Kinda like the big call to be tough on corporate crime after Enron, right? I guess companies haven't been doing the same things as Enron for the last 10 years. Sometimes things happen (hint: 9/11) that change your focus.
Thanks, Cohen. This is real criticism. So I don't really like how the author wrote that, precisely, but if I might read between the lines or interject my own feelings on the matter, some of us would hate to see beligerent, bad international behavior rewarded. The ends do not justify the means, if we are to have the respect of the world community, according to some people, including me.
For that guy being dipped in a vat of acid in Baghdad, does he really care whether Bush's behaviour is rewarded? If Saddam develops the bomb and hand if off to terrorists, or uses it to blackmail neighbors in the region, do we care about whether this benefits Bush? As I mentioned in another thread, I don't care about Bush's motivations unless 1) I must assess the veracity of his claims or 2) am voting. What's important to me are the fundamental reasons for war with Saddam. Can he destabilize the region? Can he attack the US? Does he torture and murder his people? etc etc
Okay, read those 2 quotes I picked out. 1. What freedoms are we losing. I haven't lost any. 2. There hasn't been any religious cant coming from Bush. This guy makes Bush seem like a Crusader from the 1500's, but all Bush has said was how much he supports Muslims in America and how this is not a war against Muslims. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of American policy? What on earth is he talking about? 3. He lists the oil companies Bush was affiliated with. As if this were a crime. Or as if it means Bush wants to control the oil. Give me so real evidence, not sophomoric speculation. 4. He says Baghdad presents no clear and present danger to its neighbors. How does he know this? If that's true, then why does the UN have sanctions on Baghdad? Bottom line, this guy is a leftwinger with a psychotic hatred of America, and you are agreeing. Either that or you aren't telling us about some special brownies.
Disagreeing with you does not equal "hating America." I don't expect you to understand that, but just in case there is a neural glimmer of mental ability to change in any way, I want to reiterate this. As for your points, (which I appreciated until you acused me of hating America or being on drugs). 1. Read the "Patriot Act," please. Even though you might not care about what's being lost, you, as a fine, upstanding American, will enjoy reading something with "Patriot" in the title. 2. This is your best point. However, to say Bush has religious leaning is to ignore many of his proposed policies, such as government support for religious organizations. I am not saying these policies are bad, in my opinion, but they are obvious policies. He also massively cut funding for international organizations that promote birth control (of all sorts, mind you). This reflects an allegiance to certain policies of the religious right. 3. As with Clinton, Bush I, et cetera, a list of campaign contributors gives one a good sense of policies to come. Then, to dismiss reference to Bush's career as "sophomoric" in a (would be) discussion of his political tendencies is one of the single most absurd acts of party devotion I have seen yet. 4. It has been widely documented that Iraq is far weaker now, after the sanctions, than it was after the Gulf War. You are correct that he does not back up this claim. But, honestly, most of the world sees Iraq as a threat to its own people more than to any neighboring country. Most Middle Eastern nations are begging for restraint, and they wouldn't do this if they perceived an impending threat. One more thing that you could learn: I'm not closing my note with an insulting bit of bile or an insulting drug reference or an acusation of your devotion to the US. I think you want what's best for all of us, I think we disagree, and I think the only thing you should change is dismissing people who don't agree with you.
Cohen, I get what you're saying, but you're misreading me, or I haven't explained myself. I don't mind anything benefitting Bush. I am not a Democratic loyalist. I want to be proud of Bush, actually. I truly and deeply care about the means we pursue to the end because if we act to further lose the respect of people in this world, we are going to create more, many more, terrorists than we have already. I don't care about Bush's resume as president. I care about my country and its actions, its righteousness and its justice. I don't think the rest of the world is full of crap, so if more of it keeps learning to hate my country, I will want my country to look in the mirror and figure out what's going on. Okay, I've made my points. God knows why. I'm signing off the thread.
I wasn't saying you hated America. I am saying the author does. The brownies thing is just a joke. I am not accusing you or other people of hating America, and I did not mean to imply that you hated America. As for the article, I think his hatred is obvious. He's saying things like "America has gone mad" and using words like "junta" in regards to our government. He flat out said there has not been a democratic process in regards to Iraq, when in fact we have been talking about it for a long time and even had an election. He describes us a crazy "tiger" that has "penned" Britain into a corner (factually innaccurate by the way). The religious stuff? Well that just sounds hateful. As far as your points: 1. Yes, the Patriot Act does cause concern among many people. But to say that it is "systematically eroding" our civil liberties is just innaccurate. But then I guess he doesn't care for a reasoned and fair analysis. 2. I don't doubt that Bush is religious and that he supports programs that are favorable to religious institutions. I agree with you. But that's not what this guy is saying. I really don't know how to describe what this guy wrote regarding religion, but it sounds pretty disgusting. 3. I am in no way implying that Bush's corporate history won't influence his behavior. But just like in (2) this author is implying so much more. He's basically implying that Bush is greedy, evil, monstrous, and nothing short a murderer and a traitor. 4. I'm not sure so many don't view Saddam as a threat. They are protected now because US troops are there, but without them then Iraq may try to invade neighboring countries again. They know they are safe in the short run and are playing the political game. Saudi Arabia is good at that. This is a debatable point but this guy states it as fact. I don't doubt that there are many bases on which to criticize Bush. I have read many of them and agreed with many. But this is nothing but hatred and ignorance, and it's disappointing to see so many agree. I really don't understand why this type of rhetoric resonates with some poeple. And I don't think this guy deserves anything but to be made fun of, and he should be accused (humorously) of smoking pot as well as crack. Your analysis is much more fair and balanced, and I respect your opinion.
