Sen. Russ Feingold’s screed regarding Bush’s speech last night is one of the purest examples of the reason people like me have deserted the Democratic Party:
With the country listening, the President had the chance to finally give our troops and the American public some sense of when he believes this conflict in Iraq will be over and when our brave men and women in uniform will come home.
Earth-to-Feingold, Bush does not want to state WHEN (sorry for the caps but they are necessary in this rare case) our troops will come home because, as he has repeated again and again, that would put them and their Iraqi colleagues in harm’s way and also tell the Baathists and Islamofacists (remember them?) what we are up to and allow them to wait and take over Iraq. Also, anyone with the slightest intelligence realizes that it is impossible to tell at this juncture when the Iraqi government forces will be prepared to defend themselves against the fascists. When they are, we will go. (Bush made that perfectly clear too when he said “When they stand up, we will stand down.”)
Nevertheless, the fuddy-duddy Senator Feingold goes on attacking Bush for his lack of “candor”:
Instead, the President urged us to remember the lessons of 9/11. But it is with those lessons in mind that I oppose the Administration’s current approach to Iraq. The President keeps talking about staying the course, but what the American people really want is candor and clarity about where this course is taking us.
I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the U.S. military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission.
Should we send that timeframe to Zarkawi, Senator, or directly to Bin Laden himself?… Okay, say it loud and say it proud: Buchanan and Feingold in ‘O8!
UPDATE: It may be of interest to Sen. Feingold… though I somehow doubt it… that Omar, writing from Baghdad, says this of the current discussion:
It’s visible to everyone that debates over the war in Iraq, war on terror, invasion or occupation or whatever you may name it are at peak levels right now. The process is being questioned, criticized and discussed more profoundly than at any time in the last two years but you know what? That’s not happening in Iraq; you can find such discussions and accusations in America but you can’t find them in Iraq.
Wonder why, Senator Feingold? Think about it.
The posts, by Feingold and by Omar, are indeed remarkable to compare.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
319 Comments
1. yama-arashi:What bothers me most about Feingold’s and the rest of the Dems’ responses are there focus group tested, marketing guru’d feel. Maybe it is just me. But there is a superficiality there that is very upsetting. If you want a “deadline” then you have to address the reason why Bush not wanting a deadline is wrong. The Dems. never raise the debate to that level. It is all about “bring the troops home,” “deadlines,” “timelines,” “candor” and so on, no engagement at the level of thought. Ultimately dishonest and sycophantic. Though I did hear a number of Dems give up the word “quagmire.” A step in the right direction. Must’ve been doing badly in the focus groups.
We are at war for Buddha’s sake and the Dems are marketing soda pop. AAAAAARGH.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:04 pm 2. Knucklehead:Cognitive Dissonance or Sedition. ?
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:26 pm 3. c:Ha! The Dem talking points are getting quite alliterate. First, Pelosi last night kept repeating the Prez needed to be more about “truth and trust”, and now Feingold is going on about how he needs to give us more “candor and clarity”. My best guess: college sophomore MoveOn/DNC volunteer is currently scripting the Party communiques.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:31 pm 4. Bruce Wechsler (formerly Bruce W.):If only a degree of honest resolve were a prerequisite to introducing a resolution.
It’s worse than superficiality, though it is expressed as such. He knows damned well what the mission was and how difficult it can be.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:36 pm 5. Rick Ballard:Knuck,
I find this Sedition Act to be much better at defining what is currently going on. It also has the benefit of actually having been the law of the United States. I wouldn’t trust a definition from your source as far as I could spit.
If it was good enough for Woodrow Wilson, it’s good enough for today’s crop of seditionists.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:39 pm 6. Bruce Wechsler (formerly Bruce W.):Roger, you know all too well why the locals in Iraq aren’t talking about it. They fear that if they mention the issue, the Evil Invaders will NEVER leave. The Imperialist military has scared the Iraqis into silence.
Don’t try and deny it, now. What’s that? No denial? I’ll take that as an admission.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:41 pm 7. Rick Ballard:Knuck,
I just realized that my comment could be misconstrued – I don’t trust the source because it’s contaminated – I do trust Knucklehead explicitly. I’ve yet to be led astray by anything that you write.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:43 pm 8. Bruce Wechsler (formerly Bruce W.):Two best quotes from Omar’s post, IMO:
We’re living through probably the most critical phase of this conflict; a phase where firm decisions and clear stands are needed more than ever, while sterile arguments can do nothing but weaken our position against our common enemy; the global terrorism.
….
So my advice to the American politicians on both sides but especially those on the left side is: grow up, this is not the time to seek political wins and it’s not the time to use other’s mistakes to get some publicity.
We’re facing very tough times so use your skills to find solutions.
Bottom line is, talk less, think more and do more.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:49 pm 9. DaKruser:Look, last night’s speech played well with the hard=core supporters of this Administration, but MOST of the people who voted for them last election didn’t decide until the last moment for whom they were going to vote. That means the Middle-ground voters.
To myself and MANY other middle=grounders, last night was a chance for the President to come on TV, and tell me what it takes for us to leave, and give me a chance to climb on board the train. He didn’t, and the Jihadis are dancing in the streets because of it.
There would be NOTHING to stop him from saying, with these conditions….fill in this blank…we begin (notice the verb here) our drawdown as of…fill in the date…
That places all the burdon on the “resistance” to provide our requirements and steals the propaganda mojo of all the Jihadi/Arab nay-sayers.
Instead, I got the same old stuff I heard during the election. Don’t forget 9/11 (I haven’t), we have the strongest and best military in the world (I know that already). We are committed to a free Iraq (Ok, but describe what that means. Shoot, I know Iraq will be free, but, I’ll be older tomorrow too, unless I define older as 10 yrs older, or becoming 95).
Like I said, the Jihadis are dancing in the street. “Everything we ever said about the Great Satan is true!!! They NEVER intend to leave Iraq!!!!! The ONLY WANT YOUR OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!”
and we can’t even argue with them because our President didn’t give us any ammunition.
I await the bombs that will undoubtedly head my way, but just to answer a few FAQ’s that will be included….
Yes, I am associated with the Military.
Yes, I have been to Iraq.
Yes, I did vote in the last election.
Yes, I love my Country.
Yes, I am a Democrat.
Yes, when I am ordered to go, I will return to Iraq and do my Duty.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:54 pm 10. The Bushinator:i think a timeline with DATES is impractical. but a timeline that is tied to the completion of milestones is more appropriate. (such as, after a certain number of iraqi troops are trained, we will withdraw x number of troops, etc, etc)
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:55 pm 11. JK Ribera:ANyone who recommends publishing timelines of any sort in a War on Terror is extraordinarily naive. Bin Laden et al are just as sophisticated as Hitler’s generals. Would you have published a timeline for them? Get over it.
Jun 29, 2005 - 12:59 pm 12. Knucklehead:Rick,
I understood that you were impugning thelawencyclopedia.com and not me (only I engage in the ad hominum method of attack ;>)
I will accept the superior definition as per the US Sedition Act of 1918 provided the fine is increased to represent 2005 dollars rather than 1918 dollars. Do you think the 20 years sufficient?
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:03 pm 13. Rick Ballard:Before responding to another anonymous newcomer – flag wrapped or not – please read this post at Neo-neocon clear to the bottom. There is a definite method to provacateurs work and Hayden lays it out clearly.
Seditionists are such nasty small people – anonymous seditionists perhaps more so. I would think anyone who wears the uniform would be happy to use their own name.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:04 pm 14. Rick Ballard:this post at Neo-neocons.
If I don’t get you in this life, Priveew, I’ll get you in the next one.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:07 pm 15. The Bushinator:ok, so we’re gonna have over 100,000 troops in iraq and spend billions of dollars a year for an indefinate amount of time until indefinate goals are met.
the administration’s problem is that they haven’t even described what they’re doing over there that’s gonna change things dramatically. killing or capturing a terrorist is pointless, because as long as the hostility towards americans is there, more terrorists will spring up. it’s like plucking weeds. the administration needs to spend some more time trying to assure arabs (and americans, and europeans, etc) that we have goals that everyone shares in, and that we want them to take responsibility for their own democracy.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:08 pm 16. IrishLad317:The amount of fact and logic that has to be ignored to take the positions the left takes is incredible to me. To call W a liar about WMD, you have to ignore that everyone, including Clinton/Gore & Co., and Kerry, thought they were there. When Tommy Franks visited Iraq’s neighbors before the war, they all warned him that Saddam would use his WMD on our troops… so apparently everyone thought they were there. Here’s a question: Would you rather have someone in charge of the WoT that thought there were WMDs there and who is doubtlessly still trying to figure out where they went, or would you like someone who marches in, says, “Well… not here, sorry about that”, and marches back out?
This whole conversation about all the “mistakes” the administration made during “major combat operations” and the “lack of planning” comes straight out of the I-don’t-understand-reality school of life. In war, like in many other things in life, you make your best plans and back-up plans, take your action, and see what the reaction is, then you adapt. That is exactly what we did. That is truly all we could do. For people with ZERO CLUE like Nancy Pelosi to question what our professional soldiers planned and how they’re carrying out the mission, and for them to assert (without proof, or merely with negative interpretation of only parts of the evidence available) that things are not going well… it’s so easy, and, worse, it plays to people who are incapable of thinking deeply enough to realize that Monday morning quarterbacking is a pathetic activity engaged in only by people who are not in the fight.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:09 pm 17. Horatio:Why do conservatives claim that helping and hand-holding not work when it comes to, say, black welfare moms, and yet religiously insist upon it when it comes to security forces in Iraq? Why not just leave? It’s not like there are any WMDs that anyone could get their hands on.
Even if Iraq were to descend into utter chaos, what would be the big deal? After all, Darfur is utter chaos and no one seems to care about that.
Oh yeah, forgot. All that oil. Yeah. My bad.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:09 pm 18. The Truth:ANyone who recommends publishing timelines of any sort in a War on Terror is extraordinarily naive.
George W. Bush, 4/9/99:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
George W. Bush, 6/5/99
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/in-1999-bush-demanded-a-timetable/
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:12 pm 19. yama-arashi:The Truth,
You only proved that Clinton was right then and Bush is right now. I guess actually being Commander in Chief sharpens you up.
Did you actually chose that name yourself? Just curious.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:20 pm 20. The Bushinator:I hope nobody’s head explodes…
June 28, 2005
The Speech the President Should Give
By JOHN F. KERRY
Boston
TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It’s long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course – a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.
The reality is that the Bush administration’s choices have made Iraq into what it wasn’t before the war – a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself – and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day – in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won’t be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.
Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way – coupled with a strategy to succeed.
So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in “the last throes” leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.
The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We’re doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.
He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.
Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one – something that our generals now say could take two more years – it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.
The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq’s neighbors and countries like India.
The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.
Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel – an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill – will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.
The next months are critical to Iraq’s future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.
John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:24 pm 21. Rick Ballard:Knuck,
Certainly, bring the fine up to ‘05 dollars. Twenty years is okay. No parole, though.
All that’s needed is a Rep with the brass to bring a bill forward. It could be debated at the same time as Feingold’s resolution.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:25 pm 22. Knucklehead:Why do conservatives claim that helping and hand-holding not work when it comes to, say, black welfare moms, and yet religiously insist upon it when it comes to security forces in Iraq?
Is it humanly possible that someone capable of operating a keyboard and mouse cannot recognize the stunning stupidity of that question? Just askin’.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:31 pm 23. The Bushinator:yea, let’s go back to the era of the red scare.
better get used to the phrase: “i am not, nor have i ever been, a member of the terrorist party.”
i long for the days when saying “fuck the president” can get me thrown in jail.
wait, i might as well move to china or russia(or about 20 even worse countries).
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:31 pm 24. Rick Ballard:It’s interesting to reflect that Feingold carried the anti First Amendment act (with doofus McCain, of course) for the Pew/Tides/Soros groups. He definitely dances when SBL, Ltd. pulls the strings.
I may revise my optimistic projections on Rep takeovers of Dem moderate seats if this keeps up. You really can’t protect the truly stupid from themselves. I wonder if the Sentaors Nelson have been quizzed on the Feingold idiocy yet.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:32 pm 25. Soldier's Dad:Politically, the Dem’s are riding both sides of the fence. “If changes aren’t made, Iraq will be a failure, if changes are made, Iraq will succeed”
The reality is that troops will be drawn down at some point in a slow, deliberate fashion. One need only look at the slow steady stream of FOB’s being turned over to the Iraqi’s or the number of police stations being repeated attacked and holding.
When the troops begin to come home, the democrats will claim it was because Bush finally headed their advice, if the troops don’t come home, it will be because Bush failed to head their advice.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:39 pm 26. Buddy Larsen:How is that UN operation going, Truth?
Horatio, have you looked into the Wisconsin Plan, that Israel has adopted BTW, as an example of what exactly constitutes “help”? And you will disdain the oil angle even after AQ has the ME and you’re spending your days in a 30s-style bread line?
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:40 pm 27. Knucklehead:Well, using this as the model…
“F*ck the president!” might be off-limits. Oh well, into each life a little self-discipline must intrude. We’re gonna need bigger jails! What’s the occupancy rate down there in Gitmo?
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:41 pm 28. Fresh Air:Golly! Did somebody blow the silent whistle? Moonbats on the wing, 2 o’clock high. Look out! Guano below!
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:45 pm 29. The Truth:Re: Sedition
Humour me: the War on Terror is widely accepted to be a war with no end in the forseeable future; it is, in essence, a state of perpetual war.
To those who would outlaw dissent in a time of war, are you not, in fact, proposing to outlaw dissent in perpetuity?
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:48 pm 30. JenLArt:Alas, poor Horatio, why is that Liberals insist that helping and hand-holding the terrorists is the best way to keep them from killing us?
And, “The Bushinator,” I’m sick you can’t be thrown in jail for saying “F*** the President.”, too.
If I were Queen, I would insist upon it. For life. Or perhaps it would be the shredder for you.
Sadly, so much knowledge of the ways to persuade “dissenters” will go with Saddam when he’s executed.
One can only assume from the presence and vehemence of the Leftist trolls here that President Bush’s speech was a lot more effective than anyone is giving him credit for.
Crow and humble pie is available for you all at the RLS buffet.
What really galls you is not only what President Bush is saying, but the fact that most of the American people, as well as the military, are standing with him.
IOW, your message has been heard and rejected.
(And thanks for posting nothing: We all saw JF’inK’s whining in the NYSlimes yesterday. He lost the election, also, along with a lot of other peacenik Dems in November.)
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:49 pm 31. Kyda Sylvester:Buchanan and Feingold in ‘O8!
Wouldn’t that be fabulous!
I would expect no less from one of the masterminds behind McCain-Feingold.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:50 pm 32. Fresh Air:Rick–
Is it okay if we tell The Truth to shut up for eternity?
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:50 pm 33. Knucklehead:Fresh Air,
They are out and about the past couple days, aren’t they. Are the DU and Kos sites down? The full moon is long gone… Any unusual solar activity going on?
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:52 pm 34. Buddy Larsen:Bushinator, good satire, right on.
Sometimes I get so disgusted with Washington, I just wish we would lose the war. We deserve to lose, it would be good for this country to just say no to the world, and concentrate on fixing the environment and unfairness. Anybody agree with me?
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:55 pm 35. Sandy P:I am in my mid-40s.
We have been in Germany and SorK longer than I have been alive.
When are the troops coming home?
–ok, so we’re gonna have over 100,000 troops in iraq and spend billions of dollars a year for an indefinate amount of time until indefinate goals are met.—
Worked for WW III – the Cold War. And we didn’t win it, the commies/marxists/et al(?) just went underground until 9/11.
And we had even more troops in Europe than we have in Iraq.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:56 pm 36. Sandy P:I am in my mid-40s.
We have been in Germany and SorK longer than I have been alive.
When are the troops coming home?
–ok, so we’re gonna have over 100,000 troops in iraq and spend billions of dollars a year for an indefinate amount of time until indefinate goals are met.—
Worked for WW III – the Cold War. And we didn’t win it, the commies/marxists/et al(?) just went underground until 9/11.
And we had even more troops in Europe than we have in Iraq.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:56 pm 37. Knucklehead:are you… proposing to outlaw dissent in perpetuity?
Did somebody propose outlawing dissent? I missed that. Replace the word “dissent” in your question with “sedition” and, well, we might, Rabbit, we might.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:56 pm 38. Sandy P:oops. I swear I only pressed the key 1x.
Jun 29, 2005 - 1:57 pm 39. Rick Ballard:FA,
There is a fair chance that one returned home crying, bedraggled and beshat and whined a bit. Or it could be that the voodoo masters are beating the drums and driving the little Ko$$acks to a frenzy. We’ve been without droolers for entertainment purposes for a bit so having a few around to deride is a change of pace.
Read that piece at Neo-neocons for an idea of what’s passing for thought on the left these days. She caught a drooler in comments who was a bit entertaining. I really think that resurrecting Tom Hayden is a wonderful idea. I’d love to see some current pictures of him with his arm around the Nelson boys, or Cantwell, or Sarbanes, or Jeffords, or Stabenow, or Bingaman. It really would be helpful to have the Senators who are actually running have him on them like a leach. In fact it would be helpful to ask each of those Senators what they think of Feingold’s piece. Hell, it would be be great to bring Feingold’s resolution to the floor and get a vote out of Hillary on it.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:00 pm 40. Knucklehead:The web really is a fabulous invention (thanks Al!)
Two seconds with google and you can be in Fun With Moonbats Land.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:02 pm 41. Kyda Sylvester:Is it humanly possible that someone capable of operating a keyboard and mouse cannot recognize the stunning stupidity of that question? Just askin’.
Yes. Obviously.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:03 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:I think Kerry’s idea of skipping the Iraq National Army and instead creating individual armies from each of the ethnic groups, is wonderful. We could provoke a regional ethnic/religious war, get the world involved, use the excuse to knock off the Chinese before they take over any more domestic fast food businesses, and finally get some use out of our Trident fleet.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:05 pm 43. Knucklehead:Anybody agree with me?
Well, yes, Buddy, as if you weren’t doing your best attorney schtick there and asking a question you already know the answer to. One of my daughters, in seems like only yesterday but wasn’t, upon having her legions decimated at the Battle of Curfew Pass was more than willing to wage full scale war on unfairness. The sheer ponderous, oppressive weight of unfairness is more than enough reason to pull up the drawbridges and get to the important stuff like holding hands with… heh, just you nevermind who I’m holding hands with! Buchanan-Feingold ‘08!
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:11 pm 44. Knucklehead:Kyda,
Ouch! Touche
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:13 pm 45. Knucklehead:Holy Scrappleface, Batman!
I gotta tellya, Buddy, I really need to work on the patience thing and stop refusing to read beyond the first sentence or two of the Junior Senator’s pronouncements.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:18 pm 46. Buddy Larsen:Thanks, Knucklehead, I knew you were a brother. I took last samester off and played my bongos hours every day but when the peanut butter ran out bush was still president so i’m tired of bein the only one who cares.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:20 pm 47. Canucklehead:It is very clear that the Iraqis are going to fix their own problem. The American cavalry will be available but will not be in all places at all times. The Iraqis will need to work out their democratic details amongst themselves while the rest of the world looks on.
This process has got to kill the morale of the terrorists. The only international support they get is “hot air” that is purchased at premium prices. The terrorists have been deployed as tokens for a domestic political fight in the USA for those people willing to answer the siren call of “…If an election were held today….”. Please note that there will be no election in the USA today. The terrorists will need to wait 3+ years to field their candidate.
Domestically, the Democranks are speaking to their shrinking and hardening “core”. They are giving the phrase “baby boomer” a bad name as the other (read that younger) demographics simply shake their heads at their dis-plea of leadership.
Internationally, the Democranks don’t appear on anyone’s radar. They may as well speak Latin to the masses as their message is an ancient call of “what goes on here”. It’s a fact of human nature that no one wants to be associated with “losers”.
The Democranks are spending the summer months painting a new battlefield that, come autumn, will track sand from the Republicans coming in from the beaches.
The American military will be invited to stay for many decades to come, as that will serve the wishes of the Iraqi democracy. This ain’t no Vietnam. It’s Poland after WWII. Iraqis will build and maintain significant business/miltary/cultural links to the USA. That is the way of the world. In a small dangerous place, it’s important to keep your friends close.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:22 pm 48. Bruce Wechsler (formerly Bruce W.):DaKruser (12:54 PM)
Are you dissapointed that you did not get thrashed about as much as you expected? That doesn’t to happen much here without what seems to be intentional provocation (which I don’t think you displayed). My principle objection to your comments is that Jihadis are not dancing in the streets because Bush somehow admitted that the U.S. is never leaving. If they are dancing, it’s because they think that the idiots are proving themselves useful once again and will be able to pressure the Administration into cutting and running before the job is done. I hope they’re wrong.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:34 pm 49. The Bushinator:look,
this isn’t about democrats or republicans.
honestly, both are so incredibly flawed and pointless, it’s like arguiing over whose feces looks better.
instead of diminishing this to a “wow liberals are crazy” or “wow repubs are close-minded” debate, how about looking at it with some impartiality.
frankly, going to war in iraq wasn’t the worse move made by the pres. in fact, for many reasons, it was probably a positive move that can have some good outcomes in the long run, both for the mideast, the US, and the rest of the world.
I think frankly most people have accepted that the war happened and that we cannot immediately withdraw. Hell, the democrats voted with the repubs on a couple humongous expenditure bills in congress. so don’t accuse them of trying to cut funding and get our troops back right away. That just creates an illusory argument to argue against, and easily at that.
Frankly, the administration is failing to gain full support because they are still arguing as if people are suggesting we not go to war, or that we pull our troops out right away. I frankly have not heard this proposed by any reasonable person, nor do i think that many Americans would believe this is the best course of action at this point.
All Americans want is to know that there is a strategy at hand, that all this hard work is being done with specific goals in mind. The Administration most likely has goals in mind, but they are failing to communicate these ideas to the public. This has enormously bad consequences, because it breeds a lack of confidence domestically, contempt internationally, and fuel for the Arabian fascists who use it to proclaim that america will never leave.
To succeed, we must instead analyze where we are, what we are doing, and how we can best proceed to help rebuild Iraq. Saying “We must stay the course” isn’t enough, if we aren’t ever told what the course is. What are we actively doing to encourage stability besides capturing a few insurgents here and there? We need to show we are working WITH the iraqis (no, this does not mean we have to work with terrorists and coddle them. it means work with the majority of their citizens who are good people and not fanatics). And we must show the rest of the region that with their assistance we can lower our troop presence there more quickly.
