyO, may I now mark you down as being pro-timetable?

(Question to Ann: why are so many of your pro-Iraq-war commenters so woefully misinformed? Do you see a causation?)

KCFleming said...

I'll reprise Sippican Cottage's take on Quxxo:

"Every topic, no matter how mundane:

1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.

Axis Sally. Tokyo Rose. Quxxo."

KCFleming said...

After our soldiers were found, beaten and savaged by those fascists, beheaded, faces cut, and castrated (genitals stuffed in their mouths), and to see people walk by, almost whistling as if nothing happened, or if it did, it's our own damn fault, contending our best option now is to leave, I think:

Be fruitful and multiply.

But not in those words.

Bruce Hayden said...

Enjoyable as both sides throw the usual stuff back and forth.

But I was wondering what the anti-war pushback from the release of the information about the WMD would be, and apparently, according to Mark, it is that the wrong WMD were found. These apparently don't count, for some reason that Mark did not fully elucidate. Somehow, the fact that these weapons apparently predated the 1991 war somehow disqualifies them as being WMD, in a quantity that most would consider at stockpile.

Never mind that the cease-fire required that these precise weapons be destroyed, and apparently, were not. Surprise, surprise. It should be noted that some have suggested that the fact that these were apparently missed by Saddam in the runnup to our invasion is possibly indicia that they were irrelevant in the scheme of things - implying that a lot of more modern weapons were moved or hidden.

We shall see.

Nevertheless, the constant claim that we didn't find WMD stockpiles in Iraq now apparently has to be changed to that we didn't find the right WMD stockpiles there.

Derve Swanson said...

Turns out Nick Berg's father was correct in his prediction, Pogo. Violence begets violence. Not that you're tracking results. I'm sure the evil Dems are somehow to blame.

Randy said...

My Cynical Prediction of the Day: Troop withdrawals will begin late this summer and accelerate through the fall, just long enough after the congressional Democrats have made themselves sufficiently ridiculous in public debates on the floor of Congress to gain them no political mileage while providing the GOP a needed boost. 2002 redux anyone?

Just an idle thought - no inside knowledge or insight claimed.

Unknown said...

Every time I hear someone fret about inflaming the insurgency, I remember these words:

"Just be quiet and you'll be okay."
Mohammed Atta

Derve Swanson said...

You're probably right Ronin.

One man's cut and run is another man's accelerated troop withdrawal.

Political calculations; the Iraqi people are the real losers.

Anonymous said...

And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.”

Ann, I have work that I need to get done. Unless your pro-Iraqi-War commenters shape up, I have to say I find your site more and more irrelevant. It is one thing to have an interesting debate with well-informed people that have arrived at difference conclusions, but it is another thing entirely to have only uneducated dimbulbs striving to hear you call out their names.

Instead of the well-informed, I find merely partisan repeating. And frankly, I find that weird.

Bruce since you are a former engineer and now a patent attorney, professions I respect, I can only assume you have had a momentary brain fart. But it's been close to five years now, and I fear atropy is setting in. Get up from behind that keyboard and take a load off your mind.

KCFleming said...

Re: "Violence begets violence."

Yeah, too bad we got Hitler. If we'd have just tut-tutted long enough, and let the League of Nations get together and, um, nation league stuff, well, all violence would have stopped.

KCFleming said...

Quxxo's reprise:
3. You cannot win the war.

Brent said...

Jacques,

You are missing the overall point:
You are irrelevant to what is and will continue to happen in Iraq (see my above posts).

All of your pontificating is simply an intellectual exercise - it is otherwise REAL world useless.

You may feel that you are in the great traditions of "speaking truth to power" and the vaunted "60's Protest Era", but that is your only consolation. "Grass roots" protesting, whether by angry bloggers or media pundits, don't cut it this time, this era - that ship has sailed into history . . . and good riddance.

You are an intelligent man, on the wrong side of history.

Derve Swanson said...

Pogo:
You're reading too much value judgment into the truth of the phrase. If you can acknowledge the correctness, you can make better choices.

KCFleming said...

Re:"You're reading too much value judgment into the truth of the phrase. If you can acknowledge the correctness, you can make better choices."
Mary, I disagree with the idea that there is any truth to the statement that 'violence begets violence'.

