Bush lamest of lame ducks
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006 - 6:00pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
Interesting take on things:
So now that we know any final U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will be decided by the next president, it's reasonable to wonder who that person will be.
Leaving aside whether George Bush intended this or not, all the headlines about "American troops to stay until 2009" seem almost to diminish his role in the war that he started.
If Bush didn't intend to send that signal at his news conference, by the way, it was a colossal misstep.
But the more the media focus on the race to succeed Bush, the more the incumbent seems like he's marking time--especially right now, when he's essentially giving the same speech day after day. I know the administration, like all administrations, values repetition as a way of driving home a message, and obviously it will take time for things to improve in Iraq, if that is indeed a possibility. But the short-term effect is that the president looks as though he's repeating himself like a jammed tape. It would help him if he had another big agenda item to push--whatever happened to that energy independence talk from the State of the Union?--but unhappily for him, the next congressional showdown will likely be over immigration, a subject on which the GOP is badly split.
Some enterprising reporters, thinking several chess moves ahead, are wondering: If Bush's second term no longer matters that much, could he have an impact on who the next president will be?
=========
In short, the policy in Iraq is failing, but Bush won't change it. The real debate among Republicans now is who shall we pick to attempt to fix it?
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
How is policy failing in Iraq? The oil companies made absurd profits last year. The threat of terror has, as anticipated, been dramatically increased due to the invasion. This will only serve to put more fear in to the american populace and thereby make them more likely to give up freedoms and line up behind further imperialist actions. I don't see how this could be considered a failure by those in power.
"I like to hear people talking when they're not talking to me," I said. "It's soothing to know that I don't have to listen." -- Bill Harris describing a truism.
The oil companies making a profit has nothing to do with Iraq, take off the damn tinfoil hat.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
I actually agree with that. The oil companies are acting as shameless profiteers, but I don't see evidence that they influenced the decision to go. My reading of the evidence is that Bush was in the thrall of morons like the Project For The New American Century. Ironically, high profile folks in the PFTNAC like Francis f*ckedupyama are busy calling Bush a retard now.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Then was it purely imperialist reasons? Why did we go, Ulairi? We all know it wasn't WMD's or Terrorists; there were none. It wasn't humanitarian; we would have stopped sanctions a long while ago and would be in Darfur right now. It wasn't to spread democracy; we have challenged democracy all over the globe. I'll leave my hat where it is for now, thank you very much.
"I like to hear people talking when they're not talking to me," I said. "It's soothing to know that I don't have to listen." -- Bill Harris describing a truism.
The answer is that Bush is a true believer. He honestly believed the nonsense that the folks at the PFTNAC were spouting about a wellspring of democracy popping up in the Middle East once you toppled Saddam and were greeted with candies and flowers. He was blinded by this warmed-over white man's burden crap.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
He seems like the worst kind of idealist, too. The one who just sees what he wants to see and closes out conflicting info. At the same time as he was explaining that democracy is every human's right (he was talking real slow, so, you know, we can all understand him), he didn't seem too interested in pushing it oil rich kingdoms like Kuwait, Jordan, UAE, etc.
For some reason, these small nations who depend on the U.S. for their defense and have small populations weren't useful for bringing democracy to the Mideast: Iraq had to be invaded and democratized to stop global islamic terrorism, but the kings and shieks only needed some vaguely worded speeches about moving toward democracy at some point in the undefined future when they were, you know, ready for it.
You don't get it. Once Saddam was gone and the happy flower and candy tossers elected an America-friendly, secular government that put aside tribal or sectarian differences while singing "Kumbaya", the rest of those countries in the Middle East would be shamed into democratizing on their own. So, seriously, was the thinking of these retards.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Pfft. Goes to show what you know.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
Where did you get that? Those shots are awesome!
But that doesn't explain Cheney and Rumsfield. I find it hard to believe that these elite businessmen are such foolish kool-aid drinkers.
"I like to hear people talking when they're not talking to me," I said. "It's soothing to know that I don't have to listen." -- Bill Harris describing a truism.
I've had it for years on my HDD just waiting for some day to use it on a forum.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
Nice. Very nice.
