Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Man, Im behind Armon and his CO on this one. Please see the good things our soldiers have done for this forsaken country of Iraq. However , I salute you Henri, for your convictions even though I do not agree with them. But the litmus test is some of these people want to kill us because of our convictions, and this is a fact, and they will come to America to do it. I for one want the Armon Dwier and his type watching my back then the likes of Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.

Henri:

You reminded me of Jack Nicholson’s line in “A Few Good Men”, where he says that we (those of sitting in our airconditioned houses safely esconsced aways from trouble) dont want to know about those who are doing our dirty work. We dont even want to know that the dirty work is being done, since it is abhorrent and grotesque.

Nicholson concludes….”But you want us there, because we keep you safe>”

That is what Armon and his C.O. are doing…..keeping us safe. And while it sometimes IS grotesque and abhorrent, we should never ever forget that their sacrifice benefits us. We can argue whether we should be in Iraq or not—that argument is legitimate. But…..we have to be careful not to allow that argument to bring comfort and aid to our enemies.

At this point, our enemies, some of whom are shooting real live bullets at Armon, are seeing the level of discourse between Americans, and they are thinking that if they just provide a few more casualties, a couple more ambushes, several more outrageous incidents….then they will have outlasted our will. They think we are weak, because they see the weak among us.

We cannot allow this level of discourse, because it ends with death for our soldiers. Reasonable debate about our motives and actions is acceptable. When we get to the level of the Ted Kennedy’s et al, we move to the point of showing the enemy that we truly are as weakminded and spineless as they hope.

Henri, you surely dont deserve to be fragged, but you also would do well to understand how your words help pin the bullseye on Armon and his compatriots in the field.

my qustion for you joe, although anytone can field the question, what did henri say specifically that “pins a bullseye on anyone’s back? did you read his post? he ended it with:

” Do your best to keep your men safe and I will do my best to see that you come home to a sound Republic that lives up to the ideals that you and your troops embody. God bless you, he has already blessed America by endowing it with sons and daughters like you and those you lead”

Henri:
you in my opinion are a true and respectful american, and I apprciate what you have said, and I look foward to more of what you have to say.
martin (not the capitalized)

Tulane,
You do forget that John Kerry was once one of those who were,”protecting us” in a prior war. The same arguments were used in that war.
I no longer want a Commander in Chief who knows nothing about war except how to keep himself from from fighting in it. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton Or Howard Dean fall into that class of people as does our current President. I’d far rather hire Armon or his CO as President than any of the above in wartime.
John Kerry is the only qualified candidate who can understand Armon or his CO from personal experience. That is why I will continue to back him when I disagree with him on so many other issues. The position that we have placed our troops in by failing to control events in Iraq has made their job harder. An effective CIC will keep that problem from destroying the good things our troops have done in Iraq. That is why electing Kerry is vital for the good of the nation.
henri

Joe,
I do need to remind you that nothing I have done has pasted a target on anyone’s back. I also think that it would be better if you realized that I do understand what bullets are and why they are flying at Armon and all of our other troops. We are in a war.
My contention is that the war is being badly handled by our leadership. I have posted accurate examples of specific errors in planning made by Don Rumsfeld and others in the Bush camp. You have ignored them and gone right to the heart of your belief, that I and everyone who thinks differently than our President show weakness to the enemy.
The most grevious weakness that they have seen recently, that has most created support for them has been a folly devised by Rumsfeld and his choir boys in the Pentagon. Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the New Yorker has recently posted that story at the New Yorker web site.
In that story he draws a clear link between a secret project and the destructive interrogation process that has done our war effort so much harm. Please read it when you have the time. I am sorry that you think I and others who disagree with your analysis are weak. Maybe we should be arm wrestling instead of debating these issues.
Henri

Enough with the fawning all over the troops thing, they’re human being like everybody else. Some are good people, some are mediocre human beings and some are mindless thugs. I’ve meet some that would fall on a hand grenade to save a stranger and other that would slice you up for food. The two posts in question should be judged on their content.
Last time I checked fragging somebody was not the act of and honorable person.

Soldiers are trained to do what they are told. In a war, sometimes soldiers have to be ordered to do things that seem counterintuitive, but which are actually better strategies than what naturally occurs them. They also sometimes have to get sent into fairly lethal situations because the alternative could be lethal for even more of their comrades. Recently, while making a point of the Casualties (currently 795 Americans, 905 coalition, CNN) somebody made the comment that Omaha Beach was far worse in terms of casualties.

I would respond that Omaha Beach and This war share similarities. Both are the results of some massive foul-ups.

Let me give you a series of things that went wrong with Omaha Beach. The air strikes that were supposed to soften up the hardened emplacements at the top of the beach missed. The modified amphibious tanks that were going to support the troops were set out too far out to sea, and sank to the bottom of the channel. The Rockets that were supposed to blow craters in the beach landed harmlessly in the water.

The troops had to storm up a broad beach with little cover without any kind, and as a result, the six thousand soldiers that died on Omaha Beach comprise the majority (60%) of the ten thousand soldiers who died on D-Day That’s what tends to happen when infantry have to face hardened, undamaged machine gun and mortar emplacements without tanks backing them up or craters to (literally) hole up in.

If things had gone as planned, casualties would have been much lower. If the soldiers had not pushed through despite the hair-raisingly lethal circumstances D-Day would have been seriously impaired. But because they won the day, Omaha Beach is known as a costly victory, not a fiasco.

Omaha Beach was much wose than Iraq in terms of casualties, but we had an enemy at or slightly above our technological level, that had the high ground, and we were at a loss for some our main offensive weapons and emplacements.

Additionally, with the technology of the day, more direct interaction was required. Field Radio and radar were in their infancy, as was aerial surveillance and targeting.

When it comes to occupations, you have to remember that we had two countries that were fairly close to us in cultural terms. The Germans were European, and the Japanese were in their way Americanophiles (or whatever the term is). The Bridge over the River Kwai was built with an American design. Having been defeated by the Americans, their culture had a model of submission. It was their duty to be a good occupied country.

The Middle East lacks that affinity, and there are historical antagonisms both recent and ancient. The tactics are the fairly standard guerilla tactics, used by insurgents throughout the world for almost a century now, tactics that tend to produce three things: long, slowburning conflicts; unpopular, bloody quagmires; and desperate occupying or defending powers willing to do nasty things to hold on.

These are the weapons the terrorists and the insurgents use: our horror, exhaustion, apathy, expediency, and above all else, the outrage of our people, their people, and the international community.

These are weapons that inhumane conditions at prisons, expedience based military decision making, and overall dishonest or negligence with our justification of warfare hand to the enemy. Some may think that by eliminating the bleeding hearts at home, we might win out, but then you still have the people in that country to deal with and everybody else.

Our only solution is to live up to our codes of honor, our highest principles, and not become so inured to the horror that we become it’s ally in this world. We cannot justify the means by the ends, though sometimes real life doesn’t give us the best choices concerning that.

In the end, we do ourselves little good by preaching a gospel of love, freedom and democracy with words and demonstrating the exact opposite in our actions.

That is the position that the Bush administration has put our soldiers in. Occupations aren’t necessary this hazardous. How many people of ours have been killed in Bosnia and Kosovan Serbia? How many Americans were killed in Somalia in the six months we stayed there after the events of Blackhawk Down? Nowhere near that many.

A series of mistakes have been made, and that indicates a systemic problem in the Bush Administration, at least concerning this war. They seem to be vindicated, when they are, more by luck than by their compentence and understanding. Like the commanders who released the tanks into the English Channel too early, or the men who fired the rockets from too far offshore, their mistakes cost lives that otherwise wouldn’t have been lost. In our case, over 900 soldiers, mostly British and American.

I do not oppose the troops who are doing their country proud overseas. I only oppose those who dishonor their country among those good soldiers, and those who put these men into that unfortunate position, or gave them orders that compromised their honor if they did not mean to lose it. I oppose those whose conduct defeats our purposes overseas, feeds propaganda unnecessarily, or compromises our security.

In short, my response to those soldiers is that I believe that I am right, and no amount of intimidation will change who is right and who is not. The test of what we both believe is in what happens in the real world. I suppose that our respective imaginations both grasp some of that truth, and fail to grasp much of it as well.

I have done my best, over the months to keep abreast of the issues. If they find what I am saying objectionable, threatening me is not the answer. Instead they should refer me to sources that support their opinions, give us anecdotes that make their case as to what is going wrong, and what is going right. In the absence of the light of understanding, they cannot hope to convince people like me that they are right simply by so agressively making their opinions known.

So if you got stories, give them to us, if you are allowed. If you are not, refer us to history that may enlighten us. I see no purpose in their being another useless argument whose only object is namecalling.

Hello Henri…apparently I hit a nerve with your readership with my post regarding my thoughts over here. I appreciate you singling me out for your story. I hope everyone who reads this and the resulting comments remembers I signed up for this duty and if you could see the good we have done here you would be amazed. This time next year when we have a true democracy over here, and the people are safe, you will laud the President for his actions and initiatives. Your friend in the field, Armon

Armon, I admire your loyalty and your optimism, but such things do not win wars. Defeat is not yet inevitable in Iraq, but neither is victory. I hope for victory. But this administration is going to have to make some hard choices to get that victory. They are going to have to send you help. They are going to have to find ways to isolate the insurgents from foreign aid. They are going to have to shape our policy so that the abuses of Abu Ghraib are not reborn in some other part of Iraq.

So far, though, the Bush administration’s committment to working those things out has been half-hearted if there at all. They seem to want to prove their theories about the new ways to fight battles, and in the process, they seem to have forgotten why the old ways have the antiquity they do. They seem to have forgotten that the military cannot be expected to be all things to all people, and that sometimes the hearts and minds must take a backseat to just achieving the mission, and then patching things up afterwards. They put you in an awkward position, propagandizing the impossible: a clean war where civilians wouldn’t get in the crossfire, then telling you that the civilians would welcome you with open arms. That’s a hell of a position, and I’d admire anybody who could salvage some kind of moral compromise out of that, because the way things turned out, civilians did and still do get hurt and killed despite our assurances.

Partly, because of our assurances. A person who isn’t a threat, is also a person who you don’t flee from. When people don’t flee from an area where urban warfare is going on, then innocent people get hurt. In the meantime, you have soldiers and terrorists firing at you wearing civilian clothing, which means, you ultimately end up looking bad for simply defending yourselves.

The Bush administration, unfortunately is more concerned about how this looks politically. He is more concerned about not backing down from what he has said before about this war than facing the truth of what it has become. I believe we are only a handful of soldiers away from having 800 dead americans because of that unwillingness to give up on invalidated theories.

I doubt I will ever think of Bush as a good leader, because for the life of me, he seems to lead us into more problems than he does solutions. I just wonder why people have to unite behind this man who just isn’t prepared to deal with the unexpected nuances of the situations he’s in, and that he’s led us into.

I mean, who would you rather have as a commanding officer, some who, with whatever background they have is where they are because of their proven skills, or somebody who is simply where they are because they had the right dad, and the right set of people to run interference for him? I believe in honoring the man in office as our leader, but he must honor us by his service, and by his willingness to do right by the American people that he mutually shares authority with.

Henri:

The bullseye painted on our soldier’s backs is done so with the sheer negativity of those against the war. While I applaud open discourse and appreciate differing viewpoints, it is obvious that many of those opposed to the war are willing to go to any lengths to “win” their argument.

By focusing only on the negatives, they try to prove themselves right. If that puts some soldiers at risk, so be it, because it only shows them to be more correct.

Its really easy to do, since any war has a high number of negatives to it. Its easy to second guess the military in its actions, or to second guess the administration. You notice the reference Stephen makes to WWII, and you can see that even in our ultimate triumphs, mistakes are made badly. Its the nature of war…and of life.

What WASNT the nature was our attitude towards them. In WWII we did not condemn the admin or the military for every mistake they made—-rather we supported them. Today, we hear soldiers talk of how their day to day actions are impacted by what the media will portray. They are forced to not only consider what is actually right (yknow, the REAL truth) but also to consider what “truth” the media will decide to show.

Henri, you might do well to read the attached article(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm)
written by a soldier who is in Iraq. It might help you understand exactly how words do paint bullseyes. And how words destroy morale.

joe,
We elected the man who was the Supreme allied commander at Omaha Beach President, Remember him? His name was Eisenhower. Ike warned us against many of the things that have come to be hallmarks of our Military Industrial Complex. His warnings were ignored by the very men who have set the Bush Administration in place. They are the same people who have put us on a course where oil in Iraq is so important to the world economy that war may have been our only option in keeping it flowing. The people who built that Military Industrial alliance which has warped our political system have taken over our conservative party and turned it into a den of thieves and worse.
No one who deals with a complex world by not reading the news and by not reading briefings pertinent to major choices should be President of this nation. Ike and his commanders made mistakes in WWII and our troops paid the price. In the end we won that war because the German war machine ran out of fuel and other vital war material. We had a strategic plan that made that shortage of oil inevitable from the beginning of the war as long as we met certain tactical objectives. Hitler helped by stupidly invading Russia when he did. The issues in Iraq are so different that they are similar only in one fact.
It is always true that mistakes cost the lives of lower ranking troops first. The use of less troops than were needed to secure Iraq after the victory was a mistake. The movement into Iraq before Afghanistan was secured was a mistake. The entire program leading up to war that demolished alliance after alliance and made us look like bullies instead of liberators was a gross error. The folly of the arrogant Neocons in interpreting military power as the ability to force the world to follow us was a particularly grevious error.
This war has been a series of mistakes by the highest commanders and in particular their CIC and his Secretary of Defense.
Now you want to keep me and others from exposing those errors so that we can reelect him in the fall. You are constantly claiming that my opposition to this pathetically inept leadership gives aid and comfort to the enemy and paints targets on the backs of our troops. When are you going to face the truth of these failures and stop spinning a veil for these inept leaders to hide behind? Our troops, our citizens and our allies deserve better leadership here than we have had during the last three and one half years. Joe, even you deserve better leadership than we have had over the last three and one half years. We are going to help you get it in the fall. Meanwhile don’t think to make your party’s leadership invisible behind a shield of troops and others who have not failed us. I will not allow it nor will the other “weaklings” in your sights.
Henri

Look, We have to take this from both sides. If what soldiers like Connable and our friend Armon Dwier are saying is true, and they’ve got the correct perspective, then things shouldn’t be too bad. But if they’re wrong, suppressing the point of view of those with doubts and questions about the war will be counterproductive. If nothing else, we need our politicians decently afraid of being wrong. We need our executive branch keeping abreast of its responsibilities. We also need our intelligence services to be working things out better.

All in all, what paints a target on American’s backs is simply there being there, occupying a nation of people who want to be governed by their own, whatever form that takes. Also, I’m not sure that it’s the American media you really have to worry about. I’m not sure most middle class and poor arabs watch it. They do watch Al Jazeera, and they do watch Al Arabiya, though, and we can’t do a damn thing about their effect, not without making things worse.

So really, this is Bush’s administration and those in the field lashing out at a convenient target. Besides, Joe, the editorial does not mention people getting killed because of news coverage. The guy’s point is that the media’s being defeatist again, and he believes, based on his experience, if we are to trust him, that it is simply another in a long line of doom and gloom prophecies unfulfilled.

It would be a relief to be wrong to worry after all this time. But the last year has provide much to worry about. So I’m going to wait and see what comes.

Stephen- On your comment about what is painting a target on us is our being there: I think 9/11 showed us clearly that we had a target on our back long before we thought of entering Iraq.

The people who are there want to kill us because of our culture and what we stand for, not our foreign policy. Let us not forget that we are the Infidels, and as such we must be killed and our society destroyed. While some in Iraq might be fighting for the return of the Bath party and the oil-for-food program, most are there just to receive the heavenly glory granted to people like Al Zarkawi who are blessed enough to kill Americans.

Joe, you claim that painting a negative picture of the war puts our troops in more danger.

Isn’t the opposite more likely: Painting an overly rosy picture of the war puts our troops in more danger?

Overly optimistic thinking — and the deception of the American people resulting from such thinking — has again and again been the cause of American failures abroad. In Vietnam it was Robert McNamara’s falsifying casualty reports. Before 9/11 it was a general unwillingness among to discuss America’s glaring vulnerabilities to Terrorist attack, often justified by saying that such discussion would only give our enemies more ideas.

With regards to the Iraq war and occupation, it is worse:

- Dick Cheney’s “parades and flowers” predictions of a quick victory.

- Wolfowitz’s predictions of a quick withdrawal (months he said).

- Rumsfeld’s insistence from the beginning of using a lean-and-mean invasion force that was a fraction of the size of the force used to liberate Kuwait.

- The early dismissal of the insurgents as only a temporary phenomenon.

- The constant and ongoing underestimation of the financial cost of the war (something tells me that Congress is going to get yet another surprisingly big invoice in December of this year, regardless of who wins the election).

- The Administration’s nearly-insane insistence that the June 30 handover of power will still occur, when it was clear months ago that it will be impossible. Their only option now is to hash together a ludicrous and impotent puppet “government” with no credibility at all, which IMHO is worse than not handing over power at all.

> While I applaud open discourse and appreciate
> differing viewpoints, it is obvious that many
> of those opposed to the war are willing to go
> to any lengths to “win” their argument.

Joe, I insist that you are dead wrong on this issue, and that you are perhaps unwittingly advocating a terrible alternative. In fact, I think that you are the one going to any lengths to win your argument. In your zeal to defend the Administration, you are saying that we shouldn’t discuss truth itself!! Just listen to yourself, Joe.

Never, ever, ever will I believe that having frank (and indeed loud) conversations and debates about our country’s failures is a bad thing, or that extremely pessimistic voices are a danger to anyone. Of course there are some things we shouldn’t talk about in times of war: These are called “military secrets”. Discussing our country’s failures, however, isn’t simply a matter of being fair game for idle political debate… it’s a matter of patriotic responsibility to face up to the negative consequences so that we can be prepared for them if they occur.

