The Democratic party – the party whose leaders fought WWII and the early ages of the Cold War – went AWOL in 2002, allowing George Bush and his cronies to take our nation to an unneeded and poorly planned war. The cost of that has been a loss of prestige, failure in the war against Al Qaeda, and most horribly the lives of 2,300 American servicemen and women.
I ask, are we going to let them do it again? Already the GOP is doing plotting and wargaming of both a land attack and a nuclear assault on Iran.
The people in control of our national security are both idiotic and aligned with malice. We cannot allow them to do it again. The opposition party in this country is the Democratic party. It is the party of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Are we going to just piss that away because the GOP might say bad things about us? How many more American lives and how much more of a loss of our power to influence the world are we going to lose because the Democrats are cowering instead of standing up on the basic principles of American democracy?
The time to denounce this lunacy and articulate an alternate path of rational minded diplomacy is now. Not when more caskets are flying home.
for the love of god ollie, please stop it.
The democrats voted to get us involved in this war. Taking it back three years later when it looks like a good political move doesn’t count.
There are so many mistatements in your screed that it is hard to know where to start fisking it.
Loss of american influence? Did libya give up it’s terrorist ambitions after we invaded Iraq? Did eqypt hold free elections?
The democrats weren’t idiots, they saw the writing on the wall, and for once in this decade, thought about the good of the country not the next election.
The problem is, we will never know what history would be like if Saddam were still in power. I can invent all sorts of scenarios showing that this war was a great thing.
The thing you forget is that it isn’t the republicans saying bad things about the democrats that they are afraid of: It is that those bad things are true and the american people know and will continue to run the democrats out of office.
I like Amanda’s take on this:
The Democrats voted to give Bush authority to go to war. He made the final decision. Why can’t you ever admit that?
Yes, a loss of American influence. Previous American presidents were able to be taken seriously on the international stage – and I include people who I personally dislike like President Reagan and President Bush I. Now we’re a joke. Libya basically ran out of cash and saw we were handing out candy. The Egyptian election was a farce at best. Practically all of the nations the right heralded as having a wave of democracy are in the same broken positions they always have been. The Palestinians went with Hamas to represent them.
The Democrats in the House and Senate were idiotic to ever trust George W. Bush to take this country into war, and while 2,300 dead Americans in order to build another Islamic Republic may mean nothing to you – it means a lot to the rest of us who have brains and the ability to think on our own.
“I can invent all sorts of scenarios showing that this war was a great thing.” is probably the truest thing you’ve ever said on this site. The entire “upside” to the Iraqi invasion can only be invented, it doesn’t exist.
“the american people know and will continue to run the democrats out of office” – one election in which the president beats his flawed opponent by 2% and proceeds to plummet to almost unprecedented depths in approval does not a “running out” make. If 2004 had been 1980, 84 or 64 you’d have a point. As it is, like practically everything you say (more nowadays than before – I’m tryng to figure out why, maybe its because you’ve had to consolidate all your personalities), you’re pulling it out of your ass.
So Oliver, if Iraq had WMD’s the war would be ok?
Can you invent one that will make 2,300 families whole again?
drpedro, frank -
Are you guys in favor of invading Iran? Nuking Iran?
Thanks.
Oliver, there’s a reason why they’re doing what they’re doing. But don’t let that bother you.
Just keep telling yourself, “What ever Bush is for, I’m against it.”
It has served the Democrat Party so well, so far.
No, because there were always ways to remove Saddam’s WMD capability without occupying and running an entire nation. I said that in Fall 2002 and beyond.
Frank: It’s not just what Bush is for, I’m against. I’m against stupid things. If Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or John Kerry supported dropping a nuke on Iran, they’d be idiots too.
Rheinhard: That’s pretty accurate. Bush thinks he’s Bruce Willis or Nicolas Cage in a Bruckheimer flick.
“Well, it’s Groundhog Day… again…”
—Bill Murray (Phil), Goundhog Day (1993)
Huh? Pedro, are you serious? Are you asking if the first excuse for going to war had panned out, then would Oliver think the war was okay? You mean if we had proven our intelligence was reliable? That Iraq was actively working on a means of causing massive casualties in some potential future conflict? That weapons inspectors had failed and the U.N. was wrong? Would we have been able to argue effectively for increased foreign support, even from those initially opposed to the invasion, thereby easing the strain on our troops? Just what are you asking?
Frank, please supply the reason and stop leaning on the “all lefties (or at least Oliver) hate Bush so everything they say lacks credibility.”
