In Speech Bush Returns to Fear Mongering as Polls Drop

[glynch]

When All Else Fails, Start Fear Mongering

America is losing confidence in President Bush. A Newsweek poll reveals that “across the board…his most visible policies only pull the support of a third of the country: on the economy, 35 percent approve; on Iraq, 33 percent; on energy policy, 28 percent.” When all else fails, start fear mongering. Some excerpts from President Bush’s speech today:

All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel.

And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.
….

With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation.

….

No act of ours invited the rage of the killers, and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

….
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves…They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.

…

Defeating a militant network is difficult because it thrives like a parasite on the suffering and frustration of others.
….

[W]e’re determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation.

….

Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them.

…..

This would be a pleasant world, but it’s not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday’s brutality.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/06/start-fearmongering/

For a complete text of Bush's latest pr spin to try to bolster the roughly 1/3 who support his war see the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/politics/06text-bush.html

[No Worries]

When the only tool you own is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

[wouldabeen23]

When the only tool you own is a hammer, all problems look like nails.


Or if you keep trying to fit the square peg in the round hole..

[mc mark]

Is anyone still listening?

[Bullard4Life]

Is anyone still listening?

Jorge and bigtexxx will as soon as they finish drinking the KoolAid.

[Svpernaut]

I love it when people post links to sided sources... Gee, do you think the right can come up with wacky ideas about the left by pulling them out of their asses and vice-versa? It isn't debate, it is canon fodder.

[jo mama]

I love it when people post links to sided sources... Gee, do you think the right can come up with wacky ideas about the left by pulling them out of their asses and vice-versa? It isn't debate, it is canon fodder.

these are direct quotes from the president

[rhadamanthus]

I love it when people post links to sided sources... Gee, do you think the right can come up with wacky ideas about the left by pulling them out of their asses and vice-versa? It isn't debate, it is canon fodder.

I like it better when people post replies that accuse the original post of slant while contributing absolutely nothing to counter the claim.

But that's just me.

[jo mama]

In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves…They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.

talk about the pot calling the kettle black. this just made me laugh out loud.

[wnes]

From Bush's speech:

"Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel."



Duh!!

What if "terrorists" also start "internal investigation" of their own?

[mc mark]

During War Speech, Bush Calls Himself a 'Tyrant' and a 'Radical'

Bush's speech today at the National Endowment for Democracy was loaded with what author Mark Crispin Miller has observed as Bush's pathological tendency for "projectivity."

"Projectors are those people who consistently attack others for the things they hate most in themselves. What's significant about Bush's projectivity is that it perfectly expresses or reflects the larger projectivity of the Christo-fascist movement . . . Movements to rid the world of evil are always paranoid because they're fundamentally driven by the crusaders' inner evil-doers. You can kill every evil-doer in the world. You can kill everybody. But you can never kill enough of them if it's the evil-doer in yourself who most disturbs you."

Mark Crispin Miller in an interview with Buzzflash. July 23, 2004

So now, some George W. Bush pathological projectivity from Thursday's address.

Bush on his six week vacation: "There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism..." He's referring to opponents of the war, but he's actually talking about his own desire to escape from the day-to-day onslaught of bad news.

Bush on his domestic and international policy: "...a radical ideology with immeasurable objectives to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world." Bush knows a lot about intimidating the world. And his single-minded re-alignment of international policy and diplomacy can very easily be defined as radical and ideological -- if not downright insane.

Bush on his exploitation of Christianity to suit his party's political goals: "The time has come for all responsible [Christian] leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits [Christianity] for political ends, and defiles a noble faith."

Bush discussing more of his own penchant for exploitation -- but also, his inability to accept blame, as well as his policy of war over diplomacy: "The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution."

Bush discussing what he doesn't like about democracy: "But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people." Bush likes to make his own case, but tends to fail even with favorable audiences. Bush NEVER debates those who disagree and hates hearing bad news and dissent from his own staff. His town hall meetings are stacked with ringers and the presidential debates last year underscored his disgust with the process. And the "will of the people?" This after yesterday's press conference in which he pissed* all over a reporter who asked him about a new poll -- which measures the will of the people.

Bush on the immoral killing of civilians, including Western journalists and children, in his war: "When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion." Emphasis mine.

Bush on his "unspoken" policy of torturing prisoners: "[We're] unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare."

And finally, Bush defining himself as a tyrant: "Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision..." The war in Iraq has killed thousands of civilians while serving Bush's grand vision. "...and they end up alienating decent people across the globe." Bush's war in Iraq has alienated us from many peaceful nations. "Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure..." Regimented societies? Like those that desire the regimented laws of the Bible to infiltrate secular democracy? "...until those societies collapse in corruption and decay." Corruption is the GOP's middle name right now. "Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent..." Bush has used the phrase "if it feels good, do it" to blast his political opponents and the Clinton administration.

I'd like to end with a startling admission by the president regarding the war. He admitted today that his folly in Iraq has resulted in Bin Laden taking control of that nation. In other words, he liberated Iraq from Saddam and handed it over to Bin Laden. Winston Churchill once chastised Roosevelt for liberating eastern Europe from the Nazis and handing it over to the communists. You tell me, is this president creating more problems than he's solving? Your president: "Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/during-war-speech-bush-c_b_8444.html

[Deckard]

Hey, a lot of what he said is true. What is disturbing about it is the mindless ignorance he showed by invading and occupying Iraq, thus giving the enemy we should have put all our efforts into killing, where they were, the finest recruitment tool Bin Laden could have asked for, for free, the occupation of an Arab country by Western powers.

This insurgency will continue until we leave. I've come to that conclusion. We have some fine people over there, besides our military, doing some good work, but it is, I'm afraid, all for naught. This will not end. The Arab world sees our presence there as a cancer on the Arab people, and an extention of the Western colonial presence they remember all too well.

What a mess. We have to find a decent way out. I don't know how to find such an exit, but I don't see, now, a viable alternative.



Keep D&D Civil.

[wnes]

We have to find a decent way out. I don't know how to find such an exit, but I don't see, now, a viable alternative.


Simple. Just walk out, now. Let the Iraqis take care of their own business.

[Deckard]

Simple. Just walk out, now. Let the Iraqis take care of their own business.
It's not that simple. None of this is simple.



Keep D&D Civil.

[basso]

Simple. Just walk out, now. Let the Iraqis take care of their own business.

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and Web sites.

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace and stand in the way of their ambitions.

Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, "their resources, sons and money to driving infidels out of their lands."

Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter century: They hit us and expect us to run.

They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut [Lebanon] in 1983 and Mogadishu [Somalia] in 1993, only this time on a larger scale with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against nonradical Muslim governments.

wnes, islamic jihadist sympathizer.

[basso]

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism.

Still, others Islamo-fascism.

Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.

These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and also against Muslims from other traditions that they regard as heretics.

nice to see W calling evil by its name. if only "some" on the left could learn to do so america might begin to think seriously about the democratic party again

[Deckard]

wnes, islamic jihadist sympathizer.
Cut the crap, basso. What a "Catch 22." Bush creates this incredibly awful situation, says we can't leave because of his own stupid actions, and anyone who says we should is an "islamic jihadist sympathizer."

I used to think you were better than this.



Keep D&D Civil.

[wnes]

wnes, islamic jihadist sympathizer.

basso, hitler nazi fascist follower.

[basso]

Cut the crap, basso. What a "Catch 22." Bush creates this incredibly awful situation, says we can't leave because of his own stupid actions, and anyone who says we should is an "islamic jihadist sympathizer."

I used to think you were better than this.



Keep D&D Civil.

i'm not better than this- this is exactly what bin laden et al want. and the question of whether we should stay and finish the job is entirely separate from that of whether we were right to invade. i said it in another thread, but don't get stuck on stupid. you're better than that.

[FranchiseBlade]

wnes, islamic jihadist sympathizer.
Basso, disgusting, divisive, name calling, attacher of false labels.

[wnes]

Cut the crap, basso. What a "Catch 22." Bush creates this incredibly awful situation, says we can't leave because of his own stupid actions, and anyone who says we should is an "islamic jihadist sympathizer."

I used to think you were better than this.



Keep D&D Civil.

The problem with your liberal thinking is that you think you are better at solving other people's problems than those people themselves.

[FranchiseBlade]

i'm not better than this- this is exactly what bin laden et al want. and the question of whether we should stay and finish the job is entirely separate from that of whether we were right to invade. i said it in another thread, but don't get stuck on stupid. you're better than that.
Calling those who disagree with you islamist jihadist sympatheizers certainly isn't better than that. You are correct.

[thacabbage]

In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves…They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.
The irony.

[RocketMan Tex]

nice to see W calling evil by its name. if only "some" on the left could learn to do so america might begin to think seriously about the democratic party again

Bull, meet *****.

New ideas will make America think seriously about the Democratic party again, not falling in lock-goosestep with the most inept administration in American history.

[Deckard]

The problem with your liberal thinking is that you think you are better at solving other people's problems than those people themselves.
Is that directed at me, or basso. :)



Keep D&D Civil.

