Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight: [Archive]

The Don

12-19-2005, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They are not two losing strategies. They are elements of an overall strategy for victory.

Sometimes you need a combination of elements to produce a good result becuase to use each element individually can be disastrous. Example, ingest pure sodium or pure chlorine and you might die. However you have to ingest sodium chloride to live.

Another example, Trying to flee a predator that is faster than you is an ineffective defense. Releasing a smoke screen is also an ineffective defense. However an octupus combines these two ineffective defenses into an effective defensive strategy.

Need more examples?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. One problem though.

I can also combine playing blindfolded with tying my hands behind my back in a basketball game. They are both losing strategies, but they won't combine to help me win at all.

How are these strategies (political and military intervention) going to combine to stop terrorists?

If I am a terrorist, is the fact that the US sets up puppet (anti-terrorist, at least) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan going to stop me from killing Americans if I want to? I mean, after all, my government doesn't consent to it.

Additionally, is the fact that the US military is using force to install these governments going to deter me?

Face it. It isn't that difficult to get into the US. It isn't that difficult to kill a lot of people once you are here. If individuals want to do it, then they will, and there is nothing the US government can do about it. Bush needs to admit that he is wasting money and lives with this boogieman known as "The War on Terror."

Stu Pidasso

12-19-2005, 12:19 AM

Hi Devault,

I didn't watch the speech tonight. However I did read the excerpts from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.speech/index.html) . Heres how they highlighted it

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged deep divisions and difficult progress in Iraq Sunday night, but urged Americans not to give in to "defeatism" and "despair" over the conflict

911 wasn't mentioned in the CNN article. Was it mentioned at all in the speech? If it was a major point I'm sure it would have been mentioned multiple times.

Foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179026,00.html) had the following summary

WASHINGTON — Elections in Iraq last Thursday were "a landmark day in the history of liberty," and set the stage for the first Arab democracy in the Middle East, President Bush said Sunday night in a prime-time television speech from the Oval Office.

FoxNews also had no mention of 911 in its article.

Devault, I bet if you reviewed the transcript of the speech, you would be pretty embarrassed about the summary you provided for us here.

Stu

PoBoy321

12-19-2005, 12:24 AM

I didn't get a chance to watch the speech, but how many times did he say "We're working hard and making progress"?

Stu Pidasso

12-19-2005, 12:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How are these strategies (political and military intervention) going to combine to stop terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not going to stop terrorist completely. All you're going to do is keep the terrorist in check. Iraq has free and fair elections. It has a vibrant economy. It has a free press. Most of the people of Iraq feel good about the future and most feel secure.

The military prong is working. To say its not just because we are suffering causalties is to have no understanding of what it means to be involved in an on going military engagement.

[ QUOTE ]
If I am a terrorist, is the fact that the US sets up puppet (anti-terrorist, at least) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan going to stop me from killing Americans if I want to? I mean, after all, my government doesn't consent to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrorist killed more Americans in America than they have in Iraq or Afghanistan. The goal is to change the region from one that produces terrorist to one that does not. Its hoped that a democratic middle east will foster this change.

[ QUOTE ]
Face it. It isn't that difficult to get into the US. It isn't that difficult to kill a lot of people once you are here. If individuals want to do it, then they will, and there is nothing the US government can do about it. Bush needs to admit that he is wasting money and lives with this boogieman known as "The War on Terror."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he? Knock on wood but we haven't had another 911, USS Cole, or embassy bombing. We went from fighting terrorist on our terf to fighting terrorist on their terf. Which is preferable?

Stu

Stu Pidasso

12-19-2005, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't get a chance to watch the speech, but how many times did he say "We're working hard and making progress"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I searched the transcripts. He didn't say it(I was surprised too). FWIW he did mention 911 once.

Stu

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 01:25 AM

I am a pretty big critic of Bush's timing of the Iraq war and his handling of the situation there after the invasion. And I think many of his domestic policies are seriously flawed.

In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus. This is something Bush has been pretty poor at in the past and something he still struggles with -- but this speech was something that his critics can work with if they choose to.

It is unfortunate that you, just as Bush has done many times, have chosen to hear and see only what you want to.

12-19-2005, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Which is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually fighting the terrorists and not invading countries that had nothing to do with attacking us.

12-19-2005, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + I'm listening to you're phone calls +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + I'm in way over my head + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Reformer with results + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Daddy, what's Vietnam? +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq."

[/ QUOTE ]

theweatherman

12-19-2005, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You're not going to stop terrorist completely. All you're going to do is keep the terrorist in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason that Canadians arent blowing themselves up in AMerican buses, its because the social forces which create terrorists do not exist in Canada (not to a large enough extent anyways) Terroism is 100% stopable as long as the forces which create terrorists cease to be. American puppet governments and long drawn out military campaigns only increase hatred and the number of terrorists.

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorist killed more Americans in America than they have in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is very true. A large part of this war is to keep these forgien fighters abroad and not in the US. Unfortunatly in the process we have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people (not only amreicans count as people btw). This is a terrible tragedy which most Americans turn a blind eye to, cus hey they aren't REAL people. Real people a blindly patrotic to America!

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 02:04 AM

"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

I consider myself in the former category, and really want to increase debate about what is going on in Iraq and what will and will not work.

I get so frustrated by the many people who are in the latter category -- and I think your post and that of the OP post are suggestive of that attitude. The approach of angrily denouncing Bush and using cheap arguments that are no better than many of his weak arguments is undermining the legitimate criticism of how Bush has handled the situation in Iraq.

I suspect you probably just hate Bush so much that you don't care or don't believe me. I personally don't hate Bush, but I am very disappointed with many of his policy decisions and I'd like to convince others why there are better alternatives.

I really fear that the rise of a leftwing outlets like moveon.org have encouraged the same lazy and sloppy thinking that the Rush Limbaughs brought to rightwing zealots in the 90s (and continue to supply).

This is a very simplistic formulation of public debate, but if you simplify arguments to petty namecalling and accusations, the right will always dominate. The right has mastered appealing to our emotions -- especially fear -- and will sway the moderate middle if that is where the debate stalls.

I think of myself as a (to the extent I can label my complex views in two words) classical liberal. (Which leads in practice to the fact that I tend to lean left but do sometimes think Republican ideas are better than Democratic ideas on some issues. And am not very happy with the ideas, or more specifically the lack of good ones, coming from either party.) If the public debate stalls at petty name-calling and attempts at fear-mongering, I think a lot of the policies I support will not be enacted.

If you choose to give up on improving the quality of debate and reduce yourself to petty Bush insults, then you are no better than Bush at his worst. If you are okay with that and want to blindly go on assuming that you have all the answers to everything (as a certain chief executive has done in the past), feel free. Ironically, while your policy preferences will be different, you will be methodologically similar to the very individual you so ardently (and counterproductively) ridicule.

12-19-2005, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am a pretty big critic of Bush's timing of the Iraq war and his handling of the situation there after the invasion. And I think many of his domestic policies are seriously flawed.

In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus. This is something Bush has been pretty poor at in the past and something he still struggles with -- but this speech was something that his critics can work with if they choose to.

It is unfortunate that you, just as Bush has done many times, have chosen to hear and see only what you want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Improving the quality of debate about Iraq? Seems to me there wasn't any room for debate according to Bush(You're either with us or against us). But now that his ratings have fallen off a cliff he wants to build a consensus. Give me a break.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is he? Knock on wood but we haven't had another 911, USS Cole, or embassy bombing. We went from fighting terrorist on our terf to fighting terrorist on their terf. Which is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu, I appreciate your thoughtful posts on the matter. While I disagree with your position on Iraq, I think your approach to the dialogue is productive for good debate and gives people the opportunity to be convinced by your points. (Even though it is unlikely that someone will be completely swayed, but they may accept some of your claims and arguments that they would not have otherwise.)

Let me explain what I believe that the flaw is with your reasoning. I agree that we want to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil. (I agree less that it is okay to induce terrorist attacks elsewhere to accomplish this goal, and I am not sure that is exactly what you are saying. I suspect you want to stop the terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world, and it's just a matter of degree over how we should balance our desire to prevent terrorism everywhere and our naturally stronger desire to prevent terrorism here.)

However, I believe that the evidence clearly indicates that the motivation of the terrorist organizations for their attacks has been the increased military presence of American troops in Arab land -- particularly our presence in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Persian Gulf War. Of course, I do not believe that this motivation in any way morally legitimizes the atrocities that were committed, but I believe that understanding this motivation is essential to our strategy to prevent terrorism in the long run.

While we are indeed fortunate not to have suffered any terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, I think our involvement in Iraq has increased the motivation for fundamentalist Muslims to terrorize us. Simultaneously, we have crippled the organization to a certain extent (how much I don't really know) through our campaign in Afghanistan, have improved our homeland defense (to a certain extent) and it is certainly true that terrorists are (for the time being) distracted by our involvement in Iraq. Unfortunately, our military and Iraqi military and Iraqi civilians are losing their lives, and this is undesirable. If their sacrifices will significantly decrease the likelihood of future attacks (beyond the time we are in Iraq -- as I assume you agree that we cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely to deflect terrorists), then it might be a regrettable but necessary (or at least justified) loss. However, I believe that the fundamental flaw with this reasoning is the assumption that the campaign in Iraq has truly lessened significantly (and not perhaps even increased) the risk of future terrorist attacks, especially after we eventually leave Iraq but inevitably get blamed for any future problems that they have.

I recognize that you may disagree with my assessment and I admit that the situation is so complex that it is hard for me to make a good judgment, and my opinion is just the best judgment I can form. I also, despite my skepticism, want us to make the best decisions in Iraq from this point forward that will protect us from terrorism, protect the Iraqi people from terrorism, and provide them with the necessary resources for them to sustain their current drive toward democracy (while at the same time not flaming the fuel of the insurgency anymore than we have to). Hopefully, a consensus can be reached on this latter point and more debate will take place on how we should prioritize our goals in Iraq and how best to accomplish them.

Respectfully,
Mike

UATrewqaz

12-19-2005, 02:30 AM

ANYTHING can be won militarily.

(except things like love, etc.)

12-19-2005, 02:34 AM

Read my other posts, I do participate in debate. This was a cheap shot that was too easy for me to pass up. To address your statement, I've yet to hear a good idea from Bush for me to embrace other than the obvious attacking those who attacked us, however, he kinda lost me when he decided to attack Iraq for no reason, never come clean about the B.S. intelligence, etc. Plus, it's very difficult to respect a man who, during his first administration, had to look in the mirror every day with the knowledge that the majority of the country voted against him.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Improving the quality of debate about Iraq? Seems to me there wasn't any room for debate according to Bush(You're either with us or against us). But now that his ratings have fallen off a cliff he wants to build a consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! Bush was wrong initially. He was deservedly criticized by many people. This led to political pressure which has forced him to change his position and accept that there is more subtlety to the matter and that a consensus approach to Iraq is better than listening to only half of the ideas out there. It's a shame that he took so long to get to this point, but at least he's finally willing to listen (or at least getting there).

[ QUOTE ]

Give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about Bush and whether he's a good person or not. It's about having the chief executive make the best decisions for America. He has not, in my opinion, succeeded at this when it comes to Iraq (and I don't really care to dwell on why any more than is necessary). He is now showing a willingness to change his tune and I think his policies are getting better, but are still flawed. Rather than dwell on his past mistakes to try to let out my frustration or feel smug about myself, I want to acknowledge what I think is right and explain what I think is still wrong.

But that's just me, and one of the main reasons I am becoming as disillusioned with the "left" in this country as I am with the "right." The world is a lot more complex and policy decisions are a lot harder than moveon.org and powerlineblog.com would have you believe.

ACPlayer

12-19-2005, 02:51 AM

I too am sickened by the smug political rhetoric out of touch with reality.

Too bad DVaut1 keeps reminding us of how badly the prez has handled himself. It is sickening how he does so, if he was a "real" american he would just shut up and salute.

12-19-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's about having the chief executive make the best decisions for America.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wake me up when he starts doing this.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 03:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Read my other posts, I do participate in debate. This was a cheap shot that was too easy for me to pass up. To address your statement, I've yet to hear a good idea from Bush for me to embrace other than the obvious attacking those who attacked us, however, he kinda lost me when he decided to attack Iraq for no reason, never come clean about the B.S. intelligence, etc. Plus, it's very difficult to respect a man who, during his first administration, had to look in the mirror every day with the knowledge that the majority of the country voted against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

RB, I did read one of your other posts after my reply above, and I appreciate your willingness for dialogue.

I think you may be underestimating how counterproductive the cheap shots at Bush are. He has hidden behind them for a long time, and many moderate people are aware that most of the outspoken critiques of Bush are just lame cheap shots. (Of course, so are most critiques of Democrats as well, and I do think that Republicans manage to get away with cheap shots a bit easier because they play the fear card better.)

I think if you look at the specifics of what is going in Iraq, you see a lot of mistakes but also some good moves and you realize how hard it is to make good decisions there. (Which by the way is the main reason I thought we should have held out longer before invading Iraq -- nation-building is not an easy task and it is sometimes a necessary evil to have to allow an evil dictator to stay in power if there are ways to contain him, and it was certainly possible to contain him longer than we did. Whether he could have been deterred from rebuilding a weapons program indefinitely is debatable and there were serious problems with the oil-for-food program, but I think is fairly clear that we had more time with the inspectors still there.) After the invasion, we moved too slowly in organizing Iraqi security forces (military and police). It turns out in hindsight that disbanding the army formally was probably a major strategic flaw. But there is now an urgency to get Iraqi security forces trained and that's a good thing. So yes, Bush screwed up, but now he's finally getting things right on this matter (or so it appears). So let's applaud that and acknowledge that this is an improvement. Let's focus on other issues with have with Bush's idea. I'd like to focus on understanding the motivations of Islamist fundamentalists and try to pressure Bush to stop with the frequent nonsense implication in his speeches that they are motivated by "hatred of Western values of democracy, liberty, and freedom" when in fact they are motivated by their opposition to the presence of American troops in Muslim nations, particularly Saudi Arabia. That might not fit in as well into political speeches, but it's the reality that we are facing and it's important that the public realize it. There will likely be a debate as to how this particular fact should affect our strategy.

Why not spend more time focusing on improving the understanding of the world among the public (which starts with improving our own understanding by reading a diverse selection of respected news sources -- New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Atlantic Monthly)? Not everyone will agree on what this deeper understanding means for American policy, but at least it would get us on a better track.

Playing the game of Bush sucks versus Hillary sucks is just not productive in my opinion.

FWIW, I don't think the results of the controversial 2000 election are really worth focusing on any more at this point. Bush did end up winning the election through the ugly process and no doubt a different Supreme Court makeup could have changed the result; but he won the 2004 election legitimately and the reality is that it is in everyone's interest to get the president (and Congress and other public officials) to do what is best for America, regardless of how they got there or how much we respect them.

Respectfully,
Mike

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ANYTHING can be won militarily.

(except things like love, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it's always prudent to ask: at what cost?

Lestat

12-19-2005, 03:32 AM

You are exactly right. I could go off for a couple thousand words on how and why I think Bush is a lying idiot who should literally be impeached (and possibly imprisoned?) for the incompetent (and criminal?) way he's led this country. But it is what it is, and right now the question is, where do we go from here?

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 03:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Devault,

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Stoo Pidahhsoo,

[ QUOTE ]
911 wasn't mentioned in the CNN article. Was it mentioned at all in the speech? If it was a major point I'm sure it would have been mentioned multiple times.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, yes -- a majority of the first half the speech (the 'Campaign of Murder' section of the CNN transcript) was another in the long line of Bush administration attempts to link together domestic terrorism/Sept. 11 and Iraq in the minds of Americans; a claim that is as of now completely devoid of compelling evidence -- but a claim that many polls have demonstrated resonates as true in the minds of many Americans; again, despite the lack of compelling evidence, and due in no small part to Bush administration efforts like this to purposefully suggest, even if not overtly so, that Iraq and 9/11 were somehow related.

[ QUOTE ]
Devault, I bet if you reviewed the transcript of the speech, you would be pretty embarrassed about the summary you provided for us here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea how proud of it I am -- the fact that you find it such an inaccurate and unfair summary only further convinces me that I've done well.

At first, the summary I provided was merely my attempt to be rather satirical; but now that I've had a chance to review the transcript, I don't think I was that far off the mark.

Thanks for the eye opener.

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 04:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, consensus building typically revolves around taking your critics out to the woodshed and calling them defeatists.

The quality of debate has clearly improven if you're a strident right-winger, as the President said exactly what you wanted to hear: vocal critics are mere dishonest defeatists, who criticize for their own sheer 'partisan uses' in a way that 'is not justified by the facts'.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 04:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, consensus building typically revolves around taking your critics out to the woodshed and calling them defeatists.

The quality of debate has clearly improven if you're a strident right-winger, as the President said exactly what you wanted to hear: vocal critics are mere dishonest defeatists, who criticize for their own sheer 'partisan uses' in a way that 'is not justified by the facts'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mastered one of Bush's (and moveon.org's) common techniques: taking quotes out of context and trying to suggest that they say something other than what they did.

He did not say that all vocal critics are defeatists, but said that some are. I believe he hides behind this criticism too much, but unfortunately the hardcore prominent leftists keeps strengthening his case here by making criticisms that are so over the top that they have lost credibility to moderates.

He dismisses the extreme leftwing criticisms of the war, and he is right to do so. Unfortunately, he does try to use that as a rhetorical tool to downplay the legitimate criticisms of people who take the time to try in good faith to understand his perspective and still find it flawed.

Still, you have selectively quoting only what you wanted to hear and see. The reality is that while the Bush speech still had some serious flaws, it was better than previous ones and was the most significant concession of error he has made to this point. He made a limited and perhaps begrudging move toward opening the door for well-developed criticisms that accept what the situation in Iraq is, regardless of whether they agree we should have been there in the first place.

I am a Bush critic. I just care about developing better policies and convincing others to support them, and I find it both intellectually lazy and practically counterproductive to dwell on my personal feelings toward Bush. Your hatred and fervor toward Bush is no less irrational than that of conservatives towrards people like the Clintons.

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 05:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The reality

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently 'reality' is now just synonymous with 'my opinion'; I suppose we can forgive the occasional human tendency to disregard the distinctions between the two, but keep in mind that 'reality' probably has a narrower definition than your use of it here.

[ QUOTE ]
I just care about developing better policies and convincing others to support them, and I find it both intellectually lazy and practically counterproductive to dwell on my personal feelings toward Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Your hatred and fervor toward Bush is no less irrational than that of conservatives towrards people like the Clintons.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I'm engaged in dishonest tactics by 'taking quotes out of context' -- and yet you're debating 'honestly' by levying the charge of me having an irrational hatred of President Bush, despite the fact that no where in this thread (or any thread) have I said anything that could legitimately be construed as demonstrating a 'hatred' for the President.

1) I don't hate President Bush. On a personal level, he seems like a rather decent person for whom I have absolutely no qualms with.

2) You claim to find 'developing better policies and convincing others to support them' intellectually stimulating and highly productive; and yet your conduct throughout this thread has has been to lament about the disingenuous debating tactics of others by engaging in your own brand of unfounded demagoguery (yes, making exaggerated claims about your opponents over-emotional irrationality is an act that needlessly adds emotion to a debate). So it seems as though you find hypocrisy to be intellectually stiumlating and highly productive as well.

Again, to answer your concerns: I have absolutely no emotional disagreements with President Bush - I think he's a fine person, I just disagree with his policies. I too find dwelling on my own personal feelings to be intellectually lazy and practically counterproductive, which is why I haven't bothered (up until now) discussing any of my personal feelings.

May I suggest ending the moral posturing, as lame faux-intellectual moralizing is tedious, and come join the rest of us in the mud. It's not all that shameful. Truth be told, you're already here, as you've shown absolutely no hesitation to levy unfounded criticisms against those you disagree with; so just do fairness a favor and end the hypocrisy.

