Supporters Turning On Bush

[JannaB]

First of all, Hey Mr. Scott! I hope everything is going well for you in Bloomington!

Having said that, I'll get to the point of this thread. In late 2003 I took an International Studies course at I.U. The chair of the Islamic Studies department gave a talk about the history and politics of Iraq because she was born and raised there. The question came up about how Iraqis view Americans. She told us that her family members in Iraq were very torn about how they felt towards America. On one hand they were glad to be liberated from Saddam Hussein, but on the other hand they had no lives. They couldn't go to work or to school because there was no power. They didn't have enough clean water to go around. Everything was chaos and there was very little security. She told us that although Iraqis are glad on one level that Hussein is no longer in power, they are worse off now than when he was in control. Under Saddam Hussein they lived in oppression; now they barely live. Americans don't seem interested in what the Iraqis have to say about their own country, though. They assume that Iraqis should be grateful to us for disrupting their lives in every possible way... even though very few people in this county have a clue what life in Iraq was and is like.

I've heard a lot of Conservatives (not necessarily on here- national news shows, etc.) say, "Well what's the Democrats' plan for getting us out of Iraq if they don't like how things are being run?" which I think is ridiculous. The liberals are not in control; they do not have the House, Senate, or Presidency. The Bush administration is responsible for Iraq, and thus it is up to the Bush administration to fix its errors. The White House has no right to try to push responsibility onto someone else. If I make a mistake, it's not up to my brother to fix it. Conservatives need to stop turning attention away from themselves by saying, "What are the liberals doing?" They need to fix the problems they have created and stop dodging the real issues at hand.

 

[DngrRuss]

I've heard a lot of Conservatives (not necessarily on here- national news shows, etc.) say, "Well what's the Democrats' plan for getting us out of Iraq if they don't like how things are being run?" which I think is ridiculous. The liberals are not in control; they do not have the House, Senate, or Presidency. The Bush administration is responsible for Iraq, and thus it is up to the Bush administration to fix its errors. The White House has no right to try to push responsibility onto someone else. If I make a mistake, it's not up to my brother to fix it. Conservatives need to stop turning attention away from themselves by saying, "What are the liberals doing?" They need to fix the problems they have created and stop dodging the real issues at hand.

Very good post. I could not have said it better myself.

It is not wrong, nor "unAmerican", nor "treasonous", hell- it's not even really "leftist" to question the powers-that-be as to what they are doing. If this were a Democrat controlled government, it would not be wrong to question them on what they are doing, why is wrong to question the Reps?

 

[Xequat]

IIraq - let the inspectors do their work. Work politically through the UN to bring more real democracy to Iraq. Publically denounce Saddam and his regime and make a real big deal about the atrocities that were committed. If worse comes to worse, invade, but do so with an equal coalition of forces...include as many Arab allies as possible. Have clear goals and an exit strategy so the Iraqi people know exactly what is going to happen. Let Iraqis decide what to do with their oil and as a show of good faith, forbid US companies from any interference in that process.

The bottom line is that the US shouldn't need to shoulder this war. We are not the world's policeman. In fact, the people who live next to Iraq should have had more of a hand in dealing with Saddam. The entire world has just as much stake and as much responsability as we do.

Terrorism - hunt down Al-Qaeda wherever it is and destroy it. Work with Arab countries to form partnerships. Punish countries that harbor terrorists with strict sanctions that ban anyone from buying or selling oil. The US must be ready to blockade if neccessary. See how that changes their minds...I imagine that some of these governments would take some pretty extreme measures to root out the bastards. In my opinion, terrorism is ultimately an Islamic problem. Given some "incentive" they would probably do something about it. Oh yes, we need to deal much more honestly with the Saudis. All of the above applies to them.

Related Misc. - develop alternative energies, reward conservation efforts, and rewards ways of living that use less oil. The more we can cut our dependence on foriegn oil the better. Begin pulling our interests out of the Middle East attempt to lead the way into the Post Carbon age. Distance ourselves from Isreal and start shutting off the aid flow. They should probably learn how to deal more honestly with their neighbors and everyone should learn how to play nicer. Maybe cut our ties to the Saudis. Their duplicity has cost the US thousands of lives.

Well, that is what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are some problems, but I think that overall it would work. Mainly, I think that the US should be an equal player on the world stage, not the only player and definately not the policeman. I envision a lot more cooperation in this new global world.