Indeed, we live in a democracy with a military controlled by our civilian government, so it is our duty, the American people, to decide how our military operations are run. The only way to make decisions about such matters is to discuss all aspects of it, positive and negative.

If this open discussion gives comfort to our enemies, so be it: it is a false comfort. A lot of American values have been perceived as weaknesses by our enemies, and those perceptions have always been wrong. America’s racial diversity gave great comfort to the Nazis, who thought that having Jews and blacks in our military and in our civilian infrastructure made us weak. In the cold war, America’s freedom of speech gave much comfort to the Soviets, who thought that it crippled our government’s ability to control dissent. If you and the Iraqi insurgents believe that American naysayers are hurting our country’s ability to win, you are both equally wrong.

Indeed, our enemies usually profit most when we cast aside our values. Which is why I deeply fear your line of reasoning.

-Cf

> The people who are there want to kill us
> because of our culture and what we stand
> for, not our foreign policy.

Oh, please. Does it not occur to you, or to President Bush, that there are powerful forces at work who seek to control the nation of Iraq, and that those forces are, in fact, who we are fighting? The clerics and former Baathists aren’t drooling beasts looking for savage revenge, and they’re not getting out of bed every day to plan attacks on US troops because they hate our democracy, beer, and women’s rights. They’re fighting us because they are laying the groundwork to seize power when we leave, or even before that. And many of them are willing to die trying to seize that power.

Some of these forces are likely foreign - indeed, I have no doubt that Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia have contingency plans to roll into Iraq if we pull out too soon. But IMHO most of the forces killing Americans today are simply Iraqis who want desperately to control their country.

Sure, many of people we are fighting on the ground are being manipulated by ideological Islamic rhetoric (for example the suicide bombers) but the people who command these ideologues are simply looking to seize power. They are making plans to seize power. They are organizing people to help them seize power.

Iraq is a large and wealthy land with a rich history and a future full of possibility. It’s understandable that many factions will want to control it. Where you see simple ideology, I see a complex hunger for power. Power always comes first before ideology: One need only look at Soviet fascism to see that.

While I frankly find “they hate us for our values” rhetoric to be comic-bookish and simplistic, I think that the reality is usually even simpler than that: They want to kill us because we are there. If the Saudis or Iranians were occupying Iraq right now, they’d be getting killed too.

I think that the “they hate us for our values” is yet another example of the kind of simplistic thinking that is causing us to fail in Iraq. Until we recognize that we are facing an enemy that is more ambitious and more clear-headed than just a seething layer of bloodthirsty fundamentalist zombies, we will continue to lose.

-Cf

The people who are there want to kill us because of our culture and what we stand for, not our foreign policy.

Wow. That is just a really uninformed statement.

bin Laden himself has said that he’s targeting America because of our foreign policy. The CIA and State Department have testified that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has refocused most smaller terrorist groups from local governments to the US, and created linkages of those groups to al Qaeda where there were none before. And by the way, the invasion has unleashed a flood of Saudis to join the jihad in Iraq and swelled the ranks of al Qaeda.

To spew that “they hate us for our freedoms” BS is just simple minded.

They hate us because we stationed troops in the holiest place in Islam for fourteen years. They hate us because we back the Israelis against the Palestinians. They hate us because we’ve traditionally propped up corrupt pro-US regimes in the region (including Iraq). They hate us because we invaded a country full of Muslims on false pretenses and, through a lack of discipline and leadership in our MP forces, showed them that we are the oppressors they thought we were.

Make this the week you get better informed. :)

BTW Henri, Armon’s CO is the ‘Bill Clinton’s cigar’ poster.

He’s like the neighbor’s constantly yapping little dog. Most of the time I don’t even notice him anymore, but sometimes he needs a rolled-up newspaper smack down.

Christopher:

I appreciate your response, and want to clarify a bit for you. I think we both agree that there is a line where discussion is acceptable and where it is not. For instance, I think we’d both agree that those on the left who support the insurgents actually defeating coalition forces (and they ARE out there) are unpatriotic. They have crossed the line. On the other side, those who blindly follow anything the administration calls for are unwitting advocates for potentially wrong choices.

So I’m going to continue under the assumption that we agree there is a line—-though we might disagree where that line is.

Here, then, is my point: I’m not against truth, nor am I against open discussion. But, when the only truth that is portrayed is one-sided, then I do have a problem with it.

It really seems to me that the media and some of the Democratic leaders are highlighting the problems for political purposes. Should we discuss the problems and bad estimations?? Of course we should. But we used to look at such situations with an eye to improving them. Now, the viewpoint is simply focused on how to eliminate those who made the judgements.

Let’s look at a couple instances of bias: Trent Lott speaks highly of Strom Thurmond (once a segregationist) and is branded a racist while Chris Dodd says virtually the same things about Robert Byrd( once a KKK member) and gets no similar response. How about the incredible media speculation (with no facts yet in evidence) that Rumsfeld is involved in the Abu Ghraib mess, while there is no media speculation (also with no facts yet in evidence) on the UN bribery allegations?

Christopher, I truly do look for the truth, and I find that some of our plan in Iraq has been lacking. Yet I dont take that as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I happen to think we should be in Iraq, but I dont think all the planning has been good. I recognize, perhaps more than some, that war plans are necessarily somewhat fluid and need to change. The left seems to want the initial plan to be flawless, and regards any changes to the plan as a problem or an indication of poor planning. That is a standard that is simply unachievable.

Thanks for your comments. I’d like to think that were we to have a conversation, we could come to some consensus on how things in Iraq could be done better. For some out there, there can be no such discussion, since they feel any presence in Iraq has been and continues to be a mistake.

American Pundit- The problem is I am better informed.

Try this one, Ibn Warrraq’s “Why I’m Not a Muslim.” It’s probably at your local library.

While there is no doubt that UBL is using Islam for his own political game, there is definately a bigger problem here.

Henri—

I’ve never suggested that you be stopped from sharing the truth. But dont be so misled that you think that what is being shared is actually the truth.

You choose to believe the media representation of the truth. And it come replete with facts….but not all the facts. Tell me why a soldier in the field who has every reason to want the war to end would say that what we are doing there is a noble cause. Why would soldiers write to say that the focus is only on the mistakes and rarely shows the vast amount of good that is done?

