"We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."
Has anyone told Bush, who said the above, that twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis, and that the above statement--while catering to the "Keep Americans scared" rhetoric--makes no practical sense?
Nevertheless, it will not surprise me if a major troop pullout is announced prior to November of 2004, probably no later than summer of that year, particularly if no WMDs continue to materialize.
Why? Because as the economy continues to decline and we look at a job loss percentage rate matching that of the Great Depression, the One Man War zone is going to become a greater and greater political liability. It gives the Democrats something they can latch on to and pound at. The message they will put forward is simple: The average American faces more danger from the Bush Administration than terrorists. Between unemployment, the downturn in the economy, the cutting of various programs, and the lowering of pollution standards, Americans have far more to worry about here than in foreign countries where billions are being poured in that could be helping us. And how is the current Administration dealing with it? By watching young Americans die for an indefinite period of time. Heck, if the Democrats raise the spectre of reviving the draft in a credible manner, Bush will be in even bigger trouble.
How to avoid it? Bush the "compassionate conservative," actually hauls out the compassionate side which has been MIA since...well...election day, really. "I feel your pain, America. I hear the cries of American fathers and mothers. So I am announcing today a progressive troop withdrawl, with all our boys back home by Christmas."
Understand, he doesn't have to DO it. He just has to announce it. That will defuse a good chunk of the Democrat threat and more or less ensure re-election.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 8, 2003 11:26 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI don't think you're wrong, Peter. A pull-out in early to mid-summer 2004 would be wise for many, many reasons. Not only would it be good for election time, but it would mean we could say, "Hey, we were there for 15 months, and despite all of the UN's talks, they weren't interested in taking over." Or, best case, "We were there only as long as we needed to be, it's disappointing that the UN took so long to take over."
I'm not buying the Dean rhetoric that we should pull out of Iraq now and spend that money on Universal Healthcare, but I am a firm believer of not throwing good money after bad. We need to be working now on an exit strategy by July 2004. If we don't, then our "strategists" don't deserve the name.
Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
They no longer have to. There's plenty of Americans to do it for them.
PAD
Depends. It is common sense. All he has to do is "say" it, and if people believe him, he has the election.
Unfortunately.
I don't buy Dean's rhetoric any more than I buy Dubya's. Whom I do like is John Edwards (notice the 's'... not the talking with dead guy).
That's a sidenote anyway.
Dubya could do a lot of things to pull out this election. And I have a list of them, which I may post to my non-used weblog. But, he'd have to use some common sense. More importantly, his advisors should have common sense.
I used to think he was stupid. Now I think he's much more clever than I gave him credit. Doesn't mean I like him that much.
Travis
"Has *anyone* told Bush, who said the above, that twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis, and that the above statement--while catering to the "Keep Americans scared" thetoric--makes no practical sense?"
Ummm....are you saying we shouldn't be going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan because he's a Saudi? I don't get it--you go where the bad guys are. Whether you agree with it or not, Bush said quite a while ago that he saw no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that supported them so this policy is exactly what was promised.
I mean, where SHOULD we be going to fight Bin Laden's boys, if not the country they are in?
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq. I suspect many are heading to the area to take on "The Great Satan" one on one. Which is, of course, really, really dumb of them but good for us since the Americans currently there have a pretty good record of being able to shoot back.
Sorry... wrong url. I did say it was a non-used blog.
Travis
The worst thing in the world would be to pull out of Iraq before the new government there is in place. It would become the new "vietnam" that everyone said would happen when the conflict started. Our exit stategy is simple: "We will leave when we know they can control their own country without any outside help or influence." Conservatism at it's best.
What's our other choice? Run away and say it's too much to handle? I don't think so. We did that before in Mogadishu(sp?) and because of that and other factors we were attacked on 9-11 because they thought we were weak. Well they keep hitting us and we're still, and we will stay there until we get the job done.
The democrats tried the draft thing -- it didn't work then, it won't work agin.
They tried enron -- didn't work either.
Everything they've tried has not stuck.
The economy isn't going down, it's going up. Watch the stock market. Read the actual reports from the labor department that states 175k new jobs were added in Aug., not this other report that the news organizations are using saying 93k jobs were lost. It's been known for years that the job #s are the last to change as the economy improves. If the job loss rate is so bad compared to 9 years ago, why aren't we looking back at the #s from 10-11 years ago. Has anyone really looked at the jobless rate from say, 85 to present, month by month?
The cutting of various programs only means good things for Americans. The last thing we need is for the government to take care of us from cradle to the grave -- we're already taxed during that span, people are not screaming and shouting for a government healthcare or prescription drug program. It's bad enough their cost estimates for the programs are so far off it's frightening, to actually implement it would cause this nation to go only further to hell.
It's not enough that only some government programs are cut, we need to remove multiple programs and get people off the dependency of government. Set up time limitations for being on welfare & unemployment (as individual programs -- more than 18 months is just too damn long.) Cut or remove the dept. of Education entirely. (my god every year it's the same thing "we need more money" and yet every year we see proof that nothing has improved from the previous year. Either cut the dept. by the amount of money it loses, or wipe it out entirely.)
The hijackers were also not medal-of-honor war heroes, 2 year old children, or people in wheelchairs. If we started going after the profile of people that caused the attack against us, we would make a lot more progress.
Watch -- come either end of this year or next sept. - oct. : proof that saddam had wmd will be out; the stock market will be back to if not above 10,500 and the nasdaq will be above 2500; jobless rate will be around 5% if not lower, and people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country when things are good.
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq. I suspect many are heading to the area to take on "The Great Satan" one on one. Which is, of course, really, really dumb of them but good for us since the Americans currently there have a pretty good record of being able to shoot back.
So, our soldiers now are just bait so that we can lure Al Qaeda together into one country and have a shoot out with them? This is all just the master plan to draw bin Laden out of hiding? Wow. I thought we invaded because Saddam had WMD. Now I know better.
Can we stop pretending that Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake had anything to do with 9/11?
Look, we took Saddam out of power. Yaaaay! He was an evil man, okay, and the world is better off without him. Now, stop trying to win a peeing contest with the French and Germans and get an international coalition together that will help the Iraqis build a new constitution so that we can stop having our soldiers in a shooting gallery.
They no longer have to. There's plenty of Americans to do it for them.
True, but if you don't keep nudging the herd along, the cattle will start to think that they can walk in any direction they want.
Watch -- come either end of this year or next sept. - oct. : proof that saddam had wmd will be out; the stock market will be back to if not above 10,500 and the nasdaq will be above 2500; jobless rate will be around 5% if not lower, and people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country when things are good.
There's a fallacy in the mindset of this country that a high DJ means good economy. Not true. When the majority of Americans (over 80%) have zero percent of their savings in stocks (including 401ks, etc.) that means nothing. All it means is that those who have, have more.
5% of unemployment? All that means is that the majority of people will be working two jobs to make ends meet. Maybe the ends will meet.
And to think that people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country... well, that's probably true. They won't have to speak negatively about the country. All they will have to do is state facts about this administration. That should be enough.
And if you think all of that will happen by sept-oct 2004.... well, good luck. Hope the economy does improve. But not likely. What needs to be done is increase the spending power of the bottom twenty to forty percent. When they spend more money, the economy will increase. But as GW has proven, he doesn't care about them. Because if you make sure the people who don't have to spend money have extra money, then the economy will be spurred, correct?
Don't think so.
Travis
Set up time limitations for being on welfare & unemployment
Didn't we already do that in the last administration?
And to think that people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country... well, that's probably true. They won't have to speak negatively about the country. All they will have to do is state facts about this administration. That should be enough.
Well, someone still has to explain to me how criticizing the policies of the current administration suddenly became hating America. I still cling to the delusion that it's every American's fundamental right to disagree with their leaders and express their opinion.
I'd file this prediction in the circular file along with PAD's prediction that we were going to "slaughter" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the shock and awe phase of the war...
Didn't we already do that in the last administration?
Um. Yeah. You know. The liberal that everyone hated.
Funny though, no one has put a stop to corporate welfare yet.
Travis
So, our soldiers now are just bait so that we can lure Al Qaeda together into one country and have a shoot out with them? This is all just the master plan to draw bin Laden out of hiding? Wow. I thought we invaded because Saddam had WMD. Now I know better.
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don't have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
Can we stop pretending that Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake had anything to do with 9/11?
But if GHW Bush HAD gone into Iraq and trashed Saddam, it would have gone against the UN resolution. You remember the UN? The ones that voted FOR the current conflict, then changed their mind when they finally realized that the US was going to make them live up to their word about Saddam and his WMD's? You remember, the ones he claimed to have (and used).
Look, we took Saddam out of power. Yaaaay! He was an evil man, okay, and the world is better off without him. Now, stop trying to win a peeing contest with the French and Germans and get an international coalition together that will help the Iraqis build a new constitution so that we can stop having our soldiers in a shooting gallery.
Oh yes, the wonderful French and German governments. The same ones that are already saying they won't participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. But I'll bet they'll want to send businesses over there once the hard work is done. The French and Germans already lost the peeing contest by wetting themselves before getting it out of their pants.
I couldn't watch the address, myself. Just hearing the announcement that "Dubya" would be speaking to make another attempt to justify the Iraq situation was enough to get my blood boiling. Having to hear him do it would probably have made me go off the deep end.
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq.
Key words: "Right now." Key because it would appear that they weren't there until the US stuck our nose in.
The economy isn't going down, it's going up. Watch the stock market. Read the actual reports from the labor department that states 175k new jobs were added in Aug., not this other report that the news organizations are using saying 93k jobs were lost.
Would you mind pointing my wife, stepfather, mother-in-law, and best friend in the direction of some of those alleged 175k? Because those of us with close family who have been out of work for extended periods (15 months, 18 months, 7 months and 3 months respectively) are having trouble finding them.
Meanwhile, let's assume, for discussion's sake, that the addition of jobs cited above is accurate...that's not mutually exclusive with the loss of jobs also cited. If we accept both as accurate, that calculates out to 82k jobs (175k added minus 93k cut). What's the unemployment rate, though...not a percentage, but a similar number to the examples of jobs added/cut? Still doesn't mean there's enough to go around. Unfortunately for those searching for jobs, with so many applicants out there, employers have a greater ability to cast a narrower net than before, as it is more likely that someone who fits a more specific set of criteria is trying to re-enter the workforce. For instance, positions that once did not list a degree - whether related to the work being done or not - as a requirement now do; actual life/work experience counts for less than it used to. The best friend mentioned above would not be able to re-apply for the job he was laid off from...he was/is qualified for the job, has about 10 years practical experience performing the job, and received favorable performance reviews in doing the job. However, his now-former employer, in looking to re-fill some of those positions currently, now requires an applicant for that position to have a degree...//any// degree, related to the job or not.
This concludes my "unpatriotic, un-American, traitorous" post.
I think that we cannot pull out now no matter what. We're in too deep. We leave now, and chaos beyond the worst definition of the word blossoms. We leave now, and we look like cowards to enemies who do not see discretion as the better part of valor. We leave now, and we are abandoning our responsibility to those who lives we turned upside down by going there in the first place.
We, we need a strategy, and allies and a better way. But even with the UN or the Arab League (which isn't gonna happen, but shouldn't they be there, helping their fellow Arabs?) or the JLA as part of the plan, the US is stuck.
And all the "I told you so" in the world can't stop that. (And I am among that crowd.)
That said, I squarely lay the blame for the state of things in Iraq on an administration that did not see this coming, when so many intelligent people did. I think everyone I knew expected that the war part of the War would be easy, the peace difficult. But someone in Washington was deluded.
sigh
speaking as a gen-X member, I have to give George Bush credit.
He has inspired me to do something which no other president before (at least in my lifetime) could have:
vote.
luke wrote:
speaking as a gen-X member, I have to give George Bush credit.
He has inspired me to do something which no other president before (at least in my lifetime) could have:
vote.
Ditto. I'm 29 and I'll be voting for the first time in this next election.
While, admittedly, a lot of things can happen between now and next year, I'm thinking unless George W. manages to cure AIDS and guarantee every American family their own functioning spaceship, his "re"-election hopes look pretty dim.
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don't have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
And picking off our soldiers one at a time. Excuse me for not considering American soldiers as cannon fodder.
Oh yes, the wonderful French and German governments. The same ones that are already saying they won't participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. But I'll bet they'll want to send businesses over there once the hard work is done. The French and Germans already lost the peeing contest by wetting themselves before getting it out of their pants.
Obviously, the peeing contest still goes on. Enjoy your freedom fries. Jeez, is this all there is to debating now? Snide comments about how they let us down?
Look, the fact remains it is in the who world's interest to promote stability in Iraq right now, but it's our soldiers that are the ones in harm's way. I know, I know, "bring it on!"
Whatever.
We can't build a new ruling coalition in Iraq by ourselves, not and expect it to be seen as anything other than a puppet regime (whether that is true or not is not the point, perception =reality). We need an international coalition to help us rebuild it and all the cowboy strutting in the world isn't going to change that.
The thing about the economy that many conservatives fail to see or don't care to see is that you build a strong economy from the bottom up. The bottom is the poor and unemployed. When people have jobs and the poor have money they tend to spend it. All of it. They don't have enough to save any or aren't frugal enough to do so either. When they have money, it spreads to the middle classes whcuh then spreads to the upper classes. When the rich are pushing programs to give them greater sums of cash and tax cuts, they are generally taking money away from the poor causing them to have to cut back on spending because they don't have money for luxury items. Then when they decide to lay people off because the consumer isn't spending as much because they took they programs that were helping them, they lay employees off making a greater base of unemployed people who don't have any money to spend, making the economy worse. I'm not just talking about unemployment or welfare either. If the government cuts back on education like grants, money for books in schools, cheaper lunches for the kids, the lower classes have to spend that money there and they don't have enough to go around to pay all of their bills because the cost of living is too great for them to survive efficiently. I know some people are taking advantage of the system when they don't need it, but most are not. But, by the same token, do you truly think the wealthy aren't going to take advantage of a tax cut or business program designed to help a struggling business even if they don't need it themselves? Of course they do. No one at the top is going to say that they won't take advantage of a loophole designed to help the economy or struggling business because they don't need it. If they don't need the programs to thrive, they shouldn't take advantage of them by the same principle that people shouldn't be on welfare when they are capable of working and can find a job.
In my opinion, if you are opposed to programs designed to help the less fortunate, you should be opposed to handouts to corporations as well. You should support the blocking of any programs to help anyone, rich or poor. You should support a straight up percentage of earnings tax. Everybody pays 10% of their income, no exceptions, no breaks, no special circumstances, no loopholes, the only advantage or disadvantage given to you is what you are born into. That would be fair. Cold hearted to those less fortunate than the rich and struggling businesses, but logically fair to everyone.
"We can't build a new ruling coalition in Iraq by ourselves, not and expect it to be seen as anything other than a puppet regime (whether that is true or not is not the point, perception =reality). We need an international coalition to help us rebuild it and all the cowboy strutting in the world isn't going to change that."
I agree wholeheartedly. We can debate about whether our troops were sen to Iraq for humanitarian reasons or whether they were sent to take over another country to add to our empire, but the important thing is that world and the people of Iraq seem to believe we are there to take over and rule them. Unless we can find a way to alter that perception, we will not be seen by the world as anything but invaders and conquerors which means that someone other than the US or Iraq needs to step in an negotiate the new governement for us to be able to pull out and not leave an unstable country. This third party may not be impartial, but they need to be perceived as impartial.
I don't see The US being able to change its world perception at the moment because of two things, the Bush adminstration has lied about too many things in this war and we have too much of a "If you don't like it, tough" attitude for people to perceive us as cooperative.
my words
"Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq."
your reply
"Key words: "Right now." Key because it would appear that they weren't there until the US stuck our nose in.
If you are suggesting that Bush has succesfully lured terrorists into a situation where we can easily hunt them down and kill them...you are giving him way more credit for tactical brilliance than most would. But he doubtlessly thanks you, none the less.
The thing about the economy that many conservatives fail to see or don't care to see is that you build a strong economy from the bottom up. The bottom is the poor and unemployed. When people have jobs and the poor have money they tend to spend it.
Exactly. For instance, let's look at that recent "child care credit." Especially with my wife out of work since last June, we were glad to have the money (although, since it's really a PR-driven "advance" on next year's taxes that isn't clearly presented as such, I'd have ultimately preferred they give it to us at that time). However, with the economy as bad as it is, it was spent on trying to relieve some of the debt we've racked up living paycheck-to-just-short-of-paycheck. And, I'm sure we're not the only ones who did so.
Of course, "Dubya's" administration will proudly show off those checks as proof that they're trying to "do something about the economy."
The saddest part of it all, though, is that anyone who looked at "Dubya's" history should have seen something like this coming. I did...so did many others (naturally, not his supporters...at least that his supporters would admit). Plain and simple, when someone who ran not one, not two, but three businesses into bankruptcy claims to have solutions to a poor economy, he's full of it. If he weren't, those three businesses would be thriving.
Ah, who knows...maybe his ultimate solution would be to do like he did with the Texas Rangers...build a new facility for the government, then sell it off to the highest bidder. Just like with the Rangers, "Dubya" would be sitting pretty. Even if the team's still mismanaged.
If you are suggesting that Bush has succesfully lured terrorists into a situation where we can easily hunt them down and kill them...you are giving him way more credit for tactical brilliance than most would. But he doubtlessly thanks you, none the less.
Nope. I was suggesting that, as usual, he's back-pedalling on the Iraq issue, pointing at the terrorists who have shown up to take potshots at US forces //after// the US arrived, saying, "See...toldja there were terrorists there."
