October 28, 2004
Lessons Forgotten Will Be Lessons Relearned
I’ve always said, that as wonderful as learning from one’s own trial and error is, it’s so much better to learn from somebody else’s mistakes rather than have to learn from your own.
In times like these, it’s always tempting to think that when the sharp sudden shocks of history hit us, everything changes. Well, things do change, but I’m inclined to believe that people in general stay the same. What changes are the stresses and challenges placed upon us. The problems of war and of human interaction in war remain much as they always have.
Why does Iraq get compared to Vietnam so often? Even I find it a bit simplistic to talk about Iraq in those terms sometimes. There are differences of terrain, differences in the character and situation of the people there- in short, direct comparisons are not entirely fruitful in delivering real understanding of our war in the Middle East.
That said, there are parallels in terms of the mistakes made in selling, paying for, and carrying out this war that bear eerie resemblance to the war that marked the Baby Boomer's coming of age. To read of Kennedy and Johnson's gradual but inexorable entanglement in the poisonous Indochina conflict in the context of today's events is to fear for our involvement now.
I am genuinely worried as to whether things can turn out for the best. I can only hope we haven't passed some irreversible threshold in the course of this war.
With that in mind, I would like to share some points, lessons really, that I take from my recent readings
Lesson One: Pick your native support wisely.
If we could have picked a government to support, to gain support for Americans, to counter the revolutionary, nationalist communists in the country, we couldn't have picked a worse government than the one that ran South Vietnam. A corrupt remnant of French Colonial times, they didn't have the support of the population at large. The Military, namely the ARVN, was a continual disgrace. During the Reign of Diem, they were even under orders to avoid being killed so they wouldn't tarnish Diem's reputation. It was ARVN fecklessness that made our military presence necessary. Even in the face of being overrun by the North, these people wouldn't stand up in the fights with lighter but more committed VietCong and NVA troops.
A weak government in Iraq will not bode well for our success. Weak governments do not gain the confidence or the popularity required for people to connect their patriotic will to defend their country to the defense of the government system itself.
If the elections don't provide a satisfying public mandate, if the government is perceived as our puppet, if this government is powerless to back down the insurgents and clamp down on the criminals and terrorists, that government will become an impediment to our ability to bring our soldiers out, bring them home from this war.
We lost 58,000 soldiers, having sent a half million soldiers in to fight the ARVN's war for them. We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than we did over all of Europe and Asia in WWII. Without the support of the people of South Vietnam, none of these things mattered. It was their country, after all.
Lesson Two: Don't lie to the American People, and for God's sake don't lie to yourself.
The Fog of War is not a license to disregard or disconnect from reality. In fact, it's important that one puts one's best effort forward in remaining aware of one's situation.
There should not be a sense among the American people that the progress of the war as reported by independent, reliable sources and its progress as described by the Administration are at odds with one another.
In Vietnam, the lies abounded, most trying to put a good or flattering face on things, gilding the problematic underpinnings of the situation The South Vietnamese lied to us, Their people lied to them, the American Army command in Saigon lied to their superiors and the president. The people who were giving accurate estimates were marginalized by those with vested interests in keeping one group or another (The South Vietnamese Regimes, the Saigon Command, The Joint Chiefs, The DOD civilians or the White house) happy, and free from the news they didn't want to hear. Of course, as they lost control of the story, as all stories this big tend to do, people were blamed for saying or believing the truth about these things.
One thing for sure: all the rose-colored perspectives on Vietnam made confronting the war on a basis of integrity and wisdom virtually impossible. The Bad news coming from a war is in many ways the best news to hear, in the sense that to not hear was to lose the ability to correct one's course towards a more successful strategy.
It won't help us in Iraq to be out of touch with the reality on the ground, no matter how awful it is. But as with Vietnam, political sense has overruled common sense, and so instead of working out how to solve the problems, the administration has come up with ways to deny them the ability to politically harm the president. He has forgotten the purpose of democracy: screwups are supposed to hurt a politician. If you want to improve your image, the best way is to deal with the reality that creates the image. Even if you don't win the political contest, you can at least say you did what was right.
Iraq is a mess. The better we are able to understand the mess, the better we will be able to square it way. We ignore the bad news, we will be oblivious to what we're doing wrong. If we are so oblivious to that, we will continue in our errors. The longer we continue in our errors. The farther we will stray from their solution. Ignorance and false optimism will not bring us peace, nor defend us from terror.
Lesson Three: Competence and expertise should outrank political loyalty.
Throughout the latter half of the Twentieth Century, the question unfortunately was the same: Are you with us, or against us? Sounds like a simple question, until you get to the part where you define what a loyalist does. For China, the requirement was a hardline against communism. That meant many of the people who predicted the Fall of China to the Communists were treated as if they had helped that victory for the Reds, instead of simply anticipating that victory.
The result? Party line cold warriors instead of those who understood the Chinese for what they were, for how they differed from the West. So we lose many experts who would have been more useful in dealing with things like the Sino-Soviet Split, or in Alienating Vietnam from the Chinese and Soviets.
The Democrats, tarred with the brush of alleged pinko sympathies and outright red collaboration are forced to go on the defense by the McCarthy HUAC hearings, which unfortunately convinces a young Democrat president that involvement in Indochina is necessary. And so, because we had to placate the right, we get involved in a old French colonial war Eisenhower rightly avoids years before (and can avoid, because who's going to say Ike's gone pink, much less red?)
Vietnam, by the time we got to it, was already damaged goods. It would have been better to let it cohere into the nation it would become despite our efforts (especially the Best efforts of the Anti-communist Nixon White House), and then exploit their rivalry with China. And we could have, if we hadn't dismissed the people who would tell us how to do that, what the Vietnamese valued, what they wanted. We picked, in Vietnam, those who would tough on communism, rather than those who knew the region, knew the psychology and sociology of the people, and who could send the right messages to the people there, messages they would respond to. Unfortunately, we confused intense hatred of communism with the ability to roll it back.
In Iraq, Fighting George Bush's version of the War on Terrorism, has relegated effectively fighting that war to the back Burner. In many ways, the mess we are in is the result of this war being fought with political consideration first and foremost. You can not serve two masters and serve both well.
Bush's master in all this has been the re-election campaign we are in right now. As a result, he went in light, minimized talk of casualties, declared victory prematurely, and set Iraq on a time table which seems to have more to do with Bush's re-election schedule than any real progress made on the ground.
And all around him, the Republicans, the Spin Doctors, and the right-wing culture as a whole closes ranks with him, measuring people's opinions on the subject of Iraq not by the agreement of their opinions with the facts on the ground, but instead by the closeness of their opinions to Bush's.
Lesson 4: Don't lie about costs or deficit spend to cover them. That way lies fiscal disaster.
One of the surprising revelations of the Book The Best and the Brightest is that all the economic strife of the seventies was never necessary. We could have absorbed the costs of the war at the time, had we been asked to.
I know Republicans like to stay away from tax hikes like they're radioactive, but at some point, you got to ask yourself: Am I willing to cut enough spending to make this work? During war, that answer is always no. We pay what we have to win. The only way to cut spending in that respect is to go cheapskate on that, and ultimately, that never does any good. You have two choices: Don't go to war, or keep your revenues high enough to cover things.
Bob McNamara did neither. He lowballed the military budget estimates, causing our nation to go into deficit spending over the war. Why? Because it was politically inconvenient to show the real costs. Out of that political inconvenience came vicious economic problems that derailed the prosperity of the sixties. We could have handled the costs, ironically, had the President and McNamara asked the sacrifice of the American people, the costs of the war would not have been so terrible for the country.
