I’m tired of the son of a bitch leaders who make our soldiers die unnecessarily, put innocent Iraqis in a position to be blown up, and drag the good name of our country through the mud when it is time and time again something they were warned about (and this isn’t the first time).
What is wrong with them? What is wrong with the people that blindly support them?
>> Shiites Told: Leave Home Or Be Killed
>> Riot Crushes Sense of Hope in Iraq Enclave
>> One third US troops back from Iraq need mental help: study
According to Republicans, none of these things are happening, and the media is “biased” to even report them. The schools are open, don’t you understand? Never mind that they get blown up the next day and take Iraqi lives and American soldiers with them — Bush is president, and that’s all that matters to them.
It’s time to get the hell out of this mess.
>> Strategic Redeployment
>> “It is time to change the course of our Iraqi policy. It is time to wage an effective war against international terrorism. The American people know it. It is time for the administration and the Congress to catch up with them.”
UPDATE: Our horrible, unpopular president made one of his propaganda visits to Afghanistan. Golly gee, how come he didn’t pop into Iraq?
The media is biased. And by ‘leaders’ are you referring to the bi-partisan group from Congress who authorized the war? By unnecessary dead do you refer also to Mogadishu, Desert 1, etc? Or is your ‘rage’ curiously selective? Do your blinders only let you look right?
Dugger, Take Comfort in polls
from Victor Davis hanson, via Mark Noonan at BlogsforBush:
That was “President Bush made a surprise visit to Aghanistan on Wednesday, flying here secreterly to support its fledging government in the face of rising violence from al-Qaida and Taliban militants.”
I haven’t been paying enough attention to Afghanistan to realize the violence was rising. Especially since its source is Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. I thought we beat tose guys already.
If I may paraphrase from “Bye Bye Birdie” ["What's the matter with Kids today?]:
Why can’t he be like I am,
Perfect in every way?
Oh, what’s the matter with Bush today?
Or, paraphrasing Colonel Kurtz in “Apocapalypse Now”:
The arrogance, the arrogance
Hey, wait a second Midder, Bush said that war was the last resort. Don’t remember your recent history? Remember when that group of invasion-first Democrats bombarded the airwaves and the editorial pages with tales of mushroom clouds and gas attacks? Don’t you remember how Bush resisted their warmongering, trying to find a better way, until those ruthless Dems started calling him soft on terror and weak on homeland security? Don’t you remember Bush’s reluctance in announcing the invasion and his insistence that we not go ahead until we had a defined goal, overwhelming force, a strong coalition and an exit strategy in place? It all seems just like yesterday …
“You don t understand our system of government … I know that person is not making a serious criticism of the war, but rather another one of the endless partisan hit jobs on the president.”
Dugger, do YOU know how this system of government works? Congress authorizes wars, the President executes them. So who has been running the war since the beginning?
And exactly how long is this time frame after which we will be able to judge the war a success? Three years? Five years? Ten? Twenty? Because Bush has two more years left in his presidency then someone else will inherit his mess. That isn’t a lot of time to rpove ones leadership skills, especially after six years of fucking up.
What exactly is the difference between critcizing Bush and “criticizing the war”? How does one seriously criticize “the war” without at the same time critcizing the policies that lead to it, govern it and sustain it? And who formulates those policies and who signs off on them? Or does all this happen by itself?
How seriously unfair and vicious is it to suggest that things aren’t going well at the moment in Iraq and that a series of missteps made by this President and his administration can be held directly accountable for it?
Dugger, I will never stop embarrassing myself with a pretense to rationality when in fact I’m a slobbering facist who refuses to take responsibility for the failed policies of a president I support.
Dukker,
You are right in one way, Bush get’s the lion’s share. If there was credit he’d be basking in it, and any Democrat running around saying “hey! where’s my credit I voted for the war” would be ignored, but there isn’t much credit. Bush sets the policy, the troops levels, the strategies, the priorities, the people, the decisions, the diplomacy. Congress, one vote on a resolution politicly charged and propagandized by Bush and his backers as necessary to force Hussein into line on inspections or we faced doom. They got the vote, they got the pressure, they got the inspections. Bush only wanted the war.
Why do we have to leave Iraq? Because we fucked it up badly. Bush failed to plan for what happened. The situation deteriorated continuously since the invasion. Bush is blind to it and is locked to a policy of Change = Defeat.
Dugger, you defend Bush because you support Bush. The right’s support of Bush is as sycophantic as the visciousness of the left. And where you complain about the unfairness and bias of the left, you admit in the same sentence it may be meritted as far as Bush’s policies go.
