So we can't find WMD but we did get rid of Sadam and we are bringing democracy to the Middle East. That's what the President says at least. Well, kinda. Ok, so maybe he hasn't conceited defeat in finding Sadam's Dr. No scale stash of WMD but that democracy thing is still happening right?
Well maybe not, according to Donald "Strangelove" Rumsfeld, who had this to say about the upcoming elections in Iraq:
Nice.
All this time our government has been parading around the idea of democracy in the Middle East but hold on a sec, we're going to hold elections but not just in the areas that are hard to deal with. If I was an Iraqi I'd be completely pissed off — hell, I'm pissed.
What good is our actions in that country if we can't even live up to the one obligation that everyone agrees is a good idea? On this matter I fail to see how any one can back the Whitehouse and suggest that everything is okie-dokie over there.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Similarly, they won't be holding the November Elections in the areas that are hard to deal with: urban areas, areas with high numbers of minorities, or areas where Fahrenheit 9/11 screens made too much money.
What would you suggest? Go forward and hold the elections in the hostile areas?? Talk about ringing the car-bomber dinner bell....
The bottom line is Bush plans to stick it out (scary), and Kerry says he would have done it "differently" but doesn't say how and won't say it was a mistake (he voted in support of it, remember). So I can't see how you can back the Whitehouse OR the Democratic Party's pasty alternative. Either way we would be f-d, the Iraqis would be f-d, and it all points to the fact that United States is now in need of a third option more than ever in our history.
peace
What good are our actions in Iraq? Cynically, I'd answer none whatsoever.
Really, the same can be said for our actions in Afghanistan. This article over at Gadflyer paints a pretty ugly picture of the state of affairs in Afghanistan these days. Someday I hope someone can explain how this is any better than lobbing cruise missles at aspirin factories (a common criticism of Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts), except that Afghanistan cost more, both in dollars and human lives.
The problem is, we're responding to terrorism - which is a criminal act perpetrated by individuals or groups of individuals - with military action. I alway thought that police action is what is called for in response to a criminal act, but I may be mistaken...I'm just wating for the Highway Patrol to start enforcing speed laws with M1 tanks (what they lack in speed, they make up in firepower).
The bottom line is that police actions don't satisfy bloodlust, of which there was plenty in the US after 9/11. And our invasion of Iraq was just an attempt to capitalize on that bloodlust to settle an old score (and if you want to be really cynical, make a buck or two for some friends in the process).
Just my $.02 (he said, handing the soapbox back to Greg)
You can't back either, Bryan, that's the whole point.
No reasonable, self-respecting, half-aware individual would vote for either of these parties.
Off Topic: Greg, tabbing from the Website field sends one to the beginning of your main navigation. It ought to go to either "Save your data" or "Post", and then to whichever one of those it doesn't hit first after that.
For me it's not so much what Rumsfeld says, it's how he says it. I appreciate that holding elections successfully is going to be difficult in hostile areas and that it might not be worth the risk, but the way Rumsfeld comes out with stuff like this in that laid back hey-who-gives-a-crap way he has is... well it doesn't exactly fill you with confidence now does it?
Seth, that's not a problem with the site. It's all dependent on how your browser or OS tabs around. In OS X, tab only goes to buttons and text fields (and with Full Keyboard Access off, only to text fields).
"What would you suggest?"
Postpone the elections, apologize to the U.N. and the world at large for going to pre-emptive war over poor planning and faulty intelligence about WMDs, show a little less hubris and a lot more contrition, and ask for help from our (pissed off) allies to help solve the problem that we started in the region.
But that would require the Bush administration and the neocons running his puppet presidency to not act like rednecks at a cowboy bar, a little drunk, a little rowdy and just looking to pick a fight.
At this stage, I think most Americans who are so pro-Bush or pro-War need to ask themselves, "What would Jesus suggest we do?"
I may be agnostic and lean towards aethesim, but I can think of very few times in my life where I wish God-fearing Christians would act more like... well God-fearing Christians.
Bryan,
Respectfully, you don't seem to know what the vote was for. John Kerry voted to give President Bush the kind of tools he needed to get Saddam to submit to inspections and disarm. Bush described it at as a vote for peace himself.
In other word, Kerry voted to give Bush a loaded gun. Bush decided to shoot us in the foot.
Greg - sorry for the off-topic post, but it's hard to avoid correcting people when they have the facts wrong.
Andrei, I'm totally with you on that. As a, um, God-fearing Christian, I am disgusted by the behavior of the religious right. It's difficult anymore to even proclaim a Christian faith without becoming the subject of ridicule to thinking people, because the right has so distorted the true tenets of the belief.
Seth - you're right, you CAN'T back either. That was my whole point.
Andrei - I agree entirely. I was against the invasion from the get-go as well as the Patriot Act. But now, in my opinion we "broke it so we bought it", and I agree it's time to do what's necessary to bring back our allies, particularly our European compadres.
Jem - Here's a quote you may be interested in:
"I will be voting to give the President! of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
So now, I think it's you who doesn't seem to know what the vote was for, respectively.
peace
Bryan and Jem,
I think you both should recognize you might be making the same underlying point. However, what needs to happen now is that people need to stop fueling "the Kerry supported the war with his vote" debate. It proves only to be a distraction from Bush being incompetent, somehting that Bush is getting away with more and more these days.
Honestly, Kerry imho needs to admit he made the wrong vote, that he trusted the wrong president to take care of the country properly. This would shove the whole discussion back in Bush's face instead of creating the distraction that Kerry is a "fllip-flopper" (which he is not). Why Kerry won't admit his own mistake in voting to give the President authority in the first place is beyond me. Probably too many consultants telling him what to do instead of Kerry doing what he knows is the right thing, which is to admit a mistake.
Kerry's own pride or failure in not admitting his vote back in 2002 was a mistake is sinking him as much as Bush is sinking us with his own lack of admission on his incredibly inept foreign policies.
Jeremy, the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is huge. We did not enter Afghanistan to establish a democracy. We went there to kill as many terrorist as and their buddies as possible.
Whereas in Iraq, as soon as it became evident that WMD did not exist, we were told our real purpose was to liberate Iraq and establish a democracy there. I must have missed the voice-over disclaimer after the President's State of the Union speech: "Democracy in Iraq not available in all areas, please consult your local Grand Mufti. American politician rhetoric known to cause headaches and rectal itching."
James, I think you hit the nail on the head. I can certainly appreciate what it will take to hold free elections in a country like Iraq. I never said it would be easy, but after all the rhetoric that has been cramed down our throats I'm a little disappointed that our leadership just shrugs, snaps, and says, "No democizzle in Iraq? Chill dawg, It ain't no big thang."
What would I recommend? Send whatever it takes into Iraq to establish security and then later democracy. Stop the Whitehouse from controlling individual military missions ALA Nixon's mongering with Vietnam and let our boys do what they went there to do.
And stop pretending that it's possible to go from 30 some years of horrible dictatorship to a full fledged rainbows-and-puppy-dog democracy after just a few years. It's not like democracy in America was established as soon as the pilgrims arrived, it took many, many years to hard work (and a few wars) before our own freedoms came into existence.
Jemaledin -
Re-read your post and I misunderstood what you were correcting me on. My bad.
However, when I said Kerry voted in "support of it" I was simply referring to that authority or "tools" as you put it. I wasn't suggesting he voted to "Invade Iraq."
Anyhow, hope I was clear, and I think we're on the same side of the issue.
peace
Well put Andrei (I submitted my backpedal before I saw your post ;-)
"Honestly, Kerry imho needs to admit he made the wrong vote, that he trusted the wrong president to take care of the country properly. " -- That's all I would have needed. But he didn't have the cashews to do this, and now it's too late imho.
peace
Everyone is forgetting that Kerry made that vote given false information about WMD in Iraq. Everyone would vote if they feel a foreign power is a threat to their freedom. In this case, the threat was fabricated as an excuse to go to war, as was the supposed ties that Iraq had with Al Queda.
It's all about dollar signs in the end.
Hey Bryan, don't worry, we're all hotheads on this bus. Especially me. =-)
Heck, according to selectsmart.com I only agree with Kerry on 68% of the issues. It's still 58% more than I agree with Bush though, so I know who I'm supporting.
Now if only David Cobb had a chance in hell...