Again, i’m sure we will have troops there for a long time. Not as many hopefully, but some should stay to ensure peace. This shouldn’t be an issue of dems vs. repubs. (god knows that dems love to support nation building! cough cough, gore and clinton). it’s an issue of effectively communicating ideas and plans to reasuure the us, iraqi, mid-east, and international public.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:41 pm 50. Old Dad:OT but only slightly. Reading this thread prompts me to wonder who is our stupidest sitting Senator. To simplify things, let’s just assume that saying stupid things repeatedly qualifies one as stupid. Moreover, ignore potential mental illness.
I’d be hard pressed to distinguish betweem Senators Durbin, Kerry, and Kennedy, but then again, has Senator Boxer weighed in?
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:44 pm 51. David Burge:Buchanan and Feingold? You don’t know the half of it, Roger.
The anti-war coalition is a veritable rainbow of diversity; from Michael Moore to Justin Raimondo, from Noam Chomsky to David Duke, from CAIR to StormFront, from Lewis Lapham to the Raelians. And if that weren’t enough to show the anti-war movement’s Big Tent, just look at the latest group officially speaking up against the Iraq war — the Reverend Fred Phelps and his Topeka homo-hater cult.
Behold: the nutbag Left and the knuckle dragging Right, Wobblies and Birchers, Maoists and Klansman, Campus Kiddies and fagbasher fascist, joined together in a group hug to stop Chimpy and his hooked-nosed neocon co-conspirators.
Get a room, y’all.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:47 pm 52. Rick Ballard:Old Dad,
Ya gotta get Hagel in there. He wants the moveon morons to stop using his words in one of their ads. Problem is, they’re using them in precisely the manner that he did.
I think Cantwell is slightly smarter than Boxer but when you’re talking about IQ’s in single digits it’s truly a distinction without a difference.
Frankly, I think we have had a better class of provacateur in the past.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:54 pm 53. Sandy P:If the MSM chooses not to cover how we’re working and have been working w/the Iraqis, just how do we get the message out?
It’s on the DOD site, isn’t it?
Chrenkoff can’t do it all.
Unless the pubbies preface every comment by Do you know what we’ve done in Iraq today, we’re going to continue to be Viet Nam’d.
Jun 29, 2005 - 2:59 pm 54. Old Dad:Rick Ballard,
Hagel certainly qualifies under the mental illnes dispensation. Byrd, too.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:00 pm 55. Buddy Larsen:Bushinator, nice post; I think your point is already being addressed: the world needs more OIF communication from the administration. The text of the speech last night is here (you have to admit, it’s a fair start). What do you think of the news cycle today? The reaction to the speech from the other party’s DC chiefs?
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:06 pm 56. Kyda Sylvester:So, if we get a new Sedition Act, can it be retroactive so we can nail Jane and Tom? Please?
Today’s seditionists lack the organization of yesteryear. Tom’s trying his best but he can’t even get himself elected dogcatcher anymore much less lead an insurrection. And I’m afraid the young blood simply isn’t up to the task.
Bruce W has come out of the closet–welcome Bruce Wechsler.
(If Preview is your nemesis, Rick, then TypeKey is mine. I must have to login 50 times a day. It’s almost as though TypeKey–or Roger–is trying to tell me something.)
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:08 pm 57. Kyda Sylvester:While I feel that my Senator Boxer is second to none, I would like to put a good word in for Patty Murray.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:13 pm 58. Canucklehead:I don’t understand this fixation with Vietnam. That was very important to a specific age group.
I suspect more people today know/value the virtues of Captain Miller of “Saving Private Ryan” fame than anyone pro or con for the Vietnam war. Once you get past John Kerry, there don’t seem to be many posterboys for that conflict.
Let the Democranks talk about Vietnam “quagmire”. I don’t think anyone connects with their message. It ranks right up there with being “groovy” or 23 skidoo…
I don’t think people understand what the Democranks are trying to say… They need to communicate in a clear manner. There is clearly an apathy surrounding the Democrank message. If you don’t know Ted Kennedy, I doubt his “presence” will command you to listen to his message.
There was a “Beauty and the Geek” episode where the beauty did not know who Joe Lieberman was. Beauty no longer walks arm-in-arm with the Democranks.
The Democranks are claiming the area beneath the bridge between the Americans and the Iraqis and proclaiming that they are the Big Troll and they need to be listened to…
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:18 pm 59. Buddy Larsen:Kyda, if you figger that type-key thing out, please advise?
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:19 pm 60. Buddy Larsen:Are we honored to have the words of the great Iowahawk hisself (David Burge, above)?
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:21 pm 61. PeterUK:“because as long as the hostility towards americans is there, more terrorists will spring up. it’s like plucking weeds”
As long as there is hostility towards Americans in Germany,more Waffen SS will spring up”.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:26 pm 62. Rick Ballard:Sandy P.,
The use of a Vietnam era strategy by the Copperheads is the best thing that could happen, in a political sense. This is 2005, not 1968. There is no draft. Casualties are amazingly low. Progress is being made and over 80% of the public remains committed to finishing the task.
The Vietnam sedition worked because of Nixon’s fall and even then only worked because the Dems had a majority in the legislature. Remember, it was always and only the Dem legislature that betrayed South Vietnam. Ford could not spend money that Dem legislator’s refused to authorize.
The selection of the Vietnam strategy by the Copperhead faction of the Dem party is going to really hurt moderate Dems. Continuation of the strategy will result in very heavy losses in ‘06. The selection is also a very good indication of the total intellectual bankruptcy of the Copperheads. They are putting themselves against the military when the military enjoys a 78% approval rating and they have, at best, 18% of the population. Additionally, today’s MSM, although strongly pro Copperhead in nature, simply does not carry the weight nor have the respect that the MSM which betrayed South Vietnam had. Gunga Dan was always second rate compared to Comrade Uncle Walty and Gunga Dan is down the road. Who is the trusted media voice spreading the seditious manure today? There is no consummate liar in the media operating at one-tenth the power of the old phoney mentioned before.
Sure, we need to continue to trumpet the progress being made – but we also need to openly highlight the fact that the seditious nonsense being spread by the Copperheads is killing American troops. And we need to get Nelson, Nelson, Cantwell, Sarbanes, Jeffords, Stabenow, and Bingaman on the record concerning Feingold’s Copperhead proposal.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:28 pm 63. Buddy Larsen:Good post, Canucklehead–but don’t let’s turn loose of Vietnam quite yet. The lesson on how to subvert the nation, insult the military sacrifice, lose a “won” war, and betray our allies to a generation of horror, has never been more important than it is right now.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:35 pm 64. Bruce Wechsler (formerly Bruce W.):Iowahawk’s Durbin related posts are very funny.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:35 pm 65. Ari Tai:re: timelines.
I don’t particularly like “when they stand up, we’ll stand down” because it suggests that if Iran and Syria just play possum (like Saddam did wrt sanctions), we leave and we’re back to a Gulf 1 ending. Unless we’d rather arm the Iraqi’s with our bombers, fighters and tanks.
The good news is that we’ve been pretty clear about our exit criteria for a long time, and they either are stupid, they just don’t believe us or they happen to know that the Iraqis well be hell-on-wheels in a few years (like other democracies in the area) – nothing like it being “your country” (since they are not playing possum).
It’s also a good thing that nearly 100% of the suicide bombers (their major propaganda weapon, and if every there was a propaganda war, this is it – our losses are so light compared to any historical expectation – imagine the USSR had attacked – given this expressed “sensitivity” by the liberals to losses we’d have surrended the second day) are foreign, so there’s some chance when they get a real market established and can shut down the smugglers (because the smuggled products are just too expensive), then the amount of this (abused children) bomb-fodder will diminish as well.
Note that worse case, Iraq themselves can raise the 1.5+ million army of border guards required to close their borders. (i.e. 3700km of border, 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week, rotation, and travel to desolate areas). That’s a big cost, likely cheaper just to make war on the neighbors that won’t clean up their act. aka why deterance created “civil society” among neighbors is so cheap.
I expect it will look like WW2. When we get out Iraq, it’ll be like the end-of-occupation in Germany. Save, perhaps, for the brief periods where we and our (new) allies (Iraq) militaries leave the country (to meet justice upon Syria and Iran).
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:39 pm 66. Steven Mitchell:Being a loud, obnoxious, Kos-style, moron (excuse the redundancy) works very well–right up until the moment that it doesn’t. Don’t believe me?
Every time someone says something you don’t want to hear, put your hands over your ears, stick out your tongue, and say, “I can’t hear you!. Nah, Nah, Nah!” real loud until they leave you alone. Works every time. Just don’t blame me when your boss shows you the door.
When Iraq gets better, the story will of course change to how it had nothing to do with Bush at all. Except most sensible people will buy that about as much as the aforementioned boss.
Omar’s comment about growing up is perfect. There was a time when I would vote for an occasional Democrat in a particular race if I thought he was the better candidate. Then I started boycotting them because of the childishness. I’m still waiting for the next grownup. (Every time a Dem shows signs of being that grownup, he change parties or get ostracized. Hmm.)
One of the signs of a grown up Dem is that they have learned that you can’t get by simply by alternating charges of stupidity, incompetence, and corruption. That’s one of the reasons that the prospect of Condi scares them so much. They know that stupidity has to sit on the bench the whole game. When you are only three deep, that’s tough. They *must* tag her with incompetence or corruption while at State. You’ll note that they tried incompetence last administration.
And if Reagon was Teflon to this tactic (which was the real source of the frequent MSM jibe), Bush is titanium. All three are sitting on the bench asking the towel boy if he got the license number of that truck.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:45 pm 67. DaKruser:Actually, I was pleasantly surprised, almost stunned.
I have found in the past, that if one comes to a “Rather” Conservative site, and does not march lock-step with the flow of discussion, a Shark-attack ensues. I fully support the actions of the American People in Iraq, including the Soldiers. However, as I said above, I would like a road map (yes, I know that is a despised term but you know what I mean) to tell me when we get to where we are going. Better yet, tell me which states we will have to pass through, or which road is the OPTIMAL, vs the one we are on now and why we chose this one instead.
The PEOPLE of the United States want the best for Iraq and the Iraqis, but we have been, and should well continue to be skeptical at best of our Gov’t’s motivation (since we can all think of times the Gov’t did something that did not represent the will of the people). By denying a map exists, only saying we have the best car on the block, the Administration is looking for Carte’ Blanche (sp?) from us. I don’t like being treated that way.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:55 pm 68. ambisinistral:It has been a long time since I’ve posted, but I have been reading. A couple of older posters may remember I’m far from a Bush fan. I think he is quite possibly the stupidest President we’ve ever been saddled with, has the charisma of a doorknob, and — worse of all considering the times — is incapable of stringing three words together without inducing deep slumber.
That said, I’m a Liberal with fangs and claws who was appalled by Kerry on every level. So, holding my nose I pulled the lever for Bush in the last election. As I watch the Democrats, my Democrats sad to say, careen over each and every cliff they find I don’t regret pulling that lever at all. He may be an idiot, but he is an idiot willing to share a foxhole with me instead of skeedaddling at the first sign of the enemy and that’s good enough for me.
After Van Gough got killed I started reading DSutch blogs. About a month or so ago there was a story in one that put it all into an odd perspective. There are doorman outside of Dutch apartments that have been having trouble with gangs of Moslem youth. One situation spiraled out of control and the doorman shot and killed one of the gang members. Left at that, it is just another story from another ghetto, but what followed was telling in its own way — the father of the slain gang member offered to spare the life of the doorman if he was payed blood money.
Iraq is just a campaign, not the war. Demands for tribal blood money in liberal and tolerant Holland? This is a fight against people who want to tear civilization down. I want civilization, not tribal law. I don’t want woman in bags, I don’t want shi’ra mandated stonings and amputations, I don’t want the rule of tribal war lords. I want none of it. Zero.
You want a time-table for ending the war on terror? Can’t give you that, but I can give you a benchmark. When there is are Christian Churches, a Jewish Temples, and Budhist Shrines in Mecca and Al Medina, then its over. Think about that if you think Iraq is bad or has lasted a long time. Salafist intolerance and intimidation cannot be tolerated in this day and age. I’ll take the Dutch system over theirs in a heartbeat.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:56 pm 69. PeterUK:The calls for exit timetables and other landmarks for an exit strategy are quite obviously designed to create hurdles for the administration to fall at.
In every aspect of human endeavour, timetables,budgets,plans fail to match up to expectation,in war only a madman would tie himself down to asituation where the enemy has a vote in the outcome.Those demanding such timetables know this and eagerly await each failure so that they may make political capital.
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:56 pm 70. OJ:Feingold is not the only one make these statements. The thread is running rampant through the Democratic party and the MSM. it is ridiculous that they aim to benefit off the ignorance of the general public. The White House messaga (and that from our allies – UK) is loud and clear. We have an exit startegy – we are judging milestones and as these milestones are met – we will reduce forces…
Biden – Kerry and others ought to be ashamed. Discussed further here…
http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=315
RightViews.com
Jun 29, 2005 - 3:58 pm 71. AST:This is the old “Are we there yet?” They’ve decided that since they haven’t been able to convince us that this is a real quagmire, they’re now proceeding as if that were true. Someone suggested during Vietnam that we just “Declare victory and bring the troops home,” which is essentially what we did, consigning millions of Vietnamese to prison camps and murder. The only good thing was that many of them came to America and have built better lives.
These people don’t seem to have the brains God gave a gnat. They strike me as deliberately obtuse, continuing to pound away with the same old falsehoods that have never made sense. They seem to want us to lose and pour shame on our armed forces. They have become a party of Grima Wormtongues.
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:01 pm 72. Ari Tai:A sidebar on lib criticism of the speech.
It’s amusing to see the libs continue to call for accountability (ie. pull a Stalin and purge all the generals and leadership, because they must be at fault for the current situation, v. facing a wily enemy in a game of chess where losing a pawn is considered a (PR) disaster and reason for surrender) and individual responsibility. They demand this of Iraq and the administration at the same time they label holding schools and teachers accountable for their work-product un-American, and any demand of more individual responsibility for our own welfare a human-rights violation (re: welfare reform, private accounts, health savings accounts, stiffer bankruptcy requirements, etc.)
Note that adding another million of our soldiers to Iraq to police borders and quiet the troubled Sunni towns would not only increase our own casualties geometrically, it would reduce the incentives for the Iraqis to “take responsibility.”
Sounds to me like the administration is both doing the best it can, and striking about the right balance. It’s amazing how generous we are, and how “civilization” (the good guys) has a record of fighting with all the humanity it can afford.. thank goodness we are so rich and willing to sacrifice so much treasure and lives. Else the Sunni cities would be glass parking lots and we’d regret their loss (as in an earlier age – “but for better, more costly weapons (and a volunteer well-educated, well-paid and well-trained professional army) we could have sacrificed fewer innocent lives..”)
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:11 pm 73. Jamie Irons:Buddy,
…but don’t let’s turn loose of Vietnam quite yet. The lesson on how to subvert the nation, insult the military sacrifice, lose a “won” war, and betray our allies to a generation of horror, has never been more important than it is right now….
Just as you were posting this (around 3:30 PM) I was evaluating a Vietnam veteran, a Navy seal who did four tours (!). Between his first two tours he was held captive by the enemy for two months, but escaped.
He was significantly depressed, and beyond that, as though that weren’t enough, he felt that “nobody cares” about the Vietnam vets, or any veterans.
I’m usually pretty objective in my work and it’s hard to make me tear up, but that did it.
I think I convinced him that many people do care.
I gave him my “back line” number to call me any time.
Jamie Irons
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:13 pm 74. Joe Schmoe:Bushinator, DaKruser-
Sorry, you can’t have answers to your “questions.”
Sometimes there are no easy answers. No orderly timetables.
That is pretty basic. I don’t believe that you don’t know this. You are being disengenuous here.
If you were diagnosed with cancer, you’d never demand that your oncologist give you a cure timetable. Nor would you demand a “guarantee” that your cancer would go into remission. You realize, as a mature person, that in life there are no such guarntees.
But where the war is concerned, suddenly you want ironclad guarnatees. Exit strategies. “Best practices.” A neat, orderly war-winning strategy, all wrapped up in a bow.
Give me a break.
I don’t know when the Iraqis will be ready. When we’ll be able to pull out. We don’t know how much it will cost, how long it will take, or how many lives will be lost. We don’t know these things and you can’t know them. Deep down inside, you realize this. You know that there aren’t really answers to these questions. But you demand them anyway? Why?
Also, there is a strain of weakness running through your questions. The implicit underlying assumption is that if the war lasts “too long,” or costs “too much,” it’s not worth fighting any more. If we have to stay there for 50 years, maybe we shouldn’t stay at all.
This sort of thinking horrifies me. It is decadent. Our enemies are people who cut off heads. They fly planes into buildings. How could you possibly “tire” of fighting such animals? How could we spend “too much” fighting against them? And make no mistake, that is who we are fighting. The Iraqi “resistnace” is not comprised of patriotic Jeffersonian democrats. It is comprised of: (a) thugs who want to murder and torture their way to the top, just like Sadaam once did; and (b) jihadists.
I suppose a case can be made for pulling out of a fight with group (a), becuase they aren’t a direct threat to us. To me, this is the same sort of reasoning behind turning a deaf ear to Kitty Genovese, but if you are willing to admit that it is selfish and unprincipled at least it is logical. But you must admit that group (b) is also present in Iraq.
You can’t ignore this. Deep in you heart, you know it is true.
You saw a man’s head sawed off on live television while his killers chanted “Allah Akhbar.”
You know this happened in Iraq.
We are fighting those people in Iraq.
But now you are tired of fighting them. You want an exit date.
Why?
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:21 pm 75. Steven Mitchell:“However, as I said above, I would like a road map (yes, I know that is a despised term but you know what I mean) to tell me when we get to where we are going. Better yet, tell me which states we will have to pass through, or which road is the OPTIMAL, vs the one we are on now and why we chose this one instead.”
Anyone looking outside CNN, Newsweek, et. al. has had this in spades since winter 2001. It also helps to have a realistic idea of what can actually happen. BTW, the presumption that the current route is not the optimal one says rather a lot.
And if that seems harsh, blame it on the company such comments have been keeping. The first 9,635,303 times (roughly speaking) people asked for options in comments, they got them. Now it is well past time for people presuming a better way to provide that better way before they act so all-fired sure that the current plan is bad.
“That these things are what they are, do not blame me,” said the spirit, or something like that. Anyone want to write the script where Durbin is visited by three spirits?
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:21 pm 76. Rick Ballard:Jamie,
Please tell him that many, many care very deeply. I gave vets preference in hiring for the entire time I was in active mangement, from ‘75 – ‘95 and I remain unwavering in my support today both for the Namvets and for the men and women in uniform and doing their jobs with honor and courage around the world. If you feel that a direct contact would be helpful, you know how to get in touch with me.
Tell him too, that we will not let our troops down and that there are a helluva lot more of us committed to seeing these damned Copperheads driven from public life today than there ever were in those dark days during Vietnam. They caused the deaths of too many innocents then and they will not be allowed to do so again.
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:27 pm 77. Buddy Larsen:“…fighting with all the humanity (we) can afford….”
Jeez…wot a perception-filled, realistic-humanitarian phrase.
Jamie, I don’t know how you do it. Thank Goodness some can do it, but–I wouldn’t be able to treat that guy without getting sickened by the random hazard of ingratitude. Four SEAL tours in VietNam, life owed the guy better luck.
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:28 pm 78. Buddy Larsen:ambisinistral, I couldn’t disagree with you more wrt GWB, but with your feelings wrt Bush as a backdrop, what you say about the war makes you precisely the sort of person who can do the most good in the areas where the nation is most vulnerable. Good on ya–even if you are a little off on the lesser matter.
I gotta say, Joe Schmoe, Ari, AST, Steven, thank y’all from the deep place–where I need to feel optimism–for those posts.
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:43 pm 79. Buddy Larsen:PETER! Happy Trafalgar Day. Nelson! “England Expects That Every Man Shall Do His Duty!”
Jun 29, 2005 - 4:49 pm 80. Kyda Sylvester:In the contracting business we’re all about “timetables,budgets,plans”. And once our workboots hit the ground we’re all about revising those timetables, budgets and plans. I’ve never known a contruction project that didn’t require change orders. No matter how much you know beforehand, how complete your design is or how carefully drawn the plan, you will encounter unknown conditions and you will have to adjust accordingly. It’s a given. Yes, we have the luxury of a date certain for completion, but that changes constantly as well–I’ve had contracts extended not just for months but years. Should war, occupation and nation building be expected to proceed more smoothly than the average contruction project?
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:07 pm 81. PeterUK:Buddy,
Thanks,but to give credit where credit is due,we couldn’t have done it without the French.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:08 pm 82. Robert Crawford:Based on the number and vehemence of the trolls, it sounds like the President hit it out of the park last night.
(Rule of thumb: when something goes well for the President, trolls seem to flood the anti-Islamist weblogs.)
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:19 pm 83. Knucklehead:Joe Schmoe,
But where the war is concerned, suddenly you want ironclad guarnatees. Exit strategies. “Best practices.” A neat, orderly war-winning strategy, all wrapped up in a bow.
And they so much more. They want all these things laid out for them, personally, by the POTUS in the language of their choice and then they want hotlines to the POTUS, VPOTUS, SecDef, Joint Chiefs, and theater commanders in case they ever lose track of what’s going on or detect some deviation from the “roadmap”.
In this view it isn’t incumbent upon the citizen to make some effort to understand what’s going on, how it relates to other efforts, what other efforts are being made or, well, to educate himself in any way, shape, or form.
And still that’s not enough. The strategy, tactics, milestones, targets, schedules, deployments and every other detail should be precisely what they think is best and if they disagree well, dangit, that stupid administration should do it their way or face impeachment.
It’s as if we have several million citizens who are some sort of siamese twins-like beast created by mixing together the worst of Lyndon Johnson and Robert MacNamara.
And if they could have all this they’d still want one more key thing – to hold anyone but themselves accountable.
I can’t tell if they are disingenuous or demented or a combination thereof. Maybe I make too much of it – maybe they are just hopelessly depressed kwetches. Idunno.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:19 pm 84. Buddy Larsen:And, the crying shame is, everything that can be planned IS planned–and a lot of it is–thank God–SECRET. If anyone had pressed Roosevelt for the details of D-Day, they’d've been shot as Nazi spies. Or imprisoned as Fifth-Columnist provocateurs. Peter has the reasoning behind it, down pat, above. Stumbling blocks, political stumbling blocks.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:28 pm 85. Buddy Larsen:Kyda, do your competitor’s unknown plans ever have any bearing on your construction company’s activities?
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:32 pm 86. Sandy P:DaKruser:
Why such a passive stance? Why do you need Daddy to tell you what the goals are? What roads to take? when it’ll be over?
