Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[Charade]

Cindy Sheehan is getting some reinforcements Military Families to Join Cindy Sheehan in Crawford; Gold Star and Military Families from Across Country on Their Way to Texas There will soon a decent number of parents of victims of Bush's war in Crawford.

"decent"????

"victims"????

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The left doesn't like it when the US imposes our type of Democracy on others but they would like to be sure that womens rights are not squashed in the new Constitution of Iraq.

Interesting...

Sad, but too true.

And where is Hillary in all this? Hasn't she traveled to world in support of womens rights?

It is interesting how some on the left talk a lot about supporting freedom and rights and dignity, but when it comes to paying the price for those things, the tune changes to the price is too high to pay. Freedom is easy to talk about, but hard to maintain and incredibly costly to secure.

 

[bsnyder]

Not sure that you are saying this, but there is a common misperception that prior to Vietnam and the modern media era, there was near uniform public support for all US war efforts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At the risk of gross oversimplification, any war of choice that incurred any but the most minimal of casualties has raised the ire of a significant portion of the electorate, regardless of the sophistication of the media delivering the casualty reports. Some attribute that to the persistent isolationist strain that is part of American exceptionalism Not sure if that is correct, but sure that history is replete with war protests, the exception really being WWII - that's the anomaly, largely because it was viewed as an existential threat, IMO, which it was. That said, even the Civil War, the paradigmatic existential threat, saw plenty of objection to the bloodshed when the cause against the South appeared to be going nowhere. Sherman's message delivering Atlanta in early October 64 (I think) is attributed with ensuring Lincoln's reelection, failing which he would have been turned out by McClellan seeking peace. Look at the First lines of the Second Inaugural if you doubt:




There is persistent meme in the Conintern to see Bush as some unique victim of malevolence from his opponents, which is absurd from even a recent historical perspective, but nothing is more central to the modern right wing ethos that the victimization shtick.


And not since the Spanish American War has a "war" been sold to the public under such dubious circumstances, with a President taking the lead in the sales process. Before the War, when positive results were expected, his bold leadership was attributed for seeing the threat that others did not. Now that we know that his vision is flawed, both as to the threat and to the cost to address it, the criticism has justly come. The Weekly Standard crowed after the 2002 midterms that Bush had gained the Senate by making the election a referendum on his choice to go into Iraq. When it served his political purposes, the President was happy to take responsibility and praise. When it doesn't, suddenly it's bad manners to be anything but an enthusiastic supporter. That said, I agree that we are in it now and must finish it unless we deem that impossible, which it may be given prior misjudgments

I agree, every war has had it's protesters and detractors, but the modern news era gives them a disproportional voice.

With that, I'm offline for a while....my carpets are getting cleaned.

Enjoy the debate, folks.

 

[sodaseller]

And so the terrorists know they have to just stick it out for a year and then make sure all hell breaks loose. Then what do we do? How does a timetable do anything but strengthen their hand?

Are we being opposed by "terrorists" in anay appreciable number?

 

[ThAnswr]

I don't think this would be long enough. These people have never experienced freedom before and have no concept what it involves. While they may have wanted to throw off the yoke of Saddam's oppressive regime, I doubt they had any idea what self-government involves. Also given that they are surrounded by countries that desire nothing more than to see freedom and democracy fail in Iraq,then 1 year is simply not enough time.

You don't have to understand what freedom is to be willing to fight for your home and country. And if the Iraqis, after 2+ years, don't understand their fate is in their own hands, what makes you assume they'll understand it after 5 years. The Iraqis have had 2+ years of watching their neighbors, their children, and their police force get blown up by insurgents, and you don't think that's enough for them to want to fight back?

Before you ask... I have no idea what timeline we should use. It took years to rebuild Germany and Japan. Iraq is a totally different "ballgame", so the old rules just don't apply there.

Well if the rules have changed, why the constant referral to WWII?

Honestly, I don't believethe rules have changed, but I do believe the motives and the intentions of the political leadership has.

Good idea if it were feasible.

Why isn't it feasible? Our troops got there somehow? If we can ship 125,000 over there, we can ship 25,000 here especially when its in our interest to do so.

Alas, it should not be our responsibility to dictate what Iraq's Constitution should and should not do. They need time to work out their Constitution; I believe the administration's arbitrary deadline to finish this work is more of a hamper than a help. I agree that all people in Iraq should share equally in freedom, but that should be something the Iraqis decide and support... it should not be forced on them.

Whoa, the hell it isn't our responsiblity. As Colin Powell said "you break it, you own".

Forget that......do you mean to tell me and the good folks here that, when Americans have shed their blood and countless billions of dollars, the US has no say in the new Iraq. Baloney. I'll be damned if 1842 Americans die and 13877 wounded just so the Iraqis can tell us to mind our own business and screw half their population?

Btw, General Douglas MacArthur insured Japanese women had full rights in the new Japan and under the new Japanese constitution.

Call me crazy, but when I see American blood and bodies sacrificed, I'd be damned if I'd let the "same old same old" rise up again in the Middle East.

 

[Charade]

Are we being opposed by "terrorists" in anay appreciable number?

Doesn't have to be an appreciable number. Not when 5, 10, 30 or 100 people are killed by one ot two of them.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

But the last reason given for this war was to bring freedom !


And it would be allright that half the population would enjoy less freedom than before " liberation from tyranny" ?


If you are going to use words like freedom and try to impose your way of life by going to war , you've got to impose those things to the people you " helped" gain that " freedom ".


"Freedom" was forced on them !

Freedom is not forced on anyone; it is a precious gift. If freedom means anything, it means that the Iraqi people are truly free to true self-determination as far as their Constitution and government goes. If the West comes along and says "do this" or "do that", that is imposing our way of life, our thought processes on them. That's not freedom... that's colonization.

 

[ThAnswr]

And so the terrorists know they have to just stick it out for a year and then make sure all hell breaks loose. Then what do we do? How does a timetable do anything but strengthen their hand?

So if the terrorists (?) know the deadline is coming, so do the Iraqis.

If the terrorists (?) can use that time to strengthen their hand, why can't the Iraqis?

Excuse me if I don't understand the logic. If you have the luxury of knowing something is coming, you get ready for it or suffer the consequences of not being ready. That's real life.

 

[ThAnswr]

It's a neverending source of amazement that you lefties always elevate a dead Democrat past all the saints and God to prove that a dead Democrat President is better than a living Republican one.

But do tell me again how you don't "do" partisan politics...

Hello, but when did I ever tell you I don't "do" partisan politics? Kindly point out to me and the good folks here when I said that.

Pardon me, but I don't think I've ever told anyone I don't "do" partisan politics.

I'm as partisan as they come and I make no apologies for it.

Now, file that away for future reference.

 

[ThAnswr]

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that the coverage of WWII or the Civil War was the same as the coverage of the war in Iraq.

And, specifically, no one has.

 

[ThAnswr]

The left doesn't like it when the US imposes our type of Democracy on others but they would like to be sure that womens rights are not squashed in the new Constitution of Iraq.

Interesting...

I find it even more interesting that some people can't even understand that a new Iraq includes women or all you end up with is the "same old, same old".

And where is Hillary in all this? Hasn't she traveled to world in support of womens rights?

Sorry, John, I've already taken the "Clinton 1-step away" award. I believe you were the one who declared me the winner.

 

[auntpolly]

Hello, but when did I ever tell you I don't "do" partisan politics? Kindly point out to me and the good folks here when I said that.

Pardon me, but I don't think I've ever told anyone I don't "do" partisan politics.

I'm as partisan as they come and I make no apologies for it.

Now, file that away for future reference.

Oh, I don't know about you, but I'm thouroughly convinced now! Bush should just go play golf and giddyup as much as he wants! Lalalalalala! I'm happy as a clam with el presidente. How did I not see it before!

(Really, they twist our words and then beat a dead horse with them...it's not worth it.)

 

[ThAnswr]

But the last reason given for this war was to bring freedom !


And it would be allright that half the population would enjoy less freedom than before " liberation from tyranny" ?


If you are going to use words like freedom and try to impose your way of life by going to war , you've got to impose those things to the people you " helped" gain that " freedom ".


"Freedom" was forced on them !

It's amazing, isn't it? You would think "these truths are self-evident" but nooooo.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You don't have to understand what freedom is to be willing to fight for your home and country. And if the Iraqis, after 2+ years, don't understand their fate is in their own hands, what makes you assume they'll understand it after 5 years. The Iraqis have had 2+ years of watching their neighbors, their children, and their police force get blown up by insurgents, and you don't think that's enough for them to want to fight back?

One could only hope so, but it also is important to remember that they've lived under a dictatorship for decades and many of those alive today know no other way of living. They've had a little over 2 years without Saddam, but I wouldn't call that real freedom. They have an interim gov't., no constitution. They are struggling to rebuild a shattered infrastructure. I'd be willing to cut them a little slack if they aren't just like "us", willing to rise up from the dust and dirt, guns in hand to fight back... not after spending years afraid to speak nary a word of dissent for fear of harsh, swift retribution.

Well if the rules have changed, why the constant referral to WWII?

I don't claim to speak for anyone else and I don't recall making any references to WWII, so I can't answer this.

Honestly, I don't believethe rules have changed, but I do believe the motives and the intentions of the political leadership has.

Motives and intentions change in politics about as often as the wind direction changes. I'm not defending that... just saying it's part and parcel of politics. Always has been, always will be. Just the nature of the beast.

Why isn't it feasible? Our troops got there somehow? If we can ship 125,000 over there, we can ship 25,000 here especially when its in our interest to do so.

I'm not sure it's in our interest to uproot their national forces and attempt to train them in American-style military practices on American soil. And 25,000 would hardly make an adequate Iraqi army. Better to train them in their own country.

Whoa, the hell it isn't our responsiblity. As Colin Powell said "you break it, you own".

Forget that......do you mean to tell me and the good folks here that, when Americans have shed their blood and countless billions of dollars, the US has no say in the new Iraq. Baloney. I'll be damned if 1842 Americans die and 13877 wounded just so the Iraqis can tell us to mind our own business and screw half their population?

Btw, General Douglas MacArthur insured Japanese women had full rights in the new Japan and under the new Japanese constitution.

Call me crazy, but when I see American blood and bodies sacrificed, I'd be damned if I'd let the "same old same old" rise up again in the Middle East.

As I said earlier, freedom in Iraq must include self-determination. The Iraqi people must be free to choose their own form of government, develop their own Constitution, their own "Bill of Rights." If you're going to rage about not imposing freedom on Iraq, then you can't turn around and demand that we impose our values, our form of gov't., our Constitution on them. If we do that, we are no better than Saddam and his goons.

 

[ThAnswr]

Freedom is not forced on anyone; it is a precious gift. If freedom means anything, it means that the Iraqi people are truly free to true self-determination as far as their Constitution and government goes. If the West comes along and says "do this" or "do that", that is imposing our way of life, our thought processes on them. That's not freedom... that's colonization.

So, in other words, the Iraqis take our blood, our bodies, and our money, but we have noooo saaaay in the new Iraq? You have got to be kidding?

So what the hell was the point in starting a democratic Iraq in the center of the Middle East?

Tell me this is a joke. And a bad one at that.

Or is it deep down the righties know Bush is NOT going to insure the rights of Iraqi women? Well, whattayanno, another pre-emptive strike.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

It's amazing, isn't it? You would think "these truths are self-evident" but nooooo.

Not when truth is treated as something completely relative and reality is defined by a pre-set agenda.

 

[sodaseller]

Doesn't have to be an appreciable number. Not when 5, 10, 30 or 100 people are killed by one ot two of them.

You either miss or ignore the point. There are "terrorists" in Iraq, in the sense of those that might otherwise ever attack US interests, but solely as result of the War. But if it was just them we were up against, things would have gone as well as the Administration predicted. For all practical purposes, we are up against the Sunnis, largely Iraqi military regulars that are following a planned sceme of melting away from the battlefieldl during the invasion and then using stored arms to mount an insurgency. They will make common cause with and employ "terrorsists" willing to detonante themselves to kill Americans, but only because that serves Sunni ends. The foreign fighters would be powerless against us if they didn't have local Sunni networks to plug into - they would have no haven and no ability to set IEDs etc, even if they could make them.

