I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Sadly, this news won't sway the Bush base.
Faith is not moved by reason. If it were, most organized religions would have ceased to exist long ago.
But maybe it will sway enough moderates to oust the man.
"I just assumed they were just trying to mislead people à la Clinton and Balkans peacekeeping..."
Oh yeah, I'm paying a lot of attention to *this* guy.
But they moved the WMDs to Syria.
Bush went to Iraq.
At least the terrorists are attacking our troops in Iraq and not Israel.
9/11 changed everything.
Why do you hate America.
How about dropping Cheney in the western desert of Iraq and trading him for....
beautiful post, Atrios.
Rochester - ...a twenty-five- year Army reservist is facing insubordination charges for questioning orders that would put his unit back in a combat zone after just 11 months at home. "If they're going to usurp the laws of this country at the expense of our most precious asset, our soldiers, then I will not stand for that," he said.
Matt did do the "on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand" thing -- some extremists opposed Bush for the wrong reasons, while the nice, sensible liberal hawks were duped by Bush.
This bothered some people, but I was just happy to see Matt describe the Bush administration as "despicable".
We should welcome anyone willing to renounce senseless, destructive moderation and adopt a sensibly paranoid view of things.
For me, the hardest part about the runup to the war was my awareness that everything I said would be ignored, simply because I am me.
Failed military campaigns usually aren't owned up to until it's too late. The W "warriors" may squeak through this adventure while convincing the public that it wasn't a complete clusterfuck, but it doesn't look like whatever government takes over in Iraq will be quite as compliant as the US had hoped for. Only time will tell, but the impending election imposes a limit on the options that W can follow. No doubt, he'll choose the one that makes the least sense.
Visions of Dick Cheney and Strom Thurmond playing poker in hell are now dancing in my head like sugarplums.
I dunno what I can say about this besides word, and quote Stifler's little brother, "Fuckers, fuckers, fuckers ..."
A.
Good post. Few people beyond "Bush was behind 9/11" conspiracy-types despise the prez more than me. Still, I did think that, as the post says, all this talk about how easy the post-war situation would be was just smokescreen -- surely they didn't really believe it, and they had a plan for how to handle it.
Nope.
Has there been any other time in U.S. history when we had a bigger "war as sandbox play with toy soldiers" mentality? This is just insane.
If I'm of a humanitarian mind, I can quickly come up with many many many better ways to spend 430(and counting) lives and 200 billion or more tax dollars.
That's the crux of it for me. Wingers will haul out the "he gassed his own people, and killed 200k Iraqis" line as though that magically makes our actions just. Leaving aside the 9000 Iraqi civilians (and goodness knows how many soldiers) we killed this go 'round, leaving aside the dreadful impact of sanctions that killed tens of thousands of Iraqi children, leaving aside the weapons and support we provided Saddam over the years, etc, we've wasted treasure that could have gone to addressing real national and global problems that would have on balance done greater good than removing Saddam.
How many people get infected with AIDS in Africa because they don't have adequate education, condoms, and healthcare? How many people live in poverty in the world? How many people are starving? So much good could have bee
"was a civilian who knew next to nothing about military affairs, but he'd been watching the Civil War documentary on public television and was now an expert."
I blame this on Hollywood too. Geez! If I found myself in a war I would even beg a plain soldier for help. What's with these civilians dissing experienced and professional warriors?
OK, for the moment at least . . .
They really didn't lie to take us into this war. They deluded themselves, and most of the American people, into it. I believed Powell at the UN. I still thought the war was unjustified, but I did believe him. And he mostly believed it, too. If a guy that smart can be that deluded, where does that leave the rest of them -- and us?
Damn HS and its 1000 character limit. Too bad I said the smartest thing ever, and now can't remember it. Anyhoo...
So much good could have been done if Bush had real moral clarity. Instead, the PNAC obsession with Saddam has damaged our ability to be a positive force in the world.
What's more, our humanitarian approach to the issues facing us today could have the added benefit of addressing the root causes of terrorism. Alas, BushCo chose a destructive, rather than constructive, path and it is harming the security and stability of the entire globe (which I'll note includes the US).
Uh, that last Anon (1020) we NTodd. Weird.
They really didn't lie to take us into this war. They deluded themselves, and most of the American people, into it. I believed Powell at the UN. I still thought the war was unjustified, but I did believe him. And he mostly believed it, too. If a guy that smart can be that deluded, where does that leave the rest of them -- and us?
Fuck that. They lied. If you believe their BS that they were deluded, you're deluding yourself.
"was NTodd". I guess Thanksgiving was more tiring than I thot...
What's with these civilians dissing experienced and professional warriors?
More of the whiz kid "best and brightest" arrogance that worked so well during our last quagmire.
they lied and they were delusional. it isn't one or the other.
Don't forget how Cheney was gung ho to topple Gorbachev and replace him with that genius Yeltsin...
I think these guys don't understand the following:
1. Rapid change is usually bad
2. Good change happens slowly
It's bad enough that the Safires and David Brookeses et al are trying to get away with the "equivalency" argument (i.e. hounding to death a legitimately elected president over Nannygate and Travelgate and Haircutgate and private illicit semi-sex = utterly reasoned opposition to abandoning all international law and precedent and allies and causing untold death, mayhem, and future peril).
But what's really bad, and sad, is that there are STILL so many reasonable people, on the side of the angels (reason and critical thinking) who feel they must somehow still pay lip service to this false bogus bullshit "equivalency." It is beyond horrifying to me that Roveism can burrow this deeply into otherwise reasonable minds, and force them to ever operate on Rovian terms.
they lied and they were delusional. it isn't one or the other.
Absolutely. They are not mutually exclusive. They believed in a fantasy (US will dominate the ME from the USS Iraq), knew nobody would go for it (even the American public doesn't like the idea of empire), and sold us an apparently more palatable bill of goods (WMD, immediate threat, blahblahblah).
Regarding reason three: it was always clear that invading Iraq to help Saddam's people was just a figleaf for the genuine motivations. Any good that comes to them from this will be sheer coincidence.
For their part, the Iraqis are perfectly aware that the invasion had nothing to do with concern for the abuses they were suffering. We've fooled nobody over there.
Furthermore, if the idea was to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, then Bush would deserve impeachment. He was never given authorization for this by Congress; they authorized him to wage war on terrorists.
And lastly, if we were going to start wars on people who don't measure up to our standards for humanitarian treatment of their citizens, it would have made more sense to go after the most egregious offender first. I think that would be Congo, but someone correct me.
How about dropping Cheney in the western desert of Iraq and trading him for....
Drop the last four words, and I think we have a plan!
In spring of 2001, I took a political science class. On the last day, I sat down and chatted with the professor about politics and he finally started talking about his own. He said of the Bushies "I am frightened of any administration where Colin Powell (disdain) is the voice of reason."
