Ellington

Yes, it was uttered by President Bush while trying to defend his plan to ramp up forces in Iraq against bipartisan opposition—and it's a doozy, even for a man known for really stupid statements. As quoted by the Associated Press:

President Bush today challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

I have officially decided: He's either the stupidist president we've ever had, or he has absolute comtempt for the American people's intelligence. Or both.

Previous Comments

ID

109817

Comment

I'm lost, what's stupid about that? Have the Dems come up with a plan for Iraq yet?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-01-13T16:19:22-06:00

ID

109818

Comment

Let me break it down: 1. Bushco made a mess in Iraq. 2. Bushco wants to expand the mess they made in Iraq. 3. Bushco says not to criticize their mess, or their expanded mess plan, without offering a different plan. 4. In so doing, Bushco pretends that (a) Democrats, (b) Republicans, (c) generals on the ground in Iraq, (d) the Iraq Study Group (headed by the man who saved his 2000 eleciton), and (e) various others have not actually offered "a plan" or a variety of them that do not expand the mess that Bushco started in Iraq. That is, if it's not his "plan," then he pretends it doesn't exist. 5. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces; thus, leading the military is his responsibility (a fact he relished in the past). Now, he does not want to be criticized for mistakes he has and is making on that front, saying that others have not offered "a plan," while simply ignoring any plan that is not his expansion of his mess in Iraq. ... and, just for kicks and grins .... 6. In the middle of this debate, Bushco orders an attack on an Iranian consulate in Kurdish territory in Iraq. 7. Meantime, to bring us full circle, he says it is "irresponsible" to criticize him. Does he not understand that in America, anyone gets to criticize public officials when they are doing a bad job -- EVEN IF (maybe ESPECIALLY IF) they are not in the position to order him to do something else?!? It is so time that this country stop lowering itself to Bush's bigotry of low expectations of Americans.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-13T16:36:47-06:00

ID

109819

Comment

Interesting links: http://www.democrats.gov/rs.html http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/troop_surge.html http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/sr_highlight.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241917,00.html Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. - Pelosi and Reid letter to George W. Bush (1/5/07) http://www.johnkerry.com/news/articles/newsarticle.html?id=11 There are, in fact, other plans than the "surge." http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070112.htm Bush's quote might not be "stupid" -- after all, this kind of responsibility deflection apparently got him elected, so at some point it's worked -- but it's certainly churlish and childish. The notion that no one other than the American Enterprise Institute has a plan for Iraq is asinine. What's more, Bush's plan doesn't have much support even among Republicans. So, he trots out one of his winning black/white right/wrong myway/highway "zingers" and the press dutifully reports it. And, by the way, one really good reason to criticize the President's plan is because he's (a.) said it's what he's going to do and (b.) clearly not open to many suggestions outside Dick Cheney's Chickhawk Coffee Clutch.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-01-13T16:47:35-06:00

ID

109820

Comment

Oh, so they do have one. About time I heard it as I hadn't a clue they had one before now. I'm not quite a big believer in diplomacy as they are, however. How can we be sure that once we pull out, Iran won't just wander in and reunite Persia?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2007-01-13T17:03:59-06:00

ID

109821

Comment

Congress' job isn't to strategize wars, it is their job to check and balance the Commander-in-Chief upon whom that responsibility does fall. When Bush proposes a 15% escalation of troop levels, Congress can oppose it without offering alternatives. It's hardly irresponsible; it's the very structure of our form of government.

Author

Brent Cox

Date

2007-01-13T17:10:42-06:00

ID

109822

Comment

I'm glad Congress does have alternative proposals, but it's bogus to argue that Congress' Constitutional obligations include war strategy. Sending more troops to "get the job done" should just be dismissed out of hand, regardless of whether or not those doing the dismissing have alternative proposals.

