Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, “one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life.”
The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn’t realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are. We are an occupying force, mistreating its captives, claiming that we’re restoring control of the nation’s fate to itself while making clear that 130,000 troops are staying right where they are, with more to come if we decide it’s needed.
What’s frightening is that more than 40% of Americans still don’t grasp that.
By the way, check out this link. It’s eerily hypnotic. I think it’d make a great screensaver.
PAD
• 
“You are very outspoken against the painting of groups with broad brushes, or generalizing if you will.
Yet you seem to have no problem doing so when it comes to “conservatives”.
Joe V. made the statement, and as you can see from my post that I made prior to your two most recent, I disagreed with him.
I don’t even consider myself a “conservative” in the traditional sense, but I don’t feel such generalizations do anyone any good.”
Ooookay, except that my use of “conservative” (i.e., “or as a conservative would say”) was a direct response to his use of speaking for “we conservatives.”
PAD
I wrote: “Because of the melting pot nature of our country, the entire world is our back yard.”
Craig responded: “And this attitude has gotten us in trouble. We assume that because millions upon millions of people have come here, everybody wants to be like us.”
In the context of what I was talking about, that’s not at all what I meant. We have people from all countries in the world living in the U.S., and consequently, all these visitors/immigrants regularly provide friends and relatives back home get a running snapshot of “the way it really is” in the United States. And, of course, there’s now the Internet. Thus, we have no private backyard. We’re living in a global fishbowl.
That’s what I meant by that phrase.
Russ Maheras
PAD wrote: “But because you’ve bought into the Bush rhetoric, you’ve forgotten where the response ended and the needless assault that turned the world against us began. Because you’re looking where Bush wants you to. So how are those blinders working for you?”
My view of the Middle East is not based on conservative rhetoric nor liberal rhetoric. It’s based on my own observations of what has unfolded there over the past three decades. I don’t agree with some administration decisions that have taken place in the past year, but as a military person who served under two Democratic and two Republican presidential administrations, that’s par for the course. I never saw any proof that Iraq was directly involved with Osama bin Laden and his terrorists — hëll, he didn’t even like Saddam. But this fact does not mean attacking Iraq was not justified for other reasons — two of which were Saddam’s non-compliance with U.N. resolutions, and the fear of Saddam’s WMD program. As I pointed out here a while back, President Truman used a U.N. resolution, WITHOUT approval from Congress, to put U.S. troops in harms way for three years in Korea (1950-1953). At least the current President Bush went and got Congressional approval for his recent foray into Iraq.
The point is, your wild accusations that this is the worst administration in the past 100 years, or whatever, is just too wild an exaggeration for me too shrug off. Every presidential administration I’m familiar with has made terrible mistakes that have cost Americans dearly in some form or another. Heck, sometimes presidential or Congressional policy costs Americans dearly even when it is no mistake at all. I’ve cited a number of historical examples, but I guess what happened B.B. (Before Bush) is apparently not at all important or illuminating to your line of reasoning.
If John Kerry has any better ideas or solutions that would make us pals with the folks in the Middle East, I’m all ears. As of right now, however, Kerry is conspicuously silent. By the way, as much criticism as the U.S. gets from Europe and other countries about the way the U.S. has failed to solve the Palestinian/Israeli problem, have you noticed that none of these Old World critics have stepped up to the plate and solved it themselves?
But back to Iraq. Personally, I feel that regardless of why we invaded Iraq, it is much too early to point to the outcome and say it was a success or failure. And I’ve seen enough examples in my life of people who create self-fulfilling prophecies to fall in line with the negativism and one-sided finger-pointing of extreme partisan bias.
Russ Maheras
“Personally, I feel that regardless of why we invaded Iraq, it is much too early to point to the outcome and say it was a success or failure. And I’ve seen enough examples in my life of people who create self-fulfilling prophecies to fall in line with the negativism and one-sided finger-pointing of extreme partisan bias.”
Having partisan bias doesn’t mean that one is unable to make an unbiased assessment. Unless you’re ready to argue that the eight years of hammering against Clinton by the right was a calm, cool, unbiased assessment of the facts.
Frankly, Russ, the one becoming mired in partisan is you. Your assertions above are ludicrous. “Self-fulfilling prophecies?” What the heck are you talking about? The concerns expressed over a vague mission with no exit strategy were valid. The concerns that the Bush administration was deliberately downplaying the commitment of troops necessary were valid. The concerns that we’d look like áššhølëš to the world if WMDs didn’t surface were valid. To loopily claim that such validated concerns were somehow the result of “self-fulfilling prophecies” indicates a partison bias that is far beyond anything approaching reasonable discourse.
Partisan bias? Don’t make me laugh. If our troops turned up, say, a huge cache of doomsday weapons, mounted on missiles capable of reaching the US, I would stand up and say, “Bush was right, and he proved it to the world.” My guess is that if Gore was president and he’d invaded Iraq (which would never have happened, but never mind) and turned up WMDs, conservatives would be claiming he’d planted them.
