“We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.”
Has anyone told Bush, who said the above, that twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis, and that the above statement–while catering to the “Keep Americans scared” rhetoric–makes no practical sense?
Nevertheless, it will not surprise me if a major troop pullout is announced prior to November of 2004, probably no later than summer of that year, particularly if no WMDs continue to materialize.
Why? Because as the economy continues to decline and we look at a job loss percentage rate matching that of the Great Depression, the One Man War zone is going to become a greater and greater political liability. It gives the Democrats something they can latch on to and pound at. The message they will put forward is simple: The average American faces more danger from the Bush Administration than terrorists. Between unemployment, the downturn in the economy, the cutting of various programs, and the lowering of pollution standards, Americans have far more to worry about here than in foreign countries where billions are being poured in that could be helping us. And how is the current Administration dealing with it? By watching young Americans die for an indefinite period of time. Heck, if the Democrats raise the spectre of reviving the draft in a credible manner, Bush will be in even bigger trouble.
How to avoid it? Bush the “compassionate conservative,” actually hauls out the compassionate side which has been MIA since…well…election day, really. “I feel your pain, America. I hear the cries of American fathers and mothers. So I am announcing today a progressive troop withdrawl, with all our boys back home by Christmas.”
Understand, he doesn’t have to DO it. He just has to announce it. That will defuse a good chunk of the Democrat threat and more or less ensure re-election.
PAD
• 
I don’t think you’re wrong, Peter. A pull-out in early to mid-summer 2004 would be wise for many, many reasons. Not only would it be good for election time, but it would mean we could say, “Hey, we were there for 15 months, and despite all of the UN’s talks, they weren’t interested in taking over.” Or, best case, “We were there only as long as we needed to be, it’s disappointing that the UN took so long to take over.”
I’m not buying the Dean rhetoric that we should pull out of Iraq now and spend that money on Universal Healthcare, but I am a firm believer of not throwing good money after bad. We need to be working now on an exit strategy by July 2004. If we don’t, then our “strategists” don’t deserve the name.
Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
They no longer have to. There’s plenty of Americans to do it for them.
PAD
Depends. It is common sense. All he has to do is “say” it, and if people believe him, he has the election.
Unfortunately.
I don’t buy Dean’s rhetoric any more than I buy Dubya’s. Whom I do like is John Edwards (notice the ‘s’… not the talking with dead guy).
That’s a sidenote anyway.
Dubya could do a lot of things to pull out this election. And I have a list of them, which I may post to my non-used weblog. But, he’d have to use some common sense. More importantly, his advisors should have common sense.
I used to think he was stupid. Now I think he’s much more clever than I gave him credit. Doesn’t mean I like him that much.
Travis
“Has *anyone* told Bush, who said the above, that twelve out of the fourteen hijackers two years ago were neither Iraqis nor Afghanis, and that the above statement–while catering to the “Keep Americans scared” thetoric–makes no practical sense?”
Ummm….are you saying we shouldn’t be going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan because he’s a Saudi? I don’t get it–you go where the bad guys are. Whether you agree with it or not, Bush said quite a while ago that he saw no distinction between the terrorists and the governments that supported them so this policy is exactly what was promised.
I mean, where SHOULD we be going to fight Bin Laden’s boys, if not the country they are in?
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq. I suspect many are heading to the area to take on “The Great Satan” one on one. Which is, of course, really, really dumb of them but good for us since the Americans currently there have a pretty good record of being able to shoot back.
Sorry… wrong url. I did say it was a non-used blog.
Travis
The worst thing in the world would be to pull out of Iraq before the new government there is in place. It would become the new “vietnam” that everyone said would happen when the conflict started. Our exit stategy is simple: “We will leave when we know they can control their own country without any outside help or influence.” Conservatism at it’s best.
What’s our other choice? Run away and say it’s too much to handle? I don’t think so. We did that before in Mogadishu(sp?) and because of that and other factors we were attacked on 9-11 because they thought we were weak. Well they keep hitting us and we’re still, and we will stay there until we get the job done.
