The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
We’ve been sending troops into Iraq. The result? Civil War, fighting, and young people dying.
Bush’s solution? Send troops into Iraq.
Different result?
No reason to believe so.
Someone should do a dictionary entry for “Insanity” with Bush’s picture next to it.
PAD
• 
I bet if Bush made his comment today about how easy it would be to be a dictator, versus when he actually did say it several years back, there would be a lot more nervous laughter in the room.
And about 19-30% of Americans would nod and say, “well what’s wrong with that?”.
When the Gauls saw the Romans building bridges right in front of their eyes — to cross a river for the purposes of kicking their áššëš — they çráppëd where they stood. The Romans legions were not dainty.
I want to include a majority consensus (at least 50%) among Iraqi voters as a condition to the suggestion of my previous post. They’re glad Saddam’s gone, but they may support some reasonable restoration of his order.
PAD wrote:
“We went in there to find WMDs. There were none. We leave.”
I’m reminded of a political cartoon I saw a couple of years back (possibly during the election?). It had George Bush standing next to an eye chart, with a man representing the Democrats in the chair in front of said chart. The chart read, in huge letters, “WMD”. Under that, in slightly smaller letters, it said “CUT OFF IRAQI TERROR MONEY”. Under that, a bit smaller, “ESTABLISH A FOOTHOLD FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST”. Below that, “END A MURDEROUS REGIME.” Under that, “STOP MASS GRAVES”. Bush was pointing at the second line, but the Democrat said simply, “Since WMD haven’t been found, there was reason to invade Iraq.” (Please understand that I’m writing this from memory, and may have specifics of the cartoon wrong, but the gist is correct. Also, unfortunately, I don’t remember the artist’s name)
You may not agree with any of those reasons, but it’s dishonest to act as though that “WMD” was the only reason we are there.
The only thing holding that country together is the US. Unfortunately, no matter how much peace the US military PLACES upon the region, as soon as the US leaves, guess what? It goes right back to the fighting. Why can’t those of you who support Bush see that?
It doesn’t matter what we do. We stay there, we quell the nation, the government is made strong, the police is strong, and with our troops there all is at peace. But as soon as we leave, do you believe for one second no insurgents are going to fill that void? It will happen either way: Either now, or later. It doesn’t matter.
The only difference is, with US troops there, our military is stretched thin and our boys are in harms way.
And PAD, that plan to hold an Iraqi vote and discover what the Iraqi people want as far as US presence there is exactly what should happen.
Unfortunately, Bush would say, “Well, I’m the decider. The Iraqi people don’t have all the facts. I have the facts.” Bah! Instead, the US is the dictator in this situation.
Robin:
“Our weapons inspectors have been prevented by Saddam’s regime from finding any of his weapons of mass destruction.”
“Saddam’s agents were trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger.”
“We can’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud.”
Remember any of these? Do you remember a single time during Bush’s sales campaign for his little war in which “democracy” or “mass graves” were even mentioned? (Might have been a little embarrassing, after all – the mass graves were partly because the rebels in Iraq in 1991 were led to believe they would have our backing, but Bush’s daddy left them twisting in the wind..)
Those others may or may not have been a legitimate reason to wage war (for instance, if we’re all about stopping government-sanctioned mass murder, why aren’t we in Darfur?), but they were never mentioned by Bush & Co until after the fact. The point remains, and will always remain (for those of us whose memories aren’t defined by VH1) that the WMDs were the sole selling point used by the administration. Hëll, they’re the ones who popularized the term!
The hunt for the phantom WMD were not the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq, but they were the centerpiece of his marketing plan for selling the war to the American people. They had actually done focus testing to confirm that this was the issue most people would support. And that has to be the most reprehensible thing Bush has ever done.
After the WMDs were not found, Bush shifted focus to the various other reasons, changing them as his rationales changed.
As it is, I don’t believe any of the reasons Bush has ever been the “real” reason he wanted to invade. Establishing democracy in the region has always been secondary to the US, and to his supporters in particular, compared to establishing a pliable region.
But let’s move away from the justifications to the net results. The main reasons we tolerated Saddam prior to 1991 (more than tolerated, actually, in the 80s, Rummy and Ðìçk were in bed with him) was that he provided a counter to Iran, just as we previously used the Shah in Iran to counter other forces in the region.
So, with Saddam gone and Iraq in disarray, are we supposed to act shocked that Iran is now a rising power in the region?