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
I'm more inclined to give Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt than Cheney. Rummy, in my opinion, would have been a fantastic SecDef under any other president, but lacks the adult supervision now necessary for him to operate inside his area of competence. His ideas for transforming the military away from Maginot Line projects like fixed artillery and F-22 fighters is exactly what the military needed. Putting him in a position to pull foreign policy out of his ass was setting him up for failure. He sucks at it. We knew that from the start. And now he's hanged himself with it.
Cheney, otoh, really does seem to be little more than a soulless war profiteer. If there is one person that should be tried for treason in this admin, it is him.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Rumsfeld was looking for a chance to combat test his transformation ideas.
For Cheney, it was all about politics and the effects of the Vietnam war. This war was going to prove that American power was unstoppable and that the Republican men who wielded it had more cajones than the democrats. It was going to be his party's talking point for the next two generations. To sell it to Bush, all they had to do was put it in manichean terms and then give him the chance to play the hero's role in the great struggle between light and darkness. That's why Bush is so stubborn now. The books he reads tell him that every great leader must stay the course through adversity to attain his ultimate triumph, so that's what he's going with in his role as "war president."
Basically, Bush thinks he's Lincoln.
Saddam supported terrorists groups, that is proven fact. He helped train and paid lots of cash to the families of bombers.
If you want to make a simpleton arguement, go right ahead. I've given this forum the economic arguement to make but it requires a lot more thought and education to make. It has nothing to do with oil. Saddam had no problem selling oil to us.
About the sanctions, if we would have dropped those it would have only helped Saddam. Multiple reports said that Saddam wanted WMD and was trying to get them, dropping the sanctions would have helped speed that along. Saddam is to blame for the humanitarian problems in Iraq. I know that there is a large group in the antiwar movement who thinks that Saddam wasn't the problem but I hope you don't belong to that group.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Pardon me, but a single tear runs down my sweaty cheek for the plight of the poor Iraqi. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit you don't give a rat's rectum about them either, so this posturing about Saddam being responsible for the humanitarian disaster in Iraq is just a lot of hooey. No one cared and it should not have been any sort of justification for sending Americans to die there. End of story.
The only reason why the inspectors weren't in Iraq for a four-year period was because Clinton removed them in the hopes of starting a war of his own. Thankfully, cooler heads in Congress (led by Congressional Republicans) told him he was an ass and he managed to hang himself with the Monica Lewinski crap.
With inspectors (remember Hanz Blix) back in Iraq, any development on a WMD program would have been impossible if it even existed. But rather than allowing the process to happen, Bush discredited the inspectors in order to go to war. A war he believed in as a "transformational event" in keeping with his neo-Trotskyite visions of "constant revolution".
As for Saddam's support for terrorism, the best we can do to support that argument was that he was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel compensation for having their homes bulldozed. There were no training camps, ties to al Qaeda, or any such nonsense in evidence anywhere. The rumors of the "hijacking school" turned out to be nothing more than a plane fusilage left over from the early 80's when the CIA was helping Saddam train folks in counterinsurgency. Moreover, if we're really after folks who support terrorism, richer targets were easily available in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where the madrassas were operating in force.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
He has ties to Al Queda and trained Hammas. Did he give operational support to Al Queda, no. However, we are in a global war on islamic terrorist groups not just Al Queda.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
And, if it really were a war against Islamic terrorists, we would have had no greater friend than Saddam Hussein. As a secular apostate who elevated infidels like Tariq Aziz (Christian), he was a polar enemy to Islamic fascists everywhere. Known al Qaeda figures ended up tortured to death in his famed Abu Ghraib prison. Most of them turned out to be the very Kurds we supported prior to the war.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Ties!! What a wonderful, broad word. Depending on how you interpret "He has ties to Al Queda and trained Hammas. ", and one would have to concede you interpret it quite broadly, then so does USA (if consider Afghanistan and Bosnia).
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
No one in any position of power suggested dropping the sanctions, as I recall. Not in the US. Straw man. Likewise, the mythical "large group" who believe Saddam was Teddy Roosevelt. Doesn't exist.
Saddam paid money to the families of bombers. A small fraction of the amount paid by Saudi Arabia, and other states did that too.
