This post by Matthew Stinson is about the best thing I have seen written on the Crawford political circus I have seen yet.
And here is another opinion worth checking out.
And Peter Daou asks:
I posed the question in this space last week, and I’ll repeat it: what would happen if Rove-Plame or Cindy Sheehan got the Natalee Holloway treatment? Would it change the course of history?
While Rove/Plame has not been as sensationalized as Holloway, I fail to see any shortage of ink on the issue. I have a feeling the same will come of the Sheehan affair.
Otto Man
That’s a nice post, alright. Except for the fact that he forwards this misstatement:
I doubt he’s doing it intentionally, but he’s repeating the Drudge distortion of that statement. Sheehan said the bright spot of the trip was that it gave her family and other grieving families time together — that was “the gift of happiness” that Bush gave her, not some beatific laying-of-hands like the right has made it out to be. What she “famously” said is, in fact, an invention of selective editing by Drudge.
This may seem a petty point, but much of the right’s accusations of Sheehan’s horrible “flip-flop” on Bush comes from that misrepresentation of her original statement. Media Matters has more here.
Davis
There was little national coverage of Mrs. Sheehan until Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity and others drew attention to her. The major networks and newspapers covered the reaction to her protest rather than the protest itself. It would have been better to ignore her. The talking heads who claim to be appalled by her actions have in effect validated her protest. Thanks guys (and you too Michelle) for taking the focus off the real issue in Iraq – negotiations for their constitution that must be concluded before the security situation can be resolved.
Blue Neponset
Davis wrote:
Why can’t the security situation be resolved before a constitution is finalized? I don’t see those two things as being mutually exclusive.
ppGaz
The war is likely to be among the five or so most important issues of our time.
By all means, let’s focus on the personality and life of Ms. Sheehan. Anything …. anything at all … to deflect from the real issues at hand.
Why are we in Iraq again? (Not my question, I’m just repeating it). Why are we in Iraq? Because Ms. Sheehan might be a ditzy liberal woman? Yeah, that’s it. Good answer. She’s the enemy.
neil
It just cracks me up that all these “war bloggers” who think that “why we are in Iraq” is an inappropriate or at best uninteresting question, think that “why does the Left care about Cindy Sheehan” is one of the great questions of our times, certainly worth spilling liters of digital ink on.
It’s obvious why the Kos crowd has latched on to her — she is taking the exact same concerns that the Left has been talking about and the media and pundit class have not been responsive to, and putting them out front in a way that is hard to ignore and even harder to dismiss. And lo and behold, her concerns seem to be resonating in the American discourse in a way that neither Howard Dean nor Michael Moore could achieve.
It is somewhat amusing to see the right bending itself into contortions to prove that this is somehow about liberal media bias. It is a pretty clear indication, in fact, of the opposite — Cindy Sheehan is only being listened to because of her ostensibly non-partisan status, which is what is really chafing people who object to her politics.
Tough noogies, I say. The Right has created a media climate where anybody who disagrees with them gets their name dragged through the mud, and their motives questioned to the point of obliteration, sometimes their careers ruined if they are really ‘dangerous.’ This person, who is not a politician nor an ideological activist, rather someone motivated by a highly accessible personal loss, is not so easy to do that to. Nobody can say that Cindy Sheehan just wants Saddam in power, or that she would like to see Americans die so Bush will be humilated. This has a lot to do with why she is being listened to.
You will have a hard time convincing me that this is a bad thing.
neil
I should say that I am sympathetic in theory to John’s objection, that the left is coldly exploiting a mother’s loss to achieve their ends. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on. An already anti-Bush mother of a dead soldier is conducting a public protest which the Kos crowd is highly sympathetic to, and so they are supporting, publicizing, and joining her.
Exploiting her grief? I just don’t see it. Her grief is directly and unquestionably related to the war in Iraq, and the questions she is asking are entirely related to it. Now, if we were seeing ads like “Cindy Sheehan proves that we need nationalized medicine” that might be something different.
neil
With respect to Daou’s point:
ppGaz
Yeah, as if “the left” invented exploitation in this post 911 scenario. As if the Mission Accomplished TV Spectacular was not exploitation. As if the weepy-Bush Newsweek story is not exploitation. As if every flag-waving phony call for “patriotism” is not exploitation. As if Karl Rove did not sit up nights dreaming up ways to exploit fear of terror, exploit 911, exploit a permanent state of war, to squeeze every drop of political advantage possible from every perceived threat. As if Republicans did not exploit this situation to browbeat and intimidate every whisper of opposition, cow the press, and leverage it all for the glory of the Republican party at every turn.
Your “concern” does not move me.
John Cole
Because ‘Why We Are In Iraq” is nothing more than a catcall- you know why we are in Iraq (including violation of numerous UN resolutions, continued aggression, the human rights angle, Saddam’s regional saber-rattling, the aiding and abetting of terrorists, the perceived threat of WMD,the need for change in the Middle East,the inability and unwilingness to enforce sanctions and go forward with them, ands so on) you just don’t like the reasons, and the major administration justification, WMD, has been proven to be demonstrably false.
And also, the ‘Why are We In Iraq’ ruse is just an attempt to play ‘I told you so,’ as the question really is ‘Why did we go to Iraq in the first place?”
As to the important question, “Why are we in Iraq still,” you all know the answer to that, as well.
So excuse me if I don’t play the game. And that is what it is, a game, particularly when you recognize that Bush intends to stay. And really, by now, going on 6 years into this administration, even if you hate Bush, you should recognize he intends to do what he says.
Now, if you want to discuss what we can do to help aid the cause, or what needs to be done to make sure the situation does not deteriorate further, I am all ears. Otherwise, ‘Why are we in Iraq” is just a silly game.
And you know it.
ppGaz
Clarification: The “concern” may not be yours. My remark is aimed at whoever claims it.
ppGaz
Hmm. Well, the question as stated in these threads came from your original post, did it not? I am too lazy to go back and look it up, but I think so.
So, the “real” question is “Why did we go to Iraq in the first place?” Fine. That’s the question that is driving the public support numbers into the toilet. Apparently, nobody really wants to “play” this game much anymore.
Defense Guy
A question that has been answered so many times that the only ones who don’t know at this point must have real issues with short term memory loss. By all means, lets let those people choose the issues of conversation.
Defense Guy
In a court of law, I might be able to just object that this question has been ‘asked and answered’, but apparently that would be unkind. Anyone reminded of the 3 year old who’s favorite word is ‘why’?
ppGaz
No, it isn’t. And your saying it is, does not make it so.
But there’s no convincing any of the true believers of that, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
However, your other question, what can we do to “make sure” the situation does not deterirate further, is relevant.
I answered that question a couple months ago. The administration has squandered the trust of the citizenry on this war, which is exactly and predictably the only logical outcome falling from the way it went about getting us into the war in the first place. To a citizenry that more and more doubts the rationale, and less and less trusts the competance of this leadership, must come a government that very much needs to ask for support and help.
So the question is to you, John. How does a government that got itself into this mess, get itself out?
Steve
I seem to recall that the Lewinsky scandal got the Natalee Holloway treatment in the media. Every day, we had a juicy new leak from Ken Starr’s office for the media to dissect for hours. It didn’t bring Clinton down, though, and he ended up pretty popular at the end of the day. The people who believed it was just a lie about sex, and therefore not a big deal other than as a political football, weren’t dissuaded from that opinion by the omnipresent media coverage.
Terri Schiavo got a ton of media coverage too, very little of which was slanted towards her husband’s side. At best, the media played it evenly, giving both sides a chance to air their “arguments,” at worst, they assisted in the portrayal of her parents as sympathetic and of Michael Schiavo as a monster. But at the end of the day, an overwhelming majority took her husband’s side, despite all the attempts to suggest that her parents had a valid claim to keep her alive in spite of everything.
Elian Gonzalez got the Natalee Holloway treatment too, as I recall. In that case, the media coverage was very slanted towards the claims of his American family and the outrage of the local Cuban-American community, and against the “cruel” government that wanted to send Elian back to Cuba. But at the end of the day, the polls all showed that a majority of Americans believed Elian should be in Cuba with his father.
