Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Then Paul woke up from his sweet slumber returning to the real world.

Posted by: Nunya at February 28, 2006 07:19 PM

So Paul, you basically are citing the hawk vs. dove….honey vs. vinegar…grammar vs. guns. I happen to believe all of that and also that killing is an option of absolute last resort or in the case of self protection. Whether a person leans to the left or to the right, peaceful negotiations beat bloodshed….anyone’s blood.
Maybe now, just maybe…Americans are willing to see that nothing is working right now, so trying something different can’t possibly be worse.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 28, 2006 07:30 PM

I am grateful that you are mistaken about Democrat’s foreign policy. If that were true, we would be in serious trouble.

Most prominent Democrats did not favor talk, talk, talk. I would quote them, as we have done so many times before, but you know about them I know you will say they were fooled by the much more intelligent Karl Rove, or that is what you believe. But your statement is empirically wrong.

In Iran, the President is working multilaterally. What are Democrats saying?

From NYT January 19 - In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration’s call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

But she was critical of the administration for letting European nations take the lead in negotiations over the last several years.(BTW - you might call this cooperation with allies)

Re UN
Did the UN system fall apart because of Bolton. You may recall the Holbrook (no mister nice guy) and Albright (no big intellect) were also UN Ambassadors.

Could you give more examples of your idea of the contrast? I don’t mean people saying that it is so. Did Kosovo have an UN mandate? Chasing Somalia warlords a good idea? Remember our Haiti invasion? We had the alliance of some Caribbean mini states. They contributed all together a single company - 266 soldiers. In Rwanda we didn’t act at all. Maybe a unilateral approach would have done better. Then we had the Sudan bombing. Not to mention the 1998 attack on Iraq. Of course, Clinton did give a really good speech on Iraq. Sort of sounds like Bush, don’t you think.

Posted by: Jack at February 28, 2006 07:45 PM

Paul,

Okay, I’ll judge for myself. Here I go:

“Most of us agree that the Iraq War was a mistake. In a recent poll, 72% of the troops in Iraq said that we should end it in 2006.”

Answer: 2 sentences which have absolutely nothing to with each other. Oh, and a link: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv
What poll by the way? When did they ask the troops … in their last month of deployment?? You dems and your almighty, infallible polls . . you probably wonder why we even have a gov’t and don’t just make all decisions via some polling website. And, you can’t even explain why that would be a bad idea!

“They paid no attention to the inspectors.”

Oh! I’m sorry we didn’t put every ounce of possible weight in telegraphed, pre-scheduled, incomplete inspections limited by Saddam himself. What were we thinking??!!

“… either you go along with us or you’re wrong.”

Kinda like that 14th UN Resolution to Saddam, huhn Paul?

“Iraq is on the verge of civil war.”

I know, I know. Libs are very very upset that this latest uprising obviously instigated by Zarqawi (he declared his civil war tactic himself for god’s sake) didn’t erupt the whole country into civil war. There’s nothing the libs would like more to add to their bleak ammo depot more than Iraq erupting into civil war.

“They were in favor of treating all nations at the UN with respect.”

All nations … really? You’re going to stand by that Paul? How about all those nations feeding off of “Oil For Food”? Hell, how about the UAE for that matter?

“the hostility against America around the world would not be as great as it is today.”

More trumped up liberal lies. How many times has your neighborhood been attacked? And are you saying that radical Muslims just started hating us in FEB 2001? Really?

“Bullying Bush announced that Iran was part of the axis of evil. Iran looked at what happened to the other members of the axis of evil.”

Yes, you’re right Paul. If it wasn’t for Bush using those 3 words Iran wouldn’t cut off people’s hands for holding a Christian bible. They wouldn’t be calling for the destruction of Israel and they certainly wouldn’t be seeking nuclear weapons. I mean, why seek nuclear weapons if Bush doesn’t use those 3 words? Because their screwed-up-ed-ness is all because Bush used those 3 words. They were so much nicer when Carter was in office, weren’t they?!!!!

“The European Union tried to negotiate with Iran. But the US stayed on the sidelines.”

This is part of the liberal “I voted for it right after I voted against it” tactic. Slam Bush for not involving countries … Bush always has to have it his way … Bush doesn’t care, he’ll just go it alone. Then comes Iran and now we hear: What is Bush doing? Why are other countries doing the talking? Why doesn’t he lead???!!! (flippity flop!)

“Why could not the Republicans offer a big business deal with Iran?”

Answer: Because we our infidels. Oh, and this might shock you … so are you. You’re just considered a weak, obsequious infidel. But your head still needs to come off. (They’ll just laugh more when they decapitate you.)

“How Republicans feel about the UN is demonstrated by how … “

Let me finish that one for you. “… by how they made billions off of a program designed to help the people of Iraq during sanctions aimed mostly at Saddam, by how they demonize the US only because they can’t get a reaction out of other more lawless governments, and by how they pass 14 unambiguous resolutions and then piss all over the nation which actually enforced them.”

“Encourage discussions, treaties and agreements. Cooperate primarily with democracies to make the world more peaceful and more democratic.”

There you go again … thinking all other nations, leaders, and peoples actually want to be a part of a reasoned, free society. Let me help you out here: Many Muslims are only allowed to read one book. And if we cooperate primarily with democracies, what good is that? What are we going to do? … make current democracies, um, democracies?

This sufficiently thrashes your entire article and it’s also a warning. Not that you offered many detailed solutions in your article, but what general alternative paths you did offer were naive and part of the BAFSLA (Blame America First Self Loathing American) mentality. Scary to say the least!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 28, 2006 07:54 PM

It’s all great that we can say what we are for or against, but the trouble we have nowadays is the inability to let go of that and evolve our points of view to deal with the facts as they change and become better known to us.

I wish more people left and right (especially right, since they have control, especially left because they’re my people) would take a moment to step back from the habitual statements of political positions, from their accusations and counter accusations, and remember our purposes here. I didn’t start writing here about the Iraq war so Democrats could win in ‘04 or ‘06, or because of some hatred towards Bush, I did so because I wanted to see our efforts in Iraq changed for the better, and I just didn’t trust Bush to do so properly. Now, I have no choice but to trust him, so therefore I’m pushing on these issues harder than before.

We should want what’s best for the country, not merely where we want it to head, but also in what we do right this minute.

We can’t afford in this day and age to be right only in our own heads. We must tie our understanding of things back to the real world as best as we can. The alternatives are the deadly twin illusions of paranoia and complacency, both bad estimations of our situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2006 08:04 PM

Ken-
If you think those resolutions were all unambiguous, I invite you to read them. As for blame America first, I think you misinterpret our position. America must be the first country to admit mistakes when America is wrong. Maybe you’re convinced that we can perpetually disclaim all things that besmirch our image, yet freely commit the very atrocities we condemn in other countries, but I find I have little stomach for that kind of hypocrisy. America should act in vein of what it stands for. The alternative is not to stand for freedom, human rights, and the American way any longer.

We must make our stand against the terrorists armored against their insinuations and lies by the truth of our actions. That also works to solve your problems with the media. Without a chronic insurgency, it becomes rather more difficult to report on one. As I insisted with Paul Siegel, I insist with you: We cannot afford to be only right within our own heads. We must be right in the real world, even if if that means being somewhat vulnerable to the atrocities of our enemies. They can kill us, but only we can kill our Democracy, and abdicate our moral authority as the beacon of freedom and righteousness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2006 08:16 PM

Stephen D.,

Excellent post, I mean that sincerely. I think the problem is such as when we see articles like above, full of emotion and very little to no fact. My centrist side starts to dissipate.

I usually vote Republican. But I also believe in an adult woman’s right to choose, affirmative action, and strong environmental policies (although I believe about 1/2 of the global warming activists hype the situation to false levels). I had to teach my very liberal neighbor how to obtain recycling bins and what days to put it out for pick-up.

But I’m a “Bushy”, to use a liberal term, when it comes to post 9/11 foreign policy. And re-hashing Abu Ghraib every other day, equating Gitmo to Gulags (hi Sen. Durbin!), calling the House of Reps a Plantation, senators backing Bush on the threat of Saddam in 2002 and then saying he lied in 2003, 2004, and 2005 … all of those types of outrageous rhetoric send me hurdling to the Right at Mach 3.

I don’t mind the dissent. But when people get on this “America is the worst country in the world” kick in a way to damn Bush … it just sends me sailing right.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 28, 2006 08:24 PM

Paul:

There is a common thread in your thoughts on cooperation which is noble if nieve. The fault line you are discribing here is not one that I think exists. What I think exists is a difference in values.

L:berals (in general) ARE soft on defense.

Conservatives (in general) are soft of civil rights.

If you were to poll consevatives verses liberals on the following question, I think the differences would be astounding.

“Would you be willing to surrender your civil rights in order to protect your country?”

My answer on this would be sure, if that is what it takes, of course. On national defense issues, do you think I’m a liberal, moderate or conservative?

I think we are different because we have different fundamental values. Questions about the NSA are puzzling to me. I assumed all that wiretapping was going on already!! Why the shock? We are at war after all.

Conservatives and liberals both “bend the rules” when politics enters their sacred cow. There is no right to abortion in the constitution right? What there was in 1973 was a majority of members of the supreme court who believed in the civil rights of pregnant mothers over the fetus!! So they imposed (being unelected) law on the country. That is what liberals would do.

On the other hand, conservatives are no better. Now that conservatives are in charge, and we are at war, conservatives say wiretaps without warrants are ok. We will just rewrite that 1978 law written when liberals were in power. We will stretch the constitution our way for a while until the tide shifts back your way. Thirty years from now, you can rewrite it again!!

