Note: TBV reserves the right to ignore, block or delete abusive/disruptive comments.
As from the previous post, here's Alexander Cockburn at CounterPunch.
#
Neil,
Amen, brother. It's odd to live in a country where the guy who wants the troops brought home safe and sound and out of harms way is "Anti-American, anti-troops, terrorist-lover" but some idiot plants a yellow ribbon on his SUV and well he's patriotic!
Let's put an end to this war!
dave
That's a lot of stereotypical name calling with little to no substance.
Just because someone is a Republican,or voted for Bush means they WAN'T their family, friends to die? Or they don't give a sh*t about it?
Come now Neil, I know you are prone to outbursts of hate filled rhetoric, but this one is just sad.
(Not saying I don't have my moments).
Way too much generalization on this one.
Many of us show our support in ways that are very apprieciated by the soldiers. I don't personally have any stickers on my car, but they don't hurt anything.
And here, where I work and live, it IS apprieciated by the soldiers. How do I know this. Several have told me. They like seeing "support our troops" stickers. Makes them feel good.
I don't know why you'd want to call anyone on that.
My problem with this post, sweeping generalizations aside, is the notion that it was only "them" that sent the troops over there.
As if whatever oaths and paperwork a soldier signs when he or she joins up contains some unpublicized clause that the soldier will only represent people who voted one way or the other.
The reality, of course, is that OUR soldiers represent US. They're doing the work -- right or wrong -- that WE sent them there to do. Even if WE didn't all vote for the current president, you'll note that the emblem on their uniforms is the AMERICAN flag, not a logo of the Republican Right.
Is it fair to question the circumstances by which they were deployed? Absolutely.
Is it right to ask why they don't have more protection? Definitely.
Is it good form to question how few have been sent? Sure, though it might seem insincere if you also spend a lot of time complaining about the number and cost that have already been sent.
Is it accurate for an American citizen to say that the soldiers there are doing what OTHERS sent them to do? Unfortunately for political debaters, no.
They're doing what WE ALL sent them there to do, and they'll be doing it until WE ALL figure out a way to bring them back with as litle further cost as possible.
Jenn,
I'm heaping scorn on people that deserve it -- those who insist that opponents of this war are not patriots and do not "support the troops". The phrase "support the troops" has come to mean "support the president, and his war".
Those of us who opposed the war from the start are not only insulted and aggrieved - we are also angry that so many have died - Americans and Iraqis - in a war that should never have been fought at all.
Some of the pro-war gang even have the nerve to suggest that we ought to stay in Iraq so that those who have died there will not have died in vain -- as if more death will somehow justify the needless sacrifice already made.
I am good and disgusted with the empty-headed loudmouths who were all for this war at the start and are only now starting to wonder.
It is shameful.
.
WE did not send them, Patrick.
That's what Bush would like you to believe. But it isn't true.
Bush rules in this country by the thinnest margin. He has divided us sharply into two camps, and he is quite happy to leverage his base rather than seek bi-partisan support.
One consequence of this approach to governance is that you don't get to use the "we" terminology.
Sorry Patrick -- but that's just not gonna fly.
.
Patrick,
You said, "They're doing what WE ALL sent them there to do, and they'll be doing it until WE ALL figure out a way to bring them back with as litle further cost as possible."
"We" didn't send the troops anywhere. We didn't make up the bogus claims that Iraq was a threat to this country. We didn't pretend that we knew Saddam had WMDs. And we didn't lie to Congress in order for them to hand over the power to wage war.
As far as "figuring out how to bring the troops home" I'm pretty sure we have the technology: boats, planes, jeeps, tanks, whatever it takes to get those brave men and women home.
Please don't blame us for the actions of a very small minority in this country. They may be powerful. They may be fantastically wealthy. But they do not represent the average American in any way shape or form.
dave
Actually Neil, Patrick made a good point. I suggest you change the name of your blog if you are not a member of the Democratic party. As that is what the "blue" in this case implies. As "red" infers Republican.
Please look back at who voted for this war. You will find that a vast majority of the "blue" party did.
Since you have so much scorn to heap, try laying some on your own party, for both failing to stop the war before it started(not that I wanted that), or for their complete lack of a plan now.
What pray tell would happen if one of these, Gore, it appears from previous posts, were to become President. What would he do? Perhaps you should spend more time concerned with your own party, rather than heaping scorn on the people of the other, in a generalized hate spiel. Who did you balme for the problems before Bush came to office? Who will you blame next, when he's gone?
To say that Bush uses us, rather than try a bi-partisan approach is laughable. He's at least smart enough to know the Alec Baldwin/Soros/Moore/Moveon.org mentality doesn't want, and wouldn't cooperate with him, no matter how hard he tried. Your own post shows the "love". Come on now.
Jenn,
I do vote for Democrats. And after 9/11, I was one that wanted to see America pull together. I was among those who thought Bush might actually unify a nation that had been torn up by the fraudulent 2000 election.
But look at how he has governed since 9/11. Consider how divided we are today and ask yourself how we got this way.
Could it be a reckless and divisive policy of tax breaks for the wealthy? Could it be a reckless and divisive foreign policy? Could it be a reckless and divisive attack on Social Security? On gay marriage? On the environment, civil liberties, and a wide range of social issues? Could it be the deliberate mobilization of religion as a political force in America -- as divisive here as in Fallujah?
In every case, Bush chose to divide and conquer. Look at how Congress is run today -- at the nuclear option and how bills are settled in conference - at how Democrats are shut out and shut down. The GOP has strong-armed the lobbyists, played fast with ethics and played hardball with legislation.
Look at how critics of this administration have been attacked -- look at how Valerie Plame was attacked because her husband revealed the dishonesty of the Bush case for war.
You can deny that Bush, Hastert, Frist and DeLay have practiced the most partisan and divisive politics since the Vietnam era, but those of us with eyes to see are not buying it.
As for your central claim -- that Democrats voted for war with Iraq -- I disagree.
Many Democrats voted to authorize the use of force, but most took the President at his word -- that he needed the stick in his hand to compel Saddam to comply with UN resolutions. They believed his representations about WMD, and they believed that he would make every effort to avoid war if possible.
We now know that the intelligence he fed Congress was false and deliberately misleading, and that he had every intention of going to war, since July 2002 (ref. Downing Street Memo) at the latest, and apparently much much earlier (Ref. Paul O'Neill or Richard Clarke).
So how exactly do you expect to tie my hands? By claiming that Democrats took us into this war?
I would suggest to you that any honest reflection on the circumstances of that vote would lead you to conclude that no consent can be given by a person who has been deliberately and maliciously misled.
Bush and his supporters own this war, lock, stock and barrel. You can have the "Mission Accomplished" banners and the "Support the Troops" stickers.
We all share in the consequences of this war, but you guys who pushed for this war ought to own up to it.
It is all yours -- every last stinking bit of it.
.
Neil,
"fraudulent 2000 election." Get over it. If you don't want to live in a Republic, I suggest moving. Don't like how the system works, call your representatives and tell them.
"Consider how divided we are today and ask yourself how we got this way." Oh, yes, all division is to be blamed on the current administation, only waves of love issue from the left.(Insert laugh here.)
"In every case, Bush chose to divide and conquer." Neil,I could easily come back with evidence to the contrary, or reasons why each issue has it's own positive merits and some negative. As I do not embrace all Bush admin. policies.
"Look at how critics of this administration have been attacked"
Goes both ways Neil. Or did you forget that?
"As for your central claim -- that Democrats voted for war with Iraq -- I disagree." It's fact Neil. You are just dancing around semantics. Voting for force was, at that time, obviously a vote for war. So was the money to be spent on it.
"They believed his representations about WMD" Spare me Neil, how about the assertations by Gore, Kennedy, Clinton, all the power players on the left, for years, that also backed up what Bush stated at the SOTU. What, you're memory fail you there? Besides, it's clear he was a shifty ass bastard(Saddam) and he did have WMD, and was training terrorists, in fact, openly paying Palestinians to blow up innocents.
"We now know that the intelligence he fed Congress was false and deliberately misleading" See above.
"deliberately and maliciously misled." Jesus Neil, you've got to be kidding me. What, those 16 measly words? Why don't you poop on Colin Powell? He made the big whoopdedoo speach to the U.N.? Or how about Italy? England?
"We all share in the consequences of this war, but you guys who pushed for this war ought to own up to it."
Owning up. I supported it then, I support it now. Want it. No. Support it? Yes. Want any war? No. But, Neil, life's a bitch. We didn't ask for 9/11, we didn't ask for the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings. You need to face facts, we are at war not with Iraq, but with Islamic extremists, and obviously Iraq was a big first step in erradicating them.
Peace is a lovely idea, but it's just that, an idea, not a reality.