Henri, its very easy to use facts but still write misleading stories. I recognize that mistakes have been made, and I long for a scenario where people can truly look for ways to make the war effort better. But at present, the only thing the “left” wants is Bush’s head, and nothing else.
They do not want improvement unless it comes with Bush’s removal, since they would not consider that improvement.

Put into a different context, I spoke with a reporter the other day and mentioned the improving economy, only to be met with a look of disdain. “The economy stinks and Ive written so many stories about people losing jobs”, he said with disdain. He said this despite the 1.1 million jobs created in the last 8 months, along with many other economic indicators on the rise. Notice that I did NOT say the economy was great or even good, but only that it was improving——which is a fact.

What I realized was that the facts did not support his opinions, so he ignored them. As happens daily with our media.

> For instance, I think we’d both agree that
> those on the left who support the insurgents
> actually defeating coalition forces (and they
> ARE out there) are unpatriotic.

I agree that they are unpatriotic, but I would also argue that (a) they are not on the “left” any more than Timothy McVeigh represents the “right” and (b) there are probably only about a couple of hundred such people in the whole country. You are making straw men again.

I also discount your two gigantic rhetorical smokescreens:

First, your point about Lott and Dodd, while perhaps valid (I don’t know) seems totally irrelevant - what does that have to do with debating the war? Are you trying to prove that the media is unfair to Republicans? Even if that was true, what does that prove about whether or not it’s possible to say anything that could hurt our troops in Iraq?

Second, regarding Rumsfeld: Well, of course the media should look into whether or not there is a relationship between the orders and leadership Rumsfeld has given and what happened at Abu Graib prison. That’s just common sense. The fact that the media is not looking into the UN bribery allegations doesn’t prove that they shouldn’t be raising embarassing and potentially politically harmful questions about Rumsfeld.

(And in any event, my impression from the news is (a) that the UN bribery allegations are adequately reported, if not sensationalistically enough for you, and (b) the allegations are still extremely vague, and that some of the key evidence comes from the now-totally-discredited Chalabi, and (c) the allegations have little bearing on discussions about the American election.)

In short, you’ve said nothing that backs up your allegation that Americans can and do say things that could hurt our troops. I, however, stand by my position which is based largely on a patriotic belief in the power and righteousness of free and open debate: Aside from treasonous statements that reveal military secrets, there is absolutely nothing an American can say that will undermine the safety of our troops. Our political debate, even at its most rancorous and partisan, is all we have to make sure that our country and our troops are truly representing the American people.

> For some out there, there can be no such
> discussion, since they feel any presence in
> Iraq has been and continues to be a mistake.

The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. One can believe (a) that the invasion was a terrible mistake and that our current leadership continues to fail at their job, while still believing (b) that we can discuss rarional ways to improve the situation. There are lots of things we can do to improve the situation (I’m not going to discuss them except to day that I haven’t seen you discuss them either) It is my belief, however, that the current Administration, through consistently demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetance, is entirely unqualified to make the policy changes necessary to truly improve the situation. Obviously it is really important to me that Bush loses this election, but you have to understand that my vehement partisanship is the result of my belief that John Kerry will do a better job of making America safe. That’s my driving motivation. And you have to understand that every American who intends to vote for Kerry thinks exactly the same way. It has nothing to do with sympathy, even remotely, for the insurgents.

I could use your logic and turn the tables on you: By supporting the Bush Administration’s policies, you and the political right are in fact, supporting the insurgents. You support an administration who is literally shoveling anti-American propaganda materials into the enemy’s hands, who has provided a gaping power vacuum in Iraq for Islamists to eventually fill, who is digging America into a deeper and deeper ditch of world isolation, and who is domestically undermining deeply-held American civil liberties. It is the political right who gives comfort to our enemies, for it is they who have brought America’s self esteem so very low.

Someone on your side in this debate, possibly yourself, pointed out that al-Sadr quoted Kennedy’s “Bush’s Vietnam” comments to give his people the courage to fight us. But how many times has Bush’s use of the term “crusade” been used to encourage fundamentalists to take arms against Americans? How many times has Bush’s WMD duplicitousness been used to discredit our nation and paint our soldiers as the forces of evil?

See? Linking any American, right or left, with someone who “supports the insurgents” is really silly, insulting and, yes, un-American. Nothing about our rancorous internal debate can or should be construed as helpful to our enemies. Nothing.

If anything, the fact that some Americans opposed the invasion and continue to oppose the Bush Administration in general might actually be the only factor saving America from becoming a complete international pariah. If, for example, Americans were seen as solidly behind Bush, we would almost certainly be seen as a kind of evil empire. It is the 50% of Americans that comprise the “left” - our perseverence, our loudness, and our genuine potential to unseat Bush and restore rationality to American foreign policy - that tells the rest of the world that Americans are not all barbarians.

I sometimes think that perhaps the perception around the world that not all Americans are Bush supporters has actually *saved* American lives abroad.

-Cf

joe, what would you propose we do with these Americans who cross the line and through exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, give aid and comfort to the enenmy?

Secondly, are you aware that the words ‘give aid and comfort to the enemy’ have a specific legal meaning? Do you know what that meaning is?

And if you do, how is it you construe advocating withdrawal from Iraq with ‘aiding and comforting the enemy’?

On fighting wars:

I know of 2 Democrat Presidents in recent history who never really impressed me in terms of war management: Carter and Clinton. They either lost or ignored threats.

I appreciate that things are going tough at present. War is a last resort for a reason. It is never perfect, it is always dirty and things will always suprise you. This current administration has accomplished a victory in Afghanistan that exceeded the media’s predictions before it started (They thought the US would lose like the Russians). They have accomplished an incredible victory in Iraq (again disproving the media) and are fighting through a difficult insurgency.

If 7 or even 40-50 screwed up prison guards are the worst of it - this is still one of the most successful wars in history in terms of collateral damage, US losses and local nation building achievements. How many years after WWII was the Marshall plan drawn up? How many years after WWII was Japan’s first elections?

