I just stumbled upon this column from Ian Robinson highlighting an extraordinary rebuke of our wartime President by a former Secretary of the Navy.
[Text of a letter written by liberal historian and former Secretary of the U.S. Navy George Bancroft]: “How can we reach our president with advice? He is ignorant, self-willed, and is surrounded by men, some of whom are almost as ignorant as himself.
“So we have the dilemma put to us. What to do when his power must continue for two years longer and when the existence of our country may be endangered before he can be replaced by a man of sense. How hard, in order to save the country, to sustain a man who is incompetent.”
Harsh words, albeit a little gentler than the usual stream of slanders from the left about George W. Bush — that he’s stupid, that he’s a coward who shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard, that he launched a war that killed thousands, costing billions and driving his nation into debt in order to enrich the corporations that pump the oil that is the lifeblood of western civilization.
By the end of the excerpt from Bancroft’s letter, every Bush-hater is no doubt nodding agreement.
I’m figuring our friends Ian, Neo and Gryph are hooting with pleasure. Hoot away guys!
There’s just one small problem……
This respected commentator on not-so-current events wasn’t writing about Bush.
He was writing in 1863 about a guy named Abraham Lincoln.
Beard, tall hat, sad face, freed the slaves?
Yeah, that President Lincoln.
The guy who through sheer force of will faced down the rebellion of the Confederacy to reunite his shattered nation.
The guy who destroyed what Americans referred to as “the peculiar institution,” which is the term Southern spin doctors of the day coined for slavery. (Southern spin doctors are still the best liars on the planet. After all, they convinced Americans that when Bill Clinton lied under oath it wasn’t really an impeachable offence because it was “just about sex.”)
Ian closes out his column with this — I wouldn’t suggest George W. Bush is an Abraham Lincoln. I would suggest the ultimate verdict of history will surprise us … the same way it surprised Bancroft.
I completely concur.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
It’s interesting to note that Lincoln’s most openly and consistently vicious, bitter, slanderous, hateful and irrational domestic opponents in wartime were… Democrats.
Yup. THOSE Democrats. The same party, descended through time, that we call “Democrat” today. The ones who embrace Robert Byrd, former Kleagle. According to Wikipedia: Bancroft was one.
(To be fair: Bancroft was exceptionally principled in opposing slavery. His contemporary Democrats mostly supported slavery to the bitter end, just as their modern descendants support Welfare State dependency.)
It’s ironic to see the ancient Democrats calling Lincoln an “incompetent” who “endangers the nation”, since DANGEROUSLY INCOMPETENT(tm) is an official meme they’re trying to program us with today, after a Republican President has liberated 50 million Muslims from 2 tyrannies.
Gee, Cal, things really don’t change that much for demoncRATS over a hundred years or so, does it?
And they’re still sore losers to boot.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
GP says:
While it’s true that I don’t approve of this President’s Administration’s wartime handling of the invasion of Iraq, (which I do support), I never, ever have made any of the accusations you insinuate by inference above. And I challenge you to prove differently.
You sir, once again, have proven yourself to be a damn bold-faced liar. So much for the vaunted integrity of the “blogosphere”. You are just practicing good old-fashioned yellow journalism. Congratulations, Mr. Hearst.
This is great!!! Right on!
I’m sure most here do not watch Real Time with Bill Maher, it does happen to be one of my favorite shows. But one of the things being discussed this past week, was history, and really how it does not matter what happend, all that matters is who is telling it.
I believe that there is a possiblity that the future of the Middle East could change under the Bush administration, well at least started, where freedom is braught around the world, but history will be the judge on that, it just depends who tells it.
Not quite, Gryph (emphasis mine).
By the end of the excerpt from Bancroft’s letter, every Bush-hater is no doubt nodding agreement.
I’m figuring our friends Ian, Neo and Gryph are hooting with pleasure. Hoot away guys!
Now, that refers to THESE statements:
“How can we reach our president with advice? He is ignorant, self-willed, and is surrounded by men, some of whom are almost as ignorant as himself.
“So we have the dilemma put to us. What to do when his power must continue for two years longer and when the existence of our country may be endangered before he can be replaced by a man of sense. How hard, in order to save the country, to sustain a man who is incompetent.”
I find it hard to believe you’ve never made any of THOSE accusations.
#6 — The weasels on the left side of this board often play the game of, “I never used those exact words,” when one describes their positions using words that do, in fact, describe precisely the positions they have carved out for themselves in the debate.
Assuming that there is a future to make a verdict on President Bush, historians will likely pillory Bush for playing house in Iraq, at a time when the true enemy was arming just next door. For unlike the peanut gallery here, historians will understand that America would be in a much stronger position to deal with Iran today, an enemy of considerable force, if the United States were not in Iraq.
Somebody needs a course in military education!
(or would that be a course in geography? Or both? Oh well – whatever)
Erik,
Um, how many troops do we have in Iraq, which just happens to be right next to Iran? I think we’re in a pretty darn good position when it comes to Iran. In fact, I bet you were one of the many on the left that had a hissy fit when Bush named Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” – and now they are “an enemy of considerable force”. Absolutely unbelievable!
Helloooooo, Erik….clue calling you.
The Bush administration has been very clear on Iran from the start — remember the “Axis of Evil” speech over which you and your fellow liberals blew a blood vessel? Indeed, you were saying it was “simplistic”, that Iran was “peaceful”, that they were no threat….and now you’re trying to bash Bush for supposedly not noticing a threat that you denied existed for years.
