Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP:

You wouldn’t have liked our constitution either. Slavery and no rights for women to vote for starters.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 30, 2005 11:44 AM

Craig Holmes-
The issue here is that you are saying we must accept what is obviously a deeply flawed and problematic constitution here, because we did the same hundreds of years ago.

Why, though, can the Iraqis not have the benefit of our experience, of our knowledge of the benefits of the separation of church and state, of Suffrage and equal rights? Why must the Iraqis suffer under years of trouble for these bad idea, rather than learn from our example.

You will recall that the slavery issue nearly destroyed our republic. Should we allow the same ticking time-bombs to remain in their constitution? Do we even have a choice here, the way our leaders have arranged things?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2005 11:58 AM

This is getting better by the minute. I question if we even fully understand our own damn religion, but we are trying to clear up the gray area concerning what they can and cannot do with theirs.

This is flawed policy from the standpoint of conceeding too much, too soon. There are clear conflicts in their constitution with declarations that, once enacted, are going to have a negative impact across the region. Everything ends with Islam.

Who’s version of Islam?

And don’t say the clerics who will most assuredly be in power because the populace there is already full of people who are denouncing them and this constitution. Left without a serious voice they will do what all people do in situations like this: revolt! One way or another they are going to fight for what they see as fairness and I think all concerned know that will lead to violence (civil war is a possibility).

We are supposed to be guiding them in this process, but I truly feel as though I (we) missed something.

Posted by: cnw at August 30, 2005 12:15 PM

I would also add to Stephen: How long did it take us to get to where we are? (150 years+) Do we have to provide military support until Iraq gets it right?

Also - how can you look at where Iraq is heading and make it jive with what Bush has promised? I don’t see democracy forming there… I see theocracy… a fundamentalist Islamic state divided up into the 3 segments that will probably follow the same path that Israel and Palestine did. If I remember correctly, when Israel was established (1950, more or less) 90% of the population in that region was Palestinian. The soon divided the country in half (90% gets 50%, 10% gets 50%.) Made people angry - they had a war and then… BAM - Palestinians were forced into settlements and the violence escalated from there.

Posted by: tony at August 30, 2005 12:17 PM

So what AP. It’s their problem. Even W has figured out over the last couple years the more you try to force our ideals - the greater the resistance.

They’ll figure things out eventually. Yes, they may kill each other and they may have some revolutions along the way. They will die for their ancestors much as ours fought and died for us.

It’s the age of the internet and the people will be aware of how the rest of the world lives.Let human nature take its course.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 30, 2005 12:36 PM

I was ignored and ridiculed several months ago when I offered my opinion that it was not possible to have a true democracy in Iraq. I would say the same of any country that by virtue of it’s religious culture and lifestyle cannot separate religious law/custom with democratic/civil law.

Worsening this situation is in Iraq you have to factor in about 5 recognized highly populated religious factions. Also geographical location must be considered.

Posted by: steve smith at August 30, 2005 12:38 PM

All good points, as there is no doubt that the new Iraqi consitution is indeed based on theocracy rather than democracy. But the Sunnis will kill it, and they’ll be back to the drawing board in the fall. In the meantime, Bush hails this as progress, because he needs to win even a modicum of public opinion for what the majority of Americans view as a failed enterprise.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 30, 2005 12:40 PM

I find it interesting that there are those who are opposed to Bush who will blame him for getting involved while also blaming him for not getting involved. Its really an interesting dance to watch.

A while ago, the consensus from these folks was that Bush should stop meddling with Iraq, and let the Iraqis decide things for themselves. Now that he is doing that with regard to their constitution, these same folks are complaining that he is not meddling enough.

So which is it? Well, that just depends. The bottom line for these folks is that if Bush zigs left, they are angered. If Bush zigs right, they are angered. If Bush doesn’t zig, he should have. If he does zig, he shouldnt have.

How about some constructive ideas from this crowd, instead of the inane finger pointing that has become tiresome.

Stephen:

Allow me to direct questions to you: How involved should the US be in creating Iraq’s constitution? If we do not like what they are creating, should we demand they change it to suit what we like? If you want us to be uninvolved, then do we simply accept what they prepare?

Im interested to see which side of the fence you take on these issues, since so many seem to want to be on both sides of the fence. Thanks in advance for your input.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 30, 2005 12:47 PM

Bushit isn’t against Islam or Muslim faith controlling a country. If they were, the Saudis wouldn’t be so chummy.

It just seems like we complain a lot about accessory crimes Bushit has committed in the name of the United States, and never hit it hard on the singular point that this war, this administration, has and always will be about money. Not freedom. Not democracy. It’s about oil and money.

Until that most basic premise is accepted, all the weight of ancillary attempts to chip chip chip away at Bushit, won’t do nearly enough good. These are symptoms, not the source problem.

Maybe it’s time to commit all that energy into a more unified message and discover the truth.

Posted by: Sunni n Shar-if at August 30, 2005 12:51 PM

Joe,

I would certainly agree that making a discussion constructive (rather than simply criticizing for the point of doing so) is an important part of any political dialogue. But when I keep reading these kinds of concerns, it causes me to wonder…why is it so upsetting for you to read some dissent? After all, dissent is the lifeblood of a democracy, of a society based on competing ideas. We should celebrate dissent, even when it takes the form of criticizing politicians we support. Calling on people to silence themselves (rather than voice their dissent or unhappiness about something) would, if followed, do far more damage it seems to me than political criticisms.

Posted by: Steve Westby at August 30, 2005 12:59 PM

Craig,

“You wouldn’t have liked our constitution either. Slavery and no rights for women to vote for starters.”

In 1776 these were not hot button issues, quite the contrary these were still excepted facts of civilization at the time. Democracy is always in flux, we moved past these issues as the country came to maturity.
We, in this country have grown up with the principals that all should participate. The framers didn’t have that luxury.

Posted by: Rocky at August 30, 2005 01:08 PM

AP,

This from This Modern World;

http://thismodernworld.com/

“I’ve seen the idea parroted on any number of conservative “news” sites and right-wing blogs over the past few weeks, and we got a strong dose of it yesterday from the Vacationer in Chief himself:

Like our own nation’s founders over two centuries ago, the Iraqis are grappling with difficult issues, such as the role of the federal government. What is important is that Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion — not at the barrel of a gun.
Leaving aside the dubious accuracy of that last sentence (which I’m sure would come as a surprise to the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigade, the Wolf Brigade, the peshmerga, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance Front, Al-Awdah, the Al-Haqq Army, and every other war band currently trying to address Iraq’s issues with the barrel of a gun) the entire premise is absurd.

The men who met in Philadelpha in the summer of 1787 were the winners of a protracted revolutionary struggle for national independence — not the leaders of a collection of squabbling ethnic and religious factions, many of whom spent years in exile and then rode back into their native land on the backs of foreign tanks. The framers of the U.S. constitution expelled an occupying army. The founders of the New Iraq are guarded by one.”

This is only a clip from the article. Use the address to read the entire article, dated August, 28th.

Posted by: Rocky at August 30, 2005 01:16 PM

BTW the article is titled, “The Philidelphia Experiment”

Posted by: Rocky at August 30, 2005 01:19 PM

—-
I find it interesting that there are those who are opposed to Bush who will blame him for getting involved while also blaming him for not getting involved. Its really an interesting dance to watch.
—-

I do not think we should’ve ever been in the business of ‘nation building.’ Iraq and Saddam had both become toothless tigers who made a lot of noise but had no bite. People like to say that “everyone agreed before hand that Saddad had WMDs” just like they preached “there was no way of knowing that terrorist would use airplanes to attack us.” Both of these arguments are crap. We are now faced with watching Iraq head towards a theocracy that will do little to minimize terrorism in the region, and at the same time we watch our President blowing sunshine about this ‘success.’ It’s not the Iraqi Constitution we hate - it’s the constant shifting of rationales and constant failures with which this Administration is leaving us to face - all the while telling how grand things are.

I have never met a ‘freedom hater’ or an ‘evil doer’, but I have met windows and fatherless children who deserve better than the current ‘shuck-and-jive.’

Posted by: tony at August 30, 2005 01:22 PM

Joe,

A while ago, the consensus from these folks was that Bush should stop meddling with Iraq, and let the Iraqis decide things for themselves. Now that he is doing that with regard to their constitution, these same folks are complaining that he is not meddling enough.

What consensus are you referring to? I’ve been following this war pretty closely, and the two things I’ve heard most consistently from the left are that this was a stupid war, and we need to send in more force to clean it up. Now there is also a faction that says that we should pull out. I’ve never heard of one that says that an Iranian-allied theocracy is a good idea, let alone ample reward for the blood and treasure we’ve spent over there.
Are you referring to the people who said we should never have gone in in the first place? Thinking that doesn’t preclude the idea of, since we made the mess, actually wanting something good to come of it.

