Big Story, non-story?
Pity the poor Nation.
The magazine, that is, not the country. The Nation’s editors must ache from bending over backwards to prove there’s nothing especially good about the good news in Iraq.
The editors feel it’s their duty to make sure the American public gets the right idea:
The outcome of the domestic debate on Iraq depends in large part on the perception of success or failure: public opinion is liable to swing in favor of staying in Iraq if people think the war is going well. This poses a challenge–and opportunity–for the peace movement, which Tom Hayden outlines on page 11. Without question, it is important to counter GOP propaganda about the surge’s “success.”
Our effort in Iraq must fail for the peace movement to succeed. Makes sense to me.
In his Nation article, Tom Hayden rallies the troops—the peace troops, that is. A man with a turn for the hackneyed and hyperbolic phrase, he wants to stop the Republicans and their “hard-core neoconservative hit squads” (am I included here? what about those soft-core neoconservative hit squads?) from—among other things—“demonizing” the saintly MoveOn.org.
Hayden seems rather miffed at the Democratic candidates for waffling on the issue of the speed of our withdrawal from Iraq:
It’s beginning to feel like 2004,” says one Washington insider at the Center for American Progress, a think tank led by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta. CAP issued a key memo on October 31 complaining about a “strategic drift” setting in among security strategists and the Democratic leaders they advise. The schizophrenia consists of wanting to end the war as painlessly as possible while running away from their anti-Vietnam past. In the triangulating phrase of Barack Obama, one can’t be seen as a “Tom Hayden Democrat” on Iraq.
Ouch.
Hayden’s relentless message since the early days of the war was to tie it to Vietnam and use the same techniques that worked back in the 70s. Victory in his cause must have seemed so very close just a few short months ago, but now it’s unraveling.
As Peter Beinart writes in this Washington Post piece, Iraq has gone recently from the major issue of the campaign to being, in his words, a “the biggest non-story of the campaign.” Wow.
I think he overstates the matter, but there’s no question that the dynamics have changed. Beinart cites polls that indicate the percentage of Americans of both parties who list Iraq as their top priority in this election has fallen precipitously, as deaths there (and news coverage of same) have fallen.
Tom Hayden certainly knows this, and doesn’t seem to like it. You’d think a peace activist would be happy if Iraq was—well, more peaceful—but not, apparently, if it happens for the wrong reasons. And the wrongest reason of all would be the success of our military campaign there.
[NOTE: Big Story, the title of this post, is a reference to Peter Braestrup’s book on the flawed media coverage of Tet.]
Neo-neo —
You should probably use quotes around “peace” activists throughout your piece.
There are, in fact, very few people in the “peace” movement with a genuine belief in peace-as-opposed-to-war.
They are anti-war, but only those wars fought by liberal-democratic countries such as the United States against vicious dictators like Saddam Hussein.
As with Hayden, the advent of actual peace, or the diminution of war, is painful to them because they want the United States (and Western civilization as a whole) to lose.
thanks
Poor Hayden. He still thinks he’s relevant. His ‘peace’ message is a joke – I think the Chicago police, back in the day, would think he carries a very different message.
The Nation thrives on doom and gloom, as does the Dem party in general.
Good post.
Two stories from Iraq
one from inside:
Later, a teacher of English said that the captain of the squad told him “next time if students throw stones, we will use our machine guns not the boots”. I really hated myself hearing that news as I am a teacher myself. What shall I do if I were there? What shall I tell my students? How can I behave? What excuses will I give for that incident? My brain stops thinking from now on .
False Sovereignty
Second story from Syria about Iraqi refugees whom received expired food from Refugee agency in Damascus
http://www.almalafpress.net/?d=143&id=46764
اتهم اللاجئون العراقيون المقيمون ÙÙŠ العاصمة السورية دمشق المÙوضية السامية لشؤون اللاجئين بتوزيع Øصة تموينية أغلبها مواد تالÙØ© وغير صالØØ© للاستهلاك البشري خاصة المواد الغذائية المعلبة كالاجبان وغيرها
I’d have to disagree just a touch, Neo, with your thought that “the wrongest reason of all would be the success of our military campaign there.”
The fuel driving the “peace” movement – in fact, its sole reason for existence – is BDS. Were Gore or Kerry in office right now, opportunists like Hayden would be either cheering those fellows’ geopolitical genius, or staying silent so as not to give the enemy GOP any ammunition. And, should the Crone of Chappaqua, the Silky Pony or B. Hussein Obama inherit “Bush’s War,” Hayden and his ilk will turn on a dime to embrace a peaceful, stable Iraq as the fruit of Democrat pressure on the evil, incompentent neocon stooge Dubya.
Bush hatred, pure and simple. Take GWB away and the “peace” movement collapses like a deflated balloon.
I want out of the 70s: I was a child. I’m sick of the 70s.
I’m 40. Tom Hayden is just another dopey old man to me–I missed the whole part where he was a Big Deal.
A huge segment hit 1968, decided it was the zenith of All that is Good, and went into stasis. I was born in 1968. Do you know how stooopid ‘peace activists’ look to me?
They’ve never had the cachet of moral authority in my lifetime.
It is a strange, strange experience to change, learn, and grow into an adult in a cultural and political stasis: the world changed, I grew, and Tom Hayden didn’t.
But don’t question their patriotism! They’re as patriotic as…as…well, uh…Alger Hiss, for one.
Gray, I fully sympathize with you, despite being of that benighted generation. I’m sick of the 60s and all the rubbish associated with it (e.g., Hayden), and Ilived it the first time. The difference is that I grew up.
These aging Aquarians don’t seem to realize how ridiculous they look, still pushing the political equivalent of bellbottoms and eight-track tapes.
It’s helpful to think of peace along with ‘social’ justice. Which means socialism.
You can’t have peace… or justice (you have an exploitive, of workers, women, et cetera, imperialistic war machine)… unless you have socialism (which means… them in power to save us). Anything less is just not peace.
Once you have the definition of peace firmly in mind it makes sense.
It’s the same kind of wordplay, and doublethink, you get with words like ‘racist’…
Tom Hayden has never been in favor of peace. He has spent his entire life waging war on democracy, liberty, and the people of America. Every enemy who has taken up arms against us has found him a cheerful supporter. Every drop of American blood shed warms his bitter little heart.
Karen:
“Poor Hayden. He still thinks he’s relevant. His ‘peace’ message is a joke – I think the Chicago police, back in the day, would think he carries a very different message.”
Im no fan of Hayden’s of course. I understand he’s trying to relive the glory days of Chicago, but the Chicago PD greatly over re-acted, goaded by a strong rebuke by Mayor Daley to what he felt was a weak CPD response to a neighborhood riot some months earlier.
Im sorry, of course I was refeering to the ’68 DNC police riot.
The issue of “Iraq” was always mostly a stalking horse and a symbol of the Republican Party. There is no real “Left” left in the US. They are the shock troops of the Democratic Party, essentially trying to do to Bush what Bob Barr and friends did to Bill Clinton and the Democrats; The politics of personal destruction. Many of them do not seem to realize this. Some do.
It was always about elections, only a little bit about Iraq. That’s one reason Tom Hayden is not too relevant even on the “Left”.
Okay seriously…nothing about Iran?
That said:
He has spent his entire life waging war on democracy, liberty, and the people of America.
Hmmm…a peace activist “waging war” on America. This rings a bell….oh yes, here:
It’s the same kind of wordplay, and doublethink, you get with words like ‘racist’…
Wordplay, indeed.
But don’t question their patriotism!
And along comes OB to do precisely that.
Doesn’t this shtick get old?
I didn’t know Hayden was still taking up oxygen. Too bad.
Happy Chanukkah to all. A bad day for X!
A bad day for X!
Oh, it will be considerably better when Neo gets around to writing about this Iran stuff. While I expect her to certainly sound more reasonable than her esteemed colleagues at noteworthy blogs such as “Gateway Pundit” and “The Jawa Report” (Neo is nothing if not reasonable-sounding) I expect there to be at least a hint of the obligatory conclusion that our invasion of Iraq at least got rid of somebody’s WMDs.
Also, the comment thread will be simply delightful to take part in.
Nope. Truth ages well. Amusing how touchy lefties are about this issue. Feeble attempts (as on previous threads) to turn treason allegations around to conservatives get laughed off.
Could we agree to just the tiniest scintilla of suspicion regarding the patriotism of John Walker Lindh and Adam Gadahn? Just a hint? A whiff? Anything? Or is trying to kill Americans just another form of “dissent?”
“I expect there to be at least a hint of the obligatory conclusion that our invasion of Iraq at least got rid of somebody’s WMDs.”
Well, Libya’s for one…and…
“Doesn’t this shtick get old?”
Turnabout’s fair play, no?
Funny that Iran “stops” its nuclear weapons program the same year we invade Iraq…
(though of course they’re still enriching uranium)
…and of course, this “intel” is from the very same people who brought you WMDs in Iraq!
So…whom do you trust?
