Democrats & Liberals: Archives

This administration reminds me of that scene from “Erik the Viking”. When the island was sinking, and because that’s impossible, the inhabitants were singing “it’s not happening”, even as the water rose over their heads.

Hey, maybe the Monty Python troupe can make a new movie, “Monty Python’s We Found a Shrubbery!”

Posted by: MyPetGoat at August 27, 2005 12:04 PM

Nice Speech… You forgot one thing though…

Are we willing to pay the price of a good job? The only unknown component here are the American People themselves. We know about Iraq and its neighbors, tribes, economy, etc…. We probably know of a solution now. The question is: Do we stay with the people we run over or do we flee before the cops come?

Right now, the reality of the trouble is hitting even this White House. Gone are the Freedom Fries, Girlie Men, Bring Em On and other dimwitted macho crap common to Republican Speeches. Now Bush goes on TV and says how the irrelevant UN will handle Iran. How the incompetent IAEA will contain North Korea. Clearly, now that we are into this… THEN our Leaders start thinking.

The course is clear and simple. We cannot rely on our allies because we insulted them too many times. Our only option is flood the country with Troops to crush this Insurgency once and for all. Let us show the world that we are not 12 year old cowboys who cry to mama when the smaller kid bloodies our nose. Let us move forward and win this thing!!!

Personally, I don’t think this will happen. Liberals are too smart to enlist and Conservatives too gutless.

Oh well… we can always blame the Liberal Media for Republicans and BushCo for Democrats!!!

Posted by: Aldous at August 27, 2005 12:14 PM

IMNSHO, Bush made two major mistakes.

1) He was double-minded and tried to walk the fence between the opposing opinions of Rumsfeld and Powell which in the end guaranteed neither position would work. Half hearted diplomacy and a half-assed attempt at war are both worthless.

2) His vision sees only the America of the past with a strong well supplied and clearly focused military with a united and supportive society. Today’s America is splintered, selfish and with no cohesive moral bearing. We are not united any way you want to look at us.

That said, the porous nature of Iraq’s borders are patently clear with the unchecked flood of terrorists into the nation. There is nothing to rule out both personnel and weaponry including wmd having been relocated in sympathetic hands outside the country. (Irans’ on-off nuclear negotiations are oddly timed) Our opposition is clearly well-armed and supplied from somewhere.

We do not have trained and supplied troops available for the tasks we have set for them. If we are going to ‘win’ this thing with a stable Iraq it will require massive troop build up, retraining and re-suppy for years. And our grandchildren will have to pay for it for decades. Or we can be delusional thinking we can cut our losses by immediate withdrawal leaving not only an Iraq but Middle Easter and indeed world with righteous animus toward us.

Let this mess be on the heads of the ‘word of faith’, name-it/claim it Moral [sic] Majority bunch who replaced the mercy and temperance of Christianity with an arrogant avaricious cult of their personal vision corrupted by decades of indoctrination in the public school secular humanist tenets of survival of the fittest, situational ethics, and ‘might makes right’.

Let this mess be on the heads of those who have willingly traded integrity and honor for power and influence. Those who haughtily claim our system a ‘meritocracy’ ignoring the American precept of all men created equal. Those christians who exchange the teachings that God created man (all humans) in His image, that God gives the ability to get wealth, that to whom much is given much is required and that government is responsible to strengthen the hand of the weak— with god wants us happy and prosperous and if you aren’t you are sinful at best, antichrist at worst.)

Almighty God is not a personal magic genie lamp in the sky at our beck and call and His Kingdom is not of this world but through us is in this world for the benfit of all the world. We are not being punished by God, but our reaping the just consequences of our own willful actions.

Question is, are we going to take responsibility as a nation and work toward a more perfect union or continue to pass the buck toward continued fragmentation and an end to this national experiment of government of by and for the people?

Posted by: jo at August 27, 2005 12:29 PM

Stephen,

I felt that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. For one, it was our moral obligation to free the Iraqi people after our failure to do so in the first gulf war, (which was a major moral failure.) I also believe that it serves our self interest in the war on terror to use our might for right and attempt to help create free countries in the middle east. In fact, I think that is the only way we are going to win the war on terror.

I think that most of the criticism of this war is way overblown and fueled primarily by partisan angst. Some criticism is valid of course. But from the left it is not an effort to bring ‘accountability’ to the President, but rather is mostly a blind partisan hatred. The swelling of the Michael Moore wing of the democratic party bears this out.

I also happen to think that a vietnam style escalation is not warranted here. We are in fact doing the job that needs to be done. Albeit not as quickly as anyone would like, but there are limits to what can be done and how quickly.

Why is there is a perception that we are not doing the job? A certain percentage of the country wants to believe we are failing no matter what. Perhaps 15% - 20% (the core left). Then there’s the fact that this group is overrepresented in the news media, and News organizations like Reuters are actively slanting their coverage against the war. It is in fact possible to affect public opinion by repetition of a lie and constant slanting of even positive news, as so many liberal commenters are aware as evidenced by the frequent quoting to me of the Nazi propaganda minister Goebels. But the reenlistment rate is one of the highest that’s ever been among troops who are deployed in Iraq. This speaks to the fact that we have an all volunteer force who believe in the job they are doing and want to continue to be a part of finishing that job.

My main criticism is that we are practically made blind by the incompetent news coverage in Iraq. We cannot know what’s happening in Iraq if we watch the news.

For instance, I believe success in Iraq is more dependent on establishing rapport and gathering intelligence on the tribal clans that exist in Iraq than on body counts. There is no information that tribal social structure at all in the media. None.

How can you manage an occupation without knowing who has actual (social) power in the society? And how can the american people make informed decisions if they do not have even the rudimentary information from those who purport to be our source of info?

Posted by: esimonson at August 27, 2005 01:45 PM

Stephen:

Just a few pages short of a doctorate.

Just a few questions:

You said, “The situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and everybody knows it.”
How do you know the situation? Are you a high-level pentagon official or do you work for the president? Where do you get your information, seriously?

You go on to say, “Regardless of what I or anybody else mean to say, We’re all wrong to one extent or another. Like many Americans, I’m writing at a remove, so despite my best intentions, I’m not going to know everything I need to know.”
Do you mean, you don’t know everything you need to know about what is happening in Iraq?

You go on to say, “Who does know? We would hope those making the plans. That is the point of so much of the noise and anger coming from the Blue Column, and from elsewhere: That those who have the power to plan, and to execute those plans should do so recognizing themselves for they are: the people whose job it is to know what to do and how to do it right.”

Are you saying the pentagon & president are the only ones who know what the plan & if it is being executed?
From what I read, you say you do not know what is going on & that the president & pentagon does know. Then you go on to give advice, by saying, “And then there are things that I would suggest. More troops. tighter military control of the situation, etc, etc.”

It is the left that constantly compares Iraq to Vietnam. The protest during Vietnam was to bring the troops home & yet you & Aldous are advocating we send more troops to Iraq. This appears to be a contradiction for two reasons:
1.It is not what the left said during the Vietnam War.
2.You base your decision on information you do are not privy to, or in other words, false information.

I also might add that this is a trick by the left to get the president to involve more troops. Not only would it increase the chances of Americans being killed, it would also give the left the opportunity to accuse the president of escalating the war.

I trust the president & petagon leaders to determine how many troops are needed.

Jo:

You wrote 8 paragraphs & the last 4 dealt with Christians. The title was “STOP PLANNING, START LOOKING, START THINKING”.

Can you tell me how your opinion of Christians pertains to this title?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 02:02 PM

All this talk is worthless, pointless and ridiculous. Its like jumping off an airplane without a parachute. You do not debate or plan AFTER irrevocable action is initiated. The problem with all the planning being talked about here is that the enemy has a brain too. What you think, the Insurgents will let this happen? Heh.

The Die is cast. We no longer control the initiative. Our enemies make the decisions. We can only react.

We live in interesting times.

Posted by: Aldous at August 27, 2005 03:12 PM

Aldous,

Our enemies make the decisions. We can only react.

Perfect illustration of why the left should have no part in the counsels of war.

Posted by: esimonson at August 27, 2005 03:56 PM

—-
Perfect illustration of why the left should have no part in the counsels of war.
—-
And the right has some sort of expertise with war? We’ve fought Afg. and Iraq by the “right’s” methods, and they are failing miserably. The enemies are making the decisions and we are only reacting. It started on 9/11,and Bush has ensured that we are ‘staying the course’.

Posted by: tony at August 27, 2005 04:42 PM

Stephen:
“Unfortunately, the Iraqis are not prepared, and we cannot afford this outcome.”

Yes, but the question is, after all this time, why haven’t the Iraqi’s been prepared? Answer: Because obviously those who are in charge haven’t been placing a high priority on preparing them.

“Who does know? We would hope those making the plans.”

What plans? Does anyone see a plan? I certainly don’t and I haven’t all along. Seems to me after shock and awe, there were no plans.

“That those who have the power to plan, and to execute those plans should do so recognizing themselves for they are: the people whose job it is to know what to do and how to do it right.”

And I don’t think they do — I don’t think they’ve had the least clue about what they’ve been doing. I think in the beginning the idea was that this was going to be the Mother of all Scams. They were going to let everything go completely to hell so that their corporate contractor friends could make a lot of money rebuilding everything, and of course, they figured they’d automatically have access to all the oil. But when they ended up faced with an insurgency and guerilla warfare, they didn’t have any idea what to do . And quite obviously, they still don’t.

“Unfortunately, it doesn’t answer one of the big concerns that we’ve had from the start of this war: the failure of another Muslim country in the Middle East.”

