Congress demanding answers about potential wrong-doing and a president stonewalling while claiming that executive privilege is being threatened, and so he’s trying to offer half-assed compromises that will leave his people the option of lying privately with no chance of consequences instead of lying publicly and facing perjury?
Am I the only person who’s flashing back to Nixon/Watergate?
Because if that’s really what we’re seeing here, then the next thing to happen should be that there’s a Deep Throat who conveys to a newspaper reporter/reporters a chain of evidence that leads directly to the President, i.e., that the President ordered the attorneys fired because they weren’t in lockstep with his policies and furthermore ordered his AG to lie about it. I think we’re going to see the questions being raised of just how much the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. And something tells me Bush doesn’t want us to know the answers to those questions.
PAD
• 
You know, I need to expand on that thought.
You know what Ðìçk is really saying?
He’s saying the American people don’t support the troops. That the American people are undermining them.
Because we made a statement last fall by voting out a bunch of Republicans, and it was a slap in the face to Bush, who continues to think he can run this country like a dictator, dámņ anyone that dares get in his way.
Well, it’s time for Bush & Co, people like Ðìçk, to take a hint.
You know, for someone who hasn’t been right about a single thing in regards to Iraq since 1991, Ðìçk always seems quick to condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
Once again, the old saying proves true:
History keeps repeating itself because we weren’t paying attention the first time.
– Frank
Some people think the attitude Bush presents — the commitment to fight ‘the enmey’, the determination to continue fighting in Iraq, the division of the world to those who are with us and those who are not, the uncompromising commitment to issues conservatives value, the use of words like freedom and values — is integrity. But I think the understanding of the complexity of the issues, of different points of view, of recognizing one’s mistakes, are also necessary for someone to have integrity.
Bush’s determination when it comes to
Without a doubt [W.] has been a great deservice to this Country and it’s Constitution, his policies and leadership have wronged this country in such a way that he’s going to leave so much baggage that it’s going to take years… YEARS… to fix!,/b>
Years? You’re optimistic. I will consider us, the US, truly blessed if the amount of time it takes to undo the damage our current President has wreaked is measured in decades rather than generations.
Posted by: Sasha at March 25, 2007 02:28 PM
Years? You’re optimistic. I will consider us, the US, truly blessed if the amount of time it takes to undo the damage our current President has wreaked is measured in decades rather than generations.
I think you need to gain some perspective. I’m no fan of George W. Bush, as my posts will show. But we’ve had truly awful presidents before and the nation has survived.
Richard Nixon deepened our involvement in Vietnam at the cost of many, many lives before getting us out of there, and was more scandal-plagued than Bush. Our nation survived Nixon and we will survive Bush. It will not take us “generations” to overcome this.
What would be nice, however, is if we as a nation would learn some lessons from history. Iraq had “Vietnam” written all over it in big, easy-to-see glowing neon letters. How could we as a nation have repeated this mistake so quickly? When will we finally get a clue and stop marching headlong into stupid, unnecessary, and costly wars?
It would also be nice to have a president that doesn’t repeat the mistakes of his or her predecessors. In a nation where people get to vote for there leaders, and where there is a (relatively) free press, the president simply can’t just do whatever he or she pleases and sweep every mistake and misdeed under the rug. This is especially true in today’s age of instant and ubiquitous information in the form of the Internet and 24-hour news networks.
Nixon didn’t invade Vietnam then win reelection. The damage done by this administration is unprecedented.
Mike wrote: “Nixon didn’t invade Vietnam then win reelection. The damage done by this administration is unprecedented.”
Mike, if you honestly believe that, then all I can say is you don’t know your U.S. history.
Are you under the impression Nixon invaded Vietnam?
Folks,
Where was all the fuss when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys? The cult of hypocrisy has many members.
Where is all the fuss over Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Achives?
Why was Clinton allowed to testify while not under oath about 9/11?
Why has the press barely covered the fact that Chlorine gas is being used in car bombings? (weapon of mass destruction?)
Okay, Pat, one more time for posterity’s sake, then you’re shrouded.
When Bill Clinton fired all 93 attorneys appointed by his predecessor (as had Ronald Reagan before him, at the least), it was done at the beginning of his term, in order to “clear the decks” of the previous administration’s political appointments and install his own. This is common practice – at the beginning of an Administration. What Bush has done is, he fired eight US attorneys in the middle of his second term, and then offered at least three conflicting reasons for it, with two (so far) conflicting backstories (neither one of which accords with the e-mail exchanges released so far).
“All the fuss” over Sandy Berger’s offense was located when it should have been, at the time of the offense. That was years ago.
If Clinton was allowed to testify while not under oath before the 9/11 Commission (which fact I am currently unable to verify or dispute), it would most likely have been because the 9/11 Commission was not a Congressional subcommittee, but rather a special commission created by Congress, and was not investigating the actions of a sitting President, but rather the circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks. (Otherwise, there might have been a few more questions about why it took so long for “the Decider” to react, or why the President’s location was always public, while the Vice-President, presumably more expendable, was secreted away in a bunker somewhere.)
Oddly, I seem to have seen plenty of coverage of the use of IEDs hidden in trucks of chlorine gas tanks. There was even the coverage the other day of an actual chlorine gas bomb, used on a US military base. I don’t know what press you’re reading/watching (unless Faux News glossed over the story – can’t say as I watch that…).
Now, would you mind terribly reading over the thread (where these topics have been covered exhaustively, by better debaters than I) before popping in with your misinformed opinions? Or are you, like another recent poster, merely a professional šhìŧ-stirrer, preferring a good game of “Let’s You and Him Fight” to an honest discussion of issues?
I am sorry to interrupt the political discussions but I have a question for PAD. I have just finished reading (for the third time) your Babylon 5 trilogy and was wondering with the new dvds in the works and hopefully re-newed interest, if there would be any chance of new novels.”
There’s always a chance, but if Joe’s got something in the pipeline, he hasn’t told me about it.
PAD
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 25, 2007 06:09 PM
Where was all the fuss when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys? The cult of hypocrisy has many members.
As does the cult of cluelessness, apparently.
As has been pointed out several times in this thread, Clinton’s fired ALL 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his administration in order to replace his predecessor’s appointees with his own. Bush, on the other hand, fired eight of his own appointees, in the middle of his second term and his administration has yet to offer a credible explanation for that. The two situations aren’t comparable.
By the way, were you living in hole in the ground without electricity, contact with other human beings, and modern plumbing facilities during the Clinton administration? Every time Clinton wiped his nose there was an outcry from Republicans in Congress and a significant swath of the public — and the media was always happy to play it up.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 25, 2007 06:09 PM
Why has the press barely covered the fact that Chlorine gas is being used in car bombings? (weapon of mass destruction?)
Because after four years we’ve had one poison gas attack.
Just.
ONE.
And given the security situation in Iraq, for all we know the stuff came from outside the country.
Anyway, steering back to sanity…
Two of the fired U.S. Attorneys were on “Meet the Press” this morning. David Iglesias, former U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, stated that just before last year’s mid-term elections he received two phone calls, one from U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, and the other from Senator Pete Domenici, both Republicans from New Mexico. They wanted to know if Iglesias was going to file corruption charges against certain local Democrats prior to the November election — something that could have helped Wilson in her election battle with then New Mexico State Attorney General Patricia Madrid. Iglesias stated that he felt “pressured” and “leaned on” by these calls. Nevertheless, he did NOT file charges prior to the election, probably because it wasn’t yet appropriate to do so. Six weeks later, Iglesias was asked to resign.
Gee, what do YOU think happened here?
By the way, those people who believe that Clinton’s firing of all 93 US Attorneys was improper because one of them was investigating then Democractic U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski are forgetting something — Rostenskowski was later convicted. And no one was fired because of THAT.
By the way, those people who believe that Clinton’s firing of all 93 US Attorneys was improper because one of them was investigating then Democractic U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski are forgetting something — Rostenskowski was later convicted
The attorney involved was also allowed to finish the investigation, I believe, as well.
Mike wrote: “Are you under the impression Nixon invaded Vietnam?”
Are you asking me?
If so, of course not. Nixon inherited Kennedy’s and Johnson’s mess.
My comment was directed towards the latter sentence you wrote, namely, “The damage this administration caused is unprecedented.”
That’s wrong on so many levels, I can’t even begin to respond. Historically, from a monetary, “restriction-of-freedom” or cost-in-human-lives standpoint, Bush II is a lightweight.
Those who insist Bush II is some kind of presidential Anti-Christ are kidding themselves, in my opinion. Either that, or they are just trying to make a lot of noise about Bush II to divert attention from the fact that THEIR politicians have no solutions to the serious problems facing this country, either.
Those who insist Bush II is some kind of presidential Anti-Christ are kidding themselves, in my opinion.
In many respect, I’ve no doubt that you’re correct in that assessment. Just to give you a data point, however, there are two main reasons that I am about as vehemently anti-Bush as it’s possible to be while remaining (generally) sane.
1) Bush is the first such “alleged anti-Christ” I’ve had the opportunity to vote and campaign against. Nixon resigned while I was still in nursery school, so I don’t have that same sort of visceral reaction … and Reagan wasn’t nearly evil enough to merit the title. (For what it’s worth, both of my parents did and do have a visceral dislike of ol’ Tricky Ðìçk, and both have said many times in the past couple of years that they consider Shrub far, far worse.)
2) Bush, more than any president whose career I’ve followed, absolutely embodies several qualities guaranteed to hit all my hot buttons. Spoiled rich kid who’s never had to get out of a jam by himself? Check. Diehard believer that “gut” beats knowledge and study? Check. President who’s done more than any other to treat science and research as nothing more than another special interest group and another “opinion” to be discounted when relevant? Check and mate.
Speaking purely and only for myself, that’s why I personally think Bush II is one of the single worst public figures to hit this country in a long, long time, and why I hope one day to see him take this country so far back in time that he winds up literally tarred and feathered.
And just to add another data point, my uncle is the only conservative Republican in my family (at least on my mom’s side … my dad’s side and I try not to bring politics up :-). Even he thinks Bush has done a piss-poor job and has said that he expects the Democrats to win in ’08 and deserve to.
TWL
There’s nothing lightweight about the $2 billion a week spent on the Iraq occupation, or the $1.2 trillion givaway to pharmaceutical companies that’s going to deplete medicare in 12 years. If you can cite a more severe mismanagement of public funds by a president, I’d like to here it.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 25, 2007 09:57 PM
My comment was directed towards the latter sentence [Mike] wrote, namely, “The damage this administration caused is unprecedented.”
That’s wrong on so many levels, I can’t even begin to respond.
It is indeed untrue that what Bush has done is “unprecedented.” Presidents have unwisely committed this nation to war in the past, at great cost.
Mike is somewhat correct in his assertions, though. Nixon didn’t commit us to Vietnam. Eisenhower got us involved; JFK kept us there; LBJ really escalated things; and Nixon further escalated the war before accepting a peace offer that was identical to one offered by the enemy prior to that last, costly escalation.
Nevertheless, it is absurd to say that what Bush has done is “unprecedented.” Nixon didn’t initiate the Vietnam War but he did escalate it. He stubbornly continued a failed policy at great cost. Bush is doing the same.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 25, 2007 09:57 PM
Historically, from a monetary, “restriction-of-freedom” or cost-in-human-lives standpoint, Bush II is a lightweight.
And now you’re just as wrong as Mike, having leaped from one crazy extreme to the other. George W. Bush deceived this nation into going to war in Iraq. The cost cannot be calculated merely in terms of the casualty count as it stands today or the money spent to date. Bush has destabilized a region where there were already threats to our national security. He has made our nation less safe. We may not know the full price of Bush’s incompetence for some time to come.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 25, 2007 09:57 PM
Those who insist Bush II is some kind of presidential Anti-Christ are kidding themselves, in my opinion.
Bush has divided this country at a time when it needed to be united. He has bungled the war against Islamic terrorism. He has proven unable to learn from his own mistakes, and incapable of objectively measuring the success, or lack thereof, of his policies. He has undermined people’s faith in government to lead at a time when we needed real leadership more than we have in decades. He has eroded our military capacity, saddled us with a massive deficit, lied to us, and made us less safe.
Is he the worst president ever? I doubt it. But he is one of the worst. Of that I have no doubt.
I think you need to gain some perspective. I’m no fan of George W. Bush, as my posts will show. But we’ve had truly awful presidents before and the nation has survived.
Richard Nixon deepened our involvement in Vietnam at the cost of many, many lives before getting us out of there, and was more scandal-plagued than Bush. Our nation survived Nixon and we will survive Bush. It will not take us “generations” to overcome this.
I’m not saying that Bush has so utterly fûçkëd the country that my childrens’ childrens’ children will be in debtor’s prison or in Iraq due to W’s policies. I know that even this to shall pass.