It suggest a profound and even fatal misunderstanding of human behavior, one that is common to the left, pointing to the erroneous belief in the perfectability of man.

Man has many natural drives, including aggression and fight-or-flight repsonses. They cannot be untaught. Violence is. It can be controlled, sublimated, substituted for, or directed towards more constructive ends, but it cannot be eliminated. Except by eliminating humans.

People, because they are people, beget violence. And sometimes the only way to break a (not the) cycle of violence is through violent means. Doing so isn't a cause of violence.

The failure to understand that is the failure of the left to fully understand real humankind.

Example: An 8th grade bully choked my 6th grade son. The school had them 'discuss it' to 'break the cycle'. He punched my son frequently after that for telling. My visit with the boy, in which I promised violence that he'd never dreamned of ended that cycle of violence for good.

You are flat wrong.

Derve Swanson said...

All those words typed and you dont' recognize you're agreeing with me:

Violence begets violence. Your son's response is not typical. He had Dad to lean on this time.

You chose to settle things with words. Way to go, Lefty.

KCFleming said...

"You chose to settle things with words."

Mary, your msiunderstanding of human behavior is boundless. Fortunately, your errors need not guide our policy.

I've had to deal with violence on occasions in my life. I hope you can always deflect them in your life with words that promise violence but lack a credible threat of fruition. Not for me. I'm still training to fight.

Remember, Osama attacked us preciseley because he misread Mogadishu (among other attacks) as evidence of our unwillingness to become violent again. He said so himself. That is, the lack of ability to engage a violent response begets violence.

Derve Swanson said...

"just hope nobody ever calls their bluff"

I was thinking that, but restrained from commenting further about Pogo's son. (seems folks can bring up their boys to make points, but find it creepy when others continue the discussion in the same vein.)

He'd be in a heap o' trouble if, as an adult he ever assaulted the kid. And I wonder how the boy will do next time when Dad is not around to fight his battle. Empty threats usually don't cut it for long.

KCFleming said...

Re: "Empty threats usually don't cut it for long."

Now you get it!
Sometimes violence is necessary. It's the sad part about being human.

P.S. Since then, my son has had training to fight as well, and has responded to a potential bully with violence. Result? Both got detention for one hour (our wonderful school system, where self-defense is forbidden). But the bully was a bully to him no more. As for me, I've had the 'bluff' called, much to their surprise. Woops. No bluff.

Derve Swanson said...

"I hope you can always deflect them in your life with words that promise violence but lack a credible threat of fruition."

Lol, it's the name huh? I'm just a peaceful lamb? I believe very strongly in violence wielded effectively. Otherwise...

"the lack of ability to engage a violent response begets violence."

Your son would appear to be in trouble then? I'm not trying to hurt you, just not at all understanding your position. And why is it that the big talkers always have the picked-on sons? Cause and effect? You get riled up on words here because there is weakness in the family? Settle it up good once, is my thought, then shake hands and move on. And feed your kids right and teach them to effectively take care of themselves, in one manner or another.

Troy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Derve Swanson said...

"Sometimes violence is necessary."

See, this is where I said you were reading value judgment into my comment.

Violence begets violence. That is the original observation, nothing more. I think you are reading something that is not there, putting words into my mouth.

Yes, that is common for any fighting to draw a suspension or detention. Can't have teachers and school officials taking sides, refereeing kiddie troubles. It's a part of growing up. Tell your son not to sweat the detentions. Not a big thing.

(Are you implying that you beat up a child bully? Big man there) Maybe you should ask why your son is a target, if it's happening more than once?

Palladian said...

"It is one thing to have an interesting debate with well-informed people that have arrived at difference conclusions, but it is another thing entirely to have only uneducated dimbulbs striving to hear you call out their names."

Breaking my rule again, the "don't talk to the crazy homeless man pissing in the alley" rule. First off, don't insult people here with the "uneducated" canard. Mainly because it's a lame, elitist argumentative tactic, but also because it's untrue. The commenters on this blog tend to be broad-minded, educated, well-read, and articulate. If you're the kind of person that thinks hides from ivory towers are needed to prove "intelligence", you can look up our various advanced degrees because, unlike you, many of us aren't anonymous pissant cowards hiding their slim accomplishments and protecting their tenuous employment behind (multiple) anonymous pseudonyms.

