It's not about the warring factions in Iraq - the war started out, continues to be, and will finish as, a manifestation of US navel gazing.

The war was always about America's big bad role in the world. How many war apologists/promoters talked about all these grand and glorious results we would get in the 'mideast.' It was going to help Israel, and make Syria and Iraq shake with fear of the mighty hand of the US. Hussein wasn't the leading man in this production - clearly Bush cast himself (and UHmerika) as the matinee idol - Hussein just made a nice antagonist ('scuse me - in dumbed down, childish Americanese antagonist = "bad guy" - that's literally what US soldiers call insurgents), but Hussein was little more than a cipher.

When we finally leave, it will be because of what's happening in the US.

I say again: Iraq has practically nothing to do with the Iraq war.

It's charming how often they can change spin or at least float new spin, and it's doubly impressive how crisply their cable and OpEd pundits will surely fall in line without acknowledging a turn. What's so interesting this time is that the GOP in Congress are backing away. They must really be scared of popular opinion.

I'm still guessing that, once the surge spin and now the Casey spin variant has had its few weeks of glory, they'll be ready for something new. And I'm guessing that soon it will be a cry of success coupled with the idea of, not cut and run, you uderstand, but beginning to stand down in deference to our proud Iraqi allies. I'm guessing, too, that (just as Nixon could mix negotiation and Vietnamization for ages) despite such rhetoric, no serious troop reduction will then take place. But it's just guesswork, since of course there's only one decider.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

RE: "...the administration is blaming General George W. Casey..."

Thank you, Ivo, for calling this out. Two things about the article were remarkable to me. First that Bush, who apparently has been positioning himself for this all along by saying he's listening to the Generals and giving them just as many troops as they say they need, is now prepared to publicly disgrace this General and many others by saying they should have been calling for more troops. Second, that the ace reporters at the New York Times did not call him on it.

Ah yes, let's kick off 2007 with a fresh round of Iraq: The Blame Game. Because, you know, we haven't played it often enough the last 3-4 years...

I will try to be constructive, though. Instead of the redundant (and interminable) "Who screwed up Iraq?" line of enquiry, can we perhaps ask: "Why was the whole Iraq policy so screwed up?"

It would at least offer a fresh context for debate, and may even lead back to relevant questions about what happens when you have disagreements within a Concert of Democracies.

Hard to say where the reporters are getting their information -- I'm guessing Hadley -- but they do say that "The effort ("a broad reassessment of Iraq strategy"?) started in September, around the time Mr. Bush decided to oust Mr. Rumsfeld." [emphasis added]

What do you make of them apples?

I have no idea what to make of this. One paragraph in the article states that in May of 06, a meeting was held at Camp David to re-assess strategy and "Bush...left early..." to visit Casey in Iraq - when he came back "he was in a buoyant mood." That's hardly the demeanor of a man who is seriously re-assessing his war policy. As I mentioned before, this timeline doesn't make sense.

I just scanned the article in the NYT referred to by this thread, and I've got to ask if they ever learn. Why is it that Bush goes on the air and lectures us that he's 'the decider' and 'decides' what to 'decide', then when the time comes to face the music for yet another tragic mistake, its always someone else who failed him, and never his fault? This routine is a constant tactic with him, and too many in the media fall right in line behind him and blame it on his staff and subordinates who failed him. Well, the responsibility flows from the top down, and the advice they're giving only supports the positions he wants, and they know it. This is his fault, and his alone.

<blockquote>we know the outcome of the review — which is that we cannot fail and must achieve VICTORY.</blockquote>

 Why am I reminded of Glendower's " I can call spirits from  the vasty deep"  or the red queen's  " Words mean what I want them to mean"?

You're right-- Kosovo was a bad idea.

"Why was the whole Iraq policy so screwed up?"

Good question. I think the underlying reasons are that we (our government, our media, our friends and family) do not focus on some important aspects of being the lone super-power in the world. We know we will be called on to help out starving people, oppressed people and economically backward people around the globe, but we are not prepared to effectively lift them up for good. We can throw a few hundred million at a problem, but we do not have enough people in our government, or in our society that are engaged with other cultures. We should be much better at nation building, whether by invitation or as a rebuilder after war.

One reason is we do not have the expertise. The other is that we do not have the patience or the will to give other nations the gifts we have.

The biggest mistakes we made seem to be largely Rumsfeld related. We did not have enough boots on the ground to secure borders and lock down the country.

Aside from troops, we made a huge mistake allowing the lawlessness after the fall of Baghdad. We were so concerned with not being seen as occupiers that we didn't realize that we needed to occupy the country. If we had come down hard on the looters right away and established our power right away, we may have been in a much better spot right now.