As these examples show, the capacity of the American people to see through bullshit is sometimes underestimated. And if a substantial majority comes to sympathize with Cindy Sheehan at the end of the day, it’s not going to be primarily because of the sympathetic media coverage, or because people are too stupid to figure out that it’s a political stunt. A majority were already against the war and she has simply galvanized them, while exposing the emptiness of the case for continuing the war.
Blue Neponset
What is wrong with asking Bush to accept some responsibility for his policies in Iraq?
I think that is why people want him to answer Ms. Sheehan’s question. (What good cause did her son die for?) I was sick of his well-spun answers to that question a long time ago. I think it is good the rest of the Country is demanding more than sound bytes from our Commander in Chief.
Otto Man
My problem isn’t short-term memory. It’s that I have a long enough memory to remember all the different ways that question has been answered.
First, we were told that we had to go in because it was 100% guaranteed that if we didn’t, Saddam would evaporate Scranton in a mushroom cloud. Then we had to go in because Saddam had violated a UN resolution — and we all know what primacy the United States puts on the UN! No? OK, then we had to go in for human rights reasons, to put an end to Saddam’s torture rooms and start up some of our own, to put an end to Saddam’s torturing of his own people by aligning ourselves with other tyrants who tortured their own people. Hmm. OK, well, maybe we had to go in to spread freedom, constitutionalism, and women’s rights. And now that the Sunnis are getting squeezed out of the constitution and women are feeling more repression, not less, I’m sure we’ll see another round of historical revisionism soon.
So, again, it’s not that the war’s critics’ have a short-term memory, it’s that we’re burdened with a memory that brings in all these shifting rationales. I think it’s instructive to change the question, as John notes, from “why are we in Iraq?” to “why did we originally go into Iraq?” And as John notes, that was all about WMDs, which has been proven to be completely unfounded.
That’s the real issue here. The GOP and its press allies have been feverishly trying to put some lipstick on this pig, but people aren’t buying it anymore.
Boronx
Ahhh! Finally an answer?
including violation of numerous UN resolutions,
Which UN resolutions? The only one that might reasonably called a justification for war, 1441, Saddam complied with?
continued aggression,
What continue aggression?
the human rights angle,
Care to detail any ongoing human rights abuses that we prevented, and which outweighed the massive human rights abuse that was the invasion and occupation?
Saddam’s regional saber-rattling,
You have to be kidding me.
the aiding and abetting of terrorists, who, Abu Nidal? Palestinian Bomber publicity stunts?
the perceived threat of WMD,
You’re right, there were no WMD, but guess what? We had an much solid evidence there weren’t any before the war and so did Bush, and very little evidence to suggest otherwise.
the need for change in the Middle East,
Care to be more specific, or is “change” enough to justify all the killing?
the inability and unwilingness to enforce sanctions and go forward with them, ands so on
Ok, but if you’re jumping from failing (not yet failed) sanctions to war, you’re skipping some step.
This is a good start, but so far what you’ve thrown out is mostly a bunch of excuses that don’t hold water. Only two might possibly be the *real* reason for war: Change, which needs more specifics, and suggests that the justification for the war was ideological to the horror of civilized people who have rejected that motive for more than 60 years, and sanctions, which while concrete, requires an explanation as to why war was the proper response, an explanation that the American people certainly have never heard.
ppGaz
I mostly agree. This country is pretty well tuned in to the ebb and flow of political theater now, even if they are not consciously aware of it in every circumstance. In the fullness of time, the people collectively catch on, and the problem for Bush now is that the ship of trust and confidence in leadership has at least left the dock, if not sailed over the horizon.
Where I might disagree is with your last statement. I don’t think the case for “continuing” is empty. I am one of those who thinks that bending every shovel toward a good outcome is absolutely essential. Mind you, “good outcome” here probably means “not a collossally terrible outcome.” I don’t see any really good outcome out there on the horizon, and I think that pretending there is one is wishful, maybe delusional, thinking.
But again, that’s the pitchfork on which this government has impaled itself. On one fork you have the incompetance and arrogance that got us into the war. On the other, you have the profound need to gain support for making a great effort now to get a less-than-horrible result.
Well, the potatoheads have talked as if they know everything, and are immune to doubt and criticism. Okay, let them not strut their stuff …. let’s see them work their way out of this mess.
ppGaz
Errata: Change “not” to “now” in my previous last sentence.
Mike S
Now put them in the order they were trotted out each time the previous justification was disproven.
I don’t disagree with much of what you have writen the last few days of this. I think some on the left have been a bit unseemly. I would have preferred that the politicians had stayed out for the most part and I think some of the supporters have been over the top with their rhetoric.
But like I said in one of your first “only” posts on the subject, this is the first anti war person who has actually been heard on th subject. Every other one has been demonized by the GOP message machine as someone who hates America and wants us to lose. Even people who were talked about as great people originally, like Paul O’Neill, suddenly turn into Bush hating loons.
The fact that the ususal suspects have tried to turn her into Lizzie Bordan and failed has some on the left a little too happy, imo, but it’s damn near time someones voice was heard from the other side. Especially since the over riding message, that the war was a mistake, is not a fringe opinion .
carpeicthus
I’m so glad I don’t even know who Natalee Holloway is.
ppGaz
No, he’s not kidding. That’s the tragedy of it. And the “saber-rattling”, which is de rigeuer in Arabia, the equivalent of our basketball-court smack talk, is what he meant earlier by “continued agression.”
Both, all in the imagination. Hussein’s only interest was in stuffing his family’s and friends’ coffers with the stolen oil wealth of his country. Exactly the goal of the Saudi Royal family, but with less class.
Steve
But your statement is completely empty! Sure, we all agree success is better than failure, and “stay the course” sounds better than “cut and run.” But to stay without a plan, just because leaving would be bad, is foolish. And the administration is so divorced from reality when it comes to Iraq (e.g. “last throes”), that it is impossible to have faith in their ability to devise a winning plan, and it is impossible to trust them when they say we’re making progress.
So when I say the case for staying is empty, what I mean is no one can actually explain in what ways we’re making progress towards a stable Iraq, or what reason we have to believe that our continued presence is helping matters. The administration has consistently refused to identify any quantifiable benchmarks that would allow us to measure whether we’re moving forwards or backwards (which speaks volumes in itself). And if there is a great case for why staying will lead to success, I don’t understand why the administration is refusing to make it. All we get is utterly empty platitudes.
Defense Guy
I love it when you guys walk into the trap of apologizing for Saddam. It shows what ‘great thinkers’ you are on the subject.
John Cole
Christ. The charade continues. Like I said, you have known the reasons we went to war all along, as I have stated repeatedly, you just don;t agree with them or their justifications.
And yes, he was saber-rattling. There were continued aggression in the no-fly zones, he never recognized the right of Kuwait to exist, he was funding suicide bombers, he was allowing safe harbor for terrorists, and so on. You know it, and the preferred course of action for those like you was to ignore it all and work with those who wanted to lift sanctions and simply do nothing.
So quit playing the damned games.
ppGaz
I totally agree. Sort of. The administration has a helluva problem on its hands now. And it isn’t looking very good at deal with it. It talks wistfully of some sort of unity and resolve on the part of the Iraqi people, and has no way to get any unity and resolve here at home. It’s a real mess.
But (sorry, there’s a but) the need for a good outcome is not an empty idea. We’re sitting on the precipice of a great tragedy over there. A collapse of Iraq’s “government” and an alliance with Iran would put us in a hellish situation. And if I had to guess, that is the most likely outcome, within two years or less.
Yes, this administration needs a plan, a real plan. Not the platitudes and “world better off” horseshit they peddled for two years. Because without a plan, I promise you, the world is not going to be better off, it’s going to be worse off.
Peter T.
It’s nice that John Cole can admit that Bush’s WMD claim is demonstrably false. It might be polite to cede him his other claims as to why we’re in Iraq; unfortunately a number of them are spurious.
-Violation of numerous UN sanctions
As though Saddam’s Iraq was the only violator of UN sanctions? Isn’t there another country in the Middle East that’s a violator of sanctions?
