‘Political Escapism’
A big thank you to Josh Marshall for so neatly expressing a thought I’ve been awkwardly tussling with for some weeks.
I’ve written here and elsewhere about my doubts over a Democratic strategy of impeachment or even censure. I’ve made my arguments, but I think Marshall makes them much better.
His latest column in The Hill (which focuses on impeachment and not censure) comes up with the perfect wording for which I’ve been fumbling around like a klutz. He terms impeachment “a grand evasion…a sort of political escapism…an indulgence†by Democrats. And let it be noted that Marshall is way more of a Democrat than I. Says Josh:
…The key reason it’s not smart politically is that it represents a grand evasion, a sort of political escapism on the part of Democrats who’ve had a very bad and dispiriting string of elections.Winning elections on the ground in swing states is hard. Making the case to the public that President Bush is a disastrous president who should be reined in is … well, a lot harder than it should be. Winning 10 more seats in the House is hard. Impeachment, though, is easy.It may not be easy in the sense that it’s going to happen any time soon or ever, but, conceptually, it’s easy. Easy to understand. Easy to call for. It’s moral clarity on steroids. But people who care about politics should care about it because they care about actual politics, what actually happens, who gets votes and who doesn’t, who has the power for awesome decisions like going to war. Critics of the president who care about those things should do the one concrete and meaningful thing they can do at the moment to have an effect on those key issues, and that is to create a counterweight in the Congress, specifically by putting Democrats in control of at least one chamber. Once that happens, and if the Congress does its job of oversight, impeachment will still be there if the president continues his lawless ways. Until then it’s just an indulgence.Sweet. Bush is already getting censured everyday by a cascade of startling polls that show his favorability dipping near the 30% mark. Much more than the Congress, the entire nation is turning thumbs down on him. Only an enfeebled opposition party could lose an election in this atmosphere. Now that 2 out of 3 Americans are rejecting Bush, can the Democrats convincingly tell them what they are going to offer in his place? Can they get past a cheap indulgence?
March 15th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
“Only an enfeebled opposition party could lose an election in this atmosphere. Now that 2 out of 3 Americans are rejecting Bush, can the Democrats convincingly tell them what they are going to offer in his place?”
That’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Probably not what the actual Dems will offer, but my list would be:
- single-payer universal health care.
- fix Medicare prescription drug mess by restructuring to benefit seniors, not pharma companies.
- raise minimum wage. It’s at an all-time low.
- public campaign financing. Cut corruption off at the root.
- withdraw troops from Iraq to put resources into preventing terror attacks
- repeal tax cuts for the rich
- crash program of fuel efficiency, energy conservation etc.
—-
Censure isn’t even remotely an indulgence. If you can’t stand up for the Constitution, if you let this executive’s assertion of unchecked power stand, why should anyone think you’ll fight hard for anything else?
We entered a serious constitutional crisis late last year, and “moderate Republicans”, with every incentive to stand up to an incompetent and out-of-control executive, failed to do so. That can’t be allowed to just pass.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:06 am
The strongest argument against censure, David, is that the move for it short-circuits what has been the mounting criticism of Bush from within the GOP. I think at this point in history, we’d be better off if we let Republicans continue their dispute instead of galvanizing them into unity around Bush.
Worse, censure is going absolutely nowhere. I think, in retrospect, Feingold’s attempt will be seen as a misfire.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:47 am
The only way Democrats can win in 2006 or 2008 is if they get a coherent policy about how to protect America.
For instance: super-tight port, city and industry protection, and a coherent and principled policy of disengagement, followed by a coherent and principled policy of isolation.
Ankle-biting Bush on everything, everything and then turning around and profiling Arabs (by quashing the Emirates port deal) is the height (sp?) of incoherence.
Bush is incompetent and Republicans are objectively corrupt and not conservative. They suck. Republicans will win in 2006 and 2008, easily.
March 16th, 2006 at 3:31 am
“Bush is incompetent and Republicans are objectively corrupt and not conservative. They suck. Republicans will win in 2006 and 2008, easily.”
I don’t think it will be “easily” — because of the Dem liberal bias press. (The one that does NOT talk about Darfur every week, every night — even though it’s a slo-mo genocide.)
The Dems don’t have the guts to call for a gas tax increase.
But when the lousy Rep is compared with the angry, incoherent, totally non-trustworthy Dem — I don’t think the Reps will lose the House.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:52 am
“Censure isn’t even remotely an indulgence. If you can’t stand up for the Constitution, if you let this executive’s assertion of unchecked power stand, why should anyone think you’ll fight hard for anything else?”
Go Nell! If more liberals listen to good people like you, instead of those pragmatists like Marc and Josh, they will feel awfully good about themselves for ‘doing the right thing’ while the power to do anything other than feel good stays the way it is.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:45 am
[...] Marc Cooper and Josh Marshal are a couple of Dems who think this whole Censure / Impeachment thing as a grand evasion…a sort of political escapism…an indulgence. I have another word for it Marc. Insanity. [...]
March 16th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Yeah both of these stunts are a waste of time and detract from the issues on the very good list Nell has. They gave them the rope whether they knew it or not. Now let the reps hang themselves with it. The noose is in place.
March 16th, 2006 at 8:58 am
The escapist indulgence would be to think that reaping political capital from Bush’s debacle in Iraq is some sort of sustainable survival strategy for the Democrats.
Rebuilding the party may take a decade or more. It is a big waste of time to try and pretend Bush isn’t a war criminal just because doing so may help win a few more seats in 2006.
If the Democrats can learn to do one thing it should be to think longer term. It is simply not possible to win elections by merely by supporting the right mix of policies. There has to be an image component and the image that’s killing the Democrats now is that they don’t believe in anything. Maybe that means 2006 is a foregone conclusion. I’d say that’s the way to look at it.
To be sure, there are plenty of right wingers who will say what the Democrats should do is start to believe in God, guns, gay-bashing and speculative military aggression. What mystifies me is the Democrats who seem to think the Republicans have a point on that.
Feingold cannot go it alone. Of course he needs full support from his party and, should he get it, could lead the way to a better public perception about the party.
Kerry lost because he was seen as an opinion poll chaser, not a leader. The last thing the Democrats need to do is adjust their views to whats in fashionable in the mainstream media. A little more hell raising is exactly what the party needs. So the problem isn’t that the Democrats don’t have ideas or policies, it’s that their leadership is so cowed by Republican success, they
If there is one lesson the Democrats can learn from the Republicans, its that swing voters aren’t looking for a candidate that matches their views point by point (indeed, they tend not to have views on ideological questions, big and small). Swing voters want a candidate who they feel won’t sell them out.
The only way the Democrats can get there is by taking Bush’s war crimes seriously, as they clearly should be. Even if the public does not immediately lend its support to that effort, they will eventually and thereby a long-missing spine will have been implanted into the Democratic party.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:06 am
“War crimes” are a red herring. Centrist swing voters will not vote for any nutbag who claims this. They supported him for Christ’s sake. What they don’t like now is incompetence and Bush has that bull market. Hopefully what they want now is a Democrat that can think before he leaps. At least that’s what I want, and so does Marshall and Cooper if I read them correctly.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Tom Grey: “…the Dem liberal bias press. (The one that does NOT talk about Darfur every week, every night — even though it’s a slo-mo genocide.)”
Far be it from me to defend the press on their coverage of horrors in relatively remote countries, but if you search the New York Times site for ‘Darfur” you get 71 hits from the past 90 days and 255 hits from the past year. Nicholas Kristof, one of those biased liberals the Times tend to feature on their op-ed page has posted videos from Darfur on the Times website and challanged Bill O’Reilly to travel with him to Darfur – even raising money from readers to finance a trip by Bill – so he can report on it extensively for the FOX folks. But searching the flagship right-wing Washington Times for Darfur over the past year yielded jsut 81 articles.
Unless you’ve got some evidence better than unhinged bullshit, please cut out the “liberal MSM” as the prime suspects responsible for inaction as regards Darfur. (And to paraphrase Stalin, “How many regiments does the ‘MSM’ have ?”)
As for the Ugly American…I’ve missed your “insanity” tagline for the past couple of days. Please don’t skip any threads because they feel sort of empty without that bit of analysis. (No need to back it up with your “statistics” – I just get a kick out of it.)
March 16th, 2006 at 9:42 am
“challenged Bill O’Reilly to travel with him to Darfur – even raising money from readers to finance a trip by Bill – so he can report on it extensively for the FOX folks”
Oh…Wild Bill responded that he didn’t have time.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:04 am
The “war crime” thing, if it’s focused on the act of the war itself, the act of starting it, is based on what a great many people who even style themselves intelligent perceive to be a dishonest and in fact morally flawed analysis.
I say that not of course as an effort to persuade anyone, but to state the presence of this body of opinion – held by people as firm in their views as the war crime crowd – as a simple fact.
Starting any kind of process on that grounds, then, will tear the country apart. If that’s what you want to do, go ahead.
This is a separate topic from impeachability based on dishonest presentation of the evidence, say.
If the war crime charge is based purely on torture, the jury is still out, and pertinent information is scattered and weird. But honest conservatives are persuadable.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:24 am
I’m all over the place on censure, although I do think that the impeachement idea, although there may be a legal basis for it, is probably not going to help matters. Still, I think I would like to see the Dems come down hard on Bush, and I I’m not seeing a lot of that at the moment.
The Dems have a real winner of an issue in the stalling lobby reform. The GOP House members evidently don’t like the travel and gift ban. If the Dems are agreed that both of these things should happen, they should be running it up the shorts of the reluctant Republicans. But I suspect they are probably just as unhappy that they won’t be seeing the insides of all those private jets themselves.
The problem is we’re asking the cookie monster (that is both parties) to put the lid down himself, but see, he really really likes cookies.
Anyone see the latest, that Bush may have deliberately signed the wrong budget bill? These guys….it just never ends with them.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Department of Tautology:
“honest conservatives are persuadable”
Department of People Who Scare Me:
All of those other “conservatives”
March 16th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Do you mean honest implies and includes persuadable?
March 16th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I’m wondering who the “honest conservative” would be on Iraq?
William F. Buckley, who states that the war was a mistake and, Murtha-like, that it’s very unlikely that we can now control the situation that’s been created ? Fukuyama, who makes essentially the same case ?
Or David Brooks who is leading a “I was right to beat the drums of war but Rumsfeld screwed our project up” (a.k.a. “rats deserting the sinking rats”) neocon faction ? And Ralph Peters who wants to pin the “who’s at fault for the Iraq mess” tail on the “liberal media” ?
Unfortunately if the right-wing Blog’nBlusterOsphere is any indication, the overwhelming preponderance of “conservatives” fall into the latter camp.
Honest conservatives ? I’m sure there are a handful huddled in a corner, but there’s not much evidence of this species in all the old familiar places.
March 16th, 2006 at 11:42 am
“Do you mean honest implies and includes persuadable? ”
I would say that it implies open to argument, yes. Perhaps not pesuadable on core beliefs, but open to empirical argument and pragmatic assessment of the course of events.
March 16th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Brad Delong on “honest conservatives”:
Now Peggy Noonan and the rest of the plastic Republican chattering teeth did not think back in 2000 that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” meant that he was a spender, they thought it meant that he was a liar–and that they were in on the con. The Bush budget strategy, they thought at the time, had four components:
1. Highball estimates of future budget surpluses in order to make it look like there’s more room for tax cuts than there was.
2. Lowball the costs of the tax cuts by telling people that the AMT will be repealed when you calculate the magnitude of their tax cut and yet keeping the AMT in effect when calculating the revenue cost of the tax cut.
3. Call yourself a “compassionate conservative” to convince voters you don’t want to make elderly emphysema patients front the money for their oxygen cylinders.
4. Then, when deficits reemerge, say: “Oh. What a surprise. We have to cut way back on federal services and programs after all.”
