Update - I've written a second post on this topic in response to the President's speech at Fort Irwin earlier today.
Mr. President, meet the Constitution. Constitution, I'd like to introduce you to President George W. Bush. It's been a long six years since Mr. Bush took office, and it's high time the two of you got to know each other - especially with that whole oathy-type thing. It's probably going to be easier to do all that "preserve, protect, and defend" thing if you have some sort of vague sense of what it is you are defending.
This overdue introduction is particularly necessary today because the president, in his Rose Garden press conference, demonstrated a particularly egregious failure to comprehend one of the most basic principles of our system of government.
In his opening statement, the President said this:
Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops, by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground, setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, and spending billions of dollars on pork barrel projects completely unrelated to the war.
The problem with that statement is that we live, at the moment, in a republic. We do not live in a military dictatorship. That is why, in the United States, the military is supposed to be subordinate to the civilian leadership. The founders also wanted to make sure that the powers of the government were diluted - having experienced first hand all of the fun of monarchy, they wanted to make sure that they stayed way the hell away from that.
This is why, at least in theory, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military but Congress is the branch of government that has the power to tell the President where, when, and why the military should be used. The President is Commander-in-Chief, but Congress declares and pays for wars. Congress gets to tell the president when and where the military that he commands should fight, and the President gets to take it from there.
Unfortunately, this President does not seem to be willing to acknowledge that. He is, after all, the "decider," and the rest of us - and especially Congress - need to understand and acknowledge that, and do what he wants. His press conference today makes it clear that he is not willing to accept the will of either Congress or the American people in this regard:
Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq. If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back. I'll veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay.
That's right. Those damn Democrats better get this politicking out of their system and get back to the important "business" of giving Bush what he wants. After all, that's what they're there for, right?
So what happens if they don't? Apparently, the President is going to keep fighting as best as he can without the money:
If Congress fails to act in the next few weeks, it will have significant consequences for our men and women in the Armed Forces. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, recently stated during his testimony before a House subcommittee, if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair, and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and reserve forces. These cuts would be necessary because the money will have to be shifted to support the troops on the front lines.
The Army also would be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army would be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will also have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of these forces to deploy overseas. If this happens, some of the forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended because other units are not ready to take their places.
If Congress does not act, the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy. If these new teams are unavailable, we would have to ask other units to extend into the theater.
In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker put it this way: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
It's important to remember just how "a bill I can sign" is being defined here - that would be a funding bill that gives the President the money that he is asking for without any of those pesky strings. After all, just who do those Congresscritters think they are, anyway? It's like they think that they have the right to tell him what he should and should not do with the military. Why, it's almost enough to make you think that they've been sneaking out and reading the Constitution behind his back or something.
Just in case those statements weren't enough to clearly demonstrate just how far the President is willing to go in this regard, he made things more explicit:
In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership -- Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
At this moment, my wife is in the combat zone. She has a new assignment that will probably bring her home fairly soon, but the families of the headquarters of her division just found out that they are already going to be waiting longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. My brother-in-law was supposed to have returned from Afghanistan a couple of months back, and he hasn't yet. My brother is getting ready to head back into the combat zone again. Since July of 2004, the three of them have logged over 40 months in the combat zone. Speaking as one of the American people, I find that unacceptable.
Members of Congress say they support the troops. Now they need to show that support in deed, as well as in word. Members of Congress are entitled to their views and should express them. Yet debating these differences should not come at the expense of funding our troops.
A translation for those of you who aren't familiar with the Imperial dialect of Bushese: "They're entitled to have their views and express their views. They're just not entitled to act on them."
Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation. They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones.
The President is, it would appear, fully prepared to hold the American military hostage until he gets his way. He is willing to do this because he thinks that he can convince the public that he's not the guy holding the gun to the troops head. But he will be.
Congress, under the Constitution, is the branch of government that has the power to raise an army. Congress, under the Constitution, is the branch of government that has the power to declare war. Congress, under the Constitution, is the branch of government that has the power to decide how money should be spent. The President, under the Constitution, has none of those powers.
If Congress sends him a military funding bill that the President does not believe he can live with, he can veto the bill. If Congress cannot override the veto, the funding bill does not become law. Congress is not, however, then obliged to send him another funding bill that doesn't have the things he found objectionable. Congress can send him the same damn bill again, with the same strings attached, and that is exactly what they should do if that happens.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between what the President is trying to pull here and what goes on when the cops are staring down someone who has a gun to a hostage's head is the scale. The President is standing there, and his message comes down to this: "OK, Congress. Give me the money, no strings attached, or the troops get it." It's extortion by threat on a massive scale, and the military are the ones being threatened.
I do not want my loved ones or my friends to get hurt, but Congress has got to stand up to the President. We do not have kings in this country. We do not let one person - whether he thinks he is the "decider" or not - make all of the decisions. If Congress caves in to him (as they probably will), he's just going to do it again and again.
It's time for Congress to show courage and leadership. It's time for them to remind the President that he's not the "decider."
You are my new hero!
Very well put. Bush is a failed president and will be recorded in history as the worst administration to this point.
Thank you, Mr. Zoology.
Excellent post Mike. As someone who has a number of family members in this fight you know it isn't just a matter of some simplistic slogans like "support the troops". Bush is killing time because he wants the Iraqi congress to approve the Profit Sharing Agreements. It means giving British and American oil conglomerates a 75% share of the Iraqi oil. I'm sure the people of Iraq must be thrilled to have their country destroyed and then have to turn over one of the few resources they have to the decimators. This war was about oil pure and simple. Bush doesn't care about the troops or he wouldn't be holding them hostage to his demands. He wants what he wants and screw everyone and everything. After all, he revealed his true colors when he stated that the Constitution was "just a goddamn piece of paper". Oh really Mr. Bush? Never mind that it is the very foundation of this nation and everything it stands for. He's not a Commander nor a president. He's a spoiled frat boy who only has war profiteering in his blood. You'll sure as hell never see any members of his family or friends shed any of their blood for this country. That's your job. I wish to God Congress would bring Articles of Impeachment against him and his dark cohort Cheney. They deserve it and I'm afraid our nation won't survive another two years of these treasonous S.O.B's.
I would strongly suggest that you need to review the constitution and a basic class on American government. You have an obvious lack of knowledge of either. At least base your arguments on facts instead of what you wish it to be. Typical left wing rantings, lots of innuendo and not too many facts.
this little weasle president is the very tyrant that mimics the reason we rebelled against king george .now we have a treacherous tyrant who thinks he gangis khan,or adolph hitler.i think the military personnel from privates to majors should refuse to serve in iraq. they are working for exxon,and halliburton,just like nazi germany was serving the elite families ,there. i think this would be exactly what george washington would want,from our troops.
Yes, it is HIGH time we bring the war on terror where it needs to be...in the Halls of Congress and on the streets of both liberal coasts.
If the President asks for an emergency war funding bill why is it necessary for the Democrats to stuff it with pork. I thought when they took over from the Repubs they said it was all going to be different?
As for the execution of the war in Iraq, it should not be micro-managed by Congress (nor the President). Congress fully approved of the general selected to run the war just a few months ago - they should give him the tools to do the job he was sent to do. All the "surge" troops have not been fully deployed and yet already there have been improvements.
It would appear that the Democrat controlled Congress is more than prepared to hold the military hostage while it plays out these games. It was nice of them to take a vacation without approving this bill nor even selecting the House and Senate members to conference on the differences in the bill.
Other than that I enjoyed your article.
An emotional report filled with a loose interpretation of the constitution and a biased opinion.
For Mike Dunford:
As one who also studies Planetary Evolution, may I make a personal observation? These politically "up-setting" times are all part of the same equation: Planetary Evolution; and there is really nothing that one human being can say or do, other than to let Mother Nature take her course; as you know, she will anyway.
With that 1.2 mile bollide due to hit in the Pacific theater in April 2012, your current concerns over the fourth Muslim Poppy War, may not be worth the effort.
Well put however, you're not informing people how DC politics really works. While your analogy of a gun being held to a hostages head is semi applicable, you fail to mention that this is how the machine works. When the chief executive wants to influence public opinion this is how it is done. Do you honestly think President Bush wants our troops to be under funded and under trained? Of course he doesn't. While I do think his administration has set this country back at least a decade in several areas, I refuse to believe he is an "evil" person. I have not agreed with our course of action in Iraq since Sadaam was removed, but I do think Bush thinks he is doing the right thing. That being said, this is how congress forces a president to do the people's bidding. If they cut the funding Bush will not leave our troops over there to suffer he will be forced to bring them home faster. This is just how the political game is played. Just like any game you cannot judge the team based on one play. Bush's speech was just one play in the game of his administration attempting to "stay the course" just like congress cutting the troops funding is their way to bring our fighting men and women home sooner. Congress just happens to be on the side of public opinion, fancy that I guess we really did elect representatives.
The Federal government set up so that military power was distributed amount "leaders", and such that the government could be overthrown if it were operating against the interests of the common man? You mean things like the Second Amendment, right? That was put into the founding documents of the nation SPECIFICALLY for that purpose. Yet it's left-wing democrats that are struggling so hard to get it flushed down the toilet. So on the subject of onerous government, bemoaning the fact that the Commander in Chief ultimately makes ALL military decisions should he choose to exercise that right is in direct contradiction with an all-out battle to delete the Second Amendment, or at least cripple it repeatedly and frequently. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein come to mind, as does the remaining Kennedy.
I see no evidence whatsoever that Bush wants to utilize American troops to inflict his will on US soil. Can you show me where there has been any indication that this is in the works from W? Because if not, there's no threat of a military dictatorship.
I could go on and on WRT this rather long-winded blog rant, but I doubt that the author will dignify my points with a rational and open mind and calm debate; the logic and factual holes in each paragraph of this tome are big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. When people step off the ledge of rationality when evaluating factual data, it's a long fall to the bottom, and they ain't likely to be coming back up at any point. This author is nearly to the bottom of the cliff, judging from the spittle flying from the corners of his mouth...
P.S. What in hell does any of this have to do with science?
Well Mike, You have ceratinly convinced me. I think we should not only run a militarty campaign by committeee, but should also extend the wisdom on the hill to all other critical tasks in the country. Heck, I don't see why they don't jump right on in to the operating room and help out the struggling surgeons repairing those damaged heart valves and ruptured intestinal appendages. I am sure that would be better done by committee as well rather than people that spend their life training to do that one thing, just as most of the military commanders in the field have trained for managing the war. And how about that nasty global warming problem. After all, I am certain most of the lawyers in congress made sure they took plenty of physics and organic chemistry in college so that they can understand the nuances of thermal gradient flow dynamics and polymerization formation. Congress DID authorize war and DID make a decision to support the effort. Once they did that, it should be left in the hands of the generals until such time the mission is accomplished or the military leaders inform congress that it is not winnable and retreat is the only option. Acting like they know something about what its like on the front or that they somehow are qualified to make those decisions on withdrawing instead of the military men in the field is degrading to all those who are fighting for the dignity of humankind in the middle east. Unlike Andrew, you are not my hero, you just make me feel ill that there are such short sighted people as you that have access to a keyboard.
I missed all but the first 2 comments while i was typing my post, but just to clarify. Some of the more conservative posts make excellent points however again, assigning blame is essentially useless in the world of American politics. No matter what party you side with you have to admit each uses the same "dirty" tricks, and they all have the same main goal, RE-ELECTION. Pork barrelling is used by both sides, Conrad Burns a Repuclican Senator from Montana was the master of pork barreling, and he sent money to Montana of all places. Loose interperatations of the workings of our government (notice i said loose not liberal because both sides use this tactic) mislead people, especially uneducated people. Saddly our great Nation is filled with uneducated people who can be taken in by hearing only part of the story. I mean Bush was elected twice point and case. Articles such as this one are dangerous, they are created to mislead not inform, and i could of sworn I clicked on the NEWS link. Good points from the conservative side, but if you want to know how the occupation of Iraq should have went read "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria." (might have spelled author's name wrong) I don't agree with this administration's course of action, but lets not flame them for doing what ever administration does.
Bush tries to obfuscate the fact that supporting the troops and continuing an illegal occupation are not the same thing.
bush could seize the iraqi oil with the military and have the whole operation pay for itself. even with huge dividends.
"It's important to remember just how "a bill I can sign" is being defined here - that would be a funding bill that gives the President the money that he is asking for without any of those pesky strings. After all, just who do those Congresscritters think they are, anyway? It's like they think that they have the right to tell him what he should and should not do with the military."
Here in the Uk we once had a remarkably similar situation, a little while ago now in the 1600s, when Charles I wanted money for his wars but wouldn't accept the strings attached by parliament (which included in effect a proper recognition of the rights of the people to influence his decisions). He decided to ignore and override the elected members (and even tried to arrest some of them too). Charles, of course,unlike Georgy boy, was not elected, but, in a strange way, he could be regarded as the founding father of parliamentary democracy, provoking as he did a civil war that ended in his execution and the acceptance of strong parliamentary government rather than autocracy. I'm pretty sure Georgy knows nothing about this (or for that matter the dire military history and defeats of states who tried to conquer Mesopotamia and Afghanistan)but it's good you folks keep reminding him and his creatures of the limits of his powers.Where would you be if you didn't? Long live the republic.
Your article was well written. Are you aware that both the Senate and Congress voted to send our troops to Iraq?
Since they did they need to pay the bill and get on with what they instructed the President and our troops to do.
You don't send someone into Iraq and say sorry I changed my mind. They all knew that this would last a long time.
Excellent! You are so correct in everything you stated.
Excellent article. Well written and amazingly true right to the last fullstop. This guy needs to get some new advisors.