Iran has the ability to engage American forces on land, in air and at sea. That is not the type of war America wants to fight. The proximity of a large number of American forces to Iran is not an assest in this situation, it is a liability. It prevents the United States from simply conducting an air assault and allows Iran to immediately attack our land forces in Iraq at a moment’s notice. That is a result that would enflame said conflagration and spark war through out the entire Middle East.
In short, create a World War. That is why having US forces in Iraq weakens the American hand. It creates an all or nothing situation.
You think it’s coincidence that Iran is going for broke right now in their attempt to build a nuclear weapon? They know the United States is in a weakened position.
“I’m figuring our friends Ian, Neo and Gryph are hooting with pleasure.”
Well, I am but not over your post. Rather over Tom Delay’s quitting his re-election race because it “would have been nasty.” LOL!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12141276/
I guess the GOP will now mount an effort to pretend that Delay never existed. Good luck.
No doubt Helen Thomas was just as rude and hateful to Honest Abe.
At the time of Bush’s ‘Axis Of Evil’ speech, it was wrong to put Iran in that category. They were still in the middle of their reform period, with President Khatami, a liberal, up against the mullahs. But as a result of that speech though and the ensuing Iraq War, America pushed the Iranian electorate to the right and we now have Ahmadinejad, an extremely dangerous hardliner, as the Iranian President.
So yes, that speech was a bad idea.
You can’t forget that for two consecutive elections, reformist President Khatami was elected in a landslide and that it was loud and clear during the late 1990’s the Iranian people were anxious for changes within their government. But America has always been the mullah’s boogeyman and when Bush began saber rattling towards Iran in 2002 with that Axis Of Evil speech, it just played into their hand. They could point to Bush and say ‘see, we were right all along.’ And the worrying prospect of an an American invasion scared the Iranian electorate into electing someone like Ahmadinejad, who instead of routinely clashing with the mullahs, like President Khatami, would be an ally with them. For I have no doubt, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran today because of that Axis Of Evil speech.
#13 – The fact that they are insane, psychopathic Islamist moonbats whom even their own people hate, and have been for 26 years, has nothing to do with it, of course.
Blame America first! 🙂
#16 – Khatami was a “liberal” like Hermann Goering was a “liberal” when compared to Hitler, or Nikita Kruschev a “liberal” when compared to Stalin.
And World War 2 broke out because the English weren’t nice enough to the Germans. Right?
Erik, I disagree most strongly with your assesment of both our relative ability to deal with Iran and their motivations.
First, had we not invaded Iraq and removed Saddam we would today be facing not only the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, but also the military commitment of having to contain Saddam and still facing the prospect of taking action against a formidable foe (Iran) with a hostile nation on our flank. Without doubt Saddam would have used any U.S. action as pretext to stage his own invasion in order to “protect” Iran’s Arab population (the ones that just happen to be living on Iran’s largest oil reserves). You may not remember, but this was the motivating force behind the Iran-Iraq war of the ’80s. Do you honestly think we would be in a better military position to have to rely almost completely on power projection from Naval platforms in the Arabian Gulf while simultaneously facing Iraqi forces in the south?
The GWOT and its eventual resolution always required the fall of both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes. We recognized that the reality in Iraq was such that Saddam would not fall without external force. However, we have always recognized that an internal change in Iran is the more preferable course of action. It was right that we then took action in 2003 to remove the former so that it would not be a concern should we eventually need to apply military force against the latter. If we have to act in Iran we do so from a much stronger and more sustainable position today than we had in 2002/2003. To say otherwise ignores the logistical realities.
Further, the accelerated pace that seems evident in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if anything, demonstrates the exact opposite of strength and confidence. Rather, it indicates a desire to get a nuclear trump card as rapidly as possible, while they perceive us as being otherwise engaged. If they felt the U.S. was hopelessly bogged down and lost in Iraq, if they felt we were in a weakened position, then why the mad dash?
Further, any assesment of Iranian people’s will based upon their elections avoids the fact that the mullahs completely control the candidates from which the electorate may choose. The loss of power suffered by Khatami and his party was solely a factor of their candidates being disallowed by the mullahs from the recent elections. It’s kind of hard to vote for someone not on the ballot. In fact, it was this interference in candidacy that led to massive abstention in the last Iranian election. IIRC, significantly less than 50% of the electorate voted in Iran, where voting is required by law, and the only reason they got that high was due to government thugs intimidating much o fthe population (they actually kept the polls open late and went house to house in some places forcing voters to the polls).
The truth is that many Iranians living in Iran agreed with Bush’s “Axis of Evil” statement. After all, it is they who have to live under a government that hangs sixteen-year-old girls for being raped (after all, she’s not a virgin anymore).
Exactly, submandave. Thanks.
They’re going for nukes “now” (hah hah) because they can: in other words, THEY’VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR DECADES NOW and this is merely the advanced stage they’ve reached.
Bush warned us, in so many words, in 2002 and it is not his fault that liberals only now (in 2006) are waking up to the threat.
On the other hand, it is a good thing we have bases on both sides of them now. Iran is a much bigger, more rugged country than Iraq and impossible to pressure militarily without bases.
The War on Terror is a chess game – or a multi-country, multi-decade campaign. We must take the opponent’s pieces one by one, with each leading to the next. If we hadn’t done something about Saddam first (and incidentally acquired some bases), it would be difficult-to-impossible for us to now do anything about Iran.
One good thing in this discussion: at least Erik, for one, has woken up to Iran’s threat.
#13: Erik is quite right. Our troops have their hands full in Iraq. They are in no position to invade Iran unless the US is willing to leave the Iraqis to their own devices at this point. Even then, our troops would have to deal with a far larger and better armed nation than it confronted in Iraq. What the Iraq mess has demonstrated to the world is that even with all its power, the US is not omnipotent. The Iranians are certainly capable of mounting a defense using asymmetrical warfare. They also know that Bush administration has little support either at home or abroad for another pre-emptive war.
