So I read Bush’s speech, and I re-read it, and, my verdict is that it was pretty uncompelling. I did not find myself very moved by it, nor did my bosom become heavy with patriotism.
That is, when you think about it, not as big of a deal as you might think, because I am really not the target audience for the speech- my knees haven’t gone wobbly, I haven’t changed course, and I don’t want to ‘cut and run.’ IMHO, the worst way to remember and honor our war dead and those who have sacrificed would be to pack our tents, turn, and head home with the job half done. But that is me.
The speech was fine- Bush is no Clinton when it comes to public speaking, but it was sincere, earnest, and, honest. I didn’t see the glossing over ofthe nastiness going on in Iraq that I have seen Cheney and others attempting to do, so that was nice. It would have been nice if Bush had been more blunt- we are facing a manpower crisis, we are going to be in Iraq for a while, and this is going to cost boatloads of cash- a little straight talk would have gone a long way.
At any rate, he made his case, but for me the case was made years ago. I may be wrong, I may be a fool, but I still believe that a stable and secure Iraq can be a turning point in the Middle East.
At any rate, I read the speech twice, so I don’t know what the hell Harry Reid and Howard Dean are thinking:
Congressional Democrats said President Bush’s repeated attempts last night to link the war in Iraq to the September 11 terrorist attacks rang hollow and did not constitute the plan to win the war that they said Mr. Bush needed to deliver.
“They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
Democrats spent the afternoon calling on Mr. Bush to acknowledge mistakes that he made both in the run-up to war and during the war as a way of reclaiming credibility on Iraq. After his half-hour speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., most Democrats said the president fell short.
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said Mr. Bush’s rationale for fighting terrorists in Iraq was the third different reason he has given for going to war.
“The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now tonight, it’s to combat the hotbed of terrorism,” Mr. Kerry said on “Larry King Live.”
And Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Mr. Bush’s speech showcased “the darkness of divisiveness, attempting to garner support for his failed policies by pandering to fear, rather than inspiring us with a plan for hope.”
Is there anyone who seriously believes that Al Qaeda today is just as capable as they were years ago? And my apologies to John Kerry if he does not understand or will not understand that there were multiple reasons for invading iraq- true, the public was primarily sold on WMD. But that never was and still isn’t the only reason we went in.
And simply politically speaking- John Kerry should not be speaking for Democrats right now. He just lost an election, he was portrayed as wishy-washy, and every time he opens his mouth it is just going to be seen as sour grapes.
I am not sure what purpose that sort of rhetoric is designed to serve, but it is not going to help the Democrats. I understand many are pissed at Bush, but the argument that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism is going to fall on deaf ears when the American public sees suicide bombers and car bombs blowing up every night in Baghdad. Iraq may have nothing to do with the agents who actually conducted the 9/11 attacks, but this seems to be a pretty weird argument to come from the ‘root cause’ crowd.
Dealing with Iraq and the rest of the Middle East is dealing with the root causes of terrorism, and September 11th was the eye opener for many people. September 11th is invoked not because the agents behind the attack are the same, but because that is when we decided something had to change. Something HAD to change. I am willing to entertain the notion that we have made a whole range of mistakes in the conduct of the war, including how it was sold and how we entered the war, but I still think it was the right thing to do.
It really does appear, judging the reactions by Reid and Dean, at least, that some people would rather play politics with this issue than deal with the current situation, which by my estimation is a mess- the administration could use the help. That is a shame, and I have cut the Democrats as much slack as possible, lately. But they are going to have to get over their impulse to destroy Bush at every opportunity. He is President, will be for 3 1/2 more years, and they need to learn to work with him rather than appear to be sabotaging his efforts in the war.
*** Update ***
It should be pointed out that many in the Republican party refused to heed this advice themselves, when we were in the minority.
Also, read Jeff Goldstein’s take on the speech.
Doctor Gonzo
Dealing with…the rest of the Middle East is dealing with the root causes of terrorism, and September 11th was the eye opener for many people.
I agree there, but I think that if we wanted to truly deal with the roots of terrorism, then there are a lot of places we could have started before needlessly invading Iraq: our foreign policy towards Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel and the Palestinians, for starters. I’ve been to Egypt and talked to people on the street, and they don’t hate the U.S. or Americans. They are just tired of seeing the U.S. talk about democracy and freedom while supporting the regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. When people put it in that way, it’s hard to find fault with their reasons for not liking U.S. foreign policy.
jmaier
John,
If you believe in “root cause” action in the middle east and Islamic fundamentalist world (and I’m not saying that is a bad thing), then why Iraq? Iran supports, harbors and promotes terrorists and jihaadists. The 9/11 rabble were from Saudi Arabia which promotes and sponsors radical Wahabism and terrorists. Pakistan is more rife with evil doers than Iraq ever was … etc.
What is the rationale for hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, a weakening of American foreign relations to go after the admittably evil guy who actually isn’t high on the list of offenders. This is what continues to boggle me.
I agree that we need proactive polices and actions to combat this threat worldwide. I disagree that Saddam was particularly a central figurehead that should have been job one.
