Our anti-war friends are always wanting folks who advocated the Iraq invasion to say they’re sorry. Well, leave poor Hillary alone. Mark Bowden will say it for you.
Here’s a link to a piece in The Philadelphia Inquirer by the former staff writer who wrote Blackhawk Down. An excerpt:
Plenty of people got it right. Give George Herbert Walker Bush credit for having the good sense not to topple Saddam in 1991, foreseeing the unmanageable chaos that would follow. My Philadelphia Inquirer colleague Trudy Rubin saw it, as did my Atlantic colleague James Fallows. Another notable example was Scott Ritter, the former Marine and U.N. weapons inspector who campaigned vigorously with the news that Saddam did not have such weapons. He spent months being kicked around on television talk shows, weathering a mounting tide of scorn, trying to halt the war machine.
I remember being on one of those shows with him. I wondered why, in the face of so much supposedly informed contradiction, he persisted.
Scott, I see it now.
The difference between his position and mine?
My reason for supporting the invasion was that I believed the Iraqi tyrant had weapons of mass destruction, and that he would, without hesitating, pass such weapons along to Islamist terrorists who would use them…. It turns out Saddam was bluffing.
I believed we should invade whether the WMD were there or not. I thought they were there, of course, but that was not the determining factor for me.
Related Posts
Yes, it was “breathtakingly arrogant” AND stupidly ignorant.
Also, “breathtakingly arrogant,” refusing– even now– to admit that the entire affair was sold to the American people on fraudulent grounds and was an incompetently-executed blunder.
Paging Mr. Warthen, your hubris is showing!
Brad are you still on drugs from your surgery? Or are you just trying to goad Mary into another tirade so you can delete her post? The article you cite completely obliterates your view on Iraq. Why can’t you see it????
With the VA hospital scandal comes yet another (but by no means the biggest) reason to abandon this folly. More vets to care for every day is taxing our already over-burdened system.
No, it obliterates Mr. Bowden’s position, not mine.
As for the other point you raise, here’s what we should do: Take care of the vets, however many there are. One or a million, they deserve the best of care.
Oh, and as far as “Mary” is concerned — I’m deleting her up to 10 times a day. It’s no trouble. I have a computer in front of me most of the day. I just glance at that screen every once in a while, and click.
And yeah, I’m still on the drugs. In fact, I just started taking them every four hours yesterday. I had been avoiding the narcotics, but that was just leading to unnecessary pain.
Brad, Mr. Bowden’s article acknowledged how correct Scott Ritter was in the days leading up to the invasion. Scott Ritter opposed the Iraq invasion. Indeed that indicates how Bowden was wrong in the lead-up to the war. But exactly how does that exonerate YOUR point of view?
Brad, I hope you’re feeling better. Don’t pull a Rush and get addicted to the drugs. They can ruin your life.
It doesn’t “exonerate” anything. It simply doesn’t bear upon my reasons for supporting the invasion.
I am in the camp Mr. Bowden dismisses, the Friedman camp. WMD were, at best, secondary. Of course, in dismissing our position, he distorts it, by suggesting that it was based in a naively arrogant belief that “we could somehow steer this process directly and efficiently.”
I can’t speak for Mr. Friedman here — he’s far better at speaking for himself — but I never thought this process was easily controllable by us or anyone else. GHW Bush was right that the prudent, cautious thing for people who are into control to do was to stay out of Baghdad. He was about preserving the status quo.
9/11 persuaded me that the status quo was so dangerous that even a course that was as uncontrollable and unpredictable as invading Iraq was preferable. The status quo had to be changed, and dramatically. I didn’t think we could ever justify invading, say, Saudi Arabia. But we could justify invading Iraq, after it had blown off international order for the past 12 years.
That’s where a lot of antiwar people and I talk past each other. They say, “Anybody who thought this would be easy was foolish.” They’re right. What that has to do with me, I don’t know.
Aside from that one assumption on his part — which I don’t think is in any way malicious — I think Bowden’s piece is pretty good.
Brad writes:
“9/11 persuaded me that the status quo was so dangerous that even a course that was as uncontrollable and unpredictable as invading Iraq was preferable.”
So wouldn’t part of this “unpredictible” course be the possibility that it would actually make us less safe? And given that all the evidence now suggests that to be the case then why do we continue now?
So basically what you’re saying is 9/11 justifies ANYTHING including: 3,150 American soldiers killed, 25,000 wounded. 100,000 Iraq civilians killed. 2,000,000 Iraqi citizens displaced. All for some vague, unsupported, hypothetical, nebulous, enigmatic, mysterious notion that someday our great, great grandchildren may, I repeat may, be a bit safer.
That kind of thinking is so warped it is simply not possible to respond.
No, bud, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying what I said. Please don’t ignore my words and say, “so basically you’re saying,” so that you can argue with what you want to pretend I’m saying, because if I said that, you’d be able to say, “that kind of thinking is so warped…”
That’s grossly intellectually dishonest.
I said what I’ve always said: That we had reached a point at which action was less dangerous than inaction, at which an uncertain future was a better course than a completely unacceptable status quo. The first President Bush was the very embodiment of the status quo, “keep the oil flowing” point of view. That position held that it was OK to stand back and do nothing about injustice throughout that region — even support such injustice if we had to — for the sake of cheap gas.
9/11 was the most dramatic of a number of demonstrations of how foolish that was.
Obviously, the status quo is so unstable and uncontrollable that we absolutely MUST attack Iran.
How silly of me not to understand Brad’s point.
Is it time to mobilize the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Brad?
One more thing. Brad, why are you suggesting we only had two choices in 2003, either (1) the status quo or (2) a course (invading Iraq) that is uncontrollable and unpredictable. Maybe there were other, better options in 2003.
