What are your impressions?
190 thoughts on “Inauguration Open Thread”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
What are your impressions?
Comments are closed.
here comes Renhquist.
looks tough enough
Had to chuckle at Wonkette’s comment about Laura:
Laura Bush looks hotter than daughters. Though, uhm? WHITE AFTER LABOR DAY? Hello?
the speech is falling flat a bit it seems…am I missing something?
You’re a stronger man than I…my impressions? 1461 down, 1461 to go. We’re more than halfway through it.
Wow, you guys are actually watching? That’s impressive. I knew that the best way to show my respect would be to not watch and thereby refrain from cursing. Seriously.
my impressions? this country is a retarded, drowning nation, and it is getting the “leader” it desreves.
I liked it when the band struck up “Hail No to the Chief”
the ownership society…here it comes…
I already have a migraine and I’m not even watching — please, Mommy, make it stop *whimper*
People watch inaugurations? Just because something is televised doesn’t mean you have to watch. 😉
he just said we can’t be bigots and free at the same time…
er, waiter, reality check please.
OK, fairly he’s picking up steam…the bit about unity was pretty good.
nah…he’s lost it again.
Al Franken is attempting to snark it up — maybe if this excedrin works I’ll listen
Listened to it via NPR streaming audio: Overall impression: bleh.
Pretty uninspired speech. Had some flashes of hope but nothing really came of it.
People watch inaugurations? Just because something is televised doesn’t mean you have to watch. 😉
I was actually hoping he’d be inspiring.
“I was actually hoping he’d be inspiring.”
Now that is hope in the face of experience.
Yeah…but with nothing else to lose, I was hoping to catch a glimpse of why others believe in the man…I’m still mystified I’m afraid.
I was hoping to catch a glimpse of why others believe in the man
you and me both.
i get huge doses of both vicarious embarassment for him and actual embarassment for our country, when i watch him.
I liked this: “On the eve of President Bush’s inauguration, a poll shows the nation is split over whether he has united or divided the nation.” cite With headlines like that, who needs The Onion?
tell me he isn’t looking smug today .. at least?
His speechwriters were pretty good at working in veiled abortion references, though. That business of Americans’ needing to realize that “even the unwanted have worth” or whatever the exact phrasing was, coming fast on all of the abolitionist language, was very clever. Sounds like a call to charity and compassion, pacifies the pro-life extremists. A lot of careful King James Translation language slipped in, too.
Those of us who are kind of ok with him aren’t attracted to his charisma.
Time for a mild digression about Clinton (but not Clinton bashing). Whatever else you want to say about the man, he had charisma. I was watching a speech of his, and I found myself getting swept away for about 20 minutes. Then I turned the TV off and suddenly realized that I didn’t agree with any of the things he said. It was actually quite a shock for me to realize how powerful the charisma was. And I understand he has even more powerful charisma in person.
Followed Edwards link to AA. Their
Poll results are interesting.Way to go!! President Bush, we’re with you all the way.
I posted that link *sulk*
Listening to Al Franken — where’s the snark? He’s too serious today. Ah, I feel your pain, Al.
Way to go!!
Well, at least the masochists are happy.
I only caught bits and pieces of the speech between meetings this morning and had to read most of it online. All in all, a pretty good speech particularly the focus on expanding freedom at home and abroad. We’ll probably talk more about it at the convention of Minnesota Bloggers this weekend.
Heh. James Fallows calls it an “eloquent” FU to people who didn’t vote for him.
Is this by the new speechwriter or the old?
I know this is intended as an Inauguration Open Thread… but I thought this might deserve some attention somewhere.
(Then again, maybe it is appropriate in an Inaguration thread…)
As much as I disklike Hillary Clinton both the Clinton’s are just so much more skilled politically and smarter in general than their fellow Democrat’s.
Hillary Clinton:
In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a “false division” between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.
“There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles,” said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.
Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston’s Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, “I’ve always been a praying person.”
She said there must be room for religious people to “live out their faith in the public square.”
Can’t stand her, but you gotta give credit where credit is due.
Linked at drudge
Edward,
You might want to check out the article by Lanny Davis today about his first hand experience with Bush.
You can find it at realclearpolitics
I didn’t watch; I decided to do something more fun, and went to the dentist. (Really.)
smlook,
I’m convinced that should I meet Bush, the person, on vacation somewhere, say snorkeling in the beautifully whale-free Carribean, I’d enjoy his company and find him charming. He wins that one. He’s a likeable person. But he’s not a likeable president for me. Why? I don’t trust him.
Look at what Davis, who says he likes him, says is his key “charm offensive” weapon…”not only did people routinely underestimate him — but…he encouraged them to do so.”
This is manipulative charm, not “real interest in other people” type of charm. It’s sneaky and I can’t get past that.
Oh my god. Don’t look at today’s Suburban Guerrilla if you’re susceptible to feeling depressed/suicidal.
Need more excedrin.
votermom,
here’s the other images from that story.
it leaves you numb…wanting to smack our own soldiers upside their heads for this kind of stuff…knowing that in their shoes, I would be lucky to do anywhere near as well…who do you blame when 5 children watch their parents shot dead by American troops?
This is why you only fight a war when you absolutely have no choice. Tattoo it across the foreheads of every fool who runs for office.
I thought it was a very good speech — short and to the point. But on the subject of Al Franken . . .
Here in this leftmost of liberal bastions we get AA on the AM dial so I tuned in yesterday and this morning to see what all the hullabaloo was about. Franken sounded inebriated, and was braying like a donkey at his own lame jokes (examples: calling some right wing pundit a “hoor”, then explaining that’s how “whore” is pronounced in the Midwest; telling his audience that “tolerance” is a right-wing code word for *n*l sex). His sycophatic female sidekick was worse, if that’s possible.
A modest proposal for those who want lefty talk radio to be taken seriously: listen a while to Limbaugh, Medved or any of a handful of established right-wing talk show hosts. Ignore the content and focus on the professionalism, organization and production standards. Then try to copy that on AA. I remember when Franken was mildly funny, but right now AA resembles a couple of stoned sophomores broadcasting on a flea-power AM transmitter out of a college dorm at Podunk U. Nothing wrong with that if you’re stoned yourself, but most of us are not.
I thought it was a very good speech — short and to the point.
What point?
Edward:
Bush is a man playing dress-up. He dresses up as a conservative, he dresses up as a compassionate man, he dresses up as a rough-‘n’-rumble no-nonsense cowboy, he dresses up as a moral man, he dresses up as a strong leader. A lot of Americans want a leader with those qualities so badly they’re willing to believe in anything that looks like them, even if they run no deeper than his clothes.
I don’t like opacity and image and a cult of iconography taking this deep a root in our culture, let alone our political life, but I understand it. Every successful politician has to put on a show. What gets me is that George Bush’s show swallows his policies. He’s acting out his silly poses on an international scale. The appeal of invading Iraq – the GUT appeal of it – was not to defend America, but to punch back at something, to show the world we meant business, that we could still dish it out after 9/11. A better leader – an actual leader – wouldn’t have fallen for that. For Bush, I don’t think there was a moment’s hesitation. When the appearance of a thing becomes the reality, what is there to doubt?
What point?
Well, he said “freedom” a whole lot. Granted, I’ve no idea what George Bush means when he says “freedom”; if Iraq has it, it’s not any kind of freedom I’m familiar with. But after four years in which “freedom” has been applied with equal casualness to the PATRIOT Act, to the torture and death of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and to fried potato slices, I’m pretty sure any meaning that word once had is long gone.
What point
-war on terror
-the economy
-Medicare reform
-standards in public schools*
-social security reform
-tax reform
-tort reform
-God bless America
*high point for me
I probably left something out, but it sure beat Clinton’s bloviating. And what exactly do you expect in an inaugural from a president you don’t like? Inaugural speeches are always somewhat Pollyanish.
Oddly, the lines that I found the most troublesome where the ones Sullivan liked the best:
Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
“the unwanted” bit got a huge cheer from the crowd, which puzzled me until I realize he means the “unborn” and this is anti-R-v-W code. How sad is it that the party in power, the party with the WH, Senate, and House needs to talk in code? Really, don’t they feel just a little silly and impotent doing that?
we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry
Hmmm…the baggage of bigotry…you mean like the bigotry that leads to 20 Arab lanuage translators being thrown out of the military because they’re gay? That kind of bigotry? It looks as if we carry both of them quite easily at the moment.
-standards in public schools*
I’d like Bush to start worrying about standards in his own administration.
tomsyl,
you wrote “short and to the point”; I assumed that meant there was a point. Not a laundry list.
What’s the overarching message you heard? I listened and couldn’t decide if there was one.
“who do you blame when 5 children watch their parents shot dead by American troops?”
How about the people who shot them? Or maybe the people who ordered the first group to shoot? Or the ones who ordered all of the above to invade a country on the basis of flimsy excuses? Or maybe the people who voted to reinstate those who ordered the invasion? Or all of the above.
Or maybe the dictator that wouldn’t comply with international law. Maybe the western powers that were breaking international law. Or maybe the terrorsits that are trying to sow havoc througout the country. Or maybe the insurgents that are putting their own population in the crossfire. Or maybe the Americans that appear to care more about the dictators, terrorists and insurgents than their fellow American soldiers.
Just a thought…
I want to ask something, quite directly, to people who voted for Bush on this thread.
These are beautiful words:
As I said, beautiful words.
Do you believe he means them? I’m asking this quite seriously.
I don’t. I believe he thinks he means them, but if he actually believed them, believed them enough to try to live by them…he would not be able to act as he has.