John Cole
I am with you, Dr. Gonzo. Something needs to be done abuot Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
John Cole
Jmaier- It might be that Saddam was considered achievable. Look- these are all arguments that should have been made years ago- the point now is that we are there, and we have two options. Stay and finish, or cut and run. The President and the dominant party in Congress and the American people say we should stay.
That doesn’tmean we are happy with the situation, and it doesn’t mean that everything is A-OK. I simply don;t understand what Dean and Reid intend to accomplish with their rhetoric.
Mithrandir
Political spin. It’s that simple. It’s just serving to divert from the actualy good that was in the speech. And the MSM is eating it up: AP Wire story.
The good news is that Reid & Dean are not the norm. Disregard the Joe Biden quotes on GMA; prior to that he was on our local talk radio station, and was more or less supportive of the speech. He did emphasize that more needs to be done to explain Iraq to the American people, and I would tend to agree with that (who wouldn’t?). But his words were positive, not accusitory – like Reid’s sound.
Gonzo: Do you really think that the US could do any direct action at this time against Egypt & Saudi Arabia? Sure, most people paying attention know that their gov’t’s are far from free, but Joe-on-the-street would say, “Aren’t they our friends?” Iraq/Hussein has been a perpetual “bad guy” making him a “likable target.” And there were plenty of good reasons for attack besides the supposed WMD. (Another example of the MSM diverting attention to one topic from all others.)
Greg Burgas
On the one hand, I agree with you that the Democrats need to get over it and work with Bush. On the other hand, if Bush and the Republican majority didn’t show such contempt for the Democratic minority, that might be easier. The Democrats have pretty much nothing left but to hammer Bush on the horrible progress of the war. Senator Wagner (I think) said pretty much the same thing last night on NBC – the Dems are hurting morale because they don’t agree with Bush. I think if Bush articulated the problems and the successes better and didn’t just ignore the problems, Americans might swing back to his side. Just telling the Dems to go along and stick their heads in the sand (which it appears Bush has done) won’t help.
Halffasthero
Put simply, I agree we can’t cut and run. We need to finish it there. My problem is that Bush’s team is not the team to do it. They have not proven able to. Everything they predicted and planned for has not panned out in the least. They are squandering soldiers and funds with the situation not improving. Bush will be President for 3 1/2 more years and nothing can be done about that. If Bush really gives a damn about getting Iraq sorted out, he needs to put together a new team. This one is not working out at all. He will have to go across the aisle for help if need be. Do I see that happening? No. Iraq will stay a mess and no one can do anything about George Bush swallowing his pride and coming clean about the situation over there.
John Cole
Just telling the Dems to go along and stick their heads in the sand (which it appears Bush has done) won’t help.
Agreed- which is why it is so important for Democrats to really offer useful advice, and not just appear to be relyig on knee-jerk hatred of Bush.
I don;t agree with the Hugh Hewitt’s of the world who think Democrats want us to fail so they can have some political advantage, and I don;t think they are traitors or what not. But they do have to get serious- we are there. Quit the whining and the sniping and do something.
There will be a time for political revenge for their real and perceived slights- during the upcoming elections. Not now.
ppgaz
I agree on Kerry. His inputs sound self-serving and petty.
This is a real for crisis for this country, and petty self interest has no place. We have national elections for that.
When you are in a mess and you need to fix it, placing blame and Tuesday-morning quarterbacking are of little use.
I’m all for holding the government accountable for the messes. But there is a time and a place. I could sit here and pick apart the Bush speech line by line and have a fine rant. But the bottom line is, we have to do what he is asking us to do. So let’s try to get it done. A lot of people are depending on us, including our own armed forces. If we don’t get this done, they will have an even bigger mess to deal with down the road.
Geek, Esq.
JC:
Maybe we should ask the people of Madrid, Turkey, Tunisia, and Bali whether AQ has had its capabilities significantly downgraded.
Darrell
We toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.. Free elections in both countries with ripple down effects felt in Lebanon’s elections w/withdrawal of Syrian troops, and in Khaddafi’s capitulation on his WMD program in Libya. Not to mention, under US pressure, half ass elections in Saudi Arabia for the first time.
But don’t expect honest acknowledgment of these successes from the left, or for them to acknowledge that the US has changed it’s policy and is drawing increasingly hardened lines toward the govts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Remember Condi cancelling her trip to Egypt when that govt refused to release Nour? Her speech there:
Surprise! Under US pressure, Egypt is now promising free elections. But don’t expect the left to acknowledge all this is a result of US actions invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or acknowledge there have been real changes for the better in US policy in support of democracy over the status quo pressuring for democratic reforms in the ME
The left tells us they care about promoting democracy, but they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the great strides that have taken place in the ME, because those strides were made by the leadership of George W Bush. So instead of honest acknowledgement, they snipe from the sidelines about why we don’t ‘do more’ in this place or that place. It’s pathetic really
Jon H
John Cole writes: “Agreed- which is why it is so important for Democrats to really offer useful advice, and not just appear to be relyig on knee-jerk hatred of Bush.”