It depends on what the meaning of Okie-Dokie is.
They're completely different, but the same. We went into Afghanistan, as you said, to blow up bad guys and their friends...who happened to run the country. On the other hand, we went into Iraq because they had WMD, or was it because they were terrorists? No, wait. It was because Saddam was a Very Bad Man™...who happened to run the country.
The difference between the two, now that we've toppled their respective governments, is that Iraq's got oil, and Afghanistan's got heroin. I think we're going after the wrong resource...
Jeremy, you've got it all wrong. Saddam was first and foremost an "Evildoer" not a "Very Bad Man." :)
Seriously, it's very annoying that the only person who could possibly remove Bush from his seat of idiocy is keeping very quiet on what he actually intends to do.
I agree that it's probably a good thing to have another candidate, but thanks to the propaganda surrounding voting for third parties, we won't have a third party candidate receiving even 10% of the vote for some years.
I really wish people would stop wanting Dan Rather to apologize. He admitted the documents may not be factual, but he's not the producer, he's the anchor; i.e. he's not responsible. I also wish people would stop worrying about who served in vietnam and who didn't because that has absolutely *nothing* to do with how good of a president they are.
However, it's sad that Dan Rather is getting a bad rap concerning all of this. If Bush wants him to apologize, he should release his records to prove that Dan was indeed wrong. Doesn't everyone find it just a bit funny that these documents haven't been released? Of course they overlook all of this in the media. I hate how they have such narrow views. You have to watch like thirty news stations and then compare and contrast them just to get a non-slanted point of view. I love America, but I hate Americans (generally).
Dan Rather is resposible because he's the reporter that developed the story, researched the information, and possibly lied about it when he first told the American people.
It just goes to show how desperate someone can become to get Bush out of the White House.
I also think it's funny that Kerry is getting support not because he's the better candidate, but because he's the lesser of two idiots...
Too bad he's got no walnuts to stand up to the douch-bagging asshat (heh, that was a good).
Concerning Iraqi elections, consider this: Do the Iraqi people really want the American version of freedom? Do they want American-style elections right now?
Maybe the idea of American democracy is a little too much for the Iraqi people right now. A democratic nation cannot be built from the top down, it must start with the people first. They have to unite behind that idea.
Right now, I think that alot of Iraqi people feel as if an American system of government is being forced upon them. As silly as this may sound to the Bush administration, the Iraqi people may just want to have an Islamic ruled state.
Of course I am not in favor of Iraq being ruled by oppressive religous leaders, but maybe that is something they must learn for themselves. Freedom as we know it may be somewhere in their future, but only after they gradually progress as a society.
I believe that freedom is a basic human right. But when it is handed to you in only one flavor by people you don't really trust, it may be rejected.
Is Bush really that narrow-minded to think that just because free and democratic elections work for us ( um.. except for that Florida thing a few years ago.. ) that it will work for the Iraqi's?
Nice discussion. Thanks for letting me vent a little.
I'd rather you vent here than on top of a bell tower with a deer rifle.
It's difficult anymore to even proclaim a Christian faith without becoming the subject of ridicule to thinking people, because the right has so distorted the true tenets of the belief.
Off topic, but I thought this comment above particularly sad but true.
Anyone who has studied history, particularly the history of Iraq, Iran, and MidEast, would have to be highly skeptical of the chances of success of democracy in the region in the forseeable future. As Kerry might say, thinking you can bring democracy to a country like Iraq (or Syria, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia) at the end of a rifle is not being 'optomistic'—it's delusional. I'll go so far as to wager the Bushistas calculated this all out in advance however, and made their political bets accordingly: We roll in, kick ass, everyone loves us, we rule, we get re-elected in a huge landslide and win the Nobel Peace Prize. We roll in, kick ass, get bogged down, have things go to crap, and it will allow us to blame all the country's economic problems on evil-doers. Everyone will be too scared to 'change horses mid-stream' and we get re-elected by Nascar dads. Pass me a Budweiser.
Tom and Larry, I completely agree.
Phoat, though Dan may have researched the story (that's not exactly what I heard) it's still up to the producer as to what content is show on TV, as that is their job. If Dan goes up to the guy and says that he wants to run a story about 9/11 being the greatest thing in the world, it's the producer's job to stop him from running the story — at all costs if need be. Thanks for your reply though. You may be right about him bringing up the topic himself, I thought the material was given to the producer in the first place. In either case the fault should still fall on the producer.
