Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

There was an assasination attempt on Saddam’s life by some of those Marsh Arabs. Saddam had the Marshlands destroyed as punishment.

I also see you failed to mention that its the irrelevant United Nations doing the restoration. Careful… people might think the US was doing it…

Aldous

That is even more mendacious than usual.

Are you implying that because a couple of guys made Saddam mad, he was justified in destroying a whole ecosystem and the people who lived there?

I never said anything about the U.S. restoring the place and I have often praised the UN’s specialty institutions. That is the part that justifies the big U.S. support (about a quarter of the budget – more for most of the specialty functions) It is just the political parts that don’t work. In fact, if you want a rule of thumb, the parts of the UN headquartered in Geneva work all right, while those headquartered in NYC don’t.

The sine qua non to the survival of te environment and its restoration, however, was the fall of Saddam. Nobody could have done anything while he remained. As I mentioned, this was not a major cause for the war, but it is one of the many reasons we can be glad he is out of power.

All the unforeseen ancillary benefits in the world can’t shore up the deficient case for war. These post hoc rationalizations for the Iraq debacle, the right’s stock and trade these days, come across as just a smidge desperate and silly.

I wait with bated breath for the usual irrelevant rejoinders:

“Yeah, but…if Michael Moore had a marsh, it would probably…suck!”

“It doesn’t change the fact that Saddam was bad! He was a really bad guy! That means war was the only option!”

Et cetera…

Jack:

Nothing wrong with background data. People might get the impression the Pentagon is doing this… I would not wish to improve Rumsfeld’s stature…

Great article Jack. I always love to see optimistic reports from Iraq. I’m eagerly awaiting your article on how the insurgency has ended, al Qaeda is no longer operating in Iraq, all the Iraqis have electrical power and oil to heat their homes in the winter, and they all have jobs in a thriving free-market economy.

In the meantime, I’m glad the bogs are once again boggy. Keep up the good work.

How far d’ya think the UN would be restoring the Marshes with Saddam still in power?

Jack:

There are a lot of good things taking place in Iraq, which are not being reported. You’ve heard the old saying, “no news is good news‎. Well, in this case, it is “good news is no news‎. It wouldn’t matter how great things are, or if the lives of the Iraqi’s has changed 180 degrees for the better. The left hates the president & they are not able to see through the fog of that hate.

I do not agree with everything this administration has done, but decisions were made & I support those decisions. I work with a man who is totally given over to the left, liberal agenda. He seems so unhappy. He has no joy in life. He is completely consumed with hatred for the president. All he talks about is the next election & taking back the power. I did not have much use for Clinton. I thought he was an embarrassment to the office of the president, but I did not hate him. I believe that if you met him at a campground or a family get-together, he would be one of the “good old boys‎. I just don’t understand this hatred. It’s almost like we are seeing the depths of man’s depravity. I’m glad I don’t feel like the left, life is too short to spend it hating.

Perplexed

Jack,

Interesting viewpoint. Odd, but interesting.

Offering up evidence of Saddam’s reckless disregard for the environment as further justification for this war rings rather hollow. First, because Repubs are not exactly known for being champions of the environment. Second, because if we can partially justify ousting Saddam for his environmental negligence, why aren’t we using that same justification for ousting President Bush? After all, Bush has rolled back nearly every sane provision of the Clean Air Act of 1978, has allowed coal burning plants and other manufacturers to spew more pollution, has upped the level of “acceptable” arsenic in our drinking water, and has opened up the very last 58.5 million acres of national forests to mining and lumber interest — to name but a few.

Methinks some Repubs are now pulling at straws to offer oddly alternative justifications for this war, now that 60%+ of the American population is against it.

Jack:

Funny. Even when something good happens and no one claims the pres or the US did it, the same trash is thrown in the street.

These are Dems for God’s sake. We are talking about the environment for God’s sake. The environment there is improving and recovering dramatically. Can’t they be happy about anything?

“The environment in Iraq is improving thanks to the UN efforts and the fact that Sadam is no longer in power to destroy it,” says a world leader.

“Yeah, but it does not justify the war,” says a liberal.

“I agree, but I’m happy that at least something good is happening,” says a Republican.

“Yeah, but people are still being killed,” says a liberal.

“You are right again, but can’t you be pleased that at least the environment is improving? I mean, that is one of the flag ship issues of your party, right?” says a Republican.

“I can’t be happy unless I’m being negative. We liberals survive on our complaints,” says a liberal.

Well, good luck with that.

Snarky enough for you?

It just seems to me that, in a place and world where very little seems to be going right, mostly through our own devises, when something good does happen, we ought to rejoice in it, then put our nose back to the grindstone. Otherwise we are just a world of Eors.

Jack:

Are you implying that because a couple of guys made Saddam mad, he was justified in destroying a whole ecosystem and the people who lived there?

