Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

eric-
“Democrats have chosen a Vietnam template to oppose Bush in the 2004 election. When Kerry says, “Who knew what when?” it echoes the Watergate question of, ‘What did he know and when did he know it?’”

watergate and vietnam: not the same

if we are pointing partisan fingers, and you want to talk about the watergate template, I have one question for you, Do you remember th 90’s? every scandal ended in “gate”

so some soldiars good, some bad, doesn’t change the fact that pres. bush is handling this in a way that is bound to piss people off. I give him credit for trying to reach out to the arab world, but too late and to little. where is the apoligy? where is the “I should have been aware of what was happening here,…. 6 months ago.” Don’t blame the dems, and libs, for the pres. mistakes!

> Kerry admitted to committing ‘atrocities’ and
> said he saw other soldiers doing so as well.
> Is he any better than the ‘torturers’ in this
> case?

Good question. Answer is: It depends.

If you’re talking about those soldiers in Iraq who were abusing prisoners just for fun, then yes, Kerry is clearly very different. These soldiers are sickos.

If you’re talking about soldiers in Iraq who (and this is still totally an unproven allegation) were systematically abusing, torturing, or even killing prisoners at the behest of their superior officers (that is, they were acting out official US policy), then no, Kerry is no better than these soldiers in Iraq. He should be held just as accountable as the soldiers committing similar crimes in Iraq.

That said, in all three cases (the prank abuses in Iraq, but even more so with the Vietnam war crimes and the alleged systematic abuses in Iraq) it is the soldiers’ superior officers and civilian leadership who are ultimately responsible. This is 100% consistent with what John Kerry said during the Vietnam war: The “free-fire” zones in Vietnam were Pentagon policy, therefore the leadership in the Pentagon has primary responsibility for the results. Same goes today.

And, in fact, in both the cases of Vietnam and Iraq I don’t hold the soldiers responsible for “just following orders” if that’s in fact what they were doing.

[People will jump on me here to say that Nuremburg has discredited that defense, but those people are wrong: Nuremberg discredited that defense only for the higher levels of the military and civilian hierarchies. Few, if any, Nazi privates or corporals were prosecuted for war crimes committed as official policy, although hundreds of thousands of them were clearly guilty. I for one think that, likewise, low-level soldiers in Vietnam and Iraq who commited war crimes under the directives of their senior leadership should similarly not be held accountable. They should probably be discharged from service, but not charged with crimes.]

I was glad that Bush kinda at at least half-assed apologized today (“we are sorry”). For what it’s worth, I think that his apologizing will probably win him votes (which I of course think is a bad thing) but in the big picture I consider it more important that the US gets itself out of this humiliation as soon as possible. So I am happier about his actions today.

-Cf

What Nancy Pelosi asked might be unrealistic, but what Kerry asks goes to the very heart of the matter.

How far up does the complicity and/or authorization for this behavior go. Who knew, and didn’t tell? Who provided the kind of environment that would permit this kind of B.S.? Who didn’t watch their subordinates closely enough, when that was their job to do so?

Things like this do not simply occur on their own. some kind of culture had to exist for this to be common place. There are means by which prisoners could be manipulated and broken down which do not include physical and sexual abuse. Why were these means favored, why were these tactic employed?

We have to get to the bottom of this and put a stop to it, because no matter how much we cover our butts in this situation, the only real way to win the propaganda war (if such a thing is possible at this point), is to completely reform the situation, and let the reality then speak for itself. Otherwise, our side of the story will continue to be belied by the reality of our our actions. We can’t prevent your average crank from making crap up, but we can make sure that these people have nothing real to get others up in arms about.

I am having a whole lot of trouble distinguish between Clinton and Bush about now.
I wonder if Bill kept any naked pictures of Monica.

Well, supposedly Bush knew about this in January.

He just didn’t know the details. I guess his natural lack of curiosity strikes again. Gee, that’s convenient. Almost like Ronnie’s altzheimer’s

Rumsfeld didn’t bother to read an investiation report a month later.

The Whitehouse did NOTHING until sixty minutes broke the story.

What is the moral standing of an administration that sits on “heinous, dispicable acts” until they are caught?

Was Kerry, who testified about Vietnam atrocities in public as former swift boat officer, or Bush, who sat on and hid the story as a sitting President, more culpable?

