I’m voting for Barack Obama but it’s increasingly clear (U.S. combat deaths in Iraq in July: 5) to me that John McCain was right about the surge and that the war in Iraq is essentially over.
The war was a huge mistake, but how to get out is the big issue now, as well as the growing threat of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
How are the McCain and Obama campaigns dealing with these new realities?
264 Comments
I was just starting to perhaps think about Obama as someone who might just be able to possibly work things out from the Oval Office, when that one commercial started popping up during the Olympics, where it shows him being the man who just thought of all these great green ideas and he is the one putting them into place, taking the credit and everyone so grateful to him for showing up. That kind of deception is so offensive to me and the millions of people who have promoted and researched and worked to manufacture the modern technology that is being invented and created and manifests in a more accessible form day by day for the last three decades and longer! Especially when the US government has had in place so many incentives for so many years, before BO was on the scene any where at all.
And don’t look for me at the Republican camp either. Dang. Oh, no it’s on again! Argh.
oops, sorry wrong header.
If the war is over, then it’s time to do what both Mr. Obama and the sovereign leader of Iraq want: start withdrawing, on a roughly 16 month timetable, subject to adjustment as needed as things evolve.
Gee, I have a lot of opinions. Just skip this if you tire of my posts…
Our stay in Iraq, though through terrible battles and so forth, was not only about war, but also about peaceful efforts to give women and children a new way of life, a very, very new way of life and a very big hope for democracy and moving into the 21st century. Hallelujah!
Our brave and courageous men and women have and will continue efforts to bring schools, state of the art hospitals, and many more amenities to Iraq. Hallelujah, again. I don’t know exactly where we get the money to give them, I know we even borrow from countries we have supported financially in the past, and we all know that what goes around comes around, so I hope it all works out for everyone who did that good work and I hope we continue to support them and all our brothers and sisters around the world who live under dire conditions.
My understanding is that our invasion of Iraq was about eliminating the threat of WMD’s from a rogue nation in league with Al Qaeda.
Nonetheless, even if it was “about peaceful efforts to give women and children a new way of life, a very, very new way of life”, it failed miserably at that, as discussed in the following articles (and elsewhere - but I’ve got to get back to packing):
Washington Post: “Women Lose Ground in the New Iraq”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501744.html
NPR: “Iraqi Women Face Greater Danger, Fewer Rights”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18518858
Patrick,
I am willing to make a wager with you. If Obama wins we will still have troops in Iraq at the end of his administration whether it be one or two terms.
Here is the basis for my wager. Back after the first build up and war the US left troops in the middle east in numerous countries around Iraq. During the administration of Bill Clinton these troops remained in the middle east in support of different operations to keep Iraq in check as well as maintain a presence in the area.
Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Watch
Now to add to this lets look at Bosnia. Yes that Bosnia of Hilary Clinton leaving the helicopter under fire fame. US military troops were sent to that region in the mid 90s during the conflict/civil war. The war itself has been over for a number of years, minus the occasional flare ups, however US and UN troops remain in that area.
Here is another link http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/joint_guard.htm There are links on the right side of the page that will take you through the same operation but different name.
I would also be willing to wager that the US/UN will keep troops in Iraq well after we “withdraw” as they will stay as peace keepers.
Maybe I am wrong but I doubt it.
Bruce,
I expect you may well be right. There’s lots of wiggle room in “subject to adjustment as needed as things evolve.”
Still, I do believe that Obama is more likely to leave us with far less troops in Iraq than McCain would. Why? Because McCain talks about staying in “until we win,” without actually defining victory, and declaring an indifference towards how many decades it takes. It’s a caricature, sure - I’m a slow typist, and I’ve got things I need to get on to, after all - but it doesn’t seem an inaccurate one.
I also believe that Obama would be far more unlikely to avoid getting us into yet another stupid, unilateral war after Iraq. For me, the real test of judgement was back in 2003, when fools like Bush and McCain and Clinton got us into an unneccessary, unilateral (plus Britain, Poland, and Georgia) war.
McCain also shows a tendency towards sabre-rattling vs. Russia. That’s a very dangerous game, when America now lacks both the political and military power to back it up - courtesy of our unnecessary and globally-unsupported war in Iraq, and our Republican administration’s effort to squander the goodwill of every other country in the world.
Bright…
Are we watching and listening to the same ad??? The one I saw is the ‘Hands’ ad, that goes like this…
“The hands that built this nation can build a new economy,” the announcer says. “The hands that harvest crops can also harvest the wind. The hands that install roofs, can also install solar panels. The hands that build today’s cars can build the next generation of fuel efficient vehicles. Barrack Obama. A new vision for our economy. Fast track alternative fuels. Create 5 million jobs developing home grown energy technologies. America’s energy future is in our hands.”
That’s the copy. It shows images of people working in the old economy and the green economy. I don’t see how he is taking credit for anything except his energy platform in this ad.
Patrick, the news you referred to is 8 months and the other one is from Dec. 2006. Yeah, there are casualties, but if you look at one quote from one Iraqui woman in the first article, she says, it’s because of terrorism that they suffer.
Anyway, a lot changes over there month to month.
As a pediatrician, I suspect you know how tough it is for some kids to give up the bottle. Well, imagine how difficult it is for a 16th century, or earlier, nation to move into the 21st. Maybe we should just leave them there? Okay, but that’s another discussion altogether.
William, I saw and heard the same ad, but the visual aspect of it is much much more about BO than the workers. And the fact is that more than eighty percent of people learn visually. And even by the words, I hear that BO has discovered that people can re-train…like it is a new concept that he just thought of and he is so magnanimous as to share it with little ol us…like we have no confidence in our ability to restructure our industries, etc, and like wow man, don’t look now but a plan to go green industry been manifesting since way before anyone ever knew about BO and will move forward into the future with or without him.
Bright…
If anyone hasn’t seen the ad they can go to youtube and make up their mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz7m2JhVOdY
I think it is a joke to assume that the surge in Iraq is working. There are so many levels of absurdity with this remark it is hard to know when to begin. If the local police force was able to afford another 30 officers for Northfield, do you think that crime in Northfield would go down? Of course it would. Does that mean that the “police surge” is working? Well that’s another question. The only way to keep things “working” (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) would be to keep these levels at that height. I don’t call that working. I call it occupation and a staving off of the inevitable. Unless we wish to make this surge permanent (which I wouldn’t call “working”) I don’t think numbers will stay this low. By numbers I mean human lives. Leaving aside the reasons for war and the fact that we are in an illegal occupation (hmmmm….the hyprocrite news reporters love to bring up the illegal occupation of Russia), there are many other reasons to say that this “surge” is not working, whether it be economic or cultural or the death of Iraqi civilians (some reports have put the toll higher than one million, but most news sources including NPR have done a great job of muddling or questioning the number and even continuing to use sources as far back as 2006). There is no doubt in my mind that the permanent military bases that have been constructed in Iraq will be home to a large number of American soldiers no matter who is elected president. In order to get this far in the presidential election process you would have to being cutting back door deals or bowing to pressures to get this far. It would be naive to think otherwise. Under McCain we would get more of the same. Under Obama we would have less in Iraq, but a distribution of other troops throughout the region. He would also consider upping the number of mercenaries in the region (Blackwater,etc.). Obama has said he would “have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months” which is about half of the troops. That’s still a lot of troops. If the U.S. wasn’t in Iraq as an occupying power, have military bases, or building the largest embassy in the world, there would be no need for such troops. Neither approach is going to make us popular in the region.
