To all Democratic Representatives and Senators who voted for the Iraq War resolution:
Just admit you fucked up.
I don’t care how you do it. I don’t care why you do it. I don’t care if you believe it or not.
Just admit it and move on so we as a party can start beating the crap out of the Republicans with this issue.
Once this is done, the Democrats can then get back to the business of siding with the American people, the majority of whom see the war negatively, not worth the cost, and not making us safer.
Discuss.
SomeCallMeTim
Ummm…. He’s right. Does anyone really believe we aren’t going to have a substantial drawdown of troops before the ’06 elections? Does anyone really believe we’re going to leave a viable democracy behind? Saying it out loud doesn’t make you stupid, John. It makes you honest.
Michael D
Like I said to you already:
But you know what? He has a point. It’s the only way Dems can explain their votes.
And, admitting you were wrong is not a bad thing.
Geek, Esq.
Advice Kerry would have been wise to consider back in ’04.
Kerry should have said: I trusted Bush’s judgment. Fool me twice, fool me twice, won’t get fooled again.
We know what Kerry wound up saying.
Demdude
People in the Democratic Party are hungry for someone to stand up to figure out the best way to get out of this mess. It isn’t the current crowd in Washington. (The “I agree with the Adminstration 80% on this, or whatever way the wind is blowing at this time”, crowd.)
“Cut and Run”. How about “Stay around for more American Deaths while we get a new Islamic Republic aligned with Iran”. Not as cute, but more accurate.
Stormy70
We are not going to cut and run.
Democrats are going to need a better message than “I hate Bush!” to win the 2006 midterms. Several of those Democrats are in Red states and cannot be seen with any of the leadership in the Democratic party. Harry Reid is a minority leader, and I doubt he has coattails. Maybe you guys can join Jane Fonda’s Veggi-oil protest bus tour through the Heartland. The campaign commercials are going to write themselves.
Is ACT going to reform for get out the vote activities, or will the split in Labor hamper the turnout for Democrats in the Rust belt?
How will the five year anniversary of Sept. 11th affect the Midterms?
There is no way to know, so we’ll see.
ppGaz
Amen, brother. Amen. If only.
When the history is written, though, it will be noted that Summer 2004 was too early for the Rovian manipulations to have lost their punch. America was still drinking the Kool Aid and Kerry had no “punch” to counter it. God, that was an awful play on words, but hey, it’s hot here.
Anyway, we can’t really blame Kerry. He didn’t nominate himself. We did.
My theory is that the presidential nomination process is largely responsible for the string of bad candidates and presidents we’ve enjoyed lately. I’d take a good smoke-filled room over the charade we have now, in a heartbeat.
ppGaz
Largely agreed, except for one fly in the ointment: While it’s necessary to hold the morons responsible for the mess, we better not cut and run, or we’re in for worse.
Dems are in a delicate and unenviable position: Bash the war, and stir up the common sense opposition that says we have to do something that looks like finishing the job.
“I’m a uniter, not a divider.” Would that it be so. Would that he could actually unite the country on this one issue, if not on any of the others. Bush is also in an unenviable position. His only approach to trying to hold onto enough support to finish the job is to try to wallow in self-justification for getting us into the mess in the first place. That act is wearing thin to say the least.
We’ll see how it plays out. A dominant party that can’t govern, and an opposition party that can’t shoot straight. It’s a dangerous time for the country.
John S.
I’m not sure why this is filed under Democratic Stupidity.
What I find to be stupid is the Republican position of never admitting a mistake or conceding failure. Humans are fallible, and to pretend otherwise is the most blatant act of stupidity a person can make, since it is antithetical to the very essence of our existence.
Perhaps John should make a new category called Being Human, and not have so much snark for the threads that end up there.
Stormy70
It is political suicide to admit mistakes in this day and age, especially if you are Republican. The media would blair it nonstop to the rooftops. Never going to happen, stop wishing for it. This is politics, not summer camp. Also, the uniter thing is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Noone can unite with the likes of Kennedy, Schumer or Pelosi. Why would you want to unite with people who think it’s ok to dig into the personal life of every Republican, including their children. It certainly backfired on Kerry and Edwards. I’d rather not.
Demdude
blockquote>Also, the uniter thing is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Noone can unite with the likes of Kennedy, Schumer or Pelosi. Why would you want to unite with people who think it’s ok to dig into the personal life of every Republican, including their children.
An old saying is, “You don’t get to pick your neighbors”. The mark of a great politician is being able to deal with people you don’t like or agree with. You have your list of your folks, believe me, we have our list.
Getting people to work together from different backgrounds is called “Leadership”. I know that is a foreign concept today. Certainly it is vacant in the current leadership.
As far as the rest, you must have just arrived on the planet if you think that the “art of personal destruction” is just applied to Democrats.
John S.
Well, it is suicide when you come off as preachy and arrogant. If Republicans didn’t act like they were incapable of making mistakes, then making a gaffe every now and then wouldn’t prove them to be such pompous asses.
This is reality, not fantasyland. People do make mistakes. Period. Pretending otherwise only makes you look out of touch with reality.
Why would you want to disassociate yourself from people that do the same thing as people you do associate with? Or did you miss the memo that Republicans have been known to use the personal lives of their opponents against them? (Think John McCain in the South Carolina primary)
America is a big place full of diversity. People have different viewpoints and perspectives. If you want to constantly be at odds with everyone who isn’t like you, then that’s your perrogative. I have no problem peacefully coexisting with someone who espouses viewpoints such as yours, detestable though I find them to be.
eileen from OH
There came a turning point in Vietnam, and there will be one soon (if it hasn’t happened already) in Iraq. I don’t even think it has to be a two-fer, i.e, “I made a mistake voting for the resolution and we should leave now.” Make it “I made a mistake, but we hafta find a way to leave without leaving behind a Mideast hellhole.”
I think that was one reason why Hackett made such inroads. His message was “we shouldn’t be there, but we’re there now and have to find a way out.” It didn’t just appeal to the people who were against it to begin with. It also appealed to the people who supported it initially, never dreaming that the civilian leadership would be so inept. Having Dems come out and admit they were horribly wrong can resonate with a lot people who feel the same way.
There was a Republican in the House who has expressed regret and changed his mind. Does anyone know if there have been repercussions against him?
eileen from OH
Stormy70
I was referring to politicians and Media types not people. I have many Moonbat friends that I dearly love. We don’t talk politics, which is why I come here. I like scrapping with you guys. Politics by its very nature is devisive. Never will change. Look at all the Republican Senators I think are morons, there is a division right there. I don’t want to unite with Santorum or McCain (hypocritical jerk) or Hagle. I thought the McCain thing was an urban legend from the year 2000. The NYT prying into Robert’s children was this week.
Geek, Esq.
The administration is to blame for the American public starting to weaken its support for the war in Iraq.
The administration never took the time to explain what was really at stake in the Iraq war. It was all about WMD’s and mushroom clouds and terrorism and fear-mongering.