And when Daddy (or Mommy’s) response/promise takes longer or takes a detour, what then? LIES! LIES! LIES! And take no blame yourself for your beliefs/reasons. Hey, not my fault, I was told. If you work, I hope you’re not like that.
You’re in the blogosphere, figure it out yourself.
The answers are very simple and have been there for a long time. Quite frankly, the answers were there in 79/83/85/93/95/96/98 and 2000. But we weren’t paying attention then, and 9/11 should have given you all your answers.
To help you on your path, I suggest you start visiting Rantburg.
It’s a rough but very informative place.
—
I should have read Knucklehead’s response, says it better, but consider mine another smack upside your head.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:35 pm 87. richard mcenroe:Buchanan-Feingold…
You know, once upon a time, if someone you despised espoused the same beliefs you held, a thinking adult would re-examine the beliefs. These days, if you’re a Democrat, you just shriek “Our base is growing!” and carry on, as though the Night of the Long Knives you are setting yourself up for will never happen…
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:36 pm 88. ForNow:One of the reasons why so many of us distrust the remarks and arguments of Dem pols regarding Iraq is the attempt begun in 2003 by Dem pols to use the Senate Intelligence Committee to pursue political ends, which Dem ex-Senator and Senate Intel Cmte. ex-member Bob Kerrey condemned as “a political threat to U.S. security” and Dem ex-Senator Zell Miller called “treason or treaon’s first cousin.”
“Democrats Mull Politicizing Iraq War Intelligence” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102206,00.html
Nov. 5, 2003, FoxNews
“Miller on Politicized Intelligence Memo: ‘Heads Should Roll’” http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10682
by Zell Miller, US Senator (D), Georgia, original press release Nov. 5, 2003
“Raw Data: Dem Memo on Iraq Intel”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html
Nov. 6, 2003, FoxNews
“A Political Threat to U.S. Security” (no longer available online) by Bob Kerrey, US ex-Senator (D), Nebraska, & ex-Senate Intel Comm. member, Nov. 7, 2003, New York Post
“‘Flagrantly Dishonest’: Even the Senate Intelligence Committee isn’t safe from Democratic partisanship” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004277 [Calls for firing of minority staff director & former Clinton Admin. member Christopher Mellon] Editorial, Nov. 7, 2003, Opinion Journal (WSJ)
“Pat Roberts on ‘FOX News Sunday’” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102590,00.html [Includes quote of Sen. Evan Bayh: "Senator Rockefeller has been under intense pressure -- intense pressure -- by some others to pursue a much more partisan line...."] Nov. 9, 2003, FoxNews
“What Memo?: The reason the mainstream media is downplaying the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee memo is because it implicates mainstream journalists.” by Hugh Hewitt, Nov. 13, 2003, The Weekly Standard
“Ruining the Intelligence Committee” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031117.shtml [Blames Carl Levin for politicization. Also: Rockefeller's personal dishonesty toward Pat Roberts.] by Robert Novak, Nov. 17, 2003, Creators Syndicate via Townhall.com
“Transcript: Sen. Jay Rockefeller on ‘FOX News Sunday’”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99824,00.html
[Background on Rockefeller's thinking] FoxNews with Tony Snow, Oct. 13, 2003
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:36 pm 89. Kyda Sylvester:Oh, Jamie, we certainly do care. We need to contact our representatives and the White House to demand that Veteran Affairs programs are fully funded (am I correct that there is a $1 billion shortfall in the current budget?). Dems complain that Bush won’t ask for “sacrifices” from the public (of course, they mean tax increases, but I suppose it’s a step forward that they would call higher taxes a sacrifice). Well here’s a sacrifice that I’m more than willing to make: they can dip into that vast pork barrel and pull out a few billion dollars from projects that the federal government has no business funding in the first place and they can start the process with the State of California and its 4th Congressional District.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:39 pm 90. ForNow:Finally found where Kerrey’s “A Political Threat to U.S. Security” can still be found (it appears to be not even in the NY Posts fee-charging archives; and the photo of the article that used to be at the New School site is gone):
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-328110.html
Scroll to last comment. If you’re interested in this sort of thing, you might want to copy, paste, save the article’s text.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:48 pm 91. Catherine:Vietnam is never, ever, EVER going away
In case you all were wondering.
(I got a whole fresh new earful this weekend. Sigh.)
Jamie Irons
I’m so glad I checked in.
There’s a beautiful article by a Vietnam veteran who was spit on in a San Diego (I think it was San Diego) bar years ago.
It’s incredible.
The point of it is that he goes back to the bar, and when he tells his story the entire place comes over and apologizes for an event that happened 40 years ago & buys him a drink.
It might be good for your patient, do you think?
I’ve got a copy I can scan & email, and here’s the link, title, author, etc.:
The incident at Mountain Charlie’s
It’s in this month’s AMERICAN ENTERPRISE.
I’m also wondering about the Anheuser Busch Super Bowl ad.
I just checked; it’s still online:
http://www.herosalute.com/cavatx/big_game_ad_QTmid.html
I’ve just watched it again; I think it clearly (clearly to me, at any rate) ‘references’ Vietnam, the way the Vietnam veterans were treated.
It’s not just a thank you, in other words; it’s an apology. You can see this especially in the very forceful, almost angry clapping of a man who looks to be in his 40s.
As to Vietnam….
I’m down to having to see it as just pure ‘unresolved trauma.’ Not that I know what that is.
The trouble is, and we’ve all talked about this before, I don’t think unresolved ‘historical’ traumas are limited to the generation that experienced them. (Remeber Schivelbusch’s CULTURE OF DEFEAT? Another part of my great unread….)
I do think it’s the case that the ‘angry quagmire’ thoughts my husband is now having are much more intense & salient for men his age.
Rick B
I’m glad to hear what you have to say about the ‘Copperhead strategy.’
That’s another of the Mysteries of This House: we are completely back to where we were in the days when it looked like Kerry might win.
George Bush is a terrible president, horribly destructive for the country, everyone loathes him …. his ratings are in the cellar:
so the Democrats will win.
It’s the exact same logic that was supposed to mean Kerry would win.
I’ve said exactly the same thing you’ve just said: huge, vast numbers of the country actively admire the military.
Huge.
That’s where the country’s heart lies, with the soldiers.
Well, the soldiers are not associated with the Democratic Party.
The only bright spot around here is that while we were in DC last weekend my husband bought a copy of Stanley Greenberg’s book, which he is actually reading. (He never reads contemporary analysis, only history.)
He has now had the experience of being characterizsed as a ’secular warrior’ by a major Democratic political analyst!
And believe me, he doesn’t want to be defined as a ‘warrior’ in the culture wars any more than he wants to be defined as a warrior on Iraq.
Plus Greenberg is crystal clear on the point that Americans don’t trust Dems on security……
So a tiny spotlight of reality is penetrating the haze around here.
why are Bush’s ratings so low?
I bet you guys have this all figured out.
My husband crows about it–about how the ‘Republicans’ shelf life has expired’–and I can tell that’s not true, because of the ratings on the military.
But what’s going on?
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:52 pm 92. Catherine:Heh.
I just emailed him Tom Hayden’s plan for getting out.
He hates Tom Hayden.
Hayden’s the one Democrat–ok, maybe there were 2–he didn’t vote for when he had the chance.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:58 pm 93. ForNow:Some have denied that any Vietnam vets were ever spit on, whatsoever. I’m glad that the vet mentioned above has gone on record saying that it was done to him. A few commenters at Lucianne.com said that they themselves were exactly such vets. I urged them to go on record somewhere with their names etc. I hope that they did so.
Jun 29, 2005 - 5:59 pm 94. Catherine:Don’t say it!
I am on bad behavior tonight.
Time to go do some Russian Math
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:02 pm 95. Kyda Sylvester:Kyda, do your competitor’s unknown plans ever have any bearing on your construction company’s activities?
Why yes, Buddy, they do. And you know what? No matter how hard we try to ferret out those plans, no matter how astute and informed our conjectures about those plans, sometimes we just plain get caught flatfooted. Sometimes we just don’t know something is going to happen until it happens. And you know what else? Such things are seldom to our benefit. Funny how that works.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:05 pm 96. Catherine:OH gosh, let me make sure it was spitting–
wow.
Yes it was:
The author is Kevin Josker, and this is his first published article.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:08 pm 97. Steven Mitchell:Kyda, what you said about construction also applies to software development. And we don’t even have to worry about rainy days, much less military worries. We get the same thing. Everyone wants a deadline. But then they want to change everything midstream. The reasonable ones know that those kind of changes mean changes in deadlines. I long ago learned to code with the idea that my code would change.
Catherine, I think Bush’s ratings are low for two reasons:
1. Some (all?) of the polls being done right now are even worse than usual. With no pressing elections no one wants to pay for a good poll. (For example, a sizable number of the people “not happy with the way things are going” want us to be more aggresive.)
2. This is a trough in Iraq. It’s not a deep trough in the big picture, but it is a lull. Or at least it is perceived as one. There simply isn’t anything big going on that can keep everyone energized here. The Iraqis are seeing the constant debate and building and other “little” things that show the kind of gradual progress necessary to build the country.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:09 pm 98. Buddy Larsen:Catherine, maybe you two should agree to tune out current events until say Labor Day, and take up chess or something together. No, not chess. Gin Rummy? NO not that. Well, something. Bird-watching?
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:11 pm 99. Knucklehead:Rick Ballard,
I want to thank you for the preference you gave to vets in your hiring decisions ‘75 – ‘95. I was fortunate enough to have served without fighting – no wars during my four years. I served in the post-Vietnam volunteer military and it seemed clear to me at the time (admittedly I was younger and even less astute) that the general American public recognized few, if any, lower forms of life than servicemen.
It took a while, and a lot of contact with people such as yourself, for me to understand that my perception of how my fellow citizens felt about GIs was drawn from the loud, disgusting, and – yes – seditious people who hate those who serve.
Like I said, thank you, you helped some people and people like you helped me.
Jamie – there is no shortage of people like Mr. Ballard. Do your best to make your patient understand that. The volume cranked out by the ignorant, bigotted, seditious haters in not a legitmate metric of the general public opinion.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:15 pm 100. Knucklehead:Joe Schmoe,
Now that I’ve finished your post I am even more pleased than when I started it. It validates my choice of sides (not that I require that, but it’s a warm and fuzzy ;>)
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:18 pm 101. Kevin P:Roger;
Regarding timetables. McCain-Feingold was passed with promises of campaign spending reductions. it was going to give politics back to the little guy and free it from the clutches of big corporate greed. It was salvation on paper.
Yet years later what do we have? Record spending. less, not more accountability. No spending reductions in sight. You were warned that portions of your bill were unconstitutional yet you plowed ahead knowing that if the Court acted as you were told it would that your bill would become useless, even harmfull to the political process. Yet you claimed at the signing of the bill that heaven was at the door.
Mr. Feingold, You need to produce an exit plan that gives us clear dates and spending expectations that will be achieved by your bill. You need to tell the American public when the electoral process will be returned to them as you promised and when campaign spending will be under control.
If you can’t then you need to be honest with the people and trash the bill. This endless quaqmire of 527’s and escalating campaign spending must be stopped. Tell us how your bill will work or pull us out of this misery. How many years of record campaign spending does the american public have to put up with before you will stop talking about staying the course and face reality and rescind this nightmare of a bill. You promised choclates, roses, and cheap campaigns. What happened?
PeterUK- I asked this on another thread but how did you like the British, French and Spanish flags being replaced with blue and red colors during the Trafalgar recreation so the French and the Spanish wouldn’t feel bad? PC run amok. Are the French so pathetic that they have to pretend that they were not at Trafalgar and were so whipped and why would Blair knuckle under to such gutless historical whitewashing?
Kevin Peters
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:23 pm 102. Buddy Larsen:Steven, wrt polls, as war is unpopular ipso-facto, if you’re an average non-political person, your phone rings, it’s a pollster, your first thought is to unload your dislike of war. Maybe you think that in so doing you bring it to a sooner end. Maybe you’ve been waiting to unload the fact that war makes you unhappy.
It’s actually remarkable that this war polls as well as it does, given there’s no enemy nation on which to focus. the enemy is too amorphous, it’s as if we are fighting only an idea, “evil”, that kills people but isn’t parked in an invasion fleet offshore about to hit our beaches with an occupying invasion force. That the strategy of pre-emption is rarely employed is due to just that, I’d imagine. The head-cutters have to be at work in the neighborhood. So by and large Americans are hanging tough against human-nature’s automatic responses.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:32 pm 103. Knucklehead:Catherine,
I’m down to having to see it as just pure ‘unresolved trauma.’ Not that I know what that is.
I knew that was you! It is a scar – a big, discolored, lumpy one. Every time we see it we are reminded of the stupid thing we did to get it.
For some that stupid thing is fighting it at all.
For others that stupid thing is letting the seditionists win. I will plead youth and youthful ignorace (I ain’t that old, too young for Vietnam), but I will not stand by and let the seditionists repeat the dumb mistake that left such a scar.
BTW, not that it needs saying, but I do know many people who remain convinced that the stupid thing was fighting it at all and yet are not seditionists today (can’t say about then, didn’t know them then).
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:32 pm 104. mrp:PeterUK -
Buddy,
Thanks,but to give credit where credit is due,we couldn’t have done it without the French.
LOL
And the Dons, too.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:36 pm 105. c:On Feingold: You promised chocolates, roses, and cheap campaigns.
Kevin Peters, that’s really funny!
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:37 pm 106. PeterUK:Kevin P,as long as we can sink their ships again they can paint them any colour they like.
The Telegraph and the Mail had big front page splashes the battle.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:44 pm 107. Buddy Larsen:Cheer up!
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:50 pm 108. Catherine:Stephen Mitchell
For example, a sizable number of the people “not happy with the way things are going” want us to be more aggresive.
Is that right?
More aggressive how? (Stomp on Syria? Just to pick one out of my own particular hat? Seriously though, I have No Complaints one way or the other. So I’m a little ‘out of the loop’….)
Buddy Larsen
Gin Rummy? NO not that.
LOL
Definitely not that.
I was shocked by how angry he is–he actually says he is angry.
To me….I don’t know….the war is ‘over.’
Of course it’s not over, but–to me–it’s the Iraqis’ affair now. They have a government, they’re putting things together, they’re making at least some strides towards having their own army (I guess opinion varies on that…)
The war Happened, and that’s that. It’s not going to un-happen, and it’s not really a ‘war’ any more. It’s an intifada.
(Or, it’s like an intifada.)
I hope I’m not horribly ticking folks off here by seeming to minimize the situation in iraq. I don’t mean to, and I haven’t been paying close enough attention to have sound opinions.
It’s just that I was very surprised to see how emotional my husband is on the subject (especially given that he is, by temperament, a sunny person).
Of course, my emotions on the subject of Iraq were pretty much permanently set on ‘FINE’ the day of the Iraqi elections.
Fouad Ajami, I think, said that the elections gave the American people a chance to ‘bond’ with the Iraqi people.
That’s what happened to me.
I love the Iraqis, and when I don’t love them, I just plain like them. Watching those folks with their defiance and their passion and their ferocity and their purple fingers put an end to all doubt for me.
I don’t know what the future holds, but I’m on their side.
Jun 29, 2005 - 6:52 pm 109. Catherine:Buddy
Love it!
Back to the future…..the funny thing is, my husband does not want to ’set a deadline for withdrawal’ (he thinks that’s insane) or ‘bring the troops home’ etc., etc.
He does seem to be obsessed with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc., but I’ve pretty much rendered that an Illegal Subject, so he steers clear.
I’d actually like to know what makes him tick on all of this.
He really is angry, and yet there is nothing, specifically, at least that he’s said, that he wants George Bush to do or not do.
Well, he doesn’t want private accounts.
Jun 29, 2005 - 7:02 pm 110. Public Citizen:Dear Mr. Simon:
I have been reading everyone’s comments with a great deal of interest and would like to ask if anyone has any idea why the Democrats do not seem to understand the ramifications of what they are doing? Don’t they realize that their attempts to turn Iraq into Vietnam won’t hurt George Bush and the Republicans nearly as much as it will hurt our military and all of the rest of us? I have read that it is not a matter of if the next terrorist strike on this country will ever come, but when. They seem to be asking the terrorists to hit us again. When Senator Durbin made his egregious remarks about the Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin vis a vis the troops at Guantanamo Bay, I wrote and asked him (without, of course, getting a reply), what the point of his remarks was. I also told that his “enemy” (though he clearly doesn’t realize it) is actually the American people and that if we are struck again by terrorists, it won’t be President Bush and the Republicans who are blamed but the Democrats.
Jun 29, 2005 - 7:13 pm 111. Buddy Larsen:Public citizen, “…it won’t be President Bush and the Republicans who are blamed but the Democrats.”
I think that’s what McEnroe meant upstream with “Night of the Long Knives”…metaphorically, of course. Unintended consequences, truths that will out.
Catherine, “… I’m on their side.”
I know what you mean. They’re trying so hard, and deserve a friggin’ break. Hell, by-product, they give us a test of our humanity. For that alone we’re better. IF we can make this thing work, we’ll have written stirring history. I say “we”, I mean the soldiers and their civilian political chiefs in the administration. But every coalition country will have a bright page of history.
Jun 29, 2005 - 7:22 pm 112. ForNow:Gitmo? More Link-o-mania:
1. “Senators Laud Treatment of Detainees in Guantanamo” by David D. Kirkpatrick, NY Times, 6/28/05
2. “What I Saw at Gitmo” by Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu 6/27/05
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18572
3. “A Gitmo veteran’s comments” 6/21/05
http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1729
4. “A Guantanamo Vet Speaks” 6/22/05
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010812.php
5. “Exclusive Interview: Inside The Interrogations at Gitmo” 6/20/05, Right Thinking Girl
Jun 29, 2005 - 7:22 pm 113. Kyda Sylvester:John Hawkins has a fine interview with Mark Steyn:
RTWT
Jun 29, 2005 - 7:50 pm 114. Occam's Beard:Presumably Feingold & Co. would have wanted FDR to say “I hereby undertake to invade Festung Europa, specifically Normandy, by June 7, 1944.”
Sheesh. I wish I could get these guys in a poker game. I could use the money.
Jun 29, 2005 - 7:59 pm 115. ForNow:Trent Telenko wrote an interesting essay on the disappearance of the “Scoop Jackson” Democrats a few years ago: “Dead and Damned — Democrats after 9/11″ May 30, 2003 at Winds of Change at
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003510.php
“The name for that banished Democratic national security wing was ‘Scoop Jackson Democrats,’ named after Senator Jackson (D) of Washington state. They were driven out of the party by the ‘Nuclear Freeze’ movement in the 1984 Democratic Presidential primaries when Sen. John Glenn caved in to their pressure. Today those people are known as ‘Neo-conservatives.’ ….
“….
“For two generations the best Democrat political minds have gone into issues like national healthcare or civil rights and avoided national security. This gap in Democratic professional development crippled newly sworn in Defense Secretary Les Aspin when he took control of the Pentagon for Pres. Clinton in 1993. I vividly recall reading about his complaints about this in the defense trade newsletter INSIDE THE PENTAGON. I think this gap was a contributing factor in the Somalia debacle.
“There is really no institutional support in the Democratic Party for a military affairs/national security brain trust like the Republicans have…”
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:05 pm 116. Kevin P:Public Citizen:
Thet don’t care if it hurts the military. Many on the left do not see the US Military as the tool that destroyed Hitler and held off Stalinism till it gagged on it’s on bile but as the tool of a Imperialistic American war machine and the sooner it looks like Canada’s Military the better. They see the American milatary as the cause of all the troubles in the world and not as part of the solution. “If we destroy it, then the need for it will be destroyed too”. They envision a blue helmeted world where the UN will solve all military conflicts. Even though the UN has proved to be a toothless tiger time every time it has been pushed,lets face it they were not facing military juggernaughts in the Balkans, Rwanda, or even their reluctance to act in Sudan, they still have faith in the idea. The utopian dream has taken over their rational mind.
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:05 pm 117. Fresh Air:Catherine–
E-mail that series of Gitmo links byForNow to your husband if you really want to end the debate.
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:08 pm 118. chuck:Don’t they realize that their attempts to turn Iraq into Vietnam won’t hurt George Bush and the Republicans nearly as much as it will hurt our military and all of the rest of us?
Why should they care? They’re special, you know, above it all. No one is going to hurt them because, well, because they’re them. Special.
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:19 pm 119. kynna:This has to be one of the best threads I’ve read in a long time. Maybe Roger should hire some trolls to get the ball rolling like this.
I will say this about our president. People say he didn’t have a clear plan for the peace, and he went into Iraq not knowing what he was really doing, etc… I think the strategy of regime change in Iraq to shake up the ME and promote liberty over there was gutsy and brilliant. I think the war was run with the utmost professionalism and care for civilians. I think the Peace would have gone much more smoothly if the democrats in congress, the MSM and the liberal groups like moveon had not been so vicious and hateful.
The one real mistake George W. Bush made in the WOT was to give his domestic opponents the benefit of the doubt and to assume that they loved this country more than they hated him.
Otherwise he bats a thousand as far as I’m concerned.
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:19 pm 120. chuck:Catherine,
He really is angry, and yet there is nothing, specifically, at least that he’s said, that he wants George Bush to do or not do.
Your husband seems emblematic of the Democratic Party. I think it has something to do with loss of status. Somehow that old moral certainty, the conviction of being right about everything, has been threatened. The Democratic Party, its programs, and its adherants are being moved off center stage, their relevance being questioned. If nothing else, the GWOT is a distraction to the Democratic social agenda. The fact that the Democrats no longer have a Scoop Jackson wing just exacerbates the problem because they can’t even take part in the game. Kerry was the best they could do. Losing status and power can be very disturbing.
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:37 pm 121. richard mcenroe:Buddy Larsen ó Uhhhhh… metaphorically. Right. Absolutely.
But the Democrats are hooking up with people who get a lot more out of it than the Democrats do, and who are going to be much harder to let go of…
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:42 pm 122. ambisinistral:Buddy L,
Hehehe… trust me, as a member of the minority wing of the minority party my ranting and raving drives my ol’ Democrat pals a whole lot crazier then it does my new Republican buddies.
Partisan ploitics I can live with, but I just can’t fathom anybody being an apologist for fascism of any stripe. Democrats used to take stands for the common man — not any more. Sad for me to watch such an onslaught of moral bankrupcy.
Jun 29, 2005 - 8:48 pm 123. Rick Ballard:Catherine,
George W. Bush will never be on another ballot. He won the only polls that count and having won for the second time declared that he intended to spend the political capital that he had accumulated. We tend to think of current presidents in the light of their immediate predecessor. The human cesspool who preceded W was the most vain windsock to ever hold the office. Do you recall Arafat’s overnight stay at the White House? There did not exist a butt too slimy for Bubba to kiss if it would give him one-tenth of a percent in the polls. Do you recall “Desperately Seeking Legacy” after his true legacy wound up on a blue dress?