You bring up Afghanistan and Pakistan. What did people expect. We took revenge on people that had nothing to do with planning or carrying out the attacks of 9/11. The region is completely destabilized, which means more violence and more dead civilians and American troops. We’ve also caused the tensions with Afganistan’s neighbors to grow. Most people don’t like it when their country is occupied and you can look at numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan to back this up.
Are we just waiting for another war for oil. How about Iran? How about Darfur? ANWR? Stay tuned…
I think what we are NOT waiting for is for some nation or religious organization or for a group of criminals or mercenary soldiers or any combination of forces of the previously mentioned to come and bring
the US and all of it’s population to it’s knees.
I am no fan of war, nor am I for changing anyone’s culture around. On the other hand, I don’t think that sitting around letting any other human being get treated badly is what I wish to do as a person or as part of a super power nation. I am from Spanish blood, and my Spanish ancestors invaded Ireland and created the Black Irish…my ancestors. I am Iroquois, and my European ancestors came and invaded their territory early on. The Iroquois married the French Canadians, and those are my ancestors, too. The English and the Germans, all of them came here, and they all got together and made the USA as it is now, and as I am now. It’s the great melting pot of the world, and the world has taken that lesson and many others from us, and they will melt and they will take power and they will bloom, but they will never turn around and go back to oppressive rule without a fight and I can tell you that freedom isn’t free…not as long as there are mad men around who can engage the greedy, ignorant and evil. And those kind of men, like Saddam Hussein and that Bosnian dude do not engage in war by the rules. They send their children and women to do their dirty work.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think the one million body count is about 90% too high. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
William - thanks for posting the link to the Obama ad. I hadn’t seen that particular one.
I’d agree with you that Obama’s not making any claims to have invented or developed the technologies mentioned in the ad - simply giving some detail to his energy and economic platforms.
This is not the ad I spokea bout, but even here it does say, “A new vision for our economy.” It’s not new. When I was touting wind energy, NASA had already developed an elegant wind machine based on the moebius strip back in 1970 or so. That’s about 40 years ago. BO was 8. Not to mention the wind mills in the Netherlands, etc.
Besides the fact that government does not manufacture anything. The govt already has in place tax incentives for energy efficient goods…EPA has the Energy Star program which I am sure anyone who has bought any large appliance in the last 15 years is familiar with…http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_history
First BO said ‘change’, yeah things change no matter who is President, now he says ‘new vision’…that’s not new….he’s got nothing. I don’t care if he wins or not, what I want is people to see how full of hot air he is, just like all the policitians. He’s not Super Man, come to save us all. He’s just not.
I am still hoping for some unknown miracle person to step up and to be the one, honestly.
Bright:
Your comments are arrogant suggesting that Iraq was in the 16th century until we bombed their infrastructure and killed over 100,000 civilians. Your statements suggest that the only way to live is the American way and the only way those poor Iraqis can be free is if we force democracy on them.
That is the great propaganda lie of the Republicans. People will not adopt a democracy that is forced on them. They have to choose. Most Iraqis were content with their country before we invaded. Our poorly planned and poorly executed invasion resulted in the destruction of their schools, hospitals and government systems, including electricity in a country that experiences summers consistently over 100 degrees every day. All of their educated people have fled the country, they have most of their medical and dental professionals and are pleading for them to return. Their society is split and will devolve into a civil war as soon as we leave–even though they had successfully integrated their schools, neighborhoods, business and government they are now divided after our invasion.
Our government claimed that we invaded in order to prevent Iraq from using NON-EXISTENT weapons of mass destruction that our government KNEW did not exist.
Bright, you claim that it is all worth it if we saved all those poor Iraqis from Sadam Hussein–a leader we supported and brought to power in Iraq! At a time when Sadam Hussein was losing support within the military and government, and would have gone the way of the Soviet Union, we invaded with massive power.
Bright, I believe you are Republican who is attempting to do anything to sink Obama’s presidential aspirations. All of your comments start out with you suggesting maybe you would like him BUT and then you go on with insinuations and opinions to rally people against him. The first entry in this blog is exactly that, and reviews of any of your previous entries are the same. Besides being against Obama and for war as long as we only kill big people who should have known better than to oppose the USA, what are you for?
Bright, that’s only a list of the individually enumerated dead.
Johns Hopkins researchers did an excellent study, using well-established sampling and survey techniques, which estimates the number of additional dead (more than would be expected under prewar conditions) in Iraq since the invasion at 650,000 by 2006. (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html)
That’s not just those we killed, that includes all causes. But we were the creators of the chaotic situation in Iraq.
I decided a bit earlier that I was not going to be dragged into any political banter here because no one knows any facts for sure, and I don’t like war of any sort, so, I said what I said and people can read into whatever they want.
I am not here to change anyone’s mind, especially anyone who has already made up their mind. That’s just a silly waste of time.
Have fun, you all, and may the best man or woman win. God be willing.
Jane- Where did you get your information for this quote,”:…even though they had successfully integrated their schools, neighborhoods, business and government they are now divided after our invasion…”? In the analyses of the pre-war conditions I have found, there seems to be a consensus that the underlying tribal loyalties amongst the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds was greater than any sense of Iraqi nationalism. The only thing that kept this under check was the iron grip of Saddam. I think one of the things we are seeing now is the unleashing of this tribalism (hence, Bright’s reference to the 16th. century). This, I think, is a result of the attempt of the UN to define some type of stability in the region following WW II by establishing political or national boundaries along geological lines rather than ethnic lines. The same thing can be said for what has happened in Bosnia. I think we as Americans misjudge the strength of the ethnic undercurrents in that region because we have held nationalism to a higher value than ethnicity for the last 200 years or so. There are ethnic schisms in this region that go back thousands of years. If you look at the history of the region, peace has only existed during times of absolute rule of a powerful tribal leader. This upheaval was a time bomb waiting to happen, and we pulled the pin on the grenade by removing Saddam. My assessment of anyone who would try to bring peace into this region without addressing these ethnic divisions is that that person would be delusional. For democracy to work, there must be a consensus of nationalism. So far, I have not heard any understanding of this being expressed by any of the presidential candidates, so I personally do not have much hope for us being able to establish peace in this region no matter who is elected.