[thacabbage]

Hey, a lot of what he said is true. What is disturbing about it is the mindless ignorance he showed by invading and occupying Iraq, thus giving the enemy we should have put all our efforts into killing, where they were, the finest recruitment tool Bin Laden could have asked for, for free, the occupation of an Arab country by Western powers.

This insurgency will continue until we leave. I've come to that conclusion. We have some fine people over there, besides our military, doing some good work, but it is, I'm afraid, all for naught. This will not end. The Arab world sees our presence there as a cancer on the Arab people, and an extention of the Western colonial presence they remember all too well.

What a mess. We have to find a decent way out. I don't know how to find such an exit, but I don't see, now, a viable alternative.



Keep D&D Civil.

What is most mind boggling is the lack of foresight and complete and total ignorance regarding the Arab and Islamic world demonstrated by this administration. No good can possibly come from any outcome. Obviously if we lose, we've lost, but if we win and elections are carried out, you are looking at the reunification of Iraq and Iran - a budding Shi'ite Caliphate which would emerge as the greatest threat to the United States since the fall of the Soviets.

[basso]

if we win and elections are carried out, you are looking at the reunification of Iraq and Iran - a budding Shi'ite Caliphate which would emerge as the greatest threat to the United States since the fall of the Soviets.

where'd you get this?

[Bullard4Life]

i'm not better than this- this is exactly what bin laden et al want.

What? People to advocate military withdrawal on message boards, or for you to resort to childish namecalling on message boards?

Does anyone remember what happened after we bailed on Vietnam? Anyone remember that whole getting the hell out of Afghanistan thing and how it sparked bin Laden in the first place? Look, I'll be first in line to criticize the decision to go to war, the way it's been conducted, and the price it's cost people around the world. But Jesus H. Christ, we cannot just bail on that country without insuring some stable governance for the people and a reasonable level of security. We aassassinated the leader of Iran in the 50s and the power vaccuum eventually allowed the Ayatollah to come to power. Leaving Afghanist to its own devices meant the Taliban was able to harbor terrorist networks and conduct strikes around the world. If we bail on Iraq we are going to regret it 10, 20, 30 years down the line. It may be in the form of ethnic and civil strife in the country, it may be in the form of a "rogue nation" that threatens us (for real this time).

Bush is without a doubt the worst President of this century, if not of all time. Anyone that contests this has no concept of politics, history, or morality. But, no matter we may disagree with the tragedy he's caused, we cannot simply throw up our hands and walk away from it.

[Deckard]

What is most mind boggling is the lack of foresight and complete and total ignorance regarding the Arab and Islamic world demonstrated by this administration. No good can possibly come from any outcome. Obviously if we lose, we've lost, but if we win and elections are carried out, you are looking at the reunification of Iraq and Iran - a budding Shi'ite Caliphate which would emerge as the greatest threat to the United States since the fall of the Soviets.
I see that as a real threat as well, created by Bush. Where I disagree is that having the elections is a "win." I really don't see anyway that we can "win." And you can depend on Hayes to use your thought as a new reason for "staying the course."

Prepare for the hair-splitting microscope. ;)

I will say that if your scenario were to occur, that you will find us supporting many of the insurgents we're fighting today, to create havoc for the nascent Islamist "Shia" superstate. Hell, we would end up fighting another war with it. It's no wonder that Iran is pushing so hard for the bomb. If they don't get it, then they know we won't allow exactly that to occur.

I doubt that Iraq's Shias will want to submerge Iraq into Iran. Of course, that might not prevent it from happening. What a bloody mess! Created by that fool in the White House.



Keep D&D Civil.

[thacabbage]

where'd you get this?
my common sense

[thacabbage]

I see that as a real threat as well, created by Bush. Where I disagree is that having the elections is a "win." I really don't see anyway that we can "win." And you can depend on Hayes to use your thought as a new reason for "staying the course."

Prepare for the hair-splitting microscope. ;)

I will say that if your scenario were to occur, that you will find us supporting many of the insurgents we're fighting today, to create havoc for the nascent Islamist "Shia" superstate. Hell, we would end up fighting another war with it. It's no wonder that Iran is pushing so hard for the bomb. If they don't get it, then they know we won't allow exactly that to occur.

I doubt that Iraq's Shias will want to submerge Iraq into Iran. Of course, that might not prevent it from happening. What a bloody mess! Created by that fool in the White House.



Keep D&D Civil.
Agreed. The only real pragmatic way of combatting that inevitable Shi'ite superpower would be to turn around and prop up these sunni insurgents similar to our policy against the Soviets. It's like a never ending cycle of madness.

[rhadamanthus]

I couldn't help but think of this article after reading the latest posts in this thread. Not necessarily my opinion, but I have to admit it sounds appealing...

===============================================
TED RALL 11/4/03

NEW YORK--Republicans weren't just out to line the pockets of the wealthiest Americans when they cut federal income taxes. They created the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world--$6 trillion projected over the next decade--in order to starve the federal government.

Don't take my word for it. Here's Milton Friedman, the founding father of the supply-side economic theory espoused by Reagan and both Bushes: "History suggests," argues Friedman, "that Washington spends whatever it receives in taxes plus as much more as it can get away with...how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature." Bush and other supply-siders parrot Friedman's starve-the-government philosophy even more frequently than their bromides about rising tides lifting all boats.

When a Democrat moves into the White House--which may be sooner rather than later--he'll face a deficit crisis. Reversing the Bush tax cuts won't be an attractive option, since Republicans can always convince an ahistorical citizenry that he's "raising taxes." He'll probably do what Clinton did when he inherited the $1 trillion Reagan-Bush deficit in 1993--slash the budget. One thing's for sure: there won't be any money for the big new spending programs that Democrats use to build loyalty among working-class voters. Even if the economy has begun to recover from the current recession by then, it will be impossible to fund big ideas like national health care and high-speed rail.

Republicans don't waste time. Throughout their tenure they set things up so that their policies are enforced by judges and other political appointees who outlive their rule.

Put yourself in the role of an incoming Democratic president in, say, January 2005. You probably have a very different view of the world from George W. Bush, but you won't get much chance to act on it. You'll inherit Bush's occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, his Department of Homeland Security and the concentration camp at Guantánamo. Even if you, like most of the main Democratic contenders, spoke out against invading Iraq, you'll think twice before pulling out our troops yourself. Sure, you'd save the two or three guys we're losing daily, but Iraq would surely fragment into a Kurdish state opposed by Turkey and an Arab region rent by a Sunni-Shia civil war. You'll probably be tempted to lay off the 120,000 do-nothing federal employees of HomeSec--and because the GOP insisted that they not be represented by unions, you'll be able to do it. And common decency will certainly prompt you to send the Afghan teenagers rotting in Gitmo dog cages back to south Asia. But how will you respond to the inevitable charge that you're soft on terrorism?

At the Oct. 10 presidential debate, Howard Dean--who parlayed opposition to the Iraq war into frontrunner status--conceded that he'd be stuck to the Bushies' Iraqi tar baby: "Now that we're there, we can't pull out responsibly, because if we do, there are more Al Qaeda in Iraq than before the president went in. If they establish a foothold in Iraq, or if a fundamentalist Shiite regime comes in, allied with Iran, that is a real security danger to the United States when one did not exist before."

It's high time that victorious Democrats stop being suckered by reckless Republicans into cleaning up their messes. Walking behind the elephant with a pail and a smelly broom might be the right thing to do, but it doesn't earn you any respect after the parade. All Democrats worthy of the name ought to sign a pledge to ignore problems caused by Republican administrations and leave them to their Republican successors. Let the GOP deficit ride, and pass socialized medicine while you're at it. Keep the bloated HomeSec bureaucracy on the payroll, and change its mission to something useful, like making a serious attempt to guard our borders. Run up the deficit like there's no tomorrow. Withdraw our troops; when the Iraqi civil war spreads throughout the region, some smart future Republican president will figure it out.

I can hear you grumbling: but that's irresponsible! Yes. It. Is. But playing the sap to Republican fait accomplis is like paying off your drunken kid's gambling debts. It makes you an enabler of destructive behavior--and that's even worse than throwing your hands up in the air and walking away. Let's give the GOP some tough love.
==========================

Deckard, thecabbage - thoughts?

[Chance]

Cut the crap, basso. What a "Catch 22." Bush creates this incredibly awful situation, says we can't leave because of his own stupid actions, and anyone who says we should is an "islamic jihadist sympathizer."

I used to think you were better than this.



Keep D&D Civil.

You guys have been saying Bush started this illegal war for so long that you believe it. You seriously believe it.

[rhadamanthus]

You guys have been saying Bush started this illegal war for so long that you believe it. You seriously believe it.

:confused:

No wait, that's not good enough....


WTF??!?!!?!!?

[Deckard]

You guys have been saying Bush started this illegal war for so long that you believe it. You seriously believe it.
Illegal is your word, Chance, not mine. And yes, he started the war in Iraq. I don't recall Iraq invading itself, although Saddam convinced himself that he was doing just that, which touched off the Gulf War.


