There's no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children ... uh, uh, uh ... you know, women...I note that the stammering was probably caused by Kerry's realization that he'd just said "kids and children" rather than "women and children" and that it had messed up what he'd meant as a profound attack. Or do you think he actually regretted saying "terrorizing" when referring to our soldiers?
I think the commercial is very powerful and effective. It gave me chills. Every word of it, every clip, is perfectly chosen to send the message that the Republicans in fact waited far too long to send.
Posts
57 comments:
Something very creepy and Coulterish about the way Ann says it gives her chills. Ann Althouse - the thinking person's Ann Coulter.
I think it is very effective for those at whom it is targeted -- people who voted for George W. Bush last fall for reasons of foreign policy.
It reminds me why I can't see myself voting Democrat any time soon, even though the present bunch of Republicans are very unimpressive.
The Democrats shouldn't be framing their proposals as "retreating". If they were more politically savvy they would declare that the goals of the war have been achieved and it's time to end the war.
The Democrats ought to be saying we've overthrown Saddam, established a nascent democratic government and sent a message to third-world dictators that if they mess with us we will retaliate. What more is there to do?
Declare victory and put up a "mission accomplished" banner. Attack Bush for keeping our troops in Iraq needlessly. This way the Republicans will be pushed into defending a continuation of the occcupation by citing the problems in Iraq.
As soon as they do this accuse the Republicans of being "defeatist", sapping troop morale, giving comfort to our enemies and making America look bad to the world.
The talking points should, "We won the Iraq War, now bring the troops home to celebrate."
I'm not partisan. I dislike both parties. And I'm not aligned with any other Republican policies. But I do strongly believe in supporting a war effort that is in progress, and I think the anti-war attacks are hurting that effort. Why don't you call me a partisan when I support abortion rights and gay marriage and oppose the death penalty -- all of which I've done recently on this blog? Do you consider Joe Lieberman a Republican partisan? Is there no longer even the concept of a liberal hawk? Pathetic! Those of you who are calling me partisan are resorting to name-calling because you have no argument, because you think of politics solely in terms of the war, or because you just don't know a damned thing about me and don't mind displaying your ignorance.
I suppose the ad was focus-grouped and found effective, but while I think the sound bites are excellent, I don't think a lot of people will understand the white flag means the dems are surrendering to terrorists.
It could very look like we're surrendering to their bizarro message.
We need better media people on our team.
The reason Dean, Pelosi, and Kerry appear is because they represent the leadership of the Democratic Party. The criticism could be the omission of Harry Reid, perhaps, but I think many people wouldn't even recognize him. I agree that Pelosi isn't that bad. Kerry's "confusion"? That's not a minor thing. It's one of the main reasons he lost the election.
I also think the white flag itself is rather cheesy, but it's not really inaccurate. The Democrats really do seem to be saying we should give up, and it's fair to call them on it. They are hurting the war effort. I think it's surprising that there is so little outrage expressed about that. I think the supporters of the war held back too long and let too many people be influenced by the anti-war rhetoric. That caused the poll numbers to go down, and the counter-rhetoric has sent the numbers back up. It's bad that people are so susceptible to the rhetoric (of both sides), but the war supporters cannot keep quiet. They have to participate in the fight for public opinion.
The comparison of me to Ann Coulter is just stupid. Astute of you to notice we have the same first name.
You are also both blond, both given to playing the victim while attacking, both gleeful in the use of power (haven't commented on the Miami airport shooting, but I remember your take on Menezes in London), and both hacks.
"Jimmy,
I agree. Except Democrats are not framing their position as "retreating", it's Republican talking points parrotted by the MSM that characterize Democrats' position as retreating."
Mark
The Democrats are definitely in a deafeatist attitude and I don't think the American people will ever support defeatist politicians (even if they themselves feel defeatist).
Dean said we can never win the war so we should leave. Murtha's speech was pure sentiment. He is giving the impression that he is no longer supporting the war because he cannot bear to see more troops get wounded and more families in grief. Many Democrats, including Kerry are arguing that we have become imperialist.
The Democrats should use the next Iraqi election as an opening to launch their "We won, lets bring our troops home" campaign. Democrats should be jubilant about the victory and instead of expressing concern, they should express puzzlement about the continued occupation. What is the continuing rationale for the occupation? The point is to make the Republicans defend the occupation by pointing out the problems in Iraq. Then attack them for being pessimistic and defeatist.
