Armando at DailyKos quotes Hillary Clinton — "She said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, saying the mission was part of the 'long struggle against terrorism' by the U.S. 'The threat of terrorism is as close as our daily commute'" — and agonizes:
So Hillary agrees with Cheney while the Republican Hagel is at war with Cheney. And we Democrats are supposed to smile for that? Not this Democrat. Finally, if you believe success in Iraq is "too important" how in God's name can you keep quiet while this unbelievable group of lying idiots bumbles their way to utter disaster?But Clinton has just figured out what it takes to get elected. Flipping out like this makes it hard for Democratic candidates to position themselves to be trusted to take over from those "lying idiots" who are driving you crazy. If you're big on learning the lessons of Vietnam, there's that one too.
In the 170 comments so far on Armando's post, the name "Nixon" does not appear, interestingly enough. Perhaps Kos readers are too young to remember. But even if Nixon isn't in your personal memories, you must remember the last election, which Kerry lost because he couldn't inspire trust about how he would work toward success in Iraq. All the noisy anti-war types got out in front of him, and he could never manage to find a way to talk to those of us who demand that the President win the war.
But I'm not saying people like Armando should shut up for the good of party politics. I hate party politics myself. People should express what they think about the war. Squelching yourself for years in the hope of helping Hillary isn't worth it. I would just hope that people try to think clearly about the importance of success in Iraq. Don't be blinded by your hatred of Bush. If Kerry had won, we'd still be struggling and making mistakes there. And if Gore had become President in 2000, he would have had to do something about Iraq sooner or later. So express yourself, but face up to the difficulties of the real world. Think hard before going into full Vietnam peacenik mode.
Posts
87 comments:
Ann,
You point out a fact I’ve always had to remind myself with when confronting older people who reminisce and glorify their Vietnam protest days. Many presentations in magazines and TV about what was going on the late sixties and early seventies make it appear that almost everyone was a flower-child and thus everyone was against the war. It’s quite easy to get lost in thinking that the changes in the culture translated to a new political landscape. But then I recall that Nixon won handily in ’68 and ’72 and a Republican has been president for a total of 25 years since the “summer of love”. The current protesters who were around back then appear to be quite myopic about the effect their efforts had on political change.
www.architectureandmorality.blogspot.com
The anti-war movement motivates those who support the war as much as those against it. I recall some of my more liberal friends privately stating that they were relieved that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were in command after Sept 11 rather than the Democrats. Even though they still despise Bush et al and will say so publically every time, one wonders how some of these people will actually vote when it matters.
Democrats won't be able to shake the perceived weakness in defense in 2006 or in 2008 (they are no longer JFK's party). Democrats will have a better chance of getting elected when the war is won, which is why they should support winning the war rather than losing it.
The theory that calling your opponents idiots wins voters is based on this idea--that doing so ("standing up" and "having backbone" are the common phrases on places like DKos) energizes a group of non-voters/disillusioned voters far larger than any segment that is alienated. In these people's view, anyone who voted for Bush is lost to the Democratic party forever and will never change their mind. (A Variant are--"anyone who's pro-life will never vote Democratic no matter what we do on abortion, so why don't we push abortion harder to energize pro-choice people.")
I think that makes for an overly simple understanding of politics, but that's the theory.
Ann:
A minor point, but it seems to me that Armando also mischaracterizes Hagel's position on the war in Iraq. From the beginning he favored the US going into Iraq, but he also favored committing sending in a larger force to pacify the country. (He even ruminated about the possibility of reinstituting the draft at one point about a year ago.) His comments on Sunday specifically included his opinion that events in Iraq have overtaken his previous advice favoring a larger force and that our continued presence there is destabilizing of both Iraq and of the region.
In no way can he be described as opposed to the war in Iraq. His criticisms have been tactical, not strategic.
Clearly, Clinton and Hagel are in agreement about Iraq; Hagel has simply been more forthcoming with suggestions for how that policy might be pursued differently and to his mind, more successfully.
Sloan:
Like you, most of the Dems I know expressed relief that Bush and not Gore, was president on September 11, 2001. They also continue to feel that the country generally dodged a bullet when Gore was not elected in 2000, even though they dislike Bush intensely.
But most Dems and some Republicans of my acquaintance draw a distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They still wouldn't want Gore in the White House, but they are dismayed with the President's present performance.
slaunasaurus said:
…I recall some of my more liberal friends privately stating that they were relieved that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were in command after Sept 11 rather than the Democrats. Even though they still despise Bush et al and will say so publically every time, one wonders how some of these people will actually vote when it matters...
Isn’t this precisely the problem? It’s no way to advance the cause of Democrats if liberals tell each other that there should be no effort to groom candidates who have respected reputations in dealing with foreign crises and can win the confidence of the military, since we’re all better off with the Republicans on such matters. It appears that some liberals agree with the status quo, letting republicans deal with the dirty business abroad, and then have the democrats take over once it’s all done. That’s not a good strategy for long-term control of the nation’s agenda if the foreign crisis is long-lasting, as the cold war once was and the global war on terror could possibly be.
I think that it is not only that the Dems won't win elections this way. It's that, despite the many attempts to say otherwise, Vietnam is the wrong analogy and category for the present situation. Many Baby Boomers relish their protest days and have found something that reminds them of that. However, Iraq and the WoT are not Vietnam redux. The effort is doomed not because of past electoral failures but because of the inaptness of trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
Reading a speech about Vietnam, I could substitute Iraq in for Vietnam and it could be one of Bush's. It talked about how the war was crucial to our national security and how we couldn't give up. Then I thought, "Was the national security of the USA gravely injured by our pull-out of Vietnam?"
"...For the record, in 1969 I thought the war in Vietnam was a mistake. Today, Robert MacNamara, who was running things, more or less agrees...."
Vietnam can be considered a battle of the cold war, and it is true that America won the cold war. The question to ask is could we have won the cold war without waging the war in Vietnam? Did the Communists in fact win only a pyrric victory in Vietnam? IMHO all the vietnam era generation will have to pass on before we get a better accounting of the history in vietnam.
Unlike you most of the Conservatives I know privately admit that they are embarassed for having supported Bush.
I doubt that this is true. Conservatives aren't happy with the growth of government and the border situation, but I call bullshit on the idea that you know a bunch of actual conservatives who wish they had voted for Kerry.
"...Unlike you most of the Conservatives I know privately admit that they are embarassed for having supported Bush. The say he is a disaster of a President both foriegn and domestic but they don't dare disagree publicly for fear of being called a 'traitor', or even worse 'Leftist..."
This is just a FLAT OUT LIE. I took conservatives a generation to lose their fear of expressing conservativism to begin with, the last thing they are going to be afraid of is debate among conservatives.
