DtC, Hey define the right thing.
**The overall problem adaher is how Bush is viewing his “doing the right thing”. By imposing it his way… not through any multilateral system or international law… the message he is sending is “THE US IS STRONG”. He is not sending the message that its “wrong to attack democracies”…or “Liberty is Good”. He is in fact making the UN weak… and the UN is one of the means to include these so called “rogue” nations into any sort of system. If they feel they have little to gain from diplomacy and international consensus then they will act “roguish”. Just showing off military hardware hardly makes for a brighter future.
**
On the contrary, they use the shield of the UN to pull their crap. There is a bloc of dictators at the UN who block any efforts to deal with them. If the UN was seriuos about preventing genocide and WMD proliferation, they could take actions short of war. Since they aren’t, that leaves nothing but unilateral or coalition action outside the UN. In the UN’s entire history, they’ve only approved two wars: the war to stop North Korea and the war to stop Iraq. And even in those cases it was a very near thing. The UN has never, EVER responded to a clear case of aggression with anything approaching near unanomous resolve. This is because dictators don’t want to be hindered, they only want to hinder the democracies, and because many democracies have commercial relationships with these dictators that make them reluctant to sponsor things like sanctions.
**Do notice that the guys you mentioned… Noriega, OBL and Saddam were US sponsored. Will the current allies become the Osama’s of the future ? Its no good “fixing” one thing and breaking a lot of others. Imagine a ObL from Pakistan ? With nukes ? AQ is small fry if you see it in the long term.
**
Well, no. Noriega was ours, no questioning that. OBL and Saddam were not. We had brief alliances of convenience with them, but they were both already established long before then. Might as well say we created Stalin because we were on his side in WWII.
**When Bush falls and I hope its sooner rather than later I hope another better one will take his place. The US and the world should be tough on terrorism and “rogue” states… but they should do so whilst building something bigger. **
As I’ve said, that’s impossible. And US foreign policy doesn’t change much from President to President. As I’ve pointed out, the last four straight Presidents did at least one regime change in a foreign nation. I imagine that President Dean or Clark will be no different. Clark pushed for regime change in Serbia, and Dean supported many previous US wars. He just disagrees on Iraq.
xtisme: Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. I’m not sure I understand why you LOL so much, though.
So… now that you’ve explained your “soap label” rant was against Diogenes, I guess that makes a bit more sense.
The timing of his visit may well tip the scales of our servicemen’s cynicism, especially when Mrs. Clinton is hard on the President’s heels.
So it was a temporary morale-boost for the troops, with the bonus of a political leg-up.
It misrepresented my beliefs and I am angry about it. I hope you’re not suggesting that just because Joe American is doing it, there’s no reason for me to fight it?
Again, since when does the Individual fail in this country?
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
eli: Give me a break. It’s like a shallow puddle.
So do you. Slut.
A family Thanksgiving, and a travel day, and there’s 200+ posts here before I even open GD.
I gotta agree with folks from John Mace to Sofa King that the liberal overreaction here to this visit is exactly that. (Dio’s in particular, but he wasn’t the only one.) IMNSHO, it was the right thing to do.
Regardless of what proportion of the troops over there think this is a worthwhile endeavor, and what proportion think we’re in a war we don’t know how to fight, it makes a real difference when the top guy shows up, thanks you for what you’ve done already, and tells you he’s behind you all the way.
I’m sure he also had cynical political motivations for the trip, but doing the right thing for the wrong reason isn’t really that big a sin, no matter what T.S. Eliot says.
There’s plenty of substantive stuff to attack Bush about, including what he said and did on the trip. (And I’ll get to this in another post.) But the trip itself? Aces.
I thought it was wonderful seeing all those images of the President visiting the wounded in local hospitals, for him to take the time out from his busy agenda to explain his policies to the newly liberated people of Iraq. I was particularly touched reading the transcript of the impromptu meeting he had with the elder Iraqi lady he found sitting bedside of her only remaining son. As heartbreaking as it was to read about her story of horrible grief – in case you missed it, she’d lost four other relatives to The Liberation, including her husband, another son and a granddaughter – it was at least equally uplifting to read Mr Bush’s sincere efforts to comfort the distraught woman. How this was all going to turn out for the best, that in a few short years, with the added benefit of perspective, she’d be thanking him for having made such a tough decision. That fatherless children and widows would forget their physical and psychological wounds and come to see the Greater Good that is America.
I tell you, I almost felt like I was bedside with Mr Bush at the Iraqi hospital – so much so that I was tempted to applaud along with the rest of the Iraqi’s in that particularly somber ward. Alas, I was so choked-up I only managed a few tears of my own. And if Mr Bush can bring such hope to such dismal moments, I am sure Iraq’s future is a bright one. A beacon of democracy that will be the envy of the MENA region and example for all. Surely Iraqi’s will be forever endebted to America in general and Mr Bush in particular. The ones left alive that is.
Talk about “winning hearts and minds,” that was some visit!
Yes Sir, well done indeed!
I’m at a bit of a loss, Red. Are you serving up a steaming helping of sarcasm with whooshtisheer sauce? Your reference to GeeDubya visiting Iraqi hospitals appears to be unique to you. Has my leg been pulled out of its socket, down the stairs and out into the traffic?
elucidator:
Red’s post drips with sarcasm like a pancake smothered in maple syrup. In other words, yes, Virginia, you’ve been whooshed.
First time for everything, I guess.
PS: Don’t bother thanking me. I kinda like being a smartass.
Your hair should be quite tousled too. A comb, I’ll let you borrow, but don’t even think of asking me to pay for the crutch.
Just doing my (international) duty and adding to the lore of Pious George The Second.
Hating America:
It does a body good?
It’s what’s for dinner?
All foreigners know about this country?
In lieu of critical thought?
Easier than fact checking?
Film at eleven?
We need a slogan.
If only there were other politicians visiting the troops for comparison. Perhaps then we could see how all this is partisan flatuspeak.
Good shout RedFury - What the f*ck does the C-C care about thousands of dead (but liberated) and injured Iraqis and their families. After all, it’s only their country. He’s there *soley *to boost the morale of the Army of Occupation and (given that they’re so entwined) his own standing at home. But, of course, I’m being churlish.
Besides, we all know the president doesn’t do hospitals.
Fwiw though, no question, whoever’s idea this visit was deserves credit, an absolute ‘no lose’ ploy for Bush. A big win.
Where are we now? Photo op with Queenie, Thaksgiving photo op with troops, feel-good vibe, on course for $200 million . . . Excellent start, the boy’s cooking.
elucidator, isn’t that Hanlon’s Razor you are referring to? Don’t know what “Lord Action” is a reference to, but it would be nice if they made what you quoted above, or “Hanlon’s Razor,” the 11th Commandment.
Hmm…pancakes…maple syrop. And no IHOP in my current country of residence.
Surely we can all agree that is a persuasive reason to invade, yes? I can’t wait! See, Beagle? I just loves me some American chickenhawk.
As for slogans, I humbly submit: “When any excuse will do.”
Well, gee, there was that woman from New York, Ms. Whatsername. Of course, she was only going to Afghanistan, wherein we transformed a nation ruled by religious fanatics blowing up statues into a nation ruled by warlord thugs who sell dope. Not much a risk visiting HunkyDoryville.
W Shoulda had her arrested as an enemy combatant and shipped to Gitmo for her divisive political grandstanding. The BALLS of that woman ! :mad:
Actually** kmg365** the mindless words of hate seen in this thread seems to follow the dictates of **Olim’s Razor **which states that…
** The decibel readings of the shrieks and animal screams of the political left will be directly proportional to the attaboy’s that the actions of the Great George W Bush receive from the Great American Public.**
—> (And that’s why Diogenes always says “fuck”.) <–
Sens. Clinton and Reed did, in fact, go to visit troops in both Baghdad and Kirkuk after visiting Afghanistan, and managed to meet a few Iraqis too.
Commentary about Iraqis’ views of Bush’s trip
I posted on this topic in the echoing thread, and here I am to repeat myself (and the other “liberal screechers”:
According to the TV news reports here, which were pretty much culled from US network new reports,
a) Air Force One approached Baghdad “dark”… supposedly that means without landing lights, or other forms of electronic identification.
b) Only a “handful” of personnel in Iraq knew of the imminent arrival of Air Force One… actually, the number quoted was “five people”.
Considering the area is still a combat zone, either the above actions were incredibly irresponsible, or the reports are bombastic B.S.
I can see the headlines…
Air Force One shot down by Friendly Fire over Baghdad
Overall, I’d say it was par for the course of this administration… grandstanding, PR exploitation of the grunts, going off half-cocked…
Basically, it was a “cowboy” political stunt, and the D.C. chick oughta be ashamed.
If only he’d used the Concorde, then Laura and the kids wouldn’t have been alone while W was puttering along with Condi in their baseball caps.
The day this guy does something dangerous to himself will be the day the Secret Service aren’t in the bathroom with him. The “right thing to do” is long past, and missed.
The next right thing to do is to bring them home for Christmas, instead of letting more kids die for nothing.
Re: Hanlon’s Razor. Could be. I had heard it as Lord Acton and contented myself with that, as he is well known source of pithy epigrams.
Yup, forget about even trying to fix anything in Iraq, pull 'em out by Christmas and leave the poor shlubs to fend for themselves with less infrastructure and stability than before. That’ll really make us heroes.