Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Translation: Its not the Republican’s fault we will lose Iraq!!!

Sheesh!!!! Talk about a circular argument!!! Anybody else notice that our dear Otto never made any suggestions on how to win? Just Blame, Blame, Blame!!!

No comment either on the Recruiting Shortage or a Draft…

Oh well… We will know soon enough how Iraq will fare…

Posted by: Aldous at August 29, 2005 05:26 AM

Aldous -

I have come to look forward to your hysterical shoot-from-the-hip responses every week.

I wrote specifically what I chose to write about. If you want to ask me something that I didn’t write about, but you feel I should have, then feel free to do so instead of acting like you ‘got me’ somehow. Or write it yourself.

I’m certain that you write plenty of entries blaming liberals and Democrats for the Iraq war. At least you seem to indicate that you do by showing your outrage over my lack of blaming Republicans.

I’m not blaming Republicans because most Republicans don’t promote propaganda that can be used in sync with the enemy.

The AWFULs do.

Or explain to me how they don’t.

I think I did imply how to win - by my very posting I suggest that we will never win while the anti-war crowd continues to shout their dishonesty and unapologetic negativity unapposed. Sometimes you have to read between the lines because I may just not be interested in spelling it out for you letter-by-letter.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘circular’ argument, but it is certainly a circular tactic used by the left - beat on every inch of this war since day one, then act like the souring of public opinion is a natural thing, and then pretend that this doesn’t please you. Or does it? And then beat on the fact that public opinion is souring as if the pro-terror propaganda isn’t playing a vital role in that.

And now the circle is complete…

Posted by: OttO at August 29, 2005 06:08 AM

BTW, Aldous -

I did mention the recruitment shortage (which shows how closely you read what you comment on) and I have no reason to comment on a draft because none exists and their is no indication that one will ever exist.

Keeping in context of my point, when you say we will know soon enough how Iraq will fare, answer this: How do you hope it will turn out? A rousing success? An immediate withdrawal? Do you support the troops?

Posted by: OttO at August 29, 2005 06:11 AM

Can’t one have been for the war, but against the occupation? Does everything we do have to be polarized right and left? The events of the past few months illustrate our failure. This is not spin it is a matter of fact. You people can all you wish as to whether or not it was a good idea to go to war with Iraqi’s Saddam. The fact is we did. Now you can argue all you want whether we should stay without a viable policy to succeed. The future will bear out that we shouldn’t have. I make no comparisons with Viet-Nam here, except to say that we are at the disadvantage. The North Viet-Namese did not defeat our military. They defeated a bad policy. Trying to mold Iraq into a western style democracy is bad policy. I believe the future will bear me out. There are several strategies for winning in Iraq. See the Sunday New York Times for one of them. Having President Bush constantly compare what is happening in Iraq to what happened in the US is bad policy. He omits one central point. We were once the insurgency. We should let the Iraqi decide their own fate and faith and pull back to our bases which we have conveniently procured in Iraq.

Posted by: weewillie94 at August 29, 2005 06:50 AM

I would love to hear how one can be for the invasion but against the ‘occupation’. I’m for going somewhere, I just hate getting there.

The future will bear this out and the future will bear that out - what are you talking about? History looking back on this war will be one of two things - a disaster (a real disaster, world war in nature, not the kind that is opined on these boards) or it will be a long-term success and in twenty years no one is going to even remember all of the little nitpicking and squabbling we are doing today.

I really don’t get your idea that the North Vietnamese defeated a policy. The NV weren’t the ones who pressured our leadership to withdraw and bascially flee from their responsibilities. No enemy on the planet can ‘defeat’ an American war policy without a vocal and relentless internal segment of Americans willing to pour all of their energies and resources into propagating that same notion and convincing their fellow Americans that the enemy has a valid point and it is a shared point!

And I disagree vehemently with your comparison of pre-American revolutionaries with the murderers in Iraq! It’s so clouded, it’s almost scary. The ‘insurgents’ in America in the late 18th century were fighting FOR liberties, NOT against them. They also didn’t have policies of blowing up schools and randomly slaughtering civillan men, women and children. And as far as I know, no American patriots were killing their own people intentionally in an effort to drive the Brits out.

Wow.

So explain to me again how you are right and Bush is wrong in comparing our past with the conflicts of the present?

As long as people like you come up with this stuff, I’m afraid we’ll continue to be polarized…

Posted by: OttO at August 29, 2005 07:08 AM

weewillie94:

Good Luck with that. As you can see, the Right’s strategy is now to blame the Liberals for their own incompetence. I am surprised you did not call for the complete removal of the Press in Iraq. Why don’t you do that instead of bashing the media?

In case you don’t know… I am in favor of staying in Iraq for as long as it takes. I have no confidence in this Administration or its ability to win this war. However, China is now modernizing its Military. Iran and North Korea will soon become nuke-armed. The last thing we need is to be seen as deadshy. Americans may be known as the biggest idiots for going into Iraq but we won’t be the cowards who ran from Republican mistakes.

Regardless of the cost in lives and gold, we must stay in Iraq.

Posted by: Aldous at August 29, 2005 07:09 AM

Geeze.

All that just to say if you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops. How cute.

To imply that anyone is glad when anything bad happens is (trying to be polite here) just tacky.

Yuck.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 29, 2005 07:11 AM

For the war but not the occupation in my view = for toppling the oppressive regime and immediately turning the keys of the car over to the gathered local and regional leaders we find there. Let THEM decide what to do with their former army, let THEM decide what sort of government THEY want. This would have taken 6 months at best.

HOWEVER, now that we have messed with everything we have the responsibilty to sort out what we messed up.. and that does NOT mean making them in our image. They are a unique people and have the right to their unique culture.

Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 07:20 AM

Otto:

You’re statements regarding Vietnam is very funny. Would you like to know how your Republican Leadership handled Vietnam?

Be sure to check out the bottom where the people who spend their time jabbering about military service (the TV pundits) have their military credentials exposed.

Democrats

Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-‘47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V Purple Hearts.
John Edwards: did not serve.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier’s Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received 311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Wesley Clark: U.S. Army, 1966-2000, West Point, Vietnam, Purple Heart, Silver Star. Retired 4-star general.
John Dingell: WWII vet
John Conyers: Army 1950-57, Korea

Republicans

Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
House Whiip Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” The man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as aviator and flight instructor.
George W. Bush: six-year Nat’l Guard commitment (in four).
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Bob Dole: an honorable veteran.
Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts.
Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986
JC Watts: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.
Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve

Pundits & Preachers

Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst.’)
Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.

Posted by: Aldous at August 29, 2005 07:21 AM

Aldous -

You want to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, but you don’t think that this adminstration is incapable of winning the war. Interesting. So what’s the solution - stick it out until 2009?

womanmarine -

How cute that you mostly missed my point.

If people, including many on these boards, are going to go around every chance they get (after months or years of verbally or actively opposing this war) and promote facts and statistics that show that things are bad, as if they somehow deserve a pat on the back for doing so, then why is it tacky to point that out? I, or anyone that I’m aware of, never held a gun to anyones head and made them repeatedly tout declines in recruitments or daily setbacks on the ground in Iraq or failure this and failure that. Combine that with the notions from the same people that this war was illegal, immoral or launched for oil or some other god-awfully stupid reason, I think it’s a fair question to ask - if your goal in life is to discredit the war and see it end abruptly, and you spend all of your time spreading only the bad news about it, then isn’t it good for you when bad news happens?

Seems logical to me.

Do you support the troops? Do you support the war? If your answers to these two questions are different, then explain to me how you can support one and not the other. Don’t be afraid. Don’t just make a snide comment and leave. Answer the question. After all, I never made a direct statement, I asked a question that was sincerely probing for an answer.

A friend of mine probably gave the best hypothetical answer to supporting the troops while not supporting the war. I’ll share it with you later.

Posted by: OttO at August 29, 2005 07:27 AM

Gosh Otto, how do you view our relationship with Viet-Nam now, a mere 30 yrs later. I believe the war was stupid. You can cite all the turmoil that came after our withdrawal as a consequence, and I will say what happened in Cambodia was a direct result of our involvement there. I never said I hated getting there. I said it makes no sense to stay there. We have our bases in Iraq. We should establish Green Zones and work within them, instead of bombing cities to kill insurgents only to leave and have the cockaroaches return within days. The more involved we are in their politics the higher is the price to pay. Let them determine their own future. History doesn’t have to be this or that thing, as you state Otto. It will simply show that we waisted lives following a policy that was short-sighted and naive. Bush’s latest statements that “democracies don’t invade other countries” is a good example, no? What the heck are we and what did we do? Really, you’re knee-jerking at my comments makes we wonder if we should have invaded in the first place. Rather than convincing me to stay, you’re making me feel the quicker we get out the better.