Well, there were no WMD’s, there was no nuclear program, the global jihadist movement certainly hasn’t suffered because of the overthrow of the secular Baath regime, and Americans ARE being killed on a daily basis by jihadis–in Iraq.
So, quite naturally, people are now wondering why the hell we’re stuck there. Nation-building was not advanced as the agenda for invading Iraq, and people aren’t buying it now.
The percentage of Americans who really, truly, deeply care about Iraqi freedom and think it’s worth American blood is very, very, very small.
Demdude
Since the current crowd in Govt was responsible, it is relevent. It was very real to McCain and HIS family.
Do you not think that Bush and company looked into the legal process around his children’s adoption?
Also, please name the Democratic Politician attacking Robert’s Children.
Don Surber
I see. Democrats should stand for dictators who put 300,000 people in mass graves.
Do any of these me-first pacifists wish to explain why we removed Slobodan Milosevic? He only killed at best 10,000 people.
And why should we care about Rwanda, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cote d’Ivoire — hell the whole continent of Africa?
Siding with the American people as we cower in the corner text-messaging and listening to pirated tunes on our iPods.
John S.
I dare state the obvious that even politicians and ‘media types’ are people, too.
Yes, all my dear friends that ‘love’ me call me Moonbat and condescend all my silly idiosyncracies, too.
Politics by its very nature is merely a concept. Concepts in it of themselves do not posess such qualities as to be able to facilitate an action. People on the other hand are most certainly divisive by nature, particularly when it comes to the dogmatic belief in concepts such as politics.
I guess since people are fallible, they only see what they want to see:
Source
And before you attempt to discredit the source to refute the claim, a simple Google search will provide you mountains of supporting information.
The timeframe is irrelevant. Dirty politics five years ago are no more or less justifiabl than dirty politics today.
Andrew J. Lazarus
It’s not my position, but how about “I believed it was important to liberate Iraq, but Bush has irretrievably botched it.
Except even something so obvious as the emphasized clause above brings down the wrath of the Right, because any suggestion that our Dear Leader is not the divinely-inspired, never-wrong choice of the butterfly ballots is treasonous, morale-busting hatred of the troops.
You know, the Right is very free with comparing anti-war patriots to Neville Chamberlain. The irony is that Chamberlain wasn’t forced out of office until the Wehrmacht showed he was as incompetent at waging war as he was in trying to maintain the peace.
Demdude
Jeez, as I remember there was another guy with the same last name as the current guy that could have removed this guy awhile back.
He must of loved Dictators like all the me-first pacifists.
John S.
Oh Don, you moral relativist, you. I daresay that Republicans have stood side-by-side with countless ruthless dictators that have put millions into their graves – as have Democrats.
Perhaps a more careful (and less biased) review of history will show you that wearing a particular political label doesn’t grant you automatic access to any lofty position of absolution from wrongdoing.
James Emerson
I think some over at the Kos are missing the point.
The resolution was worded (once you get by the hyperbola of the whereas) so that Bush would have to exhaust all diplomatic efforts before going to war. There was nothing really wrong about voting for diplomacy with a specific military threat behind it, unless the Democrats knew in advance that Bush would skip the diplomatic route and just do the war thing.
If they’re going to attack Bush about his war, then they will do themselves a favor by claiming the resolution was the correct approach in principle, but that Bush…in his politically motivated haste to become a wartime president…jumped the gun well before diplomacy had run its natural course.
That way the Democrats can claim the principled road for their own, and attack Bush and his Acolytes for their diplomatic failures and the resultant quagmire.
Dan
“It is political suicide to admit mistakes in this day and age, especially if you are Republican. The media would blair it nonstop to the rooftops. Never going to happen, stop wishing for it. This is politics, not summer camp.”
That’s not either. As in any other realm of life, occasionally somebody screws up, and it has to be admitted and dealt with.
I’m not downplaying the importance of spin here. What has happened with the present Republican administration, however, is that they spin everything to exonerate themselves and put the blame elsewhere. If you try to make yourself look good, every day, in the course of everything that happens, people come to realize that you’ll always say whatever it takes to make you look good. Nobody will trust you. That’s what’s happened
What’s even more striking is that Bush is unwilling to make any sort of concession to suggest that he is taking these matters seriously. Did Karl Rove break the law? That’s for the independent prosecutor to figure out. I think that even people who think he didn’t are nonetheless baffled that Rove isn’t on vacation/on administrative leave/taking a break/temporarily suspended from his clearances (take your pick). Instead, we’ve had a photo op with Rove carrying Bush’s jacket and declarations of “complete confidence.” He thinks that, if everything goes on as normal and nothing is done to even suggest wrongdoing, people will forget, and he can always turn back to his base anyway. Maybe the first few times, but now, it’s sinking him.
JPS
“Just admit it and move on so we as a party can start beating the crap out of the Republicans with this issue.”
This strategy would be unobjectionable if the war were, beyond any reasonable question, a lost cause.
But even a lot of you guys way to the left of me, who are furious that it was ever fought, clearly think it’s winnable. Some large percentage of people who think the war was a mistake still believe we need to win it. PPGaz writes above, “we better not cut and run, or we’re in for worse.” (If we were going to lose in the end anyway, what would be wrong with cutting and running?)
As long as the outcome’s in doubt, this advice is disgraceful. “I don’t care if you believe it or not”? Just beautiful–he’s telling them to put aside their petty differences and come together to achieve the victory that counts: Beating George Bush. The enemy doesn’t seem to figure into this at all.
Stormy70
My lefty Moonbat friends have their various nicknames for me, but somehow we still are friends and have a good time. I know some Lefties don’t understand how someone could be friends with a troglodyte of the right (one of my nicknames), but it can happen.
Demdude
One of my right wing friends ask me constantly “how are the Caribou today”.
One friend wears his NRA Hat every time he comes over.
Of course if one of my wingnut friends is happy, my first question is, “You are too happy, did you cut a school lunch program or throw some old people out on the street?”.
I agree Stormy, it’s no fun hanging around people that agree with you all the time (and why I like to blog here).
Rome Again
Those aren’t friends dear, those are ACQUAINTANCES. Friends are the type of people who actually care about you, and as such, wouldn’t refer to you by disparaging names on a constant basis.
The same goes vice-versa… if you truly cared about your “friends” you wouldn’t disparage them either, no matter how misguided you might think they were. The fact that you do this shows just where your loyalties towards your “friends” lies.
It’s amazing to me that you never figured out the difference between the two.
Rome Again
But what your interactions show are tolerance and joking, not name-calling.
Rome Again
Except that some Kossians are anti-war and will not say something just for political expediency if it isn’t the truth, which is the reason why you believe “some over at Kos are missing the point”. They are all individuals, each with their different ideas of right and wrong (nothing wrong with that), they do not live by some progammed agenda such as the GOP distributes, and as such, they have differing viewpoints. Maybe the idea of accepting that war was correct and it is only the fact that the war has not gone well creates a great way to speak against it is the right one, but for those (like me) who are Anti-War, that will never do. I will never say the war was the right thing (and thus sacrifice my integrity to my believes) just because it is politically expedient. Maybe that means I lose the PR war, so be it, I’d rather lose a PR war than my integrity.
