Because the mainstream media has done its best to hypnotize the public into believing the “failure” of the American democracy project in Iraq, it is worth comparing some dates:
Operation Iraqi Freedom – began March 19, 2003
Election to ratify constitution for a democratic Iraq – October 14, 2005
That’s two years and seven months.
US Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776
Completion of US Constitution – September 17, 1787 (took effect 1789)
That’s eleven years and two months. (I could have begun with the Boston Tea Party which would have added another three years.)
Anybody want to take a bet about how history will regard Operation Iraqi Freedom? No wonder the New York Times is singing a
(relatively) different tune this morning.
UPDATE: The NYT is already backtracking (the Zabar’s zeitgeist rules!), but other interested parties are more concerned that democracy is actually coming to Iraq.
MORE: A good tour d’horizon of press reactions from Austin of Austin.
AND: Don’t miss Omar’s first foray into video. Amazing.
It is history occurring before our eyes. Honestly I am both anxious and optimistic about how all of this will turn out. Thank goodness we have three more years of GW to see it through. Roger I don’t think the tune of the Times was that different, they still managed to work in a lot of negativity.
I agree with Luther. The Times was less strident than usual and it probably was a ‘relatively’ balanced report,but that was TODAY when they could hardly spin the obvious results too baldly.
Expecting the Times to provide a positive impact on world history and especially on Iraq, is like expecting Pravda in 1960 to condemn the then politiburo leadership as nothing but murderous thugs.
The Times is irredeemable.
Um, the American Colonialists had representative governments before during and after the Revolution, which was a successful fight to expel an occupation. In particular, the U.S. Constitution was written only after the resolution of the military conflict.
The Iraqis went from dictatorship to occupation by a foreign power, and have only recently made tentative steps towards self-rule. The Iraqi constitution is being written during an active insurgency and while under occupation.
It will be interesting to see if the Times is able to shift their coverage. To acknowledge the good news out of Iraq risks overturning the paradigm they have constructed since shortly after the invasion of Iraq (ie, Quagmire, Vietnam, Oil). If they admit things are going well, it implies they have been wrong and/or misleading for the last 2 years. Whether the aggregate Narcissism of the Times, and of so many in the LSM, can tolerate the public exposure of their error (or perfidy) will be instructive. My sense is that the new paradigm will be something along the lines of “the invasion was a mistake, the Bush administration has made every mistake in the book, but the Iraqis, by luck and pluck, have pulled our chestnuts out of the fire.” No admission that the reporting has been a factor in our difficulties will be made, just as the LSM has thus far made no admission that their reporting of Katrina added to the problems in New Orleans. Sadly, any change generally requires an admission (at least to oneself) of culpability and responsibility.
Zachriel, I don’t disagree with you that the analogy is flawed, but all analogies are flawed by definition. I could turn your comparison around and say that the Iraqis won’t accept slavery in part of their country and restrict women from voting as the Americans did, but the difference of 200 plus years requires different standards. That there is still significant violence in Iraq 2 1/2 years later should not be dismissed. And yet a vote to ratify a constitution in Iraq 2 1/2 years later is remarkable and should be recognized as a great achievement.
This argument is so dumb that I can only attribute it to higher education. Does anyone else see the subtle difference between the struggles of the Framers of the constitution and the inherent bumbling of the Bush administration? Do you think Alexander Hamilton ever made cell calls in the back of a stretch limo going down the street after getting off of a supersonic jet where there was a video teleconference with several members of conress? You can bet Chalabi has. A reason it might have taken ten years to write the U.S. constitution might have something to do with it taking six months to GET to the meeting.
Defending Bush is becoming an exercise in futility. The man never was qualified to be president, regardless of how good his pitch was, or how intellectually blind we all became on 9/11. We as a nation have to decide if partisan loyalty is more important than the future of the country. Are you a conservative or an American. I had to make my choice recently, and so do you.
As a registered Democrat (centrist), it seems to me the real partisan is the commenter above me.
Eric bewilders me. Just for the sake of his argument, let us assume that Bush is bad.
as Eric says, “The man never was qualified to be president, regardless of how good his pitch was, or how intellectually blind we all became on 9/11. We as a nation have to decide if partisan loyalty is more important than the future of the country. Are you a conservative or an American. I had to make my choice recently, and so do you. ” Now what does that mean in terms of Islamic Jihadis? does that mean that they aren’t trying to take down the infidel world? Does that make Saddam any less a ruthless dictator with pretentions to be King of the Arab world? Does that mean that Omar and Mohammed are wrong?
Bush is not the issue. Bin Laden and Qutb and Zahawiri and every imam who preaches hate and death to the infidel world are the issue. Eric focuses on Bush and is blind to the war which has been waged against the infidels for decades. That is why Rogers Place has
Democrats and Republicans and non affiliated posters as regulars. The cancer spreading from the Arab world doesn’t care whether you are pro or anti abortion, what your opinion on stem cell research is. They only care about spreading their world to ours, even if it means destroying our economies through terror and ultimate control of the fuel for world growth. Yes. Oil. Read what they write and what they say. It is not a secret. We are their enemy and they are focused on bringing us down. No matter how long it takes.
And that isn’t partisan politics. That is our way of life.
re: Chalibi and founders
There are always Chalibi’s (good and bad) found in these processes. Mr. Hamilton was certainly viewed by some as the same (Mr. Burr). And the American Revolution had a lot to do with property and the ability of a citizen and their enterprise to do as they pleased, v. what the Crown demanded. In a matter of days we went from aggrieved to armed rebellion over the Tea Act (in part) because our merchants’ (smuggling-based) profits were about to be given to the East-India Company monopoly by British fiat (not by coercion but because the EIC would be able to charge lower prices than our merchants).
