Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Great article Eric- recent history has shown that the only way American can be defeated in wars is to attack the morale of the home front. The media covers only the bad stuff going on, focuses on the deaths, not only the improved conditions, not at girls finally being able to go to school (I am not saying this is becuase the media is liberal, its because blood sells- good news does not).

I urge you, however, not to give up. America can make the world a better place, regardless of what propoganda artists like Howard Zinn (who wrote a “history” of America that gave more focus to the communistist resistance inside the U.S. during WWII than our military actions), Micheal Moore, Chompsky and the rest of the rather irrelavent and mostly discredited radical left say. Giving up is easy- handing over Iraq to some emorphouse “intentional community” who couldnt care less about human rights or democracy is easy (imagine giving Iraq to the Arab world to create a democracy!).

Even moderate Democrats, who are so against this war in large part right now because they hate Bush so much, could be brought around if they can be shown the context. maybe it would have helped if we had pitched this as a battle against tyrrany. rather than WMDs from the start. something has to work- most of these people arent idiots and they dont prefer tyrrany over democracy in the world, even at a cost. And most of them arent ultimately silly enough to think we can wait around for the UN to do something about tyrrany.

You might be right about the homefront, but I sure hope not.

I think maybe we have a case of selective memory going on here. A couple of abused prisoners aren’t what has destroyed Americas will to fight. It was just the last straw is a series of missteps, blunders and disasters.

No weapons of mass destruction.
No oil revenues to pay for the rebuilding
No rose pedals scattered before the troops
No Al-Qaeda link
Escalating violence
No enough troops.
Not enough body armor for the troops.

Don’t blame the American people for being angry about being duped or recognizing a disaster when they see one.

Bush and company swallowed a load of bull served up by a posturing Sadam Hussein and a bunch of Iraqi exiles of dubious character. He saw what he wanted to see and heard what he wanted to hear. I have always said that blood and reality are the final arbitrators of these affairs. Now Mr. Bush and this country are paying the price for his unrealistic idealism.

Don’t forget NOBODY is questioning the Afghan war! Give us a righteous war and we will support you. Flim-flam us and we will throw you to the wolves.

Eric,

I guess we’ve finally arrived at that last, desperate talking point for those on the Right, or as I call them, ‘Anything But Responsibility and Accountability’. (ABRA…get it?)

This prisoner abuse scandal is what happens in a Clinton military age, not in the ‘return to glory’ days promised by Bush/Cheney ‘00.

We are unmatched militarily. But we are continually outgunned in the area of propaganda. Who can argue with the kind of ideology which believes that everything America touches is tainted? That everything we do is sullied with self interest unless it is led by a democratic president?

Like every arrogant move by this administration, they failed to recognize the ignorance, illiteracy and mis-information that shapes Arab world opinion. We had an opportunity to reverse the ‘evil infidels’ rhetoric of the Bin Ladens. It would require conducting ourselves beyond reproach in Iraq, yet I doubt any culpability is forthcoming from your side.

So, now you’ve launched Operation Scapegoat, where published photos put troops at risk, CBS not sitting on these photos is unpatriotic, and those opposing the war were simply driven by hatred of George Bush.

Sounds strangely Nixonian, from this vantage point.

Eric,

I’m still reeling from hearing a repubican, even a moderate such as yourself, Saying something sane.

I agree. Holy crap, did I say that?

But I do agree with repuplicans that we can’t renig and run.

This whole thing is political expediency (nationally & internationally) as much as it is a war, of which G.W. has done badly exceeding only militarily. The Abu Ghraib fiasco is a stain on Bush’s policy on Iraq and his minimal information sharing and lack of budgetary itemization on monies spent, has ruined much of his credibility here. The cowboy & sheriff act is running thin and we need a president who knows how to do this thing with political prudence and still don the white hat populistically. This sucker’s in trouble.

“Bush is out! hurrah! the philistines are leaving the castle!”

(Sorry bro I had to do that, leftie rules, you know how that is.)

“Yet when we take the trouble to sort out the messy moral calculus and go in on the ground shooting and getting shot, then suddenly the Left cries war crimes and worse…”

There’s a major flaw in this argument— it assumes that the Left (defined here, I suppose, as those who criticize Bush in any way, shape, or form) is railing against the events in Iraq because people are dying and we can’t handle the ugliness of war. The truth is that many of us who oppose how this invasion was run were not opposed to the concept itself, but rather the poor execution of it by the Bush Administration.

We supported him, but begged that he not rush in without proper global consensus, without firmer evidence of his claims against Saddam, and without a realistic plan for what would happen once Saddam was out of power. We’re not happy that more than 700 of our soldiers have died along with thousands of Iraqis, but that’s not why we’re angry. We’re angry because, this time at least, we were Sunday Morning Quarterbacks and the single-minded, bullheaded coach didn’t listen to a word we said.

Now the president and you and your NRO columnist want to turn this around on those of us who complain that the events in Iraq are occurring exactly as we expected they would if the Bush Administration acted exactly as we asked it not to.

Bush took the game plan we all agreed to and ripped it up, substituting his own despite our protests. And now that the game isn’t the rout it was expected to be, you want us to put our indignation aside and don cheerleader uniforms. As if that would make some sort of a difference. As if the Iraqis who look at the thousands of Christian soldiers occupying their land as invaders, rather than liberators, would suddenly change their view if we all became Stepford Patriots.

Our problem in Iraq isn’t about protests, or politics, or the biased media, or divisiveness at home. Our problem in Iraq is that we didn’t do it right. And the sooner Bush and his followers realize it and try to do something about it, rather than attacking those of us who can see the picture clearly, the better chance we have of coming out of this with at least some of our true “mission accomplished.”

…maybe it would have helped if we had pitched this as a battle against tyrrany. rather than WMDs from the start. something has to work- most of these people arent idiots and they dont prefer tyrrany over democracy in the world, even at a cost. And most of them arent ultimately silly enough to think we can wait around for the UN to do something about tyrrany.

Misha,

I think this is Bush’s real miscalulation: He misunderestimated the opposition of the left. I still think that it was right to go into Iraq. But I think if Bush could have known the extent to which the democratic opposition would go he might have thought twice.

It’s like a domestic dispute. It’s ugly and no one ultimately wins. It’s just too difficult to fight two front wars.

A couple of abused prisoners aren’t what has destroyed Americas will to fight. It was just the last straw is a series of missteps, blunders and disasters.

No Bob, I’m not talking about the prisoners so much as the fact that there is no tolerance on the left for any Republican mistakes. Especially in an election year. Something is bound to go wrong in war, any war. Everything cannot be controlled. It’s not possible. We can still win. But not if half the country doesn’t want us to unless there is a democrat at the wheel.

The biggest disaster is the fact that we are not all on the same page here. Al Sadr is nothing. Good old fashioned Marines can take care of his militia. Fallujah is less like a civil war or uprising than it is like the Rodney King riots.

Now Mr. Bush and this country are paying the price for his unrealistic idealism.

Don’t forget NOBODY is questioning the Afghan war! Give us a righteous war and we will support you. Flim-flam us and we will throw you to the wolves.

Unrealistic idealism.

As for the Afghan war, I beg to differ. Before the election is over I’m sure we’ll be revisiting the fact that we don’t have Bin Laden. I am surprised you didn’t have a long list of blunders there too. I’ve read them here on this site.

Like every arrogant move by this administration, they failed to recognize the ignorance, illiteracy and mis-information that shapes Arab world opinion. We had an opportunity to reverse the ‘evil infidels’ rhetoric of the Bin Ladens. It would require conducting ourselves beyond reproach in Iraq, yet I doubt any culpability is forthcoming from your side.

Bert, I don’t see the point there. What plan does Kerry have which takes into account the, “ignorance, illiteracy and mis-information that shapes Arab world opinion?”

So, now you’ve launched Operation Scapegoat, where published photos put troops at risk, CBS not sitting on these photos is unpatriotic, and those opposing the war were simply driven by hatred of George Bush.

Sounds strangely Nixonian, from this vantage point.

I don’t see that at all yet Bert.

…and we need a president who knows how to do this thing with political prudence and still don the white hat populistically.

I don’t think Kerry is the man for the job Skunkbud. Bush is the man for the job. I just think that the job has been made undoable, unwinnable. The democrats will have their Vietnam. Even if you ultimately succeed you can still lose. We won every major battle in Vietnam. Why did we lose?

Kerry, if he wins, will have painted himself into a corner. But perhaps if a Bush loss is humiliating enough in the eyes of the French they will give some some token support.

Kerry will have to do precisely what the Bush administration is doing. In addition he will have the misfortune of having condemned it and the pressure of the left to get out asap.

I’m sick of everyone saying “We *LIBERATED* Iraq!” Everyone forgets we went in there to pre-emptively stop the threat of Iraq’s WMD. Quit using the liberation excuse - it’s so lame it hurts.

We were lied to about WMD and now, to cover up the lie, we’re lead to believe we did a good thing? It was a convenient by product of our initial intentions.

I agree, however, that the way to truly let ensure Iraq’s future is to pull out and give the perception to the rest of the world that Iraq is defining itself on its own without our intervention.

—Joe

[quote]As for the Afghan war, I beg to differ. Before the election is over I’m sure we’ll be revisiting the fact that we don’t have Bin Laden. I am surprised you didn’t have a long list of blunders there too. I’ve read them here on this site.[/quote]

you need to read what he wrote again. no one is questioning the reason for going to afganistan. however, they are questioning our failures in afganistan as a result of NOY focusing on afganistan.

