I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Wonder why the liberal (or illiberal) war hawks do not feel threatened by the actual, admitted proliferation by Pakistan? Would they urge war on Pakistan to destroy its nuke technological infrastructure and prevent future proliferation?
Or would they not, because they know it is easier to attack a non-threat than to take out a real threat?
Wonder why the liberal (or illiberal) war hawks do not feel threatened by the actual, admitted proliferation by Pakistan? Would they urge war on Pakistan to destroy its nuke technological infrastructure and prevent future proliferation?
Or would they not, because they know it is easier to attack a non-threat than to take out a real threat?
Thanks, EchoScan!
I take it Atrios didn't need an espresso to get his blood pumping this AM...
That assassinations and corporate corruption is happening is occupied Iraq is something of a surprise is astonishing to me. What do people think governments do these days? Were they all born under a turnip yesterday? Assassinations are de rigeur. The extinguishing of life and life's products is a given in occupied lands. Has no one read ANY history? The "shocked, deeply shocked" response is old, weary, and thin.
This is the very reason why the people in the US should have opposed the invasion, but didn't, of course, because they don't remember, or they don't have any sense of the history of men's wars.
In my perfect world everyone would understand this. But we still have the same old world. The same old minds. So, the gist is not gotten, not understood. It's a thing of huge despair to me.
Well, I guess we're having our Justin Timberlake moment. He blamed Janet for the "wardrobe malfunction," and took no responsibility himself.
Americans don't like to admit to being wrong.
How long did it take MacNamara to admit his folly in Viet Nam?
How long did it take MacNamara to admit his folly in Viet Nam?
about a generation.
I am sure that 20 years from now, when we are saddled with an incredible tax burden and sharply cut government services in order to pay off the Bush deficits, we (and historians and journalists) will look back and wonder, 'what the hell were they thinking?'
Which will be cold, cold comfort to me. How about we wake up NOW so we don't have to wring our hands quite as much 20 years from now????
What do you mean things aren't working out in Iraq? They have to! It says so in my Big Book of Neocon Theory.
Frustratingly, this story rings a bell from the UK media but I can't find a link for the life of me...
No, I think I must just have spotted the same NYT headline as anyone else here.
Some qualified good news: the UN is going into Iraq to supervise elections.
Wonder why the liberal (or illiberal) war hawks do not feel threatened by the actual, admitted proliferation by Pakistan?
Two words, No oil.
Our media, from top to bottom, has destroyed it's believability. Nothing they say can be trusted without multiple independent sources. That's why I read most of my news on-line these days. NYT, NBC, CNN, you don't have to go as low as FOX to reach c. 1898 levels of Hurstian presstitution anymore.
cut that i.
I have a brother who's moderately conservatve, who was pro war based on the idea that Bush and all the other politicians wouldn't lie about such an important matter and wouldn't be so confident unless they had solid reasons and facts.
He's been very shaken by the David Kay revelations (took awhile, I know) and is now calling for Bush's head on a platter, or more specifically, impeachment. He's furious at having been played by the Neocons.
I'm reminded of the line from Animal House, after the guys trash Flounder's brother's car: "Face it Flounder, you fucked up - you trusted us."
God damn dickhead neocons! Assholes! What a fucking mess. Not to even mention the reckless fiscal policy and gargantuan deficit.
But I think the tide is turning ...
EPT, you mean the free-market system can spwan more effective versions of Pravda and Izvestia?
But what about the schools? The schools?!
"I am sure that 20 years from now, when we are saddled with an incredible tax burden and sharply cut government services in order to pay off the Bush deficits, we (and historians and journalists) will look back and wonder, 'what the hell were they thinking?'
Which will be cold, cold comfort to me. How about we wake up NOW so we don't have to wring our hands quite as much 20 years from now????"
Exactly.
Macjazz, speaking of 'having been played by the neocons', check this out:
http://wanniski.com/
(from his Memo on the Margin of Feb 6 2004)
Was Tenet Asleep or is his IQ Subpar?
...
"There is no nice way of saying it, but our President really doesn’t have the kind of intelligence to realize he has been snookered all along."
nyah nyah nyah nyah!
We can't hear you!
Macjazz: I think your brother's not the only one, from what I've seen.
Roll on 11/2004...
You know what, guys, it ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU. Stop with the narcissistic navel-gazing.
So completely right.
I learned on NOW last night that Hillary Clinton voted out of pure political expediency for a bankruptcy law revision that she fully understood was evil in terms of what it would do to ordinary working folks. Clearly, our entire political system is broken.
Krugman's latest in the Times says, "Right now America is going through an Orwellian moment." Clearly. And I’m scared that if we pass through that moment rather than finding a way to reject it outright, there will simply be no fixing of what’s yet to come.
But how do we even begin to unwind the combined massive power of privilege of crony-capitalism and crony-politics - at least beyond the immediate task of removing the poster boy of the crony culture from the White House?
Vietnam deja vu; if you were against the war somehow you have lost credibility to criticize that and other wars.
I have noticed this on a lot of blogs, even perhaps egegiously among "liberals" who like to tout their military service to establish their credibility to speak on war. To me its playing into the warmongers game, that military service is the sine qua non of credibility on the subject of war.
Now I can see the logic of finding the vast majority of neocons, chickenhawks, discredited when it comes to pushing the button for war. They have no experiential reality check. But I don't see the logic, really I see an illogic in saying someone who has, for logical reasons, opposed war,as being unqualified to be opposed to war?
I think it touches emotional levels much more than rational ones.
I'm reminded of the line from Animal House, after the guys trash Flounder's brother's car: "Face it Flounder, you fucked up - you trusted us."