That’s the David Stockman quadrille. They thought Bush was lying to everybody else–that, as Andrew Sullivan liked to put it:
Some… get steamed because Bush has obscured this figure or claimed his tax cut will cost less than it actually will, or because he is using Medicare surplus money today that will be needed tomorrow and beyond…. [T]hey miss the deeper point… Bush has to obfuscate his real goals of reducing spending with the smoke screen of ‘compassionate conservatism’…. B.S. is necessary for any vaguely successful retrenchment of government power in an insatiable entitlement state…. I just hope the smoke doesn’t clear before the spenders get their hands on our wallets again.
Now they are surprised–and shrill–to learn that George W. Bush was lying to them too.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Paul – forget “war crimes”, forget “Bush lied, people died”. Dont’ salve yourself by constantly quarrelling with reductionist left-wing rhetoric. It’s too easy and leads nowhere. Just ask yourself whether reasonable, intelligent, moral people can honestly argue that Bush and Company didn’t deliberately hype the case for a war that they were determined to wage regardless of the facts – manufacturing and vastly overstating evidence for the necessary political argument that Saddam posed a clear and present danger to American national security, particularly as it was being reassessed in the wake of 9/11. I find it hard to believe that any competent person of integrity who’s done at least the level of investigation into the question easily available over the internet and knows what references to “aluminum tubes”, “mobile WMD labs” mean – or such facts as where Zarqawi’s terrorist training camp was actually located prior to the war – could plausibly make the argument that Bush’s rush to war wasn’t duplicitous and irresponsible in the extreme, both in it’s conception and the war’s actual conduct. And the strategic “planning” for the war was directly related to the bill of goods on which it had been sold to the public. It was no accident that can be neatly seperated from the rationale. You really have to reach back to Vietnam to find anything this grotesque and ruinous at the level of a central, overriding foreign policy strategy with inevitable decades-long blowback, domestically and globally.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
And don’t forget, Reg, Rumsfeld’s obsession with going in “small” in direct opposition to most of the military planners.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Paul -
February 2001, Colin Powell says that Saddam Hussein ‘has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.’
That same month, a CIA report stated: ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programmes.’
In July 2001, Condoleezza Rice says: ‘We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.’
On 11 September 2001, six hours after the attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said that it might be an opportunity to ‘hit’ Iraq. ‘Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.’
Condoleezza Rice asked: ‘How do you capitalise on these opportunities?’
17 September the president signed a document marked top secret that directed the Pentagon to begin planning for the invasion and that, some months later, he secretly and illegally diverted $700 million approved by Congress for operations in Afghanistan into preparing for the new battle front.
Just a taste that doesn’t begin to scratch the surface or dig into such things as Cheney’s “Office of Special Plans” under Doug Feith (snipped from Downing St. Project website). How anybody can squre this pattern with “good intentions” or “honest mistake” is beyond my comprehension.
Arguing over whether censure or impeachment is politically viable misses the main point. Most Americans are, finally, beginning to get it. Bush is one of the worst Presidents in American history. My tendency is along the lines of Marc’s – let him fester, let the GOP stew and develop a pro-active positive program.
But on the specific issue at hand I also have sympathy for Feingold, even it its a cry in the wilderness of a Republican controlled-Congress and Democratic peers who tend to range from timid to tongue-tied. But if Feingold wanted to make this gesture, he should have made sure he’d end up looking like The Lone Ranger and not the lone stranger. A rousing speech, a call to arms and a noble defeat would have come across more credibly if he had better anticipated the parliamentary tangos of whether he’d checked with his colleagues or thought the dance through past the first step.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
What possible difference could the enunciation of a Democratic platform make if the actual people who are supposed to be enacting same aren’t willing to fight? If you don’t hold the President accountable on this issue, you have implicitly ratified his conduct.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
As I say, impeachability related especially to hyping/ exaggerating certainty on the weapons in general and on specific pieces of evidence is another topic and not something that in my view would tear the country apart, depending on lots of things.
(ASIDE: People here and of like mind have settled on the view that Bush “cherry-picked” a few bits of intelligence to support the idea that there were weapons when in fact there was a lot of evidence he had none. I suspect the actual situation was probably murkier than that; what we had going in was a very strong conventional wisdom that of course Hussein was hiding weapons, a CW going back a decade; and then in 2002-2003 there was starting to be evidence – owing to the inspections that only happened because W and Blair forced them – that it might not be true. I don’t really have a strong idea yet of how obvious that new reality should have been, or how actively it should have been promoted within the administration. It’s pretty hard to deny that it should have been taken more seriously; yet it’s also true that the previous CW was incredibly strong, and included the notion that “evidence†was almost beside the point: everyone thoroughly believed he had weapons in 1998 when the last inspections ended; he had 4 years in between to not just develop weapons but to perfect his hiding of them.
(But that paragraph is slightly of-topic; just something I’ve been wanting to say.)
The BASIC issue I keep going back to is this: any president, even an idealized honest Democratic president, would have been flummoxed by the Iraq situation after 9-11, and would have been sorely tempted to decide that it was time to remove Hussein once and for all. The stuff that gets listed detailing W’s dishonesties and the administration’s arguable over-eagerness to do it don’t even begin to touch my opinion on that score. There are dozens of reasons I believe it, ranging from details to basic context and history.
The notion that a war to remove Hussein was at least defensible – as distinct from a good idea to actually do in the end, or especially wise to do without the UN – is, always has been and always will be painfully obvious to me.
That’s why I was entranced by the Brokaw-Koppel brouhaha a few weeks back, where they just easily asserted to Tim Russert that in their opinion, of course Clinton would also have decided to do it. It just encapsulates perfectly what I believe about the situation.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
And reg, my perception of you is you agree with that. “At least defensible.” Something worth considering. A dilemma.
It seems to me that the Democrats are increasingly stuck in a mindset that the war was utterly without merit or justification – as distinct from a mindblowing blunder, which it could also be – and that’s an intellectually dishonest view, in my opinion.
I know some people see that as a tiny distinction not worth “harping” on. Obviously that’s not how it seems to me. To me, reconciling this within the party is key to bringing the nation together.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
” what we had going in was a very strong conventional wisdom that of course Hussein was hiding weapons, a CW going back a decade; and then in 2002-2003 there was starting to be evidence – owing to the inspections that only happened because W and Blair forced them – that it might not be true.”
And that squares with the views expressed explicitly by Powell and Rice in 2001, prior to 9/11, exactly how ?
Also the *Bush “cherry-picked†a few bits of intelligence to support the idea that there were weapons when in fact there was a lot of evidence he had none* summation of the counterargument is bogus. I believed Saddam probably had something that could be categorized as “WMD” stashed somewhere, but never believed he posed a clear and present danger to the national security of the U.S. or that a case had been made. As for the “Clinton would have done it” bizness, that’s just bullshit. Really. The whole case for Bush’s annunciation to the Presidency by God and the Supreme Court that was made so tenaciously by many conservatives was precisely that Clinton or Gore WOULDN’T have done it. Brokaw and Koppel have their heads up Russert’s butt on this one. Truly an idiotic assertion. Compare the views of most Clinton/Gore advisors on the war, vs. Bush’s circle of unflinching neo-cons. Hell, I don’t believe John McCain would have abandoned a serious strategy in Afghanistan and agasint al Qaeda tp go to war against Saddam had he actually been in the Oval Office reviewing the evidence with his own advisors (who would have been a cut above the crackpots Cheney brought in, Rummies hubristic civvies or the bootlicking opportunists like Condi and Tenet.)
March 16th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
“At least defensible.â€
My point is, NO! Emphatically.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The other thing about Bush’s argument for war that was just complete and utter crap is that he based it on the U.N. resolutions. The idea that the United States goes to war over U.N. resolutions is completely preposterous. Especially coming from an administration that obviously has contempt for the U.N. “WMD” was a scare tactic used by this administration to capitalize on the tragedy of 9/11 – The earlier statements by Powell and Rice and the estimates by the CIA that Saddam was not a significant military threat mock the hysteria and rush to war in Iraq that the hard-core neocon faction began drumming up inside the administration even before the bodies were pulled from the rubble.
Defensible strategy ? Never was, never will be.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
http://tinyurl.com/sxfpk
March 16th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I will throw my two cents in on the discussion here between Reg and Paul.
Although I think it’s undeniable that Bush manipulated and cherry picked intelligence, we shouldn’t forget that there was another actor here, Hussein, who had his own motives for signaling ambiguity about what he might have possessed. Things I’ve read recently suggest that Hussein’s own officers were shocked to discover, on the eve of the US invasion, that they had no chem or bio weapons with which to defend Iraq. He also seemed to be playing a game with Israel as well. He certainly tried to play it both ways, and there is no reason to think that, at least in part, political and intelligence analysts couldn’t be fooled as well–he wanted them to be fooled.
Now whether this justifies the war and its rationale is another matter.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Yeah Dan O that’s from Cobra II by Gordon and Trainor. It looks like a recap of what we know now. Saddam was cleaning up a few old munitions from the Iran/iraq war and they misread it as cleaning up after new production. frankly I don’t know how such a mistake can be made, but in the light of the other nonsense: tubes, biolabs and so on, I can see the way it was going. The whole thing was an argument from ignorance based on a list of WMD not declared. I didn’t buy any of it. To me that meant closer inspections. They cut it off because they didn’t want to know.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
I’m swamped, so I’m just making my comment without following the discussion, much less carefully reading the entire post, as if you could tell the difference.
Bush’s “bad” ratings include me and a lot of other Republicans–but, that doesn’t translate into support for Democrats. Many of us are upset with Bush for things such as spending like a Democrat, and we sure wouldn’t want one of “that kind” in office to make things even worse. (Did you see the Dem’s latest idea to “give” everyone free broadband?!! LOL!) Many negative feelings about Bush would be substantially amplified if a Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter type of person were the subject of the poll. Your glee for Bush’s problems doesn’t necessarily translate into gains for the left. Dream on.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Chem and bio weapons, yes. Frankly, I thought – like his generals – that he would be stupid not to have kept some of his old chemical weapons stashed away as a defensive measure. That’s what he wanted people to suspect to some degree, obviously, in his bizarre double game. But the case for war was made on the argument that he was close to a nuclear capacity. This was the linch-pin. Which is why I don’t like the “WMD” category as a catch-all. It is so imprecise in regards to the nature of a threat as to be almost meaningless. The reality is that this country assisted Saddam when he was actively using chemical weapons and comitting war crimes, so “WMD WTF “? I would have considered Bush a smart, tough strategist if he’d have forced Saddam’s hand on inspections and let Blix do his work to make sure that there wasn’t a threat that was being overlooked. Do you remember how Blix was lampooned and lambasted by the smartass right-wing pundits, GOPer bloggers and other kneejerk jerks in the fall of 2002 and early 2003? It was a disgusting display and an essential part of the charade that Bush and his enablers and apologists ever intended anything other than war.
Also, the argument that “9/11 changed everything” is – aside from the aspects of perception and emotion on the part of a shell-shocked public – complete crap. If 9/11 “changed everything” for a high-level defense strategist, they obviously weren’t competent or serious analysts of what threats were possible – even probable – when it really mattered. And for Condi and Colin to be dismissing Saddam’s military capacities early in 2001 and then have the Bushniks claiming that a pre-emptive strike was absolutely necessary because of Saddam’s “violations of U.N. resolutions” less than a year later boggles my mind. Something is rotten in that picture. I think we have now gotten a sense of what it was – a foriegn policy coup by neocon fantasists in Cheney’s office and the civilian wing of the Pentagon waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 in one of the most egregious acts of political opportunism and calculated fearmongering I’ve ever witnessed.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
“Many of us are upset with Bush for things such as spending like a Democrat, and we sure wouldn’t want one of “that kind†in office to make things even worse.”