Bush's three tax cuts are worse than McNamara's economic dishonesty. First, Bush does not have the costs under control. He is on the verge of asking for an additional 70 billion dollars for his war in Iraq, with no end in sight. He never rightly estimated the costs, necessitating things like the 87 billion supplemental he harped on Kerry over.
That 87 billion could have been budgeted into the war at the very first, the body and vehicle armor paid for and procured for our soldiers from the get-go. They should have been, but Bush didn't
Worse than that, though, was Bush's decision to cut taxes not once but three times in such a day and age. He not only runs up costs he's not going to pay for from revenue, he drops the revenue. He says it's about the economy, but our economy was recovering anyways. Now it's saddled with debt, and the interest rates and dollar values that use to be solid now show signs of heading towards inflation and increase.
I'm not a big fan of taxes, but I'm even less a fan of debt. Debt is taxes increased in the future. If Bush was not willing to pay for this war, not willing to ask our sacrifice, perhaps he should have never waged it in the first place, being so uncommitted.
He should be able to say, if it comes down to keeping your taxes low and defending national security, I will choose national security. To paraphrase a certain space pirate "What good is tax relief if you're not around to spend it?"
All in all, I think the statement "Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it." is apt for our day and age. This government is full of people who pride themselves on being better than the liberals they replaced. Thing is, though, the liberals learned some lessons during the course of their leadership of this nation at the great moments of crisis, things that apply regardless of what party is in power.
The conservatives can go on about virtues, about standing up against evil and all this and all that, but in the end we have to face the good and the evil in ourselves and our strategies as well, if we are to act in our nation's best interests. Our will to protect our nation will be worthless if we don't have the right level of awareness and understanding, and if we aren't employing the right means for dealing with the situations at hand. We will not win Iraq or the War on Terrorism by wishful thinking. We will succeed by how well we negotiate the trials ahead, by our grounding in, not denial of, the world we seek to change and redeem.
So Endeth the Lesson.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2004 10:42 AMStephen:
Interesting thoughts, and some good lessons, despite the obvious slant you take on things. There is an equally viable opposite slant as well.
A couple comments:
I think Iraq is compared to Viet Nam in part for political reasons, and in part because of what it possibly could become. Those against the war know that the more people see Iraq as “another Viet Nam” the more they will be against the present war. So, its to their advantage to play this up.
In reality, Iraq could become what Viet Nam was, if we do not learn from history. This is not to say that it WILL, since its too early to say. So far, though, its very different from Viet Nam. We have won a decisive military victory, deposed the dictator, and are turning the country over for elections. These circumstances make it vastly different than the first years of Viet Nam.
But it could turn on us as well. Its a possibility. The main problem I have with some people is that they pessimistically say that it ALREADY has turned into Viet Nam, which is a defeatist attitude. The correct attitude, in my opinion, is to PREVENT it from turning into Viet Nam.
Secondly, you claimed that the economy was turning around before the tax cuts, but I don’t see that. At the time, Democrats were assailing Bush for the so-called “Bush Recession”. I’m not in favor of the big debts, and its possible that tax cuts, while spurring on the economy in the short run, will not be effective in the long run. But I don’t find it accurate to assume the economy was recovering on its own, especially in light of the blame that was directed at Bush when the economy was heading downward.
Lastly, a question for you. We know that the military did not have the proper amount of body and vehicle armor. Why was this? What I’m getting at is that this kind of circumstance doesnt happen overnight. When did the shortfall occur, and what was the reason for this? I’m guessing that it happened over a period of time, due to decreases or transfers in our military budgets. Seems to me that we always used to look at the military in terms of handling two fronts at once, yet now its being said that we can’t even handle the Iraq front, without being short of soldiers. What gives? I’d appreciate a perspective on this.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 28, 2004 01:30 PMStephen:
Upon re-reading my post, my “obvious slant” remark sounded much more like an insult than intended. Its a well written article, and highlights your viewpoints. I intended to state that there are alternate viewpoints that are also logical.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 28, 2004 01:39 PMjbod —
Thank you for mentioning the possibility that the war could end badly. I haven’t heard anyone else from the Red Team say anything close to this, and your honesty is appreciated. (I promise not to brand you as anti-American for it, either.)
I guess it’s just as frustrating for us anti-war people to hear the continued “everything is rosy” line as it is for the pro-war folks to hear “everything is terrible” all the time.
Posted by: Alejo at October 28, 2004 01:54 PMAlejo:
My crystal ball has been on the blink lately, so I don’t know what will happen next year. Judging from my stock picks over the past decade, my crystal ball has never worked. Here’s a tip though that is sure to work—-whatever I buy, you sell, and vice versa….your portfolio is sure to improve.
Seriously, it bothers me as much to hear the pessimism as it does for you to hear only optimism. I can see signs of improvement in Iraq, yet the “left” (a generalization) is unwilling to admit to them, since it works against their political hopes. Likewise for the “right” in reverse.
I am optimistic that despite the difficulty of the task in Iraq, with the right amount of will, we can make it work. There will be mistakes, miscalculations, changes in tactics, critical successes etc, just as there are in any situation.
I fear that the viewpoint has become that if its not easy, without problems, and without a quick outcome, a venture becomes branded as a failure. It’s just not that simple.
Iraq is not an easy puzzle to solve. Just like a Rubik’s Cube, every time you take one action, something else changes. Every time you reach out to Sistani, it creates a reaction from Al Sadr or someone else. The expectation that every step will be correctly made, at the correct time, in the correct fashion is simply an idealistic viewpoint. But, a resolute plan for success is in place, and I believe it is working, if given time.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 28, 2004 03:54 PMStephen,
Just as with Joe, I also appreciate someone from the other side who can provide reasoning for their position. I may not agree with that reasoning but respect it anyway.
In today’s political discourse it seems that there are so many on the left who regardless of their candidates shortcomings will vote for him blindly because of their deep rooted hatred of President Bush.
Now to get to my views on your original posting. I would like to address your lessons point by point.
Lesson 1
The resistence we are receiving in Iraq is not from average Joe Iraqi citizen. News report after news report state that much of the resistence is coming from Foreign Terrorists or Al Sadir’s extreme fundamentalists.
These terrorists attack innocent Iraqi’s lining up for job interviews or those Iraqi’s in uniform trying to work with the Coalition to bring stability to Iraq. I feel that in the long run this strategy will back fire on the terrorists.
Lesson 2
Unfortunately, all we see in the media is the “Bad News”. Jast as a thousand airplanes landing safely is not news, only the one that crashes. So, goes the coverage of Iraq.
We never see coverage of the fact that electrical service, the telephone network and sewer system are operating a levels well in excess of Sadam days. There is also very little mentioned about the number os schools and hospitals opened. Schools that are now being attended by female students.
Lesson 3
The mess that we are now in is the direct result of Bush 1 and Clinton not forcefully responding to the one sided war that was being waged on the US by the terrorists. Our feable responses to the Kobar Tower, first Trade Center bombing, Somalia, African Embassy attacks and the USS Cole only emboldened the terrorists. Continuing to ignore 12 years of nose thumbing at the UN sanctions and the word by Iraq would have only deepend the perception of the US as vulnerable.
Lesson 4
The “Bush Tax Cuts” are the reason that the economy is moving in the right direction just as the “Reagan Tax Cuts” were the reason for the previous expansion.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (official agency responsible for timing of recissions/expansions) industrial production peaked in September 2000, three months before G.W. Bush took office. In my opinion this was in large part a result of the inactment of the “Clinton Tax Increases”.
Just as the tax cuts of the early 1980’s spurred the economy (NBER expansion started July 1981) the “Bush Tax Cuts” have spurred the current economy. According to NBER data industrial production bottomed out in Jan 2002 and has been increasing slightly since.