Demdude
Dude, lighten up. Friends decide what is acceptable between them. Good God, in college we had an “insult each others mother party”.
I feel soooo Dr. Phil right now…..
Rome Again
If that were all Democrats were saying, I’d be bored to tears reading their thoughts and opinions. That isn’t all they are saying, but of course, you believe it is, I suppose because you don’t spend much time listening to them at all. By the same token, Republicans are going to have to do better than the “Bush never does anything wrong” meme, and ya know what? That IS all Republicans are saying. Republicans have a major disadvantage, they are limited to what the GOP says they can articulate; wheras Democrats are under no such limitations. That’s why everything Democrats say you read as “I Hate Bush”.
ppGaz
PPGaz writes above, “we better not cut and run, or we’re in for worse.” (If we were going to lose in the end anyway, what would be wrong with cutting and running?)
Well, what’s wrong with it is that it’s wrong. We owe it to the Iraqi people, to our troops (who will be put into even more harms’ way if we don’t), to the world, and to ourselves.
My assertion does not hang on “winning” or “losing”. It hangs on whether just walking away from Iraq and leaving a mess is the right thing to do. I’m saying, it isn’t.
I can’t tell whether you were agreeing with that or not, but I thought the point needed clarification.
CaseyL
“The war is still winnable”? Care to offer a suggestion as to how it’s winnable?
What does “winning” look like?
And end to the insurgency? Sorry, no: we’re not killing them faster than we’re making them. The insurgency keeps getting better organized, is building better bombs, and is killing more people as time goes on rather than fewer.
A united, democratic Iraq? Sorry, no; the Kurds are working towards, and planning for, an independent state. They were already autonomous before the war. Do you think they’ll settle for less now?
A pro-Western Iraq? Sorry, no: Iraq is gravitating towards Iran. At least, it is under the current government.
A stable government? Define “stability.” Better yet, describe for me a government capable of containing the insurgency, capable of protecting its members from routine assassination, and capable of holding Iraq together – and see if you can do so without coming up with one practically indistinguishable from Saddam Hussein.
Believe me, I understand the bit about how we’re the ones who created the current hellhole. And, believe me, I wish there was still some good we could do in Iraq. But I just don’t see how that’s possible. I particularly don’t see how that’s possible with the current gang of nitwits running the war.
It seems to me the most likely outcome of the war in Iraq is the establishment of a strongman regime, not unlike Saddam’s, with the extra added benefit that it’s aligned with Iran and with Islamic fundamentalism.
In other words, worse off than it was.
Rome Again
Friends may indeed decide what is acceptable between them, but to be a true friend and have a true friend doesn’t include any hatred of any sort. If you have a relationship with someone that includes some form of hateful rhetorical style in your interactions (other than jokingly), these, I would argue, are not truly friends, but acquaintances.
Insulting mothers is not a big deal, I welcome insults about my mother, because she deserved it, but friends do not disparage friends, at least unjokingly. Joking around is one thing, Stormy does not joke though, she means it… just as she does when she calls me a “Moonbat” here. There is no love lost when she says it, and she and I both know it.
Furthermore, the fact that I allow others (and myself) to disparage my mother should come as no indication that I considered her a friend, or a loved one. She was neither to me.
I find it a bit mystifying that Stormy says she can’t interact with her “Moonbat friends” about politics, yet she calls them “Moonbats” and they call her a “Troglodyte”. It sounds as if she does in fact argue politics with them, and perhaps her indicating she doesn’t is because she has found those interactions to be unsatisfying.
Rome Again
But what if losing was the only proposition from the get go, do we drag our own economy down to try to fix a mistake we should have never made in the first place?
Bush put us in between a rock and a hardplace when he decided to invade Iraq, but at what point does it register that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results while throwing a ton of money at the problem and not addressing the actual reasons why we’re losing is going to be economic suicide to this country?
Andrei
Wanna lay bets on it? You honestly think we’re going to wait around in Iraq for at minimum five years to get it right?
I think not. Just watch this government leave with the job unfinished. Unless of course you’re willing to drop what you are doing and volunteer to go fight, and hundreds of thousands of others do so as well.
About as close as an admission as we’ll get that some Republicans put party before country.
Who cares if it’s political suicide? What comes first? America or the GOP?
Stormy70
Hey, Oprah, go back to your planet and tell them to implant a sense of humor, stat.
As for your mother, Demdude…;)
Stormy70
Are you calling me unamerican, Andrei? I think you are …mistaken.
Rome Again
Truth hurts, huh?
Rome Again
I saw that too!
ppGaz
He can speak for himself, but I think he meant “other worldly”.
:-)
Rome Again
A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779
I would argue that Samuel Adams was indeed correct, and it was an internal invader after all.
JPS
ppGaz:
“Well, what’s wrong with [cutting and running] is that it’s wrong. We owe it to the Iraqi people, to our troops (who will be put into even more harms’ way if we don’t), to the world, and to ourselves.”
I agree, strongly. The argument made by some, however–including possibly CaseyL (not trying to put words in your mouth, CaseyL)–is that not only is this war a lost cause, but that all of the above are made worse off, by our continuing to fight it, than they would be if we got out.
I disagree in the strongest terms with this reasoning, but if I agreed with it, I would have to ask whether the costs of continuing the fight eclipsed the dishonor of leaving the Iraqi people in the lurch, and the morale boost it would give al Qaeda to see us leave, tail between legs. And depending on how strongly I accepted that premise, I might just conclude that getting out was the right thing to do.
So I shouldn’t have implied that your position hung on winning or losing, and I’m not saying it should. I’m admitting, not altogether comfortably, that my position might, if I held your view.
Mike
“Believe me, I understand the bit about how we’re the ones who created the current hellhole. ”
Really?
I thought the terrorists were doing that.
I guess I just didn’t get the memo about “Blaming America for everything that’s wrong in the world”
I’ll tell you what.
Here’s a contest, you leftys tell me, what’s an acceptable reason to go to war? Now mind you, I didn’t support going into Iraq, I felt it was hasty and ill-advised, still do. So don’t try to pin me supporting the President no matter what. You’ll just have to trust me when I say that had Kerry been elected (God forbid), I wouldn’t want him to cut and run either. But regardless, what do you consider an acceptable reason, even to the point of signing up yourself? I’m curious.
ppGaz
An immediate, proximate and profound threat to the United States, its territory, or its citizens. That would be top of my list.
There might be other scenarios on my list. Iraq, however, doesn’t qualify under any of them. WMD was not convincing; even if SH had had the weapons, he had no delivery system, and was no threat much beyond his borders. He had no motive. He was a thief, mostly, and interested in protecting his turf — the scene of his thievery — above all else. Stuffing money into his coffers. SH as “really bad guy”, not even close to being convincing. The world has always had its really bad guys, many of whom, including SH, we have sucked up to when it served our interests. Going to war to “eliminate” bad guys? Absolutely, postitively, not a valid reason for war.