W is not comparable to any President that I have observed – going back to Ike. RWR did not campaign strongly in ‘82 or ‘86 and his party lost seats in ‘86. W helped his party ‘02 in an almost unprecedented manner and actually added seats when CW says seats should have been lost. Don’t sweat the polls. How much weight should be given to any poll at 496 days from the next election?
Only the Flatulent Windsock and his MSM suckups made off election year polling “news”.
You might mention to your husband that if the Blue Castle seditionists keep chattering my bet is a house cleaning among moderate Dems the like of which has never been seen. The seditionists will hold their seats because of their moats but the moderates out in the open are going to be hunted like quail.
In short, if you could get W in an unguarded moment (good luck) and asked him how much he cared about the polls, my bet is that he would reply in almost pure Anglo Saxon.
President Bush cares a great deal about the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States. He’s doing his job and my support for him hasn’t slackened one iota.
Jun 29, 2005 - 9:01 pm 124. chuck:ambisinistral,
Democrats used to take stands for the common man — not any more.
My Dad came out to visit Thursday after the election. He is an old FDR democrat, a WWII veteran, a man whose boyhood dream growing up in Appalachia was to join the CCC. I told him that the Democrats had become the party of the elite. He didn’t disagree, he just said, somewhat sadly, that it didn’t used to be that way.
Jun 29, 2005 - 9:01 pm 125. Steven Mitchell:Buddy, I agree that the poll numbers hold up pretty well all things considered.
Catherine, all “general approval” questions on polls are nigh worthless without followup questions. A decent poll leading up the election asked something similar to this. (I’m paraphrasing; it was actually worded much more reasonably):
1. Do you approve or not of the President Bush’s conduct of the war in Iraq?
2. Followup, if you do not approve in the previous question, which of the following most closely explains why?
A. We should never have gone.
B. We should have been out by now.
C. We have not been competent enough.
D. We have done a generally good job, but I think we can do better.
E. We should be more aggressively chasing terrorists.
F. We should be shutting down the borders with Syria.
G. We should be expanding the war Syria.
If I recall correctly, a narrow majority disapproved of the conduct. But a substantial minority of those thought we should be more aggressive. I think it was about 20% that wanted F. and G. If you did the numbers, a solid majority of Americans wanted us to stay the course OR do more.
Now I’m aware of this and would probably outright lie to the pollster, especially if I knew it was a sorry poll. But I wouldn’t say exactly that I approve of the conduct. I think we should have Assad peeing in his pants right now, with occasional glances at the mullahs on the opposite border just to remind them we are there.
That’s why, IMHO, the Washington Post poll had such seemingly contrary numbers. The poll wasn’t done to find out what Americans think. It was done to build an editorial around. But even so, as Buddy said, the numbers come out better for Bush than they wanted. Bush is ignoring such polls. We should too.
Jun 29, 2005 - 9:08 pm 126. Steven Mitchell:Rick, I was typing while you posted. I agree with everyone thing you said but one little bit. This will not be the biggest ever house cleaing of moderate Dems. There aren’t enough left to make that record.
Jun 29, 2005 - 9:11 pm 127. Sandy P:–Kyda, do your competitor’s unknown plans ever have any bearing on your construction company’s activities?
Why yes, Buddy, they do.–
Ahhhh, Rummy’s “unknown unknowns.”
Jun 29, 2005 - 9:14 pm 128. Sandy P:—Well, he doesn’t want private accounts.—
Fortunately, Catherine, if he doesn’t want one, he doesn’t have to have one, but why should that stop you from keeping your own money? And your children when they work?
We’ve been told since the early 80s not to rely on SS.
Some of us listened then, and we’re still listeneing and waiting.
Jun 29, 2005 - 9:22 pm 129. PJ:Re Tom Hayden, I think that was him sitting behind Conyers in the “impeachment” extravaganza in the basement,wasn’t it? Looked like the Grand Puppeteer pulling strings just like the old days. Earth to Tom: the 60s are OVER!
Jun 29, 2005 - 9:40 pm 130. Rick Ballard:Steven,
It still could be the biggest. I’ve got to check out some comparative data with Bubetta’s health care blunder in ‘94. I know that there are fewer seats available for the taking but my possibles are at 31 and I need to check on what happens if I move the spread margin up another 5 points. The other unknown is how many Dems are going to throw in the towel and retire. That could be a real surprise factor. What moderate Dem wants to listen to Howlin’ Howie and the Seditionists wail away at their dirges.
Did you see that Prince Bandar resigned as ambassador from the KSA without notice? They say that King Fahd is still pining for the fjords but I think they may have unplugged him. Moved him from flat line to no line. Civil war in the KSA, anyone?
Jun 29, 2005 - 10:04 pm 131. WichitaBoy:Sometimes I just want to give all of you a group hug! But I guess that’s just the liberal in me.
What started out as a really lousy thread turned into an excellent one. Good job all.
It is curious that the moonbat attacks do seem to occur in clumps. Is it coordinated? Only their tin-foil provider knows for sure.
What I don’t get, scratch my head though I may, is what Feingold is thinking. Why would he say these things?
Why?
The man’s far from stupid; I don’t buy the seditionist argument (well, he’s a de facto seditionist, but we’re discussing intent); I don’t think he’s been explicitly bought off by Soros; I just don’t get it.
ambisinistral, Lovely post. I don’t agree with you about Bush’s alleged stupidity. He’s faux stupid, like he’s faux Southern. Come back soon by the way. Don’t be shy.
Kyda, Thanks for that excellent interview. I agree with Mark Steyn that having one of our major parties completely collapse morally is deadly dangerous for our future. It renders us unable to consider alternatives to anything the Republicans suggest. It blurs the all-important distinction between loyal opposition and treason. The American people will never vote for a a party that is actively anti-American. I do favor mass transit or something like it; I do favor universal healthcare or something like it; I favor gay marriage; I’d love to have the opportunity to debate or discuss these issues intelligently with well-meaning intelligent adversaries, but there’s no way in Hades I’m joining the jihadi-lovers on any issue whatsoever just right now. The Republicans have captured all my votes into the indefinite future.
Catherine, You can check out from the Hotel Roger, but admit it: you can never leave.
With respect to the never-ending vituperative hatred toward Bush, what causes it? Anybody have any theories? Many of the same people hate Walmart viscerally and used to hate McDonalds, though that seems to be passe now. Why Walmart? Why Halliburton? Why do the same people who hate the one have an extremely high probability of hating the other? Why not hate, say, Robert Mugabe, if one requires a quite respectable hate figure? I’d love to hear from our many shrinks here what is known about the psychopathology of relentless but amorphous hatred toward specific hate-objects.
I try to understand by very gently querying some of the Bush-haters I know. I’m sure you’ll all be relieved to know that one of the country’s foremost radar experts actively working for the DoD–brilliant guy–doesn’t believe that al Qaida caused 9/11, thinks it’s all some sort of conspiracy foisted on us by Bush et al., and thinks Fisk is an objective journalist telling the true story.
I’m sure he’ll be balanced out by his Chinese coworkers.
With another one (same brilliance, but a native Midwesterner, so a little more balanced, thinks 9/11 really was al Qaida, for example), the statement was that this war is optional, quickly followed by the statement that we should have attacked Iran instead. And then when he told me that Bush’s allegiance to his God is dangerous I tuned out. A common theme, ’tis true. Saying that an Iraq War is optional but an Iranian one necessary sounds like a cry of desperation to me. FIX IT, DADDY, IT HURTS!!!!
People are unhappy with the current state of affairs and they want a way out. But there is no way out. They don’t have any better answers than Bush does and they’re grasping at straws. It’s a singularity of mental space-time: as the thought-lines get closer to the reality of the barbarous head-sawing jihadi terrorists and what they will do to us, the thoughts exhibit increasingly non-linear behavior.
I can imagine that if Bush were pursuing a path which I was firmly convinced in the fiber of my being was wrong, and which moreover I believed was much more likely to get me killed than alternatives, and if I found myself thwarted not only by Bush but by the very democratic process itself, then I can imagine that I might become very angry at Bush. Pathologically angry. Of course, that scenario may have nothing whatsoever to do with what is really going on.
What disturbs me most is that there has been so little change in the minds of any of these people in the last four years. Right after 9/11 a crop of born-again neo-cons were produced, but that was it. No more. The rest have hardened their hearts, closed their minds, and won’t budge an inch. Beslan? Never heard of it. Daniel Pearl? Can’t remember who he was. Van Gogh? Wasn’t he the painter?
What does it take? I demand an immediate accounting here and now. Which lines in the sand, exactly, must the Islamofascists cross before these people see a problem?
Jun 29, 2005 - 10:10 pm 132. ForNow:Maybe Roger should hire some trolls to get the ball rolling like this.
At Lucianne.com during 2002 and 2003, the rule against commenters’ addressing one another was enforced less strictly (in particular, you were still allowed to address by comment number) and some site pests regularly got the ball rolling. Quite a few commenters ended up building up and finely honing their arguments. I for one had had no idea till then that I would have so much to say! As for the “site pests,” they were mostly repeating agitprop and compartmentalizing the issues, and seemed not to benefit much.
There was one in particular who said and even tried to defend the statement that “France’s motives are pure and selfless.” Even the leftists at the Nation would guffaw at that, as I pointed out, complete with a link.
There were also a few paleo-con neo-isolationists, who argued more powerfully, but, like all of the ones whom I’ve read, fail to address or in any way even affirm or deny the existence of the issue of the accelerating general development, in power, accessibility, miniaturization, deadly combinations, etc., of technologies adaptable for mass destruction, and of the growth of terrorist (and even just plain destructionist) subcultures eager to adapt and use them. So the arguments with the neo-isolationists were kind of weird.
Jun 29, 2005 - 10:14 pm 133. ForNow:WichitaBoy raises some good questions and I’ve puzzled over the hatred thing. I grew up as a liberal intellectual in Manhattan’s Upper West Side, so shouldn’t I understand something about that hatred of Bush? But it baffles me. Maybe it’s some sort of perfect storm of hatred. Very hard to name all its elements. There’s the towering deluded prejudice of many urban or urban-oriented intellectuals that verbal intelligence is the quintessence of intelligence. Bush is not an improviser of the complexly balanced sentence. Many urbanites have trouble accepting that Bush’s kind of style is not mere surface — the city slickers distrust those open-faced suburban and country guys, always feel that they’re holding something back beneath an under-complicated easy-going surface. Then, too, there’s a cultural style of anti-war views that has captured some minds like it were some huge hit song like Hey, Jude or Stairway to Heaven but even bigger. There’s a will to deny that the world has changed and that we are REALLY threatend. For the left, there IS a change which happened just as the left had, through a crazy election, lost a chance to consolidate dominance over the executive branch. For the left, things got onto the wrong track, then 9/11 happened to keep it that way — the “wrong” track diverging suddenly hopelessly away, away, away from the “right” track. 9/11 seemed to the left a knife-twisting-in-the-gut injustice insofar as the left conflates its hatred of Bush with the terrorists’ hatred of the USA. You may recall that many leftists — e.g., Michael Moore, Garry Trudeau — thought that the terrorists were targeting our government for its Republican policies. One leftist in 2002 told me that he had become glad that Bush had won against Gore. He asked me (not argumentatively, but seeking reassurance) whether it would indeed be crazy to think that, if we had signed onto Kyoto and the ICC and had thereby seemed less “arrogant,” wouldn’t Al Qaeda have maybe not attacked us? It was a feeling that he got, but he thought that it must be crazy. I assured him, yes, it would be crazy, Al Qaeda couldn’t care less about Kyoto and the ICC, and had been planning the operation for years.
But I’ve never been satisfied with any of my explanations about this.
Jun 29, 2005 - 10:57 pm 134. Fresh Air:Wichita, ForNow–
Reading the Claremont Review of Books today I was struck by a review of a book entitled, The Vehement Passions, by Philip Fisher.
Here is what the reviewer said about the effect of passion on the self:
In this regard, the vehement passions stand in a dynamic relation with one another: anger turns into grief, for example, grief into the desire for vengeance. They are ‘at the farthest remove from irony’…Most importantly, by reinstalling an ‘absolute priority of self,’ these passions are ‘monarchical states of being,’; they are so removed from the civility and tolerance of others that belong to everyday life that they are ‘located in the space that a civilization leaves open between its concept of insanity and its concept of irony’…their precondition is the limitation or ‘humiliation’ of the will.
I can’t necessarily give you the root cause beyond fear of becoming irrelevant or hatred of rejection, but this seems to be a good analysis of what is driving the hatred. In a nutshell, Bush’s mere presence in the White House humiliates his opponents.
Jun 29, 2005 - 11:20 pm 135. WichitaBoy:Fresh Air,
Bush’s mere presence in the White House humiliates his opponents.
Fascinating thought. I can see how that would particularly apply to academics. They’ve devoted their lives to scholarship and to towing the party line, so that they and others like them could get ahead. Bush is living proof that they chose the wrong path to glory. That would gall.
Jun 29, 2005 - 11:32 pm 136. Fresh Air:Wichita–
Good point. N.B. The “farthest remove from irony” would apply well to academic lefties, who seem incapable of spotting irony–of course a necessary component of Anglo Saxon humor, and an explanation as to why faculty members are incapable of poking fun at themselves or being made fun of by others.
It’s slightly scary to think about all the tie-dyed, ponytailed greybeards going around on campuses in a seething rage all day because some cause or other of theirs has been rejected. But it would explain the whole P.C. thing rather nicely, too.
Jun 29, 2005 - 11:49 pm 137. kparker:I second your nomintation, but you got the name slightly wrong: it’s Patty “Osama the day-care provider” Murray.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:45 am 138. kparker:Oops, besides misspelling ‘nomination’, I forgot to address my item to Kyda.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:47 am 139. HA:The John Kerry piece is incredibly revealing. According to Kerry:
Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing.
Kerry is calling for America to withdraw from Iraq and leave 20,000 jihadists unopposed by American force. I’m stunned by how little attention has been paid to Kerry’s call to leave 20,000 jihadists free to attack America. Sedition indeed, from a man with 35 years of experience in the art.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:40 am 140. Ari Tai:I refuse to believe that the majority of the dem faithful and their elected don’t feel corrupted and soiled by these positions they (are forced to) take. Call it a naive belief in the human desire for redemption. And the measure of this will be how many congressional dems in secure districts and states retire in 2006 and ‘08.
They’ll want to be free of this stain. To say nothing of having lost the pre-blessed “preppie” path to power (no more easy money from being partners in the dem-associated law firms that are retained by K street when the dem vote counted, anywhere).
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:58 am 141. Buddy Larsen:Fascinating, fascinating thread. “Perfect storm of anger”–yes, otherwise coherent systems crashing together and creating a thought-chaos “at the farthest remove from irony”, gone as self-referential as a cave-bear cult that “controls” terror through emulation (which can’t allow humane–non-bear–saving-graces such as humor, tolerance, empathy, patience, etcetera).
Jun 30, 2005 - 5:36 am 142. Frederick:ForNow:
“For the left, things got onto the wrong track, then 9/11 happened to keep it that way — the “wrong” track diverging suddenly hopelessly away, away, away from the “right” track. 9/11 seemed to the left a knife-twisting-in-the-gut injustice insofar as the left conflates its hatred of Bush with the terrorists’ hatred of the USA.”
Yes. The world didn’t evolve as it was supposed to. Sometimes, the hope comes back. That 9/11 can be forgotten as just an anomaly. That people will wake up and realize that only they can redeem America from the tasteless deficiencies that the enlightened Europeans so rightly scorn. That they can respin their MSM and MSE cocoon. That everyone can be properly educated about the future, which will emerge beyond America, SUV’s and global warming into the E. U. and the U. N. and the United Federation of Planets; and about the past, in which the noble non-whites, non-christians, non-conservatives and non-Americans bravely battled prejudice, ignorance, stupidity and oppression; and about the proper conventions of prestige, in which the universities have brilliant, omniscient people, and prizes are given for the latest brilliant, cutting-edge work, and the MSM provides brilliant, penetrating analyses of what’s happening. But the hope fades. That’s when they feel the “knife-twisting-in-the-gut injustice.” Irony in abundance. But none they’re likely to appreciate.
Jun 30, 2005 - 6:25 am 143. yama-arashi:Frederick,
As usual, well said.
Jun 30, 2005 - 6:48 am 144. richard mcenroe:Ari Tai ó “I refuse to believe that the majority of the dem faithful and their elected don’t feel corrupted and soiled by these positions they (are forced to) take.”
I can’t hold with that position anymore, not when there’s zero evidence coming out of that party, in its actions and public utterances, to indicate anything to the contrary. The fact that a few Senators and Congressdrones have made some feeble, “Guys, we orter lighten up here” noises translates not as “This is wrong,” but “Oh, crap, we’ve been caught.” They’re not worried about what their positions are, they’re just worried about being too obvious about them. Until they show me otherwise, the Democrats have exactly the party and “principles” they want and must be opposed at every turn.
Jun 30, 2005 - 6:52 am 145. kynna:I am involved in the entertainment industry and so I’m surrounded by moonbats all the time. I’ve kept my leanings to myself because I have mouths to feed, but it gets harder all the time. The emotion tied up in the leftist hatred of Bush is disconcerting, to say the least. It’s as if it’s their religion and every reading of the Nation or Daily Kos is like a spiritual experience.
I don’t know. I think it does have a lot to do with wanting to belong, but it also seems to be a tendancy to follow the most glib, smug intellectual who comes along preaching hate and dirision. Just like a religious experience, they get swept away on the emotion and feel like they’ve had an epiphany, never questioning the validity of accusations or wondering about the lack of evidence for allegations.
Jun 30, 2005 - 6:55 am 146. Buddy Larsen:“…if we had signed onto Kyoto and the ICC and had thereby seemed less “arrogant,” wouldn’t Al Qaeda have maybe not attacked us?”
More likely is that had we never been the nation that entertained such notions to begin with, Al Qaeda would maybe not have ever gotten beyond the mimeograph-machine war.
Jun 30, 2005 - 7:01 am 147. Steven Mitchell:As to why they moonbats fly, I have several theories:
1. Many are stupid in the way that only very smart, insulated clever people can be. They’ve worked hard to believe the things they believe. Normal people can’t be stupid that way. It’s hard to give up something that makes you unique–especially if you were one of those nonconformist that dressed like every other hippie to show your individuality.
2. With considerable overlap with #1, many people have no common sense where human nature is concerned. For example, someone might think that because he wants to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya that everyone would like to.
3. Never underestimate the power of common stupidity, ignorance, malice, etc.
4. Many, especially in the public sphere, are lying through their teeth. They don’t believe it, but they think convincing others that it is true will give them something they want. For politicians this is often a naked power grab as old as time.
5. Some of the dumber ones from #4 eventually believe their own propaganda. The Boxers, Murrays, Durbins of the world probably fall in this camp.
For a long time, I thought this list, and things like it, explained it. However, I now think there is a sizable group of moonbats left out. “Projection” really does explain a lot of behavior, but more so than usually meant when “projection” is invoked. Of course, a lot of the ones motivated by the various things above are projecting, but there is still something missing.
I think it is a combination of statism and a will to power. There are some people, were they in a position to take dictator for life, that really would do it with “good intentions”. “By golly, if the only way to get universal health care is take over the country, then I’ll do it!” They think this is normal and good. So they *really* do believe that conservatives will, for example, use the patriot act to track their library habits and somehow use this against them–as the first step towards conservative domination.
Jun 30, 2005 - 7:25 am 148. Knucklehead:I don’t know if this thread survived the night but now that I’ve had some sleep it occurs to me that I may have been unfair with some of my fellow travellers passing through Roger’s Place.
In the interests of discussion and because this is what I happened to ponder and mull during my morning walk, I’ve tried to outline and generalize the positions I’ve noticed held by principled dissenters. (Please note that I did not say “demented, Bush-Derangement-Syndrome suffering, seditionist, barking moonbats”, nor did I use either of the perjorative L-words that draw such spitting invective from the people who say they are one or both of those things, I said “principled dissenters”.
And if at all possible, should anyone choose to participate, please try and have at least a hint of good humor. I exempt myself from this, of course, because I’m in full war paint at all times. (The dog hates when I paint her for battle, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do and the freakin’ dogs just gotta live with it. I bet Geronimo and Crazy Horse never had to listen to their dogs pissing and moaning about a little war paint).
Make at least a half-hearted attempt to avoid the dipsh*t and a*shole stuff. We’ll always have {war, profit, poverty}monger or conservative or wingnut, etc and liberal, leftie, pinko, and moonbat at our beck and call.
So here, simplistic because I am attempting to get to something reasonably simple as a starting point (haysoose, maria, and josephus it is tedius trying to be careful enough to avoid setting them off) is my list in a rough order intended to approximate scope:
- pacifists: there’s really no need to discuss this because there’s just nowhere to take the discussion. It would be akin to trying to foster civil discussion and understanding between the first Viking who battle-axed his way into the first Normandy convent he encountered and the first nun he found there. We just can’t get there from here so, unless y’all insist, let’s let this one go.
- criminologists: all violence is crime but there are important distinctions in how to deal with various crimes. For example, if some group commits a violent crime upon you using their silly military costumed dudes then you can use your silly military costumed dudes to deal with it. If, on the other hand, the perps are Authentically Oppressed (i.e, all humans except the subset of caucasoids with any connection to The West at any time since ~600 BCE) and dressed in civilian clothing, especially if they proclaim their higher calling to any of the principles set forth in manifestos by Mohammed, Marx, or Mao (or, of course, the beloved Che and Fidel), then you must use the transnational legal system.
- military force is OK under some set of extreme limitations. Unfortunately there is a lot of variation in this category so I’ll just list some of the more common:
o never when Republicans control the gummint since we all know that the Repukians are the party of Daddy Warbucks without the tiny sliver of a soft spot for even the most talented and adorable little orphans
o only when teams of select members of the Council of Elders and Other Really Caring Smart Folk cannot identify any shred or even the appearance of national interest
o only when you squeeze the absolute maximum multinational participation possible. Whatever the starting list of coalition participants and their contributions are, do absolutely nothing until the number of participants and each of their contributions is doubled
o pretty much any time it seems like a good idea provided the gummint gin up a war tax and make a noticeable drive to round up the offspring of some of Repukian’s and other Corporate Greedmongers and send them to the front real pronto. If we can do some sort of ration card system and nationalize the oil companies while we’re at it all the better.
o any time provided we’re willing to put forth a real war effort. If we are not committed to reducing the enemy to nothing but shell-shocked, pallid, hollow-cheeked women and children wandering among smoldering ruins, then don’t fight at all. (For what little it matters, this is the subset I have the most empathy with.)