You don't want to have an "interesting debate with well-informed people that have arrived at difference conclusions" and you know it, so cut the bullshit. In fact, you seem patently unable to have an interesting debate with anyone above a 6th grade reading level without resorting to your 6th grade tactics of pretend authority (I'm just here to educate you, Ann!) or your sarcastic smartypants routine (oh you dimbulb wingnuts) or even more juvenile, your ostensibly "clever puns" on commenter's nicknames (like whatever you call me because you can't type 'Palladian' or don't know what it means). It doesn't hurt, or enrage, or engage us. It's simply boring, annoying, and a little creepy.

I'm sure this scolding, like all the other scoldings you receive here, will do nothing to deter you from pasting your turgid slabs of boring quotes from usually third-rate, little-read, soggy leftwing publications. In fact, it probably encourages you, in some ghastly psycho-sexual way, to continue since surely if you stroke us enough you know we'll respond, possibly like your own anatomy, stimulated in similar ways, doesn't.

You've latched on here because it's the only place where anyone half-way interesting gives you (undeservedly) two seconds of their time. You know that you could never hold anyone's attention at your own blog, because you have nothing interesting to say, and you're a vile, creepy person to boot. You're a parasite and unfortunately, though there exists an easy cure for you, Ann has chosen not to use it. That says everything about the kind of person she is, and merely reinforces what we know about the kind of person you are.

Randy said...

Palladian: Well said! Well said!

Randy

Derve Swanson said...

Palladian,
are you feeling down because Miss Ann hasn't been patting your head much lately?

KCFleming said...

Re: "I believe very strongly in violence wielded effectively. Otherwise..."

and
"Violence begets violence. That is the original observation, nothing more."

Huh? You lost me. I mean, you ain't makin' any sense no-how. You're pointing out a useless tautology, being argumentative, being disingenuous, or being annoying. Or all of the above.

But I favor disingenuous, given that your original statement was in regards to "Nick Berg's father", which has its own inherent value judgement. To deny it is juvenile.

Re: "Are you implying that you beat up a child bully? Big man there"
Mary, you have that same virus what done affected poor quxxo, leavin' him the power to type, but stupid beyond repair. I'll pray for you.

Derve Swanson said...

ps. Let me guess... karate lessons?

"Since then, my son has had training to fight as well"

Derve Swanson said...

ok, one more time from the top, then I'll get to deleting so as not to clutter the thread.

Violence begets violence. You're in a much better position if you recognize this as truth going in. (thinking that folks will not fight back, expecting no resistance, for the life of me, I never did get that one.)

Now, that phrase does NOT mean "there should never be any violence". It just means -- wield it effectively. Expect to get a response. That was the comment of Nick Berg's father upon hearing of the death of Zarqawi. He could not cheer the "victory" of the killing of the man who beheaded his son, because he recognized that there would be a response. And there was.

To me, this does not mean you don't take out Zarqawi. (I can't speak for Mr. Berg). It just means you don't celebrate or cheer to loudly. You do what needs to be done, and stay alert for the backlash. It came, and Mr. Berg was proved right. He believed it's a cycle -- we kill yours, you kill ours, we kill two more of yours, and on and on.

I don't like it when it gets outside the circle -- when folks get drawn in innocently for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Kids, old people, civilians.

If you limit your physical response -- target immediately, efficiently, and plan things out to minimize screw ups -- it's over short and sweet. If not, you start finding fault with those who honestly disagree with the effectiveness of your approach. hth

Palladian said...

"Palladian, are you feeling down because Miss Ann hasn't been patting your head much lately?"

Mary, are you being a tiresome nag because you haven't been getting any lately?

Really, you're almost more annoying than q--xo because, unlike him, you're sincere. I don't know if that makes you an object for scorn or an object for pity.

Derve Swanson said...

"Are you implying that you beat up a child bully? Big man there"

So stop being mysterious and tell us what you mean by this: "As for me, I've had the 'bluff' called, much to their surprise. Woops. No bluff." If I misinterpreted that you made physical threats on your boy's behalf, then acted on them, my apologies. Maybe you called the school, like a good Lefty nothing wrong with that, and were able to work something out.