Without comment on some of the other wack suggestions by Woody, one wonders if he’s ever heard of Bill Clinton, who’s fiscal record surpassed that of Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 – by a long shot.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Speaking of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons back when Rummy was hooking up with him in Baghdad, Al Franken was on Letterman (? I think) talking about his USO tour this past holiday season to Iraq. He did a Saddam imitation as part of his comedy routine and afterward had the chance to sit down and have dinner with a U.S. soldier who had guarded Saddam in prison. A couple of funny things. Franken said he’d come up with his Saddam imitation based on his imagining how a generic tyrannical dictator would sound, but the guard told him that he had Saddam down cold. The other “funny” thing was that Saddam had told the guard: “I liked President Reagan. He gave me helicopters.”
March 16th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I gotta go pick up my wife at the airport, on a flight that’s an hour late – did you know we got about 20 inches of snow here since Monday? – so a couple quick thoughts:
I think “defensible” is sort of a vague phrase. By that I mean “worth considering;” “not inherently insane.” My memory of reg’s position is that he was tempted to think it was an unavoidable decision, just like I was.
That said, he puts more weight on the nuclear thing that I do: definitely in terms of how important he thought it was in the pre-war case, and maybe in terms of how important he thought it was on its own terms.
I never preceived it as uniquely central to the admin’s argument, as way more important than bio and chemical. And speaking purely for myself, I never considered it to be the most important thing to consider. I always assumed Hussein was at least a few years away from anything approaching a nucelar weapon, and I always assumed that for the short term decision, the near-certainty that he still had stocks of chemical and bio weapons was the most frightening and important thing.
So when I get mad at W, it’s mainly because if he actually did evade or hide evidence that Hussein didn’t currently have those weapons.
Of course, as I’ve said before, personally I don’t consider the actual existence of those fairly easy-to-replace stocks as the be-all and end-all of whether the war was a good idea. Which is another way of saying, the basic issue was the regime; and the nearly universal acceptance of the idea that he would hit us if he could; and the plain fact (as I see it) that even if we didn’t do this war, we’d still be trying actively to seek his demise, meaning he’d always have motivation to hit us if he could.
We weren’t ever going to accept his return to normal nation status – I think that’s undeniable – and that fact affected how i thought about the situation even at the time.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
STAR SPANGELED SOPRANOS
Three years into the Iraq War and what do we have to show for it—CHAOS, INSURGENCY, CORRUPTION AND NO END IN SIGHT!
Casualties in Iraq
the Human Cost of Occupation
American Military Casualties in Iraq
Date Total In Combat
American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 2311 1854
Since “Mission Accomplished” (5/1/03) (the list)
2174 1755
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1844 1548
Since Handover (6/29/04): 1445 1220
Since Election (1/31/05): 875 742
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded:
17004 18000 – 48100
And this does not include civilian Iraqi deaths which are estimated at over 100,000 men, women and children.
What is the future for Iraq and its people; will it is a “grand democratic†society, or will it be a declining culture whose marketplace specializes in porn, drugs and weapons—a way of life that is a contradiction to a culture whose Quranic beliefs oppose such corruptions.
However, when you live in a country that has been bombed into devastation how do you live and where do you make a living? Well, some industrious Iraqis have found a way to make a living—they were clever and quickly learned the “ropes‖ how capitalism and the free market place works; enterprising Iraqi merchants who are selling pornographic DVDS: “Now we have freedom and democracy,” said a 34-year-old merchant selling pornographic DVDs with titles such as “The Dirty Family” and “The Young Wife. “We could not sell them when Saddam was here.”
Well who could fault someone for having a keen business sense and wanting to make a living—isn’t that what it’s all about—democracy. After Baghdad was invaded, millions of Iraqis were left with nothing, they no longer had jobs or any sense of security—it’s hard to imagine suddenly waking up and finding every building around you blasted into oblivion.
How would Americans survive if there was only—sporadic electricity, no jobs, limited services and a city immersed in violence, destruction and despair? And under these conditions how would Americans react hearing their occupiers talking about fanciful things like freedom and democracy but knowing that you must worry about more tangible things, such as financial security, and how to keep your children safe from violence. Eventually you might come to understand from what you have seen that, “freedom and democracy†is a license to do whatever it takes to survive.
So it’s understandable that an Iraqi citizen with an entrepreneurial spirit, could become a merchant of pornographic DVDS— his new found freedom also imposes a need to be resourceful, because only the cunning will survive, and he knows that he must make a living and protect is two young daughters.
This merchant of pornographic DVDS was formerly a government civil engineer earning about $150 a month; he lost his job shortly after the invasion. Now his DVD sales on the war torn streets of Iraq are netting him about $1,500 a month—I guess, he is considered one of the lucky ones; he quickly adapted and learned how to make “freedom†profit for him, he passed the occupiers’ initiation rites and has become an official “star spangled Soprano.â€
Many, however, have lost all hope and are roaming around either drunk or high, listening to the sounds of gun fire and bombs bursting in the air. Is it possible for any population to derive comfort by pondering promises of freedom and democracy; to feel indebted to our broad stripes and bright stars and our perilous fight , as he watches his city burn through the night ; and the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air, is undeniable proof that the U.S. military is still there.
Abas pushes through the small crowd hoping to sell tranquilizers and other drugs looted from “hospitals,” by “friends.”
Three years at war with Iraq and who has something to show for it? $$$$$$$$$$$$
Contractors: All
All
Afghanistan
Iraq
Archived Chart
Contractor Value Value FY02 Agency
Abt Associates Inc.
Iraq $43,818,278 USAID
Advanced Systems Development, Inc.
Iraq $259,958.56 DoD
AECOM
Iraq $21,610,501 DoD
Alexander, Deborah Lynn
Afghanistan $168,625 USAID
AllWorld Language Consultants
Iraq $4,051,349 DoD
American International Contractors, Inc.
Iraq $1,500,000,000 DoD
American President Lines Ltd.
Iraq $5,000,000 USAID
Anteon International Corporation
Afghanistan $6,800,000 DoD
AOS, Inc.
Iraq $866,988 DoD
Artel
Iraq
Atlas Case, Inc.
Iraq $17,243 DoD
Bald Industries
Iraq $35,734 DoD
Baldino, George F.
Afghanistan $263,000 USAID
Bea Mauer, Inc.
Iraq $9,920 DoD
BearingPoint Inc.
Afghanistan $64,100,00 USAID
BearingPoint Inc.
Iraq $240,162,668 USAID
Bechtel Group Inc.
Iraq $2,829,833,859 USAID
Blackwater Security Consulting L.L.C.
Iraq $21,331,693 DoD
CACI International Inc.
Iraq $66,221,143.19 Interior
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Afghanistan $1,700,000 USAID
Capital Shredder Corporation
Iraq $11,803 DoD
Cartridge Discounters
Iraq $40,492 DoD
CDW Government, Inc.
Iraq $35,174 DoD
Cellhire USA
Iraq $1,465,983 DoD
CH2M Hill
Iraq $1,528,500,000 DoD
Chemonics International Inc.
Afghanistan $167,759,000 USAID
Chugach McKinley, Inc.
Iraq $3,068,407 DoD
Comfort Inn
Iraq $47,324 DoD
Complement, Inc., The
Iraq $3,358 DoD
Contrack International Inc.
Iraq $2,325,000,000 DoD
Contrack International Inc.
Afghanistan $500,000,000 DoD
Creative Associates International Inc.
Afghanistan $60,000,000 USAID
Creative Associates International Inc.
Iraq $273,539,368 USAID
Cybex International
Afghanistan $4,838 DoD
Dataline Inc.
Iraq $1,028,851.89 DoD
Dell Marketing L.P.
Iraq $513,678.88 DoD
Detection Monitoring Technologies
Iraq $5,584,482 DoD
Development Alternatives Inc.
Iraq $39,523,857 USAID
Development Alternatives Inc.
Afghanistan $9,594,000 USAID
DHS Logistics Company
Afghanistan $378,000 $288,000 DoD
DHS Logistics Company
Iraq $223,497 DoD
Diplomat Freight Services Inc.
Afghanistan $2,604,276 $2,604,000 State
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.)
Afghanistan $43,559,421 $130,000 State
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.)
Iraq $50,000,000 State
Earth Tech, Inc.
Iraq $65,449,155 DoD
EGL Eagle Global Logistics
Iraq $111,000 USAID
EHI Company
Iraq $3,956 DoD
Electric Generator Store, The
Iraq $6,974 DoD
Environmental Chemical Corporation
Iraq $1,475,000,000 DoD
EOD Technology Inc.
Iraq $71,900,000 DoD
Expedited World Cargo Inc.
Iraq $55,004 USAID
Explosive Ordnance Technologies Inc.
Iraq $1,475,000,000 DoD
Export Depot
Iraq $21,182 DoD
Federal Data Corporation
Afghanistan $1,991,770 DoD
Fluor Corp.
Iraq $3,754,964,295 DoD
Force 3
Iraq $274,651.95 DoD
Foster Wheeler Co.
Iraq $8,416,985 DoD
General Electric Company
Iraq Value Unknown DoD
General Electric Company
Afghanistan $8,525,498 DoD
Giesecke & Devrient America
Iraq $72,700 DoD
Global Container Lines Ltd.
Iraq $1,850,000 USAID
Global Professional Solutions
Iraq $590,232 DoD
Global Services
Iraq $910,468 DoD
GPS Store, Inc., The
Iraq $19,761 DoD
GTSI Corp
Afghanistan $70,220 DoD
Hardware Associates
Iraq $4,304 DoD
Harris Corporation
Iraq $165,000,000 DoD
Inglett and Stubbs LLC
Iraq $1,826,974 DoD
Inglett and Stubbs LLC
Afghanistan $6,348,271 DoD
Intelligent Enterprise Solutions
Iraq $19,835 DoD
International American Products Inc.
Iraq $628,421,252 DoD
International American Products Inc.
Afghanistan $20,080,636 $683,000 DoD
International Global Systems, Inc.
Iraq $157,383.40 DoD
International Resources Group
Afghanistan $1,230,000 USAID
International Resources Group
Iraq $38,000,000 USAID
J & B Truck Repair Service
Afghanistan $1,353,477 DoD
John S. Connor Inc.
Iraq $34,153 USAID
JSI Inc.
Iraq $3,376 DoD
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton)
Iraq $10,832,000,000 DoD
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton)
Afghanistan $599,000,000 $114,999,000 DoD
Kollsman Inc
Iraq
Kroll Inc.
Iraq Value Unknown USAID
Kropp Holdings
Iraq $11,880,000 DoD
Lab Safety Supply
Iraq $53,379 DoD
Laguna Construction Company, Inc.
Iraq $19,536,683 DoD
LandSea Systems, Inc.
Iraq $47,750 DoD
Landstar Express America Inc.
Iraq $24,396 USAID
Liberty Shipping Group Ltd.
Iraq $7,300,000 USAID
Logenix International L.L.C.
Iraq $29,000 USAID
Louis Berger Group
Afghanistan $10,228,894 – $300,000,000 $5,229,000 USAID
Louis Berger Group
Iraq $27,671,364 DoD
Lucent Technologies World Services, Inc.
Iraq $75,000,000 DoD
Management Systems International
Afghanistan $14,700,000 USAID
Management Systems International
Iraq $15,116,328 USAID
McNeil Technologies, Inc.
Iraq $716,651 DoD
Mediterranean Shipping Company
Iraq $13,000 USAID
MEI Research Corporation
Iraq
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Afghanistan $1,471,238 DoD
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Iraq $4,528,328 DoD
Midwest Research Institute
Iraq $1,765,000 DoD
Military Professional Resources Inc.
Iraq $2,608,794.74 DoD
Miscellaneous Foreign Contract
Iraq $3,026,630 DoD
Miscellaneous Foreign Contract
Afghanistan $10,463,180 DoD
Motorola Inc.
Iraq $15,591,732 DoD
MZM Inc.
Iraq $1,213,632 DoD
NANA Pacific
Iraq $70,000,000 DoD
Native American Industrial Distributors Inc.
Iraq $123,572 DoD
Night Vision Equipment Company
Iraq $153,118 DoD
Nuttall, James S.
Afghanistan $187,000 USAID
Ocean Bulkships Inc.
Iraq $5,000,000 USAID
Odebrect-Austin
Iraq $1,500,000,000 DoD
Outfitter Satellite, Inc.
Iraq $33,203 DoD
PAE Government Services Inc.
Afghanistan $7,007,158 $5,714,000 State
Paro, Amy K.
Afghanistan $94,457 $94,000 USAID
Parsons Corp.
Iraq $5,286,136,252 DoD
Parsons Energy and Chemicals Group
Iraq $43,361,340 DoD
Perini Corporation
Iraq $2,525,000,000 DoD
Perini Corporation
Afghanistan $14,000,000 – $25,000,000 DoD
Raytheon Aerospace LLC
Afghanistan $91,096,464 $2,044,000 DoD
Raytheon Technical Services
Iraq $12,412,573 DoD
Reabold, Miguel (Michael)
Afghanistan $136,603 USAID
Readiness Management Support LC (Johnson Controls Inc.)
Afghanistan $40,792,343 $828,000 DoD
Readiness Management Support LC (Johnson Controls Inc.)
Iraq $173,965,104 USAID
Red River Computer Company
Iraq $972,592.90 DoD
Redcom Laboratories
Afghanistan $24,375 DoD
Research Triangle Institute
Iraq $466,070,508 USAID
Ronco Consulting Corporation
Iraq $12,008,289.60 DoD
Ronco Consulting Corporation
Afghanistan $12,423,633 $6,771,000 USAID / State / DoD
S&C Electric Company
Afghanistan $34,800 DoD
S&K Technologies Inc.
Iraq $4,950,384.80 DoD
Sampler, Donald L.
Afghanistan $81,000 USAID
Science Applications International Corp.
Iraq $159,304,219 DoD
Sealift Inc.
Iraq $4,000,000 USAID
Segovia Inc.
Iraq $320,636 DoD
SETA Corporation
Iraq $3,165,765 DoD
Shaw Group/Shaw E & I
Iraq $3,050,749,910 DoD
Signature Science
Iraq $4,704,464 DoD
Simmonds Precision Products
Iraq $4,412,488 DoD
SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (USA) Inc.
Iraq $27,344,600 USAID
Smith Office Machines Corporation
Iraq $2,961 DoD
Social Impact Inc.
Afghanistan $1,875,000 USAID
Sodexho Inc.
Afghanistan $324,120 $324,000 State
SPARCO
Iraq $9,215 DoD
Stanley Baker Hill L.L.C.
Iraq $1,200,000,000 DoD
Stanley Consultants
Iraq $7,709,767 DoD
Staples National Advantage
Iraq $4,194 DoD
Stevedoring Services of America
Iraq $14,318,895 USAID
Stratex Freedom Services
Afghanistan $1,978,175 DoD
Structural Engineers
Iraq $1,113,000 DoD
TECO Ocean Shipping Co.
Iraq $7,200,000 USAID
Tekontrol, Inc.
Afghanistan $85,146 DoD
Tetra Tech Inc.
Iraq $1,541,947,671 DoD
Titan Corporation
Iraq $402,000,000 DoD
Total Business
Iraq $4,696 DoD
Transfair North America International
Iraq $19,351 USAID
Triumph Technologies
Iraq $228,924 DoD
Tryco Inc.
Afghanistan $400,000 DoD
Unisys Corporation
Iraq $320,000 DoD
United Defense Industries, L.P.
Iraq $4,500,000 DoD
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Afghanistan $7,072,468 USAID
USA Environmental Inc.
Iraq $1,541,947,671 DoD
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman)
Iraq $48,074,442 DoD
Ward Transformer Sales & Services
Iraq $115,000 DoD
Washington Group International
Iraq $3,133,078,193 DoD
Washington Group International
Afghanistan $500,000 – $500,000,000 DoD
WECSYS
Iraq $3,040 DoD
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Iraq $16,279,724 DoD
World Fuel Services Corp.
Afghanistan $19,762,792 DoD
Young, Brian
Afghanistan $106,150 $39,000 State
Zapata Engineering
Iraq $1,478,838,958
March 16th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
“the nearly universal acceptance of the idea that he would hit us if he could”
I think that’s a false characterization and fundamental to the problem with your argument for the war. Was there “nearly universal acceptance of the idea that Stalin would hit us if he could”? Maybe in some abstract sense, but frankly with either Saddam or Stalin I think that would be a nutty notion to assume that pre-emptive war was the only way to avert disaster. The reality and practicality of a strategy of deterrence – our overwhelming offensive superiority over the USSR – has long been proven against state actors. Not rogue terrorists – hence all of the insinuation about Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda. Saddam was a tyrant of the worst sort, but unless that was your justification for war – which is as preposterous in the realm of serious national security strategy as the idea that violation of UN resolutions are an inevitable trigger – pro-war arguments have not only been debunked in retrospect, but weren’t plausibly made at the time. There’s so many convenient aspects to this memory hole of what was said before or in the early days of the war – Brooks and Sullivan are now trying to suggest they were part of some punditry that realized Rumsfeld was creating a disaster with not enough troops – that I’m not sure any of us are 100% certain of what we were claiming 3 years ago. But I also think it’s safe to say that what you or I were cogitating over is not very important compared to what we increasingly know about the way these decisions were being handled and how “evidence” was being regarded at the highest circles. I can’t blame Joe Blow from Kokomo for not getting Iraq right. I can blame the Cabal.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Ah Eleanore and another of her bandwidth busters. These firms, are ripping off the American taxpayer: the source of the borrowed dough.
Which is a nice segway into this, “spending like a Democrat.” A proven myth. Republicans have always outspent Democrats. And it’s worse because they don’t pay for theirs. Just borrow it off the backs of poor working slobs too dense to catch on and still vote for them. Just keep thinkin there butch. It’s what you good at. Not.
On the rascualarity index: the number of sons o bitches per square mile, they have blanket coverage and carte blanche. Ka Ching!
March 16th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Eleanore – Ouch!
And that’s from somebody who admittedly has a serious problem with “overposting”.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
I didn’t see a source Eleanore. or are you reporting live now?
March 16th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
For god sake Eleanore! My scroll wheel can only turn so fast to get past your manifesto.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
The Party that’s Strong on National Security strikes again:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/port-security-funding/
March 16th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Paul from MPLS writes: “any president, even an idealized honest Democratic president, would have been flummoxed by the Iraq situation after 9-11, and would have been sorely tempted to decide that it was time to remove Hussein once and for all.”
There you have it. The Democrats are essentially like Republicans when it comes to speculative military aggression. Except that Democrats try to be a little more circumspect about it, which only translates to swing voters as indecisiveness, the most unpardonable sin in the age of moral blank checks and jihad. This is the Democrats much-baked recipe for failure.
Would it be politically risky for Democrats to pursue war crimes trials? No. It would be SUICIDAL for many, many Democrats.
But their demise would be a very good thing. The party will not survive without just such a purging.
The Democrats who were and are soft on war crimes must go. They are not fit to lead and you can dress them up in all manner of centrist costumes but, over time, voters will see through that.
Sure, the metastasizing failure of the Iraq leaves a reasonable political opening for Democrats. But that should be no comfort. Before you can say Rupert Murdoch, we’ll be off and running into another speculative aggression in Syria or Iran or Venezuela or Cuba. And the Democrats will, again, be in the position of going along with at all, with full circumspection, and “supporting the troops” and so on, baking that recipe yet again.
The Democrats are far worse off than many of us would like to admit.
That’s not necessarily because it has no inspired, intelligent leaders, but because the right wing owns too much of the media and because globalization is fertilizing the garden of economic nationalism and ethnocentrism, i.e. pitting the Democrats “little people” constituencies against each other.
Getting tough on war crimes will cost the Democrats in the short term. But how can anyone expect the U.S. to turn away from military aggression unless the political foundations for that policy are allowed to rot or otherwise removed?
War crimes have consequences. The war crimes that took place in Vietnam had consequences and some of those, at least, were paid for politically in the U.S. But not nearly enough, and we are still witnessing the fallout from that failure to acknowledge and, utimately, learn from those crimes.
The Vietnam debacle did force a brief rethink on military aggression. But it was brief and, ultimately, unresolved.
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, instead of seeing it as the regional many-sided conflict between a brutal dictatorship and brutal tribal warlords and brutal jihadists and oil-rich Arab monarchies, Democrats joined Republicans in portraying it as the same old cartoon of godless Reds ruthlessly, sadistically destroying the Afghan people.
So it was that Jimmy Carter became a Cold Warrior forever trying, and failing, to reap political benefits for “toughness” that could be worn so much more convincingly by the faux cowboy Reagan. Hillary Clinton now plays a pathetic imitation of the same reluctant warrior Carter character.
Maybe Iraq will play out differently. Maybe this time, Americans will get tough on war crimes and tell it like it is. It won’t be easy, it won’t be quick. But as Americans, we owe ourselves nothing less.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Sorry Eleanore. Scrolled past Regs comment on your post. Didn’t intent to rub it in.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
I can’t help it if the “CORRUPTION” list is so long–there is a lot pigs feeding at the trough.
These chubby little pigs might be bipartisan–just show them the dough, ideology is not important.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Thanks Reg–the news story below substantiates my “long-winded” essay–all tax dollars are going to defense contractors. I would say beware the
Ides of March–but I’m a day too late.
Moments ago, the House of Representatives narrowly defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness. The Sabo amendment included:
– $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.
– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.
– $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast.
Meanwhile, the Bush budget – which most of the members who voted against this bill will likely support – contains an increase of $1.7 billion for missile defense, a program that doesn’t even work.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Jeez Bunker. Where does all that anger come from. Have you been spending young and impressionable time in front of Political Science Professors at Berkeley?
March 16th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
More thoughts on the censure issue from Josh Marshall:
It’s really not that surprising that not every Democratic senator would want to jump on the bandwagon with this. But I also don’t think there’s any particular reason to run from it like it’s Dem kryptonite or the plague. I’ve said this before. But I think the bigger problem for Dems is not the things they do but the very public hand-wringing and navel-gazing about how people might react to the things they do.
That doesn’t look good. And it doesn’t look good because it really isn’t good.
President Bush really does deserve to be held accountable for breaking the law and then even more for claiming after the fact that the law actually doesn’t apply to him. In constitutional terms, that bogus claim is a very big deal. So ‘censure’ him. Or don’t censure him. But most of all don’t get all bent out of shape or whiny about whether it might make some Bush supporter unhappy or might prompt some scold on the WaPo oped page to say tut-tut.
Will some swing-voter not agree? He or she will get over it.
Basically, the big tectonic plates of political motion are the key thing. And everybody should stop looking over their shoulders and jumping at every scary sound in the dark.
March 16th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
I guess Marc already linked that Talking Points to Josh’s name, but it adds another substantive dimension on the issue to the column he actually quoted above.
March 16th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
This is the Clooney quote that created such a stir:
In 2003 I was saying, where are the ties [between Iraq] and al-Qaida? Where are the ties to 9/11? I knew it; where the fuck were these Democrats who said, ‘We were misled’? That’s the kind of thing that drives me crazy: ‘We were misled.’ Fuck you, you weren’t misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
“President Bush really does deserve to be held accountable for breaking the law and then even more for claiming after the fact that the law actually doesn’t apply to him.”
If the law can’t do that what can? The laws have never applied to the Bushes. Clooney was pissed over the compilation of selected quotes.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Just ask yourself whether reasonable, intelligent, moral people can honestly argue that Bush and Company didn’t deliberately hype the case for a war that they were determined to wage regardless of the facts
Hey if you can admit these Dems were in on the scam I can consider it:
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Or were they all duped by that crazy like a fox GWB?
