August 26, 2003
Iraq War Over?
Today, the number of post-Iraq deaths surpassed the amount of fatalities. Even as George Bush, on May 1, assured the country and soon-to-be widows that major combat operations had ended, fatalities have become nearly a daily occurrence. In recent weeks, the drumbeat of destruction has been loudest, and crescendoed recently with the bombing of the UN building in Baghdad.
White House officials claim that these acts are to be blamed on Saddam loyalists. Independent journalists from the New Yorker (August 4th), on the other hand, have uncovered a more complex motive for the attacks. Through interviews with Iraqis, they have discovered that the majority of Iraqis see themselves at war with both the old regime (Saddam loyalists) and the occupying forces (Coalition of the Willing). Ironically, as remnants of the old guard are flushed out, the focus of attacks has increasingly turned on American and British troops (and other outsiders).
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at August 26, 2003 11:15 AMCan you provide a link to the New Yorker article making this claim. I’ve read in other places that the people doing the fighting are those in the Sunni triangle who prospered under the Baath regime and foreign fighters from Iran and Syria.
Is this article online?
Posted by: Chris at August 26, 2003 11:37 AMChris, it was, but I couldn’t seem to find it in their archives. I subscribe to the magazine and remember it vividly stated in that context, and I know it would be helpful if I could provide a link. I know they keep their archives online, but don’t link to them in an obvious way from their website (I’ve been able to link to old items before).
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at August 26, 2003 11:44 AMStephen,
In short, it doesn’t matter who blames who. The obvious, sad result is that the Bush regime has no idea what is going on and has proven itself incapable of finishing the task in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
In the Bush world, heroes die from the regime’s lies. Soldiers get killed. New Yorkers breath ill dust they were told wasn’t there.
What is it going to take for Americans to wake up and call for an impeachment?
What is it going to take?
Robbie D.
Posted by: Robbie D at August 26, 2003 01:04 PMapparently a sex scandal.
which is sad…
what amazes me most is that the bush team has done an amazing job of squashing any negative news or attempts to shed light on their true ambitions, and play off any leaks of truth as liberal nitpicking.
if clinton was an alcoholic/former cocaine user (as bush in fact is) the GOP would have crucified him. the current administration swats this fact away with the “oh that little scamp!” mentality…
so now what we need is to catch the man with his pants down…literally…..but knowing the state of things now he’ll probably get the medal of honor….
sigh.
Posted by: rob at August 26, 2003 03:22 PM>What is it going to take for Americans to wake up and call for an impeachment?
It would take highly partisan majority in the House opposed to the president (or president-unelect, but it can’t happen this term). Impeachment is entirely political. “High crimes and misdemeanors” means exactly whatever the House decides it does, in the context of impeaching a president (or other federal official). It means exactly whatever the Senate decides it does, in the context of convicting an impeached president.
The Republicans have figured out that behind the system of electoral college and fixed terms that the Constitution appears to specify, there’s a parliamentary system wherein the president serves at the whim of the Congress. If the Republicans ever reach two-thirds in the Senate and a majority in the House, and a Democrat is president, they will impeach without waiting for a sex scandal. As with Andrew Johnson, they will pass a law specifically for the president to break, but they will impeach both the president and vice-president, allowing the speaker of the House to become president.
It’s ironic that the Republicans are bent on turning the presidency both into a prime minister who is chosen by Congress and removed by a no-confidence vote, and into an emperor who has the power to order his political enemies disappeared by secretly declaring them “enemy combatants” who then can be held incommunicado indefinitely without a warrant or other judicial review.
Thomas Jefferson said, “We are all republicans; we are all federalists.” But the Republicans are not republicans: a republican would be someone who favors having a republic, an indirect democracy wherein government decisions are made by elected representatives of the people. The Republicans do not favor any democracy, no matter how indirect. Besides trying to turn the president into both a prime minister and an emperor, they opposed the counting of the votes in the 2000 election. They must be defeated completely, until there is no longer a Republican Party capable of electing members to Congress. It won’t be easy, because we as the good guys have to play by the rules, while they as the forces of evil are bound by no such constraints. But we must.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 26, 2003 09:01 PMMan… can’t you liberals just let go of Clinton? Do you have to bring him up in every discussion?