As for Saddam violating United Nations sanctions…Russ, what part of “United” is unclear? The attack on Iraq wasn’t an isolated incident. Bush and his neocons had barely set foot in the White House before they were making decision after decision that undid treaties and pìššëd øff other countries. The one thing 9/11 did was hand Bush an opportunity to reunite us with the rest of the world and undo the damage his Admin did the first nine months. Big surprise: He bungled that, too.
As for Truman…at least he had the guts to say the buck stopped at his desk.
PAD
“My guess is that if Gore was president and he’d invaded Iraq (which would never have happened, but never mind) and turned up WMDs, conservatives would be claiming he’d planted them.”
Before the war the ONE thing that many of my liberal friends agreed on was that WMDs would be discovered and that they would probably be planted there by Bush and co. I’ll bet that if they were discovered tomorrow the wingnuts at democraticunderground.com and other such sites would be tripping over their tinfoil helmets to point out how COINCIDENTAL it is that they find them at this point in time (as opposed to any other point in time).
Paranoia is not partisan. Of course, there is little point in arguing what people might or might not have done in The Land Of Our Dreams, which is the only place where poor old Al gets to be pres.
Speaking of Gore….watching his speech the other day not only makes me suspect he would have attacked Iraq but quite possibly Canada, Luxemburg, and Prussia. I’ve seen power make people unhinged but apparently lack of power can do it too. Sad, really.
PAD:
‘If our troops turned up, say, a huge cache of doomsday weapons, mounted on missiles capable of reaching the US, I would stand up and say, “Bush was right, and he proved it to the world.” ‘
Except, that’s not what the UN Resolutions said. Saddam was to turn over all chemical and biological weapons. He was to turn over all notes concerning any nuclear program. He was to turn over all ballistic weapons capable of reaching a certain range. All he brought out was a few old missles that could reach Israel, and these were either stripped down already or were in such bad shape they wouldn’t have worked anyway. I guess the little fact of the mustard gas mortar (chemical weapon) or the serin gas bomb (biological weapon) don’t count because they don’t fit your definition of a “huge cache”? How many biological weapons define a huge cache?
“I guess the little fact of the mustard gas mortar (chemical weapon) or the serin gas bomb (biological weapon) don’t count because they don’t fit your definition of a “huge cache”? How many biological weapons define a huge cache?”
Save the patronizing. Bush sold this country a bill of goods that Saddam posed a direct threat to the United States with his stockpile of WMDs. Claiming that a mortar here or a bomb there serves as validation of those sweeping claims is clutching at more straws than Ray Bolger. Even Bush’s own people are backing off that saw, claiming it “no longer matters” why we invaded because, hey, we got Saddam, that’s the only important thing.
Some people aren’t real big fans of ends justifying the means.
PAD
“Of course, there is little point in arguing what people might or might not have done in The Land Of Our Dreams, which is the only place where poor old Al gets to be pres.”
I wish we lived in the land of dreams instead of the land of nightmares, (where Bush is pres.)
PAD: “..hey, we got Saddam, that’s the only important thing.”
But according to the telegraph/Mark Steyn, this is why it matters:
There are more than 8,000 towns and villages in the country. If the much predicted civil war had erupted in any of ’em, you’d see it. Not from the Western press corps holed up with its Ba’ath Party translators at the Palestine Hotel, but from Arab television networks eager to show the country going to hëll. They cannot show it you because it isn’t happening. The Sunni Triangle is a little under-policed, but even that’s not aflame. Moqtada al-Sadr, the Khomeini-Of-The-Week in mid-April, is al-Sadr al-Wiser these days, down to his last two 12-year-old insurgents and unable even to get to the mosque on Friday to deliver his weekly widely-ignored call to arms.
Meanwhile, more and more towns are holding elections and voting in “secular independents and representatives of non-religious parties”. I have been trying to persuade my Washington pals to look on Iraq as an exercise in British-style asymmetrical federalism: the Kurdish areas are Scotland, the Shia south is Wales, the Sunni Triangle is Northern Ireland. No need to let the stragglers in one area slow down progress elsewhere. Iraq won’t be perfect, but it will be okay – and in much better shape than most of its neighbours.
PAD wrote: “Unless you’re ready to argue that the eight years of hammering against Clinton by the right was a calm, cool, unbiased assessment of the facts.”
Clinton was frequently attacked unfairly while he was in office, and now the supposedly compassionate, caring and righteous left is doing the exact same thing to Bush. From an independent’s point of view, the extremists on both sides are no different, and such childish polarization is not doing this country one bit of good.
PAD also wrote: “Frankly, Russ, the one becoming mired in partisan is you. Your assertions above are ludicrous. “Self-fulfilling prophecies?” What the heck are you talking about? The concerns expressed over a vague mission with no exit strategy were valid. The concerns that the Bush administration was deliberately downplaying the commitment of troops necessary were valid. The concerns that we’d look like áššhølëš to the world if WMDs didn’t surface were valid. To loopily claim that such validated concerns were somehow the result of “self-fulfilling prophecies” indicates a partison bias that is far beyond anything approaching reasonable discourse.”