Now before our adventure in Iraq, nations like Iran must surely have had doubts about standing up to the US. After all, we had the support of most of the world and led a multi-national force that had made short work of eliminating the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Not to mention that we were hot on the trail of bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Now, after three years of a difficult slog in Iraq, a resurgent Taliban, a restless homefront and growth of worldwide distrust and antagonism towards the US, there is no longer the perception that the US is not to be messed with. That is a dangerous and enduring Bush legacy.
Carlato –
Khatami ran under the promise of expanding freedoms, like freedom of the press, and reigning in the power of the Mullahs. Though he had trouble delivering on his promises, which did frustrate some in the Iranian electorate. Still, he was a step in the right direction. Ahmadinejad is three steps in the wrong direction.
If you just stereotype every Iranian as a ‘moonbat’ how can you ever think that Iran, or their fraternal twin Iraq, could progress towards a democracy?
And the WWII comparisons, they’re just totally cliched.
Bullshit, Erik.
You think Iran’s nuclear plants are a RECENT development? They’ve been in violation for years — INCLUDING under Khatami.
The Bush administration was the first and only one to confront Iran. Had they not done so, the odds are good that Iran’s nuclear program would never have been discovered to be in violation. As I pointed out, you and your fellow leftists roundly criticized Bush for those statements, but he was right.
Don’t even PRETEND to be making a strategic assessment. You and yours denied Iran was ever a threat in the first place.
Unfortunately, Ian, what you and your fellow Democrats constantly lie about is that Saddam was paying the bulk of the world to ignore him. Of COURSE we weren’t going to have international support to eliminate a billion-dollar gravy train for the French, Russian, Chinese, and UN governments.
Meanwhile, you think we wouldn’t have support for invading Iran? Why not? After all, they’re an obvious threat, aren’t they?
#23 – And that, Ian, has got to be the bull of the week.
I mean, at least it didn’t bore me – it’s slightly new, this time 😉
Because Bush did something about Saddam and the Taliban – Middle East tyrants have been emoboldened! They’re SWAGGERING AROUND! (Lebanon, anyone?)
And.. and.. and… If only we had followed the Carter-Clinton policies of appeasement, the cave-ins that led al Qaeda and Saddam to seriously believe we would do nothing after 9-11… the same Middle East tyrannical regimes would be QUAKING IN THEIR BOOTS!
And presumably – the Democrats are just the people to make the whole world fear us again, by going back to policies of withdrawal and appeasement!
🙂
To repeat: Bush Was Right!
Exactly, Calarato.
What we are seeing in Iran is the desperation of unpopular rulers trying to maintain their shaky grip on power.
Ian and Erik reveal their true point when they argue that there would be no domestic or international support for an attack against Iran — a country that CLEARLY has WMD capability and has directly threatened other countries with both terrorism and WMDs.
Subman –
As of 2003, Iraq barely had a military. They were a paper tiger. Iraq didn’t have an Air Force. They didn’t have a Navy. They barely had an army. If Saddam Hussein was still in power and we were facing a confrontation with Iran, it wouldn’t much matter because Iraq wouldn’t have the capability to engage American forces, even if they wanted to.
And that’s why Saddam Hussein, though a ruthless dictator, was only nominally more dangerous than any number of dictators in Africa. He had no power.
See, I’m not some peace activist, I just thought from the very begining an all out invasion of Iraq was the wrong fight to choose. If we were going to attempt to depose Hussein, I thought a sustained, months long bombing campaign, like the one conducted by NATO in Serbia, would have been a much better option. But that wouldn’t have likely given America control over Iraq’s lush oil industry, which, ironically, a ground invasion and susequent occupation hasn’t accomplished either. But to deny that that wasn’t one of the primay goals of the Iraq War is naive.
#24 – Erik –
“If you just stereotype every Iranian as a ‘moonbat’…”
Whoa. Where are those vaunted reading skills? Kindly point out where you think I did that.
“Khatami…was a step in the right direction. ”
Phone call, Erik! Jimmy Carter is on the line. He wants to tell you all about how Leonid Brezhnev was a “new” type of Communist, a “step in the right direction”, whom we needn’t fear anymore!
Sorry for the sarcasm, but conservatives and other realists have heard this from dictator-loving liberals for generations. “This dictator is different. HE’S a reformer we should subsidize.” Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. They’re all still part of dictatorial regimes with sick, evil ideologies, not about to change their spots.
“Evil”, Erik. Does that scare you? It should. And, we are not responsible. THEY ARE.
But alright, i’m done with this debate for today, as I should move on to other things. Still, I will make a predicition:
President Bush will leave office with the lowest approval rating of any President elected to two terms that then went on to complete two terms. (At his current approval rating, he will achieve that dishonor.) And that that will be a stain history will have a hard time washing off him, no matter how things turn out.
P.S. And yes, with Iran, it’s not a single person dictator, it’s a theocratic group. They carefully bred and nourished and approved of Khatami; he was one of them and subscribed to their ideology fully.
As I said: Khatami was “liberal” as Hermann Goering would have been, compared to Hitler.
Didn’t you already give that prediction? We know your prediction… and it’s wrong.
Read and educate yourself, Erik.
You see, what your DNC programmers won’t tell you is that the Serbs figured out a simple and effective way to neutralize NATO air attacks; they moved their armies and equipment into the midst of the very civilian populations they were planning to slaughter anyway. This is why the REAL generals in the Kosovo war immediately asked for ground troops to put an end to the massacres, which the Clinton administration nixed because it was paranoically afraid of US casualties. Tens of thousands of defenseless, untrained, civilian Kosovars died because racist Democrats refused to send in trained fighting forces to protect them.
