Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dan,
The open committee meeting was on CSPAN. They’ll probably replay it, worth a look. The Wall Street Journal can spin for all its worth, but anyone watching the meeting can see what’s going on.

It’s great political theater, but the Senate can & probably will eventually approve Bolton, regardless of the committees recommendation. Hard to say what level of embarrassment & mangerial incompetence would finally cause his nomination to be withdrawn.

Before anyone takes a word of this article seriously they may want to get the other side regarding the accusations as well:
Boltonized Intelligence
After all, it is a Republican former head of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research who testified that Bolton is a “serial bully”. Also, a group of of 59 former U.S. diplomats, both Republican and Democrat, have submitted a letter to the committee, calling for the Senate to reject Bolton’s nomination.
So its not like all this has materialized out of “left field”.

phx8,
I caught part of the debate on C-Span the other night — it was very good theater! Obviously Voinovich’s confidence was shaken, and now I’ve read that Chafee is wavering as well.

This isn’t about who’s playing politics. We both are. If that shocks you in and of itself, maybe you shouldn’t delve into matters Washingtonian in nature. Your party shut down the government. Your party rejected many of Clinton’s appointees without the kind of simple up and down vote you hold so dear.

How about a nice, substantive discussion of our dear friend John Bolton’s temperament. Is it wrong to want a cool customer, so our representative can’t be goaded into giving the other side the excuse to leave the negotiation table? Is it wrong to want a person who will put facts above politics, and not hide a threat or the absence of such when we really need to know the difference?

Is it wrong to want to send a consistent diplomatic message, instead of having all these loose cannons setting America’s foreign policy with their arrogant rants?

I guess the question is, when is the Republican foreign policy going to mature past adolescence?

This is about being a “bully?”
One man is accused of being a “bully” and another is accused of being a “rapist.”
The former should not be nominated, the later was elected and is defended to this very day.

Its all about “playing politics,” as usual.

Please remember: this is the UN we are talking about. The bastion of international chaos, an organization that is trying to castrate America. Maybe a little bullying is in order.

“Maybe a little bullying is in order.”

Is it? Didn’t we try that already? But then it turned out that the U.N. weapon inspectors were the ones who correctly determined that weapons of mass destruction never existed in Iraq. In that case, couldn’t there be a chance that what Bush thinks should happen with the UN is also incorrect?

It is ironic that the Journal points out that the GOP won the last election. No matter how successful they are in elections, Republicans feel like they can blame everthing on Democrats. The fact is you guys control both the committee and the full Senate, in the latter case by 5 votes. To blame the Democrats in these circumstances is childish excuse-making. The reason Bolton hasn’t been confirmed is because some Republican Senators suspect that he is a bullying, manipulative nutjob (not to mention, they may privately think it is a little weird to appoint someone who hates the very idea of the UN as UN ambassador).

It is the same pattern with Social Security reform and Tom Delay’s problems — blame the Democrats. Unless there is a veto threat involved, that just doesn’t hold water.

The bastion of international chaos, an organization that is trying to castrate America.

Paging Dr. Freud…

If Bush and Bolton believe they can bully the UN, they have another rude awakening coming. Wasn’t Iraq enough. Condi would have been good. Powell would have been good. Guess that just about rounds up the entire list of Republicans who can be found true diplomatic skills. Now, they are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Actually though, that is a good sign for America’s future. If voters continue to see this barrel scraping between now and 2006, a sea change may be in the offing.

Maybe John Bolton read my high school speech. My final speech in high school was titled “A Condemnation of the United Nations. This was way back in 1959. Mr. Bolton is being bothered by people with an agenda that is probably anti-American. Yes, they are United States Senators and others. The female with the latest charge was a situation of 11 years ago and she was fired from her job and John Bolton had nothing to do with the firing; she acomplished it all by herself. When the anti-administration politicians both republican and democrat can’t find anything reasonable to do they begin attacking people and their character.

I strayed a little from the question of nominees and character asassination. The constitution provides for the senate to give advise and consent or not consent to candidates up for appointment. The senate cannot filibuster a nomination;it can only vote yea or nay. So maybe that is the way the minority party takes care of the situation. Since they know they can only vote for or against the candidate the only way they can do anything else is through destroying the character.

But then it turned out that the U.N. weapon inspectors were the ones who correctly determined that weapons of mass destruction never existed in Iraq.

Are you a complete idiot? Did you not see the footage of truckloads of ammo being hauled out of Iraq into Syria? Everybody seems to forget about that part of Colin Powell’s speech to the UN. You must also have forgotten that the head weapons inspector himself, Hans Blix, admitted that the weapons were there and they had intentions of making more after sanctions were lifted. Only liberals think they can still get away with the flat out lie that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. You all need to get a clue.

The character attacks on Bolton are no different then the character attacks on the rest of the Republicans. If the Democrats see that person as a threat they go into attack mode. They don’t bring up charges, they refuse to support an investigation and they make sure the liberal media is there to run with it. The attacks are baseless and dispicable and when it is time for the Dems to put up or shut up, they run with their tail between their legs.

If they keep it up we will have no problem gaining the five seats we need to block a filibuster in the Senate. They are digging their own grave and Americans can see right through it.

tom,
This is very funny to me.

When the anti-administration politicians both republican and democrat can’t find anything reasonable to do they begin attacking people and their character.

in combination with your description of them as:

people with an agenda

probably anti-American

I guess, by your own definition, you don’t have anything reasonable to do? Or does it only count if they are “anti-administration”?

We need to be playing the game just the way the Dems would if they had won and as they will if they ever win again: ignore the minority party and just “get ‘er done!” for our side. I agree: if Bolton’s name is withdrawn it will be mismanagement of the worst kind! At some point this Republican will stop voting just because we get what the Dems want no matter who wins and is in power. So whay not just let the Dems have it from the start?

“The character attacks on Bolton are no different then the character attacks on the rest of the Republicans.”

OR the character attacks on Democrats by Republicans.

OR the character attacks on Democrats by Republicans.

The difference is that Republicans usually have solid evidence and are willing to bring up charges. The Democrats will avoid an investigation as long as possible until they are cornered. The Republican will welcome the investigation and gladly step down to help the party. The Democrat will claim there is a vast right-wing conspiracy and won’t step down until they bring the entire party down with them.

Norman,

Any proof in your baseless accusations? When on earth did Hans Blix ever say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In fact he said we need more time with the weapons inspections.

Did you forget that GW himself admitted that he got faulty intelligence from George Tenet which led to his supposed resignation.

I smell a Troll.

Norman,

Stop already, your a troll. Have you ever heard of Tom Delay and his accusations of the liberal media.

Please don’t feed this troll.

Norman,

“Are you a complete idiot? Did you not see the footage of truckloads of ammo being hauled out of Iraq into Syria?”

Truckloads of ammo do not constitute as weapons of mass destruction. WMD’s are things that can kill large groups of people in an instant (like tactical nuclear missiles). Also, I’d like to see that footage and find out how you know where those truckloads were headed. My guess is they were probably coming from Syria and not the other way around.

“Only liberals think they can still get away with the flat out lie that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction.”

Hey everybody! I found one of the people that still thinks Iraq had WMD’s! Way to go, Rove! Listen here chuckles, if you think Iraq had/has WMD’s you’re off your rocker. Plus, even if they did (which they don’t) they wouldn’t be able to use it on anyone seeing as they don’t have any bombers.

I didn’t think it could get funnier, but then you went and said,

The difference is that Republicans usually have solid evidence and are willing to bring up charges. The Democrats will avoid an investigation as long as possible until they are cornered. The Republican will welcome the investigation and gladly step down to help the party. The Democrat will claim there is a vast right-wing conspiracy and won’t step down until they bring the entire party down with them.

This is just hilarious (and wrong) on so many levels…

Wrong indeed. Wow Norman…. simply amazing.

brian poole
I am pleased that your statement began “I guess”
because that is what you truthfully did. I am a very active person. I serve on the board of directors of 4 organizations. I do free lance investigations. I work with my local government and school board. So, I am busy. Now, I read many publications both left and right. I am accounable to the pastor of my church in the spiritual area. That is a 45 sec. bio and that is free and all you get. I have strong opinion on many subjects and individuals. For instance, Ann Coulter calls Sen. Kennedy overweight. I call him the swimming and diving champion from Mass. This site is not about any one person and I probably have abused it by saying this much. So let’s get on with the issues.

reed:
“I smell a Troll.”
Norman:
“Please don’t feed this troll.”

