News of Rot
Several times in the past couple of weeks I have noted the
Bad News that Democrats have on their hands — namely the budding Hillary Candidacy.
Now
it looks like the Republicans have to stomach their own dose of poor tidings.
The new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows George W. Bush definitively losing popular support on his one central
political haymaker: the War on Terror/War In Iraq.
Says the WaPo:
For the first
time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public
believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a
new Washington Post-ABC News poll. While the focus in Washington has shifted
from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the
survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in
importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of
casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military
there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting --
in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet
recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming
analogous to the experience in Vietnam.Perhaps most ominous for President
Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security
of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a
majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to
build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists
at home.In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and
three months ago 52 percent thought so. Overall, more than half -- 52 percent
-- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A
somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in
Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.There were
signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of
the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees
and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not
making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the
president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For
the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide
the country than to unite it.
You wouldn't want to be a sitting President reading over those numbers.The surging violence in Iraq -- almost 900 dead in the last six weeks"”can
only further damage the President's standing.
The Post cites several military
and political analysts predicting that the war may have reached an unpopularity
tipping point; becoming a political burden for the White House impossible to
improve or correct.
My own view is that it has most certainly reached that point
and that the administration will now need some sort of miracle to galvanize
political support. The big losers in this rather hopeless scenario are, of
course, the Iraqi people.
That said, it's rather difficult to discern exactly
which political strategy the administration will deploy to get to the 2006
congressional elections as well as the 2008 campaign. Social Security seems a
sure loser for Bush. The economy remains more than uncertain with 25,000 GM job
cuts and chatter of a possible housing-bubble-burst now seeping into the national
conversation. The President's Neanderthal position on stem cell research is
also wildly unpopular. That doesn't leave his party a whole lot to campaign on, does
it?
I'm predicting no implosion of the GOP, mind you. As always, the best thing
the Repubs have got going for them is a Democratic opposition party. The
founder of the Red Army, Leon Trotsky once said that just because a system (or in this case a political party or two)
has finally rotted, there's no guarantee it will automatically be replaced by something better. Like
a spoiled fruit, it can simply drop from the tree and further putrefy.
June 8th, 2005 at 5:38 am
Marc, the situation for Bush is even worse than you write about. In the same Wapo poll, when asked if they approved of Bush’s handling of the “war on terror” the public responded 50% yes, 49% no - a statistical tie. This is way down from last November when shrub had a 20 plus point advantage here. And it gets worse - TODAY according to the Wapo poll Bush is TWENTY points lower than Clinton ON THE DAY HE WAS IMPEACHED! Bush is only saved from complete cratering by high levels of self-described GOP support (in the eighties) - two-thirds of independents and over eighty percent of Dems view him negatively.
As for the Democrats, there is great reason to be hopedul of their prospects. The generic question of whom the voter would like to see in Congress shows an 11 point Dem advantage - it was 5 points for the GOP in 1994. Of course the election is almost 18 months out but I’d rather be in the Donkey’s position, wouldn’t you? And there is evidence that the scandals of Tom DeLay and Jack Abhrimof are having an effect.
As for the Democratic Party and Dr Dean the base is fired up. In an unscientific survey CSPAN’s “Washington Journal” asked Dems to call in and tell them if Dean speaks for them. Only one no call. Dean has put money into state parties as part of a 50 state, four year strategy to get the party competative everywhere - its been a big hit among state chairs and will get better local candidate recruitment. Last cycle Dems did well in picking up state legislative seats and when you build a bench you get good candidates for federal office. And fundraising has been getting a lot of attention lately. Just the other day three major fundraisers quit sdaying they could’nt work with the doctor. Well Dean raised more money in the first quater of an off year than any other democrat chair in history and he did it with small, internet driven contributions. Let me ask you something - do you think candidates that get their dough in small amounts as opposed to chunks from MBNA would vote for the bankruptcy bill? Ithink that means they can represent the rank and file of the party and speak to the independents who are disenchanted with the current regime.
Of course we’ll find out in 2006 but I’m optimistic. Oh, and the polls show a majority of Americans like Hillary, Damn those Clintons!
June 8th, 2005 at 7:43 am
It’s not the War on Terror anymore. It’s the War on Violent Extremism. Haven’t you heard? This has got to effect poll results positively for Bush & Co. Watch for a rebound.
The WaPo link:
http://tinyurl.com/7bjvx
In other news, Hizbollah sweeps the elections in southern Lebanon, and will, in violation of the Ta’if agreement, keep its arms. I guess they are “violent extremists,” so they will be in the cross-hairs, won’t they? Whereas those fomenting violent support of the status quo (in, say, Uzbekistan and Colombia) can probably feel pretty safe. Hey, we don’t want to get spread too thin, y’know.
I’m still trying to figure this out, though. Like, those Saudi rulers … Salafists, right? That’s pretty extreme in Islam. And torturing people — that’s violence, right? So aren’t they also “violent extremists”? Oh, I’m SO confused … but I know one thing: I’m against violent extremists, and anyone who is against Bush on this must be in favor of violent extremists, so that makes me more in favor of Bush. At least, it makes sense when I think about it for no longer than 10 seconds. But when I think about it just a little longer …. Oh, hey: the game is on, let’s crack some brewskis and chill ….
So the War in Iraq is becoming unpopular. So what? We in the GOP strategic inner circle will still be down with our base so long as we attribute erosion of voter support to That Liberal Media. And we don’t have to *completely* cut and run. We just pull back to a Kurdistan comprising Kirkuk, and that could be enough to call it a win — we will have liberated those downtrodden-but-plucky Kurds AND a whole snootful of oil. Sure, Rummy said we’d be out of Iraq by the end of this term, but he didn’t define what he meant by “Iraq” then, did he?
June 8th, 2005 at 8:53 am
I understand your cynicism but I really think that Lincoln is again being proven right - you can’t fool all the people all the time. The lies have caught up with these people and Bush has sunk back to pre 9/11 levels when he was reduced to reading to 2nd graders.
June 8th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Marc wrote: “The big losers in this rather hopeless scenario are, of course, the Iraqi people.”
Whoa. The Iraqi people would have been better off under Sadam Hussein!? Yeah, about as much as the Jews would have been better off under Hitler. It was right for the U.S. to intevene in WWII and it is right today for the U.S. to intervene in a war against us and humanity.
__________
Regarding the polls, I want my country being led by people who try to do what is right rather than what is popular. A lot of people are glad to give opinions about things for which they have absolutely no knowledge. See Jay Leno’s Jaywalking to find out who these people are. (Jaywalking http://tinyurl.com/6r7ku )
If you prefer polls, then let’s quit playing for a football national champion and let the AP voters decide who is best without the carnage on the field. (Related story: http://tinyurl.com/ddg7j ) Otherwise, lets play the game because it might have a different outcome than what people might wish or predict. We’re already in this contest and, unlike Viet Nam, I say let’s play every quarter and play it hard. Persistence on our part will win the day, and the enemies of freedom and the friends of terrorists will have to wait until next year–or, hopefully, forever.
June 8th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Woody wrote:
“Whoa. The Iraqi people would have been better off under Sadam Hussein!? Yeah, about as much as the Jews would have been better off under Hitler.”
Why do people cheapen the Holocaust by making ludicrous, idiotic statements like that?
June 8th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Woody.. u have misunderstood me and not been reading my last umpteen poste on Iraq. The Iraqi people, in the long run, are certainly much better off without Saddam Hussein. At least theoretclly. In the short run, they are not– but ok– such sacrifice could be worth it. Problem is 1( Bush admin has shown no capacity to conduct the war or occupation properly and 2) loss of popular support for the war will inevitably mean abandonment of Iraqis by U.S. It’s the worst of all possible worlds for the Iraqis.
June 8th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Marc, my apologies. I stand corrected on your position. I just read it too fast.
On Bush’s conduct with the occupation and support… We didn’t have a detailed policy and procedure manual for military occupation. It’s made up as you go along. Given the mindset of the terrorists in that region, I don’t know if anyone else could have had better results.
