Did conservatives ever say mea culpa re:nationbuilding?

hey...i posted a pretty long post here...certainly someone could post a counter or something to that...instead of trying to insult one another. anyone?

 

I disagree with this argument, because while the government of Iraq supported terrorism to the very end according to credible reports in the British press, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia aided coalition forces in the attacks against Al Queda. I know you can see the difference.

I agree with you on this point. I don't want to live in a world that allows men like Mugabe or Kim to run countries. Civilized countries need to band together this decade and finally free the rest of the world from despotic regimes.

 

fair enough..and good points. i don't think it should be exploited for politics, though i don't think you'd find a president in the last 25 years who wouldn't.

but it seems to me the argument was being made that we shouldn't use it as a means of determining foreign policy.

 

Pakistan has been the most active country in the middle-east in catching top Al Qaeda operatives. As for Saudi Arabia it is certainly not an ideal country to ally ourselves with but if someone could post credible links that highlight clear and present ties with 9-11/Al Qaeda and Pakistan/Saudi Arabia then I am willing to be open-minded. (Please no links of commentary) Many have cited Saudi Arabia having closer ties to 9-11 then Iraq but fail to prove such claims. As for Zimbabwe I agree that tyranny should be ridded with indefinately but if you can prove they are in cohesion with Bin Laden and threat our national security that might help your case for an assault on the regime. But for me personally there was enough death in this last campaign to last me a lifetime. If this country were to invade another they will have to do a better job proving the threat to national security.

Nephew of alleged 9/11 mastermind among 6 arrested

Al Qaeda leader captured

 

I understand the relationship between the ISI, the Taliban, and Al Queda, but you also know that Musharraf (sp?) is aiding the United States in tracking down Al Queda members in his country.

You also know that while Musharraf may not have full control of the ISI, at least he is very different from Saddam. The Pakistani government is fighting Al Queda now, not supporting it.

I don't understand how you think the Iraq situation is at all analogous to Pakistan.

 

Well Sam, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

When we can get the help of foreign governments to police the radicals within their borders, then I consider that threat to be "contained".

 

......let's not even go down that road. We will only end up agreeing to disagree again.

 

Max, of course 9/11 changed everything. That doesn't mean it should be used as a shield for everything from Patriot(s) to the Iraq war to gigantic tax cuts to reshaping the Middle East a la Cheney/Rumsfeld's meetings from 97, was it?

I do not invoke 9/11 near as flippantly as the administration has. The repeated invocation is the main reason public opinion shifted in favor of the Iraq war and I am wholeheartedly with Will on the bogus nature of that.

I posted as I did because I'm past sick of hearing "9/11 changed everything" as the primary argument for various moves which would be controversial at best were it not for this tactic.

I never intoned that Bush and his people were happy about 9/11, but you can be damn sure it was a gift to them. It completely turned around his presidency and made him impervious to criticism of any kind on any subject ever since. Damn right it was a gift. And while all politicians are political, circulating memos suggesting making 9/11 a Republican issue (as was done in 02) or changing the date of the GOP convention in order to do the same thing is distasteful at best. Pretty sure our friend Refman would agree with here in principle. He has been outspoken in the past about the distasteful nature of politicizing that tragic event.

That's all. Sorry my response was late coming. Busy today and just didn't have the energy.

p.s. Stamp your feet, Jorgie. I love it when you do that.

 

fair points...i disagree some, but not entirely. i don't want to see it a politicized event either. and i would agree that it has benefited the administration, though i'd certainly like to believe they'd willingly trade in those benefits for it having never happened.

but i think it's crazy to assume that being attacked won't change policy...and in the context of this thread specifically...that it wouldn't justifiably change bush's stance on nationbuilding.

 

Max, I don't have any problem with it changing policy even to a great degree. It just seems damned convenient considering the political benefits to a 'wartime president.' Moreover, it wasn't just policy which changed -- it was a very deep philosophy which Bush argued repeatedly during the campaign and has since not just abandoned but has reversed in the most extreme possible way.

I would argue that his repeated calls for humility in our foreign policy during the campaign bear another look. His point then was that as the lone superpower, it was incumbent on us not to throw our weight around -- that it would behoove us to appear humble and to be careful we didn't appear to be reshaping the rest of the world in our image -- that we should respect other nation's sovereignty -- that the fact that we COULD reshape the world didn't mean we SHOULD, and that in fact a humble stance would serve us far better.

The candidate Bush would have argued that we are resented in certain quarters of the world for our arrogance. The president Bush has not only forgotten this, he has become the antithesis of it.