Always better not to feed the trolls, or the lackwittes.

Norman Witte, asking folks if they are idiots is an insult. Such a comment does not comply with our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger, rule. Please comply or lose your commenting priviliges here at WatchBlog.

I, myself, am happy that Norman is here. People like Chops and Jack were starting to make Republicans sane and reasonable to me. Now, we finally have one of those 40% of Americans who think Iraq did 9/11 and that they had WMD. Let all of us thank Norman for being here. Republicans just aren’t the same without their Lunatic Core Group.

Aldous, it was bad enough that Norman violated our one rule for comments. You had no cause to turn around and violate it as well in retalliation. Comply with our policy or lose your commenting privileges here at WatchBlog. — Watchblog Manager—

If you looked beyond DNC talking points for your information, you would realize that the Saddam threat was much larger than what Terry Macaullif would have you believe.

I stand by what I said and I will add this. Al Queda training camps did in fact exist in Iraq. Saddam Hussein funded many anti-us and anti-semetic terrorist organizations. The solitary fact that he was paying $40,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is good enough for me to support the war. There is a laundry list a mile long of other reasons to dethrone Saddam that I can support.

The liberal media distortion during this whole process has been completely erratic. What’s worse is the distortion has served to give confidence to the enemy. More troops have died because you all believe George W Bush is the enemy while standing up for Saddam Hussein.

I really can’t get too worked up about it because we won. We have eight years of a great President and a Republican controlled House and Senate. I enjoy watching the liberals hold on to their precious lies because it will only help the Republican Party strengthen their numbers. So Keep it up!

Here is what I believe on WMD’s, IRAQ terrorism, etc. There were WMD’S in Iraq before our invasion. Just before the invasion they were transported to Syria. From there they went to Sudan. Then back to Syria. There are satellite pix of training camps used by Al Queda. Terrorism was the main export along with oil from Iraq. Much of what is shown and written goes into the archives and is difficult to obtain after that. One could still probably find some of that documentation if they had the time. That is what I believe.

This must be a liberal blog. Nobody got reprimanded for calling me a troll.

Norman Witte-
In the book Plan of Attack, there is a a section where Woodward goes into Colin Powell’s objections to satellite footage being used as evidence. You can’t interrogate a pixel, tell the difference between a tank full of vinyl chloride, and one full of Sarin Gas. They look the same when you’re thousands of miles up.

You guys like to say that Saddam took all his weapons and put them in Syria. We know about Powell’s speech. We also know that Powell had to go through that report with a fine-toothed comb to remove the B.S. Even then, though, many of the blunt, substantive assertions that so distinguished Powell’s presentation from the rest of the Foot in Mouth crowd turned out to be false as well.

Does the Administration want to talk about it? Of course not. Instead, they divert attention from the argument concerning the quality of their endeavors, and focus it on how much negative publicity they’re getting, as if they hadn’t screwed up, only been misrepresented and unfairly defamed. Nobody can get in a complaint edgewise, because anything that does not reflect well on the president or congress is considered a personal attack. And not all of us have the patience not to make these pratical issues personal as well.

This kind of patronizing “Don’t talk back to me” attitude is aggravating. The Right feels somehow entitled to rule, chosen by God to rule. You should heed our forefather’s little lesson to the British, and understand that God can unchoose a leader as much as he can choose one.

The question is, did Bolton know better? More importantly, did he even want to know? These are fair questions

I completely disagree with you there. Bush has been hounded by the liberal media without remorse. We should spend more time criticizing them then the President. It is clear to me that there is no repricutions for those who attack a Republican without grounds to do so.

If the discovery of WMDs in post-war Iraq mattered, which it doesn’t, what would frighten you more? If we found them? Or the fact that we didn’t? George W Bush wasn’t the only person in the world who thought they were there.

Now there have been hundreds of reports about contaminated rivers, deserted weapons factories, surveillance footage of weapons that were moved into Syria and even new evidence that Saddam was seeking enriched uranium. Despite all of the evidence that suggests that Iraq did have weapons, had the ability to make more and was trying to deceive the world into thinking he was clean, the media only makes light of the stockpiles that weren’t found.

I also want to know where the liberal media is when reports come out about terrorist groups and cells that were given shelter, amenities and even money under Saddam’s rule. Has anybody followed the reports of Saddam’s paper trail?

What about the oil-for-food scandal? Saddam was stealing food from the mouths of innocent Iraqi children under a program that was supposed to be supervised by the UN. It is no wonder we had a hard time gaining support from the UN. Yet, the anti-Bush crowd wants us to think that Saddam was a good guy? Nonsense.

The Democrats attack people like DeLay and Bolton because they pose a huge threat to them. For once I would like to see these attacks turn into an investigation. For once I would like to see the Democrats actually bring up charges. When it is time to put up or shut up, they scurry off with their tail between their legs, yet some people still buy their crap. It is no wonder the Democrats keep losing support from their base.

When faced with uncertainty, you have to set the action threshold appropriate to the damage that you might suffer from being wrong. In a Saddam’s case, we had a ruler that had attacked four of his neighbors, used WMD against his own people, harbored and financed terrorists, attempted to assassinate American, declared himself an enemy of the U.S., was managing to subvert sanctions, was stirring up violent opinion against the U.S., possessed WMD confirmed in 1998. It had gotten so bad that President Clinton made regime change in Iraq a U.S. policy goal. With this kind of threat, you take no chances.

It turned out that we couldn’t find WMD in Iraq, but we did find that Saddam maintained the infrastructure and the intent to make more WMD when the sanctions were lifted. Saddam did not cooperate with inspections and made it seem like he had something to hide.

The premise that Saddam was currently in possession of WMD turned out to be incorrect, but the process that went into the decision to attack him was sound and valid. I am embarrassed by the intelligence failure, but I don’t regret getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Like any war or any major enterprise, the experience in Iraq has been mixed. Our optimistic predictions were not proven true. But neither were the pessimistic fears expressed in the media and by most experts. As it is today, two years after the invasion, we are closer to the optimistic than the pessimistic scenario. It will take years to make a judgment on this action, but it is definitely moving in the right direction.

I realize we have a major difference in perceptions. Liberals are convinced Iraq is some kind of disaster. I don’t see it that way. I see a qualified success that gets better with time. If someone had laid out the scenario we now have last year at this time, nobody would have believed it could be this good.

The smart Democrats know this is true. That is why they are shifting their energies to domestic issues. Iraq is gradually moving off the front pages. History will see this as the first big crack in the wall of Middle Eastern despotism and eventually everyone will say the outcome was inevitable. It wasn’t.

Translation: We screwed up so let’s spin this thing in the best light possible. Anyone who disagrees with us is unpatriotic, unamerican girlie-men who loves Terrorists and are homosexuals to boot.

Iraq is moving off the front pages because the Insurgency is now focusing on killing Iraqis instead of Americans. Everyone knows US Media only cover Iraq if Americans bite the dust. What is the threshold now for Iraqi Deaths to be printable? 20? 50? I know the massive spate of kidnappings hasn’t been covered.

Osama bin Ladin must be ecstatic that Bush won. He gets to live for another 4 years. Heaven knows this Administration won’t go after him.

__Comment deleted for possible copyright infringement.__

WatchBlog Manager

I heard that hundreds of schools had been completely destroyed and thousands looted, and that most people thought it too dangerous to send their children to school. I heard there was no system of banks. I heard that, in the cities, there were only ten hours of electricity a day and only sixty percent of the people had drinkable water. I heard that the malnutrition of children was now far worse than in Uganda or Haiti. I heard that none of the 300,000 babies born after the start of the war had received immunizations.

It is outright lies like this that nullify the post in its entirety… Regardless if you are violating copyright laws by posting the body, instead of just a link. Oh wait, you didn’t even provide a link?

I heard that 25,000 Iraqi civilians were dead

100,000 civilians dead? 50,000? 25,000? 8,000? Tell me how that number keeps getting smaller.
How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?

I heard that Saddam Hussein, in solitary confinement, was spending his time writing poetry, reading the Qur’an, eating cookies and muffins, and taking care of some bushes and shrubs. I heard that he had placed a circle of white stones around a small plum tree.