- MacJazz
I remember that scene, and that is a perfect illustration of what is going on now! What I can't believe is how the media, through their headlines, seem to be playing along with the "CIA misled us" ridiculous crap. I don't think it's going to work for the Bush gang, though.
Hey what is the big deal? These people are typical liberal types.
The antiwar side was at a disadvantage because it was arguing that the authoritarian dictatorship status quo in Iraq was better than the average of all possible outcomes if we went to war.
This argument, of course, was utterly vindicated by subsequent events. But it's an argument that's bound to be unattractive to a lot of people on our side of the aisle.
"Now With Bill Moyers" is such a great show, but I find it difficult to watch. There's never enough vodka in the house to assuage my sadness. I did watch a good part of it last night, though, and yes, Hillary Clinton is as sleazy as the rest. No big surprise, though.
I'm quite convinced that, unless the FCC rules on "equal time" are reinstated, we will not have a decent media, and we will not have a decent democracy. We need to take back the airwaves.
-- Macjazz, speaking of 'having been played by the neocons', check this out:
http://wanniski.com/
(from his Memo on the Margin of Feb 6 2004)
Was Tenet Asleep or is his IQ Subpar? --
Yeah, that's a good piece there. George Tenet is twisting in the wind right now, trying to put a good face on all this. But I'm sure he takes comfort in knowing that the Preznit has appointed a commission (snicker!) to look into this "intelligence failure". I'm surprised they didn't appoint Tom Sawyer to their little commission - he would know how to whitewash that big wall of denial.
Okay-- this stinks and it's just getting worse and worse-- when's the damn revolution?
All the phony liberals and yes even Democrats that went along with the Bush/Rove thugs should just go hide, never showing their two faces again.
Makes one want to puke when thinking of them.
We who were demonstrating a year ago against theillegal, imoral war were right and we should continue telling people we were right. When the hell is the next demonstration?
I'm happy that the UN is willing to oversee Iraqi elections, but I would like to know how come they rate, and we don't...
If you still haven't gotten your dose of outrage at the media, listen to Judith Miller defend herself and her beloved paper on Boston's WBUR's "The Connection" with Dick Gordon. She's respondig to an article in NYRB by Michael Massing ("Now They Tell Us, 2/26/04). Massing and a reporter from UPI crit the prewar coverage, and Judy rejects it all. She's just amazing. It's clear her vanity prevents her from admitting her mistakes. She adopts Kay's "we were all wrong," and you can see why, it absolves her and the paper of record of any responsibility.
You'll need realplayer
http://www.theconnection.org/
sho...0203_b_main.asp
Massing's article
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922
It's frustrating, isn't it?
Good work!
They were wrong, and they killed thousands of innocent people. What could conceivably be worse?
Atrios wrote: "Even now anti-war critics, despite being ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, are being marginalized because for some reason in order to criticize the war you had to have been for it to begin with."
That's the John Kerry meme at work. It goes: I have the right to criticize the war because I voted for it; you (Dean) are untrustworthy because you had doubts from the beginning.
What a bunch of crap. When will Democrats wake up?
The consequence of your crap wasn't a wee bit of embarassment at cocktail parties, it was this.
Not to mention this
Ah, sorry, not election supervisors, but UN officials to determine Iraq's suitability for elections by 6/30/04:
BBC article here
Actually I was arguing, like a number of people, that the war was an illegal act that would not only kill a lot of innocent people, but completely alienate us from our most stalwhart allies.
Because, unbeknownst to us here in T.V.-land, where Janet Jackson's breast-baring can remain in the news for a week, the rest of the world has been striving to establish a system of international law by which all nations may be held accountable. Of course we don't want to have anything to do with that.That would be bad. Turning the whole world into a representative democracy and setting up laws for everyone to abide by or be punished would be contrary to U.S. interests. Obviously.
But you never asked me.
In fact, I don't know a damn single person, and don't think I read any writing from the antiwar movement itself, that ever said that a brutal dictatorship is better than a war. That was not an issue at all for anyone who opposed the war, it was something that came about as a response to prowar people saying that we were "helping" Saddam be evil and oppress his own people by being against the war.
So people answer that and say:
"No. But do you think that going to war against Iraq will actually be better for the Iraqi people, or for us, for that matter?"
But that was most definitely not the reason people didn't support the war.
Lucille! I was just thinking of posting a link to that!
The most disgusting thing about Miller's performance on that show was not that she defended herself (that's only reasonable), but that she showed not one ounce of self reflection. She took responsibility for nothing, essentially arguing: "Of course my stories are totally wrong--all of my administration contacts refused to tell me the truth! What else could I do?"
Oh man-- nickname-- even more than the first, that second link is brutal.
Damn those fucking murderers to living hell. Everyone in congress should be sent those pictures.
Bush played on the credulity of the the American people, on its nationalism and the dregs of its respect for the presidency, and on its fear and lust for vengeance. I won't go Godwin, here, but isn't that always the way of despots?
As for the assassinations, this is the first unexpected consequence of the invasion, for me, but I'm not surprised. I have the unfortunated distinction, as many here might also, of having been completely right about the occupation, with one exception: I knew the Administration was lying about the costs and duration of an occupation, but I sort of thought they'd actually had one planned, and were just hiding the numbers. Never did I dream, when I watched the wild vandalism and read about the destruction of Iraq's rural archeological sites, that those in charge hadn't thought this might happen. It was a feeling that I understand now that I shared with State Department, humanitarian NGO, and Army War College employees.