-continued agression & regional saber rattling
Against who? When? Saddam, as events have shown, was militarily weaker than he was in ’91. He couldn’t project power beyond his own border. He couldn’t project power in Iraqi Kurdistan.
-Aiding and abetting terrorists
Once again, who and when?
-Need for change in the Middle East
That probably really doesn’t cut it as a justification for war. If it does, we really ought to have been in North Korea long ago. Besides, if your livingroom needs remodeling, would you start by setting it on fire?
As to how to help Iraq: how about we continue to point out how recklessly incompetent the planning and execution of this war has been, in the hopes that Bush might at least bounce some of its more bumbling architects? Perhaps replace Rumsfeld, whose resignation has been called for by members of both parties, with someone in whom the country might have some faith?
That will never happen, because as JC points out, Bush never changes his mind. I hope there is no one in the anti-war movement (not confined to leftists, btw) so naive as to believe otherwise. The focus, properly, is on the voting public. If Mrs Sheehan, and others, can keep people asking Why are we in Iraq?, the voting booth might eventually get us some change for the better.
ppGaz
Quit the gratuitous browbeating, please. Since when is “saber rattling” a cause for a war? If it were, the world would have annihilated itself a long time ago.
That’s just a ridiculous argument. The war was not sold on the basis of “saber rattling.” It was sold on the basis of a real, proximate profound threat that did not in fact exist. Not on the basis of smack talk.
Unless you are suggesting that we now go to war with North Korea?
Blue Neponset
I wish we could stop playing games. I wish Bush accepted some responsibility for the situation in Iraq. Instead we get a litany of justifications for why nothing is ever his fault.
ppGaz
Who the heck do you think you are talking to here? I never suggested “ignoring it all” and “lifting sanctions.”
Look at the position you are putting yourself in here, John.
I’m probably the strongest proponent of “no pullout” you have in here on the left side of your audience. And you want to continue to beat the drums of 2002? The same music that the American people are now correctly tuning out? You can’t even get past that stuff with me, how the hell are you going to get past it with the people who DO want a pullout? Or do you care?
I put, again, the question that is basically a paraphrase of your own: How does a government that got itself into this mess, squandering its capital of trust and confidence, get itself out? By beating the same old drum over and over again?
Matthew J. Stinson
Drudge edits her hometown paper? Man, his media empire is bigger than I ever imagined!
The point is that Bush did meet with her and the newspaper coverage (I linked to the full story rather than a synopsis of it) did not portray her as angry and disatisfied. I mean, the whole article is about her and her family; had she wanted to voice displeasure she had the opportunity. She’s definitely angry today, and I was giving her the benefit of the doubt in her political evolution.
Defense Guy
Yes, Yes it is well known that some feel Saddam was a fine fellow. What is more surprisng is that you don’t seem to be able to understand that this position is laughable. It is mock worthy, and it is easily ignorable.
rreay
I’ve commented here before, but always about fluff stuff or peripheral topics. I don’t think that I have yet commented on a political topic here. It’s time.
I don’t care “Why we went to Iraq”. More correctly, I care, but that doesn’t mean anything right now; we’re there and we need to deal with the situation as it stands this moment. How it happened is secondary to what happens now.
What I want to know should be pretty simple to answer:
1). “What are our goals in Iraq?”
2). “How do we measure success? How do we know if we’re accomplishing those goals?”
3). “What steps are we currently taking that relate to those goals?”
I know vague answers to 1. Those vague answers would be sufficient if I had any clue about 2. Without 2, 3 doesn’t matter. Now maybe I’ve missed something, but I don’t anyone has a good answer to number 2.
If we don’t know how to measure success we can’t tell when we’re successful. If we don’t know how to measure success how to we even know if we’re getting closer?
So tell me, how do we measure success in Iraq?
Peter T.
Defense Guy – can you provide names of those who feel Saddam was a ‘fine fellow’ – please cite instances of these people saying so. I’d hate to think anyone would be setting up straw men here.
Mike S
Are you auditioning for the part of the scarecrow in the remake of the Wizard of Oz?
Steve
It’s impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the war because anyone who says we shouldn’t have invaded is childishly portrayed as “objectively pro-Saddam,” thus ending the debate in a Godwinesque manner.
If someone suggests invading North Korea, objecting does not make one “pro-Kim Jong Il.” Saddam was a brutal dictator, but that does not mean that invading his country automatically leads to a better result than the status quo.
MisterPundit
Matthew, you’re making way too much sense. Stop it. :-)
Defense Guy
Peter T & Mike S
Hey, why not just read back up the page at the parade of the ‘excuses for Saddam’ club? Or you could just continue to pretend you don’t know what I am refering to. Either way, no skin off my nose, and no straw from my pockets.
Defense Guy
Maybe being a little more clear would be helpful. Acting as if you are unaware of Saddam’s transgression, is the same as excusing him of those transgressions. ‘Yes, he did that but so did others’ is excusing the behavior.
I hope this clears things up.
ppGaz
DG likes to argue. It doesn’t matter to him whether he is arguing with himself, or the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz, as long as he can argue.
His particular strawman choice this time is ludicrous, but not outside of his normal range.
Keep working on him, though, and you’ll eventually find out that he agrees with you. But he’ll fight to the death to prevent you from finding it out.
His arguments in a thread like this are — how shall I say it? — not helpful.
Mike S
Total BS, scarecrow. Show us one example of anyone saying Saddam was a “fine fellow” or stop whing that we “pretend” not to know what you are saying.
Defense Guy
ppGaz
Don’t be a jerk. I never changed my position in any of our conversations. You did.
Darrell
Peter T.
Iraq ADMITTED to UNSCOM before kicking out inspectors that they had tons of Vx and weaponized chems.. weapons which were never accounted for to this very day. That’s one reason why EVERYBODY from Hans Blix, to Chirac, to Clinton said he had them
More ignorance. Saddam violated his 1991 terms of surrender. Violation of terms of surrender = full justification to resume hostilities. I love how the left speaks as if all resolutions (such as those NONBINDING resolutions against Israel) are the same as Chapter 7 BINDING resolutions
Incredible. And to think that so many of those on the left consider themselves “informed”
Defense Guy
Now we will harp on the ‘fine fellow’ remark. Yes my words must be absolutely precise. You go on and keep thinking what you want, nothing I say is going to change it.
Otto Man
Sorry, Matthew, I didn’t click on the link and assumed you were duped by Drudge. Guess I was wrong.
Here’s the full section from the article, in context, and not just the cherry-picked quote:
Again, I find it hard to accept the right’s spin on this, that somehow Bush brought happiness into their lives. It was touring Seattle with other families — away from the president — that was the pleasant part of the trip. You seem to be intelligent and reasonable, so I’m a bit baffled as to why you accept the Malkin spin of this.
And I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. As Sheehan has said, though, a lot happened between June 2004 and August 2005 to ratchet up her distrust of the president — the 9-11 report, the Senate intelligence report, the Darfur report dismissing the WMD claims, and the Downing Street memo. I’m not surprised she’d re-evaluate things in light of all that new evidence.
Of course, for those on the fringe right, reassessing your views in light of new evidence makes you a lilly-livered flip-flopper, while staying the course, facts be damned, is the sign of true character. Whatever.
ppGaz
Aside to audience: Down the road, after the public outcry and premature pullout, when everyone is wondering why it wasn’t possible for the Potatohead Government to get the people behind them, remember DG’s post here.
This is what Bush is up against. He’s created this crowd of conga-drum beaters, and now he can’t shut them up. With every beat of the tired drum, the support numbers go down.
Go ahead, John Cole, and DG, live in denial of the simple and obvious truth as long as it is baking your cookie. You are stuck with the situation you have now because you cannot bring yourselves to be honest about how you got here.
I shed no tear for you, but I fear for the country.
Otto Man
Um, can you point to anyone here speaking up for Saddam?
Yes, unlike those on the right who can somehow square the claim that we went into Iraq to end the torture with the fact that we allied ourselves with torturing tyrants from Uzbekistan and elsewhere. So we’re pro-torture in order to be anti-torture? Cruel to be kind?