The truth is that many of us who oppose how this invasion was run were not opposed to the concept itself, but rather the poor execution of it by the Bush Administration.

Jerome,

So this is an opposition of spite? I don’t understand this rationale.

As far as I can see the democratic opposition is not about getting the job done. It’s about getting Bush out of office. It’s about using the issue politically. Perhaps they are thinking there will be plenty of time to get the job done once Bush is out of office.

“Not opposed to the concept iteself?” I would agree with you if we were talking about Joe Lieberman. But we’re not. We’re talking about Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pilosi et al. There’s no issue that Bush can win with them. There is no victory for Bush in their eyes. Because if the war goes well, they lose. If things don’t look like hell, as they predicted, they are wrong and Bush is right.

Our problem in Iraq is that we didn’t do it right. And the sooner Bush and his followers realize it and try to do something about it, rather than attacking those of us who can see the picture clearly, the better chance we have of coming out of this with at least some of our true “mission accomplished.”

What would ‘doing it right’ constitute? Get the UN in there? Get France in there? I submit that the only thing Bush could do right in liberal minds at this point is step down. They want control. Unfortunately, I am also confident that Kerry is not up to the job.

I know how you feel, Eric. The hardest thing in this debate has not only been to get the other side to believe—but to remind ourselves as well—of the decent motives behind even radically different postions.

We’ve all been guilty, myself included, of rhetorical excesses lately. The left has a vision of the world, I believe, which is humane, which values and respects for the rights of others, which is fundamentally motivated by a desire for a better world. Even though I believe their actual conclusions and policy-suggestions are tragically misguided—and think that, at least for now, they should kept away from the reigns of power—at the end of the day I don’t really doubt their basic decency.

In most wars in our history (VDH is a great source for this), there have been similar moments when the setbacks seemed nearly insurmountable. Lincoln was beset by incredibe obstacles of every kind, he was absolutely crucified in the media, and he was plagued with self-doubt. And that was before CNN! I still think that the main reason things are percieved the way they are in Iraq is the 24 hour news cycle wherein every setback gets magnified and endlessly dissected. Coupled with the political season, this is a volotile brew. I don’t know how our nation could have endured World War II in our present atmosphere. A stroll past a newsstand, for example, show the same photo of a burning truck on ten magazine covers.

Anyhow, hang in there. The consequences for not staying the course are far worse, and a significant percentage of the American public seems to know it. Take for example the ABC poll in which 70% of America wants Rumsfeld to stay—a number which has to include even a significant number of Democrats.

We were lied to about WMD and now, to cover up the lie, we’re lead to believe we did a good thing? It was a convenient by product of our initial intentions.

I agree, however, that the way to truly let ensure Iraq’s future is to pull out and give the perception to the rest of the world that Iraq is defining itself on its own without our intervention.

I agree we should have left them to be tortured. Oh right, I mean we shouldn’t have tortured them.

This is kind of what I’m talking about. Not to be rude to you Joe, but 7 out of 10 Democrats and third world dictators agree, the Bush criminal gang is a bunch of liers.

He said that the situation in the world and especially the chaotic situation in Iraq are the result of the United States’ irresponsibility and the fact that it believes it is accountable to no one.

He added that the harsh, brutal, and unbelievable crimes being committed in Iraq are motivated by the U.S. desire to protect its political and economic interests there.

He stated that the United States believes that it is not accountable to the international community, even though it has occupied a foreign land through committing crimes and murders only to enrich Zionists and oil companies. -khamenei.ir

burger,

you need to read what he wrote again. no one is questioning the reason for going to afganistan. however, they are questioning our failures in afganistan as a result of NOY focusing on afganistan.

I wasn’t questioning anyone’s questioning of going in… I believe I mentioned not capturing Bin Laden, and, “a long list of blunders there too.”

Boy, Eric. Tonight you’re the blogging equivelent of Patton rolling through Germany or Sherman in Georgia. Keep it up.

In the immortal words of Howard Dean—Yeeeeee-hawwwwww!

Anyhow, hang in there. The consequences for not staying the course are far worse, and a significant percentage of the American public seems to know it. Take for example the ABC poll in which 70% of America wants Rumsfeld to stay—a number which has to include even a significant number of Democrats.

I agree Martin. But will it translate into votes in November? I think the Democrat attack machine has finally gotten some real ammunition with these prison abuses. They will gnaw on this bone until it breaks or they go too far perhaps.

The abuse scandal has the potential to show that we are not perfect, but also that there is a place for handling mistakes in a democratic society. There is definately a difference in how we handle these tings and a Saddam regime would handle it.

Eric, one thing I think that poll shows is a major disconnect between the media firestorm and the electorate on this issue. Talk to people who aren’t tuned in to every twist and turn of the political season and you get a real sense of what I’m talking about.

The one thing above all that’s remained consistent during the war, and which has transcended party affiliations, is support for the troops as fellow Americans. This issue puts those men and women squarely in the crosshairs—men and women who really do, considering the biographies we’ve seen on them in the media—remind many of us of our friends and neighhors.

This is us we’re talking about—our character, our decency. I don’t think that the so-called “swing voter” looks at the screen and sees George Bush so much as his own son, daughter or neighbor. This is a time for introspection, certainly, for punishing the guilty and instituting reforms where necessary. But the non-scientific pulse I’ve taken on this tells me that self-loathing is NOT going to translate into many votes for John Kerry or anybody else. In fact, if Kerry continues in the vein he’s started on tonight, using the scandal to raise funds, I’m not sure that the opposite isn’t true.

There are also many, frankly, who feel absolutely no sympathy for Baathists being abused in prison—especially after so recently seeing the blackened corpses of our boys hung from a bridge in Fallujah. I don’t condone this tit-for-tat attitude, but it’s more wide-spread that you might think, and not just among hardcore right-wingers. I’ve talked to several who aren’t usually politically engaged, and I detect a real Old Testament lust for vengeance out in the hinterlands. You can dissaprove of it, but baby it’s there.

The real attitudes of America are forming, as usual, below the radar of the major media, and I suspect that this particular story will look far different in the coming weeks than it does today—despite any further more egregious reports of prisoner abuse.

I’ve been surfing this evening. (Saturday and Sunday are kind of my blogging days.) I have to limit it at work.

After reading Martin’s last post I came across this at the Belmont Clud. Very good writing.

While it is important to punish everyone responsible for the outrages at Abu Ghraib, the only effective way to stop the corrupting influences of war is to achieve victory. Japanese tourists are welcome in Asia everywhere today because the Second World War ended in 1945. And if by contrast Palestinians hand out sweets whenever a Jewish orphanage and Old Folk’s home is bombed it may be because the UN refugee camps there celebrated their 50th anniversary in 1998. If the outrages at Abu Ghraib hasten the end of war it will not have been in vain, but if they lead, as the Left most earnestly desires, to a Vietnam-like stalemate, it will be not the last but the first of many sad mileposts. -Belmont Club

The war American can win, is the war that the Congress, the President, but, most importantly, the majority of the mainstream public supports. Had we left Iraq alone, we the people, liberals, centrists, and conservatives alike, did and would still, support our President to the hilt in Afghanistan from whence the seeds of 9/11 were sown.

When a President and Congress engages in a war that begins with the American people divided, they had better prosecute that war with impeccable care, objectives, and outcomes, lest the half that didn’t support the war drop reluctant support and take a position against it.

Wars are not fought by the President or the Congress. They are fought by the American people. The people pay with their lives, loved ones, and tax dollars. And they will indeed support a just war. We had one, and Bush and Congress squandered the resources needed to win it and finish it in Iraq instead of Afghanistan. The old historical maxim, one does not fight a war on two fronts and hope to win, appears to still be valid, if for different reasons.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win. We just do not have what it takes.

Oh, boo-hoo Eric. Puh-leese.

Who can argue with the kind of ideology which believes that … freeing 25 million people from a torturous regime is not something to do, and in fact makes us equal to Saddam?

BS. Misha’s right. If the whole thing had been about tyranny from the start, not only would the majority of American’s be behind the noble undertaking, but the whole world would have been, too.

For my part, Bush could have used the targeting of US or British warplanes over the “no-fly” zones as a casus belli. Saddam was a loose end that was tying down US forces in a reqion where they were increasingly resented. The sooner he was gone, the better.

Unfortunately, the president made WMDs the center-piece of his case against Saddam. The UN took the argument at face value and said, OK let’s check. As it became clear that Bush was going to invade whether or not evidence was found, they balked. Why wouldn’t they? The UN delegates were mislead and then marginalized.

No nation had anything to gain by keeping Saddam in power, despite the little conspiracy theories conservatives have put forth to rationalize what happened and shift the blame from the President’s shoulders.

Eric, the American people aren’t sheep to be easily swayed by some liberal propaganda machine - certainly not one that’s getting outspent seven-to-one. It’s now obvious to everyone that Bush had no eveidence to make him “certain” that Iraq had WMDs. There’s never been a significant link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, though the President and Vice President insisted there was. The Iraqi people didn’t welcome us with open arms as the VP insisted they would.

What do you expect the American people to think? That the administration mislead us into this war, but at least we got rid of a bad man, so all is forgiven?

Eric, as time goes by, the truth percolates to the top. Time is passing. Facts are percolating. In the end, it has nothing to do with partisan politics, except that the Bush administration happen to be Republicans. Had Gore or Kerry or Clinton taken this country to war in the same manner, it would have had the same result (except that hard-core Democrats would be writing boo-hoo pieces, instead of Republican cheerleaders).