- this whole thing is all screwed up because (a tom more sub-categories here, so I’ll list a few of the bigger ones):
o Afghanistan was fine, except
- shoulda negotiated with the Taliban till they handed over OBL
- shoulda put every single last US soldier into Afghanistan to make 100% sure that the head of OBL would be brought back to us on a platter at which time we could have had a huge block-party and called it quits
o Should not have touched Iraq unless and until they did something we could prove absolutely and even that had to be on US soil and none of this hokey “embassies and warships are US soil” nonsense
o Should not have touched Iraq because, someday, somewhere, we’re going to need to use the military against somebody and if we have some of them in Iraq how are we going to do what needs to be done?
o Iraq was a good target except
- way too many troops, shoulda just doubled down on the no-fly forces and sealed that dump up completely until they all starved to the point of bringing Saddam’s head to us on a platter so we could have a block party and call it quits
- way too few troops, shoulda waited till we had OBL’s head and finished the block party and then put in enough troops to garrison every freakin’ mud hovel in that freakin’ hellhole
o There were better targets than Iraq (Iran, NK, take yer pick)
- Unless we fight all the bad guys we shouldn’t fight any bad guys! This is the same as the “Johnny, if you didn’t bring enough bubblegum for everyone then you have no right to chew bubblegum” crowd. There’s no point attempting to discuss anything with this segment because they are irremedially stupid.
- America had done crummy things and we to just shut up and mind our own business until all the nice people we’ve been mean to come and take all our stuff and kill us and when that happens we need to shut up and let them take all our stuff and kill us because that’s what we all deserve. See the “no point… irremedially stupid” comment above.
If anyone else wants to play, please add or subtract, tell me what I missed or how I’m wrong about what I didn’t miss, whatever.
Jun 30, 2005 - 7:32 am 149. Matt in Tampa:*Bush’s mere presence in the White House humiliates his opponents*
I suppose my theory is even more simplified- I’ve said it on numerous occasions,when folks accuse liberals of “hating America”. I don’t think its that they hate America, its that they hate an America where they’re not in charge.
By the way, I firmly believe Typekey hates America.
Jun 30, 2005 - 7:36 am 150. Buddy Larsen:So true–one thing about a blind spot is, you can’t see what’s there, nor what’s not there. And if it’s a moral blind spot, you can’t even know you have that blind spot, except by implication (which can really piss you off at the “moralists” who point it out).
Jun 30, 2005 - 7:40 am 151. The Bushinator:From today’s NY Newsday… i’d be interested to know your thoughts on it.
A need to know our enemy
The president talks about understanding, but the U.S. does little to understand Islam and the Muslim world
BY MICHAEL HOLTZMAN
Michael Holtzman, a public relations executive, was a public affairs adviser to the U.S. trade ambassador in the Clinton administration and has served as a consultant at the U.S. State Department.
June 30, 2005
The groundwork for President George W. Bush’s speech to the nation Tuesday night on U.S. progress in Iraq was laid last week by White House adviser Karl Rove, who denounced Democrats for failing to grasp the post-9/11 world.
Striking a theme the president would pick up days later, Rove summarized the administration’s muscular strategy for the war on terrorism in starkly partisan terms: “Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.”
Bush also mentioned “understanding” in his speech to an increasingly skeptical nation, except with a twist: “The terrorists do not understand America.”
In fact, it’s the reverse: The U.S. must understand its enemies in order to defeat them. This has been a guiding principle of military strategy since Sun Tzu’s influential fourth-century BC tract “The Art of War.”
More recently, “knowing thy enemy” was at the heart of the campaign the U.S. and the West waged to defeat Soviet communism, beginning famously with diplomat George F. Kennan’s “X” telegram and his Foreign Affairs article on “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” During the Cold War, the U.S. sought to understand the history, motives, aspirations and vulnerabilities of its enemy so it could be defeated and give the United States an opportunity to assume leadership of the “free world.”
But the U.S. has made scant effort to understand the enemy in the post-9/11 world. These efforts have been denigrated and politicized, making the war on terrorism more difficult, perhaps impossible, to win.
Al-Qaida terrorists are unlike any enemy the U.S. has faced. They do not comprise a fixed army and have no mailing address. “They wear no uniform,” as Bush said this week. The terrorists who threaten America are fanatical and amorphous, killing, dying and regenerating. Their grievances span centuries.
The U.S. has squandered the opportunity to increase its grasp of what makes a terrorist or would-be terrorist tick. It is not terrorism alone that America is fighting. It is fighting ideologies that drive and justify terrorism.
This “war of ideas” to limit the pool of potential future terrorists has suffered greatly by the lack of U.S. understanding. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. government has sponsored a bewilderingly counterproductive campaign for hearts and minds in the Arab and Muslim world. From offering U.S. government Web sites to reach some of the least Internet-connected areas of the world to selling patronizing pro-U.S. publications like the U.S. State Department’s ill-fated Hi Magazine, the failure to understand the audience is palpable.
Poll after poll shows that the people of the Arab and Muslim world hold the American people in higher regard than they do the U.S. government. So why hasn’t U.S. “soft power” – doctors, teachers, cultural figures – been deployed more strategically to communicate U.S. values?
For U.S. policy-makers and the general public, lack of understanding carries enormous risks. It can lead to unfair and potentially dangerous generalizations about Islam and Muslims, at home and abroad. Bush has recognized this risk, going to great lengths to say that the U.S. is not at war with Arabs and Islam. But Osama bin Laden argues exactly the opposite. This is not an argument the U.S. can afford to lose.
The U.S. government should call on the American public to make unprecedented efforts to understand Islam – what it is and isn’t. The campaign should draw on America’s full educational arsenal – from high school textbooks to preachers in the pulpits. This effort would demonstrate respect for the great world faith and, more strategically, would allow the government to command the resources and the commitment to defeat the enemy that lurks at Islam’s margins.
Aggressive militarism in the face of a mortal threat is not wrong. But in a war in which ideology plays so prominent a role, in which conflict exists not between states but between worldviews, and in which preventing more and more converts to a bloodthirsty cause must be a top priority, understanding is a weapon we can’t afford to ignore
Jun 30, 2005 - 7:49 am 152. chuck:The U.S. government should call on the American public to make unprecedented efforts to understand Islam – what it is and isn’t. The campaign should draw on America’s full educational arsenal – from high school textbooks to preachers in the pulpits.
I think it is pathetic, Sesame Street and Barney writ large. And frankly, I don’t see anti-Muslim prejudice as a problem in this country nor any reason we should pander to Islam. I mean, why not Catholicism instead? The Catholic religion is argueably a more important in the world and certainly in South/Central America and Africa. This is just another case of a Democrat playing the interest group card. Truly pathetic.
Now, if the Muslim countries of the world want to institute classes on understanding Christianity in their schools I will be intrigued, but I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon.
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:18 am 153. Knucklehead:Kynna,
They are evangelical, aren’t they. Shame about their choice of dogma.
Steven Mitchell,
So they *really* do believe that conservatives will, for example, use the patriot act to track their library habits and somehow use this against them–as the first step towards conservative domination.
I know this came at the end of a serious and admirable post but I could not help laughing. This library silliness re: the Patriot Act is an astonishingly common complaint among moonbats and whenever it crops up I get this oddly mixed feeling of humor and skeeved. I just sit there, jaw half-slacked, wondering what it is these people do in libraries that they are so concerned will be discovered.
Every time I hear it I have a legitimate spontaneous impulse to laugh at them and then it gets quickly stifled by this idea that maybe these people are freakin’ creepy.
I could understand their apprehension if it were basements and toolsheds or whatever, but libraries?!?! Somebody clue me in, what have I been missing all these years about libraries. Are there secret rooms and secret knocks with, like, really wild and crazy stuff going on?
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:25 am 154. Steven Mitchell:Bushinator, first of all, funny how it is always a former Clinton advisor that writes these things. That out of the way …
Understanding is good. Thinking that we can’t do anything else without impeding the gaining of that understanding–not so good. It’s never argued (by former Clinton advisors) that we need to do X in addition to what we are doing now. It’s always X as a panacea.
I’m happy to hear that you will be lobbying all of those universities and Democrats to get off their high horse on the Arabic studies initiatives. Oh, the CIA and defense department should fund as much Arabic studies as possible. But heaven forbid that the guv’mint should object to virulenty anti-American professers like E. Said and his gang. And if the CIA/DOD actually were allowed to recruit any of these people, the horror!
The more hard-core terrorists we kill, the easier it will be to understand, even change, the less motivated. You can’t find the redeemable Germans while Hitler is still running the country. And the sooner former Clinton advisors understand that, the sooner we’ll actually get some decent advice out of them.
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:31 am 155. Buddy Larsen:Bushinator, there’s a lot of general, comprehensive truth in the article, but it has a little politically-tinged opinion in it, too. Paragraphs 6 (”the US has made scant effort….”),8 (”The US has squandered….”), and 10 (”Poll after poll….”) especially, are opinions without any baseline against which to compare progress.
For example,what would things be like in lieu of the efforts that have been made? There is only one clue to that–and it is a huge one: The “Arab Spring”–a dozen nations making grass-roots movements away from radicalism & tyranny, and toward liberalism. Deep changes all over Araby. Except in ‘official’ Iran, liberty is–by all objective, verifiable accounts–on the march.
To read this article is to get an opposite impression. It seems to advance the politically-partisan and wholly speculative thesis that the war is a war between two bad ideologies (jihadi and Bushie), and is being “lost” by the bad ideology in the West, and that the prescription for victory is in doing something (understanding the enemy) that there is no evidence other than the author’s opinion, is not already being done–and with some success.
It could be said that the 90s were all about the author’s preferred “soft power.” The 90s, of course, are what we have to either unspool, or lose our way of life (if not our life, per se).
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:35 am 156. Frederick:Chuck:
“I think it is pathetic, Sesame Street and Barney writ large.”
Yes. Tedious pablum from someone who thinks the underprivileged foreigners with their quaint belief in their “great world faith” won’t hurt us if everybody can just can be rescheduled into the right classes. “American values” meets the Peace Corps meets Sun Tzu meets George Kennan meets Joe Nye’s “soft power” meets “They wear no uniforms” meets “an increasingly skeptical nation” meets “a full educational arsenal” for a grand myopic celebration of “It’s all about us” with a public relations toastmaster’s plea for understanding of something by somebody and funding for education and innovative initiatives to be undertaken by the best people. An excellent, if unintended, reflection of the America that the Islamists thought they were attacking. President Bush said that “The terrorists do not understand America.” If he’s wrong and that’s America, the Islamists understand it completely, from its timid whimpering to the empty crevices of its cranium to the decayed brittleness of its bones. But he’s not wrong.
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:37 am 157. The Bushinator:Wow. So you don’t think islam is as important in the world today as catholicism?
i’m sorry, i was under the impression that islamic fascists and fanatics were perhaps the biggest problem facing our country today. Or am I wrong?
Also, to describe such a move to teach islam better as “pandering to islam” is incredibly naive and short-sighted of you. if I recall my elementary and high school educations properly, learning the history of the catholic religion was something that was heavily taught, in classes such as world history and european history. these are classes that just about 100% of american students take. to be honest, i never had any clue what islam was until i took a course on the middle east in college. would you accuse the us school systems of pandering to catholics? get real. it’s just about making sure we are doing everything possible to educate our society on important issues. It’s not about favoring one over another. hell, school systems in the midwest still refuse to teach evolution, so perhaps this argument won’t get through to some people no matter what.
anyway, i think the more important aspect of the article is the US’s lacking attempts to sway the minds of arabs so as to produce less fear of the US. Without this, you are just admitting that terrorists will always exist and will always be able find new supporters and there is nothing we can do except continue to fight them. to me this is a pessimistic and superficial argument that I can’t accept at face value.
Fighting them is like trying to remove an infestation of cockaroaches by stepping on each one you find. While that surely can be part of the solution, there should no doubt be another simultaneous part. Like the article says, this involves a coherent, comprehensive, and effective attempt to actively show Arabs that Americans are doing positive things in their region. So far this has been relatively inneffective, largely due to the Administration’s ignorance of the people they are dealing with in the region.
Now, I’m not saying all terrorists can be eliminated, but they can certainly be reduced to much much lower numbers through the proper methods- methods that include more than blowing them up (which in many ways is counterproductive).
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:39 am 158. The Bushinator:FYI that last post was directed at Chuck…
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:43 am 159. Steven Mitchell:Knucklehead, if one is the kind of person that would burn every copy of every remotely conservative book to kill “dangerous ideas”–then one is willing to think that John Ashcroft is interested in whether you giggled over Canterbury Tales. (Though if moderns would get their jollies from the Tales, it would be a vast improvement compared to what they are probably doing instead.)
Those ubiquitious guys in pony tails sitting behind the desk at the alternative book stores–the ones that sneer when the customer asked for Milton Friedman, let alone Ann Coulter–really would stop you reading Friedman if they could. Why wouldn’t they think you would stop them reading Chomsky? Only since you might have said something moderately pleasant about George W. Bush in passing, you are clearly a jack-booted thug that would make Chomsky reading habits a federal crime, punishable by 15 years in the salt mines–or at least removal of library privileges. (In his sheltered world, the latter might actually horrify him more.) He, on the other hand, would merely move you out to a healthy collective farm where you could learn the errors of your ways. There, you would have breaks every night to read all the Chomsky you want!
Likewise, take the person that has spent his whole career as a teacher or education activist trying to indoctrinate a generation of children. It’s impossible for such a person to understand that maybe someone wants their kids to learn a balanced version of American history simple as necessary prerequisite of a good citizen. No, you must be trying to get Nathanial Hawthorne back into the curriculum as the start of a Puritan State.
People either believe in a certain minimal amount of liberty, or they don’t. For example, H.D. Thoreau was wacky in a lot of ways, but he understood the basic idea of liberty. This kept him merely thinking outside the box instead of leaping into the abyss.
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:49 am 160. c:What a sad little article from a Clinton appointee chastisng us for “not trying to understand the enemy”, and I say this as someone who did Arabic studies at the U. What more is there to understand than that much of Arab culture is broken, the enemy’s aspirations dark and regressive, their failures and pathologies projected onto successful civilization elsewhere, and that they want to kill Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Americans, Israelis, Westerners, capitalists, infidels, innocents, people on planes and at work, our troops, authors/ filmmakers/ and pols who question their brand of Islam, Sufis, adulterer Muslim women, apostate Muslims, non-Islamist Muslims, observant Muslims as sanctioned collateral damage, and themselves as jihadists and suicide bombers. Who says we don’t understand them sufficiently? That’s why we’re over there in the ME, showing them our force and showing them a better way with a drastic intervention and no more enabling. They need to start understanding us a bit better for everybody’s good.
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:50 am 161. Knucklehead:‘Nator,
I can only get so far with this sort of thing, then I can’t tolerate the dripping condescension any longer. I probably should have read the whole thing before reacting, but I just can’t.
But the U.S. has made scant effort to understand the enemy in the post-9/11 world. These efforts have been denigrated and politicized, making the war on terrorism more difficult, perhaps impossible, to win.
Since the “US” is not actually a sentient organism the author obviously means the “administration” or “the citizens” or, perhaps, both. I expect to come back to this but who knows.
Al-Qaida terrorists are unlike any enemy the U.S. has faced. They do not comprise a fixed army and have no mailing address.
The author has just identified himself as Captain Freakin’ Obvious immediately after he’s opened his article by telling us how stupid we are not to recognize and understand “the enemy”. I’m beginning to believe I’ve come to recognize one additional cadre among the enemy’s forces and that cadre is composed of blithering, egotistical morons like this author.
The terrorists who threaten America are fanatical and amorphous, killing, dying and regenerating. Their grievances span centuries.
Who is it that doesn’t understand this? Could it be the same loons who piss and moan about Gitmo and missing timetables and exit strategies? If there is someone still wandering around claims to be concerned about the GWoT or the US response to it but fails to understand this, please slap them on my behalf.
The U.S. has squandered the opportunity to increase its grasp of what makes a terrorist or would-be terrorist tick. It is not terrorism alone that America is fighting. It is fighting ideologies that drive and justify terrorism.
And then we go off on some idiotic “war of ideas” BS. There’s no magic program to put on VOA, no magic brochures to hand out, and nobody – not even the Public Relations/Public Affairs guru – who has any clue how to go about undoing the damage of 1300+ years of Salafist madness inflicted on, now, some portion of two billion people or thereabouts.
Somewhere, somebody got some budget to go try and figure this out and, yeah, somewhere in that effort is undoubtedly gummint bureaucrats stupid enough to try and put websites up for the disconnected and publish idiotic brochures to people who can’t read or in the wrong language.
We don’t know how to do it, we gotta try, some of the efforts are going to jaw-droppingly moronic just like some high-falutin’ article writers and some erstwhile citizens are jaw-droppingly moronic.
OK, I feel better now, I vented. No doubt the author had some valid point to make but I can’t wait for it. He didn’t show me anything worth reading in the paragraphs I read so I ain’t bothering with the rest of it. Too much to read, too little time.
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:52 am 162. Buddy Larsen:c been takin’ them “how to write good” pills.
Jun 30, 2005 - 8:54 am 163. Rick Ballard:c,
The idea of understanding the culture should be implemented by encouraging the Iraqis to use time honored Arab methods of dealing with terrorists/insurgencies. I don’t have any problem with that whatsoever. Total annihilation of the Sunnis would resolve many issues and bring a modicum of peace to Iraq.
It may seem a bit harsh to us but we really need to understand and embrace the Arab way of life. Let Arabs be Arabs. We might encourage sparing children under seven – if that wouldn’t be seen as too overbearing and insensitive to cultural norms.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:00 am 164. The Bushinator:Steven Mitchell,
Your assumption that the article is advocating soft power instead of hard is incorrect. He specifically states “Aggressive militarism in the face of a mortal threat is not wrong.” That said, the article focuses on the importance of soft power (with the assumption that hard power is also utilized), because soft power is what the administration has not done enough of (or has not done properly).
That is not to say there haven’t been improvements. But it is necessary for the administration to elaborate on these and share them with both the american, arab, and international public.
reading this thread, some have commented on how it is not the administration’s job to educate the public on every initiative they are doing. unfortunately, while this might be one’s personal opinion, it nonetheless has some very negative effects on the administration that need to be addressed- specifically, it breeds a lack of confidence, or even hostility, by americans, arabs, and others.
There’s a reason companies engage in reputation management campaigns, and hire public relations experts- it’s not because they simply disagree with the idea that people should find out on their own what they are doing- it’s because they know that taking an active approach to informing the public has REAL and TANGIBLE benefits. In the case of companies, it gets more people to shop in their stores (increasing PROFITS). In the case of politics, it builds support for your what you are doing, which results in votes, international assistance (less cost, more resources available), and less enemies.
Also, for what it’s worth, the author of the article recently was a consultant for the State Department in 2004, and was involved in the immediate coordination of FEMA’s response to the twin towers attacks on 9/11.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:00 am 165. yama-arashi:Bushinator,
Just some perspective from someone who lives outside of America and speaks, reads and writes Chinese and Japanese and English. The problem with the learning other cultures or explaining ourselves to other cultures routine is that it is usually but a mask that in the end means accepting tyranny on the one hand and in fact promulgating stereotypes about other cultures on the other hand. I mean Omar and Juan Cole don’t agree about anything. Whose side should we be on? I’m on Omar’s. The Juan Cole’s of the world almost always have a very superficial understanding, and it begins with not knowing the language well enough, and they are less interested in Islam per se than in using Islam to make Foucault or Chomsky or whomever appear right. The so-called Japanese experts from America who make their rounds through Kyoto every so often are to a man and women verbally challenged and ideologically blinkered. We laugh at them and they are truly “ugly Americans.” Giving them more students is not the key. Learning the langauge is important so that someone like Michael Yon can speak directly to the people he is dealing with as much is lost in translation and so that Omar (of Iraqi the Model) can take a day off and communicate to an American in his native tongue, but what the world needs much less of is the Clinton-like faux students of this and that culture, and much more of Americans like Buddy and Knucklehead who happen to know another language well. The serious study of other languages is a must, but all the rest is just a mask. Sleight of hand.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:05 am 166. PeterUK:“So why hasn’t U.S. “soft power” – doctors, teachers, cultural figures – been deployed more strategically to communicate U.S. values?”
Because, though it might have slipped your notice,the recipients of this soft power often have a penchant for shooting bombing and decapitating those who come in peace.
As for this:-
“I’m not saying all terrorists can be eliminated, but they can certainly be reduced to much much lower numbers through the proper methods- methods that include more than blowing them up (which in many ways is counterproductive)”.
More specifics would be appreciated.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:16 am 167. Buddy Larsen:That’s pretty symbolic to this old cynic, ‘Nator–the State Dept’s well-known and very powerful “Arab lobby”, which been ensconsed therein for decades, and has done such a measurably fine job of executing its portfolio–including mopping up after the emblem of its success was made manifest on 911.
And you ignore the “Arab Spring”, although it is a tsunami of acclamation of the administration’s policy of NOT overselling the idea of Arab cultural backwardness.
Soft-power initiatives, you guess, might not have the precise opposite of your intended effect. OK. Who doesn’t agree? That’s what the Arabists in the State Dept already do, the proposition under test all this time. “Arab Spring” IS the result of soft-power and hard-power in synergy. Your idea then, is to alter the ratio a bit? Is that what you’re saying? Honest question, not rhetoric.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:19 am 168. yama-arashi:p.s.
More on topic, get the job done. Omar understands America and so will his children and theirs. They’re enough. But you have to win the war decisively first. And then hang around for good measure.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:21 am 169. Fresh Air:Bushinator,
Your article develops question-begging into a high art form. Without administering any evidence, it proceeds from the premise that the administration, the public and perhaps the military do not understand Islam.
Sorry, but that ain’t proven. We certainly know enough to understand that it’s at the root of the most dangerous terrorist movements around the world. In fact, I would wager we know a whole lot more about muslims than they know about us, because unlike Christians and Jews in the Islamic world, we actually allow them to practice their faith here; they are on display up close and personal. We don’t have to visit the Middle East zoo to see them.
As to understanding by the populace, take a look at Bernard Lewis’s popularity since 2001 and you can see that Americans have been trying to figure out what makes theses critters tick. OTOH, look at what the Palestinians are reading: Zionist conspiracy books. Who knows more about whom?
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:23 am 170. Steven Mitchell:Bushinator, as I aluded in my first reply to the article, anyone serious about enhancing soft power in addition to hard power would have a different focus. They would at least *mention* the university/Dem hold up of the Arabic studies initiatives.
They might also ask about the ROTC campus bans and military recruitment bans. One would think that having such wonderfully “educated” people in the military would facilitate discussion with our poor beleagured soft power advocates in the State Department fighting a valient rear-guard action against Bush’s cowboy dismantlement of world stability.