Keep D&D Civil.

[wnes]

Does anyone remember what happened after we bailed on Vietnam?


What about Vietnam?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/images/20050621_webf1g3800jpg-515h.jpg
President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Phan Van Khai of Vietnam deliver statements
to the media in the Oval Office Tuesday, June 21, 2005. "We discussed our economic relations.
And I noted that the Vietnamese economy is growing quite substantially. We talked about our
desire for Vietnam to join the WTO," said the President. "We talked about security issues and
a mutual desire to coordinate in the war on terror." [related story (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050621.html)]

U.S. military exited Vietnam in 1975 without much fanfare. Look what happened: Vietnam restablished diplomatic relationship with U.S., is opening its market to U.S. capitalists, and trying to befriend with U.S.

People, if you think believe Jesus can transform Bush, why do you not think Jesus can do wonders to Iraq?


Bush is without a doubt the worst President of this century, if not of all time.

The current century is still young, how can he be worse than himself? :)

[basso]

Illegal is your word, Chance, not mine. And yes, he started the war in Iraq. I don't recall Iraq invading itself, although Saddam convinced himself that he was doing just that, which touched off the Gulf War.


Keep D&D Civil.

could you please forward me a copy of the peace treaty ending the Gulf War? i recall some UN resolutions, but i alse seem to recall mr hussein wasn't so good at complying with them.

[Deckard]

could you please forward me a copy of the peace treaty ending the Gulf War? i recall some UN resolutions, but i alse seem to recall mr hussein wasn't so good at complying with them.
Put the coffee DOWN!



Keep D&D Civil.

[wnes]

Is that directed at me, or basso. :)


Both.

[Bullard4Life]

What about Vietnam?

Are you serious? This was published in the WSJ:
"Finally, the aftermath of Saigon's fall is rarely dealt with at all. A gruesome holocaust took place in Cambodia, the likes of which had not been seen since World War II. Two million Vietnamese fled their country -- usually by boat -- with untold thousands losing their lives in the process. This was the first such Diaspora in Vietnam's long and frequently tragic history. Inside Vietnam a million of the South's best young leaders were sent to re-education camps; more than 50,000 perished while imprisoned, and others remained captives for as long as 18 years. An apartheid system was put into place that punished those who had been loyal to the U.S., as well as their families, in matters of education, employment and housing. The Soviet Union made Vietnam a client state until its own demise, pumping billions of dollars into the country and keeping extensive naval and air bases at Cam Ranh Bay."
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/vietvictors.htm

U.S. military exited Vietnam in 1975 without much fanfare. Look what happened: Vietnam restablished diplomatic relationship with U.S., is opening its market to U.S. capitalists, and trying to befriend with U.S.

I wouldn't exactly take Bush's word as to how things are going. And even if they eventually come around, that doesn't mean we should leave them with no recourse but to fight their own civil war after we leave them with no system of governance or civility.


The current century is still young, how can he be worse than himself?

D'oh. Add the last century to that as well.

[Deckard]

Both.
OK. To do it the way you seem to want to do it is unrealistic. Regardless of what a criminally incompetent fool George W. Bush is, we can't just announce we are leaving, pack up, and go. It would be murder. Yes, plenty of "murder" is going on right now, as well as plenty of combat deaths and injuries, but some kind of "mechanism," what, I don't know... there are different possibilities, has to be in place to enable those who put their lives in our hands, by supporting us, to have a chance. In my opinion.


Keep D&D Civil.

[basso]

In my opinion.

in George's too.

[thacabbage]

rhadamanthus - I agree with the author's basic premise. Regarding the Dean quote, I'm not quite sure if staying the course is the best option but I am starting to lean more open to that option.

Reversing the Bush tax cuts won't be an attractive option, since Republicans can always convince an ahistorical citizenry that he's "raising taxes."
Just thought I would add in that "ahistorical citizenry" is probably the best description I've heard yet of the apathetic/ignorant parroting that typifies a large percentage of our nation's population. I think I'll start using that.

[thacabbage]

Illegal is your word, Chance, not mine. And yes, he started the war in Iraq. I don't recall Iraq invading itself, although Saddam convinced himself that he was doing just that, which touched off the Gulf War.


Keep D&D Civil.
"Illegal" was my word too but we can even set aside the fact that invading was morally reprehensible. It simply was illogical.

[Deckard]

"Illegal" was my word too but we can even set aside the fact that invading was morally reprehensible. It simply was illogical.
Well, if one accepts the premise that Bush perjured himself before America and the world as a criminal offence, then the invasion was a criminal act. Not sure if being criminally incompetent counts. ;)



Keep D&D Civil.

[RocketMan Tex]

Well, if one accepts the premise that Bush perjured himself before America and the world as a criminal offence, then the invasion was a criminal act. Not sure if being criminally incompetent counts. ;)



Keep D&D Civil.

George W. Bush lied in front of Congress during the 2003 State of the Union address with his claims of yellow cake from Niger.

Lying to Congress is a felony.

Case Closed.

[Deckard]

George W. Bush lied in front of Congress during the 2003 State of the Union address with his claims of yellow cake from Niger.

Lying to Congress is a felony.

Case Closed.
RMT, how can you prove it? He'll say that he just repeated what his advisors told him were the "facts." And if that doesn't work, he can just claim stupidity. If that is a valid defence, well, I would believe him.


Keep D&D Civil.

[mc mark]

RMT, how can you prove it? He'll say that he just repeated what his advisors told him were the "facts." And if that doesn't work, he can just claim stupidity. If that is a valid defence, well, I would believe him.

Keep D&D Civil.

Any rational, clear thinking, true American would be mad as hell and looking to fire the person or persons who mislead them and made them look like a fool to the world. But in this case the perps got medals of Freedom.

Weird...

[basso]

George W. Bush lied in front of Congress during the 2003 State of the Union address with his claims of yellow cake from Niger.

Lying to Congress is a felony.

Case Closed.

really? could you quote the lie please? please also offer your proof that his statement was a lie.

[wnes]

This was published in the WSJ:
"Finally, the aftermath of Saigon's fall is rarely dealt with at all. A gruesome holocaust took place in Cambodia, the likes of which had not been seen since World War II. Two million Vietnamese fled their country -- usually by boat -- with untold thousands losing their lives in the process. This was the first such Diaspora in Vietnam's long and frequently tragic history. Inside Vietnam a million of the South's best young leaders were sent to re-education camps; more than 50,000 perished while imprisoned, and others remained captives for as long as 18 years. An apartheid system was put into place that punished those who had been loyal to the U.S., as well as their families, in matters of education, employment and housing. The Soviet Union made Vietnam a client state until its own demise, pumping billions of dollars into the country and keeping extensive naval and air bases at Cam Ranh Bay."
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/vietvictors.htm


I wouldn't put too much weight on neocon's propaganda. Did the author fail to mention the illegal use of Agent Orange, its devastating effect on the environment and lives of human beings, the cover-up by U.S., and refusal by U.S. to compensate the victims?

"holocaust took place in Cambodia"

Does carpet bombing count as mass muder?

[rhadamanthus]

really? could you quote the lie please? please also offer your proof that his statement was a lie.

RMT, how can you prove it? He'll say that he just repeated what his advisors told him were the "facts." And if that doesn't work, he can just claim stupidity. If that is a valid defence, well, I would believe him.

Beautiful.

[thacabbage]

RMT, how can you prove it? He'll say that he just repeated what his advisors told him were the "facts." And if that doesn't work, he can just claim stupidity. If that is a valid defence, well, I would believe him.


Keep D&D Civil.
So if you truly believe a blowjob isn't sex, you're not lying, right? :)

[Deckard]

So if you truly believe a blowjob isn't sex, you're not lying, right? :)
Exactly. :)



Keep D&D Civil.

[Bullard4Life]

I wouldn't put too much weight on neocon's propapanda. Did the author fail to mention the illegal use of Agent Orange, its devastating effect on the environment and lives of human beings, the cover-up by U.S., and refusal by U.S. to compensate the victims?

Any historian will tell you that South Vietnam had it really bad post our exit, neocon or otherwize. The point of me posting that was to show that pulling out can cause horrible effects. If you only thought the war in Iraq was a bad thing because of the cost to America then fine, we should just pull out and leave Iraqis to suffer the consequences for our irresponsibility. However, the main reason I opposed the Iraq war was the cost the people of Iraq would have to bear during the conflict. If we leave now we are abandoning these people to civil strife that would take even more lives than a US occupation is taking now.

Does carpet bombing count as mass muder?

Sure, I didn't agree with the Vietnam war. What we did was reprehensible. I only used the Vietnam war as one of many examples of when we've said. Oh *****, this isn't going well, you're on your own now brown people. And that abandonment resulted in massive ammounts of suffering.

