Wrong Way Bush
Let’s give credit where credit is due. George W. Bush finally admitted some mistakes last night. For instance, he noted that tough talk, such as challenging the Iraqi insurgents with the retort, “bring ‘em on”, sent the wrong signal and was counterproductive. The road to recovery, whether from addiction or failed policy, starts with admitting one has a problem. It is time for the President to do more than admit rhetorical mistakes. It is time to call a halt to our mistaken policy in Iraq.
It is becoming increasingly clear that when it comes to Iraq, President George W. Bush is the Wrong Way Riegels of the 21st Century. Wrong Way Riegels was a football player made infamous for running the wrong way and scoring a safety for the opposing team. During the 1929 Rose bowl game between Georgia Tech and California, Riegels, the center of the California Bears, grabbed a fumble, was hit and spun around, and proceeded to run 64 yards to the wrong end zone. Riegels’ mistake gave the championship to Georgia Tech.
Like Riegels, George Bush is an amiable, enthusiastic player. Unlike Riegels, however, Bush’s actions have weakened the military, damaged our nation’s prestige, and unleashed forces in the Middle East that pose long term threats to the United States. Let’s face it; Bush has scored a touchdown for Iran, our nemesis.
As we enter Memorial Day weekend it is time to take stock of the progress, or lack of progress, in bringing peace to Iraq. The “new” Government is one in name only. The Iraqi factions have failed to agree on who will control the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior. While Iraq politicians squabble, Iraqis with close ties to Iran are moving forward. Moqtada al Sadr, for example, is working quietly behind the scenes to infiltrate and seize de facto control of the police, the intelligence services, and the military. It appears he has made significant progress in this regard.
The bottomline, Iran is consolidating control of critical parts of Iraq through its surrogate, Moqtada al Sadr. The civil war now underway consists largely of surreptitious group murders and retaliatory bombings. Since January of this year, the number of daily attacks has surged from 72 a day to 135 per day. Most of this violence is directed against civilians—Shia and Sunni. Yet, U.S. soldiers continue to pay a costly, bitter price. Our men and women are being killed at a rate approaching three per day. The wounded are triple that.
Baghdad remains without a consistent supply of electricity, gasoline, and potable water. Electricity production, for example, hovers between two to six hours per day. Friends who have recently returned from Iraq tell me that much of the disruption in the electricity and oil pipelines is actually caused by the Iraqis assigned to repair these systems. In other words, the local Iraqis with a vested financial interest in repairing these systems are also sabotaging them—think of it as a guaranteed jobs program.
There are two significant dangers for the United States based on our current operations tempo (ops tempo) and force deployment—1) we are degrading the quality of the force, and 2) we are leaving the force vulnerable to a disruption of the logistics supply line if we decide to attack Iran.
The decline of the quality of the U.S.military—the Army, the Marines, and the Navy—is a middle to long term problem. An officer who works in military intelligence recently sent me the following after reading the email exchange between Joe Galloway and DOD press spokesman, Larry Dirita (note, the term “O-3” refers to a Navy Lieutenant or a Captain in the Army and Marines; an “0-4” is either a Lieutenant Commander or Major.)
Through the scuttlebutt of my buddies in the community, a military intelligence unit alone hemorrhaged 27 out of 35 O-3s. The community is not large enough for losses like that and thus those of up for promotion soon should not be overly proud they made it to O-4; it is nearly automatic now. The promotion rate is at 80% plus or minus a few points. I respect what Joe Galloway wrote recently. It is unfortunate that the sycophants have the run of the place in the OSD.
These trends mean that we will lose nearly a quarter of our potential O-4’s before they have even been boarded. Military and civilian leaders are trying to solve this personnel loss by offering more money for folks to stay in and lowering standards for those both recruited and promoted.
The United States ability to stay the course in Iraq is threatened by a fragile re-supply line, which runs from Kuwait north to Baghdad. This road runs thru the heart of Shia controlled territory. Everything we need to keep our Army fed and fueled comes up that road.
We face a dilemma if we decide to attack the neighboring country of Iran because of its nuclear ambitions. Iran is not a passive observer. Iran is providing extensive, covert support to Shia militia in Iraq. U.S. military planners must assume that it is highly likely that insurgents backed by Iran will attack and cut the re-supply line. Truck convoys will be captured and destroyed. Re-opening these roads would require significant military ground forces—forces that are not in the area and probably could not be deployed in any significant numbers for at least several weeks, if not months.
Our options in Iraq are shrinking with each passing day. The Shia forces are slowly consolidating their power. These are not secular Shia. They are religious fundamentalists bent on imposing their vision of sharia on Iraq. The secular Iraqis—Shia and Sunni alike—are fleeing Iraq. This brain drain further undermines the ability of Iraq to form an effective, competent Government.
The Shia backed by Iran are biding their time and moving methodically forward. The challenge for the United States will be to decide what level of support to provide to this emerging government. To the extent we are perceived as facilitating or supporting the Shia consolidation of power, we will also be perceived as an enemy of the Sunnis. While the Sunnis are a minority within Iraq, they have powerful ties to Sunnis in neighboring countries and will retain a robust ability to conduct insurgent operations against Shias (and their allies) for the foreseeable future.
Memorial Day 2004 was commemorated when almost 1100 American soldiers and sailors had died in Iraq. Two years later the number is rapidly approaching 2600. It is time for the President and the Congress to get serious about how long we will continue to sacrifice our young men and women in a cause that will ultimately strengthen Iran’s control of critical Middle East oil reserves. That, in my view, is not a policy worth dying for.
"Bring em on!" Of all of this Potemkin President's macho brayin, this was one of the most contemptible. This Memorial Day, let's replace it with one of our own: "BRING EM HOME!"
May 26, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I don't particulatly disagree with your description of the situation in general, I hesitate on the following:
"Moqtada al Sadr, for example, is working quietly behind the scenes to infiltrate and seize de facto control of the police, the intelligence services, and the military. It appears he has made significant progress in this regard."