WMD could be a valid reason for war, if it met my first criterion, above. However, a singular threat can be met with a singular response. Example: North Korea builds a nuclear weapon and sticks it on a missile on a launch pad and announces its intention to employ it unless its demands are met. In such a case, take out the threat: Destroy the launch facility with prejudice. Destroy the despot’s palace and his army headquarters. Don’t launch a war.
Example two: Iran takes — or gets, reliably — credit for launching a terrorist attack against the US or an ally. Launch a massive retaliatory strike. Do not invade Iran. (Iran would be a helluva lot hard to invade and occupy than Iraq was, in my estimation. It would make Iraq look like Grenada).
War is drastic. Use it only in the most drastic situations.
Andrei
Do you put the GOP before America for political purposes? If you do, then yes, I am calling you un-American.
Rome Again
Personally, I would go with ppGaz’s explanation, but I’d add one thing: We should not have created the problem ourselves to begin with.
The United States has a tendancy to sell arms and distribute weapons all over the world, and to prop up dictators who are fun to play with for a while but later turn out to be our enemies. If we had any part in propping up that government (and we did with Saddam Hussein to exacerbate Iran who was our enemy at the time), our government is to blame for the problem. The American government allowed the situation to happen, the American government allowed Saddam to stay in place after the first Gulf War and the American government decided to change the scenery after the game had changed while not admitting that we provided Saddam Hussein weapons ourselves and let him get away with what he had done.
If we are going to prop up dictators, we shouldn’t be in the business of tearing them down (unless our government emphatically states that it created the problem and needs to fix the mistake we made). Let those who are not to blame take the initiative there.
The National Archives – George Washington University
CaseyL
ppGaz: You didn’t put words in my mouth. I’ve thought for over a year now that there’s nothing we can do that will improve matters; that there are no good choices anymore.
If there had been a coherent strategy from the start… if there had been enough troops at the start… if Bush had been serious about allied involvement from the start… if the war had not been fatally compromised from the start by a combination of wishful thinking, willful ignorance, personal vanity, and sheer incompetence…things would be different. But then, in order to have done all that differently, Bush and his war planners would have had to be entirely different people, with entirely different minds, hearts and characters.
We’re seeing our very own Greek tragedy being enacted in real time, before our very eyes. The devil of it is that the people who set this in motion, who spent so much of our national blood and honor so fecklessly, and so much of the Iraqis blood and country, who created a charnel house and called it “liberation,” aren’t the ones suffering the consequences, and they never will.
That’s what I mean by “no good choices.” “No good choices” means we cannot help the situation in Iraq, because we have unleashed horrors beyond anyone’s capability to contain. Nationalism, brigandry, religious fervor, terrorism, blood feud… you name it, it’s there, it’s murderous and conscienceless and we would need at least twice as many troops as we have in Iraq, maybe for another generation, to have a hope of stopping it, not to mention someone in the command structure who has the slightest understanding of how to stop it.
How long can the insurgency continue?
Well, Iran and Iraq fought a war of attrition for 8 years that killed off an entire generation on both sides; and only stopped when they essentially ran out of soldiers. The Palestinians have kept up a campaign of guerilla war/insurgency/terrorism (call it what you will) for 30 years and show no signs of stopping.
“No good choices” means that if we do what many consider the honorable thing and stay, we very likely will have nothing to show for it other than another few thousand dead soldiers. “No good choices” means the final results may be the same whether we go or leave – the only difference will be how many of our own we lose in the process.
“No good choices” is not a trick phrase. It means what it says.
ppGaz
Understood. And if we had dispassionate, rational leadership that was not always calculating its political fortunes with every move …. this administration doesn’t burp without first checking with the manipulators to see how the wind blows …. then it would be different.
However, what we do in Iraq, at least until 2009, will be done as a political calculation. I believe … because I have seen … that this is the drill in the White House. When public support, or lack thereof, reaches a certain point, when the public theater is seen to be under the control of the manipulators so that a move is possible with a known political outcome …. then a move will be made.
There won’t be any choice, within 24 months, but to effect what amounts to a large pullback or drawdown. Public enthusiasm isn’t coming back. The leaders will wait until that moment when they can (a) pull back without appearing to pull the rug out from under those Iraqis they pretend to care about , (b) fully and completely blame the lack of support on their opposition, and (c) distract us with something else. With regard to (b), I think that they are not above provoking loud consternation on the left, just so that they can come along and say, See, there is loud noise on the left, that’s why we can’t win. This is how they operate, and have shown themselves to operate, right along.
But anyway, Iraq will be left there to fend for itself to a much greater degree, and within a year, it will descend into chaos and emerge with Saddam II, who will hook up with Iran, and we’ll have completed out construction of this Frankenstein.
Now, any high school debater could come along right here and say, ppG, that’s all your own speculation. True enough.
But it’s speculation at least as good as the nonsense that passes for planning and thinking at the top of this feckless administration. They have no more clue than I do. Would you trust me to start a war on your behalf? Then you sure as hell shouldn’t have trusted them.
Stormy70
I knew it! See he can’t help himself. If you don’t think like him, and like Bush, then you are un-American. Glad we cleared that up. You are always good for a laugh, Andrei.
Andrei
Some may find this interesting:
From Howard Kooligan on the “Truth Tour”:
I happened to be listening to KSFO one day (yes, I’m a masochist) a few weeks back when Melanie Morgan was relaying her account of the Truth Tour’s arrival in Baghdad. A reported account is transcribed somewhat on the KSFO web site.
(Link is breaking, so use: http://www.ksfo560.com/djadditionalinformation.asp?djid=11187)
What I find amazing is that people can relay thse kind of reports and still think things are more dangerous in Detroit. but I guess when people nickname a road something like the “Highway of Death,” well… obviously it means things are fine!
Guess you are right, Stormy. Things are just going swimmingly over there.
TallDave
I’m not sure why the Kos people are always advising the party they claim to favor to commit suicide, or why self-proclaimed “progressives” can so ardently oppose the very real progress being made in governance and human rights in Iraq.
It’s sad, really. The GOP is not exactly on the ball (although 90% of the criticism they do get is bunk), but Dems are so much further from reality it’s scary.
Andrei
Wow. You’re reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Not only does your statement not make one iota of sense (did I say I like Bush?), I’d also tell Democrats who put party country the same thing. I’d tell anyone who put POLITICS before country they were being un-American.
(As in, one can’t admit defeat as a republican because it’s “political suicide” versus what is best for the country at large.)
Politics is not America. It’s nothing more than the busy-work of keeping the cogs of America spinning. What is outlined in the Constituition is what America is all about. The Constitution is not democractic nor republican. Hell, democrats and republicans at one time were the same party.
Politics is fleeting at best. Only useful in short bursts of overall time. Politics are strategies for getting things done, ways to think about policy issues, the means to communicate what one thinks is the best way to approach solving problems, nothing more.
But at no time is the political machinary of any faction of our country more important than the country, its entire population and the Constitution itself.