Values are important. We all think our values are the important ones, and the opponants are straight from hell. They shift from time to time as well. At one time Democrats were the party of slavery, and tax and spend. Now you are the party of civil rights and fiscal responsibility!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2006 08:49 PM

“all of those types of outrageous rhetoric send me hurdling to the Right at Mach 3.”

I’m guessing you’re going to run out of room quick.

I really have a hard time responding to your posts because you simply assume the worse - take each argument ot the extreme and don’t seem to attempt to grasp what is posted.

example: “I don’t mind the dissent. But when people get on this “America is the worst country in the world” kick in a way to damn Bush … it just sends me sailing right.”

Please, show me anyone other than yourself posting this message.

Posted by: tony at February 28, 2006 08:50 PM

>> You dems and your almighty, infallible polls

you reps are all for polls when they work in your favor A Beautiful Friendship Flowers. Come on, you can’t have it both ways.

>> I know, I know. Libs are very very upset that this latest uprising obviously instigated by Zarqawi (he declared his civil war tactic himself for god’s sake) didn’t erupt the whole country into civil war. There’s nothing the libs would like more to add to their bleak ammo depot more than Iraq erupting into civil war.

vitriolic comments aside, nothing you’ve said here contradicts the fact that Iraq is on the verge of a civil war that is a direct result of the administrations screwups over there.

>> All nations … really? You’re going to stand by that Paul? How about all those nations feeding off of “Oil For Food”? Hell, how about the UAE for that matter?

Treating all nations with respect does not equal sacrificing national security or ignoring violations of the law. We can treat the UAE with respect but still refuse to allow them to control our ports.

>> More trumped up liberal lies. How many times has your neighborhood been attacked? And are you saying that radical Muslims just started hating us in FEB 2001? Really?

Make up your mind. You say on the one hand that the negative world view of america is trumped up liberal lies, then imply that there is a negative view of america when you state that radical muslims have hated america since before feb 2001. Which is it? The fact is, save for India, the general view of america has been declining since 2000, World Opinion Grows More Negative After Bush Re-Election, to include our allies in the war in Iraq, and aside from resorting to the “liberal liar, liberal liar, liberal pants on fire” argument, you didn’t provide any evidence to the contrary.

>> Yes, you’re right Paul. If it wasn’t for Bush using those 3 words Iran wouldn’t cut off people’s hands for holding a Christian bible. They wouldn’t be calling for the destruction of Israel and they certainly wouldn’t be seeking nuclear weapons. I mean, why seek nuclear weapons if Bush doesn’t use those 3 words? Because their screwed-up-ed-ness is all because Bush used those 3 words. They were so much nicer when Carter was in office, weren’t they?!!!!

The perfect example here is China. You know, china isn’t exactly the pearl of the orient. human rights are in the toilet. anyone remember the tiananmen massacre? selling sensitive military technology. what do we do? we open trade, most favored nation status as i recall. we throw them a carrot under the belief that working with them will help lead them to a better future.

>> This is part of the liberal “I voted for it right after I voted against it” tactic. Slam Bush for not involving countries … Bush always has to have it his way … Bush doesn’t care, he’ll just go it alone. Then comes Iran and now we hear: What is Bush doing? Why are other countries doing the talking? Why doesn’t he lead???!!! (flippity flop!)

Who’s talking about Bush taking the lead? That would be a huge mistake. We’ve already seen what happens when he takes the lead in … well anything. The question is about participating “with” other countries, not charging in and taking over. That’s the way it is with reps, isn’t it. Black and white. america either runs something or we stay out of it. there’s no cooperation, no partnerships. partnership to reps means everyone does what we want.

>> Because we our infidels. Oh, and this might shock you … so are you. You’re just considered a weak, obsequious infidel

so what, are you prejudice against the entire country of Iran? Just a question. Seriously. Because I don’t remember your other posts. Are you one of those that were saying the dems were prejudice against the UAE when we were talking about protecting national security? And perhaps a business deal isn’t the best carrot to throw, but there is something we could work with them on that would strengthen our relationship.

>> Let me finish that one for you. “… by how they made billions off of a program designed to help the people of Iraq during sanctions aimed mostly at Saddam

So should we judge the entire republican party by the actions of abramoff, duke cunningham, tom delay, etc., etc., etc.,?

>> There you go again … thinking all other nations, leaders, and peoples actually want to be a part of a reasoned, free society. Let me help you out here: Many Muslims are only allowed to read one book.

And yet it’s amazing how chummy we are with saudi, UAE, etc., etc., etc.,

>> And if we cooperate primarily with democracies, what good is that? What are we going to do? … make current democracies, um, democracies?

No, we encourage other nations to move towards democracy so that they can join the fun.

Well, this sufficiently thrashes your entire rebuttal to the original article. Not that you offered many detailed solutions in your rebuttal , but what more could one expect.

Posted by: Grant at February 28, 2006 09:07 PM

Sorry, forgot to mark that last post for Ken, in case there was any confusion.

Posted by: Grant at February 28, 2006 09:10 PM

” ‘Would you be willing to surrender your civil rights in order to protect your country?’

My answer on this would be sure, if that is what it takes, of course.”

i would sacrifice my rights and my life to protect my country, and those whom i love. however, this isn’t the question that is currently before us.
i think the more pertinent question given our situation is…

“Would you be willing to surrender the civil rights of others in order to protect your country?”

…and my answer would be the only one possible
- neither i, nor anyone else, has the right to make that decision for others. inalienable.

Posted by: diogenes at February 28, 2006 09:48 PM

I’m looking for a little light generated by all this heat, but there isn’t even a faint glow. Rather than reading a thread of mutual recriminations, I would like to see some discussion of Paul Siegel’s final point, which was:

The huge contrast between the foreign policy approaches of Republicans and Democrats may be summarized as follows:

REPUBLICANS: NATIONAL STRENGTH THROUGH SELF-RELIANCE - Rely primarily on superior military. No need for treaties and agreements. Work only with those nations that follow our leadership to transform dictatorships into democracies

DEMOCRATS: NATIONAL STRENGTH THROUGH COOPERATION - Rely primarily on superior diplomacy. Encourage discussions, treaties and agreements. Cooperate primarily with democracies to make the world more peaceful and more democratic.

Let me start. First, I think that Paul’s analysis is too simplistic in describing BOTH parties. The Republican Congressional leadership and its core supporters in each house DO have this worldview, but you would probably not find those sentiments to run deep in the minds of the Main Street Partnership. John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Christopher Shays, Susan Collins, Chris Smith, and others have a more internationalist, rational view of foreign policy .

Most Congressional Democrats DO want more reliance on diplomacy and cooperation with other countries than the Republican leadership. Like moderate Republicans, we also support a military that has the resources to do its job. We also want to see veterans and their families get more than the thanks of a grateful nation when they come home.

THIS Democrat doesn’t have as much faith in a diplomacy-only approach to conflict as Paul seems to think we have. I think that most Democrats want the US to be able to defend its interests as reality requires, and that sometimes means with military action. We differ with the Republicans in seeing the need for a strategy based on always having the right tools and methods for the job.

We also believe, passionately, that securing the homeland is a much more realistic defense policy than trying to export democracy to cultures that are allergic to it. Again, unlike the Republican leadership and their supporters, we don’t believe that securing the homeland requires sacrificing the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, but DOES mean putting the resources required for security ahead of tax breaks for the highest income Americans.

Democrats seem much more in synch with what experienced combat commanders are thinking, and with what they will need to do their jobs. What REALLY pisses us off about the Republican leadership’s approach is that it is based on midwestern xenophobia, religious obsession, ideological delusion, and plain old paranoia. Plus, its unbelievable incompetence.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at February 28, 2006 10:24 PM

Nice post Robert B….thanks for presenting a bit different angle to clarify and substantiate where, I believe, we’re all coming from. At least us blue people out here…..Sorry, guess I should just speak for myself…again ..good post.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 28, 2006 10:35 PM

This following news item would show that Bush still doesn’t have a grip on reality…….

Back to Story - Help
Bush denies Iraq heading toward civil war By Matt Spetalnick
Tue Feb 28, 7:26 PM ET

President George W. Bush, hit by polls showing America’s support for the Iraq war at an all-time low, denied on Tuesday Iraq was sliding into civil war, despite the worst sectarian strife since a U.S. invasion.

The decline in Bush’s public approval ratings came as he told Iraqis they faced a choice between “chaos or unity” amid violence that has dented U.S. hopes for the stability needed to pave the way for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

At least 60 people were killed in Baghdad on Tuesday in the latest in a series of deadly attacks following the bombing of a major Shi’ite mosque last week.

Asked what Washington would do if civil war broke out in Iraq, Bush told ABC News: “I don’t buy your premise that there’s going to be a civil war.”

He said he had spoken to leaders of all Iraqi sects and “I heard loud and clear that they understand that they’re going to choose unification, and we’re going to help them do so.”

Despite that, sectarian bloodshed has complicated efforts to forge a new unity government.

At home, pessimism over Iraq, and Bush’s support — despite bipartisan objections — for letting a state-owned Arab company take over operations at six U.S. ports, appeared to be major factors driving his job performance rating down to 34 percent.

They were the lowest CBS News poll numbers of his presidency, creating a grim picture in a midterm election year.

Bush brushed aside the findings, saying ups and downs in the polls were not worth worrying about.

“I’ve got ample capital and I’m using it to spread freedom and to protect the American people,” he told ABC before leaving on an trip to South Asia that offered a breather from problems and miscues that have recently plagued him in his second term.

U.S. TROOPS WANT OUT

The same CBS poll showed public approval for Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, once among his strongest suits, falling to 30 percent from 37 percent in January.

Sixty-two percent of Americans said they thought U.S. efforts to bring order to Iraq were going badly, up from 54 percent in January, compared with 36 percent who said things were going well, a drop from 45 percent.

