Here’s my prediction ten years on: Sam will be moaning that the war in Iraq could have been won, if only the course had been stayed a few years longer. Because whenever the facts don’t mesh with Sam’s imaginary world, Sam’s inclined to think that reality is wrong.
This, I think, is the type of reasoning that’s the key to answering the OP’s question about why Bush Republicans (and, e.g., Canadian Bush-Republican wannabes like Sam) are still Bush Republicans. Namely, because they are committed to the idea that Bush is doing the right thing and succeeding. You’re talking at cross-purposes to ask them “How bad would Bush’s failures and deceptions have to get before you’d give up on him?”, because their response is “What failures? What deceptions? He’s doing just fine.”
This response won’t change even in the case of policy outcomes that are not particularly fine, or not fine at all. Because the die-hard Bush supporters are committed to the notion that the outcomes are about as fine as we have any right to expect (even if the supporters themselves had higher expectations in the past), and will surely get much finer pretty soon.
No matter what problem or catastrophe may result from the Administration’s actions, the reaction you’ll get from the diehards will be some combination of the following:
- Realistically, it was inevitable anyway no matter what anybody did.
- The Administration’s actions were based on the best information available at the time, so if it was in fact a mistake it was one that anybody else would have made too.
- Anyway, it would certainly have turned out even worse than it did if we had been pursuing any different policy.
- Anyway, it will certainly turn out much worse in the future if we pursue any different policy now.
- The more resistance and enmity we provoke, the more that demonstrates that we’re doing the right thing.
There’s really no arguing with that kind of conviction.
Kimstu makes the point pretty well.
As the political scene is in America at the present, it’s unlikely there will be that many more Bush Republicans willing to switch sides than there will be Democrats who will vote Bush because they dislike Kerry so.
It’s likely that those that do not like their party’s candidate will simply sit out the election this year. If things continue on their present course, (note that I expect the economic recovery to falter by the end of summer) I bet Kerry winds up with a slight edge in actual numbers voting for him. Of course, that doesn’t translate to a win unless this happens consistently in key states
But there is a perfectly well understood way to argue with such a position. Explain how the policies in question are not quite as good as expected and then explain how your candidate’s policies would necessarily produce better results. The problem, is that Kerry is not able to do that. The Democrats are so focused on Bush bashing that they are unwilling or unable to present any sort of policy to fix what they call a mess with such hyperbole.
Seriously, what does Kerry propose to fix Iraq. If it was such a huge mistake, what is he going to do to fix it. If you answer is merely that he will try and get the UN more involved how is that a large enough policy shift to justify the rhetoric?
I think you right, Kinstu, many Bush supporters will not switch to Kerry for the reasons you mentioned. However, your characterization of those reasons is 180 degrees off. 
I remember this sort of irrational hatred of Clinton coming from the right a few years ago. It was embarassing then. Somehow, I feel different about it coming from the left. Odd that.
I love it… “So what would you do to get us out of the mess Bush got us into? Betcha can’t! Stumped you there, didn’t I? Ha ha!” 
Of course there will be targets. My point is that when the government is run by Iraqis, it gets harder for the insurgents to claim they are fighting an occupation. Instead, they are fighting Iraqis who are trying to rebuild their country.
Part of the problem here is that we all can’t even agree on the basic facts, perhaps because both sides are listening to only what they want to hear. When I hear opponents of the war claim that this is a popular uprising, and that Iraq is spiralling into civil war, and that the U.S. is hated by almost all Iraqis, and that they weren’t greeted as liberators, I just shake my head in wonder. Because my perception of what’s going on there is totally different.
Did you even read that link? It quotes some supporters of al-Sadr, the man bloody responsible for the uprising and perhaps even the bombing. It then quotes a professor from Baghdad University who doesn’t believe it, and a bunch of other people who don’t believe it. So based on finding some people on the street willing to utter a conspiracy theory, you’re willing to believe that this is widespread opinion? Hell, you can find people in Berkely who probably think the U.S. set off the bomb.
Andecdotal evidence sucks. How about we pay attention to real data. For instance, there were 17 elections recently in Shiite areas, and in NONE of them did an Islamic fundamentalist come anywhere close to winning. The winners were all people who want Iraq to be democratic with a secular government. al-Sadr himself, the guy responsible for all the latest violence, has very little support even among Shiites. He’s seen as a young upstart and rabble rouser who is claiming legitimacy only because of the status of his deceased father.
In fact, a lot of Iraqis fault the U.S. for not doing enough to crack the heads of al-Sadr’s minions and other thugs. A lot of the violence in Iraq is coming from criminals (Saddam emptied the jails just before the war) and foreign terrorists. Iraqis want these people dealt with.
And this is surprising? We want to put pressure on dictatorships to reform, and you’re suprised that the dictatorships don’t like it?
Yeah, and of course Mubarek would say that - he’s dead set against what’s going on in Iraq, because it’ll put pressure on his own country.
I’ve been trying to find a link to a poll done a while ago in the middle east which showed that public opinion in countries like Turkey and Jordan has actually improved since the start of the Iraq war. During the run-up to war public opinion plummeted in the Middle East. Now it’s almost back up to the levels seen in about 2001. Not quite, but almost. However, there are places where opinion of U.S. has gone up a lot. For example, the Kurdish regions in Turkey and Syria.
Of course it’s not all of them. But it’s a LOT. Unemployment in some of these countries is as high as 30-50%. They have young, angry populations without work. They are denied basic human rights, and live under extreme laws. They see their leaders living lives of fabulous wealth, and they have nothing. Their leaders have told them that it’s all the fault of the Jews and America, rather than their own backwards and despotic policies. So yes, there is a lot of rage, and a lot of hopelessness in the region. This needs to be fixed.
They DID. The Iraqi people celebrated wildly. They ran after American soldiers shouting “Bush! Bush!” The day of their liberation is now celebrated as a national holiday. There is no question that the war was seen as a liberation.
Now, of course, they are mad about different things. No one likes being occupied, and ‘liberator’ becomes ‘occupier’ pretty quickly unless the people can see a light at the end of the tunnel. The Bush Administration and the CPA have screwed a number of things up royally in the aftermath of the war, and there is a lot of resentment over it, but that’s now. A year ago, the people of Iraq most certainly saw the Americans as liberators. I don’t know how that can be beyond dispute. Even today, with all the screwups and violence, a plurality of Iraqis think the war was the right thing to do, and that includes the Sunni areas which actually had it pretty good under Saddam. Support for the war is still in the high 80’s in the Kurdish regions and not much lower in the southern Shiite areas.
ABC News Poll - A Better Life:
Some results of the poll (released yesterday):
**Was the U.S. Invasion Right?**
Yes No
All Iraqis: 48% 41%
Kurds: 87% 9%
**Did the war Liberate Iraq or Humiliate Iraqis?**
Liberate Humiliate
All Iraqis: 42% 41%
Kurds: 82% 11%
**Are attacks on coalition troops acceptable?**
Yes No
All Iraqis: 17% 78%
Kurds: 2% 96%
So even with all the violence that’s going on, and after being occupied for a year, a plurality of Iraqs STILL think the war was a war of liberation. Why don’t you?
And bear in mind that the grouping ‘Arabs’ includes the Sunnis. The Sunnis has a particular reason to dislike the war. They held all the power under Saddam, and got all the perks, despite being in the minority. If the ‘Arab’ vote separated out Shiite and Sunni, you’d see even higher support among the Shiites. It should not be surprising that the Sunnis are least happy. For example, Baghdad got most of the electrical power before the war. Now it’s shared evenly, so for a long time Baghdad had less electricity than it was used to, and the rest of the country got more.
But here are the really important numbers which would indicate what the future holds in Iraq (and how Iraqis will perceive the U.S. after the occupation ends)
**How things are going today:**
All North South Central Baghdad
Good 70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32
Does that suprise you? With all the stuff we hear on this board and elsewhere about how bad things are in Iraq, and how Iraqis were actually better off under Saddam (snort), look at those results! Overall, 70% of Iraqis think their lives are going well. That’s a huge number. I’m not sure you’d get a number that high if you took a similar poll in the United States. This bodes well for the future of Iraq if we can stabilize it.
**Compared to a year ago, before the war:**
All North South Central Baghdad
Better 56% 70% 63% 54% 46%
Same 23 15 21 22 31
Worse 19 13 13 23 23
By a 2-1 margin Iraqis think things are better today rather than worse. Imagine how they’ll feel once they have their own government and stability is restored.
**How they'll be a year from now:**
All North South Central Baghdad
Better 71% 83% 74% 70% 63%
Same 9 4 6 10 16
Worse 7 1 4 9 10
Look at the optimism! Almost all Iraqis now think they have a bright future. This is the most important question of the bunch, because it’s an indicator of what the upside is to a stable, democratic Iraq. It is also a good indicator of the lack of desire for a civil war or for animosity between the various ethnic groups in Iraq.
Other polls have shown that Iraq does not want an Islamic government, and it does not want to break apart into three states. Iraqis want to stay together and build a future. They are relatively happy now, and highly optimistic about their future.
If we succeed in Iraq and stabilize it and allow them to build a democracy of sorts, the payoff is HUGE. Once the occupation is over, you’re going to see public opinion of the U.S. in Iraq climb again. As a Democracy, they will trade with the west, invite investment from the west, and in general become more comfortable with the west. A free press is the best antidote against the poisonous lies of the old State media and the relentless anti-western spin of al-Jazeerah.
One of the reasons Iraq always made such a good candidate for regime change was because the population has such advantages when it comes to rejoining the free world. Iraqis are well educated and modern. Large areas of Iraq (the Kurdish and Shiite regions) were and are quite friendly towards the west. Maybe more so than in any other country in the Middle East.
Don’t get me wrong - it could all still go to hell. Primarily, if the U.S. listens to some on the left and cuts and runs. But if the entire free world gets behind this project and helps Iraqis struggle back onto their feet and build a wealthy democracy in the heart of the Middle East, it will have great repercussions for regime change elsewhere and for reforming the middle east.
One of the frustrations I have is that people on the left just aren’t listening to our arguments. No one said that Iraq was involved with al-Qaida… Not even the Bush administration, other than to point out that Abu Zarqawi was being sheltered in Iraq and he IS affiliated with al-Qaida. But certainly no one tried to claim that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
The argument is bigger than that, and more complex. Saddam wasn’t involved with al-Qaida, but he was a major troublemaker in the region and was cynically inflaming hatred of the U.S. and Israel for his own ends. He was paying Palestinian suicide bombers. He launched missiles at Israel during the Gulf war, despite the fact that Israel was not involved in any way. He was simply constantly stirring the hornet’s nest in the middle east. If there was to be any hope for reform, Saddam had to go.
And there have been big payoffs in the war on terror due to the fall of Saddam. For example, Libya caved in and is trying to reform like mad. Yes, yes, I know that negotiations were going on for a long time, but I believe the tipping point came with the Iraq war. And as a result of Libya turning over, we shook out the Pakistani scientist who was selling nuclear secrets all over the place. Documents found in Iraq have uncovered a huge scam within the U.N. in which Saddam was bribing officials in numerous countries to stand against the U.S. The invasion took away the playground of ansar al-Islam, which is affiliated with al-Qaida.
And, the U.S. military now has a base of operations in a friendly country where it can launch campaigns against the terrorists, and keep an eye on Syria and Iran. Plus, the U.S. could end the sanctions and the no-fly zones and pull its military presence out of Saudi Arabia. The presence of U.S. troops near Mecca and Medina was a very sore point among Muslims, and that’s now gone.
Going after terrorists with soldiers in the mountains of Afghanistan is a tactical battle, and an important one. Liberating Iraq was a Strategic battle. An analogy is that the U.S. first attacked in Africa when going after Germany.
I didn’t say this war was all-or-nothing. Tactical and Strategic battles need to be fought. The war on terror requires special forces, armies, police work, intelligence, diplomacy, and every other tool in the bag. No question.
And after the nest is gone, there are still going to be wasps. 100 years from now, there will still be terrorists. We can’t eliminate them all. What we CAN do is prevent rogue states from arming and sheltering them, and we can work towards improving the conditions in the world that breed them. Any idiot with a truck can load it full of fertilizer and diesel fuel and blow up a building. Even idiots in the U.S. do that. But what we need to stop are these large terror organizations that re trying to get their hands on nuclear and biological weapons and who can launch simultaneous attacks using hundreds or thousands of people. They are the only ones powerful enough to actually destroy our society. The lone nuts can do damage, but they can’t throw the west into recessions or kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time.
Gee, I dunno. I think I did pretty well, not being a psychic and all.
And there were. And even with a year of attacks and urban fighting, the number is still close to that number. Whereas some of the people on the anti-war side were claiming thousands and thousands of U.S. casualties.
Damned right they were. And even after a year of a fairly botched occupation, a plurality of Iraqis STILL sees the Americans as liberators.
I stand by this. It is free, and it is relatively peaceful. The violence we see on TV in Fallujah and Najaf masks the fact that in vast swaths of the country there is little to no violence and people are getting on with their lives. See the poll I linked above to see what the Iraqi people themselves think. They seem pretty happy, and pretty optimistic. I’d call that ‘real progress’.
Uh huh.
I blew it on the Hizbollah thing, but I predicted the fall of Libya. I’ll take that batting average.
But I may have just been a little early on predicting Hezbollah’s demise. I still think that conflict may be coming.
See, this is what I’m talking about. You no doubt chose to reprint those predictions because you see them as being wildly wrong. From my perspective, I’m actually amazed that I came as close as I did. Remember what YOUR side was predicting? Millions dying of starvation, the rise of the ‘Arab Street’, riots in the middle east, a siege of Baghdad that would kill tens of thousands, Iraqi oil fields burning for years, dams being blown up and flooding the south, yada yada yada.
There’s no hope for this debate. We can’t even agree on basic facts.
Here is a fuller presentation of the part of the poll that asks about the U.S. invasion, including the issue of the presence of coalition forces and including “Arabs” (i.e., non-Kurds) as well as just “All Iraqis” and “Kurds”:
**Was the U.S. Invasion Right?**
Yes No
All Iraqis: 48% 41%
Arabs: 40% 46%
Kurds: 87% 9%
**Did the war Liberate Iraq or Humiliate Iraqis?**
Liberate Humiliate
All Iraqis: 42% 41%
Arabs: 33% 48%
Kurds: 82% 11%
**Presence of coalition forces:**
Support Oppose
All Iraqis: 39% 51%
Arabs: 30% 60%
Kurds: 82% 12%
**Are attacks on coalition troops acceptable?**
Yes No
All Iraqis: 17% 78%
Arabs: 21% 74%
Kurds: 2% 96%
So, we see that, while a plurality of all Iraqis do think the invasion was right and are about split on the liberate/humiliate question, this is because of the presence of the Kurds…who of course have long been wanting liberation, I think even from the rest of Iraq. Among the Arabs, the plurality do not think the invasion was right (although it’s pretty close) and a stronger plurality…even a slight majority…feel it humiliated rather than liberated Iraq. Also, a majority of the Iraqis do not support the (continued, I assume) presence of coalition forces, with this feeling running at a rate of 2:1 against such support amongst the Arabs.
Kind of a mixed bag, I’d say.
As I said, if you broke the ‘Arabs’ out into Sunni and Shiite, a more complete picture would emerge. Just as the Kurds pull up the ‘all Iraqi’ numbers, the Sunnis pull down the ‘all Arabs’ numbers.
The surprising results from the poll are that the Iraqis actually think things are pretty good today, and an overwhelming majority think the future will be even better. You think they thought the same thing under Saddam?
Who would? No one wants to be occupied. But when Iraqis are asked WHEN the coalition forces should leave, most say that they should stay until a new government is ready and violence is under control.
It is, however, important to show Iraqis that this is not a perpetual occupation. That’s why Bush is sticking to the June 30 deadline, despite pressure by some in the U.S. to make him push it back. Whether the handover will be as complete as initially desired is another matter, but something has to happen that moves the Iraqi sovereignity forward.
I know it may not have crossed that mind of yours, but if Kerry does win, he will have to deal with Iraq, you know. It’s not like the slate gets wiped clean every four years or something.
Why in the heck would I give up on Bush, for a loser? …
*Federal Review … April 20, 2004 … *Bush’s sudden surge is also reflected in the Electoral Vote Prediction, where Bush leads Kerry 328 - 210. Of those, Bush has a lead of greater than 5% in states worth 243 electoral votes. That’s up from last week’s total of 198. One Hundred votes are in states where a candidate leads by a margin of less than 5%.
Well, that’s a win/win situation, Brutus. If I have learned anything from reading your posts, it is that any post-inauguration successes can be claimed by Kerry, but any worsening of the Iraq debacle can always be blamed on the previous administration.
But that’s my point. If you think foriegn relations are a mess (and that is not the rhetoric being used, the democrats are being far more viriolic than that) then you certainly must have an idea of how to fix it. Now I’m willing to accept that as a poster on a message board you may not have a concrete plan. That’s fine. But if you want me to vote for someone who belives that we made a colosal blunder in Iraq, then he damn well better have a very good idea how to fix it.
Ok, I was wrong. Perhaps the democrats do have a plan (of sorts) for dealing with Iraq.
My dear silenus, I’m not at all surprised that I would have to explain ironic satire to you. You make it so easy and fun to condescend to you! I’m just happy to have you on the other team, my friend…
You make an excellent point which is that even if defeated, Bush sure will have left one hell of a legacy. I think the argument that Bush has managed to screw things up fiscally, environmentally, internationally, etc. to a degree that it will be hard for anyone following him to do very well with the messes that he has created is one of the most effective arguments the pro-Bush side can make in regards to why it may well be difficult for Kerry to do a very good job.
You mean like this Republican Congress who’ve so grossly overspent the national budget – not counting the staggering cost of Dubya’s “needless foreign wars” and “misadventure” in Iraq – that you Pubbies have cursed us all with the biggest deficit EVER? And the biggest government ever?
A pig-drunk Edward Kennedy has more fiscal discipline than the Republicans!
Well, kanicbird, you’re right about one thing: Dubya is indeed a no-brainer! And I see you’ve learned a lot from him. (But I kid our intellectually challenged President…)
But don’t let that detue your vote!
(P.S.: Sam, you can have him with our blessings…)
Perhaps, but with regard to Iraq at least, let’s not forget that if Kerry becomes president, he will obtain access to all the uber-top secret intelligence that allowed us to do such a fine job of responding to the Iraqi challenge, both pre-war and after the end of major conflict. Surely with all that technical insight to back him up, installing a democracy in Baghad will amount to a cakewalk, even for a liberal president.