Even moderate Democrats, who are so against this war in large part right now because they hate Bush so much, could be brought around if they can be shown the context.

Misha, moderate Democrats have never been against the idea of removing Saddam from power. We’re just ticked-off by the manner in which we were manipulated into it, and the manner in which it was prosecuted. We expect more from the President of the United States.

We feel duped, so we’re pissed. It makes no difference that removing Saddam was a good thing. The ends do not justify the means; the harm done to the credibility and the stature of this country and the Presidency are not worth a new Islamic nation in the Middle East.

2004 Democratic Primer

Here’s the formula for getting pissed at Bush.
It’s absolutely immune to argument and it works every time. Just follow these steps.

1). Claim that Bush said something that he didn’t (i.e., make the claim that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 or say that Iraq WMDs posed “an imminent threat.”).

2). Find a flaw in this lie that Bush never told you.

3). Claim that you really really did believe this lie at one time and that you’ve been duped! Duped!

4). Announce thay you are now officially pissed. Bush has exploited your gullibility and good nature and made you support a war you never would have otherwise. The man is so evil and subtle that he made you believe lies he didn’t even tell!

These steps work less well for those who have been recorded in photographs actually carrying signs that say NO BLOOD FOR OIL. Especially those who carried such signs before the war in Afghanistan. You can filter and in many cases change your own memories about these matters to keep you good and pissed off at Bush, but some of those pesky Republicans have long memories and remember what you’ve been saying all along.

Martin: It took all of three minutes to find the appropriate quotes to refute your post.

The one I like the best is:

“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

He is the link to some more:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

PS: Don’t you just hate search engines? ; )

PPS: By the way that quote was from a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il09_schakowsky/pr3_15_2004mis.html

(Boy, I really love google!)

Search engines rock! Find anything yet that even relates to what I was talking about though?

I know that when Democrats were actually challenged to come up with something to prove the charges they were throwing around, to find Bush saying “imminent threat,” they dispatched teams of researchers to comb all the records of every obscure interview ever done by anybody in the administration—and the best they could come up with was allusions to the idea by people who aren’t even Bush. Bush himself explicitly said the threat was “not imminent” but “gathering.”

The quote you supply is by Donald Rumsfeld, not Bush, even if old white guys do start to look a lot alike :) And all Rumsfeld is even saying is that he thinks the threat may be more serious than 5-7 years and that we should be “concerned” about biological weapons.

But here’s what staggers the imagination: Do you seriously mean to say that you Democrats at one time supported the war because of this obscure quote by Donald Rumsfeld? That that’s all it took? That you ignored what Bush himself was saying, googled Rumsfeld and read things into his words in order to decide what you really believed?

The next time a Democrat says “We were sold this war based on lies and we’re mad about it,” or anything to that effect, ask them two simple questions.

1) If you were “sold” the war, when did you start and stop supporting it? (Nine times out of ten they’ve opposed it from the beggining and all that’s changed is the reasons they give).

2) While you supported the war—as you had to at one time, since you were “sold” it—what were your reasons for doing so? (Answers to this question reveal a great deal about the nature of what constitutes “a lie” to Democrats).

1.Rumsfeld is Bush’s defense secretary. Last time I checked the secretary of defense was considered a spokesmen on defense matters for an administration. If Bush disagreed, Rummy would have been spanked.

2. I don’t know what the “democrats are saying”. I’m not one of them. I’m and independent who speaks only for himself.

3. I NEVER supported the war. I though we should have dedicated our resources to Afghanistan first then dealt with Sadam latter.

4. Where on this thread did you find the word “sold”?

Since you never supported the war, Bob, then like the rest of humanity you weren’t influenced one way or another by those comments you’ve excevated with Google. That’s my point—people (not yourself, perhaps) are trying to pretend after the fact that the administration influenced them into believing something they never did and still don’t. That’s what I’m referring to when I say “sold or anything to that effect.” An argument to that effect, whether using the exact word “sold” or not is what you’re making—right?

Rumsfeld is a spokesman on some matters, yes, but not a hand puppet, and frankly he’s entitled to voice opinions. What he’s saying in the quote you give is clearly in the realm of speculation, in line actually with what all the intelligence agencies of the world were then saying. I actually think Rumsfeld was correct, but what he was saying was not part of, nor did it contradict, official administration policy. There was no need for Bush to reprimand him for speculating on what might be the case.

There is still not ONE example of Bush justifying the war by saying that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 or that WMD posed an “imminent threat.” That’s the key here, and everything else is just political white noise.

Are you seriously saying that WMD was not the reason we went to war?
What was the whole U.N./Blix episode?
Can you really state (with a straight face) that a secretary of defense testifying before congress is not making a statement for the administration and that the president didn’t know what he was going to say?
You seem to be making the argument that bush isn’t in control of his troops. That Rumsfeld and Cheney are loose cannons who babble uncontrollably.

These are the most powerful people on the planet. They don’t say anything on camera and on the record that has not been vetted.

Boy I love Google!
Here is an entire speech by Bush from Oct 2002. The link is to the white house web site.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

G. W. Bush: “If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?”

I do believe the emperor has no clothes!

Bob, what do you think that quote says? It utterly undermines the point that you’re trying to make. I’m starting to love Google myself.

You’ve just posted a quote of Bush saying that we shouldn’t wait until Saddam grows into a more serious threat. If anything, it says that Saddam DOESN’T yet have WMD and needs to be stopped before he does. We know, however, that Bush believed Iraq had WMD, but that quote seems to say the opposite and actually shows Bush downplaying a current threat in comparison to a potential threat than needs to be nipped in the bud. Thanks for making my case for me.

Eric, you say we’re losing the political war, not the military war. But you’ve identified the wrong battleground.

The battleground you are looking at is the American political landscape, where you see anti-war voices painting a gloomy pessimistic picture of what is, to you, a military no-brainer.

But the real battle that we are losing - indeed, many say we have already thoroughly lost - is the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

You absolutely cannot blame the American left for losing that war. That loss lies squarely on the shoulders of the Bush Administration and those who supported the Administration’s recless run to war.

You flippantly claim that our military can “handily” defeat the opposition forces in Iraq, but you’re missing an important aspect of what “victory” in Iraq really means. Sure, we could nuke Fallujah and Bingo! we win. We could imprison every Iraqi male, we could torture all those who oppose us, we could shoot anything that moves in massive “free fire” zones, we could drop a MOAB on every location we even suspect Sadr may be hiding, we could eliminate all civil rights of speech, assembly, etc.

But that’s not how we operate. Not only are these practices unamerican, but they will not acheive our true goal: a democratic Iraq.

The problem is that the Bush administration entered this war recklessly and stupidly — and those of you who supported it followed along without a thought in the world about the kind of long, ugly, brutal occupation it would require to complete the job. You guys didn’t give a damn about the aftermath.

So now we’re stuck with a dilemma: we can obviously win the war militarily, but it’s not so easy to do if we want to ALSO win the war of hearts and minds. It seems to me that if we win militarily but lose the war of hearts and minds, then we haven’t actually won at all.

This war was and is completely stupid from the moment it was conceived. How dare you blame our military setbacks and defeats on those who opposed the war in the first place. The blame belongs on those who supported and those who planned and who are currently prosecuting the war: The Bush Administration. Period.

-Cf

Oh Please! Your little attempt at revisionist history just hit the reality of the Internet. Give it up. You loose! The entire speech is available for all to read, along with the other quotes I supplied.

Just remember, denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

Have a nice day.
Bye-Bye.

When a President and Congress engages in a war that begins with the American people divided, they had better prosecute that war with impeccable care, objectives, and outcomes, lest the half that didn’t support the war drop reluctant support and take a position against it.

I am willing to agree with you David, there can be no united front here at home for this war. I disagree with you however that there would be no democratic opposition now had we only invaded Afghanistan. I find that hard to believe at this point.

Lee,

For my part, Bush could have used the targeting of US or British warplanes over the “no-fly” zones as a casus belli. Saddam was a loose end that was tying down US forces in a reqion where they were increasingly resented. The sooner he was gone, the better.Unfortunately, the president made WMDs the center-piece of his case against Saddam.

The UN took the argument at face value and said, OK let’s check. As it became clear that Bush was going to invade whether or not evidence was found, they balked. Why wouldn’t they? The UN delegates were mislead and then marginalized.

You’re confusing me then. It didn’t matter what reason he used… as long as it wasn’t the one he did use? Sounds like heads you win, tails I lose. If he had made tyranny the main reason then I think the left would be using ‘not an imminent threat’ as the reason to oppose Bush. If you look at the pattern of attacks before 9/11 you see the same tactics only different issues.

No nation had anything to gain by keeping Saddam in power, despite the little conspiracy theories conservatives have put forth to rationalize what happened and shift the blame from the President’s shoulders.

Unfortunately France and the UN had billions of dollars they stood to lose if Saddam was no longer in power. These are facts which weren’t completely on the table before the war.

Misha, moderate Democrats have never been against the idea of removing Saddam from power. We’re just ticked-off by the manner in which we were manipulated into it, and the manner in which it was prosecuted. We expect more from the President of the United States.

Except that the claims that the Iraqi people were better off before we removed him makes it sound that way. (Hans Blix, Howard Dean…)

CF,

But the real battle that we are losing - indeed, many say we have already thoroughly lost - is the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

You absolutely cannot blame the American left for losing that war. That loss lies squarely on the shoulders of the Bush Administration and those who supported the Administration’s recless run to war.