I do worry about failing support undermining our effort in Iraq. The negativity about our effort is pounded into us every day by the press and the Democrats, and it’s easy to lose faith. When the American people are told that we’re always wrong or incompetent, sooner or later they begin to believe it. It’s like a bad parent always telling a child that he’s a failure and a burden, and then he believes it and gives up entirely. (Psychology is not my specialty, however, but I do know history.)
________________
Kevin, my comment hardly cheapens the holocast. Your reply to my remark seems like other criticisms and demands for apologies from the left, because they choose to be offended or want to make points. Many illustrations are made by taking extreme examples to show how they are analogous. If you lived in New York, I could have sarcastically said that the Mets would have been better off with Bobby Valentine managing. However, that would not be as clear to everyone else. Maybe, in your case, I could say that The Nation magazine would be better off with me as editor. (Actually, it would.)
June 8th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
The only way Bush is going to recover support for the war in Iraq is to start making good on his rhetorical commitment to mideast democracy. That means a manhattan project on energy independence in a decade (and the necessary tax increases on the rich to pay for it) so we have the moral and economic authority to tell the House of Saud that business as usual is over, and the time for reform is now. That means an evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestenian conflict, telling Sharon that all new settlement activity in the west bank must stop now or risk losing US aid, and a deep engagement to seeking a fair and equitable deal between in the parties in the near term. A real commitment to a just Israeli-Palestenian peace on the part of Washington would deprive any number of Arab and Muslim teapot tyrants the opportunity of deflecting attention away from their failures and onto Washington and Israel (not to mention depriving terrorist organizations one of their chief recruiting mechanisms) and give us the moral authority to press them (especially Egypt) on political, economic, and cultural reform. Americans want to see progress in Iraq, and progress on reform in the region. Bush refuses to sell out his rich cronies in the oil business, or the fundamentalists on Israel, and selling them out is the price of progress and the cost of support from the broader electorate.
On the domestic side, the GOP has tried everything from constitutionally prohibiting gay marriage to demagoging a braindead woman in Florida to get the 51% support they need for their suicidally destructive far right agenda at home. It ain’t working now, and as the debt piles up, middle class income insecurity reaches the tipping point, and we move ever closer to the end of cheap oil, it’s going to work even less well. Never in my liftetime has this country been so close to the precipice and the political elites of the governing party so distinctly out of touch with what needs to be done.
As Marc rightly points out though, the Democrats are almost if not equally lost. Where is the Democratic plan for a energy independence and a post-cheap-oil economy? Where is the Democratic push for mideast reform? Where is the Democratic recognition that the middle class have been sold out, and are pissed?
June 8th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
The top two stories in our local paper today are the 25,000 GM purge and the fact that Bush’s Justice Dept. is only pursuing the tobacco industry (i.e. the major corporations) for 8% of the penalties for which they are eligible under the stipulated judgment for “racketeering” that they agreed to. If I understand this correctly, this is in effect a shift of $100,000,000,000 owed to the people’s treasury that will remain in the corporate bank accounts.
This latter choice strikes me as a major payback by the Republicans for support from the tobacco lobby. This could cost Republicans politically (though certainly it will benefit campaign coffers) in key states, particularly those whose states have last names other than Carolina or Virginia. [I should disclose that members of my family in Jennings County, Indiana do a bit of tobacco farming.]
The administration seems to have executed a policy turnabout in favor of those corporations that lied and covered-up in order to addict people to a drug that expedited millions of deaths and caused great trouble in many families.
We’ll see who, if anyone, has a problem with that.
June 8th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
“The negativity about our effort is pounded into us every day by the press and the Democrats, and it’s easy to lose faith.”
Woody, the plain truth is that most of us who opposed this war from the outset never bought into the justifactions given by the Bush administration for this war and never, ever believed the rosy predictions of success that were layed before us. We didn’t buy into the WMD baloney, we didn’t buy into the claim that were in some kind of danger of attack from them, and we knew that Iraq (unlike Afghanistan, who’s invasion most of us at least understood and many supported) was no state sponsored bastion of terrorism.
The clear and very scary fact of the matter is we have and administration who believed that we could roll into Iraq, defeat their existing armies, have a `Mission Accomplished’ party, pay for the reconstruction (with their oil!), and everything would be ducky.