Seriously, Stormy. With all due respect. Wake the fuck up already.
TallDave
Things are just going swimmingly over there.
They’re still pulling tens of thousands out of mass graves. “Swimmingly” is relative.
It’s interesting to note Iraqis don’t even rate security as their biggest concern. Electricity top the list, and electricity production is nearing record highs.
Iraq’s economy is also currently the fastest-growing in the world at around 35 – 50%. This insurgency is not exactly devastating the country.
That’s aside from the hundreds of independent TV, radio, and newspapers that have sprung up since the end of the war, the million new Internet users and cellphones, the improvements to water availability… No wonder 80% of Iraqis think life will be better a year from now.
Stormy70
For stating a political reality, you tell me I put the party before America, and call me un-American. Ok. You seem like such a cool American to hang with.
I see where I wasn’t clear above (on second scotch and water).
I know you hate Bush and want to drink his blood, my point was that since I still support Bush, you think I’m un-American.
Stormy – Un-American since 8/05
demimondian
Geez. Can’t you unamerican rethuglican blood-drnkers get anything right? That should read
Stormy — Proudly Un-American sice 8/05
(And, Andrei — I am given to understand that one of the house rules is that seriously questioning someone else’s patriotism is considered poor form outside the Plamewar Thread.)
ppGaz
The last time I saw numbers, they were averaging an insurgent attack on average every 20 minutes, around the clock, every day.
I would hate to think what the situation would be if it were actually “bad.”
Stormy70
My bad. Running low on blood, today, wits are lagging.
{sings} And I’m proud to be un-American, where at least I know I’m right!
Stormy70
ppGaz – Andrei thinks that, not me. Swimmingly is wrong, I just don’t think it is as bad as the gloomy media makes it out to be. Go see my post in the McCaffrey thread, at the bottom. I linked to a blog that has been through the latest Brookings Report.
Ok, I’m going to go watch Spiderman 2 on HBO. My spidey sense is tingling. Good night to the peeps.
ppGaz
I’m sorry, which channel is that again? Who’s spreading that gloom and doom?
Can you give us an example of gloom, doom, or the combined form, doomandgloom?
TIA.
Andrei
You still have yet to read what I wrote. Like Bush all you want. I said if you are the kind of person that puts party over country — partisanship before country — then you are un-American in my book.
You know Stormy… it IS possible to like Bush as a man, vote for the GOP over the Dems, and even like Pepsi over Coke… and STILL be able to step up and do what’s right for America without changing your mind on all those other things.
That’s why I never direcctly attacked Stormy’s patriotism. I took a play out the GOP playbook. I merely stated that *if* she was the kind of person… etc.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well like usual, you thought wrong. The McCain story was true.
You know, you should start to be concerned when you think a proven FACT, such as the McCain story, is an “urban legend”.
I’m sure there are plently of other FACTS that you think are merely urban legends. Perhaps you should reevaluate what you believe.
I completely agree. Everything you have said to stormy in this thread is 100% dead on.
Stormy70
I remember this now. Push polling is wrong, but how is this turn into Bush being the one who did this. Without evidence, then I think you are pushing the urban myth that Bush’s campaign is responsible.
Andrei likes to slam me personally every chance he gets, so the un-American slime is par for the course. Who is he to tell anyone what is or isn’t un-American? He can phrase it as artfully as he would like, he still has a track record of personal insults to me, and anyone else who disagrees with his talking points. I’m surprised he hasn’t done the chickenhawk meme on this thread since it is his old reliable.
Since when does Andrei, of all people, know “when it is right to step up and do what’s right for America without changing your mind on all those other things”? We disagree on what is right for America, but I don’t bitch about him putting party before America. Just because you are Mr. $400,000 doesn’t mean you are right, Andrei.
Mike
“ppGaz Says:
An immediate, proximate and profound threat to the United States, its territory, or its citizens. That would be top of my list.”
Okay, I’ll buy that, if fact I agree with it.
“There might be other scenarios on my list. Iraq, however, doesn’t qualify under any of them. WMD was not convincing; even if SH had had the weapons, he had no delivery system, and was no threat much beyond his borders. He had no motive. He was a thief, mostly, and interested in protecting his turf—the scene of his thievery—above all else. Stuffing money into his coffers. SH as “really bad guy”, not even close to being convincing. The world has always had its really bad guys, many of whom, including SH, we have sucked up to when it served our interests. Going to war to “eliminate” bad guys? Absolutely, postitively, not a valid reason for war.”
Concur. So Kosovo was a mistake then you’d agree. Since the US obviously was under no threat. So naturally you condemned Clinton at the time. The Serbs were obviously very bad guys, ethnic cleansing and all that mess. But again, as you say, we can’t eliminate all of them. This would also argue against going into Darfur.
“WMD could be a valid reason for war, if it met my first criterion, above. However, a singular threat can be met with a singular response. Example: North Korea builds a nuclear weapon and sticks it on a missile on a launch pad and announces its intention to employ it unless its demands are met. In such a case, take out the threat: Destroy the launch facility with prejudice. Destroy the despot’s palace and his army headquarters. Don’t launch a war.”
Again, I agree. Of course some might argue this in “preemptive” and therefore “illegal” since it may not have the blessing of the UN. But again, we must look to the protection of our people, that’s the job of the President, NOT the UN, Agree?
“Example two: Iran takes—or gets, reliably—credit for launching a terrorist attack against the US or an ally. Launch a massive retaliatory strike. Do not invade Iran. (Iran would be a helluva lot hard to invade and occupy than Iraq was, in my estimation. It would make Iraq look like Grenada).”
So you did not support going into Afghanistan then? Should we have just bombed the capital and allow Osama’s boys to stay in power? Just wanna be clear here. Although I must admit, I’m not real sure that would’ve done much.
“War is drastic. Use it only in the most drastic situations.”
Concur. Use it only to protect the people and assets of the United States under the Command of the United States. See? We agree after all.
Thanks for the honesty.
ppGaz
Agreed.
Hmm. Well, at that time, I was sufficiently pissed at OBL to have gone over there and shot the SOB myself and anyone who got in the way.
In this case, I’d argue that the OBL thing sorta kinda satisfies my requirement. The Afghanistan campaign was justified. However, don’t get me started on the subject of why he is still out there. Arrrrghhh.
Mike
“Rome Again Says:
Personally, I would go with ppGaz’s explanation, but I’d add one thing: We should not have created the problem ourselves to begin with.”
Okay, then you agree with all the points where I agree with PP Gaz then?
Basically that:
1. An immediate, proximate and profound threat to the United States, its territory, or its citizens is the primary reason to go to war.
2. Eliminating bad guys is NEVER a good enough reason to go to war, no matter how many folks are dying, assuming item 1 is not being violated. Therefore Kosovo and Darfur as two examples are not credible reasons.
3. Assuming you had enough credible evidence/intelligence, a premptive strike is acceptable, IF there is a threat to the US or its citizens. And you didn’t support going into Afghanistan, since that was above and beyond the “eye-for-an-eye” level PP Gaz mentioned.
