With friends like McDermott and Bonior, the Democrats don't need any enemies.

[AZCowboy]

Sam, then this is one of those moments where we agree. It is good to find common ground.

However, your original quote, was:

Sam Stone wrote:
Look, let’s be clear about what was going on here: The Democrats are afraid to oppose Bush, because they know that the American people are on his side.

If I understand the administration’s current position, they feel that the US should act, with or without UN support. And it is quite clear that the American people don’t support that.

The administration wants a congressional resolution that authorizes force, even without UN approval. And the Democrats, with the apparent support of the American people, are resisting.

Now, I will give the administration credit for reviewing the polls, as they are now working to get Russia, France, and China on board. But it will get interesting, as that may be a difficult row to hoe.

The Democrats are not afraid to oppose Bush - they just haven’t been very effective at it. I don’t think the Democratic leadership really thought the Bush administration could move Iraq in front of the domestic agenda, and felt secure in their chances of keeping the Senate and making solid progress in the House. I mean, an off-year presidential election (where the opposing party often picks up seats), and the worse economic conditions since perhaps the 70’s. How could they lose?

But Dubya succeeded. Wolf Blitzer now has a daily Iraq update show (where’s that liberal media bias at CNN when you need it!).

I feel safe in predicting that the US will not put troops on the ground in Iraq within the next five weeks, plus one day. The elections, of course, are in five weeks. Body bags are not nearly as effective at campaigning as war banter.

On preview: Debaser, WTF? Early in this thread, you posted:

Making comments against the POTUS while in the nation we are about to go to war with is one thing. Doing it while you are physically located in that country certainly strikes me as wrong. I am sure many others will agree that this is in extemely poor taste to say the least.

I was ready to concede the point, but you persisted, and posted the same sentiment again, and then posted the McCain “subway series” interview. You concede that the content was important. But you support the assertion that it was wrong because you “just thought it inappropriate”? Is this IMHO, or GD? Oh well.

I’m sure many share your sentiments. Can someone, please, make the case, in their own words, as to what McDermott and Bonior did that was wrong?

[elucidator]

Wasn’t sneering, honest.

Accepted as stated.

…If Iraq were to attack us, then we would need to respond. This belief would be shared by all resonable people, no?

Well, sure. If you pose bullet proof questions like that, and I’m stupid enough to accept such, I deserve the sound drubbing that will follow. Turnabout is sauce for the gander, as well.

If an American destroyer, cruising in international sand of the Godforsaken Desert is attacked by what may very well have been Iraqi PT boats, thats means we can nuke Baghdad? This belief would be shared by all reasonable people, most emphaticly No!

…We should take advantage of this opportunity.

I am quite incapable of thinking of war as an “opportunity”. I extend you the courtesy of regarding this as an unfortunate choice of words.

Your last paragraph is telling. You say you want the UN with us, as well you might. But what if they should decide against us? What if, after due deliberation, they decide not to go to war? If we are already determined to have war, and it very much seems to be the case, then Fearless Leaders speech at the UN was little more than peeing on thier shoes and insisting that its raining. It was a shallow manuever to cop some window dressing, nothing more.

As you note, with supreme power comes the responsibility. First and foremost, restraint. Nothing corrupts like power.

I am an American. I will not pledge my allegiance to an empire!

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
**
I was ready to concede the point, but you persisted, and posted the same sentiment again, and then posted the McCain “subway series” interview. You concede that the content was important. But you support the assertion that it was wrong because you “just thought it inappropriate”? Is this IMHO, or GD? Oh well.

I’m sure many share your sentiments. Can someone, please, make the case, in their own words, as to what McDermott and Bonior did that was wrong? **

Sorry to be unclear with my “nope” reply. Let me elaborate:

You asked the following:

**
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?

**

I took this to be a straw man. I didn’t say anything about the visit increasing hatred of the US. Why should I need to respond to your demand that I make the cast for an argument that I never made?