Well, the Republicans seem to be implying that because Saddam made Bush mad, we were justified in destroying a whole country and at least 24,865 of the civilians who lived there…

Chi Chi:

I’m sorry, but “good news” of this sort from Republicans at this venture of the war rings rather hollow in our ears. It’s like trying to find some silver lining in a tragedy by which to justify the tragedy. To absolve the people who got us into the war. Even the title of this piece, including as it does the words “Without Saddam” implies that this is a reason we should be grateful for the war, rather than presenting the environmental news as something we should simply be grateful for in and of itself. It’s a fairly crass example of republican pro-war propaganda.

It’s also being presented as a far more cut and dry issue than it really is. It might be a surprise, but not all the Marsh Arabs want the Marshes to be just the way they were before. Some are living now in areas that were previously underwater. Some want the government to make dams to keep those areas from being flooded.

Others say they have no interest in returning to their former way of life. Mutlaq Saleh Hassan, the head of the Albu Sweileh tribe, once lived by fishing, herding and hunting birds. His family left the marshes in the 1980s but returned in 1997. He and his sons now work as a day laborers in a nearby town and are living in an area that was once underwater. The area is among the poorest in the country, and lacks much basic infrastructure—residents place 55-gallon barrels on the side of the main road like mailboxes, to be filled each day by a water tanker.

“We went to the governorate and asked them to build a dam so that our land won’t be flooded. They sent it to Baghdad, and the government said we would have a dam. But they have not built it. We want the water to be back, but we also want proper housing,” Hassan said, referring to the cinderblock dwelling his family built when they returned to the area.

Awash’s plan, which he recently presented to the Iraqi National Assembly, has come into conflict with a pre-existing plan by the Ministry of Agriculture—drawn up in the 1980s—that calls for the irrigation of some of the land that has been cleared and for total reclamation of marshland for farming by 2025.

“If there is political will to restore the marshes, we can restore the marshes,” Awash said. As for the farmers, who live in a land where the salt leaves a crust of white on the light-brown earth: “The groundwater table is salty, it burns. At first everything grows, but you see them now, instead of harvesting, they just let their cattle graze,” Awash said. “The people who tell you they want to farm here are either confused or don’t understand the question.”

Both of those are from http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/08/marshes.html

Seems like those who have adapted to other ways of life in the 14 years since the draining of the marshes, and who want to continue those ways of life, are being ignored as “confused”.

Jack,

I for one am glad that the marshes are coming back. But I’ve been told by a number of Republicans that you can’t believe anything reported on NPR. Can I trust this report?

Jarandhel:

I’m sorry, but “good news” of this sort from Republicans at this venture of the war rings rather hollow in our ears. It’s like trying to find some silver lining in a tragedy by which to justify the tragedy. To absolve the people who got us into the war.

First, the news is not coming from Repubs. It is coming from NPR and the UN. Does it still ring hollow? Second, Jack was not seeking absolution. Where did that come from? He stated the fact that, though it for better or worse will not be exactly the way it was pre-Sadam, the marshes and the ecosystem surrounding them will thrive again. Why can’t this news be a point of jubilation?

I am hardly the guy to defend Bush’s administration. You won’t find me doing that. The fact that the Bush admin had nothing to do with the marsh’s recovery struck no tone with me either way. The fact that something good is happening in spite of the war made me happy. It that too much to ask?

I also understand that some of the marsh area dwellers are happier with a receeded marsh than with the way things were before. I can understand and appreciate that. But, I can’t help but think eventually an over-the-top environmental group who does not have their best interests in mind, will spring up and demand that the marshes be completely restored…marsh dwellers be damned. I happen to think there is a better balance to be struck than that.

So, yes, I am happy something good happened despite this stupid war. I will be even happier if the UN can muster a compromise between the pre-war and post-war environmental impact which will benefit both the ecosystem and the locals. Be happy when something good happens. Then get back to work.

It is interesting that no matter what I write some people find things that are not there.

I wrote, “Environmental destruction was not a major cause of the Iraq war”. (BTW – I had to caveat it with “major” because environmental destruction was one of the minor reasons the Administration mentioned in the run up to the conflict.)

What I get back is “Offering up evidence of Saddam’s reckless disregard for the environment as further justification for this war rings rather hollow” and “These post hoc rationalizations for the Iraq debacle, the right’s stock and trade these days, come across as just a smidge desperate and silly.”

Let me be perfectly clear. Saddam’s record of environmental destruction was neither sufficient cause for war nor even a major consideration. But it is a side benefit. People are always listing the negative side effects; it is fair to list positive ones too.

This is a good news story. I have a personal interest in ecosystem restoration so I pay attention to these things. It is also just a very good story. It is uncommon to have such an unambiguous example of evil perpetrated – destroying a whole environment and its people essentially for revenge – and even less common to have this evil reversed.