Author

Brent Cox

Date

2007-01-13T17:19:20-06:00

ID

109823

Comment

I agree the Democrats do have a strategy proposal. So I'm glad for that -- it gives us options from which to choose. I think it is disingenuious of them to cite General Abizaid, because although he opposed troop increases, he certainly did not support a phased withdrawal. If he supports that now, I am unaware of it. But, in any case, we have essentaily two alternatives before us. The Democrats want a phased withdrawal now, the President wants this one last push, and then (if it doesn't work) probably -- a phased withdrawal. No one has said that in so many words, but that's what they are forecasting I think. I think the President has determined that, whether he wants it this way or not, the American people wil not continue to support the status quo, and will not support anything for long unless there are substantial changes soon in the conditions on the ground. So I think he is beginning to forecast that to the Iraqis -- i.e., if this plan doesn't work, you'll soon be on your own. Both the Democrat plan and the Presidents plan emphasize that we must convince the Iraqis that our commitment is not open ended. The Democrats want to do that by beginning a withdrawal now. The President wants to set benchmarks, and if they are not met, to (likely) begin a withdrawal after that. I support the Presidents' plan. If it suceeds, then that would be wonderful. If it fails, then we withdraw and (likely) watch lots and lots of carnage occur in Iraq for awhile. If we withdraw now, I think we just watch lots and lots of carnage occur sooner. Of course, maybe when we withdraw, things will somehow resolve themselves. But it is really hard to imagine this. I expect the Shia to try to dominate, with the help of Iran. The Sunni will respond with insurgencies and terror, with the help of Al Qaeda, and eventually Saudi Arabia. The Kurds wil probably try to establish thieir own country, and that will draw Turkey into the violence, because Turkey wil have none of that. So, it is tough, but given the choice I support the President's plan. I don't think the Democrat plan is a non-plan, I just don't think it is a better plan.

Author

GLB

Date

2007-01-13T17:47:35-06:00

ID

109824

Comment

Oh I think it resolve itself. I also think a post invasion Iraq will take quite a while to amount to any level of strategic threat. To bad they might not get a democracy out the process, but that is ultimately secondary. Next up, Iran.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2007-01-14T20:22:27-06:00

ID

109825

Comment

I support the Presidents' plan. If it suceeds, then that would be wonderful. If it fails, then we withdraw and (likely) watch lots and lots of carnage occur in Iraq for awhile. If we withdraw now, I think we just watch lots and lots of carnage occur sooner. There's some consensus, apparently, that the president's plan is really to surge enough to quiet things down so that when we make a hasty withdrawal in the summer, things look rosy enough that he gets to claim success. IMHO, *some sort* of redeployment IS the better plan, because it takes into account the effects of this fiasco on the region and begins to work toward some solution that (a.) still leaves troops there for a long time to cover Iraq and guard against takeovers by Iran and Syria but (b.) gets our troops out of the middle of the sectarian violence. I wish I had links, but I've seen some pull-back-to-the-borders plans that seem to make more sense than anything I've seen from Dems or Bushco. Draw a line and tell people not to cross it. "Permanent" bases closer to Kuwait, etc. We bought the whole darned Pottery Barn, y'all. Oh I think it resolve itself. I also think a post invasion Iraq will take quite a while to amount to any level of strategic threat. Right...13,000 deaths or life-altering injuries later, plus $400 billion or so, and we've zero-summed Iraq right where we want them, right? No longer the global force for evil that they were under Saddam, they now represent no significant challenge to American interests abroad. Mission Accomplished...where's that damn banner? Here's a tip -- go for the sugar-free Koolaid. Otherwise it's just empty calories. ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-01-15T16:03:35-06:00

ID

109826

Comment

Here is one criticism of Bush's strategy from the right: http://www.theamericanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10872