I’m not going to beat you over the head of the details of the Arar case & our extraordinary rendition policy again. You know where to find them. But I’d like to note two recent developments:
1) Bush was recently asked directly about extraordinary rendition, in a Knight Ridder interview, for the first time in his presidency:
Two observations: First, that’s not a denial. It’s not even a non-denial denial. Second, if that statement is true, it would mean, logically, that all of his assurances about how torture do not apply to “intelligence-gathering matters”. This would render those reassurances utterly worthless.
2) Alberto Gonzales, who Bush has just nominated to be his Attorney General, and who is overwhelmingly likely to be confirmed by the Senate, has recently made it clear that he views what happened to Maher Arar as perfectly legal–that as long as Syria or Egypt or Uzbekistan or God knows who promises us they won’t torture a prisoner, we can take their word for it, and send prisoners to them for interrogation. (This was in a written response to a question from Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois. You can read the details in two comments I made to this thread, at 2:14 p.m. and 2:36 p.m. on January 20.)
I assume you see the conflict between these facts and policies, and Bush’s words today. So how do you reconcile the two? I really, truly, can’t understand it.
Do you think he doesn’t know about the rendition policy? Do you think he is aware of the general policy, but not the details of what has happened to individual prisoners? Do you think he really believes Syria’s and Egypt’s assurances not to torture, even after all the evidence that those assurances are worth nothing? Do you think the words in the speech are just typical politicians’ boilerplate, or Pollyanish inaugural rhetoric, and not something he’s really thought about? Do you think he means it for most people but not for accused terrorists–and he assumes, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that all the suspects who have been “rendered” have been guilty? Or is he simply deceiving us?
I know these aren’t nice questions, that this is your day to celebrate. But they are honest questions. I’m really not trying to score points, or trying to get you to recant your vote or whatever–I know people vote on more than one issue, and anyway it’s a little late in the day for that. But this promise to send “freedom on the march” is so central to Bush’s moral rhetoric and counterterrorism strategy, and so contradicted by farming out our interrogations to middle eastern dictatorships, that I can’t get my mind around it. I’m really curious as to how someone who supports him does it.
Edward, I’m repeating myself, but what do you expect from a short inaugural speech other than a “laundry list” of past and future issues?
IL, you can attempt a flippant topic change, but as a parent with a kid making his way through public school, testing, standards and accountability are very serious issues to me, ones that have been vastly improved over the previous laissez faire, teachers’ union-bound administration.
K,
“he would not be able to act as he has.”
The issue is he would not be able to act as you think he has.
It seems there was nothing he could ever really do (other than being Gore or Kerry) to make you happy.
tomsyl,
I guess I was hoping there was a single message, like “hope” or “sacrifice” or whatever. I had heard it would be hope and although I heard glimmers of that, it wasn’t as inspiring as I had hoped.
Or maybe the Americans that appear to care more about the dictators, terrorists and insurgents than their fellow American soldiers.
smlook,
how on earth did you get that from any of the comments on this thread? How is feeling empathy for 5 children who watched their parents get killed in anyway related to caring about dictators or terrorists or insurgents? You’re way off base it seems to me.
Smlook — I don’t think anybody on either side is disputing the factual basis of Katherine’s discussion of the Maher Arar case and the related cases. Hell, I don’t think the _Administration_ is disputing that extraordinary rendition is occurring and has occurred any number of times under this Administration. So. Extraordinary rendition (sometimes of innocent people) is a fact. The Bush Administration’s view that it is legal and an acceptable intelligence-gathering tool is a fact. So which part of it is in Katherine’s head? (Oh, and 15 yards for mindreading).
Thanks smlook. I figured most reactions would be along those lines. I’m afraid I can’t address your concerns about my factual conclusions unless you’re more specific than that, though.
What I’m most interested in reactions from people who’ve read a fair number of my posts on rendition, believe I’ve fairly outlined the facts, and agree with at least some of the conclusions–and support the President & are happy he’s being inaugurated today. (You are out there, right?)
smlook, well put.
Katherine,
I think that The President believes in the theme and would place Arar and other torturees in the “break some eggs to make an omlette” category. Tragic for Arar, but, in his mind, a necessary requirement.
Katherine asks (posed to Bush supporters)
Or it could mean “we won’t talk about intelligence-gathering matters and if it makes our enemies uneasy because we won’t publicly state otherwise, so be it.”
Seriously Katherine, your fifteen minutes on Mahar Arar is up.
Thorley: Or it could mean “we won’t talk about intelligence-gathering matters and if it makes our enemies uneasy because we won’t publicly state otherwise, so be it.”
Except that he wasn’t asked about “intelligence-gathering matters” – he was asked about endorsing the torture of suspects. If Bush thinks that torturing suspects is acceptable because he thinks it’s part of “intelligence-gathering matters”, then all his assertions that he is against torture were lies.
Seriously Katherine, your fifteen minutes on Mahar Arar is up.
Seriously, Thorley, you may prefer not to think (for more than 15 minutes) about an innocent man whom the Bush administration sent to be tortured in Syria – but that’s your problem.
tomsyl wrote:
I was actually cringing a little with regards to Medicare reform although being in the health care field; I’ve had numerous conversations with people who are convinced that this has put us on the road towards privatization (which would suit me fine). I’m more optimistic about Social Security reform and health care reform. The economy and government schools aren’t really something that the federal government can or should have much control over. However since Republicans (at least for now) seem to have bought into the idea that the federal government should be involved in education, I’m more apt to support reforms that push for accountability and standards than those that just throw more money at the system.
I think that The President believe in the theme and would place Arar and other torturees in the “break some eggs to make an omlette” category. Tragic for Arar, but, in his mind, a necessary requirement.
We end up releasing most of the people we torture. Most of the people we’re detaining in Iraq are captured in mass sweeps. These aren’t terrorists we’re torturing. They’re people who have the bad fortune of resembling terrorists.
We’re not breaking eggs here. We’re thrashing around a set of broken crockery while the kitchen’s on fire.
And Thorley, the sentiment behind your “fifteen minutes” line is repugnant.
Seriously Katherine, your fifteen minutes on Mahar Arar is up.
Your one minute of attempting to abuse the posters who actually make this site worth reading is up. Seriously.
Jesurgislac wrote:
Really now, please provide a transcript of the actual question and the answer.
Except of course no one has provided any evidence to support this contention. Which is not surprising.
Place the word “allegedly” before “innocent,” “sent,” and “tortured” and you might have a true statement.
Wow. Thorley, that was impressively low.
There was an overarching point to the speech. It was freedom.
And in the context of the revelations about abuses in our “intelligence-gathering” methods, some politely phrased questions about what freedom means for a Bush administration are relevant.
We’re not breaking eggs here. We’re thrashing around a set of broken crockery while the kitchen’s on fire.
I was asked to Karnak The President. That your opinion of the progress in Iraq differs from my mind read of his opinion is unsurprising.
Place the word “allegedly”before “innocent,” “sent,” and “tortured” and you might have a true statement.
Not before “innocent”. Not in this country.
Thorley,
Aren’t you at least slightly worried that some of these stories might be true?
Thorley, if you think torture’s fine, you should say so, and defend it. Von, among others, has given ample opportunity for just this sort of discussion.
If you think the Bush administration does NOT have a policy of torture or outsourcing torture, you’re free to make that argument, rather than just sniffing at others who have actually bothered to pay attention to this.
If you think the Bush administration DOES have a policy of torture or outsourcing torture, but that it has been EXCLUSIVELY used on those “deserving” of torture (i.e. terrorists), you can make that argument as well, presenting evidence.
All I hear you doing is making snorting noises from afar.
Thorley: Really now, please provide a transcript of the actual question and the answer.
Katherine quoted the question and the answer in her comment on January 20, 2005 04:18 PM. She also provided a link to the interview. What more do you want?
Except of course no one has provided any evidence to support this contention. Which is not surprising.
The evidence of Bush’s own words, in the interview that Katherine linked to.
Place the word “allegedly” before “innocent,” “sent,” and “tortured” and you might have a true statement.
Nope. You need to read Katherine’s intelligent, detailed, and thorough posts on Maher Arar. (Or, if you don’t trust her research skills, repeat her research for yourself.) Until you’ve done that, you’re speaking in ignorance. Maher Arar is innocent: he was sent to Syria by the Bush administration: and he was tortured there.
The personal slam at Katherine, that is.
As for the substance of your comments: Katherine already posted the quoted response up-thread, along with Knight-Ridder’s description of the question asked. Were you looking for more? And are you asserting that the truth of the Maher Arar case is still in doubt? If you are, I’d be very interested to hear the support for such a claim…
On preview: What Jesurgislac said.
Jesurgislac wrote:
Actually she did neither. If you actually read the link she provided it doesn’t provide the actual question and answer merely what can at most be considered a paraphrase. Without knowing the context (hence my request for an actual transcript) your speculation that Bush was really hinting that he thinks “torturing suspects is acceptable” is simply wishful and rather repugnant thinking on your part.
ILF wrote:
Really now, evidence please. Numbers and/or percentages with sources please.
No, what’s “repugnant” has been the opportunism of those who keep dragging these allegations up regardless of the topic at hand. I get that this was Katherine’s fifteen minutes of fame in the blogosphere and she’s going to milk it for all its worth but there is nothing new or particularly germane here.
But hey since Edward did say this was an “open thread” it should not surprise anyone that in Obsidian Wings tradition, we revisit this yet again.
Thorley Winston: “Seriously Katherine, your fifteen minutes on Mahar Arar is up.”