I almost fell out of my chair. I guess that makes him an great guy eh?

Mr. Witte, Aldous received the same warning for his reply to yours, and from his comments, he does not appear to be a conservative. The initial remark about trolls was from someone else who said, “I smell a troll”. That remark was uncalled for and borderline. But, you are a guest here, not the moderator.

Your comment that this site is obviously liberal for having reprimanded your “idiot” remark, appears to indicate your displeasure with our site. We try to please, but, oh, well. I have taken the liberty of cutting off your privilege to post here in the hopes you find a more suitable site, more to your liking.

Update: Mr. Witte and I have conversed by email, and I am assured by him that he is aware and will abide by our policy. Mr. Witte’s comment privileges have been restored. 1:50AM CST.

Aldous, your quote above does appear as though it may violate copyright laws. I have removed the comment. If you have permission to reprint that substantial excerpt, please email the authorization to me at Editor@WatchBlog.com, and I will reinstate the comment.

This is done as a protection of the owner of the WatchBlog site.

That was a great article Aldous — I’m glad I got to read it before David had to pull it. Can you post the link, or just the url? I’d love to share that with a few people.

I’d like to ask those on the Right here, when are you going to hold Bush fully responsible for his screw ups and bad management?

A thorough vetting would’ve uncovered such red flags on his temperament, while his ‘the UN does not exist’ diatribe alone, should’ve made his nomination a non-starter. But, this is what you get when Bush picks his cabinet choices from that small pool of loyalists (remember Bernie Kerik?), that will not disagree (Powell) or embarrass him (Ashcroft).

But, as usual for Bush and the GOP, when you screw up, blame the Democrats. Even when you hold the majority on the Senate committee, when it’s been former colleagues who are Conservatives that have come forward, and when wavering Republicans like Chafee and Grassley are not getting sterling Bolton references from Colin Powell - this is a Dodd/Biden cabal to embarrass the President.

Bert,

While I’m not the biggest fan of Bolton, using the ‘The UN does not exist’ quote against him seems pretty petty to me, considering the context of the quote and put against other quotes.

For example, from what I’ve read he’s never been against the UN but against what the UN is right now (something you know I agree with him on). The only way to fix it is to point those things out.

But seriously, the current Pope would have never made it through this type of scrutiny for heaven’s sake…

We should contemplate the first 3 words of the title of this article: Advise and Consent:

Advise. That is what the Senate committee has been doing. They are advising the President and the American people that some members have serious reservations about consenting to Bolton’s appointment due to allegations about his past conduct in government positions.

Consent. Consent is not an order that must be followed. It is a definition of a responsibility held by the Senate: namely to review and consent to Presidential appointments if those appointments appear as though they will faithfully and diligently represent the interests of the American people, our Constitution, and our nation. Conversely, if an appointment, under scrutiny, appears as though they may not live up to that standard, the Senate’s responsibility is to withhold consent, as representatives of the interests of the American people.

Anytime the Senate chooses to not consent a Presidential nominee for appointment, it is going to appear to those in the President’s party, to be a case of partisanship or poor Senate judgement under any circumstances including the most honorable. This is something all should bear in mind. With Republicans and Democrats alike on the Committee having reservations, it is probably safe to say, Bolton does not appear to be the best possible candidate for the position.

Wow, Dan. After what you guys did to the Clintons and McCain and Cleland, you’re getting all self-righteous over this? That’s ballsy.

As for Bolton, I can’t figure out what Dems have to gain from blocking this nomination - other than embarrassing the president (again). If Bolton’s nomination is withdrawn, who’s next? I guarantee it’s not going to be Clinton or Holbrooke. Why bother?

And given the way Bush has pretty much ignored the UN, I suspect Bolton will sit around twiddling his thumbs for the next few years anyhow. I mean, Negroponte is a much more capable crony, and we never heard a peep out of him while he was UN ambassador.

I’m also curious what Republicans have to gain from insisting on Bolton. It’s so obvious that this guy isn’t effective, that even the GOP Senators on the panel are rethinking. I mean, it’s not like Bolton’s going to go in there and reform the UN single handed. Especially not by being a class-A bastard.

Unless Bush is actually hoping Bolton will incite an incident that allows him to expell the UN from New York, I just don’t get why they’re insisting on him.

Somebody tell me how this is a big deal for either side.

Norman,

I apologize for calling you a troll but I guess perhaps the conservative viewpoints on this blog tend to take the same side as yours without the rhetoric or flames.

Although I tend to lean liberal, I would have to say that neither partys hands are clean when it comes to smear campaigns and character assassinations. If the democrats are smearing John Bolton and running a “Tyrany of the minority” (what does that mean anyway) and trying to embarrass the president, then they are wrong. I just don’t think they personally like him which is in itself not a good reason to not to confirm him.

Aldous

You wrote about my post on Iraq.

“Translation: We screwed up so let’s spin this thing in the best light possible. Anyone who disagrees with us is unpatriotic, unamerican girlie-men who loves Terrorists and are homosexuals to boot.”

Did you really think I said any of those things? And why do you always bring homosexuality into things? I didn’t call anyone unpatriotic or un-American. In fact I don’t recall ever using those words to describe anyone in the thousands of words I have written on this blog.

Evidently you don’t feel you can attack the actual ideas stated, so you make up your own and then knock them down. Not hard to do.

Remember that a person’s view of the world is a confession of his own character.

AP
“Somebody tell me how this is a big deal for either side.”

To me this guy appears to be a party-line yes man.
That alone would be reason for the position of both sides.
Besides, wouldn’t a mentally unstable megalomaniac fit right in?

Evidently you don’t feel you can attack the actual ideas stated, so you make up your own and then knock them down. Not hard to do.

LOL! Jack… Oh, never mind. This is something I see left, right, and Indie. It’s always in order to yell “Strawman!”, or “Name some names!” when you see that kind of BS.

Besides, wouldn’t a mentally unstable megalomaniac fit right in?

Haha! Sure. But from what I’ve seen, I think the “Kiss-up, kick-down” description is probably closer to the truth.

In any case, the guy doesn’t make policy or interpret legislation. And it’s not like the UN ambassador does anything without instructions from the administration. The only real downside is that nominating him will piss of the rest of the world even more - if that’s possible.

Hmm… I guess it’ll also underscore the contempt the Bush administration has for international forums and the rule of law, but I don’t think that’s going to surprise anybody. And the damage to our reputation as a force for progress and working for the interests of the international community as a whole can be repaired by the next administration.

It’s not like the UN is going away, even if our representative does happen to be a “mentally unstable megalomaniac.”

AP

I don’t think I have accused you of setting up straw men, because you don’t do it. Of course, you are often mistaken, but not disingenuous.

What annoys me is when people revert to the stereotypes and straw men and I don’t think they even know they are doing it. In the case I referenced, I referred to none of the things Aldous mentioned and they are not what I believe. He evidently thinks that no matter what I actually say, I believe something else.

Life is tough for us conservatives in many situations (and I am only half joking). I have had the experience of saying something like, “I believe in market based solutions to environmental challenges” and have someone come back with, “So you don’t believe in civil rights?” I know that such hyperbole is common on all sides and we might disagree when it is being employed, but when you read something directly below that contradicts what you have written and then seem attacks you on the basis of that contradiction, I think it is a particularly clear situation.

Yeah, but what’re ya gonna do? That kinda stuff is part of the landscape right now. I blame conservative media. :)

Seriously, I’m reading Sean Hannity’s “Deliver Us From Evil” (I borrowed it from the library). It’s full of strawman arguments. It’s amazing how righteous you can be when you’re making both sides of the argument.

BTW, I had to laugh because I was thinking of your blanket statements about “the left” and “they” and “the chattering class” when we go back and forth. It’s the same thing - though much more polite than directly attributing a fabricated position to me.

Anyhow, it’s always in order to call BS when you see it.

Back on topic, I’d be interested to hear why a sane Republican thinks it’s important to push Bolton’s nomination through. Enlighten me. :)

AP-

Why should the GOP back down? They’ve got both houses plus the White House. Mansfield would’ve done the same thing back in the 70’s.

But I still agree with you that this is much to do about nothing.

Let me try to enlighten. What do we know about John Bolton other than what the news media and C-SPAN has told or shown us. We don’t know didly. We must rely upon political judgement from those in power to make a right decision. The problem with all that goes into that decision, is the tit for tat and making mountains out of mole hills attitude of members of congress. Would it be great to see some statesmen instead of politicians at work? Then we could get on with the business of government.