Combine that with a less severe de-baathification and many of the early insurgents may have been busy mixing cement and welding bridges and getting paid for it.

Those reasons are why I do not think the invasion was a bad idea. I think there were many things that we did wrong since then that put us where we are now. If those mistakes had not been made, Iraq may very well have been seen as a success by this year. It wasn't foolish to think that we could spread democracy, the execution was poor.

THE BLAME GAME

The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East. This is an objective of overriding strategic importance to the United States, as it is to the rest of the international community - and its achievement will require an investment and commitment commensurate with that. We offer our full support to the President and Congress to accomplish these vitally important goals.

Ronald Asmus Max Boot Frank Carlucci Eliot Cohen

Ivo H. Daalder Thomas Donnelly Peter Galbraith Jeffrey Gedmin

Robert S. Gelbard Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Martin S. Indyk

Bruce P. Jackson Robert Kagan Craig Kennedy William Kristol

Tod Lindberg Will Marshall Joshua Muravchik Danielle Pletka

Dennis Ross Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt Walter Slocombe

James B. Steinberg R. James Woolsey

Statement on Post-war Iraq, March 19, 2003, Project for the New American Century

It is rather amazing for Bush to blame General Casey when General Franks created the excellent plan that was used to launch and conduct the war. When General McKiernan was trying to figure out how to get more troops to Iraq Wolfowitz told him the President wanted a plan to "off ramp" the troops if Saddem sooner than expected.

The Bush Administration from the top down and most especially Rumsfeld wanted to conducted the Iraqi war with as few troops as possible. This wasn't Casey's idea.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

We should be much better at nation building

SG: A start would be not to start

One reason is we do not have the expertise. The other is that we do not have the patience or the will to give other nations the gifts we have.

SG: Yah! Like Palestine ... we have no patience for those who don't exercise democracy the way we 'perscribe'

The biggest mistakes we made seem to be largely Rumsfeld related.

SG: Yah! Almost everybody in the Bush Admin had some relationship with Rumsfeld

It wasn't foolish to think that we could spread democracy, the execution was poor.

SG: As Palestine indicates, spreading democracy was never the intent ... and I saw the video, and the execution was very poor indeed

Snerd

Richard Nixon demeaning the Presidency demeaned our country (yes, and so did Bill Clinton). If Ford had let Nixon be legally accountable W might have been less willing to defraud us.

Tom

Pretty carefully crafted . Sentences 1 and 2 could be accepted by the rest of us if 3 read

We offer our full support to the President and Congress to accomplish these vitally important goals .....by all means short of war.

"feeding people and helping people is such very hard work I know"

I have no idea what this sentence has to do with the others. Are you being sarcastic? Are you saying that helping people and feeding people is actually easy? Helping downtrodden and hungry people is not easy, if that was what you were trying to say. Helping them gain the ability to cast away the crutch that is helping them is even more difficult. Giving people a fish is difficult and teaching them to fish is impossible unless you are highly trained or highly talented, or both.

"So instead we should invade their country killing possibly hundreds of thousands of them"

This is classic Bush Derangement Syndrome. I don't think you mistyped that line because you were in a rush. I think you meant it. I really do. You think American soldiers have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Does anyone else on the site want to jump in here and explain to this kid where he is wrong? Are you going to let me be the one to break the news? It might soften the blow coming from someone else.

"remove their government installing a pro-US one"

On multiple occasions you have made it clear that you don't like the idea of other countries having "pro-US" governments. Why would you live in a country that you detest so deeply? I hope EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH has a pro-US government. You don't hope for that. That isn't an accusation, I apologize if it looks insulting in print, I hesitate to even write it because it is so condemning, but it is REALLY how you feel. This is like the Bizarro world.

Sorry , it was humpty dumpty not the red queen. She said "off with their heads" which is an interesting suggestion altho the FBI or the coffee house censor may disagree.

Oooops ... yes I did, Red Planet

Snerd

The "hard work" quip was me doing my best Bush imitation.

No I don't think our soldiers have actually killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis...but our dumb ass president's "decisions" have.

No I have no problem with pro-US governments G.  I have a problem with us going into sovereign nations who might not be pro-US, removing and replacing their leaders and in that way trying to make countries pro-US...

I don't know, I think you are the one living in Bizarro World G...