The first bit of useful advice would be to fire Rumsfeld. The second bit of useful advice would be to muzzle Cheney. Bush won’t do either of these things. Nor is he likely to do anything else the Democrats suggest.
The Democrats can only give “useful” advice if there is a chance of it being used.
There’s a better chance of it being twisted into some sort of evidence of perfidious liberals seeking to undermine the nation. That is official White House policy, is it not?
Darrell
Maybe we should ask the people of Madrid, Turkey, Tunisia, and Bali whether AQ has had its capabilities significantly downgraded.
Excuse me, did *anyone* ever claim Al Queda was wiped off the face of the earth? No? We’ve captured and/or killed most of AQ’s top command structure, we’ve cut many/most of their funding sources, and are keeping them on the run. I’d says that more than qualifies as “significantly downgraded” in any book, wouldn’t you say?
Darrell
Tell us then Jon, what advice are Dems giving which is constructive other than to demand that Bush fire their political enemies? If you really don’t want to undermine our efforts in the ME, then tell us, what is the big picture vision and constructive advice from the Dems?
I haven’t seen such constuctive advice, but since you are so offended at the possibility that *gasp* some leftists may actually be trying to undermine our efforts in the ME, then clarify for us what positive constuctive ideas are coming from the Dems
Jon H
Oh, and the Democrats have been trying to give one piece of useful advice: John Bolton will do us no favors at the UN.
Bush has been hell-bent on ignoring that.
KC
There’s no way in hell that the Bush administration is ever going to take any advice from Democrats on the war or other matters. Isn’t that obvious? And there’s no way in hell that the Dems aren’t going to be an opposition party either. A lot of their constituents want to know about what happened with the money that’s missing from Iraq development aide (8.9 billion of our tax dollars), want a more concrete plan on what we need to do to be successful there, and want a little honesty about the runup to the war. That’s not tearing down Bush, it’s asking for some accountability. And whether anyone likes it or not, if this war continues in the same vein that it’s continuing now, more and more people are going to demand the same things.
Oh yeah, and John Kerry needs to keep his trap shut.
Jon H
Darrell writes: “Tell us then Jon, what advice are Dems giving which is constructive other than to demand that Bush fire their political enemies?”
No, Darrell, it’s not about getting “political enemies” fired.
It’s about getting raging incompetents fired.
Putting incompetent people in charge of critically important projects is usually a bad idea, is it not?
Darrell
Jon, still waiting to hear any of the Democrats’ big picture constructive advice/ideas on how our efforts can be more effective in the ME.. still waiting to hear about those
KC, missing money from the Iraqi development fund is not a uniquely Democrat issue, as Repubs are also pressuring to get to the bottom of it
Again, what are the Dems’ constructive ideas and strategies for how to improve our success in the ME? I don’t see any.. please help show me
rilkefan
“Is there anyone who seriously believes that Al Qaeda today is just as capable as they were years ago?”
I’ve seen expert opinion that alQ is more dangerous now having metastasized. Will look for cites.
Jon H
Darrell writes :”Jon, still waiting to hear any of the Democrats’ big picture constructive advice/ideas on how our efforts can be more effective in the ME.. still waiting to hear about those”
What don’t you understand about “Fire Don Rumsfeld, the incompetent who got us into this mess, and replace him with somebody clueful?”
That would be a huge improvement in making us more effective in the Middle East.
Having an incompetent person in charge is a big impediment to performance.
Mike S
I disagree that Iraq was the right thing to do but mostly agree that we have no choice but to stay. I don’t think President Bush was as honest as he should have been. There have been some big mistakes that he glossed over as if they were of little consequence. And while he said that the road ahead will be tough I think his speech glossed over just how tough and expencive it will be. He also did nothing to address the absurdity of comments like “last throes.”
It’s time to stop adressing the costs with “emergency” spending bills. It’s time to stop acting as if the war has no real effect on our economy. His comment about enlisting didn’t go far enough. He should have asked people to enlist. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not we are on the verge of a big manpower problem.
Call it “whining” or whatever you want but one thing he could have said that may have gotten him some slack from some of us is to acknowlege that the threat was not nearly what he said it was but that we are there now and must go on.
Something I don’t think a lot of you get. Many, many of us on the left were right about a lot of things leading up to this war. We were paying attention to every charge, doing our own searching and finding them wanting. We made those arguments and were shouted down, called traitors/antiAmerican and even threatened. As our arguments were proven correct the rational kept changing and we were still vilified. To this day the loudest mouth pieces still call us traitors, including the “architect.”
There is little to no acknowlegment that we were right and no calls for unity. Senator Warner made an attempt last night to call for unity. He asked for people to stop the “traitor” talk. That’s something President Bush should have said as well.
John Cole
Firing Don Rumsfeld would have little to no impact whatsoever in Iraq.
brenda
The original plan was to use Iraq as a base to attack Syria and then Iran. In fact, if we hadn’t gotten bogged down in Iraq we’d already be in Syria. Or at the very least to be conducting sorties against them.