I don't doubt for one second that Mike Dunford is a very nice guy and means well, but he is typical of folks who exist in the biosphere of academia. In their "perfect world" all arguments are won by superior knowledge and/or logic; oh that it were that way in nature. All the logic you can muster will not save you from a mugger with a 79 IQ and a 9mm. Muslim fanatics who's entire life experience is religion based are not likely to be deterred by informing them that there is actually no God and that they should adjust their behavior accordingly. In plain, obvious truth, sometimes you just have to kick somebody's ass. Also, reading an essay by a liberal suggesting we pay more heed to the Constitution is laughable in light of their support for affirmative action and their attacks on the Second Amendment.
Tja, but what are you going to do when the guy don't speak english? Perhaps the situation must be explained 2 W in plain spanish... that might help!
cheers
Well said. This guy doesn't need new advisors. This is the Bush mentality. It's their way or the highway. The Bush family refers to it as "management style".
Baby bro is far worse, having "ruled" Florida as governor like his personal kingdom. We all must make certain that Jeb never makes it to the White House.
Smashed Frog takes on brother Jeb every Thursday-stop by the Frog for insights to just how these "boys" developed their sense of entitlement...."Born to Rule", Thursday, April 5.
Can anybody explain to me why no one is looking at the whole story from money=power=>politics point of view. isn't it all being driven by financial interests of power groups? Who is getting good business from war/military spend? Who are major subcontractors? Do they have link(s)to people in congress / white house? we are talking hundreds of billions and it might be that this is politics.
I am a brasilian university professor, son of an american mother.Now she'd passed away but certainly would be surprised in what a mess these american leaders are making in her beloved country. But probably -she was an optimist - she would say that these things will be overcomed and again we foreigners will see USA as an example to follow and a country to praise.Time will see, I hope ! Paulo Jacobsen
Outstanding commentary! President George W. Bush will be remembered as the WORST president this great country ever had. This administration its a culture of deception, lies and deceit. Impeachment is well over due.
Comical article considering the lack of understanding for the constitution. The president, under the authority of the constitution can veto anything he darn well pleases,
in turn
His veto can be overturned if
enough votes exist to do so,
this is where the republic and the will of
the people come into play.
if the majority democrats are really
representing the will of the people
in this case
then when the time comes to shoot down
mr. Bush's veto
such will be the case.
Is it this twisted author's logic that the president is abusing the constitution by expressing his constitutional right and obligation ( as it is in this case ) to veto a porly written
bad
bill.
maybe the author should re introduce themselves to the constitution.
Good piece. I appreciated it. But you unfortunately fail to recognize that it was Congress's failure in 2003 to stop the war from happening that has given President Bush the freedom to act as he did, send youg Americans to moral defeat and destroy Irak through civil war and brutal ignorance of Irak's realities.. You state Congress declares wars. Yes but it did not really for this Irak war and would be far more credible --Democrats in particular--if they had taken a stand four years ago..
Seems to be a lot less 'loyal Bushies' posting negative comments concerning people bashing their hero these days..........
George Bush showed his lack of respect for the Constitution when he took Dick Cheney as his running mate, despite the fact that both of them were legal residents of Texas and the Constitution expressly prohibits both the President and Vice President being from the same state.
They had Cheney change his residency to Wyooming as if this were some minor formality, not for one instant reflecting on the obvious Constitutional reason for the ban.
They got away with it easily and have been expediently re-interpreting and ignoring the Constitution ever since.
Why would anyone imagine that the Bush administration would change this contemptuous attitude now?
to the so called author of that artical--- where did you bury your AMERICAN CITAZANSHIP and the debt you and everyone else living here has to this country.. What the president is trying to do is keep the fanatics over there. hell, there are more americans murdered in the USA every day than the number of soldiers we have lost over there.. all the 'bring home the soldiers' crowd is doing is give the radicals a good reason to sit back and wait til we leave, then there would be no one left to stop them from taking over the entire middle east and probably Europe because they have already scared spain out of the picture, the english are in the process of pulling out and the french never had the guts to get involved in the first place and you never know what the germans are going to do.. if they get pushed the wrong way at the wrong time - look out...BUT as for the writer of this artical - IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR COURNTRY THERE ARE PLANES AND SHIPS LEAVING EVERY DAY AND IF YOU WILL TAKE A ONE WAY TRIP I'LL BUT YOUR TICKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you know that for a short time, this was the most popular story on google news. (THANK GOD) If you missed it, I recorded it on my blog:
http://okcitykid.bravejournal.com/entry/26446
I love the post from Robert Landess, his critic being the argument lacked 'facts', something akin to his own commentary :-) Typical right wing bombast eh Robert :-)
Incredible! Only moments after a concise post about king George I trying to bully the Congress to do his bidding and numerous "conservative" cranks have already spewed more BS than needed to fertilize all of the farmlands of a medium-sized European nation. Is this representative of the USA as whole?
to the so called author of that artical--- where did you bury your AMERICAN CITAZANSHIP and the debt you and everyone else living here has to this country.. What the president is trying to do is keep the fanatics over there. hell, there are more americans murdered in the USA every day than the number of soldiers we have lost over there.. all the 'bring home the soldiers' crowd is doing is give the radicals a good reason to sit back and wait til we leave, then there would be no one left to stop them from taking over the entire middle east and probably Europe because they have already scared spain out of the picture, the english are in the process of pulling out and the french never had the guts to get involved in the first place and you never know what the germans are going to do.. if they get pushed the wrong way at the wrong time - look out...BUT as for the writer of this artical - IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR COURNTRY THERE ARE PLANES AND SHIPS LEAVING EVERY DAY AND IF YOU WILL TAKE A ONE WAY TRIP I'LL BUT YOUR TICKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----
Oh ye of small mind.
Keep them "over there"? Please.
You know full well that the terrorists only accomplish what they do at all because we present them targets. Putting our troops in the field in the manner we've done is like putting a giant "Shoot me" sign on the back of every single man and woman in uniform.
The terrorists /cannot/ come over here - they do not have the ability. Or should I say *would not* have the ability if we'd just stuck to Afghanistan.
I could go into a long long spiel about how Al Qaeda makes up a minimal proportion of the Iraqi insurgents (most are disaffected Sunnis - former Saddam affiliates, etc...)
I could tell you how we were lead to war on a lie...
I could also just flat tell you that the laws of our country have been grossly violated by this president, such that even if he were somehow 'right', he'd still be wrong.
I could. But you won't listen to reason, you're beyond thinking aren't you? You stopped a long long time ago. You watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh because hearing opposing views and giving them any credence whatsoever might just destroy your entire worldview. Then what would you be? How could you live with yourself if you acknowledged the truth, that you've cheered on the deaths of a half-million people, including three-thousand plus of our soldiers?
How could you stand yourself if you came to the realization that everything you knew was a lie, a lie you willed yourself to believe? How could you live with yourself if you had to say "I made a mistake" at any point, and take resposnibility for your own foolishness and arrogance?
I don't think you can. So you'll never learn. You'll never seek out real information, instead you'll just read what 'sounds right' to you, and then find a lefty blog or a news story you disagree with - just so you can throw a right wing temper tantrum there.
Shameful. Pitiful. Useless.
You're correct, the president is guilty on all counts. If he wasn't so gutless, he'd listen to the people. Instead, he'd rather make some cash on the side... He will be remembered as a ruthless president who stopped at nothing to get his own way. Comparable to Ferdinand Marcos. The assasinations have already occurred too.
The issue is not constitutional...it is political, as well it should be. The object of the war was to make Bush a war time president. In that it succeeded, If the war ends the Republican party will have nothing left as they failed at everything. The power struggle is strictly between the haves and the have nots and the battle field will be decided in 2008. The faithful will continue to argue that if we don't fight in Baghdad, we will be fighting at home. The assumption that one side in a civil war to control the government of Iraq will continue to fight their sectarian struggle in Chicago may not resonate to well at the polls, but we will see.
nice read.
This Glenn person who seems to have blown something in his brain shows such a love for his country he cannot even be bothered to learn to write the language used by the majority of people in his country with any degree of skill. His standards of literacy are put to shame by millions of people who can write better English than he can and who do not even live in a country that has English as a native language. I am sure that many spaniards could put a more cogent argument that him, and do so in English and without the semantic and spelling mistakes.
"The terrorists /cannot/ come over here - they do not have the ability."
This was posted by JJohnson. JJohnson needs to fly into Kennedy then take a cab down to the big hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be.
"more cogent argument that him"
Matt Penfold complaining about other people's typos.
Good and brave article, a bit naive maybe. Why Democrats would stop the war? The Carter Doctrine is consistent with everything happening in Middle-East to date. Ironically, he is a Nobel Peace laureate!
There is a pervasive mindset, illustrated above by Mr Dotsun, that is deeply disturbing. As he points out, Congress and the Senate voted in favour of this war. As he expresses it, this obliges them to pay for it, and that you can't say "sorry, I changed my mind."
This stance is disturbing because it does not take into account that Congress and the Senate voted in favour of war based on available intelligence indicating Iraq was complicit in 9/11, had WMDs, and was on the brink of nuclear capability. This intelligence proved to be utterly wrong. The intelligence being invalid, the decision based on the intelligence is also invalid. The honourable course of action under the circumstances is for Congress and the Senate to say, not "I changed my mind," but "We made a mistake."
That admission demands a change of objectives. Instead of funding troops to perpetuate the mistake, money should be allocated to rebuild Iraq to its prewar condition - or even better condition, by way of apology. This should be accomplished, moreover, not by Iraqi money (meaning profits from Iraq's own oil resources), but by America and its allies in this war. The perpetrators of this enormous error should pay restitution to the victim, not hold the victim financially responsible for damage suffered.
Judy had just demonstrated why the Nineteenth Amendment was a much bigger mistake than any GW may have made.
Who the hell asked him to send the troops there in the first place..this is the guy who lied to the whole world about WMD and stuff like that and even after the war was over..this is the guy who got voted into being a president again!!
True Saddam was a tyrant, but the guy shouldn't have lied about WMD's and stuff - Saddam wasn't the guy who banged a couple of planes into a few buildings that was Osama.
And the irony of it all:
A headline from the front page of The Observer a few days ago said
"Washington and London accuse Iran of widespread interference in Iraq" - Heh! Heh! I laugh on reading that..
Despite the rather narrow viewpoint of the post that inspired all these comments, I would note the executive branch is not alone in selectively attending to the constitution. The Supremes, congress, state and locale bureaucrats -- these form a veritable crowd of lesser leaders (if so they can be called) that have no knowledge of, or even agree with, what the Founders had in mind. The Supremes have gutted and twisted the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the executive and legislative branches (even under Clinton) repeatedly attempt to pervert the Interstate Commerce Act to achieve unconstitutional objectives.
And on the Chicago Tribune, I quote:
Asked about his former campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, who recently publicly criticized the president for his conduct of the war, Bush said: "I respect Matthew. . . . I understand his anguish over war, understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew, as it is a lot of other people in our country.
"Matthew's case . . . as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable," Bush said. "In other words, he's got a son in the . . . U.S. armed forces, and I mean, I can understand Matthew's concerns."
End of Quote
Hello..how come you understand it when it happens to someone close to you and not otherwise?? Duh!
So, what you are saying is that we should just screw over our troops? Forget giving them anything decent. I mean, they can just go farm their own food and fix there vehicles with tape right?
"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Jimmy Carter, Democrat.
(quote supporting previous post).
Hey, Mike! At least the brainless right-wing trolls you have summoned are a respite from the brainless creationist trolls, eh?
A shame their comments aren't any better thought out. Oh, well, life in the USA...
The President is right and the Congress is wrong. Congress authorized this war and, until now, has adequately funded the war.
Congress has the constitutional authority to vote to stop funding the war. But Congress doesn't have the consitutional authority to undeclare a war. The war continues as long as the military fights it, under the President's authority.
The President has the constitutional authority to veto the bills that he believes are not in the nations best interest. In this case what he believes is in the best interest conflicts with the will of the people -- if we are to believe the polls. But our political leaders are not required by the constitution to do the will of the people. *Leadership* sometimes requires that you do the unpopular thing.
It would be incredibly short-sighted for us to set an arbitrary withdraw (surrender) date. Giving up on Iraq would have mid to long term consequences that are simply not acceptable. The people of our nation can not have properly digested that fact. I would hope that is true of the Democratic leaders in Congress as well. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not sacrificing our nations future for their own short term political gain.
President Bush should be applauded for acting in the nations best interest in the face of a political tsunami.
To Jackson: "So, what you are saying is that we should just screw over our troops?"
The bill does not stop funding to the troops it sets a deadline to bring the troops back or else the funding will stop - it's high time someone worked with a deadline here. The White House and the Congress have disagreed on the deadline March v/s September ...in any case my perception is that if even if the Congress revise the bill to put in the deadline of September - possibly a President who stood for his word would agree to put pen on paper, but not this one..
Okay, let's see when both houses were Republican and the President asked for emergency funding it took about 3 months in one case and 4 months in the other for them to come up with pork laden bills that were signed. And let's know that the "pork" in the current bills, which are for more money that asked for, includes money for the Veterans Administration and implementation of the 9/11 Commission report. So the President will not sign a bill that supports our troops and includes money for needed programs.
Of course it is fortunate that there is no Republican spin on this....
Thank you "x". I was slightly confused about the point of the article.
Zoology? That only makes you an expert on primates and liberals. Otherwise, nice try.
I agree with many things in your viewpoint however, since all I have to go on is what the press tells me, or elects not to, my personal opinion isn't worth much. Hard to know who's doing the worst job, the administration or the congress? The "press" is obviously the outfit we need to run the government. Clearly they could do no worse. They're paid professionals, not elected officials obligated to pay for being elected.
DW
I have an uncle named DWilson
Well, I've voted Democratic most of my life, that is until Gore and Kerry. I'm no fan of the Bush or Kennedy aristocracies, but I've had it with so called american's (lower case on purpose) willingness to trash our country just because of an irrational hatred of Bush. Islamic sharia law makes communism look like kindergarten play, and at the end of the day that's what this is all about. You people (who hate Bush so much you're willing to allow the world to be infected with Sharia law), will be the first to wail and gnash your teeth.
