Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
It just proves that President Bush is not hawkish enough. If it had been me, I would have declared War against Saudi Arabia first thing, in fact, another Crusade -- and Political Correctness be damned -- and not barring the use of nuclear weapons if need be to get the point across. A few open-air H-Bomb tests in the desert ought to do it. If not, then....
And I would have tightened up our internal security as well -- again, Political Correctness be damned. We need ideological profiling, a.k.a., "McCarthyism".
As for his reading to the children, why, is that not the pacifist ideal? How many times have I seen bumper-stickers saying "You can't hug a child with nuclear arms"? Or "What if schools had all the money they wanted and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale"? Sickening as well as treasonous. I say we need far more nuclear arms, far more military spending, and if that means I pay more taxes for it, then so be it. As for schools, according to the Tenth Amendment, that's up to the states and local communities, not the federal government.
I find myself in disbelief at your comments, Steve.
This is not meant as a personal attack on you, in fact I am hoping you had your tongue in your cheek.
I would have declared War against Saudi Arabia first thing, in fact, another Crusade -- and Political Correctness be damned -- and not barring the use of nuclear weapons if need be to get the point across.
Ok. Nuke a major oil producer because most of the attackers came from that country? Despite the fact that the Bush family has very strong ties to the Monarchy, and they were our allies (of a sort) in Desert Shield? Yep. You're kidding. I get it. Noone could possibly advocate the use of nuclear weapons against an Arab country that courts disaster in their own world by cooperating with the hated Americans.
We need ideological profiling, a.k.a., "McCarthyism".
Yup. Again, just what we need! A witch hunt against those citizens of this great nation that hold political views that are different from the "Uniter, not a Divider" (according to his original and re-election campaign statements.)
As for his reading to the children, why, is that not the pacifist ideal?
Damn good. Let's try to divide the Nation even further. Rove didn't go far enough! Heck, the pacifists would have taken a vacation at Camp David and let the country figure out its own course following the attacks!
A real Leader would have excused himself from the company of children apologetically and magnanimously after being told we are "under attack."
Immediately.
A real Leader would have confirmed the principles of what makes this country great, and ask for support against the perpetrators (and mean it). No rest for this Nation until those responsible are caught and held accountable. Instead, we now have reliable intelligence on where that perpetrator is (according to the CIA), but are not sending in the Seals or Green Berets to get him. Oh, I forgot, we just don't think about OBL much... Silly me. Instead, we are involved in a disasterous war in a country that had nothing to do with the attack. And the President this very evening invoked 9/11 numerous times in connection with the war on terror. A country that had NOTHING to do with the attacks. But MY, they sure do have a LOT of oil!
Don't try and pidgeon-hole me as a liberal, please. Now that the war has become a reality, and Saddam is out of power, we have a moral responsibility to continue in Iraq until they are able to take care of themselves. I believe this. The Administration counted on this, IMO. But I am disheartened that we must do so, at such great cost to the people in uniform and their families. While spending many billions that we don't have. For what? WMD? No, we knew they were not there, or had the suspicion of such. Oh. Regime change. Now there's something that will stand up in international Law. Oops, I forgot! We dropped out of the ICC, so the rules don't apply to us (err, we're not accountable.)
Who cares what the rest of the civilized world thinks, anyways?
The sad fact is, the *facts* in that post are all true, and on the record.
Can anyone not see a direct link between the public realization of those facts and the tanking of recent polls on approval ratings for Bush?
If the war was truly justified, Americans would back it with numbers in the polls that approximated those of post-9/11.
Perhaps the majority of Americans see things differently than the Administration would like us to believe.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
I wrote:
"And I would have tightened up our internal security as well -- again, Political Correctness be damned. We need ideological profiling, a.k.a., "McCarthyism"."
That definitely includes reviving the McCarran-Walter Act.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Former Republican wrote:
"Ok. Nuke a major oil producer because most of the attackers came from that country? Despite the fact that the Bush family has very strong ties to the Monarchy, and they were our allies (of a sort) in Desert Shield? Yep. You're kidding. I get it. Noone could possibly advocate the use of nuclear weapons against an Arab country that courts disaster in their own world by cooperating with the hated Americans."
As even you acknowledge, most of the attackers came from Saudi Arabia. That is their "cooperation". Their goal is to destroy Western civilization by any means, foul or foul. Saudi Arabia is the center and source of most Muhammadan terrorism, it is the center and source of Muhammadanism (Islam) itself. In deepest essence, Muhammad began this War in 611 A.D. when he decided that all Jews, Christians, and Polytheists (including his own family) were idol-worshippers to be converted, subjugated, or exterminated. Women are totally subjugated and homosexuals are exterminated. Saudi Arabia is the Nazi Germany of this Axis of Evil.
As to the oil, I said long before 9/11/2001 that what America needs is an Energy Independence Manhattan Project to free ourselves from our deadly dependence on Saudi Arabian oil, an addiction more deadly even than dope. We must make use of every possible source of energy: domestic oil, nuclear, solar, geothermal, what have you, anything and everything outside of Saudi Arabia. Or else seize the Saudi Arabian oil by force. It was we who discovered and developed that oil in the first place.
"Yup. Again, just what we need! A witch hunt against those citizens of this great nation that hold political views that are different from the "Uniter, not a Divider" (according to his original and re-election campaign statements.)"
As Senator Jenner of Indiana pointed out: "Communists are rats, not witches. This is a rat hunt, not a witch-hunt." I don't give a damn about Bush's campaign bilge. Our nation is already divided -- between the Politically Incorrect vs. the Politically Correct (Communists, Communist fronters, and their "fuzzy liberal" dupes), individualists vs. collectivists, nationalists vs. One-Worlders, U.S.-Americans vs. U.N.-Americans, the loyal vs. the disloyal. Ultimately, you are either 100% on our side or 100% on the side of the enemy.
Senator McCarthy violated nobody's Constitutional rights. In Dean's World, I challenged anybody to find me the Supreme Court decision which held that Senator McCarthy violated one Constitutional right, or even a case brought against him by the ACLU. Nobody could come up with anything more than an allusion to "the McCarthy era" in a dictum written by Justice Hugo Black long after the Senator was dead. All McCarthy did was to expose Communists who were infiltrating our government and influencing our foreign policy and to get some of them fired. The Communist-infiltrated media then launched a smear campaign against the Senator. It worked. Today, his name is a "dirty" word.
"Damn good. Let's try to divide the Nation even further. Rove didn't go far enough! Heck, the pacifists would have taken a vacation at Camp David and let the country figure out its own course following the attacks!"
The pacifists (mostly Communists and other nihilists) would disarm this country if they could get away with it. In the 1980s, they launched the Soviet-backed nuclear freeze movement. Fortunately, we had President Reagan resisting that. Today, they are undermining our War effort and smearing our brave fighting men and women in every way possible. I dare call it treason.
"A real Leader would have excused himself from the company of children apologetically and magnanimously after being told we are "under attack."
Immediately."
Well, that's what I would have done, of course -- and then immediately been denounced as a warmonger and "anti-education" for doing so. Even now, I can hear the endless sobs of the Politically Correct on TV: "What about the chiiiiildren?"
"A real Leader would have confirmed the principles of what makes this country great, and ask for support against the perpetrators (and mean it). No rest for this Nation until those responsible are caught and held accountable. Instead, we now have reliable intelligence on where that perpetrator is (according to the CIA), but are not sending in the Seals or Green Berets to get him. Oh, I forgot, we just don't think about OBL much... Silly me. Instead, we are involved in a disasterous war in a country that had nothing to do with the attack. And the President this very evening invoked 9/11 numerous times in connection with the war on terror. A country that had NOTHING to do with the attacks. But MY, they sure do have a LOT of oil!"
North Africa seemingly had nothing to do with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, but that's where we went first. "It's all about the oiiiil!" is nothing but shallow Marxist claptrap from materialistic blockheads who reduce everything to the economic. This War, the total War Against the Terror Masters, like the Cold War and like the two World Wars before, like the Civil War and the War for Independence, like the Crusades, is about freedom vs. slavery, Western civilization vs. her enemies. Ultimately, it is a religious War.
As for catching Osama bin Laden, I want him dead. Period. The One-Worlders and Communists want him caught alive so they can put on a show trial, have that despicable traitor Ramsey Clark defend him, play the "race" card, put America and the West on trial for our "imperialism", argue that we deserved to have our Twin Towers destroyed and 3,000 murdered, and then free bin Laden to wreak more terror. They are already doing that for Saddamn [sic]. This is not a civil lawsuit or a parking ticket we are talking about. We are at War for our very survival. This is "Patton", not "Perry Mason".
"For what? WMD? No, we knew they were not there, or had the suspicion of such."
I, for one, was not willing to take any chances.
"Oh. Regime change."
As we did to Germany and Japan.
"Now there's something that will stand up in international Law. Oops, I forgot! We dropped out of the ICC, so the rules don't apply to us (err, we're not accountable.)""
Our law is the United States Constitution, including all of the Bill of Rights (including the hated Second Amendment). Period. I'm glad that President Bush had the sense to keep us out of the International Kangaroo Court. We need to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S..
"Who cares what the rest of the civilized world thinks, anyways?"
Who gives a damn what the EUnuchs think? The rest of Europe is sinking fast. They will soon be under shari'a. Pim Fortuyn warned us before he was murdered, as did Theo Van Gogh. Oswald Spengler warned us long ago. We are seeing The Decline of the West. Or, as James Burnham put it, The Suicide of the West. The United States of America is the only nation of the West still standing, still free.
"Can anyone not see a direct link between the public realization of those facts and the tanking of recent polls on approval ratings for Bush?
If the war was truly justified, Americans would back it with numbers in the polls that approximated those of post-9/11.
Perhaps the majority of Americans see things differently than the Administration would like us to believe."
A real Leader does not put his finger to the wind or his ear to the ground. He does not go by polls, which shift from day to day. The media are undermining our War effort. They are on the side of the enemy. A real Leader does what is right, what will save our country and what is left of our civilization, not what is popular or Politically Correct. The President, and a patriotic Congress and Supreme Court, will do all that is necessary to defend our freedom against all enemies, within and without.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Former Republican:
"This is not meant as a personal attack on you, in fact I am hoping you had your tongue in your cheek."