The democrats tried the draft thing — it didn’t work then, it won’t work agin.
They tried enron — didn’t work either.
Everything they’ve tried has not stuck.
The economy isn’t going down, it’s going up. Watch the stock market. Read the actual reports from the labor department that states 175k new jobs were added in Aug., not this other report that the news organizations are using saying 93k jobs were lost. It’s been known for years that the job #s are the last to change as the economy improves. If the job loss rate is so bad compared to 9 years ago, why aren’t we looking back at the #s from 10-11 years ago. Has anyone really looked at the jobless rate from say, 85 to present, month by month?
The cutting of various programs only means good things for Americans. The last thing we need is for the government to take care of us from cradle to the grave — we’re already taxed during that span, people are not screaming and shouting for a government healthcare or prescription drug program. It’s bad enough their cost estimates for the programs are so far off it’s frightening, to actually implement it would cause this nation to go only further to hëll.
It’s not enough that only some government programs are cut, we need to remove multiple programs and get people off the dependency of government. Set up time limitations for being on welfare & unemployment (as individual programs — more than 18 months is just too dámņ long.) Cut or remove the dept. of Education entirely. (my god every year it’s the same thing “we need more money” and yet every year we see proof that nothing has improved from the previous year. Either cut the dept. by the amount of money it loses, or wipe it out entirely.)
The hijackers were also not medal-of-honor war heroes, 2 year old children, or people in wheelchairs. If we started going after the profile of people that caused the attack against us, we would make a lot more progress.
Watch — come either end of this year or next sept. – oct. : proof that saddam had wmd will be out; the stock market will be back to if not above 10,500 and the nasdaq will be above 2500; jobless rate will be around 5% if not lower, and people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country when things are good.
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq. I suspect many are heading to the area to take on “The Great Satan” one on one. Which is, of course, really, really dumb of them but good for us since the Americans currently there have a pretty good record of being able to shoot back.
So, our soldiers now are just bait so that we can lure Al Qaeda together into one country and have a shoot out with them? This is all just the master plan to draw bin Laden out of hiding? Wow. I thought we invaded because Saddam had WMD. Now I know better.
Can we stop pretending that Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake had anything to do with 9/11?
Look, we took Saddam out of power. Yaaaay! He was an evil man, okay, and the world is better off without him. Now, stop trying to win a peeing contest with the French and Germans and get an international coalition together that will help the Iraqis build a new constitution so that we can stop having our soldiers in a shooting gallery.
They no longer have to. There’s plenty of Americans to do it for them.
True, but if you don’t keep nudging the herd along, the cattle will start to think that they can walk in any direction they want.
Watch — come either end of this year or next sept. – oct. : proof that saddam had wmd will be out; the stock market will be back to if not above 10,500 and the nasdaq will be above 2500; jobless rate will be around 5% if not lower, and people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country when things are good.
There’s a fallacy in the mindset of this country that a high DJ means good economy. Not true. When the majority of Americans (over 80%) have zero percent of their savings in stocks (including 401ks, etc.) that means nothing. All it means is that those who have, have more.
5% of unemployment? All that means is that the majority of people will be working two jobs to make ends meet. Maybe the ends will meet.
And to think that people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country… well, that’s probably true. They won’t have to speak negatively about the country. All they will have to do is state facts about this administration. That should be enough.
And if you think all of that will happen by sept-oct 2004…. well, good luck. Hope the economy does improve. But not likely. What needs to be done is increase the spending power of the bottom twenty to forty percent. When they spend more money, the economy will increase. But as GW has proven, he doesn’t care about them. Because if you make sure the people who don’t have to spend money have extra money, then the economy will be spurred, correct?
Don’t think so.
Travis
Set up time limitations for being on welfare & unemployment
Didn’t we already do that in the last administration?
And to think that people will NOT vote for someone who speaks negatively about the country… well, that’s probably true. They won’t have to speak negatively about the country. All they will have to do is state facts about this administration. That should be enough.
Well, someone still has to explain to me how criticizing the policies of the current administration suddenly became hating America. I still cling to the delusion that it’s every American’s fundamental right to disagree with their leaders and express their opinion.
I’d file this prediction in the circular file along with PAD’s prediction that we were going to “slaughter” hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the shock and awe phase of the war…
Didn’t we already do that in the last administration?
Um. Yeah. You know. The liberal that everyone hated.
Funny though, no one has put a stop to corporate welfare yet.
Travis
So, our soldiers now are just bait so that we can lure Al Qaeda together into one country and have a shoot out with them? This is all just the master plan to draw bin Laden out of hiding? Wow. I thought we invaded because Saddam had WMD. Now I know better.
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don’t have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
Can we stop pretending that Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake had anything to do with 9/11?
But if GHW Bush HAD gone into Iraq and trashed Saddam, it would have gone against the UN resolution. You remember the UN? The ones that voted FOR the current conflict, then changed their mind when they finally realized that the US was going to make them live up to their word about Saddam and his WMD’s? You remember, the ones he claimed to have (and used).
Look, we took Saddam out of power. Yaaaay! He was an evil man, okay, and the world is better off without him. Now, stop trying to win a peeing contest with the French and Germans and get an international coalition together that will help the Iraqis build a new constitution so that we can stop having our soldiers in a shooting gallery.
Oh yes, the wonderful French and German governments. The same ones that are already saying they won’t participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. But I’ll bet they’ll want to send businesses over there once the hard work is done. The French and Germans already lost the peeing contest by wetting themselves before getting it out of their pants.
I couldn’t watch the address, myself. Just hearing the announcement that “Dubya” would be speaking to make another attempt to justify the Iraq situation was enough to get my blood boiling. Having to hear him do it would probably have made me go off the deep end.
Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq.
Key words: “Right now.” Key because it would appear that they weren’t there until the US stuck our nose in.
The economy isn’t going down, it’s going up. Watch the stock market. Read the actual reports from the labor department that states 175k new jobs were added in Aug., not this other report that the news organizations are using saying 93k jobs were lost.
Would you mind pointing my wife, stepfather, mother-in-law, and best friend in the direction of some of those alleged 175k? Because those of us with close family who have been out of work for extended periods (15 months, 18 months, 7 months and 3 months respectively) are having trouble finding them.
Meanwhile, let’s assume, for discussion’s sake, that the addition of jobs cited above is accurate…that’s not mutually exclusive with the loss of jobs also cited. If we accept both as accurate, that calculates out to 82k jobs (175k added minus 93k cut). What’s the unemployment rate, though…not a percentage, but a similar number to the examples of jobs added/cut? Still doesn’t mean there’s enough to go around. Unfortunately for those searching for jobs, with so many applicants out there, employers have a greater ability to cast a narrower net than before, as it is more likely that someone who fits a more specific set of criteria is trying to re-enter the workforce. For instance, positions that once did not list a degree – whether related to the work being done or not – as a requirement now do; actual life/work experience counts for less than it used to. The best friend mentioned above would not be able to re-apply for the job he was laid off from…he was/is qualified for the job, has about 10 years practical experience performing the job, and received favorable performance reviews in doing the job. However, his now-former employer, in looking to re-fill some of those positions currently, now requires an applicant for that position to have a degree…//any// degree, related to the job or not.
This concludes my “unpatriotic, un-American, traitorous” post.
I think that we cannot pull out now no matter what. We’re in too deep. We leave now, and chaos beyond the worst definition of the word blossoms. We leave now, and we look like cowards to enemies who do not see discretion as the better part of valor. We leave now, and we are abandoning our responsibility to those who lives we turned upside down by going there in the first place.
We, we need a strategy, and allies and a better way. But even with the UN or the Arab League (which isn’t gonna happen, but shouldn’t they be there, helping their fellow Arabs?) or the JLA as part of the plan, the US is stuck.
And all the “I told you so” in the world can’t stop that. (And I am among that crowd.)
That said, I squarely lay the blame for the state of things in Iraq on an administration that did not see this coming, when so many intelligent people did. I think everyone I knew expected that the war part of the War would be easy, the peace difficult. But someone in Washington was deluded.
sigh
speaking as a gen-X member, I have to give George Bush credit.