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-15T16:10:25-06:00

ID

109827

Comment

Thanks for the tip, here, lemme see if I can dig something witty up, uh.... nope too koolaid addled, how about bite me? After all, name calling is becoming a tradition here. Here, I will put a smilie so you know I don't really think your retarded :) Since you apparently can't formulate any possible set of facts in which someone could support the invasion or its further prosecution, short of being a jim jones freak, let me help you out. I think the Joint Chiefs, President Bush, the SA, and military leadership, may, gasp, have considered that this was one possible outcome and done it anyway for strategic purposes, other than, now hold on to your seat ----- making Iraq a nice place. A difficult concept, I realize. You may have to actually concede that the Cmdr. in Chief and his advisors might actually be smarter or better informed than you. INCONCEIVABLE! It must be a conspiracy, where is MoreRockin??!?!?!? Wait, here is one conspiracy that is real http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FF04Df05.html Take a hit off your peace pipe and keep dreamin Mr. Mitty. I guess in your world of American invincibility it makes some sense to be magnanimous before you defeat the enemy, but I like to win on margin. I put down my cup of koolaid when a cadre of irregulars took out the world trade center, but I am not so sure you did. 400 Billion and 3k dead and 13k wounded is cheap as wars for survival go. Kingfish's post sums up my criticism of the Bush way nicely, but its not too late. I still think we could do this correctly, and it involves a tank on every corner, in every electrical plant, etc. It also involves a direct military confrontation with Iran on the border of Iraq. My preference, long term, is to secure an alternative energy source and let that entire area of the world go back sand farming, that would be great, dude, wake me up when it happens. In the short term, however, waiting here at home for another attack is not exactly my idea of a great plan. The U.N. has not worked, so what is your suggestion? I think that was ironghost's larger point. The links, by the way you posted were brochures on end state solutions, not any actual plan for winning this war, other than, of course, come home and cry. I have always, since the beginning, advocated more of a response, not less. The arguments I might, and did, listen to are that invasion won't work, i.e. what Bush was presumably doing in following the advice of many, many asymetrical warfare experts as he engaged on a new kind of war. The traditional hawks simply lost that fight. I have hopes that we may win it still.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2007-01-15T18:46:22-06:00

ID

109828

Comment

OK, I called Kingfish an "idiot" earlier—and he deserved, based on what he tried to say about me personally—but how is saying that you drink the Koolaid "name-calling"? You damned Koolaid-Drinker, you!?! That just doesn't sound overly painful to me—and we long-time Bush critics are long used to being called names much worse than "Koolaid-Drinker," and can feel the pain. But there doesn't seem to be a whole lotta pain directed your way here. No matter. You get accused of drinking the Koolaid, and you return with something like this: I put down my cup of koolaid when a cadre of irregulars took out the world trade center, but I am not so sure you did. Could you remind me, Mr. Koolaid, just what 9-11 has to do with Bush's failed war in Iraq? Remember, you're not talking to a catatonic FOX audience here. And your sand-farming comment is precious. Bite you, indeed. I think we'd have to get in line behind you to take that nibble, with due respect.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-15T18:59:35-06:00

ID

109829

Comment

I know you are above caring about such things, o mighty editrix, but really I wasn't offended, didn't you see my smile? Really, the koolaid part was minimal in my motivation to post. As a member of the catatonic FOX audience, however, I am deeply offended and demand an immediate apoplexy. Its really a simple point, not all people agree with your estimation of the war as "failed." There are some who would suggest that the fact that a contant drum beat of failure and doom is precisly the primary strategic weapon of the enemy. Of course, framing the issue and picking your vocabulary is 1/2 the battle, ask the Iranians.... er... Insurgents, or some of those Fox catatonics. I don't have a ready solution, being a free speech guy and all, but I do know that Tet would not have been a victory without the thousands of folks over here simply loosing their will to fight. Sand farming was nice, but the statement "Could you remind me, Mr. Koolaid, just what 9-11 has to do with Bush's failed war in Iraq?" is hilarious..... Uh... okay, nothing. Clearly unrelated. I have no clue why the commander in chief would have invaded Iraq. Baffling, really. The original post was about the extension of the war policy, and Bush's statement that the dems should come up with their own plan. On that point, koolaid or no, I still support more troops. I think Bush made an excellent choice in Petraeus. Based on what I am reading thought the level of sectarian violence is so high that 21,000 troops seems low as many have stated. How that converted me into a koolaid drinker I have no idea. My original post suggested, as I believe, that there are and will be strategic benefits to Iraq post invasion. Bases for one. A large and enduring front and target for the terrorists which is thousands of miles away, for another. I think, stretching back to theoriginaltopic, that the dems don't have a plan I like, since theirs, like Mr. Bush's involves less troops and ultimately, given their history and obvious politics a total withdrawal. Bush's plan is the lesser of two evils I think.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2007-01-15T20:22:43-06:00

ID

109830

Comment

This is a decent explanation of the plan even if an op ed piece. Better explanation than anything I have seen from the Bushies. The scale of the embedding makes sense to me and is not a bad thing at all. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110009515