Dent, don't be ridiculous. This statement was issued AFTER the invasion. The intent of the statement lies in "and its achievement will require an investment and commitment commensurate with that." - it's an attempt to push the US government to make a sufficiently strong commitment to nation-building in Iraq. At the time, with the invasion a fait accompli, this was the only responsible position; it was the moment of "we broke it, we own it". We know now that the government did not make a sufficiently strong or, more important, sufficiently competent commitment to nation-building in Iraq. But anyone who, in late March 2003, was spending their time lambasting the US for invading Iraq would have deserved nothing but scorn; at that point, the great thing was to try to push the government to get the occupation right. A year later, when it had become clear that the administration had irremediably botched the whole thing, it started to become more important to lambast them, for electoral purposes, to try and get a Democrat elected so we could remedy the situation.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Those "apples" correspond to a report in Sept that Rumsfeld asked General Jim Jones, SACEUR, about taking Abizaid's job. The idea presumably was to sack Abizaid before the election to signal "changes in strategy" without actually having to change strategy. Jones asked if it meant an actual change in strategy and Rumsfeld said it did not. Jones refused. Jone's refusal, on those grounds, would have signaled that no non-toady general would take the job either. With Rumsfeld left holding his own bag, he became a liability leading directly back to the President - it was time to go.

Notice that no general has stepped forward to take Abizaid's job, and wont until Casey is clearly on the way out too. I suspect that that is what this "thump Casey" fest is all about.

Dent, don't be ridiculous

At the time, with the invasion a fait accompli, this was the only responsible position

Let me join Dent then in being ridiculous. If that was the only responsible position , I salute those who were irresponsible and opposed the invasion when it was unpopular to do so. And am correspondinrly unimpressed by the "sunshine patriots" who signed that statement. Even granting the sincerity of the WMD arguments , the rush to invade against the advice of Hans Blix was bad policy which Ivo , in effect , endorsed .

I understand that if you're stuck with a a lemon at least you can try to make lemonade . And would have respected those who signed the
statement if it had at least been perceded by something like "without endorsing the decision to
invade at this time........."

Paint me ridiculous too.

Firstly, on point of fact, the invasion began on 20 March. So this statement indeed preceded the invasion.

Secondly, let's pull out the money quote from Ivo's piece:

"the problem is Bush’s failure understand what Iraq is all about."

That surely says it all. Someone who undeniably supported the invasion - despite it's evident illegality, it's strategic uselessness, the lack of broad international support, and the fact it would self-evidently divert us from the mission in Afghanistan - now blaming the person he was egging on for not "getting it".

And this goes back to the point of my earlier post - it seems if you supported the invasion in the first place, the knee-jerk response is to find someone else to blame for the fact things have gone so badly wrong, rather than question whether the mission itself was DoA.

Most importantly though, don't you think it is kind of important for people like Ivo to clarify whether they still believe "The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East", and they still offer "full support [...] to accomplish these vitally important goals."

I understand why the likes of Bush and his AEI programmers want to escalate the conflict. It is because they still really believe this sh*t. It's the same sh*t they believed in 2003 and well-before then it seems. And until the broader strategic debate is reframed, these fantasists will continue their reckless endeavors.

There's plenty more in your post I could take issue with, but in the interests of staying on topic, I'll go back to this issue of blame. Iraq is one of the greatest strategic disasters in American history - according to William Odom - and Bush's incompetence is not alone to blame. Those who thought the invasion to be "of overriding strategic importance to the United States" were badly wrong too, and it is this aspect of the debacle that needs to be scrutinized just as much as the botched occupation.

I will say this, however - I fully respect that many supporters of the Iraq War did so with good intentions. But good intentions must give rise to good outcomes, and for me, this was always unlikely with Iraq. And now I know from Woodward that Prince Saud warned Bush that removing Saddam by force would solve one problem but create five more... so really, any Iraq War backer playing the blame game needs to take a good look in the mirror.

I shouldn't demean the President? Bush has done far worse than demean this country, and it started the day he was elected. Since then, he's dishonored everything he touched, from our legal system to our military.

Snerd, I think you're on to something. There were all kinds of reasons we invaded Iraq; it's jsut that none of them were the ones announced in public. Each of the groups involved had their own selfish goals and a small part of our problems now is that these goals conflict: the desire for Iraq to be the cornerstone of the new American empire creates the chaos that adversely affects the Iraqi oil industry; getting rid of Saddam strengthens Iran, etc. And our "Great Decider" rises above it all in his self-loving delusion that his will is everything.

Yes, the last thing we would want to do in Darfur is act unilaterally.

Perhaps the second last thing we would want to do in Darfur is a joint operation with China and Russia. China, at least, has people there and some familiarity, as do France and India. Russia has no signficant involvement or experience. Germany and Italy have private sector involvement; Malaysia has financial involvement.