Our optimistic predictions were not proven true. But neither were the pessimistic fears expressed in the media and by most experts. As it is today, two years after the invasion, we are closer to the optimistic than the pessimistic scenario.

I think there is a bit of revisionism going on here. I distinctly remember in early 2003, there was an argument that we had to hurry up and start the war before it got too hot in Iraq. Now our troops are going to spend a third hot summer in Iraq, with no clear end in sight.

People who were arguing that it would be a lengthy war were more right than wrong. Supporters had evaded this fact by pretending that the “post-war” period started when Bush declared the end of major combat in May 2003. (Apparently troops have been joking that they have been in “minor combat”.) I don’t buy that distinction. War is war.

The elections are a good sign, but elections don’t make a stable government. I am sincerely optimistic, but it is too early to declare victory.

George, AP, Jack, you all are getting a touch cynical. Is the UN all it can be for good in the world? And if not, would it not make sense for the Senate to advise and consent toward putting the very best possible leader, one who can inspire and lead by example as well as politic with the best of them? And isn’t that to some extent what the Senate Committee is both charged with and trying to do? Get the best possible person in the job, since, after all, it is like sending a delegate to the US Congress, except that at the UN it is more like the World Congress.

Sure party affiliation plays a role, it is politics. But, impeccable record and experience above reproach also weigh into the equation for some of the Senators, would you not agree?

David-

If you think that the Democrat’s motives here are altruistic then I’ve got some land down here that I need to sell you!

Since I don’t play party politics (I just watch it for sport) I really could care less about attacks like this. But objectively, AP is right when he says that the Democrats should back off on the political appointments and save their ammo for the judicial nominations that are lifetime. If Bolton is as bad as they say he is then he’ll make a mess out of the U.N., and that will be campaign fodder in ‘08.

But you’re probably right about me being cynical towards anyone inside the beltway!

Brilliantly put, David!

Surely they can find someone who doesn’t have so many strikes against them and who could be an effective and intelligent choice for this very important position.
Think about it, you guys. What low is America stooping to when we’ve come to the warped conclusion that true diplomacy presented by a sober and even tempered individual must be ditched in favor of an obviously unstable character who is rising to his position simply because the president intends to bully the world?

“even tempered”—So he gets angry when a subordinate lies. Does that make him an “unstable character”? Using “unstable character” sounds like a shrinks evaluation. I didn’t know the shrinks were involved in this nomination. The substance of his beliefs and he writings have not been debated. Only his character has been questioned in a very negative manner. Nobody talks about the 65 associates and peers that placed documents in favor of him. But the 59 that were against him sure got the coverage. Fair? How? Let’s debated what the man believes and what are his principles.

George,
Bolton making a mess out of the UN wouldn’t work as campaign fodder for democrats, just republicans.

We already saw what happened to world opinion of us when we tried to bribe and bully countries into supporting us in Iraq. Does anybody actually think that someone like Bolton, who is anti-UN to begin with, and who is being endowed with a mandate to bully and “shake things up” will bring world opinion more in line with our own way of thinking? This is a win-win for the republicans. If by some miracle Bolton is actually able to get what he wants from the UN, the republicans look good to the moderates who like having allies. If what is more likely happens and Bolton offends enough people to turn the UN even more against us, it will energize the republican base who want the UN to go away anyway. Rest assured, the “excuse America first” crowd will not blame Bolton for any decrease in international cooperation. It’s all France’s fault, isn’t it?

tom:
“”even tempered”—So he gets angry when a subordinate lies.”

The subordinate did not lie — the man’s boss completely backed him up. Btw, did you read my link? Bolton was angry because he was trying to spin the intelligence. Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, Iraq.
And really tom, there are just too many people who have come forward — some of them Republican’s and some of them in important positions — to be claiming that this is only one isolated incident.

“The substance of his beliefs and he writings have not been debated.”

The man has made derogatory about the UN, now suddenly he wants to be our ambassador at the UN. Sounds to me like his beliefs aren’t very solid — like his temper, they seem rather unstable, you might say.
I repeat, couldn’t the president select a better person for this important position?

ooops, that was supposed to be: derogatory remarks about the UN.

Brian-

Maybe if all Republicans were members of the John Birch Society, but I think most Americans, including those evil Republicans, see and want a role for the U.N. But that role needs better definition and certainly more oversight with the billions in USD going into their coffers.

And instead of blaming the French, most will blame the GWB or the GOP as a whole if our international relationships go south. Bolton will only be a footnote; that’s why I still feel that this is much to do about nothing other than politics.

FWIW I love the French and their beautiful contry!

*sigh*

Bolton isn’t Anti-UN. This has been presented many times but the same old characterizatoin keeps coming through.

Bolton is against what the UN has become and has higher ideals for the UN. I understand his plight because I am in the same position, despising much of what the UN has become and lamenting what the UN *SHOULD* and *COULD* be.

We should allow bribery, raping of protectees and a myriad of other scandals to continue while genocide can’t even be called what it is because it might mean action would have to take place?

Is Bolton the right guy and will he fix all of these things? I don’t know, I have my doubts and reservations. I don’t know of anyone can help steer the right course anymore, perhaps the organization has gone ‘round the bend. But let’s at least be fair to presenting his viewpoint accurately.

George,
I’m not saying that republicans are evil, just that with this issue they will either pacify the middle (who you were talking about) or motivate their base (see tom’s comments). We saw with the Iraq war that a majority of people didn’t blame Bush & Co. for our international relations going bad, they blamed the world for turning against us. In fact, it seems that a significant proportion of people saw worsening relations as a sign of leadership.

AP

Since you ask about my Bolton opinion . . .

I haven’t thought too much about Bolton. People say that he is hard to live with. So are a lot of others. As per your examples, Holbrook was certainly a contender for toughest and meanest person I have ever met, but he was smart. Albright didn’t have the brainpower for the role. Danforth is good, but not very tough. We havn’t had a real star there for a while.

The UN is dysfunctional. The U.S. can’t reform the UN on its own, but we have considerable clout, since we pay a lot of the bills. Being diplomatic at the UN and trying to win friends will get you only so far. We (the U.S.) have interests that conflict with many UN members and with the current structure of the UN itself. We can’t expect to persuade people to our point of view. They don’t oppose us out of ignorance or malice alone; they really have reasons to oppose reform. UN bureaucrats are often overpaid and politically chosen. Do you think we can persuade them to take a pay cut? Can we persuade the diplomats from developing countries that they should pay more (or something)?

This is probably not a win/win negotiation opportunity. Sometimes the best course might be to not play at all in some of the UN games. Other times we might want to try to change the rules. In any case, a strong man will help.

On the strictly Machiavellian point of view, we can always play good cop/bad cop. Bolton can go there and kick some ass as is needed and after that can be replaced with a conciliatory guy, who will seem so much nicer.

Adrienne
The claim can always be that another candidate is better than the chosen one. Since you do not prefer John Bolton, give me some names that you think would be better. The UN for all the billions of dollars that have been pumped into it has a dismal record for “keeping the peace”. The problem we may have here is that world leaders were saying “keeping the peace” when in reality they meant “keeping the piece”. For all the milliions of dollars our government throws down the drain in the UN it is all wasted on scandals and inability to achieve anything worthwhile. For instance, one of the dumbest things is the Human Rights Commission. The members nations are: Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. WOW!!!That is the same as putting Hitler in charge of a Bar Mitzpah or The Grand Dragon of the KKK as the head of the NAACP. Just plain evil. Do not read anything other than what is stated into the above comparisons

I’d like to return to the issue of judicial appointments. The Republicans are apoplectic that 10 out of 229 appointments have been filibustered. Well, let’s compare that with the 8 year period 1993 - 2000 (the Clinton years). The Republicans prevented 60 nominees (that’s 6X the number of nominees filibustered by Democats in W’s first term) from even being considered in the Judiciary Committee, let alone on the Senate floor.

The actual numbers through Clinton I and II are:
455 nominations, 386 appointees (difference of 69 - I can’t account for the discrepancy with the 60 nominations not acted on above - perhaps withdrawals?). Anyway 10 out of 229 is far better odds (if you’re a Republican) than 60 out of 455.