"It is all yours -- every last stinking bit of it."
So, what? You denouncing your U.S. citizenship?
Word.
In response to Patrick's comment, it seems you are combining two ideas in a way that distorts the meaning of the other.
Yes, people who join the military commit themselves to follow legal orders from the democratically-elected government. Whether to go to war or to leave it is not decided by a vote of the soldiers and officers.
But it's a little late for war supporters to ask war critics to take a "we're all in this together" attitude about when we went to war. I was very much against going to war in Iraq. Those who cheered for this war based on the Bush administration's lies about WMDs just got snookered. Not all of us did.
If the Reps hadn't spent so much time and energy trying to brand war critics as unpatriotic, I might be a bit more sympathetic.
But the reality is, that people who cheered for this war were cheering for an invasion that had no good justification. Whether they got suckered by Bush's claims, or just cheered for war because the head of the Christian Republican White People's Party said it was time to go kill us some foreigners, doesn't really make much difference.
Lots of people who supported the war (including at least one of our Blue Voice team; I'll let them say who it was if they want) have come to recognize that the Bush administration was cynical and dishonest in the extreme about their push for war.
Yes, all American citizens have some responsibility as citizens for solving the problems of the country, including the Iraq War.
But it's just not the case that we're all equally to blame for this disaster. Lots of us wanted very much to avoid it because we thought it would be bad for the US. We were right. I'm sure we'll be wrong on other things later. But we're not blame us for the war we opposed. Just as the soldiers in Iraq are not to blame for the decisions of those who put them there.
Since we're assigning blame here, let me cast a little of it on myself. In 2002 when pacifist friends were creating a website to try to stop the war, I thought (but didn't tell them) 'I want Bush to make the war, and afterward to be discredited and humiliated.' Are we, is he, there yet? Why would I hate him so much? Musta reminded me of some conservatives I'd met in the past.
Jenn, speaking of how 'we didn't (but somebody did) ask for 9/11', here's the neat website I promised to show you. BTW a recent poll from CNN shows 83% support for the comments of Charlie Sheen. Here's his statement to the London Guardian.
#
Jenn,
You are so twisted sometimes that I actually feel sorry for you. You claim we are not at war with Iraq, but instead are fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11.
If that were true, there would be no debate. I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and I would support further military action to clean up Al Qaeda.
What you seem to have missed is the simple fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
You really need to turn off FOX and find out what is going on in the world.
.
Neil: You said: "Bush rules in this country by the thinnest margin. He has divided us sharply into two camps, and he is quite happy to leverage his base rather than seek bi-partisan support."
So it's Bush who has divided us? The Democrats haven't participated in any action that might divide people?
Go back and look at the post, and the responses to it. I see plenty of division from BOTH sides of this issue...as usual.
If Bush's tactics are so wrong, and if Bush is the one who is single-handedly responsible for creating the mood of division, why are you CONTINUING what he started? Why are you stooping to his level?
It's much like condemning a fast food restaurant that attacks vegetarians and so called "healthy alternatives" as being food for "sissies," while writing your condemnation in between bites of a double bacon cheeseburger.
I don't mean to attack you, Neil. The fact is, NEITHER SIDE seems able to lift itself out of the rut of "preach to the choir," "you're either with us or you're against us" rigmarole and that's NOT furthering discussion. It's wrong of the president to use that kind of tactic, and it's AT LEAST as wrong for those who criticize him for doing so to then turn around and do the same.
------------
Dave: You said: "Please don't blame us for the actions of a very small minority in this country. They may be powerful. They may be fantastically wealthy. But they do not represent the average American in any way shape or form."
The last time I looked at a world atlas, I saw the United States of America. There were not two seperate countries to argue with each other over who had the larger population called Republicans and Democrats.
So to the extent that the soldiers fighting a war you despise represent the country YOU live in, you're part of the "we," too.
I'm not TRYING to place blame; I'm merely pointing out that on the battlefield, the enemy doesn't ask who their targets voted for before pulling the trigger. To the rest of the world, we're equal; if it makes you feel better to blame others and take none of it yourself, despite the fact that the soldiers are wearing the flag of YOUR country, so be it. But if you ever come face to face with someone hell-bent on hurting Americans because of our foreign policy, (and I hope you never do), I suspect you'll find out that the notion that we're "all in this together" is quite true.