On a personal note, is calling someone a Republican a new type of put-down of some sort? Just wondering.
John: I am starting with the end of your post, on whether calling someone a Republican is a put-down. Yeah, kinda, but that is not what I intended. I have some very good friends that I highly respect, and know of many other very good people who chose to affiliate with the Republican party. So being a Republican, in my eyes, is not an automatic put-down. However, it is somewhat suspect, in my opinion, due to the high-jacking of the Republican party by both single-issue politicians and by the Shrub-meisters who have approached “conservative” by adding “neo” in front and doing borrow-and-spend-and-destroy-nature-in-the-name-of-commercial-benefit approach to government.
My statement about Bright was that she continually is swift-boating Obama–no real substance, just little “I used to think I might be for him but now I really know something better” statements–constant denigration. I think she is a Republican plant (but probably not a shrub.)
Anyway, you may believe that the Shite and Sunnis in Iraq were only living together in peace because of the iron-fist of Saddam, but that is not what I have heard and read. Certainly Saddam famously gassed the Kurds and was known for various atrocities (especially in late years for those perpetrated by his sick sons.) None of which resulted in any military action by the USA.
However, Iraq was for the most part peaceful, women had many rights and were educated and had professional jobs, their children could safely go to school and to the market and come home to a comfortable air-conditioned home.
It is only in hind-sight that Americans, in trying to rehabilitate the atrocities performed on Iraq by Americans, claim that we were liberating these poor, backwards, down-trodden people. We liberated by killing a bunch, imprisoning some more, bombing and destroying their homes, businesses, infrastructure, schools and hospitals.
Integrated neighborhoods became divided–Sunni and Shi’a that once worked together or socialized in neighborhood cafes were forced, for their own security, to leave one or another’s neighborhood and move to neighborhoods that are segragated by religious affiliation.
Saddam was terrible, but how can anyone say that bombing and killing made it better? (Who are we to say that sacrificing any one Iraqi makes it worth it for any other Iraqi?) I am glad Saddam is done with Iraq. BUT: if the people of Iraq had been left to do it themselves, they might have actually come up with a working country.
What is left after our ill-conceived invasion is so broken it will not be fixed. They are waiting for us to leave so they can kill each other. They will not have a budding democracy–they will have tribal wars that, since they have never tried to be a united country, cannot even be called civil war.
Meanwhile, at over 300 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, we cannot afford to run around and force democracy down anyones throat–it may very well be best for Iraq to be split into 3 different countries–Sunni, Shite and Kurd. It is not our place to tell them how they must and must not live. We have made a terrible mess and we have paid a terrible price–at some point somebody needs to say enough is enough.
Meanwhile we stand by while millions die in Sudan–but, oh, I forgot, they don’t have any oil we might want. I am sick of any claims that the USA is fighting for the down-trodden. We are fighting for the good of the shrub in the oval office, for Haliburten and for Blackwater.
We cannot win in Iraq–there was never any opposition, no game was called, we just went in and bull dozed them down. This is like claiming that we won by fielding a football team against the danceline, when we didn’t even tell the danceline there was going to be a game. We are the biggest bully in the middle east right now. War is not a game, and there are no winners. There are plenty of losers, though, and that certainly includes the United States.
Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece a month ago titled: What Obama Should Say On Iraq.
Jane- Seems to me we have two different perspectives on Iraq, and that is our prerogative. What I hear you parroting here is the current liberal litany on the Iraq war. There are two sides to this issue, and we are on opposing teams.
One thing to consider, which I haven’t heard expressed here, is that the current George Bush went in to complete what his father left incomplete. This is an idea we will probably never know the answer to in this life. It has been postulated that the original war over Kuwait was cut short because Saddam was the least of the possible evils available at that time. I don’t think this has as much to do about oil as the liberal think tanks would have us to believe. Of the top 15 oil exporters to the US, only one in the top five is a Middle Eastern country. Canada is actually the top, with Saudi Arabia second, so I don’t put much stock in the “big oil” argument.
Another thing to consider is our relationship with Israel. Israel is, and has been for the last 50+ years, one of the molifying presences in the Middle East, no matter your personal opinion of the country. We are closely allied with Israel, and any threat to them is a threat to us, in that they are the first line of defense against attacks on democracy in that region. If we had an ally like this on the African contenent, we might see more US involvement in the situation with Sudan. This, I think, is unfortunate.
As far as the Iraqies working toward ousting Saddam, I don’t think this was going to happen soon. This is the reason He attacked the Kurds, and we know the results of that. Under his regime, there was no place for a dissenting viewpoint. Those people who dared to do so were either killed or had to go into exile. It is our intelligence community’s reliance upon one of these defectors that got us into trouble in the first place. Since we had no “inside” way to verify his assertions, because of the iron grip of Saddam, we went into this thing knowing only one side. So I don’t put much stock in your assertion that the Iraqi people could have replaced Saddam without outside help. And, once the pin was pulled, the grenade blew up, because there was no framework in place for a unified government to build on.
I could take offense at your opinions of us in the Middle East, but I choose not to. You have every right to your opinion, but I do ask you why you believe this? We each have our basis for our convictions, and we have a right to express them. I just think it is possible to express these without attacking the character of those who disagree with us.
John: You obviously don’t know me very well if you think I am parroting what I have heard. But I won’t take offense and think you are insulting by character.
I read extensively. You claim we went into the war because we only had limited information from “one side.” This is absolutely false–the government only told you one side–they did not tell you the other side that they were suppressing.
At the time that George Bush decided to invade Iraq, many sources that were superior to the exiled source the administration pinned their claims on were available and well documented. The Bush administration did not want to hear any dissenting view. Under the iron-fisted control of Karl Rove, a non-elected public employee, the White House was in lock-step to start a war with Iraq regardless of the “intelligence” community.
The Bush administration used propaganda techniques to draw attention away from anyone against the war, including revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, making many speaches full of deceptive, frightening terminology like “mushroom cloud” and the deception that Iraq was attempting to purchase weapons-grade plutonium.
The UN inspectors were in Iraq and verified that there were no WMD–but George Bush made them get out rather than finish their work. The documents that they claimed proved Iraq was after the plutonium were proved to be forgeries BEFORE the invasion. By our allies.
The Iraqis may have never deposed Saddam Hussein. Maybe, maybe not, we will never know. But they did not have the ability to bomb Israel. Yes, they treated some of their people atrociously. However, they were not a third-world country–they were considered a developed country, and in spite of your concern for those that opposed the government and were killed, the majority of their country was living in peace. This is a specious argument, because we did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons–we were lied to, congress was lied to and the world was lied to–that we were in imminent danger from weapons of mass destruction.
I am tired of hearing the same old Republican blather that we have liberated these poor down trodden people when we have destroyed their country and any hope of their being united. They need an iron-fisted military force–we substituted our guys for Saddams. It is hubris and arrogance to claim that our guys killing Iraqis is better than Saddam’s guys killing Iraqis.
(I used the word “Republican” above because calling them “conservative” is an insult to conservatives. This is definitely a politcal party thing and not a political belief thing–the Republicans have long forgotten how to be conservative.)
I am simply speculating that the people would eventually have prevailed–as they have in other countries around the world, like Chile (after a military regime supported by the USA destroyed the democratic government, took over, imprisoned, tortured and killed political prisoners–for decades.)
Or Georgia. Where we cannot help them now because we are so overextended in Iraq. And don’t the Russians know it. We certainly cannot put up a big stink over invading a sovereign country or occupying it illegally or killing its civilians–because we look like the hypocrits that we are.
I believe it is human failing that leads us to want to believe the best of any situation, and it is only through a struggle that we will find the truth. It is so much nicer to think that the surge is working rather to conclude that the only way to keep Iraqis from killing each other will mean permanant occupation by the USA.
And if we cannot admit our failing, we can never atone of it. As long as we believe the decption that we are doing Iraq a bunch of good, we will never be able to really do them any good. So we should just get out.
And Israel may be an ally, but a lot of the claim that we had to invade Iraq to save Israel is by radical religious right who believe that we need to get going on the End of Days.
I enjoy arguing. Arguing is an excellent way to learn and get to know someone. I really like to have discussions with conservatives who may even still claim that Republican is the conservative party–we can each have our own opinions, and I enjoy hearing those that are well thought–or even those that are spontaneous to an active discussion, and may be changed or modified by learning through disagreement.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion–just not their own facts. (I thought this was a Winston Churchill quote, maybe not.) I think as long as we can’t agree on the facts we are going to have a difficult time being understood–you think I am nuts because you think I base my opinions on what someone else said than on what I believe are the facts.
Why do you think I am attacking your character?
While I was looking for the Winston Churchill quote, I found these that were on point.
On me:
“I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat!”
- Will Rogers (1879-1935)
On the war:
“If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?” ”
- Will Rogers (1879-1935)
On how to frame getting our troops out so most of the USA will still think we won:
“We are not retreating - we are advancing in another Direction.”
- General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964)
In fall of 2006 the Washington Post did a story based on a study by Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. At that time the study differed substantially with the British-based Iraq Body Count research group as cited above by Bright Spencer. Since then various educated extrapolations have been made to come up with the over one million deaths. Believe what you wish but I think the study by Iraq Body Count is much too low. Also you must take in consideration that (estimates taken one year ago) 2.6 million people have been wounded, 1.5 million have been displaced internally, and 2 million have fled the country.
Okay, I am back. Not to argue whose sources are right, but to encourage more research…I believe that even the Washed Up Post and the Johns Hip Hop reports are subject to questioning. Remember, question authority?
When I gave the British group reference, I started out by saying, “Maybe, I am wrong…” When I say, Maybe I Am Wrong, I meant that. I don’t mean
to cover my back, or to appease anyone, I say what I mean.
So, I am pleased to have my name raked through the mud, if it means someone else is gonna get to the truth and not just tote party brainwash lines. That goes for me, too.
The reason I believe I am right about past Iraqi lives is that we helped an Iraqi man back in the 70s who’s progressive parents left Baghdad earlier, sometime in the 60s if I recall, and took assylum in London, England. The man’s name was Safaa Sadawi. He told me that was a very common name like Smith or Johnson.
When I asked him why did they leave, knowing nothing about much back then, he could not bear to tell me of the atrocities, only that it was terrible
and caused their family so much stress some became physically and chronically ill. So, I say, the best knowledge is first hand, or at least someone who has been there, over time, with no political agenda. Hard to find on the web, but we have a teacher or two here in town who do make it a point to share their knowledge whenever asked.
So, keep questioning, Josh, and others, until you get to the whole truth.
That would make me very happy.
Jane- I don’t know you at all, neither do you know me. Our interaction has only been on this web site. You are a person who is passionate about what you believe. That is commendable, IMHO, for if a person is not fully convinced about what they believe, then I question if it is worth believing. One thing in many of the discussions I run across in this blog and in other publications I read is a greater and greater tone of animosity toward those who do not agree with us. I have a concern for what I hear coming from both Republican and Democratic circles that has a tone of hatred aimed at the opposition. In fact, I differentiate between Democrats and “Bush haters”, just as I differentiate between pro-lifers and anti-abortionists.
I didn’t mean to offend you by using the word “parroting”. I think that term could be used to describe me and anyone else who repeats back information we have read and believed. I also read a lot. The key term here is believe. There is probably not any one single reason we believe a particular ideology or perspective, but it is built up over many years of experience. My experience is different than yours. I can’t force you to change your beliefs any more than you can force me to change mine. As we share our beliefs, though, I think we can come to an understanding of one another and be able to agree on a course of action. This is, IMHO, the desired result of public discourse.
As far as all the events leading up to the Iraqi war, I don’t think any of us has the full insight on this. None of us were personally involved in them. We do tend to embrace those articles that reinforce what we believe and discount those articles that we disagree with. That is human nature. Being the pragmatist that I am, my greatest question is what do we do now? I am going to judge a person’s ideas about this based on what I believe. Since I do hold to a Biblical perspective in my world view, there are certain traits and history of this region that I think fall under these standards. That is how I am going to evaluate what I percieve. You most likely will not agree with this, but your way is no better than mine in areas where we have no intrensic proof. Unfortunately, proof aften comes slowly, and this may be the case in this instance.
One thing I have noticed about “critical thinking.” Everyone thinks it is a good idea as long as it is not their thinking that is getting criticized.
I do not think you are nuts, by any means. You are strong in your opinion of what you believe, and, as I said before, that is commendable. I think it is interesting that you stated that you base your opinions on what you “believe are the facts.” I wholy agree, because I also base my opinions on what I “believe are the facts.” This leads me back to my first eveluation, we base our opinions on two different beliefs.
I don’t think you have attacked my character in your thread, either. I do pick up an undertone of impatience, for lack of a better term, with those who disagree with you. I might be reading this wrongly, but it is an impression I walk away with after I read your comments. I don’t have a problem with this, as I think it fits with the way you are wired. And, we don’t have a lot of control over the way we are wired. We’re born that way.
Jane: The vote in the Senate to use force was 77-23; the vote in the House was 296-133. More than 50% of the Democrats in the Senate voted “yes” - about 40% in the House voted “yes”. Bush can hardly be blamed for starting an action that had more than 70% approval from Congress.
Whoa, David. It is almost impossible to see the votes authorizing the use of force in Iraq as anything other than the result of fraud. Considering the fact that the Bush administration fabricated a justification for going to war in Iraq and flat out lied to Congress and to the American people, it hardly seems like a mandate. At best, it is an indictment of Congress’ abdication of responsibility to challenge the executive branch.
Let’s not confuse a willingness to support the office of the President and the commander in chief, with an endorsement of the underlying policy, especially when the case for military action was made on the basis of deliberate misinformation. We haven’t seen an administration this morally bankrupt since the Nixon years.
David L:
H. J. Res. 114 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c1075RiE20::) was a set up from the start.
These points in particular have been proven to be complete bull roar:
“Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
At the time, it was obvious that the resolution would pass. The Bush administration craftily played on the post 9/11 sentiment to pursue its own purposes.
It is a great disappointment to me that there was not more opposition, but for most Democratic members of Congress, opposing the resolution would have been political suicide.
President Bush can indeed be blamed for starting the war against Iraq. The fact that his administration skillfully manipulated a spineless Congress does not absolve him of responsibility for the death, destruction and cost of this misguided and unnecessary venture.
Rick & Randy- Perhaps the old saying that hind sight is 20-20 is applicable here. The same could be said about President Clinton’s handling of the now known to be true intelligence that an Islamic militant extremist group was planning to attack the US with our own commercial planes. The lack of decisive intervention in this case cost the lives of 3000 US citizens on our own soil. So, when faced with conflicting data, not just opinions about data, what kind of decision would you have made? There is evidence that Sadam was actively involved in supporting terrorist groups. Do you just ignore that and wait until the next attack? I would hope not. I once heard that a mistake is evidence that someone tried to do something. My greatest disappointment in the Bush administration is its reluctance to come out and admit that they didn’t have complete intelligence and acted on what “they believed to be true.” Given the sentiments and accusations I have heard expressed here and in other media, this would not, I believe, have been sufficient for many people, and would have been political suicide. It seems the concept of zero tolerance doesn’t always produce unity, especially in the political realm. I believe that all your accusations about motives of people in the Bush administration only fester more division between people, not reconciliation. I don’t see it as any different than the Republican attack on President Clinton for his sexual infractions. The same underlying hope is still there, in that you would hope that those you put your trust in would not do these things. Unfortunately, given the state of men’s hearts, this probably will not happen.
John, you may be happy to know that I have seen and heard with my own eyes and ears, albeit on tv, that George W. Bush did indeed admit that he made a mistake and he wasn taken in by the CIA’s information.
I had earlier read and may even have reported here at LGN, that Saddam Hussein was a master of deceit and wanted the world to believe he had WMD’s, in order to gain power and followers, etc. He tired to mislead and confuse his enemies and he succeeded. After awhile even liars start to believe their own lies, and that’s what’s known as ‘delusional’.
Plus the ‘fog of war’, where you know it’s not wise to believe anything you hear because everyone is pushing their own agendas as hard as they can
and smoke and mirrors becomes more like smoke of fifty volcanoes and one million mirrors.
As an aside, even Truman, one of the most beloved Presidents of all time, chose not to run for a second term because his popularity was at an all time low of 25%. Even Nixon changed history in a positive sense when he opened the doors to China. I agree with John G, that it is much better to work together. All this divisiveness is a huge waste of time and energy.
Oh, and I think it is so cool that McCain may be considering his pal, Joe Lieberman for VP. That is a move that even out cools Obama. Imagine a democrat and a republican running the country together. WOW!
Randy and Rick: Your points are not only well taken, but only accurate as far as they go.
Only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is Congress’s responsibility to ensure that they have accurate intelligence.
Rick’s assessment that to vote against it was political suicide probably played a much greater role in Congress’s decision than any of the “faulty” intelligence theories.
Even if all the intelligence reports had been accurate, I would argue that there still was not sufficient justification to attack Iraq. All the talk about the false intelligence is irrelevant if one believes, as I do, that the there were insufficient prerequisites for this to be a just war.
I’m standing with Pope John Paul II on this one. At the beginning of the attack, he called the attack a grave moral error. Even weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, and genocide could not and cannot justify America’s actions. As it turned out, it was also a grave political error by Republicans and Democrats.
Griff asks, “Now what?”. My opinion - Admit that it was a grave moral error. Stop blaming Republicans or Democrats. Resolve to determine how to make sure that it never happens again.
I appreciate josh Hinnenkamp’s comment on the many levels of absurdity related to the claim that the surge is working, as well as Randy and Rick’s comments about the deception.
David L., you’re wrong about congress and responsibility. The president has access to more intelligence than any one member of congress, and Cheney created the “Department of Special Plans” in the Pentagon to cherry-pick intelligence data and trump up the case for war. It was not known to congress at the time that this was happening. It was a massive deception for which Cheney and Bush should have been impeached along with Rumsfeld.
I think the only rational excuse for why impeachment is off the table is that some Democrats may feel it’s too dangerous to risk an impeachment trial, and perhaps not find people guilty, or have only one found guilty, and the remaining one pardons the guilty party, or Bush and Cheney feel cornered and more desperate about bombing Iran.
It’s ridiculous to claim the surge is working when the war was illegal and based on deception in the first place. It’s like Bush and Cheney committing rape, and then claiming later that the surge is working because the rape victim is not struggling anymore. It was still an illegal war, so “working” doesn’t make it legal.
And whether it seems to be “working” is not at all apparent. While we have our real estate bubbles, Iraq is riding on a bubble of US money payments to various factions: The department of defense is paying Iraqis (largely unemployed) who might otherwise commit violent acts, paying them not to commit violence. Turn off the money, and the violence will probably begin again. This works nice for a Bush administration that wants to create the illusion that the surge is working, and make it look bad for the next administration if all hell breaks loose in Iraq, but it’s only smoke and mirrors, illusion, not substance and truth.
The Bush-Cheney administration used reconstruction money through no-bid processes largely to line its own pockets. INstead of employing many of the unemployed Iraqis to rebuild their own country (whcih might have gone a long way toward winning hearts and minds), the BUsh-Cheney team gave no-bid contracts to businesses and individuals who went on to misuse and defraud the government of huge sums of reconstruction money. THis only contributes to the feeling of Iraqis that they are occupied by a corrupt nation. On that score, ask not if the surge is working, but why a surge was needed in the first place. Most Iraqis have long felt it was an occupation, not a liberation. Surveys in Iraq have shown this. The Bush-Cheney war in Iraq has been a complete failure from the start. Because it was based on deception and illegal. Because not enough troops were sent to maintain public order once they occupied the country. Because once they were in-country, the troops were not given the armor and supplies they needed. Because too-few troops became too-easy targets for urban violence, so they shot too often toward civilians simply in self-defense. Because reconstruction was so profoundly corrupt and mismanaged. Because of Abu Ghraib. And on and on.
Paul: Only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. If they don’t have the information, then they need to get it. Period. It is their most solemn job.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter. Even if all the information Bush gave them was true - it wasn’t enough. It wasn’t even close. All of America bears responsibility, even those of us opposed to it from the start.