What I mean is that the total damage he’s done (namely to our relations with our allies, America’s “soft power”, our credibility, reputation as the World’s Moral Beacon, radicalizing at least one generation of young Muslims, etc.) will take a very long time to reset (if ever) to pre-W levels. The taint of the USA being a country that normalized torture, if only briefly, is something that will haunt America’s prestige and soul for a good long while.
Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 25, 2007 10:13 PM
Spoiled rich kid who’s never had to get out of a jam by himself?
Tim, I think this thought deserves to be examined further. George W. Bush was all for the Vietnam war… but his daddy made sure he wouldn’t have to fight it himself. Hëll, it doesn’t even appear that he finished is piece-of-cake non-combat tour of duty in the National Guard.
Bush ran a number of businesses into the ground. But being from a rich family, he himself never had to suffer the financial consequences. Those were for lesser people, like investors and employees who were left holding the proverbial bag.
Bush’s parents did him — and by extension, the nation — the ultimate disservice by bailing him out and propping him up with their money: they convinced him that he was someone better than he is. Bush is clearly a below-average individual who erroneously believes himself to be someone great. He doesn’t realize the extent to which his parent’s money has propelled him to an undeserved station in life. He has never had to suffer the consequences of his actions, and therefore doesn’t recongize his limitations.
Mind you, I am not one who believes every rich person is a spoiled, undeserving incompetent. But I do believe that description suits George W. Bush to a “tee.”
Bush’s parents did him — and by extension, the nation — the ultimate disservice by bailing him out and propping him up with their money: they convinced him that he was someone better than he is. Bush is clearly a below-average individual who erroneously believes himself to be someone great. He doesn’t realize the extent to which his parent’s money has propelled him to an undeserved station in life. He has never had to suffer the consequences of his actions, and therefore doesn’t recongize his limitations.
Mind you, I am not one who believes every rich person is a spoiled, undeserving incompetent. But I do believe that description suits George W. Bush to a “tee.”
Indeed. W is the absolute epitome of “Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.”
Art Bell just made the Watergate connection on ‘Coast to Coast AM.’
-Chris
Mind you, I am not one who believes every rich person is a spoiled, undeserving incompetent. But I do believe that description suits George W. Bush to a “tee.”
I’m not one who believes that either, just to clarify. Given the particular socioeconomic level of the schools I’ve taught in, I’ve had a chance to see a great many teenagers who are (usually) fairly well off. Some of them have fit my description above, but most haven’t. As is often the case, it usually comes down to the parenting.
And with that, it’s off to get ready for my first day of classes after spring break. 🙂
TWL
Bush is definitely the worst president in my living memory (Like Tim, I was in nursery school during Watergate). Time will tell if the damage he’s done to our ability to negotiate with the world and to stand as a bullwark of morality and freedom is irreversible. I really hope that the next president can ask for a clean slate, but that individual will have their work cut out for them.
I notice another induhvidual has posted the “Clinton did it and it was unprecented” meme. Sigh. I give up. I’m convinced that there’s always going to be a certain percentage of people who will just repeat whatever talking points Hannity and issue them and will continue repeating them long after they’re been proven wrong. I guess some will always find a lie more comfortable to cling to rather than dealing with the fact that this administration is a disaster.
I see no one wants to answer my question about what the “Clinton did it” defense is always the first thing the “morally superior” Bushites always trot out.
Oh well.
Anyone watch Battlestar Galactica last night? Given the Cylons’ obsession with being an instrument of God, I can only draw one conclusion:
Bob Dylan is God.
Discuss.
“Time will tell if the damage he’s done to our ability to negotiate with the world and to stand as a bullwark of morality and freedom is irreversible.”
The US has had a pretty bad reputation during the cold war and even afterwards. So long as you’re richest industrial nation, the only super power, nobody else better takes the job, the rest of the world will still looks for leadership, and you still have the cultural influence, you’ll still have a significant diplomatic importance. Which is not to say that bush caused harm to your standing, but you’ll recover.
Re: Nixon / Vietnam. If you compare Nixon to Bush, Bush is probably worse. If you compare the turmoil and damage on all levels during Vietnam to that of Iraq, Vietnam was worse, and you recovered from it resonably fast. So cheer up.
since you serve a necessary purpose in the world when Bush is out the world will want to give you another opportunity to do things differently, except the ones that really hate you.