Anyone who dared to present the president with with alternative scenarios was denounced as being `disloyal’ to the president. See Porter Goss. Give cost predictions that were woefully out of line
with what the administration wanted to hear? Well, you’ve got to go! No medals of freedom for you.
So, blame things on the press all you want, but to me it’s clear that people are finally waking up to the cluelessness of our leaders.
June 8th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Why don’t the Democrats have a program for energy independence? Well, actually they have. Its called the Apollo Program and if you haven’t heard of it you are excused. The MSM put it on the inside pages and I don’t think it even made the cable news shows - those missing white chicks and runaway brides you know?
It is difficult to have a programmatic message when there is no messenger to present it. But all of FOX’s horses and all of FOX’s men won’t be able to put poor George back together. No, only the cry “What have the Dems done lately” could do that.
June 8th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Marc — the best analogy is Lincoln. HE was wildly unpopular and also called an ape or baboon. The Dems ran McClellan against him and wanted a negotiated end to the attrition warfare. The Press was unremittingly hostile. Yet Sherman’s rather bloodless victories in Tennessee sealed his re-election.
The biggest difference between Vietnam and now is that there is no retreat. Just throwing in the towel is going to be a confirmation that ANOTHER mass casualty attack will make us “collapse” to Al Qaeda and people who think like them.
Americans clearly did not sign up for attrition warfare, particularly when the media has done everything to suppress 9/11 or say we “deserved it.” The dangerous thing is that we will suffer another 9/11 that could produce orders of magnitude worse casualties (the worst thing about Al Qaeda is their idea, not necessarily bin Laden).
If that happens the Dems will simply cease to exist. The Dems have not even answered the question … “how will YOU win against the Islamists?”
Lose a city, and we will wreak horrible things with our strategic nuclear weapons. Anyone thinking otherwise is fooling themselves IMHO. So, we need to have responsible adults pushing policies to decisively defeat Islamists. Bush will at least fight in dumb attrition stuff where we give up every advantage, but Dems won’t EVEN FIGHT. They stand proudly for no drop of pee on Korans, and not offending any Muslim anywhere. Meanwhile openly loathing the military (to the disgust of Barney Frank).
“Just Palestinian-Israeli peace?” That’s nonsense. Palestinians are not willing to settle for Israel’s existence, as long as that remains the political reality in Palestine no prospect of peace remains. Eventually Israel will simply lose restraint and kill a lot of Palestinians, and that will settle that, generating Palestinian pressure for a settlement. Never has a people been so willing and able to not take Yes for an answer and shoot themselves in the foot.
June 8th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
“Why don’t the Democrats have a program for energy independence? Well, actually they have. Its called the Apollo Program and if you haven’t heard of it you are excused.”
No that’s true, although a) any plan that doesn’t prominently feature the word “nuclear” is just not a realistic answer to the end of cheap oil b) it’s not just a matter of transportation (and only a matter of power generation in the sense that we need much more of it to run fuel cell and electrics cars) but a matter of plastics and agriculture as well and c) never trust the msm, but understanding that it is really up to people to plug their own gig, the Democrats (including John Kerry, whose own plan was buried on his website and far too modest) have just not made a concerted effort to communicate the importance of this issue, and what they plan to do about it; that’s what leadership is about.
June 8th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
“Yeah, about as much as the Jews would have been better off under Hitler.”
Juan Cole runs the numbers on this one, and guess what? Freelance/insurgent terrorist thuggery is killing about as many Iraqis a year as organized state-violence-style terrorist thuggery was under Saddam. How long will it go on? Some people in our military say it could be another decade. At any rate, to say that if Saddam were still in power, Iraqis would be treated the way the Jews were under Hitler, is to say that Saddam’s ambition was to exterminate all Iraqis. (Hm, I guess that would include exterminating himself and his own family, eh?)
Look, why don’t we just say this: “Iraqis under Saddam would be suffering about as much as the people of Uzbekistan under Karimov (that nice man who boils his political enemies alive, but also lets us keep bases in his country), or the people of Colombia (who have recently seen militias that even the U.S. state department has to classify as “terrorist” being granted amnesty after racking up quite a few blood-chilling massacres.)” Or substitute your own despotic, amoral, murderous regime — preferably one that we haven’t bothered to go after, or even one that we support, for whatever “compelling state interest” reasons (such as potential access to Central Asian oil reserves, collaboration on the endless, pointless Coca Wars, etc.)