Besides the fact that, as others have noted, the sentiment behind this is reugnant, this is not your call to make. And if you must make statements that are both vile and out of line, you could at least manage subject-predicate agreement.
votermom: Oh my god. Don’t look at today’s Suburban Guerrilla
Inaugural Haiku
Bush speaks. Oh my god.
Five freshly minted orphans.
Iraqi Freedom?
Thorley –
1. Presumption of innocence; perhaps you’ve heard of it. Especially since 1a. No charges were ever filed against him.
2. He was taken into custody by the US and was subsequently transported to Syria via Jordan, nothing “alleged” about it.
So, the only point that could deserve to be termed alleged is the claim of torture. Given Syria’s track record, the allegation seems plausible.
Thorley, I’ll repeat my question:
Aren’t you at least slightly worried that these “allegations” might be true?
And then some follow-up questions.
If you aren’t, why not?
If you are, what would ease your mind?
If your mind has been eased, what did it?
If you mind hasn’t been eased, how might that make you feel about Bush’s speech?
Edward,
Dianne says:
“How about the people who shot them?”
Blame us first
“Or maybe the people who ordered the first group to shoot?”
Blame us first
“Or the ones who ordered all of the above to invade a country on the basis of flimsy excuses?”
Blame us first
“Or maybe the people who voted to reinstate those who ordered the invasion?”
Blame me
And even you:
“wanting to smack our own soldiers upside their heads for this kind of stuff…knowing that in their shoes, I would be lucky to do anywhere near as well…who do you blame when 5 children watch their parents shot dead by American troops?”
Why don’t we put the blame where it is really do:
“US soldiers in Iraq approach a car after opening fire when it failed to stop at a checkpoint. Despite warning shots it continued to drive towards their dusk patrol in Tal Afar on 18 January.”
C’mon fake surrenders, suicide bombers and the Dad didn’t stop. But, no we blame ourselves. It’s rather perverse if you ask me.
Are you sure you don’t get it now?
Thorley, the “15 minutes” comment was rude. You may disagree with Katherine but that put-down was uncalled for. An apology is in order.
I agree with the person who said you should take von up on the debate offer. It sounds like you have strong opinions, don’t believe others are as well-informed on the subject as you, and consider the President to be in the right. I’d be interested to see a detailed interchange like the one von has proposed.
That your opinion of the progress in Iraq differs from my mind read of his opinion is unsurprising.
I would love to hear your opinion on the progress in Iraq, specifically what the state of Iraq will be when the US leaves. Do you think it’ll be stable? Do you think it’ll be a democracy in any sense that Americans would recognize a democracy? What’s going to happen to the terrorists and insurgents there? Will they disappear, will we kill them all, will they pack up and go home? Will the final state of Iraq be conducive to the defeat or the spread of Islamic fundamentalism? On what evidence do you support these opinions?
I don’t know your opinion on this. I don’t even know what your opinion on the invasion was. But I’ve asked Sebastian and other pro-war posters on this site to give me an idea why they still support the decision to invade even after seeing Iraq go to hell for the last two years, and I’ve gotten no response. This isn’t snark, this is genuine curiosity and a frustrated desire to understand. What good do you (speaking to the hawks now) think is coming from Iraq? How will this end?
Blame us first
There’s a lot of talk about the “Blame America First” crowd from the “Hold America Blameless” crowd.
It appears some among us have put themselves in the unenviable position of trying to defend the torture of innocents and trying to explain and excuse the slaughter of a mother and father in front of their five screaming children.
My sympathies to them and to their ilk.
Thorley: If you actually read the link she provided it doesn’t provide the actual question and answer merely what can at most be considered a paraphrase. Without knowing the context (hence my request for an actual transcript) your speculation that Bush was really hinting that he thinks “torturing suspects is acceptable” is simply wishful and rather repugnant thinking on your part.
Okay. How then do you interpret Bush’s response to the question: Asked if he’d ever authorized the transfer or “rendition” of prisoners to countries that practice torture (that is, asked if he’d ever endorsed torturing suspects)
Bush said he wouldn’t answer: because “This administration will not talk about intelligence-gathering matters.”
Bush was asked if he’d ever endorsed the torture of suspects.
Bush responded that this was an intelligence-gathering matter and he wouldn’t talk about it.
In short, Bush sees torturing suspects as “an intelligence-gathering matter”.
That’s my common-sense direct interpretation of what Bush is reported as having actually said. Your interpretation obviously differs: what is it?
(True, I conclude that Bush approves of “intelligence-gathering matters”, and that since he sees torturing suspects as an “intelligence-gathering matter” he does, therefore, approve of torture…. but that seems to me to follow logically from my common-sense direct interpretation of what Bush said. Not “wishful thinking” – I really wish I could believe that Bush & Co do not endorse torture. The world would be a better place if they did not.)
I think smlook makes a good point that, for the immediate situation that led to the tragedy in those pictures, the driver of that car bears the most responsibility, as do those who are perpetrating the kinds of attacks that make moving vehicles such a threat.
That said, the chaos in Iraq today exists because our leaders created the opportunity for it to exist. Even if one supports the idea of the war in the first place, the mistakes, hubris, poor communication, etc. of the administration contributed — and yet the President has just announced that no one need be held accountable. Those most responsible have kept their jobs or have been given Presidential Medals of Freedom.
There is understandable frustration about that which figures into responses to a story and pictures like those a Suburban Guerilla.
“That said, the chaos in Iraq today exists because our leaders created the opportunity for it to exist.”
Yes, many Dem’s have undermined the war effort at every opportunity.
Changing the subject here.
One part of the speech that struck me as I listened was his call to “service,” which I find in the transcript as:
Does this sound like a military recruitment pitch to anyone else? Yes, the next paragraph does address domestic problems, but not with as explicit a call for individual commitment.
How are the military’s recruitment and retention rates?
Note to self: Don’t bother. The courtesy will not be returned.
So if it weren’t for those meddling kids (‘scuse me, Democrats), the war would have gone great. Care to back that one up?
I get that this was Katherine’s fifteen minutes of fame in the blogosphere and she’s going to milk it for all its worth . . .
Heaven forfend that you entertain the idea, even for a second, that Katherine is actually motivated by a genuine concern for preventing the torture of innocent people, and for preventing our government from sullying our nation’s character, reputation and soul by torturing innocent people. No, she must be driven by the need for attention and admiration from complete strangers on the Internerd. Forget the idea that she might be principled — principles, after all, are only held by rock-ribbed Republicans like yourself.
Ever heard the phrase “the banality of evil?” It would make a nice caption for your photo.
I get that this was Katherine’s fifteen minutes of fame in the blogosphere and she’s going to milk it for all its worth but there is nothing new or particularly germane here.
Wow. I must say, I’m impressed. You think the only reason someone would care to write about government-sanctioned torture is to get other people’s attention? Can you really not come up with any other explanations for why anybody should care?
I know this is a bit like trying to communicate with a Martian in mime, Thorley, but listen carefully: most Americans think that other human beings have inherent worth, and that this inherent worth is such that it shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Tampering with or ending the existence of another human being is a big deal, and torture most definitely falls under that heading. So we care if it turns out that our government is sanctioning torture, especially the torture of innocents. We care enough that it becomes a really important, really big deal.
You may not understand this. You may think that the only possible explanation for anyone to talk about torture in the midst of this sunny and delightful Republican administration is sheer glory-hogging. I invite you to read up on the concept of “unalienable human rights” some time. It may allow you to grasp that another perspective exists.
Opus,
I didn’t mean to be rude. I should have been more polite. I’m just frustrated on the Blame Bush for everything crowd while all the obstructionists don’t take any blame.
Opus,
I didn’t mean to be rude. I should have been more polite. I’m just frustrated on the Blame Bush for everything crowd while all the obstructionists, dictators, terrorists and insurgents don’t take any blame.
Smlook: I’m just frustrated on the Blame Bush for everything crowd while all the obstructionists don’t take any blame.
Did you ever hear the phrase “the buck stops here”? Do you have a reason for believing that Bush shouldn’t have to take full responsibility for the Iraq war? If so, what is it?
Jesurgislac wrote:
Seriously, what part of “at most be considered a paraphrase” don’t you understand? Your first clue that the article wasn’t quoting an actual question should have been the absence of quotation marks. The fact that they apparently paraphrased a question indicates that at something was missing from what the story provided*.
Like I said, unless you can produce the actual question (in full no abbreviations) that shows the context of what President Bush was answering, this is simply wishful thinking on your part.
* Obvious examples might be asking him if “did anyone from his administration” (like someone in the DOJ’s office) ever authorize something and paraphrasing that as “did he.” Or asking the question in a specific context (e.g. “for the purpose of interrogation”) and removing that context when the story was written. It goes without saying of course that there is a world of difference between sending someone to a country that practices something and sending them there for the purpose of that practice to be carried out.
obstructionists?
name ONE thing the democratic party has done which has interfered in the way that the administration has chosen to prosecute the war!
Francis
“America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government because no one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave.” G.W.Bush 1/20/05
“I know this is a bit like trying to communicate with a Martian in mime, Thorley, but listen carefully: most Americans think that other human beings have inherent worth, and that this inherent worth is such that it shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Tampering with or ending the existence of another human being is a big deal, and torture most definitely falls under that heading. So we care if it turns out that our government is sanctioning torture, especially the torture of innocents. We care enough that it becomes a really important, really big deal.” Iron Lungfish 1/20/05
Interesting, if only in a rhetorical sort of way.
Thorley, if we send someone to a particular country (Syria, say) for interrogation, knowing that the way that they often (generally?) interrogate prisoners is via torture, would you say that we are free of all culpability when said someone gets tortured? To put it another way: if we believe that they’re not going to torture the person in Syria, why the hell are we sending them to Syria for interrogation?
I don’t support Bush’s apparent position on torture. Torture is
A) Not that effective;
B) Not necessary;
C) Morally Wrong;
D) Creates Bad Will Causing other problems;
E) Even if you could avoid A-D it is would be completely wrong to use on mere suspects.
I wish we could have a good debate about what is and is not a good and effective interrogation technique, but few people seem interested in that.
How do I live with myself having helped elect Bush? I think that Bush’s current position in limited and a sign of insufficient understanding married to laudable zeal. As such I think it will be amenable to ‘light of day’ and to pressure over time.
I could be wrong.
I hope I’m not.
An admirable sentiment, Sebastian.
Hope is a wonderful thing.
Edward,
it leaves you numb…wanting to smack our own soldiers upside their heads for this kind of stuff…knowing that in their shoes, I would be lucky to do anywhere near as well…who do you blame when 5 children watch their parents shot dead by American troops?
Wowowowow! What’s going on here, dude? Who would you blame? Well, who was driving? It’s not like this was an honest mistake by our military and they fired at a wrong target. BBC’s caption says US soldiers in Iraq approach a car after opening fire when it failed to stop at a checkpoint. Despite warning shots it continued to drive towards their dusk patrol in Tal Afar on 18 January.. Getty News photographer is not disputing that.
As you know,
Even those attending the inaugural parade will go through security checkpoints, according to a Secret Service press release.
What would’ve happened to that exact car if it tried run those checkpoints? Would you think Secret Service would shoot at the driver?
…and speaking of their ilk…
Guys, don’t bother about Thorley, it’s not worth it. This was an attempt to understand how people who start from at least some similar premises to me, evaluate some of the same facts the same way as me, and get to a different conclusion. It’s those people I get in really long arguments with and who can really get under my skin. Thorley and I do not meet that description, we have next to nothing in common (well, I don’t mean that literally, we’re both American citizens, went to law school etc., but you know what I mean.) I’m pretty okay with having nothing in common with him and I bet he is too, so additional proof of it does not bother me so much.
Sebastian–fair enough, and thank you very much. I would’ve voted for FDR and been thankful for the opportunity, and he’s committed one sin of omission and one of comission that are worse than any of Bush’s that I’m aware of. Obviously I think Bush’s plus side compares, er…unfavorably with FDR’s but very few people are single issue voters.
What would’ve happened to that exact car if it tried run those checkpoints? Would you think Secret Service would shoot at the driver?
President Bush was in Tal Afar?
Thorley: Got it. Your view is that since it looks (from the interview) as if Bush is indeed endorsing torture, it’s better to assume that he was misquoted. I think that’s you engaging in wishful thinking, rather than me, since evidently you find the interview as given to mean exactly what I interpreted it to mean.
Katherine: Guys, don’t bother about Thorley, it’s not worth it.
Fair enough.
anarch,
I think its called an analogy or something.
I think its called an analogy or something.
Are you saying you fail to appreciate the distinction?
I don’t support Bush’s apparent position on torture. Torture is
A) Not that effective;
B) Not necessary;
C) Morally Wrong;
D) Creates Bad Will Causing other problems;
E) Even if you could avoid A-D it is would be completely wrong to use on mere suspects.
How is that any different than Bush’s position? I mean his actual official stated position, not the imaginations of the blogsphere.
You’re right. Bush wasn’t in Tal Afar, hence this has nothing to do with this thread.
Wowowowow! What’s going on here, dude? Who would you blame? Well, who was driving?
A dead man. One moment he was a confused driver with his wife and children in his car and the next he was a dead man. My question is who’s to blame for the environment in which our soldiers are so skittish the only solution they can manage to such an incident is to kill the driver of a car with children in the back. Who’s to blame for that kind of chaos?
Macallan: How is that any different than Bush’s position? I mean his actual official stated position
Don’t you mean his actual official position as shown by his actions? Such as nominating Gonzales to be the next Attorney General? Or sending Mahar Arar to be tortured in Syria? Or the torturers of Bagram Airbase, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, for whom Bush must be held ultimately responsible as Commander-in-Chief… if you hold by the old adage that “the buck stops here”.
Thanks for demonstrating the latter for me Jes.
My question is who’s to blame for the environment in which our soldiers are so skittish
Skittish? warning shots are mentioned here, hand signals are mentioned here.
What would’ve non-skittish soldiers done?
How is that any different than Bush’s position? I mean his actual official stated position,
Personally, I’d be thrilled if the President’s “Offical state position” on torture was directing what was actually happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba. The problem is that his “official position” doesn’t seem to be that important to many of our folks in these locations.
What would’ve non-skittish soldiers done?
Shot the tires? Shot the driver only, not also his wife? I don’t know.
The report says they were driving toward the patrol. That leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Do they regularly patrol there? Did the family live nearby, such that the father drives home frequently without being waved away? Was there some family drama inside the car distracting him?
The bottom line for me is that this represents a failure to provide a less dangerous environment and that is unquestionably our fault.
Do they regularly patrol there? Did the family live nearby, such that the father drives home frequently without being waved away? Was there some family drama inside the car distracting him?
What about the warning shots?
The bottom line for me is that this represents a failure to provide a less dangerous environment and that is unquestionably our fault.
That’s absurd. Those checkpoints are in place for that exact purpose – to privide the exact “less dangerous environment” you speak of. What’s next? You’re going to say that we should disarm our troops to provide even more security?
I think Thorley is being disingenuous here because by everything I’ve seen here and elsewhere, he does, in fact support torture. So why pick a stupid fight about whether Bush was paraphrased or quoted directly? Why not just take up von’s challenge and defend the practice of torture on the merits?
That’s absurd. Those checkpoints are in place for that exact purpose – to privide the exact “less dangerous environment” you speak of.
Who’s responsible for the need for the checkpoints at this stage of the operation. You’re avoiding that.
I don’t know what happened exactly, but it’s pretty clear from the information available that the father was not up to anything illegal. He lives in an area known for violence and I assume he hears shots, warning or otherwise, all the time. I also assume, because I know I would, that upon hearing shots he stopped thinking as clearly as he would otherwise.
Tragedies like this are more likely when things are out of control, there are not enough troops, citizens are fearful, security is lacking…
Who’s responsible for the need for the checkpoints at this stage of the operation.
Insurgents. Killers. Thugs.
What do I win?
“name ONE thing the democratic party has done which has interfered in the way that the administration has chosen to prosecute the war!”
They voted for the war, before they voted against it. Or many supported the war only to come out talking against it. This made appear divived instead of united. The way this affected our allies perception of our resolve is tragic.
Edward,
“Shot the tires? Shot the driver only, not also his wife? I don’t know.”
Sorry, but that just shows you own naivety about war.
Insurgents. Killers. Thugs.
Oh, yeah…they’re responsible for providing security…why aren’t they doing it better?
What do I win?
A second chance. Start with A. …it stands for “accountability.”
To remain unabashedly Rah-Rah in the face of the torture and slaughter of innocents one would have to render onself barely recognizably human.
Some here have only a very short distance left to go.
Edward,
Who’s responsible for the need for the checkpoints at this stage of the operation. You’re avoiding that.
I’m sorry, what’s the benchmark for the “stages”?
Sorry, but that just shows you own naivety about war.
No points for that observation, I’m afraid. I admit it freely.
None of which changes the point that our professional soldiers who do know something about war should have better options than this sort of tragedy.
I would love to hear your opinion on the progress in Iraq
OK IL, I’ll give it a shot. A long shot in more ways than one, I’m afraid. But here’s the deal. This is my opinion based on what I’ve had a chance to read, see etc. etc. I don’t have time to read the NYT everyday, but I don’t watch network news either so assume I am not all knowing, but not all propagandized ;). I’m also not going to get into a link war with anyone, in fact, I probably won’t respond much at all because I think that I’m really just setting myself up to be deluged by commenters with more time than I, hungry for a fresh item to attack. Unfortunately, OW seems to have gone that route lately despite the pleadings from the posters. Both “sides” are at fault IMRRRHO.
So, despite my desire to pull back all our forces behind the oceans and concentrate on fixing our own house I supported the invasion. I honestly believe that Saddam is a pretty bad guy whose support for Hamas was stirring up trouble in Palestine, which seems to be the epicenter of Muslim discontent with the US. Further, the troops we had to keep in Saudi Arabia (to ensure a safe oil supply for the world) that truly ticked off OBL were there because of Saddam. Finally, whether he had WMDs and buried them or trucked them to Syria or never had them, the sanctions that kept him from getting them, or more of them, (and I for one believe that he wanted them and if he had them would have used them to push SA into screwing the world oil-wise and the rest of the ME into screwing the world war–with-Israel-wise.) were killing his people. So, I figured, let’s go fix a mess of Saddam-centered problems and give the most secular folks in the ME with the largest pool of oil (all the better to help pressure SA economically rather than militarily) a shot at choosing their own fate (hoping that would be US style freedom).
Now, we’ve been instructed on this very site, through the haranguing of one of the posters, that democracy is the right to choose a government, even if that government is repugnant to us personally (er sorry, make that me, I have no idea what type of government you would consider repugnant, nor what type of government you’d accept in exchange for peace). So, I guess since there will be an election that there will be democracy in Iraq, at least for one election.
Will the country be stable? No, not in the short term. I no longer believe that the Iraqis desired the type of freedom that we er, I (there I go again, assuming what you think) thought they did, or at least are unwilling to do what is necessary* to attain it. In hindsight perhaps this was obvious based on their religion, tribal bonds and years under a dictator (“elected” by the people). I wish that I had listened to those who said this instead of lumping them in with those who simply opposed war as a final means for change. Then again, they might also be called racists by some and I too for agreeing with them. C’est la vie.
And what about the terrorists and insurgents? Well, I’d guess that in the civil war that follows the election and our departure they would be set upon and driven from Shiistan and Kurdistan** into Sunnistan where they would achieve some measure of prominence before the population set upon them for bringing such woe upon the now oiless Sunnis. Scratch that, I’d guess that once expunged from Shiistan and Kurdistan some insurgents will go home if possible with many staying behind to foment continued war on Shiistan and Kurdistan perhaps with the support of Iran.
Islamic Fundamentalism will march on, but not because of this effort, in spite of it. Despite that, I think that this war has made us safer. Libya at least claims they gave up the pursuit of nukes (please, no arguments about what the cause was, I know the arguments but it happened after we took out Saddam so IMO there was some effect). The guy in Pakistan is no longer selling Nuke technology. The flypaper theory seems to have worked at least as far as the US is concerned. Saddam, a wealthy maniac with a country at his disposal, is gone. And, countries now know that we can and will take out leadership that we feel threatens us or the world, even if that threat is not a direct nuke attack on Des Moines. That’ll enable the world to buy the oil it needs and keep the shipping lanes open.
In the end, and although I’m sure my opinion matters very little to the families of the dead, this was a worthy cause, if only to prove that we’d give up our precious sons and daughters to give another group of people a shot at what we have. Perhaps it was presumptuous of us to assume that Iraqis would too. IMO no one has died in vain; they died making an offering. That the offering is rejected is disappointing. But, taking a devil’s advocate position, at least we can scratch this off the ever-shrinking list of options for how to help the ME.
*And by “do what is necessary” I mean point out the terrorists in their midst so that rounding up groups is unnecessary.
**I expect we’ll tell Turkey to shove it when they object to this and threaten to militarily support, if not actively militarily support the Kurds in any action against Turkey. Whether that drives Turkey towards a more fundamentalist government and away from the EU or drives the EU to support Turkey to poke a finger in our eye is a pick’em bet for me.
the photographer’s account:
. . .
On the evening of Jan. 18, as we made our way up a broad boulevard, I could see car making its way toward us. As a defense against potential car bombs, it is now standard practice for foot patrols to stop oncoming vehicles, particularly after dark. “We have a car coming,” someone called out, as we entered an intersection. We could see the car about 100 meters away. The car continued coming; I couldn’t see it anymore from my perch but could hear its engine now, a high whine that sounded more like acceleration than slowing down. It was maybe 50 yards away now.
“Stop that car!” someone shouted out, seemingly simultaneously with someone firing what sounded like warning shots — a staccato, measured burst. The car continued coming. And then perhaps less than a second later a cacophony of fire, shots rattling off in a chaotic overlapping din. The car entered the intersection on its momentum and still shots were penetrating it and slicing it. Finally the shooting stopped, the car drifted listlessly, clearly no longer being steered, and came to a rest on a curb. Soldiers began to approach it warily.
. . .
i imagine that some will focus on the engine sound and some will focus on the fact that the hand signals would not have been visible and that the deadly fire came about a second after the warning shots.
Francis
p.s. a car traveling 30 mph will cover 50 yards in about 3.5 seconds.
I’m sorry, what’s the benchmark for the “stages”?
If I recall correctly, this stage is “Mission Accomplished.”
Jesurgislac wrote:
Actually my POV is that since (a) we don’t know what the actual question that was asked since the paper saw fit not to include it and (b) all President Bush was quoted as saying was that “”[t]his administration will not talk about intelligence-gathering matters”” we have no way of knowing (c) what it was specifically in reference to or (d) that it meant anything other than essentially “no comment.”
But Jesurgislac will no doubt continue to make up whatever fits his little fantasies.
Stan LS: Who would you blame? Well, who was driving? It’s not like this was an honest mistake by our military and they fired at a wrong target.
Stan, if you were driving down the street with your family in the car and you heard gunshots, would your first impulse be to pull over and let the shooter search your car? Even granting that the men with guns are part of an occupying army, and not just random thugs, can you say what your response would be? I don’t think the issue of blame quite so cut and dried.
Thorley — Your basic position, then, is that since we don’t have definite proof that Knight-Ridder is reporting their question and Bush’s answer fairly, we should assume at least a reasonable probability of dishonesty on their part, enough to leave it an open question whether the quote is what it appears to be on face. What sort of evidence do you have that this is in fact a reasonable position to take? And how is that evidence so overwhelming as to justify that sneering slam at Jes? And when do your continued personal attacks on other commenters begin to violate the Posting Rules?
I don’t think the issue of blame quite so cut and dried.
Make that “I don’t think the issue of blame is so cut and dried.”
Praktike wrote:
Really, evidence please.
Because unlike yourself, some of actually care about facts.
Probably because that wasn’t Von’s challenge. Von already conceded in his initial post that he would support using it under some circumstances and allowing a “necessity defense” in those circumstances. Which pretty much left only those who would support it as a matter of policy (e.g. Dershowitz’s “torture warrants”) with (presumably) some set of guidelines as far as when to use it. I get the distinction he’s trying to make and it is an interesting one to legal scholars and policy wonks.
“**I expect we’ll tell Turkey to shove it when they object to this and threaten to militarily support, if not actively militarily support the Kurds in any action against Turkey. Whether that drives Turkey towards a more fundamentalist government and away from the EU or drives the EU to support Turkey to poke a finger in our eye is a pick’em bet for me.”
I should hope not. That’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard. I doubt we’ll ever tell Turkey to “shove it.” Like it or not, Turkey is the best thing going in the ME right now, and our relationship with the Turks goes back decades. At the end of the day, we’re simply not going to choose the Kurds over the Turks in any dispute. Moreover, The Kurds who fought the Turkish government may have had a righteous cause, but they were undoubtedly terrorists. I thought we were against that sort of thing.
Okay, Thorley, here’s your chance to disavow the use of torture.
Go for it.
Mark Shawhan wrote:
My position is as I stated it clearly in my previous responses to Jesurgislac, not what you and he may wish to distort it as meaning. I said nothing about any dishonesty on the part of Knight-Ridder although it strikes me as odd they didn’t actually provide the question or even an excerpt from the question. I pointed out that at most we had a paraphrase of a question and provided examples of how the meaning could have been subtly changed even if unintentionally all of which affects the proper way of reading an answer that on its face is “no comment.”
If we hadn’t invaded there would have been no check point, no car bombs, no soldiers worried about car bombs. We created the situation, the overall situation. . We are responisble for the overall situation. It is an overall situation in which accidents are bound to happen. I don’t blame the soldiers in the incident. I don’t blame the driver either. I don’t blame America since “America” is an abstraction. I blame George Bush and everyone who voted for him. I also blame every Democrat who voted for the authoization and has since failed to step forward to challenge the rationaliztions and misiformation which was used in the salespitch that got us into the war.
I didn’t listen to the coronation. I just made a big (for me) donation to Moveon.
Opus & Edward,
See this is why I am so snippy…
Lily blames everyone except the murderuos bastards who really caused this situation.
“If we hadn’t invaded there would have been no check point, no car bombs, no soldiers worried about car bombs.”
See it’s our all our fault. The fact Hussein broke his peace treaty, killed his own people, pursued WMD, used WMD, mislead U.N. inspectors and etc. isn’t really an issue. The fact we couldn’t trust this ruthless dictator controlling the resources of an entire county has nothing to do with it.
“I blame George Bush”
Dr. Evil is guilty not the terrorists and dictator.
“and everyone who voted for him.”
And me, I caused this. It’s my fauilt that 3,000 Americans died in one day and that I felt it was important to take out a dictator that I didn’t trust.
“I also blame every Democrat who voted for the authoization and has since failed to step forward to challenge the rationaliztions and misiformation which was used in the salespitch that got us into the war.”
Where has Lily been? I’m pretty sure that this drumbeat has been rolling from day one.
Yes, I am a little testy because of people who blame us for everything, while the real SOB’s are still getting away with murder.
Well, Lily I will tell you what! I think it’s your fault for being so weak and cowardly in the face of a ruthless dictator like Hussein.
Please let’s don’t apply the posting rules double standard. This isn’t the first time on this thread someone has personally blamed me for or implied that it might be my fault that these kids parents are dead.
It’s my fauilt that 3,000 Americans died in one day and that I felt it was important to take out a dictator that I didn’t trust
nice conflation.
tell me: out of the 11,000 or so people we’ve killed directly in Iraq, how many were Al Queda ?
Cleek why oh why…
You may think I am conflating, but you are ignoring my motivation.
I never said that I thought the people killed in Iraq we AQ. But many are terrorists, many are Baathist, many were Iraqi military.
smlook, there are terrorists all over the world, everywhere. the terrorists who should be this country’s primary concern were not hurt a whit by our invasion, demolition, reassmbling, governing and now policing of Iraq. we’ve devoted an enourmous amount of time and money chasing something that was not directly related to the known and active threat of AQ.
your conflation attempts to reconcile the Iraq with the enemy that actually struck us on 9/11. it fails.
“I’m convinced that should I meet Bush, the person, on vacation somewhere, say snorkeling in the beautifully whale-free Carribean, I’d enjoy his company and find him charming. He wins that one. He’s a likeable person”
Oddly, I have just the opposite reaction. I always thought that, were I to meet Ronald Reagan, or George H W Bush, I would come away personally liking them. George W doesn’t strike me that way. He comes across with that smug arrogance that you so often find in people who think they’ve mastered their corner of the world, and extend that to think they’ve figured out the universe.
“And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedoms enemies.”
Maybe I’m taking this wrong, but this sounds like he’s telling some of our allies they were used by our “enemies”.
I blame George Bush and everyone who voted for him.
Ohmygod, will sleep ever come again?
Personally, I’ve never forgiven Bush for causing the Javanese earthquake and then intentionally failing to warn the Sri Lankans and Indians. This is certainly the last time I will ever vote for him as president, and that’s a promise.
For everyone who thinks Bush cannot both want liberty for all peoples of the world and yet act the way he has (esp. regarding torture), I’ve got to ask:
Where’s the historical context?
Anyone remember World War II? Anyone recall American soldiers shooting German prisoners and Germans who were trying to surrender?
Of course not. We’re all too young here, most likely.
How about us buying up German scientists with amnesty?
I’m not saying torture is cool. But let’s retain some perspective here:
Were our leaders in World War II any less passionate about spreading democracy as a tool for preserving our own liberty and interests? Any less genuine?
And if so, why is World War II so fondly remembered?
As wars go, World War II was terribly mismanaged. If you want to dispel any romantic illusions about a right and a wrong way to run a war, open a history book some time. Our soldiers today are so professional they absolutely shame previous generations, and we’re innovating ways to fight wars nobody else in history could imagine. I’m incredibly impressed at how our Marines and Army are responding to their first serious venture against 4G (fourth-generation warfare) since Vietnam. You wouldn’t believe some of the tactics they’re inventing on the fly out in the field. It says wonders for how the military has managed itself and reinvented itself since the end of the Cold War.
(As a result, the old wisdom about a 25% casualty rate in aggressive urban combat is being completely turned on its head)
Let’s face the facts: we are entering an era in which people who have vowed to destroy us — genuinely! — are steadily attaining the capability to do us and our allies an extraordinary deal of damage. There is a timetable here. We cannot hope for gradual reform alone, and half measures like sanctions are already in place, so it’s pretty clear they don’t do enough. Empowerment of poorer countries and of various organizations is growing far too quickly for that to be anything other than a fool’s hope.
What Mr. Bush has proposed tears the shingles off of our entire previous conception of the balance of power. He and others have identified a threat and understand that we would not — given a relatively short notice on widespread proliferation of weapons that could quickly erode our position in the world — be able to respond quickly enoguh to contain such a threat. The network of missile proliferation extends between North Korea and Syria, extends to Iran, and beyond. Every kind of missile *except* ICBMs has been confirmed between weapons development nations like Russia and North Korea, and client nations such as China, Iran and Syria. The threat of nuclear proliferation has been identified as the number one security threat facing our nation even by many of the foreign policy experts who have criticized Mr. Bush’s previous policies.
What Mr. Bush has also identified is a clear trend in the history of the world: democracies don’t attack one another and are loath to threaten one another’s security. In fact, democracies tend to form networks of *collective security*.
Finally, Mr. Bush has identified simple and convenient facts about several target countries that made (and makes) them vulnerable:
*Neither Syria nor Iran have particularly popular governments. Neither did the Taliban have widespread support, and Saddam had made plenty of enemies. In both Aghanistan and Iraq, the Coalition partners focused deliberately on dissident groups to gain support and undermine the regime. The same will undoubtedly be done in Syria and/or Iran.
*Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria are conveniently lined up. Afghanistan was an easy political target because of the widespread agreement about the necessity of removing such obvious direct supporters and horborers of Al Qaeda. Iraq has a critical strategic location in the Middle East, cited as a “keystone” state that not only completed the encirclement of Iran but has had noticeable pressuring effects on Saudi Arabia and Syria as well. It was a slightly harder sell, but America is already familiar with the fact that Saddam was a bastard. All the moral ammunition they needed was still in the barrel due to Desert Storm and the ensuing watchdogging. Genocide? Check (see Anfal campaign). Mass graves? Check (over 300,000 strong so far, am I right?). Previous use of chemical weapons? Check (and delivered often in Iraqi-designed R-400 bombs, how convenient). Human rights violations? Check — Abu Ghraib was a slightly harsher place before we arrived. Previous aggression? Check — Iran, Kuwait, missile strikes on others, the Supergun project aimed at Israel. Support of terrorism? Check — literally, check. $25,000 checks to families of people who blew up civilians in pizza cafes and at mitzvahs. And that’s just the stuff he publicly announced.
The list could go on.
*Our enemies are still heavily reliant on many governments for safe harbor, funding, and logistical support. While networked terrorism may not ever go away, it becomes remarkably less effective without those three elements. You can recruit all the terrorists you want, but without some locus of support they’ll be very limited in what they can accomplish — especially if they want to try soemthing audacious like a chem/bio/nuclear attack or a coordinated assault like the great tactical success that was 9/11.
Mr. Bush sold the Iraq War to the UN as largely a war about WMD, but told American think tanks and the American populace a litany of complaints. Between us finding whole fighter jets buried in the sand and the reports that Syria may have their hands on a lot of those, between Saddam previosuly having such weapons and still having a known wish to restart such programs at the earliest convenience, Mr. Bush has just enough to fall back on that a polarized believing base that he doesn’t NEED to sell WMD anymore.
This war is and was about a realignment of the balance of power starting with a complete makeover of the Middle East, before Southeast Asia becomes a very real obstacle to the global agenda Mr. Bush outlined.
Mr. Bush’s policy is far more pragmatic than it appears when one is focusing on his liberal use of the words “liberty” and “freedom.”
This speech was about shoring up support and making a mission statement his supporters could get behind. His advisors were undoubtedly aware that those who hadn’t voted for him wouldn’t be watching the inaugural address in large numbers.
Now Mr. Bush is jumping out of the gate to get his work done before he is identified as a lame duck. He’s got a few things working for him: both Houses of Congress and a re-tooled Cabinet that ~roughly~ shares his vision.
The vision is this: Syria and Iran are both on the chopping block and Mr. Bush has called on the youth of the country to serve (did you miss that gem in the speech?). The military has contracted out the RAND Corporation to study how they can avoid a draft. And over the next several years troops will be rearranging themselves aronud the globe as they emerge from Cold War mode — another Bush/Rumsfeld policy that will serve us well. All this troop movement toward our current forward deployment zones? All this focus on troop levels? The writing is on the wall, people.
Someone asked about how to tell stages apart.
The first stage in both cases thus far is to dismantle the state apparatus, in the last two wars respectively the Taliban and the Ba’ath party. The purpose of this is to disrupt the centralized networks and hierarchies that distribute power (funds, safe harbor, logitics) most effectively to groups that commit terrorism in the region and especially intercontinentally, and those that are best able to mount a coordinated resistance.
This is followed immediately by vigorous investment in infrastructure to get the regular populace (very young in the Middle East, especially the Arab states) back into school and into jobs. The economic rebuilding has as its purpose giving people something to do other than feel hungry and get angry. Simple to understand, difficult to master. Iraq’s economic growth last year was 50%, and will continue (2005 is expected to have a 17% growth rate, partly fueled by the oil infrstructure getting moving finally).
The second stage, after the “Mission Accomplished” photo op/morale booster of course, is to stabilize the security situation. In Afghanistan, the most effective strategy has been vigorous pursuit and use of highly mobile groups like Special Forces outside of the cities. In Iraq, the methods widely vary. Once the State Department and the CIA were finished failnig in Fallujah the first time around, Mr. Bush took Mr. Rumseld’s advice and took the fight to the enemy. Note how suddenly American forces are on the offensive and in pursuit instead of hunkering down and avoiding no-go-zone engagements as before, and how Iraqi forces are taking a larger role.
Expect more of the same in the next two years now that Mr. Bush has re-arranged his Cabinet to meet his new goals. Look whose heads rolled: CIA and State. These men did not voluntarily decide it was time to go; all indications are that they were forced out and replaced purposefully. Again, Mr. Bush has given the impression that he is weak where he can actually be quite firm.
Gosh, this, my first post here, has become quite long.
Anyway, I’ll wrap it up. This speech was worth watching if for no other reason than you are going to be living his agenda for the next four years and this is a window into the man behind it. I hear his speechwriter spent an inordinate amonut of time with Mr. Bush preparing for it, getting a feel for what the Prez wanted to say. If Mr. Bush was even *halfway* serious — and judging by how the “Axis of Evil” is being lined up for summary execution, I would listen — then the next four years are going to rock the world and make the last three look postively static. This is a dramatc shift away from realpolitik and toward a new collective security. This is not your average Inauguration Address.
tomsyl – The last tiem you’ll ever vote for GW Bush for Prez?
Why?
Let’s go back to the “Bush stole the 2000 election” crowd and take their word for it: Bush was *selected*, not *elected*.
That means he can run again in 2008!
-=-=-=-=-
OrneryWP
aka WarrsawPact at the Ornery American forums
http://www.ornery.org
Our soldiers do what they are trained to do: eliminate threats (i.e., kill) and protect themselves. Tragic incidents such as the one so hotly debated (for lack of a better word) in this thread are an unavoidable fact of occupation in what can only be considered a hostile environment. Soldiers, collectively, are a metaphorical sword. I think discussions of right or wrong should focus on how the sword is wielded, not on how sharp and dangerous it should be.
Wow, two comments in one day. I’ve been quiet for months, but I’ve not gone anywhere. Cheers to the whole ObWi team, as always.
In honor of Spread Freedom day, overstressed soldiers at a checkpoint in Iraq set two little girls free of their parents and siblings.
There was a lot of blood: those two little girls will never wear those dresses again.
But I’m sure they’ll look back on this day in years to come and agree that you can’t make omelettes without breaking eggs.
And I’m sure they’ll look back on this day in years to come and thank America for setting them free.
In honor of CaseyL, let’s all give in to sophistry and (logical fallacies like) appeals to emotion!
One of the most pro-war people I know is an old Japanese lady whose mother was raped by an American soldier in the wake of World War II. Free people have this great habit of obtaining the tools to understand context, and sometimes they come to understand that no war effort is anything nearing flawless.
Please notice that I used the word “tragic”, and meant it. I deliberately phrased my comment so as to not give any indication as to my opinions on what’s going on. Please don’t make any assumptions as to where I stand on any of this, other than that American soldiers are frighteningly effective and should not be deployed without considering all the implications of this fact. They do the job that they are trained to do. My only point is that productive discussions would be those that focus on the blacksmith, not the hammer.
I’m outtahere.
In honor of CaseyL, let’s all give in to sophistry and (logical fallacies like) appeals to emotion!
Too late. We all already did that after your earlier propagandathon.
The ball, people. The ball.
IL, you can attempt a flippant topic change, but as a parent with a kid making his way through public school, testing, standards and accountability are very serious issues to me, ones that have been vastly improved over the previous laissez faire, teachers’ union-bound administration.
A. Education is a local issue, and is primarily funded by local Taxes.
B. NCLB still has not been appropriatly funded, and has become an unfunded mandate.
C. If you have a problem with the teachers’ union, renegociate when the contract is up. It’s not the Union’s fault if the School ‘s negociator suck.
D. You’ll have to show me proof of improvement, cause I don’t see it!
George could be filmed buggering a little boy on his desk in the oval office by ten different cameras from ten different angles and his supporters would find a way to either deny it or justify it.
Err, Don, I haven’t followed this thread, so maybe something got you mad, but this is really a distasteful image. I’m sure you could indicate the level of your feelings without resorting to this.
smlook:
And me, I caused this. It’s my fauilt that 3,000 Americans died in one day and that I felt it was important to take out a dictator that I didn’t trust.
When did Lily say anything about 9/11 and who she does or doesn’t blame for it? She confined her comments entirely to the situation in Iraq. So can you please be a little more clear about what you’re responding to here? Because it looks to me like you’re trying to accuse Lily of blaming Bush and Bush voters for 9/11, and she didn’t do that.
Well, Lily I will tell you what! I think it’s your fault for being so weak and cowardly in the face of a ruthless dictator like Hussein.
Weak and cowardly? Against the guy who had no WMD and no means of attacking us? Uh . . . OK.
Wipe the Kool-Aid off your chin, kiddo, and try not to swallow so fast next time.
OrneryWP:One of the most pro-war people I know is an old Japanese lady whose mother was raped by an American soldier in the wake of World War II
Since you appear to be a fan of pointing out logical fallacies, maybe you can tell us all which one this is.
OrneryWP: then the next four years are going to rock the world and make the last three look postively static.
What a scary thought. Unfortunately, I fear you may be right: Bush may indeed be planning to plunge the US into yet another entirely-avoidable war which his administration will not bother to plan how to win. Not content with defeat in Iraq? Let’s see the US defeated in Iran, too.
Let’s go back to the “Bush stole the 2000 election” crowd and take their word for it: Bush was *selected*, not *elected*.
That means he can run again in 2008!
You should read the Constitution some time – see 22nd Amendment, to be precise.
You know, the more I think about it, the dumber this is:
Well, Lily I will tell you what! I think it’s your fault for being so weak and cowardly in the face of a ruthless dictator like Hussein.
Let’s assume arguendo that Lily is both weak and a coward, and is or was afraid of Saddam Hussein. That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation in Iraq right now, which is what Lily was criticizing. Hussein isn’t part of the equation now, and hasn’t been since about a month after the invasion. So her — or anyone’s — feelings about Hussein are irrelevant to what’s going on in Iraq right now.
And there’s no arguing that it was the removal of Hussein, and the inadequate preparations for security, for watching the borders for penetration by outside terrorists and insurgents, and for keeping down the terrorists and Baathists internally, that led to the situation we have now. That’s a fact on the ground, and any calculation or criticism has to take that into account. So, yes, it was standing up to the ruthless dictator without planning properly for the next steps that led directly to what we’ve got now.
And there’s no arguing that it was the removal of Hussein, and the inadequate preparations for security, for watching the borders for penetration by outside terrorists and insurgents, and for keeping down the terrorists and Baathists internally, that led to the situation we have now.
Yest there is arguing that. Well, actually you have point, since that formulation is so foolish it would be silly to waste any time to argue it.
Phil,
“Let’s assume arguendo that Lily is both weak and a coward, and is or was afraid of Saddam Hussein.”
I think not. Let’s assume that the U.S. had projected a united front against Hussein. This might have affected the EU and Turkey in a much more powerful way. But we didn’t and the weren’t affected and the terrorists and Baathist were more encouraged for it.
Is it safe to say at this point that Thorley supports torture?
smlook: you’re really going to need some cites for the position that Democratic opposition to the war in any way affected Turkish politics. And the massive anti-war rallies by european citizens probably had a lot more to do with the reluctance of their governments than anything Democrats did.
ornerywp: have you been watching “Patton” on continuous loop? do you believe that continuous war will bring continuous peace?
Francis
About who’s to blame for those new orphans in Tal Afer. Personally, I admit that some blame is mine. I know that in some way, my tax dollars paid for those bullets.
I prayed for those children yesterday.
Nothing I can ever do can make it right for them, or for the uncounted others who have been killed in this war. One day there will be a reckoning, because hate breeds hate, and violence breeds violence, and I can only pray that I and those I love and care for will have the strength to not only endure, when payment is sought, but the grace to end the cycle of violence.
God bless the world and all its leaders. Grant them wisdom.
Is it safe to say at this point that Thorley supports torture?
Why? Have you stopped beating your wife?
I think Praktike was more looking at his 8:21 post from yesterday.
Probably because that wasn’t Von’s challenge. Von already conceded in his initial post that he would support using it under some circumstances and allowing a “necessity defense” in those circumstances.
Well, that’s an interesting take on it. I think what I actually said was that I oppose torture in all cases as government policy and, if a person did decide to torture, they would be held liable for it as an individual. Or not, if they can present a cognizable defense.
Is that a small or inconsequential point, which can be dismissed as legalistic nuance? I don’t think so. It’s a question of who bears the risk. With torture, the risk should fall on the torturer.
(You can see the wisdom of this approach by comparing two separate incidents in Iraq. The first was some of the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib, in which individuals were investigated and punished. The second was the killing of an apparently unarmed Iraqi in a mosque, where the soldier was investigated but, so far as I know, hasn’t been charged. I like a system that allows for both results.)
The first was some of the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib, in which individuals were investigated and punished.
I’d rather a system that also investigated and punished the people who gave the orders for torture, not just the low-level grunts who tortured people.
Why? Have you stopped beating your wife?
Given that, metaphorically, Thorley’s wife is walking around covered in bruises, I’d say that’s a perfectly fair question.
I’d rather a system that also investigated and punished the people who gave the orders for torture, not just the low-level grunts who tortured people.
Why do you assume we don’t have such system? Or do you simply want a system that ignores the constitution or UMCJ in order to make punishing your political adversaries easier?
Thanks for spending the bandwidth, Mac. Let me know when you have something useful to say that doesn’t devolve to “Neener, neener” or “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” Both of which are pretty unbecoming for a grown man. I know it’s usually all you can come up with, but I, for one, believe you’re capable of more.
I’d rather a system that also investigated and punished the people who gave the orders for torture, not just the low-level grunts who tortured people.
I have to agree with Macallan, here. The problem isn’t with the system. The UCMJ applies, and each defendant is entitled to his or her rights under it. Nor should we empower defense counsel to endlessly subpoena ranking officers in an attempt to prove the “just following orders” defense (which, really, is not a defense here: IIRC, the order must be apparently just to qualify, and “stack naked Iraqis” is not a just order).
No, the problem is with the execution of the system, which is to say, with the executive branch. Laws that have been put in place do not appear to be enforced, and investigations that suggest a wider scope of wrongdoing are not being pursued quite to my liking. Thus is one of the reasons why I’m no fan of Gonzales as AG. But don’t blame “the system” — which, actually, is working quite well in some respects. Blame the unwillingness of the executive branch to apply “the system” to some of the pressing issues of the day.
BTW, I don’t think Mac’s last comment was snark.
Does this work?
Ah, much better. Not to imply that all discourse on the web isn’t even more delightful in bold.
No, the problem is with the execution of the system, which is to say, with the executive branch. Laws that have been put in place do not appear to be enforced, and investigations that suggest a wider scope of wrongdoing are not being pursued quite to my liking.
Assuming, arguendo, that the executive branch is unwilling to pursue these wrongdoings as they should, what is the appropriate redress?
Von: Nor should we empower defense counsel to endlessly subpoena ranking officers in an attempt to prove the “just following orders” defense (which, really, is not a defense here: IIRC, the order must be apparently just to qualify, and “stack naked Iraqis” is not a just order).
Of course it’s not a valid defense. As I have consistently said from the very beginning: soldiers who obey illegal orders must be court-martialled because it must clearly be seen that there is no defense for obeying illegal orders: the only right thing to do is to refuse.
But yes, of course defense counsel should be empowered to sub-poena ranking officers to discover who gave the illegal orders. Not “endlessly”, no, but onwards and upwards until the source is reached. When there is a culture of torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Airbase – three widely-separated US army bases – it’s as important to track down the source of this criminal activity as it is to punish the low-level grunts who carried out the orders.
Otherwise, the torture won’t stop. And that’s what’s important in the long term: yes, discipline those directly involved, but also, discipline and eliminate from the military those who kept away from the cameras and gave the orders.
BTW, I don’t think Mac’s last comment was snark.
Perhaps, but claiming that someone wants to suspend the constitution in order to punish one’s political opponents is certainly dancing on the line, especially given the cases that have come to the Supreme Court recently.
Assuming, arguendo, that the executive branch is unwilling to pursue these wrongdoings as they should, what is the appropriate redress?
Complain, vote them out, block their advance, or fire them. In this case, I’d like to see Gonzales blocked as AG in order to send a message that we expect more from our top prosecutor than selective nonenforcement of the law and dodgy and poor work interpreting the law. Since that won’t happen, well, polite and persistent complaint is the proper democratic (small-d) recourse.
Macallan: Why do you assume we don’t have such system?
Because I don’t see any investigation and prosecution of those who gave the illegal orders. So, either there isn’t such a system, or it isn’t working right now. Next question?
But yes, of course defense counsel should be empowered to sub-poena ranking officers to discover who gave the illegal orders.
No, no, no. Defense counsel are not investigators or prosecutors. Their interests and duties are entirely different — and, in some senses, contradictory.
Consider this: Prosecutors are usually affirmatively obligated to turn over everything they receive — good or bad — to defense counsel. Defense counsel have no such obligation. Prosecutors are required to meet certain threshold levels of evidence in order to make allegations of criminal conduct. Defense counsel have no such restriction. Indeed, in the US system (and the UK as well, I think), defense counsel are encouraged to let loose with virtually anything that they can say with a straight fact (and some things they can’t). It’s called presenting a defense.
Since that won’t happen, well, polite and persistent complaint is the proper democratic (small-d) recourse.
That seems… optimistic. Polite, persistent complaint only works insofar as those to whom you are complaining give a damn (as I’ve found out to my sorrow this past week); it presumes a level of good faith in the discourse that is sadly lacking. The fallacy here is akin to saying that etiquette is the appropriate redress when someone is punching you in the face, although I confess I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “polite and persistent”.
I agree with you that, in the long run, the best thing is for everyone to shut the hell up, take a deep breath, and start talking in polite, respectful tones. I’m not convinced that one side unilaterally adopting this technique is going to accomplish much, however — at least, not in any way they’d appreciate.
Because I don’t see any investigation and prosecution of those who gave the illegal orders. So, either there isn’t such a system, or it isn’t working right now. Next question?
See above. Just because one person may not be doing their job to the fullest extent does not mean that it’s at all prudent to designate others, who have entirely different agendas and institutional biases, to do it for them. The cure can be worse than the disease.
Because I don’t see any investigation and prosecution of those who gave the illegal orders.
Perhaps because so far there hasn’t been enough evidence sufficient to warrant it?
Macallan: Perhaps because so far there hasn’t been enough evidence sufficient to warrant it?
On three different, widely separated, army bases, American soldiers have been torturing people. Further, they have apparently been torturing people by very similar methods, and British soldiers in Iraq have also been torturing people using those same methods. Further, in Abu Ghraib and in Bagram Airbase, people have been killed by US soldiers – beaten to death. (We don’t know about Guantanamo Bay.)
I’d say that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full-scale investigation of who exactly is authorizing torture to be carried out by US soldiers: who is advising US soldiers on their torture methods (hopefully, the British will start looking into this, too): and indeed, how the people responsible for this have escaped prosecution.
Von: The cure can be worse than the disease.
What exactly could be worse than continuing to let the US army torture people?
I’m not that familiar with the UCMJ, but I’m assuming that committing an illegal act as a result of following an illegal order is a lesser offense than committing that same act absent the order. If so, certainly the defense should be able to demonstrate that the order was given. Or am I missing something here?
Jes,
You do realize that the British case undermines your chain of command construction?
I’m not that familiar with the UCMJ, but I’m assuming that committing an illegal act as a result of following an illegal order is a lesser offense than committing that same act absent the order.
I’m not at all familiar with the UCMJ but, if that’s the case, it’s contrary to what I understand to be the wording of the applicable statute as well as the oridinary rule. The distinction here is between a “claim” (what the prosecutor has to prove) and an “affirmative defense” (what the defense proves). I don’t believe “there not being a proper order” to be an element of the prosecutor’s claim; rather, there being an authorizing order is a defense to the claim.
Put it this way: I charge you with patent infringement. If I don’t prove infringement, I don’t prove my claim and you win. It’s not my duty as part of my patent infringement claim, however, to prove the patent valid. Nonetheless, if I do prove infringement, you can still challenge the patent as invalid. If you prove the patent invalid, you’re not liable. Infringement is a claim. Invalidity is a defense.
I hope that makes sense. I’m a bit out of time.
Macallan: You do realize that the British case undermines your chain of command construction?
Does it? Were British troops operating totally independently in Iraq? No contact and no connection with the US military whatsoever?
This case also…
Jesurgislac – I know about the 22nd Amendment. Get it?
Oh, and about defeat in Iraq — this is the predictable statement trotted out by everyone who’s gotten too comfortable preaching to the choir. Spend some time at a site not dominated by Democrats and you’d find a sentence like that picked apart in no time… often by others in the anti-war camp.
ALL wars are avoidable except when enemy boots trot onto your soil. Pacifism being about as practical for an economic juggernaut as a third wheel, I’m sure you’re referring to practical considerations.
Defeat or success in Iraq has a lot to do with Syria. Even the most committed dove can come to this understanding. Hence the upcoming “hot pursuit” policies that are going to target people who are using Syria as a safe haven while organizing the insurgency and terrorist attacks in Iraq.
And while even I am wary of the price we may pay for Mr. Bush’s idealism as laid out in his speech — one could easily draw the term “blank check” from several of his promises — I think there’s a practical root here that is closely linked to the National Security Strategy of the United States. If y’all haven’t read it yet, you might find it sheds a lot of light on our policies thus far.
CaseyL – Anything more specific than calling what I posted “propoganda”? Obviously, I’m aiming at opinions here… but just because it’s propoganda doesn’t mean it’s sophistry or an appeal to emotion as your vivid speculation on the orphans was.
My extremely long post has its faults… but your response was positively underwhelming. You didn’t address any main points; actually, that’s pretty common on the internet. Someone posts a long argument and the response is a curt, complete rejection without explained cause. Tar it with a colorful term like “propogandathon” and move along, satisfied that the entire argument is henceforth overturned. I’m terribly impressed.
Phil – The *major* logical fallacy I committed was the red herring, if taken out of context (and that, in response to an appeal to emotion). I was illustrating with one anecdote the way that people can experience extreme trauma and still be understanding, and that would be a hasty generalization at worst — assuming you even read the rest of my post. My apologies, Phil.
-=-=-=-=-
This is about as incendiary as I get. I’m trying more than anything else to rock the boat here. If I stick around my responses will get a lot less acrid, I promise.
OrneryWP: I know about the 22nd Amendment. Get it?
Nothing that you said earlier indicated that you’d read it. (Jokes are funnier when based on an accurate reading of the text, see.)
Oh, and about defeat in Iraq — this is the predictable statement trotted out by everyone who’s gotten too comfortable preaching to the choir.
Heh. Fine. Do outline for us what victory in Iraq is going to look like, and how it’s going to be achieved.
Defeat or success in Iraq has a lot to do with Syria. Even the most committed dove can come to this understanding. Hence the upcoming “hot pursuit” policies that are going to target people who are using Syria as a safe haven while organizing the insurgency and terrorist attacks in Iraq.
…that is, if you can do so with some reference to reality. There is no evidence that the insurgency in Iraq is organized by anyone outside Iraq. Iraqis are fighting a foreign invader/occupier.
My extremely long post has its faults… but your response was positively underwhelming. You didn’t address any main points; actually, that’s pretty common on the internet. Someone posts a long argument and the response is a curt, complete rejection without explained cause. Tar it with a colorful term like “propogandathon” and move along, satisfied that the entire argument is henceforth overturned. I’m terribly impressed.
Ornery
Sorry but you don’t really expect a long post in the middle of an open thread (on the Inauguration !) that neither cites anyone’s comments nor provides any links is going to elicit anything other than a curt rejection? I’m sure you feel passionately about your point of view and you may have some interesting points to make, but I have to suggest that you are not going to get the responses you want via this route.
Comment in my newspaper on the inauguration was that Bush had used the word ‘freedom’ 27 times, but seemed to have mainly freed quite a few million dollars.
Dutchmarbel: The Daily Show used the inaugural address to do a wonderful fight between “freedom” and “liberty”. Freedom won 27-15 (“Liberty’s been playing hurt ever since the Patriot Act”) and will “go on to face Justice in the Cliché Bowl”.
The Daily Show used the inaugural address to do a wonderful fight between “freedom” and “liberty”
It is on my pc, but I have not watchted it yet 😉
As ever, Jeanne of Body and Soul had the best commentary on Bush’s inauguration speech.
Four more years of hot air and lies.