Well what do you expect really from an administration that was put into office by a psuedo election?
“Imposing democracy is an oxymoron.â€
- Madeleine Albright, Former Secretary of State, talking about the US imposing democracy on Iraq on the NewsHour
Richard, correct (and of course, no duh). The big [unstated] lie that the American public seems more than willing to buy into is that the entire world even *wants* democracy. Democracies (or more accurately, democratically elected republics) have averaged only around 30% of the governments over the last century. India is the sole example of a democratically elected government in the Mideast and South Asia, and it could be argued persuasively that India has many exceptional factors not duplicated elsewhere.
Neither candidate seems willing to state the plain truth: That if completely free elections were held in Iraq today—with no pre-conditions, quotas, or violence—the Shia majority would without doubt elect a radically conservative Shia theocratic government with close ideological and spiritual ties to Iran. The country would not get 'freer', but would likely paradoxically choose, freely, to become more conservative and restrictive, and less friendly towards the United States. [Of course it's arguable that this is what will happen eventually, regardless of American influence and effort. *Historical footnote: it happens: an Italian democracy elected the Fascists in 1926, a German democracy elected the Nazis in 1933.]
Of course "free" elections by Bush adminstration standards will mean an election gerrymandered so that the above outcome is not possible, and so a secular strongman like Alllawi (a former Saddam Ba'athist henchman, btw) will be put in charge. This will never be seen as legitimate by the Shiite militants. Violence will continue.
So, my point: Selling the very idea that America can 'bring democracy to Iraq' is a bald-faced con job. It's selling a bunch of Monday Night Football watching joe six-packs a reality sounds heroic and makes America the good guy. It's quite likely a good scheme to get a shallow candidate re-elected. It's a lie.
To run on, Greg—in the wording and concept of your original posting—demonstrate my point well. The fact that you're assuming there can be such a thing as a meaningful 'free' election in Iraq anytime soon shows how much you've actually swallowed the adminstration con job. Most Iraqis don't believe it, but most Americans are willing to accept it because W tells them so. As far as Rumsfeld goes, I'd simply ascribe his comments to the old game of managing expectations. You've got to get someone out there saying things are horrible (who you can disagree with officially now, and cite as a informed opinion later), so when you accomplish something marginal it looks like victory. The lies are all well-managed with this bunch, it's the reality they have difficulty with.
My intention was not to suggest I believe that fast food democracy is plausable so much as that's what our president said that he was going to do. And in the face of difficulty, his administration starts to suggest that a half-ass job is better than nothing at all. Since when did America stand for apple pie, baseball, and being half-ass?
Greg - America started standing for being half-ass when we all accepted the last, messed up election. "Our President" Come on now. I know, I know, few people in this thread accepted it, but if this past election had happened in the '70s we might have seen a revolution here.
The rest of the world laughed at us impeaching Clinton on a personal sex scandal and they laughed at the way we handled the last election. They continue to laugh and cringe about what we are doing in Iraq.
The US had a terrible foreign policy long before Bush, he just took our history of nationbuilding out for a serious walk.
Bush is the problem but if he actually wins the next election "I have seen the problem and it is us."
Bush is the problem but if he actually wins the next election "I have seen the problem and it is us."
Amen brudda. There's a lot of talk abroad about how people don't hold Americans responsible for Bush's misadventures, but God help us if we willingly reelect the fool. From al Qaeda to Australia, the world with then believe the average American does support the cowboy and we'll have earned what we get back. Maybe this is what Cheney meant about getting hit hard if we make the wrong choice in November, but somehow I doubt it.
Richard,
I am sorry to be the one to have to tell you that not only would there not have been a revolution in the 70s but that there's no revolution on the horizon for this country.
It is with a sad and heavy heart that I also observe that the last election was decided and the oath of office given to G W Bush and that, in the American way, is the end of it.
I also regret to inform you that "the rest of the world" may laugh but do not vote in our elections. Cringe they do, but not at the United States but at their own powerlessness.