And so now Iraq is a mess due to the massive incompetance of this administration. Why should we expect them to suddenly get a clue? Why would we expect a delusional administration to give the soldiers what they need and to put enough bodies on the ground to do the job. People can see what happened to generals who were candid about their real world needs for more troops, they got canned.
All we got the other day was more propaganda, more spin, more posturing before the altar of 911. The rest of the country isn’t as ignorant as GW though, they can smell the bullshit a mile away. So I expect public support to utterly collapse before these clowns yank their heads out of their asses and confront the real world.
Bush should do the honorable thing and resign. He has caused so much damage to our country it will takes decades and decades to repair the damage. Then, once out of office he should be tried for war crimes. Then maybe we will start undoing the harm to he has done to us, to Iraq and to the whole world. I want to see this asshole behind bars washing out his underwear and asking Sadam to pass the Doritos.
Jon H
John Cole writes: “Firing Don Rumsfeld would have little to no impact whatsoever in Iraq.”
Oh, I don’t know. Replacing him with someone who won’t punish generals for requesting more troops could be beneficial.
Someone who’ll lean on suppliers, who can’t meet demand for critical equipment, to license their IP to other manufacturers who can meet demand, that’d help.
Someone who wouldn’t push responsibility down to his subordinates, would be useful.
Someone who’ll listen to the dead-on pre-war predictions of the Army War College, that’d be cool.
I mean, good lord, he’s the Secretary of Defense, not the White House pastry chef. Of course his firing would have an impact in Iraq.
Darrell
Incredible the deluded minds of so many leftists. Tell us brenda, where is this “plan”? As has already happned in Libya, and in Syria’s withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon, I’m quite certain that the ‘plan’ was to use intimidation and other pressures to avoid further conflict if at all possible.
I suppose this is the best response that left can come up with to the question asking what constructive strategies and ideas on the WOT are the Dems proposing? Answer: try Bush for war crimes.
Tell me again why Hugh Hewitt is wrong about leftists?
KC
Darrell, it may not be a “uniquely Democrat issue” but facts must be faced wherein they need to be faced–Congress needs to tighten the leash on this administration. The President and his guys are going to face a tougher and tougher sell if this war keeps continuing in the way it is currently. Dems, quite naturally, are going to fill any leadership void that the Republicans leave open. So, as people begin to question what the administration is doing over there, Dems are going to demand answers and call into question the administration’s competency to lead.
John Cole
Jon H- I am not sure where you think all these mythical troops are that Rumsfeld will just whip up and launch into the breach.
Firing Rumsfeld will have no impact on the fight in Iraq right now. Besids, it just isn’t going to happen. Rumsefled has offered his resignation twice, and Bush has not accpeted it.
Darrell
Ok then KC, other than sniping from the sidelines whining about Rumsfeld, what changes and ideas are the Dems proposing to increase our likelihood of success in the ME? Can you answer that question? In my opinion, an honest answer to that question reveals much about the true nature and core of the Democrat party.
Doug
“Listen, man – What part of ‘Democracy Freedom Stay the Course Terror Terror’ don’t you understand?”
As for the Democrats, you can’t help anyone until they recognize they have a problem. So, until Bush recognizes that he has a huge problem of his own making, he is beyond help. I don’t know if he is actually divorced from reality or if that’s just a character he plays on TV.
In any event, I don’t think there is any solution with Bush running the show. He has demonstrated that he’s the wrong man for the job. In corporate America, the shareholders would be expected to throw out management if they messed up this badly. But, we had that opportunity and, while it was a squeaker, we didn’t throw him out — in part because the alternative was lackluster, at best. Now, our best bet is for the Congress to take over the show. Gather all the veterans in Congress and put them on a committee to oversee the war. Let them control the money and the strategy, getting as much advice as possible from the military. Because, while the commander-in-chief has certain advantages in conducting warfare, the one we have has proven to be incompetent.
Steven
What Bush’s speech did not address was the validity of the underlying assumption about Iraq: that a democratic government can be imposed on a society that has little to no democratic traditions or institutions. That is the conundrum facing our policy. Has both Rumsfeld and Bush have pointed out, the success of the Iraq project is now squarely in the hands of the Iraqis. Our troops are there to support the effort. But at the end of the day, it is not US military might that will make Iraq a successful democracy. One election does not a democracy make and the Iraqis themselves need to show that they are willing and able to establish and sustain democratic institutions, and to fight against the rebellion against their government.
That to me is the real nub of the problem. What do the Iraqis really want? We clearly didn’t know at the time of the invasion and it is unclear to me that we still have any real sense of what outcome the Iraqi people desire. I know the US government wants a unified, democratic Iraq. But absent intense pressure from the US, it isn’t clear to me that the Kurds, Sunni and Shia want that result. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that so long as our troops are in country, we will not know the true answer to that question. It is only after we have left that we will find out what path the Iraqis will truly take. That is the huge unspoken risk of this adventure and if the President is wrong about this, could turn out to be more unsettling to the ME than the pre-invasion situation.
Jon H
“Firing Rumsfeld will have no impact on the fight in Iraq right now. Besids, it just isn’t going to happen. Rumsefled has offered his resignation twice, and Bush has not accpeted it.”