I chuckled then, but good god was he right.
OT:
Last night I went walking through West Philadelphia, and passed a mailbox that had a nametag slapped on it. The tag said "Hello, I'm ATRIOS."
I laughed, and was very confused.
I liked the Yglesias piece but here's the thing I don't like: it didn't take a military genius, or a political one, to know that Bush, Rumsfeld et al would *never* go to war for good reasons--they would never even risk the President's personal appearance at a photo-op for helping poor people if there were not some immiediate, tangible, screw the people political benefit for Bush personally. So the odds that this one time, they were going to do something right, were astronomically small. The odds were, clearly, that they were going to do something big, dangerous, and complex without thinking it through, without trusting the american people, and without planning for the future. Read Michael Lind's "made in texas" and that is all you need to know about bush and his cohort.
The peaceniks were right - the chickenhawks were wrong!
How on earth could any grown adult who can read and write have believed Powell at the UN? See what I mean, this kind of statement just boggles my fucking mind.
And how do you know he believed it himself? How can people just take this horseshit (poor misled Colin) at face value? Jesus Marie, it's just fucking unbelievable.
So much good could have been done if Bush had real moral clarity. Instead, the PNAC obsession with Saddam has damaged our ability to be a positive force in the world.
Excellent comment, Anonymous. I believe many people here in Europe miss the truly good old USA that set morally sound standards for the whole world. It may be hard for some Americans to graps just how much of a rolemodel the US has been here, our own prides and prejudices notwithstanding, and it all went away. First with "either you are for us or you are against us" and now with this "bring 'em on" attitude.
I think the "they were deluded" arguement sounds a bit like "I was drunk/whacked-out-on-drugs" defense for being responsible for someones death. They call that MANSLAUGHTER.
The administration is guilty of large-scale manslaughter if they were deluded into feeding our troops into a meat-grinder of a war for NO GOOD REASON. Being suckered by a bunch of overgrown kids playing Battleship or Stratego with our troops is no excuse for wasting my tax dollars.
I think the "they were deluded" arguement sounds a bit like "I was drunk/whacked-out-on-drugs" defense for being responsible for someones death. They call that MANSLAUGHTER.
The administration is guilty of large-scale manslaughter if they were deluded into feeding our troops into a meat-grinder of a war for NO GOOD REASON. Being suckered by a bunch of overgrown kids playing Battleship or Stratego with our troops is no excuse for wasting my tax dollars.
1. Rapid change is usually bad
2. Good change happens slowly
unless you're in a position to benefit from the rapid upheaval. if you look at what happened to the state's assets in the Soviet Union as they were privatized, and how much of the Iraqi government has been sold off and privatized while the (little) media attention has focused on the ongoing guerilla action, it makes more sense. but we're dealing with people that almost never look out for the common good
BTW, thanks for the "Suck" reference. Brought tears to me eyes... ah, the good old days!
"How on earth could any grown adult who can read and write have believed Powell at the UN?"
The same people who beieve that Michael Jackson is a pure sweet innocent boy/man rather than the craven manipulative pedophile he actually is.
Indeed in is all about Faith instead of Reason.
hard to add anything new to the above comments.
Yes, they were delusional about how their rosy scenario would play out... and they lied to get what they wanted.
It was truly agonizing to watch this oh-so-obvious farce - the Music Man-like conning of the American public - play out and watch so many people go along like obedient little sheep.
And since most people hate to admit they were wrong, things will have to get a whole lot worse over there until they see the light.
Why were the American people so easily conned? Perhaps there's some truth to the canard that most of us 'Murricans are more ignorant than the rest of the world's citizens. Perhaps it's that we're under the spell of the corporate whore media. In any case, I just can't imagine Europeans falling for a similar con job from their own governments.
another point that's rarely been brought up in re Powell at the UN is his long military background. when the CiC says "frog" you jump. he knew that the evidence was "horseshit" but it's hard to disobey orders at that level without serious consequences
I'm giving no money to the DNC until they get the frog march started. I want my fucking frog march. September 12, 2001 would not have been too soon. Anyone with any sense knew what Bush and his band of criminals were capable of even before they stole the presidency. That they ever gave him so much as an inch is shameful and unforgivable.
It gives me no comfort to know that I was right and they were wrong. They're still wrong, they're still in power, and they scare the shit out of me.
I just can't imagine Europeans falling for a similar con job from their own governments.
Only because we are more diverse and internally divided than the USA. And we have our recent history to contend with. I hate to bring up nazi Germany, but it showed that Europeans can be conned too. Fortunately, that legacy and the collective memory of it makes it more difficult for populists to gain crucial momentum here. So far.
What I am afraid of, is a growing divide between the USA and Europe, huge worldwide instability and as a result a new chance for populists to take the front stage. We have no interest in a USA with a small penis (a tiny bit reduced would be nice though 
) because we need a bigger and benevolent force to keep ourselves in check. But that is just my 2 eurocents worth.
Hey, did I miss something, or did I miss reference to that OTHER great chicken hawk (besides Cheney) with happy memories of how well Civil War reeneactments worked out: Newt Gingrich, who seems to have had a not insubstantial role somewhere in formulating our current policy.
NO point in leaving military affairs to military men when we have so many smarter people around, eh?
The day will come when the US will stagger and fall just like the Soviet Union, and for the same basic cause - the rule of ideologues who base their policies on blind faith rather than pragmatic reason.
I believed Powell at the UN. I still thought the war was unjustified, but I did believe him. And he mostly believed it, too. If a guy that smart can be that deluded, where does that leave the rest of them -- and us?
Invigialtor
Colin Powell didn't get to his position in life without kissing the appropriate ass for the past 30 years, starting with My Lai. I don't doubt for a minute that he lied, knew he was lying, and will do it again when needed to keep his job. It's the quiet, dignified liars that are the most effective.
"Rochester - ...a twenty-five- year Army reservist is facing insubordination charges for questioning orders that would put his unit back in a combat zone after just 11 months at home. "If they're going to usurp the laws of this country at the expense of our most precious asset, our soldiers, then I will not stand for that," he said."
Gee. I wonder what would have happened if he just applied for a transfer to the Alabama Air Guard? I fact, what if EVERY pissed off reservist and guardsman just filled an application for transfer? It's legal, it's routine, and pretty soon "Alabama Air Guard Duty" can be a handy euphemism for legally going aWol.
I can't say I'll ever quite trust the bloggers that went along with the war effort. When I saw what was happening, I knew that the administration was lying about WMD's (and probably programs, though they weren't as big a deal then). To be a blogger requires money, time, desire, and (some) talent. I don't see common sense or brains on that list, and it was certainly lacking from some (Matt was hardly egregious, but I still don't read him due to Iraq). To me, it's JUST NOT WORTH THE TIME to give bloggers chances overandover again to acquire some brains (or at least healthy cynicism). There's plenty of blogs on the left now, and I find more and more specialized ones with people who show a keen mind worth reading.
As they said about Clinton, it's ultimately about character. Not the kind that determines whether you drop trou in the Oval Office, but the kind that says you truly believe in the common good and you're willing to be attacked for doing what's right.
Unfortunately, Bubble Boy is quite good at simulating the latter. If I hear one more C-SPAN listener describe him as a "straight shooter who says what he means and means what he says," I believe I'll puke.
It gives me no comfort to know that I was right and they were wrong.
Amen. I saw a sign on our T-day trip:
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left."
But what's really bad, and sad, is that there are STILL so many reasonable people, on the side of the angels (reason and critical thinking) who feel they must somehow still pay lip service to this false bogus bullshit "equivalency
Hopefully they will come to their senses in the anonymity of the voting booth when lip service is unnecessary.
How about dropping Cheney in the western desert
From what altitude?
Great rant!
One of your best.
And all too true!
Har!
Here's a blast from the past I picked up on Yankeedoodle's site Today in Iraq:
Depraved Dick Morris: (circa Feb 2003)
...My money’s on President Bush. He wouldn't be pushing us toward this war unless he felt he had the goods on Saddam.
If Bush is right, the left in the United States will be discredited for many decades to come. (snip)
With each weapons lab and bomb factory our troops find, the credibility of the left wing of the Democratic Party will go down the drain, not to rise again for many years. ...
read more:
http://www.thehill.com/morris/02...ris/
021903.aspx
Yankeedoodle's excellent site:
http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/
I echo Anonymous--the first one up there, that is. Beautiful, outstanding post, atrios.
I'm stealing it and sending it everywhere I can think of.
Later,
They really didn't lie to take us into this war. They deluded themselves, and most of the American people, into it. I believed Powell at the UN. I still thought the war was unjustified, but I did believe him. And he mostly believed it, too. If a guy that smart can be that deluded, where does that leave the rest of them -- and us?
Fuck that. They lied. If you believe their BS that they were deluded, you're deluding yourself.
Monkey
Monkey, you're right--but I was fooled, too, at least last winter when Powell made his case. I'll never forget hearing his testimony in the U.N. on the car radio, live on NPR, of course.
I believed him--and now I know the truth. Bush & CO twisted his fucking arm until it almost fell off. He went kicking and screaming ("I'm not saying this--this is BULLSHIT!")...
...but he went. He sold out. And his reputation, which was undeservedly the only "blemishless" one in this administration, is gone forever, and he knows i
Slightly OT:
Whatever happened to the suck.com people whoever they were?
And whatever happened to Stormin' Norman?
Remember when Schwarzkopf seemed to come out against the war on the eve of the invasion in a WaPo piece. Then the next day he sort of backtracked. I sure would like to know what the backstory to that was.
"...the minty fresh testogel crowd..."
Hahahahahah! Great description! I hope you don't mind if I steal it a few hundred times.
um,
TestroGel (Testroxin) Transdermal Androgenic Gel
Not a penis size enhancer, except in your dreams.
it bears repeating - bush just flew to iraq to visit the troops
what part of 'why do you hate america' don't you understand?
"Cheney was presenting a gift to a military man, and he chose something with an appropriate theme: "(A) complete set of videotapes of Ken Burns's PBS series, The Civil War." "
Well this explains a lot. Cheney and the Kids are all playing Civil War Re-enactor. Bush thinks he’s Lincoln. Laura is Mad Mary Lincoln, and Cheney is playing Grant. Rummy is playing Sherman, slashing his way across Georgia. Wolfie is playing Sheridan, expecting to win the hearts of the natives as he burns the Shenandoah Valley.
.
And not to be left out, the Iraqi insurgents are happy to play Quantrill's Raiders.
I always knew that they were fanatics, this just confirms it.
Gen. Sanchez just saying that the new MO will be counterinsurgency and urban operations inevitably getting us into deeper legal trouble as occupier: Evacuations, property damage, non-combattent deaths, resettlement, censorship, and curfew.
The hoped-for outcome is getting this selectocracy government going so that insurrection loses its rationale as a war of liberation.
Hah, but Iraq is not Malaysia.
Today the Iraqi resistance took out a Spanish intelligence team and took 2 prisoners.
They lied about the WMD, they were delusional about how easy it would be to take over the country.
Stupid and corrupt.
I guess I was so convinced from the beginning that the Iraq war was wrong that I find it hard to believe that anyone here or anywhere else was deluded by Powell or any other member of this administration. I just knew it was all a lie from start to finish.
But then, I didn't like it when the U.S. decided to bomb Afghanistan, either. I'm not a total pacifist, I guess. But Afghanistan had already been bombed to hell and back, and I never believed in the idea that terrorism could be fought by invading countries. I still don't.
And I am so sad about what has become of my country. The U.S. has done a terrible thing in the Middle East, and there will be years of payback.
I posted early in Matt's comments -- rather mildly, I think -- to point out that anyone with half a working brain could see this in the buildup to the Iraq war. (I was much more subdued there, but c'mon, Matt.) Plus the lack of a Plan B, C, or D, esp. when Plan A was so stupid and ignored human nature, Muslim sensibilities and worries, and Iraq history.
You know, it seems that once every year or so the TV critics hail some new show for a "fresh" approach and predict it'll be such a smash hit -- when it's obvious that the show's premise could be fun for a show or two and then would grow old real fast. Even though this is obvious from the start, these critics will inevitably write 6 months later "how could anyone have predicted that ____ would turn out to be turgid and just so bad?" Well, how could anyone NOT? They are blinded by their optimism, hoping beyond hope for a new different show. The Iraq war supporters were blinded by their desperate hope that for once in his
life GW Bush would have a good plan, execute it properly, and follow through.
Oh, I meant to add to my comment above: wonderful post, Atrios.
(Sorry about the extended post, cont.)
Afghanistan was the closest Bush has come to having a good plan and executing, but he didn't follow through. He built a coalition (a real one), did the deed, and then lost interest and let the Taliban regroup, the warlords take charge in most areas, and Osama (remember him?) get away.
That Bush's approach to Iraq was a mistake was obvious to anyone with open eyes months before the war started. That Matt and others are only seeing this now doesn't speak well for their critical facualties, and that someone with Matt's critical facaualties didn't see this doesn't speak well for our future.