I’d say the Democrats are doing quite well, thank you, in approving W’s nominations and blocking only on the most exteme cases.

What do Republicans expect - 100% approval? What happened to “advice and consent”?

Mark

How many did the Republicans filibuster?

Also, do these quotes mean anything or should they just be ignored?

* Patrick Leahy (D-VT) “I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported.”
(Cong. Rec, 6/18/98, S6521)

* Tom Harkin (D-IA) “Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations.” (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

* Tom Daschle (D-SD) “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.”
(Cong. Rec., 10/5/99, S11919)

* Edward Kennedy (D-MA) “If our … colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”
(Cong. Rec., 2/3/98, S292)

Personally, I don’t care if they filibuster or not, if it’s a legal option to take then fine. But I think anyone who has made statements like those above should be held accountable. Either they should admit and apologize for being wrong before or stand by their words now.

I say, never forget. Hold people accountable for what they say and perhaps people in such positions will say fewer things they don’t really mean. And I think that part of Daschle’s fall in the last election was due to his reversal on his stance.

I am hearing a lot of anti-UN vitriol. So if the UN is terrible, Bolton is a good UN ambassador?

As for Bolton, I can’t figure out what Dems have to gain from blocking this nomination - other than embarrassing the president (again). If Bolton’s nomination is withdrawn, who’s next? I guarantee it’s not going to be Clinton or Holbrooke. Why bother?

In a sense the stakes are pretty high, because by nominating Bolton we would be basically giving the UN the finger. As you point out, though, this isn’t a choice between John Bolton and the choice of the Democrats. It’s between John Bolton and Bush’s second choice. So I don’t see what the GOP has to lose by letting this one go, unless they are really, really desperate to give the UN the finger.

The numbers are immeterial. The process is where the problem is. The Senate is to give advise and consent or no consent with the candidate. Filibustering does not allow the consent/non-consent to occur. Filibustering a legislative piece is quite legal and proper. Filibustering a candidate for any positiion is unconstitutional. Many of the Clinton appointees were found to be not acceptable. The two candidates now before the Senate have received high endorsement from the ABA. In each of the females geographical areas they had extremely strong endorsement. There is no litmus test for a judge except, has he done his job to support the constitution of the United States. That is an oath he takes at every level of the law.

Jack,
You might be curious to know the Republicans attempted filibusters against the appointments of several judges; in 1994 against H Lee Sarokin, and again in March 2000 against Richard Paez & Marsh Berzon. Those filibusters all failed. (Btw, Frist was involved in the Paez filibuster). Once the Republicans came into power in the Congress in ‘94, the preferred method for stopping judges was to refuse to consider the nominations. This technique was used at least 60 times.

tom:
“The claim can always be that another candidate is better than the chosen one. Since you do not prefer John Bolton, give me some names that you think would be better. “

If it has to be a Republican (and with this extremely partisan administration, I realize it will always have to be), then I agreed with who Sen. John Warner supported for the job — former Senator, John Danforth.

John Danforth removed himself from the Amb. to UN position.

On the Judgeship of Richard Paez & Marsh Berzon. They were not filibustered. There was a delay of 1506 days because the Senate did not have the votes. When they had the votes they got the confirmation. Likewise with Marsh Berzon. Richard Paez was submitted to the Senate on July 29, 1999 and Marsh Berzon was submitted to the Senate on July 1, 1999. Bothe were confirmed on March 9, 2000.

Tom,
As an earlier post by Rh demonstrates, there’s considerable hypocrisy on this issue. Here is a rather choice quote by Senator Smith (R) New Hampshire, concerning Paez:

“But don’t pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don’t think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don’t appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying.” (March 7, 2000)

“John Danforth removed himself from the Amb. to UN position.”

He was certainly up for it before. No doubt he’d reconsider if Bolton is, in fact, rejected.

“They were not filibustered.”

Yeah, with Clinton’s judicial picks they simply used every other trick in the book to stonewall.

Tom,
Mr. Bolton is to diplomacy as Atila the Hun was to world peace. Yes the U.N. is not perfect but it the best thing going to get nations to, at least, try to talk. The West Texas cowboy diplomace of President George W. Bush has helped many of our former allies to become cold to this country. Mr. Bush’s appointments make me wonder wheather or nor the President cares about anyone other than the neocons, ultra-right churches, mega wealthy and big business. The average person of this country, you know the 95% of us, are being paid off for re-electing the President—SCREWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Norman-
Somebody should charge you a dollar for each mention of the liberal media you and your friends make in your posts. It’s a cheap way to dance around the questions of authenticity of the evidence, and to call into question anything that portrays the GOP in a bad light.

Link us to your facts, and let those who will test and defend your arguments. Tell us what a highly motivated president with a willing conservative media at his beck and call would not and could not tell us.

Regardless of the campaign rhetoric you seem to have taken to heart, Democrats were never trying to prove Saddam a saint. Our question was this: is he enough of a threat to be worth devoting our limitied resources to kicking his ass? If the kind of terrorists that hit us on 9/11 weren’t there in force, and Saddam Hussein did not have the weapons we claimed he had, then there were likely better targets to go after. Hell, we should have finished the target we started after first. Doesn’t it disturb you that we started the Hunt for Saddam after the one for Osama, and we still haven’t found Bin Laden?

Truth is, Bin Laden still poses a major threat to us. Unfortunately, he’s too hard to find, and Bush isn’t willing to tread on Pakistan’s toes to get him. Bush had his chance, but he was still thinking in 19th century terms about willing a 21st century war. He thought if we merely knocked out the national level support, al-Qaeda would be destroyed. That wasn’t the case. So tell me what your president has done lately to go after this man who reall is a threat to us?

Regardless of what you think I am not a cheerleader for the Republican Party. I have been a critic of the party ever since Bush was first elected into office, but the war in Iraq was something I have always supported.
I have to admit that President Bush did use 9/11 as his scapegoat for bringing down Saddam Hussein, but it was a war that was at least 8 years too late. Saddam had been violating UN sanctions consistently for over 14 years by the time we went in and smoked him out.
There were good legitimate reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein. The atrocities he has committed throughout his career, both against Americans and Jews, and against his own people went unpunished for far too long.
Iraq was the right enemy at the right time for a lot of reasons. We needed some stability in the region. We needed an ally. We had already started the process of eliminating the threat that Saddam Hussein posed 14 years prior to starting the war. All we had to do was follow through.
The great thing about what we did in Iraq is that we were able to kill many birds with one stone. We were able to oust Saddam Hussein who has been funding anti-US and anti-Semitic terrorist organizations for years, including Hammas and Al Queda. We were able to expose corruption in the UN. We were able to put terror-friendly nations under a microscope. Terrorist groups with no place to hide are coming out of the woodwork, their networks slowly disintegrating.
To say that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat is absolutely absurd. He was paying off families of Palestinian Homicide bombers. That alone was a severe violation of his sanctions and was reason enough to go to war. There were so many reasons to take Saddam out, why are you all so stuck on the stockpiles of weapons? The stockpiles that everyone in the world new they existed at one time. This wasn’t just an American mistake it was an international intelligence mistake, a burden shared by many countries who had gathered intelligence on Iraq over the years. You really expect me to believe that all of this world-wide intelligence was wrong, simply because we didn’t find the weapons?
That is the difference between a clear-thinking Conservative and a doom-and-gloom liberal. The Conservative who has seen fourteen years worth of evidence of Saddam evading inspectors, intelligence showing weapons factories, chemical weapons being unleashed on his own people and a clear motivation to obtain nuclear weapons, would wonder what happened to all of these weapons? Where did they go? Who has them now? The doom-and-gloom liberal takes the data at surface value. Since the weapons aren’t there now, that must mean they were never there to begin with.
So you say shame on George W Bush for not finding the weapons? I say shame on George W Bush for not laying Bagdhad in ruins the minute he took oath. I say shame on Bill Clinton for sitting on his rear end for eight years, while constantly telling us how much of a threat Saddam was. Yet the liberals say we should have waited? As if three more months of diplomacy would have nullified fourteen years of treachery?
As for Osama Bin Laden, I am just as disappointed as anyone else that we haven’t captured him. That is a very good reason to be upset with George W Bush. We should also be upset by his lack of action on securing our US-Mexican border.
However, I don’t think Osama Bin Laden poses much of a threat anymore. Sure I would like to barbeque the freakin guy, but eventually he will get what is coming to him. He basically has two options, he can either hide his whole life and make video tapes to try to incite violence, or he can surface at which point he will be captured or destroyed.

Hey, notice I didn’t make mention of the liberal media in this post ;)

Norman,

I would like to second Stephen’s request. Link us to some sources to backup your comments, so we can begin to separate the facts from the propaganda.

I’ll demonstrate how it works. Here is a source that argues that sactions against Saddam actually worked quite well: Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked

Perhaps you can give us a source that will demonstrate how Iraq was a greater threat to us than say, Syria? Or North Korea? Or Iran? Surely Iraq must have been the most imminent threat for us to decide to expend lives and resources there…

And as the Bolton nomination slowly sinks into the west… He may return for a second round. Maybe not. If not him, it will be another of a similar ilk.

But why Bolton? Why a person with that set of beliefs, a person who has made disparaging remarks about the UN, about the IAEC, and who has a history of aggressively pursuing issues surrounding WMD?

What follows is just an educated guess, pure speculation.

The Bush administration wants a neocon true believer as Ambassador to the UN, one who perceives the UN as a forum for projecting US positions & asserting power. It wants a person who advocates an unapologetic unilateralism, a ‘you’re with us or against us’ mentality; a person who sees the UN as an ineffectual restraint on US national interest & self-defense. For such a person, multilateral negotiation prevents necessary action in a dangerous world.

Currently the Europeans are attempting to curtail the Iranian nuclear program through negotiation. Neocons believe this will fail. Some believe the Iranians will reach a ‘point of no return’ in the next few months, & be capable of developing a nuclear weapon in @ one year.

Israel feels especially threatened. If the US won’t stop the Iranians, the Israelis will.

As UN ambassador, Bolton (or an alternate nominee) must forcefully present the position that the time for negotiations has passed.

The US will bomb Iran.

From there, the Magic Eight Ball grows hazier. ‘Ask again later.’

For all this talk about Bolton, I don’t hear Republicans mention Bernard Kerik as an example of Character Assasination.

Surely Bernard Kerik, the former New York Police Commisioner tapped by Bush to head Homeland Security, would be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the Column. A victim of Character Assasination, Kerik is the epitome of a Bush Appointee.

Why don’t you Conservatives use Kerik?

While I’m not the biggest fan of Bolton, using the ‘The UN does not exist’ quote against him seems pretty petty to me, considering the context of the quote and put against other quotes.

And Rhinehold,

I think the discovery of an illegal alien doing housework for an Attorney General nominee is less of a disqualifying factor than Bolton’s comments, but it sunk Clinton’s choice of Lani Guinier. Meaning, the precedent of appearance, integrity, public pronouncements, and now temperament, as mitigating factors in confirmation proceedings have been established. As Chair of the committee, I’d think Sen. Lugar has the power to weigh the significance of such testimony of Bolton’s behavior, no?

Bolton isn’t Anti-UN. This has been presented many times but the same old characterizatoin keeps coming through.

We should allow bribery, raping of protectees and a myriad of other scandals to continue while genocide can’t even be called what it is because it might mean action would have to take place?

Not to swerve off topic, but I find this argument rather ironic and familiar. Recently, there’s been criticism by Dems and members of the perceived Liberal press of what the new Pope portends for the Catholic church. The criticism has not focused on the new Pope’s Hitler Youth past, but the central role he played in the priest sexual abuse scandal and stated intention not to deviate from archaic, Conservative edicts that have caused the exodus from the church. But, such views - that are widely shared by American Catholics - have been condemned by some on the Right as anti-religion and anti-Catholic.

An example.

We should allow bribery, raping of protectees and a myriad of other scandals to continue while genocide can’t even be called what it is because it might mean action would have to take place?

If the fact that abuse happened under his watch disqualifies Annan, then what about Bush and Rumsfeld?

We have by far the world’s largest military. If we want the UN should do something about Sudan, we should offer some of our forces or offer to do it ourselves with their approval. Put up or shut up.

But again, no matter how bad the UN is, the issue is Bolton.

In another direction, here is a quote from CNN.com yesterday:

Chafee said Thursday that senators have questions about what he called “discrepancies” between Bolton’s testimony April 11 and the recollections of others.

“There’s been a list of witnesses who have come forward — seven different people who corroborated that Mr. Bolton tried to fire a defense analyst,” Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said Thursday. “Not just one — seven different people, all within this administration.”

Chafee, Republican. Dodd, Republican. Seven different people in the Bush administration. And don’t forget Chuck Hagel (R).

And the White House is spouting off at the Democrats. Puh-thetic.

One of the areas that has not been brought up during the discussion of Bolton is, Old Foggy Bottom. For decades the state department has had persons who had questionable dedication to the United States. Alger Hiss, who signed the Dumbarton Oaks treaty which was part of the start up of the UN, certainly was shown to be of questionable character. There are a number of others. So the state department in recent history has shown to have people who are bent on a different course than the administration in power at that time; both left and right. That is probably another subject. The reason I bring it up is that some of those people against Bolton I sense are not being loyal to the US government. Don’t read Bush into the loyal comment.

Tom

Alger Hiss was a Communist who was cooperating with a foreign power and evil ideology. You can’t compare people like him to Bolton. Maybe you can accuse Bolton of following his own agenda. The key point in the worst-case scenario is OWN agenda. All powerful people have their own agendas. We hire them for their brains and talent and we expect them to use that talent to further our national interest. As any leader knows, your best people are usually the most trouble.

There is a big difference between that kind of guy and somebody like Alger Hiss. I would also point out the Hiss was so smooth that he didn’t antagonize people the way Bolton does. That is because he has a meta goal and that goal was not good for the U.S.

If Dem.’s succed in trashing Bolton, next in line should be Newt Gingrich.

I vote that we put each one of our Washington Politicians before one of these committees before they are sworn in.

I wonder if Zell Miller would take it?

In the spirit of bipartisanship I’d vote for him.

Jack
I was not trying to do any comparison of Bolton and Hiss. The mention of Hiss along with his brother Donald was to show that many in the state department for years have a loyalty problem. Bolton has no loyalty problem. Others appear to have it. As in the posting that originated this discussiion. Ana Belen Montes was loyal to Fidel Castro. Fulton Armstrong was influenced by Ms. Montes. Questionable situation to say the least.

Check this related link;

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/08/lott.holbrooke/

You’ll find Holbrooke’s nomination was held up for the EXACT same thing as Bolton’s is now.

Its funny that Dem.’s didn’t have a problem with that in 1999 ?

I wonder if Zell Miller would take it?

In the spirit of bipartisanship I’d vote for him.

Bipartisanship? That’s rich. He’s no more of a Democrat than Trent Lott. (He may say he is, but that doesn’t make him one.)

As for Holbrooke, Bolton has been accused of many things. Probably the worst is manipulating intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear weapons. I would think even a hawk would want someone with more credibility.

Woody my friend,

“Bipartisanship? That’s rich. He’s no more of a Democrat than Trent Lott. (He may say he is, but that doesn’t make him one.)”

Zell was a Democrat to the end, he refused to change partys and only retired after the party took so many left turns that they were going in circles.

It was however ment to be “rich”, I would love to see Zell challange the UN to a dual.

Beagle,

Fine, have it your way. Zell Miller is a Democrat, and I’m a Republican. I voted for Kerry, I think Bush is a lousy president, and I disagree with the GOP just about everything, but I’m a Republican. Why? Because I said so.

Norman-
Look to either side of Iraq, and what do you find? Syria and Iran. Iraq had not been a major player on the terroris scene since we decimated them in the Gulf War. Saddam did invade his neighbors, but can you name any he invaded after the Gulf War?

The documents that your own congress put forward on al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq indicate that they really didn’t have a serious relationship. They talked a few times, and that was it. Otherwise, their relationship was actually quite hostile. Saddam did support terrorist groups, but it was mostly penny-ante stuff, the largest of the groups (the MEK) being focused on creating havoc in Iran.

The UN Oil For Food Scandal is bad, but much worse are the secret deals we allowed our friendly allies in the region to make with Saddam. Thsoe deals netted him much greater profits. As for creating allies in the region, name the countries that have flocked to our side as a result of this?