You cited the damage of four administrations to match the damage of one bowl of George W Bush. Also, you cited no mismanagement of public funds by a president more severe than the $2 billion a week spent on the Iraq occupation, or the $1.2 trillion givaway to pharmaceutical companies that’s going to deplete medicare in 12 years.
The word applies.
whatever talking points Hannity and issue them
Ugh.
Should have been “whatever talking points Hannity and Rush issue them”
That is, when Rush isn’t accusing Edwards of using his wife’s cancer to ge a “spike” in the polls.
God, why anyone listens to these despicable trolls is beyond me.
Not to mention the “unprecedented” pallets full of money that were shipped to Iraq and simply vanished.
“Anyone watch Battlestar Galactica last night? Given the Cylons’ obsession with being an instrument of God, I can only draw one conclusion:
Bob Dylan is God.
Discuss.”
Except that from the sound of those guitars, the Super-Secret Final Five Activation Signal(tm) was the Jimi Hendrix cover. This correlates to the fact that Ron Moore had, at one point, considered ending Season One by having the Colonials follow the strains of a Hendrix song to find the Cylon God (as played by Dirk Benedict) (and thank the Lords of Kobol he dropped that idea!).
Therefore, Jimi Hendrix is God.
Discuss further. 🙂
“Anyone watch Battlestar Galactica last night? Given the Cylons’ obsession with being an instrument of God, I can only draw one conclusion:
Bob Dylan is God.
Discuss.”
Except that from the sound of those guitars, the Super-Secret Final Five Activation Signal(tm) was the Jimi Hendrix cover of “All Along the Watchtower”. This correlates to the fact that Ron Moore had, at one point, considered ending Season One by having the Colonials follow the strains of a Hendrix song to find the Cylon God (as played by Dirk Benedict) (and thank the Lords of Kobol he dropped that idea!).
Therefore, Jimi Hendrix is God.
Discuss further. 🙂
As much as I personally prefer Hendrix’s version over Dylan’s, Dylan did write the song, so credit for godhood should be his.
They’re both gods. what makes that song so great is the way Hendrix plays it as much as how Dylan wrote it.
I don’t think we should be discussing the Season Finale of BSG on this thread. I get the general impression that PAD will often record these things and watch them several days later. No one’s dropped a spoiler in here yet, but discussion would be limited by talking around them. Plus I think that he be justifiably annoyed if we started putting BSG spoiler info in this political thread. I’d discuss such things in his “Motherfrakers” thread, if at all.
I agree with David Hunt. Neither the title of this thread nor PAD’s initial post warn of any kind of spoilers. And this particular episode of BSG was chock-a-block full of big surprises. I don’t think it’s appropriate to post about it here. If PAD decides to set aside a thread to discuss it, that’s where we should comment.
So say we all.
So Say We All.
I apologize if the tangent I started has caused any discomfort.
Let’s go back to talking about what lying weasels the Bushites are. :-/
Worst Presidents Ever:
5. William McKinley–Phillipine Conflict 50K US casualties. Corporate Lapdog
4. Millard Fillmore: signed Fugitive Slave Act into law.
3. Rutherfold B Hayes, Through the Election of 1876, Reconstruction ended with a compromise between Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. Sam Tilden won the majority vote.
2. James Polk: Fabricated the Mexican War and expanded the US and thus the slavery debate past the ideals of the Compromise of 1820–>agrivated Civil War causes.
1. Andrew Johnson. Gave easy deals to former Confederates and when mobs in the South were massacring African American men, women, and children, reponded by saying something to the effect of, “America was made for the White man only.”
I think BushII and Nixon come in 6 and 7 respectively.
–Captain Naraht
I’d Bush “ahead” of Hayes. While he did lose the popular vote and was a rather weak president because of it, he did make significant progress in reforming the civil service rules. I’d move him to 7, put Bush at 1 and move everyone else down the list.
1. GWB
2. Andrew Johnson
3. Polk
4. Fillmore
5. McKinley
6. Nixon
7. Hayes
Number 8: James Buchanan, whose wishy-washy approach to the slavery issue and the south in general did as much to set the stage for the Civil War as Lincoln’s election did.
“Captain Naraht’s” list gives good reason why the presidents he names would go on the “worst presidents” list, though I don’t know if I’d include Hayes unless he’d personally orchestrated the compromise to include the end of reconstruction.
