To the extent Bush can point to an honest (though IMO somewhat incompetent) failure of US intelligence, and not cherry picked or manipulated intelligence, this may be the one area where he is somewhat justified in doing so.
Saddam had worked hard to convince everyone that the had WMDs. There have been several stories that have come out over the last few years about the extent of this three card monte disinformation shuffle and the bluffs he quite successfully implemented. Even those in his inner circle were convinced he had *something * hidden away.
The main rationale for this at the time was not to deter the US, which he never imagined as being a real invasion threat, but to maintain his standing as a threat and power to his potential adversaries in the region.
If someone had taken the time to unravel this elaborate web of deceptions they would have seen there was less there than met the eye (and some intelligence did mention this as a real world possibility) but for someone with an impulsive inclination to take him on, and not inclined to parse the fine details or look beyond the surface, it was bluff that worked all too well.
The problem was that this eager and impulsive person was the President of the United States whose aggressive attitudes WRT to Saddam were buttressed by others with various MENA (Middle East North African) agendas of their own.
There are so many players in this debacle, and it almost reads like some wild assed, speculative work of fiction that would never happen in the real world. One day someone is going to write a comprehensive history of all this and I’ll be first in line to buy that book.
As incompetent as the process may have been that got us to this point (and that’s my main gripe with Bush on this issue) I don’t think there’s ever going to be a point where you can point to a person or group and say definitively.
The problem is that I don’t thing anybody reallyknew what was up with Iraq’s WMD status other than Saddam himself. At best your could accuse someone of filtering and cherry picking intelligence, but whether this rises to the level of a prosecutable offense I have no idea. I doubt anyone will ever go to jail over the issue of how the intelligence was gamed in the build up to the occupation of Iraq.
True enough, but not true enough to absolve them. They caved, to a large degree, with the prominent exception of our own Sen. Wellstone, who had the stones to stand up on his hind legs and bark truth to power. Its true enough that they were dependent upon intelligence from executive sources, but there were enough hints, there were sufficient reasons for caution, reasons to demand accountability. Our representatives failed us, they failed to take the unpopular stand.
Not as culpable as those who engineered this disgrace, to be sure. But a share of the blame lies with them, as well.
I’d suggest something like this, which, I would add, has the enormous added benefit of bringing some of the opposition onto your side:
Dear Congressman,
I am writing to express my strong insistence that you do everything you can to get our troops home from Iraq. Because the sooner they are home, the sooner the reports of more of them dying will stop.
Whether we should have sent out troops to Iraq in the first place is now beside the point. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the President did not have an agenda for going into Iraq prior to 9/11. Let’s also assume that he did not seek to mislead the American people and that based on the best information he had at the time the case for going to war was a good one. That was the past.
Now it is 2005, and the information set we have now is completely different than it was two and a half years ago.
There are no WMD to be concerned with. Saddam, a truly evil despot, is no longer ruling over his people with an iron fist. The people in Iraq have not welcomed us with rose petals, or with the open arms of the French people as we ousted the Germans from their country during WWII.
It is clear that the insurgency is not disheartened by our overwhelming strength, or the rate at which we kill and capture their members. Their estimation of victory is not to win the war, but to win each small battle. And every time they can convince a member to blow himself up and take either Coalition soldiers or innocent Iraqi civilians with them, they chalk it up as a victory. It should be painfully evident by now that being able to stop such actions by individuals is unrealistic in the extreme. Hopefully, over 2,000 dead servicemen and -women have taught us that much.
It has also become evident that our continued presence in Iraq is not deterring terrorists or causing their numbers to diminish. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Our presence has inflamed opposition sentiment and emboldened them to kill as many soldiers and innocents as they can. Our presence has also become a magnet for terrorists from neighboring countries, not to mention an effective recruitment tool for the terrorists to swell in numbers and prolong their insurgency.
So, BASED ON THE FACTS AS THEY NOW ARE, I must insist that you do the wise thing and oppose our continued involvement in that war at every turn. I insist that you use the position that we entrusted you with and use every vote to stop or withdraw funding for it, and to introduce legislation that will make it harder for the administration to continue our futile efforts.
I understand that speaking out against a war can, politically, be a difficult thing for a congressman to do. But that is not the issue now. The issue now, is how long will we continue down a road that we know to be a dead end?
No one should look down upon the U.S. for the noble intentions many of us had regarding Iraq. It could have turned out differently. But it didn’t. It is incumbent upon us now to look at the current situation honestly and to act accordingly.
It seems that we owe the American people that much. We owe it to the Iraqis and the rest of the world. We owe it to the 2,000 young men and women in uniform that have lost their lives, and to the tens of thousands more who have lost limbs or who will otherwise have to carry the scars of war with them for as long as they live.
But most important, we owe it to the 130,000 U.S. and Coalition troops who are honorably serving their country and following orders that come, indirectly, from us. We owe it to them to not have them die for what is now clear to be a fantasy.
Wanting the best for our troops is not a partisan issue. And the best thing we could want for them is for them to remain among the living and the healthy.
So, I ask you—no, I insist—that you do everything in your power to bring our young men and women home immediately. Please know, that I am not alone in this sentiment. And if you cannot or do not respect the wishes of the people you represent, we will find someone who will.
Bring the troops home now. Regardless of what has transpired politically in the last few years, it is the wisest course of action for the current reality.
Sincerely,
John Doe
Anytown, USA
Or something like that. The point is that I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to show that to a returning soldier who had lost a limb. It doesn’t question the righteousness of the war or degrade his service or mock his loss. It simply is a call to make the wisest decision for RIGHT NOW. I think it would be more effective than all the anti-Bush-ant-war ranting because it is non-partisan. It would increase the odds of the troops actually being brought home. And that is the point, isn’t it. Yes it necessitates you don’t piss on Bush (about) the war. Only question is, is that price to high for the Bush haters.
I do not agree that the analogy is “crappy”, or even poor. Unless I’m mistaken, a great deal of U.S. military strategy is based maintaining overwhelming force. Because if you have it people or less likely to want to fuck with you. This seems like common sense. I don’t kow why you’re arguing with it.
To answer your question in a way you seem to prefer, I think the insurgents are moreemboldened when they see a fractured enemy. They want us out of Iraq. They are opushing us out. If they sense that there is a force that is pulling us out, as well, that I think encourages them to contiunue—or step up—those activities that have gotten the this far.
Th bombings in Jordan will, I think—HOPE—have a positive effect. That is, that more of the Muslim world will unite in oppostion to the terrorists. We will see.
They want something: power. Using force is one way to get it. Negotiation is another. The more futile using force looks, the more attactive negotiation becomes. I think the recent election in Iraq bodes well in this regard.
To recap, you said:
I answered:
You were comparing the consequences of the actions of someone from the extreme left with those of the President. The action of the President that unquestionably has resulted in death to out troops is his decision to send them into war. Consequently, your point seems to be that whoever sends the troops into war is most responsible for causing them harm (okay) and least supportive of them. And that is simply ridiculous.
It is a fact that some people do NOT support the troops. An organism with the ability to type who has posted in this thread has proven that to be true. The fact that so few have expressed outrage at his thinking leads me to believe that the minority he is in is probably larger than I, or you, might have believed. Or would like to believe.
You can pick a fight with whomever you like. But I would offer, just like the peace-loving moderate Muslims who keep silent as their religion is hijacked, those of any ideology who do not act to separate themselves from a disease-minded fringe does their own ideology a disservice.
No. But is there more I could have done? Yes. I, personally was not as engaged as I should have been. But I am willing to take some responsibility for that.
I’m not sure who you are referring to? If you mean those who had to fight initially, my sympathy needs to be applied on a case-for-case basis. I’m sure there were those, who ahd no desire to fight and to attempt to keep the country under the oppresive thumb of Saddam. They have my support. Other will doubt fall to the other end of the spectrum.
Thank you for the explanation. I think you are correct and that no one here as asserted that “all people on the left support the troops”. I was working under a general impression. If that offends you, so be it. But I know that the criticism that vocal opposition to the war is often—or sometimes—tied to no support for the troops is often screamed down with a similar generality: that those that support the war still support the troops. I guess it brings to light the problem with generalities.
I do not see any contradiction. Can you point them out. I just ask that you go by what I wrote and not what you might have inadvertently read into it.
Understood. I just ask that—especially in light of the reality oyu perceive of Bush staying in office—you weigh the potential benefit with the potential ill it might do. I would then ask that you give priority to the men and women that are currently in harm’s way. Reasonable?
What does Bush’s popularity matter at this pointy. He can’t be reelected. Cheney isn’t running. I think that it is easy for any congressman to ignore a large mass protest, especially when it is directed at someone else: The president. A more focused effort in their home districts I think is much more likely to force them to deal with the issue.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
“No matter how far you’ve gone down the wrong road, turn back.” It’s a Turkish proverb, and it applies.
magellan, when you say things like
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I much prefer having you around to hold up as a shining example of the hate-filled left. Please, stay healthy. In fact, if I were a wealthy person I’d give you your own radio show. The more people are aware that the extreme left is filled with such “progressive” thoughts the better it will be for everyone.
[QUOTE]
you are exaggerating to the point of a lie. A desire to see more US troops die is extremely rare on the left; it is as if I took an abortion-doctor murderer to be an example of the hate-filled right.
If you will reread you will notice that in both instances that “the left” was referred to, it was qualified. First with “hate-filled”, and then with"extreme". So where is the exaggeration and where is the lie?
Yes. We are in agreement that that kid walking to school has more “right to continued life” than a soldier who chose to isert himself into harm’s way. I think the U.S. military in general, and each soldier specifically, would agree as well, as they continually put themselves at great risk by tryiing to be very discrimnant in their exercises.
I’ve been “informed” that this is just a bold and evil lie, put forward by the America hating traitors. Even der Bush said in his Veterans Day speech that this is a lie (probably being spread by traitors and haters). Yeah right.
By which you imply, but do not actually state, that those who blame Bush (rightly!) for this disgrace have underhanded motives, that somehow our sincerity must be adjudged less than your own. It all lies in the coy definition of “Bush haters”, which you would like us to believe is that set of people who place their disdain for Bush above concern for our troops.
As demonstrated by this:
This did not suddenly occur to you, you have stated similar views before. You imply that you are dragged to accept the notion that such thinking as this is common to your rhetorical opponents. Such declarations of reluctance appears disingenuous when you seize upon such scant evidence with the eagerness of a starving dog on a poisoned pork chop.
ObL is undeniably an opponent of Bush policy, need I declare my hostility to his viewpoint on every occassion merely to protect your regard for me? Or worry that by failing to do so, I offer you to imply that my views and his coincide?
You have no special sanction to determine who my allies are, Red Shirt or no. By that same token, you have no such privilege to determine who’s views I need to publicly denounce in order to earn your regard, except for yourself.
Even amongst us who most definitely place the blame where it belongs, there remains considerable argument over the best course of action. I have relucatantly come to the opinion that our presence in Iraq does more harm than good, and have abandoned my previous “we broke it, we fix it” stance. Please note that such an argument does not even consider Bush’s culpability, it is not relevent.
We are left to conclude you would have us soften our denunciations of Bush’s failings for other reasons, and to guess what they might be.
Really. You mean “risks” like killing any within a hundred feet, killing people who are just getting out of cars, torturing people and raping children ? Those kinds of “risks” ?
I see no evidence that American soldiers even regard Iraqis as human, much less worry about killing them.
Okay, great. That’s one letter. Is a congressman going to change his position based on one letter? Of course not. He’s only going to do that when he sees that the weight of public opinion is turning against the war. How do I reach the mass of American voters, to make them see why this war is a mistake, and convince them to write their congressman?
It’s a crappy analogy because nothing that ever happens in a bar brawl is worth dying over. It’s a crappy analogy because backing down from a bar brawl doesn’t cost you anything except for maybe a loss of face. And it’s a crappy analogy because if my friend starts acting like an asshole in a bar and picking fights with people who haven’t done anything to him, I’m going to damn well let his idiot ass get stomped, in the hopes that next time we’re out in public, he doesn’t embarass me like that again. None of those situations are remotely comparable to Iraq.
That did not answer either of my questions. Not even remotely.
What on Earth do they have to negotiate with? We own their country. They don’t have a single thing that we can’t simply take.
Ridiculous is right. Where are you getting the idea that my criticisms of the way Bush has handled this war are in anyway comparable to how we’ve handled other wars in the past? I think George Bush is an awful president. Do you assume that I think all American presidents are awful? I think George Bush has not supported our troops; indeed, that he has been callously indifferent to their welfare and their lives in favor of his private interests and vendettas. Why on Earth are you assuming that I feel that way about every American president? Do you understand that, when I say Bush is the worst American president in living memory, it means that every other president has been better?
So who in this thread, precisely, are you accusing of secretly agreeing with Der Trihs? Please be specific: talk of silent majorities gives me painful stomach gas.
I reject the basic postulate of this statement. I don’t expect moderate Muslims to reject extremist Muslims with any greater fervor than any other civilized human. I don’t expect Polycarp to answer for Fred Phelps just because they’re both Christian, and I don’t expect you to answer for George Bush just because you’re both conservative. Don’t expect me to answer for Der Trihs just because we’re both liberal. This entire concept is infuriating to me, and strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Instead of debating your opposition honestly, you highlight the most extreme element among them and attack him as if he were representative of the whole. It’s bullshit. You have a problem with Der Trihs, open a pit thread about him. This isn’t that thread; don’t expect those responses to show up here.
Why do you assume that I haven’t already done that?
Bush is dangerous so long as he is in a leadership position. Right now, he’s massively unpopular. This limits his ability to lead: other politicians are unlikely to align themselves, lest those negative poll numbers start to rub off on themselves. Hammering on Bush’s flaws reduced his ability to lead. And if he can’t lead at all, he certainly can’t lead us into further misadventures like Iraq.
