Things fall apart...

[glockmail]

If someone has the time, a very good post would be Shi'a vs Sunni. I know that it's overwhelming Shi'a, but I wish the US wouldn't choose sides. Bad apples on both sides.

They're all worthless Muzzies as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unless Americans are willing to bite the bullet and commit realistic numbers of troops to Iraq, there will be more innocent Iraqis dying. If we continue on the same course or withdraw, more innocent Iraqis will die. A Catch-22. Iraqis will die no matter what we do. The real question is whether or not our troops will be caught in the middle of an increasingly bitter, deadly civil war. Pull them to the borders, and let the Sunnis and Shi'ias sort things out amongst themselves.

As to what it has to do with Chimpy...He struck the match to the tinder with the invasion of Iraq.

If you haven't noticed the President is committing more troops to the region. It's our Democrat friends who are trying to undermine it, like usual.

 

[Avatar4321]

The only way we could meet the requirements for 450,000 troops is by a draft. Given the way Chimpy & Co have mismanaged things to this point, I don't think that Americans will tolerate that anymore than we should a further expenditure of blood and treasure. The only logical alternative is to withdraw to the borders...to Kurdistan and the nations bordering Iraq and stand by with humanitarian aid as they sort this out for themselves.

And why on earth would we want to leave Iran and Saudi Arabia move into Iraq? You understand that if we withdrawal, that is exactly what will happen.

Why do you Bush haters fail to see that withdrawaling the troops will lead to regional conflicts??

 

[Bry]

And why on earth would we want to leave Iran and Saudi Arabia move into Iraq? You understand that if we withdrawal, that is exactly what will happen.

Why do you Bush haters fail to see that withdrawaling the troops will lead to regional conflicts??

so, if withdrawing troops = regional conflict, what was the US invasion of Iraq? With all due respect, please don't pretend that conflict avoidance or regional stability are high on Bush's list of motives. Noone has done more to undermine those values.

On the other hand, I'm willing to entertain the notion that you seem to suggest here that the US as an offending nation is under a moral obligation to steer the course come what may, they being the sole responsibles for this mess. They should probably atone for their crimes by putting still more of their soldiers into harms way without any hope for bettering the situation.

May I suggest, however, that there is a faster and more efficient means to atonement? Bush personally randomly selecting about 3000 US troops and ritually sacrificing them one at a time, all the while begging for the world's forgiveness for our rash acts would probably go a lot farther toward calming tensions than a pithy troop build up, and we'd probably have a lower total US body count at the end of the day.

A bit masochistic for my taste, though.

So when exactly do you think we can declare Iraq officially out of harms way, safe from the evil Iranians and Saudis? What set of circumstances could be deemed sufficient? Could it be, I don't know, say, a permanent US presence? Or were you hoping the Sunis, Chi'as and Kurds, the torturers and the tortured, the murderers and the victims from each of these groups, would some day come together as one nation and work together under the same flag to provide for their own defense against potential Iranian and Saudi invaders that most of them, in one direction or another, would probably welcome with glee?

And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I'd still rather have lunch with him than with Kerry. I just think he's about the worst president our country has ever seen.

 

[trobinett]

so, if withdrawing troops = regional conflict, what was the US invasion of Iraq? With all due respect, please don't pretend that conflict avoidance or regional stability are high on Bush's list of motives. Noone has done more to undermine those values.

On the other hand, I'm willing to entertain the notion that you seem to suggest here that the US as an offending nation is under a moral obligation to steer the course come what may, they being the sole responsibles for this mess. They should probably atone for their crimes by putting still more of their soldiers into harms way without any hope for bettering the situation.

May I suggest, however, that there is a faster and more efficient means to atonement? Bush personally randomly selecting about 3000 US troops and ritually sacrificing them one at a time, all the while begging for the world's forgiveness for our rash acts would probably go a lot farther toward calming tensions than a pithy troop build up, and we'd probably have a lower total US body count at the end of the day.

A bit masochistic for my taste, though.