We are not really fighting terrorists in anay meaningful sense - we are fighting the remnants of the Republican Guard. Now I agree that one reason I do not want to pull out is because OBL and Co will claim credit for chasing us out, and will instantly be elevated in the eyes of the Muslim world as the man who used mujahedeen to run the Soviets out of Afghanistan and the Americans out of Iraq. But that's not close to the reality. It's also why this war was so foolish. OBL knew we would invade Afghanistan after 9/11 - said so in papers we seized and other intelligence. He relished the prospect, because he envisioned a return of the Afghan war of the 80s, his first claim to glory. The mountainous terrain of Afghanistan had proved the undoing of numerous great powers over the years. But the campaign there was brilliant, and our use of the Northern Alliance Warlords (which were his allies in the 80s and some of which allowed him to escape from Tora Bora), left him without the quagmire he sought. With them on board and the war largely against the Southern Pashtuns, there were few muntainous havens for large cadres of guerillas to hide out in and fight a guerilla war.

But the Iraqis were smarter. They learned 10 years earlier that it was a fool's errand to exchange firepower with us within the reach of airpower. So they melted in, hid arms, and decided to fight the war this way. And so now we have given OBL precisely what he sought - a seeming quagmire that looks impossible to escape from. Had we stopped after Afghanistan, the Islamic world would have been in awe of US power, as Reuel Marc Gerecht says. We would have routed the Taliban in months with little real casualties where the Soviets suffered greatly for years and left. But now we again look like we can be taken.

And unless we prove that we truly impose our will on Iraq, which right now looks impossible, we will have given Osama the victory he sought and our national interests will suffer, all because of the misjudgment of George W. Bush. This war, and it is his war, may prove to be a terrible blow to the US. It has already led to the loss of our moral laedership in the world and fractured the Western Alliance (which was squarely behind Afghanistan). Now it may end our ability to persuade a tyrant that we can remove him at an acceptable cost, a threat that would have loomed large had we stopped after Afghanistan. If that happens, this President should go down in ignominy as one who squandered a significant aspect of American power

 

[Tigger_Magic]

So, in other words, the Iraqis take our blood, our bodies, and our money, but we have noooo saaaay in the new Iraq? You have got to be kidding?

So what the hell was the point in starting a democratic Iraq in the center of the Middle East?

Tell me this is a joke. And a bad one at that.

Or is it deep down the righties know Bush is NOT going to insure the rights of Iraqi women? Well, whattayanno, another pre-emptive strike.

If it isn't right to impose freedom on another country, what makes it right to impose a specific govt. or Constitution on them? How is doing that any different from old-fashioned colonization, which has been a complaint about this very war?

Just for the record, I said I believe that freedom in Iraq should include EVERYONE. Just so we're clear, "everyone" does include women.

However, I do not believe that the West has any business dictating to Iraq what their Constitution should or should not contain. We can advise, counsel, encourage, plead, and maybe even bribe... but if we are going to respect what freedom truly is, we will not dictate what they can and cannot do.

But I suppose that freedom is just as relative as truth is...

 

[ThAnswr]

As I said earlier, freedom in Iraq must include self-determination. The Iraqi people must be free to choose their own form of government, develop their own Constitution, their own "Bill of Rights." If you're going to rage about not imposing freedom on Iraq, then you can't turn around and demand that we impose our values, our form of gov't., our Constitution on them. If we do that, we are no better than Saddam and his goons.

I think you may want to re-think this as I really don't believe you want to make a valid comparison between the imposition of our Constitution, with all it's rights, and anything remotely connected with Saddam Hussein.

But, let's carry this further. Let's say the Iraqis decide to impose a Shiite theocracy and ally themselves with Iran and you would have no problem with that? Talk about wasted American sacrifices.

So explain what the hell we're doing there.

 

[ThAnswr]

Not when truth is treated as something completely relative and reality is defined by a pre-set agenda.

The only pre-set agenda I saw was the desire to overthrow Saddam Hussein and create a democratic Iraq.

Now you tell me how you do this by sending half the population back behind the "veil"?