Why People Hate Liberals
You just don't get it, do you?
Bush is more important than anything else to you, and it shows. You could have had a chance in '04 if you had realized how to separate the two, and that it's more than saying "I support the troops," it's about your words and deeds and proposals. But why explain? You guys won't listen anyway.
HT: Wince in the comments of "For Mark and My Other Whiny "Bush Lied" Pals".
Posted by Rosemary on
11.28.2005
When dealing with polls, with all their usual flaws that pam's outright distrustful dismissal and Ara's insightful analysis usually illustrate, a bit of skepticism is often warranted.
But 70% is a huge number.
By it's nature, politics is subjective. Polling is one attempt to apply the scientific method and get some empirical, objective data to add a semblance of rational analysis to the discussion, as well as offer some predictive information for a variety of purposes.
Limiting the subjective and emotional metrics helps make the polls more accurate and useful, hence the ever present "approval rating" polls. Subjects are asked for a simple subjective response to an single objective evaluation -- do you approve of the way X is doing his job. Mind you, one poll in just a snapshot and by itself is absolutely meaningless.
But, when this same question is asked again and again, every week, using different random samples with a similar dispersal methodology and a similar number of subjects -- a significant number of subjects -- the trends found can indeed become telling, even accurate. That puts the science in that kind of poll.
This poll, "does criticism of the war by Democratic Senators hurt moral" contains not one, but two significant subjective metrics. 1) Whether the person polled considers unwarranted criticism is implied by the fact that the critiques in question are only from Democratic Senators, and 2) Whether they consider the troops' emotional condition, their "morale" detrimentally effected by the criticism.
I would probably answer yes, the criticism hurts morale. I don't think it should, but I know it does. Of course it does. I also know it shouldn't matter and I would be terribly shocked if the effect on morale was not only significant but also dangerously so.
I note with interest that the question was limited to criticism by Democratic Senators. Why not just criticism by any Democrat, or just criticism by anyone? This is so obviously a push-poll designed to get a predetermined answer. It purposely eliminates anything said by Congressman Murtha, who started a firestorm and is the relevant talking point when it comes to war criticism lately.
It not only excludes criticism by folks like Paul Hackett who just got back and has the liability of being a democrat, but also old GOP hawks like Brent Scowcroft, and guys who've been there, done that, and should know what they're talking about like retired Army Lt. General William Odom who called the war “the greatest strategic disaster in American history,” and was making the rounds on CNN just this morning. Is this kind of criticism more effective at paralyzing our warriors?
Also, to what degree morale actually is effected is not measured. In fact, the poll is only measuring what people think about morale. It does not measure morale itself which would require a poll of the military, not the public at large. That poll would be of much more value -- except as a GOP talking point.
Even more valuable would be a poll of the military indicating to what degree their effectiveness at their job is effected by the hit to their morale by Democratic criticism. My instincts tell me that the soldiers themselves might not be as sensitive as the bleeding heart conservatives might think. Even fewer would admit that even if they did give a rat's ass what some Senator from Massachusetts might say about their efforts, no way would it effect their ability to do their job. In fact, I seriously doubt the public at large would trend that way either.
These guys are professionals. They are all volunteers. That, more than anything separates this war from Vietnam where morale became a significant factor (years and tens of thousands of deaths into the war). There are a whole host of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, but morale is never going to be one without a fundamental change in operational doctrine and a greater loss of US lives coupled with another five or six years of escalating conflict.
One of the criticisms of the administration is that their actions have invited criticism, and that ultimately they are to blame for any effect on morale their policies engender. Who else is supposed to criticize the war? If conservatives were attacking Bush for his handling of the war, he'd pull out quicker than Harriet Meirs withdrew her SCOTUS bid.
So, other than contriving yet another way to paint liberals as unpatriotic, this poll serves absolutely no useful purpose.
Here's my take:
Is it the act of criticising that hurts morale, or is it the realization that it might reveal a very, very painful truth?
In other words, is it possible that troops morale will crater when the troops discover that they were sent to fight and die based on a lie?
If morale is hurt, who's fault is it? Democrats? Republicans? President Bush? Who?
Someone once said that "hell is discovering the truth too late."
I support the troops but I don't support the policy that sent them there and keeps them there.
But I don't want to hurt their morale.
So...should we all just shut up and let them fight in peace?
And ended with this
My biggest problem with the criticisms of the war has been, for the most part, that they are not honest, not balanced and stunningly incorrect. In general, in my opinion, the critics of the war have behaved very poorly. When the terrorists, who kill innocent people as a matter of strategy, get better press than the American troops, who get killed trying to avoid civilian casualties, something is out of whack. ThinkProgress appears to be doing opposition research on the troops. Furthermore, unlike Johnson, Carter and Clinton, who tended to micromanage their warriors, Bush and Rumsfeld really have let the soldiers drive the strategy and tactics, so a very large fraction of your criticisms are of the soldiers, not the administration.
But most of all, it appears that the terrorists get the benefit of the doubt and our soldiers don't. When our elites think we are losing the war and our soldiers think we are winning quite handily, someone is doing something wrong. I don't think it's the soldiers.
Yours,
Wince
The painful truth I've learned from the criticisms is that I can't trust the either the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress to put the national interest ahead of their political interest. George Bush, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman will still do so. There may be others.
Yours,
Wince
I agreed with everything in your first paragraph until I got to this:
I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the Harris poll (or any poll) that would lead to that conclusion. There are, instead, lots of other reasons why approval ratings are down across the board, e.g., people are unhappy with the job the public servants are doing. Why are they unhappy? I can't say, and neither can you. Perhaps we should put some polls in the field and ask the question.
My biggest problem with the criticisms of the war has been, for the most part, that they are not honest, not balanced and stunningly incorrect. In general, in my opinion, the critics of the war have behaved very poorly.
Yep -- blame it all on the critics. History has shown us that at certain times and in certain countries, leaders have been able to rally support by accusing the opposition of "stabbing them in the back." Check it out. It's a tried and true tactic and it usually works.
Watch for it: if the war in Iraq fails, I guarantee you the Democrats will be blamed for it.
Bush and Rumsfeld really have let the soldiers drive the strategy and tactics, so a very large fraction of your criticisms are of the soldiers, not the administration.
I saw John Warner on MTP Sunday and he was unable (or unwilling) to deny that his meeting with field commanders yielded up this disturbing bit of info: all of them have requested more troops and all of them have been denied those requests. Biden confirms the same thing. Or, if you like, take Murtha's word for it: it is widely understood that the Pentagon is speaking to Bush through Murtha.
Deny all you like but the evidence is plentiful -- our field commanders are being screwed by Bush and Rumsfeld.
Why? I have no idea and neither do you. But the evidence is as plain as can be. Wake up Wince! It's time for school.
But most of all, it appears that the terrorists get the benefit of the doubt and our soldiers don't.
Groan. Wince, you've just accused "our elites" of treason. The worst part? You're making it up as you go along.