I also would like to know where all those jobs are. I do know that if you look at a break down of the jobs being created most are in the service industries (McDonalds/Walmart) which are low paying jobs with little to no advancement. Many of these are part time jobs (under 35 hours). Those jobs are fine if you are not trying to raise a family and someone else is paying for your health care. Also remember that jobless rates are based on the number of people seeking work according to the unemployment roles. What about all those who have dropped out of the statistics because they can no longer apply for unemployment and they can't find a job that pays a living wage? I can't tell you how many people I know whom have two jobs just to make 1/2 of what they previous earned with one.
I joined the ranks of the unemployed back in May and I have been actively looking for work in my field(s) ever since. Since then my resume has mostly been used to prove that the company is not violating any rules about discrimination and the person they are moving/promoting with in the company is as qualified as those seeking the same employment are.
I have an MFA from the Yale School of Drama, over 20 years experience as a stage manager and puppeteer, a good number of years as the manager of both book stores and comic book shops, and a career as a book editor. I have a skill set that would be fantastic to the right company, but no one is hiring indeed they are laying off which increases the number of people going for the same jobs I am. I am one of the lucky ones that can freelance as an editor and have been doing so, but even there the well is getting very dry due to the number of other people dipping into it.
Sorry to hear about that, Kath. My wife is indeed one of those who have fallen off of the statistics as her unemployment claim has come to an end.
It becomes an even bigger problem when - take us for example - I make just enough for us to be disqualified for any other kinds of assistance (low-cost housing, etc.), but not enough to meet all of our monthly commitments (let alone luxury items).
Best of luck with your search.
Concerning the "peeing" contest with Germans and French: People here seem to forget some important facts. First, the USA invaded Iraq on its own (with some help from the British) without a UN resolution. At that time they were confident enough to do the job on their own and finish matters quickly.
Well, it didn`t work that way. It is always easier to destroy than to rebuild and unfortunately I have to say, what is happening now is no surprise, not to me.
People were ill prepared and serious mistakes had been made. The result is a mess. The USA waited long and tried more or less unsuccessfully to doctor the symptoms. Now that elections are coming closer and costs are mounting, in the form of money and lives, NOW they want the UN to help and are looking in the direction of Germany and France. BUT they are not prepared to lose any bit of control. In essence they want other countries to send people to clean up the mess there under the command of the USA.
I am not surprised that many non-Americans are not in a hurry to do so, to put it mildly.
It's not only a matter of the administration not wanting to lose control, it's a matterof the administration not wanting to lose face...refusing to admit even the slightest bit of irresponsibility. The manner in which the administration is attempting to enlist the aid of the UN is part of the problem, too. On a recent //Real Time with Bill Maher// a senator (whose name escapes me at the moment) stated that he'd spoken with UN reps (including, as I recall, the Secretary General), and asked what it would take for them to get involved. Their response? Simple: "Ask for help. Don't challenge us to help, as has been happening."
I'm 30 years old and up until this year, I was not a registered voter. This President has done at least one good thing in showing me the need to vote.
"Nope. I was suggesting that, as usual, he's back-pedalling on the Iraq issue, pointing at the terrorists who have shown up to take potshots at US forces //after// the US arrived, saying, "See...toldja there were terrorists there." "
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage (as opposed to, say, New York City where you could swing a dead cat and successfully put scores in the hospital (or morgue if you swing really hard))
The problem, of course, id that even the terrorists can't be so stupid as to keep throwing good martyrs after bad. No US troops have been killed in a week which makes me wonder if they are getting the message.
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage (as opposed to, say, New York City where you could swing a dead cat and successfully put scores in the hospital (or morgue if you swing really hard))
Considering that 85 died in the UN Compound attack, scores are managing to be put in the hospital and the morgue...of course, they aren't American scores...and that saboteurs just attacked a pipeline and I quote "In the only reported attack on U.S. forces Monday, Iraqi guerrillas bombed an American patrol as soldiers were driving out of a tunnel in the center of Baghdad, the military said. The attack wounded two soldiers, damaged two Humvees, one of which turned over and caught fire. " So they're still attacking us, they just didn't manage to kill anyone yesterday.
They're getting a message, all right. But I doubt it's one we want to be sending.
I'm of the mind that this new angle of "We are using Iraq as ground zero for the war on terror to keep the attacks off of US soil" to be just another bit of spin control by an administration that has lied to this country and the world for years.
And can anyone explain why this administration is so hellbent on retaining total control of Iraq? Why not let the UN have an equal role in the rebuilding process? At the very least it would allow other counties to chip in on the 89 billion dollar tab that Bush is planning on runnig up.
And if this economy is rebounding I don't see it. I was unemployed for a 18 months. I spent at least half of that time without any unemployment benefits. Now I'm working again but I'm currently holding down two jobs and am still barely creeping anywhere near what I was making before I was layed off. Whats funny is that I feel lucky to be working these two crappy jobs because I remember how long it took me to find them and also because I have friends and family who still haven't found anything.
This would be the UN compound that rejected US offers of more security and declined to take recommended precautions against an attack just like the one made against it?
Balder: The last thing we need is for the government to take care of us from cradle to the grave.
Yeah, phew, thank God for getting that concern off my shoulders. Now that I don't have to worry about the risk that I might actually live a comfortable, relatively worry-free life, I can go back to spending my time on figuring out whether it's better to have basic utilities or health insurance for my wife.
Oh, Bush will most definitely be doing an Electric Slide to the center. He started it last night when he begged the UN to come clean up the mess his administration made. There was even an apology hidden beneath the self-righteous rhetoric.
He was trying the humility trick that was honed by Reagan and Clinton. I even saw him do that trademark Clinton face, where the bottom lip goes up into the top one. He feels our pain.
The neocons have got themselves into a serious mess. What I hate is the CMA garbage. Bush asks the UN to come help clean up the mess but doesn't want to cede any control. Then they make Powell go on television and say the military "underestimated" the level of chaos that would ensue once the Baathists were out.
Except that was all Rumsfeld, not Powell. And it's a travesty that Powell has to take the heat for that smug old bastard. But they know Rumsfeld's credibility will be forever scarred, whereas the UN will always work with Powell, since he's the only member of the administration who isn't blinded by ideology.
One last thing...I was truly bothered by Bush's claim in his speech that "we have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength — they are invited by the perception of weakness." This logic seems flawed to me. The 9/11 attack occurred because we seemed weak? A terrorist act - attacking innocents - is something you do to a foe that seems too strong. A weak foe you face head-on (and pummel the crap out of him, if you're so inclined). A strong foe you play dirty with, so to speak. Terrorist acts are "unconventional warfare."
I have a few friends who believe this line of reasoning - that al-Qaeda and other militants will be deterred from further attacks after seeing what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. But these are suicide attackers. Why would they be deterred by a show of force? I'd think it would just make them more desperate, and therefore apt to attack.
(I should note, I won an argument on this issue with a friend when I pointed out that he was opposed to the death penalty because he doesn't believe it's a deterrent. He was forced to cede the point.)
I'm not saying I think we shouldn't fight terrorism - of course we must. What the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan may help prevent terrorism in a practical way - by breaking up terrorist networks and killing a few hundred terrorists. But deter suicidal terrorists? That's illogical.
What the US needs to focus on now is rebuilding Iraq from the ruins. Quite frankly, the kind of minds suited to this sort of endeavour just aren't on the right side of the aisle. In theory, conservatives are ideologically opposed to nation-building. But Bush has to play-act the role in order to get re-elected.
Its kind of funny that some of the poeple complaining don't vote.
Actually it kind of pisses me off. Voting is your right and people just throw it away like trash. It takes a total of 5 minutes of your life, places of work HAVE to, by law, give you time to go and vote, there is no excuse not to do it. It just amazes me that people don't care enough to do so. Yet when the going gets rough, or something that does not benefit them occurs, they blame the guys they didnt have a part in electing.
Aaaah America!!
^^^
At least a lot of them are realizing how important the right to vote really is and are going to do something about it
And I hope that all of you who are saying that you're going to register and vote really do it.
My dad is voting in '04 for the first time since '68, and I have never been more proud of him.
It sadens me that Bush has any support at all. The man has all the common sense of a ferret. He psuhes his views of things, but he really doesn't do much to back it up at all.
Sometimes, I suspect that whenever he sees a Power Rangers episode, he calls the National Guard and reports another giant monster attack in California.
"A terrorist act - attacking innocents - is something you do to a foe that seems too strong. A weak foe you face head-on (and pummel the crap out of him, if you're so inclined). A strong foe you play dirty with, so to speak. Terrorist acts are "unconventional warfare.""
I have to disagree, in part. Al Qaeda has never been in any position to take anyone on head to head. Even at their strongest they were a small force. terrorism is their only gameplan, all they have.
I have to also think that if Bin Laden could have seen the results of his "victory"--the loss of the most Orthodox Islamic government and the loss of the most powerful Islamic army he would have been crazy (er)to go ahead with it. What has he gained? The USA is stronger than ever and he no longer has any government willing to openly support and train his people.
I suspect he expected another Black Hawk Down--wound us and we run. The Japanese made the same mistake. One question I would ask--if they targeted us because we were so strong why have they stopped? 2 years and nothing. It's not like it's hard to come up with about 12,000 scenarios where a suicide terrorist could inflict horrific slaughter in this country. It doesn't require any fancy hijacking or exotic bio weapons. Why have they hesitated?
Thats faulty reasoning. Its not like Bin Laden blew up the Statue of Liberty in 2000 and The Washington Monument in 1999. The terrorists aren't working on a schedule.
One question I would ask--if they targeted us because we were so strong why have they stopped? 2 years and nothing. It's not like it's hard to come up with about 12,000 scenarios where a suicide terrorist could inflict horrific slaughter in this country. It doesn't require any fancy hijacking or exotic bio weapons. Why have they hesitated?
If you look at Al Qaeda's history, their normal pattern is: Big strike, lie low for a few years, bigger strike, lie low for a few years. They bombed the Khaiber (sp) Towers, then disappeared for a while. Then, they bombed the Cole and disappeared for a while. Next, 9/11 and and year and half in hiding until they bombed that club in Australia. They're laying low, regrouping and planning for their next big strike. Anyone who thinks taking a chaotic country like Afghanistan and making it an even more chaotic country has put them on the run is terribly naive.
They will strike and again and everyone will wonder why we spent so much money attacking a third party instead of tightening the security at our ports.
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage
Yes, coming to kill Americans in a country where they know the language and the Americans don't, where they have millions of sympathetic Baathist supporters willing to help hide them and where they can easily blend in the population.
Boy, am I glad we have all the advantages there! /sarcasm.
Next, 9/11 and and year and half in hiding until they bombed that club in Australia.
The fact that the scope of their operations went from four coordinated attacks (only three of which hit their targets, of course) on major financial and government centers 9/11 to blowing up a nightclub, however, suggests that their capacity to strike is not what it once was.
Now you've gone and insulted ferrets everywhere, Aaron.
**Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
They no longer have to. There's plenty of Americans to do it for them.**
If you can dissent against the adminstration, other people can dissent against you. I don't call your views unpatriotic, just ill-informed.
I'd file this prediction in the circular file along with PAD's prediction that we were going to "slaughter" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the shock and awe phase of the war...
Interesting that we never kept numbers on Iraqi civilian deaths, even to this day.
If you wanna know where the jobs went, they went overseas. I recently saw a television segment where it showed an entire school in India that taught Indians to "speak american" where they would take "call-center names" such as "Joe" and "Ellen" and would take customer service calls. Next time you call your phone company ask them where they're phone center is. They'll tell you they can't say for security but chances are they are in India because they can be paid 60 cents a day there.
Or maybe the jobs are in Iraq, if the people are working for Kellogg,Brown & Root.
Maybe the jobs are in Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from. The country that the Bush adminstration vetted out of the 9/11 report.
As for who should be president next, Dean is a good choice. Kucinich is better in my opinion.
Michael Norton
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don't have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
And picking off our soldiers one at a time. Excuse me for not considering American soldiers as cannon fodder.
It's their job to put themselves in harm's way. Here's the perspective from a returning soldier: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011388.php and from Max Boot: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011394.php
Here's an article on al-Qaida in Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34457-2003Sep6.html
a-Qaida is described as weakened. Notice who their point man is. Abu Musab Zarqawi, the same man Powell cited as evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaida link before the war. So much for them not being in Iraq before.
Thats faulty reasoning. Its not like Bin Laden blew up the Statue of Liberty in 2000 and The Washington Monument in 1999. The terrorists aren't working on a schedule.
Actually they are. Al-Qaida has tried to pull of something every year. People are forgetting the attack on the Cole and the planned millenium attacks. Now al-Qaida is reduced to claiming credit for blackouts.
This would be the UN compound that rejected US offers of more security and declined to take recommended precautions against an attack just like the one made against it?
Not only that, they kept the Iraqi security guards who had been reporting to Hussein's secret police. It was criminal stupidity. Here's a Ralph Peters column: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/39299.htm Who wants these guys in charge?
Looking at the UN's track record doesn't inspire confidence. After 25 years, Cambodia has massive corruption and a facade of a democracy. Kosovo used to export electricity; five years later, under UN control, it has shortages of food, fuel and power and still no state wide elections. The Kosovars call them "the humanitarian Mafia".
If the UN has control, priority will be given to stability, which will mean putting the Baathists back in charge. A functioning democracy in the Arab world will be shelved, which will suit a lot of people just fine.
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage
Yes, coming to kill Americans in a country where they know the language and the Americans don't, where they have millions of sympathetic Baathist supporters willing to help hide them and where they can easily blend in the population.
There aren't "millions of Baathist supporters". The vast majority hate them. They don't like terrorists who sabotage their electricity or kill their religious leaders either. Even hussein tried to distance himself from that bombing. We aren't losing the hearts and minds of the people, the guerrillas are. that's why the US Army gets all these tips about their whereabouts.
Posted by Matt Petersen:
It takes a total of 5 minutes of your life, places of work HAVE to, by law, give you time to go and vote, there is no excuse not to do it. It just amazes me that people don't care enough to do so. Yet when the going gets rough, or something that does not benefit them occurs, they blame the guys they didnt have a part in electing.
Actually, there is no Federal law regarding employers' giving time off, and according to an article at FindLaw.com, 19 states (plus the District of Columbia) have NO law regarding voting leave, 4 states require UNPAID leave be offered, and 23 require paid leave (4 states are unaccounted for). Of those states mandating paid leave, the employee is required to show proof of having voted in Maryland and Oklahoma, while California, Iowa and Wisconsin require the employee to request leave in advance. Also, Massachusetts, which mandates paid leave, paid leave only applies to certain occupations. Further, the states which mandate employers giving time off during work hours are only obliged to do so IF the employee will have insufficient non-work time to vote.
Speaking from personal experience, depending on what polling place you're assigned, the time it takes to vote can be far more than 5 minutes (I've stood in line as long as an hour before I even get to the desk to "sign in" and get the ballot). Also, depending on the ballot itself, I've spent as much as 30 minutes, considering the names and issues on the ballot. I live in Montgomery, AL, and I face the prospect of two elections within the next 30 days--one, for a statewide tax referendum issue, and another to elect city officials, neither of which is going to be a "5-minute" task from arriving at the polling place to exiting the voting booth.
Because as the economy continues to decline
The economy is still bad? Someone needs to tell the companies who do business with my employer.
We have been on overtime for about two months now with no sign of slowing down.
My mother in law works for a company in St. Paul Minnesota and she says that they are thinking of adding another sift to handle the work load they are dealing with.
My dad lost his job at the taconite mine he worked at this past winter. Now there is talks of someone buying out the company and him being able to get his old job back.
Sure unemployment is high but the state of the economy can not be figured from just looking at that one area.
Over all the economy is improvinig and if my personal testimony doesn't work for you then perhaps some links to different news stories showing a strong rise in other areas of the economy will help:
Consumer confidence rises, August 26, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/26/news/economy/consumer/index.htm
Retail sales jump, August 13, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/13/news/economy/retail/index.htm
U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Signal Pickup in Rate of Economic Growth, Aug. 21, 2003
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/press.cfm?press_id=2213
Manufacturing index at 8-month high, September 2, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/02/news/economy/ism.reut/index.htm
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION, August 15, 2003
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G17/Current/default.htm
Consumer prices edge higher, August 15, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/15/news/economy/cpi/index.htm
The Group of 10 central bankers cited encouraging second quarter results from the US as well as growing business and consumer confidence., September 09, 2003
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/economicnews/view/48605/1/.html>
And all the "I told you so" in the world can't stop that. (And I am among that crowd.)
That said, I squarely lay the blame for the state of things in Iraq on an administration that did not see this coming, when so many intelligent people did. I think everyone I knew expected that the war part of the War would be easy, the peace difficult. But someone in Washington was deluded.
You saw no such thing. I remember all the predictions. In burst of nationalistic fervor, Iraqis would rally behind Hussein and turn Baghdad into another Stalingrad. Bombing the infrastructure would lead to half a million deaths from disease. The Kurds and Shiites would declare their own state, leading to civil war and an Iranian style theocracy in the south. There would be massive bloodshed as Iraqis settled scores. None of these things have happened. Is there terrorism? Yes. There's also terrorism in India and Indonesia, with more loss of life. The biggest attacks in Iraq were on targets that explicitly refused American protection, like the UN and Najaf. As I said before, guerrilla activity continued in Germany until 1947. And contrary to the Slate article, Americans were killed: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004143.html
Here's more on how the reconstruction is going:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/078vlxzr.asp and here: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/5236.htm
If anyone predicted what would happen, it was neoconservative Michael Ledeen, who said that neighboring arab states and Islamic radicals would try to sabotage democracy in Iraq. Al-Qaida has come out and said that's their goal: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011351.php
Sigh, This is really depressing reading people repeat verbatim the false information that democrat spinsters continue to pump out via their friends in the media. Okay:
Fact #1: The economy is turning around and unemployment just went down. Now, employers will begin hiring again after an extended period of positive growth.