He has inspired me to do something which no other president before (at least in my lifetime) could have:
vote.
luke wrote:
speaking as a gen-X member, I have to give George Bush credit.
He has inspired me to do something which no other president before (at least in my lifetime) could have:
vote.
Ditto. I’m 29 and I’ll be voting for the first time in this next election.
While, admittedly, a lot of things can happen between now and next year, I’m thinking unless George W. manages to cure AIDS and guarantee every American family their own functioning spaceship, his “re”-election hopes look pretty dim.
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don’t have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
And picking off our soldiers one at a time. Excuse me for not considering American soldiers as cannon fodder.
Oh yes, the wonderful French and German governments. The same ones that are already saying they won’t participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. But I’ll bet they’ll want to send businesses over there once the hard work is done. The French and Germans already lost the peeing contest by wetting themselves before getting it out of their pants.
Obviously, the peeing contest still goes on. Enjoy your freedom fries. Jeez, is this all there is to debating now? Snide comments about how they let us down?
Look, the fact remains it is in the who world’s interest to promote stability in Iraq right now, but it’s our soldiers that are the ones in harm’s way. I know, I know, “bring it on!”
Whatever.
We can’t build a new ruling coalition in Iraq by ourselves, not and expect it to be seen as anything other than a puppet regime (whether that is true or not is not the point, perception =reality). We need an international coalition to help us rebuild it and all the cowboy strutting in the world isn’t going to change that.
The thing about the economy that many conservatives fail to see or don’t care to see is that you build a strong economy from the bottom up. The bottom is the poor and unemployed. When people have jobs and the poor have money they tend to spend it. All of it. They don’t have enough to save any or aren’t frugal enough to do so either. When they have money, it spreads to the middle classes whcuh then spreads to the upper classes. When the rich are pushing programs to give them greater sums of cash and tax cuts, they are generally taking money away from the poor causing them to have to cut back on spending because they don’t have money for luxury items. Then when they decide to lay people off because the consumer isn’t spending as much because they took they programs that were helping them, they lay employees off making a greater base of unemployed people who don’t have any money to spend, making the economy worse. I’m not just talking about unemployment or welfare either. If the government cuts back on education like grants, money for books in schools, cheaper lunches for the kids, the lower classes have to spend that money there and they don’t have enough to go around to pay all of their bills because the cost of living is too great for them to survive efficiently. I know some people are taking advantage of the system when they don’t need it, but most are not. But, by the same token, do you truly think the wealthy aren’t going to take advantage of a tax cut or business program designed to help a struggling business even if they don’t need it themselves? Of course they do. No one at the top is going to say that they won’t take advantage of a loophole designed to help the economy or struggling business because they don’t need it. If they don’t need the programs to thrive, they shouldn’t take advantage of them by the same principle that people shouldn’t be on welfare when they are capable of working and can find a job.
In my opinion, if you are opposed to programs designed to help the less fortunate, you should be opposed to handouts to corporations as well. You should support the blocking of any programs to help anyone, rich or poor. You should support a straight up percentage of earnings tax. Everybody pays 10% of their income, no exceptions, no breaks, no special circumstances, no loopholes, the only advantage or disadvantage given to you is what you are born into. That would be fair. Cold hearted to those less fortunate than the rich and struggling businesses, but logically fair to everyone.
“We can’t build a new ruling coalition in Iraq by ourselves, not and expect it to be seen as anything other than a puppet regime (whether that is true or not is not the point, perception =reality). We need an international coalition to help us rebuild it and all the cowboy strutting in the world isn’t going to change that.”
I agree wholeheartedly. We can debate about whether our troops were sen to Iraq for humanitarian reasons or whether they were sent to take over another country to add to our empire, but the important thing is that world and the people of Iraq seem to believe we are there to take over and rule them. Unless we can find a way to alter that perception, we will not be seen by the world as anything but invaders and conquerors which means that someone other than the US or Iraq needs to step in an negotiate the new governement for us to be able to pull out and not leave an unstable country. This third party may not be impartial, but they need to be perceived as impartial.
