The Rove speech blaming everything on liberals is a classic “look over here” ploy. I don’t think progressives should allow such smears to go without response, but in our responses we must make clear that this is Bush and the Republicans dividing us in order to cover up their failures in the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. Respond and attack, respond and attack.
Deadliest day yet for U.S. women serving in Iraq
Musharraf: Bin Laden Tips Welcome
Suicide bomber kills at least 9 in Iraq
The Bush Strategy: Troops Won t Return Home For Several More Years
Somehow I don’t think us liberals are the biggest threat America currently faces, it seems the president believes otherwise.
Who exactly is politicizing military casualties here ?
You’ve got it Oliver- cons have tried to stuff Iraq on page 14 for awhile now, ever since it started getting really bad. Cons would prefer you don’t know about the dead bodies and chaos.
Instead were treated to “liberals hate America” and “Durbin must apologize”. Real people are dying in Iraq in a quagmire. Cons don’t want to deal with that, so they push other stuff in the news cycle.
If the new Abu Gharib footage is what they say it is, finally American people will see what the cons are up to in Iraq. They won’t be able to ignore that.
Not sure if you have seen the latest news about U.S. officials meeting with insurgents to “open up a dialogue.”
This, after Rove brings up the coddling stuff…
I do not know which is worse–their ineptitude in prosecuting the war, which has cost thousands of young Americans their lives, or their continual lies about it. Or maybe, they go hand in hand.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=050626&cat=news&st=newsd8avb9og0&src=ap
They’ve attacked because its part of the rotation… attack liberal patriotism -> increase the deficit -> attack homosexuals -> tax cuts for wealthy -> liberal media bias -> start a war -> poison the planet -> avoid the poor -> attack liberal patriotism
Somewhere deep in a dumpster in DC are the shredded remnants of an optimistic military plan for Iraq that had three steps: topple the government, replace it, and go home. With or without the throngs of liberated Iraqis tossing roses at the tanks, the plan did not work. The insurgency launched, and a Plan B or C or D has evolved to recruit and train Iraqis to secure and protect their own people, so that our people can go home. Getting our soldiers back home remains the primary end, and this latest articulation of the plan clearly is working. The example of the Iraqi police illustrates this best.
Mosul started the new year with almost no police. Today, police stations are being built “like a westward expansion of forts,” according to LTC Erik Kurilla, commander of 1-24th Infantry, who has seen much of the hardest fighting in Mosul. “As we get one police station going, we are already working on the next.” The enemy is no longer free to congregate on street corners, smoking cigarettes and intimidating citizens.
http://www.michaelyon.blogspot.com/
One thing that worries me about the Liberal tack on the Iraq war is that they are commiting themselves to lowering the bar on what constitutes a military defeat so low that no victory (by their definition) will ever be possible in the future.
A little historical perspective is in order:
In 1942, the British and Canadians lost over 3,000 soliders in less than 48 hours in the unsuccesful raid on Dieppe (1,027 killed and 2,340 captured)
In recent times, the U.S. led Coalition has suffered fewer than 2,000 deaths in the conquest and 2 year occupation of what was one of the most formidable nations in the Middle East.
By any reasonable historical standard, the conquest of Iraq has been one of the most succesful military endeavours in the history of warfare, and will no doubt be studied by students of warfare for years to come.
I understand the Left need to downplay this success in order to politically damage Bush, but they should think carefully about how, if they should succeed, they will bind the hands of any future administration, Democrat or Republican.
Michael Lacy | 06.25.05 – 1:01 am |
“…they are commiting themselves to lowering the bar on what constitutes a military defeat…”
It seems that you are lowering the bar on what consititues a military victory.
A little historical perspective is in order:
In 1942, the British and Canadians lost over 3,000 soliders in less than 48 hours in the unsuccesful raid on Dieppe (1,027 killed and 2,340 captured).
I am by no means an expert on warfare (other than having lived through one as a civilian, but since that’s not the perspective from which we speak, it doesn’t count), but your comparison of WWII and Iraq is very much like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges: the only similiarity is that they are both fruits.
Dieppe was one battle in a world war that involved 50 countries and in which an estimated 55 million people perished. The war changed the economy of the United States; factories moved from making vacuum cleaners to producing machine guns. The war effort caused certain goods to be in such short supply that rationing was necessary across the globe. In other words, WWII changed life as people knew it, not only in America, but the rest of the world.