So let’s look at those other goals:
Establish a foothold of democracy in the region: Well, there were elections, but you need more than just holding elections to have a democracy. The Soviets had elections. Iran has elections. You need freedom and stability to have democracy and Iraq doesn’t have either and none on the horizon either.
Stop Mass Graves: Well, okay. People are no longer being dumped into single mass graves. Bravo. I’m sure that’s a comfort to the families of the hundreds of thousands that were killed in the insurgency/civil war that their loved ones now each get their own grave.
End a Murderous Regime: That’s all well in good, but then you have to replace it with something. Something other than anarchy. Right now, the smart money is still on an Iranian-style theocracy, which is what I have predicted four years ago. As the Who once put it: Meet the new boss, sames as the old boss.
Cut off Iraqi Terror Money: Well, there’s an accomplishment. Of course, Saddam was a small fish in the terror money pond compared to Iran, Syria, and our “friend” Saudi Arabia, so the impact on the terror money faucet has been negligible (See: today’s bombing of our embassey in Greece).
So, was this little adventure worth all the blood and money we spent on it? Let me get the Magic 8-Ball out.
“Sources point to No”.
Whenever the subject of the “real” reason for invading Iraq comes up, my brain involuntarily calls up the sound of Dubya’s voice (or that of an impersonator) saying, “He tried to kill my Dad.”
He’ll never admit it, but that’s why we’re there: Because the President had a personal grudge against Saddam. Enriching all the corporate friends of the administration was just an added benefit. It’s got nothing to do with spreading democracy, preventing genocide or WMDs. It’s a grudge, pure and simple. The trouble is, the grudge is now settled, but the fighting is still going on.
If Bush weren’t the President of the most powerful nation in the world he’d actually be pitiable. I almost feel sorry for him. He acts like some mental patient with pathological delusion: whenever the world contradict his bizarre beliefs, his answer is to cling to his delusions ever more fervently. A classical case of a man in utter denial.
He acts like some mental patient
****
Wow, you guys have really really lost it yourselves haven’t you.
No one now who disagrees with you can be a reasonable, sincere person who has different political beliefs. Amazing. You’d think you’d find intelligent debate here. You’d be wrong. You find those who simply want to here there view again and again and feel they have nothing to learn from anybody. Similar to how you guys feel about Bush. Amazing how we become the things we hate.
Well, spiderrob, I hate to say “they started it”, but this is the way the debate has been framed for the past six years by the republicans. Anyone who disagreed with them was(take your pick): cowardly, weak, anti-American, unpatriotic, stupid, or just plain “wanted America to fail”. Or, my personal favorite, they would rather see the terrorists destroy America than see Bush/America succeed.
Shoe’s on the other foot. Excuse me while I don’t feel much sympathy for the republican side now.
Do you remember a single time during Bush’s sales campaign for his little war in which “democracy” or “mass graves” were even mentioned
*****]
Yes. Frequently he spoke of freeing the iraqi people, instituting a democratic/free regime and freeing them from a murderous despot.
here’s two high profgile moments which underscore the debate that had taken place and the issues raised continuously for the entire time. (WMDs was the debated one, there was no debate over mass graves and improving the Iraqi people-but they were frequently mentioned).
Congressional resolution authorizing force 5 months before the war:
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Bush war speech in march 2003-
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military — a final atrocity against his people. We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
Bush speech to the nation in october 2002-
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us.
the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty
Bush-Hussein has 48 hours to leave speech-We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land.
The repubnlican platform in 2000 supported full implemtentation of the Iraq Liberation Act-which stated It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime
Bush speech to UN 9/12/02-Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit “extremely grave violations” of human rights and that the regime’s repression is “all pervasive.” Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents — all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others — again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis — a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
Again and again, Saddam’s cruelty to his people and freedom for the Iraqi people, along with the WMDs claim and the “we can’t wait-9/11 taught us that” claim. Sorry you don’t remember. The record is there for those who care to look and be honest.
WMD + terrorism was presented as the reason why itis urgent to invade Iraq. Removing a despot + democracy was the icing on the cake.
WMD + terrorism was presented as the reason why it is urgent to invade Iraq. Removing a despot + democracy was the icing on the cake.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at January 12, 2007 06:19 PM
You’d think you’d find intelligent debate here. You’d be wrong.
Actually, I’ve found plenty of intelligent debate here. If you debate intelligently and with civility, you will attract others who do the same. When you do the opposite, you attract others who also do the opposite.
