This morning I spent a few wistful minutes musing about George H.W. Bush and the way that brains don’t always pass from father to kid.
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles.
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. (George H.W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998)
No shit, pop. Even the great Frum has come to realize that we should pretty much accept a quiet withdrawal and hope that al Qaeda doesn’t fill the void. Credit where credit is due, Frum delivers his blistering acknowledgment of the obvious without once pulling that old rubber-knife-in-the-back gag that kills at Powerline.
Getting back to the Bushes, a decent amount of ink has gone dry cataloguing junior’s oedipal pathologies. Take it from Republican insiders and the Bushes themselves:
By the end of this family history, however, the reader comes away with a sense less of the similarities between George W. Bush and his father, than of their differences, in temperament, governance and attitudes toward religion, diplomacy and decision making. Not only did Bush the younger look to patriarchal figures like Ronald Reagan and Billy Graham for inspiration, but he also determined not to repeat what he saw as his father’s mistakes.
If his father lacked the ”vision thing,” he would preside over a more ideologically driven administration. If his father was a committed internationalist, he would be willing to go it alone. And if the first gulf war had failed to dislodge Mr. Hussein, then the 2003 Iraq war would finish him off.
As Rich Bond, a former Republican National Committee chairman sees it, George W. almost consciously tried to be different from his father from Day 1: ”You might say it was almost exaggerated,” the Schweizers quote him saying. ”I don’t know why because the father and son were very close. But George W. seemed to want to be defined differently from the beginning.”
You can hardly fault the older president Bush for not trying to get the message across that doing the opposite of what dad did is not the same as doing the smart thing. When junior ignored private advice dad tried the more direct approach, using his old confidante Brent Scowcroft as a cut-out:
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict–which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve–in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.
Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam’s strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.
To his credit the elder Bush and his confidantes had a better foresight on Iraq than most Democrats. More than that, their realistic skepticism singlehandedly saves rightwing credibility from damage done by the “candy and flowers” Republican leadership. If Scowcroft had not taken his lumps for treason ans pansy-assed liberalism and being objectively pro-terrorist there would not be a credible Republican voice (Pat Buchanan is not credible) who could look back at the martial hysteria surrounding the Iraq war without some degree of shame. Some folks will get points for coming clean before it was cool (I think David Frum’s conversion pretty much stamps that deadline), but we owe credit to the precious few who got it right the first time.
Too bad parenting loses its effectiveness when the kid is 55 and president of the United States. It seems ridiculous to expect a son who challenged his dad to a drunken fistfight at twenty-six to grow into a guy who handles parental criticism well. Heck, let’s throw in spousal criticism and call it a character trait.
All of which brings us to Iraqi PM Nuri Kamalal-Maliki’s speech before Congress on Wednesday. We know that Maliki’s predecessor Ayad Allawi accepted more than a little ghostwriting from the Bush campaign when his turn came to address Congress. God knows the administration obsesses about message discipline almost to the exclusion of everything else. Did al-Maliki get the same kind of ‘help?’ The White House claims ‘minimal help,’ Fred Kaplan thinks otherwise. Let’s go to the tape:
For decades, we struggled alone for our freedom. In 1991, when Iraqis tried to capitalize on the regime’s momentary weakness and rose up, we were alone again.
The people of Iraq will not forget your continued support as we establish a secure, liberal democracy. Let 1991 never be repeated, for history will be most unforgiving.
Zing! Take that, pops! If Maliki didn’t accept that portion from the White House verbatim, he clearly knew how to make junior happy.
Nutcutter
Bush’s speechifiers have raised the bar on bullshit and bathos. And I can hardly believe that they got Maliki to actually say this shit.
The Walt Disney version of recent Iraqi history.
Scary part is, Bush actually believes this crap.
Steve
I remember when the Kerry campaign called Allawi a puppet for saying things like that, and the Bush folks fell all over themselves lambasting him for showing such disrespect to the brave and courageous Iraqi leader.
And then later, when Allawi started talking about how bad things were in Iraq… he was immediately written off as a raving nutjob. Why, everyone knows things are going great in Iraq. He’s just a disgruntled former Prime Minister. I’m surprised they didn’t accuse him of having a book to sell.