I wager Chalibi ends up (and actually is) a local hero (esp. to their poor, tired, tortured and downtrodden) when the dust settles, and the facts come out (in the 30-40 years this takes).
Reread Eric’s words and substitute Arafat, Nasser, Saadam, etc.. for a better sense of truth. All those dictators who “knew what was best” for their people but denied their people the vote and a rule of law, not men.
I don’t consider myself conservative, republican, or after 40 years of voting same, a democrat either. I think I’m done with labels. But I will say that in the last few years I have become much more appreciative and understanding of republicans and conservatives alike.
If I laud Bush it is for his actions in protecting this country and its way of life. For far too long this country has refrained from using its power to make the world a better place. Finally we had someone who had the courage to do what was best for the country and, in the end, the world. We had someone willing to act and not be deterred by the self-interested disapproval of the ‘international’ community of the Euro leaders and/or the UN.
I mentioned my anxiety about the future above, but for the present there is no denying, in my view, that the Iraqi’s are making history. Not just in their country, or the Mideast, but around the world. They are showing that given the opportunity, people can and will take control and responsibility over their own lives.
Hopefully, in the future, they will have the same freedom to excoriate their leaders as some here see fit to do.
Eric writes:
Defending Bush is becoming an exercise in futility. The man never was qualified to be president, regardless of how good his pitch was, or how intellectually blind we all became on 9/11…
I have to agree that defending Bush “is becoming [sic] an exercise in futility.”
The poor president can never do anything right.
Eric also avers that “[Bush] was never qualified to be president.” Now that’s a good one.
He seemed to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, and he was recently elected by (IIRC) a 51% majority, and the largest number of Americans for any president ever.
But that’s not good enough.
If the Iraqis were, to the last man and woman, to swear under oath that they were grateful to GWB for bringing the rudiments of democracy to their country, that would still not be enough.
I am a life-long registered Democrat, and voted for Gore (God forgive me) in the 2000 election.
Jamie Irons
Iraq has not been ‘occupied’ since January. The Americans are still there because the Iraqi government desires our presence.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is losing bad. Zarqawi’s fear of smothering has come true. They were reduced to attacking fellow sunnis, the Iraq Islamic Party, who had decided to support the constitution and the political process.
Al Qaeda can’t get anyone to support them anymore! They have lost in the heart of the Arab world and their dreams of a caliphate have been crushed.
They will continue to fight because they know nothing else, and it will still take a while before their flame dies out completely, but without the full support of the Arab masses they will cease to have heart for the battle and discouragement and depression will be their constant companions.
We didn’t even begin the Marshall plan for the reconstruction of Europe until three years after the end of WWII. And we *still* have troops in Germany.
Maybe the MSM will take the tack of the guy who was on C-SPAN’s National Journal this morning. Someone named Jonathan Morrow, from some organization called the U.S. Institute of Peace. Essentially, he said the Bush Administration probably blew it (once again) because the entire constitutional development process was rushed. Didn’t we use to hear that things were taking too long and that everything should be turned over to the Iraqis, pronto? Damned if they do; damned if they don’t.
Why in the world do you still read the NY Times?
Bush Derangement Syndrome..
Eric suffers from this. Along with a very large minority in the country. In all my years I have
never seen such hatred for any political leader. Personally I don’t llike George Bush. I didn’t like him so badly that for the only time in my life I voted for a Democrat for President, Al Gore. In truth I wasn’t
voting for Gore, I was voting against Bush. I called him an empty suit, a captive of the Christian
Right and when he said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher that sealed the deal for me. Gore it
would be. I don’t like his smirk. His syntax is dreadful. I cringe when I see him answer the loaded
questions at press conferences. And then came 9/11. the wake up call. How blind we had been to
the Islamists. Clinton called for regime change in Iraq, but didn’t know how to do it. Albright, Jay
rockefeller, Sandy Berger, Al Gore and many others spoke up about the threat to the world that was
Saddam Hussein. but we ignored it. After all those crazies were “over there”. The Taliban were dreadful.
Everyone agreed on that, but what could we do. They were “over there” and that was their problem, not ours. And the other preachers of hate and death, with names we couldn’t pronounce. They were just
some loonies “over there” Not our problem. Let them kill one another. So they blew up a few embassies\in
Africa and some US troops in Saudi Arabia and a boat near Yemen. That was “over there” too. And the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Well, that wasn’t too bad. And they got caught. We never thought
about why they were here in Jersey City and what they thought they would accomplish by killing
lots of Americans. Caught, tried and jailed. End of story. And that blind Sheik. No one knew or cared
that he was a disciple of Qutb and the Brotherhood. No one knew or cared what that philosophy was a bout. What the goals of it were. Or that Bin ladens “spiritual advisor”, Zahawiri was also a protege of Qotb.
Who could keep track of all those names. And then came 9/11. And Geroge Bush, the empty suit got it
right. And that was all that mattered or matters still to me. And the Democrats drifted away. They so
wanted to get even for the election that they made him the issue. And they kept at it and at it so long
that they forgot to pay attention to who the enemey was. At each and every step they dug themselves
deeper and deeper. All because they couldn’t rally behind OUR President to defend out way of life.
And that is why I voted for George Bush in 2004. The minority party had become frozen into inaction because of politics. They became more and more outrageous.
Have to go. more later if i have time
Excellent, Ted!
Via BaroneBlog, The Emerging Iraqi Army by Maj. Gen. Robert Scales.
From the opening graph:
“Their story is only partially told by the recent spike in numbers of Iraqi army battalions from only a few a year ago to 117 today. But soldiers know that the effectiveness of a fighting force is better measured by intangibles such as courage, will to win, skill at arms, leadership, cohesion and allegiance to a higher cause. These are factors that media amateurs and Washington insiders have difficulty comprehending.”