Yes, but can WE possibly be the ones to prevent complete failure in Iraq now? I personally don’t think so.
I would however, like to know what, if anything might surrounding middle eastern countries do (especially those we have relationships with) such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. Don’t they have a stake in what might happen with destabilization and an all out civil war in Iraq? Why hasn’t Bush called upon them before now? Or has he called upon them, but met with refusal?

“lost opportunities usually create situations that aren’t reversible”

Yes, and all we are doing now is growing the insurgency out of all control while the administration continues to twiddle it’s thumbs without any new ideas, while allowing our soldiers to keep dying. This is why I believe we must leave.
If we could remove them from office and get some people in charge that actually do have a clue, I might say something else at this point, but the sad truth is, that isn’t likely. Instead, our troops, and the rest of us are stuck with these idiots running the show for a long time to come.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 27, 2005 05:11 PM

Eric-
You say Aldous’s comments are a perfect illustration of why the left should have no part in the discussion of how we go to war. That thinking, that egotism about who’s qualified to determine that is precisely why we are stuck in a guerilla war, having invaded over non-existent WMDs that Saddam had no al-Qaeda terrorists to give to anyways.

You guys had to have your war, because you were fixated on toppling this second-rate Arab Stalin who’s ass we already kicked. The Bush administration and people like you never considered anything else but your ideal outcomes.

I remember how glorious our victories were, how fast we got through. I remember how wonderful it felt to see Saddam’s statue fall. It was like his mentor’s statues falling in Russia, the Berlin wall being picked apart by those celebrating the end of Soviet domination.

If we had found the weapons, if we had uncovered the terrorists or at least Saddam’s current connection to them, you would not have a thing to worry about from the left. We would have had to bite our lips (perhaps not very hard) and accept Bush’s continued success. Bush would have been vindicated as a war president, his judgment sanctified by fact, his victories solid in their truth.

It is only because you have not been vindicated that the political turnabout has been possible at all. We could not turn back the mandate of somebody who the public thought was getting the job done. It is not blind partisan hatred that convinces people my side is right, and yours is wrong.

It is the perception, grounded in fact, that Bush has not done his job, and that his plans are not working. If we saw the violence attenuate in Iraq, that would be a sign that the corner had finally been turned, and perhaps that still will be the case. But you can’t unkill the thousands of people who have died since major combat operations were supposed to be over. You can’t undestroy the major cities we had to level after Bush left them to fester until late in the year. You can’t erase the rise of the insurgency that occured as Bush left our armies there undermanned, our troops underequipped.

You talk about troops re-enlisting. You assume that it’s because they like the strategy. Maybe it’s because they can’t watch what’s going on in Iraq, and feel comfortable sitting at home. Does that mean they love Bush, or think his strategy works? No. It can mean that for some, but for others it may simply be those they left behind there, or the feeling they’re not pulling their weight watching it on television. A darker possibility is something like Capt. Willard’s in Apocalypse Now. Those who have seen the movie know about it. Regardless, I will not assume that these soldiers all agree with me, my leaders or Bush, or between each other.

It’s funny you bring up the tribal communities. Did we do anything worthwhile in that direction before we went in? Or have we been progressively alienating tribes by killing their members before we ever got the chance to talk them into supporting us?

As for the media, stop whipping the dead horse of bias. You forget rather easily the rah-rah coverage we started with. You forget how big this was with the American public. This was the Bush Administration’s war to lose, not Saddam’s to win. If we had planned this better from the start, the radical change in direction, and all the difficulty that carries, would not have been necessary.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2005 05:13 PM

if we had uncovered the terrorists or at least Saddam’s current connection to them, you would not have a thing to worry about from the left. We would have had to bite our lips (perhaps not very hard) and accept Bush’s continued success

Not true, because we have found and even knew before of Saddam’s use of terrorists and plans to use them to attack the US before the invasion.

You just don’t accept it because they weren’t necessary al-qaeda, as if they are the only terrorist group that matters or is capable of committing terrorist acts agains the US.

And we don’t know the extent of Saddam’s ties with al-qaeda were, even to this day. To say otherwise is just to have faith in your democrat leadership. The *truth* lies somewhere between the two I imagine, that there were talks and plans between the two groups, but nothing we can pin on for sure except for Saddam’s offering of safe haven to al-qaeda before he decided on going to Afghanistan, we already know he gave safe haven to numerous others.

So if you an any intellectual honesty you’d either change the sentence I quoted or live up to it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 27, 2005 05:24 PM

Perplexed-
You don’t need top-secret clearance to read the body counts. The body counts indicate the insurgent’s ability to operate. The more people they can kill, the more attacks they can execute, the more of an enemy they are to contend with.

The American people can tell which side is operating with greater freedom, stronger initiative, and which side has been on the defensive for some time now. They don’t have to know the details to observe which way this is going.

But I must admit that my government has me at a disadvantage as far as intelligence gathering capabilities and expertise goes. Question is, are they using those advantages in a way that brings victory closer at hand.

The answer, considering our situation, is no.

Why else have we been so angry? We’re at the mercy of that damned foreign policy, and all we can do is clamor for it’s change. We cannot wait forever for this change.

I also might add that this is a trick by the left to get the president to involve more troops. Not only would it increase the chances of Americans being killed, it would also give the left the opportunity to accuse the president of escalating the war.

Damn, you’re clever. Except for the part about Democrats pushing for this for the last two years. It’s not like we would be caught by our own lies or anything.

Personally, I think we’re telling the truth. We honestly need more troops in Iraq. I think we need to be able to sit on those places that are flaring up until they’ve been well snuffed out. Of course, with our current numbers, we can’t afford to do that. We’re playing terrorist whack-a-mole instead, and that’s a damn sorry state of affairs. I know you care about the troops, but it seems you’re awful fond of believing what the folks within the beltway are telling you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2005 05:34 PM

“I would however, like to know what, if anything might surrounding middle eastern countries do (especially those we have relationships with) such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.”

Forgot to add Turkey, and Pakistan to that list.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 27, 2005 05:39 PM

Rhinehold-
It matters whether al-Qaeda, or al-Qaeda like terrorists would be involved, the way it would matter in a baseball game whether you had AAA Minor League or the New York Yankees. No other group had shown the range and effectiveness of Bin Laden’s groop.

We do know much about the extent of his relationship with al-Qaeda. But what we know is that at the time that we attacked, there was no relationship. There is no danger in an nonexistent relationship, especially when you speak of the ability to deliver WMDs. Especially when the language used to describe that relationship did not indicate flirtation, but a full-blown collaboration. Time and again, the well-informed have said that there was no relationship between al-Qaeda and Saddam. And there wasn’t.

As for intellectual honesty, I can at least say I haven’t changed from alleging active cooperation to alleging defunct ties which have no bearing on a pre-emptive strike. I can also say that I still believe this war was justified as a pre-emptive strike, and not as a preventative war, or an invasion justified on a humanitarian basis.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2005 05:43 PM

Make that justified by it’s initiators as a pre-emptive strike. Can’t be too careful with all these intellectually honest folks around. Things might get misinterpreted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2005 05:45 PM

Iraq and Vietnam

I have been trying to figure out how an insurgency of about 20,000 in a multiethnic desert country is like a civil war where we have an actual country as an enemy that could field a million man army and even has armor and an air force (that is how they won the final battles).

Or how we can compare a war where the opponents were supported and supplied by our peer competior, the Soviet Union, and the most populous country in the world next door, with an insurgency that is sponsored by no actual country? The nearest thing to a sponsor in Iraq are the Iranians, and they support the guys who may eventually fight the guys we are fighting now.

It is not to say Iraq is not serious, but I could not find anything that made it like Vietnam, but I figured there must be something and I finally managed to come up with two clear parallels.

In both Vietnam and Iraq the U.S. was involved. So parallel #1 – the U.S. And in both Vietnam and Iraq, we found an anti-war movement unenthusiastic about a U.S. victory, or at least sure it is not possible. So parallel # 2 – a defeatist anti-war movement. The difference is just in numbers. We had half a million troops in Vietnam and we took more than 1000 causalities every couple of weeks. We have about a third of that in Iraq and we take about that number of causalities a year. And war protests in the 1960s had thousands of participants (and good music). The Sheehan camp draws – what is the number? – dozens of people from across the country. I don’t think they have any new songs of peace, but they are using the old ones. Often the same olf singers are singing them.

Posted by: jack at August 27, 2005 06:15 PM

Stephen:

“The body counts indicate the insurgent’s ability to operate.”

If you are talking about an American body count, actually 1800 is not a high number for the time we have been there. Last year there were 1500 people killed in the US by hit & run drivers. What I have seen is the lack of ability for the terrorists to kill US troops, as they would like, so they kill their own men, women, & children.

I have tried to find a running count of how many of the enemy has been killed since the war started to no avail. Although, there are hundreds of reports on how many civilians or US troops have been killed or wounded. I guess we are right in believing the press has an agenda.

Anyway, I did find an article on http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11434
It was dated July 26, 2005 & said that coalition forces had killed or captured 50,000 insurgents in the previous 7 months. What does this body count indicate?

“The American people can tell which side is operating with greater freedom, stronger initiative, and which side has been on the defensive for some time now. They don’t have to know the details to observe which way this is going.”

I assume you are saying that the American troops have greater freedom because they are actively searching out & destroying the insurgents. The insurgents have no freedom to move & hide in holes as Saddam did.

“But I must admit that my government has me at a disadvantage as far as intelligence gathering capabilities and expertise goes.”

All I can say to that is thank God the left don’t have access to intelligence. They would blab it all over the Internet.

“Question is, are they using those advantages in a way that brings victory closer at hand.
The answer, considering our situation, is no.”

How can you say “no”, when you have no access to the intelligence?

“Why else have we been so angry?”

Well, it appears to me, the left has been angry since they lost the House, Senate, & Presidency. It doesn’t have anything to do with the war.

What expertise does the left have to determine how many troops are needed? Wouldn’t the commanders have a better idea of what they need? You have admitted you don’t have the intelligence, so how can you determine how many troops are needed, or are you just quoting the mantra & talking points from the left?

Jack:

I loved your last paragraph. How true.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 07:21 PM

How can anyone with a brain think that we can win a war on terrorism, or bring peace to the Middle East and Arab countries. These countries have been at war with each other for thousands of years.
I still believe our role in Iraq is nothing more than a fight for oil…and 9-11 was orchestrated to divert our attention; the ‘Watergate’ for this administration.
BRING THE TROOPS HOME AND RE-OPEN THE 9-11 INVESTIGATION.

Posted by: Lanny at August 27, 2005 08:37 PM

Stephen,

I’m not anti-war. I agreed with Bush’s reasons to go into Iraq. I have not changed my stance and I will not, no matter how often the anti-war people traipse around with the same tired arguments.

However, I too dislike the way this war is going. I think we are capable of much better. In part, I agree lack of comprehensive strategy and ability to compensate for the situation is a problem. I also agree that the anti-war sentiment is a problem.

You had me with your original post. I honestly thought we were all making some headway. Your comments went downhill from there. If change is going to be initiated the bashing back and forth has to stop. You can’t cooperate with people when you won’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

You sounded like you wanted to cooperate for effective, appropriate change. Too bad your subsequent posts proved that sentiment short-lived.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 27, 2005 09:27 PM

What can we do? Well, I’ve never demonstrated against the government in my life. It just never seemed “appropriate”…for the first time in my life - I’m joining our nation on September 24, at the White House and will proudly stand beside and fully support Mrs. Sheehan and all the rest of the country as we protest the most dispicable president this country and the nation have ever had to listen to.
PRESIDENT: Your service is needed in these dangerous times. We remain a nation at war. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 of our citizens. FOR ONCE HE WAS RIGHT AND WE KNOW WHO SHAMED THE VICTIMS OF 911.
But the ambitious man flatters himself that, in the splendid situation to which he advances, he will have so many means of commanding the respect and admiration of mankind, and will be enabled to act with such superior propriety and grace, that the lustre of his future conduct will entirely cover, or efface, the foulness of the steps by which he arrived at that elevation. In many governments the candidates for the highest stations are above the law; and, if they can attain the object of their ambition, they have no fear of being called to account for the means by which they acquired it. They often endeavour, therefore, not only by fraud and falsehood, the ordinary and vulgar arts of intrigue and cabal; but sometimes by the perpetration of the most enormous crimes, by murder and assassination, by rebellion and civil war, to supplant and destroy those who oppose or stand in the way of their greatness.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS.html

Posted by: Annie at August 27, 2005 09:40 PM

The world wont come to an end if the Sunni’s are not ready for the constitution.

WWII ended in 1945. What happened in 1948? The creation of East Germany. Truman is considered one of our greatest presidents. Although at the time his polling numbers were horrible.

I think we should work hard for democracy. However if less than democracy is achieved, it is not a total failure. Our children may live to see Democracy in the middle east!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 27, 2005 09:46 PM

Annie,

“fully support Mrs. Sheehan and all the rest of the country”

Neither Sheehan nor you support or represent “all the rest of the country.” Sorry, it ain’t happenin’.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 27, 2005 09:50 PM

I think I’ll hear a lot of voices yelling, “NO MORE LIES.”

Only 20% of the latest poll fully supports the president.
Thirty-four percent of Americans believe in UFOs. Twenty-four percent believe in witches. And in the new AP-Ipsos Poll out today, 20 percent of Americans say they “approve strongly” of the way the Bush administration is handling the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Annie at August 27, 2005 09:51 PM

Annie:

I really am perplexed. What did you just say & who was it said to.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 09:52 PM

Do you believe in UFO’s too?

LET US GET REAL.

Posted by: Annie at August 27, 2005 09:52 PM

Annie, 60% of americans polled think we shoud finish the job we started.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 09:57 PM

To Stephanie replying to her comment not even worth repeating. But talking is one thing; determining exactly how the ties to the oil industry affect domestic and foreign policy is another. How much influence does the oil industry have? Is the U.S. bombing Afghanistan in part because — as antiwar critics have claimed — the industry wants to clear a path for oil and gas pipelines? Will the Bush administration steadfastly avoid confrontation with Saudi Arabia — home of 15 of the 19 suspected hijackers — because it doesn’t want to upset ExxonMobil and the other oil companies with a deep Saudi stake? Or, even more intriguingly, could the close ties between Bush and the Saudis lead to increased U.S. pressure on Israel to create a peace settlement?
And that’s where the current makeup of the Bush administration becomes crucial — not because Bush-Cheney and company plan to invade Iraq to make it safe for ExxonMobil, (although that’s not totally beyond the bounds of possibility) but because these are the last men and women in the world to expect radical change from on questions related to energy. Their friends, finances, and worldviews are all oil-drenched.
George W.’s ties to oil don’t prove that the industry decides our every foreign policy move. But they do just about guarantee, for all practical purposes, that nothing significant will change in American energy policy. With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay.

Posted by: Annie at August 27, 2005 09:57 PM

60% ? The last AP poll said only 20% fully support the president. Where do you get your 60%

Posted by: Annie at August 27, 2005 10:00 PM

Annie:

Do you agree with everything Sheehan has said?

If ever there was a time that is no “appropriate”, it is with that the Sheehan circus.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 10:01 PM

Annie:

Did you read what I said, 60% support finishing the job.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 10:07 PM

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Approve 36% (20% fully) 58% DISAPPROVE 6% UNDECIDED

with your information - I couln’t believe anything you say. Refuse to listen to lies any more.

Sheehan circus - our troops? Their parents?
I’m not sure how a cross bearing a child’s name disrespects him?
Neither do I understand the honor in the “lies” on behalf of his country.

We stand on the same ground; divided by the force of man & not GOD.

I believe, the statement of the cross with the child’s name in the ground
Holds more reality than honor, if the real truth were known.

For as each day passes and as the sun sets across the shore -
It does however reach the understanding of young men now at war.
At this very moment, to them their purpose is “unknown”.

Unknown as to whether they will live or they will die?

…for what surrounds them at the moment; is based on many lies.

Lies for which they once believed had a greater purpose & cause…
Life for which they once held much trust …as to its resolve.

If we learn nothing else from life, may we all learn to forgive.
To allow God to be the judge and to never interfere
To not lie, deceive, hold a grudge or speak on God‘s behalf.
Man is not that wise and neither was his staff.

Better is silence and a cross on a hill. A prayer for peace and the good man’s will…

For to remove it from the ground and foul the air with a voice unable to speak; has somehow lost a greater purpose than the death for which he already suffered… I believe had it had a voice would beg…

“PLEASE JUST GIVE ME PEACE”

Posted by: Annie at August 27, 2005 10:09 PM

pollingreport.com

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 10:11 PM

Jack-
I’m curious. Why do Republican keep on treating every Democrat who wants Bush to change his strategy like a peacenick?

How many times must I tell you that I want this war won? How many times must I imply that though mistakes in this war mirror the ones made in Vietnam, I don’t think Vietnam’s outcome will be repeated, nor do I want it to. Unfortunately, so many Republicans think our support for the war is just something we engage in to infiltrate the thing and undermine it. Try reasoning with that point of view. Try cooperating with that person.

You guys say that the reason things aren’t going so well is that you’re not getting a fair shake. You’re saying that we’re losing on account of people’s doubts. The question is what this administration has done to quell people’s doubts. Nothing.

Where’s the new policy, promising a difference in events ahead? Where’s the explanation of just how it is that the average American is mistaken about their impression of the war? Where are the palpable, permanent victories that this administration can point to, and only the ideologically stubborn can deny?

Are we supposed to agree with the direction of this war, and the policies of this president in order to make them feel well enough to defeat the enemy? Are we supposed to socially promote the War President, in the hopes that with our support he’ll feel inspired to win the war?

All we want, I want, is results. I’m saying to these people, who have the intelligence capability to find out what’s really going, go out there, and find out the real situation is. I’m saying to these people switch gears from the groupthink that got us stuck in this bullshit, and start looking at the evidence that comes in, and start working out some creative, original ideas that our enemies aren’t anticipating, even if it means doing something else than what I would think would work. I don’t mind, as long as it works.

As for casualties and protests, I think I think we’re a bit early for comparisons. Take a look at the casualty numbers for the first couple years of the Vietnam War. They don’t get that high until a couple more years pass. As for the protests, that pattern, too, followed a much slower path.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2005 10:11 PM

Perplexed: PEACE & Goodnight

Posted by: Annie at August 27, 2005 10:14 PM

The reason the casualty’s climbed after a couple of years was because of the increase of troops sent to Vietnam.

I honestly think the DNC should start issuing Prozac licking blocks to some of their people.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 10:22 PM

Stephen
I read you article and mulled it over all day before I posted this response.
While additionial boots on the ground(discounting the 1500 from the 82nd already shipping out soon)may be necessary some time in the future,I think now the notion is premature.

There are mulitple steps that can/should/will be done prior to blindly sending(and I chose this word carefully) more troops in under the current situation.
Allow me please to ruminate:

1.As I indicated in earlier posts to you and Pundit ,we don’t understand the Isalmic mindset.Nationally,a paltry 6 universities currently offer Arabic Studies degrees.Tens of thousands of intercepts go untranslated as I type these words.
We can’t speak the language,we don’t understand conversationial slang,we can’t win the hearts and minds of sqaut if we are ignorant of basic principles.

Sending ill prepared troops(that is :lacking translators,intelligence and the like) is throwing gas on the fire.
Dem bill S12 allocates only $20,000,000 a Year to fix this vitally important problem…barely enough to buy paper clips.
College students are spending 3 billion dollars to fix up their dorm rooms right now….we need to spend 3 billion to get the universities to impliment Arabic language and studies,now,today,this minute.

2.We must then follow the money and grab it.As I also said previously,as the money goes,so goes the insurgency.We need to do more by a factor of 100 in this department.
Sun Tzu said that before troops are committed the outcome must be a foregone conclusion.If there is a criticism to be made on the conduct of the war ,this is it.While Treasury,Defense,Cia,FBI,Homeland Security are grabbing money by the millions,it really is the tip of the iceberg.We need to eliminate it at the source which I discuss below.
How ironic is it that as Americans spend more and more at the pump for gasoline that very money ,once it gets to the Saudis,gets funnelled into the insugency.

4.The wahabbi sect is the biggest threat to the world …bigger that North Korea or Iran.They have billions at their disposal.The North Koreans while the North Koreans eat dirt.
I feel that it is a matter of time before they secure horrific destruction somewhere in the West.
You and Pundit say “Duh……that’s old news” but really it is current news and in this situation hearts and minds cannot be won.They want to kill you me,my kids,you kids because of who we are.
The Saudi leadership will not do anything except cosmetically about the problem.
We have to do it and as soon as people realize that this core fundamental issue fuels all hate,the better off we shall be.
Much more has to be written on this topic…by you,Pundit,the other side,everybody.And you have to write about it again and again.
As I said to you in a previous post,I am an olt timer(55 years old),but as my passport can attest,I have been all over Europe confronting these people(Amsterdam,Rome,Germany,Sicily)more than 25 times since Sept 11th and have talked to many of them in a vain attempt to understand their complete and utter hatred of our ways.My conclusion is,unfortunately,that dialog is insufficient with this violent sub-set of thought and that more measures are necessary.
Rest assured that if we withdraw from Iqaq,Europe and America become the battleground.

3.Stop sending messages of encouragement to the enemy.
This angst that you and the Dems portray show weakness to the enemy.
Think they don’t know about Bush’s approval ratings this week?
If I were a terrorist leader,I’d buy a round of tea for all my troops,as all they have to do is play the waiting game and Devil America will withdraw.

I think dialog and discourse is vital to our way of life,but many members of your party(Ted Kennedy being the star of the show here)Micheal Moore,Howard Dean,John Kerry,and Al Gore all have become poster boys for “How to Lose a War Without Really Trying”.
Comparisons to Vietnam and the like send terrible messages to the troops and only serve to motivate the enemy.

4.With great respect,Stephen(and believe me,I think that your mission…advocating for the liberal point of view is vital to keep a certain balance in our politicial thought) can you close you eyes and recite the four pillars of Islam from memory in 10 seconds or less without resorting to Google?
Again ,with all due respect,if you cannot recite the most fundamental tennents of Islam(and this goes to pretty much all who read this post),then you lack the necessary cultural background to discuss the problem.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at August 27, 2005 10:24 PM

Eagle

I was brought up Catholic, but I doubt I can recite from memory the tenets of Catholicism. I doubt that most of us could explain all the tenets of our own religion or those common around us. How many Americans can recite from memory the bill or rights?

Or let’s turn it around. How many Muslims know the fundamentals of Christianity?

Unfortunately, we can never know enough and those who wait until they know enough never get anything done.

Posted by: jack at August 27, 2005 10:43 PM

I believe I understand what Sicilian Eagle is trying to say. The 4 pillars of Islam are: The Quran, Sunna, Ijma, & Qiyas. If we are not able to understand what these pillars mean to the Muslim, we cannot understand our enemy.

I did not get this off Google. I have been reading a book called “Islam Revealed”, by Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh

Perplexed.

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 11:17 PM

Stephen,
Excellent article, and comments. I always enjoy reading what you write. Thanks

Stephanie,

You had me with your original post. I honestly thought we were all making some headway. Your comments went downhill from there. If change is going to be initiated the bashing back and forth has to stop. You can’t cooperate with people when you won’t give them the benefit of the doubt.
You sounded like you wanted to cooperate for effective, appropriate change. Too bad your subsequent posts proved that sentiment short-lived.

You’re blaming Stephen for this? Let’t look at some of the other quotes, shall we?

Eric-
But from the left it is not an effort to bring ‘accountability’ to the President, but rather is mostly a blind partisan hatred. The swelling of the Michael Moore wing of the democratic party bears this out.

Perplexed
I also might add that this is a trick by the left to get the president to involve more troops. Not only would it increase the chances of Americans being killed, it would also give the left the opportunity to accuse the president of escalating the war.

All I can say to that is thank God the left don?t have access to intelligence. They would blab it all over the Internet.

Well, it appears to me, the left has been angry since they lost the House, Senate, & Presidency. It doesn?t have anything to do with the war

___________________________________

Who does it sound like is refusing to listen to who? I have never, to my recollection, seen a thread about the war in which the left’s alleged hatred for Bush was not argued as a reason to dismiss everything we say.

The argument that we just hate Bush and would like the terrorists to win, or more American soldiers to die so we can regain power is stupid, and offensive. It’s been dealt with well by Stephen already, but I’m going to chime in. Do you really think so little of your fellow Americans that you think half the country is driven by nothing but political hatred? That we care nothing about being safe, or about our soldier’s lives? Come on! Can’t you see how ridiculous that is? Isn’t it ironic that where all these “anti-american” liberals live would be the prime targets of terrorist attacks, and yet you think they are still rooting for the terrorists?

I’m sorry for the rant, but I’m sick of the argument. It doesn’t adress any of the problems that are happening, or that Stephen brought up. It’s a cheap, insulting way to distract from the facts.

Ok, I’ve calmed down now. On to the actual arguments

Perplexed,

If you are talking about an American body count, actually 1800 is not a high number for the time we have been there. Last year there were 1500 people killed in the US by hit & run drivers. What I have seen is the lack of ability for the terrorists to kill US troops, as they would like, so they kill their own men, women, & children.

This doesn’t argue against the fact that the insurgents are able to operate. There cannot be a stable government in Iraq with this kind of civillian body count going on. What it demonstrates is that our current levels of troops cannot stop the terrorist activites that are happening.

All I can say to that is thank God the left don?t have access to intelligence. They would blab it all over the Internet.

Just like Orrin Hatch blabbed about how we knew that OBL was responsible, and how we knew it, giving him a big head start on us, and partially compromising our intelligence capabilities? Or how Karl rove disclosed the name of an undercover CIA agent, compromising an undercover company that was gathering intelligence on WMDs? Yup, sure can’t trust those liberals!

Jack,
I think this conflict is different from Vietnam in that this one is much more likely to cause us significant harm if we (continue to) screw it up. Other than that, I’ll leave the parallels to those who know more than I.

Eric,
The “liberal press” is not making the constitutional negotiations fail, or causing the violent factional splits among the shiites, or the increased insurgent and terrorist activities, or the fact that Sharia law is almost inevitably going to be enshrined in the constitution. If you can explain to me how it does, or how you can explain those things away as liberal fantasy land, please go ahead.

Lots of things have been posted since I started this, so if I’ve repeated what others have said, or confused anyone, sorry

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 27, 2005 11:26 PM

We could all learn a lesson from Israel. They have been fighting these terrorist groups since 1948. They would tell us, there are no negotiations with these people & talk is perceived as weakness. The example is Israel pulling out of Gaza. It was a gesture of good faith on the part of Israel, but the Palestinian terrorists percieved it as weakness. They said it was because of their firepower, they drove Israel out & at the same time the head of the palestinian people said, we will not be satisfied until we drive them from the land. These groups don’t understand any thing but force. They will negotiate when you are carrying the biggest stick. Their allegiance is to another Muslim (maybe, if they don’t decide to kill him). They certainly don’t have to be truthful with infidels.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 11:36 PM

Brian:

I do not believe 50% of the country feels this way, I believe it is more like 15-20% of hardcore Bush haters. You read these pages as well as I do & you can see some people take every oportunity to say something hateful about the president, republicans in general, & especially Christians. Take a look at a post by Jo, 3rd from the top. He spoke 8 paragraphs & the last 4 was against Christians. It was totally out of context. Exactly, what are we supposed to think of the left? You tell me.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 11:48 PM

Perplexed,
Oh, so you weren’t arguing against Stephen when you said those things? I misunderstood by the way you referenced your remarks to “Stephen”. If you are talking about 20% of hardcore bush haters, why do you bring it up in this forum, against arguments presented in a rational, respectful manner? Do you think that the Democratic writer and I (I say bad things about Bush as often as possible, because I think he’s doing a terrible job and hurting the country) want us to fail in Iraq, and want more of our soldiers to die? If not, who are you trying to discredit? What do Michael Moore’s potential motivations have to do with Stephen’s post, or the arguments he presents? What possible purpose can there be for your statements?

About Christians,
I’m a Christian, Stephen is a Christian. I read jo’s post, and don’t think he’s bashing christians so much as saying that those who try to use Christianity to justify their political ends have corrupted their beliefs. Granted, I don’t know exactly what he meant. I get a little upset by some of the anti-Christian rhetoric by some here sometimes, too. However, that doesn’t mean that Democrats are the anti-Christ. It also has nothing to do with you thinking that what we say is just said because we hate Bush and our troops, which was my point. I’ve said this before, but I’m tired of people attacking others on what they think their motivations are, instead of their arguments.

Honestly, even if you’re totally right, and every single Democrat in America hates Bush and wants all of our soldiers to die, it doesn’t change the fact that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and that there is no plan to fix it. Maybe if those in power could get over this idea, too, they might actually listen to people with ideas and together, work something out.

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 28, 2005 12:14 AM

Perplexed-
In Vietnam, they lost about 2 1/2 times the wounded we lose in this war. So, our body count would have been upwards of 4500 at this point. That’s a comparable figure to Vietnam’s casualties by the second year of that war.

You should add into the casualty totals for this year 1734 Iraqi soldiers and policemen. From January to the end of July, We’ve had about 3400 wounded, and a total of 465 dead. I haven’t even gotten around to the thousands of civilians dead in their attacks on soft targets.

Keeping in mind this is not an entirely organized rebellion we have here, the insurgents are staging about seventy to a hundred attacks a day. We are not dealing with an enemy that is uncommitted, or necessarily unfunded.

We are dealing with a culture that does not place as high a value on individual life, which has a higher birth rate, higher unemployment, and a far less worldly view of things. They have a lot less to lose than we do. Which is why we have to take their threat seriously, and not get into this “poor, dumb wogs” syndrome of thought that has screwed up foreign policy in the Middle East for the last few centuries. These are not people of lesser intelligence or ingenunity. These are committed opponents.

We say that not to inspire fear, but to put steel in our spines, to do what we need to do.

Right now, they have the initiative most of the time. They can attack where they want, and we have to respond to keep control. You may be interested in portraying our efforts as rah-rah search and destroy, but they’re clearly starting more fights than we are finishing.

Again, I say this to be blunt, not to be discouraging. This is the challenge before us. If y’all want to operate in fairyland, don’t expect our support for your policies.

All I can say to that is thank God the left don?t have access to intelligence. They would blab it all over the Internet.

I wonder what your response would be If this had been a Valerie Plame thread… “Yeah, she had it coming! Oh no, knowingly giving out classified information to reporters is not grounds for firing somebody! Well, it wasn’t that much of a secret…”

You’re trying to claim that unless we know all the intelligence it’s hard to know whether the war’s working. Except this entire war isn’t secret, and neither is much of what we’re getting back from the soldiers. Whatever’s such a big damn secret would have to be something to justify keeping American in the dark about it. What it’s meant, I don’t know.

If you want to make this all into the irrational anger of a dispossessed party, go ahead. Frankly, I don’t envy the Republican Party at this point. The Republicans are at the point here where we Democrats were in ‘64 or ‘68.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2005 12:16 AM

Jack
“In both Vietnam and Iraq the U.S. was involved. So parallel #1 � the U.S.”

Uh, correct…

“And in both Vietnam and Iraq, we found an anti-war movement unenthusiastic about a U.S. victory, or at least sure it is not possible. So parallel # 2 � a defeatist anti-war movement.”

Who were absolutely right because the war was a mistake to begin with, and because both wars were waged in a manner that actually ensured their defeat.

My list of parallel similarities between Vietnam and Iraq is quite a bit longer than yours:

1. Both were optional wars.

2. US government used deceit and misrepresentation to take us into war, and keep us there.

3. Guerrilla Warfare.

4. Difficult terrain for our troops, while the insurgents were/are familiar with it.

5. Enemy attacking at a time and place of their choosing — generally staying away from where US troops are in high concentration, in order to avoid our far superior firepower.

6. Urban warfare with insurgents staying close and following our troops movements.

7. Enemy using civilians to shield their operations.

8. Our troops finding it difficult to distinguish between enemy and civilians.

9. Enemy willing to die for their beliefs, and one who didn’t/doesn�t play by our rules in any way, shape, or form.

10. Didn�t win the hearts or minds of the people in either war.

11. US failure to understand the culture of the people in the place where we�re fighting.

12. US military refusing to account for civilian casualties, and leaving the population with the overall impression that their lives are somehow less important than American lives, even though we supposedly came to liberate them.

13. US officials misrepresenting the enemy by writing the idea of Nationalism completely out of the script.

14. No real plan for victory in either war.

15. Vietnam: Tet Offensive exposed the administrations positive messages about the war to be lies.
Iraq: Growning insurgency (both Sunni and Shia) exposed the administrations positive messages about the war to be lies.

16. Shameful acts that left disgraced impressions of the American people.
Vietnam: Mai Lai
Iraq: Abu Ghraib

17. Large numbers of children killed or severely sickened by malnutrition, dysentery and disease, and lack of drugs/medical attention.

18. Domino Theories spouted.

19. Protesters labeled unpatriotic and unfairly blamed for low troop morale.

20. America had no idea what we were getting into.

I could actually name a few more, but twenty is a nice round number, so I think I’ll stop here.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 28, 2005 12:20 AM

Islam 101
The four Pillars of Islam
1.Salat(means to bow,bend or stretch)…ritual prayer…five times a day….sunrise..noon..afternoon…sunset…evening…facing Mecca…
2.The paying of alms or zakat(zakat is alms given as a tax to the community).This is not a voluntary thing.IT IS AN OBLIGATION
Historicially zakat was used to fund the army…..JUST as it is being used this very minute to fund the insurgency!
3.Sawm …the month long fast during Ramadam…..adopted from the jews.
4.The annual Hajj to Mecca.All Muslims must pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

If you did not know all four of these (rote),in my view you are doing everyone a diservice when you throw out opinions about the war.

Not knowing these simplistic,basic principles is an excellent example of what I was alluding too in my earlier post.
It is inconceivable to me that anyone who lacks a proper understanding of this thought can put forth principled opinins about the subject.
It’s like attempting to do a math problem without knowing how to add or subtract.

Any Muslim would laugh in my face if I asked the above question….the whole one billion of them.

By the way,I too am a Catholic,but I CAN recite the ten commandments from memory and CAN discuss any and all Christian thought with you despite the fact that I consider myself lapsed.

I am learning basics about Islam…and believe me,Islamic scholars spend just as time in study and thought as Christian scholars….only because I have to have an understanding of what it is that I am up against.

Sun Tzu:The Art of War: Know the Enemy Terrain!

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at August 28, 2005 12:28 AM

Adrienne
Poor analogy.
This one trumphs your 20:
China and Russia,both super powers,were backing the North Vietnamese.
That is not the case in Iraq.
No super powers.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at August 28, 2005 12:33 AM

Stephanie-
Am I anti-war? Not really. I’m not a pacifist, especially not where terrorists are concerned.

I’m talking about cooperation. I’m not talking about submission. I’m not talking about agreeing with all the 101st Keyboardists who fail to make the crucial distinction between the pacifists of this country and those who simply dissent from the policy. Hell, I’m not even talking about agreeing with my own party policy, or even my own.

I guess the confusion comes when you ask “Do I trust this administration?” The answer is obviously no, which runs right into:

“Do I think anybody else has the power at their hands to get this right?”.

At the moment, no. At heart, this is about why the responsibility of government is so great here, so important to me and others: Because when it comes to looking after our nation’s security, we don’t have any real alternatives. Either they get it right, and soon, or nobody will be able to do so.

This administration has been given the benefit of the doubt more than any in recent memory. This war didn’t really start to eat away at Bush’s popularity until Najaf and Fallujah turned into meat-grinders. No, the time has come for the right to give us the benefit of the doubt, to stop treating half this country as a threat to the whole. So do you want our help, as often as we’ve offered it?

Craig Holmes-
Do I really want to wait 45 years for democracy in Iraq? We took West Germany and made it an economic powerhouse, a peaceful nation among nations. Besides, the division there was a result of the extent to which the different Armies extended their advance into Germany, not the difficulties between the Catholics and the Lutherans.

Sicilian Eagle-
Dead On Points: Understanding their language, culture, spending money to develop that capacity.

Wrong:

Wahhabism being the threat. It’s not. It’s an environment for it’s development, but it’s not without it’s reasonable adherents, anymore than Christian fundamentalism is without its own.

Us sending messages of encouragement. I think the enemy takes more encouragement from the success of the insurgency than it does from our hand-wringing. The GOP’s obsession with controlling the image of this war has done more damage than the dissenter’s confirmation of the insurgent’s efforts.

As for #4?
There are five, as I understand it.
1) This profession: There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet.
2) Prayer, five times a day, facing Mecca.
3) A pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime.
4) Fasting during the Month of Ramadan.
5) Muslims must give alms to the poor and needy- charity is a religious obligation.

Perplexed-
The lesson to learn from Israel is the price of acting unilaterally in one’s defense.

As for the other things, I think Brian hit it right on the head.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2005 01:11 AM

Adrienne

A couple important things about Vietnam

The Tet offensive finished the local insurgency in the South. After that it was virtually only a war of infiltration and attack from the North.

The insurgency never defeated the South. The South was invaded and conquered by the North – as a rival sovereign state – using armor and air forces. It is not like the American Revolution driving out the British. It is like Grant taking Richmond while Sherman was conquering Georgia.

And as Eagle points out, the North was supplied and supported by the rival superpower plus the most populous country in the world that was next door.

So absent these crucial details, which are not present in Iraq by any stretch of the analogy, you would have had only an unsuccessful insurgency. So I guess I wish there was a better parallel with Vietnam, since that would mean the insurgency was doomed for sure.

But the analogy is not good for many other reasons.

I wish we would give up with this Vietnam idea. I heard people say Nicaragua or El Salvador were like Vietnam. We heard it was Vietnam in the first Gulf War. We heard Bosnia was Vietnam and that Kosovo was Vietnam. Then Afghanistan was Vietnam. Now it’s Iraq. Vietnam was a particular war. It was similar to other wars in the general sense, but the circumstances there were unique. In fact, since the end of the Cold War, I don’t think you can duplicate those conditions even if you were fighting in Vietnam (really).

But the parallel might exist if we backed out of Iraq. Think of the results of our loss of Vietnam. It was terrible. The world was unstable for the next decade. Millions of people in SE Asia were murdered by their governments. Others were hustled into reeducation camps, where the types of things that happened at Mai Lai or Abu Ghraib were daily – probably hourly occurrences. People were so desperate to escape that they set off into the open sea on small boats. While the rest of the region prospered, Vietnam languished under communist mismanagement and corruption. Vietnam was a defeat for everybody except the communist oligarchs of the North.

We were no longer there to see it and the U.S. was no longer there to blame, so the world press stopped paying attention. I hope we don’t fail the Iraqis as we did the people of SE Asia.

Posted by: jack at August 28, 2005 01:25 AM

“Adrienne
Poor analogy.”

Oh, really? Which one? Or are all twenty “poor” because when it comes to this president and his sycophantic followers it’s always a case of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”?

“This one trumphs your 20:
China and Russia,both super powers,were backing the North Vietnamese.”

Duh! I was looking at parallel similarities, while yours is a dissimilarity. Therefore, yours is not even an analogy at all.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 28, 2005 01:37 AM

Jack:
“A couple important things about Vietnam”

Jack, you don’t need to give me the history of the Vietnam War, because I’ve read all about it.
I was a little girl during the Vietnam years, and I remember a cousin who was much older than me who used to swing me around by both arms until I was dizzy and out of breath from laughing — before the war. When he returned, he could only hug me with one because the other had been blown off. He and I have remained very close and he’s told me a lot about what he saw there.
During the war, my sisters and I all wore the POW bracelets of other soldiers captured in Vietnam. I was so skinny, mine tended toward falling off until I wrapped bright blue yarn around it. That soldier never came home, and I still have that bracelet.
I know that we should never have gone to Vietnam, and the majority of the country agrees, including Robert McNamara. I also know we should never have gone to Iraq, and currently so does the majority of the people in this country.

As I’ve just shown, there are plenty of parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. My cousin agrees and so does a whole lot of other vets — including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. They should know, because they were there, so you’ll have to excuse me for taking their word for it, rather than yours.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 28, 2005 02:26 AM

is it just me, and I am a Liberal, but does every other post in the Lib-Dem blogs have to be about the war?

Posted by: Matt at August 28, 2005 02:49 AM

Why is there is a perception that we are not doing the job?

Because by every war aim put forward by the administration, we’ve already failed.

Why don’t you tell me how President Bush is going to create a free-market liberal democracy in Iraq after they create an Islamic state? How is President Bush going to do any better at eradicating al Qaeda elements training in Iraq after drawing down significant numbers of troops, if he can’t do it with the troop levels we have now?

For instance, I believe success in Iraq is more dependent on establishing rapport and gathering intelligence on the tribal clans that exist in Iraq than on body counts. There is no information that tribal social structure at all in the media. None.

Eric, are you suggesting that our intelligence services get this information from the media? You should be asking why our intelligence services don’t have this information.

I also might add that this is a trick by the left to get the president to involve more troops. Not only would it increase the chances of Americans being killed, it would also give the left the opportunity to accuse the president of escalating the war.

This is just so completely delusional. Democrats are calling for more troops so Democrats can blame sending more troops on the president? That’s just bizarre. If you guys spent more time writing your representatives and demanding answers, rather than spewing crypto-logic conspiracies online, this country would be better off.

More troops means more control, which means fewer deaths.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 28, 2005 06:39 AM

Stephen
The four pillars I alluded to were the conduct-related pillars…dwarfing these..which I neglected to mention and you correctly did.. is the concept of There is No God But God and Mohammed is his messenger…..We are in agreement.
This of course is the cornerstone of the belief.

I am heartened that you agree with my other points.
They are neither Democratic nor Republician points,rather points that should be immediately adopted by all Americans for the sake of our county now and in the future.

You’re a thinker and despite what several of your readers who post regularily think,so am I.I urge you to write more on these topics,one by one,so everyone can have an in-depth understanding of the underlying and root issues here.

Explore the philosophy of Wahabbism and you will find a straight line to Bin Laden’s beliefs and the reasons for his hatred.

When I have two seconds this week I want to point out the dangers (which we are just starting to understand) of the Iranian theocracy and its own dangers to the region.

If we do decided that action is necessary in the furure in Iran,we better look at history very carefully and be hyper-prepared for the Persian mentality we equally do not understand.

Alexander the Great (perhaps the greatest military mind in the last three thousand years) was unable to completely conquer the entire empire,and I believe it was Crassus who had a 30,000 strong Roman army annahiliated there as well as getting beheaded.

Pompeii the Great ended up getting beheaded in Egypt too…and Rome was the world’s only superpower then too.

Mithradites is the historicial figure that most resembles Bin Laden.
For three decades he drove the Romans completely nuts before finally being betrayed and killed by one of his own.

Ancient analogies are,in my opinion,much more insisive that the Vietnam comparison.

I also want to point out that several times this week you and others have agreed with several major points that I have thrown out here.

You are a liberal thinker,I am not.

If Dems and Repubs who are in positions of authority can put aside their ideologicial hatred for each other,and for once think this thing thru,this problem will and can be solved.

Iqaq has the Shia,Kurds and Sunni wrestling for control…we have the Dems and Repubs…and both counrties are getting ripped apart internally.

Perplexed
I enjoy every one of your posts

Posted by: sicilian Eagle at August 28, 2005 07:58 AM

Jack-
The book you want to read on this subject is The Best and the Brightest, an in-depth investigation of how we lost Vietnam, essentially. And before you dismiss it as a liberal book, I would point out that it is fairly scathing in it’s judgment on the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in terms of this war, plus, our good friend John McCain has introduced the edition of it that I read.

This is a different war, with a different insurgency. Things might have been easier if we tried to preserve the political leadership in Iraq, rather than decapitating it, for the reason that a preserved leadership, like Admiral Doenitz or Emperor Hirohito, can hand you the keys to the kingdom. That, or we could have had a rapid response team to come in and assert martial law as we conquered territory. What we got instead what a chaotic fracturing of Iraqi society. From that we got a rather diffused opposition rather than one with a singular center of gravity which we could exploit.

Destroying the enemies forces is not the same as annihilating them. It’s simply taking away their ability or will to fight. I pointed out the statistics and facts out in order to make the point that the insurgent’s will and ability to fight have not been severely curtailed, and therefore despite extremely heavy casualties that one cannot help but concede are out of proportion to our own, they are not anywhere near defeat.

We had this same problem in Vietnam. The same atrocious ratio between our dead and wounded and theirs, the same failure of that fact to discourage them, or successfully destroy their forces through attrition. Attrition can only be successful if you can prevent their forces from reinforcing their losses. In Vietnam, even with the southern insurgency out of commission Post-Tet, they could easily reinforce and escalate the ground war at a time of their choosing, something we couldn’t do.

Even with the ROLLING THUNDER and LINEBACKER bombing campaigns, they didn’t have enough of an industrial infrastructure, much less the need for one to fight this war, to make our superior airpower a successful deterrent or bargaining chip. This wasn’t an environment where mechanized war was a primary means of engagement. The joke around the planning tables was that bombing them to the stone age would be an improvement.

I think with the insurgents we have a similar problem: They can find plenty of willing cannon fodder to replace what we’ve used up, and our control of the country has been so spotty because of manpower shortages that it’s difficult to sit in one place and dash their hopes for harrassing us freely. Whatever we do in terms of manpower, whether it involves us, the Iraqis, or the UN, we need to get doing it now, because that, not some nominal political landmark, will put the final nail in the coffin of the insurgency. If they lack the freedom of movement, the freedom to move across the borders, the freedom to seek refuge elsewhere, then they lack the very freedoms that keep them alive as a fighting force.

That is, in my opinion, on place where we can act to destroy their ability to fight, and get some real results. The flypaper strategy only encourages them. There are millions of people in the middle east to spare, and we’ve only gotten through about 20,000 of them by somebody’s count. We will not win by killing them off, and this administration has got to realize that.

As for other comparisons to Vietnam, I have to agree that it is by and large a spurious argument. I groaned an awful lot hearing it, and really, I think those attitudes added to our problems in Iraq. Vietnam and Iraq are similar for reasons other than we are simply intervening in some country. They are similar because both wars, are half-fought wars, wars crippled in part by the political games the people in charge of them played.

We went in there with a causus belli that was more about political convenience than factual offenses. Seeing as this was a war we were starting, it was important to our morale and our political unity behind this war that we not be discredited on this account. The cause for starting a war is not unimportant for winning it.

If you go in with confusion about your motivations, you should not expect an easy or clean war. Also, go in to win, not to please people or send political messages. If you want to send a political message, send a diplomat. If you want to defeat or discourage enemy forces and forcibly take control of chunks of land, then call in the army. Anything else is a waste of good soldiers.

Sicilian Eagle-
The Austerity and archconservatism of Wahhabism is one of the foundations of this modern terrorism, but it’s only one, and does not itself constitute the enemy.

I think we should co-opt Wahhabism, rather than picture as an enemy to be destroyed. Bin Laden’s brand is not entirely religious. It is adulterated by the philosophies of folks like Qutb and the politics of modern Saudi Arabia. It is also the child of the successful terrorist movement in Algeria, and the Jihadi movement that knocked the Russians out of Afghanistan. There is a history to Bin Laden’s hateful record that shifts things away from the simple austerity of Wahhabism.

So what should we do? Separate things out carefully, start working in from the edges to get clerics and scholars weighing in against Bin Laden’s terrorism and murderous practices. Don’t validate the hatred of extreme Wahhabists by making them the foe. Isolate them from their peers, from their public support.

As for how? I don’t know. But I think that’s the tack we should take, if we don’t want an excess of blood and tears in the meantime.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2005 12:38 PM

Adrienne

Those are logical fallacies. Having been to Vietnam or even suffering a profound injury doesn’t give anyone special insight into the problems of Iraq. Chuck Hagel’s opinion counts because of his Senate experience, not his purple hearts.

My history lesson, anyway, had little to do with the fighting or suffering Americans did in Vietnam where these guys see parallels. I only point out an undisputed fact that the North conquered the South with a regular military force, which included heavy armor and air support and that the North had a million man army equipped by a rival superpower and a very powerful neighbor. People have the impression that the insurgency overthrew the U.S. Neither of these players was present by the time the South fell. Again the analogy is Grant taking Richmond, not the colonist driving out the British.

Without the support of the rival superpower, the powerful and supportive neighbor, the equipment from other communist states, the large regular army, the armor and the air support and the very existence of two parts of formerly one Vietnam, the outcome and problems would have been very different. We have none of these things in Iraq. Beside that, (and the jungle and the population differences and the geography) maybe it’s exactly the same.

Stephen

I read that book many years ago. The situation is not the same here.

I don’t think we can co-opt Wahhabism. We didn’t start off trying to destroy it. Most Americans probably thought Wahhabism was a spice used on sushi. We didn’t even know about it. But its adherents set off to destroy us. You mention Afghanistan. The Russian would have prevailed there had we not supplied the Afghan resistance with the means to negate Russian air superiority. Did our alliance with the Islamic cause in Afghanistan win us any points with the extremists. Just the opposite.

BTW – Afghanistan is a hard one for me. I believe that the Soviet defeat there was one of the things that brought down the evil empire, which was a much greater threat than today’s terrorists. But sometimes I wish the Soviets had been able to stay just a bit longer and finish off some of our more troublesome erstwhile allies.

Posted by: jack at August 28, 2005 01:32 PM

Thank you Eagle; I’m not much of a thinker. I would say I’m more of a shoot from the hip & politically incorrect guy.

To All:
There is a lot of talk about Vietnam & there is only 1 reason for the analogy to be drawn between them. Someone besides those writing on these pages started the comparison. The reason is to discourage the American people & cause a swell of ant-war sentiment to begin.

To Jack & others: you are wasting your breath trying to show that there is no comparison between the wars. Your words are falling on deaf ears. I’ve said this before, it’s all about power & the hard core liberals of the left will do or say anything to get their power back.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 28, 2005 02:52 PM

Oh, by the way, the liberal anti-war groups were protesting Iraq & comparing it to Vietnam almost before we attacked. Well anyway, they were doing it in 2002. So this was a plan from the beginning, who cares about the acomplishments or outcome.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 28, 2005 02:56 PM

Brian Poole,

“Do you really think so little of your fellow Americans that you think half the country is driven by nothing but political hatred?”

First of all, “half the country” isn’t an accurate assessment, no matter how you slice it. Second, to answer your question, no, I don’t. I do believe there are some at the head of each political party that fits that description, however. I was not accusing Stephen of that kind of mentality.

“I’m sorry for the rant, but I’m sick of the argument. It doesn’t adress any of the problems that are happening, or that Stephen brought up. It’s a cheap, insulting way to distract from the facts.”

I agree; however, Stephen started this post and I hoped, from the initial post, that he was prepared to rise above that. Instead, he lashed back.

“You guys had to have your war, because you were fixated on toppling this second-rate Arab Stalin who’s ass we already kicked. The Bush administration and people like you never considered anything else but your ideal outcomes.” (emphasis added)

This is a personal attack that can’t be backed up by facts.

If we had found the weapons, if we had uncovered the terrorists or at least Saddam’s current connection to them, you would not have a thing to worry about from the left. We would have had to bite our lips (perhaps not very hard) and accept Bush’s continued success.

What “we” is Stephen refering to here, that he can honestly speak for? This is just guessing, on both sides. It’s reasonable to expect that since the Left was attacking before 9/11 or the Iraq war happened that they would continue to attack him afterward. It is also reasonable to assume that the Left would have united with the Right behind the war effort. Either is a possibility and nobody knows which way the Left would have gone. Besides, assuming that the “Left” would have been a united front in and of itself is ridiculous (by both sides), since they are not that now.

It is not blind partisan hatred that convinces people my side is right, and yours is wrong.

Many people like me, who did need to be “convinced,” aren’t at all concerned about sides. I care about facts. The fact is that the post-war affair isn’t going nearly as well as I believe it could go. That is all I care about. Sides are irrelevant. And I know I’m not alone in this in the least.

This was the Bush Administration’s war to lose, not Saddam’s to win.

Saddam lost already. It doesn’t take much intelligence to realize that we’re fighting a new, different enemy now. This is a misrepresentation of the current situation. I assume it was intentional, if not then I cannot hold it against him. We all make mistakes.

We’re playing terrorist whack-a-mole instead, and that’s a damn sorry state of affairs.

How is this statement not supposed to insult our troops? I mean, really?

There is no danger in an nonexistent relationship, especially when you speak of the ability to deliver WMDs.

I have two words: middle man. The danger is more remote, I admit, but that doesn’t make it nonexistent.

Many, many people thought Saddam had WMDs. The inspectors couldn’t account for all of them, partially because Saddam didn’t allow them to. This was a big red flag for a lot of people, and that’s why this war had so much support. Personally, I’d still like to know what happened to those weapons that are not accounted for. I’m not entirely convinced that they are not around somewhere, perhaps Iran. But then again, maybe that’s my “Alias” paranoia talking.

I don’t have anything against Stephen. His original argument was well thought out. He raises valid concerns that I share. If he could stay away from the partisan sniping I think he’d make a lot more progress here.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 03:06 PM

Brian,

“I’ve said this before, but I’m tired of people attacking others on what they think their motivations are, instead of their arguments.”

Then you should be tired of people on “your side” attacking Bush’s motivations, instead of his arguments. It works both ways. Democrats (not all, but many) have been attacking Bush’s motivations for quite a while now. And never when I ask can they tell me how they know what Bush’s motivations were and why.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 03:11 PM

Stephen,

“At heart, this is about why the responsibility of government is so great here, so important to me and others: Because when it comes to looking after our nation’s security, we don’t have any real alternatives. Either they get it right, and soon, or nobody will be able to do so.”

I agree completely. I think it so important that I want to stop talking about it and start acting on it. On previous threads I’ve tried to make that desire into a reality with little to no support from anyone else. Rocky was just about the only one who wanted to participate, and as much as I appreciate his discourse, it is not enough.

I believe this war is going badly. I believe, even though we lack all the intelligence available to Bush & company, that if enough intelligent, caring laymen banded together, we could hammer out a more effective strategy. I believe an effective strategy is essential to our national security. I believe that if enough people like me (those who voted for Bush, but are disappointed with his lack of success) joined forces with enough people like you (those who didn’t vote for Bush, but want to see this war come to a truly successful conclusion), that we could come up with something (like a letter writing campaign) that would have enough balance, enough force, enough civility that Bush would have to listen. I believe that, because I voted for Bush, my voice might have more weight with Bush than Cindy Sheehan’s. I believe that anyone who treats Bush respectfully (if only because he is our President and does have the power to effect the necessary changes) would have a better chance of getting him to listen than Ciny Sheehan and her disrespectful entourage does.

Now, I admit that I could be completely wrong. Perhaps Bush is just an insane, irrational man that is going to flush our nation down the drain for the sake of a few billion bucks and his pride. That’s possible, but it’s only a remote possibility, IMO. I think we can effect change, but we have to unite and we have to act. Otherwise, we’re just wasting time.

I would love to start a thread with this intent in mind. However, I lack the web experience necessary to do that. In time, that might change. However, I do not believe we can wait. If you think what I’ve written has any merit, please help me. If not, I’ll move on and try elsewhere.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 03:38 PM

Stephanie,

“You guys had to have your war, because you were fixated on toppling this second-rate Arab Stalin who’s ass we already kicked. The Bush administration and people like you never considered anything else but your ideal outcomes.” (emphasis added)
This is a personal attack that can’t be backed up by facts

First, this is not an attack on assumed motivations. The desire to attack Saddam was quite real, and has been vigorously defended. If you believe it has no basis in fact, refute it. What backup plan, besides “stay the course” have perplexed or eric ever offered? What backup plan has Bush ever offered?
Second, that statement was offered after all of the quotes that I cited, which were personal attacks. I would get a little testy, too.
Third, I think it’s funny that after all of those quotes that I mentioned, you jump on one statement (a statement, by the way, that was part of the thesis of the topic, that the instigators of the war did not fully plan for the aftermath) and accuse Stephen of lowering the discourse? That is laughable, as is accusing him of partisan sniping in the context of the article he wrote.

