Democrats & Liberals Archives

Between Decision and Realization

Bush has decided what’s best for the country. My sense is that Bush once again asserts authority where he cannot appeal to more basic principles. It’s more or less a presidential way of saying “because I said so”, and its frustrating. I know we’re being told that this is a new war and we don’t understand how to fight the war on terror, but the fact is, the new war is behaving an awful lot like Bush’s detractors stated it would, and the results in the field seem to indicate that Bush and Rumsfeld’s understanding of how to fight the war on terrorism is lacking.

Naysayer, some might call me. Nitpicker. Bush-hater. This is what often passes for arguments. One way or another, me and many other Americans are being told that we're too pessimistic, too concerned with small stuff, or too overwhelmed with hatred for Bush to think clearly. The only clear thinkers, they insist, are them. The only clear thinking, they insist, is believing that going into Iraq was not a mistake, that Bush's strategy will work out.

There's a great deal of clear thinking out there, but the results are decidedly unclear. If you think things through too clearly, it seems, some issues become downright invisible. The clear thinking was that (stop me if this sounds familiar) That we would invade a foreign country, install a friendly government, and we would be greeted as liberators. It was Kennedy's greatest foreign policy blunder, and it's Bush's now, too. Their thinking on the responses of the Iraqi's was clear enough that issues like the last Bush's virtual betrayal of the Shia in the south, and the strength of Saddam's intimidation tactics became clear as glass. We smacked into the issue, though, like birds colliding with a window.

Bush's Administration is a conservative mutual appreciation society, filled with people who are intentionally selected to believe the same things. As such, there is much resistance to stepping out of line to dissent, even internally. Additionally, people get caught up in their pet purposes to the point where they don't stop to question whether their approach is good or necessary. It says much about the way we went to war that Bush started the political push on Iraq long before he produced any evidence to back up the necessity of going to war there.

For the Bush team, it was their time to define reality, rather than be defined by it. But things don't work that way. Confidence and stubborn pride can help motivate us to take chances and find opportunities, but we cannot simply alter reality by will alone. Even if we have the power to change things, that power can only successfully change things along certain lines, lines defined by the reality of things as they are.

The Bush Team wants us to ignore the ongoing violence, count it as a cost of doing business in this war. But as things seem not to change, this seems more the sign of a policy helpless to change or prevent negative change in the situation at hand. That indicates that we're not taking the right angle. We should be seeing some improvement in the situation, if the Republicans are right. The resolution of this war should not remain an unfulfilled promise forever.

Rumsfeld should be replaced. His transformation is not yielding adaptations for our army to the unconventional threat. His policies are only making things more difficult. Bush needs replacing, but that's still years off, and the one thing we can and should be doing now is ridding him of this rigid minded group of legislators that rubber-stamps his policies on the war.

If we don't want more fresh blood on the battlefield, American or Iraqi, we need to get more fresh blood into the Defense Department and the rest of the government.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2006 12:06 PM
Comments
Comment #141439

Rumsfeld should stay. We need him to attack Iran. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like Rumsfeld but we cannot wait on a replacement while Iran arms itself. We must attack Iran and that means Rumsfeld stays.

Posted by: Aldous at April 18, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #141445

“President Bush today forcefully defended his defense secretary, saying Donald Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. “I hear the voices, and I read the front page and I know the speculation,” the president said. “But I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.”

What the hell is a “decider”?! I thought he was our “moronor.”

As far as attacking Iran - oh yea! By all means… as long as we’re deviding the world up into th US and THEM… shoot, let’s nuke ‘em all and head back to the ‘ole horse and buggy days. YEEE!HAAA!

Posted by: tony at April 18, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #141446

I believe in civilian control of the military. Don’t you? I believe the president has the right to run his cabinet. Do you have a different opinion?

Rumsfeldt probably should go, since he is becomming too much a liability. But you cannot be angry with the president for doing what he is entitled and if fact duty bound to do.

Posted by: Jack at April 18, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #141448

This is just another COWARD call from one of the kings of cowards.Mr.Daugherty who would you like to see solve all the woes of the world?Come on hot shot give some names.You have all the answers tell us yor plan tough guy.

Posted by: saying at April 18, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #141450

>>This is just another COWARD call from one of the kings of cowards.Mr.Daugherty who would you like to see solve all the woes of the world?Come on hot shot give some names.You have all the answers tell us yor plan tough guy.

Posted by: saying at April 18, 2006 01:40 PM

Jack…is that YOU in that disguise???

Posted by: Marysdude at April 18, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #141452

Jack,

“I believe in civilian control of the military. Don’t you? I believe the president has the right to run his cabinet. Do you have a different opinion?”

While I do belive in civilian oversight, it seems silly to have a career politician in control of the DOD.
We have been told over and over that Bush knows what he is doing, but the results have been the same virtually every time and they aren’t on the positive side.
Someone in the Republican leadership needs to step up and try to convince Mr. Bush that his ideas of what is best for this country haven’t been working.
Surrounding the President with yes men, isn’t in the best interests of America. In fact it only serves to further isolate the President from reality.

