September 12, 2006

"It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

Okay, now that I've warmed up on Keith Olbermann, let's look at the President's speech itself. (Olbermann was anticipating what Bush would say.) I watched Bush's speech last night, but I was too tired to write anything about it, even just the kind of post that would have given readers a place to put their comments. Sorry. I was really tired. Anyway, it's just as well. It helped to sleep on it.

Last night, it wasn't making much of an impression on me. I was observing the superficial things, like how he kept his hands flat on the desk, one on top of the other, and occasionally the top hand would release the bottom hand, which would then flap about in the tiniest of gestures. The text seemed to be the sort of thing he needs to say and does say once in a while. As in most cases, it didn't seem extraordinary-- as if he really wants to communicate -- but dutiful -- as if he's doing that thing a President needs to do. He had his inflections right, but it came out in the usual singsong. Trying to think how he could have done better, I pictured President Reagan and imagined his inflections. I have the feeling the people who coach Bush have studied Reagan and extracted some tips, and Bush is doing what he can. But, as Bush might say, it's hard.

Let's look at the text, just the core of it here:
Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy -- but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings, and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations. The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.
This invites us to support his military efforts not by scaring us about violence, but by inspiring us about American values. We can appreciate and want to protect our own freedom, and that should make us want to fight an enemy who would deprive us of it. That merges into an argument that we should want to engage in a struggle, the struggle of the century, to bring our values to people around the globe. He can't say this ideological struggle is between American values and Islam. The Islamic values here are a "perverted," "radical" distortion of Islam. The implication is that there is a real Islam, and the President knows what it is, and it's something much more like the American values. This all goes by so quickly when you're listening to the speech.

He speaks next of the threats of violence to us. "We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes." To keep the enemy out of "our homes" and to avoid having the "Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons," we need to fight the war to victory. He argues that we have had much success so far, in Afghanistan, "put[ing] al Qaeda on the run." What about Iraq?
I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.
This is a very minimal restatement of why we went to war, and it won't satisfy anyone who wants to concentrate on that point, but it's not surprising that he moves quickly to the subject of the importance of sticking it out and making a success of it now that we're there.

Skipping some text:
We can be confident that our coalition will succeed because the Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of unspeakable violence.
The fact that things are so bad is the reason why things are so good. You can mock that rhetorical move, but I suspect it's appeared in thousands of war speeches. What else can he say (considering that he's not going to give up)?
And we can be confident in victory because of the skill and resolve of America's Armed Forces.
He needs to inspire us to believe in victory, and he takes advantage of our respect for the troops. I'm eliding the sentences that detail his respect. From this paragraph, he goes to honoring the people who work in homeland security, as if the subject has been honoring the men and women in public service. The Iraq section of the speech is over.
Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they've not been idle. Al Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens -- and we are determined to stop them.
This really is impressive and much more inspiring than Iraq. I can understand his frustration. Where things are going badly, in Iraq, there are events and pictures to demoralize us. Where things are going well, what we see is the lack of anything bad, and it is hard to get people to see that as anything at all.

Here's an interesting line tagged onto the end of that paragraph:
We'll continue to give the men and women who protect us every resource and legal authority they need to do their jobs.
There's your legislative agenda for the election season.

Now he returns to the theme of ideological struggle:
One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom. The terrorists fear freedom as much as they do our firepower. They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the election lever, girls enrolling in schools, or families worshiping God in their own traditions. They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by raging against the forces of freedom and moderation. This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization. We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations. And we're fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom and tolerance and personal dignity.

We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom. Amid the violence, some question whether the people of the Middle East want their freedom, and whether the forces of moderation can prevail. For 60 years, these doubts guided our policies in the Middle East. And then, on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage. Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.
People given the choice will always choose freedom? Many people, it seems, accept mere order and security. Others give up every earthly freedom in exchange for the promise of heaven. It's a serious question, but he raises it only to drop it. He brings up 9/11 right there, so maybe you won't notice. And how does what happened on that "bright September morning" prove we need to remake the Middle East? Putting one sentence after another doesn't mean the ideas follow logically. There's some real sleight of hand in that last paragraph, and I think everyone knows it.

To stave off the doubts, he brings up Franklin Roosevelt, D-Day, Iwo Jima, and so forth. "Throughout our history, America has seen liberty challenged, and every time, we have seen liberty triumph with sacrifice and determination." Every time? Whenever we fight, we win, because we fight for liberty.

The conclusion:
On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our nation has endured trials, and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies. We will protect our people. And we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.
I agree with the basic point of the speech: We must continue the fight to victory. I don't think he's created any new inspiration here, though. People who think Iraq is a lost cause love liberty too. They're still going to criticize the war. They aren't going to "put aside [their] differences." He said "our differences," but clearly he's going to stay in his position and defend it. So, essentially, that means: Stop disagreeing with me. And, yes, you can laugh at the irony: Freedom is so wonderful that you should shut up.

We must "work together to meet the test that history has given us." Note the passivity. I didn't choose this, history made me do it. And since it's history, you need to get in line, get serious. There's a core of that that I absolutely agree with. We're in a war, so we need to concentrate on winning, and you should only want to do the things that help. But I don't think the assertions here are going to convince anyone, and he's given his critics new material. They are going to resent and resist the demand that we perceive ourselves as caught up in a massive, historical ideological struggle.

116 comments:

Doug said...

I missed the speech last night, 40 Year Old Virgin was on cable and eventhough I voted for him, I hate to hear Bush make a speech.

I awoke to Good Morning America and all these democrats were whining about Bush exploiting the day for political gain, yet as I read here, Olbermann lamely attempted to exploit it as did much of the lefty blogs, like KOS. And within the last two weeks, many democrats used the anniversary of Katrina to score political points against Bush. So maybe in demoland, it is ok to exploit a tragedy as long as it aids the cause of the party of victimhood

Joan said...

They are going to resent and resist the demand that we perceive ourselves as caught up in a massive, historical ideological struggle.

But we are caught up in a massive, historical ideological struggle. Why is that so hard for them to accept, when it's happening everywhere? Do they think that just because Theo van Gogh was murdered in the Netherlands, that sort of thing could never happen here? Haven't a few synagogues been shot up recently by Islamists? Beslan was just a year ago, and we've nabbed terrorists with the plans to NJ schools. What is it going to take to convince these people that Bush's struggle for civilization was not hyperbole?

Sheesh.

The Drill SGT said...

At least W gives a speech better than his father...

I guess that is one reason I made the mistake of voting for Clinton the first time...

Meade said...

(Confession to Drill Sgt.: I too voted against Bush before I voted for Bush.)

"And we're fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom and tolerance and personal dignity."

Resent and resist (psychologists would refer to it as the immature defense mechanism of denial) as "they" may, grownup true democratic Liberals recognize the core truth of that statement, also found in our own Declaration of Independence. And it is what grownup true democratic Conservatives seek to protect and allow all People.

goesh said...

Yes, I too voted for Billy the first time, Drill Sgt. Wifey often reminds me of that when I say bad things about Hillary. An ideological struggle he says? I think it's more like having our mitts on each other's throats and whoever can knee the other in the groin is going to win. From a death fatwa on Solmon Rushdie to the cartoon vehemence and beheading videos that sell like hotcakes to hundreds of bombings, the word struggle is a gross understatement. I mean they bombed the Red Cross building and UN Headquarters building in Iraq for cryin' out loud. They've hit dance halls and ice cream parlors and pizza parlors and hospitals. You think they won't nuke is if given the chance?? Holy Cow! We couldn't even buy them off if we wanted to.

goesh said...

nuke us if given a chance...these devils really have me riled up

Brian Doyle said...