The main difference between Iraq and Vietnam however, is that in Vietnam we were involved in a war between two countries. Our presence was merely prolonging the conflict and taking more lives. In Iraq, if we leave we actually could spark a full scale war as the three ethnic factions would have no mediation between them and the power vacuum would no doubt spark a massive conflict that is not occuring now. If we have any sense of responsibility, we'll do whatever we can to make sure that doesn't happen.

[glynch]

With regard to the illegality of the war, it was not sanctioned by the United Nations. Bush realized he could not get the votes despite much bribing and threats in the Security Council or the General Assembly so he just went anyway. I know he had some half assed claim about previous resoloutions, but that is not generally acknowleged except by the same crowd that brought us the war.

Of course our invasions of Grenada and Panama made not any claim to legality.

[wnes]

The point of me posting that was to show that pulling out can cause horrible effects. If you only thought the war in Iraq was a bad thing because of the cost to America then fine, we should just pull out and leave Iraqis to suffer the consequences for our irresponsibility. However, the main reason I opposed the Iraq war was the cost the people of Iraq would have to bear during the conflict. If we leave now we are abandoning these people to civil strife that would take even more lives than a US occupation is taking now.

How much worse can it be if we pull out? Nobody can answer that question now. You can only speculate at best. What's clear is that most Iraqis think we are not doing a good job in their country, and are causing more harm than good. We are an uninvited guest, to put it mildly, in other people's home. Some of the family members are acting aggressively to push us out, while others try to be polite, only to avoid offending the powerful intruder. But deep in their hearts, they also want us out - the sooner the better.

In Iraq, if we leave we actually could spark a full scale war as the three ethnic factions would have no mediation between them and the power vacuum would no doubt spark a massive conflict that is not occuring now. If we have any sense of responsibility, we'll do whatever we can to make sure that doesn't happen.

The responsible way is to trust the Iraqi people to settle scores among themselves. There may be some bloodshed, but that's a bump on the road to peace. By staying the course, we have no hope for peace. We think we have quashed a problem, but in the process we created another one, or two.

[Bullard4Life]

Of course our invasions of Grenada and Panama made not any claim to legality.

Why do you hate freedom and the Panam canal?

[No Worries]

Of course our invasions of Grenada and Panama made not any claim to legality.
No fly zone.

[vlaurelio]

wnes, islamic jihadist sympathizer.

why? are we currently winning the war in iraq?

[thacabbage]

Any historian will tell you that South Vietnam had it really bad post our exit, neocon or otherwize. The point of me posting that was to show that pulling out can cause horrible effects. If you only thought the war in Iraq was a bad thing because of the cost to America then fine, we should just pull out and leave Iraqis to suffer the consequences for our irresponsibility. However, the main reason I opposed the Iraq war was the cost the people of Iraq would have to bear during the conflict. If we leave now we are abandoning these people to civil strife that would take even more lives than a US occupation is taking now.



Sure, I didn't agree with the Vietnam war. What we did was reprehensible. I only used the Vietnam war as one of many examples of when we've said. Oh *****, this isn't going well, you're on your own now brown people. And that abandonment resulted in massive ammounts of suffering.

The main difference between Iraq and Vietnam however, is that in Vietnam we were involved in a war between two countries. Our presence was merely prolonging the conflict and taking more lives. In Iraq, if we leave we actually could spark a full scale war as the three ethnic factions would have no mediation between them and the power vacuum would no doubt spark a massive conflict that is not occuring now. If we have any sense of responsibility, we'll do whatever we can to make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm not sure I can agree with this because there will always be resentment on their side regarding an ongoing foreign occupation. We tend to dismiss the human aspect of things too easily as occupation is always humiliating. Even assuming our intentions are noble and of a humanitarian cause, you simply cannot impose a revolution or ideology. The "we know what's best for you" attitude has never been successful not to mention an overwhelming sense of animosity in that region towards the U.S. over suspicion of our ulterior motives in Iraq.

Aside from the (dwindling number in the) popinjay crowd, I think most everyone now agrees that entering Iraq was a bad decision. When the question shifts to our plan of exit, I can do nothing but throw my hands up in the air in frustration ala Rudy T. every time we blew a 20 point lead in the 2nd half. The biggest flaw from the start was this Eurocentric arrogant assumption that given the choice in a democratic election, the people would abandon Islam. That was clearly not the case. That will be a problem. If things go well, what should have become the 51st state of the United States and a model democracy in the Middle East suddenly becomes an ally to the 3rd wheel of the "axis of evil" and a stepping stone towards the first Islamic superpower since the fall of the Ottomans. Oops, we cleary didn't want that. If we pull out now, the sunni insurgents assume power and all hell breaks loose. Neither is a favorable situation in this case.

Don't ever overlook the human factor. Even if our intentions are noble, occupation is always resented.

I mean, really, why would you want Saddam Hussein out of power? We're talking about a secularist government in no way in collaboration with the Muslim influences surrounding him, in the heart of the Middle East, and you would disrupt that?

[topfive]

Hmm... poll numbers dropping... major speech reminding us all how much evil there is lurking out there... then...

VOILA! NYC subway threat!

This administration's choreography is worse than Britney's.

[mc mark]

OH! Snap!

[jo mama]

Hmm... poll numbers dropping... major speech reminding us all how much evil there is lurking out there... then...

VOILA! NYC subway threat!

This administration's choreography is worse than Britney's.

you freedom hater!!!

its called coincidence and heres some more of them...all coincidence

January 10, 2002 – Bush gets hammered by the press over his relationship with Ken Lay. He swears he doesn’t know him. Congress starts questioning the relationship between Lay and Bush beginning February 5.

February 12, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft called on "all Americans to be on the highest state of alert" after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack.

or

September 20, 2002 -- In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry. The White House also refuses to turn over documents showing what Bush knew before 9/11. Relatives of 9/11 victims grill the Bush Administration over their reluctance to get to the bottom of it.

September 24, 2002 – Ashcroft elevates the terror alert to Orange

or

February 6, 2003 - Powell pleads with the UN Security Council for a first strike against Iraq.

February 9, 2003 - Citing credible threats that al Qaeda might be planning attacks on American targets, the U.S. government raised the national color-coded threat level to orange, indicating a "high" risk of a terrorist attack

or

July 25, 2003 -- After the Bush administration delayed its publication for months, Congress releases its 9/11 findings. The Bush Gang also deletes 28 pages of the report believed to detail Saudi funding of members of Al Qaeda in the Untied States prior to Sept. 11. Three days later, American troops are charged with beating Iraqi prisoners and 15 soldiers die over eight days of fighting.

July 29 - Department of Homeland Security issues a warning about the possibility of suicide attacks on airplanes.

or

December 18, 2003 -- 9/11 Chairman Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. One day later a federal appeals court ruled the government can not detain U.S. citizen Jose Padilla indefinitely without filing charges against him or allowing him access to the courts. The same day The Wall Street Journal reports that auditors at the Pentagon are accusing Halliburton of refusing to hand over internal documents related to allegations that the oil service company overcharged the U.S. government in Iraq and then, to top it off, David Kay quits, having found no WMD’s.


Dec. 21, 2003 - Ridge raises the terror threat level just in time for the holidays.

or

The week of March 15, 2004 -- Military families organize together to oppose the war, Democrats call for probe on Medicare cost cover-up and Condi opts out of appearing at the 9/11 Commission hearings. She repeats her refusal several times during the week, and later on appears on 60 Minutes to explain her position. Then, CNN reports that a "high target" Al Qaeda leader has been "surrounded" in the border with Pakistan. It is also suggested it may be Bin Laden or al-Zawahri. After the fighting ends, it is reported that it wasn't any "high value" target in the battle after all. Another, "Ooh! Never mind" moment.

March 21, 2004 The State Department issues a terror alert.

or

On May 10, Bush’s approval rating hit 46%. A week later, Colin Powell tells Meet the Press that he was deliberately misled about WMD information. Powell's aide tries to cut him off mid-air. Newsweek reports that President Bush's top lawyer warned two years ago that Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of how his administration was fighting the war on terror. Then the White House stonewalls UN on papers about Halliburton’s contracts in Iraq and Captain Crayola testifies before 9/11 Commission and the Senate Armed Forces Committee holds hearings on Abu Ghraib abuses.

Seven days after all this happens, Ridge warns of a major threat of a terrorist attack during the summer.

The fact remains that Bush hasn’t a damn thing to run on except the war on terrorism. One week he’s ranting about how much safer we all are, and then a week later that al Qaeda boogeyman is coming to get us.

Well, George, which is it? Talk about "flip-flopping!"

[basso]

OH! Snap!

don't you ride the subway mark? will you be this cavalier on the N train tomorrow?

[wnes]

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/cheney.jpg

"Insurgency is in its last throes."

[basso]

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/cheney.jpg

"Insurgency is in its last throes."

with this thread, you have entered the glynch hall of formal irrelevancy.

[wnes]

with this thread, you have entered the glynch hall of formal irrelevancy.

lol - is that worse than islamic jihadist sympathizer?

[mc mark]

don't you ride the subway mark? will you be this cavalier on the N train tomorrow?