Aldous inspired me look up more about the restoration project. It is not primarily a UN project. The main organizer is a private group called Eden Again. The U.S. is involved (naturally). I also found some background written in March 2003. I choose this so that I can’t be accused of ex-post-facto justification.

Burt

I get most of my news from NPR. I just make a mental adjustment to move everything a couple inches to the right if they are referring to politics. If you do the same, you will be all okay too.

Jarandhel,

“Seems like those who have adapted to other ways of life in the 14 years since the draining of the marshes, and who want to continue those ways of life, are being ignored as “confused”.

I’m sure if marshland in America was drained and put to other uses, some would be pissed if it was to be restored to its natural state.

It doesn’t matter if the marshland is marginal for growing rice or not.
Marshland is the worlds kidneys and liver, nothing can replace them for cleaning the water we drink, and the ability of the plants that grow in them, to break down toxic chemicals.

I personally think the UN is next to worthless, but if they are going to restore the marshes in Iraq, I’ll give them some credit for something.

I’m suprised so many on the left can see nothing positive in Jack’s article.
How can anyone claim to “lean green”, and not see this is a good thing?

C’mon, guys. I’m on the left (actually just left of center and trending toward libertarian), and I said it was good news.

AP

Interesting. Not a very long test. I scored 70% on both axis.

I dont think any one here can’t see that a cleaner enviroment is better than a less clean one. I think where a lot of people are finding issue with this post that it’s bit like coming home to find your house burned down, and the firefighter trying to chear you up by pointing out they saved your running shoes. You’re glad to have the shoes, but it somehow doesnt make up for the 2000 dead soldiers in your house…I mean…make up for your burned down house.

It is so refreshing to see a writer in this column with a true respect for ecological concerns overseas. Now if you could just demonstrate some of that for the ecology here at home, what a wonderful sign that would be.

If the Iraqi Marshes are justification for the invasion, the price for that piece of ecology, to use a Republican argument, was too damned high.

Interesting. Not a very long test. I scored 70% on both axis

Interesting, Jack. If you look at your stance on the Iraq adventure as an aberration, that seems about right. :)

Seriously, other than the complete lack of foreign policy indicators, I found it pretty accurate. What did you think?

Hmm…On the other hand, when you read foreign policy essays by Republicans and Democrats, they’re usually the same - differing only by degree. If you discount wacko-fringe groups like the neo-conservatives, the lack of foreign policy indicators probably doesn’t matter.

Justin & David

I repeat again – Saddam’s woeful environmental destruction was neither a sufficient nor a major cause of the war. A better environment is just one of the positive outcomes, a beneficial side effect.

Saddam is definitely the villain and a key actor in this morality play. Getting rid of Saddam was a necessary condition for improvement, but he is not the main theme. George Bush doesn’t have a speaking role at all. This is a good news story about how nature can recover even after a concerted and sustained assault.

AP

I would have guessed that I would be a little more to the right and to the top, but my place on the chart didn’t surprise me.

The key to my political philosophy is not to be bothered. I don’t care what people do, as long as they don’t bother me or expect me to get involved with or subsidize what they are doing. In other words, I believe in tolerance but not necessarily acceptance. As a corollary, I believe a lot of things take care of themselves if you don’t bother them.

Interesting test, it places me at 90% personal and 70% economic. Mainly because I behave in a socially conservative manner, I just don’t think the government has any place legislating behavior that doesn’t harm someone.

First, the news is not coming from Repubs. It is coming from NPR and the UN. Does it still ring hollow?

I’m sorry, but no. The news is coming from Jack, in this article. NPR and the UN are *his* sources, but he is the one presenting the information here. And using it as war propaganda.

Second, Jack was not seeking absolution. Where did that come from? He stated the fact that, though it for better or worse will not be exactly the way it was pre-Sadam, the marshes and the ecosystem surrounding them will thrive again. Why can’t this news be a point of jubilation?

He was very clearly presenting this article, not that we might be jubilant about an environmental restoration for its own sake, but that the environmental restoration might be seen as a validation of this war. He says it himself in his conclusion: “This is not the only reason that it is good Saddam is where [he] belongs”. That directly implies that the marshes and the rest of Saddam’s ecological record are among the reasons Saddam should have been removed from power by force. He is seeking to vindicate the war.

I am hardly the guy to defend Bush’s administration. You won’t find me doing that. The fact that the Bush admin had nothing to do with the marsh’s recovery struck no tone with me either way. The fact that something good is happening in spite of the war made me happy. It that too much to ask?

Fine. Then let it be presented that way. As something good that is happening in the area despite all the conflict. Don’t twist it around and use it as a justification of the war, in any sense. Whether primary, or only one reason among many. That’s just spinning it. Let it be good news, not hollow propaganda. Not reasons to pat ourselves on the back and say “we done good taking out that bad bad man”.