Aldous:

As for Iran, China, or North Korea. I fear them not. I see their procurement of nuclear technology as inevitable. We should be making allies of these nations not quaking in fear of their procurement of nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology is the only viable means for procuring energy in our foreseeable future. Oil’s day are numbered. I think I am just being realist about this situation.

Posted by: weewillie94 at August 29, 2005 07:34 AM

Aldous -

That’s lovely. I’ll pretend for one second that it has anything remotely at all to do with my post and suggest that you have a really neat and incomplete list. I love this nitpicking certain people to highlight. I mean, Gerald Ford? President from thirty years ago? Weasely Clark who was never elected to any office I can recall? Karl Rove who was never elected to any office? Supreme Court justices? I think you missed Ray Romano and Simon Cowell. By your lists, you would think that there have only been fifty politicians in our nations history and that only right-wing pundits avoided military service (Medved BTW was an active and fervent anti-war protestor, so maybe you should cut him some slack).

How about sourcing where you got this list so I can see it’s full context and who is behind it’s blatant incompletion. Oh wait, let me guess - you spent all night putting it together yourself!

Again, this has what to do with my point?

Posted by: OttO at August 29, 2005 07:36 AM

Where did Bush say that ‘democracies don’t invade other countries’? I believe I remember him saying, correctly, that democracies don’t attack other democracies, which is hardly the ‘latest’, I’ve heard him and others say it many times.

Try and explain to me what you think will happen by getting out quick, ‘the quicker the better’ as you put it.

You have this notion that all of our problems will be solved through appeasement. The insurgents? Pull back and let them have some fun. Or a country if they want it.

NK, Iran etc? Be afraid, be very afraid…and let’s try to make nice with them. We’ll ignore that in one case, the country is led by an insane, genocidal maniac and in the other case, the country is led by a government that refers to us as the Great Satan. Yeah, just let them get nukes. Who cares? That will make the world more secure and America safer. Because history shows that appeasement almost always works, right?

Posted by: OttO at August 29, 2005 07:46 AM

Otto:

I am not surprised that you don’t see the relevance of my post. Truth is the only people who fought in Vietnam and Iraq are the lower to mid income families. The top 1% of Society and the political elite kept their children out of it.

Very few of the most ardent ChickenHawks have ever seen combat. Yet, people like Rush Limbugh screech daily about going to war. A ‘pilonidal cyst’, btw, is a boil in the ass. That’s how eager your Republican Leadership was to Spread Freedom in Vietnam.

Posted by: Aldous at August 29, 2005 07:53 AM

And you don’t see a cause and effect, here? It is North Korea that IS afraid of US. Isn’t that the whole point of its nuclear procurement? If I were Iranian I’d call America a Great Satan too. Just look at the history of our meddling in their society and government. No, I am not afraid of Iran or North Korea. I believe the rebels in Iraq will fail too, not because of the great military might of the United States, but because the common Iraqi would not stand for an insurgency if that insurgency had no excuse other than to grab power and influence for themselves instead of us giving them a cause to blow themselves up. These are the secrets of the sand that our leaders are too blind to see.

Posted by: weewillie94 at August 29, 2005 08:10 AM

You want to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, but you don’t think that this adminstration is incapable of winning the war. Interesting. So what’s the solution - stick it out until 2009?

OttO, Aldous is absolutely right. What we need to do is significantly increase the number of troops in Iraq for however long it takes to secure the country and dismantle the al Qaeda bases and training operations that President Bush allowed them to build up over the last two years.

But, I don’t have any faith that President Bush is going to do what it takes to win. It already looks like he’s making a big deal out of a few hundred anti-war protestors so he can withdraw and blame it on “the left”.

The vast majority of Americans aren’t against the current mission in Iraq, but a growing majority do not believe President Bush has the plan or the will to win it.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 29, 2005 09:04 AM

AP:

I’m glad to see you take a strong stance on this. So many out there are willing only to take a stance that wavers. For instance, I expect those who take the “leave Iraq immediately” stance would blame Bush for any travesties that would happen upon our departure. Of course, Bush isnt going to do that, but we’ve all seen those who espouse the latest theory until of course it doesn’t work—-then they abandon it.

I agree that we need to change strategy, since the terrorists move in and out of places we’ve already been. We saw that in Viet Nam, where it was hard to know who was good and who was bad. The bad guys do a fine job of looking like the good guys.

What kind of time frame would you propose, what level of troop increase would you suggest, and where would you start the process?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 29, 2005 09:13 AM

OttO said: “If the goal of the anti-war fanatical ultra-left (or AWFUL) is to discredit this war and remove ourselves from it regardless of the consequences, then isn’t it a good thing when it goes wrong?”

My goodness you take liberties here. Is everyone against this war Fanatical? Is everyone who is opposed to this war Ultra Left? Is everyone now against this war continuing even on the left? NO, and NO, and NO.

Are you subtly implying a connection between Americans opposed to the war and the War going badly? The American people are not calling the shots in Iraq, OttO, your GOP President is. He is the Commander in Chief. The buck is his whether he tosses it like a hot potato or not.

Wars are fought by a nation’s public, with their money and with their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers lives and well being. When the majority of a nation’s people oppose a war, that war should end, and the leaders of democracy have a moral obligation to their people to end that war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 09:23 AM

“If the goal of the anti-war fanatical ultra-left (or AWFUL) is to discredit this war and remove ourselves from it regardless of the consequences, then isn’t it a good thing when it goes wrong?”
—-
This is perhaps the most dangerous and warped pro-Iraq viewpoint I’ve encountered. But I’m not surprised, as it summarizes the illogical logic of many Hysterical Young Pundits, Especially Republicans, Bent On Lying Excessively (or HYPERBOLE) to defend the indefensible.

Oh, and Otto — please take a little of your own medicine to “attack the message and not the messenger” when you tell Aldous that “I have come to look forward to your hysterical shoot-from-the-hip responses every week.” I think we could all benefit from a lack of hypocrisy in this blog — which I know is a hard concept for some Republicans to embrace.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 29, 2005 09:25 AM

Can you honestly say that you support the troops if you don’t support what they are doing?

I guess you mean:

“Can you honestly say that you support the troops if you don’t support what they are doing ‘re ordered to do?”

I’m not American, so I guess you don’t care if I’m or not supportive of your troops on the ground.

For what it worth, let me say I’m in fact fully supportive of your troops there. I really hope all can go back to their respective homes without dommage, physical and/or psychological. Like always soldiers fight for their lives *and* hummanity while being in chaos.

I support soldiers but I disagree with the (lack of) orders they were given. I don’t support the guys who decided this war, lied and refuse to be accountable for any of their acts.

That’s two kind of support.
Reality is not black and white, good or evil, right or wrong, left or right, us or them.
Reality is not simple, it’s a HUGE messier than that, thanks.

- Philippe Houdoin - free european PoV.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 29, 2005 09:42 AM

David:

You are correct that not everyone opposed to the war is fanatical or crazy. There are those who are, but they do not constitute the whole.

The problem I have with the “anti-war left” is that some have pounced on every negative since even before the war began. We first heard that Baghdad would be a bloody quagmire due to street fighting—that was wrong. Baghdad is certainly not safe, but the lack of safety is due to entirely different circumstances than what the “anti war left” suggested.

They then pounced on the fast strike, which left supply lines in need of shoring up. Then it was the looting of the libraries, with artifacts going missing. And on and on.

I really dont have a problem with those who look at the current strategies and point to changes that need to be made. I DO have a problem with those who simply look for the next obstacle they can use to shore up their argument. That portion of the “anti-war left” is not being patriotic—they are hoping for the next bad thing to happen so they can say they were right.

David, also your argument that our government should be based on public opinion on an issue by issue basis is faulty. Politicians certainly need to heed the will of the public, but its patently unwise to suggest they make decisions only to appease the will of the public.

Were that the case, civil rights never would have come about, since at the time the majority of the public was for the status quo. In a representative democracy, it just doesnt work to suggest an issue by issue public referendum.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 29, 2005 10:16 AM

Otto,

Why do you hate America? America is the best country on earth. Why do you insist on hating it?

The majority of the people in the country believe that Bush is doing a bad job of handling this war. Why do you have so much animosity towards them?

Posted by: Burt at August 29, 2005 10:23 AM

Actually Otto:

Sorry, I didn’t miss your point at all.

I just find no need to answer the question you are asking, finding it sarcastic and based in political crap.

