Third Party & Independents Archives

I could not disagree more with everything you say about the UN. I understand that for some people, the idea of the UN is a theology. However, my often used description of the UN still applies…. it is a corrupt organization, a third of which is made up of vile governments who wouldn’t know a human right if it came up and bit them in the ass.

Let this brilliant description of the UN speak for me though because I could not begin to say it any better:

The U.N.? Who Cares?

Kofi Annan & Co. might as well move to Brussels or Geneva.

BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Thursday, September 23, 2004

These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one—whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York—is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual.

Despite the seemingly disparate geography of these continued attacks, we are always familiar with the similar spooky signature: civilians dismembered by the suicide belt, car bomb, improvised explosive device and executioner’s blade. Then follows the characteristically pathetic communiqué or loopy fatwa aired on al-Jazeera, evoking everything from the injustice of the Reconquista to some mythical grievance about Crusaders in the holy shrines. Gender equity in the radical Islamic world is now defined by the expendable female suicide bomber’s slaughter of Westerners.

In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron—other than an obligatory “the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail”—but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian “victory at any cost” rhetoric. Good luck.

For years, gay-rights activists and relief workers in Africa have complained that the U.S. did not take the lead in combating the world-wide spread of AIDS. President Bush now offers to spearhead the rescue of the world’s infected, with $15 billion in American help in hopes that the world’s financial powers—perhaps Japan, China and the European Union—might match or trump that commitment.

Nongovernmental organizations clamor about the unfairness of world trade that left the former Third World with massive debts run up by crooked dictators and complicit Western profiteers. President Bush now talks not of extending further loans to service their spiraling interest payments, but rather of outright grants to clean the slate and thus offer the impoverished a new start.

International women’s rights groups vie for the world’s attention to stop the shameful international trafficking in women and children, whether as chattel or sexual slaves. The president now pledges to organize enforcement to stop both the smugglers and the predators on the innocent.

For a half century, liberals rightly deplored the old realpolitik in the Middle East, as America and Europe supported autocratic right-wing governments on the cynical premises that they at least promised to keep pumping oil and kept out communists. Now President Bush not only renounces such past opportunism, but also confesses that “for too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability.” He promises not complacency that ensures continual oppression, but radical changes that lead to freedom.

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were once the United Nations’ twin embarrassments, rogue regimes that thumbed their noses at weak U.N. protestations, slaughtered their own, invaded their neighbors, and turned their outlands into terrorist sanctuaries. Now they are gone, despite either U.N. indifference or veritable opposition to their removal. The United States sought not dictators in their place, but consensual government where it had never existed.

What was the response to Mr. Bush’s new multifaceted vision? He was met with stony silence, followed by about seven seconds of embarrassed applause, capped off by smug sneers in the global media. Why so?

First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.’s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy—infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers—chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience.

Second, urging democratic reforms in Palestine, as Mr. Bush also outlined, is antithetical to the very stuff of the U.N., an embarrassing reminder that nearly half of its resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous—and dictatorial—Arab neighbors. The contemporary U.N., then, has become not only hypocritical, but also a bully that hectors Israel about the West Bank while it gives a pass to a nuclear, billion-person China after swallowing Tibet; wants nothing to do with the two present dangers to world peace, a nuclear North Korea and soon to follow theocratic Iran; and idles while thousands die in the Sudan.

Third, the present secretary-general, Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials. Meanwhile, he prefers to denigrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “illegal,” but neither advocates reinstitution of a “legal” Saddam nor offers any concrete help to Iraqis crafting consensual society. Like the U.N. membership itself, he enjoys the freedom, affluence and security of a New York, but never stops to ask why that is so or how it might be extended to others less fortunate.

Our own problems with the U.N. should now be viewed in a context of ongoing radical change here in the United States, as all the previous liberal assumptions of the past decades undergo scrutiny in our post 9/11 world. There are no longer any sacred cows in the eyes of the American public. Ask Germany and South Korea as American troops depart, Saudi Arabia where bases are closed, and the once beaming Yasser Arafat, erstwhile denizen of the Lincoln Bedroom, as he now broods in his solitary rubble bunker.

Deeds, not rhetoric, are all that matter, as the once unthinkable is now the possible. There is no intrinsic reason why the U.N. should be based in New York rather than in its more logical utopian home in Brussels or Geneva. There is no law chiseled in stone that says any fascist or dictatorial state deserves authorized membership by virtue of its hijacking of a government. There is no logic to why a France is on the Security Council, but a Japan or India is not. And there is no reason why a group of democratic nations, unapologetic about their values and resolute to protect freedom, cannot act collectively for the common good, entirely indifferent to Syria’s censure or a Chinese veto.

So Americans’ once gushy support for the U.N. during its adolescence is gone. By the 1970s we accepted at best that it had devolved into a neutral organization in its approach to the West, and by the 1980s sighed that it was now unabashedly hostile to freedom. But in our odyssey from encouragement, to skepticism, and then to hostility, we have now reached the final stage—of indifference. Americans do not get riled easily, so the U.N. will go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Indeed, millions have already shrugged, tuned out, and turned the channel on it.

_____________________________________________

Mr. Hanson, a military historian, is a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.

Nice one Aldaron! David made almost no reference to UN, and as far as I can see, he expressed no opinion on the organistaion WHATSOEVER, so for you to state that you could not disagree more with everything you say about the UN is amazing. Really, it is.

David’s piece was about Bush not the UN. I think it is unfortunate, but telling, that you should try and shift the debate away from an incompetent Bush and onto to the imperfect UN.

Maybe you could try again.

David is well aware that I disagree with his assessment of the President’s performance. Incompetence is in the eye of the beholder and going point by point on what he says above is tiresome because he takes great liberties with the true course of events due to his liberal leanings. I wanted to speak more to his theological belief in the UN that he continually holds in reverance. More to the point, it was this statement that prompted me to shed a little light on the vaunted UN:

“for a glimpse of what may have crossed the minds of delegates attending the UN assembly on that day, as they crossed mine.”

What crossed the minds of the delegates???? Silliness. You give these “delegates” way too much credit.

The implied meaning of the entire post is that Bush is wrong and the UN is right and that he had the nerve to go in front of the “great body” and speak of such nonsense. It takes a liberal to constantly point out “abu ghraib” as evidence that their is no difference between us and them. “Does he really believe the delegates have such short memories?” In their minds, I’m sure there isn’t.

Furthermore, I question why this post is in the “Independent” column. With statements like this:

“Upon your election secrecy, obfuscation, and near absolute resolve to avoid responsibility for any of your failed actions became the order of the day in America. I am proud to be an American, President Bush, but, I am ashamed to have you represent me before the world.”

That is a highly partisan statement. Put this in the blue column where it belongs.

Anything else Mr. Hope?

“I need money. I have a staff of 30, and four houses, never mind the government, to support.”

“It’s so cold here in Washington, D.C., that politicians have their hands in their own pockets.”

“The Democrats have an answer to the unemployment problem. They’re all running for the presidency.”

“Outrageous!”

Ok…. thanks.

David:

Your rhetoric is getting increasingly negative, and virtually devoid of the objective nature it once had. It’s easy to complain about things, and you obviously have complaints about not only why we went to war, but how we are conducting the war. But to simply look for every negative that you can possibly find provides nothing other than complaints…no solutions, no problem solving….just complaints.

It would have been easy for Bush to NOT have gone into Iraq. By all comments, Democrats would have been thrilled (its hard to project pure dripping sarcasm in this forum, but suffice it to say that the very same Dems would likely have bashed Bush for INaction).

In MY opinion, Iraq needed to be dealt with. After 12 years of game playing, it was time for a conclusion. The truth at the time was that we did not know what Saddam was cooking up, nor did the UN know. We knew he had weapons (that was why Clinton pre-emptively bombed Iraq in 98), but we did not know whether he had dismantled them or hidden them.

Its often easier to simply camouflage an issue without actually dealing with it. Its harder to deal with it head on. But its also right in some cases to deal with it head on.