"Do you have a thing for live minefields?"
Do I bring my kids, as examples, into these discussions? Did I use my personal circumstances to prove a point about settling things, then bristle when others probed a bit further into my selected example? Don't dish it out if you can't take it. I wonder how your son would feel about you using his personal troubles as an example of how tough you are.

Derve Swanson said...

"Mary, are you being a tiresome nag because you haven't been getting any lately?"

Lol. Um... no. But thanks for asking. Good luck to you, though.

KCFleming said...

Mary, that's a creative, unorthodox, unsupportable, and erroneous use of the phrase "violence begets violence". It is commonly taken to be more than a simple tautology; it clearly suggests that stopping violence will break the cycle.

So you're just being annoying.

Re: "I wonder how your son would feel about you using his personal troubles as an example of how tough you are."
Hey, Mary, I have a retarded brother, my Dad had a heart attack a few years back, my sister has cancer, and she's also divorced. Have fun working those into another scintillating post!

Derve Swanson said...

"it clearly suggests that stopping violence will break the cycle."

I knew you were misunderstanding me early on. I tried to point it out, but you just kept marching ahead with your erroneous assumptions.

Re: "Hey, Mary, I have a retarded brother, my Dad had a heart attack a few years back, my sister has cancer, and she's also divorced."

Are you looking for our pity? Why bring this up here? To better understand your frustrations and misplaced aggression? I have to go now (5:15), but good luck finding a sympathetic ear.

Anonymous said...

You honestly don't know what Illudium-Q36 refers to?

Ann do you want to tell him?

Randy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Palladian said...

Does Ann howl?

Maybe she will now that she's been bitten by the were-cat.

Paddy O said...

misinformed?

I'm all for responding to what the Iraqis want. I'm just not a big fan of Congress setting the timetable.

There are politics involved in official announcements on both sides. So, I take official announcements with a grain of salt.

Actual policy isn't always announced for all to hear.

Plus, I suspect there are conversations that don't make it into the news which we have to be aware about.

Sheesh, I wish the folks on the Left here would finally understand the importance of nuance in issues like this and not always make everything black and white, good versus evil.

Anonymous said...

Nuance?

You wanted an announcement from the Iraqi PM. I gave you an announcement from the Iraqi PM and raised you an announcement from the Iraq VP that the Iraqi P endorsed.

And you can find some nuance beyond the clear statements that the three highest leaders of the new government have made?

You're telling the left to be more nuanced and less black and white?

Hey padre, are you pulling our legs?

Paddy O said...

"Bush is evil and always wrong" as a way of forming foreign policy shows little nuance to me.

So, yeah, I believe in nuance. I also believe folks posting on blogs may not have the complete picture, not having full access to all the players, despite their vocal assurances to the contrary.

Reflexive contrariness on topics shows an unwillingness to wrestle fully with an issue. Assuming one side is always wrong and the other always right reveals a black and white view. Calling names with supposed argument winning articles when such articles, along with others, do influence opinion is a good versus evil response.

I absolutely believe we should leave when the Iraqi fovernment feels we should leave. If Bush stays longer than that, then I think he's wrong.

I doubt we will. And I also know that behind the scenes conversations are much more nuanced than anything we hear in public. Such is the way of things.

You never know who might be listening.

There are, as hard as it is to believe, some folks who will twist anything to suit their own ideology.

You can always expect such people to pick and choose their news sources, news articles, and always see one sort of person as the epitome of evil.

No nuance at all in those sorts of people, they are blinded by their own frenzied hate.

Sad really.

Unknown said...

"..yet it took years after Germany invaded Poland for America to enter the fray."

Yes, it is a shame that we waited so long. Millions more people would be alive today if FDR and the congress had used the preemptive doctrine instead of waiting.

Beth said...

Does it strike anyone else as odd that, broadly speaking, the righties, center righties, and center lefties here are willing to have a reasonable conversation about the war -- what has gone right, what has gone wrong, what to do next -- while the lefties can only seem to obstinately yell platitudes ("cycle of violence"), catch phrases, and calling people who they disagree with stupid?

No, in fact I am not struck by that fantasy. The right here is willing to have a reasonable discussion within its own ranks--about degrees of what's right and wrong with the war, but across the board, most of the rightie--not all, by any means--can't handle any opposition to the war without responding with vitriol, condescension, lecturing, slogans, and accusations. Stop patting yourself on the back.