So when exactly do you think we can declare Iraq officially out of harms way, safe from the evil Iranians and Saudis? What set of circumstances could be deemed sufficient? Could it be, I don't know, say, a permanent US presence? Or were you hoping the Sunis, Chi'as and Kurds, the torturers and the tortured, the murderers and the victims from each of these groups, would some day come together as one nation and work together under the same flag to provide for their own defense against potential Iranian and Saudi invaders that most of them, in one direction or another, would probably welcome with glee?

And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I'd still rather have lunch with him than with Kerry. I just think he's about the worst president our country has ever seen.

Nawww, really?

Couldn't of figured THAT out by your posts.

I'd be curious to hear what your opinion is of the Peanut farmer, you know, Jimmy the FU Carter.

The current President has been saddled with the mistakes, and the missteps of the administrations that preceded him, yes, including his father.

So, to lay the blame for what is happening in the middle east at GWB feet, is VERY near sighted, and VERY uninformed.

Comments?

 

[Bry]

You bet Trobs.

I didn't "lay the blame for what is happening in the middle east" at the feet of GWB, though I do think he is entirely to blame for all immediate results stemming from this stupid and unjustifiable invasion and occupation of Iraq.

If you're feeling hurt because I said that W Bush was the worst when perhaps Reagan or GBsr. really deserve the prize, well, get over it. It's a tough competition, I agree, but for me, W takes the cake.


Great men are measured by what they are able to do with what they are given. Inferior men like W too. Calling someone near-sighted and uninformed simply because they offer criticism of W is, well, near-sighted and uninformed, no matter how many capitalized "very"s you sprinkle in.

W has left the world dramatically less stable and less secure than when he found it, has dragged the cred of the US to all time lows, has gleefully made tatters of any basis for international agreement or law by exempting the US from any and all of its requirements, he has done it by himself (with his rogues gallery team of advisers, it's difficult to say who's really responsible, but since he's the man in the oval office, he gets to take all the responsibility), and IMHO he has done all that more completely and with greater arrogance than any other president. (I don't like his domestic policies either, as he has made more concessions to the religious right than any of his predecessors and I don't like those slimy freaks touching my civil liberties. But that's food for a different thread.)

And I don't need to go back to the British protectorates and the creation of Israel to make those points, even if all of the woes of the middle east can be traced back at least that far.

If beyond insults you would like to actually offer a more constructive argument for why W is not the worst president in the history of the US, I promise to have an open mind about it, though I must admit that if your argument is limited to discussing why Carter or any other was in fact even worse, I'd suggest we're more in agreement than it appears at first glance. Who was or is the worst is a matter of subtle opinion, but I should think at the very least that he deserves consideration among the elite candidates for badness. On the other hand, a defence of the current prez. as, contrary to public and expert opinion, actually being good would be impressive. Come on then, lift the veil from my eyes and educate me.

Cheers!

 

[red states rule]

British Newspaper Headline: Anti-Americanism in Europe ‘Helps Al-Qa’eda’
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 8, 2007 - 19:44.
Just imagine if you opened up tomorrow’s paper and saw a headline “Anti-Americanism ‘Helps Al-Qa’eda.’” Would have to be the Washington Times, or the New York Post, right?

Well, The Daily Telegraph ran a story Thursday entitled “Anti-Americanism in Europe ‘Helps Al-Qa’eda,’” and frankly, the American media along with the politicians they so revere could learn how a strong U.S. ally feels about slamming Uncle Sam in public (emphasis mine throughout):

Anti-American feeling in Europe is playing into the hands of al-Qa'eda and unwittingly encouraging terrorism, Australia's foreign minister said today.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Alexander Downer urged European politicians to weigh the consequences of their words before they "leap out there and attack America".

Not exactly a popular philosophy here in America, is it? The Telegraph continued:

Mr Downer gave warning that criticism of America's conduct in Iraq could – inadvertently – provide an incentive for terrorist attacks.

"People in the West, and not only in Europe, blame America for a suicide bomber in a market in Baghdad," he said.

"That only encourages more horrific behaviour. Every time there is an atrocity committed, it is implicitly America's fault, so why not commit some more atrocities and put even more pressure on America?"

Makes sense, right? So why don’t people on the left in this country see what a foreign minister from Australia does? Regardless, the piece continued:

Mr Downer added: "The al-Qa'eda leadership has said on many occasions that more than 50 per cent of the battle is a battle in the media. The more you can get media denigration of America, the more that the war against terrorism is seen to be an indictment of America, the better for those who started this war."

Speaking during a visit to London, Mr Downer, who has served as Australia's foreign minister for almost 11 years, said that European critics of Washington were not aiming to help terrorists, but this could be the unintentional consequence of their words.

"It's very rude to say these people want to help al-Qa'eda. They don't. But obviously America's enemies take comfort from continual attacks on America by America's friends," he said. "Before you leap out there and vigorously attack America, think about what you're saying and the consequences of what you're saying."

Seems like sound advice that many on Capitol Hill and in pressrooms across our nation should heed.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10714

 

[trobinett]

You bet Trobs.

I didn't "lay the blame for what is happening in the middle east" at the feet of GWB, though I do think he is entirely to blame for all immediate results stemming from this stupid and unjustifiable invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"I didn't lay the blame", "though I do think he is entirely to blame". Come on Bry, you can't have it both ways, wait, your a liberal, sure you can.

If you're feeling hurt because I said that W Bush was the worst when perhaps Reagan or GBsr. really deserve the prize, well, get over it. It's a tough competition, I agree, but for me, W takes the cake.

Bry, please, its really not about MY feelings, its about the President, and how you interpret his actions. There is no prize being given away here, and the last I checked there was no competition. This is a serious business, and our countries future, and the future of many others depend greatly on the actions, and support that our President gets in the upcoming months and years. This constant "arm chair quarterbacking" serves no purpose, but to weaken the administration's efforts to bring security to this country. Try to be just a little more mature.

W has left the world dramatically less stable and less secure than when he found it, has dragged the cred of the US to all time lows, has gleefully made tatters of any basis for international agreement or law by exempting the US from any and all of its requirements, he has done it by himself (with his rogues gallery team of advisers, it's difficult to say who's really responsible, but since he's the man in the oval office, he gets to take all the responsibility),

We completly disagree on this point Bry. In fact, most Americans would also disagree with you. The current administration has had a lot of "catching up" to do, do make up for the lack of proper security, and intell by the former administration.

As a side bar, our President ISN'T responsible for the rest of the world, his responsibility is to the United States.

Of course "others" would gleefully discredit the Current administration, and try to make allegations, that would further hamper our Presidents efforts on our behalf around the world. A good reason why we shouldn 't worry about helping others, for they show their appreciation in these ways.


And I don't need to go back to the British protectorates and the creation of Israel to make those points, even if all of the woes of the middle east can be traced back at least that far.

If beyond insults you would like to actually offer a more constructive argument for why W is not the worst president in the history of the US, I promise to have an open mind about it,

I seriously doubt it, but I would point out, that I was responding to YOUR post, and certainly could find NOTHING in it, that one could consider constructive.

Worst is but a label, a projection if you will, of ones point of view, and basic beliefs, so trying to assign a level to such a statement, and rate administration would be of little value, wouldn 't you agree?

though I must admit that if your argument is limited to discussing why Carter or any other was in fact even worse, I'd suggest we're more in agreement than it appears at first glance. Who was or is the worst is a matter of subtle opinion, but I should think at the very least that he deserves consideration among the elite candidates for badness. On the other hand, a defence of the current prez. as, contrary to public and expert opinion, actually being good would be impressive. Come on then, lift the veil from my eyes and educate me.

Cheers!

I would enjoy reading this "expert opinion", and who YOU assign that label to.

While I'm not posting on this board to impress anyone, I doubt the "veil" that covers your eyes can be lifted.

 

[Bry]

To the mature folks...

I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you. After all, I don't think it's a particularly small difference. But it's probably a matter of symantics. From your first response to my first post, I thought you had ascribed to me the former of the two. ("lay the blame for what is happening in the middle east") but in reality I was suggesting the later ("I do think he is entirely to blame for all immediate results stemming from this stupid and unjustifiable invasion and occupation of Iraq.") No two ways about it, but I see you're happy to take even the flimsiest of excuses to play the "oh yeah, you're a liberal" card. Is that what you call maturity?

and...

Bry, please, its really not about MY feelings, its about the President, and how you interpret his actions. There is no prize being given away here, and the last I checked there was no competition. This is a serious business, and our countries future, and the future of many others depend greatly on the actions, and support that our President gets in the upcoming months and years. This constant "arm chair quarterbacking" serves no purpose, but to weaken the administration's efforts to bring security to this country. Try to be just a little more mature.

so... you have only to recommend that we give our undying and uncritical support to the president because he is the president, because our dear leader surely has our best interest at heart. I suppose you were giving Clinton and Jimmy the FU Carter the same benefit of the doubt in their respective turns at the wheel? Surprise me. Or is it only your boys who make "efforts to bring security to this country?"

I do not agree that all attempts at "bringing security" are equal. I do not believe it is the role of citizens of a democracy to remain steadfastly supportive or even quiet in the face of disasterous and inept leadership. Forgive me my flippant language of prizes and contests, but don't mistake bitter cynicism for a lack of seriousness.

and...

We completly disagree on this point Bry. In fact, most Americans would also disagree with you. The current administration has had a lot of "catching up" to do, do make up for the lack of proper security, and intell by the former administration.

By most Americans, you mean the 30-odd percent of Americans that approve of the handling of the war in Iraq? Clinton, GeorgeSr. et al made the W-team constantly draw the non-existant line between 9/11 and Iraq? Ex prezes made them distort the inconclusive info they had on WMDs and nukes? My grandmother didn't send W her Christmas fruit cake after he was handed the election in 2000? Of course, the responsibility for what has happened in Iraq belongs to anyone but W. Is that what you're trying to convince me of?

and...

As a side bar, our President ISN'T responsible for the rest of the world, his responsibility is to the United States. Of course "others" would gleefully discredit the Current administration, and try to make allegations, that would further hamper our Presidents efforts on our behalf around the world. A good reason why we shouldn 't worry about helping others, for they show their appreciation in these ways.

To start with, the world is a thoroughly plural place, and if you're going to start referencing "others" you should have the courtesy to let your readers know which "others" you are referring to. Or are you just lumping the entire world into the "others" box and having done with it? Or is "others" just anyone who looks at Iraq and fails to see W for the loving, tender and helpful man that you seem to think he is?...

I would argue that it is in our best interest to respect international agreements and treaties rather than throwing them out as soon as they are felt to be a bit inconvenient.

and...

I seriously doubt [your openmindedness] but I would point out, that I was responding to YOUR post, and certainly could find NOTHING in it, that one could consider constructive.

I remain, openmindedly awaiting your list of things W has done right. My post explicitly seconded BPs outline for a phased withdraw. I'm sorry if my constructivness falls short of unquestioning dog-like admiration for W.

and...

Worst is but a label, a projection if you will, of ones point of view, and basic beliefs, so trying to assign a level to such a statement, and rate administration would be of little value, wouldn 't you agree?

I see you're more than happy to pick up MORAL RELATIVISM when it suits you and run with it! I thought that was a lib trick...

No matter. I'm not a relativist. I just don't take my morals from a fairy tale. I think things can be evaluated objectively and determined to be bad, as for example when an action achieves the exact opposite of its announced objectives. I believe W meets the criteria which I think most rational beings might reasonably set for "bad" (without even having to refer to holy books or shamen). I'm still waiting for you to show me the error of my ways. As for the value of being able to recognize good from bad, I hold that to be self-evident. A bad recognized is a bad we may avoid in the future.

and finally...

I would enjoy reading this "expert opinion", and who YOU assign that label to.

I'm thinking you wouldn't. You're just saying that as a rhetorical device. Is there anyone in the world anywhere who doesn't look at Iraq and at least feel a cold shadow of doubt? Is there anyone who can look at this crying shame and not recognize it as wrong? Sorry, I mean anyone but Glockmail who purports to thinking they're just worthless muzzies to begin with. Even the Dems know their recent victory in congress was through little merit of their own. W opened this Pandorra's Box, and it was like he had no idea what would come out.

His father was smarter, better, a different class of man all together, and I mean that in the most absolutist way.

 

[trobinett]

To the mature folks...

Aww, just couldn't pass on a little dig could you Bry?

I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you.

It wasn't "lost" on me Bry, it just didn't make much sense.

After all, I don't think it's a particularly small difference. But it's probably a matter of semantics. From your first response to my first post, I thought you had ascribed to me the former of the two. ("lay the blame for what is happening in the middle east") but in reality I was suggesting the later ("I do think he is entirely to blame for all immediate results stemming from this stupid and unjustifiable invasion and occupation of Iraq.") No two ways about it, but I see you're happy to take even the flimsiest of excuses to play the "oh yeah, you're a liberal" card. Is that what you call maturity?

Semantics, "lay the blame", "unjustifiable", "liberal card", "maturity", you can say this and keep a straight face?

I can see having a discussion with you is going to a challenge.

Bry, call it what you will, cause I know you will anyway, but GWB is hands and shoulders better than most that has come before him. He at least is willing, and has shown by his actions, to take decisive action to insure our safety. Yes, I'm even talking about YOUR safety, and ability to berate, and undermine all that is being done on your behalf, irregardless of you desire to recognize that fact or not.

so... you have only to recommend that we give our undying and uncritical support to the president because he is the president, because our dear leader surely has our best interest at heart.

Yes, and that would be in opposition to your undying hate, and "hate Bush" no matter what he says or does stance, cause he is the Republican President. I think BOTH our agenda's have been exposed.

I suppose you were giving Clinton and Jimmy the FU Carter the same benefit of the doubt in their respective turns at the wheel? Surprise me. Or is it only your boys who make "efforts to bring security to this country?"

Surely you jest Bry? Neither of those men, and I'm using the term in its most loosely defined way, have a clue, as to what is security, or what is best for this country.

I do not agree that all attempts at "bringing security" are equal. I do not believe it is the role of citizens of a democracy to remain steadfastly supportive or even quiet in the face of disastrous and inept leadership. Forgive me my flippant language of prizes and contests, but don't mistake bitter cynicism for a lack of seriousness.

Neither do I Bry, you can disagree, yet not undermine the policy's of your country, can you grasp the difference?

GWB's leadership has neither been disastrous, nor inept, and if YOU think so, please, feel free to support those feelings with supportive links, or material.

Bitter cynicism is the cross that the liberal left seems to have adopted for their mascot, if its not deserved, please, set me straight.

By most Americans, you mean the 30-odd percent of Americans that approve of the handling of the war in Iraq?

Twist, and spin statistics anyway you wish Bry, at the end of the day, MOST Americans want their safety, and freedoms preserved. THIS administration is doing just that thing.

It(polls)all depend on how the questions are worded, and how the answers are assigned.

the world is a thoroughly plural place, and if you're going to start referencing "others" you should have the courtesy to let your readers know which "others" you are referring to. Or are you just lumping the entire world into the "others" box and having done with it? Or is "others" just anyone who looks at Iraq and fails to see W for the loving, tender and helpful man that you seem to think he is?...

The latter Bry, just deal with it, OK?

I would argue that it is in our best interest to respect international agreements and treaties rather than throwing them out as soon as they are felt to be a bit inconvenient.

The true internationalist, congratulation Bry!

I don't subscribe to letting others(attach your own definition)direct the future of our country. And, I'll tell you why. Cause it won't be in OUR best interest, but then YOU knew that, didn't you?

I remain, openmindedly awaiting your list of things W has done right. My post explicitly seconded BPs outline for a phased withdraw. I'm sorry if my constructivness falls short of unquestioning dog-like admiration for W.

Open mindedly, that's rich, you brought a large smile to my face, thanks Bry!

I see you're more than happy to pick up MORAL RELATIVISM when it suits you and run with it! I thought that was a lib trick...

For once your right, it IS a lib trick, one they use on a constant basis. One only needs reference this thread, and YOUR posts.

No matter. I'm not a relativist. I just don't take my morals from a fairy tale. I think things can be evaluated objectively and determined to be bad, as for example when an action achieves the exact opposite of its announced objectives. I believe W meets the criteria which I think most rational beings might reasonably set for "bad" (without even having to refer to holy books or shamen). I'm still waiting for you to show me the error of my ways. As for the value of being able to recognize good from bad, I hold that to be self-evident. A bad recognized is a bad we may avoid in the future.

Some statement Bry, exactly what were you trying to say? Sounds like so much spin, and liberal double talk.

I would NEVER presume to try and show one so entrenched in the talking points of the left, that there is ANOTHER way. Once one has closed their minds to the freedom of choice, then no amount of persuasion will work to alter their ways.

Is there anyone in the world anywhere who doesn't look at Iraq and at least feel a cold shadow of doubt?

Well, ME for starters. I'm sure you could add a hundred million more if THAT would make a difference to you.

Is there anyone who can look at this crying shame and not recognize it as wrong?

Many Bry, and if it weren't for the crying of the left, there would be more.

His father was smarter, better, a different class of man all together, and I mean that in the most absolutist way.

Taken with the same truthfulness, and straightforwardness, that it was given with.

 

[maineman]

Quote:
I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you.

It wasn't "lost" on me Bry, it just didn't make much sense.


If you cannot see the difference between the entire middle east and "post-invasion Iraq", why, pray tell, are you even IN this discussion?

 

[Annie]

Quote:
I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you.

It wasn't "lost" on me Bry, it just didn't make much sense.


If you cannot see the difference between the entire middle east and "post-invasion Iraq", why, pray tell, are you even IN this discussion?

and I wouldn't think you would be unable to see that W is NOT responsible for EVERYTHING in post-invasion Iraq, for good or evil. The military has some kudos here, and the Iraqis themselves have some blame coming, no?

 

[maineman]

and I wouldn't think you would be unable to see that W is NOT responsible for EVERYTHING in post-invasion Iraq, for good or evil. The military has some kudos here, and the Iraqis themselves have some blame coming, no?

where DOES the buck stop in this administration? If Harry Truman (or Ike, for that matter) had gotten us into this debacle, I am confident he would not be trying to parse and distribute blame away from the oval office like you are doing.

 

[Annie]

where DOES the buck stop in this administration? If Harry Truman (or Ike, for that matter) had gotten us into this debacle, I am confident he would not be trying to parse and distribute blame away from the oval office like you are doing.

but I'm not W, of which I'm sure we are all grateful.

 

[maineman]

but I'm not W, of which I'm sure we are all grateful.

regardless, the buck has never once stopped on his desk in the six years he has been in office.

 

[Annie]

regardless, the buck has never once stopped on his desk in the six years he has been in office.

I disagree, but you knew I would. I don't think his inabilty to accept responsibility is the problem. His penchant for secrecy and the inevitable wave of leaks are though. Clinton at least put out false stories and spun like no ones business, W tries to do a Nixon, it didn't work out well the first time.

 

[maineman]

I disagree, but you knew I would. I don't think his inabilty to accept responsibility is the problem. His penchant for secrecy and the inevitable wave of leaks are though. Clinton at least put out false stories and spun like no ones business, W tries to do a Nixon, it didn't work out well the first time.

I guess there is a subtle but profound difference between "accepting responsibility" and "admitting your made a mistake"

 

[Annie]

I guess there is a subtle but profound difference between "accepting responsibility" and "admitting your made a mistake"

I think that's one of those things that's always hard for any executive. You have to trust the info before you and sometimes it's just wrong. So when you say, "It's my fault", people recognize you are choking, because you don't really think that, though the responsibilty is there.

 

[trobinett]

Quote:
I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you.

It wasn't "lost" on me Bry, it just didn't make much sense.


If you cannot see the difference between the entire middle east and "post-invasion Iraq", why, pray tell, are you even IN this discussion?

Excuse me!

I'm not the one having any trouble with this discussion maineman.

Take your "liberal colored glasses" off, then reread Bry's statement.

If you still think it makes sense, then you are beyond understanding even the most basic comparisons of concepts.

 

[Bry]

On the small stuff, Trobs, I'll say simply that insulting people you disagree with shows your own character and ability more than the character and ability of the people you insult.

For the sake of clarity, I’ll summarize what I understand of your points, and respond.

1. This president deserves respect and approval because he's doing things that make sense to you. You go on to indicate a difference between disagreeing with the president and somehow undermining the nation’s policies. This seems to be your main disagreement with what I have posted in this thread; you think that I am somehow undermining our country’s interests.

In response…

Firstly, I don’t understand the small line you indicate between disagreeing with the administration and undermining national security. I am surprised and confused because you seem to suggest that what I’m writing in my posts in this forum is undermining national security, and not simple disagreement. Though you weren’t very clear on this point, I suppose that the difference between disagreeing and undermining national security lies either in the public-ness of the disagreement, in the tone of the disagreement, in the content of the disagreement or some combination of the three.

Secondly, and what is truly surprising, is that you only distinguish between disagreement and undermining national security with regard to George W. Bush. Other presidents may be openly criticised, vilified, and their manhood can be called into question (your words: “Neither of those men, [Clinton and Carter] and I'm using the term in its most loosely defined way, have a clue, as to what is security, or what is best for this country.&#8221. Your words about other presidents are public, disrespectful, and unambiguous. In other words, what you say undermines national security. Doesn’t that present a double standard?

Let me be clear: I think you have every right to criticise Clinton and Carter, without anyone questioning your patriotism. I also think you owe the same respect to me.


2. The main characteristic of W’s policy which distinguishes it from those of other presidents is that W, in your words, is "willing, and has shown by his actions, to take decisive action to insure our safety." He has rightly disregarded international treaties and agreements in the process. Such treaties, you say, “ won't be in OUR best interest.”


In response…

Yes, Bush acts decisively, in the same way that a playground bully acts decisively. He applies whatever rules he likes to everyone else, but exempts himself from any external control. The question is: Is such action in his (or our) best interest?

As expected, in his most recent State of the Union address, Bush talked about the war on terror, and talked of Iraq as part of that war. And he implied, again, a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Now, apart from the fact that no connection between 9/11 and Iraq has ever been demonstrated, the question should be: is the war in Iraq helping our efforts against terrorism?

And, as I mentioned before, the experts for the most part agree. The National Intelligence Council’s report “Mapping the Global Future”, for example, is quite clear: Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism and terrorists, and it is a breeding ground of the US’s own making (that is to say, no such breeding ground existed before the invasion.) The stated objective of the Iraq invasion and occupation is combating terror, but the end result is multiplying the terror threat. By any definition, a clear sign of a failed policy.

It is equally clear that most of the violence that we have seen in Iraq these last few years since Bush declared victory from a carrier deck was completely unforeseen. Failure to predict problems and provide for contingencies: a clear sign of a failed policy.

And in the process of failing miserably, Bush has exempted himself from any international treaty or agreement that he has found inconvenient, raising alarms even from our closest allies in NATO. He has single-handedly isolated the US in the world. We have seen the rise throughout South America of leftist governments whose bread and butter is anti-US rhetoric. Criticising the US gets people elected in South America, and it damn near happened as far north as Mexico. Why has anti-US rhetoric become so popular in South America and the rest of the world? Because nobody likes a bully.

We are in a catch-22: no matter which direction we go from here, things will only get worse. If we abandon Iraq to its luck, there will be civil war and Iraq will effectively have been converted into the greatest terrorist training ground on the planet. If we stay, at what cost? Is there any end to the loss of life and tax dollar? (not to mention international reputation&#8230

For me, something like the staged withdrawal that BP recommended to start this thread is the best (I mean least worst) way forward. But to be honest, I am ambivalent about this solution. As I indicated above, there doesn't seem to be any direction forward that gives us a positive result. What I do have clear is who got us into this mess and by what means.