The concept of self-fulfilling prophecies is ludicrous? Only from your point of view, perhaps. Many times over the years, I’ve seen people, projects and organizations self-destruct because of incessant negativism. From what I’ve seen — particularly this past 18 months — there is no doubt in my mind that many Democrats so badly want Bush to fail at every turn, they are doing and saying everything in their power to make it so. The far right did the same thing with Clinton – hamstringing his presidency as well. I think extremists on both sides need a swift kick in the butt, because neither side helps when it comes to solving problems. This behavior is bad enough during peacetime, but during war it actually emboldens and encourages our enemies, and is deleterious to troop morale.
By the way, I never advocated that objective criticism and open debate should be scaled back. It’s just that when the debate is by someone like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman – who has NEVER said a kind word (or even neutral word) about Bush in the four years he has been writing his columns – it’s not objective criticism. It’s a partisan witch-hunt.
PAD also wrote: “Partisan bias? Don’t make me laugh. If our troops turned up, say, a huge cache of doomsday weapons, mounted on missiles capable of reaching the US, I would stand up and say, “Bush was right, and he proved it to the world.” My guess is that if Gore was president and he’d invaded Iraq (which would never have happened, but never mind) and turned up WMDs, conservatives would be claiming he’d planted them.”
Bill Mulligan answered this for me, and Anthony X made a good, semi-related point. Although I do think it should be again emphasized that even BEFORE the war started, some leftists were saying “Bush will probably plant WMD in Iraq if he doesn’t find any.”
PAD also wrote: “As for Saddam violating United Nations sanctions…Russ, what part of “United” is unclear? The attack on Iraq wasn’t an isolated incident. Bush and his neocons had barely set foot in the White House before they were making decision after decision that undid treaties and pìššëd øff other countries. The one thing 9/11 did was hand Bush an opportunity to reunite us with the rest of the world and undo the damage his Admin did the first nine months. Big surprise: He bungled that, too.”
You forget that when 9-11 happened, many people all over the Middle East, Africa and many parts of Asia took to the streets cheering. We even had idiot pseudo-intellectuals in THIS country saying stupid stuff like: “We got what we deserved.” This obvious manifestation of hatred (and self-flagellation on the home front) had nothing to do with Bush’s presidency, which was still in its infancy when 9-11 happened. Is this the “united world” opportunity that Bush allegedly squandered? What you just don’t seem to understand is that this is a war of ideas that has been going on for decades, and the most radical warriors would like nothing better to see our way of life cease to exist. It is no coincidence that the warlords in Somalia showed just as much contempt for Clinton in 1993 as the warlords of western Pakistan are showing for Bush now.
Russ Maheras
I see, so what really upsets you is that it was GWB that made the decision, but if it Al had won the election (which in your eyes, he might have) it would be ok.
I guess it’s really easy to debate something by making up stuff and pretending I said it.
That is absolutely untrue. My point is, that GWB is the one who made that decision, therefore, he is responsibly for the consequences. Had Gore displayed level of ineptitude in preparing for the post-“Mission Accomplished” Iraq, I’d be railing against him right now.
“The concept of self-fulfilling prophecies is ludicrous? Only from your point of view, perhaps. Many times over the years, I
Well PAD, blaming the opposition when you’re fudged everything up is a time honored tradition in politics. I don’t see anyone abandoning it anytime soon.
PAD wrote: “What did Democrats do? Buy into Bush’s claims that Saddam was an imminent threat and support him. He wasn’t. It was all lies in order to perpetuate an agenda that existed pre-9/11. And turning around and trying to blame this fiasco *on* Democrats is just pathetic.”
You readily blame conservatives for unfairly hampering Clinton throughout his entire presidency (to which I agree), and yet, when I point out that some Democrats have been doing the exact same thing to Bush, you say my observations are pathetic.
From an independent voter’s viewpoint, I’ve explained my observations and the rationale behind those observations in detail. I can’t do much more than that.
By the way, the way to win over the independent voter is not to attack us as stupid when we disagree or make observations — the way to win us over is to explain how your candidate will do the job better. To that point, I’m still waiting for Kerry to lay out in detail his plans and vision for this country, and to explain why I should vote for him. So far, all I’ve heard is the usual, “I’m for jobs, education, and health care.” Well, duh, JK. What politician isn’t?
Russ Maheras
Actually, I no longer blame conservatives for attacking Clinton thru his presidency. I blame the fanatical neocons. McCain, while I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, is a conservative. I respect him for his honesty and courage to stand up for what he believes. This administration is full of fanatics. True conservatives are for a balanced budget and want more isolationist policies (which precludes starting a war). There is a great article in “The Nation” about the divide between conservatives and neocons. Please check this out.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=press
You readily blame conservatives for unfairly hampering Clinton throughout his entire presidency (to which I agree), and yet, when I point out that some Democrats have been doing the exact same thing to Bush, you say my observations are pathetic.
On a message board I read, somebody has a great image.
It reads:
“Clinton lied, people cried. Bush lied, people died.”
I think that sums it up rather well.
Also, to compare the attacks on Clinton with the attacks on Bush is apples and oranges. Attacks on Clinton were constant and vicious. Attacks on Bush are against his policies. I haven’t seen anyone trying to lay multiple murders at Bush’s feet.
Karen says:
“I haven’t seen anyone trying to lay multiple murders at Bush’s feet.”
right underneath Craig’s attributed quote:
“Clinton lied, people cried. Bush lied, people died.”