I'm going to stop, now, but an indictment needs to be written, now, by the press. It has got to take the lead of James Fallows (in The Atlantic) and George Baker (in the New Yorker) and say, if good was to be done, democracy spread, as an aim of this war, the crime of great, willfull negligence was committed, and it resulted in unecessary loss of American and Iraqi treasure and blood. So great was the crime that our good intentions for the Iraqis--such as were those intentions--have been betrayed, and so the dedication of our soldiers and the American people, because there is nothing so wasteful as fighting a war and then losing the peace.
I can't stomach this lack of attention on the failure of the occupation, on the prewar dismissal of the probable consequences. It's a grave offense, one that should have--even if one remains a supporter of the war--sparked the firing of those responsible for it. They should live out their lives in infamy. The bungling of the Iraqi occupation should be campaign issue, for it is as big a failure of American foreign policy as the Bay of Pigs, and the Vietnam War.
"All the phony liberals and yes even Democrats that went along with the Bush/Rove thugs should just go hide, never showing their two faces again."
But Richard, it won't happen because it's all the phony liberals running the liberal show, now.
People John Kerry and Edwards (and kind of/sort of Clark, but that whole thing confuses me).
Well said, Brian C.B.
Pardon this picayune observation about "style" at the NYTimes -- but the writing is really getting cheesy sometimes.
After a lede that describes an assassination, this:
"In an instant, he became one of hundreds of intellectuals and midlevel administrators who Iraqi officials say have been assassinated..."
In an instant?!
I suppose assassinations are usually long, drawn-out affairs?
Schlocky, sensational writing thrown at a grave, enormously important subject.
The Times sucks more and more.
Yep, all those Cassandras telling us before the war that the most likely outcome was exactly what we have today have no credibility when it comes to criticizing the war.
The only people with any possible credibility are those who were completely wrong before, during, and after the war. Because they have proven they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, anything they have to say must be given great weight.
What plunges me into utter despair is the vast numbers of my fellow citizens who think everything is just so peachy. Lied to and manipulated by the administration and its compliant propaganda corps, these people get their memories wiped daily. That what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Powell said yesterday completely contradicts what they're saying today is no big deal--because the citizenry sees no contradiction. They cannot remember yesterday, and thus today's statement is totally in accord with yesterday's.
I increasingly feel our republic is doomed. However, I must admit that, since I gave up all hope, I feel much better.
sun volt:
"The antiwar side was at a disadvantage because it was arguing that the authoritarian dictatorship status quo in Iraq was better than the average of all possible outcomes if we went to war."
i read a ton of anti-war arguments and never came across this one. who made this argument?
3 words: NO PLAN B.
When the original plan, which was stupid and incredibly unlikely to work, did't work, they had NO PLAN B.
And everyone who thought for a second told them Plan A wouldn't work, since it consisted of a cakewalk war, installing as leader an embezzler who hadn't lived there since he was a teenager, and watching thr cheering throngs dance at our feet.
That's why we didn't protect the nuclear facility (and now there's enough dirty bomb material loose for everyone to have one) or the infrastructure or museum, etc. So now everyone is at the very least kinda mad at us for not doing the minimum that was obviously going to be necessary... and some are somewhat more than kinda mad at us.
Who was it that insisted -- remember that one too, down the memory hole like the new intel group they set up cause the CIA and military intel wasn't to the WH's liking? -- insisted that there be no Plan B or C like some of these guys were begging for and planning for? The White House insisted...INSISTED.. that there be no Plan B.
Incompetence or idiocy? We report, you decide.
Hillary voted to pass a bill that would require debtors "able to repay" $10,000 or 25 percent of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13 bankruptcy (reorganization and repayment) rather than Chapter 7 (full discharge of debt).
I'm not sure that makes her a sellout to corporate power. It seems a little more complicated than that. There are people who accumulate massive debt with the intent to declare bankruptcy, which would seem to have the effect of raising the costs of goods and services and shifting those raised costs to those who do pay their bills if they possibly can.
Before I condemn her I think I'll do a little more research and try to get her side of the story.
Margi
Brian C.B.
Send that some newspaper's letters to the editor. Send it to many newpapers letters to the editor.
Eloquent and spot on.
You know lately I've been reading Tacitus -- the actual Tacitus, mind you -- and one of the things that keeps coming up when he discusses the politics of the Roman senate under the Emperors is the people who remembered, or had told their children and grandchildren, all about what it was like to have freedom.
You think that'll be us, twenty years from now? Telling people who are little kids right now all about the days when the press acted as a check against the government getting too underhanded, or how the President couldn't just decide to have a war whenever he wanted, or how we used to have a treasury full of money, to be used for all Americans, until the President decided to give it all away to the rich...
I sure hope that isn't us in a couple of decades.
It can't be shoved down their fucking throats enough - the peacenikes were right - the chickenhawks were wrong!
Holy shit, shades of the Taliban, bumping off the intellectuals. One militant theocracy, coming right up...
Judith, it's not the job of the media to take sides. Your job is to report, as objectively as possible, about events and people. In this case, you not only took the side of the Bushies, but you completely ignored the other side. You can't defend the indefensible, lady. If no apologies and amends are forthcoming, then shut up and go stand in a corner somewhere.
nickname, those links are horrendous.
Well Artios your, sure right about the "Killing Fields" because that is what happened in Vietnam. So maybe Kerry should watch his associate with this war-especial if Bush is unable to get out of Iraq by July and that would teh problem with setting dates.
Will Iraq be secure by that date?
Personally I doubt it. Bush needs more troops in order to secure Iraq and only if Bush shares those pre-awarded oil contracts will Bush be able to secure Iraq via UN cooperate.
This war is obviously getting worse and worse.
John Kerry is a far left liberal who has marketed himself as a moderate.
Dean said that Democrats needed to pride to be Democrats... so take a tip. Last night Bill Moyers criticized John Kerry - they did it last week too.