In short, why don’t we put it all into perspective or something?
June 8th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Michael Turner, it’s currently popular to use Hitler comparisons.
_____________________
Beautiful Atrocities, June 01, 2005, “IN THE FUTURE, EVERYONE WILL BE HITLER FOR 15 MINUTES”, http://tinyurl.com/blwvp
“Rick Santorum compares Democrats to Hitler, Robert Byrd compares Republicans to Hitler, John Glenn compares Republicans to Hitler, Martha Stewart compared to Hitler, The Gallery of Bush=Hitler Allusions, George Soros: Worse than Hitler, North Korea compares Rumsfeld to Hitler,… Hillary Duff is a Nazi” (yes, even her!), …and more!”
______________________
But, I can go with your analogies.
******************
Jim Hitchcock wrote: “Woody, the plain truth is that most of us who opposed this war from the outset never bought into the justifactions given by the Bush administration for this war….”
Jim, you really make good, logical points. You’re on your way to thinking like a conservative. However, here’s where we are alike and different. I didn’t understand or agree with the premise for going to war, either. There we are together. However, once it was decided, then I became a “backer” rather than an “attacker.” (Ohhh…eat your heart out, Jesse Jackson.) This country is more successful when we are united rather than fighting internally.
June 8th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Not really sure if I could be labeled an `attacker’, Woody…I am anything but an `out now’ sort of person, nor do I paint myself funny colors and wave signs at protest marches. I am merely part of the 60% who believe this war was not worth fighting. But, since we are there, I believe it’s our responsiblity as a nation to stay until we have a viable governmnent in Iraq.
June 8th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
green dem: “The only way Bush is going to recover support for the war in Iraq is to start making good on his rhetorical commitment to mideast democracy. That means a manhattan project on energy independence in a decade (and the necessary tax increases on the rich to pay for it) so we have the moral and economic authority to tell the House of Saud that business as usual is over, and the time for reform is now…”
I don’t see this working, green dem. For a couple of reasons. One is that “democracy now!” in the Middle East could be quite destabilizing, especially insofar as it would empower Islamists in the region — a fact not lost on Assad, Mubarak and the House of Saud. And of course this administration knows it. Laura Bush hailed Mubarak’s recent faux-reforms in Egypt as a “bold” move during her little junket, but her own husband had to dial that one back later when the embarrassing reality was shown to be indisputable: the Mubarak regime still fields goon squads against any open opponents. The formal rules may change, but the formal electoral rules matter about as much in Egypt as they did in El Salvador in the early 80s. Maybe not even that much.
In the specific case of Saudi Arabia, an America slowly weaning itself from their oil actually worsens matters, if it decreases their income as well. Islamism is fed in large part by the steadily dropping fortunes of the average wage-earner in Saudi Arabia, and failure to earn wages at all among a growing number of young men there. Yes, American automotive fuel economy measures probably helped spur fanaticism there. Politically-effective fanaticism doesn’t grow out of poverty per se, it grows out of impoverishing the middle classes. (Eric Hoffer was quite acute here: the smaller you make people feel when they are used to feeling big, the more they want to be part of something bigger than themselves, something that fights — at least ostensibly –the perceived source of diminution. The poor are used to feeling small.) Pinching off the supply of money … well, it’s like adding powder to the powder keg, while blowing on the fuse to make it burn faster.
Bush is recently making some noises again (incoherent ones) about hydrogen-powered cars and fuel cells and whatnot, and even making noises about climate change as a serious issue. There may be a shift in the wind going on here, finally. And possibly in response to how poorly things are going in Iraq. But don’t think for a minute that it’s predicated on (or somehow *generally* supportive of) more democracy in the Middle East. I think this administration (with the possible exception of some of the more starry-eyed neocons, with Wolfie definitely sidelined now anyway) have always known that a more democratic Middle East was always an iffy project at best. It risks dangerous failures — a Sunni Arab/Shi’a Arab civil war in Iraq, perhaps some parallel conflict in Lebanon, and maybe even stirrings of Saudi Arabia’s Shi’a minority. It also risks dangerous successes — Islamist revolution in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, spilling over into the Gulf oil kingdoms — precisely the scenario bin Laden dreams about every night.