Lastly, I sadly inform you that it is not longer an "if" regarding a Bush win in the forthcoming election, but a certainty. If you then continue to think the 'problem is us' you probably have a very dim view of elections by, of and for the people to begin with.
Either way, the person who will have to deal with that is you.
As for our host's original posting that the only good election is a pure and complete election in a country still in a state of war, well, I admire your ideals if not your common sense.
I seem to recall the the United States held an election in 1864 during the height of the civil war and is still standing.
In general, in politics as in life, too much perfection is a mistake.
Your site is pretty. Too bad your English skills and level of political understanding aren't as impressive. I'm just getting sick of the blog world being considered as an even remotely accurate source of information regarding world events and especially this election. I hope no one mistakes you for someone who knows what he's talking about.
We are all entitled to our opinion and given the right to express it. If you have a problem with that perhaps you should move to a place like North Korea or Cuba — they like your kind of mentality. Still I find it interesting that you, who is so obviously well versed in the ways of English and such a political giant, did not express your expert viewpoint and how mine is substandard.
I would also suggest that if you have such a distaste for blogs then maybe you shouldn't waste your time visiting and reading them. I certainly didn't ask you to come here.
Go back to your dingy wood-paneled den, feed the ferret, and play a few rounds of Windows solitaire.
I think the real irony of this whole mess will be the day when a democratic Iraq freely votes to have nothing to do with the United States.
Hi. Iraq will be a free nation given time. Ronald Dumsfeld never said it would be easy but I have the patience, and before you ask the question: Yes, I sleep well at night.
Terrorism 101: Believe the Hype.
K Thanks, flame on.
Iraq will likely be a nation no longer before it's "free" (whatever that might mean in a Bushian universe). Iraq was an invention of the West, created by England after WWI, and will likely be destroyed by the West, degenerating into a Kurdistan and an Iranian satellite. Those adept at rationalization usually sleep well.
Yup, that whole nation is full of nuttin' but degenerates, too dumb to figer' it all out.
If you bothered to read earlier posts, you might see my note that only 30% of the world's nations have been democracies in the 20th century—with India being the lone democratic state in South Asia. It's not about figuring it out, it's about the circumstances and culture that make it possible to happen. I know it's comforting and easy when you drink the cool aid and think only in shades of black and white, but the world's more complex outside the lower 48.
Yup, this whole nation is full of nuttin' but degenerates, too dumb to figer' it all out.
Kerry made that vote given false information about WMD in Iraq.
I can't stand Prez Chimpy, but this one-line excuse is a wagonload of horseshit. There were plenty of us armchair knuckleheads who saw through the WMD assertion and saw it for what it was -- crap. If Kerry didn't figure it out with his insider info, he is an idiot; otherwise, his vote was weak-kneed pandering to warmongers. (i.e., I am afraid to appear "soft" on terrorism in an election year.)
Bottom Line for me:Kerry doesn't get my vote in unless he repudiates his vote for the war unequivocally.
Beerzie, Does that mean that your witholding your vote from Bush because he's bungled the rebuilding so badly? Or because it turns out that his decision to go to war was made far before 9/11?
John Kerry didn't make a mistake in voting to give Bush the power to use force if necessary. Kerry was acting on the same intelligence that everyone else was, and virtually everyone thought Saddam had WMD. The use of force is a necessary diplomatic tool and it was correct to give Bush the right to use it. Did political considerations enter into Kerry's decision to give Bush this power? I'm sure they did. Did he think Saddam was the immediate threat that Bush was claiming? Probably not. But, was he responsible for the bungling that ensued? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
By witholding your vote (or, like others here, pining for an unavailable third-party choice) you are implicitly endorsing George Bush. For better or worse, one of them is going to be president.
Tim, I understand your point and respect it. However...
The option to use force was there whether Kerry endorced it or not. Kerry gave in to political pressure ("considerations"); in my view, this is not leading, it is following. And now he complains about the results, a tactic that is not only a pathetically weak argument, but a strategically disasterous one, if it is inetended to convince "swing" voters. Politically considered, this is an amazing lame approach.