Part of what I am saying is that the left has consistantly undermined that battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. What does it sound like to hear half of America calling this war immoral, based on lies, a war for oil, etc.? For those who only need scant proof of our bad intentions these statements and a million others like them are all the proof they need. They don’t even have to make any propaganda up themselves they can regurgitate precisely what they have heard from the left.

I understand you’re opposition. You don’t agree with going in in the first place. Can we somehow get past that?

You flippantly claim that our military can “handily” defeat the opposition forces in Iraq, but you’re missing an important aspect of what “victory” in Iraq really means. Sure, we could nuke Fallujah and Bingo! we win. We could imprison every Iraqi male, we could torture all those who oppose us, we could shoot anything that moves in massive “free fire” zones, we could drop a MOAB on every location we even suspect Sadr may be hiding, we could eliminate all civil rights of speech, assembly, etc.

It is not flippant. They are in fact winning. They had two threats rise up: Fallujah and Al Sadr. They took them one at a time. I don’t think the left wants our military to win. I think that it is better for the democratic party that we lose here because as you say, “It was wrong from the begining.”

Despite the characterizations from the left our military has performed extraordinarily from the invasion on. I am not disparaging them. It is the left that began by saying we would lose thousands in the invasion. That it would take months. etc.

Iraq is made up of several groups. Those that have taken up arms are very few. The real challenge is to engage the Iraqis who are necessary to rise up and take control of their country again. The June 30th deadline is not too quick as John Kerry says, it is far too late. We should have been giving the Iraqi control of their country quicker than we have.

This war was and is completely stupid from the moment it was conceived. How dare you blame our military setbacks and defeats on those who opposed the war in the first place. The blame belongs on those who supported and those who planned and who are currently prosecuting the war: The Bush Administration. Period.

Militarily we have won. It is the peace we are losing. Part of that battle for the hearts and minds is being lost because we do not have a united America. For that I am willing to recognize that perhaps it would have been better not to invade Iraq.

Not because it was wrong, but because we could not convince you that it was right. Bush did fail in that regard. I have my doubts about whether he could have suceeded under any circumstances but that is as it is. The WMD claims are part of that. For me the WMD was a secondary reason. I think the liberation of Iraq was 12 years over due.

So now we’re stuck with a dilemma: we can obviously win the war militarily, but it’s not so easy to do if we want to ALSO win the war of hearts and minds. It seems to me that if we win militarily but lose the war of hearts and minds, then we haven’t actually won at all.

It is a dilemna. The left never supported the war in Iraq, I understand that. But do you really want us to lose? That is the question you should be asking yourself. Is it more important to be right and Bush to have failed? So that the policy can be seen as a failure?

I suggested that Bush should step down because he is the target of all the arrows of the left. I don’t think he has failed. I don’t think he has done everything wrong from the start of his presidency. But if we fail in Iraq then 700 men died for nothing. I am not willing that that should happen.

We have so far suceeded more than we have failed in Iraq. No one said it would be easy. It hasn’t been. But I see much to be gained there still.

My wife’s uncle is from Iraq. I think he is probably typical of the ambivalence of Iraqis. They are hopeful but sceptical. We should be doing all we can to ensure that we fulfill their hopes. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Lee wrote:
> > … moderate Democrats have never been
> > against the idea of removing Saddam from
> > power.

Eric responded:
> Except that the claims that the Iraqi people
> were better off before we removed him makes it
> sound that way.

First, Lee: I want to add that although moderate Democrats were in favor of “regime change”, very few would have backed an invasion solely to achieve that end (and I wonder if you really would have, either). Without the WMD threat, the best policy towards removing Saddam would have been something less than an invasion: A combination of increased intelligence, increased support of opposition groups, continued enforcement of no-fly zones, increased weapons inspections, targeted economic sanctions, etc. This is the policy most Democrats and moderate Republicans (including Colin Powell and many other non-neo-cons) supported for years. It was only the made-up WMD threat that made this policy seem less than prudent.

Some hawks will ask “Well, if you support regime change why not be tough and back it up and make it happen now instead of being a wuss and waiting years and years to do it?” One could ask the same of North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia. The answer is the same, and it can be found on the front page of every newspaper in the country today: Occupation and reconstruction are ugly, expensive, and difficult to acheive.

Let’s take the targeting of US planes in the no-fly zones: Saddam’s crimes in this regard should have warranted American retaliation - and indeed, under Bush1, Clinton, and even Bush2, there were many such retaliations. While some hawks saw these retaliations as wimpy, they were a far more intelligent strategy than responding with an invasion and the total destruction of the Iraq state infrastructure. Perhaps they could have been stronger retaliations, but IMHO taking a few potshots at American warplanes isn’t worth the price so many innocent people have had to pay over the last year. (can you imagine if countries like China, India, or Pakistan responded to such minor acts of belligerence with full-scale declarations of war??)

Which brings me to Eric’s point about how many on the left are arguing that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam.

While I agree that it is a clumsy rhetorical device to compare the US occupation to Saddam’s brutal regime, there is a kernel of truth in there. It seems plainly obvious to me that the whole world, including the Iraqi people, would have been better off if we had continued under the original battery of containment policies (or even stronger containment policies) instead of invading the country without even a inkling of a post-war occupation plan and plunging Iraq into a state of chaos and violence.

-Cf

Eric, even if the United States people were 100% behind the war, the opposition forces in Iraq would be exactly as dangerous as they are right now. There is no political argument lower, less Democratic, and less intellectually convincing than the one you are using: That the mere expression of my opposition to the government’s policies is hurting our country.
I would hope that you would be able to argue the merits of the Administration’s policies without stooping to connecting my opposition to those policies with the deaths of our troops in battle.

It seems to me that you are cynically trying to discredit the legitimate American opposition by associating us and our rhetoric with opposition forces in Iraq. I find that incredibly insulting, by the way. We don’t WANT our forces to lose! Please! We just happen to have a realistic idea of what a victory might cost — and we are willing to discuss this cost. You and the Bush Administration, on the other hand, are either unwilling to even think about these costs or you are unwilling to talk about them. We are.

Trust me on this: I don’t want to see any more American deaths and humiliations in Iraq. I really don’t.

I do, however, think that the case still has yet to be made to many Americans that the President and his Administration are totally incompetant. Their planning for the war and their failures in the prosecution of the war and the administration of the peace and reconstruction are, unfortunately, going to be Exhibit A in making that case. You may hate to see this dirty laundry aired in public, and you may think such airing may give comfort to those opposing us in Iraq. I, on the other hand, think that (a) it would be unthinkable for patriotic Americans to censor their own internal debates because of how such debate might affect the thinking of our enemies, and (b) I would hate to see what this Administration’s incompetance might cause in the next four years as their stubbornness and shortsightedness leads us deeper and deeper into the international sh*thole we’re in today.

-Cf

Victor Davis Hanson wrote:
> …when we take the trouble to sort out the
> messy moral calculus and go in on the ground
> shooting and getting shot, then suddenly the
> Left cries war crimes and worse — so strong is
> this Western disease of wishing to be perfect
> rather than merely good.

With regards to this, in my experience the loudest voices asking for immediate withdrawal are from the right: Pat Buchanan and Bill O’Reilly immediately come to mind (maybe it’s an Irish thing?).

On the left, those who today oppose the war pretty much opposed it from the beginning. The change in support for the war is only among those who had initially supported it - that is, the people who thought that the war and occupation would both be quick and easy (either because they are gung-ho opportunistic idiots like O’Reilly, or because they were simply tricked by Bush Administration’s rosy predictions).

> It is the left that began by saying we would
> lose thousands in the invasion. That it would
> take months. etc.

That’s a grand overstatement.

First of all, military experts on both sides were making such predictions, or at least dicsussing them as distinct possiblities. The only people not discussing such possibilities were representatives of the Bush Administration.

Second of all, were such predictions really all that off the mark? Have we not lost almost a thousand troops? Are we not on track to lose many more? Has it not taken over a year? The day Bush said “Mission Accomplished” was not the day the war ended. The day Saddam was captured was not the day the war ended. In many respects, while we are not fighting against Saddam’s tanks and rockets, we are still fighting to gain control over the nation. We have beaten Saddam, but we have not won.

There was a picture on the cover of the NY Times back in April of 2003. The photo was an archetypal post-war surrender table scene, like the scene on the deck of the USS Misourri or the scene at Appomatox, or at Yorktown. There was a dusty marble table in one of Saddam’s bomb-scarred palaces. On one side of the table were a dozen American generals. On the other side there was nobody. The American strategy in Iraq was one of decapitation. There was no capitulation, no surrender, no solemn but dinified ceremony where defeated Iraqi leaders agree to complete surrender. It was simply a descent into chaos.

The “victory” in Iraq is still not ours and it will not be ours until there is a democratic regime set up. That will take years and thousands of Coalition lives.

If you think I am being non-supportive of our troops for purely partisan reasons, let me say this, too: If Kerry is President, it will *still* take many years and thousands of Coalition lives. We have to talk about this plainly, that’s all.

It also occurs to me that it was the American right who lost their nerve with regards to Somalia. Support and/or opposition to tolerating American casualties in combat seems to be something that can be switched on and off by politicians on both sides.

-Cf

Cf,

It seems plainly obvious to me that the whole world, including the Iraqi people, would have been better off if we had continued under the original battery of containment policies (or even stronger containment policies) instead of invading the country without even a inkling of a post-war occupation plan and plunging Iraq into a state of chaos and violence.

I’m not sure what it would have changed had Saddam stayed in power after we certified him to be free of WMD. The Iraqi people would have still been under the same regime of torture. It is not WMD that makes Iraq dangerous. It is the people who might weild WMD and he would still be there.