I feel that the media has overlooked the fact that the military had picked up these abuses within 2-3 months and were already in the investigatory process before going wild. I feel that the Democratic party has in its overreaching to tag Republican leadership painted the 99.9% of heroes in the US army as barbarians and in doing so put targets on their backs.

The left can only contribute to the debate with the advantage of hindsight and even then they are wrong. Show some respect for men and women who take risks on behalf of the security of those who take it for granted and do so “on the ground” without the advantage of having to wait to see what happens then offer a pearl of wisdom.

On Al Qaeda hating the US solely for its foreign policy, grow up. Grab a backpack and wander around the Middle East with a sign saying “I don’t support the US foreign policy”. You’d be beheaded on the internet anyway.

Count the Bali explosion (Do Balinese have a foreign policy?), count the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda (Do Christian African’s have a foreign policy Work as a waiter in a world trade center restaurant (Do busboys have a foreign policy?). Militants Islam goal is to kill its way to a brutal 7th century empire.

The argument that dissent hurts soldiers carries considerable emotional force for some people but it is essentially an attempt to shut down debate and should be treated with no more respect than any other attempt at a coup d’etat. I feel sorry for every American soldier in Iraq, including those who want to be there and believe in the mission - in other words, I’m sypathetic but only partly respectful. I definitely don’t respect those soldiers who imagine that our democracy should shut down while they go to war. The idea that a weblog discussion somehow makes them less safe is completely idiotic, but that is not the point - the release of prison photos might REALLY make them less safe. But all the photos should be released to the public, because those photos are the truth. Blaming the messenger or hiding the message won’t make the hatred that the perpetrators have caused go away. Perhaps you should eliminate the middleman from your blame game and go straight to blaming the people who caused it to happen, along with every other atrocity of this war. It is a shame that American soldiers are dying over there - but it is also a shame that they are killing over there. Because they are taking part in an invasion. It’s an invasion spun as a liberation, but the local populace isn’t buying that explanation, for very good reasons. Blame the people who brought it about. Nor can they claim to be protecting the citizens of the United States by being there. Iraq does not now and never did equal Al Queda. The perpetual insistence on conflating the two is dishonest in the extreme. By taking part in the invasion they do bear some responsibility for stirring up hatred against American citizens, and those who engage in acts of cruelty to the citizens of Iraq bear a greater responsibility for causing hatred, which in turn actually makes all US citizens - and US soldiers - less safe.

Something wicked this way comes.

As civil liberties melt away and political dissent against the war becomes even less tolerated, will those whose unquestioning obedience allowed the destruction of this country ever feel any remorse. Will they ever question their actions? When the secret police come for them, as they hide in their closet, will they blame other or will they finally accept that they are to blame?

To mindless accept what this (or any) administration, serves up as true is foolish.

The issue is hardly one of whether “dissent” should or shouldn’t be permitted. You on the left try to frame our objections to your objections in such a way that when we disagree with you, you’re martyrs for free speech and we’re advocates of totalitarian thought control. But you’re the ones trying to shut down debate and demanding that only one viewpoint be considered.

Not all “dissent” is either healthy or correct—and it’s also free speech to say so. If someone says, you know, the Klan’s view of the world is ugly and harmful, even if it’s protected speech, are you going to rush forward and say that nobody should point that out?

Similarly, dwelling on Abu Ghraib and the setbacks in the war, while ignoring all good news from Iraq, the absolute hideousness of the UN’s finacial complicity in Saddam’s regime, and now the discovery of WMD is not just excercizing a right to “dissent.” It’s using distortion to make common cause with those trying to kill our soldiers, and giving them motivation to continue.
You’re free to keep doing it, and since it’s an election year, I know you will—and I’m free to keep complaining about it. That’s democracy.

If your story were the whole story, well, maybe things would be different. But its a deeply skewed perspective, and the motivation for it is clear—to attack the administration in hopes of winning political points domestically.

Researcher,

Your comments are a snapshot of the flawed rationalization and aversion to accountability, many on the Right are offering in defense of this administration.

First, present an example of anyone publicly predicting failure in Afganistan, and I will pre-empt you by asking the same of any leading Democrat. Plus, the ‘incredible’ victory in Iraq was more ‘predictable’, followed by a mis-managed mess.

Second, day by day, its becoming clear that the abuse will not solely stick to the ‘7 or 40-50 screwed up prison guards’. As Chris Matthews said, they didn’t bring the green hoods and leashes with them, to Iraq.

I commend, admire and respect the pride and faith with which you speak of given your sacrifice, duty, and service, in defense of my freedom. But, why is that I have more confidence that under your leadership, this kind of prisoner abuse would never occur, be ignored or tolerated?

Your insistence that the military picked this up quickly, in no way sways my anger that it was allowed to happened. That efficent aspect of the chain of command is overshadowed by the indifference, allowance and, what is now becoming clear, the Penatgon’s culpability.

I feel that the Democratic party has in its overreaching to tag Republican leadership painted the 99.9% of heroes in the US army as barbarians and in doing so put targets on their backs.

This false claim underlines your partisan political agenda which severely weakens your argument, yet, it makes your questioning of my patriotism and support for American troops, all the more insulting!

Your ignorance of the importance of such foreign policy matters like Israel/Palestine, and insistence that they hate us because of who we are, make us look like the stupid Americans the Europeans think we are. Under Clinton, we treated allies with respect, engaged moderate Arab nations and didn’t arrogantly pick sides between Israel and the Palestinians. And, the moderate, peaceful and friendly segment of the Arab world (who vowed to help us post 9/11), was apparent.

George Bush is solely responsible for where we are today!

David:

I dont tend to talk in “legalisms”, so using the words “aid and comfort to the enemy” carried no special meaning. My point was and is that our enemies through the years have watched closely what is said, and they have used that to bolster themselves. In Viet Nam, the enemy claimed that the anti war rhetoric led them to believe they could win the war by attrition. They heard the dissent in the US, learned that we were divided, and took comfort in that.

I dont propose that we do anything from a legal standpoint to people who speak their minds, since I am a full proponent of freedom of speech. But its obvious that people need to be careful of what impact their words have. Surely you would agree to that.