The idea that a war with Iraq, still supported by 60% of the country, would be cause for impeachment is laughable.
The vast majority of America believes the war was the right thing to do, and believes we can’t abandon our mission now.
Some, with less of backbone, want us to run away and leave the region in choas. That won’t happen, not with a man of real moral courage in the White House.
Posted by: CJ at August 26, 2003 10:54 PMand a halliburton kickback in his offshore checking account…
Posted by: rob at August 27, 2003 03:40 AMDan, that was brilliant!
Perfect!
CJ, I’m feeling like I want to give you a big bear hug and tell you it’s OK that you supported the war… really, but now that the tragedy is front and center, there’s still room for you over here in the light. ;-)
It’s a strawman to intorduce “running away.” We’re stuck now. Quagmire, as they say.
What’s all this “real man” stuff about? We have two Presidents in a row with penis fixations. One got it licked and one stuffed his flight suit crotch, do we really need more “real men?”
And, honestly, why should that be a concern? I’d happily vote for a woman, a gay man, a lesbian or even… gasp… a black gay man if I thought they could do the job better.
Why are “real men” so important to you?
Right now, it’s a white doctor that gets my vote. But it is because of what he thinks and says, not who he appears to “be.”
Robbie D.
Posted by: Robbie D at August 27, 2003 11:57 AMMan… can’t you liberals just let go of Clinton? Do you have to bring him up in every discussion?
That is laughable given that it is conservatives that seem to miss having him to kick around. Look at conservative web fave NewsMax.com, which on Monday, posted a story called “Bill Clinton: ‘I’d Love to Play the Field’”, and lovingly maintains a section called “Clinton Scandals” Ann Coulter namechecks the Clintons in an August 13 column on the California recall. She also seems to have written about him a bunch of other times this year according to Google. And I’m not even getting into how many times Rush Limbaugh has written about him, but trust me, he’s not letting go either.
The idea that a war with Iraq, still supported by 60% of the country, would be cause for impeachment is laughable.
Nobody’s saying a war in and of itself is an impeachable offense. However, lying about the justifications for the war is possibly grounds for impeachment, donchathink?
The vast majority of America believes the war was the right thing to do, and believes we can’t abandon our mission now.
Break that into two parts. On part A: that may be true, but a large percentage of Americans thought that we had proof that Al Queda and Saddam Hussein were collaborators, when we did not.
On the second part, I think there is wider agreement on the left and the right. I was against the war, but I believe “you break it, you buy it!” It would be nothing short of irresponsible and disastrous to pull out now. But that’s a separate issue from whether we should have gone to war in the first place.
Some, with less of backbone, want us to run away and leave the region in choas [sic]. That won’t happen, not with a man of real moral courage in the White House.
Yes, if you define “moral courage” as “saying what you want to hear”, then I guess that’s what you’ve got. But a man with real moral courage would have come out and admitted that he made claims that couldn’t be verified, that mistakes had been made, and that he took responsibility for these errors… and yes, I realize that he finally did half-heartedly do this, but only after a great deal of pressure.
That’s the trouble with this whole thing. Saddam was horrible. He had bad intentions. There were human rights violations in Iraq. Getting rid of him gives us a chance to alter the balance of power in the Middle East. Yet this administration was unable to come right out and say that this was the real reason. Instead, they relied on shaky justifications that have been revealed as such in the aftermath, and they downplayed what a big job this is going to be.
That’s not backbone, IMHO.
“and a halliburton kickback in his offshore checking account…”
Halliburton also got all of Clinton’s nation building contracts in Haiti, Bosnia etc. The reason is not because of any conspiracy. Halliburton is one of the only companies in the world that can do the job. Brown&Root Construction is a subsidiary of Halliburton and in Haiti they built our facilities. So where is the conspiracy here hmmmm? As usual the truth is now revealed, by a conservative.