At any rate, lurk around some of the far left sites and you’ll find plenty of people who will gladly tell you that Bush was behind 9/11, the Berg killing, the anthrax attacks, etc etc. However, my sense of fairness precludes me from trying to use these whackjobs as fodder to tar everyone more liberal than myself.
So Bill, let me get this straight. You’re saying that either:
(a) Bush didn’t lie to Congress and to the public about his reasons for invading Iraq (despite awfully good evidence we have to the contrary)
ooooooor
(b) People have not died as a result of his decision to invade (despite even stronger evidence we have to the contrary).
I like to think I’m a reasonable person on the whole. I certainly don’t think Bush was behind the anthrax mailings, 9/11, the Berg killings, the Cubs’ loss, etc.
I will, however, hold him firmly responsible for every single meaningless death in Operation Topple Saddam. Do I think he cackles with glee as our soldiers die? Of course not — but he has acted with reckless disregard for the safety of our nation and our military, and has been so blinded by ideology that he didn’t prepare for a scenario a six-year-old could have seen coming. (So much for the “cakewalk.”)
The man has Saddam’s pistol in his office as a trophy — and yet the administration has the balls to claim this wasn’t a personal vendetta.
The man says Abu Ghraib “is not the America I know”, when evidence strongly suggests that the interrogation techniques used there were imported directly from Guantanamo and Afghanistan, and there’s further evidence that the White House counsel himself wrote a brief which effectively said the Geneva Convention is no longer operative.
The man said “feels good!” when asked about ordering the military into combat, yet this administration claims war was a last resort.
The man can’t think of a mistake he’s made in his presidency. I think that speaks volumes in itself.
Even if you support this administration’s overall policies, I find it really mind-numbingly weird that anyone could think we’ve handled Iraq in a way that wasn’t laughably incompetent.
TWL
PAD wrote: “What did Democrats do? Buy into Bush’s claims that Saddam was an imminent threat and support him. He wasn’t. It was all lies in order to perpetuate an agenda that existed pre-9/11. And turning around and trying to blame this fiasco *on* Democrats is just pathetic.”
“You readily blame conservatives for unfairly hampering Clinton throughout his entire presidency (to which I agree), and yet, when I point out that some Democrats have been doing the exact same thing to Bush, you say my observations are pathetic.”
No, I said blaming on Democrats the continued failure of the war on Iraq to attain its objectives is pathetic. The logical leap required to take Democrats saying, “If we don’t find WMDs, Bush’s war will make us look like fools” and transforming the failure to find WMDS into a “self-fulfilling prophecy” is what’s pathetic. We didn’t find what we told the world is there–not because of Democratic concerns–but because they weren’t there.
Considering that thus far Bush has more or less gotten a free pass (supported by the conservative media) to do whatever the hëll he wants–while Clinton was shackled with everything from gays in the military to pointless investigations into real estate deals and bløw jøbš–Í’m not entirely sure where you get the notion that liberals have been doing “the exact same thing” to Bush. Frankly, the only difference between then and now is that Liberals are getting louder, angrier and fighting back, as opposed to rolling over to Conservatives and begging, “Please stop hitting us.” Liberals are hitting back for the first time in decades, and conservatives hate it.
If self-fulfilling prophecies were the order of the day in Iraq, then there would have been an end to fighting when Bush said there was an end to fighting a year ago. Lo and behold…there wasn’t. Just as military experts warned Bush would be the case. Or were all those military experts Democrats?
“From an independent voter’s viewpoint, I’ve explained my observations and the rationale behind those observations in detail. I can’t do much more than that.”
Considering that on the one hand you claim to be Indy while on the other hand you’re blaming Democrats for the balls-up that is Iraq, yes, I think you could do more.
“By the way, the way to win over the independent voter is not to attack us as stupid when we disagree or make observations — the way to win us over is to explain how your candidate will do the job better. To that point, I’m still waiting for Kerry to lay out in detail his plans and vision for this country, and to explain why I should vote for him. So far, all I’ve heard is the usual, “I’m for jobs, education, and health care.” Well, duh, JK. What politician isn’t?”
I don’t recall saying I was a fan of Kerry’s. In fact, as I recall, I said if Kerry advocates “staying the course” the way Bush has, it’s probably the final nail in Kerry’s coffin. Although frankly, considering the gnat-like attention span of Americans, if Kerry did lay out some sort of constructive plan in June, it’d be forgotten by August. Either that or be blurred to death by attack ads from the GOP, the party that keeps claiming Kerry waffles on major issues while supporting a president who stated flatly in 2000 that we shouldn’t be in the nation-building business.
I could wish for a better Democratic candidate. For that matter, I’m waiting to see who he picks as VP, which could be crucial. But as for trying to convince people to vote for Kerry, at the moment “He’s not Bush” is enough for me. Hopefully it will be enough for others.
PAD
Tim says:
“So Bill, let me get this straight. You’re saying that either:
(a) Bush didn’t lie to Congress and to the public about his reasons for invading Iraq (despite awfully good evidence we have to the contrary)
ooooooor
(b) People have not died as a result of his decision to invade (despite even stronger evidence we have to the contrary).”
