General Disgust
George W. Bush claims he ignores polls and politicians when it comes to advice on Iraq and that he relies strictly on the judgement of the generals on the ground.
Apparently not.
Retired Major General John Batiste --Â a lifelong Republican who commanded the U.S. Army's 1st infantry division in Iraq in 2003 and 2004-- says that the Bush administration ignored ten year's of CENTCOM planning and "started something we weren't prepared to finish."
Batiste on Thursday became the fifth former general to lash out against administration policy in Iraq and to call for the sacking of DefSec Don Rumsfeld. Shortly after Batiste spoke out on CNN, a sixth general -- Retired Major General Charles Swannack-- joined the anti-Rumsfeld chorus. Swannack, the former commander of the legendary 82nd Airborne Division who led ground troops in Iraq as recently as 2004, told CNN "we need a new secretary of Defense."
It's an extraordinary moment in American politics whenever you get a half-dozen generals to come out on a politically controversial matter -- especially one that involves the top civilian defense official. That some of these generals were leading commanders in a war that is still being fought is unprecedented. OK, make that earth-shaking.
Friday's New York Times reports an angry, pent-up and now unleashed "blizzard" of phone calls and emails among mililtary officers concerned about Rumsfeld's leadership. Columnist David Ignatius of the Washington Post estimates that 3/4 of the American officer corps wants to see Rummy dumped. Predictably enough, the White House issued its usual sort of boilerplate defense of Rumsfeld.
My track record on predicting this sort of stuff rather sucks. I thought Rummy was going into the can two years ago when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.Â
Three thoughts, however, come to mind as the circle of Anti-Rummy criticism widens: it's great that these former generals are now speaking out but how much better it would have been if they had done so during or before the war; George W. Bush seems determined to go down with the ship on Iraq and that means Rummy isn't going anywhere except down with him; and what difference would it make at this juncture to replace him anyway? It's seems like too little too late. You can't unring the bell. And you most certainly can't revive the squandered dead.
P.S. Some readers and commenters have expressed sharp disagreement with my use of the words "the squandered dead." I understand. It is painful to admit that the lives of thousands have been wasted -- especially if you know or are related to any of the fallen. To call their sacrifice squandered, however, is neither blasphemous nor in this case incorrect. It in no manner belittles or disresepcts their individual worth or heroism. On the contrary, my comment is a lament that such individual valor, that so much human worth, that the beloved sons and daughters and husbands of so many, have been sacrificed by arrogant and (in some cases) ignorant politicians and opportunists. This position is no different than that of the 6 former generals who are now speaking out. I find them to be quite respectable company.
April 13th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Fred Kaplan at Slate had a good discussion of this a day or two ago, centered around the Newbold piece in Time magazine, and Kaplan gets into the issue of why officers don’t speak up more:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/
April 14th, 2006 at 12:37 am
I just listened, belatedly, to Terry Gross’s interview with Seymour Hersh regarding the administrations tentaive plans to use the tac nuke option on Iran. (BTW….Why does Sy Hersh say long-I Irag, and long-I Iran? He’s a smart guy. Why not pronounced the name of the freaking country correctly?????)
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=04-12-2006&view=storyview
At the end of the interview, Hersh observed, rather correctly I suspect, that Rummy is much less harmful to the administration inside the tent than—God, forbid—tossed outside the administration and…..(gasp)….talking.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:40 am
Marc, when do we get to discuss Iran’s nuclear program?
April 14th, 2006 at 3:06 am
Haven’t we already observed that one of Bush’s most predictable qualities is loyalty? Rummy’s going nowhere anytime soon.
I wonder about retired generals who complain publicly, after retirement, about their civilian commanders. Seems a little like sour grapes. Especially when discussing policy and politics rather than military strategy and tactics.
Still, were I POTUS, Rummy would have been gone a long time ago as he has long been a political liability.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:12 am
How ironic that common people began to say this years ago…and we certainly didnt know how to run a war. BUt we knew enough to see that we never had enough troops and Dumsfeld was bullying the militray into making poor decsions.
Every single person in this admin who has not spoken up about how this country was tricked into war, needs to be held accountable and culpable for the deaths of every soldier and civilian in Iraq.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:32 am
I don’t know rob – that “accountability” thing seems sort of extreme. After all, a nation is misled into war by the cabal we actually have, not the cabal we might have wished for.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:47 am
Below is a little “something” I put together regarding oor latest adventure; you might initially think it’s OT, but unfortunately it is not.
Shaken but not stirred
007 PLEASE REPORT TO DUTY!
James Bond where are you? Dr. Strangelove and his cabal are at it again—and it’s getting creepy and quite scary!
Military chieftains at the pentagon are having “pow wows,†over what’s the best way to employ tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.
You would think that the Iraq debacle would be enough of an OMEN, do we need another albatross hung around our neck.
The Bush’s gang is gearing up for an attack on Iran; Bush will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. “We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran],” is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement.
But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration’s use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran will be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential.
Iran occupies a strategic location on the north side of the Persian Gulf, it is in a position to threaten oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates, which together possess more than half of the world’s known oil reserves. Iran also sits adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world’s oil exports pass.
In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran’s potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States that ultimately determines our government’s military strategy.
Iran’s nuclear facilities are scattered throughout the entire country. To launch an aerial attack, you would need many more fighter jets than were used in Iraq. How many civilians would be annihilated by missiles that don’t always have that pin-point accuracy to reach just the right target, and what further insurgencies will an attack like that incite.
In addition, if these nuclear facilities were attacked, military strategists say that steps would need to be taken in order to prevent large-scale nuclear contamination from the resulting damage done to the reactors.
James Bond: Good morning, gentlemen. ACME pollution inspection. We’re cleaning up the world; we thought this was a suitable starting point.
Seymour Hersh is an investigative reporter who contributes to the New Yorker, and gained worldwide recognition for exposing the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War.
In January 2005, Hersh alleged that the US was conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. The US government has not categorically denied that US troops have been on the ground in Iran.
And in the April 17, 2006 of The New Yorker, Hersh reported on the Bush Administration’s alleged plans for an air strike within Iran, and that an American nuclear first strike would be using the bunker-buster nuclear weapon, to eliminate underground Iranian uranium enrichment facilities.
What the heck are bunker-buster nuclear weapons? Well, they are nuclear weapons designed to penetrate into rock or concrete to deliver a nuclear warhead, and would be used to destroy underground military bunkers. Supposedly these weapons would diminish the amount of radioactive nuclear fallout.
Is There a Safe Way to blow a Country to Smithereens???
Well maybe that’s the case in graphic novels or science fiction sagas, but in reality, if you release a nuclear warhead to hit a target you will also be releasing radioactive fallout.
Underground testing indicates that fallout “leaks” through the roof of the cavity created by the explosion. And most targets are near cities, and even minimal fallout will inflict collateral damage. So how many civilians need to be killed, radiated, or mutilated before the U.S. military realizes that bunker-busters are not tactical toys, but are DEADLY WEAPONS and will destroy an entire civilian population.
At a March 11 hearing, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Hobson (R-OH) made clear his sentiments regarding the Administration’s nuclear weapons initiatives.
To Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Hobson said:
“I find it really hard to conceive of any circumstances under which this country would even use a nuclear weapon again whether or not the weapon is low-yield, whether or not it is a more robust version of an existing weapon and whether or not it would be used against a hard and buried target. Despite those constraints, DOE seems to think they should spend another half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ dollars to explore and test the concept of Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This kind of, quote, ‘Money is no object,’ unquote thinking might have been the norm for the nuclear weapons complex during the Cold War years, but I think it’s completely out of touch with the political and fiscal realities that we face today.”
President Bush cited Hersh’s reports as “wild speculation†but did not deny its veracity.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:53 am
I agree with the title “General Disgust” as it applies to Marc’s last sentence inferring that our braves soldiers died in vain, calling them the “squandered dead.” He, as do others with narrow or closed minds, ignore the good news and accomplishments of Iraq by making such false statements and, thereby, join in the ranks of the insipid Cindy Sheehan’s.
—–
I do share the feeling of “general disgust” with generals who say one thing now when it can benefit them personally (for money and payback) and said the opposite thing earlier when it, yes, benefited them personally financially. They have put themselves above their country–either now or then depending upon what you want to believe.
But, there are various and other possibilites:
(1) The generals really changed their minds–but, based upon what new information they didn’t have before is a mystery. So, I discount that.
(2) They did have integrity and did state their honest views in the past but are not doing that now, in which case they are in a sybiotic relationship with the left. “I’ll tell you what you what to hear, even if I don’t believe it, and you will ‘praise and pay’ me (plus, I can stick it to Rummy.)” If this praise and pay scenario is the case, then you should not trust anything that they say today–nor report it.
(3) Lastly, as Marc indicates, these generals believed then what they say today; therefore, if they had courage and integrity, they would have resigned their positions immediately and taken a stand. If this last case is true, because the generals didn’t resign and take a stand and because their messages are inconsistent and tainted with personal gain, I discount anything that they say at this point. They are without honor and should not be respected or trusted, nor should the press credit them for some new found courage that they lacked as generals on active dutyand on the field of battle.
But, I can count on the left to jump up and down and heros out of liars, which isn’t inconsistent with their whole program. Situational ethics (or total lack of ethics) is a tool in their toolbox.
If you want to issue “general disgust,” be sure to reserve plenty for the people putting these retired (and perhaps disgraced) generals on a pedestal.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:59 am
Correction: The beginning sentence in my second to last paragraph above omitted the word make. It should have read, “But, I can count on the left to jump up and down and make heros out of liars….” That was the only mistake in the sentence, for which the message it conveys is correct.
April 14th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Actually, Woody, that’s not the only mistake in the sentence. You misspelled “heros.” It’s “heroes.”
You are also a tool.
April 14th, 2006 at 7:10 am
p://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1378195,00.html
Woody,
This is an “amusing” and insightful NYT article written in 2004.
p.s. try using “SpellCheck.”