Respectfully, DVaut1 (I noticed the abrupt end to the 'respectfully' signatures you were ending your posts with; what happened?)

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 05:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You've mastered one of Bush's (and moveon.org's) common techniques:

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's have a little inquiry into common debating techniques. Perhaps we can shed some light on this:

[ QUOTE ]
He dismisses the extreme leftwing criticisms of the war, and he is right to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Which 'extreme leftwing' criticisms has he/did he specifically dismissed/dismiss? One common technique in debates is to pretend as if you've dismissed your opponents points when you've actually just presented a strawman or red herring (for instance, constantly implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when questioned about the wisdom of going to war, when no compelling evidence for such a claim exists)

2) Why are they 'extreme'? (because, as I'm sure you know, referring to opponents as 'extreme' is a common rhetorical technique that's used to cast opponents in an unpleasant light, while attempting to add some measure of credence that the arguer's position is more widely agreed upon or popular -- not that you would stoop to that hackneyed technique, though)

3) Why is he right to do so? (another common debating technique, again as I'm sure you're aware, is to present opinions as if they're fact and need no further explanation)

I'd hate to see you get too bogged down in details, as empirical evidence which helps form the foundation of the premises that aid in making our arguments compelling can often get in the way of a nice, opinion based rant - but just humor those irrational Bush haters like me and the rest of the resident MoveOn crowd.

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 06:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If the public debate stalls at petty name-calling

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, doesn't it stink when debate stalls at name-calling? Let's examine, shall we?

---------------------------

[ QUOTE ]
"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

I get so frustrated by the many people who are in the latter category -- and I think your post and that of the OP post are suggestive of that attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you hate petty-name calling -- but RussianBear and I are defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Yes, it's quite apparent you really disdain name-calling.

Let's look deeper into the many ways you've raised the level of debate:

[ QUOTE ]
The approach of angrily denouncing Bush and using cheap arguments

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you probably just hate Bush so much

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I really fear that the rise of a leftwing outlets like moveon.org have encouraged the same lazy and sloppy thinking that the Rush Limbaughs brought to rightwing zealots in the 90s (and continue to supply).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I just hate name-calling too, and all those stupid, lazy, and intellectually spurious MoveOn folk and their right-wing zealot counterparts are just lazy name-callers who don't engage in hightened debate -- such as calling others zealots who are engaged in lazy and sloppy thinking.

Like I said, I just hate all those douchebag name-callers too. What dickheads those name-callers are.

I fear hypocrisy much more than I fear partisan outlets, and it's not even close.

Exsubmariner

12-19-2005, 08:12 AM

"being my naturally defeatist self"

The President said it, you said it. Now, you obviously feel it's not true. So prove it wrong.

Begin.

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 08:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"being my naturally defeatist self"

The President said it, you said it. Now, you obviously feel it's not true. So prove it wrong.

Begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel this war is a lost cause, nor do I feel we were destined to lose it; nor do I hope we lose it, either. In regards to the latter, I do not know anyone who hopes we lose this war, or hopes that it turns out badly. As for the former, perhaps others felt this war was a lost cause or we were destined to lose it; I'm not one of them.

The "being my naturally defeatist self" comment was sarcasm.

Beer and Pizza

12-19-2005, 08:24 AM

Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

"We are winning, and the democrats know we are winning. (If they thought we were losing, they'd be quiet and let me self-destruct) And how do I know the democrats know we are winning? Two words: wire taps." /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Exsubmariner

12-19-2005, 08:25 AM

Mike,
You seem to be willing to spend copious amounts of verbage on this discussion. To offer my two bits, after having discussed this extensively with a large number of people whom I feel are more politically astute than your average college professor, I firmly believe that the course of history would have been exactly the same if Al Gore won.

Consider it. As far as Iraq is concerned, the continued situation with the UN was not acceptable, the intelligence coming out about WMD's would have been the same no matter who was in office & as we all know, John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, as did many other wafflers on the left, and combine that all with the gutted intelligence operative capacity of the CIA, and there was simply no other alternative for a Iraq policy than going to war.

At least we have a President who is willing to do what is necessary, in his view to finish the job of firmly planting Democracy in Iraq, regardless of what the poll numbers say. Other Presidential contenders may not have done the same.

(Que Yoko Ono leading "give peace a chance")

FWIW,
X

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 08:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Mike,
You seem to be willing to spend copious amounts of verbage on this discussion. To offer my two bits, after having discussed this extensively with a large number of people whom I feel are more politically astute than your average college professor, I firmly believe that the course of history would have been exactly the same if Al Gore won.

Consider it. As far as Iraq is concerned, the continued situation with the UN was not acceptable, the intelligence coming out about WMD's would have been the same no matter who was in office & as we all know, John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, as did many other wafflers on the left, and combine that all with the gutted intelligence operative capacity of the CIA, and there was simply no other alternative for a Iraq policy than going to war.

At least we have a President who is willing to do what is necessary, in his view to finish the job of firmly planting Democracy in Iraq, regardless of what the poll numbers say. Other Presidential contenders may not have done the same.

(Que Yoko Ono leading "give peace a chance")

FWIW,
X

[/ QUOTE ]

By claiming that any Democratic president would have done the same -- does that not imply that things are going badly? I can't quite figure out why right-wingers try to claim it; it seems to be saying something along the lines of:

"This war is all [censored] up, but Dems would have done the same".

I think it could, in some way, be trying to demonstrate that we had no other alternatives other than war; but merely claiming that Democrats would have done the same doesn't prove there were no other alternatives.

Am I wrong? I don't quite understand.

Exsubmariner

12-19-2005, 08:45 AM

I can think of several people in the national dialogue who I feel have every fibre in the core of their being and their political futures invested in hating the war until it fails. Their tactics are to go against their own statements of support before the war started, to critize every miniscule setback until they are blue in the face, create public farce which fuels the the Al Jeezera Anti-American propaganda machine, and generally behave like politik worms are apt to do by putting their own interests over that of the country.

Why, O, Why Dvaut, do you put yourself in their defense by making posts like this thread if you disagree with their postion. Most of the country feels the way about the course of the debate that the President does. In fact, I've heard many comments after the speech (coming out of the evil talk radio establishment, which obviously isn't mainstream because the ratings are in the toilet and no body listens to it or pays hosts enormous sums of money to advertise on their programs) that the President was finally saying what he needed to say.

Most of the right wing beef with the man is over other issues, not the war.

Now if you oppose the President's labeling of his critics as defeatists on the basis that it's simply name calling, how do you feel about the use of every label that has been hung on the President by the same people (liar, racist, theif, corrupt, Hitler, stealer of elections, hijacker of the government, etc, etc, etc)? Is turnabout fair play, or not?

BluffTHIS!

12-19-2005, 08:47 AM

Excerpts from Senator Biden's commentary on the president's speech show why the democrats are utterly clueless on the whole Iraq situation and only interested in political demagoguery:

"We have six more months to get this right"

and

"If we, in fact, lose in Iraq - that is, if a Shia-style, Iranian-style government is set up - it will be terrible for us for a long time."

So he says the stakes are very high for us to fail in Iraq, butttttttt, we have to succeed in six months more max.

Whereas the president has also correctly recognized what is at stake, but is also willing to see this through to a successful conclusion even if it takes longer than we would like, let alone longer than an artificial time period set up by democrats solely for the purpose of political grandstanding.

Bottom line is the democrats are just fair weather soldiers.

Exsubmariner

12-19-2005, 08:53 AM

I don't think it implies things are going badly. I think that the media machine would be spinning things in a very positive light regardless if there were a Democrat in the White House and of course the Left Wing would all be shaking their palm-palms. I just do not trust the take of anyone who is pushing an agenda is in line with reality.

If there were other alternatives, I think they would have been pursued. In fact, I think they were, but failed. The present course is risky and expensive. All other roads had lead back to the same point.

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 09:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several people in the national dialogue who I feel have every fibre in the core of their being and their political futures invested in hating the war until it fails. Their tactics are to go against their own statements of support before the war started, to critize every miniscule setback until they are blue in the face, create public farce which fuels the the Al Jeezera Anti-American propaganda machine, and generally behave like politik worms are apt to do by putting their own interests over that of the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Claiming that some people have placed their political stake in the failure of the war doesn't demonstrate hatred, it demonstrates strategy and self-interest; something I think we can all agree is rational, no? That's not hatred, it's calculus.

And I think you're certainly engaging in just a bit of exaggeration; I won't pretend to know what's in most war critics 'every fiber in their core', but I generally assume most don't wish failure upon the United States, nor do they have deep and unending hatred for the war (given that, as you say, many of the people I think you're referring to voted for the war).

[ QUOTE ]
Why, O, Why Dvaut, do you put yourself in their defense by making posts like this thread if you disagree with their postion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whose defense? The people for whom you've created some exaggerated narrative about? Why have I put myself in the defense of those people?

I don't know. Why do people engage in demagoguery and use strawman arguments?

-----------------------

Or put another way: President Bush sent soldiers to war, and some soldiers died in this war, which makes President Bush an dictatorial murder, who would clearly kill puppies and kittens if he had the chance, and thought no one was looking, and Cheney gave the go-ahead.

Why do you defend this puppy killing monster?

----------------------

So yeah, long story short, I'm not really in the business of defending others against over-exaggerated and demagogic attacks levied against them.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the country feels the way about the course of the debate that the President does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I've heard many comments after the speech (coming out of the evil talk radio establishment, which obviously isn't mainstream because the ratings are in the toilet and no body listens to it or pays hosts enormous sums of money to advertise on their programs) that the President was finally saying what he needed to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...you heard on right-wing talk radio that the President they fervently support finally said what needed to be said about the war they also fervently support.