Gosh Dugger, you make it sound as if Bush was following some congressional dictate when you say authorize the war. It’s all on Bush. He asked for it, he lied about it, he made the decision, he failed the diplomacy, he failed the strategy, he failed the planning, he failed to adapt. Bush fucked the war up. If you still want to cling to the rather shaky necessity of the war in the face of lack of WMDs, lack of terrorist ties, lack of international support or UN involvement, you really have to be blind to think Bush pursued the war properly.
Stop taking comfort in Pills, Dugger.
“And by leaders are you referring to the bi-partisan group from Congress who authorized the war?”
The mayor “authorizes” a policeman to use deadly force. That doesn’t mean we blame the mayor if the policeman opens up on a crowd of school children.
As it happens I agree that the spineless twits in congress share some of the blame for this mess, but the abominable lie that they share anywhere near the responsibility that Bush has is just about due to be retired to the home for worn-out propaganda, don’t you think, Dugger?
Mitter,
Dugger Cannot be Bushbot Zombie without pills from Mr Rove.
Hey, actually IMO Bush gets the lion’s share, as is proper, of blame or credit for the war, depending on how it turns out long term. But you don’t understand our system of government if you think Congress was also and is also not responsible. The problem is when I hear nothing but ‘Bush this’, ‘Bush that’, I know that person is not making a serious criticism of the war, but rather another one of the endless partisan hit jobs on the president.
Dugger, I freely admit that the left’s hate of Bush has been so vicious, so unfair and so unbalanced, that I wind up defending him more than his policies really merit
I would also add that Bush has two year to catch Osama Bin Laden. He hasn’t been able to do it in the last five, but who knows, maybe he’ll pull it out. If Bush doesn’t catch Bin Laden before his term is up and Bin Laden is caught during the term of the next president, should we give Bush the credit nonetheless?
I haven’t really read all of Hanson’s posts, but if it’s anything like Laura Ingraham’s nightly rants about how we’re really WINNING over there and we’d be much better of not listening to the doom-and-gloom lefties, I don’t have to.
The right-wing nutbags are correct in launching their all-out last resort rockets now and putting their biggest assets at risk on the table:
John Zogby’s poll out yesterday
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
says that just one of five US troops in Iraq says we should “stay the course”. 4 of 5 says get out in 2006. This matches with the feeling of the US public in all the latest polls.
Pretty soon, it will be time for finger-pointing, like Kristol over the weekend who is now accusing the President of not being committed enough to victory.
Next step: “The Libs made us lose”, just like all the Conservative retreads who were, and still are, convinced that Vietnam was lost by the anti-War effort.
Frank_D quotes Victor Davis Manly Testicles Hanson: “If many are determined to see the Iraqi war as lost without a plan, it hardly seems so to 130,000 U.S. soldiers still over there.”
Perhaps Frank_D and Victor need to read some news a little more recent than from the Peloponnesian War: Troops say US should leave Iraq, poll shows:
“Some 72 percent of American troops surveyed in Iraq think U.S. forces should leave the war-torn country within a year.
According to a survey released Tuesday, only 23 percent of the troops questioned said U.S. forces should stay in Iraq as long as they are needed. That’s the position the Bush administration has maintained since the March 2003 invasion.
The survey conducted by Zogby International in conjunction with LeMoyne College found that 29 percent of U.S. troops in Iraq said American forces should withdraw immediately. Some 22 percent said they should withdraw within six months, and 21 percent said they should pull out within six to 12 months.“
Congress gave Bush authorization to go to war, and they bear responsibility and blame for that.
Bush chose to go to war.
Bush chose to have no post-Saddam plan.
Bush chose to send in such a small number of troops.
Bush chose to ignore warnings about the insurgency
Bush chose to have no exit strategy.
Bush chooses to keep us in Iraq indefinitely.
But sure, keep pretending he’s blameless.
And Hanson, and especially Noonan, are full of shit.
Rumsfeld was talking war with Iraq on 9/11. Like the rest of the neocons, he couldn’t wait.
“Great things” in this case defined as 2500 American lives lost in order to create a nation run by Islamic mullahs while Al Qaeda continues to grow.
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
And Frank, it’s not that I’d like Bush to be perfect - I have no such delusions - but minimal competence would be nice.
Dugger;
Please list the other virtues he possesses, in your view.
“I freely admit that the left s hate of Bush has been so vicious, so unfair and so unbalanced, that I wind up defending him more than his policies really merit”
Dugger;
Other than your paternal instincts arising to defend the Indefensible One,
is there any reason to give this Prez a pass when the greatest virtue
(which has been called the ‘cheapest’) he might possess is………
‘good intentions’?
Paraphrasing was unnecessary; the actual quote “The horror; the horror. would have sufficed.
“The media is biased.” - Dugger
That’s right up there with “because” as convincing proof. Nailed us. Again, strange that one would feel so strongly about it without proof.