The interesting thing I find is the “left’s” ever changing reasons for why bush would fight in Iraq. The litany goes on and onl: to avenge his dad, to take over the world, because he loves death, oil oil oil, to help his re-election chances etc etc.

These are among the most vapid and mindless sentiments out there. Does anyone really believe that Iraq has HELPED his election chances? Has the US taken over the Iraqi oil fields? Puhleez, these are simplistic and ignorant arguments.

David, its time for you to return to your objectivity. Just as you can find negative things to complain about, so too could I find positives. Or I could simply stoop to looking for negatives about the “opposition”. Clarity calls for objectivity. You had it once—-I hope you find it again.

Joe, with regard to Iraq the negatives far outweigh the positives. And against this backdrop the US is entering a critical few months where it will choose it’s new leader, a decision which will impact upon the whole world.

If ever there was a time for ruthless honesty, now is it.

You say that “you can find negative things to complain about, so too could I find positives”, which is all well and good but the fact remains that Bush’s words do not mirror the reality of what’s going on. He is dangerously out of touch. David is right to call him on this.

The interesting thing I find is the “left’s” ever changing reasons for why bush would fight in Iraq. The litany goes on and onl: to avenge his dad, to take over the world, because he loves death, oil oil oil, to help his re-election chances etc etc.

There have been numerous reasons suggested by the “left” for why he invaded Iraq. The reason for this is that most people were so baffled by his decision to invade, that they could only speculate as to why he did it.

He said that he was worried about WMD yet he was unwilling to allow the inspectors more time to uncover these weapons. This is a GLARING CONTRADICTION between word and deed.

Confusing, no?

The argument then seemed to shift to a humanitarian one, which was dealt an unfortunate blow by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, and the failure to plan adequately for the “post war” environment, which has seen the death of thousand’s of Iraqis, and a country teeter on the precipice.

These are among the most vapid and mindless sentiments out there. Does anyone really believe that Iraq has HELPED his election chances? Has the US taken over the Iraqi oil fields? Puhleez, these are simplistic and ignorant arguments

I am certain that Bush had believed that Iraq would go a good deal better than it has (if he didn’t the alternative is even more depressing), and if it had gone to plan he would have been safe in the assumption that it would have helped his election prospects. I am unsure as to why you cannot see this.

But they failed to plan properly, and untold misery and distress has been caused to innocent Iraqi’s as a result. It would be scarcely possible to paint a more negative picture than the situation that is unfolding in Iraq at present.

Bush entered into this war far too lightly at the wrong time, in the wrong way and who knows for what reasons. I think there can have been few greater blunders committed by an American President.

It is the shrinking few who fail to recognise this fact that are lacking in objectivity.

Joe—

David and I are in complete agreement on this one. Bush’s speech was filled with hypocritical statement and was in my view void of reality and completely dismissive of U.S. actions since the start of the so-called War on Terror.

Iraq was being dealt with via the sanctions, which granted could not last forever, but that was a U.N. issue. And Saddam was being contained, and his weapons programs limited to medium range missiles. Where was the threat? Where was the clear and present danger to the United States or her citizens from Iraq?

And if Iraq needed to be dealt with them most assuredly North Korea needs to be dealt with and soon. After all, the “pygmy” is actively and knowingly developing WMD’s and starving his people to dead. Shouldn’t we do something? And what of Iran which is now defiantly pursuing nuclear fuel? And what of Sudan where genocide is taking place as I type, and Brazil where the dead rate of the nations children is one of the highest, if not the highest in the world? See the dilemma here?

When held up to the light of reason, Bush’s speech was nothing more than garbage in and garbage out!

JBOD —

I’m asking this as a serious question, not to be snide: What do you think are the reasons we went into Iraq? (If you have this posted somewhere, please direct me and I’ll read it.) Do you believe it was a good decision based on bad information, or does that matter now?

I ask this because the reason so many from the left (and the middle, and also from the right, by the way) are coming up with theories about why we went to war is that we can’t believe the administration is as inept as it makes itself appear. We just can’t conceive of how, with all the satellites and unmanned drones and spies, the Bush administration could have come to the honest conclusion that Iraq was an iminent threat to the US. So we try to guess at what his real motive is.

JBOD —

After re-reading your post I realize you probably feel you’ve already answered my question. Unfortunately for me the explanation that we THOUGHT there were WMD’s is simply not enough of an explanation for war. I honestly don’t think Bush believed we were pre-empting anything by going to war. Just watching Colin Powell trying desperately to convince the UN that photos of trucks driving around was evidence of WMD’s told me Bush knew the reasoning was shaky.

Criticism of the President in Iraq is justified, but you have to consider the conditions under which his decisions were made. If we knew then what we know now, we all would behave differently. It is very easy to know what we should have done after we see what happened. It is human nature to remember selectively, to improve our judgment ex-post-facto. Take yourself back to fall 2002.

Saddam Hussein has defied 17 UN resolutions. He has attacked four of his neighbors and is directly responsible for the deaths of millions. Everyone knows that he has possessed and used WMD. Intelligence services from all over the world believe he still has WMD (In fact, it is likely that Saddam himself believes he has WMD and is being deceived by his own scientists.) One thing for sure – he will develop them if given a chance. UN sanctions are weakening. Saddam is making billions of dollars through the UN Oil for Food program. Meanwhile he is starving his own people and depriving them of medicine and blaming the U.S. Thousands of Iraqis are dying unnecessarily for easily treated diseases, since Saddam won’t use the Oil for Food money for the purposes it was intended. The Arab street is up in arms about the suffering of the Iraqi people. Time is on Saddam’s side.

The U.S. has managed to contain Saddam by keeping troops in Saudi – which infuriated people like Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden gives the U.S. troop presence as his chief grievance against the U.S. and a reason for his 9/11 attacks. The U.S. and Brits are partially protecting the Kurds and Shiites using no fly zones. Saddam’s forces shoot at the U.S. and British planes almost every day and he has offered a reward to anyone who can shoot down a plane. Saddam say that he is at war with the U.S. The U.S. has managed to get Saddam to partially comply with UN resolutions re disarming by stations about 150,000 troops in the region. They are crammed into bases in Saudi and the Gulf. They can’t stay on a war footing much longer. They are making Saddam nervous, but he knows that if he can hold out until summer, the season will pass and the U.S. will not be able to attack him. If the U.S. doesn’t move this year, it is likely they will never be able to act. The French have assured Saddam that they will prevent a U.S. attack, after all they are making big money off the status quo. He also knows that the Russians are not likely to support the U.S. because of the fortune they are making with oil contract. Time is on Saddam’s side.

You are Bush. You don’t believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, but you know that he has supported terror and has a personal animosity against the U.S. 9/11 has made you very sensitive to the possibility of surprise attack. If you make a mistake, you want to make a mistake on the side of acting to prevent a terror attack on the U.S. The Saddam regime is one of the most odious in the world. Nobody should bemoan its passing. Unlike the other member of the axis of evil, Iraq can be successfully invaded with the forces you currently possess. Do nothing and Saddam gets a pass. He is weak now, but can rebuild because of his oil wealth and proven ability to recuperate. If left alone, he will be able to intimidate his weaker neighbors. He is telling everyone who will listen that the U.S can’t/won’t touch him. U.S inaction will prove this and his neighbors will get the hint. Invading is also risky. What do you do, Mr. President?

JBOD, While I agree with you that Sadam needed to be dealt with, and that an invasion of Iraq was something that could have had positive outcomes and justification. When and How and with Whom are key issues.

I think it also has to be said at this point, that it is clear that Bush has bungled this. He tried to do it on the cheap and ignored warnings about that choice. He continues to ignore the reality of the situation in favor of maintaining his presidency.

I didn’t hear anything in David’s piece about Kerry…so why should it be in the Dem column? It could be in the Rep column for that matter and, in my opinion, a true Republican might speak the same words.

The current administation, in my opinion, is not a conservative values administration.

jack —

Thanks for the explanation. I don’t agree with it, but at least I can see your rationale for supporting Bush’s decision. It’s much more reasoned than “They needed to be taught a lesson.”