And the concluding graph:
“Like a good wine, making an army takes time. I only hope the American people will give our soldiers the time they need to mature this Army. Give them time, trust them, and this war will turn out OK.”
And there’s real meat between the opening and closing graphs.
Eric:
62 million Americans voted for Bush. That makes him qualified. They did not and would not vote for George Will or Ann Coulter and they did not and would not vote for Al Gore or Michael Moore in anything like those numbers. That is how this country works. If you don’t like it, go find a place where only certain special “qualified” people get to run things.
BTW, I am not partisan. Bush was the first Republican I ever voted for in my life.
The British did occupy the colonies, that is one reason we had a revolution. And the Union troops occupied the South following the Civil War. So maybe you don’t know as much about history as you think you do.
If not for George Bush the people of Iraq would not have had the oppurtunity to write a constitution with or without occupation, a fact that most of his critics would have been fine with.
what have I missed–has BDS become so pevasive among the American left they cannot applaud the exercise of voting for a constitution? It would not make a scintilla of difference to me under whose administration in the United States Iraqi people could vote for a constitution.
Has the American left become so self absorbed in their petty hatreds they cannot accept self governance in a people that have been opressed for a generation? Their views mock the essence of classical liberalism. They are a national disgrace.
RogerA:
The sad thing is not all these guys are left anymore. Some of them are right.
You know what they say, extremes meet.
Hey Eric, was Boy Clinton, AlGore, and John anti-war-hero Kerry qualified for president? Just try in your heart to imagine what this country would look and feel like had any of these appeasers been commander-in-chief on and after 9/11. The taliban would still be in power, Pakistan would have been selling nukes to Al Quaeda, Terrorists would still be training in Salmon Pak, Iraq and Nancy Pelosi would be leading the peace mission to Kandahar to negotiate with Al Zawahiri.
But poor Eric, Lightweight Bush “stole” the 2000 election and so terrorists are losing their asses, democracy is winning in Kabul and Baghdad, Australia, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany have given the heave-ho to their socialist leaders, and the only unhappy people are Eric, Chris Matthews, Eleanor Rodham Clift, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, the NYT and WaPo, and the rest of the Liberal Ilk.
Relax, Roger, the LA Times already said the election just made things worse and will probably just contribute to the continued oppression of the poor Sunnis, so we don’t have to worry about it any more.
Oh well, spinners spin, what else is new? Me, I’ll tip my hat to Bush and all the other folks who pushed for this day.
Voting is always a good thing in my book. Each and every individual has worth. The little guy won in Iraq today, that’s all that matters.
America’s first constitution was the Articles of Confederation written around the time of the Declaration of independence. I could argue that the Boston Teas party was a terrorist act.
But I natter, fundementally RogerL is spot on. This is a day to celebrate, which is why poor little people like Eric have to pi$$ on it.
“…has BDS become so pevasive among the American left they cannot applaud the exercise of voting for a constitution?”
Yes.
See McEnroe’s link up there and get up early tomorrow to catch all the doomsayers on the Sunday morning shows. No more fawning over purple fingers like last time–this time they’ll be prepared!
Eric seems to have retreated. His engagement was kinda hit and run. And made so little sense it is no wonder he did not reengage his critics.
There is no reason whatever to see today’s vote, with its absence of significant violent incidents, as anything but a victory for our nation’s strategy.
Trying to spin it as anything else will be another net minus for the spinners, be they press or political opponents of the administration.
You can believe that the audience in the middle east is paying attention and will not be misled.
Eric can bluster and make conclusory statements all he wants, but it is not persuasive.
The people of Iraq voted on whether or not to approve the new constitution on October 15, 2005. The comparable date in United States history might be June 21, 1788. On that date, in New Hampshire, ratification of the conventions of the nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between the states so ratifying the same the United States of America came into being. It might be May 29, 1790 when Rhode Island, finally, became the thirteenth state.
I don’t like the analogy for any number of other non-technical reasons.
Nonetheless, I hope the Iraqis approved the document upon which they were voting by a huge margin everywhere and that in May 2014 (eleven years and two months after March 2003) we’re all still around and that some of us have changed our minds. I know I hope I will have.
Best.
THE WAR IS OVER
THE NEXT FEW MONTHS IS MOPPING UP
MAIN STREAM MEDIA WILL BE THE LAST TO KNOW
THEY WILL HATE TO GIVE BUSH CREDIT
WATCH WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IN SYRIA (MORE ASSISTED SUICIDES)
WATCH THE DEMOJERKS JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON AND SAY THAT THEY VOTED FOR THE WAR
MAKES ME PUKE
I think our military and political leaders have taken the lessons of Vietnam to heart. We had won that war, but it took too long. From ’65 to ’73. Public sentiment against became too deeply entrenched.
With better tools and plans we have cut the time considerably.
Attacks are down by 96%.
That is astounding. When an army (even an insurgent arm) loses that kind of effectiveness (especially considering that the attacks did not meet the goals even in the instance of greater combat capability) the end is nigh.
Guerilla wars don’t end. They just peter out. Looks like we have reached the petering stage.
I apologize for the hornet’s nest I seem to have stirred. Okay. I dont.
The supporters of the administration (it really hurts to not consider myself among them now. it really does. I still feel that there was a constitutional justification to the 2000 election decision.) seem to live in a fantasy land that the war in Iraq has gone well. The simple truth now is that the majority of the casualties in Iraq have occured SINCE the adminisration declared victory. Incompetence at this point is kind.