I expect there to be at least a hint of the obligatory conclusion that our invasion of Iraq at least got rid of somebody’s WMDs.
Speaking of shtick, how about that — the predictable (however feeble) attempt to sneer your way out of a debate you can’t win? Well, he’s right about one thing, at least — the comment thread will be fun.
Just a thought here, but isn’t an admission that one cannot possess perfect information a characteristic of an effective intelligence assessment? How much do we know about Iran’s program? If the NIE reports can contradict each other over the course of two years, it would appear that they are now offering up a data point, albeit an important one. But wasn’t their previous conclusion a similarly worded “highly confident” one? For that matter, who really knows what happened in the approximate 18 month gap from the time the last inspectors were in Iraq and spring of 2003?
I have an inclination to agree with a prior post to the extent that the theatrics witnessed in today’s newspapers are all about politics. Surely behind closed doors our elected officials are more responsible with respect to foreign policy.
Maybe.
But it points to the unserious nature of this entire debate. We don’t take our sworn enemies at their word, and they continue to wage asymmetric warfare on us, unconstrained by any humanitarian thought or deed.
And one day we will pay the price for our position.
Did you bother to read the whole “NAtion” article?
Here is the meat that I take from it.
“The coming war is a political one, to be fought at home. There will be a yearlong showdown that will determine the presidency and the climate of opinion. If the Republicans succeed in electing the next President, the Iraq War will continue and probably expand. If they lose the presidency, they are already positioning themselves to charge the Democrats with “losing” Iraq and ride that theme to a comeback in 2012. ”
What I take from the article is the “message” that will be used by the left to sell the importance of the vote for a dem. GOP, more of the same and probably more for a long time. DNC, a chance to get out.
Oh, and while you still sit here and enjoy the fruits of the labor of those fighting the war, since you all seem to think it’s the utmost to our national security, here is a little story out of Iraq today
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gux49SwqMftPpk_0bpuCSPnhzd2QD8TAQ9200
“stay the course….as long as it takes…..no matter how hard…..cause they volunteered”
“stay the course….as long as it takes…..no matter how hard…..cause they volunteered”
What’s the alternative?
Hey, I got off active duty in ’96. Clinton could not get rid of us fast enough….
X got it completely right–talk about burying the lead today. Tom Hayden is a tiny blip, the NIE on Iran is a huge story, did you see dubya’s press conference today? Unbelievable–even the Fox News guy was shaking his head. Nice try, neo.
To The Nation the war has always been here at home, and what happens in other places little more than mist and shadow. They want their tribe to rule in the US. All truths must fit under that banner.
“stay the course….as long as it takes…..no matter how hard…..cause they volunteered”
Ooh yes the old guys just come back from your back door as Condoleezza Rice has offered the former World Bank president Wolfowitz a new public service position.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2388950
It’s Been Four, Long, Bloody, Murdering Years…With Still No Reason “WHY??”
Well, X?
Jimf: the NIE on Iran is a huge story, did you see dubya’s press conference today? Unbelievable
Wait, what was wrong with the NIE? I think it’s going to come out that we got some evidence or information about their program.
What is wrong with refining Intell based on new and current information?
Besides, it’s an Estimate. It’s not evidence in a court, it’s a best guess. The previous best guess, along with Amadinejad’s rhetoric, said that Iran was building nukes.
New info will show that he’s bluffing. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
It didn’t work with Iraq
I got off active duty in ‘96. Clinton could not get rid of us
And they prepared you for the future for a newStatement of Principles
Those who still ask “why?” are trying to fool others.
The question has been answered many times.
To pretend it hasn’t doesn’t work. It only shows that the asker is either extremely simple, or is trying, unsuccessfully, to pretend the question has not been answered.
In neither case is it convincing.
“They’re not looking for a smoking gun,” the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. “They’re looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission.”
Cheney wants his war.
Also, see what Sy Hersch> New Yorker says about the NIE.
Why do morons take Seymour Hersh seriously? Why? Why?
Why do morons feel they are superior? And, why do they think that THEY are the only ones who value truth?
Occam?
Dan Froomkin in WAPO
“”In Washington, on the other hand, the consensus against a strike is firmer than most people realize. The Pentagon worries that another war will break America’s already overstretched military, while the intelligence community believes Iran is not yet on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough.”
That said, as Ephron and Hosenball note: “There are still voices pushing for firmer action against Tehran, most notably within Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. But the steady departure of administration neocons over the past two years has also helped tilt the balance away from war. One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney’s Middle East adviser. A spokeswoman at Cheney’s office confirmed to Newsweek that Wurmser left his position last month to ‘spend more time with his family.’ A few months before he quit, according to two knowledgeable sources, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz–and perhaps other sites–in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out. The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran.”
and
Via Andrew Sullivan, I find Dan Friedman writing for the American Thinker: “All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours – the time it will take to destroy Iran’s fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.”
But wouldn’t that backfire at least as badly as Iraq? Wouldn’t the Iranians strike back?
Not at all, Friedman insists: “They would stand before mankind with their pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying, reduced to bloviating from mosques in Teheran and pounding their fists on desks at the UN. . . .
“Miracles would be seen here at home. Democratic politicians are dumbstruck, silent for a week. With one swing of his mighty bat, the President has hit a dramatic walk-off homerun. He goes from goat to national hero overnight. The elections in November are a formality. Republicans keep the White House and recapture both houses of Congress.”
delusional, really.
Laura, in candor, I feel a little dumber after reading each of your comments.
as long as the same old people are being consulted with on the possible war with Iran, the people who constructed the “plan” for Iraq, we are in deep doo doo.
Make that “a LOT dumber.”
Those that desire peace at any price had better be prepared for nuclear war. If we start retreating to our shores, no one else except Russia and PRC have the military to possibly challenge and possibly defeat the Islamists. Somehow I don’t see Russia or the PRC coming to our aid unless the enemy goes after them as they challenge us. Otherwise we will end up being surrounded by an enemy having WMD and a choice for us to surrender or go nuclear with a first strike. None of these prospects are good choices for our survival.
Of course if one believes that there is no WoT, it is all just a Bushitler/neo-con fabrication, no thinking about consequences or actions to thwart the enemy is necessary. The useful idiots with those beliefs can then later line up in front of their graves, with the Islamist firing squad at ready, believing it is all a dream and they will soon wake up. I prefer not to join the national suicide pact eagerly being written by so many of our so called elites. As Winston Churchill said, “”If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Gray,
I see what you’re saying–I hope, that what’s ever going on, the information we now have is accurate and leads to an effective policy. However, our President gave one of his worst, clueless-appearing performances trying to explain the new estimate. “I know the issues” seemed to say just the opposite. Let’s hope for the best
Xanth seems to think that the Monty Python argument sketch is an actual guide to debate. If someone says something, just contradict them! Then pump your fist in the air over your monitor and yell “woot!” But softly, because Mom might come downstairs.
So I come back after a day away and what do I see? BDS infecting nearly the whole damned thread.
Well, Neo? Did I call it or didn’t I?
“stay the course….as long as it takes…..no matter how hard…..cause they volunteered”
Cause that is what the people fighting want, as opposed to people like you, Laura, that want things to end for nothing.
Why do morons feel they are superior? And, why do they think that THEY are the only ones who value truth?
Everyone values truth. It just happens to be that our truth, Laura, is not everyone else’s truth. Or do you think that what you find true is also what others should find true?
Again, people: it all boils down to this. IF the NIE was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, then it was wrong about no nukes in Iran…or, IF it was right about no nukes in Iran, then it was right about WMDs in Iraq…or, IF the intelligence agencies could be trusted to come up with anything USEFUL, then we wouldn’t have had 9/11!
I don’t know why anyone gives any of this any credence whatsoever.
For what it’s worth, the Israelis claim to have “clear and solid intelligence” that Iran is continuing to develop nukes:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?IAD=/20071205/FOREIGN/112050069/1001
(apologies for not knowing how to embed a link)
But. . since the “Times” is a Moonie rag and the Israelis filthy, perfidious Jew bastards, I’m sure the usual suspects will have plenty of reasons to ignore the story and continue with their Bush hatred.
Xanthippas Says:
“Hmmm…a peace activist “waging war” on America. This rings a bell….oh yes, here:
It’s the same kind of wordplay, and doublethink, you get with words like ‘racist’…
Wordplay, indeed.”
Its wordplay… indeed. But not the same as claiming to be in favor of peace even if you support the use of war whenever it is in the service of your progressive socialist side and/or the right side is winning any given war. One is wordplay with a common expression while the other is Orwellian.
Bottom line: the NIE is a best guess. No more, no less. An earlier best guess put WMD in Iraq. A still earlier best guess had the Japanese striking south to the Phillippines. A much earlier best guess held that the horse outside the gates was a parting gift from the Greeks.
Maybe the Iranians have stopped, maybe they haven’t. In the former case, continuing to sweat them annoys the present Iranian government.
Conversely, in the latter case, if we desist from sweating them further, we risk annihilation.