Punchy
Damn, Kaplan is DEAD-ON:
That Congressmen really thought they’d have a pro-Israeli ally in Iraq is one of THE most laughable fantasies I’ve heard in awhile. And for them to be outraged that he’s not…well…is the fakest, most disingenuous outrage the Dems have fostered in years…
Nutcutter
A really excellent read from Newsweek on our handling of the current Lebanon crisis …. …
Which contains this interesting blurb:
Israel’s voters. Also witness the results of “democracy” recently in Iran, the rise of Hezbollah as a political entity in Lebanon’s democracy, the rise of Hamas …..
To paraphrase George Bush the Impaired, being a democracy is “hard work.” I mean, seriously, in this complex world, the self-governing citizen needs to pay attention, know some history, understand his own interests, be able to see out into the long term.
So, to my point. The further away from the delusional nonsense of Bush the people get, as indicated by the poll numbers in the last year and a half or so, the more Bush and his apologistocracy claim that he is resolute and, as one spokesman said yesterday on MSNBC, “This president doesn’t go out onto the south lawn and stick his finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. He continues to make the hard decisions, which often are unpopular.”
Translation? He knows more and better than the people.
That’s a rather startling disconnect. I have a hunch that the fate of the country hinges on the peoples’ ability to take back the baton from this crazy man, in November, and put a Democrat House of Representatives between him and the next two years of history …. and beyond.
The fool doesn’t know better than the people. The people need to let him know that.
Pb
Punchy,
If so, then sign me up, because that would make them like a zillion times more honest than their opponents. Really, when you’re attacked repeatedly by cartoon foreign policy, it’s not unfair to respond with it in kind. And if the end result is that someone eventually sprinkles some more realism into the discussion, that’d be good too. However, I have a feeling that in response they’ll just flail around and mutter about ‘freedom’ and ‘Democracy’ and ‘Iraqis taking responsibility’ (for the mess we made) some more, letting me continue to come to the conclusion that maybe imposing Democracy by force in the Middle East wasn’t the best gameplan out there.
Andrew
The Iraqis aren’t free until they can hate Israel like everyone else in the Middle East.
Nutcutter
The only thing in the public sphere more theatrical than blogs, is Congress.
This outrage was staged, of course, for the purpose of putting light on the disconnect between Bush’s fantasy of a happy democratic ally called Iraq, and the reality …. Iraq is just another whack Arab country ready to take its place in the shitstorm of Arab history. You can take the Maliki out of Arabia, but you can’t take Arabia out of the Maliki.
The staged outrage also underlined the fact that Bush was falling over himself trying not to show any displeasure with Maliki, and the Dems are right to spotlight that disconnect.
Pb
Andrew,
Probably so. And America too, don’t forget America. Although if we split off Kurdistan, we could get a tiny little incredibly pro-American country in the Middle East–but Turkey would be pissed!
Steve
What’s funny is that I’ve seen so many online liberals treat the Dem outrage as though it’s some terrible AIPAC-funded conspiracy, when it’s obviously, as you say, completely fake.
The Dems are making a big production because they want the American people to see what sort of an ally we’ve created in Iraq through all this expenditure of blood and treasure – a nation hostile to Israel and chummy with Iran. Maybe no one should have expected anything less – but if people weren’t sharp enough to see this going in, then they might as well see it now.
Of course Saddam was plenty anti-Israel himself, much like the rest of the region – but he certainly wasn’t pro-Iran!
Does it make sense from a foreign policy standpoint to spend $500 billion and lose thousands of American lives in order to give our “mortal enemy,” Iran, a friendly client state next door? Some would say no, but then again, I’m sure those would be people with no credibility on foreign policy.
Faux News
PB: Turkey would be more than pissed. They have made it clear they would invade an independent Kurdistan. Kurds = terra-ists to the Turks. So do we attack a NATO ally when they invade the new “Republic of Kurdistan”?
Punchy
Here’s my point: someone BADLY needed to point out that what we’re fostering in Iraq is an anti-Israeli Shia theocracy. The Dems seemed pissed, when they should have just been more to-the-point, in-your-face and said “Look, this guy dislikes Israel”. That would have been a better soundbite, and may have awoken some people to this fact.
Instead, they paraded around, threatening to boycott his speech, unless he denounced Hezbollah, which is something he was NEVER going to do. That’s the part that I found phony and disingenuous. In the end, his support for Hezbollah never made any newscast, as it would have if the Dems had just announced it instead of crying about him having to declare it (again! He’d already done it once)
Shorter–they should have held a press con to announce that this guy won’t support The Iz, instead of stomping their feet in false shock that an Muslim gov’t wont give props to the Zionists (especially at this moment in time).