 

i agree with you here...and i hate to say that change of philosophy is because of 9/11...but i think it's because of 9/11!



all honesty...can you imagine how that event changed bush personally. get past your disagreement or dislike of the man and imagine walking into that oval office after getting off air force one that day...and sitting down in your chair...knowing that on your watch such an awful event happened. i think that would change virtually anyone on a fundamental level.

 

I'm sorry. Just one more thing.

I think it's important to note here that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and friends' plans to reshape the Middle East, starting with Iraq occurred in or around 1997 (well before 9/11) and are not disputed. Conventional wisdom goes that Bush initially opposed this plan and that his mind was changed by 9/11. Many in this administration though had designs on the democratization of the Middle East, starting with Iraq, long before 9/11. The tragedy was the excuse they used to convince Bush (and the majority of the nation) to go along. I agree with each of Will Saletan's assertions with regard to this. I don't pretend to know what's in Bush's heart or with whom the cynicism lies (himself or people in a position to change his mind), but I absolutely believe it exists.

 

Max, was posting while you were. I don't have any beef with anything you said in your last post and wasn't directly addressing it when I made my last one, which I stand by.

 

Just think Afghanistan, part deux.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13876-2003May4.html


U.S. Military Slow to Fill Leadership Vacuum Left by War



By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 5, 2003; Page A01


BAGHDAD, May 4 -- Abbas Hussein Zubaidi, a 31-year-old electronics technician who recently proclaimed himself director of Baghdad's Kindi Hospital, has never been to medical school. He has no professional experience. His only claim to power is a one-page edict from Iraq's most influential group of Shiite Muslim scholars, secured under a glass pane, that deputizes him to run the 350-bed facility.

On that authority, he commandeered the keys to the stores of medicines, food and fuel. He placed the ambulances and other vehicles under his control. He deployed armed guards at the entrances. He even seized the hospital's rubber stamp, using it to make permission slips that are doled out to his supplicants.

The hospital's doctors want Zubaidi to leave. Fearful that asking him to go could provoke his armed supporters, the doctors have repeatedly asked U.S. officials to remove Zubaidi. But more than a week after the first request was made, they said they have received no definitive response.


.
.
.
After many of the soldiers guarding a large downtown hotel pulled away at 4 a.m. today, abandoning checkpoints designed to screen visitors, hundreds of job seekers stormed into the lobby and sparked a small riot, believing that U.S. military officials and self-styled Iraqi leaders were inside.

To address security concerns, U.S. commanders have pledged to place an additional 4,000 military police in the capital. They also have urged all former Iraqi police officers to return to work with their side arms.

But at the Kindi Hospital, the doctors said they want not just more police and soldiers, but orders to deal with Zubaidi and others who have seized power without authority.

"The American Army is very powerful," the orthopedist said. "They need to use their power."

 

*gasp* looks like it may actually be happening. i'm scared!

 

Thank goodness, we've restarted the Afghanistan heroin trade. Can't let those drug dealers go broke.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/908531.asp

Theatrics of War

BY STOPPING SHORT of declaring victory, Bush prepared the country for continuing casualties. Here’s a prediction: more Americans will die in Iraq after the statue of Saddam came crashing down than died during the three-week takeover of the country. For that reason we’ll be pulling up stakes in Iraq much sooner than we should to make the war a success. Bush knows that the minute he says the war is over, pressure will escalate for rebuilding the ravaged nation. By leaving the war open-ended, Bush insulates himself at home and keeps the international community at bay.
.
.
.
For those who need a refresher course on Afghanistan, it is once again the world’s leading exporter of poppy, which is refined into heroin. Despite the $1 billion a month the United States is spending to preserve a semblance of order in Afghanistan, outside the capital, Kabul, the country is back in the hands of warlords and a resurgent Taliban. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is belittled as the “mayor of Kabul” because he can’t go anywhere else without fear of assassination. Appearing with Rumsfeld at a news conference, Karzai said, “Can we provide the whole country with a strong administration? No.” Asked why, he cited the “severe lack of human resources,” to provide security.
.
.
.
Disarming Saddam was the stated reason for invading Iraq. Bush invoked the specter of another 9-11, this time with a mushroom cloud, suggesting Saddam could pass nuclear material to the terrorists of his choice. A CIA report concluded there was little danger that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction against the United States unless provoked and left with no other option. “From a danger standpoint, the weapons of mass destruction may already have been sold to the highest bidder,” says the Senate aide.
Democrats are hoping the voters will wake up to the reality that the country is billions of dollars poorer but may not be any safer after the display of military might in Iraq. Americans like the idea of a strong, decisive leader, but dropping bombs and overcoming a fifth-rate military doesn’t make you a leader. Bush has sacrificed the good will of much of the world, and America’s troubles may be just beginning.