Derve Swanson said...

"the righties, center righties, and center lefties here are willing to have a reasonable conversation about the war"

You see what you want to see Machos. There's a lot of ugliness all around, but that's an added societal bonus of a protracted war.

Honest questions:
Why are the Dems getting labeled as "cut and run" when the vote today shows not all Dems are advocating that?

What is the difference between cut and run and a planned accelerated troop withdrawal?

Interesting that Casey is talking about where the troop levels will be come this Christmas-time. Wonder why he selected that time reference if politicking is not really a factor and we're not going to let polls determine strategy. Interesting also that Bush is promising to close Gitmo.

Maybe the righties are listening, and the dissent by the left is being incorporated into the gameplan. You don't have to win to have influence.

Derve Swanson said...

"I also believe folks posting on blogs may not have the complete picture, not having full access to all the players"

There's still a tremendous amount out there to work with, padre. I suspect some still long for the days of people as obedient sheep, following the authority figures with implicit trust. Those are the people who never revisit their earlier assumptions, and reject calls for an unbiased accounting. Still, like that thread about the 41st valedictorian, most people know the score.

Derve Swanson said...

Seven,
Somebody analogized to a schoolyard bully and didn't like it when their logic was questioned.

The main weapon is spin -- putting words in "opponent's" mouths. You're get all worked up by folks who aren't on script because your arguments and facts tend to wilt under the lights.

Say, do you have a boy who takes karate too, Machos? Seems to be a lot of that going around for some coincidental reason.

Derve Swanson said...

"...until, eventually we have bases in Iraq and the country itself is completely autonomous."

lol
You big guys always do make me smile.

amba said...

Mike said... [many comments ago]
So Mark, if we were to leave Iraq as fast as possible, you believe the response by the insurgency would be what?


Osama would declare a victory like that over the Soviets in Afghanistan. And he'd be right. I have read that it was that low-tech victory over a superpower that emboldened the jihadis to take on the United States.

Anonymous said...

Hey Amba, let's all brainstorm here, and think out of the box. We're going to be innovative now.... Let's start.

If we are worried about Osama Bin Laden, and wish to deny Osama a victory, what are some of the steps we could take?

Think. Think. Think.

Narrator: And the first person he thought of was...
Winnie the Pooh: Winnie the Pooh?
Narrator: No.

Well I'm stumped Amba, what do you think we might do if we were worried about Osama and wanted to deny him a victory?

Derve Swanson said...

"What will happen?"

I personally suspect denial of the costs, and continuance of the same-old same-old is going to burn us so badly that there will be a period where America as a whole will want to bury her head in the sand, and renege on all our overseas commitments.

Not saying it's right, just that's where logic will lead you. If you can't fight effectively, don't fight at all.

Derve Swanson said...

"...they squirm to find a comfortable position on Iraq in general."

If you're "comfortable" with our adventures in Iraq to date, I worry about you. Denial is not going to help in the long-run.

All the spin in the world can't erase which party has the power and the leadership role, yet seems to accept zero responsibility for the results.

You can win an election with spin.
You don't win wars that way.

KCFleming said...

Sally: "...and finally, with a twist and a spin, a skip and a jump, the effective abandonment of the original meaning altogether."

Great description, Sally.
The dismount was pretty ugly, too.

Derve Swanson said...

State of emergency, Sally.
Spin that one for me, sweets.

You make a wonderful cheerleader, pogo. Rah!

KCFleming said...

Old catholic cheer:

Rah Rah Ree
Kick 'em in the knee!
Rah Rah Rass
Kick 'em in the other knee!

knox said...

I'm still in a state of amusement/bemusement over the fact that WMDs were found, and yet, they somehow "don't count".

It's another example of the lefty mindset that Sally so nicely summarized. It's all about "No WMDs!" until WMDs are found, and then the argument becomes about what kind of WMDs are required to justify the war. Then months or years hence, when more are undoubtedly found, their objections will shift to something else entirely.

KCFleming said...

Mark,
I hope the Democrats keep beating the anti-war drum through November. I hear it's a big winner with voters.