A better alternative to invasion would have been a policy of stimulating regime change through a combined Kurdish and Southern Shiite uprising. Arm them, train them, and give them air support. AKA the same strategy we used in Afghanistan. Instant Iraqi government. I have read that this was a policy Donald Rumsfeld put forward in fact.

I would hope that you would be able to argue the merits of the Administration’s policies without stooping to connecting my opposition to those policies with the deaths of our troops in battle.

You misunderstand my argument. I am not saying that anti-war arguments and opposition to Bush cause US soldier deaths. I am saying that like the Vietnam war the extent to which the left is willing to go to oppose and demonize the policy, the administration, and the war are fulfiling a prophecy of defeat whereby we win the shooting war but ultimately fail in winning the peace.

We don’t WANT our forces to lose! Please! We just happen to have a realistic idea of what a victory might cost — and we are willing to discuss this cost. You and the Bush Administration, on the other hand, are either unwilling to even think about these costs or you are unwilling to talk about them. We are.

What will victory cost? The left also said that we would lose thousands of soldiers in the invasion. That it would take weeks to take Baghdad. I’m not sure which cost you are talking about. But I am willing to discuss them.

More likely what you are talking about is avoidance of cost. Should we pull out now? If so, I agree in a sense. Bush’s plan, which has been ‘a complete failure’ so far, included having UN support, which I will agree he failed to get. The plan also included handing over Iraq to Iraqi’s as soon as it was possible. Are you talking about the consequences of leaving Iraq too soon? Of a civil war in Iraq?

American public opinion would barely register on the Iraqi national psyche. I think they may have more pressing concerns than pondering the twists and turns of US popular opinion, let alone 5o% of that opinion. I doubt the left has swayed Iraqi views towards the war in any discernable way.

Eric, that link to Rumsfeld’s plan to “put an Iraqi face” on the occupation only underscores Rumsfeld’s incompetance. Simply arming Shiites and Kurds would not have helped in the Sunni areas of the country, and may well have simply led to a more well-armed opposition to our occupation. Also, Rumsfeld specifically advocated arming and handing power to Achmed Chalabi, a man whose “loyal following” proved almost immediately to be non-existent and whose “intelligence” is widely regarded to have been the primary tool by which the Bush administration was deceived. To look back and claim that our setbacks in Iraq today are the result of our failure to trust Chalabi even more is ludicrous!

Secondly, a smarter strategy would be to have used Iraq’s existing armed forces and much of the existing civilian government to enforce the surrender and manage the operations of the nation, which is exactly what we did in WWII in both Germany and Japan.

Instead, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Administration opted for a television-friendly phony victory in which all of our enemy’s forces are effectively permitted to escape into the shadows with their weapons. Then the policy of “de-Baathification” was implemented in order to allow a smoother ride for Achmed Chalabi’s imaginary loyal following to take over. As a result, the US effectively dismantled any ability for us to manage the occupation.

What should have happened would have been for us to force Iraq’s generals and civilian leaders (obviously not Saddam, but Aziz perhaps, or any number of other Generals with whom our intelligence agents were apparently in close contact) to capitulate to our terms, and to use these command structures to implement control in Iraq. Instead, we planned on removing as much of Saddam’s former regime as possible so that we could plug-n-play Chalabi and his cronies into the regime.

In other words, it is precisely our government’s stupid trust in Chalabi that led to this mess in the first place.

-Cf

Eric, Martin, to be sure, I don’t know how we’re doing in Iraq. I don’t hear any news of victories, of progress won. The administration is not acheiving anything that they can explicitly claim as a victory.

We have cities lost. Why? John Maclaughlin of the McLaughlin group posts a figure of 20,000 combat medical evacuations, and I’m hearing of soldiers being pulled off of life support stateside, their brains too scrambled from the shrapnel of IEDs for them to recover. Do you know combat casualties don’t get counted unless somebody got killed in the same unit?

I will not have us pull out of this war, but I want to know what’s going on. Obviously this isn’t a serious enough military engagement to require a declaration of war, so the question of whether I should be unquestionably behind this war is not settled.

Your administration keeps on saying that all the setbacks are merely temporary. They’ve been saying that all year. When they say that all year, and things get worse, expressions of such unreserved optimism seem to many, including myself, unfounded.

I don’t need another person telling me that my doubts are the result of disloyalty or neurological defect. I’m not stupid, I’m not imagining things. I need Bush to start keeping us up to date on our progress and our lack of it. As an elected official, it’s not an inconvenience, it’s not getting in the way of his duty, it is his duty, and the more he neglects it the less he can expect reasonable people to accept his word on things, especially as things get worse.

Perhaps, if he admits he can’t defend his current position too well, he’ll do what rational people do when they are put in such a position. That is, reconsider their position, and perhaps try a new approach. He won’t be alone. Many great leaders have tried plans that didn’t work, and have gone on to implement plans that did work, and worked brilliantly. Like Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

I doubt the left has swayed Iraqi views towards the war in any discernable way.

No, not swayed. Not persuaded. Given quotes. Talking points. A road map of opposition.

Ted Kennedy, “This is Bush’s Vietnam.” Al Sadr the next day, “We will make this Bush’s Vietnam.”

I hope you will send my greetings and my thanks to the American people who love peace. I thank them because they supported us by demonstrations. I love them because I wanted to guide them to God and I wish to unify them with our people. -Moqtada Sadr, Nov. 6th 2003

Rumsfeld must resign.

“Rumsfeld’s apology came too late,” said Jordanian analyst Hani Hourani. “I believe Rumsfeld should resign because the torture reflected a widespread policy adopted by the U.S. army in Iraq and maybe Afghanistan as well.” -Yahoo news

CF,

Eric, that link to Rumsfeld’s plan to “put an Iraqi face” on the occupation only underscores Rumsfeld’s incompetance. Simply arming Shiites and Kurds would not have helped in the Sunni areas of the country, and may well have simply led to a more well-armed opposition to our occupation.

There you go again. Nothing less than Saddam in power will satisfy you? Part of the problem with not using Iraqi’s to liberate Iraqi’s is that there is a power vacuum which we must fill entirely. If you have Iraqi’s participating from the begining you have someone to start with to assume some responsibility for a new Iraq.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day…

Also, Rumsfeld specifically advocated arming and handing power to Achmed Chalabi, a man whose “loyal following” proved almost immediately to be non-existent and whose “intelligence” is widely regarded to have been the primary tool by which the Bush administration was deceived. To look back and claim that our setbacks in Iraq today are the result of our failure to trust Chalabi even more is ludicrous!

Trust more? How about use more? I think part of the problem here is that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Liberals, who are known for their relativism in most areas, are in this instance absolutists. Over and over again I hear retorts that suggest that there is only one right answer here. I don’t always hear what that answer is however. Usually it’s just that we should have left Saddam in power.

Secondly, a smarter strategy would be to have used Iraq’s existing armed forces and much of the existing civilian government to enforce the surrender and manage the operations of the nation, which is exactly what we did in WWII in both Germany and Japan.

What in the hell do you think they tried to do? They made a concerted effort before the war to do just that. They were unsuccessful. I’m sure Kerry would have succeeded though?

You know what my wife’s Iraqi uncle told me about the invasion and subsequent occupation? He said the real problem will be the 20-40,000 Baathists that make up Saddams support base. He suggested that we would have to, in essense, kill them all. He didn’t say it in those exact terms. But that was clearly his meaning.

What should have happened would have been for us to force Iraq’s generals and civilian leaders (obviously not Saddam, but Aziz perhaps, or any number of other Generals with whom our intelligence agents were apparently in close contact) to capitulate to our terms, and to use these command structures to implement control in Iraq. Instead, we planned on removing as much of Saddam’s former regime as possible so that we could plug-n-play Chalabi and his cronies into the regime.

In other words, it is precisely our government’s stupid trust in Chalabi that led to this mess in the first place.

Now who is engaging in fantasy? I will do some research, but it is my recollection that this was attempted. The generals stuck with Saddam.

How much of a break is it just to reinstall generals who tortured and benefitted the most from Saddams regime? What kind of Democracy would that be? How much would the 60% shiite population trust such an arrangement?

Liberals used to be all for freeing the masses from oppressive governments. “Free tibet” etc.

“Eric, Martin, to be sure, I don’t know how we’re doing in Iraq. I don’t hear any news of victories, of progress won. The administration is not acheiving anything that they can explicitly claim as a victory.”

Fair enough—we do hear entirely too little about the victories, small and large, occurring in Iraq. You should really read what a lot of native Iraqi bloggers have to say about this—many are very upbeat and hopeful, albiet guardedly, and I’ve found them a great antidote to CNN and the photos on all the magazine covers of the same burning truck.

There is still a long way to go, a difficult path with many forseen and unforseen difficulites, but the great improvements in the day-to-day to life throughout by far the greatest portion of Iraq is just not as headline-grabbing and sensational as the abuses that took place months ago in Abu Ghraib. The larger story, aside from what’s going on in two cities (and not even the entire cities but certain districts of those cities), is just not being reported in most of the major media (J. Burns of the NYT being a major and too often overlooked exception).

I know you’re going to accuse me immediatly of willful blindless to the “reality” of the situation and of trying to paint a rosy picture for partisan reasons, but this cuts both ways—insisting that Iraq is an unmitigated inferno of death and destruction is equally partisan and unrealistic. It also risks condemning Iraqis to the worst of possible worlds and ignoring their aspirations. The reality is somewhere in between, actually not all doom and gloom, which should be something we should all take comfort in. We all WANT Iraqis to have a better life, don’t we, and
should do what we can to see that they get it.