Sneer all you want, but you still haven’t answered any of the actual questions raised on this thread. Just the straw questions you’ve heard in your own mind.
ppGaz
Continue, forever, to polish and perfect the post hoc arguments.
The truth is that the war was sold on the basis of proximate and profound threats that did not in fact exist. It was not sold on the basis of “violation of surrender terms.”
Darrell
Otto man wrote:
Oh yeah, now you’re on a roll Otto. How can we ever claim to do good things in Iraq after we used air bases in Uzbekistan? How dare we oppose Stalin after allying with him during WWII… Whaaahhhhh. The left is pathetic
Defense Guy
ppGaz
You are an emotional ass. You have no right defining anyone else, and yet you will do so time and time again. On top of that you will lie just to avoid having to be wrong. It’s pathetic really.
What’s more pathetic is that you don’t respond to the actual issue I raised, what you do instead is point out the incorrect nature of my language use. I fear for the country all right, but only because people like you are trying to form an alternative view of reality.
So, how do you square the idea that since others were doing bad things, Saddam should get to as well. Or are you going to continue to pretend you have no idea what I am talking about.
Defense Guy
Oh, I’ll sneer all right. So will anyone with more than a 60 second attention span. These ‘new’ questions have been answered so many times that if you do not already know every single last detail about both sides positions, you really are a clueless git. So then, is it not a dishonesty to keep asking the same questions and pretending they have not been answered?
Mike S
Damn I wish I had made that investment in straw futures last week.
Otto Man
To all those here who continue to insist that we went into Iraq to liberate the people there, or spread democracy, or stand up for human rights, please do the rest of us a favor and go read Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
There are 24 paragraphs in there about Iraq. One makes a reference to democracy, two others to human rights violations. The other 21 paragraphs are all about WMDs, WMDs, WMDs.
To argue that this war was about anything else — or was sold to the American people as being about anything else — is ludicrous.
Otto Man
What a brilliant retort. Is that the best you’ve got?
Could you point to somewhere on this discussion where these issues have been answered? Because unless you do, it seems you’re the one pretending they’ve been answered.
The “we’ve already discussed that” approach make work for Scott McClellan, but I’m not a White House reporter and I’m not settling for it. You can’t just say you’ve answered the questions, you actually have to answer them.
Of course, that would get in the way of the name-calling and tongue-sticking, so I can understand why you wouldn’t want that.
Darrell
Otto man wrote:
To all you dishonest as hell leftists, please do us a favor and read the Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq which was debated for a year.
Defense Guy
Otto Man
Are you honestly telling me that in the time since we invaded Iraq, you have never seen an answer to the questions posted here? You need to get out more.
ppGaz
Good lord, man. You’ve really sunk to a new low here.
First, the “apology for Saddam” strawman. Challenged, you want to hide behind “you know what I meant.” Uh, yes, we all knew what you meant, and you owe an apology for your sorry strawman.
“Incorrect language use?” If you say so.
An “alternative view”? It’s now the majority view of this country, pal. You can rail against it all day and all night, it isn’t going away.
You can John cannot and will not answer the one question that — according to John, and me for that matter — is really important here:
How does the government that got itself into this mess — with its own people — get itself out? By beating the same old Drums of 2002 over and over again?
Are you serious?
Defense Guy
Damn I wish I had made that investment in straw futures last week.
Man, talk about overuse of a phrase. Tell me how, because that concept I took from an early anti-war post on this thread.
ppGaz
Yes, by all means, talk about the overuse of a phrase.
Which worn-out 2002 war marketing phrase, employed today, do you think will turn around the death-dive that the public support numbers are taking now?
Which ones, DG? Keep trying them until you find one that works.
Otto Man
No, I’ve heard plenty of platitudes and lots of ever-shifting rationales. But what I asked above — and what several others have asked as well, to no avail — is which one of these is the real deal, according to those on the right?
The laundry list of reasons that the right rolls out is a mass of misstatements that have proven to be false, red herrings tangential to the real issues at hand, and empty platitudes. It’s an ever-shifting rationale — no, strike that, excuse — for the war in Iraq, and the problem with that is that if we have 30 or so convoluted reasons for going in, then we have just as many hard goals to reach to get out.
If we’re there because of WMDs, we fucked up royally. If we’re there to end the torture chambers, why stop with Iraq and why ally with other torturers? If we’re there to elevate women to equal status, what will we do now that Islamic law is repressing them further? Etc. etc.
The reason we want a clear answer to why we got in is because that’s the first step to how we get out.
And I’m with ppGaz, I think an immediate or timed withdrawal is a huge mistake. We should never have gone in there, but now that we are, we have a duty to see it through. But again, we can’t see it through until we understand why we got in there in the first place.
Defense Guy
Which is the same as saying, I don’t agree with the answers given. Give me a new answer. My child used to do the same thing, but she grew out of it.
Darrell
ppgaz wrote:
Yes ppgaz, we have noted your glee in the public’s declining support of our actions in Iraq. What is your proposed altnernative?
Otto Man
Are you trying to prove my point for me, Darrell?
The authorization follows the same pattern — the majority of paragraphs in that statement refer to Saddam’s WMD capability and the imminent threat he posed to the U.S. Hell, the first fifteen paragraphs are devoted to that, with only a fig leaf of humanitarian reasons thrown in on the end.
Again, thanks for backing me up. Try reading your evidence first next time.
ppGaz
Honesty.
Otto Man
I’m not asking for a new answer, I’m asking for the right to make up its mind and stick with one.
Defense Guy
Considering how you summed up our earlier conversations as a noble instance of you changing my mind, I have doubts that you even know what this word means.
Darrell
Otto man wrote:
A “mass” of misstatements which have been proven to be falsehoods? There were no WMD’s found, although networks of ‘dual use’ labs were. Iraq had admitted to having WMDs which they never accounted for. So there were no WMDs found and we don’t know what Saddam did with the WMDs he was known to possess.. So where is the rest of the “mass” of misstatements proven to be false? Besides WMDs. Did you read the Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq? It doesn’t quite jibe with the lies coming from you and rest of the left, does it?
ppGaz
After honesty, this: People like you are going to have to shut up, unless you can demonstrate come capacity for stepping back from your one-note drumbeat of the same crap that we’ve been hearing for three years. You don’t seem to understand, the path to public support now is not toward repetition of the same tired music that got us here.
So I put the question to you again: How does the government that got us into this mess, get us out?
I gave you my answer. What’s yours?
Peter T.
Well Darell,
Iraq ADMITTED to UNSCOM before kicking out inspectors that they had tons of Vx and weaponized chems.. weapons which were never accounted for to this very day. That’s one reason why EVERYBODY from Hans Blix, to Chirac, to Clinton said he had them
‘Demonstrably false’ were Cole’s words – tell him about it. Apparently you still believe that there are WMD to be found in Iraq. A very lonely belief, particularly among those who might be considered either reasonable or informed.
‘Violations of terms of surrender’ again, Cole cited UN sanctions, so tell him. As to committing the US to a (quagmire) war, killing thousands and spending billions for ‘violations of the terms of surrender’ – pretty effing stupid. Containment was working real well against Saddam.
As for the aiding and abetting terrorists – I may be uninformed, but I’m not going to be getting any information from you apparently. Oh yes – didn’t one of Saddam’s boys have lunch in Prague with Osama’s second cousin, twice removed? Or something like that? Attack!
BTW, Pat Buchanan, among others, is a bitter opponent of W’s war. Anti-war is not necessarily left, sorry.
Otto Man
What are you talking about? Make sense, please.
ppGaz
Your lies are becoming tiresome, man. Nobody has ever changed your mind … including you.
That’s for the record, DG. You can quote me on it.
Defense Guy
I am going to tell you something that will shock you. The ‘Right’ is actually made up of individuals who do not, as is sometimes erroneously reported, share a brain.
I can also tell you that the official government position is available in many different places. It also turns out, despite what everyone thought on certain subjects, that we may have gotten one or two things wrong.
ppGaz
Without doubt, the funniest thing you have ever said.