Griff is right - the surge tempered the violence. But, I don’t think that we are any closer to getting out just because we have more “peacekeepers”.
In yesterday’s NYTimes: Exiting Iraq, Petraeus Says Gains Are Fragile.
I had added this at the end of my comment on the McCain-Obama candidates string and think it really goes here:
At $300 million dollars a day the “surge is working” in Iraq. Whoopee. It has gutted our economy. Noticed unemployment numbers in Minnesota lately? I guess the surge is working to destroy the economic viability of the United States.
War is wrong. We can only make it right by admitting it and getting out.
Jane: How are “we” going to make sure that civil violence doesn’t erupt if we leave? Pulling out in full force immediately may have more serious consequences for the Iraqui nation than the attack itself had.
David: Conspicuously absent from your remarks about the “most solumn” constitutional responsibilities are observations or admissions about the failure of the president to live up to his constitutional oath. If you want to gripe about the constitution not being upheld, see the American Freedom Agenda website, supported by conservativces Bruce Fein, Bob Barr (libertarian presidential candidate), and Richard Viguerie (who masterminded new uses of direct mail for Reagan and Bush I). The list of Bush’s offenses, to these conservatives, is much longer than those of congress.
Yes, congress should have required better intelligence. Yes, Cheney should be impeached for creating the cherry-picking machine that was the office of special plans. The actions of congress relate in part to politics and fear (not wanting to seem soft on terror, wanting to get re-elected), and in part relate to the sense during the cold war that the president needs to be able to defend us at a moment’s notice. Power to declare war has been drifting from congress toward the executive for the last 50 years.
Of course Petraeus claims the surge is working. It’s his job to claim that, and not to look deeper. If the goal is to have permanant bases there for 100 years (long range), and to make Bush look better as he leaves office (very short range), of course Petraeus would say this kind of stuff instead of looking deeper.
So we violated the Geneva conventions, to which the US agreed as law. Who shall we attack next? If Japan and China hold most of our debt, shall we nuke ‘em and see if our debt can be forgiven?
Guess we should have thought of that before we gutted their entire political and social networks. Our occupation does not put Iraq back together again. They are not going to have a democratic structure to their government just because we shove it down their throats and stand over them to make sure they swallow.
We blew it, we wrecked it and now they will have to live with it. We are not entirely responsible for them hating each other.
Some experts say that Iraq cannot be returned to a single country withour a militant dictatorship because the people choose to want to kill each other.
I don’t know if they won’t find a peaceful solution after going the kill each other route, but it is their country to figure out, not ours “you broke it you buy it” goes for china shops, not countries. We need to get out and let them have the country they want, not what we think they must have.
Paul: Make no mistake, this massacre started with Congress’s overwhelming approval. They could have stopped it at any time, and they haven’t. So, now what?
Paul you said, “Surveys in Iraq have shown this” - that’s it in a nutshell. Surveys can be conducted in Iraq today. Would you have just left Saddam in place or sent Obama over to have Tea and Crumpets while suggesting to Saddam that he just stop acting so much like a madman ?
David Henson: The war was started by an insistent Bush administration that lied to congress, the public, the world, everybody, by claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat of their use, not so that we could successfully conduct surveys.
Being able to conduct surveys does not mean the surge worked. Three hundred million a day and just about anything “works.” Iraq as a democratic country does not work and may never work after our screw ups.
David L & David H: Thanks for the comments. David L.: Make no mistake, it happened during a Republican majority (when too many Dems went along for political reasons - for shame), and it happened because many of them were deceived, period. You say they’re responsible — not to trust that the president is telling the truth, and to suspect that perhaps the president is committing an impeachable offense? So whenever the president and VP cherry pick and cook the intelligence to deceive, there should always be an impeachment investigation? So now, to save the constitution, we need to impeach not on the PRes. and VP, but also congress, which you hold — strangely — more responsible than those who deceived them? So as a lawyer, when someone commits fraud and deceives someone, we should blame the victim, more than the criminal? Is this always your logic, or only when a Republican President is the one you’re defending?
(If congress had done anything, as you claim, even if it were unanimous, Bush would have issued a signing statement and avoided having to comply….)
David H: There are plenty of monsters one could take out if a nation were in the habit of breaking the Geneva Conventions and going after every one of them, perhaps at the risk of ruining that nation’s economy fighting endless agresssive wars. Weapons of Mass Destruction was the primary claim, not claims about Saddam’s wild sons. We didn’t find ‘em, and our own weapons inspectors said that they thought most of them were gone, and wanted more time. We’ve killed more Iraqis than Saddam used to kill in the same stretch of time. Many Iraqis said life was better under Saddam. When Saddam was fighting Iran, we SENT him weapons of mass destruction, including anthrax. After anthrax letters were sent using US anthrax from Ft. Detrick or Dugway proving grounds, Bush tried very hard to blame it on Iraq.
There is simply no way to claim that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we killed is better than Saddam.
Listen to Bob Barr, who ran the Republican’s impeachment efforts against Bill Clinton (see some of his advocacy at American Freedom Agenda). Bush shredded the constitution. He used lies to take us to war. He used torture, wiretapping, and when congress passes a veto-proof law with a large majority, he smiles and signs it into law, and then issues a signing statement explaining what parts he’ll observe and which he’ll ignore. This goes directly against what the constitution requires.
Why the myopic concern with surge, and the hope beyond hope that the crimes and disaster of our war in Iraq might have a happy ending after all? Are you Davids that much in denial?
Paul - Without out the lawyer speak : Is your answer to would you have just left Saddam in place ? Yes or No
If yes what would you have thought prior to WWII, just leave Hitler in place ?
David H:
Lawyer-speak? Maybe I only imagine that there was a time when people cared about the constitution and didn’t speak of it, or its basic concepts, as if it were only the domain and jargon of lawyers. That’s what a little torture and FOX news propaganda does to a nation. I’m for bringing back such times, if there every were any, and not treating the constitution as if it’s only for elitist lawyers, while the rest of us carry on by the Law of the Jungle.
In other words, I’m a — gasp — a law-and-order, ethics-loving conservative at heart!
(You don’t prefer the Law of the Jungle over the Constitution, do you, David? That’s my first question.)
By the way, I’m glad you frame the two questions as questions, instead of assuming that one necessarily implies the other (it doesn’t). But still, the fact that you daisy-chain these two together implies perhaps that you may believe too much of the rhetoric of this president, whose ratings are in the toilet for good reason.
Answers to your questions:
1. Yes.
2. No.
Since you raise the issue of the comparison to Hitler, let’s compare. Hitler’s plans to invade other countries were very different from Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait after George H.W. Bush’s ambassador April Gilespie gave Saddam the green light, saying the US was neutral about Saddam’s plans for Kuwait. After HW’s gulf war, and continued sanctions under Clinton, Saddam was not a threat in any way close to the manner in which Hitler was a threat.