1Actually, I’ve found plenty of intelligent debate here. If you debate intelligently and with civility, you will attract others who do the same. When you do the opposite, you attract others who also do the opposite.
****
Yes, you can debate with people who call people with similar viewpoints insane, bášŧárdš and all sorts of other names.
See, people who disagree on politics can debate. If they are reasonable people and it helps to be a little open minded. or polite.
This blog has none of those facets (when it comes to politics). Very similar to the John Byrne board that way. It comes from the top on down. PAD has no respect for anyone with different viewpoints, he’s nasty, and name calls. and so it goes.
If you feel that way, you know where the exit is.
WMD + terrorism was presented as the reason why it is urgent to invade Iraq. Removing a despot + democracy was the icing on the cake.
****
They were all presented, but true, the urgency came from WMDs and we can’t wait anymore, 9/11 proved that, type arguments.
But as usual, the myth was spouted above that democracy, freedom, the brutality of Saddam was never an issue, never mentioned. and it is in every single speech and address.
Den: If you feel that way, you know where the exit is.
******
Because we are so reasonable and open minded, “get the hëll out.”
funny. Somehow i think you’d not like “America love it or leave it” arguments, but you make a simiar argument yourself.
I just never really met people like this until i came to this board and byrne’s board. People with such blinders on they cannot debate politics in a good natured respected way. Most of my best friends have opposite views of mine and we can debate strongly but civilly. Unfortunately, it isn’t true here.
PAD himself ignored me because i brought up WWII a few times-thje last time in a debate over ethics. I “violated” Godwin’s law.
Of course, you can’t “violate” Godwin’s law anymore than you can violate the law of Gravity. Godwin’s law states what will happen, it’s not a law as in a law with penalties for violating it. It doesn’t say “Don’t do this.” But PAD overlooked that becauase, as I said, he isn’t interested in debate. That’s cool. that’s why he has a blog. to tell you what he thinks. byrne should learn from him.
We’ve become Yankee-educated, Alabama-National-Guard -evading, DUI-burying, Sammy-Sosa-trading, Arab-oil-money-borrowing, middle-class-savings-harvesting, Southern oligarchs? This means I can hand out Medals of Freedom to score with chicks, right?
The people who claim that it was all WMD may be over-simplifying the issue and as a result making the result more shallow. But Bush used the WMD in order to create an impression of urgency that would get Americans (and also the UN, unsuccessfully) to support an invasion, because ultimatly Americans would not have supported a full scale invasion and regime change just because Sadam was a ruthless despot. So at worse Bush was lying in order to create the proper spin in order to get Americans to go to war, at best he sincerely believed that there were WMD that required an urgent war, which means he was acting on mistaken intelligence.
Whatever the cae may be, he then went on to lead a war based on mistaken strategic assumptions, continued following the same strategy as the situation deteriorated, bringing us to the wonderful situation today in which the only options are (a) running away and hoping for the best, or (b) gambling on another risky strategy nobody really believes is going to work, and hoping for he best.
In any case, Bush did a bad job as war leader, and his mistakes were forseable.
at best he sincerely believed that there were WMD that required an urgent war, which means he was acting on mistaken intelligence
****
Bingo.
Bill Clinton: I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
But either way, the facts are there regarding liberty and Saddam’s bad actions. and like 50 other minor things mentioned in the congressional resolution. But the liberty thing was crucial because it was the domino that, over decades, was hopefully going to help transform the middle east
and frankly, I don’t know whether the American people would have supported it without WMDs or not-I’ve never seen Americans not support a president who wanted to go to war (except WWII) off the top of my head. They don’t always stick with it, but they virtually always support it.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at January 12, 2007 07:04 PM
Yes, you can debate with people who call people with similar viewpoints insane, bášŧárdš and all sorts of other names.
No, I’ve debated here with people who disagreed with my point of view but were nevertheless respectful. The reason why you’re finding that none of those people will engage you because you’re exhibiting the very qualities you claim to abhor.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at January 12, 2007 07:04 PM
See, people who disagree on politics can debate. If they are reasonable people and it helps to be a little open minded. or polite.
This blog has none of those facets (when it comes to politics). Very similar to the John Byrne board that way. It comes from the top on down. PAD has no respect for anyone with different viewpoints, he’s nasty, and name calls. and so it goes.
