Bush rattled off a short list of nations who were bribed by the US to "support" the war. I could read a MUCH longer list of nations that were against this action. If the length of the list is the determining factor, then the war in Iraq was COMPLETELY unwarranted.
Be careful, Nomar. I'd hate to lose a fellow Ridley Scott/Blade Runner fan. I couldn't disagree with your politics more, but politics is just one facet of one's interest. Sometimes I agree with bama, for example, on topics of mutual interest, even some political ones. If you're typing something you think is "over the top", then it probably is and maybe you should back away. That keeps you around. On the other hand, I've been trying to think of something I've agreed with T_J on and my memory fails me. His comedy can provide some amusement, however. He may not always consider it comedy (although I think he does), but it is to me. Where T_J goes wrong is during very personal attacks that uses someone's real name and so on. That's not funny at all, and I'm surprised that it hasn't got him the boot. I guess he's been lucky.
I honestly can't say if this kind of thing ever worked for you, T_J, but it has long since passed the stage where it is recognized for what you do when you've lost the argument. I suppose to save time, in our future discussions, you could just lead off with a picture and a declaration of victory...both it, and what it means, are inevitable anway. This...on the heels of your accusation of my retreting when I was in fact quoting my post made previous to yours...not good, even by your usual standards. Let's re-cap, and see if we can spot where T_J goes off line. The point we were discussing was in relation to this advocated policy of making everyone else fear us and not know what we're going to do. At one point Mulder pointed out that the unilateral approach...ie going it alone...ie consistent with what this writer was suggesting...( with me so far?) doesn't work. Basso tried to split hairs about unilateralism, which lead us to a side tracked discussion about real vs. titular multilateralism. My comments were always along this line, including the use of 'real'. You got into it, I assumed, to play the village idiot again, and try and keep this debate off line, and concentrate on a semantic, literal translation of unilateral, which was not only irrelevent to the discussion ( which was about going against global desires...ie what we did, and what he is saying is working) and keep stressing that, on paper, we're not unilateral in this. People, including myself, try to point out that that's not the point we're discussing, we're discussing real support. I even try and save you time and face by simply re-posting where I had previously made this distinction. You respond, incredibly, but not surpisingly, by accusing me of having pre-emptively retreated, aAnd include a reference to excrement as you feel it relates to the basis of my argument. I turn it around, and point out the problem with having accused me of retreating before the fact. You come back with another insult ( again, unfounded...have never claimed to be the BBS anything, have never made serious reference to my intellect, etc.), a declaration, and a picture. Well, Joege, sisnce we're post applying moves, here's what I wrote about you a day or so agao, admitedly as a retreat from what you said today... By my count, you've covered the pic, the declaration, the insult, the complaint about insult, and the ALL CAPS. ALl that's left now, T_J, is a reference to your pseudo war, pointing out a typo, and a quick fade into silence...
well, it looks like even thomas friedman in the uber conservative NYTimes thinks the Bush Doctrine is bringing positive results: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/opinion/19FRIE.html -- Look Who's Talking By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN One major criticism of the Iraq war is that by invading Iraq, the U.S. actually created more enemies in the Arab-Muslim world. I don't happen to believe that, but maybe it's true. What the critics miss, though, is that the U.S. ouster of Saddam Hussein has also triggered the first real "conversation" about political reform in the Arab world in a long, long time. It's still mostly in private, but more is now erupting in public. For this conversation to be translated into broad political change requires a decent political outcome in Iraq. But even without that, something is stirring. The other day the always thoughtful Osama al-Ghazali Harb, a top figure at Egypt's semiofficial Al Ahram center for strategic studies, the most important think tank in Egypt, published an article in the country's leading political quarterly, Al Siyassa Al Dawliya, in which he chastised those Arab commentators who argue that the way in which the U.S. captured Saddam was meant to humiliate Arabs. "What we, as Arabs, should truly feel humiliated about are the prevailing political and social conditions in the Arab world — especially in Iraq — which allowed someone such as Saddam Hussein to . . . assume the presidency. We should feel humiliated that Saddam was able . . . to single-handedly initiate a number of catastrophic policies that transformed Iraq, relatively rich in natural, human and financial resources, into the poorest, most debt-ridden country in the Arab world, not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed and displaced. We should feel humiliated that some of our intellectuals, supposedly the representatives of our nations' consciences and the defenders of their liberty and dignity, not only dealt with Saddam, but also supported him. . . . The Arabs should have been the ones to bring down Saddam, in defense of their own dignity and their own true interests." Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari, the former dean of Qatar University's law school, just published an essay, in London's widely read Arabic-language daily Al Sharq Al Awsat, which asks whether the world is better off because of the U.S. ouster of Saddam. Those who say it is worse off, he argues, see only half the picture. "Let us imagine the world if America had listened to the French and German logic saying: Give the murderers of the Serbs and the Arabs a chance for a diplomatic solution. Would Bosnia, Kuwait and Iraq be liberated? Let us describe the situation of the Arabs, and especially of Iraq, had America listened to the European counsel that said: democracy is not suited to the Arabs, their culture is contrary to it. . . . See now how many countries are turning toward democracy. Even Afghanistan has a constitution. In Iraq [they are drafting] a new constitution and handing over the regime, and Libya has changed." (Translation by Memri.) Saudi Arabia's leading English-language newspaper, Arab News, published an editorial last week denouncing the murder of Iraqi police recruits by pro-Al Qaeda sympathizers and "Baathist thugs." The Saudi paper asks, What do these terrorists fear? It adds: "Iraqis are keen to take back control of their country, and many are acutely aware of the opportunity they now have to build a new and fairer society. There is once again a pride in being an Iraqi. It is this growing feeling of restored honor and the rising confidence of Iraqis which is now the target of the terrorists." Reuters reported from Damascus on Feb. 5 that a Syrian human rights group has started circulating a petition via the Internet — so far signed by about 1,000 people — calling for an end to state-of-emergency laws. It says: "We, the signatories, herein demand the Syrian authorities lift the state of emergency and annul all associated measures." Syria suddenly just freed over 100 political prisoners. The Lebanese analyst Sahar Baasiri, writing in the leading Lebanese daily An Nahar, said the response of Palestinian officials to two corruption charges — one in a French weekly about millions of dollars reportedly transferred to Yasir Arafat's wife in Paris and the other an Israeli report about a Palestinian cement factory, owned by a prominent Palestinian family, that is alleged to be secretly providing the cement for the wall Israel is building in the West Bank — was not sufficient. "A clear and decisive Palestinian response" is required, the paper wrote. Maybe the Iraq war made America new enemies. But it's certainly triggered a new discussion.__
basso, have you read the Pat Buchanan column linked by MadMax in MacBeth's "Buchanan" thread? If you haven't, I'd love to see your take, Max's and bama's on it in that thread. Check it out.
Thomas Friedman is a conservative. The New York Times also publishes William Safire's columns. It's not like the Washington Times, the WSJ or the Weekly Standard where only one point of view is presented.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first sentence, though he has been pro-Iraq war since way back when. I don't see the ringing endorsement of the Bush doctrine in here that was promised to me, however and am somewhat puzzled.
i haven't read it, but since i think buchanan's an idiot, and MacBeth's current love affair w/ all things Buchanan notwithstanding, i'm likely to find the column idiotic. i'll take a look though. and no, Friedman is not a conservative. support for the war, or grudging support for some of the war's outcomes, does not a conservative make.
Maybe we could have triggered this discussion by not slavishly supporting Israel AND Saudi Arabia AND Saddam Hussein. If we actually supported democracy and human rights in the Middle East, it might start a conversation about democracy and human rights in the Middle East.
Whether or not you think someone is conservative you did not address the point that the New York Times opinion page prints opinions of all kinds unlike the usually referenced fare from the Weekly Standard, WSJ, Washington Times, Fox...
Joseph Wilson- In 2002, Wilson, a retired ambassador and former director of Africa policy for the National Security Council, traveled to Africa to look into reports that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. His report -- the accusations were bogus. But when President Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to purchase nuclear material from Africa, Wilson wrote an op-ed article in The New York Times accusing the Bush administration of twisting intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq. The article caused the administration to back away from its original claims. "The intelligence was manipulated and twisted to support a political goal that had already been established," he tells FRONTLINE. This interview was conducted on August 12, 2003. excerpt:
the weekly standard and washington times are hardly equivalent in circulation or national import to the nytimes. the journal has al hunt- read his stuff- he hates W. the nytimes has had one long time conservative columnist in william safire, but he's hardly a neocon. they recently added another in david brooks whose commentary i enjoy on the news hour, but he's watered things down in his times opeds. friedman is all over the map- i would call him an egotist, not con or lib. the times' own editorials (not the oped page) remain slavishly, hysterically anti-bush and anti-republican. that's fine, it's an editorial page, but when that viewpoint starts to creep into the rest of the paper i object. there was a recent article about the cool, moby-listening, bush-haters in the style section. Frank Rich's weekly screed in arts & leisure is an embarassment to rational thinking. this week the business section had an article about "broken republican promises" to simplify the tax code, and i've seen anti-bush bias creep into the sports section. the paper has been corrupted by its own lack of objectivity and is nearly unreadable today. in large part this accounts for the rise and importance of alternative news sources like Fox, WS, WashTimes, etc.
yet so many here are. i hear this charge bandied about here all the time, yet there's never any proof. there's ample evidence that the reverse is true. give it time. not to sound too 1992 about it, but we need to "stay the course."
I said human rights and democracy. We're not supporting human rights in Israel by failing to hold them accountable for repression of the Palestinians. As far as our policy in Iraq- 1. We supported Hussein for many years. 2. I'll wait till after there has been a free and fair election in Iraq to certify our support for democracy there. As for Afghanistan- I truly hope that a stable democracy will emerge there, but I think the jury's still out.
By the way, let's hear what Jack Webb, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, has to say about the Bush Doctrine. (Full Disclosure- The first part of this column was critical of Kerry) Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence. There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves. At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries. Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message. Most seriously, Bush has yet to explain the exact circumstances under which American military forces will be withdrawn from Iraq. Nor has Kerry given us a picture of how his strategy would differ from the course that has been set. Once these answers are given, all of us will be able to understand more clearly the true legacy of the past. James Webb was secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, and a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam. He also is an author and filmmaker.