Germany was no Iraq; its forces matched the Allies’ strength across a number of fronts and military theatres: it conquered 6 countries in 3 months. Iraq, on the other hand, had been hit hard by its Persian Gulf defeat in 1991. According to CSIS, Iraq’s forces numbered a measly 389,000 troops in 2002. In other words, it was no real threat to America’s superior military strength. This puts the over 1500 dead in a whole new perspective, because the majority of the dead occurred after major operations were supposedly over.
To compare a single WWII battle to the loss of over 1500 troops in a war supposedly already won (that pesky “Misson Accomplished” sign keeps coming to mind) is misleading as best and dishonest at worst.
I understand that the Right need to downplay the failure of this war to politically damage dissenters, but they should think carefully about how, if they should succeed, they will bind the hands of any future administration, Democrat or Republican.
ML: The Left has been downplaying the success of Republicans’ involvement in war since 1968.
Asking them to “think carefully” is asking too much. The same blind hatred of Nixon that drove them then, has become the “Bush – hatred” that drives them now.
They have, of course, bound the hands of administrations from 1968 to the present.
The lessons of the Allies’ unpreparedness for war in the late ’30’s have been lost on them.
The only thing the Left understands is vote – getting. When they cease to exist as a viable political party, they will have learned their lesson in retrospect.
“Conquest” of Iraq?
This isn’t a game of “Risk,” nitwit. We’re NOT SUPPOSED to be occupiers, remember? Bush said no nation building in 2000 remember?
Right out of the gate, you prove yourself to be a lap dog for this administration’s failures.
By the way, it’s not just the left that are concerned about losing this war, cries of “we’ve already lost” are increasingly being heard from the right as well.
You guys are really a piece of work. Forget studying warfare. Political psychology should become a new field, and people like you, Scott, should be case studies for future generations of enligtened Americans.
Yes, let’s teach future generations of young Americans how to start a war based on false intelligence, send Americans off to die without a plan to win the peace, create ill defined goals; and no forseeable exit strategy. Let’s teach our West Point’ers how to start a war with a serious lack of international cooperation and support. Once the war starts, let’s teach our young officers what to do when you find out you’re fighting a war thats a whole heck of a lot different than what you bargained for.
In the first 30 days of the Iraq war, a VASTLY superiour American miltary rolled over a military just out of the stone age. We’re proud of our troops–but let’s be honest when we say that they’re fighting a war right now that we didn’t really see coming. These insurgents aren’t going away any time soon, Scott…and that 2,000 that you seem to gloat about (makes me ILL to think about that), could turn to 10,000 at some point.
You people have lost a complete grip on what’s real. You’re out of touch with what mainstrean America thinks about this war. (Over half think it’s a mistake.)
Get a grip, or get out of the way. This war must end.
JK
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9,
1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),Oct 10, 2002
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction
and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the
threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraqis a long way from [here], but what happens there
matters a great deal here. For the risks that the
leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger,Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,
18, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA),Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his
cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State,
Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit
missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies.”
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI),Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his
country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume that
it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV),Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United
States the authority to use force– if necessary– to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years … We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV),Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do”
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA),Oct. 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has
had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL),Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime … He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating
America’s response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So
the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”- Colin Powell, January 2001
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”- Condoleeza Rice, July 2001
“There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” – 9/17/01 GWB (referring to OBL)
“”I don’t know where he is. . I truly am not that concerned about him.”- GWBush, 3-13-02 (also referring to OBL)
A fine day for a Fisking. JK wrote:
Conquest of Iraq? This isn t a game of Risk, nitwit. We re NOT SUPPOSED to be occupiers, remember?
Before you can liberate, you must occupy. Happened in France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and every other nation we have rescued from tyranny.
Bush said no nation building in 2000 remember?
Everything changed on Sept. 11th. Remember? Skyscrapers, planes, flames, bodies falling from the sky, almost 3,000 killed. Ring any bells?
Right out of the gate, you prove yourself to be a lap dog for this administration s failures.
And right out of the gate you prove Karl Rove right.
By the way, it s not just the left that are concerned about losing this war, cries of we ve already lost are increasingly being heard from the right as well.