The John Roberts nomination stands as the only (this is on a hope. I guess none of us really know yet) stands as the one tangible success that I can hang my hat on in this administration.
The democrats are already running their brand new, shiny talking point: “The republican culture of corruption”. News flash: that is going to stick. Kiss the majority goodbye, and it’s going away for a long time. AND WHY??? Because Bush has embraced big government. He is the highest spending president since FDR (he surpassed him). He has ruined the moniker of “conservative” and I shame him for that. I subscribe to the conservative ideology, and the president is destroying it.
and one more thing: (and yes, at the time, I was a supporter) just because someone WON the presidency doesnt mean a person is more QUALIFIED to BE president. clinton? Grant? Taft? Buchanan?
and that is PRECISELY why the framers left in the Constitution a way to REMOVE A PRESIDENT. (I am not suggesting we do that here, just that they made the process available in the event that the public has made a gross mistake)
Eric:
I hate to break it to you but I really don’t give a damn what you think about Bush.
As for Iraq, well as a general rule I don’t live in a fantasy world where I think wars “go well”. I do know that some lefites seem to think that Saddam;s Iraq was happy place of kite flying children and laughing flowers but in truth it was a real hell hole.
I tell you what, Saddam is still alive why don’t we give the place back to him? Think that would be better? think the people who live and die there would want the bastard back?
I know some right wingers are mad at Bush because he did not pick one of their personal favorites for the bench. That whole thing about the president having a right to his nominee and the nominee having a right to an up or down vote only applies when they personally approve of said nominee. hypocrites.
Lefties are pissed at Bush because they never met a dictator they did not make excuses for and Bush has removed two from power.
What I find interesting is that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people in that country and now we are hearing about how things did not go well, because people died in Iraq.
Where have you people been?
Take millitary spending out of the equasion and Bush’s spending habits are not what Eric would have us believe.
I think most of us conservatives (read: classical liberals) would would have to disagree with the president on a whole lot of things (immigration, No Child Left Behind, prescription drug entitlemens) but he gets the war on terror, judges and taxes right. Those trump the other three for me. That added to the fact that its pretty evident that he is doing what he thinks is right for a country he loves.
Just think what it would be like to be led by a man or woman who deep down does not really like this counrty. While listening to someone talk at a library last week, it hit me. There are a lot of people active in politics today who really hate this counrty. They mostly all vote Democrat. I’m not saying all (or most) Democrats hate America; the overwhelming majority are as patriotic as any Republican. But for the hate filled minority, the Democrat party is home. You don’t see Republicans calling our soldiers Nazis like Dick Durbin did. He is just the tip of the iceburg. Read Winter Soldier (if you can get a copy) Just imagine an America hater like Kerry as president. Makes me shudder. The Congressional Black Caucus hosts Minister Farakhan (sp). at its meetings. I could go on and on.
Eric calls himself a conservative yet spouts leftist talking points one after the other. Eric, you can call a chair a tomato but if it has four legs and you can sit on it, its still a chair.
M Simon: Attacks are down by 96%.
Are you sure about that? I don’t have any stats but August and September seemed pretty bloody to me. If anything there seemed to me more attacks during that period. Remember neocons said after the election (late January?) that the Sunni insurgency would fade but after a couple of weeks it was back up to full strength.
Eric: The supporters of the administration…seem to live in a fantasy land that the war in Iraq has gone well
Yes, I closely followed the build-up to war and though at no time did I think it was the right thing to do I kept an open mind and hoped it would go well. But I can’t recall anyone on the pro-war side saying it would be this difficult. They ridiculed those of us who thought it would be a disaster constantly reminding us of how “easy” Desert Storm supposedly was. When Baghdad fell they gloated and said “see, told you so, told you so.” The insurgency continued but when Bush got into military gear and declared on board the Abraham Lincoln that major combat was over the war supporters again said that was just about it. Then half a year and hundreds of casualties later when Saddam was captured that was going to be the end. During 2004 when there were a few occasions when attacks went down we were told this time it was peetering out. Then the elections…and now the referendum. It’s OK to be wrong (it happens to us all) but to be so spectacularly wrong and to refuse to admit it reminds me that many of the biggest warmongers were ex-leftists many of whom refused to admit to the cost in human lives of their leftist experiment.
Eric:Bush has embraced big government. He is the highest spending president since FDR (he surpassed him). He has ruined the moniker of “conservative” and I shame him for that.
Expecting a member of the Bush clan to be capable of shame is like expecting the same of the Kennedy crowd.
Terrye:What I find interesting is that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people in that country and now we are hearing about how things did not go well, because people died in Iraq.
Saddam did most of his killing in the early days when he was consolidating power. Most of the deaths since Desert Storm were of Shias and Kurds encouraged to revolt by Bush the Elder and Iraqi civilians who died during sanctions – Saddam and the US both being guilty in my view, though the former more than the latter. But the argument for going to war was not human rights violations. Remember WMD and Condoleezza’s mushroom cloud? There are many countries committing major human rights violations as bad or worse than those occurring under Saddam in his last years.
fortunato:You don’t see Republicans calling our soldiers Nazis like Dick Durbin did.
True, but what are Republicans other than Arnold doing for these soldiers http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/article2.html
Some people try so hard to evade the point that the people of Iraq is engaing in the democratic exercise of free vote for the second time around.An exercise which one suppose would have resulted in lauds from people who are allegedly for continuous social change from a social-democratic perspective.
The moral decadence of so called progressives and people of social advance is apalling. To see pelpe who supposedly uphold traditional western values decrying the extension of those values to tyranized peolpe is equally apalling and a contradiction.