I don’t see The US being able to change its world perception at the moment because of two things, the Bush adminstration has lied about too many things in this war and we have too much of a “If you don’t like it, tough” attitude for people to perceive us as cooperative.
my words
“Right now there is little doubt of a substantial Al Queda (sp?)presence in Iraq.”
your reply
“Key words: “Right now.” Key because it would appear that they weren’t there until the US stuck our nose in.
If you are suggesting that Bush has succesfully lured terrorists into a situation where we can easily hunt them down and kill them…you are giving him way more credit for tactical brilliance than most would. But he doubtlessly thanks you, none the less.
The thing about the economy that many conservatives fail to see or don’t care to see is that you build a strong economy from the bottom up. The bottom is the poor and unemployed. When people have jobs and the poor have money they tend to spend it.
Exactly. For instance, let’s look at that recent “child care credit.” Especially with my wife out of work since last June, we were glad to have the money (although, since it’s really a PR-driven “advance” on next year’s taxes that isn’t clearly presented as such, I’d have ultimately preferred they give it to us at that time). However, with the economy as bad as it is, it was spent on trying to relieve some of the debt we’ve racked up living paycheck-to-just-short-of-paycheck. And, I’m sure we’re not the only ones who did so.
Of course, “Dubya’s” administration will proudly show off those checks as proof that they’re trying to “do something about the economy.”
The saddest part of it all, though, is that anyone who looked at “Dubya’s” history should have seen something like this coming. I did…so did many others (naturally, not his supporters…at least that his supporters would admit). Plain and simple, when someone who ran not one, not two, but three businesses into bankruptcy claims to have solutions to a poor economy, he’s full of it. If he weren’t, those three businesses would be thriving.
Ah, who knows…maybe his ultimate solution would be to do like he did with the Texas Rangers…build a new facility for the government, then sell it off to the highest bidder. Just like with the Rangers, “Dubya” would be sitting pretty. Even if the team’s still mismanaged.
If you are suggesting that Bush has succesfully lured terrorists into a situation where we can easily hunt them down and kill them…you are giving him way more credit for tactical brilliance than most would. But he doubtlessly thanks you, none the less.
Nope. I was suggesting that, as usual, he’s back-pedalling on the Iraq issue, pointing at the terrorists who have shown up to take potshots at US forces //after// the US arrived, saying, “See…toldja there were terrorists there.”
I also would like to know where all those jobs are. I do know that if you look at a break down of the jobs being created most are in the service industries (McDonalds/Walmart) which are low paying jobs with little to no advancement. Many of these are part time jobs (under 35 hours). Those jobs are fine if you are not trying to raise a family and someone else is paying for your health care. Also remember that jobless rates are based on the number of people seeking work according to the unemployment roles. What about all those who have dropped out of the statistics because they can no longer apply for unemployment and they can’t find a job that pays a living wage? I can’t tell you how many people I know whom have two jobs just to make 1/2 of what they previous earned with one.
I joined the ranks of the unemployed back in May and I have been actively looking for work in my field(s) ever since. Since then my resume has mostly been used to prove that the company is not violating any rules about discrimination and the person they are moving/promoting with in the company is as qualified as those seeking the same employment are.
I have an MFA from the Yale School of Drama, over 20 years experience as a stage manager and puppeteer, a good number of years as the manager of both book stores and comic book shops, and a career as a book editor. I have a skill set that would be fantastic to the right company, but no one is hiring indeed they are laying off which increases the number of people going for the same jobs I am. I am one of the lucky ones that can freelance as an editor and have been doing so, but even there the well is getting very dry due to the number of other people dipping into it.
Sorry to hear about that, Kath. My wife is indeed one of those who have fallen off of the statistics as her unemployment claim has come to an end.
It becomes an even bigger problem when – take us for example – I make just enough for us to be disqualified for any other kinds of assistance (low-cost housing, etc.), but not enough to meet all of our monthly commitments (let alone luxury items).
Best of luck with your search.
Concerning the “peeing” contest with Germans and French: People here seem to forget some important facts. First, the USA invaded Iraq on its own (with some help from the British) without a UN resolution. At that time they were confident enough to do the job on their own and finish matters quickly.
Well, it didn`t work that way. It is always easier to destroy than to rebuild and unfortunately I have to say, what is happening now is no surprise, not to me.
People were ill prepared and serious mistakes had been made. The result is a mess. The USA waited long and tried more or less unsuccessfully to doctor the symptoms. Now that elections are coming closer and costs are mounting, in the form of money and lives, NOW they want the UN to help and are looking in the direction of Germany and France. BUT they are not prepared to lose any bit of control. In essence they want other countries to send people to clean up the mess there under the command of the USA.
I am not surprised that many non-Americans are not in a hurry to do so, to put it mildly.
It’s not only a matter of the administration not wanting to lose control, it’s a matterof the administration not wanting to lose face…refusing to admit even the slightest bit of irresponsibility. The manner in which the administration is attempting to enlist the aid of the UN is part of the problem, too. On a recent //Real Time with Bill Maher// a senator (whose name escapes me at the moment) stated that he’d spoken with UN reps (including, as I recall, the Secretary General), and asked what it would take for them to get involved. Their response? Simple: “Ask for help. Don’t challenge us to help, as has been happening.”
I’m 30 years old and up until this year, I was not a registered voter. This President has done at least one good thing in showing me the need to vote.
“Nope. I was suggesting that, as usual, he’s back-pedalling on the Iraq issue, pointing at the terrorists who have shown up to take potshots at US forces //after// the US arrived, saying, “See…toldja there were terrorists there.” “
But regardless of WHY he is saying it…it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage (as opposed to, say, New York City where you could swing a dead cat and successfully put scores in the hospital (or morgue if you swing really hard))
The problem, of course, id that even the terrorists can’t be so stupid as to keep throwing good martyrs after bad. No US troops have been killed in a week which makes me wonder if they are getting the message.
whee… not a lot of economists here obviously.
But regardless of WHY he is saying it…it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage (as opposed to, say, New York City where you could swing a dead cat and successfully put scores in the hospital (or morgue if you swing really hard))
Considering that 85 died in the UN Compound attack, scores are managing to be put in the hospital and the morgue…of course, they aren’t American scores…and that saboteurs just attacked a pipeline and I quote “In the only reported attack on U.S. forces Monday, Iraqi guerrillas bombed an American patrol as soldiers were driving out of a tunnel in the center of Baghdad, the military said. The attack wounded two soldiers, damaged two Humvees, one of which turned over and caught fire. “ So they’re still attacking us, they just didn’t manage to kill anyone yesterday.
They’re getting a message, all right. But I doubt it’s one we want to be sending.
I’m of the mind that this new angle of “We are using Iraq as ground zero for the war on terror to keep the attacks off of US soil” to be just another bit of spin control by an administration that has lied to this country and the world for years.
And can anyone explain why this administration is so hellbent on retaining total control of Iraq? Why not let the UN have an equal role in the rebuilding process? At the very least it would allow other counties to chip in on the 89 billion dollar tab that Bush is planning on runnig up.
And if this economy is rebounding I don’t see it. I was unemployed for a 18 months. I spent at least half of that time without any unemployment benefits. Now I’m working again but I’m currently holding down two jobs and am still barely creeping anywhere near what I was making before I was layed off. Whats funny is that I feel lucky to be working these two crappy jobs because I remember how long it took me to find them and also because I have friends and family who still haven’t found anything.
This would be the UN compound that rejected US offers of more security and declined to take recommended precautions against an attack just like the one made against it?
Balder: The last thing we need is for the government to take care of us from cradle to the grave.
Yeah, phew, thank God for getting that concern off my shoulders. Now that I don’t have to worry about the risk that I might actually live a comfortable, relatively worry-free life, I can go back to spending my time on figuring out whether it’s better to have basic utilities or health insurance for my wife.