------------
Bruce: You said: "But it's just not the case that we're all equally to blame for this disaster. Lots of us wanted very much to avoid it because we thought it would be bad for the US. We were right. I'm sure we'll be wrong on other things later. But we're not blame us for the war we opposed."
Interesting. We can't blame those who opposed the war for the war. If the implication that one's personal feelings about the war is enough to indemnify them from blame, it would follow that it's also unfair to bl
I voted against the war, blogged against the war since before 2003. Jenn and Patrick have advocated death. Since 2002.
We can all sit in judgement now you patriots. You've not only cheered on the deaths of some 2000 plus Americans, there are all of those Iraqis we Americans have killed.
History will judge you in the future, I'm judging you now.
OOPS! Didn't realize there was a character limit. Here's the rest of it:
Interesting. We can't blame those who opposed the war for the war. If the implication that one's personal feelings about the war is enough to indemnify them from blame, it would follow that it's also unfair to blame those who supported the war (but took no direct action to cause it to begin) just because of their feelings, either. After all, if there were two people, one an outspoken opponent and the other an unspoken supporter, wouldn't both be equally blameless? Or do you automatically blame the supporter no matter what?
What about those who opposed the war but didn't take every possible step to influence others about the depths of the error about to be committed before the war began? Do they have more blame than those who did speak out at every opportunity?
If we're going to be so selective about it, where exactly does the line exist?
And before you spend much time pondering when someone is or isn't to blame, or whether the blame should be divided equally or more of a 60-40, or 70-30, or even an 80-20 split, consider this:
When time is devoted to that debate instead of doing anything to actually end the war, does anyone have any legitimate reason to feel better about the debate's outcome?
Patrick
Tankwoman: When did I advocate death? Forget the fact that my blog didn't BEGIN until February, 2004.
But seriously: when did I advocate death? When did I cheer about the deaths of our servicemen? When did I ever say I was happy about the loss of a single one?
It would seem that the White House isn't the only one who can be accused of distorting the facts.
War is death Patrick. When did you advocate it?
Tankwoman,
You're the one who said that I was advocating "death" by advocating war since 2002. You tell me when I advocated it. What did I write in 2002 to advocate it? Where's your evidence?
Patrick
Neil and Tanker,
I've never claimed that Iraq had any direct action in 9/11. Notice, what you skipped over so quickly is my mention of several other instances, like the Cole bombing, and the embassy bombings.I said we are at war with Muslim extremists, and we are. Period.
Tankwomen, why are you not kicking Neil in the balls over this little gem?
"I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, and I would support further military action to clean up Al Qaeda." -Neil
Neil, you horrible advocate of death, you should be stoned.
Both of your hyperactive overly dramatic assertions are baseless and slightly scary. It's a far cry from supporting pre-emptive military action, to "cheered on the deaths of some 2000 plus Americans".
Damn, call me what you want, but I sometimes think ya'll need meds.
Patrick,
Thanks for coming by and joining the discussion. It has been a while. As always, I admire your commitment to maintaining your balance - steering up the middle and avoiding extremes.
That is a decent and admirable path to follow, under most circumstances.
But the risk is that the commitment to balance leads to unacceptable compromise of important values. Being in the middle is not so admirable when the midpoint is in the center of a lynch mob. Being in the cozy center of the mainstream was not so admirable in Nazi Germany.
And reconciling yourself to dishonest warmongering, torture, and wars of aggression -- in order to stay in the middle of the political road -- is not clearly an achievement to be proud of.
This president is an extremist who has pushed an extreme agenda. Supporting him is no longer a centrist, moderate position.
In short, you have been co-opted.
I get the strong impression from your comments here that you feel some guilt for supporting the President. If you did, you should. That was my point.
As for me, I feel responsible for not doing enough to prevent the war. I protested. I contributed money. I wrote letters. I blogged. I debated and argued and tried to convince people that the war was wrong. I was much more politically active than I ever have been in my life.
But this is not my war. Not at all. I own no part of it.
It is all yours. You will get no comfort from me for your war guilt.
You and all the others who supported this war should be ashamed.
.
Jenn,
Iraq had no connection to the attack on the Cole. That was Al Qaeda.
Same with the embassy bombings.
Same with 9/11, which you claim not to be talking about...even though you say that you are talking about Muslim extremists.
So -- if none of these things you are talking (or not talking about) were connected with Iraq, why invade Iraq?
Are you a little bit confused?
Do you think maybe lots of people were confused?
Since there was no connection, why did so many people think there was?