Yeah, the white flag turns me off, although using politicians words against them is universally delicious.
Not sure if Dems want to give up -- their alternatives are incoherent, however. Leave Iraq for an unnamed middle east country to better fight Zarqawi? Wha?
Mark: Wildaboutharrie wrote "The Kerry quote is just confusing." I was responding to that. Maybe she didn't mean Kerry was confused. Maybe he had total clarity and was just confusing us. I know it is said that he is a man of great nuance and perhaps with his superior intellect he gets out in front of us. I concede I failed to see the shades of meaning in "kids and children." Perhaps it was quite profound.
A better commercial would juxtapose current Democrat comments about Iraq with the comments Democrats made in 1973-1975 about Vietnam. In betweeen each pair of comments would be a shot of the Vietnamese fleeing South Vietnam on leaky boats, the communist re-education camps, and Pol Pot's killing fields. Maybe end it with a Vietnamese-American making a comment like "You abandoned us and allowed a holocaust to happen, don't do the same to the Iraqis."
How can we be so short sighted as to forget what democratic defeatism created thirty years ago?
Mark said...
...all the flawed/manipulated intelligence, number of deaths, unabashing violence in Iraq, and one giant question: For What?
For what?
The mere fact that you ask that question means that you are blind to any possible alternative to bringing troops home without regard to reason or existing task.
Having a democratic and capitalist Iraq (albeit an Islamic verion, what with no interest on loans and cultural business variations) will have a profound effect on neighboring countries IF they see Iraq holding up. Even a tripartate Iraq, with a massively successful Kurdish area, would still function quite well.
Nor would we have seen Syria pull its troops and gestapo from Lebanon had we not been sitting with our military right on Syria's doorstep.
Further, we would not end up being forced into invading Iraq (time costing money) later, having flushed all the Al Queda dreamers out of Afghanistan. They were going to go somewhere, so might as well have had troops on hand to meet them at their new location.
Nor can we forget that while no WMD were found, Bush did lay out multiple reasons for invading (while pushing the reason that would motivate the selfish people: WMD). Apparently, if it's nukes, some Americans get concerned cause that can actually affect their having a pleasant day ("What, this fallout is ruining my Starbucks!"), but saving a nation from a brutal dictator and raising a country's standard of living is just so unworthy.
Again, wars are never fought for one reason, nor can a war be judged by the number of deaths or violence. That's like deciding the quality of a cake by the number of ingredients. Sometimes it takes a lot, sometimes not.
As for flawed intelligence... what was the countervailing argument at THAT time? Nations like France (and others) were suggesting we wait and let inspectors continue their 10 years of inspections, but no national leadership anywhere was suggesting Iraq had nothing. And in light of that do nothing policy, where Saddam was bribing UN members, and hoping to restart research after having sanctions lifted, what good would that alternative path have ultimately achieved? We would be kicking Saddam's derriere two to seven years from now, at greater cost in lives and money.
The commercial itself is unfortunate, but necessary, in a world where the Democrats have essentially co-opted the administration's Iraq policy, but phrased parts of it (the troops coming home part) more vividly, leaving the impression that they would be doing something entirely different. Press them, and they hedge and say, "Well, home immediately, as soon as, you know, we are capable of doing so." At least Hillary, who I kind of loathe, is placing her verbal comments in line with the policies she knows she would have to implement.
Mark-
1) The "historians" who have debunked the idea of a victory in Vietnam are almost exclusively the same idiots who were out there in the streets protesting the war. What other result would they have come up with?
2) We won every battle in the Vietnamese war. The Vietcong was destroyed. We could have destroyed the North Vietnamese army if the politicians had allowed the military to. Even after we cut and run, we could have prevented the holocaust by keeping our promise to support the South Vietnamese army with air support if and when they were attacked by North Vietnam.
3)In the America I live in, most people resent the fact that the politicians and MSM did not allow us to win the Vietnamese war.
You live in a very strange world. Maybe 9/11 changed everything, but look at this poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-11-15-iraq-poll.htm
In 2000, 69% felt the Vietnam War was a mistake.
I think the commerical is tremendous as well as an accurate depiction of the Democratic position. If this war is going to be fought in the media--and obviously the other side recognized this long ago--then let's have both sides taking their shots and not cede the field to the opposition, which has now devolved (see commenters here) into personal insults against the hawks and a fashionable air of despair and ennui for themselves.