".....What I'm actually curious about is how you think Gore or Kerry would have been worse? Especially when it comes to Gore (because he wasn't walking into the huge mess of his predecessor)....."
I also think Gore would have gone into Iraq. The war would be the same, but the feeling about it would be better because Gore would have had more support from the media. I think Gore would have done alright. A lot of conservatives would have trusted him and supported the effort.
Kerry would have been a disaster for the War on Terror.
Cold Pillow:
I'm not claiming that my anecdotes add up to hard data nor was it my intention to defend the President's policies in Iraq. I was simply reporting my awareness of the almost unanimous verdict of my Democratic friends in this area following the events of September 11, 2001 that they deemed it a good thing that Mr. Bush was President and not Mr. Gore at that moment.
I pointed out that they--as well as some Republicans I know, all of whom voted for Bush in 2000--draw a distinction between the actions taken by the President immediately following the 9/11 attacks, on the one hand, and the invasion of Iraq on the other. They support the former and look askance at the latter.
Sloan:
I am a Republican and I can report that in this county which has no Democratic officeholders, except a smattering of township trustees here and there, no Republican would dare to publicly express their misgivings about the Iraq policy, although I've had a handful do so with me privately. These are prominent persons, too.
Each party produces its own brand of political correctness, militating against people actually thinking. Instead, they mimic their party's prevailing lines.
This is what I find so refreshing about Hagel and McCain. While clearly conservatives--more conservative than the President who has violated much of conservative orthodoxy while claiming fealty to it, they're unafraid to think outside partisan boxes.
Now that I've ticked everybody off, I will close.
Mark
I don't think Cold Pillow is a troll at all. He used satire to point out that Sloan's comment about liberals being secretly relieved Bush was in charge on 9/11 is a silly fantasy. You must not have actually experienced internet trolls if you think a simple little piece of sarcasm is trolling!
But I do appreciate you illustrating your lack of perspective (and what I consider to be the general intellectual laziness of the Right) by jumping on my post while ignoring theirs.
Relieved to find that you were being satirical. Do not, however, jump to conclusions. I jumped on your post because it was one of the very few that I actually read. It caught my eye because I haven't seen you post on this blog before, so I read your comment.
I do not have any liberal friends who secretly like Bush or are glad that he is in office. I did, however, vote Gore in 2000, and I'm glad that my side lost. Of course, I'm also a conservative now, so that's not the same as being a liberal who is happy that Bush is in charge.
You guys are treating this from the perspective of policy, and I like to be boring in those ways too, most of the time. But doesn't anyone else here react nauseously when thinking, "God, here we go again. "folksinging gatherings and get-out-now rhetoric.'" That endless pukey sincerity, and we're trying to impose it all over again? From time to time I get the same feeling listening to oldies stations: nearly all this stuff is just such CRAP, and my generation is pigs to the wallow about it. All that dismal earnestness was bad then, and we're looking to rub the kids' faces in it for another 20 years? O les beaux jours que ce siecle de fer...?
So, ploopusgirl, ready? Cumbayah.
But doesn't anyone else here react nauseously when thinking, "God, here we go again. "folksinging gatherings and get-out-now rhetoric.'" That endless pukey sincerity, and we're trying to impose it all over again?
Heh. Yes to the nausea. A rehash of the lamest aspects of the baby boomer generation.
Partisanship is important during war time. If people start falling off and second guessing, you will surely lose the war. Imagine if Republicans would have abandoned Lincoln in 1864 to save their own political skins.
Some quick thoughts:
-Approximately 80% of the population in Iraq (Shiites and Kurds) is working with us. Hmmm, same as 'Nam, or different?
-The death count in this war is radically low by any measure (and by any measure of any war). Same as 'Nam, or different?
-In this war we invaded a nation that had violated U.N resolutions and agreements that they had pledged to live by when we beat them the first time (when they invaded another sovereign nation). This war did not spontaneously come out of the blue, and in effect is resolving a long standing stagnating situation (more resolutions, no-flight zones, a missile here, a missle there) in a more organized and resolute fashion. Same as 'Nam or different?
-This war is being fought by a volunteer army. Same as 'Nam or different?
-This war involved deposing a ruthless dictator who was not a popular figure loved by more than half a nation. Same as 'Nam, or different?
-This war is in the Middle East, in the year 2005, and involving natural resources that the entire world depends on. Same as 'Nam, or different? (And if you said same, isn't it finally time to put the drugs away. Hunter Thompson is fireworks now, kiss the past goodbye).
-Finally, we have Krispy Kremes everywhere now. Same as 'Nam, or different? (Yes, I saved the most cogent point for last).
Telling people this war is like 'Nam is like telling old folks that they will lose their social security (with any S.S. reform) and end up being pimped out by Harold the bridge champion, who hangs out in the community's rec room. Utter nonsense. Harold, like Joan Baez, lost his pimp hand long ago.
Mr Hunt -
After I posted on the nausea of warmed-over Namprots, I encountered this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101113_pf.html
"They are Stardust, and in Texas"
"It's kind of like if Woodstock was really organized...." organized....
I think this WAPO headline gets the unintentional hilarity of the week award - though the week is young. Where I come from - New Mexico, a proud impoverished colony of Spain, Mexico, and now Texas - we have a lot of trouble associating Texas with stardust. Oil and cowshit and big voices, but not stardust.
Good point, Sloan. And very good thoughts, Finn. That pretty much lays it out, doesn't it?
LOL at that article, Simon. I especially liked the little things such as "'It's kind of like if Woodstock was really organized,' said Chris Voigt, 51, an architect from Fort Worth who was volunteering in the spacious kitchen tent, scraping a frittata pan." Haha. It was something about the "fittata pan" that got me. So fitting. All the pretentious ex-hippy baby-boomers making spacious kitchen tents, eating fittatas, reminiscing. Gag.
Minor note: It's Mrs. Hunt. :)
So my question is, why are you, why is anyone glad Bush was in charge? I honestly don't get it.
Because he doesn't treat combating terrorism as a function of law enforcement, and he led us to oust Saddam. I am 100% behind the idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East. The day that Democrats started coming out against the Iraq war was the day I took a hard look at the DNC and left. It also led me to examine all of my other formerly held political notions, and I ended up changing my mind on a lot of issues. (Of course, I had also recently made the transition from college student life to real life, so that was a big eye-opener as well.)
Lets just not pretend that the myth of the liberal media is anything other than a myth.
Is that also a bit of satire?
Cold Pillow: We want a strategic and lasting victory in this conflict. We want a Congress of Vienna, not a Versialles.
Iraq is the center of the Arab world. The war has to be waged there eventually.
Iraq is the center of the Arab world. The war has to be waged there eventually.