It as my impression that while al Sadr has become a power broker more or less behind the scenes, he still remains at a lower level than SCIRI and Islamic Dawa. He controls the Mahdi Army militia, SCIRI controls the Badr Brigade. It is the latter, along with others, that appears to be involved in the massacres being done against Sunnis and others, according to Max Fuller at Global Research.
Juan Cole says the following about al Sadr:
"He wants Iraqi Shiism to emerge from Iran's shadow and to establish its independence from Iran. His movement is rooted in the Shiite ghettos of Iraq and is very indigenous. He is not Iran's catspaw in Iraq, quite the opposite. He is strong Iraqi nationalist...
In the long term, he would like to see a system in Iraq similar to the regime in Iran. He wants Islamic law to be the law of the land, and he wants clerics to rule. His father studied with Ayatollah Khomeini and accepted the notion of clerical rule. So does Muqtada. That is, there may be a place for elections (as in Iran), but true power would rest in the hands of the clerics. He has admitted all this in Arabic press interviews."
Robert Dreyfuss said the following in September, 2005:
"Sadr’s relationship with Iran is unclear. Starting in 2003, there were reports that Iran’s intelligence service and Revolutionary Guards were funneling at least some help to Sadr, but it seems that most of Iran’s covert energy is going to support the SCIRI-Badr forces. And Iran seems quite content to build up its power and influence among Iraq’s current crop of Shiite rulers. Sadr, meanwhile, appears to be headed in the direction of a tactical alliance with the Sunni-led resistance—which won’t exactly endear him to Iran’s theocracy."
This would seem to be at odds with your characterization of al Sadr as connected to the Iranian backed Shia militias.
Based on that, I doubt al Sadr is in a position to "seize de facto control" of the police, the intelligence services AND the military.
That seems to be hyperbole. On what facts do you base this?
Secondly, I have issues with your characterization of Iran backing the Shia militias in DIRECT confrontation with US forces. While it is clear that the Shia militias in Basra for example are conducting operations against the British, and that this is likely backed by Iran (although al Sadr is also well represented in Basra, according to reports), I think it is important to recognize that Ayatollah Sistani is still the head of the Shia in Iraq, and his authority does not seem to have been superceded by Iran, despite his being Iranian-born.
If the Shia throughout Iraq were mobilizing against US forces, we would be in a lot worse shape than we are now, as you correctly characterize with your supply route example. This is one excellent reason for NOT attacking Iran, which the US nonetheless appears willing to do.
As for "a cause that will ultimately strengthen Iran’s control of critical Middle East oil reserves", uhm, the oil reserves that are in Iran ARE Iran's. And if Greg Palast is right about Iraq actually having been invaded to take its oil reserves OFF the market (at least under Saddam's control), then your point would seem to be incorrect. If Palast is right, and other observers, Iran will influence Iraq but not control it or its oil reserves.
The one thing that COULD bring that about is a US attack on Iran for the spurious "WMD" reasons it is citing.
May 26, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a better "wrong way" analogy would be Wrong Way Corrigan. He is the pilot who "accidentally" flew to Ireland from New York while claiming he was trying to fly to California.
His motivation for his deceit was the desire to fly the Atlantic even though he was refused permission by the US government.
There is a difference between an honest mistake and a carefully contrived one. As recent evidence has shown Bush and Co. knew that none of their reasons for invading Iraq were valid but continued with their policies anyway. So did Corrigan.
The troops will "withdraw" when our permanent bases are completed and they can be deployed to them. This will satisfy the real reasons for the war:
Here's the scorecard:
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 26, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are we, as a country, better off as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq? It seems to me that the issue boils down to that, and my answer is no, we aren't. We are much worse off as a result of that invasion. Since we are into analogies today, how about the analogy of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor?
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 26, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some comments on your listed reasons for the war:
"Replace bases lost in Saudi Arabia"
A very lame reason for starting a war costing a trillion dollars...even Bush wouldn't be that stupid. This is merely a side effect of the real reason for those bases - to "guarantee" a "stable" Iraq for the long-term oil company production sharing agreements.
"Intimidate neighboring Arab states"
Of course, that is one valid reason. The primary beneficiary of that is Israel, however, not the US - although the US gets some benefit from that as well.
"Install a client government willing to sell oil on favorable terms"
If Greg Palast is right, the opposite is true: the goal was to get Iraq oil OFF the market because Saddam was jerking the price around and not repatriating his oil revenues into the US investment markets.
More precisely, while they did not want SADDAM jerking the price around and not repatriating the funds into the US investment markets as the Saudis do, they could achieve both that AND access to oil at a favorable price FOR THE OIL COMPANIES by invading Iraq.
In other words, the goal wasn't to get cheap oil for the US national economy.
The goal was to get cheap oil for the OIL COMPANIES who could then jerk the price around as they pleased without having to kowtow to OPEC, and at the same time the money would remain in US control.
This was not the case with Iraq oil under Saddam, or the current situation with Iran and Venezuela. Iran is forming an oil bourse denominated in Euros (which may or may not have a significant effect on the US dollar and US investment), and Venezuela is not repatriating oil money into the US investments markets.
This appears to be the primary reasons for the hostility to Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and even Putin in Russia - who put the skids on the Russian oil oligarchs who the US oil companies wanted to deal with.
According to what I've read, the oil deals known as "production sharing agreements" would have provided unlimited access to Iraqi oil for decades - but only if the government involved is "stable".
Occupying Iraq for the next forty years is how the US will "guarantee" a "stable" Iraq, so that the oil companies can maximize their profits.
Of course, this isn't going to work. But since it isn't costing the oil companies or the military-industrial complex anything to try (just the lives of US troops and the taxpayers money), this is why the US is not leaving Iraq even after the obvious fact that it isn't going to work.
It is likely the same concept will attempt to be applied to Iran - although I doubt the US will actually try to occupy the whole of Iran, which would be almost impossible.
I suspect the US will try to merely occupy the Khuzestan oil province. This will never work either, but I can see the neocons trying it, even if Iran conducts a ten-year guerrilla war against the US in the process.
The oil companies and the military-industrial complex don't care how many US troops die in Iran as long as they can control the oil and military contracts.
"Deny China a good source of supply"
Probably a "minor" reason in the sense that competition for dwindling oil is going to be a problem, and China is a major oil consumer and will continue to be so for decades.