I'm only sorry they waited so long to fight back, but maybe this was planned: give the Dems enough rope, and they will hang themselves.
Gahrie, I have a feeling that the Vietnam commercial is surely next in line.
Mark- My name isn't that hard to get right...
1) We were winning in Vietnam. Yes people die in wars, but far fewer porportionally were dying in Vietnam than died in Korea or WW II, and far too many of our casualties were caused by restrictions imposed by politicians worried that exactly what happened (the undermining of support by the MSM and politicians) would happen.
2) There was no risk of a nuclear exchange. Believe it or not, MAD worked, and both the USSR and the PRC saw Vietnam as a minor skirmish, not a vital national interest. That you would suggest a nuclear exchange was possible over Vietnam just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
3)We betrayed both the Vietnamese, the American people, and our military by what we did in 1975, and to my shame it was a Republican president who allowed it to happen. We went back on our word, and abandoned an ally.
4) History is written by the winners. Unfortunately, up to now the war for control of our universities has been won by the communists, hippies and general America haters. It's not surprising that they are trying to write history to reinforce their views, and impose revisionist history on us to "correct" the history written before their control.
I think its another cheap shot against Kerry, though its probably legitimate to run against the Democrats in general. I'm a Democrat, and I think there's enough to criticize about my party's handling of the way without resorting to cheap shots!
If the Democrats ran an ad of George Bush stammering away, they'd be attacked all over the place. He's not that stupid, etc.
Ann "gets chills" at a dishonest, partisan attack is why I talk vicious sh*t about her. I've said it before. I don't know Ann except by what she writes. I formed my opinion of her from that.
"Of course Ann Althouse and Ann Coulter are completely different on probably 80% of the issues, but it's fair to say that their views on the war are very similar. No offense."
Of course Mark and Saddam Hussein are completely different on probably 80% of the issues, but it's fair to say that their views on the war are very similar. No offense.
My point, of course, is that if one is protesting the way one's opponents demonize one's views, it's rhetorically unpersuasive to then demonize one's opponents in the same breath.
Sheesh Ann, all this time I have thought you as a prowar leftie and now I find the truth: you and and Ann Coulter are the same person. Come to think of it I have never seen the two of you together, Q.E.D.
1) Fighting a war by proxie in Vietnam is orders of magnitude different from launching a nuclear exchange over said proxie. The USSR and the PRC were not irrational regimes at that time.
2) I think the Vietnam was was wrong. It just so happens that my reasons for thinking so are 100% different from yours. I think it was wrong because of the way we fought it, not because we fought it. Do you know how the question was worded?
3) I don't blame only the Democrats for the Vietnam debacle. I place as much blame on the MSM and some blame on spineless Republicans. Remember it was Pres. Nixon who ultimately made the betrayal.
gahrie:
The exact wording of the question is in the article. There are other polls showing even worse results, but with wording that could be much more ambiguous since they would conflate dissatisfaction with the war and dissatisfaction with the outcome. I don't think you can avoid that entirely, but this was the best wording I saw in a quick search.
And yet again the left is more willing to believe a murdeous dictator than they are an American president........
Saddam can now enter the pantheon with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro and Ortega.....
Ann... I'm not sure as to how you get pegged as a righty. The Comments seem to be overwhelmingly anti-ad which shows you either have DNC plants like Mark or your readership is not nearly as conservative as you get blamed for.
The white flag -- of course it's cheesy. I would've preferred a tail out of Dean's backside tucked between his legs or the Chicken Dance playing in the background would've been perfect.
Americans, generally, don't like wusses -- and Dean is an upper crust New York (now Vermonter)fancy boy and not a real fighter. I know I know Kerry, Murtha. Service is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't necessarily indicate honesty, wisdom and integrity or even courage all the time every time. In short -- veteran status is not some talismanic King's X. I'll listen to Kerry and Murtha more closely because of it, but I am not morally estopped from thinking they're crazy and wrong.
Mark wrote:
"I agree. Except Democrats are not framing their position as "retreating", it's Republican talking points parrotted by the MSM that characterize Democrats' position as retreating."
The Dems are framing the war as a failure. When a military campaign fails, what do you do? Either stay too long and soldiers die a needless death, or you retreat and fight another day. The Dems keep using the wrong approach, i.e. "we CAN"T / WON'T win so lets pull out". The message is SOOOOO pessimistic. And just because 60% of a largely underinformed public is not happy with the war, that does not equate to pulling out before the Iraqi government can hold their own. Hell, the public should NEVER be happy with war.