Like I did over at kos on another topic, this is a "what I wish I would hear a Democratic candidate say" post:
"We can't help but notice how the opposite of what the Bush administration told us has held true in almost every case in Iraq: we've found no weapons of mass destruction; no WMD programs or mobile labs; no ties to al-Qaeda; no evidence whatsoever of any type to suggest that Saddam Hussein had either the means or the intention of attacking the US either directly or in collaboration with terrorists. There are only a couple of ways that anyone could get things so wrong on a matter of such grave importance: lying, or ignorance and incompetence - or a mixture of all. Though it appears that there was some lying involved, it's hard to believe that the administration could have lied about EVERYTHING in their statements about Iraq. So there's probably some ignorance (of the facts) involved as well, and there's a demonstrated incompetence at work, notably in the complete
Not a penis size enhancer, except in your dreams.
Testogel and AndroGel can be used for waning libido, so while not a penis size enhancer per se, they do help the transition from flacid to firm.
OT, but King of the Hill did an episode on transdermal androgens ... funny shit.
(cont.)
and utter failure to form any type of workable plan for the occupation and withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But whether we were led into this mess with lies or through ignorance and incompetence is an academic point. What we should instead be asking ourselves is: "are lying or ignorance and incompetence in our leadership acceptable in the post-9/11 world? Can we trust those who have misled us in the past? Those who have allowed themselves to be distracted from the main task of keeping our citizens in this country more secure and have diverted our attention and resources from that main goal?" I would suggest that the answer is no. The American people deserve better and should expect better from its leadership."
cat said about Powell: "It's the quiet, dignified liars who are the most effective."
Of course, and the administration was oh so aware of that when they chose Powell to present their lies to the U.N. It was a calculated move to lend credibility to what was absolutely untrue all the way down the line. I don't for a second believe that Rumsfeld or Cheney or Perle or Wolfowitz believed any of it, and I think it's been made clear in statements from Perle, at least, that they knew it was a lie.
(don't have a source for the Perle statements; will try to find it.)
I now see the Civil War connection.
Let's just grind up a bunch of soldiers and send in the carpetbaggers.
Poet Lariat - "Let's just grind up a bunch of soldiers and send in the carpetbaggers."
Well said.
Well stated, Jennifer. Unfortunately, too many of the American people don't know or care. The country has been under siege since the November 2000 takeover by a band of thugs, yet around 50% of the population remains complacent if not pleased with this turn of events. Unless Americans get smart fast and through these bums out of office they and the rest of the world are screwed.
If only leftist insurgents and fifth columnists in America met with the same fate they do here as in countries we are bringing democracy to.
"throw" not "through"
MBF - don't forget the teachers. We need to fire all the teachers like we did in Iraq.
Are you saying poor Ken Burns is to
blame??
MBF: Huh?
I got a new one:
MBFing: Completely ignoring discourse on the topic at hand and instead making a vague, truncated, baseless attack.
If I'm of a humanitarian mind, I can quickly come up with many many many better ways to spend 430(and counting) lives and 200 billion or more tax dollars.
It's remarkable how even for Atrios Iraqi lives never even enter the calculus.
"How on earth could any grown adult who can read and write have believed Powell at the UN?"
Powell's speech and 'evidence' were quite comprehensively taken apart a few days later by the Institute of Public Accuracy and Glen Rangwala. Another person who found Powell's presentation 'unimpressive' was Jim C. of 'Rittenhouse Review' fame btw.
We're all doomed. You all know that don't you?
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left."
Great quote, NTodd!
And another great post, atrios! Thanks so much.
Camel Jockey - I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your comment that Iraqi lives never entered into the equation for Atrios, but that's just stupid. For Atrios and most of us, the losses suffered by the Iraqis because of this illegal war, are the cause of much sorrow and much anger.
What I posted to MY's original post:
Matt,
The entire "motivated / blinded by Bush hatred" is a lazy cop-out.
It is amazing to me how quickly forgotten has been all the reasons against going to war with Iraq. Not the least of which were all the (thoughtful, real-world) reasons Bush I didn't march to Baghdad. How can this be so ignored? Especially since the whole "daddy" angle is so often explored?
Then there is the entire Afganistan issue -- a fundamental Islamist "state" that was a proven threat to the U.S. Are we really so short-sighted, as a country, that we can be led so easily away from ObL "Dead or Alive"? Or the logical implication of letting Af go back to warlordism?
Obviously too subtle to expect understood is the hypocrisy of the "a terrible dictator" rationalization. Just looking at our "...stan" allies, boiling alive their political opponents. Yeah, the U.S. really stands for freedom and liberty.
Finally, Matt -- the AEI types might have truly
billy budd, word.
I'd like to see all nine Democratic presidential candidates, Tom Daschle, Terry McFuckstick, etc. on television every day. Pay for ads if they have to. And every day, say, "Where's Saddam? Where's Osama?" And don't stop until we find them. If there's another terrorist attack before the election, as everybody suspects, I want to see all those guys on TV saying, "See! He didn't keep you safe! See!"
Fuck this shit. I want a fight, and I want it now.
A.
Monkeybutt: I believe many people here in Europe miss the truly
good old USA that set morally sound standards for the whole world.
Yes? And when was this Golden Age? Between the founding of the Republic
and the American Civil War? During the time of Jim Crow? In the 50s when
we raped Guatemala and other unfortunates? In the 60s ditto Vietnam? In
the 70s ditto Chile and even the US Constitution? In the 80s ditto Central
America? In the 90s ditto Iraq?
Please educate this ignorant American as to the "morally sound standards"
"many people here in Europe" find in our glorious history.
Thanks,
cat,
Funny how the reverse is true. The fact that nothing Bush claimed came true means the credibility of the GOP will disappear for decades.
Geez, who knew Dick Morris was a prophet?
Anyone who saw the press conference that Powell gave in Egypt in the middle of 2001, can not believe a single word he says.
John Pilger dug the clip out, and when I saw it my jaw just hit the floor. The world media should be ashamed that they never found it themselves.
For those that did not see it, Powell basically said the following.............1, Sadam poses NO threat to his neighbours or the rest of the world.....2,He has NO weapons of mass destruction, and no means to fire them......3 The majority of his army was destroyed in Gulf war1.....4,The policy of containment was working well.
The fact that Powell them had the nerve to say what he did at the UN just shows how confident these people are that they can say and do what they like. The lap dog media is not going to call them on it!
I've always believed that Colin Powell was a soldier following orders at the UN. He knew it was a complete and total fabrication from the get-go, but being a chain-of-command kind of guy, he said what the Boss told him to say.
It would have been nice if he had the cojones to resign on the spot, but he still has his eye on being the first African-American president and it would have been political suicide.
Then again, it would have been even nicer if Bill had just said "Yeah, that Monica Lewinsky could suck the chrome off a bumper" rather than prevaricating like he did. If wishes were fishes...
Atrios' post explicates rather nicely my main rationale for opposing this war - I didn't trust this Adminstration to do what it said it would do in Iraq. I was very suspicious of the rosy post-war picture it tried to paint.
anybody else feel like we are living in the Dr Strangelove movie?
if only Kubrick were here to let us know what to expect next.