Thing is, those of us who are decrying the decision aren’t just archair quarterbacks; we opposed the war before it ever started. It was clear to me that even though, as you said, Bush didn’t “believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, but you know that he has supported terror and has a personal animosity against the U.S,” he did his best to insinuate a direct connection without ever ACTUALLY saying one existed. Is it all right to deceive by implication if it results in a war to depose a tyrannical dictator?

Here’s a scenario to consider: The UN calls the war in Iraw “illegal,” and labels the United States a “rogue nation,” citing prisoner abuse in Iraqi prisons, a wanton disregard for the Geneva Convention, and needless killing of civilians. The UN decides to establish “no-fly” zones over US soil.

Do you think we would shoot back?

I’m not saying Bush and Hussein are comparable, nor am I saying Bush is a tyrant. All I’m saying is that no one should be surprised when a country resists being occupied, wrongly or rightly.

Alejo
Technically the UN can’t pass a resolution against us, because we can veto anything we don’t like. But I take the point. We wouldn’t shoot at them, however; we would destroy them. We are dealing with power and weakness.

I just finished rereading the Peloponesian War. (I had the misfortune of studying Greek in college, but you don’t have to. Pick up the Donald Kagan book now available in paperback.) It was 2500 years ago, but many of the lessons are useful today. Thucydides describes how both war and the fear of going to war corrupts nations and how sometimes attempts to bring peace bring bigger wars. We live in a world of imperfect choices. Knowing what I know today, I would still invade Iraq, but I would do it differently. Bush doesn’t consult me on these things, but I bet he feels the same way.

Alejo:

Jack answered your question for me as well as I could have done so myself. I’d like to add to it, if I may. (Jack—very well done, by the way)

You say that you dont understand how “the Bush administration could have come to the honest conclusion that Iraq was an iminent threat to the US”. I dont understand that either, because the Bush administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. Bush clearly (you can read the speech yourself, if you care to google it) asked whether the US should wait until a country is a imminent danger before doing anything about it.

For example, if you have a gun and are threatening me with it, but I suspect strongly that it is not loaded, am I in danger yet? Perhaps I should wait until you have loaded the gun with bullets and placed it against my skull before I take any action against you?

The US and the UN proved that Saddam was producing and weaponizing VX gas during the 1990’s, despite Saddam’s denials. We actually found the stuff and presented it to Iraqi officials. But even then Iraq was not open to us—-so we didnt know what else might be out there.
V. Ed states that the sanctions were working, yet Iraq still managed during those sanctions to produce one of the world’s deadliest chemical weapons. I dont call that a successful sanction.

Moreover, the left was howling about how the sanctions were killing innocent Iraqis. Now, in a direct about face (or dare I say a …..no, i wont go there ), they are saying how wonderful the sanctions were. Yes, those very same sanctions they said were killing 6500 children per month.

“In July 1998 (after the sanctions), 6,495 children per month under the age of five died, a 16-fold increase from before the sanctions.”

“The humanitarian disaster resulting from sanctions against Iraq has been frequently cited as a factor that motivated the September 11 terrorist attacks.”

“the sanctions - towards Iraq are “the right thing to do for the safety of America and the rest of the world.” This is one of the most immoral and cruel decisions imaginable. Whatever else it means, it will ensure that up to 100,000 Iraqi infants and children will suffer and die before Christmas.”

“Former U.S. attorney-general Ramsey Clark, a key activist, has described the blockade as the most draconian in modern times.”

Jack —

Again, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Seems like there’s a lot of rancor on these blogs, it’s nice to have some civil discussion.

I think you might find that most people agree that invading Iraq was not an inherently wrong idea but that it was approached badly. Had we been more patient with inspections and gained the confidence of other nations, I think the war would have been supported (and funded) more widely and people wouldn’t feel they had been deceived. Unfortunately, because Bush felt such a need for action that he could not wait, we are all sharing his regrets.

I will check out the book. Does it have fewer lines like “…And Ajax the Lesser slew Testacles,” than the Odyssey?

JBOD —

Okay, I’ll grant you the sanctions point and that Bush did not actually say (he’s a master at not actually saying) Iraq was not an imminent threat. But that still doesn’t explain the sudden and swift need for action when there were inspectors inside Iraq.

Also this statement -

For example, if you have a gun and are threatening me with it, but I suspect strongly that it is not loaded, am I in danger yet? Perhaps I should wait until you have loaded the gun with bullets and placed it against my skull before I take any action against you?

— is that an apt analogy? Was Hussein actively threatening the US?

Alejo

The Peloponesian War (kagan) is a written like a modern history. No poetry or eliptical lines.

jbod, I do have an answer. That is why I am voting for Nader. But, it is also appropriate to discuss why I will not side with Bush. I have done the same in this column with Kerry.

What objectivity do you think should have been included. These were my thoughts and reactions to Bush’s speech. I believe these thoughts, questions, have merit. Do you really believe I have some mystical power for objectivity that should be held to a higher standard than everyone else’s opinion in these hallowed columns? If I had objective opinions above reproach, I would be God and human’s opinions would not matter.

You know very well, any given set of facts can be attacked or defended from a number of points of view, and all equally objective based on premise sets and assumptions. You seem to start with the assumption that my reactions to Bush’s speech were not objective because they were negative toward Bush. Sure, that sounds like an objective criticism. :-)

Alejo:

Perhaps my analogy had a flaw in it. Lets change it to a person who has previously shot and killed people walking around the neighborhood with a gun, but I dont know if its loaded. Should I wait to find out or get help immediately?

You see, Hussein had WMD’s. We know it because we found them at different times. We know Clinton bombed Iraq pre-emptively in 1998 because of the weapons, unless one wants to suggest an alternate reason for Clinton having unleashed a 4 day country wide bombing campaign. We know that Hussein manufactured and weaponized VX gas in the mid 90’s.

So, while Hussein never threatened the US directly, he was nonetheless a threat. The person in my analogy has threatened no one directly, but I would submit he is still a threat.

The question remains: Do you wait until the person has the gun at your head, or do you try to pre-empt the attack?

JBOD —

I would not argue that Hussein isn’t a bad man or that he hasn’t done horrible things. Let me say this so it’s out there: The world is better off without Saddam’s regime.

I think what we have here is an argument about ends justifying means. To go with your analogy, I am a citizen who knows there is a killer out there. I know he has killed people, and even though I haven’t seen him with a gun lately I know it’s entirely possible he’ll kill again. So I, as a citizen, get my own gun and blow him away.

Do you think it likely that I’ll go to prison — especially if, in the process of taking out the killer I also happen to waste his family? Because in reality, just as in your analogy, it’s vigilantism.

To back up JBOD and jack-

The one thing I never understood is why no one mentions the Palestinians. Saddam was openly funding Hamas and paying for suicide bombings. The Israel-Palestine conflict is the most often cited reason for unrest in the Middle East and one of the main reasons Osama was after us. After 9/11 when Bush said we would go after terrorist and those that funded them, who did you think he was talking about? Iran’s on the hit parade too, but with them you can deal differently, the dissidents in Iran haven’t already been gassed, they’re just starting to make noise for freedom. And we’ve got stated policy to encourage them.

The war on terror is like the whack-a-mole game. You can wait for them to pop their heads out of the hole and smack them over and over and over again. Or you can find the power cord and give it a good tug.

On Iraq, things could definitely be better, but don’t trust all our perception of what’s going on there by what leads the news. Good news does not make it to the press. I’d encourage you to check out the weekly good news from Iraq and Afghanistan that opinionjournal.com publishes ever once in a while.

-D

Delzario, your argument presumes that it is good we have the terrorists collecting in Iraq for us to focus on. But, be realistic. If we start pulling the plug on them, what is to stop them from moving to Syria, Indonesia, or worse, fan out across dozens of nations. This whole argument of Bush’s that though there weren’t terrorists before he invaded in Iraq, it is good they are there now so we can beat them, is wholly fallacious. The day Bush gets the upper hand in Iraq (one can only hope), is the day the terrorists will move operations to other bases of operation.