Sorry for misspellings. Breakfast is on the table so must eat NOW.
Wildaboutharrie: We've been through this, but in a search on all speeches and presentations given by the President, VP, Cheney, Rice, and Powell, there is only one mention of a reason other than WMD that I or others (who support the war) could find - the 2003 State of the Union, which has one short paragraph on SH and torture, within many, many paragraphs on WMD. So this doesn't hold.
I have to disagree with you here. It took me about 30 seconds to google this speech, which clearly gives other reasons to remove Saddam Hussein: here
I could probably come up with some more but I'm not inclined to sift through a bunch of speeches.
Where I do agree is that the WMD issue was by far the main issue Bush used to justify the war, and he was wrong. That he was wrong is a moot point in the decision of how to manage the war, as we now have a moral responsibility to help the Iraqis who have thrown their lot with us to leave them a reasonably safe and peaceful Iraq. We should leave when their elected leaders tell us to and not rely on polls to make that decision.
It's a great commercial. If it were a prizefight, it would be the knockout punch to Kerry and Dean. But those two have been doing and saying things on a regular basis that amount to career suicide IMHO.
And I think it was very appropraite response to Dem daily histrionics. We invaded Iraq because we thought Saddam might have WMD and give to Al Quadea. Do the Dems forget that??
And Ann is no partisan unfortunately but some of us are working on that.
I think it's a disengenous ad. That really has no relevance on whether it's a "powerful and effective" ad though(I don't think it's quite there yet: the white flag gimmicky thing looks like and I'd have put in more menacing music as opposed to the pseudo-techno).
If the White House can make Dean, Pelosi and–most of all–Kerry the public face of the Democratic Party, that's probably a strategic gain for them.
I'm still astonished that people think that Saddam actually did destroy the WMDs. He knew we were coming, he had months to move all of it out of the country. Occam's Razor says if he was going to go through the effort of destroying them, he would do so in a big public display with witnesses and documentation, so everyone could see how well he was behaving. What possible rationale could there be for destroying the WMDs in secret? It makes much more sense that the weapons were moved out or hidden (buried in the desert) rather than destroyed. Remember, Saddam believed, and still believes, that he'd regain the country -- and you can bet he'd want his weapons back when he assumed power again.
As for the ad: It didn't give me chills, but I think it is effective. Of course the white flag bit is cheesy, but it's great to see these Democratic leaders' own words framed this way, as opposed to the way they're usually spun in the MSM.
The question is, of course: who is actually going to see this ad, and when?
These comments lead me to the conclusions that some of you (Mark and Elliot) are baby boomers, and have never got over screwing this country over Vietnam. I have new for you; it's over! A long time ago. Grow up.
Further, Thomas Paine descrived people like you well; "Summer soldiers and sunshine partiots."
Or, more appropriately, a lot of people have described your likes as Copperheads. As a student of the Civil War, I find this most appropriate and, I suppose that Kerry is your McClellan-manque.
How about this for an indicator about the impact of the commercial on John Kerry? I'm watching the ABC News Live internet feed and on comes Politcs Live with Sam Donaldson. Story is Lieberman and his situation WRT other Democrats. Sam includes the RNC white flag ad as background and introduces it "We'll now show you part of the new RNC ad..." They ran the whole beginning, all of Dean, all of Pelosi, and the first four or five words of John Kerry, "We can't have American troops..." No obvious reason to cut off the damning words, unless you see them as damning and want to protect him. It's a theory anyway, and just happened 10 minutes ago.
The ad certainly won't further any constructive dialogue between the party's. It will only ad fuel to the fire and encourage the Dem's to mimic it when they get their opportunity.
Kerry said what he meant to say. He purposefully used the word terrorizing knowing full well the loaded nature of the term. Pelosi's call for a disasterous retreat after the elections is also from her heart.
Both speakers are pandering to the anti-war factions of their party with their words. The Democrats have gone into an anti-war frenzy based on poll numbers which they interpret as an opening to let Bush have it on the war and damn the ramifications to our troops because the American people are sooo fed up with the war they won't notice.
It seems they over-reached just a bit. Again.