That serving the objectives of the union of marxists and fascists reminds me that both- using naive,unsuspecting people-have united in the past to asfixiate democracy and engage in democide and genocide;ie Weimar Republic, the Soviet German Non Agression Pact,1990′s Balcanic Wars – which saw the Save Slodvan Now calls mingled with the Save Saddam Now calls in a united fascist-marxist front…and now we are watching the same dastardly action over the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns,from 2001 to the present.
The picture of an Iraqui woman casting a ballot,newborn at her side, from the bed of the hospita where she went togive birth; a disenfranchised people turning out top vote in higher proportions than in many elections in the US braving terror speaks for itself…
And it speaks for itself to to see progressives against progress, liberals against liberalization, the vanguard running to the rear guard of ractionary objective pro fascism, democrats against democracy, those who defend multiculturalism going against a non European non Western people exercising freedom and trying to show their culture and ways are not what the Islamism says it is, to see defenders of free market,private prperty,western democracy as superior to traditional Asiatic authoritarism rooting for that authoritarism.
DEMOCRATIC people,if they want to be consistent and intellectually honest,should support the war effort, a true war of national liberation.
The Iraqui campaign has been a true ” war of national liberation” to give “power to the people” . A so radical experiment that not even in the wildest dreams of fellow travellers and useful fools the world around could happen in the hands of another so called national liberation fronts or People’s armies but by the US,British and Australian armed forces, with the help smaller contingents from a dozen or so countries.
No pasaran! You shall not pass! Is a call against fascists not at the gates of MAdrid but at the Siryan/Iranian-Iraqui boders, a barricade held by a brave voting people and the brave international brigades from America, the UK and Down Under with a seasoning of Japanese, Chez,Salvadorans,etc.
No pasaran!
Incidentally the warhawks like Condoleezza strike me as being more anti-American when they compare Iraq to the early US republic. Lawrence Auster explained that better than I can http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003925.html
I’m just glad Roger didn’t sink to bringing up female suffrage and slavery as US officials have shamefully done in the past.
It’s very helpful to read the inspiring post from Puerto Rico (above) after the unhappy rants of another commenter Coisty. It is hard to understand why a day of democratic victory would set him off in such a manner. But we see things like that all around us.
I honestly do not understand why not approving of what the President did (and the chicken hawks, the neo-cons, yada yada) should have ANYTHING to do with not recognizing how signficant it is the an Arab state participated in a constitutional referendum. I simply cannot grasp how those are related–You dont like the president; fine. Try to get him impeached.
But why in the world is your hatred of the president grounds for not celebrating an exercise in democracy? Why do you begrudge the fact that 25 or so million are freerer now than they were 4 years ago?
The American left is morally bankrupt, lacking humanity or anything that resembles a value structure worth dying for. Pathetic.
Roger:
Keep in mind that Coisty is not an American.
Left to him Saddam could fill all the mass graves his heart desires, after all they are just little brown people. He could rake in that humanitarian aid money and spend it on any old thing he wanted…Coisty would not do squat about it.
As for always agreeing with the president, I don’t..but when it comes to somehting like spending money there is a Congress and Senate out there as well..not to mention the fact that most people want those benefits.
Just look at the reaction to slowing down the growth in benefits for top 1/2 of Social Security beneficiaries.
I am not saying Bush does not need to do more to make the case but people are just not interested in living without the benefits whether conservatives like to admit that or not.
But you are right, the point is the Iraqis are gaining control over their political future. Some people think that is a good thing, some don’t.
Eric,
You are due for a serious and bracing reality check if you think that Democrats are anywhere close to winning a national election. The average Joe or Joanna are frightened to death of putting their security in the hands of any Democrat. Any Democrat. One reason is put forth very eloqently by Roger A: “The American left is morally bankrupt, lacking humanity or anything that resembles a value structure worth dying for. Pathetic.” Like it or not, that is how the left is perceived. They are perceived as the ANTI-DEMOCRACY party. Have you not read the analysis by William Galston and Elaine Kamarck entitled “The Politics of Polorization?” The Republicans are far from perfect, and while I have voted Democratic all my life (until 2004), I cannot conceive of voting for them again. Until they get on the right side of humanity and the right side of national security, they are lost. Consider all the problems the Republicans are having. By rights (and certainly the President’s approval ratings are showing this), they should be in the tank across the board. But guess what? They aren’t, because Joe and Joanna know the option is a liberal who shudders in fear and shrinks from doing the right thing, either for others or for our country. Until Democrats get right on patriotism and national security, they are doomed to wander in the dark.
Whew, glad I got that off my chest. Now: GO IRAQ!
Terrye:Roger:
Keep in mind that Coisty is not an American
You keep bringing that up. It seems to bother you that non-USA citizens express their views on US foreign policy. As long as the whole world is impacted by your policies we have a right to an opinion on your foreign policy. BTW Iraqis are not Americans either!
I belong to an ethnic group that helped build America – the Ulster-Scots (Scotch-Irish) – and so I care about what happens to the US even though you have used your power to a) force affirmative action on mine and b) to shelter terrorists who murdered my neighbours. When the issue of immigration comes up I (non-American Goddamn foreigner) am the one who defends the US but you Terrye and Jorge Bush make endless excuses for the Mexican colonists. Illegals kill and rape hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans each year (more than Arabs normally do) yet you’re more concerned about what the price of a head of lettuce would be without those Mexican slaves!
Incidentally what do you think about the suffering of those American soldiers and fathers who are arrested when they return for not keeping up child maintenance payments whilst in Iraq? I provided the link above. Do you think they are glad to have put their lives on the line for the God known as democracy only to return to find out their lives have been ruined by FemiNazis at home? Perhaps FREEDOM in the US (and the rest of the West) is a bit more important than democracy in Iraq.