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-15T20:25:34-06:00

ID

109831

Comment

Oh, there it comes; we're aiding and abetting again by not wanting our soldiers to be sent into a bad war. You boyz are so precious in the arms you choose to come after us abetters: Its really a simple point, not all people agree with your estimation of the war as "failed." There are some who would suggest that the fact that a contant drum beat of failure and doom is precisly the primary strategic weapon of the enemy Oh, you're right. Not everyone thinks the war has "failed" to date. I mean the AEI guy who has proposed the alternative plan that Bush is using does think so, but not everybody else. Interesting that you don't tell us what 9-11 has to do with invading Iraq. You just make fun of the question. Niles, I think even Bush has given up on this meme, sweetie. Isn't there something you could utter about having seen one Islamofascist, you've seen 'em all!?! You're not the only one said who has said 21,500 troops is too low; we have, too. Repeatedly. It's likely going to be jsut enough to really screw things up good, especially for all those troops. given their history and obvious politics a total withdrawal. Now that's a purely partisan punt if I've ever seen one. Yawn.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-15T20:48:56-06:00

ID

109832

Comment

Also, what's funny to me is how many Bush apologists want to avoid the rest of the sentence: Bush's "plan" ... to what? His plan is to try to ameliorate the damage his first plan did. That's a rather relevant fact to discussions of his "plan" to de-frack his first plan. Where is that "Mission Accomplished" banner?!? (This is like deja vu all over again—the same level of discourse and accusations of dissenters by Bush apologists when he took the country into the Iraqi war in order to protect us from WMD and to get those guys who blew up the WTC and the Pentagon. Fortunately, there are a lot fewer of y'all and a lot more of us these days. There is hope.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-15T20:52:49-06:00

ID

109833

Comment

Armies are only good for killing and destroying things. They fail at policing actions . Modern history is replete with examples from the Soviets in Afghanistan to the U.S. in Korea and Vietnam. You want to start blowing stuff up and killing everything that looks like a target in Baghdad, all for more troops. Adding 20,000 and doing the same thing we're doing now just creates more targets. This invasion has failed on so many levels, I really question if anybody talking to Bush knew the difference between a Shia' and Sunni let alone a Persian or Arab. Destabilize the Middle East is all that's happended. Maybe that was the goal? Withdrawal an option? You think the Saudi's are about to let Iran walk in? A theocracy at the point of a sword is about the best we can hope for. Probably no new arguments here. Sorry. Just killing me watching young men and women get slaughtered for no apparent reason. Worse are the wounded that will have to live with it and wonder why.

Author

Doc Rogers

Date

2007-01-15T21:21:48-06:00

ID

109834

Comment

Doc: Good points. Here, for Niles and others, would be my key criticism of Bush -- now, then, ever: He thinks we can do this (a.) militarily and (b.) alone. This is not a problem with a military solutions. Problems with military solutions looks like (a.) somebody is coming to get us, or our friends, and we need to stop them before they cross a certain line or (b.) somebody needs to be invaded and conquered. Solutions that don't have military solutions are (c.) we need to keep people from the same country from killing one another. Particularly if they refuse to wear uniforms or decide, for instance, that one group will all shave their heads while the others will all wear orange baseball caps. Now, if those people happen to live on one side of a particular line or another and/or we have the freedom within the confines of the conflict to actually CHOOSE A SIDE, then that's still got some military potential. None of that applies. We're there to quell sectarian violence and then nation-build. (These are two things that Republicans like George Bush have ALWAYS stood for, except for six years ago when they were adamantly opposed to those notions as fundamentally flawed and worthy of nothing but derision.) To quell sectarian violence and nation-build, if, in fact, one can pull that stuff off, you need allies. And by "allies" I don't mean "campaign donors" like Halliburton. I mean allies...other countries. World opinion. Some of them, for instance, could be Muslims from the countries that are around Iraq. Don't any of the chickhawks even *remember* Daddy Bush and the slightly more just Iraq War of a decade (is it a decade and a half, now?) ago? We can't trust the Iraqi government to do it's part. We can't pick one side or the other, because they both have DEATH SQUADS. The best we can do on our own is quell a few insurgent strongholds long enough that Bush can declare slightly less of a failure than he's got now and leave. At that point...another $100 billion into it, and who knows how many casualties...we MAY start a diplomatic effort that will look to solve the same problems that need to be solved today -- Iran, Syria, sectarian violence in Iraq, infrastructure, security, stability, and the flow of oil. We're just putting it off for right now because we've already been putting it off to the point that the problem got so bad that we have no choice but to put it off a little longer until we can make the problem smaller so that we no longer put off the solution. In other words, it's like taking money from your savings account to go to the casino to win back money you took out of your savings account and then lost at the casino. It *might* work...

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-01-16T00:10:42-06:00

ID

109835

Comment

And I'll ask another question, since this thread started with Ironghost asking whether the Dems have a plan for Iraq and then we got this follow-up from Niles: In the short term, however, waiting here at home for another attack is not exactly my idea of a great plan. The U.N. has not worked, so what is your suggestion? I think that was ironghost's larger point. The links, by the way you posted were brochures on end state solutions, not any actual plan for winning this war, other than, of course, come home and cry. Could someone *define* "winning this war" for me? We're hearing it repeated as a BushCo talking point, but I haven't heard a single talking head adequate define a mission that sounds close to "winning this war" to me. Anyone want to take a swipe at it? Niles? Iron?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-01-16T00:18:32-06:00

ID

109836

Comment

itodd, That is one legitimate criticism of Bush. A war on terror is a misnomer. I like what O Reilly said, he should've gotten a declaration of war on Al Queda. I would say instead of a vague war on terror, that the goal should be to identify terrorist groups that are a real threat to us, identify their state sponsors (which they all need in order to be successful), and use any method to reduce that threat. In some cases that will involve diplomacy and other non-military solutions, in others it will require the use of force. I would also state that we should do a better job of stating to the American public that there are two strains of Islam, one being Wahabism and the other being the form of Shi-ite Islam promoted by Iran that seeks the establishment of a Caliphate and the imposition of the Sharia. I know you, Tom, and others dismiss these forms of Islam as threats to us. In Islam there is no render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's as in Christianity. The Saudis are using their money to fund Wababist Islam, which is very radical,around the world. It is this strain of Islam most members of Al Queda subscribe to and has caused most of the problems in the last few years. Islam does not need a Reformation, it needs an Enlightenment. It is bigotry to think that all Muslims are evil or are terrorists. However, it is pretty sad that critics of Islam, particularly Muslims and Arabs, are in real danger every time they criticize any aspect of Islam. Too much of Islamic world is stuck in the Middle Ages and until that is confronted and dealt with, we will continue to have some of these problems regardless of how many terrorists are killed.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-16T01:13:42-06:00

ID

109837

Comment

The whole "winning this war" reminds me so much of Orwell. How can we "win" a vague "war on terror" when the fronts keep shifting. You can certainly understand why the contractors want this to be our strategy, but it doesn't serve any of the rest of us. And we all know that his new "plan" isn't to "win" anything—it's to try to clean up his mess. Which, of course, it's not going to do. It's going to lead to more and more troops, and at some point we're going to have to stop him. We should right now before we lose more soldiers. Regardless of the need for intervention there, this is clearly not the administration to do it. They've proved that beyond reasonable doubt.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-16T11:08:24-06:00

ID

109838

Comment

I really question if anybody talking to Bush knew the difference between a Shia' and Sunni let alone a Persian or Arab. Good question, Doc. We know Bush didn't—he makes no secret about that—but the question is whether the people he allowed close to him did, either. There is no indication that they did. This is a big part of the "listening" and "understanding" to which I/we refer. I remember the idiocy back when the war started and all the people who made fun of those of us who said we needed to "understand" what was going in. In their tiny little heads, they could think that meant "agree" with the motivations. Now, it is becoming clearer to those yucks what we were talking about then.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-16T11:10:43-06:00

ID

109839

Comment

If bush and company had known anything about the history of Iraq and its people, they probably would have had second thoughts about toppling their leader who had done a great job in keeping the Shia, Sunni and Curds in their corners. I know that things were not carried out according to our practice but this King had ZERO tolerance and people were governed by their fear. We do the very same thing in America. Indians are kept on reservations and Black in Ghettos It is the fear of something or someone that keeps us in these positions. Iraq was not experiencing anything near what is going on there today. The different factions are fighting each other for power and control but, they are all fighting against America. We are seen as occupiers of their land and guess what? THEY ARE RIGHT! What is irresponsible is the fact that we are allowing bush to govern our country as a KING - not a president and that we are not making him accountable to the constitution which is "of the people, by the people and for the people..."