So we're at war with the Arab world? That's news. I thought we were at war with terrorism. This is an excellent illustration of just how nebulous and shifting are the reasons for our war in Iraq--WMDs; bogus 9/11 connections; it's not a new war, just continuing Desert Storm; and now, Iraq is the center of the Arab world, so war was inevitable there. Reminds me of the first Gulf War slogan: Operation Just Cause. Just 'cause we want to. Just 'cause we can. Just 'cause it's there, in the middle.
Yes, the Iraq and Vietnam wars are different, but they are being fought for basically the same reason.
No, the Democrat's anti-war fanaticism in the late sixties didn't win them any elections, but it did lose us the war. And eventually gave us Jimmy Carter.
The anti-war crowd now, who are basically the same people as then, are using the same tactics this go around that they did back in the Vietnam ara: A war of attrition against public opinion. In that sense, this war is like the Vietnam war.
Given the President's current job approval numbers I'd say the strategy is working. It might not win any elections for the lefties, but it will sure undermine the opposition and the war effort.
-Don
Anecdotally, I also know a few Democrats and Libertarians who were very relieved after 9/11 that Bush was President rather than Gore. I think they perceived Gore as being more politically opportunistic and unprincipled than Bush, as evidenced by the way Gore kept trying to adjust his personality and reinvent his past depending on the audience he faced.
This is not to say that Gore wouldn't have reacted to 9/11 in a forceful manner, similar to Bush. He might well have. Democratic Presidents have been at least as willing to involve the country in foreign wars as Republican Presidents. But the problem is that no one could have reliably predicted Gore's reaction, or whether he would have subsequently waffled back and forth depending upon fluctuations in public opinion polls. Whatever criticisms people may have of President Bush, no one doubts his tenacity/stubborness.
John Kerry faced an even bigger political problem, given his history as a major anti-war protester. His over-compensation by over-emphasizing his brief Vietnam service record while simultaneously playing to the vocal anti-war faction of the Democratic Party caused severe cognitive dissonance, which the Swift Boat Vets were able to take advantage of.
In 2000 Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote because anti-war candidate Ralph Nader (with Michael Moore's enthusiastic support) siphoned off just enough votes to hand Bush an Electoral College victory. In 2004 the anti-war types suppressed their doubts about Kerry and his "I voted for it before I voted against it" waivering in order to avoid a similar fiasco. But Bush won despite the absence of a strong third-party anti-war candidate.
In 2008, Dean's "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" is not going to quietly swallow a candidate who is not rabidly anti-war. They figure that they sacrificed in 2004 for the sake of unity, and it gained them nothing. So if a major political figure or celebrity (especially a rich one) decides to step forward as an Independent anti-war candidate, that person will split off a significant number of votes from the Democratic nominee. The level of self-delusion on the far left (as evidenced by the recent Cindy Sheehan activity) is such that many will believe a purist Independent anti-war candidate can catch fire and win a three-way race. After all, Ross Perot was surprisingly competitive, at least for a while.
That is probably the Democratic Party's biggest danger: That a big-name Independent will fission it's base. There's some chance that McCain could do the same to Republicans if he ran as an Independent, but it's a much smaller risk. After all, nobody but Main Stream Media reporters get emotionally excited about a McCain candidacy.
And if Gore had become President in 2000, he would have had to do something about Iraq sooner or later.
Utter mythology. Is this because Saddam had WMDs, or because he was behind 9/11, again?
Clearer reasoning, please. There are convenient metaphors that help people make sense of the world. But lawyers don't get to use the excuse that a pleasant lie is easier to tell than a hard truth. And the question remains, if it's not begged, what consequences there would have been to leave Saddam in power, as weighed against the consequences we're now witnessing of removing him. It's not terribly helpful to elide that step of reasoning.
I'm a big fan of the idea of bringing democracy/democratic change/peace to the Middle East. However, I think invading countries in order to do so is a singularly ineffective way of accomplishing that (admittedly positive) end.
Just as Republicans created a couple of generations of Democrats due to their reactions to the Depression (though serious debate could be made over whether FDR actually worsened the Depression with his socialists cures, the perception was that FDR cared, Republicans didn't), the current Democrats are creating future generations of Republicans by their continued fascination with reviving the tired rhetoric of the Vietnam Era (and to extend the analogy the Democrats appear to be the party that only cares about political points rather than the pain and anger caused by 9/11 and the Republicans offer a way to act against future attacks rather than waiting to react to the next attack, and again history will debate whether or not GWB's programs were positive or negative).
The majority of politically active people under the age of 40 (those too young to remember Vietnam or Watergate first hand) loathe Boomer/Hippie nostalgia (but let's see if any pollsters test that) and the longer this rhetoric is associated with Democrats the longer they will be out of power.
The icing on the cake this weekend was Joan Baez joining Camp Casey.
Seems to me there was much sloganeering back in the Vietnam Era about not trusting anyone over 35, but now that the shoe is on the other foot the current posturing is about not trusting anybody under 50 to make decisions for themselves (which might be why volunteers in their 20s and 30s are constantly infantilized by leftist and mothers of dead soldiers must speak for them rather than the soldiers themselves through their choices in life).
"...Iraq is the center of the Arab world, so war was inevitable there..."
Yes it is. The Iraq war is all about the war on terror. The war on terror is all about WMD.
The question for the long term is what do we do about the proliferation of WMD? What do we do about the proliferation of WMD in the most unstable region in the world. The answer is: you cannot prevent the proliferation of WMD. Step 2, what do you do about the proliferation? You can try to create an atmosphere where governments are less likely to develop and use WMD and where governments are less likely to succomb to coups and islamist tyrannies. We know that freedom and democracy can create this atmosphere. We know from the Iraqi elections that the people do not want to live under tyranny.
The most corrupt and contemptable and aggressive regime in the middle east was Iraq. Taking down that regime is the heart of the whole long term strategic vision.
Maybe it is all a dream....but so was the United States of America in 1776.
Sloan,
Saying it's so doesn't make it so. Iraq was not the center of the terror attack on the US, the U.S.S. Cole, and so forth. We're down to "yes it is" and "no it isn't" so that's not going anywhere as an argument.
As for the U.S. analogy, that wonderful 1776 dream came from within, not from an invading force. We can't just up and create democracy in Iraq, as we're seeing clearly with the farce of a constitution that's being rushed through on false deadlines, with undue deference to the Iran-style mullahs. I am aghast at the idea of pursuing war for a dream, but not that I think about it, it sure explains the debacle of our Iraq policy.
Elizabeth you are so pragmatic. I guess we should have just let the middle-east figure stuff out for themselves. We could have waited around for Iraqis to raise up and take down Saddam's great grandsons Maybe it would have taken a few hundred more years or a couple of nuclear wars, but they would have done it.
Thankfully, the French were not as pragmatic.
"....We could also work to multilaterally disarm nuclear aresnals around the world and attempt to secure 'loose nukes'....."