"Project power in the region"
If you mean against Russia and China, probably. If you mean against the other Arab states on behalf of Israeli, also true.
In other words, the bottom line for these wars is money and the chance to expand political power at home and abroad.
Unless one understands this, it is impossible to make sense of US policy in the ME. Most people think that the US couldn't possibly want to stay in Iraq in the middle of a civil war, or invade Iran, or anything else that seems to stupid, costly and ineffective.
Those people are just missing the "Big Picture", as William Burroughs character "Old Sarge" used to say.
All this stuff is not costing the oil companies or the military-industrial complex or the banking community anything.
It's only costing the US taxpayer and the US soldier.
And nobody at the top cares about them. They are like the victims of the "blood-farming facility" in the vampire movie "Blade: Trinity". The Chief of Police in the film points out that these are merely homeless persons swept off the streets of America, stuck in a warehouse with blood being pumped out of their veins, braindead in a chemical-induced coma. "They're doing America a favor, really," the Chief says - before Blade shoots him.
That's the status of the US taxpayer and the US soldier - their job is to bleed for the oligarchs and the politicians.
And they will continue to do so until they start bleeding the oligarchs and politicians back.
May 26, 2006 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you can explain the new base agreement with Bulgaria as part of your thesis. Also there is a need for some logical explanation of the 750+ other US bases that are in place around the world.
I think you give to much credit (or power) to the oil companies. Their profits are just a way of redirecting some wealth from one sector of the economy to another. Say from SUV owners to yacht owners. Everyone is free to become a stockholder (to the extent of their wealth) and share in some of the profit. So the distinction as to whether Iraq's oil is being used to benefit the west or the oil companies is not a real one.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 26, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bases are merely part of the overall attempt by the US to control the world for its benefit. You don't go to war to get a base - you go to war for an economic or geopolitical purpose. That's obvious.
It's not just the oil companies - although they are heavily involved in those areas of US geopoltics where oil IS to be found. It's also the military-industrial complex, and other financial powers such as the banking industry.
"So the distinction as to whether Iraq's oil is being used to benefit the west or the oil companies is not a real one."
That's just nonsense. If you think you are "the West" and you have influence over whether to invade Iran compared to the oil companies and the MI complex, you're nuts.
May 26, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And what keeps echoing in my head (there's enough empty space there for echos) is Papa Bush's stopping Gulf I short of Bagdhad. While many theories were offered at the time, the compelling one to me was the theory that toppling Saddam would unleash horrible forces in the region, and there would be chaos.
And we are now learning that this was correct. We ought to be able to learn something from our successes (preventing chaos at the end of G-1).
Is this a father/son rivalry? Dad has bailed out Jr. so many times from his misaventures in the bidness world, could it be that Jr. wants to show Dad that he can do it on his own?
And we can add a lot of sh*t to Larry's rather grim scenarios - especially in the arena of military logistics.
Turkey, for example. We just need to map out the trajectory of the steady decline in US/Turkey relationships to bring this point home. Turkey will not be a logistic resource for the US - never (they even turned down a nuklar power plant that was offered.)
Keep your eyes on Azerbaijan. As the SCO is pressuring Central Asian states to push out the US military presence, Azerbaijan - a non-SCO state, is a prime candidate for logistics camps and airfields. It's touch and go, as I understand. But my guess is that the Azerbaijians would depose Aliyev rather than allow the US Military in their country. And this would be a regime change that is likely to have a negative impact on US energy interests in the Caspian basin. (I'm really surprised that there has not been a very vocal critique of Bush's policies by the oil companies.)
A grim picture, indeed. BTW, the first drop of Kazakh oil has reached China yesterday, in the new pipeline. Richard Perle has rented a Cessna to bomb it in order to save the US from anti-hegemony.
Neoboho
May 26, 2006 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
George W. Bush is not as contrite as your post infers. When asked about his "Bring it on" and "Dead or alive" statements before and during the war, he said:
Notice he says nothing about his conduct or the execution of this war, only the rhetoric he used to describe his own swagger. Fundamentally, he still believes he was right to engage in pre-emptive warfare. In light of your progress report, that's hardly the sort of thing to do back flips over. Frankly, I think a lifetime of disgrace wouldn't damper his arrogance.
May 26, 2006 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but worse than that is the fact that he is still pulling the same BS as before:
The "Wanted Dead or Alive" quote was about BinLadin after the World Trade Center attack.
The "Bring 'em on," quote was about insurgents in occupied Iraq.
Putting the two together served his purpose by conflating the two yet again!
This was obviously planned and staged and even so, he was in obvious pain having to "admit" that all he needed was just a little bit more sophistication. All the "Ums," and "Ahs," were just like when he was forced to admit that the Katrina response was less than a heckuva job.
Jan Knaus
May 26, 2006 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
rdf
That is a favorable scorecard for the United States. Despite Larry's insistence that the U.S. military has been noticably weakened by the Iraq War, any tangible difference is relegated to perceived weaknesses. Iran, for instance, has a hugely unpopular government and has attempted in a haphazard fashion, to stir the pot of the West by trampling on international orders. With the U.S. seen as an illegal occupier in Iraq, it is little wonder that Tehran is trying everything it can to win over its disgruntled populace before some sort of Democratic reform spreads to its borders. It is a bold roll of the dice but it exemplifies the dire situation Tehran now faces with Saddam Hussein no longer grabbing all of the regional headlines.
You scorecard perfectly illustrates why the U.S. is, in fact, WINNING the Iraq War. Remember, unless the individual is willing to look past Bush's contrived justifications for going to war, there can be no clear picture on Iraq. I am hopeful that all of us here can agree that eradicating WMD, fighting terrorism, and spreading democracy ARE NOT the true reasons why the U.S. invaded Iraq. As you point out there are other reasons: economics, oil, and an increased U.S. military presence in the region. If this is the criteria by which the war is judged, has the effort not been surprisingly well done?
May 26, 2006 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Johnson says "Let’s face it; Bush has scored a touchdown for Iran, our nemesis."