You will notice I only listed qoutes by Dems after 2001. There are plenty more both before and after 9/11.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Feb, 18, 1998
And so on.
I’m not arguing this perception was accurate. I’m arguing that the “nexus of rogue regimes and international terrorism” was fully in place, in a bipartisan way, as one of our greatest perceived threats prior to the W administration and prior to 9-11;
that Hussein was seen as probably the greatest example of that problem for years;
that that perception of the danger in general and Hussein’s threat specifically became magnified – perhaps illogically, but inevitably and understandably – after 9-11;
and that therefore had we not done this war, seeking his removal by other means would have remained as one of our great bipartisan goals to this day.
I guess it’s possible to disagree, though it seems a stretch to me. But it definitely seems odd and ahistorical to act as if this is an outrageous proposition. In fact it’s the given, the starting point, not the weird idea that some seem to want to pretend.
Another piece of the historical evidence for this political reality, incidentally, is the large amount of reporting during the 1990′s that took as a given that of course Hussein was developing ties with all kinds of terrorists, including al Qaeda. It was only after W started taking all this seriously that it suddenly became shockig to even suggest such a bizarre notion.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
So we went to war because Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Robert Byrd and Al Gore demanded that we do something about those WMDs.
And they spontaneously rebelled against the belief stated in 2001 of current Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condi Rice that Saddam was effectively contained.
Pleeeeeeze…..
Also the notion that Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright believed that Saddam needed to be pre-emptively attacked, based on those quotes, is preposterous.
What are you guys ingesting ?
March 16th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
“Or were they all duped by that crazy like a fox GWB?”
Duped, outfoxed, paralyzed politically or whatever. These people are not paragons of straight talk. And have you ever actually read the speech Al Gore gave on September 23, 2002 that you’ve mned a few quotes from ?
I doubt it…
The case for Bush and Company hyping and fabricating their case for war is overwhelming to anyone who investigates it. Pro-war Kenneth Pollack has admitted it was deceptive. Pro-war George Packer has exposed the deceptions and ideologically-driven decision making. Seymour Hersch has documented it. Lawrence Wilkerson has acknowledged it. And on and on…
That silly list of quotes by Democratic pols covering their asses with post-911, bullied-by-Bush double talk doesn’t qualify as a serious counter-argument to the evidence that characters like Douglas Feith were actively mining and sifting evidence to fit their pre-fab desire. The argument that this was a hyped and ideologically driven policy is further bolstered by the absolute incompetence of the war’s prosecution. More wishful thinking by a disreputable neocon cabal. That’s what this whole project boils down to and it’s turned into a disaster.
March 16th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Why stop with claims that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs in 2002 ?
Here’s one from May of 2003, two months after the invasion:
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
Source: Interview of President George Bush by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).
Sure we did…
Meanwhile, terrorists were emptying the conventional weapons dumps across Iraq that the geniuses in charge of the war had left unsecured. Mission accomplished, George (miserable little fuck.)
March 16th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
“the large amount of reporting during the 1990’s that took as a given that of course Hussein was developing ties with all kinds of terrorists, including al Qaeda”
Don’t forget Saddam’s connection to the Oklahoma bombing…
March 17th, 2006 at 1:12 am
To Whom It May Concern:
According to a poll taken Wednesday by American Research Group, 46% of Americans favor censuring Bush, 44% oppose.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_Americans_slightly_favor_plan_to_0316.html
(Evidently, the remaining 10% were too busy placing bets on who would next be eliminated on American Idol to give a sh*t.)
http://www25.pinnaclesports.com/guestcontestLines.asp?redirected=yes&ContestType=American%20Idol
March 17th, 2006 at 1:19 am
One reason Democrats don’t win much is that the liberal point of view requires more historical perspective than television news can provide.
While I agree with reg that Democratic party leaders did not advocate preemtively attacking Saddam and, therefore, bear less direct responsibility than Bush does, it is nevertheless a point that goes down well with voters: the Democrats declined to oppose the war until things went bad with it.
This is also important because the war in Iraq was almost inevitable following Gulf War I–a war most Democrats loved. The “bipartisan success” of that war, as portrayed in the mainstream media, just had to have a sequel. More important, it was yet another mess left on the floor by U.S. speculative aggression and it did need cleaning up, one way or another.
Can anyone publically admit the first mistake in Iraq was Gulf War I? No, that idea is heretical in the mainstream media and the Democratic party.
If we can’t acknowledge that the first Gulf War I was a mistake founded on arrogance and driven primarily by domestic politics, how can we reasonably expect voters to buy a bigger progressive worldview?
March 17th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Jim Russel asks why I’m so angry.
I ask why Jim Russel isn’t.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Heres a cool Democrat strategy. Program Al Gore’s mouth to say the words, I was robbed in 2000 for a while. (Oh wait you already did that).
You can get John Kerry to say he has a ‘plan’ for the country and not make him tell anyone what it is. (Oh wait, you tried that BS too)
Well, you can always scream and whine about everything in the news and blame Bush for it all. (Nope – been there / doing that)
Whats left?
Maybe you Dems should just sit down, shut up, and let the adults run the country for a few dozen years. Maybe when my kids kids are old and grey you will win another election.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
March 17th, 2006 at 8:09 am
The Oklahoma City thing is straw man in terms of what I’m saying, so I guess you’re acknowledging that less extreme examples are out there.
Tidbit: I’m pretty sure it’s an acknowledged fact that Hussein offered bin Laden refuge at least once during the 1998-99 period, during a time when BL was being pressured to leave Afghanistan. The left buzzes around pointing out reasons it doesn’t mean there was active cooperation. They frantically dig for interpretations of why Hussein might have had duplicitous reasons, and of course he might undoubtedly did at least in part. Bur none of it changes the basic fact, and it can’t avoid at least a very hefty “hm.†And it does not lead to a conclusion that this and other hints like it add up to a situation that any president could just dismiss, as seems to be the left’s underlying logic: to even take it into account is nothing more than dress-up for hegemonist motives.
(Someday I’m going to write a thing about that word hegemony. My basic advice to people when they hear the word hegemony, put on your skeptic hat for any argument that accompanies it.)
The other straw man is the idea that this perspective makes the war inevitable in the circumstances we found ourselves in, in 2003.
The point I’m making over and over is that it was a dilemma. The thing that frustrates me about the way the war opposition – from rabid anti-war to too much of the mainstream left – is their seeming refusal to acknowledge this obvious point.
The keep mixing their rage at W for the way he pushed the war (or the way they believe he pushed the war) from their analysis of the actual situation then and now. They keep confusing the national interest with W’s interest.. That confusion keeps leading to all kinds of bad effects on our politics.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:14 am
“the first mistake in Iraq was Gulf War I”
I get the idea the mistake I saw and the one you hold are different. I take it you advocate the absorbtion of Kuwait by Hussein. The mistake was not protecting the Shiites at the time. Going on to Baghdad though would resemble what we see now. It’s reasoning like this based on the Noble Savage ethnic mythos that relagates relativists like Bunky here to the unedited slushpile. You will remain irrelevant to the conversation and any election.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Hey – why doesn’t the whole Democrat Party adopt Ted Kennedy’s strategy. Hes been in office for what..35 years?
He drinks himself silly every day, chokes down a bunch of pills and sleeps around with whores and interns. (probably sheep too). He also manages to kill or rape a woman every once in a while and publicly embarrass the country who sees him in a position of power.
Hey – go with what works, right?
March 17th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Remember when the Dems voted to push back Milosovitch had Marc Cooper’s radio show condemed them to a “hall of shame.” Well, here’s a bad, profit seeking war, started by Republicans, bungled by Republicans, sustained by Republicans, and the big question is…..what are those fool Dems going to do about it?
I’d like a little more candor and guts from the Dems too…but PUULLEEZZZEEEE! Why don’t you ask Harry Reid to follow around the commander and chief with a pair of fresh drawers in case he soils himself?
And for more about the steller perfomance of the fifth estate in all this, with more choice quotes from our goose stepping Proust expert, check out :
http://www.huffigtonpost.com/norman-solomon/warloving-pundits_b_17424.html
March 17th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Well that’s true Paul but Hussein was in a box and inspections were working. A while longer and it could have been cinfirmed he was out of bullets. Iraq was a broken relic. Anyone with a lick of objective sense could see that. Only 9-11 fear drove this.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Hey Daito lay of fthe Kennedy ad hominem. That kind of crap is just crap. You’re a moron, everyone can see that but there are limits to what somone can be accused of publicly.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:21 am
If we left Iraq alone, he would have run out of bullets?
We’ve been fighting these people for 2 years and they still aren’t gone. Don’t you see the problem with what you are saying?
March 17th, 2006 at 8:28 am
The bullets I was referring to were cruise missles capable of striking Israel for one. The idea that these convention bullets would have been used is false on its face. On whom?
March 17th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Really? There is a limit to Kennedy’s hypocrisy?
His vulgarity? or his drunkeness? I don’t think so. He a slovenly pig, with no boundaries for hypocrisy. If he weren’t a younger brother to Jack and Bobby Kennedy, he would be jobless and living in the cabana at his family’s estate.
He is a disgrace to the Senate and makes the voters of Massachusetts look like idiots for voting for him all these years.
(Hey, maybe they are idiots)
March 17th, 2006 at 8:36 am
By the way, the conservative-based opposition doesn’t do this, by and large. They focus their arguments on stupidity and do-ability and sometimes honesty on the WMD stuff. They don’t carry big anti-war puppets, which seem to function as a sort of symbolic protection against moral involvement.
http://www.hobt.org/mayday/parade/index.html
March 17th, 2006 at 8:40 am
“They keep confusing the national interest with W’s interest.. That confusion keeps leading to all kinds of bad effects on our politics.”
Are you talking about the “left” or the administration.
As for whether or not we faced a dilemma, multiple dilemmas and still face many dilemmas in the Middle East with crazies, terrorists, etc. That’s a safe assumption.
And no, I don’t think there’s any evidence that Saddam was collaborating with or harboring terrorists or terrorist cells to attack the U.S. People like Laurie Mylroie and Stephen Hayes have worked that turf to death and have come up with little or nothing. And the circles that thrive on their rather desperate speculations fail to ask questions such as why Bush didn’t take out Zarqawi’s camps in the Kurdish region before the war ?
As for your issue with the word “hegemony”, IMHO it’s a bit too tame to describe the world view of the neo-con crowd in this administration who hijacked 9/11. There are but a handful of Americans who don’t regret that the perpetrators of 9/11 weren’t stopped dead in their tracks. But a few do exist and they can be found in the Cheney/neo-con circles, because it opened a window of opportunity for their fevered dreams and they moved with dispatch. Most of what they actually effected at the level of policy since than has been detrimental to domestic security and a coherent anti-terrorist strategy. I have absolutely no doubt about this belief. And I didn’t leap to it – I supported Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. in the months after 9/11 and set my partisan scorecard aside until it looked like they were blowing the effort in Afghanistan against bin Laden and putting their chips on Iraq. At that point, yes, everything they did became suspect. It looks like most of the country now shares my doubts and suspicions about these guys.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Sort of, Mark, but it never would have been “verified†that he was out of bullets, as you say. All we would ever have had was a complex, strong suspicion that for some reason he had destroyed the weapons without telling or shipped them somewhere.
And the way he was being kept in the box was the main global left issue before the war became the thing.
“Then what†is the key question. That’s really just the start of the dilemma. Two options:
We accept it as simple reality that if a mad man squirms and evades and cheats and kills and threatens enough, in the end, the international community backs down? We go to the French version of a relationship with him, which is essentially the old derided American tactic of alliance with evil men?