I would agree with you that there have been mistakes made in Iraq. They are unavoidable in a situation like war. The experts can make there prediction and plans based on what they think the enemy will do. However that enemy and their actions are always a moving target. Plans must be fluid and hind sight will always reveal areas where things could have been done differently. Unfortunately hind sight is just that, something that happens after all the facts are in, not something available to immediately react upon.
I have included a link to an editorial that clearly states the issues of this election. I hope you and other thinking people on the left will take this to heart before you cast your vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_28_04_MM.html
well, kerry hasnt learned from his mistakes. as i have said before, Dean was dumped for kerry becuase the dems thought kerry would turn the nation against the war. he failed.
kerry has been negitive on our troop and the war.
bless all our troops! President Bush praises them all the time.
kerry will never learn!
Posted by: chickie at October 28, 2004 04:28 PMKirk, the story in your link implies that a vote for Kerry is a vote for pulling out of Iraq. This is not the case. Neither Bush nor Kerry are advocating withdrawal. The author must be either trying to be misleading, or extremely ill-informed.
It’s an emotional, well-written piece. Look at “The Therapeutic Choice” post below for my opinion on that.
For the rest: none of your “lessons” are based on fact. It’s an article of faith, not an assertion of fact, that the situation in Iraq is better than is sounds on the news. I can’t judge the bias of the news, but it certainly doesn’t sound like it’s getting better. It’s an article of faith that 9/11 is Clinton’s fault, and that the Bush tax cuts were effective. Faith is fine in church, but I personally like to stick to the facts in politics.
The facts are, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch; that he has not yet captured the perpetrator, bin laden; that he invaded Iraq on the basis of dubious evidence, when alternative diplomatic actions were still possible, looking for WMDs that didn’t exist; that his incorrect call on this has cost us $100B+ and 1000 dead soldiers; that his campaign has been based primarily on lying about his opponents record and character; and that economically, this is the worse presidential term since the great Depression.
I hope you and other thinking people on the right will challenge your faith, and take a look at the facts, before casting your votes.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 28, 2004 04:36 PMIntelligent and concise. Well done, Stephen.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 28, 2004 04:55 PMCheck this pic out… the locations of the top 16 colleges vs the electoral map. pretty funny and very telling. It just goes to show that the less educated or less informed are more prone to succumbing to fear mongering and spin.
William:
For someone who is openly advocating the use of facts, you certainly seem to use a lot of opinion instead. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Opinion: “that his incorrect call on this has cost us $100B+ and 1000 dead soldiers”
Fact: There is a dramatic polarity in our country over whether Bush was right or wrong to invade Iraq. To claim that his call was incorrect is simply an opinion shared by one segment of the population, and rejected by another.
Opinion: “that his campaign has been based primarily on lying about his opponents record and character”
Fact: The Bush campaign has discussed Kerry’s record in the Senate, his Viet Nam record, and his record of nuance. While both campaigns regularly take liberties with accuracy in their statements (Kerry claiming Bush will institute the draft; Bush claims about Kerry’s votes to raise taxes), it is incorrect to claim that Bush’s campaign is based on lies.
Opinion: “economically, this is the worse presidential term since the great Depression.”
Fact: Unemployment is down, housing starts are up, the economy has improved in the past 18 months, the recession of 01 was one of the shortest in history. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that Bush is the first President in 70 years to experience a net job loss during his Presidency, but if so, this does not equate to the “worst economy since the great Depression”. To attempt to claim that, one must be truly ignorant of the state of the economy now and the state of the economy then.
William, perhaps you’d like to document some actual facts for that last claim about the economy. I’d be interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. To be honest, I already know that you cannot provide facts to document that claim, but it’ll be fun to see you try.
I personally like to stick to the facts in politics.
I’d like to see you do so in the future.
That map needs some work. Both of Illinois’ top-ranked universities are in Chicago. And it was a little shady to stop at 16. Number 17 is Rice, in Texas.
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 28, 2004 05:24 PMWilliam,
Either you are trying to mislead or are ill-informed. The article linked to my post says nothing about Kerry advocating withdrawl.
As for the facts.
Fact is, the world can not judge the bias of the news when only one side is presented. Check out this link for the Department of State Weekly Iraq Status Report.
http://www.export.gov/iraq/pdf/state_wklyrpt_102704.pdf
As you will see from the report, the Iraqi economy is growing at a rate of 50% and the advances I stated earlier are indeed a fact.
On the 9-11 issue you once again need to stick to the facts. I did not say that 9-11 was Clinton’s fault. In fact, I did not mention 9-11 at all. What I did say was
“The mess that we are now in is the direct result of Bush 1 and Clinton not forcefully responding to the one sided war that was being waged on the US by the terrorists.”
It is a fact that 9-11 did happen on Bush’s watch, but you can not rationally think that in 9 months Bush created an environment that resulted in the attacks.
You mention dubious evidence, is this the same dubious evidence that led John Kerry to state that leaving Sadam Hussein in unfettered with weapons of mass destruction was irresponsible. You need to think about your stance on this dubious evidence. Clinton, Kerry, Chirac, Schroeder, Annan and the Security Council (Liberal Darlings All) stated the Sadam had WMD’s.
Bush has not needed to lie about Kerry’s character. All you need to do is have the open mindedness to look back at Kerry’s own quotes to see the contradictions. If I had been running the Bush campaign, I would have produced a fourth presidential debate with clips of John Kerry debating himself. There are ample examples where he has taken both sides of an issue.
On the economy. The fact is that Kerry has lied about Bush having a net job loss. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were an average of 133,488,000 people employed in 1999 the final year of the Clinton presidency. As of September 2004 that had grown to a seasonally adjusted 139,480,000. A net gain of 5,992,000 people. While it is true that the unemployment rate is higher than 1999 the population has also grown during the period.
I have facts to back up my assertions, and as I said I respect those on your side who have reasoned opinions even if I disagree with them. Unfortunately, I see no facts or reasoning in your post.
Posted by: Kirk at October 28, 2004 06:29 PMLOL Woody, I was wondering what the hell was wrong with UNC.
JBOD, I think he was refering to the incorrect call on WMD. I think that is fact.
I’m glad though you recognize that Iraq is at best tenuous.
I personally think neither nor Bush will turn around Iraq. I think we will eventually creep out of there and watch the ensuing mess. Another Lebanon?
The only way we are going to secure Iraq is to double or triple troop strength. That would require a draft. Both candidates are saying NO WAY.
I don’t think there is the political will, unless someone pulls a Roosevelt and encourages another US attack. I think there’s a lot of unreality on both sides.
Woody,
Yah, both are in Chicago, but whatever… the dot is still in the state, which is the important part.
Sure, stopping at 16 is odd, but you’re getting out of the 1st tier universities by then anyways. You could stop at the top 10, and you’d get the same correlation.
It’s also been proven by numerous psychological studies that deeply religious people have a lower IQ (on average). Where do these people live in the States? You bet, the Red States, which also fits the pattern in the map for university locations.
On the other hand, the same studies show that people who are deeply religious are also more self-confident. Of course, Kerry is right that you can be confident but wrong.
Posted by: DH at October 28, 2004 07:05 PMThanks, all you guys. You have been interesting for months. Really appreciate it however things turn out and what will you be doing after Nov. 2 (Dec. 2, Jan. 2???)
Posted by: international at October 28, 2004 07:06 PMWilliam,Either you are trying to mislead or are ill-informed. The article linked to my post says nothing about Kerry advocating withdrawl.
But it is clearly implied: “Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people.” How will voting for Kerry equate to “breaking the will of the American people” unless it implies that we will withdraw? The whole article is nonsense if you look at Kerry’s plan for Iraq, which according to Bush is much like Bush’s plan for Iraq.