Reagarding Howard Dean, I think everyone is misinterpreting him. When he states that it is "just wrong" that "we're" going to win the war, the "we" he is referring is not America as a whole, but the Democratic party. In that context his statement is completely accurate and the most profoundly true statement he's every made. I think he should be applauded for setting the record straight. :)
Mark, first you stand up for Saddam's veracity and truthfulness on WMD (to which no response is needed. Saddam's record speaks for itself...) Then you come out of deep left field (no pun intended) with the following statement:
"... what Democrats are saying is exactly what you said: we achieved victory and we should think of getting out since military did it (sic) job."
Soooo. Let me get this straight. Mr. Democrat himself, Howard Dean, when he says it's wrong to think we can win this war, is *really* saying means is that we aren't *going* to win, because we've already won?
And Ms. Pelosi when suggesting what would be a disasterous retreat from Iraq beginning right after the elections, just forgot (oopsies) to mention that it's because we've "achieved victory" in Iraq...
Priceless...
I'll just sit back and watch the show, keep it up folks, I expect at least another 100 posts of back and forth-itude before it dribbles to a conclusion.
But, the commercial is clunky, divisive, and effective.
The drop in the polls was the best thing that ever happened to President Bush as it emboldened the Democrats to drop the thin veneer of sanity regarding foreign policy that they've been constraining themselves under since 9/11.
They sensed weakness (the Dems) and revealed themselves and the way they've been thinking since 9/11, their bracing honesty has gotten them exactly what they deserve.
(and I'm still hopeful for 60 in '06)
(I'm no moderate, I'm proudly partisan and a stronger Republican majority will mean a Republican party more responsive to small government, pro-security, libertarian thinking if they don't feel threatened from the left, and the left seems busy removing themselves as a threat)
"The ad shows Barbara Boxer, not Nancy Pelosi."
LOL.
Well, I was going to say Pelosi doesn't look the way she usually looks. I suppose you could accuse us of being sexist, but, really, most of those senators look alike! Very few are recognizable, really.
Any ad like this will not penetrate beyond those who agree with it until the Republicans start getting more specific and convincing on the exact nature anti-war fecklessness, not just now but over the last 3 years at least.
With that in mind, what's always baffled me is the blithe assumption that Hussein's disguised, tactical destruction of most or all of his weapons stocks at some point meant that was the end of the security-based, WMD-based premise for the war.
People talk and talk that "we should have let the inspectors certify the weapons were gone" - as if that were possible absent the war, but even beyond that rather obvious point: then what?
Two Kerry quotes:
"Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (December 2001)
"It would be naive to the point of great danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will misjudge, provoke and stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much promised it."
(October 2002)
Here's what those kinds of quotes say to me - and there are literally dozens of them, especially in late 2001 and early 2002: they remind me that the bi-partisan consensus after 9-11 was that it was no longer permissible to just dither on Iraq; and his regime continuing indefinitely with his supremely evil sons waiting in the wings was no longer acceptable.
W's possible dishonesty in the form of excessive certainty on WMDs doesn't change that. Hussein's secret tactical destruction of weapons doesn't change that.
When speaking of dishonesty on the Iraq war, like I said in a post of mine a while back, there's a whole other storyline: the failure of Democrats to live up to the implications of their own brave words regarding Hussein following 9-11.
You can criticize W for the case; you can say he blundered into a badly-timed war in isolation when a better diplomatic effort would have perhaps prevented that; you can say it would have been better to have gone for regime change from the outside, although you'd have to acknowledge that too would bring turmoil and death to the Iraqis, and would also lead to Hussein looking to do damage to us in any way he could...
...but to say that the security-based rationale for the war was completely trumped up and nonexistent is utter bullshit. Sorry. Someday that will be consensus.
I wrote about this maybe nore succinctly in a post that includes a letter to the Star-Trib they didn't print:
http://paulfrommpls.blogspot.com/2005/11/state-of-war.html
By the way, Ann - I got "Chronicles" for my birthday. Hadn't read it yet. Remember when you were excerpting it? I didn't read those because I wanted to save it.
What a book. Another gift from Bob.
Mark: I don't know where you're getting the idea that Iraqi WMDs were moved to North Korea. What fever dream did that come out of? It certainly wasn't my previous reply.
We do, btw, have quite a bit of footage of truck convoys crossing from Iraq into Syria, which could easily have been transporting WMDs.
Mark said...
So, in the essence, you support airing a dishonest commercial which you know misrepresents Democratic position.
I congratulate you on taking such a very intellectually honest position.
I never said that the ad "misrepresents the Democratic position" nor did I say it's necessary for "political purposes", and I did not suggest that ad was untruthful. I said it was "unfortunate".