"And, yes, you can laugh at the irony: Freedom is so wonderful that you should shut up."

Thanks, but I don't find it especially funny.

The only thing daffier in this analyse de text is where Bush paints his portrait of radical, militant, and expansionist Islamofascism, and Ann concludes that "[t]his invites us to support his military efforts not by scaring us about violence, but by inspiring us about American values."

Yeah I got misty.

Brian Doyle said...

Noah -

Republicans are masters of "rhetorical slight of hand." Just ask the Defeatocrats.

Not being a regular Malkin reader, I could use clarification on why American Muslims should have to apologize for 9/11.

John said...

I realize this speech was intended for the American people but I wish he would have added some context I recently read elsewhere: "We are not at war with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Muslims in general. Just as we were not at war with German or Japanese citizens during WWII. And today, Japan and Germany are thriving and the citizens of both countries have tremendous freedoms and opportunities because they were given the chance to pursue their dreams and aspirations without fear." He tried using the "perverted" and "radical" qualifiers, but he could have done more.

Sloanasaurus said...

"....Just as we were not at war with German or Japanese citizens during WWII...."

Huh... the success of Hitler was that he got the German people to back him and they loved him for it. Of course we were at war with the German and Japanese people.

Bush needs to be clear with people in the Muslim world that if they choose to support terrorists, we will go to war with them. I think he has been clear about that. Unfortunately, the media still plays these games, such as with the poor palestinians - "its not their fault that they elected a terrorist government to go to war with Israel." Hah! Israel now has the moral right to bomb the palestinian people and take their land. After all, they have chosen war through the ballot box - just as we here in a America chose war with the terrorists by reelecting Bush.

Eli Blake said...

As far as the Afghan war is concerned, I believe that most people still support it, and recognize it will be hard. And yes, Afghanistan was thrust on us by history (though the Iraq war was by Bush's choice). As a Liberal, I fully support whatever action the President takes in Afghanistan, and my biggest criticism has been that it hasn't been a big enough priority. I only hope that the current focus on it represents a real change of focus, and that it isn't just politics (i.e. that it will still be the main focus by, say, Christmas).

Fenrisulven (10:32):

In the long term, the Iraqi people are the most sophisticated in the ME and stand the best chance of making Democracy work. That will then cascade to Lebannon, Syria, Saudi, and Iran.

Is that why the Iraqis elected members of parliament who lead anti-American demonstrations, burn American flags, have ties to militias and several of whose numbers were on Zarqawi's cell phone?

What we've achieved in Iraq is that we've given the same crowd who hate us legitimacy-- instead of being anti-woman, anti-western, religious zealots, they are now elected anti-woman, anti-western religious zealots.

And I disagree with the premise that there has not been an winner in Iraq. There clearly has been: Iran.

Iran has now achieved two goals-- 1. the removal of Saddam Hussein and 2. the installation of a friendly, Shiite dominated government, that they failed to achieve in a decade of warfare in the 1980's. They see the U.S., the biggest threat to them five years ago, bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq which at the very least will prevent us from actually doing something about Iran for at least the next five years (plenty of time to finish building their nukes). Yes, we can bomb the crap out of them, but as we recently saw in Lebanon, bombing campaigns are no substitute for 'boots on the ground,' which we certainly don't have available in the quantity we would need to invade a country like Iran (three times the size and twice the population of Iraq) considering that they are now going back to more 'involuntary recalls' of former service members just to fill current needs in Iraq. They watched while their double agent, Chalabi, fed us the lie about Saddam being able to deploy WMD in 45 minutes, got him to tell them that we cracked their defense code, and now have the U.S. troops that used to be a credible deterrent against them propping up a pro-Iranian government against Sunni rebels and terrorists who consider Iran to be a nation of heretics. And our powerlessness is shown every day when Ahmadinejad crosses a new line in the sand and we do nothing about it-- because there is not much we can do.

I don't know if those mullahs have a sense of humor, but if they do I'm sure they are laughing hysterically at what they must consider a gift from Allah.

jimbino said...

Bush wants everyone to be free to worship God according to his own traditions. From the point of view of the humanist or atheist, Bush is just as bad as the Muslims in his attempt to force God on us all.

John said...

Sloan: "Huh... the success of Hitler was that he got the German people to back him and they loved him for it."

But it wasn't sustainable. Sure Hitler instilled German pride and nationalism to a people that were beaten and isolated. The Emporer was worshiped. And Mussolini kept the trains on time. It was a better life for many to be ruled by these fanatics - just as it is for many in the ME now. Look at what Hezzbollah has done in Lebanon. They actually provide services like schools and hospitals for "the people". They are winning the hearts and minds of the people - then using them as shields. Al Quaeda and the Taliban haven't yet used that tactic. They just use the people as shields or as fodder (especially non-beleivers).

I'm just suggesting that we need "inside" help. A resistence against the appeal of Hezzbollah and the fear of Al Quaeda reprisal. Iraq (the Kurds especially) was ready to overthrow Saddam after GW1, but we abandoned them. Just one more tactic in the strategy.

We given the message to other regimes that if they support the fanatics, they are at risk. We could also send the message that there is hope and we will not abandon you if you resist.

Editor Theorist said...

GWK said: We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom. Amid the violence, some question whether the people of the Middle East want their freedom, and whether the forces of moderation can prevail. For 60 years, these doubts guided our policies in the Middle East. And then, on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage. Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.

AA said: People given the choice will always choose freedom? Many people, it seems, accept mere order and security. Others give up every earthly freedom in exchange for the promise of heaven. It's a serious question, but he raises it only to drop it. He brings up 9/11 right there, so maybe you won't notice. And how does what happened on that "bright September morning" prove we need to remake the Middle East? Putting one sentence after another doesn't mean the ideas follow logically. There's some real sleight of hand in that last paragraph, and I think everyone knows it.

I say: I disagree with Ann here. There is no sleight of hand, although there is room for disagreement. Indeed, I think this is a clear, and moving, statement of what changed on 9/11.

The US (and the UK) really did begin to change their policy after 9/11 - the old policy was to allow rulers to do whatever they wanted in their own countries so long as US interests were not threatened. The new policy is that the only long term security is for all the nations of the world to become liberal democracies, interlinked by market economies, and with all the other aspects of modernization: independant law, science and technology, the mass media etc.

We are seeing the early, necessarily piecemeal attempts to try and make this goal a reality - it is a process of trial and error. European countries such as France (as well an countries such as Russia and China) do not agree with this goal, yet, and still hold to the old idea that tyrannical regimes should be left alone.

But I think that this mission to create liberal democracies worldwide is probably the noblest international aspiration since the abolition of slavery. I don't think anyone knows just how accomplish it, but I am pretty sure that it is the right thing to be trying.

Eli Blake said...

fenrisulven:

Deal with them as in negotiate? Possible, but we don't really have much in the way of bargaing chips right now.

The point I made is that thanks to Iraq we don't have the military ability right at the moment to invade and/or occupy Iran. If we consider General Shinseki's advice (who calculated that 400,000 ground troops would be needed to occupy Iraq post-invasion in order to prevent an insurgency from getting started and was promptly punished by Rumsfeld) to have been validated by recent history, and then consider that Iran has 2.5 times the population of Iraq, we'd need a million troops to prevent it from turning into a much larger version of Iraq. Unless we implement a draft, I don't see where we will get a million troops.