Yes lets do this. Everyone in the world is so agreeable. You have to be realistic about human behavior. History shows that agreement is only temporary with dictatorships.
"....President Bush has assured that the most fanatic islamists have a rallying cry for the foreseeable future....."
What is that rallying cry and how is it different than before? I have a prediction: Perhaps the rallying cry be curse the democratic infidels in Iraq.
Cold Pillow--add "false dilemma" to that list of logic problems with Sloan's argument.
Larry, my use of "just cause" was in response to Sloan's "because it's there" argument. "Just Cause" was a poorly chosen slogan, in my view, and unwisely allowed for too much satire. It does seem too applicable now, however. "Just cause" Iraq is the center of the Arab world? Not a good enough rationale for war, I say. If that was a poor jest in your opinion, then I can only reget that I will from time to time disappoint you. Thanks, though, for the little compliment imbedded in your critique; I take both the critique and compliment seriously.
By the way, I don't recall noting much less echoing the particular genitalia joke you refer to. I only pointed out that Cold Pillow's "anecdote" about conservatives regretting Bush being in charge was a humorous fiction, not a real story, as some readers had misunderstood.
Jack Roy: We had a big discussion last week on this blog about what Gore would have done. Remember that the Gulf War had never really been resolved, and there was a problem with the sanctions. I suppose we could have muddled along in that condition, but even the decision to do that would be something that would have been criticized. It was an unstable situation, and the recent emphasis on the weapons of mass destruction rationale has obscured that. Gore would have had to do something -- and nothing would have been something. Don't fantasize about how good things would have been for him.
Well, having visited a "learn in" near Taos recently I have an aesthetic comment on this issue. It might have worked 40 years ago when we young. But the same group today is well, sad. I had to leave the "learn in" as my 15 year old daughter started shaking with laughter. All the way home she said over and over (from South Park):
Hippies........Hippies....They want to make the world a better place but all they do is smoke dope and smell bad.
Aaron,
Only 1800 people have died as a result off the Iraqi war? Oh, you mean 1800 Americans. So, the dead Iraqis aren't part of the metric? Nor the servicemembers who die after being evacuated to Germany or the U.S. after being wounded? Nor the Brits and Spanish and Italian service members? I think the count is subtantially higher, but more to the point, I think leaving out the Iraqi citizen death toll reveals a cavalier attitude.
Jonathan,
And you are omitting our responsibility for the Iraqis dying now because of our "flypaper" strategy, to bring the fight to Iraq, on the theory that we'll fight them (terrorists) there, rather than here in our own streets. So, apparently, we find it acceptable to expose the people we've liberated from tyranny to the attacks of the insurgency we didn't adequately prepare to put down, and in fact, invited into Iraq's borders.
If we wanted to be lauded for liberating Iraqis from Saddam, we ought not to have exposed them to the Jordanian, Irania, Saudi, and Syrian terrorists exploding car bombs and IEDs in their markets. In any event, in keeping track of deaths, we ought to count all of them, not just U.S. service members.
A lot of what has been said here is, to some extent, silly. But a couple of facts do jump out.
Vietnam was lost when President Ford was unable to meet our committment to the S. Vietnamese to provide them with ammunition and the like when the NVA tanks rolled down from the north. I remember him essentially begging Congress for the money. No soldiers. Just money for bullets, shells, etc. They refused, and S. Vietnam fell. And ultimately, millions died in the killing fields of Cambodia and the reeducation camps of Vietnam.
Ultimately, I think it a mistake to have gone in there, because abandoning the South Vietnamese was, IMHO, much worse than just letting the North conquer the South in the early 1960s. Or, indeed, more likely, having the South fall to a local (VC) insurgency.
I will suggest that our weakness in abandoning S. Vietnam to the North emboldened the Iranian students to take our embassy, and Carter's failure to stand up there, via a number of other signs of weakness, ultimately led to 9/11.
Another thing that is usually forgotten about the Vietnam war is that the peak casualties were in 1967, before the anti-war movement really got going. This, BTW, also coincided with the Tet Offensive, where the MSM declared the war lost, but where we won a significant military victory, and the VC were essentially eliminated as a fighting force. And this was thus when the war went from a revolution to one of invasion. For the next five years, the war was against NVA regulars infiltrating from the North. Because it was an invasion, and we had complete air supremacy over the South, their casualties were horrendous. And so, they signed a peace treaty in 1972, that they broke three years later, after we were gone.
Boy, this brings it all back for me. The arrogant tantrums, the bitter epithets, the "Never trust anybody over 30" cockiness.
These people haven't learned a thing. They were jerks then and they haven't grown out of it. They remember the era as victorious because we pulled out of Vietnam. I remember the Boat People, the South Vietnamese who fled to the U.S. and the many more interned in "re-education" camps and, of course, the Killing Fields.
I also remember John Lennon singing, "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!" It always seemed pretty good sense to me, even when he abandoned it and started writing stuff like "Imagine."
Their lack of success in politics, along with Jimmy Carter, drove them back into the woodwork, but John Dean reawakened that old fervor with his angry rants. They're doing the same thing to the Democratic party that they did in 1968. More power to 'em!
Aaron,
Without questioning your humanity, my point about citing only the 1800 dead remains: there are far more, and in general, our discourse focuses only on our own losses. I agree that a body count is not the only or even the main factor in judging success in a war. But in this war, I tend to believe that we omit that other figure because it calls the purpose of the war into question--the shifting purpose. If we say our purpose was to liberate the Iraqi people, then I just don't believe that, given the fact that the prosecutors of this military action--not the military but Rummy and the civilian side planners--have not shown much care about protecting their lives and property, and in fact have crowed about the flypaper strategy of bringing the fight to Iraq. I cannot see that as anything but cavalier. And here is where I owe you an apology, for not making it clear that I aim that word at an institutional attitude, and not you personally. I regret that, and I can see from your reply that you were rightfully upset. I don't change my position, but I am reminded to pay attention to loaded words, and the grammar that shapes their meaning and purpose.
Aaron,
I suggest you compare the body count of Kosovo to Iraq.
I assure you, Kosovo's "isn't spit" compared to Iraq's, 0 to 1800+?. . .
(and that is just the American fatalities)
But yes, the Clintonites were incompetent bozos . . .
The Exalted: Only American bodies count, right?
I think the lessons of Vietnam is that we didn't learn a damn thing.
Is how people are perceived - and weather they win elections - all that matters these days? -satya
It would appear so. Certainly, the suffering of the Iraqi people does not count for anything. If it did, there would be an accounting of how many have been killed and injured.
Rather peculiar in light of the pretend cause: "bringing freedom and democracy". So the immaginary weapons and the pretend cause have lead to the deaths of tens, or hundreds of thousands. With no end in sight.
so if Bush lied, so did Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. -- larry
got that right!