Saddam was doing exactly the same thing. He was putting, as the article notes, strategic military targets next to civilian ones and daring us to bomb them, in the hopes that you and his fellow allies would decry the “loss of civilian life” in the bombing.
The only way to counter that strategy is to use ground troops, which are far more precise than even guided munitions can be. The only way to counter it when he had literally THOUSANDS of these sites is a full-scale invasion.
In short, get a clue.
#32 – Geez, Erik, I thought that Slick Willie was the only one who left office with a “stain.” It just happened to be on Monica’s blue dress.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Carlato, quit with the analogies, they’re tired and wrongly applied. Khatami was not a dictator. Dictator’s just don’t leave office becuase of term limits, like Khatami did. Iran has a parlimentary system which is undemocratic because the mullahs hold veto power over all decions of the elected officials. Remove that veto power and Iran would be a burgeoning democracy.
But i’m out.
#37 – Did you not read #33 first, Erik?
Khatami was part of a sick, evil dictatorial regime that oppresses the Iranian people and is not “parliamentary” in any authentic sense, and I am disgusted that you could try to bring the word in.
I will continue comparing that regime to Hitler’s.
North Dallas Thirty –
And what luck, despite having an awful war strategy, like you say, the war in Serbia turned out so well. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration’s strategy for Iraq has been so brilliant and they still can’t catch a break. What a shame!
Of course, it is sad that civilians were killed in Serbia cause I know, no civilians have been killed in the Iraq War. Not a single one. All those decapitated bodies they have been finding in Baghdad? Just stuffed animals kids played a little too hard with.
OK, confession time –
I’m secretly counting how many times Erik is “out of here now” (but not). 🙂
#39 – No actually – They never found the reported decapitated bodies in Baghdad; it was a false liberal media report.
Care to acknowledge it, Erik? (After spreading it)
Ian: “Now, after three years of a difficult slog in Iraq, a resurgent Taliban, a restless homefront and growth of worldwide distrust and antagonism towards the US, there is no longer the perception that the US is not to be messed with. That is a dangerous and enduring Bush legacy.”
Black is white. Up is down.
NDT in #35 gives a good approximation of our “pre-W” reputation as someone “not to be messed with.” It’s complete BS. Heck, Bin Laden and friends were so convinced that they perpetrated 9-11. Not to be messed with? What reality do you inhabit? People messed with us *constantly* because they knew they *could*. All it takes is killing a few American soldiers and we run away. Over. And over. And over.
Which, in my view, is probably the most important reason that it was necessary to go on from Afghanistan to Iraq. We desperately needed to send the message that we aren’t to be messed with because not *only* will we sweep down like the judgement of God and wipe your puny tyranny from the Earth but we will go on and visit wrath elsewhere as well. No more thinking that when the sh*t hits the fan next door that you’re safe from getting splattered with it.
And frankly, we’ve got to consider body language, posture and postruing and how it is interpreted by people from a culture where *no* insult is tolerated. When we tolerate insult, act all peaceful and reasonable-like, it is interpreted, not according to *our* culture, but according to theirs. If they posture and we roll over, we’ve signaled submission and will be despised rather than respected. Saddam, under sanctions, assumed the posture of victory because by *his* rules he *was* the victor.
And we get people all worried because we might antagonize someone.
It’s amazing.
People insist on our national posture being that of a food animal and think it’s going to result in peace and happiness. Food animals get eaten and it is right and good that they get eaten. It’s their *purpose* to be eaten.
*Our* culture values humility and other remnants and artifacts of our Christian heritage. Our God voluntarily became man and allowed himself to be spit upon and killed in the most humiliating way possible in order to provide our salvation. Even if you are an athiest or pagan, this *is* what informs our culture. Moslems will say that they respect Christ far more than any Christian because they refuse to allow that God would let any of this happen. Humility is degrading and entirely unacceptable in any way. Honor is more important than anything. A nation that despises itself, which is what our “body language” tells them, does not deserve or recieve any respect.
Up is down. White is black.
And why the heck is it necessary to explain this to people who percieve their side of the issue as internationally sophisticated and informed?
Ok, fine Calarato. Nobody is being murdered in Iraq. Everything there is fine and it is all liberal media spin. In fact, Iraq is the new popular spring break destination for college kids and Baghdad will be the site of the 2007 NBA All-Star game.
And what luck, despite having an awful war strategy, like you say, the war in Serbia turned out so well. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration’s strategy for Iraq has been so brilliant and they still can’t catch a break. What a shame!
Please. You’re comparing the difficulties of conquering California to Rhode Island.
Furthermore, given that we are still IN Kosovo nearly a decade later, what exactly is your definition of “so well”?
Finally, Erik, your concern for Iraqi civilians is touching. But where were you when Saddam was imprisoning, torturing, and murdering them, even babies and toddlers, by the millions?
Oh, that’s right; it was more important at that point to “wage peace”.
Saddam Hussein made Slobodan Milosevic look like an amateur. But notice how quickly you and your fellow Dems moved to get rid of him, as opposed to your constant attempts to sabotage getting rid of Saddam.
There were two mistakes Slobo made:
1) He tortured, murdered, and imprisoned Europeans, not Arabs.
2) He wasn’t paying billion-dollar bribes to other countries and the UN to ignore him.
NeoLiberal said (in another thread)…
“But dealing with Islamic extremists are different, they are bitter because they were denied of basic rights and education by their tyrants that were financed by whom? The Americans!”