There is another option though. The same one we used against the communist world. 2/3 of Iran's population is under 30 and has no memory of the Shah, the revolution or Ayatollah Khomeini. His rhetoric is as dead to them as the rhetoric of Lenin is to Russians. They don't like living in a strict Islamic society. They don't hate Americans, maybe they have been told we are bad but it's by the same people they don't trust or like, who are their leaders. So let's use our best weapons:

Disney. McDonald's. Hillary Duff. MTV.

Trade with them until they can't stand it anymore.

Let little Mohammed grow up wanting to go to Tehran-Disney instead of aspiring to blow himself up in a holy war. Just as some religious leaders here bemoan the effects of materialism on religious orthodoxy, the same is true there.

Let mammon go to work.

What we need to realize, is that if we shoot our way into a country (i.e. Iraq) then patriotic people will shoot back, whatever they may think about their present government (think of the 'Red Dawn' scenario). But come with a smile and bearing consumer goods, and there is no door that can keep us out.

MadisonMan said...

I've seen this alluded to in some comments, but I am genuinely curious as to how Bush's born-again religious beliefs color his view of what's happening. Is it apocalyptic? I hope at least that he's writing it down so historians will know.

For all the talk about the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century (isn't it a little early in the century to call it that?) -- precious little is being asked of US citizenry -- other than to follow Bush. How easy. I have to think that if a politician were serious about this war, he (or she) would be suggesting taxing or rationing gas, or rationing food, or talking about a draft, or building up the Army. Something other than the business as usual that seems to be the message. The mixed messages really are deafening: We're in a big fight, but keep on driving your SUV to the Health Club to exercise! No need to sacrifice, all we have to do is follow Bush!.

I think the US Government could benefit from a nice purge of incumbents, but I worry that it would be read as license to impeach the President, which is really that last thing needed at the moment.

Chennaul said...

This is the part that got to me most-maybe because it seemed to affect the President the most-

Earlier this year, I traveled to the United States Military Academy. I was there to deliver the commencement address to the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th. That day I met a proud mom named RoseEllen Dowdell. She was there to watch her son, Patrick, accept his commission in the finest Army the world has ever known. A few weeks earlier, RoseEllen had watched her other son, James, graduate from the Fire Academy in New York City. On both these days, her thoughts turned to someone who was not there to share the moment: her husband, Kevin Dowdell. Kevin was one of the 343 firefighters who rushed to the burning towers of the World Trade Center on September the 11th -- and never came home. His sons lost their father that day, but not the passion for service he instilled in them. Here is what RoseEllen says about her boys: "As a mother, I cross my fingers and pray all the time for their safety -- but as worried as I am, I'm also proud, and I know their dad would be, too."

The sons of RoseEllen and Kevin Dowdell perhaps they are a living memorial to 9/11.

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

"But come with a smile and bearing consumer goods, and there is no door that can keep us out."

Hey... no OT talk about China here. :)

KCFleming said...

Re: "Now, if you want to discuss ...., I will only be too happy to do that."

Much to my regret.

dearieme said...

If we are in a death struggle, some advice:-
1) Don't funk the fight (Clinton did).
2) Don't fight it badly (W in Afghanistan).
3) Don't fight the wrong fight (W in Iraq).

Derve Swanson said...

If we are in a death struggle, some advice:-
1) Don't funk the fight (Clinton did).
2) Don't fight it badly (W in Afghanistan).
3) Don't fight the wrong fight (W in Iraq).

4) No parking on the dance floor.

Brian Doyle said...

Remember when the object of the Iraq War was to prevent a nuclear attack from Saddam?

Then remember when we found out that not only was that impossible, but that the case presented to the American people and the UN was largely bogus?

This wasn't an "intelligence failure." This was intelligence manipulation.

Call it part of a decisive ideological struggle if you want, but don't forget that such language was not in the brochure.

KCFleming said...

Re: "But I think until we acknowledge the mistakes t isn't going to get any better."

Garbage, as usual.
Jim wants to have us put the mistakes on the table. For what? Discussion? Closure?

It's disingenuous claptrap. What you want can't be granted. Come up with advice on next steps that don't involve surrender, appeasement, or self-flagellation.

We're in Iraq. Finish it. Win. At the same time, set up for Iran and Syria. Watch North Korea and Palestine, watch Pakistan and Egypt.
So tell us how you'd do it. Your 'demand' for navel-gazing is childish and stupid. Grow up.

Brian Doyle said...

Pogo -

While I understand the desire to let bygones be bygones, there remains the issue of credibility.

The same people who are now telling us that we must attack Iran before they acquire nukes are the same people who said the same thing about Iraq.

Of course, we now know that the Iraq hawks were disastrously wrong about both the need to fight a war and how long and costly that war would be.

So it does matter, on a "going forward" basis, who has been right and who has been wrong on foreign policy.

goesh said...

Former Marine, Viet Nam Vet here, Freder, and I do know two Vets that were in Iraq. I think the WIA count is around 20,000 but you need to keep in mind that any time paper work is done by medical staff for an injury, it is considered WIA unless specifically occuring in activities not connected to direct or indirect engagement. This means routine and minor injuries, i.e. a bad scrape while on patrol with no enemy contact, get recorded as "wounds". Obviously spraining a wrist while falling down drunk off duty does not count. Thousands of purple hearts are handed out which some of us older Vets sort of secretly smile at but don't say anything about, if you know what I mean. You maybe don't since you seem imply that our volunteers are themselves victims, despite objective data to the contrary, i.e. met enlistment quotas, voluntary extensions of in-country service and the return of wounded to their units at the request of the wounded. The perceived reality of the Left does not mesh well with what the actual participants are saying and feeling, and please don't cite any Iraqi 'polls' either as evidence of gloom and failure.

shimmy said...

Bush said: "On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them."

In a nutshell, this is why his mindset will never bring peace. He does not understand people. I believe that most of the Muslim world does not hate America, they are merely pointing their anger at us. All people have anger. And it cannot be a reason to declare war on masses of people.

It's possible that the number of people who actually want to "wage war" on America is so small that this W.O.T. is a sick joke.

Am I hopeless for believing in "law enforcement" when others call for "war," or for saying "psychology" when others point to "evil," and (most of all) for believing in Robert McNamara's learned plea, that we must communicate and empathize with our enemies? (Not sympathize.)

Ways To Win The War (that Bush did not mention) :
1. Arms control
2. Energy conservation & innovation
3. Cultural understanding & education
4. Fresh political dialogue

This is rapturous negligence.

Brian Doyle said...

If no one reason (say, national defense) is good enough to stand on its own, it's probably not a very strong case.

Fritz said...

Freder,
No one sends their loved one to a war zone, it is an all volunteer military. If LBJ had the situation we have in Iraq today, in 1968 Vietnam, he would have been re-elected. The "blow up one's self" tactic is directed at the weak Euro appeasers.

The Drill SGT said...

Goesh,

I know for a fact that the Iraq dead count includes additional people beyond those that you and I would have called KIA. examples

- heart attacks in theater
- cancer deaths to folks diagnosed in theater, who subsequently died in CONUS
- auto and helo accidents (lots of those as you know)
- accidental and of course self inflicted gunshots

the other term you wanted for additional non deaths beyond WIA as:

DNBI: Disease, non-battle injury.