Fact #2: The economy would be sailing high if it weren't for a certain jugernaut out west called California dragging the rest of the country down. California needs to start budgeting the way the rest of do, mainly, if you can't afford it you don't buy it. Second, California needs to do some environmentally safe energy expansion.That may mean exploring natural resouces that have been declared off limits by activists. Anyway you look at it, they need to do what is in the best interest of the majority instead of cow towing to a vocal minority.
Opinion #1: Judging by the way people are acting today, I honestly think most of the people on this board would be demanding FDR either be impeached or that he resign (unless of course you are a red dog democrat in which case it is a waste of energy discussing anything with).
Opinion #2: This is pure speculation, but it has occurred to me that Iraq now is a magnet for the terrorists and indirectly making the United States safer. Just a thought.
BTW, I was aginst the War in Iraq for mostly different reasons than the those espoused on this board, but it came as quite a shock to me find me aligned with Al Gore on this issue. As far as the cost of the war in Iraq, where are all you people who are upset about the price when it comes to government spending in general? Do you same people get upset that the Department of Education every year can't account for millions of dollars? Or that the federal government is leasing planes from Boeing when it would be cheaper to buy them outright? or that we pay millions of dollars to celebrities because they buy some farm land and we pay them millions/year to not farm it? And just wait when the government starts paying for prescription. I'm just saying be consistent. If you care so much about spending where are you on all the other crazy spending issues? Okay, tangent is over.
My prediction is that in November 2004, PAD will be hoping that people forget this prediction, like the one about 100,000 Iraqis being killed. As a political analyst, he makes a pretty good comic book writer.
As for his constant kvetching about how the US "squandered" the world's sympathy, here's a great piece by respected commentator Fouad Ajami: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004213.html Money quote:
"To maintain France's sympathy, and that of Le Monde, the United States would have had to turn the other cheek to the murderers of al Qaeda, spare the Taliban, and engage the Muslim world in some high civilizational dialogue. But who needs high approval ratings in Marseille? Envy of U.S. power, and of the United States' universalism, is the ruling passion of French intellectual life. It is not "mostly Bush" that turned France against the United States. The former Socialist foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, was given to the same anti-Americanism that moves his successor, the bombastic and vain Dominique de Villepin. It was Védrine, it should be recalled, who in the late 1990s had dubbed the United States a "hyperpower." He had done so before the war on terrorism, before the war on Iraq. He had done it against the background of an international order more concerned with economics and markets than with military power. In contrast to his successor, Védrine at least had the honesty to acknowledge that there was nothing unusual about the way the United States wielded its power abroad, or about France's response to that primacy. France, too, he observed, might have been equally overbearing if it possessed the United States' weight and assets.
His successor gave France's resentment highly moral claims. Villepin appeared evasive, at one point, on whether he wished to see a U.S. or an Iraqi victory in the standoff between Saddam Hussein's regime and the United States. Anti-Americanism indulges France's fantasy of past greatness and splendor and gives France's unwanted Muslim children a claim on the political life of a country that knows not what to do with them."
Why PAD even wants the sympathy of people who would send him death threats if they ever read Captain Marvel #1 and #6 is beyond me.
People were ill prepared and serious mistakes had been made. The result is a mess.
After decades of a brutal dictatorship, do you expect Sweden in five months?
Posted by Jim Burdo:
Looking at the UN's track record doesn't inspire confidence. After 25 years, Cambodia has massive corruption and a facade of a democracy. Kosovo used to export electricity; five years later, under UN control, it has shortages of food, fuel and power and still no state wide elections. The Kosovars call them "the humanitarian Mafia".
Hate to burst your little anti-UN rant, but the UN hasn't been in Cambodia for "25 years". Pol Pot's vicious thugs, the Khmer Rouge, were in charge until the Vietnamese invaded and installed their own puppet government. Cambodia's only had a reasonably functional government for the last ten years, which was not set up under UN auspices. As for the "massive corruption", it was there during the 5 years of the US-supported "republic" which collapsed after the US pulled out of Vietnam (it very well could have been there from Cambodia's full independence from France, but until 1970, the US, and most Americans, had little concern for Cambodia). With a touch of irony, Cambodia's least corrupt government may very well have been that of Pol Pot, but only because the cities were emptied and everyone was forced to work in the fields; the "government" as such was basically as skeletal as many of the people were by the time of the Vietnamese invasion.
As for Kosovo, until 5 years ago, where exactly did Kosovo "export" electricity? Kosovo was, and still is, a part of Yugoslavia (now, technically, "Serbia and Montenegro"), so any "exports" were done through the central government in Belgrade--the same government which sought to wipe out the Kosovars. Furthermore, it was the same conservative-led demands now opposing any UN help in Iraq that sought to dump Kosovo into the laps of the UN (remember those diatribes that we had no business in Kosovo?). Kosovars had plenty of shortages under Milosevic's thumb (i.e., before 5 years ago), but only if they were ethnic Albanians; somehow, the Kosovar Serbs managed to get all the supplies they needed. Since there are still ethnic Serbs in Kosovo (as well as Macedonians), I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones griping the loudest since their "savior" was deposed. The issue of "state-wide" elections is a non-issue as long as the central government refuses to accept any results which might lead to Kosovar independence--the central government doesn't want to lose anymore of the country which would lead to another Milosevic-style nationalist, so Belgrade won't allow pro-independence groups on the ballot.
The UN can only urge a member state to allow a constituent part to hold fair elections, especially if the results of the election may mean that part secedes from the whole. While the UN may be in an area as peacekeepers or monitors(as in Kosovo), they're not there as "rebuilders". The UN has been trying to get Turkey and Greece to resolve the Cyprus situation (as has NATO), yet neither country is willing to accept the necessary compromises to resolve the roots of the situation (Greece remains of the idea that enosis should be up to the Greek Cypriots with no interference from Greece, although Greece hasn't officially ruled out accepting enosis; Turkey claims to be looking out for the Turkish Cypriot minority which would oppose enosis, and until Greece rules out any possibility of such taking place, it will continue "protecting" Turkish Cypriots--the UN in the meanwhile, keeps peacekeepers on the Green Line, as they have for nearly 30 years).
Bush has saved the militant fudmentalists the work of overthrowing Hussein. Now they have a new country to hang out in.
Good job, W.
Sheesh...
(To the predictable "Are you pro-Saddam?" replies: Just realize the "War on Terrorism" and "War in Iraq" are two separate things. Iraq was a beaten nation, under constant bombing and surviellance. As far as threats, it was far down the list.)
There aren't "millions of Baathist supporters". The vast majority hate them. They don't like terrorists who sabotage their electricity or kill their religious leaders either. Even hussein tried to distance himself from that bombing. We aren't losing the hearts and minds of the people, the guerrillas are. that's why the US Army gets all these tips about their whereabouts
Sorry Jim, but this sounds so naive. You can't really believe that the Iraqi people are so happy to have us there. Yes, we've done a good thing removing Hussein. We've also killed 100s of thousands of Iraqis either through sanctions or bombings. Don't forget that we've bombed them at least once a week since the first Iraqi conflict.
What's worse about this administration is that they are fear mongers. If for no other reason I'd vote against them.
And what do they get as reward for their fear mongering? They get to take away the Bill of Rights and pee on it. They get to do everything in secret, thanks to the removal of the Freedom of Information Act by Bush, by Executive Order.
And in all this mess that has become our country, we've now got to make sure another country is ok.
Since John Ashcroft and George W. Bush like to quote the bible so much,perhaps they'd like to reread that whole thing about a plank in the eye?
Michael Norton
Michael Norton: If you wanna know where the jobs went, they went overseas. I recently saw a television segment where it showed an entire school in India that taught Indians to "speak american" where they would take "call-center names" such as "Joe" and "Ellen" and would take customer service calls. Next time you call your phone company ask them where they're phone center is. They'll tell you they can't say for security but chances are they are in India because they can be paid 60 cents a day there.
Luigi Novi: Hmph. That might explain why I got a call on my cell several months ago from a man with a thick Indian accent who claimed his name was “John Anderson” and wanted me to sign up for a new cellular plan. When I later spoke to his supervisor, it was another man with the same type of accent who also gave another Anglo name. Now I know. :-)
Jim Burdo: Why PAD even wants the sympathy of people who would send him death threats if they ever read Captain Marvel #1 and #6 is beyond me.
Luigi Novi: I doubt that would happen. Most Iraqis are not suicide bombers.
Michael Norton: Sorry Jim, but this sounds so naive. You can't really believe that the Iraqi people are so happy to have us there. Yes, we've done a good thing removing Hussein. We've also killed 100s of thousands of Iraqis either through sanctions
Luigi Novi: The idea that we kill Iraqis through sanctions is a fallacy. The idea is that by refusing to trade with Iraq, America is to blame that Iraqis starve, but America is not responsible for the fact that Iraqis were without food. The reason they are were starving is that they were under the subjugation of Hussein, who spends Iraqi’s oil revenues on himself, and not on his own people. It is he who is responsible for any shortages suffered by his people, not the U.S.
As for Post-Gulf War bombings, was it really hundreds of thousands?
twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis
I'm probably just missing something here, but... there were 19 hijackers; 15 were Saudis, one Lebanese, two from the UAE, and the ringleader, Mohammed Atta, was Egyptian.
I'll make a couple predictions:
1) Bush will win the election with a comfortable lead.
2) Terrorism will continue to be reduced because they are identifing themselves and being exterminated (they have little choice... democracy in such a large country of the Middle East will forever threaten the monarchies and despots)
3) California will eventually pull itself out of the sinkhole its in and the country will continue to rebound economically.
4) Intelligent life will be found on the left side of the Congressional isle (well, probably not, but we can hope.)
It's their job to put themselves in harm's way.
And it's Bush's job not to throw their lives away recklessly. I have no doubt that if you ask the average soldier on camera he'll say he's there to do a job. That doesn't mean that the they've been given is the right or that they're getting all the support they need.
"This logic seems flawed to me. The 9/11 attack occurred because we seemed weak?"
Yes.
Consider. They'd tried in the early 90s. They failed, but they HAD tried. They succeeded in the marine barracks in Lebanon. They succeeded with the Cole.
In none of those instances was ANY serious reprisal made.
We didn't fight back. We were seen as 'weak'.
So they did it again. More successfully this time.
As for low voter turnouts, these aren't surprising. When there is no one you WANT to vote for, only people to vote AGAINST, this isn't conducive to people bothering to show up at the voting booth.
There aren't "millions of Baathist supporters". The vast majority hate them.
Do you honestly think that it was just Saddam and his sons holding onto power for decades by themselves. Even if the majority of Iraqis hated them, there were still many, many who benefited from the regime because of the power that their connection to it brought them. Most of them went into hiding, hoping to be ready for when they can return to power.
I'd file this prediction in the circular file along with PAD's prediction that we were going to "slaughter" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the shock and awe phase of the war...
You know, I don't recall saying exactly that. I'm not saying I *didn't*, but I don't remember using those exact words. I'm sure not going to sift through the archives and hundreds of responses, but if you want to pull the exact quote, feel free.
However, just for laughs, let's say I did say that. Let's say, just for laughs, I was wrong about that (even as the casualties continue to mount up.)
It leaves me wondering just where you're filing everything from the government's shouting down the military advisor who stated we'd need 150,000 troops post-war (they claimed less than half, and were wrong) to the belief that the Iraqis would uniformly welcome us (as soldiers continue to die) to the non-discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction to Bush's stating that the U.N., if they refused to join us, would become "an irrelevant debating society" except now we're asking for their help...
I wonder where you're filing all those...those being, in case you weren't keeping track, mistakes that have cost, and are continuing to cost, lives. As opposed to mine, which don't.
PAD
I hate when people say that voting is a right and therefore I have to do it. Shouldn't I also have the right not to do it? And if I should start doing stuff just because its a right I have, why don't I go out and burn the flag? Thats also a right I have, but I doubt that most of the people who are pro-voting would be ok with it.
Also, something I didn't know until the last election, most overseas votes including soldiers overseas are not counted in the election unless, like the last one, its very close. Now yes, everyone technically has the same rights but I personally feel that someone who is risking their lives for our country has more of a right to pick their commander-in-chief than some twenty-something computer geek. But maybe thats just me.
Something to remember about Bin Laden; He's gotten to check items off of his wish list.
One of his stated goals was the US out of Saudi Arabia. We no longer have any bases there.
He wanted to kill lots of Americans. Seems to be doing pretty well there, too.
And, if we assume (yah, I know...)
that his goals are chaos, and not Muslim supremacy, then he's doing a pretty good job there.
Understandable that he's so dangerous; he was trained by some of the best. (us)
Just my opinion, of course, but I'm glad he's still a target.
Now... as to something more on-target to this thread:
I think PAD is right. I think that we will see troops coming home, and I think we will hear those announcments at politically-determined times. Of course, that's just the nature of the beast.
I hate when people say that voting is a right and therefore I have to do it. Shouldn't I also have the right not to do it?
Sure.
But, cliche that it is, it sort of weakens your position if you have gripes about the resulting administration, since you did nothing to keep them out of office.
I myself considered exercising that very right in 2000...I found the entire crop of candidates to be less than inspiring, and none of them appealed to me enough to say, "That's a guy I can get behind." However, as I thought about it, there was a candidate who disturbed me enough that I felt compelled to cast a vote for the person most likely/capable of keeping him out of office.
So, I didn't so much vote for someone as I did against someone. If there were an option to select, "None of these losers," that's where my vote would have gone.
**You know, I don't recall saying exactly that. I'm not saying I *didn't*, but I don't remember using those exact words. I'm sure not going to sift through the archives and hundreds of responses, but if you want to pull the exact quote, feel free.
However, just for laughs, let's say I did say that. Let's say, just for laughs, I was wrong about that (even as the casualties continue to mount up.)**
An 8-second google search shows that you did in fact say "We are going to drop bombs on him, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Let's call it what it is: Slaughter." at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000322.html . And saying you're wrong isn't just for laughs, it's a demonstrable fact; the number of Iraqi civilian deaths is orders of magnitude below your prediction.
As someone said above, as a predictor of world events, you're a hell of a writer.
**It leaves me wondering just where you're filing everything from the government's shouting down the military advisor who stated we'd need 150,000 troops post-war (they claimed less than half, and were wrong) to the belief that the Iraqis would uniformly welcome us (as soldiers continue to die) to the non-discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction to Bush's stating that the U.N., if they refused to join us, would become "an irrelevant debating society" except now we're asking for their help...
I wonder where you're filing all those...those being, in case you weren't keeping track, mistakes that have cost, and are continuing to cost, lives. As opposed to mine, which don't.**
I'll express my feelings about such matters at the ballot box next fall. Here's a hint, though: not everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of rabid birch-barking brainwashed Republican drone. It's quite possible to have supported the war but also thought the Administration botched the argument for it and the rebuilding afterward.
Hey Joseph,
Yeah your right, my mistake its not a law, the only thing your place of work must do is allocate time for you to vote, or to put it another way, they cannot work you from 7 to 7 on voting days.
Speaking of the Economy, the Miami Herald had an article on Sept 5 that said
1) President Bush's Tax Cut helped spur 3.4 percent increase in disposable personal income, increased consumer spending, and surging sales of homes.
2) The Commerce Department reports sales of US Manufactured goods rose sharply in July by 1.6 percent.
3)Growth Doubled to a 3.1 percent annual rate in April-June quarter, and most analysts agree with Wachovia National Bank's latest forecast that growth should speed to a 55 percent rate in the current quarter.
Those three points seem to be good news to me.
I am taking no sides on this issue just repeating what I read in the paper. You all can take it for what you want.
"If you look at Al Qaeda's history, their normal pattern is: Big strike, lie low for a few years, bigger strike, lie low for a few years. They bombed the Khaiber (sp) Towers, then disappeared for a while. Then, they bombed the Cole and disappeared for a while. Next, 9/11 and and year and half in hiding until they bombed that club in Australia. They're laying low, regrouping and planning for their next big strike. Anyone who thinks taking a chaotic country like Afghanistan and making it an even more chaotic country has put them on the run is terribly naive."
Well, they had training camps and the political and economic support of the leadership of an entire country. To think that losing all that isn't a blow seems willfully naive to me.
(I might add that it's time to retire "naive" as the word du jour in politics. I was flipping through the news channels one time and damn if I didn't hear it on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, all within a half hour of each other. It's a great word, though, you say it with a furrowed brow as though you are genuinely worried about how the feelings of you opponents will be hurt when their hopeless optimism lies dashed on the cruel shores of reality.)
"Thats faulty reasoning. Its not like Bin Laden blew up the Statue of Liberty in 2000 and The Washington Monument in 1999. The terrorists aren't working on a schedule."
I try to give the opposition at least credit for intelligence. If the terrorists just want to kill people, then there's really nothing that can be done but at least they will be unable to affect any genuine change. I assumed that Bin Laden et al were really trying for major victories. Had they pressed the issue it is conceivable that they could have done so.
Imagine if, instead of hiding, they had taken a few hundred of the supposedly endless supply of suicide killers we were told they had and set them on a "100 days of terror" campaign. One more successful strike on an airliner--maybe a stinger bringing down a plane as soon as it cleared the runway--and you could have kissed the entire industry goodbye.