Actually, it has all of those facets. It has civil, respectful, intelligent debaters. It also has its share of hotheads. The reason why you’re being engaged primarily by the latter is a reflection on your own behavior.
PAD tends to match the tone (within limits) with which he is addressed.
Want to be treated with respect and civility? Try treating others the same. You’re far more combative than you wish to believe you are, and are quite guilty of that which you claim to abhor.
I guess I’m going to have to add you to the ignore pile. Which is too bad. Because, while I often disagree with you, your views are not completely without merit. And you often bring interesting facts to light. But your proclivity for starting trouble outweighs the benefits you bring.
That’s three for the ignore pile. Shìŧ. I really don’t want it to grow further.
When I come back, I am going to read all of the posts in the most recent political threads — and Captain Naraht, yes, I will comment. Although I cannot, for the life of me, fathom why you find my comments interesting enough to actually ask for them. There are many posters here who are far more well-informed and insightful. I’m just a “B-lister.” 😛
“I guess I’m going to have to add you to the ignore pile.”
I don’t think that’s necessary in this case. The ignoring option should probably be reserved to people with whom you cannot have any rational discussions. But it’s your choice.
Spiderbob, I said it before, you can harp on the fact that Den or PAD react in a heated aggressive way to your posts, or yo can address the issues. Bush took the advice of one group of people and ignored the advice of others, and that had consequences.
“But the liberty thing was crucial because it was the domino that, over decades, was hopefully going to help transform the middle east”
And here is the problem:
1) Some people in a think tank somewhere came up with the briliant idea of the US invading a country and creating a domino effect of democracy. A perpetual American revolution if you will. Bush adopted this approach.
2) Although the US has already involved in Afghanistan, somebody decided to make Iraq of all places the first experiment in this new theory, although Iraq was not really involved at the time in any meaningful way in the global Islamic terrorist movement.
3) When the time came to sell this new approach to the American people, instead of discussing this approach at the forefront, the issue of WMD was pushed to the forefront, creating a mistaken sense of urgency.
4) Bush then invaded Iraq, based on this approach about a democratic domino effect coupled with an equally dubious miiltary strategy, and the whole thing blew up in everybody’s face.
Now, even if we assume the stoic calm of a Budhist monk, and refrain from the kind of irrational heated language that often creeps into political discussion from left and right, still somebody should be held accountable to this whole mess, and it’s not Clinton. Certainly you can look at the Iraqis as partially responsible for this mess. I’m not giving them a free pass. But they were not the ones who invaded a country with weak intelligence, bad theory and a bad strategy. Bush should own up to his large share of the blame, just as he would have enjoyed a large share of the success if there was any.
Posted by: Micha at January 12, 2007 08:24 PM
“I guess I’m going to have to add you to the ignore pile.”
I don’t think that’s necessary in this case. The ignoring option should probably be reserved to people with whom you cannot have any rational discussions. But it’s your choice.
You may be right. As I said, spiderrob8 (it’s not Spiderbob, actually) often brings interesting facts to light, even if he interprets them in ways that are contrary to my own interpretations.
I just hate it when people come in and cause a ruckus and then declare, “Well, this place is a ruckus! You people are suck!”
And yes, I’ve done it before myself. But to my credit I’ve had the self-awareness to recognize it and try to do better. Is it so much to ask that other people make a good-faith effort to do the same?
Ah, I’m probably just being preachy because I had too much wine with dinner tonight. I’m sure that tomorrow I’ll have something on-topic to say that’ll once again trick a few of you into believing I’m a rational person.
What evidence? When Bush was going around saying Saddam had biological weapons and was buying uranium, the only people who spoke for the CIA, the IAEA, and Israeli intelligence were shrugging their shoulders and shaking their heads not knowing what Bush was talking about.
There is no count you can repeat a lie that will make it true.
I didn’t mean to offend you, Spiderrob8. I didn’t call you insane, nor did I say all conservatives are insane or evil. I was talking about Bush only. It wasn’t an indictment of all conservatives.
I mean, it was proven again and again that his approach and strategy are wrong-headed, that they don’t work, and what is his big new plan now when we desperately need a new direction?
Just doing more or less the same he did before! And pray this time it works, because, in his own words, “It has to work!”
He sounds like a desperate man to me, a man that has let wishful thinking substitute reason. Again I say, I’d feel sorry for him if he weren’t the President.
So, your man is insane, our guy is just delusional…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=428433&in_page_id=1770
“Blair dismissed as ‘delusional’ after defending his policy on Iraq”
Oh, brave new world….
Cheers!
Okay, I just read about one-hundred-thousand eleventy-skillion posts in three Iraq-related threads and I’m exhausted. But at least I can comment now in good conscience.
A lot of you are being shrill, hyper-emotional, bordering on the irrational. Typically, I reject that kind of stuff, even if it’s coming from those whose views are largely aligned with my own.
But today, I think people have a right to be shrill. As I said in a prior post, the mid-term elections were about the Iraq War as much as anything else. The people spoke loud and clear, but Bush was predictably deaf to their collective voice, thunderous as it was. They demanded change, they spoke with their votes, and Bush responded by offering more-of-the-same disguised as “new and improved.”
That said, I know I’m gonna get pilloried from all sides for what I’m about to say next: I don’t believe that it’s right to just pull out of Iraq. I believe the consequences could be more disastrous for the Middle East, and for the U.S. in the long term, than many of you are willing to acknowledge. On the other hand, I don’t believe it’s right for us to remain in Iraq if all we are going to do is stay on our present course.
Leaving aside the wisdom of invading Iraq in the first place (and I don’t think it was wise at all), I believe we got where are today because:
*The Bush administration committed enough troops to take Iraq but not nearly enough to hold Iraq.
*The Bush administration disbanded the Iraqi army.
*The Bush administration placed its faith in Ahmad Chalabi, who had neither credibility nor influence in Iraq.
*The Bush administration attempted to bar Baathists from having any role in the reconstruction of Iraq.
*The Bush administration failed to deal in the Sunnis when the Iraqi government was formed, an error which to this day has not been corrected.
Why Bush and his inner circle make those mistakes? Because they repeatedly refused to listen to dissenting voices. They closed their eyes and ears whenever facts were brought to light that contradicted their pet hypotheses and cherished assumptions.
In business, there is a movement called “Six Sigma.” It’s not worth going into detail about it — it’s yet another management theory, so what else is new? But one of the core principles of Six Sigma is that management must make “data-driven” decisions based on logical analyses of empirical evidence, rather than relying on gut feelings and possibly bad assumptions. Really, that’s the only way to approach any kind of organization, whether you’re talking about a business or government.
That, right then and there, is the problem. Every single assumption the Bush administration had had about Iraq has been proven wrong.
Every. Single. One.
And yet it doesn’t visibly faze Bush in the least.
Captain Naraht has repeatedly advocated a regional diplomatic solution to Iraq. I believe that such a diplomatic initiative, coupled with the proper application of military force, might have a slim chance of salvaging something from this mess.
But that would require Bush to scrap his pet theories about warfare in favor of tried and true strategies. It would mean he’d have to choose the best diplomats, rather than his cronies. He’d have to abandon his black-and-white view of the universe in favor of dealing with unsavory nations like Syria and Iran. And ultimately, he’d have to monitor the situation closely, objectively evaluate things as they unfold, and make intelligent adjustments as the situation warrants.
He has shown that he lacks the ability to do any of those things. He is a rigid thinker at a time when we need a nimble, agile mind to guide us. He is the wrong man for this place and time.
Which is why I fear we are about to collectively fall over the proverbial cliff.
But one of the core principles of Six Sigma is that management must make “data-driven” decisions based on logical analyses of empirical evidence, rather than relying on gut feelings and possibly bad assumptions.
Luigi Novi: In other words, the idea is that conclusions in matters of fact and reason should be drawn using aspects of the Scientific Method. Something I’ve observed for some years now. Nice to know someone else has noticed this. 🙂
Bill Myers stated:
“But that would require Bush to scrap his pet theories about warfare in favor of tried and true strategies. It would mean he’d have to choose the best diplomats, rather than his cronies. He’d have to abandon his black-and-white view of the universe in favor of dealing with unsavory nations like Syria and Iran. And ultimately, he’d have to monitor the situation closely, objectively evaluate things as they unfold, and make intelligent adjustments as the situation warrants.
He has shown that he lacks the ability to do any of those things. He is a rigid thinker at a time when we need a nimble, agile mind to guide us. He is the wrong man for this place and time.
Which is why I fear we are about to collectively fall over the proverbial cliff.”
And thus you outline one of the flaws in my diobolical plan. But with Dems in control of Congress and the senior Republican in Foriegn Relations Committee being Senator Lugar himself, perhaps some carrot-stick approach might work with the President. Lets see how this plays out…
The other flaw in my plan is if the US simply has no diplomatic credibility anymore. Then it won’t matter how sincere the US invitation, the players just won’t come.
Then it’s hello cliff…..
–Captain Naraht.
P.S. Bill, I realize there are other thoughtful posters here like Peter Poole the Spectacular Bloggerman, Sean Scullion, or Bill Mulligan or even spiderrob and Den themselves. It just seemed as if most of the posters in this thread had been bitten by really cranky zombies.
I needed someone to post who only goes nuts when bitten by zombie SQUIRRELS. ;n) -Capt.
From the AP two hours ago–“To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” Bush said.
Ooooooookay. That was in response to the people who’ve stood up and told him that his plan isn’t going to work. Ironic choice of words, there. Shall we look at all of the administration’s actions that could be called irresponsible? Like maybe, I’m not sure, let’s think, taking over a country without knowing what the hëll you’re going to do AFTER that?
Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 13, 2007 06:43 PM
I needed someone to post who only goes nuts when bitten by zombie SQUIRRELS.
Dr. William Myers: physician; scientist. Searching for a way to tap into the hidden strengths that all humans have. Then an accidental overdose of squirrel bites alters his body chemistry. And now when William Myers grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs…
The squirrels are not the real threat.
I just saw a headline about a giant rabbit breader from Germany who cut a deal with North Korea to bread more giant rabbits (in a giant farm apparently). They claim it’s in order to deal with starvation in North Korea, but after seeing pictures of the Giant Rabbits, and Monty Python’s Holy Grail, I’m worried.
Okay, folks, you heard the man. Thus endeth the running joke about me and the conniving squirrels… and thus beginneth the running joke about Micha, the German-North Korean Axis of Evil, and their army of Evil Giant Rabbits who can only be defeated with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
Everyone can lay off of me and pile onto Micha now. 😛
All: I’d like to offer a clarification/amplification of a previous comment. When I said people “have a right to be shrill” at this time, I was trying to convey my belief that an outpouring of anger towards Bush is understandable, justifiable, and just plain human. He intends to send another 20,000 troops into harm’s way in order to tweak a failed policy when he should be rebuilding that policy from the ground up.
We’re talking about human lives and human suffering. It is natural that people react with strong emotion.
But simply venting strong emotion in a forum such as this will do nothing to change the current situation. And I’m not comfortable simply resigning myself to the idea of two more years of “same old, same old” in Iraq. A lot of really awful things can happen in two years’ time.
My question to all of you: what should our policy be and why, and how can we convince our elected officials to move in this direction?
(I have my own contribution to make… but first I wanna see if anyone else is interested in throwing their hat into this ring.)
Addendum: Some of you may the post above and think, “Gee whiz, I already SAID what I think we should do.”
But a lot of posts along those lines have consisted of little more than cries for Bush to resign, or declarations that we should pull out immediately. I’m curious about the facts you’ve used to draw these conclusions… and more important, how we can press our elected officials to do what we believe to be the right thing.
Hopefully the response won’t be tantamount to crickets chirping in the still and empty night…
Posted by Bill Myers at January 14, 2007 09:19 AM
“… and thus beginneth the running joke about Micha, the German-North Korean Axis of Evil, and their army of Evil Giant Rabbits who can only be defeated with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.”
Mock not the rabbit… This is the creature that defeated Napoleon:
“Berthier, the great organizer of the marches of Napoleon’s Army-Corps, tried his hand at organizing a shoot in order to please Napoleon.
Every detail… was worked out with the same meticulous accuracy with which the Grande Armee had been swept from Boulogne to Austerlitz.
The carriages arrived on the stroke at the Tuilleries, the beaters were ready, the keepers in their best clothes, a beautiful lunch waiting to be eaten, and a thousand rabbits, brought the night before and dumped in the park, waiting to be shot.
But poor Berthier made one trivial mistake.
Instead of buying wild rabbits, he bought tame ones and did not know they were accustomed to being fed twice a day. When the emperor took his gun in hand and advanced into the park, the rabbits, all thousand of them, mistook him for the man who provided their daily lettuce and leapt to their feet and charged towards him.
Berthier and his staff beat them off with horse-whips, but the rabbits, who were more expert in the Napoleanic warfare than some of the Marshals, wheeled around on both flanks and actually reached the emperor’s carriage before the emperor could mount and drive off back to Paris.”
Maybe we should send rabbits to Iraq?
Cheers.