Wow…
Just.
Wow.
I really hope wee Victor had a couple of Kleenex and some KY handy as he wrote that, wouldn’t want him to make a mess or injure himself with his other hand.
“resound through the ages”??!?!?!? I mean, who the holy hell can actually write that with a straight face?! Mr. Hanson, hie thee to a dictionary and read up on “hyperbole”!
Wilbur,
But firing on a group of children would clearly be outside the the law. Bush going to war was legal. If the Democrats had stood together and a few Rs/Rinos joined them, there would have been no war (and Saddam would still be committing genocide). Congress and the Ds have part of this.
Mitter, No place do I ever say or suggest that the bias and vicousness of the left re Bush is warrned or justifiable. I don’t believe it for a second. I do say criticism is justified - some I might agree with. And
Semant, Have also never said and would not say that good intentions are an excuse for bad planning, execution - whatever you think the fault is. My problem comes in when, instead of documenting those criticisms, the left assserts Bush lied, its all about oil, etc. In other words - motive-based, mind reading criticisms. To doi the latter you might have to actually deal with the fact that Bush is adecent human being and very few on the left cana ccept anybody having good motives - except other leftists.
Some Bush good points (I didn’t really list any earlier, but because you asked): loyal, determined, decisive.
mjb,
If you have been reading here long, I have always said media bias is unprovable so naturally, having repeatedly said that, I’m stating my opinion and don’t expect you to take it as gospel.
Dugger
I freely admit that the left s hate of Bush has been so vicious, so unfair and so unbalanced, that I wind up defending him more than his policies really merit
That anyone would take you seriously after an admission like that is beyond me. We’re talking about criticism of an elected leader during one of the most tumultuous periods in modern world events, and you defend the guy solely based on pity?
Pathetic.
But firing on a group of children would clearly be outside the the law. Bush going to war was legal.
You’re somewhat right. A better analogy would be if a cop opened fire at a criminal in front of a crowded school bus, only wounding the perp but taking out several kids in the process. Would you blame the mayor that gave him his badge?
And I’m _sure_ that if things turn out all right down the line you will insist that the Deomcrats in congress get equal credit. Right.
Dukker,
???
Do you read what you write?
Your entire defense of Bush is based on the premise that you believe Bush is a decent human being that wouldn’t lie. Mind reading and motive and a sycophant’s belief in the infallibility of his idol.
Resound through the ages? Hell, I’d be happy if it resounds through next week!
They better resound through the ages because according to Dugger no one can criticize Bush the Great until we have seen his works unfold over the fullness of time. It may take ages for Iraq to finally become successfull but then you’ll see, in 2525, it will be Dugger saying “I told you so!”
In ten years, Dugger will be denying that he ever even voted for Bush.
Not at all Mitter. I defend Bush against the insane and vicious stuff. I have critiqued the war, Bush’s big spending, his poor personal skills amongst other things hree before. Those criticisms don’t resonate with leftists because when it comes to Bush, they only want to hate.
Dugger
I have critiqued the war, Bush s big spending, his poor personal skills amongst other things hree before.
Bullshit. Show us a link. Everytime I’ve seen you comment, it’s a rehash of GOP talking points. I may have missed something, but, dollars to donuts, it was followed by a pretty big but.
No, Dugger. The Democrats, just like a Mayor would to a Police Chief, handed Bush a loaded pistol subject to Bush’s promise he would only use it in extreme circumstances and only as a as a last resort.
He promised to only go with the UN’s sanction
He promised to exhaust all possible Diplomatic means
He promised to work with the Congress before going to war
He promised to check in every 60 days with the Congress.
We knew he would be trouble, we knew he was lying. but he said if we did not show a united front, if we did not put a weapon in his hand, he would not be able to do his job, and he needed it at that moment.
Little did we know just how profoundly cynical he was, since he KNEW all along he was going to war no matter what, and that the WMD, the Al-Qaeda threat, the Saddam-is-crazy, the stop-the-genocide were all just lies and excuses.
We now know that he had not engaged in serious WMD activity for over a decade, that there were no 300,000 people in mass graves, that after he put down the Kurd uprising in ‘92, there were no recent examples of widespread genocide, just harsh dictatorship like the Saudis, the Uzbeks, and many other countries we call allies were doing.
Without that WMD smoking gun he was COUNTING on, the whole thing fell apart. What was supposed to be self-defense became illegal aggression and occupationof a sovereign country. And now, we are going to put on some popcorn and watch as various pieces of this burning war train start to fly off into the darkness and burn.
Looks like you are going to be another victim of Bush loyalism, Dugger.
Enjoy the ride.
Dugger;
“motive-based, mind reading criticisms. ”
I don’t think the BushHate has anything to do with the evil motives of
the Prez. Rather it has to do with the ‘trust and loyalty’ he shows toward
those he delegates authority to. He seems to lack curiousity about the
‘devil in the details’ and allows others to fret over or ignore the bad
consequence which could occur from errors of omission or commission.
The loyalty then becomes a form of ‘enabling’ by fomenting excuses
for those he has entrusted and have screwed up.
Case in point;
When the whole Plame matter hit the news, he vowed that anyone
guilty of ‘leaking’ in the WH would be dealt with (paraphrase)
Has he done so? I don’t think so.
As I have often said, an admirable quality taken to extremes becomes
a negative. (e.g. Loyalty)
Dugger, I know, I just question why your opinion is so strong.
uring the 2004 Republican National Convention (August 30-September 2, 2003), Rove told CNN, “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name…I’m confident that the U.S. Attorney, the prosecutor who’s involved in looking at this is going to do a very thorough job of doing a very substantial and conclusive investigation.”[49] One month later, on September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, “[t]he President knows” that Rove was not involved: “and I said it is simply not true [that Rove was involved]. So, I mean, it’s public knowledge. I’ve said that it’s not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove … He [President Bush]’s aware of what I’ve said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.”[50]
On September 30, 2003, President Bush said “I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”[51] White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan added that Karl Rove had specifically assured McClellan that he was not involved, and that “the President expects his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove#Initial_public_statements_by_Rove_and_the_White_House
Then there is this;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/politics/main1302808.shtml
Rove assured McClellan he was not involved. Now we appear to have
caught Rove in a fib. Does Bush not comprehend what has occurred?
It’s hard to imagine he is so disengaged, or is just screwing up the
story inside his head. His loyalty seems to have reached the point
where it has gone into plain old stubborness.
Big Gay AL,
You are a typical hit and run poster. Throw out a few semi-insulting taunts and then melt away when intelligent dialogue is required. Is this any different? Happy to debate the war with you, but you will not find me eager to demonize Bush or to able to magically divine his bad motives.
mjb, It has been my opinion for a while, but about 4 years ago, I rated the major newspapers, broadcast networks, cable news networks, talk radio, public radio, major news mags , considered things like college papers, foreign papers, Yahoo, and some others. Rated each as to how important they were (i.e., CBS would be more important than the SF Chronicle), then rated each as to bias (left 2, liberal 1, center, conservative 1, right 2). From all of that came up with a quanititative score of about 60 to 15 left bias over right. Now of course, you might not agree with my bias ratings, but I don’t think they would be that unreasonable to most liberals. My little study is now out of date (NYT would go from let to liberal, more) but it still is close I think. But hat doens’t ‘prove’ jacksh*t. Just my more detailed take.
Semant,
Agree completely loyalty in a bad cause ain’t good and there is certainly a point where steadfastness crosses over into obstinacy. You are not one who I think reads motives so much intoi your Bush criticisms but there is still some inflexibility there - an unwillingness to recognize that htis person with admittedly substandard communication skills can mispeak and just screw up words at times. AS to youe r example on Plame, if you read the history of that you will know the press sec said one thing on a Friday and soon thereafter Bush corrected and said something different (don’t remember all details off top of my head). If we really explored that, though bet we find it isn’t a Bush gotcha.
Dugger
“Happy to debate the war with you …”
Please present all of us here then with your central critique of the war in Iraq.
Unless your Buckley, Kristol or Fukuyama, guys eager to get off the sinking ship or else take potshots at it as it goes down.
Becuase if you ask me, the standard conservative line has become, there are plenty of things to criticize the President about in his handling of the war but those who accuse him of lying and corruption are examples of the unhinged left who only care scoring cheap political shots …
but then they never go back to discuss these so-called “legitimate” criticisms. I was out running errands this afternoon and that was the entire gist of LArry Elders show (local LA talk radio). One sentence suggesting that there are legitimate reasons to criticize the war then an hour about how the left is crazy for calling Bush a liar.
So let’s hear it: The conservative critique of the war in Iraq. So far it’s just a rhetorical dodge.
The war: Dugger take/opinions.
Bush led by neocon-type strategists decided to go war and a mostly bi-partisan Congress agreed. Many causes were listed for the war (UN resolutions, component of WOT etc). One other was WMDs - which have not been found (as they were originally envisioned). There is however ample evidence that informed persons of both political parties had long thought Saddam either had or was working on WMDs (the Israeli’s believe he was near nuke WMDs when they bombed his French built nuclear reactor).
Regardless we won the major war (the troops’ ‘mission accomplished’ so infuriates the left - but the major war victory was just that) and now we are facing the daunting task of trying to put together and sustain a modern democratic Iraq.