It is a question that has been answered eloquently by those much better with words than I am. That you find those answers not to your liking is the only reason for the blathering of your initial post.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 29, 2005 11:01 AM

jbod, you guys sure do love to make a big deal out of a few hundred people chanting “Bring them home!” But, of course, so does the media. They love the drama and the controversy.

Like I said, the vast majority of Americans aren’t against the current mission in Iraq, but a growing majority do not believe President Bush has the plan or the will to win it. Only a tiny minority are calling for immediate withdrawal.

What kind of time frame would you propose, what level of troop increase would you suggest, and where would you start the process?

Obviously, a timeline is the wrong way to look at it. We need to have specific goals, and I believe Rhinehold correctly pointed that out in the middle column at one point.

I have no idea why President Bush hasn’t set forth goals other than “As they stand up, we stand down”. The goal should not be to substitute an Iraqi for an American, but to secure the country. Timelines and numbers mean nothing unless they’re part of a comprehensive military and political plan to defeat the insurgency and secure the country.

Personally, I like the Provincial Reconstruction Teams being used so effectively by NATO in Afghanistan (that country is al Qaeda’s base of operations, yet the insurgency there is nowhere near as bad as in Iraq).

I also think we should have far more MPs and civil affairs teams working in Iraq. If you want to know about the real heroes over there, read “Waging Peace”. Those are the guys who are going to stabilize that country - if the Pentagon and the Bush administration have the courage to make the commitment.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 29, 2005 11:18 AM

OttO-
The left likes to this, the left likes to that-

Care to actually ask the left what they like, what they believe? You might, God Forbid, find that they have a rational answer to that question.

AWFUL. Well, that acronym speaks for itself. This war discredits itself. The WMDs didn’t exist, there was no ongoing relationship with al-Qaeda. It is that which drives the negative reaction to the war. This administration failed to honestly and truthfully answer fundamental questions about this war, before and after they started it. That carries with it a price in a democracy: the faltering of support.

If you knew your military strategy, you would know that you do not start a war well by crippling your support in such a way. You get the people behind the war, and you don’t feed them B.S. that undermines their trust in your motives and your means. Then, when you go in, you don’t cut corners on the force, you go in with overwhelming force and take control of the battlefield. You don’t try to get clever, trying to send political messages to the enemy, or predicting their downfall based on some nominal success on your side, you go in their, and you remove from them the ability and the will to fight.

That was the failure with Vietnam, and that is the failure with Iraq. The difference is, we stand a chance of redeeming Iraq. But we can’t do that with the administrations continuation of its denial. Denial of mistakes, means denial of the necessity to do something about them. Denial of the necessity to do something about them means the gears don’t turn, and the problems remain unsolved.

Which leads me to my final thought, though not mine originally. I don’t normally attempt to present other peoples points, but radio talk-show host Michael Medved stirred up the pot last week when he asked a simple question: Can you honestly say that you support the troops if you don’t support what they are doing?

What they are doing is fighting to defeat the enemy. We support that. Unfortunately, through his negligence, through his dishonesty, President Bush has failed to do the same, failing to give the soldiers the supplies, manpower, and strategies needed to win. How can you say you support the troops, if you don’t support what they’re doing?

I would wager that most people who have turned against this war have done so because they hold little hope of convincing this president to pursue a wiser course towards victory. The president has told Americans that they either support his policy in Iraq, or they are opponents of the war. Many, it seems, are beginning to see things precisely in that manner, though not in the president’s favor. If the president had been more generous, less paranoid towards his critics, he might have preserved a broader range of support for the war. Unfortunately, he valued folks loyalty to his way of running things more important than the common wish to run this war right. If this president could have set his ego aside, and humbled himself enough to speak with his critics and take care of their concerns, then the opposition to this war would have been far weaker.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2005 11:28 AM

When fighting a war, one should be cognizant of what our enemy wants.

Our enemy wants us to stop fighting and to go home.

Posted by: Commonsenseaintsocommon at August 29, 2005 11:53 AM

commonsense-
No, they want us out of the way for their real purpose- taking power back from the Shia. To the extent that Bush’s policy fails to solidify the government that’s supposed to oppose such unjust control, it is serving the purposes of the insurgency. Good intention can pave the road to hell, especially when they translate to ineffective action.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2005 12:00 PM

…Can’t one have been for the war, but against the occupation?….

Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words Weewillie94. It seems to me that OttO is good at hinting to others about reading between the lines, but isn’t willing to do so himself or herself.

You point out very well the errors in policy, unfortunately it appears that the “West” will never learn from it repeated errors in international policy. Iraq is a country of 20th century because the West said it should be—ever wonder why such a large part of Iraqi is Shiite—with “ties to Iran”. It used to be part of Persia, until the West, with its military might, decided otherwise. Same thing with modern day Israel. But fortunately for all us western “might is right-ers” there are many Muslims that fall prey to jihadist propoganda and the like and are willing to blow themselves up as their form of protest and retaliation against the infidel. So we can continue to blame the terrorist for all the violence in the Middle East, in particular, Iraq now. Over there, they just don’t seem to know what “freedom” is unless the West instructs them.

OttO

I have a question for you. Why do think the war in Iraq was the right thing? Ooops, I mis-quoted you. You believe in the war, why? Did you believe in it from the beginning

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 12:15 PM

Stephen,

I respectfully submit that your viewpoint today is an exercise in revisionist thinking. You say that had Bush been more “generous” and willing to work with his critics, then there would be more support for the war.

If I recall correctly, there wasnt support in the first place. You seem to be saying that Bush has lost support from certain groups, but the reality is that he never had it from most of those groups.

I won’t argue that the strategies need to be reviewed and changed, and that there have been mistakes in the process. It happens in any war and in every war. So some of it is just a normal part of war—-I’ve mentioned before the mistakes in judgement that were made in WWII as examples.

That’s not to say that Bush couldnt do a better job of managing the war. He can and should—-changes need to be made as the enemy adapts to our existing tactics.

But when you make it seem as though support faded away because of the managing of the war, I consider that incorrect. Much of the anti-war sentiment has not changed a bit at its core. It might be a bit more virulent or a bit louder, but the sentiment is the same.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 29, 2005 12:46 PM

But when you make it seem as though support faded away because of the managing of the war, I consider that incorrect.

joebagodonuts,

I think you’re wrong and that the mismanagement of the war is precisely what’s at the root of the problem. Sure, there have always been people against this war, but they have very little to do with the current state of American discontent. That’s the real cause of the poll numbers. People won’t support a war when it’s being mismanaged from the top down. There’s nothing mysterious about it.

For a view of how we might turn this thing around, see a recent article in Foreign Affairs called “How to Win in Iraq.” It’s just baffling that anyone would blame pacifists for what is essentially the administation’s fault. If anyone honestly believes in individual accountability, he or should should assign the blame where it most obviously needs to be.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 29, 2005 01:34 PM

Joe-
I think the polling numbers show a reversal in support for Bush and a lessening of support for sticking it out in this war. I think Bush takes an antagonistic point of view that makes him much more directly opposable than somebody who makes broader appeals.

Mistakes are made in war, but few presidents have so saturated the campaign of one with errors Bush needs to know from his own people that he’s not doing a good enough job. The GOP in general needs to recognize that it could lose badly with the public if it insists on excusing what people consider dangerous behavior in a time of war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2005 02:14 PM

(no, I don’t subscribe to the insane tinfoil-hat theory that a group of people have decided to see to it that thousands are killed and the world is thrown into turmoil in order to turn a buck and actually get away with it).

Interesting, but that’s exactly what you accused the French of last week.

The rest, in my opinion (as someone who has been cleverly referred to as a ‘Busheep’) are simply parrots who like what they hear and run with it, not because they necessarily desire to see the United States defeated, but because they desire even moreso to see Republicans, namely the Bush administration, decimated.

If I’m not mistaken, Bush will most likely not be elected for a third term. Cutting him down politically does little good in moving the nation forward either on the battlefield or at home.

HOWEVER, pointing out his mistakes, acknowledging them, and pressuring him not to repeat them or even fix them is in fact an extremely healthy course of action and should be supported by people of all political spectrums.

There were vast errors in judgement leading up to war, during war, and in the post-war occupation. Acknowledging this does not make one un-American, un-patriotic, against the troops, or an asset to the enemy - no matter how convenient it is for you to believe this.

You’ve been quite happy to blame the left, the French, and the UN for the lack of progress in Iraq. Who do you think is left off of that list who might have a bit more responsibility?

Posted by: Burt at August 29, 2005 02:41 PM

jbod, I said nothing of governing society and all its affairs in accordance with public opinion polls.

What I did say is:

Wars are fought by a nation’s public, with their money and with their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers lives and well being. When the majority of a nation’s people oppose a war, that war should end, and the leaders of democracy have a moral obligation to their people to end that war.

I was very specific. So I don’t buy your critique, at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 02:49 PM

Stephen said: “The GOP in general needs to recognize that it could lose badly with the public if it insists on excusing what people consider dangerous behavior in a time of war.”

Damn right! Even Grover Norquist said this morning that if Iraq is on our windshield instead of in our rear view mirror as we enter the 2006 elections, it will be bad news for the Republicans.

For once, I agree him.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 02:51 PM

CommonSense said: “Our enemy wants us to stop fighting and to go home.”

So we should do the opposite letting them dictate our actions. Reminds me of child psychology. Want to get a child to do what you want, tell them not to. al-Queda wants nothing more than for the US to stay in Iraq as long as possible. The longer we stay, the more recruits to their venom we send their way. Why is that so hard for Americans to understand…

It is you dancing to al-Quedas tune, not those on the left. They only have to say don’t, and you will. That kind of predictability is not lost on al-Queda’s leadership…

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 03:00 PM

OttO,
How do you you spell hypocricy? Here are a few quotes from the wrong wing about Kosovo:

“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” - Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.” -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.” -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.” -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea.” -Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we’re running out of cruise missles. I can’t tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we’re almost out of cruise missles.” -Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“You can support the troops but not the president” -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Theses traitorous Republicans were, to use your own words, trying to discredit this war and remove ourselves from it regardless of the consequences. And it was OK then, but wrong now.

Get real.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 29, 2005 03:53 PM

David:

You said: “When the majority of a nation’s people oppose a war, that war should end, and the leaders of democracy have a moral obligation to their people to end that war.”

I dont know how to take this statement other than that when a majority of the public feels a certain way, that the leaders should act in accordance. Perhaps you can explain how it can be taken differently, so I might understand your position. Is it that you would apply this concept only to war, and not to other financial or social policies?

Elliot:

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Both sides seem to dance on the opposite side of the issues. Republicans who were against military action in Kosovo find their words used against them in regard to Iraq, and well they should. On the flip side, Democrats who were for military action in the Balkans find their words used against them, and well they should. Or perhaps a better example would be the number of Democrats agreeing that Saddam had WMDS who then argued that he never really did.

The bottom line is that we have to hold our politicians accountable. I really dont see many of them who are—-and that goes for either side of the aisle. Their focus has gone from the best interests of the country to the best interest of their re-election campaigns. We need to move them out—but the biggest hindrance to that is the gerrymandering of districts for House seats. Senate seats do not have this problem—they should be easier to move out. Lets help them enjoy the private sector once again.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at August 29, 2005 04:02 PM

jbod asked: “Is it that you would apply this concept only to war, and not to other financial or social policies?”

That is what I said, isn’t it? I no more wish to trust government in the hands of novices like GW Bush, than I would trusting my car repairs to a brain surgeon. But when it comes to war, it is the people, not the President or Congress (though Congress never goes to war anymore) who pay the costs for that war directly, and therefore, they should have a say. They will have a say whether the President consults with the people or not. Look at military recruitments. The People are having their say, anyway. Best to get the people’s committment before going to war, than to not have it after the war is begun. That is how Viet Nams and Iraqs with no victory happen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 04:18 PM

When the war was to remove Saddam Hussein and seek out WMD’s (even though we already knew there we weren’t likely to find them) I was for it. We removed Saddam. No WMD’s. We won. Now let’s go home. I have no interest in whether Iraq is a democracy or theocracy or whatever. Call me stupid if you will, but I reasonably ascertain an Islamic Iraqi state as an ally of ours just as readily as a democratic Iraq telling us to get lost. Thank you David Remer for your comments. They give me some hope.

Posted by: weewillie94 at August 29, 2005 05:06 PM

“When the majority of a nation’s people oppose a war, that war should end,”….I don’t think that is the way the constitution says it should be done.

A war should end when it is won. When the enemy is defeated or surrenders and not a minute sooner.

Posted by: tomd at August 29, 2005 05:58 PM

tomd , and when the people decide it is not being won, but the government continues to assert year after year that it is, you think the people should continue the sacrifice?

Well, that is another way to look at it. Not very democratic. But, then, many on the right are fond of reminding us we don’t have democracy in the U.S., we have a Republic. And if that’s true, why are we trying to spread democracy elsewhere if its not good enough for us here?

I swear, the right makes no sense sometimes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 06:10 PM

David R Remer,

I swear, the right makes no sense sometimes.

That’s why I call them the wrong wing - because they’re wrong about almost everything.

JBOD,
I agree with you that there’s plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. But the premise for this thread itself is based on the hypocritical notion held by many wrong wing extremists that opposition to a war is bad, unless it’s the wrong wing that’s in opposition.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 29, 2005 06:51 PM

As a party in control of government, Elliot, I agree, they are wrong about most everything. I actually agree with a lot of their platform, fiscal responsibility, smaller federal government, elimination of waste, fraud, abuse and pork, a strong defense is a great offense.

Problem is, with the power to act, they abandon all of that. Which tells me they never believed in it in the first place, but, simply used the rhetoric to acquire power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 07:52 PM

Hello all,

It was zoo today in the OttO household so we took the little girl to meet her Darwinian gods.

As I mentioned in my post, the gut responses would be pretty predictable. As if this entry was an open invitation to prove my point, many of the responses were simply the daily and weekly rehashing of why this war is wrong, bad or failing. I’m going to try for a brief summary and then reply to the few responses that actually addressed my point.

First off, weewillie94 doesn’t seem to understand the self-destructive nature that occurs when free or semi-free societies try to make friends with aggressive or hostile dictators. There isn’t an example in modern history where appeasement hasn’t led to disaster. And his solution to dealing with North Korea, Iran and even China is to make them our ‘allies’. There has to be more than that to turn an enemy into an ally. There has to be two-way trust and some strategic advantage. weewillie, please explain what that is. We made Saddam Husseins Iraq our ally when he was at war with Iran. Do you approve of that? Did it work out for the best in the long run? Even the Soviet Union was our ally in the fight against fascism. Again, in the long run, it didn’t work out to well.

Aldous -

I see your point, it’s just ridiculous. Just because you didn’t enlist when you were 18 doesn’t mean that you can’t have a pro-war opinion when you are 40 or 50! What you are essentially saying is that if everyone fought in a war in their youth then everyone would be opposed to war later in life and then…what, war would be a thing of the past? Your point has good intentions I’m sure, but it’s silly and unrealistic.

David -

If I had meant to say that everyone who opposes the war is fanatical, I would have said that.

Who has been one of the most outspoken, covered and polarizing figure in the past several weeks?

Cindy Sheehan.

Yes, I would make the case that Sheehan, moveon.org, Code Pink, the Crawford Peace House and Michael Moore are all AWFULs. Does that make American Pundit or even you a fanatical or ultra-left? No, not necessarily. I don’t know your true feelings or your specific views, I’m still new here. I would make the case that anyone who claims that we are in this war for profit or for oil or for Halliburton or for revenge for daddy or for Isreal or for PNAC or any other on the laundry list of ‘reasons’ is probably an ultra-left fanatical or simply highly ignorant.

And yes, I am implying a connection between dishonest opposition to the war and the war going on longer and costlier than it has to. There is absolutely no confusing my propaganda with that of Al Zarqawi or Al Queada. I don’t share a goal with them in this war. Some do. What’s wrong with pointing that out?

You’re doing it here - “When the majority of a nation’s people oppose a war” (i.e. now that we have successfully turned the public against the war), “that war should end” (we should hand the terrorists the victory that they desire).

Come on David, is it really wrong to point out that this is extremely damaging to the success of American in Iraq, the region and in the war against terrorists in general?

I bet Al Jazeera would love to print the ‘editorials’ of many of my critics! And that’s kind of the crux of my point.

And David, in your respose to Common, how is doing the opposite of what the terrorists want letting the dictate our actions? I can’t seem to wrap my mind around this one.

Let’s see, opponents in Iraq launch a campaign of immense violence to sway Western opinion and drive the (other) foreign forces out. Back at home, certain people tell us all that the insurgents are killing, killing, killing, the costs are too high! The insurgents understand this and continue or vamp up the attacks. The rhetoric at home gets louder. Public opinion starts to sway. The circle goes round and round and you think that NOT leaving is somehow appeasing the terrorists? So then what would leaving mean to them? Interesting…

You make the claim that the ‘people’ should have a say in war. They did have a say. It was called a mid-term election and the ‘novice’ won with a small but historical majority.

Here is a problem I have with your notion of the administration ignoring right and wrong and simply trying to yield to public sentiment: the public overwhelmingly supported the overthwrow of Saddam. So then, was it the right thing to do? And now that most Americans oppose the war (though most do not support a withdrawal), is withdrawal the best answer, even though it would leave a path of death and destruction behind it? There are reasons we don’t have referendum votes on issues like war. You highlighted a good one.

Mister Magoo -

What I said to Aldous was directly attacking his message. On top of that, I was serious - I DO look forward to it.

Phillippe -

You walked face first into Medveds challenge. If you disagree ‘with the (lack of) orders they were given’, then how exactly do you support them? If their mission is based on lies, then what exactly do you support? Are you suggesting that the troops are stupid?

Burt -

I love America. I know that you do to. I want it to succeed in Iraq and in the overall conflict. I would love for everyone to just once put their hatred of an adminstration behind them and grow up a little, act responsibly and do what is in the best interest for our country and our soldiers, not for one party or the other, which is ultimately what the AWFULs are all about.

womanmarine -

Thanks for being open minded and supplying me with one of the gut responses I was looking for. Another ‘I came here to tell you that I’m not going to discuss this with you’ reply.

I am satisfied with your response and your desire to not participate in this discussion.
——

In general, why is it wrong for me to criticize the left? Are they deserving of no criticism? I get more replies demanding to know what my problem is than actual replies to my complaints. Is the left perfect? Do any liberals or Democrats out there criticize the right? Daily? Hourly? And that’s okay, right?

Elliot -

I absolutely agree with you. I think the Republicans were almost as wrong about Kosovo then as the Democrats are wrong about Iraq today. I will never oppose our government (beit Dems or Reps) using the military to do the right thing and Kosovo was something that needed to be addressed. I would also have supported an intervention in Rwanda, as President Clinton, in hindsight, also feels.

Of course, the situation of Kosovo was a bit different (I don’t think that conservatives were guilty of undermining a loss that would make America less safe), so the hypocrisy that you point out is a little stretched, but I accept it and agree with it.

Nice attempt to trap me though.
—-

I know I can be long-winded, so I’m going to try to limit myself to specific discussion about my points. I’ve debated the Iraq war ad nauseum and I would like to try and provide some focus in this particular debate. Two questions:

If your goal is to leave Iraq, and the insurgents goal is for America to leave Iraq, then isn’t it good for you when the insurgents succeed in their mission? What is more valuable - more bad news to support your anti-war agenda if it might bring the troops home early and give Bush a black-eye, or less bad news that would weaken the chances of withdrawal and possibly set Bush up in history as a great president? I realize it’s kind of a catch-22, which is why I would really like people to address it a little more directly and specifically.

-and-

Explain to me very specifically how you can support the troops if you don’t support their mission.

Thanks for participating.

Posted by: OttO at August 29, 2005 10:37 PM

Otto,
What’s really AWFUL is the supension of critical thinking and the naivete that is so glaringly apparent in this article.

Because of all your starry-eyed “beliefs” you have obviously blinded yourself to the fact that America is currently opposing the secular segment of Iraq, and instead is actually supporting the Islamic Fundamentalist segments!
We should not stay in Iraq to fight their civil war for them, because to do so means we would have to ignore every bit of wisdom the country was founded upon, as well as every bit of progress we’ve made regarding civil and human rights.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2005 11:17 PM

OttO, said: “I would make the case that anyone who claims that we are in this war for profit or for oil or for Halliburton or for revenge for daddy or for Isreal or for PNAC or any other on the laundry list of ‘reasons’ is probably an ultra-left fanatical or simply highly ignorant.”

Well you can argue the case, but, you won’t change anyone’s mind, since you discount all possible explanations except what the Whitehouse man has told you to think. It’s a good thing Bush supporters aren’t in the market for Brooklyn bridges in Ohio. Ohio could never keep enough in stock. :-)

WMD? Terrorist hot bed? Involvement in 9/11? Saving Iraqis from death at the hands of Saddam so they can die at the hands of our own military, women, children, old people and men just trying to provide for their families. Collateral damage - unavoidable, justified in the name of our knowing what is best for them. If the collateral damage in Iraq could only speak what they think of our knowing what is best for them.

You’re doing it here - “When the majority of a nation’s people oppose a war” (i.e. now that we have successfully turned the public against the war), “that war should end” (we should hand the terrorists the victory that they desire).

Spoken like a true dictator. When the leaders of government say fight and die, the people better damn well get up, fight and die. Otherwise, they are traitors aiding and abetting the enemy.

Yeah, I have heard it before, from Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung. Nothing new here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 30, 2005 12:15 AM

Otto,
I support the troops because they are doing good things on an individual basis. Things like risking thier lives to prevent civillians from being blown up, trying to secure areas so people won’t have to live in fear, bringing order so that people can have electricity, protecting other soldiers, and doing their duty. Lots there to support. I think that anyone who volunteers to go and do those things, at great personal risk to themselves, is a hero.

I don’t support the administration because if it wasn’t for their decision to go to war, the troops would not be needed to secure areas from terrorists, re-establish order, protect their friends, etc. I don’t support the administration in this because by employing their “flypaper” rationale, they are saying that these heroic troops are less important than other Americans, and that their deaths don’t count. I don’t support the war itself because it has resulted in increased terrorist activities and resulted in America being less safe. It was based on false premises. I don’t support the war because although those soldiers are doing heroic and worthwhile things, those things are being undercut by an administration that first got us into a bad war, and second, won’t run the bad war so that we can win it.
I hope that that is clear enough.

As for fulfilling the terrorists’ goals, one of OBLs goals was to remove the corrupt secular regimes in the middle east and replace them with islamic theocracies. Wow, look who we’re supporting!

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 30, 2005 10:33 AM

David — well said.
You wrote:
“When the leaders of government say fight and die, the people better damn well get up, fight and die. Otherwise, they are traitors aiding and abetting the enemy.”

By any chance, have you seen this hilarious photo? I guess Otto would consider these guys “traitors” too.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2005 10:40 AM

You walked face first into Medveds challenge. If you disagree ‘with the (lack of) orders they were given’, then how exactly do you support them?

Your troops on the ground are all my compassion.
I’ll never show disrespect to them.
They agreed to obey whatever orders are and accepted to give their live if required. For that, they deserves my compassion, that’s very altruism.

Most of them will never get real, individual credit for their gift.

But that’s not valid for their Top Commanders In Chief. Because there’re not in Iraq. Neither are they “troops”. And they want credit for Iraq war.
Well, far less now than after march 2003, sure.

If their mission is based on lies, then what exactly do you support? Are you suggesting that the troops are stupid?

Nope. And it’s not the issue. They are soldiers.
Soldiers must and agreed to obey orders. Period.

Some of the most important orders they’re given (or not, for that matter) are really stupid.
So, no, I’m not sugesting troops are stupid.

But that’s not valid for their Top Commanders In Chief. Because there’re not soldiers themselves. They must and agreed to serve America people (government) or its president (top Generals), not army. And my opinion is most of these guys act very stupid.

See a difference there?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 30, 2005 12:48 PM

David -

I haven’t tried to discount ‘all possible explanations’ - I have ridiculed those insane (yes, insane) and unsupported ‘reasons’ that AWFULs promote.

>>Spoken like a true dictator. When the leaders of government say fight and die, the people better damn well get up, fight and die. Otherwise, they are traitors aiding and abetting the enemy.

Uh-huh. Spoken like a true AWFUL. If this criticism reflects your beliefs, and you are comfortable in your own skin, then why get upset when someone points it out? Wanna call me a radical rightwinger? Go ahead, I’m not going to lose sleep over it, even though I have probably explored more sides of the ideological spectrum in the past eight years than you have.

I love how AWFULs always like to pull out the ‘you are [fill in the blank with your favorite dictator] card. Hitler was and even Stalin’s legacy was defeated by the very unity, support and stick-to-it-ness that I’m am promoting, despite the fact that there were AWFULs then making similar self-defeating and irrational peace-at-any-cost arguments that they are today. WWII was a popularly supported war, but it wasn’t without its dissenters, especially a powerful segment of pre-war isolationists and European pacifists that ignored and allowed Hitler to grow. The Cold War was a very divisive conflict over it’s near 50 year run, and my guess is that you took or would have taken the similarly proposed stances. So let’s not compare me to dictators that you would have been uncomfortable pre-emptively stopping.

