As far as I know, the bill isn't finished yet. Who can say there will be no strings attached? His plan is to combine state preschool programs with Head Start to avoid overlapping and waste. The government not wasting money? Seems like a novel idea!... Of course it could go either way...
Blood and Iron By Paul J. Cella 07/07/2003 It is a truth so large as to almost be a truism that democracies can hardly conduct a foreign policy; that the thing must be left to an oligarchy, to an elite class of soi-disant experts. The Demos is too vast, too fickle, too passionate or alert to narrow interest, and too indiscriminate. It nevertheless applies an immense pressure upon its representatives, and may well punish those who disregard it. Any elected leader who listens too carefully to the State Department and the foreign policy oligarchy will likely pay a price at the polls -- particularly when the democracy is "all ears," so to speak, which is admittedly rare. Now a good many arguments have been made accusing George W. Bush of being a pale aristocrat; a complacent, ill-governed man whose success was inherited. I leave that dreary question aside and say here just this; that when President Bush recently responded to a question about attacks on American troops in Iraq with the defiant goad, "bring 'em on," he was uttering as profoundly democratic a sentiment as has been uttered by a high official in recent memory. "Bring 'em on" is the foreign policy of an infuriated democracy; it embodies the feelings of ten million firemen and electricians and miners, especially firemen and electricians and miners who knew men that died on September 11; and George W. Bush's popularity rests on this embodiment. Naturally, the foreign policy oligarchy is appalled; because for it democracy is at best an annoyance, at worst a monster. The oligarchy likes to manage, cajole, maintain, occasionally adjust, but rarely disturb, the status quo; it is almost wholly dependent on the status quo, whereas democracy, once aroused, cares nothing for it. Likewise, the Democratic Party is genuinely horrified as well, for reasons which can be sufficiently suggested by asking how the Democrats can possibly secure the union vote when a Republican makes public statements of this nature. President Bush is popular with precisely the constituency that the Democrats claim to represent: the common man. And thus the democracy is happy; indeed it is grimly amused and even heartened. It hears, "bring 'em on," followed by a predictable round of hand-wringing and fatuous commentary, and it thinks, "He's one of us"; or at least, and perhaps equally appealing, "He's not one of them." And I think it is this naturally democratic camaraderie (and it is important to note that it is quite natural) conveyed by President Bush, which immunizes him to charges of aristocratic irresponsibility by his opponents. The charges are too discordant with reality. To believe that Mr. Bush is a foolish aristocrat, men have to almost believe that they themselves are foolish aristocrats; and if Mr. Bush is indeed irresponsible, which he may well be, it is far nearer to the truth to say that he is a foolish democrat. In any case, I confess that I feel some of this democratic sentiment myself: not because I want to see more American soldiers ambushed by barbarians, as the tone-deaf oligarchs seem to imagine Mr. Bush as saying, but because in some primeval recess of my male brain there is an idea of honor, and it includes smaller ideas about jeers and taunts and certainly about defiance. With greater sophistication, I also recognize that honor bulks very big on the human stage of the Arab world; and, casting my eye back toward that crematorium beneath the streets of New York of that dark autumn two years ago, I read "bring 'em on" to mean: "if the Arab street speaks only the language of blood and iron, then blood and iron it will have." I cannot simply switch off the primeval recess, no matter how many imbricated layers of "enlightenment" they have laid across my brain. Nor would I want to if I could, for Honor, like its relation Patriotism, unquestionably has its proper place. The question, then, is this: Is Honor in its proper place on the lips of the President of the United States when he jeers a blood-minded enemy in public? Of that I am a touch ambivalent. I cannot say that my esteem for Mr. Bush is particularly high at the moment. His equivocations on the muddle of post-war questions; his acquiescence in the Imperial Judiciary; his embrace of dirigism in health-care policy; together these factors do not lead me to an instinctual defense of him. But I do suspect strongly that while the Arab street generally ignores the calculated banality of the foreign policy oligarchs, it is more attentive to blood and iron. http://www.defensecentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-070703C Wow. Now that's some Macho stuff. I mean, working man, unions, grrrr! Dammit, I could almost hear the Star Spangled Banner playing...
Bush's "firm" stance comes from focus groups. My guess is that he is trying to add some moderate stances to counterbalance his overwhelming number of hard core conservative stances, in order to confuse the electorate enough to get re-elected. Make no mistake about it, if Bush gets re-elected he will only pursue hard core converative policies since re-election is no longer an issue.