If you hadn’t noticed, they may be evil but, they are not stupid. Heard of the well-educated credentials of 9/11 hijackers? Staying in Iraq does not further the war on terrorists. It furthers the terrorists cause. When it doesn’t anymore, the terrorists will move. Bush is trying to hide his Iraq war’s tremendous boost to terrorist’s purposes by calling anyone who questions the war in Iraq as the ones giving aid to the terrorists. The fact however is, Bush’s invasion of Iraq has done more to further terrorists aims than any other single event.

Bush and Congress are weakening our economic future as I type. The senators, Republican, are talking up sending 100’s of millions of dollars in aid to Haiti, Iraq, Africa, Afhganistan, and if there were space aliens they would be sending them money too trying to prove their compassionate nature. But, the fact is poverty is increasing in America every year Bush has been in office. The Republicans are proposing to send much larger amounts in foreign aid than even Bush has called for.

Why doesn’t Greenspan’s, Reich’s, and conservative and liberal think tank warnings about out of control debt increases have any effect on Republicans? Bush won’t use the veto pen, and Senator’s like Devine can’t seem to give enough American tax dollars away.

Oh sure, I can find positive things to say. But, they won’t help solve these issues which are going to bury us in our own bad, bad, decsions.

David,

You misunderstood my Whack-a-mole metaphor. I wasn’t saying to pull their plug in Iraq (although I think this is good for the war effort) I was instead talking about pulling the plug on what powers the terrorist. They draw their power and their troops from the poor, uneducated masses in the Middle East. They use people that are neglected by their governments and trained to see America as the enemy so that they can’t see the problems at home. Bush is trying to pull the plug by removing the drive that brings the terrorist and replacing it with democracy and prosperity. That battle is being fought in the streets of Iraq right now, and even Al-Zarquaui(sp) knows that a win for democracy and freedom in Iraq is a loss for Terrorism.

-D

Delzario, thanks. I did misunderstand the metaphor. I am not sure though that one can view what is happening in Iraq from terrorist’s persective as being the same as Bush’s. Bush sees an enemy in Iraq to be vanquished. I don’t think the terrorists view Americans in Iraq in that way.

They are not there to vanquish the American military forces. That is absurd, and as I said, they are not stupid. I think what Bush misses, is understanding that the terrorists goals in Iraq are to weaken, disrupt, and divert American resources. Guerilla warfare and terrorist warfare have this much in common, they do not stand and fight their enemy to the finish. They hit, and keep hitting until the hitting back gets to be too much. Then they move themselves and their operations and focus on another target of the enemy. The U.S. has thousands of targets around the world, not the least of which is economic dependencies.

Look at the cost to America in oil, based on the instabilities placed in the oil marketplace by the terrorists and insurgents activities in Iraq. Look at our national debt spiraling upward. Look at the weak position militarily we are in with regard to halting Iran’s nuclear development, and N. Korea’s missile test, both in the news today.

So when you say, “Bush is trying to pull the plug by removing the drive that brings the terrorist and replacing it with democracy and prosperity.” I think what is not being seen is the fact that the terrorist could care less if Iraq becomes a psuedo democracy or not. They aren’t there to defend Iraqi insurgents, they are using Iraqi insurgents, to weaken the west by draining its resources.

They know from history, if they can keep America spending its resources long enough in Iraq, it will reach a point where it can’t afford the effort anymore. And if not Iraq, then Iran, Indonesia, Cambodia or a number of other locations. The U.S. can reasonably hope to put down the insurgency in Iraq. But, it cannot realisitically expect to vanquish the terrorists there. If the terrorists take too many hits or can’t recruit replacements, they will move their theater of operations to new targets.

European Marketplaces might be another target, which would affect western resources. This is what causes me such grave concern about Bush’s speeches. He completely fails in those speeches to distinguish between terrorists and insurgents. They are two separate enemies who are allied for the time being. We must have a different strategy for fighting both these enemies, both while they are allied, and after, when they part ways, or the insurgents are vanquished. I don’t see that kind of discriminate thinking in Bush’s appraisal or assessment of what is happening in Iraq, and that causes me grave concern.

LMFAO. not to hijack this thread or anything… but anybody read the transcript of Allawi’s speech?! LAFF. Anybody who’s been even vaguely paying attention for the past 24 months or so may immediately recognize the tone, the talking points, and even some actual full lines; the entire thing was straight off the page of Rove and company, no [language removed by WatchBlog Manager] WAY did Allawi have ANYTHING to do with writing that speech. Christ! I’ve heard it myself about a dozen times already from Bush, Cheney, and Powell.

Alejo:

Thanks for engaging me in discussion. Your viewpoint of my analogy isnt incorrect, though I see it differently. Here’s how:

Where you see the killer , but you dont see the gun. I see the killer AND I see the gun. Actually, to be fair, I see him rooting around trying to find his gun, which he hid in the weeds. I’m not 100% sure he has a gun, but I do know that he’s been actively trying to get one. So, instead of blowing him away, and since I am privy to the conditions of his parole, I ask his parole officer to make sure he doesnt get a gun. But the criminal is too smart for the dumb ole parole officer—-he obfuscates and lies and dances around on the head of a pin.

So…..I finally tell him if he doesnt put his hands up, I’m gonna have to shoot him. And then he reaches inside his coat…..

Dare I pull the trigger? Or do I dare hope that his ways have changed and its not a gun he is pulling out? In my perception, there is only one answer.

BANG!

David:

I hold your opinions in high regard. And I’ve seen your capacity for objectivity, and I respect it. It appears to me that you’ve become more negative than objective lately, and I rather miss the objective posts.

I find that one sided posts are rather easy to write, and are typically not really a clear picture of what is going on. while we all have our particular bents, seems to me we are all better off trying to see both sides of the coin, rather than just one.

Yknow, if you look at only one side of a penny, you see a totally different picture than the guy looking at the other side of the penny. Both can be correct, but not if they are stridently opposing each other.

Perhaps my objectivity has been clouded as well. This forum tends to do that. A deal then….I’ll look into my soul and you into yours and we can make whatever changes we feel need to be made.

Thank you jbod for you comments and civil disagreement with my perspective on this article. I search my soul a bit with every article I write, but, I will keep your comments in mind.

It is true, that I did not even attempt to discuss Bush’s speech from any other perspective than my own. But, this is a blog, so, I figured I was entitled to just blog it, rather than report it as a paid journalist whose job obliges them not to reveal their own opinion.

JBOD,

I like your analogy. No way would I wait until somebody blew my head off. Hell, if somebody is rooting around in the bushes for a gun, you can be certain I’m going to watch him closely. And if he comes close to finding that gun, god help him. If his parole officer is too dumb, stupid and slow, then I would be forced take care of it myself. If the government knows that somebody is a threat, it would be a crime for them not to take action.

But I have a couple questions. Of the many “ex-cons” rooting around in the bushes these days, is Iraq really the most dangerous?

Even if Iraq found a gun, would it use it on us? They’ve never attacked the U.S. and I personally consider Saddam to be a bit to old school for terrorism. Na, I’m inclined to think that Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or hell the Iraqi people themselves are more likely targets. And what about other nations that already have guns? Not only has N.Korea found its gun, It has found quite a few and is currently pointing it at us.

Now, honestly I seem to agree with your assesment that we should protect ourselves against potential or imminent threats, but JBOD, Jack, whoever: why Iraq specifically?
What makes Iraq so spectacular an enemy? They are a nation with dilapidated military and with third-rate weapons; they shouldnt even be in the top 10 most dangerous states/organizations.

I am baffaled how anyone can believe going into Iraq was a good idea. Many people disagree with preemptive war, but even if you dont, how can you justify Iraq?

-Dan

It was obvious that Dubya’s speech at the UN was nothing more than a stump speech directed at US voters, and I for one certainly wasn’t surprised by that fact. It was just one more demonstration of his inability to act like a diplomatic leader — and the barely polite applause he received told the embarrassing story of how the men in that room really feel about our president.
Whenever I listen to him speak, I am always filled with a mixture of anger and shame that our country is being represented by such a schmuck. I am also always painfully reminded that a significant portion of our population doesn’t actually understand just how little sense he makes, or just how little of the truth they are getting from our media over the horrendous situation in Iraq.

