Post #18
Osama Bin Hitler?
I’m sure that anybody who is reading this blog has heard of the “Nazi” speech, the address at the 88th annual American Legion National Convention delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tuesday, August 29, 2006. I want to give my impressions.
First, it is well-written.
- There are bullets – strategic pauses, l-o-n-g involved phrases followed by short phrases and other rhetorical devices that make this speech an easy listen and an easy read.
- There are personal notes. On a personal note, I’ve read Gerry Spence’s How to Argue and Win Every Time – or something like that :p – and understand the powerful effect of personal notes.
Second, some of the thinking is just,… well,… wrong. The concerns about the actual Nazi link are overblown. I’ve eliminated the “red meat” – those parts designed to get applause; surprisingly, most of the speech is “red meat” – and gotten to the points. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
It's a privilege to work with a president who is determined to protect our flag. … We are fortunate to have a leader of strong resolve at a time of war.
[Uh, when did Congress declare war? Ya know, George W. Bush, the Constitution, that document you’re supposed to protect and defend – when did Congress follow that document? When did ya ask? I thought, after 9/11, ya said that, if we change the way we live, the terrorists win. Now, we are at war. What happened?]
Through all the challenges, he remains the same man who stood atop the rubble in Manhattan with a bullhorn vowing to fight back. The leader who told a grieving nation that we will never forget what was lost. And the President who has worked every day to fulfill his vow to protect the American people and to bring the enemy to justice or to bring justice to the enemy.
[Good Lord. Pay attention to this blog sometime, Don Rumsfeld, and see your “Great Leader” in action.]
That year -- 1919 -- turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.
Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.
It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:
“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!"
I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.
[Aaahhh – I’ve included that section to show the folly of reading too much into history’s lessons. It was not a “strange innocence” – it was a reading of history: The Great War, WWI, occurred because of NOT talking.
More later….]
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Friday, September 01, 2006
Post #17
Subject: The Soldier and the Nun
A soldier came to a fork in the road and saw a nun standing there. Out of breath he asked, "Please Sister, may I hide under your skirts for a few minutes. I'll explain WHY later."
The nun agreed.
Just a moment later, two Military Police came running along and asked, "Sister, have you seen a soldier running by here??"
The nun replied, "He went that way."
After the MP's disappeared, the soldier crawled out from under her skirt and said, "I can't thank you enough Sister, but you see I don't want to go to Iraq."
The nun said, "I think I can fully understand your fear."
The soldier added, "I hope you don't think me rude or impertinent, but you have a great pair of legs!"
The nun replied, "If you had looked a little higher, you would have seen a great pair of balls....I don't want to go to Iraq either."
Subject: The Soldier and the Nun
A soldier came to a fork in the road and saw a nun standing there. Out of breath he asked, "Please Sister, may I hide under your skirts for a few minutes. I'll explain WHY later."
The nun agreed.
Just a moment later, two Military Police came running along and asked, "Sister, have you seen a soldier running by here??"
The nun replied, "He went that way."
After the MP's disappeared, the soldier crawled out from under her skirt and said, "I can't thank you enough Sister, but you see I don't want to go to Iraq."
The nun said, "I think I can fully understand your fear."
The soldier added, "I hope you don't think me rude or impertinent, but you have a great pair of legs!"
The nun replied, "If you had looked a little higher, you would have seen a great pair of balls....I don't want to go to Iraq either."
Monday, August 28, 2006
Post #16
Winning in Iraq… for dummies! Pt. II
OK, our national debate is “We broke Iraq – do we fix it… or leave it?”
To fix it, the first step is to follow that impediment to an imperial Presidency, the Constitution. Ask Congress to declare war. With a declaration of war, there’d be no need to argue that a “blank check” from Congress allows for a seizure of War Powers.
With War Powers, get the draft going. Look, Iraq has 27 million people, and I think we ought to have one soldier to keep a 24/7 eye on every Iraqi – give an Iraqi five-minute bathroom breaks and conjugal visits to married couples. OK, that is an exaggeration, but ya get the point – we need a much larger force to secure Iraq, and probably only a draft can meet our needs. Plus, a draft without deferments will spread the sacrifices required. How important is democracy when Jen Bush goes!?! :p
Other War Powers, I’m sure, will be seized – rationing gas, for example. We’ve been told that this is a war we cannot afford to lose – doesn’t that mean some sacrifices by all of us, including the country club set, will be necessary? The truth is that we CAN afford to lose Iraq – Afghanistan will determine our future. That is where the declaration of war needs to be.
To leave it, without a declaration of war, immediately load our troops on planes and fly them home. Isn’t it an impeachable offense to send troops into harm’s way without a declaration of war? Well, gosh, it ought to be.
Today, I am in favor of fixing. However, by the time Bush leaves office, circumstances around the world may have changed, a new foe may have risen, and it may be in our interests to leave and concentrate elsewhere. But never should anybody forget – George W. Bush got us into this mess, and he won’t get us out!
Winning in Iraq… for dummies! Pt. II
OK, our national debate is “We broke Iraq – do we fix it… or leave it?”
To fix it, the first step is to follow that impediment to an imperial Presidency, the Constitution. Ask Congress to declare war. With a declaration of war, there’d be no need to argue that a “blank check” from Congress allows for a seizure of War Powers.
With War Powers, get the draft going. Look, Iraq has 27 million people, and I think we ought to have one soldier to keep a 24/7 eye on every Iraqi – give an Iraqi five-minute bathroom breaks and conjugal visits to married couples. OK, that is an exaggeration, but ya get the point – we need a much larger force to secure Iraq, and probably only a draft can meet our needs. Plus, a draft without deferments will spread the sacrifices required. How important is democracy when Jen Bush goes!?! :p
Other War Powers, I’m sure, will be seized – rationing gas, for example. We’ve been told that this is a war we cannot afford to lose – doesn’t that mean some sacrifices by all of us, including the country club set, will be necessary? The truth is that we CAN afford to lose Iraq – Afghanistan will determine our future. That is where the declaration of war needs to be.
To leave it, without a declaration of war, immediately load our troops on planes and fly them home. Isn’t it an impeachable offense to send troops into harm’s way without a declaration of war? Well, gosh, it ought to be.
Today, I am in favor of fixing. However, by the time Bush leaves office, circumstances around the world may have changed, a new foe may have risen, and it may be in our interests to leave and concentrate elsewhere. But never should anybody forget – George W. Bush got us into this mess, and he won’t get us out!
Friday, August 25, 2006
Post #15
Winning in Iraq… for dummies!
The way to win in Iraq is so simple and obvious. Unfortunately, George W. Bush cannot see the way out of the forest for the trees of neo-con lunacy. As plainly stated by Bush, our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
The first thing we need is an honest full debate of what our national interests are. Say what you will about Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq, apologize for Bush’s faulty intelligence, I think everyone can agree that there was not a full disclosure of evidence, pro and con. As Pat Buchanan said on The McLaughlin Group, Bush acted as a prosecutor – picking and choosing evidence to support his case. Did Bush run for President or prosecutor-in-chief!?! :p
OK, so what are our national interests?
WMD – or stopping the spread thereof. Before Bush invaded Iraq, I said his policy of “pre-emptive war” was wrong – not only is it wrong to start fights, nobody likes a bully, but the first time he is wrong will limit our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other pre-emptive wars which might even be more necessary. Oh, what a difference if there had of been WMD in Iraq!
9/11 – bringing justice to those who caused it. “No distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I still support our troops in Afghanistan rooting out Al-Qaeda training camps. I supported that mission on 9/12 and still do – despite Bush’s bungling of that job too!
Democracy – and the spread thereof. NO! Democracy does NOT bloom at gunpoint. The march of liberty is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured and supported. But no force – democracy has never bloomed at gunpoint, and there is no reason to think it will now.
Fightin’ ‘em on the streets of Baghdad instead of Main Street – does anybody really believe that anymore? Did the terrorists who plotted to blow up planes over the Atlantic have Baghdad addresses? It seems to me that killing tens of thousands of Arabs on TV is NOT helping us.
What, then, are our national interests in Iraq?