I don't want to see any outside country "help" in Darfur until there is a clear plan with a reasonable chance of making the situation better rather than worse. That includes paying attention to the logistics. That includes involvement with regional powers, such as Chad, Uganda, Kenya, and possibly Libya and Egypt, and, where appropriate, their patron states.

You may not want to hear it, but the situation in Darfur is such that a lot of people will die, and I see no prompt way to alleviate their misery. The janjaweed are only one threat, along with lack of food and distribution infrastructure, and internal fighting among factions. Fighting the janjaweed directly, with high-tech forces not based in Darfur or just outside it, would be about as feasible as chasing Comanches with AC-130s.

Before suggesting "helping" a situation, have a plan that makes some sense.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

We didn't act unilaterally in Kosovo - it was a NATO mission.

Would Shinseki's proposal have "worked", assuming the resources were available? As opposed to the meaning of "is", or, with due respect to the Knights that Go Ni, "it", we need to deal with the definition of "work".

If "work" meant get in, de-Baathize the true criminals, protect critical infrastructure including munitions dumps, get the apolitical technocrats back on the job, and probably assist with rebuilding specific subsystems such as the electrical grid, perhaps. Deciding there was no significant WMD or long-range delivery systems were present could well have been in the scope of "perhaps".

Assuming there had been serious progress on a multinational nation-building force, the combat elements could have opened the door for them, and perhaps an interim constabulary. Given the education and talent level of the populace, nation-building in Iraq is a very different proposition than in Somalia.

If "perhaps" meant imposing a political system that did not fit regional customs or culture, the effort was doomed. If regional stablilization was a goal, it wasn't going to happen unless there was something in it for Iran and Syria. Even then, there might have been a need for at least symbolic improvements between Israel and Palestine. I also think Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia had potentially important roles.

My own take was that focus should have stayed on Afghanistan until much more of the opposition was neutralized and the loya jirga was starting to produce results. There would also need to have been progress on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

At that point, limited construction engagement with the fUSSR Central Asian Republics would have been a long-term strategic interest. It didn't take utter genius to foresee something looking like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and offering some alternatives.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

All of a sudden approval from Congress and the United Nations doesn't count.
Talk about creative spin...
Give me a break.

Plus what was the real mission - to feed the military-industrial-complex a new round of contracts as the neverending war on terror replaces the neverending Cold War which, surprisingly for the military-industrial complex, ended. Also vengeance and Iraqi oil were part of the real mission. Imperialism is not going to work in the 21st century, but that is irrelevant to those who financially feed militarism and the military-industrial complex.

Tom

You've finally admitted that you believe Iraq was a bad idea from the start. I disagree with you that we acted unilaterally in Kosovo, but I'm glad to see you finally realize Iraq was a bad idea.

Tom

Just for the record, the point I was making exactly corresponds to the paragraph from Eddie-george that flavius just said "Bravo" about.

To clarify my own position, I do still believe:

"The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East", and do still offer "full support [...] to accomplish these vitally important goals."

Obviously Eddie-george and flavius don't (and perhaps never did). But like them I find it thoroughly objectionable for someone who ostentatiously made that public commitment to be so transparently engaged in a "blame game" about "quicksand".

And I'll argue that I believe it is in your and my short and long term interest to talk with more respect for opponents.  What is your rght does not mean that it is the best course of action.

My critique of the public life is that we trash opponents - be it the label of traitor from the current majority or dumbass and more from the folks out of power. The critique should be focused on policies and execution.  I try to think of what I want when the power rules are reversed.

And yes I am judging expectaions, but I was raised to with expectations and not rules. It was my responsiblity to do the right thing and not simply to stay within the literal rules.

Some historical precedent comes to mind. In WWII, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed for a limited 1942 invasion of France, Operation SLEDGEHAMMER*. Admittedly, the proposal did make some assumptions about German reverses as a prerequisite, but it did assume the landings would be against a (fortified) port such as Brest or Cherbourg. The catastrophic but informative Dieppe raid (Operation JUBILEE) later that year proved that attacking French coastal ports was an invitation to disaster. Still, Operation ROUNDUP* was another proposal for 1943.

The earliest time at which there were enough landing craft, trained troops, and specialized support such as mobile harbors was 1944, as Operation OVERLORD*. It showed the wisdom of the Combined Chiefs of Staff to wait until they were ready. Part of that readiness was also having detailed denazification, civil affairs, and military government plans under Operation RANKIN.

GWB's rush to Iraq is obvious even in Tommy Franks' rather Bush-positive autobiography. The urgency was never clear, other than from FUD.



*To the purists and specialists, yes, I know the relationships between ROUNDUP/SLEDGEHAMMER, OVERLORD/NEPTUNE, etc. For this discussion, TMI.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Are you going to storm off the playground with the kickball now, Tom?

You are having trouble understanding me so I will put it in a reading level you can access:

Your opinion: Unilateral is necessarily bad
My opinion: Unilateral is not necessarily bad

You are trying to vilify Bush for acting unilaterally and excuse Clinton for doing the same thing. Actually Congress approved of Bush's plan, so if you want to split hairs, he acted less unilaterally than Clinton. Either way the debate is irrelevant to me. Kosovo was a good idea and so was Iraq. The execution of both unilateral interventions exposed miscalculations and mistakes. Kosovo is regarded as a moderate success and Iraq is viewed as a failure right now.

I think if other countries like China don't agree with you, it may be a sign that you are actually doing the RIGHT thing.
Acting unilaterally is what John F. Kennedy was trying to get you to understand when he wrote Profiles in Courage.
Every situation is different and at times acting unilaterally is the only choice for someone with character. Other times acting with consent of others is a better way to get things done. I don't think we need China or Russia to approve of our actions to justify them. They should be looking to us for approval.

By YOUR standards Kosovo was a bad idea because it was unilateral. Congress didn't approve, the U.N. didn't approve. If that isn't unilateral, than nothing is. The word has meaning and you can't make up a new one for each situation. You are clearly against unilateral action, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. You think unilateral is always wrong. I think whether something is unilateral or multilateral has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. John F. Kennedy agrees with me.

Think about this quote for a minute:

"Always do what is right, regardless of whether it is popular"
-JFK

Consider raising the class of namecalling:

"He shines and stinks, like a rotten mackerel by moonlight."

"It would be possible to say without exaggeration that the miners' leaders were the stupidest men in England if we had not frequent occassion to meet the owners."

"I could carve out of a banana a man with more backbone than that."

"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

"Think of it! A second chamber selected by the Whips. A seraglio of eunuchs."

""Japan is not the same since with him [Yukio Mishima] gone, but his politics were a joke."

"It is not necessary that every time he rises he should give his famous imitation of semi-house-trained polecat."

""Don't spit in the soup. We've all got to eat."

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

"My objection to Liberalism is this—that it is the introduction into the practical business of life of the highest kind—namely, politics—of philosophical ideas instead of political principles." and "A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." Further covering the bases,"It is well-known what a middleman is: he is a man who bamboozles one party and plunders the other."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Sorry for not being utopian.

Can we now debate whether the Iraq invasion (and subsequent democratization etc) is still "of overriding strategic importance to the United States"?

The escalationists think so. Do you?

The Janjaweed is the main problem.
Disarming them would be bloody and it would also be the right thing to do. If they were disarmed, and people from the Red Cross and Oxfam could travel in safety, things could get better.

Fixing the infrastructure is what I have been talking about for weeks on this site. There are people in America who have the know how to change things for the better and there are people in the African Union, ECOWAS and the U.N. who know the local situations in the Sudan. If we can get those people together while the government sits down with the IMF and the World Bank to harness the economic growth they have had and funnel it into the right places, things can improve there. They are decades away from being productive, but if we can get them to the place Liberia or Sierra Leone is right now, we will have done something worthwhile.

Decency?  As in some kind of biblical morality?  Decency?

G, I usually treat all people decent even when I disagree with them.  Even you. In fact I think you have been far less decent to me then the other way around.  But that is neither here nor there because that is your perogative.  I have engaged in discourse with many people who are politically conservative and even in disagreement have not belittled them with ad hominems.  I might feel they are misguided in their views, like I know you feel about me and visa versa, but I don't feel they are dumb.

But as far as presidents go, Bush is a dumb ass...and I know you won't believe me, but yes I would say that to his face and risk being whisked off to GITMO and detained as an enemy combatant.

Yes, it shocks me, because "decency" is culturally defined. Perfectly "decent" acts in one culture are intensely offensive in another. Were you to come shivering into my house, sneezing from a snowstorm, I might well offer hot buttered rum. I would not do so to my Muslim friends.

I shall quote General Sir Charles James Napier, British Commander-in-Chief of India, in another comparison of decencies: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Thank you, Larry Flynt.

That's what you have to offer.

Oh boy...

Yes, thank you Larry Flynt. Hustler v. Falwell, it was a landmark Free Speech case in the SCOTUS, regarding parody of public figures.

(Perhaps I should have made the link in my previous comment, but I thought everyone would get what I meant...) 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Thanks for putting it on a playground level so someone like me can understand a self-proclaimed genius like you. I don't want to debate Kosovo. I supported it at the time & I don't want to debate it now. What I do want is for the needless killing to stop in Iraq. This is a moronic idea that is killing people as I type. It was a bad idea to do it without international support. It would have been a bad idea to do it with international support. Bush couldn't get international support because anybody who could read the international press could figure out the WMD thing was bogus & Sadaam was no threat to the US.

Tom

Seriously G...you have a lot of nerve in lecturing anybody on the left about the lack of civility in this country's political discourse.  Being that, politically, you are from the land of the Atwater, Rove, Norquist, Kristol, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly types who have been trying to pass off speech stifling ad hominem attacks on the left as civil political discourse for a long time.  

Would you like to see the civility of the discourse improve?  Well work on your side of the political spectrum before you start lecturing me or anybody else on the left.

"you are from the land of the Atwater, Rove, Norquist, Kristol, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly types"

First of all, these people are from a wide range of conservative camps and I cringe that you lump them together. Limbaugh is nowhere near O'Reilly as just one example.

Second of all, Coulter and Limbaugh are absolutely part of the problem. They love the ad hominem attacks and it reveals the weakness of the argument they are trying to make. When someone resorts to ad hominem or straw man arguments, they are conceding the debate to the other person.
I was trying to point that out to you a few days ago when you used those methods, but apparently you didn't realize that you conceded the points I made.

Third of all, I am not in their camp. I am not a republican. I am an independent and I lean conservative on the majority of the current issues.

I agree that right-wing people do a poor job controlling themselves just like the left. The right attacked Clinton (and they still do) with classless, denigrating comments. Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are perfect examples. It is hard to take someone seriously when they resort to schoolyard language.
WABC radio and Air America are both virtually useless stations because (aside from their bald faced slant) they use this type of debate strategy and it is a losing strategy all the time.

Any time you have to use the word "jackass" "dumbass" or anything in the ball park, you are revealing to the rest of the world that you don't have the intellectual chops to prove what you feel in your gut.
If there were anyone not left of center on this site, and they called Clinton a (whatever) I would politely ask them to stop using that kind of language, just as I have politely asked you.

I am trying to help you become a better debater. If you want to continue losing arguments go ahead. I disagree with your views anyway, so it makes me happy to see your side of the argument degenerate into logical fallacyland.

I bet you really believe that.

Unless you are throwing crass language around like it’s your own feces, people won't respect you.
Just remember that vulgarity is the last refuge of the lost argument.

To take an academic cliche, presentism.

In a hard choice, I'll take Flynt's publications over Washington's slaves.

No, I don't usually find vulgarity necessary to express myself, but I find the sanctimonious preaching of social conservatives intent on enforcing their traditional values (from 1954) far less preferable than being informed that a specific fucker is fucked. It's not Flynt versus Washington. It's Flynt versus Norquist or Wildmon.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

No, I do not see such a culture. I find freedom of speech, even vulgar speech, to be a more essential value than the demonization of dissent, ignoring the Constitution, and creating a culture that really should be pointing at Emmanuel Goldstein rather than Osama bin Laden as the Chief Enemy. Let me fondly hope that no one will give Karl Rove directions to Room 101.

I find your inability to cope with vulgarity a significant difficulty in discussion, given your frequent diversion of content to your impression of a cat, indignantly wet.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Precisely what does the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have to contribute to a problem in East Africa and the Sahel?

Fixing the infrastructure is what I have been talking about for weeks on this site.

1. Changing economic sanctions to selective investment -- indeed economic warfare -- in South Sudan


2. Getting French and Chadian agreement to operate a Western Darfur no-fly zone. Mirage 2000 aircraft would be nice, but Alphajets lend themselves nicely and are available from other countries in the region.


3. Insisting on access to Khartoum International and the nearby refinery for flights into Darfur, with sealift at Port Sudan


4. Build an all-weather airstrip and fuel depot at Babanusa.


5. Test armed and protected trains between Babanusa and Nyala


6. Upgrade Nyala airport


7. Pave road between Nyala and El Fasher, with branches to major displaced persons camps


8. Work with Kenya to break bureaucratic bottlenecks for railroad construction by Thormaehlen
9. 
   
10. Even before the railroad is restored, build road and support facilities Babanusa-Awei-Juba-Nalukolongo Warehouse

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Larry Flynt is the example that you hold up. He is the role model. You really believe Larry Flynt did something good by pushing the limits of free speech.

Of course I do.

Flynt did something good by standing up to the religious fundamentalists who think their version of "decency" and "free speech" are the only ones around.

The fact that the SCOTUS accepted his case, and, in turn, further defined how far our Constitution allows the limits of free speech to be pushed, is simply icing on the cake.

Parody is an important tradition in our country, one that is fully protected free speech. That's what the SCOTUS held, and I believe that's exactly the way our Founders saw things shaking out in this country. We push limits, and we use the legislative process and the courts to determine our boundaries. And we cautiously err on the side of free speech. Because without our first amendment rights, without the ability to say what we want, to express ourselves artistically, politically, in whatever form we choose, then we are nothing. Certainly not a free nation.

Look, I'm sorry if the Constitution of our country allows for, in your view, indecent people like me and Larry Flynt to express ourselves the way we want. And in a way you don't think is proper. But it does.

Anyway, I only read the articles in those magazines.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"Precisely what does the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have to contribute to a problem in East Africa and the Sahel?"

Howard, you are confusing western Chad with the Atlantic Ocean. Using that logic, France was too far away to provide any insight and knowledge about Bosnia. You don't think that ECOWAS can help provide insight into the Sahel? 3 or 4 of its member countries are Sahel countries! Niger doesn't count for some reason?

"3 weeks 5 days being your time on the site, I just might have been posting about the subject a bit longer than you have done so."

Ok, obviously I have gotten under your skin in some way. What does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to discredit me with some perverse form of blog-based levelism? I love to see the emotion, Howard. A moment of uncharacteristic weakness, but it is understandable. For the record, I wasn't BORN 3 weeks ago. There are (just maybe) a few other places one can learn about Darfur. Maybe you can try a few. Sorry, buddy! Nice try, but I saw right through it.

As to your prescription--
I openly admit that I am not very educated about the Sudanese situation.
Having said that, I have some issues with what you wrote.

"Changing economic sanctions to selective investment"

The Sudanese economy is surprisingly good right now, that is one of the few bright spots for the future. Why erode that with sanctions, selective investment or any other prohibitive form of economics? Why not make things safe for the people of the Sudan, then take all of the shackles off the economy? Why not make things safe and then promote investment? Why not increase their ability to produce, create and innovate? Oh- we don't want to impose our values, that's right.

"Getting French and Chadian agreement to operate a Western Darfur no-fly zone. Mirage 2000 aircraft would be nice, but Alphajets lend themselves nicely and are available from other countries in the region."

You suggest doing this for how long? Why dance around the issue? What is the problem with destroying their air force?

The rest of your list seems to imply that the janjaweed are already defeated and the country has been turned over to moderates. What am I missing here? How did you get from #2 to #3?

"demonization of dissent"

Sorry Howard. I realize you are a cult hero on this site, but I have lost track of how many times you have used this style. I have already called you out on this, exposed you, and now this is getting repetitive. Either you are trying to make the Guiness book for most straw man arguments in a 30 day span, or you are too blind to your own biases to even realize you are doing it.

Take a look around Howard-- who is the lone dissenter on this site and who is being demonized? Ouch. That must have hurt.
Face it, you've been TKO'd.

Enough of the straw man routine, seriously. You do a great job debating when you address reality, stick with that.
This is getting so repetitive it bores me to tears, but once again I will explain this to you.
I have never said anything about dissent being evil.
Never.
Not even close.
I have simply, and politely, asked some posters to watch their language.
THAT IS ALL.
What's more, you must know this. You must. There is no way someone as super smart as you could confuse what I was saying with what you accused me of. It has to be on purpose, but for what reason? Why would you deliberately...of wait...maybe it's because you can't defeat my argument. Maybe that is why people always use the straw man. Maybe?

Isn't Casey well known for kowtowing to Bush's dumb ideas?

Tom

How about going by this rule - don't lie to start wars.

Tom

Methinks your tone here is not so "decent".

Tom

Specifically? You have equated criticism, including mocking criticism, of the President to treasonable activities. What's your definition of demonization? Does one have to demonstrate horns and a tail?

Folk hero, indeed.

Let us, however, address your plaint that you have only asked some posters to watch their language. Whether you have been consistently polite in doing so is quite open to debate. Nevertheless, who appointed you the arbiter of refinement? I choose not to use vulgarity, but I fully understand why some may feel angry enough to use it. Others may not have the verbal skill to do otherwise, but I do not insist they be silenced. A robust republic is not a decorous place, nor is even a convent free from sacred ecstasy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I thought I was the cult hero around here:)

Tom

Actually, dumbass is a pretty good description of Bush, in my opinion. Since I think you are not a good debater I don't think you should be lecturing others on how to be a good debater. You're the one judging that you're winning all the arguments. I think your losing all the arguments.

Tom

I rather like donkeys. Why taint their reputation?