Did anyone catch Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi mimicing Dubya’s talking points over how well we are succeeding in Iraq?
When the truth is this:
* Over the past year the number of insurgents in Iraq has quadrupled.
* Major Iraqi cities like Fullujah have become havens for insurgents and are now completely inaccessible to U.S. troops.
* Attacks on U.S. troops are up 100% since last winter.
* Bush administration officials are acknowledging that the elections that are planned for January may have to be delayed.
* Security situations have stopped reconstruction, and Iraq still has less electricity than they did before the war.

Since both are claiming that: “We are succeeding in Iraq” they insult our collective intelligence — Dubya to UN leaders, the American people, and anyone else who was listening, and Allawi to the people he is supposed to be representing in Iraq.

Jbod addressing:
“David:

I hold your opinions in high regard. And I’ve seen your capacity for objectivity, and I respect it. It appears to me that you’ve become more negative than objective lately, and I rather miss the objective posts.”

Joe, you seem like a nice guy, but please, lets get real here shall we? Things are not going well in this country, and things certainly couldn’t be worse for our soldiers, or for the people of Iraq - therefore, how can anyone on the left not be feeling negative? And why isn’t it acceptable for Watch Bloggers to just come out and say so?

David:
“It is true, that I did not even attempt to discuss Bush’s speech from any other perspective than my own.”

David, good article. As you know, I appreciate your perspective - and I cannot begin to tell you how often your comments and questions mirror my own!

Adrienne

“Things are not going well in this country, and things certainly couldn’t be worse for our soldiers, or for the people of Iraq - therefore, how can anyone on the left not be feeling negative?”

It is striking how people’s opinions are consistent across a wide range of subjects. Your posting made me think of it. What mindset makes a person conservative versus liberal? I have long tried to find an indicator that could more or less reliably separate liberals from conservatives and I think I found it. The indicator is optimism.

If you think life is basically good and mostly getting better, if you see the silver lining in dark clouds, if you think you are in control of your life, if you think people can generally be trusted to take care of themselves, then you are probably conservative. Liberals take the other side. This is ironic, since conservative ideology tends to emphasize the tragic side of history, but conservatives as individual are basically sunnier personalities. I guess the big and the small picture aren’t always coordinated. It is like the definition of an intellectual: An intellectual is someone who loves all mankind, but can’t think of too many people he likes.

I listen to NPR (although I adjust for political bias). Most of the features on “Morning Edition” or “All Things Considered” are about loss. If some guy catches a record sized fish, they complain about the loss of the worm he used for bait. It is a liberal mindset at work. Conservatives emphasize the rewards of success. Liberals worry about the penalties of failure. Both points of views are valid, but the world looks really different through the respective lenses. Returning to your post, I think things are going very well in this country. They could be better, but we all have lived through a worse. It could be much worse for our soldiers in Iraq. The people of Iraq are better off today than they were under Saddam and they will be better off next year than they are today. The glass is more than half full.

Twice now, people above have taken shots at Allawi. Here is a man putting his life in danger every single day by stepping up to the plate to lead Iraq during this tough time. He comes to the United States to thank us for our sacrifices. However, he’s blasted for “following the Bush party line” essentially calling him a liar and a pawn. How disgraceful. People that do that are beneath contempt.

Am a Thinking Independent. NPR is also annoying to me. ( would like to see some radio version of C-span perhaps and cut out taxpayer moneys for NPR & PBS[another topic for another time re what they do])

Yet, conservatives tend to be more dogmatic, have little to no allowance for other views of a topic, and choose not to worry about those who have a more difficult time in life. Also, God’s will takes care of all issues for them.(which makes for peace of mind in not having to see what you don’t choose to see and in not having to think about so many issues)

Alex, tolerance for other views, like when the Democrats threatened lawsuits against TV stations that considered airing the Swiftvet ads? My back feels wet. Is this where you tell me it’s raining?

David:

You’re kidding, right?

But, this is a blog, so, I figured I was entitled to just blog it, rather than report it as a paid journalist whose job obliges them not to reveal their own opinion.

Dan:

We went after Iraq for a couple pretty sound reasons, in my opinion.

The first is that they broke a standing cease fire agreement. UN Res 687 was a cease fire agreement, and Iraq broke it on many many occasions over a 12 year period..

Secondly, while Iraq would most likely not have attacked the US directly, they might have done one of two things that could hurt the US:
A) Fund or supply a terrorist group who would do the actual attacking.
B) Do something to disrupt the Middle East and the supply of oil. Either one could have dire consequences on the US and world economy.

Dan, by suggesting that there were better targets for the US to go after, it appears to me that you diminish the argument of NOT going to war. The question then changes from “should we go to war” and becomes “who should we go to war against”.

Re Iraq and other targets -
Just because you can’t do everything doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do anything. One odious regime less is a step forward. N. Korea, Iran etc are different cases with different decision criteria.

… and what would they do in Iran and N. Korea Jack? Nothing. Let the UN take the lead.

The question of “why Iraq?” has been answered a thousand times by this administration and by people on this board for those that care to listen.

JBOD —

Nice comeback on that analogy. Still haven’t figured out how to argue against it. Is the root of our disagreement what justifies going to war? When you said, “Secondly, while Iraq would most likely not have attacked the US directly, they might have done one of two things that could hurt the US:
A) Fund or supply a terrorist group who would do the actual attacking.
B) Do something to disrupt the Middle East and the supply of oil. Either one could have dire consequences on the US and world economy.

When I saw that you were using phrases like “most likely not” or “might” I realized those were words I would never have used while justifying a war. For me, to justify sending our troops into harm’s way and to risk killing innocent people, we need a whole lot more than “might.” For one thing, it opens up too many other possibilities of war with countries that “might.” Sure, we kicked the crap out of the Iraqi army. But how will we stand against the Sudanese, Irani, Libyan, Chinese, North Korean, and Chechen armies? — Because a lot of folks on this blog seem to implying that’s where we’re going: To bring peace to the whole world through force of arms.

Am I wrong? Please tell me I am.

It was obvious that Dubya’s speech at the UN was nothing more than a stump speech directed at US voters

Ain’t that the truth, Adrienne. I would have so much more respect for President Bush if he would do one of two things: Either seriously work with the UN to get them playing a bigger role in Iraq, or just tell them he’s not interested in the UN playing any role. Period.

And let’s face it, we all know Bush doesn’t want the UN playing a leading role in Iraq. That whole speech was just a fig leaf to satisfy liberal Republican voters.

I really want Bush to just stand up like a man, and full-on tell America, “There is no way in hell that I, George W. Bush, want those thievin’, lyin’, pedophile bastards at the UN anywhere near my Iraq!”

That’s what America wants to hear. That and, “I’m going to completely dismantle Social Security, Medicare, welfare, all those sappy “Head Start” programs, and all federal funding for public education. They’re all gonna go.”

That’s what America wants to finally hear from President Bush. Not his wishy-washy, mixed signal, “We want UN help - not really,” BS.

Alejo:

I think you are wrong if you believe that the US is planning on invading in those places you mentioned. I dont see that happening.

I understand your point about the “might” and “maybe”. I used those words in part because I’m not in the loop of information to say otherwise. I would suggest also that there is no way to know categorically what the future will bring, so it is always based on some degree of supposition.

On September 10th, 2001, we felt relatively secure. On September 12th, 2001, we knew too late that we were not secure. That attack changed the entire landscape of global policy for the US, just as Pearl Harbor did many years before. We recognized that hoping for security doesnt make us secure.

To go back to the analogy, we thought the criminal “might” not have a gun, and if he does, we thought “maybe” he wont use it. But add into the equation the fact that we had been attacked previously, and its easy to understand why one would not want to rest on those hopes alone.