At this point, everything these clowns do is suspect. Period. What has this administration done to build trust EVER. Where have they done anything other than lie, suppress, and distort? Iraq? Global Warming? Social Security? Medicaid? Katrina? Wiretapping? 9/11? Do I need to continue?
Ae we actually trying to debate something or just trolling?
Really Ollie, how?
And the prisons for tortuing children? Shooting at our planes? Starving the populace while Saddam, the russians and french got rich? Ignoring the UN for 12 straight years?
And why is it that the democrats that you trusted enough to vote for for president didn’t think it was possible to “remove Saddams WMD’s” without occupying the country. I mean, these guys, that you trusted and rooted for, who SAW the intel and KNOW the capabilities of the armed forces….why do you think THEY didn’t speak up?
And what happens when Iran drops a nuke on Israel? What do WE do? What if they just THREATEN to drop a nuke on israel?
Like I said before Ollie, you are the master of 20/20 hindsight, unfortunately that isn’t leadership.
“Brand Democrat: We always know the right answer, 3 years after the fact”
Iran Now Enriching Uranium
I’m a little behind on this, but just in case some of you haven’t heard yet Iran has announced the fact that it is enriching uranium. The a-typical response from Demcorats? Bush/Republicans are evil and must be stopped. As I…
Say Anything, what are you proving here, exactly? The Iranian enrichment program is old news, so how does this validate the Bush administration? How does it make the case for going to war? Considering it will be some time before they have any weapons grade material, much less a bomb, how does such a slow timetable demand immediate military action? Is an Iran with the bomb worse than a Pakistan with the bomb and freely seeling the technology to all comers? Given Israel’s nuclear arsenal on one side, India on the other (along with their hostile relations with Pakistan), and the nuclear armed North Korea who never seems to get threatened with invasion, is Iran’s position that hard to fathom? Maybe the recent pursuit of the U.S. to add tactical nukes to its military, along with an ABM treaty violating anti-missile shield (that won’t work, but that’s another thread) that’s making them nervous about U.S. intentions. Or maybe the .S. is just getting played. It seems Iran played no small role baiting us into invading Iraq, hugely draining our military capabilities, all the while salivating over the idea that the U.S. might try parking its navy in the Gulf for an attack.
I don’t like the idea of a nuclear armed Iran (or anyone else bringing new nukes to the table, actually), but there are far better ways of dealing with the situation than another region destabilizing, terrorism encouraging, economy destroying, massive casualty inducing war.
Wow, Republicans are dumb. You are just noticing how dangerous Iran is?
Debates:
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? [...]
Bush: [...] On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs.
The IAEA is involved. There’s a special protocol recently been passed that allows for inspections.
I hope we can do it. And we’ve got a good strategy.
KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing. [...]
Bush: [...] Secondly, he said — my opponent said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran — we’ve already sanctioned Iran. We can’t sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on Iran.
And finally, we were a party to the convention — to working with Germany, France and Great Britain to send their foreign ministers into Iran.
Kerry: [...] but I first want to say something about those sanctions on Iran.
Only the United States put the sanctions on alone, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about.
In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. And that’s the difference between the president and me.
And there, again, he sort of slid by the question.
And more from the debate
Kerry: [...] KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he’s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea’s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. [...]
[...] But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, “Here, let me show you the photos.” And DeGaulle waved them off and said, “No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.”
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we’ve done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous — Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.
Good job guys!
Man, Pedro, you’re full of more crap than usual.
And the prisons for tortuing children? Shooting at our planes? Starving the populace while Saddam, the russians and french got rich? Ignoring the UN for 12 straight years?
We had Saddam Hussein contained (Don’t believe me? Ask General Zinni. I know he’s only a Marine general with a chest full of medals and George Bush defended the shark-infested waters of the Gulf during Vietnam, but try him out anyway). Yes, he was horrible to his own people, so are a lot of other world leaders. I thought liberals were supposed to be the starry eyed unrealistic ones. Guess I was wrong. We were – and are – fighting a global war on Al Qaeda and those affiliated with them. As such, it was a clear detriment to that effort to get sucked in to building a new country in Iraq. Our first priority should be to hunt down and kill AQ wherever they are while also supporting the destabilization of the bad guys and providing aide to more democratic, pro-US governments. I love how all of a sudden you guys are in love with UN resolutions.
And why is it that the democrats that you trusted enough to vote for for president didn t think it was possible to remove Saddams WMD s without occupying the country. I mean, these guys, that you trusted and rooted for, who SAW the intel and KNOW the capabilities of the armed forces& .why do you think THEY didn t speak up?
The Dems did not get the same intel as Bush, and while I thought they should have voted against giving Bush the authority anyway, they did not receive a true assement of his capabilities nor the post-war planning. Many Democrats supported the coercive inspections concept pushed by the Carnegie Endownment for Intl Peace, had we gone that route we would have found no WMDs without invading and occupying Iraq.
And what happens when Iran drops a nuke on Israel? What do WE do? What if they just THREATEN to drop a nuke on israel?
There’s no reason we can’t use force against Iran, but the idea of dropping a nuclear missile on them is insane. Most estimates say, even with uranium enrichment, Iran is at best 10 years from a deliverable nuke. Even so, Israel has a great air force, and I’m sure if they felt threatened they wouldn’t hesitate to use it – and we’d back them up.
Like I said before Ollie, you are the master of 20/20 hindsight, unfortunately that isn t leadership.
Everything I ‘m saying now I said 4 years ago. I’m not brilliant, I just have some common sense.
Brand Democrat: We Had A Clue Before Clues Were “In”
Hope you are correct here Oliver…
The Democrats have got to find the ‘nads to stand up and demand a different way with Iran…
But I’m thinking that TomPaine.com has a spot-on take with this…
First they excoriate the Democrats for being not but ‘Bush Lite’…
And ends with this rather forlorn statement (emphasis mine):
We don’t need any more caskets flying home…
I know of no one who has advocated nuking or invading Iran either side. So all of the progressive frothing abour this issue is misguided – at best. We have and always have had war plans on the books for just about every remotely feasible world scenario one can imagine. They are updated periodically.
Would suggest actually coming up with an issue before you spaz out over a non issue. This is reminiscent of the election campaign draft scare. Progressives were constantly talking about how Bush would just have to have a draft andf guess what, there wasn’t one and there won’t be one.
If you are going to manufacture false issues, at least make them interesting.
Dugger
shocking: Are you asking two questions? Or being a wiseass?
So Dugger -
Let’s say that the Draft was not brought up as an issue and people were not expressing their concern. Do you think that it is possible that they would have gone ahead and instituted a draft? But since they were on record as saying no draft that they hesitiate.
I mean come on you have to have a better idea how these games are played don’t you? If people had reacted to the Iraq war scenario like they are to Iran there is a good chance we would not have gone…
Or am I being naive to think that politicians are not emboldened to act or not act when a large group of citizens show support or concern over issues.
Zappa had a really cool mustache
ah screw it. just let’em have nukes. ahmadinejad seems like a harmless enough guy.
Zappa,
No. If merely because a draft would be political suicide. Charlie Rangel and Democrats talked about it for as long as it could be used to get Bush and then stopped thereafter.
And of course weak politicians (respond to perceived public pressure.
And I don’t see us doing anything in Iran as long as we are tied down in Iraq (opinion). It may well be that any public talk is aimed at encouraging allies to become more supportive.
I will say that I hope we do a better job on the intelligence in Iran than we did in Iraq. No Pres can make good decisions with bad intelligence.
Dugger
Quick thing, Oliver:
Actually, if the government wasn’t preparing for posible war with Iran, I would think of it as nearly criminal negligence. After all, Iran is openly hostile to the United States and rattling its saber as loudly as possible. And of all the countries in the Middle East it seems both the most dangerous and the most hostile to US interests.
So, yeah, I want us to be ready for a war with Iran.
–|PW|–
And I don t see us doing anything in Iran as long as we are tied down in Iraq (opinion).
While we can only express our opinion, I also agree attacking Iran is not a real option, nor should it be. The last thing we need now is another military commitment while we are still fully committed in Iraq.
Unfortunately Bush is screwed either way.
If he does nothing and Iran nukes Israel, well , then everyone piles on him for not stopping them.
If he does something , the olllie will sit here and bemoan the fact that some americans died to stop poor old harmless Iran.
I am actually starting to hope for democratic wins, just to be able to sit on the other side and watch the democrats preside over the destruction of the civilized world in favor of the followers of a 12th century religion.
Frank_D -
Yes, I’m asking two questions: are you in favor of invading Iran? Are you in favor of nuking Iran?
I’m unsure of what you believe the WH’s position is and thought your non-partisan opinion may be interesting.
Thanks.
I am in favor of whatever plan will stop Iran from forging a nuclear weapon. Since I don’t sit on JCS meetings (do you?) I don’t know what the military has in mind, nor do I claim to know, as so many of you liberal commenters do, what President Bush wants, I have yet to form an opinion.
Unlike you all, my politics isn’t generated by BDS*
* Bush Derangement Syndrome
Way to dodge the question, Frank.