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by elucidator *

Well, sure. If you pose bullet proof questions like that, and I’m stupid enough to accept such, I deserve the sound drubbing that will follow. Turnabout is sauce for the gander, as well.

I wasn’t trying to trap you here with any kind of trickery. I was open with my intentions of attempting to define exactly what your position is. (I used the term, ‘nail down’, I believe.)

If an American destroyer, cruising in international sand of the Godforsaken Desert is attacked by what may very well have been Iraqi PT boats, thats means we can nuke Baghdad? This belief would be shared by all reasonable people, most emphaticly No!

For someone that is not a pacifist, there doesn’t seem to be any set of circumstances where you would support a war. I never said anything about nuking Baghdad. I am just asking you straight forward: Under what circumstances do you believe America has a right to defend itself. You are being extremely evasive on this point.

In an earlier post you said:

**
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.

**

I read this to mean, because Iraq even if it attacks us first, isn’t really a threat to us, there can never be any justification for war with them. If I am wrong then under what circumstances would Iraq be a threat?

I am quite incapable of thinking of war as an “opportunity”. I extend you the courtesy of regarding this as an unfortunate choice of words.

I was more thinking we have an opportunity to help our interests, the people of Iraq, the stability of the world, and insure our safety by removing the current regime in Iraq from power. I am not looking for “opportunities” for indiscriminate war with anyone.

Your last paragraph is telling. You say you want the UN with us, as well you might. But what if they should decide against us? What if, after due deliberation, they decide not to go to war? If we are already determined to have war, and it very much seems to be the case, then Fearless Leaders speech at the UN was little more than peeing on thier shoes and insisting that its raining. It was a shallow manuever to cop some window dressing, nothing
more.

As you said earlier, I too am leery of discussing the UN too much here. It opens an entirely new can of worms.

Of course, I feel that it would be best if the UN made the decision to remove Saddam. The 16 UN security council resolutions are the main basis of Bush’s argument to go to war. Bush’s speach to the UN was not window dressing. He made some excellent arguments.

Now, having said all that, I would still be in favor of action against Iraq without UN support. We can gather allies on our own, and form a coalition without the UN.

What is your position? If the UN does decide to remove Saddam, do you feel that the US should be involved then?

As you note, with supreme power comes the responsibility. First and foremost, restraint. Nothing corrupts like power.

I am an American. I will not pledge my allegiance to an empire!

Talk about a telling ending paragraph! Empire. Who said anything about empire? You think that the US is interested in expansion. We aren’t interested in owning any real estate in Iraq. We just need to act to insure our safety.

Stop the hyperbolic statements: “nuke baghdad”, “Amerian empire” and just tell me: If you aren’t a pacifist, under what circumstances would you consider military action to be the correct option with Iraq.

[AZCowboy]

Sorry, debaser, you apparently misunderstood the context of my question.

To clarify, you stated that McDermott and Bonior expressing the sentiments they did while in Iraq struck you as wrong. I was ready to concede, but asked about the content of the message. You conceded that the content was important, but reiterated that the location was an issue for you. I asked why. I noted that you posted a link to the McCain “subway series”, saying that McCain agreed with you (presumably that location was an issue, since you now won’t support the argument he used), and I noted that McCain’s only argument was that Saddam could use it to increase hatred of the US.

I pointed out that that argument doesn’t make much sense. When I asked, “Can you make the case?”, the question was related to the position that McDermott and Bonior were somehow wrong, not whether McCain’s argument held water (even though you stated that McCain agreed with you, but you don’t agree with his argument).

So, I ask again, can someone, please, make the case, in their own words, as to what McDermott and Bonior did that was wrong?

[december]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *So, I ask again, can someone, please, make the case, in their own words, as to what McDermott and Bonior did that was wrong?