There are two things you wrote with I totally disagree. First, and I'm sure you've heard this before, the only thing worse than being the police of the world is living in a world with no police. We are and we should be the police of the world, whether we like it or not. It's great to create as many democracies as possible because of the rarity of wars between democracies. Second, we did let the inspectors do their work...for over ten years. Hussein did not want his neighbors to know that he did not have WMD's, so we kept on believing, based on reasonable intelligence, that he had them. Bush never said, as many of his critics claim, that Iraq had them pointed as us; he said (and I remember because it was during a speech in my hometown of Cincinnati) that "Some say that we should wait until the threat is imminent." But the only thing the critics heard was the last part which was "the threat is imminent." He was saying that we should go in there before the threat becomes imminent, but so many stupid people and liars started spreading the word that Bush was claiming that Iraq had bioweapons and such pointed at us, that many started to believe it. Now, people can just get away with saying the Bush is liar without backing it up because we've become flooded with lies about him lying to the point that now we believe the real lies. Anyway, it's late and I don't know if any of that made sense.

I do agree to a point about Israel and definitely about dependence on foreign oil. If we're going to have an ally over there, I'd just as soon start wiht Israel for now, since they seem to be the toughest game in town, although by no means are they exactly "good guys" either, in my humble opinion. Yeah, I think you have a good point about starving them out and drying up their money supply by findind alternative fuel sources. Especially since now even Venezuela seems like it might become a problem. The blockade idea might be a good one, because we are already fighting a few countries that sponsor and harbor terrorism; we're getting terrorists from the whole area moving into Iraq because they do not want democracy there (I guess that's why). But wouldn't oil blockades lead to war anyway? I mean, if we build a siege around Iran to where they can't sell oil, won't they just attack us, thus starting a war anyway, but giving them the chance to attack first? Sanctions and bans, maybe, but we can't afford to do that unless we steal their oil or until we actually do find another source of fuel. Could be wrong about that or maybe I'm missing something.

 

[michaeledward]

Bush never said, as many of his critics claim, that Iraq had them pointed as us; he said (and I remember because it was during a speech in my hometown of Cincinnati) that "Some say that we should wait until the threat is imminent." But the only thing the critics heard was the last part which was "the threat is imminent." He was saying that we should go in there before the threat becomes imminent, but so many stupid people and liars started spreading the word that Bush was claiming that Iraq had bioweapons and such pointed at us, that many started to believe it. Now, people can just get away with saying the Bush is liar without backing it up because we've become flooded with lies about him lying to the point that now we believe the real lies. Anyway, it's late and I don't know if any of that made sense.

You're kidding, right?

President Bush said an attack could be launched in 45 minutes ..... that isn't imminent enough for you?

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/26/2002
Quote/Claim:
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03"

President Bush also indicated that Iraq could have nuclear weapons in less than a year. Although, not as 'imminent', certainly the statement was designed to create a sense of urgency.

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 10/7/2002
Quote/Claim:
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” [Source: White House Web site] "
Fact:
"We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

The International Atomic Energy Agency's report that Iraq has not resumed its nuclear program has challenged one of the Bush administration's main arguments for taking military action to topple the Iraqi government. - NY Times, 1/28/03

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 10/7/2002
Quote/Claim:
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait? [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"Bush didn't care whether or not Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When Diane Sawyer tried to make a distinction between stating as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons, Bush snapped back so what's the difference? - ABC, 12/16/03

And, one last thought, to veiw the statements of 'imminent threat' coming from the President as the only statements on the subject is self-deceiving in the extreme. I would suggest you view the statements from the Vice President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and others in the administration. The entire administration was beating the drums of war.

 

[Cryozombie]

Of course, what that has to do with supporters turning away from President Bush's policies is obscure to me.

Just getting clarification to somthing stated earlier in the thread.

 

[Makalakumu]

It must be hard to come up with a real plan, Mac. Certainly the administration hasn't come up with a clearly articulated one.

There are clearly articulated goals for Iraq and the entire Middle East. They can be found here. That site is very very fluid. Things have been removed. Another good site that talks about this stuff can be found here. One document, "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" is very informative in a general way. As one reads these documents, one begins to see how the War in Iraq fits into their statement of principles. These principles would induce a "benevolent hegemony" to the rest of the world extending what is becoming known as the "American Peace" or "Pax Americana."

This is the big picture regarding our administrations policies. The concept of "benevolent hegemony" expressed by these principles is movitivated by our national interest as articulated by Dick Cheney. Pre-911, terrorism wasn't really on their radar screen. Post-911, the War on Terror became a side effect of implementing these plans.

Here is a site were people write more freely about this stuff. There is a preponderance of articles written by the very same people in PNAC that will inform us about the principle and plans behind the administrations foriegn policy.

This situation is going to continue to degrade, and it won't be from lack of support. It will be because of incompetency in the administration and an inability to carry out any cogent actions AND a failure to articulate goals and gains. The article above--from a noted conservative magazine--clearly shows that.

I think the degredation of this policy is summed up with the words benelovent hegemony. This is impossible. How many other civilizations have attempted this and have ended up stretched too thin? Why is American immune to history? We cannot be the world's policeman. We cannot assume responsability for the world safety. We cannot force our hands into the bag of the worlds resources above all others without expecting to bankrupt our country.