Oh, and the NYTimes has just published another expose' of a classified surveillance program aimed at gathering financial information about terrorist plots. The Democrats can add that to their list of accomplishments for voters to consider when deciding who's best at protecting the US from terrorism.

Derve Swanson said...

The point is sally:
did these wmd's pose the threat level as hyped that made it necessary to rush in half-ass and invade Iraq?

Think of it this way: resources and enthusiam are finite. What you spend today is not there for tomorrow's threats. If you've ever had to live on a budget, you understand this type of thinking.

KCFleming said...

Re: "did these wmd's pose the threat level as hyped that made it necessary to rush"
(1) pre-existing and scattered stocks of chemical weapons (a large material breach of all the U.N. resolutions)
(2) ongoing or ready-to-revive biological weapons programs
(3) long-range schemes to reactivate a clear weapons programs
(4) The Iraqi government met with a North Korean delegation in March, 2003, in Damascus to discuss buying long-range missiles from Saddam
(5) after 1991 in Iraq, Ambassador Rolf Ekeus of Sweden, a Swedish socialist and diplomat, was offered by Tariq Aziz (in person) a bribe of a million and a half dollars to change his weapons inspection report
(6) a nuclear centrifuge buried in Saddam's chief scientist's garden; Tscientist also had centrifuge design documents.
(7) a vial of live botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, in another scientist's refrigerator; it had been there since 1993
(8) advanced design work on a liquid-propellant missile with ranges of up to 620 miles (since 1991, Iraq was prohibited from ranges longer than 93 miles)
(9) July 2003, 30 to 40 planes, including several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets, buried in the sand


Re: "when will you start defeating the terrorists?"
Seven people are in custody after the FBI and state and local law enforcement agents carried out raids in Miami, Florida, connected with an alleged plot to attack landmark U.S. buildings, officials told CNN on Thursday.

V.W.: udrvius
No, you drvius

KCFleming said...

"clear weapons programs"
is
nuclear weapons programs

Anonymous said...

Ann, if you read one post today, read this post from Matthew Yglesias:

Andrew Sullivan reminds us that he doesn't "support any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq" which "puts [him] in the excruciating position of supporting a war conducted by an administration whose key players are manifestly incompetent and reckless." In addition, he doesn't "have an alternative master-plan to win either" and while there are various policy shifts he would support, "as long as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are running the show, I cannot say I am optimistic that such a sane strategy will be employed or that it will succeed."

...

I mean, consider what we're contemplating here. Twelve months from now the war will have lasted about as long as American participation in the second world war. Twelve months after that there will still be six months left in the Bush administration's lifespan. In January 2009 when a new administration takes office, the war will have been going on for five and a half years, virtually the entire span of time between Hitler's invasion of Poland and the Nazis' surrender. With the difference being that Andrew doesn't believe we'll actually make any serious amount of progress between now and then.

This gets us toward what is, I think, a fairly fundamental point of political morality -- it's wrong, seriously wrong and seriously irresponsible, to support military action that has no likely prospects of success. It's one thing to ask young men and women to kill and die for a good cause. It's another thing entirely to ask them to kill and die as a token of your support for a good cause.

...

Under the circumstances, a symbolic stand in favor of what the war's supposed to be about is, in practice, not much more than a stand in favor of continued torture and pointless bloodshed.


GWB has said it will be up to the next President to decide when to leave Iraq.

Read the whole thing Ann.

KCFleming said...

That is, YourPresidentislyingThiswarisillegalyoucannotwin

Repeat ad nauseum.

MadisonMan said...

Mary wrote:

What you spend today is not there for tomorrow's threats. If you've ever had to live on a budget, you understand this type of thinking.

Living on a budget obviously does not describe the Republican administration in power.

Derve Swanson said...

sally,
thanks for explaining where you are coming from. We just seem to disagree on tactic. I have always said, I don't think "democracy" and "freedom" can be imposed at gunpoint.

When the people of a country are ready to lead their way out, they should be encouraged and assisted. This is likely to happen in years to come in China, imo.

I respect the role people play in building their own societies. We could argue whether taking out Saddam at the time was necessary or not. But right now, we should have some respect for the people in the region, and not try to remake their society in our own image. If they choose to, fine. If not, well, I guess we will have to live with that too.

MadisonMan said...