I lead a charmed life. Heading up to the country house tomorrow for an extended four day weekend. But thanks for the thoughts.

[basso]

I lead a charmed life. Heading up to the country house tomorrow for an extended four day weekend. But thanks for the thoughts.

too long to post here, but you should read this article from the well known neo-con organ the new yorker before you go:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact2

bottom line, nyc's anti-terror operation is probably far superior to, and certainly operates independently of, the federal system. this warning came from bloomberg, not bush. i'd pay attention.

[topfive]

too long to post here, but you should read this article from the well known neo-con organ the new yorker before you go:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact2

bottom line, nyc's anti-terror operation is probably far superior to, and certainly operates independently of, the federal system. this warning came from bloomberg, not bush. i'd pay attention.

The intelligence came from the FBI. If memory serves me correctly, that's a federal organization, not part of the NYC mayor's office.

Nice try, though!

[glynch]

Does anyone remember what happened after we bailed on Vietnam? Anyone remember that whole getting the hell out of Afghanistan thing and how it sparked bin Laden in the first place? Look, I'll be first in line to criticize the decision to go to war, the way it's been conducted, and the price it's cost people around the world. But Jesus H. Christ, we cannot just bail on that country without insuring some stable governance for the people and a reasonable level of security. We aassassinated the leader of Iran in the 50s and the power vaccuum eventually allowed the Ayatollah to come to power. Leaving Afghanist to its own devices meant the Taliban was able to harbor terrorist networks and conduct strikes around the world. If we bail on Iraq we are going to regret it 10, 20, 30 years down the line. It may be in the form of ethnic and civil strife in the country, it may be in the form of a "rogue nation" that threatens us (for real this time).



I can agree with some of this post. We should try to make amends - when our policies kill and destroy whole countries and hundreds of thousands of folks.

I do not not agree on Vietnam. 2,000,000 Vietnamese were killed in a war that Ho Chi Minh,the George Washington of Vietnam would have disposed of quickly against the corrupt South easily without our involvment which prolonged the war for many years. The evils of reeducation camps etc, bad as they were, pale in comparison to the harm we did. Many of those 2,000,000 were killed by our armed forces.

Things only got better in Vietnam once we withdrew and the fighting stopped. To have corrected the mess faster once we withdrew we should have restarted diplomatic relations, massive trade and aid asap. We could have had the present happy state of today much earlier.

In Afghanistan we helped bankroll the Muhjadin, the Madrassah and were midwives to Al Qaeda. We liked this when they were attacking the Soviets. It is hard to know what we could have done to have prevented this, once we set it in motion. It would have been hard to get the American people to then go to war against the forces we largely created in the God forsaken country of Afghanistan.

In Iraq, we know for sure that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will continue to be killed by the US if we stay. We have killed hundeds of thousands to date with both wars and the sanctions. It is doubtful that if left to their devices the Iraqis will do worse. We know that they will fight us till we leave. Aside from the dittos, does anyone think the Constitution will end the resistance? Given our present fear of giving heavy weapons to our Iraqis for fear they will turn them on us, what can we do to make it better? Our policies seem to have the effect of pushing the country to civil war,which many, including the elder Bush, and Cheney and Powell in the first Bush Administration, predicted as a very possible outcome. As we arm the Kurds and Shiites to kill the Sunnis in the resistance it is doubtful that we can prevent this.

We should withdraw. It started making things better in Vietnam and it probably will in Iraq. Though,unlikely given the GOP support for the war,even better would be to also impeach Bush as a form of apology. Waiting 3 years till his term ends just delays the process. This will help restore our international image and be a formal message that we have returned to sanity.

Spend at least the $5 billion per month we spend on killing Iraqis indefinitely to help repay for our destruction. Let the UN or someone administer this money. Any attempt to limit rebuilding contract to Cheney's Halliburton or other US war profiteers will not be helpful.

In Iraq even the wingnuts won't agree to basically stay and die because we made a mistake and we hope that by staying for years we can in some unknown way salvage some good from the situation. After the the Constitution passes and the resistance continues it will get old very quick.

[SamFisher]

i'm not better than this- this is exactly what bin laden et al want. and the question of whether we should stay and finish the job is entirely separate from that of whether we were right to invade. i said it in another thread, but don't get stuck on stupid. you're better than that.

Invading Iraq and creating a multi year long insurgency/recruiting tool/resource drain is exactly what bin Laden wanted, I know this because I am smart.

Therefore, bin Laden wants what you wanted more than what he wants what he said - accordingly, we are red hot and you are cold snot.

[geeimsobored]

I'm really not sure how we can withdraw at this point. Iraq would literally descend into fragmentation and chaos. Its somewhat unique in that it is a country that is divided into three major sects. In Vietnam, both the North and South were the same minus some political differences. In Iraq, you have a fledging government barely holding the country together. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis all have their differrences and any withdrawal could easily spark further fragmentation.

The country is lawless as it is. There are virtually no Iraqi security forces that can actually do anything and the coalition is managing law enforcement in its entirety. A withdrawal would literally mean there would be absolutely no one to enforce any laws and the result would be outright chaos on a scale that we haven't seen yet. As bad as it is, it still can get worse. Also, Gaza is a pretty good indication of the reaction of various Islamic fundamentalists. They claimed victory after withdrawal and there's no reason why they wouldnt do the same after a US withdrawal. A withdrawal would just create a regional power vacuum that would probably be filled in a more fundamentalist government that would be Iran number 2.

In short, we messed up by invading in the first place but withdrawal really isn't an option right now. Vietnam and Iraq are two different things and sadly we're stuck here for a few more years.

[giddyup]

Bush is without a doubt the worst President of this century, if not of all time. Anyone that contests this has no concept of politics, history, or morality. But, no matter we may disagree with the tragedy he's caused, we cannot simply throw up our hands and walk away from it.
Why don't you just speak your mind unambiguously? :D

[giddyup]

In Iraq, we know for sure that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will continue to be killed by the US if we stay.
Can you please extrapolate on this claim? Are we going to resume bombing? Are insurgents in your body count?

Et cetera

[glynch]

Can you please extrapolate on this claim? Are we going to resume bombing? Are insurgents in your body count?

Et cetera

Giddy, we bomb on probably a daily basis. I don't thing this a news worthy event any more. Yes, Giddy, the insurgents are included.. They are Iraqis and human beings who were not insurgents till we invaded their country. Maybe you never thought of that.

[giddyup]

Giddy, we bomb on probably a daily basis. I don't thing this a news worthy event any more. Yes, Giddy, the insurgents are included.. They are Iraqis and human beings who were not insurgents till we invaded their country. Maybe you never thought of that.
http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2005.htm

This site has not been updated since 02/05 and I can find nary a story from that time period about US military bombings. It all seems to be about insurgency car bombings. Let me know if you find more...

Damn man I thought those insurgents were androids. The way they so callously and deliberately and intentionally kill Iraqi men, women and children I would have guessed they had no feelings whatsoever... just like androids.

You, of course, completely ignore the Iraqi side of the story that wants us there to rout out the thugs and the murderers. Everybody wants the horror to stop but the real question is will a peacable lifestyle be more attainable if the insurgents prevail or if the US prevails. What's your call on that?

[plcmts17]

i'm not better than this- this is exactly what bin laden et al want. and the question of whether we should stay and finish the job is entirely separate from that of whether we were right to invade. i said it in another thread, but don't get stuck on stupid. you're better than that.
Sure basso, name calling will make your point since your arguements won't. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[wnes]

too long to post here, but you should read this article from the well known neo-con organ the new yorker before you go:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact2

bottom line, nyc's anti-terror operation is probably far superior to, and certainly operates independently of, the federal system. this warning came from bloomberg, not bush. i'd pay attention.

I thought the bottom line was if we fought 'em over there in Iraq, we woudn't have to fight 'em over here.

Got any tips from GlobalSecurity lately, basso?

I am gonna buy me some more duct tapes today.

[thacabbage]

Can you please extrapolate on this claim? Are we going to resume bombing? Are insurgents in your body count?

Et cetera
Uhh, why would insurgents not be in the body count? Death is death.

[giddyup]

Uhh, why would insurgents not be in the body count? Death is death.
1. It is still debatable what percentage of the insurgents are not Iraqi and
2. glynch seemed to be allluding to the death of civilian non-combatants-- a group to which insurgents do not belong.

[jo mama]

1. It is still debatable what percentage of the insurgents are not Iraqi

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

"While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents." Sept 2005

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

according to general abizaid "the most dangerous enemy to us at the present time are the former regime loyalists"

"In January 2005 Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said that Iraq's insurgency consited of at least 40,000 hardcore fighters, out of a total of more than 200,000 part-time fighters and volunteers who provide intelligence, logistics and shelter."

"London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency."

"Foreign fighters are a small component of the insurgency and comprise a very small percentage of all detainees. Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and Iranian nationals make up the majority of foreign fighters."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1576666,00.html

"Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)."

[Bullard4Life]

In Iraq, we know for sure that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will continue to be killed by the US if we stay. We have killed hundeds of thousands to date with both wars and the sanctions. It is doubtful that if left to their devices the Iraqis will do worse.

I'm really not sure what you're basing your numbers or estimates on.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22126.pdf

I think you're taking an extremely large estimate not only of how many people have been killed to date, but how many will continue to be killed. Currently there is one Iraqi battalion capable of operating independently. One friggin' battalion. What makes you think that things will somehow be better once we leave? Who is going to maintain order in the city? Who is going to secure basic utilities such as food and electricity? Who is going to insure a viable system of governance.

I agree, things were comparatively better under the secular government of Hussein. People didn't have much in the way of civil liberties, but they weren't dying in the streets. But if there's no system of governance firmly entrenched when we leave we are looking at a very real possibility of a civil war. One which would involve and effect far more people than the insurgency does now because every ethnicity in Iraq would have a stake in the fighting.

Finally, for all these people who keep nit-picking about Vietnam. It was only meant as an example of how things aren't peachy keen after we leave as wnes asserted they were. However, as I agree with Glynch. The fact that there are different ethnicities involved makes it uniquely different.

[tigermission1]

You, of course, completely ignore the Iraqi side of the story that wants us there to rout out the thugs and the murderers.

Actually, the VAST majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out NOW, not later on or want protection.

(Notice this poll was conducted over a year ago, which means that Iraqis would be much more in favor of an American withdrawal AND much less likely to view the American occupation as 'doing good' after nearly a year and a half of no progress):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

[wnes]

It was only meant as an example of how things aren't peachy keen after we leave as wnes asserted they were.

I never said the situation became rosy in Vietnam the moment U.S. withdrew its troops there. Don't put your words in my mouth. Thanks in advance ... ugh ... it's postmortem now ... whatever, brah!

[wnes]

http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2005.htm

This site has not been updated since 02/05 and I can find nary a story from that time period about US military bombings. It all seems to be about insurgency car bombings. Let me know if you find more...



No update since 2/2005? The guy who ran that website probably got himself bombed. :p

Here's a latest bombing campaign by US forces in Iraq:

US forces bomb Iraq's Euphrates bridges

October 06 2005 at 09:58AM

Baghdad - US-led forces have bombed eight bridges on the Euphrates River in western Iraq to stop insurgents using them, US military spokesperson Major General Rick Lynch said Thursday.

"We have been taking out portions of bridges with precision strikes," he told a news conference.

Of 12 bridges between the Syrian border and Ramadi, 110km west Baghdad, "four remain under control of the coalition forces and Iraqi forces after precision strikes on the others," he said.

"One of the vulnerabilities of this insurgency is freedom of movement," he added.

"We took out portions of these bridges to deny terrorists, foreign fighters and insurgents the capability to cross north to south or south to north across the Euphrates River."

He explained that the missing sections of bridges could be repaired with pontoons.

Some 4 800 US-led multinational forces and 4 200 Iraqi security forces are currently involved in a series of sweeps in the western province of Al-Anbar to hunt down insurgents.

Lynch also warned that insurgents meant to launch a new wave of attacks in Baghdad ahead of the October 15 referendum on the draft constitution.

"It is predictable that over the nine next days, we will register a significant number of attacks in Baghdad," he said.

He was speaking shortly after at least two suicide bombers and one roadside bomb killed at least 11 people and wounded about 20 in the capital on Thursday. - Sapa-AFP

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=qw1128610260414B262

[mc mark]

President Bush's Major Speech: Sounding Old Themes on Iraq

We've lost track of the number of times President Bush has told Americans to ignore their own eyes and ears and pretend everything is going just fine in Iraq. Yesterday, when Mr. Bush added a ringing endorsement of his own policy to his speech on terrorism, it was that same old formula: the wrong questions, the wrong answers and no new direction.

Mr. Bush suggested that people who doubt that nation-building is going well are just confusing healthy disagreement with dangerous division. "We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with one another," he scoffed. What he failed to acknowledge was that the Iraqi power groups seem prepared to go through the motions of democracy only as long as their side wins.

Just this week, the United Nations narrowly averted disaster when it convinced Shiite and Kurdish officials to drop a plan to fix the upcoming constitutional referendum to eliminate Sunni voters' capacity to vote down the constitution. But their promises to follow the rules seem likely to hold up only as long as the game goes as they want.

Americans want to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq, and Mr. Bush offered quite a bit. "Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning," he said. Best of all, there were "more than 80 Iraqi Army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces." Unfortunately, the real questions are how many of the cleared-out towns actually stay clear once American troops have gone, and how many Iraqi units are capable of fighting on their own, without American soldiers at their side. In both cases, the answers are far more dismal than Mr. Bush suggested.

As a candidate, Mr. Bush got a lot of mileage out of offering the same simple, positive thoughts over and over. But now the nation doesn't need more specious theories about why the invasion was a good idea and cheery assurances that the original plan is still working. If Mr. Bush still cannot acknowledge the flaws in his policy, how can he fix them?

Americans need clear guidelines for judging how long it makes sense to stay in Iraq. Are our troops helping create a nation, or simply delaying an inevitable civil war? Does a continued American presence help push the Middle East toward peace and democracy, or simply inflame hatred of the United States and serve as a rallying point for Al Qaeda? The fact that the president isn't willing even to raise the questions does not increase confidence in the ultimate outcome.

Given the state of the American adventure in Iraq and the way it has sapped the strength and flexibility of the United States armed forces, it was unnerving to hear Mr. Bush talk so menacingly about Syria and Iran. It was also maddening to listen to him describe the perils that Iraq poses while denying that his policies set them in motion.

It is hard to argue with his assertion that if militants controlled Iraq, they would be well positioned "to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation." It is also hard to resist the temptation to say he should have thought of that before invading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07fri2.html

[basso]

President Bush's Major Speech: Sounding Old Themes on Iraq

It is hard to argue with his assertion that if militants controlled Iraq, they would be well positioned "to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation." It is also hard to resist the temptation to say he should have thought of that before invading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07fri2.html

nytimes, mc mark, stuck on stupid.

[Sishir Chang]

I listened to Bush's speech the other day and thought in general it was a good speech that hit upon some important themes but what's so troubling about it though is that while Bush might be right about the need to fight terrorism he's been wrong about how he's doing it. What's bothered me all along is the nature and tools brought to the fight. The Admin. seems so heavily focussed on military solutions that they've not only sacrificed out capabilities in regard to other solutions while causing more problems than solving.

The analogy I've always used is that the war on terror is akin to fighting a cancer. You don't fight cancer with a sledgehammer but with a scalpel but so far we're mostly seeing a sledgehammer.

Unfortunately we're stuck with the mess that's been created by a flawed policy that was based on flawed reasoning and flawed information. While we can and will continue to debate endlessly the rightness or wrongness of the invasion that's an immaterial question now and IMO in regard to Iraq there is only two issues worth debating.

1. How soon should we withdraw from Iraq?

2. What tactics should we use to withdraw from Iraq?

I think its given that we will eventually withdraw from Iraq. I don't believe there are many people who cling to the belief that Iraq will become a friendly vassal state that will allow us to maintain longterm bases there. Its a matter now of figuring out withdraw now or if its withdraw later what do we need to do to get us to a point that we feel we can withdraw without causing more damage to Iraq, the region and us.

[glynch]

I'm really not sure what you're basing your numbers or estimates on.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22126.pdf

I think you're taking an extremely large estimate not only of how many people have been killed to date, but how many will continue to be killed. Currently there is one Iraqi battalion capable of operating independently. One friggin' battalion. What makes you think that things will somehow be better once we leave? Who is going to maintain order in the city? Who is going to secure basic utilities such as food and electricity? Who is going to insure a viable system of governance.

I agree, things were comparatively better under the secular government of Hussein. People didn't have much in the way of civil liberties, but they weren't dying in the streets. But if there's no system of governance firmly entrenched when we leave we are looking at a very real possibility of a civil war. One which would involve and effect far more people than the insurgency does now because every ethnicity in Iraq would have a stake in the fighting.

Finally, for all these people who keep nit-picking about Vietnam. It was only meant as an example of how things aren't peachy keen after we leave as wnes asserted they were. However, as I agree with Glynch. The fact that there are different ethnicities involved makes it uniquely different.

Bullard, I have seriously considered your position about the sheer chaos that could result if we withdraw and have been convinced at times by this argument. However, I now agree with Juan Cole of JuanCole.com who had that position and has recently abandoned it. When you consider Fallujah and and I believe it is Tal Far another city of a couple hundred thousand which whe have evacuated and recently destroyed, there is no reason to be sanguine about any good effects of our military presence. The Bush folks don't care about this and we are indeed killing and/r displacing tens of thousands. BTW as we saw in Houston with Rita, when you displace and make hundreds of thousands refugees, many die and this is a result of US policies just as much as a US soldier shooting them with a gun.

[Bullard4Life]

nytimes, mc mark, stuck on stupid.

Basso, stuck on the Bush Kool Aid and third grader insults. You honestly think that Bush accurately gauged the logistical problems of occupation? Can you please point out the tangible benefit to security or people's lives the war has created?

Just so you understand my question in advance. Tangible means real or concrete, something which is measurable.

Before the war in Iraq there was no WMD program in Iraq and no insurgencies or bombings. Now there are. Before the war there was no threat of a civil war due to ethnic tensions. Now there is. Before there was no threat of an Islamic state rising in Iraq with strong disdain for an occupying US. Now there is.

[mc mark]

nytimes, mc mark, stuck on stupid.

tell you what basso

You list the news organizations you find appropriate so I'll know better next time.

[rhadamanthus]

Basso, stuck on the Bush Kool Aid and third grader insults. You honestly think that Bush accurately gauged the logistical problems of occupation? Can you please point out the tangible benefit to security or people's lives the war has created?

Just so you understand my question in advance. Tangible means real or concrete, something which is measurable.

Before the war in Iraq there was no WMD program in Iraq and no insurgencies or bombings. Now there are. Before the war there was no threat of a civil war due to ethnic tensions. Now there is. Before there was no threat of an Islamic state rising in Iraq with strong disdain for an occupying US. Now there is.

It is much easier to simply berate the source - thus enabling those who support certain policies to ignore hard to answer questions, uncomfortable facts, and ideologies adverse to their own.

[Bullard4Life]

However, I now agree with Juan Cole of JuanCole.com who had that position and has recently abandoned it. When you consider Fallujah and and I believe it is Tal Far another city of a couple hundred thousand which whe have evacuated and recently destroyed, there is no reason to be sanguine about any good effects of our military presence. The Bush folks don't care about this and we are indeed killing and/r displacing tens of thousands.

First, let me says it's nice to disagree with someeone I actually share the same goal with, so this is all a respectful difference in opinion.

I think that the main reason we should remain is to rebuild that infrastructure that has been destroyed. If you're concerned about the effects of displaced persons, how do you think these problems can be rectificed with an Iraqi government that lacks the legitimacy or the resources to deal with them? I agree that we are aggravating certain situations by being there by causing an insurgency that leads to isolated attacks. But how is an Iraqi government with no truly servicable military or police force going to deal with ethnic conflict, build political consensus, and rebuild the country?

[wnes]

nytimes, mc mark, stuck on stupid.

Don't make me find you quoting NYT, basso.

[Mulder]

Don't make me find you quoting NYT, basso.

I saw at least ten threads started by basso quoting NYTIMES articles.

[Sishir Chang]

Basso like many New Yorkers has a love hate relationship with the Old Grey Lady. He'll bash them and call them a rag and just as quickly trumpet an article or op-ed from them as the empitome of excellent journalism.

[wnes]

I saw at least ten threads started by basso quoting NYTIMES articles.

Yeah, I should've said "find you having quoted."

[thacabbage]

1. It is still debatable what percentage of the insurgents are not Iraqi and
2. glynch seemed to be allluding to the death of civilian non-combatants-- a group to which insurgents do not belong.
1. Actually most reports confirm that only roughly 6% of the insurgency is composed of foreign fighters, contrary to propoganda spewed by the Bush administration.
2. I don't see how that is relevant if you consider that this is not the Iraqi military we are fighting. Those are civilians defending their country from a foreign occupation. You wouldn't fight tooth and nail if the Chinese overthrew the United States military and attempted to occupy Houston?

[jo mama]

I saw at least ten threads started by basso quoting NYTIMES articles.

a 15 second basso thread starting search brought these up...

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=102319

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=101620

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=101441

[basso]

a 15 second basso thread starting search brought these up...

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=102319

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=101620

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=101441

i often quote the times, not sure what the big deal about that is.

[jo mama]

i often quote the times, not sure what the big deal about that is.

its not a big deal, but seems like you wouldnt quote something so much that you find to be "stuck on stupid".

i sure wouldnt get so much of my news from something i found "stupid".

perhaps you could discuss the content of the article rather than just hurling insults.

[basso]

its not a big deal, but seems like you wouldnt quote something so much that you find to be "stuck on stupid".

i sure wouldnt get so much of my news from something i found "stupid".

perhaps you could discuss the content of the article rather than just hurling insults.

the content of the "article", which is an oped piece, looks clearly backwards, only wants to play the blame game "(or more accurately, i told you so), and offers nothing nin the way of looking forward. that's why i said they're stuck on stupid. it'd be interesting to hear from the times, or any other liberals, how they'd address the current state of affairs. history will judege whether they were right, or W was wrong, about invading iraq. the question before us is, what do we do now? the times has no answer.

[rhadamanthus]

tell you what basso

You list the news organizations you find appropriate so I'll know better next time.

Basso, illustrated.


http://www.geocities.com/rhadamanthus23/Monty.683.g.gif

[pirc1]

the content of the "article", which is an oped piece, looks clearly backwards, only wants to play the blame game "(or more accurately, i told you so), and offers nothing nin the way of looking forward. that's why i said they're stuck on stupid. it'd be interesting to hear from the times, or any other liberals, how they'd address the current state of affairs. history will judege whether they were right, or W was wrong, about invading iraq. the question before us is, what do we do now? the times has no answer.

Just curious, why would NYT have an answer for the mess in Iraq? It is the job of the media to point out government mistakes but it is not the job of the media to fix those mistakes. Are you suggesting the editors of NYT should be running this country? :confused:

[insane man]

2. I don't see how that is relevant if you consider that this is not the Iraqi military we are fighting. Those are civilians defending their country from a foreign occupation. You wouldn't fight tooth and nail if the Chinese overthrew the United States military and attempted to occupy Houston?

They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bull****, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my *****
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my *****

[topfive]

it'd be interesting to hear from the times, or any other liberals, how they'd address the current state of affairs. history will judege whether they were right, or W was wrong, about invading iraq. the question before us is, what do we do now? the times has no answer.

I thought YOU guys had all the answers! Where's all that bluster and arrogance, now that almost everyone is beginning to realize how poorly thought-out this administration's rush to war was?

[real_egal]

Just curious, why would NYT have an answer for the mess in Iraq? It is the job of the media to point out government mistakes but it is not the job of the media to fix those mistakes. Are you suggesting the editors of NYT should be running this country? :confused:

Wouldn't it be much better? What's the downside?:)

[thacabbage]

I thought YOU guys had all the answers! Where's all that bluster and arrogance, now that almost everyone is beginning to realize how poorly thought-out this administration's rush to war was?
Pretty telling isn't it? "We didn't listen now YOU get us out of our mess!"

[pirc1]

Wouldn't it be much better? What's the downside?:)

Well for one Basso would go crazy.

[Batman Jones]

Just curious, why would NYT have an answer for the mess in Iraq?

This is the new logic, unbelievable and hilarious as it is. If we on the left won't solve the problems created by the right, we're "stuck on stupid." They've given up defending their incredible (and incredibly deadly) mistake and are now focused on tarring us for not fixing it. It really is amazing.

[No Worries]

its not a big deal, but seems like you wouldnt quote something so much that you find to be "stuck on stupid".
The next time basso posts a new thread quoting the NYT, I think we all should reply with the
"stuck on stupid" catch phrase.

Good times.

[glynch]

Bullard, while we can thoretically think of how our troops can try to make good the damage they have been previously been ordered to cause, it is still the motivation of the Bush gang to permanently occupy Iraq and so theoretical good things that we could do are unlikely to happen. The troopds are still engaged in massive destruction as they continually sweep through Sunni cities again and again creating more destruction and enemies each time.

[wnes]

I listened to Bush's speech the other day and thought in general it was a good speech that hit upon some important themes but what's so troubling about it though is that while Bush might be right about the need to fight terrorism he's been wrong about how he's doing it.


This is so Kerry-esque. It won't work.

[Bullard4Life]

Bullard, while we can thoretically think of how our troops can try to make good the damage they have been previously been ordered to cause, it is still the motivation of the Bush gang to permanently occupy Iraq and so theoretical good things that we could do are unlikely to happen. The troopds are still engaged in massive destruction as they continually sweep through Sunni cities again and again creating more destruction and enemies each time.

Gotcha. I agree, if we just follow the Bush strategy it WILL cotinue to simply be a quagmire.

[wnes]

Gotcha. I agree, if we just follow the Bush strategy it WILL cotinue to simply be a quagmire.

Just notice this. B4L, congrats for becoming a Senior Member!

[Bullard4Life]

Just notice this. B4L, congrats for becoming a Senior Member!

Thanks, now anyone have a link to the tipjar? Now that I have an actual job I think I should stop being a moocher.

[jo mama]

Basso, illustrated.


http://www.geocities.com/rhadamanthus23/Monty.683.g.gif

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW09-21-05.jpg

[basso]

This is the new logic, unbelievable and hilarious as it is. If we on the left won't solve the problems created by the right, we're "stuck on stupid." They've given up defending their incredible (and incredibly deadly) mistake and are now focused on tarring us for not fixing it. It really is amazing.

does not what happens in iraq affect us all? aren't they american problems, not merely of the left or of the right? i'm fine letting you have your little i-told-u-so-bitch-fest, but it gets tiresome after a while, and as i've noted several times, it's really irrelevant to what we do now. you've stated quite forcefully that you just want it to stop- you don't seem to care how. for the purposes of this arguement, i'll stipulate that you-told-us-so. if that's the case, is "just make it stop" really the wisest course for america, let alone iraq?

[topfive]

i'm fine letting you have your little i-told-u-so-bitch-fest, but it gets tiresome after a while

I guess we're all just waiting for one of you guys -- ANY one on the right -- to say, "You know, this WAS a bad idea. How could we have been so utterly wrong?"

Until then, the i-told-u-so-bitch-fest will have to do.

[Batman Jones]

basso, I am going to continue to tell you I and we told you so at least until there is a meaningful shift in a failed (and very deadly) policy. I don't pretend to know the way out of this mess. I agree that, now that the enormous mistake was made, it is everybody's problem. But the onus is not on the opposition (and certainly not on a bbs poster) to have the solution to it. What I know, again, is this: Staying the course with something that isn't working is not the solution. More positive media coverage (or positive posts on a Rockets site - LOL) is not the solution. I am not an expert on the Middle East, war, nation building or feasible exit strategies, so it seems pretty stupid to demand that I come up with a solution. There are experts on all these things on the government payroll. I'd suggest Bush start talking to the people that warned him before this thing started. They were right and he was wrong. They very likely have a better answer to this problem than his various yes men. I only have one idea, which is that any meaningful solution to this quagmire would almost certainly begin with the involvement of the broader international community. That will not happen without some serious mea culpas. John Bolton was, of course, an extra stupid way to reach out to allies we have deeply offended. And I don't expect Bush to ease up on his stubborness about never admitting a mistake, so I don't have much hope of a greater international involvement. But that's where I'd start. Interestingly, it's where Kerry would have started too.

[Sishir Chang]

This is so Kerry-esque. It won't work.

So you think its wrong to fight terrorism just because Kerry thinks we should?

[FranchiseBlade]

does not what happens in iraq affect us all? aren't they american problems, not merely of the left or of the right? i'm fine letting you have your little i-told-u-so-bitch-fest, but it gets tiresome after a while, and as i've noted several times, it's really irrelevant to what we do now. you've stated quite forcefully that you just want it to stop- you don't seem to care how. for the purposes of this arguement, i'll stipulate that you-told-us-so. if that's the case, is "just make it stop" really the wisest course for america, let alone iraq?
Where have you been? Batman has said over and over that he wants it done correctly and that we can't abandon Iraq to total chaos. He's also said that he doesn't have any specific answers, and suggested asking the people who predicted and planned for the correct things prior to the invasion of Iraq whom this administration has gotten rid of.

I will also say again that at this point to continue on with a policy that is failing is madness. We can debate what changes need to be made, but to act like we are there so we should stay the course is the one thing that we know is failing.

[basso]

does not what happens in iraq affect us all? aren't they american problems, not merely of the left or of the right? i'm fine letting you have your little i-told-u-so-bitch-fest, but it gets tiresome after a while...

I don't pretend to know the way out of this mess. I agree that, now that the enormous mistake was made, it is everybody's problem. But the onus is not on the opposition to have the solution to it.

He's also said that he doesn't have any specific answers, and suggested asking the people who predicted and planned for the correct things prior to the invasion of Iraq whom this administration has gotten rid of.

Batman and Franchise, i'm assuming, although i could be wrong, that at some point the democrats are interested in assuming the reins of government again. "This is my anger talking" didn't work so well for the democrats in 2000, 2002, and crashed and burned rather dramatically in 2004. sooner or later, democrats will have to develop cogent policies for the issues that face america. the republicans certainly had their own bitch-fest while they were out of power, but they also put together a platform that resonated with much of america, ran on it, and won. one could argue whther they've stayed true to first principles, but the fact remains that the only interesting intellectual and philosophical debate happening in this country now is occuring on the right. no, it's not your responsibility to come up with a ideas for iraq, or indeed any other issue. but one would think you'd want to...

http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=4488724

--
Lexington
Hold the champagne
Oct 6th 2005
From The Economist print edition

The Democrats cannot rely on the Republicans' current woes to deliver victories in 2006 and 2008

TALK about trouble coming not in single spies but in battalions. For much of his first term, almost everything that George Bush touched turned to political gold. He even managed to parlay a badly-handled war in Iraq into a vote winner. But now almost everything he touches turns to dust.

The Democrats are quietly jubilant. They are seizing every chance they can get—and there are plenty of them—to brand the Republicans as the party of “corruption and cronyism”. They seem to be recruiting good candidates for next year's elections. Some even wonder whether 2006 may be their equivalent of 1994—when the Republicans won 52 seats in the House and nine in the Senate, ending 40 years of Democratic rule.

They should hold the champagne. Parties don't win elections just because their rivals hit a rough patch. They win them because they win the battle of ideas, because they think ahead and cook up cogent policies, because they offer a positive vision of the future. Bill Clinton did this brilliantly in 1992. Tony Blair did it even more brilliantly in 1997. But, so far, not the Democrats.

Can anyone name a single exciting Democratic idea for dealing with poverty? Or crime? Or reforming the public sector? Or winning the Kulturkampf with Islamic extremism? In fact, can anyone name a single exciting Democratic idea, full stop? The Democrats have squandered their years in opposition railing against the Republicans rather than recharging their intellectual batteries. They may be winning a few political battles of late—largely because of Republican incompetence. But they are losing the vision wars.

The reason for this is as simple as it is potentially lethal: the Democrats are split down the middle on everything from Iraq to gay marriage. Centrists believe in working with business, protecting family values and fighting terrorism. “We believe that the September 11th attacks changed America for ever,” says the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), “and defeating terrorism is the supreme military and moral mission of our time.” Liberal activists believe the opposite: that corporations are bad, family values are hogwash, and the war on terror a delusion.

Worse still, the wrong side is getting the upper hand. A new generation of angry young activists have used their mastery of the internet to tilt the party to the left. Groups such as Moveon.org (which claims 3.3m members) and blogs such as the Daily Kos (which has thousands of partisans venting daily) now colour the whole tone of the political debate on the left.

The teenage scribblers of the left seem to be turning the Democrats into a deranged version of Pavlov's dog—reacting to every stimulus from Professor Rove's laboratory rather than thinking ahead. Look what has happened in Congress, where the combination of a re-energised left and a ruthlessly partisan White House is making life miserable for would-be centrists. In 1994, 102 House Democrats voted in favour of NAFTA; this year, only 15 voted in favour of CAFTA, a more modest free-trade deal.

The teenage scribblers are wedded to a suicidal strategy: they think that their party's best chance of winning lies not in emulating Mr Clinton and moving to the centre but in emulating their nemesis, Mr Bush, and motivating their base. This ignores the most salient fact about American politics: there are three conservatives for every two liberals. The Democrats cannot win without carrying about 60% of moderates.

The other dysfunctional party

http://www.economist.com/images/20051008/D4105US0.jpg

Is it really that bad? Marshall Wittmann, of the centrist DLC, counsels against despair about the party's future. He points out that the anti-Bush left has a built-in sell-by date: Mr Bush will not be running in 2008. He also argues that the person who defines the character of a party is its presidential candidate—and the strongest candidates for 2008, such as Hillary Clinton and Mark Warner, are forward-thinking moderates.

There are two problems with Mr Wittmann's optimism. The first is that Moveon et al will still be in full bark against Mr Bush in 2006. That will not help in a contest where the tables are already stacked against the Democrats. In the Senate, they will be defending seven potentially vulnerable seats while the Republicans will be defending five; in the House, 41 Democrats are defending districts that Mr Bush carried in 2004 while only 18 Republicans are protecting districts that John Kerry carried.

Second, even if a centrist Democrat succeeds in winning the party nomination in 2008, he or she will have a huge mountain to climb. In “The Politics of Polarisation”, a new paper published by the Third Way group, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, two centrist stalwarts, lay out the topography. The public is profoundly sceptical of the Democrats on both “values” (only 29% of Americans regard the party as friendly towards religion) and defence (it is no accident that the Democrats have won the popular vote only in recent elections—1992, 1996 and 2000—when national security was all but absent from the debate). The party has also lost ground with two groups of swing voters: married women favoured them by four points in 1996, but backed Mr Bush by 12 points in 2004; a 16-point lead among Catholics became a five-point loss in 2004.

The 1990s showed that left-of-centre parties can climb the highest mountains provided they start early and stick to the right path. Mr Clinton made his political reputation as a reforming governor who was willing to think afresh about everything from education to free trade. No sooner was Mr Blair elected leader of the Labour Party in 1994 than he started tearing up left-wing shibboleths about public ownership and rebranding the party as “New Labour”. So far the Democratic Party has been so paralysed by its internal contradictions that it has wasted its years in opposition. Perhaps it will start laying out a blueprint for government soon. But time is short.