Pb
Faux News,
Indeed, someone would end up being really unhappy with us, either way, in that situation.
Nutcutter
Most of what happens in Congress is Kabuki.
Once you imagine those guys wearing the masks, it all starts to make sense.
Mr Furious
Tying this post in with yesterday’s worthless Dean thread, it’s worth checking out this piece at Glenn Greenwald’s. Just a quick recap on how for all of Howard Dean’s “craziness” he has turned out to be right on nearly every single goddamn thing. Next time you hear one of Dean’s “outrageous” statements (and John and anyone else mocking him) keep in mind that Dean’s probably right, just a year too early.
Mr Furious
Punchy, I’m with you. the Dem’s antics this week were, frankly, embarrassing.
The fact that it was so disengenuous is hopefully indicative that they aren;t really that out of touch on foriegn policy. The rare case where I’m hoping for pandering over straight-up incompetence.
Eural
All this just reminds me of an ancient Chinese curse:
“May you live in interesting times.”
Gregory
That passage from Bush the Elder — echoed, I might add, by Colin Powell — pretty much summed up my own thinking on why Bush the Lesser’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq was a bad idea.
Unfortunately, the war cheerleaders were too busy tagging skeptics as traitors at worst and “unserious” at best to give serious answers to serious questions about how, exactly, Bush’s war fever wasn’t a serious mistake.
Steve
Yeah, I really wish Howard Dean would have gotten to the point and called the guy an anti-Semite or something.
Mr Furious
Gregory, go read the Greenwald link.
D. Mason
Even if he did, as employees ocasionally do know better than their employers, it wouldn’t matter. Our system of government isn’t set up as a dictatorship. Every Presidential action that is in oposition to the will of We the People is a violation of the Constitution.
Tsulagi
Funny. When I saw that Maliki line thanking us for helping to establish a “liberal” democracy I first thought some message speechifier’s head might roll. But it’s probably just someone actually thinking ahead. If Iraq continues its implosion to the point where even a Krisol would say on Fox News “now that’s fucked up,” the Bush pods will point back saying “See, the problem was they became a LIBERAL democracy.”
Punchy
If you think that Dean has the “media credibility” that Reid or Pelosi has…well…you’re mistaken.
Dean may be right, but he’s ridiculed and no one right of Lieberman will give him any credit (unfairly, IMO). But if soft-spoken Reid, or wordsmith Feingold, come out in a press con blasting, CNN and NBC may pay attention. And may actually report it.
What I saw, news-wise, was they did a great job of reporting the “boycott” without ever fully explaining the reason behind it. Why? No good soundbite to accompany it, IMO.
Punchy
I see absolutely no way…even taking into account Bush’s obfuscation of facts and reality…that anyone with any cred at all will be able to call this a “democracy” in 6 months.
My guesses as to what Luntz-ified moniker this crapfest will get:
Representative Theocracy
Democratically Representative Shiaocracy
The Shunnia Show Starring the Kurds
Iraq My Brains for a Better Name
Kakistrocracy Lite
Oligarchial Democracy with a Hint of Mullahs
Iran West
The Only Country Israel Won’t Currently Bomb
Texas Tea Depository
Nutcutter
That is funny. But even Bush’s writers know that “liberal democracy” doesn’t mean American-politics-liberal. It means … a real democracy where the people can bring about real change. Unlike ANY “democracy” in the Arab world, now or in the past. Here are what some objective measures might look like . Notice that Iraq is almost off the chart at the low end. But mainly notice that none of these countries is really in the solid “liberal democracy” category.
What I wonder is, if you said “liberal democracy” to George Bush, would he have any idea what you were talking about?
Nutcutter
Sorry, I just noticed that the Quantify Democracy chart hasn’t been updated since 1999. So the numbers largely are wrong now.
However, the method is interesting, and I think, valid.
Nutcutter
Oops, wrong again. The perils of multitasking. I didn’t see the 2005 chart right there below the other one.
Clearly I am not ready for realtime Forex trading ….
SeesThroughIt
We have a winner!
Man, this thread is actually making me wistful for the presidency of George the Greater. I imagine he’s experiencing a similar post-term rise in approval as his son continues to redefine “inept.” Unless, of course, his son has managed to ruin the Bush name beyond repair.
Nutcutter
Tragedy Gold is when we wish for a return to the great leadership of George Bush the Elder.