Otto Man
Right. And what I — and my new research assistant Darrell! — have been saying is that if you look at the official record from the war’s start, it was all about WMDs. Now that we know the WMDs were never there (Darrell: read the Darfur report), what leg does the war have to stand on? What’s the point?
Darrell
Otto man wrote:
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identifyand destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles anddevelopment capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawalof inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national securityof the United States and international peace and security inthe Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptablebreach of its international obligations by, among other things,continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical andbiological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weaponscapability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuinghostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former PresidentBush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on UnitedStates and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing theresolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
There’s much more.. Of course you didn’t read it, because it contradicts most everything you’ve written here. And yes, Saddam was considered a threat. Knowing what we know now, he was still a dangerous threat. You dishonestly pretend he was not a threat
Defense Guy
ppGaz
Your dishonesty doesn’t even bother you. You simply have no shame. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, I have had more than enough of your tired crap.
Otto Man
Darrell, this is the last time I’m going to say this. You may want to get a grown-up to help you sound out the big words.
I said the administration justified the war on a claim about WMDs and Iraq’s likelihood of using them against us.
And then you post about how the administration justified the war on a claim about WMDs and Iraq’s likelihood of using them against us.
And you think that’s a rebuttal of my point? How?
Keep reading that until it sinks in. I said Bush based it all on WMDs, and your evidence supports that.
I’m done with this. It’s like trying to teach a dog how to dance.
Darrell
Amen. To John Cole’s credit, he was early to recognize that any other explanation beyond “Bush lied about his war for oil” would not satisfy these dishonest kooks
ppGaz
You’re a coward, DG. I asked a simple question and you spout forth with a load of this kind of crap?
You suck. How John can sit there and “wonder” why we don’t have a discussion about the need for resolve in Iraq, and then watch your sorry performance, and say nothing, is frigging beyond me.
How does the government that got itself into this mess, get us out, DG? Answer the question. I had the courtesy to give you an answer. Answer it.
Defense Guy
I don’t know why I allow myself to get drawn into these discussions. I should know better.
ppGaz
Produce the post in which I made such a statement, or else shut up.
ppGaz
Uh, you are parodying yourself now, right?
Defense Guy
ppGaz
Let us be honest enough to admit that there will be no resolution between us on this issue, and rather than allowing it to continue to grow larger and more vitriolic we just agree to disagree. Can you agree to this?
ppGaz
Answer my question. I did, at your request. Now it’s your turn. Answer it.
Darrell
Peter T. wrote:
“Apparently” I still believe that? well now. My problem with the left is that they dishonestly pretend like Saddam never had WMDs, ignoring the fact that Iraq had admitted to having tons of Vx and other nasty substances before kicking out inspectors in 1998
I think that comment sums up well the idiocy of the left. It is established fact that he was robbing the UN oil for food program blind.. and Saddam NEVER complied with UN sanctions without a gun to his head.. so yeah, sure, containment was working “real well” as long as we keep 150,000 on his border. So many on the left * really are * that stupid.
Defense Guy
As have I for you in the past. Apparently you will not concede that we should be allowed to take opposite positions on this issue. That is your right.
ppGaz
I cannot name a single commentator, right or left, who ever argued that “Saddam never had WMDs.” Neither can you.
The question in 2002, and 2003, and 2004 when George Bush made his grossly insulting “comic” video of himself looking under sofa cushions for WMDs, was …. whether there was a real and proximate threat. Bush thought the subject was funny, as if it were an Ozzie and Harriet episode where Ozzie lost his car keys.
We did not have to start a great war to find out if the WMDs were there. Additional time and competant intelligence, neither of which we were provided, would have found it out.
As for “robbing” the program? We started a war because somebody was robbing a program?
ppGaz
You have not. Point to the post.
Since you won’t be able to find it, post the answer here.
Mine was one word. This is not a hard question. Two or three coherent sentences are all that you need.
How does the government that got itself into this mess, get itself out?
You demanded my answer, and you got it. Now answer it.
Darrell
Otto man wrote:
This is another case-in-point example of the dishonesty of the left. As you say, you did write “that the administration justified the war on a claim about WMD’s and Iraq’s likelihood of using them against us”
However, I contracticted your claim that WMDs were the only justification given at that time. Actually there were a dozen or more justifications given back then. I quoted and cited the Congressional authorization to back up my point that there was much more said and debated at that time than WMDs, yet despite the evidence you still cling to your WMDs were the “only justification” BS. Whatever… so many of you kooks really are irrational and dishonest. This is a prime example
neil
It’s quite refreshing that there is now an issue out there that we can respectfully disagree on.
The question Why Are We In Iraq encompasses two separate but highly relevant concerns about the war.
The first is why are we there in the first place, and although there have been many, many reasons provided, there is a great deal of quite reasonable skepticism on this point, caused mostly by the Bush team. They sold the war on the thread of WMDs, but refuse to admit that the war was a mistake after they turned out to be completely wrong. What else are people supposed to think, besides that they had other reasons which they have not come clean about? WMDs were a justification, not the reason.
The second is why we are still there, and there is even less information this point. All Bush’s people will give us is “stay the course” and “desparate insurgency” and “turning the corner.” They will, again, not admit to their mistakes, failures and shifting goals, which is certainly the reason why people are losing faith in the leadership. All of the reasons why we were in Iraq in 2003 are no longer operative. So why are we still there?
I know that you, having more willingness and ability to see through (and past) the administration’s colored statements, don’t have as much of a problem with these things, but most people are not so circumspect. These questions are useful because most people do not know the answers, and it’s difficult to know why you are so hostile to the idea of them finding out.
ppGaz
Absent the belief that Iraq’s had ample WMDs and an ability to employ them in any useful way, which “justifications” can you list that would have persuaded the American people and Congress to have a war?
If the case for WMDs was so strong, why did the administration work so hard to smack down any suggestion that there might be a question about them, or that any stated assumption might be wrong?
Defense Guy
ppGaz
The conversation was about stem cells or abortion, can’t remember which. You asked and I answered, regarding your position on abortion and a couple other questions. Ring any bells? When did I demand anything from you?
Nope. I’m just going to ignore your little question.
Darrell
ppgaz wrote:
I have yet to read one leftist on this site who acknowledged that Iraq had owned up and admitted to UNSCOM to having tons of WMD’s in 1996.. and that weapons inspectors were thwarted by Saddam and forced to leave in 1998 before any of these KNOWN weapons of mass destruction were accounted for. There is ample writing on this forum demonstrating the left’s attitude that Bush lied about WMDs, as if Saddam’s WMDs were some kind of manufactured (“marketing slogan” is what I believed you yourself called it) hype without basis. No WMDs found, unless you count the network of dual-use labs, and the evidence in Duelfer report and others that Saddam was preparing to reconstitute his WMD programs. I find the left’s position in that regards to be dishonest as hell.
Defense Guy
Because the United States of America is not going to run away from another fight. We have already done that too many times.
Darrell
ppgaz wrote:
Saddam had WMDs, but destroyed or hid them just before the war to create a PR blunder for the US. What other explanation on why he kicked out inspectors in 1998 and never came clean on the WMDs they ADMITTED to having?? Seriously, what other plausible explanation can there be? Why did he kick inspectors our of the country if there was nothing to hide? Please tell us
Given the Duelfer report and other sources, it’s clear Saddam was looking to reconstitute his WMD program as soon as our troops left. He hosted and supported a number of terrorist groups.. And given Saddam’s violent past and history of WMD production and thwarting the UN, we were supposed to trust Saddam not to manufacture and pass along anything he could to harm us? This is a guy who actually tried to assinate a US President mind you. After 9/11, do you seriously think that would have been the smart thing to do? leaving him in place?
neil
Ah, so it’s some variant of the “when you find you’re in a hole, keep digging” argument? If that’s the reason, I can see why the political wizzes have chosen to obscure it from the public. But please, let’s get it all out into the open air. We are in Iraq to prove that the United States is _tough_, goddamnit. Anything else?
neil
For the record, I believe that the truth about why we are still in Iraq is something much closer to Powell’s “Pottery Barn” law, which is about the most noble principle to be found in the whole mishmash. But I also think we want permanent military bases in Iraq; I can’t say I know, because, well, they won’t say. But of course, the fact that all this is up in the air is no reason to consider it a legitimate question to ask.
ppGaz
The war was sold on the basis of a real and proximate threat that did not in fact exist.
All of your arm-waving is completely irrelevant to that point.
But the thread’s theme, as stated by John, was to center around what we do now, and how we deal with that.
The government that has lost support because the public sees, again and again, a disconnect between what these leaders say, and what the reality turns out to be, and questions whether we should listen to them now as they persuade us to carry on.
How does that government persuade, now? By listening to the likes of you, and DG? Is that your answer? Because if it is, this party is over. You might as well bring the troops home now. That dog will no longer hunt.
Your government’s problem is not with a few obscure posters on the Internet. Forget us. What are you going to do with the majority of the American people who are not asking for more Kool Aid? What are you going to tell them? Chest-beating crap like “don’t run away from a fight?”
Like I said, it’s over if that is the best you can do.
Darrell
neil wrote:
A patently false statement
neil
No, Darrell, just an ungrammatical one.
Darrell
ppgaz wrote:
So knowing what we know now, Saddam was no threat? really now
Darrell
I agree with you, it’s a very legit question to ask. Do you oppose US bases in Iraq? As for me, I think they would be a fantastic idea. Bases there to breathe down the necks of the despots in that region and to help ensure Iraqi stability. The middle east, hot spot that it is, is a much more sensible location for our bases than Germany.
ppGaz
Are you asking me? Absolutely not a threat that justified this war, no. Not even close.
But that’s not your problem. Your problem is that unless you quit beating the dead horses of 2002, you can never get to the issue that John suggested is the one that counts:
How does the government, now, persuade the country to stay on this course? The government that has created the atmosphere of flagging trust and perceptions of apparent disconnect between what they say, and what reality turns out to be? How does that government turn this around?
Just to pat myself on the back with three hands, it’s essentially the same question I posed two or three months ago right in these very hallways. I gave my answer. What’s yours?
Defense Guy
Are you a US citizen?
Darrell
ppgaz wrote:
Earlier on this thread I asked you to provide an answer:
and you never responded
Tell us your answer then, as I missed your post 2 or 3 months ago. We’re in a long hard fight. Bush told us this up-front before the invasion. Your side seems to take glee at our setbacks in Iraq, and I’ve yet to hear the left propose an alternative to what we’re doing now in Iraq beyond screaming “Bush lied”.. so I would be most interested to here your proposal. Let’s hear it
ppGaz
I am.
Your government, which owns every venue of power in the myriad corridors of DC and Virginia, has only to persuade about a third more of the country that staying on course is the best thing to do. Right now, the country has pretty much persuaded itself otherwise. And the gap is growing.
How does the government turn that around? C’mon, DG, be a man. Answer the question.
Defense Guy
ppGaz
No thanks. But I appreciate your ‘be a man’ insinuation. Polls are great, unless they are biased or don’t go your way. I was just curious about your ‘Your government’ statement, since its our government.
They have the ‘power’ because the American people gave it to them. We will see what happens in ’06.
ppGaz
Already asked and answered in this thread.
“Honesty.” That’s my answer. The government has to persuade a doubting public that it can be honest about the situation we are in, and it cannot do that by repeating the same stuff that the public has been hearing for 3 years and is finding to be disconnected from the realities. It has to stop the relentless self-justification and demagoguing and hyperbole. It has to walk away from the “worse than Hitler” nonsense, and the WMD fiasco, and the “better off” bunkum, and talk in terms of the reality on the ground. Right now, nobody knows what the situation will be in two years. Whether anybody, anywhere, is actually “better off” depends pretty much entirely on that outcome. Top officials can’t seem to agree whether one, two, or five more years is required to get to an as-yet-undefined “better” outcome. Top officials can get their feet out of their mouths with their “mission accomplished” and “bring it on” and “last throes” gaffes long enough to talk straight to the people. The people are losing their enthusiasm for being preached at, for being told to “remember the lessons of 911”, as if they didn’t have enough sense to figure out for themselves what they might be, for talk of uniting the Iraqis behind our goals when our government cannot even unite Americans behind them …. or for that matter, clearly state them.
On the day that the government starts to talk straight to the people as if they are not stupid children, starts to look and sound something like honest about the situation and the plan for getting to the next situation, maybe the free fall of support will stop.
How will you accomplish that?
Boronx
Christ. The charade continues. Like I said, you have known the reasons we went to war all along, as I have stated repeatedly, you just don;t agree with them or their justifications.
No, it’s not a charade, and it’s critically important to know why we got here, and it’s critically important for another reason: People will say, stop living in the past, we need to figure out what we’re going to do about Iraq today. It’s a nice sentiment, but it’s bullshit. We aren’t going to be setting any policy in Iraq. George Bush, the man who started the war, is going to be setting policy for Iraq.
And yes, he was saber-rattling.
Please, John, I don’t mean he weren’t rattling his sabre, I mean that rattling from a weakened dictator who can’t even control his own nation is a totally ludicrous justification for war by anyone’s standards.
There were continued aggression in the no-fly zones,
So shooting at planes bombing his country is aggression now?
he never recognized the right of Kuwait
That’s pretty aggressive, John, get real.
to exist, he was funding suicide bombers,
Check.
he was allowing safe harbor for terrorists, Who, anyone we cared about? Anyone that we demanded Saddam release to us? Anyone who posed a threat to the US?
You know it, and the preferred course of action for those like you was to ignore it all and work with those who wanted to lift sanctions and simply do nothing.
Strawman of this young century, one that has dominated right wing thought on the matter for years now.
So quit playing the damned games.
No games, this is deadly serious. Are you really suggesting that Bush invaded Iraq because he promised to cut checks to Palestinian suicide bombers, or to capture Abu Nidal or some other retired terrorist that even Israel didn’t care about much anymore?
ppGaz
That’s it, then. You have no answer. If the past is any guide, you will just sit here and fling the same drumbeat of talking points that is now about 3 years old, the same drumbeat that has support for the war heading south on a rocket sled. You’ll browbeat “liberal” and “lefty” opposition at every turn, and repeat the same tired slogans.
And John wonders why his readership doesn’t rush to discuss this subject. I put an answer out there, and I stand by that answer. Unless I’ve missed something, it is at this moment the only answer profferred so far.
Meanwhile, the offical answer on the ground, that I see, is basically this: “We’ve been right all along, we’ve been right about everything, and it’s important to keep saying that because if we lose faith in that answer, we’ll fail, and it will be your fault.”
Got it. If that’s not the official answer, then please tell me what is. And while you are explaining your version of the official answer is, try explaining what the official plan is to prevent any number of bad outcomes. For each, descrive the confidence level, the evidence for that, and the risks, and the fallbacks should the risks prove out.
Defense Guy
Boronx is one of the apologizers, I was refering to earlier. If you cannot read it in his words, then you will never understand what I am talking about.
A weekend dictator? Good lord where do you people come from?
Only we were patrolling the UN approved no-fly zone, not bombing. We did, of course, bomb those shooting at us.
Hell, I don’t even need to add anything to this one. It can stand all on it’s own in its idiotic glory.
Defense Guy
Fine ppGaz, you are a genius who sadly no one listens to and the rest of us are not fit to even be in your presence. There are no easy answers, but don’t let that detract from your crusade to talk about ‘drum beating’ and trends as related to the war and the voting public.
ppGaz
Well, in your case, there are no answers at all.
Put your answer out there, and then let’s compare and contrast.
ppGaz
Take your time, DG. I know how carefully you think everything through.
Now, I have several hours of work to do so that I can earn money and pay taxes and support your war. I will be back in about 6 hours.
And, you still owe me five bucks. In case you thought I forgot.
Defense Guy
ppGaz
In case you forgot, your dishonesty is still there for all to see. Perhaps you thought a bet was imposed on someone, rather than an agreed to by both parties. You can wait until the cows come home for all I care, as the ‘there are no easy answers’ is the only one you are going to get.
Use this as proof of superiority of your position. Don’t let the mascot outfit chafe now, while you earn tax money for our war.
Frank
The truth about WMDs: The term WMD is a marketing slogan, developed to sell the war in Iraq. The military used CBN (for Chemical, Biological, Nuclear sometimes usually to refer to cases when you wanted your gas mask on. The Bush White House wanted to imply that Saddam had nukes by saying “weapons of mass destruction” without having to make that claim explicit. Only when their marketing campaign began losing traction did Cheney start claiming Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. “Mushroom cloud”(s) started showing up in administration speeches after that.
Claims that “everyone knew Saddam had WMDs” evades the point that very few people thought Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons. A claim which was the marketing key for getting acceptance for the war.
Peter T.
Yes Darrell, Iraq was such a problem when all we were doing with Saddam was keeping him contained – things are so much better now! I know our friends in Iran are liking things better within Saddam gone. At least someone is happy.
As to WMDs – you sure sound like you’re in the know on that subject. What did we spend – $1B or something like that – on the search for WMD? And the conclusion was there weren’t any, and hadn’t been for years? That leaves the rest of us to wonder … is Darrell just that much smarter than everyone else, or is he just a wingnut who, like all losers, can’t admit when the facts are against him?
I’ll be spending the evening, perhaps the rest of my life, agonizing over that question.
Defense Guy
It will come as quite a shock to the Israeli’s, Iraqi’s and American pilots that Saddam was ‘contained’. We should not pay any attention to this, as he was contained. Contained by the people who he was bribing.
I wonder how we should go about ‘containing’ the other parts of the region in which the citizens desire and are willing to kill Americans. Whatever the plan is for that one, I am sure it won’t come from a Republican.
You know, because they are evil.
Matt Holmes
Re. Justification/reason/excuse for war:
Recognition that the primary source of Islamist attacks was a fertile region, the middle east, caused the administration to name the (horribly named) Axis of Evil as the enemy. Afghanistan was the natural first, as the Taliban was the lowest hanging fruit at the time (Al Qaida source). That was not enough, because the generation of Islamist terrorists would continue so long as there were areas where they could operate (and attack from) in existance. Iraq was chosen, for many reasons, as the next lowest hanging fruit. It is also not the last step, not by a long shot. The reasons given (WMD, UN resolutions) were enough to sell what had to be done (reform the middle east) to a populace who wouldn’t (and largely still can’t) stomach the enormity of the task at hand.
In the same sense that 9/11 slapped some Americans awake to the growing threat, it will likely require a second and more catastrophic attack to close the book on the question “why go to war?” Naturally, it will be as a tremendous cost, but it seems that there is no other way to get people’s attention.
The axis around which all these war/anti-war questions seem to rotate is the question of who the enemy is and/or if there is an enemy. Personally, I have read enough and seen enough of the Islamist threat (Al Qaida being the nom de plume only, IMO) to know that it’s impossible to know the enemy and still think in 20th century terms.
To a large extent, these arguments (above) represent an effort to constrain a new, mutant phenominon (asymetrical warfare, 4GW, culture war, and more) that has come about due to a shrinking planet (post information/communcation age) to an outdated paradigm that cannot encompass it.
Darrell
Peter T wrote:
Ah yes, Peter “containment was working perfectly fine” T. Tell us Peter, where are the reports that Saddam hadn’t had WMD’s for “years” before our invasion? I would really like to see your ‘evidence’. And since you’re agonizing over this and all, dontcha think it’s worth wondering why Saddam had thwarted and expelled inspectors in 1998? Wasn’t the first time he had blocked and thwarted them either. Sound like someone with nothing to hide? Nahhh, Bush must have lied about those WMDs!!
Correct me if I’m wrong, because I don’t want to pop your ‘reality based’ bubble or anything, but didn’t we already find ricin and botulinum toxin in large enough quantities to regenerate a bio-weapons capability in no time, along with “networks” of dual use labs according to Duelfer and other reports? Many (most?) chem weapons can be easily produced with easily obtainable materials. Did you know that? So yeah, no ‘stockpiles’ of WMDs found, but Duelfer reported that Saddam was trying to re-constitute his WMD program (surprise!) after troops and inspectors left. Do you trust a sociopath like Saddam, given his history? Just curious how you leftist kooks really think
Cause we know Saddam could be trusted and would never go to extreme lengths to deceive and to hide things or anything like that.
ppGaz
Surprise, I’m back early. Done with my chores.
I look at the bet this way, DG: For the small price of five bucks, I can get a rise out of you. Best money I ever spent. In fact, now you owe me ten bucks.
Oh, and your “answer” to the war dillemma? I’ll paraphrase:
DG: “I don’t have one, but that won’t stop me from throwing rocks at yours.”
Good to see that you are back to your regular form, old buddy.
ppGaz
Forget stomachs, minds are the issue. Are you saying that the “populace” isn’t fit to govern unless manipulated by false WMD fears? The UN resolution argument is not supportable. If the US is going to pimp UN resolutions as a cause for war, it needs to at least pretend that it will be governed, itself, by UN consensus. The UN urged continued inspection time, did it not? Would not those efforts have revealed the same lack of WMD that we ourselves found to be the case? It appears that the UN was just used as an extra in the drama scripted out by the US government.
About as grotesque a suggestion as I’ve seen on this subject so far. Such an attack will not close a book. It will even further call into question the war we are waging now.
What do you think Islamic radical fundamentalism is about? What makes you think that attacking countries will make it go away? Do you think that people insane enough to turn themselves into bombs will be persuaded not to by another round of Shock and Awe?
Saints preserve us from that kind of nutty thinking.
Andrei
I think there are many of us who listen and agree with ppGaz. In this thread, I know I haven’t said much of anything because he was doing a fine job on his own.
I think it’s telling that DG and Darrell refuse to answer a simple question posed to them by ppGaz though.
Darrell
Andrei wrote:
Actually, ppgaz has asked a lot of questions, 5 or 6 in his previous post alone.. Not sure which one you’re referring to. ppgaz has been patting himself on the back for his brilliant ‘solution’ to Iraq. What was his solution?: Honesty. That’s it, just ‘honesty’ (see his 2:36 pm post today). Now isn’t that some deep thinking… Lefties, like children, are easily impressed.
Matt Holmes
“What do you think Islamic radical fundamentalism is about? What makes you think that attacking countries will make it go away? Do you think that people insane enough to turn themselves into bombs will be persuaded not to by another round of Shock and Awe?”
1. It’s about totalitarian control, with a splash of death-cult madness. Nothing new about the ideology, really, it’s Nazi culture repackaged and amplified.
2. Attacking hostile countries isn’t a gaurantee of making it go away by any means. It is however part of a neccessary strategy to fight it and win.
3. I hesitate to generalize about the mentality of suicide bombers, but I’ll go so far as to say they were here long before shock and awe, and will continue apace long after we’re not alive anymore. It’s a tactic the Islamists use, along with many, many others.
If I may ask a question of my own, when do you think this war started? To clarify, I mean the war on Islamists.
DougJ
Okay, it’s time to admit we’re getting killed on this issue. I just watched Bay Buchanan on CNN defending the president and she could not have looked worse. Granted, Bay isn’t the best, but she was being interviewed by Paula Zahn. If Paula Zahn makes you look bad, you’ve got problems.
In fact, I’m beginning to wonder if John isn’t running a double supersecret RINO reverse on this one. By pretending to look at the issue “objectively” or whatever he said, he provided a forum for many on my side — perhaps especially me, I’ll admit it — to make the sort of comments that are fodder for the left’s attacks. This all came together for me when I saw that guy on t.v. who shot at the protesters, looking for all the world like a crazed redneck, despite the fact I’ve seen him on t.v. before and I think he’s a pretty good guy.
This thing is quicksand. I’m stepping out of it. No more on this “issue” for yours truly.
ppGaz
You never get anything right, Darrel. I patted myself on the back, with three hands (mystery? Whose was the other hand?) for asking the question two or three months ago. Not for answering it.
I answered it only because DG insisted. Of course, my response didn’t spur him to an answer of his own.