In direct response to your sentence here, this isn’t about rising up to fight and die. This is about being responsible and supporting the troops who are and have already fought and died by seeing the mission through! Is it really evil for me to want that more than anything, more than your idealistic views of who is right and who is wrong, more than your desire to empower the enemy, which is the undeniable, even if not intended, end result?

Brian -

Reading your paragraph about the troos, I would suggest that you admire the troops. You like them. However, it’s obvious that you don’t support them since you don’t believe what they are doing, what they themselves mostly believe in. Support has a very specific meaning, according to Merriam Webster:

1 : to endure bravely or quietly : BEAR
2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : ADVOCATE (3) : to argue or vote for

I would argue that your position in no way fits the definition of support. I’m glad that you respect the troops and don’t want to see them harmed, but that is not supporting them.

How has America been made less safe by this war?

Adrienne -

I would have to completely disagree with this:

>>We should not stay in Iraq to fight their civil war for them, because to do so means we would have to ignore every bit of wisdom the country was founded upon, as well as every bit of progress we’ve made regarding civil and human rights.

More or less, my view is a complete 180 degrees from yours. I think we have learned from American history (especially applied post-911) and the wisdom is that tyrants shouldn’t be appeased and that allowing the Saddam Husseins of the world to run rampant is an afront to the very human and civil rights you argue for and will always be a roadblock to a more peaceful world for our kids and grandkids.

And Adrienne, I have in no way called anyone a ‘traitor’. I’ve stated in a couple of ways that I don’t think that harming America is the intended goal of amatuer anti-war pundits. I just think that their short-sightedness prevents them from seeing the harm that is being caused, and I am providing a public service by highlighting it ;o).

Posted by: OttO at August 30, 2005 12:50 PM

How has America been made less safe by this war?

We’ve been made less safe by creating a haven for terrorists (Iraq), creating easy propoganda for the creation of new terrorists (unilateral action), meanwhile being unable to deal effectively with other terrorist threats (OBL) and growing additional threats around the world (Iran / N.Korea).

Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 02:19 PM

Otto,

Would you consider the appeasement of Libya to be successful? You stated that there no examples of success.

Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 02:20 PM

Otto,

However, it’s obvious that you don’t support them since you don’t believe what they are doing, what they themselves mostly believe in. Support has a very specific meaning, according to Merriam Webster:
1 : to endure bravely or quietly : BEAR
2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : ADVOCATE (3) : to argue or vote for

I’m dumfounded. I gave several examples of things the troops are actually doing that I respect and think are good for them to do. Because you obviously didn’t read my post in your efforts to deny what I said, I’ll repeat them.
1. Protecting civillians. This includes things like patrols, fighting insurgents, etc, just in case lack of specifics were what bothered you last time.
2. Securing areas. Again, fighting off terrorists and insurgents through military means to allow people to live their lives in peace.
3. Bringing order. Protecting industry and government from disruption so that things can get done.
4. Protecting each other. Self-explanatory
5. Doing their duty—This is pretty much all encompassing, but I like that there are people for whom duty is important, who can put aside selfishness and be examples of sacrifice and service.

To put it another way—there are tactical and strategic aims involved here. The soldiers are tactical. I support pretty much everything that they do. They are doing good for the people of Iraq.
The leaders are strategic. Invading Iraq created the problems that the soldiers are now trying to fix. Invading Iraq has done nothing to combat terrorism, another strategic goal. Invading Iraq has done nothing to help America.
If I was spitting on the soldiers, or calling them war criminals, or demanding that they be prosecuted for doing their jobs, that would not be supporting the troops. I do none of those things, and neither does anyone else on this board. I support their tactical missions, and wish that they had more help in carrying them out.
However, I think that by invading the wrong place, and not dedicating sufficient personell to do the job, the administration has created a situation where their tactical successes and efforts do not mean any strategic ones. I wish that the administration would support the troops, by giving them missions and situations where their efforts and activities (Things that they are doing, to make it clear to you what I mean) could actually make a strategic difference.

Your definition does not discredit my views in the least. Let’s look at it.
1. I don’t think applies very well; what am I supposed to be enduring?
2. Promote the interests or cause of. Advocating that they go somewhere where they can make a difference is promoting their interests, as is advocating that they have more people and equipment. Saying that the war itself was stupid is not arguing against the soldiers. The definition states the interests or cause of, not the cause that they may be supporting. If I am supporting the soldiers’ tactical efforts and physical well-being, that is support.

To defend as valid or right—
Read the post. That’s what I just did.

3. To argue or vote for. I argue for the things I have mentioned. I voted for the man who said he would increase troop numbers and do the job right after his predecessor screwed it up.

If we’re talking about “promoting the actions of” as our definition, the soldiers did not declare war on Iraq, they did not decide to abandon the hunt for OBL to go pick an unnessesary fight in Iraq, and they did not fail to plan for the insurgency, or provide enough support to deal with it properly. Just what actions are you claiming I’m not promoting?

I would argue that your position in no way fits the definition of support

Well, “I would argue” is not really an argument. I gave several reasons for my statement, and have discussed every unfounded assertion that you made, using your own standard, the definition that you gave. I would be interested in knowing where you think I am wrong.

How has America been made less safe by this war?

Well, Americans have been put into close proximity with terrorists who want to kill them, for starters. Iraq has become the terrorist training ground it never was before. Our allies who we depend on to fight international terrorism don’t like us any more. I could go on, but I’ve been typing for a while. If you need more, let me know. Posted by: Brian Poole at August 30, 2005 02:21 PM

OttO,

You asked “How has America been made less safe by this war?

The war in Iraq has caused our leadership to take its eye off of what our REAL objective should be - namely, finding the terrorist leaders and bringing them to justice.

We have isolated ourselves from our allies. This puts the cost of this war almost entirely on our shoulders. It also makes it much less likely that those we’ve spurned will come to our aid if we need it. It also wastes the incredible sympathy and goodwill that we had following 9-11. Animals that get cut off from the herd are more vulnerable to attack - nations that cut themselves off from their allies are alos more vulnerable.

Our invasion of Iraq is driving more and more Muslims into the waiting arms of Al Qaeda. We are in effect creating MORE terrorism in Iraq. That whole “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” thing is just plain wrong. It ignores the fact that the terrorists don’t NEED to come here to attack Americans because our own leaders are conveniently providing them with tens of thousands of targets right there in Iraq, basically turning Iraq into a giant training ground for the terrorists. Furthermore, the recents attacks in London prove that they can attack “here” whenever they want.

The war in Iraq is dramatically increasing the deficit. This will cause long term financial problems that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with. OBL has stated that one of his objectives is to bleed us dry economincally, and Dubya is doing a great job of helping him achieve that objective.

If you agree that the rationale used for the invasion (Iraq needed to be prevented from becoming more of a threat than it was) is a valid policy, then it can be used by ANY country to attack ANY OTHER country at ANY time. North Korea could use it as a justification for the invasion of South Korea, or vice versa. India could use it as a justification for invading Pakistan, or vice versa. Syria could use it to justify invading Israel, or vice versa.

You also said (or at least strongly implied) that opposition to the war would let “the Saddam Husseins of the world run rampant”. That is very simply wrong. Saddam was not “running rampant” - he was under control. The sanctions were working. UN inspectors were combing Iraq looking for evidence of WMD (and not finding anything) and Saddam was cooperating. He was not a threat to his neighbors or to us. Please explain specifically how this was letting him “run rampant”.

Is it “supporting the troops” to endanger their lives for insufficient reason? Is it “supporting the troops” to send them to war without ANY sort of post-war planning? Is it “supporting the troops” to send them into a war zone without sufficient armor? Is it “supporting the troops” to cut veterans benefits?

I think it’s YOU who aren’t supporting our troops.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 30, 2005 02:41 PM

“I think we have learned from American history (especially applied post-911) and the wisdom is that tyrants shouldn’t be appeased and that allowing the Saddam Husseins of the world to run rampant is an afront to the very human and civil rights you argue for and will always be a roadblock to a more peaceful world for our kids and grandkids.”

Look Otto, everyone in America detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the plight of the Iraqi people before this war, but he’s been out of power for a long time now, his sons are dead, and his brutal henchmen have been disbanded and are no longer an organized threat to those people.
How can you justify us staying there after all the time we’ve been there with too few troops, and after all we’ve learned about how this administration took us into the war on shoddy (or cooked up) intelligence? To say that unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention in Iraq was a good idea I feel is complete and utter stupidity.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether they did it for the oil or the lucretive contracts, not only was this war illegal, unnecessary, and counter-productive, but it has created a looming threat to our vital international interests and to our basic national security.
Going there as we did has established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs which seems all too likely to lead to an increase of violent regional instability — as well as much wider conflicts in the Middle East.
Furthermore, this war has saddled this country with totally needless and unacceptable financial burdens that have diverted us away from addressing critical domestic priorities. And perhaps even more importantly, it has distracted us from what the real goal after 9/11 should have been — tracking down and killing international terrorists and their supporters.
I am strongly opposed to the idea that the American military can or should be used as the world’s police force by ANY administration, be they Republican and Democrat, and I believe that the lives and well being of those in the military shouldn’t be sacrificed for ANY other cause than in defense of our people and this nation.
Rather than trying to think up another nasty little acronym for us Liberals, you might take a moment to look at The American Pundit’s article in the Blue Column outlining how Iraq’s new constitution is nothing but the institution of Fundamentalist Islamic Law — and then try to square that in your mind with the fact that our soldiers will now be fighting and dying and being maimed to protect that Law, rather than the guiding principles of our American Constitution.
If you still think after pondering those questions that it’s still worth the spilling of American blood, I would have to say that you’ve probably got your head too far up George Bush’s ass to think clearly.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 30, 2005 03:25 PM

You’re statements regarding Vietnam is very funny. Would you like to know how your Republican Leadership handled Vietnam?

Vietnam was the Democrats war. Namely Lame Brain Johnson’s war. And talk about incompentance, he was the king of it.

LBJ is tied in first place with Clinton as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY!

One more name for the Democrat list of politicians.
Bill Clinton - DID NOT SERVE - ran off to Russia to protest the war.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 30, 2005 06:34 PM

Vietnam was the Democrats war. Namely Lame Brain Johnson’s war. And talk about incompentance, he was the king of it.

Key word - WAS. There’s a neW king of incompetance.

LBJ is tied in first place with Clinton as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY!

Your grasp of history is remarkable.

One more name for the Democrat list of politicians. Bill Clinton - DID NOT SERVE - ran off to Russia to protest the war.

Actually, Clinton is already on his list. I wasn’t aware that Britain was part of Russia.

Posted by: Burt at August 30, 2005 06:44 PM

Ron Brown,

Take a look at the service records of the wrong wing chickenhawk leaders:

George Bush - Used family influence to avoid the draft and joint the Nat’l Guard ahead of thousands of others. Never fulfilled his obligation (i.e. went AWOL)
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. Said this: “So many minority youths had volunteered … that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself.”
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve.
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve
Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve.
VP Cheney - several deferments - the last by marriage (in his own words, “had other priorities than military service”).
Att’y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve.
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.
“B-1” Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes. Enlisted only after the fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Representative Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - did not serve (yet somehow feels he has a right to attack Max Cleland’s patriotism).
Paul Wolfowitz, did not serve.
George Will, did not serve
Bill O’Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst’)
Michael Savage - did not serve.
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Sean Hannity, did not serve.
Kenneth Starr, did not serve
Antonin Scalia, did not serve
Clarence Thomas, did not serve
Ralph Reed, did not serve
Michael Medved, did not serve

Boy, that’s something to be proud of, isn’t it?

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 30, 2005 07:32 PM

Korea, France, and Iran as allies. Yeah right, we’ll just let all the lib heros that served in Vietnam figure that one out. When a few years go by, we can sit back and learn how good a bowl of rice a day is after they take over whats left of a more kinder America. Don’t tell me you support the troops but noy the cause . Bull ,/;’…….

Posted by: John at August 30, 2005 10:02 PM

Otto,

“How has America been made less safe by this war?”

Let me think, could some of the money we have plowed into Iraq been better used to make our borders more secure?

Do you think that cutting vet’s benefits make America more secure at home?

Could the money that was diverted from the levees in Lousiana to the war been better spent on the levees?

We are fighting with an under manned, under funded force that has been hamstrung by inept leaders from day one.
If you would argue that we took Iraq in record time, let me remind you that with the amount of technology we are using, if we hadn’t, then we would have really looked like morons, wouldn’t we.

In our rush to take Iraq, we forgot to lock the door behind us.

We asked National Guardsmen that train one weekend a month and two weeks a year to do the crap jobs so our soldiers could be freed up to fight.

If you’re thinking that is something to celebrate about, I would remind you that the fat lady ain’t singing yet, and whatever is in that kool-aide you’re drinking, you should probably give it a rest.

Posted by: Rocky at August 30, 2005 11:57 PM

Burt -

Good question. I had to give this a little thought, but honestly, I don’t see where we appeased any kind of threat from Libya at all. The promise of force in the middle east motivated the Libyan government to cooperate with nearly everything major that was demanded of them and to eventually be able to reap the benefits from doing so. What major concessions were made on the side of the US in the act of appeasement? Appeasement isn’t accepting surrender, and the Libyan government ‘surrendered’ it’s terrorist ties and pursuits of wmds. It was a victory for Western civilization, not some kind of appeasement in any way.

Brian -

Sorry, amid the nearly 40 posts I had to scan and respond to, I may have missed this.

Do you think that respecting the troops is the same as supporting the troops? I skimmed through your list of what you admire about the troops, but here is the thing: support is a word with a very specific definition. You disagree with the war or at least the way it’s been conducted, and that’s fine - but as much as you would like, you don’t support the troops in their specific mission. Sure, maybe you would support them if the mission was different, or better conducted, or led by a different commander-in-chief or maybe a Democrat. The troops on the ground for the most part don’t see this war the way that you see it. So how can you say you support them if you aren’t supporting what they are doing or even who is leading them in what they are doing? By wishing they were doing something different led by somebody else?

Tactical efforts and physcial well-being? Why not say if one supports their ability to have e-mails or smoke cigarettes, then that means that one supports the troops. It really doesn’t hold water. Again, not wanting the troops to be harmed is not saying that you support them. It’s saying that you like them, you respect them, you want them protected, but you aren’t supporting them unless you support why they do what they do and why they believe in what they do.

Do you want the troops to succeed in their mission - stabilizing the country, crushing the insurgents and allowing the Iraqis to secure their government and plant the roots of some form of representative government, even if it takes years, even if it means more casualties?

Elliot -

Aren’t there terrorist leaders in Iraq?

How have we isolated ourselves from our allies? I wrote about our allies last week, and I don’t think that an ultimatum from a corrupt government points to us isolating them.

Arms of Al Queada? So all of these jihad-wannabees were just sitting around glad that the Americans aren’t doing something that might upset them, like invade Iraq. And now we really made them mad! Kind of like going after Hitler might create more Nazi support? This is one AWFUL battle cry (pardon the expression) that I just never really got.

Let’s see if you can understand your own ranting: One sentence you say that the Bush adminstration is wrong in their idea that we are fighting the terrorists there instead of here, and in the next sentence you affirm the fact that terrorists are busy using soldiers as targets instead of American civillians. I think you just answered your own criticism. The London attacks by the way were festered domestically in an environment that was way too APPEASING to cultural sensitivities, more specifically to unhidden, unapologetic Islamic radicalism. Not to say that anything is going to 100% prevent an attack, but I think it’s a good thing to have terrorists tie up their resources in hotbeds other than New York or DC.

I’m not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of war based on your economic concerns, you fiscal conservative, you.

Any country, any time? And what, without the Iraq invasion, any country that would have considered using pre-emption as an excuse for the mere purpose of conquering other countries, simply wouldn’t? Why didn’t the UN stop us? If it was truly a crime to humanity, why didn’t the UNSC start handing down the resolutions on the US? Oh, maybe because for a resoulution to mean anything, it has to have some sort of threat of enforcement?

I Sanctions were working? But what about the five million dead Iraqi children? What about the back-door oil deals, the O-F-F scandal, the diverted funds, the daily firings on UN no-fly-zone patrols and the mere image that Saddam Hussein presented in making the world question his status on wmds. Sanctions couldn’t ‘work’ forever. At some point, they would be lifted, whethter under Saddam or under Uday or Qusay. Trying to trap time in suspension to pro-long a potential danger is hardly ‘working’. It’s like putting gauze on a jugular. It’s not going to do much for very long.

Elliot -

>>Is it “supporting the troops” to endanger their lives for insufficient reason?

Is it supporting the troops if you tell them that the reasons they are doing what they do, regardless of their belief in it, is ‘insufficient’?

>>Is it “supporting the troops” to send them to war without ANY sort of post-war planning?

Of course there was post-war planning, how asinine to suggest that there wasn’t. Maybe it wasn’t the best, maybe it was incomplete, maybe the plans had bo be changed with the situation, but to suggest that the potential outcomes and scenarios weren’t discussed endlessly is just fantasy and perhaps wishful thinking. Again, the soldiers in Iraq are bought into their mission. Are you going to tell them they are wrong? Stupid? Mindless drones following orders? But you support them!