Proving that neither side has a monopoly on stupidity or irrational defeatism.
Yes, let s teach future generations of young Americans how to start a war based on false intelligence&
WMDs were one of many reasons for going to war. The fact that Saddam violated the cease fire is alone a legitimate casus belli.
& send Americans off to die without a plan to win the peace, create ill defined goals; and no forseeable exit strategy.
When in history has any tribe, kingdom, empire or nation gone to war with a plan to win the peace , with well defined goals or with any exit strategy other than victory? Von Clauswitz wrote that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. This being the case, how then can any political plan hope to survive? War is messy.
Let s teach our West Point ers how to start a war with a serious lack of international cooperation and support.
The only nation that could have helped us to any significant degree that was not already in our 40-nation coalition was France. Unfortunately, the French political class was neck-deep in bribes from Saddam Hussein through the wonderful Oil-for-Palaces program.
Once the war starts, let s teach our young officers what to do when you find out you re fighting a war thats a whole heck of a lot different than what you bargained for.
Presumably we do, as all wars fall into that category.
In the first 30 days of the Iraq war, a VASTLY superiour American miltary rolled over a military just out of the stone age.
The Iraqi military was the most formidable and battle hardened force in the Middle East. Describing them as Stone Age only reinforces my point about the liberal propensity for hyperbole. Besides, most liberal media commentators at the time predicted a very tough fight. Wasn t it Peter Arnet who predicted Baghdad would be a new Stalingrad?
We re proud of our troops but let s be honest when we say that they re fighting a war right now that we didn t really see coming.
Well damn that Bush for not using the White House Crystal Ball&
These insurgents aren t going away any time soon, Scott&
If by insurgents you mean fanatical wahabbi hostage-taking, head-chopping, civilian-murdering, suicidal terrorists I would agree. It will take some time to destroy their fanatical movement. But I think it is vastly better that they are fighting our military in Iraq than fighting our civilians in our cities.
& and that 2,000 that you seem to gloat about& (makes me ILL to think about that), could turn to 10,000 at some point.
I do not gloat, I merely compare. And yes, it could turn into 10,000 in another 8 years if current trends continue. But if the terrorists were not so busy getting killed in Iraq, they might have the time to plan and carry out another devastating attack on one of our cities, in which case it could easily turn into millions. The best defense is a good offense.
Get a grip, or get out of the way.
Read some history and follow your own advice.
This war must end.
Indeed it must, as all wars must. The question is, will it end in defeat or victory? The terrorists know they cannot defeat us in a stand-up fight their only hope is that defeatists like you will sap the will of the American public and cause us to abandon the fledgling democracy that has taken root in Iraq to their tender mercies. Not only would this abandon the Iraqis to tyranny, it would further reinforce the enemies belief that we are a paper tiger with no resolve.
Conquest of Iraq?
This isn t a game of Risk, nitwit. We re NOT SUPPOSED to be occupiers, remember? Bush said no nation building in 2000 remember?
>According to whom, are we not to occupy Iraq? It seems to me, that if you’d occupied the airspace of a country for a dozen years, you are technically at war with it.
>What part of the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, did you happen to take issue with AT THE TIME?
>It’s convenient to be critical of a statesman who acted on intelligence that every major intelligence service agreed with AT THE TIME.
>Which particular Senator quoted above do you disagree with?
>So, in your view, a candidate running for president must be bound to his comments on nation building and therefore a post-invasion must immediatly be followed by a total retreat? And this makes sense why?
Right out of the gate, you prove yourself to be a lap dog for this administration s failures.
By the way, it s not just the left that are concerned about losing this war, cries of we ve already lost are increasingly being heard from the right as well.
>You might not want to lecture about holding a principled position when your own is simply that reflexive and empty.
You guys are really a piece of work. Forget studying warfare. Political psychology should become a new field, and people like you, Scott, should be case studies for future generations of enligtened Americans.
>He’s made valid points in arraying a hypothesis, something you feel unburdened by.
Yes, let s teach future generations of young Americans how to start a war based on false intelligence, send Americans off to die without a plan to win the peace, create ill defined goals; and no forseeable exit strategy. Let s teach our West Point ers how to start a war with a serious lack of international cooperation and support. Once the war starts, let s teach our young officers what to do when you find out you re fighting a war thats a whole heck of a lot different than what you bargained for.
