I have never seen such an exercise in recalcitrant pettifogging pedantry. Are you satirizing yourself, DDG?
If your astounding rhetorical achievements are any guide, the Democratic party is in deep shit indeed. Even a bimbo-until-proven innocent journalist could see that, I think.
AZCowboy, I agree that the content of what was said was important. But, the place where it was said is a large factor here.
If these Democrats said these comments about Bush “misleading” the american people on the Senate floor, no one would have noticed, IMHO. But, going to Iraq and saying these things just leaves a nasty impression.
elucidator
A certain percentage of the US population will always be against any war regardless of the circumstances. Pacifists were opposed to our involvement in WWII. I am gland that you were ignored then, I am hoping that you will be ignored now.
Just a nitpick, Debaser, but it’s not just pacifists who are expressing doubts about war with Iraq. I’ve talked to a number of people who supported the first Gulf War and who oppose this one. Even my dad, a veteran and a conservative, thinks that going to war with Iraq now is a bad plan. Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence and based on my experience, but I think it would be foolish to assume that all who oppose military action are bleeding-heart peaceniks. There are rational reasons to oppose this war.
I think the Democrats are lookin’ better all the time–they got Barbra Streisand to come out of retirement and do a fund-raiser for them, whereas the best the GOP could do was try to sell 8 x 10 glossies of GW calling Dick Cheney from Air Force One.
The Three Tenors sang, too
I’m not quite sure here, have I just been accused of being Amish?
Your comparison to WWII is very telling, but not, I think, in the way you might wish. As you may recall, we tried men after WWII for war crimes. War crimes, defined as waging aggressive war, that is, war without provocation. And we hanged them for it.
Now, it would seem, we have changed our collective mind. Aggressive war is acceptable if you’re pretty sure there’s a good chance that maybe the other guy is up to No Good. Overt acts of aggression are not required.
“Ignored”? No. Vilified, slandered, gassed, clubbed, and arrested, very likely. Been there, done that.
But we won’t be ignored. Bet on it.
Good point, burundi. I didn’t mean to assume that everyone against war with Iraq is a pacifist. But, I do believe from reading his posts for a year or so now, that elucidator is one.
elucidator, since when are war crimes defined as “waging aggressive war”? Please explain what we are doing or plan to do to Iraq that makes us guilty of war crimes similar to those of the Nuremburg trials. (if this is what you are refering to when you say “hanging them for it”)
I used WWII as an example simply because I think there couldn’t be a more clear cut case of a time when we need to become involved. We were in the right in every way, but pacifists still were around to oppose that war then.
So, no matter how much of a danger Saddam poses, it is reasonable to assume that many pacifists would still be against any war with Iraq.
But, Barbra fell for an internet hoax http://www.drudgereport.com/
Speaking of hoaxes, Bonior supported a bit of fraudulent Iraq propaganda involving alleged luekemia.
Making this accusation all the more objectionable is the possibility that Saddam’s nuclear program may well have caused actual radiation harm. That’s a wild guess, but Saddam doesn’t strike me as someone who would value worker safety over weapons progress.
Debaser, your system of categorization lacks sophistication. Presuming that you are sincere, I will respond.
No, I am not a pacifist, though I sincerely admire such moral rigor, I cannot adhere to it. I believe it is not sufficient to refrain from evil, evil must be actively resisted.
Hence, it is necessary to have a military, and a strong one. And I believe a military career to be a worthy, and honorable, option.
I believe we make a pact with our soldiers. They give up much autonomy and self-determination. We have a debt in return, that we will not send them in harm’s way for any reason short of necessity. I don’t honestly know which is worse: to send an honorable soldier to die for an ignoble cause, or to send him to kill for it. That is for the philosophers and theologians.
Further, I believe that a soldier has rights to moral decisions. I would, for instance, in the case of Bosnia, or any other military intervention based on humanitarian concerns and not directly related to national security, that individual soldiers have the right to volunteer or abstain, because that lies outside of the contract, since no plausible threat to the US from Bosnia exists. I would be very surprised if there were not enough volunteers, but if that is the case, then we are obliged to respect thier wishes.
The situation with Iraq does not meet those tests. The threat from Iraq is a presumption, not a fact. Further, I find the timing of the alleged “crisis” to be suspicious at best, appalling at worst.
As to war crimes, that is almost too simple. We do not have the right to wage war without just cause. The clairovoyance of our leaders do not constitute just cause, or the Nuremberg criminals might have been able to mount a defense against thier crimes by stating that they sincerely believed that Poland was a threat. Of course, that is absurd.
What makes a war crime a crime is not the loss of soldiers, though that is certainly something a moral and just nation should approach with great caution and dread. What makes it a crime is the deaths of thousands of non-combatants, corpses we cover with a shrug, “collatteral damage”, innocent people who will die for our country.
To oversimplify: I would prefer my country be willing to withstand an atrocity, than that it be willing to commit one. That is my patriotism, you must find your own.
I am surprised to hear you support a strong military. I would be curious how you feel about the amount we spend on it.
I believe that Iraq does pose a real threat. On this point, we disagree. It is interesting to note, that you would agree with action against Iraq if “proof” did exist.
How about the UN? The UN security council resolutions have been repeatedly ignored. If the UN can step in, using the forces of all or many of it’s members to remove Saddam from power, then this would be a good thing, yes? Some civilians might die. The world and certainly region would be a more stable place. The suffering of the Iraqi people would be ended. WOMD production in Iraq would be destoyed. One more democracy and one less dictatorship on the planet. The UN would be a respected organization that proves itself capable of action. Isn’t this worth some civilian casualties?
Finally, I disagree stongly that the overthrow of Saddam would have to fall into the category of “atrocity”. This is the only outcome that you seem to be able to envision. Do you feel that the civilians killed during the Afghanistan campaign was an “atrocity”? Wasn’t it worth a few thousand deaths to end the taliban regime, and have an opportunity for peace and democracy in that country?
Random sidenote:
elucidator, you have a fascinating and unique style of writing. I can disagree strongly with everything you have to say, but still be captivated by the way you say it.
It looks like McCain agrees with me on this one!
I was waiting for someone to make the Jane Fonda analogy. I considered doing it myself, but thought better of it. 
Debaser
You’ll get over it.
Too much on machines and gee-gaws, not enough on people. Bigtime and downtown on both points.
Not quite. Of course Iraq poses a threat. So does Iran. So does China. We will not have a threat free world in our lifetimes. If “plausible threat” will be grounds for war, we will never have another peaceful moment. Nor will we deserve one. Can’t shoot someone who carries a gun, just because he hates you. He pulls it out, let 'er rip. Of course, this means moral people are more at risk than evil ones. So be it, nobody said it was going to be easy.
(I’m going to skip the UN stuff for now, for fear of marathon posting. Another time, if you insist.)
As to categorizing overthrowing Saddam as “atrocity”: the sentence has no direct bearing on Saddam bin Laden. It is a general statement, a dictum. Again, I stress, I am intentionally oversimplifying to make the point, I depend on the generosity of the listender to take that into account. For example, nuking Baghdad to kill Goddam Hussein would be an atrocity. I do not contend that such is in the works. I disagree strongly with Mr. Rumsfeld, but cannot see him issuing such an order. If he did, I would call that a “war crime”.
As to the sidenote: I blush. Hardly “unique”, however. I borrow from Gore Vidal, steal shamelessly from Lewis Lapham. Twain, I plunder.
So, a “plausable threat” is not grounds for war. But, you insist that you aren’t a pacifist.
Considering your earlier comments about rather suffering an atrocity than committing one, I am to assume that if and when Iraq attacks us first, that would be the only justification for us to go to war?
How about if Iraq attacks us unsuccessfully? They smuggle in a nuke and set it off and it fizzles. Are we justified in attacking Iraq then?
And, speaking of China, if there were a way for the US to invade China, overthrow the communist government there, install a democratic one, and get the heck out, that had a good chance of success with very little risk, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, this isn’t even close to being the case. China has a huge military and population, they have nukes pointed at us, there is no UN justification, the American people wouldn’t support it, etc, etc.
But, this Iraq situation is different because there is a good chance of success. The US people because of 9/11 have had some reality knocked into them. They are behind this. The political international climate will let this happen because of the refusal of UN sanctions. They don’t have WMD capable of wiping out US cities to use as a deterant, quite yet.
This is something that we can do if we try. And that is why we should do it.
Would you mind providing a cite? I included one with mine, and it happened to be the current polling from Gallup - which I hope you will agree is a widely respected, unbiased polling organization. The link above was so fresh, it is already gone, so here is the same data, but with much more detail, including:
I certainly agree with your analysis, about war being a strong republican issue, and current economic issues being strong democratic issues. I believe Bonior and McDermott’s intentions were to paint Dubya beyond “strong” on national security, but hellbent on war - logic be damned. Whether they succeeded or not will be determined five weeks from today (among other factors).
Did I whoosh you? It is not “we” Americans that should be impartial, it is “they”, the weapons inspectors (as represented by Hans Blix in Vienna), who should be impartial. That was point that Bonior was making, but was miscontrued by Andrew Sullivan. And this related to the plausible accusation that the previous inspectors were also conducting espionage for the US. By accepting impartial inspectors, we take away the arguments from Iraq about restricting the inspections. Seems reasonable to me.
And no, this doesn’t nullify Daschle’s “hissy fit”. Daschle knew Bush’s comments were regarding the Homeland Security act. It doesn’t make Bush’s comments any more excusable.
OK. Fine. I told you I’d be willing to concede it. But I have yet to see the case be made as why the geographic locations of comments in today’s world of instant global communications makes difference. I respect McCain - I would have voted for him had he received the Republican nomination - and I respect his opinion. But I note that he didn’t really try to make the case, just parroted the party line, other than to say Saddam would use it to sell hatred of the US to the Iraqi people. Frankly, I don’t see how the location impacts anything, and I certainly don’t see how Bonior or McDermott’s visit increases hatred of the US (like Bush needs any help there). Can you make the case?
Side note: The US did not want to get involved in WWII, and only (actively) became involved after we were attacked.
And december, I must agree that it was boneheaded of Bonior to fall for the uranium/leukemia propaganda.
Before I get accused of being some peacenik, allow me to state that I would love to see Saddam deposed, even at the hands of the US military. But without international support, particularly the UN Security Council, I think the cost would far outweigh the benefit.
Debaser:
(A less charitable person might interpret your wording as a sneer disquised as a question.)
What do you mean “sucessful”? Frankly, I can hardly imagine an attack from Iraq that could be termed successful in the strategic sense: any attack by Iraq would be futile and suicidal. A plausible threat must, of course, depend on individual circumstances.
As to China, your viewpoint has chilling aspects of imperial realpolitik. Morality, in that view, is precisely whatever we can get away with. Who died and made us God?
Our Declaration of Independence notes that a “decent respect” for the opinion of Mankind demands certain obligations. Are we now absolved of such obligation because we are the Big Dog? Would we have accepted such unilateralism from another foreign power? Then, by what right other than raw force, can we justify imposing it?
You may (or may not) be correct from a POV of abstract morality, AZ. However, your beliefs are not shared by the majority of Americans IMHO. Most Americans don’t want any kind of impartiality or equivalence between the US and Iraq, not even by weapons inspectors. Most Americans don’t believe that prior inspectors were conducting espionage, and wouldn’t mind if they were. Most Americans don’t care if Bush insulted Daschle and other Senators. Americans are concerned about the risk of Iraq and the risk of domestic terrorists. This whole business is a losing hand for the Democratic Party in the election contest. At least, that’s how I see it.
Well, you know, as Lincoln said, “You can fool all of the people some of the time but fool me twice can’t get fooled again.”
You could look it up.
AZCowboy: I think it was the same CNN/Gallup poll you’re referencing only an earlier one, with even weaker support.
I must admit that I don’t understand their questions and responses - they don’t seem to map really well to the real options.
These were the results of the poll. The question was, “Do you support sending ground troops into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power?”
These are the results:
In general
Favor 57%
Oppose 38
If other countries participate in invading Iraq
Favor 79%
Oppose 18%
If the United Nations supports invading Iraq
Favor 79%
Oppose 19%
If Congress supports invading Iraq
Favor 69%
Oppose 28%
If the United States has to invade Iraq alone
Favor 38%
Oppose 59%
If the United Nations opposes invading Iraq
Favor 37%
Oppose 58%
If Congress opposes invading Iraq
Favor 37%
Oppose 59%
What’s the difference between, “If other countries go along”, and “If the U.N. supports it”? The logical reading of the two cases would be case 1: The U.N. opposes, but the U.S. has allies anyway. Does this cover the case where the U.N. opposes but Britain goes along?
The next level down is “if Congress supports going to war”, with 69% approving. I assume that this means the U.N. opposes it, but congress votes with the president. That seems to be the course we are on now.
But then later on the question comes up, “If the United Nations opposes invading Iraq”. Does that mean essentially Bush on his own? No congressional support, and no UN? Because we already had a question that seemed to cover the case of No U.N. but congressional support.
Anyway, I can’t make heads nor tails out of the various options, but it seems to me that there are two general statements we can make out of this: Without the support of congress and/or the U.N., there is less than 50% support for an attack on Iraq. But with with the support of either congress, the U.N., some allies, or any combination of those the approval rating goes up well over 50%.
It seems the general split is ‘Bush administration alone’ vs ‘Bush administration with some form of support’. Any support at all pushes the approval over 50%. Support of congress pushes it near 70%, and support of the U.N. puts it up to 80%.
To me, that signifies a populace that in general wants Saddam gone, but is leery of the administration taking unilateral action. That describes my position, in fact.
Nope.
I don’t think that the visit increases hatred of the US. I just thought it inappropriate of these congressmen to say what they did where they did. Thats all.
Wasn’t sneering, honest.
I’m trying to nail down exactly under what circumstances you would find it acceptable for us to go to war. One could easily argue then and now that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was futile and suicidal. It was still an attack. We needed to respond. If Iraq were to attack us, then we would need to respond. This belief would be shared by all resonable people, no?
Well, I’ll define successful: Iraq does significant damage to the US. They sink a ship somehow. They bomb, poison, irradiate or otherwise attack a large group of US civilians or military personell in a terror attack. They assasinate the POTUS or another important person. Basically, Iraq does something, anything, to prove that it is a real threat to the US. What say you, then?
You don’t think that the people of China, and the world would be better off if China had a democratically elected government? I am just saying that in the case of Iraq, under the current circumstances, we are in a position where we can do the right thing. We should take advantage of this opportunity.
There is plenty of justification for action against Iraq. I want us to go into Iraq with all the other UN countries. I don’t want the US the worlds policeman. But, along with the power of being the worlds only superpower comes a responsablility.