I thought Al Qaeda was our nemesis, and neither Iran nor Iraq. After all, if somebody is trying to kill you, do you shoot him, or do you shoot people who vaguely look like him because you kind of don't like them anyway, and they're easier targets?
My father, who was in the military all his life, had a number of aphorisms he liked. One was "never fight a two-front war." I think the Bush administration made exactly that mistake when they attacked Iraq instead of concentrating on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. Sure enough, Al Qaeda entered the battle on the other side and has helped throw Iraq into a civil war. And now, the neocons are planning to repeat their mistake by attacking Iran and make it into a three-front war. Your comment about Iran being our nemesis is only going to make it easier for them.
Al Qaeda has as its goal the destruction of the Western world and the creation of a new Islamist Caliphate. They're the real enemy. Let's concentrate on them.
May 26, 2006 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't make this stuff up, folks...
May 26, 2006 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Deny China a good source of supply
How is this effected? Oil is is sold on the internatioanl market. Once it is sold there is no way it can be prevented from reaching any country on Earth that has the money to pay for it.
May 26, 2006 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Riegel's and Corrigan's errors didn't kill. War and gross negligence in running a country do kill. Killing and maiming people, physically or mentally, is not comparable to a football game or flying an airplane.
Bush has been directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands due to his incompetence and arrogance. It seems neither he nor a large segment of America really care.
May 26, 2006 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice he says nothing about his conduct or the execution of this war, only the rhetoric he used to describe his own swagger.
It's worse than that. In the rest of that he says he was misinterpreted in parts of the world. So the mistake was that others misunderstood him. One of those non-apology apologies. And he gets credit for this crap.
May 26, 2006 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo!
May 26, 2006 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry wrote: The “new” Government is one in name only. The Iraqi factions have failed to agree on who will control the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior.
Why does the MSM give Bush a pass on this? He and others have practically broken their own arms patting themselves on the back about how the Iraqis have put together this "unity government" on schedule. Two very key posts are yet to be filled.
When Condi Rice was asked about this on Meet The Press she praised al-Maliki for his "maturity". He wanted to take his time and get it right. That was seen as a good thing. (Add to this the irony that al-Maliki originally said he could form the government in 2 weeks, half the alloted time. Four weeks and counting and it still isn't done.)
Wasn't it The Little Prince who said deadlines were good for getting people to act when asked why he wouldn't extend the date for signing up for the new Medicare program? Oh, there I go again. I forgot the all purpose Republican mantra when caught in a contradictory or hypocritical position: "That's different". Yeah, that's the reason.
May 26, 2006 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two years later the number [of military deaths in Iraq] is rapidly approaching 2600.
So where can we find the numbers? It used to be that some media outlets would report it each day: "Today x soldiers were killed in Iraq bringing the toll to y deaths."
Now we only hear the x. Have the Bushies gotten to the media and made them stop telling the truth about this ugly war? Who's got the balls to give the figures?
May 26, 2006 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "mistakes" he was willing to admit to were trivial, having to do with poor choice of language, and he sounded utterly insincere about it.
May 27, 2006 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Team Bush has a habit of understating their criminality or negligence while overstating foreign threats.
Culpable rats or Incompetent boobs...either way, time for them to go away and allow real patriots and statesmen to step up to the plate and try to restore what they have either maliciously or "accidentally" destroyed.
May 27, 2006 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you explain China's recent efforts to negotiate long term contracts with various countries in Latin America and former Soviet Republics?
Long term contracts insure a stable source at an agreed on price and avoid the ups and downs of the spot market. Sellers are also willing to take less money as the price for a secure buyer.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
May 27, 2006 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is still too early to know how Iraq is going to turn out. This doesn't make Bush's policy competent or intelligent it only suggests that getting rid of Saddem will still turn out a better Iraq.
You analogy to Japan and Pearl Harbor seems ill founded. No one is going to drop an atom bomb on New York or Chicago. The better analogy might be Vietnam. A stupid ignorant policy that in the end had very little long term impact on the United States. The Vietnamese desire to have greater free trade with the United States suggests the impact on them also might have been less then once thought as well.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 27, 2006 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reptilian cunning of Bush's fake contrition is captured well in this photo of Bush and the Poodle:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007780.php
May 27, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't make this stuff up, folks.
May 27, 2006 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every Sunday in the LA Times | Obituaries
And you may wish to keep up to date on Iraq here ... and Afghanistan
May 27, 2006 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Mistakes? He, WE h'aint seen nuthin yet...which part of "Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History" does that bloody clown have trouble with?
Iran Chief Eclipses Clerics as He Consolidates Power -
IraQ Backs Iran in Proliferation Dispute
Foreign Minister Tells West to Back Off (CNN)
Iranian Foreign Minister Visits Sistani in Najaf
High Level Dispute Emerging in Bush Administration Over Direct Talks with Iran - Rice Under Heavy Pressure from Europe, War Cabal Opposed to Any Contact (Nyt)
May 27, 2006 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any oil Chian purchases through these contracts is a quantity of oil that China will not be competing with us to purchase.
May 27, 2006 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran, for instance, has a hugely unpopular government...
So does the United States. And your point is...?
...there are other reasons: economics, oil, and an increased U.S. military presence in the region. If this is the criteria by which the war is judged, has the effort not been surprisingly well done?
Hundreds of Billions of dollars, not a drop of Iraq's oil in our gas tanks, over 2400 Americans and god only knows how many Iraqis (75,000?) dead and you call that an effort well done?
What do you call a catastrophe?
...it is little wonder that Tehran is trying everything it can to win over its disgruntled populace before some sort of Democratic reform spreads to its borders.
Do you really and truly believe that Tehran is afraid of DEMOCRACY coming over its borders? Democracy?
Pass the nuclear kool-aid.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
May 27, 2006 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Seashell! I couldn't find the words.
I couldn't believe this: "...there are other reasons: economics, oil, and an increased U.S. military presence in the region. If this is the criteria by which the war is judged, has the effort not been surprisingly well done?"
Your response was perfect. Well, the whole rest of it too. Anyway, thanks for putting my sputtering thoughts into a coherant post!