Saddam sponsored anti-US terror actively in the 1980's. After the Gulf War, very little ranging to nearly none by 1995 or so. The SIC cites reports of possible IIS activity in the year or so preceding the war, but nothing came of it - things like trying to rent properties in Turkey near the US embassy and the like. Iraq's strongest relation with a terror group was their direct sponsorship of the Mujaheddin e-Khalk, described in the SIC as "by far the most active of Iraq's terrorist partners". Now, if the PLO or Hizbollah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Al Quaeda were Iraqi "terrorist partners", would they not ALL be more active than MEK? Right there, you can see the assessed activity of Iraq's involvement with terror was low, especially compared to it's neighbors. And MEK? What were it's goals? The overthrow of the Iranian government.
There were Al Quaeda-affiliated terrorists in Iraq in the 1990's. Saddam's troops actively hunted them down. He and the AQ leadership were unable to reach agreements, and in fact Bin Laden criticized him and authorized attacks on Iraq. (Hence an anti-Saddam group in northern Iraq, where his control was weakest.)
As to Hamas, I think you are confused. Hamas was raised in opposition to the PLO, and the PLO support of Iraq moved both Saudi Arabia and Iran to invest heavily in Hamas. That changed by the end of the 90's as the Palestinian groups coalesced behind the PA, but I find it hard to believe that Iraq trained Hamas fighters, when indeed thousands of them were trained by Iran and Lebanon. The SIC report backs this up, saying that Hamas and Iraq talked, with Hamas at one point suggesting Iraq could help by conducting martyrdom operations against the West. The CIA assessment was that Hamas would not cross the "red line" and attack US interests in the event of war. This was accurate.
Iraq did not train suicide bombers, according to the SIC. No mention of it that I found, but of course that section is heavily redacted.
Note that the intel given to the White House and discussed with the American people was oriented towards Iraqi cooperation with Al Quaeda, which was next to non-existant, and Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Iraqi support for Palestinians was brought up as an additional motivator, but considering that we were entirely hands-off in that situation, it's hard to argue that depriving a few families of money that would be paid by another country anyway would be a reason to invade.
Basically, everything you've cited is reason to crush Hamas, liberate the Bekaa Valley and put the screws to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria diplomatically in 2002-2003. Instead, we chose Iraq. Bad choice.
Despite years of evidence, I see these and worse mis-statements in the right wing columns and blogs every day. It's pretty disheartening that the revisionism reaches so far as to *invent* reasons for the invasion that were not even presented to Bush.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I think he meant that Saddam supported tourist groups like http://www.atlastours.net/iraq/info.html
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
I never said someone in power did. I was responding to someone on these forums that said or implied that we should have.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Well, I guess I missed that, along with the "large group" of anti-war folks who felt as you indicated.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I'm not talking about the majority of anti-war people just a large group, which you cannot deny is there.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
No, I will deny that. You are asserting that a "large group", but not a "majority", of "anti-war folks", felt that Saddam was "not a problem". And you do this by inference, that because they are against the war, they felt Saddam was basically better than the US occupation. But the only support you give for this is that they were anti-war. You cant quantify it further, probably because the position is simply not what you represented. As you stated it, there is no way to distinguish between someone who had principled opposition to the war, and a supporter of Saddam, and I feel that is the reason this assertion keeps cropping up (it is not just you who states this.)
I dont believe there is a large contingent of anti-war "folks" who believed Saddam was not a problem. They simply believed, as I did, that there were other ways to deal with the situation that would have been more appropriate.
I note you dont have a problem with my corrections of your assertions about Saddams terror support. It would be good to see you support your assertion that a "large group of anti-war folks" believe that Saddam was not a problem, compared to the greater than 50% of Americans who feel the war was a mistake at this time. Remember, at the time of the invasion, the anti-war position was polling quite low, and I believe what you will find is another bugbear of yours - a small number of whackos that make a lot of noise at demonstrations and in the press.
I believe this assertion, with its implication that if you were anti-war, you were pro-Saddam, is another of the propaganda talking points that has been bandied about so much that people who want to believe it, take it for truth. After the Gulf War and the years of sanctions, I dont think there is any "large group" that didnt understand what Saddams dictatorship meant to his people; if you think about it that way, the point is very unlikely. Its only when its presented as an inference that it even gets by in conversation.
(Yes, my browser is refusing to handle apostrophes right now, sorry.)
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
A lot of countries give financial support to terrorists groups.. but they do not have a leader that tried to threaten the President's daddy.
But seriously, something needed to be done about Saddam anyway. The sanctions were not doing anything to choke his power hold, so he either had to be removed or the sanctions had to be lifted as they were hurting the common Iraqi more than the Government in power. The Government found lovely ways to get around the sanctions anyway thanks to various countries and the U.N. (see: U.N. oil for food program scandal).
But the "He gave financial support to terrorists" argument leaves a lot to be desired.
Playing WoW as: Vilius (70 NE Druid)
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” John K Galbraith
So true, and when America went in, I thought it was the right thing, but obviously not many right things have been done since to back that up.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
Say word he tried to kill your father.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
He was facing more internal problems than ever - witness the late 90's attack on his son that nearly killed him, the complete cessation of his WMD programs, the loss of northern Iraq to the Kurds, guaranteed by American airpower, the completely ineffective state of his military, the economic and infrastructure devastation, even his inability to do more than promise future oil production to his trading partners. There was a third option - leave the sanctions in place. They were running a billion dollars a year, which was held to be a serious continuing cost, but from this remove, clearly we've got the bad end of that calculation.
So what could we have done then to help the Iraqi people? Well, we could have begun a program to covertly aid rebels within the country. This had triggered rebellions before, but we'd not followed through. We could have worked to have him assassinated. We could have flexed our military muscle against the supporters of terrorism in the region - Iran perhaps, via the Bekaa Valley, or Syria. We could have worked diplomatically to cut off his trade with neighboring countries, if we really wanted to push things. There were a number of options in between continuing the sanctions and just leaving.
The goal of the sanctions was not to have the US remove Saddam. That was viewed (rightly) as having huge potential for creating anti-American disorder - witness Bush I's writings on the subject. The goal was to cripple his regime and make it both less of a danger to his neighbors, and vulnerable to internal dissent, which it was hoped would eventually take him down and allow an intervention of more moderate Islamic countries to help Iraq back to stability. Framing the discussion as a US responsibility to take out Saddam ignores the sensible reasons we had for *not* doing that for over a decade, and makes it look as if Bush had no other rational choices. And that's revisionism, because the policy goals are out there for anyone to see.
The only change proposed to this between 1991 and 2003 was Clinton's, when his administration floated the idea that we should invade Iraq and finish the job off. This went down in a hail of "wag the dog" criticism from the Republicans. It's interesting, though, to look at the names of those who supported this action in 1998.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
So, really, the only deviation from this policy was proposed by the very team that got it going in the Bush Administration. Not a good argument that it would have been the right move.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Yup. Any real Republican should weep for the fact that Bush has sold himself out to a bunch of barely disguised Liberal Interventionists who suck at math. Bush 41 recognized these folks for the Grima Wormtongues they were.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
During the runup to and the beginning of the war, I had myself convinced that there was some more cynical reason for drumming the conflict. None of the official reasons made any sense whatsoever. There were more direct means of dealing with the issues of WMD suspicions and possible terrorist ties. Neither held up to even the most cursory of examination even before the war started.
I spent months trying to find the "real reason", the "following the money" so to speak. The oil argument didn't wash. The war has already cost more than we will ever be able to justify in terms of oil revenue -- even if we enslave the entire country and sell their organs on the black market transplant community. Nothing that country has will ever justify our sunk costs.
In the end, regrettably, the only motivation that makes any sense whatsoever is that Bush is, in fact, a complete and perfect moron. He bought (at retail) the entire story that the PFNAC f*ckwits were flogging. He honestly thought the world would honor a benevalent American suzerain.
It was, somehow, more comforting that Bush had an alternative agenda -- even if it was just enriching his friends. At least then he wouldn't be a complete idiot. He would be morally bankrupt for sure, but somehow, that was less frightening than his being a true believer in a philosophy with no purchase on earthly logic. At least then he could be reasoned with.
All we have now is a rudderless retard swept about on a sea of "faith" without any plan other than to "stay the course" to a mystical, fictitious land in which the world defies the laws of physics by adoring us despite (or perhaps because of) our ills against it.
Weep for conservatism.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn