Although he now sees the Iraqi war as a mistake, Andrew Sullivan wrote about why he initially supported it. One of his reasons was those, who didn't want to attack Iraq, were also those who he felt hated Bush. He decided their arguments were not to be considered seriously because they had an emotional and baseless hatred and it colored their viewpoint. To him, their dislike couldn't be about the issues but had to be partisan.
Some of this same thing happened with Clinton especially toward the end. People would not look at what he was trying to do (for instance bombing an aspirin factory where he thought he was going to get terrorists or attacking an Afghanistan training camp where he thought he'd get bin Laden). What he did was thrown out as being because he was trying to curry favor with somebody or Wag the Dog. It was thrown out because they didn't trust him or like him. Call it Clinton hating if you want as it comes down to the same emotional reason.
Why can't we look at what people do, recognize someone might genuinely dislike a certain leader but can still evaluate their actions. Admittedly, when dislike goes beyond that to lack of trust, this becomes hard to do.
If someone has been a close acquaintance of mine for a long time and I have seen them mistreat others, lie to my back and face, be lazy intellectually, fraudulent in their activities, a spiritual hypocrite with saying one thing and doing another, and that person suddenly tells me they have decided to be a foster parent, do you think it's hating for me to say that is a terrible idea and try to stop them?
To evaluate a situation like that requires assessing character. Some cite the Biblical demand that we judge not lest we be judged. It doesn't fit because we all have to judge constantly in life. There is no way to live without that.
Bush gave a speech about Iraq that made some degree of sense the other night. I don't know the answer to something we should never have gotten into in the beginning, but I am beginning to suspect the answer is-- we went in there to get rid of Saddam, to find weapons of mass destruction. Those reasons are gone. We never were told it was all about establishing a democracy that will be pro-Western. Is that the right of one country to decide for another? Can you do it without occupying that country if the people disagree with your goals? If the reason is not that we went in there to secure a huge supply of oil for a lot of oil companies, then what the Iraqis do next is up to them and we should get out-- period.
Frankly a few months of some 20,000 troops in Baghdad and 4000 more in the province with the most terrorist activity isn't going to do anything if those people do what they did before-- fighters make a token effort, then melt into the hills or buildings and wait us out. Why would they openly engage our military when they know we won't sustain this forever? How can we trust that embedding our men with Iraqis, under Iraqi command, won't be worse than fruitless? Well if we trusted the blind date who brought us to this dance, we might trust; but for me, it's more American lives lost for something we have been lied to all the way.
If you are someone who hates political talk and you got this far, here's why I am bringing this up again. What if this president, who has been untrustworthy in so much is now preparing to launch a new war against Iran? What if those additional troops are not about Iraq but about being readied to attack Iran? What if the fact, that the new military commander is from the Air Force, has significance for what Bush is planning next? What if the fact that some of the military being sent immediately to Iraq are Patriot missile experts? What if the carrier moved into strike range is not for a show of force but a real military operation against yet another country or maybe even two?
Would Bush tell the world the truth if any of that was true? He didn't before. He came into office in 2001 as a supposed straight-shooter, but the people who worked there say that he immediately began discussing ways to attack Iraq. Did that straight-shooter mention that in his campaign? You know he didn't.
A lot of us have said all along the danger to our country and the world is the leader of Iran but despite listing them among the Axis of Evil, Bush hasn't yet done anything about them. I think he figured he would and he was going to use an easy pushover called Iraq as a launching pad. All these years later, he is in an Iraqi quagmire, still has Iran there as a problem and thinks, with his Messiah led complex, that he can do it all... Oh wait, not him but the men and women on the ground.
Is it Bush bashing to list of the things this man has done that have been deceitful since the start? Is it something we can afford to turn our backs on? What might be the consequences of attacking Iran especially if to destroy Iranian nuclear sites it has to be with our own nukes?
We just thought that he was leaving a disastrous legacy if this is what the real plan is right now... And if you don't like to think about politics, think about how they impact your life. Think about the debt that has been amassed to pay for a war that has never made sense (and most who are all for a new war still don't want to pay increased taxes to cover it). Think about all those who put yellow ribbons, saying support the troops, on their vehicles but never cared that our soldiers sent there were not sufficiently armored, that even now the military brass is ignoring an Israeli developed protection system that could save the lives of ground troops-- Army shuns system to combat RPGs... If you never read links, please read that one. If Bush was a good commander in chief, would he do something about this or is this all about making money for already fat cats?
Most especially if you are a Bush supporter, one who still trusts him and once again have decided the other side just hates him, please listen to Olbermann clear to the end as there are two special comments on this UTube. The first is his analysis of Bush's surge speech but the second is a laundry list of what Bush has already told us. Then stop for a bit and ask yourself if you trust the president that much? A lot might be riding on your answer.
11 comments:
Good post Rain, my mind gets smaller by the second when I start thinking about the what if's. I do follow your line of thinking.
I heard about the Israeli system a couple of days ago. I hope that the reason we are not using it is not because some retired general that works for Raytheon wants his big bonus when they get their system up and running in 2011. The Israeli system seems to work just fine and should be used in Iraq now. But the arrogance of the US military has a long history. Many US lives were lost on D-Day because we didn’t want to use some British invention for clearing the beach of mines.
Bush was re-elected in 2004 after the Iraq war started so what happened in 2001 in regards to whether he had an Iraq strategy is really a moot point.
I like to read different viewpoints and I found a new source of information yesterday The Daily Star from Lebanon http://www.dailystar.com.lb/default.asp The editorial that I read stated that Iraq is not an American problem it is a Middle Eastern problem and should not be dealt with based on US domestic politics and that even though America has caused a huge mess in Iraq it is preferable to follow the Republican plan to continue to try and fix the situation than the Democrat plan to have America wash their hands of the whole deal and walk away.