Sigh. Tim, you are one of the better writers to contribute to this blog and even though I disagree with you on many points, I respect your logic. Usually.
let me reprint what I wrote:
Karen says:
“I haven’t seen anyone trying to lay multiple murders at Bush’s feet.”
right underneath Craig’s attributed quote:
“Clinton lied, people cried. Bush lied, people died.”
I don’t believe for a second you don’t get the point I made–that it’s kind of ironic to claim that you haven’t seen people laying blame for multiple murders at the feet of Bush right beneath a post laying blame for multiple deaths at the feet of Bush.
Now one CAN argue that “deaths” does not equal “murders”–fine. But to use my statement to just get in yet another jab at Bush or raise even the possibility that I don’t realize that people have died in Iraq….yeesh.
But for the record, I DON’T believe Iraq has been handled in a laughably incompetent manner. That may make me “mind numbingly weird” in your eyes but that’s so subjective a judgment that there is no way I could successfully argue the point. Weird is in the eye of the beholder and we all have our own thresholds beyond which our minds go numb.
For a reasonable alternative look at the situation, I rather like the observations of Marek Edelman at http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_30_chrenkoff_archive.html#108604826777232870
No, I don’t think that Mr. Edelman’s life story automatically makes his statements fact. But I like his reasoning.
From the great Andrew Sullivan:
JUST A QUESTION: If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out… well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success. And you’d be right. Yes, there are enormous challenges; and yes, so much more could have been achieved without incompetence, infighting and occasional inhumanity. But it’s worth acknowledging that, with a little perspective, our current gloom is over-blown. Stocks in Iraq have been way over-sold. I even regret some minor sells myself. Now watch the media do all it can to accentuate the negative.
PAD wrote: “I don’t recall saying I was a fan of Kerry’s. In fact, as I recall, I said if Kerry advocates “staying the course” the way Bush has, it’s probably the final nail in Kerry’s coffin. Although frankly, considering the gnat-like attention span of Americans, if Kerry did lay out some sort of constructive plan in June, it’d be forgotten by August. Either that or be blurred to death by attack ads from the GOP, the party that keeps claiming Kerry waffles on major issues while supporting a president who stated flatly in 2000 that we shouldn’t be in the nation-building business. I could wish for a better Democratic candidate. For that matter, I’m waiting to see who he picks as VP, which could be crucial.”
I agree with almost all of your points here, except I think Kerry COULD sell a vision over the long haul if (a.) He comes up with a vision that makes sense and is compelling, and (b.) He starts exuding a stronger presidential aura of position, leadership and hope.
To be perfectly honest, I’ve been very underwhelmed by Kerry’s handlers to date. Regarding Iraq, North Korea, Iran, terrorism and homeland security — Kerry is coming across as “Bush Lite.”
Russ Maheras
“”I’m for jobs, education, and health care.” Well, duh, JK. What politician isn’t?
Bush?
Bill,
Yes, of course I got your point. I think that it’s a bit of a reach to equate deaths with murders. Perhaps more to the point, I think Craig’s statement, while simplistic, is true on its face and thus perhaps not a great example of what you were trying to show.
But for the record, I DON’T believe Iraq has been handled in a laughably incompetent manner.
So noted (and I’d be a liar if I said I was surprised). All I can conclude is that we are seeing the situation (and the world at large) through extraordinarily different pairs of eyes.
Thanks for the link — I’m in the middle of grading finals at the moment, but will take a look-see when time permits.
AnthonyX:
While Sullivan certainly writes well, he’s guilty of several major omissions and shadings. First and foremost: by saying the casualty rate is “only” about 800, he (a) assumes it’s going to stop here, which I frankly doubt, and (b) is counting only those U.S. soldiers killed in hostile action — not those wounded, not those killed by friendly fire, not U.S. civilians, and not Iraqi civilians. As such, he is drastically underestimating the overall toll of this war.
A second example: saying “no WMD’s had been used” is being misleadingly optimistic. If Saddam had them and had been stopped before getting a chance to use them, then of course that would be a great success — rah rah, bully for our side and all that.
The evidence suggests, however, that he didn’t use them because he didn’t have them. That doesn’t make it a success on our part — it means we went to war on the basis of a chimera. It means our leaders misled us through and through. It means this was not a war to stop an imminent threat.
Of course, you can spin it as a great success if you like.
A third example: it’s a bit premature to say that this “diverse government … has been installed”, isn’t it? The ink’s not even dry.
I think that Sullivan’s point was to compare the reality of iraq with what was being predicted just a short time ago. While some are now claiming to have known all along what a disaster it all would be–looking back at the actual predictions shows that they are playing Calvinball with what “disaster” means. It used to mean hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, tens of thousands of dead soldiers, WMD falling everywhere, millions of refugees, a civil war, invasion by Turkey, rampant fundamentalism, the destruction of the oilfields and a whole new generation of little Osamas running to sign up for Al Qeada, among other not altogether unreasonable guesses.
While things are not anywhere near perfect they are far from as terrible as some would suggest (And yes, if it’s someone you know who has died then it is as terrible as anything can be.}
Bill,
Depends on who the “some” are you’re talking about. Can you name someone who predicted all of the above, particularly in a single year?