Gee, I thought we had done this. Here are some of the ways: [ul]By going to Iraq, they leant legitimacy to Saddam’s regime.[]They publicly impugned Bush’s integrity.[]They expressed support for Saddam’s integrity.[]They took Saddam’s POV and attempted to promote it. []They shouldn’t have put themselves into the middle of this, but, once they did, sure they ought to have tried to get Iraq to accept America’s conditions, rather than vice versa… []They got involved in foreign policy negotiations, which is not their job. []They effectvively encouraged Saddam not to allow the type of full and unfettered inspections that Bush and his team have rightly demanded.[/ul] BTW, this column suggests that Bonior and McDermott may have made war more likely. http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/20021001.asp

[AZCowboy]

Debaser wrote:
The 16 UN security council resolutions are the main basis of Bush’s argument to go to war.

You really need to keep up with the news. That was the reason originally stated. And Iraq has just completed to negotation to accept the conditions from those existing resolutions, and let the UN inspectors in to verify their compliance. But the Bush administration now says that is not good enough. They want a new, stronger resolution from the UN.

In the “Post Hussein Plans?” thread, 3waygeek linked to a very eye-opening op-ed piece. Even the hawks in that thread didn’t try to refute it. Please read it, and then come back here and tell me if you still want to stand by these statements:

Debaser posted:
You think that the US is interested in expansion. We aren’t interested in owning any real estate in Iraq. We just need to act to insure our safety.

[Debaser]

OK, AZCowboy, I’ll give it a shot:

In the article I posted at the top of this page, McCain focused more on the location of where they said it than the content of what was said.

**
during the Clinton administration many times I disagreed, but I never disagreed publicly overseas. We disagreed domestically. We don’t go to a foreign country, particularly an enemy of the United States of America.

**

This was what I meant by him agreeing with me.

For senators to argue about the correct course of action on a subject such as the possible war with Iraq is of course good and proper. In the US senate.

It is inproper to be critical of the plans to attack Iraq, as well as critical of the POTUS personally while you are in that country. It portraits the leadership of the US as splintered and our resolve as weak.

We need to come to a decision internally, and then present a united front. Both our enemies and allies alike should see that the US is serious about Iraq. For McDermott and Bonior to go to Iraq is the equivilent of breaking a law that you don’t agree with. If they disagree with the war then they should be arguing here in America to convince the American people to agree with them. Going to Iraq is deliberately weakening the position of the US in order to support thier cause. It makes America look bad, and is inappropriate. The Senate floor is the place to debate this issue, not the soil of our enemy.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
**In the “Post Hussein Plans?” thread, 3waygeek linked to a very eye-opening op-ed piece. Even the hawks in that thread didn’t try to refute it. Please read it, and then come back here and tell me if you still want to stand by these statements:

**

So, because Jay Bookman at the Atlantic Journal-Constitution Newspaper says:

Because we won’t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

That makes it official US policy. :rolleyes:

I didn’t need to read any more of that article after getting to that. If the US is secretely seeking to start an empire, why didn’t we keep our portion of Germany after WWII? And Japan and Italy for that matter. This position is a joke. You need to provide proof that the US intends on buidling an empire if you are going to make an allegation of the same.

[AZCowboy]

It’s kinda funny, when I wrote the question, I started to write, “Can somebody, please (besides december), state in their own words…” My bad.