Mind you, I also like elephants. It was an honor, I believe, to have watched one lose his virginity. My respect for the dedication of the civil servants of the National Park Service grew immensely when one brave zookeeper attempted to assist the awkward male teenager with his aim.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Was it Mr. Dooley who told the tale of the man who complained about his job in the circus, following behind the elephants with a shovel and a barrel? "Well, if you hate the job so much, why not leave it?"

And get out of show business?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Much as I find myself in frequent disagreement with GHaines, I have to agree that it's unwise to group the list of "celebrity agitators" either as monolithic, or as conservatives by any serious political science definition of conservatism. "Demagogue" is closer to what they share, except that I generally think of a demagogue as using their position as a means to personal or organizational power.

My posting history, here and elsewhere, should establish that I do not find it necessary to use gratuitous vulgarity. Yes, in very exceptional circumstances, I may use it to give a certain flavor, but, also under exceptional circumstances, I may comment "Oh my goodness. Dear me."

The listed individuals do happily embrace vulgarity either in the most literal form, or, using somewhat indirect language, accuse those not their sycophants of pervesion, disloyalty, or failing to floss. Limbaugh, at least, has the grace to call himself an entertainer, and, save the number of people who take him seriously, could be a contender for the role of attack comedian. It's hard for me to imagine Beck taken any more seriously than Ramsey Clark, although I must admit I can appreciate Ann Coulter as long as she has no access either to sound or text.

But conservatism? I don't think most of them could articulate one theory of conservatism, if that many. I find the viciousness of many as venomous as the same sentiments expressed as vulgarity -- except, perhaps, a bit more honest.

That I do not call George W. Bush a relatively unintelligent animal speaks more of my respect for animals than of his policies.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Given that there are East African and Red Sea regional organizations, citing a West African regional organization and not naming others closer to the area does not cause one to fall in awe at your grasp of the subject."

CEMAC? Is that who you are talking about? Are you kidding? What other organization has it together like ECOWAS? Not that ECOWAS is great, but they are by far, the best the region has to offer. Besides, CEMAC died with Kabila's swearing in ceremony. I would have expected an expert like you to know something that basic. You aren't fooling anyone, sorry.

"I know how much you hate Orwellian references, but could you try to take that out of the realm of Newspeak into English?"

Howard, you were making the case that somehow because you have been commenting on this blog longer than I have that your opinion mattered more. Why am I explaining your own strategy to you?

"Perhaps it is because I have spent considerable time dealing with the subject"

You are very confident for a guy who thinks CEMAC is a better local option than ECOWAS. Maybe you ought to spend a little more time.

"I notice you have not commented at all on any of the logistical issues"

Actually I did. I asked how you got from #2 to #3 in your list. I understand that you meant for them to be done in no particular order, which is how every good plan works-- randomly. I gave you too much credit, I apologize. Luckily for you, #1 and #2 can be done without any fighting. The other randomly sequenced ideas involve people on the ground. I ask again, how do you propose we get people on the ground? Do we unilaterally invade? Do we wait for China and Russia to give us the OK? Do the janjaweed invite us in? They are guarding the borders now in case you missed it during your "considerable" research.
You missed the single biggest part of the plan, H. Otherwise paving the supply roads sounds great.

"I give you kudos for at least admitting their tactics suck, is only meant to stifle debate and their arguments are wrong in their conclusions."

Sorry to say, Lib, but you share that strategy with them. I think you are above that, but we'll see.

"Do you actually say this on the conservative sites I am sure you belong to?"

I don't belong to any. I only came here because Ivo invited me and I expected a high level of conversation. Outside of DanK and TomWright, I am uninspired. I disagree with them both on virtually everything, but they know how to argue. They don't concede points via logical fallacy.

"The way he is trying to tear down the checks and balances inherent in the Seperation of Powers is severely damaging the fabric of our government, maybe permanently."

I disagree, but here is an example of a persuasive argument. Stick to this type of stuff.

"And because of this I think he is a dumb ass president."

I hate to say it, but when each post you write is littered with spelling and grammar mistakes, it is hard to side with you. I don't think anyone should throw stones, but it looks especially bad when you have a glass house, so to speak.

"The moment we start telling people certain speech is "out of bounds" where does it end?"

It ends at civility. I don't know if you have kids, but if they told their teacher to go f**k himself, would you applaud their splendid use of free speech? What if the kid at the checkout counter called a customer in front of you a dumbass? Would you say something? Certain speech is out of bounds. It isn't illegal, but it is out of bounds. If you don't believe me come down to the Bronx and use the N word. Then you would get to feel what freedom of expression feels like.