However, here’s a key reason why George W. belongs ahead of all of them. Those men were all president during the 19th century (excepting McKinley, who was assassinated in 1901, the first year of the 20th century), when the United States had nowhere near superpower status. Most of the damage caused by poor decisions by those presidents (or members of their administrations) affected the U.S. alone.
By contrast, Bush is president of the world’s only superpower, and his poor decisions regarding the war in Iraq (among other issues) have had serious international repercussions. That’s not to say there were no international repercussions because of 19th century presidential blunders, but they didn’t have anywhere near the same impact in the same amount of time. Faster communications and means of transportation now allow for things to go wrong much more quickly than they did then.
So, George W. wins the “worst president ever” contest, in my opinion. And let’s hope he’s the worst ever, not the worst, so far. Others may have been more incompetent, overall, but they held office when the United States played a less significant role on the world stage.
Nixon was bad, too; but nowhere near as bad as Bush. All things being equal, I’d rather have Nixon back.
Rick
Rick, you DON’T want Nixon back. Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg of his corruption. And at one time he seriously contemplated using nukes in Vietnam.
It is far too early to know what George W. Bush’s place in history will be. I appreciate the strong feelings that everyone is bringing to this discussion, but I suspect those feelings are coloring your judgment and skewing your perpsective. I believe it will be decades, at least, before historians are really able to place Bush’s presidency into historical context with any degree of objectivity.
That said, I do believe Bush is unequivocally the worst president we’ve had in my lifetime, which will have spanned 37 years come this August.
Comments regarding some recent discussion items:
WAR DEATHS — Although, as a former active-duty servicemember, I consider the death of even one soldier in a conflict a sacrifice, the fact is that the war deaths in both Iraq (OIF) and Afghanistan (OEF) have been light compared to other U.S. conflicts in the past 100 years.
Total combat/non-combat deaths:
OEF/OIF: 3,443
Vietnam: 58,209
Korea: 36,574
WW II: 405,399
WW I: 116,516
(Ref: http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm)
WAR COSTS — Depending on different sources, the cost in dollars for WW II far eclipses anything we’ve spent on, or plan to spend on, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it has eclipsed the cost of the Korean War, and will most likely eventually exceed the cost of the Vietnam War.
Regarding the costs of the Korean War, however, there is one huge caveat that no one ever talks about — the cost of that conflict did not end in 1953 when the cease fire was signed. We have been paying for a continual major troop presence in Korea for an additional 54 years and counting, at a cost (in today’s dollars) of what even a conservative estimate would put in the one- or two-trillion-dollar range. It could actually be closer to four trillion — putting it into the ballpark of the raw costs of WW II. The reason I say raw costs of WW II, is because, like South Korea, we spent a ton of money to rebuild, and then permanently build bases in, Germany, Japan and Italy. Putting an actual dollar cost on what our post-WW II stabilizing and permanent Cold War basing efforts were for the U.S. is staggering.
In short, the cost of OEF/OIF compared to the cost of WW II, Korea and the Cold War puts it at a distant fourth. Ref: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003624025_warcost18.html
WAR EFFECT ON REGION’S STABILITY — Some have said the war had a terrible destabilizing effect on the region. My personal viewpoint is that’s a huge maybe. The region was not stable to begin with, and assuming that if we had not invaded Iraq or Afghanistan that Saddam and his sons, along with the Taliban and al Qaeda, would have spent the past four years holding hands with their neighbors, singing happy songs, is naïve at best.
Saddam would never have stood by passively as he watched Iran develop nuclear weapons, and I believe there would have most certainly been an arms race between the two countries — perhaps even another war. Perhaps Saddam would have even also started lobbing missiles at the nuclear-capable Israel again. Who knows? And if we had not attacked Afghanistan and the al Qaeda network, who knows what additional horrors they might have unleashed by now.
The bottom line: Yes, there’s plenty of room for criticism of this administration, but using terms like “unprecedented” and “worst ever”; or comparing this administration to totalitarian regimes of the past are silly and do nothing to further one’s arguments. The fact is, it’s too early to tell what the historical results of these two wars will be — and even the most expert of experts is just speculating. And if you think that statement is wrong, I’ll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that there wasn’t a policy expert alive in the U.S. in 1953 who envisioned the Korean War would still be at a stalemate 54 years later.