It puzzles me that you support this war, yet do not recall the pre-war press offensive that Bush went on. It dishearten’s me that you support the scapegoating of Saddam Hussein in the place of an enemy who has not only proved to be a threat, but a lethal one. Osama Bin Laden is still out there capable and willing to kill Americans. he remains uncaptured and unkilled, and his organizatyion has bounced back from the beating we gave it.

What frustrates me about this administration is the way that it’s fallen short in confronting our enemies time and again, for one reason or another. Bush diverted us from Afghanistan, the country still in shambles, and the enemy leaders still unneutralized. Then, in Iraq, he didn’t give us the troops to keep the law and order in that place, with the result that the army ended up sitting on a pressure cooker that eventually exploded. Then, when that happened, Bush had us make incursions into Najaf and Fallujah, and then stop and withdraw with the job half done, because the body counts were making him look bad. The Result? Even higher body counts among our troops as our enemies struck at us emboldened by our apparent lack of will to defeat them.

What makes this whole thing worse is that we were wrong. And for your information the whole world did not think the same thing. Bush just ignored and failed to mention to us the evidence and the folks that said differently. Your world in oblivion is the result of selective memory, not the state of the facts as they were.

The truth is, Iraq was a manufactured crisis in a time where we already have our share of naturally occurring ones. It is alarming and frustrating to me that the GOP has gotten so far off track on this. We could have been cleaning out terrorist havens like Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, or gaing after Syria and Iran instead. Places where the presence of terrorists, especially al-Qaeda were unquestionable.

instead, Bush and the GOP decided to refight the Gulf War, which itself was refighting of WWII. We ended up fighting an somewhat more winnable version of Vietnam instead.

I don’t want the comfort of unforunded optimism. I want the news to give a good enough picture of what’s going wrong at an early enough date that we know where to go out and kick ass, or do whatever else we need to to to get the problem solved. I don’t believe in leaving folks like Osama Bin Laden to plot their comebacks, or leaving their subordinates around to create more self-sufficient cells. We take care of these threats now, or else they take care of us later.

When the next terrorist attack comes, you can ask your president where we are going to get the resources to fight back. And he’ll have to tell you that they’re all in Iraq.

We Democrats believe that the president has made the job of defeating the terrorists more difficult. Unfortunately, the President and the GOP are set on saving face. So they’ve handed you all the propaganda you’re so willingly expecting, hoping that you get off their backs. But that’s not what this country needs. It needs vigilance, it needs the right jobs done at the right time, and it needs hopes based on realities, rather than false dreams waiting to be dashed on the rocks of the real world.

We have by far the world’s largest military. If we want the UN should do something about Sudan, we should offer some of our forces or offer to do it ourselves with their approval. Put up or shut up.

This has to be one of the funniest criticisms I’ve heard in a while… Of coure the US has offered to do just that, we are demanding it in fact. It’s the UN that won’t approve it. And, of course, we all know what the reaction of the US doing something WITHOUT the UN approval, don’t we?

I think the discovery of an illegal alien doing housework for an Attorney General nominee is less of a disqualifying factor than Bolton’s comments, but it sunk Clinton’s choice of Lani Guinier.

Well Bert, while I remember that the smack down of Lani was a bit harsh, much like what people did to Bork or Ginsburg (Ginsburg was particularly evil IMO) how can you say that a person’s comments about the UN are *worse* than actually breaking the law?

I find this argument rather ironic and familiar. Recently, there’s been criticism by Dems and members of the perceived Liberal press of what the new Pope portends for the Catholic church. The criticism has not focused on the new Pope’s Hitler Youth past, but the central role he played in the priest sexual abuse scandal and stated intention not to deviate from archaic, Conservative edicts that have caused the exodus from the church. But, such views - that are widely shared by American Catholics - have been condemned by some on the Right as anti-religion and anti-Catholic.

I’m not sure why you find it ironic, coming from me, since I am 180 degrees from what you would call a ‘fan of the catholic church’. My personal opinion is that almost all organized religion has been the root of most of the misery and suffering in the world. While some people need a crutch to help them get through life, and I would never tell anyone they can’t have that, what the leaders of these churches have done with the power that they gain from people resembling unthinking sheep in ‘the lord’s name’ is one of the greatest evils in human history.

So, I am not using the argument in any kind of ironic way I don’t think…

This has to be one of the funniest criticisms I’ve heard in a while… Of coure the US has offered to do just that, we are demanding it in fact. It’s the UN that won’t approve it.

We aren’t offering to invade Sudan, we are offering aid. It is true that we are pressuring the UN to do more, but that is not the same as doing it ourselves.

And the UN is sending 10,700 peacekeepers to Sudan. See here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/14/AR2005041400180.html.

As for the “genocide” business:

Asked Thursday by a reporter if genocide was still occurring, Zoellick said, “I really don’t want to get into debates about terminology because I think what we have to do is try to solve the problems.”

Damn you, Robert Zoellick! Call a spade a spade! :)

The truth is, Iraq was a manufactured crisis in a time where we already have our share of naturally occurring ones

Sorry, Stephen, but this is YOUR truth, not the truth of the situation. We’ve argued about this over and over again and we just disagree. I supported action against Iraq BEFORE Bush was even elected. Your assertion that Iraq was a weak and defeated puppy after the first Gulf War is just not true. You also characterize the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship as ‘they just talked a few times’ when even the congressmen who wrote the 9/11 report say differently. They say that they can only PROVE that they only spoke a few times but that there is enough evidence to show that there was a much larger connection between the two.

Follosing the first Gulf War Iraq was quite busy. Between having a hand in the first WTC bombing, suggestions that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing, the assassination attempt of a US president, training grounds provided to external terrorists to train, plans to attack the US after 9/11, the refusal to fully comply with UN resolutions, the desire to throw off the sanctions so it could get back to building WMDs, nearly daily attacks on US and UK planes, and Saddam’s continuing desire to be the leader of the arab world, it was clear that Iraq was most definately a country that needed dealing with. Even a US judge has convicted IRAQ of being responsible for 9/11 after hearing the evidence.

You forget that Bush, in the 2000 election, stated the need to do what Clinton could not do, resolve the Iraq issue once and for all instead of letting it continue on, starving Iraqi citizens and leaving in place policies where the Iraqi people would end up hating all non-arabs for generations.

Even YOU have stated that you would want the sanctions to continue, even though you were sure that they had no WMD, which is a pretty rough stance, don’t you think? If they didn’t have WMD, the sanctions should have been lifted and if they were all destroyed in 1998, or 1991 (whichever version you ascribe to) then I am assuming you would have wanted the sanctions lifted at that time, right?

Rhinehold,

From the link, here’s a quote from the judge about finding Iraq was linked to 9/11.

“Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis…”

You must be kidding. A main proponent of these crackpot theories is Laurie Mylroei, an ‘expert’ whose opinions were accepted by the judge.

Who is Laurie Mylroie? A nut case of the first degree, whose bizarre conspiracy theories have been proven wrong in almost every instance.

www.washingtonmonthly.com/ features/2003/0312.bergen.html

Google her name if you don’t like that particular link, there are many, many examples of just how completely & utterly wrong she has turned out to be, including an interview with the Jerusalaem post which is a real hoot. It’s simply embarrassing to cite a person like Laurie Mylroei.

Stephen Daugherty
The truth is, … . .
That should read “In my opinion …
The truth and real facts of the Middle East involvement by our government and military will not be proven or shown until history can record the truth in an after the fact manner. Your presentation was eloquent at times, but off base. To blame President Bush for the same failures that President Clinton had just does not cut it. Forget the Rep./Dem labels. Think American. By the way, do know how Saddam got his name? When he was born his mother said he was so damn ugly that she named he Saddam. A little humor may help.

Rhinehold,
A few quotes from the links you provided. Here is the concluding sentence of the first one on the 1st WTC bombing:

“But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn’t been established.”

Here is the first sentence of the concluding paragraph from suggestions that Iraq was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing:

“None of this is “hard evidence,” let alone “conclusive evidence,” that Saddam Hussein was complicit in Sept. 11 or any of the other domestic terrorist attacks.”

From the third link:

“Putin said: “It is one thing to have information that Hussein’s regime was preparing acts of terrorism — we did have this information, and we handed it over… . But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things.”

If this involved nothing more than an academic argument about conspiracy theories, no one would care. But that’s not the case. And every link you cite admits there is no hard evidence, no conclusive evidence, few actual facts to support the theory.