Michael Kinsley did this to in his op-ed yesterday. Professional liberal media is not playing the DNC's ABB game. The fact is that Bush should have been impeached several times over. The Democratic Party has failed to represent it's people and conservative interest too for that matter. Our professional media so far, is showing no signs of wanting to help Kerry with is mission to replace Bush.
Krugman has issued a warning Atrios. "Dems who feel they are entitled to be president," is shoot across the bow of DNC. So how I think Clinton want mind that all because he won't have to answer any potentially embarrassing questions about WMD and regime change.
Of course I think that is just Bill Clinton's folly.
er I mean: "Well Artios you're...
Enjoying all of these comments and waiting with baited breath for the 'anonymous' trolls to come out with "what you all really want is for Saddam to be back in power," while reminding us Bush has done more for human rights than anyone ever because of the all the Iraqi's and Afgani's he saved.
I swear, these war supporters are living in some kind of parallel universe, a reality that is completely their own.
Well Artios you're sure right about the "Killing Fields" because that is what happened in Vietnam. So maybe Kerry should watch his associate with this war-especial if Bush is unable to get out of Iraq by July and that would be the problem with setting dates.
darn
Interesting anecdote, at least for me:
My girlfriend and I were talking yesterday and she mentioned that her stepfather and older brother, both rock-ribbed Republicans (despite working almost their entire careers for the "govmint") are so disappointed in Bush that they're actually considering voting Democratic for the first time ever.
Wow.
Dean said that Democrats needed to be proud to be Democrats
I think you mean "Atrios", Cheryl.
I'm not counting on many of these lifelong republicans voting for Dems. But, some of them may stay home.
The pro-war side was at a disadvantage because it was arguing that the wholesale slaughtering of innocents caused by indiscriminate bombing was preferable to continued application of peaceful diplomacy and disarmament.
it was fucking reagan (yeah! the hero of morality. yeah!) who let saddam murder his people. hey saddam, could you actually feel the evil pulsing through rumsfeld's hand when you touched it?
Going to war is always an option when you have a crisis -- the only thing is you THINK AHEAD and determine what the situation looks like if you win and what it looks like if you lose. You determine the overall costs (economic, political, etc.). Then you decide if you like the position you will be in if you win. Obviously risk of loss weighs heavily, but you have to calculate the rewards if you win. Afterwards, you decide if the risk is worth it, or if there are other less risky/expensive ways to get you to the same place. My own calculus said winning was a given, but the occupation and reconstruction would be too burdensome both in blood and treasure. So I was in favor of a diplomatic solution and failing that, a REAL coalition of nations who would share the burden occupation. But these are real smart guys. What I want to know is if an old retired military fart could easily see this, why couldn’t they? I think they were blinded by their ideology.
So this war involved ideology more than planning. You may remember there was a State Dept. planning team that foresaw much of the post-war chaos; but guess what? Dick and Rummy would have none of it! They purged people from the occupation team who had experience in the post-war planning exercise. They purged medical people if they weren’t “right thinking,” even if they were otherwise well qualified. When the Army asked for more military police, their civilian masters who “knew better” turned them down. (Remember Shinseki! Here was a general that knew what he was talking about, but Rummy and Wolfie said he was out to lunch because it didn’t fit their ideological view. You know now who was right.)
So actually this war can be good for something – it shows how doofus this administration is and why it needs to be VOTED OUT in November.
Everyone in congress should be sent those pictures.
Hah! As if it would matter. They know exactly the consequences of making war. They don't care beyond its consequences for their political careers. This goes for Democrats and Republicans.
OT: Chomsky Alert: schedule says he's on CSPAN 2 now (EST). Dunno if this is new or a repeat.
Atrios: everything you say is true. But focus on the cause: corporate journalism. And don't give up. You just can't; none of us can.
This outcome is a direct result of Bush incompetence--the situation would be dramatically better if we had an international coalition of about 500,000 troops in there. Which is what a number of Bush-critical hawks and military leaders advocated at the time. Obviously, they rolled over far too quickly (they shouldn't have rolled over at all). But it stands to reason that if they were in charge, rather than Bush, things would have gone very differently. The political momentum was very much toward an international coalition and additional inspections, according to the opinion polls at the time.
If you all get off saying "there was no way this could succeed", you very nicely get Bush off the hook. I'm sure Karl Rove will thank you. Iraq failed because Bush is a failure. Not because America is a failure. Your average disgruntled voter can get his head around that one.
As a non-American, I find it fascinating to see that jumping on small nations -- Serbia, Iraq, Haiti -- comes naturally to your administrations. But when dealing with nations -- who are real threats, but unfortunately have FANGS (see North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) -- you talk in terms of allies and partners.
Do you value your oil and your money more than your security?
Is all the talk about freedom and values meaningless?
Great rant. The media stink.
The assassination of middle-class Iraquis is tragic in its own right. I'd like to see Tom Friedman go explain personally to what's left of their families why it was important to pick THEIR country to make the point that the US is a biggest bastard on the block. Did anyone really need persuading?
But it is doubly tragic because these were the people who really would be the vanguard of secular freedom and democracy. Without our ham-fisted intervention, they might with a lot of luck eventually have suceeded. Now they and their dreams lie dead. The civil war will proceed without them. The March of Folly will definitely require an update.
He Ran To Me
My boy, my son--
far behind him I still stand,
he ran to catch the school bus,
he ran to catch the ball
I called him in when light faded,
he ran to me
he ran to me
My boy, my son--
ahead was fire and smoke,
he ran because men told him to,
he ran into the night
and came home borne by winds,
borne by wings,
he cannot run to me;
he caught my heart
but cannot hold it close
***
Don S--Can't speak for anyone else, but it's a character issue for me--specifically, the notion that you don't insist other people make risks and sacrifices that you aren't willing to take on yourself. Clinton didn't go to Vietnam, but he clearly didn't think anyone else should go either and was very careful about putting troops in harm's way.