Follow up with hits on busses, trains, subways--all very easy to do even if your terrorist DOESN'T intend to die--and you have crippled the entire transportation industry. We'd still be reeling from THAT recession.
There is no way to make this country secure against suicide killers. Can't be done. They could hit any school, any daycare, and old folks home and take out scores of people with nothing more elaborate that weapons they could buy here. Hell, an aluminum bat will work. They could have followed the Invisible Man's advise--"kill a few people. Big people, little people, just to show we make no distinction."
And it would have brought us to our knees, I really believe that. At the very least, it would have brought demands for a near police state. But now, even if they were to get a belated start...the shock has worn off. It would take another MAJOR hit to restart it and even then...compare how we felt when the Challenger exploded compared to the latest, equally tragic shuttle disaster.
The shock of horror is a valuable weapon and, having achieved it, I am still amazed that they let it slip away.
All very logical, Bill. They could also be taking a different approach, however.
I'm sure most of us spent the days, weeks and months following 9/11/01 wondering when the proverbial other shoe was going to drop.
From one perspective, striking then would have been best, as it would have been another immediate wound. From another perspective, though, it would have been the worst time, because we all "knew" something was coming. And, in those days, weeks and months that followed, everything that went wrong had the spectre of "Is this another attack?" looming over it.
Now, however, it's two years later, and the surge of awareness, attentiveness and togetherness has, for the most part, faded. The nation is divided over the administration's actions, has seen those events that made us jump in the time shortly after 9/11/01 turn out to not be attacks, have listened to tv & radio hosts of all stripes discuss how silly it seems to have a multi-tiered "alert system" if we're never going to drop below the second-highest level, and so on. Not to mention that the patriotic fervor (or the bandwagon of same, depending on your POV or even just who you might be thinking of) that dominated those next weeks and months has, at best, become a routine...a habit to many.
From that perspective, waiting until now (or even later) is quite smart. The more complacent your target, the greater their shock when you strike.
**[Previous entry: "THE NEW CAPTAIN MARVEL?"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "MARV v. BUSH"]
09/08/2003 Entry: "MY PREDICTION"
"We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."
Has anyone told Bush, who said the above, that twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis, and that the above statement--while catering to the "Keep Americans scared" rhetoric--makes no practical sense?
Nevertheless, it will not surprise me if a major troop pullout is announced prior to November of 2004, probably no later than summer of that year, particularly if no WMDs continue to materialize.
Why? Because as the economy continues to decline and we look at a job loss percentage rate matching that of the Great Depression, the One Man War zone is going to become a greater and greater political liability. It gives the Democrats something they can latch on to and pound at. The message they will put forward is simple: The average American faces more danger from the Bush Administration than terrorists. Between unemployment, the downturn in the economy, the cutting of various programs, and the lowering of pollution standards, Americans have far more to worry about here than in foreign countries where billions are being poured in that could be helping us. And how is the current Administration dealing with it? By watching young Americans die for an indefinite period of time. Heck, if the Democrats raise the spectre of reviving the draft in a credible manner, Bush will be in even bigger trouble.
How to avoid it? Bush the "compassionate conservative," actually hauls out the compassionate side which has been MIA since...well...election day, really. "I feel your pain, America. I hear the cries of American fathers and mothers. So I am announcing today a progressive troop withdrawl, with all our boys back home by Christmas."
Understand, he doesn't have to DO it. He just has to announce it. That will defuse a good chunk of the Democrat threat and more or less ensure re-election.
PAD
Replies: 77 comments
I don't think you're wrong, Peter. A pull-out in early to mid-summer 2004 would be wise for many, many reasons. Not only would it be good for election time, but it would mean we could say, "Hey, we were there for 15 months, and despite all of the UN's talks, they weren't interested in taking over." Or, best case, "We were there only as long as we needed to be, it's disappointing that the UN took so long to take over."
I'm not buying the Dean rhetoric that we should pull out of Iraq now and spend that money on Universal Healthcare, but I am a firm believer of not throwing good money after bad. We need to be working now on an exit strategy by July 2004. If we don't, then our "strategists" don't deserve the name.
Posted by Londo @ 09/08/2003 11:36 AM ET
Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 11:39 AM ET
Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
They no longer have to. There's plenty of Americans to do it for them.
PAD
Posted by Peter David @ 09/08/2003 11:47 AM ET
Depends. It is common sense. All he has to do is "say" it, and if people believe him, he has the election.
Unfortunately.
I don't buy Dean's rhetoric any more than I buy Dubya's. Whom I do like is John Edwards (notice the 's'... not the talking with dead guy).
That's a sidenote anyway.
Dubya could do a lot of things to pull out this election. And I have a list of them, which I may post to my non-used weblog. But, he'd have to use some common sense. More importantly, his advisors should have common sense.
I used to think he was stupid. Now I think he's much more clever than I gave him credit. Doesn't mean I like him that much.
Travis
Posted by Travis @ 09/08/2003 11:48 AM ET
"Has *anyone* told Bush, who said the above, that twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis, and that the above statement--while catering to the "Keep Americans scared" thetoric--makes no practical sense?"
Ummm....are you saying we shouldn't be going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan because he's a Saudi? I don't get it--you go where the bad guys are. Whether you agree with it or not, Bush said quite a while ago that he saw no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that supported them so this policy is exactly what was promised.
I mean, where SHOULD we be going to fight Bin Laden's boys, if not the country they are in?
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq. I suspect many are heading to the area to take on "The Great Satan" one on one. Which is, of course, really, really dumb of them but good for us since the Americans currently there have a pretty good record of being able to shoot back.
Posted by Bill Mulligan @ 09/08/2003 11:49 AM ET
Sorry... wrong url. I did say it was a non-used blog.
Travis
Posted by Travis @ 09/08/2003 11:50 AM ET
The worst thing in the world would be to pull out of Iraq before the new government there is in place. It would become the new "vietnam" that everyone said would happen when the conflict started. Our exit stategy is simple: "We will leave when we know they can control their own country without any outside help or influence." Conservatism at it's best.
What's our other choice? Run away and say it's too much to handle? I don't think so. We did that before in Mogadishu(sp?) and because of that and other factors we were attacked on 9-11 because they thought we were weak. Well they keep hitting us and we're still, and we will stay there until we get the job done.
The democrats tried the draft thing -- it didn't work then, it won't work agin.
They tried enron -- didn't work either.
Everything they've tried has not stuck.
The economy isn't going down, it's going up. Watch the stock market. Read the actual reports from the labor department that states 175k new jobs were added in Aug., not this other report that the news organizations are using saying 93k jobs were lost. It's been known for years that the job #s are the last to change as the economy improves. If the job loss rate is so bad compared to 9 years ago, why aren't we looking back at the #s from 10-11 years ago. Has anyone really looked at the jobless rate from say, 85 to present, month by month?
The cutting of various programs only means good things for Americans. The last thing we need is for the government to take care of us from cradle to the grave -- we're already taxed during that span, people are not screaming and shouting for a government healthcare or prescription drug program. It's bad enough their cost estimates for the programs are so far off it's frightening, to actually implement it would cause this nation to go only further to hell.
It's not enough that only some government programs are cut, we need to remove multiple programs and get people off the dependency of government. Set up time limitations for being on welfare & unemployment (as individual programs -- more than 18 months is just too damn long.) Cut or remove the dept. of Education entirely. (my god every year it's the same thing "we need more money" and yet every year we see proof that nothing has improved from the previous year. Either cut the dept. by the amount of money it loses, or wipe it out entirely.)
The hijackers were also not medal-of-honor war heroes, 2 year old children, or people in wheelchairs. If we started going after the profile of people that caused the attack against us, we would make a lot more progress.
Watch -- come either end of this year or next sept. - oct. : proof that saddam had wmd will be out; the stock market will be back to if not above 10,500 and the nasdaq will be above 2500; jobless rate will be around 5% if not lower, and people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country when things are good.
Posted by Balder @ 09/08/2003 12:09 PM ET
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq. I suspect many are heading to the area to take on "The Great Satan" one on one. Which is, of course, really, really dumb of them but good for us since the Americans currently there have a pretty good record of being able to shoot back.
So, our soldiers now are just bait so that we can lure Al Qaeda together into one country and have a shoot out with them? This is all just the master plan to draw bin Laden out of hiding? Wow. I thought we invaded because Saddam had WMD. Now I know better.
Can we stop pretending that Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake had anything to do with 9/11?
Look, we took Saddam out of power. Yaaaay! He was an evil man, okay, and the world is better off without him. Now, stop trying to win a peeing contest with the French and Germans and get an international coalition together that will help the Iraqis build a new constitution so that we can stop having our soldiers in a shooting gallery.
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 12:10 PM ET
They no longer have to. There's plenty of Americans to do it for them.
True, but if you don't keep nudging the herd along, the cattle will start to think that they can walk in any direction they want.
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 12:13 PM ET
Watch -- come either end of this year or next sept. - oct. : proof that saddam had wmd will be out; the stock market will be back to if not above 10,500 and the nasdaq will be above 2500; jobless rate will be around 5% if not lower, and people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country when things are good.
There's a fallacy in the mindset of this country that a high DJ means good economy. Not true. When the majority of Americans (over 80%) have zero percent of their savings in stocks (including 401ks, etc.) that means nothing. All it means is that those who have, have more.
5% of unemployment? All that means is that the majority of people will be working two jobs to make ends meet. Maybe the ends will meet.
And to think that people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country... well, that's probably true. They won't have to speak negatively about the country. All they will have to do is state facts about this administration. That should be enough.
And if you think all of that will happen by sept-oct 2004.... well, good luck. Hope the economy does improve. But not likely. What needs to be done is increase the spending power of the bottom twenty to forty percent. When they spend more money, the economy will increase. But as GW has proven, he doesn't care about them. Because if you make sure the people who don't have to spend money have extra money, then the economy will be spurred, correct?
Don't think so.
Travis
Posted by Travis @ 09/08/2003 12:18 PM ET
Set up time limitations for being on welfare & unemployment
Didn't we already do that in the last administration?
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 12:21 PM ET
And to think that people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country... well, that's probably true. They won't have to speak negatively about the country. All they will have to do is state facts about this administration. That should be enough.
Well, someone still has to explain to me how criticizing the policies of the current administration suddenly became hating America. I still cling to the delusion that it's every American's fundamental right to disagree with their leaders and express their opinion.
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 12:27 PM ET
I'd file this prediction in the circular file along with PAD's prediction that we were going to "slaughter" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the shock and awe phase of the war...
Posted by Anonymous @ 09/08/2003 12:29 PM ET
Didn't we already do that in the last administration?
Um. Yeah. You know. The liberal that everyone hated.
Funny though, no one has put a stop to corporate welfare yet.
Travis
Posted by Travis @ 09/08/2003 12:34 PM ET
So, our soldiers now are just bait so that we can lure Al Qaeda together into one country and have a shoot out with them? This is all just the master plan to draw bin Laden out of hiding? Wow. I thought we invaded because Saddam had WMD. Now I know better.
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don't have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
Can we stop pretending that Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake had anything to do with 9/11?
But if GHW Bush HAD gone into Iraq and trashed Saddam, it would have gone against the UN resolution. You remember the UN? The ones that voted FOR the current conflict, then changed their mind when they finally realized that the US was going to make them live up to their word about Saddam and his WMD's? You remember, the ones he claimed to have (and used).
Look, we took Saddam out of power. Yaaaay! He was an evil man, okay, and the world is better off without him. Now, stop trying to win a peeing contest with the French and Germans and get an international coalition together that will help the Iraqis build a new constitution so that we can stop having our soldiers in a shooting gallery.
Oh yes, the wonderful French and German governments. The same ones that are already saying they won't participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. But I'll bet they'll want to send businesses over there once the hard work is done. The French and Germans already lost the peeing contest by wetting themselves before getting it out of their pants.
Posted by Jeff @ 09/08/2003 12:55 PM ET
I couldn't watch the address, myself. Just hearing the announcement that "Dubya" would be speaking to make another attempt to justify the Iraq situation was enough to get my blood boiling. Having to hear him do it would probably have made me go off the deep end.
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq.
Key words: "Right now." Key because it would appear that they weren't there until the US stuck our nose in.
The economy isn't going down, it's going up. Watch the stock market. Read the actual reports from the labor department that states 175k new jobs were added in Aug., not this other report that the news organizations are using saying 93k jobs were lost.
Would you mind pointing my wife, stepfather, mother-in-law, and best friend in the direction of some of those alleged 175k? Because those of us with close family who have been out of work for extended periods (15 months, 18 months, 7 months and 3 months respectively) are having trouble finding them.
Meanwhile, let's assume, for discussion's sake, that the addition of jobs cited above is accurate...that's not mutually exclusive with the loss of jobs also cited. If we accept both as accurate, that calculates out to 82k jobs (175k added minus 93k cut). What's the unemployment rate, though...not a percentage, but a similar number to the examples of jobs added/cut? Still doesn't mean there's enough to go around. Unfortunately for those searching for jobs, with so many applicants out there, employers have a greater ability to cast a narrower net than before, as it is more likely that someone who fits a more specific set of criteria is trying to re-enter the workforce. For instance, positions that once did not list a degree - whether related to the work being done or not - as a requirement now do; actual life/work experience counts for less than it used to. The best friend mentioned above would not be able to re-apply for the job he was laid off from...he was/is qualified for the job, has about 10 years practical experience performing the job, and received favorable performance reviews in doing the job. However, his now-former employer, in looking to re-fill some of those positions currently, now requires an applicant for that position to have a degree...//any// degree, related to the job or not.
This concludes my "unpatriotic, un-American, traitorous" post.
Posted by Nytwyng @ 09/08/2003 01:07 PM ET
I think that we cannot pull out now no matter what. We're in too deep. We leave now, and chaos beyond the worst definition of the word blossoms. We leave now, and we look like cowards to enemies who do not see discretion as the better part of valor. We leave now, and we are abandoning our responsibility to those who lives we turned upside down by going there in the first place.
We, we need a strategy, and allies and a better way. But even with the UN or the Arab League (which isn't gonna happen, but shouldn't they be there, helping their fellow Arabs?) or the JLA as part of the plan, the US is stuck.
And all the "I told you so" in the world can't stop that. (And I am among that crowd.)
That said, I squarely lay the blame for the state of things in Iraq on an administration that did not see this coming, when so many intelligent people did. I think everyone I knew expected that the war part of the War would be easy, the peace difficult. But someone in Washington was deluded.
sigh
Posted by Simon DelMonte @ 09/08/2003 01:34 PM ET
speaking as a gen-X member, I have to give George Bush credit.
He has inspired me to do something which no other president before (at least in my lifetime) could have:
vote.
Posted by luke @ 09/08/2003 01:42 PM ET
luke wrote:
speaking as a gen-X member, I have to give George Bush credit.
He has inspired me to do something which no other president before (at least in my lifetime) could have:
vote.
Ditto. I'm 29 and I'll be voting for the first time in this next election.
While, admittedly, a lot of things can happen between now and next year, I'm thinking unless George W. manages to cure AIDS and guarantee every American family their own functioning spaceship, his "re"-election hopes look pretty dim.
Posted by Michileen Martin @ 09/08/2003 01:53 PM ET
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don't have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
And picking off our soldiers one at a time. Excuse me for not considering American soldiers as cannon fodder.
Oh yes, the wonderful French and German governments. The same ones that are already saying they won't participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. But I'll bet they'll want to send businesses over there once the hard work is done. The French and Germans already lost the peeing contest by wetting themselves before getting it out of their pants.
Obviously, the peeing contest still goes on. Enjoy your freedom fries. Jeez, is this all there is to debating now? Snide comments about how they let us down?
Look, the fact remains it is in the who world's interest to promote stability in Iraq right now, but it's our soldiers that are the ones in harm's way. I know, I know, "bring it on!"
Whatever.
We can't build a new ruling coalition in Iraq by ourselves, not and expect it to be seen as anything other than a puppet regime (whether that is true or not is not the point, perception =reality). We need an international coalition to help us rebuild it and all the cowboy strutting in the world isn't going to change that.
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 01:55 PM ET
The thing about the economy that many conservatives fail to see or don't care to see is that you build a strong economy from the bottom up. The bottom is the poor and unemployed. When people have jobs and the poor have money they tend to spend it. All of it. They don't have enough to save any or aren't frugal enough to do so either. When they have money, it spreads to the middle classes whcuh then spreads to the upper classes. When the rich are pushing programs to give them greater sums of cash and tax cuts, they are generally taking money away from the poor causing them to have to cut back on spending because they don't have money for luxury items. Then when they decide to lay people off because the consumer isn't spending as much because they took they programs that were helping them, they lay employees off making a greater base of unemployed people who don't have any money to spend, making the economy worse. I'm not just talking about unemployment or welfare either. If the government cuts back on education like grants, money for books in schools, cheaper lunches for the kids, the lower classes have to spend that money there and they don't have enough to go around to pay all of their bills because the cost of living is too great for them to survive efficiently. I know some people are taking advantage of the system when they don't need it, but most are not. But, by the same token, do you truly think the wealthy aren't going to take advantage of a tax cut or business program designed to help a struggling business even if they don't need it themselves? Of course they do. No one at the top is going to say that they won't take advantage of a loophole designed to help the economy or struggling business because they don't need it. If they don't need the programs to thrive, they shouldn't take advantage of them by the same principle that people shouldn't be on welfare when they are capable of working and can find a job.
In my opinion, if you are opposed to programs designed to help the less fortunate, you should be opposed to handouts to corporations as well. You should support the blocking of any programs to help anyone, rich or poor. You should support a straight up percentage of earnings tax. Everybody pays 10% of their income, no exceptions, no breaks, no special circumstances, no loopholes, the only advantage or disadvantage given to you is what you are born into. That would be fair. Cold hearted to those less fortunate than the rich and struggling businesses, but logically fair to everyone.