>Where in the history of warfare has there ever been a predictable outcome? Nevermind your requisite international disqualifier, in the Korean War for example, Ethiopia gave more troop support than France did at 1,350 troops.
Have you any knowledge of history? philosophy? military life? ettiquette?
In the first 30 days of the Iraq war, a VASTLY superiour American miltary rolled over a military just out of the stone age.
>Where do you come up with this “stone age” fiction? Perhaps you’re conflating Afghanistan and Iraq by using a term detractors of that war used back in 2001? Bombing them into the “Stone Age” ?
We re proud of our troops but let s be honest when we say that they re fighting a war right now that we didn t really see coming
>Funny way to illustrate your being proud of the troops whom you describe as defeating a force that is just out of the “stone age”. Despite the media saying from day 3 that “the marines are trapped”, forget the New York Times editorial page using the word quagmire from week two, forget that our forces did more damage to the enemy in 9 days than the Iranians were able to do in 7 years.
What part of classical deterence do you not understand?
. These insurgents aren t going away any time soon, Scott& and that 2,000 that you seem to gloat about (makes me ILL to think about that), could turn to 10,000 at some point.
> It makes others ill to consider fighting jihadists in the states rather than in Iraq. If you saw Ted Kennedy on Meet the Press today, you’d have heard him say..”we can’t take our eyes off of Al Qaeda”. Where is Al Qaeda killing more innocents everyday? Iraq.
You people have lost a complete grip on what s real. You re out of touch with what mainstrean America thinks about this war. (Over half think it s a mistake.)
> Over half the nation thought slavery was moral. What’s your point?
Get a grip, or get out of the way. This war must end.
> This brings us to the very question of the ages. How are wars won? Wars are won when one side loses and perceives itself to have lost. WW1 you could say that Germany was defeated and yet the military was a ferocious, efficient force. They did not think they were defeated.
Wars are won when the deterence is reinstated and the cost of going to war far outweigh the benefits.
If the U.S. were to leave Iraq before the Jihadists and insurgents are defeated, this would be a victory for Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Islamists who threaten civilization, nevermind the geopolitical stability of the greater M.E.
Report: US secretly met with insurgents
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_7
LONDON – U.S. officials recently met secretly with Iraqi insurgent commanders at a summer villa north of Baghdad to try to negotiate an end to the bloodshed, a British newspaper reported Sunday.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, asked about the report, suggested that meetings between Iraqi officials and insurgents “go on all the time” and said “we facilitate those from time to time.”
I thought the Bush administration didn’t negotiate with terrorists? Why are we now negotiating with them? Could that be a flip flop? Or maybe Rove didn’t get the memo?
Scott Free wrote: …defeatists like you will sap the will of the American public and cause us to abandon the fledgling democracy that has taken root in Iraq …
Ah, so this is the official excuse for losing the war huh? Better keep repeating that sparky, and click your heels three times while you’re at it. In fact, why not just enlist?
If being against an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (yes, I disagree with all of those non-liberal Democratic senators above) means that I’m the reason we “lost” when “winning” was never a real possibility, then yes, I guess I want us to lose, just so we can bring our military home.
Do you believe that children should grow up without fathers? That families should be torn asunder for a war that was built up on false intelligence (the intelligence given to all those Democratic Senators).
There had to be those high up that knew the truth. Iraq had no WMD’s and no nuclear weapons programs. When the US supplied the rest of the world with its cooked intelligence and its sense of fear and paranoia, much of the world was onboard the great Crusade against Terrorism.
Congrats, wingers, you are the ones supporting a lying, cheating worm of a President. A small man with Napolionic tendencies.
“Somehow I don t think us liberals are the biggest threat America currently faces, it seems the president believes otherwise.’
Bahh. Pity party. As with conservatives, you are one of the reasons the country is great. However, you are wrong on terrorism and insufficiently focused on winning the war on terrorism. It seems you are always out to get Bush, get the military or get our anybody on our side. Then when you are called on it, you scream about your patriotism being challeneged.
Dugger
Careful, Oliver.
He didn’t just indict “liberals”. He later said that DEMOCRATS didn’t get 9/11, and questioned our “motives”.
Liberals ARE focused on winning the war on terror. The difference is, we know that the war in Iraq is only a distraction from the real war, which is fought throughout the world, but mostly through good intelligence and good homeland security.