April 14th, 2006 at 8:09 am
“George W. Bush seems determined to go down with the ship on Iraq and that means Rummy isn’t going anywhere except down with him; and what difference would it make at this juncture to replace him anyway? It’s seems like too little too late. You can’t unring the bell. And you most certainly can’t revive the squandered dead.â€
It’s reassuring to know that we are sailing on the Titanic, perhaps, for the remaining years of Bush’s presidency, instead of playing “Hail To the Chief,†we can ask Celine Dion to sing the theme song from the movie “Titanic.â€
Just imagine how spectacular it would be and what an exciting entrance Bush would make, as he skips down the royal red carpet during “state functions,†while Celine sings “My Heart Will Go On.â€
“Every night in my dreams, I see you, I feel you
that is how I know you go on.
Far across the distance, and spaces between us
You have come to show you go on.â€
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is regularly singing the above verse.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:14 am
what I wouldn’t give to see a panal discussion with Woody and those six generals with the opnening questions: “Gentlemen, Woody has suggested that you are either dishonest men selling your allegience for a book deal or cowards to be ignored, any response?” They’d eat him alive.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:14 am
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1378195,00.html
It didn’t hyperlink in my previous posting.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:45 am
The panel with Woody would be fun, Mavis. But not to worry, the political damage to Rumsfeld and Bush from these dishonest, cowardly, greedy generals is satisfaction enough–and gives more hope that the squandering of lives in Iraq might come to an end sooner rather than later.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:21 am
If Midge Decter joins the chorus he’s in trouble. Here’s why.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Hey, Randy, the 71% Amazon discount on that book corresponds closely to Bush’s disapproval ratings. Coincidence? I don’t think so!
April 14th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Spelling Lesson
Chris, I’m glad that a spelling error was all that was wrong with what I wrote, and thanks for pointing it out. Now, I’m embarrassed to admit this, but when I quickly proofread by comment, the plural of hero didn’t look quite right so, believe it or not and after all of these years, I looked it up. I hate admitting that. Here’s the link I used: http://m-w.com/dictionary/hero
Here’s what it provided:
Main Entry: he·ro
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hErOs
plural usually heros
Maybe you can see how I made my mistake and took a researched spelling over my intuitive spelling. I accept your correction and will watch my spelling a little more carefully until Marc Cooper gets his spell checker fixed. In the meantime, I believe that the rest of my research was accurate. Thank you.
I hope that the rest of you enjoyed this brief spelling lesson and the importance of proper communication. Think how much worse it would have been if I could only communicate in Spanish.
===============
Panel Discussion with Integrity Impaired Former Generals
Mavis, I would be game for that panel discussion. I presented three possible scenarios, each of which indicated that these former generals should not be considered reliable, objective, and independent sources. I bet that the generals would agree with me, because the analysis is logical. They’re not trying to fool people like me. They want people like you to buy their upcoming books and watch their paid-for interviews.
But, since that panel discussion isn’t going to happen unless I get the same money that they do, maybe you can fill in for them and give me the rebuttals that you would expect from them to “eat me alive” if they chose to do that.
==============
Left’s Situational Ethics
To illustrate my point that the left believes that the end justifies the means, no matter how dishonorable the means, Michael Beldar wrote: …the political damage to Rumsfeld and Bush from these dishonest, cowardly, greedy generals is satisfaction enough….
See.
April 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Left’s Situational Ethics
I’ll tell you what’s dishonest and cowardly (I’ll leave out greedy for now): Refusing to face the truth about Iraq because you are afraid that your political opponents might turn out to be right about something and that is not allowed in your black and white worldview.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Eleanore, I checked the amusing The Sunday Times article written in 2004.
One thing that is amusing is that the MSM and most of the commenters on this site have been predicting and betting on the downfall of everyone in the White House for years. Las Vegas would have a field day cleaning up on these emotional betters.
I take articles from The Times, whether in NY or London, with the same sense of seriousness that I do from the source of the articles below.
Should Rumsfeld Resign?
U.S. Secretary of Defense Humiliated As U.S. Credit Card Rejected
New Poll Finds 86 Percent of Americans Don’t Want to Have a Country Anymore
April 14th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Beldar, I have always been willing to admit when I’m wrong–if justified with adequate and correct information. Whether or not our entry into Iraq was based on reliable information doesn’t change where we are now…and, I don’t believe that our soldiers have died in vain. I want what’s best for our country–not what’s best for the Republican Party if that is different (which it usually isn’t.)
April 14th, 2006 at 11:23 am
So, Marc, how do you square writing attacks on the Bush administration while signing on to http://eustonmanifesto.org/, a prowar outfit initiated by “decent left” warmongers Nick Cohen and Norm Geras? I guess this is because you hate the antiwar movement more than you hate the warmakers. Or maybe you are hedging your bets–no surprise for somebody who spends so much time in Las Vegas.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:32 am
I know you aren’t really looking for an anwer, Woody, but I’ll take a stab at your pretend question:
The generals probably would say that they had reservations all along and chose not to reveal them publically for the reasons that Fred Kaplan points out: 1st, the civilian leadership made it clear early on they didn’t like people publicly contradicting them – see General Shinseki. 2nd, many soldiers take seriously the idea of civilian authority and remained silence out of deference. In this scenario, they are speaking out of concern for the nation.
Another possibility is they were ambivilent before, but as this debacle has gotten worse their convictions have grown and they want to make their objections heard. They feel the white house is still on the wrong track and Rumsfeld symbolizes and aggravates that error. Again, here they’re concerned about America’s well being.
And lastly, it’s possible that they’re looking to deflect blame from the military. Here they’re partly covering their own mistakes and partly showing profound loyalty to the military instead of the nation.
So there are really a series of possibilities that aren’t covered in your run down. If your main goal is to defend the administration, I would suggest you argue that these former military leaders are overly concerned about the reputation of the military and not that they’re crooks selling their souls for a book deal. Of course, if your interested in the truth, you’d have to actually listen to what they say.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Marc Cooper wrote: “It’s seems like too little too late. You can’t unring the bell. And you most certainly can’t revive the squandered dead.”
Aren’t a lot of the Generals speaking up now because of opposition to war plans for Iran? They might be trying to prevent another disaster of Rumsfeld meddling with Military planning.
I understand the rumor is that the Pentagon is being asked to consider Nukes, which is causing deep divisions. Rumsfeld might be bullying the Pentagon on Iran just like with Iraq.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
I have serious misgivings and mixed feelings about the way the retired Generals are speaking now. I think it possibly raises troubling qustions about civilian control of the military if retired military officials are using public media sources to become essentially political players in the Washington scene. Of course, the military is already a political force now, but those politics have remained inside a more discreet channel. This public questioning of policy veers in a dangerous direction.
Let’s presume the question is something not so readily embraced, like criticism of the Iraq war, and instead imagine that these guys have decided that a Democratic president is unfit to be commander in chief and start saying so on Russert’s show. This may seem far fetched, but it gets at the heart of my worry.
It’s not for the Generals to decide who their civilian boss is. If they start to get the notion that this is ok we march down a road in the cheery company of Pakistan, Chile, Iraq, you get the idea. And I submit this path would be much worse, should we go down it, for the left than for anyone else. Be careful what you’re cheering about here.
I admit these guys are retired, and you don’t hear active duty generals talking publicly in this way, and that’s exactly as it should be. I’m happy to read their unattributed thoughts in Hersh’s articles.
Lincoln got to cycle through Generals until he found the one he liked. It doesn’t work the other way round.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Las Vegas would have a field day cleaning up on these emotional betters.
For once I agree with you, Woody. They are your emotional betters.
BTW, Michael Balter doesn’t need me to defend him, but the last name is Balter not Beldar. I don’t see anyone taking puerile potshots at your name, notwithstanding the tempting possibilities. Perhaps you could afford Michael the same courtesy.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
“This public questioning of policy veers in a dangerous direction.”
I would agree that we don’t our generals playing politics. But what we do want them to do is speak up when the men and women under their command are dying because of the arrogance and callousness of civilian leaders. As Marc and others have said, it is tragic that they did not so much earlier.
April 14th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
“Aren’t a lot of the Generals speaking up now because of opposition to war plans for Iran? ”
Excellent point, Alex. Here’re the opening ‘graphs of Sy Hersh’s New Yorker piece on that subject, which he just told Terry Gross was written because BTW….former and present intelligence and military folks pressed him to look into this Bomb Iran plan that they believe is madness.
Friends with contacts on the inside have been warning me about this probability for six months, and now it appears they were right, as we watch the administration gearing up their PR routine to prepare us for the next stage, which will be some supposed casus belli—concocted or imagined.
(Hey, they gotta deal with the diving poll numbers somehow, right.) And, no, I’m not wearing a tinfoil hat. Thank you for asking.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.
There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. …
April 14th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
The call for Rumsfeld’s removal is off target. Nothing that Rumsfeld has done has diverged in the least from what the rest of the cabal of Bush, Cheney and Rice has been pushing for the last 5 years. To suggest that if it weren’t for Rumsfeld we’d not only be winning in Iraq but celebrating a successful presidency is pretty fanciful. Unfortunately these generals, as Colin Powell before them, with their poking about the edges are incapable of admitting that this is the most disastrous presidency in our history.
April 14th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
all ranks above colonel are presidential appointee.
another view
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/04/grumbles_from_t.html
April 14th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
By the way, the U.S. putting combat troops in Iran is an act of war. We’ve already started a war against them.
Iran is over 10 years away from having nuclear weapons. It’s a joke to see Iran as any sort of threat. Bush is cooking up a lot of lies just like the lies about Iraq in order to justify an increased attack on Iran. Bush is already attacking Iran, a country that has done the U.S. no danger whatsover.
It’s really doublespeak as Bush does to talk about Iran, ten years away from having a bomb, has any sort of danger and then to play bombing attacks on Iran. It’s also hypocritcal of Bush to sign his recent nuclear treay with India, which does have the nuclear bomb. India and Pakistan, both of whuch have nuclear weapons, have fought three wars. If Bush were really interested in stopping weapons of mass destruction, he would have never signed that nuclear treaty with India.