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you oppose the President's labeling of his critics as defeatists on the basis that it's simply name calling, how do you feel about the use of every label that has been hung on the President by the same people (liar, racist, theif, corrupt, Hitler, stealer of elections, hijacker of the government, etc, etc, etc)? Is turnabout fair play, or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind name-calling; in fact, I rather enjoy it and find it perfectly legitimate. I just disagree with the President's characterization of his opponents. I certainly have no ethical misgivings over name-calling.

Exsubmariner

12-19-2005, 09:34 AM

"it's calculus."

They must have failed that class, thus the reason for becoming politicians. I submit there is no political capital to be gained opposing the war. Unless, that is, you believe having Cindy Sheehan on your side is vital to winning the next election. And if that's the case, you will probably loose the next election and think it's because you haven't gotten your message out.

How's that for a straw man? You really burnt down that last one I made. In fact, I don't think there's anyone anymore who fits the description that the President gave, I'm convinced now he just dreamed the whole thing up.

So now you've disagreed that the war is going badly and stated you hope we win, but the point of this thread was not to support the defeatists, or to defend them, just disagree that they are defeatists.

Glad we got to the bottom of it. Man, you've won me over.

Arnfinn Madsen

12-19-2005, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was more interesting to hear a Republican senator in the Arms Comitee saying that Iraq can't be won militarily in his comment afterwards. That's what I many and others who know something about this region/culture has claimed for a while and now it seems to slowly sink in.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't be won militarily. It can't be won politically. A combination of the two is neccessary for victory. Its also the strategy we have been following since the start.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you haven't been following that strategy from the start (it was spoken, but not executed). In the beginning you arrogantly ignored nearly all politics due to an irrational belief in the military part.

ACPlayer

12-19-2005, 11:10 AM

WHile it is true that the war cannot be won militarily, the real problem is that there is no clear goal for the war (see the many goals articulated over the past few years). Even now the goals are all fuzzy rather than clear cut.

I kept hearing we must defeat the enemy with our Iraqi partners (or words to that effect) but what exactly is the enemy and how do know when we have defeated the enemy.

Clearly according to the Prez we must defeat the enemy to be safe in America -- I wish I knew what enemy we are fighting in Iraq so we can be safe in America.

Clearly we must make Iraq free and democratic. But what exactly is this democracy -- is running an election a democracy? What about if those who are close pals with the IRanian's rise to power (democratically!!!) have we won?

There is no definition of victory. We simply must get there though according tot he prez.

Getting to the river is not a goal. Winning something tangible should be the goal.

MMMMMM

12-19-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no definition of victory. We simply must get there though according tot he prez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. Obviously the definition of victory is some sort of established democratic Iraqi government, with the Iraqis able to maintain their own security within a relatively stable Iraq, and the jihadists possessing considerably less ability to attack.

ACPlayer

12-19-2005, 12:07 PM

I can assure you if a manager had brought me a statement like this as a project objective in my corporate life, they would have had some sort career of a relatively stable sort with considerably less ability to get future projects done.

This is not an objective this is a recipe for a disaster.

InchoateHand

12-19-2005, 12:07 PM

"Come on now. Obviously the definition of victory is some sort of established democratic Iraqi government, with the Iraqis able to maintain their own security within a relatively stable Iraq, and the jihadists possessing considerably less ability to attack. "

If thats your definition, we are entirely doomed to failure.

That is certainly not the President's definition of victory.

PoBoy321

12-19-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no definition of victory. We simply must get there though according tot he prez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. Obviously the definition of victory is some sort of established democratic Iraqi government, with the Iraqis able to maintain their own security within a relatively stable Iraq, and the jihadists possessing considerably less ability to attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with this line of thinking is that the terrorists can't be defeated. It's like trying to wage a war on murder, or theft. There will always be thieves and murderers and in the Middle East, there will always be jihadists. The best we can do is to set up a stable government in Iraq that can deal with them as best they can and leave them to their own devices.

Beer and Pizza

12-19-2005, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

My problem with this line of thinking is that the terrorists can't be defeated. It's like trying to wage a war on murder, or theft. There will always be thieves and murderers and in the Middle East, there will always be jihadists. The best we can do is to set up a stable government in Iraq that can deal with them as best they can and leave them to their own devices.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between individuals committing crimes and organized criminals. We will never stop the psychotics or drug addicted individual criminals, but we can greatly diminish the organized criminals (mafia, barbery pirates).

Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime.

Analyst

12-19-2005, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Whereas the president has also correctly recognized what is at stake, but is also willing to see this through to a successful conclusion even if it takes longer than we would like, let alone longer than an artificial time period set up by democrats solely for the purpose of political grandstanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only the administration had shown such patience, restraint and foresight before deciding to invade Iraq, rather than claiming we were in immediate danger and pulling the trigger. And before anyone answers "but everyone believed he had WMD", even if Sadam did have WMD, he was completely contained and little to no threat - certainly less so than a number of other nations.

InchoateHand

12-19-2005, 12:37 PM

"Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime."

Really? Thats news.

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 12:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They must have failed that class, thus the reason for becoming politicians. I submit there is no political capital to be gained opposing the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rather specious submission, to say the least. Of course there's political capital to be gained by opposing the war. How do you think a no-name former Vermont governor is now head of the DNC, if not for harnessing some measure of the political capital available by opposing the war?

Yes, there is a population of Americans (not a majority by any stretch) who both oppose the war and are hungry for leadership. Of course, there is lots of political capital there.

To claim there's no political capital to be gained opposing the war is tantamount to claiming there's no one opposing the war. Simply untrue.

[ QUOTE ]
So now you've disagreed that the war is going badly and stated you hope we win, but the point of this thread was not to support the defeatists, or to defend them, just disagree that they are defeatists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about right -- except I do believe the war is, in some areas, going poorly (and I'll freely admit there are, of course, some things going well). Merely saying that some things are going poorly does not mean that I believe we're bound to lose the war, nor does it making pointing such things out make me a defeatist.

Just because your favorite football team is down 14-0 at halftime, and playing poorly, doesn't necessarily mean that you think your favorite team is doomed to lose the game.

BCPVP

12-19-2005, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If only the administration had shown such patience, restraint and foresight before deciding to invade Iraq, rather than claiming we were in immediate danger and pulling the trigger.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Bush or senior admin officials claimed we were in "immediate" danger. In fact, I remember hearing Bush say we should invade because if we wait till the danger is immediate, we've waited too long. Care to back up your statement?

MMMMMM

12-19-2005, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can assure you if a manager had brought me a statement like this as a project objective in my corporate life, they would have had some sort career of a relatively stable sort with considerably less ability to get future projects done.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking corporations here.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not an objective this is a recipe for a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I stated is an objective, and a good one.

MMMMMM

12-19-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with this line of thinking is that the terrorists can't be defeated. It's like trying to wage a war on murder, or theft. There will always be thieves and murderers and in the Middle East, there will always be jihadists. The best we can do is to set up a stable government in Iraq that can deal with them as best they can and leave them to their own devices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The groups which are organizing these attacks can be themselves attacked, have their funding cut off, receive less popular support, etc.

The goal is is to greatly reduce things of that nature, not eliminate them entirely. Also, the organized groups of jihadists can be attacked and disrupted in various manners.

MMMMMM

12-19-2005, 01:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Come on now. Obviously the definition of victory is some sort of established democratic Iraqi government, with the Iraqis able to maintain their own security within a relatively stable Iraq, and the jihadists possessing considerably less ability to attack. "

[/ QUOTE ]

If thats your definition, we are entirely doomed to failure.

That is certainly not the President's definition of victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that is not the President's approximate definition of victory? And why do you think those objectives cannot be attained or approximated?

PoBoy321

12-19-2005, 01:22 PM

I think that both you and B&P are overestimating the level of organization of many of these groups. While there certainly are many groups with a very complicated infrastructure like Al-Qaeda and Hamas, they ultimately rely on self-sustaining cells which are able to act without any ouside support whatsoever.

12-19-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So yes, Bush screwed up, but now he's finally getting things right on this matter (or so it appears). So let's applaud that and acknowledge that this is an improvement. Let's focus on other issues with have with Bush's idea. I'd like to focus on understanding the motivations of Islamist fundamentalists and try to pressure Bush to stop with the frequent nonsense implication in his speeches that they are motivated by "hatred of Western values of democracy, liberty, and freedom" when in fact they are motivated by their opposition to the presence of American troops in Muslim nations, particularly Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, we should ignroe the fact that Bush made a HUGE blunder by invading in the first place because he's now doing a good job of cleaning up his own mess?

Beer and Pizza

12-19-2005, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that both you and B&P are overestimating the level of organization of many of these groups. While there certainly are many groups with a very complicated infrastructure like Al-Qaeda and Hamas, they ultimately rely on self-sustaining cells which are able to act without any ouside support whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may forget that the people who join these cells are taught in schools that make them more likely to join. Over a generation, the government could do a good job of educating kids to know the difference between radical and normal Islam and reduce the brainwashed kids available to fringe groups.

What happened to the cells of groups like The Weathermen and other radical groups in the US?

Exsubmariner

12-19-2005, 01:45 PM

That was poorly worded. You are correct, there is political capital to be gained with a minority of voters who oppose the war in Iraq. That political capital, however, is NOT the path to Presidential victory in 2008, nor do I believe it is the path to regaining the House or Senate for the Democrats in 2006. I think it is not the keystone issue vocal opponents of it want it to be. The "defeatists" (as President Bush calls them; quotes provided for the sake of arguement) have set themselves up here as targets of ridicule and they are quite justly, in my estimation, reaping what they have sewn. Just as pointing things out about how things are not going well does not necessarily make one a "defeatist," denying there are any "defeatists" doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I'm sorry you feel singled out by the President, DVaut.

PoBoy321

12-19-2005, 01:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You may forget that the people who join these cells are taught in schools that make them more likely to join. Over a generation, the government could do a good job of educating kids to know the difference between radical and normal Islam and reduce the brainwashed kids available to fringe groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that is true at all. I have heard numerous accounts of people who have joined such terrorist groups because of personal alienation they have felt due to military harassment in their own lives. Granted, there are certainly many places where schools promote radical islam, but I don't think that they are necessarily the primary cause of its prevalance in the middle east.