A simple risk/benefit calculation, I believe.
a peace activist….
The difference between a ‘peace activist’ and a traitor is that a traitor may not also be a coward.
It just happens to be that our truth, Laura, is not everyone else’s truth.
Back to Iraq intelligence work about WMD and with all childish work of ‘former UN chief weapons inspector’ and ‘senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Research David Kay with all his funny work inside Iraq from Jumping over the fences of Iraqi ministry to searching Saddam Castles (Now American’s Castles looks Saddam built these castle for his future guest) finally David Kay nuclear hero nuclear haunter he got to say:
For “Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is “delusional” to think they will be found.
So now whatever this NIE report with all intelligence support and work as some references mentioned here, there is no grantee and confidence in it because this was loosed as same intelligence fabricates Iraq case.
What is the difference now we need to convincing acts from these guys working for the truth and full truth? Nothing unless they prove it by themselves.
“The Axis of Evil speech was the most rash and reckless speech in presidential history.”
–Pat Buchanan
Gray, there’s an inner city Quaker mission several blocks from my house–the people running it move throughout a neighborhood that’s a free fire zone everyday after 4PM. They have nothing but their faith for protection–they’re peace activists. Cowards?
there’s an inner city Quaker mission several blocks from my house—the people running it move throughout a neighborhood that’s a free fire zone everyday after 4PM. They have nothing but their faith for protection—they’re peace activists. Cowards?
And imbeciles: feeding the same social pathologies that are shooting at them instead of shooting back.
“Free Fire Zone” indeed. Such hyperbole.
If it were a ‘free fire zone’ it would be a nice place to live now after a couple of rough nights, but it’s theses good-hearted, softly racist, cowardly nitwits who perpetuate this situation to create their own hero/victim mythology.
Sick.
couldn’t have said it better myself. A response to the foaming at the mouth Podhoretz on the “reliablility” of intel community. And, please remember the Daily brief about terrorists and airplanes that sort of flew under the bush-cheney nose hairs…cherry picking the intel to reflect what they wanted to reflect.
from Horse’s Mouth
“When you do an NIE it is incumbent on the writers to clearly state whether there is consensus or dissent. And if there is disagreement then that should be reflected in the text. In the case of the October 2002 abortion, the NIC editors should have noted that there was disagreement in the intelligence community about Iraq’s efforts to rebuild its nuclear program. They should have written something like, “analysts at the CIA and DIA believe Saddam is trying but analysts at INR and DOE believe the evidence points to non-nuclear activity”. Instead, the NIC editors let stand the misleading notion that Iraq was rebuilding a nuclear weapons program even though all agreed that Iraq was not trying to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger. The senior NIC officials failed to do their duty in 2002.
Not the case today. The NIC stepped up and refused to budge despite repeated efforts by Dick Cheney and his minions to gut the effort. This happened thanks to the convergence of several factors. First, most of the Bush neocon ideologues are gone—Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Wurmser, Libby, etc. Second, the Democrats control the House and Senate Intelligence committee and were receiving reports from analysts about the bullying by Cheney and others who were trying to sandbag the conclusions. Third, senior intelligence officers learned the lesson of 2002 and returned to the tradition of telling the President the truth, no matter how unpopular or unpalatable. And finally, this Administration’s days are numbered and the analysts can read the tea leaves. They know there is no percentage in pandering to power by serving up half-truths and wishful thinking.”
But heck, if Cheney wants his war and we do wage war on Iran, I bet the die hard cons will give a nod and a wink to the “effort”…whatever is left of them.
And, please remember the Daily brief about terrorists and airplanes that sort of flew under the bush-cheney nose hairs…cherry picking the intel to reflect what they wanted to reflect.
What action do you think they should have taken based on that general warning?
And what civil liberties would that action impact?
Intell Estimates at the National Level or at the small unit level are like weather forecasts: if it rains on your picnic do you say the weatherman ‘lied’?
But heck, if Cheney wants his war and we do wage war on Iran, I bet the die hard cons will give a nod and a wink to the “effort”…whatever is left of them.
Hmmmm…. What if the current NIE on Iran turns out to be wrong?
It’s a guess….
My worry is that the Iranian smoking gun will be a smoking crater in Isreal.
if Cheney wants his war
Now why would he (or anyone else in the Administration) want war? Historically US Presidents have fared badly from war. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, and GHWB all doubtless wished to God they hadn’t had wars on their watch, but felt they had no choice. GWB doubtless feels the same.
Respect his decision, even if you don’t agree with it. And make room for the possibility that he may have been right.
Occam’s: if Cheney wants his war
Now why would he (or anyone else in the Administration) want war?
Because Cheney’s a warmonger, doncha know!? I mean, really — I thought everyone knew that! He doesn’t need a reason! He’s a neocon! Neocons just LIKE TO SEE KIDS DIE IN WARS!! How many times do I have to tell you that!!!
Honestly, I don’t know why I waste my time….
Gray,
I’m glad I’m talking to a real neocon so I can experience the real neocon mentality, thank you. BTW, if you think it’s hyperbole, I’ll gladly take you on a tour, if you make it to STL, especially on Halloween or New Year’s–the Quakers, among others, have done a lot of good over 3 years, not perfect, not bad either. Again, they’re hardly imbeciles or cowards.
Why would Cheney want a war with Iran? Oh, I don’t know, maybe something like the Iraq invasion might be a little, tiny clue–maybe not.
jim:
You know, we keep hearing this meme over and over again, but there’s no logic behind it. What possible benefit to members of the Administration did the invasion of Iraq obtain? Political advancement? Poll numbers would say no. Glory? Likewise. Universal human admiration? Um, not so much. Monetary gain (Halliburton, et. al.)? Cheney divested himself of any association with Halliburton, and if anyone’s gained from the invasion, it’s everyone who’s invested in defense stocks and otherwise, which would be a sizeable chunk of America, as most Mutual Funds include defense stocks as part of the package.
It seems to me that invading Iraq was a net personal loss as far as members of the Administration were concerned. It’s certainly not helping them get re-elected to anything, is it?
Perhaps the other reason might be that, in principle, they thought it was the right thing to do? Disagree with them on policy if you will, but don’t ascribe the most base of motives to them. It doesn’t wash, and it tends to negate any reasonable argument that you might have.
I’m glad I’m talking to a real neocon so I can experience the real neocon mentality, thank you.
I don’t think you actually know what a ‘neocon’ is. You just think it’s a cool-sounding word for somebody you disagree with. I’ve never been liberal, I’m only 40 and I’m not Jewish….
BTW, if you think it’s hyperbole, I’ll gladly take you on a tour, if you make it to STL, especially on Halloween or New Year’s
So I guess the problem isn’t poverty….
—the Quakers, among others, have done a lot of good over 3 years
Apparently not (see above).
We should provide the inner cities ‘humanitarian aid’ and keep the problems ‘contained’ by patrolling, neighborhood policing and diplomacy. Hmmm, sounds just like the lefties plan for Iraq–y’know, anything to avoid confronting a problem.
“Why you can’t arrest, deport and imprison inner city criminals! You’ll just create more criminals. Besides, that’s their culture, it’s a sovereign ‘hood and you’ll be caught in a ‘civil war’ between Crips and Bloods! It’s a quagmire!”
Where have I heard that before?
” not perfect, not bad either. Again, they’re hardly imbeciles or cowards.”
Imbeciles. Cowards. Self-congratulating moral narcissists.
So many responses: First Gray, “What action do you think they should have taken based on that general warning?”
A: Well, for starters, a general warning to the airline industry for example might have been a good start. Not one peep, hear that? So, you have intel that says that “AQ determined to attack using domestic airlines”, and you don’t DO anything. That’s a start.
Additionally Gray, cherry picking the intel and removing dissenting intel opinions from the NIE on Iraq made the “case” for war more credible.
Second, Occam:
“Now why would he (or anyone else in the Administration) want war?”
A: simple in terms of what PNAC’s agenda and Cheney himself saying “US Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed that Iran is “right at the top of the list” of global trouble spots and worried that Israel might strike to shut down Tehran’s nuclear programs. “One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked,”…
PNAC’s mission:
The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest.
It calls for “the direct imposition of U.S. “forward bases” throughout Central Asia and the Middle East:
“with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival” or any viable alternative to America’s vision of a ‘free market’ economy”
Distinct from theater wars, the so-called “constabulary functions” imply a form of global military policing using various instruments of military intervention including punitive bombings and the sending in of US Special Forces, etc. Constabulary functions are contemplated in the first phase of US actions against Iran.
from 2005
worth $241,498 a year ago — are now valued at more than $8 million.
“Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of a no-bid contact in Iraq. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The Vice President has sought to stem criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations.
However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.
Cheney told “Meet the Press” in 2003 that he didn’t have any financial ties to the firm.
“Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest,” the Vice President said. “I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.”
and on Halliburton according to the GAO 10/07
‘The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled the Army didn’t give enough weight to Pentagon auditors’ concerns about the past performance of KBR, which has been the only company providing troop support for six years under the current contract. It was one of three companies selected to share the new contract, which was awarded in June and was supposed to take effect this month.