God, are we fucked.
Tsulagi
This post reminds me of what little Bush said to family friend and biographer Mickey Herskowitz in 1999: “My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
Thank God that has come to pass! Little Bush with The Dick right behind him (they make a cute First Couple) can use wartime president status to get our priorities straight. Ken and Bill? No marrying on our watch! Flag burners? Your days are numbered! Constitution? Please, no place for quaint, obsolete documents in the days of bold truthiness and spectering.
Oh, and A-list campaign contributors and faith-based organizations that have helped make this all possible? We hope you continue to enjoy the private buffet at the Treasury. Iraqi people? Enjoy the fruits of our labors and for the sane among you don’t forget to buy the T-shirts on your way out.
Yes, by all little Bush measuring sticks, it’s been a successful presidency.
Nutcutter
Bookmark this post. In case there is ever any question, at all, about why we have a war in Iraq? Here’s your answer.
Pb
Therein lies the problem, one of these things is not like the other…
Kimmitt
It is so sad that the only real reason we invaded Iraq is to prove that Bush 43 has a bigger wang than Bush 41.
Andrew
Some one should tell W to stop sticking it in the wrong hole.
Condi Rice
You should do no such thing!
Darrell
At that time the elder Bush encouraged the Shia to rise up against Saddam, giving them hope that the US would back their efforts. How’d that bit of “foresight” work out?
Darrell
Glad you leftie deep thinkers have moved past your “George Bush is a drunk” talking points. Same ones pointing fingers at Bush for being a partier in his younger days, worship the ground Ted Kennedy walks on.
Steve
And the same ones who make Chappaquiddick jokes think it’s bullshit to talk about Bush’s history. Yawn…
Richard Clarke has some good discussion of this history in his book… not that you’d care, Darrell, since Clarke is just a “discredited partisan hack” to you. But anyway, it had more to do with the CIA writing checks that the White House wouldn’t cash… with tragic results, to say the least.
As to why the White House decided not to honor the check, I guess I’d have to pick up the book again.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Not well for the Shia. Bush initially supported their uprising, but when they started to rise up he dropped them like a hot potato:
It’s one of the many reasons that they haven’t spent as much time throwing candy and flower petals at us as we were led to expect.
Steve
It’s coming back to me. First of all, Bush I encouraged the Iraqis to revolt against Saddam prior to the war, but the idea was that if they did so then we wouldn’t have to go to war. They didn’t go for it. Then, after we routed Saddam militarily, the Kurds and Shia decided it would be a good time to rise up… but the calculus had now changed, because we were committed to a coalition that really didn’t want us to back the rebellion.
VidaLoca
Well, I ask you, was he publishing a book?
Case closed.
Darrell
Ted Kennedy’s drunken negligence killed a woman.. So yes, the comparison is bullshit.
Yes he did, which makes it so strange that libs like Tim F are touting the elder Bush’s good judgement.
scs
As much as you all Libs wax poetic about how great things were under Saddam, all of you all are missing the point. You seems to act like Saddam was some Middle East savior for us and, if only Bush Jr. had left Saddam in power, all the Shias would behave and everything would be dandy now. Might I remind you that everyone knew Saddam was weak and his army was almost non-existent. Keeping Saddam around and keeping up the sanctions like you Libs wanted would have done nothing to disuage the Shia’s from acting up like they are doing now, as Saddam’s army would have intimidated no one.
The obvious reason this is happening is the election of the new ambitious leader in Iran. He is trying to ally himself with the Shia groups in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. I would bet almost everything he rigged the elections in Palestine to get Hamas elected and of course he is giving money and weapons to Shia groups around the area to stir up trouble.
This would have all happened with or WITHOUT Saddam around and I would argue that we are in a better PR position now with Iraq having a chance at democracy than we would have been with millions of Iraqi children starving because of US imposed oil for food sanctions.
I say good for George Jr and he is right not to listen to you fools who can’t think two steps ahead in the chess game.
Darrell
Well, given Clinton’s milqetoast response to terrorist attacks on the WTC, Khobar and USS Cole, and the fact that Bush, unlike Clinton, got CIA updates every day.. given those realities, I think it’s beyond doubt that his characterization of Clinton as a vigilant fighter of terrorism compared to Bush is the very definition of partisan hackery. But for leftists to acknowledge this, that would be consider blasphemy.
Darrell
That’s actually a pretty damn good summary of what happened.