Oh, and we just ignore all the other weapons-cheating that was going on all the time, the long-known and more recent attempts at WMD cheating (revealing his motivations with 100% clarity), we ignore his attempted assassination of Bush I who – in spite of being a Republican – was our president; we ignore the fact that he had tried to hire terrorists to destroy the HQ of Radio Free Europe (home of radio Free Iraq) in Prague? We ignore all the undeniable evidence of footsy-playing with global terror? We ignore the Popular Islamic Conferences, his strange role as hero of the Arab world? We just pretend it all doesn’t matter, because of this trick he’d pulled of being able to get some people to say “the sanctions are working?†We just say, okay, you win, the chess match is over? Where do we sign the normalcy pledge?
Or – and this is what would have happened – we try to keep him in the box in the face of growing global “outrage†because – after all – the sanctions were working? We keep pissing him off actively on a new context of him having forced us to back off, him feeling empowered, the “global community†increasing on his side?
Honestly, I don’t know what would have been better of those two options. Neither seem that good. But it’s a debate we should have had, there’s no doubt about that.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:59 am
“By the way, the conservative-based opposition doesn’t do this, by and large. ”
Conservative opposition ? Oh, please. Are you talking about Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo ? I actually find Raimondo’s stuff to be as reductionist as anything the outer regions of the left can muster. As for “puppets”, I think you can find plenty of pro-war puppets in places like NRO, Powerline, Green Footballs, etc. Walking, talking pro-war puppets. Sullivan has come damn close to himself admitting to such. Even acknowledged that he was embarrassed by some of the charges he made against opponents of the war back when it was all “mission accomplished”.
Paul, I don’t think – based on reading your arguments – that you have a clue as to what the serious oppostion to this war has been or the nature of their arguments. Talk about straw men.
You pro-war guys, frankly, seem more concerned about covering your asses and doing rear-view moralizing than looking at the reality of what Bush’s war policy has wrought. Do you spend as much time raging against Rumsfeld as you do hear splitting hairs with the Big Anti-War Puppets crowd. You think what happens at anti-war demonstrations is off-putting ? Sure…but I don’t really have the time or energy to worry about something that marginal when the typical Bush speech is even more programmed, staged and populated with an audience of willing stooges who are 100% kneejerk. Right-wing crazies outnumber left-wing crazies by at least 10 to 1 in this country. Probably more like 20 to 1. I’d worry about the ANSWER gang with big puppets a lot more if they had a dozen daily TV shows and controlled a major newspaper in DC like the looney toons political fundamentalists do.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:05 am
You’re wrong about what Hayes is suggesting and what he’s found, reg. He’s trying to prove nothing more than wide-spread footsy-playing and very occasional tantalizing hints of consideration of cooperation. Much of what he’s found has not been discredited, and he’s forthright about caution and when it has been. I’ll leave it at that.
It all gets down to perception of Hussein and his motives, in the end.
You know who should have been listened to more before the war, really, was Scott Ritter. He was right, it turns out, about the weapons actually not being there and for part of why it might have been the case. And I’ve since seen thing’s he’s written where he was posing the exact question that should have been debated: we have not decided as a nation that we could not put up with Hussein’s regime regardless. We didn’t discuss that.
Which of course gets to why W is impeachable. And actually that way of framing the argument: okay, so he’s secretly gotten rid of the stuff, maybe, but world, we need to look at the larger picture of who he is and all the other violations and weapons secrets and all – that way of framing it should have been the frame at the UN, especially to Europe. I’ve long believed that there was no way France especially was ever going to be convinced; but I read a thing one time making this very good point: France (and I suppose Germany and Russia) had very similar commercial and geo-political relationships more positive than our own toward Hussein even at the time of Gulf War I. But they went along with that.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am
None of what i’m saying says that people shouldn’t have doubts and suspicions about W and the neo-cons.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Everybody seen this picture?
http://paulfrommpls.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-didnt-take-this-picture.html
It’s one of the shames of my life that for about a minute – an excited minute – I thought it might be real. It’s just so great. And as my cat-owner friend says, we’ve all been there.
I wonder if this admission opens me up to charges of maybe falling for some other things. Naah, I can’t see how.
Gotta go work.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:37 am
I don’t any scenario where we should have had to buy Iraq as we have. I just don’t. We should have let the Russians and the French support him until the whole thing fell in. The Russians would not havwe supported Iraqi aggression in the region and neither would anyone else. It would have fallen under its own weight of corruptness sooner rather than later. Moreover we wouldn’t be saddled with this horrible image. To put it bluntly, now we’re fucked.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Hey – you think that picture of Dean is strange, I have one of Hillary Clinton, taken by her hairdresser. At the very top of her head, as she was brushing Clinton’s hair, you can CEALRY see three 6′s in a triangle.
The girl that took this told me Hillary turned and smiled at her at the exact moment that she saw this. It scared the crap out of her. Looking into the eyes of death like that.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Didn’t Hayes title his article (based on a Doug Feith memo) claiming an operational relationship between Saddam and bin Laden “Case Closed”. Doesn’t sound like “caution” or “tantalizing hints” to me.
Paul – the Saddam scenario can be worked every which way and he was so pathological as a petty tyrant that he makes the perfect villain from any angle. But unless you start the movie where it actually began, it makes no sense. In some ways it still doesn’t make a lot of sense except as a study in personal pathology run amok, but Saddam and the problem he posed cannot be understood unless you factor in that he was used blatantly and, IMHO, criminally as a surrogate against Iran by the Reagan administration (Hitchens says it started with Carter) and that Saddam can tell his jailer, without irony, “I liked Reagan. He gave me helicopters.” This was Saddam’s understanding of his relationship with the U.S. at a time when he was actively committing his worst crimes against humanity – the ones now used to rationalize the war by our own “dead-enders”. And the story has to include the liklihood that if Saddam had merely annexed some Kuwaiti oilfields and not overreached by invading the entire country, he would not have been challenged. The meeting with Ambassador Gillaspie (sp?) leads to this conclusion. And of course, the failure to give air-cover to Shiites in 1991 adds another layer to the Saddam picture. And his perception of our stopping at the Iraq border in Gulf War One. It’s also the case that the sanctions were an irrational, ill-conceived approach to “boxing in Saddam” and went a long way to worsening the internal situation. Sanctions against a major oil-producing country are inevitably something of a mirage. There were proponents of “smarter sanctions”, but I’m not expert on this. It certainly makes sense that we could have more effectively enforced sanctions that dealt with his arms capabilitis than the sieve that resulted in stuff like oil-for-food scandals. We, incidentally, were importing lots of Iraqi oil during the “sanctions”. I don’t have the exact figures at hand, but it was millions of barrels. So yes, this was a complex dilemma, but the demonization of Saddam in the 1990s without a recognition of the context is dishonest, to say the least. You can’t do a 180 on a guy you’ve been coddling and act like the movie is suddenly about black hats and white hats. The “moral outrage” over Saddam on the right wing and the notion that he suddenly threatened our national security – after years of apparently helping us secure it under the aegis of exactly the same great minds – is phony. And the explicit response to 9/11 by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and apparently Rice that it should be treated as an “opportunity” makes the whole picture ring even more false. I will add, at the risk of namecalling, that you cannot seperate the neocons’ attempt to project American military power directly into the Middle East from the fact that many of them have an allegiance to the Israeli right-wing and an expansive version of Zionism that is as strong as their allegiance to the American right-wing, “U.S. hegemony”, etc. (As we’ve seen with the prosecution of Larry Franklin, that’s not about being Jewish but espousing a certain brand of “internationalist” politics of the right.) That this is true is proven, in my view, by the fact that it’s characterized as “anti-semitism” any time anyone even suggests that it colors their “national security” strategy.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Hey reg – re-phrase that as a 2 line summary and maybe someone will read it.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Hey – I read that Dennis Quaid has ‘Manorexia’.
Boy – what happened to this guy. He went from decent actor to pussy in all of a year. His scraggly haired bitch of a wife left him and cheated with Russel Crowe, he made a few bad movies and BAM, now he’s Manorexic.
He could still sink lower though. He could be selling central Florida building lots on an infomercial like Erik Estrada.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:58 am
I’m also going to throw out my unfettered opinion – unsubstantiated – that the sledgehammer sanctions broke Iraqi society more than they broke the Baathist elite and escalated the kind of tribal, fundamentalist and ethnic allegiences that are causing so many problems today. Although I think sanctions of various sorts can be useful, I think the question has to be asked who are they hurting and helping the most. An example would be our boycott against Cuba, which has clearly handed Fidel political capital over the decades. As for problems at hand, I’m impressed with Hitchens recent article that suggests Bush should pull a Nixon on the Iranians and bring them closer to us. There’s not an exact parallell to Saddam’s Iraq, because so far as I can tell the extreme mullahs have a large popular base and this government might have been able to win even a fair election. But the fact that we’re dealing not with a petty tyrant like Saddam but guys who represent a significant cultural straing within their own country leads me to the conculsion that Hitchens’ is on the right path and we should engage these people in every way possible rather than demonize them and keep our fingers crossed. I think one really has to have a very low opinion of our own culture and values not to recognize that engagement with a country governed by fundamentalist crackpots will weaken their hand and strengthen ours among their own people. Of course, some elements of our own fundamentalist right-wing hate America almost as much as the mullahs do.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:00 am
reg says – blah, blah blah blah, blah.
blah, blah
and blah
PS – Blah
March 17th, 2006 at 10:01 am
“Hey reg – re-phrase that as a 2 line summary and maybe someone will read it.”
That you’re taking a pass on it gives me great relief. Otherwise I might be tempted to argue with an idiot. I’ve been known to do that before.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Case closed on the relationship as I described.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Other than that, I agree with much of what you wrote there, and it all should have been part of the national debate. I’d add that what everyone calls “hypocrisy†among conservatives on this sort of change from past behavior seems to assume that conservative are immune from moral evolution; and also ignores different motivations among different actors even in that world. (I’m sure you know of Hitchens’ deep love of Wolfowitz’s sincerity.)
I think it’s true by the way that the relationship with Hussein started with Carter, and that tells us all a lot about the distasteful choices facing even the most saintly of leaders of a superpower.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:47 am
“Otherwise I might be tempted to argue with an idiot. I’ve been known to do that before. ”
Interesting dilemma, it’s the sort of thing that… hey!!!
March 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am
When I speak of conservatives and moral evolution, I’m referring more to the body of thought and general approach to politics, rather than specific individuals.
It would be dangerous – here especially – to promote the idea that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld have evolved morally.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:00 am
This document dump being trumpeted by Open Pajamas is going to be a lot of fun. The translations, discoveries of intel overlooked by the “liberal” (A) Media (B) State Department (C) CIA and charges and counter-charges by various and sundry Inspector Clouseaus will generate a lot of income for bandwidth providers in coming months but I predict little light. I agree with Abu Aaardvark that it’s good to have open access to this stuff, but I think that the motive for it’s release was to add fuel to a fog machine of partisan propagandists. Here’s one bit of info below that doesn’t help Hayes thesis. Of course, I’m sure Hayes will find plenty of tidbits that he can use to amp up his speculations. I’ve already seen totally contradictory headlines characterizing the same document.
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=176240192&p=y76z4x898
March 17th, 2006 at 11:01 am
One more last tiny comment.
Paul Volcker recently called the UN less a culture of corruption than a “culture of inaction.” That also pertains to the discussion here, of course.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Given that Wolfowitz made some rather bizarre – and presumably sincere – comments that sounded like he was washing his hands of any responsibility for what happens in Iraq, I question his evolution as well. Of course, if ever a perch was perfect for a guy with a bad conscience and/or a dubious track record to seek redemption, I guess it would be heading up the World Bank
March 17th, 2006 at 11:16 am
That link isn’t working.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:20 am
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=176240192&p=y76z4x898
try this
March 17th, 2006 at 11:22 am
On the Carter connection. Sometimes timing realy is coincidence.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/036.html
March 17th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Nope, link doesn’t work.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:26 am
sorry – go to Juan Cole’s site and look at his March 16th post on these documents. The link – embedded in his first paragraph – works. Here’s the “money quote” :
“Many (documents) were in Arabic – with no English translation – including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.
However, one of the documents, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated August 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached.”
Also, if one isn’t cynical enough about this war yet, check this out:
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2006/03/operation_overblown.php
I listened to a long discussion of this operation on The Newshour last night between two stateside experts and was impressed that maybe somebody was getting something right at the battlefield level. Now I suspect I might just as well have been watching FOX News.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:31 am
http://tinyurl.com/qyx9k
“Operation Swarmer Proceeds With No Casualties and No Resistance”
Like all of the great battles…
March 17th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Interesting articel mark. For all kinds of reasons; I hadn’t thought baout the October Surprise in a while.
Unfortunately I don’t know enough about any of that stuff to spot when the author might be siding around some stuff. But I did always suspect something about Republican interference in all that stuff during the 1980 election. That is so diabolical I can’t een stand it.
My vague memory of what I’ve read about Carter and Iraq isn’t limited to possibly giving a green light to the war.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Paul from Mpls:
Yes, Saddam’s annexation of Kuwait would have been tolerable for the U.S., all things considered. Like reg says, you can’t start the movie in the beginning.
To be sure, Saddam would have been unlikely to have wanted to stop at Kuwait.
You say progressives ought to think a little more about the threat Saddam posed; I think they should think a little more about how containable he really was and how the Middle East would look had the U.S. focused on getting its own house in order instead of playing Globocop.
What would crush bin Ladenism more quickly more absolutely and with less risk to the U.S. than muscular pan-Arab nationalism?
Can we really afford to keep pretending that taking down the Saddam’s of the world is the only option?
March 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
uhhh….what I meant to say was: “Like reg says, you can’t understand this unless you start watching the movie at the beginning.”
Perhaps I should have just noted that reg’s got it right, and left it at that…
March 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
And an important thing to remember is: It’s not our oil.
Where would we be today if that fact had been clearer to policymakers back in 1991, or even sooner?
March 17th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Speaking of “I can’t even stand it” crapola – not sure if this is truly diabolical or just more of the same cronyism and corruption no matter what the cost…
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14116728.htm
March 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
“something about Republican interference in all that stuff during the 1980 election. That is so diabolical I can’t een stand it.”
Definitely.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
“It’s not our oil”
It still isn’t contrary to what some would have you believe. Never was.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Michelle Malkin is already posting a picture of Zarqawi attached to the document about his being hunted by Iraqi intelligence with no explanation of what the document really implies as though it somehow justifies the Saddam-al Qaeda connection. I expect Woody to show up any minute waving unsubtantiated stuff around. Malkin’s post on this is an excellent example of why the bloated bloviators of the blogosphere need to be taken with a pound of salt. I don’t think I’ve seen anything posted anywhere on the web – left or right – as careless and clueless as her cheap attempt to gloat – but over something that actually contradicts everything she wants to believe and to pawn off on her readers. What a scurrilous little twit…Ann Coulter without even that tiny glimmer that she understands her own scam.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
All I’m saying all along is that these are incredibly complicated situations and decisions, and even taking all of reg’s and marks’ etc. points into account doesn’t automatically lead to “let’s leave Hussein be now, and welcome him back to the community of nations†any more than it leads to “let’s invade and take him down.†It’s all just stuff worth considering,
“It’s not our oil†is a simplistic view of the importance of oil to entire world economy, not just the US, and I guess you mean to imply that we – the world, that is – should have just let well enough alone when Hussein took over Kuwait. That may have been the proper thing to do; but I find it far from the obviously correct thing, And to focus on reality, no one in the American political mainstream was taking that position in 1990 and 1991. The argument was about: will sanctions work or do we need to go to war? It was a given that we could not agree to the act by Hussein and accept the results.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
reg –
I’m not following your argument on the docs. Confused on what you’re saying, I mean.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
“let’s leave Hussein be now, and welcome him back to the community of nationsâ€
Not my assumption…I think there are middle grounds. And although I had concerns about it, I didn’t oppose Gulf War 1. I opposed the way it ended, with the guy responsible for all of the bloodshed in still sitting pretty. I think the best shot we ever had for eliminating Saddam was giving limited support to the uprisings in 1991 – air cover and such. It would have caused a lot of turmoil and problems – though hardly as complex or painful for us as what we’re dealing with today – but it would have been as close as seeing Saddam dealt with according to the internal dynamics of his own country as we’d ever be likely to get. Of course, the Iraq as an “enemy of our enemy” was still in play in the decision not to go with that strategy. Either that or an incredible moral obtuseness. We were already on the border and had engaged the guy in battle – supporting an internal insurrection by Shiites would have probably even won us some friends among Muslim fundamentalists. And a Shiite-dominated country – or at least province – on Iran’s border rather than arch-enemy Saddam could well have had a mellowing influence on that country’s internals. The Iraqi mullahs seem – in the main – to be less extreme than the Iranian and if they owed us for helping them, there might have been some spillover into our dealings with their buddies in Iran. Speculation, but not unreasonable.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
What I’m saying is that the document I’ve seen (third hand and filtered through news, of course) makes it clear that the Iraqi intelligence service had what amounts to a “wanted poster” or “all points bulletin” out on Zarqawi in 2002. This would make no sense if they were actually collaborating with him. So – taking Abu Aardvarks appeal against any “rush to judgements” to satisfy pet theories into account – the zanies of the right-wing blogosphere who are implying that a picture of Zarqawi turning up among the released documents supports their contention that Zarqawi was working with Saddam are, indeed, zanies. Malkin’s post is so misleading as to consitute intentional fraud, so far as I can tell. There will be a lot more of this stuff, because what we’re watching here is a circle jerk by a bunch of clueless amateurs who fancy themselves journalists and/or pundits. This is going to get wild and crazy and will take years for serious analysts and qualified researchers to sort out. I doubt that anything beyond the kind of insights we’re getting into Saddam from the interviews with his aides that informed Cobra II are likely to come of this. But the Open Pajamas crowd are going to do their best to milk tidbits. I guess I’m doing the same with that Zarqawi document, but unless the report I read of it is completely false, I can’t help but see that it shows the opposite of what people like Hayes have been insinuating.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Re: community of nations.
I know it’s not your assumption, but it seems to be the underlying implication of most of the war opposition’s arguments. Because they’re also opposed to most of the tactics we were using to keep him “contained.”
Effective inspections were dependent on an active military threat, and that woud not have been tolerated for long, especially as nothing was found.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
A lot of people were questioning the way extremity of the sanctions against Iraq and whether a better, more targeted approach might not achieve as much if not more. Making the sanctions so extensive against an oil-producer was almost asking that they be made a mockery and magnet for corruption. But for all of their problems, they did seem to have a negative effect on Saddam’s military capacity. Could they have been “smarter” and as/more effective ? I don’t know, but smarter people than I seem to think so. When I actually look at the nature of Iranian society over the last decades and Iraq under Saddam, I think we pretty clearly chose the greater of two evils when we sided with Saddam and had already blown any prospect of improving relations with Iran for a long time by our inexcusable conduct in the Iraq/Iran war. When you think about that war and the cost in human lives, the war crimes, gassing, etc., frankly the Iranians are more than justified in their animus toward the U.S. I would be loathe to use the term “evil” in public when weighing Iran-U.S. relations, because objectively we come up worse than they do. The hostage crisis was a blip compared to aiding a maniac like Saddam in an offensive war that killed hundreds of thousands. I’m not an “America hater”, but I hate that bit of bizness.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
“way extremity” was misspeak, not teenspeak
March 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Weren’t there also cold war issues in our perceived need to counteract the “new” Iran after the revolution?
March 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Wouldn’t there be “cold war issues” with Saddam also. If anything, he was closer to the some hyper-warped version of the soviet model than the Iranians. Maybe that explains why we decided to keep him in the fold at the time…who knows.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html
Operation Bring It On:
“not a single shot was fired”
March 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
What the liberal media isn’t reporting, of course, is that somewhere in Iraq a school was painted.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
And then a local blew it up. Barbara Slavin of USA TODAY just said Iran is happy with the way things went in Iraq. “They’ve exported the Islamic revolution to southern Iraq.” she said. “In Basra women have to remain covered and you can’t get a drink.”
Now that’s progress.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
reg writes: “Of course, the Iraq as an “enemy of our enemy†was still in play in the decision not to go with that strategy. Either that or an incredible moral obtuseness.”
The latter, absolutely. Moral obtuseness, in this case, is a synonym for domestic politics. Whatever actual threat Saddam posed, the war was driven primarily by domestic U.S. politics, right down to GHW Bush’s focus-group and opinion polling on the “Saddam’s building a nuke” as the raison d’etre, rather than, we “defend monarchies.”
c’mon reg, you are the one who said this movie needs to be seen from the beginning. Do you now wish to recant your support for the Gulf War I? Can you acknowledge where it led?
And while I certainly agree that it may have been the least worst option to have supported a shi’ite, and maybe kurd too, uprising, it was extremely risky and could well have been become even worse than what’s happening today.
But I have to ask: Should the mainstream Democratic Party position be that the U.S. hasn’t committed war crimes in Iraq, that the war crimes don’t matter or that, even if they do matter, we better not talk about them?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
From: Bart (129.171.32.13)
Subject: Colin Powell’s assistant: The White House cabal
Date: October 25, 2005 at 6:45 am PST
The White House cabal
By Lawrence B. Wilkerson
LAWRENCE B. WILKERSON served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from 2002 to 2005.
October 25, 2005
IN PRESIDENT BUSH’S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
When I first discussed this group in a speech last week at the New American Foundation in Washington, my comments caused a significant stir because I had been chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell between 2002 and 2005.
But it’s absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.
Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and “guardians of the turf.”
But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them would not or could not execute them well.
I watched these dual decision-making processes operate for four years at the State Department. As chief of staff for 27 months, I had a door adjoining the secretary of State’s office. I read virtually every document he read. I read the intelligence briefings and spoke daily with people from all across government.
I knew that what I was observing was not what Congress intended when it passed the 1947 National Security Act. The law created the National Security Council — consisting of the president, vice president and the secretaries of State and Defense — to make sure the nation’s vital national security decisions were thoroughly vetted. The NSC has often been expanded, depending on the president in office, to include the CIA director, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Treasury secretary and others, and it has accumulated a staff of sometimes more than 100 people.
But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the traditional NSC process.
Scholars and knowledgeable critics of the U.S. decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven’t all of our presidents in the last half-century failed to conform to the usual process at one time or another? Isn’t it the president’s prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of Defense?
Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe that there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the national embarrassment of Watergate (and the first resignation of a president in our history), the Iran-Contra scandal and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.
But a second and far more important reason is that the nature of both governance and crisis has changed in the modern age.
From managing the environment to securing sufficient energy resources, from dealing with trafficking in human beings to performing peacekeeping missions abroad, governing is vastly more complicated than ever before in human history.
Further, the crises the U.S. government confronts today are so multifaceted, so complex, so fast-breaking — and almost always with such incredible potential for regional and global ripple effects — that to depart from the systematic decision-making process laid out in the 1947 statute invites disaster.
Discounting the professional experience available within the federal bureaucracy — and ignoring entirely the inevitable but often frustrating dissent that often arises therein — makes for quick and painless decisions. But when government agencies are confronted with decisions in which they did not participate and with which they frequently disagree, their implementation of those decisions is fractured, uncoordinated and inefficient. This is particularly the case if the bureaucracies called upon to execute the decisions are in strong competition with one another over scarce money, talented people, “turf” or power.
It takes firm leadership to preside over the bureaucracy. But it also takes a willingness to listen to dissenting opinions. It requires leaders who can analyze, synthesize, ponder and decide.
The administration’s performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell’s damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president’s hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it. And he did — everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary’s constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war. It wasn’t enough, of course, but it helped.
Today, we have a president whose approval rating is 38% and a vice president who speaks only to Rush Limbaugh and assembled military forces. We have a secretary of Defense presiding over the death-by-a-thousand-cuts of our overstretched armed forces (no surprise to ignored dissenters such as former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki or former Army Secretary Thomas White).
It’s a disaster. Given the choice, I’d choose a frustrating bureaucracy over an efficient cabal every time.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
“efficient cabal”
Who still believes they are efficient ?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
“Do you now wish to recant your support for the Gulf War I? Can you acknowledge where it led?”
I’ll leave it at my belief/observation that Gulf War 1 – up until the signal to Shiites that they should take on Saddam and then leaving them hang out to dry – was the least disreputable in the chain of events. A successful Shiite rebellion would probably have led to Iraq breaking up into three – with a weak Sunni territory sandwiched betwwen the Kurds and the south. Given the Sunnis traditional role in that country as the political base for Saddam, it’s hard to imagine any outcome involving Saddam’s demise that wouldn’t involve some retribution for that history.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Indeed, the U.S. can’t seem to step anywhere in the Middle East without finding doo doo.
Surely we could learn from the mistakes, if only we could acknowledge them.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
That’s because doo doo outnumbers anything else there. You go you step in it. Some of us said as much at the time.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
“Should the mainstream Democratic Party position be that the U.S. hasn’t committed war crimes in Iraq, that the war crimes don’t matter or that, even if they do matter, we better not talk about them?”
I get the idea that for you anything is a crime. I’m afraid you don’t know what a real war crime would look like. Hussein could have showed you what that sort of thing looks like should you care to look.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Can the Democrats play this push the envelope game like the Republicans do? E.J. Dionne doubts it and so do I.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601303.html
When our folks try to push the envelope they wind up going to Nader and the irrelevant slag-heap of history.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
I see Mark A. York is going with “there is no war crime.”
That is, perhaps, the most intellectually honest approach and I do think there is room for debate on whether the killing the U.S. has done in Iraq includes war crimes.
Here’s a prime candidate:
In March 2003, the U.S., attempting to assassinate Saddam Hussein using aerial bombardment, pulverized an entire city block in the residential neighborhood of Mansour, Baghdad. Reports vary on how many civilians were killed.
As far as I can tell, such was the war hysteria in the U.S., no one with access to the mainstream media even bothered to get a final estimate of civilian dead.
Saddam, of course, wasn’t there. As far as I know, assassinations are against U.S. and international law. It’s possible through some dodge, the U.S. could at least attempt to gun Saddam down or hand carry or even drive a bomb to his premises.
But a speculative aerial assassination attempt that kills civilians is either a war crime or the term has no meaning. I wonder whether Mark A. York will agree, argue differently, or digress.
It is so very appropriate that the first count in Saddam’s trial rests on an atrocity in which he allegedly retailiated for an attempted assassination by rounding up the usual suspects and executing them. Perhaps not a war crime, as no combat context, but almost certainly a crime against humanity.
How then, do we describe Bill Clinton’s retaliation for the planning of, not even an actual attempt of, the assassination of GHW Bush. For that, Clinton sent cruise missiles into Baghdad, incinerating many civilians. The Clinton team argued it had targetted an intelligence headquarters, but even some as soft on war crimes as Mark A. York would have to admit that targetting an intelligence BUILDING is somewhat less “surgical” than Saddam’s roundup of suspects.
Mark: What is so different about Saddam’s atrocity and Clinton’s?
I will give Mark A. York even more credit for intellectual courage, if not rationality, if he repairs to the argument that the U.S. is simply morally superior to Iraq, and, therefore, has a license to kill civilians.
I do hope for enlightenment here. I just don’t see why U.S. atrocities are OK with people.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Re Feingold: Gee, Marc, we righteously and correctly kick the crap out of the Dems for cowardice and passivity, and when somebody actually has the guts to put it where it is, that’s not good enough either. So, tactically, it may not be the brightest move. So, strategically, what? Clancy
March 17th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
“I get the idea that for you anything is a crime. I’m afraid you don’t know what a real war crime would look like. Hussein could have showed you what that sort of thing looks like should you care to look.”
Amazing, isn’t it bunkerbuster, that we have a self-described Democrat who is more toxic on this issue than John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Spector, and most of the Republican Party?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
….but then again, maybe it really isn’t that amazing. After all, this is not my father’s Democratic Party, and certainly not my grandfather’s.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:55 am
It’s only a war crime when you are the loser–everyone knows that history is written by the “victors”–common sense 101.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:06 am
So let’s see, Clinton (so glad folks can always find a way to blame Bill!) bombed Baghdad in retaliation for a murder attempt on a former US president and this is unjustified because civilains were killed by accident? I’d be interested in the figures of the dead on this for starters, but in a more general way do dead Kuwaiti’s count as Your Foreigners? Or are they unqualified since Hussein killed them like the Shiites? What are the ground rules relativism here? No, yours is the race bias where the Noble Savage like Hussein has no guilt for anything. I feel sorry for a mushbrained cardboard cutout that thinks like this. Technically, Hussein is responsible for both events since he could have provided more evidence that he was right about his weapons, but he chose not to.
I question the civilians killed “deliberately” as you say. The fact is, like it or not, once a war is launched it’s a moot point. But if I have to say we are morally superior to totalitarian killers who rule their citizenry with an iron hand, I say yes, we are. You think the Jonjuide genociders are. I don’t.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:08 am
That’s a cliche Eleanore. Even Dan Brown copied it verbatim. What responsibility do the losers have and is their position superior? Germany lost; Japan lost. Are they better now?
March 18th, 2006 at 9:08 am
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Hague_War_Crimes_Tribunal Yugoslavia is perfect example of the outcome of war–the loser becomes a war criminal and the winner publishes a biography and gets an 8 million dollar advance. Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing!
March 18th, 2006 at 9:13 am
“targetting an intelligence BUILDING is somewhat less “surgical†than Saddam’s roundup of suspects.”
I guess I get the comparison. Roundup? He didn’t hit the intelligence building? How many civilians hang out there as a rule? There really is no point arguing with a cultural relativist.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:18 am
I think Eleanore’s lunacy of relativism siding with Milosovic over Clinton is prima facie evidence of insanity. Please stay with Nader and thus out of the discussion of reality. With people like you on the team Democrats need no enemies. The Republicans win by default which is Dionne’s point. Please stay in you loony corner of irrelevance. You’re the kind cartoon characters Roper and his bunch chase and lynch.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:33 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4819388.stm
March 18th, 2006 at 10:20 am
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have become an anachronism—they only represent their own self-interests—the system is run by multi-national corporations that finance “their candidate.†The winner is bought and paid for; legislation is written by corporations via lobbyists.
York—you should be the first person to realize this; since you have been especially victimized by the economy.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:56 am
I find that reductionist argument unsatisfying. It assumes corporate boogeymen are the beginning and the end. The economy always wanted to leave me out, that’s why I cultivated a government science career such as it is. Everyone is a victim in this world of yours yet I notice you have a job so…
March 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Mark A. York: “civilains were killed by accident”
Well, Saddam argues that he gave his victims a trial and they were found guilty.
So if anyone not participating in the assassination attempt on him was executed, it was an “accident” in the same technical, semantic sense you use to describe Clinton’s cruise missile attack.
Sure, any trial Saddam held would have almost certainly been crude and unfair. But such a trial would be less crude and less unfair than a cruise missile attack on an entire building.
Apparently, Mark’s sense of moral superiority allows him to forget that any such building would almost certainly have dozens of civilians, from janitors to file clerks inside. Is his declarations that their deaths are “accidental” a result of his sense of “moral superiority” or denial?
Lastly, enough already with the silly argument that calling a U.S. war crime a U.S. war crime is tantamount to apologizing for Saddam or anyone else. There is no logical connection there. No one is apologizing for Saddam here. It’s about acknowledging what we, as Americans, have done.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Come to think of it, assertions of “moral superiority” as rationale for immoral behavior are at the root of every crime against humanity.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
It’s a ludicrous analogy. I get the idea this came at night though but your foolish false equivalency renders your brain frozen shut. They all do it so one is just like another. Good Saddam bad Bill. I find it difficult to believe this a real conversation. It’s good thing your vote doesn’t count.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
“The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
I would argue at this point the strike is on far better footing than Bush had as Clinton explains. Of course the brain trust of the country and loyal opposition was more concerned with the old girlfriend. Saddam didn’t give most of the people a trial. He killed as many as he wanted at any time. It’s established fact only a moron would deny. There’s no moral equivalancy. Period. The proposition fails on its face.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
M.A.Y. writes: “There’s no moral equivalancy. Period. The proposition fails on its face.”
You’re right. There is no moral equivalency. That’s because the link you cite above is about Clinton’s decision to bomb Iraq again over the WMD inspections issue. It is completely separate from the bombing over the alleged PLANNING of an assassination attempt against GHW Bush.
It is telling that you would either confuse those events or make such a transparent disinformation attempt.
Nevertheless, readers here should click on the link you provided and read it all the way through. It’s a keen lesson in why the Democrats remain feckless in the face of the most failed presidency since Nixon, or, arguably, the worst ever.
At the bottom of the story, there are other links, including one to a story describing the Republican’s portrayal of the bombing as a cheap political stunt by Clinton on the very eve of his impeachment.
This brings us nicely back to the thread: the Democrats inability to win elections by opposing the Iraq war. Given their history of supporting similar boondoggles, they lack sufficient credibility on the issue.
More important, perhaps, is Mark A. York’s apparent assertion that Clinton’s bombing was justified. No wonder a progressive, rational view of history has trouble getting traction in America…Even when we know STONE COLD HE HAD NO WMDs, we still have reasonably intelligent people saying it was right to bomb him because he was too slow in proving that to a world that was actively trying to assassinate and/or overthrow him.
You’d think that people like Mark would at least be willing to avail their worldview of the sole benefit of the invasion of Iraq, which is that we no know he didn’t have WMD and we even know why he needed to bluff that he did have them.
This is like the people who still insist the Gulf of Tonkin was an act of war by the North Vietnamese. No amount of evidence is good enough for them, since their views were not formed with its benefit in the first place.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:55 am
http://www.progressive.org/node/3142
Good Molly Ivins, if anyboy’s still here.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Not everything is Tonkinesque. The links show many things including the idea that Hussein had weapons at one time and we were trying to find out just what and where. That process continued until Bush shut it off. Clinton backed off when he got a concession. It looked like he had few if any wmd as of 2003, but unfortunately it was far from a slam dunk case. Really it was an ad ignorantiam. I would have kept looking, as would a few Democrats. Weakness will never be attractive to women or the American voter.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Lessons Ringtone…
Love Was Here Ringtone Love Was Here Ringtone The Answer Ringtone The Answer Ringtone If God Will Send His Angels Ringtone If God Will Send His Angels Ringtone Eight Line Poem Ringtone Eight Line Poem Ringtone Champion Ringtone Champion Ringtone Delete…
July 22nd, 2006 at 7:45 am
leather side chair…
A nice story posted at ……
July 25th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte poker zeigen ?bmb
July 25th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Eddie800 pokerbbq
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
sports picks sports picks
sports picks free sports picks free
March 17th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Interesting insight, amazed I never thought of that by myself
March 24th, 2010 at 12:41 am
This particular post has made myself know that most of us need to take additional attention of ourselves and every other.
September 25th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Hello I?m so delighted I determined your net web page, I basically located out you by mistake, although I experienced been seeking on Yahoo for one level else, Anyways I?m proper right here now and would just drive to say many thanks for any fantastic present and also a all spherical entertaining webpage (I also have the benefit of the theme/design), I really tend not to have time to go by indicates of all of it within the moment but I?ve bookmarked it and likewise extra your RSS feeds, so when I’ve time I is going to become rear to appear at a good deal much more, Please do keep up the fantastic operate
January 17th, 2011 at 7:26 am
Hi there, just stopped by doing some research for my Nebraska 4g site. Lots of information out there. Not what I was looking for, but nice site. Take care.