Oh, Bush will most definitely be doing an Electric Slide to the center. He started it last night when he begged the UN to come clean up the mess his administration made. There was even an apology hidden beneath the self-righteous rhetoric.
He was trying the humility trick that was honed by Reagan and Clinton. I even saw him do that trademark Clinton face, where the bottom lip goes up into the top one. He feels our pain.
The neocons have got themselves into a serious mess. What I hate is the CMA garbage. Bush asks the UN to come help clean up the mess but doesn’t want to cede any control. Then they make Powell go on television and say the military “underestimated” the level of chaos that would ensue once the Baathists were out.
Except that was all Rumsfeld, not Powell. And it’s a travesty that Powell has to take the heat for that smug old bášŧárd. But they know Rumsfeld’s credibility will be forever scarred, whereas the UN will always work with Powell, since he’s the only member of the administration who isn’t blinded by ideology.
One last thing…I was truly bothered by Bush’s claim in his speech that “we have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength — they are invited by the perception of weakness.” This logic seems flawed to me. The 9/11 attack occurred because we seemed weak? A terrorist act – attacking innocents – is something you do to a foe that seems too strong. A weak foe you face head-on (and pummel the crap out of him, if you’re so inclined). A strong foe you play dirty with, so to speak. Terrorist acts are “unconventional warfare.”
I have a few friends who believe this line of reasoning – that al-Qaeda and other militants will be deterred from further attacks after seeing what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. But these are suicide attackers. Why would they be deterred by a show of force? I’d think it would just make them more desperate, and therefore apt to attack.
(I should note, I won an argument on this issue with a friend when I pointed out that he was opposed to the death penalty because he doesn’t believe it’s a deterrent. He was forced to cede the point.)
I’m not saying I think we shouldn’t fight terrorism – of course we must. What the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan may help prevent terrorism in a practical way – by breaking up terrorist networks and killing a few hundred terrorists. But deter suicidal terrorists? That’s illogical.
What the US needs to focus on now is rebuilding Iraq from the ruins. Quite frankly, the kind of minds suited to this sort of endeavour just aren’t on the right side of the aisle. In theory, conservatives are ideologically opposed to nation-building. But Bush has to play-act the role in order to get re-elected.
Its kind of funny that some of the poeple complaining don’t vote.
Actually it kind of pìššëš me off. Voting is your right and people just throw it away like trash. It takes a total of 5 minutes of your life, places of work HAVE to, by law, give you time to go and vote, there is no excuse not to do it. It just amazes me that people don’t care enough to do so. Yet when the going gets rough, or something that does not benefit them occurs, they blame the guys they didnt have a part in electing.
Aaaah America!!
^^^
At least a lot of them are realizing how important the right to vote really is and are going to do something about it
And I hope that all of you who are saying that you’re going to register and vote really do it.
My dad is voting in ’04 for the first time since ’68, and I have never been more proud of him.
It sadens me that Bush has any support at all. The man has all the common sense of a ferret. He psuhes his views of things, but he really doesn’t do much to back it up at all.
Sometimes, I suspect that whenever he sees a Power Rangers episode, he calls the National Guard and reports another giant monster attack in California.
“A terrorist act – attacking innocents – is something you do to a foe that seems too strong. A weak foe you face head-on (and pummel the crap out of him, if you’re so inclined). A strong foe you play dirty with, so to speak. Terrorist acts are “unconventional warfare.””
I have to disagree, in part. Al Qaeda has never been in any position to take anyone on head to head. Even at their strongest they were a small force. terrorism is their only gameplan, all they have.
I have to also think that if Bin Laden could have seen the results of his “victory”–the loss of the most Orthodox Islamic government and the loss of the most powerful Islamic army he would have been crazy (er)to go ahead with it. What has he gained? The USA is stronger than ever and he no longer has any government willing to openly support and train his people.
I suspect he expected another Black Hawk Down–wound us and we run. The Japanese made the same mistake. One question I would ask–if they targeted us because we were so strong why have they stopped? 2 years and nothing. It’s not like it’s hard to come up with about 12,000 scenarios where a suicide terrorist could inflict horrific slaughter in this country. It doesn’t require any fancy hijacking or exotic bio weapons. Why have they hesitated?
