I just have one question about the opening post... what do you want the New York Times to call Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia? "The turrists"?
What Zarqawi calls it, "Al Queda in Iraq." i can only assume the times doesn't want to raise the obvious question of why Iraq matters to al queda.
Really? They are interested in it because there was a power vaccum, and chaos after the invasion. Al Qaeda wasn't there before, and now they are. It wasn't important enough to Al Qaeda to be there until after we get there. I don't imagine anyone on either side of the issue would be reluctant to talk about that.
To be clear, the President's positions are not necessarily my positions, but i support him when his words and deeds support action that I believe to be rightous and just. The arguement i've seen so often that says "this is Bush's war, not mine, i didn't vote for him, etc." is completely at odds with JFK's call to service in his inaugural address ("Ask not what your country can do for you..."). This is america's war, and it's success or failure will have consequences for this country long after George Bush has ceased to be President. I'm also completely confounded that democrats have adopted this stance in defense of one of the worst regimes on the planet. It would be one thing if we had invaded, oh, Venezuela (or France!) where the regime, however brutal, was installed by ostensibly democratic means and seems to enjoy the support of at least some of its people. In Iraq, Saddam engaged in campaigns of extermination against his own people, launched wars of agression against his neighbors, provided support, logistics, training and funding to terrosists, and enriched himself with money stolen from the UN while his people starved. And yet, democrats suggest we should have left this man in power because he didn't posses WMD or pilot the plane that hit the south tower. A true liberal would be out front on this issue, demanding Bush move more agressively to obliterate the Baathist regime and it's al queda allies of convenience, and instill democratic values in a society that has never had the opportunity to experience them. A true liberal would recognize the liberation of iraq for the noble undertaking that it is.
Nobody is coming to the defense of the Saddam regime. Stop repeating that lie, please. Or else provide the proof. Put up or shut up on that issue. War opponents wanted Saddam gone, but didn't believe a pre-emptive war based on misleading evidence using the rationale of WMD's was the to do it. Democrats never suggested that Saddam be left in power. Clinton initiated the regime change policy. The Democrats were just smart enough not to use means of unjust war to bring it about. What is more interesting is how exaggerate his support for terrorism. Saddam gave money the families of martyrs in the Israeli palestinian conflict. A small percentage of those martyrs were suicide bombers. That hardly equals "provided support, logistics, training and funding to terrosists". The mere fact that you have to exaggerate those claims to make this action seem justified speaks volumes. But the main point here is that you once again level base charges without one shred of proof. That doesn't even work for Bush in the media anymore, and it certainly won't work for you on a message board.
the bush family has had close ties w/ the saudi royal family for decades, yet they are one of the most brutal and oppresive regimes on the planet. but like saddam, they are no threat to america (except for the fact that it was mainly saudi's who were responsible for 9/11)
I can think of at least two posters who fall into this category. One of them I've never taken seriously, and while the other has perhaps been consistent in his views since before the war, the prepoderance of his posts highlighting US failures, alledged "atrocities", his implications that we deserve to be attacked, have, for me at least, crossed the line. As for politicians, it'd be hard to argue that they actively want america to lose, but to the extent they advocate policies that would hand victory to our enemies, and engage in political grandstanding (closed sessions) and efforts to rewrite history, their behavior is "deeply irresponsible." there are lives at stake, american lives, and why do anythig that would embolden the enemy, provide him with hope that if he can just hold on, america will tire of the war and pick up and go home. that is victory for al queda in iraq, and a disaster for the people of iraq, the middle east, and ultimately this country as well.
Basso, maybe you actually believe that there are posters on this board who want America to fail. If that is the case, please show the proof. Show one thing they have said that would lead you to believe that. Posting factual reports does not equal wanting the U.S. to fail in Iraq. If you are going to make charges then provide the proof.
I agree that in the war against terrorism, every American is a combatant and potential target. We all support security for our nation and safety for our troops. Even Liberals have a healthy sense of self preservation, you know. When Liberals criticize the war effort, we are not saying we do not want to fight terrorists, but rather we would not fight terrorism in the same way our President is. Some of us believe in containing Iraq while concentrating our efforts on hunting down Osama Bin Laden. Others think Iran and North Korea may have been more suitable targets. Some Americans are wary of any war that is not, in the strictest sense, absolutely necessary for the protection of our country. These are disagreement over means and not ends. Ultimately we all want a safer America. Like you said, the results of the war will have consequences beyond Bush's presidency. That is very true. Also true is the fact that the bitter partisanship created by this war will also affect our country for many years, perhaps even after Iraq ceases to be an issue. I just hope that even though we disagree over means, we can at least come to an understanding that both Conservatives and Liberals want to win the war against terrorism. I think a fair number of liberals would've supported the war, but they wanted more legitimacy under the UN, more multilateral support from our allies, and more facts regarding the cost of nation building in such a hostile region of the world. But undoubtedly at least some liberals who would've otherwise supported the war under a Democratic president didn't do it because they just hated Bush. I can't prove it, but it just seems likely given the bitter partisanship created in the last few elections. However, will you at least consider that not all of us Liberals are deliberately being partisan and that some of us actually have legitimate complaints about the war that is not based on a desire to score political points against Bush? (Just as, for example, I can see how some Republicans are truly disgusted by Clinton's sex scandal, because, let's face it, having sex with an intern is a clear abuse of power over a subrodinate.)