I believe the tone of our negotiating stance had to change. The world had come to see the US as a powerful country with a huge tolerance level. We had been attacked by terrorists a number of times with minimal response. Terrorists thought they could continue this. We needed to make them understand that we will NOT be attacked without striking back. By holding Iraq FULLY accountable to their own promises, we showed the world a steely resolve they had not seen from the US.

We are engaged in a lot of high level (and also behind the scenes) negotiating with North Korea. Part of the process is letting others (China, Japan etc) handle some of the negotiation as well.
I truly believe that since N. Korea has seen the tonal change in the US, they are more likely to negotiate with us. Before Iraq, they would have thought they could act with impunity, which would give them a different and harder line negotiating stance. Now they know its different.

A good example of this is Libya’s new stance of negotiation. Could we have ever thought that Khaddaffi would have acquiesced in the manner he did? Without 9-11 and our ensuing response to it and to terrorism in general, I dont see that having happened.

BTW, joe. That analogy was pretty weak. If you know the bad guy has no way of acquiring bullets he’s not a threat - unless you’re dumb enough to go over there and let him club you over the head with it.

In general, analogies make for a pretty poor argument.

We had been attacked by terrorists a number of times with minimal response. Terrorists thought they could continue this.

That’s totally incorrect thinking, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Bush followed that same train of thought.

Terrorists weren’t hitting US targets just because they could. They were trying to elicit the exact response you’re advocating. That’s reacting exactly the way the terrorists want you to react.

You legitimize terrorists by “declaring war” on them, as if they’re warriors rather than just thugs, you’re only encouraging them and deifying them in the eyes of those suceptable to their wacko ranting.

Better to just discredit, arrest, or assassinate them, rather than give them a warrior mystique and a larger following.

JBOD —

So, if I’m wrong about the Grand Plan, what is it? That the “rogue nations” will fall into line and work with us diplomatically because we’ve intimidated them through our show of power in Iraq? While that’s an appealing scenario, the problem with displays of power is that they fade fairly quickly and have to be renewed, with ever-increasing vigor. Besides that, in order for other countries to deal with us diplomatically we have to deal with them diplomatically in return, and the current administration does NOT like to do that. If we continue to represent ourselves as a nation that needs no other support and that is willing to take on all comers there will soon be someone to challenge us on it. Being at the top of the pecking order when rank is determined by who’s the toughest takes constant vigilance, paranoia, and a willingness to do anything to stay there. Are we prepared for that kind of world? I don’t think I am.

AP:

Please go ahead and show me the vast responses the US has made in regard to terrorist acts. You can use the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc in your analysis.

Whereas some might see jailing some of the WTC bombing perpetrators as a significant issue, I see it as a good but incomplete step. The masterminds, the money men, and the nations hiding the terrorists were never dealt with.

Since you dont like analogies, and apparently feel compelled to insinuate yourself into a conversation between Alejo and me, all I can say is for you to hush if you dont like the thread. The conversation did not include you, and doesnt need you in order to continue.

Alejo:

We may need to agree to disagree on the outcome. But here is my assessment.

When negotiating, if the other party perceives (correctly or not) that you have no authority, backbone or power, they will negotiate differently. They may take a stronger stance, since they think they can get away with it.

Showing them that their perceptions are incorrect can change the direction of the negotiation. I believe we did that effectively with Libya. I dont see it as coincidence that they have negotiated a settlement with the US at this time, when they have not been inclined to do so previously. Sure, there is a win for them in it (there always should be a win-win situation but there is a huge win for the US as well.

Having sent the message to the world that we will no longer be attacked without adequate response, and showing the world that we have the will to back up agreements, the US is now in a better position to negotiate from a position of strength.

Its apparent that many countries do not like this firm stance. In a negotiation, one does not need to be “liked”. It is normal for people to dislike when hardball is played. But its essential to be ABLE to play hardball so that the other side doesnt walk all over you.

JBOD —

I figured that was where you were coming from, and you’re right about agreeing to disagree. I’m pleased we can do it civilly.

Since the thread was supposed to be about Bush’s speech to the UN anyway, let’s get back to that. To go back to your analogy — sorry, AP — the UN is represented by the bungling parole officer, correct? But in order for the analogy to hold the UN has to represent much more than that: It has to be the legislative and executive branches of the government, as well as the police and the parole officers, because it is the closest thing to a “government of the world” that we have.

So, given that premise, here’s my question: Is the UN really irrelevant? Sure, you can talk about how corrupt it is, and how it couldn’t exist without us, but Texas says that about the US government. Should we not have a unifying body in the world, outside of the United States superpower? Or should we instead be looking at what’s wrong with the UN and trying to fix it?

joebagodonuts said: “Since you dont like analogies, and apparently feel compelled to insinuate yourself into a conversation between Alejo and me, all I can say is for you to hush if you dont like the thread. The conversation did not include you, and doesnt need you in order to continue.”

This is a public forum for all who comply with our guideline to participate in. If you wish to conduct private conversations, take it to email. Please do NOT discourage others to express their opinions here if you wish to continue expressing yours here. If you don’t like what someone else has to say, you need not respond to it.

Alejo:

There are many opinions on what should be done in the world. For instance, I think someone should do something about the tragedy unfolding in Sudan. But no one seems to be empowered or able to do anything.

To have the UN as it is currently is, in my opinion, a waste of time, energy, money, and most of all, paper. I havent seen the UN follow through on much of what they demand, which leaves them with less power the next time they make a demand.

I dont see having a “world government”. As much as our society has become a global society, I still dont see the world as being governed by one body. The Bible says that will happen someday prior to Armageddon, but it also says it aint a pretty thing.

In any event, the UN today seems powerless to do much. To wit, they have not stopped the killing in Sudan, they did little in Liberia, they did next to nothign in the Balkans, they wrote many resolutions regarding Iraq (most were ignored), and they watched the bloodshed in Rwanda.

I think this thread shows exactly why the UN is needed in the world. Although they have problems, debating each other is better than the MAD solution we had a few years ago. However, Bush like other political leaders of the world need to speak the truth. Maybe one day our civil leaders will learn that lesson. Until than maybe we need to give them a Time Out.

There are actually some hopeful signs of late for the UN. If the Security Council could be reorganized to match global political realities, that would be a tremendous first step. India should obviously have a seat. Japan, who foots 20% of the UN budget, should have one. Perhaps there should be a collective African seat (and another for South America) as well.

Clearly France, whose only real influence on global politics IS they’re permanent security council seat, needs to get the boot and assume their proper place among the minor nations of the world. Perhaps Europe should only have one seat altogether.

But all of this is only the start. The posturing, ineffectual leadership headed by Kofi Annan (whose corruption has lead to sold influence and profiteering—even by his own family members) has to be swept from office. The UN has a very long way to go before it can be a force for good again, instead of one for mischief and disaster like it is now.

Martin, I agree entirely that the U.N. should more reflect global realities.

One note however, the hallmark of an authoritarian regime is the requirement that all speak with the same voice as the leader. I think this concept should be examined in light of suggestions of giving France the boot. Very often, when horrible mistakes are avoided, it is a lone dissenting voice that first issues the warning. There are inherent dangers in governing bodies which either through selection, or force, attempt to suppress or deny dissenting opinions.

France can keep their dissenting voice and excerise it with utter abandon—that’s fine. But the Security Council isn’t the place for somebody just because their voice is contrarian. Why not add Israel then? That is a real dissenting opinion.

Thanks for the reply, Martin. Just as a practical matter, what grounds would the Security Council use to remove France from its midst? Dissenting opinion?

Jbod:
“I have long tried to find an indicator that could more or less reliably separate liberals from conservatives and I think I found it. The indicator is optimism.”