Posted by Richard Franklin @ 09/08/2003 02:58 PM ET
"We can't build a new ruling coalition in Iraq by ourselves, not and expect it to be seen as anything other than a puppet regime (whether that is true or not is not the point, perception =reality). We need an international coalition to help us rebuild it and all the cowboy strutting in the world isn't going to change that."
I agree wholeheartedly. We can debate about whether our troops were sen to Iraq for humanitarian reasons or whether they were sent to take over another country to add to our empire, but the important thing is that world and the people of Iraq seem to believe we are there to take over and rule them. Unless we can find a way to alter that perception, we will not be seen by the world as anything but invaders and conquerors which means that someone other than the US or Iraq needs to step in an negotiate the new governement for us to be able to pull out and not leave an unstable country. This third party may not be impartial, but they need to be perceived as impartial.
I don't see The US being able to change its world perception at the moment because of two things, the Bush adminstration has lied about too many things in this war and we have too much of a "If you don't like it, tough" attitude for people to perceive us as cooperative.
Posted by Richard Franklin @ 09/08/2003 03:12 PM ET
my words
"Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq."
your reply
"Key words: "Right now." Key because it would appear that they weren't there until the US stuck our nose in.
If you are suggesting that Bush has succesfully lured terrorists into a situation where we can easily hunt them down and kill them...you are giving him way more credit for tactical brilliance than most would. But he doubtlessly thanks you, none the less.
Posted by bill mulligan @ 09/08/2003 04:43 PM ET
The thing about the economy that many conservatives fail to see or don't care to see is that you build a strong economy from the bottom up. The bottom is the poor and unemployed. When people have jobs and the poor have money they tend to spend it.
Exactly. For instance, let's look at that recent "child care credit." Especially with my wife out of work since last June, we were glad to have the money (although, since it's really a PR-driven "advance" on next year's taxes that isn't clearly presented as such, I'd have ultimately preferred they give it to us at that time). However, with the economy as bad as it is, it was spent on trying to relieve some of the debt we've racked up living paycheck-to-just-short-of-paycheck. And, I'm sure we're not the only ones who did so.
Of course, "Dubya's" administration will proudly show off those checks as proof that they're trying to "do something about the economy."
The saddest part of it all, though, is that anyone who looked at "Dubya's" history should have seen something like this coming. I did...so did many others (naturally, not his supporters...at least that his supporters would admit). Plain and simple, when someone who ran not one, not two, but three businesses into bankruptcy claims to have solutions to a poor economy, he's full of it. If he weren't, those three businesses would be thriving.
Ah, who knows...maybe his ultimate solution would be to do like he did with the Texas Rangers...build a new facility for the government, then sell it off to the highest bidder. Just like with the Rangers, "Dubya" would be sitting pretty. Even if the team's still mismanaged.
Posted by Nytwyng @ 09/08/2003 04:55 PM ET
I also would like to know where all those jobs are. I do know that if you look at a break down of the jobs being created most are in the service industries (McDonalds/Walmart) which are low paying jobs with little to no advancement. Many of these are part time jobs (under 35 hours). Those jobs are fine if you are not trying to raise a family and someone else is paying for your health care. Also remember that jobless rates are based on the number of people seeking work according to the unemployment roles. What about all those who have dropped out of the statistics because they can no longer apply for unemployment and they can't find a job that pays a living wage? I can't tell you how many people I know whom have two jobs just to make 1/2 of what they previous earned with one.
I joined the ranks of the unemployed back in May and I have been actively looking for work in my field(s) ever since. Since then my resume has mostly been used to prove that the company is not violating any rules about discrimination and the person they are moving/promoting with in the company is as qualified as those seeking the same employment are.
I have an MFA from the Yale School of Drama, over 20 years experience as a stage manager and puppeteer, a good number of years as the manager of both book stores and comic book shops, and a career as a book editor. I have a skill set that would be fantastic to the right company, but no one is hiring indeed they are laying off which increases the number of people going for the same jobs I am. I am one of the lucky ones that can freelance as an editor and have been doing so, but even there the well is getting very dry due to the number of other people dipping into it.
Posted by Kathleen David @ 09/08/2003 05:02 PM ET
If you are suggesting that Bush has succesfully lured terrorists into a situation where we can easily hunt them down and kill them...you are giving him way more credit for tactical brilliance than most would. But he doubtlessly thanks you, none the less.
Nope. I was suggesting that, as usual, he's back-pedalling on the Iraq issue, pointing at the terrorists who have shown up to take potshots at US forces //after// the US arrived, saying, "See...toldja there were terrorists there."
Posted by Nytwyng @ 09/08/2003 05:02 PM ET
Sorry to hear about that, Kath. My wife is indeed one of those who have fallen off of the statistics as her unemployment claim has come to an end.
It becomes an even bigger problem when - take us for example - I make just enough for us to be disqualified for any other kinds of assistance (low-cost housing, etc.), but not enough to meet all of our monthly commitments (let alone luxury items).
Best of luck with your search.
Posted by Nytwyng @ 09/08/2003 05:19 PM ET
Concerning the "peeing" contest with Germans and French: People here seem to forget some important facts. First, the USA invaded Iraq on its own (with some help from the British) without a UN resolution. At that time they were confident enough to do the job on their own and finish matters quickly.
Well, it didn`t work that way. It is always easier to destroy than to rebuild and unfortunately I have to say, what is happening now is no surprise, not to me.
People were ill prepared and serious mistakes had been made. The result is a mess. The USA waited long and tried more or less unsuccessfully to doctor the symptoms. Now that elections are coming closer and costs are mounting, in the form of money and lives, NOW they want the UN to help and are looking in the direction of Germany and France. BUT they are not prepared to lose any bit of control. In essence they want other countries to send people to clean up the mess there under the command of the USA.
I am not surprised that many non-Americans are not in a hurry to do so, to put it mildly.
Posted by Baerbel Haddrell @ 09/08/2003 05:40 PM ET
It's not only a matter of the administration not wanting to lose control, it's a matterof the administration not wanting to lose face...refusing to admit even the slightest bit of irresponsibility. The manner in which the administration is attempting to enlist the aid of the UN is part of the problem, too. On a recent //Real Time with Bill Maher// a senator (whose name escapes me at the moment) stated that he'd spoken with UN reps (including, as I recall, the Secretary General), and asked what it would take for them to get involved. Their response? Simple: "Ask for help. Don't challenge us to help, as has been happening."
Posted by Nytwyng @ 09/08/2003 05:56 PM ET
I'm 30 years old and up until this year, I was not a registered voter. This President has done at least one good thing in showing me the need to vote.
Posted by hob @ 09/08/2003 06:21 PM ET
"Nope. I was suggesting that, as usual, he's back-pedalling on the Iraq issue, pointing at the terrorists who have shown up to take potshots at US forces //after// the US arrived, saying, "See...toldja there were terrorists there." "
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage (as opposed to, say, New York City where you could swing a dead cat and successfully put scores in the hospital (or morgue if you swing really hard))
The problem, of course, id that even the terrorists can't be so stupid as to keep throwing good martyrs after bad. No US troops have been killed in a week which makes me wonder if they are getting the message.
Posted by bill mulligan @ 09/08/2003 06:32 PM ET
whee... not a lot of economists here obviously.
Posted by anon @ 09/08/2003 06:52 PM ET
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage (as opposed to, say, New York City where you could swing a dead cat and successfully put scores in the hospital (or morgue if you swing really hard))
Considering that 85 died in the UN Compound attack, scores are managing to be put in the hospital and the morgue...of course, they aren't American scores...and that saboteurs just attacked a pipeline and I quote "In the only reported attack on U.S. forces Monday, Iraqi guerrillas bombed an American patrol as soldiers were driving out of a tunnel in the center of Baghdad, the military said. The attack wounded two soldiers, damaged two Humvees, one of which turned over and caught fire. " So they're still attacking us, they just didn't manage to kill anyone yesterday.
They're getting a message, all right. But I doubt it's one we want to be sending.
Posted by Ezrael @ 09/08/2003 07:03 PM ET
I'm of the mind that this new angle of "We are using Iraq as ground zero for the war on terror to keep the attacks off of US soil" to be just another bit of spin control by an administration that has lied to this country and the world for years.
And can anyone explain why this administration is so hellbent on retaining total control of Iraq? Why not let the UN have an equal role in the rebuilding process? At the very least it would allow other counties to chip in on the 89 billion dollar tab that Bush is planning on runnig up.
And if this economy is rebounding I don't see it. I was unemployed for a 18 months. I spent at least half of that time without any unemployment benefits. Now I'm working again but I'm currently holding down two jobs and am still barely creeping anywhere near what I was making before I was layed off. Whats funny is that I feel lucky to be working these two crappy jobs because I remember how long it took me to find them and also because I have friends and family who still haven't found anything.
Posted by Derek! @ 09/08/2003 07:08 PM ET
This would be the UN compound that rejected US offers of more security and declined to take recommended precautions against an attack just like the one made against it?
Posted by Anonymous @ 09/08/2003 07:11 PM ET
Balder: The last thing we need is for the government to take care of us from cradle to the grave.
Yeah, phew, thank God for getting that concern off my shoulders. Now that I don't have to worry about the risk that I might actually live a comfortable, relatively worry-free life, I can go back to spending my time on figuring out whether it's better to have basic utilities or health insurance for my wife.
Posted by Alan M. @ 09/08/2003 07:17 PM ET
Oh, Bush will most definitely be doing an Electric Slide to the center. He started it last night when he begged the UN to come clean up the mess his administration made. There was even an apology hidden beneath the self-righteous rhetoric.
He was trying the humility trick that was honed by Reagan and Clinton. I even saw him do that trademark Clinton face, where the bottom lip goes up into the top one. He feels our pain.
The neocons have got themselves into a serious mess. What I hate is the CMA garbage. Bush asks the UN to come help clean up the mess but doesn't want to cede any control. Then they make Powell go on television and say the military "underestimated" the level of chaos that would ensue once the Baathists were out.
Except that was all Rumsfeld, not Powell. And it's a travesty that Powell has to take the heat for that smug old bastard. But they know Rumsfeld's credibility will be forever scarred, whereas the UN will always work with Powell, since he's the only member of the administration who isn't blinded by ideology.
One last thing...I was truly bothered by Bush's claim in his speech that "we have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength — they are invited by the perception of weakness." This logic seems flawed to me. The 9/11 attack occurred because we seemed weak? A terrorist act - attacking innocents - is something you do to a foe that seems too strong. A weak foe you face head-on (and pummel the crap out of him, if you're so inclined). A strong foe you play dirty with, so to speak. Terrorist acts are "unconventional warfare."
I have a few friends who believe this line of reasoning - that al-Qaeda and other militants will be deterred from further attacks after seeing what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. But these are suicide attackers. Why would they be deterred by a show of force? I'd think it would just make them more desperate, and therefore apt to attack.
(I should note, I won an argument on this issue with a friend when I pointed out that he was opposed to the death penalty because he doesn't believe it's a deterrent. He was forced to cede the point.)
I'm not saying I think we shouldn't fight terrorism - of course we must. What the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan may help prevent terrorism in a practical way - by breaking up terrorist networks and killing a few hundred terrorists. But deter suicidal terrorists? That's illogical.
What the US needs to focus on now is rebuilding Iraq from the ruins. Quite frankly, the kind of minds suited to this sort of endeavour just aren't on the right side of the aisle. In theory, conservatives are ideologically opposed to nation-building. But Bush has to play-act the role in order to get re-elected.
Posted by JC @ 09/08/2003 08:48 PM ET
Its kind of funny that some of the poeple complaining don't vote.
Actually it kind of pisses me off. Voting is your right and people just throw it away like trash. It takes a total of 5 minutes of your life, places of work HAVE to, by law, give you time to go and vote, there is no excuse not to do it. It just amazes me that people don't care enough to do so. Yet when the going gets rough, or something that does not benefit them occurs, they blame the guys they didnt have a part in electing.
Aaaah America!!
Posted by Matt Petersen @ 09/08/2003 09:08 PM ET
^^^
At least a lot of them are realizing how important the right to vote really is and are going to do something about it
And I hope that all of you who are saying that you're going to register and vote really do it.
My dad is voting in '04 for the first time since '68, and I have never been more proud of him.
Posted by Steve @ 09/08/2003 09:27 PM ET
It sadens me that Bush has any support at all. The man has all the common sense of a ferret. He psuhes his views of things, but he really doesn't do much to back it up at all.
Sometimes, I suspect that whenever he sees a Power Rangers episode, he calls the National Guard and reports another giant monster attack in California.
Posted by Aaron @ 09/08/2003 09:29 PM ET
"A terrorist act - attacking innocents - is something you do to a foe that seems too strong. A weak foe you face head-on (and pummel the crap out of him, if you're so inclined). A strong foe you play dirty with, so to speak. Terrorist acts are "unconventional warfare.""
I have to disagree, in part. Al Qaeda has never been in any position to take anyone on head to head. Even at their strongest they were a small force. terrorism is their only gameplan, all they have.
I have to also think that if Bin Laden could have seen the results of his "victory"--the loss of the most Orthodox Islamic government and the loss of the most powerful Islamic army he would have been crazy (er)to go ahead with it. What has he gained? The USA is stronger than ever and he no longer has any government willing to openly support and train his people.
I suspect he expected another Black Hawk Down--wound us and we run. The Japanese made the same mistake. One question I would ask--if they targeted us because we were so strong why have they stopped? 2 years and nothing. It's not like it's hard to come up with about 12,000 scenarios where a suicide terrorist could inflict horrific slaughter in this country. It doesn't require any fancy hijacking or exotic bio weapons. Why have they hesitated?
Posted by Bill Mulligan @ 09/08/2003 10:34 PM ET
Thats faulty reasoning. Its not like Bin Laden blew up the Statue of Liberty in 2000 and The Washington Monument in 1999. The terrorists aren't working on a schedule.
Posted by Derek! @ 09/08/2003 11:19 PM ET
One question I would ask--if they targeted us because we were so strong why have they stopped? 2 years and nothing. It's not like it's hard to come up with about 12,000 scenarios where a suicide terrorist could inflict horrific slaughter in this country. It doesn't require any fancy hijacking or exotic bio weapons. Why have they hesitated?
If you look at Al Qaeda's history, their normal pattern is: Big strike, lie low for a few years, bigger strike, lie low for a few years. They bombed the Khaiber (sp) Towers, then disappeared for a while. Then, they bombed the Cole and disappeared for a while. Next, 9/11 and and year and half in hiding until they bombed that club in Australia. They're laying low, regrouping and planning for their next big strike. Anyone who thinks taking a chaotic country like Afghanistan and making it an even more chaotic country has put them on the run is terribly naive.
They will strike and again and everyone will wonder why we spent so much money attacking a third party instead of tightening the security at our ports.
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 11:21 PM ET
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage
Yes, coming to kill Americans in a country where they know the language and the Americans don't, where they have millions of sympathetic Baathist supporters willing to help hide them and where they can easily blend in the population.
Boy, am I glad we have all the advantages there! /sarcasm.
Posted by Den @ 09/08/2003 11:27 PM ET
Next, 9/11 and and year and half in hiding until they bombed that club in Australia.
The fact that the scope of their operations went from four coordinated attacks (only three of which hit their targets, of course) on major financial and government centers 9/11 to blowing up a nightclub, however, suggests that their capacity to strike is not what it once was.
Posted by Anonymous @ 09/08/2003 11:39 PM ET
Now you've gone and insulted ferrets everywhere, Aaron.
Posted by Tim @ 09/08/2003 11:58 PM ET
**Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
They no longer have to. There's plenty of Americans to do it for them.**
If you can dissent against the adminstration, other people can dissent against you. I don't call your views unpatriotic, just ill-informed.
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 12:34 AM ET
I'd file this prediction in the circular file along with PAD's prediction that we were going to "slaughter" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the shock and awe phase of the war...
Interesting that we never kept numbers on Iraqi civilian deaths, even to this day.
If you wanna know where the jobs went, they went overseas. I recently saw a television segment where it showed an entire school in India that taught Indians to "speak american" where they would take "call-center names" such as "Joe" and "Ellen" and would take customer service calls. Next time you call your phone company ask them where they're phone center is. They'll tell you they can't say for security but chances are they are in India because they can be paid 60 cents a day there.
Or maybe the jobs are in Iraq, if the people are working for Kellogg,Brown & Root.
Maybe the jobs are in Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from. The country that the Bush adminstration vetted out of the 9/11 report.
As for who should be president next, Dean is a good choice. Kucinich is better in my opinion.
Michael Norton
Posted by Michael Norton @ 09/09/2003 12:38 AM ET
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don't have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
And picking off our soldiers one at a time. Excuse me for not considering American soldiers as cannon fodder.
It's their job to put themselves in harm's way. Here's the perspective from a returning soldier: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011388.php and from Max Boot: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011394.php
Here's an article on al-Qaida in Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34457-2003Sep6.html
a-Qaida is described as weakened. Notice who their point man is. Abu Musab Zarqawi, the same man Powell cited as evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaida link before the war. So much for them not being in Iraq before.
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 01:30 AM ET
Thats faulty reasoning. Its not like Bin Laden blew up the Statue of Liberty in 2000 and The Washington Monument in 1999. The terrorists aren't working on a schedule.
Actually they are. Al-Qaida has tried to pull of something every year. People are forgetting the attack on the Cole and the planned millenium attacks. Now al-Qaida is reduced to claiming credit for blackouts.
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 01:38 AM ET
This would be the UN compound that rejected US offers of more security and declined to take recommended precautions against an attack just like the one made against it?
Not only that, they kept the Iraqi security guards who had been reporting to Hussein's secret police. It was criminal stupidity. Here's a Ralph Peters column: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/39299.htm Who wants these guys in charge?
Looking at the UN's track record doesn't inspire confidence. After 25 years, Cambodia has massive corruption and a facade of a democracy. Kosovo used to export electricity; five years later, under UN control, it has shortages of food, fuel and power and still no state wide elections. The Kosovars call them "the humanitarian Mafia".
If the UN has control, priority will be given to stability, which will mean putting the Baathists back in charge. A functioning democracy in the Arab world will be shelved, which will suit a lot of people just fine.
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 02:01 AM ET
But regardless of WHY he is saying it...it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage
Yes, coming to kill Americans in a country where they know the language and the Americans don't, where they have millions of sympathetic Baathist supporters willing to help hide them and where they can easily blend in the population.
There aren't "millions of Baathist supporters". The vast majority hate them. They don't like terrorists who sabotage their electricity or kill their religious leaders either. Even hussein tried to distance himself from that bombing. We aren't losing the hearts and minds of the people, the guerrillas are. that's why the US Army gets all these tips about their whereabouts.
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 02:09 AM ET
Posted by Matt Petersen:
It takes a total of 5 minutes of your life, places of work HAVE to, by law, give you time to go and vote, there is no excuse not to do it. It just amazes me that people don't care enough to do so. Yet when the going gets rough, or something that does not benefit them occurs, they blame the guys they didnt have a part in electing.
Actually, there is no Federal law regarding employers' giving time off, and according to an article at FindLaw.com, 19 states (plus the District of Columbia) have NO law regarding voting leave, 4 states require UNPAID leave be offered, and 23 require paid leave (4 states are unaccounted for). Of those states mandating paid leave, the employee is required to show proof of having voted in Maryland and Oklahoma, while California, Iowa and Wisconsin require the employee to request leave in advance. Also, Massachusetts, which mandates paid leave, paid leave only applies to certain occupations. Further, the states which mandate employers giving time off during work hours are only obliged to do so IF the employee will have insufficient non-work time to vote.
Speaking from personal experience, depending on what polling place you're assigned, the time it takes to vote can be far more than 5 minutes (I've stood in line as long as an hour before I even get to the desk to "sign in" and get the ballot). Also, depending on the ballot itself, I've spent as much as 30 minutes, considering the names and issues on the ballot. I live in Montgomery, AL, and I face the prospect of two elections within the next 30 days--one, for a statewide tax referendum issue, and another to elect city officials, neither of which is going to be a "5-minute" task from arriving at the polling place to exiting the voting booth.
Posted by Joseph @ 09/09/2003 02:33 AM ET
Because as the economy continues to decline
The economy is still bad? Someone needs to tell the companies who do business with my employer.
We have been on overtime for about two months now with no sign of slowing down.
My mother in law works for a company in St. Paul Minnesota and she says that they are thinking of adding another sift to handle the work load they are dealing with.
My dad lost his job at the taconite mine he worked at this past winter. Now there is talks of someone buying out the company and him being able to get his old job back.
Sure unemployment is high but the state of the economy can not be figured from just looking at that one area.
Over all the economy is improvinig and if my personal testimony doesn't work for you then perhaps some links to different news stories showing a strong rise in other areas of the economy will help:
Consumer confidence rises, August 26, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/26/news/economy/consumer/index.htm
Retail sales jump, August 13, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/13/news/economy/retail/index.htm
U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Signal Pickup in Rate of Economic Growth, Aug. 21, 2003
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/press.cfm?press_id=2213
Manufacturing index at 8-month high, September 2, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/02/news/economy/ism.reut/index.htm
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION, August 15, 2003
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G17/Current/default.htm
Consumer prices edge higher, August 15, 2003
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/15/news/economy/cpi/index.htm
The Group of 10 central bankers cited encouraging second quarter results from the US as well as growing business and consumer confidence., September 09, 2003
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/economicnews/view/48605/1/.html>
Posted by James Tichy @ 09/09/2003 02:37 AM ET
And all the "I told you so" in the world can't stop that. (And I am among that crowd.)
That said, I squarely lay the blame for the state of things in Iraq on an administration that did not see this coming, when so many intelligent people did. I think everyone I knew expected that the war part of the War would be easy, the peace difficult. But someone in Washington was deluded.
You saw no such thing. I remember all the predictions. In burst of nationalistic fervor, Iraqis would rally behind Hussein and turn Baghdad into another Stalingrad. Bombing the infrastructure would lead to half a million deaths from disease. The Kurds and Shiites would declare their own state, leading to civil war and an Iranian style theocracy in the south. There would be massive bloodshed as Iraqis settled scores. None of these things have happened. Is there terrorism? Yes. There's also terrorism in India and Indonesia, with more loss of life. The biggest attacks in Iraq were on targets that explicitly refused American protection, like the UN and Najaf. As I said before, guerrilla activity continued in Germany until 1947. And contrary to the Slate article, Americans were killed: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004143.html
Here's more on how the reconstruction is going:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/078vlxzr.asp and here: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/5236.htm
If anyone predicted what would happen, it was neoconservative Michael Ledeen, who said that neighboring arab states and Islamic radicals would try to sabotage democracy in Iraq. Al-Qaida has come out and said that's their goal: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011351.php
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 02:51 AM ET
Sigh, This is really depressing reading people repeat verbatim the false information that democrat spinsters continue to pump out via their friends in the media. Okay:
Fact #1: The economy is turning around and unemployment just went down. Now, employers will begin hiring again after an extended period of positive growth.
Fact #2: The economy would be sailing high if it weren't for a certain jugernaut out west called California dragging the rest of the country down. California needs to start budgeting the way the rest of do, mainly, if you can't afford it you don't buy it. Second, California needs to do some environmentally safe energy expansion.That may mean exploring natural resouces that have been declared off limits by activists. Anyway you look at it, they need to do what is in the best interest of the majority instead of cow towing to a vocal minority.
Opinion #1: Judging by the way people are acting today, I honestly think most of the people on this board would be demanding FDR either be impeached or that he resign (unless of course you are a red dog democrat in which case it is a waste of energy discussing anything with).
Opinion #2: This is pure speculation, but it has occurred to me that Iraq now is a magnet for the terrorists and indirectly making the United States safer. Just a thought.
BTW, I was aginst the War in Iraq for mostly different reasons than the those espoused on this board, but it came as quite a shock to me find me aligned with Al Gore on this issue. As far as the cost of the war in Iraq, where are all you people who are upset about the price when it comes to government spending in general? Do you same people get upset that the Department of Education every year can't account for millions of dollars? Or that the federal government is leasing planes from Boeing when it would be cheaper to buy them outright? or that we pay millions of dollars to celebrities because they buy some farm land and we pay them millions/year to not farm it? And just wait when the government starts paying for prescription. I'm just saying be consistent. If you care so much about spending where are you on all the other crazy spending issues? Okay, tangent is over.
Posted by Rocky @ 09/09/2003 02:56 AM ET
My prediction is that in November 2004, PAD will be hoping that people forget this prediction, like the one about 100,000 Iraqis being killed. As a political analyst, he makes a pretty good comic book writer.
As for his constant kvetching about how the US "squandered" the world's sympathy, here's a great piece by respected commentator Fouad Ajami: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004213.html Money quote:
"To maintain France's sympathy, and that of Le Monde, the United States would have had to turn the other cheek to the murderers of al Qaeda, spare the Taliban, and engage the Muslim world in some high civilizational dialogue. But who needs high approval ratings in Marseille? Envy of U.S. power, and of the United States' universalism, is the ruling passion of French intellectual life. It is not "mostly Bush" that turned France against the United States. The former Socialist foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, was given to the same anti-Americanism that moves his successor, the bombastic and vain Dominique de Villepin. It was Védrine, it should be recalled, who in the late 1990s had dubbed the United States a "hyperpower." He had done so before the war on terrorism, before the war on Iraq. He had done it against the background of an international order more concerned with economics and markets than with military power. In contrast to his successor, Védrine at least had the honesty to acknowledge that there was nothing unusual about the way the United States wielded its power abroad, or about France's response to that primacy. France, too, he observed, might have been equally overbearing if it possessed the United States' weight and assets.
His successor gave France's resentment highly moral claims. Villepin appeared evasive, at one point, on whether he wished to see a U.S. or an Iraqi victory in the standoff between Saddam Hussein's regime and the United States. Anti-Americanism indulges France's fantasy of past greatness and splendor and gives France's unwanted Muslim children a claim on the political life of a country that knows not what to do with them."
Why PAD even wants the sympathy of people who would send him death threats if they ever read Captain Marvel #1 and #6 is beyond me.
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 03:20 AM ET
People were ill prepared and serious mistakes had been made. The result is a mess.
After decades of a brutal dictatorship, do you expect Sweden in five months?
Posted by Jim Burdo @ 09/09/2003 03:25 AM ET
Posted by Jim Burdo:
Looking at the UN's track record doesn't inspire confidence. After 25 years, Cambodia has massive corruption and a facade of a democracy. Kosovo used to export electricity; five years later, under UN control, it has shortages of food, fuel and power and still no state wide elections. The Kosovars call them "the humanitarian Mafia".
Hate to burst your little anti-UN rant, but the UN hasn't been in Cambodia for "25 years". Pol Pot's vicious thugs, the Khmer Rouge, were in charge until the Vietnamese invaded and installed their own puppet government. Cambodia's only had a reasonably functional government for the last ten years, which was not set up under UN auspices. As for the "massive corruption", it was there during the 5 years of the US-supported "republic" which collapsed after the US pulled out of Vietnam (it very well could have been there from Cambodia's full independence from France, but until 1970, the US, and most Americans, had little concern for Cambodia). With a touch of irony, Cambodia's least corrupt government may very well have been that of Pol Pot, but only because the cities were emptied and everyone was forced to work in the fields; the "government" as such was basically as skeletal as many of the people were by the time of the Vietnamese invasion.
As for Kosovo, until 5 years ago, where exactly did Kosovo "export" electricity? Kosovo was, and still is, a part of Yugoslavia (now, technically, "Serbia and Montenegro"), so any "exports" were done through the central government in Belgrade--the same government which sought to wipe out the Kosovars. Furthermore, it was the same conservative-led demands now opposing any UN help in Iraq that sought to dump Kosovo into the laps of the UN (remember those diatribes that we had no business in Kosovo?). Kosovars had plenty of shortages under Milosevic's thumb (i.e., before 5 years ago), but only if they were ethnic Albanians; somehow, the Kosovar Serbs managed to get all the supplies they needed. Since there are still ethnic Serbs in Kosovo (as well as Macedonians), I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones griping the loudest since their "savior" was deposed. The issue of "state-wide" elections is a non-issue as long as the central government refuses to accept any results which might lead to Kosovar independence--the central government doesn't want to lose anymore of the country which would lead to another Milosevic-style nationalist, so Belgrade won't allow pro-independence groups on the ballot.
The UN can only urge a member state to allow a constituent part to hold fair elections, especially if the results of the election may mean that part secedes from the whole. While the UN may be in an area as peacekeepers or monitors(as in Kosovo), they're not there as "rebuilders". The UN has been trying to get Turkey and Greece to resolve the Cyprus situation (as has NATO), yet neither country is willing to accept the necessary compromises to resolve the roots of the situation (Greece remains of the idea that enosis should be up to the Greek Cypriots with no interference from Greece, although Greece hasn't officially ruled out accepting enosis; Turkey claims to be looking out for the Turkish Cypriot minority which would oppose enosis, and until Greece rules out any possibility of such taking place, it will continue "protecting" Turkish Cypriots--the UN in the meanwhile, keeps peacekeepers on the Green Line, as they have for nearly 30 years).
Posted by Joseph @ 09/09/2003 03:31 AM ET
Bush has saved the militant fudmentalists the work of overthrowing Hussein. Now they have a new country to hang out in.
Good job, W.
Sheesh...
(To the predictable "Are you pro-Saddam?" replies: Just realize the "War on Terrorism" and "War in Iraq" are two separate things. Iraq was a beaten nation, under constant bombing and surviellance. As far as threats, it was far down the list.)
Posted by Robb P. @ 09/09/2003 04:09 AM ET
There aren't "millions of Baathist supporters". The vast majority hate them. They don't like terrorists who sabotage their electricity or kill their religious leaders either. Even hussein tried to distance himself from that bombing. We aren't losing the hearts and minds of the people, the guerrillas are. that's why the US Army gets all these tips about their whereabouts
Sorry Jim, but this sounds so naive. You can't really believe that the Iraqi people are so happy to have us there. Yes, we've done a good thing removing Hussein. We've also killed 100s of thousands of Iraqis either through sanctions or bombings. Don't forget that we've bombed them at least once a week since the first Iraqi conflict.
What's worse about this administration is that they are fear mongers. If for no other reason I'd vote against them.
And what do they get as reward for their fear mongering? They get to take away the Bill of Rights and pee on it. They get to do everything in secret, thanks to the removal of the Freedom of Information Act by Bush, by Executive Order.
And in all this mess that has become our country, we've now got to make sure another country is ok.
Since John Ashcroft and George W. Bush like to quote the bible so much,perhaps they'd like to reread that whole thing about a plank in the eye?
Michael Norton
Posted by Michael Norton @ 09/09/2003 04:12 AM ET
Michael Norton: If you wanna know where the jobs went, they went overseas. I recently saw a television segment where it showed an entire school in India that taught Indians to "speak american" where they would take "call-center names" such as "Joe" and "Ellen" and would take customer service calls. Next time you call your phone company ask them where they're phone center is. They'll tell you they can't say for security but chances are they are in India because they can be paid 60 cents a day there.
Luigi Novi: Hmph. That might explain why I got a call on my cell several months ago from a man with a thick Indian accent who claimed his name was “John Anderson” and wanted me to sign up for a new cellular plan. When I later spoke to his supervisor, it was another man with the same type of accent who also gave another Anglo name. Now I know. :-)
Jim Burdo: Why PAD even wants the sympathy of people who would send him death threats if they ever read Captain Marvel #1 and #6 is beyond me.
Luigi Novi: I doubt that would happen. Most Iraqis are not suicide bombers.
Michael Norton: Sorry Jim, but this sounds so naive. You can't really believe that the Iraqi people are so happy to have us there. Yes, we've done a good thing removing Hussein. We've also killed 100s of thousands of Iraqis either through sanctions
Luigi Novi: The idea that we kill Iraqis through sanctions is a fallacy. The idea is that by refusing to trade with Iraq, America is to blame that Iraqis starve, but America is not responsible for the fact that Iraqis were without food. The reason they are were starving is that they were under the subjugation of Hussein, who spends Iraqi’s oil revenues on himself, and not on his own people. It is he who is responsible for any shortages suffered by his people, not the U.S.
As for Post-Gulf War bombings, was it really hundreds of thousands?
Posted by Luigi Novi @ 09/09/2003 05:51 AM ET
twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis
I'm probably just missing something here, but... there were 19 hijackers; 15 were Saudis, one Lebanese, two from the UAE, and the ringleader, Mohammed Atta, was Egyptian.
Posted by Matt Adler @ 09/09/2003 07:13 AM ET
I'll make a co
An 8-second google search shows that you did in fact say "We are going to drop bombs on him, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Let's call it what it is: Slaughter." at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000322.html . And saying you're wrong isn't just for laughs, it's a demonstrable fact; the number of Iraqi civilian deaths is orders of magnitude below your prediction. As someone said above, as a predictor of world events, you're a hell of a writer.
Yes, you can tell I'm a writer because I sign my work, as opposed to gutless anonymous posters.
I do appreciate your proving my point for me, however. You can't help but make snippy comments because you think I've recanted something I said. So imagine, then, how people feel the administration brushes off people who keep track of their lies as "revisionist historians." Imagine how annoyed people get when Bush declares the war is over...and it's not.
You get impatient with a writer who says something wrong? Imagine how annoying it is to deal with a failed businessman who doesn't know what he's doing, and his decisions continue to cost lives.
PAD
A couple points:
1) Voting isn't just a right, it's a responsibility.
2) Bush said, I believe, that major hostilities are over, not that the "war" is over. He said from the start that this would take a long, long time.
3) The "death count" in Iraq is drastically smaller right now than it was before the war. Only then it was Saddam killing his own people. That doesn't make our soldiers getting killed any easier to take, but at least some of us are thinking of the Iraqi people.
4) No WMDs: Well, he did have months and months before the fact to smuggle them out or hide them well. Time will tell.
5) Did Bush predict the future perfectly? No. Does anyone?
6) You are a wonderful writer.
1) Voting isn't just a right, it's a responsibility.
Very true.
2) Bush said, I believe, that major hostilities are over, not that the "war" is over. He said from the start that this would take a long, long time.
Here's the thing: He dresses up like Tom Cruise, flies a jet onto an aircraft carrier and gives a speech under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." The whole stage was set to create the photo-op for his re-election campaign with the impression that we had achieved a huge victory. Without actually saying "the war is over," he crafted an image in the public's mind that it was.
3) The "death count" in Iraq is drastically smaller right now than it was before the war. Only then it was Saddam killing his own people. That doesn't make our soldiers getting killed any easier to take, but at least some of us are thinking of the Iraqi people.
This may be true, but that does not make setting our soldiers up as targets of opportunity for terrorist acceptable. If we're going to do this job of rebuilding Iraq, let's do it right.
4) No WMDs: Well, he did have months and months before the fact to smuggle them out or hide them well. Time will tell.