Examples:

1. Schools and hostpitals with modern equipment either reopening or being built where they never existed before.

2. Freedom of movement, speech and access to information which never existed under Saddam—especially in Kurdish areas, which have enjoyed something of a boom. Internet cafes are springing up everywhere—no more fear of being tossed in an industrial shedder for reading the wrong newspaper.

3. Many refugees from Saddam’s regime are returning, many of them highly educated, wealthy and ready to extend expertise and opportunity to their native country.

4. The Iraqi oil infrastructure is improving steadily and surely—modern technology that exceeds what was in place pre-91 will in the near future begin to deliver massive and much needed revenues. And before you all pile on with “Bush’s oil cronies are getting this money,” check the facts. That revenue is earmarked for the Iraqis.

Nobody’s saying that it’s all tea and cupcakes, and doubtless many setbacks major and minor are still to come, but in three-five years from now, perhaps sooner, the picture in Iraq could be something far better than anything ever even dreamed of under Saddam. Let’s hope so.

Eric wrote:

Bert, I don’t see the point there. What plan does Kerry have which takes into account the, “ignorance, illiteracy and mis-information that shapes Arab world opinion?”

My point was that Arab opinion is based on ‘news’ similar to any American tabloid (or, Newsmax) where news of torture by Arab countries are buried and this current American scandal is blown out of proportion.

Under Kerry, we could get back to the realistic and effective diplomacy of Madeline Albright. Where sympathy in the Arab world from 9/11 would result in aid for our primary goal of dismantling terrorist groups and providing no aid and comfort, anywhere.

Second, we would offer a balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestine conflict and not a policy of total capitulation to PM Sharon - the second source of major outrage in the Arab world.

Bert wrote:

So, now you’ve launched Operation Scapegoat, where published photos put troops at risk, CBS not sitting on these photos is unpatriotic, and those opposing the war were simply driven by hatred of George Bush.
Sounds strangely Nixonian, from this vantage point.

I don’t see that at all yet Bert.

Really Eric?

You spend your entire post seeking out and affixing disengenious blame of conspiratorial Liberals as a significant cause of our nation’s battered image. I’ve read similar Conservative columns at Townhall.com. Start with a rote ackownledgement of the mis-treatment, and then find blame among the Left.

You will be writing another piece assessing the failure of Cheney and the Pentagon, right?

Eric, you may not realize it, but you Republicans and Conservatives on the Right are so damn angry at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. They screwed up and failed to execute on your politically philisophical watch.

Now, you’re risking credibility as you blindly add to the polarization of this country - exactly what is not needed, right now.

> Over and over again I hear retorts that suggest
> that there is only one right answer here. I
> don’t always hear what that answer is however.
> Usually it’s just that we should have left
> Saddam in power.

As bad as Saddam was (and hey, I’ve probably hated Saddam longer than anyone in the Bush Administration has!), President Bush’s actions over the last several years have been so bad that, yes, I’d gladly rewind the clock and put Saddam back in power if it meant that Bush would have changed his mind about the war. From what I understand from current polls regarding the question of whether or not the war was “worth it”, my opinion is, in fact, now the majority opinion in America. So please don’t try to equate my opposition to this war on some kind of insensitivity to the brutality of Saddam Hussein unless you also want to also claim that the 51+% of Americans who agree with me are also Baathist sympathisers.

So yes, the price we are paying for this sloppy, reckless, not-quite-a-victory is frankly not worth the benefit of having Saddam gone.

Ironically, you are accusing me of having “only one idea”: This is exactly the accusation being levelled on the Bush administration today about their general approach to the war, and it is what we said before the war when we didn’t believe that Bush had any desire whatsoever to consider any alternative besides war (and we were right). You accuse the left of having only one idea when, in fact, I think the real problem is that we have too many ideas, most of which make Bush’s plans look like a pee wee football playbook. As one tiny example from just today, Wes Clark’s very smart suggestion to immediately dismantle Abu Grahib. Why can’t the Bushies even think of simple obvious effective ideas like that?

Or look at V. Edward Martin’s post in the Third Party blog to see a long list of ideas, many of which seem pretty practical to me but few, if any, of which the Administration has even discussed.

> What in the hell do you think they tried
> to do? They made a concerted effort before
> the war to do just that. They were unsuccessful.

If you are referring to Chalabi, I think you must be joking - he never stood a chance of commanding squat in Iraq, and ultimately the reason he didn’t end up controlling Iraq after the invasion was that America’s military commanders immediately judged putting Chalabi in control to be a stupid idea. If, however, you’re referring to the recent revelation that before the invasion we were in contact with a large number of Iraqi generals, then you are correct, they were unsuccessful at their attempt to bribe these generals into submission. Many did stick with Saddam because the people who called to offer the bribe didn’t bother to prove they were American representatives, and that, in fact, Saddam often tested Generals with such bribe attempts. Fear like this would have been removed once these same Generals were finally face-to-face with a crushing defeat at the hands of US firepower. Instead, at the end of the invasion, our forces failed to get a regular old-fashioned battlefield surrender out of the Iraqi military’s commanders or civilian administration. They somehow didn’t get a hold of any of them. One wonders how they could have failed so ridiculously at such a basic wartime task: communicating with your opposition’s leadership and, when the time comes, facilitating their surrender.

I was just reading about how the Japanese surrender to the US was actually facilitated. To deliver the Japanese negotiators to talk with their American counterparts, the Japanese had to paint a pair of airplanes in a certain way so that American planes could recognize them and properly escort them to the American base. It was a carefully choreographed operation. I can’t even imagine that the Bush administration had any plan at all about how they would go about getting the generals of the Iraqi army to order their troops to put down their arms and relinquish control to the American victors. No such planning was made at all. The invasion plan, short and sweet as it was, concluded with a flight of pure fantasy instead of with a detailed occupation strategy.

> You know what my wife’s Iraqi uncle told me
> about the invasion and subsequent occupation?
> He said the real problem will be the 20-40,000
> Baathists that make up Saddams support base.
> He suggested that we would have to, in
> essense, kill them all. He didn’t say it in
> those exact terms. But that was clearly his
> meaning.

Okay, let’s take a deep breath and consider that thought a bit. You are asking me to believe that killing 20-40,000 Baathists will probably be required to stabilize the occupation. I am, by the way, willing to believe that that is true. So even if I believe it, then shouldn’t the Bush Administration also have known that Iraqi Baathists would be a such a grave threat? I would imagine so, wouldn’t you? I mean, if they didn’t know this then either they’d have to be utter dolts or somebody wasn’t giving them very good intelligence. Or maybe your wife’s uncle has his finger on the pulse of Iraq better than anyone the CIA had ever spoken to. So, anyway, if the Administration knew about the danger of these 20-40,000 Baathists, they obviously knew that they only had three options in front of them: 1) win the war and then systematically slaughter those Baathists in a kind of rapid national purging/cleansing operation, or 2) win the war then have a long, bloody, and ugly occupation slowly fighting Baathists or 3) Forget about the war, it doesn’t sound worth it.

You’re asking me to believe all that, and yet you are also asking me to agree that Bush’s decision to choose strategy (2) was the right choice? Or, frighteningly, are you saying that the Bush administration should (and perhaps already has) chosen strategy (1)?

Your little story should only further prove how dumb the whole invasion idea was in the first place.

-Cf

By the way, Eric, I am not in the least bit in favor of invading Tibet to free those poor people. And I don’t think China has any fear that we will stop them from doing pretty much anything they want there. The USA is pretty tough, but getting in a war with China (which could easily go nuclear and would drag the rest of the world into war) over their actions in Tibet doesn’t really seem worth it. I know that makes me sound like a wimp, but hey, it’s basic US foreign policy.

If you agree with this strategy towards Tibet, then clearly you’s agree that there are in fact some situations where the application of what seems to be simple, tough, international justice might not, in the big picture, be a good idea. So maybe you can also stretch your imagination and understand that this analogy applies, in the opinion of many on the left, with regards to Iraq: We believe that the invasion’s cost and aftermath wasn’t worth the benefit of getting rid of Saddam, and that there was probably many better alternative plans.

-Cf

Stephen,

I don’t need another person telling me that my doubts are the result of disloyalty or neurological defect. I’m not stupid, I’m not imagining things. I need Bush to start keeping us up to date on our progress and our lack of it. As an elected official, it’s not an inconvenience, it’s not getting in the way of his duty, it is his duty, and the more he neglects it the less he can expect reasonable people to accept his word on things, especially as things get worse.

Are things getting worse though? Is Iraq unwinnable now? And if so why? It sounds more like you want Bush to come out and say he was wrong.

Bert,

Under Kerry, we could get back to the realistic and effective diplomacy of Madeline Albright. Where sympathy in the Arab world from 9/11 would result in aid for our primary goal of dismantling terrorist groups and providing no aid and comfort, anywhere.

I have a copy of news footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11. Is that the sympathy you’re thinking of?

Second, we would offer a balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestine conflict and not a policy of total capitulation to PM Sharon - the second source of major outrage in the Arab world.

You may want to elaborate on this Bert. Is all this the Zionists fault?

Now, you’re risking credibility as you blindly add to the polarization of this country - exactly what is not needed, right now.

Bert, my point is that we cannot pull together as Americans. We may never be able to again. I realize that you don’t agree with this war. You wish it had never been started. I know you probably don’t agree with Bush on anything. You want him out of office and that is the most important thing to you right now, more important than the war itself. Perhaps if Kerry gets elected you will be telling me I should support Kerry’s actions in Iraq, and I will.

CF,

President Bush’s actions over the last several years have been so bad that, yes, I’d gladly rewind the clock and put Saddam back in power if it meant that Bush would have changed his mind about the war.

At least you’re willing to be honest about it. But this one statement proves my point. President Bush’s actions are worse than Saddam Hussein being in power in Iraq? What did Bush do? Incompetence you say. Waging an unwinnable war you say. Has he killed a million Arabs yet?

So please don’t try to equate my opposition to this war on some kind of insensitivity to the brutality of Saddam Hussein unless you also want to also claim that the 51+% of Americans who agree with me are also Baathist sympathizers.

Here’s a straw man argument. I did not equate you with baathist sympathizers. What I am saying is that there is no support from the left for this war or this President. As a result we have a huge gaping hole on our home front. I am also saying that Bush should have taken this into account.

The idea that Saddam should have been left in power speaks for itself though. Be honest, you would be opposing anything Bush did anyway, even if he didn’t invade Iraq. It’s just a fact. A fact, which should have been taken into account.

If, however, you’re referring to the recent revelation that before the invasion we were in contact with a large number of Iraqi generals, then you are correct, they were unsuccessful at their attempt to bribe these generals into submission. Many did stick with Saddam because the people who called to offer the bribe didn’t bother to prove they were American representatives, and that, in fact, Saddam often tested Generals with such bribe attempts.

Yes, that would be what I am referring to. But you said it would have been easy. Like Kerry says taking care of Iraq will be easy. Getting UN troops will be easy and getting the support of our ‘allies’ will be easy.

Did Bush say that the war ended that day on the carrier? I don’t believe that is what he said. He basically said that the invasion part was over. “The end of major combat.” It’s a subtle nuance, I know, but I’m sure you Kerry supporters are familiar with such things.

One wonders how they could have failed so ridiculously at such a basic wartime task: communicating with your opposition’s leadership and, when the time comes, facilitating their surrender.

Like communicating with Saddam Hussein?

The invasion plan, short and sweet as it was, concluded with a flight of pure fantasy instead of with a detailed occupation strategy.

So you do admit they had an invasion plan? That’s a step forward. Up till now I keep hearing they had no plan. Was it successful?

Exactly how do you know exactly what plans and what contingencies have been considered or studied by the Bush administration?

The “victory” in Iraq is still not ours and it will not be ours until there is a democratic regime set up. That will take years and thousands of Coalition lives.

If you think I am being non-supportive of our troops for purely partisan reasons, let me say this, too: If Kerry is President, it will *still* take many years and thousands of Coalition lives. We have to talk about this plainly, that’s all.

Here we come to it. This is my point. Kerry will not be able to do anything different from Bush. He may in fact have fewer options than Bush because of all of the rancorous opposition to the war in the first place. The pressure will be on him to get out.

Kerry has said that Bush has done everything wrong, and that he (Kerry) will do it right. I’m still not clear on what that will be.

The left has one demand. That we get rid of Bush. Is that is the only way to have 100% of Americans behind this war?

You are asking me to believe that killing 20-40,000 Baathists will probably be required to stabilize the occupation.

To start with I did not assert that 20-40,000 baathists needed to be killed to stabilize the occupation. I mentioned those comments as an illustration of the kind of detail that would go into making post-invasion occupation decisions. It’s easy to spout off some idea about how this or that should have been done, but it gets alot harder when you are the one making the decision.

In the end the administration, or for all we know the military itself, decided that giving the enemy the option to lay down their arms and go to their homes was better than tying up the entire force with thousands of prisoners.

Another detail, which would complicate your easy answer, is do you leave divisions of Saddam’s army armed? Is that a good idea? I can hear precisely what you would say if Bush had in fact done what you think should have been done here. You are saying Iraqi soldiers should have remained armed and used to suppress the population? What if they turned on us? There’s a huge blunder. I wonder how much Ted Kennedy would be second-guessing that decision?

It all comes down to an extreme case of negative second-guessing. We can, and probably will, go through all of the blunders of the Kerry campaign about trivial things like not owning an SUV, voting for it before voting against it. Of course these things are nonconsequential aren’t they? Wait till he’s in office bub. This guy is hell on wheels with the misteps. At least Bush sticks to his script. Kerry will be rewriting it and second-guessing it every time the wind blows.

Eric wrote,

I have a copy of news footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11. Is that the sympathy you’re thinking of?

And, there may be footage somewhere that documents joyous Baathist Army Generals and Commander’s similar reactions to 9/11. Paul Bremmer swore there would be no role for them in a new Iraq.

You may want to elaborate on this Bert. Is all this the Zionists fault?

Its not surprising that your question reflects the obliviousness of how important and pivotal this ongoing battle is to the Arab world. I actually applaud the willingness of Israel to a peace settlement in the face of continued suicide bombings.

However, the Clinton administration was clearly viewed by most of the Arab world, as an influential, non-partisan referee - a reputation well-earned, and more importantly, useful.

You want him out of office and that is the most important thing to you right now, more important than the war itself. Perhaps if Kerry gets elected you will be telling me I should support Kerry’s actions in Iraq, and I will.

Yes, I was opposed to this world, yet I then hoped Wolfowitz’s vision of bringing true democracy to the Muslim world could be achieved - but, with serious doubts.

I actually think we should unconditionally pullout of Iraq and hope the UN and our more experienced allies in helping Arab countries (France, Germany), are willing to take the reins.

You’re correct that the most important thing I want is to remove Bush from office, yet you imply that my seething hatred for him is my sole motivation - wrong.

Number one motivation on my list is this - you remove Bush and the highly damaging policy of alienating our allies to the point they refuse to help; correct the disaterious decision following 9/11 to almost ignore Bin Laden and other sources of terrorism, and instead step into a hornets nest with dicey odds for a positive outcome; and, proving to the most moderate of Muslims we are the ‘infidels’, as Bin Laden preached.

As been reported, Bush may have recently turned to the ‘doves’ of his advisors (Powell), which may send a signal of more reasoned and engaged handling of the Iraq crisis.

Removing Bush from office will signal to the world the end of unilateralism, arrogance, isolation and that not everyone wants, needs or is ready for our brand of true freedom.

What we are witnessing is the exposure of emerging facism.

There was no idealism, or moral authority in persuing this war in Iraq. There was pure cynicism.
It is human to do what is necessary to achieve your goals. Often that is exreme in extreme circumstances.
Our constitution was founded on the principle that a system of counterbalances and checks averted the likelyhood of power accumulating in one branch.
I doubt Bush sees it that way, or most of his supporters…but he has systematically attempted to avoid sharing power in any way. Secrecy, Unilateralism, The Patriot Act, GITMO, outsourcing torture and Mercs, No bid contracts.

No, he isn’t Hitler; but Hitler was a weak leader in the beginning. It is the boldness of the lies that characterize this administration, and because of the strength of our democracy and the idea of it embued in it’s citizenry, that boldness finally met up with defiance in a Hero in Iraq. Joe McCarthy was finally deposed when the level of lying and hypocracy finally felled him.

Thank God for our press, and the soldier in Iraq who became disgusted with the hypocracy and lies in Iraq and provided the press the photos. Thank God, for a Constitution.

GW Bush was a propped up failure in life, set up to front for colusive powers in Washington. Perhaps the military industrial complex. Perhaps the Saudi’s, or the Israeli’s. It isn’t clear who was behind these policies. The weren’t in the interest of America

We aren’t completely out of the woods yet. The psychology of power is corruptive. Mr. Bush has only experienced orchestrated success since being put into the Texas Rangers baseball team. He just stood up and looked cowboy-like. It went to his head. He has has succeeded in lying about his policies and diverting attention from scandal until now.

George Will stated we have befun the withdrawal from Iraq. Fallujah was the first step away.

Richard Perle now states he hopes we perform a “real” power transfer in June and reduce our footprint substantially. No Large Embassy secretly running things.

The weasels are running from this disaster now.

We haven’t dealt with Pakistan, and Afghanistan is back to it’s drug trade and Feudal kingdoms.

Sadly, I’m not convinced that Kerry is more than a person drawn by the same lure of power. Willing to say or do what he has to to attain it. We need a change in that office, hopefully Kerry will be restrained by the lessons of Bush.

I know this position sounds extreme, but in time, if truth does come to light, I believe it will be born out. Bush will not be seen as a great president. He may not be impeached, but he will be disgraced.

Evil isn’t the guy with horns or a long beard in the corner. It is in us.

> Be honest, you would be opposing anything Bush
> did anyway, even if he didn’t invade Iraq. It’s
> just a fact.

Eric, I’ve always given Bush credit for his only two positive major accomplishments, both of which he has since squandered. First, he routed the Taliban. That was a good thing. It’s not something that a President Gore or for that matter even a President freaking Wellstone wouldn’t have done, mind you, but it was, in fact, a correct decision. They haven’t really done such a great job completing the operation, but hey, they tried.

Second, I give him credit for what I thought was a clever application of military pressure during the runup to the Iraq invasion, where Bush’s belligerent pose actually helped reinstate massive UN inspection regime in Iraq. Unfortunately, this ambiguity behind his threats to invade Iraq turned out to be entirely unambigusous: it wasn’t a threat at all, it was simply the preliminary stages of a predetermined invasion plan. The inspections ended because of the invasion, and Bush’s one and only other good decision in his career was erased.