Thats faulty reasoning. Its not like Bin Laden blew up the Statue of Liberty in 2000 and The Washington Monument in 1999. The terrorists aren’t working on a schedule.
One question I would ask–if they targeted us because we were so strong why have they stopped? 2 years and nothing. It’s not like it’s hard to come up with about 12,000 scenarios where a suicide terrorist could inflict horrific slaughter in this country. It doesn’t require any fancy hijacking or exotic bio weapons. Why have they hesitated?
If you look at Al Qaeda’s history, their normal pattern is: Big strike, lie low for a few years, bigger strike, lie low for a few years. They bombed the Khaiber (sp) Towers, then disappeared for a while. Then, they bombed the Cole and disappeared for a while. Next, 9/11 and and year and half in hiding until they bombed that club in Australia. They’re laying low, regrouping and planning for their next big strike. Anyone who thinks taking a chaotic country like Afghanistan and making it an even more chaotic country has put them on the run is terribly naive.
They will strike and again and everyone will wonder why we spent so much money attacking a third party instead of tightening the security at our ports.
But regardless of WHY he is saying it…it seems to be true that we are actually luring terrorists into Iraq, where they are very much at a disadvantage
Yes, coming to kill Americans in a country where they know the language and the Americans don’t, where they have millions of sympathetic Baathist supporters willing to help hide them and where they can easily blend in the population.
Boy, am I glad we have all the advantages there! /sarcasm.
Next, 9/11 and and year and half in hiding until they bombed that club in Australia.
The fact that the scope of their operations went from four coordinated attacks (only three of which hit their targets, of course) on major financial and government centers 9/11 to blowing up a nightclub, however, suggests that their capacity to strike is not what it once was.
Now you’ve gone and insulted ferrets everywhere, Aaron.
**Nah, I think the Bush administration will continue their policy of attacking anyone as unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizing, Saddam-loving appeasers for criticizing the administration even the slightest bit.
They no longer have to. There’s plenty of Americans to do it for them.**
If you can dissent against the adminstration, other people can dissent against you. I don’t call your views unpatriotic, just ill-informed.
I’d file this prediction in the circular file along with PAD’s prediction that we were going to “slaughter” hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the shock and awe phase of the war…
Interesting that we never kept numbers on Iraqi civilian deaths, even to this day.
If you wanna know where the jobs went, they went overseas. I recently saw a television segment where it showed an entire school in India that taught Indians to “speak american” where they would take “call-center names” such as “Joe” and “Ellen” and would take customer service calls. Next time you call your phone company ask them where they’re phone center is. They’ll tell you they can’t say for security but chances are they are in India because they can be paid 60 cents a day there.
Or maybe the jobs are in Iraq, if the people are working for Kellogg,Brown & Root.
Maybe the jobs are in Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from. The country that the Bush adminstration vetted out of the 9/11 report.
As for who should be president next, Dean is a good choice. Kucinich is better in my opinion.
Michael Norton
Obviously not. The matter that stupid terrorists groups are rushing to Iraq is actually good news for us. We don’t have to go hunt them down if they are coming to us.
And picking off our soldiers one at a time. Excuse me for not considering American soldiers as cannon fodder.
It’s their job to put themselves in harm’s way. Here’s the perspective from a returning soldier: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011388.php and from Max Boot: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011394.php
Here’s an article on al-Qaida in Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34457-2003Sep6.html
a-Qaida is described as weakened. Notice who their point man is. Abu Musab Zarqawi, the same man Powell cited as evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaida link before the war. So much for them not being in Iraq before.
Thats faulty reasoning. Its not like Bin Laden blew up the Statue of Liberty in 2000 and The Washington Monument in 1999. The terrorists aren’t working on a schedule.
Actually they are. Al-Qaida has tried to pull of something every year. People are forgetting the attack on the Cole and the planned millenium attacks. Now al-Qaida is reduced to claiming credit for blackouts.