Alright. In general we agree. I tend to think going into Afghanistan was probably necessary, but we can agree to disagree on that one.
“The United States has a tendancy to sell arms and distribute weapons all over the world, and to prop up dictators who are fun to play with for a while but later turn out to be our enemies. If we had any part in propping up that government (and we did with Saddam Hussein to exacerbate Iran who was our enemy at the time), our government is to blame for the problem. The American government allowed the situation to happen, the American government allowed Saddam to stay in place after the first Gulf War and the American government decided to change the scenery after the game had changed while not admitting that we provided Saddam Hussein weapons ourselves and let him get away with what he had done.”
So if I understand you correctly, you feel that we should not have allowed Saddam to stay in power back in 1991? In fact, where he is right now, awaiting trial, you’re saying he should have been in 1991? I agree with you. Allowing the Bathists to stay in power is a bad thing.
“If we are going to prop up dictators, we shouldn’t be in the business of tearing them down (unless our government emphatically states that it created the problem and needs to fix the mistake we made). Let those who are not to blame take the initiative there.”
Well I’ve never understood this whole “mea culpa” that Libs always insist the US do, but yet never ask any other country to do, but putting that aside, I don’t much like proping up dictators either, unless of course its to protect the people and territory of the US. In other words, using it as a form of diplomacy vice going to war, IF that’s the only course open to us. I think the basics we agree on. See? Like PP gaz, we’re coming together here.
Again, thanks for the honesty.
Kimmitt
John — we’re going to cut and run. Period. Not cutting and running requires leadership, and we don’t have any.
That said, it’s time for the Democratic Party to align itself with the majority of America again on this issue. We do ourselves no favor by being the Party of “I’m so weak I can’t even have my own foreign policy.”
ppGaz
Interesting idea, interesting topic unto itself. Although I’m too sleepy to get into it much now.
But ….. my gut instinct is that our overall reaction to 911, post-Afghanistan, has been wrongheaded. Afghanistan was, as the police say, a good shooting. This country was still in shock and outrage after a vicious attack, and anything less than going in there to get OBL would have been unsupportable. Like I said, give me a gun and get me in there and I’d have shot him myself, and spit on his corpse.
But …. we didn’t get him. Which is yet another story.
And …. the next correct thing to do was to harden this country. And I mean, really harden it, not symbolically with color alert codes and a goofy Patriot Act, but sound and practical hardening of borders, transportation systems, food chains, infrastructure. Real hardening, using the best and most intelligent methods at hand. Doing this would ensure that 911 remained what it was … a freakish rupture of security that should never happen again. We can spend 20 years and trillions of dollars (you know, the course we are on now …) trying to maneuver Islam and Arabia to our liking … and fail. Or we can spend 15% of that money and time and really protect ourselves. Not to run around scared of terrorists, but to act smart and tell the terrorists to go fuck themselves. Prepare to live in a new world with new threats and act to remediate vulnerabilities. That’s not letting the terrorists win, any more than hardening your house against burglars is letting the burglars win. Any more than locking your car and having a passive theft protection system installed is letting the car thieves win. There are shitty people out there; take sensible measures against them.
Going out half-cocked into wars and telling the enemy to “bring it on” …… the mind just boggles.
Josh
Wow, for dems it always comes back to Bush being as evil as Hitler. They sure make him and/or his supports out to be the worst people ever.
So how many more elections will Republicans continue to win in a row before the left finally sees the real world? They will have a long journey from “bushitler” back to my vote. Actually listening to the troops side of the story in Iraq will likely have something to do with it, but so far liberals just see our military as being gullible stooges of the “military industrial complex.”
Steve
Oh no, we are losing the precious demographic of people who vote based on message board rhetoric.
Bob
There is no way that Americans will let Bush and Company fuck up things much more. The Plame case is firm hand on the back of the collar. The virulence of Bush’s destructive behavior will determine the arc of he traverses on his way to the curb.
Cut and run? Can we run the films of the rescues from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon?
By the way, before the trogs start whining about all the evil in the world left to smite over in the Mideast, remember that when you go into a region, destabilize the governments and pitch the people into the streets and against each other, you get all sorts of bloodshed. The US destabilization of the monarchy in Cambodia, to be replaced by a series of unstable military dictatorships, is what birthed the Khymer Rouge. Expect more of the same among the various factions of Iraqis.
Thanks, guys, you really fucked things up. You bankrupted the country, you polarized Americans. You self-righteous scumbags, thanks. Grand job you’ve done.
Cassidy
You know, I rarely side with Republicans, but you guys are being out of line here. I’ll leave it at that.
*The awful truth people, is that the Iraqui’s just don’t give a shit. As stated earlier, security is not there biggest concern. In general, putting there country back together is not a big concern. Making as quick a buck as possible is. Until they start to care, are efforts are fruitless.
*I’m over here now and seeing it first hand.
Andrei
Someone sounds like they are getting a bit touchy and sensitive. I thought only liberals did that?
If you’re gonna be in the kitchen…
I’m sorry Stormy. I didn’t mean to call you such bad names in public. But truth be told, you can disagree with me all you want. I really actually respect people who have different opinions than I do. (And I don’t put party over country. I’m a registered independent and vote for whomever I feel like whenevver I feel like.) You on the other hand don’t disagree so much as prefer to hold your turf while ignoring intellectually honest debate and discussion.
And of course… everything I say is IMHO. Obviously.
And FWIW:
I’m a nobody, just like most everyone here. Why you would even bother to care what I think of you is beyond me.
ppGaz
Did I miss something? What does that mean?
Andrei
Stormy a long time ago accused me, made some slight, or made some general remark about not earning my fair share, or not paying taxes, or something assanine about a “liberal’s” attempt to be able to make money or something or other. (Making a rash generalization or assumption as she is known to do.)
I countered by letting her know my household is in the top 1% or 2% of income earner’s in the population. Then again, I live in the Bay Area, where the average cost of a house has reached $600,000 or so, so I don’t live like a king by any stretch of the imagination. I do however, pay more in taxes than what most people make in 4 years. I would love to vote my wallet and go GOP. Just not gonna happen while the party puts morons like Bush up for their president.
Nothing more to see. Move along.
AlanDownunder
“Cut & run”?
Does every fight have to be won no matter how wrong it was to start it in the first place?
Stormy70
Actually, you came down on me for liking my tax cut, and wanting to get rich. You then threw what you make in my face. I don’t care what you think of me, I just turn you into a joke. I think I mentioned you should send your tax cut back if you don’t like it.
Stormy – proudly un-American since 8/06
Mark-NC
All kinds of stuff to add here, but I’ll keep it simple.
Andrei says something interesting in the last post:
” I do however, pay more in taxes than what most people make in 4 years. I would love to vote my wallet and go GOP”
Since when have the Republicans been fiscal conservatives? They do cut taxes, but we’ll have to make up for the massive deficits sooner or later.
Then there’s Stormy70 who doesn’t seem to understand what the word “if” means. “IF” you put party before country (like my Republican father absolutely does), that seems un-American to me, too. Country should always come first.