I’ve never read of any indication that Hitler got the green light from FDR’s ambassadors to invade other countries (as Saddam did to invade Kuwait), but W’s grandad (great-grandad?) Prescott Bush was involved in financing the Nazis. It seems there was a lot of money to be made. Supply-side economics tends to move toward, and favor, the supply, often without bias about who’s on our side, or who’s on the side of a Nazi. (Does that mean it’s virtuous because it’s lacking prejudice, or scum because it profits from the Nazi war machine? What’s the conservative answer in an age where conservatism is increasingly associated with profits? And how large is our military budget compared to our allies and enemies? More than half of what the rest of the world spends?)
Before WWII, some in the US speculated that there might be a war between the US and Great Britain over world empire, and even Calvin Coolidge was aware that whoever controlled world petroleum suplies might control the balance of power.
Did we delay getting into WWI and WWII so that Germany (financed in part by interests in the US) could help take Great Britain down a notch or two, and so that the sun would set on the British empire while it rose on the US empire? Maybe.
Does that mean I’m a peacenik who thinks Hitler and his financers should have been left alone to do any damage they pleased? Nope.
What was more of a threat: Hitler in Germany, along with his US fans and financers? Or Saddam after the first Gulf war, who leaned socialist, and had received weapons from the US for the war with Iran — but didn’t seem to have much anymore? Hmmm…. No-brainer?
Hitler & Co. posed a far greater threat to the US, and to world peace, than Saddam. We should have done more to have gone after those in the US who helped him. We basically slapped them on the wrist (inlcuding Prescott Bush), let them go home, and let their descendents in the White House, one with help from a supreme court ending a recount in Florida….
If you had to leave one of the two in power - either Hitler & Co., threatening all of Europe, or Saddam, weakened after the first Gulf war and inspected, off and on, by international weapons inspectors — which would you leave in power? No-brainer?
I would have left Saddam, with his weakened military, where he was, and tried as many means as possible to improve the situation for the people of Iraq, whose kids were dying for lack of clean water, and dehydration from diahrea.
I think there was a big difference between Saddam’s Iraq in 2003, and Hitler’s Germany. Huge. Don’t you?
Paul - I think you can feel comforted that you are not alone in world in caring about the constitution however I don’t recall the Geneva Convention being mentioned in the document.
I doubt you would find many Iraqis wanting a return to Saddam. Although many would have preferred a better attack plan.
After the massive manpower losses of WWII the US built overwhelming air superiority which it turns out is not that useful in unseating dictators (or for much of anything except total destruction or clearing the way for troops that we no longer employ). Our two fairly incompetent parties reached a peace dividend decision to build lots hardware (pork) and scale way back on troops (overhead). The sad thing about the surge is those few extra troops used up front would probably have quelled the violence in months rather than years.
If Iraq ends up a shining democracy and forms the foundation for a pan-Arab arrangement like the EU then, much to your dismay, history will probably look favorably on Bush’s decision.
David H wrote,
Of course, if that happens, Bush will look much better on his invasion, retrospectively.
However, there’s no reason to think that such a utopia is going to unfold any time soon - or even in 20 years. How long would you like us to wait before we are allowed to pass judgement on Bush’s policies? And will he really deserve the credit if such a paradise were, improbably, to unfold on the Euphrates 50 years from now?
Patrick - freedom can work amazingly fast but let’s give Iraq at least as long as it takes Northfield to settle the liquor store issue or sell the condos in the Crossing. Seriously, I think at this point in addition to finger pointing the US citizens need to keep unrelentingly pressure on insuring the Iraqis have rights to a totally free press, unrestricted travel, public assembly, etc. Basically all the things Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia do not offer their citizens.
Oh, Iraq gets more time than that to get it right. But I think it’s safe to say that Bush’s sins (lies, flagrant constitutional abuses, torture, illegal detentions, violating the Geneva Convention, alienating most of the world, and squandering billions on - and horribly mismanaging - an unnecessary war) can be judged right now, on their face value.
Patrick: Thanks for bringing up the Geneva Conventions again.
David, Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution gives the executive the power to enter treaties, but the senate has to approve by two thirds.
The Geneva Conventions (four? of 1949?) were ratified by the US Senate in 1955. That makes the US obligated to observe them as law. They don’t have to have been discussed at the Constitutional Convention.
And by the way, while the body count of US casualties may have gone down since the “surge” and money payment system (bribes for nonviolence), there are still an average of about 18 US soldiers who commit suicide every day, and an average of about a thousand under VA care of some kind who attempt suicide every day, as reported back in May from leaked emails, followed by congressional hearings about possible cover-up, and calls for at least one resignation. From the students I’ve spoken to who are Iraq war vets, many have seen and done things they wish they hadn’t. Many have failed to observe the rules of engagement. You may say they’re not so important, but they matter to some of the soldiers who have attempted suicide.
And David, yes, much of that might not have been necessary if there had been more troops in the first place. But it was an illegal war entered into because of lies, by an administration that lies routinely, even more so than Slick Willie.
We’ve taken hundreds of thousands of lives. The Rumsfeld policy of harsh interrogation that led to Abu Ghraib planted seeds for many more anti-US terrorists, and the world is now less safe for the US, according to a US intelligence estimate, than before the war.
US intelligence agent who inspected Guantanamo after rumors of torture came back with at least two conclusions: First, that many there were innocent, rounded up because of reward money, and not because of guilt or suspicion of guilt. And second, they said that because some people were clearly being tortured, if some of those innocent were not terrorists before they were detained and imprisoned there, they are now.
But David, you come back to your assumption that some Iraqis are happier now than under Saddam. Sure. Of course some are. They’re no more inclined to be homogenous than we are in the US about McCain, Obama, Barr or other choices. But the ability to take a survey doesn’t prove the success of the surge, or justify the war.
Paul- I’m glad to see you use the universal “we’”
1) “We” use a whole lot of oil (Bush’s (and the democrats and the military’s) risk analysis no doubt included your need to drive a car and heat your house)
2) “We” don’t limit trade to free and democratic nations - ‘monsters’ exist as you say but liberal engagement policies tend to create ‘rich monsters.’
3) “We” don’t support a peacetime (or even a war time) draft which would give “us” more balance and control over the armed forces.
4) “We”, and everyone else, create crazy rumors in wartime - many still believe because of the depression that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed just so he could enter WWII
5) “We” need to understand that just like everyone in any culture does not want to be tortured - that everyone in any culture want freedom and control of their lives - when we enrich through trade nations and leaders who radically limit freedom we are investing in future security problems.
David,
I’m not following your point in that last post at all. Are you now using the royal “we”?