In some ways you might be right Joe, seeing as conservatives in general haven’t had to struggle as much as liberals do. Its easy to be optimistic when you hold the majority of the money and power. Its harder to look on the sunny side of life when you know The Man in charge is always looking for new ways to screw you over or somehow leave you with less — and that no matter what, you’ve got to keep on fighting.
That’s why I’d say the Left is more pragmatic, rather than optimistic, because our struggles have primarily focused on issues important to those who haven’t been quite as fortunate in life. And that aspect is where the Left’s brand of optimism really has, and will continue, to make a huge difference. We really can be proud of the uphill battles we have won or are striving to win — such things as: The 40 hour Work Week, Child Labor Laws, The Right to Organize Unions, Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Protection Laws, Workplace Health and Safety Laws, Civil Rights Laws, Women’s Equality, Abortion Rights, The Gay Rights Movement, Headstart for kids, the list goes on and on.
So, while you might indeed be more optimistic, we are without question more openhearted and open-minded - by believing that this country belongs to Everybody rather just to the most prosperous, successful and powerful. We also know that the minute we stop fighting and dissenting and protesting, all our hard won accomplishments can be quickly wiped away and made to seem like they never existed, or demonized as a drain on business, or dismissed as somehow “un-American” or “Socialistic”.
We know how it works — and we realize that we can’t be so cheerily optimistic to trust that those on the Right will do what is fair for everybody, because too often what they want is only good for them and their bank balances.

“if you see the silver lining in dark clouds,”

There is no silver lining in the dark cloud of Iraq.
You may want to hang all your optimistic hopes on Dubya for bringing us into this war, but that will not change the fact that many people on the Left view it as a A Colossal Mistake. And that we now find ourselves asking a question very similar to the one John Kerry once did, namely: Why should American’s continue to die for this administrations mistakes?

Not that we haven’t bought the situation now, since we have done nothing but break it into more and more horrible little pieces, but do we really want to give four more years to an administration who could make such mistakes, and who added insult to the injury of rushing into an unnecessary war by not planning ahead for peace?

I know I don’t. I have not a shred of respect for the way Dubya and Co. have conducted themselves while in office. This is not because they are Republican (for instance, I would not speak of Bush Sr. this way), but because they have done a bloody TERRIBLE job of running this country in the wake of 9/11.

No doubt all that sounds negative to you, but to me it only feels like honesty.

“I listen to NPR (although I adjust for political bias). Most of the features on “Morning Edition” or “All Things Considered” are about loss. If some guy catches a record sized fish, they complain about the loss of the worm he used for bait. It is a liberal mindset at work.”

At least on NPR you’ll hear a bit of the Truth, rather than having everything corporately whitewashed and sanitized for easy ‘n’ soothing consumption.

“Conservatives emphasize the rewards of success.”

Yeah. And have always finished that snappy, happy slogan by saying: To Hell With The Losers.

“Liberals worry about the penalties of failure.”

Uh huh. Maybe that’s why we don’t make the kind of mistakes that folks like Dubya, Dick, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Ridge, and others like, oh say… “Kenny Boy” Lay have.
In the case of Iraq, the penalties of failure just so happen to be the lives of a generation of young people who tended not to be born with silver spoons in their mouths. Another penalty is our reputation and standing in the world, but then, many conservatives don’t think we need to worry or care about such a thing. But in my opinion, that is a narrow and idiotic view that no thinking American should take seriously.

“I think things are going very well in this country. They could be better, but we all have lived through a worse.”

You must be doing pretty well, Joe. Because I have never seen so many homeless people as I see now. Nor I have never known so many people who have been laid off from their jobs before, or known so many college graduates who are now forced to work at low wage, low level jobs because they can’t find anything better. Perhaps my current lack of optimism stems from those facts, and why I don’t feel anyone should have to put a shiny face on their comments on WB.

“It could be much worse for our soldiers in Iraq.”

Yeah. It could get like Vietnam. Complete Chaos. Civil War. Thousands upon Thousands of American’s being maimed or killed — for years and years to come, and all for nothing and without an end in sight.

“The people of Iraq are better off today than they were under Saddam and they will be better off next year than they are today. The glass is more than half full.”

That sounds exactly like something Dubya would say.
And my only reply to that would have to be: that statement is more than half full of something, and it smells pretty bad to me.

Adrienne said: “In some ways you might be right Joe, seeing as conservatives in general haven’t had to struggle as much as liberals do. Its easy to be optimistic when you hold the majority of the money and power. “

This gave me a chuckle, Adrienne. Not sure if you were old enough to fully remember the lack of optimism that plagued the Republican Party prior to Gingrich’s Contract on America - it was pretty intense. Of course that was over their not having control of Congress. Dem’s have been getting more depressed each cycle since Reagan. But, depression ended with the Bush Administration. They are energized, if not as organized as they would like to be. They are optimistic, though such optimism may be short lived. Have to wait and see.

I don’t believe however that one can characterize R’s as optimistic and D’s as not by intrinsic human characteristics. Such measures would measure whether they are in power, nor not, as you alluded to.

Party’s makeup of constituents is fluid over time. Both the R party and the D party have been undergoing change in their core demographics and those changes will continue. Frankly, I think the best thing that could happen to Dem’s is having Bush win another 4 years with a R Congress. The economic forecast by almost every measure of experts is very dim as we move a couple years and further out. As it worsens, the fluidity of the Party’s constituencies will change dramatically again.

Of course, that is all bad news for independents like me and third party constituents. If Bush gets another 4 years and America worsens on measures important to folks, which it already is, then the public will forget that Dem’s didn’t have all the answers either and have been as much a part of the problem as the Republicans, but from different motivations. Dem’s fought balanced budget amendments when such enactment would have done some good.

jbod, the only way Iraqis are better off without Saddam is in the area of future potential. Granted some Iraqis in some areas are actually living with more than under Saddam, but, after countless thousands of Iraqis having died in the wake of the invasion and more wounded and crippled, it would be hard to make the case that the Iraqi people as a whole are better off today. Many are, many more aren’t, including the dead and maimed.

It had been years since Saddam had committed any wholesale slaughter against his people. So, I guess if you equate losses from the invasion to Saddam’s massacre of sections of his own people many years earlier, it would still be hard to make the case that they are better off.

Now, future potential is different. Under Saddam, the potential for a brighter, freer and better life was minimal at best for most Iraqis. They certainly have more reason to hope since the invasion. But, that brighter future hinges on the ability of Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis finding a way to share in government participation to each groups satisfaction. To me, that future does not look very bright, though it is not yet time to proclaim such a brighter future DOA.

Damned near impossible to guess how that power sharing arrangement can occur however, without outside security forces enforcing it in perpetuity. Fail, and the civil war that ensues will have Iraqis longing for the days of Saddam’s regime as time has a way of clouding negative memories.

Party’s makeup of constituents is fluid over time. Both the R party and the D party have been undergoing change in their core demographics and those changes will continue.

I hope no one minds me butting in here, but David, you’re right about that. The Democratic Party has steadily been moving to the center, especially in the last four years.

If that’s not immediately apparent, it’s because of the “anybody but Bush” factor uniting the whole leftie specrum behind Kerry. I believe a Kerry/Dem win in November will be a big boost for third party politics in the next election cycle.

Now that I think about it, though. A Bush win might trigger some conservatives to break out of the GOP. A Fiscal Conservative Party? A Small Government Party, perhaps? Maybe even a Centrist Party? :)

David wrote:
“Not sure if you were old enough to fully remember the lack of optimism that plagued the Republican Party prior to Gingrich’s Contract on America - it was pretty intense.”

I am old enough, and I do remember the years prior to Gingrich. In many ways I think that right now we are in a very similar situation to those days. We have another president (also thought of as just a nice, simple, aw shucks sort of cowboy) who has run up an enormous deficit like Reagan did back then. And Reagan was also cozy with dictators like Dubya is now — back then it was the Junta of Argentina, Marcos in the Phillipines and others, but now its the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Egypt’s Mubarak, and the Chinese president who are visiting the presidents ranch and being dubbed “his friends”. Back then we were in such terrible financial trouble that it seemed nothing could save us. We had the SNL scandal during that time also. But then the Left got out to vote for Clinton, and he managed save pull us out of that situation during his eight years in office with his remarkable financial brilliance.
This country, after four years of Dubya and Co. needs a wonky, diplomatic, and very smart guy like John Kerry in office as much as the country needed Bill Clinton after twelve years of Reagan/Bush Sr.

“Dem’s have been getting more depressed each cycle since Reagan.”