“WAR COSTS — Depending on different sources, the cost in dollars for WW II far eclipses anything we’ve spent on, or plan to spend on, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it has eclipsed the cost of the Korean War, and will most likely eventually exceed the cost of the Vietnam War.”
Are you also calculating the change in the purchasing power of the dollar? I assume that just as buying a comic is more expensive now than in the 60s, so are wars.
Also, there’s little point in talking about expenses without discussing what you got with your money, Americans were willing to spend a lot of money in and after WWII, but wha did thy get for their money? And wat did they get in Iraq?
“The region was not stable to begin with.”
It was more stable than it is now. Saddam’s Iraq balanced Iran in a very convenient wa for everybody.
“Perhaps Saddam would have even also started lobbing missiles at the nuclear-capable Israel again.”
Saddam only fired missiles on Israel because he was trying to make the first Gulf War into a war against Israel after the US attacked him (for good reasons in my opinion). He would not have just started firing missiles on Israel for no reason.
“And if we had not attacked Afghanistan and the al Qaeda network, who knows what additional horrors they might have unleashed by now.”
Attacking Afganistan was justified. It was the main base of the enemy that attacked New York. Attacking Iraq had little to do with that conflict at that stage.
I’ve read somewhere someone comparing Iraq to Korea. Mayb there’s something to learn from the analogy.
The DT’s are the ones who got fired- or the people at Walter Reed, or the exterpation of the Rule of Law in the MCA and Patriot act. Repubs are skittering away from this whole Decider-ata as well they should. We need to remind them that the Constitution is our benchmark of Democracy, and not “more like guidelines actually” to quote a cinematic pirate.
Comparing the deaths of various wars tells us little of value. More soldiers died in Vietnam and WW II than in Iraq because we sent more soldiers into those theaters. With modern technology and planning, we have the capability of accomplishing the same missions with fewer personnel. Also, we’ve have numerous advances in medical technology, life saving techniques, and safety equipment (when it is actually issued) has also reduced the probability of soldiers getting killed. Injuries and attacks that would have brought certain death in WW II or Vietnam or any earlier conflict are more suvivable.
The real question is, regardless of the number of deaths or dollars spent in comparison to previous conflicts, was the price we are paying worth in comparison to what we’re accomplishing.
Sure, we can speculate all day about what Saddam could have, despite having already lost effective control of 2/3 of his airspace and the entire northern region of Iraq, could have done. We can also speculate the Kim Jong Il could stick a nuke on a cargo ship and sail it into the San Francisco Bay. That doesn’t mean launching a full scale invasion and occupation was the best way to prevent such an possibility.
Micha makes a good point about the stability of the region. The main reason who tolerated Saddam’s (actually, the main reason Cheney and Rumsfeld jumped into bed with him) atrocities in the 80s was because he provided a convenient counterbalance to Iran. Now Iran actually has greater freedom to act in the region, despite the fact that we have troops in two of its neighbors.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan continues to be mostly anarchy, with the Taliban resurgeant, warlords and drug kingpins running the countryside, Karzai effectively only the mayor of Kabal because we took our eyes off the ball their.
Is Lebanon more stable today? The Palestinian territories? Is Israel any more secure now that it was in 2003?
With our troops now bogged down in two countries, we capability to respond to a third crisis is severely compromised. And no, saying that isn’t “emboldening the enemy”. They alreayd know this. It’s now actually in Al Qaeda’s best interest to keep our forces tied up in Iraq.
I don’t know what most military experts in 1953 were picturing what the Korean situation would look like today, but most of them did work with the assumption that cold war would still be going on even today, so it’s not that much of a stretch that they’d believe that there would still be tensions anywhere pro-western nations bordered on communist ones.
If, instead of invading Iraq, we had simply decided to burn $400 trillion, we would still be ahead 3,200 US soldiers, no civil war in Iraq, and no further commitment to burn any more money.
We got something for the money we spent in WWII. What did we get for the money we spent on Iraq except more trouble?
DEN WROTE: “Comparing the deaths of various wars tells us little of value. More soldiers died in Vietnam and WW II than in Iraq because we sent more soldiers into those theaters.”
Huh? Double huh? From a career military person’s point of view, it is most certainly relevant. And even if you calculated the ratio of killed to the number serving in various major historical wartime theaters, I’ll wager you’ll find this war has one of the lowest percentage of casualties of the wars I listed.