"iraq the model" by an iraqi dentist might be a good place to start. he had a brother killed by u.s. soldiers -- but he's still glad saddam is gone."
I have been reading Iraq the Model for awhile now, and I don't think it is accurate that he had a brother killed by US Soldiers.
Larry, what a labyrinthine attempt to persuade me of Bush's hidden wisdom in focusing on Iraq. No luck. He had his sights on Iraq even before getting elected. Iraq was a target the moment they realized they could use 9/11 as a pretext. For all your gymnastics above, it all comes down to believing invading Iraq would have some effect on reducing Islamic terrorism against the west, and there's no evidence to support that. Meanwhile, Osama's still out there somewhere, perhaps in a comfy chair. It's amazing how quickly that went to the wayside once Bush misdirected the fear towards Iraq. And now things are backsliding in Afghanistan as well. Aren't there any standards you want to hold this administration to? Some slim criteria? I'm underwhelmed by your Middle East democracy domino theory.
I think the Iraq debate, the arguments made by Elizabeth, myself larry et. al. prove once again that we are never going to agree. No matter what argument you give in support, someone can make an argument against, even if its just an assertion. For example, Elizabeth argues that there is no evidence to support that Iraq has reduced terror in the West. This assertion is basically impossible to disprove because we can't replay history without Iraq. Thus, Elizabeth and all others on her side can continue to make this assertion with impunity until the end of time. Even if a full fledge democracy flowers in Iraq, the war will still be pooh poohed for decades by those in opposition as still not being worth the cost. (The only thing that may possibly dampen the opposition is the formal presentation of evidence at Saddam's trial over the genocide committed in Iraq. The power of this presentation is yet unappreciated but it soon will be if done correctly. It is very likely that without the evidence of the holocaust, the debate over the cost of American lives and Treasure in World War II would be waging today. People seem to forget how costly world war II was for America (250 dead per day, 150% GDP). The evidence of the holocaust dampened this debate).
Consequently, supporters of the war need to cease wasting time and energy trying to argue the merits of the war to those already opposed. Instead we need to recognize that the opposition is ready and willing to sabotage the war effort. History shows that opposition parties have no boundaries (i.e. War of 1812). As such, we need to concentrate on maintaining the majority support for the war in Congress so that a repeat of 1975 does not occur. No matter what the opposition states, they should not be trusted with power during this war.
This means continuing to counter anti-war propaganda from the media and from leftist groups like Cindy Sheehan. This means continuing to deliver the whole truth about Iraq (not just the cost) to maintain the support. This means concentrating on the Republican base and keeping together the conservative coalition politically and countering opposition trying to fracture the coalition (such as the illegal alien issue). This means punishing those politicians who leave the reservation and use the media salivation over their opposition for their own political purposes. In a nutshell we need to practice hardball politics.
It would be interesting to hear peoples arguments about what would merit a war.
do you have to be attacked directly; indirectly?
Does the war have ot be sanctioned by an international body? Does just a coalition count.
Does the war have to meet some sort of "international standard" Which international standard?
Is it justified to go to war to stop genocide?
Is war justified to rid a country of a tyrannical government?
Is war justified to assist in ending the slave trade or some other morally suspect activity. Is war okay if another uses low level force against you in their mission to stop the morally suspect activity?
Is preemptive war ever justified. Is war okay to prevent an adversary from becoming aggressive.
Is war justified to further socialist revolution?
Is war justified if the people conquered are better off (by all objective and subjective standards) than they were before. What if 90% of the population is better off and 10% is worse off. What if it is 55%-45%.
Is war justified if the vast majority of the people want to be invaded, but the government does not.
Is it okay to go to war to help defend an ally who has been agressively attacked? What if you don't have an actualy treaty with that country.
What if its not an ally but any other country being attacked.
Is it justified to go to war over an embargo?
Would war be justified if another government killed your ambassador? What if they attempted to kill your ambassador?
Is the breaking of a peace treaty from the last war enough to justify war?
What if another power merely declares war. Do they have to send an official document? Do they have to be at a certain level of strength to make their declaration meaningful?
How about escalating aggrevation. Is war justified if a "competitor" continusously aggrevates you?
Is war justified against an enemy who commits espionage or other forms of domestic sabotage against you.
Is war justified against another who provides material support to your enemy? What if they are just trading with your enemy? What if they continue trading even though there are international sanctions.
Is war ever justified?
Sloan, you're amazing. You're abandoning the shifting sands of the many, many reasons for this elective war, and moving on to painting its opponents as the enemy. That's a lot of enemies, as support for the war wanes among the wide range of Americans. What are good reasons for waging a war? That onus is on the ones banging the drums, not the opposition. You haven't made the case.
"....Bush capitalized literally and figuratively on this fear to mount a war of aggression that has isolated us in the world and inflamed the Muslem world against us...."
How do you support this assertion?
Where are Osama's armies of mad muslims. Are they rising up? Where are they? How come America has not been attacked since 9/11? We have a million buses and subways running every hour in this country and not one attack. In London they have managed one attack in 4 years, even after all the threats.
Minneapolis and burbs are full of Muslim immigrants. They drive cabs, work in shops, go to school, work in banks, etc. Why do they keep coming here if they are so inflamed and riled up. Are they all secret soldiers of Osama's army?
Where is the international isolation? Are we banned from the G-7, from trade agreements? Are supporters of the war losing their elections; Blair, Howard, Bush? How about the war opponents? How are they doing? Chirac and Shroeder?
If you are right about Osama's strategy - is it really working?
"...You're abandoning the shifting sands of the many, many reasons for this elective war, and moving on to painting its opponents as the enemy...."
GET REAL. How pathetic. I have argued these positions constantly on this board. My point is that to people like you it is impossible to make the case.
In return, I make an equally provable assertion: Those who oppose the war in Iraq support tyranny in Iraq, are against freedom in Iraq, and support the proliferation of WMD by tyrannical leaders around the world. How is this not true?
How are these things not true? They're strawmen, that's why. I don't support tyranny in Darfur, but I don't support a U.S. invasion there, either. What does WMD proliferation have to do with Iraq? You don't have an persuasive case that invading Iraq has lessened our exposure to WMD development; for god's sake, Iran is developing a nukes program right now. What has this war done to lessen that threat?
Where do I oppose freedom in Iraq? And have you looked at the constitution in the works there? It's not bolstering freedom! When Bush ran for office, he came out against using the military for "nation building"; he didn't argue at home or before the U.N. that we needed to go into Iraq, right now, fast, hurry up, don't bother with the post war planning, to bring freedom. He argued that Iraq was a direct and looming threat. The freedom argument was lagniappe, not primary.
You do in fact make this argument over and over. It's just a bad argument. Don't try to pin a love of tyranny on me because I reject the path Bush has taken in responding to terrorism.