Left to him Saddam could fill all the mass graves his heart desires, after all they are just little brown people
They have their own culture that revolves around tribes – ever heard of consanguineous marriage? Not everyone wants to be a deracinated multiculturalist. Besides, if you are going to condemn war opponents for not wanting to put an end to Saddam’s rule then what have you done to help the opposition in Zimbabwe? Have you advocated US invention to your Senator? What about the Serbs murdered since the US enforced “peace” in Kosovo? Why are Iraqis more important to you than oppressed blacks in Sudan? Before you shout racism (like your idiot leftist president) at those of us who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq why don’t you explain why you are so selectively self-righteous?
Coisty:
I bring it up because it bothers me that people from just about anywhere think they can give the yanks a hard time.
It does not matter if their own country is cess pool of thievery and corruption…there they are pointing fingers and making judgments.
I get it….you don’t like Americans…you could do a better job of running the world…got it…you don’t have to go on and on.
I belong to that same group, my people came here to avoid starving to death on the Emerald Isle.
As for defending us, well thanks, but tell them for me that considering their own sorry history of blowing each other up..maybe they should look a little closer to home. I have never done a damn thing in my entire life to hurt any of your countrymen so why should I have to take any crap from them?
As for those soldiers, I don’t know what you are talking aobut, their wages are garnished to pay for anything like child support. I happen to know people who have gone to Iraq and I have never heard of such a thing.
And the Iraqis may not be Aemricans, but they are human beings and for years countries like the US have been blamed for their lack of decent government, well here is their chance.
TedM,
You may be too young to remember the Reagan years. Bush hating is, well, bush league in comparison to what was going on back then. The academy and half the governing class was seething in hatred and institutionalized cowardice in a manner that only thirty years of cringing could accomplish. The art world practically destroyed itself, and still hasn’t recovered. Europeans spat on Americans, and not just in Paris. London nightlife was an anti-American propaganda factory. The repectable left regularly accused the right of actively plotting to destroy us all by instigating a nuclear war. And they believed it in their bones. Much of the Bush hating you see now was pioneered back then — the imagery and inconography (Bedtime for Bonzo ring any bells?)and it felt deeper and harder and insane in an intensity the moonbats don’t quite reach. But maybe I felt it more, too, since I was young and hadn’t seen anything like it before. But now I have.
coffee,
I have to differ on that one. I can remember FDR being called Rosenfeld by some. Ronnie was the teflon president too.
Anti Americanism is a sport for the Europeans. Now it is a phobia.
Now that fear is spreading in the UK and western Europe, the anti Americanism may take second place to something else. Look at what is happening in Holland. there is a real backlash there. The people are scared and looking for a way to feel safe again.
TedM,
Well, what can you expect from a continent that hasn’t had stable representative government but 50 years? Europeans are teenagers in comparison to Americans, culturally speaking! One of these decades, they’ll grow up. If they don’t commit cultural suicide first. Hmm, not sure this analogy is holding together entirely…
analogy not holding at all.
Our government was based on English laws and culture and religion.
Europe has developed differently than we have. Socialism and securlarism have affected the way they think.And WW I had a tremendous psychological affect. WW II and the Cold War added to their discomfit. Remember we had two large oceans to protect us from the ravages of war. Their attitudes today are complicated. I think that they are getting very scared about the
unassimilated horde in their countries. They just don’t know how to deal with it. And they are beginning to understand that they have to.
Makes for a complicated world.
“Operation Iraqi Freedom – began March 19, 2003
Election to ratify constitution for a democratic Iraq – October 14, 2005
That’s two years and seven months.
US Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776
Completion of US Constitution – September 17, 1787 (took effect 1789)”
Are you serious? What does that have to do with anything? Is this your barometer for progress in Iraq? To echo an earlier comment, the colonies already had representative governments. The situation in Iraq and the Revolutionary war have essentially nothing in common.
Just because the Iraqis might be getting a constitution doesn’t mean they’ll stop killing each other and it certainly won’t end the possibility of a full-blown civil war.
Oh, and the Articles of Confederation, you know the actual first American governing document, was written in 1777 and ratified in 1781.
How about this timeline:
Bush’s mission accomplished speech: May 2, 2003
Election to ratify constitution for a democratic Iraq: October 14, 2005
Ratification of Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781
Treaty of Paris: September 3, 1781
But you know what, my timeline is just as meaningless as yours!
I join most others here in being glad at how things seem to have turned out yesterday in Iraq. Hopefully, this is a step toward a better future for everyone, the insurgency really is dying down, and everything will start to go well. We’ve gotten our hopes up several times only to be letdown again, but hey, maybe this is really what progress looks like, in the real world.
The word “progress” reminds me that I supported the war initially as a mainstream liberal, one who has internationalist sympathies. As such, I’m a sucker for idealistic big-government social engineering projects, which sure as hell is exactly what our Iraqi adventure has been and is.
Eric seems to be coming at things from a conservative and AMERICAN nationalist viewpoint (are you reading, HA?), and I must say, I can’t imagine someone having strong views along those lines and NOT being appalled at the whole Iraqi initiative.
To friggin’ whit: there were no vital US interests at stake. The fear that Saadam would manage to create a nuclear device through some clandestine tinpot WMD program — while manageing not to get taken out in the process by Israel –and that he would then choose to give these materials to Al-Qaeda was GROUNDLESS and ABSURD, in the opinion of everyone who knew anything about him and wasn’t looking for a “noble lie” in order to sell war to the American people. And while he certainly had his fascist boot on the throats of his subjects, since when is such thuggary something that AMERICAN nationalists are supposed to get exercised about?