Then there’s a thread about Kosovo. A common Republican theme is that we had no business going there since there was no threat to the USA, and we weren’t attacked.
Both of these are true, of course. However, we definitely did the right thing is Kosovo for two reasons.
First, we ask our allies to help with troops, money, and equipment frequently. We fight beside troops from France and Germany in Afghanistan who are there at our request. When they need our help, we should respond in kind.
Second, the threat of this conflict expanding was seen by Europe as something that had to be dealt with immediately. In the 50+ years of NATO, they have voted only once to fight a war. Such a vote requires EVERY member to vote yes! They all did – and we joined them as good allies should!!
ppGaz
I’m shocked — shocked! — that Stormy would make a rash generalization.
Oh dear, I seem to have gotten up on the sarcastic side of the bed this morning.
Stormy70
Seems to me you on the left call people un-American all the time, yet complain about right wingers calling you un-American or traitors. So your father is un-American in your eyes, becuase you think he puts party ahead of country. How do you know? Is it because you disagree politically, and he chooses to vote for the GOP, instead of bashing Bush, for the good of the country, don’t you know.
demimondian
Well, we on the left have a special dispensation (and I’m only being partly snarky here) — HUAC was aimed as us, not at you. If you could have your career ruined for being “prematurely anti-Fascist”, you might feel as certain understandable sense that the words “un-American” were particularly vile when applied to you.
OTOH, I don’t see a lot of value in calling anyone un-American (except, of course, Stormy, who has been Proudly Un-American Since 8/05). It’s kind of Gresham’s law at work.
Stormy70
You wake up like that every morning. ;)
The internet is the place to make rash generalizations, for the left and the right, and independents (hi Andrei!). It makes it spicy.
Look I have to get ready for a tough week of work ahead, so rash generalizations will be light.
Hah! I stole the “proudly” from some clueless lefty. Oh, wait…
Much love, peeps.
CaseyL
Interesting post at Liberals Against Terrorism, talking about a bit of a disconnect between the WH political players (inc. Bush) and the policy players.
“[Larry] Johnson, as a counter-terrorism guy, understandably sees this episode as illustrative of the broader confusion that reigns within the Bush Admin’s competing bureaucracies regarding counter-terrorism. But the confusion goes to the heart of a profound tension between policy and politics that the Bush Admin has created for itself. To mobilize a considerable part of the American public, Bush and his team oversold an idea that was questionable at the outset but has by now certainly outlived its usefulness. The Administration now has to engage in a sleight-of-hand — it must shift goalposts and policies to ones that are far more realistic, promising and sustainable internationally, while maintaining the unquestioning loyalty of a critical domestic constituency whose support is premised on that core idea.”
It really should be read in its entirety. Here’s the link:
Rebranding the GWOT
PS: John, I really miss that Command Code bar that used to pop up with the comment window. Any chance of bringing that back – or at least the keys for linking and block text pasting?
W.B. Reeves
What’s depressing and sterile about debates like this is that so many accept implicitly the same false premise that fueled the Iraq debacle to begin with. That being that the US has the power to determine the outcome. Underlying the whole argument of “staying the course” vs “cutting and running” is the idea that the US can dictate events in Iraq. The falsity of this notion is manifest, yet people continue to cling to it in one form or another.
Any reasonable discussion of options in Iraq has to begin with the realization that, at the end of the day, events in Iraq will be determined by the people who live there. It ought to be clear by now that when we speak of the Iraqi insurgency we are not describing a “terrorist fringe” or merely “Bathist dead enders”. An insurgency which has continued for two years, not only resisting every effort to destroy it but actually growing in strength and sophistication, clearly has the support, either tacit or active, of a significant portion of the population. Were this not so the insurgency would have been defeated long since.
This fact has profound strategic consequences, as does the refusal of the regime in D.C. to honestly grapple with it. By pretending that the insurgency had no popular support, the war leaders have avoided dealing with the utter bankruptcy of their position both militarily and politically.
Whatever else can be said about the arguments used to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it was never suggested to the US public that we would be engaged in a long term war of attrition against a popular guerrilla resistance. The dramatic decline in public confidence in the Iraq policy is a result of the steady stream of blood that has eroded the false premises by which the war was marketed.
There can be no solution, either politically or militarily, so long as the insurgency maintains its base of support within the population. Detaching an insurgency from its base is a difficult task under the best circumstances. It is infinitely harder when those conducting the war refuse to admit that they are battling a popular resistance.
Maintaining the military occupation of Iraq without articulating a credible strategy for pacifying the popular base of the insurgency is nothing more than arguing for the continuation of current failed policy of attrition. It is a recipe for continued bloodletting with no prospect whatever of changing the eventual outcome. Under such conditions the question is not whether we will “cut and run” but when.
EyeDoc
A few years from now, when Afghanistan and Iraq are democratic nations, and citizens of the Islamic world are all clamoring for the same thing and putting pressure on their governments for democratic change, all of this will be worth it, and everyone will talk about how brilliant our foreign policy was. Besides that, the government’s one true purpose is to keep its citizens safe. I’d rather have a government that aggressively fights terrorism, than one that does absolutely nothing even in the face of multiple terrorist attacks as the Clinton administration did.
ppGaz
Bzzt. Clinton violation. Penalty box, two days.
Bzzt. Iraq is not about “fighting terrorists”. It’s about creating a terrorist nest. It’s a little like putting dog food in your yard, and then swatting at the flies that come around. See? We’re getting rid of flies? No, actually, you are feeding the flies.
Right, of course, the Arab-Islamic world, which has exactly no history of successful liberal democracy, will be transformed by a bungling, ill-planned and reckless war by a country whose president campaigned on the concept of avoiding nation-building. Surely the most implausible fiction I’ve seen in a long time. Based on assumptions which rest on facts not in evidence. Pure speculation. In short, a grandiose experiment whose outcome cannot be known.
Or, if you prefer … pure bullshit.
Marc
And then we’ll all fly to the Gumdrop Forest in our special hovercars that run on unicorn farts, right?
Mark-NC
Actually, Stormy70, since you asked, my father has told me point blank multiple times that he believes that the Republican party IS America – and he has called me a traitor multiple times because I don’t take every work Bush says as dogma.
The fun part is, he hated Clinton – not for what CLinton ever did – but from the second he was elected. If Clinton had been shot, he would have had a party.
My father is a perfect representative of the Republican side today. They respect the presidency, but only a Republican president. They honor the troops – but will openly trash any veteran who is not a Republican. They claim that every judge appointment deserves an up-or-doen vote – but used every trick in the book to prevent this when Clinton was president. They support war, but only if a Republican starts it. They hate federal spending – unless a Republican is spending the money.
I see no saints on the “left” either, for what it’s worth. But here’s a good one for you to ponder. Could George W. have run for president under any banner but Republican? I say no. If he had run as a Dem, Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. would have fried him as a draft dodge, deserter, failure in business (except when stealing land through eminent domain), lousy student, alcoholic until 40yo, and all around dunce. Only a Republican could get away with a history like that!!!!!!!