Hey, I agree with you. It is important to me how the US is viewed around the world. I'm just saying that this author and many others totally discount the humanitarian aspects of this simply because they question Bush's motives. I don't care for that logic. As a country, it's time we changed our foreign policy. As I have stated before, we should do what's right not what's in out best interest. Option 2 is not just 'wrong', it's short-sighted. I was disappointed when Clinton even felt compelled to defend each foreign policy decision in terms of how it benefited US (although I give him credit for somehow getting us into Somalia and Bosnia anyway; they were not to serve our direct interests).
What does north korea have to do with 9/11 again? Nothing? Okay thought so. Iraq would be a war against tyranny, not a war against terrorism. Terrorists don't field armies or control countries. We've lost focus and we're destroying our credibility more every day with the U.N.
curious Batman, I did a search for John Le Carre and this is the first sentence of the top hit. <blockquote><hr>English writer known for disillusioned, suspenseful spy novels based on a wide knowledge of international espionage. <hr></blockquote> Is that somewhat like the US President known for disillusioned, suspenseful weapons of mass destruction scenarios based on a wide knowledge of international espionage information.
To be factual, getting into Somalia was on Bush I's orders (and his welcome to the White House gift to Bill Clinton.)
What interests and saddens me is the way in which the To War Or Not To War debate has progressed...It seems obvious to me that, as JLC stated, the current administration had a bee in it's bonnet about Iraq from the word go, and has thrown every conceivable reason for going to war with them against the fridgs door to see what sticks...9-11! What, the CIA says no connection, the public's not buying it? Hmmm...Human Rights! What, Saudi who? Oh, yeah...Hey, I know, Weapons of Mass Destruction! Et ad finitum cetera...What's sadder still is that it has been so obvious, so clumsily handled, and yet it has, over time, been successfull...as though it eroded the public's ability to resist any longer. Originally, as there was no evidence other than skin colour to connect them, the public viewed the Osama-Sadaam lonk as a little too convenient, and moreover lacking in proof...Since then, in the wake of all the other WWII style propogandizing, the public has apparently reconciled itself to the connection between the Two Arabs without one single piece of evidence having been produced in the meanwhile. What, I ask you, other than the war-time wave of automatic pro-leadership sentiment that the current administration is so obviously counting on has happened to make anyone more convinced that Iraq was behind Septenber 11th? Do people not resent being manipulated like this? It boggles my mind... And now we are at the point where intelligent people like Cohen are applying a reverse standard to the proposed war...The question asked was essentially " Does Bush's ( apparent) lack of credibility/conflict of interest really mean that we shouldn't go to war?" Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? It's not like going to war is one of those decisions you should need to be talked out of, is it? Shouldn't it, as every militaty expert from Sun Tzu to Clausevitz has claimed, be the very last resort? And what cause do we have other than that perpetuated by our governement, for good or ill...and if said government has questions about it's motives in this regard, you're damned right we should ipso facto question the war...We should hold going to war to the highest standard of credibility; we're talking about lives here. People like my friend Cohen have begun to speak as if it's a 50-50 proposition under normal circumstances...as if you weigh the pros and cons and go with the heavier hand...We're talking about invading another country here, not what colour we should re-paint Camp David. The decision to go to war should be made only after every other option has been exausted...Even if you accept the Bush stance that there is a situation here beyond the status quo plus political expediency, it hasn't even broken out a sweat let alone been exausted....Nuclear threats are easy to claim, frightening, and just a little obvious, no? I mean, isn't that the lowest common denominator to appeal to, the threat of imminent immolation? But is it real? What has Iraq done in the last 5-10 years that makes us think that they are suddenly in the grip of an appocalyptic sucidal madman? A despot, yes...But a fairly run of the mill one who just happens to have the fortune of controlling a large amount of fossil fuel...or the disadvantage now, I suppose. Other than the oil there is little to seperate Saddam from the kind of tinker tyrant who the US spent the Cold War slapping backs with...Oh, wait...He is one of them. Tyrants, especially ones with as long a tenure as Hussein know one thing above all others; How to stay in power. What possible use could orchestrating some sort of far fetched nuclerar plot be to the long term survival rate of the current Iraqi regime have? You and I can both see that it would be suicidal, and Hussein knows a hell of a lot more about power politics than either of us. We are supposed to be both a democracy and a people of freedom...Both of those claims come with a heavy responibility: We have the right and moreover the duty to question our government's actions and intentions, and never more so than at a time like this. America is poised on the brink of becoming just another everyday imperial power, and we are supposed to stand for something more than our own best economic interests. Are we really that convinced that this war is morally justified and that there are no ther options, or do even the most knee jerk jingoistic Bush supporters harbour a niggling doubt that this might just be about filling the gas tanks and the oil execs pocket books...the same oil execs who were Bush's greatest campaign supporters. And if that doubt exists, ask yourself one question...do you want to be part of a great nation who stands for freedom and justice, or just another world power in a human history filled with self serving regimes? Batman...Great Article. Thanks