What most disgusts me is a public that pretends not to know that torture was and probably still being conducted as official U.S. policy.

The Arab community disgusts me in their feigned outrage as well, Particularly while Genocide is being conducted in the Sudan by an Arabic regime right now.

Where’s the intense press coverage on that, especially when we just passed the Rwanda anniversary. Why are there no posts on that? Where’s Bush on that? Where’s Kerry on that?

Eric, 4 out of 10 Bush supporters now say they will reconsider voting for him if the Iraq situation does not improve by October and if the economy as it affects workers does not improve - reported on MSNBC today.

It is understandable that folks who supported Bush do not want to admit to themselves or anyone else, that their vote for him was a mistake. But, when someone begins killing you with their efforts to help you, most people will say, STOP, I don’t want your help anymore. It was difficult for Democrats to concede that Clinton had damaged the integrity of the office he held, and the respect that is absolutely necessary for a person to hold such high office. Now, it is the Republican’s turn.

Bush’s choice regarding invading Iraq when and how he did, - his choice regarding a large part of the tax cuts for high income folks then and his insistence on making them permanent now when even Republicans and Greenspan are saying NO - the deficits must come down - his choice in telling the world at large “we will do whatever it takes” to win in Iraq - his choice to completely circumvent the Constitution of the U.S. he swore to uphold and protect in denying Habeas Corpus rights to American Citizens - his choice to support outsourcing of jobs as good for Americans - all of these choices are piling up and adding up to an irrefutable conclusion - he was and is the wrong person to be leading our nation in such troubled times.

martinwitz,

watergate and vietnam: not the same

I beg to differ. The latter leads to the former in Democratic strategic terms.

so some soldiars good, some bad, doesn’t change the fact that pres. bush is handling this in a way that is bound to piss people off.

…Don’t blame the dems, and libs, for the pres. mistakes!

The implication here is that Kerry won’t piss anyone off? Just making a decision, any decision these days, will piss someone off. I don’t consider that a viable criteria for making decisions. You don’t either if you think about it. I don’t see Democrats worrying about not pissing off Republicans.

CF,

…it is the soldiers’ superior officers and civilian leadership who are ultimately responsible. This is 100% consistent with what John Kerry said during the Vietnam war: The “free-fire” zones in Vietnam were Pentagon policy, therefore the leadership in the Pentagon has primary responsibility for the results. Same goes today.

Consistant yes: logical no. I hope we are going to adhere to this policy in the upcoming Kerry adminstration. The next time a servicemember commits a crime somewhere in the world Kerry should fire his secretary of defence.

Are you willing to say then that these acts were official policy?

Stephen,

How far up does the complicity and/or authorization for this behavior go. Who knew, and didn’t tell? Who provided the kind of environment that would permit this kind of B.S.? Who didn’t watch their subordinates closely enough, when that was their job to do so?

In other words, “What did he know and when did he know it?”

One interesting point I read today was that the female soldier in those photos (thumbs up) was in a relationship with another perpetrator.

Here she fell in love with and got engaged to Specialist Charles Graner, from Pennsylvania, who appears alongside her in some of the photographs. In one chilling image she is giving the thumbs up as he stands behind a pile of naked Iraqi detainees. -thisislondon.co.uk

Though I personally never served in the military, many in my family have. I grew up as a ‘Navy brat.’ Any order to do such things would be an illegal order and as such should have been disobeyed and reported. I know there are ‘group pressures’ in the military, but I also know that I would not have countenenced such actions in my presence. I expect nothing less from our service men and women and their superiors. Anything less than that is unacceptable. Integrity and honor are not just words.

Well, Eric, the reason I expanded that question was to show the sheer variety of forms of culpability, and how dealing with one or two of these people would not improve things.

When 9/11 occurred, the first thoughts in my mind was that events like the ones unfolding before me often constitute breaking points for civilizations, points past which a nation turns into a darker force in world affairs, or starts to decay from within.

It is this fear, Eric, that permeates much of the Democrat’s anxiety about the Bush administration. Just look at the pattern of what Democrats complain about: Wars based on flimsy evidence, false pretenses and imperialistic impulses. Draconian laws that violate the constitutional guarantees and rights of privacy. Abrogations of the rule of law. Power-grabbing at every level of government.