Again, I have little to offer here, other than to ask my polar opposite if he blamed himself when attacked by narrow-minded thugs for liking boys.
Neo, please take a moment to consider whether or not you truly believe that this republic is responsible for the horrible fates of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, et al.
I grant you that America has made some truly piss-poor choices in it’s brief history, but to lay the blame for the behavior of sociopaths who regard us as less than human, and therefore subject to the most gruesome of deaths, is absolutely abhorrent.
If my dog repeatedly poops on my neighbor’s lawn, despite my best efforts to prevent it, and said neighbor one day shoots my dog, is this my fault for not being more effective in training?
This seems to be the thrust of “your sides’” argument.
Eric in Hollywood
#43 – Intentional sarcasm isn’t the same as acknowledgement…. so in other words, Erik:
The answer is no. You don’t care to acknowledge that the decaptitated body report you spread in #39 was false.
I think I’ll just shut up and let that stand for all to see.
“Remove [the mullah’s] veto power and Iran would be a burgeoning democracy.”
And if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their asses. I’m not disagreeing with your statement, but I don’t logically see how you can state on the one hand that the mullahs posess complete veto power over all aspects of the Iranian government and then on the other hand act as if the same government is representative of the people. One of these simply doesn’t fit.
Also, the military threat posed by Saddam may have been relatively small, but that was not the sum total of the threat he posed. Despite all the “no WMD, Bush lied” claims, there is no denying that there was material inventoried by UNSCOM in 1998 that has yet to be accounted. There is also no denying that Saddam maintained viable WMD programs even in the face of sanctions and had plans to revitalize these after sanctions were lifted (a course he was pursuing via bribery of UNSC members). Add in known support for terrorists and a penchant to engage in foolhardy enveavors (e.g. attempted assasination of Bush), I believe the plausible deniability afforded by a visible boogey-man of al Queda would have proved too much temptation to not try something.
Additionally, Saddam stood in great stead as an embodiment of the “Arab Strongman.” He had already stood up to the might of the U.S. and lived to tell the tale. Backing down again from Saddam would only have served to futher his image and reinforce the popularized idea of the U.S. as cut-and-run paper tigers. With his fall, however well-known “strongman” Q’daffy chose to cooperate rather then face a possibly similar fate. Speaking of Iraqi WMD, however, it is interesting to note how extensive a nuclear program poor Libya had and how many Iraqi scientists were in its “employ.” Just a little thing that makes me go “Hmmm.”
My point was not so much that Saddam would have forced a military engagement with us if we were foced to act in Iran, but instead that he would rush in to “protect” Iranian Arabs, placing us in the position of deciding if we allow him a military victory or allow him a propaganda victory in being able to cast us as fighting against his “protection”. Either course of action would have been tangential to our real goals in Iran. Taking him out of the picture allows us, instead, to avoid this choice.
I don’t think the sustained bombing campaign would have been as successful in our long-term goals, because it is essential that Iraq be both an example of liberal democracy and an ally in the region. While I believe that Iraq’s oil played an important strategic role in the decssion to invade, I do not hold this opinion for the same reasons you apparently do. One clearly stated goal of al Queda and the Islamist movement is control over the holy lands of Saudi Arabia. There is little doubt that the loss of KSA and its oil source would be devastating to us and our economy. In fact, this, too, is a clearly understood goal of the Islamists. Which means that if they successfully took the reserves we would have had little choice but to try and take them back. Establishing an ally in Iraq helps ensure that if KSA falls to the Islamists we still have a friendly POL source.
“Finally, Erik, your concern for Iraqi civilians is touching. But where were you when Saddam was imprisoning, torturing, and murdering them, even babies and toddlers, by the millions?”
Certainly not buying Hussein arms and munitions to beat the Iranians in their decade long war during the 1980’s like the Reagan Administration and Democratic Congress was! I was probably learning how to spell my name and playing with my teenage mutant ninga turtles.
So yeah, cut the bull. American politicians, Republicans AND Democrats, care about one thing: America winning. We will support dictators when they are fighting our enemies, no matter if they are simulataneously murdering their own people.
See, Americans are generally good people, but we are no angels.
Carlato – unlike you perhaps, I don’t put my full trust in anything the United States military says. They spin and lie, just like everyone else. So they say they can’t find the bodies now and that’s proof it didn’t happen? No, it just clouds the picture.
#47 – exactly – HOW would the “mullah’s veto” ever be removed – um, by magic?
Right on, with the rest of the stuff on Saddam.
#48 – “We will support dictators when they are fighting our enemies…”
You mean: BEFORE BUSH.
That’s what sticks in many liberals’ craws: Bush is the one who has actually made a principled, pro-human rights foreign policy.
So, let’s be very clear about that:
In Erik’s worldview, “everyone” spins and lies, first of all; and the United States military is fully included in that universal corruption.
Ok, now really, i’ve had enough of the asylum today. You people are crazy. I’m just glad Tom Delay is resigning from Congress next month and that we’re now less than 7 months away from Speaker of the House Pelosi. It should be fun seeing her sit next to tricky Dick at the State Of The Union. Hopefully, she’ll wear a bulletproof vest.
Of course, the $4 a gallon gas this summer will really suck. But, it’ll get the job done.
LOL….better to deal with the imaginary future than the dull and facts-based past, isn’t it, Erik?
Hmmm. GPW’s call for civility didn’t work, did it?