Would it change the direction of things in Iraq? I don’t know. It may be too late. Maybe an improvement would be coincidental.
But it might help morale a bit, if Rummy were replaced with someone credible, rather than some ideologically-correct hack from AEI. The troops might think that, hey, maybe now we’re going to get someone who won’t give us lame excuses about the “army you have”, maybe that person will get us the body armor and good humvees we’ve been begging for. Maybe we’ll get someone who doesn’t talk like a slimy eel, evading responsibility and blaming his subordinates.
The main thing is that Rummy is a major roadblock preventing any change in approach. He won’t even admit there is any need for a change.
I don’t know where extra troops would come from, but with Rummy in place, they aren’t even thinking about how to get more troops. That’s off the table.
I don’t see any upside to keeping Rummy in place. I don’t see any reason to keep him in place. There’s no guarantee that firing him would help in Iraq, but there is at least the possibility. New blood might help, and there isn’t much blood in the Pentagon that’s older than Rummy’s.
Bush’s failure to accept Rummy’s resignations, or to fire him outright, just goes to show that if he won’t do what is self-evidently the correct thing to do, it hardly matters what the Democrats suggest.
Nikki
…what changes and ideas are the Dems proposing to increase our likelihood of success in the ME?
Gee, Darrell, while you are so snottily demanding answers, please point out what good changes and ideas are coming from the Republican side of the Congress.
Sojourner
Successful resolution of the Iraq mess requires a united front on the part of all countries which are fighting terrorism. Basically, there needs to be no place where a terrorist can hide. Also, we need additional troops and money from these countries. At the rate we’re going, we will run out of both before this thing is resolved. Nothing plays better into the hands of the terrorists than the isolationist strategy of this administration.
None of the above will happen under this administration. Bush’s arrogance and incompetence discourages other countries from offering their help. The U.S. is incredibly unpopular right now. This is perpetuated by keeping Rumsfeld in place and attempting to put Bolton in the U.N. Mock those who don’t agree with you, continue to stick your thumb in their eyes – fine. But prepared to go it alone. Unfortunately, Bush has done the same thing to half of the people in this country. Under these conditions, why would anyone assume that the Iraq mess will end successfully?
The reality is, Bush’s only message last night was to stay the course. Exactly what he expects will change that will lead to successful resolution is not at all clear.
Jon H
“Exactly what he expects will change that will lead to successful resolution is not at all clear.”
Maybe he’s expecting The Rapture.
Mike S
what changes and ideas are the Dems proposing to increase our likelihood of success in the ME? Can you answer that question?
Unfortunately all of our ideas were shot down when they may have been effective. First off we wanted to wait to build a real coalition, but some said we couldn’t wait. Second we wanted more troops but Rumsfeld wanted to go cheap. Third we wanted to internationalise the reconstruction, but that would have hurt our corporations and donors. Fourth we wanted people with experiance to help with the rebuilding effort, but political hacks were preferable from the Herritage foundation and AEI.
As far as what to do now, I don’t know. But a change in direction is needed. We still have American companies making shitloads of money instead of using locals for the majority of the rebuilding. We still have companies making shitloads of money for work they aren’t qualified to do. We still have mercs running around causing chaos with no legal consequences. We still don’t have enough troops to do recon around our bases.
ppgaz
Nikki: Well, there is the Gay Bashing Amendment, the Schiavo Act, the FCC’s tough stance on bare breasts during the Super Bowl, the quiet deconstruction of environmental protections, tax cuts for the rich, the Cato Institute’s plan to take apart Social Security, the Prescription Plan Giant Payoff to BigPharma, the demagoguing of stem cell research, the staggering national debt and the winking at the fact that the only thing keeping the dollar from tanking is foreign investment acting in its own interests, for now, Faith Based Initiatives, the Flag Burning Amendment.
All things that are sure to give you a stronger, freer and more prosperous America. Be thankful, not crankful.
Jon H
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rummy’s underlings have long since given up trying to suggest new approaches.
Putting in a new SecDef might well result in a flood of pent-up creativity.
KC
Darrell, I never said to fire Rumsfeld. That would be a useless bloodletting from my perspective. More to the point, I think Rumsfeld would leave if he had the opportunity but the President clearly hasn’t given it to him. He offered his resignation; the President refused. That’s life.
As for Democratic ideas, well, I thought John Kerry’s idea about getting other countries in Iraq and having them train Iraqi recruits outside Iraq was a good one. Doesn’t mean it would’ve worked wonderfully, but at least it could have given more of the world a stake in what’s happening there. Also, I think reassuring Iraqis that we aren’t looking for a permanent presence in Iraq is a good one too. If it’s their country and they’re supposed to run it, why should we be building permanent bases?
Ultimately though, when things go down to the wire, one last good idea pushed by a Democrat, Charlie Rangel, is a draft. A draft would ensure we have all the boots on the ground we need, ensure we can meet the needs of the troops in Iraq, and ensure that we are all contributing to the cause. The political ramifications of compulsory service are to big and bad for most politicians to consider; however, it may be unavoidable anyway. More troops would certainly go a long way towards stabalizing the country, right?