It would be best to drop partisan labels on this. There are Republicans who think we should walk away and Democrats who think we should stay until Iraq has a government that benefits the United States. It's really about a policy, not just a party at this point. Partisan labels limit real discourse
You know, much as I personally mistrust Bush, and because I have a gut-level aversion to even seeing his face or hearing his words, I long ago stopped "bashing" him. What goes around comes around and to bash anyone is going to come back and bite you in the bite. However, it is my belief that Bush is only a symbol, the front-man for a group of people and institutions who want to take over the world--in the name of God. All the rhetoric anymore simply turns my stomach and I believe the escalation is going to be a monumental blunder, but I don't know any alternatives to suggest so what gives me a right to say this? Being an American gives me a right, I guess.
I like reading your political analyses on things, Rain, because I frankly hate and shun politics. It is interesting to see that fear of this administration is now crossing party lines. For me it was never partisan; I vote both ways.
But--the saber rattling about Iran and Syria did not come through clearly to the majority of the people who heard his speech. I heard it and it feels like the beginning of the end. Surely we will not let this administration do that--will we?
I know there are different opinions from both parties. My comment on the democrat plan vs. the republican plan was taken from the editorial that I was paraphrasing.
Everyone seems to think Bush is doing the wrong thing with Iraq and Iran. Does anyone have an idea what we should do? I dont think sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing is a good policy.
People have criticized Bush for ignoring Iran and only focusing on Iraq. Now that he has started talking more seriously about Iran people are criticizing him for that. It seems when Bush does something that his critics want him to do then they change their tune and criticize him for that too.
Dang, girl, you do the hard stuff, don't you?! I normally don't discuss politics, as few can do it without the emotion, but am just going to remark that I am so in line with the way you feel about this. And, afterall, people gave their lives so that we could express ourselves freely - even to 'bash'.
Could that reason be because Bush attacked a country that had no connection to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, basically made up excuses to do so and cut back on the hunt for the real mastermind of Al Qaeda? Could it be he has been a disastrous war leader for this country by dividing it into the wimpy, cowardly democrat vs heroic lion-like Republican? Could it be he has never let the people who support him on this understand there is a cost to war and had tax cuts in the midst of it and continuing to put all of this on the cuff, sending over troops that were not fully equipped, forcing them into many tours of duty, dragging in the national guard and reserves which are supposed to be for emergencies and this was definitely no emergency? Could it be after he has done what he did in Iraq, he's depleted resources for a new war-- human and material? Could it be his lies have made a lot of people feel he cannot be trusted to wage any war?
You know the boy called wolf one too many times and the townspeople quit believing him. Bush is not trustworthy and has proven it; he's been ignorant about what is going on in the world period; he's lazy... ack... well you get the idea. That's why a lot of people are edgy that he would now, in the midst of the mess in Iraq a long way from resolved, he'd suddenly tack on a new war with a country far more capable of fighting back and in the result hurting many many innocent people. The ones rallying the war cry are often not the ones over there doing the fighting. If you read the latest military polls, they no longer trust him to do what is wise either.
What is done next should be done carefully and not by somebody who has botched two wars already. I don't know what can be done about Iran but Iraq, I have already said elsewhere what I think we should do. That's not a non-plan. What you want is someone to describe a winning strategy for Iraq. There might not be one. Maybe there never was one. In relationships as well as anything else in life, when you see that all ahead is lose/lose, you walk/walk!
And thanks for the other comments too that agreed with me. Always nice to see people respond by their own opinions-- agree or disagree.
Whew.....what a commentary by Oberlann and what great writing from you.
I was memerized listening to him....And believe me, I fail to see how anyone could doubt anything he said. It's all been presented to us by Bush very vividly.
And re your "what'if's".....I'm afraid each and every one of them is extremely well-founded. The only sad thing is....they might very well all become reality.
And I want to thank you for this post....because, frankly, I've thought about doing one on just this subject. However...I'm weary of all of it and for right now...my words on this subject need to take a rest. But it was invigorating to read yours.
America has never been in a mess like this before and I can only hope that eventually we'll recover.
I hope you are not correct in regards to Iran. I sure don't know what the answer is but I really feel let down by both major political parties. It seems they do not give us good candidates any more, just those who are "due" the opportunity to run for the office by virtue of their past service to their party. There have been candidates that I felt were far better than any that have been offered in the final election in both of the past Presidential elections, but they did not advance to the point of being offered to us to vote on. Maybe we don't have royalty but there no longer seems to be a true opportunity for the people to really vote on our candidates.
Great job of analysis and writing on a difficult topic. A couple of things I think you got exactly right:
1. Bush is not the brains behind all this. He is barely able to read and speak. He is the idiot frontman put up by a bunch of crooks headed by Cheney. Bush thinks he is in charge, but he's dangling on some very taut strings.
2. Overthrow of Saddam and the WMDs were phantom objectives from the get go. Iraq has always been about the oil and for use as a next door launching pad against Iran. Some gross miscalculations were made regarding the Iraquis welcoming us as their savior.
Where's it all going? No idea. What is becoming more obvious by the hour and day is that this new Democratically controlled Congress had better gets its act together and its butt in motion very quickly before Bush & Co. seize the opportunity to plunge us in even deeper.
Rain, excellent article.
When Bush first mentioned the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address, I knew he fully intended to attack all three of those countries. By attacking Iraq supposedly over WMDs and falsely claiming that Saddam hadn't allowed the UN inspectors in, he sent a clear message to Iran and North Korea that they were in danger and needed to get a move on with the development of nuclear weapons.
There is no question that he intends to attack Iran, and soon. He has already attacked one of their embassies.
This man is not a congenial idiot. He is a true madman and he is a danger for the entire human race.
Post a Comment