Larry, sliced bread is a good idea. If Bush came out for it, I'd support it. That's how good ideas work. Bush has values fundamentally different from most of my own, so it's likely there will be little overlap in what we see as being good. That's not a blind opposition on my part, it's a conflict of ideas.
"...You don't have an persuasive case that invading Iraq has lessened our exposure to WMD development..."
Here is an attempt:
Isn't it true that Saddam wanted to produce WMD? Isn't it true that Saddam tried several times to produce nuclear weapons and was thwarted in 1982, again in 1991. Isn't it a reasonable conclusion that Saddam still wanted to produce nuclear weapons.
Isn't it true that Saddam probably had the most concentrated power of any dictator in the world. Isn't it true that sanctions were about to end with Iraq prior to the invasion. Isn't it true that Saddam would be personally grossing more than $50 billion in oil revenues today or more than three times the amount he pocketed during the 1990s. Isn't it true that Iraq has existed with virtually no oil money during the sanctions. Isn't it true that $50 billion per year is more than the defense budgets of Britain ($49 billion) France ($40 billion). The relative comparisons get skewed also because saddam only needed to pay his soldiers a few $$ per month.
Iraq was indeed the most dangerous threat and would have been the worlds foremost WMD proliferator - in fact Iraq would have been more agressive in WMD proliferation becasue of Iran's pursuit of Nuclear weapons.
How about aggression. How does Iraq stack up? Has Iran invaded any of its neighbors recently? (no except in self defense from Iraq). Has North Korea recently invaded any of its neighbors? No, not in the last 50 years). Has Iraq invaded any of its neighbors recently? Why yes - Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990, he also attacked Israel and Saudi Arabia. On top of that Iraq summarily repressed its own people, including mass executions.
So with Iraq you had a serious history of agressive war; the concentration of wealth to mass military power and bribe the international community to gain political clout, and the concentration of power in one individual to do whatever he wanted.
The first Gulf War left unfinished business in the middle-east, just as 1918 left unfinished business in Europe. The world was about to make the same mistake in Iraq that it made in Europe.... except Sept 11 happened.
Sloan,
So his nuclear ambitions have been thwarted twice. Excellent. Why invade now?
He invaded Iran and Kuwait--and wars were waged then. Why now?
There was a good case to extend the sanctions. That's part of why our invasion was so vehemently opposed by other powers. There was no actual, current threat, and there were other means to contain Saddam's aggression and his desire to develop weapons. I've heard that "he wanted to make WMDs" argument since day one, and it doesn't wash. What policy says we can invade people because of what they "want" to do? That's madness!
"...Do you read the news, Sloanasaurus? But don't take it from me. Take what Chatham House, a well respected UK think tank, says on the issue..."
Brando, what you are pointing out is an opinion, it is not news.
It is easy to argue that our attacking in Iraq has created more enemies in Iraq. After all, our attack on Nazi Germany created more Nazis. The size of the Germany army more substantially increased from Dec 1941 - May 1945.
It is true there are terrorist attacks that kill people in Iraq But, how is that different than the era of Saddam. It has been said that an average of 50 people were killed each day by Saddam and his thugs. I guess the press wasn't covering that.
Tell me how are we in more danger now that Saddam, one of the most wealthy and despotic leaders in the world, who had more money at his disposal than the defense budgets pf 1st world nations, who who twice invaded his neighbors without provocation, and attacked several other of his neighbors, who consistently developed nuclear weapons. How is it that the world is more dangerous without him?
Elizabeth, go back and review the history on the sanctions. It was clear the sanctions were falling apart. France had already moved several times in the late 1990s to loosen the sanctions. They wanted the sanctions gone. Further, the corruption of the UN shows the the sanctions were not working anyway either.
It was obvious that France, China, and Russia were not interested in maintaining sanctions. So how can we expect to continue them.
"...and there were other means to contain Saddam's aggression and his desire to develop weapons...."
What other means? Like the cooperation we were getting from Russia, China, and France? This is just foolishness. It ignores history, and it ignores human nature.
I don't buy that saddam wasn't a current threat argument either. Saddam was the most obvious threat in the world. Your attidude in dealing with Saddam is the same as Daldiers in the 1930s. Its not a new attitude, just a naive one.
Satya
You are making a couple of historical errors:
"just as the Vietnamese ultimately preferred to live in a communist state than a capitalist one"
This isn't historically accurate. As noted above, the indiginous insurgency was effectively over after Tet in 1967. Those were NVA regulars invading from the North that conquered the South in 1975. They had been massively rearmed after the Peace Treaty they signed in late 1972. So, when faced with this formidable force, S. Vietnam asked for bullets and artillary shells from us to resupply what they were expending. This was refused by the Democratic Congress of the time. And thus, without bullets and artillary shells, etc., the South fell. But not to a popular insurgency, as you suggest, but a heavily armed invasion.
"We stayed in Vietnam until the point at which the most anti-communist president in our history concluded there was no hope for victory: that was only after 50,000 Americans were dead and 3 million Vietnamese and Cambodians were dead."
First, the real blood bath wasn't until afterwards.
Secondly, we weren't losing, rather, militarily, we had won. We had come close to destroying the NVA army by that time.
There was a big difference in the war pre-Tet and post-Tet. Pre-Tet, we were facing a local insurgency, where the VC could fade back into the population during the day, and just come out at night. That was extremely dangerous for us.
But post-Tet, we were facing NVA regulars, who, though they looked the same, weren't. The result was that there were a lot of larger unit engagements. Unfortunately for the NVA, we had complete air supremecy in the South, and when they would congregate for an attack, were extremely vulnerable from the air. As an example, at Khe San, four NVA divisions (approx. 10,000 men per division) attacked four Marine battalions (about 500 men each). The estimate is that we lost 250 men, and the NVA lost somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000. All four division were effectively destroyed.
Our estimate of NVA killed was about 500,000. In 1995, Hanoi admitted that it was closer to 1,100,000. That is over a million invaders from the North killed trying to conquer the South. No wonder they were willing to sign a peace treaty.
I hate it when people reference their own blogs, but I discuss there some observations made by Ken Pollack, in charge of middle eastern affairs for the NSC under Clinton. In short, Saddam Hussein was wacko. He spent his entire reign doing dumb things, from challenging the Shah right after gaining power, to calling our bluff right before we invaded. My quote from Pollack has more details.
What is interesting about the WMD discussion is that, by now, we all know that only minimal quantities were ever found. Obviously, there is still the question of where did they go. But of more interest to me is the other, most often ignored, thing that we learned after invading Iraq - that the reason that France, Russia, and China were moving very quickly away from supporting sanctions was that they had been massively bribed by Saddam Hussein. This only really came out when we got access to the Iraqi records. It was not just the Oil for Food program, though that was a big part of it, but also that these countries were (illegally) selling Iraq a lot of arms.