I also understand that some of the marsh area dwellers are happier with a receeded marsh than with the way things were before. I can understand and appreciate that. But, I can’t help but think eventually an over-the-top environmental group who does not have their best interests in mind, will spring up and demand that the marshes be completely restored…marsh dwellers be damned. I happen to think there is a better balance to be struck than that.

There already is such an over-the-top group, Awash’s group “Eden Again”… they’re the ones pushing ahead with the plan to refill the marshes, and writing off the concerns of the farmers as people who are “confused”. They’re also the ones Jack is celebrating for restoring Eden, a direct play on the organization’s name.

I think that NO amount of good news will be celebrated by the liberal left if it comes from a republican. I think the liberals are too blinded by the hatred of the right to ever admit that a conservitive has good news.

I think that is sad.

Jarandhel:

I’m sorry, but no. The news is coming from Jack, in this article. NPR and the UN are *his* sources, but he is the one presenting the information here. And using it as war propaganda.

Correct. He is the one presenting the information. He didn’t just make it up or make a secret call to NPR to break a never-before-heard story. He is simply passing through the information. And……War Propoganda? Have you read the post? Have you read the rest of Jack’s posts? He has stated over and over again that the marsh area was not a sufficient reason for war. The ecosystem recovery is a good byproduct of Sadam being gone—nothing more, nothing less.

There already is such an over-the-top group, Awash’s group “Eden Again”… they’re the ones pushing ahead with the plan to refill the marshes, and writing off the concerns of the farmers as people who are “confused”. They’re also the ones Jack is celebrating for restoring Eden, a direct play on the organization’s name.

Then we have proved the same point and make the same arguement. Celebrating? Again, did you read the same article? He stated facts and used the organization’s name in the article as a hook. That is celebrating?

tomd:

think that NO amount of good news will be celebrated by the liberal left if it comes from a republican. I think the liberals are too blinded by the hatred of the right to ever admit that a conservitive has good news.

I think that is sad.

Jarandhel’s post is proof of this. You’re right. It is sad.

Jarandhel

I am not seeking absolution because I believe the war was justified. I regret some of the results (as with any project) but it was a good decision to make at the time and I would not prefer the likely alternatives to backing down in late 2002 or early 2003.

This is an example of a good result from the war. I have repeated three times now that it was not sufficient cause for the war, but surely you can recognize benefits even if they were not the primary motivation.

As far as I know of the Eden organization, they are not forcing anyone to go back to the Marshes. Those that have become city dwelling will not be put back into the country. They are just restoring the marshes to the extent possible. The land that was marsh is now unproductive desert. Remember U.S. and UK forces racing across what looked like a really big parking lot? That was the former marsh. There are not many farmers there who will be negatively affected by the restoration, and – of course – there are no long established ones there as a matter of definition.

If this was happening any place else, nobody – especially anyone interested in the environment – would see this as anything but great news. It is a pernicious thing that has happened to the left. Many will not accept any good news from Iraq for fear that it will ameliorate Bush’s dilemma. There are two big flaws in this. First, it is the people of Iraq who suffer or benefit, not George Bush and second, Bush doesn’t really care what the left thinks. That should be obvious by now. So you got the wrong target. Just admit that this is a good thing. You can stipulate that this alone was not worth going to war about - if you don’t mind agreeing with George Bush. Otherwise you will have to think of some convoluted explanation as to why the restoration of a threatened environment and the giving an oppressed people a choice for the future is against your ideals.

Chi Chi
These are Dems for God’s sake. We are talking about the environment for God’s sake. The environment there is improving and recovering dramatically. Can’t they be happy about anything?

They don’t know how!

tomd
I think that NO amount of good news will be celebrated by the liberal left if it comes from a republican. I think the liberals are too blinded by the hatred of the right to ever admit that a conservitive has good news.

I think that is sad.

So do I

So - Ron, Jack, Chi-Chi -

Does the concept of context fail to register to you guys? In light of the suicide bombings, the kidnappings, the dead soldiers, you’ll forgive me if I’m not jumping up and down at this news. Everyone likes a nice environment, it’s just thats it a lot harder to enjoy it when you’re dead.

You know, while were at it: My dog’s birthday was 9.11.2001, any one up for a dog’s birthday party? Seriously - its going to be a PAR-TAY!

Justin

You are showing the true colors. There is nothing that can be seen as good news. Pessimism sounds wise, but it isn’t. The restoration of an ecosystem should be cause for some hope. I pity people who find sadness in sunshine and flowers, especially when they do it for political reasons. But out outlook is so different that I doubt it makes sense to you.

Here’s an interesting perspective on the war that puts it in some perspective A slight tangent, but on the topic.

Jack -

I always show my true colors.