Maybe you would agree that Bush and Cheney and others in this administration (along with their FOX allies) deliberately misled the nation?
Would you not agree that they misled us about the 9/11 connection to Saddam, the threat of Saddam's nuclear weapons, the connection to Al Qaeda?
Is it clear, even now, in your own head?
It's been three years now Jenn.
Don't you think it's time to get your facts straight?
.
I've got my facts just fine. I've never gone with the Iraq-9/11 theory. I wanted Iraq, or more accurately, Saddam, finished after we wasted the chance we had back in 1992.
Period.
Contrary to your typical Libby assumptions, I am actually able to form my very own thoughts Neil. I was a typically uninformed Libby, back during the 1992 Iraq war,I have never forgiven myself for fighting against finishing the bastard off back then.
It was about time.
What really get's me is how people like you get all batsh*t over the 2500 Americans who died, and not how many people Saddam directly killed in his years as Dictator.Not that one is less important than the other, but you seem to enjoy talking trash about your own government, and have nothing left over to critisize one of the worlds worst dictators.
I mean, you skip over the fact that the nut job killed his own son in law's. Or even the 200+ in the Kurdish village for which he is currently on trial for. How about how many he killed by supporting the Palestinian suicide bomber with ton's o cash?
Please, try to spread your hate. You spend too much time hating Christians and Republicans, try giving Saddam a little sugar, because believe me, when he said this: "Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
At least I got the implied threat.
On the U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Yup, I got it loud and clear.
Patrick raised a good point about all of us being in the same boat, and he criticizes me for angrily attacking Bush and his complacent supporters for their divisive tactics...
It would be grand if those of us whose views have been disregarded, and whose patriotism has been insulted, would simply turn the other cheek, though it is a bit much to ask after five years of bullshit.
No doubt it is true that the wounds caused by this president will need to be healed, but the path to healing does not lead in this direction -- if healing is to happen, there will have to be some accounting for what has happened here.
My guess is that Republicans like Patrick will have no part of any such reconciliation. Their idea of reconciliation is that after Bush does whatever he wants, we accept it, smile, and move on.
I have a different view.
My idea of reconciliation will involve elections and a regime change in America, followed by investigations and impeachment, followed by civil suits and international war crimes proceedings.
.
There will be elections. 'In the strategy, Democrats vowed to provide U.S. agents with the resources to 'eliminate' Osama bin Laden and ensure a 'responsible redeployment of U.S. forces' from Iraq in 2006. They promised to rebuild the military, lessen the United States' dependence on foreign oil and implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 [coverup] commission.' Is this Democratic victory the regime change we're looking for? 'Deploy' from Iraq, but keep the empire... 'Investigations and impeachment' -- good, but until the truth of 9/11 is exposed, we're not yet striking the root, still hacking at the branches, of the disorder that pervades our world in the new millennium.
#
Word.
Patrick,
You don't seem to understand how this country operates. We live in a busines run society. Somehow you took it to mean a split between Republicans and Democrats. I would think you'd know me well enough to know that I hardly support the Democratic Party, though I do find a great many admiral democrats. This isn't a split between Dems and Repubs. This is a split between those of us who work for a living and that tiny percentage of parasites that live off of our surplus labor.
You might look back on our history if this isn't clear to you: The American people did not urge the CIA to help topple Mosedeq in Iran, or Allende in Chile, or Aristide in Haiti, or Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. We didn't ask for death squads to be sent to El Salvador and Nicaragua. We didn't ask for troops to invade South Vietnam. And we certainly didn't ask to support the genocide of East Timorise at the hands of Indonesian soldiers armed with American weapons. When Kennedy laxed his stance on Cuba, I don't recall the American people asking for the President to be killed.
I suggest you wake up to how this country really operates because we're heading to a new American Fascist state in a real hurry. If you sit around waiting for the gas chambers to show up, it might be too late.
As for not taking responsibility for this war, you might consider the fact that I've been actively involved in the peace movement from the beginning, protesting, blogging, and talking with just about anybody who will listen just why this war is so wrong. To blame me for the actions of a man who stole two elections and then forced his idiotic agenda down our throats is baseless.
War is death. Don't ever kid yourself that progess is gained from the barrell of a gun. You're trying to be neutral on a moving train. Not a wise choice.
This war is wrong.
dave
'I don't recall the American people asking for the President to be killed' or for the updated Operation Northwoods of 9/11 to be planned, carried out and covered up. How many of us are accessories after the fact of these murders -- or merely sheep who believe the lies fed to us by our unseen masters 'the rich'.