I’ll pass on your media issue, we’ll never get anywhere arguing about that.
As for the facts.On the 9-11 issue you once again need to stick to the facts. I did not say that 9-11 was Clinton’s fault. In fact, I did not mention 9-11 at all. What I did say was
“The mess that we are now in is the direct result of Bush 1 and Clinton not forcefully responding to the one sided war that was being waged on the US by the terrorists.”
I’m sorry, then, I guess I understood. The mess in Iraq is Clinton’s fault? care to explain that one?
It is a fact that 9-11 did happen on Bush’s watch, but you can not rationally think that in 9 months Bush created an environment that resulted in the attacks.
In 1994 Clancy’s book “Clear and Present Danger” ends with a 747 crashing into the Capitol Building. In summer 2001 Bush gets a memo “Bin Laden Determined to Attack US” and Tenet, his direct appointee, gets one titles “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly”. On 9/11/2001 3000 people are killed when three planes are crashed into landmark buildings. Later in the morning, some heros on flight 93 showed that a handful of fanatics could not take over a plane and use it as a missile, if even the passengers were forewarned, even by rumours heard via cell phone.
Sorry, friend, this is not “A” work in my book.
You mention dubious evidence, is this the same dubious evidence that led John Kerry to state that leaving Sadam Hussein in unfettered with weapons of mass destruction was irresponsible. You need to think about your stance on this dubious evidence. Clinton, Kerry, Chirac, Schroeder, Annan and the Security Council (Liberal Darlings All) stated the Sadam had WMD’s.
Kerry and many others proposed action in Iraq, not ignoring it, and recognized there was a risk of WMDs that needed to be addressed. But the action Kerry wanted was further diplomacy, further inspections. Instead Bush went to war, the UN inspectors leave, and while the troops sweep into Baghdad weapons and nuclear sites are looted. Kerry proposed a much less extreme and more rational course of action, and now that we know the facts, Kerry was right and Bush was wrong.
Bush has not needed to lie about Kerry’s character. All you need to do is have the open mindedness to look back at Kerry’s own quotes to see the contradictions. If I had been running the Bush campaign, I would have produced a fourth presidential debate with clips of John Kerry debating himself. There are ample examples where he has taken both sides of an issue.
Yes, in 30 years of public life, we all develop a little. I mean, Dubya doesn’t drive drunk anymore, does he?
The fact is, Bush’s charges that Kerry is weak on defense or has flip=flopped on Iraq are completely misleading. I’ve challenged folks over and over again, find me a single non-partisan site that agrees that Kerry has changed his mind on Gulf II, and no-one has done so.
On the economy. The fact is that Kerry has lied about Bush having a net job loss. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were an average of 133,488,000 people employed in 1999 the final year of the Clinton presidency. As of September 2004 that had grown to a seasonally adjusted 139,480,000. A net gain of 5,992,000 people. While it is true that the unemployment rate is higher than 1999 the population has also grown during the period.
“The overall loss over jobs since January 2001 is 821,000, according to numbers released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” CNN [Oct 9]
Either you’ve got your facts wrong, or October’s gonna be a heck of month for jobs.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 28, 2004 08:26 PMdh:
You mentioned “numerous psychological studies” that indicate the intelligence and self-confidence of religious people, but you didn’t cite anything. Since those studies sound highly suspect to me, I’d be interested in seeing the studies that you are referring to, so as to assess them for myself.
Perhaps you could post a link to one of these studies. I’m assuming they should be relatively easy for you to cite, since they are so numerous.
Thanks for the help.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 28, 2004 09:42 PMJoe-
Vietnam does has political Cache, but my reasons for writing that article relate to some of the things I learned in David Halberstam’s book The Best and the Brightest, and Errol Morris’s film The Fog of War
The rules I picked out were not arbitrary. They are the fundamental analogies between Iraq and Vietnam.
Both wars are the result of extended foreign policy involvement in the region. We started paying for France’s colonial war in Indochina, long before it was our war in Vietnam. Our involvement in Iraq started with the Iran/Iraq war, intensified with the Gulf War
Both wars are in support of native groups and exiles with little actual political support among the people. In Vietnam, It was Diem and his colonialism shaped government, later the military governments of Saigon. In Iraq, it’s Chalabi and even Allawi.
Both conflicts are misfire responses to a percieved greater threat. Vietnam was a reaction to the threat of communism, though later diplomacy would reveal how divide that form of government was throughout the world Iraq, as we all know, was meant to be part of the War on Terrorism, but as events ironically proceeded, in only became such a part of that war after we got there- we gave an opportunity to the enemy. Either way, both wars stem from misunderstandings of the enemy, their strengths, and their intentions.
In both cases, the military overestimates the successfulness of a particular strategy, with the result of greater entanglement and loss of life. In Vietnam, it was the bombing. Before it ever started, studies indicated it wouldn’t work. First, Vietnam did not have the heavy industrial assets driving its war effort that would cripple said effort should they be destroyed. Second, every escalation of the Air war be would responded to by an escalation of the ground forces being sent down into South Vietnam, which would require us to do what we really never wanted to do put hundreds of thousands of troops down in the country Here, of course, a major difference does arise between Iraq and Vietnam, but the problem is the same: an inappropriate or ineffective deployment of troops against the advice of experienced experts on the issue.. In Iraq, the problem is we just didn’t have the troops to sit on the country. What Bush calls a catastrophic success, the rest of the world calls not going into Iraq with enough troops to follow up a successful invasion with a successful occupation.
In both cases, you have a micromanager on the civilian side who is more interested in his own theories of how to fight the war than the practicalities of such thing. Worse, you have aides and deputies who have a vested interest in certain policies and certain conclusions, who get in the way of the ability of that Secretary to deal with the facts.
In both cases, you have a strategy for dealing with the press that involves questioning the loyalty or breadth of perspective of people who ask tough question or print tough stories on the war. There’s a darkly funny anecdote about
a pair of conversations that Daniel Ellsberg (the guy would go on to leak the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times) had with notoriously optimistic administration figure named Rostow.
He goes in to talk to Rostow, and Rostow says something like “I’ve got great news! The Vietcong are on the verge of collapse. Won’t even be months! it’ll be just a matter of weeks!”
Well, Ellsberg heads off to Vietnam, and experiences the grim reality of the war. It’s part of the the ugliness that will motivate him to leak the documents that will eventually bring down a president. He comes back-
He goes in to talk to Rostow, and Rostow says something like “I’ve got great news! The Vietcong are on the verge of collapse. Won’t even be months! it’ll be just a matter of weeks!”
Of course, this time Ellsberg has to talk him down. Rostow, by the way, was the main link between the administration and Saigon, if I’m not mistaken. He was a major player. The Johnson Adminstration’s conduct of the war was rife with this kind of isolation between different parts, and it didn’t exactly go away as the war went on past his term. The effect was to have information about the failure of policies and strategies filter in slowly or not at all to the president, much less the American people. In short, the isolation that justified the war was part of what lost it.
Iraq, unfortunately, appears to be headed in just that direction. What a president does and does not want to hear is not the same as what he needs and does not need to know at any point. A president can be quite an influence on his staff, on the organizations that feed him that information. The response of the administration to leaked photos and negative information has been to censor that information before it can get to the press. That’s Vietnam style behavior.
And of course, the financial aspect, the wish to have our economic cake and eat it too. I imagine for the Johnson administration, it was a matter of preserving the Great Society, and I suppose hiding the true extent of our investment in the war. I suppose the Bush Administration is more upfront about that part of its motivation. But the problem still remains. We have borrowed gigantic sums of money to finance everything Bush wants to finance.