Why are only 2% of containers being inspected?
Why are the borders porous?
Why is Homeland Security underfunded where it is needed and overfunded where the need is less?
Why do airports STILL not have the best scanning machines available?
Why are the leaders of Al Queda still at large?
THESE are the things that affect our security from terrorism. NONE of these situations have anything to do with Iraq. In fact, the resources, human and financial, wasted in Iraq are not being deployed to keep America safe from terra’.
neo,
OK an argument can be made on Iraq either way. But many liberals opposed the Afghanistan action. As for your list of “whys” or questions, I would much rather see a program to do those things presented as a “better idea’ option by the Democrats than “Bush lied”, etc..
Dugger
BinkeyBoy:
“If being against an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (yes, I disagree with all of those non-liberal Democratic senators above) means that I m the reason we lost when winning was never a real possibility, then yes, I guess I want us to lose, just so we can bring our military home.
A. This was not an illegal invasion. Saddam violated the terms of the Cease Fire, which is and has been a legitimate casus belli for as long as there have been rules for war.
B. Why do you libs constantly throw the phrase sovereign nation into your arguments against the war? Do you have any idea what those words mean? If you do, please explain to me their relevance in the discussion. Every nation our country has ever been at war with (by definition) has been a sovereign nation. What is your point? Or do you just like to toss a few important sounding words into the mix to make yourselves seem more intelligent than you really are?
C. & when winning was never a real possibility& A perfect encapsulation of the irrational defeatist mindset.
Do you believe that children should grow up without fathers? That families should be torn asunder&
No, which is why I supported the overthrow of an evil, warmongering dictator who has murdered tens of thousands of fathers and torn apart tens of thousands of families.
& I guess I want us to lose, just so we can bring our military home.
Yes, bring them home in defeat and shame, prove Osama bin Laden right about America being a paper tiger, abandon the people of Iraq to the tyrrany of the head-chopping fanatics and leave the entire Middle East to stew in despotism. All so you can discredit Bush.
And you wonder why the voters don t take your kind seriously on defense issues?
Dugger says
“But many liberals opposed the Afghanistan action”.
This is technically true, but is meaningless
Here are some other things about liberals:
-Many liberals eat pie
-Many liberals voted for GW (ok, there must be 3 or 4 somewhere)
-Many liberals enjoyed Star Wars
-Many liberals like Joe Lieberman (again, 3 or 4, MAYBE 5)
What does this all mean? Nothing. Many liberals opposed the Afghan war. Most liberals, in particular the ones in elected office, were for the war. Some were for the general principle of attacking, but were unsure of GWB pulling it off successfully (and they were right, BTW).
As far as Iraq, our “better idea” was not to invade at all. As Condi and Colin said in 2001, Saddam was contained.
neo,
Ok, but certainly there were many more visible and vocal “liberal” opponents of Afghan than otherwise. And you (”liberals” ) may be right about Iraq. Or the neocons may be right. Its too bad the decent arguments that could be made against Iraq are drowned out by meaningless cr*p like Bush lied etc. On Iraq, why can’t liberals just argue on merit rather than (suspected) motive.
Dugger
Our troops accomplished everything they needed to within days. Our armed forces have never been very good at pretending to be a police force.
And as for war, can you please show me a declaration?
Bush has discredited himself. He’s lied, repeatedly, from one end of the spectrum to the other. No permanent bases? Ooops, 7 of them at last count. The US is not a country builder? Even then we suck at it. Afghanistan is growing restless and Iraq is in the initial throes of a civil war.
Iraq was a sovereign nation. There are many nations that are not fully recognized by the UN, but Iraq was. As such, certain “quaint formalities” should have and could have been followed. As for the cease fire, can you please tell me how we can increase our airborn flights over Iraq soil, actively highlight military installations and not think they “shouldn’t” fight back?
Explain to me what winning would be? Do you think Iraq will ever be an “America Lite” version of democracy? We were defeated the moment we walked into that sandtrap. We allowed ourselves to be lied into an illegal invasion. You may like it that he has an (R) next to his name, and that may release him from having to tell the truth to you, but I expect more.
What is more shameful? Killing Iraqi’s with bombs because they had a tyrant for a ruler or for allowing a tyrant to bomb them?