[ QUOTE ]

What happened to the cells of groups like The Weathermen and other radical groups in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Weathermen disbanded because their base of supporters were youth who felt discontent with the American government because of our involvement in Vietnam. When we left Vietnam, the base evaporated. There are still hundreds of paramilitary and militia groups in the United States which advocate the overthrow of the US government.

Analyst

12-19-2005, 02:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime."

Really? Thats news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please get the attributions right when you quote. I never said that.

MoreWineII

12-19-2005, 02:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First 7 minutes:

"Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq."

--------

Next 7 minutes:

"Partsian disagreement = defeatism"

--------

Sendoff to the conservative Christians:

"God is not dead...Merry Christmas"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd also add:

- Everything we based this war on was wrong. But I, King Georgie, don't care.

- The American people don't really support this war anymore. But, even though I'm elected to represent you, I don't care.

- I have no realistic and clear plan for Iraq. But it doesn't matter, I have enough brain-dead sheep following me that I won't have any problems pushing whatever agenda I want.

- Stutter, stutter. <font color="red">ZOMG THE ENEMY!!! </font> /smirk

Analyst

12-19-2005, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Bush or senior admin officials claimed we were in "immediate" danger. In fact, I remember hearing Bush say we should invade because if we wait till the danger is immediate, we've waited too long. Care to back up your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that you're correct and that Bush never used that exact phrase. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

So I guess we needed to invade because, while we weren't in immediate danger, we were in immediate danger of being in immediate danger, or perhaps in immediate danger of being in immediate danger of being in immediate danger. How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade? Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

BCPVP

12-19-2005, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opinion and his quote don't match. How can he be implying an imminent danger while OTOH saying we shouldn't wait till the danger is imminent?

[ QUOTE ]
How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion.

Analyst

12-19-2005, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, and so far it looks as though I'm unfortunately correct. Given what we've paid already in lives and money, and the costs yet to come, I sincerely hope to be wrong in the long term.

12-19-2005, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Care to back up your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll do it for him.

Speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) from Oct. 7, 2002:
[ QUOTE ]
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet here he seems to indicate the threat is not imminent:
[ QUOTE ]
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

[/ QUOTE ]
However, I prefer his quote from September 12, 2002: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)
[ QUOTE ]
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM

12-19-2005, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
from Oct. 7, 2002:

Quote:
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.

Quote:
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups

Yet here he seems to indicate the threat is not imminent:

Quote:
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

However, I prefer his quote from September 12, 2002:

Quote:
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

[/ QUOTE ]

My take on that, Russian Bear, is just this: had Saddam's regime actually been where it was believed to have been as regards WMD and/or WMD development, then all of those statements would have been appropriate. And since it was widely so believed, those statements were indeed appropriate, even if found somewhat erroneous in hindsight.

12-19-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My take on that, Russian Bear, is just this: had Saddam's regime actually been where it was believed to have been as regards WMD and/or WMD development, then all of those statements would have been appropriate. And since it was widely so believed, those statements were indeed appropriate, even if found somewhat erroneous in hindsight.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I was responding to the post that said Bush never made such statements when in fact he had.
2. Maybe we should've made damn sure Saddam's regime was where we thought it was before making asses of ourselves.
3. It was widely believed? Other than the administration and the puppets in England, who believed that nonsense?

BCPVP

12-19-2005, 04:31 PM

Nice try, but none of those suggest an "immediate and imminent" threat that the guy I responded to suggested Bush/admin claimed. Even the grave/significant threat can't be argued against easily as he still had sanctions, the no-fly zone, and weapons inspections coming. Obviously he was some sort of threat, otherwise all of that was pointless.

12-19-2005, 04:37 PM

Grave danger is not the same as imminent? Keep it up right-winger.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 04:41 PM

DV,

You are absolutely right re my commment about irrational hatred of Bush. I was projecting onto you what I believe to have observed of other people who argue passionately about Bush. That is not fair to you, and it was a result of my being too passionate about what I believe in that I made an implicit claim that turned out not to be true.

Respectfully,
Mike

PS - I don't know why I put 'respectfully' signatures on any of my replies, but you deserve it as well. Sorry for the omission.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've mastered one of Bush's (and moveon.org's) common techniques:

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's have a little inquiry into common debating techniques. Perhaps we can shed some light on this:

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I should apologize for the remark above. It is exactly the kind of thing that isn't very productive for debate. My point is that it is necessary to be careful that we don't commit the same flaws we find in others (in this case, distorting what others said to argue our cause), but I could have said it in a much productive and helpful way.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
He dismisses the extreme leftwing criticisms of the war, and he is right to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Which 'extreme leftwing' criticisms has he/did he specifically dismissed/dismiss? One common technique in debates is to pretend as if you've dismissed your opponents points when you've actually just presented a strawman or red herring (for instance, constantly implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when questioned about the wisdom of going to war, when no compelling evidence for such a claim exists)

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I agree that Bush often uses the dismissal of extreme leftwing views as a red herring. Unfortunately, the fact that these views do exist and do get a lot of publicity makes this move by Bush more successful than it ought to be. That is why it is so important to keep challenging him where he is wrong (e.g. his implication that the primary motivation of terrorists is their hate for American values of liberty and freedom -- when the primary motivation is clearly the presence of American troops in Arab lands, particularly Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War) and try to get the silly arguments out of the public debate (e.g. that this war was primarily for oil).

[ QUOTE ]

2) Why are they 'extreme'? (because, as I'm sure you know, referring to opponents as 'extreme' is a common rhetorical technique that's used to cast opponents in an unpleasant light, while attempting to add some measure of credence that the arguer's position is more widely agreed upon or popular -- not that you would stoop to that hackneyed technique, though)

[/ QUOTE ]

My purpose in labelling the views as 'extreme' was to distinguish them from the many valid criticisms of Bush's policies that come from people on the left. I did not offer much of an elaboration to indicate what views I thought are valid and which are 'extreme' (which I meant to imply are so over-the-top that they are not basid on valid criticism but simply misinformation). The two examples I listed above give some examples of how I distinguish the two cases.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Why is he right to do so? (another common debating technique, again as I'm sure you're aware, is to present opinions as if they're fact and need no further explanation)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think you make a good point here; the problem with debate is you are limited in how much you can say and you have to try to find things that are agreeable. I believe that it is right for Bush to dismiss criticisms about the war such as that it was primarily about oil or that he used 9/11 as an excuse for war in Iraq. The first claim I think you probably agree with, but I will address the second (perhaps more controversial) claim. It is clear that Bush has linked 9/11 with Iraq -- and in ways that I think are faulty -- but I don't think it is at all fair to say that he used 9/11 as an excuse, even if it is correct that he had considered war with Iraq before 9/11. From what he has said repeatedly linking 9/11 to Iraq, he has made it clear that in his mind, the events of 9/11 made it more urgent to him to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. I think that his judgment was wrong in this matter and that it led him to hastily start an invasion when there was more time to pursue diplomatic means and continue deterrance measures -- but I also think it is reasonable to accept at face value his reasoning here.

Besides, there is nothing more that Bush can do to answer the charge that 9/11 was an excuse for the war in Iraq than to outline his thinking on the matter.

I do acknowledge that he played up this line of thought a lot in his speeches -- and I do suspect that his political handlers encouraged this because the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was perceived to beneficial in winning support from people who only casually follow the news. But I also have looked at things from the perspective of his supporters and I do understand how they can reasonably believe that 9/11 "changed everything" (an admittedly meaningless phrase in and of itself) and made the invasion of Iraq a good idea. I can understand their view as reasonable while still disagreeing with their conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd hate to see you get too bogged down in details, as empirical evidence which helps form the foundation of the premises that aid in making our arguments compelling can often get in the way of a nice, opinion based rant - but just humor those irrational Bush haters like me and the rest of the resident MoveOn crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I improved my tone in this post and did a better job explaining my perspective. In the end, much of what I say is merely opinion and judgment. But I have tried to outline to some extent how I formed those opinions and judgments and what criteria I try to use.

Lastly, it may be that we simply don't disagree as much as I originally thought. What disappionted me in your initial post was your summary of his speech, particularly the bit about repeating 9/11 a bunch of times. He didn't do that, and it is easy for anyone who supports Bush to see your post, remark "He just doesn't get what Bush was saying" and dismiss your criticisms. I don't want to see that happen because I suspect that your judgment about Iraq is probably better than most. (I have only seen a limited amount of data regarding your positions on Iraq, so that's the strongest endorsement I can give you.)

Sincerely and respectfully,
Mike

BCPVP

12-19-2005, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Grave danger is not the same as imminent? Keep it up right-winger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

grave2 Audio pronunciation of "grave" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grv)
adj. grav·er, grav·est

1. Requiring serious thought; momentous: a grave decision in a time of crisis.
2. Fraught with danger or harm: a grave wound.

vs.

im·mi·nent Audio pronunciation of "imminent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

I can't help it if your reading comprehension and vocabulary suck.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Grave danger is not the same as imminent? Keep it up right-winger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

grave2 Audio pronunciation of "grave" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grv)
adj. grav·er, grav·est

1. Requiring serious thought; momentous: a grave decision in a time of crisis.
2. Fraught with danger or harm: a grave wound.

vs.

im·mi·nent Audio pronunciation of "imminent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)
adj.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

I can't help it if your reading comprehension and vocabulary suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

BC,

I agree with you that 'grave' has a significantly different meaning than 'imminent'. However, I think if you replace the word 'immediate' in Analyst's original post with 'grave' or 'serious', then his criticism is still valid. Saddam had the potential for becoming a grave threat, but at the time of the invasion it was pretty clear that he was not a grave threat.

So I am not here to dismiss you as a right-winger and will happily concede your point on vocabulary. But I think that you (and many others -- of all points of view) have been distracted a bit by the phrasing of the argument. Although Analyst may have phrased the argument less than perfectly by implying that Bush said something that he didn't quite say, his post is really on the mark.