The GAO said the Army also gave Fluor Corp. “unequal treatment” when awarding the new contract. The Army approved Fluor’s proposal even though the proposal relied on different assumptions than those listed in the contract solicitation – a shortcoming that hurt other bidders’ proposals, the GAO said.’
A: Well, for starters, a general warning to the airline industry for example might have been a good start. Not one peep, hear that? So, you have intel that says that “AQ determined to attack using domestic airlines”, and you don’t DO anything. That’s a start.
Actually, warnings did go out to civil aviation just like they do all the time. Does that mean we whould have started strip-searching grannies like we do now?
Arm airline pilots?
Or more importantly, should the airlines have changed their policy on hijacking and told pilots to stop cooperating with hijacker demands like in the past?
Your ‘warning’ accomplishes nothing. Your understanding of policy, threats and responses is child-like….
Additionally Gray, cherry picking the intel and removing dissenting intel opinions from the NIE on Iraq made the “case” for war more credible.
Mmmmm…. More ‘cherry-picking’…
The dissenting opinions were available to Clinton when he bombed Iraq as President as well as Congress when they authorized military action in Iraq. Those dissenting opinions were available to Colin Powell before his speech to the UN–don’t you think a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs knows how to read and interpret an Intell Estimate?
Your focusing on the ‘dissenting opinions’ which no one gave any credence is, itself, cherry-picking.
An NIE is a best guess, not a certainty. The dissenters didn’t make a good case for their views….
The GAO is full of crap and has been for a long time. It has no credibility: It’s a partisan congressional agency and the Comptroller is a Clinton appointee. They will say anything to crap on Bush and the military–especially the Army….
if Cheney wants his war
Whatever reasons from OIL to be a Sheik like this US Sheik Twitty al Ameriki he like to be Sheik Cheney al Ameriki in Iraq and in Parisia
The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of a no-bid contact in Iraq.
Hahahaha! The no-bid thing again!
There is one other logistics company in the world that could have bid against Halliburton for that contract.
Can you give the name and nationality of the other company on the planet that could have bid against Halliburton for a job that gigantic?
From the article “Truth” posted:
“I believe there are some bloody days yet ahead in Ninevah, but that the conditions are set: 2008 might be the Year of Iraq. If fortune favors that prediction, it will be largely because of men like Twitty, and all those corporals and sergeants out there whose stories never will be told individually, but whose sacrifices are setting Iraq free at last. ”
Amen, “Truth”… Amen….
Laura, background of the Head of the GAO:
“Mr. Walker had extensive executive level experience in both government and private industry. Between 1989 and 1998, he was a partner with Arthur Andersen LLP, where he was global managing director of the human capital services practice based in Atlanta, Georgia. He was also a member of the board of Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors, a registered investment advisor. While at Arthur Andersen, Mr. Walker served as a Public Trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 1990 to 1995″
Hahahaha! Oh, yeah….
I know this argument has siren-like appeal for those who work at the drive-up window, but those at the top of our political system did not work their way there to make money. Ego gratification, sure, but money, no. (Do you think John Kerry is in it for the bucks?)
Where to start?
First, most of them have a lot of money to begin with, and could make a lot more by staying in the private sector. Only a nitwit would go into public service to make money; it’s kind of like going into academia, the military, or social work, to get the big bucks.
Second, going into public service entails intense public scrutiny of every aspect of the person’s life, practically down to his most recent prostate exam appearing on YouTube. Hardly the place to be for someone intending to pull some shenanigans.
Third, if money were even a remote consideration, anyone with serious name recognition can make a fortune later as a lobbyist or lecturer. (Bill Clinton now knocks down ca. $150,000 per speech, and has amassed ca. $40 million in speaking fees since leaving the White House, and without the public scrutiny.)
Fourth, to get down to specifics. The present CEO of Halliburton, David Lesar, makes ca. $8 MM/yr, not counting options (which were worth ca. $13 MM to him last year). That’s a measure of what Cheney walked away from, since that’s presumably what he would have gotten had he stayed.
As Vice President, Cheney currently makes $208,100, or approximately 1% of what he would be making had he stayed at Halliburton, not counting the commission he gets per dead Iraqi or American soldier.
So you can see how @#$%^&* stupid your point about Cheney and money truly is. I realize my time would be better spent explaining this to my golden retriever, but for some reason I feel compelled to cloud the issue with facts.
(While you’re at the Halliburton link above, look at the stock chart. Notice that the chart is considerably below the trend line from 1990-2000, i.e., the agitprop about “windfall profits” is just that – agitprop. Compare HAL with, e.g., DJIA to see this.)
Stumblley,
That’s an interesting question, what did they have to gain? Why, in the wake of 9/11, did they go there, especially with Afghanistan unfinished, and now unraveling?
I think a lot of it has to do with Bush’s and Rummy’s incompetence, and a heavy dose, sorry Stumbley, of flawed neocon orthodoxy about the ME. Pat Buchanan stated today that the Axis of Evil speech, where Bush called out and threatened 3 countries who had not attacked us, was the manifestation of the flawed thinking that led them into disaster.
I think what they were angling for was a ME with a bunch of easily led pro-American democracies that secured our oil supply and provided added security to Israel, if you go by what many of them had written before Bush’s election. Cheney meeting with the oil whores in January 2001 comes off as ominous in hindsight. What in the world were they looking at detailed maps of the Iraqi oil fields months before 9/11? Though they wouldn’t put it this way, I think they saw an American quasi-empire in the ME, or certainly a sphere of influence that would, in their view, secure our interests.
Note to Gray, you might be surprised about my views on inner city pathology and problems, we may actually agree on much–but the problems are so vast I would never put down people who are trying to make a difference–don’t see many conservatives in the neighborhoods pitching in. Some of the good guys in these hoods are incredibly courageous people. John McWhorter’s “Winning the Race” is a great starting point, in terms of understanding where I come from on this.
but the problems are so vast I would never put down people who are trying to make a difference—don’t see many conservatives in the neighborhoods pitching in.
Bush and Cheney were ‘trying to make a difference’ in the ME, but you put them down….
I don’t see many lefties over there pitching in.
(Actually, I’m not so dimwitted as to think Bush and Cheney attacked Iraq unilaterally “to make a difference” in some kind of secret cabal for Israel and Oil.
After all, Bill Clinton bombed iraq in ’98 and we’d been enforcing the UN resolution by force since 1991….)
It just amuses me to see your inner city view juxtaposed against your views in Iraq:
The dopey Quakers are doing harm and no good, but you ascribe noble motives to them (making a difference), so they are ‘OK’.
vs
The ‘neocons’ in Iraq ‘making a difference’ in Iraq, but you ascribe ignoble motives to them (Israel and oil), so they are bad.
It’s not about outcome, it’s about your perceptions of their motives…..
Forget about the money and just follow the steps, one by one before Bushco and after 9-11. Step one, the establishment of the american Neo con tank PNAC, the ideology of empire and security; whoever controls the ME controls the world and the NEED for a common enemy (terrorists) after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Second, reward the spoils of war to the loyalists, and boosting the economy; a far cry from WWII “no profiteering” on war.
Third, establish a basis of power (executive) to boost the unilateral decision making of the future GOP dominated government. Of course, we see just how damaging that little experiment was now that we actually have oversight.
Need I go on?
I mean, even my labrador retriever gets it. Geeze
“oil whores”
jim, do you fly? Do you eat produce? Do you drive anywhere, or just ride your bike? Do you consume anything or just subsist on your organic veggies and sleep on that tatami mat in your yurt? St. Louis gets pretty cold in the winter and pretty d**n hot in the summer; I suppose you tough it out with no A/C?
Face it, we are all “oil whores”, and your posting from a computer isn’t lessening our dependence on fossil fuels by any stretch of the imagination. So, unless you want to go back to a purely agrarian, 16th century economy and forego all of the above, you’re just as much a part of the problem as anyone else, and can’t rightly complain about the necessity for a policy that “secured our oil supply”.
“don’t see many conservatives in the neighborhoods pitching in”
Read this http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/B000WCTRPA/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196894724&sr=8-1 and then make that asinine statement again.
Fourth, establish a cabal of Jews — I mean Zionists — and call them “neocons” to hide who they “really” are, and the fact that they already control most of the the world’s corporations, and all of its bad ones.
Fifth, make secret deals with terrorists to make sure they accomplish their mission, which will allow the cabal to control the government forever.
Sixth, make sure all fellow ethnics are away from the designated target on the fateful day.
Seventh, report back to the mother ship, which is currently out of sight behind a comet.
How simple does it have to be for you!? A bird-brain could understand that!
Laura:
“Oh, and while you still sit here and enjoy the fruits of the labor of those fighting the war, since you all seem to think it’s the utmost to our national security…”
Laura again feverously hoping and wishing for that Battleship Potemkin moment. Thirty years of telling service members that they’re a collection of baby-killing losers who could’nt find a job in the “real-life” and now we want to claim solidarity with the same people who enlisted voluntarily to be where they are and do what they’re doing. You can bet I’m not buying it.
Well, I would ask Laura about when her son enlisted and under what circumstances, but we’ve already been down that road…
So, unless you want to go back to a purely agrarian, 16th century economy and forego all of the above, you’re just as much a part of the problem as anyone else, and can’t rightly complain about the necessity for a policy that “secured our oil supply”.
Oooh yah Scaremongering here, its our live blood without it we will die so let go there Kill’em All” steal their land, resources and their oil on big lie “secured our oil supply”.
One question to all who are sick thinker did you asked yourself what those guys with oil do with it if they don’t exporting it.
One of BP official who wrote book 30 years ago about oil in ME and his book was singed by Churchill said:
“Oil worth nothing unless you exporting it and have long oil pipelines and ships to transport around the world”
In the past 1000 years, Iraq was invaded by TEN Different Empires!
So Imagine US in here 400 years life invaded four times how you feel and how your life now?
So Sally said earlier “let’s kept like that” on going wars in ME, Isn’t Sally?
Forget about the money and just follow the steps, one by one before Bushco and after 9-11.
What? That’s it? “Forget about the money?” That’s the best you can do after getting your original point stomped and left for dead? At least have the intellectual honesty to admit your point was…fanciful, shall we say?
Truth:
The oil would still be below the desert sands if it were not for Britain and America. Anybody remember who was originally responsible for bringing oil out of the ME?
ARAMCO, the Arab-American Oil Company.
And if it weren’t now for foreign engineers, most of the oil-producing countries in the ME still couldn’t support the infrastructure.
Step one, the establishment of the american Neo con tank PNAC, the ideology of empire and security; whoever controls the ME controls the world and the NEED for a common enemy (terrorists) after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Second, reward the spoils of war to the loyalists, and boosting the economy; a far cry from WWII “no profiteering” on war.
Third, establish a basis of power (executive) to boost the unilateral decision making of the future GOP dominated government. Of course, we see just how damaging that little experiment was now that we actually have oversight.
Need I go on?
Forget about logic and rationality (they’re overrated anyway; you’re not missing a thing), and follow the steps.
Step one, Laura has a kid. She raises him to support the ideology of empire and security.
Second, he joins the Army, hoping to gain the spoils of war Laura had expected him to receive.
Third, the Army attacks Iraq, and her son is in the thick of it.
Need I go on?
LAURA is the cause of the war! And her Labrador retriever is the brains behind Laura!
PS: Just kidding. Except for the last sentence.
You see how ridiculous the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is. It can be used to “prove” anything, especially with a few creative imputations thrown in.
“steal their land, resources and their oil”
And I can’t just pass this up…let’s see, “stealing” oil? I’m afraid that we’re paying pretty dearly for it, Truth, to the tune of $100 per barrel or thereabouts. Just who is getting rich from that?
My (nonexistent) yacht is considerably smaller than Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz’s: http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/megayachts/megayacht-al-salamah/
Stumbley,
The oil whores I was referring to were the oil execs, T Boone Pickens types who met w/ Cheney in Jan., 2001–who are now partying like it’s 1999 w/ $100/barrel oil–those oil whores. As far as me being an oil whore, I live in a log cabin and read by candlelight and I have a coal-fired computer, yeah, that’s the ticket. I’ve also learned to fly like a bird. Yeah.
We were talking about people helping out in the inner city, who I see and come in contact with, the people–who you’ve never met–that you insult sight unseen–I don’t see conservatives actually there, with their sleeves rolled up, it’s mostly libs and progressive types (some evangelicals), who, like I said before, are gutsy people, no matter what you think of them politically. Giving a bunch of money to mega churchs and charities where some money trickles down doesn’t really impress me. As this site shows, most conservatives look their noses down at poor people, poor neighborhoods and the problems of grinding poverty, crime and addictive pathologies, so I’m not surprised. BTW, if you wish to give money to my favorite charity, me, put your link back up.
These are my principles. You don’t like them?
Well, here’s some more.–Groucho
“Hubbah! Hubbah!, indeed!”
Sultan bin Abdul Aziz’s:
Where he put his money?
Who sale him the weaponry for long time that weaponry F4E, F14, F16 they are rusted their in desert no use for them, or 71 Billions, pulse 21Billions new weaponry deals, and more the borders wall between Iraq and the king dome which project for 500+ millions, all this money from oil comes to the right hand of Al-Saud flee from the Left hand. You still fool yourself about $100 goes to the peoples their?
I advise you go visit Saudi and see the people their how much the got from $10, $25, $50, $100 Dollars per barrel of their oil from their land and come tell us the truth our friend.
Read this will for your entertainment
Re: Iraq vs. the inner city
Stumbley, Grace–why do you make it so easy for me? Of course, I don’t think much of what’s going on in Iraq, I don’t think we should have been there in the first place–the money and resources thrown away there should have been invested in this country. OK?
Securing ME oil reserves and protecting Israel (I’m pro Israel) have been the stated foreign policy goals of the neocons for years–don’t you guys read Podheretz, Kristol. Commentary–this is no mystery.
So Stumbley, Grace, would you support an amphibious invasion of North STL by the Marines, w/ coordinated air strikes, to remove the VandeVenter St. Crips from their northside strongholds…would that work for you? What’s good for Baghdad ought to be good for STL. Be sure to plan for a sectarian insurgency (I’d worry about the Shabazz Eastside Bloods). It’ll be a cakewalk.
“Well, uh, I don’t think it’s fair to condemn a whole program because of one little slip-up.”
–George C. Scott, Dr. Strangelove
The oil would still be below the desert sands if it were not for Britain and America. Anybody remember who was originally responsible for bringing oil out of the ME?
Stumbley, we don’t to go to argue humanity and its good will of helping each other instead of killing each other.
Yes US and Britt’s helping Arabs to get their oil from under their sand, but in same time they bribing those Arab corrupted leaders and thieves supporting them in different ways.
But you need be sure reading the history and the example is still their on the ground asked your follow heroes from Iraq who served in Babylon that place they made it mess under your hero Sheikh Paul Bremer III, Babylonians they built their city from Tar yes Tar so they new OIL and Tar the use it so be careful with historical facts next time.
would you support an amphibious invasion of North STL by the Marines, w/ coordinated air strikes, to remove the VandeVenter St. Crips from their northside strongholds…would that work for you?
Not sure the Marines have enough firepower for that, Jim, but as a former StL resident, I’ve heard worse ideas…
Occam, you know I thought for a moment, and realized you’re absolutely right.
“the people—who you’ve never met—that you insult sight unseen”
Lordy. Pot, meet kettle. You have NO clue where I’ve been, or who I help, or what goes on in my life. Nor did I ever “insult” any poor people in any of the posts I’ve made, as far as I know.
Again, you must be a heckuva therapist, with your 20-20 insight and all.
“You still fool yourself about $100 goes to the peoples their?”
Let’s see, I don’t believe I indicated that the money was going to the people, did I? But if the money is going to the Saudi royal family, then who’s “stealing” from whom? Seems like the problem is a little closer to home, and you can’t blame the rest of the world for that.
jim, do you begrudge the “computer whore” Bill Gates, or the “entertainment whores” Bob Redford, Barbra Streisand, Jake Gyllenhall, Sean Penn, ad infinitum who are earning just as much, but putting far less back into society?
How about “tobacco whore” Al Gore? Or “ambulance chasing whore” John Edwards, or “Marry rich twice gigolo” John Kerry? You know, conservatives are not the only wealthy people on the planet…how come the bile directed their way, and none for the conspicuous consumers and leeches of the Left?
And as far as “conservatives looking down their noses at the poor” and “insulting people you’ve never met”…all I can say is, I feel for your patients, I really do. You apparently have no understanding or empathy whatsoever.
So Stumbley, Grace, would you support an amphibious invasion of North STL by the Marines, w/ coordinated air strikes, to remove the VandeVenter St. Crips from their northside strongholds…would that work for you?
Yeah… Actually it would.* Once you provide security, there is a chance for progress, education, jobs, families, playgrounds, community, and a better standard of living. All the things we are doing in Iraq.
As you said before : “Come here on New Years or Halloween!”
So clearly it’s not about poverty–it’s about thuggery and lawlessness.
I think you just shot your own argument down….
*Note:
I don’t support using military power on US citizens–I’m a big believer in the Posse Comitatus–so substitute ‘Marines’ for ‘old fashioned head-crackin’ thug shooting local cops’….
Why, in the wake of 9/11, did they go there, especially with Afghanistan unfinished, and now unraveling?
Unraveling from what? Do you think it is that easy to unravel a regime? NOt even the United States could get rid of Saddam with a simple unraveling of the orders.
I think a lot of it has to do with Bush’s and Rummy’s incompetence, and a heavy dose, sorry Stumbley, of flawed neocon orthodoxy about the ME,/b>
You mean people prefer to use violence over using the courts. Such things have nothing to do with neocons, orthodox or not.