Cat - thanks for the good links. The Dick Morris pre-war column is the very essence of hubris. How wrong can one man be? And what does it say about the "liberal" Bill Clinton that this guy was his chief advisor? Liberal???? Arrrggghhm#$%*f*x (the sound of my head exploding from cognitive dissonance).
AS noted above, it was factually known very soon after Colin Powell's U.N. speech that he was just presenting falsehoods. The plagiarism of old student writings, the misrepresentations of the photo evidence, the B.S. about the "nuclear weapons" aluminum rocket tubes ... all of this was demonstrably phony at the time. If I, with my limited resources, knew it was phony, then Colin Powell et al certainly also knew.
I tried showing this information to a number of friends and relatives, but they were just in deep denial - "I just can't believe my President would lie about this." No matter what facts were presented, "... my President wouldn't lie ...". It's odd how peo
Cervantes: I am talking from a European point of view and the plain fact that we became affluent in the American sphere of influence, I am talking about progress and development after World War II, about Europe being protected by the US nuclear umbrella which allowed us to take a more pacifist attitude after centuries of internal warfare. I am not blind to what happened and is still happening in South America, I am not blind to the fact that Western Europe was meant to be the first frontline in a potential Cold War nuclear conflict,etc.
My post was a direct address to the values concerning democracy, freedom and prosperity as stated in your constitution. I have two relatives living in the USA that emigrated there in search of the American Dream. Even if reality tells a different story, that was the image we were looking up to. That was your positive influence in Europe. Even if it was all a dream and sheer delusion or propaganda, at least it was a dream that I treasured. And for
Oops, I got "Haloscanned". Cut me off at the pass. Very annoying. So, to continue ...
No matter what facts were presented, "... my President wouldn't lie ...". It's odd how people will say this about The President, while they would be very unlikely to make a similar statement about their Governor, Senator, Congressman, etc. It's almost as though he's been named Pope in some people's eyes. Wierd.
Anyway, it's indisputable that BushCo lied about Iraq going in, and the degree to which someone didn't realize this is a measure of their level of denial. David Neiwert's thoughtful essay on the political and the personal http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
200...970848149574609 has a great line on this dynamic:
"[Many are]... unable to figure out that there is something seriously wrong with these people because they are projecting their own normalcy onto them. They cannot perceive because they cannot believe -- that, above all, these people are n
In short, Cervantes, do not underestimate your positive influence in the more fortunate part of this world.
OK, one more try. Did they change the rules on this thing? Or maybe I'm just really wordy today today. It's almost more trouble than it's worth now, but here goes::
"[Many are]... unable to figure out that there is something seriously wrong with these people because they are projecting their own normalcy onto them. They cannot perceive because they cannot believe -- that, above all, these people are not operating within a framework guided by the boundaries of basic decency that restrain most of us."
And on top of all that, Bush and his people have indeed shown repeatedly that they are incompetent. Most particularly in their handling of postwar Iraq. The only area in which they have demonstrated competence is in public relations. Karl Rove is an evil genius who is going to hell. Let's hope he doesn't drag the rest of us with him.
Monkeybutt - well, is it possible, do you think, that the U.S. can regain some of the trust that it had overseas?
Tena: because of my work, I speak with various Brits, French, Spaniards and Italian on a weekly basis, not particularly politicized folks, who grieved with us after 9/11 and were OK with us smashing the Talibans in Afghanistan.
Because of our Iraq adventure, these folks now see us as a Soviet-like imperial power hell-bent on world domination. Iraq no longer makes the headlines over there, so they don't think about it that much, and I never heard any gloating, but they certainly don't feel sorry for our losses there. They feel we deserve it, and I can't say they're wrong.
So far there is a clear distinction between us ordinary Americans, and the Bush administration, although as a Brit told me "if you reelect him you're on your own."
Tena, that is one hell of a complex question. First of all "overseas" is a very broad concept. Europe is very different from South America and from Asia, for instance. Secondly, I believe we are in a global transition period. Things are shifting and there are many unknowns that can influence people's perception of current events. We are seeing the slow but gradual rise of countries like Brazil and China onto the world stage, the expansion of the EU, the changes in the countries of the former USSR, etc. The US has to look out for its own interests but at the same time take into account all these things. We cannot afford to live in a Black versus White world anymore -evil versus good- we need to deal with the complexity of it all. The rhetoric from the current US administration was a huge step back in that respect and arguably the thing that shocked people most. If you could change that, it would be very helpful. And, of course, we have to do our parts too.
There are a lot of people who, know matter what the evidence, just won't believe that (1) the President of the US would lie to the American people to take us into war, or (2) that the Administration would do such a piss-poor job of planning that Plan A would be the only thing they considered.
It is truly a sad state of affairs, but it's the way things are. I just read recently that, at the point that Nixon was resigning, his job approval rating had dropped to around 25%. Not 5% or 12% or 17%, but still a full quarter of the American people were giving him a thumbs-up.
We try to reach them, one mind at a time.
Monkeybutt - Well, I realize I asked a very broad question.
I agree that we are in a transition period, and I hate to say it but I believe strongly that we are also in the period of the decline of the U.S. I think the country probably peaked right at the end of WWII. We rose a bit from there, which happens, and then began to slide. It's unfortunate that we got Bush and started going so wrong so quickly. Otherwise, the decline would have been much much slower. Trying to be an empire will only hasten the demise.
Re: China, Brazil, the EU - quite so. Eventually, Africa will step out of it's problems and become a formidable power. Eventually, of course, western civilization won't be the gold standard anymore, but that will take many more years.
Right now I would be surprised if other nations weren't sick of the U.S. We missed such a golden opportunity to really make a difference in the world. So much could have gone right on September 12, 2001. Instead, it
oops - Instead it went so wrong.
Monkeybutt: "Cervantes: I am talking from a European point of view [...]"
Ah, I see. For some reason I thought you were talking about the whole world.
I guess I must have misunderstood your statement that "many people here in
Europe miss the truly good old USA that set morally sound standards for the
whole world."
Even if reality tells a different story, that was the image we were looking up to.
Reality does indeed tell a different story, even in your version of "the whole
world." For example, just looking at the years since WWII, Italians familiar
with the role of the CIA in Italian politics could probably tell us much about
the "morally sound standards" promulgated by the US. Ditto Greeks familiar
with the role of the CIA in Greece (not to mention Cyprus). And so on.
Look, I agree with you that Bush and his thugs have made it more difficult to
believe in the goodness of American ideals and foreign policy. I even agree that
/cont'd.
Look, I agree with you that Bush and his thugs have made it more difficult to
believe in the goodness of American ideals and foreign policy. I even agree that
you should feel free to "admire" some by-gone age of US moral leadership -- so long
as you are aware that this admiration is wildly delusional -- and that it was
inculcated by cheap propaganda that your nostalgic comments do nothing to dispel.