Do I agree with this war? No.
Do thousands of civil casualties bother me? Yes.
Does the increasing likelihood that Iraq will descend into an Iranian style theocracy make me laugh and cry at the same time? Unfortunately.
Does the administrations ever changing reasoning behind this war, which continuously fall somewhere on the spectrum of Revisionist, falsehoods and what I can only describe as a denial of reality make me feel like I’m on an acid trip every time I turn on the news? You bet.

This isn’t a matter of ‘the left’ finding sadness in sunshine and flowers - this is a matter of ‘the left’ not willing to take our eyes off the prize to engage in some meaningless back patting. When people are being blown up, when people are being kidnapped, when women who used to have jobs can no longer walk around their streets alone for fear of being assaulted by some Islamic radical, I find it a little hard to get sunshiny for you. These are actual people. Actually dying. Actually watching their country get torn apart from the inside out. And you can hang Saddam out as a mascot all you want, it’s all too easy for us to pretend like most of our so called allies are no better, and likely worse.

So yeah Jack - I am showing my true colors - I’m pissed.

You want to know what would make me happy? Really happy? Let me know when I was totally wrong. About everything. I want to see a gigantic pile of WMD, and little map with the US and a red X on it. I want flower lined streets and American soldiers dancing with Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad. I want to know when I can schedule my vacation there. I can’t wait to find out that all the terrorists are there - and not blowing people up in Spain and the UK. I want Iraqis to be so goddamn free it hurts.

Jack, in light of the new Gallup poll today indicating the president’s approval rating was 40%, the lowest in his presidency by 4 points, it is all the more important that you and your Republican friends pat each other on the back over more esoteric good news about foreign countries.

It might help — NOT!!!

Don’t you Republicans see the disconnect? The short term economic indicators are great, Bush keeps saying we are making progress and winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against terrorists everywhere. I mean, hell, Jack, if our foreign policy and domestic policy are doing so damned well, what is the American people’s problem, when polled, eh? I mean what do they want? The marshlands in Iraq are recovering!!!

Must be that damned liberal media overwhelming Fox, Rush, and Hannity by leaps and bounds again.

I saw the same poll if you are talking about the Harris Poll on the popularity of the President and Congress. It is true that 58% of the respondents have a negative view of the President, but it is also true that 65% have a negative view of Democrats in Congress. In fact the Democrats in Congress are the most unpopular of all, edging out the Republicans in Congress by one point.

I do regret that evidently all politicians are held in very low esteem. A lot of it has to do with the politics of attack practiced by both sides. I see the hatred of the President in this blog. It is not rational anymore. I write a note about something that nobody in is right mind can consider anything but wonderful news. I don’t mention Bush at all in the initial post and surely we all agree that Saddam was a truly bad guy. Yet because Bush is partly responsible for the positive outcome, so many people just can’t accept it. That is truly blind hatred.

I met a lot of people who were prisoners in death camps. I met people whose entire families were murdered by communist or fascists dictators. It is interesting that these individuals have a much more optimistic outlook than the rich Americans (and all Americans are rich by comparison) who have probably never even missed a meal. They could find joy in even very sorrowful situations. The Bush haters can find sorrow in even very joyful circumstances. It has really become pathological.

Hate harms the person hating more than the object of the hate. I really think some liberals should consider this. You are never going to get satisfaction from Bush. He can’t run again. He will retire and have fun cutting brush on his farm. Republicans can distance themselves from him as required. He is like the sin eater.

The polls that we all read show that Democrats are not benefiting from Bush’s fall. One reason is the hatred.

HYPOCRISY WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Democrats complain the loudest about the loss of life in Iraq, but are predictably silent about the number of human beings killed daily through abortion. As a veteran I can tell you it is easy to conclude that the hypocritical politicians in the Democratic Party, and those who vote for them, care more about bashing President Bush than they do about our soldiers who love their Commander-in-Chief. It is a scientific fact that when a “being” exists in the womb, that “being” is human, no matter what the stage of development. If democrats are so concerned about the deaths in Iraq, why aren’t they questioning their Party’s refusal to support a Human Life amendment to our Constitution that would vastly reduce the number of innocent human beings killed through abortions?

Vincent Bemowski

Jack: In a second set of poll results released Friday, those surveyed put their overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. at 34%, the lowest since March 1996.

The original poll I discussed was a Gallup poll appearing in the link above.

Vincent, fetuses and zygotes, are not human beings. They are potential human beings. New research indicates pain is not even registered until around the third trimester. The Constitution defines citizens as those BORN here, or naturalized having been BORN elsewhere.

You are free to consider sperm and egg human beings if you wish, just don’t try to pass laws saying the rest of us have to believe it under penalty of law for acting in accordance with our belief that they are not human beings, anymore than a severed arm is a human being, or shed dandruff, or menstruated eggs are human beings.

I am no Democrat, and I still ain’t buying what you are pedalling. Never will. I am a happy father of a 14 year old daughter; she was planned, wanted, and chosen when her mom and I were prepared to give her the absolute best we possibly could. Her mom had an abortion earlier, and we are all the happier and better off for it today.