Paradoxically, Gore and Bush are both right in their pet thesis. Most of you so called liberals are really america haters and will be the first to be sacrificed when the Somali taxi drivers pull out their stash of weapons.
Surely, the Endgame is to seize the Iraqi and other oils, but since its the Bushy's, Halliburtonians, Exxonians, etc, are the ones to reap that, may be Bush can open a line of credit with the Oily's to fight wirh the last one of a volunteer army to then truly declare "Mission Accomplished"
it is time to get rid of george bush. he has never followed the rules or laws.do not let him have two more years.by that time we may not be saveable.STOP HIM NOW
Bush's argument that withholding funding amounts to not supporting the troops is illogical.
Yes, withholding funding means not supporting the troops as they follow their current orders based on objectives set by Bush himself. Left without money to pay the troops to do what he wants, Bush could choose to stretch them further (i.e. he'd be the one not supporting them) or to bring them home.
I'm hoping people see through his deception, which seeks to pull on our patriotic heartstrings.
His related argument that the military asked for the surge is similarly disingenuous. Yes, the military asked for the surge--in order to fulfill the objectives that Bush himself set. In fact, the general asked for a much larger surge, which Bush realized no one would let him have. So in choosing to propose a smaller surge than the miliatary commanders asked for (80K troops), isn't he the one not suporting the troops? The Iraq Study Group recommended a far different approach, which was supported by many in the military, but which Bush has rejected.
And all the arguments about "we're just fighting terrorists" show the same oversimplifcation that Bush himself has been prone to (like when he used to purposefully say "Saddam" instead of "Osama" back in 2003). We're not just fighting terrorists. We've acted in Iran's interest by reopening an ancient conflict between Sunni and Shia, similar to the centuries-long conflicts that led to bloody wars between Protestant and Catholic Christians. It's not clear how situating ourselves in the middle of this struggle is to our benefit--or can succeed.
Mariner
The conservatives keep bringing up how the left wants to destroy the second amendment and since thats the case, they can't attack somebody else who is destroying the Constitution. That is a laughable argument. If I say 2+2=4, but then I say 7+8 = 15, you can't say "well, he's wrong about the first statement, so he must be wrong about the second." They're two independent actions. Even if you assume they're wrong about the second amendment, it gives absolutely no justification to assume they're wrong about thinking Bush is wrong. If you make that argument, you're just trying to shift focus away from Bush being wrong. In fact, you're even implying he is wrong. You're basically responding to "bush is wrong" with "yea?? well... so are you guys when you try to get rid of the second amendment." Two wrongs don't make a right.
To all those saying, "well, congress voted to put them there, so they should fund them." well, they're also trying to take them out of that horrible failure. Beyond that, they were put there based on horrible intelligence. The entire war is a farce and should never have occurred. Now that this is obvious PLUS how badly its being handled, they want to cut their losses. The wisest thing you can learn is to walk away from battles you can't win. Persistence alone will not win a war and thats all the President is throwing at it. Congress wants the troops back. Therefore, by saying cutting funding will hurt the troops, its really saying, "well, congress isn't giving me enough to do what i want, but i'll do it anyway and its just gonna hurt us."
Bush is ignored the Constitution completely. Even if you assume the lefts (not all of them are even lefts by the way) are trying to hurt the Constitution (and by "hurt", you really should be saying "amend" because they're trying to change it legally as opposed to Bush just not following it) it does not justify Bush's actions. Unless you tell you're kid, "oh billy did something wrong? oh, well, you can go off and do something wrong too."
can we at least get some intelligent conservatives to discuss this? granted, i know we get some unintelligent liberals posting in response, but it seems we *only* get unintelligent conservatives and it just makes their side look *even* worse.
Paul,
I have a friend I call "The Mud Lady" because she sends me emails, mostly personal or technical, that are completely undecipherable. If you're single, you two might want to hook up.
Now I can understand why Joe finds some of his mails undecipherable
Joe Kirkup,
"Matt Penfold complaining about other people's typos."
I am not sure what post of mine you think you read but nowhere have I complained about other people's typing errors. I have complained about their spelling mistakes but since they are not the same thing I doubt that is what can have confused you.
Oh and Joe,
Your grasp of the English language does not seem to be all that great. You seem to not understand what the word liberal means.
Here is a hint: It does NOT mean left-wing. It does mean a person who accepts the idea of liberalism as being a valid and worthwhile poltical philosophy (when used a noun) or when used as an adjective is used to indicate something that adheres to those ideas. If you still have problems with the concept of liberalism Wikipedia has a good introduction to the concept. I would also add that liberalism was a major influence on the US founding fathers.
The only way to stabilize Iraq would be to undertake something akin to General Eric Shinseki's pre-invasion recommendation that provide for 500,000 troops to take control of a nation of 26 million people. Of course, Donald Rumsfeld shouted down Shinseki and ran him out of the military. The 140,000 troops there now cannot do the job, even with a "surge". As it is, our troops are suffering through a foreign civil war of Bush's making.
P.S. Will some of the constitutional "experts" here please support their arguments with something more than hot air?
P.P.S. This video is worth watching, no matter where you stand in this debate. Thanks to the Okcitykid for sharing the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpkMKKIqeqE
I realize being a student in zoology qualifies you as a geopolitical expert, however I disagree with your premise.
An analogy if I may. Let's say we elected you to run the zoo. You consult with animal nutritionists to determine the diet fed to the animals, and then you (the decider) listen to their advice. Meanwhile, someone else who desparately wants your job convinces a very vocal group that the diet is horrible and dangerous to the animals and their diet plan is much better. Of course, when asked what their diet plan is, they just repeat that yours is bad for the animals. Sort of like when Dick Durbin said, "The democratic strategists have advised it is better to keep pressure on the President, rather than solidify a policy."
So they vote to only approve your food budget if you agree to stop feeding the animals in 3 months and let them fend for themselves. Oh yeah, and there is an additional 36 billion dollars in there so we can build a giant pink ferris wheel in Arkansas.
Congress voted to go to war. That does not, and should not, give them the authority to micromanage the way it is conducted against the advice of the commanders in theatre. This current bill is strictly political, has wasted 2 months, and will only make the situation in Iraq worse.
If the democrats had spent less time condeming Bush for every single decision he made and more time condemning those that are blowing up innocent civilians, this war would already be over. But that wouldn't get them elected in '08 would it?
awesome commentary. amazing how ridiculous our system can be, in what were infrequently endearing ways and now are mostly frightening ways. thanks.
So far, Joe has revealed himself to be against suffrage, and kind of a dick, too.
So we're clear: the idea that somehow we're safer because we're "taking the fight to them" is misguided - it is simply impossible to know yet whether we are any safer than we were pre-9/11.
Dear Robert Landess,
I think it is you who should be reviewing the Constitution, particularly Section 8 where it is Congress that is granted, among other things, the authority:
�To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
�To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
�To provide and maintain a navy;
�To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
�To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
�To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
This is not "liberal ranting". It is the division of powers within our government. Mr. Bush's authority as "the Decider" is extremely limited. And he has done such an appallingly bad job to date that it is definitely time Congress reasserted itself in this area. More than anything else that was the message of the election we just passed, or do you believe that was mere "liberal ranting" too?
I can't believe I found this retarded rant on Google news! Living in a modern world, we should not be comparing troop funding for Iraq and afghanistan with some principal determined over 2 centuries ago and because a handful of people back then (founding fathers) wanted something, we should live in the 21st century by their standards! What a crock!
Also, as the troops ARE in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democrats should not link funding and withdrawl in the same bill as they are 2 seperate issues. They should have a funding bill and not use that as a levy to get a withdrawl. That's dirty trick politics, but hey, that's Democratic politics for you. When Obama isn't stabbing Clinton in the back and vice versa, they're willing to sell out Americas security with anarchy in Iraq, simply because it will be popular with the voters to wash their hands of the problem by bringing troops home and hope everything happens to work out in the end.
Play politics with trivial things, but when the future of America is a steak, it down right treasonous to play with our security, just to get elected!
"Judy had just demonstrated why the Nineteenth Amendment was a much bigger mistake than any GW may have made."
Posted by: Joe Kirkup | April 4, 2007 07:49 AM
Are you kidding me?
As if there arn't enough racist, undereducated, sexist fools out there. Thanks for showing everyone what america is really like. You are living proof of what kind of people make up that ridiculous country.
As for Glenn. I believe you are supporting a mass exodus of the intelligent people of American. Therefore leaving this land with a large group of the extremely rich and extremely poor morons who will most deffinatly destory all the natural habit they have left and no one on earth will want (or does want for that matter) to help, shelter, or support them. I've already headed out, because I dont support military dictatorships. I wish you goodluck and good ridance when you are shipped off to fight a dieing cause.
In the wise words of Kanye West "George Bush doesn't like black people"
And Glenn doesn't like open minded educated people
and Joe Kirkup is a sexist who hates women
:)
Hands up all those of you who think Bush lied to go to war with Iraq, that the war is completely unjustified and that we should pull our troops out immediately?
Everyone with their hand up is an IDIOT!
Even IF WNDs weren't found and intelligence reports were wrong. That doesn't mean Bush lied. It also doesn't mean Syria hasn't got a nice stockpile of Iraqi made WMDS.
Even IF there weren't any WMDs or Iraq was blameless for 9/11, they still were in breach of the gulf war treaty and several dozen resolutions, including a UN resolution authorizing war.
Even IF every non-specific rant (like "He's a liar") you say is true, pulling the troops out will NOT make things better, but would make the Iraqi government collapse, Iraq to become anarchic, civil war to be rife in Iraq and terrorist groups would have a safe haven there. It would be like Beirut in the 80's, only with a country 20 times as big and with massive resources. Running away from a situation you deem bad, doesn't rectify that bad situation. It makes it worse.
And that's why those of you ranting anti-Bush generalizations and anti-war sound bites without accepting the consequences of what would happen if your ill conceived ideas and thoughts were made reality, are complete IDIOTS!
You should get off your cut and run philosophies, as well as your Bush hatred and think for a minute. You may actually come up with something more logical than just "rant, rave and run"
Brilliant, Mike.
The nasty side-effect of having big traffic from Google News is that you get conservative mouth-breathers in the comments. And they are all so scared of the bogey-man-du-jour (the "Islamofascists") that Repubs are scaring the naive half of the population with. And of furriners. And women. And gays. And Blacks. Scary folks, eh?
But they are hit-and-runners who will never come back - not enough attention span for that.
And what the heck has Zoology to do with running a zoo?!%&$*()
A Booth,
I am quite sure what your point is.
Are you trying to claim Bush never in fact claimed that Iraq had WMDs when the invasion took place ? Or you claiming it does not matter if he did ? I would remind you at the time the invasion took place weapons inspections under the UN were in fact taking place, that those carrying out the inspections were reporting that they were not being obstructed in their inspections by the Iraqis and that the limited intelligence they were getting from the Americans on possible locations of WMDs was producing nothing.
So here we have a situation where intelligence from people on the ground was finding nothing, where a number of US intelligence experts were highly sceptical that Iraq had WMDs or a WMD program and where the evidence Bush used to support his claim came from dissident Iraqis who wanted an invasion to further their own agenda. We have all this and yet you still think Bush was being honest ?
Well I have news for you. It does not actually matter if Bush thought he was being honest or not. He might actually have believed what he was saying. It still does not mean he did not lie. You see there is more to lying that just saying things you know to be untrue: lying by commision you can call it. There is also lying by not paying enough attention: lying by omission. If you make a claim and have failed to do your homework to ensure that claim is true, and it turns out not to be true then you lied. If you check your facts, and they seem to support your claim at the time but later turn out to be wrong then you have not lied. But this latter situation does not apply to Bush, he knew, or should have known becuase there evidence was there, that claims Bush still had WMDs were flaky. Had he been serious about wanting evidence he could have waited until the UN inspectors had done their job. He chose not to and therefore was WILLFULLY ignorant. So given that inspections were taking place, the evidence that WMDs actually existed was in serious dispute are you really saying that Bush was still right to invade, and Iraqi people, as well as the troops of the coalition forces (and their families) , suffer what has beem suffered ? If you do then you expect others to pay a pretty high price for your principles. (As an aside why is these people are happy for other people to pay their price of thier principles ? One theory as why to we are having these conflicts of late is that the generation of politicians in the West who served in the Second World War have now departed the poltical arena. I suspect there may be some truth in this, people who have seen what war is like first hand and close up tend to be more cautious about sacricing others in war.)
Further Bush had a repsonsibilty to ensure that there was adaquete planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. What planning he allowed the State department to do was ignored. He was told that dismissing the entire Iraqi army and police force was going to create a power vacuum. This not even something the Western allies did in Germany following the surrender.He was told that the US did not have sufficient troops on the ground to deal with that vacuum. He ignored that advice as a well.
Just how many blatent cock-ups does a man have to commit before he comes a liability ?
Anyway I have gone on long enough, but really, some people!
Why come back to read baseless ranting and insults? Democrats thought they'd win the Presidential election last time round, because all their ranting and raving wasn't countered by Republican opinion and they thought they were in the majority. It was simply a case of people sick of hearing people rant stuff like "Bush is a liar", realized the people they were trying to debate with were totally unreasonable and just full of hate and insults, so decided to save their opinion for the election.
Oh that's right; the election was a right wing conspiracy too, wasn't it?
People who think everything they don't like is based on lies or conspiracy are deluded in thinking they are the intelligent ones. They, typically, call themselves Democrats or Liberals. Well, rant away, 'til only other, like minded people will be reading and you can delude yourselves into thinking that because you can shout louder and no one shouts back, you must be right!
A Booth,
So you admit you are unable to actually come up with any considered responses to the criticism of the points you made ?
I see little in the way in insults in reply to what you said, and yet you still cannot, or will not, answer them. So much for discourse. I would also point out your very first point in this thread called people who think Bush lied idiots. I have a black pot and kettle handy if you want them.