This is why the administration doesn't articulate this stuff. They'd be excoriated. Instead, we get the lies and jingoism that have led us by our fear. Hopefully, this article indicates the beginning of the end of this ultimately failed policy.

 

[Flatlander]

Hi Janna, welcome to Martial Talk. :asian:

On one hand they were glad to be liberated from Saddam Hussein, but on the other hand they had no lives. They couldn't go to work or to school because there was no power. They didn't have enough clean water to go around. Everything was chaos and there was very little security. She told us that although Iraqis are glad on one level that Hussein is no longer in power, they are worse off now than when he was in control. Under Saddam Hussein they lived in oppression; now they barely live.

This isn't completely accurate. I grant that in 2003, some Iraqis may have felt that way. A couple of good friends of mine just returned from the Basra area, where they were visiting their families. (Before they left to go I told them both that I thought they were insane, but, they felt compelled to return and see for themselves.) I asked specifically about the general mindset over there, as well as the economic situation.

Ali told me that the people believed that their future held promise. He offered that the people were happy with their freedom, and by and large most of the insurgents there were former Baathists - people who had lost their wealth and status. He said that the Iraqi economy was beginning to improve, and that the people were able to make money if they had the acumen. He related that there were still dangers there, but he was very happy to have seen the difference in the spirits of the people since he was last there, just before Iraq invaded Kuwait.

My point is, the situation over there is dynamic and subjective. It all depends who you ask and when you ask them.

 

[Makalakumu]

Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the end. Syria, Iran, "benevolent hegemony". VP Cheney said we could expect war for the rest of our lives.

 

[bignick]

VP Cheney said we could expect war for the rest of our lives.

I must have missed that one...when did that happen?

 

[OUMoose]

Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the end. Syria, Iran, "benevolent hegemony". VP Cheney said we could expect war for the rest of our lives.

Hmmmm... Too late to get in on Halliburton stock? :idunno:

 

[sgtmac_46]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll give it a go...

Iraq - let the inspectors do their work. Work politically through the UN to bring more real democracy to Iraq. Publically denounce Saddam and his regime and make a real big deal about the atrocities that were committed. If worse comes to worse, invade, but do so with an equal coalition of forces...include as many Arab allies as possible. Have clear goals and an exit strategy so the Iraqi people know exactly what is going to happen. Let Iraqis decide what to do with their oil and as a show of good faith, forbid US companies from any interference in that process.

You mean the UN who's top officials Saddam had already bribed?

And what coalition of forces more than we have is going to join us when their leaders are getting rich with Saddam in power? You really believe that the French, Russians and Germans didn't back us because they believed military intervention is wrong? Their recent histories should tell us otherwise. Their decisions were economic ones. They stood to gain more by leaving Saddam in power, than seeing him removed.

The bottom line is that the US shouldn't need to shoulder this war. We are not the world's policeman. In fact, the people who live next to Iraq should have had more of a hand in dealing with Saddam. The entire world has just as much stake and as much responsability as we do.

We shouldn't need to be, but in a world full of spineless opportunistic politicians taking bribes from 3rd World Dictators to run interference, sometimes we have to. The bottom line is that I would consider any president who viewed US interests (i.e. taking bribes) as taking the backseat to the UN a traitor.

Terrorism - hunt down Al-Qaeda wherever it is and destroy it. Work with Arab countries to form partnerships. Punish countries that harbor terrorists with strict sanctions that ban anyone from buying or selling oil. The US must be ready to blockade if neccessary. See how that changes their minds...I imagine that some of these governments would take some pretty extreme measures to root out the bastards. In my opinion, terrorism is ultimately an Islamic problem. Given some "incentive" they would probably do something about it. Oh yes, we need to deal much more honestly with the Saudis. All of the above applies to them.

We've already banned Iran from selling oil. Every indication is that many top members of al-Qaeda are currently in Iran, including Bin Laden. Iran (among many others) have gone mostly unscathed for years despite numerous attacks on US citizens and our interests. I'm sure you'd love to blame all this on the Saudis, but keep in mind bin Laden in banned from Saudi Arabia, so he's not likely there.

As for "Extreme measures", I believe the threat of US military force is the ultimate extreme measure. If Islamic nations don't respond to that one, they won't respond to any.

Related Misc. - develop alternative energies, reward conservation efforts, and rewards ways of living that use less oil. The more we can cut our dependence on foriegn oil the better. Begin pulling our interests out of the Middle East attempt to lead the way into the Post Carbon age. Distance ourselves from Isreal and start shutting off the aid flow. They should probably learn how to deal more honestly with their neighbors and everyone should learn how to play nicer. Maybe cut our ties to the Saudis. Their duplicity has cost the US thousands of lives.