I have been a far better parent at 40 than I could possibly have ever been at 20 or 30 if forced into it by laws you want passed. Thank God!

Speaking of God, I never could find a passage in the Bible saying abortion is a sin. Curious, not that I am a Christian anymore, though I was raised as one: unquestioning, obedient, uncurious, hypocritical, and fearful of authority. Having arrived at the age of 10 in 1960, the following decade cured me of all that. By 1969, I was a Buddhist convert and still am today. Ain’t America wonderful? I love all this religious freedom.

Joined the Army to defend it too, in 1972. I thought religious freedom was hard to find in Communist countries at the time. That religious monk who set himself ablaze in Asia in the middle of the street that made front page news all over the country, left a lasting impression on me. Communism is bad, but, war is worse for those who have to try to live in it.

Just thought your opinion deserved some reciprocity.

Vincent said our soldiers love President Bush. I doubt you could find more than 10% of our troops over there willing to say they love another man. :-)

It is not rational anymore. I write a note about something that nobody in is right mind can consider anything but wonderful news. I don’t mention Bush at all in the initial post and surely we all agree that Saddam was a truly bad guy. Yet because Bush is partly responsible for the positive outcome, so many people just can’t accept it. That is truly blind hatred.

Sorry, Jack, but in the context of war your post is such a non-sequitur that it’s much like someone stopping in the middle of a life-saving surgical operation to announce their happiness that they just saved money on their car insurance by switching to Geico. It’s nice and all, but the patient is dying on the table so maybe we should keep our minds on that and not on happy little distractions that make us feel better.

It’s called priorities.

“Sorry, Jack, but in the context of war your post is such a non-sequitur that it’s much like someone stopping in the middle of a life-saving surgical operation to announce their happiness that they just saved money on their car insurance by switching to Geico. It’s nice and all, but the patient is dying on the table so maybe we should keep our minds on that and not on happy little distractions that make us feel better.”

What I get from this is …Don’t distract me with good news while I’m so busy looking at all this bad news.

Justin and Jarendal

I am sorry you feel that way. It lacks perspective. During the 1990s an average of 1800 soldiers died each year, mostly from accidents, traffic fatalities etc. During Vietnam, we sometimes lost a couple hundred in one week. I can drive a couple of hours and look at the cornfields near Antitem Creek, where thousands of Americans died in a single hour. And of course we lost about 3000 people on 9/11.

I don’t think you are saying – as some in the peace movement have – that this country is not worth dying for. (Of course, nobody intends to die for his country. They risk their lives.) Your contention must be that this particular conflict is not worth risking American lives. You may be right, but this is something we still don’t know. The alternatives in 2002 were not good. In order to be as completely certain as some people seem to be, you have to assume a lot of things about how the world works that run contrary to experience. But I have been down this road before, so please just read the earlier posts.

On this post, you all have taken up the extreme argument that something like the restoration of a destroyed environment and giving a new choice to a quarter of a million oppressed people matters not at all because of the costs of the war. It is a very myopic point of view. You know that even from very bad things good things can come.

David

President Bush’s popularity index concerns me little these days. He will never run for office again and his mandate lasts until 2008. His popularity will not impact a successor Republican candidate by 2008. From a partisan point of view, it would be great if the Dems tried to run on the past and wave the bloody shirt.The issues will be very different by then. The key number for the time being is the popularity of the people in Congress who will run again next year. In this respect, the Dems are a little LESS popular than their Republican colleagues.

Re being a soldier these days, we talk a lot about them (and for them), but rarely listen to what they say. Please refer to “A Wonderful Time to be a Soldier” from yesterday’s paper.

Jack,
I think this news about the marshlands is very good indeed. But does it automatically make me “defeatist liberal” to also consider all the environmental and health problems that already have been, and will be, created by depleted uranium in Iraq, as well?

jack, in case you hadn’t noticed, soldiers take orders and work under the civilian authority of government. Why, in god’s name would you ask us to listen to soldiers in order to make policy? This country would go to hell so fast it would make your head spin. I mean, they have a vote like the rest of the population. That is sufficient voice from them regarding national policy. They are trained to have a unique and narrow mindset when it comes to solving problems, one especially developed for war and esprit de corps. Their solution set is very limited.

I was proud to hear our leader of the joint chiefs of staff this week defer to civilian authorities questions from the press on domestic homeland security. A very wise American General Staff Officer who recognizes the laws of the Constitution over civilians and the UCMJ over our military are two different worlds of governance, and for damned good reasons.

Jack said: “His popularity will not impact a successor Republican candidate by 2008.”

What an absurdly ignorant of political history statement to make. I am sure a person with such thinking would never be considered for a role as RNC strategist or advisor, that’s for sure.