Best,
This wonderful assemblage of incompetency exactly, I hate to say it, describes why a pure antiwar candidate can NOT beat our Dear Leader. The only factor in this war that is swaying public sentiment against it is troop deaths. That's it. Except for Wesley Clark not one Democratic candidate, not even the pro-war Lieberman or Gephardt, is arguing against the administration's palpable incompetence in prosecuting this war. The Democrats MUST make the case against Bush's incompetence and the childish fantasy of an instantly democratized Middle East. And they must tie this to the deaths of the soldiers to get the entire issue of failed foreign policy exposed and defined on Democratic terms. It's essential.
A pure antiwar candidate can not make this case.
I guess the bright side is that Cheney could have been watching something else during Bush War I. Patton could have made things even worse.
One of the greatest failings of the right is that all of them, as long as they parrot the Republican line are told over and over again what brilliant thinkers they are. They really believe it. It's like those "NYT Best Sellers", I'm sure that David Shippers really thinks he produced a great book. Look at the sales, afterall.
Cheney shows every sign that he's got an inflated picture of his abilities, Perle, Wolfy, Rice, Scalia .... They think they're geniuses, they really do.
Maybe this is the foolish government of wise men that Ben Franklin warned about.
Cervantes: so long
as you are aware that this admiration is wildly delusional -- and that it was
inculcated by cheap propaganda that your nostalgic comments do nothing to dispel
What makes you think I was trying to do that? You are absolutely right in your assertion that I was being nostalgic for something that maybe never existed, I was definitely carried away by positivism and I should have spoken only for myself not the whole world. But what do you expect me to do? Join the chorus of America haters? That would be very easy to do, since I know all the facts you stated above and then some. Hate would not even come close to it, loathing would be more accurate. But what does that solve?
EPT - you really nailed it - they think they are geniuses, alright. And they think the rest of us are idiots, to be led by the nose.
"America's giant penis needed to impress the world with its mighty power by invading a sovereign state, just to prove that we could do it."
And knowing the right wing nuts in this administration, we didn't put a condom on that penis. Hopefully, our leaders will not make Uncle Sam into a deadbeat dad and run away... but I have a feeling we'll be paying child support for a long time to come.
Atrios writes, "they lied and they were delusional. it isn't one or the other."
The delusional believe their own lies, and I suspect that the Bush neocons are so deluded. The sincerity of those who believe their own lies often makes them the most convincing liars. This of course applies to Bush himself, perhaps most of all. Strong anecdotal evidence suggests that, for example, he really believes he was chosen by God to lead America into a war against evil.
This would seem to me to put Powell, who might be termed a non-neocon Bush enabler, in a bad light morally. He is likely guilty of hubris- knowing that a plan is not particularly good, but believing that somehow he could pull it off. Or perhaps the bureaucrat in Powell won out over the warrior; in the end he lacked the courage to buck the system. A fighting general, like Schwarzkopf, might have told the neocons to stuff their grandiose schemes. Powell is rumoured to have flown off the handle about being lied to, but a
"The Democrats MUST make the case against Bush's incompetence and the childish fantasy of an instantly democratized Middle East. And they must tie this to the deaths of the soldiers to get the entire issue of failed foreign policy exposed and defined on Democratic terms. It's essential."
And they haven't done so for a very good reason, and they won't.
The minute the Democrats make this case, they will be accused of "not supporting the troops," which in this instance would mean, in effect, telling every father and mother of every dead soldier that their child died in a vain and stupid and needless battle.
The same reason it took so long to get out of Vietnam. I remember. Couldn't stop wasting lives because it would be an admission that all the lives already lost were just that: wasted in a stupid, senseless war.
Many a grieving parent in the news says one chilling thing: at least their son/daughter died in a "good cause."
You wanna be the first Democratic c
person with true moral clarity would have resigned.
A well-timed resignation by Powell next year, late enough so that it is still clear in the minds of the US electorate could possibly spare the world four more years of this horror. It might be enough to convince the sober-minded conservatives that Bush and Co. really aren't the lesser evil.
Great post atrios. I think you have a typo where it say "my war".
Anyway, the dead do not speak and demand justice - that only occurs in the hearts of the torn away and left behind.
Damned Haloscan. Knew it would cut me off.
You wanna be the first Democratic candidate to tell Mom & Dad that their child died in vain? See how far you get on that platform.
You can't critique the conduct of the war without having a "Secret Plan" (yes, this war IS like Vietnam). Nixon knew better than just to throw stones at Johnson/Humphrey. He had to have a plan to end the thing, which meant it had to keep going. Democrats are trying to avoid that trap, too, so any comment on how the war is being conducted becomes a trap of: "And what would YOU do?" Pulling out is not yet an option.
This wonderful assemblage of incompetency exactly, I hate to say it, describes why a pure antiwar candidate can NOT beat our Dear Leader. The only factor in this war that is swaying public sentiment against it is troop deaths. That's it.
Its as if they have never heard the sound of a bomb falling, never tasted the salt of a bloody tear, or never felt the need to trust the shaking ground.
"The only factor in this war that is swaying public sentiment against it is troop deaths. That's it."
Which, to continue the analogy, is the only factor that turned people against the war in Vietnam. It wasn't MLK, Jr., it wasn't student protests, it was, finally, the never-ending stream of bodybags with no end or resolution in sight, and the sense that this war was being as incompetently handled as the current occupation.
Took a LOOOOOOONG time to reach that conclusion, on a national level. A real long time. Don't expect much less than that to turn Americans against war now. The American experience since WWI has been that we can extend the Monroe Doctrine to the entire world, and that we in fact have a duty to do so. We are still Wilsonians in foreign policy: ignorant of the world, but convinced we have to make it safe for democracy.
Walt Kelly, of course, got it right: we gotta make democracy safe for the world!
The real reason for the Iraq invasion: to gain control of the O-I-L. To make the maximum amount of profit from it, and to keep control of it out of the hands of countries like China. All the other crap is window dressing and CYA (IMHO,) except to the extent that it is setting the stage for another oil grab down the road.
Robert Jeffers: I agree with your main points, but might not a smart, credible Democratic candidate be able to convince America that the soldiers died for a good cause, i.e., eliminating a dictatorship, but while the military performed well the politicians risk throwing it away because of their incompetence in planning both prior to and after the major fighting? Admittedly, this would have to be done with great finesse, given America's over-arching need to believe in its own innocence and good intentions.
"but might not a smart, credible Democratic candidate be able to convince America that the soldiers died for a good cause, i.e., eliminating a dictatorship, but while the military performed well the politicians risk throwing it away because of their incompetence in planning both prior to and after the major fighting?"
From your lips to God's ear.
Atrios,
This is the best post of yours I've ever read.
Cheney's war plan suggestions in 1990-91 sound an awful lot like those put out by the Pentagon chickenhawks this time around (i.e., seizing an airfield with special forces and then waiting for the "national uprising" to drop the country in our laps). Cheney and Rumsfeld ought to thank God every day that Tommy Franks saved their bacon by pushing for a larger, conventionally-oriented effort. Otherwise, they'd still be waiting for that national uprising.
Many on the paleo right DID consider the likely incompetence of the Bush admin. The Lew Rockwell folks are consistent in regarding government activity as fundamentally irrational and incompetent. But for most Reaganites and neocons, their alleged distrust of big government solutions dies when big government wraps itself up in the flag and cries "national security."
The problem with this war is a limited (so far) supply of troops to send over there. Much grumbling, too, especially among reservists. I would think that there is an increasing number of malcontents.
The problem as opposed to the Viet Nam war's unending supply of fresh faces...
There are tons of other problems, of course.
pie - the administration is rapidly approaching the point where an irresistable force meets an immovable object, particularly if Bush wants a second term.
BTW: here is the URL for the brilliant dissection of Powell's presentation on 5 February 2003 by Rangwala: http://middleeastreference.org.u...ell/
030205.html
Monkeybutt: "Cervantes: so long as you are aware
that this admiration is wildly delusional -- and that it
was inculcated by cheap propaganda that your nostalgic
comments do nothing to dispel
What makes you think I was trying to do that?"
Didn't say you were trying to do anything; only said
that your comment did not have a certain (useful) effect.
You are absolutely right in your assertion that I was being
nostalgic for something that maybe never existed [...] But what
do you expect me to do? Join the chorus of America haters? [...]
Hate would not even come close to it, loathing would be more
accurate. But what does that solve?
Some elementary observations for you to ponder: Telling the
truth about the USA, or any country, is not "hate" or even
"loathing." To tell the truth about the history of US foreign
policy is not to "join the chorus of America haters."
And what does telling the truth "solve"? I think you can
addre
/cont'd
And what does telling the truth "solve"? I think you can
address that question yourself.
Best,
Maybe Cheney will have that last heart attack and you'll be done with him. Sometimes you get lucky.
only said that your comment did not have a certain (useful) effect.
That we can both agree on.
I promise I won't be nostalgic anymore.
Monkeybutt: I promise I won't be nostalgic anymore.
Well, I'm sure you understand that I have nothing against nostalgia per se.
Best,
I've got a nit to pick. Why do I keep seeing so many liberal bloggers grudgingly concede that maybe it was alright to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam had "rape rooms" and was generally not a nice guy?
By that standard, we are morally compelled to invade a whole bunch of countries around the world, including - depending on whose definition of being a bad guy you accept - ourselves. Which is pretty ridiculous. So while the point about campaigning on anti-nation building is a good one, it overlooks the more troublesome behavior of having relations with countries that meet the same standards of being bad guys.
More hypocrisy by the administration which shouldn't be condoned - even in a half-ass way - by anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
Just my $.02.
han, war is and always has been the ultimate rape.
What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad?
Holy shit! You know what this sounds like? Replace that strech of Iraqi highway with Arnheim and you get Operation Market-Garden, possibly one of the biggest cockups in World War 2. Op: M-G caused Montgomery to lose his shine in Eisenhower's eyes. And the British pretty much lost a division to Arnheim. And Cheney thought this up?
"So far there is a clear distinction between us ordinary Americans, and the Bush administration, although as a Brit told me "if you reelect him you're on your own."
NONSENSE. In any case, stolen election or no stolen election, 'we' are not a group that can be blamed for this failure of democracy. It is simply the largest canard of people who buy the idea of national identity. We will continue to fight these injustices, and Bx has in the long-run (if we survive) destroyed the GOP. The demographic that is already diverging now has a fire between its toes, and is running for the exits.
The revolution will not be televised. Progressives the world over are united, as we proved 15 Feb 03, the day that 30 million humans protested in support of the UN and human rights, a first for our species, and not to be underestimated.
Cheney dies or pulls out, they run Rudy Giuliani instead. No improvement there, except that they may seem smarter, since he's telegenic.
War crimes trials. That's the only way the US regains its status as a nation of laws. And the only chance of that happening is a Dean presidency, which is the only candidacy that has a chance of uniting the unitable parts of this country of 290 million. Bx cannot stand up to the wave of resentment coming his way, though people who make their worldview out of newspaper and bad tv will continue to handwring.
So the real issue is martial law vs elections, and we are heading into that nervewracking time at a full clip. It is our job to slow time down, to throw sand in the wheels of the locomotive. That means protest, lots of letters to editors, mass emails, and Get behind the Governor.
Clark was at Waco. No thanks, I don't want to vote for anyone with mass murder credentials. Gov. Dean has the momentum and the following continues to grow at an
Gov. Dean has the momentum and the following continues to grow at an amazing rate. There is cause for hope. At the very least, a strong candidate and a very likely loss at the election will force Bxco to pull out the rest of the stops, and that way fully expose their treason for what it is.
Powell will never resign to help the world heal. He's a company man, and a bastard. His neck should stretch with the rest...he should at least be court martialed and busted down.
Cheney dies or pulls out, they run Rudy Giuliani instead. No improvement there, except that they may seem smarter, since he's telegenic
This is one I've been peddling for a while, without generating much interest. Actually, I think it's been in the works since before the R's scheduled their convention for NYC and is part and parcel of that deal.
The main thing Rudy does for the R's, obviously, is give them a ready-made candidate for 2008, since Cheney won't be running.
...continued on next posting:
The other thing I think we need to consider is that changes in the electoral map, owing to reapportionment, make it possible or even likely that Dubya could lose the popular vote by an even wider margin than 2004 while scoring a clean victory in the electoral college. Even without the invervention of the Supremes.
In such a horrific eventuality, I would hope that the Democratic candidate, hopefully Dean, would form a "shadow" or parallel government (Mr. Soros could help us fund it, perhaps) with a shadow cabinet which would submit its own budget and legislative proposals to Congress and to the extent possible, function as an 'alternative executive.'
Calling it, as one of the Anonymice did the other night, a "Drama Queen" scenario is a manifestation of denial. It may not be the likeliest turn of events, but in a fifty-fifty nation it's far from impossible, and you can rest uneasy that the Republicans will have considered it, whether the Democrats have or not.
Heh, why do I have the feeling a 'shadow' government in the US would find itself at Gitmo within hours?
Paul-"we cannot be blamed"? Whose name and flag are all over the weapons destroying people's houses in Iraq (And Israel/Palestine)? Maybe it doesn't fit your little rules, but it clearly is regular. Why else does the (admittedly unreasonable and evil) suicide bomber target the Israeli citizens who didn't elect someone less crazy than Sharon or the Americans who "support their president" but don't think it means anything? If you don't want to be responsible, move to Canada. If you don't want to be blamed, on the other hand, LICK BUSH IN '04!
Why was my last comment not an endorsement of the "murder Iraqi or Serb for that matter civilians until they replace their leader" heresy?
Glad the relevant and perceptive Atrios commenters ask. Because Israel and America still have a certain semblance to democracy. Iraqis never had a chance to "vote" or to revolt, thanks to our careful protection of Saddam. Also, no thinking person will compare a suicide bombing that takes even 3,000 out of 260,000,000 with a saturation bombing that decimates Iraqi civilians, probably with an eye to making them more "manageable."
By that last I mean, it makes no moral or military sense to pound the living shit out of an already quite crushed people. But getting the numbers down would look better to a long-term occupier...
all the explanations that make our military not look sick and stupid, make them look even more evil...
They're lying fucks. Let's fire them.
See? That was easy to type, and just summed up a.) the past 30 posts and b.) the past year and a half. Not only that, but it was economical, too!
Seriously, though, they're lying fucks, so let's fire them.
fyreflye sez:
The day will come when the US will stagger and fall just like the Soviet Union, and for the same basic cause - the rule of ideologues who base their policies on blind faith rather than pragmatic reason.
The ironic, hilarious-cackling-laughter-from-hell frigging joke is, that was the basis on which Osama bin Ladin launched the 911 attacks. He gave an interview in 1998, a TV crew treked to some cave, check it out.
He believed the resistance in Afganistan toppled the Soviet Union, with God's help. And we wanted to bring about his medieval vision of Islam by drawing the US into fighting and using that to topple non-fundamentalist governments. At the same time, the US would be weakened, lose all its allies, then fall itself.
We could have fought this madness without invading Iraq - but the delusions of PNAC and the smug ignorant blindness of Bush played right into Osama's plans.
Satan is indeed calling the tune in Washington, DC. No wonder they call us 'the Gre
Funny how the Clinton people always pointed out the bottom line issue in their dealings with Iraq: no credible or competent group of Iraqis to run the place once Hussein was toppled.
The Bush people obviously imagined that they didn't need credible or competent people to run Iraq. Or maybe they were so deluded to think that Chalabi and INC would supply an adequate imitation. I don't know which of the two is the more stupid or ridiculous one, but we'll find out soon enough- it'll be the one they relied on.
No, that's easy...Iraq isn't about government (who cares, any tyrant will do), it's about airbases. This is the staging area for the 7 countries in 5 years gameplan, which is still ON.
Of course the factions and frauds in the executive are drawing us into a 'US branded' exercise of tyrannical power as grotesque and overt as Panama, but with far greater loss of life. Of course many people will blame America for this unmandated, antidemocratic drama of absolutism and naked display of power. But that does not somehow stretch like a sock over the 290 million of us.
It is worth noting the size of our population, because at best we are looking at a few 10s of millions of vocal assholes who are running this whole show. We have the numbers on OUR side; that's why they have to lie as much as they do (which is constantly).
Iraq is way better off than it was under Saddam and getting better all the time. Results count.
Eat shit out of my hand, bubba. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people to replace a disarmed maniac is a warcrime.
Goddamned racist. What the hell do you care if things are 'better' or not? You're just another Bx kiss-ass.
I've got a nit to pick. Why do I keep seeing so many liberal bloggers grudgingly concede that maybe it was alright to invade Iraq on the basis that Saddam had "rape rooms" and was generally not a nice guy?
Couple that with quite serious debate that overtook this nation over wether or not torture was a reasonable method of interogation.
We would do well to take a lesson from the worlds view of Saddam's rape rooms about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior in the eyes of the world.
Iraq is way better off than it was under Saddam and getting better all the time. Results count.
Well, there is still more mayhem and chaos than there was last year at this time and crime rates etc are way up in Iraq. I think to suggest things are "way better" is to present an inaccurate view of the situation. I will concede that without a tyrant like Saddam the potential exists for improvement, but that is different from actual improvement being measured. In fact, by measure, the quality of life has deteriorated. Very much so for the 20,000 killed and orders of magnitude more wounded. To those people, its rather insulting to suggest things have improved. The potential is there, but the real problems of being the occupying power are not to be underestimated.
This wasn't my only reason for opposing my war
I suppose this wasn't a typo after all. I mean, its my war too, in that sense. Dammit.
Everything.
Everything.
I'm backdrifting here - yesterday (11/29/03) CNN ran a poll asking if people thought that al qaeda was behind the insurgency in iraq...
60% - believed YES
39% - believed NO
Any Questions?
Thom, I watched that CNN poll also. Since all 60% can't be watching only Fox, it goes to show that the media as a whole are not reporting the truth about the Iraqi insurgent movement but are relying on scare words to get attention.
As another example, you have them saying that the Turkish bombings were done with "the type of bomb Al-Qaeda uses" -- right after mentioning that it was the same type McVeigh used in Oklahoma City -- in other words, a common type used worldwide. But they had to get that "Al-Qaeda" word in.
Read what TalkLeft says about Clark re: Waco. Sounds like he was not involved in the Waco trajedy as I suggested ^.
The press has continued to spread AQ lies; the Turkey bombing was AQ...no evidence of that; the UN bombing, AQ, caught 19 confessed at border, blah-blah-blah, totally untrue. Etc.
The 39 percent who know, REALLY know. So that's actually not a bad poll for us. The ones who know aren't going to forget.
Cheney dies or pulls out, they run Rudy Giuliani instead. No improvement there, except that they may seem smarter, since he's telegenic.
Paul, I must disagree. Dick Cheney is one evil sumbitch, a true cut-throat capitialist of the old-time Rockefeller-Morgan-Carnegie "take no prisoners" school, and with Rove the co-puppetmaster of our naive idiot President. PNAC would have to find somebody to help Unka Karl with Georgie's remote control if Unka Dick died and moved into the office next to Beelzebub.
Count me as a pseudo-hawk, sympathetic to the most idealistic, democracy-building arguments for this war, who decided against it because of the sleaziness of Team Shrub. Usually, I would be embarrassed to admit that my personal dislike for a figure would lead to oppose an argument that I generally agree with, just because of who's making it. However, in this case, so much of the rationale for war amounted to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc saying "Trust me" (on WMDs, on contacts with Al Qaeda, on post-war reconstruction, on the reception our troops would receive, on their commitment to allowing genuine political participation and freedom for Iraqis, and on and one). Well, I didn't trust them, and I was right not to.
That is the difference between this war and Kosovo, which I did support. I had confidence that Clinton and his team would follow through, and competently and honestly use their victory to bring about political advancement - which has happened. I had no such confiden
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