He
Kimmitt
Ten years from now, when this hasn’t happened, will you shut the hell up and let the grownups run the country?
Rome Again
You’re welcome. The only things I would disgree with are that:
Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait had absolutely NOTHING to do with security in the United States so therefore we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq the first time either.
The Mea Culpa is something that I would expect of every nation, not just our own. We are hypcrits (and other nations would be too) when we create the problem and then politicize it (eg: “Iraq has WMD”). Iraq DID have WMD before they destroyed the WMD, and WE gave the WMD to Iraq. Trying to act all high and mighty saying “we’re going to remove this terrorist threat” is a sham, since we created the threat in the first place.
We should bargain using diplomacy, not weapons, in any country, but most especially in middle east countries.
W.B. Reeves
As a statement of personal faith this might be ok. As any sort of practical statement it is worthless.
Simply a lie as regards the history of the Clinton administration.
JPS
Rome Again:
“WE gave the WMD to Iraq.”
No we didn’t. It’s the meme that won’t die, but it is simply, factually, untrue.
Mike
“Then there’s a thread about Kosovo. A common Republican theme is that we had no business going there since there was no threat to the USA, and we weren’t attacked.”
If you’re talking about me, I never said that. “PP Gaz” and “Rome Again” did actually. I think they are both Libs.
“Both of these are true, of course. However, we definitely did the right thing is Kosovo for two reasons.
First, we ask our allies to help with troops, money, and equipment frequently. We fight beside troops from France and Germany in Afghanistan who are there at our request. When they need our help, we should respond in kind.”
I think you’ll find most often that’s the other way around, but regardless, that seems okay. I agree, we should help our allies and France and Germany should help with troops, money, and equipment when we ask them as well, correct? When we need their help, they should respond in kind. I’d probably add Canada to that as well.
“Second, the threat of this conflict expanding was seen by Europe as something that had to be dealt with immediately. In the 50+ years of NATO, they have voted only once to fight a war. Such a vote requires EVERY member to vote yes! They all did – and we joined them as good allies should!!”
Okay, both how is that a direct threat to the US? Was not the conflict in Southeast Asia seen by many as expanding throughout Asia? Was Vietnam then not in fact a mistake? What of the 1991 Gulf War, you haven’t stated your position on that, was that not potentially in the same light? By the way, since NATO was setup specifically to counter the Soviet threat, specifically, in case of invasion, it’s probably little surprise they never voted yes. That doesn’t seem like a particularly strong reason. In fact I’d go so far as to say thatr NATO is no longer needed for it’s original mission and therefore should be disbanded.
Mike
“Mark-NC Says:
Actually, Stormy70, since you asked, my father has told me point blank multiple times that he believes that the Republican party IS America – and he has called me a traitor multiple times because I don’t take every work Bush says as dogma.
The fun part is, he hated Clinton – not for what CLinton ever did – but from the second he was elected. If Clinton had been shot, he would have had a party.
My father is a perfect representative of the Republican side today. They respect the presidency, but only a Republican president. They honor the troops – but will openly trash any veteran who is not a Republican. They claim that every judge appointment deserves an up-or-doen vote – but used every trick in the book to prevent this when Clinton was president. They support war, but only if a Republican starts it. They hate federal spending – unless a Republican is spending the money.”
WoW. I always liked my father. Politics would in no way ever color our relationship. Basically because we both realize, Fathers and Sons are important, politics isn’t. Guess I’m just lucky.
Mike
“You’re welcome. The only things I would disgree with are that:
Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait had absolutely NOTHING to do with security in the United States so therefore we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq the first time either.”
Two points to consider:
1. Regardless of the fact that the US should make itself less dependent on foreign oil (it should in my opinion), I would think protecting a strategic resource essential to the US economy may be construed by some as protecting US interests. Do you not feel the US economy is important enough a factor to our interests to take steps to protect it. This is assuming that you buy into the thought that Saddam was becoming a threat to the region as a whole and therefore to our overall economic interests.
2, Kuwait was an ally at the time of the invasion. Should the US not provide protection to weak allies if there is no direct threat to US citizens and property. For example, if Israel (a US ally) was simultaneously invaded by several countries and it appeared that unlike previously, they were going to lose their territory and their people would most likely be butchered by Muslim extremists, should the US no nothing?
“We should bargain using diplomacy, not weapons, in any country, but most especially in middle east countries.”
So under no circumstances would you ever countenance using weapons, even if diplomacy failed? I’m curious why “most especially in Middle East countries” as opposed to say African or Asian countries. What makes these countries so special that we should never use weapons?
Mike
“Besides that, the government’s one true purpose is to keep its citizens safe. I’d rather have a government that aggressively fights terrorism, than one that does absolutely nothing even in the face of multiple terrorist attacks as the Clinton administration did.
Simply a lie as regards the history of the Clinton administration.”
I can’t recall. What specifically did the Clinton Administration do “aggressively fighting terrorism” that you remember? Maybe it would help my understanding more to know what you consider “aggressively fighting”
Thanks.
CaseyL
Perps of the first WTC bombing: convicted, imprisoned.
Branch Dividians: Dead.
Perps and abettors of the Oklahoma City bombing: convicted, executed, imprisoned.
Would-be perp of the Millenial Plot: convicted, imprisoned.
OBL/AQ: Repeated bombings of training facilities, a standing order to the CIA to kill OBL (which they disobeyed), and no support at all for anything from the GOP-controlled Senate, the GOP-controlled House, conservatives and conservative pundits, who all claimed the fight against international terrorism was just a ploy to distract attention from impeachment.
Mark-NC
Mike:
Two things:
If you like I’ll send you a rather impressive list of convictions that were made under Clinton’s watch regarding terrorists. But, even with that, you should remember that Clinton was pre-9/11. Different times. BTW, exactly how many convictions does Bush have? Fewer than you probably believe!
Second – I had dinner with my dad tonight. Nice night out. I just avoid politics because he is a walking-talking Limbaugh recital.
Mike
Mike:
Two things:
“If you like I’ll send you a rather impressive list of convictions that were made under Clinton’s watch regarding terrorists. But, even with that, you should remember that Clinton was pre-9/11. Different times. BTW, exactly how many convictions does Bush have? Fewer than you probably believe!”
No point really. I’m not one of those that slams Clinton for his actions on Terrorism. I happen to agree with you, if Clinton would have wanted military action in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, it would have been very difficult. I DO think he made mistakes in that he should have taken out OBL when he had the chance, but that’s said with hindsight. In general one of my criticisms of Democrats is that many of them see terrorism as a “criminal concern” vice a “war” concern. Many Republicans on the other hand are just the opposite. I happen to believe it’s both.
“Second – I had dinner with my dad tonight. Nice night out. I just avoid politics because he is a walking-talking Limbaugh recital.”
I’m glad to hear that. I wasn’t necessarily being snarky before, my point really was that Politics isn’t very important, especially with regards to family.