Well, we broke it – do we fix it… or leave it? After WWI, we left. Of course, the aftermath of WWI led to WWII. We fixed the aftermath of WWII. But we broke Vietnam and left without WWIII breaking out. I doubt the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – can understand such a simple straight-forward concept, especially when the concept makes them look like self-serving fools! But we broke Iraq….
I plan for my next post to be a look at the costs of fixing or leaving….
Winning in Iraq… for dummies!
The way to win in Iraq is so simple and obvious. Unfortunately, George W. Bush cannot see the way out of the forest for the trees of neo-con lunacy. As plainly stated by Bush, our troops will continue to be slaughtered in Iraq until he leaves office.
The first thing we need is an honest full debate of what our national interests are. Say what you will about Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq, apologize for Bush’s faulty intelligence, I think everyone can agree that there was not a full disclosure of evidence, pro and con. As Pat Buchanan said on The McLaughlin Group, Bush acted as a prosecutor – picking and choosing evidence to support his case. Did Bush run for President or prosecutor-in-chief!?! :p
OK, so what are our national interests?
WMD – or stopping the spread thereof. Before Bush invaded Iraq, I said his policy of “pre-emptive war” was wrong – not only is it wrong to start fights, nobody likes a bully, but the first time he is wrong will limit our ability, both with domestic and international support, to launch other pre-emptive wars which might even be more necessary. Oh, what a difference if there had of been WMD in Iraq!
9/11 – bringing justice to those who caused it. “No distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” I still support our troops in Afghanistan rooting out Al-Qaeda training camps. I supported that mission on 9/12 and still do – despite Bush’s bungling of that job too!
Democracy – and the spread thereof. NO! Democracy does NOT bloom at gunpoint. The march of liberty is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured and supported. But no force – democracy has never bloomed at gunpoint, and there is no reason to think it will now.
Fightin’ ‘em on the streets of Baghdad instead of Main Street – does anybody really believe that anymore? Did the terrorists who plotted to blow up planes over the Atlantic have Baghdad addresses? It seems to me that killing tens of thousands of Arabs on TV is NOT helping us.
What, then, are our national interests in Iraq?
Well, we broke it – do we fix it… or leave it? After WWI, we left. Of course, the aftermath of WWI led to WWII. We fixed the aftermath of WWII. But we broke Vietnam and left without WWIII breaking out. I doubt the Weasels in Washington – including George Weasel Bush – can understand such a simple straight-forward concept, especially when the concept makes them look like self-serving fools! But we broke Iraq….
I plan for my next post to be a look at the costs of fixing or leaving….
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Post #14
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 18
Read the transcript to the Friday show:
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews, and welcome to HARDBALL.
With the election just 81 days away, the political battle lines are being drawn on the war in Iraq. Yesterday, a group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.
[Yes, repetition is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric – “administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.”]
… Lieutenant General Robert Gard is one of those generals who signed a letter to the president, critical of foreign policy.
It‘s unusual for generals to speak their mind, but you‘re now in civilian clothes and you‘re in mufti and you can say what you want. Was going to Iraq a mistake?
LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, JR., SENT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What are you, Mike Mansfield? How about a little—he‘s the senator famous for short answers. But elaborate, sir.
GARD: We had them contained, we went in, we conducted the mission badly, especially the post-conflict mission. We‘re bogged down, our troops are extended too thin. It takes away our capability to deal with and focus on other problems.
[Exactly. Saddam was a bad man, but we had him boxed-in. Saddam was NOT a threat to us. The cost to us in lives and treasure was NOT worth removing him with an invasion. I repeat: Saddam was NOT a threat to us – invading was a mistake. And we bungled the job.]
MATTHEWS: Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?
GARD: I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.
MATTHEWS: So what pencil nut (ph) came up with that assumption?
GARD: Well, it was an assumption, of course, of our civilian leadership, as stated by the vice president.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it was prejudiced by policy, that they wanted to go in, so they said it will be nice when we get in there? They just wanted us to invade Iraq, period? People like Wolfowitz, Feith, people that—the vice-president‘s office, the vice-president himself, they just wanted to go in for so many reasons that they just thought up—they couldn‘t think of anything that wasn‘t going to be nice about it?
GARD: They were looking for a pretext. They have had long wished for the overthrow of Saddam, regime change in Iraq. Part of a grander plan.
MATTHEWS: And what was the plan? What is their goal? If it wasn‘t the true belief in WMD, and it certainly wasn‘t the true belief in a nuclear threat, what was their ambition in Mesopotamia?
GARD: It was to get in, establish a presence, develop a democracy, which would be contagious and would, in a sense, neutralize other threats in the area, as they became more democratic.
[Yes, the world according to Dick Cheney – and, ultimately, to George W. Bush. And it was plainly laid out in a website – newamericancentury.com , I believe – BEFORE the 2000 election. But who thought those paranoid ramblings would become official policy? I, like the majority of American voters in 2000, did NOT vote for this.]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the maintaining of our military vigilance and strength over there. When we went in, we went in in a lightning strike. We were—Tommy Franks was able to take our forces right to Baghdad relatively quickly.
Was there anything that should have been done then? Given the fact it was a mistake to go in, is there any better way we could have gone in that would have protected our troops. We‘ve lost so many men now and women. We‘ve lost -- 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees now. Is there any way we could have fought this war better?
GARD: Certainly. First, we could have gone in with more troops, so we could have kept order. The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.
[Are you listening, George W.? “The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.” You failed.]
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stop Iran from lobbing even the stupidest bomb, the least organized bomb, something of two-thirds of a failure, but it‘s still there, into Tel Aviv tomorrow morning? How do we stop them from doing it?
GARD: Because you accept their offer to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. There was an overture made in May of 2003 that would have addressed every one of the issues that we‘re concerned about. It was a serious offer, afforded to us by the Swiss ambassador. The administration‘s reaction was expressing displeasure to the Swiss ambassador, who had the audacity to forward it to us.
MATTHEWS: Why did we refuse to talk to Iran?
GARD: I have no idea. It‘s a great mistake. What‘s wrong with talking with them? The President Ronald Reagan spoke with, negotiated Stark 1 (ph), with the evil empire. Why can‘t the current administration negotiate with one member of the axis of evil?
[Diplomacy is not pretty – you have to deal with bad people. But not talking with Iran is a failure of leadership. But the name “Ronald Reagan” has no sway with neo-cons – indeed, Reagan’s “appeasement” in Lebanon began terror, well, according to neo-cons.]
MATTHEWS: Do you think the president was deceived in all the advice he‘s gotten about going into Iraq, getting very aggressive with regard to Iran, all this conversation we‘re hearing, all this chit-chat that goes on and on, this war talk, do you think it‘s bad policy or people are just bad? They‘re trying to do something to the president that is in no country‘s interest or are they just thinking they‘re doing the best thing and they‘re just wrong? How would you describe them?
GARD: I would say the latter, that they‘re just wrong. They have had this predisposition for regime change.
MATTHEWS: Cheney, the vice-president, his people, the people at the Defense Department, the civilians.
GARD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All them are wrong.
GARD: Doug Feith, Cheney.
MATTHEWS: Yes well I think that‘s smart. Anyway thank you General Gard. You said what I think so I guess I think you‘re right.
[Very obviously, Chris, neo-con ideology is intellectually bankrupt – instead of admitting they’re wrong, neo-cons call for the bombing of Iran, invasion of Syria, and other nonsense. And they’ll blame Democrats, Michael Moore, and the French for their own failures – a failure of thinking and a failure of leadership.]
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 18
Read the transcript to the Friday show:
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews, and welcome to HARDBALL.
With the election just 81 days away, the political battle lines are being drawn on the war in Iraq. Yesterday, a group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.
[Yes, repetition is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric – “administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.”]
… Lieutenant General Robert Gard is one of those generals who signed a letter to the president, critical of foreign policy.
It‘s unusual for generals to speak their mind, but you‘re now in civilian clothes and you‘re in mufti and you can say what you want. Was going to Iraq a mistake?
LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, JR., SENT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What are you, Mike Mansfield? How about a little—he‘s the senator famous for short answers. But elaborate, sir.