The real problem is that world oil production is peaking, the potential new sources of supply are in none-too-certain regions such as Central Asia, the stability of current Middle Eastern producers (and especially Saudi Arabia) was thrown rather starkly into question by 9/11 and the reaction to it among Arabs, and China’s growing nationalism, growing regional economic hegemony, and its growth in oil demand threatens a split in what have been, until now, relatively open world markets for oil. World oil reserves could end up being virtually partitioned among superpowers in a new Cold War situation.
So there’s a race going on, a race to lock down reserves on relatively friendly territory over the next few years. Iraq as a whole may not be friendly territory for us. But Kurdistan is. Sudan as a whole is problematic territory — Darfur smolders on, a slow-motion killing field, but ultimately, it would be foolish from this administration’s point of view to completely alienate Khartoum. (Just in case you were wondering why there’s all this footdragging on Darfur.) The softening of Libya was a windfall. Nigeria’s corruption has to be tolerated, no matter how bad it gets. Venezuela’s embrace of Castro, likewise — at least until it can be credibly accused of “exporting revolution”, and I don’t think even Chavez is that stupid. The Caspian neighbor nations have a straight pipeline shot into the Chinese market, if it comes to that. And it may yet come to that.
Gaining full independence from supplies of oil coming from problematic regions is not a 10-year project. It’s a 20-year project. We shouldn’t kid ourselves about this.
An America that puts itself on a more serious war footing might make the sacrifices required for an accelerated oil-independence timeline more palatable to Americans. But getting onto a serious war footing might take another provocation on the scale of 9/11, and that probably won’t happen unless the potential perpetrators of such an attack can agree that it works for them at least as well as 9/11 did. Would it? Right now, I think that’s hard to call. I’d say they are probably waiting on events to disambiguate the relevant issues. Will North Korea go ahead with a test of one of its (hypothesized) six bombs? Will this lead to a regional arms race in which Japan starts to become a “normal country”, with a nuclear deterrent and a foreign policy independent of the U.S., including its own policies about which countries it has a right to buy oil from? Will Iran test a nuclear weapon? And what ripple effects might that have? Could there be a Greater Middle East Sunni/Shi’a civil war in the making, and if so, what leverage might be had from that? (Or could another 9/11-scale attack and the inevitable U.S. reaction put a lid on such brewing divisions, should such a lid be deemed more useful to Al Qaeda for the time being?)
Al Qaeda wants Saudi Arabia. That much we know. That’s still Prize #1. But a Saudi Arabia without dependent customers (and well-armed customers at that, to fend off any maritime embargo) won’t be worth nearly as much to them. It’s not a potential gain to be lightly precluded.
The dice are still tumbling. They may tumble for while yet. In the meantime, however, reducing oil imports from Saudi Arabia (or whatever reduces its income) works for Al Qaeda. And I think this administration knows it. They’ll reduce imports from Saudi only in parallel with price increases that are coming down the pipe. And they’ll call it “the market doing what it does best”, no matter what the realities are.
Sad to say (and returning to the topic), the Dems, if they get back into power, probably won’t do things too much differently. Ultimately, Al Qaeda is gaming liberal democracy, a system they understand well enough to know its weaknesses, at least. The Dems aren’t any less exposed than the GOP. Where they would react differently, it will be in predictable ways.
June 9th, 2005 at 12:55 am
Jim Rockford seems to want to launch a new crusade against militant Islam. Fine Jim, tell me where you plan to get the troops to wage this war. The Army fell short this month even after lowering its goal. So where do the troops come from? Not from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, that’s for sure!
I don’t get where you come up with the idea that the Dems don’t want to fight these terrorists. EVERY Democratic candidate for President. except Kucinich (Ithink) supported the invasion of Afganistan as did I and almost everyone I know. That’s where the jerks who attacked us came from and they were accomodated by the taliban, about the most repressive group around. Well we toppled them but rather than get Osama in those caves with the 101st or the 82nd we turned it over to locals who really weren’t into it. And why didn’t we use our own troops? Because they were needed for the main event - the conquest of Iraq and the beginning of PNAC’s wet dream of a new Middle East for you-know-who. And so Osama got away and now he’s the moslem Che Guevera and kids all over the Islamic world wear T-shirts with his picture. So much for Hearts and Minds!