You keep sneaking this in, but it's just not true i've never heard anyone here defend Saddam that's just silly. There are many terrible regimes on the planet, few of which have as much oil sitting underneath their feet.
There are several misconceptions here. to take your last point first, the insurgency is not fueled by ordinary iraqis' desire to rid the country of an occupying power. the insurgency is made up of Baathist remnants intent on restoring the dictatorship, and their allies in al queda and other jihadis who want to prevent the establishment of democracy at all costs. A democratic iraq would demonstrate that democracy can flourish anywhere, and undermine the hatred that fuels al queda. democracy is an end in itself. A Shiite democracywould pose no threat to american interests. we may disagree with the policies of france, germany, or other democracies, but we do not live in fear that they will blow up the pentagon. a truly democratic iraq would recognize iran for the theocracy it is. Victory is also a process, and i doubt we will see a true demarcation point, but when we have provided the conditions for iraqis to assume full responsibility for the security of their citizens, and provided the framework for representative government, we can be said to have achieved a measure of success. In fact, we are well on the way in the political sense, and we should all wish for the success of the elections next month, rather than doing our best to undermine their significance or minimize their impact.
On Thursday President Bush delivered a stinging rebuke to critics of his handling of the iraq war and prewar intelligence. ... So Bush is trying to frame a debate he thinks he can win? Pathetic. How about outlining a set of Iraq policy decisions that would led to a successful exit of American troups and growth of Iraqi democracy? Bush might have to admit some of his policy f*ckups in Iraq, so *uck that; let's debate!!!
I think one has to look at the intent of the criticism to judege whether a specific charge is "acceptable." the Bush lied arguement has been proven false, over and over again, and yet it continues to surface, here, at the DNC, and in the liberal press. one must ask why? what is the point of constantly repeating charges that have been shown to be false, if not to damage the president, his ability to govern, and ultimately proesecute the war. The cherry picking arguement is just an extension of the bush lied arguement, and the "congress didn't have the same intel" arguement (a particularly dishonest arguement, since the PDB, which congress indeed did not have access to, tended to paint the threat from iraq in even more dire terms than the NIE) is a further extension of the same thesis- Bush was dishonest and lied this country into an unnecessary war. Again, i ask you, what is the point of these arguements, if not to undermine the president and the war effort? as i said a post or two above, such arguements embolden the enemy, encourages him to hang on, and ultimately puts the lives of american soldiers at risk.
I'm glad you enjoy my rhetorical devices sam. you left out trotskyite, fifth-columnist, along with fellow traveler. only you could charge mccarthyism in my personal lexicographic molotov-ribbentrop pact.
by their words ye shall know them. the proof is out there- feel free to use the handy search function to find your own examples. i don't feel it's productive, in the context of this thread, to name names. i'm sure they know who they are.
Here is my take, red-state liberal that I am: Bush didn't lie during the runup to the war in Iraq. Let me repeat for those who do not understand: Bush didn't lie during the runup to the war in Iraq What Bush did do was to promote intelligence reports that supported the idea that we should attack Iraq while suppressing intelligence reports that did not support the idea we should attack Iraq. Bush manipulated intelligence to serve his purpose. Bush did not lie during the runup to the war in Iraq. He misled during the runup to the war in Iraq by playing fast and loose with the intelligence reports, and now he is paying the price for his actions.
How did you come to the conclusion that insurgency is not fueled by ordinary iraqis' desire to rid the country of an occupying power? Is it backed by facts? Any survey? Poll? Opinions from focus groups? Or just wishful thinking? Democracy can not be forced. A Shiite democracy where Sunnis are oppressed is not true democracy either. There was no question Saddam was brutal in his suppression of Kurdish minorities. But that was not the initial reason for invading Iraq -- you can not retrofit your goal as you go along in the matter of war, where significant number of lives are at stake. On the other hand, I seriously doubt any US administration would take lightly if there were armed uprisings, say, from the Native Americans to overthrown the government while demanding a large chunk of territory away from the Union. Those rebellious and defiant bunches are sure going to die during the conflict, or put in Gitmo, in the name of national security and unity. Anybody who thinks hatred towards America in the Arab world is born out of thin air is deluding himself. Al Qaeda's strength in Iraq was next to nothing prior to the war. Violence begets violence. The viscious cycles are not going to be stopped until some cool heads rethink themselves for their actions.