Parse all you like, Wince. Warner's answer is an eye-opener. Other than the first sentence, he basically confirms the story.
It sucks but that's how it goes inside the Beltway.
Inside the Beltway, no one screws up yet "mistakes are made."
I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the Harris poll (or any poll) that would lead to that conclusion. There are, instead, lots of other reasons why approval ratings are down across the board, e.g., people are unhappy with the job the public servants are doing. Why are they unhappy? I can't say, and neither can you. Perhaps we should put some polls in the field and ask the question.
Agreed. But one thing that the people are unhappy about is the war. Oddly, the soldiers who are fighting it feel much better. One reason might be that the critics are undermining public morale. That's why I used the words suggests. And I would like to see some polling.
Dishonest, unbalanced critics do the country no favors. They never have. They never will. Time after time, on issue after issue the critics have proved their insight to be worthless. You want to be critic? Do your homework and give the Pentagon and our troops the benefit of the doubt. All I have to do is wait for the other shoe to drop, or read someone who knows something about the military. The latest is the White Phosphorus lie that ThinkProgress and Kos are pushing. Another like it is the old armor story. The armor story is a triumph. The Army pushed a new procurement program through in record time, unlike the time when we were still sending Shermans to Europe in 1945. Why the Russians, with the worst economy among the powers, had the best tank, with a constantly improving design, while we, with the best economy among the powers, had the worst tank, with a nearly static design, I'll never know. But I'm sure you would have blamed it on Bush if he had been in charge.
If the war in Iraq fails, I will blame you, the media, the Democrats and the Administration for it. Yes, you personally, among many other persons, including me, because I got tired of calling you and others, on your collective copious quantities of conspiracy mongered B.S. I should have stuck to my guns, like Rosemary.
It's my opinion that we need to change the way we fight wars in order to win them in the media. That may require that soldiers strap on video cameras and we make edited versions of the tapes available on the internet hours later or real time. That may require a military newspaper delivered to every doorstep. (It's got to be better than the rag you can buy in this town, and all the national rags, too.) That may require another NPR and another PBS which are run by the military, with a radio station and a TV station on every military base. It's clear that the current media doesn't function to get the entire truth from our troops.
More troops might be better. More troops makes it look more like an occupation and less like a liberation, and discourages the Iraqis from stepping up. But more troops also make it easier to clean out little rats nests like Sa’dah. Right now we are getting more troops by training Iraqis. I am not happy with the Administration's attempt to keep the size of the Army down. I want a bigger Army. I wanted a bigger Army back when Kerry (and others) first suggested it. I am even less happy with Rangel's and Murtha's draft stunt and the Democratic manuver where they increased the troop ceiling without increasing the budget. This isn't a game, and meaningless, unserious stunts don't help. They mainly serve to convince me that we should keep the Democratic party as far from the levers of governmental power as possible.
Yours,
Wince
Wince:
Are the criticisms hurting the morale of the American public?
The truth hurts, don't it. OK, the tinfoil hat's absolutely gleaming now.
I don't know about those Islamo-fascists you speak of, but when it comes to a terrorist, their goal is to terrorize, to exploit the culture of fear Americans are uniquely suseptable to.
We are a truly paranoid society.
But they weren't the only ones who exploited our fears, who terrorized us.
Who directly benefitted politically from the paralysis Americans exibited as recently as last year? Who did their best to keep us terrified long after the dust settled in downtown Manhattan? Who was able to continue a highly questionably foreign policy with little possiblility of effective opposition?
And look what happens now that the color coded terror alert hasn't been screwed with in a year.
I have a different, more nuanced definition of cowardice than some. But I truly believe that FDR really knew what he was talking about when he spoke of fearing fear itself.
Yeah, but did he know Pearl Harbor was gonna happen before it happened???????
OUCH!!
Sorry, my hat just zapped me.
You guys crack me up!
Wince:
Time after time, on issue after issue the critics have proved their insight to be worthless. You want to be critic? Do your homework and give the Pentagon and our troops the benefit of the doubt.
You talk as though war was the natural order of things. It is not.
Americans are an interesting lot -- we resist war mightily yet, when called to fight, we usually win and then go home swearing never to do it again. Hardly the stuff of Empire.
Except for now.
If the war in Iraq fails, I will blame you, the media, the Democrats and the Administration for it.
In that order?
In other words, by blaming everybody, you won't blame anybody.
"The buck does not stop in the White House because there is no buck!"
It might work. To this day, the question, "Who lost Viet Nam?" still doesn't have a satisfactory answer.
It's my opinion that we need to change the way we fight wars in order to win them in the media. That may require that soldiers strap on video cameras and we make edited versions of the tapes available on the internet hours later or real time.
Holy cow, Wince -- are you serious? That would immediately stop every war in its tracks. If we've learned anything from history, it is this: that a war's unpopularity is in direct proportion to how much of it we see, unfiltered, on TV. That's why we don't see arrivals at Dover, that's why Rumsfeld embedded the media with the troops.
Besides -- we're already there. I remember watching a firefight in real time on MSNBC. Embedded camera crew, etc.
That may require a military newspaper delivered to every doorstep. (It's got to be better than the rag you can buy in this town, and all the national rags, too.)
I'll pass. I'd be satisfied to see reporters return to doing their jobs, i.e., "reporting."
No offense, but the Universal Code of Military Justice is a whole 'nother ball of wax and doesn't resemble the Bill of Rights. Come on, man, give me a break: I'm not in the Army. I prefer not to be governed by their rules.
I've already pledged my allegiance to the US Constitution. How about you?
That may require another NPR and another PBS which are run by the military, with a radio station and a TV station on every military base.
Feh. Who governs the content of those broadcasts? The Commander in Chief? I think that's a horrendous idea.
More troops might be better. More troops makes it look more like an occupation and less like a liberation
Well, that certainly is an interesting way to put it.
But seriously, if there's no draft, if recruitment goals are falling short every month, how are we going to increase troop levels?
As for the Iraqis, we've been training them for nearly three years. I'm sure they'll start fighting ANY DAY NOW.
After listening to the chirping crickets, I realize that what you yearn for is not a constitutionally limited republic but rather a military junta.
Am I correct?
Try a layer of felt under the tin-foil. That's what I was forced to do, especially when I began to lose my hair. Ouch! But it will not - ooo, that smarts - work against all shocks.
Ara,
You talk as though war was the natural order of things. It is not.
Well, we were fighting the Cold War for the first 29 years of my life, until 1989. And the Cold War contained plenty of hot conflicts. The war against Islamo-fascism started in 1978, with the Iranian take over of the U.S. Embassy. We didn't notice until 2001, though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call that 12 years of peace. Since 2001 we've had four more years of war. That's 33 years out of 45, for 73% war time in my life time. War is part of the natural order of things, to date. Sorry. And it will be, as long as we keep fighting the little wars like the Cold War and this one in order to avoid the big ones, like WWI and WWII. Better a few thousand dead every year then millions every twenty.