When you are the most powerful country in the world, the option for force is always there. I still don't buy the "Kerry was acting on the same intelligence that everyone else was and virtually everyone thought Saddam had WMD." The "force if necessary" argument is not strong. Like the WMD lies, which this insider alleges to have been duped by, the force as necessary diplomatic tool argument didn't hold water. Why were there so many of us here at home not fooled? And why were our howls of protest ignored? Answer: weak-kneed pandering to an ignorant electorate. Again, this is not leading, it is following.
Voting for Bush has never been an option for me. The man is an idiot, and his associates are corrupt. Everyone must vote their conscience, and I will not be bullied into voting for a man I do not like nor respect. Voting for a man who is essentially a watered down Republican only encourages the Democratic goose-step to the left. I am unimpressed, and as when handling dogs, children, and other beings with undeveloped minds, one should not encourage their bad behavior. No apology; no vote.
Beerzie, I admire your principled stand on this. Unfortunately, it was just this sort of stand that ensured that Bush won (!?!) the election. What would have happened with Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida if he had chosen not to run? Do you think we'd be where we are?
Yes, Bush always had the option to use force without Congressional approval, but he didn't. When I say that Kerry only voted to give approval to use force that's because that's what the actual procedure that was being voted on said. Given the climate after 9/11, no one that wanted to run for President could have voted against it. That's why Dean was crushed by 52% in New Hampshire.
I think it's telling of where your thinking is when you talk about the "Democratic goose-step to the left" and yet you say nothing of the right's religious zealotry, bigotry, and avalance of manipulation and lies. This is what I would expect from Rove's disinformation zombies, not from someone who seems to want principled politics. Perhaps it's true that you always hurt the ones you love.
Tim, I am 44 years old and have not always voted Democrat, but have never voted Republican. Every presidential election I can remember has been labeled “critical,†and the Democratic establishment has asked lefties to hold their nose and vote for shitty/corrupt candidates to thwart dangerous candidates from the other party. It sure has worked out well, hasn’t it?
The Democrats have taken the left for granted. They have written us off because they assume that their candidates are our default candidate. But my vote isn't theirs to lose, it is theirs to try to win. What would have happened with Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida if Gore had courted Naderites?
After twenty-odd years of this lame swill, I have decided to reject this false dilemma. The fact is that both parties are becoming more alike and they are basically lackeys working for the same corporate masters. This isn’t just regurgitation of Nader or Chompsky: I need only look around and see this is true. For example, I work for a large technology corporation (whose nickname has the past tense of the word "blow" in it) who has given equal amounts of money to the Kerry and Bush campaigns. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the meaning of this kind of tactic.
This cynical scheme is not an anomaly in the corporate world. Corporations are betting on both sides of the game, because not matter who wins, they win. The corporations know something that we refuse to face: the “two-party system†is a joke. I am not comfortable with the only choices in an election being endorsed by corporate interests, because in my experience, corporate interests eclipse the interests of nations and their citizens.
We need to start thinking outside of the two-party system, and the one way to do that is to think and act honestly when Republicans and Democrats do the wrong thing. The other is to not vote for candidates of major parties; if even 5% of the electorate did this, the media -- and the parties -- might wake up and try to figure out why. This would be a step in the right direction. Voting status quo means more of the same. That means we don't move forward, and as I said, I'm finished with that.
I’m sorry that I have not been adequately critical of the Bushies. Why do I need to preach to the choir? The Republicans bad behavior is well-documented and I have written them off as assholes. But the Democrats are -- theoretically -- a more principled party and I hold them to a higher standard. If they lapse I will call it as I see it, and will not encourage them when they move to the right and refuse to admit when they are wrong. Winning is not everything; ther is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory. The winner of this election is inheriting a huge mess – domestically and internationally – and I am not convinced that either candidate has the solutions. Better the Republicans inherit it and not the Democrats.
Beerzie, a really well said opinion. I agree with you 99.9%—but that .1% is going to make me vote for Kerry in 2004. If you live in a state that has any chance in being up for grabs I think we have to do whatever we can to save the nation from another four years (unchecked by any need to behave for re-election) of the drunken sherrif and his crooked deputies. I'll be there with you, working for larger change come December.
Disclosure: I live in California, the one state where Kerry is not going to get his ass kicked. (We are -- ahem -- being taken for granted, which give me the luxury of blowing off the Democrats.)