The thing is, Saddam didn't run the country all by himself. We have several of his former henchmen in custody. It's inconceivable that one of them still hasn't given us information about the location of the WMD's.
4) No WMDs: Well, he did have months and months before the fact to smuggle them out or hide them well. Time will tell.
Yet the US supposedly knew exactly where they were prior to the invasion. And Iraq bluffed about using them, yet didn't...despite the simple fact that using them was about the only card left to avoid defeat. And no captured member of the former Iraqi government has offered to cut a deal by offering them up. And the US has also had months to sniff out those WMD's that there was apparently no problem pinpointing previously.
I'd say that time is already starting to tell.
\\He has inspired me to do something which no other president before (at least in my lifetime) could have:
vote.\\
For or against Bush? :)
The 2000 election was my first voting eligible election, but I didn't vote. I wanted to, but there was nobody I cared enough about to actually do it.
And I'm not about to vote for Gore because it would be a vote against Bush.
So, it wasn't until I got to Colorado that I actually registered, and I registered independent.
Time for some new blood in politics. :)
Btw, could some of you folks use some italics or something when quoting? Makes things easier to read for all. :)
"Has *anyone* told Bush, who said the above, that twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis, and that the above statement--while catering to the "Keep Americans scared" thetoric--makes no practical sense?"
Ummm....are you saying we shouldn't be going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan because he's a Saudi? I don't get it--you go where the bad guys are. Whether you agree with it or not, Bush said quite a while ago that he saw no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that supported them so this policy is exactly what was promised.
I mean, where SHOULD we be going to fight Bin Laden's boys, if not the country they are in?
Had to go back to the beginning of the thread for this but it was worth it just to drop a few cents (or perhaps that should be spelled sense).
For the last two years, it's amazed me no end that supposedly grown people have been talking like little children when describing terrorists.
Either they use Bushism #1: "bad guys" or Bushism #2: "evildoers".
On the second, I always conjure up an image of Osama bin Laden wearing some kind of cape and spandex.
But with the first, I imagine the speaker/writer/whatever as a drooling, petulant two-year old, throwing his/her toys and sticking their lower lip out, arms crossed on their chest and crying about how the "bad guys" won't let them stay up until midnight.
Before I get accused of not having anything of substance in my comments, I'd like to ask Mr. Mulligan and those that share his P.O.V., what about Pakistan? I assume (and that's a dangerous thing, I know) that you all know of the Pakistani ISI.
Can anyone say Savak on steriods?
You do remember our ill-fated reporter Daniel Pearl who was decapitated (or so the story goes, as the media in this country is far too afraid that we adults may not be able to handle video footage of his execution, despite the fact that they sell the same thing to us through one of their other outlets) in an "undisclosed location" in Islamabad?
Hmm... I'm starting to get the response before anyone actually writes it.
Pakistan, you see (they would say), is a partner in the "war on terra" and therefore is exempt. After all, this is the Bush administration position and if it's good enough for Can't Chew Pretzels And Breathe At The Same Time...
It has absolutely nothing to do with the pipeline that needs to go through both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Pakistan, the country from which the Taliban continue to enter Afghanistan. One would think if the Pakistani (Musharraf) government were really interested in stopping terrorism, they'd have sent troops into the western part of their country and pushed the Taliban, not to mention al-Qaeda, into the position of being, quite literally, caught between a rock and a hard place.
It's amazing how Pakistan has gotten a pass for the last two years.
People talk about Saudi Arabia. At least Saudi Arabia is understandable. To the extent that having business deals with killers can be understood; but it is, after all, a mutual admiration not-so-secret society so, hey, the bloodier, the better, right?
No matter the innocent lives that will be snuffed out, there's green to be made!
Pakistan's Get Out Being Labelled Axis Of Evil Charter Member Free Card makes no sense whatsoever unless you factor in the pipeline and that's the key right there.
Oh, that and the fact that we can sell them arms and turn southeast and sell the Indians the same thing we just sold their nuclear neighbors to destablize the region even further. And maybe we'll get lucky and they'll end up eliminating each other without us having to do a thing except arm them to the gills. Just more blood of innocents in exchange for the almighty buck.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is, of course, free to lend me their theories.
As to why Osama bin Laden and company are still running free, the answer is a simple one: he's a useful pawn (if he's ever been a pawn to begin with). Release a tape, scare the sheep, act like you'll save the day, get better ratings, ride the wave just a little bit longer, and, oh yeah, erode civil liberties just little bit more.
I'm having a bunch of anticipatory flash-forwards here tonight. The response to this one will be, "What civil liberties have you lost?" It is, after all, what the Bush criminals and their followers chant (and have for the past two years).
Let me give you just one example.
None of us, unless we live in cities that still remember the Constitution (you remember the Constitution, don't you?) and have declared the US "Patriot" Act not worth the paper it's scrawled on, are free to go to a public library without fearing (at the very least) that that librarian is recording what book we just took out and passing that information onto the Injustice Department.
And, in anticipation, I head off the response of, "Well, if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried about it?", with this: why is it anyone else's business if I check out with The Golden Age Of Blowjobs (thank you, George Carlin) or not? Just because Ashcroft's not getting any doesn't mean that he needs to know whether I am or not.
That's just one example.
Someone will no doubt say something about the fact that I can still write what I just wrote without the Gestapo coming to the door at 2 AM. I respond with, "How much longer?"
But you hypothetically asked for one example and I gave you that one example.
Since I'm white, I can't speak (nor would I assume to speak) about the plight of Arab-Americans, except to say that I'm sure when they came to or were born in this country that they never expected that, at some point, they might be treated just as they or relatives were treated in their countries of origin. Or worse.
But, as the song says, God Bless America, right?
Wow, chris, that was amazing. A debate and a monologue all wrapped up into one. You remind me of every person I've ever sat next to on a greyhound bus, though I have no evidence that you are, in fact, wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil.
For the record, the use of the term "bad guys" and all similar ilk, was and usually is, meant to be an example of understatement. I know, that whole humor thing can be confusing sometimes. Let me see if I can explain--
You see, when people hijack a jet full of civilians and fly it into a building many of us just can't get the image of what it must have been like for those people in the last few moments of life--I think of those kids who were going on some school related trip with their teachers, what terror they must have felt as they saw the inevitability of their doom ( I hope "doom" doesn't bug you, with its overuse in cartoons and all.
It's hard to deal with. What term can one use to describe such people? (Alas! You provide no acceptable words with which we may emerge from drooling , petulant childhood) So forgive us if we don't quite measure up in you eyes. Words fail us.
As for your claim that, well, in your own words "As to why Osama bin Laden and company are still running free, the answer is a simple one: he's a useful pawn (if he's ever been a pawn to begin with). Release a tape, scare the sheep, act like you'll save the day, get better ratings, ride the wave just a little bit longer, and, oh yeah, erode civil liberties just little bit more." um, is there even the smallest reaon we should believe that? It is indeed a simple answer, I'll give you that. Logical as fermented owl poop but simple. But I'm sure you have some evidence to back it up so would you mind providing some sources that we may all achieve enlightenment?
Funny how, suddenly, because I have a differing opinion, I'm a heartless bastard that has absolutely zero sympathy for anyone that might have been on any of the four planes or their families, for that matter. Oh, I know, you never said that. But it was nicely implied.
No skin off my nose, as I've had this same accusation applied to me for the last two years by what were friends at the time, no less. Nothing could be further from the truth but there it is...
(I won't start about how the FBI/CIA/NSA, et al, failed in stopping those planes from being hijacked in the first place. If you want to debate that, Bill, we can exchange e-mails instead of getting into a flame war and wasting everyone's time. The same invitation stands for anyone else that wishes to debate this point.)
Since you need a word to use instead of "evildoers" or "bad guys", how about just using the word "terrorist"? I think everyone knows what the hell terrorist means. Typically, people don't hear that word and immediately flash on images of white fluffy clouds and cute puppies.
Excuse me while I adjust my tin foil hat...
As for sources concerning the release of Osama bin Laden tapes by the government, I didn't know that I needed one. I thought this was a place to exchange opinions and ideas but silly me, I should have come armed.
Wait a second.
How about the fact that it is indeed the government that releases these tapes to the media, who air them for the general public to consume? How about the fact that these tapes only find themselves filtering through the broadcast stream when the Bush administration finds itself in some sort of jam or their ratings are in the toilet (or at least on the decline)?
Circumstantial at best, I know, but that's why it's called a hypothesis or a theory.
Just once, I'd love to see an Osama tape released during an upswing in their polling data.
Oh, that's right. They don't govern by polls. In other words, they don't give a damn what the common nobody has to say because they are just that: the common nobody.
Finally, I was interested to note that you never answered the question concerning Pakistan or addressed the fact of eroded civil liberties, Bill. But I suppose that's something to look forward to next time.
Funny how, suddenly, because I have a differing opinion, I'm a heartless bastard that has absolutely zero sympathy for anyone that might have been on any of the four planes or their families, for that matter. Oh, I know, you never said that. But it was nicely implied.
All kidding aside, you are totally wrong. Nothing I say will likely convince you of that...but it remains the truth. I don't know what sort of folks you are used to dealing with but if I really thought you were a heartless bastard yadda yadda, I'd be more than happy to say so. Why wouldn't I? Who can't look good arguing with a heartless bastard?
For someone who is quick with the quips you're pretty thin skinned.
Um, why would anyone want to argue about the FBI, CIA, DMV, cast of JAG or anyone else not stopping the planes??? It's pretty safe you'd win that one since, in fact, they didn't.
As for sources concerning the release of Osama bin Laden tapes by the government, I didn't know that I needed one. I thought this was a place to exchange opinions and ideas but silly me, I should have come armed.
Yeah, Chris, that's just what this is. You give an opinion. I reply, asking for evidence. You do whatever you please in response. Sorry if it sounded like it was some kind of threat--it just sounded like such a goofy premise I wondered if there was something you thought backed it up.
How about the fact that it is indeed the government that releases these tapes to the media, who air them for the general public to consume? How about the fact that these tapes only find themselves filtering through the broadcast stream when the Bush administration finds itself in some sort of jam or their ratings are in the toilet (or at least on the decline)?
Hmmm, well, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these tapes always coming from Al Jazeer (sp?), usually being handed to somebody NOT affiliated with the US government?
I mean, take a deep breath and think about it--wouldn't SOMEBODY be asking how come we never follow the guy who dropped off the tape at NBCCBSABCFOX, if that were what was happening? That's what I, Detective Mulligan would do, yessiree.
I would also point out that every news commentator I saw treated the tapes as evidence of Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden--so what exactly are you thinking that he is accomplishing?
(Of course, the Bushwhackers have pretty much set up a no-lose argument for themselves, based on 2 simple premises:
1- Bush is evil
2- Bush is very very stupid
So if world events work in his favor it's all some grand evil scheme. If the same events DON'T help him it's a grand evil scheme that backfired because of the aforementioned stupidity.
Finally, I was interested to note that you never answered the question concerning Pakistan or addressed the fact of eroded civil liberties, Bill. But I suppose that's something to look forward to next time.
Since the whole "Bad guys" remark was mine it was that (and the whole, you know, drooling petulant
child riff) that I was responding to.
The level of civil liberties erosion has been about what I expected for a war of this type and better than it could have been (no Roosevelt style incarceration of Muslim Americans for no better reason than their ethnicity).
Why haven't we invaded Pakistan like we did Afghanistan? Well, there's always the Bush Is Evil answer, involving mysterious oil transactions, membership in the Skull & Bones Society, an all night coke jag in an Islamabad Motel 6, and a woman known only as Consuela....but I'll go with something as dull and mundane as the whacky notion that in Afghanistan we had a remarkably unpopular regime that the majority of the population was only too happy to see removed whereas in Pakistan we would be fought tooth and nail by pretty much every single person in the country. It's like when folk, in all seriousness, would ask why go fight a country like Iraq which doesn't have nuclear weapons when you could just as easily fight one like North Korea, which does. I don't know exactly what you say to that, other than to smile, back away slowly, and be very glad they aren't calling the shots.
Thin skinned? Hell no! Just pointing out the implication. If you intended no offense, so be it. Not how I read it, not how you wrote it. No harm, no foul.
However...
Hmmm, well, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these tapes always coming from Al Jazeer (sp?), usually being handed to somebody NOT affiliated with the US government?
Since you want to play detective, perhaps you could answer this for me: how do we know these tapes are coming from Al Jazeera in the first place?
Note I did not say they weren't coming from Al Jazeera, I said that the US government releases them to the media, etc.
You and I probably agree on one thing: "news" reporters in this country couldn't pick their nose if they had a map.
So, taking this into consideration, and taking your own comments about how "every news commentator I saw treated the tapes as evidence of Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden" under advisement, why are we to trust these very same reporters that state Al Jazeera is the source of the footage?
Maybe because Al Jazeera hasn't refuted it (that we know of). I don't know. I was hoping you could tell me.
Perhaps you could also tell me who this "somebody NOT affiliated with the US government is". If not, that's fair. You have your theories and I have mine.
I mean, take a deep breath and think about it--wouldn't SOMEBODY be asking how come we never follow the guy who dropped off the tape at NBCCBSABCFOX, if that were what was happening? That's what I, Detective Mulligan would do, yessiree.
I'm scratching my head on this one, Bill.
Why would we follow the guy that drops the tape off? To prove that he works for the US government or to find OBL? I guess the wording of your question is just a little too ambiguous for me.
The level of civil liberties erosion has been about what I'd expect for a war of this type and better than it could have been (no Roosevelt style incarceration of Muslim Americans for no better reason than their ethnicity).
Really? What then of the people being held in animal cages in Guantanamo Bay? Are you one hundred percent sure that each and every one of them was apprehended in Afghanistan? Further, are you one hundred percent satisfied each and every one of them is guilty of whatever it is they're supposed to be guilty of (the government still doesn't say)?
You know, this raises an interesting handful of questions and a few legal points.
Is Guantanamo Bay part of the US or is it part of Cuba? Or is there a third answer, that it is a US military base?
If the first option, then these people should be extended the same rights as you or I would be. That's what the Constitution states.
If the second option, then shouldn't they be tried under Cuban law?
And if the third option, see the answer to the first option, as military bases and aircraft carriers, etc., have always been treated as sovereign US territory.
It wasn't until Ashcroft dusted off and put into action the US "Patriot" Act that all this changed.
What of Jose Padilla (remember him?)? Is he guilty or not? Who's to say? We don't even know where he's being held and he hasn't been charged with anything. He doesn't have access to a lawyer and he probably never will.
In a recent interview with ABC News, Ashcroft said that he views this as a World War 2 type situation. He believes that the US should be able to hold Mr. Padilla and anyone else for the duration of the "war on terra", a war that Dick Cheney has said could go on for the rest of our lifetimes or longer.
In other words, Jose Padilla will rot in a secret prison cell for the rest of his life, without anyone ever knowing where that cell was and whether he was actually guilty of anything in the first place.
And this is a US citizen being treated like this. He has officially joined the ranks of the disappeared. Kissinger is so proud.
What are the numbers on those that were legally living in this country, swept up in the dragnet after S 11 that have now been deported and denied return to this country? Do you know the numbers? The government isn't saying.
My one example, I noticed, also went unchallenged. Why is it your business or anyone else's what I check out of the library to read?
Trivial when compared to the prospect of being detained for the rest of your life without the right to a trial but still a question and an eroded right.
Why haven't we invaded Pakistan like we did Afghanistan? Well, there's always the Bush Is Evil answer, involving mysterious oil transactions, membership in the Skull & Bones Society, an all night coke jag in an Islamabad Motel 6, and a woman known only as Consuela....
By the way, how much did Bush bring to the Motel 6?
...but I'll go with something as dull and mundane as the whacky notion that in Afghanistan we had a remarkably unpopular regime that the majority of the population was only too happy to see removed whereas in Pakistan we would be fought tooth and nail by pretty much every single person in the country.
Kinda like in Iraq, huh? Or is that the unproven al-Qaeda presence that we keep hearing so much about?
But seriously, shouldn't the mighty US war machine be able to handle every last person? And what about our coalition of the willing? Wouldn't they be able to back our play in Pakistan?
And are you saying that the Bush administration knew in advance that there were no nuclear warheads (or possibly, no WMDs at all) in Iraq in the first place?
That would mean they lied about their justification for invading and murdering innocent Iraqis, wouldn't it?
Or is there another reason we went into Iraq? What's the excuse this week?
It's like when folk, in all seriousness, would ask why go fight in a country like Iraq which doesn't have nuclear weapons when you could just as easily fight one like North Korea, which does. I don't know exactly what you say to that, other than to smile, back away slowly, and be very glad they aren't calling the shots.
But when you really get down to it, and you say it yourself, Bush and company are picking and choosing which terrorists we'll leave alone and which we'll take out (or at least pretend to take out).
And isn't that in direct conflict with the Bush Doctrine of "we do not differentiate between terrorists and the regimes that harbor them"? Further, isn't that in direct conflict with the typical B.S. US line of "we do not negotiate with terrorists"?
Are the Bushies really committed to wiping out terrorism, in all forms, everywhere on this planet? How can they be if they pick and choose?
One last thing...I was truly bothered by Bush's claim in his speech that "we have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength — they are invited by the perception of weakness." This logic seems flawed to me. The 9/11 attack occurred because we seemed weak? A terrorist act - attacking innocents - is something you do to a foe that seems too strong. A weak foe you face head-on (and pummel the crap out of him, if you're so inclined). A strong foe you play dirty with, so to speak. Terrorist acts are "unconventional warfare."