Against Iraq?
How about no WMD’s? How about no nuclear weapons programs? Just those two get summed up by “Bush Lied”.
Other less published reasons to not go to Iraq that I’ve been blogging about for 6 years:
“Iraq will be our Vietnam, our quagmire from which no heros will walk”.
Can you think of any Vietnam veterans that are considered national hero’s? Kerry, Cleland and others are considered hero’s, but does anyone really connect that to the Vietnam war?
Other than that, how about Condie Rice’s arguments or Colin Powell? Both said Iraq was contained and the sanctions were working. Why the rush to war? Possibly because given another year the American emotion of revenge may have cooled to the point where a war would not have been as popular? They knew what they were doing when they manipulated American emotions to point to Iraq.
Terrorism? We all know that the press reported Saddam paying off suicide bomber’s families. But as was proven long before the war started, Saddam really didn’t get along with the terrorists that were targetting America and American interests (I’m not going to call Israel and American interest, thats an unending debate). Also, given that Saddam was a secularist and that bin Laden considered Iraq more of a target than “training ground” or haven, we can easily surmise those two never would have been able to work together to get anything done.
Ending the sanctions? Other than never being mentioned by an official in any serious capacity (I don’t know that it was never brought up), this would have been a serious stopping point for most Americans in the run to war. It just wouldn’t have carried weight, for dozens of reasons.
Pits, prisons, rapes, etc: Sorry, there are dozens of brutal dictators that break this rule daily, and we work with them non-stop, ignorning these occurances as blatently as we ignore the dog farting.
So why are we in Iraq?
Now, why didn’t we pull out immediately after the elections? It was the perfect opening, it was a great “success” according to the press. Purple fingers and stinky fingers, everyone was happy. According to the administration more police troops were trained then than there are now (I was listening to Rummy and Bunnypants on multiple radio speeches claiming great big huge numbers). So now what milestone will jump out of the shrubs and yell “boo” and let us know the time is right to at least PLAN for a withdrawl? I see nothing, no magical number of Iraqi troops, no sudden stopage of car bombings, no sudden relaxation of insurgency that will mark that great popular groundswell of appreciation.
All that will happen is that Iraq will slowly fade from the American vision, keeping our 7 permanent bases wide open and large targets for any stubbed toe terrorist. If America doesn’t mark the war as illegal and ill-fated, make an organized entire pullout from Iraq we’ll be stuck there for at least 2 more generations. Are you willing to sacrifice that much for “liberation”?
BinkyBoy:
Our troops accomplished everything they needed to within days.
Nonsense. We didn t even capture Saddam, much less lay a foundation that a democratic Iraq could arise on.
Our armed forces have never been very good at pretending to be a police force.
Whose have?
And as for war, can you please show me a declaration?
Such quaint 19th century formalities have gone by the wayside since the end of WWII. Congressional authorization was all we needed.
The US is not a country builder? Even then we suck at it.
Yeah, just look at Germany and Japan. What basketcases.
Afghanistan is growing restless&
Afghanistan is growing civilized, slowly but surely. How many times before the invasion did we hear from the left that Afghanistan was the graveyard of Empires , that it defeated the Brits and Soviets and would defeat us, that we would need tens of thousands of troops to overthrow the Taliban, yada, yada, yada.
As for the cease fire, can you please tell me how we can increase our airborn flights over Iraq soil, actively highlight military installations and not think they shouldn t fight back?
Because the cease fire gave us explicit rights to do so in order to verify their compliance, that s why.
Explain to me what winning would be? Do you think Iraq will ever be an America Lite version of democracy?
You mean like Germany or Japan?
We were defeated the moment we walked into that sandtrap. We allowed ourselves to be lied into an illegal invasion.
More irrational defeatist claptrap. As I already pointed out, there is nothing illegal about resuming hostilities when a cease-fire has been violated.
What is more shameful? Killing Iraqi s with bombs because they had a tyrant for a ruler or for allowing a tyrant to bomb them?
We killed thousands of innocent French civilians when we invaded and liberated (yes, Binky, those two concepts are not mutually exclusive) France from Nazi oppression. Was that immoral Binky?
Of course it is a shame that millions of Europeans are being murdered by those beastly Nazis, but we must not soil our hands with the blood of innocents to stop it, because that would be shameful. ?