#50 Exactly. Supporting dictators because … Okay, put it this way… The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. There’s a limit of what we can reasonably do at any given moment but supporting dictators and tyrants on the principle that they represent stability is just wrong. Firstly, because a tyranny is not stable. Secondly because it’s morally wrong to ignore injustice because it happens to benifit us. (Even if it really did benifit us, which it doesn’t.)
Bush is the first (I’m not sure how Reagan was on this) to definitively state that all people deserve self-government and freedom and the benifits of those. And while I can’t see him (and don’t really want to) crusading about solving all of the world’s ills, what we *do* in the world has to deliberately prefer social justice, on whatever level our interaction with others, in diplomacy or in war.
In this, at the very least, Bush is RIGHT.
But BDS is so bad that liberals can’t even bring themselves to defend social justice as a guiding precept because it would mean agreeing with someone they hate.
(Oh, and Pelosi as speaker would be great. The more face-time that woman gets the better.)
Bruce, great post! One of the best of many good posts in a long, long time.
#42: “a good approximation of our “pre-W” reputation as someone “not to be messed with.” It’s complete BS.”
If you are going to comment on my posts, please at least read them carefully. I was quite specific as to the timeframe when we had established that “we were not to be messed with”: it extended from late 2001 when the Taliban had been toppled until 2003 when it became clear that there were serious problems with the occupation of Iraq. It has been downhill for our reputation of omnipotence ever since. Iran consequently sees a window of opportunity that it has no assurance will remain open indefinitely. It has seen the fumbling response to North Korea and its nukes and has decided – wisely or not – to play a game of chicken. Our being bogged down in Iraq amid an increasingly hostile population that has seen fit to empower a Shiite majority friendly to Iran has hurt not helped our position vis a vis the Iranians.
#54 – Gene, if you would like to criticize or make wisecracks, at least have the goodwill to be specific about what you mean.
Ian, 57 “It has been downhill for our reputation of omnipotence ever since. Iran consequently sees a window of opportunity that it has no assurance will remain open indefinitely. It has seen the fumbling response to North Korea and its nukes and has decided – wisely or not – to play a game of chicken”.
It’s been downhill? Really?
Doesn’t that overlook the change in Libya?
The ouster of french and soviet influence in the Middle East?
The aid in the WOT –both intelligence gathering and crippling al Qaeda’s financial network– from the Sauds, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Turks, the Egyptians, the Germans.
The increased involvement of NATO in peacekeeping roles that once might have been a domestic pressure point back home?
The elections, the Constitutions, the interim govts, the parliments, the incremental movement toward political stabilities in Afghanistan and Iraq?
“Iran sees a window of opportunity…”? Really, Ian? Because you’ve just assessed what tens of national security staffs in dozen of countries have been unable to do recently –see into the minds and hearts of Iranian leaders and determine what they think. No small feat there, Ian. Congrats.
I think what Iranian leaders see is a chance to use the UN (as evil Western culture) and the US (more evil, only pagan) to whip up nationalism within her borders and keep the mullahs in power. That’s why they took the embassy –the hostages– the triumph of shooting down the US rescue… it’s cartering to the domestic political power interests.
What part of the six part talks with NK do you think have been “fumbling”, Ian? And who’s playing this game of “chicken with the nukes”? Iran? NK? America in her relations with those countries?
It seems to me that whatever the Administration does will be criticized by the Left –because that’s what a party of Just Do No does. Criticize, create discord, holler and hope something sticks to the wall of Outrageous Critics.
Ian, stop posting the leftwing talking points and try debating policy. If you think America is weakened today because we stood up to the Taliban and Saddam, just say so. I don’t think so –I think that’s why we’ve had progress on so many fronts you seem determined to avoid noting.
The UN is interacting with America on an international solution to Iran’s pre-armament effort because we have a strong, no-holds barred John Bolton leading our delegation –which says we mean business and will not tolerate the usual self-serving, bureaucratic, BS the UN loves to embrace– and because of a strong President and Secy of State.
You really think our reputation is going downhill? Or is that just wishful thinking?
Erik said:
I don’t put my full trust in anything the United States military says. They spin and lie, just like everyone else.
So how do you discern the truth, and from where do get it??? Who is everyone else? Does “everyone else” also include the NYT? Al Franken? Al Gore? Or are they, in your mind, somehow immune from the practice of omitting and distorting facts in order to have message continuity?
And isn’t this ironic, that you believe this beheading report, even though the hard evidence does not exist. You are taking the word of someone you trust over those you do not. Isn’t that exactly how Bush inherited the conclusion that Saddam was developing WMD’s. Our own intelligence agencies, along with those of other countries, had been telling our government this for the last five years prior to 9/11. You believe the beheading report because it is the more likely truth, given the current conditions in Iraq. Bush believed the WMD’s for the same reason; Iraq was unmonitored for five years and developing WMD’s during that time was the most likely consequence of the absence of UN inspection. We only know, with reasonable certainty, that they were not developing WMD’s because WE ARE THERE ON THE GROUND.
#50 The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
Too bad we can’t always keep foreign policy cemented to that principled anchor. Not following that bit of wisdom is what gave us the cold war, Vietnam, and now Iraq and the situation in the Middle East. Of coarse in the real world of the real world, a nation must have alliances with otherwise undesirable partners when the need for an ally, any ally, is desperate. See WW2 and the Soviet Union, and Iraq during the Iran / Iraq war.
We gave Hussein next to no support — he got nearly all his from the USSR, which you’d know if you’d been alive and sentient. We also aided Iran against Iraq minimally — that’s what Iran-Contra was all about.
#59: “If you think America is weakened today because we stood up to the Taliban and Saddam, just say so.”