In a few years, taxpayers will have to pay the bill. The debt will come due, and when it does, it will suck the money out of our economy, and most significantly, out of our budget. It’s like credit cards, really, and the fashion that it works is much the same. When you use the credit card, you get something for nothing. But the bill comes due one day, and does so with interest. We pay a premium for paying for our debts in this fashion. Bush hasn’t saved the taxpayers money, he’s cost us more. Perhaps he hopes we will simply spend less. Perhaps he hopes we will enjoy growth in the economy sufficient to take the hint. But neither is assured, and should we continue to spend and should the economy crater at the wrong time, Bush’s economic legacy could mirror Johnson’s. Inflation, high interest rates, stagnation. Taxes are part of a system, not a value in themselves, and Bush has forgotten that to our nation’s economic and fiscal peril.
Altogether, the common thread between these two administrations are the wheeler-dealer Texans, caught in wars they entered for political reasons, wars that have entangled them in political situations full of no-win situations they were unprepared to deal with.
As for the Armor, the fact is, Bush could have easily taken care of that. The bill would have been a few hundred million, according to the figures I’ve had a look at. This didn’t need to be a problem, had they considered the very real possibility, considering our plans to occupy Iraq, of facing a rebellion against our authority and the authority of the government we would build for Iraq.
I think people are willing to give this war so much of the benefit of the doubt. It was months of violence before the majority of Americans turned against the war. People have been very patient with this war, but for that patience, we demand some visible progress against the enemy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2004 11:00 PMWilliam,
The will of the American people is being broken and that is why many are considering voting for Kerry.
Since you want to tkae a pass on the issue that you can in no way spin, I will take that as an “uncle” on your part.
I believe that I included Bush 1 along with Clinton as the ones who need to shoulder the burden of the situation we are in regarding the terrorist. Neither of these presidents had the fortitude to respond to the terrorist attacks with more than a few cruise missles. Just as with your kids, if you make the threats but don’t follow through with the punishment the behavior only worsens. The terrorists had no reason to expect any real retaliation from the US based on past experience.
In 1994 Clancy’s book “Clear and Present Danger” ends with a 747 crashing into the Capitol Building. In summer 2001 Bush gets a memo “Bin Laden Determined to Attack US” and Tenet, his direct appointee, gets one titles “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly”. On 9/11/2001 3000 people are killed when three planes are crashed into landmark buildings. Later in the morning, some heros on flight 93 showed that a handful of fanatics could not take over a plane and use it as a missile, if even the passengers were forewarned, even by rumours heard via cell phone.
OK, let me get this one straight. Bush receives a memo a few months before the 9-11 attacks that Osama is determined to attack the US. Bush knowing that Osama is a huge Clancy fan, is supposed to put two and two together. We then alert all airline passengers to be on the look out for any terrorists reading Clancy novels. Oh and by the way, everyone keep your cell phones on during the flight in case we need to alert you to a pending hijacking.
Talk about not “A” work, you have been watching too much Michael Moore.
We had tried 12 years of Diplomacy, Inspections and Sanctions. Hussein continued to thumb his nose at something like 17 Security Council Resolutions not to mention violating the Cease Fire Agreement he signed following the Gulf War.
According to Defense Department records Iraq fired on US and British aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zones 406 times in 2002. I guess we were to consider this live fire training and give Sadam a pass.
The fact is, Bush’s charges that Kerry is weak on defense or has flip=flopped on Iraq are completely misleading.
Try this Kerry quote from the first Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate, before he realized that Howard Dean was gaining traction as the “Anti-War” candidate.
I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him. (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)
I do not know where CNN got their figures but the two links below come directly from the BLS. If you read the tables you will see that the total number employed has indeed increased by nearly 6 million since 1999.
For 1999 Average
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
For the September 2004 numbers
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea3.txt
Posted by: Kirk at October 29, 2004 12:29 AM
DH
It’s also been proven by numerous psychological studies that deeply religious people have a lower IQ (on average). Where do these people live in the States? You bet, the Red States, which also fits the pattern in the map for university locations.
I don’t know you from Adam but, I do know that a statement like this is below you.
I will take an average IQ and a throne in Heaven over an Intelegencia Hell any day.
Posted by: Kirk at October 29, 2004 12:45 AMjoebagodonuts,
I know of these studies from a section of a textbook that I used for 3rd year Psychology. If you want to learn more about it, try a google search. You’ll probably find something there.
One specific case I remember was a SAT breakdown not commonly published which show that southern and rural persons score lower than urban and northern within races, liberal christians and the non-religious score higher than fundamentalist christians.
Posted by: DH at October 29, 2004 01:01 AMThe truth is, that nobody knows how Iraq is going to turn out. It’s a huge gamble.
but as for some facts, here we go:
The UN had a parts procurement list for the Iraqi power system, a full request list of parts needed to repair the electrical grid. They recieved this list in 1999, 2000, 2001… This list was available before we entered Iraq. If you read the UN report, you’ll see that they stated that the electrical grid was underfunded and at the point of collapse. Major infrastructure repair projects had been vetoed (by the U.S.). The individual parts were denied under the auspices of dual-use. The majority of these parts have still not been delivered today.
When we invaded, the grid went down, officials expressed surprise that the condition of the grid was so poor.
Baghdad used to recieve 24 hour power, today, it is recieving 16 hours of power. Coalition claims that this is because they are “fairly” distributing the electricity. The truth is, local Iraqis are downing electrical lines that lead back to the capital, b/c they know that Baghdad has always recieved a larger share of the electrical pie, and they’re not going to take it anymore. In addition, other individuals are downing the lines, to steal the metal. Looting remains a pervasive problem across the board.
Major power projects remain sidelined in Baghdad, because they can’t get contractors to come in. You can look on the internet right now and find requests for experts in Siemens Generators to go to Iraq. That particular project was supposed to be finished 5 months ago. It hasn’t started yet, because they don’t have the engineers on hand.
It is estimated that there is 650,000 to a million TONS of munitions lying around in Iraq. We have a small department dedicated to rounding up these munitions and destroying them, but at the current rate, it will take 18 YEARS to get rid of all of them. This is old, old news from 2003. Munition dumps remain unguarded within a few miles of American bases, that’s how prevelant the problem is.
The Marsh Arabs, brutally repressed by Saddam, and now extremely impoverished, continually engage in widespread banditry. They continue to steal cars at gunpoint within site of American checkpoints, without impunity.
The Kurdish areas remain in extroadinarily good shape (like they were in 1999), although tensions are escalating in Kirkuk. The desire to declare independence is on the rise, creating an escalation of tension with neighboring Turkey.
The “intellectual elite” of Iraq, the doctors, lawyers, and professors continue to be deliberately targeted by kidnapping groups. Finding professors to teach at Baghdad University is becoming an increasing problem.
School attendance is still down, because parents fear for the safety of their children.
Imagine you were living in the Mississippi Delta, and then it became Compton, California. That’s what we have going on. You’ve got organized crime, nationalists, terrorists, and looters all running around. The most dangerous are the looters and the organized crime group. They’re finding every way they can to make an extra buck.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the police we’re training are also immediately becoming part of the problem. They routinely accept bribes from organized crime, and U.S. soldiers continually complain about their “risk averse” nature.
http://rosebaghdad.blogspot.com//
You conservatives are right, we can make things better. But us liberals are right too, it’s going to take a lot of money, and it’s going to cost more lives. Were we, as Americans, prepared to take on something of this magnitude? Something which, in the short term, will most certainly make the world more dangerous (650 thousand tons of munitions in a country now being infiltrated by terrorists). In the long term, if we make real change in Iraq, the world would be a better place. We’ll see if the U.S. has the endurance for this in an economy that remains shaky.