I've been complaining that the media is not doing the job we need done for some time now. I'm brainstorming so we can win the next war in the media, the current Arm of Decision. And I don't want it to be nip and tuck, I want it to be a walkover.
There's plenty of video and stills we aren't seeing. Video of soldiers building schools, for example. And precious few are the descriptions of how well our soldiers are doing in battle. I'm not sure your ideas about seeing war on the news are correct. Cops (bad boys bad boys...) did not seem to harm the reputation of our policemen. So if you edit out the actual bloodshed.... I think G.I.'s (whatcha gonna do when they come for you...) would be a big hit.
You will notice that I did not invoke censorship, which was what Wilson and Roosevelt did, when they ran
their respective military juntasthis Constitutional Republic. I don't want to use censorship. I didn't advocate anything that would harm, restrict or advantage either The NY Times or Fox. I advocated more information, not less.Since you don't see the problem, you probably aren't interested in brainstorming to fix it. But you might try it. It can be fun. Here's another idea: bonuses, perhaps privately paid, for former soldiers who go to J-school and get jobs in the media. That way media people will have clues. Here's another: More blogs by soldiers, and more military internet content in general, so we can go straight to the source. Ooo, and how about this: more former soldiers on Congressional staff. Domestic policy is boring anyway.
As far as reporters go, they can start reporting anytime. I've been waiting.
If the war in Iraq fails, I will mainly blame the Democrats and the media - because the troops are winning - and the Administration is at least letting them win, not getting in the way like Aspin or McNamara.
Yours,
Wince
Compare this performance to that of the Russians in Chechnya, of the Baathists in Iraq. Our boys really are doing a fantastic job of holding down civilian casualties.
This is something that is severely underreported.
Yours,
Wince
Better a few thousand dead every year then millions every twenty.
Wasn't it Lenin who said, "To make an omelet you have to break some eggs?" [Note to self: Never vote for Wince.]
I'm brainstorming so we can win the next war in the media
The problem with your approach, Wince, is that the media can be too easily controlled. Look at how quickly the media rolled over for Bush. Look at how long it took them to ask the questions that were apparent 3+ years ago. So, no, I think you're all wet -- we can win the war "in the media" and yet lose the REAL war.
Instead of obsessing about "the media war," how about just winning the war, PERIOD.
I can hear you saying, "How do we do that?" I'm glad you asked. The best thing we can do the next time is to follow the Powell Doctrine:It was Henry Kissinger who said that in assymetric warfare the allies lose by not winning and the enemy wins by not losing.
By following the Powell Doctrine the next time, we can avoid that. In other words, just win the goddam war, OK?
It is some measure of how far we've fallen that Colin Powell is disgraced and we've lost this war.
There's plenty of video and stills we aren't seeing. Video of soldiers building schools, for example.
Who the hell cares? We pay our fighting men to kill people and break things. IMHO, we haven't seen nearly enough of THAT. See above.
Leave the rest of it to the Peace Corps.
And precious few are the descriptions of how well our soldiers are doing in battle.
Overwhelming force, Wince, overwhelming force. We needed to speak with the voice of God's own thunder on Day One. The rest of it would have sorted itself out.
Here's another idea: bonuses, perhaps privately paid, for former soldiers who go to J-school and get jobs in the media.
How about bigger bonuses for soldiers to re-enlist. How about higher pay for soldiers to enlist in the first place. How about caring about them more once they come home, how about taking care of those who are injured in battle, instead of dunning them for past-due health care costs?
Get with the program, Wince! You're a dreamer! Wake up -- it's time for school.
As far as reporters go, they can start reporting anytime. I've been waiting.
From your lips to God's ear, my friend.
If the war in Iraq fails, I will mainly blame the Democrats and the media - because the troops are winning - and the Administration is at least letting them win, not getting in the way like Aspin or McNamara.
Well, I disagree, of course. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al., ignored the Powell Doctrine and we're all paying the price.
Pam:
Everything is Bush's fault in [Ara's] world.
When it comes to war, the buck stops on the CinC's desk. Deal with it.
It was Napoleon, who fought big wars of the millions per year variety.
We had, we have had and we still have overwhelming force in Iraq. The Powell Doctrine has always been followed in Iraq. Neither Saddam nor the terrorists have ever had the ghost of a chance of defeating the U.S. military. That is the definition of overwhelming force. Try again.
Yours,
Wince
We had, we have had and we still have overwhelming force in Iraq.
I don't think even Donald Rumsfeld would agree with you, Wince.
Try a layer of felt under the tin-foil.
Thanks Wince, thanks a lot. You just had to go a blow my cover, didn't you.
You can't use "Mark" and "Felt" in the same sentence and not let everyone know I'm really Deep Throat.
Geez.
OUCH! Dammit, zapped again.
When you are in deep you cannot help but give throat to the utterances that will save you.
I'm not sure why I typed that last sentence, Mark. I - ouch - felt as though something else - ouch - was controlling my fingers. Even now the tendrils descend into my brain.
Pam,
Good old Joe. He gives me hope for my old party.
Yours,
Wince
But I digress...
I'd certainly vote for Joe (again). In fact, I'd vote for him before I'd vote for McCain (who I've also voted for). They are both very similar individuals.
I will say this: it is really, really, really too bad that the 2000 election turned out the way it did. Our country would have been MUCH better served by VPOTUS Joe Lieberman versus VPOTUS "Dick" Cheney. That's for damn sure.
P.S. Pam, not sure why you say he didn't have a fair shot at the nomination -- what are you suggesting?
In my book, he had a fairer shot for the nomination than the shot he had at taking office as VPOTUS.
Well, no.
The fact is, winning the nomination is different than winning the general election. Party faithful don't rely on media coverage to decide who they'll back. They're already tuned in to Democratic politics. They live it and breathe it every day. That is why they are called "faithful."
They knew where Joe was coming from. Joe lost because (back then) he represented the wrong (minority) wing of the Democratic Party. Now you can decry that reality, but it is what it is.
The media had nothing to do with his failing to get the nomination.
I am not sure what you mean by this: He hasn't changed, has the party? He is left of center but not extreme, is that why he is not appealing?
As far as Joe and the party separating, I think you're right -- the grassroots of the party has moved away from Joe, not vice versa.
Most of that is because of the war. The party faithful did not want a rubber stamp of Bush.
After all, (here comes another food analogy, sorry) if you go to a restaurant and there are two items on the menu: "A Cheeseburger" and "Almost a Cheeseburger," what would you pick?
As far as Dean -- yes, he was (as he liked to point out) "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." So why didn't he win? Good question. I think he lost for a couple of reasons:
- He ran a wasteful, crappy campaign.
- He couldn't get his followers to the Iowa caucuses (see #1)
In the end, the party did around to his way of thinking anyway -- more feisty &more emphasis on the grassroots.Wince I think what ara is getting at is you didn't blame Bush. Everything is Bush' fault in his world.