This is a noble undertaking and if successful, could fix the world’s number one trouble spot (the Mideast) and save millions of future lives. I believe this concept, plus some variation of the anti-terrorist ‘flypaper’ strategy, to be the central long terms goals/ideas of the neocons.
The problem with the neocon strategy is that, like a lot of smart people, they have been fixated on their idealistic goal and may not have paid close attention to the make-up of Iraq’s society, its long term history of religious strife, its backward institutions, its old testament culture, and the prevalent general hatred there for the West, but the for US and Israel in particular. So you take the ingrained Iraqi attittudes, the fundamental religious divide, the fact that the peace-maker is the Israel ally US, and add it all up. Will it work? I’m afraid - likely not.
Eventually we will probably declare a certain number of Iraqi units independently combat ready (though the only one just reverted) and depart. Immediately those units will be subjected to endless’propaganda’, much of it playing on traditonal, ingrained Iraqi themes: hatred of Sunnis, Shias, especially hatred of Israel and the US, Islam will be counterpoised against the freedoms of democracy. I hope the open minded ones (middle class?) win, but I doubt they will. The job would then become for the US to leave behind as much stability as possible - so as to not destabilize the region - via what would turn out to be a major failed US policy - one that might be interpreted by rogue regimes as a go-ahead signal to become aggressive, because after this failed adventure, the pacifists and isolationists will hold sway in the US.
No where in this do I believe that the motives of the neocons and Bush have been anything but that which they consider best for the country. I have yet to see one even iota of evdience that makes me beileive Bush lied. Bush is a porr communicator. ANy presdient has to saya lot on the public record. he has spoekmen all over the palce. Some jumble is inebvitable and for those obsessed with Bush, the fact that you can piece together quotes with some eveidence of contradiction - means very little without full context.
No bogeymen. No evil frat boys conspiring in Texas. Just a well intentioned Pres and staff who may have made a misjudgment.
Dugger
Semant, Not sure I see a Rove fib. You didn’t may much attention to the timeline. Who was Rove talking to, when and what had happened in bewtween. Remember Fitz got Scooter for in essence fibbing, but not Rove. And I see no Bush gotcha.
cyber, Missed your post earlier. We just interpret the war resolution differently. I think it gave Bush authority to go to war when he saw fit. It was called a ‘war resolution” after all, not a ‘prepare for war resolution’ or ‘ go to war after this stuff happens’ resolution. Why try to absolve the Dems. Many on the left thought just as I do and split with the aminstream Dems. They and maybe you would like them to be able to have their cake and eat it to. “I’m patriotic. I voted for war.” “I’m a good liberal. I voted for war but it was with a wink becasue we had certain conditons we felt the presdient should take before he went to war.”
Isn’t that nice. Covers both angles. Please!
Dugger
That’s four out of six comments moderated. Uncanny.
Dugger;
Timeline?
We don’t know whether Rove told Bush. We do know he told Scotty.
Bush knows now what Rove told Scotty was not true. Where is
his loyalty? Is it blind allegiance to friends?
I didn’t read the whole comment stream, but I will give Dugger this: he has been far and away the most sane. While he often does defend the indefensible, he also has admitted at times that he disagrees with things the administration has done. And that, my friends, makes him just rational enough to deal with. Now if we could just get frank, ian, et all, to practice similar things, we could stop with the “viscious attacks” because we might just have a rational enough opponent set to debate instead.
Dukker,
Your first mistake is saying a bi-partisan congress authorized the war. Cyberian lays out the basic case against that picture above.
Next you try to defend the lack of WMDs. Long story short: they weren’t there, and most of the intelligence presented by the Bush people was tainted, dated, or based on untrustworthy witnesses, forged documents, speculation, bad conclusions and was known to be questionable at best at the time. Furthermore, UN inspectors were on the ground and found nothing, as a matter of fact, they said US tips were useless, always wrong, and did nothing but waste their time and resources.
Third you say the mission accomplished crap was justified, I would like to remind you the White House directly LIED about the origin of that sign when it came under fire, and tried to claim it was the ship’s personnel that made it and hung it, when in fact it was the White House advanced staff that did that for a photo op. The mission is not accomplished when Saddam Hussein is running loose, the majority of our troops are in harm’s way, the WMDs are not found, Al Qaeda is stirring up trouble, insurgents are stirring up trouble, the Taliban and bin Laden are running around in Afghanistan, etc etc etc. It may reflect the “we’ll be greeted with flowers” assumption that was the sole basis for post-invasion planning of the Bush administration, but I think we can all admit that assumption was stupid, short sighted, murderous and wrong.
Next comes the dreamy motive and goal mind reading. Yummy moonbeams for you. You blame every critic of mindreading the motives of these people. Noble, right. You can look at how the war has played out to at a minimum add shadowy, evil goals to the situation. Unaccounted for money, Union Busting, selling off of Iraqi assets, oil, corruption, no-bid contracts, US politics etc etc. Maybe these aren’t part of the ‘Main Goal’, but these things certainly went along for the ride. Anyway, what we have created there is a seething mass of violence and corruption on the brink of a civil war. Even if that doesn’t occur, all indications based on the Iraqi constitution and what is playing out in the elections and politics indicate we have created an Islamic Republic friendly to US-hating Iran. Good job.
Next you describe the Neo-Cons that led us into this war as smart people. Its not that they needed “close attention” to realize all the conditions you lay out as horrible mistakes. All they needed was any one page intelligence background history of Iraq, a memory that stretched back to the first Gulf War, to listen to any meeting they had with a US General who said they needed more troops, the ability to read a newspaper… It was the act of stupid short sighted people who had no idea how to define or plan to reach even the goals you stated.
Then you reiterate some vague exit strategy. Great. 20 years.
Much of the evidence indicates your trust of the Bush company motives is misplaced. You have not seen one iota of evidence that Bush lied? The only way that can happen is if you keep your eyes and mind closed. He mispoke, the message was jumbled by other representatives, CONTEXT!
Bogey men. Alot of them.
Telling Cyber you interpret the resolution differnetly is not a valid “agree to disagree”. I think we can say that Cyberian was alot more in tune with the democrats’ reasons and motives than you were. You are correct in saying they need to take responsibility for voting for that resolution, but that would be for making the mistake of letting politics trump Bush’s untrustworthiness. And those weren’t conditions “we felt the president should take” those were conditions the president SAID he would take (untrustworhty).
But say you are correct, how much does that make the democrat’s who voted for the resolution responsible for having the war? 1%? 2%, 5%? That leaves 95+% of the blame for starting the war squarely in Bush’s lap and 100% for the missteps and lack of basic planning in carrying out the war in Bush’s lap.
Isn’t that nice? Covers the hypoteneus of reality.
Dugger –
So the Bush administration misjudged the nature of Iraqi society and so, even with the best intentions, our mission in Iraq is unlikely to succeed. The best we can hope for is to achieve a modicum of stability before we exit.
I don’t know if you are aware of this or not but that’s the most damning thing that could possibly be said about this administration and its policies in Iraq. It’s also a statement that totally vindicates most pre-war critics of the invasion who included an assessment of Iraqi civil society as a central reason in their opposition to the war. Indeed, this administration actively worked to undermine those critics.
You either have a situation where the mission never could have succeeded because of the nature of Iraqi society — and so never should have been carried out in the first place (as pre-war critics advised).
Or you have a situation where, if we misjudged the nature of Iraqi society, we might have compensated and or adjusted to this new knowledge such that the mission would now be likely succeed, as when many critics of the president’s strategy called for more troops. But, in fact, the Bush administration failed to make any significant changes in strategy and worked to undermined their critics.
You don’t need wild conspiracy theories after you recognize this. Your assessment alone tells of a massive failure in judgement combined with massive incompetence to produce tragic consequences. It’s astonishing really the extent to which you are willing put it all down to a simple case of good intentions gone wrong. What were the three praiseworthy qualities you saw in Bush: Loyalty, Determination, Decisiveness? The scenario you just laid out exposes the serious damage that all three can do when one lacks good judgement. It’s simply astonishing.
“He also has admitted at times that he disagrees with things the administration has done.”
So what. How rational is it to recognize the crucial failure of judgement in the origianl plan for Iraq only to suggest that the best way to avoid total catastrophe is to continue following that very same plan? Dugger concludes that the biggest threat to our goals for Iraq are the anti-war left but that doesn’t make any sense if you read what he wrote. It follows from his above assessment that the greatest threat to our goals in Iraq are the very people who set those goals and decided on the plan in the first place. Which is to say that if the plan is in jeopardy because Bush misjudged the nature of Iraqi society then the plan’s ultimate failure lays within the plan itself. And yet somehow, at the end of his assessment, Dugger fobs off any failure in the plan on to the anti-war left who “hold sway” over national policy. Okay, so Dugger doesn’t agree with immediate withdrawal. But surely some change in policy or strategy is demanded right? Others on the right and left have asked for more troops to be sent in. Rejected. Others have asked for a reasonably flexible, target-based timetable to be established so that progress can be measured and assessed. Rejected. So if we can’t pull out but we can’t change the originally flawed plan just what exactly are we supposed to do? It sounds like Dugger believes all we have to do is tell each other pretty stories and hope for the best. That isn’t rationality. It’s pure fantasy.
“Just a well intentioned Pres and staff who may have made a misjudgment.”