Also, if the author was less condescending and we hadn’t heard the same talking points a zillion times already, there might be more credibility. Like Knucklehead, my eyes glazed by the end. I’d also get behind soft power more if those championing it would actually try to use it to *aid* our stated hard power goals instead of impeding them. (See Durbin, Chirac, etc.) That’s why Blair has credibility.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:23 am 171. Buddy Larsen:“The soft bigotry of low-expectations”–a resounding, resounding phrase–with a real idea behind it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:24 am 172. The Bushinator:yama-arashi:
valid points. though, i don’t think it’s safe to say that it’s impossible to learn another culture without understanding their language. that said, i would agree that it’s too easy for people to study a culture and get a superficial, stereo-typed view of it and assume it’s correct.
I suppose what is ultimately the most important is also first hand experience- travel to a place and meet it’s people; that knowledge is much more valuable than reading books.
on another note- are you familiar with an american professor named Gerald Curtis? He’s a very well-known expert on Japan and frequently meets with their dignataries and presidents, etc. He was my professor for a semester at Columbia University- very smart fellow and, from what i gathered, one who really knew what he was talking about.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:28 am 173. chuck:Bushinator,
Like the article says, this involves a coherent, comprehensive, and effective attempt to actively show Arabs that Americans are doing positive things in their region. So far this has been relatively inneffective, largely due to the Administration’s ignorance of the people they are dealing with in the region.
Everyone understands power. Somewhere in his autobiography Omar Bradley was spoke about the idea of understanding the opposing general. He considered the whole idea rather silly and instead emphasized the fundamental value of taking the proper objectives and putting the enemy at a disadvantage. That is to say, whatever the enemy thought mattered little, an untenable position is always an untenable position.
And why this unsupported dig at the administration: “…largely due to the Administration’s ignorance of the people they are dealing with in the region.” I see no reason to believe this. In fact, I have precisely the opposite impression. If Michael Holtzman is indicative of the intellectual caliber the Democrats can bring to the table, I’ll pass, thank you.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:35 am 174. Knucklehead:‘Nator,
reading this thread, some have commented on how it is not the administration’s job to educate the public on every initiative they are doing. unfortunately, while this might be one’s personal opinion, it nonetheless has some very negative effects on the administration that need to be addressed- specifically, it breeds a lack of confidence, or even hostility, by americans, arabs, and others.
Please elaborate on this. I honestly don’t follow it. I’ll try using an analogy to explain where my confusion lies.
Imagine a whole sh*tload of rain and some really nasty, dangerous and destructive flooding. There is, of course, a public response to this situation and, among the all the activity and bedlam, is Mr. Iam Incharge, Director of Emergency Flood Response.
Mr. Incharge is out there, knee deep in muddy water, soaked to the skin, working the radios and cellphones, barking orders, receiving status reports, redirecting resources, looking for more resources, and so on.
Along comes Mr. G. Ubettertellme, a concerned citizen who fears his property might be destroyed if this flooding business gets any worse and isn’t sure that Mr. Incharge is the right man for the job and, well, never did like him anyway. Mr. Ubettertellme starts asking some tough questions of Mr. Incharge and it goes pretty much like this…
U: Yo, Incharge, what are you doing about this flood? What are you doing to save people’s property? Why is this bad already?
I: Oh, hi there, U. Well, there isn’t much we can do about the rain and the floodwaters coming from upstream other than try our best to deal with it.
We have to make some tough decision about what we can and can’t save.
As for why it’s this bad, well… apparently the drainage system is at the maximum capacity it was designed to handle, but its old and some of it is clogged a bit, so it’s not handling its max. The dyke system is 40 and 50 years old and some of it broke and we’ve got some serious water coming through.
As for what we’re doing, well, we’ve got folks out working to break some of those clogs so we can get the drainage closer to max. We’ve got some folks out sandbagging the broken spots and shore up some other danger spots. We’re also looking at how we might redirect some of the floodwaters to minimize damage – those hard decisions I mentioned. And we have some smart people with some out-of-the-box ideas out there trying to figure out if there’s more we can do.
U: You’re gonna have to better than that, I! Why is the drainage system clogged in places? Who let that happen and who is holding them accountable? Why isn’t the dyke system adequate for this level of flood and why hasn’t it been maintained properly all these years? Who’s being held accountable for that?
How many people are sandbagging? Why aren’t there more? How did you decide how many to put on repairs and how many on shoring up what ain’t broken yet? How do I know you’re using the right type of sack – or sand for that matter? How do we know you’ve got the right amount of bags and sand?
How come nobody’s asked me for my input on these difficult decisions? Shouldn’t those of us with property on the line have a say in these decisions?
Who are these smart people with the new ideas? How do I know how smart they are? What are these ideas? What criteria are you using to decide whether or not to implement or reject the various ideas? If a new idea is used who’s watching for the future implications?
I: U, I have a flood to deal with. Please go away and let me and everyone else do our jobs.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:36 am 175. Sandy P:Rommel, you magnificent bastard.
I read your book!
I love that movie. Sniff.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:37 am 176. ForNow:“c been takin’ them ‘how to write good’ pills.”
See, c? People agree about you.
* * *
“‘For the left, things got onto the wrong track, then 9/11 happened to keep it that way….’
“Yes. The world didn’t evolve as it was supposed to. ….”
A commenter last night at Polipundit made similar points about the 2000 election and 9/11. I guess I should say that the first time that I saw them made was by “Wolfgang Von Skeptic” at Lucianne.com, a year or more ago. Other things that I say, however, are original (I hope).
* * *
“I am involved in the entertainment industry and so I’m surrounded by moonbats all the time. ….
“…. Just like a religious experience, they get swept away on the emotion and feel like they’ve had an epiphany, never questioning the validity of accusations or wondering about the lack of evidence for allegations.”
Their competitive-team kind of focus on their climactic epiphanic interpretations of things without concern for corroboration or confirmation may have to do with their being in show biz — an area of contentious decidings about feelings and the affective. E.g., popularity contests. Acceptance contests. But still, I’ve wondered about this in regard to the American left more generally. Many leftists, including many moonbats, do offer things as arguments and evidence. But they tend to place excessive trust in single news reports and in claims of fact in opinion articles, those which support their views, and don’t often try to investigate further. Some don’t seem even to understand the things which they do present as evidence — even some Dem pols seem to simply not grasp what kind of connection Bush makes between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, even when they quote him. A Dem part-way insider told me a few years ago that in fact many Dem pols didn’t understand the foreign policy which they were criticizing. (I had asked: are those pols stupid or lying?) And very few leftists seem to look down the road of the empowerment of terrorist subcultures by advancing technology — or when they do, they don’t build it into their world-picture but forget it (and it is an unpleasant subject) when they think of a subject even slightly different, as an infant forgets a ball that has rolled behind a chair. Their picture of world security conditions is way too static. They’ve frozen at 9/10, when 9/11 woke many of us up to the fact that the world is not just changing, but growing swifter in its changes, too.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:43 am 177. c:The problem with consciously projecting a lot of “soft power” is that most of its advocates- the cultural exchange types- are not American advocates. They’re multi-culti and Yankee-is-crass true believers. We could send a lot of NEA teachers and college profs into the ME, but they would only teach Arabs and Muslims what they preach to our kids and young adults: that US history is shameful, our foreign policy imperialistic, our culture declasse and that our Christians want a theocracy in the States. Should make for some good cross-cultural agreement, though.
I took one of those cultural exchange trips to Russia a few years ago with a group of mostly Carterites, and I heard one of them tell some Russian entrepreneurs that their country would be much better off not emulating our insensitive capitalistic ways. I took him aside and asked what he was doing, and his revenge was to announce to our group that I was a Republican. Since that time, when I hear the cringe-inducing term “soft power”, I think of that anti-American and unchivalrous wimp!
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:44 am 178. The Bushinator:peteruk:
more specifics… please keep in mind i’m at work now and can’t write anywhere near all i have to say… regardless, specifics such as those suggested in the article aren’t a bad start (doctors, teachers, even american contractors who can work with arabs to improve their basic infrastructure isn’t a bad idea if implemented in a way that makes it seem we’re working with them rather than for them).
you say we dont send those people over because the people they would be talking to are the same ones that will blow them up. this thinking is inherently part of the problem, and creates a catch 22. we cant convince iraqis we mean well and aren’t out to get them until the terrorists are defeated, but we can’t truly defeat the terrorists without convincing iraqis that we mean well.
but perhaps you think we can eliminate the terrorists without any soft power? if so, i’d legitimately like to hear an explanation, because i personally am not so sure.
i think another problem with your logic is that you are arguing that the situation is a total mess in iraq and anyone who goes there will be blown up (or at least have a justifiable fear of being blown up). this seems like an exaggeration of the violence there (as i’ve heard many of you point out already, the violence isn’t that bad there, correct?). people shouldn’t be so afraid to go help out there. with the support of the military, i’m sure it would be even safer.
like yama-arashi pointed out, it’s often hard to understand a culture unless you speak it’s language. as i added, first-hand experience helps also. we need americans, not just the military, but members of the civil sector, to go help out there. the government should support this. i’m not saying they don’t already, but instead of paying a giant corporation like halliburton millions of dollars to go in there, perhaps more grassroots efforts to bring companies and professionals into the country would be helpful in eliminating the prejudices and stereotypes that many in the region have against america.
ps- if i dont respond to people it’s ebcause i’m at work right now and really shouldnt be writing this much on a website. oops. i’ll do my best.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:45 am 179. Buddy Larsen:Knucklehead, you magnificent bastard, I read your post!
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:46 am 180. c:their climactic epiphanic interpretations of things without concern for corroboration or confirmation
Good stuff, ForNow!
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:48 am 181. yama-arashi:bushinator,
“i don’t think it’s safe to say that it’s impossible to learn another culture without understanding their language.” Hmmmmm. Guess this depends on what we mean by learn. I mean superficially sure. But someone who doesn’t know English at all, or reads and writes it at a junior high school level, could know America?
I’d say reading books is very important. Especially old ones. I’d also say more than traveling a commitment to living in that culture. Best of all, “‘ till death do you part.” Most so-called experts study abroad for a few years, pick up the language just enough to fool others who don’t know the language at all(which is remarkably easy to do), and then graft said culture onto the predominant categories and ways of thinking of the academy.
Mr. Curtis. Ahh yes. He fits a type and he plays that role very well. Since we are getting along so well I’ll leave all criticism aside and just say, there are many, many worse, and some better. IMHO.
Thanks for taking seriously what I had to say. Enjoyed it.
That’s all for me tonight. Up bright and early tomorrow and Summer traveling begins. I wonder if they’ll let me into China this time. Hear there’s all sorts of fun stuff going on, riots and the like, and you know me…..First to Hong Kong though. Wish me luck.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:49 am 182. Knucklehead:Yama,
Thanks for the kind words, but last I checked Goombahnics wasn’t yet recognized as an “official language”, therefore I don’t qualify. I can’t say I’ve mastered any language, not even my own.
I’ve been around the block a little bit and can order off the menu, pay the bill, ride the subways or taxis where I need to get, dial the phone, read the calendar, and avoid being sold into sexual slavery, in a couple languages other than English, but that’s about it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 9:55 am 183. Buddy Larsen:What are those Halliburton hands, chopped liver?
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:00 am 184. The Bushinator:knucklehead:
in response to your flood analogy (which was well-done, imo)…
my initial reaction is that there are several differences between the two situations. The first that come to mind are:
1) what if you the flood was started not by a rain, but let’s say by fire-hydrants that are spewing vast amounts of water onto the street, flooding it and the nearby area. And then let’s say the fire hydrants are spewing water everywhere because one day Mr. Incharge decided that the caps on the fire-hydrants were old and breaking, and needed to be fixed. Unfortunately, when they went to fix them and replace the caps, water started spewing everywhere. Would people in this situation have a right to question what mr. incharge is doing to solve the problem?
2) what if Mr. Iam Incharge was replaced with your cousin who was dropped on his head growing up and who you don’t think you can trust?
3) what if the guy solving the problem had a whole team of spokespeople and representatives to address the public and calm their fears, and he himself was constantly giving speeches and interviews about the problem?
4)in your analogy you also describe a long list of detailed things that Mr. Iamincharge is doing to solve the problem in a variety of ways. What if all he said was “trust me, we have to continue doing what we are doing”.
again, some of these can be challenged in some way or another, and i dont have time or the will to elaborate better on them now, but for the most part i think you should get my ideas.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:02 am 185. Buddy Larsen:Yama, good luck. Make things better. Buddah-speed.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:02 am 186. Sandy P:Don’t worry, ‘Nator. The world will be at peace when the world is under Islam.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:03 am 187. The Bushinator:yama-
thanks for your response. i dont mind criticism of mr. curtis, would be interesting to see what you have to say. i only had him for 1 semester.
when i said ‘travel’ to another country, i didnt mean superficial… i guess i meant live there for a while. sorry didnt make that distinction. i tend to agree with your thoughts. many ‘experts’ do often just graft a culture onto their own philosophy/ideology, which is a shame but can’t really be helped. as long as someone can enter an experience with an open mind (this is probably the most important), analyze it for what it is, be able to compare/contrast it to other situations, i think they should be able to form a reasonable assessment of a culture. just studying about it probably isn’t enough. but i think it can be done to a greater extent than you seem to think. i agree though that it’s hard and many many many people form just wrong and misguided opinions about other places.
anyway, good luck on your travels.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:09 am 188. Knucklehead:‘Nator,
Incharge is the Director of Emergency Flood Relief. Why are you suggesting that he went around mucking with fire-hydrants? Do you have some evidence that he exceeded his authority and pissed in somebody else’s sandbox?
That’s the problem with analogies – they are never perfect and subject to much abuse. But I do love them so.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:11 am 189. Buddy Larsen:Soft-power is being dispensed in great volumes every day by the young American soldiers–whose example and being say far more–and far better things for America–then all the newly-funded academics and government-paid “private” sociologists in the country could, ever.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:12 am 190. The Bushinator:C-
regarding your comments on soft power, it seems your own past (and somewhat limited) experiences with it are what have turned you off to it. To say, based on that, that it cannot be done properly is way too pessimistic.
i understand your objections to it though, which is why it isn’t an easy task… but i think the administration has more than enough resources/money/manpower to do it somewhat effectively.
from what i hear, though, bush will be making it a focus of his term by appointing karen hughes his undersecretary of state for diplomacy.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:12 am 191. Sandy P:Why is the burden always on us to understand and not the other way around?
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:13 am 192. yama-arashi:Knucklehead,
It was a hypothetical and not an expectation. But I figured if I could teach Knucklehead and Buddy Japanese and Chinese many of the problems in my part of the world might be over soon. At the very least what America is all about would be well represented. This is what the world needs. More Americans being Americans and less Dems doing that hands together half bow Al Gore thing when greeting the great other. Sheeeesh, talk about looking silly. I don’t think there has ever been a Buddy/Knucklehead on Japenese t.v. speaking Japanese. Always some Chomsky disciple. Painful to watch. And the Japenese painful to hear. (I use a stick to beat the proper intonation and pronunciation into my student’s tongues. Very effective.) Anyway, if you two proved to be bad students I’m sure we’d enjoy drowning our sorrows nightly at a few bars in Kyoto I know. And this really must be it for me. Long day tomorrow. In honor of PeterUK, Cheers,
yama-arashi
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:14 am 193. yama-arashi:Thanks for all the warm “bon voyages.”
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:17 am 194. Sandy P:Any time our host wants another health care thread, I’ve got my links ready.
Universal is not the way to go.
If one is a typical 20-something, do they really need insurance?
They are pretty healthy and don’t use a lot of services, do they?
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:17 am 195. Buddy Larsen:“Don’t worry, ‘Nator. The world will be at peace when the world is under Islam.” …and that’s a fact.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:17 am 196. The Bushinator:buddy-
yes soldiers are helping. this is indeed important, and i hope they are doing their best to put on a nice face to those who are good people in the region, and a mean face to those who are not.
but it is the military’s actions that are also hurting. by no means is this their fault, they are doing what they have to do to win a war and defeat an enemy, but it too often feeds into the propoganda of the enemy. that’s why i think they alone are a mixed bag for softpower- some will like them and some will not. they are also often seen as part of the american government. members of the civil sector might help elicit a better reponse.
knucklehead-
the director of emergency flood relief was also recently elected the chief of the fire department.
Sandy P-
yes, i want the entire world to be under islam. you got me pegged. my real name is sheikh abdullah mosada al-akbar. bow down before me!
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:21 am 197. Knucklehead:Sandy P,
You sly devil! Have you been running background preparations for moonbat mashing? Is that fair?
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:21 am 198. penwil:“regardless, specifics such as those suggested in the article aren’t a bad start (doctors, teachers, even american contractors who can work with arabs to improve their basic infrastructure isn’t a bad idea if implemented in a way that makes it seem we’re working with them rather than for them).”
Bushinator:
You really need to educate yourself on what we have actually been doing in Iraq these last two years. Our soldiers and civilian contractors (like the ones who occassionally get kidnapped and beheaded by those poor, misunderstood jihadists) have been buiding schools and hospitals. They’ve been repairing electrical grids and building sewage plants. They’ve been going into towns and showing the people how to set up democratic governing councils. The list is endless and ranges from restoring the swamp lands that Saddam drained and destroyed to setting up a veternary clinic in a small village. Not to mention that not so insignificant thing of putting them on path toward an elected, self-determined government and a free market system. In other words, real improvements on these peoples likes, which is a whole lot more useful than setting up yet another think tank in DC to “understand” the Arab culture.
Meanwhile the jihadists beheaded more Bhuddist monks and nuns in Thailand yesterday. I guess if those monks and nuns just need to get with the “understanding” program . . .
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:24 am 199. Sandy P:Boy, timing is everything, via Econopundit and I think LGF a day or so ago:
MEMRI.ORG’s most important contribution has been to make it harder for Middle East leaders to say one thing to their English-speaking audience while saying opposite and often contradictory things to their non-English-speaking constituents and allies.
It now seems MEMRI’s mandate has extended itself to US Islamic leaders as well:
Dr. Ahmad Dewidar, imam of the Islamic Society of Mid-Manhattan and a lecturer on Islamic studies at Manhattanville College, has recently been referred to as “the face of the next generation of Muslims in America” [1] and is considered a prominent Muslim leader in New York having met with President George W. Bush, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York State Governor George Pataki [2] and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. [3]
Recently, Dr. Dewidar, who is Egyptian-born, attended the annual Conference of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs [4] in Egypt and gave a series of media interviews. In an interview which aired on MBC TV on June 9, Dr. Dewidar discussed the spread of Islam in the U.S. He referred to sermons he had heard in 1995 that stated “We are going to the White House so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become Muslim House.” (To view this MEMRI TV Clip, visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=730 )
—-
The problem is, ‘Nator, we don’t need to listen to experts tell us what they think is going on, we can read their papers for ourselves. Especially in Europe w/a free translation program if we don’t understand a language.
We have been told for 1500 years Islam’s goal. It hasn’t changed.
At some point in time the track record speaks for itself. Kimchee/NorK comes to mind. Sign the agreement he wants because this time he’ll keep to his end of the deal.
Sean Penn telling someone it wasn’t “helpful” always saying “Death to America.” BTW, folks, their stock market had a “black Saturday.” The worst tanking ever by “electing” Khomeini’s goon. But they won’t pay attention to how India handled the same situation.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:29 am 200. Knucklehead:the director of emergency flood relief was also recently elected the chief of the fire department.
If open fire hydrants produce floods that require emergency flood response services and sandbagging and tax the drainage system and break down portions of dykes you’ve got much bigger problems than whether or not your fire chief made and poorly time decision to change caps or chose defective caps.
Some of your twists and bends presume, of course, the sheer idiocy of the administration. Hence, I suppose, your knickname. Believe what you wish but drop that silliness from future discussion – it is just way too tedious to bother with.
You’re making preposterous twists and bends in the analogy. That is not only disallowed under the rules (see the boxtop on top of the ‘fridge) but it ruins all the fun of analogies. If you can’t respect mine, then build your own.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:30 am 201. Buddy Larsen:Sandy P, I and my whole fam have “gone naked” for the last 20 years. That’s about 150k saved, riding the SP-500, and gaining a triple. We just pay for it if we need a medical service. Only ripple in all that time daughter, busted an ACL in volleyball some years ago, I didn’t have the 10k ready cash, so I went down to the bank and borrowed it. Credit is no problem if one keeps the saved cash “saved”–and invested in the liquid markets (as opposed to invested in consumption). But I’m a nut-case gambler, i guess–even tho those premiums shore look nice in MY accounts. But we go to the Doc for like, reasons, not in order to make sure we get a return for the premiums (”Doc, I have a hangnail!”).
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:33 am 202. The Bushinator:knucklehead-
i can no longer tell if you’re serious or joking about bending the rules of the analogy. i was just trying to make it fit the current situation better! (aka: the president is the person who decided we invade iraq, and he’s also the person responsible for ensuring that we deal with the consequences properly.)
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:36 am 203. Knucklehead:Buddy,
People do misunderstand insurance and the difference between anxiety and danger and such stuff, don’t they.
And the idea of actually paying for medical services just drives a vast swath of the public outright bonkers.
But wait! We’re playing into Sandy P’s hands, here, the evil temptress that she is!
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:38 am 204. Knucklehead:But ‘Nator, the analogy fit the situation just fine. The situation is that we have no end of malcontents, second guessers, backbenchers, Monday mornin’ quaterbacks, plain ol’ besserwissers, and ankle-biters. Therein lies part of the problem. The big part of the problem, though, is the seditionists.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:42 am 205. Buddy Larsen:And even the seditionists would be no problem if only someone would get off their ass and control that rainfall.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:44 am 206. Canucklehead:George is one of the “Rushmore Boys”… and it drives the Democrats and “Intern-ational Community” nuts. When you look at the other “Rushmore Boys” you see Teddy, Abe, Tom and the other George. You don’t see political party affiliation. You see men. You see determination and drive. You see your best friend or your worst enemy.
The Democrats see their worst enemy in George. Do they hate Teddy, Abe, Tommy, and the other George? By their messaging, it sure seems they do.
I think the strength of the USA is that at it’s core, it is “small town”. By that I mean the nation rewards those who display small-town leadership. When a neighbour’s house is burning, you grab your pails, hop in the truck, and get over there to see what you can do. You know others are doing the exact same thing. Once together, you’ll “git’er done!”
The Democrats, on the other hand, are “big city”. They aren’t your best friend or your worst enemy. They are the nameless-faceless bureaucrat that is trying to convey an executive decision in an adminstrative decision-making context.