Christopher:

I use the words “right” and “left” as generalities. This format doesnt lend itself to clarifying the details each time. But suffice it to say, there ARE those out there advocating for US defeat—-they take the anti war position to its extreme.

My point about Lodd and Dodd, as well as the point about the Rummy speculations was direct: they show a media bias. And a bias certainly points to how words can create perceptions, which can lead people to believe something that isnt necessarily true.

For instance, is Al Gore a shameless liar, a man who cant be counted to tell the truth? That was one strong perception from the 2000 campaign. It was based on facts (things that he said), but was most certainly a convenient perception that was placed in front of people. That particular perception was the result of Republican rhetoric and advertising, but the current perception of Iraq is the result of media bias.

I advocate looking into Rumsfeld’s responsibility in the abuse issue. But to have a media totally ignore a potentially larger topic (that not coincidentally goes against what they want to believe) is a pretty obvious example of bias.

We know that the words used by our leaders have great impact on the world. People have railed at Bush for his “axis of evil” comment, but to use your logic, they are simply words so who cares. That of course is only convenient logic, since its obvious that words DO matter. And at this point, the “left” is showing our enemy that perhaps we do NOT have the perseverence to reach our goals.

Dont take this to mean that I am blindly accepting all the decisions made by the admin. They surely have made mistakes. But also, I am not going to waver in my support of the actions we have undertaken.

Guys, guys. Please stop saying this is the media’s fault. The administration is now admitting to errors left and right. Your own people are wandering what the hell is going on, and the things that are hurting us the most are actually happening or actually happened.

You tell me that the doom and gloom about the war’s progress is not justified, maybe I’ll believe you. But if you tell me things aren’t going wrong, then you got your head in the sand. And if you tell me that problems in one section of a country can’t spill over into others, I’ll tell you history itself says it can. A World War started that way.

I and many like me want this war to go our way, but we do not have the power right now, and those who have it are of a philosophical bent that makes it very difficult to tell these people they’re wrong. We question them, and they tell us we’re questioning the underlying principles of America, or that we’re trying to hamstring the troops. They have conflated the ascendancy of their own agenda own with America’s interests as a nation, and refuse to see that there could be a difference.

The Choice for me is clear: We face up to our mistakes and remedy them, or we leave our nation’s fate to chance. We may win going this way, but it will be much more uncertain, and much more difficult than it has to be. This administration must get its act together, or it will make things considerably worse for America and for itself.

I know of 2 Democrat Presidents in recent history who never really impressed me in terms of war management: Carter and Clinton. They either lost or ignored threats.

Researcher, Carter signed the order in 1980 to start the CIA war in Afghanistan that eventually gave the Soviets a black eye and directly resulted in the fall of that government. Clinton successfully stopped the killing in Kosovo without a single US casualty. Clinton also made the capture and killing of bin Laden his highest priority in 1998. Oh, and I almost forgot his successful intervention in Haiti.

Seems to me that after an early stumble in Somalia, Clinton ended up as a pretty good Commander in Chief. So much so that candidate Bush had to promise a much more “humble foreign policy.”

I’m curious which lost or ignored threats you were thinking about.

Grab a backpack and wander around the Middle East with a sign saying “I don’t support the US foreign policy”. You’d be beheaded on the internet anyway.

Haha! I live in SE Asia. I’m surrounded by Muslims every day, and there’s no mistaking me for anything but an American. In fact, I’ve lived across the street from a mosque for a year now and I still have my head.

I think you may be the one who needs to get out more. :)

Stephen:

I havent been trying to say its the media’s fault. I have been trying to say that the media is culpable in their decision to highlight the negatives while virtually disregarding the positives.

Both are out there. There are many stories of schools being built, economies being revived, and people being freed and helped. There are also stories where our expectations are not met, where abuse occurs, where things dont go our way.

Lets not allow a defeatist attitude to come over us. Lets listen to what our soldiers are saying…..that when they see the overwhelming negativity in reporting, that they wonder what the reporters are actually covering, and how it can be so different than what the soldiers are experiencing.

Stephen, I truly believe if criticism is provided constructively, it can be useful. Two things appear to me to be true: 1) The criticism being given is not intended as constructive, but rather to be used as a club against the administration, and 2) the administration is defensive about admitting any mistakes for fear that the admission will be used against them.

Both need to change, so that we can openly discuss how to make things work better. This can only happen if both sides work together, rather than as opponents. This would mean that politicians would need to work for the betterment of our country, rather than simply for their election.

Researcher wrote:
> I know of 2 Democrat Presidents in recent history who
> never really impressed me in terms of war management:
> Carter and Clinton.

War management? There were no wars. Do you think it’s simply a coincidence that Clinton managed to keep us out of major conflicts for eight years? I don’t buy that.

I heard an argument recently that said that after eight years of Clinton, many Americans came to think that being President was easy, that even with a hostile Congress and an impeachment scandal he managed to lead us through eight years of peace (and prosperity). Thus they felt comfortable voting for Bush.

> If 7 or even 40-50 screwed up prison guards are the worst
> of it - this is still one of the most successful wars
> in history in terms of collateral damage, US losses and
> local nation building achievements.

First: We have no idea if 40-50 screwed up guards are the worst of it. Last week Bush defenders were saying four or five screwed up guards.

Second: The prison abuses are going to hurt American credibility for years. That’s a hefty price we’re paying, unless you happen to think that America shouldn’t worry about being perceived as a moral example, having allies, or being trusted around the world.

Third: Neither you nor I know anything about how much collateral damage there has been in Iraq.

Fourth: What nation-building achievements?

> How many years after WWII was the Marshall plan drawn
> up? How many years after WWII was Japan’s first
> elections?

Interesting questions. I’ll answer them (yes, I looked this stuff up):

The Marshall Plan was first announced in 1947, two years after the end of the war. For the first year or so of the Plan, the Truman administration spent the majority of their political capital on this in convincing the American people of the plan’s necessity, making sure that the American people understood the full cost of Europe’s reconstruction. The majority of the spending was complete by 1950. See any similarities at all with the Bush administration’s policies? Me either.