I just saw a headline about a giant rabbit breader from Germany who cut a deal with North Korea to bread more giant rabbits (in a giant farm apparently). They claim it’s in order to deal with starvation in North Korea, but after seeing pictures of the Giant Rabbits, and Monty Python’s Holy Grail, I’m worried.
As shown in the documentary film Night of the Lepus, this effort will end in tears.
(Speaking of North Korea and zombies…ok, we weren’t but I’m not the Master of the Segue, gimme a break here… the absolutely GREAT book WORLD WAR Z has a chapter where, just as the poop hits the propeller, the entire,/i> population of North Korea vanishes. Not a trace or them.
The author assumes that they all went underground into the vast array of tunnels and subterranean cities that the Great Leader constructed for the nuclear war he felt was inevitable. And there…who knows? Either Kim is, at last, the God-king he always imagined himself to be, wrongly thinking that here was the last remaining human life on earth…or, more likely, the infection got in at some point and there are now 23 million screaming hungry zombies clawing their way to the surface. I expect they will reach daybreak in time for the sequel.
Great book.
Here is a link to one article about the giant rabbits and North Korea:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,458863,00.html
We’re talking Rabbits the size of dogs here.
Also, where do you think the Holy Grenade of Antioch comes from? The middle East. It’s all connected.
on a less serious note:
“My question to all of you: what should our policy be and why, and how can we convince our elected officials to move in this direction?”
Causing political change is very difficult. That’s why the people are often fanatics or cynics or both. You also have a problem because very little can affect bush at present.
You know, some of those rabbit pictures look like they are being artificially enhanced with the use of a wide angle lens. look at http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MTg0NzMmbnI9Mg_3_3,00.html
The rabbit’s head is bigger than it’s entire lower half! There’s no question that the blasted thing is a monster, no need to use a fish-eye lens to make the point.
(on the other hand, this is a GREAT technique when photographing a fish one has caught–an average sized perch can become Moby Ðìçk if held close enough to the lens)
Just as a query, are these going to be our version of Saddam’s “Human Shield”? Except this time, instead of playing upon the nonexistant terrorist/insurgent/revolutionary benevolence to not kill noncombatants, these new troops will actually help stop the bullets and shrapnel that we evidently can’t afford to stop with ARMOR?!? Y’know, because even with all those BILLIONS of dollars, we still can’t seem to keep our troops equipped. What the f#$% are layered on those humvees now, fruit rollups?!? I say no troops until all that dámņ money’s been accounted for, and then we send equipment with what resources would have been used for the soldiers getting shipped out. But, if we see too many fingers in the cookie jar, we bring what we’ve got deployed back, take the embezzling little fecal featured prìçkš into an Arizona army base, and let the families of those who’ve been killed deliver some bloody justice upon them. Perhaps this sounds a bit “Punisher”, but there’s been so much incompetence and corruption with regards to this war that I’m incredibly fed up.
The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
Usually that is either insane or merely very stupid, I agree.
The exception I can think of is if you are digging for something; oil, buried treasure, diamonds, whatever. If you aren’t using heavy machinery then you must do the same thing repeatedly before finally reaching your goal, whether that is scooping up shovelfuls of dirt or swinging a pickaxe.
I suppose it’s possible Bush really does believe that success in Iraq is achievable instead of being the same as (here’s a reference for the ST:TNG geeks out there) trying to beat Data in a game of Stratagema when Data decides to focus completely on defense. (For the people who didn’t see that episode, it’s the equivalent of an indefinite stalemate.)
It’s possible that Bush is thinking “Well, they can’t keep this up forever. I mean, how many insurgents can there possibly be, anyway? All we have to do is outlast them.”
I would say the flaw in that kind of thinking is that it rejects the possibility that more and more people are joining the insurgency or Al Qaeda as a result of Bush’s policies angering them, while fewer and fewer people want to join the armed forces, and those currently in the armed forces on their fourth or fifth tours have got to be getting pretty demoralized by now.
As long as innocent people are in Gitmo, people will be angry. As long as Bush refuses to apologize to the Iraqi people and says that, if anything, THEY owe HIM, people will be angry. As long as U.S. troops over there do things to get on the bad side of the Iraqi people, they will be angry. Out of all these angry people, a certain percentage will decide that they are mad as hëll, will not take it anymore, and that they will resort to violence. And that’s not even taking into account the Sunni/Shi’a conflict.
So I say declare it a lost cause, get the hëll out of there, let these poor bášŧárdš sink or swim on their own…hëll, if some of them want to be evacuated from the country, evacuate as many as possible as was done in the final days of Vietnam.
And hëll yes, somebody should apologize to them. If not Bush, then his successor. Somebody should apologize to them for America’s inability to realize that by eliminating one problem (Saddam), they might create a larger problem that would make life even worse for many Iraqis…and would cause many other Iraqis who would have continued to live under the old regime to lose their lives.
Finally, for the love of god, stop pìššìņg the world off, Dubya. If you wanted America to have more enemies when you left office than it did when you were sworn in, then Bushie, you’ve done a helluva job.
A former Powell aide is reporting Iran offered in 2003 to withdraw their support of Lebonese and Palestinian militant groups and give access to Iran’s nuclear program, in exchange for ending hostilities with Iran, sanctions, and the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq:
Rob, you’re digging anaolgies aren’t on point. Usually, when you do those actions, you’ve got some indication that you’re going to eventually succeed…test drilling, ground Xray scans, following a mineral vein…something indicated to you that you would find what you were looking for.
Some fool with a pickaxe digging in his backyard because he read that oil comes from the ground, and then constantly repeating that action despite a lack of success and people telling him he’ll fail…that’s a crazy person.
So which is Bush? Did he act on reliable evidence that his plan of sweeping in, democracy in tow, freedom riding at his side, would win over the Iraqi people and give him his 6 month victory? Or did he have people all around him telling him it would be a quagmire of epic proportions, that you can’t force democracy on a a people, and that we’d foster an environment of resistance and instability that would make the world a far more dangerous place?
“Usually, when you do those actions, you’ve got some indication that you’re going to eventually succeed…test drilling, ground Xray scans, following a mineral vein…something indicated to you that you would find what you were looking for.”
For whatever reason, he thought he knew better than all the people telling him it’d be a bad idea. Maybe he thinks that God wants him to do this and that it’ll all work out in the end. I don’t know.
If somebody is digging in their backyard I would not personally call them “crazy.” I mean, it’s improbable that they’ll find anything of value, but not impossible. If they are SURE they will find something, then I’d agree that they’re deluded. But they’re also optimistic, and Bush has described himself as an optimist.
The following are just a series of guesses. Perhaps he thinks that he has God and great military might on his side and therefore there is no problem that he can’t solve, given enough time. When you think about the kind of stuff he probably heard growing up (like “America beat the Nazis and saved all of Europe,” and “America is the greatest country in the world,” and so forth) it’s not as surprising.
He, like a lot of people, was conditioned to be–you’ll have to excuse me–proud of his country to the point of conceit. He was also probably told that if he tried hard enough he could accomplish anything, even be president. Unlike for most people, this actually came true for him. So if he was told he could accomplish anything, that would have fed this belief. Now he has the resources of what’s been described as “the world’s only remaining superpower” to work with, and he’s full of himself, and he decides that there’s nothing he can’t do.
So, he tried to do something even though people told him it was a bad idea. After all, a lot of people thought he wasn’t presidential material and yet he wound up in office somehow, right? He probably thought that all the people telling him Iraq was a bad idea were just nattering nabobs of negativity like the ones who told him he couldn’t be president.
But now he’s failing. And he’s too stubborn to acknowledge it. And, just like things worked out for him in 2000 even though it looked like they wouldn’t, maybe he thinks they’ll work out for him today despite things looking bleak. After all, God wouldn’t let him fail, right?
Like I said, just guesses. I wish I could read his mind and find out for sure just what the hëll he’s really thinking.
Read Bush’s mind? THAT would be crazy. Or make you crazy.
Try making sense of this:
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
I don’t know if the logic Gonzales is using is indicative of insanity, but I wouldn’t want to be alone in a room with him.
I don’t know if the logic Gonzales is using is indicative of insanity, but I wouldn’t want to be alone in a room with him.
Oh god…I would, so I could scream “WHAT THE HÊLL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!” into his face without Secret Service dragging me off. Or perhaps something he’d like even less.
Yeah, that’s insane. “The Constitution doesn’t say people have that right, it just says that they only lose the right in these two situations.” He’s either a complete dûmbášš or he thinks that everybody else is.
“But PAD overlooked that becauase, as I said, he isn’t interested in debate.”
You make a common error: Mistaking my lack of interest in discussing opposing views with an individual with discussing opposing views in general.
PAD