You confuse those with different philosophies, those that don’t follow the rules quoted in a book, with followers of a religion. There is no organized neo-con movement as there is an organized FBI, CIA, NSA, CAIR, ACLU, and Leftist membership group.
To create something that does not exist, may be a worthy goal. To create it simply for arguments has no substance.
the money and resources thrown away there should have been invested in this country.
If you will not allow us to arrest, try, and execute threats to the United States, things even the Patriot Act does not authorize, then what makes you think any amount of money or resources can save the lives that would be lost in another attack? Or do you believe 9/11 was a fluke, something that can only be done once.
Such considerations are critical given that what you wish to funnel funds towards is based upon your own analysis of the needs. If the FBI has not solved inner city crimes in the decades they have been given, then what use would hypothetical funds be to them? If America has been growing economically and in the areas of civil rights, then who will benefit from the increased largesse of more resources and funds?
The question always ends with humans. The FBI as well as everyone else must deal with human flaws, even when they are trying to correct it. It is not and has never been about resources and funds, rather it has always been about who gets those resources and funds. And so we see the age old need for territory played out in the modern bureacracies of the world. People want funds diverted from the military in Iraq, to their own projects that have higher priority. The military disagrees. DoS wants more funds for their own projects and so would see a weakening of the DoD position as preferable given that if things can’t be done with military power then DoS can supply a diplomatic illusion for a solution; these circumstances would ally DoS with any faction that wants to divert more resources and funds to the United States.
These are the power plays and the turf wars that go on when people talk about should have had more funds over here than there. Such things are not a solution to problems, whether they be Iraq or criminal in nature. Such things are problems in their own right.
So Stumbley, Grace, would you support an amphibious invasion of North STL by the Marines, w/ coordinated air strikes, to remove the VandeVenter St. Crips from their northside strongholds…would that work for you?
People would be categorically safer under Marine Corps martial law than they ever would be under civilian control. The National Guard obviously proved that in New Orleans after civilian authorities prevented them from deploying when Katrina hit.
It may not always have been true, but it is true today, if only because civilian methods of controlling chaos is predicated upon the existence of a military to bail them out.
Petraeus has already proven that counter-insurgency is far more effective in combating crime and terrorism than any kind of occupation by only local police or only army units.
The laws in this country and the politicians don’t really allow any truly effective actions to be taken for the benefit of those without the power to secure their neighborhood.
And of course every city and state settles their own local concerns. Much better than city-states, but Los Angeles is only as well run as the people running it. That is always the weakness of self-rule or rule by elites. Things are good if the rulers are good and they have powerful backing and reserves. Things are bad if the rulers are bad. Democracy and republics moderate the cycle by trying to kick out bad rulers as often as they can. But such systems cannot eliminate pernicious institutions such as the mob or gangs. It was never designed to combat internal insurgencies.
The FBI needed a witness protection agency to protect witnesses from being silenced by the Mob. Without such a program, would there be rule of law as applied to the mob? Yet a witness protection agency is only as good as the word and security of the central federal government. That is the reserve and backing that allows the rule of law to function. Without that bulwark and reserve, you could not combat organized crme effectively.
When local security forces fail, as they have in dealing with the gangs in Los Angeles, then the Marines and National Guard are always the logical choice. It can only be the logical choice in a functioning Republic.
Even the laws and the rules allow for that, cause if they didn’t, the Republic would never have stood this long.
It’ll be a cakewalk.
The FBI as well as every other police group knows that military power and martial law is always the most effective for maintaining law and order as well as finding and eliminating criminals before they strike.
However, people of a Republic must willingly give away such security in favor of liberty, otherwise the system cannot be sustained.
You should not treat such subjects with the usual unseriousness. The fact that military rule is always more efficient is already understood to be true. It is also understood to be true that people can’t live forever under martial law. Not and still call their country theirs.
A state of temporary emergency that becomes a state of permanent emergency is no longer the original “state” at all. Then it becomes the tyranny of whomever is currently in control of military forces.
The fundamental difference in how the military or conservatives treat matters of civil law, civil strife, domestic problems, and foreign problem in relation to the Left is that the former treats seriously the idea of using violence and killing while the latter sees the only true solution as following the status quo, the book, the rules, or the agreement of a collective for dividing up the responsibility for decisions made.
Conservatives, as a matter of generality, do not automatically discount martial law, executions, countering the domestic insurgency, or any other thing that might be necessary to ensure the wellfare and tranquility of a state’s citizens. If there is a reason why such things are better or worse than alternatives, then those alternatives and reasons will be openly described, accepted, or rejected.
The Left, as a general rule, automatically rule out options as being either critically unorthodox or philosophically mutually exclusive with the aims that the Left wishes to engender.
However, the solution to a problem should not be beholden to ideologicaly constraints such as the Left’s abhorrence of violence. Abhorrence of violence equals incompetence at managing, dealing with, and counteracting violence. Such things are never good traits when dealing with a nation’s security and prosperity.
It is very understandable why local cops prefer to deal with local matters by themselves, without the FBI interfering. It is a turf war really, and it is also why the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army were often at odds, even if you exclude problems with Americans.
However, if any problem is to be solved, then people have to pull together into a team. They can’t simply divide into factions and base their decisions and choices upon what would benefit their faction over the other factions. Nothing productive would get done in such a climate.
That is why the Left’s abhorrence of violence and preference for a society ruled by order and obedience is such an obstacle to solving any kind of problem, social, economic, or military.
If there is a problem to be solved, then the solution should be tailored to actually solving the problem. It should not be sublimated to some turf war, personal ambition, or need to create a utopia on earth.
I don’t see conservatives actually there, with their sleeves rolled up, it’s mostly libs and progressive types (some evangelicals), who, like I said before, are gutsy people, no matter what you think of them politically.
Those that support an American victory in Iraq see people like you the way you see those that aren’t there with rolled up sleeves.
Surely, you understand the social dynamic.
Just as you see Iraq as a misadventure that may or may not be well intentioned, so do we see your attempts as inevitably going nowhere. It may help temporarily or some people, an admission few will make about the military in Iraq, but in the end the problem will still remain. After all, the goal is not to eliminate crime but to eliminate the payout for crime or to increase the risk of those conducting criminal actions. It is a matter of psychology and perception, not a matter of perfection. Until the people in the inner cities become organized and empower themselves, no amount of foreign assistance can create a permanent solution. Meaning, a solution that evolves and grows just as problems change and grow.
As for the whole oil deal with Bush, that is simply the price of being a compassionate conservative. If Bush was more politically manipulative, like Clinton, Bush can get more popular support. Clinton, after all, negotiated a price drop in gas prices with oil companies because he knew that people dont’ like high prices. And it would reflect badly on him, as President, because people expect the President to “do something” with the power the President has been given.
It doesn’t actually have to be effective in the long or short term, nor does it actually have to have been a problem that was related to what the President was going, but the President has to be seen as exercising authority, promoting loyalists, punishing dissidents and enemies, as well as looking out for the pocketbooks of the common man and woman.
This is just the basic psychology of ruling a nation, which hasn’t changed regardless of what a nation calls itself and its system of governance.
People are still people, with the same flaws, greed, ambition, etc. as those that lived 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 years ago. The fundamentals don’t change, even if the superficial skin (color) does.
If the President does not exercise his power, then people will see him as weak. What that means is that they will then accuse him of using too much power, of being too corrupt or whatever. This is just what happens when there is a power vacuum. People will do almost anything to grab power that is there for anyone in range. If the President doesn’t use his power, then he will lose that power because other people will divide it up amongst themselves. Regular people don’t really care about such things, but without central authority, strong and effective authority, people will side with whomever they most like or agree with or are taken care of by.
It isn’t as bad as Praetorian Rome, for example, in the Western Empire’s fall. It isn’t as bad as banana republics, Chavez’s Venezuella, or Musharaff’s Pakistan. But just because it isn’t bad, doesn’t mean that such problems cease to exist for Americans.
plus 21Billions new weaponry deals, and more the borders wall between Iraq and the kingdom which project for 500+ millions, all this money from oil comes to the right hand of Al-Saud flee from the Left hand.
Oooooh. That’s Al Qaeda talking points right there.
That why what Al Qaeda was originally built in Sudan:
To overthrow the oil Sheikhs and bring true Islamic equality to The Kingdom through enforcement of Shari’a.
Are you Syrian, Truth?
Stumbley,
In answer to your questions do I begrudge all the various whores…?
Yes.
Grace, Stumbley, I can’t tell you how much your concern for my patients touched me…and I love you two for your concern. Don’t ever change. Your words have shamed me, I promise to do better from now on.
Jake Gyllenhall?
Yeah… Actually it would.* Once you provide security, there is a chance for progress, education, jobs, families, playgrounds, community, and a better standard of living. All the things we are doing in Iraq.
I only read Gray’s response after I posted my comment.
Obviously conservatives or most of the military believe in discipline and security as being the primary foundation for liberty, prosperity, and all the other fruits of American civilization.