How many times do I have to say it before it sinks into your brains: toppling the Taliban because of their refusal to give up bin Laden left the US at the pinnacle of its ACTUAL and PERCEIVED power in the world. Indeed, it was that demonstration of power and the subsequent threat to use it again that led Saddam to agree to let intrusive inspections begin anew. It was the Bush Administration that decided to force out the inspectors and proceed with its “cakewalk” into Iraq. And yes, I believe it’s been downhill from there.
“What part of the six part talks with NK do you think have been “fumbling”
What talks would these be? Perhaps the ones that ended in November without progress?
“The elections, the Constitutions, the interim govts, the parliments, the incremental movement toward political stabilities in Afghanistan and Iraq?”
You’re being sarcastic, right? Which constitutions and governments? Oh yeah, the ones that give the last legal say to religious wackos who think the death penalty for a guy who converts from Islam to Christianity is appropriate. The ones where the elected Afghan leader has little power outside of his capital and the Taliban whom we overthrew holds sway in many parts of the country. And the “political stability” of a goverment in Iraq still squabbling over who gets to be Prime Minister while militias and Interior Ministry death squads terrorize the populace. All the while, increasingly warm and friendly relations between Iraq and Iran develop. Your “incremental movement” would be a joke if it wasn’t so tragic.
#43
What a poor, ignorant, gullible, misguided, partisan, felching, team killing fucktard.
Hi, Cal. Good to hear from you.
Here’s a title of a post by GayPatriotWest:
“Of Comments and Civility, II*
Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:16 pm – April 3, 2006.
Filed under: General, Blogging”
And Cal, here’s the final sentence of the first page of the post:
“Friends, you make a better case when you leave out the ad hominem.”
That was my reference in comment #54. GPW’s post was just yesterday; I didn’t think further reference was needed.
Agape.
Indeed, it was that demonstration of power and the subsequent threat to use it again that led Saddam to agree to let intrusive inspections begin anew. It was the Bush Administration that decided to force out the inspectors and proceed with its “cakewalk” into Iraq.
Again, Ian, it has been conclusively proven that the UN and its member countries were being bribed by Saddam to sabotage inspections and block any negative action being taken against Iraq.
To continue was utterly futile. All it did was enrich you and your fellow liberals at the expense of millions of Iraqis living in a hell that you completely denied existed — in exchange for money.
Furthermore, Ian, you and your fellow liberals were utterly and completely BLIND to Iran’s nuclear program and to North Korea’s nuclear program — before the Bush administration stood up and confronted both.
The only people who are buying the tripe of liberals like you are the ones who are in denial about exactly what Iraq, North Korea, and Iran were doing. There was a reason all three were included in the “Axis of Evil” — and those reasons have all been proven correct.
Had you and your fellow liberals been in power, Ian, Saddam would remain, the Taliban would remain, and both North Korea and Iran would have nuclear weapons. Nothing would have been done to stop any of these. NOTHING. You and your fellow liberals have made it clear that you would oppose any attempt to do so.
As it stands, Saddam and the Taliban are gone with growing democracies in their places, North Korea is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and Iran is slowly being crushed to death by world opinion.
#57 Many pardons for not realizing that someone might possibly think that National reputation is something that can have a shelf-life of only two years. Apparently I didn’t read your post well enough to catch that rather unusual outlook and just assumed a more long term view.
It’s still BS.
#64 – Gene –
From context, I think it should have been very evident that I was asking what you were referring to IN THIS THREAD as objectionable (in your view).
If you still mean to hold to your comment #54 then, in that case, I would still appreciate knowing (as you have not said what).
#66: “It’s still BS.”
Just because you declare it to be? No backup? No cites? Just your declaration. Uh-huh. If you think our reputation as a world power hasn’t suffered gravely since the invasion of Iraq, then you have your head stuck firmly in the sand. But why should I be all that surprised? You probably believed the hype about the “cakewalk.” Indeed, you’re so in denial, you could probably get a senior position in the Bush White House or Rumsfeld’s Defense department. Go for it!
I don’t confuse popularity with reputation.
Our demonstrated reputation for having no backbone was earned over a long period of time. You’re asking me to believe, without back-ups or cites, that we suddenly aquired a “don’t mess with the US” reputation from 2001 and then lost it in 2003.
Dang.
#69: Believe what you want. The crunch is coming. We’ll be out of Iraq in less than a year and leave behind a mess. It will not be a pretty sight and the GOP will be to blame for the debacle. But that’s just my prediction. You and your GOP just continue to believe in your flower-strewn fantasies of Jeffersonian democracies spread across the Middle East. That way, by the time reality intrudes, it’ll be too late to save your foolish ideology.
By the way:
Good thread-starter, Bruce (#0) – and I notice that, after #5, not a single howling moonbat here has even touched it (much less reflected on it).
Ian, it’s great to converse on important policy issues of the day… but when you routinely throw out wildly speculative statements which are not rooted in realistic political perceptions, it becomes hard –nay, impossible– to offer you any insight beyond the short nose of your singular, limited, partisan view.
When you dismiss others with the silly blogisms of “cites? no backup?” etc and then go on to boldly and inaccurately state that the aren’t any meaningful constitutions in Afghanistan or Iraq, elections are inconsequential in your view, back channel talks with NK are meaningless ’cause, in your sublime opinion, the talks halted in November… yeah, Ian, the PUBLIC ones did but there are important back channel dialogues now underway with the upcoming leadership in NK as well as those ongoing in Moscow and Ho Chi Minh City with current NK leaders. I suggest you try reading Foreign Affairs or Economist or Wilson Journal or something other than Advocate for your IR information. It’s safe for you: nothing in those journals will injure your left partisan bent.