<b>Originally posted by B-Bob... Well, we had a very good reason to be there, and even overcame our industrial ties to the nazi armament to go fight a good fight. What's the similarity to Iraq exactly? We needed complete untruths to get us involved in an elective war of our making. Or did you read the headlines today? Check out the former US ambasador Wilson's statements. Disgusting.</b> The similarity is simple: there were a people being brutalized by a ruthless dictator. They needed help. We provided. To make matters even worse, the brutalizers were their own leaders. Those "complete untruths" (if that's indeed what they were) had been around for years. The Clinton Administration, the UN Security Council and The Bush Administration all saw worrisome indications of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. BTW, why didn't this Wilson fellow come out with this story immediately after the State of the Union address-- if he saw such a glaring discrepancy? Another note: It was Operation Iraqi Freedom not Operation American Security
It's probably not creepy to those people in those locales who have loved ones at risk and in danger. Having him there in person is a certain kind of a beneficial boost I'm sure.
Since the US spearheaded Iraq Embargo killed at least 500,000 Iraqi children, the US can hardly say that they cared about the well being of the Iraqi citizenry.
Good point, giddyup. Now only if I thought he was choosing his spots out of the pure goodness of his heart, I'd feel better. But I do stand by my wish for him to do press conferences, to talk to the rest of us more often. For example, he recently came to California, and I was all like "yes! I'll go hear him speak in person!" (I'm serious), but he just had a massively expensive fundraiser at the airport Hilton (San Francisco) and was in town for a total of 95 minutes! I mean, I know we're not his favorite town, but dayum.
Strange how that was a UN action, huh? We keep hearing from some enlightened observers how UN action is an expression of 'global will,' right? But we can blame the US for that, and give credit to the UN for removing Saddam even though they didn't do anything, accept follow the US lead and move to remove sanctions? It seems hardly worth saying again that Bush is stupid and that his political handlers will keep him on topics that will maintain his popular base while avoiding hotspots on the domestic front. He can always say the tax cuts weren't big enough to solve x problem. I think most reasonable people wish he would tackle those problems as well with this head on style. I bet would appreciate that in domestic policy just as they do in foreign policy.
That's old ground which has been trod upon. Try Saddam instead. <b>B-Bob</b>: I don't think he is choosing his spots at all. Presidential handlers do that as they have for decades. Don't overlook that most of the venues are military-related because of a very good reason. We are engaged in a titanic struggle against terrorism on at least 3 fronts: here, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
And without the US's "leadership" the Iraq Embargo would not have happened. I guess you only had black and white cranyons in your box, while growing up.
As B-Bob wrote, that would be great if that was what it was sold to the American public as. It was sold to us as part of the war on terror, that Iraq was a danger to the U.S. If it was SOLD as a war to liberate Iraqis, do you think it would have gotten as much support.
That's right, the ubiquitous fell enemy, everywhere and nowhere. Honestly, I hear you, and I am not at all going to be an idiot and say that terrorism isn't a problem. It's a big problem that will probably get worse. But I'd say it is an incredibly convenient bogeyman for a lot of weird behavior. I still don't see how that precludes him from having press conferences. (Did you see the Onion article last week where Bush declared a War on Criticism? Kind of funny.) Let's say that we can agree on this: the use of the word "titanic" is certainly appropriate, though we may use it in different ways and as different parts of speech.
Curiously, without the UN's "authorization" the Iraq Embargo would not have happened. Also curiously, without Saddam's "refusal to abide by UN dictates" it would not have happened either. And yet again, curiously, without the US's "leadership" the Iraq Embargo would not have ended. Are we responsible for the Rwanda genocide, too? I mean, I'm just pulling that one out of thin air, but since you seem to be searching for ways to hold us responsible for large numbers of deaths that we are not responsible for, might I suggest cooking up a way to blame us for that one, too? I'm sure you can think of a way to make it work, since revisionist history appears to be your forte. Oh, and look! I've got a signature now! I've gone so long without one, but I just had to get this one when I saw it...
Curiously, the US policy toward Iraq between the two wars was regime change. Pushing through an embargo was just one step in the regime change process. The US knew at the time that the embargo had a low chance of succeeding (see Cuba). The US also knew that the embargo would cause a great deal of pain and death to the Iraqi people, hopefully motivating them to oust Saddam. The embargo failed to reach its goal of regime change, but it did kill over 500,000 children. To say that the US cares about the average Iraqi citizen is laughable. They are only disposable pawns in a greater political game. You know it. I know it. Bob Dole knows it.