Tim F.
Ding! Straw man.
Straw man.
The historical record called. He sounded upset.
An argument based on an breathtakingly counterfactual claim. e.g., bogus. Welcome back, but please argue better.
scs
Hmmm. You repeat “Straw man” a couple times and consider yourself a superior debater? I notice you never really answer any points but tend to deflect instead. Please Tim go back to Philosphy 101 – you need a refresher course.
scs
Tim as an example of your deflections – you brought up this in your link in response to the statement I made that Saddam had a weak army.
This does in no way comment on the state of Saddams army (“and his army was almost non-existent.”) It is a comment on Saddam’s ability as a terrorist trouble maker and terrorist supporter. Two different issues. But I’m sure you knew that. Yet you chose to deflect anyway. If you can’t argue honestly, you have no business being a commentator here.
scs
Honestly Tim, please support your arguments with facts that RELATE for once. I still don’t know what the hell you mean above.
Are you saying that having Saddam around with his crusty old tanks WOULD have intimidated Iran’s new leader not to stir up trouble in Lebanon? Please, Saddam would have joined in with as much money and support as he could spare. Any trouble for the US and Israel would have been a golden opportunity for him, no matter WHO stared it up. Get a clue please into the dynamics of human psychology in the real world.
VidaLoca
In round numbers: 2500+ dead US soldiers, 19,000 injured US soldiers, 40,000 dead Iraqis, unknown numbers of injured Iraqis, trillions of dollars spent with no end in sight.
The head (using the term loosely) of the government (using that term loosely too) just got done telling us that the situation is sliding into civil war.
And you’re talking about our “PR position”? This is about fricking public relations?
Jesus wept. In whose eyes, exactly, have we improved our public image?
scs
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead by Saddams death squads. Hundreds of thousands of children starving because of oil for food corruption.
Which is better? I say the former. At least now there is a chance for a better way. Better to die for a cause than to die for a criminal.
Steve
I think assuming Iran would have the same hardline leader if we had pursued a different Middle East policy isn’t necessarily justified. This seems to be yet another case of Bush getting credit for any good thing that happens, but all bad things happen completely beyond Bush’s control.
scs
I was only brought up the “PR” position because that seems to be an obsession of the Left. Ohhhhh, they whine, now the Arabs and the Euros hate us because of Iraq. But having sanctions on millions of people and keeping them enslaved under an evil system was okay by them. Jesus weeps for their cowardice and hypocrisy.
scs
Huh? It’s obvious one has nothing to do with the other. Iran’s election had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. It had to do with the corrupt Mullahs there rigging the system. Ahmadinejad had about a 10% rating in opinion polls before the election- and he won somehow. Hmmmmm. The elections there and others in the region were a farce.
Darrell
Or more like Bush not getting credit for positive things that do/did happen as a result of his actions, because “everyone” knows the stupid Chimp can’t do anything right.
Darrell
It just occurred to me that in the course of this yielding to “multilateral agreement” after Gulf War I in not finishing the job with Saddam, we made a bad decision, and Shias and Kurds got butchered because of it. Maybe that was a necessary price to pay to have such an international coalition. But I don’t think so.
Since you libs are always telling us how horrible the Bush admin is for not bending over more to “international opinion”.. you should try a little honest acknowledgement of the consequences of the policies you advocate
Steve
Hardliners tend to breed hardliners. Admadinejad gained standing because he got to demagogue against mean old Bush.
Remember, if you trusted the exit polls from 2004, you’re a crazy moonbat, but if you trust opinion polls from Iran, you’re a savvy foreign policy expert. You guys, with your uncanny ability to conclusively detect election fraud with the snap of your fingers, you remind me of nothing more than the nutters over at dkos who scream DIEBOLD! even in elections that don’t use electronic voting.
VidaLoca
Well, keeping in mind who the other regional actors in the coalition were — the Saudis, the oil sheikdoms, the Russians — and how enthusiastic they’d be about a popular revolution breaking out in Iraq as a model for their own populations — how do you see the coalition holding together in the face of a movement to overthrow Saddam?
Bush could have honored, rather than betraying, his commitment — essentially said that the war is over now and the coalition is done. But he had no enthusiasm for a popular uprising against Saddam either now that the war was over. In other words in the new calculus after the military defeat of Saddam, he chose a weakened Iraqui govt. with Saddam at the head that could still keep the lid on the Iraqui population, over invading and taking on that job himself, and over supporting a popular revolt that he could not count on controlling as well as he could control Saddam. Under the right circumstances, Saddam could be more of an asset than a liability — as indeed he had been before he invaded Kuwait.
So, was the butchery of the Shias and Kurds a “necessary price to pay”? No — I see it more as a choice Bush made in the name of realpolitik and perceived national interest. Morally defensible? No.
scs
Yes and it’s obvious that the Shia Iranians LOVED Saddam Hussein and that they all cried many tears because they were so upset when he was deposed by us.
AJad (my new abreviation for him) was an unknown outside of Tehran practically before the election. So let’s see, the most Lib guy who won last time, (god what was his name, Khameni?) who got 80% of the vote and the most hardline guy who was polling at 10% just happened to win this time? If you think the Mullahs conducted that election fair and sqaure, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.
Please. You all should grow up, really.
SeesThroughIt
Yeah, well, Jesus also weeps when people say the word “fuck,” so Jesus has a very low weeping threshold.
VidaLoca
I realize you’re being sarcastic here, but think about it: we finished off, in three weeks, an army that the Iranians had tried and failed over eight years to defeat. Now, three and a half years down the road, we’ve demonstrated that we can’t control the county we occupy.
If you were running Iran, wouldn’t this be like your wildest dream come true?
Steve
Conclusive proof of election fraud, right here from the “serious about foreign policy” Right…
rachel
“Support Israel be they right or wrong” should not be the sum of our Mid-east policy.
Tim F.
I’ll tell you what, SCS. If you stop making straw man arguments then I will stop pointing them out. Honest. As long as you insist on painting your opposition with ridiculous caricatures then it hardly seems incumbent on any of us to take you the least bit seriously.
Please take the time to read your own writing. You did not simply claim that Saddam had a weak army. You claimed that everybody knew that Saddam had a weak army. Really? Who would “everybody” include, the president? He seemed to believe at the time that Saddam posed quite a threat. The president’s cabinet and their ideological allies spent most of their free time on cable TV aggressively pushing that point. If anybody thought that Iraq posed no threat they stayed well hid through most of 2002 and 2003.
So, come back to me with a point that doesn’t presuppose made-up facts and appeals to bad-faith straw men. God forbid you could even cite your sources. Earn respect and then you will get it.
scs
Tim, as long as you act like a ridiculous caricature with your one-sided and sometimes dishonest debates, I will point out and dramatize your ridiculous thought process. Honest.
Tim, are you dense? When did George Bush in his term ever claim Saddam had a strong army? God, if Bush thought Saddam had a strong army, he obviously wouldn’t have invaded the place. The danger of Saddam was his ability to surreptitiously reconstitute his nuclear and biological weapons programs, in small or large part, and pass them plus money and support off to Sunni (or other) terrorists groups to make trouble in the region. Kind of like Ajad is doing now.
Let me make it even clearer for you as seem you seem a little dense on this. Westerners are scared of Al Qaeda. Why? Because they have a strong and effective army? No. Tim. Because they are “terrorists”. Terrorist Group Strong Army. Different thing. Get it?
scs
I wrote “Terrorist group ‘not equal to’ Strong Army” with the math symbols, but the symbols didn’t show up for some reason.
scs
Please I could do without the respect from cowardly DougJ clones who only criticise with fake ID’s and psychotic and abusive ppgaz’s and dishonest, win at all costs even if you stretch the truth, TimF’s of the world. I come here to stir up you losers – not to get your “respect”. I only care about getting respect from the people who deserve respect as well.
scs
No conclusive proof. But lets use our brains a little. 2 plus 2 was 4, last time I checked.
Kimmitt
Seriously, do you people have even the tiniest ounce of self-examination?
JH
I believe scs is in fact, a moron.
scs
I believe the moron is the immature ass who’s too cowardly to stick by his own ID, JH (cough, cough)
I believe the other moron is the one who claimed George Bush claimed Saddam Hussein had a strong army. Wait, don’t I remember Dems making fun of how they thought the Bush Admin claimed it would be a cake-walk into Iraq? Do you think the Bush Admin claimed it would be a cake walk into Iraq because they thought Saddam had a STRONG army?
Honestly, this is another time Tim F should apologize for his blatant lies. But he won’t. Sad that someone with responsibility here like he is allowed to get away with that nonsense. If he acts likes that here, someone better double check his science research to make sure there’s no Snuppy in his past.