We could have finished our work in Afghanistan first? Or, exerted diplomatic pressure on other nations to cough up the terrorists. Third, we could have beefed up our domestic security concerns. Fourth, or implemented a broad, undercover project to uncover terrorist threats before they occur. Invading Iraq did disrupt the status quo but it also made the above four points I mentioned much more difficult to accomplish both because of funding issues and because we reduced our standing in the eyes of the world. And if Iraq had no WMD why did they pose a threat that we needed to address at that time?
But even if I accept your premise that it was a good idea in 2003 take a risk in order to shake up the status quo it is crystal clear NOW that that gamble has failed. That is the point Mr. Bowden so elequently made in his article.
What I would like to know is exactly what were we to accomplish by invading Iraq if WMD is a secondary issue.
Randy, that was one of the main points of the column I referred to above. Here’s the link again.
Yes, it’s always been a legitimate argument that we should have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan until things were further along. A couple of points about that, though: First, it’s a lot more obvious now that we need more troops in Afghanistan — with a Taliban offensive expected in the spring — than it was four years ago. Second, any time we said, “OK, we’re good in Afghanistan; we can spare the troops somewhere else now” would be taking a risk. I believe we will need considerable military presence in BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq for many years to come — probably for the rest of my lifetime. We’ve stayed in Germany for more than half a century, and that nation was far more ready to resume a stable, secure existence than either of these.
The bottom line is, we need a MUCH bigger military to meet our security needs across the globe. That probably entails a draft — a universal draft, not the Vietnam style. Surely they can find a role for anyone and everyone — even an old wreck like me.
And bud, it is NOT crystal-clear that the gamble has failed. It’s too soon to tell. It’s true enough that we’d be in a much better position today if the Bush administration hadn’t screwed up so much (the Walter Reed mess being the latest example of the scandal of trying to do this war on the cheap). Let’s try doing it right for a change, and THEN talk about what has failed and what has succeeded.
In any case, we have to play the hand we are dealt. The current situation exists, and must be dealt with. We don’t get to just walk away from it. The members of Congress who keep passing nonbinding resolutions know this, which is why they don’t pass anything binding.
Brad: The primary problem of invading another country for no other reason than “regime change” is that it is a violation of international law. A law that we should support in the event that say China and Russia decide one day to shake up the status quo here in the states.
Well, I guess they could try. But they’d have a hard time coming up with the justification for it. The United States, Britain, and the other nations involved in the invasion were acting upon 12 years of Saddam’s defiance of the victors in the 1991 war, not to mention the 2002 UN resolution that the UN itself did not have the will to enforce.
We stopped shooting in 91 in return for Saddam agreeing to certain conditions. For the next 12 years, he repeatedly and constantly violated those terms. To the extent that international law even exists (it continues to be a tenuous concept), he had no standing under it.
Cite for me the law that was violated — by us, I mean, not by Saddam.
If you mean a “convention” or custom was violated, you’re right. That’s why many good conservative people were against the invasion. It did not fit with our post-WWII notion of not “starting fights.” Of course, the U.S. had trampled all over the supposed sovereign rights of other nations for a long, long time — particularly in Latin America. We were just quieter about it. We didn’t do it so openly, and we didn’t bother much about 12 years of international violations to justify our actions.
That’s not a good standard to go by; I’d rather not be the nation we were when we went to war with Mexico. And we’re not; our justification for this was much more sound than “Remember the Maine” or our lust for Lebensraum in the Southwest.
My point is that we neither violated international law nor our own traditions. Maybe it wasn’t the thing to do — I think it was, but I can always be wrong. But if I’m wrong, it’s not because of international law or because America just doesn’t do that sort of thing.
And RTH, you just go ahead and be just like Mary, and I’ll treat you just the same. Act like a two-year-old and keep posting the same thing I have already ruled out of bounds, and you will receive the same consistent, reliable treatment from me.
I not only have a whole can of "Unpublish" with your bogus name on it, but an unlimited supply of such cans.
Remember, you who don’t have the guts even to sign your names to what you say have NO standing on this blog. Stay or go, it’s all the same to me. Come back when you’re ready to express yourself as a grownup, and stand behind what you say.
We didn’t stay in Germany because it wasn’t ready to govern itself or protect itself. We stayed in Germany to geo-politically checkmate the USSR.
The two situations are neither similar nor parallel.
We do NOT need a larger military which is good primarily to fight conventional armed forces of traditional nation-states.
We need to mobilize diplomatically, politically, culturally and economically to separate the support that Islamic terrorists enjoy among the masses.
Building larger conventional military resources is not only a waste of money but a diversion of money away from where it’s truly needed.
Brad, I understand the lever, but we’re talking about altering centuries old forces at work in the middle east.
Also, your assumption is that Sadamn was tied into the terrorist web. What compelling evidence was there that regime change was an offensive on Al-queda? The problem was in Afghanistan and the “wild country” of Pakistan. Iraq BECAME tied into the web of terrorism AFTER we created the vacuum.
What evidence did we have of Sadamn’s TERRORIST activity – by that I mean blowing up our troops or our citizens? What compelling justification was there for war other than some supposed “domino effect” like we anticipated with communists in S.E. Asia in the 60s?
Yep, we needed to be in central Europe, because the job wasn’t done. And we need a considerable presence — more than we presently have — in the Mideast. Remember, the Soviets never did attack — except, of course, through their surrogates. The situation today is a hell of a lot less stable than it was from 1945-1991. Back then, we just had to put a few divisions in comfortable quarters in Germany and let them sit, while looking down on the enemies silos with satellites.
Today, we need a LOT more folks with boots on, and a LOT more human intelligence sources, than we ever did then, because the world is a lot more chaotic. And we need those soldiers and spies in the right places.
As you say, conventional forces aren’t as effective a deterrent against terrorists. But I’m not saying we need more tank battalions in Iraq. What we badly needed, right after Baghdad fell, was a couple more divisions of MPs. Rumsfeld, to his everlasting shame, never thought we needed many such pedestrian troops as that. He thought it could be done with special forces.
Oh, and bud, I had overlooked your earlier good wishes with regard to avoiding addiction. I certainly intend to, especially since I’m taking oxycodone. But I think Rush was taking the pure form, oxycontin, while I’m taking the kind mixed with acetaminophen (percocet) — which, according to Wikipedia, is much harder to abuse. Here’s hoping Wiki is right this time.
Brad,
How do propose to pay for the additional troops and intelligence operatives? How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to support your plan? $1000/yr? $5000/yr? or would you support cutting other areas of the budget to shift even more resources to the military?
I guess when the next 9/11 happens you’ll be all set with your “If we only spent more!” excuse.
Brad: You’re against the ropes and everyone is taking his/her shots and you’re still swinging. I like that.
My understanding of the U.N. Charter (Ch. 7, Article 39) is that no member state has the right to enforce any UN resolution with armed force without a vote of the UN Security Council. The U.S. and the U.K. attempted to get a Security Council resolution authorizing military force in Iraq, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after learning that France, Russia, and China planned to use their veto power against any Security Council resolution that allowed the use of force.
So, we and a few other member states decided to act outside the U.N., which again I believe has set a dangerous precedent.
As you’ve alluded to, all this doesn’t really matter now. We are there and we’re in the midst of a civil war that we unleashed. We cannot in good conscious pull out and allow what many expect would be an ethnic cleansing. Yet, we also have a duty to our military. I believe we should go to the U.N., hat in hand, and ask for assistance. Unfortunately, this is beyond the realm of our current administration.
Yep, we need help, and it’s in the interests of other nations to give us help. But plenty of them would rather have the satisfaction of seeing us stew than look to the bigger picture.
Mind you, it’s not that we need military help so much. We need international aid just for the sake of having it. It’s not that we don’t have the money or the manpower or anything else — if we’re willing to use them — but things like this are made easier by the mere fact of being internationally sanctioned.
I had great hopes for NATO after what it did in the Balkans, and started to do in Afghan. It was far more of a “git-er-done” outfit than the UN. (I’ve always liked the idea of the UN, and been disappointed by its fecklessness.) There was, as Sen. Biden points out, a tremendous opportunity right after 9/11 to form a really powerful multilateral terrorism-fighting coalition, with NATO at its center. The Bush administration blew that.
But this is not about the Bush administration, even though Republicans and Democrats have trouble taking in that fact. It’s about, as you say, the real-life situation we are in, however we got here.
And we can’t walk away from that any more than we can walk away from the crying need to educate poor kids in the rural corners of South Carolina. Both are hard, and many people quite plausibly say they are impossible. But we have no choice but to do our best.
The reasons not to embark on military world domination are manifold and manifest. At the top of the list is that history has proved repeatedly that it’s a fools errand. Secondarily, but only by a hair, turning our country into an armed camp for imperial aims would effectively end our grand experiment in democratic republicanism.
And, Americans wonder why many people think that the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.
Ok, so the WW II analogies no longer make any sense so it’s on to the cold war. Which of course brings us to Korea, Vietnam and the Russian debacle in Afghanistan. Now are those senseless bloodbaths what we want to emulate?
Really Brad, don’t you think all this talk of a draft, raising taxes and staying in Iraq for decades simply beyond anything politically feasible? None of that is going to happen and you know it. So to debate those options is really nothing more than an academic exercise.
So what CAN we do that is politically feasible? Frankly we only have 2 options. We can stay the course or withdraw. RTH has suggested a political solution based on partitioning Iraq. That should be put on the table in the form of a U.N. resolution and let’s bring all the players together and start talking.
But we simply must withdraw first in order to remove the stench of imperialistic occupation. Our security will be tremendously enhanced by moving in a diplomatic direction coupled with a withdrawal. Stay the course has already failed.
Brad writes:
”
We stopped shooting in 91 in return for Saddam agreeing to certain conditions. For the next 12 years, he repeatedly and constantly violated those terms. To the extent that international law even exists (it continues to be a tenuous concept), he had no standing under it.
”
The most significant condition was that he DISMANTLE HIS WMD. Apparently that was done. So what did Saddam violate that was worth the lives of over 100,000 people?
James Fallows and Trudy Rubin are dishonest partisans disguised as journalists.
James Fallows is has made a career of attacking the military, using a very good writing style of facts, but only selective facts.
Trudy Rubin has lots of opinions on everything, with very little knowledge of anything.
Where were Rubin and Fallows when the Democrats were almost unanimously voting to authorize Clinton and any future president to “bring about regime change in Iraq by any means possible…in order to prevent the use of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction”?
Lee, why should the military be off limits to journalistic scrutiny? Do you honestly believe the pentagon shouldn’t be accountable to the people?
A short piece about Jean Baudrillard,who died Tuesday-
In 1986 he published a kind of travelogue called “America,” in which he wrote, “America is the original version of modernity,” referring to what he considered the almost complete blurring of reality and unreality. To his French readers, he said: “We are a copy with subtitles.”
He retired in 1987 from the University of Paris X, Nanterre, and then devoted himself to writing caustic commentaries and developing his philosophical theories. Although he shunned most media, he frequently wrote for newspapers.
“The Spirit of Terrorism: And Requiem for the Twin Towers” was published just a year after 9/11. In it, he argued that Islamic fundamentalists tried to create their own reality; the resulting media spectacle would give the impression that the West was constantly under threat of terrorist attack.
The current American invasion of Iraq is an effort to “put the rest of the world into simulation,so all the world becomes total artifice and then we are all-powerful,” he told The Times. “It’s a game.”
Sorry, Brad, unpublishing my posts because you don’t like being called out is on the level of a spoiled two-year-old.
Would it make a difference if “Willie Wilson” was signed to my post citing your ex post facto illogical, deceitful and irrational justifications?
You can call me gutless for signing a pseudonym but your endorsement of taking the country to war against the wrong country by lying to the American people shouldn’t be noticed, right?
Nobody should point out that your arguments parallel the neo-cons– not only in specific policies but in approval of the “ends justifies the means” methods of implementation.
“Oh, and as far as “Mary” is concerned — I’m deleting her up to 10 times a day. It’s no trouble. I have a computer in front of me most of the day. I just glance at that screen every once in a while, and click.”
Brad
That doesn’t sound like a “grownup”.Sounds more like a teenager numbing his mind playing video games all day.
Hey,maybe this would make a good video game!
See how many Mary Rosh(the insightful)posts you can read before The Deleter gets to ’em.
I’ve got two,but unfortunately,that’ll be it,cause,uh,like,I’m not allowed to play video games all day.
I wouldn’t dignify her by calling her a teenager, bill. Most teenagers have far better-developed social skills. But that is, indeed, what she does — post the same unwelcome trash over and over, all day. She has a serious problem.
For me, of course, it’s no trouble. I glance at the blog frequently anyway. Oblivion for Mary is just a click away.
As for you, sir, if you do not respect what I’m trying to host here, why stick around? There are plenty — thousands upon thousands — of blogs where dysfunctional exhibitionists like Mary are welcome.
Oh, and forget 10 times a day. Yesterday, the poor creature tried 36 times, according to Typepad. For me, 36 clicks — far less than a minute’s work. For Mary — well, I hate to think what sort of demons drive a person to do things like that. Persistence is admirable in a noble cause, but Mary’s “cause” is to throw bucketfuls of bile upon the world.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED (If "bud" does NOT want an edited version appearing, I will unpublish it for him. But this way he gets his points across without violating this blog’s rules for anonymous posters.)
The warmongers continue to get the way even though huge majorities of Americans oppose the war. The few supporters left have power far beyond their numbers. The arguments they make are flawed, illogical and border on insanity. To continue to fall back on 9-11 to justify this war is an act of desperation. To dismiss Saddam’s lack of WMD as irrelevant to the discussion is craven. If he had none then our justification is completely non-existent. Yet they persist and prevail. It brings me to tears to think of the wasted lives, the carnage, the shattered dreams of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis that are forever sacrificed at the alter of some enigmatic, multi-generational goal that Brad simply cannot articulate.
But why do the warmongers persist? Why do they support a lost cause? Why do they ignore the pleas of world opinion and the anguish of misery that continues to flow from this devastated nation? … Sadly I believe it is nothing more than a foolish self-denial. They cannot bring themselves to believe they are wrong. Yet wrong they are. No amount of evidence can pierce that hard shell of denial. No fact can seep through their mental defenses that will show how wrong they have been.
So we wait, we debate, we argue and we cry. In the end American armed forces will leave the region. Those who are left behind will begin to pick up the pieces and move on. The nation or nations that rise from the ashes of our failed misadventure will come to grips with what remains and they will move on. At that time we can try to forge a peaceful existence with the leaders who prevail. And history will judge this for the misadventure that it has become.
bud, you are the only one suggesting that “the military be off limits to journalistic scrutiny”, as a straw man, of course.
My point is that Fallows, Rubin and others of their ilk are only posing as journalists when they intentionally report and omit selected parts of the story in order convey a false impression to the readers.
Another example would be Tim Russert lying under oath that he did not know Valerie Plame was a CIA agent at the time he talked to Scooter Libby, when the reporters under him produced notes and emails prior to that date about their telling Tim Russert that Plame was behind getting her husband a trip to Niger, not Dick Cheney as Joe Wilson was claiming. But Russert continued to lie to his audience, other journalists, the grand jury and on the witness stand.
I was referring to YOU as the teenager.I don’t read this blog as often,now,but when I do,it’s to read the comments of Mary,bud,RTH,etc.It makes me feel less isolated to know that others share my views.
What sort of demons drive a person to use the word “faggot” so nonchalantly? Bigotry? Is that YOUR noble cause? After that ridiculous column supporting the “gay marriage” ban,it would certainly seem that way.When your local newspaper has become a hate group,it’s good to keep an eye on them,and I’m watching you.
This “Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Africa” claim is tough to kill. But no matter many times it’s repeated it’s still not true. Wilson claimed from the beginning that it was CIA officials that wanted him to go, He never said the VP asked him to go. What astounds me about this whole neo-con bogus claim is just how undeniably foolish it sounds. Why would Wilson’s wife arrange a trip to Africa for her husband? It makes no sense. Niger hardly qualifies as a choice vacation destination. He went without her so it certainly was no holiday for her. It’s so completely ridiculous it’s laughable.
As for Russert. The conventional wisdom supports Russert’s claims to be credible. Lee continues to make unsupported allegations about anything and everything.
bill, I knew that’s what you meant. I chose to answer as though you had said something more reasonable.
And I find it a bit hard to believe that you’re so hard up for affirmation that you have to come here in the hope that you’ll hear from one of the misfits on this blog. From what I can tell, the views you express are not that unusual or uncommon on the blogosphere.
And who used "faggot" nonchalantly? Coulter? Well, that should not surprise.
For my part, I’m interested in the word itself: Why do you think it came to be offensive, and "gay" did not?
I had thought maybe it was because it suggests "flaming" — a bundle of sticks used as a torch or kindling is a fagot, and a cigarette is a fag. But that seems like a stretch. The root probably lies elsewhere.