I don't see what's so curious about it. Policy was regime change, we changed the regime. Where's the mystery there? We didn't have to push anything through. Everyone agreed to it in 1991. Even France. The goal of the embargo was to force Saddam into compliance with UN resolutions, not to force regime change. No one ever thought it could accomplish regime change. It didn't do too good a job at accomplishing anything, it would appear, except to force Saddam to take a 12-year dent in his WMD programs. But the goal was always to force Saddam into compliance. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work? No, what the US knew was that the embargo would make it difficult for Saddam to reconstitute his weapons programs and to rebuild his army. The sanctions themselves never directly caused the suffering of the Iraqi people. The north was under exactly the same sanctions, and yet its people didn't suffer. Why? Because the US/UN administered the built-in aid to the populace there. Saddam administered the center and south. Well, actually, '"administer" is the wrong word, since he hoarded all of the food and medical supplies that were supposed to go to his people. But you didn't know that, did you? Oh wait, yes you did... You just ignored that little fact, because acknowledging it would force you to admit that it was Saddam, and not us, who was responsible for the suffering. Tell me again why the people in the north didn't starve or go without medicine? Tell me again why according to WHO figures health in the north was actually better after the war and under the sanctions than it was before the war under Saddam? Please explain that to me. Well, the goal was never regime change (where did you get that from?), and Saddam killed 500,000 people... But since when are we concerned with reality, right? I would laugh if you said that you cared, since it is painfully obvious that you don't. I mean, what did you do to help them? All you did was try to keep them enslaved under Saddam. I understand that you see them that way. This is why I never believed you when you drug out the bleeding heart, humanitarian argument to support your cause. It has always been clear that such an argument is false coming from you... When they send me to Iraq I'll be sure and tell the people there how you tried to help them.
I understand that you see them that way. This is why I never believed you when you drug out the bleeding heart, humanitarian argument to support your cause. It was that bleeding heart, liberal GWB, not I, who brought it up (to cover his *ss on the lack of WMDs issue). You know you should really get your story straight. BTW, the Iraqis who died between the start of the embargo and the start of the Oil for Food program don't count, right?
Oh, bulls*it. Before the war you were screaming about how you didn't want anyone to get killed, about how you were concerned for the Iraqis who might die in our attack. I didn't believe you then when you said it; I know now that it was a disingenuous plea. Personally, I truly believe that GWB cares far more about the Iraqi people than you or any of your nutcase friends ever did. There is absolutely no denying two facts: 1) GWB has freed them from tyrannical dictator who was responsible for killing over a million of them - and that doesn't even include the sanctions period - and 2) had you had your way they would still be enslaved and at the mercy of a man who has murdered on average 50,000 of them a year for nearly three decades and running. BTW, the Iraqis who lived in the north between the start of the embargo and the start of the Oil for Food program don't count, right? Why don't you try answering my question about the Iraqis in the north instead of ducking it with disingenuous and dishonest expressions of concern for the Iraqi people?
And before the war you were screaming about how good it will feel to satiate your bloodlust by killing all the Iraqis who got in your cross hairs. There, I can make sh*t as well as you can.
Please, I'd really like you to post an example of where I said this. Seriously. You are far better than I could ever hope to be at making sh*t up. That I concede. I am a little curious why you haven't given us an explanation on why we were responsible for the Rwanda massacre. Are you slipping? I mean, we all know the motivation is there... You still haven't answered my question about why the Kurds were so much better off than the rest of the country. Your original accusation was that it was our fault that Iraqis suffered under the sanctions; my counter was, and always has been, that it was Saddam's fault. I offered you a crystal clear and indisputable example of Iraqis who lived perfectly well under the sanctions, the only difference being that they did not live under Saddam. How do you answer that? Are you going to answer it?
C'mon, No Worries. Why was the infant mortality rate in the north actually lower than prewar levels? Why did no one actually die of friggen hunger in the north? Why is it that medicines always seemed to be available? We gave the Kurds no extra moneys during that period, no extra medicines. All we did was administer the friggen aid mandated under UN resolutions - and protect them from Saddam's attacks. Why is it that over the past 12 years the Kurds have managed to erect a manageable democracy with a market economy? Why are they the leading edge of Iraqi commerce? And health care? And how did they do it under the umbrella of sanctions??? Answer: They didn't have Saddam's fu*king claws around their throats. That is the only real difference. This question is not only threatening to you because of its implications wrt the "US imposed sanctions - 500,000 babies" delusion. It is indicative of what Iraq can become: a stable market-oriented democracy, pro-US in its foreign policy. Oh, the fu*king horror that that would mean!