So, no Mark. I meant what I actually said, not your interpretation of my words. No congratulations are in order, but thanks.
Wildaboutharrie wishfully says:
We've been through this, but in a search on all speeches and presentations given by the President, VP, Cheney, Rice, and Powell, there is only one mention of a reason other than WMD that I or...
Not only does Goatwhacker provide a link that shows Mr.Wildharry is speaking rather freely (against my original comments), but he fails to take note of President Bush's speechto the General Assembly, which lays out not only multiple reasons for dealing with Iraq, but provides a continuity grid, linking the current conflict to unresolved issues from the first Gulf War.
But I applaud Wildaboutharrie's moxy in forcefully aserting a butt fact, working under the assumption that everyone is too lazy to check, or too stupid to know otherwise.
The history of the Vietnam war has not been written yet. You cannot expect a fair account of the war when those who were passionate about it are the ones still writing the history. Someone on this board said that it was wrong because 69% of the people thought it was a mistake. This is a foolish citation. I am sure you would have found similar poll results following the Civil War. (obviously especially in the South).
I think the history will find that Vietnam was a necessary war, a battle that was waged withing the larger war against communism and totalitarianism.
And yes, the war was lost in 1975 when Congress cut military support to the South Vietnamese in the face of invasion by the North. It was the anthesis of Truman's (and the Congress' reaction to South Korea).
Today we have a free south Korea and a Communist Vietnam.
I thought the ad was typical politics. It's obvious that Kerry did not intend to imply that American Soldiers were terrorists and was using the word "terrorize" in a different context. Nevertheles the Democrats deserve the sliming after all the untruths they have delivered.
Funny how you have democrats say Bush is all wrong, has no plan etc... and then they go on to regurgitate the plan that Bush is already doing (i.e., training Iraqi troops to carry on the fight). Lieberman is saying the same thing, except Lieberman is not trying to pretend that Bush has no plan.
I think a lot of the anti-war stuff is rooted in Bush hatred. Some democrats hate Bush so much they do not want Bush to get credit for "changing the world."
If Kerry would have won the election we would be doing the exact same thing in Iraq that we are currently doing except that more than 50% of the Democrats would be supporting the effort.
Mark said this:
"....Of course, it's obvious why Bush concentrated on WMDs as the main justification for the Iraq war. The WMD issue was the easiest to sell the war to the American public, especially in the wake of 9/11...."
I think this misses the truth. Bush needed to cobble together a coalition to get support for the War. The WMD angle was really only addressed to some parts of the isolationist conservative base.
I never cared about the WMD issue (that we went in to destroy existing stocks) other than worrying about their use when we invaded. In my opinion Saddam himself was the WMD. Would we have gone in, found Saddams WMD, destroyed it an then left Saddam in power. No way! I would have never supported such a war. I would have also been a joke if the UN found a "clean bill of health" and let Saddam be with no more inspections.
I also agreed with Bush on his argument that spreading freedom was the only real way to combat future WMD proliferation.
The WMD argument was addressed to conservatives who generally opposed any attack without being attacked first.
This why I laugh when critics try to convince me that Bush lied about the WMD!. I couldn't care less if he did because Saddam needed to be removed regardless of whether he had any existing stocks of WMD. I wanted Saddam removed in 1991!
Imagine telling that hard core anti-Nazi group in FDR's administration that FDR was lying to Congress and the people about his aggression towards Germany in early 1941 and that FDR let the Japanese bomb us at Pearl Harbor to get into the war. Do you think they cared if FDR lied? They wanted to get into the war because they knew Hitler would kill us all if we didn't. Imagine telling the abolitionists during the civil war that Lincoln was a criminal because he lied and tricked the north into war. Do you think the abolitionists cared about Lincolns lies and tricks? No way. They wanted to free the slaves.
Of course there is always the chance that Saddam was really a nice guy and Bush has been lying about him all this time (just as that nasty Truman pulled the wool over our eyes about Uncle Mao).
I don't think Althouse's support of the Iraq war in any way shows a conservitive slant. In fact, the Iraq war fits more nicely in with support of abortion, gay marriage, etc.. the Iraq policy is more of a liberal policy than a conservative one. Perhaps she reveals herslef as a moderate because she doesn't feel a passionate hatred towards bush.
Why do democrats oppose the Iraq war? I can understand Vietnam because of the Draft. But there is no draft here....