The United States is already isolated internationally because of Bush’s folly. But Bush, Rumsfield et al. seem intent on increasing their already failed policies in Iraq with sheer idiocy in Iran.
April 14th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
This just in!!!!! What a shocker!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060414/D8H015600.html
Pulling rank, President Bush on Friday rebuffed recommendations from a growing number of retired generals that he replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “He has my full support,” said the commander in chief.
Well, this is the first that I have read the following. Notice why Batiste quit. It’s not out of principle or concern about Iraq.
Batiste said he retired rather than accept a promotion to lieutenant general because he could not accept Rumsfeld’s management style.
Separately, Batiste told interviewers on CBS’s “The Early Show,” that he had served under a defense Secretary “who didn’t understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn’t build a strong team.”
Waahhhhhhh. I guess you people on the left share his pain. Let’s have a group hug. My goodness. A general who complains that his boss is mean to him. Good riddance.
And, you thought he quit over policy differences.
I’m going to throw up.
************
Randy, the play on Balter’s name was a joke…he’s from France. Beldar is from France. Get it? Gee. It’s tough to be around sensitive people.
Now, back to throwing up.
April 14th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Julia Stein said: The United States is already isolated internationally because of Bush’s folly.
So what?! I don’t care what people in France, Germany, or Russia say that we should do. This international isolationism is a bit overblown. I’m an American and care about America, and my views haven’t been negatively tainted by living around a bunch of foreigners who never liked us anyway. We’ll do what’s best for our country. They can do what’s best for them, as they always have. We’re even.
Maybe you would like to have continued the international solutions of the U.N. of issuing toothless sanctions to Hussein for another twelve years.
Whether or not we did the right thing about going into Iraq, at least we were willing to try something rather than sit around wringing our hands saying woe is us while Hussein threatened a region and laughted. Actions speak louder than words, and he’s in prison now because of us. Where would we have been if we were still waiting on the U.N.? I dread thinking about it.
Okay, enough ranting. I’m going back to tax returns, but let me leave you with this special thought…Vice President Dick Cheney just filed his tax returns and is receiving a $1.9 million refund!! I wonder if he qualified for the earned income credit?
April 14th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Woody wrote: “Where would we have been if we were still waiting on the U.N.? I dread thinking about it.”
No need to wait for the UN. But in another year, the US might have been able to form an international coalition to force Hussein out of power, maybe in exile to Syria, whatever.
We may have even still invaded Iraq as part of an International Occupying force with Hussein out of power to maintain order and build a democratic Iraq.
This is just one scenario, from my own imagination, so take it for what its worth. The point is, far from shuddering, it is not hard at all to come up with quite positive scenarios if Bush had not invaded Iraq in 2003 under the circumstances with which he chose to do so.
Of course, I don’t have visions of Mushroom clouds dancing in my head. I never believed that a Nuclear Iraq was a possibility in any way, or that Iraq was much of a threat to anyone at the time. You may have different assumptions about the state of the world at the time.
Bottomline. With Bush not invading in 2003, American blood, treasure, and international power would be better off, IMHO.
April 14th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Woody,
Get a clue. Moral isolation= grand strategic failure.
I didn’t say that. John Boyd did.
April 14th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Alex in LA, I suggest you watch the UN in Darfur — two years of slo-mo, active genocide. And counting.
France and Russia, recipients of bribes from Saddam were NOT ever going to allow UN forces to invade Iraq, IMO. That was post Feb/ Blix “Saddam not fully cooperating, but we need more time” report (when I remember deciding invasion was needed).
Notice in all these bloviations by generals they don’t say what the right strategic decisions were? And more importantly, what the results would have likely been making different decisions.
They don’t quite say not invade; though Newbold calls it an unnecessary war. Had he been more clear, he would be faced with the question:
‘so you must believe the USA would be better off if Saddam was still in power, instead of what we have?’
Mavis also wants to avoid this binary choice: for war, or for Saddam. I look at Darfur similarly: for war, or for genocide.
The Shinskei issue is especially interesting — I have yet to read a quote by any General saying, clearly, that sending “more troops” (Shinskei said 400 000 for post-war action) would either a) reduce the total US casualties, or b) increase the speed of Iraqis creating a stable democracy.
I don’t believe either of those results would have happened just with more troops, but the fact that the Generals “criticize” without being clear on decisions on results, is about as empty as … most Leftist sites that generate more words about Bush hate rather than what could have been done better.
Bremer not allowing local municipal elections, using existing ration cards, seems a better target for Bush criticism. The lack of a national Oil Trust is also a mistake.
How, and how much to punish the former Sunni officers who served under Saddam, and often murdered for him — this is an important justice issue just not talked about. A CBS note mentioned how many of the Sunnis being murdered now were former Baathists, or suspects.
Of course the Generals’ timing is likely to be political pre-emption against any invasion of Iran, to stop the mad mullahs from getting a bomb and poofing Tel Aviv.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
“Whether or not we did the right thing about going into Iraq, at least we were willing to try something rather than sit around wringing our hands saying woe is us while Hussein threatened a region and laughted. Actions speak louder than words, and he’s in prison now because of us. Where would we have been if we were still waiting on the U.N.? I dread thinking about it.â€
Woody,
How do you spell the plural of “potato—btw, “laughed†was written incorrectly; I’m assuming it was a typo?
The criticism that this administration is receiving about the war is directed to their incompetent implementation and strategy.
Clearly if we had anticipated the aggressiveness of the insurgency; and were able to maintain order, while preventing the enormous slaughter of Iraqis—Bush would have been given the victory “wreath†by those who now consider his presidency a failure.
My problem with Bush and the cabal is their international POLICIES, and the uninhibited passion that this cabal possesses for empire building—our government works under the premise that we are entitled to invade, exploit, control, occupy and destroy any culture that we deem valuable. We are like the burglars of the world—I want it, you have it, I will steal it!
So the real question is what is the real MEANING of this criticism towards Bush and the Iraq War — is it merely directly to his inefficient methodology, or his directed to the ideological premises that initiated the lying, propaganda, suspension of civil liberties and our ever-persistent imperialistic agenda.
April 14th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
BTW, The Huffington Post received over 600 responses to the story entitled: “One By One Military Leaders Want Rumsfeld Out…” There was six head shots, showing each of the Generals, just in case you were curious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
April 14th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/resolute-fantasy-world.html
April 14th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
I have to say that when the shit really starts to acccumulate in large piles, even I don’t think this country can affort to be run quite as stupid as Woody would like it to be. I think Rumsfeld is on his way out…
April 14th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I have to say that when the shit really starts to acccumulate in large piles, even I don’t think this country can affort to be run quite as stupid as Woody would like it to be. I think Rumsfeld is on his way out…
Reg,
He can’t help himself, Reg. he just misses Buzz Lightyear.
Randy, the play on Balter’s name was a joke…he’s from France. Beldar is from France. Get it? Gee. It’s tough to be around sensitive people.
Would you mind if someone started referring to you as Erection?
Although Boner might be more appropriate, if for no other reason than the double meaning.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Reg,
That Greenwald posting was excellent.
“Every fact that contradicts their initial premises is discarded as fiction or the by-product of malice. Every opinion that undermines their position can be explained only by venal and corrupt motives. Every event that transpires which deviates from what they predicted ends up being the fault of others. And any individual who questions their grand plan for epic and glorious triumph in a never-ending, all-consuming War of Civilizations is someone who is either weak-willed, weak-minded, or just plain subversive.”
April 14th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Ooops…I didn’t mean to suggest that the guy claiming that these generals – some of them recent vetarans of the Iraq war – are “disgraced”, “liars” and “without honor” is ignorant and marginal. My bad…
It’s absolutely essential that we give all due respect to the “hate America Right”.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Tim Fong, who is John Boyd? Wasn’t he on The Walton’s?
===========
reg, I’ve watched decades of liberal policies ruin this country. Now, that the Republicans are acting like the old Democrats, it’s going down faster. If liberals had a great track record, then I might accept that their way of running the country is better than my way, which you called stupid.
If I were President (no, make that benevolent dictator so something could be accomplished,) we wouldn’t have 12 million illegal immigrants in this country nor have the other illegals who received amnesty, because I would enforce the laws. I would make English our official language. If someone needs an ATM in Spanish, then they would be paid in pesos. We would have superior school systems run for the students rather than the teacher unions, and we would produce students who understand our system of government and economics instead of the idiots turned out now by the teaching of feel-good and useless courses. (Feminist studies would have an early exit. At least Augusta National and the Masters stood up to radical feminist threats and did what was right for them.) Central cities would be vibrant rather than dying because of high taxes and bad schools (thanks to liberals) that ran the middle class to the suburbs. Part of that would be accomplished by the enforcement with severe penalties for corruption in government. I wouldn’t put up with any crap from other nations who want to bring us down with sham proposals like the Kyoto Treaty. I would have an energy policy to make us as self-sufficient as possible. We would be setting up drilling platforms in ANWAR (it’s just a wasteland, anyway) and in the Gulf 20 miles off of the Florida coast. (The Alaskan pipeline didn’t create all the disasters that liberals claimed.) Nuclear (or Nucular) energy plants would be popping up to replace those that burn coal. Three Mile Island showed that our safety systems worked rather than not worked. More hydroelectric plants would be constructed. Screw the snail darter and other absolutely phony “environmental reasons” to stop us from meeting our energy needs. Also, screw wind farms that make minor contributions to energy, look bad, and kill birds. Would you want one in your neighborhood? Castro would damn sure be gone, and Cuba would return to prosperity as a friend of ours…and, Elian could come back. Protectionist and dumping policies of other nations would be met with severe retaliation and tariffs to protect our workers. The U.N. would be placed on a barge and sent across the Atlantic to the inefficient, rights crippling, big government, socialist, lying, cheating European leaders who love it and make up a large part of it. We would substantially reduce the percentage of government spending to our GDP. I would kick PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and TVA completely into the private sector to be with Air America and wish them well. Also, goodbye to agricultural subsidies. I would substantially change the tax system, moving more to a federal sales tax (but still keeping an income tax for higher income people), so that Americans didn’t have to spend so much for compliance. I’d get rid of corporate income taxes, which are simply passed down to the consumers in higher prices. I would force every government agency to review all new regulations since Roosevelt that cripple our companies and I would make the agencies justify every reg. (as in regulation, not reg) resulting in about 75% fewer inefficient and useless rules. Unions and big business could operate how they want within reason, but corruption from either side would result in harash penalties. Enron type executives would be treated like Mafia type union bosses–put in prison. We would have a great mass transit system. We would need it after I revoked the drivers licenses of all the idiots out there–including Ted Kennedy. We would have legal reforms to keep the crooked lawyers and stupid juries from driving up health care costs with huge malpractice settlements and with the resulting useless procedures that doctors perform for legal defense. No national health insurance, though. It’s true that if you think that health care costs a lot now, wait until it’s free. (I’m actually somewhat curious as to how Massachusetts’ new plan will fare.) The CIA would be overhauled to become more effective than it was before Carter gutted it. We’ll know for sure about yellow cake and WMDs. Affirmative action and diversity programs would be scrapped in favor of hiring the best people for the job. No more reverse discrimination. Abortion would be made illegal, because abortion kills a child. John Kerry’s military medical records would be made public. Bin Laden would be dead. Iran wouldn’t have nuclear grade uranium. The Braves would win another World Series.
Finally, our military would continue to be second to none and still on a voluntary basis. I wouldn’t be afraid to use it if necessary. Then, we would make sure that our generals could do their jobs without having to see if their feelings are hurt by the Secretary of Defense.
And, I’m just getting started. Now, that’s a fantasy world, because most of that would never happen, but it would be a better country if it did. At least, I bet Roper agrees with most of that. You won’t because it’s too far from Stalin’s concepts. I’m going to see if Newt Gingrich likes it.
Now, what were we talking about?
Oh, yeah. I support Rumsfeld. I want somene who doesn’t mince words and gets to the heart of issues.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Randy, if you think the name substitution that you propose for me is funny, then do it. What do I care how you might look? (You must be projecting.)
April 14th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Woody,
No, I don’t think it’s funny, Woody. If one wants to be taken seriously, one addresses someone by their name. I won’t stoop to your level.
Calling Michael Balter “Beldar” makes you look like a buffoon and gives an appearance of petulance.
Grow up.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
“Oh, yeah. I support Rumsfeld. I want somene who doesn’t mince words and gets to the heart of issues.”
–Woody
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
–Donald Rumsfeld
April 14th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Ooops…didn’t mean to call anyone who links me to Josef Stalin a moronic piece of shit.
Again…my bad. Maybe Roper will show up and accuse someone who agrees with General Zinni’s critique of the Cheney cabal of anti-semitism. Then we can get a good, intelligent discussion going.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Randy, anyone who wants to be taken seriously and not look like a buffoon would not present Amnesy International as impartial and objective rather than as part of the radical left anti-U.S. movement, which it is.
Maybe you need to lighten up. I hope that I can get old without completely growing up–at least by your standards and in the context of these discussions. I’d have more fun at an accountant’s convention than a night out on the town with you.
——————
Rich, that statement by Rumsfeld made perfect sense to me. It really did. He described life and the limitations of our decision processes. But, what else I admire is how he doesn’t take any gruff from a hostile, anti-U.S. press. (Hey, I used anti-U.S. twice in one comment.)
——————-
Ooops on my part. I didn’t mean to call anyone who has nothing better to do than sit in front of his computer all day attacking people personally for their views as being anti-U.S. (third tiime!), illogical, crass, crude, bitter, pathetic, not so smart, and a waste of carbon and oxygen. While true, that wouldn’t be right, so I won’t do it.
——————
Maybe Roper will show up and add some class to the discussion, as little is shown by the other side. Intelligence is simply overkill in a battle of ideas with the left.
April 15th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Since this threat is about Rumsfeld and his handling of the war in Iraq, it is worth noting that in the first half of April about 40 American servicemen and women have been killed, compared to just over 30 during all of March. As always, the number of dead Iraqis is many many times that. At some point those who still defend Rumsfeld, Bush, and the war need to explain to us how they would measure success and how they justify these human sacrifices.
April 15th, 2006 at 3:00 am
Rumsfeld is a deck chair. Bush is the Titanic. Sure, it’s great PR that retired generals are at last finding their nerve to say what’s been so obvious for so long. But they’re hardly in a position to change the situation, let alone spark the paradigm shift that’s needed to prevent the next Iraq war that’s just right around the corner. Bush deserves to be impeached for starting a war on false pretences, then trying to cover that up by smearing critics.
If progressives can’t work up the backbone to see that through, how can they expect to take power from those who own it now?
April 15th, 2006 at 3:00 am
Whoops, I meant thread, not threat, a Freudian slip no doubt.
April 15th, 2006 at 5:02 am
I’m not surprised that Woody considers unhinged accusations of “anti-semitism” based soley on the evidence that someone uses the term “neocons” to be a measure of class.
The descent into madness continues unabated. The “hate America Right” has nothing left but to attack people’s patriotism, attack the integrity of decorated veterans on no evidence other than their criticism of incompetence and failure and raise the incessant and absurd specter of Josef Stalin, no less.
I don’t have the time or interest to digress into the fantasyland laundry list of “Woody’s World” , but I’m impressed that he’s included an intent to eradicate bin Laden from the planet. And at the same level of priority as the other dreams about baseball. A great mind is at work here and I’m sure there’s some equally impressive plan. Nothing there that’s disgraceful, dishonest or lacking integrity like those generals who’ve stained themselves by…uh…actually serving their country. If only these “mountebanks” – as Roper classily characterized an “antisemitic” Gen. Zinni over on his Hell’s Acre for digital sophistry – had the commitment to their nation and the troops, the strategic insight and the common decency of our Keyboard Kommandos – commandos in the war to…uh…defend BushCo, as represented by unhinged and hysterical right-wing bloggers.
When the cookie crumbles, it’s not a pleasant sight to watch people scramble to their knees and start licking the floor to salvage the crumbs.
April 15th, 2006 at 5:20 am
“Oh, yeah. I support Rumsfeld. I want somene who doesn’t mince words and gets to the heart of issues.â€
Memorable Quotes by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld :
(Rich got started on this, but there’s just so much good stuff.)
“I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.”
“We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.”
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” –on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” -on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
“Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
“Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.” –on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding “stuff happens”
“As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
“I believe what I said yesterday. I don’t know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it’s what I said.”
“If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I’m disinclined to mislead anyone.”
“There’s another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist.”
“Well, um, you know, something’s neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so, I suppose, as Shakespeare said.”
“Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin’s still learning.”
“Learn to say ‘I don’t know.’ If used when appropriate, it will be often.”
“I don’t know what the facts are but somebody’s certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know.”
“I’m not into this detail stuff. I’m more concepty.”
“I don’t do quagmires.”
“I don’t do diplomacy.”
“I don’t do foreign policy.”
“I don’t do predictions.”
“I don’t do numbers.”
“I don’t do book reviews.”
“Now, settle down, settle down. Hell, I’m an old man, it’s early in the morning and I’m gathering my thoughts here.”
“I could wish for the Braves to win, or some other team, or some other game, but although I do in fact wish for it, wishing will not make it so – so my wishing is just wishful thinking. Which, if you remember what Cervantes said, doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t happen when the time comes.”
(I made that last one up.)
April 15th, 2006 at 8:07 am
from Slate………..
Six Retired Generals Hate Rumsfeld
Is that a lot?
By Daniel Engber
Two more retired generals stepped forward on Thursday and called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign, increasing the faction of outspoken officers to six. Rumsfeld brushed off the criticism: “Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round.” How many retired admirals and generals are there?
It’s hard to get good numbers, but the Explainer estimates that about 4,700 general officers are enjoying their retirement in the United States right now. That means the six former generals who stepped forward to criticize Rumsfeld make up about one-tenth of 1 percent of the total community.
Retired generals pipe up all the time. In March, five of them wrote a letter to the Supreme Court asking that Justice Scalia recuse himself from the Hamdan case. In January, nine generals and three admirals banded together as the “Retired Generals Against Torture” and sent an open letter to the Senate judiciary committee. During campaign season, retired generals issue small-group political endorsements.
————————————————-
ready, fire, aim…..this is what most of you are getting your panties in bunch for? marc it’s not like you to take these presidential appointees so seriously……..
April 15th, 2006 at 8:10 am
“about 4,700 general officers are enjoying their retirement in the United States right now.”
Uh huh. And what percentage of them have had commands during the Iraq war? Now, what percentage of the six have had commands during the Iraq war? Get real.
April 15th, 2006 at 8:56 am
yes, i can see now those panties are very tight! my point stands–generals pop off all the time. this is a civilian run military. generals quit/retire all the time because they don’t like their bosses, just like the corporate world. thank god, for the most part, we never listen to them.
while the jury is still out on iraq, i know, i know for you its not and it never was, rumsfeld’s performance will be judged much further down the road. but, keep jumping up and down, somebody will come to the crib…
April 15th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Okay, I see that patrick neid really has to have it spelled out to him. The overwhelming majority of Americans are now against the war in Iraq, and every new sign of dissidence–such as this dramatic and unprecedented assault on Rumsfeld by generals many of whom led troops in Iraq very recently–undercuts the Bush administration’s position politically and hastens the day when US troops will be withdrawn. Whether Rumsfeld goes sooner or later, this is the inevitable trend, and the revolt of the generals has to be put into that context. But commentators like patrick neid don’t like context but prefer to stare at one tree very closeup.
April 15th, 2006 at 10:06 am
grasshopper,
keep jumping up and down.
despite your continued crying the troops will be withdrawn when the generals on the ground say so–not the retired ones. if you keep digging, which you are good at, generals piss and moan all the time, before, during and after wars. so the “dramatic and unprecedented”, that’s in your playpen.
here’s what we know with reasonable certitude. bush will remain president for another 2 years and seven months. during this time the war in iraq and the larger battle against radical islam will continue. you will object. the next president, probably democractic, will continue the exact same war but describe it differently. you will be happy.
where’s that pacifier………
April 15th, 2006 at 11:41 am
OT…Reg…I’ve been out of town and, for family reasons, fairly out of commission for the past week, but just read your smart, thoughtful, nuanced reply to me a few threads back, re: immigration. Thanks for taking the time. I think we pretty much agree right down the line. (And Erica Jong made my teeth ache on Bill Maher’s show a week or two ago.)
As for Rumsfeld, it really is Shel Silverstein meets Theodor Seuss Geisel, but without the leavening wit.
(And, yeah, we could tell you made the last one up. The giveaway? Rumsfeld would never reference Cervantes.)
April 15th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
reg, you haven’t learned that it doesn’t discredit someone for you to just to cherry pick quotes or views of that person and to present them lumped together so as to make him look foolish, when he is not. It’s an old and over-used trick of yours and shows the shallowness and lack of intelligence in your own rebuttals. In fact you try to do that with G.M. and myself, but you discredit yourself with overreaching the truth.
Perhaps it would be more honest if I strung together hundreds of lines of crude profanity and said,”This represents reg. Don’t accept anything that he says.”
===========
Michael Balter, if you can stop your knee from jerking and consider the long-term benefits of a freed Iraq rather than what you see, or should I say what you want to see, on a short-term basis. What will be the long-term historical view of our action there? Maybe you’re too buried in studying dead civilizations to understand the future of living ones.
Why Iraq Is Still Worth the Effort
By Fareed Zakaria
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101152_pf.html
The old order in Iraq was built on fear and terror. One group dominated the land, oppressing the others. Now representatives of all three communities — Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds — are sitting down at the table, trying to construct a workable bargain they can all live with.
These sectarian power struggles can get extremely messy, and violent parties have taken advantage of every crack and cleavage. But this may be inevitable in a country coming to terms with very real divisions and disagreements. Iraq may be stumbling toward nation-building by consent, not brutality. And that is a model for the Middle East.
Here’s an admission from an administration critic:
A justification for the war?
Omaha World-Herald ^ | March 28, 2006 | JAKE THOMPSON
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1604723/posts and http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=54&u_sid=2140974&u_rnd=737491
Newly declassified documents about a 1995 meeting show collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida and give some justification for the war against Iraq, says Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska U.S. senator and 9/11 Commission member.
“I think it does” bolster the case for war, Kerrey said Monday.
The document suggests that bin Laden got some cooperation from Saddam and that “Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States,” said Kerrey….”
Kerrey has been a sharp critic of the Bush administration’s efforts to help establish a democratically run Iraq.
Read the Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
Of course, this doesn’t begin to cover the freedom from tyranny and the lives saved from the mass murders of Hussein. It doesn’t cover the destabilizing influence of him in an area in which we have a strategic interest. Why, it doesn’t even cover our stopping the bribes to French and U.N. officials by Hussein.
Michael Balter, in all sincerity, I would expect more research and a more scholarly analysis from someone with your apparent academic interests. Just like a lot of college professors, you let your left-wing political agenda taint your writings and make yourself less credible.
============
One thing that I have learned from reading comments at this site is that no one on the right has any reason to feel intimidated by the alleged intellectual superiority of those on the left. “Intellectuals” of the left are great in their minds only. It must be something in the smoke they inhale.
April 15th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
rd – I can’t remember exactly what I said, but I agree with it because I know what I think and I assume that’s what I said the other day.
April 15th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Well, I put in too many links to have my most recent comment posted without “pending moderation,” so reg and Michael Balter will have to wait to see what wisdom I had to share before Marc clears it.
Just for information, Marc’s site will allow up to three links without the comment being put in suspense. As I am so well known for providing support for my remarks, this presents a challenge.
April 15th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
“rumsfeld’s performance will be judged much further down the road”
If he’s lucky, after the statute of limitations has run out.
I have to laugh at patrick’s “baby” metaphors…because it’s pretty damned obviious which faction is shitting their diapers these days. Anybody read Bill Kristol or David Brooks recently ????
April 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Woody – I can’t wait for your links to clear. I get as good a laugh out of Michelle Malkiin as the next guy.
April 15th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
reg, I linked to former Senator Bob Kerry, who said that new information bolsters the case for war in Iraq. I don’t think that he meant for it to be funny.
April 15th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
patrick – I’d love to hear your argument for Rumsfeld having been a competent Secretary of Defense, having provided responsible leadership in the Iraq embroglio and for his being a man who deserves our confidence. Just a couple of sentences linked to somethiing resembling fact. That’s the heart of the matter…
April 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
“imbroglio” – sorry
April 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Woody,
You’ve just outed yourself as a ignorant blowhard. A quick search of Google under “John Boyd” should be adequate for the rest of Marc’s readers to see why.
April 15th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
I used “imbroglio” because, of course, The Don doesn’t do “quagmires”.
April 15th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
If the estimable Secretary Rumsfeld does ever decide to “do book reviews”, I’d love to read his two cents on “Assassins’ Gate”, “Squandered Victory”, “Night Draws Near”, “Chain of Command” and “Cobra II”.
Unfortunately for certain parties, patrick, history is already being drawn in it’s second draft – well beyond and beneath the “headlines”. Not absolutely definitive, perhaps, but increasingly making this look like one of the most disaster-prone, deliberately dishonest and incredibly incompetent administrations ever. If this trajectory continues at even a modest rate, the more we learn the worse they’ll look and historians will marvel that Bush escaped impeachment.
April 15th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Since you’re a Newsmax junkie, Woody, presumably your link was this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/25/113304.shtml
I’ll provide analysis of this Newsmax crap when I’ve got more time.
Don’t say I never did you any favors.
And of course, I’m cowering at the ultimate impact of these “revelations”.
April 15th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
reg,
my original post simply was about the humor of listening to disgruntled generals. theirs is par for the course. perhaps these are some of the reasons they whine
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/04/generals-revolt.html
as to rumy, the jury is still out i think. i have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. i do know that the MSM dislikes him with good reason–getting bitch slapped at press conferences etc sure can’t feel to good–and for over five years now. for every detractor there are supporters.
i’ve always found there tends to be about 30% on each side of an issue with the remaining 40% acting like fair weather fans. with almost four years into this thing, and the spread about 65-35 against, that’s about par for the course. lets be honest about this, no matter who was sec of defense we would be at the exact same place of resentment. hell, clinton had to have three, i think. personally i like what rumy was trying to do to re-org the military before the war interrupted. the bigger truth is still this:
“here’s what we know with reasonable certitude. bush will remain president for another 2 years and seven months. during this time the war in iraq and the larger battle against radical islam will continue. you will object. the next president, probably democratic, will continue the exact same war but describe it differently. you will be happy.”
i can’t imagine what the rhetoric will be like if we bomb iran.
April 15th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Randy, anyone who wants to be taken seriously and not look like a buffoon would not present Amnesy International as impartial and objective rather than as part of the radical left anti-U.S. movement, which it is.
Woody, there is probably no greater proof of your utter witlessness than the fact that the US Department of State relies on NGO’s like Amnesty International in compiling its annual human rights report.
But please, don’t take my word for it. Here’s a link to a word search for the term “Amnesty International.” If you click on any of the country pages, you will see the US Department of State citing AI reports on human rights situations throughout the world.
So, Woody, if you don’t want to look like a buffoon, perhaps you should do a modicum of research before you put finger to keyboard.
Disproving your sweeping smears just keeps getting easier and easier.
April 15th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
If Woody was President (no, make that benevolent dictator look what he would ACCOMPLISH:
“Feminist studies would have an early exit. At least Augusta National and the Masters stood up to radical feminist threats and did what was right for them.)
The Alaskan pipeline didn’t create all the disasters that liberals claimed.) Nuclear (or Nuclear) energy plants would be popping up to replace those that burn coal. Three Mile Island showed that our safety systems worked rather than not worked.
Castro would damn sure be gone, and Cuba would return to prosperity as a friend of ours.
No national health insurance, though. It’s true that if you think that health care costs a lot now, wait until it’s free. (I’m actually somewhat curious as to how Massachusetts’ new plan
I wouldn’t put up with any crap from other nations who want to bring us down with sham proposals like the Kyoto Treaty.â€
So in effect Woody would relinquish women’s right; destroy the environment; ensure that 50 million Americans remain without healthcare; and maintain our policy of interfering with every country’s government, and disallow their right to self-determination.
IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN
See, I can’t scare anybody.
They come from miles around
to laugh in my face and eat in my field.
Said a scarecrow swinging on a pole,
to some blackbirds sitting’ on a fence,
“Oh, the Lord gave me a soul,
But, forgot to give me common sense.”
Said the blackbirds, “Well, well, well.
What the thunder would you do with common sense?”
Said the scarecrow,”Would be pleasin’
just to reason out the reason
of the wishes and the whyness and the whence”
If I had an ounce of common sense…
(If he had an ounce of common sense)
(Well, what would you do Scarecrow?”)
I would while away the hours
Conferin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.
I’d unravel every riddle,
For every individle,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts I’d be thinkin’,
I could be another Lincoln,
If I only had a brain.
Oh I– could tell you why,
The ocean’s near the shore.
I could think of things I never thought before,
Then I’d sit– and think some more.
I would not be just a nothin’,
my head all full of stuffin’,
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry,
Life would be a dingle derry,
If I only had a brain.
If I only had a brain–
(If he only had a brain.)
I could tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore.
I could think of things I never thought before
And then I’d sit– and think some more.
Ya, it would be kind of pleasin’
To reason out the reason,
for the things I can’t explain.
Then perhaps I’d deserve you,
and be even worthy of you,
If I only had a brain.
I could dance and by merry,
Life would be a dingle derry,
If I only had a brain.
If I only had a brain.
(If he only had a brain.)
April 15th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
That’s right, Eleanore… play directly to the basest stereotypes of the Michael Savage right by ridiculing Woody, rather than engaging him in some positive dialogue. Karl Rove must be so THRILLED with you!
April 15th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Tim, I doubt that many people who read these comments know anything about John Boyd. They don’t even know their own Senators. I’m not going to look up every reference that someone raises. I don’t even read all of the comments. If you think it’s important, then provide your own links.
BTW, a “quick google” didn’t provide any reference to what you stated in your comment nor did it provide any reason why I should accept a comment from Boyd any more than I should accept opposite comments from other people from fifty years ago.
If you have something to contribute, spit it out rather than calling others ignorant–which is somewhat ignorant in itself.
==========
Thanks for the link to Newsmax, reg. You might be surprised that I never read it unless someone provides me with a link to it. Their sports page is terrible.
==========
Randy Paul, if the State Department reads Amnesty International’s reports, then it is likely reading about the U.S. itself since A.I. is more interested in “violations” of this country rather than truly serious ones in other nations. Below are links supporting my position, offered only because you insist on such links even though you are never satisfied with them, so as to avoid dealing with well-founded and accepted truths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International
Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories, accusations of selection bias and ideological bias. …It is widely accepted that there are a disproportionate number of AI reports on relatively more democratic and open countries …A tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lesser violators of human rights has been called “Moynihan’s Law,” after the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation’s violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.
Amnesty International’s position on freedom of expression is more restrictive than what is legislated in some countries. …(T)he organisation stated: “However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute…. Under international standards, such “hate speech” should be prohibited by law.”
My note: Of course, an “internationalist” would appreciate restrictions on our first amendment and our bill of rights more than a freedom loving U.S. citizen untainted by foreign “ideals.” To continue:
In a foreword to AI’s International Report 2005, the Secretary General, Irene Khan, made a passing reference to the Guantánamo Bay prison as “the gulag of our times,” breaking an internal AI policy on not comparing different human rights abuses. The comment implied a comparison of the United States’ treatment of “unlawful enemy combatants” held in the camp with the massive prison system covertly run by the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin to “re-educate” over 20 million “political dissidents” through torture, forced labour, and other tactics. Even taking into account Khan’s mention of other related aspects of the war on terror, such as extraordinary rendition, this is not a comparison which the AI report itself supports.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the report “reprehensible”, Vice President Dick Cheney said he was “offended” by the report, and President Bush called the report “absurd” in a May 31, 2005 press conference. In an editorial, the Washington Post lamented that “lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world’s dictators but for the United States. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501838.html?nav=mb
Here’s another opinon on that:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000831.html
I would give more links, but Marc’s filters would just hold up my comment. However, if anyone is interested, go to Google and type in without the brackets: ["Amnesty International", "Randy Paul."] You’ll see a leftists defending leftists.
So, Randy, when you say, So, Woody, if you don’t want to look like a buffoon, perhaps you should do a modicum of research before you put finger to keyboard. Disproving your sweeping smears just keeps getting easier and easier., in response to my comment, Randy, anyone who wants to be taken seriously and not look like a buffoon would not present Amnesy International as impartial and objective rather than as part of the radical left anti-U.S. movement, which it is., in response to your statement, Calling Michael Balter “Beldar†makes you look like a buffoon…, which would be true to a dullard with no sense of humor–then, maybe you should do some research yourself or, maybe, be honest, as the information above supports my view in contradiction to your false claim.
Oh, and, Randy,get a life. There’s more to it than trying to nitpick other people’s opinions–especially when you are guilty of what you accused me. These back-and-forths with you are quite boring, unproductive, and meaningless to the discussions. Drop it.
=========
Eleanore, can I assume that I won’t get your vote for President?
On women’s rights, I will state that women do have rights, such as the right for men to open doors for them–as long as they’re not to the boardroom.
I can’t deal with the rest of your complaints. I’m too busy and no one here changes his mind, anyway. (I’m using the adjective pronoun “his” to be gender neutral, as the English language intended, rather than using newly fashionable “their, which modifies more than one person.)
April 15th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
One last and quick thing for your enjoyment…
Here is the earlier comment that I made at 1:29 PM minus a link so that it will post now without “awaiting moderation.” I didn’t want the response to get too far away from the comments related to it. Here it is:
===================
reg, you haven’t learned that it doesn’t discredit someone for you to just to cherry pick quotes or views of that person and to present them lumped together so as to make him look foolish, when he is not. It’s an old and over-used trick of yours and shows the shallowness and lack of intelligence in your own rebuttals. In fact you try to do that with G.M. and myself, but you discredit yourself with overreaching the truth.
Perhaps it would be more honest if I strung together hundreds of lines of crude profanity and said,â€This represents reg. Don’t accept anything that he says.â€
===========
Michael Balter, if you can stop your knee from jerking and consider the long-term benefits of a freed Iraq rather than what you see, or should I say what you want to see, on a short-term basis. What will be the long-term historical view of our action there? Maybe you’re too buried in studying dead civilizations to understand the future of living ones.
Why Iraq Is Still Worth the Effort
By Fareed Zakaria
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101152_pf.html
The old order in Iraq was built on fear and terror. One group dominated the land, oppressing the others. Now representatives of all three communities — Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds — are sitting down at the table, trying to construct a workable bargain they can all live with.
These sectarian power struggles can get extremely messy, and violent parties have taken advantage of every crack and cleavage. But this may be inevitable in a country coming to terms with very real divisions and disagreements. Iraq may be stumbling toward nation-building by consent, not brutality. And that is a model for the Middle East.
Here’s an admission from an administration critic:
A justification for the war?
Omaha World-Herald ^ | March 28, 2006 | JAKE THOMPSON
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1604723/posts and [Link Deleted]
Newly declassified documents about a 1995 meeting show collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida and give some justification for the war against Iraq, says Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska U.S. senator and 9/11 Commission member.
“I think it does†bolster the case for war, Kerrey said Monday.
The document suggests that bin Laden got some cooperation from Saddam and that “Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States,†said Kerrey….â€
Kerrey has been a sharp critic of the Bush administration’s efforts to help establish a democratically run Iraq.
Read the Documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
Of course, this doesn’t begin to cover the freedom from tyranny and the lives saved from the mass murders of Hussein. It doesn’t cover the destabilizing influence of him in an area in which we have a strategic interest. Why, it doesn’t even cover our stopping the bribes to French and U.N. officials by Hussein.
Michael Balter, in all sincerity, I would expect more research and a more scholarly analysis from someone with your apparent academic interests. Just like a lot of college professors, you let your left-wing political agenda taint your writings and make yourself less credible.
============
One thing that I have learned from reading comments at this site is that no one on the right has any reason to feel intimidated by the alleged intellectual superiority of those on the left. “Intellectuals†of the left are great in their minds only. It must be something in the smoke they inhale.
============
[Update]: P.S. I thought that last paragraph was a nice touch. Now, I’m cutting my computer off for the night. I have to get sleep to go to church tomorrow. I need it. Everyone else does, too, but many won’t admit it.
Have a Happy Easter!!!
April 15th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I meant that I need church–not sleep, which I can’t afford too much of. Bye.
April 15th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
And this passes for discussion? One big giant ad hominem festival in which one gets to post long rants, countered with poetry. Yeah that’s politics today. Back to you Jim.
April 15th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
You need a damn site more than either of those can supply.
April 15th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Before you get a major twist in your leftish and progressive panties, perhaps you ought to read a couple of military historians comments and check out their links. This kinda puts the lie to Zinni and company if you ask me.
General Zinni And The Prewar Intelligence by Douglas Hanson a noted military historian and Zinni’s REAL testimony before congress and The Hidden History of the Iraq War Critics by John B. Dwyer also a military historian
April 15th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
That 1995 meeting is nothing new. Hussein’s representative never said he’d do anything bin Laden wanted except preach more muslim dogma. I think Kerrey is taken way out of context when your read his other quotes but then cherrypicking is a conservative staple. The whole picture ususally does them in. Same here.
April 15th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
A noted military historian? Please.
“Douglas Hanson was a US Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and is a Gulf War I combat veteran. He has a background in radiation biology and physiology, and was an Atomic Demolitions Munitions (ADM) Security Officer, and a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense Officer. As a civilian analyst, he has worked on stability and support operations in Bosnia, and helped develop a multi-service medical treatment manual for nuclear and radiological casualties. He was initially an operations officer in the operations/intelligence cell of the Requirements Coordination Office of the CPA, and was later assigned as the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology.”
April 15th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Jake, whoever you are, keep coming back. You have an interesting new voice.
April 16th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Woody’s selective quoting of the Wikipedia article on Amnesty International is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible things he has ever done here. The sections he quotes, with many ellipses, are from a long section about criticisms that have been made of AI and the responses that have been made to them by its supporters and/or defenders. The entire section was intended to give readers a fairly objective account of the controversies that AI has been involved in, not to make judgements about the issues–something which Wikipedia is designed to avoid. If you look at the discussion section of the AI entry, you will see that the current version of this article is the result of an ongoing debate and discussion about what it should say. I don’t know how many people who use Wikipedia are fully aware of the negotiation process that goes into articles about controversial subjects, but I will say again that anyone who selectively pulls quotes out of such articles as Woody did is deliberately trying to mislead us because Woody saw the counterarguments but did not choose to put them in.
This is not to say, however, that AI should be immune from criticism; the issue when it comes to the questions we are discussing here is how well it backs up its claims.
Finally, as for it being a radical leftist organization, that’s not how leftists viewed AI during the Cold War. The organization was disdained among leftists for its harsh criticims of the Soviet Union and its satellite states.
April 16th, 2006 at 12:37 am
Just to be clear: Click on the “discussion” tab of the AI Wikipedia entry to see how this process works, a very long discussion, most people here probably know this but just in case.
April 16th, 2006 at 12:46 am
While I am on this subject, since Marc will probably be starting a new thread soon: The debates about what rights abuses organizations like AI or Human Rights Watch criticize and the statistical balance of those criticisms are usually conducted by people who have little concern about the human rights abuses themselves, but who see human rights as some sort of political football, I’ll trade you two Cubas for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, that sort of thing. We see this now with Darfur, which has become just this sort of accusatory finger wagging between the left and right with no action taking place. And be clear, I am making this criticism of both the left and the right, because believe it or not I do not think that the left in general terms has any monopoly on righteousness over the right nor that just being a leftist means one is someone more caring or compassionate. I have known too many assholes on the left to have that illusion, even if the asshole quotient doe seem to me to be slightly skewed over to the right.
April 16th, 2006 at 1:21 am
I should qualify my statement about AI and leftists. AI was not disdained by all leftists, but by those who did not like criticisms of the Soviet Union, which unfortunately was a large number especially during the 60s and 70s.
April 16th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Jake, I’ll add my welcome to Rosedogs, but I suggest that you argue about the articles I linked to rather than the nitpick about my words “noted military historian.” He is in fact described in the article as a military historian, I added the word noted and you added the silliness in your response. On the other hand, nitpicking by the left when they complain about nitpicking from the right is an interesting connundrum isn’t it?
April 16th, 2006 at 5:51 am
I wll also add my appreciation for Michael Balter’s comments about AI and about both the left’s and the right’s abdication of action in Darfur. What ever happened to “Never Again” and where is the vaunted UN in all this? Let alone the EU the Organization of African States or the United States? Where are the folks from the Human Rights Commission in the UN? Damnit, where is action from the Islamic States since most of the killing of the Janjaweed is of Muslims (as well as Christians and Animists).
April 16th, 2006 at 7:01 am
Jake Elmore, I agree that this thread has gotten too “ad hominem,” as you pointed out at 7:04 PM. However, I have to also point out that at 7:06 you made an ad hominem attack yourself. How soon we forget.
Let’s all try to not make personal attacks anymore, guys. Stick to the issues.
——————
Michael Balter, despite your calling me “dishonest and reprehensible,” which is not true, I will forgive you, as today we celebrate the greatest gift of forgiveness–the death and resurrection of Christ which allows all of our sins to be forgiven if we believe and confess.
To specifically address your comment about AI, my above quotes had already gotten too long, so I just made the points that I wanted but provided the link to the entire argument for others who had the intellectual curiousity to dig further. If I give the link, that is not being selective or concealing anything.
There are many more sites and many more people who agree with my view that Amnesty International has, today, been hijacked by the radical left more interested in attacking the U.S, than other serious violators. Calling me dishonest and reprehensible only diminshed your own arguments.
——————-
Everyone have a Happy Easter, Joyful Passover, or just a nice day of reflection of the blessings that God has given to us. Here’s a link which expresses this further, but you are welcome to consider others as well.
http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/171201.php
April 16th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Michael Balter,
Thanks for pointing out that facts remain troublesome things and that it’s always best to dig a little deeper.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Here is something interesting. Called the Euston Manifesto I suspect (though I cannot know) that Marc Cooper would agree with most of it just as I suspect (again, though I cannot know) that many of the commenters here would not.
For those of you who don’t click on links provided by “wingnuts” do try this one.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:18 am
I’d agree with most of it as well. Something I would add, is that any criticism of the United States does not constitute anti-Americanism.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Michael Balter,
It’s also worth noting that William F. Buckley was on the board of AI, but left because of their opposition to the death penalty and their criticism of the human rights records of goverments that opposed communism.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:45 am
By “any criticism” I mean any criticism at all, as there are some who believe that any criticism of the US constitutes “anti-Americanism.”
April 16th, 2006 at 8:18 am
“However, I have to also point out that at 7:06 you made an ad hominem attack yourself. How soon we forget.”
Look in the mirror. Reading your selctively arranged screeds and slaps in people’s faces are fine according to you with a wish for a Happy Easter and the like. Count me out. That sort of dim hyprocrisy isn’t argument. The issue is you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. The data clearly show that. That’s the “issue.”
As for sources, I’m not familiar with that publication, but as a low level military officer who served under Zinni he sounds like someone with a personal agenda against the general. Just because a critic exists doesn’t mean they are valid. Only merit can do that. I didn’t see it. The facts continue to make this outfit look bad, clueless and blantantly manipulative. That’s how this will play out.
April 16th, 2006 at 8:41 am
“It’s also worth noting that William F. Buckley was on the board of AI, but left because of their opposition to the death penalty and their criticism of the human rights records of goverments that opposed communism.”
Thanks for that, Randy. In act, AI has a tendency to piss off anyone whose agenda is not actually human rights but something else. Again, that does not mean it is above criticism, but the criticism must be scrutinized carefully.
April 16th, 2006 at 11:26 am
GM….I just skimmed the Euston Manifesto and, much of what I read seemed quite sensible. ( I might find points with which I disagree in a closer reading. Or perhaps not. )
However, I do agree with Randy regarding the section on anti-Americanism: While I believe I understood it’s intention (to dial back the kind-of knee jerk, the-U.S.-can-do-no-right type of criticism that is intellectually dishonest, and serves no constructive purpose), it still was the one section that was written in such a fashion that it really rubbed me the wrong way.
April 16th, 2006 at 11:26 am
The most remarkable thing about this “Euston Manifesto” – which 2 people have now linked to in rather different contexts – is why anyone would consider it remarkable or worthy of particular note. It’s a statement of things the overwhelming majority of us who’ve identified with “the left” in it’s more ideological form at some point in the past have come to recognize long ago – but since we haven’t been bothered with burnishing tarnished and/or very tired “leftist” credentials or dueling with former comrades or symbiotic opponents in some marginal contest for “correct” “marxism”, this just seems like a tempest in a very tiny teapot. I could care less about a “left” that obssesses on “where are they now?” as regards the old New Left Review crowd. (Anyone who’s particularly proud that their revolutionary icon was the guy who shot the Kronstadt sailors and led the Red Army, as opposed to the General Secretary for the Gulag and Russian nationalism in Leninist dress needs a reality check. As for laying blame for the Iraq disaster, I’ll put it on BushCo and their more zealous apologists. Unfortunately that includes at least a handful of people who are touting this “manifesto” – and why should I be surprised that a bunch of “neo”, “ex” and “born-again” trotskyites could be enamored of crackpot rhetoric and half-assed analysis masquerading as “liberation”.) The day I worry what that list of names signed on to this and like “manifestos” are up to or are urging is the day I will have abandoned an interest in politics for a perverse reversion to the more onanistic recesses of “leftism”.
As for Darfhur, now doubt theres’s some kind of a “leftist” abdication on this – as on other serious issues – but the most consistent and urgent clarion calls for attention to Darfur have appeared in the pages of the New York Times. Nick Kristof has done more than any other individual to publicize the reality – he’s done it through columns, as well as videos on the website.
Beyond reading or ranting about Darfur, there is a Rally to Save Darfur, centered in Washington DC on April 30, sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition.
Some of the main groups that are sponsoring the coalition and rally include:
American Jewish World Service, American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA Society), Citizens for Global Solutions, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches of the Christ in the USA, Union for Reform Judaism, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, AFL-CIO/Solidarity Center, American Humanist Association, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, American Jewish Committee, Americans for Democratic Action, Amnesty International, Anti-Defamation League, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Church World Service, Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations (CSJO), Council for Secular Humanism, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), The Episcopal Church, USA, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Hadassah, Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, UCNA: Islamic Circle of North America, Interfaith Council, Islamic Society of North America, Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, Jewish Labor Committee, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Metropolitan Community of Churches, Muslim Public Affairs Council, National Black Church Initiative, National Council of Jewish Women, Pax Christi USA, Physicians for Human Rights, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Sojourners, Tikkun, TransAfrica Forum, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA)
Perhaps it makes the most sense to call attention to the “left/right” actions and advocacy that do exist. That’s quite a political & religious checkerboard represented. Petty politicking, finger-pointing or rhetorical self-congratulation on such an issue isn’t of much use if one actually cares. Most of the discussion we hear on this forum is characters from the far right using Darfur to dishonestly tweak “the left”. What else is new ?
Here’s a link, assuming you give a shit, and I assume most people do – even the blowhards:
http://www.savedarfur.org/rally/
(My own bit of pettiness on this one is to ask how come I’m the one putting this on the table and not Tom Grey, aka “I Care About Genocide And You Liberals Don’t”.
April 16th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Because it’s behind the sub wall:
The New York Times
April 16, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Slaughter Spreads
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Last month villagers along Chad’s border with Sudan told me how brutal militias were attacking their towns, murdering their babies, raping their daughters and burning their huts, while shouting racial slurs against blacks. Now those impoverished Chadians may find themselves not only attacked by genocidal marauders but also ruled by them.
Over the past week, Sudan has sponsored a full-scale invasion of Chad, seeking to oust Chad’s president and replace him with the warlord who has overseen the murder, rape and pillage in those border areas.
Sudan seems determined to extend its genocide to Chad, and the upshot is that the catastrophe of Darfur may now be multiplied manyfold.
One of the towns I stayed in during my visit to Chad last month was Adré, which by some accounts — denied by the government — has now been seized by this Sudanese proxy force known for throwing babies into bonfires. So I wonder what happened to the children I met in the Adré hospital, like Fatima Juma, a 13-year-old girl who would have been unable to flee because she had been shot in the chest and arm while fetching water.
That the fighting has spread to Chad underscores that our policy in Darfur has not only been morally bankrupt, but also catastrophic in a practical sense. Appeasing Sudan has allowed the situation to worsen, because our policy has essentially consisted, after every outrage, of making the Darfuris turn the other cheek.
Chad’s president, Idriss Déby, is a corrupt dictator. But he at least had the gumption to show some discontent at the genocide next door, and Sudan is taking aim at him precisely for that reason. If we let Sudan get away with ousting him for refusing to applaud a mass slaughter, we will have compounded our own shameful record.
It’s not that President Déby was even very active against the genocide. Worried about offending Sudan, his government threatened to arrest me if I again sneaked into Darfur illegally from Chad to cover the genocide. But Mr. Déby did have the guts to grant Darfur refugees a safe haven in Chad, saving their lives — although now, disgracefully, he has threatened to expel them if the Darfur conflict is not resolved by June.
The fighting in Chad, including a battle in the capital, Ndjamena, that reportedly killed 350 people on Thursday, is nominally between the government and rebels. But make no mistake: those “rebels” are simply a proxy force of Sudan, made up in part by the Sudanese janjaweed militias that orchestrated the killing of several black African tribes in Darfur.
The Chadian rebels operate from a base that journalists have visited in Sudan. The rebels’ guns, vehicles and uniforms come from the Sudanese government.
Their leader, Mohamed Nour, was handpicked by Sudan to lead this invading force. Sudan’s vice president, Ali Osman Taha, has visited Mr. Nour at his base. And the “rebels” often drop by the town of Geneina, where everybody sees that they include some Chadians but also many Sudanese janjaweed fighters.
“Even a kid of 5 years old in Geneina knows that the Sudanese government is organizing the militias,” said Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a heroic Sudanese who leads an independent human rights group active in Darfur.
The danger now is threefold.
First, Chad may collapse into civil war, chaos and banditry, like Darfur itself but on a much larger scale.
Second, the 200,000 refugees who fled Darfur and are living in U.N.-run camps in Chad may be specifically targeted for mass slaughter.
Third, the unrest may force international aid workers to pull out of Chad. Then the refugees will starve to death more gradually.
The U.S. has called on “all parties … to reduce those levels of violence” — which is a bit like suggesting in 1943 that Nazis and Jews alike cease hostilities. The U.S. and other major powers need to be much more forceful in shoring up Chad against the invaders.
France has a major military base in eastern Chad and should start strafing the invaders. The U.S. should back France, send a top envoy to Chad to show support, and provide intelligence to Chad and France about the invaders’ whereabouts.
President Bush and millions of Americans today will celebrate Easter and the end of Holy Week. But where is the piety in reading the Bible while averting one’s eyes from genocide? Mr. Bush, how about showing your faith by doing something a bit more meaningful — like standing up to the butchers?
April 16th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I’m too short on time to read all the comments, but I saw something about Randy calling facts troublesome. For him, maybe. It is a fact that AI supports an international law superior to our First Amendment to limit freedom of speech. It is a fact that AI compared a U.S. prison camp to Stalin’s gulags. Also, note that I quoted from a Wikipedia, a neutral source; The Washington Post, a liberal source; and, Michael Totten, a known and trusted source. My points are documented and valid.
Jake Elmore, you will fit in very nicely with the lefties on this board. Welcome and Happy Easter from one sinner to another.
April 16th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Wikipedia is neutral but the context Mr. Woody lifted as Mr. Balter pointed out is disingenuous. I’m not nearly as forgiving as your “Lord.” If that’s indeed the case.
April 16th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Alguién dio un pedo aqu�
Hay un mal olor aquà . . .
April 16th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
The whole point of the Euston Manifesto is to sound sensible, but considering that the people who drafted it are long-standing defenders of the war in Iraq, that’s quite an achievement. Sort of like Barry Bonds issuing a statement about the need to eliminate steroids in professional sports, or Pat Robertson giving a sermon on religious tolerance. Again, the question of why Cooper adds his name to this patently obvious attack on the antiwar movement must be asked. It is only a question of time before this journalist finishes his metamorphosis from a butterfly into a slug, as Galloway once put it about Cooper’s pal Christopher Hitchens.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Look, you people. I wasn’t trying to write a dissertation on the pros and cons of any issue–in this case, A.I., an organization with a leftist agenda. I presented the points that supported my contentions, and the facts I presented were indisputable. Yes, there are other views (wrong views), but I’m not going to waste my time and space to discuss them when you are perfectly capable of presenting distorted views from the left.
How can you be serious that I have violated some rule of fairness by not presenting YOUR side. Next time, I’ll quote Michelle Malkin so that I can’t possibly leave out something for you to criticize. Do your own work.
You guys are dreaming if you think the world believes as you and your buddies so within the safe confines of liberal walls. In fact, if we had an election this November between anyone on this site and George W. Bush, he would win in a landslide. That’s how much confidence I and others have in your ideas and your “brilliance.” You know it’s true. In fact, you’ve never been elected to nothing of note.
The arguments presented “against me” are pathetic and avoid addressing the facts.
———-
Jake, you don’t have to forgive me. Someone greater than you has, unless there’s something special about you that you want to share. I hope that you get over your hostility and bitterness. We’re “just people talking” here.
———-
Balter, is it true that most churches in France have been turned into historic sites rather than still serving as places of worship?
———-
Randy Paul, an insult in any lauguage is still an insult. Grow up. BTW, English is the official language of this site.
———
This is a total waste of my time. In an institution that isn’t expressly conservative, liberals take it over, dominate it, and ruin it–as they do to discussions here. There’s more to life than fretting every minute of the day over political issues.
I’ll check back when you’re willing to accept that other views have validity and should be respected. (You could drive even Marc Cooper to vote Republican with your leftist hysteria.)
———-
In turnabout is fair play…
Arrivederci ed ottenga una vita.
Woody
April 16th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Yeah, I caught the double negative above, which accidentally occurred when I changed the sentence and failed to delete the earlier wording. I know better. I hope that you knew better to understand the intent. At least it gives you something to complain about in addition to any misspelled words.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
“I hope that you get over your hostility and bitterness. We’re “just people talking†here.”
Why do people like this think disagreement is hostile and bitter as if disagreement with whatever fallacy they hold must mean some sort of diabolical plot from Hades?
We’ve seen those Bush landslides. 527 disputable votes and a few thousand in Ohio. Each would difficult to match now that the evidence is sinking in and the debt piling up. Cooper may vote Republican since he hates Democrats. What other choice is there? I’ve your read your stuff. It’s the typical whackjob right wing propaganda. No doubt you believe it along witht he toothfairy and the Chronicles of Narnia. I’m convinced of that from your cherry-picked facts.
April 16th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Não é seu site. Você não tem direito para mandar os outros como escrever.
April 16th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
“That’s right, Eleanore… play directly to the basest stereotypes of the Michael Savage right by ridiculing Woody, rather than engaging him in some positive dialogue. Karl Rove must be so THRILLED with you”
qdpsteve,
You need to develop a sense of humor!
It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
Dan Quayle
April 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
“Balter, is it true that most churches in France have been turned into historic sites rather than still serving as places of worship?”
Either or fallacy:
http://www.soulofamerica.com/cityfldr/mobile4.html
April 16th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
“Eleanore, gee I think you’re swell
And you really do me well
You’re my pride and joy, et cetera…”
(Turtles, 1967)
Better Eleanore? Kiss and make up??
But I’ll post one of my (in)famous Letterman-style Top Ten Lists here, sometime in the near future, to PROVE my sense of humor wasn’t inadvertently removed when Master Rove drilled his mindcontrol chip into the back of my scalp…
July 12th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Meaning Ringtone…
Download the ringtone of the popular song: Meaning …
April 10th, 2007 at 6:42 am
offerta viaggi capodanno…
news…
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
free dead aim download…
Free dead aim download deadaim free dead aim download, dead aim. sponsored links know of a great site that should be added to our directory. Legal……
June 27th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Abayomi…
Thank you for your great post, i am always looking to improve my home for my familiy, and your post have given me some insperation, thank you very much …
July 10th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Rodrick Cook…
I know I am fearful of another birth. So much so that I went on birth control for the first time in almost 10 years!…
April 30th, 2008 at 3:46 am
slots game download slots game…
No jeux slots trucchi casino on line…
May 1st, 2008 at 12:34 am
cell free phone ringtones samsung…
Although mp3 ringtones creator cartas poker…
May 1st, 2008 at 1:35 am
www super casino…
InAddition jack black sound board meilleur bonus casino…
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
poker bonus party poker bonus no deposit bonus poker…
At the loan oneclickcash payday advance cash loan loan payday…
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
omaha poker rules…
At this point free blackjack jugar texas holdem…
May 4th, 2008 at 5:04 am
roulette online kostenlos…
It seems online casino free play jeu du craps…
May 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
jouer gratuitement au poker texas…
Call payday loan cash advance loan jouer poker sur internet…
May 6th, 2008 at 4:36 am
credit card debt reduction calculator…
En realidad juego gratis internet online texas hold em…
September 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
car free insurance quote…
bailiffs academic joys assiduous …
September 19th, 2008 at 7:49 am
texas holdem stratergy free…
orthant advantageous:executives patriotism:packet contriver …
October 12th, 2008 at 5:54 am
costruttori di roulette…
speeded,reflective!counterargument …
October 19th, 2008 at 12:49 am
atlanta home insurance…
chronicle attackers Atlantic moonlit crunching …
October 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
poker caribeño internet…
correspondents collegiate stream Macdonald.seer antler …
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
pókerwize online…
miserably shall snakes thatches …
October 25th, 2008 at 9:37 am
play free online nolimittexasholdempoker…
fastidious adagios twofold:buffeting …
November 10th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
oklahoma cherokee casino in west siloam springs…
staunch nether bonded populace …
November 30th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Hi, Just thought I’d let you recognize your blog is displaying weird in my K-melleon browser. Looks good from what I can see though.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:00 am
www littlewoods poker com…
Snider etching!truthfully increasingly …
May 29th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Our babies deserve only the best stuff! I thank you whole heartly for your time posting this.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
This is an awesome blog here! I just bookmarked it.
I have got a poker player fan page over at Facebook. If you wanted to check it out: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Only/136818223026737