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 30, 2005 01:27 PM

The only arguments the Right can field now are mindless attacks. They have a specific attack and will parrot the GOP line to avoid a serious discussion on how Bush is an incompetent dumbass. Here are the standard GOP Attack lines:

a. UN - Oil for Food. Despite the FACT that this White House STOLE 8 BILLION DOOLARS of Iraqi money, the Right still parrots the 3 Billion the Security Council always knew about.

b. Pre-Emptive War - Kosovo. Despite the FACT that Kosovo cost 0 lives and nearly 0 Dollars, the GOP tends to equate Iraqi Freedom to this.

c. Ethics - Clinton’s Blowjob. Yup. Abuse of Power. UnEthical Behavior. Breaking National Security. Bring on the Blowjobs!!! The Republican answer to the non-stop embarrassment of BushCo is a fellatio.

Posted by: Aldous at August 30, 2005 02:07 PM

‘I find it interesting that there are those who are opposed to Bush who will blame him for getting involved while also blaming him for not getting involved. Its really an interesting dance to watch.’

I’m at a loss to find those who blamed him for not getting involved. He has been advised against starting this conflict by everyone from several generals to members of his own cabinet to his own father!

The issue has never been about Bush getting us involved; it has been about the stategy and level of involvement. A country needing help is one thing, but to kick the hornet’s nest that he has; well, that has produced far reaching implications.

Invading that country, especially under the guise that we did simply set in motion a myriad of issues that are going to play out all around us without even giving the American people the satisfaction of justification.

Now we can beat a President all day, but no matter who wins an election it is up to all Americans to rally and support our President.

The biggest issue here is that Bush isn’t really giving us much to work with.

Posted by: cnw at August 30, 2005 02:15 PM

No single nation sets a better example of a democracy than the United States. There are many reasons for this far too numerous to list but, IMO the primary reason is that we are able to set religion aside, while still permitting it’s practices, variations and, allowing it to establish it’s own criteria for participation and expulsion.

How you satisfy your religious convictions does not impact your standing or affect your health or well being in the eyes of the laws of government.

With all of our faults, including our political differences, periodic mis-use of power, wrong decisions for the wrong reasons, etc., in terms of democracy, we are well practiced, resiliant and, very adept at making it work.

True, we should have known and/or realized that our brand of democracy is unworkable in Iraq. I am not sure what type of government would work best in a situation where religion must be incorporated into government but, that’s what we need to help them develop.

Iraq might be able to copycat the constitutional government component of our democracy but, they will never be able to integrate their religious beliefs and needs into it.

Posted by: steve smith at August 30, 2005 03:17 PM

I think you are missing the main reason for Law and Religion. Both are to be held as being Unalienable Right Regardless; however, the Law of a Nation must address the Devil of Civlization while Religion guides its followers to avoid the Devil and submit to a Higher Power. Both can be Oppressive or full of Appeasement. Nevertheless, a Constitution most allow a Country and Society to grow as Knowledge and Wisdom become Common.

My only problem with Iraq Leaders is that they seem to be falling into the same trap that has gripped many of Nations and that is the willingness to believe someone else’s word as The Law of God. For is not Freewill and Self-Domain an Unalienable Right endowed to every Human by their “Creator?”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 30, 2005 03:59 PM

Steve Westby:

I don’t think I referred to silencing anyone. My posts about Cindy Sheehan, for example, have upheld the right to protest, even if I disagree about what is being said.

What frustrates me is the incessant harping regardless of what action Bush takes. For example, I’ve heard people in WB complain that Bush (and America) are meddling in other people’s business. Then I hear the same people complain that the Iraqi constitution isn’t what we want it to be, and that we should intervene.

Brian Poole:

I was referring more specifically to the Iraqi Constitution, rather than the war as a whole. I’ve seen postings in WB (I can’t give specific names as I don’t recall them) where people have complained about the US meddling in Iraqi affairs. And then they turn around and complain that the US isnt meddling enough.

It would be nice for such people to take A position beforehand, rather than waiting for Bush to make a move first, so that they can then dissent with whatever move he makes.

Please note that I’m not talking at all about the Iraqi Constitution….it certainly needs work. I’m talking simply about the process that some people use for dissent. Doesnt matter what the issue is—-they will dissent.

I have no problem with dissent. I DO have a problem when logic and intelligent discussion is outweighed by the deire to simply dissent.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 30, 2005 04:14 PM

Let’s just give Iraq our constitution. We aren’t using it any more.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 30, 2005 04:33 PM

Joe,

Here’s what I’m trying to figure out. Your original post seemed to imply that people were simply being wishy-washy — or disagreeing with Bush no matter what he did. And you make the case that such criticism is wrong (i.e., that people shouldn’t make criticisms of that kind). That by definition, it seems to me, is an effort to silence those who make the kinds of dissent you dislike.

My point is to beware the impulse to stifle dissent — regardless of its form. People are contradicting themselves or seem contrarian? That, my friend, is the nature of people, perhaps the very nature of existence itself. Democracy and our great country is served by encouraging dissent, by listening and understanding diverse points of view.

Let’s not allow our points of view, (whether they be liberal, conservative, libertarian, or whatever), support or dislike of a politician, etc. interfere with that process.

Posted by: Steve Westby at August 30, 2005 06:06 PM

JBOD,

You’re right. Enough negativity! Let’s find something we can all agree on. Like the fact that a parade featuring Clint Black is the best way to honor those killed on September 11th.

Oh, well, maybe catching Osama Bin Laden might be better, but frankly that’s a lot harder to accomplish than organizing a parade.

Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 06:18 PM

Aldous -

Right on. I agree…

Operation Fellatio Freedom!

Posted by: tony at August 30, 2005 06:18 PM

True, we should have known and/or realized that our brand of democracy is unworkable in Iraq.

Why the hell not? There are Muslims living in every country in the world, under every type of government. We attacked under the premise (one of them anyway) that Iraq become a democracy. We made Japan do it. Just because they don’t like it? Japan didn’t either.

If the Muslims can’t live in a democracy, they all should move out of the ones they’re currently living in.

Sorry, I don’t buy it that they can’t have a democracy, it’s supposedly the last reason standing that we fought and are fighting there.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 30, 2005 06:43 PM

Aldous, normally I just let your fantasy rantings go on without comment, but this time I have to step up with a couple of things:

b. Pre-Emptive War - Kosovo. Despite the FACT that Kosovo cost 0 lives and nearly 0 Dollars, the GOP tends to equate Iraqi Freedom to this.

I don’t see anyone equating anything, I do see people pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that we shouldn’t be attacking/invading a soverign country when they are not a threat to the US without UN approval. This is exactly what happened in Kosovo, only the US didn’t lose any lives because we did it all from the air with depleted uranium bombs. How many Serbs died? How many millions/billions of dollars of damage was done to the infrastructure of that country including bridges and buildings that were hundreds if not thousands of years old just to get them to hand over a cruel dictator of their country (who is *STILL* on trial in the Hague and may possibly go free for all we know!)

And all of that and we are STILL THERE and people (not Americans mind you) are STILL dying?

So you’re saying that as long as American’s don’t die we can bomb the hell out of anyone we want whenever?

Zero dollars? Really? How much do you think nearly zero is? Unprovoked wars designed to remove a sitting governmental leader is ok if we can do it on the cheap?

c. Ethics - Clinton’s Blowjob. Yup. Abuse of Power. UnEthical Behavior. Breaking National Security.

You forgot that he was under trial for sexual harassment. Did he committ sexual harassment? Hard do say, he made sure that the woman didn’t get a fair trial by committing PURGERY, doing so by breaking a law that he signed into effect.

You don’t somehow find that a complete and total personality glitch? You enjoy having a finger wagged in your face by a bald face liar as long as he’s a democrat? Or is it ok when you like the president but not ok when you don’t? You still can’t step to the plate and say that it was proper that he was impeached for this action (not the affair but the covering it up under oath)? How can anyone take anything you say seriuosly when you can’t even do that?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 07:14 PM

—-
You don’t somehow find that a complete and total personality glitch? You enjoy having a finger wagged in your face by a bald face liar as long as he’s a democrat? Or is it ok when you like the president but not ok when you don’t? You still can’t step to the plate and say that it was proper that he was impeached for this action (not the affair but the covering it up under oath)? How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you can’t even do that?
—-
Oh wow - look! It’s Fellatio-gate!

Oh, come on… get over the past. I do not know a single person who supported Clinton for his ‘bubba’isms’, in fact I was one of the few people I know who voted for Gore in 2000. Most of the DEMs I know were so fed up by the sheer stupidity of Clinton’s actions that they could not vote… So, once and for all, get over the past. The point is the the gravity of the situation we face now - NOT the fact that someone from ‘our’ side has done something wrong in the past as well. NO ONE DIED with Clinton’s lies. Please tell me how you can put anything done by Bush on the same playing field as Clinton… Clinton was a bubba. Bush was a bubba to - but he took out 1900 American soldiers because of it.

Posted by: tony at August 30, 2005 07:26 PM

womanmarine:
“Sorry, I don’t buy it that they can’t have a democracy, it’s supposedly the last reason standing that we fought and are fighting there.”

New reason for the war number…,
Um…how many reasons have there been now?
Well, anyway, this is what Bush said about the war in Iraq today:

U.S. President George W. Bush, facing waning support for his Iraq policy, rejected protesters’ calls for a troop withdrawal and appealed to Americans not to waver because of the rising death toll — now nearly 1,900.

Cain’t have no waverin’ among cowboys…

In a speech in San Diego, Bush said a pullout would let al Qaeda take hold of Iraq’s oilfields to fund new attacks and would damage America’s credibility.

New reason # whatever.
And what credibility is he talking about — doesn’t he know he’s already trashed our credibility? Honestly, I wish his handlers would keep him better informed…

“This is the choice we face: Do we return to the pre-Sept. 11 mind-set of isolation and retreat? Or do we continue to take the fight to the enemy and support our allies in the broader Middle East?” Bush said.

Rove to Bush: Just keep saying 9/11, 9/11, 9/11…
And what do you think, does “support for our allies in the broader Middle East” also count as another new reason to “stay the course”? I can’t decide.

“I’ve made my decision. We will stay on the offensive. We will stand with the people of Iraq and we will prevail.”

That’s it. King George has made his decision — therefore, his subjects will continue to fight until they prevail… or all die trying.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2005 07:58 PM

Bush is a lot worse than a “bubba” — he is the most dangerous President in our history.

ElliottBay — your comment still has me chuckling.

Interesting discussion on both sides so far — I think it is clear that the drafters of the Iraqi Consitution take Islam very seriously which believes in no separation of church and state. While many Muslims do live in democratic countries, you are now giving free reign to Muslims to CREATE their own Consitution! Of course, they will make Islam the principle behind all laws.

Bush is lying again. He makes it all sound nice and rosy. No “freedom.” How can they say “freedom of religion” when the laws in the country will be based on one certain religion? It’s like they’re writing some “kitchen sink” version of “democracy.”

It is a. theocracy. Period.

I also find the Christians in the United States being “pissed” is the height of hypocrisy! They’re trying to stack the Supreme Court with their theocrats and yet want to criticize Iraq. Words escape me. It is so obvious.

You know, in 1991 scholars, Colin Powell, Bush Sr. all agreed that democracy could not happen in Iraq. Suddenly, all these years later, as the Islamic fundamentalists get stronger, suddenly it can be done! This was all one big joke.

On a related note, the money that was going to be spent on the levees being finished in New Orleans so they could withstand a Hurricane as rough as Katrina was cut off by Bush. He needed the money for war for Iraq. Think about that when you watch the bodies floating by and can barely afford to gas up your car.

Posted by: Chris at August 30, 2005 07:59 PM

Joe-
We blame Bush for committing us to the wrong war, and then failing to do what it would take to keep the consequences of that mistake from spiralling out of control.

We are asking for responsbility from your side. It’s clear who wanted this war the worst, clear who still defends it as the right decision, even to the point of ignoring and neglecting the consequences of it.

The fact is, Bush hasn’t really changed his mind or his policy all that much. He’s still insisting on a bare-bones military presence, still trying to blame a lack of progress on his political rivals and the media that keeps people informed of the consequences of his mistakes.

Our constructive ideas? You must not be paying attention. We’re saying, go in there, full force, create zones of security, expand outwards. Mirror the oil-drop strategy of the insurgents, and gradually cleanse the country of the disorder.

But those are not solutions the Republicans are willing to let come to pass. We can be constructive all we want to be, but the most we can build as the party out of power, are ideas, public sentiment, and little else.

Joe, I think the US should have taken a direct hand. There are certain administrative issues they should have worked out for themselves, but as the the people who took over the country, precisely to replace the old political order, doing things half-assed like this is unacceptable.

This will set the example of what kind of government we leave behind, If we leave behind misogyny, theocracy, and cronyism, how does that reflect on our evangelical missionary work for democracy? Doing things this way smacks of incompetence, impotence, and desperation.

Rhinehold-
Kosovo was an ongoing humanitarian crisis, and we went in saying our reason for attacking related to that. We didn’t provide some bogus rationale to get the nation into that elective war.

Additionally, there were security interests at stake- if you appease people like Milosevic, and letting him alone would be doing just that, then you would see him do even more damage to our interests later, as he used the notions of Greater Serbia to steamroll over his neighbors.

And Depleted Uranium Bombs? I know for a fact that the Sabot Rounds in tanks, and the rounds in the Cannons of A-10s were Depleted Uranium, but the bombs were JDAM’s. There is controversy, as I understand it. Some environmental groups made a big deal out of that, but they forget two things: Depleted Uranium is one toxic substance among many found in warfare, and the granite rock of the mountainous region is naturally high in Uranium.

Additionally, Kosovo was not attack unilaterally, or with some ad hoc group to excuse the fact that the bulk of our troops were ours by a wide margin. It was a NATO operation, with allies involved in the planning of the campaign.

Your questions indicate a vague appreciation of the facts in Kosovo. We brought the war home to a people who had sat behind safe walls and allowed thousands to be murdered for their ethnicity and religion. The infrastructure was attacked, but on purpose, to make sure the comforts of being away from the frontlines evaporated. As for buildings that are hundreds of years old (just what thousand year old buildings do you think got hit?), That sometimes happens in a war. We try to avoid that as much as possible, though, and our munitions allowed us the greater precision to do so.

As for Americans still dying- show us the bloody reports. We have Americans dying nearly every day in combat. Where’s the action in Kosovo, hmm?

Kosovo was not unprovoked. This man had been warned by the international community and met with our armed resistance before on this matter. It would be no more unprovoked than a UN-sanctioned invasion of Iraq.

I wonder- when Clinton sent missiles after Bin Laden the first time, what did you honestly believe his motives were? Did you think he was justified in sending missiles after those terrorists, or were you with all the other critics in claiming Clinton was Wagging the Dog?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2005 08:37 PM

Stephen:

Why, though, can the Iraqis not have the benefit of our experience, of our knowledge of the benefits of the separation of church and state, of Suffrage and equal rights?

Because it is there country, their life, their future and their vote. I think we should respect their views. Especially if they vote to ratify.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 30, 2005 09:18 PM

Chris:
“On a related note, the money that was going to be spent on the levees being finished in New Orleans so they could withstand a Hurricane as rough as Katrina was cut off by Bush. He needed the money for war for Iraq. Think about that when you watch the bodies floating by and can barely afford to gas up your car.”

I wonder if W gave that any thought… when he went golfing today. Nah, probably not. Also, due to global warming, the Gulf water temperature was at 90 degrees and that is the reason the storm quickly went from a diminished category 1 to a 4 before making landfall — which should be telling us all that the Kyoto Protocol might have been a fine idea to have gotten on board with.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2005 09:23 PM

Ah, Adrienne, didn’t you know global warming is a myth?

Posted by: Chris at August 30, 2005 09:39 PM

Wow. They just declared Martial Law in New Orleans and are planning to evacuate the rest of the population. How the hell do you evacuate 90,000 people?

Oh well, at least Bush Junior is enjoying his vacation…

Posted by: Aldous at August 30, 2005 11:02 PM

btw. Found this nice quote on the New Orlean Levees:

“It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.”

— Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004

Posted by: Aldous at August 30, 2005 11:07 PM

Aldous,

Are you talking about the levees that kept the city below water level (below sea level, in fact) in the first place? The river dropped so much sediment that if you were standing next to a levee in some places, the bottom of the river was above where you were standing. In fact, I read somewhere that the city was actually sinking.
We’ll never know is expanding the levees would have prevented the flooding of yesterday, but I doubt it. At best it would only postpone the problem, especially since the city was already below sea level and sinking.

Is there anything you won’t blame on Bush? Anything at all?

Posted by: The Traveler at August 30, 2005 11:36 PM

Tony,

*I* wasn’t the one who brought up Clinton, Aldous did. But since you brought him up, who do you think is responsible for the mess we are in in Iraq? 3 people come to mind, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr. Now, Bush Sr did the right thing at the time and even went through the UN to get Iraq out of Kuwait. If he had not been concerned with ‘building an arab coalition’ (gee, that lasted all of 6 months) he would have bypassed the UN and just took Saddam out then. But no, he tried the route that everyone here has been suggesting.

Then along come Clinton who did almost nothing to resolve the issue, just enough to keep it from exploding and trying appeasement with occasional force, just enough to not accomplish anything other than keep the pot stirred and the lid from exploding.

Then Bush Jr decides to fix what his daddy broke and somehow blundered on the right thing (get saddam out of power before he really did some damage to us or another country) but sold it completely wrong and is now trying to again ‘build an arab coalition’ something that just isn’t going to happen. He should have put more force on the ground in the beginning, rooted out the terrorists IN the mosques where they hid and rearmed against us and quelled the insurgency. Then got the Iraqi council to come up with elections and a new constitution in 6 months and got out. Not doable, you say? Bull. It was very doable. Not now, now we are stuck with what we have.

So yeah, we can ‘get past Clinton’ if you want, but don’t try to think he isn’t partially responsible for where we are now, his ‘libido’ has little to do with anything, his lack of character most definately did.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 11:37 PM

Is there anything you won�t blame on Bush? Anything at all?

Well, he hasn’t blamed the Kennedy assassination on him … yet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 30, 2005 11:40 PM

Steve Westby:

I’d disagree with you that dissent is ” the nature of people, perhaps the very nature of existence itself”, as you put it. Intelligent dissent might be just that, but dissenting simply for the sake of dissenting is not.

Listen, everyone has a right to speak their mind. It helps if they have USED their mind before speaking, but many don’t. While its imperative to respect their right to speak, there is no imposition to respect what they say.

If I say that Bill Clinton has been an honorable family man and try to convince others of that stance, you don’t have to respect what I say. It simply wouldnt be the truth. Clinton may be a lot of great things to a lot of people, but I dont think anyone could call his actions honorable. Similarly, if I say that Pat Robertson exhibited good Christian values in calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, you’d be right in taking exception to that as well.

I agree with you that varied and diverse opinions are helpful. Its been said that you can learn from fools and from sages. I’m simply not afraid to call those who sit on both sides of the fence fools. They sit back and wait for an action to take place, and then decide how to dissent against it. Its easy to do and takes little thought.

What does take thought is to think in advance. And that is what I look for. And…that is what i respect.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 30, 2005 11:48 PM

Stephen:

We are asking for responsbility from your side. It’s clear who wanted this war the worst, clear who still defends it as the right decision, even to the point of ignoring and neglecting the consequences of it.

So if there are two bank robbers who robbed a bank together, but one wanted to rob the bank more than the other, which one is guilty??

Your arguement seems to be that because the democrat margin of “victory” vote wasn’t as high as the republican margin of “victory” that somehow your party isn’t responsible for the war. Is that right???

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 30, 2005 11:53 PM

Rhinehold,

“Is there anything you won’t blame on Bush? Anything at all?
Well, he hasn’t blamed the Kennedy assassination on him … yet.”

Nope Clinton did that.

Posted by: Rocky at August 31, 2005 12:00 AM

The Traveler:

Well, yea, we can blame the levee problem on Bush.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html

Relevant excerpts:

When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained…

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security — coming at the same time as federal tax cuts — was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount.

But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said.

The bottom line is that this President took away needed funding because he went overboard on his “war on terror” by going into Iraq. He is not taking care of us at home.

Furthermore, interesting op-ed in The Washington Post about FEMA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html

Which makes it all the more difficult to understand why, at this moment, the country’s premier agency for dealing with such events — FEMA — is being, in effect, systematically downgraded and all but dismantled by the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently homeland security now consists almost entirely of protection against terrorist acts. How else to explain why the Federal Emergency Management Agency will no longer be responsible for disaster preparedness? Given our country’s long record of natural disasters, how much sense does this make?

At some point, the buck stops with Bush. He must be held accountable for the choices he has made since 9/11 — many of them proving to be dangerous, ill-advised, and short-sighted.

Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2005 12:02 AM

Craig:

Let me get this straight. Now the Republicans are trying to blame the war on the Democrats now?

That’s rich. Realllllly rich.

Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2005 12:04 AM

Stephen!

Kosovo was an ongoing humanitarian crisis, and we went in saying our reason for attacking related to that. We didn’t provide some bogus rationale to get the nation into that elective war.

So was Iraq. Partially because the international community made it so with the sanctions imposed on them, but mostly because of the way the ruler of the country was running it. Yet you were against Iraq why? Because of the way it was sold? That’s really the one difference between the two that I can see. Oh, that and we had given Saddam 12 years to make things right, things he agreed to have done 3 months after the war ended.

Additionally, there were security interests at stake- if you appease people like Milosevic, and letting him alone would be doing just that, then you would see him do even more damage to our interests later, as he used the notions of Greater Serbia to steamroll over his neighbors.

That wasn’t the case with Saddam? He had already spent 10 years trying to take over one neighbor, invaded another and made no bones about wanting to be the leader of a new united Arab world. He also showed his willingness to develop and use some of the most disturbing weapons ever created on his enemies, use torture as a method of terror and support international terrorism, something we discovered recently that we can’t be insulated against by large bodies of water. You are not going to try to make the case that Milosovic (who never threatened to attack the US) was a much larger danger to the US than Saddam (who repeatedely stated that he was fighting a continuous battle against us and took any chance he could to take shots at our pilots) was, are you?

And Depleted Uranium Bombs? I know for a fact that the Sabot Rounds in tanks, and the rounds in the Cannons of A-10s were Depleted Uranium, but the bombs were JDAM’s. There is controversy, as I understand it. Some environmental groups made a big deal out of that, but they forget two things: Depleted Uranium is one toxic substance among many found in warfare, and the granite rock of the mountainous region is naturally high in Uranium.

That doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make it right when Bush did it either. Luckily, I believe, we didn’t do much lasting damage to the environment over there with them, but apparently we weren’t too concerned about it at the time, were we?

Additionally, Kosovo was not attack unilaterally, or with some ad hoc group to excuse the fact that the bulk of our troops were ours by a wide margin. It was a NATO operation, with allies involved in the planning of the campaign.

So, the requirements have changed now? I thought we required UN approval, now you are saying that as long as we have NATO we’re ok, anything less (and by less I mean Germany and France) and we’re acting illegally?

By the definition used to label the Iraq war as ‘illegal’ the Kosovo war was the same. Either we agree that it is a proper use of force when our congress agrees (did congress agree to Kosovo?) or it isn’t. Attempting to make the distinction that an action under NATO was more legitimate is stretching things to the extreme.

Your questions indicate a vague appreciation of the facts in Kosovo.

Well, thanks…

We brought the war home to a people who had sat behind safe walls and allowed thousands to be murdered for their ethnicity and religion. The infrastructure was attacked, but on purpose, to make sure the comforts of being away from the frontlines evaporated. As for buildings that are hundreds of years old (just what thousand year old buildings do you think got hit?), That sometimes happens in a war. We try to avoid that as much as possible, though, and our munitions allowed us the greater precision to do so.

Yet many are complaining that the US is doing the same thing in Iraq. Yes, I agree, some collateral damage happens and we targetted their infrastructure and destroyed just about every bridge they had. I do now know the age of some of those bridges, but I was under the impression that a few of them were very very old.

As for Americans still dying

Re-read what I said. No Americans died or are dying. We are, though, still over there merrily watching SERBS dying and doing little about it. Nice, huh? Mostly becaues they are now operating under UN efforts as we all know about the wonderful police capabilities of the UN.

Kosovo was not unprovoked. This man had been warned by the international community and met with our armed resistance before on this matter. It would be no more unprovoked than a UN-sanctioned invasion of Iraq.

I think that we are starting to get to agreement here!

I wonder- when Clinton sent missiles after Bin Laden the first time, what did you honestly believe his motives were? Did you think he was justified in sending missiles after those terrorists, or were you with all the other critics in claiming Clinton was Wagging the Dog?

I agreed with Clinton on Kosovo and attacking the chemical factories that were putting up together. And remember, it was Richard Clarke who felt that Saddam was helping bin Laden with those factories. I just don’t think he went far enough or recognized the potential dangers that he was attempting to quell but not being overly forceful in doing so.

You mistake me for someone who was against Clinton in everything he did and for Bush and everything he does. I am not that person, I am not made of straw…

I think that Clinton was right and proper to take care of Milosovic, as I think that Bush was right and proper to take care of Saddam and I think that we should be going after the likes of Mugabe and dealing with the GENOCICDE occuring in the Sudan instead of letting the UN debate the meaning of the term GENOCICDE and give ultamatum after ultamatum, wringing their hands but doing NOTHING about the deaths of so many people.

*THIS* is precisely why I am so disgusted with many on the left who are using this war as a means to ‘get back their power’, trying to politically maneuver wedges where they can and split this country apart, just so that they can win back some seats in 2006 and possibly the White House in 2008.

And before you tell me about the noble fights that the legitimate anti-war protesters are putting up, remember that we have that goal stated many places, even on here, and poll numbers are constantly provided to show how well they are doing their jobs, patting themselves on the back, while they rip the fabric of this nation into shreds.

Bush failed to do the work and make the right case for the war, the war that was needed several years earlier, and is now screwing up by again not doing the work and getting the job done. But the left, instead of trying to fix the situation, are doing everything in their power to regain their power and drive wedges.

And the only voices we hear other than the left or the right are the ones who are isolationist and suggest we should have never been anywhere anyway, ignoring economic realities and lacking even the basics of Econ 101.

We need people who understand that the war was right, the administation is wrong on their selling and handling of it and the left is wrong on being self-serving political hacks.

Maybe someday…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2005 12:45 AM

This all strikes me as a bit strange; it almost seems like this argument belongs on the other side of the aisle. We free the Iraqi people so they can be self-determining, yet when they struggle to draft a constitution we fret that it isn’t correct or is relgiously based?
Come on — the whole point of being on the left is the idea that there is no one right way, isn’t it? I personally wouldn’t want to live in a country where the laws were based on Islamic doctrine, but if that’s what the Iraqis want how can we tell them they shouldn’t want it? — Or am I wrong and the Blues want to be the world police?
Creating a system of government from scratch is no easy job, especially when your country is occupied by a foreign army. Let them do their thing, and if the new Iraqi government becomes a threat to the U.S. we’ll do something about it. Until then, I say stop f’ing with them.

Posted by: Alejo at August 31, 2005 01:34 AM

For all the people who want to stick our constitution in Iraq and force it down the throats of the Iraqis: I have to ask, how are you going to go about doing this? Are Americans going to be their judges, their jury, their police force, until they decide to like it or to overthrow our illegitimate rule over them? How else to do expect to accomplish this?

We can write whatever constitution we feel like, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to follow it. We don’t exactly have a stellar history of following our own constitution.

Which is besides the fact that “separation of church and state” is NOT in our constitution and is a matter of significant debate still today.

So many of you want to foist your views of what SHOULD be on the Iraqis, when you cannot even foist those self-same views on your fellow Americans, and yet choose this as yet another reason why Bush failed.

If you honestly expected Iraq to become Little America, or even seriously thought that this was what Bush promised…ridiculous just isn’t a strong enough word. Asinine comes to mind.

If any of you have any real suggestions on how to force a separation of church and state down the throat of the very religious Iraqis, when you cannot do this at home, I suggest you make your case.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 02:25 AM

Bush failed to do the work and make the right case for the war, the war that was needed several years earlier, and is now screwing up by again not doing the work and getting the job done. But the left, instead of trying to fix the situation…

Oh, no, no, no, Rhinehold. The left offered an effective plan for victory every step of the way. We were ignored.

And it really is amusing to watch the Bush-fans try to blame Democrats, the French, Clinton, and Sheehan’s peaceniks for President Bush’s poor leadership and bad decisions in Iraq.

The Democrat’s current plan to pull President Bush’s chestnuts out of the fire is to commit more troops to secure Iraq and its borders. We can’t leave while the insurgency is raging, but President Bush is unwilling to squelch the insurgency.

President Bush, of course, will ignore the Dems advice and hand America another defeat at the hands of terrorists like Reagan did in Lebanon and Clinton did in Somalia - except orders of magnitude bigger.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 03:56 AM

For all the people who want to stick our constitution in Iraq and force it down the throats of the Iraqis: I have to ask, how are you going to go about doing this? Are Americans going to be their judges, their jury, their police force, until they decide to like it

YES! That’s exactly how we did it in Germany and Japan.

Right now, by all accounts, Iraqis don’t trust their police, their judiciary, and in most cases, their mayors and local leaders. Graft is rampant, security is almost non-existent, and Iraqis haven’t seen any of the benefits of democracy — and they’re not going to, unless the current situation is reversed.

But this is never going to happen, because it would take a commitment, the size of which, President Bush has already demonstrated he’s not willing to make. It would take a WWII-sized commitment, and a set of Rooseveltian, WWII-sized cajones on Bush to make Iraq a free-market liberal democracy — and Bush ain’t got ‘em.

As much as President Bush likes to invoke Roosevelt and Churchill, he’s a very small man in comparison.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 04:13 AM

Everybody focused on the role of Islam in the constitution (except for the Republicans, who are busy looking for scapegoats), but nobody commented on the state-owned oil industry and the consequences of the (mostly corrupt) Iraqi government redistributing the revenues to everyone in the form of free housing and stipends, free education at all levels, and free healthcare.

Like other Middle Eastern petrostates, the Iraqi government — if it doesn’t disintegrate first — will buy its ruling mandate from the people, rather than earn it.

Yes, an Islamic regime is a problem, because (unlike President Carter in Iran) President Bush funded Iraq’s Islamic revolution with American blood and treasure.

But the economy enshrined in the Iraqi constitution will prevent the country from modernizing and integrating into the global economy and the international community. This has very serious long-term security implications for us.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 04:27 AM

Just because they don’t like it? Japan didn’t either.

There’s a significant difference. Japan lost the war completely. They unconditionally surrendered, and the old political structures ceased to exist. Importantly, there was no other ideology in the wings ready to assert itself.

Japan was completely broken and didn’t really have an alternative to what we presented.

In comparison, Iraq never really surrendered - the Baathists just disappeared. More importantly, nationalistic and religious ideologies were ready to insert themselves into the vacuum.

Iraq reacquired its sovreignity - we can’t impose a solution on them like McArthur did. Even if we tried, it would have to fight for legitimacy with other entrenched ideologies.

It just wouldn’t work.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 09:35 AM

I am convinced that if the restrooms in a rest area on an interstate highway were closed, the blame would fall to President Bush. It would somehow be linked to the fact that there were no WMD found by the UN in Iraq or, the janitor appointed by Bush to handle those problems was an unqualified Fundamentalist Right Wing Evangelical Christian.

Posted by: steve smith at August 31, 2005 10:05 AM

AP,
I have the same concern as you do about Iraq selling out to the Touch of Compromise instead of going the distance and establishing a Constitution based on being Unalienable Right Regardless. In settling for Laws that teach an Individual to fear The Devil (Temptations)of Civilization, it is the Duty and Responsibility of those who chose to lead a Nation to confront The Evils (Many Man-Made) that can harm their citizens.

If the neo-cons of President Bush would allow him to explain why The Founding Fathers of America seperated Chruch and State than maybe America would be seen in a better light. For even in America, our citizens need to wake up and realize that We are All Consumers and thus are created Equal.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2005 10:15 AM

steve —

I don’t see your point … are you suggesting that we shouldn’t take the president to task for the way he and his staff have handled the war, occupation, and reconstruction? If not him, then who?

It still amazes me that so many people excuse Bush by saying “he couldn’t have known” any of the issues in Iraq. Well, that’s funny … all you have to do is look at places like this blog to see there were plenty of people who predicted how all this would go, but at the time they were shouted down as traitorous nay-sayers.

Posted by: Alejo at August 31, 2005 10:22 AM

Aldous, tony,

Right on. I agree…

Operation Fellatio Freedom!

You just get UNSC France yes vote! Bring resolution ASAP!

But we disgress here, no?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 10:26 AM

The Traveler,

Are you talking about the levees that kept the city below water level (below sea level, in fact) in the first place? […] the city was already below sea level and sinking.

I guess you could all blame France for building New Orlean *under* sea level.
:-\

At least, nobody force US to actually buy it (with huge lands up to Canada) from Napolean, though.
One should have read the lands documentation before…

Well, yeah, blame France.
Global Warming is irrevelant here.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 10:45 AM

Global Warming is irrevelant as are unfunded levees construction because of Iraq war budget.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 10:48 AM

Japan was completely broken and didn’t really have an alternative to what we presented. In comparison, Iraq never really surrendered

Well, I’m not going to argue too hard, since it’s moot. But Iraq was in fact completely defeated, and they didn’t have any ideologies waiting in the wings. Saddam had crushed all opposition parties and organizations — including the Islamists.

But it doesn’t matter now. President Bush called the Iraqi constitution an “inspiration to all those who share the universal values of freedom, democracy and the rule of the law.” What’s done is done, and President Bush sure isn’t going to rock the boat. He’s going to get that thing ratified and bug out ASAP.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 11:03 AM

Chris,

Apparently homeland security now consists almost entirely of protection against terrorist acts.

Just wait for Katrina being classified as a (Natural) terrorist act and all will clear itself.
Nothing that your government can fix easily.

PS: sarcasm put aside, please be sure I share your pain for your losts in this disaster.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 11:03 AM

AP,

I agree that Saddam had squashed all dissent during his reign. However, I think that Islamists, Iranians, Chalabi, etc. were all ready to jump in to stake a financial and ideological stake in Iraq.

I’m too young to have first-hand knowledge, but I don’t think there were analogous forces in Japan.

Of course, you’re right that it’s all moot.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 11:18 AM

Craig-
If we respected their views so damn much, why did we invade? So that it could destabilize into a theocracy? No, a western style democracy was implied in our mandate for war.

So if there are two bank robbers who robbed a bank together, but one wanted to rob the bank more than the other, which one is guilty??

How about which one is guiltier? We are guilty of having voted for this war, back when we believed there was a threat, back when the administration had folks believing we need to invade. The consent for the this war, though, was bought with a reality check that bounced, and at least we Democrats can recognize that.

It’s interesting to see you comparing this war to a bank robbery. Are you trying to tell us that we are just as dirty on this war as the Republicans are, and therefore we should do nothing about it’s current sorry state? Sounds like a pretty depraved point of view.

Rhinehold-
The Rationale for going after Saddam was that he was arming terrorists, and therefore needed to be forcibly disarmed. Humanitarian concerns were not the main reason for going to war. Terrorism and WMD disarmament were the main justifications for the war. Freeing the Iraqi people was a secondary concern.

Yet you were against Iraq why? Because of the way it was sold? That’s really the one difference between the two that I can see.

An unnecessary war was sold as part of a necessary war that we still have to fight to ensure our national security. I hate that Bush started it because it has vampirized the real War on Terrorism and left it a husk of what it was. Those soldiers in Iraq are stuck there, along with billions of dollars of our resources, and a great amount of our credibility is on the line for a cause that turned out not just to be wrong, but dead wrong.

President Bush made America the subject of a devastatingly effective propaganda campaign, aimed at convincing people that it was a real threat, and a part of the War on Terrorism. Not something that would become a part of the War on Terrorism, but a real part of it from the start.

But they neglected, or just plain didn’t deign to the proper reality checks. They didn’t ask these people to check this stuff for reliabiliy. In fact, they knowingly used information that they knew to be unreliable. If you read Plan of Attack, you’ll read of Colin Powell having to tear out a great amount of reporting in his files because of it’s uncorroborated nature. Even if it’s really the CIA’s fault that such information was making it into the report, the responsible thing would have been to send it back and have them do it over again.

This administration had it’s drive for war before it had its case for war. Does it not strike you as inappropriate that the political push for a war came before the factual evidence to justify it? Shouldn’t the push for a pre-emptive war grow organically from the intelligence, from what we can come to know, rather than just what we suspect?

That wasn’t the case with Saddam? He had already spent 10 years trying to take over one neighbor, invaded another and made no bones about wanting to be the leader of a new united Arab world.

All of that was before he got on our bad side. The question was, is he capable now of doing that? The answer is no. Even if the Republican Guard wasn’t a shadow of it’s former self, they knew the minute they tried anything funny, we’d be there, and the consequences would be the same as before. Without Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons, Saddam was prisoner in his own country, surrounded by neighbors he hadn’t exactly endeared himself to.

I wouldn’t argue that if he were freed of those restrictions, he would have sought those kinds of weapons again, but he was not free, and we had the option of waiting until the world situation stabilized a bit before investing ourselves so heavily in taking over Iraq. Might have actually been smarter. Hell, it might not have taken a war, if done things that way. Saddam is an old man, and old men can’t hold onto things forever, even if they live long.

I’m not going to compare threats here- Clinton didn’t. He smacked both dictators down, and smacked them down hard. Milosevic, as it happened, was the head of a Democracy, and vulnerable to losing power.

As for the potshots at our pilots, it’s more complicated than you suggest. The No Fly Zones were technically a violation of their national sovereignty, and therefore technically merited that our planes be fired upon.

Thing is, nobody ever got hit. What I heard, in fact, is they made it a point not to hit them. And each time, we attacked the station and that was that.

Fact is, we could have started a war with Iraq with just ourselves involved, if a real threat had been involved. Every nation in the world reserves the right to pre-empt an attack on it. But Bush justified the pre-emptive nature of this war precisely on those things that were discredited when the invasion provided us a reality check. We can’t justify this war on its original premises, so we are now fighting a war that we can’t sell as legitimate to the rest of the world. That’s unacceptable.

By that definition, Kosovo was not unacceptable. We found the mass graves, the evidence of Serb atrocities. We weren’t in the position of having to explain the absence of those factors in the real world.

I think Americans are realistic about war. We can’t be totally politically correct about our targeting, though it helps to be selective.

As for SERBS still dying, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed, but it’s not a full-fledged insurgency. The fact that WE aren’t losing soldiers should tell you the difference between our occupation there, and the one in Iraq.

As for the justification of the war, you will note that I said UN sanctioned invasion. NATO’s involvement meant that we were able to convince others of the necessity. The main problem was getting by the Russians, whose sympathies were with the Orthodox Serbs.

It’s good that you cleared up what you believe about those attacks because that’s why I asked the questions.

The left is more than willing to help, but we have to be let in first, and this fiercely ideological administration is stonewalling on that. That stonewalling, combined with the growing problems of this war, is causing people to lose hope that this military War on Terrorism will perform as promised. I don’t look at the growing anti-war movement (truly anti-war, not merely dissenting to the policy) as noble. I see it as a sad symptom of the malaise this administration has created in America.

They’re not trying to destroy America, they’re trying to salvage what’s left of our reputation, of our honor, trying to end a war they believe never should have been fought to start with. That is why people seized so much on the Gulf War as being the antidote to Vietnam- a clear reason to go in, a simple effective mission, and a point where we could stop things and say (with some legitimacy) we won.

We need new leadership, and We Democrats want the chance to be that leadership. The Republicans have had their chance.

Stephanie-
The Separation of Church and State is implicit in the notion that congress cannot create a national, official church, nor impose laws restricting other churches.

I think we should have sold the idea to the more conservative clerics of the virtues of freedom of Religion. Failing that, we should have sold it to the people. Islam is a fairly individualistic religion in comparison to others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 11:20 AM

Global Warming is irrevelant as are unfunded levees construction because of Iraq war budget.

I’m afraid that is probably inaccurate, if you believe science:

But even if all these variables have combined to keep the number of hurricanes worldwide about the same, the storms do appear to be more intense. One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse.

And if the President chose to take funds away from New Orleans regarding the levees, who is to blame?

EVERYTHING is relevant, when the President of your country is mismanaging it on a colassal scale. There are consequences for us going into Iraq, consequences we must look at.

Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2005 11:34 AM

Stephanie:

Iraq is not a “Little America” but one can argue it could easily become a “Little Iran.” Thank you, George.

And the separation of Church and State, while not IN THE CONSTITUTION per se, was a “wall” that Jefferson agreed existed. One must remember our Founding Fathers were deists, not “Christians,” which is why our country can exist in a purer form of “freedom of religion.” Something the Iraqi Constitution CANNOT. We do not have anything in our Constitution that says “Christianity is the principle behind all laws…” even if some can argue some of those principles are there. Of course, those principles are just basic human principles of treating your fellow man equally.

Stephan — the problem with your argument is that if you read the principles of Islam, they BELIEVE that church and state HAS to co-exist together. How does one confront that? Is it possible that democracy just CANNOT exist in an Islamic country?

Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2005 11:43 AM

Hello Chris - how’s it going?

I agree that democracy can not exist in Iraq at the same level (or even close to the same level) as it does exist here.

1 - Even if the Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone they hardly trust the American way of life. If anyone wonders why - look at what they’ve seen from us. Mostly just our big guns.

2 - Like Chris mentioned above, Islam and Democracy have some pretty big conflicts… I don’t see how they could manage to bring those 2 ideologies together… much less bring the 3 separate ideologies in Iraq’s population together.

3 - While many people want to argue that Saddam was not a stabilizing force in the Middle East, he very much was. Look at the map and then look at the wide variety of societies located around Iraq. Saddam was not attached with any of them, and he was the wild card… no one knew how he would react, and he kept any other society from becoming a majority in the area. Now that Iraq seems to heading towards Islamic theocracy and will be much more inline with Iran, I think we can count on seeing a much stronger push for many other countries in that region to come more inline with Islamic ideologies.

I think we should all push like hell to come up with other alternative options for energy and the leave the Middle East to their own conflicts, but without the funds to drag the rest of the world down with them.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 12:03 PM

>> Global Warming is irrevelant as are
>> unfunded levees construction because of Iraq
>> war budget.
>
> I’m afraid that is probably inaccurate, if you
> believe science: […]

Chris, I can’t but obvioulsy fully agree with you.

I was trying being ironic, applying OttO/Right column’s last week “Blame others, like France” tactic for every failure and mismanagment on this disaster. After all, why oh why did frenchies back in 18th century built New Orlean *under* sea level, damned?
;-)

Back to full seriousness, I think too Global Warming is making every day climate events not necessary more frequent but more extreme. Which is a big issue. For everyone. *Everyone*.

> EVERYTHING is relevant,
> when the President of your country is
> mismanaging it on a colassal scale.
> There are consequences for us going
> into Iraq, consequences we must look at.

I fear here that your government long rejection of scientific Global Warming facts is more relevant here because until it does, several other climate disasters will surely happened everywhere in the world.
Not that I blame only US here. We all have wasted precious time - and even are sill doing it - before starting acting against Global Warming. We all share a responsability.

But the sooner the most powerfull, rich and polution emitter country join the fight the better.

Hell, it’s already *late* :-(

The unfunded levees reconstruction is revelant for this precise current disaster. Let’s hope next similar time it’ll not be anymore, or less.

But ignoring/postponing Global Warming handling was, is and will continue to hurt us all (Humanity) for long.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 12:22 PM

tony,

I think we should all push like hell to come up with other alternative options for energy and the leave the Middle East to their own conflicts, but without the funds to drag the rest of the world down with them.

Unfortunatly, the pre-emptive war policy, the new US nuclear weapons programs and “North Korea, France Iraq and Iran’s Axe of Evil” tagline made these countries pushing “like hell” to get nukes as soon as they could.

Which could drag the rest of the world down with them…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 12:32 PM

Did you notice that until they were called the ‘axis of evil’ in Bush’s SOTU speech, they were all kind of just doing their thing. North Korea was in the middle of talks with South Korea, Iran was using Nuclear for fuel - Saddam was just barking like a big dog.

The BAM - no more talks with South Korea (literally overnight) and 2 out of 3 started their nuclear arms programs up full speed ahead.

… and we shot the dog with the loudest bark and no teeth.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 12:37 PM

Let the Iraqis have our Constitution. We’re not using it….

Hey Tony, ask the Iraqi people how sharp Sadaam’s teeth were…

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at August 31, 2005 01:08 PM

—-
Hey Tony, ask the Iraqi people how sharp Sadaam’s teeth were…
—-

OK… but was it worth the 1900 deaths and $300B for that particular country and this particualr time? I’m all for being the nice guy, but to sacrifice these lives and be distracted from the war on terror - and to miss the 2 out of 3 ‘axis of evil’ that now actually no do pose WMD dangers…

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 02:55 PM

AP,

What can I say? Iraq is not Japan or Germany. The Iraqi people are not under our thumb, nor were they supposed to be. The idea of replacing Dictator Saddam with Dictator US is so…

Insteading of heralding democracy at the point of our guns we’d literally be forcing it on them at the point of our guns, completely denying them their rights in the process. How do you justify that? How hypocritical do you have to get? “They don’t want the freedoms we have, so we’re going to force it on them! Oooh, aah!”

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 04:06 PM

Stephen,

“The Separation of Church and State is implicit in the notion that congress cannot create a national, official church, nor impose laws restricting other churches.”

Yeah, it was so implicit that the states had their own official religions. Or didn’t you know that? Our constitution was carefully worded so as to leave the states the right to determine what official religion they each wanted.

“I think we should have sold the idea to the more conservative clerics of the virtues of freedom of Religion.”

You still haven’t told me how you expect to accomplish this, when you can’t sell it to your fellow Americans. Believe it or not, Iraq is not the Democrats’ play-thing that they can use to prove the validity of “separation of church and state.” It is and should be up to the Iraqis to determine how they want their country to be run.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 04:11 PM

Chris,

“Iraq is not a “Little America” but one can argue it could easily become a “Little Iran.” Thank you, George.”

Iraq is not a Little America, but if we forced our constitution on them, or one we would prefer, that is what we’d be making them. We’d never be able to get out of there, because they would never accept it, because we would become their dictator, instead of Saddam. That is unacceptable to me.

“while not IN THE CONSTITUTION per se”

“per se” huh? That argument should be in the BS thread.

It is NOT in our constitution because it did not exist then, no matter how much some of our founding fathers wished it did. Official religions were left up to the states, not the federal government, that is what our constitution meant and that is what happened.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 04:17 PM

All:

Iraq may not be democracy as we know it, but that does not mean they cannot create their own brand of democracy that works for them, if we’d only let them. Afterall, that’s what we did. They can’t do it, but we did…because, well, because…why? Because our American founding fathers were obviously so much smarter, better, kinder, truer, more freedom-loving, or whatever? Why can’t the Iraqis form a democracy that works for them? Are you all really that egocentric that you believe American-style democracy is the only thing that could possibly work?

Iraq is not Japan. Iraq is not Germany. These people are not crushed under our force, they are released from the crushing force of Saddam Hussein and fighting against the force of the insurgency. We haven’t put them under our thumb, because that’s not why we went in there. Saddam is under control, under our thumb, and out of power: mission accomplished. Sure, there’s lots more to do, including assisting Iraq in becoming the kind of free nation the Iraqis want, but we are there to assist them, not force them.

If the Iraqis are going to have any kind of democracy, they are going to have to figure at least part of it out for themselves or they will rebel against it. American arrogance has to stay out of it.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 04:25 PM

Stephanie -

“Yeah, it was so implicit that the states had their own official religions. Or didn’t you know that? Our constitution was carefully worded so as to leave the states the right to determine what official religion they each wanted.”

Can you clue me a bit on this… I had no idea… But the Constitution does state that no State shall make law that abridges (or something like that) Federal law or the Constitution. So - no matter what individual States might have had 200 years ago - it would be illegal and unconstitutional… and we do not have official State laws now.

—-
Saddam is under control, under our thumb, and out of power: mission accomplished.
—-
The mission was never specifically to remove Saddam from power. It was either to prevent WMDs from getting into the hands of terrorists (nothing there) and/or creating a democracy for the Iraqi people (not even close to that yet.) While Saddam’s removal from power was an initial step… I would not say in the least the ‘mission accomplished.’

I do agree that we really must remove ourselves from the process - but I do not think that we will see stability as a result of our military actions in Iraq. One day - who knows, we might be able to bring stability to that area, but it will be diplomacy and economic pressures that bring this about… not military.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 04:48 PM

AP:

You wouldn’t have liked our constitution either. Slavery and no rights for women to vote for starters.

Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 30, 2005 11:44 AM

There is a difference. Slavery wasn’t written into the US Constitution. There was no mention of it. In fact, the US Constitution in its original state outlawed slavery indirectly. Slavery was just widely practiced and therefore the masses deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution in regards to Black People. It never took a genius to see that a black man is a man like any other and is entitled to all the rights as such.

The Iraqi Constitution is theocratic from the beginning. Islam and morality is mentioned and all the important freedoms have the exception that they may not offend Islam. The State and the Mosque are made one from the very beginning.

Posted by: Darrius at August 31, 2005 04:52 PM

“I’m all for being the nice guy, but to sacrifice these lives and be distracted from the war on terror”

Do you not believe the folks killing our soldiers are terrorist? This war is all about terrorism. A muslim terrorist does not have a country or origin but an ideaology that crosses national boarders. These terrorist have a number of things in common and among them a deep hatred of the US and Israel. I am blown away by those who try to imply Sadaam had no ties to Terrorism. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and lives with the dogs, its more than likely a dog.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at August 31, 2005 04:52 PM

1 - every nation on earth has terrorist. We’ve had quite a few famous ones….

2 - Saddam/Iraq had no ties to the terrorist of 9/11 - and that’s been proven. (See the 9/11 commission’s report.)

3 - Do you see violently opposing an occupying military force as terrorist? I do not know the mindset of the people attacking our troops. They do not want us there, that’s obvious, but it seems to me that some there are dying for their country (Iraq) and that is NOT terrorism.

4 - Terrorism is a violent act against civilians to bring about fear - then social change. I do not like the attacks against our military, but it seems to fall under warfare, not terrorism.

—-
If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and lives with the dogs, its more than likely a dog.
—-
Are you saying this because they are Muslim or because they are Iraqi? Or are you saying that Iraq is simply a country filled mostly with terrorist?

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 05:03 PM

There’s a significant difference. Japan lost the war completely. They unconditionally surrendered, and the old political structures ceased to exist. Importantly, there was no other ideology in the wings ready to assert itself.

Japan was completely broken and didn’t really have an alternative to what we presented.

In comparison, Iraq never really surrendered - the Baathists just disappeared. More importantly, nationalistic and religious ideologies were ready to insert themselves into the vacuum.

Iraq reacquired its sovreignity - we can’t impose a solution on them like McArthur did. Even if we tried, it would have to fight for legitimacy with other entrenched ideologies.

It just wouldn’t work.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 09:35 AM

Of course Japan was broken, we were dropping atomic bombs on them. What we have done in Iraq is a joke by comparison.

My complaints about Bush is that

1. I don’t think he should have led the country into this war because I didn’t think the country was willing to do what was necessary to install a proper democracy with the necessary freedoms there.

2. He lied to the US voters and the rest of the world about his motives for leading the country to war.

3. Once he led the country to war, he fought it in a DUMB fashion.

We can lead Iraq into a free democracy but we (The US) have to be heavy-handed. I agree with Womanmarine when she says,

Why the hell not? There are Muslims living in every country in the world, under every type of government. We attacked under the premise (one of them anyway) that Iraq become a democracy. We made Japan do it. Just because they don’t like it? Japan didn’t either.

I agree with AmericanPundit when he wrote,

YES! That’s exactly how we did it in Germany and Japan.

Right now, by all accounts, Iraqis don’t trust their police, their judiciary, and in most cases, their mayors and local leaders. Graft is rampant, security is almost non-existent, and Iraqis haven’t seen any of the benefits of democracy — and they’re not going to, unless the current situation is reversed.

But this is never going to happen, because it would take a commitment, the size of which, President Bush has already demonstrated he’s not willing to make. It would take a WWII-sized commitment, and a set of Rooseveltian, WWII-sized cajones on Bush to make Iraq a free-market liberal democracy — and Bush ain’t got ‘em.

Iraqis can get used to and learn to love living in a free country just like anyone else. But it takes a heavy hand to maintain the peace until they do. It would require a large committment of troops and resources. (It would take a committment so large that I have always been convinced that Americans are not willing to make it for the sake of non-European foreigners.)

Once the Iraqis decide on a Constitution someone will still have to stop insurgents from terrorizing policy stations. We are going to have to keep the peace anyway. They may resist Western-Style freedom now while they don’t know anybetter. But after they’ve lived under it for 20 years and the morality police walk up and say, “you can’t hold your wife’s hand in public.” They’re going to say, “Are you on crack? This is a free country.”

Its easy to get used to being free. Its easy to get used to doing what you want. Once you’ve been free, it’s hard to go back.

It’s harsh, but it’s what we signed up for. We cast the vote to go war to topple this regieme. Since, we voted to do let’s do it.

Posted by: Darris at August 31, 2005 08:31 PM

tony,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

That’s the religious protection we have in the first amendment. It does not say states cannot make their own official religion, which they did, nor does it separate state from church. Thomas Jefferson may have said it, but that really doesn’t make it law. It wasn’t until 1947 that the S.C. decided to agree with Jefferson.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 08:41 PM

Darrius,

“Slavery wasn’t written into the US Constitution. There was no mention of it.”

No, they were just “other Persons.”

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determind by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and exluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

Slaves counted as part of the population, but only at the ratio of 3/5ths of a person. This was directly and specifically written into the Constitution with no mention of “slaves” needed.

“In fact, the US Constitution in its original state outlawed slavery indirectly.”

How exactly do you figure that, considering many of the people who debated it and signed it owned slaves?

“It never took a genius to see that a black man is a man like any other and is entitled to all the rights as such.”

No, all it took was the willingness to do so, which our founding fathers did not have.

“The State and the Mosque are made one from the very beginning.”

That is how they live. That is their beliefs. If anyone can make it work, I believe the Iraqis can and that it is their choice to do so. They will not accept a separation of church and state. You cannot even get your fellow Americans to accept it, so what makes you think you can foist if off onto the Iraqis?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 08:56 PM

tony,

“3 - Do you see violently opposing an occupying military force as terrorist? I do not know the mindset of the people attacking our troops. They do not want us there, that’s obvious, but it seems to me that some there are dying for their country (Iraq) and that is NOT terrorism.

4 - Terrorism is a violent act against civilians to bring about fear - then social change. I do not like the attacks against our military, but it seems to fall under warfare, not terrorism.”

If the insurgents are merely attacking our troops as a patriotic act, then why are they blowing up so many Iraqis in the process? Why do they target children? Wouldn’t that be a violent act against civilians? Or can the insurgents really not tell the difference between little Iraqi children and big American troops? Personally, I thought the gear would give us away.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 09:00 PM

Insteading of heralding democracy at the point of our guns we’d literally be forcing it on them at the point of our guns, completely denying them their rights in the process.

Stephanie, President Bush let the Iraqi imams call the shots, and look what we ended up with. We might as well have just gone in, nabbed Saddam, and got the hell out. The result would have been exactly the same — but without 1,800 US deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on our hands, and we’d be about $100 billion less poor.

Iraqis can get used to and learn to love living in a free country just like anyone else. But it takes a heavy hand to maintain the peace until they do.

Yeah, Darris. I was watching “Hard Talk” (dull as dirt, but always informative) on BBC World last night, and they were interviewing Mark Etherington, the CPA’s regional coordinator for one of the Iraqi provinces. He said the Iraqis might be better off with a “benevolent strongman” rather than a real democracy, and according to a poll taken last year, most Iraqis agree,

Asked what system of government Iraq needs “in 12 months time,” 49.9 percent answer “a (single) strong Iraqi leader,” while democracy takes 31 percent.

The CPA could have (and should have) been that “strongman”. I argued from the day it was announced that turning over Iraq to the Iraqis before they had strong democratic institutions, including a constitution, an honest and fair judiciary, an uncorrupt police force, a strong economy, and most of all, security, was a mistake.

Some really good reading on the subject of state building is “The Future of Freedom”, by Fareed Zakaria, and “State Building”, by Francis Fukuyama.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 09:45 PM

AP,

“Stephanie, President Bush let the Iraqi imams call the shots, and look what we ended up with. We might as well have just gone in, nabbed Saddam, and got the hell out.”

Sounds good to me; too bad it’s too late. I still want to know why y’all believe separation of church and state is so great that it should be forced on the Iraqis, when you can’t force it on your fellow Americans. Is it because you feel their minds are naturally weaker than ours? Nobody wants to answer this question.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 10:25 PM

Stephanie, the separation of church and state in the US is a fact. It already exists. The United States — unlike Iraq — does not have an official state religion.

As to why it’s so great, there are plenty of places in the world where the official state religion is Islam, and Christians are not allowed to worship in the open; they’re beaten, jailed, and killed by government officials as part of official government policy (I’m thinking about Africa in particular).

There were also plenty of Christian states throughout history where Jews and Muslims were encouraged to convert or die.

Right now in Iraq, Christians are being harassed and driven out of the country. Making Islam the state religion doesn’t help Iraqi Christians.

It should be pretty obvious why, if you believe a pluralistic society is a good thing, separation of church and state is a plus. Hope that helps.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 1, 2005 11:52 AM

AP,

“Stephanie, the separation of church and state in the US is a fact. It already exists. The United States — unlike Iraq — does not have an official state religion.”

Separation of church and state means a lot more in this country than lacking an official religion. I didn’t think that was in dispute. The some of the liberals have steadily been working to tear out every vestige of Christianity from our national image; this is an on-going process, not a foregone conclusion. But the liberals pushed too far. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction now, the silent majority is awakening from their complacency, which is why Bush got elected, and partly why liberals are so determined to tear him apart. I didn’t think this was disputed, since we’ve talked about these matters here before.

You who are so upset over the Iraqis having an official religion (with a constitution that also protects religious freedoms), why aren’t you tearing into the Brits too? I haven’t heard anything to the effect that they’ve dumped their official religion, and I have loooked. The Church of England is still official, and despite a history of that equating religious persecution and oppression, that doesn’t seem to be the status quo in England any more. In fact, I’ve even heard of liberals using the Brits as an example on how to separate church from state, which seems quite ironic.

So, despite the fact that the Brits can do it and have done it, the Iraqis can’t why? They have recognition for other religions and gaurenteed freedoms in their constitution. Your examples of Africa do not equate with Iraq. Iraq is forming a democracy (as their constitution clearly states) in their own diverse image, fully recognizing that they are diverse. As much history as there is of Muslims suppressing other religions, there is just as much if not more history of other religions suppressing Muslims, and I’m not the least bit surprised that they might feel they need extra protection to gaurentee the majority of their populations’ beliefs are secured from the minority, afterall, they found out that the “majority” meant nothing under Saddam.

“Right now in Iraq, Christians are being harassed and driven out of the country. Making Islam the state religion doesn’t help Iraqi Christians.”

The fact that the insurgents are targeting Christians especially comes as no surprise. Even that some citizens are doing so doesn’t surprise me. However, what does that have to do with the official Iraqi government? Nothing in the article you’ve linked suggest these acts are government sactioned and I’ve read that it’s most definitely not. However, I’ll have to do some searching for that link.

“It should be pretty obvious why, if you believe a pluralistic society is a good thing, separation of church and state is a plus. Hope that helps.”

I just do not agree that an official religion, complete with necessary constitutional safe-gaurds, interfers with a pluralistic society. Nor, do I agree in the least that the issues some liberals are pressing for in America today have anything to do with securing our pluralistic society, but is instead a culture war waged against the majority to remove offensive material from their line of sight.

I gotta go…school time. I hope this makes sense and was coherent. If not, I’ll try to correct it when I get back.

Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 12:40 PM

I still want to know why y’all believe separation of church and state is so great that it should be forced on the Iraqis, when you can’t force it on your fellow Americans. Is it because you feel their minds are naturally weaker than ours? Nobody wants to answer this question.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 10:25 PM

Your answer:

Religion is larger than any one government or set of laws. It reaches out to the inner-most parts of your life and seeks to govern things no government would bother with. Allowing the church to be the state would specify how people should react in most interactions where today we have no law. For the most part it would allow people to get along. It works fine if everyone is of the same religion. However, if you want to choose to follow a different religion, or not to follow a religion at all, it sucks. What ends up happening is that the govenrment ends up legalizing what is proper according to their religion.

By default, they end up forcing you to follow their religion, taking the decision to follow God (and thus your salvation) out of your hands. Because religion govern so many human interactions the religion, and therefore the government ends up running your life. They often end up telling you what not to say. They end up censoring all forms of media.

The only way to be free with someone telling you what God to serve is for you to serve the God of your choice anyway, and suffer the wrath of those who would force you to do otherwise.

In the United States we DO force the separation of church and state. That is the only way it remains separate whenever religious factions are present. If it were up to the religious right (BTW, I am as Christian as they come) we would have lines in state constitutions that say the Governor must be a Christian. The US Constitution prevents that.

This is about more than just having an official state religion. The Iraqi constitution has lines in it that limit their most basic rights when they don’t comply with the tenets of Islam.

They can say what they want, as long as it doesn’t offend morality as defined by Isalm.

The press can publish what it wants, as long as it doesn’t offend morality as defined by Islam.

Posted by: Darrius at September 1, 2005 06:12 PM