Nor was my reply meant as a personal attack on you nor to impugn your own loyalty and patriotism. I believe that you are loyal, but you, like most Americans, have been deceived by what you read and hear in the mass media. That's why blogs like this are necessary, to counter their false propaganda.
"This War, the total War Against the Terror Masters, like the Cold War and like the two World Wars before, like the Civil War and the War for Independence, like the Crusades, is about freedom vs. slavery, Western civilization vs. her enemies. Ultimately, it is a religious War."
I am in complete awe of this statement. Actually your whole post floored me, but this was the pinnacle.
I'll just pick one point. Crusades. Just so I'm clear, you believe that the Crusades were wars of Freedom vs Slavery, with the West on the side of "Freedom"?
Well, at least we totally agree on the goal and importance of that goal of achieving energy independance.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
I wrote:
"....individualists vs. collectivists, nationalists vs. One-Worlders,...."
These could possibly be two dimensions of a spectrum, but M. Stanton Evans, in his excellent Revolt on the Campus (1961), gives a different analysis:
"....If I may expand upon Reisman's analysis a bit, I think that our national history indicates that his 'inner-directed' people profess an ascending hierarchy of secular loyalties; they revere the individual and the family vis-vis outside influences, the rights of states vis-a-vis federal authority, and the rights of the United States vis-a-vis foreign enemies and supranational institutions. Each is an expression of the Conservative impulse. Patriotic attachment is thus an affirmation of individuality at two removes, a pride of place enjoying intermediary status in a system of affection and concern.
"In the other-directed, or 'Liberal', conception, the order of priorities is inverted. Having little or no faith in the individual, the 'Liberal' affirms the claims of the community over the person, the claims of the federal government over the states, and the claims of 'world opinion' or supranational institutions over the United States. 'Liberal' anti-nationalism is part of a coherent ethic of anti-individualism."
I'll start off by pointing out that these are my opinions.
Your comments were pretty much pure opinion, too, and I don't agree with any of it.
And, as presented, the carefully described facts mixed with opinion assembled in that post principly convey a pure opeinion, and I don't agree with it either. The propanda techniques used in the post are distortion, hyperbole and stacking the deck, among others.
I'm not saying Rove doesn't use propaganda techniques, in fact he does. But I will stack up the honesty, good character and leadership of this Administration against any of its critics, including Steven, who thinks it isn't going far enough.
I congratulate both you and Steven on being far superior to most of Bush's critics. You both actually say what you would have done differently. Most critics don't have the cojones for that.
Bin Laden is a symptom, not a cause, and he is not that important. As a symbol of Arab defiance towards America Bin Laden has has almost always operated in Saddam's shadow. You are still taking a criminal approach. That's what got us 9/11. Bush is taking a holistic approach, at the grand strategy, strategy and tactical level. Neither Carter, Reagan, Bush I, nor Clinton and his vaunted terror czar had a grand strategy for dealing with the root causes of Islamic discontent - in large part because we bought the Arab propaganda and blamed it all on Israel. Bush II is the first President to really want to work on the problem. Kudos to him.
You will notice that WMD is relegated to it's proper place: the legal pretext for war. Thus, it didn't really even matter whether Saddam had them or not - he failed to fill out the paperwork correctly. It's similar to the way we jailed Al Capone - for tax evasion. Nobody cared about taxes, the murder was what we really cared about.
"Let me level with you, the American people. We don't much care whether Saddam has WMDs or not. The fact is, he failed to fill out the paperwork correctly. That's the excuse we're currently using. So just forget about all that 'mushroom cloud' and nuclear capability stuff. That's all smokescreen, frankly. 'Serious and mounting threat'? Nah, that's bullshit. The hard fact is this: we need to flex our muscles in the region, show them we mean business, and Iraq is the best target. We want this war, we need this war, we're going to war.
See, I can use hyperbole too! Of course WMD was a real reason for the war, as well as being the legal pretext. It just wasn't the only reason, or even the major reason, and the fact we only found a little of it, plus lots and lots and lots of dual use chemicals easily converted into nerve gas doesn't mean it was a lie.
George Bush is an honest man. So are you. But Saddam misled everyone, including George Bush, you and me. Doesn't make any of us liars.
You might also note that the strategy outline was by Steven den Beste, linked to by me. I doubt George Bush has ever seen it, and I doubt it accurately represents his thinking about the war. I think his speeches do that much better.
When Harry Reid calls George Bush a liar it reflects poorly on his character. BTW, did you follow the link?
Not sure how to respond. We're so far down the rabbit hole at this point, I don't know what's real and what's not. I did follow the link, but I only skimmed it. I do think that my imaginary SOTU speech outlines pretty much the truth of the situation. The Arab world needed a smackdown, 9/11 provided the context, the American people wanted it, and they didn't much care who got it, as long as someone did. The administration thought (wrongly, as it turned out) that Iraq would be a relatively easy target. Whether they lied or not doesn't matter - the fact is, they didn't *care* whether what they said was true or not. Everything else is just pretext and posturing.
It's the new right-wing religion. "Bush didn't do [X], but even if he did, good for him!" All the bases are covered. To give an example, "Bush didn't lie about the war. But even if he did, he did it because it was the only way he could convince people to get rid of a horrible tyrant. Good for him!"
"There's no torture at Gitmo. But really, we should be doing way worse to them than we are!"
See? It's easy once you get the hang of it.
That's not the way I want my country to be run. If that makes me a fascist, then Dean Esmay and Karl Rove and others can enjoy the name-calling. I personally want to get the hell to the other side of the looking glass, but I don't have a white rabbit to show me the way.
You are already on the way to the other side of the looking glass. The key is to keep talking with your political opponents, like me. Keep trying to understand them and keep trying to get them to understand you. And you are helping us all to do the same. Thanks! Since you and I are doing that, perhaps you and I, like Alice, can get to the eighth rank and join Rosemary as Queens! (Given the color scheme, I figure Rosemary is the Red Queen.)
I may disagree with you about the relative easiness of Iraq. It has been relatively easy compared to, for example, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. It has been relatively easy compared to Korea or Vietnam.
It was not relatively easy compared to Gulf War I or Kosovo.
I may also disagree with you (and Karl Rove) about motives, pretext and posturing. Sure there is lots of pretext and posturing, but it is actual serious people doing the pretext and posturing for actual serious reasons because they are grappling with often insoluable problems out of their own human frailty.
Durbin and the Democrats have to deal with the utopian pacifist element in their party. (What a pain in the tuccus for Durbin!) Bush and the Republicans have to deal with the Christians-who-believe-Islam-really-is-from-Satan element in their party, not to mention the utopian isolationist element. (What a pain in the tuccus for Bush!)
Of course, I'm one of those Christians. It's pretty much a logical necessity if you believe that Christianity is the one true religion and that Satan is a real being who actively works to deceive us. Futhermore, you would then have to conclude that incorrect Christian doctrine is likely also a Satanic deception. Ouch. I'm almost certain that I believe some incorrect Christian doctrine. What doctrine? I don't know, if I knew I'd stop believing it. Therefore I have also been deceived by Satan in the exact same way as a Muslim. Why would I be any different?
So, if you pray, pray for me. I just said one for you. Thank God for Adam's conscience! It does shine through in your writing, you know.
I appreciate your candor. And I accept your difference of opinion. The post was intended to be hyperbolic in nature, though. It seemed the only way to greet the idea of using nuclear weapons in war so glibly. While terrorists might yearn for an opportunity to hold one in their hands, I see them as being used by this country only as an extreme last resort. Like in a war of the more conventional type.
The reason I started the post was Rove, and it kinda snowballed. My dislike of him is based on his penchant to stir up partisan politics and divisiveness even when there is no need. There has never been a more divisive time in my memory between Republicans and Democrats. I attribute part of it to Bush's inability to compromise or admit he is wrong. The other part I attribute to real smear tactics by the man behind the curtain, intended solely for political gain, perceived or real. His statement was an insult to the Democrats serving in Iraq.
I did read your link, and I can see where you are coming from. The ideas, at least in terms of National Security, on that page are closely aligned to those of the PNAC.
There is no question that Iraq is the ideal location from which the U.S. could direct action and influence governments in the Middle East. I would also agree that a Democracy there would be a major stabilizing force in that region, with us there as military backers.
I just don't agree that it is our right forcibly instill a Democracy there because it is in our best long term interests. Isn't that the kind of aggression that we as a country have denounced? Didn't we repel Saddam when he acted in a similar manner in Kuwait?
I also don't like being lied to by my government in terms of justification for the war. The latest is humanitarian intervention. But it doesn't wash, IMO. No question, Hussein was Heinous, but the fact that 100,000 Iraquis are dead from our invasion doesn't lend credence to the HI reasoning. Where were we in Rwanda? Seemed a pretty open and shut case for HI. Or Darfur?
I would prefer that the administration was more forthright. The reasons are oil, Israel, and (a distant third, IMO) terror. They have the oil, the region around it does, and we are dependent on it. We are closely approaching the point where half of the known reserves of the world are depleted. Having a permanent military presence there guarantees our access to it. It also aids in stabilizing the security of Israel. Not that they need it. Are they the 2nd or 3rd most powerful military these days? Prior to 9/11, the idea of terrorism reaching our shores seemed a distant possibility to the masses, in real terms. I recall derision at the time of the first attack on the WTC. It was a pathetic attempt. They got better. Hovering over the Middle East militarily, though, will not make us safer, also IMO.
Radical Islam has hated Isreal and us for our support for it. But they could rarely hope to reach us over this vast ocean, or didn't act out of fear of retaliation. Now they have a chance to actually go after the Big Dog by walking across the border. And I doubt their resolve will shake. I hope it does. Because we've taken a step that cannot be undone. Abandoning Iraq would create a cesspool of terrorists and embolden them. Not that they aren't gaining ground and recruits by the conduct of the war.
We could debate some of this stuff for longer than the war will last ;)
It is my belief that we've become too arrogant as a nation since becoming the sole superpower. Do we wield enormous political, military, and monetary influence in the world? Darn tootin', and I am happy for it. But some of us seem to have lost the patience for diplomacy.