Before somebody shrieks about KIA in Iraq, you need to understand that in peacetime, the military is a very dangerous place. hundreds, if not thousands of soldiers dy each year in training. subtract those deaths out and the BATTLE deaths are greatly reduced. I'll find the link

KCFleming said...

Re: "The same people who are now telling us that we must attack Iran before they acquire nukes are the same people who said the same thing about Iraq."
And they are right. Again.


Re: "Of course, we now know that the Iraq hawks were disastrously wrong about both the need to fight a war and how long and costly that war would be."
Not "of course". You are simply wrong. And Bush stated from the beginning this would be a long haul. Now you're just makin' stuff up.

So it does matter, on a "going forward" basis, who has been right and who has been wrong on foreign policy.
I agree. And the isolationists were wrong about Hitler, wrong about Stalin, and wrong about the Middle East. They can be completely disregarded.

KCFleming said...

Re: "...why are Syria and Iran on the top of the list to go get next? Are they a threat? ...they have little in common with the ideology that attacked us."
They have enough in common to hate the West. Don't miss the forest by describing different species of trees, or even differently-colored leaves.


Re: "Find the Wahhabi mullahs who to this day say things supportive of the ideology and produce their heads on pikes in the streets of Riyadh."
Easier said than done, I suppose. I agree it's a good idea. How do you propose we proceed with that, from where we are today?

goesh said...

I'm with Shimmy! Why can't we just send the FBI into the Paki frontier, cow down them heavily armed tribesman with 3 piece suits, slap the irons on Binny and end the WOT? I note that in Yemen, 41 people were killed and 50 injured in a pre-election campaign rally stampede. It goes to show that principles still count for alot these days.

goesh said...

Shimmy, my wife who is a registered Democrat made me do that last post. She is gone shopping now and I think you would agree that I at least have the right to express my true feelings, wouldn't you? I know you have a sense of fair play, may I call you Shem instead? But the world can be real poopy when you believe God wants all non-muslims dead, so here goes:

"LGF and others are reporting a big fish al qaidah boss was taken alive on 9/11/06 in Afghanistan. Let him cry Hamdan when Afghani interrogators apply hot irons to his balls. "Welcome to the real war on terrorism, baby" they will tell him. Do you suppose some wag with the Black Ops boys will send a picture of it to Justice Roberts with those words as the caption? One can speculate, one can surmise, one can hope but one can Never Forget."
goesh | 09.12.06 - 10:22 am | #

MnMark said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MnMark said...

My bottom line is this: we can't change them into us. They have an entirely different worldview based on submission (Islam) rather than on individual liberty. For them, virtue is defined as rigorous submission to a set of 7th century rules for living. This is so deeply woven into their societies that there is nothing we infidels can do to convince them to change. It is a fool's errand. But because we are so convinced in the rightness of our vision, we can't yet see that. But we will, in time, and many of us have already.

There is a false choice posited by people like Bush and Ralph Peters that goes something like this: we have to help them change to be like us, because the alternative is catastropic war and devastation. But those aren't the only two choices, nor are they the best. The third alternative is seaparation of ourselves from muslims and Islam, and quarantine of Islam in its part of the world until such time as it changes, if ever. Unfortunately, in our current predominantly liberal universalist political atmosphere, advocating separatism is seen as something nearly as unthinkable as genocide. The Israelis eventually came around to the need for separation, and built a wall which immediately ended the intifada. Sooner or later we will come to the same realization and quarantine muslims in the Middle East.

shimmy said...

I said...

Ways To Win The War (that Bush did not mention) :
1. Arms control
2. Energy conservation & innovation
3. Cultural understanding & education
4. Fresh political dialogue

Fenrisulven said...

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." - Hussein Massawi, Hezbollah

I reply: If Bush had done the things that I suggested, globally, at home, with the "enemy states", with "supporters" of the enemy, and put a truly competent administration behind vigorous international law enforcement -- and accepting that it's a dangerous world -- then how worried would you be right now about a guy like Hussein Massawi?

My dream is that the path I propose will marginalize and neuter men like him. Bush's dream is that war will.

Hmmm...

Sloanasaurus said...

What about Nuclear Proliferation? Remember that both Kerry and Bush, in a unqiue moment, agreeed that nuclear proliferation was the most dangerous security threat to the United States. If this is so, then the Iraq war is an astounding success.

People often forget that before the Iraq war there were four countries on the terror list pursuing nuclear weapons. Now there are only two - Iran and North Korea. In the long run terrorism mixed with nukes is the nightmare scenario. That risk has been significantly reduced.

Saddam was the most dangerous of the four because he had complete totalitarian power over his state and had ulimited access to its oil wealth. In contrast, North Korea is an impovershied state, Iran is ruled by a committee, and Libya is in transition.

Even if Iraq descends into Civil war and emerges as three entities, it is virtually forever off the list of a WMD producing state and will never again create programs to pursue nukes.

And the argument that Saddam had been contained is Bull S*#t. Everyone knows that Saddam was ready and willing to restart his program the moment the sanctions were lifted.... and that was just a matter of time.

John said...

I just watched the WH press briefing and had to shake my head in wonderment. How anyone can deny that some (many?) in the MSM are not biased is beyond me.

Three "journalists" whined about, and questioned why the President gave a political speech last night, when they were promised that it wouldn't be! Tony Snow did his best to explain that the speech was NOT political, but the cry went out. He TALKED about IRAQ in an ELECTION year and it was linked to 911 because, - well because it was 9-11-2006!

An earlier post mentioned that the left are uncomfortable dealing with more than one issue or thought. This confirms it. Bush, and only Bush, LIED about Iraq. We are doing NOTHING else in the WOT because we are in IRAQ. And even though we are doing nothing else, they are all wrong anyway and IT'S BUSH'S FAULT. And now he gives a political speech during 911 and is only trying to get Republicans elected. He doesn't believe any of it. It's all about the election. Wah. Wah. Wah.

Brian Doyle said...

And the argument that Saddam had been contained is Bull S*#t.

Cheney made this argument in 2002. Sorry I don't have a link, but the clip was played on the last MTP.

What was he going to do without nukes or a formidable army?

Beth said...

What is "fliberal"? What is the fliberal cult"? Can you write in English, and avoid the wingnut bloggerease?

John said...

Doyle: "What was he going to do without nukes or a formidable army?"

I guess he would have seen the light, ended his brutality and given up his power by conducting true democratic elections and become the shining beacon of light of the Middle East and all the people of Iraq would rejoice!

Or, perhaps he would have diverted dollars to anti-American and Israel forces and terrorist groups so that they could conduct more deadly attacks that would eventually divert the attention of the world from him so he could re-establish a formidable army and resume a nuclear quest so that he could rule the Middle East as he saw fit.

One or the other. Who knows?

KCFleming said...

Re: "What was he going to do without nukes or a formidable army?"

You have more confidence that Saddam wouldn't obtain nukes than most of the rest of the world could muster. That would have been fine if you were his psychologist, uging him to become a better man, but his history suggests otherwise. I wouldn't trust the man if he told me the sky was blue. He lied and lied repeatedly, to everyone. He bribed, hid weapons, cozied up to al Qaeda, and sheltered terrorists. He treid to kill an ex-President.

What does it take to get you riled up?
Blow up an NPR affiliate maybe?

Elizabeth: 'Fliberal' is new to me, too. I thought it was a typo at first. Can't for the life of me figure it out, except it's meant to be insulting in some way.

Maxine Weiss said...

When does American Idol start up again?