Raising questions about Bush’s vow to keep troops in Iraq as long as they are needed, a Le Moyne College/Zogby poll showed 72 percent of U.S troops serving there think the United States should exit within the next year. Nearly one in four said the troops should leave immediately.

A strategy often used by the Bush administration against opponents of the war in Iraq has been to accuse them of being unfair to troops who want to stay until they get the job done.

But Americans’ opposition to the war has grown as U.S. casualties have mounted and violence has persisted despite a costly program to train Iraqi police and soldiers. There have been 2,295 U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the start of the war in March 2003.

Before leaving for India and Pakistan, Bush skirted a reporter’s question of whether the latest Iraqi violence would affect prospects for beginning a drawdown of the 136,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq.

“The people of Iraq and their leaders must make a choice,” Bush said after a White House meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. “The choice is a free society, or a society dictated … by evil people who will kill innocents.”

Administration officials have accused Sunni-led insurgents, including al Qaeda operatives, of trying to foment civil war in Iraq. In Washington, a U.S. military intelligence chief called the situation “very tenuous” but not yet civil war.

Seated with Bush, Berlusconi stood by his plan to withdraw all of Italy’s 3,000 troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

“This plan has been agreed upon also together with our allies, and with the Iraqi government,” Berlusconi, one of Bush’s staunchest allies on Iraq, told reporters.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 28, 2006 10:41 PM

“What poll by the way? When did they ask the troops … in their last month of deployment?? You dems and your almighty, infallible polls . .”

Ken,

I posted this same link earler on another thread:
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

FYI a little Q & A on Zogby:
Q: I’ve heard so many conflicting stories - is Zogby International a Republican pollster, a Democratic pollster or an Independent pollster?

A: “We are independent and nonpartisan. I am personally a Democrat, but the firm does a lot of work for media (like Reuters America, New York Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, etc.) and we work for both parties.”

*****

Paul,

Isn’t it nice to “feel the love”. You need only wait for the response from the right to prove your point.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 28, 2006 10:43 PM

Sandra,
You beat me to the punch!!!!

I don’t know how long the site will be up, however since you posted the article, I’ll post the link.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 28, 2006 11:46 PM

Oh, I almost forgot! Don’t forget the polls showing that most of the Iraqis don’t even want us there. Or wanted us there after once Saddam was gone.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 28, 2006 11:55 PM

Trying to post the link once more…

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20060301/ts_nm/iraq_usa_bush_dc_3

Posted by: Linda H. at February 28, 2006 11:56 PM

The Zogby polling data have usually been as reliable as any.

CBS NEWS unfortunately is usually crap. It has already been diminished because they used a flawed sampling. (More democrats and independents than the population at large). Plus it is a straw poll, instead of likely voters.

CBS polling is just about the same as if it were published by moveon.org. Walter where are you??

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 1, 2006 12:00 AM

Grant

You are showing something you may not have intended. My post that you mention about India (a beautiful friendship) includes a statistic saying that 71% of Indians have a favorable view of America (not Bush) This should be good news to any AMERICAN. Yet you evidently see this good new as working in OUR favor and you don’t include yourself.

It does work in OUR favor if WE are Americans. Do not let Bush hatred overcome America love.

Posted by: Jack at March 1, 2006 12:12 AM

Jack,

>> You are showing something you may not have intended

My only intention was to point out the hypocricy demonstrated by the right, not to say anything positive or negative about the India poll. Any poll that demonstrates the growing dislike for bush or this administration by the american people is discredited in one way or another, as Ken did for polling in general through his snide remark “You dems and your almighty, infallible polls”, but when a poll supports what you’re doing it’s embraced as being the true will of the people. I didn’t see any of you who relish downplaying the value of polling data attack or question the India poll with the same ferver that you do polls that go against your position.

Posted by: Grant at March 1, 2006 12:34 AM

We cannot leave Iraq. Al Queda will win if we abandon the mission. We must stay.

Posted by: Aldous at March 1, 2006 12:38 AM

Linda:

Oh, I almost forgot! Don’t forget the polls showing that most of the Iraqis don’t even want us there. Or wanted us there after once Saddam was gone.

I don’t think that is needed. That is expected. Who would “want” foreign troops on your soil? Iraqi’s are however very optimistic about their future. Very optimistic, and very glad Sadaam is gone.

It is not an argument against the war to say iraqi’s doing want us there. Their pragmatic people know we need to be there for the time being.

Also, everyone wants this to end. I am a war supporter. I want our troops home this year as well!! I fear that it wasn’t just Sadaam who was oppressing the masses. I think we are learning it was the Sunni’s. I am afraid the Shite majority after winning at the ballot box, may have to win in the battlefield as well. Independence from oppression is a very difficult thing.

Bush is wrong in that this isn’t heading for civil war. It is even broader than that. It could spill over to the entire muslim world. It could get pretty ugly over there for a while.

Craig

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 1, 2006 12:42 AM

Grant

That is because I thought the poll was valid AND I would not suspect that a poll that made my country look good was necessarily partisan.

I still think it interesting that you think a poll that shows the U.S. in a good light would support a Republican position and evidently not yours.

Question, if something is good for both Bush and the U.S. is it a good thing according to you?

Posted by: Jack at March 1, 2006 12:44 AM

Jack,

I don’t want to rehash the entire discussion from the other thread and my comments were not directed towards whether this poll was good or bad for america. Again, my only point was that the right has a double standard in regards to their view and use of polls. “Any” poll that goes against the administration must be wrong while any poll that supports the administration must be right. The India poll was simply an example of a positive poll and hence was beyond repute.

Posted by: Grant at March 1, 2006 12:58 AM

Craig,

Various sites track polls. For example, this one shows CBS is consistently on the low side for Bush approval ratings. You can glean useful information from this- generally speaking, I think it’s fair to say the CBS poll runs a couple percentage points below the average of all the polls. If it’s true in this case, Bush is probably somewhere around 37& in approval ratings- still a dismal number.

“I fear that it wasn’t just Sadaam who was oppressing the masses. I think we are learning it was the Sunni’s.”

Absolutely. Agreed. Iraq was originally three backwater provinces in the Ottoman Empire: Basra, Bagdhad, and Mosul. When Britain and France divided up the Middle East, they drew borders based upon their spheres of interest, especially their interest in oil. Iraq was the result of Winston Churchill’s colonial dreams, and NOT the aspirations of anyone actually from the region.

The Brits found it difficult to control Iraq, but eventually hit upon an effective solution. The Brits co-opted the Sunnis. In exchange for giving the Sunnis in political power and control of the military, the Sunnis cooperated with the British.

Eventually, Saddam Hussein and the Baathists took control of Iraq. They were Arab nationalists and secularists, with no use for either the Kurds or the Shias. The feeling was always mutual.

At the end of the First Gulf War, Bush #41 left Saddam in power. The proximate cause was the agreement the US made with the Coalition limiting the objective to the liberation of Kuwait (itself a fictional creation of colonialism- but never mind). The ultimate cause, however, was realpolitik; the realization by Bush #41 that Iraq was ungovernable, at least not without someone like Saddam Hussein in charge. The alternative was letting the Kurds establish an independent state, an idea which was anathema to the Turks and others; and letting the Shias establish a fundamentalist Shia state in the south, one closely allied with Iran.

And now, here we are, face to face with a civil war, one which could easily spread to engulf Shias and Sunnis in a regional war. Partition of Iraq will be the solution. It’s just a matter of time. It ‘s the only realistic solution which doesn’t involve mass slaughter. It should have been the solution over a year ago. Instead, the Bush administration initiated a disastrous policy of conducting democratic elections for Iraq as a whole, because mediocrities like Condi Rice couldn’t summon the courage to advocate partition.

The question that needed to be voted upon was this: do you want to be a part of a united Iraqi nation, or split it into three independent countries?

But here we are. It’s easy to see where we need to be, but unfortunately, we’re stuck with an arrogant & inept administration. It’s been a strategic blunder of colossal proportions, and there’s every chance of its growing even worse.

Maybe Cheney will resign ‘for health reasons.’ It would be the best thing to happen to this country.

Posted by: phx8 at March 1, 2006 01:22 AM

phx8,

You know, I’ve wondered for awhile now why no one’s talked about just splitting up Iraq into three states. I never really researched it, but it seemed like a logical solutions. The three factions don’t want anything to do with each other. In America, the north and the south had differences of opinions, but we also had a lot in common. I’ve never seen much in common between these three groups.

Posted by: Grant at March 1, 2006 01:37 AM

I’ve always said polls make good fodder for magazines and newspapers but they day we start adjusting policies based on any polling besides election day will be a sad day indeed. If any politician does this, it’s wrong in my view. And in my view the dems are more reactionary to the weekly polls … a huge fault in my opinion. The way you ask the question can get 2 different answers:

Sergeant, would you prefer that the war end this year and you not have to come back? 72% say “YES”!

Sergeant, are we wasting our time here and thus need to get out of Iraq no later than the end of this year?

I guarantee you that you would not get 72%!

Do you prefer beer or wine? 72% say “wine”! (Undisclosed: Poll taken in Napa Valley.)

Do you prefer beer or wine? 72% say “beer”! (Undisclosed: Poll taken in Milwaukee)

Now do you get my point about polls? How you ask, who you ask, when you ask, where you ask … every poll question, to include ones that lean to my viewpoints have had major faults in them when auditing the polling. They’re just worthless in my mind to back up a point.

If you want to back up your viewpoint with more than your personal experiences … use universally accepted fact, use unchallenged history, use obtainable document data, use direct quotes from universally accepted experts … but if you throw polls around you might as well quote your crazy cousin living in a van down by the river while you’re at it.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 02:03 AM

Grant,
There are several reasons to oppose splitting Iraq.