Conversely, Bush et al. paid lip service to the Vietnam war's being a good idea but their actions then and now in Iraq are consistant with the theory that they view soldiers as livestock.
I don't know. There are repubs out there with integrity. Bush has shamed and denigrated the party. It must be embarrassing for them. He is the Worst. President. Ever. and he's a Republican. Ouch. He's done more to hurt the party than Nixon ever did.
But if they stay home in November, that's good enough.
It's important to remember, as one speaks about the Iraqi occupation today, that the United States is no longer in control of events in Iraq. We set the match to the powder keg, and the bits that are forming the new state we can kick here or there as they fit themselves together, but there are:
16 million Shi'a Arabs
4 million Sunni Kurds and Turkomen
5 million Sunni Arabs
some more secular than others. So far, Iraqis in the first two categories have tolerated the Coalition because it suppressed the formerly latter one. The Shi'a, in particular, haven't trusted the Americans since 1991, and our conduct of the immediate occupation hasn't made them more trusting. What they want is what Iraq gets. Right now, they want general elections to a constituent assembly, soon. They might accept a delay in them, but only if the United Nations brokers the delay and runs the election. This is the Shi'a main chance, and if the Shi'a come to believe that we are a significant obstacle to its success, we will have marooned 100,000 Americans in a nation in which at least five million citizens desire to live under an Iranian-style theocracy, which is more Iraqis than express a preference for an American-style secular republic. The day the Shi'a lose their patience, the day of that tipping point, is the day our wholesale withdrawal from Iraq begins and we lose even our meager influence over the ultimate outcome.
There are distinct limits to American power.
Yup. Read Salam Pax's latest couple of posts on this whole ethnic issue - very interesting reading from an Iraqi intellectual...
Fucking A, Atrios.
And good Animal House analogy, whoever that was. Love to see THAT on a campaign ad this October.
I watched the early part of the run-up to the war from mexico, where reading the local paper meant sensationalism, but not the pro-bush crap that was going on in this country (the U. by god S. of A.)
I remember a few a few heated arguments with some fellow Gringos who thought that Bush was doing the right thing, telling Saddam to let the inspectors in "OR ELSE" I argued that setting ultimatums for a homicidal maniac was not a wise thing to do, especially when it was apparent to me, if nobody else, that invading Iraq was not in either nations best interest.
Then we all breathed a sigh of relief when Saddam readmitted the UN inspectors and I had to admit to my hawkish friends that they had been right... Bush's ultimatum (at the time I may have used the word 'bluff', how naive!) worked.
Words cannot describe how astonished I was when with a matter of days Bush was once again pushing to go to war.
Where did that part of the story disapear to?
Okay, most of the bigger wigs where I work are Republicans (surprise! yeah, right.), and they know I'm a Dem, so when they ask me how I feel about the primaries, I tell them "Well, I'm ABB, so it's all going fine as far as I care." This is what I say mostly to just get off of going aroundin a circle with BushCo illogic and excuse-of-the-week rhetoric. I save the more in-depth discussions for others more of my point of view.
But a funny thing happens with the Republican crowd. They ask what ABB is, curious as the acronym they haven't come across. I say "Anybody But Bush, baby!" and they chuckle in this relieved way. Some even say "yeah..." or "that's good." The ones that are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans are going to just give it a miss and abstain from voting, but there are some who will vote Democrat, and have told me privately.
I doubt that there are many Republicans left out there who aren't of the redneck/militia set that support what's going on in the WH. You can read the news, know the facts aren't adding up with the spin, and put two and two together.
"So far, Iraqis in the first two categories have tolerated the Coalition because it suppressed the formerly-dominant latter one."
Damned editing.
currus: read the Fallows piece in the The Atlantic. It's online. It's important. Not sure if George Baker's "The War After the War" is still up at The New Yorker site. It's the other must-read. Go to your local library to get it, if it's not on the Internet.
stepanovich: I read Emmanuel Todd's book when it came out in 2002 and Todd makes the same point: how can anyone take America seriously as great power intent on changing the direction of history when it matches itself against Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, Libya, and Iran? Nations that most other mature polities regard as irritants or benign, when they regard them at all? Our military budget is the largest in the world, it accounts for half the world's defense spending. It's larger than it was in 1968, at the height of Vietnam and the Cold War. Iraq's military budget was, prewar, more or less $1.4 billion annually, not even the largest in the region. (Sauid Arabia spends $18 billion.) This was our mortal enemy?
Tell it, Atrios!
The emperor has no clothes.
Tell it, Atrios!
The emperor has no clothes.
The thing that I find so chilling is that this echoes very strongly the type of counter-insurgency campaign which the CIA ran in Cambodia and Laos during the Viet Nam war.
Operation Phoenix, I believe it was called.
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/1.../news-
schou.php
This is all a big coincidence, however. Absolutely, one-hundred-percent certain, for sure a coincidence.
Damn, Atrios! Hit me with some more of that shit! That felt sooooo good! I came sooo many times and I'm ready for more!
Thank you. My stepson is being sent as a grunt to Iraq this month. The press has completely ignored the soldiers, the military families, the coffins, the dead and wounded, and the blood is on their hands as much as anyone else who supports the bU$h doctrine of pre emptive invasion.
www.mfso.org
www.bringthemhomenow.com
Getting rid of the intellectuals is a time-honored means of making sure that when you start your civil war (whoever you are -- foreign nation meddling in other's affairs, despot trying to start a counter-revolution, "the people" out to purify the precieved corruption of the educated class, religious zealots who don't like intellectualism) you won't have anyone capable of leading an opposition.