Ever heard the term coattails. That same poll shows Republicans support for him dropping as well. How do you think the RNC got so many Democratic converts? I would suggest to you that negative polls against Democratic presidents preceded the RNC winning a Presidential election. But you are saying that could not happen with a Republican president? Now that is funny. Must be the hand of god thing, eh?

I would suggest there is a small but growing anti-incumbency thing and coattails thing the RNC is worrying about these days, as well they should be.

Jarandhel, is right. Priorities. And the Republicans have a million of them. That is a huge part of their problem. No one can work effectively with more than a handful of priorities. That million priorities thing is what killed the Democratic Party in elections. Newt Gingrich had it right. But, he is on the outs, along with his small list of priorities. The Republicans are a big tent party now, with a million priorities, and 2/3 of those conflicting with each other.

David

I enjoy polls, but I take them for what they are. Polls of general opinion are not much use. These are soft opinions. Bush’s popularily was almost 80% in parts of 2002. Were you impressed then? If not, why are you impressed now. I have seen people with extremely positive images that can get elected to nothing. Dems touted Bush’s falling popularity before the last election. You will notice that they not only lost the Presidency, but they also lost more seats in Congress. And Bush will not run again. Unless we are talking about Dick Cheney, any candidate can put some daylight between himself and Bush.

The interesting thing about the recent polls is not Bush’s drop. It is the corresponding drop of popularity for Dems. That is odd. You would expect that they would benefit, but they don’t.

2008 is a political eternity from now. Tell me how you would have predicted presidential elections in at this point in previous election cycles. The big issue in 2001 was corporate governance. Does anyone even remember that? In 1997 nobody heard of Monika Lewiniski. In 1993 you would have thought the next election would be about health care. In 1989 we though history would end and worried only about the S&L crisis, finally in 1985 liberals were still talking about the nuclear freeze and how we had to accommodate the Soviet Union. They would have told you that 1988 would be a referendum on Reagan’s bellicose foreign policy – I guess they almost right about that, but history had passed them by.

The fact is that if you look race by race, there is almost no chance that the Dems will regain control of either house of Congress in 2006. By 2008 the Iraq situation will have either stabilized with a reasonable success or stabilized as a failure. Ironically, a Republican would probably do better in the latter case, since the public still trusts Republicans more with national defense.

Adrienne

Thanks for the sanity. It is what I like about you. You can be passionate but usually not kooky. I don’t have a problem with people who think the war was a bad idea or that it was implemented poorly. I don’t agree, but I can see the merit in some of those arguments. The negativity on this caught me by surprise and this is a rare thing for me.

This Bush hatred is surprising and not a good thing for Dems. When I play hardball with arguments, I am always pleased if my opponent is really angry or really hateful. It makes life a lot easier for me.

David (again)

You are right about having too many priorities, but that is a consequence of success. Republicans are on the way (maybe have become) a majority party for the first time since 1929. It is a curse that we have been seeking for a little while now.

Jack said: “The interesting thing about the recent polls is not Bush’s drop. It is the corresponding drop of popularity for Dems. That is odd. You would expect that they would benefit, but they don’t.”

Hence my prediction of a small but growing anti-incumbent movement. Being the majority party, this movement will have the greatest effect on the GOP.

Jack, getting elected is the easy part. Providing effective leadership that leads the country to better, greater than it was when elected, is the hard part, and the GOP has failed that calling on a host of counts.

They did however revive the economy, and that is their one saving stump accomplishment. But, why are they now trying to ruin it by sending national debt through the roof and adding $16,000 in tax debt on average for every working American since 2000? Why reduce revenues by making tax cuts permanent when the economy is strong and the national debt has increased more than 2.5 Trillion dollars?

I just don’t see what the GOP has to crow about. They are even blowing the Afghanistan campaign, and was a time, when I thought even BOZO the clown could handle that one.

“jack, in case you hadn’t noticed, soldiers take orders and work under the civilian authority of government. Why, in god’s name would you ask us to listen to soldiers in order to make policy? This country would go to hell so fast it would make your head spin. I mean, they have a vote like the rest of the population. That is sufficient voice from them regarding national policy. They are trained to have a unique and narrow mindset when it comes to solving problems, one especially developed for war and esprit de corps. Their solution set is very limited.”

So the right can’t use the voice of a soldier to support it’s cause? A soldier loses his right to rational and logical thought while he is in the military? You can bet your bottom dollar that the left would use him in a heartbeat if his opinions matched theirs.

Jack:

I think that many people in this forum are criticizing the war through your article, as opposed to the news about the march. Reading your post, it seems to me as though you are attempting to get people to agree that the war is not a complete failure.

While true in a sense (Saddam killed people too, the environment may improve, Islamic republic vs. Fascist Regime ect…), I tend to look at failure like my teachers did during my high school years: 50% or below failed. Personally, I give this war a 9%, or frankly, an F.