Cheers,
Mike

BCPVP

12-19-2005, 05:56 PM

I think this going to come down to semantics.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam had the potential for becoming a grave threat, but at the time of the invasion it was pretty clear that he was not a grave threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Saddam still constituted a grave threat. We hadn't lifted the sanctions and still had the No-Fly Zone in effect. We now know he was trying to get these lifted and was bribing U.N. officials to do so. With a common enemy in the U.S., al Qaeda would be an attractive ally. This will come down to what we consider a "grave" threat and it sounds like that debate will be fruitless here.

DVaut1

12-19-2005, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With a common enemy in the U.S., al Qaeda would be an attractive ally.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US has many enemies. Not all of them are natural allies.

I still have difficulty believing Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda would see much appeal in alligning itself with the secular, Ba'thist regime that formerly controlled Iraq; neither's interests were much furthered by such an allignment (specifically Saddam -- what exactly did he have to gain from such an alliance? He surely would have much to lose, as a large Al-Qaeda presence in Ba'thist Iraq would have provided a serious competitor to his regime). Even a nominal or superficial alliance between the two presented a serious threat to the Ba'th party -- not only internally, but internationally, too (keeping in mind that the US decided to invade even WITHOUT strong links between Saddam and 9-11/Al-Qaeda).

Surely, Al-Qaeda could have used a haven to continue its operations after US operations in Afghanistan; however, there was certainly no reason for Al-Qaeda to believe Iraq would fulfill those needs anyway.

IMO, there's not much compelling evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were linked; and I see no reason to believe they were somehow natural allies fated to unite, either.

sweetjazz

12-19-2005, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think this going to come down to semantics.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam had the potential for becoming a grave threat, but at the time of the invasion it was pretty clear that he was not a grave threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Saddam still constituted a grave threat. We hadn't lifted the sanctions and still had the No-Fly Zone in effect. We now know he was trying to get these lifted and was bribing U.N. officials to do so. With a common enemy in the U.S., al Qaeda would be an attractive ally. This will come down to what we consider a "grave" threat and it sounds like that debate will be fruitless here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the debate will come down to semantics, a judgment as to what constitutes grave. I agree with you that Saddam posed a threat to our interests at the time, and that we had tough times ahead in trying to maintain deterrance against Saddam as the international resolve to contain him was eroding and likely would have collapsed when it became clear that he did not have stockpiles of WMD. It would have been imperative that we maintained some way of monitoring his actions, so that he would not be successful in restarting a weapons program as he intended to do so.

I think DV has explained well the problems with assuming a Saddam and al Qaeda alliance, so I won't address that point further.

However, I think the threat of his restarting his weapons program -- which was real -- is not serious enough on its own to merit the costs of a major invasion. There is a huge difference between an intention to restart a weapons program and a developing nuclear program, for example. (By the way, the latter currently exist in some states that we would much rather they did not, as you well know.)

At the time, we could not be certain whether Saddam had stockpiled weapons and could restart a program quickly or whether his programs had been badly damaged and would need major work to be restarted. That is why the inspections could have been so valuable to us: they suggested at the point of invasion exactly what we ended up finding out later at a much greater cost, namely that Saddam's weapons programs had largely been decimated and he was unsuccessful in secretly stockpiling weapons, but he had attempted to preserve knowledge of the processes to restart a program later.

So I am not sure that debate has to be fruitless, even though we may never reach full agreement. I agree that Saddam posed a threat, even though I may not agree that he threatened us in all the ways you do (the possibility of a substantial alliance with al Qaeda seemed minimal to me then and still does now). I was open at the time to the possibility that war with Iraq might become a strategic necessity, and that Saddam's atrocities and failure to comply with international standards gave us justification for war. I just don't think that the conditions at the time made war the best option. I felt the same way at the time, though I was more open to the possibility that the president knew things that the media had not reported.

BCPVP

12-19-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
specifically Saddam -- what exactly did he have to gain from such an alliance?

[/ QUOTE ]
A deniable way to attack the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]
He surely would have much to lose, as a large Al-Qaeda presence in Ba'thist Iraq would have provided a serious competitor to his regime

[/ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda wouldn't necessarily have to be in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely, Al-Qaeda could have used a haven to continue its operations after US operations in Afghanistan; however, there was certainly no reason for Al-Qaeda to believe Iraq would fulfill those needs anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
A physical location, money, weapons, etc. All things that Iraq could provide.

ACPlayer

12-19-2005, 08:10 PM

We may not be talking corporations but we are talking objectives. Objectives have measurable results not statements that allow the objective to shift around depending on how you interpret the words. Surrounding an objective with vague qualifiers is for those who cannot figure out what they really want. It is acceptable to qualify an objective with a documented set of assumptions. However, the only way to understand if we are getting the benefit for the resources expended is to have clear cut well documented objectives. Your statement is not an objective (it is very subjective).

Now, if Bush comes out and says he wants us to have military bases in Iraq for the next 20 years that is an objective. If he says we want to destroy the nuclear plant in Fallujah that is an objective. If he says he wants to have "some sort of democracy" that is the talk of the fish who just wants to play some cards.

12-19-2005, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help it if your reading comprehension and vocabulary suck.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ you are stupid. Let me put it this way. A person in grave danger is at an imminent threat of the negative affects of said danger.

BCPVP

12-19-2005, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A person in grave danger is at an imminent threat of the negative affects of said danger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No they are not. For example, Iran trying to build nukes constitutes a grave danger to Israel. But the threat of nuclear attack on Israel is not imminent.

If you still can't understand the difference, don't bother replying.

ScottyP431

12-19-2005, 09:44 PM

RE: Imminent

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:X7O...=en&start=1 (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:X7OcjntpQNwJ:www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html+iraq+imminent+danger+bush&hl=en& start=1)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_Xl...=en&start=3 (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_XlXjMLr030J:www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0206-01.htm+iraq+imminent+danger+bush&hl=en&start=3)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1Wi...=en&start=5 (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1WicUu8465cJ:www.americanprogress.o rg/site/pp.asp%3Fc%3DbiJRJ8OVF%26b%3D24970+iraq+imminent+d anger+bush&hl=en&start=5)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2yu...en&start=11 (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2yuonlwwmssJ:bushwatch.org/wmd.htm+iraq+imminent+danger+bush&hl=en&start=11)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zTl...en&start=18 (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zTlD_OPs79oJ:www.fair.org/index.php%3Fpage%3D1173+iraq+imminent+danger+bush& hl=en&start=18)

MMMMMM

12-19-2005, 10:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My take on that, Russian Bear, is just this: had Saddam's regime actually been where it was believed to have been as regards WMD and/or WMD development, then all of those statements would have been appropriate. And since it was widely so believed, those statements were indeed appropriate, even if found somewhat erroneous in hindsight.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I was responding to the post that said Bush never made such statements when in fact he had.
2. Maybe we should've made damn sure Saddam's regime was where we thought it was before making asses of ourselves.
3. It was widely believed? Other than the administration and the puppets in England, who believed that nonsense?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. OK, fine.

2. That isn't how things seem to work in international affairs, or in intelligence assessments/decisions/ national security matters. Just being "pretty sure" generally must suffice, since that is usually all you have to go on; and because: A) it is often nearly impossible to be 100% sure, and B) if you wait until you are 100% sure, it can easily be too late, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

3. Besides the USA and UK: the governments of Australia, Israel, Russia, and Germany. Probably Italy too, and some others I don't recall at the moment.

BluffTHIS!

12-19-2005, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess we needed to invade because, while we weren't in immediate danger, we were in immediate danger of being in immediate danger, or perhaps in immediate danger of being in immediate danger of being in immediate danger. How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade? Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just goes back again to what myself and other posters have said. Namely that threats are best dealt with when small and the price to eliminate them is less than when those threats have been left to fester (appeased) and the price becomes even greater to deal with them.

Like I said, democrats/libs are short term thinkers and fair weather soldiers.

BCPVP

12-20-2005, 12:27 AM

I'm willing to grant that some of the lower people like Fleisher and McClellan used the word imminent. But Bush specifically said in the 2003 SotU:
[ QUOTE ]
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first couple links you provide are the newspaper's words, not Bush's.

MMMMMM

12-20-2005, 01:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

This just goes back again to what myself and other posters have said. Namely that threats are best dealt with when small and the price to eliminate them is less than when those threats have been left to fester (appeased) and the price becomes even greater to deal with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very true.

Probably the most stunning example of this principle in action (or lack of action;-)) would be Hitler and Nazi Germany. France could have kicked easily his butt back out of the Sudetenland, no? But his having been allowed to just take the Sudetenland, and to continue building his war machine without serious setback, eventually led to disastrous consequences all around.

andyfox

12-20-2005, 02:09 AM

I sometimes think that the "example" of Hitler (and, more specifically, the appeasement at Munich) are worse as examples than they were as actual events. We heard the same thing throughout the Cold War: If we don't stop the Commies in Nicaragua (or Guatemala or El Salvador or Chile or . . . ), soon they'll be in Mexico and next thing you know they'll be here. Didn't we learn from not stopping Hitler?

The problem with these analogies, of course, is that Salvador Allende and Daniel Ortega were not Hitler. Nor were their countries Germany. Nor was the 1980s and 1930s.

I know you're not saying that Hussein = Hitler. But the idea that Hussein had to be stopped begs the question: stopped from what? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said Hussein was bottled up, incapable of causing much harm just a couple of months before 9/11. How did he suddenly become unbottled on 9/12?

BluffTHIS!

12-20-2005, 03:07 AM

andy, misapplications in the past of the principle I stated and MMMMMM commented on, does not invalidate the logic nor the historical accuracy of it.

MMMMMM

12-20-2005, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I know you're not saying that Hussein = Hitler. But the idea that Hussein had to be stopped begs the question: stopped from what? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said Hussein was bottled up, incapable of causing much harm just a couple of months before 9/11. How did he suddenly become unbottled on 9/12?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that Saddam became "unbottled" on 9/12--rather, 9/11 made us far more keenly aware of our vulnerability to terror-type attacks and to assymetric warfare. The spectre of a Saddam selling/giving/bargaining WMDs to any terror group was simply too ghastly to allow, even if it was a small chance. We can't afford to take a "small chance" on things that could be far worse than 9/11. And again, the intelligence then was different than now.