Thank you Matt Penfold. Ultimately, even if Mr. Bush were being honest in the days leading up to the war, which I personally doubt, it would be irrelevant. To use an analogy, if a corporate CEO had spent six years developing a track record as a bungler the company board of directors would almost certainly have him replaced with someone dedicated to fixing the mess he'd left behind. Mr. Bush, allow me to introduce you to Nancy Pelosi - Chairman of the Board. Your authority does not extend to rejecting the authority of the board. It is time to listen.
But Bush is a liar. And if you are bored of hearing it, you need to take some time off and do some serious introspection. Follow the truth, or follow your base instincts?
To: Matt Penfold
I was saying that whether or not the intelligence was correct, it doesn't make Bush a liar for basing a decision on it. At the time he believed the CIA were correct. He made a decision on their intel and that's that. If, after the fact, they are proven wrong, that doesn't mean Bush is then a liar.
Also, after the invasion they recovered documents, infrastructure and materials. Even empty shells and resolution breaching medium range missiles. Everything but the liquid payload. Because they couldn't find what amounts to a swimming pool volume of fluid, they had to acknowledge there were none to be found. It was just as easy to dispose of the liquid by taking it to Syria, as it was for Husseins sons to try to drive the entire national reserve of funds to Syria too. Of course, this can't be proven, so there were no WMDs, the CIA were wrong and inspite of the Iraqis haveing EVERYTHING other than the payload, there wasn't a program [/endsarcasm]
The reality is that even if there were no WMDs, no 9/11 link, no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, there was still justification to invade, because at the very least, they'd breached the treaty of the previous conflict (thereby restarting the previous conflict) as well as breaching several UN resolutions that justified military action without and WMD or Al-Qaeda factors.
You can try to spin it any way you like, but Bush being told something by the intelligence community and acting on it, is not a liar if the intelligence community was wrong. It's a good rant for Bush haters though, even if it is purely a destructive and hateful attitude to adopt.
As for adequate planning; this has what to do with justification or pulling out? At best, they should do the job properly now then, by sending 500,000 troops in and doing it as it was supposed to be done, instead of withdrawl!
For the record, he didn't dismiss the entire Iraqi army and police. They abandoned their posts in fear of being captured by the coalition forces. They essentially dismissed themselves.
Nice strawman there, A Booth. I don't see anyone of us durned Liberals (and thank you for the compliment, btw) claiming conspiracy here. I mean, why assume conspiracy when simple incompetence is a much more rational explanation?
Dunno about the other folks here, but these two questions should illustrate my major beef with the whole Iraq clusterf***:
1) How has the invasion of Iraq helped us find Osama Bin Laden?
2) How has the invasion of Iraq helped to stabilize Afghanistan?
See, when we went into Afghanistan, we had everyone -- American and European and hell, even many of the other Mideast regimes -- backing us up and supporting us. There was a justified and valid reason for going in there. Remember Bin Laden? Remember the Taliban admitting to harboring him and refusing to hand him over? It's not about the WMDs or lack thereof, not for me. It's about focus and competence. We were doing well in Afghanistan before, for reasons known only to him, Bush got a burr up his ass about Saddam and Iraq, forgot all about our far more important mission in Afghanistan and went off half-cocked.
"Stay the course," he's said. Where the hell was that attitude when dealing with Afghanistan? THAT'S where our focus should have been these past few years. THAT'S where our armed forces should have been working on rebuilding a ruined country and tracking down a criminal who is known to have orchestrated the most devastating attack on American soil in modern memory.
Instead, Bush pissed away all that goodwill and support we had by pursuing a horrendously ill-advised disaster. And you wonder why folks are mad about this?
"I see little in the way in insults in reply to what you said, and yet you still cannot, or will not, answer them. So much for discourse. I would also point out your very first point in this thread called people who think Bush lied idiots. I have a black pot and kettle handy if you want them."
Posted by: Matt Penfold
I wasn't referring to responses to my posts specifically, but the natuer of these replies are that people who aren't liveral thinkers are either racist, ignorant, of low intellect, or simply can't spell and therefore have no valid opinion. Ridiculous cheap shots at winning an argument for the sake of winning an argument.
All I hve to say on this is when the barbarians are at the gates of the USA, all of you will be clamoring, demanding, insisting the military save you, the president save you, the Congress save you, defend your homeland, etc. You can't have it both ways. Bush is irrelevant. We are either strong and bold or we too will be relegated to the dustbin of history at some point.
"But Bush is a liar. And if you are bored of hearing it, you need to take some time off and do some serious introspection. Follow the truth, or follow your base instincts?"
Posted by: coturnix
And all Democrats are thieves. Do you see how stupid it sounds, when it's just ranted off with absolutely no basis of fact! Responses like yours are why only Liberals can tolerate reading Liberal material without rolling their eyes.
A Booth,
I note you have not actually addresses criticisms of your posts though. I still note that in your very first post you called people idiots.
As for being liberal, I suspect you do not understand what the word actually means. Liberalism is the idea that the rights of the state should not take precedent of the rights of the individual. It does not say the rights of the invididual a paramount in all cases but does make the assumption that all other things being equal the individual has the right to do or say something that the state might not want that person to do or say. You would be a very strange person indeed if you really think the state should be authoritarian but that is what is implied in your disparaging of liberals. I suspect therefore you are merely ignorant of liberalism is. If you are are not then you really are a dangerous person.
"1) How has the invasion of Iraq helped us find Osama Bin Laden?
2) How has the invasion of Iraq helped to stabilize Afghanistan?"
Posted by: G Barnett
1) Invading Iraq had nothing to do with finding Bin Laden.
2) Invading Iraq had nothing to do with stabilizing Afghanistan
That's like saying You should fix my car because I have a warranty on my refrigerator. Totally unrelated and not justification. It's typical of Liberals to mix subjects to try to strengthen their argument. Like suggesting pulling out of Iraq because Cheney has shares in Haliburton or some other crazy excuse.
Try not getting your subject matter confused and you may come to logical conclusions instead of a sheep to Democrat media propaganda.
Steve S, is that an appeal to fear I see? Ooooh, those scary barbarians at the gate! And there was the inevitable reference to Sharia law I saw earlier in the comments, too. Gotta love the politics of fear.
Guess what? Folks aren't buying it anymore. You've used that little trick too often these past few years, and folks are numb and just don't care about the newest boogey-man you've conjured up. You've cried wolf one time too many (at least).
Sharia law will never take hold in the US. The barbarians can only cause intermittent damage and, yes, some loss of life, but will never truly threaten us as a whole.
What's to be afraid of? Oh yeah, that's right -- our leaders, who are so engaged in their own fears that they'll cut off the rights of the rest of us to "protect us."
Barbarians at the Gates! Run for cover! Why are conservatives such cowards?
Steve S,
An arguement can be made that the barbarians are already in the US. After all barbarian is pretty fitting description of those Americans who want to destroy science education by insisting ID is taught as a scientifically credible theory, or those people who's reading of the bible never seems to have made it as far as the new testament and are hung up on the idea some people may want to have sex with a person of the same sex. The people who read the ten commandments and think that "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not abort a bunch of cells but killing another human being becuase you suspect they killed another human being is ok.". The people who until recently would carrty out judicial killings of the mentally retarded even though the only other countries who did that were those beacons of enlightenment, Syria, Iran and China. With such people why worry about an enemy at the gate. They are already within.
Rock ON !!
What a stellar idea. Introduce Georgie peorgie to that goddamn piece of paper (how he refers to our Constitution)
I found this at smashed frog. I'm very very impressed.
You are MY NEW HERO, too !!!
THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Barbarians don't necessarily wear loinclothes. Some wear nice suits and live in the White House, destroying the country from within by shredding its constiution, emptying the treasury and making enemies around the world. Quite barbaric, I'd say.
Steve S.,
I should hope we could be "strong and bold" without also having to be ignorant and incompetent. Hopefully it's not an either/or choice. It's pretty dangerous and ineffective to value "strength and boldness" over all other qualities, as GWB has repeatedly and convincingly proved.
"As for being liberal, I suspect you do not understand what the word actually means. Liberalism is the idea that the rights of the state should not take precedent of the rights of the individual. It does not say the rights of the invididual a paramount in all cases but does make the assumption that all other things being equal the individual has the right to do or say something that the state might not want that person to do or say. You would be a very strange person indeed if you really think the state should be authoritarian but that is what is implied in your disparaging of liberals. I suspect therefore you are merely ignorant of liberalism is. If you are are not then you really are a dangerous person."
Posted by: Matt Penfold
I am fully aware of Liberalism, which extends far beyond freedom for the individual. The most extreme right wing also wants freedom for the individual, which is why people like McVeigh blow up Federal buildings. Liberalism is far more than this. The real problem with Liberalism, is the idealism of it is totally conflicted with pragmatism. Liberal attitudes of treat people right and they will treat you right in kind is baloney. What history has taught us is that the weak are crushed. In Democracies, everyone is considered equal and this is great. Where it shows it's flaws, is when Theocracies and Dictatorships and Terrorists act against them, Democracies don't always act in their own best interests. As the media, opposition parties and other self interests have their own agenda, democracies often are weak to act, or worse, act then retreat simply because of the mood of the people as guided by events and media. In the present climate, the media have portrayed everything negative about Iraq and very little good news, even though there is much. Over the years, it has been shown that America is no longer capable of going to war successfully, inspite of its military strength, because inevitably, the will of the people will undermine the military mission.
I believe in times of war, liberal attitudes harm the war effort. I beleive that any bad news or other negative material is used to whittle away the support for a conflict, no matter how justified until it is unwinable, except by the enemy.
All an enemy of America has to do is wait long enough and America will defeat itself, because Liberalism cannot tolerate bad news.
The real question is not about Mr. Bush or which party has political power( assuming Bush willingly steps down in January 2009 during a "war" that only he is competent to manage effectively ) but rather what kind of government WE THE PEOPLE want. If you believe that the American public is incapable of self governance in difficult times - that we need to be told what is right or wrong by a "strongman" father figure - then follow Venezuela's model and authorize our President to issue absolute edicts similar to Hugo Chavez's new presedential authority. I encourage supporters of this view to read about 1920's German jurist Carl Schmitt. If you vaguely believe that Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and Hamilton had a worthy idea then look up Congressman (R-TX)Ron Paul's web site for a crash course in the meaning of the US Constitution. I agree agree with Mr. Dunford.
A Booth says:
"I believe in times of war, liberal attitudes harm the war effort. I beleive that any bad news or other negative material is used to whittle away the support for a conflict, no matter how justified until it is unwinable, except by the enemy.
All an enemy of America has to do is wait long enough and America will defeat itself, because Liberalism cannot tolerate bad news."
Gee, did anyone tell this to FDR or HST? I guess they weren't "real" liberals, then, eh?
You are clearly far from "fully aware of Liberalism." Mostly, you sound like you are channeling Rush.
A Booth,
Well although you claim to understand what liberalism is it is apparent from what you have said you do not. Liberalism does not say as long as you treat others ok they will treat you ok. It does say if you do not treat others OK then you have not a hope of them treating you OK. The difference is very important and passed you by.
And as for liberalism harming a war effort, it seems to have done little to harm those Americans who fought for indpendence from Britian and almost to a man were inspired by Thomas Paine, regarded by many as a founder of liberal ideas. I can only presume you think that whole campaign was seriously flawed by those wishy-washy ideas such as the right if people to self detirmination, the right of people to representation and the right of people not to suffer arbitary and capricious punishment for daring to stand up to the authorities of the day.
And as for America defeating itself, it does that when it says it is in favour of democracy but supports dictators such as those found in Pakistan or Saudia Arabia. It defeats itself when it detains people on grounds than have no basis in either US or International law and yet tells other nations that the rule of law is important. It defeats itself when it says that the rule of law is important and yet refuses to allow the Italian authorities to interview CIA employees suspected of involvement in a kidnapping in Italy. It defeats itself when it claims that freedom is important yet allows the state to tap phones withour a warrent. In all of these things, and so many more, the current US regime is held in contempt by many of its own citizens and even more who are not. Follwing the events of Sept 11th the US had enormous sympathy from around the world, not only for those countries who have tradionally been allies of the US but also those who have not. People in Iran were really genuinly appled by those events to give just one example. And yet in a matter of just a couple of years Bush had pissed away that sympathy and that support by launching an invasion of a country that was not involved with those events (despite the Bush regimes claims to the contrary) and has suceeded in making the world a more dangerous, not less dangerous place. Ignoring everything else Bush has done that is a pretty spectactular fuck up. To go from having the sympathy of much of the world to being despised on the scale the current regime is, is some going.
Wow, straight response from A Booth. That, I actually respect.
1) Invading Iraq had nothing to do with finding Bin Laden.
2) Invading Iraq had nothing to do with stabilizing Afghanistan
Good, on that we agree. However, where you're wrong is when you state they're unrelated. Invading Iraq has distracted us from what should have been our primary goal of finding and prosecuting Bin Laden. Invading Iraq has not only sent THAT country into an abyss of sectarian violence, but it's also prevented us from finishing the job in Afghanistan, allowing a resurgent Taliban to start to creep back into power in places.
Had we focused completely on Afghanistan, not only would we still have the respect and support of the rest of the world, we might also have Bin Laden in custody and on trial RIGHT NOW. Had we focused on Afghanistan, they might have had a chance of getting completely out from under the Taliban and throwing off their legacy entirely. Had we focused on Afghanistan, there just might have been a stable, friendly government on yet another of Iraq's borders, helping keep that country and maybe even Iran in check.
Instead, we have two countries in that area that are spiralling deeper into anarchy and chaos -- and it's all Bush's fault.
"Gee, did anyone tell this to FDR or HST? I guess they weren't "real" liberals, then, eh?
You are clearly far from "fully aware of Liberalism." Mostly, you sound like you are channeling Rush."
Posted by: J Myers
Gee, did anyone think this during the Korean war, Vietnam, 1991 Gulf war? Wake up. If Iran threatened to nuke America tomorrow and Bush stated we'd be at war, before Bush left the poseum, there'd be a Liberal on a TV channel declaring the war unjustified and Bush's fault.
A typical Liberal response of mockery and ridicule and you wonder why you can't find a decent Republican to debate with?
This was an excellent essay, Mike. Dead-on accurate.
Also, thank you, right-wing respondents. Reading your shrill, ignorant rants makes me more confident that you are on the way out and know it. Enjoy cowering in your bunkers while we liberals face the challenges that the future holds, as liberals have done throughout history.
"Well although you claim to understand what liberalism is it is apparent from what you have said you do not.
malformed history and a million tangents, typically to strenghten an argument with unrelated information
Ignoring everything else Bush has done that is a pretty spectactular fuck up. To go from having the sympathy of much of the world to being despised on the scale the current regime is, is some going."
Posted by: Matt Penfold
What a surprize, you dispute my knowledge before responding. You obviously know me so well.
And as for saying Bush has done a "pretty spectacular fuck up"; Yet again, that's just ranting. War is unpopular. People die, things go wrong. It the nature of war. As a result, they aren't popular. And blaming Bush is yet more ignorance, because the Pentagon and its Generals conduct a war, overseen by the Secretary of State. Bush does not make decisions on which units go where. Similarly, he does not devize pre and post war strategy. Think tanks do this. To blame an individual, even a President for the way a military handles a conflict is ridiculous and yet again, a sign of Bush hating rhetoric. An attitude of continuous negativity and criticism, is all that I ever see from Liberals. It could be health care, pensions, crime, foreign policy. The theme is the same; Hate on Bush and shout as much baseless rhetoric as possible until we have a Democrat in power. Then worry about the damage we did, getting there.
"Good, on that we agree. However, where you're wrong is when you state they're unrelated. Invading Iraq has distracted us from what should have been our primary goal of finding and prosecuting Bin Laden. Invading Iraq has not only sent THAT country into an abyss of sectarian violence, but it's also prevented us from finishing the job in Afghanistan, allowing a resurgent Taliban to start to creep back into power in places."
Posted by: G Barnett
How does the worlds most powerful military get "distracted"? You say they can't do both? Afghanistan is pretty much secure. The problem with Afghanistan is Pakistan based Taliban and Al-Qaeda, not Afghanistan itself.
"Spiraling into chaos?" You Liberals are something else, you really are. You see the half empty glass in everything. Afghanistan has been more peaceful and has developed more in the past few years than the past 50! Unbelievable how far people stoop just to win an argument.
Considering that the Iraq war has stretched our troops to the point of breaking, then yes, I'd say that the world's most powerful military CAN get distracted, especially when its Commander-in-Chief spreads us too thin.
I'm simply of the opinion that we should not have started ANY other military operations before we'd finished what we started in Afghanistan. That means Osama and his lieutenants in custody (or dead, but in custody is better), the Taliban organization destroyed beyond recovery, and at least 3-5 years of proven stability and progress in the Afghani government and standards of living. Instead, we've got one utterly screwed-up war in Iraq and a half-hearted, stalled rebuilding of Afghanistan on our hands.
And for the record, to me the glass is actually half-full. At the moment however, it's all arsenic.
A Booth,
"Afghanistan is pretty much secure". Where did you get that idea from ?
Have you looked at how many British squaddies have been killed in Afghanistan of late ? Not to mention those of other nationalities. If you think Afghanistan is secure may I invite you to holiday in Helmand province. You might well find the level of fighing rather counter-inducive to having a relaxing time. The British Army, who has been a in firefight or two over the years, have said the fighting Helmand has been most intense it has faced since Korea.
I see that you either have very poor sources for your information, or you are not adverse to making up your own facts.
Oh, and just so you know the source of my claim about the intensity of the fighting, it is attributed to Lieutenant-General David Richards who was the General commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan at the time.
"Have you looked at how many British squaddies have been killed in Afghanistan of late ? Not to mention those of other nationalities. If you think Afghanistan is secure may I invite you to holiday in Helmand province. You might well find the level of fighing rather counter-inducive to having a relaxing time. The British Army, who has been a in firefight or two over the years, have said the fighting Helmand has been most intense it has faced since Korea.
I see that you either have very poor sources for your information, or you are not adverse to making up your own facts.
Oh, and just so you know the source of my claim about the intensity of the fighting, it is attributed to Lieutenant-General David Richards who was the General commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan at the time."
Posted by: Matt Penfold
The casualties are militarily insignificant and the troop numbers there, way too few.
As they are fighting drug lords, as well as Taliban and Al-Qaeda crossing from Pakistan, it is likely to be intense, but there isn't mass fighting throughout Afghanistan, just select regions, like the heroin poppy field rich area of helmland and the Pakistan border. You over inflate reality and typically, focus on the negative to paint a picture of what the situation is, when in reality, the fighting in Helmland and the Pak border is only a small part of an overall very good situation in Afghanistan.
And thanks for the insults and calling me a liar too. I knew that if I showed support for Bush long enough, I'd get tarred with the same insults he does , after a while. It's what Liberals do. Don't be reasonable, just be insulting. that's how to win a debate right?
The US is now in the time period called "A Decent Interval." This is the time after which we lost, to the time when we actually leave. First coined by CIA Sai Gon Station Chief Frank Snepp, he said that a nation cannot just withdraw, but save face by dragging out the inevitable.
In Viet Nam, we lost in the 1968 Tet attacks. That proved to the Viets that we COULD not protect them. In Iraq, we lost in the failed April 2004 Fallujah attack. That proved to the Iraqis that we WOULD not protect them.
It took us 7 years to leave Viet Nam. I predict that we will leave Iraq in 2009 (5 years after we lost). Even Kissinger has said we cannot "win".
It is too sad for wrods that more will die during the "Decent Interval." In Memory of Lt. Richard Vandegeer, KIA 5/15/1975, Koh Tang Island, the last man on the WALL. Panel 1W, Row 135.
A Booth,
Taliban crossing from Pakistan ? I thought Pakistan was supposed to be an ally of the US ? One of the "good guys" ? Musharraf is supposed to be a friend of Bush, even if Bush cannot remember his name. What are they doing harbouring Taliban ?
And as for there not being enough troops, I thought you claimed the US was not overstretched ? If there are US troops to spare why are they not in Helmand if that is where the fighting is ? Or is it on fact the case that the US has had to hand over to a British led Nato force becuase it was getting bogged down in Iraq ?
And as for you getting all upset at my saying were an idiot, I never actually used that term, although you have although to seem to want to forget that. I would out that in your claim about Afghanistan being almost secure you did imply that Gen Richards was lying.
With regards the opium trade, what do you suggest. The local farmers need to make a living and at the moment opium is the only crop that allows them to make one. Rather than eradicating the crop and alienating the local population Nato should be ensuring they can grow it unmolested and that the crop is then processed to alleivate the worldwide shortage in opiates for medical use. The British Government is willing to consider this, the problem is Bush who cannot get passed the idea "drugs are bad.". In otherwords Bush at the moment in Helmand is part of the problem, not the solution.
A Booth says:
"A typical Liberal response of mockery and ridicule and you wonder why you can't find a decent Republican to debate with?"
Well, when faced with ill-informed and ridiculous generalizations, I'd say a little ridicule is not out of line. Many "Conservatives" certainly feel more than comfortable resorting to it, indeed they have entire careers devoted to it. So I think you're on thin ground adding this to your already unflattering definition of Liberalism, it not being a unique or defining trait.
I mean, when you appear to define Liberalism as "all things I don't like," well, that leaves you fairly wide open to some mockery. Sorry.
Oh, and I can indeed find decent Republicans to debate. A lot of them I don't even have to debate anymore when the topic is Bush: we agree. But apparently, you'd rather spew misconceptions about Liberalism than discuss the topic at hand, i.e. the behavior of the one particular "Conservative" who is currently president of the U.S. I can understand why you might want to avoid that subject. But it does exclude you from the list of "decent Republicans" I generally debate, yes.
The sharp rise in poppy production is a result of the state land buy-out program. It sure is misguided, but I am not sure who suggested it and implemented it - it may have been Karzai himself under the pressure from the "international community" to "do something" about the opium problem.
In short, LAST year, the Afghani government offered nice money for pieces of land used for growing the poppy. Many people saw this as a good opportunity and decided to cash in. When their neighbors saw the good fortune that befell them, they tried to sell their land to the government, too. Well, here's the catch. Karzai was only buying land if it was used for growing poppy. So, dissappointed Afghani peasants did the most rational thing in the world: they seeded their land with poppy in order to sell it the NEXT year. Of course, before they get the land sold and cash in the fortune, they will do the other most rational thing in the world: sell their crop first.
Thus, an upsurge in poppy production.
Cortunix,
Would you like to have a bet on whether that crazy idea was either supported, or least paid for, by the US ?
Can someone translate the above?
Your blind, Mike. The president is our commander and chief, whether we like it or not.
Jim Kane,
I am not sure you have been reading the same blog as the rest of this. Nowhere does Mike that Bush is not the commander in chief of the US. His point is that even though Bush is, that does not mean he can do what he wants. He is still subject to oversight.
Its wonderful to see both sides throwing mud at the other to defend their point of view, or belittle their opponents.
The blog being responded to is off base. The congress has declared war and once war is declared it is in the domain if the executive branch to carry the war out. At any time, congress can cut funding for the military. This would result in the executive no longer being able to prosecute the war. Congress, at this time, does not have the votes to do it, so they propose a bring forward a bill that was bought with pork to get the number of votes necessary to even get it out of Congress. It is within the President's powers as outlined to veto the bill. The chances of the veto being overridden are slim-to-none considering the votes they got to pass it in the first place. Slamming the President for threatening to veto is contrary to our system of government. I wish he, and many other Presidents would have done it more often.
If Congress wants the war to end, they need to vote to stop funding. Failing that, the war will go on. Public opinion should only factor into the equation at election time. In this day and age it factors in all the time because everyone is always running for re-election.
But why should any member of government feel any obligation to understand, let alone honor the Constitution? It has been torn up and thrown away by both parties. The only time either party pays it any lip service is when they can use it to make a case against the opposition or when it can help them push forth their agenda.
Our country will fail not because of the things going on around the world, nor from public opinion of other countries. Why do we care if we are liked or not? We need to be true to our founding principles. There are many things being done in this war, by both sides, that I do not like. The PATRIOT act, prisoners at Guantanamo, the Rules of Engagement that we used at the beginning of the conflict to make sure we don't get a nasty-gram from another country, congress trying to run a war by committee, fighting a war in the media, appeasement, and on and on and on. Many of these things weaken our country in one way or another. We need to work towards strengthening our country and ignoring foreign opinion. They have their country, we have ours. If they like their system, so be it. Don't force us into their mold or beliefs. I do not believe in isolationism, as that is a path to bigger problems. You ignore the fire in the house next door until the flames have involved your house as well. Non interventionism is a better way to put it.
From that you may think I dislike the war in Iraq. You would be both wrong and right. If there was a threat there, and I believe there was, then address the threat. Start diplomatically, then move up. Escalate diplomacy, then move on to weapons of war. Use war as an extension of diplomacy. Just because you bomb one day does not mean you need to bomb the next day.
Removal of Saddam was a goal. We achieved that. That should have been the end. There was no need to force a different system of government on the country. Let them chose their next leader in whatever form they chose. That is where the non interventionism comes in. The next leader would be a little less likely to provoke us as he knows there are consequences. As would the leaders of other countries.
Why do we care what form of government they have? As long as we keep watch and make sure there are no threats to us, live and let live.
No translation needed - it's just good old meat and potatoes conservativism.
Booth:
My wife, brother, and brother-in-law have all spent time in Afghanistan recently (my brother-in-law is still there). It's not secure, or even close to secure.
If you don't believe me, take a look at this article in today's Salt Lake Tribune. In it, an Army general at Centcom said that (a) he would like more troops there and (b) he thinks the Afghani government is still years away from being able to take significant control of the country.
"Play politics with trivial things, but when the future of America is a steak, it down right treasonous to play with our security, just to get elected!"
One Possible Translation: It is wrong to present weak or outright false information to Congress in an effort to involve the US in a war that is unnecessary to our security, impedes legitimate military efforts elsewhere, cripples are economy, and kills thousands of our soldiers just so you can proclaim yourself to be the "war president" and get re-elected.
By the way, in war and politics, we speak of stakes not steaks.
Great analysis! I'll forward this far and wide.
The president is fondest of the U.S. Constitution when he gets to pick and choose the little bits of it that suit him. He loves that "commander-in-chief" thing, since he construes it to mean he can do anything he wants as long as he prattles about war and stuff -- and everyone else just has to go along. He likes that business about recess appointments, such as the one he gave John Bolton as UN ambassador, when the Senate refuses to do his bidding and confirm a nominee. Recess appointments were provided over 200 years ago to cover long periods when the Senate might not be in session to provide advice and consent in filling necessary executive department positions, a situation that surely no longer obtains in these days when the Congress is usually in town and in session.
The Los Angeles Times reports that President Bush wants to use recess appointments to stick some of his pro-pollution nominees into important regulatory positions in the EPA. One way to stop him: Don't go into recess! He can't make recess appointments if the U.S Senate prolongs its session and declines to go into recess. Would Sen. Reid dare to do such a thing? More power to him if he does!
What's so great about recess?
I'm sorry I missed that! Exactly when was war declared? I must have been sleeping or something.
"Taliban crossing from Pakistan ? I thought Pakistan was supposed to be an ally of the US ? One of the "good guys" ? Musharraf is supposed to be a friend of Bush, even if Bush cannot remember his name. What are they doing harbouring Taliban ?
And as for there not being enough troops, I thought you claimed the US was not overstretched ? If there are US troops to spare why are they not in Helmand if that is where the fighting is ? Or is it on fact the case that the US has had to hand over to a British led Nato force becuase it was getting bogged down in Iraq ?
And as for you getting all upset at my saying were an idiot, I never actually used that term, although you have although to seem to want to forget that. I would out that in your claim about Afghanistan being almost secure you did imply that Gen Richards was lying.
With regards the opium trade, what do you suggest. The local farmers need to make a living and at the moment opium is the only crop that allows them to make one. Rather than eradicating the crop and alienating the local population Nato should be ensuring they can grow it unmolested and that the crop is then processed to alleivate the worldwide shortage in opiates for medical use. The British Government is willing to consider this, the problem is Bush who cannot get passed the idea "drugs are bad.". In otherwords Bush at the moment in Helmand is part of the problem, not the solution."
Posted by: Matt Penfold
So you go off on a tangent about Pakistan now, like that has something to do with the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Whatever Pakistan is doing, they're not under the command of the U.S. or any other coalition force member. You mention an overstretches U.S. army, when I mention too few British troops. You do realize they are 2 seperate militaries, don't you. Again, unrelated post filler, to strengthen an argument for the sake of winning, completely discarding fact to be able to say you won. Well done. Whatever it is you want to win, you can, because I was trying to debate, not win for the sake of wining. That's pointless and futile. I guess that's what's important to you, so enjoy being able to throw unrelated issues together to try to win a debate.
Where do people get this crap?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/23/sprj.nitop.army.dissolve/
[Headline: U.S. dissolves Iraqi army, Defense and Information ministries]
No, they didn't dissolve the police force. They did dismiss the people running the police force.
The problem here is that the basic understanding the average Iraqi military man had was, "Don't fight back. Nobody needs to die and you'll all be taken care of when it's over." Dissolving the military and sending everybody packing just created a bunch of pissed off unemployed military age men with access to military-grade hardware.
Shouldn't it have been obvious that doing that and allowing a huge power vacuum to combine with a complete lack of law and order would simply give rise to warring factions and a thousand little warlords with their own private armies vying for power? I can't have been the only one who saw this coming as soon as our troops hit Baghdad and couldn't control the looting and all Rumsfeld could say was, "Sometimes freedom is untidy."
Posted by A Booth
Wait, YOU bring up the Taliban crossing over from Pakistan, he addresses your comment, and then you accuse him of going off on an unrelated tangent? The whole idea that it's unrelated in the first place is absurd -- that's actually a concrete example of just how insecure Afghanistan really is, yet it's "unrelated?"
Please, enlighten me as to how in the hell that's a rational position to have.
A Booth,
I am fully aware of the status of the British army, seeing as how I am British. And the British army IS overstretched. It is overstretched to the extent recruitment and more importantly retention is fast becoming a serious issue. Just where the British army is going to get experienced NCOs from when so many suitable soldiers are leaving becuase they are fed up with going from one posting away from their familiy to another is something that is going to trouble British generals for a long time to come.
My point, that you ignored, is not that it is British army that is overstretched, it is that is carrying out a combat role in Afghanistan that YOU have claimed the US has troops availible and not need elsewhere can help out with. So where, pray, are they ?
And as for Pakistan being a tangent, are you now claiming that Bush does not regard Pakistan as an ally ? Or is Pakistan an ally and not policing its borders ? You are the one who introduced Pakistan into this, now you dismiss it. Do you have a problem remembering what you have already said ?
Clearly you are not a person who regards honesty as being very important, no doubt explaining why you do not consider Bush lying to be wrong. I missed you comment earlier about Bush not lying becuase he was going on what the CIA told him. Well the CIA was not presenting a unanimous front on the issue. A number of CIA analysts said Iraq did NOT have WMDs. Other US intelligence agencies, as well as those of US allies were also calling into doubt Iraq's possesions of WMDs. So to claim to Bush was not lying becuase some people did tell him Iraq had WMDs is not being honest. Others told him they did not, and Bush ignored them. That is what makes him, and you, a liar.
Its like Bush woke up one day in 2000, and said "You know what? I wanna be the worst president ever." Thats the only way I can explain all this.
Note to Brian and other "conservatives"
Congress did not declare war.
Bush told Congress he needed troops for a brief deployment, they would be home within a year (actually less, according to Rummy).
Congress has passed a bill that funds the troops, it just requires them to come home in 2008.
So Congress has actually given Bush's military action (not a War...no Declaration of War since WW2) plenty of extra mileage.
Stop getting your "facts" from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Vent your anger at the gym and use your mind.
I am conservative. That is why I can't support an Administration that consolidates power, increases domestic intervention, spends like there is no tomorrow, and then takes no responsibility for their actions. Being childish and irresponsible and substituting emotional rhetoric for careful analysis are not the characteristics of a conservative.
I disagree with the conservative postings here. George Bush is politicizing this bill and his public temper tantrums are theatre for his base. The problem with this kind of postulating is that with the power of the vast, vast "rightwing noise machine" (FoxNews, Limbaugh and the zillions of rightwing talk show and columnists and on-air pundits, plus a complicit mainstream media) puts Bush at an advantage whenever he wants to play fast and loose with his Constitutional powers, and lack thereof. He knows that the power of propaganda can change the mindset of the population - he needs only to turn to Hitler for an example of that.
Also, the ongoing speculation that Bush is evil can be open for debate, but the bottom line is that he is conducting his time in office as a dictatorship, working outside the better judgement of his commanders on the ground in Iraq. He is treating the will of the People and of Congress as those who serve him rather than the other way around. If this man and his administration of corruptors is not evil, than he is as close to the dark side as one can get.
And yes, I am comparing Bush to HItler - only not as smart.
It's also worth noting that it's hardly fair accounting to consider funding for the Iraq deployment "emergency funding" after this many years. Of course, to put it in the actual budget would require actual honest estimates of how much it's going to cost over the next fiscal year, and nobody wants to do that when the goal is to make the budget look at small as possible.
You really do have to love the spectacle of the semi-literate mob swarming into a comment thread an flooding it with their nonsense.
And as for this:
We need to work towards strengthening our country and ignoring foreign opinion. They have their country, we have ours. If they like their system, so be it. Don't force us into their mold or beliefs. I do not believe in isolationism, as that is a path to bigger problems. You ignore the fire in the house next door until the flames have involved your house as well. Non interventionism is a better way to put it.
I'm surprised that anyone can still harbor delusions like this in the current situation. If anything the last four years should prove pretty conclusively that we cannot sustain a foreign occupation unilaterally, much less build a nation. This "ignore the rest of the world" bullshit ignores a crucial fact: America is not powerful enough to pursue the foreign policy goals people like the above ask for.
It's a simple comparison: one is not the other. America in 1945-1970 is not America in 2007. We no longer have the economic hegemony required to play globocop or "transform" the middle-east, and we probably never did have the power to do the latter. Having a huge military isn't enough.
And as well, the American people are already clamoring to get out, without there even being a system of conscription or rationing in place. Americans simply aren't going to tolerate a resurgence of British imperialism under an American banner. The halcyon days of American empire are over.
I haven't read all the comments here, but have looked at several of them in detail. Some good points are raised, and some typical brainwashed crap has come out, on both sides (although predominantly on the liberal side, which is hardly surprising, considering who the blog panders to).
Kimberly, please explain to me how Bush is "politicizing" a funding bill for troop operations by demanding that Congress does NOT politicize it by specifying (very LOUDLY) certain things that have nothing to do with the funding which is the point of the bill? I'm not sure how anyone could look at this situation as Bush "politicizing" an allegedly "neutral" bill from Congress; the situation is exactly the opposite, on such a basic level I'm not even sure how to argue it beyond an explanation of simple logic:
1) The bill's purpose and main text is for funding to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is for a finite amount of money to cover a finite period of time.
2) Congress decided to grandstand on television to stir the pot, both in the populace and in the "under-the-covers" political world that we never see. Their addition to the bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the funding asked for and offered in the bill; it is completely and totally separate from the other text of the bill, and is unrelated in any way save that both sections refer to the same military operations. I repeat, the addition to the bill DOES NOT ALTER or change anything in the bill as it was originally drafted, it merely adds a rider that has nothing to do with the specific funding asked for.
3) Bush stood his ground and refused to accept a bitter pill that was added specifically to make noise and cause trouble, knowing in advance that it would never be signed into law.
So, who is grandstanding? Who is politicizing? If you can't understand what is going on here, please, do us all a favor and refrain from voting. It's that exact reason that out Founding Fathers created the Electoral College -- because they did not feel that average Americans were capable of handling the serious task of choosing a President by themselves. Oh, and for the record, Bush didn't "steal" the election, nor was "popular opinion overthrown in any situation where a President is elected with less than a simple majority of the popular vote. If you don't like the foundations of our Constitutional law, then I suggest you research what it takes to call a Constitutional Convention and get one of our oldest, most bedrock laws in America changed to suit you; as it now stands, it's perfectly legal for a candidate to become president without a simple majority of the popular vote, as enacted by the Founding Fathers long before you were born.
"Kimberly, please explain to me how Bush is "politicizing" a funding bill for troop operations by demanding that Congress does NOT politicize it by specifying (very LOUDLY) certain things that have nothing to do with the funding which is the point of the bill?"
So I'm guessing that "politicizing" in this context approximately means "doing anything which the executive in chief doesn't approve of."
Newsflash: the Democrats were elected primarily to get us out of the war. That they took this long to at least attempt to restrict the purse strings is the real tragedy. Doing so may be "politicizing" things, by your criteria. But then again, your criteria are pretty much vacuous.
google bush crime family
8,090,000 hits.
google images: thermite cut beams
......but when the future of America is a steak,
posted at 11:22 AM by A Booth
________________________
Actually, I think it is a chicken....
OMG!!!!! I almost fell of my chair. That whole post, and most of the "Conservative View" posts have the most abysmal spelling, grammar and glaring mistakes that I have EVER seen. (Obviously I do not hang out at the "right" blogs.)
You all need to go back to school and learn how to write. And then you need how to read more than the tickers at the bottom of Fox News. ( I don't watch it, I am only assuming based on other MSM television channels.) Your incoherent arguments are not aided by your lack of writing conventions.
The backlash by some is unbelievable. It is vile, mean-spirited and really rather stupid. I would not presume to have an opinion that mattered to anyone, as I am not a citizen of your country, but 4 years ago I did vehemently disagree with this whole idea, precisely because of the threat that civil unrest in Iraq would bring to the region. I was not wrong in my estimation. I did not believe in your President's down home, good old boy image. I have been disappointed that I am right, because it has cost many people so very much.
To disagree with someone for their stance is not the worst thing that you can do, but to offer to buy a plane ticket out of the country and question their right to be a citizen is outrageous.
I am glad that Mike wrote this, I am glad it made Google News and I am thrilled that someone besides PZ and Ed are on the ScienceBlogs top five articles. Best to your wife, sir.
My wife has a wonderful ability to turn a phrase. Tonight she said, "Bush just doesn't get the separation-of powers thing."
Wow.
Three years and at least 600,000 lives later, including over 3000 American sons and daughters, all in pursuit of self-aggrandizement, and there are still people willing to say "I support the decider"?
Isn't democracy wonderful? It's a hat-tip to freedom that the people who still say that don't get slapped upside the head with a rubber chicken.
Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It had little to do with oil. It had nothing to do with Saddam being a dictator--if anything, his regime was on the wane.
It was all about Bush's manhood and lack thereof, and his desperate need to show up Poppy. In his continual justification and perpetual defence of the lies he told to induce America to sacrifice its men and women and its Constitution for his ego, he has become a hollow mockery of leadership.
The amazing thing is not how few people support him, but how many.
As to the people who are whining about pork in the bill--what proportion of that war funding, d'you think, is bound for the crowded wallets of Halliburton?
quoth the Booth:
and here i thought the notion of the constitution as a "living document" was one of those nasty evil liberal ideas.
"I'm surprised that anyone can still harbor delusions like this in the current situation. If anything the last four years should prove pretty conclusively that we cannot sustain a foreign occupation unilaterally, much less build a nation. This "ignore the rest of the world" bullshit ignores a crucial fact: America is not powerful enough to pursue the foreign policy goals people like the above ask for.
It's a simple comparison: one is not the other. America in 1945-1970 is not America in 2007. We no longer have the economic hegemony required to play globocop or "transform" the middle-east, and we probably never did have the power to do the latter. Having a huge military isn't enough.
And as well, the American people are already clamoring to get out, without there even being a system of conscription or rationing in place. Americans simply aren't going to tolerate a resurgence of British imperialism under an American banner. The halcyon days of American empire are over."
You miss my point completely. I do not want to play "globocop" as you put it. I do not want an American empire. Please read again. I want us out of all other countries. I do not want to go to an isolationist strategy either. If we take issue over something a country is doing that may affect us, we need to use diplomatic channels to politely explain our point. If that doesn't work, then escalate. At some point, it may become necessary to use force as an extension of diplomacy. Do that. Then walk away. No occupation, no rebuilding.
Our society has become one where people are no longer responsible for their bad decisions. We are extending this to our foreign policy as well. This digs a hole that we will not come out of. If we had the people running our government today (both parties) running things during World War II, we would have a much different outcome. We would be lucky to still be a sovereign nation, with the Nazi Empire on one side and the Japanese Empire on the other.
Note to mtb:
I agree, Congress didn't issue a formal declaration of war. You are right, WWII was the last time Congress issued a formal declaration of war. I carefully avoided using the term "declaration of war" for that reason. Congress did authorize the war, however. And Congress funded the war as well.
You make the point that Bush sold the war as a short term deployment. I agree. The war wasn't expected to take long and we didn't expect the troops to stay long after the war was over. The war went as planned, but it is taking longer to bring order to the country. The job won't be finished until that's done, so we must keep the troops there for now and continue to fund them.
President Bush isn't high on my lists of President's as well. The jury is still out on whether he was right to take us to war. But now that we have gone to war we can't just pick up and leave. The negative consequences are too great.
To the masters of war,
Go out and buy some plastic war toys.
Take them into the back room and play.
Don't break anything back there.
And don't disturb the adults with your noise.
In a few years I expect you will get tired of playing war with those toys.
Then, I expect you to join the debating team to become a responsible world citizen.
And don't forget, dinner is at 6:00.
Brian,
I believe it has cost too much, in both lives and treasure. Soldiers and Marines are dog tired. The military is close to the breaking point. You say we can't just pick up and leave, fine, I agree, to a point. However, what are we willing to pay? The only way we can stay in this fight is by bring our whole nation into the conflict. This means a huge tax which the CIC won't approve and the draft which is political death to anyone who utters the words. I think we're close to out of options.
Adam wade writes ," I see no evidence whatsoever that Bush wants to utilize American troops to inflict his will on US soil. Can you show me where there has been any indication that this is in the works from W? Because if not, there's no threat of a military dictatorship."
Well Adam aside from the fact that BLACKWATER a private mercenary army based in Virginia , received billions in contracts from Bushes government,is represented by Kenneth Star ( remember him ?)and the presidents own general counsel ,Fred Fielding,was first on the scene policing American citizens in New Orleans,Forms almost a 1 to 3 ratio with our own troops in Iraq and wants to branch out into intelligence gathering (probably domestically),Your right no woorries there!
Then of course there is Posse comitatus,a law which I believe has been rearranged for our safety by provisions in the patriot act giving the president new powers over the national guard !
Perhaps the fact that the new presidential power to incarcerate American citizens with out charges if he deems them subversive has people a bit uneasy or the fact that while lying bold faced on national TV to Jim Lehrer about the Fisa laws and domestic spying was actively collecting the phone and internet records of 100's of 1000's of American citizens and infiltrating such threats to our way of life as Quakers in Vermont and Florida !
Oh and Adam waterboarding isn't torture its just making another human being belive your drowning him !
Travis,
It's either pay now or pay much more later. We have become accustomed to war not requiring sacrifices in the last 50 years, but this is not one of those types of wars. The average American is going to have to sacrifice something. It is far too important for us to win this war. Even if we have to bring back the draft, which makes me shudder as well.
The timeline for withdrawal in the spending bill is non-binding, people. Bush will be free to ignore it if he so chooses. Who's grandstanding now? Bush is willing to kill the funding bill over an included (non-binding) request for withdrawal simply to play politics with the lives of our soldiers. He's not fit to be Commander-In-Chief.
Brian,
I agree, but there is no political will to spend more. Americans, even those who have given nothing, have given all they want to give. There is no more goodwill toward any of the presidents policies. Lacking goodwill, lacking the high ground, lacking good news on the battle front, few Americans will go further. Iraq will turn into another Rwanda and we will do little to stem the slaughter. Sadly we have made a mess of messy place. The only way to win in Iraq is to police every street in Iraq until the Iraqi infrastructure is constructed and give every person in that country a job. That means 500,000 soldiers rotating in and out of Iraq every year for 5 years and a tax to pay for Iraqi jobs.
The public doesn't have to have the will to do the right thing. Our leaders do. Sometimes our leaders must make unpopular choices.
Everyone wants the troops to come home. IMO, those who want the troops to come home before they have finished their job are making a terrible mistake.
I think the early evidence suggests that the President's surge plan is working. If it does work we can bring the bulk of the troops home within a year or two, I would think .
Sorry, Travis. I posted with your name when I meant to address the post to you. A n00b mistake.
Well Brian, I hope the surge does well, but I think it'll do little but squeeze the dregs to the outlying provinces. Like I said, I don't believe anything can be done without jobs for everyone, security and infrastructure.
Travis,
I agree with you. Jobs, security and infrastructure are essential. So is a political solution to the sectarian violence. The "surge" was implemented to provide the security.
Congress has allocated funds to rebuild the infrastructure, but those funds are on hold until the violence slows down. We don't want to build something only to have it blown up tomorrow. If the "surge" can provide the security we can release the funds to rebuild.
When we rebuild, jobs will be created.
When everyone is working there is a better chance for a political solution. People have short tempers when they don't have the money to put food on the table.
This whole thing about "not funding the troops" is a lot of hysteria. The funding will happen. At present the military has the funds to continue its operations through the summer and if the president vetos the present legislation Congress will pass legislation that funds the military in time. Christ, even Pat Buchanan agrees on the truth of this.
No one is playing politics with the troops except for George Bush. The current legislation calls for a withdrawal plan. There is no date. There is no timetable. People in the Bush Administration resigned just before the Iraq War (remember?) precisely because they were mortified at the devil-may-cakewalk attitude of Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al. We should have had a plan in the first place. No one goes to war without a phased strategic plan to get out, except for the incompetent boob in the White House.
I think that this position depends on the idea the war wasn't entirely optional to begin with. I strongly disagree with that premise.
That being said, the conversations I've had with my Vietnamese in-laws about what happened to them in the south after the US walked away from another ill-considered mess of a war gives me strong reservations about leaving yet another country full of people to suffer the consequences of our leaders' short-sightedness.
I think that we either need to stop bitching about cost and crank up our involvement to bring about law and order and stabilize the place or we need to walk away and let it disintegrate. As it stands, we've been trickling just enough resources into the meat grinder to keep our soldiers dying and our contractors living high on the hog without seeing any meaningful gains in stability or filling the obvious power vacuum. We've tried to do this occupation thing on the cheap and all it has gotten us is a thoroughly broken country, a bunch of dead people who didn't deserve to die, a military that can no longer convince people that it's worth joining, and a civil war that we can't stop.
Doing this stuff is hard and expensive and if the American people and our leaders had realized that to begin with, they might have thought twice before jumping into such a bone-headed adventure. Now that everybody seems to have figured out that war is generally an unpleasant option and not just a quick way of getting what you want and giving your economy a shot in the arm, they need to decide what to do. I don't think that more of the same and more blank checks are a good set of options.
Very nice post. I've only scanned the comments above, since many of them are unnecessarily inflammatory on what should be a rather straightforward topic. How can people possibly think, "Bring the troops home so they stop getting shot at" translates to, "I hate America and hope its soldiers die"?????
I believe terrorism was the third reason this administration gave for being in Iraq, that was after the WMD's were debunked, and Saddam was captured, then it was insurgents which segued into terrorist's, that exist in every country, including right here. Now we are fighting terrorist's over there so they don't come here? But how does it make sense to start or perpetuate a war with a country in order to fight terrorist's that could be anywhere? Why aren't we fighting Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan if this is the case? It's illogical, as have been all the arguments for being in Iraq, unless the truth were to be told, OIL-GREED-POWER! I vote to stop fueling this catastrophe. NOW!
Troublesome Frog,
I agree that we are not devoting the proper resources to the war. We should be more invested in the war than we currently are. That's part of the reason for the surge, I think, but perhaps the surge doesn't go far enough.
At the same time, I don't want people to think that I'm naive enough to believe that the military can solve the problem. The military can bring (relative) peace to Iraq, but that won't solve the problem. As soon as our troops leave, the fighting would start again. The solution is going to have to be a political one -- Iraqi politics, not U.S. politics.
But before a political solution can be reasonably expected, we must first end the insurgency and root out the terrorists. Then we can rebuild the infrastructure, which will create jobs.
mollishka,
I don't translate it that way. But I do believe that the Democratic leaders are invested in us losing the war for their own political gain.
Violence begets violence. Want to get shot at or attacked with IEDs? Walk around with a gun and fire it at people and cars and buildings. Our military is trained to kill. And they are being killed in return.
Order cannot be imposed through the use of violence. So, why do we think the military can "bring peace and stability" to Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter? Maybe some don't want peace and stability.
Order comes about when peoples agree on sensible laws and empower some among them to hold these laws and administer them on the peoples' behalf.
The United States military has not been empowered by the peoples of Afghanistan or Iraq to administer laws which they, the peoples themselves, have agreed upon. This then is how freedom fighters, or "insurgents" if you will, arise.
Any military objective (legitimate or not) was achieved by April 2003. Therefore, there are no good reasons for the US military to remain in Iraq.
There must be other reasons then, for the Bush administration to insist on a US military presence with no end date. One can argue whether our continuing occupation is about empire-building, oil-grabbing, or religious genocide.
However... the US military presence in Iraq is like a layer of large sharp burrs under a saddle. Every day the burrs remain under the saddle the more damage we do to both the saddle and the horse, and the more unruly the horse behaves. How does it make sense to say, "Let's leave the burrs under the saddle until the horse stops rearing up!"? Removing the burrs is only the first step to healing the horse and calming it down, but there can be no progress unless this is done.
Anyway, thank you, Mike, for inspiring me to go read the Constitution again this morning, which then led me to re-read the Joint Resolution that Bush uses to justify his neverending war on terror. As someone else mentioned, the Joint Resolution uses, as its justification, a whole series of "whereas's" that happen not to be true. One might argue that nullifies the "Now therefore, be it Resolved" part.
Ennealogic,
That's classic Chamberlainian/utopian thinking. The truth is that some enemies can't be negotiated with. You must either destroy them or their will to engage you. I believe you have your head in the sand. We were doing what you suggested that we do up until 8am on 9/11/01. That didn't prevent an attack on us. But I notice that America hasn't been attacked since then.
Brian,
I don't think that most of the people who were against going to war in Iraq had the same feelings about Afghanistan. I know that I supported our operations in Afghanistan because Afghanistan actually supported the people who attacked us. I don't think that there's anything wrong with sending the message, If you support terrorism on US soil, we will end your government and replace it with a better behaved one, period.
I do have a problem with taking resources from a sensible conflict and using them to start another unrelated war just because that other country was on our checklist. The former makes complete sense and the latter is a colossal strategic screw-up, not to mention ethically problematic and expensive. Now that we're in Iraq, I think that we have an ethical obligation to fix it as best we can, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a ridiculous operation to begin with.
Troublesome Frog,
I don't think we are too far apart on that. I haven't decided whether or not getting into the war makes sense. I don't believe that sufficient information has been made public, and it's possible that the world will never have enough information to know.
Certainly there is no smoking gun WRT to the existence of WMD in Iraq prior to the war -- at least none that has been made public. There is a real difficulty in proving a negative, though. In this case, it's very difficult to prove that there were in fact no WMD in Iraq prior to the war.
I'm not a fan of the President, but I'm not willing to jump the conclusion that he lied to the nation to get us into war, either. Lots of people are screaming that at the top of their electronic lungs in the various blogs. But they really have no evidence or objective arguments to support that assertion.
You might be right that the war is unrelated, but we don't know everything that the President knows. It seems to me that you have no rational basis for concluding that the operation was "ridiculous" when you consider the fact that you are operating on far less than all of the relevant information.
Brian's comment: I haven't decided whether or not getting into the war makes sense. I don't believe that sufficient information has been made public, and it's possible that the world will never have enough information to know.
You must know the CIC would have declassified any piece of classified information that he had at his disposal if it would make his case for the war. We have every bit of information that we will ever have on the reasons he had for going to war. Knowing this do you think the war makes "sense".
Brian,
I honestly don't think that the President lied per se. I think that he probably did believe that Iraq had WMD. I just happen to think that it was an excuse to go to war with Iraq rather than a reason. Before the march to war began, I remember hearing Colin Powell make the announcement that we were "committed to regime change" and thinking, Christ, have we decided to go to war with Iraq? Somebody's been drinking the PNAC Kool Aid. Based on the public announcements and behavior of the administration well before the "They have WMD"/"Hussein is evil"/"We're freeing their people"/"Justification of the day" speeches began, it was pretty plain to me that the Bush administration wanted to topple Iraq and replace the government there for strategic reasons. The same group of people had been pushing it from thinktank land for years.
I certainly can't blame Bush for considering it, but I do consider the decision process heavily clouded because it's fairly clear that war in Iraq was on the "to do" list and "9/11" / "terrorism" / "booga booga!" became a convenient justification. The justification obviously wasn't complete crap, but I don't think it was sufficient, and I think it's hard to argue that it wasn't a case of backing the reasons in to fit the decision.
The administration has had absolutely no trouble leaking/declassifying data to suit its agenda, but it's somehow having a lot of trouble producing convincing information to support its case. Time after time, we're seeing "all evidence indicates that there was no link to Al Qaeda" and no evidence of WMDs. I seriously doubt that this is a case of "We have classified information that proves our case, but we're just too darned responsible to share it with you."
I don't doubt that Iraq was infringing on any number of UN resolutions, and I wouldn't be surprised to find small scale covert WMD programs. I don't see how that results in an imperative to start a war with the obvious costs that this one has had. To me, this was clearly just a misguided attempt to act out one of the fantasies of the Project for the New American Century, and it backfired because of a lack of foresight into what should have been obvious.
Here's my take on it: My only formal education is in computer engineering and economics. I have no background in international politics or public policy. It was blazingly obvious to me from the beginning of the occupation that we were going to create a power vacuum and it we didn't immediately bring about complete law and order, the country would disintegrate into civil war and lawlessness with every thug with an AK-47 vying for power. I also foresaw that this would be a wet dream for militant Islamic recruiters and people who want to sow hatred for the US in the minds of Muslims all over the world. How in Christ's name did I see these things but our leaders manage to miss them? My only conclusion is that their cost/benefit analysis was clouded by an underlying desire to act out an ideological campaign. They were looking for reasons to justify doing it, not deciding whether to do it or not.
Troublesome Frog,
I agree, the decision making process was clouded. The war may or may not have been just and wise. But I think we both agree that if the war was just and wise, the reasons for it haven't been provided to the American in a way that the American people can understand.
Maybe the President has just been ineffective in his defense of the war. Maybe there are good national security for not providing the information to the public. And it's possible that the President went to war primarily for ideological reasons, like you suggested.
It isn't clear why we went to war because there was no real national debate on the war. The administration laid out reasons, but the reasons were sort of vague.
The administration said that Iraq was hiding a WMD program, but aside from some less than credible claims that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons, it wasn't clear what kind of WMD or in what numbers or what delivery system might be used. So it was difficult to gauge what kind of thread the alleged WMD posed to us.
The administration said that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together, but the evidence provided for that was less than compelling.
Whatever the reasons Bush had for the invasion, they weren't clearly explained to us. I doubt that the nation was really convinced to go to war over the reasons that President Bush laid out. It seems more likely to me (and, like anything else in this discussion, it's difficult to prove this) that the public *wanted* to go to war because they were unsatisified with leaving Hussein in power after the first Gulf war and because he had thumbed his nose at us ever since. So it's natural for people to be suspicious of President Bush's motives, particularly when the war drags on and the news coming from Iraq is usually negative. It's easy to transfer the reasons that the nation had onto President Bush. We don't want to remember that *we* (the nation, not you and me) *wanted* to take down Sadaam. The reasons that President Bush didn't really matter.
There is no real evidence that President Bush's went to war to avenge our national honor and to right the wrong result of the first Gulf War. The cloud that surrounds the decision making process won't allow it.
You point out that it was obvious to you from the beginning that Iraq was going to disintegrate. I'm sure that you weren't alone, but no one really knew for sure what would happen until law and order in Iraq really did break down. It wasn't obvious to everyone.
The administration had good reasons for believing that the population of Iraq would celebrate the downfall of the dictator that had brutally suppressed them for over 20 years. They believed that the population would be willing to help them build a new Iraq.
In a sense, they were right. It is only a tiny fraction of the Iraqi population that has caused problems. Most of the Iraqi public wants peace. As I understand it, most of those attacking our troops are either foreign insurgents or foreign terrorists.
The violence in Iraq is mainly sectarian battles between Sunnis and Shiites. I don't know how familiar you are with that, but as I understand it, it's sorta like the Protestants and the Catholics fighting each other in Ireland.
Did the administration fail to predict the size and scope of the foreign insurgency and the ability of al Qaeda to move into Iraq so quickly and in so many numbers? I think it's obvious that they miscalculated. Did the administration underestimate the tension that existed between the Sunnis and the Shiites. I think it's obvious that they miscalculated.
The Bush administration made a huge mistake, IMO, in their management of Iraq after the war. I believe that the situation in Iraq would be more managable right now if the administration hadn't disarmed and disbanded the Iraqi military and de-Baathed the government. Iraq would be much better prepared to defend itself and suppress the violence because they wouldn't have to build a police force and a military from scratch.
But the Bush administration doesn't share all of the blame. The battle between the Sunnis and the Shiites is far worse than it would have been, IMO, because Iran and al Qaeda is fanning the flames of that conflict. Al Qaeda destroyed one of the most "holy" of Shiite mosques a little over a year ago and the violence almost instantly became much worse. Now they are escalating the violence in revenge for the attacks of the other side.
Anyone who knows anything about Iraq would have been able to predict some level of violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites. But the level of sectarian violence that we are currently witnessing, IMO, could not have been predicted because foreign powers are intentionally making it worse.
On one hand, their defense of the war was absolutely brilliant from a PR perspective. They had the vast majority of a country chomping at the bit to do something really stupid simply by waving the bloody shirt every time somebody asked a substantive question. On the other hand, they did a terrible job of defending the war to people who actually examine the data rather than thinking back to how angry they felt in 2001. The second half of that equation is what's biting them now. Rash emotions only last so long. Evidence and reason tend to have a much longer shelf life.
Agreed. I think that the reason is less "national honor" and more an interest in having a stronghold of American support and military bases in a strategically crucial and hostile part of the world. It's a sensible choice to make (if cynical and not particularly nice), but it's not particularly marketable way to start a war.
And yet, in spite of this, and in spite of more recent intelligence reports that say exactly that, Dick Cheney repeated the claim this week on Rush Limbaugh. Bald faced lie, anybody?
I generally agree with your assessment of the missteps, but I can't agree with you on this point. Anybody with any common sense and historical perspective should understand that when you destabilize a large country and create a power vacuum, neighboring states with an interest in the region are going to try anything from diplomacy to dirty tricks to influence the outcome. We don't let a government change hands halfway around the world without trying to exert influence. We should hardly be surprised when a major regional power does the same thing in its own back yard.
Honestly, we can't trust the Iranians to develop nuclear power, but we assumed that they would never intervene when we destabilize the neighbor that acts as a major check on their regional power? The cognitive dissonance is astounding. And we can't even get started on Al Qaeda. We go to war because Iraq is dangerous and may support terrorists, but we're surprised when terrorists show up and use this as a recruiting opportunity / training ground / new front for jihad? You can see how some of us might be hesitant to write yet another blank check to the same people who have botched this operation at every opportunity year after year. "Trust us, we're experts" doesn't work when you're clearly less of an expert than a twenty-something computer geek who reads the newspaper. The bank won't loan me a few thousand dollars without knowing what it's for, but we're somehow supposed to give these bozos billions of dollars to kill people, no questions asked?
Thus spake "bastian", somewhere above:
Yes, in theory he could- if he and every other member of the Executive branch involved, along with quite a few military leaders, were willing to pay the price of spending the rest of their lives unable ever to step foot outside the borders of the USA for fear of a cop with a warrant.
The rights and duties of an occupier with respect to the assets of an occupied country are very clearly spelled out in several treaties to which the USA is a signatory. If you want to learn more, Googling a combination of the terms "belligerent occupant" and "usufruct" should turn up plenty of information.
Bastian, if the USA were to embark on a policy of seizing the natural resources of other nations by force, we would instantly become a pariah nation in a way that would make the late, unlamented apartheid regime of South Africa look dwonright repectable. Is that what you want for your country?
Yawn, yet another left wing moon bat, who can't grasp anything beyond his bum cheeks and shove his head a bit deeper up his backside.
Brian: The truth is that some enemies can't be negotiated with. You must either destroy them or their will to engage you.
Very true! And the sooner the Democrats realize that, the sooner they'll be able to shut down ShrubCo, impeach its principals, and start repairing some of the damage.
bastian: bush could seize the iraqi oil with the military and have the whole operation pay for itself. even with huge dividends.
That's spelled "Halliburton". As Theda noted early on:
Bush is killing time because he wants the Iraqi congress to approve the Profit Sharing Agreements. It means giving British and American oil conglomerates a 75% share of the Iraqi oil.
Of course, they have to "pacify" the country first, because you can't keep oil production up, when the locals still have the silly idea that they own the oil.
"Dustyvet" posted:
Yawn, yet another left wing moon bat, who can't grasp anything beyond his bum cheeks and shove his head a bit deeper up his backside.
If he can't grasp anything beyond his bum cheeks, how can he possibly shove his head up his backside? That would involve grasping something beyond his bum cheeks - his head - which is far beyond the bum cheeks.
It is you who are the moonbat, sir, because you seem to expect the impossible to happen, all the while decrying the obvious.
Here is an article for those Bush haters to read. I didn't write it, so you can't dismiss it based on the spelling mistakes of my posts here, like you have previously. Also, as it stays on topic, instead of ranting then mentioning Afghanistan, followed by Pakistan, then Halliburton and anything else you can think of to give justification to a point of view based on hate and ignorance, there is actual validity in its content.
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10117097.html
Game. Set. Match.
- JS
Correction: Link should go here.
- JS
From the article:
Kick ass! There are no more car bombings (because they've closed the market to vehicles) and all market goers have to worry about is snipers. The whole situation is clearly being managed by the best of the best these days.
Please notice that this article was written by John McCain, the same John McCain who is...well... full of shit. The same McCain who went into that market with a small army of people to protect him and then said:
Hooray for you, John. Nothing like demonstrating how safe a place is by entering with 100 men for ground support and a few helicopters for good measure.
When your doctor tells you that there's nothing wrong with you but then refuses to take off what appears to be a space suit, you might consider getting a second opinion. Apply this lesson to the current situation as you see fit.
Troublesome Frog,
You wrote:
On one hand, their defense of the war was absolutely brilliant from a PR perspective. They had the vast majority of a country chomping at the bit to do something really stupid simply by waving the bloody shirt every time somebody asked a substantive question. On the other hand, they did a terrible job of defending the war to people who actually examine the data rather than thinking back to how angry they felt in 2001. The second half of that equation is what's biting them now. Rash emotions only last so long. Evidence and reason tend to have a much longer shelf life.
My response:
I don't agree that they had much to do with the country "chomping at the bit" to invade Iraq. Saddam did that himself. Saddam's yo-yo act with the weapons inspectors. Thumbing his nose at our nation. That kind of behavior doesn't sit well with our people. But those weren't good reasons to go to war, because the people aren't willing to lose thousands of soldiers over Saddam's bad behavior. The cooler heads that you mentioned could be found on both sides of the aisle... and even within the administration. But the drumbeat drowned out those voices.
You wrote:
We don't let a government change hands halfway around the world without trying to exert influence. We should hardly be surprised when a major regional power does the same thing in its own back yard.
My response:
I think the competency and effectiveness of the Iranians (and others in the region) might have surprised the President. After all, they don't have the resources that we have. They appear to have really have done a lot of damage with very little (apparent) investment. I believe that the President had little regard for what they could do short of openly challenging our military. That was a mistake, but I would certainly have made the same mistake myself. I'm certain that we have learned a lot from this war.
You wrote:
Hooray for you, John. Nothing like demonstrating how safe a place is by entering with 100 men for ground support and a few helicopters for good measure.
When your doctor tells you that there's nothing wrong with you but then refuses to take off what appears to be a space suit, you might consider getting a second opinion. Apply this lesson to the current situation as you see fit.
My response:
I have to agree. I think we all have to admit that if Senator McCain had gone into the marketplace incognito that he would have later come back to the United States unharmed. But obviously he's a lot safer with bodyguards around. There's certainly nothing stupid about surrounding yourself with protection in Iraq. The stupid part is when he acts like Iraq is safe for tourism while he's completely surrounded by his security team. It's idiocy like that that makes people that support the war look foolish.
Botoh:
I just responded to your latest comment. (The response is one of several items in the post.)
Brian wrote:
No, I don't think we all have to admit that. I think he might have, but westerners are at real risk of kidnap and/or murder when they go out in Iraq. That's why he had the protection.
That sort of cuts to the core of it. In times past, our government may have been evil, cynical, and manipulative when dealing with other countries, but they had their eye on the ball. Whether torturing people we didn't like or toppling legitimately elected governments, they were generally pretty effective at being calculating monsters. They weren't easily taken by surprise, and I definitely wouldn't go up against them in a battle of wits in the field of long term strategic foreign policy.
Somehow, we've managed to elect people who have forgotten that long tradition. They're still big on the idea of cynically exploiting public opinion and using foreign countries with real people in them like toilet paper, but they do it in a slapdash "I'm bigger than you so give me your lunch money" sort of way without regard to the risks and consequences.
I guess what I'm saying is that our current foreign policy team seems woefully unskilled and lacking in subtlety and vision--to the point where a chump like Ahmedinejad can play them like fools over and over again. They hand this guy tactical victory after tactical victory and never learn from it.
* Want your chief rival in the area taken out? Check.
* Want us to allow Iraq to descend into chaos so you can gain a foothold? Check.
* Want to bolster your dwindling local support by creating a standoff against an unpopular George Bush? We're more than happy to lend you all the political capital you need.
* Want to feed your economy by spiking oil prices without reducing supply? Just goad the Bush administration into saber rattling and creating uncertainty in the region.
* Want the US to blow its wad of political capital and military power so it has nothing left to stop you from pursuing nuclear weapons? Done and done.
I'm surprised that Bush hasn't yet realized that being the heartless puppetmaster of a world full of less developed countries isn't quite as easy as the old guard of the Cold War made it seem. Even more surprising is that half of the people who work for him were part of that old guard. Color me confused.
Troublesome Frog,
I think you are exaggerating a bit. President Bush is not the first president to underestimate an enemy. Roosevelt underestimated Hitler just like Chamberlain did, for example. President Bush and his team are capable of subtlety. They often don't employ it because they believe bold action is called for in dealing with terrorism.
BTW, I think you give too much credit to Iran. They didn't draw us into a fight with Iraq. Saddam drew us into a fight with Iraq. Saddam taunted us from the time that Iraq invaded Kuwait until he was forced from power. And he played yo-yo with the U.N. weapons inspectors. He may not have had any WMD or WMD programs (maybe), but he certainly *acted* like he had them. That's why our nation went to war. We had had enough of Saddam.
Was that a good enough reason? No, it wasn't. The President most likely had better reasons than those (you offered a plausible reason earlier). But he didn't sell the war on those reasons, and now he is paying a PR cost for his poor salemanship.
The war in Iraq can't be lost. It's too important. We must keep the troops in Iraq, fully funded, until the popularly elected Iraqi government can defend itself and the Iraqi people.
Mike Dunford,
I agree that *anyone* is at risk of kidnap and/or murder when they go to Iraq. That is not exclusively true of Iraq, however. Kidnappings and murder occur, I expect, in every nation. They surely occur at a higher rate in Iraq than they do in most nations. But the rate of safe return is far higher than the rate of kidnapping and murder... even in Iraq. Kidnappings and murders grab the attention of the media. We hear about suicide bombers and road side bombs seemingly every day in the news.
But Iraq is a country twice the size of Idaho. If a single suicide bomber killed himself or a single road side bomb went off somewhere in Idaho or Oregon, how likely would it be that a particular resident would be harmed by it? It's pretty unlikely. The same is true of kidnappings. How many Americans have been kidnapped in Iraq since the war began? And how many Americans are living there?
It's not reasonable to believe that Senator McCain would have been harmed without *if* he had traveled to Iraq incognito. Of course showing up with lots of buzz will draw the terrorists like flies, so an armed escort is going to be necessary for him. But in traveling with armed escort, it makes him look ridiculous when he says that he spent an hour browsing the market safely.