Gary Farber
“Is there anyone who seriously believes that Al Qaeda today is just as capable as they were years ago?”
Since Reid never said any such thing, John, the question is irrelevant. Do you disagree with what Reid actually said, that “Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America”? It almost seems as if that might be an important point, or something.
Dead or alive. Dead or alive. Good thing the Admin doesn’t like to mention him very often.
Good to know that we honor our veterans, though, eh?
Gary Farber
“Is there anyone who seriously believes that Al Qaeda today is just as capable as they were years ago?”
Since Reid never said any such thing, John, the question is irrelevant. Do you disagree with what Reid actually said, that “Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America”? It almost seems as if that might be an important point, or something.
Dead or alive. Dead or alive. Good thing the Admin doesn’t like to mention him very often.
Good to know that we honor our veterans, though, eh?
“Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I’ve enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.
Please correct the error in the form below, then press POST to post your comment.”
Ah, apparently, since that was my first attempt to post this, I need a time machine to “correct the error in the form below.”
Kimmitt
Firing Rumsfeld will have no impact on the fight in Iraq right now.
Sure, but we’re going to be there for years, so it will have effects down the road.
I have to responses to what you’re saying. The first is that the Bush Administration simply will not accept help from the Dems. This is a set of folks who pull bills from Congress because they get too much bipartisan support. The second is that, dammit, someone needs to keep saying that Bush screwed up and he needs to change what he’s doing, or half the country is going to give up on the political process.
You’re right about Kerry, tho.
Darrell
Does ‘real coalition’ = France + Germany? Russia? Because as the UN oil for food scam has made clear, those countries had their noses so far up Saddam’s ass that they never would have been on board. That you would still bring this up after what we know now, demonstrates a cluelessness that I find prevalent among Dems.
I really hope you Dems take that idea and run with it. Seriously, go ahead and champion the idea of awarding big money contracts to those who didn’t merely just disagree with us, but who actually stabbed us in the back. BTW, it’s my understanding that much of the reconstruction contracts have gone to non-US companies. And on that subject, can you name for us companies outside of the US and UK, which have the same or close to the same experience and skills as a Halliburton or Bechtel… companies with subisidiaries which build bridges and buildings, oilfield supply and construction subsidiaries, and which also have lots of experience building power plants and infrastructure? Who are those companies outside of the US and UK?
And tell us MikeS about all these “mercs” running around Iraq?.. it’s my understanding that private security personnel were being used primarily to secure supply lines to civilian areas, not as mercenary fighters like the French foreign legion. Do you have different information? Or were you just talking out of your ass (in another attempt to undermine our efforts)?
Steven’s comments were of course, absolutely correct. This thing could still fall apart, although I see a lot of hopeful signs that it won’t. The jury is still out and both sides need to keep that fact in mind
Mike S
Must remember not to respond to jackasses.
James Emerson
Well, at any rate we get to live through the debacle day by day. Regardless of how passionately and eloquently we express our views, the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter to the administration. They live in a world of their own making. Nothing we offer as a critique will alter their perception of their manufactured reality. They listen only to what they want to hear. They feel only a creeping discomforting hint of approaching disaster in the statistics of body bags and public disapproval. And they respond by hiding the bodies and offering feel good rhetoric to the public. They are completely blind to the disaster bearing down on us at full tilt. They are the perfect idealogues…They reject all that conflicts with their worldview…
But we should continue to express our views because when the disaster is realized by the majority, our views will dominate mainstream thinking. The neocons and their supporters will be relegated to the shit can of historical incompetance, not because some of their ideas didn’t have merit, but because they practiced deception when attempting to achieve them. That and they are unable to modify their ideas in the face of exigent reality. Therefore they will fail, the Iraq War will be lost, and from the ruins a new worldview will arise…one that is more reflective of reality, and less of ideology.
Stabilizing the ME was an admirable goal, but lying to get us into war was so unAmerican as to be treasonous. The Bush legacy will leave a stain on America for decades to come. It may even be seen as the point when America lost her ideals, her principles, her respect for law, and her leadership. The trade off wasn’t worth it. The trade off is never worth it. Like a Captain Ahab, Bush sees the great white whale spouting in the distance, and with a pathological single mindedness…is driven to kill it. He is incapable of seeing the approaching shoals, and if he could see them he would be indifferent. His world view is such that it doesn’t matter. Bloodlust has blinded him, and bloodlust will destroy him. Unfortunately, the rest of us will suffer the consequences long after he leaves office.
Jorge
Here is some honesty from a Democrat.
Since the Clinton administration, the Democrats and Republicans have been at war. It has been a vicious and protracted campaing were silly things like blow jobs and rich kids avoiding Vietnam became national issues. And the most successful, most underhanded, most unethical general in this war has been the POTUS right hand man.