#
Neil,
I apologize for the length of this response. But I intend to speak my peace before taking my leave of this non-discussion.
There's a simple reason why I don't visit political blogs all that often anymore. There aren't really any real discussions anymore. It's all about the mudslinging.
The comments that have appeared in response to this post make it quite clear that I'm considered the enemy here. Whether you think that I'm on some mission to deceive as many people as possible about the war, or whether you think I'm a victim of Bush's deceit -- it seems to make no difference whether one is deceived voluntarily or not -- I'm the bad guy.
I've said many times in the past that while I may lean slightly to the right on many issues, I'm middle of the road. Yet one comment talks about "Republicans like Patrick." There are some issues in which I take a conservative point of view, and other issues in which I take a very liberal point of view. But you'd made up your mind that I'm a Republican. That in itself speaks volumes to me about any real ability we might have had to communicate.
Some politicos automatically believe that everything the other party says must automatically be either wrong or dishonest, if not both. I happen to believe there is a difference between questioning with an open mind and disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.
I've said several times in the past -- on my blog or in comments on other people's -- that I'm NOT happy about the war. And despite the irresponsible, inaccurate remark by Tankwoman, I HAVEN'T been campaigning for war since 2002. I NEVER pushed for war. I'm NOT glad we're there, and based on what has turned up since we went there, I wish we HADN'T gone. This isn't flip-flopping: I'm not breaking some new ground here in saying this. I've said it before.
CONTINUED------>
(CONTINUED)
The very idea that three years into the War on Terror, we STILL have FAILED to find bin Laden is nothing short of inexcusable. I'm pretty sure that I've said this somewhere before as well.
But since you lump me in with what you consider to be those typical "blindly loyal" Republicans, who either are to blame because they know they're wrong but are too bullheaded to admit it or are to blame for having been the victims of an elaborate snowjob, it doesn't matter what I REALLY think, because you've made up your mind about the label that you believe best fits me.
You hypothesize about me searching for sympathy for some perceived guilt that I must feel about "my war?" Given the atmosphere I have encountered here, rest assured: if I were looking for some sort of absolution, I have enough good sense that I wouldn't seek it here.
You suggest that it's unreasonable to just turn the other cheek while the warmongers continue their insults. Five years, you say, is entirely too much. But if truth is on your side, I suggest that should be enough. If you're in the right, then stay there. Don't stoop to the level of the wrong because it feels good. Maybe that's too ideal as well. But I believe that if you constantly fight fire with fire, you end up with nothing but ashes. There comes a point at which one side has to be big and set aside the hostility. Do you REALLY believe -- anywhere within yourself -- that if there is ever to be an olive branch between the two sides in this debate, that it will ever FIRST be offered by what you describe as a "Bushie?"
You talk about reconciliation, yet I wonder how you expect it to ever begin with those kind of roadblocks in the way. Roadblocks that both sides, not just one, have put there.
When I joined the blogosphere in February of 2004, the war had already begun. Debating about whether we should or shouldn't be there -- at that point -- struck me as pointless, because no matter how many arguments and counter-arguments could be made, we were there. Period.
Once we're there, the only real debate, while our soldiers are there and we're STILL losing lives, as far as I have been concerned, was how to get us out as soon as possible with as little further loss of life as possible, while making sure we leave Iraq in good enough shape that we don't end up having to go BACK IN.
CONTINUED------>
(CONTINUED)
I also believe I have suggested that we should pull out after having done more good than harm. Perhaps that's a totally-unreasonable expectation. But then again, it's clear that the contributors here already consider me to be a totally unreasonable person. So I suppose that nothing has changed.
But I'll say this much: I'm willing to accept exactly the amount of blame that you're willing to accept, Neil. It was never my intention to specifically blame one side WITHOUT blaming the OTHER. The way I see it -- and you obviously disagree -- both sides share in the blame. Since it's a Republican president, if you want to place more blame on the Republicans, then go right ahead; I've never had any desire to argue percentages, but only to point out that there is responsibility for what has happened and the culture of division we live in on both sides. No matter who started it, those who CONTINUE the status quo are keeping the division firmly in place.
But let's be clear on this: since I never encouraged this war, never cheered it on, and never celebrated the death of anyone, American or Iraqi, you'll not place all of the blame on me.