The American public know that bureaucrats don’t man the ramparts or storm the beaches. Bureaucrats are referred to as REMF. The Democrats have carved out a niche as being metro-REMF in world affairs.
That position is not a position of strength. That position is the definition of soft-power.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:47 am 207. PW:i was just trying to make it fit the current situation better! (aka: the president is the person who decided we invade iraq, and he’s also the person responsible for ensuring that we deal with the consequences properly.)
Since the flood in Knucklehead’s analogy obviously stands for Islamist terrorism, your extension of his analogy would indicate that you think Bush is responsible for creating said Islamist terrorism by invading Iraq, no?
Alternatively I’d have to conclude that you consider the invasion to be the real problem (i.e. the “flood” that Bush is responsible for), which makes your argument look even worse.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:48 am 208. Rick Ballard:Penwil!,
Good to read a comment from you again. Not to worry too much about the blather, it takes the credulity of a high school sophmore to buy what’s on offer.
You are absolutely correct about the contractors. They possess a talent pool that is very deep wrt people who have actually worked and lived in the ME and possess adequate understanding of how the culture functions in practice rather than theory.
In functional terms, one Haliburton middle manager with ten years ME experience has the value of 10 SD Arabists or 20 ME studies profs. We aren’t there to “study the culture in order to achieve a greater understanding”, we’re there to either change the culture or destroy it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:51 am 209. PeterUK:Bushinator
“you say we dont send those people over because the people they would be talking to are the same ones that will blow them up. this thinking is inherently part of the problem, and creates a catch 22.”
Do not put words into my mouth,respond to what I write thank you,I did not say thar they should not be “sent” a dubious concept since they are civilians.
IIRC,were not people who went to the Middle east offering scholarships murdered.
we cant convince iraqis we mean well and aren’t out to get them until the terrorists are defeated, but we can’t truly defeat the terrorists without convincing iraqis that we mean well.
“I think another problem with your logic is that you are arguing that the situation is a total mess in iraq”.
Again you are utterly wrong,I am arguing no such thing.You are making things up.
As for “Soft Power”,it is called horse trading,an the formost exponents of soft power will not touch Iraq with abarge pole
“but instead of paying a giant corporation like halliburton millions of dollars to go in there, perhaps more grassroots efforts to bring companies and professionals into the country would be helpful in eliminating the prejudices and stereotypes that many in the region have against america.”
Back to the beginning, there is no indication that the people you mention have any inclination to go,it isw probably only the large corporations who can afford security.For example MSF has difficulty with obtain insurance for high risk areas. Those you would send (sic) have highly oaid jobs and probably families and mortgages.Many that take the risk take it because of the high remuneration.
Iraq has well trained medical people,it did not suffer infrastructure damage as did Germany,what it suffered was thirty years of pillaging by the Government.It has a culture of intimidation and corruption.
The point to understand about the Jihad is that there is no rapprochement,they want us dead or in submission,there are enough recorded statements to this end.Iran and Syria are fighting a proxy war in Iraq,the regimes in those countries do not want a stable Iraq.Ba’athists merely want to regain thir primacy.All these would laugh themselves sick at your “Soft Power”,for many it would just be another infidel to kill.
There are not a few gangsters who have always thrived on chaos and there are those fighting out of patriotism.This latter group may be amenable,but interestingly the majority of Iraqis who would benefit from soft power have been receiving the benefits of this from the outset,they would enjoy it more if the murderers of the other groups allowed them to do so in peace.
Jun 30, 2005 - 10:58 am 210. The Bushinator:PW-
i’m not stating an opinion on what i think the problem is, nor are there any hidden subtexts to the analogy. i’m strictly trying to state the facts; forming a judgement is up to you. what i meant by my change to his analogy is that bush is the one who saw a problem in iraq and started a war there (fixing the fire hydrant). as a result, there are many arabic fascists and terrorists in the country that are causing all sorts of problems (the flood).
nowhere did i state that the fire hydrant wasn’t broken, or that it didn’t need to be fixed. obviously, there are some who would think this (i am not necessarily one of those). but, the point of knucklehead’s analogy was that people who question the handling of the ‘flood’ have no right to be asking these questions and are impeding progress.
i’m just trying to show how they can be justified in asking questions and making sure they have proper answers. just saying “trust me, i know what i’m doing” isn’t enough if people have learned not to trust you. frankly, bush’s problem is that people don’t trust him. this is a problem of his own doing (ie, “we need to get the wmds”). he needs to do a better job of fixing this perception.
note, i’m not criticizing what is actually going on in iraq, but instead i am trying to say that the administration is basically doing the right thing there but they are singlehandedly making it incredibly difficult for themselves because they can’t properly communicate their ideas. there are real world consequences to this that are harming the effort to repair and rebuild iraq
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:04 am 211. Knucklehead:we’re there to either change the culture or destroy it
That sums up the options, doesn’t it.
Yo, ‘Nator, how many doneros do you PR guys want from Uncle to get the “change or die” message across to the “Islamic World”?
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:06 am 212. Knucklehead:what i meant by my change to his analogy is that bush is the one who saw a problem in iraq and started a war there (fixing the fire hydrant). as a result, there are many arabic fascists and terrorists in the country that are causing all sorts of problems (the flood).
Eegads, ‘Nator, you can’t really mean to toss out beachballs that big to be wailed on, can you? Would that I were not up against a deadline or I’d have a swing at this one right now. I’ll be back.
In the meantime…
Q: When did the world begin, Daddy?
A: January 20th, 2001, Son. There was nothing before then, nothing.
Q: Not even terrorists, Daddy.
A: Not even terrorists, Son.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:15 am 213. Buddy Larsen:Nator, “…frankly, bush’s problem is that people don’t trust him.”
Frankly, Bush’s problem is the people who don’t trust him. You’ll never ever make any progress making dumb statements. Your only progreass will come thru something other than making dumb statements.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:18 am 214. Rick Ballard:Knuck,
We’ve already got a lot of guys from Team USMC working on it.
I do believe that it would be extremely useful to send every SD Arabist and ME Studies prof in the US to the plains along the Euphrates River as soon as possible. With a great deal of publicity and a very clear reiteration of our NO RANSOM policy.
Discussing an article written by a Clinton SD Arabist should begin with a list of Clinton SD accomplishments in the ME over the term of his presidency. I’ll start:
1. Umm….
Could someone give me a hand?
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:19 am 215. Buddy Larsen:“progreass” progress made by Democrats.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:20 am 216. Buddy Larsen:Rick, Hill getting to kiss Sufa Arafat?
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:23 am 217. The Bushinator:PeterUK-
your attack on my usage of the word “send” was a bit off. what you were doing was responding to this quote: “So why hasn’t U.S. ’soft power’ – doctors, teachers, cultural figures – been deployed more strategically to communicate U.S. values?” the original quote that you refuted used the word “deployed” to describe how these people would be used. How the word “sent” is substantively different, to the point that you have to argue it, is beyond me. What is implied by both “sent” and “deployed” is that the government should support (logistically, financially, and security-wise) these people who are willing to go to iraq, and help arrange for them to go. effectively, the government is sponsoring, or ’sending’, them there. so effectively, you did they that they government shouldnt ’send’ them because of the killings- or at least that was how i interpretted it.
if you want to say i misinterpretted what you said, ok explain how, but don’t say i blatantly put words in your mouth.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:26 am 218. The Bushinator:“so effectively, you did they that they government shouldnt ’send’ them because of the killings- or at least that was how i interpretted it. ”
should read:
“so effectively, you did say that the government shouldnt ’send’ them because of the killings- or at least that was how i interpretted it. “
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:30 am 219. Steven Mitchell:For people paying attention, there has been a lot more than “trust me”–from Bush himself, his administrations, other goverment officials with clues, and gasp, even outside commentators. I think Tony Blair might have said a few words, too.
That’s why even opponents call it the “Bush Doctrine” instead of “Bush casually mentioned in passing on his way to the Oval office that maybe we should look into this freedom thing, and Rove got a little too enthusiastic when he mentioned it to Rummy down at the bar after the DOD/State annual softball game and picnic.”
Flat out, if you think nothing more than “trust me” has been provided, the problem is with you, not the President.
Hey, but if you want to support a National Guard type organization of civilian infrastructure and civic development with a goal of enhancing soft power, then I’ll give it a fair hearing. It might even work, if you can get the university/Dem block of the Arabic studies initiative unclogged.
Note that if you actually want to accomplish something with soft power you need to talk to the people blocking the attempts to use soft power. This is exactly the same as Congressman X having a press conference complaining about his Pet Cause not getting more emphasis from the Pres. “Hey X, did you actually introduce a bill yet. You do know where bills originate, right?”
Plus, I’d think you’d be really irritated at Chirac and Schroeder for doing such yeoman work in discrediting soft power. I’m sure Blair sends them thank you notes every alternate Thursday.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:32 am 220. The Bushinator:“Eegads, ‘Nator, you can’t really mean to toss out beachballs that big to be wailed on, can you? Would that I were not up against a deadline or I’d have a swing at this one right now. I’ll be back.” – knucklehead
Knuck,
look, i’m singlehandedly trying to respond to like 10 different people that are each critiquing me, PLUS i’m at work, so please allow for my posts to sometimes be way too simplified for the sake of brevity. i can explain every nuance to every statement. but just assume i’m not an idiot and i’m not trying to say that the iraq war is what created islamic terrorists.
i’ll leave it at that since i have been sorely neglecting my work-related duties.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:34 am 221. The Bushinator:see i screwed up again… what i meant to say, and i’ll rephrase slightly to get the point across, is that “i dont have time to write down a nuanced argument or explanation every single time”
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:36 am 222. Rick Ballard:Buddy,
I don’t think that was an SD initiative, I think Hil was just trying personal diplomacy. I was almost going to suggest the ‘98 act by the Republican legislature that made removal of Saddam US policy but I don’t think that came from State either.
Did Albright dance with Arafat?
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:36 am 223. PeterUK:Bushinator,
These people are not the governments to send or deploy,the two words actually have different meanings.
deploy:- to unfold:to open out,or extend,to extend from a column in to a line.as in a body of troops.
The maine thing ‘nator is that putting your words into someone elses mouth is the oldest debating trick in the world,so I corrected it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:38 am 224. Buddy Larsen:Bushinator, would you happen to be miffed because you’re not in on the money being spent in Iraq? The reason I ask, is the whole thrust of your commentary is that the USA effort–call it the “train”–is either full or empty depending on whether or not we paint “Boxcar Good” signs on the boxcars. So, I can’t help but wonder if you’re a sign-painter. Just asking.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:40 am 225. Knucklehead:Rick,
…it would be extremely useful to send every SD Arabist and ME Studies prof in the US to the plains along the Euphrates River as soon as possible. With a great deal of publicity anda very clear reiteration of our NO RANSOM policy
Thank you for pointing out the merit of ‘Nator’s soft-power/PR plan. I was too hasty in my dismissal of it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:41 am 226. Knucklehead:Knuck,
look, i’m singlehandedly trying to respond to like 10 different people that are each critiquing me, PLUS i’m at work, so please allow for my posts to sometimes be way too simplified for the sake of brevity. i can explain every nuance to every statement. but just assume i’m not an idiot
Hmmm… take your 10 and multiply it by a few million, recognize that as the problem faced by the current, twice elected administration, extend them the courtesy you seek for roughly the same reasons you express, and we’ll have made some progress today
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:44 am 227. Buddy Larsen:Like Sen, Jay Rockefeller’s bitter complaint yesterday (of the Bush speech), “Mentioning 911 just pushes peoples’ buttons!”…maybe you see Arabs as needing only some non-government Americans to push their buttons?
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:45 am 228. Knucklehead:Buddy & ‘Nator,
I was wondering about the sign-painter aspect here myself.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:48 am 229. Kevin P:Roger:
The 90’s was the period of soft power reaction to the middle east. We began to recognize that the stability for oil policy wasn’t working. In our effort to understand the palistian’s problems we decided to ignore the peace war double talk of Arafat and assumed that the war talk was strictly politics and that we had to embrace his peace talk because that was our only choice.This was the advice of those who “knew” the middle east and were reacting from wisdom and not the base qualities of anger and violence. When attacked we responded with limited targeted strikes that were ‘intelligent” reactions to violence. We didn’t totally ignore the attacks but we were strategic and nuanced with our response. We went to war in the Balkans in part to rescue a Mulim minority that was being attacked. Yes, we killed Christians(Milosevic was a pig and I have no problem with his demise) to save Muslims. I am leaving things out and I am sure the Clinton foreign policy was not the exact blueprint that the Middle east soft power experts would have suggested but it was done in that spirit.
What were the results. There were many wonderful hopes for Israeli- Palestinian peace but why did it fail? Because the lynch pin was arafat and Arafat was never going to stop his life long policy of peace as a strategy to further the war and achieve his openly stated and often repeated goal of the elimination of Israel. He said it when he was young, he said it when he was old, he said when he was out of power, he said it when he was in power. How often does someone have to say it before someone says “You know, I think he means it” The entire peace policy towards the middle east was gambled on this ‘lover of peace” and it was a total bust.
In the eighties and the nineties we left Saddam in power. Republican and Democrats share credit for this one. We knew from our study of Islam that we could never remove him ourselves and we had to go thru the UN. Same with the Taliban. Even though we knew that they were a theocratic brand of fascism we could not leave our footprint in this area without stirring up the passions that would be counterproductive. The goal was to recognize their shortcomings, learn to understand them, and use peacefull engagement to solve the problem. Of course the Taliban were the result of the US walking away from Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawl but isn’t this an example of letting the population of that country decide it’s fate and not trying to jam a system of government that suits us but when you understand the arab world you would know that it is a bad fit.
So, we tried to understand, we used limited and strategic military responses, and we tried to allow them to settle their problems by themselves.result- OBL understood something that was crude but worked. He knew that the nuanced response would not raise the respect of the Arab world but increase their lack of respect. He was right. They did follow the strong horse. Thus he had no problem getting followers and funding. Afghanistan felt free to let them use their country as a training ground because they believed the soft power responses would continue.
Sean Penn is a crude and unsophisticated proponent of the soft power policy but his understanding of it is not that far off the mark. When he visited the mosque and heard “Death to America, Death to Israel” he said he understood where it was coming from(knowledge of the origins of the hate and recognizing our guilt for it) but suggested to them that their policy was counterproductive. Sometimes it’s simple. Their chant was not a faux act of hate to get our attention. It was an expression of their deepest held desire and they think there is no act that can not be tried to achieve the very goal that they chant. Sometimes when someone says they are going to kill you they mean it and you can’t talk or understand them out of it. Do all Muslims believe or want this? Of course not. But they are not in power. They don’t run things. And they do not have controll of the people who are planning our death.
Kevin Peters
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:48 am 230. Buddy Larsen:Knuck, you make really good points. I’d hate to disagree wif yez.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:50 am 231. c:Could someone give me a hand?
Be sure it’s not the left hand, Rick. Muslim faux pas.
C- Regarding your comments on soft power, it seems your own past (and somewhat limited) experiences with it are what have turned you off to it. To say, based on that, that it cannot be done properly is way too pessimistic.
Bushinator, how about my having seen first-hand gone-native-anti-American-soft-power teachers, doctors and attaches in Guatemala, Brazil, Mexico, Thailand and to some extent Japan and Australia, not to mention all over Europe? Even in Texas where I shared a house with the head of the ESL program for a couple of years, it was there in my very own living room- international students coming over for dinner and all of whom were delightful and most chattering about what they were learning from the university: a soft and sensitive understanding of all our country’s flaws and mistreatment of the Third World from Americans too eager to share, exaggerate and imagine them.
Karen Hughes has her work cut out for her finding the right messengers who can constructively add to the goodwill and “understanding” that our troops, contractors and volunteers are already dispensing in the ME through their deeds, sacrifices and friendship.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:52 am 232. Buddy Larsen:And, you ain’t a bad guy, ‘Nator. Wish you’d, like, consider diversification, on principle.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:54 am 233. Knucklehead:Buddy,
Disagree any time – it has been and remains my pleasure to learn from you.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:58 am 234. Buddy Larsen:c, anyone who listened to PJPII, adressing the world, got a hint. He said, basically, that what the poor need first is the physical neccesities of life, and that the capitalist free-market rule-of-law system is the one that delivers it.
Our stock in trade.
Jun 30, 2005 - 11:59 am 235. The Bushinator:peter-
i try not to put words into people’s mouths, but in this case i was being consistent with idea behind the initial wording “deploy”.
plus, the article clearly doesn’t use ‘deploy’ in a literal sense, but instead as a figurative way to describe the govt actively encouraging these people to help in iraq. the govt has this ability, no? i dont think you shouldve taken it too literally… obviously the govt can FORCE someone to go (unless theyre already in the military i guess
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:03 pm 236. Buddy Larsen:Cut to quickly, meant to add, forget selling our cultural artifacts. The pop side stinks anyway, and may well be–far more than anything else–what the true religious jihadis object to. If we send forth messengers, let’s make sure they understand economics–and know what part of America to disdain–if some didain is needed to build cred. I’m not aiming this at you, c, you already know it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:03 pm 237. Buddy Larsen:Why, thanks, knuck–but i be da stoodent.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:07 pm 238. Steven Mitchell:Here is the cold, hard truth: Hard power breaks things. Hard power makes things. Hard power fixes things. Soft power convinces people to break X, make Y, and fix Z. If necessary, you can do a fair to middling job with hard power alone. You can’t do squat with soft power alone–except convince someone with hard power of your goals, which is really only indirect use of hard power.
That is one reason why freedom works. It isn’t hard or soft power, but a potent combination of both tied into human nature. You don’t have to convince the guy to apply his hard power your way. You just need enough hard power of your own to convince him that you’ll take his head off if he steps over civilized lines. Otherwise, he can use his break/create/fix talents anyway he sees fit.
Bush’s repeated assertion that we will stay until the job is done *is* soft power of a very potent kind. It is being undermined by those demanding schedule and time tables.
Rick, as much as I like your idea, I can’t advocate inflicting those professors on Iraq. Don’t you think the Iraqis have suffered enough?
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:08 pm 239. Buddy Larsen:That’s why I think we’re already sending the right messengers–soldiers and builders. A third wave from the academy, well, that’s how to REALLY build disdain. Guess it would give Arabian buttons a better picture of the ‘whole’ America, tho–alas.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:10 pm 240. PeterUK:~nator,
I didn’t use the word deploy ,you did,I pasted the quote from you.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:12 pm 241. Fresh Air:Kevin P–
It is my understanding that Instapundit has only linked to one comment post (as opposed to a blog post)–at least there has been only one that I can recall.
I nominate your last post for the second comment Instalaunch.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:14 pm 242. Buddy Larsen:Peter, sly trick, putting someone’s words in their mouth.
(just funnin’, ‘Nator)
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:15 pm 243. Buddy Larsen:Second that, FA–it’s comprehensive.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:26 pm 244. The Bushinator:buddy- diversification of what, exactly?
knuck- to compare my ability/responsibility to respond to people to the administration’s is a bit far-fetched.
C- you say your experience taught you that many americans seems to criticize the US to foreigners. what’s most important is making sure regular arabs don’t have a misguided impression of us, though. are you saying this is impossible and we shouldn’t try?
to others- some of you seem to be painting virtually all arabs/muslims as out to conquer the world. Surely you can’t mean this, can you? There should be differentiation between the radicals (who are a serious problem) and the rest (who are often caught in the middle between us and the radicals, and whose support we need at the utmost).
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:46 pm 245. Buddy Larsen:“painting virtually all arabs/muslims as out to conquer the world.”
For God’s sake, ‘Nator, you’re talking to people from the faction that is trying to free the mideast from tyrannical governments. What in world do you think was behind the free elections, if not a respect for the ordinary Arab?
What did you think, we want the sand to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:55 pm 246. The Bushinator:buddy-
good noticing that peter was putting words in my mouth. i hope he was joking
anyway, just to add one last thought, i am totally in support of continuing to use hard power. it is essential. i’m just saying that soft power is important too- not sure why some people are resisting that thought. i understand it must be done correctly (i kinda assumed that i didnt need to state that, and that if it was done, it would be done properly). but yea, definitely not saying it is a substitute for hard power…
so yea, that’s all…
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:59 pm 247. Buddy Larsen:diversification of partisanship, ‘Nator. There’s all sorts of people around here that I daresay are to your left on any number of issues. My suggestion is that you quit the partisan politics on the war, until the damn combat is over with.
Jun 30, 2005 - 12:59 pm 248. Steven Mitchell:Go back to the top of the topic. Feingold or Omar? I side with Omar.
Bushinator, bottom line for me: If someone is unwilling to challenge the academy and their anti-American nonsense, then I don’t find them a serious advocate of soft power. If I thought soft power wasn’t useful, I wouldn’t care what such people did. It would not matter either way. Soft power is being used to oppose freedom in Iraq. I side with Omar.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:04 pm 249. Buddy Larsen:Good discussion, tho, thanks to you.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:05 pm 250. The Bushinator:buddy-
yes, i’m not necessarily talking about you. but some posts have been pretty brutal without acknowledging the ‘ordinary arab’. i agree these are the people we’re trying to help… unfortunately there are many who are caught in the middle between believing us and believing those that say we’re lying.
we need these people to support us, no? killing the other side is not the only way to do that, because that may actually drive them away from us.
carrot and the stick… hard and soft power… we need both.
only complete wingnuts think we should leave iraq now. most people want to know we have the ability- and a plan- to succeed. that doesn’t mean a schedule, or an outline written in stone. bush’s last speech was a step in the right direction. (but it came after cheney knocked bush 3 steps backwards with his ‘last throes’ remark).
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:06 pm 251. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator, “last throes”, in 1944-45, the Axis was finished. The Axis was in its last throes. There was also more killing–by several orders of magnitude–than there had been in 1939-43 when the war was still up for grabs.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:14 pm 252. The Bushinator:steven-
i think the dem’s response to bush’s speech was pretty lame. stop demanding a schedule, it makes you look stupid. but at the least, the administration needs to enunciate its immediate plans and goals, because frankly it doesnt seem like they have any (aside from the iraqi constitution, which even that they rarely mention). i think kerry’s article in NYT was actually the best step forward i’ve seen in that respect(even though i dont agree with all the points- ie, first reaction to religious/ethnic militias is that it would be chaos).
as for being the relationship between those who are anti-american and soft power… well clearly that would be counterproductive. i think it’s important to differentiate the past actions of the american government with the desire of the actual american people to help free iraq. there is not enough of this, imo, or at least not enough that is visible to me.
finally, buddy- i am not basing my arguments on partison politics. i tend to agree with bush’s overall philosophy in iraq (it was probably a necessary action for america), but i think he has done a poor job in communicating it out and planning for contingencies and the post-offensive strategies. ie: basing an argument for war solely on wmd’s was dumb, especially since there were so many other arguments that could have been used also. why bush only used wmd’s is beyond me. that issue has hurt the entire war effort and beyond.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:17 pm 253. c:what’s most important is making sure regular arabs don’t have a misguided impression of us, though. are you saying this is impossible and we shouldn’t try?