Post-War Japan was given a constitution in 1947 (again, two years after the surrender). American troops occupied the country in large numbers until 1952, after Japan was finally given full sovereignty. That, by the way, is seven years later.

In both cases, as you probably know, hundreds of thousands of American troops were stationed in these regions for fifty years following the war, and tens of thousands are still there today.

Let me ask a couple of questions back at you:

Why did Paul Wolfowitz claim before the Iraq invasion that we could have a new Iraqi leadership in place within months? Why did many Administration members claim that our troops could be largely removed within a year? (I’ll answer both questions: They were tricked by Chalabi) Finally, why the hell is the Bush Administration still insisting on handing over power on June 30?

Have they no understanding or appreciation of history at all? Apparently not. According to Bob Woodward’s latest book, when asked about how history will judge him and the Iraq invasion, President Bush said “History? We’ll all be dead.”

> On Al Qaeda hating the US solely for its foreign
> policy, grow up. Grab a backpack and wander
> around the Middle East with a sign saying “I
> don’t support the US foreign policy”. You’d be
> beheaded on the internet anyway.

First of all, The Bush Administration is arguing that the Iraqi insurgents hate us for our culture, not just Al Qaeda. They are playing on Americans’ tendency to lump all Muslims together and on Americans’ tendency to want to look at world affairs as comic book good vs. evil stories rather than as complex power struggles.

Secondly, your “backpack” example is silly. Those who would behead Americans obviously don’t give a damn who you are if they can use your death to scare the American public. Nicholas Berg was just a warm body to kill for them. They’d kill Noam Chomsky if they could. In fact, they kill Iraqi civilians by the hundreds, people whose core “culture” is identical to their own.

> Count the Bali explosion (Do Balinese have a
> foreign policy?),

Not one that is relevant, but Australians clearly do. The key targets of the Bali attack were Australian vacationers.

> count the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda (Do
> Christian African’s have a foreign policy

What the hell does Tutsi/Hutu hatred have to do with
American Middle Eastern policy?

> work as a waiter in a world trade center restaurant
> (Do busboys have a foreign policy?).

No, but as occupants of the terrorist’s symbolically-chosen target, the World Trade Center, even Windows on the World busboys end up serving as unwitting representatives of American foreign policy. Did the Al Qaeda attackers try to avoid killing the hundreds of Muslims in the building? Did they avoid killing the hundreds of non-Americans. No. They didn’t care who died.

Are you seriously unable to recognize that terrorists plan attacks for their symbolic value? Do you think they give a damn who dies?

> Militants Islam goal is to kill its way to a
> brutal 7th century empire.

Oh please, stop basing your perception of foreign affairs on Star Wars movies. I’ve read radical Islamic ideas about turning the clock back in the Muslim world, of course, but never in Osama bin Laden’s wildest fantasies has he ever even dreamed of conquering foreign lands or converting America to Islam.

I am in no way advocating that America divest itself of our critical Middle Eastern relationships, but can you not see that if we severed all ties with the Muslim World, stopped supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, pulled all troops out of the region, that we’d see an end to the power of Osama bin Laden?

-Cf

Good comeback CF. It nice to see some historical reality enter the conversation.

By the way. Here is and interesting link about the Berg thing. Some forensic experts seem to have a problem with the authenticity of the video.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE22Ak03.html

joebagodonuts, I am not sure I do agree with you. I believe in something called ‘opportunity cost’. A concept that dictates every decision one makes has a cost attached to it. That cost is the benefits one could have derived had one made an alternative decision.

There is an opportunity cost associated with Freedom of Speech, and the right of citizens to gather and express their opinions in a public forum regarding our political system, our government, and those who direct it. That opportunity cost is precisely what you have so much angst over. If the “enemy” takes comfort or ideas from our exercise of democracy and freedom of speech, so be it. It is a far better choice nonetheless to preserve our freedoms and democracy than it is to give it all up in favor of preventing any support or ideas to our enemies.

The funny thing about opportunity cost is that it is inescapeable. So, one makes one’s choices and hopefully does not spend one’s time on this earth regretting and fretting over them. I for one have not one ounce of regret nor fret over our choice to freely exercise our rights and freedoms guaranteed under the greatest Constitution ever devised in the history of human existence.

Opportunity cost is an inescapeable consequence of the freedom to choose. Nothing to lose sleep over even if it does abet our enemies short term ends.

David:

I’ve long talked about opportunity costs as well. And I understand also that there are costs related to INaction as well as action. For instance, had we not gone into Iraq, there would have been results of that inaction. What they would be is impossible to say.

Some say that inaction on the part of the US has led terrorists to believe we are weak. I believe this, in part because some of our enemies have stated this.

Others say that actions on our part lead to the hatred that is the genesis of terrorist actions. This is possible, though it seems to me that we get attacked when we are restrained AND when we are aggressive, so I cant see the real difference.

Many dont see that lack of action can be just as dangerous as too much action. There is a fine line, but of course its invisible and is impossible to define.

News flash: The army has announced their new program to stop future prisoner abuse scandals. They are banning digital cameras.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9643950%255E1702,00.html

For instance, had we not gone into Iraq, there would have been results of that inaction. What they would be is impossible to say.

But we can make a fairly accurate projection, joe:

Saddam would have sat impotently while the US dismantled al Qaeda in Afghanistan and killed or captured bin Laden.

Saddam would have amused himself in his presidential palaces as the US worked closely with other UN nations to close down charities and banking institutions that fund terrorism across national borders.

Saddam would have watched Brady Bunch re-runs on TVLand cable as the US developed closer and friendlier ties with intelligence and law enforcement communities around the world, including Muslim nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Morocco to gather info and plan actions to end terrorist threats.

And just possibly (though it stretches credibility when applied to Bush), Bush could have taken a few days to put together a compelling humanitarian case against Saddam (like the one to which he finally had to resort after all the others were debunked) and united world opinion against Saddam, thereby forcing Saddam into exile and opening the way to a UN mandated Iraqi government without the need for an invasion and subsequent US occupation.

There’s more extrapolation, but you get the point: Saddam was contained and defanged. The result of inaction in Iraq would have been a focus on terrorism.