One site on the Internet suggests the following, which is actually a nasty variant on the assumption I had:
Now THAT, if it’s correct, would be good justification to be offended. But until just now, I didn’t know that. I wonder how many people do.
I like knowing the roots and histories of words, which makes me glad I took those two years of Latin. I think "fagot," as in a bundle of sticks, comes originally from the same place as "fasces."
But I realize that having intellectual curiosity about a thing is pretty alien to someone who has an emotional response to it. In order to increase my understanding, I try to think of terms that might produce such a response in me. Lord knows folks on this blog try and try to come up with them. Probably the closest they come is when they call me an ideologue, because they know that’s something I despise. But the only thing that bothers me about that is the obvious malice that lies behind it. The charge itself is so bogus it’s easy to slough off.
I’m Catholic, so they can call me a "mackerel-snapper" or a "papist," but so what? No emotional response. How about "Mick" or "donkey?" Nothing. Here’s a good one: Since my last name is Welsh, they could call me "Taffy." That sounds like it COULD be offensive, but to me it would just sound comical. Anyway, I’m allergic to taffy.
Oh, and I’ve been called a "breeder" before. OK. There’s a certain justice in it, I suppose.
But others might be offended by those things, so I’d rather folks on my blog not fling them at each other. You never know who might be hurt.
Anyway, I don’t want to offend anybody. But Ms. Coulter obviously does. Unfortunately, in my book, the very same people you say you come here to read fit into the same category as Ms. Coulter — they treat other people with contempt, and that’s not what this blog is for.
…And, I suppose that referring to posters as “misfits” or “creatures” or “gutless” or “two-year-olds” signifies respect and affection.
Whatever.
Before I forget, everyone listen up: Here’s a corollary to the rules of the blog…
If you sign your real name to your comments, you have explicit permission — nay, you are encouraged — to refer to those trolls who hide behind anonymity as "gutless, misfit two-year-old creatures."
Or as "trolls." Take your pick.
Brad, your code of “civility” is actually pretty bizarre.
Brad,
You’re an idealogue’s idealogue.
As they have said about GW Bush, “All hat, no cattle”
Hey, don’t give me so much credit. I can’t even wear the hat. When I lived in Wichita, I went to the world’s largest Western store and tried to buy a cowboy hat. None of them would fit — and they were all hard as a plaster-of-paris cast, so they couldn’t be "worked" into fitting.
One of the salesmen nodded sagely and said, "You have an English head." He had seen this sort of thing on dudes from the East before.
I don’t think he meant it as a compliment.
Let’s explore this “Brad is an Ideologue” debate a bit further. Brad, rather than fight the charge maybe you should embrace it. I’m not sure the label is a slander.
From Dictionary.com:
ideologue -noun
a person who zealously advocates an ideology.
Ok, so we need to find out what an ideology is:
ideology –noun
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. Philosophy.
a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
Definitions 1 and 2 probably done’t fit Brad. Those are the definitions he probably relates to when charging various politicians with that label.
Definition 3 clearly does not apply.
But number 4 should have one of Brads picture beside it. Brad’s entire reasoning for staying the course in Iraq, energy policy and support of public education is based on “theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.” So Brad why not just go with the flow and embrace the ideologue label with pride. You could be called worse.
Yeah, I could be told I have an English head. And me so happy to embrace my Celtic heritage all these years.
I can accept service on that last sense of the word, to some extent. I don’t accept that my views are impractical, but I know they seem so to many, so it’s not slanderous. Frequently, my colleague disagree with me strongly on the basis that I’m not bowing to current political reality and accepting something less than an ideal proposal.
We’re not talking about the difference between war and peace here. It’s more like this: The Legislature is determined to “reform” the Department of Transportation by fiddling with the governing board, rather than doing away with the board altogether. At least one of my colleagues believes that’s OK, IF (and this is a big if) the board members are all appointed by the governor, and can be dismissed by the governor at will.
The idea in accepting that position would be that lawmakers won’t let go of the commission concept, but they MIGHT, in a long shot, agree to let it be controlled by the executive branch.
I am very dismissive of that because there is NO good reason on God’s green Earth for a commission to exist, no matter who appoints it. By definition, it fragments accountability and effectiveness. By its very existence, it wastes money. Under anyone’s plan, commissioners would get per diem and expenses, if not staff. And they would serve no useful purpose, beyond providing lawmakers with multiple entry points for having undue influence on road priorities and policies — which is the problem to start with.
I’m not Bob Dole. It’s not my job to bob and weave and compromise to get something politically palatable to people who do not have the state’s best interests at heart. I’m an editorial page editor, and my job is to set out the best possible ideas that we can identify, so that people can discuss them in the political marketplace.
Besides, political viability is a very malleable thing. Something that is politically impossible one day is the most natural thing in the world the next. One day, Bush will never fire Rumsfeld. An election happens, and he’s gone. Things change. We need to have the best possible ideas on the table at all times. They may be impossible one day, and fully feasible the next. That’s true in politics, in war, in business, even in the weather.
So call me that kind of ideologue if you wish. I’ll still disagree, but I’ll have to give you some credit.
Doseph Wilson and Valerie Plame lied
Conventional ignorance accepts the story of Tim Russert, who claims he did not tell Libby about Valerie Plame because he did not know about her at the time.
This is disputed by the testimony of two of his journalists, and their emails and notes about telling Russert that they were hearing Wilson had cooked up the trip through his wife at the CIA, and then pin it on Cheney. This is contained in their depositions, which the prosecutor never pursued to learn their sources.
It is also a fact that Wilson lied in his NY Times article when he said that Saddam had not been seeking to buy uranium from Niger. Wilson’s report to his superiors at the State Department details the episodes which he learned about where Saddam had tried to buy uranium. This is all contained in the hearings of the 9/11 Commission.
Bud,
I would suggest that Brad clearly fits 1, 2 and 4.
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
Even though Brad doesn’t believe in individualism he nevertheless is an individual and falls under this definition. His ideology is very simple: Big Government good, people power bad.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
The plan is also very simple: always, always, always write and act in favor of making Big Government even bigger, and against the empowerment of individuals.
Number 4 is admitted by Brad himself so there’s no need to make a case there.
Overall, it’s undeniable that Brad is an extremist Big Government ideologue. Maybe that’s why he himself hasn’t been denying it anymore.
Here’s a great video of a powerful Democrat railing against the “idiot liberals” (his words).
Obey is obviously exasperated with “idiot liberals” who don’t accept his legislative method of how to end the war.
Say, Lexie, I wonder what Obey thinks of the people (like you and Brad) who want to not only continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely but increase the number of Americans sacrificing their lives.
Somehow I don’t think that he’s use such mild terminology.
I don’t care about Obey although he obviously cares about the spineless, defeatist likes of you.
I’m a retired soldier and parent of 2 lieutenants currently in training and most likely bound for Iraq within 6 months. IMO most people would rather have our soldiers fighting over there at a rate of casualties in 4 years equal to the casualties at Iwo Jima in just a couple of weeks, instead of another 9/11 here.
I’ve done my part and my kids are doing theirs. What have you ever done to defend the rights you love so much, other than bellyaching about the people who are defending your rights?
LexWolf,
Allow me to understand your point of view. Since you served in our country’s military and your children are currently serving in our country’s military, you own the debate?
Who paid your salary while you served? Who is paying your childrens’ salaries? Many serve our country by going to work each day, which supports our economy and in turn pays for our military.
Your service to our country is of no more or no less value than any other U. S. citizen’s. And your opinion is of no more or no less value than any other U. S. citizen’s either.
There does seem to be a very consistent pattern to Brad’s various views of the world. No disrespect Brad but you do have a heavy “government solution” bias to every problem:
Video Poker – Ban it
Education – Heavy support for Public Schools
Iraq – Military intervention
Health Care – Single payer system (Federal Government)
Now I agree with Brad on some of these and disagree with others but my philosophy is generally to pursue what works. With video poker since everyone can choose whether to play or not I say make it legal and keep the government out of it. With health care on the other hand, what we have is already heavily influence by the government but it is completely inefficient. I say let’s go all in.
Ok Brad, it’s up to you to prove that you’re not a big government ideologue. Come up with a major political issue where you would reduce government involvement from what it is now.
something fishy about Lex’s claim…
Lexie, why don’t you just come clean and admit that you only care about Obey because you saw a “gotcha chance.”
In fact, Obey has the same goals as the two anti-Iraq occupation people that he was arguing with.
His exasperation is with people who don’t recognize the political calculus that Obey has worked out.
Obey has consistently espoused positions that you disagree with. He’s obviously under a lot of stress. He’s got a lot of work to accomplish and people from his own side are lobbing grenades at him because he’s not on the same page with their tactics.
Give all three of them a magic wand and your Second Lieutenants wouldn’t be about to risk their lives for a futile adventure.
Of course, you don’t care about Obey. You just saw a chance at a cheap shot and took it.
You make a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t fight in Iraq or have another 9/11-event here.
If anything, invading (and now staying in) Iraq has increased the chances of another terrorist attack against the U.S.
I wish your Second Lieutenants the best of luck. It’s my position that would keep them and every other American safer than this endless quagmire.
If you think that’s “belly aching” then that’s just your mistake– not mine.
We’re still waiting for a plan to fight terrorists from the same head-in-the-sand Democrats who let Al Qaeda attack us at will from 1993 to 9/11.
I guess they don’t care if we have to fight them on American soil, because they don’t plan to fight.
Lex, I find it hypocritical that you are defensive and beligerent regarding the views of others on issues which hit close to home for you but you have no problem taking shots at others.
Using your logic, you can not comment on education because you haven’t done your part to improve our education system other than “belly aching” about the ones working to educate our youth.
I could also use your approach to dismiss out of hand your claims about “being an eminent, world reknowned” veteran.
You clearly don’t like it so think about that the next time you disparage others.
Lee, 9/11 happened on Dear Leader’s watch– not Clinton’s. The Beruit Barracks happened on St. Ronnie’s watch– and then St. Ronnie “cut and ran.” St. Ronnie also equipped Saddam with chemical weapon technology. George I opted not to eliminate Saddam and not to protect the Shia after he encouraged their uprising post-Gulf War.
I could go on but it would be pointless. You’re a delusional, rabid partisan. You wouldn’t admit that there’s plenty of blame (and hindsight-20/20 blame) to go around if Jesus Christ personally told you.
The Democrats are just as patriotic and willing to defend this country from terrorist threats as your precious Republicans. Your more perceptive fellow Republicans are quietly realizing that George W. Bush has lead us into a deadly international quagmire.
They’re just hoping that he doesn’t lead them over the electoral abyss, too.
“George I opted not to eliminate Saddam and not to protect the Shia after he encouraged their uprising post-Gulf War.”
That was one of the most shameful episodes in our history and it’s something for which I’ll never forgine Bush Sr. All he had to do was to keep Saddam from using his airforce and the Shiites probably would have overthrown Saddam right then. No need for years of sanctions and a war later on.
“The Democrats are just as patriotic and willing to defend this country from terrorist threats as your precious Republicans.”
Really? How? When? Where?
“George I opted not to eliminate Saddam and not to protect the Shia after he encouraged their uprising post-Gulf War.”
That was one of the most shameful episodes in our history and it’s something for which I’ll never forgine Bush Sr. All he had to do was to keep Saddam from using his airforce and the Shiites probably would have overthrown Saddam right then. No need for years of sanctions and a war later on. However, if Dukakis had been President, there wouldn’t have been any Gulf War at all and Saddam would have kept Kuwait. Thus there would have been no Shiite uprising at all and things would have been a whole lot worse yet. I shudder to think where we would be now.
“The Democrats are just as patriotic and willing to defend this country from terrorist threats as your precious Republicans.”
Really? How? When? Where?
Brad, please delete my 11:54:11 PM post. I really wish we had an edit function here.
if Dukakis had been President, there wouldn’t have been any Gulf War at all – Lex
Really? Link? Evidence?
Lexie, do I really have to remind you who the political party was trying to decapitate the American executive branch while terrorists attacked us in 1999.
Americans should be reminded repeatedly, daily, that until 9/11 happened the primary concern of Dear Leader’s security adviser was re-treading Reagan’s Star Wars boondoggle. This despite warnings from outgoing Clinton security people. This despite the NOW celebrated AQ attacks on the USS Cole, the African embassies, and WTC ’93.
Americans should be reminded that the Bush Administration task force on terrorism (led by Cheney) NEVER MET before 9/11.
Americans should be reminded that the Bush Administration downgraded the internal working groups dedicated to fighting terrorism and, specifically, AQ.
Americans should be reminded that Iraq and Saddam had no significant connection to AQ and NO connection to 9/11. Yet Bush made Iraq a “central front” in fighting terrorism– inadvertently giving AQ a cause celebre to recruit thousands of new anti-American terrorists.
President Clinton (and ALL the elected Republicans) may be faulted for not recognizing the building threat of AQ and dealing with it more forcefully. However, he did take actions against AQ (to the howls of “Wag the Dog” from the Republican peanut gallery) and prevented other terrist attacks.
More importantly, he didn’t lie the U.S. into invading a death trap in the Middle East– a quagmire which serves only our enemies’ interests.
But, never let it be forgotten that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch.
RTH, let us not forget the Project for the New American Century with a explicit goal of national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Signatories included: v. President Cheney, “Helluva Job” Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and “Scape Goat” Libby.
And: I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.
And the other center piece of the pre-911 W rein, No Funding Left Behind.
The 9/11 plot hatched on Clinton’s watch. His DOJ prosecutors interviewed Al Qaeda members face to face, were told it was going down, and ignored it.
They let the hijackers come in illegally, and make trips to Europe to pick up money from Iraq.
They ignored the discovery of the plots by Army Intelligence operation “Able Danger”.
Nine months, Lee.
NINE MONTHS.
Over 250 days.
George Bush, Condi Rice, George Tenet, Ashcroft et al had NINE MONTHS to prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Where were “Bush’s” DOJ prosecutors? Where was Darth Cheney and his task force? Why were they all caught flat-footed on 9/11?
Because the people at the top of the administration were criminally negligent. Rice was warned that she would be spending most of her on Al Qaeda by departing Clinton security officials and Richard Clarke, who remained.
What did she do? Exactly the opposite. She short circuited the working groups and demoted them so the couldn’t communicate with the rest of the cabinet-level officials.
Unlike your myopically stupid view, however, I don’t give the Clinton Administration a free pass from blame because of president’s party.
You can chatter, spin and drag red herrings to your heart’s content. It was George W. Bush and his administration who were responsible for our security on 9/11– and the NINE MONTHS previous.
A big mistake by W was keeping disloyal Rats in their jobs when he took over. Norman Mineta, head of DOT and airport security, let the whole country down. And Clarke, if he had any integrity, would have resigned and went public with all of his so called knowledge. Trouble is, he had none. Remember he is also the guy who allowed 150 members of the Bin Laden family to fly out of the country, while ALL flights were grounded, and without ever being questioned before leaving. History will record, and has recorded already, that the legacy of Billy Boy is weakness in the face of terrorism (Mogadishu) and providing poor protection for the citizens of this nation. That, along with his impeachment for lying tells it all.
Able-Danger, more fodder for the Grassy Knoll-alumuminum foil hat crowd.
On August 12, 2005, Hamilton and former 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean issued a statement in response to media inquiries about the Commission’s investigation of the Able Danger program. They stated the Commission had been aware of the Able Danger program, and requested and obtained information about it from the Department of Defense (DoD), but none of the information provided had indicated the program had identified Atta or other 9/11 hijackers. They further stated that a claim about Atta having been identified prior to the attacks had been made to the 9/11 Commission on July 12, 2004 (just days before the Commission’s report was released), by a United States Navy officer employed at DOD, but that
The interviewee had no documentary evidence and said he had only seen the document briefly some years earlier. He could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification. Nor could the interviewee recall, when questioned, any details about how he thought a link to Atta could have been made by this DOD program in 2000 or any time before 9/11. The Department of Defense documents had mentioned nothing about Atta, nor had anyone come forward between September 2001 and July 2004 with any similar information. Weighing this with the information about Atta’s actual activities, the negligible information available about Atta to other U.S. government agencies and the German government before 9/11, and the interviewer’s assessment of the interviewee’s knowledge and credibility, the Commission staff concluded that the officer’s account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation.[11]
Just to pick one of your conglomeration of slime and spin, Dave.
No one knew AQ was behind Mogadishu or the USS Cole attack until long after Bush took over.
OK, I can’t resist. As a blind Bush partisan, you’re treading on pretty shaky ground after the Libby trial. Clinton lied about an affair. Libby lied (and was convicted for) obstructing justice in an investigation of outing a CIA operative.
IOW, Libby deliberately prevented the prosecution or impeachment of SOMEONE in the Bush inner circle who sacrificed national security for political retribution.
Equating lying about a BJ and lying to cover-up your boss’ damaging national security says all that needs to be said about you.
Hurl, you are lying again.
Bin Laden was named in the Cole bombing soon after it occurred, as well as the embassy bombings. Bin Laden put out a tape bragging about how Clinton’s withdrawal after Mogadishu helped recruit more terrorists for Al Qaeda.
Bin Laden was indicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but the Clinton regime refused to arrest or kill him.
Clinton and Reno muffed up so many terrorist acts that they didn’t want a public trial to expose their incompetence, from Waco, to the 1993 WTC, OKC bombing, Manila highjacking, embassies, Indonesia, Malaysia, and TWA 800.
As Dave said, GW Bush made a big mistake keeping on Clinton appointees who were not only incompetent, but covering up their past mistakes and for each other.
That’s why they let the 9/11 bombers wander around undisturbed, dispite being told by other conconspirators in custody of the plots.
Hurl, I hate to disappoint you but I have several criticisms of W that would exclude me from being a blind partisan. He made immigration reform a low priority until the last year, very bad strategy. The Minutemen were in no way vigilantes, horrible statement from W. He also should have vetoed the CFR bill and vetoed several of the porkchops, like the Transportation and Highways bill early in his first term. He also calls Islam the Religion of Peace and it really is a Religion of Violence with a minority of peaceful followers. Actually its not truly a religion, but a political gang of thugs. Is that enough to lose the partisan label?
If I were a blind partisan I would like Hagel, specter, and a few other RINOS. But I dont.
All things considered, what the Dems are doing in Congress with their vacillation of support the war, dont support the war, fund it, dont fund it, is an American disgrace given to us by disgraceful Americans in Congress.
The Democrats in Congress are painting a roadmap for Al Qaeda to defeat the West.
They are also showing their cowardly and treasonous side in time for the voters to wise up before 2008.
Lee, do you really, really, really believe the Democrats in Congress are treasonous cowards? If so, why did so many of them serve in the military? As much as I despise George W. Bush and his failed presidency I don’t believe him to be a treasonous coward. He’s just a very lousy president.
Benedict Arnold served with valor prior to becoming a traitor.
Not that many Democrats actually served. Some of them talk a lot about a very short service, like Kerry, which ended in dishonor.
Democrats voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2002. They just hate Bush, and if it takes America losing lives and losing the war to win the White House, the Democrats put that ahead of the country. That’s treason.
Lee, since you’ so confident that I’m lying then I’m sure that you have bulletproof evidence from impartial sources to back such statements as
Put up or shut up.
Lee has made it official. He thinks the dems are traitors. So this is not about disagreements on policy. Rather, to those on the far right the real enemy are the majority of the American people. The majority who voted for democrats in the last election.
Not all Dems are traitors, just the ones who put their party ahead of America, slander our troops, and defend our enemies.
Today’s DNC attack on America is the defense of Kahlid Mohammed and criticisms of his imagined prison conditions, even though UN and Red Cross inspectors said Guantanamo was better than most European prisons.
Where’s your proof, Lee?
Lee says:
**
Not all Dems are traitors, just the ones who put their party ahead of America, slander our troops, and defend our enemies.
**
Couldn’t you say that about anyone? For example:
Not all Republicans are traitors, just the ones who put their party ahead of America, and defend our enemies.
or
Not all Catholics are traitors, …..
Not all white people are traitors, …..
Not all Ford owners are traitors, …..
Not all people with blue eyes are traitors, ….
This is a silly non-sequetor and a direct contradiction of Lee’s earlier statements.
From Lee earlier:
***
The Democrats in Congress are painting a roadmap for Al Qaeda to defeat the West.
They are also showing their cowardly and treasonous side in time for the voters to wise up before 2008.
***
You don’t think the Pelosi timetable for troop withdrawal is a roadmap for the Islamic terrorists to wait us out and defeat our mission in Iraq?
Tell us why not.
June 8, 1998 Indictment of Bin Laden for the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996, issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden with “conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States.” Prosecutors charge that bin Laden heads a terrorist organization called al Qaeda, the base, and was a major financier of Islamic terrorists around the world.
“Al Qaeda opposed the United States for several reasons. First the United States was regarded as an “infidel” because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group’s extremist interpretation of Islam. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other “infidel” governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group.” –
From the indictment issued by the Office of U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York, October 1998.
The facts make Randy and the other bluffers disappear…again.
Ah, memory lane.
Yes, you are correct on fact that Bin Laden was indicted. I did not recall that fact.
You are, at best, incomplete that “[…] the Clinton regime refused to arrest or kill him.”
You wingers have an interesting myopia. Clinton made a judgement call on blowing up a royal hunting party from one of the few gulf states that helps us in the Middle East on the possibility that Bin Laden was in the camp. It’s instructive to remember that CIA intel had been mistaken about cruise missile targets after the embassy bombings.
Richard Clarke labels as false the self-serving story circulated by Sudan that they offered Bin Laden to the U.S. So the “refusal to arrest” allegation requires some further substantiation. But wingers would rather believe a genocidal, Islamist dictator if he ‘s critical of Clinton.
You give a total pass to Cheney’s task force on terrorism not meeting before 9/11, eight full months into the administration.
You never mention that the Bush Administration took NO action on the Cole bombing which just six weeks before Bush’s inauguration. Condi Rice admitted in Senate testimony that Bush decided not to strike back at Al Qaeda for the Cole bombing.
One source told the 9/11 Commission that Bin Laden was frustrated with Bush’s lack of response and decided to that he had to make a larger strike to provoke a response.
So, just maybe, if Bush had carried on Clinton’s focus and actions against Al Qaeda things might have turned out diffently on 9/11/2001.
I haven’t been up to anything. My mind is like an empty room, but such is life. Maybe tomorrow. Today was a loss, but eh.
I can’t be bothered with anything these days. I guess it doesn’t bother me. What can I say?
Metal Detectors In Schools Violate Students’ Rights – Or vary with different security methods and you have another persuasive speech topic