The Lincoln analogy just won’t wash. LBJ tried that same argument during Vietnam and it was just as bogus then. Lincoln conducted a war to save the union and then to have “A new Birth of Freedom” end slavery. Hundreds of thousands of Union supporters FROM EVERY STATE EXCEPT SOUTH CAROLINA flocked to the Stars and Stripes. Over 100,000 blacks, mainly slaves, joined up and as viewers of the movie “Glory” know fought well and fought valiently. When the Iraqi troops do half as well, talk to me. Hell, talk to me when half of them muster for duty! Until then they are as useful as ARVN was in SVN = as useful as tits on a bull to quote James J. Hill.
Green Dem I have no problem with nuclear power. It might scare Ralph Nader but I believe the greatest threat we face is global warming and the complete refusal of this administration to recognise it, to take advice from Exxon Flacks over the world’s scientists will be enough to condemn these people to ignomy in the history books.
June 9th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Jim Hitchcock wrote: ” But, since we are there, I believe it’s our responsiblity as a nation to stay until we have a viable governmnent in Iraq.”
Jim, my term “attacker” wasn’t specifically directed to you but rather described my perceptions of the positions of the left. Anyway, it rhymed.
I think we’re in agreement about what needs to be done. I guess we disagree about the level of criticism or second guessing that still goes on about the war. It doesn’t do me any good to constantly criticize my daughter about her fender bender from two years ago. Once was enough. What’s done is done.
Truth is, we really won’t be sure what was the best strategy in Iraq until ten or fifteen years from now. Putting aside the human rights issues, it’s nice to see democracy being given a chance to work and grow in that region.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
“One is that “democracy now!” in the Middle East could be quite destabilizing, especially insofar as it would empower Islamists in the region — a fact not lost on Assad, Mubarak and the House of Saud. And of course this administration knows it.”
That may be, and it also may not be, which is to say that while Islam is now and is likely to be for some time the chief organizing principle in Arab society, and would likely be central to a democratic politics in the Arab world not every Islamist is Osama Bin Laden. It is the Islamists not the liberal, western-looking reformers who have the legitimacy and ears of the people, and many of them while culturally conservative are not totalitarians, but democrats, and want to see an Arab world where Islam plays a significant role in the context of a democratic system (not unlike the Christian democratic parties of western Europe, post ww II).
I don’t at all discount the possibility of a Sunni/Shiite civil war in Iraq (it didn’t help that Bush made at best a half-assed effort to build a broad international coalition to wage this war; there aren’t enough troops over there and given the fact that there was no appetite for a draft and few more troops available from the US the only places they might’ve come from in large numbers would have been Russia, France, Germany, etc). I don’t at all discount the possibility of Islamist totalitarian revolutions in one or more Arab and Muslim countries, but the status quo, and our relationship to that status quo is no longer sustainable, and either you press for positive change (read: democracy) while weaning yourself off oil dependence (which as you note will be necessary anyhow given the coming of peak oil) or you get the hell out while weaning yourself off oil dependence. Which one is worse or better? I have no idea, but it isn’t the status quo.
June 9th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
“We didn’t have a detailed policy and procedure manual for military occupation. ”
Yeah, we did Woody. But you’d have to read that liberal bastard Seymour Hersh’s reporting to know about it. He’s persona non grata to you, so you make stupid statements that simply aren’t true. The State Department did serious occupation planning and Rumsfeld ordered Jay Garner to ignore it and blackballed anyone who had anything to do with it from consulting the CPA. FOX didn’t bother to tell you. Sorry buddy, but you’re stuck in the mud again and don’t know it. You’ll defend any damn thing these sorry bastards do…and mostly out of sheer ignorance. Wake the fuck up…
Haven’t read the whole thread…just back from Missouri…so maybe somebody else commented on this. Too tired to deal with this shit…it just makes me sick at heart.