First, splitting Iraq could encourage the minorities of other countries to agitate for partition as well. US policy usually advocates the sanctity of international borders. Invasions are forbidden for good reason. Rebellions are discouraged. Yet partition eventually worked for Yugoslavia, and perhaps it would be a better solution for others as well.

Second, splitting Iraq could be threatening for neighboring countries. The Kurds have proven themselves good friends to the US, and have enjoyed de facto independence since the First Gulf War. But they are not exactly angelic. Go back far enough, and you’ll find the Kurds played an important role in the Armenian genocide of the early 1900’s. In addition, they fought against the Turks to establish a Kurdish homeland in southeastern Turkey. Over 30,000 died over the years. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians nor the Syrians want to face a resurgent Kurdish nationalism.

Third, an independent state in southern Iraq would almost certainly be close to Iran, and a fundamentalist Shia regime. In addition, a Shia state in the south would threaten Kuwait. A substantial amount of the world’s oil reserves could fall under to the Shias. Of course, keeping Iraq united under Shia rule would be even worse, so this is a risk that seems worth taking.

Fourth, an independent state in central Iraq would be predominantly Sunni, and would lack the oil wealth available to the Kurds & Shias. This problem could be addressed by providing massive subsidies. We’re already bleeding in Iraq at the rate of over $1 billion per week. Why not cut to the chase, funnel the money through our fine friends in Saudi Arabia, and rebuild & subsidize an independent Iraqi state centered around Bagdhad?

Fifth, separate states would not be guaranteed to cease warring against one another. However, it seems partition could breath new life into the region. The US could front the UN as a genuine peacekeeping force, rather than as a narrowly disguised occupying colonial force.

The upshot of partition would be a win for US interests with the Kurds, a neutral outcome with many unknowns for the Sunnis in the central region, and a loss for US interests in the south.

An overall advantage would result for US interests through partition because small states have fewer means to resist US hegemony than large states. For example, compare the USSR with the numerous independent nations after the break=up. If the trend of other nations splitting into smaller ones follows, it’s to the advantage of the US; many smaller states are less powerful and easier to dominate than larger, unified nations.

Posted by: phx8 at March 1, 2006 02:07 AM

Ken,

By and large I agree with your assessment regarding the flaws in polling, and I certainly don’t think polls should be used in regards to policy, but I don’t think they are completely invalid either.

That being said, I respect your views regarding polls so long as those views are consistant across the board. My issue is that republicans, and to be fair democrats probably do it to, flip-flop on their attitudes about polls. If the polls support them than the polls are good, otherwise they are distortions or flawed.

Posted by: Grant at March 1, 2006 02:11 AM

Grant,

You took some time to rebut my rebuttal so I’ll address at least you.

My viewpoint on polls is above. Dems unquestionably fall prey to polling more than democrats. It’s why most dems voted against Gulf War I (No Blood For Oil!) but then most voted for the Iraq War so they didn’t get left behind the victory like last time. Then the Iraq War made itself known not to be a 3 week wonder like Gulf I and Afghanistan . . and Dean made some polling headway with “Bush Lied! Bush Lied!” and that led to the necessity of “I voted for it right after I voted against it”.

Regarding the Civil War in Iraq: Even the NY Times acknowledges, that while strife still continues, the major Shia V. Sunni Civil War lasted all of a day. All leaders of note from both sides are calling for calm.

How are we treating the UAE with respect, and pray tell, what laws have they violated? The Brits went through the same congressionally approved vetting process that the UAE went through up until a few days ago … what we’re doing now is completely different simply because that country is Arab. Is that equal respect? I’m not saying it’s wrong, just saying it’s not equal. We DON’T want to treat all nations equally!

Regarding the greater hostility towards America, I don’t consider Western Europe, Latin America, and Islamic States expressing a dislike of our chosen President as “hostile”. I consider violence or nationally endorsed threats of violents as “hostile”. Radical Muslims have been attacking us since the 80’s and picked it up to it’s most feverish pitch in the 90’s. To pin radical muslim hostility on Bush is absurd to the Nth degree.

China worked with us because they believed in a strong economy. And Chinese think of themselves as Chinese. Iranians don’t think of themselves as Iranians, they think of themselves as Muslims. They have little to no pride in a national economy. And, while China has made economic gains, their civil rights are no better since Tianamen Square … the carrot helped Wal Mart, but it didn’t help individual civil rights.

I’m glad we didn’t talk to Iran. I mean, do you argue with 13 year olds? The answer to that question is why I’m glad Bush stayed away from Iran. The issue of Nukes in Iran was unequivocal . . it would be like your 13 year old child getting caught with crack cocaine and me telling you “Hey, you really should sit down and hash this out with him … work on a compromise.”

I don’t know if I’m prejudiced, but I’m definitely weary of the entire country of Iran. I realize the Shah was no cupcake but the leaders they allow to stay in power there … the “goals” they have for the world … If they sent a million people over to the US and killed 10,000 of us I’m quite sure they’d call that a victory and probably install a national holiday to memorialize the “martyrs”.

Duke Cunningham and Delay are involved in trials. I haven’t seen or heard of an external investigation worthy enough to make that happen with UN folks. And the money we’re talking about with Duke and Delay is 1/10th of a small peanut compared to the money involved in the Oil For Food scandal. The UN is barely eeking out just token measures to deal with the billions of dollars lost. Until they do, that scandal does indeed taint the entire organization, especially to include its leader.

Yes, we are chummy with Saudi, UAE, etc. but it’s only because of oil and current mid-east strategy. To not have trade with at least some of the oil rich nations would be economically irresponsible. (And yes, I know that’s Bush’s fault … if he only could’ve avoided inventing that reciprocating engine!) Even as “progressive” as Saudi, Jordan, and the UAE are … they’re still a lot of homegrown terrorists there. The day we can seriously cut back on oil needs is the day we can say good bye to the Mid-East. Good riddance! I’m tired of them hating to death their #1 customer for one of their only serious trade products.

And finally, I’m still not getting how we promote new democracies if we only cooperate primarily with current democracies. You failed to explain that.

Thank you, I’ll just take that epee . . ugh . . right there and be on my way.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 03:06 AM

PHX8,

I rarely agree with you but I thought your post on partitioning Iraq, pros and cons, was excellent. And no, I haven’t been drinking.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 03:14 AM

Ken,
Thanks! As you probably already know, like you, I served in the military. Although I served as a B-52 bombardier, I’m just this side of a pacifist; but when people like me go to war, it’s for keeps, and if it comes to war, people like me win. Nothing less will do. I do not take violence for granted. Violence is an absolute last resort, and something to be avoided to the greatest extent possible. That includes an extraordinary effort to avoid it. For practical purposes, it’s fair to characterize me as a Democrat and very,very liberal, further to the left than most posters on Watchblog. But I do try to think issues through for myself, and appreciate your willingness to do the same.

Posted by: phx8 at March 1, 2006 03:43 AM

Ahh, the mighty Stratofortress … that’s an airplane. I once saw it at an airshow, it lost an engine, and came in for the dreaded 7 engine approach. Now that’s reliability!!

If you ever did a Hornet’s Nest over Beaufort, SC … you probably saw my right wing ass flailing around trying to shoot you down. (That’s a “simulated” shoot down for you folks not aware of military war gaming.)

I’m glad you’re on the Left. We need more military vets on that side.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 04:34 AM

No need to elaborate after Ken Cooper was dead on correct.

The only thing I can add is that, sometimes, I wish could go to back to that kindergarden state-of-mind of Paul Siegel. But I grew up and now see that the world can never be the way Paul wants it because there is evil in the world (btw not President Bush) that we must deal with.

We need to treat all Nations with respect and love and try to live peacefully with them; however, we must always be prepared to overcome the evil that exists.

Posted by: mac6115cd at March 1, 2006 07:53 AM

phx8,

Thanks for your service. The B-52 is one of my favorite planes. One of my goals in life is to take a flight in one.

Ken,

Good posts. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 1, 2006 08:07 AM

It’s all OK…
Paul believes in carrots.

Posted by: Cliff at March 1, 2006 08:45 AM

Ken,
“You dems and your almighty, infallible polls . . you probably wonder why we even have a gov’t and don’t just make all decisions via some polling website. And, you can’t even explain why that would be a bad idea!”

Polls are only “bad” polls if they disagree with a person’s beliefs… otherwise you can bet that they are cited! Come on, please. Both parties and member of both sides cite them if they agree with what they believe.

As to why? Geee, Civics 101 huh? If we need to discuss the very basics then it will take forever to get to the “meat” of the issues.

Since ancient Greece and the birth of Democracy it was understood by some that basing a society strictly on the basis of majority rule would lead to chaos and the rights of the minority being abused. Do we also need to get into why a representative form of government was selected and why voting restrictions were used?

Ross Perot was an idiot because of his “electronic town hall” idea. Who really wants the policy of this nation to be based on the emotions of people at a particular moment? Want a really close example of this junk in action? Look to Californina with the Propositions and you will see the stupidity of the people acting on emotions and limited information.

“They paid no attention to the inspectors.”

That is true. Your miinimizing the importance of the inspections does not make their accuracy any less accurate. What was the hurry to get into this war?

Neo-con think tanks, based on their desire to “right” the “wrongs” of the first Gulf war. They had tons of justifications of WHY it should be done… they were just clueless as to HOW it should be done.

And, yes sir… I will be happy to discuss the role of civilian oversight (as outlined by our Constitution) and how they are supposed to be doing the strategic planning on winning the war and it is up to the military to do the tactical thinking on how to win the battles and achieve the strategic goals of the government.

Oooops! The civilians (President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Sec. of Def. Rumsfeld, Asst. Sec. of Defence Wolfowitz and others had absolutely no clue about this! The believed that going in an defeating the enemy on the battle field would win the war. How stupid is that?