Nor was my reply meant as a personal attack on you nor to impugn your own loyalty and patriotism. I believe that you are loyal, but you, like most Americans, have been deceived by what you read and hear in the mass media. That's why blogs like this are necessary, to counter their false propaganda.
I appreciate your comment. It was not taken as such. I realize that there are bound to be differences of opinion in everything, including how aggressively to act militarily. Open debate is really the only solution, allowing all to see the merits of each perspective.
I also don't like being lied to by my government in terms of justification for the war.
Please review the definition of a lie: deliberate deception.
I would prefer that the administration was more forthright. The reasons are oil, Israel, and (a distant third, IMO) terror.
Those may be the reasons you think we went. But you can't tell me that they are the real reasons for anyone in the Administration.
You don't have a crystal ball, so you can't tell what anyone's real reasons are, or whether they are engaging in deliberate deception. The best evidence of what someone is thinking is what they say, what they write and what they do. Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld (who wrote the original Freedom Of Information Act) and Dick Cheney are often painfully forthright in their discussions of reality. And what members of the Administration have said, written and done shows you are dead wrong in your assessment.
You are making the same kind of mistake as Karl Rove, except his charges have much better evidence to back them up.
In the face of this evidence, will you call Dick Durbin a liar and complain that he hasn't been forthright in his criticism of the war? Will you complain that he is engaging in transparently divisive political manuvers?
Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. It seems like an utter non sequitor. Perhaps this will make my comments clear. I am comparing FormerRepub's inclination to call Bush a liar when FormerRepub has a different opinion to my inclination to call Kerry, Kennedy or Durbin (for example) a liar when I have a different opinion.
Generally I have been able to fight that inclination. Instead of saying (generally to myself) "that's a lie" over and over when I hear (for example) Kerry give a speech, I say "that's not true" over and over. I still feel really angry when he is done. I have resolved in the future to say "that's your opinion" over and over instead. This is much more accurate, and perhaps I'll be calm at the end.
This really is becoming quite a spirited discussion, and I welcome it and your participation! I applaud your statement to Adam about trying to understand political views which are different from those that one espouses. While I may be opinionated, my mind remains forever open to differing ideas.
I recently read a post quoted on Dean's blog about how Democracies don't wage war (against each other), and it has stirred some deep thinking on my part. There were strong ideas there about the founders of our Country that deserve investigation and introspection.
But I digress...
Your link regarding the mistreatment of the *guards* at Gitmo by the detainees was disturbing, if true. The problem is, how can one determine what is true anymore? A horde of accusations of abuse has surfaced. Could this be politically motivated? Surely. But the fact that serious abuses, including murder, have been admitted tends to make one more apt to believe that other, non-publicized abuses transpired. I am not willing to discount the reliability of the source you quoted, however. While it may seem folly to antagonize the people that have absolute power over you (as a prisoner), the radical Islamists are not known for their instincts of self-preservation. In that vein, if they have so egregiously taunted their captors, it is not unreasonable to expect those same captors to retaliate to some degree. Simple human nature.
The problem is, WHO to believe?
One report of a supervised visit, or anecdotal evidence of many abuses, only some of which (AI springs to mind) have a vested interest in fostering their views?
I honestly don't know.
But I fall back on my position of skepticism. The fact that Gonzales recommended that Bush withdraw from the Geneva Conventions because certain provisions were quaint (but, possibly more telling, also assured the protection from responsibility under the War Crimes Act of 1996,) only raises the hair on the back of my neck.
I still strongly oppose torture, regardless of who is responsible. It's just wrong. Even people that are strong suspects can be innocent. Even people throwing urine on you can be innocent (even though it would make me want to bust some skulls.)
I await more thorough investigation to lay ultimate responsibility. I hope that investigation happens. Blaming things on a few bad apples and calling it quits isn't enough. We must exonerate those in charge of the few bad apples to clear our conscience. And our reputation in the world.
Whew...
What's left? Ahh, Durbin.
It's a matter of semantics, I believe. Reading his statement is key. He didn't say that the administration was Nazi-like, or Pol Pot-like. Nor that our troops were Nazis. He stated that reading from an official FBI account of the abuses at Gitmo, without knowing its source, one would believe it to be an account of abuses that occurred under one of those regimes, rather than ours. I surmise his intent was to draw a distinction between what we hold to be our self-professed ideals and the reality of what was reported by the FBI. And that such questionable treatment should stop. Because it isn't what this country believes in, regardless of our relaxation of the definition of torture.
He did make a mistakes. Plural.
One mistake was that conservatives would agree that such treatment was intolerable, rather than attack him as undermining support for our troops for their own political gain. The insurgents in Iraq need no further justification for their actions than our own actions and presence. Another mistake was to use the "N" word. Probably for his own political gain. He would have been better served to say that it would have been expected of a non-Democratic totalitarian society [use imagination and insert name here].
Two wrongs don't make a right, my grandfather used to say. Sadly, just another example of political posturing on both sides. The people have had enough of that, as witnessed by the dismal approval ratings of the Legislative branch of government. People are sick of this partisan crap, me among them. I minored in History. I lament the current lack of compromise demonstrated by those in our past, compromises that are needed to unify a Nation. As those before us understood, at times it is neccessary to settle for less than what you believe is correct in order to preserve the country and prevent complete deadlock. You don't have to agree with the views of your opponents, only accept them as a legitimate opinion and hammer out an agreement that does both parties the least harm. That's why we elect these people.
Getting late...
One last thing? I would be interested in your view on whether, in principle, a war of aggression on another country is justified, and under what circumstances. Iraq is the obvious point of interest. We knew Saddam was despicable. We knew he had in the past built and used WMD. We also knew that the vast majority of those were accounted for, that we had no evidence to suggest he had resumed their production (but held legitimate questions as to our ability to affirm this.) We knew that he had not procured the uranium needed to build a nuclear bomb. From several different assessments. We also knew he had been recalcitrant in allowing weapons inspectors in the past to gain unfettered access to the sites they wished to examine. Which led to sanctions that killed a million, many children. Before the war, he finally allowed the UN inspectors the unfettered access they requested (sensing perhaps the imminent.) We knew he had no ties to Al Qaeda, and in fact had militantly kept them out of Iraq (perhaps out of self-preservation.) We knew he supported Palestinian terrorists.
Is the *suspicion* that a sovereign state *could* be producing WMD, and knowing their support of Palestinian terrorists adequate justification for war? Even post 9/11?
I don't think so, and I therefore disagree with your statement that I am dead wrong in my assessment of oil, Israel, and lastly terrorism as the real justification for war. The PNAC would agree with me (Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz) according to their documents, which I have read in their entirety. I'll continue to admit that a Democratic Iraq would greatly serve our interests, but contend that it is not our right under the circumstances given to instill one forcibly. Indeed, it may be beyond our capability.
If only our media and leaders in both the WH and Congress could hold such a discussion on these topics... I welcome your response.
I apologize. I failed to adequately respond to your post. Our views are different in some respects, and should be discussed. I realized this after reading this thread in whole today.
As even you acknowledge, most of the attackers came from Saudi Arabia. That is their "cooperation". Their goal is to destroy Western civilization by any means, foul or foul. Saudi Arabia is the center and source of most Muhammadan terrorism, it is the center and source of Muhammadanism (Islam) itself. In deepest essence, Muhammad began this War in 611 A.D. when he decided that all Jews, Christians, and Polytheists (including his own family) were idol-worshippers to be converted, subjugated, or exterminated. Women are totally subjugated and homosexuals are exterminated. Saudi Arabia is the Nazi Germany of this Axis of Evil.
The Saudis are a conundrum. They are the center of Islam, yet they allow U.S. bases on their soil. The same U.S. that is almost universally hated in the rest of the Arab world for its economic and military support of Israel. Sure, they hate Israel. But they hate us MORE, because they believe that without our support, Israel would not be the power it is today. That the vast majority of the attackers came from SA does not speak to the Government's complicity, but to the wealth and education of the Saudi people. Even educated Saudis can hate us in dissent of their government, and they are the only ones likely to gain both access to and acceptance in the U.S. And possibly the only ones trusted by OBL to carry out that extreme mission, a Saudi himself.
As to the oil, I said long before 9/11/2001 that what America needs is an Energy Independence Manhattan Project to free ourselves from our deadly dependence on Saudi Arabian oil, an addiction more deadly even than dope.
This is something we agree upon completely! Yay! I detest our dependence on foreign oil. It makes us politically and economically vulnerable. It ticks me off a bit that the JAPANESE are the ones producing vehicles that are so efficient (hybrids.) We're only beginning to get the point, IMO. Instead of investing heavily in alternative fuels/energy, we open up some of the most (and last) pristine wildlife preserves to oil exploitation. A finger in the dike.
As Senator Jenner of Indiana pointed out: "Communists are rats, not witches. This is a rat hunt, not a witch-hunt." I don't give a damn about Bush's campaign bilge. Our nation is already divided -- between the Politically Incorrect vs. the Politically Correct (Communists, Communist fronters, and their "fuzzy liberal" dupes), individualists vs. collectivists, nationalists vs. One-Worlders, U.S.-Americans vs. U.N.-Americans, the loyal vs. the disloyal. Ultimately, you are either 100% on our side or 100% on the side of the enemy.
Well, we can disagree a bit here. It's a bit dishonest to profess ad nauseum that you intend to unite the country, and then systematically impose an agenda and appointees that are divisive. I care about that bilge. But that is a matter of record. The bigger issue is the idealistic one. We have become so polarized, individually, that any view that is seen as contrary to our own is emphatically denounced as wrong and unpatriotic. On both sides. Our security in the world is something that we cannot relegate to world opinion. Grave threats must be handled in accordance with our own interests. But that does not mean that we should not be interested in (and I believe capable of, with all of our power) influencing world opinion. We don't live in a vacuum. There are a lot of other countries out there, some of which we depended on greatly in our rise to superpower status, and hold many of the same ideals we do. It wouldn't hurt to try and sway them by diplomacy and world leadership.
Senator McCarthy violated nobody's Constitutional rights.
Communism was a minimal threat in this country. Given our Constitution, their ideals would have had little influence. McCarthy was vilified for the *way* he sought to expose Communists. Hysteria allowed this to occur. Extreme intimidation and accusations that would, in this day and age, possibly result in harrassment lawsuits.
Don't get me started on Lawyers...
The pacifists (mostly Communists and other nihilists) would disarm this country if they could get away with it. In the 1980s, they launched the Soviet-backed nuclear freeze movement. Fortunately, we had President Reagan resisting that. Today, they are undermining our War effort and smearing our brave fighting men and women in every way possible. I dare call it treason.
Pacifist is a very general term. Does that mean those opposed to *any* war, or any war we are engaged in? I opposed the Iraq war, but for reasons I thought were reasonable. By no means does it mean that I would oppose *any* war. Our security as a Nation must take precedence. As old as I am, I would volunteer in a heartbeat if I thought my nation was threatened and needed me. I'd be accepted in the Medical corps, too old for grunt work. Alright with me. I disagree with the term "undermining the war," in general. It's overused by those that support the war. It's ok to support our troops (I have relatives serving, and am angered at their lack of adequate armor, etc., and think we need to do more to support them) yet question the rationale for their being there. One can separate the troops from the politics and still be patriotic.
Well, that's what I would have done, of course -- and then immediately been denounced as a warmonger and "anti-education" for doing so. Even now, I can hear the endless sobs of the Politically Correct on TV: "What about the chiiiiildren?"
Honestly, Steven, that's about as hyperbolic as my post ;) Noone would have faulted the President if he got up and ran without saying a word. This country needed its leader. Even the most meek among us was shocked and horrified by the attacks, and would have supported any action by our CIC that was neccessary for prompt action/reaction. I get your allusion to the extremes that PC'ness has brought us, though, and in part agree.
North Africa seemingly had nothing to do with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, but that's where we went first. "It's all about the oiiiil!" is nothing but shallow Marxist claptrap from materialistic blockheads who reduce everything to the economic. This War, the total War Against the Terror Masters, like the Cold War and like the two World Wars before, like the Civil War and the War for Independence, like the Crusades, is about freedom vs. slavery, Western civilization vs. her enemies. Ultimately, it is a religious War.
Well, Rommel was there for a reason, no? And it was a great way to establish a base against the Italians. Easy first deployment, given that once we were in against Japan, we were in against Germany and Italy, too. I don't recall us building permanent bases there :-0
Although there are opposing religions in this war (in part-don't exclude those in this country and the military who are atheists or agnostic and yet fight valiantly), I doubt it is primarily religious in nature. This war is all about the hegemony of the U.S. in the future. What more destabilized region is there in the world (other than Africa, which has no resources we care about, and so have ignored until Blair pressured us for quid pro quo?) What better way to assure our access to the vital oil that the region possesses than to invade a central country in that region and then establish permanent bases? It's no coincidence that Bush has refused to establish either a timeline for withdrawl (which could be used by the insurgents to "wait us out") or a measure of what would be considered to be a "success" in Iraq. We're going to be there for decades, even if the insurgency ends tomorrow.
Brand me what you will for the above statement. Ring me up in ten years and we'll see who owes whom a beer.
As for catching Osama bin Laden, I want him dead. Period.
I agree. And I'm mortified that our CIA says they know where he is, yet we refuse to go after him. To HELL with international diplomacy, we shot that to hell with Iraq. To those who say he's unimportant: Were you paying attention on 9/11? This man masterminded the most devastating attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. He not only killed 3000 Americans, he struck at the heart of our Nation by murderously destroying a symbol of our economic might (a political goal.) Anyone who recalls desperate people jumping from the Towers in the slim hope of life against the assuredness of death by fire/smoke can say nothing other than this man must be brought to justice. I disagree that the PC will win him any leniency. They hate his guts as much as we do.
Dare I say it? Torture is too good for him.
As we did to Germany and Japan.
Anyone note the irony that both Germany and Japan are well respected members of the international community? After their heinous crimes against humanity, they have managed to regain the respect of the world. And we have managed to scare the crap out of the world and force a coalition of the "willing." Blech. Call me a socialist, communist, whatever. I am first and *only* an American. I FIRMLY believe that we have abdicated our responsibility to lead the rest of the world by example. To show them how a moral Democratic people stand up for the very morals that make us great. Some who are (were?) our strategic allies now fear us.
Please either tell me that I am insane, or offer me a rational way to regain our status as the RESPECTED Leader of the World.
(BTW: Steven, I genuinely appreciated your sincerity and comments. Though we may disagree, we both care about the same thing.)
I also appreciate your honesty and willingness to discuss this, but I am finding some of your reasoning very frustrating. I don't have time for your rather lengthy comment, so I'll just deal with your last point.
OK, in the comment before that you tell me that you read Den Beste's outline:
I did read your link, and I can see where you are coming from. The ideas, at least in terms of National Security, on that page are closely aligned to those of the PNAC.
Then in last comment you say:
I don't think so, and I therefore disagree with your statement that I am dead wrong in my assessment of oil, Israel, and lastly terrorism as the real justification for war. The PNAC would agree with me (Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz) according to their documents, which I have read in their entirety.
You are telling me that you read the large amount of material at the PNAC site and you are sure you have their reasons for attacking Iraq correct. You also claim that PNAC and Den Beste are basically in agreement. Yet Den Beste thinks Israel is a sideshow used by Arab leadership to deflect internal public opinion away from their own failed leadership, and he addresses oil as a symbol of Arab failure and peripherally as a means to help pay for the war. I haven't read all of the PNAC material, but what I've read was very focused on WMD, the connections between Saddam and Al Quaeda and the necessity of creating a democracy in the heart of the Arabic world.
Your claims don't make any sense. Given the large number of authors, the wide variety of material (letters, policy briefs and articles, etc.), the large amount of it, and the lack of an outline such as Den Beste provides, I'm not sure how you concluded what you did, especially given the contradictory information which is obvious from my brief skim of PNAC's site, although I do skim very fast. That would require some masterful textual analysis.
See, I've been listening to Bush and Cheney, and occaisionally Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz. When they talk about Iraq they typically do not mention Israel. When they talk about Iraq they do mention oil, but only as evidence that the post war occupation is succeeding. For your contention to be true, those would have to be their secret reasons.
So, because you believe you know their secret reasons, that is, the ones they haven't been saying, but that they were foolish enough to put on a pubically available website so you could find it, but that they encoded so I can't find them, that they haven't been forthright with you.
I could just scream. Please find me the quotes on PNAC from Cheney, Bolton, or Wolfowitz that say, "I wanted to go attack Iraq because of oil, Israel, and lastly terrorism in that order".
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here. Been mucho busy :(
I also regret that I've been the cause of such frustration. Hopefully I can redeem this somewhat...
I only agreed that Beste's views on National Security were aligned with those of the PNAC. There was a fair amount of space devoted to a sociological description of the Arab world that may or may not be true. My understanding of them is slightly different, but I am not a sociological expert. On the whole, they consider us unbelievers, and therefore of little consequence. When Israel came into being, they did their damnedest to fight them off, with laughable results. The arming and continued support for Israel by the U.S. is a constant reminder of their inability to do anything about something which they care a great deal about. This has allowed the extremists in Islam to gather support.
If Israel and the U.S. were not a factor in the Middle East, I really don't think that they'd give us the time of day. But, of course, that's not going to happen, nor should it. Our bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have also been sources of support for the extremists. That the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's may be very symbolic of that very support.
I don't have links to Cheney's "Defense Strategy for the 1990's," or the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The quotes I will use come from them. I have them in PDF format, and would be happy to send them to you in an attatchment if you'd like.
From Cheney's Strategy:
In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we should seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression
against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our
access to international air and seaways and to the regions important sources of oil.
From Rebuilding:
Though the
immediate mission of those forces is to
enforce the no-fly zones over northern and
southern Iraq, they represent the long-term
commitment of the United States and its
major allies to a region of vital importance.
While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Wolfowitz as much as said (well, did say) it was about oil. All the talk of "vital interests" of the U.S. in the Gulf is interesting, to say the least. It's really just common sense to analyze what the region has that could be important to us. Lots of oil. An ally with a formidable military capability. And lots of Islamists that dislike us. Otherwise they'd get the same treatment as Rwanda and Darfur.
But the PNAC was pressing for action and regime change in Iraq long before 9/11, before we really thought that terrorism would reach the homeland. In their letter to Gingrich and Lott in 1998, after being rebuffed in a similar plea to Clinton, it states:
We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power
And again, I'm not disputing the logic. Oil is extremely important to us, as is Israel (and now, terrorism.) A permanent U.S. presence there would enable us to influence people, if not win friends. And enable future swift action militarily, if needed. The drafters of these documents consider Iran only marginally less of a threat than Saddam.
What I dispute is our right to bust in there and do so for less than ironclad reasons. Which is all so much mental masturbation, at this point, having already done so. But understanding the reasons we're there is useful intellectually.
(Hope this ends up ok, this is the first time I've tried to link anything)
Hi everyone, this is my first time here. I read most of the comments and I am impressed by the way people avoid attacks on each other.
I am a 46 yo wm from Iowa who was a staunch republican when Reagan took office, state and individual rights, low govt. spending, strong military, but I also believe in the right of all of our people to have a chance and safety nets if needed, not handouts. I do not feel as a male that I should have more say in a womans decisions than she does. Basically I am for moderate government and do unto others.
Since that time I feel I have grown more conservative, moving to independant and now to a democrat which remembering the dixiecrats of the 50`s and 60`s once horrified me. I have not changed, I feel the GOP has. I think it has been hijacked by the PNAC neocons and the hard core religious right.
I digress though, I just want to add a bit of food for thought, or a lot:)
From the original article this thread? I hope that is the right term, is based upon I have not seen one thing that is disputable. It is not in the major US news but I have seen all of it.
Now into the things that will get me blasted:)
Mr. Bush wants us to make sacrifices in this war. Never in the history of this country have we fought a war without a tax increase, but who has given the middle class a couple hundred dollar tax break and the top 2 percent 10`s of thousands? I am going from memory, but I think it was around 89K? Do not debunk me if I am off a little please.
Support our troops? Well I do. Look up the cuts to the VA and some of the slanderous things they have to say about our vets.
Want to nuke the Middle East? Done! Look up Depleted Uraniam
Want to know who this President is beholden to? And congress also. Look at the asbestos, gasoline additive, bankruptcy leg. leasing and selling of public lands, you may want to also look at the history of these FORMER lobbist or special interest group reps.
Want a clean enviroment? Look up the record, do not just view the titles, read them, they are so pro business it disgusts me.
I will quit with this one. I support all of our troops, even the ones this adminstration does not, look it up people, he uses them and tosses them aside. I also want pay increases, congress just got a COLA of over 3000( as if they earned it) We are now scared of China`s arms building, did you know within the next year we will be spending as much as the REST OF THE WORLD on arms? Get that? About 300 million people will spend as much as about 6 BILLION people on arms!
Follow the money and please find the truth people, find pur defense budget online, see how much is misplaced and how little our real hero`s get for their sacrifice
You're starting off better than I did, I had to learn to be civil! But it was a lesson worth learning, as the people here are both courteous and knowledgeable. And we all care about the country and it's future, which is what I surmise lends such civility to the interactions here.
Lots of stuff in your post, most not relevant to the thread. But let me expand on one aspect, which may reveal why I am a "former" Republican. I make a great living. It puts me in the top 1%, and by working (none of that investment stuff (alas... hehe.) I stand to (well, have) benefit the most from that tax cut package. Why do I oppose it? I don't need it. I grew up in the projects, in a single parent household. My mom struggled mightily to work and earn enough to support us. If it wasn't for the subsidized housing, and at times unemployment, I would have gone hungry more often than I did. Which was enough. I credit her and my extended family in supporting my upbringing. It wouldn't have been possible without that safety net, that you spoke of, though, and that struck a chord in me. We need to make sure we're compassionate in our domestic policy. There are a lot of people that don't want to be in their plight that can benefit from a limited amount of support.
And I would have tightened up our internal security as well -- again, Political Correctness be damned. We need ideological profiling, a.k.a., "McCarthyism".
As for his reading to the children, why, is that not the pacifist ideal? How many times have I seen bumper-stickers saying "You can't hug a child with nuclear arms"? Or "What if schools had all the money they wanted and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale"? Sickening as well as treasonous. I say we need far more nuclear arms, far more military spending, and if that means I pay more taxes for it, then so be it. As for schools, according to the Tenth Amendment, that's up to the states and local communities, not the federal government.
This is not meant as a personal attack on you, in fact I am hoping you had your tongue in your cheek.
Ok. Nuke a major oil producer because most of the attackers came from that country? Despite the fact that the Bush family has very strong ties to the Monarchy, and they were our allies (of a sort) in Desert Shield? Yep. You're kidding. I get it. Noone could possibly advocate the use of nuclear weapons against an Arab country that courts disaster in their own world by cooperating with the hated Americans.
Yup. Again, just what we need! A witch hunt against those citizens of this great nation that hold political views that are different from the "Uniter, not a Divider" (according to his original and re-election campaign statements.)
Damn good. Let's try to divide the Nation even further. Rove didn't go far enough! Heck, the pacifists would have taken a vacation at Camp David and let the country figure out its own course following the attacks!
A real Leader would have excused himself from the company of children apologetically and magnanimously after being told we are "under attack."
Immediately.
A real Leader would have confirmed the principles of what makes this country great, and ask for support against the perpetrators (and mean it). No rest for this Nation until those responsible are caught and held accountable. Instead, we now have reliable intelligence on where that perpetrator is (according to the CIA), but are not sending in the Seals or Green Berets to get him. Oh, I forgot, we just don't think about OBL much... Silly me. Instead, we are involved in a disasterous war in a country that had nothing to do with the attack. And the President this very evening invoked 9/11 numerous times in connection with the war on terror. A country that had NOTHING to do with the attacks. But MY, they sure do have a LOT of oil!
Don't try and pidgeon-hole me as a liberal, please. Now that the war has become a reality, and Saddam is out of power, we have a moral responsibility to continue in Iraq until they are able to take care of themselves. I believe this. The Administration counted on this, IMO. But I am disheartened that we must do so, at such great cost to the people in uniform and their families. While spending many billions that we don't have. For what? WMD? No, we knew they were not there, or had the suspicion of such. Oh. Regime change. Now there's something that will stand up in international Law. Oops, I forgot! We dropped out of the ICC, so the rules don't apply to us (err, we're not accountable.)
Who cares what the rest of the civilized world thinks, anyways?
The sad fact is, the *facts* in that post are all true, and on the record.
Can anyone not see a direct link between the public realization of those facts and the tanking of recent polls on approval ratings for Bush?
If the war was truly justified, Americans would back it with numbers in the polls that approximated those of post-9/11.
Perhaps the majority of Americans see things differently than the Administration would like us to believe.
Ron
He is a manipulating malignant divider.
Bush's Brain, indeed.
Ron
"And I would have tightened up our internal security as well -- again, Political Correctness be damned. We need ideological profiling, a.k.a., "McCarthyism"."
That definitely includes reviving the McCarran-Walter Act.
"Ok. Nuke a major oil producer because most of the attackers came from that country? Despite the fact that the Bush family has very strong ties to the Monarchy, and they were our allies (of a sort) in Desert Shield? Yep. You're kidding. I get it. Noone could possibly advocate the use of nuclear weapons against an Arab country that courts disaster in their own world by cooperating with the hated Americans."
As even you acknowledge, most of the attackers came from Saudi Arabia. That is their "cooperation". Their goal is to destroy Western civilization by any means, foul or foul. Saudi Arabia is the center and source of most Muhammadan terrorism, it is the center and source of Muhammadanism (Islam) itself. In deepest essence, Muhammad began this War in 611 A.D. when he decided that all Jews, Christians, and Polytheists (including his own family) were idol-worshippers to be converted, subjugated, or exterminated. Women are totally subjugated and homosexuals are exterminated. Saudi Arabia is the Nazi Germany of this Axis of Evil.
As to the oil, I said long before 9/11/2001 that what America needs is an Energy Independence Manhattan Project to free ourselves from our deadly dependence on Saudi Arabian oil, an addiction more deadly even than dope. We must make use of every possible source of energy: domestic oil, nuclear, solar, geothermal, what have you, anything and everything outside of Saudi Arabia. Or else seize the Saudi Arabian oil by force. It was we who discovered and developed that oil in the first place.
"Yup. Again, just what we need! A witch hunt against those citizens of this great nation that hold political views that are different from the "Uniter, not a Divider" (according to his original and re-election campaign statements.)"
As Senator Jenner of Indiana pointed out: "Communists are rats, not witches. This is a rat hunt, not a witch-hunt." I don't give a damn about Bush's campaign bilge. Our nation is already divided -- between the Politically Incorrect vs. the Politically Correct (Communists, Communist fronters, and their "fuzzy liberal" dupes), individualists vs. collectivists, nationalists vs. One-Worlders, U.S.-Americans vs. U.N.-Americans, the loyal vs. the disloyal. Ultimately, you are either 100% on our side or 100% on the side of the enemy.
Senator McCarthy violated nobody's Constitutional rights. In Dean's World, I challenged anybody to find me the Supreme Court decision which held that Senator McCarthy violated one Constitutional right, or even a case brought against him by the ACLU. Nobody could come up with anything more than an allusion to "the McCarthy era" in a dictum written by Justice Hugo Black long after the Senator was dead. All McCarthy did was to expose Communists who were infiltrating our government and influencing our foreign policy and to get some of them fired. The Communist-infiltrated media then launched a smear campaign against the Senator. It worked. Today, his name is a "dirty" word.
"Damn good. Let's try to divide the Nation even further. Rove didn't go far enough! Heck, the pacifists would have taken a vacation at Camp David and let the country figure out its own course following the attacks!"
The pacifists (mostly Communists and other nihilists) would disarm this country if they could get away with it. In the 1980s, they launched the Soviet-backed nuclear freeze movement. Fortunately, we had President Reagan resisting that. Today, they are undermining our War effort and smearing our brave fighting men and women in every way possible. I dare call it treason.
"A real Leader would have excused himself from the company of children apologetically and magnanimously after being told we are "under attack."
Immediately."
Well, that's what I would have done, of course -- and then immediately been denounced as a warmonger and "anti-education" for doing so. Even now, I can hear the endless sobs of the Politically Correct on TV: "What about the chiiiiildren?"
"A real Leader would have confirmed the principles of what makes this country great, and ask for support against the perpetrators (and mean it). No rest for this Nation until those responsible are caught and held accountable. Instead, we now have reliable intelligence on where that perpetrator is (according to the CIA), but are not sending in the Seals or Green Berets to get him. Oh, I forgot, we just don't think about OBL much... Silly me. Instead, we are involved in a disasterous war in a country that had nothing to do with the attack. And the President this very evening invoked 9/11 numerous times in connection with the war on terror. A country that had NOTHING to do with the attacks. But MY, they sure do have a LOT of oil!"
North Africa seemingly had nothing to do with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, but that's where we went first. "It's all about the oiiiil!" is nothing but shallow Marxist claptrap from materialistic blockheads who reduce everything to the economic. This War, the total War Against the Terror Masters, like the Cold War and like the two World Wars before, like the Civil War and the War for Independence, like the Crusades, is about freedom vs. slavery, Western civilization vs. her enemies. Ultimately, it is a religious War.
As for catching Osama bin Laden, I want him dead. Period. The One-Worlders and Communists want him caught alive so they can put on a show trial, have that despicable traitor Ramsey Clark defend him, play the "race" card, put America and the West on trial for our "imperialism", argue that we deserved to have our Twin Towers destroyed and 3,000 murdered, and then free bin Laden to wreak more terror. They are already doing that for Saddamn [sic]. This is not a civil lawsuit or a parking ticket we are talking about. We are at War for our very survival. This is "Patton", not "Perry Mason".
"For what? WMD? No, we knew they were not there, or had the suspicion of such."
I, for one, was not willing to take any chances.
"Oh. Regime change."
As we did to Germany and Japan.
"Now there's something that will stand up in international Law. Oops, I forgot! We dropped out of the ICC, so the rules don't apply to us (err, we're not accountable.)""
Our law is the United States Constitution, including all of the Bill of Rights (including the hated Second Amendment). Period. I'm glad that President Bush had the sense to keep us out of the International Kangaroo Court. We need to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S..
"Who cares what the rest of the civilized world thinks, anyways?"
Who gives a damn what the EUnuchs think? The rest of Europe is sinking fast. They will soon be under shari'a. Pim Fortuyn warned us before he was murdered, as did Theo Van Gogh. Oswald Spengler warned us long ago. We are seeing The Decline of the West. Or, as James Burnham put it, The Suicide of the West. The United States of America is the only nation of the West still standing, still free.
"Can anyone not see a direct link between the public realization of those facts and the tanking of recent polls on approval ratings for Bush?
If the war was truly justified, Americans would back it with numbers in the polls that approximated those of post-9/11.
Perhaps the majority of Americans see things differently than the Administration would like us to believe."
A real Leader does not put his finger to the wind or his ear to the ground. He does not go by polls, which shift from day to day. The media are undermining our War effort. They are on the side of the enemy. A real Leader does what is right, what will save our country and what is left of our civilization, not what is popular or Politically Correct. The President, and a patriotic Congress and Supreme Court, will do all that is necessary to defend our freedom against all enemies, within and without.
"This is not meant as a personal attack on you, in fact I am hoping you had your tongue in your cheek."
Nor was my reply meant as a personal attack on you nor to impugn your own loyalty and patriotism. I believe that you are loyal, but you, like most Americans, have been deceived by what you read and hear in the mass media. That's why blogs like this are necessary, to counter their false propaganda.
HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL....!!!!
I am in complete awe of this statement. Actually your whole post floored me, but this was the pinnacle.
I'll just pick one point. Crusades. Just so I'm clear, you believe that the Crusades were wars of Freedom vs Slavery, with the West on the side of "Freedom"?
Well, at least we totally agree on the goal and importance of that goal of achieving energy independance.
"....individualists vs. collectivists, nationalists vs. One-Worlders,...."
These could possibly be two dimensions of a spectrum, but M. Stanton Evans, in his excellent Revolt on the Campus (1961), gives a different analysis:
"....If I may expand upon Reisman's analysis a bit, I think that our national history indicates that his 'inner-directed' people profess an ascending hierarchy of secular loyalties; they revere the individual and the family vis-vis outside influences, the rights of states vis-a-vis federal authority, and the rights of the United States vis-a-vis foreign enemies and supranational institutions. Each is an expression of the Conservative impulse. Patriotic attachment is thus an affirmation of individuality at two removes, a pride of place enjoying intermediary status in a system of affection and concern.
"In the other-directed, or 'Liberal', conception, the order of priorities is inverted. Having little or no faith in the individual, the 'Liberal' affirms the claims of the community over the person, the claims of the federal government over the states, and the claims of 'world opinion' or supranational institutions over the United States. 'Liberal' anti-nationalism is part of a coherent ethic of anti-individualism."
I'll start off by pointing out that these are my opinions.
Your comments were pretty much pure opinion, too, and I don't agree with any of it.
And, as presented, the carefully described facts mixed with opinion assembled in that post principly convey a pure opeinion, and I don't agree with it either. The propanda techniques used in the post are distortion, hyperbole and stacking the deck, among others.
I'm not saying Rove doesn't use propaganda techniques, in fact he does. But I will stack up the honesty, good character and leadership of this Administration against any of its critics, including Steven, who thinks it isn't going far enough.
I congratulate both you and Steven on being far superior to most of Bush's critics. You both actually say what you would have done differently. Most critics don't have the cojones for that.
Bin Laden is a symptom, not a cause, and he is not that important. As a symbol of Arab defiance towards America Bin Laden has has almost always operated in Saddam's shadow. You are still taking a criminal approach. That's what got us 9/11. Bush is taking a holistic approach, at the grand strategy, strategy and tactical level. Neither Carter, Reagan, Bush I, nor Clinton and his vaunted terror czar had a grand strategy for dealing with the root causes of Islamic discontent - in large part because we bought the Arab propaganda and blamed it all on Israel. Bush II is the first President to really want to work on the problem. Kudos to him.
Yours,
Wince
You will notice that WMD is relegated to it's proper place: the legal pretext for war. Thus, it didn't really even matter whether Saddam had them or not - he failed to fill out the paperwork correctly. It's similar to the way we jailed Al Capone - for tax evasion. Nobody cared about taxes, the murder was what we really cared about.
Yours,
Wince
"Let me level with you, the American people. We don't much care whether Saddam has WMDs or not. The fact is, he failed to fill out the paperwork correctly. That's the excuse we're currently using. So just forget about all that 'mushroom cloud' and nuclear capability stuff. That's all smokescreen, frankly. 'Serious and mounting threat'? Nah, that's bullshit. The hard fact is this: we need to flex our muscles in the region, show them we mean business, and Iraq is the best target. We want this war, we need this war, we're going to war.
God Bless America. Good night."
At least that would have been honest.
See, I can use hyperbole too! Of course WMD was a real reason for the war, as well as being the legal pretext. It just wasn't the only reason, or even the major reason, and the fact we only found a little of it, plus lots and lots and lots of dual use chemicals easily converted into nerve gas doesn't mean it was a lie.
George Bush is an honest man. So are you. But Saddam misled everyone, including George Bush, you and me. Doesn't make any of us liars.
You might also note that the strategy outline was by Steven den Beste, linked to by me. I doubt George Bush has ever seen it, and I doubt it accurately represents his thinking about the war. I think his speeches do that much better.
When Harry Reid calls George Bush a liar it reflects poorly on his character. BTW, did you follow the link?
Yours,
Wince
Not sure how to respond. We're so far down the rabbit hole at this point, I don't know what's real and what's not. I did follow the link, but I only skimmed it. I do think that my imaginary SOTU speech outlines pretty much the truth of the situation. The Arab world needed a smackdown, 9/11 provided the context, the American people wanted it, and they didn't much care who got it, as long as someone did. The administration thought (wrongly, as it turned out) that Iraq would be a relatively easy target. Whether they lied or not doesn't matter - the fact is, they didn't *care* whether what they said was true or not. Everything else is just pretext and posturing.
It's the new right-wing religion. "Bush didn't do [X], but even if he did, good for him!" All the bases are covered. To give an example, "Bush didn't lie about the war. But even if he did, he did it because it was the only way he could convince people to get rid of a horrible tyrant. Good for him!"
"There's no torture at Gitmo. But really, we should be doing way worse to them than we are!"
See? It's easy once you get the hang of it.
That's not the way I want my country to be run. If that makes me a fascist, then Dean Esmay and Karl Rove and others can enjoy the name-calling. I personally want to get the hell to the other side of the looking glass, but I don't have a white rabbit to show me the way.
You are already on the way to the other side of the looking glass. The key is to keep talking with your political opponents, like me. Keep trying to understand them and keep trying to get them to understand you. And you are helping us all to do the same. Thanks! Since you and I are doing that, perhaps you and I, like Alice, can get to the eighth rank and join Rosemary as Queens! (Given the color scheme, I figure Rosemary is the Red Queen.)
I may disagree with you about the relative easiness of Iraq. It has been relatively easy compared to, for example, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. It has been relatively easy compared to Korea or Vietnam.
It was not relatively easy compared to Gulf War I or Kosovo.
I may also disagree with you (and Karl Rove) about motives, pretext and posturing. Sure there is lots of pretext and posturing, but it is actual serious people doing the pretext and posturing for actual serious reasons because they are grappling with often insoluable problems out of their own human frailty.
Durbin and the Democrats have to deal with the utopian pacifist element in their party. (What a pain in the tuccus for Durbin!) Bush and the Republicans have to deal with the Christians-who-believe-Islam-really-is-from-Satan element in their party, not to mention the utopian isolationist element. (What a pain in the tuccus for Bush!)
Of course, I'm one of those Christians. It's pretty much a logical necessity if you believe that Christianity is the one true religion and that Satan is a real being who actively works to deceive us. Futhermore, you would then have to conclude that incorrect Christian doctrine is likely also a Satanic deception. Ouch. I'm almost certain that I believe some incorrect Christian doctrine. What doctrine? I don't know, if I knew I'd stop believing it. Therefore I have also been deceived by Satan in the exact same way as a Muslim. Why would I be any different?
So, if you pray, pray for me. I just said one for you. Thank God for Adam's conscience! It does shine through in your writing, you know.
Yours,
Wince
I appreciate your candor. And I accept your difference of opinion. The post was intended to be hyperbolic in nature, though. It seemed the only way to greet the idea of using nuclear weapons in war so glibly. While terrorists might yearn for an opportunity to hold one in their hands, I see them as being used by this country only as an extreme last resort. Like in a war of the more conventional type.
The reason I started the post was Rove, and it kinda snowballed. My dislike of him is based on his penchant to stir up partisan politics and divisiveness even when there is no need. There has never been a more divisive time in my memory between Republicans and Democrats. I attribute part of it to Bush's inability to compromise or admit he is wrong. The other part I attribute to real smear tactics by the man behind the curtain, intended solely for political gain, perceived or real. His statement was an insult to the Democrats serving in Iraq.
I did read your link, and I can see where you are coming from. The ideas, at least in terms of National Security, on that page are closely aligned to those of the PNAC.
There is no question that Iraq is the ideal location from which the U.S. could direct action and influence governments in the Middle East. I would also agree that a Democracy there would be a major stabilizing force in that region, with us there as military backers.
I just don't agree that it is our right forcibly instill a Democracy there because it is in our best long term interests. Isn't that the kind of aggression that we as a country have denounced? Didn't we repel Saddam when he acted in a similar manner in Kuwait?
I also don't like being lied to by my government in terms of justification for the war. The latest is humanitarian intervention. But it doesn't wash, IMO. No question, Hussein was Heinous, but the fact that 100,000 Iraquis are dead from our invasion doesn't lend credence to the HI reasoning. Where were we in Rwanda? Seemed a pretty open and shut case for HI. Or Darfur?
I would prefer that the administration was more forthright. The reasons are oil, Israel, and (a distant third, IMO) terror. They have the oil, the region around it does, and we are dependent on it. We are closely approaching the point where half of the known reserves of the world are depleted. Having a permanent military presence there guarantees our access to it. It also aids in stabilizing the security of Israel. Not that they need it. Are they the 2nd or 3rd most powerful military these days? Prior to 9/11, the idea of terrorism reaching our shores seemed a distant possibility to the masses, in real terms. I recall derision at the time of the first attack on the WTC. It was a pathetic attempt. They got better. Hovering over the Middle East militarily, though, will not make us safer, also IMO.
Radical Islam has hated Isreal and us for our support for it. But they could rarely hope to reach us over this vast ocean, or didn't act out of fear of retaliation. Now they have a chance to actually go after the Big Dog by walking across the border. And I doubt their resolve will shake. I hope it does. Because we've taken a step that cannot be undone. Abandoning Iraq would create a cesspool of terrorists and embolden them. Not that they aren't gaining ground and recruits by the conduct of the war.
We could debate some of this stuff for longer than the war will last ;)
It is my belief that we've become too arrogant as a nation since becoming the sole superpower. Do we wield enormous political, military, and monetary influence in the world? Darn tootin', and I am happy for it. But some of us seem to have lost the patience for diplomacy.
Ron
I appreciate your comment. It was not taken as such. I realize that there are bound to be differences of opinion in everything, including how aggressively to act militarily. Open debate is really the only solution, allowing all to see the merits of each perspective.
Personally, I would have held off on Iraq ;-)
Ron
I also don't like being lied to by my government in terms of justification for the war.
Please review the definition of a lie: deliberate deception.
I would prefer that the administration was more forthright. The reasons are oil, Israel, and (a distant third, IMO) terror.
Those may be the reasons you think we went. But you can't tell me that they are the real reasons for anyone in the Administration.
You don't have a crystal ball, so you can't tell what anyone's real reasons are, or whether they are engaging in deliberate deception. The best evidence of what someone is thinking is what they say, what they write and what they do. Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld (who wrote the original Freedom Of Information Act) and Dick Cheney are often painfully forthright in their discussions of reality. And what members of the Administration have said, written and done shows you are dead wrong in your assessment.
You are making the same kind of mistake as Karl Rove, except his charges have much better evidence to back them up.
In the face of this evidence, will you call Dick Durbin a liar and complain that he hasn't been forthright in his criticism of the war? Will you complain that he is engaging in transparently divisive political manuvers?
Or will you just say Durbin made a mistake?
Yours,
Wince
Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. It seems like an utter non sequitor. Perhaps this will make my comments clear. I am comparing FormerRepub's inclination to call Bush a liar when FormerRepub has a different opinion to my inclination to call Kerry, Kennedy or Durbin (for example) a liar when I have a different opinion.
Generally I have been able to fight that inclination. Instead of saying (generally to myself) "that's a lie" over and over when I hear (for example) Kerry give a speech, I say "that's not true" over and over. I still feel really angry when he is done. I have resolved in the future to say "that's your opinion" over and over instead. This is much more accurate, and perhaps I'll be calm at the end.
Yours,
WInce
This really is becoming quite a spirited discussion, and I welcome it and your participation! I applaud your statement to Adam about trying to understand political views which are different from those that one espouses. While I may be opinionated, my mind remains forever open to differing ideas.
I recently read a post quoted on Dean's blog about how Democracies don't wage war (against each other), and it has stirred some deep thinking on my part. There were strong ideas there about the founders of our Country that deserve investigation and introspection.
But I digress...
Your link regarding the mistreatment of the *guards* at Gitmo by the detainees was disturbing, if true. The problem is, how can one determine what is true anymore? A horde of accusations of abuse has surfaced. Could this be politically motivated? Surely. But the fact that serious abuses, including murder, have been admitted tends to make one more apt to believe that other, non-publicized abuses transpired. I am not willing to discount the reliability of the source you quoted, however. While it may seem folly to antagonize the people that have absolute power over you (as a prisoner), the radical Islamists are not known for their instincts of self-preservation. In that vein, if they have so egregiously taunted their captors, it is not unreasonable to expect those same captors to retaliate to some degree. Simple human nature.
The problem is, WHO to believe?
One report of a supervised visit, or anecdotal evidence of many abuses, only some of which (AI springs to mind) have a vested interest in fostering their views?
I honestly don't know.
But I fall back on my position of skepticism. The fact that Gonzales recommended that Bush withdraw from the Geneva Conventions because certain provisions were quaint (but, possibly more telling, also assured the protection from responsibility under the War Crimes Act of 1996,) only raises the hair on the back of my neck.
I still strongly oppose torture, regardless of who is responsible. It's just wrong. Even people that are strong suspects can be innocent. Even people throwing urine on you can be innocent (even though it would make me want to bust some skulls.)
I await more thorough investigation to lay ultimate responsibility. I hope that investigation happens. Blaming things on a few bad apples and calling it quits isn't enough. We must exonerate those in charge of the few bad apples to clear our conscience. And our reputation in the world.
Whew...
What's left? Ahh, Durbin.
It's a matter of semantics, I believe. Reading his statement is key. He didn't say that the administration was Nazi-like, or Pol Pot-like. Nor that our troops were Nazis. He stated that reading from an official FBI account of the abuses at Gitmo, without knowing its source, one would believe it to be an account of abuses that occurred under one of those regimes, rather than ours. I surmise his intent was to draw a distinction between what we hold to be our self-professed ideals and the reality of what was reported by the FBI. And that such questionable treatment should stop. Because it isn't what this country believes in, regardless of our relaxation of the definition of torture.
He did make a mistakes. Plural.
One mistake was that conservatives would agree that such treatment was intolerable, rather than attack him as undermining support for our troops for their own political gain. The insurgents in Iraq need no further justification for their actions than our own actions and presence. Another mistake was to use the "N" word. Probably for his own political gain. He would have been better served to say that it would have been expected of a non-Democratic totalitarian society [use imagination and insert name here].
Two wrongs don't make a right, my grandfather used to say. Sadly, just another example of political posturing on both sides. The people have had enough of that, as witnessed by the dismal approval ratings of the Legislative branch of government. People are sick of this partisan crap, me among them. I minored in History. I lament the current lack of compromise demonstrated by those in our past, compromises that are needed to unify a Nation. As those before us understood, at times it is neccessary to settle for less than what you believe is correct in order to preserve the country and prevent complete deadlock. You don't have to agree with the views of your opponents, only accept them as a legitimate opinion and hammer out an agreement that does both parties the least harm. That's why we elect these people.
Getting late...
One last thing? I would be interested in your view on whether, in principle, a war of aggression on another country is justified, and under what circumstances. Iraq is the obvious point of interest. We knew Saddam was despicable. We knew he had in the past built and used WMD. We also knew that the vast majority of those were accounted for, that we had no evidence to suggest he had resumed their production (but held legitimate questions as to our ability to affirm this.) We knew that he had not procured the uranium needed to build a nuclear bomb. From several different assessments. We also knew he had been recalcitrant in allowing weapons inspectors in the past to gain unfettered access to the sites they wished to examine. Which led to sanctions that killed a million, many children. Before the war, he finally allowed the UN inspectors the unfettered access they requested (sensing perhaps the imminent.) We knew he had no ties to Al Qaeda, and in fact had militantly kept them out of Iraq (perhaps out of self-preservation.) We knew he supported Palestinian terrorists.
Is the *suspicion* that a sovereign state *could* be producing WMD, and knowing their support of Palestinian terrorists adequate justification for war? Even post 9/11?
I don't think so, and I therefore disagree with your statement that I am dead wrong in my assessment of oil, Israel, and lastly terrorism as the real justification for war. The PNAC would agree with me (Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz) according to their documents, which I have read in their entirety. I'll continue to admit that a Democratic Iraq would greatly serve our interests, but contend that it is not our right under the circumstances given to instill one forcibly. Indeed, it may be beyond our capability.
If only our media and leaders in both the WH and Congress could hold such a discussion on these topics... I welcome your response.
Ron
I apologize. I failed to adequately respond to your post. Our views are different in some respects, and should be discussed. I realized this after reading this thread in whole today.
The Saudis are a conundrum. They are the center of Islam, yet they allow U.S. bases on their soil. The same U.S. that is almost universally hated in the rest of the Arab world for its economic and military support of Israel. Sure, they hate Israel. But they hate us MORE, because they believe that without our support, Israel would not be the power it is today. That the vast majority of the attackers came from SA does not speak to the Government's complicity, but to the wealth and education of the Saudi people. Even educated Saudis can hate us in dissent of their government, and they are the only ones likely to gain both access to and acceptance in the U.S. And possibly the only ones trusted by OBL to carry out that extreme mission, a Saudi himself.
This is something we agree upon completely! Yay! I detest our dependence on foreign oil. It makes us politically and economically vulnerable. It ticks me off a bit that the JAPANESE are the ones producing vehicles that are so efficient (hybrids.) We're only beginning to get the point, IMO. Instead of investing heavily in alternative fuels/energy, we open up some of the most (and last) pristine wildlife preserves to oil exploitation. A finger in the dike.
Well, we can disagree a bit here. It's a bit dishonest to profess ad nauseum that you intend to unite the country, and then systematically impose an agenda and appointees that are divisive. I care about that bilge. But that is a matter of record. The bigger issue is the idealistic one. We have become so polarized, individually, that any view that is seen as contrary to our own is emphatically denounced as wrong and unpatriotic. On both sides. Our security in the world is something that we cannot relegate to world opinion. Grave threats must be handled in accordance with our own interests. But that does not mean that we should not be interested in (and I believe capable of, with all of our power) influencing world opinion. We don't live in a vacuum. There are a lot of other countries out there, some of which we depended on greatly in our rise to superpower status, and hold many of the same ideals we do. It wouldn't hurt to try and sway them by diplomacy and world leadership.
Communism was a minimal threat in this country. Given our Constitution, their ideals would have had little influence. McCarthy was vilified for the *way* he sought to expose Communists. Hysteria allowed this to occur. Extreme intimidation and accusations that would, in this day and age, possibly result in harrassment lawsuits.
Don't get me started on Lawyers...
Pacifist is a very general term. Does that mean those opposed to *any* war, or any war we are engaged in? I opposed the Iraq war, but for reasons I thought were reasonable. By no means does it mean that I would oppose *any* war. Our security as a Nation must take precedence. As old as I am, I would volunteer in a heartbeat if I thought my nation was threatened and needed me. I'd be accepted in the Medical corps, too old for grunt work. Alright with me. I disagree with the term "undermining the war," in general. It's overused by those that support the war. It's ok to support our troops (I have relatives serving, and am angered at their lack of adequate armor, etc., and think we need to do more to support them) yet question the rationale for their being there. One can separate the troops from the politics and still be patriotic.
Honestly, Steven, that's about as hyperbolic as my post ;) Noone would have faulted the President if he got up and ran without saying a word. This country needed its leader. Even the most meek among us was shocked and horrified by the attacks, and would have supported any action by our CIC that was neccessary for prompt action/reaction. I get your allusion to the extremes that PC'ness has brought us, though, and in part agree.
Well, Rommel was there for a reason, no? And it was a great way to establish a base against the Italians. Easy first deployment, given that once we were in against Japan, we were in against Germany and Italy, too. I don't recall us building permanent bases there :-0
Although there are opposing religions in this war (in part-don't exclude those in this country and the military who are atheists or agnostic and yet fight valiantly), I doubt it is primarily religious in nature. This war is all about the hegemony of the U.S. in the future. What more destabilized region is there in the world (other than Africa, which has no resources we care about, and so have ignored until Blair pressured us for quid pro quo?) What better way to assure our access to the vital oil that the region possesses than to invade a central country in that region and then establish permanent bases? It's no coincidence that Bush has refused to establish either a timeline for withdrawl (which could be used by the insurgents to "wait us out") or a measure of what would be considered to be a "success" in Iraq. We're going to be there for decades, even if the insurgency ends tomorrow.
Brand me what you will for the above statement. Ring me up in ten years and we'll see who owes whom a beer.
I agree. And I'm mortified that our CIA says they know where he is, yet we refuse to go after him. To HELL with international diplomacy, we shot that to hell with Iraq. To those who say he's unimportant: Were you paying attention on 9/11? This man masterminded the most devastating attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. He not only killed 3000 Americans, he struck at the heart of our Nation by murderously destroying a symbol of our economic might (a political goal.) Anyone who recalls desperate people jumping from the Towers in the slim hope of life against the assuredness of death by fire/smoke can say nothing other than this man must be brought to justice. I disagree that the PC will win him any leniency. They hate his guts as much as we do.
Dare I say it? Torture is too good for him.
Anyone note the irony that both Germany and Japan are well respected members of the international community? After their heinous crimes against humanity, they have managed to regain the respect of the world. And we have managed to scare the crap out of the world and force a coalition of the "willing." Blech. Call me a socialist, communist, whatever. I am first and *only* an American. I FIRMLY believe that we have abdicated our responsibility to lead the rest of the world by example. To show them how a moral Democratic people stand up for the very morals that make us great. Some who are (were?) our strategic allies now fear us.
Please either tell me that I am insane, or offer me a rational way to regain our status as the RESPECTED Leader of the World.
(BTW: Steven, I genuinely appreciated your sincerity and comments. Though we may disagree, we both care about the same thing.)
Ron
I also appreciate your honesty and willingness to discuss this, but I am finding some of your reasoning very frustrating. I don't have time for your rather lengthy comment, so I'll just deal with your last point.
OK, in the comment before that you tell me that you read Den Beste's outline:
I did read your link, and I can see where you are coming from. The ideas, at least in terms of National Security, on that page are closely aligned to those of the PNAC.
Then in last comment you say:
I don't think so, and I therefore disagree with your statement that I am dead wrong in my assessment of oil, Israel, and lastly terrorism as the real justification for war. The PNAC would agree with me (Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz) according to their documents, which I have read in their entirety.
You are telling me that you read the large amount of material at the PNAC site and you are sure you have their reasons for attacking Iraq correct. You also claim that PNAC and Den Beste are basically in agreement. Yet Den Beste thinks Israel is a sideshow used by Arab leadership to deflect internal public opinion away from their own failed leadership, and he addresses oil as a symbol of Arab failure and peripherally as a means to help pay for the war. I haven't read all of the PNAC material, but what I've read was very focused on WMD, the connections between Saddam and Al Quaeda and the necessity of creating a democracy in the heart of the Arabic world.
Your claims don't make any sense. Given the large number of authors, the wide variety of material (letters, policy briefs and articles, etc.), the large amount of it, and the lack of an outline such as Den Beste provides, I'm not sure how you concluded what you did, especially given the contradictory information which is obvious from my brief skim of PNAC's site, although I do skim very fast. That would require some masterful textual analysis.
See, I've been listening to Bush and Cheney, and occaisionally Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz. When they talk about Iraq they typically do not mention Israel. When they talk about Iraq they do mention oil, but only as evidence that the post war occupation is succeeding. For your contention to be true, those would have to be their secret reasons.
So, because you believe you know their secret reasons, that is, the ones they haven't been saying, but that they were foolish enough to put on a pubically available website so you could find it, but that they encoded so I can't find them, that they haven't been forthright with you.
I could just scream. Please find me the quotes on PNAC from Cheney, Bolton, or Wolfowitz that say, "I wanted to go attack Iraq because of oil, Israel, and lastly terrorism in that order".
Yours,
Wince
I respect your honest disagreements with me. Thank you.
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here. Been mucho busy :(
I also regret that I've been the cause of such frustration. Hopefully I can redeem this somewhat...
I only agreed that Beste's views on National Security were aligned with those of the PNAC. There was a fair amount of space devoted to a sociological description of the Arab world that may or may not be true. My understanding of them is slightly different, but I am not a sociological expert. On the whole, they consider us unbelievers, and therefore of little consequence. When Israel came into being, they did their damnedest to fight them off, with laughable results. The arming and continued support for Israel by the U.S. is a constant reminder of their inability to do anything about something which they care a great deal about. This has allowed the extremists in Islam to gather support.
If Israel and the U.S. were not a factor in the Middle East, I really don't think that they'd give us the time of day. But, of course, that's not going to happen, nor should it. Our bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have also been sources of support for the extremists. That the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's may be very symbolic of that very support.
I don't have links to Cheney's "Defense Strategy for the 1990's," or the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The quotes I will use come from them. I have them in PDF format, and would be happy to send them to you in an attatchment if you'd like.
From Cheney's Strategy:
From Rebuilding:
Wolfowitz as much as said (well, did say) it was about oil. All the talk of "vital interests" of the U.S. in the Gulf is interesting, to say the least. It's really just common sense to analyze what the region has that could be important to us. Lots of oil. An ally with a formidable military capability. And lots of Islamists that dislike us. Otherwise they'd get the same treatment as Rwanda and Darfur.
But the PNAC was pressing for action and regime change in Iraq long before 9/11, before we really thought that terrorism would reach the homeland. In their letter to Gingrich and Lott in 1998, after being rebuffed in a similar plea to Clinton, it states:
And again, I'm not disputing the logic. Oil is extremely important to us, as is Israel (and now, terrorism.) A permanent U.S. presence there would enable us to influence people, if not win friends. And enable future swift action militarily, if needed. The drafters of these documents consider Iran only marginally less of a threat than Saddam.
What I dispute is our right to bust in there and do so for less than ironclad reasons. Which is all so much mental masturbation, at this point, having already done so. But understanding the reasons we're there is useful intellectually.
(Hope this ends up ok, this is the first time I've tried to link anything)
Ron
I am a 46 yo wm from Iowa who was a staunch republican when Reagan took office, state and individual rights, low govt. spending, strong military, but I also believe in the right of all of our people to have a chance and safety nets if needed, not handouts. I do not feel as a male that I should have more say in a womans decisions than she does. Basically I am for moderate government and do unto others.
Since that time I feel I have grown more conservative, moving to independant and now to a democrat which remembering the dixiecrats of the 50`s and 60`s once horrified me. I have not changed, I feel the GOP has. I think it has been hijacked by the PNAC neocons and the hard core religious right.
I digress though, I just want to add a bit of food for thought, or a lot:)
From the original article this thread? I hope that is the right term, is based upon I have not seen one thing that is disputable. It is not in the major US news but I have seen all of it.
Now into the things that will get me blasted:)
Mr. Bush wants us to make sacrifices in this war. Never in the history of this country have we fought a war without a tax increase, but who has given the middle class a couple hundred dollar tax break and the top 2 percent 10`s of thousands? I am going from memory, but I think it was around 89K? Do not debunk me if I am off a little please.
Support our troops? Well I do. Look up the cuts to the VA and some of the slanderous things they have to say about our vets.
Want to nuke the Middle East? Done! Look up Depleted Uraniam
Want to know who this President is beholden to? And congress also. Look at the asbestos, gasoline additive, bankruptcy leg. leasing and selling of public lands, you may want to also look at the history of these FORMER lobbist or special interest group reps.
Want a clean enviroment? Look up the record, do not just view the titles, read them, they are so pro business it disgusts me.
I will quit with this one. I support all of our troops, even the ones this adminstration does not, look it up people, he uses them and tosses them aside. I also want pay increases, congress just got a COLA of over 3000( as if they earned it) We are now scared of China`s arms building, did you know within the next year we will be spending as much as the REST OF THE WORLD on arms? Get that? About 300 million people will spend as much as about 6 BILLION people on arms!
Follow the money and please find the truth people, find pur defense budget online, see how much is misplaced and how little our real hero`s get for their sacrifice
You're starting off better than I did, I had to learn to be civil! But it was a lesson worth learning, as the people here are both courteous and knowledgeable. And we all care about the country and it's future, which is what I surmise lends such civility to the interactions here.
Lots of stuff in your post, most not relevant to the thread. But let me expand on one aspect, which may reveal why I am a "former" Republican. I make a great living. It puts me in the top 1%, and by working (none of that investment stuff (alas... hehe.) I stand to (well, have) benefit the most from that tax cut package. Why do I oppose it? I don't need it. I grew up in the projects, in a single parent household. My mom struggled mightily to work and earn enough to support us. If it wasn't for the subsidized housing, and at times unemployment, I would have gone hungry more often than I did. Which was enough. I credit her and my extended family in supporting my upbringing. It wouldn't have been possible without that safety net, that you spoke of, though, and that struck a chord in me. We need to make sure we're compassionate in our domestic policy. There are a lot of people that don't want to be in their plight that can benefit from a limited amount of support.
Ron