As for whether I'd have no part of the kind of accountability that might lead to reconciliation, I must admit, Neil, that it saddens me to read that you're so quick to assume that I wouldn't. I'm all for accountability. But in my mind, it's not just accountability for the one man in the Oval Office. I think it should be about MORE than just HIM.
Since all of you knew so clearly, Neil, that the war was wrong, it's not unreasonable to imagine that there were plenty of others who felt the same way. Some politicians, if I remember correctly, have later admitted that they had grave doubts. Regardless of what YOU did or didn't do, or what I did or didn't do, as a voter, I REQUIRE our elected officials to do MORE...to check the facts...to make sure that if they commit our servicemen to the battlefield, (or start the engine that allows a president with questionable motives and/or questionable intelligence to commit the servicemen), they are sure beyond any doubt that they've made the right decision in making that war possible.
I blame Bush for the war, and I also blame those lawmakers whose votes allowed Bush to start the war with what turned out to be faulty intelligence. If it was so obvious that the intelligence was wrong, Bush should have never been anywhere near a "green light."
That's not meant to pull blame AWAY from Bush. But in the spirit of accountability, let's hold EVERYONE who played a hand in this accountable. I think that's only reasonable.
Yes, I'd like to see reconciliation. I suspect that when it happens, it's much more likely to begin on a "blue" blog than on a "red" one.
But I can see that this day hasn't arrived, yet.
Patrick
Well put, Patrick.
Though you haven't finished -- and I will read the rest when you do -- I want to say I appreciate your comments.
However, I stand by my position that this war was imposed on a reluctant nation by George W Bush and his willing supporters.
Bush and his supporters have accused those of us who opposed this war of having given aid and comfort to the enemy. Bush relied on scare tactics and misinformation to overcome the resistance of our elected representatives and the public.
Those who supported the war, and who imposed it on the rest of us, cannot now claim that it is "our" war.
It is not.
.
Agreed.
Not yet.
.
Truth will precede reconciliation.
Patrick writes:
"Once we're there, the only real debate, while our soldiers are there and we're STILL losing lives, as far as I have been concerned, was how to get us out as soon as possible with as little further loss of life as possible, while making sure we leave Iraq in good enough shape that we don't end up having to go BACK IN.
"I also believe I have suggested that we should pull out after having done more good than harm. Perhaps that's a totally-unreasonable expectation. But then again, it's clear that the contributors here already consider me to be a totally unreasonable person. So I suppose that nothing has changed."
Doesn't this mean, "stay the course" and don't talk about the lies that got us there? How is this different from the Bush policy on the war at this point?
Robert Dreyfuss, I see, is even less sympathetic on this subject than us mean and nasty liberals here at The Blue Voice:
"For Bush and company, it may be all politics. But for the Iraqis, it is a steady diet of carnage. Scores of bodies turn up every day throughout Baghdad, many tied, bound and gagged and showing signs of having been tortured to death. Mass graves - that supposed relic of the Saddam years - are turning up again, and this time the bodies are fresh. Post-Saddam Iraq has become a nightmare, a Mad Max world in which warlords rule. It is not, as the president wants us to believe, a model for democracy in the Middle East. And the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Arab League, the United Nations, the State Department, the CIA and the U.S. anti-war movement can all say: I told you so."
http://www.tompaine.com/print/
tw...nts_in_iraq.php
Patrick, if you think that there's any realistic prospect at this point of the US leaving Iraq having done more good than harm, then I would say you're working on the "third marriage" assumption: the triumph of hope over experience.
I returned to this subject in a later post: "Please forgive us for your war".
http://thebluevoice.blogspot.com...r-your-
war.html
In fairness to Patrick, I think he is right to suggest that I was a bit unreasonable. I was downright angry when I strated writing this post about the war, and pissed off about the bullshit being thrown our way by its supporters.
I was writing in response to the scapegoating by right wingers who want to blame the loss in Iraq on those of us who opposed the war. I was writing in response to the ugly assertions that we do not support the troops, that we give aid to the enemy, that we are not patriots...
I was writing in frustration at the spinning and obfuscation that is being practiced even now as the war enters its fourth year by the same people who lied to us before it began.
I was writing in grief for all the needless death and grievous injuries and trauma, suffering and sorrow.
I was writing in protest of the bullying unilateral actions and divisive partisan governance of Bush and his GOP.
In short, I was in no mood to accept the premise that we are all in this together.
We are not.