1) The Iraq war uses American power to free people - a very liberal type of policy.
2) Democrats don't really identify with the soliders who are dying in Iraq. Clearly, today's military is much more republican and all volunteer. Do democrats really care that much about these soliders?
3) Democrats don't care about the money being spent. It is only a fraction of the total budget.
4) Democrats widely supported Clintons attack in Kosovo so they can't really be anti-war?
Hmmm... I know. It's all Bush Hatred. If Kerry were waging the same war, democrats would support it.
I'll admit that I started skimming the comments (though I did notice that someone mentioned that was Boxer not Pelosi so I guess I'm not losing my mind after all).
I think the *rest* of Kerry's quote is side splittingly funny... the part where after he talks about US soldiers terrorizing children and women and violating the customs and religious customs, he says "Iraqis should be doing that."
No, no, I don't think he meant it that way but it really was funny.
What isn't so funny is that if the Iraqis *were* doing that, that is what they would be doing. Our guys, (and occasionally female troops taken on these house to house searches so that women and children are *not* terrorized and religious customs *not* trampled on) are far more careful and far more *fair* than Iraqi troops would be.
I have great faith in the Iraqi people to figure out democracy and also to start to get hold of the idea of equality under the law for minority groups... of which there are many in Iraq. But I sure wouldn't trust the Shiite majority to be quite ready to let bygones be bygones just yet.
The Iraqis are voting again next week. I'd think that the Democrats could find *something* encouraging or positive to say about the situation if they tried *really* *hard*.
Oh, and I'd like to call BS on Mark for the remarks that most Iraqis want us out unless he offers some links to back it up.
And I'd like a clear distinction made between a general longing not to have foreign troops in the country and an actual wish for US and other troops to leave NOW, damn the consequences.
Mark- sorry to get nitpicky here but that's an awfully weak poll to base anything on. The article itself reads like an editorial, the poll is "secret" and it was "seen" by an Examiner reporter. You have no idea of methods, selection of participants, etc. There is scant mention of where exactly the polls were conducted and none of how the questions were framed. The results are also in disagreement with many verbal reports from American soldiers.
I know it's a common tactic to attack the poll itself when you don't like the results but based on your link I would be hesitant to give it much credibility. As I've also stated before, policy should not be driven by polls but by the wishes of properly elected Iraqi leaders.
".....The war is a diversion from the real war on terror; the resources that should have been spent on Afghanistan for a good cause are being spent in Iraq;"
This is such a load of crap. Afghanistan is the worse place to fight a war (aka the graveyard of armies). Osama wanted us there. It was a trick. What would we accomplish from putting more resources in there... Nothing. It would be the Afghan vs. Soviets redux. How were we supposed to supply our larger force? Through Pakistan? Could we expect the Afghanis to take up the cause after we leave... using all their resources? The only reason things are going well there now is becuase all the jihadis are going to Iraq instead.
"...the war was rushed into..." What after 12 years of violating the 1991 treaty. I think not.
"...the evidence was manipulated/distorted to build the case for the war..." Yes, we misrepresented Saddam's desire to build WMD. We misrepresented the number of Mass Graves, not! Apparently we misunderestimated Iraqi's desire for democracy. Turnout has been higher than we ever expected.
We also misrepresented the amount of coddling France, Russia, and the UN had been doing with Saddam. Noone ever imagined the extent of the corruption with the Oil for Food program.
"... the war is being run extremely unprofessionally..."
What does this mean? Compared to what? Compared to what war?
What a joke.
I think many of you talking about polls in Iraq are missing a key distinction.
My reading of the polls is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's want American troops out -- but the overwhelming majority of Iraqis doesn't want them out yet.
Which I suspect is the opinion of most Americans.
Howard Dean et al have been extremely misleading, but it's misleading to actually revisit their own words?
BTW, many think Joe Lieberman has been pretty dang reasonable, but he's almost ceased to exist over the past few weeks.
Mark: the fact that you weren't born until after Vietnam doesn't excuse your regurgitation of the tired crap of the lefty boomers; it just shows your shallowness. The Copperhead reference is to them agitating to settle the Civil War by signing a treaty, and geting out. They nominated McClellan as their standard bearer for this purpose. There is no comparison with Iraq qua Civil War; YOU apparently don't know much about that war.
geoduck2: Read the above remarks; that is the context, and nothing to do with what you said. If I had wanted to say that, I would have done so.
From the article "...the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control..."
Apparently this "poll" was taken in *one* of the four southern provinces under British control. Makes a person wonder what they're teaching at the Iraqi university about "samples" and what they teach the UK journalists about interpretation of data. While I do very much appreciate that the Brits are there we all know that it's the areas under US control where the majority of the fighting happens. The opinions of the people who are giving tips to US forces with ever greater frequency, who daily face the indescriminate violence of "insurgents", as well as the Sunni Kurds in the North, might well be different from those in that one small region in the South.
And classic john... you're exactly right. Which is why I asked for that precise distinction to be made. Wanting foreign troops out and wanting them out *now* are entirely different things.
Our soldiers would like to go home as well, but that's also not the same thing as wanting to cut and run. Most people can understand that what they *want* isn't always the best choice to make.
As for our jack-booted thugs going house to house terrorizing people and offending sensibilities... they are the first jack-booted thugs in the history of the world that arrive in the middle of the night only to have fathers bring out their sick children instead of hiding them.
geoduck, I think what will change opinion about Iraq is when people start listening to our soldiers.
The violence goes up and it goes down and it goes up again. Glenn Reynolds has a link to a news article about former Bathists telling their people to vote this week and warning Zarqawi not to interfere. Or else. I think that is much more relevant than levels of violence.
Our soldiers, particularly ones who have been sent to Iraq (and Afghanistan) are re-enlisting at remarkable rates. I think that is more relevant than the sort of defeatist talk we hear at home.
The Iraq civil war scenario is nearly certain if we take our troops out too soon. However nuanced Dean meant "we can't win" the whole "we need to take our troops out of the country" rhetoric is couched in a "we shouldn't have invaded and we shouldn't be there now" context.
Sure, you ask and they say, "well, of course we shouldn't leave before the Iraqis can take over" but since there is no way to argue that Iraqi capability has been reached and Bush is dragging his feet bringing our troops home it all ends up, as at least one person has pointed out, not a single bit different than the actual administration policy on bringing our guys home again. Which makes no sense.
It's not dissent about how the war over there is being waged at all. It's dissent about *being* there. If Dean or Boxer (or Pelosi) or Kerry had on-the-record views to show they clearly want us to *win* there would be no way that the ad could twist those into defeatism.
There's a reason that they didn't quote Hillary. I'm sure she has said something at some time that could possibly seem defeatist. But it wouldn't fly at all, not even with people who can't stand the woman. And who can say that she expresses support for *how* the war is being fought? She doesn't.
This is really *not* about a demand that everyone be cheerleaders for the president or they will get branded defeatist or anti-victory.
Here's the ABC Poll released today. Kinda knocks down the other poll. Which is why you should refrain from basing long term policy decisions on poll numbers. Polls are very short term and don't always reflect reality. Take the Consumer Confidence polls. They have often shown that Americans are not confident in the current economy. Yet all the economic number clearly show a robust economy. And those same people who are negative are the people spending the money that is keeping the economy healthy, so there is a disconnect between the public opinion and the economic reality. This is why you don't set economic policy base on the Consumer Confidence polls. Also, polls can be weighted too far one way or the other, or the numbers can change in ways that make your previous poll based decision look foolish. As soon as a poll comes out that is contrary to the previous poll, your position is weakened. This is likely going to happen to the Dems who base their argument on the BBC poll.
For more on polls, this is a good site to monitor.
The round-and-round about Saddam and WMD is so tedious. U.S. security is advanced by our having put a ring around Saudi Arabia; by our having acquired a treasure trove of intelligence, in the form of the files and former officials of a nation whose ruling class was among those who hate us; and by our having shown everyone, enemy and potential enemy alike, with what ease we topple a foreign government.
In comparison to all this, the moralistic arguments advanced against the war are trifling. They would be unfounded even if they weren't trifling. After all, is there some god or some knower of moral things who has declared, "Thou shalt not go to war against whomever you think may endanger you"? I think we're free to do as we intelligently think fit.
Ann said:
___________________________
"The ad shows Barbara Boxer, not Nancy Pelosi."
LOL.
. . .most of those senators look alike!
___________________________
Pelosi is the hot one.
"Pelosi is the hot one."
Pelosi is the one with so much plastic surgery, I'm never sure what she's going to look like. I prefer senators who are capable of closing their eyelids all the way and who don't look perpetually alarmed. Are you sexually attracted to frightened women, by chance?
Post a Comment