I remember at the time of the invasion, the comments from some military units that they were surprised to be facing modern French missles. After all, Iraq was supposedly forbidden from acquiring arms by both UN sanctions and the peace treaty they signed. Come to find out that the French had not been alone. The Russians and the Chinese were involved too.
So, when we invaded Iraq, we knew that sanctions were rapidly falling apart. Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council had told us that they were not really in favor of them. We just didn't know why. Well, now we do.
Brando, so you have to be enlisted to support the war?
Aaron: Not sure when you originally posted your sad whine, but I'm now responding. You cried because Elizabeth called you cavalier :( and allegedly questioned your humanity :( and you're tired of demanding your humanity every time you debate the war with evil leftists :(. Too friggin bad. Don't you think that we liberals are sick and goddamn tired of defending our love for America? Every time sloanasaurus, the biggest friggin moron I've ever encountered by the way--and that's sad, post anything he manages to bring it back home to the evil leftist agenda and how we all want the war to be lost so we can prove Bush wrong and we hate America, and blah blah blah. I'm sick of defending that. I love America; I love what it stands for; I completely disagree with the reasoning for going into the war and I completely disagree with how the war is being handled, BUT (this is for you Sloan, you beacon of idiocy) I do NOT want us to lose this war. How would this benefit me at all? We've made a commitment to the Iraqi people and we have to bring them democracy now--and yes, I want this to occur, just in case I haven't been clear. ... Rant over.
So poor little you, Aaron. I feel so bad you were called cavalier and you had to defend your poor little self yet again to the poor evil leftists. We would have no damn idea what that's like.
Brando, I am having a hard time understanding your comments because I cannot see around your "Free Mumia" placard.
Bruce, it is also true that Russia/France/China wanted to sell arms to Iraq again and had already been promised exclusive contracts in Oil infrastructure.. In the 1980s, Iraq became one of the most important arms purchasers around the world. At the same time the arms industry in europe was struggling because governments in Europe (France especially) were reducing their defense budgets. Consequently, the industry looked to places like Iraq to pick up the slack. Gulf War I was devestating to the French arms industry which dropped by nearly 50% from the late 1980s to 1991.
Thanks Ploopusgirl, I will wear your name calling with a badge of honor.
Cold Pillow, if you read the threads more carefully, you would notice that those comments were made and the context of the difficulty and frustration of defending blanket assertions for or against opposition to the war. There are a fair share of ridiculous assertions made in this thread.
Although I did not expect a response, I thought Elizabeth did a good job responding to them anyways.
"...Luckily for them they will always have armies of supporters willing to blindly support them...."
There are loads of critcs. I am a defender of the policy in general and I think the Iraq war has been strategically brilliant in the context of the war on terror and for the future of peace in the world. Why should I waste my time nitpicking the tactical mistakes made by the army or the administration...that only damages the end goal (and they know well their mistakes)
For your fodder: I think the the misstart in the iraqi army and police training program was badly planned. I think we could be down to less than 100k troops today but for this mistake.
I think the delay in taking down Falluja was a mistake. It gave the terrorists a window of time to organize rather than being on the run. We are still paying for that today.
But these are only tactical misstepts. Anyone can be a critic.
Larry has a point. To be fair critics should provide some sort of analysis of the war on terror without Iraq.
For example, while I believe that the fly paper theory of Iraq may be suspect in terms of terrorists coming to america, it is very certain that these same terrorists would be fighting us in Afghanistan but for Iraq. Is Afghanistan a more hospitable battlefield than Iraq? History says no way. While the support in the U.S might be greater for the war, it could probably be worse for our troops doing the actual fighting. How would we supply our troops? There is no port that we control, nor is Afghanistan surrounded by neighbors "friendly" to us. Would Saddam be using his oil money to fund the terrorists in Afghanistan? Most likely.
Critics overlook the point that Afghanistan has much more potential to be a "Vietnam" than Iraq.
If you want an example of how bad a battle was planned and conducted read D-Day by Stephan Ambrose. The whole day was one giant mistake after another.
And you're asserting that I am a left-wing version of Sloanasaurus has rocked me to the core as well, Aaron. Indeed, I'll be crying all not long and registering Republican first thing in the morning.
The point was that I, nor anyone else, cares that you're tired of defending yourself from the opposite end of the spectrum. We all have to do it because we're all overzealous, overly-generalizing jackasses. We just have different opinions. So your whine (and yes, it was a whine) about your humanity, while a good point, is irrelevant because it's all anyone ever does within political debate; why should you have special treatment.
"...Yet somehow I was still able to 'guess' that abandoning Afghanistan to fight an unprovoked and unnecessary war in Iraq might not be in our best interest...."
How is it that we have abandoned Afghanistan? What accomplishments could we claim if we would have put 150,000 troops in afghanistan instead of Iraq? The death rate in Afghanistan is actually higher than Iraq. There have been some 227 deaths with only 16,000 serving in country. Compare that to 1800/150,000 in Iraq. Consider the history of Afghanistan, an uncompromising landscape where we have no reliable allies in country and no Port. Consider Iraq, a perfect landscape for modern war where we have good allies in country (the Kurds) and potentially good allies (the Shia) a port, and plenty of good allies in the region.
Try to think strategically. Planners of this war had to think long term and out of the box. They had to ponder questions about where to use our resources. If the war on terror requires more than a military victory, how can that victory be accomplished with what we have. If we are going to suffer casualties no matter what, where can the greatest gain be achieved through those casualties... in Afghanistan? In Iraq?
You can belittle this think all you want, however, this is the kind of stuff our government must consider to defend this country.
If you know anything about World War II, Roosevelt and his staff pondered over what to do politically about Germany and Japan on December 8. They had already decided that the U.S. would commit nearly 9/10ths of our resources to the fight against Hitler....yet it was Japan that had attacked the U.S. not Germany. In fact Rossevelt had been trying to provoke Hitler into a fight for over a year.
Fortunately for Roosevelt, Hitler declared war a week later.
I think the cold war is a good comparison to WOT. Winning the war on terror means an end to the movement towards islamic fascism, which is essentially the ultimate goal to the ideology put forward by Osama Bin Ladin. His goal was to take control of states and create the new Islamic caliphate.
We know we are losing if states fall to Islamic fascism. We are winning if states move ahead to freedom and democracy. We know we are not winning if nothing changes.
"...Indeed, bringing democracy to Iraq would be a noble end, but is it realistic..."
Yes, I agree with you we don't know.
I think it is a mistake to argue that Saddam was less of a danger because he was a secular regime. I think it is clear that Saddam was most dangerous because he was a totalitarian leader with concentrated power with a history of agression.
the most brutal leaders in recent history have been the secular ones... stalin, hitler, pol pot.