Saddam was evil and horrible. But it seems clear, at this point, that he was contained by our previous efforts. We didn’t get foreign backing because foreign citizens didn’t want their governments to go to war. Why? Because Iraq didn’t feel that dangerous to them. We can hate Chirac all we like, but the truth is, the French people rule the French government, and they didn’t want to go to war. And actually, the British people didn’t really want to either.
The other truth is, that Chirac used this feeling to try to drive a wedge in the EU, so that France came out on top and Britian was marginalized. This has worked out pretty well for France. And in fact, Britian’s standing in the EU has suffered a severe blow.
Meanwhile, back at home, Kerry and Bush are arguing over the dates that the Al Qaqaa munitions went missing, and not a single reporter has asked the question “Of the 500 sites that the CIA said to secure, how many were secured, and how many were looted?” We know two have been stripped: Al Qaqaa and Tuwaitha. What about the other 498?
What is wrong with these stupid reporters?
So, hey watchblog people. Does anyone here know how many of the 500 sites were secured, and how many were looted? Anyone?
Julia
Posted by: Julia at October 29, 2004 03:53 AMJulia, I don’t know about the other 498, but, I suspect they went the way of the 100’s of prison abuses reported by Int. Red Cross from Afghanistan to Iraq. Expose one or two of the abuses, decry the whole incident as the fault of a few bad apples, put on a show of punishing some sacrificial wolves, and the whole thing goes away.
That would by my guess of Whitehouse strategy. They wouldn’t want the news of munitions lost to our enemies breaking 48 hours before the election, now would they?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2004 04:32 AMA scientific study reported in the medical journal The Lancet concludes that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives since Iraq was invaded in March 2003. More than half those killed were women and children, and air strikes by the coalition forces were the main cause of the deaths. Why did it take so long for the human cost of this war to become known? How can it be acceptable for the coalition forces not to bother counting civilian deaths? Which of the arguments put forward for invading Iraq can justify what we have done?
Posted by: Joan at October 29, 2004 05:33 AMDH:
I know of these studies from a section of a textbook that I used for 3rd year Psychology. If you want to learn more about it, try a google search. You’ll probably find something there.
I’d hoped for something more substantial than the tired old “you do my homework for me” version of things. Its really more incumbent on the person stating a “fact” to prove that “fact” rather than to simply rely on others to disprove it.
I think most of the Watchblog people understand that when tossing out a piece of information that is remarkably contentious, one should plan on citing where they pull the information from. I doubt that suggesting it came from “some book I once skimmed” really counts as a citation.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 29, 2004 08:01 AMKirk,
“The will of the American people is being broken and that is why many are considering voting for Kerry.” needs a lot more explanation. I don’t see any connection at all between the two parts.
“Since you want to tkae a pass on the issue that you can in no way spin, I will take that as an “uncle” on your part.” - no, I don’t agree. But by definition there are no facts that either of can bring out to evaluate the claim of media bias, since everything we know is from different media sources - unless you’ve, say, been to Iraq? I haven’t.
“OK, let me get this one straight. Bush knowing that Osama is a huge Clancy fan, …”
You’re not taking this seriously. The point is, it was preventable, and wasn’t prevented, and it happened on Bush’s watch. Blaming the previous administration doesn’t cut no ice for me.
“We had tried 12 years of Diplomacy, Inspections and Sanctions….”
On al quada? Huh
“Try this Kerry quote from the first Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate,…”
Try looking at all the quotes in context, or reading an impartial story from someone who has, Kirk.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 29, 2004 09:31 AMjoebagodonuts,
Whatever man… the fact is that it’s a fact. If you’re too lazy to go learn more about it, that’s fine by me. I’m not your professor, and even my professor did not go out and do all the homework for me. You’re the one who was interested but I’m sorry, but I’m not going to go to the library and find the authors for you. Nor am I going to try to spend 20 minutes trying to go through google to look for scientific pdf papers.
Posted by: DH at October 29, 2004 09:34 AMDH:
Facts ARE facts, but they also stand the test of proof. You claimed there are “numerous psychological studies”, yet you’ve been either unwilling or unable to provide even one as verification. Perhaps your professor accepted your unsubstantiated comments. If so, shame on him/her.
If that’s the caliber of your contribution, then your contribution isnt worth much. Thanks for the time.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 29, 2004 01:20 PMjoebagodonuts,
Facts stand the test of proof? huh??
Do you mean that facts can be proven?
If so, yes, what I said has been proven. And I told you that if you want to learn more, you can go out and find it. I’ve already enlightened you by letting you know of this fact. If you still aren’t convinced and want to be more sure, look for the papers. But maybe you think those papers are fake too. If so, go do first-hand research yourself.
The earth is round. It known to me. If you don’t know this, I suggest you read up on it, but I’m not going to go lead you with a leash and show you why. Put some effort in yourself or you’re not going to get very far in life.
>Perhaps your professor accepted your unsubstantiated comments.
Ughh… I don’t know how it works professors in your area, but here, professors teach the students, not the other way around. He’s (and the textbooks) are ones who taught me this.
Wow.
Posted by: DH at October 29, 2004 03:02 PMjoebagodonuts,
Facts stand the test of proof? huh??
Do you mean that facts can be proven?
If so, yes, what I said has been proven. And I told you that if you want to learn more, you can go out and find it. I’ve already enlightened you by letting you know of this fact. If you still aren’t convinced and want to be more sure, look for the papers. But maybe you think those papers are fake too. If so, go do first-hand research yourself.
The earth is round. It known to me. If you don’t know this, I suggest you read up on it, but I’m not going to go lead you with a leash and show you why. Put some effort in yourself or you’re not going to get very far in life.
>Perhaps your professor accepted your unsubstantiated comments.
Ughh… I don’t know how it works with professors in your area, but here, professors teach the students, not the other way around. He’s (and the textbooks) are ones who taught me this.
Wow.
Posted by: DH at October 29, 2004 03:02 PMWilliam,
We most certainly address the media bias by answering three simple questions.
1. How many positive stories are there concerning Iraq compared to the negative stories?
2. Do you truely believe that the very small number of positive stories reported represent the sum total of the good works being done in Iraq?
3. How do you explain Rather running a story with documents his own hired experts told him they had serious doubt about the validity of and 60 minutes planning to hold the explosives story until 2 days before the election so that there would be no way the administration could respond?
You are correct 9-11 could have been prevented, just like the Kobar Towers, USS Cole, Embassy Bombings and World Trade Center Bombing could have been prevented. All we have to do is start using profiling and thourogh background chaecks of anyone wanting to travel within the US. In other complete errode civil liberties.
Fortunately there are enough of us here who would never stand for that happening, so we must unfortunately learn the painful lesson that in a free society sometimes terrible things happen.
Who said anything about diplomacy, inspections and sanctions of Al Quada?
The context is that Kerry felt a strong stance would generate the most votes. Turns out that Govenor YEAAAAAAHHHH Dean proved that the Anti-War stance sells better on the left. Hence Kerry’s change of heart aka flip-flop.
Posted by: Kirk at October 29, 2004 04:44 PMKirk-
Sorry, I’ve been busy, so I haven’t had a chance to get around to your comments.
Let’s go lesson by lesson first:
Lesson 1: I assume you have sources to back you up, right, sources that paint a broad, rather than incidental picture of things, correct? You know, it’s always easy to say that the average Iraqi is not involved in this. The New York Times (NYTarticle posted on veterans for common sense) reports that of the eight or twelve thousand hardcore jihadists, only about a thousand are actually from somewhere else.