So far, mine stands as the best answer only because as far as I know, it’s the only one that’s been offered. Yours is, I’m sure, better. What was it again?
Do try to pay attention.
ppGaz
1. Totalitarian control? Nothing could be further from the truth. All religious fanatics will reject any government that doesn’t toe the religious line. It’s about religious fanatacism. Nothing more or less. Religion gone mad.
2. Necessary to fight it and win? According to what evidence? Present evidence that attacking any country will have any effect on worldwide religious fanatacism.
3. They’ll be here after we’re gone? You said one true thing. One out of three, actually.
4. When did “this war … on Islamists” start? Which war are you referring to? The nutty campaign of GW Bush? The Crusades? The war against the Mahdi? Khartoum?
What I know for a fact is that the government of this country has no idea either what it is fighting, or what that fight means. Just the fact that it emphasizes going “out there” to fight something, instead of focussing like a laser on hardening and protecting our many vulnerabilities, tells me that they can’t find their ass with both hands. We can fight wars in Arabia for a hundred years … and we will, unless we get smarter governments than the one we have now … and it wouldn’t help. Hardening and tightening our borders, our transportation system, our food supply, our essential infrastructure … that will help. A zero-tolerance policy toward nuclear proliferation, that would help. Building an effective and collaborative coalition with all of the Western world to help effect these improvements, that would help. A coherent foreign policy in the Middle East would help. A lot of things would help. Playing the IED game in Iraq, and trying to prop up an American-devised faux democracy in Iraq, to join the other faux democracies in Arabia, no help. Whatever house of cards we prop up there would collapse in six months unless we stay there forever. An Iran-Iraq axis may be in your future. One thing that is not in your future is a happy Iraq playing baseball and wearing Sideout clothes and buying Faith Hill CDs and selling us $35 dollar a barrel oil.
Kathy Cole
JC:
Intend to stay or not, how will he be able to accomplish that with recruiting gaps continuing/expanding, and potentially worsening public support? I heard David Brooks and John McCain talking about staying the course but nothing on how that might be accomplished given the strain on the military.
Matt Holmes
ppGaz, I’m new here so maybe I’m not used to the freeform style you’re using. I answered your questions as clearly as I could, and your response doesn’t seem to indicate that I communicated clearly enough. What you wrote after that I can only classify as a rant, because I cannot address any particular point you’re trying to make. Frankly, it seems like you’re talking to yourself.
That said,
1. Do you think a theocracy can be totalitarian? I certainly do, and tend to believe that all theocracies are totalitarian. Just to be clear, I looked up “totalitarian”:
1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL; especially : DESPOTIC b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but so far that describes the Taliban exactly as well as the Iranian theocracy or the House of Saud’s kingdom.
2. “Present evidence that attacking any country will have any effect on worldwide religious fanatacism.”
I can only assume you mean -beneficial- effects, since clearly attacking Taliban-controlled Afganistan and Saddam-controlled Iraq had manifest effects on Islamists. You can feel free to go to their websites and read all about how they feel about these assaults.
To specify “worldwide religious fanatacism” as Islamism (or the current primary threat) will help narrow the focus a bit and make my point possible. The immediate effect on Islamists of attacking these countries was driving them absolutely wild. The “smoking them out” theory of the GWOT would describe this, wherein the enemy was no longer able to hide under a mask of moderation (or simply hide period) because their own beliefs and support groups (subordinate fanatics) would not allow inaction in the face of this affront. This is only a positive in light of the previous escalating attacks these people were able to conduct in relative secrecy, with little to no retaliation (Embassy bombings, USS Cole, WTC bombing #1, culminating in WTC bombing #2). In short, before our attacks they struck us time and time again without fear of reprisals. Now, they are locked in combat with us and paying for each and every attack instead of getting them for free.
3 we’ll skip since apparently my answer was sufficient.
4. Wherever you like. I’m wondering if it’s your assertion that the current war on terror (more aptly named Global War on Islamists, IMO) was started by the US, or by some other country. I’m not sure I understand how you view the big picture, or if you think that the Afghan/Iraqi liberation/occupation/invasion is simply GW being insane, or something else entirely.
ppGaz
Islamic radicalism is not about politics. It’s about fanatical religion. It cares little about politics. You are talking politics. A man with explosives around his waist is not interested in politics.
I mean that the suicide bomber is not deterred or persuaded. If anything, others are inspired to start strapping on the bombs.
Well, my assertion is that there is no such thing as a “war on terror.” I have never seen an example of one, I have never seen any model for this one nor any integrated set of assumptions for waging one. I have never seen a plan that carries one out, which has a set of measurable goals and a managed tableau of any kind for reaching them. I think it’s a marketing slogan and I think it’s bullshit.
Andrei
This one: “How does the government that got us into this mess, get us out?”
Which has been the consistnet question he has asked that you and DG keep dodging.
Attempt to weave and dodge all you want, but the above is still not an answer to ppGaz’s question. Making fun of someone else’s answer is not an answer. Until you answer ppGaz, you’re just a blowhard coward.
Andrei
We are not at war with Islamists. To think that is thick headed and obscene, and is one of my pet peeves avout certain people’s attitudes in this country about who the enemy is. That would be like us declaring war on Christians because of what the Army of God does to doctors who perform abortions.
The enemy we face are terrorists, pure and simple. Yes, many happen to be islamic fundamentalists, but that does not equate us being in a war with the hundreds of millions of islamists who practice their religion peacefully.
Further, you realize of course that Saddam ran a secularist dictatorship, right?
I mean, how people can think we are at war with Islamists then turn around and not question why we would bomb the crap out of a country that is not run by Islamists is completely beyond me.
Matt Holmes
I took it for granted that certain terminology was common.
Islamism sheds some light on what I meant. I do not mistake Muslims for Islamists any more than I mistake Islam for Wahhabism or Salafism.
This is not a good arena for me. I’m used to groups where a lot of background is already known. I would strongly recommend researching Islamism, Salafism, Wahhabism, and a perusal of MEMRI’s database of translated documents and transcripts.
I suspect a lot of the misunderstandings here spring from a lack of understanding of these things, which largely illustrate the nature of what I mean when I say “our enemy”.
To repeat for extra clarity: Islamists are not the same as Muslims.
Boronx
If we were at war with Islamists, we could have invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan , Iran, or Egypt.
If we are at war with Islamists, perhaps we should side with the Baathists against the Shia theocrats and the Iranian double agents…
Boronx
So the people war supporters think wer at war against are different than the people Bush led us to war against, but more than two years down the road they still haven’t figured it out.
What Democratic country gets hit with the lions share of the world’s supply of Islam-motivated terrorism, and which of it’s neighbors continues to support these terrorists rather openly? Could it be the same nation that created the Taliban? Is it the same nation that’s likely harboring Osama bin Laden? That sold nukes to the highest bidder? Where anyone who’s anyone in Islam sends there kids if they want to turn them so radical their brains flips inside out?
Matt Holmes
“If we were at war with Islamists, we could have invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan , Iran, or Egypt.”
Not without immense difficulty, far far greater blowback, and far less ROI. Do you really think we should have done it that way? I’ve heard that sort of suggestion before, for North Korea as well, and although I know why those are poorer choices than Iraq I get the impression the folks who say this sort of thing don’t.
ppGaz
There’s an ROI for us in Iraq?
Neither the outcome, nor the size of the investment, is known, nor can they be known for at least two more years, maybe five, maybe longer.
The entire operation was entered into on speculation, with a theory for which there is no evidence in support. It’s a huge experiment. A grotesque experiment. A poorly planned experiment.
What on earth is ROI with respect to this clusterfuck?
Matt Holmes
ppGaz, I am (was) trying to explain to you the things you state you don’t understand. The problem I’m having is that whatever it is I say you respond with exclamations and assertions that don’t address what I’ve said at all.
I’m afraid I can’t be bothered to explain every last detail to you. You have to make an effort yourself.
I certainly hope you’re not representative of the comment quality here, because if that’s the case there doesn’t seem to be much point in commenting.
Mike
Yes! I certainly hope you’re not representative of the comment quality here, because if that’s the case there doesn’t seem to be much point in commenting.