Religious fanaticism does not always mean aggerssion. Despite the religious revolution in Iran, its leaders did not pursue a policy of foreign agression. Further, the Mullahs in Iran share power with each other and with the civil government. Iran is still a nasty tyranny, but not near the danger of Saddam. The Saudi Monarchy is also a power sharng arrangement among the royal family. Such sharing of power tends to moderate the policies of the leaders.
"...If Afghanistan is the poster child for what happens to a country when we 'bring them freedom' is it any wonder that Iraqis don't want us in their country...."
Maybe you should do a little research before making a statement like that. The Taliban was a nasty tyrannical government. You imply that nothing has changed.
You make good points. However, I don't think reducing poppy production or resolving local tribal conflicts are worth placing 150,000 troops to achieve.
I think most people advocating putting more troops in Afghanistan to look for Bin Ladin don't really believe it. They are just using this as part of their argument to oppose the Iraq war...
I thought Khalid Shaikh Mohammad was the mastermind of 9/11??? I think he is watching cable TV at the moment at Gitmo.
All sources say we had OBL surrounded but he managed to slip out. I don't think "walking around" is a correct description of OBL's freedom of movement at the moment.
Cold Pillow: I guess I disagree with you about Afghanistan "not going well." When will you be satisfied that it will be going well?
They are about to have legislative elections. 40% of the voters are expected to be women. The have a stable elected president. I read the other day that Kandahar (home of the Taliban) restored postal service for the first time since the Soviet invasion. If things are so bad there how did they manage to do that?
There is a guy in the blogosphere and WSJ Chrenkoff who compiles good news stories from Afghanistan that are not published in the US Media. You should read it. It will make you proud to be an American knowing the gift that our country and our soldiers have given to these people.
Brando, Bush sold me on the war with Option B. Option A never mattered to me, it was just another argument among many. (Clinton sold me on the Serbian war also with Option B), but I am a sucker for noble causes.
Some people were sold with Option A (the current threat of WMD, which no evidence of has yet to be found). Nearly all of the Option A people are "traditional" even "paleo" conservatives that don't believe in liberal adventures like Option B. (You can find them all on Lawrence Auster's blog). Bush needed these conservatives to cobble together majority support for the war. The problem for democrats is that Option A voters are never going to vote for democrats. They may show up in polls as being "frustrated" with the war, but do not show up in polls as supporting democrats. All the potential Democrat voters are in the Option A group, the so called Neo-conservatives and others who support stuff life nation buildng and Wilsonian foreign policy adventures.
This reflects the current quandry for democrats. How do they attract voters from the republican coalition if the party is mostly anti-war?
The anti-war; anti-bush crowd never accepted Option A or Option B. They just like to continuously point out the WMD issue (I would too I suppose).
"...My greatest fear is that no matter how badly things go and how much this country declines a large chunk of the right will continue to support the President and his policies..."
What is your objective observation to show that whether or not the country is in decline? Is it GDP? The number of Jobs, the consumer confidence poll?, home ownership, the average lifespan?
I guarantee that if these types of things really do actually decline under President Bush, everyone will feel it and no one will support him.
"...1,000 people have been killed in the last 6 months..."
Cold Pillow, the web site at the bottom says that more than 1.8 million die as a result of Afghanistan's civil wars from 1979-2001. That is an averge of 40,000 every six months.
Statistics don't tell everything, but maybe the difference between 40,000 and 1000 is why a post office was finally able to open in Kandahar this year.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Afghanistan
"...That statistic is pretty dishonest given the history of Afghanistan...."
I agree, we cannot verify that statistic, however, it is true that the whole country was completely devestated by the time Americans arrived. In fact the Taliban and Northern Alliance were still conducting a hot war with static front lines etc... in 2001. I recall in the mid 1990s that one of the various warlords rocketed Kabul night and day for a month killing countless civilians.
Further, it has been recently reported that some 2 million Afghan refugees have left UN camps in Pakistan and other border areas to return to their homes. This alone is a stunning statistic of success.
Your right postal service may not on its own be much of an accomplishment, but sometimes little facts like that can explain a lot.
"...it has not been since the time of the prohibition that the religious right has had such control of government and policy in the US....
It was also crazy religious evangelicals who led the fight to end the slave trade and the eventual abolition of slavery.
Robertson is a nut. So is Chavez.
He should have been more "delicate" in his comment. Perhaps he could have said something like "I pray for an untimely fall from power for Mr. Chavez."
Sure. I guess you could extrapolate and argue that Bush's base wants to do away with Chavez. Are you implying that is a bad thing?
Brando, you didn't do a very good job on pointing out Bush's supposed Right Wing Agenda. In fact you exaggerated on each point.
"...Do you remember the Terry Shievo case where Bill Frist led a charge to micromanage her care from Washington..."
The Congress merely told the federal courts to review the Shaivo case. They did not micromanage her care. The federal courts of course reviewed the case and found nothing wring with the state court's opinion.
..."Do you remember that Bush supports a constitutional ammendmant ban gay marriage (most americans don't support this..."
Bush said he supported an Amendment because of the possible unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (Which Clinton signed). Most Americans do think they should be able to decide this issue through the votee, not the courts of some other state.
".....Did you notice how he supports striking roe v. wade (whereas most Americans support restrictions on abortion but believe women should have a right to choose)?...."
Maybe Bush does support striking down Roe. But Bush knows that striking down Roe will not take away abortion rights. It just allows states to decide (and most states will keep the rights). Bush has not annouced support for federal legislation to ban abortion.
"...Did you notice how how he pre-empted the autonomy of states to formulate their own environmental regulations?..."
Preempting states rights sounds very anti-right wing.
"...Do you remember his attempt to privatize social security?..."
Bush never said "privatize," but I will let it pass, because I wish he would have.
Ill give you this one. "Priviatizing" social security is an excellent idea... but it is certainly not an idea that a liberal socialist would like.
Brando, you seem pretty smart. maybe you should come up with some good ideas on how to improve our country.
You can start by trying to convince people on this board as to why your ideas will work. After that you can start your campaign to win back America from Bush.
I don't mind Clark. Although I would like to know his views on the role of government. Democrats should find this out too before they vote for him.
If you read Clark's op ed piece, it is no different than his usual pieces. It is classic criticism. First he says the whole thing was a mistake. But then he basically says the Administration needs to do stuff (they are already doing). He provides vague suggestions such as forming regional committees, etc.. This is not really criticism of any meaningful substance. He also criticises the military for being too slow on training Iraqi troops and partnering with Iraqi units. This is great... I agree with him. I also agree that the Military made bad mistakes in the float tanks it equipped during D-Day. So what.
Clarks op-ed piece is is low quality mental reasoning. Anyone can make any criticism if you are not required support your criticism. To really prove your point, you must make criticisms with example and show why doing something differently would have been better. Clark doesn't do this.
Post a Comment