Just as obviously does anti-war and those that support a more domestic, or socialist, agenda favor liberty, repect, and social harmony as being the foundation to security, prosperity, and etc.
Does not those that join the FBI believe in the rule of law and in the system of justice that they fight for and under?
It is the fundamental question of which is more important. The First Ammendment or the Second?
Which forms the foundation that America rests upon?
Thomas Jefferson believed it was the First. Jackson believed it was the Second.
Really, if you distill it down, the basic quesiton becomes “which should come first, liberty or security”. We say security. Somebody else says jobs or liberty or prosperity or something else. Marxism for that matter.
Only one philosophy is right, because humanity has stayed the same. Only one set of ideas has helped humanity progress from the ancient days of cruelty to the current days of decadence and opulence.
Can it be any other way? The only thing left to be asked is: which philosophy is the right philosophy.
Gray how pathetic joke dude
Y,
I know you wrote at length about my STL invasion idea, lots of good ideas and rebuttals, but, I…it was a joke, as in I wasn’t serious. I really don’t want the Marines in North St. Louis–uh, am I giving some of you neocons ideas, or what?
Anyway, ixsnay on the vasion-innay.
Ymarsaker:
It may not always have been true, but it is true today, if only because civilian methods of controlling chaos is predicated upon the existence of a military to bail them out.
I enjoy your commentary and I appreciate the though you put into it. I look forward to your comments.
No. Your statement is not true at all–you’re thinking like an American. That has only ever been true in America.
In anywhere else (J’accuse Europe!). In any other time, chaos was an invitation for the military to settle grudges and gain power. Only in America with a military under civilian control is your statement true.
In fact, lemme put a fine point that statement for you:
It may not always have been true, but it is true today, if only because civilian methods of controlling chaos is predicated upon the existence of a military to bail them out and an armed population as a deterrent to perpetual military control.
Gray (I mistakenly called you Grace earlier, sorry),
Your STL plan sounds like a plan. Also, check my past posts, I list community pathologies as the major problem–check out McWhorter. You keep trying to put me in a convenient category–I don’t fit.
“Drugs and crime exist because they’re allowed.”
–Miles Davis
posse coma…who blew up that federal building?
Pingback:Sake White
You keep trying to put me in a convenient category—I don’t fit.
Probably… I can only go by your comments.
“Drugs and crime exist because they’re allowed.”
—Miles Davis
Too true. I call the permissiveness that allows that: ‘the soft racism of the left’.
posse coma…who blew up that federal building
Nor am I a kook. From Wikipedia:
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibited members of the federal uniformed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard [during wartime], and State National Guard forces [when called into federal service]) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintained “law and order” on non-federal property (States, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
It’s good to keep civilian control over the military. And after all, the ‘neocons’ are duly elected civilians that you are welcome to defeat at the polls.
Gary looks you are one of Americans who enjoying the friendship and their petro-dollars of those corrupted sheikhs.
On your pathetic thoughts, so there is no choice for Arab either be under corrupted guys or those criminal who don’t know just killing innocent people in name of Islam.
How pathetic that and fool you are.
Iraq good example of your thoughts either be under tyrant regime or let thief Ahmad Chalab ruling the country, as if Iraq have no reasonable and good guys they can do the job for the country forward the future just those corrupted guys and servant backed by US referee who are suitable for killing Iraqis.
Seems like the problem is a little closer to home, and you can’t blame the rest of the world for that.
stumbley ,
Don’t put your words in my mouth I did not ” blame the rest of the world”
But don’t forgot Sheikh Bremer he fled with $9-$10 Billions went missing without trace!!
What if Bremer did this inside US? Tell us?
as if Iraq have no reasonable and good guys they can do the job for the country forward the future just those corrupted guys and servant backed by US referee who are suitable for killing Iraqis.
OK. Like whom?
The Arab world is led by oil-sheikhs or mullahs there doesn’t seem to be a lot of in-between.
Assad, Saddam, Mubarak, Ayatollah, Taliban, Al-Saud…. Pick the worst one!
I think you are Syrian.
Gray,
neocons got beat at the 2006 polls.
white conservative kids do more dope than kids in the inner city, they just don’t go to jail in as great of numbers. Remember, I’m a therapist–I know the drug/alcohol profile really well, affects the left and right the same.
I thought these posses died out long ago. Why don’t you join law enforcement?
neocons got beat at the 2006 polls.
‘K… So where is the problem?
white conservative kids do more dope than kids in the inner city, they just don’t go to jail in as great of numbers.
K’… So there’s no problem in the ‘inner city’? If you arrested more white ‘conservative’ kids, the crime would go down in the inner cities.
Remember, I’m a therapist—I know the drug/alcohol profile really well, affects the left and right the same.
K… It affects both the same, so what’s the problem?
I thought these posses died out long ago.
Now you’re just funnin’ me, you can’t be that dumb, being a former ‘fed’ and all….
Why don’t you join law enforcement?
‘Cuz I don’t like people well enough.
Gray, all Arab looks to US help but what they showed in Iraq the lost the confidence that US really will help.
What in Iraq now guys with militias trained and created by Iran (you need to do your search here) these militias same guys who tortured Iraqi solders (POW) in Iran for years, and now US brought them inside Iraq as ligament forces?
So Arab lost confidence that Arab can read off their corrupted leaders also lost the last hope that US really bring democracy and freedom to the people in ME.
Gray did you read this:
300,000 Iraqis sign petition condemning Iran
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/print_friendly_version.jsp?global_name=/channels/gulfnews_com/articles/07/11/22/10169423.html
No. Your statement is not true at all—you’re thinking like an American. That has only ever been true in America.-Gray
Attaturk’s Turkey was the same way. So was the Shah of Iran and Musharaff in Pakistan. They both needed the power of the military to do anything.
I did not state that civilian authority needed as loyal a military as the United States military to conduct operations and policies. Also what civilian authorities choose to do can be bad or good. It need not be something absolutely required to sustain security or good life.
I know you wrote at length about my STL invasion idea, lots of good ideas and rebuttals, but, I…it was a joke, as in I wasn’t serious.-J
Of course it was a joke. That was why I noted that such things should be treated seriously, given that such things are not ruled out as a joke by people like me. It may not have been a serious proposition by you, given that you didn’t include the mandatory mention of using Petraeus’ COIN method for when the Marines go in and “remove” a gang that can only be removed by replacing it with something better, but that only illuminates my point further. With the methods the military now has at its disposal concerning how to fight in not just war mode but police mode, they have the necessary ability to permanently change chaotic situations for the better. Even inside the United States. Before it was just a question of training, reliance, and uncertainty; now it is not a question at all that the military can do the job. The question people need now ask is do they want effective solutions to be implemented that can change people’s lives for the better now, instead of a couple of generations later.
In any other time, chaos was an invitation for the military to settle grudges and gain power. Only in America with a military under civilian control is your statement true.-Gray
If you are refering to the loyalty of the United States military, that is one thing, but that is not part of my argument. Military power has been the enforcement arm of civilian policies since Sun Tzu, if not further back in history.
The part you quoted was where I said that civilians can only deal with chaos because there is a military power behind them. That doesn’t mean you need the United States military. Nor is it a statement of principle about America, since this is true for all governments. Even the European governments are predicated upon the power of a powerful military. In this case, it just so happens to tbe the US’s military.
Chaos can be good or bad, after all. Just as order can be good or bad. Neither are ethical statements. To control chaos is not to do Good, it is just to control chaos.
Pity the poor Nation.
How about we not pity them at all, Neo?
Gray,
Missed my point, I think. Drug abuse is not a problem? The punishment for drug offensives comes down disproportionately harder on inner city kids, with emphasis on punishment, little on rehab. This causes much more relapse, plus these kids go back to much worse environments, the pathologies that exist in much more concentrated forms in the inner city, which makes the problem worse. The higher your socio-econ. class, the more rehab opportunities, which means the better chance you have of beating it. Addicts always relapse.The thing that’s changing is the meth epidemic is taking on the same hard core pathology which you only saw in the poor city areas. I could go on, but don;t think you’re that interested.
I didn’t have much contact with the fringe groups while with the feds, a lot with druggies, defrauders, cons, and, of course the mob was still strong back then. I have a friend that represented some posses in MO when they got in rouble with the ATF–they’re all gone now.
As far as the invasion, I suggest you land at LaClede’s, then veer right to I-70 (the Arch will be on your right) and recon at the Greyhound Bus station. By that time, you’ll need armored back-up…
Gray, all Arab looks to US help but what they showed in Iraq the lost the confidence that US really will help.
Iraqis don’t believe that. We’ve lost a lot of soldiers ‘trying to help’.
Some Americans–like some on this site think we are trying to help too much and we should just leave and let Iran, Syria and the Taliban carve up Iraq.
What in Iraq now guys with militias trained and created by Iran (you need to do your search here) these militias same guys who tortured Iraqi solders (POW) in Iran for years, and now US brought them inside Iraq as ligament forces?