Yes, I will be happy to debate and discuss how a government should have been bright enough and intellectual enough to have done it properly.

“There’s nothing the libs would like more to add to their bleak ammo depot more than Iraq erupting into civil war.”

Exactly when will it be considered a “Civil War”? I believe that it is pretty darn close or even past time to call it that. Does that make a really big difference? Does calling it a Civil War trip a trigger in the Conservative play book?

We are appeasers? Don’t have the guts to do what is neceassary, yet we are supposed to be cynical enough to want a bloody civil war to prove that we are right and you all are wrong? Hmmmmmmm.

Actually, I am a liberal but I believe that we are now morally responsible for the carnage we have caused. See, to me, that is what morality is about… not whether or not you can call yourself a moral party.

“More trumped up liberal lies. How many times has your neighborhood been attacked? And are you saying that radical Muslims just started hating us in FEB 2001? Really?”

I am not sure about the neighborhood bit. Are you citing the neighborhood on Manhattan Island? Was your neighborhood attacked? Does this have anything to do with the price of tea in China?

You don’t mention why the Muslims might hate us. Would you care to elaborate on that? Or, are you just going to give us the old, we are infidels and we are “supposed” to be killed?

They hated us for many years. Why? Geee, let’s think… Do you also want to get into the past 100 years or so of Western influence and policy concerning the middle-east? We in the west like to pretend that we are complete victims and that the anger and resentment in the middle-east came from out of the blue. Completely irrationale and unjustified. Is it? Could it be attitudes like wanting a war with Iraq and then finding an exucse to justify it that are part of the problem?

“Yes, you’re right Paul. If it wasn’t for Bush using those 3 words Iran wouldn’t cut off people’s hands for holding a Christian bible.”

Please give me an example? I would love to have one because it has been my arguement that we need to kick the right-wing Christian conservatives in the teeth. They spout all this garbage about this being a “Christian” nation so they need to have the Government sponor their beliefs by placing mangers on city squares and the 10 Commandements in court rooms in Alabama.

I want to show them that we need to take a secular government very seriously because we want the Christians in these Muslim countries to have just as much freedom as the minorities have in our country. We can only do that by completely separating Church and State.

Otherwise… they can say, like the Chistians here, that it is a Muslim country and they have the right to do what they want within their borders.

“Why doesn’t he lead???!!! (flippity flop!)”

I love this one too. Okay, a person changes their belief based upon new evidence you present them. Are they now “flippity flop” and to be despised because they changed their mind?

If a person refuses to change their mind based upon the new evidence you presented do you belive that they are steadfast, decisive and a leader?

This one really has me pondering. Please elaborate.

“You’re just considered a weak, obsequious infidel. But your head still needs to come off. (They’ll just laugh more when they decapitate you.)”

Sigh… another bit of wisdom concerning Islam based upon… what? All people in Iran want to cut off our heads? Amazing. We can’t even get a consensus on which cola tastes better!

Check out the tenets of Islam and particulary the part about the “people of the book” and the history of Christians and Jews under the rule of Islam. Then compare that to the treatment of Jews in the old Germanic states, the First Crusade and the Inquisition of Spain.

“and by how they pass 14 unambiguous resolutions and then piss all over the nation which actually enforced them.”

Is this another, “If you ain’t for us your against us” arguement? The UN is only worthy of they agree with what you believe? It is like treaties… we sign them and once they become inconvenient we feel we can disregard them… in the interst of sovereignty… the intersting thing thoughs, is that if you sign a treaty, such as the Geneva Convention then you are basically agreeing to foresake some part of your sovereignty on the basis of the treaty… Duh… that is kind of the purpose behind a treaty… to bind countries to an agreement, regardless of how convenient it is.

“Many Muslims are only allowed to read one book.”

Again, can you cite a source for this? Which countries? What penalty? Is it an ancient law that you are referencing or a recent one that is enforced? You know, there were many people persecuted by the Church for printing the Bible… especially in the vernacular.

“This sufficiently thrashes your entire article and it’s also a warning.”

I am sorry, I missed the warning. Could you elaborate on it a bit. What I read from you illustrates perfectly the point that Paul was making… but you were so busy trying to call everything a lie that you missed it. Isn’t that ironic?

What I have seen from conservatives on this site is the complete inability to deal with the facts presented. Instead they classify everything the other says as “lies” and a belief that they are the only ones that really understand what is going on… Based on what has happened, what is happening now and what might happen in the future they steadfastly remain loyal to bad decisions.

This relates to my point made above. I guess that this makes them decisive and non-filppity-floppy.

What great smear artist came up with that anyhow? Rove? It locked the Republican and the President into a policy of never admitting they were wrong or of having the MORAL integreity to admit that they were wrong. Brilliant! But, I think that the American people are catching on… check the polls.

Any polls… doesn’t matter!

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 1, 2006 09:38 AM

Phx8-

Just to give some support to your CBS poll comments, here is an article on National Review reminding conservatives that at the most the CBS poll is 3 points understated. It’s a good read.

Ken, were you a Shamrock? Was that you making all that noise while I was shrimping???? If you’ve been gone for more than 5-10 years you would not recognize Beaufort.

Posted by: George in SC at March 1, 2006 09:44 AM

Wow. So much banter and finger-pointing.

Paul, I appreciate your original post, though I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions. Instead, I think that the difference between this White House and a proposed Democratic one boils down to what Bush told Elizabeth Vargas last night – that he hopes that his presidency, in retrospect, will be viewed as an “agent for peace.”

In other words, Bush’s presidency is based on wishful thinking and outright delusion.

A Democratic president, IMHO, would at least make an attempt to live in the real world.

Posted by: 0% APR at March 1, 2006 10:03 AM

While the Dems were talking Saddam killed 2 million people in Iraq and helped kill 3 thousand in America,and planned to kill more and sooner or later he wiil pay for it because of Bush and the American Military and our Allies.Talking did not work for 30 years!Bush did what the U.N. should have done,but,they were too busy taking money from Saddam!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at March 1, 2006 12:02 PM

Paul good article.

When are people going to wake up and smell the coffie.
The Shoot first and never look
at facts history of the Republican
party has made so many ill.
I tend to feel the divide in our
nation has a more sinister source.
Many have posted concerns about what
side of the fence this or that media
sorce have allegiances with. The fact
that the media fails to report facts.
But insist on forceing this agenda or
that agenda in to there programing is
a crime. News is no longer news it has
become Propaganda. Leaveing many Americans
with the view that none can be trusted.
NO media or media person should be allowed
to outright state that one political party
is better than any other. Americans should
have enough commen sense to see who is
reporting and who is delivering a party
speech. However sadly people can not tell
the differance. If a report does not alline
with your partys interest it is immediately
wrong. Does not mean the report is wrong.
However when a reporter preaches concepts
that are one party based. Going so far as
creating terminology that paints the opposing
party as weak , evil jokes. You can rest assured
it is not fact. People must acknowledge they are expossing
themselves to nothing less than brainwashing. I have said it
before and will continue to say. That if you
can tell who a person votes for they are not reporting
they are a political propaganda tool.
This type of media has devided our nation. A
person can not make a factual decision if
they have no where to turn for real unbiased
facts. Sadly some media does go as far as out
right lies.

Posted by: Honey P at March 1, 2006 12:13 PM

Paul, interesting topic. I agree with your post, even though I realize that you are speaking very generally.

phx8, great post on the partitioning of Iraq. In your follow-up post to Ken Cooper you wrote:

“Although I served as a B-52 bombardier, I’m just this side of a pacifist; but when people like me go to war, it’s for keeps, and if it comes to war, people like me win. Nothing less will do.”

I admire this kind of spirit, and I share it. I just wish it was the mindset shared by more of America.
Speaking of going in for keeps, that is what we should have done in Afghanistan. Gone in massively. Rounded up Bin Laden and all those other Al Qaeda bastards and totally kicked the Taliban’s butt. If we had done all that, by now we’d be well into the process of completely rebuilding their infrastructure and assisting the Afghani people with economic development. Instead, Bush took our eyes off that goal by taking us needlessly and senselessly into Iraq. And now look at where we are.
The stupidity of it all is just mind-boggling and unbelievable.

“I do not take violence for granted. Violence is an absolute last resort, and something to be avoided to the greatest extent possible. That includes an extraordinary effort to avoid it.”

Yes. But don’t you think most intelligent, sane and logical people share this view — Democrat, Independent and Republican?
Of course, the Neocon Republican’s obviously don’t share that view. They love war, and view it as the best choice, even when it’s obvious that they don’t know the first damn thing about waging it — which is the reason I believe these people are actually quite insane, and extraordinarily dangerous to America.

“For practical purposes, it’s fair to characterize me as a Democrat and very,very liberal, further to the left than most posters on Watchblog.”

:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at March 1, 2006 01:21 PM

Wow! What a rush to attack me. I merely stated the differences, as I see them, between current Republicans and Democrats.

No one criticized me on what I actually said, except Democrats. Robert Benjamin said:

“THIS Democrat doesn’t have as much faith in a diplomacy-only approach to conflict as Paul seems to think we have.”

I did not say “diplomacy-only.” I am in favor of diplomacy primarily. In other words talk and talk and talk and leave armed confrontation as truly a last resort.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at March 1, 2006 02:17 PM

“Let him who desires peace prepare for war”
Flavius Vegetius Renatus (~375 AD),

“There is a homely old adage which runs: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” If the American nation will speak softly, and yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919),

This is another “lefty” that believes in NOT going to war, but being prepared for one.
It is amazing how cooperative people can be when you hold out your hand, and they are aware of the big stick you are hiding behind your back.

Posted by: Russ at March 1, 2006 02:17 PM

Darren,

I appreciate your long response, unfortunately I must be brief or my wife will shoot me … which might please way too many people.