Gee MacBeth, thanks for all the accolades. With friends like you... Well written piece, but way off the mark on me, and debatable on the reasons for a war. That is correct; I've asked the question, because I think Bush's credibility is only one issue regarding possible war with Iraq; there is much other information out there. Please elaborate why you think it's some kind of 'reverse standard'? Regardless, to start with, I am not convinced that Bush's lack of credibility is a proven. I have concerns, but it is all speculation. The author here seems to imply that since Bush was an oil exec...well there you go! That must be his only motivation! Don't look at any other possible reasons for war!. God forbid if we are forming opinions based on that type of evidence (...ironic, isn't it?). I not simple-minded enough to believe that decision factors that may lead to war are totally based on a single factor. I don't understand why so many people are willing to accept that this is entirely based on Bush's personal business affairs. It is proven that Iraq had WMD, they are unaccounted for, Saddam has used them in the past, and as of 10 years ago had already spent $8 billion developing nuclear weapons. Did Bush conjure up the $8 billion dollar figure? Analysts speculate that Saddam would already have a nuke if Israel didn't bomb the Iraqi facility many years ago. Does Bush control those analysts? Disturbingly, with all of the evidence of Saddam's nuclear program, and we can only imagine what he would do with them, you are willing to dismiss the threat because you think Bush may be using it in a political fashion. Stop and think about the ramifications for the world. It is also well proven that Iraq has tortured and killed scores. It is even a law to have your tongue cut out if you speak against the President. Some here, often those willing to support the victims under normal circumstances, tell me "you cannot consider that because Bush is 'using' it as a ploy!", or... "you cannot consider that because since it isn't a true motivating factor for Bush, the US loses credibility", or even.... "but there are so many other regimes that torture people". None of these statements explain why I shouldn't try to help these people, even at the expense of our nation's credibility. Are you really empathizing with these people? Next thing: oil. I don't buy that Bush is doing this entirely for his family fortune. Does it enter his decision making process in the slightest? I don't care. It is well established that all of our Presidents, for many years, have sought to insure consistent oil flow for the US/global economy. Still, for me, it is not reason enough to go to war, by itself. So what are the possible decision factors about going to war? What potential impact do they have? What is the certainty of them occurring w/o removing Sadddam? Item Impact Likelihood Decision % Un-democratic ? 100 ? Oil Instability ? ? ? Nukes ? ? ? Other WMD ? ? ? Human Rights ? 100 ? Bush’s Fortune ? ? ? Bush’s Revenge ? ? ? Can you honestly say that the first 5 items are irrelevant, and are not part of the decision making process? Which items, regardless of impact/likelihood, would tip the scales for war? I don't think we would go to war, wrong or right, just to give democracy to Iraqis nor just to end the human rights abuses. Oil instability/global economy? Maybe, but not for me. Nukes? Before 9-11, probably not. Now, yes. So, I find it unacceptable for Saddam to have nukes. First option: diplomacy. Forget it, let's not even go there. Second: Embargo. Nope. Third: Inspections. That's where I'm at. I don't know how much confidence I have in the inspections, but I am glad they are progressing and we are not at war yet. I have great hope that the Saudi's can overthrow Saddam and keep Iraq an Arab affair. With all of the potential reasons for war I listed above, I am still not convinced of the need for war. Nukes are the trigger for me. I don't know if the inspections can/will be successful. Yet some here assume that any who argue that we should keep the war option on the table are 'for war'. That's 50-50? Only in the eyes of someone who won't support war under any circumstance. I won't let my decision process about Iraq be muddied about whether someone is trying to manipulate my opinion. I don't blindly trust the words of a politician. In this instance, there is enough other information out there to have formed my opinion. Finally, I find it surprising that so many can se readily dismiss the threat of Saddam having a nuclear weapon. Tell me, how do you do that? How can you guarantee that he won't get one, threaten others with it, and even use it? IMO, that's in his nature. He didn't spend $8 billion for nothing...what do you think his intentions are?
At the end of the day, one must can only judge a politician by his actions and not his words. Its was Bush's actions that sent troops to Somalia. Or are you suggesting that Bush was acting on Clinton's orders when he sent the troops?