There are of course occasional little things I give him credit for. I think it was smart of him to appear on Arab television the other day. I am impressed with his ability to keep Tony Blair loyal.

Other than that, I can barely think of a decision he has made that wasn’t either a no-brainer (the creation of the Department of Homeland Security) or was entirely incorrect and disastrous (invading Iraq).

So yes, it’s a fact that I have opposed almost every decision Bush has made, but there has not been a single decision where such opposition was even remotely tinged with partisanship. Nearly each and every decision Bush has made has been the opposite of what I think is best for our country and has stood in direct opposition to my basic value system. If Bush ever makes another good decision, I promise you I will praise him. For now, however, I freely admit that I have nothing but derision for Bush and I can’t wait for the day our country is rescued from his ruinous leadership.

As for partisanship, well, I’d trade Bush in for any one of hundreds of alternative Republican Presidents in a heartbeat. McCain, Lugar, Powell come to mind right away… How about Bob Dole, or Bush’s father, even. There are countless Republicans who would be better than Bush. And maybe I’m too young but I think I’d even include Nixon on that list.

This guy’s the worst President we’ve had in a century and here you are defending him… It’s funny that both sides see each other as hopelessly and blindly partisan.

-Cf

First, Lee: I want to add that although moderate Democrats were in favor of “regime change”, very few would have backed an invasion solely to achieve that end (and I wonder if you really would have, either).

Try me, Cf. :)

Actually, it’s hard to say. Pre-9/11, I would have been all for it. Post 9/11, it still would have been a good thing, but not as important to me as revenge on bin Laden.

But as soon as Bush started talking about super secret evidence of Iraqi WMDs that only he could see, he lost me. The UN inspectors checked out the “evidence” Bush and Powell presented, found nothing, and declared it s&*t that was ten years out of date.

Had he used the “bad man” argument from the start, it would have been harder to get most American’s support (we wanted - still want - bin Laden’s head, so he would have had to convince us he could do both), but he might have found it easier to get the UN on board. No need for inspectors to find out that Saddam is evil, right?

There is still not ONE example of Bush justifying the war by saying … that WMD posed an “imminent threat.” That’s the key here, and everything else is just political white noise.

So… Democrat’s spun the whole “mushroom cloud” thing to make it sound like Iraq was an imminent threat, because we didn’t want to invade because we didn’t think there was an imminent threat?

Martin, I think you’re spin has made you dizzy.

If he had made tyranny the main reason then I think the left would be using ‘not an imminent threat’ as the reason to oppose Bush.

Eric, duh. After 9/11, there just wasn’t a pressing need to go after Saddam. Period. There was certainly no need for the President of the United States to present evidence he wasn’t absolutley certain of, and then make the claim that he is “absolutely cretain”.

It makes as much sense as us going into the Sudan right now to save the Christians. Which is to say, if Bush can convince me we can do that with UN support and get bin Laden, I’m all for it. But don’t try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge while you’re at it. That just insults my intelligence and makes him look dumb.

Wow, Eric. Looks like you struck a chord here. Anyway…

What would you have us do Eric? (And by us, I mean those of us who are disgusted at how this administration ignored advice from inside and outside its inner circle and plowed forward with an invasion that looks every day more like a matter of personal revenge than of protecting the safety of our country.)

Should we keep our protests to ourselves? Only whisper them to others we know are like-minded so as to not damage the American war effort?

Look at it this way. Assume we are on a board of directors at a company and the CEO comes to us and says he wants to make an acquisition of a competing firm. So we, being the supportive board we are and wanting to give our CEO sufficient flexibility to do what it takes to help our company succeed, give the CEO our full authority to close the acquisition. But at the same time, we caution our CEO to make sure he conducts sufficient due diligence before closing the deal. We tell our CEO specifically that we want to make sure that our acquisition target is performing at the level the company claims. Our CEO assures as that he’ll do as we ask.

So the deal is closed and within a few short months it becomes apparent that the deal isn’t going as advertised. Worse, we discover that the CEO didn’t conduct the due diligence we asked and that the acquired company does not appear to be performing at the level we were told.

In that case shouldn’t we, as the body charged with directing this company, hold our CEO accountable? We’re stuck with this potential loser of an acquisition and there’s no way out. We know we have to forge ahead and make the best of it. But we don’t have to be happy about it. And we might even decide that we don’t have the right CEO.

In the corporate world, the dressing down is done behind closed doors. But since we don’t have Bush’s private ear, the anger and resentment goes very public.

With that said, I think we all understand that politics is driving a good bit of the rhetoric from both sides. Kerry supported the war and now criticizes Bush, not only because his October 9, 2002, speech on the Senate floor was remarkably prescient about the perils of invading Iraq without sufficient cause, consensus or planning, but because it suits his political purpose in attempting to replace Bush. (You should read that speech if you haven’t. It’s at http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html)

But if Bush had acted in good faith in executing the authorization to invade Iraq given to him by Congress, he wouldn’t have left himself open to the charges being levied against him now.

So maybe there is a little “spite” involved here. But the fact remains that this isn’t second-guessing. We’re only saying “We told you so” because we actually did tell him so.

Martin:

I don’t understand how you can claim that Bush never attempted to connect Saddam with 9/11.

You say the “Democrats’ formula for getting pissed at Bush” includes “Claim that Bush said something that he didn’t (i.e., make the claim that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 or say that Iraq WMDs posed “an imminent threat.”).

Bush has maintained all along that Saddam is responsible, at least in part, for the 9/11 terrorist attack. In his March 18, 2003, letter to Congress, he wrote:

“Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that….acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Here’s the direct link to the letter:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

How do you interpret this?

Bert,

I actually think we should unconditionally pullout of Iraq and hope the UN and our more experienced allies in helping Arab countries (France, Germany), are willing to take the reins.

No one would take the reigns, Bert. Iraq would be at the mercy of guys like Al Sadr and Iranian and Syrian fighters. Hell, Iran might just decide to take the reigns. What kind of policy would that be? How would that help us in terms of arab public opinion?

This is what I am talking about. The left does not have any concern for the people of Iraq. ‘Let them eat cake!’, ‘Saddam is their problem.’, ‘If they wanted democracy they’d change their own government.’, and on and on it goes.

The strategic reasons for invading Iraq are numerous and clear. Liberal solutions are what continue to dig us into a hole which we will never get out of in the middle east because you continue to prefer the status quo regardless of the cost.

For instance Saddam was funding terror in Israel. Yet we continue to tell the Israelis to use ‘restraint’. The ‘containment’ of Saddam went on for 12 years. 12 years of sanctions that decimated Iraqi’s not saddam. More than that the UN succumbed to the worst kind of graft and bribery, that which came at the expense of the Iraqi people under a terrorist government.

Greg,

What we are witnessing is the exposure of emerging facism.

With all due respect Greg, you are wrong. Not just mistaken, but completely duped. Bush is a mini-hitler? A proto-hitler? Your proof for this is what?

…but he has systematically attempted to avoid sharing power in any way. Secrecy, Unilateralism, The Patriot Act, GITMO, outsourcing torture and Mercs, No bid contracts.

Sharing power with whom? The criteria for being a proto-hitler is that you don’t share power. Hmm. Sounds like a classic case of power withdrawal to me. Democrats were in power for 40 years in congress. The DT’s must be horrible.

No, he isn’t Hitler; but Hitler was a weak leader in the beginning. It is the boldness of the lies that characterize this administration, and because of the strength of our democracy and the idea of it embued in it’s citizenry, that boldness finally met up with defiance in a Hero in Iraq. Joe McCarthy was finally deposed when the level of lying and hypocracy finally felled him.

This is classic. It’s not even an argument Greg. Let me tell you a story about black helicopters… they’re coming for us Greg, they want to take over and put us in abu ghraibs all over America.

Eric: Maybe it’s to soon to call Bush the new Hitler. Let’s just hope it not to late. I can (and have made) and argument that he is making an assault on the bill of rights. I am holding my breath about Jose Padilla “Enemy combatant” case before the Supreme Court.

Remember that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Just because you like the man doesn’t mean you should be blind to his faults.

Note: Hitler party was never a majority in pre-WWII Germany (I think at best he got about 30 % of the vote). I believe he came to absolute power by way of a bloodless coup d’état (More or less).

Hmmmm! I wonder if Florida 2000 counts as a bloodless coup d’état. ; )

Perhaps, I am wrong, Eric.
Only time will tell us.
This isn’t 1936. Henry Ford isn’t espousing the terrible Jews.
Muslims are the new hate speech. It doesn’t use the old tired racist speech, it’s more sophisticated than that
I said Bush ISN’T Hitler. I wasn’t comparing them.I was drawing parallels to the rise of facism and expressing relief that we haven’t all drank the Kool-Aid. That it appears the idea of democracy has survived.

Invasion of a foreign country in a “defensive action” is classic facism. Blaming the “evil-doers” and terrorists rather than looking at the roots of terror is classic facism. The Sons of Liberty was a terrorist organization by today’s definition.

Eric, I realize on the face of it, this is an extreme argument. And perhaps I stretch a point a two. The use of propoganda by this administration is frightening to me.

There are a number of scientists who have signed letters denouncing the use of pseudosience by this administration to push it’s policies.

First they convince you that they are patriot’s. Then they use terror to whip you in line and keep you off balance while they take away you’re rights.
Once you’ve given up critical thinking, then the blackhawks come, Eric.

No, we aren’t near that. But we’ve been pointed down that path.

America is now aware of the lie of Iraq, at least mildly so. The Iraqi’s are running from the B