Terrye — just checking here for the first time, I must take you to task for two of your comments. First, you tell Eric, “I don’t care about the fact that you don’t like Bush”. Well, if you don’t care, why are you bothering to reply? That was just a gratutitous insult. Then you get all obnoxious about Coisty as a non-American having a critical opinion of this country. As if you don’t have a million opinions about other countries and other peoples yourself.
Why don’t you just simplify things, and say “I hate when people disagree with me, and I reserve the right to insult them and behave like a hostile jerk in lieu of a debate”?
Markus,
Eric seems to be coming at things from a conservative and AMERICAN nationalist viewpoint (are you reading, HA?)
Yes, I’m reading and I think Eric is Moby.
An INFORMED conservative nationalist would support overthrowing Saddam for the following reasons:
1. Saddam continually violated the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
2. He tried to assasinate an ex-President.
3. He supported terrorists and terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda. This includes proven ties to the 1993 WTC bombers and highly suggestive ties to the 9/11 attackers.
4. He had a mothballed WMD program that he would have restarted once his French, Russian and Chinese agents on the UNSC managed to get sanctions and inspections removed.
5. He was destabilizing the entire Middle East.
The strategic gains America has achieved include:
1. Restoration of the deterrent effect of American power.
2. Removal of a regime that threatened vital American interests.
3. Surrender of Libya’s WMD program
4. Roll-up of the AQ Khan nuclear black market.
Unfortunately, because the dominant media are DNC mouthpieces, the American electorate is mostly ignorant of these facts. Too many people have bought into the bogus narrative you presented.
BTW, Markus, I’ve seen you make actual arguments in the past. Your post above is little more than ad hominem. I suppose you see this as fighting fire with fire. I expect a better argument from you, even if I disagree.
Lets talk about the Turd of Islamic Fascism and its Beetles
We are facing the ultimate Totalitarism…a mix of all TOTALITARIAN EXCREMENT concocted East and West in a great turd of hate ideology so Beetles like the Ayatholas and the Baath in Syria and Iraq could find a savory tasty entree for consumption.
So yummy in fact that other Beetles, Neo MArxists/Neo fascists in Europe, Latin America and the United States join since they also find something in the ball. That makes them roll the ball riding astride and on top,so you dont really see the new totalitarian excrement ball, you see your average Red/Black and Yellow types doing the political action.
Power sharing? Bah,backstabbing–decapitation really– will come when the time is right. What would have happened with a world dominated by Japan in one end and Germany/Italy and friends on the other side? The Turd of Islamic Fascism, the new 21st C. Totalitarism,would absorb all.Useful fools to be hangued with their own rope. Well learned from V.I.
So, after the septic tank was upset in Afghanistan, one Beetle was crushed in Iraq. A no,no, mind you. A major ear lenderer to the benefits of rolling the excrement ball while having such a rough time after his Mother of All Battles gone? Gone from a center of regional gravity? Loose such a big launching pad to roll the ball down hill into the Arab World,into the Yankee-Sionist Neo-colonialist Entity and then onwards to the Grater Umma?
No way.
So there you see what were at stake, what is at stake.
If one do not understand that we are fighting an ideology not any individual or regime one may not see how Saddam,Al Qaeda,Iran,Jihadism the world over were/are related.
Our vital interests were, are and will be at stakes at Iraq since we are fighting a war against an ideology, Islamic Fascism.
The Baath is the secular extreme on the Islamo Fascist scale, the Islamic Revolutionary Fundamentalism the other end.
Because of the failure of Baath and Khomeinism in redeeming Islam and relieving the downthrodden, there surged a “Third Way”, the form of Fascism,the one called as a propper names of Islamism,Islamic Fascism or Islamo Fascism. National Socialism,Arab National Socialism, Islamic fundamentalism, revolutionary Islamic fundamentalism, Anti Semitism,Anti Colonialism,Anti Imperialism,a sprinkle of radical socialism in a big melting pot of hate made into a political project defined by a greater Muslim national identity which uses religion to strenghten the revolutionary in ways Nasser couldnt have dreamed of while providing the Jihadi new tools for achieving the ultimate goal.
Basically they have no qualms in using the Khoran side by side the Red Book of Mao and Mein Kampft( the passe Ayathola would have infarted—not that they have not taken a couple of non Islamic things here and there but this Third Way pale in comparison)or in forming alliances of convenience with the Neo MArxists and non Muslim fascists. They are internationalist,if you have “submitted” and are part of the Umma you can join the defense and exapnsion of true Islam
Peachy,isnt it?
So,lets continue our internationalist(red and black fascists cringe with this) duty and lets stop the fixations with how Bush looks, stop the teh spinning, stop the partisan bickering, stop requesting the finding of Saddam’s signature on WMD buying /production and land lease for terror trainig camps (they are right besides Hitler’s written authorization for Holocaust-tough you can find many checks paid to the families of Palestinian Arab homicidal terrorist suicidal bombers )and lets start taking this matter seriously.
markus:
I replied to Eric the way I did because I wanted him to know that whether or not he likes Bush had nothing to do with liberating Iraq.
I remember when Clinton went after Slobo,there was not threat to the US, none. But I did support Clinton for the simple reason that I thought innocent people were being slaughtered.
In Iraq I think that dozens of violations of mandatory UN resolutions, the violations of the cease fire agreement, the refusal to even acknowledge sanctions and in fact the outright thievery of funds intended for his people through an international humanitarian aid program, the support of terrorists both domestic and international as well as maintaining and concealing an illegal weapons program all made Saddam more of a threat to more people than Milosovic could ever be.
The amazing thing is watching the far right and far left come together into a sort of Saddam fan club.