Cyrus

12-20-2005, 04:01 AM

...or should be dead, in any case.

This is the 21st century. Unthinking Nationalism will not carry us very far. In fact, the abyss is just a few hot buttons away.

Yes, the United States of America is conducting (yet another) BAD WAR; this times in Iraq. The war in Iraq is a "bad war" on many accounts:

- Because the reasons given for the war by those who started it, turned out to have been all false, except one: that Saddam was the bad, bad wolf.

- Because the United States chose to ignore its allies and friends and go it alone, thus making the war against terrorism that much more difficult to conduct.

- Because it was a setback, in itself, to the war against islamic terror.

- Because the war was planned and executed by the political leadership, particularly the post-conquest, "nation-building" phase, badly and, most importantly, contrary to what the military was recommending.

This is a BAD WAR and America deserves to lose it.

[/b]So that a few lessons can be learned[/b]. Someone who firmly believes that he does not ever make mistakes is condemned to keep on doing 'em!

BluffTHIS!

12-20-2005, 04:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a BAD WAR and America deserves to lose it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly pathetic conclusion.

12-20-2005, 11:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How did he suddenly become unbottled on 9/12?

[/ QUOTE ]
Haliburton needed some new contracts.

canis582

12-20-2005, 11:31 AM

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512200001

12-20-2005, 12:49 PM

Then perhaps Bush should've verified the intelligence rather than rush to war so that his buddies could profit.

andyfox

12-20-2005, 01:18 PM

But if Hussein was unable to sell/give/bargain WMDs to a terror group on 9/10, how did he magically gain that power on 9/12? I'm not saying we shouldn't have looked at things differently on 9/12 than we did on 9/10. I am saying that the administration used the excuse of 9/11 to go after Hussein, which it's neocon members had been itching to do from the get-go.

Hussein was not being ignored pre 9/11. That's why he was "bottled up." It was the Taliban's harboring of Al Qaeda that was being ignored. [Even the barbaric social programs of the Taliban failed to inspire any meaningful condemnation from the United States. (It was, of all people, Jay Leno's wife, who publicly complained about the treatment of women in Taliban-led Afghanistan that first garnered attention from Amreican officials.)]

12-20-2005, 01:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person in grave danger is at an imminent threat of the negative affects of said danger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No they are not. For example, Iran trying to build nukes constitutes a grave danger to Israel. But the threat of nuclear attack on Israel is not imminent.

If you still can't understand the difference, don't bother replying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's playing semantics now? Iran building a gigantic hammer that can crush 50 square miles constitutes a grave danger to Isreal. But they're not in imminent danger of being crushed. Do you thing Bush was purposely using such a vague interpretation of 'grave' or do you think he was trying to convey the message of "we gotta do something quick cuz this [censored]'s crazy?"

MMMMMM

12-20-2005, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But if Hussein was unable to sell/give/bargain WMDs to a terror group on 9/10, how did he magically gain that power on 9/12?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't suddenly gain any new powers; but we became more acutely aware of potential dangers. And if Saddam had proceeded apace, as we thought he was doing, to develop such weapons, that was suddenly a more ominous concern.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying we shouldn't have looked at things differently on 9/12 than we did on 9/10. I am saying that the administration used the excuse of 9/11 to go after Hussein, which it's neocon members had been itching to do from the get-go.

Hussein was not being ignored pre 9/11. That's why he was "bottled up." It was the Taliban's harboring of Al Qaeda that was being ignored. [Even the barbaric social programs of the Taliban failed to inspire any meaningful condemnation from the United States. (It was, of all people, Jay Leno's wife, who publicly complained about the treatment of women in Taliban-led Afghanistan that first garnered attention from Amreican officials.)]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as an "excuse" but rather an additional reason amongst many.

You seem deeply concerned with the hierarchy of motivations. To me, they were ALL good reasons to go after Hussein: I could probably list a half-dozen off the top of my head, and there were more. That the administration emphasized certain reasons over others, in order to to "sell" the war, doesn't matter much to me. And that regime change was a darling idea of the neo-cons was to me just another good reason to go to war, neo-cons or not: regime change in iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration too, but it was Bush who had the balls to actually do it. So all reasons pointed to removing Saddam. If anything, I think the Bush administration could have benefitted from better marketing strategy, but if there are ten good reasons to do a thing, does it much matter which is sold first? Not a great deal to my way of thinking.

andyfox

12-20-2005, 03:28 PM

Well, I don't agree that we became more acutely aware of the potential dangers. I think we used the excuse of 9/11 to get Hussein (and I think excuse is the perfect word). I think we can disagree about whether that was a good idea or not, but I don't think there's any question about the rationale. I've posted many times before about this, so I won't bore you with it again.

I'm only concerned about the "hierarchy of motivations" insofar as they affect policy. I saw only one possible reason to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that was humanitarian. The president said he didn't consider the cost in human lives, so there was no humanitarian consideration on his part. A president who says that, yes indeed, makes me worry about a hierarchy of motivations because I worry that his motivations will lead to bad policy. We all would like to see the world be a perfect place, but at what cost, and whose definition of perfection?

The administration this week has essentially been saying you need us to protect you, trust us, we're doing the right thing. (After all, Mr. Cheney pointed out, we haven't been hit since 9/11.) Well I don't trust them. But maybe that's just me. It comes from a long history of watching the Kennedys and Johnsons and Nixons and Clintons betray our trust.

MMMMMM

12-20-2005, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't agree that we became more acutely aware of the potential dangers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say you (or anyone) had had a bad fire at your house or place of business, but not so bad as to completey destroy everything. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that you would likely be more acutely aware of future potential fire hazards, or fire safety issues? In similar vein, after 9/11, we became more acutely aware of the potential dangers of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we used the excuse of 9/11 to get Hussein (and I think excuse is the perfect word). I think we can disagree about whether that was a good idea or not, but I don't think there's any question about the rationale. I've posted many times before about this, so I won't bore you with it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, we agree to disagreee on that, as I don't think it was primarily an "excuse.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm only concerned about the "hierarchy of motivations" insofar as they affect policy. I saw only one possible reason to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that was humanitarian. The president said he didn't consider the cost in human lives, so there was no humanitarian consideration on his part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustifiable conclusion about his motivations. Bush was quite disturbed about the evils perpetrated upon the Iraqi populace by Saddam's regime, and correctly asserted that removing Saddam would be a great relief from tyranny for the Iraqi people. So, Bush was concerned with the humanitarian issue; just because he didn't make a model of projected Iraqi casualties does not contradict this. As I posted before, merely knowing that anticipated Iraq casualties would be far less than in Gulf War 1, would be sufficient comparison in that regard.

[ QUOTE ]
A president who says that, yes indeed, makes me worry about a hierarchy of motivations because I worry that his motivations will lead to bad policy. We all would like to see the world be a perfect place, but at what cost, and whose definition of perfection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind perfection; that's not the point: a mere minimum standard of absence of true tyranny, of regimes not torturing and killing their own subjects for political purposes, should be a bare minimum standard to aspire to; and which needs no query about "whose definition of perfection." If free countries see a way to change the evil governmental tyrannies in other countries, they should seriously contemplate working towards that end, which on occasion may even entail war.

[ QUOTE ]
The administration this week has essentially been saying you need us to protect you, trust us, we're doing the right thing. (After all, Mr. Cheney pointed out, we haven't been hit since 9/11.) Well I don't trust them. But maybe that's just me. It comes from a long history of watching the Kennedys and Johnsons and Nixons and Clintons betray our trust.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think citizens should blindly trust in any government or administration.

sweetjazz

12-20-2005, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know you're not saying that Hussein = Hitler. But the idea that Hussein had to be stopped begs the question: stopped from what? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said Hussein was bottled up, incapable of causing much harm just a couple of months before 9/11. How did he suddenly become unbottled on 9/12?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that Saddam became "unbottled" on 9/12--rather, 9/11 made us far more keenly aware of our vulnerability to terror-type attacks and to assymetric warfare. The spectre of a Saddam selling/giving/bargaining WMDs to any terror group was simply too ghastly to allow, even if it was a small chance. We can't afford to take a "small chance" on things that could be far worse than 9/11. And again, the intelligence then was different than now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, we are going to be forced to take chances around the world. We are currently taking a chance that North Korea is not developing weapons to sell to terrorists. We are taking a chance that Iran will not develop nuclear technology and use it for military purposes. We are trying to prevent these from happening, but the reality is that we cannot always be 100% certain that these chances do not exist. Just because a danger exists does not mean that a military response is necessarily the best one.

So while I recognize that Saddam was a threat and that many critics of the war have sometimes underestimated this threat, it does not follow that a military response was our best option at the time we chose it.

I certainly agree with you that after 9/11 we (the American public) became acutely more aware of our vulnerability. However, I would argue that we have not become more aware of the strategic thinking necessary to best deal with the threat. In fact our acute sense of vulnerability has hampered our ability to understand how to deal with the threat of terrorism. Realistically, we cannot completely eliminate the threat of terrorism: the best we can hope for is to minimize the chance an attack will be successful, minimize the resources available to those who want to attack us, and minimize the amount of damage that would happen were an attack successful. Because of our heightened awareness of the threat we face, however, the public desires to eliminate any threat that we face. It's a noble goal, but unfortunately it is the wrong mentality to approach the problem with. That is how we end up spending a ton of money on an airport security system that is bothersome to many and only inconveniences terrorists to the extent that they need to use alternate plans to carry out an attack.

Additionally, while we have become more acutely aware of the threat of terrorism, we have failed to acknowledge their primary motivation. Despite President Bush's rallying theme that terrorists hate our values of freedom and liberty, the reality is that al Qaeda began its campaign against America because of the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War. The rallying point for Islamic fundamentalists against America is that we are an imperialistic power trying to curb Arab sovreignty (including propping up governments that don't support the will of their Muslim population). Of course we don't accept these motives as justification for the actions, but we must consider them when deciding on our strategy to prevent terrorism.

Despite the good intentions behind democratizing Iraq, the perception among Muslims was bound to be one of skepticism toward our presence there. Many of the specific decisions made in Iraq would have been different if the people resopnsible for them had a better understanding of a winning strategy to combat terrorism.

Unfortunately, the American public thinks about terrorism in terms of silly platitudes and from their (understandable) position of fear, and we do not have a leadership that is willing to push us to rise above that and think about terrorism in a smart way that will do the most to protect us.

BCPVP

12-20-2005, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you thing Bush was purposely using such a vague interpretation of 'grave' or do you think he was trying to convey the message of "we gotta do something quick cuz this [censored]'s crazy?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think grave was Bush's word. I believe it was another poster who said you could substitute grave for immediate/imminent. I disagree that such a substitution means the same thing.

But yes, that was what Bush was getting at. Do something now before the danger is so great (so imminent) that we can't do much to stop it.

Another way of looking at it: in my martial arts classes, I'm not being trained to wait till the punch is about to land on my nose. I try to do something about it before the other guy gets that far. I don't wait for imminent danger; I do something about the grave danger to my face before it becomes an imminent danger.

[ QUOTE ]
Iran building a gigantic hammer that can crush 50 square miles constitutes a grave danger to Isreal. But they're not in imminent danger of being crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Apparently you can't see why so I won't ask.

MMMMMM

12-20-2005, 08:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think grave was Bush's word. I believe it was another poster who said you could substitute grave for immediate/imminent. I disagree that such a substitution means the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If memory serves, the exact phrase used in the speech was "a grave and gathering threat." Note that "gathering" suggests "not yet imminent." The entire phrase connotes foreboding.

ACPlayer

12-20-2005, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think citizens should blindly trust in any government or administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

As Sklansky would say it is not important to have the right answer but to have the right reason for the answer. If you dont prioritize and analyze the reasons offered by the admin for any policy you cannot judge the effectiveness of the administration. It is irrelevant whether a) you agree with the policy for other reasons or b) whether the program run by the administration was a success.

Your defense of the administration appears to boil down to your belief that the war was a good idea for humanitarian reasons. That is fine as far as it goes. However, the administration and you have had far different reasons for going to war -- that should be bothersome at a minimum, specially as the reasons offered in the first instance have been totally discredited. And the way the war was sold by the administration has been shown to be deceitful

MMMMMM

12-20-2005, 09:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your defense of the administration appears to boil down to your belief that the war was a good idea for humanitarian reasons. That is fine as far as it goes. However, the administration and you have had far different reasons for going to war -- that should be bothersome at a minimum, specially as the reasons offered in the first instance have been totally discredited. And the way the war was sold by the administration has been shown to be deceitful

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've stated, there were multiple good reasons for going to war. The administration, too, offered more than one reason. I don't think the administration was particularly deceitful in selling the war, although their areas of sales emphasis could have been been better.

ACPlayer

12-20-2005, 09:47 PM

Your reasons (or mine) for supporting the war are irrelevant to my evaluation of the prez's policy.

And yes the prez offered a laundry list of reasons. But if you were to pareto the reasons based on the words that were coming out of washinton there was really on one main reason (by a wide margin!). And yes that reason can be boiled down to "he has WMD, we know where they are, we need to go and get them, we have pictures, we have hard data, we have invoices from niger, tubes from whereever, vials of white powders etc"

So, setting aside your personal agreement with the war for humanitatarian reason as the objective (there is that pesky word again) should lead you to the conclusion that the administration has poor policy processes(even if you agree with the outcome in this instance).

MMMMMM

12-20-2005, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And yes the prez offered a laundry list of reasons. But if you were to pareto the reasons based on the words that were coming out of washinton there was really on one main reason (by a wide margin!). And yes that reason can be boiled down to "he has WMD, we know where they are, we need to go and get them, we have pictures, we have hard data, we have invoices from niger, tubes from whereever, vials of white powders etc"

So, setting aside your personal agreement with the war for humanitatarian reason as the objective (there is that pesky word again) should lead you to the conclusion that the administration has poor policy processes(even if you agree with the outcome in this instance).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the war could have been better sold. I don't equate that criticism to the existence of "poor policy processes" except insofar as the marketing department or public relations may be concerned.

ACPlayer

12-20-2005, 11:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the war could have been better sold. I don't equate that criticism to the existence of "poor policy processes" except insofar as the marketing department or public relations may be concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope you are kidding with this post.

You think the war could have been better sold. You are blaming the marketing department. The war policy is under criticism not the selling of the war. The selling job was superb. Bunches of people bought the snake oil as a cure to the evils of terrorism.

The marketing department did a bang up job.

andyfox

12-21-2005, 12:32 AM

"Let's say you (or anyone) had had a bad fire at your house or place of business, but not so bad as to completey destroy everything. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that you would likely be more acutely aware of future potential fire hazards, or fire safety issues? In similar vein, after 9/11, we became more acutely aware of the potential dangers of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil."

Yes. But not from anything that involved Saddam Hussein. The two chief foreign policy spokespersons had asserted that he was not a threat, that he had not reconstituted his weapons programs. The president himself, in his 2003 SOTU speech, asserted that Hussein was not an imminent threat (reports in the media to the contrary). No, there was no sudden awareness or panic that the country was in danger because of Saddam Hussein. There was an awareness that we could use 9/11 to carry out the long desired aim of removing Hussein from power.

I don't see the humanitarian concern about the people of Iraq that you see. In a 1998 article he wrote for the New Republic Paul Wolfowitz wrote, "Toppling Saddam is the only outcome that can satisfy the vital U.S. interest in a stable and secure Gulf region." At the first meeting of Bush's incoming national security team on January 30 ,2001, an attack on Iraq was discussed. There was no talk of the humantarian plight of the Iraqi people, only talk of U.S. interests. Bush switched to pushing the humanitarian angle when he was after he made the case, which met opposition, for Hussein being a threat to our national security.

I think Lawrence Kaplan and William Kirsotl's book, The War over Iraq said it best: Our Iraq strategy was "so clearly about more than Iraq . . . more even than the future of the Middle East. " It would represent "what sort of role the United States intends to play in the world in the twenty-first century." It was, for the Bush administration, about the assertion of American power. It goes hand-in-hand with the reassertion of what the administration sees (as expressed by the vice president today) as the diminished power of the president to run foreign affairs.

We can aruge about whether this is a good thing or not, but not about the motivation of the administration in invading Iraq. The key players had said it should be done since 1998.

MMMMMM

12-21-2005, 12:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Let's say you (or anyone) had had a bad fire at your house or place of business, but not so bad as to completey destroy everything. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that you would likely be more acutely aware of future potential fire hazards, or fire safety issues? In similar vein, after 9/11, we became more acutely aware of the potential dangers of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But not from anything that involved Saddam Hussein. The two chief foreign policy spokespersons had asserted that he was not a threat, that he had not reconstituted his weapons programs. The president himself, in his 2003 SOTU speech, asserted that Hussein was not an imminent threat (reports in the media to the contrary). No, there was no sudden awareness or panic that the country was in danger because of Saddam Hussein. There was an awareness that we could use 9/11 to carry out the long desired aim of removing Hussein from power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most major governments believed Saddam did have WMD programs. The acute awareness after 9/11 was that we were very vulnerable to terror attacks on our soil. Saddam's WMD programs were thought to be a growing threat.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the humanitarian concern about the people of Iraq that you see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush mentioned it in more than one speech.

[ QUOTE ]
In a 1998 article he wrote for the New Republic Paul Wolfowitz wrote, "Toppling Saddam is the only outcome that can satisfy the vital U.S. interest in a stable and secure Gulf region." At the first meeting of Bush's incoming national security team on January 30 ,2001, an attack on Iraq was discussed. There was no talk of the humantarian plight of the Iraqi people, only talk of U.S. interests. Bush switched to pushing the humanitarian angle when he was after he made the case, which met opposition, for Hussein being a threat to our national security.

[/ QUOTE ]

But BOTH interests were present! What is so baffling about that? Toplling Saddam would have served our interests AND the interests of the Iraqi people--so why the either/or approach, that the administration was concerned about "either/or"? Why couldn't the administration been concerned about both??? If the primary interest was national security, that is expected and as it should be--but that doesn't completely cast out the interest in seeing the Iraqis liberated from tyranny, and seeing a chance for a better future for them--and for the Middle East.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Lawrence Kaplan and William Kirsotl's book, The War over Iraq said it best: Our Iraq strategy was "so clearly about more than Iraq . . . more even than the future of the Middle East. " It would represent "what sort of role the United States intends to play in the world in the twenty-first century."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, good. Another reason for pro-active measures.

[ QUOTE ]
It was, for the Bush administration, about the assertion of American power. It goes hand-in-hand with the reassertion of what the administration sees (as expressed by the vice president today) as the diminished power of the president to run foreign affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but not only assertion of American power, hopefully too the transformation of certain backwards dictatorial or totalitarian regimes into growing free-thinking free-worlding entities--and thus to countries sharing our interests rather than opposing (for the most part), countries which we can make common cause with and trade and grow alongside. Friends with an enlightened and liberated world view, rather than totalitarian enemies.

Increasing Western power is GOOD for this reason--because nearly every other country in the world is basically either totalitarian, dictatorial, or a theocracy--or some combination thereof.

[ QUOTE ]
We can aruge about whether this is a good thing or not, but not about the motivation of the administration in invading Iraq. The key players had said it should be done since 1998.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Reasons A and C do not eliminate reason E. Moreover Clinton had said that regime change for Iraq was U.S. policy. In the Bush term, there was a major conjunction of conditions and some catalysts to bring this all to the fore.

I think you are viewing this in too much of an either/or, black or white sort of mode. Granted, the administration's primary goals were strategic in nature and related to potential future-security issues--that does not obviate the other reasons, nor eliminate the administration's additional concerns (albeit lesser) for the humanitarian/human rights cause.