Well, I don't know about "everything", at least in my book. But I don't thik there's any question that the position we are now in in Iraq is DIRECTLY Bush's fault. He *is* the CinC, no? With the ultimate decision in any military policy. Which, currently, isn't doing so well in Iraq :( Beyond the first few battles, I don't think it ever has. My personal belief is that he ignored the opinions of people that posited an opinion or strategy contrary to what he wanted to hear, or contrary to what those that have his ear wanted to hear. That he failed to listen to those views, is, well... HIS fault.
Wince:
We had, we have had and we still have overwhelming force in Iraq. The Powell Doctrine has always been followed in Iraq. Neither Saddam nor the terrorists have ever had the ghost of a chance of defeating the U.S. military. That is the definition of overwhelming force. Try again.
I believe you are both right and wrong in the above. There isn't a country in the World that has a shadow of a chance at defeating the U.S. military. Not one. Not Russia, not China, not Israel. Certainly not Iraq. The problem is, we're not fighting a country. We're fighting a guerrilla war, and an urban one. Had we entered the War with the troop levels suggested by those that were dismissed by Bush, it's possible we might have had a real shot at locking down the insurgency before it had a chance to begin, if only in part to deny it the armaments that we left unguarded that allowed them to begin their attempt at hurting our people in uniform.
The fact that we've *only* lost slightly over 2000 troops to this point is a testimony to the combat readiness of our military. They are damned good, the best in the World.
The problem, again in my view, is that we are not there in overwhelming force. We can win every battle that our troops are engaged in (and probably have, with the exception of IED's), but winning the WAR require(d)s a level of occupation that smothers the opposition. And that isn't happening. For sure it isn't happening now, with the public's fatigue over the war. It didn't happen in 2003, either. The reason in both instances is political. Now, it would be political suicide for the Party, which must endure above whatever misfortune it brought upon itself. In 2003, I believe it was a calculated (and badly so...) risk.
A final thought for Rosemary:
Your title is poorly worded. It is purposely inflammatory. Eh, perhaps it was intended that way? :)
People don't hate Liberals, or liberals. If we draw the political establishment into three camps... The L(l)iberals certainly don't hate themselves (at least, I don't think so). The Independents seem to be, well, independent. From the few polls (please spare me the poll debate! There are so few Independents, anyways :)) ) I've seen, they seem to be favoring the Liberal point of view lately. It's the Conservatives that hate the Liberals. THAT should have been the title, although it might have garnered fewer responses or emotion ;)
Which brings into stark relief the animosity between the two major parties over the last five years. They shouldn't be hating each other. They shouldn't be calling each other names, disparaging intelligence, sanity, patriotism, and heritage. They *should* be forming a consensus as to how best to govern this country and its actions. Last two times I checked, the Presidential elections were nearly 50-50. That means both points of view had significant support in the populace. Simply because one Party edges out another doesn't mean that nearly half of the population of our Country should be ignored.
:))
Ron
Wince, who I know thinks the Dems are too liberal for his tastes, implies that the Democratic party has moved away from him, but the movement Ara sees is to the center, a right turn, and somehow that left the more conservative JoeMentum out -- which according to Pam (who for the life of me I don't get why she doesn't think she deserves Capitalization) thinks that it is a mainstream media anti-semetic conspiracy.
Hey guys, I was kidding when I said I was Deep Throat.
(Zzzap! OUCH!)
Look folks, the reason the GOP is always trying to call themselves a "big tent" and trot out their ethinic minorities at every opportunity, delighting in seeing their pretty spokesbroads reciting their talking points, is because the they are not only fighting perceptions that they are the rich white guy party, they are fighting the reality that their tent is even more exclusive when it comes to divergent views and ideas than it is regarding race, religion and sex.
Anyone who believes in GOP official doctrine is welcome in the tent, regardless of their background. Otherwise, deliveries are in the rear.
The Dems have always seemed disorganized, looking for a message, waffles, flippers, etc., because their tent has room for diversity of ideas and toleration of more extreme differences between its wings, and even more that just two wings.
Wince, are you really saying that the party of McGovern, of Jesse Jackson, is more liberal now than when you still had all your hair? Are you saying that a party that witnessed George Wallace win 1/3 of the vote when he was running in Dem primaries, even in northern States like Wisconsin, Maryland and Indiana; the party that until last year included Zell Miller isn't conservative enough for you? I think the only thing that really changed is your perceptions and your eye-glass prescription.
Ara, I agree with you that candidates of both parties present themselves more centrist in the general than the primaries. But Bush did too, or did you forget the deliberate cross-party appeal of his "compassionate conservatism" where he pandered to the middle with a wink to his base while making back room assurances to the diehard wingnuts bankrolling him? Meirs' nomination was out of the same playbook.
pam, I don't know what I should say, or if I should bother. With the media, story trumps agenda every time. Dean tapped into a brand new phenomenon, the net. The easiest story to write is about the money, and on some days in snowy New Hampshire, it's the only story you can write about -- who's got more in their campaign chest. Besides, it's as good an indicator as anything about the success of an early campaign.
Dean was a media darling not because they liked him or his message, but because they couldn't resist his story. He tapped into a brand new source of funding, the net. That's a story. His netroots campaign grew and the level of cash he was receiving was yet another compelling story. Dean was from outside the beltway and wasn't reciting the same old DC rhetoric that the media had heard Joe and Kerry spout for years. Now you've given your editor three in a row.
Dean was fresh, brought with him stories that had to be told, and when a reporter puts that together with the fact that other reporters had found the Dean story worth writing about, you had yourself a media epiphany that the guy who ran the little New England State right next to the little New England State they were fighting for might just win -- in a "surprise" insurgent campaign.
The media followed the most interesting story which became a self-fulfilling prophecy -- until their story lost the election because Dean's true supporters weren't leaving their basements to face the cold and get out the vote.
Joe? Nice guy, but Shecky Greene he ain't. I will note that Gore's inclusion of him on the ticket did nothing to dispell the notion that Gore was too liberal. But I assure you "pam," if that really is how you spell your name, if the media did have an anti-Joe agenda, it would have surfaced in 2000.
The Democrats have been steadily losing their conservative voices and especially their hawks to the Republicans for a long time. It's why they lost the south. They haven't been losing their liberal voices, except for those who reacted a certain way to 9/11. The opposite has been occuring, to a lesser extent, in the Republican party which has been growing at the Democrats expense. Neither party is as big a tent as previously. This is, I believe, due to nationalization. We used to have 100 state parties, and in places like Kansas moderates gravitated to the stronger party so their votes would count in the primaries. But as state power shrank, national power grew, and the state parties, which had a broadening influence, gave way to the national parties, which had a narrowing influence.
To act as though the Democrats still have room for Jacksonians is to deny a pretty strong trend. Ara is bucking that trend. You go, Ara!