It is also amazing to hear and see people who say they are great believers in international law excusing the total disregard Saddam showed for any and laws that did not suit him.
“There were no vital US interests at stake.”
That is an opinion, not a fact! Your side has based its entire anti-war argument on an opinion. People looked at history and decided that insane, warlike, unbelievably wealthy dictators usually end up causing the world a heap of trouble. This is why Bush won the election.
as far as this being of no strategic interest to the US maybe these guys should go look up the Carter Doctrine.
That is right, the Carter Doctrine and the Iraqi Liberation Act both written by Democrats make it plain that Iraq and the middle east are too important to the national interests of the US to ignore.
How soon they forget.
Terrye — thanks. But the Iraqi Liberation Act as I remember basically just said “Iraq really, really, really ought to be ruled by someone besides Saadam.” It was not a declaration of war, hell it wasn’t even bluster. Later, we signed into law a Syria Accountability Act, ‘calling’ on the Syrians to leave Lebanon. It’s passage didn’t mean we were going to MAKE them leave. And currently in Congress there is a similar bill, can’t remember its name, sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, basically saying the regime change in Iran would be swell. About 2/3rd’s of the House is consponsoring. It too is not a declaration of war.
HA –
“BTW, Markus, I’ve seen you make actual arguments in the past. Your post above is little more than ad hominem.”
I don’t see anything I wrote that attacked or criticized without explaining why. And I do have an ‘actual argument’: that the most compelling reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 were fundamentally progressive ones, and the most compelling reasons against invadion were those made from a nationalist conservative viewpoint. (Cheney stated them better than anyone, IMO, back in 1991) I probably could have fleshed out my argument more, but then again you could have done the same with yours. Let me respond to your claims, as a consistent conservative ought to:
1. “Saddam continually violated the 1991 cease-fire agreement.”
The violations to my knowledge were not serious. Basically, the UNESCOM inspection regime was effective. Saadam was in a box. We were foolish to try to use the regime for spying purposes, and after Saadam used its discovery as a pretext for kicking us out, we had to get the inspectors back in. Threatening war in order to force Hussein to accept unfettered inspections IMO WAS justified from a conservative viewpoint.
2. “He tried to assasinate an ex-President.”
Inconclusive evidence.
http://www. newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
And if true, it was grounds for bombing (like Clinton did), and perhaps other destabilization initiaitves. But in and of itself, insufficient grounds for an intervention and occupation that doubtlessly will cost us a trillion bucks.
3. “He supported terrorists and terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda. This includes proven ties to the 1993 WTC bombers and highly suggestive ties to the 9/11 attackers.”
And when everyone actually lays their cards on the table, we find nothing solid and conclusive at all, except in the feverish imaginations of Laurie Mylroie and Stephen Hayes. If there WAS something solid, don’t you think Bush would be talking about it 24/7, instead of watching his approval ratings fall from 70+% around the time of “Mission Accomplished” to 40% and dropping today?
Only solid evidence of Hussein’s ties to terrorist groups was his allowing Abu Nidal to have a place to stay when he retired, and his giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There possibly were legitimiate reasons for ISRAEL to attack Iraq. But even Israel wouldn’t have done so, absent strong REAL evidence of WMD development. Israel had/has too many other greater priorities.
4. “He had a mothballed WMD program that he would have restarted once his French, Russian and Chinese agents on the UNSC managed to get sanctions and inspections removed.”
And he would have been taken out if he made real progress toward developing them.
Then you claim we have gained stability in the region. Where? You talk about Libya, though Gaddafi hadn’t been a threat since the late eighties, and AQ Khan, a Pakistani. Yes, a nuclear black market, particularly one involving Pakistanis with connections in the current nuke program or involvement in its earlier development, is a very good thing to worry about. But what is the Iraqi connection?
For someone who hates socialism as much as you say you do, I didn’t know you supported so much federal aid to schools, in Iraq that is. Seems like you’re in bed with a bunch of Trotskyites right now:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html
Markus,
The violations to my knowledge were not serious.
So you concede there were violations. Cease-fire violations alone justify resuming the war.
And if true, it was grounds for bombing (like Clinton did), and perhaps other destabilization initiaitves.
An assasination attempt against an ex-President is an act of war. As with the cease fire violations, it alone justifies resuming the war. Clinton’s bombing was a useless, futile gesture which only served to demonstrate yet again America’s weakness.
And speaking of “feverish imaginations”, you support your argument by linking to Hersh? Come on.
BTW, here’s a working Hersh link:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
Only solid evidence of Hussein’s ties to terrorist groups was his allowing Abu Nidal
Wrong. There is a mountain of credible evidence against Hussein that goes well beyond Nidal:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004906
You’re worse than an OJ juror.
If there WAS something solid, don’t you think Bush would be talking about it 24/7
No, because any uncertainty in the intelligence will be blared 24/7 by DNC media mouthpieces at ABCNBCCBSCNNNYTimesLAWaPo, Inc. The Bush administration wants to connect dots, and the Democrats want to blur them. The Democrats have the by far the greater propaganda infrastructure and would win that fight.
And he would have been taken out if he made real progress toward developing them.
Yeah, right. Just like we’re doing in North Korea and Iran.
Yes, a nuclear black market…But what is the Iraqi connection?
Libya capitulated when Saddam was pulled out of is spider hole and then provided information on that allowed us to roll up the AQ Khan network. There is a direct, linear cause and effect relationship.
As for Hitch, don’t include me among his fans. He may be right about Saddam, but he is still a Marxist. The broken clock theory applies. I’ll give him some further credit for having the courage and honesty to admit he is a Marxist, which most don’t.
“courage and honesty to admit he is a Marxist, which most don’t.”
The most pertinent comment, perhaps.