PBS just reran the excellent documentary “Buying the War” yesterday. (You can watch it or read a transcript at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html)
It still makes my blood boil when I hear those carefully orchestrated choruses of “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” and especially to hear Dick Cheney go on Meet the Press in Sept of 2002 to cite his own administration’s intentionally-leaked bogus intelligence when he claimed:
Lies, lies, lies. They wanted a war for geopolitical purposes, so they cooked up a case to get us into one.
Patrick said, “They wanted a war for geopolitical purposes, so they cooked up a case to get us into one.”
Could you say exactly what those “geopolitical purposes” are? I really want to understand what you mean.
On a more forward-looking note - and back to the titular topic of this thread - it looks like the Bush administration has finally signed on to a withdrawal timetable, much like the one Mr. Obama has long advocated.
NY Times: “Draft Accord With Iraq Sets Goal of 2011 Pullout”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/middleeast/22baghdad.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=timetable&st=cse&oref=slogin
Bright,
Invading Iraq and “finishing the job” that George HW Bush left undone in Iraq was a stated goal of the Neoconservatives throughout the 90’s. With the installation of the Bush administration in 2001, the Neoconservatives held great sway over US policy.
From Wikipedia (yes, I’m lazy sometimes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Neoconservative_views_on_foreign_policy
Patrick - the point is the war is more the result of a lot of bad public policy, just as much generated by the Democratic party, than about one or two sentences stated by Cheney.
David,
“A lot of bad public policy” did not lead us to invade Iraq. Bush did.
Watch the documentary I previously linked: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Or try Frontline’s “Bush’s War”: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
Or read The Downing Street Memo: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece
Or any of a large number of books, including Bob Woodward’s “Plan of Attack” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_Attack or Richard Clark’s “Against All Enemies”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_All_Enemies
Iraq was a war of choice, chosen by the Bush administration, and sold to the American people by dubious means.
The Democratic Party had nothing to do with starting the war with Iraq. The only role any Democrats played in this fiasco is that some Democratic members of Congress, to their eternal shame, rubber stamped the Bush march to war.
To his eternal credit, Barack Obama realized that Bush’s War was a terrible idea from the start.
Patrick, while I don’t really trust wikiwiki articles on their own, I will agree that the US is the strong arm defender of democracy around the world. I think users of democracy and oil would be happy that the US is procuring more of the same. Especially Democrats who own tons of oil stock in Exxon, Phillips, and British Petroleum and don’t tell anyone, but you find out when you go to use their phone and a stock holders meeting letter is carelessly left out in the open.
I think it is wrong to say we are not trying to make friends. All the world wants to be like Americans if they know us at all. We have given Africa more aid these last two terms than ever before, under the allied tutelage of Bush, the Senior and Clinton, the Bill. Never mind the whining of the French cafe set who have nothing better to do than criticize us when we show up and ask us where the hell we have been when we don’t.
David: Some responses to your points:
1. The average person in the US has little direct control over the way our society is structured, with little mass transportation, with suburbs and malls (car-dependent), few realistic options for what powers our cars and how many miles to the gallon we get from fuel made largely from foreign oil. Automakers, the oil, nuclear, coal and natural gas concerns are in the business to make money, and they are powerful. They would prefer to stay in business, and to have few if any competitors. They have more money and PR power to determine the near- and long-range future of certain choices than do you and I. I agree, in part, with the democratic urge to spread the blame, but it’s not the whole truth.
2. One should not confuse “liberal engagement policies” with liberals. “Free trade” is often praised by wealthy interests, but it’s often the freedom of rich interests to make as much money as possible without laws that restrict. It’s often very one-sided, and not about “fair trade.” The US subsidizes its own crops, Cargill sells them cheap to the world, but then we complain when other nations, even poor ones, subsidize their agriculture. May be free trade, but it’s not fair trade. Liberals like Bill Clinton can be fans of free trade as much as Republicans.
3) Discussion of “to draft or not to draft” depends too much on assumptions like those of folks who believe we should have invaded Iraq anyway, even if it was illegal, or once having invaded illegally and killed hundreds of thousands, we might still “make it good,” get some oil, and maybe make life better for the folks there, or at least create the illusion, and forget about them.
4) The rumors about Pearl Harbor were not simply wartime rumors. Roosevelt tried to provoke Japan to attack, just as Bill Clinton sent an envoy to General Zinni, urging him to provoke the Iraqi’s to attack (Zinni refused, unless the orders were in writing). The daughter of FDR’s head of the Red Cross tells of how her father, near his death, told her how FDR sent him to make preparations for after the attack, because he knew something was coming. He was told that he had to keep his knowledge secret. There are many other examples. Just because FDR was a 3-time elected popular president doesn’t mean he didn’t have the ability to keep secrets or act in a machiavellian way. We should not assume that Hitler had his Reichstag fire, and his faux-Polish attack on a German radio station, but the US never does such things. The cause for the sinking of the Maine has long been in question. The start of the war with Mexico (which Abe Lincoln opposed) was based largely on spin and misleading accounts of where blood was shed — on US territory, or clearly in disputed territory (Lincoln cited this for his reason for opposing the war as a congressman). The US joint chiefs designed plans (”Operation Northwoods”) to create “fake” terrorist attacks by Cubans against the US, so that we could justify overthrowing Castro’s government (the plans were never used, but it’s public knowledge, not rumor, that they existed). Johnson used misinformation about the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” to justify escalation of the Vietnam war. By speaking of April Gilespie, I don’t mean to single out and demonize Republicans for machiavellian behavior. Democrats can and have acted in similar ways.
5. You write, “when we enrich through trade nations and leaders who radically limit freedom we are investing in future security problems.” You mean, buying Saudi oil? If so, I agree.
Bright, you said,
1. Democracy is not a finite resource thet we needed to procure for ourselves by invading other countries.
2. Wanting oil doesn’t make killing to secure access to it right.
3. I didn’t realize you were friends with the Rockefeller’s! Did you know that they accepted that invitation to the stockholders meeting, and used it to demand “that Exxon invest more in alternative energy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/business/04suits.html?n=Top/News/Business/Companies/Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation
Well, Patrick, I think that you are right. We don’t procure democracy for ourselves, we procure it for people who can’t get it for themselves. Listen, everyone wants to have freedom, unless they have not ever tasted it. And for a lot of people, it’s worth dying for. Some people are that selfless, those who want others to live well.
Killing isn’t right, but then neither is sitting back waiting for the the big one to kill others or us. The one’s who are control freaks are the ones who won’t want people to be who they can become, but also won’t do anything but jack their jaws(a non-medical term from my old neighborhood),so I think it’s all a bunch of compost waiting for a turning anyway. I hardly have even heard of more than a few letter writing campaigns against this ‘war’.
Furthermore, the oil companies are always researching everything. Who says it’s up to them anyway to do anything but provide oil and dividends to stockho