Should we have just stood back and put Free France and War is not the Answer bumper stickers on our 39 Fords while the Nazis trampled Europe under their jackboots?
Binkey:
How about no WMD s? How about no nuclear weapons programs? Just those two get summed up by Bush Lied
I have yet to hear any convincing evidence from the left that Bush knew that WMDs did not exist in Iraq. If he did not know, he could not have lied.
Other less published reasons to not go to Iraq that I ve been blogging about for 6 years:
Iraq will be our Vietnam, our quagmire from which no heros will walk .
Can you think of any Vietnam veterans that are considered national hero s? Kerry, Cleland and others are considered hero s, but does anyone really connect that to the Vietnam war?
Of course not. The left did such a good job at vilifying our troops and our cause during the Cold War, Vietnam will always be regarded as a stain on our Nations history.
Other than that, how about Condie Rice s arguments or Colin Powell? Both said Iraq was contained and the sanctions were working.
Saddam was contained unfortunately for 25 million Iraqis, they were contained with this monster. Not such a good deal for them, is it? As for the sanctions working clearly both Rice, Powell and most of the rest of the world were deceived. The sanctions were working, but only in the sense that they were enriching Saddam and the bribed European political figures that were looking out for his interests, while the common people suffered.
Terrorism? & given that Saddam was a secularist and that bin Laden considered Iraq more of a target than training ground or haven, we can easily surmise those two never would have been able to work together to get anything done.
For f ck sake, Binkey, bin Laden was working with the United States (Great Satan Inc.) for years, and was able to get plenty done as in the Soviet Union driven from Afghanistan!!! I hardly think he would then find it a stretch to work with Saddam and his Baathists after that!
Here s a little quiz, Binkey. Name the region of the world from which the following saying originated: My enemies enemy is my friend.
Need a clue? (Need I ask?)
Now, why didn t we pull out immediately after the elections?
Err, because the elected government asked us not to? Because they know that if we did they would be plunged into full-scale civil war, and that would be bad?
It was the perfect opening, it was a great success according to the press. Purple fingers and stinky fingers, everyone was happy.
Yes, the perfect opening for a government that only cared about poll numbers and not about the fate of the Iraqi people. Fortunately, Bill Clinton left office some time ago.
If America doesn t mark the war as illegal and ill-fated, make an organized entire pullout from Iraq we ll be stuck there for at least 2 more generations. Are you willing to sacrifice that much for liberation ?
Substitute Europe for Iraq and the exact same argument could have been made on the day of the Normandy invasion. And yes, it was worth it.
Regarding the matter of what constitutes a lie, I have long been wondering about the following:
Either I’m in the dark or I just haven’t seen it (though my media intake has stayed the same), so why have there been no terror threats since the end of the 2004 elections? It seemed that before the election we received regular threats of potential terrorist attacks, and we yo-yo’d up and down from yellow to orange to yellow. And at least one of those threats — regarding financial institutions in New York and Newark — was known about for months but wasn’t announced until close to election time (or was it when Kerry was gaining ground in the polls?).
Rove is a very smart strategist, and it was no secret that Republicans knew their winning strategy was to convince Americans that the right is the stronger party militarily and could keep us safer than the left.
Were these regular terror threats, which, by the way, cost New York City millions of dollars each time the threat was raised to orange, more Republican exaggerations of the truth? Do Republicans no longer have to exaggerate terror threats now that they won? Did they only win by scaring and misleading us with lies or exaggerations? Were these threats as credible as our reasons for invading Iraq and did they originate from the same group of deceivers?
Judging by the current polling, sans the threats and the need to protect ourselves, Republican policy is not a winning strategy.
Am I missing something here?
Scott Free, talking to you is like talking to a wall. None of your “answers” was worth the pixels it was printed on.
You were incorrect on so many answers anyway it would take far too long to answer it, and its not like you are reading anyway.
“Am I missing something here?”
yes
Dugger
BinkyBoy
“Scott Free, talking to you is like talking to a wall. None of your answers was worth the pixels it was printed on.
You were incorrect on so many answers anyway it would take far too long to answer it, and its not like you are reading anyway.”
Surrender noted. Ceasing fire.
Actually Scottieboy, I think Binky is talking more about casting pearls before swine.