I have one question: Is there a more hugely unpopular government than George Bush's? Or one more deserving of its disrepute? How could he make so much fury and hatred in the world against us when he had the high ground on 9/12/01? Was he TRYING to? Probably not, since he has been a failure at everything he has ever actually tried to do.
He could have made the US the country the entire planet looked up to--it was all right there in his hands, but he had to be a small-minded bully and the ass-hole he's always been.
OUR BAD!
Jan Knaus
May 27, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This doesn't make Bush's policy competent or intelligent it only suggests that getting rid of Saddem will still turn out a better Iraq.
You may be right. The new Iraqi government has just endorsed Iran's nuke program. Saddam would never have done that.
The better analogy might be Vietnam
I think you need to be careful with that one, Daniel. The stakes are higher in Iraq than they were for VN. Wise statesmen knew that Uncle Ho was about the best check on China's spreading influence that could be hoped for. So losing was winning, sort of. But Iraq isn't like that at all - losing will be losing, period, and it will be bad for the US. It already is bad. The US has surrendered much of its power already to the backlash of the Iraq invasion - geopolitical power, economic power, influence and so on.
Talk about a national security risk. Bush takes the cake.
Neoboho
May 27, 2006 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, that's a still of the Centurion Guard in the "Bicus Dikus" episode of Monty Python's Holy Grail, isn't it?
Neoboho
May 27, 2006 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, of course, but I thought he was talking about how misdirected and ultimately fatal (to its emporer) it was for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.
Just like it was misdirected, and ultimately fatal (to our standing in the world) this quagmire that Bush has gotten us into...is.
Not comparing pre WWII Japan to the US; not comparing where Japan is now compared to the US --> Just comparing stupid, arrogant, assinine decisions.
In the end, Japan had to agree to virtually eliminate its military, thus allowing it to put all of its money into its infrastructure and manufacturing base. And of course, now they also have a cradle-to-grave health and retirement system that benefits everyone in its society.
Would that our mistakes could result in profits for the common good, rather than windfall profits for the "FRIENDS OF THE BUSH-CHENEYS," as a monument to their narcissistic greediness.
Jan Knaus
May 27, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps that is why the Great Bloody Bush Fiasco, or GWT, is now compared to the Cold War, and not World War II (Saddam is like Hitler, we rebuilt Japan etc). If World War II had started on 9/11, it would already be over.
The Cold War lasted over 40 years, so it gives them some breathing space. We will see how long America can poor troops and gazillions of borrowed dollars into the sand in the Middle East. My guess is reduced US hegemony and credibility, along with even larger declines and flight from the US dollar, and a recession may be just down the road.
May 27, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to get you to elaborate on your brilliance on your blog, but you persisted as you always do with ad hominem.
So you claim that Iran is consolidating power in Iraq because we are there. Will their consolidation abilities go down if we leave Iraq? Why? Wouldn't that make it a lot easier for Iran to meddle in Iraq?
It seems to me as if you are saying that we need to attack Iran, and therefore we need to get out of Iraq first because Iran will support forces in Iraq to disrupt our logistics.
That may very well be true, in the event we decide to attack Iran, yet wouldn't that give Iran more power in Iraq as a result, regardless?
We can hardly keep Iran out of Iraq in a better way by leaving Iraq entirely, even if we do so to attack Iran, something that will not involve an invasion.
So basically Mr. Johnson wants us to hang Iraq out to dry and let Iran consolidate even more power there, just so that our soldiers won't be compromised in Iraq if we decide to bomb Iran's nuclear installations.
The only way to stop Iran's meddling in Iraq is to be there to stop it. No amount of bombing campaigns against Iran will stop that, especially since it is the nuclear installations in Iran we are after.
Now I await Larry to call me a bunch of names and fail to elaborate on why he is right about leaving Iraq to supposely give Iran less opportunity to play with Iraq.
PS. I see that other commenters have taken on many other of Larry's claims. Good, I thought they were a bit too generalized and over the top.
May 28, 2006 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the compliment AND the show of support for reality based conclusions, CVille Dem.
Is there a more hugely unpopular government than George Bush's? Or one more deserving of its disrepute? How could he make so much fury and hatred in the world against us when he had the high ground on 9/12/01? Was he TRYING to? Probably not, since he has been a failure at everything he has ever actually tried to do.
What about the people that voted for him in '04? How is it that people outside the US were so much more aware than the apparently unclued and unglued voters that decided he could be in charge of a military, again? Personally, I don't trust him with a water gun.
...but he had to be a small-minded bully and the ass-hole he's always been.
Yep, but I bet you get mad when you click on the link, anyway.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
May 28, 2006 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about the people that voted for him in '04?
Well, they were afraid of being forced to marry gay people; and all those "babies" dying (that the Bush administration has NO interest in once they're born)
But besides all that, I don't believe at all that he really won. I do believe that Diebold delivered the election to him as promised, with softwear designed to flip results of close elections, as in Ohio. I've posted the link here several times. I believe it happened.
Jan Knaus
May 28, 2006 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The most important issue about Larry's comments is:
Why do we give a damn if Iran "meddles" in Iraq's affairs?
WE'RE meddling in Iraq's affairs.
At least Iran didn't invade Iraq.
We can easily leave and let Ayatollah Sistani deal with the Iranians. Despite being Iranian born, he's not a believer in the "jurisprudent" concept. Clerical influence, yes, clerical reign, no. And that's rare in clerics of any religion..
May 28, 2006 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you see no difference between the USA meddling in Iraqi affairs and Iran doing so?
Good to know. Iran ~ USA. Gotcha.
May 28, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup - both run by fanatics interested in power and greed.
It's completely irrelevant to US interests who influences Iraq as long as the influence is above board. "Meddling" is not above board. We shouldn't do it and the Iranians shouldn't do it. Neither should the Israelis, who are also heavily involved in meddling in the Kurdish north in order to get a pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa.
The Iraqis can talk to anybody they want. That's obvious.
And they obvious have more in common with the Iranians than with the US.
I'll go further than that. A strong Iraq-Iran alliance would be more stable than the previous secular Iraq-religious Iran hostility. This already appear inevitable, anyway. This would be good for the region.