Ian, you offered that you had insight into what was in the hearts and minds of Iranian officials –YOU KNEW what they were thinking, their strategies, their hopes. Like many have said here, it’s utter bunk. And your assessment of Iran-Iraq-WOT-the future is flawed in the most fundamental way: you fail to inform your opinions with information or insight… time and time again.
You don’t seek debate or conversation –you seek to insight, inflame and goad. Wild speculation doesn’t substitute in my world for reasoned debate. And, guess what Ian, I know how to quit you.
I’m flat out done with your comments –either reading them or responding to them. Adios Ian. End of your line.
#72: “I’m flat out done with your comments –either reading them or responding to them. Adios Ian.”
I take that as a PROMISE so I expect you’ll keep your word. Fine by me. That way I can continue to comment on what you say without having to keep rebutting you.
First off, you claim that I stated “that the aren’t any meaningful constitutions in Afghanistan or Iraq, elections are inconsequential in your view.” I did nothing of the sort and you know it. What I did do is point out concrete examples of how those constitutions and elections are having adverse consequences that make a mockery of our original goals. If really substantive talks on NK are underway behind the scenes, then that’s great but with the five year track record of this administration on dealing – or not dealing – with that regime, I can only judge by actual results. And from what I can gather, the actual results since Bush has been in office is for the number of nukes NK possesses has at least quadrupled from “maybe two” to eight or more
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4847449/
You go on to in effect deny that there is a window of opportunity for Iran to play its game of brinkmanship while the US is tied down in Iraq by stating I claim to “see into the minds and hearts of Iranian leaders.” In the next breath you do the SAME thing yourself by offering an alternate explanation for Iranian actions “what Iranian leaders see is a chance to use the UN…”!
As for John Bolton, I guess he’ll have to act fast – doesn’t his recess appointment expire later this year? With the Dems expected to pick up some Senate seats, his chances of confirmation are even dimmer next year. Of course, the Bush administration could always resort to a wag the dog strategy to enhance the GOP electoral outlook this year. So watch for an attack on Iran late summer or early fall to fire up the base. That and immigrant bashing might just do the trick!
I did nothing of the sort and you know it. What I did do is point out concrete examples of how those constitutions and elections are having adverse consequences that make a mockery of our original goals.
Of course, what you conveniently forget to mention is how pathetically shitty the governments that they replaced are.
I think it needs to be made clear to the world what libs prefer in terms of governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And before you attempt the “I supported inspections” whine, Ian, first publicly admit that Iraq was paying the UN and several of its member countries specifically to sabotage inspections and sanctions against Saddam.
And from what I can gather, the actual results since Bush has been in office is for the number of nukes NK possesses has at least quadrupled from “maybe two” to eight or more.
Of course, what you never admit, Ian, is that Clintonistas like you denied North Korea had nuclear weapons in the first place. You said they WEREN’T in violation of the Agreed Framework, that they WEREN’T building weapons, and that they WEREN’T processing plutonium. You bashed the Bush administration for even suggesting such a thing.
Just like you denied Iran had a nuclear program in the first place.
NDT, what you just said about the history on North Korea is right.
A broader point, if I may: North Korea is not a U.S. problem, nor even a U.N. problem. It is China problem; there is NOTHING we can begin to do about North Korea without Chinese consent and participation.
In reality, the world is a big complicated place and the Bush Adminstration cannot AND NEVER DOES act unilaterally.
Iraq happened because of twelve years of U.N. resolutions about it and a Gulf War I that legally never ended (and whose cease fire conditions Saddam clearly broke) and an entire coalition of partners who agreed with us about the preceeding.
Yes, the French, the Russians and Chinese were all very much on Saddam’s payroll, and tried to slow down (or if possible, stop) the Coalition enforcement of U.N. resolutions. But their efforts were not to be. Too many U.N. resolutions had accumulated and Saddam’s track record was too awful and Blair and Bush had too much resolve after 9-11.
Iran and North Korea are their own individual (thus different) cases. The Bush Administration has been acting multilaterally with both, at least up to this point, and – just as with Iraq (but probably in slight different forms) – major action won’t be possible or supportable without considerable multi-lateral support.
That’s reality. That’s the real world. Ian, deal with it.
#76: “That’s the real world. Ian, deal with it.”
I always do. You make a good point regarding NK and China. The world is a complicated place. That’s why when you make the decision to go to war in a country like Iraq, you’d better have a hell of a good plan to deal with the aftermath because such a major venture does not proceed in isolation from the rest of this complicated world. From the results so far, I’d say we didn’t have much of a plan. And the adverse worldwide consequences of that are liable to impact us for decades to come.
Uh. It is our problem, at least in the sense that a nuclear attack on S. Korea would likely kill hundereds of thousands of American troops and civilians.
Duh……………. and obviously choosing not to understand my point…. hence, no further response necessary.
Oh but Gryph: Moving to a personal note, or mano a mano…
I do want to thank you for making yet another exception to your clear policy against your reading or responding to comments on GayPatriot.
You make so very, very, very many exceptions to that policy that I’m sure we should be grateful and humbled.
Calarato, yes yes… grateful and humbled to be in the presence of GrampaGryph… humbled, yes yes.
Interesting to note that the very people who cry about human rights show the least respect for them (eg the court-ordered murder of Theresa Marie Schindler at the hands of her abusive husband Michael Schiavo, the kidnapping and dumping of Elian Gonzalez, the open appeasement of mass-murdering Saddam Hussein)…yet President Bush OTOH has shown infinitely MORE concern for human rights and MORE concern for TRUE diversity than the practitioners of irrational partisan hatred in the Democratic Party and the controlled media.