Was Saddam Hussein actually a good guy? Of course not. He kept Iraq together through brute force. He’s done now, cooked.

And how is the US keeping Iraq under control? We haven’t tortured nearly as many as Saddam, we’re still only in double-digits. You know, chaining a prisoner’s arms & hanging him from the ceiling, then beating his legs so bad they’d have to be amputated if he’d somehow survived, that sort of thing.

We haven’t killed as many innocent Iraqi civilians as Saddam. Again, it’s only about 15,000, give or take a few thousand innocent men, women, and children. Collateral damage. Gotta break a few eggs… C’est la guerre.

Saddam squandered billions through graft and corrpution. Hardly compares with the $8.8 billion that disappeared from the CPA, though.

The US is less evil than Saddam Hussein in its invasion & occupation of Iraq. I expect better from my country. I’m sure you do too.

The problem is, the justifications for invasion & occupation were almost all wrong.

Hopefully people like Bolton, & the little know nut Laurie Mylroie, & Bush & Rumsfeld will work out the kinks in the pre-emptive war plans before the US bombs Iran.

A lot of the questions that were directed at me were answered very well. Probably better than I could have.

So the only thing left to say is that we could not go after another country at the time (Syria, Iran, Sudan) because we did not place sanctions on those countries. They would have to repeatedly violate imposed sanctions before we cold make a case. Evidently the liberals don’t feel that 14 years worth of violations is enough.

I do criticize the Bush administration for not taking more action against Iran, Syria, N Korea, etc. However, I recognize that we can’t just waltz in and bomb a country without taking necessary diplomatic measures. Iraq had sanctions, the others didn’t. Should we sanction Iran and Syria? Of course. Shame on George Bush for not taking action. That does not in any way indicate that we should not have gone to war with Iraq.

Norman—What diplomatic measures did we take before bombing Iraq? Bush was in such a hurry to rush to war he forgot about diplomacy…even when we had weapons inspectors on the ground, Bush was telling us that Sadaam was refusing to let them in!! AND THERE WERE ONLY AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE THE U.S. BARGED IN THERE AND STIRRED UP THE IRE OF ISLAM!! You and Tom need to stop watching FOX for your news! And the “liberal media”? a)A small, inconsequential segment of what passes for *news* these days. b)a figment of your imagination.

even when we had weapons inspectors on the ground, Bush was telling us that Sadaam was refusing to let them in!!

Carri,

I am going to assume you mean ‘let into the country’ and not ‘providing immediate unfettered access’ and then explain that you are mistaken about what Bush said before we invaded.

The 12 years of ‘diplomacy’ that resulted in the deaths of millions of Iraqis was not working. Even Clinton made it US policy to end the regieme of Saddam Hussein. The US Senate voted nearly unanimously to approve military action and Hans Blix pointed out that the Iraqi administration were in violation of 1441 and that they still didn’t ‘get it’. He was quoted, before the war, as saying that he wouldn’t be surprised if WMD were found because they had no way to prove one way or the other that Iraq was complying with previous UN resolutions.

Maybe if you quit listening to what the liberal media (CNN, BBC, etc), Air America and Link Television tell you to think and think on your own you might find that usually nothing falls down exactly along party lines, except partisan politics…

Rhinehold,

“The 12 years of ‘diplomacy’ that resulted in the deaths of millions of Iraqis was not working.”

Ok, WTF, where the hell are you people getting these numbers? The best any media outlet can do is make estimates and there has never been an official record or census on how many people have been put to death on Saddam’s orders.

Zeek, it wasn’t just the deaths of dissenters and ethnic groups that he had put to death that is included in that figure but also all of the people who died of starvation from the sanctions put in place.

If you add up the estimates from the gassing of the kurds, the political dissidents that were killed in various horrible ways (wood chippers, etc) and the people who starved or dehydrated to death due to the sanctions (estimates on various human rights websites) the number reaches well above a million.

I’ll put some time aside today to do the legwork for you if you like, I had thought that this was a pretty well agreed upon figure for 1991-2003 Iraq though, I guess we have to keep restating the facts when so many non-facts are being thrown around all of the time…

Rhinehold, I’ll let your quotes do most of the work:

“If you add up the estimates […]”
“estimates on various human rights websites”

So what the heck are you saying this for:

“I guess we have to keep restating the facts”

Hm… estimates doesn’t sound very factual to me…

Rhinehold-
What precisely did Saddam Hussein do in the time leading up to that war that merited our attention? What was the crisis that precipitated our growing interest in Saddam Hussein? I don’t remember anything real specific. The administration just decided that the time was right and he had to go.

Isn’t it funny that Bush and Cheney started people getting worried about Iraq before they had a solid case for going to war? I mean, if it were a threat that really deserved the attention, wouldn’t we have some kind of report already in existence detailing the problem?

This is war justified by a case after the fact of the decision to invade Iraq. Bush had already pushed America on the war, pushed the UN, and had himself, his Vice President and a whole lot of other officials chattering about it for year prior to the case for war being unveiled. if you read about this case for war, you read about reports being included that are single-source, uncorroborated, some off-base, and some spectacularly wrong. In Powell’s skilled hands, the report was compelling, much more plausible than the fact-poor, vague rhetoric that characterized much of what we’d heard from the Bush administration.

This case was manufactured to fit the bill of an administration that may have seen a threat, or an opportunity, and went about culling from whatever sources it could attain the information they wanted to back their story up.

Unfortunately, that meant they didn’t listen to anybody who said otherwise.

I don’t think, with al-Qaida still around and the Madrid and Java Bombings still fresh in memory that the crisis of al-Qaeda terrorism has ended. Yet, this president had us invade with a significant chunk of our forces a country that had given us no new reason to consider it any differently than we had over the last few years. It does us no good to whack moles that haven’t been stupid enough to pop up, when others have reared their ugly heads.

You want to bring in humanitarian issues, well, its a bit late. You didn’t sell the war on humanitarian grounds. You had Bush making grave warnings about WMD attacks on our country being the next significant sign of the threat Iraq posed. Unfortunately, Bush never sent somebody to look at those site and see what was really there. We were simply going to waltz in and take care of what must have been there.

It is evident, finally, from documentation showing Saddam’s continued desire for WMDs, and the equally documented complete lack of WMDs in Iraq that our sanctions and inspections did the job of neutralizing Iraq as a nuclear and Chem/bio armed military.

So, when I say this war was a manufactured crisis and there were real ones elsewhere, I don’t do so stating a personal opinion, but as a factual interpretation of events. Iraq was a pre-emptive war. By definition that means we acted as if there was a gun to our head. Problem is, we never even saw a gun. We just assumed one was there. Meanwhile we got a bunch of armed enemies out there who really do have the power and the will and the means to go after us. Maybe, just maybe, theoretically speaking, and this just being my opinion and all, we should take care of the obvious, real threats first before we start gallivanting after speculative ones.

Norman-
You seem to be selecting your criteria of what constitutes a country worthy of invasion to suit our actions in Iraq.

My measure is this: how close are these people to putting Americans in how much danger? I’d just as soon invade a country pre-emptively that was posing a real threat to us than chase some Neocon’s foreign policy fantasy in a time of crisis. My problem is not that they go to war, or fail to use diplomacy, it’s that they seem to disregard good sense and even the welfare of the American people to see their agend through. They wanted a war in Iraq, and they laid out their plans to get it. They never did the necessary objective fact-finding to see if they were justified in doing so. They were negligent in a time that punishes negligence severely.

The DNC is not a true political party, as there platform is just to maintain themselves in power. Power just for the sake of power is corrupt. Delay and Block for the sake of delaying and blocking is just as corrupt if not more. The DNC never supports anyone who the American people elect unless they comply completely with there platform. Every thing the DNC does is done just to maintain there power.

The DNC is fast to state that “We the people” and “Are Created Equal”. But when it comes to Treating our nations people that way, they fall short, real short. Why should 1% support 99% of the tax payers? It’s not about how much you make or how much you pay. To the DNC it’s about staying in power. If they can make 1% pay more than 99% then they can collect there votes or at least try, matters not if it’s right or equal…

If the DNC really desires to do what is best for our nation then they need to treat people as equals and not as just another vote so they can stay in what little power they have. The DNC will lose now or later, but America’s people now see them for what they rea