So while I agree that the best thing to do would be to go along with Bush, it is hard to do that when any show of bipartisanship will be swept under the rug or more likely shoved down your throat during the next election. That said, the Democratic leadership would be best served by finding an intelligent way to help us win the war and still expose Bush’s follies. However, anyone who believes that the Demcrats should play nice until the next election cycle is also asking the Democrats to forfeit the next election. Because even if the Dems play nice, Rove will still do everything possible to turn that to his advantage so he can get Frist elected in 2008. And sorry, as much as Bush has pissed me off pandering to the fringe theocrats on the right, I don’t want to know what it will be like if one of those theocrats were to actually get elected.
PS – Lebanon has been holding elections since 1992.
Al Maviva
Sorry libs. I just can’t take you seriously on national security questions. Partisanship and getting along to solve our problems can’t be done because of the mean old Repukes? Please. Your leadership doesn’t recognize that there the country faces a problem with Islamacism. Here’s the House Minority Leader on Gitmo last week:
“Many of the detainees have been in U.S. custody since October 2001. Why have they been in custody for nearly four years without being charged?
Did she just say that? Oh yes, she did. Right here.
Come on. At best, the Al Qaida fighters in Gitmo are POWs. Even assuming arguendo that Al Qaida qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions (which they don
Kimmitt
Charge the detained AQ fighters with crimes?
We have to, under the Geneva Convention. The war’s over — if they’re POW’s, we have to repatriate them. If they’re guilty of war crimes, we have to charge and try them, under a military court at least. But it’s not only the legal thing to do, it’s the right thing to do. When you detain someone, once the fighting’s over and you’ve had a chance to catch your breath, human decency requires that you figure out if the person is guilty of anything or not and make a decision based on that information.
Finally, you assume that every detainee at Guantanamo is a member of Al Qaeda. I am interested in either your background as a high-ranking member of military intelligence on this particular assignment or your access to detailed personal biographies of the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo.
Nikki
Sorry libs. I just can’t take you seriously on national security questions.
Then stop asking/demanding that we libs come up with changes and ideas “to increase our likelihood of success in the ME.”
Andrew J. Lazarus
1. Myself, I’d say that Al Qaeda is much weaker than after the rout of the Taliban but much stronger than when we invaded Iraq. The fact that a few of their leaders have been captured means nothing compared to their recruitment, training, and (last and not least) rehabilitated reputation in the Middle East. As long as they were purely anti-civilian terrorists closely allied with a regime too puritanical in its Islam for even the Saudis (the Saudis disagreed with the destruction of the Buddhas), they were dangerous but marginalized. Now that they can don the mantle of irregular guerrillas fighting against neo-colonialism, their PR job is greatly simpified.
2. These calls that the Democrats do something all suffer from the circular reasoning that the Bush Administration’s blunders are reversible or at least amelioratable. It’s like my son giving away his rooks and knights for no compensation, and then turning to me and saying, “The Queen is on the march. The Queen must win. Stop complaining about my moves [not even conceding their stupidity, of course] and fall in line.” On the available evidence, the next move, no matter what I say, will be to lose the bishops too.
3. Notwithstanding the above point, Rumsfeld should go because his strategic and tactical conceptions are not working. No one would dream of retaining a football coach whose Chauncey Gardiner like pronouncements masked the failure to attain milestones. At the time VP Cheney is babbling about last throes, Rumsfeld is talking about a twelve-year timetable. Twelve years of last throes? Maybe that’s how long the GOP estimates they need to win elections on the terror issue to finish destroying America.
4. As far as our enemies are desperate, we’ve been preaching that for a long time now. Our communiques are bearing eerie similarity to Goebbels’ analysis of the Russian Front.
Darrell
That attitude is the very reason libs should not be taken seriously on national security questions. They have no interest in constructive ideas. Much easier to snipe and undermine without proposing alternatives. It’s who they are
Jon H
Darrell writes: “Much easier to snipe and undermine without proposing alternatives. ”
You clearly don’t want alternatives, you want the current approach to be affirmed.
Mike S
Darrell is a prime example of the Talk Radio Bukkake recipients. He doesn’t even bother wiping his face before he spews their bullshit.
Al Maviva
Kimmit, please. If we repatriate them, it’s “rendition.” I presume you are against that too, right? Because you know what will happen to them if we repatriate them, right? Hint: Rhymes with “ordure,” starts with “T”.
And since when is the war against AQ over? You think AQ is gone, disappeared, no longer extent? I think they’re merely sleeping.
If you think they are no threat, are you willing to house one of the released, um, minutemen or whatever you consider them?
ARROW
“Darrell is a prime example of the Talk Radio Bukkake recipients. He doesn’t even bother wiping his face before he spews their bullshit.”
Just curious Mike S, do you listen “Talk Radio”?
Al Maviva
Lazarus, that’s a relatively insane comparison.
For one thing, that link isn
Andrew J. Lazarus
Maviva, with your study of WWII, I’m surprised you haven’t already noticed the familiar chant of the Bush Administration and the Warblogger Brigade, that homefront morale somehow compensates for faulty planning, execution, and available materiel. I do recall that the Germans, the Japanese, and for that matter the Confederates greatly overestimated the ability of domestic fanaticism to overcome strategic obstacles.
“Desperate” was a favorite adjective of the Germans to describe Soviet resistance and counterattack. Funny how each time, the communique was issued somewhere further to the west.