Then you should be tired of people on “your side” attacking Bush’s motivations, instead of his arguments

Oh, we attack his arguments all the time. Its the fact that they seem to be so wrong that inspires the arguments about his motives. Once you’ve eliminated what he says his motivations are, you have to wonder what they really were. Also, he has acted in ways that make his motivations suspect. Considering that his motivations were what caused America to go to war, I think they are open for discussion. Thing like no-bid contracts for haliburton, insisting that we attack before the weapons inspectors were finished, etc, all benefit him and his contributors at the expense of America. I think his motivations are important, again, because we go to war for his motivations.

That being said, I don’t think Bush was trying to destroy america, or that he is a traitor. I don’t think anyone does. Examining conflicts of interest when verifiable conflicts are present is not a personal attack. Accusing liberals of trying to kill more soldiers so that they can get more votes is repugnant.

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 28, 2005 03:45 PM

Adrienne,

“I also know we should never have gone to Iraq, and currently so does the majority of the people in this country.”

Really? How do you figure?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 03:53 PM

Jack-
They only conquered the South with traditional military force after we were out of the way- that is, after the strategical situation they were fighting ensured that they wouldn’t lose if they tried it. Generally speaking, the South Vietnamese were less committed to keeping their country than the North was to taking it. It’s worth something to note that one of the major problems that insured our entanglement in Vietnam in large numbers was the fact that the Vietnamese army was not up to the task.

I know the final victory was conventional. But you have to ask whether that final victory would have been possible without the unconventional lead-up. My worry with you is that you’re looking at this as if only the presence of another superpower is a sufficient enough disruptive force. Other superpowers in history have found themselves thwarted by far less.

As for the logic of what Adrienne’s friend experienced, I think that real world experience is all we have to keep logic from spinning off into sophistry. It isn’t always explainable in rational way, but their is knowledge and wisdom to be had there.

I think we can and should co-opt Wahhabism, use it’s austerity against the radical extremes of terrorism. Ideas and concepts can be very fluid things if handled correctly, I know this because I know plenty of stories about that happening. Look at all the different varieties of Islam, and understand that these all came from one common ancestral sect. Faiths can be changed.

Perplexed-
Or maybe you’ll do anything to keep it! I make the comparisons I do because I believe you and those like you need a strong wake-up call. There are reasons we lost Vietnam, and those reasons are at work here. I want to put the steel in your spines to stop settling for mediocre policy and start asking more of those people you decide to reelect.

Stephanie-
It’s accurate if you’re not getting too particular about party affiliation.

The comment about the ideal outcomes was made to a person with a particular affinity for Neocon politics, so it is a fair targeting of him and those like him, who promised that this war would be a walk in the park, and not the bloodiest war we’ve had in decades. I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the Neocons and their allies set up their plans with ideal outcomes in mind. There’s a pattern of planning for certain people to openly welcome us, join our side, take our lead, react as we wish, rather than set up contingency plans for unintended consequences that logically suggest themselves.

I think it is reasonable to suppose that the left would have shown greater loyalty to the president had he both been more successful in his policies, and more respectful and bipartisan with his dealings with the rest of us. I am not suppose a united front, but rather a general trend of behavior. I think certain situations can shift public opinion, amongst and between parties, when certain public events of strong significance happen.

The Whack-A-Mole comment probably would seem apt to them, after all they’re the ones forced to chase the insurgents all over Hell’s Half acre. You take care of one threat to have another pop up elsewhere, forcing you to take care of it, leaving the old threat to pop right back up.

As for Saddam as a Middle Man, with whom? It’s one thing to speculate about such things, but speculation is not what we guage threats by. Evidence is. We look at our satellite photos, or listen to a spy account that says there’s monkey business going on here. the farther we get from real world evidence the farther we get from the right response.

With the unnaccounted-for weapons, the only thing Saddam would have to do to have a weapon unaccounted for, is to destroy without somebody to do the paperwork about it. Word is, he did an awful lot of that. It was the mistake of two administrations to consider unaccounted-for to mean hidden somewhere else. This is not Democrat speculation, but Weapons Inspectors Kay and Duelfer’s official reports. They should carry more weight, but Bush and others have succeeded in taking ambiguity and turning into this received truth that they’re in Syria or some other country. This is what Democrats are having to trudge uphill against: the concerted effort among many to believe nothing ill or uncomplementary about Bush, even if it means disregarding documentary evidence to do so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2005 04:07 PM

Stephen (and Brian),

Stephen said: “The Bush administration and people like you never considered anything else but your ideal outcomes.”

You cannot prove this statement, because you have no idea what they considered. That’s your opinion. You think, because they haven’t told you about anything else, then they haven’t considered anything else. You cannot legitimately assume that. To give the benefit of the doubt would be to say, the have considered other strategies, but they honestly believed they wouldn’t work.

You assume (as per they way you said that) something bad about someone, and then expect them to listen to you and cooperate with you. That’s just not a good way to go about this. If you want to make another ineffective jab at Bush and Neocons, then fine. That’s your choice. If you want to try to get something productive from this debate, then that isn’t going to help.

“I think it is reasonable to suppose that the left would have shown greater loyalty to the president had he both been more successful in his policies, and more respectful and bipartisan with his dealings with the rest of us.”

It’s also reasonable to suppose that Bush and the Right would have shown greater unity and respect to the Left had the Left been more respectful and bipartisan with their dealings with the President and the Right. However, neither is the case and getting stuck on “What if”s isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Both the Left and the Right have participated in partisan sniping throughout this war. The war is a mess. How can you expect partisan sniping to get us out of the mess? Sorry, but the “they started it” agrument is tiresome and childish.

I understand the whack-a-mole analogy. I just don’t think that is a respectful way to talk about our soldiers efforts. It is NOT their fault that things are going badly. I know that YOU are not saying it is, but comments like that can be construed to place blame on our brave troops. It is best to refrain from such comments.

“As for Saddam as a Middle Man, with whom?”

Obviously I needed to say more to get my point across. Saddam was not the middle man I was refering to. If Saddam sold the WMD (assuming he’d actually had them, and didn’t destroy them, which was what most people were assuming at the time) to a black market arms dealer to get some cash, or merely to get rid of the WMD so he didn’t have to destroy them, then the black market arms dealer could have sold it OBL. It’s not that complex of an idea, really. And, while it might not have been highly plausible, it is possible.

“With the unnaccounted-for weapons, the only thing Saddam would have to do to have a weapon unaccounted for, is to destroy without somebody to do the paperwork about it. Word is, he did an awful lot of that.”

That claim was made, but I would not want to trust American lives to the people making those claims.

“This is what Democrats are having to trudge uphill against…”

I don’t feel the least bit sorry for the poor misunderstood and overburdened Democrat or the poor misunderstood and overburdened Republican. Partisan politics is a very real part of the problem and both sides have participated equally.

Let me put it to you this way. Have you ever honestly said that Bush had a good idea? If you can’t say yes, and go into reasonable detail what exactly you feel he got right, then how do you expect his supporters, who generally think he’s gotten quite a few things right, to take you seriously?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 05:50 PM

Stephanie-
I can’t prove anything they thought. Their thoughts are gone like a whistle in a windstorm. But I can make reasonable assumptions about their thinking from their actions, their decisions, their written works and their statements to the press. These form the basis of Democrat criticism of the president. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are on record as having rejected the notion that more troops might be needed. The Bush administration did in fact take authority for the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq away form the State Department, who had detailed, sensible plans, and hand that to the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense, under Wolfowitz, Feith, and others made plans and set expectations which they related to the media, that Saddam’s people would rise up against him, that the Shia would supplement our forces. Bush and company are on record as saying they knew where the weapons were. Bush and Cheney are both on record as having said the threat was imminent…

Etc., Etc. There is plenty of evidence to back up the notion that these people were hoping for the best, not planning against the worst. There’s plenty of evidence that they got things exactly the way they wanted.

Being home after college, I had more than enough opportunity to hear Bush’s stump speeches again and again on the threat of Saddam, the need to disarm him, the presence of the weapons, and the implication that the world’s worst terrorists were plotting right now with the world’s worst dictator to attain the world’s worst weapons. I don’t believe much of what I hear from them now about what they intended and what they said, because I remember much of what they said before, and what they clearly meant.

I also remember the succession of right-wing legislation that got pushed on us. The PATRIOT act, NCLB, the Bush Tax Cuts, among others. The Democrats were not getting in the president’s way. Then, we had the 2002 elections, and that pretty much broke the deal for us.

Remember all those stump speeches I caught on the Newshour? I had a full summer of those things. Bush was very on message throughout that year. He used the same damn speech again and again, and trust me, it was no olive Branch to the Democrats. The vitriol against the Democrats was relentless. How do you gain unity with those who actively seek to cut you out, to exclude you? Was there ever a worst time for the GOP to attempt it’s permanent majority?

The thing isn’t that they started it, but that they refused to end it. The decades worth of propaganda about Democrats being weak on defense would not allow that.

As for the analogy that I used, I never implied that the strategy was theirs. God knows, I think the Soldiers would love to get such a job done, and have it be done for good. If anybody wants to misinterpret that, let me set them straight here: I believe such a situation is what happens when you have a light, mobile force that is expected to do the work of a heavy occupational army. As a writer, I’m all too aware of the uncertainty of language. That said, I have been pretty consistent about my beliefs, and those have never placed the blame for things on the soldier’s shoulders

On the middle-man theory, it seems unlikely to me for the following reasons:

1)The Merchandise would have to be moved, and Saddam’s known facilities were being watched.

2)These WMDs would be hot items. Would Saddam want to risk getting caught trying to sell them?

3)Could Saddam trust this middleman? Wha