And now torture at facilities we run in Iraq. Democrats are jumping on this particular because it is alternatively a major lapse in oversight, or a major lapse in the respect for this administration in terms of the rule of law. People are getting the impression that Bush is not doing what he needs to be doing in Iraq to prevent the fulfillment of the long slide towards degneration that this war seems to have taken. That’s the issue: is Bush really in touch as a leader with the situation on the ground in Iraq. Was he ever in touch with it, or has it been bad assumptions all along.

Now I am not so inclined to think that Abu Ghraib is indicative of that, and I don’t think Rumsfeld should step down. But what I do think is that if Bush really wants to recover from this, he should have the problem torn up roots and all, not merely trust that a few arrests and court martials will do the job. My message to him is do not stall, do not cover up, and do not spare people for the sake of morale. Do things in sight of the Iraqi people and let them know that the rule of law still remains supreme for Americans, that America does not look at Iraqi’s as second class human beings.

I can’t buy the idea that Nancy Pelosi’s statement is inherently partisan, when Bush has “privately” (but really publicly)criticized Rummy. Furthermore, we now know that Rumsfeld is going to apologize this morning. This situation reminds me of when Trent Lott got in trouble. His apologists were saying that he was a victim of liberal Democratic intolerance, but then Bush himself basically showed Lott the door.

As for Daschle’s statement, I don’t see how any sane observer can disagree with him. This is what you do when a heinous crime is committed in a hierchical system.

The intent of these cries of partisanship is really to dehumanize Democrats. To believe that this is all partisan, you have to assume that Republicans are genuinely outraged by the evidence of torture, but that Democrats cold-hearted bastards who are only pretending to be outraged. That is really “drinking the Kool-Aid”, as they say.

Stephen,

…points past which a nation turns into a darker force in world affairs, or starts to decay from within.

It is this fear, Eric, that permeates much of the Democrat’s anxiety about the Bush administration. Just look at the pattern of what Democrats complain about: Wars based on flimsy evidence, false pretenses and imperialistic impulses. Draconian laws that violate the constitutional guarantees and rights of privacy. Abrogations of the rule of law. Power-grabbing at every level of government.

And now torture at facilities we run in Iraq.

I recall the accusations of starving women and children, letting seniors die, burning black churches… when Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House. Democrats have a pattern of calling Republicans Nazis, of having ‘imperialistic impulses’. I can’t take that seriously.

“Power-grabbing at every level of government?” Do democrats ever grab for power? Florida recount(s) after recount, after recount in only democratic districts? Torricelli pulls out after gross scandal and a new candidate is installed in direct violation of state law all in order to keep the Senate? Please.

If democrats actually cared about the Iraqi people being tortured they sure came to it lately.

What I am tired of is Republicans being the only enemy of democrats.

Woody,

The intent of these cries of partisanship is really to dehumanize Democrats. To believe that this is all partisan, you have to assume that Republicans are genuinely outraged by the evidence of torture, but that Democrats cold-hearted bastards who are only pretending to be outraged. That is really “drinking the Kool-Aid”, as they say.

I’m sure you do feel the same outrage I do. That’s not the point. I am not calling for Rumsfeld to resign. More importantly Joe Leiberman is not calling for him to resign. Joe is on the same page; there are more important enemies than just the Republicans.

It looks like it is more important for Democrats to defeat Bush than it is to succeed in Iraq…

It looks like it is more important for Democrats to defeat Bush than it is to succeed in Iraq…

Eric, that’s an interesting statement. You’re implying that Democrats are undermining efforts to create a stable, democratic Iraq. Can you give me an example?

It seems to me that the administration’s inept handling of pre-invasion diplomacy and post-war planning are the cause of every problem in Iraq.

If you’re argument is that defeating Bush is detrimental to the successful conclusion of the Iraq adventure, I’d argue that’s the only way to bring it about.

From my side, it looks like Republicans believe it’s more important to stay in power than it is to succeed in Iraq.

Lee,

Democrats have engaged in destructive criticism all the way through this. To say that if anything goes wrong or is difficult in a war is somehow proof of, “inept handling of pre-invasion diplomacy and post-war planning ..[being].. the cause of every problem in Iraq,” is a little too much.