Gary Farber
Good to see that people aren’t talking past each other.
Mike S
Just curious Mike S, do you listen “Talk Radio”?
As a matter of fact I do. That’s why I spot the bullshit talking points so easily. Little Darrell is a Hannity/Hewitt listener. Probably Rush as well but I don’t listen so I can’t be sure.
Kimmitt
Kimmit, please. If we repatriate them, it’s “rendition.”
Okay, now you’re just being deliberately dense.
And since when is the war against AQ over?
There’s no war against AQ; the closest thing we have is a Use of Force authorization against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Major hostilities in that conflict have ceased, so we need to either treat them as POWs and repatriate or try them with war (or civilian) crimes. Either is fine with me.
If you think they are no threat
My whole point is that we don’t have any basis on which to evaluate a question of threat. Also, there are all kinds of people who aren’t threats to the security of the United States that I wouldn’t want to put up in my guest bedroom. Michael Jackson, for instance.
brenda
Not in the america press, but here:
and of course, the lovely and talented Richard Perle:
globalpolicy.org
Al Maviva
Lazarus, the fighting on the OstFront was desperate. It was tooth and nail, and for most of WWII, was a very near thing. The Russians had their asses handed to them for the first two years, even when they managed to assemble a critical mass of troops at the German schwerpunkt. The Russian attacks were local in scope at best, and the Russians generally fought defensively. The Russians typically enjoyed a 2:1 – 5:1 advantage in manpower, and still had trouble taking out understaffed German units, at least until late 1943/early 1944. When the Liebstandarte Adolph Hitler was 30 miles from the Kremlin in Summer, 1942, Stalin panicked, went catatonic for 36 hours, and only managed to rally the Muscovites because he was basically too paralyzed to leave for the newly ramped up asian factory towns (filled with machinery scavenged from factories in Leningrad, Stalingrad and other industrial towns before they fell under the German shadow.
Goebbels was a liar, a thief, and a moral monster, but he wasn’t incorrect in calling the Russian fighting through most of the war “desparate.” The term was especially true until after the Third Battle of Kursk, when the tide finally turned for good.
On the larger question of Iraq, it’s a mixed bag, with some areas being well under control, but with large pockets of injun country. The problem is one of numbers. To pacify an area takes an 18:1 – 12:1 ratio of civilians:soldiers. Our present troop ratio is up around 25:1. This is a bit too low, which highlights the importance of the Iraqis getting a sense of ownership of their own destiny, and taking up the fight, which they seem to be doing increasingly. On the other hand, the plan of spreading plural democracy as if it was a virus, is the real masterplan for the region. In that respect, we are failing, because we haven’t struck at the head of the snakes – Syria, Iran, and Saudi. (That notion belongs to the Iraqi blogger Omar, BTW).
The other problem, of course, is one that you as a liberal probably wont recognize, and that is the conservative notion that habits and “soft” (non-legally mandated) social institutions are the most important factors in developing the rule of law and self-governance. It will take a while to build this culture in the Iraqis, though they (and the Lebanese, and Egyptians, and some Syrians and Saudis) seem eager to try. Assuming this was the main goal – which it appears now to have been – Iraq made good sense as a target since it has been primarily secular for many years, and experienced a good deal under the British civil service’ rule of law. In other words it should be a fertile ground.
On the strategic level, it’s way too early to determine if Iraq is going badly. The misnamed WOT is going to be a multi-generational struggle, and changing the other guys’ culture, or at least changing the culture in which the other guys are formed, will be the key to winning. That doesn’t happen overnight, but purple fingers and Kurdish prime ministers are a good start down the road.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Al, we seem to agree that just because the enemy may be “desperate” doesn’t mean they’re going to lose. We have, as I linked earlier, been calling the Iraq insurgents “desperate” only a few months less than the Germans were calling the Russians desperate.
You might also review Axis propaganda, as they were retreating, for the “flypaper” doctrine, that we are luring the enemy closer to our troops in order to destroy them. You may have noticed that’s reappeared as an explanation for why the increase in insurgent attacks is a sign of success.
ARROW
Mike S:
Just checking… Maybe Darrell could give you a quiz to check for comprehension?
Andrew J. Lazarus
A long wind blowing to say we brought the nutbags out of their Suadi praying closets; it’s Bush’s mess, he can clean it up; Rumsfeld must go, because he’s not doing it how we think it should be done; and using the “our enemies are desperate” meme makes them look like Nazis?
If things in Iraq continue to move toward a “democratic” country, something tells me the repercussions in this regions are only just beginning to heat up. These “terrorists” will be in every country that moves toward democracy.
Mike S
Maybe Darrell could give you a quiz to check for comprehension?
First he’d have to comprehend, instead of regurgitate.
ARROW
Mike S:
Well, maybe I should have said that you could give Darrell a test to check for comprehension?
Kimmitt
Um, you misspelled “liberal” in the fourth word in this quotation. Because absolutely nowhere in conservative thinking is a respect for either civil society nor institutional support. Hence the assault on the filibuster (and the Senatorial rule-making process) to get a half-dozen judges confirmed.