GARD: We had them contained, we went in, we conducted the mission badly, especially the post-conflict mission. We‘re bogged down, our troops are extended too thin. It takes away our capability to deal with and focus on other problems.
[Exactly. Saddam was a bad man, but we had him boxed-in. Saddam was NOT a threat to us. The cost to us in lives and treasure was NOT worth removing him with an invasion. I repeat: Saddam was NOT a threat to us – invading was a mistake. And we bungled the job.]
MATTHEWS: Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?
GARD: I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.
MATTHEWS: So what pencil nut (ph) came up with that assumption?
GARD: Well, it was an assumption, of course, of our civilian leadership, as stated by the vice president.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it was prejudiced by policy, that they wanted to go in, so they said it will be nice when we get in there? They just wanted us to invade Iraq, period? People like Wolfowitz, Feith, people that—the vice-president‘s office, the vice-president himself, they just wanted to go in for so many reasons that they just thought up—they couldn‘t think of anything that wasn‘t going to be nice about it?
GARD: They were looking for a pretext. They have had long wished for the overthrow of Saddam, regime change in Iraq. Part of a grander plan.
MATTHEWS: And what was the plan? What is their goal? If it wasn‘t the true belief in WMD, and it certainly wasn‘t the true belief in a nuclear threat, what was their ambition in Mesopotamia?
GARD: It was to get in, establish a presence, develop a democracy, which would be contagious and would, in a sense, neutralize other threats in the area, as they became more democratic.
[Yes, the world according to Dick Cheney – and, ultimately, to George W. Bush. And it was plainly laid out in a website – newamericancentury.com , I believe – BEFORE the 2000 election. But who thought those paranoid ramblings would become official policy? I, like the majority of American voters in 2000, did NOT vote for this.]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the maintaining of our military vigilance and strength over there. When we went in, we went in in a lightning strike. We were—Tommy Franks was able to take our forces right to Baghdad relatively quickly.
Was there anything that should have been done then? Given the fact it was a mistake to go in, is there any better way we could have gone in that would have protected our troops. We‘ve lost so many men now and women. We‘ve lost -- 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees now. Is there any way we could have fought this war better?
GARD: Certainly. First, we could have gone in with more troops, so we could have kept order. The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.
[Are you listening, George W.? “The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.” You failed.]
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stop Iran from lobbing even the stupidest bomb, the least organized bomb, something of two-thirds of a failure, but it‘s still there, into Tel Aviv tomorrow morning? How do we stop them from doing it?
GARD: Because you accept their offer to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. There was an overture made in May of 2003 that would have addressed every one of the issues that we‘re concerned about. It was a serious offer, afforded to us by the Swiss ambassador. The administration‘s reaction was expressing displeasure to the Swiss ambassador, who had the audacity to forward it to us.
MATTHEWS: Why did we refuse to talk to Iran?
GARD: I have no idea. It‘s a great mistake. What‘s wrong with talking with them? The President Ronald Reagan spoke with, negotiated Stark 1 (ph), with the evil empire. Why can‘t the current administration negotiate with one member of the axis of evil?
[Diplomacy is not pretty – you have to deal with bad people. But not talking with Iran is a failure of leadership. But the name “Ronald Reagan” has no sway with neo-cons – indeed, Reagan’s “appeasement” in Lebanon began terror, well, according to neo-cons.]
MATTHEWS: Do you think the president was deceived in all the advice he‘s gotten about going into Iraq, getting very aggressive with regard to Iran, all this conversation we‘re hearing, all this chit-chat that goes on and on, this war talk, do you think it‘s bad policy or people are just bad? They‘re trying to do something to the president that is in no country‘s interest or are they just thinking they‘re doing the best thing and they‘re just wrong? How would you describe them?
GARD: I would say the latter, that they‘re just wrong. They have had this predisposition for regime change.
MATTHEWS: Cheney, the vice-president, his people, the people at the Defense Department, the civilians.
GARD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All them are wrong.
GARD: Doug Feith, Cheney.
MATTHEWS: Yes well I think that‘s smart. Anyway thank you General Gard. You said what I think so I guess I think you‘re right.
[Very obviously, Chris, neo-con ideology is intellectually bankrupt – instead of admitting they’re wrong, neo-cons call for the bombing of Iran, invasion of Syria, and other nonsense. And they’ll blame Democrats, Michael Moore, and the French for their own failures – a failure of thinking and a failure of leadership.]
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Post #13
Bush links Lebanon to war on terror
President says violence a reaction to efforts to build democracy
This story is from MSNBC.com . My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that his administration’s determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks.
[Let’s see: Stay in Iraq where our presence is the focus of terrorism. Make Israel leave Lebanon. Isn’t that a contradiction? Shouldn’t Israel, too, be allowed to keep their troops in Lebanon as the focus of terrorism? Fight em in the streets of Beriut instead of Tel Aviv, ya know.]
Democrats countered that Americans will be safer if the nation begins a phased pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East — Lebanon and Iraq — are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
[Um, isn’t Israel a thriving democracy? Why does that not help with us rooting out the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan?]
He acknowledged that “the way forward will be difficult.” But, the president said, “America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region.”
[No, Mr. President, your legacy depends on liberty’s advance. If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, we would not be safer.]
Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party’s response to the president. Sestak argued for “a new direction for America’s security.”
He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.
“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” he said.
[Yes, as showed by the recent foiled plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, our most serious security challenge remains Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And the logic of “no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them” says that Pakistan is next. Isn’t Pakistan ripe for some of that liberty advancing!?! :p ]
The nation’s safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections Nov. 7, particularly after last week’s news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe.
[Uh, how does that work? The crowd who was asleep on 9-11, the crowd who promised to bring Al-Qaeda to justice – literally, all they have done is “smoke em out, get em on the run…” and run… and run, the crowd who avoided New York subway bombings in 2003 because Al-Qaeda called them off, the crowd who sings “God Save the Queen” every morning….:p ]
Republicans argue that Democrats are weak on national security.
[I disagree with some Democrats’ tactics in fighting the war on terror. But #1 is getting out of Iraq… now – there are other more pressing needs.]
With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation’s ports, he said.
“We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq,” Sestak said. “Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere.”
Bush argued that his approach is working.
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
[Bravo – well said. Except for that “expand[ing] freedom” part. We can not “work tirelessly” and “be equally determined” against our enemy if we are involved with “expand[ing] freedom.” Iraq is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Win, lose or draw, Iraq is an isolated mess. We broke it, let’s fix it… or leave. Staying in Iraq is hurting our war on terror.]
Bush links Lebanon to war on terror
President says violence a reaction to efforts to build democracy
This story is from MSNBC.com . My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that his administration’s determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks.
[Let’s see: Stay in Iraq where our presence is the focus of terrorism. Make Israel leave Lebanon. Isn’t that a contradiction? Shouldn’t Israel, too, be allowed to keep their troops in Lebanon as the focus of terrorism? Fight em in the streets of Beriut instead of Tel Aviv, ya know.]
Democrats countered that Americans will be safer if the nation begins a phased pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq.
“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East — Lebanon and Iraq — are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”
[Um, isn’t Israel a thriving democracy? Why does that not help with us rooting out the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan?]
He acknowledged that “the way forward will be difficult.” But, the president said, “America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region.”
[No, Mr. President, your legacy depends on liberty’s advance. If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, we would not be safer.]
Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party’s response to the president. Sestak argued for “a new direction for America’s security.”
He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.
“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” he said.
[Yes, as showed by the recent foiled plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, our most serious security challenge remains Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And the logic of “no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them” says that Pakistan is next. Isn’t Pakistan ripe for some of that liberty advancing!?! :p ]
The nation’s safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections Nov. 7, particularly after last week’s news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe.
[Uh, how does that work? The crowd who was asleep on 9-11, the crowd who promised to bring Al-Qaeda to justice – literally, all they have done is “smoke em out, get em on the run…” and run… and run, the crowd who avoided New York subway bombings in 2003 because Al-Qaeda called them off, the crowd who sings “God Save the Queen” every morning….:p ]
Republicans argue that Democrats are weak on national security.