Clifton

I consider the war – so far – a success given the probable alternatives present in 2002. And I will further assert the this war is a mere part of the a global strategy that has been even more successful.

You talk about your school scale. That unfortunately, is what the standard is. All grading systems are based on a curve e on the curve, a comparison to the success of others. That is why someone brags if he can complete a marathon at all and brags even more if he can do it under three hours. Hypothetically – theoretically – and in our best-case scenarios, can’t we all run a marathon? And why can’t we run it in less than two hours? I watched the Boston Marathon last year. It looked pretty easy to me when those guys ran by.

Let’s think about the war itself. The predictions before the war were that it would cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, that we would be bogged down for months, that Saddam would set fire to the oil wells, that terrorists would strike targets in the U.S. None of this happened. The actual war was as close to perfect as is possible in this world. Do we get 100%? Well maybe, but then we just take this part for granted. The U.S. gets 100%, but we only count this as 1% of the grade.

In the post war, people talked about bloody reprisals, civil war, intervention from Iran or Turkey, endless insurgencies etc. We have some aspects of all this, but not nearly as bad. We talk about civil war – in the future. Yes it could happen. We talk about intervention – in the future. Yes it could happen. We talk about blood reprisals – in the future.

So this is what we have. We have an insurgency that numbers around 20,000. Electricity is available at level much higher than before the war. The number of people with telephones has grown exponentially and so has the number of people with Internet. You can find all this information at Iraq Index, http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex published by Brookings (hardly a friend of Republicans) You will find bad news there. For example, we have lost almost 2000 soldiers in Iraq. This is about the same as we lost to accidents and injuries during peacetime, btw.

Christopher Hitchens (also not a Republican), puts it like this:

“LET ME BEGIN WITH A simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: “Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad.”

“I could undertake to defend that statement against any member of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, and I know in advance that none of them could challenge it, let alone negate it. Before March 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp. Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism. Yet the improvement is still, unarguably, the difference between night and day. How is it possible that the advocates of a post-Saddam Iraq have been placed on the defensive in this manner?”

The undeniable fact is that Iraq and Iraqis are better off today than they were under Saddam. You can question whether it was “worth it” for the U.S., but not about the benefits to the locals.

David also illustrates the unrealistic standard. He says he thought Bozo the clown could handle Afghanistan. First of all, I disagree with his assessment of blowing it, but consider the history. Afghanistan was called the graveyard of empires. Nobody since Alexander the Great has managed to subdue the place and I wouldn’t even count him since he was just and out so fast. The U.S. accomplished what was considered impossible in its rapid ouster of the Taliban. Had we not been successful, we could be looking at a Taliban controlled Pakistan (with nukes). This – once again – is the marathon standard mentioned above. You tell the guy who has run a marathon in two hours that you think it could be done faster and/but that two hour marathon was just what even Bozo the clown could do, presumably even with the big shoes.

Jack: I appreciate the coherent and well thought out response. However, we are arguing two points that aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t think I was clear in stating that my grade was more a representing of how “worth it” the war was for america (didn’t save us from a “mushroom cloud” ect..). Your point seems to be “are the Iraqi people better off?” I’d say the answer is yes, pending now civil war ensues, it would be hard to argue that Iraqis are worse off. I’d be the first to admit that many on the left seem to confuse the two arguments we make, but I understand their anger.

“Let’s think about the war itself. The predictions before the war were that it would cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, that we would be bogged down for months, that Saddam would set fire to the oil wells, that terrorists would strike targets in the U.S. None of this happened.”

These were the predictions used by many on the left, not to mention the few left on the isolationist right. You are correct that these predictions were made, but please don’t make me cite too many predictions from the Bush administration on how the war would proceed (paraphrased for reason of lazyness):

“major combat operations are over” - Bush

“‘There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people, and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Wolfowitz

“Fighting could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months,” - Rumsfeld

Sorry, there are many more, but I;m tired, and the beach is calling. I’m been torn on the Iraq war for a long time, and I think it’s safe to say that the Iraqi people are getting the long end of the stick, paid for by soldiers and our grandchildren’s tax dollars.

PS. I really appreciate this site. I read it on a daily basis, but it’s the only blog/site I’ve ever thought was worth posting on. Congratulations, webmasters.

Aldous and Jack:

I should note this, since it may or may not be relative to my argument.

I quit my decent-paying, unfullfilling job on the 17th, and my two weeks are up the coming wednesday. I’ll be taking a month off to surf, read, and quit smoking, and then be shipping over to Iraq.

And Aldous…. No need for a recruiter, I’ve already found one. And to anyone considering helping out with this mess, I reccomend reading this site first: What you REALLY need to know.

Clifton

Do write your impressions. We need some real experiences. I will be very interested.

In fact, I would like to hear your expecations and then how it differs from what you find.

And thanks.

Clifton,

Thank you and good luck.