I for one never thought the initial invasion would be difficult, just the aftermath. (And I certainly didn’t expect WMD’s falling everywhere, as I never thought they were a threat to begin with.)
And “the reality of Iraq” is subject very strongly at the moment to whose glasses you’re looking through. I think the “rampant fundamentalism” and “whole new generation of Osamas” predictions you’re making fun of are still very much in play, just to name two. Feel free to ask the Saudis how much safer we’ve made the region from terrorism, for example.
(And as for “hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties” … certainly not, but the current estimates are around 10,000. Sure, it’s an order of magnitude better. It’s still horrible — it’s more than 3X the number of people killed on 9/11, and as a percentage of the population it’s the equivalent of 100,000 or so Americans. This to me, isn’t so much good news as “not quite as terrible” news.)
I will certainly grant that the most dire predictions made by the most hysterical figures did not come remotely true. In turn, however, I think you really ought to grant that all the “rose petals strewn at our feet” type of pie-in-the-sky predictions also did not come remotely true. Me, I find that much worse given that the pie-in-the-sky types are the ones setting policy — but your mileage may of course differ.
TWL
Tim,
(before I forget–what classes do you teach? Just finshed up a whole year of 9th grade Earth Science. Not the most exciting subject, though I’ve learned a lot)
I can’t name anyone who got it ALL wrong but I could name all sorts of folks who got some of it wrong–and while you say I’m “making fun” of them I don’t know why since I called them and I quote “not altogether unreasonable guesses.”
My point is just that Sullivan is probably correct that if someone had, 18 months ago, predicted the war as it has so far happened, they would probably have been accused of predicting a cake walk.
Bill,
(before I forget–what classes do you teach?
Physics — junior-level and AP at the moment, though I also wrote the course that’s taking the school to a ninth-grade “physics first” approach. I’m teaching mostly that next year, along with AP.
I can’t name anyone who got it ALL wrong but I could name all sorts of folks who got some of it wrong–and while you say I’m “making fun” of them I don’t know why since I called them and I quote “not altogether unreasonable guesses.”
To be honest, I missed that last half-sentence. Apologies — you weren’t making fun.
My point is just that Sullivan is probably correct that if someone had, 18 months ago, predicted the war as it has so far happened, they would probably have been accused of predicting a cake walk.
Agreed, at least to a point — but I wish in turn that you’d respond to my point that there were people in charge who predicted ACTUAL cakewalks and set policy on that expectation. Isn’t correction that misconception at least as important as correcting the “not unreasonable” overly pessimistic?
TWL
From Russ Maheras:
The city of Chicago (NOT including the suburbs) had almost 600 murders last year. That’s less than, but comparable to, all the U.S. war dead in Iraq over a similar one-year period. And if you factored in the total murders in the entire metropolitan Chicago area, which includes the surrounding suburbs, I’ll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that the death toll of this ONE U.S. city region would eclipse ALL the U.S. war dead to date in Iraq — accidental OR combat-related.
Which is why I complained earlier this year to the Chicago Tribune editors regarding their daily fixation with Iraq over an arguably more serious murder issue right in their own back yard. I don’t have the stats to prove it, but I’ll bet my old Chicago neighborhood of Austin probably has a higher death rate per capita than does any comparable part of Baghdad — especially over the past 10 years!
Based on these realities regarding the security situation of just ONE U.S. city, perhaps 130,000 troops doesn’t seem like too large a security force for an entire country after all.
And how many of those 600 were cops?
The 800 Iraq casualties aren’t for the entire nation. That’s just counting members of the main peacekeeping force.
Chicago is a city of about 3 million and we’ve got … what 130,000 troops in Iraq? And the two have suffered approximately equal numbers of casualties? Is it any wonder that the Trib finds the latter to be more news-worthy?
Tim,
Congratulations on writing the 9th grade physics course. That’s an enviable feather in your cap. To be able to design a class from he ground up…my fantasy is to do a cross curriculum science/history class…The History Of Science or something, showing how events drove technological advancement and visa versa.
Ain’t gonna happen though, since they need keep grabbing more and more of us to teach the ever growing body of 9th graders needing Earth Environmental. Chapter 16, where we learn how ocean waves form, snooze….
(I’m a biologist. It’s my nature. I’m sure many people, sitting in the ocean, wonder why the waves move as they do and would be fascinated by chapter 16. I, conversely, am more interested in the shark that is about to eat them.)
Oh I’ll agree that some of the administration were entirely too rosy in their predictions…plan for the absolute worst, I always say.
Anyway, good luck with the end of year. Physics is a tough class, you have to be highly intelligent to teach it well (and in theory at least, if one really really understands physics, doesn’t one get it all? Physics is what drives chemistry and biology is the study of the chemical reactions that we call life. Ipso facto, physics is the study of life, the universe, and everything. Also, ocean waves.)
If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured;
Was that our original goal there? No.
that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed;
Hasn’t happened yet.
that elections would be scheduled for January 2005;
I’ll believe it when I see it.
with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800;
See: what others have said.
But hey, while we’re in the business of chalking up liberation to the number of American soldiers lost, I assume you’re working on figures to determine how many soldiers we would lose for the next country Bush plans to invade?
that no oil fields had been set aflame;
I do wonder how many soldiers we have protecting our, ahh, interests right now over there in Iraq.
no WMDs had been used;
Ahh. Now we come to it at last.
Now, tell me again, what was the Numero Uno reason for invading Iraq?
You know, the FIRST reason, before a dozen others were thrown out for Flavor of the Week?
no mass refugee crises had emerged;
I haven’t heard of evidence either way on this. Turkey shut their border down anyways to prevent it. Terrorists are streaming in from other countries.
It’s not pretty, any way you look at it.
and no civil war had broken out
No, because anybody that wants to fight has united to kill our soldiers instead.
Civil war has not broken out either because the groups aren’t exactly mingling – Sunni’s have their parts of the country, Shiites have theirs.
Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured;
And here I thought it was the WMD that were the most important thing.
that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed;
Except that it hasn’t happened yet.
that elections would be scheduled for January 2005;
I’ll believe it when I see it.
with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800;
Well, start calculating how many lives will be lost for Bush’s next target then.
that no oil fields had been set aflame;
And I wonder how many of our soldiers are currently protecting our, ahh, “interests” in Iraq right now.
*sarcasm* Because we all know how important that oil is for the Iraqis. */sarcasm*
no WMDs had been used;
And our Numero Uno reason for going to Iraq? WMD!
Yes, that’s right, you too can invade the country of your choice on the pretense of their having WMD and being part of an Axis of Evil.
But if those WMD don’t show up, don’t bother to stick to your guns, but give a Flavor of the Week excuse as to why American lives are being lost in the hopes that everybody is too dámņ stupid to notice.
and no civil war had broken out…
Yet that hasn’t stopped them from joining together to fight our troops.
well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success.
You mean the War on Terror, right?
Because I *thought* that’s what Iraq is a part of.
Except, it isn’t. It’s a war of revenge, it’s far from over, and it’s definately not an extraordinary success.
Nice.
Stupid board screwed up, I reloaded it, it didn’t show my post, and I attempt to retype my thoughts.
And of course, both show up. Bleh.
Bill,
my fantasy is to do a cross curriculum science/history class…The History Of Science or something, showing how events drove technological advancement and visa versa.
Oh, no argument here. If time ever permits, that’s one of the courses I’d love to work on creating — a good astronomy course and something about looking at the science in SF being the other two.
(I’m a biologist. It’s my nature. I’m sure many people, sitting in the ocean, wonder why the waves move as they do and would be fascinated by chapter 16. I, conversely, am more interested in the shark that is about to eat them.)
Even as a physicist, I think I’m with you here. (Okay, technically my degrees are in astronomy.) I wouldn’t go for the biology over the physics every time (as my wife, a biologist, can confirm), but sharks are neat. 🙂
in theory at least, if one really really understands physics, doesn’t one get it all?
I’ve always thought so. That’s one of the reasons why so many schools go to a physics-first approach: it provides the conceptual underpinning for everything else. (Of course, I can’t get too smug: that’s when my colleagues bring out the big mallet’o’humility.)
TWL
Posted by: Peter David at June 1, 2004 01:39 PM
“Liberals are hitting back for the first time in decades, and conservatives hate it.”
Actually, as a conservative, I am getting a kick out of it. After 8 years of ulcers raging against Clinton, I am thrilled to see the libs fall into the same trap. After all the attacks on Clinton in his first term, what did we get? Clinton beat Dole. And Dole was a much better man than Kerry is. So I am thinking that, just maybe, history will repeat itself. All the vicious personal attacks on Bush will backfire, just like they did on Clinton, and the conservatives will be able to thank the loony liberal fringe for helping to re-elect Bush. And you can blame Fox News the same way we blamed the New York Times.
The 800 Iraq casualties aren’t for the entire nation. That’s just counting members of the main peacekeeping force.
And it doesn’t count all of the Iraqis that have been killed for working with our forces. Oh, that’s right, we don’t count Iraqi dead.
Now, imagine a city the size of Chicago in which 800 cops are killed a year and no one even bothers to count the number of civilians that are killed.
That’s the situation in Iraq.
After 8 years of ulcers raging against Clinton, I am thrilled to see the libs fall into the same trap.
Bush has to get a 2nd term first. And as I’ve said, Clinton would have gotten a third if that were still possible.
There’s no way in hëll Bush would get a third term, not counting the fact that he didn’t deserve a first.
Nick S. wrote: “And how many of those 600 were cops? The 800 Iraq casualties aren’t for the entire nation. That’s just counting members of the main peacekeeping force. Chicago is a city of about 3 million and we’ve got … what 130,000 troops in Iraq? And the two have suffered approximately equal numbers of casualties? Is it any wonder that the Trib finds the latter to be more news-worthy?”
The Tribune’s stance is ultimately political, in my opinion. To date, two native Chicagoans have died in Iraq, while nearly 600 Chicagoans were murdered last year. And this grim annual statistic is not an anomaly, either. Juggle the numbers any way you want and it still comes out as a horrific local problem. Every day, however, the Tribune headlines bad news in Iraq. As a former newspaper editor, I understand that Iraq is an important story, but Chicago’s murder problem is a national disgrace for the city. The per capita murder rate of Chicago was THREE TIMES that of New York City last year. Any newspaper editor knows that local news is important to its largest core of readers — even for the few U.S. papers with a strong national/international slant (NY Times, LA Times, etc.). The Tribune, in my estimation, had lost sight of this with its fixation over Iraq. The question I posed to the senior editor I wrote to was this: What do you think the people in my old Chicago neighborhood of Austin care about more? Another drive-by shooting at Augusta and Leamington, or a car-bombing in Iraq? The answer ain’t rocket science.
To their credit, the Tribune has since picked up their coverage of Chicago’s shameful problem quite a bit, including several front page feature stories. We’ll see how it ultimately affects the Chicago murder toll for 2004.
Russ Maheras
I dunno. Going to war is pretty big news, even if it is 10,000 miles away from Chicago. I think that anything that happens in Iraq is going to be making headlines for any serious news organization (although perhaps the Trib doesn’t qualify, I mean, they do own the Cubbies ;). Even ESPN has coverage on the war (even if it’s only because of Tillman).
And it’s not like they’re the only ones obsessed with Iraq (hello? the administration?).
Is it any wonder that the Trib finds the latter to be more news-worthy?”
Well, the focus of most major newspapers seems to be the War on Iraq.
And it just doesn’t come down to politics imo. Alot of it I think also comes down to the fact that that’s what people want to read about; the papers are stuck giving people what they want.
It may just be that people would rather hear about things thousands of miles away rather than what’s going on in their own back yards.
The truth starts to hurt when it hits close to home.
“..Alot of it I think also comes down to the fact that that’s what people want to read about; the papers are stuck giving people what they want.”
In the wake of the prison scandal, the Nick Berg story was glossed over and quickly shuffled to the side.
The #1 search listing on the web that week dealt with Nick Berg.
The media does not speak for the people.
In the wake of the prison scandal, the Nick Berg story was glossed over and quickly shuffled to the side.
Not in Pennsylvania, where Berg was from. We’ve been getting daily mentionings of his murder since it happened.
Nick Berg’s story was huge, but there wasn’t much to it once you got past “He was alive, then a bunch of animals cut his head off and filmed after Nick couldn’t get back to America and out of Iraq as quickly as he wanted to”, there wasn’t much of a story anymore. Until the perpetrators are positively IDed and captured, there’s not much left to that story.
On the other hand, more and more of America’s children are leaving their bloods on Bush’s hands everyday he keeps them over there…THAT’S newsworthy. Somedays we get reports of progress in the attempt to rebuild Iraq, somedays we get deaths of soldiers. The war is news, learn to deal with it, it IS news, therefore it will be reported on extensively, much to the Bush camp’s chagrin…
Nick Berg’s story was huge, but there wasn’t much to it once you got past “He was alive, then a bunch of animals cut his head off and filmed after Nick couldn’t get back to America and out of Iraq as quickly as he wanted to”, there wasn’t much of a story anymore. Until the perpetrators are positively IDed and captured, there’s not much left to that story.
On the other hand, more and more of America’s children are leaving their bloods on Bush’s hands everyday he keeps them over there…THAT’S newsworthy. Somedays we get reports of progress in the attempt to rebuild Iraq, somedays we get deaths of soldiers. The war is news, learn to deal with it, it IS news, therefore it will be reported on extensively, much to the Bush camp’s chagrin…
Hmmmm… not sure how that got double-posted, don’t remember having to hit post again for any reason…
“The #1 search listing on the web that week dealt with Nick Berg.”
True, but probably half of those were from people who wanted to see the video. With that said, the story was huge.
Craig wrote: “It may just be that people would rather hear about things thousands of miles away rather than what’s going on in their own back yards. The truth starts to hurt when it hits close to home.”
Whoa, there. There is a reason newspaper editors are taught early on in their careers to emphasize local news over news from elsewhere. First, people CARE about “the local tie” and thus it directly impacts circulation. Second, newspaper editors are also taught they have a responsibility to cover stories that directly impact the lives of their readers.
Den said it perfectly in a post above regarding news coverage of the Nick Berg killing. Berg was a Pennsylvanian, and thus Den pointed out that the local media had daily coverage of the story.
As a former newspaper editor, I am very much in tune with how a story is written and attributed, the “slant” or inference of the headline, the position placement of the story in a paper, and the frequency of coverage of a particular story.
It is amazing how all these factors can be manipulated for a particular story, depending on the politics and integrity of the newspaper staff. I’ve seen examples where the writer of the story is absolutely neutral, but the headline writer spins the story to his/her political slant when writing the headline. Story placement can also be decided by politics, as can the decision to even run a story in the first place. Also… have you ever noticed that one paper may cover a particular story one time (perhaps burying it in the middle of the paper), while another paper will run with a story for days or weeks, giving it prominent placement?
David Brinkley said in a 1964 TV Guide interview, “News is what I say it is.” Soon after becoming the editor of a weekly newspaper, I learned he was absolutely right! It was a sobering lesson, and even a bit scary, at first.
Russ Maheras