Peace, Maxine

tjl said...

Shimmy proposes that we win the war with "Cultural understanding & education" and "Fresh political dialogue."

These are the methods that worked so well for Jimmy Carter when he tried to free the embassy hostages from the mullahs. No doubt they'll be just as effective on the current generation of Iranian theocrats and their Hezbollah clients.

Most of us are willing by now to believe Hezbollah etc. when they say they'll destroy us, but Shimmy prefers fond hope over experience.

Freeman Hunt said...

I looked up "fliberal" because I hadn't seen it before either.

Fliberal: Fake, non-Classical, Liberals

Sloanasaurus said...

"....The fact is: Iraq was never about weapons of mass destruction...."

I disagree with this notion. Iraq was almost totally about WMC It is true, however, that Iraq was never about Saddam's current stockpiles of weapons. The true WMD was saddam himself and his regime and his obvious intent to continue to pursue nuclear weapons as a terrorist state. The current stockpiles were obviously maningless because we were willing to invade the country despite them. We would have never invaded if saddam hade nukes - we needed to get him before the nukes. Bush has made this point over and over.

P_J said...

Fliberal: Fake, non-Classical, Liberals

I thought it was Fun Liberals!

P_J said...

I seem to recall something about the Tryant Formerly Known As President for Life giving large cash rewards to families of suicide bombers.

"Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000."

No connection to terrorism here. Move along.

Brian Doyle said...

They even overlooked factual evidence of Al Queda > Iraq ties.

Right. That would be totally in keeping with the Senate's anti-Bush motives.

Cheney didn't "debunk" the report as much as he claimed not to have seen it (as of Sunday).

Fritz said...

shimmy said...

Ways To Win The War (that Bush did not mention) :
1. Arms control
2. Energy conservation & innovation
3. Cultural understanding & education
4. Fresh political dialogue


1, 3, 4 require honest people. If they acted in good faith, there would be no need for tension. #2, when is our largest provider of oil, Canada, going to launch Jihad against the US?

Brian Doyle said...

Well if Hitchens doesn't believe the SIC report, and has read scathing critiques of it, then there must have been a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

You must admit: the vast international conspiracy to hide the evidence of an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection has been incredibly effective.

Beth said...

Thanks, Freeman. I shoulda thought to do that. My first thought was of that old Disney movie, about Flubber. Jeff and I think alike: Fun and bouncy liberals.

Beth said...

Can't for the life of me figure it out, except it's meant to be insulting in some way.

Pogo, you think so? I think the attempt went awry. I was too flummoxed to be insulted, then it just got funny.

By the way, for some reason I rarely am in a screenview where I see user icons. I love yours!

Beth said...

Thanks, J, for the detailed explanation. I think I go with "faux liberal" over "fliberal" just for dignity's sake. I find myself agreeing with some of your points, but detaching from the over-intensity of the "cult" analysis. I certainly wouldn't argue with your conclusion that liberalism as we know it today is not the classical liberalism of the past.

I eagerly await your analysis of the faux conservative cult, the weird devotion to authority, big government, big spending, and big privacy invasions. I don't think fconservative works as a catch-word though; if you say it too slowly it's downright obscene.

Brian Doyle said...

They are there now, because if killing Americans is your game, it's the easiest place to do it. They've got 140,000 targets to choose from, and they're all wearing uniforms.

Remember that these Al Qaeda types are not so easy to target. It's not like they're all gathered on a particular stretch of desert or even in a particular building. This makes them hard to kill (and I am in favor of killing them, for the record).

I'm sure our forces have had some success killing them when they try to attack, but the basic question is this: Is our occupation of Iraq lessening (rather than growing) the number of fanatics who want to blow up Americans, or lessening their ability to do so?

I think on both counts the answer is at least no, and probably the opposite is true.

John said...

Elizabeth. I think fconservative pronounced slowly IS one of the memes J. was referring to in his post!

Fritz said...

Doyle,
We are not occupiers in Iraq. Coalition forces are controlled by the Iraqi defense ministry. Yes, Iraq has become the central front in the GWOT. OBL never thought we would last this long, like Ralph Peters says, this has become al Qaeda's Vietnam.

Troy said...

Madison Man... I won't read every post between this and yours to see if someone else has dealt with Bush's Christianity and his foreign policy.

Bush is a Methodist -- has been for most, if not all of his devout Christian life (since 40 I think). He grew up as an Episocopalian I believe, but didn't take his faith seriously or have a faith so to speak).

Some Christians have what theolgians call a dispensationalist view of the end-times which holds to a complex view (but think the Left Behind series or the old 1970s book The Late Great Planet Earth are vastly simplistic manifestations of this view). In a nutshell, in this view, Israel is still the Chosen People from the Old Testament and God is not done with them yet. Babylon in Revelation is seen literally.

I'm a Southern Baptist and have been for 30 years. Most Methodists I've met and read do not hold to this view of the end-times. Indeed -- I would estimate most evangelical Christians (and most Christians as a whole) do not hold to this view of the end times.

Christian haters like many on the left take the views of a few well-known Christians (Pat Robertson, Jery Falwell) and think we all think the same way. Very few Christians follow or give any money to these guys. They make for good TV, great exposes, etc. It's akin to smearing all lefties with Michael Moore-esque views -- and just as simplistic.

I haven't read a detailed view of his ideas on the apocalypse, but I would wager he has a view like the thousands of Christians I've known in my life. That view: the world will come to an end, I have no control over how or when, I'm going to try to live my life as Christ would have me to, and the rest will sort itself out. It sounds fatalistic to a non-Christian, but to one who believes the world works according to fundamental principles and a God "who is there" it makes perfect sense.

In other words -- Bush defends Israel because it is a democratic and strategic friend in a hotspot of the world, it is politically valuable for him to do so, and he believes it's the right thing to do because its neighbors want to see it destroyed. For a group who sees conspiracies and theocracies in every corner that's just too hard to believe.

I'm not denying that there are folks who say that we should protect Israel because of the Old testament, etc. In that sense an atheist like Heather Mac Donald (of City Journal) might have common cause with Pat Robertson in the defense of Israel though for different reasons. Or for that matter Alan Dershowitz and Jerry Falwell !!pmtzouvm

Brian Doyle said...

We're no longer in control of U.S. forces in Iraq?

Look, Ma, no hands!

Fritz said...

Would the left be happy if 10,000 Americans died in a chemical attack during the Iraqi invasion? If our troops didn't have to endure a WMD attack, good. The real intel failure acronym IED. Why we are there doesn't matter, the fact is we are and the only goal of al qaeda is for the US to retreat.

Brian Doyle said...

Why we are there doesn't matter

Aren't you at least curious?

And as for whether the left "would be happy if 10,000 Americans died in a chemical attack during the Iraqi invasion," I speak for the entire Left (f/k/a the Center), in saying no.

Fritz said...

Doyle,
We can't go back. Unlike Democrats that want to, our troops deserve the support for the original decision. Those Democrats that voted for the Iraq resolution out of political convenience rather than principle, have shown an unseemly political motivation for sending troops into harms way. Our troops deserve better. I also take issue with those Americans that supported the mission but have soured out of impatience.

MadisonMan said...

Troy, thank you.

I thought I had read Bush was a Born Again Christian (whatever that means) -- and I took it to mean that he believed in the End Times dogma. But maybe that was fiction presented as fact. His own biography (at the WhiteHouse site) doesn't mention religion at all!

Fritz said...

Freder,
It is not a ridicules scenario. Our troops were prepared for such attacks. If 10,000 had died in such an attack, the WMD argument would be replaced with something else that Bush failed. My proof; Our forward teams went ahead to secure WMD sites, what did Kerry complain about, Bush allowed conventional weapon sites to go unguarded. Like I said before, the greatest intel failure, IED. Saddam trained 10,000 bomb makers.

knox said...

F,
It goes without saying war is a long and difficult enterprise. You can't pull out as soon as it gets long and difficult! Well, you can, but you lose all credibility.

Why would anyone join the military if they feel the very people who helped send them to war will turn around and tell them: "Hey, you're taking to long to topple that government, help secure a new one and completely rebuild that country!"

Pulling out would set a very dangerous precedent, in the minds of our enemies and our soldiers.

Revenant said...

The fact that things are so bad is the reason why things are so good.

That's not how I parsed that statement. Since the goal is the establishment of a democratic state in Iraq, the measure of failure would be that establishing such a state is no longer possible. The fact that most Iraqis still favor such a state even after all they've been through IS strong evidence that we're not losing the war -- we can only lose if the *Iraqis* give up.

John said...

FF: "There is no evidence that Saddam trained "10,000 bombmakers". That shit is just made up."

What shit is made up: the "10k" or that he "trained them"? And where is your evidence?

Me. I don't care if he trained 1 or 10k. He was a bad guy doing bad things to his own people and would have done anything he could to extend his reach to the US - through any means.

Fritz said...

Freder,
You are vested in defeat. Now that the DOW is going to be hitting all-time highs, no hurricanes, oxidized fuel controls coming off, speculators drowning in oil, November looks exciting. Gee, all Maliki needs is his Washington's defeat of the Hessians moment, and Iraq could quickly look promising. The Democrats are the party split in 1968 anti-American left, and they need to be marginalized once and for all. Moveon and Kos, good riddance.

Laura Reynolds said...

At least Q didn't cuss and call people names. sigh

Revenant said...

I thought I had read Bush was a Born Again Christian (whatever that means) -- and I took it to mean that he believed in the End Times dogma.

"Born again" basically just refers to making a conscious, informed decision to chose a Christian life over a non-Christian one (as opposed to just being "Christian" out of inertia because that's how you were raised).

tjl said...

Freder says Christopher Hitchens "instead of being drunk 23 hours a day, he is only drunk 16 hours a day."

Do you have any basis for this, Freder, other than your own malice? I doubt Hitchens shares his party schedule with you. In any case Hitchens is able to construct a logical argument -- maybe a few drinks would do you good.

Brian Doyle said...

Fritz -

I am extremely disappointed in the Democrats who voted for the AUMF. I have no problem condemning them all the more to the extent they acted out of political self-preservation. I don't rep Russ Feingold for nothing, ya know.

But I have to take issue with this:

We can't go back. Unlike Democrats that want to, our troops deserve the support for the original decision.

What we owe our troops is our government's best judgment in deciding how they are deployed.

Regardless of what you consider the best course of action from this point onward, we have to evaluate the judgment of the incumbent government on the basis of the decisions they've made thus far.

That's how we go about making sure, as best we can, that the civilian leadership of the military is competent.

tjl said...

Freder throws out this challenge: "When I make wild assertions, you can call bullshit on me and make me prove it."

Please see the following on Hitchens:

"Do you have any basis for this, Freder, other than your own malice?"

Brian Doyle said...

On foreign policy, there's not a whole lot of difference between Steyn and Hitchens. They're both riding first class on the Neocon Express.

Steyn is just a bit more openly eliminationist in his rhetoric.

Beth said...

Fen, I haven't seen the plantation metaphor since Hillary was piled on by the right for racial pandering, when she described the GOP-led congress as a plantation. Goose? Gander?

Chennaul said...

Doyle-

Regardless of what you consider the best course of action from this point onward, we have to evaluate the judgment of the incumbent government on the basis of the decisions they've made thus far.

That's how we go about making sure, as best we can, that the civilian leadership of the military is competent.


Well then we can go back to how the last Democrat leadership performed can't we and draw some logical conclusions from that?

Let's see -the bombing of Serbia.

Unlike Saddam-Milosevic did not invade a sovreign country, did not use weapons of mass destruction to massacre an ethnic group and did not ignore UN sanction after sanction.

Just how many UN sanctions did Holbrooke get out of the UN before Clinton prosecuted that war?

zero

As for the professionalism of the civilian leadership of the military-holy crap who did you guys 'gift' the military with?

Perry, Aspin-no tanks for Mogadishu, and Cohen....

Doyle-this isn't patheons of genuis that you liberals like to pretend/aspire to.

In comparison look at the qualifications of this undersecretary-and this guy is hands on-this is the kind of guy that Bush nominates and it puts the kind of nominations your "team" made to shame.

You really out to be embarrassed and we get the message of what people think of the military. {Keep your hands clean and cast judgement-noble.}

Undersecretary John G Grimes

Beth said...

Hello again, Fen. I don't tend to buy into the Iraq-Vietnam parallels because there are too many differences b/w the wars, so we're in agreement there. But you make a reasonable point that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. I'll add to your item the mistake of manipulating the death statistics to leverage public support. I don't want to be told that the murder tolls in Baghdad are down, as evidence that our security efforts there are more successful, only to find those figures don't include deaths from bombs, mortars, rockets and suicide bombings (that story's on msnbc.com today).

John said...

FF: "You made the wild assertions. I called you on it. You prove it."

Um. Actually I didn't make the assertions. That would be 'fritz'. I just returned your snarkiness because you seemed to need it.

As for Hitchens being drunk on Bill Maher, how else could the man put up with the self-absorbed wind bag also known as the host?

Unknown said...

Doyle,

The "Neocon Express" does not exist. In fact, there are no "neocons," if by that term you mean those who share a political philosophy--one that can be credibly articulated.

I might surmise that you are a "liberal," or a "cut and runner," but I would be guessing and using sloppy terminology--same as you.

Troy said...

Madison Man -- "born again" is a tak eon a New Testament.

The MSM does a great disservice to Christians in this country. With very few exceptions Christians -- not nominal Christians, but those who take their faith seriously and with varying degrees of success I might add) are doctors, lawyers, poor people and people of all races and ethnicities. They are in fact, in many parts of the country -- the rule and not the excpetion. George Bush has more in common -- in a very fundamental way -- with Martin Luther King, Jr. (and Martin Luther for that matter!) than he does with a conservative that is not a Christian. We are not a monolithic bloc.

If you want to understand Bush's Methodism (and are not in the mood for proselytizing which I would never inflict on you) then read either works and sermons by John and Charles Wesley from the First Great Awakening or evangelical Christianity through CS Lewis' Mere Christianity which is his spiritual autobiography or Chesterton's Orthodoxy which is an apologetic from a Catholic (Christian brothers and sisters too) perspective.

There is a book by a guy named (Aiken or Aikman -- not the singer or the quarterback) about Bush's faith that I have and haven't read that got good reviews. Anyway.... The opinions on the end of the world run the gamut in the Christian world from "Revelation is literal." to "Revelation is a full allegory and describes events already fulfilled in the first century AD."

Brian Doyle said...

John G. Grimes, eh?

So he worked for the White House, then the DoD, then he went to Raytheon before being brought back into the fold as DoD's CIO.

Couldn't you have found an example of bureaucratic "bench strength" that didn't also exemplify the porous border between the DoD and the defense industry?

Plus it seems thin otherwise. Why there is no mention of what he was doing until 1984. He doesn't appear to be a young man.

Some time must have passed between his graduate studies at [cough] Shippensburg University and his initial appointment.

Chennaul said...

Doyle-

Pup-asked YOU some questions-got any answers?

I didn't think so.

It's his military experience-FUNNY how that escaped you.

Brian Doyle said...

Ah yes. There it is. "...following his military service in the Air Force." They don't dwell on it, do they?

Look, I'm not saying the guy is UNqualified. I just fail to see how his employment by the Defense Department even implies that U.S. foreign policy has been a success.

Revenant said...

On foreign policy, there's not a whole lot of difference between Steyn and Hitchens. They're both riding first class on the Neocon Express.

I love how "neocon" has replaced "fascist" as the term left-wingers use to mean "person I don't like".

Hitchens is not, by any definition of the term other than the above, a conservative -- neo or otherwise. Read his anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian articles sometime when you find yourself doubting that fact.

Brian Doyle said...

The term I usually use for "person I don't like" is "asshole."

Neoconservative just applies to people who read Bill Kristol and think: Brilliant!

Unknown said...

geoduck2,

I'm not sure if a critique of the usage of "neo-con" is funny or not. Truth be told, I think it's tedious. But we bandy it about as if it meant something.

I don't think Norman Podhoretz, perhaps, the most truly vetted neo-con alive, would agree with your redefinition.

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq is a "neo-con." Anyone who opposes it is a cut and run "liberal." Bullshit any way you parse it.

Unknown said...

Doyle,

You said:

"The term I usually use for "person I don't like" is "asshole."

Neoconservative just applies to people who read Bill Kristol and think: Brilliant!"

Translation: "Asshole just applies to people who read Doyle's posts and think: Brilliant!"

Freeman Hunt said...

... not some pathetic faux-Christian who can't even find time to listen to the leadership of his own Church or worldwide religious leaders (e.g., the Pope)

Protestants are led by the Pope? Who knew...

MadisonMan said...

troy, as a former Episcopalian turned lapsed Catholic (we never discussed the end of the world), I'll say I've met and appreciated some truly Holy people. Really lived the Word. My lapsedness has to do with the Sex Scandal, and it really is a hole in my life that is going unfilled at the moment. Just as I'd love to see a Political Party that mirrored my views -- strong defense, sound fiscal policies, stay out of my bedroom and body -- I'd love to find a church community. Alas, no time for shopping. All I know is that I don't like Jesus By PowerPoint, which seems to be the rage in the larger non-denominational churches around town. I'm a sentimental fool for chants, censers, old stained glass and the organ at full throttle blasting out Lift High the Cross.

MadisonMan said...

freder, I have to agree that MLKJr and GWB could find a whole lot to talk about in Christianity than could MLKJr and a non-Christian (or GWB and a non-Christian). So yes, they do have much in common that way.

There are many Christians I disagree with -- that doesn't make them less Christian. Thinking that way gets you to a Sunni/Shi'ite-type schism.

Bruce Hayden said...

Back to the reason not to cut and run.

The problem with pulling out of Iraq right now is that it is tied to 9/11. Not via Saddam, but rather, OBL. He apparently came to the belief that we were a paper tiger after we cut and ran before. Before we evicted the Taliban and al Qaeda (mostly) from Afganistan, he believed this, and repeated stated this, based on our actions in Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, etc.

So, the message that we would send to the militant portion of the Islamic world (as well as to other terrorist states like N. Korea) is just that - bloody us enough, and we will run back home.

Think of it as operant conditioning. If you reward an animal after a long period of no rewards, then they just get to expect that that is how long they have to wait the next time. In order to extinguish the behavior, you need to not reward the behavior until they are no longer seeking the reward (in this case, us leaving).

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

They aren't going to "put aside [their] differences." He said "our differences," but clearly he's going to stay in his position and defend it. So, essentially, that means: Stop disagreeing with me. And, yes, you can laugh at the irony: Freedom is so wonderful that you should shut up.

Cold. Nice analysis. However, he is talking as a liberal Republican which means, first and foremost, 'don't call people names (or treat them as if they deserve them).' He will respond to argument, pressure and, by his actions, admit that he is wrong, viz. Harriet Miers. He finds it hard to reason with people who say he 'lied' about WMD and miss the argument re: that again presented above in comments. So just for a fortnight, for starters, he would prefer Defenders of Liberalism say, not yell, that he "fudged" about WMD. There, don't we all feel better?

Bruce Hayden said...

MadisonMan

I don't think that MLK, Jr. and GWB could ever be friends or see eye to eye on this war. But their faiths are much closer together than those of the Shiites and the Sunnis. To some extent, the parallel might be better between Shiites/ Sunnis and Roman Catholics/ Protestants. I do it this way, because many Sunnis disgree with the Shiites because of their idolatry and don't accept their 12 Immans. I would think that a better comparison would be between Grand Aytollah Sistani and the Mullahs running Iran. Of course, if you go there, you also have to throw in the President of that country, who is probably more apocolypic than almost any of the most zeleous end-of-times Christains in that regard.

Brian Doyle said...

Bruce -

So by staying in Iraq, we're conditioning Islamic fanatics not to attack us?

That has to be the corrolary argument if leaving would make an attack more likely, and it's hard to believe.

How are the fanatics in Indonesia, for example, "learning their lesson" by our staying in Iraq? Secondly, does this effect outweigh the less desirable one: that it is proof that we are bent on military control of the region.

Brian Doyle said...

Clarification: the negative effect I'm referring to is merely the perception that we seek regional hegemony in the Middle East.

Unknown said...

Freder,

Read more carefully. Doyle doesn't like assholes. Who does? He characterizes neocons as assholes. Fine. How is that civil? And while we're assessing relative civility, I note in one of your above posts that you have a problem with Christopher Hitchens, whom you most charitably characterize as a drunk, and go on to disparage alcoholics. How liberal, tolerant, inclusive, and pathetic.

Do you know Mr. Hitchens?

Unknown said...

Freder,

With friends like you, who needs enemies? You're defending Doyle, who doesn't like assholes, by being an asshole? Or pig? Of course, it's perfectly obvious that you're only acting like a pig, asshole, what ever, for perfectly liberal reasons--the defense of Doyle, who thinks that neocons are assholes.

So you're defending him why?

Freeman Hunt said...

President Bush expressed open admiration for Pope John Paul II numerous times (except of course when it came to the war or the death penalty--then he just turned a deaf ear). So don't be such a smartass.

Admiration doesn't make someone your religious leader, and the fact that you disagree politically with the leaders of your own denomination does not make you a bad Christian.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Freder, the statistics comparing deaths in Philadelphia to deaths in Iraq do not in my mind trivialize the sacrifices or dangers of being in Iraq. They merely respond to the braying that the meme of the left 'Got to get out because of the destruction of human flesh' in Iraq ought, logically, to lead to similar abhorrence of Philadelphia. The unanswered question here is, 'What is so dangerous about Philadelphia?'

Unknown said...

geoduck2:

The old realpolitik regime failed in the Middle East--and it was a bipartisan failure. 9/11 happened.

The Bush Doctrine may be flawed, and it should be rigorously debated. We the people will have something to say about it in a month or so.

But the elephant has not yet left the room. The jihadists want us dead. I've yet to see a credible, data driven assessment of this threat. In the absence of good data, I think it's prudent to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. The worst is very bad.