Yours,
Wince
I've forgotten now where you mentioned that the military should have its own radio and TV stations so that the "good news" had an outlet, but I thought of you when I read today that the military has been paying Iraqi newspapers to run favorable stories.
I blame the Iraqis for succumbing to temptation (and money) and I'm embarassed that the US military has stooped to the same level of crap as the Bush administration. Remember Armstrong Williams, et.al.?
Boy, you leaped right in that trap, and I didn't even set it. Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo, FDR and Truman did the same thing in WWII and Wilson did the same thing in WWI. We did this extensively during the Cold War. Ever hear of the Voice of America? If I looked around I'm sure I could find out the same things in every single war we've ever had since WWI and maybe even back to the French and Indian War. Did you know that Lincoln shut down newspapers?
Click here and start reading, clicking links as you go. You'll find the desciption of what we did in Kosovo pretty interesting.
Did you even read the content? The pieces were factual, yet didn't contain every anti-U.S. fact. Well that pretty much describes the NY Times, except they tend to leave out important pro-U.S. facts. If they didn't, they'd have to point out that the soldiers over there think their coverage is no darn good in every piece they write.
You talk about schooling me all the time, yet you come out with really bad positions like this. And you aren't even brainstorming, where the idea is to take the 'stupid' filter off to generate out-of-the box ideas. Think about the broad sweep of history before you write! Try to learn from the past!
I've asked before what you think Bush should do to win the War in the media, since we both agree he isn't doing enough. But when he does the exact same thing as your heroes you can't condemn it fast enough. I would think that publishing articles containing true facts which support the U.S. would be damn useful. We certainly can't depend on the American media for that. Don't think so? The very article you point out is an example. Does it mention that tactics like this were an important part of fighting WWII and were used in Kosovo? Wouldn't those be an, um, important pertinent facts? Does it reference the well known concept of Information Warfare?
You could glance at this: Information Warfare has been part of war since Sun-Tzu.
The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. What the heck do you think they do in there?
You might glance at this Google Search: Information Warfare site:.mil
Do you have idea how much the military has already devoted to this?
Now let's consider Langley. What exactly do you want our covert and non-covert operatives at the CIA to do? You know, the ones who are in charge of information warfare? And who exposed this covert operation? Call Fitzgerald!
Do you want to win this war or not? Hopalong Cassidy is a myth. Next thing you know you'll be shocked, shocked that we are shooting people with real bullets!
Arnold Harris isn't here, so I thought I'd tear you the appropriate orifice in his place.
Yours,
Wince
Here's the deal, and I'll be blunt: what the government has done here is birth another Pravda. Granted, I'm not surprised simply because they've been doing the same thing stateside for years, apparently. And like I said, I hold the Iraqi (and American) press responsible for rolling over for it.
It is NOT like the NRA (or any other organization) feeding "a press release" to the local paper. It's the government. There IS a difference -- the government make the laws and they control the police.
Got it? Good.
Do you have idea how much the military has already devoted to this?
Oh, that's jolly good: lie to the people in order to save them.
No wonder a large plurality of Iraqis hate us enough to think it's OK to attack us. No wonder a gigantic majority of Iraqis want us to get the hell out. NOW.
It's time for school, dude. Wake up.
Hasn't 250 years of American history taught you anything?
I'd much sooner trust The Toledo Blade. I am serious about that.
Do you think the US military would have fed the local Iraqi paper the scoop about Abu Ghraib?
Why, or why not?
I'll hang up and listen for your answer.
Right. And you thought you were Superman when you jumped off the garage with a towel and an umbrella.
Nice try.
Try a set of less moronic arguments. You clearly aren't paying attention. I mean you are taking a completely stupid stance. What part of "all your heroes did this" failed to make you question your own logic? I see an utter lack of critical thinking on your part.
Yours,
Wince
...even though you are clueless about war most of the time.
Yours,
Wince
Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Truman actually implement censorship. Actual censorship, where they tell the press what can and cannot be printed. Horrors! And since then we've had Pravda rather than an independant press, right. Uh, no. That's odd. History is backing up me, not Ara.
Woodrow Wilson creates The Committee on Public Information (after Britain succesfully uses propaganda to influence America in the Allies favor). It subverted our public libraries and The Ladies’ Home Journal. Horrors! And since then we've had Pravda rather than an independant press, right. Uh, no. That's odd. History is backing up me, not Ara.
FDR and Truman actually use government funds to pay for News Reels during WWII. News Reels which rather dramatically cover the bravery and heroism of our fighting men and rather, umm, leave out the battles we lost, the training accidents which kill 800 men at a whack, the crusier (U.S.S. Indianapolis) which is sank and the Navy forgets about them, leaving the crew in the water for days, and the cargo handling issues that cause a ship in port to blow up. And they call them News Reels, not Government Paid for Morale Boosting Propanganda Reels and they put them in all the theatres before every picture. Horrors! And since then we've had Pravda rather than an independant press, right. Uh, no. That's odd. History is backing up me, not Ara.
The CIA runs these little covert operations all during the Cold War, where they manipulate the press. One time they even invent an entire fictional radio station giving out utterly fake news. They do these sort of things under the direction of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 41. Why they even place stories in an Iranian magazine. Horrors! And since then we've had Pravda rather than an independant press, right. Uh, no. That's odd. History is backing up me, not Ara.
Ever hear of Sun Tzu, author of the ancient text, The Art of War? He said the following:
"All warfare is based on deception."
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
"In war, practice dissimulation, and you will succeed."
Or perhaps you would be interested in the Wikipedia on Propaganda, where you will note it's use in WWI, WWII, the Cold War, Afghanistan and Iraq, by both sides. Apparently we can use guns, like the enemy, artillery, like the enemy, armor, like the enemy, bombs and missiles, like the enemy, but not propganda. Horrors! And after all these wars we've had Pravda rather than an independant press, right. Uh, no. That's odd. History is backing up me, not Ara.
This is war we are talking about Ara. War! You recently said "By following the Powell Doctrine the next time, we can avoid that. In other words, just win the goddam war, OK?" Hmmmm. In wartime we kill people. In peacetime we call that murder. In wartime we blow up buildings. In peacetime we call that arson. In wartime (especially against guerillas, but also in conventional war) we grab people, yank them out of their homes and businesses and interrogate them. In peacetime we call that kidnapping. So here we have a news report of Americans stacking the deck and concealing their identity. And that's what you have a problem with? Not the killing? Not the blowing up buildings? Not the grabbing people and interrogatting them?
I know you hate it when Republicans stack the deck and conceal their identity behind false grass roots organizations. You don't seem to mind when Pelosi (a government official!) stacks the deck, or some Democratic front group (usually intimately connected with government officials) conceals Soros's influence. So the CIA and the military performs what must be one of the most innocuous sorts of propaganda during wartime - acts which American leaders have deemed crucial to our war efforts for most, if not all of our history - and you haul out Pravda and Abu Ghraib?
Dude, you have no business calling my links crap with arguments like that. I really thought you would stop, think, and give me a good argument about why this was a bad idea, not stuff which contradicts well known historical fact and long standing military practice. In short, I thought I could adminster a shock a la Arnold and get a good nuanced discussion out of you. As experiments go, I think it was a pretty stupid one. I should have remembered that Arnold never had the effect on you before. Nor does he have that effect on most people. No, that's the effect he has on me, because I respect him and he scares the bejesus out of me.
I am not Ara. I am not Ara. I am not Ara.
There, maybe that will hold me off that particular mistake for a bit.
Yours,
WInce
I told him once that I was on the scene shortly after the Turkish military attache had been assassinated in Ottawa. He figured I was a member of the Armenian Secret Liberation Army. We never spoke again. Whatever.
But I digress.
Your history lesson is interesting. Thanks. Was I supposed to be comparing this war with those others? Because I can't and I won't.
This war was pre-emptive, it was fought without most of the world on our side, it was started with world opinion sharply divided against us. It was begun on flimsy evidence that turned out to be not-just-flimsy but ... non-existent. In other words, our world reputation is shot and the damage will take a generation to repair. The only war that sounds like is Viet Nam, which nobody wants to compare this war to either.
Of course, had we won in Iraq, all that would not have mattered. However, we didn't win. We lost the war.
Lost, you say? Yeah. Three years out and Iraq is not peaceful, it is not democratic, it is not united, it is not "a well-integrated full partner in the war on terror."
You say three years isn't long enough to judge the results? In the same length of time that has passed since 9/11, the Japanese had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we fought back and defeated them decisively. And Germany. And Italy.
Wince, someday, a decade or two or three down the line, God willing, peace will come to Iraq. But for you to say this war was the beginning of that is just disingenuous. You like to say that correlation is not causality. Well, here's an example.
So, when you talk about Woodrow Wilson and the Ladies Home Journal, I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
We've lost the war?
I cannot find suitable words to describe how utterly wrong your statements are.
Yours,
Wince
Interestingly enough, the "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln was on May 1, 2003. Wiki places the beginning of the insurgency to May of 2003. After that date, Wince, your analogies are no longer operative.
Now the historical comparisons are more akin to Northern Ireland cir. 1969-1976, than even Vietnam or the miriad of other colonial insurrections the British experienced (53 from WWII to '69). After '76, the UK Government was able to change the dynamic -- moving perceptions that there was a military counter-insurgency to a police versus criminal gangs struggle. I use this example for many reasons but most importantly because now, unlike most counter-insurgencies, since Fallujah the Iraqi insurgents (like the IRA) seem to be responsible for more civilian deaths than the US (actual statistics are debatable), and the tactics of preference are similar on both sides with a beleagered and ineffective native government caught in the middle.
The UK's Irish counter-insurgency plan, in place until the mid '70s, the plan which failed to stop the violence, is strikingly similar to what we've been witnessing (as opposed to Bush's Eight Pillars).
a. Identify the enemy and its reasons for existence.
b. Co-ordinate the resources and personnel of all sections
of the establishment against it.
c. Contain the enemy and wear it down tactically.
d. Isolate and frustrate it is every way, politically and
militarily.
e. Destroy it.
We went into the winning hearts and minds mode in Iraq after May of '03, the political mode where the military was now acting as police, guard and ambassador, and suffered a crippling loss when the abu Ghaib pictures came out, the Seven Idiots Who Lost The War. At least, we should have been in that mode, and our performance has been dismal. When, as Ara and Kissinger admonished, "In a guerilla war, the guerillas win by not losing and the army loses by not winning," stories that come to the forefront like Black Site Prison Camps, Memo's defending torture, our Vice President defending both, are not mere setbacks, but devastating ammumition for what Bush now calls the "rejectionists" (an eye opening link to be sure).
Bush's outrage should have been palpable that our good works were being undermined from within. The perception that he didn't care was only advanced by his actions and lack of any heads rolling. Where we should be, or at least where we should be heading but are certainly not if I understood Bush's speech correctly yesterday, is post 1976 Belfast, defined as Ulsterization, Criminalization and Normalization.
In the mid '70's, the Brits started talks and made dramatic troop reductions. Mind you, this was coupled with an increase in civilian, non-sectarian police presence -- and supposedly that is a goal of the administration. And Ara, Wince has a valid point that propaganda had its place in this. They have been shockingly clumsy in the effort, however. The Brits launched a major publicity campaign at that time too. But, unlike the rhetoric of Bush's latest "Plan for Victory," they Brits made the insurgency a completely internal affair, and did not internationalize it the way we say we want to, but cannot or will not.
The problem with this whole process, is that it took a couple of decades, even without the Brits shooting themselves in the foot and acting like a bunch of freaking YaHoos like we have. Essential to its success was the change in the world's preceptions as well as the native Irish. Industry HAD to start showing tangible progress towards normal operations if not entering into a boom period, people HAD to be employed and able to go home to lights that worked and water that was safe to drink. Appearences and perceptions were absolutely essential in order that the insurgents were actually considered terrorists by the average citizen in and out of Ireland, and not just called that by the Crown. As long as the "Arab Street" views the insurgents as freedom fighters and us as crusading occupiers, we're doomed.
That, besides the fact that it infuriates me that if seems our guys have targets painted on their backs, is why we must draw down our forces and force the Iraqis themselves to defend their own. We have to "Iraqify" this conflict and criminalize the insurgents. That cannot be done militarily.
Great history lesson. Have you also considered the British counter insurgency effort in Malaysia. Didn't it take something like ten years before the Brits won?
Everyone agrees (including me) that we must train Iraqis and draw down our forces. Not only does everyone agree, that's what we are doing, and quite successfully, in my opinion. It isn't just the troops who think so, the Iraqis do too, according to the polls. (Insert my standard disclaimer about the accuracy of polls.) In addition the economic indicators in Iraq say that we are winning. The Iraqi stock market is booming. Employment is up. People are buying satelite dishes and cell phones.
So, the idea that we are losing does not match all the facts. It does match this one: If the people in America keep thinking we are losing, we will lose. Which is why Ara's post both saddens and angers me. And neither the Murtha plan nor the Bush plan address the morale of the American public. Do we need censorship and government paid for propaganda for America to win wars which last more than a year? I hope we don't need censorship, although I'm not against government paid for propaganda. (If you say you are, when do we pull the pro-seat belt, anti-smoking, anti-drug and anti-drunk driving campaigns? Those are true you say? I'm sorry, but illegal drugs do not crack open your head and fry it, any more than legal ones do. Zoloft, anyone? Besides, true government funded propaganda is still propaganda.)
Has the criticism of the war hurt Ara's morale? Yours? In WWII, there really was a training accident that killed 800 men. There really was a cruiser that was sunk and the 800 man crew forgotten about and left in the water to the tender mercies of the sharks. Can you imagine what would have happened if those mistakes had been committed now? Every mistake you've spoken of Mark, while often reprehensible, were minor compared to the ones I've cited, and would probably have been covered up by the censorship board.
Also Mark, the mistakes you've spoken of are utterly typical of war. War is really different. During war, we set aside our normal moral behavoirs. We kill, we destroy, we imprison and so on. We do it under conditions of uncertainty and incredible time pressure. When you make war your efforts will be morally compromised - at all levels from private to President. When Japan surrendered, Truman said, "Good. Now we can stop killing women and children." We have to be prepared for that. Our efforts to avoid morally compromising the war will be successful most of the time, and we need to keep striving to make them more successful. But we aren't perfect, we aren't going to become perfect, and we will fail.
Thus I come back to the question none of our leaders are asking. (And for which I fault all of them.) And I fault me for not asking it sooner, and Ara, for dismissing it. What should we do to maintain the morale of the American people? Wilson understood this problem. Roosevelt understood this problem. Lincoln understood this problem. But for our current leaders it's been swept under the rug and ignored. What made us (including me) so stupid? How should we fight the war of ideas in the media? Should government created News Reels run before every movie on TV? How has the 24/7 video based and media saturated environment changed the equation?
I brainstormed a couple of ideas before, but my presentation sucked because I did not say I was brainstorming. Do you want to try a brainstorming session?
Ara,
Maybe I will take the time to counter all your points, but Mark has already done a pretty decisive number on this one:
You say three years isn't long enough to judge the results? In the same length of time that has passed since 9/11, the Japanese had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we fought back and defeated them decisively. And Germany. And Italy.
We defeated the conventional armies in both Afghanistan and Iraq much quicker than we did in WWII. You should be happy. Either insurgencies or anti-terror campaigns take longer. They almost always do. That is the power of Assymetrical Warfare. Insurgency, terrorism and guerrilla war are the tactics one uses against overwhelming force. I know of only one way to defeat insurgency, terrorism and guerrilla war rapidly. Mass murder. Mao, Stalin and Saddam were very successful with it. Just think about the Palestinians, Basques and Kurds in Turkey. When Bush said the War on Terror would be a long hard struggle, what were you visualizing? I was visualizing the Cold War. I was thinking forty freaking years.
Yours,
Wince
It was a political/psychological "win," not a military solution.
Wince, we differ in two important points. Our perception of how well we've been training the Iraqis, and the relative import of "good will." Abu Ghraib et al were absolutely devastating to a psy/op, as was our heavy handed treatment of Sadr and the mixed message of the Fallujah debacle.
Your insistence on making this a body-bag count as a metric of success reveals your misunderstanding of what it will take to "win."
Also, although we "knew" it was a forty year struggle, that's not what our leaders sold us, knowing they couldn't because we would feel, and still do, that it wouldn't be worth it.
You said: "Our efforts to avoid morally compromising the war will be successful most of the time, and we need to keep striving to make them more successful."
One word -- Rumsfeld. It was illustrated so well just yesterday when he tried to correct JCC Pace about the duty of our soldiers to physically stop abusive behavior or just report it. Pace had to set Rummy straight that when possible, just reporting is inadequate.
That's not leadership, it's buck passing. And that is our biggest problem, no accountability -- even at the top.
We've lost the war? I cannot find suitable words to describe how utterly wrong your statements are.
I wish I was wrong.
Look: In less time than it took to get from 9/11 to today, the US (with its allies) defeated Japan, Germany and Italy.
Since 9/11 what has all our blood and treasure bought us? We came up with "A National Strategy for Victory." Impressive.
Bottom line: by any objective standard we have not produced an Iraq that is more peaceful, not produced a more democratic or more united Iraq, not produced an Iraq that is "a well-integrated full partner in the war on terror."
Our military has done all that it was asked to do. It has done more than it could have been expected to do. It's time to do something else -- time to have a different plan. Bush disagrees. Fine. Let's have an election in 2006. I'll see you on the other side and we can discuss it then.
I like your question, though:You think?
Part of the problem was the WMD fiasco. Another part of the problem was that there was no other clear reason to be fighting especially after we got Saddam out of his spider hole. Wince, people are STILL asking why we're there. You get pissed when I bring that up, but, dude, you ought to stop and ask yourself why they're still asking. They're not stupid. Instead, I think our leaders are not being honest.
On top of all that, there were the tax cuts. What other president rammed through year after year of tax cuts in the midst of a major war? It defies common sense. And, surprise, it didn't fool anyone. Americans know that we're paying for this war on a credit card that our children will be asked to pay back.
Now that wouldn't be bad, if we felt good about being there, if we felt the war was going to produce something being proud of. But, my gosh, an Islamic Republic in Iran's orbit?
Fine. If that's what they want, then good luck with that.
But I'll be godammed if another one of our soldiers dies to put a mullah in charge of the Iraqi Supreme Court.
We have enough of a challenge stopping that here at home without going halfway around the world to make it happen somewhere else.
BTW, Did the insurgents put down their arms when Saddam was captured? No.
I think the American people are pretty smart; we usually get it right. And as far as the 2000 election, I also think that you're not only wrong, but overly sensitive. I mean, why are you still talking about that -- no one else is. What are you, a sore winner or what?
When I went to my daughter's school that Tuesday in September to help in the elections, 9/11 was an election day here, my thoughts were on that election, not the one a year before, but there was still some nagging bitterness.
That afternoon, when a clear sky showed not one contrail when usually it was full of them, when I had hugged and held and cursed and prayed and cried, I looked to Bush for leadership, for strength, for reassurance, and he rose to the occasion -- at least before the dust settled. All was forgiven, chads and recounts were done and at that point I really thought that no matter what my differences with this President, it was time to rally around him, My Pet Goat notwithstanding.
I'm not bitter about 2000, although it's hard to forget even when forgiving. I'm bitter that the trust I gave him after 9/11 was betrayed (in my opinion -- your milage evidently varies). I know, I'm the one who fucked up. I should have know better than to trust him.
I may not have agreed with much of what Clinton did or didn't do, but never once was he anything but my POTUS.
As regards body bags, you must be thinking of someone else. Maybe it's three fourths of the Democrats you know, who are interested in a body bag count of one, as long as Osama is in it. (Can either you or Ara or maybe even ++ungood explain, as an exercise, exactly why killing this one man will win the war on Terror? And please, give me a historical example. Bonus points if you explain how you intend to invade Iran to catch him, just in case that's where he's hiding.) I want to win by creating a stable democracy in Iraq. Just like we did in Germany and Japan.
As regards Rumsfeld, I'd be happier with the idea of sacking him if we had a successful tradition of sacking Secretaries of War/Defense to good effect. Roosevelt didn't sack his, in spite of the far worse screw ups in that war. Lincoln didn't sack his, in spite of the far worse screw ups in that war. I am especially loathe to sack Rumsfeld since the people who hate him are anti-war types whom I trust like I trust Micheal Moore and the people who love him are the troops. I trust the troops. And frankly, the Democratic leadership should be telling the Democratic party that Rumsfeld is beloved of the troops, we'd rather keep him. But, as if often the case, they support the troops by ignoring what the troops want.
Ara,
I get pissed when you say "why are we there" because I'm impatient. It's all my fault and I'm sorry.
I have figured out why the Democratic base doesn't know why we are in Iraq. There are two reasons. The first is that it is complex, with lots of reasons supporting a complex strategy in a complex situation. So it requires leadership to make the case. The second it because it's the Democratic leadership's responsibility to lead their party. If they had led their base, as they should, their base would know why we were there. Republicans can't lead the Democratic base, the Democratic base doesn't trust the Republicans, and the Democratic base won't trust the Republicans, no matter what the Republicans do, unless the leaders of the Democratic party stop reflexively calling their opponents liars. Which would be another act of leadership. And vice versa, of course.
So, tell your leadership that they are one of the biggest reasons we are having morale problems. And they haven't started helping yet. Where the heck is that loyal opposition? I think I left them lying around Washington....
I wish I had more time for this. As an example, the WMD fiasco is only a fiasco in your head, because your leaders have taught you never to trust Republicans. And if I had time we could write long pieces about the interesting complexities of the situation. Like the allegation that only Saddam and two generals in Iraq knew he had no WMD. That's some freaking tight security. Someday you'll explain to me that we had James Bond, the only man who could possibly have figured this out, ready at hand and Tenant told Blair, "Nah, it's a slam dunk". So James sat around, flirting with Miss Moneypenny, and our chance to know the Truth slipped away. Gotta go.
Yours,
Wince
Bush, 11/30/05:The next day, McClellen:There were so many other things Scotty could have said, indeed should have said, but since they've got the votes in Congress (for now) evidently he feels it unnecessary to acknowledge that well meaning patriotic Americans can disagree with this administration without being "irresponsible," without undermining the administration, without being interested merely in partisanship, and without hurting the moral of the troops and public at large and therefore not supporting the troops.
It was name calling and unnecessary, counterproductive, impolite, antagonistic and hypocritical. You can't even make the suggestion that an unworkable plan, and inadequate plan, is no plan at all. Don't even think it.
This stuff goes on and on all the time. Any given week in the last five years I'm sure I could have found an example of this behavior. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, but Bush's White House will have none of it. The pattern of dividing, not uniting, continues unabated.
He doesn't care about what I care about. He doesn't care to listen nor does he care address legitimate concerns until political expediency demands it. He doesn't want to represent me or anyone who happens to disagree with him and actively alienates all who dare tell the emporor he has no clothes.
And let's be honest, as good as Bush's "plan" might seem at first blush, and no matter how earnest he sounded at Annapolis, his idea that " as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" is eerily reminicent of Nixon circa 1969 vis-a-vis Vietnam. It also contained nothing new and was indeed vague in that it lacked any concrete steps for disengagement, nor any metrics or milestones to look for to measure progress.
Maybe this was necessary under the circumstances, but analysis pointing out that this was not a "plan" so much as an outline promoting the continuation of current policy that gives us more of a "we'll know it when we see it" kind of measurement for "winning," should not be dismissed as "irresponsible." It was a legitimate critique and the administration can and should be able to defend against such a predictable position -- but they won't and sink to name calling instead.
And Pam, by blaming me as the problem, merely for pointing out the obvious that Bush doesn't act like he even wants to be my president when he acts like this is disingenuous at best. You can have him.
You keep throwing those tax cuts up ara. Most people that understand economics know that when the economy started declining in 1999 and pretty much tanked in 2000, the tax cuts were needed to stimulate the economy. The tax cuts increased the revenues to the Feds which is a good thing. JFK advocated the same thing. And GWB is taking in more cash than WJC did when we were at his highest tax rate. Greenspan dropped the rate 8 times in a period of 1-1/2 years(iirc), that was a good thing and many people took advantage of this by re-financing at lower interest rates.
What should be happening is major cuts in other spending.
What did I blame on you. I used your statement to re-enforce my position that it would not have mattered what GWB says or does there are those that just hate him and nothing will change it. You again reiterated your stance. Your statement sounds more like a 7 year old stomping off the playground because he didn't get his way.
Seriously, Pam, your facts are wrong. Go back and do it again. The recession started a year later than you say it did.
What should be happening is major cuts in other spending.
I'm tempted to ask you whose fault that is, but I won't, simply because I know the answer, and so do you: this is the core of the Republican ideal.
It goes like this: bankrupt the treasury with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, then cut services on all the rest of us to pay for it -- if you can. Whichever way you go, the goal is to eventually shrink the government to a size small enough so that "it can be drowned in the bathtub."
Pam, meet Grover Norquist. Grover, meet Pam.
Pam, here is one of my core principles: the job of government (for the last 100 years or so) is to keep an eye on business so that the people are protected from the excesses of the free market.
Who watches the government, you ask? Why the people, of course, aided by a free and independent press.
Bottom line: roll back the tax cuts to Clinton era levels -- when the economy was booming. Balance the budget. Then go from there. If you want tax cuts, then target them in such a way to help the majority of Americans who make the majority of their income from working, not from interest and dividends.
Got it?
So, yes. When the Government of the United States, by and through its official spokesman, states bluntly that it irresponsible to criticize the "Plan for Victory," that is anathema to a healthy democracy right here at home.
As for your ad hominem, unnecessary and personal attack; that comment is hardly constructive either.
If the leaders of the Democratic party had been saying that Bush has a plan and it's a good plan but it just needs some work for the past four years, you would be saying it's a good plan but it just needs some work. But they aren't, so you don't.
I've understood the grand strategy (not the plan for Iraq) for four years, I did a lot of analysis of the grand strategy, I thought it was a good grand strategy and it explains completely why we are in Iraq. If I can get it, why can't Kerry and the Democratic leadership? Why are we being told Bush exaggerated, when WMD is only one piece of the puzzle, and the fact that we didn't find stockpiles of WMD does not actually change the grand strategy, or the reasons for fighting in Iraq? How come none of the Democratic leadership appears to understand the grand straegy?
The Opinionated Bastard has understood the White House plan for Iraq which they have been following since 2003 before Bush laid it out again. He says: If this random guy off the street can understand Bush's plan, and understand it well enough to make this inciteful a critique, why can't the Democratic leadership?
Answer to all these questions: They can get it, they do get it, and they have irresponsibly been failing to lead you, their party member, for four freaking years! It's about time McClellan called them on it. Why? Damn good question. Maybe it's such a good plan they haven't been able to think of any improvements which would be obvious enough to really push. Maybe Bush and the Republicans in Congress have so poisoned the waters that the Democrats feel they have no choice. Maybe they are still pissed about the impeachment. I don't know. I wish they would tell us, so I could ask