They are not legitimate forces. We are fighting them alongside the Iraqis. It would be a failure for the US to leave Iraq to Iran’s mercy.
So Arab lost confidence that Arab can read off their corrupted leaders also lost the last hope that US really bring democracy and freedom to the people in ME.
Too early to lose confidence. Arabs have had corrupt leaders since the end of the Caliphate. I think we’ll get there. We have to.
Gray did you read this:
300,000 Iraqis sign petition condemning Iran
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/print_friendly_version.jsp?global_name=/channels/gulfnews_com/articles/07/11/22/10169423.html
Yeah. I agree with the petition.
They are not legitimate forces.
You simply denial this Gray, Bader Militia (AlHakim Militia) the backbone of Iraq forces.
BTW, your list of stupid leaders it’s a matter of convenient for you to deal and keep them in power.
Do think millions of Arabs there were good guys between these millions who are reasonable and trusted persons who can work with instead of Ahmad Chalabi, Iranian Hakim or Ja’afary and the rest of those list from Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Baqir Jabor “The drilling force minister” (now Minster of finance).
Let’s bring to your short memory those very good guys Palestinians who worked for the peace who went to Oslo peace summate from Dr. Hanan Ashrawi to other guys one of them I knew personally who were open minded most of them graduated from US who lead the peace process unfortunately short lived peace talk.
Do you fool yourself again by listing those corrupted guys, omitting millions of people who have the will and the energy to serve their people , who need your help to stand in the face of these corrupted guys, but as said its a mater of convenient for you to live and work with those listed corrupted leader for a while till the time come to thrown them like what’s happened with Shah Iran nearly escaped Musharaf, or even Saddam as he was supported in mid 80’s.
Conservatives, as a matter of generality, do not automatically discount martial law, executions, countering the domestic insurgency, or any other thing that might be necessary to ensure the welfare and tranquility of a state’s citizens.
the Left’s abhorrence of violence and preference for a society ruled by order and obedience is such an obstacle to solving any kind of problem, social, economic, or military
If the President does not exercise his power, then people will see him as weak. If the President doesn’t use his power, then he will lose that power because other people will divide it up amongst themselves.
the basic quesiton becomes “which should come first, liberty or security”. We say security. Somebody else says jobs or liberty or prosperity or something else. -Ymarsakar
Here are a couple of salient points from Y’s long comment threads. If we didn’t know any better, they could have been written in support of Putin’s leadership in Russia. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the idea that Americans would prefer “tranquility” (based on martial law, executions and ‘any other thing necessary’) to freedom based on a system of laws and Constitutionally protected rights.
Truth makes an axcellent point in my opinion about the US credibility in the region it’s attempting to change. How can we have credibility in the face of our policies and those we prop up when the majority of Iraqis see us as merely taking what’s easy?
Good post Truth.
So Truth and Laura are advocating invasion of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia in order to depose the oil-rich sheikhs, mullahs, and petty dictators that are keeping their countrymen in poverty? Great.
Really, you people are too much.
And jim, I’m sure that you are a loving, understanding and competent therapist (not to mention dynamite former law enforcer), who has loads of successful treatments and whose community involvement is unparalleled. That’s why the inner city of St. Louis is so healthy, I guess.
Truth:
The Badr Militia is absolutely not the backbone of Iraqi Forces. I have no idea where you got that from. The US is disbanding it.
Futhermore, the US Forces are finding and killing Iranian Al Qods troops in Iraq. The US does not want Iranian influence in Iraq.
Do you fool yourself again by listing those corrupted guys, omitting millions of people who have the will and the energy to serve their people , who need your help to stand in the face of these corrupted guys, .
Finding the people who have the will and the energy to serve their people and ‘helping them stand in the face of the corrupt arab leaders’ is exactly what we are doing in Iraq….
Much like Europe and Russia, Arabs have had monsters for leaders for thousands of years. Are you arguing that we didn’t invade and overthrow the corrupt leaders soon enough?
I have a lot of Arab friends and I appreciate and enjoy Arab culture, but it is a feature of the Arab mind that they can entertain and believe two contradictory ideas at once:
“Why can’t you stop dealing with our corrupt leaders and help the good guys overthrow them? Why can’t you stop helping factions overthrow our leaders and let arabs determine our future?!”
Stumbley:
So Truth and Laura are advocating invasion of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia in order to depose the oil-rich sheikhs, mullahs, and petty dictators that are keeping their countrymen in poverty? Great.
And at the same time stop meddling in Middle Eastern Affairs.
uh, no. Don’t put words into MY mouth. I never advocated invading Iran. Of course, since you can’t seem to hold any decent argument about bushco, there go the insults.
In 2006 I provided therapy to the entire STL Cardinals team–they won the World Series–it was because of me. In 2007 I provided therapy to the entire Boston…
You believe international law or just law can make people cooperate against their will. So you don’t have to worry about their security problems or whether thugs are killing their children off.
This forms the basis of your ethics and thus your politics, Chris.
I don’t believe law can make any group of people cooperate in the long run. People work together because they want to work together, not because the law says they must. Nations in which people do things because the law says they must, are called police states.
As one counter- example, Petraeus and Sherman and MacArthur did not try to create laws. They set out to create security. Laws that do not create security are laws that will be broken.
Of course, arguing any kind of counter-insurgency program is seen as supporting vigilantism, for Chris’s faction.
Do not forget that there were laws, British laws, that proscribed rebellion. Yet the Founding Fathers chose revolt anyways. Not a recommendation for Chris White’s support of such unjust practices called “international law”.
Why do you persist in believing that your philosophy is compatible with mine or with the Founding Fathers? It isn’t.
Attempting to use an example of the Founding Fathers throwing off the shackles of unjust laws in another land, that did not secure American freedoms, in order to attack the need to do whatever it takes to secure the American people against foreign powers in the present, is a rather bad use of logic. Even if it didn’t expose your philosophy as being mutually exclusive with that of classical liberalism.
Ymasakar seems to take great delight in using long and twisting logic chains, either to “prove” that only his views can possibly be correct or that divergent views are patently false. I admire his ability to obfuscate when it serves his rhetorical purposes.
Earlier he offered a very long and convoluted comment that included defense of the use of “martial law, executions, countering the domestic insurgency, or any other thing that might be necessary to ensure the welfare and tranquility of a state’s citizens followed by a strong defense of Presidential power. To this I responded that it would appear to be a good vindication of Putin’s rule in Russia. I went on to ask whether the Founding Fathers would have imagined American citizens preferring tranquility under martial law, etc. to freedom, law and Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Since a direct answer would not serve his needs, he flips it back on itself and pretends it was a direct comment about ongoing operations in Iraq. [At least, I think that’s what he did, it is so hard to tell what he’s really trying to say sometimes.]
Now, in this most recent comment, Y argues that the Founding Fathers, in choosing rebellion to gain their freedom, ‘proves’ that they did not value law. This is then flipped through a series of twists and turns to claim, yet again, that any views of patriotism or the ideals of America other than his own are wrong.
I think Y needs to go back and do a careful review of the comments I’ve posted here, because he seems to willfully or blindly misrepresent much of what I’ve said. Unlike many who opposed the invasion of Iraq before it happened, I have never maintained that we should withdraw immediately. All of my comments have recognized our responsibility and presumed that we need our forces to remain there until stability is restored. While I think much of the prosecution of OIF has been badly managed from the top, I have not criticized the overall tactical efforts of the commanders in the field who have done an excellent job in the main (and will add here that this is especially true under Petraeus). My problems have been with the way the White House seems intent on ignoring the political side of the equation, insisting that military success alone will solve the problems we face.
Furthermore, it remains my opinion that many of the actions taken by the Bush administration have weakened, not strengthened, us in the War on Terror. Also, that, in setting forth the idea that said War on Terror is equivalent to historic wars between states, and further using that to claim overly extensive war powers at home and abroad, beyond existing domestic and international law, is, at best, foolish and dangerous, at worst, a form of quiet revolution that will haunt us for decades. Among other problems their efforts to sell the WoT and OIF as a theater in that war have led to the idea that the existence of a virulent and abhorrent terrorist group using a radical view of Islam as its rallying point means that the faith itself is the cause of our conflict.
I’ll resist the urge to emulate Y by continuing to pile tangent upon tangent and end here.
The Badr Militia is absolutely not the backbone of Iraqi Forces. I have no idea where you got that from. The US is disbanding it.
Soooo funny some one keep fighting his war from his office come and telling misinformation or simply false tales, and the prove to you those Iraqi in southern who initiating their concerning about the Iranian dominated in Iraq with help by US nothing more nothing less to say.
To teach you about what Da’awa and Hakim/IISC (formerly known as SCIRI).
SCIRI had around 21 seats after the initial distribution and managed to pick up another 9 in the distribution of compensatory seats (an entirely undemocratic backdoor procedure over which voters had no influence). They ended up with around 30, the same as the Sadrists,
http://www.historiae.org/
Is that enough for your memory or you mind to fill?