Aside from Clinton’s first four years in office, I’d have to agree. But then we got depressed again after the vast right wing conspiracy set out to destroy Clinton’s last four years in office, and on the heels of that was the 2000 election debacle and an appointed president, rather than an elected one.

“But, depression ended with the Bush Administration. They are energized, if not as organized as they would like to be. They are optimistic, though such optimism may be short lived. Have to wait and see.”

Energized, yes I’d agree. But along with the energy is the fear of what might happen if we don’t win. I think many people on the Left feel as if our very lives depend on this election, because when you look at the amount of damage Dubya has done in four short years, it is mindboggling.
Some people are upset about his lack of diplomacy which has made us more unpopular around the world then we have ever been before, so much so, that even our most important allies are turning their backs on us. Some look at the disastrous state of economy and don’t know how we will ever recover. Some are upset about the fact that he has done very little to protect the country after 9/11. Some think of the way he took his focus off of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda because it seemed too hard to win against them, and see nothing but disaster looming as a result. Some are most distressed over his promises to stay the course in Iraq, even though it was an unnecessary war and is currently disintegrating into complete chaos — and he will, without a doubt, be forced to bring back the draft to meet that end. Some people think that the environment and global warming cannot stand another four more years of his policies, or lack thereof, without bringing on disaster. And some worry about all of the above — which is why this is being called the most important election of our lifetimes. His arrogance, stupidity and lack of foresight could be this countries demise — and yet half the country still claims to be willing to vote for him!

“I don’t believe however that one can characterize R’s as optimistic and D’s as not by intrinsic human characteristics.”

I don’t either. I think it has more to do with a persons life circumstances and/or their level of compassion over other peoples economic and social circumstances that makes one choose whether they stand on the Left or Right.

“Party’s makeup of constituents is fluid over time. Both the R party and the D party have been undergoing change in their core demographics and those changes will continue.”

I feel that some of those changes are due to the fact that people are often not getting the truth from our media. And I think that education is playing a part in how well people are able to discern truth from lies, how well they are able to question authority and demand what they need from those in government, and how easily they are able to be deceived through their own laziness and lack of interest in national and world affairs.

“Frankly, I think the best thing that could happen to Dem’s is having Bush win another 4 years with a R Congress.”

Are you familiar with Norwegian artist Edvard Munch’s “The Scream”? (recently stolen by armed gunmen, btw) That’s the image I get in my head whenever I contemplate the potential of 4 more with Dubya and Co! :^0

“The economic forecast by almost every measure of experts is very dim as we move a couple years and further out. As it worsens, the fluidity of the Party’s constituencies will change dramatically again.”

Remember how you mentioned civil war awhile back? I fear you might be right — unless we elect a strong, diplomatic leader now. And as we all know, the “Party of Lincoln” certainly doesn’t have a man with even a tiniest bit of Lincoln’s great intellect, wisdom, or compassion in office at the moment.

“Of course, that is all bad news for independents like me and third party constituents.”

Like I’ve said to you before, I believe Third Parties have to do the kind of hard work that they’ve already done in Europe. By building their followings in a grassroots fashion from the bottom up is how I think they will one day rise to the top.

AP:
“I hope no one minds me butting in here,”

:^) I never mind reading anything you write, AP.

“The Democratic Party has steadily been moving to the center, especially in the last four years.”

True, but I’d go back twelve years to Clinton. He was pretty centrist, don’t you think?

“If that’s not immediately apparent, it’s because of the “anybody but Bush” factor uniting the whole leftie specrum behind Kerry.”

The whole “leftie spectrum” may continue to hold even if Kerry doesn’t win, because its not Republican’s we’ve been so united against, its NEO-CON IDIOTS. As long as they are controlling things in DC, I think the Left’s bonds will hold fast.

“I believe a Kerry/Dem win in November will be a big boost for third party politics in the next election cycle.”

I agree. Many of us lefties think the Dems have been sitting too far toward the center for way too long - and our roots are now with the Greens and the Reform Party, even though our votes for president still go to the Dems most often.

Adrienne:

You attributed a quote about Dems and Republicans and their comparitive optimism to me. But it cam from Jack, not me. FYI. But I will take the opportunity, since you’ve drawn me into this, to respond to your following comment.

Its harder to look on the sunny side of life when you know The Man in charge is always looking for new ways to screw you over or somehow leave you with less — and that no matter what, you’ve got to keep on fighting.

This is a textbook “loser” mentality. America is based on people earning their way, not whining over how hard it is to do so. If you want to look at those who have had hardship, look for instance to the Asian refugees who landed on our shores with literally only the clothes on their backs. Yet many of them, through sheer hard work and a willingness to sacrifice in order to get ahead, have become successful.

If people with the “loser” attitude would replace it with the willingness to do what it takes, and accept that the rewards may not be immediately reaped, great things could happen.

Yknow what—life ISNT fair. But if you sit on the sidelines and complain about how “the MAN” stopped you from achieving success, then you simply become part of the problem./

Jbod:
“You attributed a quote about Dems and Republicans and their comparitive optimism to me. But it cam from Jack, not me.”

You’re right, Joe. Sorry I did that.

You quoted me saying:
“Its harder to look on the sunny side of life when you know The Man in charge is always looking for new ways to screw you over or somehow leave you with less — and that no matter what, you’ve got to keep on fighting.”

Your reply:
“This is a textbook “loser” mentality. America is based on people earning their way, not whining over how hard it is to do so.”

I don’t agree, but I am not surprised you would use the term “whining” to describe what I was talking about. The history of America has shown that unless the working (middle) class fights for fair and equal treatment they will lose at the hands of the rich and powerful. Only when they _don’t_ fight do they become “losers” — for then they are certain to be cheated, made to work harder without compensation, and forced to carry the burden of taxes.

“If you want to look at those who have had hardship, look for instance to the Asian refugees who landed on our shores with literally only the clothes on their backs. Yet many of them, through sheer hard work and a willingness to sacrifice in order to get ahead, have become successful.”

Yes, they do work hard and are forced to sacrifice much. I know one such woman — she came to this country and was immediately enslaved by an Chinese couple who owned a successful business. She had to live in their house, look after their children, and work in their store for six years before she was free to leave. During this time, she managed to learn to speak English and the couple helped her with the INS.
The couple was very wealthy and both had masters degrees when they came to this country in the 1950’s. Both worked at UC Berkeley as professors, and had started the business as a way to become very rich rather than just merely well-off. They had enslaved 2 other people prior to this woman — in fact, from the very start of their business they had used the unpaid labor of slaves to make their business succeed. Things like this happen all the time, all over America — and its not something I find admirable or fair. Indeed, since it goes completely against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what happened to her was extremely Un-American. And since meeting her, I think we must often look closer at the success stories of immigrants before judging them all to be a shining example of America’s Greatness.

“If people with the “loser” attitude would replace it with the willingness to do what it takes, and accept that the rewards may not be immediately reaped, great things could happen.”

Great things can also happen when the middle class realizes that the rich have always sought to divide us so that we don’t focus on their crimes, but seek to have us blame everyone who lies below their social class for America’s problems. They demonize the poor, divide by race, religion, and sexual orientation, use the word Union like a dirty word, and seek to dumb us down and keep us ignorant. What you’re missing is the fact that we are already a success and that we already do whatever it takes to make this country and ourselves prosper, but through the criminal machinations and general lack of morality of the filthy rich we are very often kept from the rewards we deserve for our hard work.

“Yknow what—life ISNT fair.”

I do know this. And its not like I don’t realize that some people are always going to have a bigger gravy boat. Despite that fact, those of us on the Left keep will keep fighting to make sure that everybody gets a seat at the table.

“But if you sit on the sidelines and complain about how “the MAN” stopped you from achieving success, then you simply become part of the problem.”

Wrong. People need to be held accountable for their crimes, no matter how rich they are. And it is up to the middle class make sure we fight them whenever they seek to cheat us, over tax us, divide us, or divert our attention away from their crimes.

I read through the whole forum and I have a simple question.

Why did America invade Iraq, and more importantly, should America have invaded them and continue to occupy their land?