Terrorists don't attack the weak head-on. That's why they're terrorists. Nations attack the weak head-on with conventional military means and methods.
Terrorists attack their targets by any means available to them. Their targets are chosen by measure of the statement such an attack would make and by the likelihood of retaliation. Yes, terrorists target whom they percieve as weal because no terrorist group wants any more members to die aside from the deliberate ones, the suicide bombers. If it were otherwise, terrorist cells wouldn't act independently from most other cells, and maintain only limited communication with the other cells.
Terrorists want to live long enough to launch attacks.
Why would anyone attack whom they percieve to be strong? Bees sting because in their primitive insect minds it will actually do something to protect the hive. They wouldn't sting anybody if they were sophisticated enough to figure that a stung Chris Arndt is more likely to destroy their hive than otherwise.
Of course, I'd rather the bees go somewhere else. I hate bees and crickets and flies and most noise-making insects and all of the biters and stinging ones. I love going off on a tangent.
CJA
Note I did not say they weren't coming from Al Jazeera, I said that the US government releases them to the media, etc.
Sorry, I don't see how you can say that. Syria, Egypt, Iran, etc. show a tape on TV. CNN et al report about it. At what point has the US government had any part in this process?
why are we to trust these very same reporters that state Al Jazeera is the source of the footage?
Maybe because Al Jazeera hasn't refuted it (that we know of). I don't know. I was hoping you could tell me.
Ok, so this is a REALLY big conspiracy. Well, yeah, if you postulate that everything is part of the conspiracy I guess we can trust nothing. Hell, YOU could be a plant. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that some of the anti-war folks were government plants, since they did such a piss poor job of arguing their case.
But frankly, the admitedly more mundane idea that Bin Laden or, more likely I think, his supporters, are feeding tapes to Al Jazeera with no help or encouragement from Uncle Sam seems just a whole lot more logical than a huge plot by the governement to pull off some con that makes them look bad. What's the point?
Why would we follow the guy that drops the tape off? To prove that he works for the US government or to find OBL? I guess the wording of your question is just a little too ambiguous for me.
I didn't intend for it to be a head scratcher. I was just suggesting that if Peter Jennings kept getting tapes handed to him from Osama I would hope that somebody might suggest they investigate the guy who brings them. This doesn't happen because, as I've said, the US networks are just reporting what is being played on Arab TV (or, alternately, they are CLAIMING that they are reporting what is being played on Arab TV and the Arabs, French, Russians and everyone else who knows the truth is just sitting on it because they're swell guys).
What then of the people being held in animal cages in Guantanamo Bay?
If every one of them is as innocent as my Aunt Mildred it would still not reach the level of FDR's persecution of Americans of Japanese descent. (Don't get me wrong--FDR was a great man but that is one hell of a black mark on his resume)
My one example, I noticed, also went unchallenged. Why is it your business or anyone else's what I check out of the library to read?
Why do I have to challenge it?
And are you saying that the Bush administration knew in advance that there were no nuclear warheads (or possibly, no WMDs at all) in Iraq in the first place?
That would mean they lied about their justification for invading and murdering innocent Iraqis, wouldn't it?
Don't recall hearing them claim that there were nuclear warheads. Did they?
But seriously, shouldn't the mighty US war machine be able to handle every last person? And what about our coalition of the willing? Wouldn't they be able to back our play in Pakistan?
Well, yeah, we could kill everyone in the country but I don't see any conceivable way that would be helpful to anyone.
But when you really get down to it, and you say it yourself, Bush and company are picking and choosing which terrorists we'll leave alone and which we'll take out (or at least pretend to take out).
And isn't that in direct conflict with the Bush Doctrine of "we do not differentiate between terrorists and the regimes that harbor them"? Further, isn't that in direct conflict with the typical B.S. US line of "we do not negotiate with terrorists"?
Are the Bushies really committed to wiping out terrorism, in all forms, everywhere on this planet? How can they be if they pick and choose?
You directly attack the ones you have reasonable assurance of taking out and the others you might try to take out by other, less direct means. I can't imagine any sane leader doing otherwise.
At any rate, nobody could ever wipe out terrorism in all forms, everywhere on this planet. All it takes is the will and a weapon and a bit of luck to make it into the history books. We might be able to limit the liklihood of seeing a major city turned into a pile of thermic mist but we will always have terrorism. Everyone knows that, or at least they should.
Note I did not say they weren't coming from Al Jazeera, I said that the US government releases them to the media, etc.
Sorry, I don't see how you can say that. Syria, Egypt, Iran, etc. show a tape on TV. CNN et al report about it. At what point has the US government had any part in this process?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you'll jump at that opportunity) but whenever the media releases one of these tapes, reports on what Al Jazeera is reporting, whatever, do they not say, "The US government has released another Osama bin Laden tape..."? I've heard it on at least a couple of occasions.
why are we to trust these very same reporters that state Al Jazeera is the source of the footage?
Maybe because Al Jazeera hasn't refuted it (that we know of). I don't know. I was hoping you could tell me.
Ok, so this is a REALLY big conspiracy. Well, yeah, if you postulate that everything is part of the conspiracy I guess we can trust nothing. Hell, YOU could be a plant. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that some of the anti-war folks were government plants, since they did such a piss poor job of arguing their case.
No one said that this is a REALLY big conspiracy, least of all me. I may have implied that but as you said about your implication, that was no what I was implyng. What I was implying was you can't have it both ways. Either the media is doing their job properly, without strings attached, without trying to embarrass the Bush Baby, or they are, in fact, attempting to bury him. When compared to the treatment Clinton was given about oral sex (and other various and unprovable accusations), using a tape to state a fact (that the Bushies have yet to catch Osama bin Laden) is miniscule.
But frankly, the admitedly more mundane idea that Bin Laden or, more likely I think, his supporters, are feeding tapes to Al Jazeera with no help or encouragement from Uncle Sam seems just a whole lot more logical than a huge plot by the governement to pull off some con that makes them look bad. What's the point?
I must be talking in a wind tunnel or something. I'll say it once more. I never said these tapes weren't coming from Al Jazeera. I said that the media likes to preface, on occasion, the airing of these tapes by saying that the US government has released them. All I can go by is what the media says.
How is it an admittedly more mundane idea for Bin Laden, alledgedly in a cave somewhere (when in actuality, the more, to borrow a phrase, mundane answer to his whereabouts in the western part of Pakistan), to be able to get tapes to Al Jazeera?
Seems to me that there has to be more going on here than meets the eye, how ever the tapes are being produced and dropped.
Remember your guy with the tape in the bag that gets dropped at CNNFOXMSNBCABCCBS? Why wouldn't some enterprising Al Jazeera employee do what you say, follow the guy that drops the tape and collect a cool $25 million? If it works one way, why wouldn't it work the other?
Let's try an even more mundane idea. Let's say I go with your Al Jazeera aired it, CNN reported it line (which, don't get me wrong, has merit; I've already stated why I go with a different train of thought). What if the people getting these tapes to Al Jazeera work for the Pakistani ISI? Isn't this aiding and abetting a terrorist?
I didn't intend for it to be a head scratcher. I was just suggesting that if Peter Jennings kept getting tapes handed to him from Osama I would hope that somebody might suggest they investigate the guy who brings them. This doesn't happen because, as I've said, the US networks are just reporting what is being played on Arab TV (or, alternately, they are CLAIMING that they are reporting what is being played on Arab TV and the Arabs, French, Russians and everyone else who knows the truth is just sitting on it because they're swell guys).
See my answer above.
What then of the people being held in animal cages in Guantanamo Bay?
If every one of them is as innocent as my Aunt Mildred it would still not reach the level of FDR's persecution of Americans of Japanese descent. (Don't get me wrong--FDR was a great man but that is one hell of a black mark on his resume)
Comparing atrocities isn't something I want to be dragged into. There's no difference between either of these acts.
And yet the question remains, are they innocent? Aren't their HUMAN rights being violated if they are indeed innocent? And if they aren't all guilty like we would just assume because they happen to fit a profile, are we to feel nothing, just give them a pat on the back and say, "Sorry, we made a mistake. Now try and go on with your lives"?
My one example, I noticed, also went unchallenged. Why is it your business or anyone else's what I check out of the library to read?
Why do I have to challenge it?
Take it easy. No one asked you to challenge it. I was simply pointing out that no one has touched it yet. Talk about your thin skin.
Don't recall hearing them claim that there were nuclear warheads. Did they?
You got me there. Shall I withdraw the question or would you like to answer a modification? The modification for your approval or rejection removes the word warheads and substitutes it with weapons. Whether you want to answer the modification doesn't matter to me. My point was made. Because I said warheads instead of weapons doesn't not make the point moot.
Well, yeah, we could kill everyone in the country but I don't see any conceivable way that would be helpful to anyone.
Did I say it would be helpful to anyone? I asked shouldn't the mighty US war machine be able to handle every last person. You admitted that it would. The question still remains, why not Pakistan? And for that matter, why not North Korea? The current belief is that Iran has nuclear weapons capability. If this is true, isn't it dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of despots? So would we invade Iran to produce regime change there? Even if they have nuclear weapons? Or would we take these less direct means that you speak of later on?
On the other hand, if it was proven that Iran didn't have nuclear capability (of course, if the U.N. said this, it wouldn't be believed anyway, see Iraq; no, the mighty US would have to prove that they have nukes and that would be AFTER the bombs dropped on Tehran) we'd probably be there in a heartbeart.
Why is it okay for the US to invade whatever country it wishes but not okay for the countries that they attempt to invade to have whatever means it needs to protect itself? And when they do acquire those means why are they labelled rogue? Since we just got done discussing WW2, need I remind everyone who is the only country to actually drop nuclear weapons on another country?
But when you really get down to it, and you say it yourself, Bush and company are picking and choosing which terrorists we'll leave alone and which we'll take out (or at least pretend to take out).
And isn't that in direct conflict with the Bush Doctrine of "we do not differentiate between terrorists and the regimes that harbor them"? Further, isn't that in direct conflict with the typical B.S. US line of "we do not negotiate with terrorists"?
Are the Bushies really committed to wiping out terrorism, in all forms, everywhere on this planet? How can they be if they pick and choose?
You directly attack the ones you have reasonable assurance of taking out and the others you might try to take out by other, less direct means. I can't imagine any sane leader doing otherwise.
Any sane leader doesn't have the cabinet that Bush has. John Negroponte, unindicted war criminal (just ask Central America). Elliot Abrams, unindicted war criminal (again, ask Central and South America). Donald Rumsfeld, a lunatic that talks about the moon and Mars and some other crap when discussing dying US soldiers and dead innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Richard Armitage, a psycho that took part in the Phoenix Project in Vietnam. Richard Perle (oops, he slipped through; he doesn't actually work in the cabinet but he still puts ideas into the policies of this administration and most of them come to fruition). Paul Wolfowitz, just as insane as Rummy. This by you is a sane leader?
And the fact still remains that it's in direct conflict with the Bush Doctrine. You can't have it both ways.
In someone else's words, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
At any rate, nobody could ever wipe out terrorism in all forms, everywhere on this planet. All it takes is the will and a weapon and a bit of luck to make it into the history books. We might be able to limit the liklihood of seeing a major city turned into a pile of thermic mist but we will always have terrorism. Everyone knows that, or at least they should.
Funny, I thought that's exactly what the Bush Baby said when he launched this campaign. He said, basically, that if it takes a hundred years, a thousand years, a million years, it is the duty of the US to dismantle every last terrorist organization. Everyone that was sane said that this was a fantasy-land mentality, that you would never, ever wipe out terrorism and those that hang on every word that Dubya says ran to the nearest microphone and yelled, "How dare you? How dare you question the brilliant, compassionate, sane, true leader of our unbelieveably fair and just country? How dare you? We were just attacked! You must be a terrorist sympathizer, part of the Blame America First crowd!"
Now, the line is, "Well, we'll never get rid of terrorism. No one ever said we would. Um..."
So a new question emerges. Was the comment about how the US would eventually wipe out every last terrorist thug just for show, just to prove that Dubya's a man and thus a lie? Or did he actually think that it was the truth? You said everyone knows that we'll always have terrorism. Does Man Or Monkey?
whenever the media releases one of these tapes, reports on what Al Jazeera is reporting, whatever, do they not say, "The US government has released another Osama bin Laden tape..."? I've heard it on at least a couple of occasions.
I seem to remember them sayiong something like that early on but lately it's all be Al jazeera. At least, that's what I'm hearing (and it was certainly all I heard about the latest one--they even had a little Al Jazeera emblem on the video (Ok, ok, actually I'm just ASSUMING it was the Al Jazeera emblem. It could have said "ha ha, suckered you again, love, the folks at FOX News" for all I know.)
No one said that this is a REALLY big conspiracy, least of all me. I may have implied that but as you said about your implication, that was no what I was implyng. What I was implying was you can't have it both ways. Either the media is doing their job properly, without strings attached, without trying to embarrass the Bush Baby, or they are, in fact, attempting to bury him. When compared to the treatment Clinton was given about oral sex (and other various and unprovable accusations), using a tape to state a fact (that the Bushies have yet to catch Osama bin Laden) is miniscule.
To believe that the media in both this country and in the Arab countries are somehow working to make Bush look good by lying about the Bin Laden tapes is, to me, more than implying a big big conspiracy.
Why wouldn't some enterprising Al Jazeera employee do what you say, follow the guy that drops the tape and collect a cool $25 million? If it works one way, why wouldn't it work the other?
Considering that there is more than a little evidence that at least some Al Jazeera employees are big fans of Bin and crew I doubt that will happen, though one should never underestimate the persuasive power of 25 million.
Comparing atrocities isn't something I want to be dragged into. There's no difference between either of these acts.
And yet the question remains, are they innocent? Aren't their HUMAN rights being violated if they are indeed innocent? And if they aren't all guilty like we would just assume because they happen to fit a profile, are we to feel nothing, just give them a pat on the back and say, "Sorry, we made a mistake. Now try and go on with your lives"?
No difference? Sure there is. The Japanese Americans were never even charged with any crimes. They were incarcerated simply because of their race. They are not rounding up all Arab Americans simply on grounds of being Arab. Some of the people at Guantanamo may be innocent. ALL of the Japanese American internees were, as near as I can tell.
I can see why you wouldn't want to compare the two "atrocities" (a term I'd save for the real thing lest it lose its meaning) since it would be hard to do so and argue persuasively that there is no difference.
Take it easy. No one asked you to challenge it. I was simply pointing out that no one has touched it yet. Talk about your thin skin.
Oh ok, I thought you wanted or expected someone to challenge it. My bad. It's the result of an ongoing nightmare of a email discussion with a creationist who throws about 12 billion facts and figures at me with every missive and, if I ignore the less interesting ones, jumps on my lack of retort as some kind of great moral victory.
My point was made. Because I said warheads instead of weapons doesn't not make the point moot.
I don't see the need to split hairs. A nuclear weapon is a nuclear warhead, as far as I'm concerened. My impression was that the administration was claiming they had a program to eventually develope nuclear weapons, not that they had them. You may be right and I'm not asking you to go research this to my satisfaction--we all have lives here. I was just wondering if this was something I'd missed--I never heard Bush say that there were actual nuclear weapons and if he did I'm surprised that there wasn't more of a fear during the war that they would be used. They wore the chemical suits but I never heard anyone voice the concern that they would be nuked. Shouldn't that have come up? ( of course, I wasn't listening 24/7 so it may well have.)
The question still remains, why not Pakistan? And for that matter, why not North Korea? The current belief is that Iran has nuclear weapons capability. If this is true, isn't it dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of despots? So would we invade Iran to produce regime change there? Even if they have nuclear weapons? Or would we take these less direct means that you speak of later on?
As I thought I'd said in an earlier entry, we seem to invade countries where they population is largely eager to overthrow the current regime. Doesn't apply to Pakistan (The ones there who hate the regime are largely opposed to it because of its ties to the United States so I don't expect THEM to be much help). And no, I wouldn't invade a country with nukes. Just seems like a bad idea, what with the nuking and explosions and mushroom clouds and all.
The idea that all the Bush folks are insane...well, whatever, it's not something we can argue from any level of knowledge so I don't see the point.
And the fact still remains that it's in direct conflict with the Bush Doctrine. You can't have it both ways.
Sure they can. Destroy weak enemies, weaken strong enemies. Adjust the method to the situation. You may not like it but why can't they do it? Afraid of harsh editorials in the New York Times?
Funny, I thought that's exactly what the Bush Baby said when he launched this campaign. He said, basically, that if it takes a hundred years, a thousand years, a million years, it is the duty of the US to dismantle every last terrorist organization. Everyone that was sane said that this was a fantasy-land mentality, that you would never, ever wipe out terrorism and those that hang on every word that Dubya says ran to the nearest microphone and yelled, "How dare you? How dare you question the brilliant, compassionate, sane, true leader of our unbelieveably fair and just country? How dare you? We were just attacked! You must be a terrorist sympathizer, part of the Blame America First crowd!"
Now, the line is, "Well, we'll never get rid of terrorism. No one ever said we would. Um..."
So a new question emerges. Was the comment about how the US would eventually wipe out every last terrorist thug just for show, just to prove that Dubya's a man and thus a lie? Or did he actually think that it was the truth? You said everyone knows that we'll always have terrorism. Does Man Or Monkey?
I'm happy to let this stand on its own, without any comment (oh, ok just one-- am I the one who make "the line" now? Wow! I feel special and powerful! Is there opportunity for advancement?)
(Yeah, after 5 years they give you a brush)
I think we've established our positions as much as need be. I get the feeling we're arguing in a vacume. (besides, this thread's about to get bumped off the main page). But it's been cool, no hard feelings.