[I disagree with some Democrats’ tactics in fighting the war on terror. But #1 is getting out of Iraq… now – there are other more pressing needs.]
With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation’s ports, he said.
“We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq,” Sestak said. “Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere.”
Bush argued that his approach is working.
“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”
[Bravo – well said. Except for that “expand[ing] freedom” part. We can not “work tirelessly” and “be equally determined” against our enemy if we are involved with “expand[ing] freedom.” Iraq is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Win, lose or draw, Iraq is an isolated mess. We broke it, let’s fix it… or leave. Staying in Iraq is hurting our war on terror.]
Friday, August 18, 2006
Post #12
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home.html
The above link is a site that will send a free printed postcard to an American Soldier. You can choose a pre-printed design or upload your own.
http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home.html
The above link is a site that will send a free printed postcard to an American Soldier. You can choose a pre-printed design or upload your own.
Post #11
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as somebody once said. I guess it is too much to expect those who spent the Vietnam War years ducking military service to actually have paid attention to the lessons of that war. Again:
1. We intervened where out interests were NOT. We had to save the South Vietnamese from those Godless Communists. No, there was no historical connection with Vietnam, such as their help during our Revolution. No, there was no economic reason, such as our dependence on cheap Vietnam T-shirts. The reason we were in Vietnam was because of the “domino theory” – we had to fight ‘em on the streets of Saigon instead of the streets of San Diego. But did the “domino theory” work after we left? Has it ever worked? I am slack-jawed when people suggest a “domino theory” for Iraq – that is, a blooming democracy in the Middle East will inspire its neighbors to be… WHAT!?! Um, isn’t Israel a blooming democracy?
2. We intervened for dishonest reasons. Vietnam had the Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq had WMD/9-11/liberating… or whatever the excuse is this week. A lie is when ya knowingly tell something wrong or tell something ya are in a position to know is wrong. So, George W. Bush lied to us as members of his own administration tried to tell him he was wrong. Where is the “faulty intelligence?” Look in the mirror.
3. We intervened half-heartedly. Colin Powell had it right during the Gulf War – overwhelming force. I’m listening to retired General Robert Gard, Jr. on Hardball with Chris Matthews right now, and he is exactly right. I need to get that transcript.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as somebody once said. I guess it is too much to expect those who spent the Vietnam War years ducking military service to actually have paid attention to the lessons of that war. Again:
1. We intervened where out interests were NOT. We had to save the South Vietnamese from those Godless Communists. No, there was no historical connection with Vietnam, such as their help during our Revolution. No, there was no economic reason, such as our dependence on cheap Vietnam T-shirts. The reason we were in Vietnam was because of the “domino theory” – we had to fight ‘em on the streets of Saigon instead of the streets of San Diego. But did the “domino theory” work after we left? Has it ever worked? I am slack-jawed when people suggest a “domino theory” for Iraq – that is, a blooming democracy in the Middle East will inspire its neighbors to be… WHAT!?! Um, isn’t Israel a blooming democracy?
2. We intervened for dishonest reasons. Vietnam had the Gulf of Tonkin. Iraq had WMD/9-11/liberating… or whatever the excuse is this week. A lie is when ya knowingly tell something wrong or tell something ya are in a position to know is wrong. So, George W. Bush lied to us as members of his own administration tried to tell him he was wrong. Where is the “faulty intelligence?” Look in the mirror.
3. We intervened half-heartedly. Colin Powell had it right during the Gulf War – overwhelming force. I’m listening to retired General Robert Gard, Jr. on Hardball with Chris Matthews right now, and he is exactly right. I need to get that transcript.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Post #10
Subject: Ann Coulter
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002
"Endnotes in Coulter's latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods
"On July 7, Media Matters for America asked Random House Inc. whether it would investigate charges of plagiarism lodged against right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). Steve Ross, senior vice president and publisher of Crown Publishing Group and publisher of the Crown Forum imprint -- divisions of Random House Inc. -- responded to Media Matters by stating that charges of plagiarism against Coulter were 'trivial,' 'meritless,' and 'irresponsible,' and defended Coulter's scholarship by stating that she 'knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in Godless.'
"This was hardly the first time Coulter and her defenders have offered the large number of footnotes contained in her book as 'evidence' of the quality of her scholarship. Also on July 7, Terence Jeffrey, editor of conservative weekly Human Events, defended Coulter's book on CNN's The Situation Room by citing her '19 pages of footnotes.' And when similar questions were raised about her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, June 2002), Coulter repeatedly cited her '35 pages of footnotes' as evidence that her claims were accurate.
"In response, Media Matters decided to investigate each of the endnotes in Godless. We found a plethora of problems.
"Among other things, Coulter:
"misrepresented and distorted the statements of her sources;
"omitted information in those sources that refuted the claims in her book;
"misrepresented news coverage to allege bias;
"relied upon outdated and unreliable sources;
"and invented 'facts.'"
Please, fans of Ann Coulter follow the above link for more. Also, http://mediamatters.org/items/200607170003
"On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann reported that right-wing pundit 'Ann Coulter has been knocked off the pages of one of the heartland's better newspapers because of complaints by conservatives,' who 'felt their views were being misrepresented.' Olbermann interviewed Doug Neumann, the opinion page editor of The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, about the newspaper's decision to discontinue publishing Coulter's syndicated column. Olbermann said, 'History tells us ... that political lightning rods are rarely vanquished by their foes, but usually instead by their friends,' adding that the Shreveport Times in Louisiana has asked its readers if it too should drop the Coultergeist column and replace her with another conservative writer."
Oh, well, Ann Coulter remains eye candy! :D
Subject: Ann Coulter
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002
"Endnotes in Coulter's latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods
"On July 7, Media Matters for America asked Random House Inc. whether it would investigate charges of plagiarism lodged against right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). Steve Ross, senior vice president and publisher of Crown Publishing Group and publisher of the Crown Forum imprint -- divisions of Random House Inc. -- responded to Media Matters by stating that charges of plagiarism against Coulter were 'trivial,' 'meritless,' and 'irresponsible,' and defended Coulter's scholarship by stating that she 'knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in Godless.'
"This was hardly the first time Coulter and her defenders have offered the large number of footnotes contained in her book as 'evidence' of the quality of her scholarship. Also on July 7, Terence Jeffrey, editor of conservative weekly Human Events, defended Coulter's book on CNN's The Situation Room by citing her '19 pages of footnotes.' And when similar questions were raised about her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, June 2002), Coulter repeatedly cited her '35 pages of footnotes' as evidence that her claims were accurate.
"In response, Media Matters decided to investigate each of the endnotes in Godless. We found a plethora of problems.
"Among other things, Coulter:
"misrepresented and distorted the statements of her sources;
"omitted information in those sources that refuted the claims in her book;
"misrepresented news coverage to allege bias;
"relied upon outdated and unreliable sources;
"and invented 'facts.'"
Please, fans of Ann Coulter follow the above link for more. Also, http://mediamatters.org/items/200607170003
"On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann reported that right-wing pundit 'Ann Coulter has been knocked off the pages of one of the heartland's better newspapers because of complaints by conservatives,' who 'felt their views were being misrepresented.' Olbermann interviewed Doug Neumann, the opinion page editor of The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, about the newspaper's decision to discontinue publishing Coulter's syndicated column. Olbermann said, 'History tells us ... that political lightning rods are rarely vanquished by their foes, but usually instead by their friends,' adding that the Shreveport Times in Louisiana has asked its readers if it too should drop the Coultergeist column and replace her with another conservative writer."
Oh, well, Ann Coulter remains eye candy! :D
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Post #9
Terrorist threat level is red, and it is an indictment of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.
Obviously, Al-Qaeda is NOT finished – I was wrong in “Post #8” about Al-Qaeda being finished, but I was right in that we didn’t finish in Afghanistan. Bush’s paranoid obsession with Saddam has led to this point.
Thank you, George W. – five years after 9/11, and what have we got?
Terrorist threat level is red, and it is an indictment of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.
Obviously, Al-Qaeda is NOT finished – I was wrong in “Post #8” about Al-Qaeda being finished, but I was right in that we didn’t finish in Afghanistan. Bush’s paranoid obsession with Saddam has led to this point.
Thank you, George W. – five years after 9/11, and what have we got?
Friday, August 04, 2006
Post #8
I read the news the other day about another American soldier killed in Iraq. What caught my eye was that this soldier left behind a two-week-old daughter, a daughter he will obviously never know. Will George W. Bush have the decency to escort the girl down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say?
The answer to the first question is, I’d think, a BIG “no.” But I’m sure that many “Bushies” would object that the first question is unfair, that no President should be asked to do that. Oh, really?
Toward the end of WW II, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt was touring Army hospitals full of amputees and other disabled soldiers, he appeared in his wheelchair – his handicap was a carefully guarded secret – to let the soldiers know that their lives weren’t over, there were still contributions to be made. Ronald Reagan was well-known for his personal, hand-written notes in times of tragedy. I doubt that Bush has that much character.
But suppose a frail Bush in his 80s did escort the soldier’s daughter down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say? The girl’s father missed her first steps, her first day of school, her prom, her graduation. How could Bush justify her father’s death as not being in vain?
The obvious first justification is that there were no major terror attacks on American soil – until Democrats started sniping. Well, that’s assuming that there will be a major attack sometime in the future. But let’s look at what has worked in the war on terror:
1. Intelligence. By the very nature of intelligence work, we will never know for sure the hard work and the brain-power that went into our safety – of course, some of it no doubt has been pure luck. But, considering human nature, as we get farther away from 9/11, the focus will lesson. In many ways, the war on terror is a race against time. Can we convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us more harm?
2. Fighting “over there” in the hills of Afghanistan. Our successes have yielded much valuable information. Al-Qaeda, as a terrorist organization capable of harming us “over here,” is finished. However, by not cutting the head off the snake, we have insured that Al-Qaeda’s spirit will live on. Indeed, our next big threat, according to the Pentagon, is home-grown terrorists who sympathize with Al-Qaeda.
What has not worked is our diversion into Iraq. We didn’t finish in Afghanistan, and we set up a new breeding ground for terrorists.
Perhaps Bush can convince the girl that just being a soldier and providing for his family is honorable thing. But Damn… that Iraq mess….
I read the news the other day about another American soldier killed in Iraq. What caught my eye was that this soldier left behind a two-week-old daughter, a daughter he will obviously never know. Will George W. Bush have the decency to escort the girl down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say?
The answer to the first question is, I’d think, a BIG “no.” But I’m sure that many “Bushies” would object that the first question is unfair, that no President should be asked to do that. Oh, really?
Toward the end of WW II, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt was touring Army hospitals full of amputees and other disabled soldiers, he appeared in his wheelchair – his handicap was a carefully guarded secret – to let the soldiers know that their lives weren’t over, there were still contributions to be made. Ronald Reagan was well-known for his personal, hand-written notes in times of tragedy. I doubt that Bush has that much character.
But suppose a frail Bush in his 80s did escort the soldier’s daughter down the aisle on her wedding day? What would he say? The girl’s father missed her first steps, her first day of school, her prom, her graduation. How could Bush justify her father’s death as not being in vain?
The obvious first justification is that there were no major terror attacks on American soil – until Democrats started sniping. Well, that’s assuming that there will be a major attack sometime in the future. But let’s look at what has worked in the war on terror:
1. Intelligence. By the very nature of intelligence work, we will never know for sure the hard work and the brain-power that went into our safety – of course, some of it no doubt has been pure luck. But, considering human nature, as we get farther away from 9/11, the focus will lesson. In many ways, the war on terror is a race against time. Can we convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us more harm?
2. Fighting “over there” in the hills of Afghanistan. Our successes have yielded much valuable information. Al-Qaeda, as a terrorist organization capable of harming us “over here,” is finished. However, by not cutting the head off the snake, we have insured that Al-Qaeda’s spirit will live on. Indeed, our next big threat, according to the Pentagon, is home-grown terrorists who sympathize with Al-Qaeda.
What has not worked is our diversion into Iraq. We didn’t finish in Afghanistan, and we set up a new breeding ground for terrorists.
Perhaps Bush can convince the girl that just being a soldier and providing for his family is honorable thing. But Damn… that Iraq mess….
Friday, July 28, 2006
Post #7
It’s hot. I’ve been looking at bikinis on the internet. If I was getting paid to do this – quite frankly, it is depressing to keep track of George W. Bush’s failures of leadership, I’d be more willing to do this. But it’s to Bush’s advantage that he has ignored global warming. :p
A top story today on MSNBC.com, “President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday they want an international force dispatched quickly to the Middle East but said any plan to end the fighting must address long-running regional disputes to be effective.”
Those two have no credibility. The time to address the long-running regional disputes was BEFORE the fighting started. As usual, Bush has been caught with his pants down.
“’In Lebanon, Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian sponsors are willing to kill and use violence to stop the spread of peace and democracy,’ Bush said. ‘They’re not going to succeed.’”
Uh, how many dead Lebanese define peace? It is in America’s interests for there to be quiet peace all over the world. I expect a President of the United States to actively work for this goal – NOT to ignore situations until all he can do is rattle an empty saber.
It’s hot. I’ve been looking at bikinis on the internet. If I was getting paid to do this – quite frankly, it is depressing to keep track of George W. Bush’s failures of leadership, I’d be more willing to do this. But it’s to Bush’s advantage that he has ignored global warming. :p
A top story today on MSNBC.com, “President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday they want an international force dispatched quickly to the Middle East but said any plan to end the fighting must address long-running regional disputes to be effective.”
Those two have no credibility. The time to address the long-running regional disputes was BEFORE the fighting started. As usual, Bush has been caught with his pants down.
“’In Lebanon, Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian sponsors are willing to kill and use violence to stop the spread of peace and democracy,’ Bush said. ‘They’re not going to succeed.’”
Uh, how many dead Lebanese define peace? It is in America’s interests for there to be quiet peace all over the world. I expect a President of the United States to actively work for this goal – NOT to ignore situations until all he can do is rattle an empty saber.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Post #6
Subject: P.U.S.H. -- George W. Bush's Approach to Foreign Policy
When everything seems to go wrong... just P.U.S.H.!
When the job gets you down... just P.U.S.H.!
When people don't react the way you think they should... just P.U.S.H.!
When your money looks funny and the bills are due... just P.U.S.H.!
When you want to curse them out for whatever the reason... just P.U.S.H.!
When people just don't understand you... just P.U.S.H.!
P.U.S.H - Pray Until Something Happens!!!!!
Subject: P.U.S.H. -- George W. Bush's Approach to Foreign Policy
When everything seems to go wrong... just P.U.S.H.!
When the job gets you down... just P.U.S.H.!
When people don't react the way you think they should... just P.U.S.H.!
When your money looks funny and the bills are due... just P.U.S.H.!
When you want to curse them out for whatever the reason... just P.U.S.H.!
When people just don't understand you... just P.U.S.H.!
P.U.S.H - Pray Until Something Happens!!!!!
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Post #5
My responses and additions – in [backets]….
The end to cowboy diplomacy
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
July 11, 2006
The era of "Cowboy Diplomacy" is over, writes Time magazine.
The Bush Doctrine -- "The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons" -- is being defied by Iran's Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with impunity.
[Yes. As any schoolkid knows, when confronted by three bullies on the playground, take out the biggest, and the others will fall into place. Instead, we went after the smallest, Iraq. And, now, with our troubles in Iraq, our military options are limited. Thank you, George W.]
he White House seems to have lost interest in its democracy crusade, after free elections advanced the prospects of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas on the West Bank. In Ukraine, the victors of the Orange Revolution have made a mess of things, and the pro-Putin forces are making a comeback
Neither the Afghan war, in its fifth year, nor the Iraq war, in its fourth, goes well. U.S. casualties are not falling, while the death toll among Afghans and Iraqis mounts toward levels where they may have to be described as not simply insurgencies, but civil wars.
America is a spectator in the Palestinian conflict, wringing its hands, but backing Israel as she seeks to starve to death a Hamas that came to power in elections Bush himself sponsored.
What has happened? What has rendered impotent the robust cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush, a policy of pre-emptive strikes and preventive wars, of crusades for global democracy and ridding the world of tyrants, a policy declared in his "axis-of-evil" address and Second Inaugural?
[Winning rhetoric for a lost cause – a cause that Bush lost.]
Answer: Bush has run up against the limits of power. Strong as our military may be, it is but one-tenth of the size of the U.S forces that conquered Germany and Japan. U.S. air and missile power, and U.S. special forces guiding warlord armies, can knock over a Taliban regime, with few losses. U.S. armored divisions, backed by unrivaled air and missile power, can roll over an Iraqi army and unhorse an Iraqi regime.
But building a nation is another matter. As the French learned in the Ruhr in 1923, "you cannot dig coal with bayonets," Americans are discovering you cannot build a democratic nation on Islamic soil in Texas-sized nations like Iraq and Afghanistan without a massive, long-term occupation, if a slice of the population looks upon the regime you support as a sock puppet of American imperialism.
Why has Bush decided diplomacy is the better part of valor in dealing with Iran and North Korea? Consider the alternative.
Pyongyang is a formidable power with a million-man army and 11,000 artillery pieces on the DMZ. Iran is three times as populous and four times the size of Iraq. Should Bush attack either, he could end his term with U.S. forces fighting three major wars.
But if the military option carries too many risks, multilateral diplomacy appears to offer little hope. China and Russia will veto any tough U.N. sanctions on Iran or North Korea. They have no desire to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire. Is the United States, then, "the pitiful, helpless giant" Nixon warned we could become?
By no means. Though the neocon bombast about our being "the unipolar power," the "indispensable nation," "the benevolent global hegemon" was always fatuous, America remains the first military, economic, cultural and political force on the planet. We are simply not omnipotent -- indeed, far from it, as always
[Yes, neo-conservatism is an intellectually bankrupt ideology – tho some continue the call for war and more wars. Neo-conservatism has run into reality, and reality has won.]
What is needed is fresh thought on foreign policy now that Cowboy Diplomacy is being abandoned by Bush. We are at what Walter Lippmann called a "plastic moment," when a new foreign policy can be imposed to meet a changed world. And the place to begin is by returning to basics. What are the vital interests of the United States, and who threatens them?
[The more things change, the more they stay the same.]
On the terrorism front, the president has done well. Since 9-11, 85,000 Americans have been murdered, but not one due to a terrorist attack. While we need to be vigilant, there is no need to frighten ourselves to death over terrorism. We are all going to die, but few of us by terrorist attack.
[Uh, 2500 and counting in Iraq. Oh, yeah, none on Main Street – unless ya count the Army recruiting center. :p]
As we cannot ensure Iran and North Korea are free of nukes without invading, and we are not going to invade, we should put both on notice, as we did Moscow in the missile crisis, that if any WMD used in an attack on the United States is traced to either, a full retaliatory response will follow. But if they wish such relations as we had with China and Russia in the late Cold War, they are on offer.
[And do not forget what I said earlier: George W. Bush’s Iraq folly has limited our military options.]
Then, we should pull our troops out of Korea, where they are hostages in harm's way. If the South wishes to appease the North, let them run the risks and assume the consequences.
As one reviews the ledgers of his foreign policy, Bush seems to have alienated or antagonized just about everyone on earth, with precious little to compensate us for our war losses. And if we are about to jettison his cowboy diplomacy, perhaps it is time to look again at the successful policies Bush and the neocons dismissed and deplore. For, unlike theirs, these policies never failed America.
What are they? The anti-interventionism of the Founding Fathers from Washington to Wilson, and the conservative policy of containment and deterrence pursued by Eisenhower and Reagan.
Both deserve a hearing in the politics of 2008 -- one that neither McCain nor Hillary will give them.
[I disagree with Pat Buchanan about half the time – check out his nutty “On the Issues” at theamericancause.org . But, on this issue, Pat is correct: George W. Bush’s Iraq policy has made us weaker. Indeed, the Decline and Fall has begun. Can we get a leader!?!]
My responses and additions – in [backets]….
The end to cowboy diplomacy
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
July 11, 2006
The era of "Cowboy Diplomacy" is over, writes Time magazine.
The Bush Doctrine -- "The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons" -- is being defied by Iran's Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with impunity.
[Yes. As any schoolkid knows, when confronted by three bullies on the playground, take out the biggest, and the others will fall into place. Instead, we went after the smallest, Iraq. And, now, with our troubles in Iraq, our military options are limited. Thank you, George W.]
he White House seems to have lost interest in its democracy crusade, after free elections advanced the prospects of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas on the West Bank. In Ukraine, the victors of the Orange Revolution have made a mess of things, and the pro-Putin forces are making a comeback
Neither the Afghan war, in its fifth year, nor the Iraq war, in its fourth, goes well. U.S. casualties are not falling, while the death toll among Afghans and Iraqis mounts toward levels where they may have to be described as not simply insurgencies, but civil wars.
America is a spectator in the Palestinian conflict, wringing its hands, but backing Israel as she seeks to starve to death a Hamas that came to power in elections Bush himself sponsored.
What has happened? What has rendered impotent the robust cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush, a policy of pre-emptive strikes and preventive wars, of crusades for global democracy and ridding the world of tyrants, a policy declared in his "axis-of-evil" address and Second Inaugural?
[Winning rhetoric for a lost cause – a cause that Bush lost.]
Answer: Bush has run up against the limits of power. Strong as our military may be, it is but one-tenth of the size of the U.S forces that conquered Germany and Japan. U.S. air and missile power, and U.S. special forces guiding warlord armies, can knock over a Taliban regime, with few losses. U.S. armored divisions, backed by unrivaled air and missile power, can roll over an Iraqi army and unhorse an Iraqi regime.
But building a nation is another matter. As the French learned in the Ruhr in 1923, "you cannot dig coal with bayonets," Americans are discovering you cannot build a democratic nation on Islamic soil in Texas-sized nations like Iraq and Afghanistan without a massive, long-term occupation, if a slice of the population looks upon the regime you support as a sock puppet of American imperialism.
Why has Bush decided diplomacy is the better part of valor in dealing with Iran and North Korea? Consider the alternative.
Pyongyang is a formidable power with a million-man army and 11,000 artillery pieces on the DMZ. Iran is three times as populous and four times the size of Iraq. Should Bush attack either, he could end his term with U.S. forces fighting three major wars.
But if the military option carries too many risks, multilateral diplomacy appears to offer little hope. China and Russia will veto any tough U.N. sanctions on Iran or North Korea. They have no desire to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire. Is the United States, then, "the pitiful, helpless giant" Nixon warned we could become?
By no means. Though the neocon bombast about our being "the unipolar power," the "indispensable nation," "the benevolent global hegemon" was always fatuous, America remains the first military, economic, cultural and political force on the planet. We are simply not omnipotent -- indeed, far from it, as always
[Yes, neo-conservatism is an intellectually bankrupt ideology – tho some continue the call for war and more wars. Neo-conservatism has run into reality, and reality has won.]
What is needed is fresh thought on foreign policy now that Cowboy Diplomacy is being abandoned by Bush. We are at what Walter Lippmann called a "plastic moment," when a new foreign policy can be imposed to meet a changed world. And the place to begin is by returning to basics. What are the vital interests of the United States, and who threatens them?
[The more things change, the more they stay the same.]
On the terrorism front, the president has done well. Since 9-11, 85,000 Americans have been murdered, but not one due to a terrorist attack. While we need to be vigilant, there is no need to frighten ourselves to death over terrorism. We are all going to die, but few of us by terrorist attack.
[Uh, 2500 and counting in Iraq. Oh, yeah, none on Main Street – unless ya count the Army recruiting center. :p]
As we cannot ensure Iran and North Korea are free of nukes without invading, and we are not going to invade, we should put both on notice, as we did Moscow in the missile crisis, that if any WMD used in an attack on the United States is traced to either, a full retaliatory response will follow. But if they wish such relations as we had with China and Russia in the late Cold War, they are on offer.
[And do not forget what I said earlier: George W. Bush’s Iraq folly has limited our military options.]
Then, we should pull our troops out of Korea, where they are hostages in harm's way. If the South wishes to appease the North, let them run the risks and assume the consequences.
As one reviews the ledgers of his foreign policy, Bush seems to have alienated or antagonized just about everyone on earth, with precious little to compensate us for our war losses. And if we are about to jettison his cowboy diplomacy, perhaps it is time to look again at the successful policies Bush and the neocons dismissed and deplore. For, unlike theirs, these policies never failed America.
What are they? The anti-interventionism of the Founding Fathers from Washington to Wilson, and the conservative policy of containment and deterrence pursued by Eisenhower and Reagan.
Both deserve a hearing in the politics of 2008 -- one that neither McCain nor Hillary will give them.
[I disagree with Pat Buchanan about half the time – check out his nutty “On the Issues” at theamericancause.org . But, on this issue, Pat is correct: George W. Bush’s Iraq policy has made us weaker. Indeed, the Decline and Fall has begun. Can we get a leader!?!]
Friday, July 14, 2006
Post #4
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/index.php
Sometimes, I just surf the net, reading various far-flung political opinions – left, right, even a few from outer space! But… I just have to comment. I knew this was a right-wing – far-right-wing – website. After all, they feature Bob “The-Right-Doesn’t-Leak-They-Just-Disclose-Names” Novak and Ann “Dances-On-Widows” Coulter. But I wasn’t prepared for “Iraq had WMD” – a story that they found 20-year-old discarded weapons that contained still deadly chemicals. That’s like saying that Nazi Germany is a threat because they still find unexploded shells from WW II! Doesn’t anybody see how ridiculous that is!?! And the article goes on to attack the “liberal” media for ignoring this story. Of course, when this story was first debunked by the “liberal” media months ago, they quoted a Pentagon spokesman as saying that those weapons were not the weapons that justified war. As I saw somewhere, the truth has a “liberal” bias. Don’t the editors of that website realize that any nuggets of truth there get lost in the fumes of crap?
Oh, and speaking of Ann Coulter and her contention that the 9/11 widows should not criticize George W. Bush’s folly. Well, Ann, dear, I happen to give more moral authority to someone who has actually lost something. That’s why I listen to the parents of dead soldiers – do not always agree, but I listen. That’s also why, in matters of war, I listen firstly to someone who’s actually been shot at!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/index.php
Sometimes, I just surf the net, reading various far-flung political opinions – left, right, even a few from outer space! But… I just have to comment. I knew this was a right-wing – far-right-wing – website. After all, they feature Bob “The-Right-Doesn’t-Leak-They-Just-Disclose-Names” Novak and Ann “Dances-On-Widows” Coulter. But I wasn’t prepared for “Iraq had WMD” – a story that they found 20-year-old discarded weapons that contained still deadly chemicals. That’s like saying that Nazi Germany is a threat because they still find unexploded shells from WW II! Doesn’t anybody see how ridiculous that is!?! And the article goes on to attack the “liberal” media for ignoring this story. Of course, when this story was first debunked by the “liberal” media months ago, they quoted a Pentagon spokesman as saying that those weapons were not the weapons that justified war. As I saw somewhere, the truth has a “liberal” bias. Don’t the editors of that website realize that any nuggets of truth there get lost in the fumes of crap?
Oh, and speaking of Ann Coulter and her contention that the 9/11 widows should not criticize George W. Bush’s folly. Well, Ann, dear, I happen to give more moral authority to someone who has actually lost something. That’s why I listen to the parents of dead soldiers – do not always agree, but I listen. That’s also why, in matters of war, I listen firstly to someone who’s actually been shot at!
Post #3
“What good has it done?”
My Grandma is a surprisingly astute political observer. She can sum up a situation with a phrase or, as in the case of a recent discussion of the Iraq war, a question: “What good has it done?” She then got on a roll:
“Where is the democracy?” Yeah, the Iraqis didn’t follow the script -- greeting us with flowers. Of course, democracy is not always pretty. Just ask President Gore. After all, they elected terrorists in Palestine. Hey, now I see the wisdom in staying the course – George W. Bush doesn’t want a election where he can’t pre-determine the results. :p
“Where is the cheap oil?” To my Grandma on her fixed income, the price of oil really bites. She is already worrying about heating oil for this winter. But lots of people see it as just a minor annoyance and not a reason to change their lifestyle – or their voting habits.
“What good has it done?” Grandma repeats, not even bringing up WMD – or the lack thereof. Well, we “got” Saddam. But didn’t that leave a hole that Al-Qaeda is filling? After all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. But, at least, we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Of course, “over there” is the hills of Afghanistan. What are we doing in Irag? What good has it done?
Grandma answers herself: “NOTHING!”
“What good has it done?”
My Grandma is a surprisingly astute political observer. She can sum up a situation with a phrase or, as in the case of a recent discussion of the Iraq war, a question: “What good has it done?” She then got on a roll:
“Where is the democracy?” Yeah, the Iraqis didn’t follow the script -- greeting us with flowers. Of course, democracy is not always pretty. Just ask President Gore. After all, they elected terrorists in Palestine. Hey, now I see the wisdom in staying the course – George W. Bush doesn’t want a election where he can’t pre-determine the results. :p
“Where is the cheap oil?” To my Grandma on her fixed income, the price of oil really bites. She is already worrying about heating oil for this winter. But lots of people see it as just a minor annoyance and not a reason to change their lifestyle – or their voting habits.
“What good has it done?” Grandma repeats, not even bringing up WMD – or the lack thereof. Well, we “got” Saddam. But didn’t that leave a hole that Al-Qaeda is filling? After all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. But, at least, we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Of course, “over there” is the hills of Afghanistan. What are we doing in Irag? What good has it done?
Grandma answers herself: “NOTHING!”
Friday, July 07, 2006
Post #2
I get e-mails. I thought this was good – and I have a little bit to add in [brackets] at the end:
Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values; by Dennis Prager
November 9, 2004
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?"
As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.
Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy liberal -- a New York City born and raised, Jewish, Ivy League-educated intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.
To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film, portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter.
To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders.
To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism. The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats, passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to work wearing women's clothing.
To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young Americans' minds. To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement.
To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental, hypocritical and narrow minded.
To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America. That the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values. Even The New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility that activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the election."
To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to cite three major Democratic Party affiliates. To virtually the entire Left, which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war." That is why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as reprehensible as most Americans do.
To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And these judges are identified with the Democrats.
Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values." Indeed, the real question, as this observer sees it, is how has this party retained so many people who have traditional American values?
[To most Americans, the Republican party does NOT represent traditional values either. Those Americans who bother to vote chose the lesser of two evils.]
I get e-mails. I thought this was good – and I have a little bit to add in [brackets] at the end:
Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values; by Dennis Prager
November 9, 2004
According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?"
As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.
Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.
Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy liberal -- a New York City born and raised, Jewish, Ivy League-educated intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.
To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film, portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter.
To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders.
To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism. The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats, passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to work wearing women's clothing.
To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young Americans' minds. To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement.
To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental, hypocritical and narrow minded.
To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America. That the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values. Even The New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility that activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the election."
To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to cite three major Democratic Party affiliates. To virtually the entire Left, which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war." That is why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as reprehensible as most Americans do.
To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And these judges are identified with the Democrats.
Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.
Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values." Indeed, the real question, as this observer sees it, is how has this party retained so many people who have traditional American values?
[To most Americans, the Republican party does NOT represent traditional values either. Those Americans who bother to vote chose the lesser of two evils.]
Monday, July 03, 2006
Post #1
Subject: War Is Over! If ya want it….
My responses and additions -- in [brackets]….
Is defeat now an option?
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
Jun 27, 2006
"There is an awful feeling that everything is lurching downward," the Western diplomat told The Washington Post.
"Nearly five years on, there is no rule of law. ... The Afghans know it is all a charade, and they see us as not only complicit, but actively involved. You cannot fight a terror war and build a weak state at the same time, and it was a terrible mistake to think we could." What that disconsolate diplomat is saying is that America is losing the Afghan war.
According to the Post report, President Hamid Karzai is losing the confidence of his people and our European allies. The Taliban dominates the southeast of the country at night and is fighting in the largest units it has deployed since the fall of the regime in 2001. Anti-Americanism is spreading. A fatal accident, involving a U.S. military vehicle, caused anti-American riots across the capital.
NATO forces, who are to take over from the Americans in the embattled provinces, are likely to begin taking causalities as soon as they arrive. Meanwhile, the narcotics traffickers are bolder than ever.
In Iraq, the good news -- Zarqawi's death, completion of the Cabinet -- is old news. Sen. Richard Lugar describes present conditions as grim: "Given current events in Baghdad ... quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific."
Lugar was reacting to reports that the U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, has presented a plan to the Pentagon to substantially reduce U.S. troop levels by year's end and cut U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from today's 14, to five or six by the end of 2007.
But, as there is no sign the insurgency is defeated, and daily evidence it is stronger than ever, how do we propose to draw down U.S. forces from the 127,000 there, without risking disaster?
[We can’t. The risk is there. But our troops ARE coming home. George W. Bush broke the Army. If you pay attention to the retired Generals on MSNBC, you know the troops have been stretched so thin that reality demands a withdrawal beginning this Fall. No doubt this will be coached as “The Iraqis are standing up, we are standing down.” No matter what the conditions on the ground are. Make no mistake: Bush’s insistence on fighting this war on the cheap is forcing a pre-mature withdrawal which increases our risk.]
The new Baghdad government is also proposing an amnesty to the insurgents, though not al-Qaida or the Saddamites. But if this means a free pass into politics for insurgents who have killed U.S. soldiers, America will react with rage -- and demand an even earlier withdrawal.
[Yes.]
Neither in Afghanistan or Iraq does there seem to be either a strategic plan to defeat the enemy and build an enduring democracy, or adequate U.S. and allied forces to ensure such a victory.
[That is correct.]
The question then could not be more critical. If victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is the Bush goal, why does he not tell the nation of the sacrifices victory clearly requires -- an indefinite commitment of far more U.S. troops than we have yet sent into either conflict?
[It is a failure of leadership.]
If Bush is not willing to lay it out, or to pay that price, and the Casey plan is the Bush plan, the president and the country had best brace themselves for the possibility of defeat on one or both fronts before the end of the Bush term. For that is where we are headed.
It needs to be stated coldly. The Casey plan, for a drawdown of over half of all U.S. combat brigades in Iraq in 18 months, risks an insurgent triumph, chaos and civil war, ethnic cleansing and a Baghdad that is turned into a hellish no man's land.
A decision not to ramp up U.S. military forces in Afghanistan risks defeat there, as well. For no NATO force we send can match U.S. forces in combat effectiveness, and the Taliban resistance has grown to present levels -- the most impressive in five years -- in the teeth of attacks by U.S. forces now giving way to Europeans.
A U.S. defeat in either country would result in a bloodbath for those who sided with the Americans. It happened in Vietnam and Cambodia. If we lose these wars, it will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps the above is too pessimistic. But if Americans, with the finest fighting forces on earth, have not been able to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, what makes us believe Iraqis trained by Americans will succeed where we failed? And if the Taliban, after five years of U.S. air strikes and Special Forces search-and-destroy missions, are stronger than ever, who thinks that NATO units that have never seen combat can take them down? President Bush needs to face the truth, and tell us the truth
We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
[Yes, three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.]
The Democratic Party, having voted to begin redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, has taken its stand: end U.S. involvement, now or soon. If Bush, too, has decided to depart, America had best prepare for the strategic consequences abroad and the political consequences at home of another lost war for the United States.
[Yes, I hear Australia is nice. Where are ya gonna move to?]
Subject: War Is Over! If ya want it….
My responses and additions -- in [brackets]….
Is defeat now an option?
By Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/
Jun 27, 2006
"There is an awful feeling that everything is lurching downward," the Western diplomat told The Washington Post.
"Nearly five years on, there is no rule of law. ... The Afghans know it is all a charade, and they see us as not only complicit, but actively involved. You cannot fight a terror war and build a weak state at the same time, and it was a terrible mistake to think we could." What that disconsolate diplomat is saying is that America is losing the Afghan war.
According to the Post report, President Hamid Karzai is losing the confidence of his people and our European allies. The Taliban dominates the southeast of the country at night and is fighting in the largest units it has deployed since the fall of the regime in 2001. Anti-Americanism is spreading. A fatal accident, involving a U.S. military vehicle, caused anti-American riots across the capital.
NATO forces, who are to take over from the Americans in the embattled provinces, are likely to begin taking causalities as soon as they arrive. Meanwhile, the narcotics traffickers are bolder than ever.
In Iraq, the good news -- Zarqawi's death, completion of the Cabinet -- is old news. Sen. Richard Lugar describes present conditions as grim: "Given current events in Baghdad ... quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific."
Lugar was reacting to reports that the U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, has presented a plan to the Pentagon to substantially reduce U.S. troop levels by year's end and cut U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from today's 14, to five or six by the end of 2007.
But, as there is no sign the insurgency is defeated, and daily evidence it is stronger than ever, how do we propose to draw down U.S. forces from the 127,000 there, without risking disaster?
[We can’t. The risk is there. But our troops ARE coming home. George W. Bush broke the Army. If you pay attention to the retired Generals on MSNBC, you know the troops have been stretched so thin that reality demands a withdrawal beginning this Fall. No doubt this will be coached as “The Iraqis are standing up, we are standing down.” No matter what the conditions on the ground are. Make no mistake: Bush’s insistence on fighting this war on the cheap is forcing a pre-mature withdrawal which increases our risk.]
The new Baghdad government is also proposing an amnesty to the insurgents, though not al-Qaida or the Saddamites. But if this means a free pass into politics for insurgents who have killed U.S. soldiers, America will react with rage -- and demand an even earlier withdrawal.
[Yes.]
Neither in Afghanistan or Iraq does there seem to be either a strategic plan to defeat the enemy and build an enduring democracy, or adequate U.S. and allied forces to ensure such a victory.
[That is correct.]
The question then could not be more critical. If victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is the Bush goal, why does he not tell the nation of the sacrifices victory clearly requires -- an indefinite commitment of far more U.S. troops than we have yet sent into either conflict?
[It is a failure of leadership.]
If Bush is not willing to lay it out, or to pay that price, and the Casey plan is the Bush plan, the president and the country had best brace themselves for the possibility of defeat on one or both fronts before the end of the Bush term. For that is where we are headed.
It needs to be stated coldly. The Casey plan, for a drawdown of over half of all U.S. combat brigades in Iraq in 18 months, risks an insurgent triumph, chaos and civil war, ethnic cleansing and a Baghdad that is turned into a hellish no man's land.
A decision not to ramp up U.S. military forces in Afghanistan risks defeat there, as well. For no NATO force we send can match U.S. forces in combat effectiveness, and the Taliban resistance has grown to present levels -- the most impressive in five years -- in the teeth of attacks by U.S. forces now giving way to Europeans.
A U.S. defeat in either country would result in a bloodbath for those who sided with the Americans. It happened in Vietnam and Cambodia. If we lose these wars, it will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Perhaps the above is too pessimistic. But if Americans, with the finest fighting forces on earth, have not been able to defeat the Iraqi insurgency, what makes us believe Iraqis trained by Americans will succeed where we failed? And if the Taliban, after five years of U.S. air strikes and Special Forces search-and-destroy missions, are stronger than ever, who thinks that NATO units that have never seen combat can take them down? President Bush needs to face the truth, and tell us the truth
We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
[Yes, three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.]
The Democratic Party, having voted to begin redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, has taken its stand: end U.S. involvement, now or soon. If Bush, too, has decided to depart, America had best prepare for the strategic consequences abroad and the political consequences at home of another lost war for the United States.
[Yes, I hear Australia is nice. Where are ya gonna move to?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)