Well, let’s go through the list:
[ul]
[li] They publicly impugned Bush’s integrity[/li][/ul]
Perhaps he deserved it. It’s kinda the pot calling the kettle black. Didn’t Bush just finish a public speaking spree impugning the integrity of Senators that didn’t support his notion of the Homeland Defense bill? Why is dissent from the opposing party wrong?
[ul]
[li]They expressed support for Saddam’s integrity.[/li][/ul]
Cite? I think they simply expressed that we should offer Saddam the benefit of the doubt. I heard full support from McDermott for disarmament (one of stated goals of the administration, that sometimes gets stated instead of “regime change”). I heard full support for UN inspections. And they certainly implied that the US would enforce the existing UN resolutions. None of that seems to express support for Saddam’s integrity.
[ul]
[li]They took Saddam’s POV and attempted to promote it.[/li][/ul]
This is an incredulous assertion. Do you think Saddam wants UN inspections? Do you think Saddam wants to comply with the existing UN resolutions? On what basis do you make this claim?
[ul]
[li]They shouldn’t have put themselves into the middle of this, but, once they did, sure they ought to have tried to get Iraq to accept America’s conditions, rather than vice versa… [/li][/ul]
What? It’s their frickin’ job! They are being asked to vote on a congressional resolution to authorize the use of force. Their stated purpose was to go to Baghdad to assess the situation on the ground. They DID support America’s conditions, specifically the existing UN resolutions and UN weapons inspectors.
[ul]
[li]They got involved in foreign policy negotiations, which is not their job. [/li][/ul]
BS. Neither they nor the Iraqis were under any impression that McDermott or Bonior were representing US foreign policy. Both sides clearly understood that these were two representatives from the party opposing the president. No one confused them with Colin Powell. If you wish to persist with this claim, give me a cite that shows how they "got involved with foreign policy negotiations.
[ul]
[li]They effectvively encouraged Saddam not to allow the type of full and unfettered inspections that Bush and his team have rightly demanded.[/li][/ul]
More BS. McDermott specifically encouraged the Iraqis to accept “full and unfettered” inspections (and received such assurance from Tarik Aziz). What you are essentially attempting to complain about here is that they weren’t simply Bush lackeys. And I claim that that is not only their right, it is their solemn duty, if it truly reflects their sentiments.

On preview: Debaser, I’ll have to respond to your claims later, as I am out of time right now. Thank you for your post.

[elucidator]

Debaser

I was open with my intentions of attempting to define exactly what your position is. (I used the term, ‘nail down’, I believe.)

Entirely situational. A measured response cannot be defined without the measure of the provocation.

For someone that is not a pacifist, there doesn’t seem to be any set of circumstances where you would support a war. I never said anything about nuking Baghdad. I am just asking you straight forward: Under what circumstances do you believe America has a right to defend itself. You are being extremely evasive on this point.

Not at all. I reiterate, as above, there are no predefined circumstances: Iraq does A, no war, Iraq does B, war. I sympathize with your craving for absolute definitions, but I am not bound by them. It seems almost as though you wish that I might disallow any American right to self-defense. I’m not about to do that, either. If my refusal to commit myself to such definitions meets your standards for “extreme evasion”, so be it.

I read this to mean, because Iraq even if it attacks us first, isn’t really a threat to us, there can never be any justification for war with them. If I am wrong then under what circumstances would Iraq be a threat?

Torture my syntax long enough, you will get a confession. I didn’t say any such thing. Perhaps if you didn’t nail so many things down, you could move them about more easily? This much I can say: the present circumstances do not warrant a “preemptive” war. In my lexicon, “preemptive” is “aggressive”. As I noted, we ourselves have defined “agressive war” as a crime against humanity. We were right then, we are wrong now.

Now, having said all that, I would still be in favor of action against Iraq without UN support. We can gather allies on our own, and form a coalition without the UN.

Well, then, the message to the UN is, join us or you are an irrelevant debating society. Either way, we will do as we wish. We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the Americans.

(As you probably know, hostility to the UN has long, these may years, been a cornerstone of right wing agenda. “Can’t spell Communist without UN” Bush had no intention, not the slightest, of suggesting that the US was in any way dependent on UN deliberation. Window dressing is what I said, window dressing is what it was. The speech likely gave Jesse Helms the first real hard-on he’s had in twenty years.)

As to “empire”, its just another word for “hegemony”. We got the big stick, you will speak softly. This theory of American world dominance is spelled out in our recently released strategic plans. I am sure you are as aware of this as I. I’m pretty sure you approve. I am appalled, and heartsick.

[Debaser]

from webster.com

empire

1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

hegemony

preponderant influence or authority over others :
Empire := Hegemony

recently released strategic plans

Cite? I don’t know to what plans you are referring to.

Entirely situational. A measured response cannot be defined without the measure of the provocation.

I just have no idea what you mean by this.

Torture my syntax long enough, you will get a confession. I didn’t say any such thing. Perhaps if you didn’t nail so many things down, you could move them about more easily? This much I can say: the present circumstances do not warrant a “preemptive” war. In my lexicon, “preemptive” is “aggressive”. As I noted, we ourselves have defined “agressive war” as a crime against humanity. We were right then, we are wrong now.

I was attempting to paraphrase your whimsical musings into a coherent thought. Paraphrasing and then asking if one is correct can hardly be described as syntax torture.

It’s obvious you are against a preemptive war at this time. I felt that the best way to go about convincing you otherwise would be to try and find exactly what circumstances you would feel a war would be proper. Then we could go about arguing if the circumstances we are in now warrant it. I have been completely unsuccessful at finding where you stand. You claim to not be a pacifist, but no situation seems worthy of our using military force to you.

I believe you know this full well. Because, in fact, you are a pacifist.
Lets say you come forward and state that you are against the war with Iraq at the current time. Oh, and BTW are also against any military action against Iraq at any time because of your pacifist nature.

You know that few would pay much attention to your argument, knowing that you would oppose a war with Iraq no matter what the circumstances.

If you have another explination for your evasiveness please explain it, for I am eager to listen.

[Henry_B]

I can’t understand anything anymore.
First December writes:

Bush doesn’t want Iraq to agree to inspections; he wants war.

I am so baffled that I have to check from my calendar that December is still between November and January!!! (I printed out this post and put it under my pillow.)

---

Then Duck Duck does not find a link in December’s post. I can’t either.
She asks: “Where is the link?” many times.
I try to find the link that everyone sees, except poor Duck Duck and me.
Maybe we have the wrong party-book? Maybe we should try the emphatic method?:
“Think like Rep.! Think Rep!”
I put the helmet on, take the cavalry sword and run to the balcony, waving the sword, shouting ALAMOOO!!
Still no link visible! (Only the Russian Militzia behind the door…)

Then Duck Duck quotes the whole post where there is not a link.
Then someone asks “What post do You mean?”
And people says I am unclear. Yes I am, but how clear do You have to be?

---

The whole thing seem to be about that two guys tries to be popular by trying to negotiate first. Simply populistic. (Accusations, accusations)
Then it is shown that they are not being popular by trying to negotiate first. Just unpopular. (Accusations, accusations)
So, maybe these guys knows that they will not be popular and they have some thoughts, but no links visible…
They are just “unpopular populistic”, whatever that means???

---

AZ-cowboy wrote:

Skilled negotiation doesn’t involve “smoking out” the other side. Negotiation involves some balance of Power, Time, and Information between the parties involved - each party must have some of each for any negotiation to take place. But the negotiation you are referencing isn’t between the US and Iraq - no one, not even the Iraqis, think that McDermott or Bonior represent US policy. The negotiation is with the administration, whom have a disproportionate share of Time and Power.
Information is the only angle the Democrats have.

And there is nothing wrong with that. If he believes it, he has the responsibility to say it. That is the American way.

Either that, or it is a country that walks lockstep with a President that wants to launch an unprovoked pre-emptive attack against a sovereign nation without international support or approval.1

AZ-cowboy has just put my thoughts very clearly here. Much clearer than they were from the beginning.
He and elucidator are the second bests this month in profiling my blurry thoughts.

December is the winner of the month with his: “Bush doesn’t want Iraq to agree to inspections; he wants war.

Sorry AZ and elucidator !

---

Debaser wrote about permanent military bases in Iran and Iraq:

I didn’t need to read any more of that article after getting to that. If the US is secretely seeking to start an empire, why didn’t we keep our portion of Germany after WWII? And Japan and Italy for that matter. This position is a joke. You need to
provide proof that the US intends on buidling an empire if you are going to make an allegation of the same.

Are You serious? About Germany? Have You heard about NATO? Who controlled the “red button” for the mass-destructive weapons in Germany in the cold war? Had US any bases there? For how many decades do You think? 60 years? Do You think that US will go out from Iraq within a decade?
It is clear for all people that US is not going to build bungalows for American pensioners etc… I think You really should read the given link.

And also this:http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021007&s=klare

It is clear that Russia and China is heavily linked with the Iraqian oil ($1.1 trillion). It is also very clear that US is very depending on oil.
The US-supported opposition that will be in power after the war, has publicly told that the first thing they do is to nullify the contracts with Russia and China.

[Debaser]

I found an article on this subject at the washington post here . Actually Drudge had a link to it.

Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan, both Vietnam War-era veterans, also said at a news conference that they felt obligated to inform Americans of the risks they faced by going to war with Iraq.

WTF is a Vietnam War-era veteran?

[elucidator]

My Goddess! He actually posted a definition from the dictionary!

And then, once again, you see if you can pin the “pacifist” label on to me. If I wont play by your definitions, you get to define me to your own satisfaction.

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

Measured response means exactly what it says. I will not stoop to posting definitions, I am quite assured you can parse the meaning.

I don’t pretend to know what Saddam bin Laden will do tomorrow. Half the time, I don’t know what I’m gonna do tomorrow! Not only do our leaders claim to know what he is thinking (thinking, mind you!)*, they claim to be justified in shoving aside accepted international law against aggressive war on that basis. Might as well conduct foreign policy by way of scrying entrails.

As to the strategy papers, I will post the link later, if no one else has done so by the time I return. Frankly, I’m very surprised that someone as knowledgeable as yourself is unaware of them. I have little doubt they will meet with your unstinting approval.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by Henry B *
**
Are You serious?
**

Yes.

**
About Germany?
**

Yes. After WWII we did not occupy Germany. Instead we helped to rebuild the countries that we defeated.

**
Have You heard about NATO?
**

raises hand
North Atlantic Treaty Organization!
What do I win?

**
Who controlled the “red button” for the mass-destructive
weapons in Germany in the cold war?
**

We did. Just like the Soviets had the “red buttons” on the other side of the iron curtain.

**
Had US any bases there?
**

Makes sense this doesn’t sentance.

**
For how many decades do You think?
**

Well, 1945ish to present…

**
60 years?
**

Yes, 60! Thanks, I’m bad at math.

**
Do You think that US will go out from Iraq within a decade?
**

Yes.

But, let me get this straight, because we have had bases in Germany for 60 years they are a people conquered and ruled by the United States? Geez, I thought that Germany was a self governing country.

**
It is clear for all people that US is not going to build bungalows for American pensioners etc… I think You really should read the given link.
**

Well, it didn’t appear to be clear to elucidator, until I realized that he was simply confused about the meaning of the word empire.

That link is more crap about the huge secret of all of this being oil. The US is the most economically prosperous nation on earth. We don’t need to invade Iraq for oil. If we wanted oil that bad we would just buy it from them. If we are so money hungry why don’t we just invade Saudi Arabia instead of buying oil from them? This argument that all the reasons given by Bush for removing Saddam’s regime from power is all a smokescreen with the real purpose being stealing Iraqi oil is totally foolish. No reasonable person could possibly believe this to be true.

[elucidator]

Well, it didn’t appear to be clear to elucidator, until I realized that he was simply confused about the meaning of the word empire.

Awwwww! That’s so cute. Chubby cheek adorable!

No reasonable person could possibly believe this to be true.

Certainly not! The crisis is a Weaon of Mass Distraction, with the aim of distracting the public attention from the Administration’s utter failure in every domestic regard. The fact that we get our hands on all that light sweet crude is merely a bonus! A dandy bonus, but no reasonable person would believe that’s its all simply a mugging of Iraq. Not at all. Its the Democrats who are being knifed.

Do I believe that? Every word. Can I be convinced otherwise? Sure. All you got to do is show me how this situation became a CRISIS - SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ!! suddenly, right at this exquisitely convenient time (“You dont bring out a new product line in August”). Of course, that would mean a genuine, immediate, “clear and present” danger.

Which you ain’t got.

Do I believe Fearless Leader would mislead us? Hell, yes! He already has flaunted nonexistent documents to support his sense of urgency. Media whores being who they are, he pretty much got away with it, other than a rather embarassing moment for Ari (The Bullet) Fleisher as he was asked about ten times to explain this. He didn’t. He couldn’t.

It was a lie.

This much I can grant them: they probably think they are doing the right thing. By timing that to coincide with the election, they can garner a fat bonus as well, i.e. not have to face the electoral clobbering that was coming to them. Well, who can turn away from such an opportunity! To respond to stern duty and pick up oodles of political goodies as well.

After all, they’re only human. Well, I’m not so sure about Tom Delay…

[AZCowboy]

Debaser, In your reply to my query, you excerpted three sentences from the McCain “subway series” that essentially repeated the predicate of the question - that the location of the comments were somehow inappropriate. I understand that, but I ask why?

Somehow, the floor of the US House (not the Senate), where all speech is published and available to World, is OK. But not Iraq. What about, say Kuwait? Would that have been OK?

Debaser wrote:
It portraits the leadership of the US as splintered and our resolve as weak.

And this portrayal could not have been made if the same comments were uttered on the US House floor?

Debaser wrote:
We need to come to a decision internally, and then present a united front.

In public, or in private? Should the American public be included in the discourse and debate? If so, how do you prevent SH or the rest of the world from knowing? If not, well, we’ve got other things to debate.

Debaser wrote:
Both our enemies and allies alike should see that the US is serious about Iraq.

What message do you think McDermott and Bonior were delivering - that the US was only kidding? Didn’t they deliver the message that the US was serious, and full and unfettered UN weapons inspections were a must?

Debaser wrote:
For McDermott and Bonior to go to Iraq is the equivilent of breaking a law that you don’t agree with. If they disagree with the war then they should be arguing here in America to convince the American people to agree with them. Going to Iraq is deliberately weakening the position of the US in order to support thier cause. It makes America look bad, and is inappropriate. The Senate floor is the place to debate this issue, not the soil of our enemy.

Huh? They are responsible for making the law. They will have to face their constituents, whose sons have just come back in body bags. You make it sound like they were, through translators, addressing the Iraqi public in their comments, rallying up anti-American rhetoric. It was a CNN satellite broadcast, for crying out loud, directed squarely at the American public. Please explain how their comments carried any more weight when delivered from Iraqi soil versus the floor of the US House.

Never mind. I then see this:

Debaser wrote:
So, because Jay Bookman at the Atlantic Journal-Constitution Newspaper says:
[sub][Bookman quote clipped][/sub]
That makes it official US policy.

I didn’t need to read any more of that article after getting to that. If the US is secretely seeking to start an empire, why didn’t we keep our portion of Germany after WWII? And Japan and Italy for that matter. This position is a joke. You need to provide proof that the US intends on buidling an empire if you are going to make an allegation of the same.

It is clear from statements like these that you take your politics like some take their religion - on blind faith. It is clear from these statements that you do walk lockstep with George Bush, simply because if George says it, it must be so. These statements represent a closed minded approach, one that doesn’t even listen to evidence contrary to their worldview. How sad.

If you looked closely at that page, you would have found a link to President Bush’s National Security Strategy (the one referenced by elucidator). Perhaps you would consider that “official US policy”. If you read the column, you would have found the evidence to support this new strategic direction and its implications. But your mind is closed. Perhaps you are not aware that, to this day, we continue to have a strong military presense in both Germany and Japan. You call it a joke, without even reading it! And btw, I don’t need to provide “proof”, just evidence. But if you simply choose to ignore the evidence, I can’t help you. Your doomed. If you wish to debate your position on this topic, I’m afraid we will need to take it to the pit. It’s clear that rational discourse is not your preference.

[Debaser]

Settle down, AZCowboy.

I went and checked that link. I wasn’t impressed. That article was over 2100 words long. (I pasted into word and did a quick count). My time is limited, I would rather read the boards, or the opinions of people I respect. It would be one thing if it was a news article presenting some information to us. It’s not. It’s an opinion piece.

The author I have never heard of before, or for that matter the newspaper itself. He is obviously against anything the Bush administration does. His first sentance “The official story on Iraq has never made sense.” lets the reader know right away what he is about.

Furthermore, you didn’t mention anything specific in the article to look for. You just gave a link to it and said

Please read it, and then come back here and tell me if you still want to stand by these statements:

My statements you were referring to were:

You think that the US is interested in expansion. We aren’t interested in owning any real estate in Iraq. We just need to act to insure our safety.
*

Well, that’s not how it works. If you feel that the US is in fact interested in expansion and not acting to insure our safety than make some arguments for that.

Could I just tell you “Go and read [insert obscure book by unknow author here], and then tell me if you still believe what you do.” Would you run out and buy said book? Use cites to support your arguments, not to do the work for you.

Oh, and this quote:

Perhaps you are not aware that, to this day, we continue to have a strong military presense in both Germany and Japan.

Well, 2 posts above you saying this there I am saying:

we have had bases in Germany for 60 years

Maybe it is you who need to read a little more carefully.

And as to me being lockstep with George Bush. I really don’t know where you are getting this from. I never mentioned him in the post you are quoting from. I am not sure I have even mentioned him in this thread. Just because I think that article was not worth reading in it’s entirety doesn’t make me a Dubya worshipper. Perhaps it is you who is taking the close-minded approach.

[AZCowboy]

Debaser wrote:
The author I have never heard of before, or for that matter the newspaper itself. …
Could I just tell you “Go and read [insert obscure book by unknow author here], and then tell me if you still believe what you do.”

I’m sorry, I just assumed you had heard of the largest daily newspaper in Atlanta. Since it is my primary local paper, I can understand how that was a bad assumption. As for the author, Jay Bookman, from his bio:

Jay Bookman Bio, from the AJC site:
Jay Bookman, 45, … He has been a Constitution editorial board member since 1990 and has twice been recognized as the nation’s outstanding editorial writer. …

Debaser wrote:
My time is limited, I would rather read the boards, or the opinions of people I respect.

Fine. If you would rather spend your time reading these boards, and not waste your time reading one of the nation’s outstanding editorial writers for a nationally respected newspaper, that’s your choice. But please note, where I first posted this link, I also posted the link the thread on the SDMB GD where I came across this link (credit to 3waygeek). I made the statement that, “Even the hawks in that thread didn’t try to refute it.” I asked you to please read it, as see if you still stood by those remarks. It is quite clear from your post that you did not read it. I suspect it is also likely that you did not read the other thread either. You are right, it is an opinion piece, and pretty damning one at that. Backed up with facts, supported with links to referenced documents, including Bush’s new National Security Strategy.

I was so impressed, and scared, by that “opinion piece”, I have shared it with friends and coworkers. Even the most conservative ones accepted it as essentially correct, and didn’t try to suggest it was anything less than generally accurate. You’d be the first. But you can’t refute it if you don’t read it.

And, btw, you quoted the part that I might have excerpted to catch your attention, namely:

Jay Bookman Op-ed Piece
Because we won’t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

Copyright issues prevent me from posting the whole damn thing. If you don’t accept that quote as reasonable, then find stuff in the piece that you wish to refute. Good luck.

Debaser wrote:
Furthermore, you didn’t mention anything specific in the article to look for. … Well, that’s not how it works. If you feel that the US is in fact interested in expansion and not acting to insure our safety than make some arguments for that.

I was specific, in that I asked if you would continue to stand by statements you made, and I quoted them. Since you too quoted them (quite correctly), then it is clear that you understood the purpose of the cite. And I will not make those arguments here. You and elucidator continued that hijack already in this thread. And yes, I contributed by posting what I did, I will not continue to do so, since there is another thread titled “Post Hussein Plans”, which would seem to be much more appropriate than this thread.

Which, btw, I note that you didn’t respond to a single issue related to McDermott and Bonior in your post, despite the fact that over half of my previous post was limited to the subject of the OP.