Bushinator, I’m saying we already have GIs, engineers, contractors, economists, medical personnel and myriad volunteers who are hands-on ‘emissaries’ conveying what America stands for by doing terrific stuff for the Iraqis and along side of them, and who are also learning the good of the Arab world while dealing with the worst of it. Through our projection of hard power and our building of infrastructure, political institutions and economy, we’re doing a great deal of “impressing”.
Perhaps we could do more, but academics and a lot of State Department types are often not our best advocates, sad to say. Was it Yama here or on another thread (and Buddy and a half dozen others) who said that the doing should trump the talking? Yes! Hugs, classes and cultural conferences, or civil liberties, potable water and cell phone towers? I think the latter teaches more about who we are and how they can have a more successful and less resentful Arab culture.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:19 pm 254. Buddy Larsen:Maybe only one order of magnitude, but you get the analogy. Semantics. Insurgents can’t win, we have to lose. Last throes. But, because you are you
I wish people would watch their language, and the admin. esp. keep-it-simple.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:19 pm 255. The Bushinator:buddy-
WWII was on a much grander scale than the iraq insurgency.
the last throes of the insurgency implies the insurgency is nearly over. i dont see any signs of that whatsoever. nor do i think anybody can point me to any signs that would indicate it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:20 pm 256. JK Ribera:I have some unsolicited advice for The Bushinator, if anyone’s still reading down at post number 250someodd. Stop posting under such a juvenile handle and post under your real name. Your views will be much more respected.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:21 pm 257. Fresh Air:Nator–
Bush probably has done a poor job communicating his philosphy. Yet somehow 99% of the people on this blog have managed to pick it up. I have faith that many others have as well. But those who don’t listen will never hear it–and that is the main problem I have with the “loyal” opposition.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:21 pm 258. PeterUK:The “extremists”,have been,with macabre monotony,murdering little children who accept the kindness of Coalition troops,killed and tortured anyone associating with the coalition, have regularly sabotaged civil projects from oil to schools.
All these projects destroyed by the “extremists” have no military value as targets,they serve mainly to disrupt Iraqi civil society.
@nator examine the words of Imams the world over.listen to the diatribes that emanate from Iran and saudi Arabia.Read what is being wraught in the land of peace Thailand, buddhist monks,the epitome of soft power, are being decapitated by members of the Religion of Peace.Some 600 have been murdered in the last two years.
Go to a Dutch site,check out Memri,be dispassionate,use your critical faculties,Is this a small minority or a substial world movement?
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:26 pm 259. Knucklehead:Buddy,
I don’t think The ‘Nator was around for the Big Threads about which portion of Islam represents the biggest problems and which portions might be subject to salvaging. He’s a tough nut to crack – it may require that Roger take another trip so we can, ummm…, borrow his hacienda and introduce The ‘Nator to the fountain. I wonder if McEnroe’s still got his Dragoon and some black powder.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:26 pm 260. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator, re WMD-perforce-war, please high thee over to Google and read the Congressional War Authorization that was voted by nearly all the Democrats. The lists of Casus Belli are enumerated therein. “WMD” as a stand-alone, is a bastard-child of of the anti-Bush MSM.
Let’s ‘do’ actual history–not the history of perceptions. Perceptions are a whole different matter and totally subjective, as too few people feel responsible for their relationship to the facts.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:29 pm 261. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator, you and your people could knock the last of the hope out of the insurgency by Labor Day, shit, by the weekend, if only you would.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:33 pm 262. penwil:” . . . basing an argument for war solely on wmd’s was dumb, especially since there were so many other arguments that could have been used also. why bush only used wmd’s is beyond me. that issue has hurt the entire war effort and beyond.”
Bushinator,
Please go back and read Bush’s speeches leading up to the war. You are going to be quite surprised by what you will find there.
That Bush based the argument for war solely on wmds is a Democrat lie. Why the Democrats continue to spread that lie is not beyond me. What is beyond me is how anyone with a modicum of intelligence, ears in their head, and a modem can continue to believe in the lie. That issue has hurt the entire war effort and beyond.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:34 pm 263. Knucklehead:Glorioski! It’s been a while since Roger’s Sycophantic Mob had a 250+ comment thread. On that note, Roger, I do wish you’d sign up to accept funds through the Amazon Honor System. I don’t trust Paypal and it my subscription fee is late.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:35 pm 264. PeterUK:“basing an argument for war solely on wmd’s was dumb, especially since there were so many other arguments that could have been used also. why bush only used wmd’s is beyond me. that issue has hurt the entire war effort and beyond.”
Bush didn’t.
Why when I read Bushiantors posts does the phrase “Damning with faint praise”? come to mind,all very sweet and reasonable but ‘nator always gets the essential “yes but” memes in.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:42 pm 265. Knucklehead:‘Nator,
I’ll second Penwil’s motion. You seem way too far on the proper side of intelligent and mannerly to keep hold of the “they said is was all about WMD” meme. It is beneath you and best dispensed with.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:43 pm 266. Buddy Larsen:Knuck, I did a direct authorization into my bank account with paypal–I diced the credit cards 5 yrs ago (wonderful life on the other side of those little rectangular thieves, BTW). PayPal has a good security set-up, unless a key-stroke trojan gets your code. Check it out.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:44 pm 267. Steven Mitchell:I was going to jump on that only about WMD canard, but I see it has already been thrashed.
“… i think it’s important to differentiate the past actions of the american government with the desire of the actual american people to help free iraq. there is not enough of this, imo, or at least not enough that is visible to me.”
Me too, which is why Condi went to State and Bolton is supposed to go to the U.N. Can we get a few more people on board to clean up the cesspools? Can we fix it so that the CIA and DOD can interview Arabic studies students without jumping through hoops and faux coniptions from ACLU wannabees in turbans? Just asking.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:44 pm 268. Knucklehead:or should that be “disposed of”… and Yama thinks I know a language – how did that happen.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:45 pm 269. Buddy Larsen:“No WMD!” was selected as the one point where the administration could be attacked at that point in time. The people who pushed it out and drilled it into the public didn’t even believe it themselves. Cynical, dirty, destructive, dangerous, national-security-damaging, partisan politics.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:51 pm 270. Knucklehead:Buddy,
Barely a week goes by, and for weeks at a time sometimes barely a day goes by, that I don’t get one or more of those bogus “update your paypal account” or “Urgent Paypal Security notice” fraud things. I can’t even sort out anymore which is real and which a trap. I haven’t had any such problems with AHS. Can’t say whether or not AHS has too much of a skim for Roger to accept or not.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:53 pm 271. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator, come quick, look here!
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:57 pm 272. The Bushinator:Bush made arguments for the war that didn’t involve WMDs? I’m sure at times he discussed the humanitarian aspect, but frankly the MAIN THRUST of his argument, that he repeated over and over, was that saddam was a threat because he had WMDs.
Let me direct you to a link to Bush’s speech in which he explained to the world why we were about to attack iraq in 48 hours if saddam did not leave…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
So do you still think it’s the democrats that were pushing this false claim? that’s his official justification for the war, and that’s what he told the world. even if he said things in other speeches (which were probably only heard by republicans anyway), this was what most of the public took from his argument.
Jun 30, 2005 - 1:59 pm 273. Knucklehead:…Cynical, dirty, destructive, dangerous, national-security-damaging, partisan politics.
At what point do such things rise to the level of sedition? I don’t enjoy banging on that particular tocsin but, heh, is there some reason not to call seditionists seditionists?
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:00 pm 274. Buddy Larsen:Knuck, just never click on any of those emails. Get in thru their website ONLY.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:00 pm 275. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator, granted, GWB should’ve managed perceptions better. Living as we do in a gigantic world pediatric nursery.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:04 pm 276. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator’s link: 28 paragraphs in the prez’ statement, WMD mentioned in one para of the 28, and here is that para:
“The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:09 pm 277. Buddy Larsen:So, no big “Fat Boy” bomb, t’row da bum (Bush, that is) out, and leave da udder bum (Saddam) in!
Give it another year or five, lose another city center or five, THEN go in and get him.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:14 pm 278. The Bushinator:knuck,
i read your link… or at least half of it
Here’s how it reads to me:
INTRO
He used to have WMDs
He has WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
Some other claims (hurting his people, not returning land, didnt return POW’s)
Willing to use WMDs
supporting terrorists
supporting terrorists
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
we support war
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:17 pm 279. Knucklehead:‘Nator,
You realize, of course, that you can be bombarded with links pointing to other, longer, more comprehensive speeches, from Bush and other administration members, setting for a far more detailed list of reasons for dealing with Saddam.
And surely you noticed, within the speech you linked to, the various references to “decade”, “twelve years”, congressional resolutions, UNSC resolutions, the terms of the cease fire of ‘91 even within this one short speech.
Last, but not least, as someone apparently familiar with PR and, I would presume, common techniques of public speaking such as “open with the attention grabber – go for their ears, close with what you want them to remember – go for their hearts and minds”.
So, for your reading enjoyment since you apparently didn’t listen at the time it was delivered, I’ll leave you with the final paragraphs of the speech you linked to:
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:17 pm 280. PeterUK:From the Link
“The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
The operative words are OR ONE DAY and COULD.
Iraq did have and use chemical and biological weapons,it is no use saying the UN inspectors said Iraq did not currently have WMD,it is obvious that President Bush was aware that Saddam Hussein wanted WMD and one day he would get them again.
The expertise existed in Iraq to make biological and chemical weapons. Dr Khan was producing the components for nuclear weapons, North Korea was producing both the weapons and and the missile systems and it was all for sale.
And what do know? Saddam Hissein was coining vast amounts of money from the Oil for Food scam.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:19 pm 281. Buddy Larsen:Those several hundred thousand kids in camo stuck in the desert waiting on the Iraq border? Ahhh, SCREW ‘em, they volunteered!
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:21 pm 282. Knucklehead:Which link are you talking about? I haven’t been linking much recently. But for you, ‘Nator, ya Luvable Lugg, I may just go track some good ones
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:21 pm 283. The Bushinator:buddy-
you only saw the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” once in my link? do you need glasses? Did you read the right link?
plus, add how many times he mentions disarmament as well as synonyms for wmd’s.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:24 pm 284. PeterUK:Knuck,If you were asking me.
@nator’s own link,I only ever use his words.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:24 pm 285. PeterUK:Buddy,
2:17 was pure DS.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:27 pm 286. Fresh Air:Honest to god, Nator. Are you serious? Do you expect to be taken seriously on this site? Because reciting this revisionist nonsense about weapons of mass destruction is really not going to get you far here.
Take a look at the facts on the ground. If we went to war because Saddam had a booger on his nose, that wouldn’t matter a wit to the 8 million people who voted, to Moammar Khadaffy, to Kuwait, to Syria, Lebanon and everyplace else where they’ve gotten the message.
Now hear this: Stop talking about motives! Motives are inherently unknowable and largely irrelevant. It is actions that count, and that’s precisely what we’ve gotten from this president.
Now you may proceed with your specious criticisms…
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:30 pm 287. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator, do you want me to go thru and name all 28 paragraph themes for you?
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:31 pm 288. Steven Mitchell:Oh, so now the shift on WMD from “only” to “main thrust”. Bushinator, you do know that you are practically recreating the last 3-4 years of Dem talking points, don’t you? Do you really think that people here are ignorant of those points?
Since you are outnumbered and at work, maybe some of us can jump in on your side and keep going down the list? I can’t recall what came after the “main thrust” argument gained no traction. The election was heating up by then. I think this was when Michael Moore got feted by the usual suspects.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:33 pm 289. Kevin P:Bushinator:
You have bought into a classic big lie propaganda point. Was WMD the most emphasized. Sure. But you have gone over the edge with the only.Speech after speech in the runup to the war had WMD and the need for democracy in the Middle East in them. Go to Bush’s UN speech and you will see a fine example. The first time I heard “only WMD lie” was from Huffington on some gab fest. I heard it and I though, “Boy, she will get nailed on this, there are so many speech’s that directly contradict her” But, much to my naive amazement it has become conventional wisdom. it is repeated daily on blogs and in op-ed pieces. Even though I disagreed with you you had stayed away from the obvious BS.
Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see anyone say all Muslims are murderous terrorists. In my post I went out of my way to say of course not all Muslims buy into the radical Islamo fascist line.If I railed about nazi germany in the 40’s that didn’t mean I was stating that all germans were like Hitler. There are 200 posts and if someone said all Muslims were Islamo fascists. My point is that the moderate muslims are out of power in much of the Middle east. Not every Muslim country in the ME is Islamo Fascist but the ones that are not have little power and little controll over the islamo fascists. Some fund them in shared spirit or as a form of blackmail payments.Like it or not, imperfect as it is, there has been more movement towards a form of arabic democracy in the Middle east during the Bush administration then in any administration ever. He has abandoned the stability for oil policy that had been in place since Roosevelt.Finished? No. Perfect? No. Without hypocracy? No. But there has been real movement. Everything in the 90’s, the time of soft power, was paper progress with little to no progress on the ground.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:37 pm 290. Rick Ballard:Look for acronyms, homonyms, antonyms, eponyms, heteronyms, pseudonyms and toponyms while you’re at it. Then read the Encylopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary of English Verse. Then recite the Ukrainian alphabet backwords.
You’ve been far too kind, fellas. It’s just not that interesting or original. Just another petty seditionist provacateur with a condescending pseudo pedantic pitch.
It’s been fun to watch you all toy with it, though.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:38 pm 291. Knucklehead:PeterUK,
I wouldn’t presume to question you. I may be knucklheaded but I ain’t stoopid.
At the moment I’m wondering if The ‘Nator is on the up and up and enjoys the badinage and might, therefore, be educable or if he is just the most “nuanced”, or even devious, memebot we’ve had here at Roger’s Place in a while.
If the latter we may expect the “no connection to 9/11″ meme next.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:38 pm 292. Buddy Larsen:Steven, memogate? al-Baradi/explosivesgate? CocaineKittygate? Yellowcakegate? Lootinggate? roundhittinghotel/killingjournopointingcamera(OR SOMETHING)attankduringcombatgate? Toomanytroopsgate? Notenoughtroopsgate?
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:41 pm 293. The Bushinator:look, the main theme was: saddam is a danger and must be disarmed and removed from power.
people respond with, well how is he a danger?
response: well, he’s been violating un rules about disarming, he may have wmds, he hates america and would attack with wmds, and he helps terrorists get wmds.
do you see a consistent theme there? i understand that there are a variety of nuanced arguments made there, but at the end of the day WMD’s is the one that people remember.
let me point to this sentence: “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
now, some may say “every country thought he had them!”, to which i respond, ‘then how come there was so much debate and controversy before the war about how much proof existed that he had them?”
like it or not, this debate became the key to his reasoning for the war. my point is, i think there could have been a better way to gain support than emphasize this. but maybe you disagree and think he did the best job he could have in trying to get support for the war (and handling it after).
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:41 pm 294. Rick Ballard:Knuck,
He’s a three dollar bill who is now just propagating the lies that lost Kerry the election. Prolly a grad student but no job nor prospects. Y’all have done a nice job of undressing him and you’ve been far more polite than I could ever be.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:48 pm 295. PeterUK:Knuck,
No I was just wondering which link you were asking which link it was,so I thought I better ask you which link you were asking about.I hope this clarifies the question about the question about the link.
Which link was it? The link where Bush didn’t claim Saddam was going to use WMDs or the other links where he didn’t claim Saddam had WMDs.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:50 pm 296. PeterUK:Rick,
I reckon you could get $2.50 change from that.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:53 pm 297. Buddy Larsen:‘Nator, your own party’s top leadership signed on to the same intell, and your own party in ‘98 made Saddam removal official US policy.
Bush is standing there in the smoking rubble of 911 and is ’spose to ignore all that?
Here’s the deal–Saddam PROMOTED the belief he had shit on a shelf, as a DETERRENT. He had his UN *wink* meme (”no WMD”), and he had his sub-voce whisper meme (”Oh, I got ‘em, alright”).
Most believe he himself had no idea how shitty his WMD program was–he was being compartmentalized by his own terrified puppets.
It was a vast ocean of fog and counter-fog. Bush cut the Gordian Knot–and your kids will love him for it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:54 pm 298. Rick Ballard:Peter,
Re: Reply to Knuck -
That’s certainly the way I understood it.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:57 pm 299. Fresh Air:Nator–
The speech that Colin Powell gave on the eve of the war to the United Nations evidently had two other sections pertaining to non-WMD topics. These were left out, as the administration thought the WMD issue was the strongest issue it had. But, N.B. it was not by a long chalk the only issue.
Ultimately, I’m not sure what your point is. If you’re saying Bush could articulate things better, then fair enough. If you’re saying his stated reasons for going to war were inadequate, I say consequences are ultimately all that count. If you say he lied, I will repeat that consequences are all that count and will add that you are out of your freaking tree.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:57 pm 300. Buddy Larsen:That one went thru the Ballard metaphor-mixer unit.
Jun 30, 2005 - 2:59 pm 301. The Bushinator:rick-
i could give you some euros for that. what do you say?
actually, i’m disenchanted with both political parties, so i dont care who i agree with or disagree with. like i think buddy said before, there are probably regulars on this site that are more to the left than i on certain issues.
oh well… i’m out for the rest of the day.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:00 pm 302. Steven Mitchell:“oh well… i’m out for the rest of the day”
That’s ok, we can carry on from here.
I will say that I’m impressed with your civility despite the pile on. You are the first person that I’ve ever seen keep his cool while walking down those list of points.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:07 pm 303. PeterUK:Fresh Air,
The way the MSM perverts everything he says and the rather odd way that Democrats can only recognise nouns,the less the President says the better.
It is all a very odd form of political dyslexia,words like could,can, has,had,is, all having the same meaning and being totally interchangeable..
I blame the French.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:11 pm 304. Fresh Air:PeterUK–
If only you could have sunk their lingua franca as well as their ships.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:13 pm 305. Rick Ballard:Steven,
Practice. Lots and lots of practice. The main thing is to get them out one more time on a comments board. There should be a Godwin’s law regarding bringing up WMD.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:17 pm 306. Buddy Larsen:lingua franca
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:23 pm 307. PeterUK:Buddy,
We left that to you,
“Crazy man ,crazy,wiz le groovy Rock et Roll”.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:26 pm 308. Buddy Larsen:Rick, there’s always the chance that WMD is for many an actual cognitive problem. Like with a child, you don’t ’splain why, you just say “’cause daddy said so”…maybe that’s all that is there, there…they heard “’cause daddy said so”.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:27 pm 309. Buddy Larsen:If you’re prone to that sort of thing, the disillusionment can be real.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:30 pm 310. Steven Mitchell:Rick, practice may work for some folks, but I find many get more heated. I know I do if I’ve already explained something more times than I can remember.
“There should be a Godwin’s law regarding bringing up WMD.”
Absolutely Not! Bite your tongue. How do you think conservatives got all the real liberals like Zell over to our side in the first place?
The best reason to be a first admendment absolutist is not to protect the speech of those with something good to say but those without. The more they talk, the better.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:34 pm 311. Steven Mitchell:For that matter, how you do think Republicans got blessed with Reagan and W? Reagan became a conservative. I think W really is a liberal in the very best old sense of the word. He may do more to rescue the concept than any Dem every could.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:36 pm 312. PeterUK:Wasn’t the Oil for Food scam the real WMD,exactly as money was the power base of the mafia?
If one has billions one can buy weapons and influence,Saddam had the motive,the means, all he was waiting for is an opportunity.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:37 pm 313. Buddy Larsen:True, but what would be wrong with just having free-speech just for people that don’t piss ya off?
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:37 pm 314. Buddy Larsen:Peter, if I’m a self-respecting Democrat, OFF shuts my mouth tight, in perpetuity, on ALL beefs about OIF.
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:41 pm 315. Kevin P:Roger:
I love the trail of logic bushinator uses. He uses the word only and that is the idea he was putting forward. He is then informed that no, multiple reasons were given. Yes, WMD was emphasised, no one here denies that. But thats not good enough. The ABB myth must have the “only” lie justified. So he admits that only is wrong, but not really. since apparently the other reasons were only told in speechs to republicans only(how did Bush pack the UN with republicans only and keep the broadcast away from Democrats?), that means only is proper to use. He states a fact. The fact is proved to be a lie with a paper trail. He ignores the paper trail and claims that the other reasons that were recorded and printed didn’t resonate with him so they do not excist. If I ever kill someone and it is caught on tape I want this guy for my defense lawyer. Anyone who can spin such drivel with such conviction just might get me an aquittal
Jun 30, 2005 - 3:55 pm 316. Knucklehead:Well, looks like this party’s over ‘cept for gatherin’ up the glassware and firin’ up the dishwasher.
PeterUK, you clarified completely.
Rick, you’re spot on but as Steven pointed out, The ‘Nator was civil if nothing else and gets points for that. At least he took the effort to practice – so few do. Most just splat and run.
All in all a good get-together. Some new folks… HA, Penwil, Ambi, FA, and Catherine all dropped in. No doubt I’m missing a few. Stubborn cusses like Buddy and me got to gnaw the soup bone for all it was worth. Fun on a rainy day, who could ask for anything more.
Jun 30, 2005 - 4:10 pm 317. Rick Ballard:Buddy & Knuck,
That brings us back to cognitive dissonance and sedition. There appears to be some question as to whether motive and/or intent has to pertain in order use the word correctly. I would argue that because the net effect will result in homicide, motive is immaterial. It is the result that creates the necessity of the usage and all the cognitive dissonance in the world cannot relieve the offender from the responsibility.
Unintentional homicides occur regularly and those making the errors that cause them are held responsible. There has to be a level of accountability concerning the deaths caused by sedition and naming those who practice it seems a rather minimal effort toward that end.
Jun 30, 2005 - 4:21 pm 318. Roger:Knucklehead has declared this thread closed — and so it is. It may even have beaten the length record for this blog previously held by the discussion of The Passion of the Christ. Please feel free to continue on the posts above.
Jun 30, 2005 - 4:29 pm 319. PeterUK:Kevin P,
He’d spend too much time being called to the Judges bench,still you could visit him whilst he was doing thirty days for contempt.
I have seen the “sweetness and light” tactic before but there is always a kicker,”Of course I agree with what you say,but don’t you think”.Seen this one before somewhere.
There is a program for analysing original manuscripts,which picks up on stylistic patterns and commonly used words,I’ll see if I can scrounge one.
Jun 30, 2005 - 4:30 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.