Author

justjess

Date

2007-01-16T12:39:29-06:00

ID

109840

Comment

Indians are kept on reservations? It is the Indians who now want to be left alone on reservations and enjoy their exemptions from state taxes and laws so as to have an unfair advantage. I also was not aware that the government kept Blacks in ghetto. the last time I checked, we have Fair Housing laws that ensure you can live where you want to provided you can afford the rent or mortgage. Iraq was not experiencing anything like today? Without being insulting, are you familiar with the concept of mass murder? Would you prefer living in a country where mass murder was the norm? You are aware of the mass graves, prisons for children, and the widespread torture that went on in Iraq are you not? If you kept up with Iraq, you would know the whole country is not in flames. Khurdistan is very peaceful and is turning into a model for the rest of the Arab world to follow. Most of the provinces are fairly peaceful, it is only 4 or so that are actually in turmoil. Furthermore, if you stayed informed, you would know that they are not all fighting us. The Khurds are fairly peaceful and not all Shi-ites are fighting us either. The majority Shi-ite group is led by Ayatollah Al-Sistani and has been our allies for the most part. The smaller, more violent group is led by Al-Sadr, who is backed and armed by Iran, which accounts for most of the violence of the Shi-ites. By the way, also the last time I check, we hadn't used chemical weapons on the Iraqi people.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-16T12:57:36-06:00

ID

109841

Comment

Jess writes: ...they probably would have had second thoughts about toppling their leader who had done a great job in keeping the Shia, Sunni and Curds in their corners. *sigh* No, he didn't. He gave the Sunni minority special caste status and control over the country, being a Sunni himself, while oppressing and slaughtering Kurds and uncooperative Shiite Arabs under the heading of "Arabization." He used torture, random arrests, oppression, forced starvation, chemical weapons, bystander killings, and occasional genocidal campaigns. Saying that he did a "great job" of "keeping the Shiites and Kurds in their corners" would be like saying that Hitler did a great job of dealing with communist and Jewish dissenters. Please, let's all express our anger and disappointment about this damnable war--but don't eulogize a monster like Saddam Hussein. Our greatest mistake as a nation, in Iraq, was financially and militarily supporting him all those years; the war is in many ways a natural consequence of that, just as the 9/11 attacks were in many ways a natural consequence of our leaders' decision to fund the Afghan mujahadeen during the eighties. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-16T12:59:45-06:00

ID

109842

Comment

For once, I'm with Kingfish. Hell, I wrote a piece on the "great job" Saddam did re: Kurds and Shiites. That's one of the reasons why reports that he was taunted before he was hanged didn't bother me more than they did. Re al-Sadr vs. al-Sistani: If there is one thing our leaders have learned from supporting the mujahadeen, I hope it's to stop drawing such a sharp distinction between "good" and "bad" violent fundamentalist lunatics. al-Sistani is our friend today, and al-Sadr our enemy? Well, al-Sistani's people are still killing Sunnis and other purported infidels on the streets. Both are essentially still retaliating against Saddam. Both are hungry for power and thirsty for blood. Neither should be trusted. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-16T13:05:33-06:00

ID

109843

Comment

I agree with that. A big problem Bushco have had since the beginning was this bizarre trust in certain people—presumably because they didn't under the underlying issues and history. Remember our buddy Chalabi? Chortle.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-16T13:07:58-06:00

ID

109844

Comment

(BTW, King, you're sounding naive again, though, with your comments about reservations and ghettos. Until very recently, our government did everything possible to keep non-whites in their place, and now aren't doing enough to reverse centuries of that oppression. Good to hear you're in favor of laws to help reverse those problems, though. Many people with many of your views aren't.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-16T13:09:16-06:00

ID

109845

Comment

And if anybody's asking, the only way I think Iraq is going to get out of this is if we establish a two-state or even three-state solution. My two-state plan would be for a secular, liberal Kurdistan that welcomes the Sunni minority, and an Islamic Republic of Iraq ceded to a moderate Shiite government on the condition that it establish a congenial immigration agreement with Kurdistan agree to some basic human rights guarantees. Iran, if it actually practiced more of what it preached, would not be a terrible nation. Women both vote and serve in parliament over there. Reformers have done fantastic work and will be able to do much, much more if we just stop enabling the radicals to win elections by threatening military action. You want regime change in Iran? Step one is to announce that military action, except in direct defense of ourselves or our allies, is off the table. Step two is to send President Bush over there for a handshake photo-op with Ahmadinejad. Step three is to apologize for our bellicose rhetoric and promise foreign aid. Step four is to sit back and watch the reformers sweep parliament. Make no mistake: AHMADINEJAD WANTS US TO THREATEN IRAN. HE LOVES THAT. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-16T13:12:35-06:00