Bush's plan is to stay in Iraq 'til he (Bush) is out of power, so someone else can take care of any mess that happens when the US does leave. (Of course, I'm somewhat cynical) In other words, more of the same.

I'm curious what's wrong with forcing the Iraqis to stand up a little earlier than they might be comfortable with. How does that differ from the US staying longer than many people here are comfortable with? I understand that we should give a little weight to what the Iraqis want, as I subscribe to the 'you break it you buy it' philosophy, but at what point do the wants/needs of USAers outweigh those of Iraqis.

Derve Swanson said...

Right Mike. I agree everyone wants freedom. But the price being paid by so many of them right now...

I suspect, for better or worse, many who have lost their homes and relatives and are living in instability now would choose to go back to the old days, and progress gradually. We have to respect their pace of needs, and all countries are different in their "growing pains".

As in our own country with our long history of civil rights struggles, these things progress gradually, often taking centuries. And they need to be internally driven. (ie China. Tiananmen, the almost reverence for all things American amongst many of the young people. We can't do it for them; they have to be ready to do it themselves because the road is long and rocky.)

Derve Swanson said...

"I'm curious what's wrong with forcing the Iraqis to stand up a little earlier than they might be comfortable with ... at what point do the wants/needs of USAers outweigh those of Iraqis."

In general, madisonman, if your "needs" (as opposed to desires) aren't being met, you look elsewhere.

Isn't that the real danger? If the coalition government is unable to stand alone and fend for themselves at this time, what will fill the void? Hence the VietNam warnings.

MadisonMan said...

I understand -- as I commented in a similar thread months ago on Iraq, I'm not yet passed the point where I can no longer look a parent in the eye and truthfully tell them their child died for a good / noble / proud reason. Sorry about the tangled syntax -- I hope my meaning is clear. And I'm not sure when I'll reach that point.

I'm not hugely comfortable with the comparison to Vietnam. The two countries are far more different than similar. Vietnam got to where it was, if you believe Melvin Laird (and why shouldn't we?), because the US cut off funding. I don't anticipate Iraq being off the US dole in my lifetime (I've got 40+ years left in me, I figure).

Derve Swanson said...

geoduck: re. Afghanistan and the Soviet Union.

In many circles, it's thought that it was the military overextension there, rather than any brave words and emotional appeals from Ronald Reagan, that ended the Cold War.

Focusing so much of the budget on the military at the expense of the country's internal needs is believed to be a major downfall of that superpower. Just as England lost her status trying to maintain her colonies, overextension is costly.

Isolationism and reneging on commitments abroad are no answer either; a balance -- wielding power effectively and sparingly -- not with overkill and hubris, is key. Not everyone is up to that, and winning devisive elections is no indication that one really understands the big picture.

I think Bush's heart is in the right place, but his optimism can be a liability if it distorts the hard truths of reality.

Derve Swanson said...

"I can no longer look a parent in the eye and truthfully tell them their child died for a good / noble / proud reason."

Luckily, you don't have to. It's not your responsibility, and you have the luxury of remaining silent to them.

In today's NYT, there is a story about the family of one of the tortured privates. They choose to believe he died fighting before his body was desecrated. The scientific method -- autopsy results here -- will be undertaken, but at some point you have to respect people's private beliefs, and understand their needs. Lots of us are different in that respect -- in what is "true" and what is not.

knox said...

Mark,

Seems to me the discovery of these demonstrates that Saddam didn't destroy them. He was told to by the UN to destroy all WMDS, not just the ones made after 1991.

Hundreds of words of naysaying won't change that.

Derve Swanson said...

http://daytodayiniraq.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=55

Derve Swanson said...

I still say, violence needs to be used sparingly and effectively. Obvious as that may seem, it's still not happening unfortunately. Sonic booms? Knocking out the electric to all?

I wonder how some of these folks would kill a fly that gets into their home. I'm imagining overkill to the degree of a destroyed home and possibly damaged lives of folks living in that home. Security after such actions surely would be hard to come by -- only more flies would eventually get into the house, if you did succeed in "getting" one one you were after with tools way bigger than a flyswatter.

I love being laughed at and then having my words proven right. People want to paint others as wimpy when really we are saying "do it effectively or don't do it at all right now."