Anyway, in short order and only addressing a couple of your rebuttals (please see my other posts on issues where I don’t respond directly),

My issue against polls is more personal than right wing party line, although I explained why I think Dems fall more victim to “poll quoting”. If nothing else, it strikes me odd that everyone’s on the dems’ side but yet they control no part of the legislative or executive.

On Iraq, we did take care of the problem (Saddam, his sons, and scouring the country in short order.) The fact that we had to go into Iraq to verify WMD or lack thereof … that was not Bush’s fault. Saddam had nearly 10 years to allow for unfettered, limitless inspections. And remember, we’re not rebuilding their nation and government for them because we have to, we’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do. So, if you want to get upset that the right thing to do is taking longer than forecasted, that’s fine … just realize it’s better than swooping in there, capturing Saddam and killing his rape room sons, free searching for WMD, and just going home.

And you’re being silly to assume all aspects of Iraq should’ve been forecastable. War is nothing of the same. We (both parties of Congress) destroyed our Human Intel capabilities in the ‘70’s. We were forced to rely on satellite photos, the occasional radio/cell phone intercept, and 2nd hand information from the late ‘70’s on. To expect a “know-it-all” approach to this war is blindly moronic. You plan for what you can but if we waited for a perfect plan every time we went to war, our country would be divided in 2, we would’ve never helped Western Europe in WWII, and all of Korea would be Communist and starving to death, literally. We tried to do the perfect planning in Vietnam and it took us 10 times longer than it should have and still ended up giving us our first loss in a war. Once ample time transpires, the worst decision is no decision.

As far as the carnage we’ve caused … what about Saddam staying in power? Besides the carnage he would’ve levied in his own country, Saddam’s arsenal was very much in question: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv
And I’ve yet to find anyone who will take a stance that Saddam had sworn off dealing with anyone (terrorists) desiring to hurt the US and its citizens. After 9/11 “Death To America” wasn’t cute anymore!

And my flippity flop had nothing to do with your “new evidence” but rather what dems expect him to do on the world scene. If he’s involved in world affairs they hate it, if he’s not involved (Iran), they hate it. “Damned if you do and damned if you don’t” is a weak complaint strategy.

Shoot, wife yelling louder and louder … only one more point. Are you about to tell me that Muslims hate us because they’re poor? Maybe if the Saudi Arabian madras’s let them read more than the Koran and didn’t blame the USA for all their ills, they would have a better ability to produce for their country. But in any case, if economic depravity is your theory, you need to see a very recent MSNBC documentary on foreign insurgents into Iraq. (MSNBC, not exactly a conservative mouthpiece.) The show elaborates on how sons of mostly WEALTHY families are seeking out a suicide/homicide missions in Iraq. If they’re poor they want to kill us, if they’re rich they want to kill us. Look at Osama, he’s got a couple of coins in the bank … word is Zarqawi could afford a house on Malibu Beach as well … money has little to do with it.

Gotta run, thanks for the exchange.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 02:53 PM

Russ
Exactly, nothing like an aircraft carrier loitering offshore to make a cooperative government where once there was none.

Posted by: richard at March 1, 2006 03:15 PM

While the Dems were talking Saddam killed 2 million people in Iraq and helped kill 3 thousand in America,and planned to kill more and sooner or later he wiil pay for it because of Bush and the American Military and our Allies.Talking did not work for 30 years!Bush did what the U.N. should have done,but,they were too busy taking money from Saddam!

It boggles my mind that someone still believes this!

Posted by: womanmarine at March 1, 2006 03:25 PM

As a democrat this might seem heretical but what we need, to be able to deal with these mounting problems, is a third party that can move more centrist without interuption from left or right special interests and even corporate/investor interests mitigatively.

Over the last few years I have been in disagreement with democrats on their populistic “hype” and being too loose in their policy decisions with more californianized-styled yippie community effortism like all politics is just localized/domestic (not everything around the world works like a Marin county seat) which amounts to a short-sightedness when dealing with things overseas. All the while at greater odds with the republicans on their lack of any semblance of ramificationary forethought (obviously not their strongsuit)and the fake political answers with no accountability-taken for their partisan-drunk actions in any venue.

These two groups PANDER to the lowest common denominator—to appease whom?—a constituency on the looser fringes that is not the collective majority of either party. We need a third party that can shut-up the outer-fringe squeeky-wheel patrisan dogma that seems to rule.

This era of mishap is really the historical legacy of the Babyboomers who are NO strangers to extremism in the least from the 60’s onward. I think we need both the left and right mindsets to tackle these problems not a divided field in a war of words and partisan actions born solely of hate for the opposition and “defensiveness of idiocy” (such as the average Watchblog post sheds light on). I now find myself more of a John Bircher than most republicans these days—where do the centrists go?

If we are the majority, we have no party because the g-damn wingnuts don’t have the smarts to get off the field. The right side panders to the rich laissez fairists (who don’t mind undermining our nation’s economy to make a buck) by means of the hicks. While the left panders to the rich L.L. Beaners by way of the youth vote (who can be more socialist than we need) and the gay/lesbian vote that brought in the Gingrich house take-over in 1994. Not to mention the left’s auto-pilot mentality when we need them to be more responsive and less ‘redtape’ as it were.

QUESTION: Where is a sane third platform party? Or are we as screwed as we look?

Here’s my plan: We stop the rediculous tip-toeing around Islam and placatively rearranging ourselves around Ramadan and other such sacrimonious nonsense. Islam is the problem of the Islamic world let’s give it no more credence than such idiocy deserves. It’s not a peaceful religion and never was, nor did it EVER have an era of enlightenment or even peace as the PC crowd/police assumes via western hype. It’s always been a vat of a-holes. To see a religion as insane IS NOT RACISM—Islam is not a race it is a totalitarian religion as was Catholicism—circa; medeival times through the early nineteenth century.

They are using Islam to impose things on us or they get mad and burn, bomb and dismember all if they can’t sway us over with their phony-ass religion. Let’s stop the PC and get down to business and get that region situated. How many more centuries is it going to take?—Islam needs to go so give it not one iota of credit on it’s supposed dominionary right.

If religion is the opium of the masses Islam is the Crystal Meth.

Posted by: Translator at March 1, 2006 03:32 PM

A quick review of the posted article indicates that Mr. Seigel just fell off the carrot wagon. I will say that the UN is probably open to carrots, um… appeasement, oh what the the hell bribes from the US since they take them from everyone else. Also, North Korea has a tremendous appetite for carrots and has dined on carrot salad the whole time that they were lying about building their nuclear weapons program. What carrots do you suggest for Iran? Perhaps Israel’s head on a plate surrounded by carrots.

It is good that Mr. Seigel doesn’t want to compete through force since any administration which followed these guidelines would be easy pickings in a military conflict. Mr. Seigel, like the bunny, displays the attitude of prey.

Posted by: goodkingned at March 1, 2006 03:51 PM

Somewhere I got the idea that the US owes past and present UN fees\dues. Financial support that is high enough to actually keep the UN stable. If this is true, then why do we keep wishing the UN would intervene, in either Iraq or Iran?

Can someone clarify this for me?

Posted by: Linda H. at March 1, 2006 04:20 PM

KEN COOPER,

“(MSNBC not exactly a conservative mouthpiece)”

Hmm okay that’s why on punditry, defending the left’s positions, we get Ron Reagan’s broadway dancer son? The truth is MSNBC doesn’t have a clue what the left is about—they think we are all gay-rights, unintellectual, vitriolic hippie non-hawks who could form a drum circle on a moments notice. With no more sophistication than an issue of “George” magazine (not sure whether that stupid thing is still around).

BUT I’m sure republicans are pleased by Condi Rice on the exercize bike though—if that were my party I’d be pissed to have a secretary of state doing that type of useless dull-witted fluff—but watch how fast you defend her on her inanity.
I’ll time it.

Oh wait let me throw some fuel on it “What a dumb-ass! Another of George Bush’s great cabinet picks I presume.” There go!

Or wait even better fuel “A true symbol of the Bush administration, a bike that you PEDDLE that goes NOWHERE.” Now go!

Posted by: Translator at March 1, 2006 04:21 PM

Translator

If religion is the opium of the masses Islam is the Crystal Meth.”

Best comment of the thread.Bravo.

I haven’t posted for a couple of days as I wanted to see how the civil war thing was playing out,but as I said last week,I do not think that partition,if it comes to that,is such a bad thing.

That means that we won the war but came to a draw with the peace.

I say we won the war as in militarily…after all in what 6 weeks Baghdad was occupied,so score one point for the home team there.

Now if a partition was to occur,we end up with somewhat friendly Kurds in the north,although politicially it will be interesting to see how Turkey and Syria react to that,but pretty much I put a check in the plus column there.

We lose one with the south,however.At first I didn’t think that Iran would have as much juice there as it did.I thought that Iraq nationialism would rule..that is Iraqi Arabism versus Persian,but I was wrong…American Pundit called it correctly here…they are firmly in the hands of the religious Shia nutcakes.

So far,one win,one draw.It comes down to the Sunnis there.We still have a chance of turning the Sunnis if partition were to occur by letting the big Sunni countries…Egypt and Saudia Arabia and the money boys from Kuawait…Sunnis all…act as a buffer.

Hey,we could have done a lot worse…Saddam is in jail and seeds have at least been planted that contain some portent of democratic ideals there….

Either way,it’s not as bad as the far left paints nor is it as good as the far right says either.

Somewhere in the middle,I decided is the truth.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 1, 2006 04:35 PM

I dont think youre entirely right, look at what clinton did while in office. While he did attempt at some points to sway people using diplomacy, he never met a cruise missle he didnt like. The differences in foreign policy opinions between democrats and republicans, in my opinion, tend to differ more within the parties than between. obviously our approach in Iraq has been a mistake, but most democrats agreed that getting saddam out of power was a good thing. Certainly invading ourselves and making it a United States occupation, then paying for all of it ourselves, and contracting out the labor to companies that barely qualified to do the jobs they are doing (and maintaining military responses to social problems, better mitigated by police operations) was a bad idea, but that doesnt mean there was a real difference between clinton and bush’s actuall approach to Iraq.
Iran is another matter, but one where i see even less difference between republicans and democrats, neither want Iran to get nuclear weapons, and neither want to invade the country, while both would like to see a democracy there. there are certain detalied differences in opinin of execution of the spread of democracy, but as i said before, there is more variance within the parties than between them, making this an insignificant difference.
Essentially, both parties are foreign policy liberals with a semi-realist view of the world (two opposing and contradictory philosophies of foreign policy), and while individual presidents may be more or less capable diplomats, both parties advocate a similar ideological bent and occupy a similar space in the political realm.

Posted by: iandanger at March 1, 2006 04:49 PM

Paul:

Wow! What a rush to attack me. I merely stated the differences, as I see them, between current Republicans and Democrats.

Just scanned this thread, but your comment above serves to show a real disconnect. You may have tried to merely state the differences, but I’d hope you can see that you stated the differences AS YOU SEE THEM, which is not necessarily as they are. I hope that you aren’t blind to the fact that you have inherent biases in your thinking, as we all do.

From the opposite perspective, I read your words and saw many fallacies in them, but I recognize that IFF I saw things from your viewpoint, I’d be pissed too. Your post served to help me understand the viewpoint from which you, and perhaps others who agree with you, see things. That alone is helpful, though I’d hope you can see other viewpoints with the same clarity.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 1, 2006 06:11 PM

Translator
A third party would be great, but few people are financially in a position to enter politics let alone do so outside the main stream. I sure would love it, especially if it were a viable option. The two we have now are virtually indistinguishable with regards to their pandering to the people who foot the bills for their campaigns. The sad thing is that it seems the people footing the largest part of the bill are doing so for both parties.
I expect the only way the people are ever going to be relevant in this government will have to involve campaign financing reforms and strict term limits. Maybe even an initiative process could help. It is only reasonable to expect that by the time Rep. Nosepicker has been around for a third term they owe so much to so few that as a representative of the people they are worthless.

Posted by: richard at March 1, 2006 06:22 PM

Translator,

Wow, nice rant. Unfortunately I didn’t say they championed the left, but Ron Reagan JR. hardly leans right and the same can be said of MSNBC’s most popular host, Chris Matthews. He’s no far left liberal but he certainly isn’t right … he came from a democratic congressmen’s office after all. So, I stand by my statement, MSNBC is no mouthpiece for conservatism.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 06:50 PM

>>I say we won the war as in militarily…after all in what 6 weeks Baghdad was occupied,so score one point for the home team there.

se,

It’d have been almost impossible for the U.S. military to LOSE the Iraq (so-called) war. That’s nothing to brag about, so score none for the invaders. I suppose if you relate to the David/Goliath legend we COULD have stumbled, but that would still have been just a little set-back. Getting to Baghdad was a cake walk. I wish Cheney/Bush would quit calling this farce ‘war’…but, that would lose him political capital.

The greatest military in history…the mightiest armada on the face of the earth…more nukes than all the other nations combined, and the greatest war general (GWB) who ever lived. How come it took us six weeks?

And, now that we’ve impressed the world with our omnipotence, what’s next?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 1, 2006 06:50 PM

I forgot to add:

I’ll take Condi Rice over Madeline Albright 100 times to one. I’d be weary about calling someone “stupid” who has more of an education than Dean or Kennedy or Reid or Pelosi … you leave the “stupid” namecalling door as wide open as the Grand Canyon.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 06:54 PM

Marysdude,

Answer: Collateral damage concerns. Otherwise it would’ve been 2 weeks.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 1, 2006 07:00 PM

Ken Cooper……all that education to become Dubya’s “Brown Sugar”.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 1, 2006 07:38 PM

My, my my Sandra!

What a hue and cry would arise if that cheap little shot were fired by someone who didn’t vote for the loser in the last presidential election. Perhaps black people aren’t appropriate in highly visible political positions? Or is it the fact that she’s a woman that you object to? Perhaps you would be more comfortable if they would confine their activities to more appropriate endeavors, like sports or entertainment.

Posted by: goodkingned at March 1, 2006 07:57 PM

Ease back there good…..he has referred to that publicly…….a number of times, though I must admit, someone must have wised him up, which is why he changed the familiarity to call her “Condy”….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 1, 2006 08:04 PM

good….
nice to see you so willing to show your backside while jumping to her defense.
She is, in fact, quite credentialed….but the cutesy little name aparantly came from back in time.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 1, 2006 08:11 PM

To the best of my knowledge the nickname “Brownsugar” was first applied to Condi not by Bush but in this Doonesbury cartoon:

http://pekingduck.org/archives/brown_sugar_condi.gif

Not one of Garry Trudeau’s finest moments IMO.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 1, 2006 08:45 PM

Trudeau took it from an aired clip…..and ran with it…back either just before or after her appointment. I am quite sure that it will never see the light of day again. I know that I saw it and will stand by that even though it probably can not be proven.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 1, 2006 08:53 PM

Sandra,

I’m not doubting you or arguing with you, that’s why I said “to the best of my knowledge”.

I know I saw and read clips about Bush using the term “crusade” more than once describing the war on terror but I’ll be damned if I can find one archived now.

I was just making a statement, not criticizing your posts.

I hope a lot of people “archive” these newly released videotapes of GW’s pre-Katrina correspondence.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 1, 2006 09:31 PM

chris matthews was tip o neils aid and staffer for 15 years. remember ole tip the dem speaker of the house for many years, i liked him and matthews.ole tip could not touch reagan the original teflon president.

Posted by: rodney brown at March 1, 2006 10:00 PM

Sandra;
RE: Your dismissal of Condi Rice as ‘Brown Sugar’ and my notation of the racist and sexist implications of your attitude; I don’t understand the following statement from you.

*good….
nice to see you so willing to show your backside while jumping to her defense.*

Those sort of references wouldn’t be tolerated from Republicans or conservatives in general. Derogatory racial stereotypes are SOP in the progressive camp when it makes a good soundbyte. I guess it’s an end justifying the means sort of thing, but it looks very intolerant and ignorant.

If you characterize someone who publically objects to racial or gender stereotyping as ‘showing their backside’, maybe people around you are turning away from you because of your attitudes.

Posted by: goodkingned at March 1, 2006 10:53 PM

Interesting article, Paul. I see you already got dinged on the accuracy of your view of Democratic foreign policy. :)

Foreign policy was bi-partisan for a long time until the wackos took control of the Republican Party. Then, all of a sudden, they embarked on a wacky ideological crusade. And yes, President Bush did use the word “crusade”.

But after Bush’s Middle East debacle, it looks like foreign policy is trending bi-partisan again — except for the occasional irrational anti-UN rhetoric.

That’s why you don’t hear Democrats screaming and yelling about foreign policy anymore. Bush finally flip-flopped and started bi-lateral talks with North Korea that broke the stalemate, just like Kerry and Hagle suggested. Bush started working with the EU and Russia and China on Iran, just like Sen. Clinton and Lugar wanted. And he didn’t go charging into Darfur with US troops, just like President Clinton didn’t drag us into Rwanda.

So after the Iraq disaster — other than wacky opinions about the UN (which conservatives will get over eventually) — I think both sides are pretty much back on the same page with respect to foreign policy.

That’s not to say we don’t need to jettison Bush. Other than Dr. Rice, he’s surrounded by a bunch of foreign policy nut cases who could reassert themselves at any moment.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 2, 2006 04:37 AM

goodking….if you’d bother to read in entirity what was written, you would have seen that the comment I made was a “quote”….that came from the lips of none other than Dubya.
I don’t care for her personally, I have no respect for her because of her relationship to G.W.
The fact that a woman holds that post is to be lauded…..her color is totally irrelevant.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 2, 2006 10:16 AM

The current administration is chock-full of neocons who were instrumental parts of the authoring of the mission statement of the Project for the New American Century. Though I doubt you’re unfamiliar , this is a VERY hawkish group dedicated to an American stranglehold on the rest of the world, especially the Mideast, through military and economic intervention and what I’ll nicely call persuasion. The goal is retaining single superpower status and the means is control of global oil supplies - and this is no surprise of course, knowing the ties of Bushco’s leading figures to big oil, big money, and the pursuit of more and more of it.

As far as this thread is concerned, I agree that its premise, while noble, is somewhat naively presented. I also agree that foreign policy is a very difficult shell game that even the best fail at, oftentimes disastrously. What is different about the neocon agenda is that while foreign policy options and strategy used to be relatively unaffected by party affiliation, now the stakes are higher - and the tragedy of 9/11 is being blatantly used as justification for every last detail on the neocon wish list - since global domination is the ultimate prize.

THIS is the main difference between the current party approaches. Yes, the RNC has effectively (and sometimes deservingly) labeled the Dems as weak on defense. However, the Reps are being overrun by a wild-eyed bunch of heavies who are used to throwing their weight around and ALWAYS play hardball. This is why more than one article I’ve read recently (in nonpartisan publications, BTW) suggest that the fracture of the GOP may be soon in the making.

Posted by: macsonix at March 2, 2006 11:17 AM

The following, while by no means out and out proving my point, doubtless clarifies the priorities of the administration and its New American slant. After all, there’s no need to yield to intelligence reports when you know your mission is to control the oil in the region and that you’re not going anywhere until that is a reality:

_________ ____________ __________

No one could have predicted it

When terrorists hijacked airplanes and crashed airplanes into buildings, Condoleezza Rice said that no one could have predicted it. When levees broke and floodwaters poured into New Orleans, George W. Bush said no one could have anticipated it.

The Bush administration was wrong both times, of course. Long before 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration was warning that terrorists might try to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. And long before Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana officials were warning that New Orleans wouldn’t stand a chance if a massive hurricane ever hit.

The

who knew?

defense seems to be a favorite of this White House. So while we’re not so big on preemptive strikes, maybe it makes sense to make one here. Before conditions get any worse in Iraq — at least 30 more people were killed in sectarian fighting today — let’s get one thing straight: Someone could have predicted this, and somebody did.

As former senior intelligence officials tell Knight Ridder, U.S. intelligence agencies

repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war.

What became of those warnings? Nothing, apparently. Robert Hutchings, who chaired the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005, says that Bush and his top aides ignored a

steady stream

of warnings about civil war in Iraq.

Frankly, senior officials simply weren’t ready to pay attention to analysis that didn’t conform to their own optimistic scenarios,

Hutchings says.

Hutchings isn’t the only critical voice in the Knight Ridder report, and Knight Ridder isn’t the only one unearthing damaging new revelations on the path to what may yet turn out to be all-out civil war. Earlier this week, the Associated Press brought news of a report from the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction — a report that blames the lack of progress in Iraq on a lack of prewar planning in the Washington.

Pre-war reconstruction planning assumed that Iraq’s bureaucracy would go back to work when the fighting stopped,

the report says. When that didn’t happen — when Iraqis didn’t get right back to work after all those greeted as liberators parades — the Coalition Provisional Authority didn’t have the manpower on hand to do what needed to be done. As the Washington Times puts it, whatever plans the Bush administration had simply

crumbled

when coalition forces encountered an unexpected

foreign and domestic insurgency that looted the country, sabotaged electric and water service, and killed hundreds of Americans and Iraqis.

Only the insurgency wasn’t exactly

unexpected,

either, at least not to anyone who was paying attention. As former CIA official Paul Pillar said last month, the

judgment of the intelligence community

before the war began was that there wouldn’t be an insurgency, but only if the United States succeeded in quickly

restoring and establishing

safety, security and a growing economy for the Iraqi people.

Of course,

Pillar said,

we did not succeed in doing that.

All of which takes us back to the doorstep of civil war and the predicament the United States finds itself in now. Although the president said Wednesday that he expects Iraqis, not U.S. troops, to take the lead role in stopping sectarian violence, Reuters says Pentagon planners — and you can insert the inevitable

oxymoron

joke here — are now scrambling to reconsider the notion of a troop drawdown this spring. Meanwhile, there’s the separate but related issue of the insurgency. It doesn’t seem to be in its

last throes,

as Dick Cheney famously claimed nine months ago; the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress this week that the insurgency in Iraq

remains strong and resilient,

and that

localized

tension between homegrown insurgents and foreign fighters hasn’t disrupted its

overall strength.

Who would have predicted it?

— Tim Grieve

Sorry ‘bout the block quotes, but I just can’t seem to get good old quotation marks to show up here.

Posted by: macsonix at March 2, 2006 02:07 PM

Darren,

“My issue against polls is more personal than right wing party line…”

Apathy. Nothing more or less. Some wish to participate, some wish to complain. Also, with the deviciveness of the campaign and its misguided focus on “morality” there were many that might have voted for the President because of a single issue… they do not necessairly agree with him on many other issues. So, if the people, as related in the polls, are not dancing with joy over the President, then maybe they possibly aren’t happy with his performance? Not liking the results of the polls does not make them any less interesting and informative if a skepical and analytical approach is taken in evaluating them. Unlike diehard Dem’s and Rep’s… people do change their opinions of a President’s based on his performance. Regardless of polls… it is a VERY significant drop. Way too much to argue that there isn’t anything there.

Oh wait… I forgot. The Republican party knows everything about what the people want! They don’t need to listen to what people are thinking… Rove doesn’t look at polls to set up his agendas… This also explains all the sweetheart deals done behind close doors… ‘cause the Republican party knows everything about what the people want.

“On Iraq, we did take care of the problem (Saddam, his sons, and scouring the country in short order.)”

No one said that Saddam and his sons and the Baath party weren’t bad. We all knew that. The quoted 2 million killed… does that include the Iranians in their 10 year war (which we supported)?

“The fact that we had to go into Iraq to verify WMD or lack thereof … that was not Bush’s fault. Saddam had nearly 10 years to allow for unfettered, limitless inspections.”

And yet… with those 10 years, Saddam did not use his supposed ability against us… I hear now people saying that he moved them to Syria… are we now going to play “Wack The Mole” and chase around the middle-east for these WMDs?

There was no other way than a trillion dollar war? Maybe patience really is a virtue. Cheaper at least.

“And remember, we’re not rebuilding their nation and government for them because we have to, we’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do.”

By God yes we are doing it because we have to!!!! You were wondering where the hatred and dispising of America comes from? It is the high-handed attitude like… “Yes, we destroyed your complete infrastructure, disbanded your miliary and police and now we are good enough to help clean up the mess… be grateful!”

We are obligated to rebuilding their country!!!!!! That is morality. In action…. not whether someone had oral sex in the oval office or did or did not inhale. Nuts and bolts, brass tacks morality! Sir, we are not doing anything that is not morally obligated by us to do. To pretend otherwise is wrong.

Supposedly our problem was with Saddam, not the “peace loving people” of Iraq. Therefore, anything that we break in our effort to remove him we are obligated to fix. Aren’t these people victims of Saddam? Aren’t they the poor souls we fought to liberate? Powell said that before the war started… but this party and administration trashed that man’s integrity to the bone because he knew what he was talking about.

I am beginning to understand the Republican-Conservative despising of Colin Powell. Read his Powell Doctrine concerning war and America’s use of force.

Sir, you don’t have to be a know-it-all or use 20-20 hindsight. Possibly listening with an open mind to people that disagree might bring in something that isn’t known or appreciated. Instead… Bush and Party knew all the answers.

“And you’re being silly to assume all aspects of Iraq should’ve been forecastable. War is nothing of the same.”

Nice try. I don’t believe I said all. Words such as “all”, “always” and “never” can be used to disparage a person’s comments. There should have been more foresight than what we had. Beating the foce in the field, flying onto a carrier and annoucing that it is accomplished? That clearly illustrated a lack of understanding.

Read Churchill sometime. Read about the difference between tactical and strategic planning. WWII was not about a single battle… and the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall plan were not done by tactical, small minded people.

It was all there for anyone to see if they had thought about their assumptions going in… but they knew it all!

These people leading us are supposed to be the best and the brightest that the Republican party has.

No one thought to tell the President that the word “Crusade” has special signigicance? It was worth much more as propoganda than any speech Murtha made.

“To expect a “know-it-all” approach to this war is blindly moronic.”

Common sense, anticipating that the assumptions might be wrong, studying military and political history… synthasizing these is moronic? That is like denigrating the “Intellectual Elites” as being too smart and then claming to be the education President…. what part of the educational benefits that higher learning provides should be discarded? I can understand a “gentleman’s D” student not appreciating the knowledge people strive for.

Along with the above statement concerning the Powell Doctrine, it doesn’t take a whole lot of brain power to figure out some of the following things:
1) You have to do more than defeat the enemy on the battlefield. This requires a bit of strategic thinking that should be part and parcel of taking us into war. As I have mentioned many times… they knew why they wanted to go to war, they didn’t know how.
2) Determining force strength based on the battlefield and to support political agendas of where the military should go in the future (Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld) is moronic. We bypassed pockets of resistance and caches of arms because of lack of troops to secure these.
a) I understand a mobile war. These areas are supposed to be taken care of by the following up troops… but we didn’t have any!
b) Rusfeld had an agenda to do this with as few troops as possible.
c) The loss of entry into Iraq through the Turkey border was a blunder… planning this without the prior approval. Those troops should have immediately been transferred to Iraq… not their heavy equipment, but them and their guns. The could have been used for policing the cities and the borders where all the insergents are comming from.
d) But, there wasn’t supposed to be an insurgency! They were supposed to welcome us as liberators. Stop for a moment… what curcimstances would you EVER welcome an invading army into America?
3) Once in Baghdad we should have immediately disarmed any person with a gun, rifle, RPG or a sling-shot! This is where the large number of troops were needed! To provide security and protection to the troops and to the Iraqi people that we “liberated.”
a) Immediately clamping down, curfews and house-to-house checks should have been done. Not standing by while looting was being done. These should have remained in effect until order was restored, passions calmed a bit and people could see that they were secure. Instead, it became a free-for-all and just like inner-city gangs, you goes with the ones that gives yah protection.
4) Rebuilding should have been apportioned out to the Iraqi people as much as possible… Ownership, livihood, working towards a solution and making their country livable again. Instead, it all went to the fat cats of the Republican party in “No-bid” contracts with American workers behind barbed-wire.

Sir, none of these things are “moronic”. What is moronic is to believe that we would be seen as liberators and welcomed with open arms. Not going in with overwhelming (Again, the Powell Doctrine) force set us up.

It just takes common sense, a bit of understanding and an idea that we are not always right and always have the answers. But, that doesn’t seem possible.

“As far as the carnage we’ve caused … what about Saddam staying in power? Besides the carnage he would’ve levied in his own country, Saddam’s arsenal was very much in question:”

There is a concept called intent. Motive too. Means fits in there. They were all open to question. However, the President and his people were not interested in exploring these questions. That is a fact and it is continually being denied.

Why am I so adamant about all of this? I did not believe that justification or the above mentioned intent, motive and means as present by the President were sufficient to justify this war. I have been waiting