Yes, the President is entitled to his opinion, and he is also entitled to appoint whomever he pleases, but it is also his job to listen to his constituants (that would be all of the American people), and act accordingly.

Posted by: Rocky at April 18, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #141454

Marys

Does it look like my style? I suspect it is a provocation. Nobody who can use a computer is that uneducated.

Posted by: Jack at April 18, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #141463

Whats the differance between a liberal and a islamic terrorest? Thier religion.

Posted by: saying at April 18, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #141464

In military matters - I think we should allow the total combined military experience of the top level Bush Administration to determine how much they can control actual military actions.

Posted by: tony at April 18, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #141467

“Whats the differance between a liberal and a islamic terrorest? Thier religion.”

How many Republicans does it take to use a “spell checker?”

Posted by: tony at April 18, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #141472

Marys

For example, who make five errors in one line without trying to look stupid? It is a provocation.

Saying

On the off chance you actually are a conservative, cut it out. It is not helpful.

Posted by: Jack at April 18, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #141473

tony,

“How many Republicans does it take to use a “spell checker?”“

All of them.

Posted by: Rocky at April 18, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #141476

Jack:

Does it look like my style? I suspect it is a provocation. Nobody who can use a computer is that uneducated.

Sadly, that last part is not true. My father can use a computer and he’s every bit that uneducated. Possibly more so. Having conversations with him online either by AIM or email either involves an alphabet soup of approximations of english words that he can’t spell, or cut-and-paste quotations of cheap jokes better suited to high school jocks or college fraternity parties after people get really drunk. And he’s far from alone in that, there are MANY like him online.

Posted by: Jarandhel at April 18, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #141478

Best thing Bush could do right now is shut up. There’s great economic news, stock market may have started a very nice little run, and interest rates should plateau in the next two months. Now, if the Bush administration could just shut their yaps, stop the saber rattling, and keep the scandals out of the headlines, the economy could give them the best boost that’s been available to them for a long, long time. Some Republican optimism would really help.

That way I can sell before the next recession. We’re very near the end of the cycle, and for most, this is the most enjoyable part, if Bush can just keep his mouth shut.

Posted by: phx8 at April 18, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #141479

Aldous,

Please tell me you are joking. You want to attack Iran? Look, I am surprised that we have not been attacked by Iraq yet, for attacking them, and I assure you that if we attack Iran, We Will Be Attacked at home. Which is what Bush wants, at least one more attack at home so that he can play the Terror card one more time? Doing this he will say that we are all unsafe and if we elect Democrats in office we will all die from
nukes.

Bush is what I call a smart bully (I know, I used smart and Bush in the same sentence). He is bulling Iraq and Iran so they will be more likely to attack us or threaten us, so it will come back to us that we are vulnerable and he is our only savior.

I think we need to let the inspectors do their thing, which they are going to be in Iran on Friday. And maybe realize Iran is telling the truth and would like to use nuclear power peacefully. Why do we have the right and they do not?

The Middle East has posed no real threat to American people until President Bush Jr., and Sr., stepped into office.

Posted by: Jason at April 18, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #141488

This has nothing to do with politics. This is mere party bickering. We cannot allow Iran to have a nuke. The time to attack Iran is NOW before they spread their facilities beyond bombing destruction.

We must attack Iran.

Posted by: Aldous at April 18, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #141489

Aldous, of course, does not want to attack Iran _personally._ Like the rest of the best & brightest, he wants others to do it for him.

Posted by: Arr-squared at April 18, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #141491

@Aldous at April 18, 2006 01:05 PM
Attacking Iran? Sure, let’s play Bush in his cards. He wants us to want that, simple as that. Am I an idiot saying 9/11 was an (partly) inside job? Only set up for us want to go to war with middle eastern countries and such? I never heard the U.S. complaining about India, Pakistan or Israel. But AS SOON as the Americans (sorry guys, you voted for that moron, so he’s you Beloved Leader… err… president) see a regime they don’t like, they go to war.

Everybody knows the Bush administration (and family) fares well by wars like these. They have part in warfactories and such. Also, it has been a family trauma within the Bush family that Saddam Hussain wasn’t defeated in the ‘90’s.

Posted by: Ouwe at April 18, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #141494

Re provocation

Aldous has fooled all you guys who don’t know him. Read through other threads.

Posted by: Jack at April 18, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #141497

Yes, it is politics, if it was not politics, then they would listent to Iran and work with them instead of attacking. They are willing to work with inspectors, they are willing to to what it takes to let people know they are not making bombs, Bush,

“Iran says it will not drop its right to enrich uranium for peaceful use but that it will work with the IAEA”

“IAEA inspectors are due in Iran on Friday to visit nuclear sites, including one at Natanz where Iran says it has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent, the level used in nuclear power plants.”

And like the rest of the “Best and Brighest”, I realize that if we attack Iran, they will retaliate. I do not want anyone to do anything for me, may be you need to oppen your eyes and think about what is really going on, we have nuclear power with war heads, but they can not have nuclear power without war heads and with inspectors. What kind of message are we sending them? Yea, we are better then you and we can use our nuclear bombs on you but you so you can not have cheap clean energy. I would be pissed too, I would attack someone that prevented me from advancing myself.

This is all about politics.

Posted by: Jason at April 18, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #141498

Sorry, for what ever reason the link “bush” did not work.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc

Posted by: Jason at April 18, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #141504

OK - I still want to know what a “DECIDER” is…???! We have the leader of the free world sounding like a low-functioning redneck. I can’t wait to see the Presidential Limo up on blocks on the White House lawn.

Posted by: tony at April 18, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #141505

Iran: Ask not for whom the banjo twangs, the banjo twangs for thee.

Posted by: tony at April 18, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #141543

Why are we fighting a “war on terror” with conventional war tactics? Could it be that the military industrial complex was looking for a reason to increase the sales of tanks, planes and bombs since the end of the cold war? Why doesn’t Bush call the “war on terror” what it really is: “Cold War II: Terrorist Boogaloo.”

What the government should be doing is recruiting more agents from the middle east, Infiltrate terrorist organizations with spies, assasinating Islamic religious leaders who support and call for jihad, and supporting rebel groups within these dictatorships and theocracies in overthrowing their governments.

The only difference between the first cold war and this new cold war is that the first was brought to an end by an economic collapse, while the second won’t end until all people can be a part of the global economy without being exploited. People with real economic opportunities are less likely to fall prey to religious extremism.

Posted by: bushflipflops at April 18, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #141545

“The only difference between the first cold war and this new cold war is that the first was brought to an end by an economic collapse, while the second won’t end until all people can be a part of the global economy without being exploite”

Who’s to say that we won’t be the second SUPERPOWER to financially collapse? The way we’re spending on credit and economically loosing ground in so many international arenas…

Posted by: tony at April 18, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #141547

Jack-
How Bush carries out his duties, or fails to do so is fair game for political discussion. This thing with Rumsfeld just seems to me to be a finger in the eye of his critics, and nothing more. He wants to make it clear who’s got the power. Unfortunately, before everything is said and done, I think he’ll have made that clear at the expense of Republican electoral prospects.

Saying-
If you want to know the plans I have suggested, my preferences for courses of action, etc, then all you have to do is go through my quite numerous entries. As for calling me a coward? Well, on this site I would say those who are bravest of all, and of the greatest integrity, are those who can either oppose people on well-argued grounds, or who can recognize the common ground that exists between them and others. I try my best to be true to these principles.

I would gladly see our military face down our enemies and defeat them. But people like Rumsfeld are too wrapped up in office politics, ideology, and their theories of military doctrine to effectively fight the war. We need fresh blood at headquarters. We’ve needed it for quite a while.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #141657

“saying” challenged:

who would you like to see solve all the woes of the world?Come on hot shot give some names.

A.) Al Gore - or,

B.) John Kerry - or,

C.) Wes Clark - or,

D.) Russ Feingold - or,

E.) Godzilla, even, so long as he is a *Progressive Thinker*, and not some mindless shill or, worse yet, the Official Puppetmaster for some multinational corporation likesay - oh - Halliburton, for example…

You have all the answers tell us yor plan tough guy.

Well, before I just met you, my plans were rather Moderate, and hardly involved any Firing Squads or other draconian measures at all… However, I now think that walling off the entire state of Utah and turning it into a Political Reeducation Camp would be a Good Start…

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 19, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #141747

Betty burke I REST MY CASE.

Posted by: saying at April 19, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #141756

dAUGHERTY THE ONLY WAR THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT IS A WAR AGAINST THE WHITE HOUSE.yES SIR I THINK YOU WOULD GLADDLY DECAPETATE GEORGE BUSH OR CHENY OR RUMSFEILD.Why sir are you not running for office?Shit man you are a problem solver this country needs youR great mind.Lets make the second sunday of june DAUGHERTY DAY.Im not the brightest bulb in the box but you get my drift im sure.I sir am 100% american and 100% proud of it whats you excuse?

Posted by: saying at April 19, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #142344

You Dipdo’s Back Clinton all the way. It was Clinton who allowed Sadaam, Osama Bin Laden and Zarqwahi, North Korea and Iran to become what they are today. You are all in denial and Stupid. You deserve World War 3. All you think about is labels such as Conserative, Anti War. Republican, Democrat, Pro War. Anti abortion, Pro Abortion, Illegal Imigrants, Enviornmentalists And on and on. Your so freakin stupid. I got a Label for you!! INFIDEL!! Trumps all the others and you all wear it and I don’t care what you think or believe!! Print that on your freakin Blog. Do you think the terrorists on 911 ran up and down the aisles of those planes and asked who was Reublican or Democrat? I don’t think so. They were all INFIDELS and guess what? They still are you dipdoooooo’s


Posted by: Don at April 22, 2006 11:58 AM
Post a comment