The reality is, the resistance we face here is much more complex than that of Vietnam. It’s a hodgepodged of different interests and different enemies. If we had a smart man in the white house we could peel apart many of these groups, turn one against the other, use the disorganized nature of the insurgency against it. We can also find ways to cut off their funding, something Kerry can claim some experience in, having taken down BCCI, the Pakistani bank that bankrolled terrorists, drug-dealers and tyrants alike. One thing for sure: a great deal of the funding is coming from Saudis.
Iraqis are among the people doing this. Define average as you wish, it still doesn’t changed the fact that our stock among the Iraqis is pretty low at this point, and we have done little to bring the Sunni minority back into line.
Lesson one should be that you can run, but you can’t hide from the fact that parts of the country violently reject our presence, and it’s not just our friendly neighborhood jihadists or Zarqawi terrorists.
Lesson 2: Problem is, what we see on television is just the beginning of what’s going on there. One hundred attacks a day, most of which we never hear about, most criminal in nature, but a good fifth aimed at our soldiers. Consider this: Since March of this year, the American body count has not dropped below fifty, and our wounded per month has not dropped below 500 since April. These aren’t signs of imminent defeat, but they are signs of a sustained movement, one which is proving rather effective against a nation which hasn’t been this bloodied since Vietnam. If we stay the present course, and continue to try and seek a purely military solution to the problem, we are going to be there a long time with a great number of casualties. While it is true that what bleeds leads on television, The stories they’re telling have to be based on something, and for the past year, they’ve been based on the fact that we, the United States, with the Greatest military in the world have lost several major cities in Iraq. Would you prefer our country stick it’s head in the sand and not observe that this supposedly desperate insurgency has been successful?
Lesson two should be image isn’t everything. Events that could potentially lead to civil war are more important, and more relevant to us than a reconstruction effort that aren’t doing much better than our war effort. Complaining about a lack of press coverage about school openings is missing the forest for the trees.
Lesson 3: Khobar towers- we rolled up the Iranian intelligence assets in the middle east. The Iranians, fearing a full scale war with the Americans have not repeated the mistake
WTC bombing- We caught most of the people behind them and threw away the key. We didn’t even have any idea that the terrorist network extended beyond Brooklyn, so that was doing pretty good.
Somalia- The only response that would have Sufficed to convince Osama Bin Laden that we weren’t going to be pushed around would be to level Mogadishu to the ground. Sounds good until you realize that this was all supposed to be a Humanitarian mission.
East African Embassies- Cruise Missiles out the wazoo, raining down on Osama Bin Laden’s camps. The Republicans claimed it was all to distract from a certain buxom beauty’s charms.
USS Cole- The Ball was in Bush’s court when the results came back Bin Laden. Bush’s action-packed, resolve-filled decision? Do nothing.
As for vulnerability, you are neglecting questions of real vulnerability that comes from the way our army is stuck in Iraq. Better for them to think us vulnerable than know us and engages us as such.
Lesson Three should be that criticisms of such policies should be seen in terms of the political environment and attitudes of the day, not lacquered over with the Post 9/11 Bush 43 blame-game. The political landscape of the 90s did not encourage military invasions of other countries in regards to something that many people considered a price of doing global business, especially the Republican party.
Lesson 4: If I didn’t know any better, I would thing you were reading of a list of talking points. You know it’s funny but between 1993’s rise in taxes, and 2000’s economic down turn, our economy experience some of the greatest expansion in its history. Meanwhile, under Bush’s massive tax cuts, our economy is slogging throught what might be the final year of a jobless recovery.
Lesson Four should really be “Economics is non-linear”. Just because you give people back their money, doesn’t mean you’re improving the economy.
Hindsight, fog-of-war- don’t think I haven’t had these thrown my way before. It’s all another way of saying it can’t be Bush’s fault, that nothing can be.
The will of the American people is being broken and that is why many are considering voting for Kerry.
And you call us pessimists. Listen, fella, I believe we have more than enough will to go around. We’re just not going to waste that will to re-elect a president who’s screwed up as many things as he has.
William is right about the author, wrong about the book. The author is Tom Clancy, but the Book is Debt of Honor. The book does indeed end with an airliner crash into the Capitol Building, but the scenario is of a defeated Japanese leader doing that.
But all that aside, the Bush team was told by Clinton and his people that Terrorism was a big threat. Did he respond by maintaining Clinton’s focus on counterterrorism? No. He had more important things to do, like field a missile defense system that has no hope of actually hitting one, and defending us from rogue nations by not talking to them.
Consider something else, too: Your president says that it’s obvious now that Saddam wanted to reconstitute his WMD production regimes. Okay, so what happens when we go there and actually look for said weapons capability? We find none. If the Sanctions were intended to keep WMDs out of Saddam’s hands, they succeeded brilliantly
As for firing missiles at us, you should consider that not one of them actually hit them. Think intimidation tactics. Missile goes up, pilot sees missile go by him, instant message from the Iraqi- Hi, we know you’re there, Americans. You’re technically violating our airspace, so we’re technically going to fire at you to technically defend our sovereignty. Our own Patriot missiles killed more of our pilots than Saddam did.
On the subject of Kerry’s May 4, 2003 speech, I would venture to say that he had the same faith in the Bush administration’s findings that the rest of us did. misplaced faith, ultimately. Bush should have told Americans the truth. He knew the evidence didn’t add up. At least he should have known. He should have had his people unafraid to come up to him and speak the unpopular truths. Unfortunately that wasn’t the kind of presidency Bush created.
On Bias:
Point 1: The problem with measuring bias this way is that you don’t know what drives the imbalance. You run into this problem of whether what you have is an over emphasized story, or important news given it’s due attention. One consideration you have to keep in mind is that many in the media feel they got burned because they did their uncritical coverage, only to be excoriated when evidence came out about the weakness of the original case.
It’s the classic result of keeping things from people: greater scrutiny is applied.
Point 2: The news networks are not going to report the same damn thing over and over again to please the Republicans who want P.R. boosts from Iraq instead of the disaster they’ve seen so far.
Point 3: On the explosives issue, I would ask you who did the witholding- The news networks or the Administration. Keep in mind that this administration sat on this for months. This could have been let out sometime in September if people had really been of a mind not to hide information from the IAEA, who just learned of the looting.
On the Rather issue, I think they never asked about the rest of the document, assuming the signature check was enough. I think it was rushed, plain and simple. What’s not so plain and simple is the content of the document, because the woman who confirmed its falsity, the Commanding officer’s secretary, also confirms that content.
On the issue of bias in general, I think you should understand one thing: the world is not arranged for the convenience of any candidates electability. By demanding that the news media not do stories inconvenient or damaging to your candidate, you are actually encouraging a bias, not neutralizing it. Fact is, this is a democracy, and candidates always make mistakes. The question is whether these mistakes are salient to questions of competence, questions of honesty, questions of loyalty to the public interest. If these questions are not posed, the system will break down. We don’t need our president in a bubble, protected from all the consequences of his actions. We don’t need a media gullibly accepting every excuse and rationalization.
Kerry made it very clear under what conditions Bush would be allowed to go to war. He made that clear a year before Dean was even on the map, politically speaking. Bush, on the other hand has jumped from story to story about why we went in as political convenience dictated.
I mean, just sit down and think about it for a moment: The Democrats signed on for a war they thought would contribute to our offensive against al-Qaida, that had a mad dictator bristling with weapons to be disarmed of. We had the presidents word on that.
Then we show up for it, and we don’t find what we were told was going to be there. Worse, we find out that the supposedly damning, decisive intelligence is a patchwork of half-truths, exaggerations and even outright lies that the administration knew was problematic.
And to make it worse, our military is lead so incompetently into battle by Bush and Rumsfeld, that within months of our arrival, we were fighting a full-blown insurgency in a nation that was supposedly under our control.