On this one point you and I are on the same page. By ending our dependence on Arab oil will help end the threat of terrorism. The people in the region will be just as violent, but at least it will be more like sub-saharan Africa. With no oil revenues, the conflicts will be localized tribal conflicts, not regional wars.

Well, that is what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are some problems, but I think that overall it would work. Mainly, I think that the US should be an equal player on the world stage, not the only player and definately not the policeman. I envision a lot more cooperation in this new global world.

I keep hearing people say "We're not the world's policeman". The problem is, there IS no world's policeman. We're living in the wild west on the international stage. Justice on the world stage is the justice you bring with you right now.

 

[KenpoEMT]

Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the end. Syria, Iran, "benevolent hegemony". VP Cheney said we could expect war for the rest of our lives.

War is profitable, no? It turns millionaires into billionaires.

 

[JannaB]

Hi Janna, welcome to Martial Talk. :asian:This isn't completely accurate. I grant that in 2003, some Iraqis may have felt that way. A couple of good friends of mine just returned from the Basra area, where they were visiting their families. (Before they left to go I told them both that I thought they were insane, but, they felt compelled to return and see for themselves.) I asked specifically about the general mindset over there, as well as the economic situation.

Ali told me that the people believed that their future held promise. He offered that the people were happy with their freedom, and by and large most of the insurgents there were former Baathists - people who had lost their wealth and status. He said that the Iraqi economy was beginning to improve, and that the people were able to make money if they had the acumen. He related that there were still dangers there, but he was very happy to have seen the difference in the spirits of the people since he was last there, just before Iraq invaded Kuwait.

My point is, the situation over there is dynamic and subjective. It all depends who you ask and when you ask them.

I'm glad to hear that things are improving (for some people anyway). I also think it's very cool that your friends wanted to see and experience the situation for themselves! That's very admirable, IMHO.

~Janna

 

[hardheadjarhead]

First of all, Hey Mr. Scott! I hope everything is going well for you in Bloomington!

Things are great...as I hope they are for you. Sorry I didn't greet you sooner, but I've been busy.

I've heard a lot of Conservatives (not necessarily on here- national news shows, etc.) say, "Well what's the Democrats' plan for getting us out of Iraq if they don't like how things are being run?" which I think is ridiculous. The liberals are not in control; they do not have the House, Senate, or Presidency. The Bush administration is responsible for Iraq, and thus it is up to the Bush administration to fix its errors. The White House has no right to try to push responsibility onto someone else. If I make a mistake, it's not up to my brother to fix it. Conservatives need to stop turning attention away from themselves by saying, "What are the liberals doing?" They need to fix the problems they have created and stop dodging the real issues at hand.

We've heard this here...and your point is well taken. The liberals don't hold the reigns of power. Further, as has been pointed out, some of the most ardent critics of this war are conservatives who find it fiscally disasterous and strategically questionable.

These latter conservatives admittedly have few options for solving the problems of Iraq--other than pulling out. Some, like McCain, opt for sending more troops. As Frank Rich pointed out in a recent column, McCain will have to go door to door to get them. The National Guard is approaching "a meltdown" according to retired General Barry McCaffrey. The National Guard is spending three hundred and fifty million dollars on recruiting ads...none of which mention Iraq.

This is, I suspect, a "no win" situation. If the Republicans win at the midterms, and retain the White House and Congress in 2008, then they will have a chance to validate the Bush doctrine of "staying the course." I think this is unlikely to happen, but if it does certain Democrats will breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their boys won't have to shoulder the responsibility for handling the Iraq situation.

If the Dems win...or even if the Republicans win...and we pull out, then those last remaining war hawks can cry about how we haven't the grit of our ancestors, that we lack spine and moral fiber and whatnot.

If we stay, we stay...but I've come to believe that nothing we do will better this situation. The problems are so infuriatingly complex that no strategy we devise will solve them.

It would be nice, however, if the President would tell us exactly HOW he plan on solving these problems, instead of feeding us folksy little sound bites like "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." He is, after all, the Commander in Chief...and the man who ostensibly ought to take responsibility for this debacle.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Phoenix44]

Whether you're Repub or Dem, liberal or conservative, or none of the above, I think what's starting to bother Americans of all stripes is the perceived lack of honesty on the part of the Bush Administration. People want honest answers to honest questions. I agree with hardheadjarhead: people are tired of hearing slogans and platitudes instead of at least an overall plan and a realistic picture.

It just doesn't help when Cheney says the insurgency is in its "last throes" when we can read about the mounting death toll. It doesn't help to say, "Freedom is on the march" when the evidence points to the likelihood of decreased rights for women under a new Iraqi constitution. It doesn't add to the confidence level of the American public when the administration doesn't seem to want to address how we are going to manage the exorbitant expense of this war, or when the administration doesn't seem to want to tell the truth about why we really went to war.

These are not partisan issues.