>>Is it “supporting the troops” to send them into a war zone without sufficient armor?

What insufficient armor are you refering to?

>>Is it “supporting the troops” to cut veterans benefits?

Of course not. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened under any recent president.

>>I think it’s YOU who aren’t supporting our troops.

I believe in their mission, I want them to come out victorious, and I want them to come home as soon as possible, but not a day sooner then when their work is complete. If you disagree with any of these things, then how can you say that you SUPPORT them?

Would it make sense to say that you support a church even though you are opposed to its philosophies and believe that their teachings are based on lies? I mean, you may think some of the members are nice people, you may not wish them to die, you may respect their charity work, you might even think their little church is cute, but can you say that you support them?

What’s the theoretical difference?

Posted by: OttO at August 31, 2005 03:21 AM

John,

Korea, France, and Iran as allies.

Damn, I missed your President speech where my country was included now in “Axe of Evil”!
Care to provide a link?

PS: Indeed we are a nuclear power. It’s not a secret since decenies already.

- Philippe Houdoin

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 09:06 AM

Otto,

Do you think that respecting the troops is the same as supporting the troops? I skimmed through your list of what you admire about the troops, but here is the thing: support is a word with a very specific definition.

Which is why I explicitly explained how my position meets the definition you gave. It’s funny that you say that support has a very specific definition, then say that because I don’t believe the way they do, I’m not supporting them, when belief is not mentioned in your definition.
Seriously, if you aren’t going to read the posts, there’s no point in responding to them. If you did read what I said, just saying I’m wrong is not going to cut it.

Do you want the troops to succeed in their mission - stabilizing the country, crushing the insurgents and allowing the Iraqis to secure their government and plant the roots of some form of representative government, even if it takes years, even if it means more casualties?

Absolutely. I just want the leadership to be effective so that we can actually complete the mission.

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 31, 2005 09:11 AM

Otto,

… you aren’t supporting them unless you support why they do what they do and why they believe in what they do.

Care to provide facts that your soldiers “believe in what they do”, Otto?

I support them:
- why they do: because that’s their orders and they obey;
- what they do: because that’s hard, risky and they show bravour here;
- why they believe in what they do: because ones that indeed believe in what they currently do will needs good support when back home they’ll have to face the war real motivations.

But I don’t support the (so-called “Noble”) cause.

Troops != Cause.
Soldiers != Ideology.
Period.

And that’s not a theorical difference.
Well, maybe it sounds like rethoric one only, but, hey, who care, I’m french, I’m from Axe of Evil nations according to John. Blame my evilness. :-p

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 09:27 AM

AP -

Right…because if anyone knows how to win anything, it’s the modern Democratic party!

I don’t know why supporting the troops is hawkish, or why being hawkish is my trait when you just said in the previous sentence that you agree with me, I believe the actual words were “Hell yes!”. Does that make you hawkish as well?

And I’ll agree - the Republicans are a bunch of wimps, but I don’t think that it’s because of Republicans that they are so timid - it’s because of Democrats who whine everytime anything bold is attempted in Iraq! It’s another example of the left-wing circle tactic - complain when something is done and then complain when something isn’t done - like I said, appeasement (in this case, appeasing political oppurtunists) is disastrous! Really, what are you suggesting - that the US military start running over anyone that might be an ‘insurgent’? Yeah, kill ‘em all and let your percieved notion of what God is sort ‘em out! Right, you hawk, you?

Are you really going to quote John Kerry on how to make decisions and how to win? That’s rich.

This doomsday approach to Iraq might have worked in the months following the war, and maybe even six months ago when attacks on US soldiers had escalated briefly, but sorry, I don’t share your ‘optimism’ about just how disastrous this war has been…which again demonstrates how you will say anything to tear this administration and this war down, regardless of the propaganda it lends the enemy and regardless of how is shows a lack of support for the troops who by and large don’t really seem to agree with you.

Brian -

Yes, you can criticize details of the war and still support the troops. If you in fact do believe in the mission, in which your response is “absolutely”, then I will concede that you do support the troops, even if you don’t agree with some of the details.

Okay.

Good for you!

I just had to prod you along long enough to get you to articulate it. I’ve only suggested that supporting the troops is supporting their mission about a half-a-dozen times here, so if you “absolutely” believe in the mission and want them to succeed, then what was it that you have been disagreeing with this whole time? I can already assume that you dislike the Bush administration, so why be disagreeable on something that we agree on - that we must win, the goals of the war must be achieved and then we must get out?

Posted by: OttO at August 31, 2005 09:59 AM

LOL! Now calling for more troops is enemy propaganda? That’s just wacko, OttO.

You can spin it all you want, but President Bush isn’t securing Iraq, and he has no plan to do so. Democrats have a plan. Send more troops and root out the al Qaeda cells the last two years of incompetence have allowed to flourish.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 10:41 AM

the Republicans are a bunch of wimps, but I don’t think that it’s because of Republicans that they are so timid - it’s because of Democrats who whine everytime anything bold is attempted in Iraq!

I had to read that again. That’s just too damned funny, OttO. Wacky.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 31, 2005 10:46 AM

Otto,
The question you asked that I was answering was:

If you believe and have always believed that this is an illegal and immoral war, then isn’t it correct to say that you don’t support the troops?

The answer to which, of course, our discussion has shown to be a resounding NO! (No, it is not correct to say that we don’t support the troops, if we think the reasons for going to war are immoral and/or illegal—you put a lot of negatives in that sentence, Otto).
Thanks for your confirmation.

Posted by: Brian Poole at August 31, 2005 11:58 AM

Phillipe:
“hey, who care, I’m french, I’m from Axe of Evil nations according to John. Blame my evilness. :-p”

Il pourrait etre difficile de croire ceci Phillipe — certains parmi nous ici considerent que la France est notre ami. Et nous savons que notre Arbuste (et plusieurs autres) ne sont pas trop logiques!

Hope that translates — my French is far from perfect. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 31, 2005 11:58 AM

Adrienne,

Il pourrait etre difficile de croire ceci Phillipe — certains parmi nous ici considerent que la France est notre ami. Et nous savons que notre Arbuste (et plusieurs autres) ne sont pas trop logiques!

Don’t worry, we knows that. I’m, like most of frenchies, sure our friendship is not *that durable* dommaged. We care about and share each other too much for that.

Hope that translates — my French is far from perfect. :^)

I salutes the effort. Your french is really good, can’t even spot any error. Talk about my natural language skill :-).
It just take seconds before I figured out Arbuste Bush.
LOL.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 31, 2005 12:56 PM

OttO-

Aren’t there terrorist leaders in Iraq?

Yes there are. We were warned BEFORE the invasion by moderate Arab leaders that this invasion would create hundreds of new terrorist leaders and thousands of new terrorists. And, with a few exceptions, that’s who you’re talking about - the terrorists and leaders we have created. Thanks for making my point for me.

How have we isolated ourselves from our allies?

I bet you?ve never heard of “freedom fries” have you?

So all of these jihad-wannabees were just sitting around? … This is one AWFUL battle cry (pardon the expression) that I just never really got.

Thanks for stating the obvious - you really DON’T get it. Instead of going after OBL, the Taliban, and their co-horts, Dubya chose to invade Iraq - a country that had NO connection to 9-11, little or no connection with Al-Qaeda, and posed NO immediate threat to us. This is the modern equivalent to invading Argentina following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I’m not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of war based on your economic concerns, you fiscal conservative, you.

Nice try to distract from the issue that Dubya is doing exactly what OBL wants him to do - bleeding this country dry economically.

Any country, any time?

Yep. Try reading up on the “Bush Doctrine”. It puts this administration’s stamp of approval on pre-emptive attacks on other countries that might someday become a threat, but do not pose one now.

Why didn’t the UN stop us?

Are you saying that we were justified in ignoring the UN and invading Iraq - because Iraq ignored the UN?

Sanctions were working?

Yes they were, and the Bush administration said so publicly:

Colin Powell said this on 24 Feb 2001 (emphasis added):

the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. … And frankly they have worked. [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…

On 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Here’s part of the questions-and answers portion of Powell’s testimony:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We’ve had bombs dropped, we’ve had threats made, we’ve had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we’re coming to the end. What’s our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons programs?
Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. … So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful.

Condaleeza Rice said this on July 29, 2001:

We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Regarding your other questons:

Is it “supporting the troops” to cut veterans benefits?

Of course not. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened under any recent president.

Bullshit. The House of Representatives passed (on a party-line vote) the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran’s health care and benefit programs by near