Examples? The desperate attempts at every turn to label this Vietnam II. Playing up dead soldiers at every turn. Using every single opportunity to paint Iraq in the worst possible light. If one looked only at what democrats have said about Iraq it would definately sound as though we failed in the invasion and are now failing in the occupation.

Democrats have been saying since before the war started that we can’t win. Characterizing the war as a war for oil, hegemony, and American Imperialism. Are these things true Lee? I certainly don’t think they are.

I watched a speech last night on UWTV by Joseph Wilson detailing the whole Iraq timeline. He was criticizing the Bush Administration throughout but he managed to do it with plausible alternative reasons why. I did disagree with some of his reasons. I would even dispute some of his facts. But I thought many of his conclusions had merit.

Nancy Pilosi and Ted Kennedy have no such arguments. They are playing the worst game of partisanship I have ever seen.

If you’re argument is that defeating Bush is detrimental to the successful conclusion of the Iraq adventure, I’d argue that’s the only way to bring it about.

No, I am saying that the way democrats are going about it, ensures Iraq as a moral defeat and perhaps a military one as well. By attacking the war itself as evil, unecessary, immmoral, based on lies, and a failure that should have never taken place you will put Kerry in an untenable situation if he were to be elected. By many polls still a 50/50 chance, right? What will Kerry’s options be at that point?

Contrast most Democratic positions with that of Joe Lieberman. I’m sure Joe would like a democrat to be in office as well. But he has a different view and attitude about how that should take place. Vietnam was a defeat because we were defeated here in the United States. Not because we lost battles, or failed to acheive objectives. Vietnam was lost politically.

Perhaps you could have a point, in that Bush has ‘failed’ to unite the country behind this war. But I don’t think there has ever been any chance of that happening anyway. Kerry will certainly not be able to do so either.

What will change with Kerry in office? Except for the fact that democrats who vehemently oppose the same position with Bush will suddenly be all for it with Kerry? And wouldn’t that be enough evidence to say that it has been partisan all along? Like Kerry’s accusations that Bush’s arrogance lost UN and ally support would you expect Republicans to be solidly behind Kerry at that point?

Hmm… All the examples you give are things that just highlight how poorly Bush is running the war. If you don’t believe that Bush is the only one who can successfully conlude this adventure, then those aren’t really examples of undermining the effort.

By attacking the war itself as evil, unecessary, immmoral, based on lies, and a failure that should have never taken place you will put Kerry in an untenable situation if he were to be elected.

Like it or not, all of that is true. And let’s not forget that it’s Bush and Rumsfeld’s poor oversight which caused the latest round of moral problems.

Had we gone into Iraq with a clear purpose and the moral backing of the United Nations, things could have been different. But at this point, Iraq is a hot potato. Best to hand it over to the UN ASAP.

Kerry has a better chance of making that happen, because at this point Bush has a very bad relationship with UN member delegates who are in “I told you so” mode. Kerry has a clean slate.

As for Republican support, more and more Republicans are not “solidly behind” Bush. I bet they’re wishing they had a Democrat president to point fingers at right now. :)

Had we gone into Iraq with a clear purpose and the moral backing of the United Nations, things could have been different. But at this point, Iraq is a hot potato. Best to hand it over to the UN ASAP.

Kerry has a better chance of making that happen, because at this point Bush has a very bad relationship with UN member delegates who are in “I told you so” mode. Kerry has a clean slate.

I am surprised that you think the UN is more capable to do this job than the US military. Such a route would ensure failure.

I’m not sure how UN troops would ensure failure. We’re not losing battles, Eric. You didn’t think there was a chance the US would lose the war, did you? Are you buying into the Arab propaganda that mujahadeen in Fallujah drove off the US Marines?

We’re fighting an insurgency. It’s not the Russian army crashing the Fulda gap. A UN force wouldn’t do any worse against guys with RPGs and rifles than we would.

Besides, if it will help you sleep easier, US troops would still make up the bulk of UN military forces, as they almost always do. The difference is, they’d be acting on behalf of a 191 nation organization that includes other Muslim nations.

The stone that the builder refused will always be the head-cornerstone
The Bible

If a great effort is necessary to defend an idea, that means that the idea cannot defend itself. An idea that cannot defend itself does not deserve to be defended. weapons of mass destruction ? invisible. Iraqi freedom? Abu ghraib. But, but, but, but …