Lots of Americans have no connection to this war. The shame of this war is that it is fought by a limited few men and women - far too few to be effective, or to be fair. People weren't even asked to pay for this war. And nobody has been given the truth about this war -- not when they voted to use force and not once since.
This is a war that was fomented by a minority, sold by a minority, and fought by a minority.
The majority of Americans have been bamboozled or indifferent.
Only now that the truth has begun to settle on the American people have we seen anything like an informed view of the war. And guess what -- now they have the information, they don't like this war any more than I did three years ago.
As far as I am concerned, if you have a plan to fix Iraq, let's hear it.
If all you have is more of the same, I think it's time to get out.
Am I mad at Americans who are content to leave the Troops there without sufficent numbers, armor, leadership, or purpose? You bet. These men and women deserve better than that from us.
I saw it happen in Vietnam and it's happening all over again.
Nobody knows what to do, so they sit on their hands and watch people give their lives for nothing.
Same people sitting on their hands have the nerve to tell me to support the Troops, get behind the president, be nice and smile?
It just pisses me off, no end.
.
'Truth will precede reconciliation.'
From the poetry boards --
'Vanunu visits Langley
You will know the truth
and the truth will make you crazy.
If you tell the truth, it will kill you.
If you tell the truth, *they* will kill you;
And who are *they*?
Let's just pretend
this conversation never happened.
You weren't here; I wasn't here.
It never happened.'
#
While we debate, people die. It's great to have the luxury of being able to discuss, but folks, people are dead, and it's not over. They die as we post, Americans and Iraqis.
isn't it time to stop it?
I blame the red states for the death of American soldiers, I blame the Bush Aministration and all those who supported it for the demise of America.
Just to clarify two important points:
Bruce asked, "Doesn't this mean, 'stay the course' and don't talk about the lies that got us there? How is this different from the Bush policy on the war at this point?"
You QUOTED from my post, Bruce. Did you READ it? When has the Bush administration EVER said that it wished we WEREN'T in Iraq? When have your "Bushies" said that based on the evidence that has been made public in the last three years, they regret we're there?
You proved my point: since I'm the "enemy," no matter what I say, I must REALLY mean that Bush is right and you're wrong.
You ask how my opinion different from Bush's policy? For one, I'd WELCOME an exit strategy that would get us OUT and keep us from going BACK IN. For another, I'd welcome an UNBIASED look at the failures -- on all sides -- that got us there with appropriate action. Third, I do NOT consider the mission "accomplished."
There are others, but what's the point if you aren't reading what I say, anyway?
----------
Neil,
I appreciate your response. I hope you know that I do not happen to be of the mindset that anyone who criticizes the war or the president is giving comfort to the enemy.
My worry is that the efforts to get us out of Iraq are bogged down by the constant arguing... not the kind of debate that seeks truth, but the "sport" of mudslinging that puts clever zingers and sensational accusations far ahead of truth.
Why do you think so many Americans have tuned out when it comes to the war? I'm guessing that MANY are tired of the constant bickering that NEVER solves the problem itself.
That's something else for which I think we ALL are to blame.
Thanks again for allowing me to participate...for whatever it might have been worth.
Patrick
No problem Patrick -- I give you more credit than you might assume.
I don't think you give enough credit though to the legitimate anger of Americans about this war. This idea that we should somehow be civil and reasonable under these circumstances is preposterous. I'm ready to tear things down, burn things up, and take this thing into the streets. I won't apologize for that -- I am ashamed that I have restrained myself for so long. At some point the only decent and honorable thing is to throw a brick.
You may not be a Republican Patrick -- I accused you of that to make a point about complacency and evenhandedness. I think there are times when you have to stand up and be counted for or against. Those that don't feel compelled to oppose this war are part of the machinery that makes it happen, and that made it happen.
You're right though about the sharing of blame. In 2004, neither party fielded a candidate for president who was committed to pulling out of Iraq.
I held my nose and voted for Kerry -- I have no idea how anyone expected the man to win, even with the lamebrained liar he was running against.
But it is one thing to acknowledge that Kerry was not committed to quickly end the war, and another to face the fact that Bush lied to us to get into this war. And as you rightly point out, it is time to consider what to do next.
For me it is clear -- bring them home.
If you want to be sure we don't have to go back -- give the keys to the place to Saddam. He knows how to keep the Islamists under control.
Maybe he can even take care of Iran for us.
I applaud you for making your case here. We disagree but it was good to hear from you anyway.
.
Commenting by HaloScan