What do you propose that we do about an asymetrical attack with a dirty bomb?

Revenant said...

Neoconservative just applies to people who read Bill Kristol and think: Brilliant!

And Christopher "Zionism is based on lies" Hitchens reads Bill "Israel Israel, rah rah rah" Kristol's articles and thinks "brilliant!", does he?

What an interesting imagination you have.

Revenant said...

MLK was a true Christian

Whatever that means. He lied his way through college and cheated on his wife. He was undoubtedly a good man who achieved great things, but he was also far from a perfect Christian. His major achievement -- the civil rights movement -- was political, not spiritual. Theologically speaking, it doesn't matter if blacks are oppressed or not, except to the person *doing* the oppressing (who is endangering his soul).

not some pathetic faux-Christian who can't even find time to listen to the leadership of his own Church

Of course Bush listens. But he's a Protestant, which means he's under no moral or religious obligation to *obey*. On religious matters, Protestants answer to nothing but their own personal understanding of God's will. The clergy are advisers, not commanders.

Basically, bitching that Bush doesn't listen to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church is like bitching that he doesn't listen to his mom.

MPH said...

"As in most cases, it didn't seem extraordinary-- as if he really wants to communicate -- but dutiful -- as if he's doing that thing a President needs to do. He had his inflections right, but it came out in the usual singsong. Trying to think how he could have done better, I pictured President Reagan and imagined his inflections."


WOW - I THOUGHT THE SAME EXACT THING!

tjl said...

Freder said,
"I know I am down here wrestling with pigs. I expect to get dirty."

It's revealing to learn how F. interprets his role on this thread.

Geo: Admittedly, Hitchens is a public figure and for public figures the rules are different. But public figure or not, F. is making accusations against him without any supporting evidence other than his own preconceptions.

tjl said...

Freder asks,
"In what possible way is MM's weight relevant to his political opinions."

His gross overindulgence in carnal appetites tells us something about him. As does his disdain for aesthetics.

knox said...

geoduck2 said...
RE: Civility?


You of all people shouldn't start pulling people's quotes from comment threads to make a point about civility...

I still can't figure out why you're here.

Revenant said...

Do I have to put a huge disclaimer Warning, what follows is sarcasm for some of you to get it?

That would be a good idea. Sarcasm works through the use of statements that are obviously false. You so regularly make comments that are completely out of touch with reality that it is all but impossible to know whether you realize you are being deliberately sarcastic or simply saying obviously untrue things that you yourself can't figure out are false.

For instance, the statement "Clinton did a good job dealing with al Qaeda" would be obvious sarcasm if an informed person said it. If you said it, it is probably because you think it is true.

Revenant said...

Baghdad is safer than Philadelphia

The claim I've seen is that *Iraq*, not Baghdad specifically, is safer than Philadelphia. I've no idea if that's true or not; statistically speaking, your odds of being killed in any of those locations are negligible.

I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on my offer. Think of it, a million dollars or a free trip to Baghdad, you can't miss

I realize that hitting the freder frederson tarbaby is not a productive use of my time, but I can't help myself...

Your offer boils down to nothing more than "travel to Iraq for one or two thousand bucks (the cost of the Philly trip, tickets, et al). So your offer only has value to people who (a) think a trip to Iraq is worth one or two thousand bucks and (b) trust you. As Iraq has no tourist appeal and you are not an honest person, few people meet either of those criteria.

Revenant said...

Why on earth do you suspect my honesty.

Because of your tendancy to lie.

Do you think an unarmed American would last a weekend in Baghdad.

Easily. Baghdad is home to numerous living unarmed Americans. My uncle's been there a few times, too, and despite his lack of body armor and firearms came away with nothing worse than a sunburn.

I have no doubt you would be dead or kidnapped before you walked ten blocks by yourself in Baghdad.

Yes, but you're a silly and ignorant person prone to public hysterics. I'd expect you to believe something like that.

shimmy said...

I'd like to say a bit more about law-enforcement vs. war. I think we all agree that part of civil law enforcement is a certain amount of "failure." Not ideal, it's just reality. Politically, I'm not convinced declaring war on bin Laden's mafia was ever a good idea. I mean, who looks strong there? Mightn't radical fairly-local small-timers race to provoke us and join that list?

Once 9/11 happened, folks were ready to accept war. And apparently lots of it. War can work, sure. But I've never been convinced that basically declaring a generation-long war is the best way to neutralize the radical movement, or prevent an attack much worse than 9/11. (It could work, sure.)

Perhaps I'm taking the Bushies' war-rhetoric too literally, or selectively. Certainly I'm not trying to anger anyone with pacifism.

Neither am I nit-picking simply because things aren't going well, or going "as well as we were told they would." That's transient stuff, and somewhat unknowable by me. What I do know is my own level opinion of the Bush administration's background, temperament, approach, and competence. I'm far from infallible in these assessments, but not to act on my own assessments would be negligence and abdication of citizenhood.

I saw some value in the Afghanistan invasion, because not to show strength like that would have possibly invited another attack. Perhaps a larger one. (We also could have done other somehow-forceful and surprising things, I'm sure.) Once Bush started talking about a generation long war, and it's not a stretch to think he means straight-up war, I began to really, really worry. Some bombs, some trucks, a boat, and some box-cutters got America to declare a generation-long war against a vague, amorphous, regenerative, and vaguely phantom enemy. Fantastic. That's kind of out-of-control stuff.

There's no way to know exactly what will come from war. I feel like, having done what we "had to do" in Afghanistan, we are now actively inviting another, bigger attack on us. Probably we'll avoid that.

I'm not fully ready to take that risk, that war-path, but it's not up to me, much. I believe in civil law enforcement because, while it is not fully safe, it is generally safer than war, on balance. The risk/benefit analysis, to me, plays out better than the one for war. Your opinion may differ. Bless you. Luckily, none of us are in charge!

There are many argume--, er, discussion-points I'd love to touch on from this. For one thing, the notion of law-enforcement really needs to be twinned with pretty brilliant positive political action, which I believe this country can, in fact, produce. Call me a patriot. Sadly, the Bushies seem to be incapable of delivering this most valuable element. So perhaps once we were stuck with Bush+Osama we were simply stuck with the start of a generation-long war.

[I'll leave out the closing cuss-word] that.

Revenant said...

show me one time I have lied on this blog.

How much do I get paid for it? :)

Revenant said...

Some bombs, some trucks, a boat, and some box-cutters got America to declare a generation-long war against a vague, amorphous, regenerative, and vaguely phantom enemy.

"Phantom enemy" in the "many of the enemy are no longer among the living" sense? Or are you saying that Islamic terrorists aren't really our enemies?

And I rather think it was the thousands of American fatalities that got Americans to support the war -- not the terrorists' choice of weaponry. :)

shimmy said...

You seem to mostly miss and/or ignore my points, revenenant.

I can't figure out a way to respond to your post that is not exasperated, condescending, or argumentative. So I'll just let my previous post stand. :)

knox said...

geoduck,

I'm talking about your comments on other blogs. Many of them specifically about this blog and its commenters. Your very presence here is dishonest. And very junior high.

Revenant said...

You seem to mostly miss and/or ignore my points, revenenant.

Probably because you forgot to make any. You said there were many points you'd love to touch on, but then forgot to touch on them.

Your post consisted of a rambling monologue describing how you view the world. I think your view is silly, which is why I poked fun at a few of your claims.