But why we do nothing to stop this is beyond me, if I'm to believe we have an interest in establish some sort of friendly, secular democracy, beacon-of-light to the dark (-er skinned infidel heathen), opressed arab world.
Unfortunately Mrs Brown, we're gong to need a lot more people like your son in Iraq if these professionals (i.e. the peaceful future of Iraq) are going to survive.
It's time to start pressuring Bush to put more troops in Iraq and stop pulling out, or quit eulogizing the collapse of Iraqi society into civil war.
" the bU$h doctrine of pre emptive invasion..."
Are we the only people in this country who find this one, single policy to be wholly immoral and obscene?
You don't have to go Godwin to find an example to compare the "bU$h doctrine of pre emptive invasion" to.
Some other leaders who had pre-emptive invasion doctrines:
Alexander
Julius Caesar
Hannibal
Ghengis Khan
The Crusaders/ The Vatican
The Conquistadors / Spain circa 1500 -
1600
Napoleon
Stalin
Tojo
et al.
History just loves a pre-emptive invasion doctrine adopter.
Well, well, well, look who's trying to sneak in under the radar.
dave -- doubt anything she spewed was done under oath.
JUDY JUDY JUDY!
OMG, listen to her girlish cutsey-poo pronounciation of "weapons of mass destruction!"
this person has no remorse or reflection.
MoniCA: "I doubt that there are many Republicans left out there who aren't of the redneck/militia set that support what's going on in the WH."
Good post. I'd like to balance out the equation, however, to flush out what we're up against. My brother, who's a well to do physician, knows perfectly well that the Iraqi War was a hoax, that Dubya is completely incompetent, but will vote for Dubya's reelection based on the large tax cuts thrown his way by Dubya.
Similarly, I have Jewish friends who know Dubya is an idiot but will vote for him because he's "been good for Israel." They rationalize the Iraqi War by saying a destablizing force has been gotten rid of in the region.
I think the left's path to victory is to reach working class people & those less fortunate, educate them that its in their interest to oppose Republicans, the party of the rich & corporate interests.
Consider that the whore media turned full-force against Dean shortly after he opined that the American media corporations need to be re-regulated.
The media execs have convinced themselves that Georgie is supporting their own best interests, but of course they overlook the Angry Mob Factor.
The media whores themselves exist in their own pocket dimensions, completely separated from reality or logic. They snap opinions at one another, nod, smile, and commiserate about how Georgie is just entirely *too* sexy in his ultra-manly flight suit. They're a lot like freepers that way, but I digress...
It's time to boycott. All of them. If they still refuse to come around, we'll have to explore other options then. Maybe a big fat loan from Soros.
Good post, Atrios. I'm a bit of a cynic, though, so I'd change this line:
"The existence of an open civil society requires that the vast majority of people, for the most part, choose to be civil."
to:
"The existence of an open civil society requires that it be to the personal advantage of the vast majority of people, for the most part, to be civil."
...doubt anything she spewed was done under oath.
Absolutely not:
"My feeling is that she should be testifying publicly and under oath," said Mary Fetchet of New Canaan, Connecticut, a member of the commission's Family Steering Committee. Her son, Brad, died in the attacks.
"The American public should hear her explain how she's had conflicting statements with regard to what she knew and didn't know," Fetchet said.
Carter -- yeah, the tax cut thing is a big deal for some people... there's an independant I know who'll be voting for Bush just because of that. He freely admits that he doesn't care about the war, how many people are dying, just that he and his family are making more money this year.
LCD -- that's what these people appeal to. IF there's a way to turn 2000 Bush voters away from him, it's finding a way to appeal to their basic sense of decency, and illustrating how violated it has been by the Bush cabal.
judith miller: "everybodys just jealous coz im cuter'n everybody else!"
2 simple formulas:
immigrant=muslim=terrorist
student=activist=terrorist
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- In what may be the first subpoena of its kind since the Communist-hunting days of the 1950s, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.
In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.
Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas, served by a local sheriff's deputy who works on the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force
"Crazy Andy" huh?
He handed you your ass in that radio program. Caught you out lying. So now you descend to calling him names behind your anonymity.
Is this a "liberal" thing to do?
andy said I never criticized anyone on the left. "never." Not "as much as hat thinks I should." not "criticize them from a republican perspective."
Andy's a liar. And you are the stupidest troll yet.
EPT, you mean the free-market system can spwan more effective versions of Pravda and Izvestia?
Jim Norton
We have to believe what our eyes and minds tell us. Never forget that ours have the profit incentive behind them. There's gold for them thar shills.
Nur al-cubicle, I can vouch for that in a different sense. Flying from JFK to London in late 2002 I was strongly inclined to wonder if I was being hauled out for additional security checks because there was a Code Orange and I was just randomly picked...
or whether it was because I was a student travelling alone on a long-haul flight.
Where did you see that story?
Andy's a liar. And you are the stupidest troll yet.
Atrios
They've finally hit bottom?
Well, I just saw Jack Welch on CNN, and I know, my friends, you will all be shocked to learn that he is backing George W. Bush in November's election (but he doesn't think he has it sewn up).
Wow.
Thealogie: NYT
But how do we even begin to unwind the combined massive power of privilege of crony-capitalism and crony-politics - at least beyond the immediate task of removing the poster boy of the crony culture from the White House?
Hey, I have a great idea - why don't we replace the current poster boy for privilege, crony-capitalism and crony-politics with a new poster boy for privilege, crony-capitalism and crony-politics. There's your solution; baby steps! It's crazy enough that it might just work. Let's do it.
Bay-bee steps! Bay-bee steps!
Can you feel the adrenaline yet?
thanks.
So now you descend to calling him names behind your anonymity.
Only a wingnut can be so dead to their own psyche to not realize how ironic it is to post this under a pseudonym.
I found it interesting that in the first few paragraphs of the NY Times piece, the assination of Dr. Mayah is presented simply as an example of the targeting of intellectuals and professionals. Not until the middle of the second page do we learn that Dr. Mayah's activism involved not only advocating for human rights, but also criticizing the Occupation. I have no way of knowing whether this in any way contributed to his death. I simply wonder why the article is so unwilling to entertain that possibility.
So did they ask Welch about his trained fluffer Russert?
Testify.
This weekend's assignment for our neojacobin friends on the right is to get out the leatherette-clad Tale of Two Cities from the matching set of Dickens they threw in with the knotty pine bookcases and read it all the way through to the end this time.
We're not the first to try something like this, and it never was that simple.
Beth, if this is the same chap I found when trying to google for any info, others seem to be keen to downplay his criticism of the occupation and mention his human rights role first.
Check out the latest by the National Review's Victor Davis Hanson, that well-known gentleman farmer who ruminates on matters of Great Weight from his well-appointed chambers in the tradition of Jefferson and Madison.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
ha...00402060837.asp
He informs us that by his measures, the cost-benefit analysis clearly demonstrates that over 500 allied combat deaths (and untold numbers of wounded, killed in "non-combat", plus the iceberg of Iraqi killed and maimed, the tip of which is the gruesome photo gallery linked by nickname) have been "worth it".
Also see this great piece in The Nation by Michael Lind reviewing the insane bloodlust of Frum and Perle's latest call to clear cut humanity:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mht...20040223&
s=lind
Some of the many "money quotes":
"The ideological Gleichschaltung will extend to the US military. The neocons, few of whom ever served in the military, can scarcely conceal their contempt for America's soldiers; Frum and Perle write of "the dead hand of military tradition." (Lieut. Gen. William Boykin, a Christian fundamentalist like so many of Ariel Sharon's American supporters, is acceptable, and has been brought into the Office of the Secretary of Defense to work with civilian appointees Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith.)"
"William Kristol and David Brooks invoke the name of Theodore Roosevelt. But unlike TR's imperial Progressivism, which supported conservation and prolabor reforms, the domestic side of "national greatness conservatism" is vacuous, consisting chiefly of the suggestion by Brooks and Kristol that the United States build more war memorials, perhaps in response to the body count they anticipate from their wars of democracy promotion."
"A few years earlier in the Wall Street Journal, Irving's son William and David Brooks co-authored a similar call for a "national greatness conservatism" in which American patriotism is emptied of all content except for military crusades on behalf of democracy abroad."
"The redefinition of American patriotism as zealotry on behalf of a crusading, messianic ideology is compatible with a disrespect for actual American institutions, which, if it were expressed by leftists or liberals, would be denounced as un-American by neocon arbiters of American patriotism like Frum, a Canadian who bothered to become a US citizen only after he'd served in the Bush White House."
shorter judith miller on said show;
Shes blaming us bush haters for not getting over the 2000 election.
In response to the senior admin official .
Send your own child to Iraq. Send the bUsh twins. Send the child of every Republican congressperson. Send Tucker Carlson. Put them on the front lines.
Bring the troops home now.
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis.
Stop killing our children with this illegal invasion.
www.mfso.org
www.bringthemhomenow.com
OT, but check out the photos of the Dem contenders on the front page of cnn.com. Is it just me, or does Kerry look like a pantomime villian?
Yeah, and Sully was on Real Time last night, trying to simultaneously support Bush's decision to go to war, and to argue against the FMA. Cute trick if you can pull it off, and he didn't. Carol Mosely Braun and the audience let him know that he is a completely dishonest idiot. And he looked like one from the start to the finish.
Atrios - you are right about the media, and it is most disturbing. Something has to be done to get this country back on track, and it starts with the media. I don't know what will have to happen, but there are a lot of good minds here. Perhaps together they can come up with something. The encouraging thing is that some people are really stepping up and saying that things have gone to hell in this country and that the media is complicit in all the reasons that is so. But of all the crises this country has faced, the one we face right now is as severe as any in the past, if not more severe.
Tena, that's almost enough to make me wish I had cable. I hope I'll be able to find at least a transcript on line at some point.
I've been calling him Andrew "Mr. Transparency" Sullivan, but maybe just Andrew "Cognitive Dissonance" Sullivan would be better...
by the way, Kristof redeems himself (sorta):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/0...ion/
07KRIS.html
mondo dentro - I sometimes get annoyed at Bill Maher, but he was great last night, and Carol Mosely Braun was terrific. The audience was terrific, too. In fact, Sully didn't get to finish hardly anything he started to argue, because the audience, Bill and Carol Mosley Braun would immediately jump in and say, in effect, "that's horseshit." Sully got all passionate about the FMA, and Bill asked him the obvious question - why are you a Republican? Of course, Sully said he wasn't one, but that he supported Bush because he had done such a wonderful job of protecting the country after 9/11. Which caused Carol Mosely Braun and Bill to start talking over him about the fact that Bush had done no such thing. It was good - Sully looked uncomfortable most of the show.
It's all Snowball's fault. He hid outside the farm and snuck in while we were all asleep. He never was on our side.
This is happening because we have botched security. We cannot undo the invasion. My solution is to arm the Pesmerga and the Shiite militias, and let them sort it out. They know their country, which we do not, and would probably make short work of the Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists.
Wonder why the liberal (or illiberal) war hawks do not feel threatened by the actual, admitted proliferation by Pakistan? Would they urge war on Pakistan to destroy its nuke technological infrastructure and prevent future proliferation?
And consider the further likelihood that it was our other great ally in the war on terror, Saudi Arabia, that funded the Pakistani bomb effort.
The real war on terror should have been all along confronting and demanding radical de-Islamization and democratic change in these two countries.
Great article! The main issue, the only issue, in this election, is THE WAR! Or, should I say, the National Guard deployment .
Scott "Kool-Aid Drinking" Ritter TIME interview from 2002 where he was right about everything. My Fav:
TIME: Some on the right call you the new Jane Fonda, and joke about what you'll call your exercise video.
SR: (Long pause?) Those on the right who say that disgrace the 12 years of service I gave to my country as a Marine. I love my country. I'll put my record of service up against anyone, bar none. If they want to have an exercise video then why don't they come here and say it to my face and I'll give'm an exercise video, which will be called, "Scott Ritter Kicking Their Ass."
Based on the Krugman Texas succession link below, this problem with the media is simply part of the Bush, and the other neocon strategy to control information and thus either sway opinion or prevent one from forming.
The media is owned by corporations that have invested interests in maintaining a government that works for them and their goals. The editors of the newspapers and producers of the tv news shows are getting marching orders from on high, and censor any news issues that might contradict their goals. Those that continue to push such issues is fired or smeared as to prevent them from getting back into the industry, while whores willing to write just about anything are put in their place.
And we thought otherwise?
MYOB'
.
MYOB - During the Vietnam War and the student activist era, I remember all the underground newspapers that started up. the Village Voice started that way - alternative press was everywhere. I suppose today's alternative press is right here - it is the blogs and the internet in general. Now, the mainstream didn't pay much attention to the Berkeley Barb or the LA Free Press, at first. But after it began to be more and more clear that Vietnam was a mess and it wasn't going to get better, more people did start paying attention to the message the alternative press had been trying to get out to people. I think that if anything, the internet is more widely accessed than the old print alternatives were. There are times when I'm watching Jon Stewart that I know either he or one of his writers has been reading Atrios, because things end up being said in exactly the same words that have showed up here. It may be that the internet will eventually overshadow the corporate media whores, because people will come to see that they can't be believed. I can hope, anyway.
Atrios,
'Even now anti-war critics, despite being ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, are being marginalized because for some reason in order to criticize the war you have to have been for it to begin with.' This is a great comment and expresses what I have been puzzling about for quite a while now. In any event, back in 2003 and in the lead-up to the Iraq war, our PM John Howard said all those hundreds of thousands Australian anti-war demonstrators on 14 and 15 February 2003 gave 'comfort to Saddam Hussein'.
Also, I just heard on the news that Rumsfeld has defended the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes at a conference in Munich. These people are just loco-crazy and they run the show in Washington DC. Tough and scary times ahead!
Helga from Melbourne, Australia
Brian C.B.:
thanks for informing me that the US military budget amounts to a full 50% of the world's military spending!
And imagine if only, let's say, 20% of that money went towards REAL sex education, Aids prevention programs that actually WORK, family planning clinics across America, etc. In other words: humane policies! Ok - so I'm just riding my hobby horse. Maybe in the 2005 Budget - hope springs eternal!
demanding radical de-Islamization
really bobnj, you crack me up. how would radical de-Christianization fare here, hmm?
Los Alamos Regulation No. 1743: No physicist in the faciliy shall pray to Yahweh or Jesus under pain of removal.
Yet Bush will not publicly attend one funeral of any of the fallen. If he starts blathering about the sacrifices of these people and thier families on the campaign trail I'll puke. Why doesn't he come out of his bubble and show respect for the dead. Why doesn't he fess up to the lies. Does he really believe that he is God's messenger, or that God chose him to do this?
hey, Ken Pollack: Atrios is talkin' 'bout YOU.
Why does the neo-con call for building monuments to the future wars to waged by our warrior king remind me of the poem Ozymandius by Shelley.
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
who needs intellectuals. look where george has gotten us.
Sullivan on Real Time also flogged the same tired old argument: 'they never said the word imminent.' YES! Even now he trots out this claim which wouldn't fool a four-year-old. I think this belief is the last one tying him to any sort of reality. Sort of like, Hitchens' belief that Osama is dead. These two statements of belief are like talismans blotting out the enormous brunt of reality.
Oh, and isn't it curious how we are so eager for the UN to go back into Iraq. How are they going to explain to the end-timers we're friends with the evil UN again?
Listening to C-Span I've noticed that a number of the staunch Bush-lovers say this: "Bush (and his advisors) REALLY believed that 'bad' intelligence because if they thought there weren't any WMD's in Iraq why would they have invaded and risk being shown they were wrong?"
Here's the reason: because Bush and his myrmidons thought that the aftermath, the "liberation," would be a cakewalk. That the only problem would be what to do with all the rotting flowers the people there would be throwing at us. That's why there was no Plan B. They thought that the Iraqis would, like good little scared Arabs, bend over and take their medicine and set up a nice pro-American, Israel-friendly regime by the end of the year. They assumed that the "glorious" end to the war would deflect attention from all the lies that were told. Nothing succeds like success.
That is the fantasy world these people live in.
Artos said:
ere's a cancer in our press right now, and it's going to continue to grow and grow. Even now anti-war critics, despite being ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
I was wondering, absolutely right about what?
Absolutely Right is a rather strong statment that implies next to no dissagreement about the arguments/conclusions stated. So, would someone like to enlighten me on what the anti-war people were "ABSOLUTELY RIGHT" about?
Derek
alberta student loan application alberta student loan application alberta student loan application. canadian government small business loan canadian government small business loan canadian government small business loan.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