And something I believe you are not taking into consideration is the true number of troops who have served in Iraq. Don’t be fooled by the “140,000 and change” end-strength number you read about.
In Vietnam, the standard cycle for a 2-year draftee went thusly: Basic training, technical training, ship to Vietnam for a year, rotate stateside, and then separate. That doesn’t happen in an all-volunteer force.
There are many troops who have two or three tours in Iraq/Afghanistan, and most troops will end up serving at least one tour there. And I’ll bet of just the 1.2 million Army active-duty/Reserve/Guard troops, at least ¾ have been to Iraq or Afghanistan at least once since the war began. Figure in the 120,000 or so people who have joined the Army since 2003 to replace those who have separated, and you probably have had a million or more Army troops serve in Southwest Asia. Now add the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy people who have served in Southwest Asia, and the pool you seem to think isn’t very big is pretty huge indeed. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it comes to at least 1.5 million people to date.
DEN WROTE: “With modern technology and planning, we have the capability of accomplishing the same missions with fewer personnel.”
One of the biggest criticisms towards this administration regarding the War in Iraq was the fact that we did not initially send in a much, much larger force of troops, like we did during the 1991 Gulf War. Apparently, then, you and this administration are in agreement with the “less is more” strategy of warfighting.
DEN WROTE: “The real question is, regardless of the number of deaths or dollars spent in comparison to previous conflicts, was the price we are paying worth in comparison to what we’re accomplishing.”
I can’t agree with you more! That’s the million-dollar question! Historically speaking, we do not know yet what the long-term impact of this operation will be, and we may not know for decades.
If, instead of invading Iraq, we had simply decided to burn $400 trillion,
Um, I gotta call bûllšhìŧ on that one. Typo?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 26, 2007 03:15 PM
Um, I gotta call bûllšhìŧ on that one. Typo?
Good call. The cost to date is estimated to be about $500 billion. If it lasts another three years, esitmates are that it could cost upwards of $1 trillion.
A recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times points out that even though the Iraq war has been more costly than George W. Bush promised, it is still eating up less than 1 percent of our nation’s gross domestic product, whereas Vietnam ate up as much as 14 percent and Korea 9 percent.
This is why it is absurd to call this war “unprecedented.” In terms of human lives lost, in terms of monetary costs, in terms of impact on our national security, or any other dimension you can mention, there are wars that have been far costlier.
Rather than exaggerating where Iraq fits in terms of historical context, I’d suggest instead we discuss the war on its merits instead. There are more than enough reasons to condemn the decision to go to war in Iraq and the way that war has been fought without making wildly inaccurate claims about it.
MICHA WROTE: “Are you also calculating the change in the purchasing power of the dollar? I assume that just as buying a comic is more expensive now than in the 60s, so are wars.”
Of course.! Without adjusting for inflation, such comparisons would be meaningless.
MICHA WROTE : “It was more stable than it is now. Saddam’s Iraq balanced Iran in a very convenient wa for everybody.”
It was more stable at a single point in time four years ago. But the world is not static, as I pointed out. With Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq would not have sat there and done nothing. If anything, there probably would have been a great sense of urgency on the part of both countries to be the first to field a nuke.
MICHA WROTE: “With our troops now bogged down in two countries, we capability to respond to a third crisis is severely compromised.”
And where, in all likelihood, might that crisis be?
Iran? We already have nearly 200,000 troops on both sides of Iran (in Iraq and Afghanistan).
South Korea? We’ve got 40,000 on the ground, tens of thousands more troops in the Pacific, and the very capable South Korea Army in full force. That being said, with the millions of residents of Seoul held as hostage within range of the North’s artillery and short-range missiles, we can’t do anything to the North except talk — which we’ve now been doing for 54 years.
MICHA WROTE: I don’t know what most military experts in 1953 were picturing what the Korean situation would look like today, but most of them did work with the assumption that cold war would still be going on even today, so it’s not that much of a stretch that they’d believe that there would still be tensions anywhere pro-western nations bordered on communist ones.
Well, I’ve read nothing suggesting that 1950s-era U.S. policy makers expected a 54-year (and counting) standoff with North Korea. Keep in mind that the Cold War ended 18 years ago — and Korea is still a tinderbox on hair-trigger alert.
Billion.
I didn’t call the war unprecedented. Who are you criticizing?