If it eventually resulted in tensions in Saudi Arabia or other Arab nations over the influence of the Shia, that, too, would be good, as it might eventually lead to a resolution of the centuries old conflicts between Sunni and Shia. That might be troublesome in the short term, but letting it fester is not to anyone's advantage either. And it's of no significance to the US in any event, as long as the oil keeps flowing. And if the US started working on being less dependent on ME oil, it would be of even less relevance.
May 28, 2006 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong movie! Bigus Dickius was in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
Tom
May 28, 2006 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Bush and Ahmadinejad are just two peas in a pod huh? Good to know moral relativism still is in effect...
Yes, the Iranian people and the Iraqi people have a lot in common. However, the regime in Iran and the one in Iraq does not.
Oh well, I guess you don't really give a damn what happens to the Ayrabs as long as Americans don't have to die to get some reform going in the Middle East to get them out of the ages of oppression they have lived under.
In fact, I bet you wouldn't mind if Saddam Hussein was still in power, because you know, then there would be "peace". Oh, and dontcha know, Saddam and Bush are also two peas in a pod. ;)
You know, fanatics and all that.
Ahmadinejad would love to hear about the way you think. Oh well, live in your radical left-wing paradise where Bush is as evil as Kim Jong Il and Mr. Ahmadinejad. Don't mind me while I ignore you.
May 28, 2006 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to use your own tactics here:
"Oh well, I guess you don't really give a damn what happens to the Ayrabs as long as Americans don't have to die to get some reform going in the Middle East to get them out of the ages of oppression they have lived under."
Where did Transhuman say that? He didn't Just like you didn't say you are a Bush apologist.
"In fact, I bet you wouldn't mind if Saddam Hussein was still in power, because you know, then there would be "peace". Oh, and dontcha know, Saddam and Bush are also two peas in a pod. ;)"
Again, your fantasies. But just for the record: I (CVille Dem) honestly believe that Bush and Saddam are two peas in a pod (both crazy, although Saddam is smarter). The difference is that Saddam was never as dangerous as Bush is.
Bush has no desire for peace, because it would make oil prices go down.
Jan Knaus
May 28, 2006 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ayrabs?
PS Iranians are not Arabic speakers.
Tom
May 28, 2006 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, why shouldn't Iraq talk to Iran? That was the whole purpose of the Iraq adventure, wasn't it? To get a stable democracy in that part of the world to serve as a model to other states around it? How the hell are they going to do that if they don't negotiate with Iran?
Of course, the predicate for that situation hasn't come about yet, but it's good to know "we're making progress". Hell, we just had another "milestone"! Or was it a "turning point" this time? It's so hard to keep up what with so much "progress" breaking out.
May 28, 2006 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS Iranians are not Arabic speakers.
NOt Arabic speakers? Hell, they aren't even Arabs; they're Persian.
May 28, 2006 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it. And I know there were names of military deaths released this week.
Just in case I wasn't clear, I'm looking for the running toll. Plenty of news outlets give the names of recent deaths. But no one seems to give the running toll. Why shouldn't we know what this "war" is costing in terms of lives? As the Repubs like to say, "if they're not doing anything wrong they shouldn't care if we know".
May 28, 2006 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
try http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
May 28, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly. They speak Farsi.
Tom
May 28, 2006 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And wasn't the Iranian election just that? An election? I thought that was what Democracy is all about (unless you factor in Diebold, that is)
Jan Knaus
May 28, 2006 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. That's what I'm looking for.
Anyone have any ideas why this data isn't given on the nightly news any longer (other than the obvious--administration intimidation)?
May 28, 2006 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yea. Yikes, you know senility is creeping in when you start confusing Monty Python titles.
Neoboho
May 28, 2006 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Iranian people and the Iraqi people have a lot in common. However, the regime in Iran and the one in Iraq does not.
Really? I thought the new government of Iraq just announced their support for the Iranian nuke program, much to Bush's chagrine.
Neoboho
May 28, 2006 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, they aren't even Arabs; they're Persian.
AKA Aryans (ironically). Come to think of it, why don't the neocons go after Aryan Nation - it would be much cheaper.
Neoboho
May 28, 2006 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they were afraid of being forced to marry gay people...
Do you find it odd that such an event seems to occur only in election years? There could be a connection to the terror alert levels, which haven't seen a rise since Oct. 2004, and gay marriage terror alerts, also absent since Oct. 2004...till now.
...and all those "babies" dying (that the Bush administration has NO interest in once they're born)
The admin has demonstrated the same odd behavior towards the Iraqi people. They were objects of great concern till we got there, at which point we started killing them.
Diebold delivered the election to him as promised...
Yes, indeedy. And let's not forget who the Gov. of Fla is. That's why I'm voting for the guy who said this:
It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
May 28, 2006 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to know moral relativism still is in effect...
That talking point does not apply here. Transhuman didn't say anthing that has to do with the absolute, universal or cultural re Bush and Ahmadinejad.
...I guess you don't really give a damn what happens to the Ayrabs as long as Americans don't have to die to get some reform going in the Middle East to get them out of the ages of oppression they have lived under.
Are you coming from an American exceptionalism point of view? Even if someone disagrees with the concept, that does not correlate to not giving a damn. If you are thinking along the lines of humanitarian intervention, strong arguments can be made that (1) HI was not the intention for the Iraq invasion until quite late in the game and even then it was weak, (2) the military was inappropriately tasked to gain political objectives,regime change and democracy, when their methods were anti-insurgency (killing) versus counter-insurgency (hearts and minds) and (3) the US has lost a great deal of credibility in the area of Human Rights and made no efforts at all to understand the culture they were invading.
I bet you wouldn't mind if Saddam Hussein was still in power, because you know, then there would be "peace".
I have not heard anyone, left or right, say Saddam was a good person and an outstanding ruler. However, no reasonable person can claim that the US has brought peace to Iraq, either.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
May 28, 2006 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transhuman noted that it didn't matter as long as the US got oil. I think that tends to lean towards him saying that we should get out of Iraq as long as the oil keeps flowing, the effects on the Iraqis be damned.