What you have isn’t an anti-war stance as an anti- Bush stance. We are sick of his bungled leadership and will be very glad to see him go this next Tuesday.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2004 06:37 PMStephen,
Lesson 1
My backup is news reports from network news sources.
I did not say that Iraqi’s were not inovlved in the murderous terrorist acts. In fact I mention Al Sadar and his militia. You mention 8,000 or 12,000 hard core jihadists, in a country of 23 million that is 0.035%. So, no I would not say that they are your average Iraqi citizen.
Lesson 2
Not this bloodied since Viet Nam? I seem to remember 3,000 of our fellow Americans murdered on 9-11. And before you throw up the no connection argument, Sadam was a supporter of terrorism. There was a trainig camp in norther Iraq for an Al Qaida linked organization. In addition Husein gave cash payments to falilies of homicide bombers.
There is much more than a military operation ongoing in Iraq. There is a provisional government in place with elections planned in January. Iraqi defense forces are being trained to take over policing and defense of their own country. Infrastructure, Hospitals and Schools are being rebuilt. The Iraqi Economy is on a nearly 50% growth rate for the year.
Lesson 3
Weakness breeds vulnerability.
Our responses to the attacks against us were weak. Regardless of the political climate or popular opinion. Being a leader is not always doing what is popular. We did not have leaders in place during these attacks so our response was feable. As long as you let a bully pick on you with no retaliation his attacks will continue.
George Bush stood up and said WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE. IF YOU STICK YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR HOLE WE WILL CUT IT OFF.
Lesson 4
Lets look at basic economics.
The more money people have in their pockets the more they will spend.
The more they purchase the more product will have to be produced. In addition sales tax receipts increase.
The more product being produced, the more workers are required. Which increases income taxes and employment taxes.
If you want to take the time to get the true picture rather than relying on spin from the left, take a look at historical tax receipt records from the IRS. You will see that tax receipts in the years following the Regan tax cuts increased. Not to mention the fact that the great expansion that was kick started.
As for a jobless recovery, again this is a great spin job from the left. If you want the truth look at the links from my previous post. To make it easier I have listed them again.
I do not know where CNN got their figures but the two links below come directly from the BLS. If you read the tables you will see that the total number employed has indeed increased by nearly 6 million since 1999.For 1999 Average
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txtFor the September 2004 numbers
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea3.txt
Terrorism and Osama were such a big threat that Clinton stated “I tried to get the Saudis to take him” when he was offered to us on a silver platter.
And I do not know about you, but I think that if someone is shooting at me I am not going to care much if he is a piss poor shot. I am going to shoot back. The No Fly Zones were covered under UN Security Council Resolutions. We were not violating Iraqi airspace. Based on the resolutions we had every right to be there.
If Bush should have known the intelligence was flawed, so should John Kerry. Kerry received the same briefings that Bush received. I would venture to say he stuck his finger into the Democratic wind and saw the direction the wind was blowing.
No one is asking for PR from the media. What I am asking for is both sides of the story. If you constantly hear only one side of the story, you begin to think that is all there is.
I am not asking them to stop reporting on the insurrection. This is important information that an informed electorate needs to know. But, knowing only of the insurrection is nearly as bad as knowing nothing at all. Most of the electorate is too lazy to go get information on the other side of the story. They can’t take time away from “Fear Factor” or “The Apprentice” to become involved like you and me. So, all they know is what Dan Rather tells them on the 6 o’clock news.
John Kerry pounds on Bush for going to war when Sadam had no weapons of mass destruction. Then rants about 380 tons (just over 0.005% of what we ahve destroyed) of missing explosives. If Edwards is right and one pound will bring down an airliner, then I would say 380 tons is a major WMD.
Now we hear from the Major in charge of demolition of the weapons from Al Qaqa and he states that he destroyed more than 250 tons. Kerry rushed to judgement and went on the stump without knowing all the facts.
This war has indeed furthered our war on terrorism and to paraphrase John Kerry ‘anyone who does not think the world is safer with Sadam Husein out of power does not have the substance to be president’. We have not been attacked here since 9-11. It is hard to attack when you can’t stick your head out of your hole.
Once and for all, I would like for some one on the left to admit that we have found the most dangerous WMD in Iraq hiding in a hole in the ground. Husein is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s.
Just check out the report from the US Agency for International Development.
http://www.usaid.gov/press/speeches/2004/sp040317.html
Kirk-
Lesson One
The number of percentage points does not say whether the people composing these militias are average people. It only says whether or not, on average, people are part of a militia.
Also, it’s misleading to say that troops fielded represent the total of support for one side or another. Only 140,000 American march within Iraq’s borders, yet nearly everybody in this country, if asked whose side they were on, would pick Americans over insurgents hands down.
How many people resent the American’s presence. How many have seen relatives die? I’m not saying everybody hates us, but you’re saying everybody loves us. Even at the beginning of the war, our sympathizers said, “We thank you, but please leave us now.” I think it is positively naive to assume that most people like or love us being there.
Lesson 2
Wow, I forgot about all those people. No, Kirk, I haven’t forgotten. But they aren’t soldiers.
And that Camp, up in the hinterlands of Kurdish controlled Iraq, was not in an area where Saddam exercised much power. When you guys were alleging a terrorist threat, we had more than that in mind. To this point, no documents present any proof that Saddam had active collaboration with any element of al-Qaeda.
We have a provisional government that many Iraqis are angry with, for the continued lawlessness and terror attacks. We have an upcoming vote in which a full quarter of the country may be unable to vote, very few Iraqi defenders and police officers trained to the necessarily levels and so little reconstruction going on that they aren’t even able to spend money on it.
Lesson 3
But being a leader is also not going against the will of the people. Bush, by his actions has said two things: 9/11 has given me a license to whatever I want. And: I will hunt down the people who kill Americans, so long as my attentions span lasts. And even then, I’ll do it half-ass so he gets away.
Lesson 4
Basic economics: If people spend more than they have, they go into debt. Debt absorbs income, slows the economy down. You’re looking at the system independent of inflation, of interest rates, of employment figures, of even population growth. It’s not for nothing that we are running over four hundred billion dollars of debt a year now.
The No Fly Zones, as far as I can tell, were not UN sanctioned, but the UN didn’t exactly complain when we implemented them.
Bush did not see the same amount or kind of information that congress did. The Bush administration were given documents that said certain claims concerning Iraq were dubious or phony, and they made them anyway.
The Case Kerry was given was not the case Bush saw. Qualifiers were thrown out, internal debates within the departments of the executive branch were never aired out in public. Entire claims, upon further examination were found to be false.
Kerry is right to pound on the failure that the Al Qaqaa lapse presents for the president. First of all the tonnage you describe includes other munitions, TNT, and other kinds of bombs. Second, it was not weighed- the officer estimated it by the number of trucks used to transport it, an estimate that can be inaccurate because volume as much as weight can be a factor in what those vehicles can carry He also said the number involved could be as little as three tons.
And nowhere does he say that RDX or HMX were among the explosives destroyed.
If you were actually listening more to Kerry, you would know he’s never gone back on that. But he says it was the wrong time, and the wrong way to depose him. We never needed to sacrifice as much capability and strength to capture Saddam as we have over the past two years. If you want to talk about vulnerabilities lets talk about the fact that if Iran attacks us, we will have to engage in a draft to draw up the manpower necessary to face them off.
As for USAID, I’m not going to disagree with you that Saddam was a mass murderer, but I am going to say that USAID is one of the sources your President has censored because it was actually telling people how bad the conditions of certain parts of the country were.
As for somebody sticking their head out of the hole, I think that is exactly what Osama Bin Laden has done. He’s still here, despite all the talk that your vaunted, heroic president has let fly about how he was going to bring al-Qaeda to justice.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2004 02:23 PM