Oh God, how could I have fallen for it, look at that glaring MAY, “MAY have made a misjudgement.” Dugger, pack it in, pack it up. You’re done.
“While he often does defend the indefensible, he also has admitted at times that he disagrees with things the administration has done.”
You know what? On rereading Dugger’s comment I don’t actually see where he is disagreeing with the President or his policies in Iraq. He believes that a mistake was made in judging the nature of Iraqi society but he still agrees with the goal of the plan based on that mistake and he doesn’t think the plan should be changed. Where’s the disagreement here?
When I said he has admitted at times…
I wasn’t referring to this post. In this post, he’s mainly being braindead. All I’m saying is that he’s a damn site better than frank, ian, et all.
I agree that compared to many of the rightwingers one meets here Dugger is an oasis of sanity. But he still makes a number of howlers in the attempt to write the history of Bush’s Iraq adventure. Here’s how history will really remember it:
Bush campaigned on a policy of avoiding unnecessary overseas committments of our armed forces. But upon taking office he came under the influence of neoconservatives who had long been in favor of forcing the issue in Iraq, militarily if necessary, as a means of effecting widespread reform and democratization in the Middle East.
Some historians have speculated that Bush’s change of heart had something to do with a deep-seated impulse to both vindicate and conquer his father, but such psychologizing histories have met with justifiable skepticism, and have never won broad acceptance.
Early on the administration began a search for justifactions for a potential invasion. No incontrovertible evidence has ever been uncovered that intelligence was deliberately fabricated or misrepresented, and it is that lack of solid evidence that allowed Bush to escape impeachment by the Democratic congress that was voted in in 2006, but it is incontrovertible that questionable evidence favorable to an invasion scenario was cherry-picked. In an earth-shaking memoir published just months before his death in 2037 Paul Wolfowitz admitted that the tendency amongst senior administration officials to think of invasion as a foregone conclusion created a dangerous atmosphere in which intelligence and policy issues could not be evaluated judiciously.
Terrible and unexpected as it was, the carnage of 9/11 presented the adminstration with a golden opportunity to push their Iraq agenda. Public sentiment would be receptive to arguments that preemptive action against Iraq was necessary, and that sentiment could be translated into political pressure on congress. The president delivered his “Axis of Evil” speech, laying a groundwork for a campaign against Iraq that had been percolating in the minds of many administration officials for years. The president’s advisors and political operatives realized that pie-in-the-sky goals of democratizing the middle east would be a hard sell, so the campaign deliberately focused almost exclusively on the alleged threat of Saddam’s WMD’s and WMD programs.
The administration and its allies lobbied congress directly and through the press and in the fall of 2002 congress passed a sweeping war authorization. The majority of democrats supported the bill. Some were convinced by the administration’s heated rhetoric and selective presentation of the intelligence, others cravenly calculated that in the post-9/11 climate anything that could be spun as being soft on terror or defense would be a political death sentence. Many thought that it was important for the president to be seen to have the backing of congress to make credible any threat of force that would move Saddam toward a peaceful settling of outstanding grievances. Among that group many voiced or at least harbored the hope that the president would only resort to war after all peaceful avenues had been exhausted, but that hope was in vain, since the administration had long since settled on its course for war. Regardless of the motivations of congress, most scholars have come to the conclusion that the legislative branch of government failed in this instance to perform its essential constitutional duty to provide a check on an imbalanced executive. Nevertheless, it is clear that congress never would have taken such action without the constant insistance and pressure of the Bush administration, and it is on the shoulders of the adminsitration that the responsibility for going to war firmly lies.
The rest makes sordid reading even at the end of a century that set a new standard for sordid. In the specious name of enforcing UN resolutions, Bush curtailed the UN process and ordered the invasion to begin. The subsequent litany of mistakes, miscalculations and what even congressman Glenn Reynolds would later refer to as “an astounding lack of foresight, and astounding ignorance about the effects invasion would have on Iraqi society and its politics,” is all to well known and agreed upon to be rehashed here. In the end the mistakes may not have been criminal - no one was ever prosecuted - but they could hardly have been more horrifying, and more deleterious in their effects, if they were.
I tend to believe that, because of the nature of Iraqi society, our effort will ultimately fail there. However, I’ve been around long enough to know that I don’t know for sure and that none of you know for sure. And the more anyone says they do know for sure, the less confidence I have in their judgment. I don’t know what classified Bush saw, but based on what I know and my beliefs about Iraq society, I probably wouldn’t have gone in - unless there had been strong evidence of a direct, versus indirect , return in the WOT.
Wilbur, That was a neat perspective on your view but, please keep in mind that it is no sin to cherry pick intelligence. It is in fact a necessity - defining cherry picking as intentionally upgrading the importance of certain intelligence and downgrading that of other intelligence. Its the Pres’s job to do that. Now if he selected wrongly, its open season to second guess.
Having been military for a while, I understand and sympathize with ‘mission accomplished’. It is how we thought, how I thought and think - like it or not. Their job or mission was to meet the other country’s armed forces and beat them. That they did - smashingly. God bless ‘em all.
Hey and if you want to apportion credit blame for the war, my estimate is about 50% Bush WH, 30% Republican Congress, 20% Democratic congress. Argue with that all you like. I am not shunning Bush having primary responsibility, but I do shun him have sole responsilbility and Dems having none - or even your 5%.
If you are able to look back (i don’t care to) you will find that I have been ppessimistic about Iraq, but I also think it would be intellctually dishonest not to consider the neocons macro-strategy.
And what happened to Big Gay Al?
Dugger
Every decision regarding the war starts and ends with Bush. He asked for it, he cherry-picked the intelligence, he lied to congress about why he needed the resolution etc. That’s primarily Bush. Then we can skip to what is entirely Bush’s fault: how HE executed the war.
Macro strategy. It isn’t working because like you said, they failed to take into account the basic realities of Iraq. It won’t work because they still won’t take into account the basic reality of Iraq. And it isn’t so clear cut, because they have many goals to pursue in Iraq beyond some cold war flypaper strategy.
Mitter,
H*ll I agree it was ‘primarily’ Bush, but it would not have happened -period- without bi-partisan support.
And I don’t know what realities they took into account - neither do you. I have my suspicions - you appear to have your certainties.
Dugger, Missed you Big Gay Al
…but it would not have happened -period- without bi-partisan support.
I’d like to see the evidence for that, Dugger. Even if 90 percent of the dems in congress vote against it, the resolution still passes. And even if it doesn’t pass Bush would have simply declared that he don’t need no stinking resolution.
Responsibility at least 80% Bush. If he had any honor he’d claim full responsibility.
The Bush ’strategerists’ knew that had a ‘win/win’.
If the war went as planned, they could take the lion’s share of credit.
If it didn’t, they could spread the blame evenly over both parties.
They knew they had all the cards with National Security.
No one could stand in their way without risking political fallout
from the accusation they are against the WoT.
They ‘cherry-picked the intel that served their agenda.
How does the manipulation and control of information by the WH
equate to bi-partisan support? Sounds more like the dems
were victims of extortion by the mob.
Dugger?
Dukker,
You know what realities they took into account as well as I do. It’ll cost the taxpayers nothing, we’ll be greeted with flowers. I can be certain of what they told us.
And making the argument that the democrats enabled the incompetence of Bush in executing the war is just plain, well then. Bush asked for the power to make the decision to go to war. All along he was saying he hadn’t made up his mind, that war was not inevitable. Guess what, he lied. He told congress he would do certain things. Guess what he lied. It’s like when your grandmother gets scammed by a con man into giving up her credit card number. You can blame her for losing her money, but are you going to send her to jail as an accesory?
Dugger?
mitter,
I’m just saying, in light of the fact that I also say that I probably would not have initiated the Iraq action, in fairness to Bush et al that I don’t know every thing they considered (doubt you do) - some data was certainly classified. And its hard to know whether Bush is doing his typical poor selling job, just being the poor communicator that he is, or that he is the left’s fantasy evil incarnate.
How do you know Bush lied? Is every seeming contradiction a lie? Every mispeak? Every thing you don’t like? Do you acknowledge that telling a ‘lie’ must reflect a conscious intent to deceive? I am the world’s worst typist. Is each mistype a lie? You refer to me as “Dukker. I you as ‘mitter’. Both lies?
Dugger, Has Zero Magical Ability to divine the motives of other posters
Intent? Which is worse: a president that lies to advance HIS agenda; a president whose information is controlled by others puppeting him to advance THEIR agenda; or a president who doesn’t give a shit to be properly informed and knowledgable about the major decisions that are his responsibility to make?
Do you think Bush mistyped us into war? Maybe he meant to type car. Like send our troops to a car. Maybe he meant to say Iraq was perusing a nuclear program (maybe on their TVs) instead of pursuing.
Dugger, has zero ability to form a reasonable opinion of the motives of his elected officials.
hey mitter.
This is probably too old for you to read, but I’ve been out of pocket. Before I would get into the pathology of analying Bush administration mistakes, I would first like to know that they are mistakes and its too early to tell re Iraq. I actually accept none of your three anti-Bush hypothoses. Sometimes its luck, roll of the dice and or just bad decision making. Its unfortunate that the left, and maybe you, can’t leave it at that - which would be plenty bad enough, but have to embellish with motive -based (he lied), or legend-based crticisims (the others).
Dugger