ID

109846

Comment

That is one legitimate criticism of Bush. A war on terror is a misnomer. I like what O Reilly said, he should've gotten a declaration of war on Al Queda. KingFish...that's fair enough and I agree that the notion of a "war on terror" is useless except as a marketing slogan. Here's hoping that our leadership of whatever party or persuasion has gone to the "war on..." well for the last time. My concern here...and this is me trying to interpret what I hear from the Hadleys and McCains of the world when I see them on the chat shows and in the newspapers...is that when you plug the phrase "win the war" into the GOP Talking Points-O-Matic machine, it spits out the answer: "Undefined." At best you can say that the phrase is designed to conflate our military activities in Iraq with a greater "war on terror" that most of them are hard-pressed to convince us is actually the same thing. In other words, what is the mission in Iraq? Is that a war? How can it be "won"? We're told by the Bush administration that we must not *lose* in Iraq...but does that mean "lose the war on terror, which is taking place in Iraq" or "lose the war in (on?) Iraq" and, if that latter...'splain me? For instance, this from Niles: Take a hit off your peace pipe and keep dreamin Mr. Mitty. I guess in your world of American invincibility it makes some sense to be magnanimous before you defeat the enemy, but I like to win on margin. Win against whom? Who is the enemy. Give me targets and benchmarks for "winning" and I might get behind it. There's no doubt that, right now, something needs to be done in Iraq. We bought it. I put down my cup of koolaid when a cadre of irregulars took out the world trade center, but I am not so sure you did. 400 Billion and 3k dead and 13k wounded is cheap as wars for survival go. Kingfish's post sums up my criticism of the Bush way nicely, but its not too late. I still think we could do this correctly, and it involves a tank on every corner, in every electrical plant, etc. It also involves a direct military confrontation with Iran on the border of Iraq. I happen to think that the loss of life and treasure has been *extremely expensive* for what we seem to call the "war in Iraq." If the goal had been to invade, secure and rebuild Iraq, we should have been able to spend the treasure to save the lives and dominate rather easily with the right plan and enough soliders. And the Bush Admin should have been able to sell us on why that was necessary and what would be accomplished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution That doesn't *seem* to have been the goal. Instead, now that the orginal reasons for the use of our Armed Forces has been pretty well forgotten, the creeping neo-con wisdom seems to be that there was a secret end-game to turn Iraq into a sweltering cesspool of infighting in order to...what?...draw Iran in deep enough to legitamize an attack? Because *that* will secure American interests in the region?? Again, all I'm asking is for someone to define "the war" and tell us how it's "won" or "lost." All ears.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-01-16T13:23:16-06:00

ID

109847

Comment

Tom: We didn't enable the radicals. In case you didn't see it, they pretty much stole the election. That is not the right word. They had an election where every credible oppostion candidate was either forced out or chose not to participate in Iran. That is not a bad idea with Khurdistan. However, Turkey will never allow it. That would probably lead to a war between the Khurdistan and Turkey unfortunately which is why that has not really been an option for us. Ladd: I was referring to government laws currently in force, not in the past. One thing I'm not in favor of is the reservations being given such status. If they want to compete as car dealers, I have no problem at all with that. I just have a problem with tax exempt status. The same thing with the casinos. Alot of Abramoff stuff happened BECAUSE the Indian Nations had their special status thus leading to the temptation for unscrupulous people to take advantage of the system. Take the temptation out of it and make it the same for everyone. As for Chalabi, he has turned out to be a credible figure in Iraqi politics. Our prosecution of him helped him in terms of not being seen any longer as our puppet. He has been able to forget a somewhat sucessful career in politics in Iraq.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-16T13:23:55-06:00

ID

109848

Comment

the creeping neo-con wisdom seems to be that there was a secret end-game to turn Iraq into a sweltering cesspool of infighting in order to...what?...draw Iran in deep enough to legitamize an attack? Because *that* will secure American interests in the region?? Orwell, I tell you.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-16T14:04:52-06:00

ID

109849

Comment

Kingfish, all that you said King Hussein did was true, including the mass graves and chemical weapons: however, he got the weapons from America and did the crimes on behalf of the United States of America. And of course, he ruled with fear and he killed some of his people with those same weapons. America turned its head because he was an ally. It was when Hussein started the hoopla in Kuwait and Bush invaded Iraq. Old man Bush had enough sense not to stir the hornet's nest; he simply liberated Kuwate and came home. So I will give you your question back: Is the world better off in the absence of Sadam?. "Fools rush in where WISE MEN fear to thread" is an axiom which aptly applies to bush.

Author

justjess

Date

2007-01-16T14:52:41-06:00

ID

109850

Comment

Kingfish writes: We didn't enable the radicals. In case you didn't see it, they pretty much stole the election. That is not the right word. They had an election where every credible oppostion candidate was either forced out or chose not to participate in Iran. They had an election where there were no credible opposition candidates, King. In Iran as in the United States, we respond to fear by putting radical nativists in power. That's how the Islamic Revolution of '79 happened in the first place. Jess writes: Kingfish, all that you said King Hussein did was true, King Hussein (of Jordan) didn't do anything like that. President Hussein did. including the mass graves and chemical weapons: however, he got the weapons from America and did the crimes on behalf of the United States of America. And of course, he ruled with fear and he killed some of his people with those same weapons. America turned its head because he was an ally. He didn't really do the crimes "on behalf of" America, but our leaders certainly did turn their heads the other way and enable the genocide to continue (even going so far as to help spread the cover story about Iran committing the atrocities), and that's inexcusable. Old man Bush had enough sense not to stir the hornet's nest; he simply liberated Kuwate and came home. No, he stirred up the hornet's nest and then decided not to invade, leaving the hornets to get slaughtered in the post-'91 uprising raids. They hate us in Iraq, in large part, because we got the Kurds and Shiites riled up thinking we were going to help them change the regime, then left them holding the bag with a brutally violent dictator ready to retaliate against them. Between our decision to support Saddam's massacres and our decision to betray revolutionaries in the past, we have no credibility in Iraq, nor should we. They are wise, very wise, not to trust the United States. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-16T14:59:59-06:00

ID

109851

Comment

... or someone named "Bush."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-16T15:24:39-06:00

ID

109852

Comment

Good fight y'all - discussion, I meant. As an unbias reader it seems to me that the good folks are absolutely right again, as usual. Sadly, Bush couldn't even take us any oil without messing that up, despite the billions spent, to be spent and lives lost needlessly. We need an alternative fuel source since everyone will hate us over there by the time Bush is finished losing the war against error. We may not even be able to buy any oil from that region by the time Bush finally concedes. I'm going to buy me some mules and horses as a fall back. Come on 2008.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-01-16T15:32:36-06:00

ID

109853

Comment

itodd wrote"Could someone *define* "winning this war" for me? " I think in realpolitikal terms, winning would be a reasonably US_friendly government in iraq which gives us long-term use of forward air-bases and other facilities, not necessarily with any actual contact with the iraqi populated areas. Whether either of the above happens is anyone's guess at this point.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2007-02-01T02:36:05-06:00

ID

109854

Comment

"What is irresponsible is the fact that we are allowing bush to govern our country as a KING - not a president and that we are not making him accountable to the constitution which is "of the people, by the people and for the people..." " (justjess) a good example of a 'king' in a republican system is Huge Chavez with his recent '18-month (if you believe it won't be extended)' ability to rule by decree, confiscate property, and a number of other 'kingly' powers. Not sure where you feel bush is acting like a 'king,' clinton bombed serbia with far less congressional participation (was there any before the bombing?) that the invasion and occupation of iraq, so I am not sure where he has set or exceeded prior precedent. By the way, if you think the expanding executive power issue is a 'bush' problem you are going to be sorely disappointed when we get another D president. Have you ever heard the expression 'meet the new boss, same as...."

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2007-02-01T02:41:12-06:00

ID

109855

Comment

Latest conspiracy theory floating around the Middle East: Saddam Lives!!! http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD144507

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-02-01T08:41:29-06:00