Oh, and Knaus, the oil prices are not controlled by Bush's actions. The oil price didn't sky-rocket during the initial phase of the Iraq war. The oil price depends on many global factors, but of course, all you see is Bush. Bush Derangement Syndrome, get help.
May 29, 2006 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do believe we were talking about Iraq, good sir. I'm perfectly aware that most Iranians are of Persian descent, unlike señor Bush.
May 29, 2006 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they didn't. What do I know? Why don't you listen to some... IRAQIS.
Excerpt:
Listening to the 2nd version of the story (in Zibari's own voice) it is clear that Iraq recognizes Iran's right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes exclusively and is moreover asking Iran for guarantees, not the other way around CNN!
May 29, 2006 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
American exceptionalism? How about reality? Comparing Bush and Ahmadinejad is almost as insane as comparing him to Hitler. Normal non-deranged people don't take those kinds of sentiments seriously.
Human intervention was an afterthought? Well I guess someone should have told Bush before he spoke to the UN September 12, 2002. Apparently he didn't get the memo:
As for the last part, you avoided what I said completely. No self-respecting person has said that Saddam was a good person, but many anti-war people would rather have him in power right now. Instead of addressing that, you evaded it like a snake. I think that is demonstrative.
There's not peace in Kosovo. There's not peace in Sri Lanka. There's not peace in Pakisan. There's not peace in East Timor. There wasn't peace in the USA for many, many years when it started on its path to freedom. Expecting Iraq to be a paradise immediately after ridding itself of a 30-year run under Saddam Hussein is what I call insane.
But of course, to liberals everywhere, the utopian dream is always what is expected, and everything that falls short of it is immediately a failure. Well, except when a liberal is overseeing it. Then it's just all sunshine and strawberries.
Clinton said that his greatest achievement of his presidency was Kosovo. Boy, that sure turned out well didn't it? No, it didn't, but I fault the UN more than anything, although it is obvious that it takes time for a region such as that to settle down. Just as it will take time to get things settled down in Iraq.
May 29, 2006 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how you're spinning that, Seixon, but it looks like it confirms my point.
Neoboho
May 29, 2006 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No self-respecting person has said that Saddam was a good person, but many anti-war people would rather have him in power right now.
Apparently you've forgotten that Papa Bush left Saddam in power in order to avoid the conflagration that is unfolding right now in the region. Was he anti-war? I don't think so. But I certainly give him credit for commanding a "sane" foreign policy decision on this particular issue.
Neoboho
May 29, 2006 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember seeing clips every night on the news during Vietnam. It was in our faces constantly (also because of the ever-looming draft board). With sincere apologies to maimed and killed journalists, what exactly are you filming? Most of what I see is a reporter standing in front of a back-drop reading a script. Reminds me of The Daily Show sometimes. I don't blame anyone for keeping his/her head down, or not going there in the first place, but if reporters are going dangerous places -- which they obviously are -- what is it that they are seeing, and why are they not sending back footage?
But to your question about data. It's just not as sexy as blondes going missing from Aruba. Why do they think we want to hear Ms Twitty go on and on because the tiny island of Aruba has not spent it's annual GDP on finding her daughter? I am really tired of hearing about this when (terrible as it is) it is NOTHING compared to the mystery of how we got suckered into this quagmire that is ruining many more lives than we can even imagine.
There is plenty of blame to go around here, and public apathy is one aspect. I do think that intimidation is a part of it also. The owners of the MSM have a vested interest in this administration and don't even need "convincing."
Jan Knaus
May 29, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's not peace in Kosovo. There's not peace in Sri Lanka. There's not peace in Pakisan (sic). There's not peace in East Timor.
And there sure as hell isn't "a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine" as you quoted Mr. Bush saying. Or maybe I didn't get that memo. Care to explain what he meant?
May 29, 2006 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, aside from the CBS crew that got killed here just now, most of the news crews are locked up in hotel rooms and the Green Zone. Very few are still embedded with the troops - which is how the CBS crew got killed.
There's only a handful of journalists moving around Iraq now, if any. And most of them are not from the MSM, but are independents with enough Arab connections that they aren't killed on sight. So naturally little they report makes it to the MSM - only to the independent Web media and blogs.
May 29, 2006 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one spinning it. The Iraqi wants guarantees from Iran that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. That isn't exactly the same thing as a blanket approval of an Iranian nuclear program. Oh well, as usual, only about 50% of the truth is relevant to you guys.
May 30, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush Sr. left Saddam in power because or else he would have gone beyond the mandate provided by the UN, in addition to the fact that Saddam Hussein had tons upon tons of WMDs lined up to use. In 2003, the US government did not believe that Saddam had anywhere near the amount he did in 1991, which we find out was more true than they knew.
So, you have just left out a few relevant facts for why Bush Sr. left Saddam alone. Cheap.
Bush Sr.'s decision then was sane, yes, but that was because they wanted to use the UN inspections to get rid of all of Saddam's WMDs, and THEN remove the sucker. Which is what we have done now. That was always the plan. Regime-change in Iraq has always been the policy, spelled out in public in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act.
Leaving Saddam Hussein in power any longer would have been detrimental in the long run. Not only would we have had to deal with North Korea and Iran, but Saddam Hussein would have crept up on us and been a much larger problem in the future.
By removing Saddam, we have ensured ourselves that our future only holds two problems (Iran, North Korea) and not three.
You may now resume ignoring the historical context of US policy on Iraq.
May 30, 2006 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if this is true (and I occasionally harbor some such suspicions myself, paranoid though they are), still, an awful lot of people did vote for Bush which means that millions of people in this country are realizing that they make a very, very big mistake. Why couldn’t they have come to that realization two years ago?
May 30, 2006 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer problems? Please tell that to the families of the people who continue to be killed in both places.
Tom
May 30, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are confusing regime change and the spread of democracy with humanitarian intervention.
Your "last part" that I "evaded like a snake" was not in the post I was replying to. For your convenience, here is the entire post I was replying to:
The emphasis are mine.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
May 30, 2006 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may now resume ignoring the historical context of US policy on Iraq.
The problem of context is that it doesn't guarantee access to truth. I wanted to write a paper once to support my hunch that Eugene Delacroix had political intentions when he painted his Salon piece; The Raft of the Medusa. The contextual argument was powerful, but after some serious hours of research I couldn't find on single shred of evidence that Delacroix had a political bone in his body. So my thesis couldn't stand as a legitimate work of history, but it could have been a terrific essay.
I like your contextual argument - it's well crafted. But where's the beef? Don't bother looking for it, because you'll find thngs like this:
Neoboho
May 30, 2006 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to a nuclear Iran and North Korea? Eh, no, not really. Iraq and Afghanistan will get better after time, but we can't expect that things will be dandy right away. Assuming so would be ahistorical.
May 30, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've already read this piece and I'm perfectly aware of it. The thing is: I don't buy it. I don't think Bush Sr. is being completely forthcoming in this piece. He says some of the things I mentioned, that they didn't want to go beyond the UN mandate, and also that it would have been quite a messy invasion and occupation at that time.
That was in 1991. In 2003, Saddam Hussein and his armed forces were much weaker and neutered of all of their WMDs. Bush Sr. says here that it would have been impossible to find Saddam - yet we managed it after less than 9 months.
I want to quote the last section:
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Now, by this time he is writing it in 1998, this "precedent" he had hoped to establish was still not bearing fruit. As Clinton proved when he bombed Iraq in 1998, the only one who seemed to want such a precedent was the USA and their immediate allies.
Things were a lot different in 2003 than they were in 1991, and I think it a bit odd to use Bush Sr.'s arguments for not doing something in 1991 to mean that one shouldn't have done it in 2003 either.
Bush Sr. was right at the time, but not by 2003. Things changed. Also, you have to keep in mind that Clinton was running things in 1998 when Bush Sr. was writing this. One has to wonder whether he was writing it in order to derail Clinton on Iraq politically. I don't there can be any shadow of a doubt that the US government always planned on defanging Saddam Hussein through sanctions, and then removing him when he was weak and neutered of most of his WMDs. I wouldn't count on Bush Sr. or any other former senior US administration officials to admit this was the case, but I think it is pretty much implied by the actions that our government took.
May 30, 2006 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's OK, seixon. Many people prefer polemics to history. If you reject what comes out of the horses mouth, you're "liberated" to believe anything that tickles your fancy. But as I said, I enjoy your fictions.
Neoboho
May 30, 2006 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that the Iranians have consistently claimed to be pursuing peaceful use of nukes, it is a blanket approval. That's all I am claiming. You are bringing in the suspicion of a weapons motive (and you may be correct), but we only have the cards that are on the table here to play with. If you want to go for the cards that are up the player's sleeves, go for it. As I said, I enjoy your fictions.
Neoboho
May 30, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell:
"So does the United States...and your point is?"
My point is, Tehran faces the real threat of a coup whereas Washington does not. Nice try, by the way, of switching the subject...a common trick among Democrats in any sort of debate.
In response to your summation of "hundreds of billions of dollars, not a drop of Iraq's oil in our gas tanks, over 2400 Americans and god only knows how many Iraqi's dead and you call than an effort well done?"
Considering the war is far from over and the liberal media, in conjuction with the political left, has done its best at losing the war at home, I would caution you to use history as a barometer of failure or success. In this particular case it is far too early to determine whether the effort has been good or bad. I made the comment you so adamantly objected to simply because I believe this war has been waged for reasons other than those stated by the president. If the Democrats wish to preach to the choir and cry that "Bush lied" so be it...it doesn't change a thing. Indeed, there are broader, more all-encompasing reasons for the war. Economics, in particular, is the foundation. I agree that the management of the military conflict has been poor, but keep in mind the military aspect of the equation only plays a bit part in this long drama. Is it unfortunate that nearly 2500 Americans have lost their lives? Absolutely, but they are fighting to keep America the world's predominent superpower therefore they are heroes just like the soldiers who fought in Europe, Japan, Korea, Vietnam or anywhere else. Do you not think the United States entering of World War I was for purely economic reasons?
And to respond to your last question, I do not believe Tehran is afraid of Democracy. I believe Tehran is afraid of its people. When in power and beleagured one does not fear the specific ideology of its enemy, it simply fears being overthrown and losing the power that it enjoys. Ahmadenijad is little more than a public relations specialist for the clerics in Iran--the true power holders.
Like I've said many times before, it is far too early to call this war over, one way or the other. Let us not make the same mistake CBS News made in its 2000 election coverage.
May 30, 2006 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I've said many times before, it is far too early to call this war over, one way or the other.
Rush doesn't think so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-derych/rush-blames-bush-malaise-_b_21902.html
May 30, 2006 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Gettysburg for the explanation. Not that I agree with you :-) but this thread is too long already. More later.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
May 31, 2006 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, OK. So you ignored all the facts I presented on the differences between 1991 and 2003. Good. Keep on truckin!
June 3, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's just back-up on this a bit, Seixon. When you wrote that anti-war folks think Saddam should have stayed in power, I offered the example of GHW Bush to challenge the politicization of your comment, after you offered an alternative theory to Bush's actions, which actually ignored the fact that Bush stopped short of Bagdhad in order to avoid destabiizing the region, as he succinctly stated. So that proves that I am correct. It's a no-brainer. Why should I buy into your theory about it? It's really beside the point, isn't it? I'm not ignoring your argument - I'm just brushing it off.
Neoboho
June 3, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush Sr. was talking about 1991, not 2003. The whole context and all the circumstances were different in 2003 than in 1991, as I tried to explain to you. Therefore, holding out Bush Sr. as an example to demonstrate a completely different scenario is untenable. I didn't even mention the fact that Saddam violated over a dozen UN resolutions after 1991, and that therefore Bush Sr.'s previous arguments about not overreaching the UN mandate he was provided was no longer a convincing argument in 2003.
You're trying to make a point by ignoring history and the facts. So yes, you are brushing off my argument, which is ignoring it. You haven't addressed anything I said because, well, you can't.
June 3, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was it that said:
Hmmm... after those words were uttered ... too bad we all had to put up with another 3000 words of BS.
It's coffee time again, for you...
June 9, 2006 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink