The current buzz is that Barack Obama, as a fresh faced politician, will fundamentally change the nature of politics (see sidebar ad), and no doubt the global climate, by virtue of his simple, authentic humanity and humble background. This comes none too soon, as Democrats are currently undergoing a crisis of confidence: Can the party survive being called the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party? The problem for us non-Democrats is that there is nothing particularly democratic about the Democrat Party. It also makes phrases like "emerging democratic parties in the Middle East" somewhat ambiguous. At any rate, the new Democrats like Barack Obama and John Edwards have found a cause that resonates with that part of their base for whom all foreign adventure is misadventure: extrication. You may have noticed that this is the primary goal in Iraq. The troops’ job is to "extricate" themselves. Obama has also used the phrase "Get them out." As a philosophy it has everything one could want; pithiness, understandability and, of course, complete hypocrisy.
There are Demextricrats for whom extrication is not hypocritical; Dennis Kucinich, for example. If the goal is extrication, then the proper thing to do is extricate immediately. After all, extrication is the goal. What more needs to be said? But if you are not for immediate extrication, logically, there must be some additional goal.
What if you are Barack, or Hillary, or Edwards, though? They say the goal is extrication, but they also, at most, want to blame Bush while setting a schedule for extrication. Why not an immediate return of troops? That's not so clear. Their goal is extrication, the method is to extricate them on a schedule. What is to be accomplished during this amorphous schedule? It is certainly not victory. When is the last time any member of the Demextricratic Party suggested that victory was desirable? (Remember, Lieberman is an Independent). Would you even be allowed to finish a speech if, as a Demextricrat, you said during that speech "I want the troops out in six months, and during that six months I want victory"? Confronted with that question, our Demextricrats would say that victory was impossible, but on the other hand, have they gotten stupid enough to say that out loud? Even so, the implication of what they do say is clear.
As an aside, Abraham Lincoln, the prototype for Barack Obama, said this about the fallen soldiers he had been too shortsighted to extricate: "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract."
The improved version of Lincoln said in Iowa recently:
We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.
Barack, being a politician, has now said that "wasted" was a mistake he recognized as soon as he said it. I do not expect a member of the media to ask him why, if the cause was wrong from the very beginning, those lives were not actually wasted. It seems like the very definition of waste. How difficult must it be to neither say what you mean nor mean what you say.
Democrats have allowed their dislike of things Bush to become so central to their party that anything he promotes, they oppose; anything he opposes, they promote; and if on anything he is silent, he is to blame.
Obama pleases the Democrats because A) he is the Antigeorge and B) well, there is no B.
Terrible logic. The quickest, most direct path to your goal is not the only path worth considering. Just because something initially was a mistake, doesn't mean that upon realizing that, the best response is to drop it immediately.
This is a common theme lately on this site--no appreciation of the grey areas of life and decision-making. Being obstinately stuck to the poles doesn't show integrity or reliablility. It just shows a shallow understanding.
[John Bramfeld says: Xian, how can it be terrible logic? My post is a question not an answer. What do the extricators want to do during the schedule leading up to extrication? It is not victory. They don't believe the civil war is solvable with foreign troops. They believe our presence there exacerbates the violence. What do they want? I agree the situation isn't logical.]
Obama pleases the Democrats because A) he is the Antigeorge and B) well, there is no B.
Do you really actually believe this?
is there another goal besides getting out? Please enlighten us of shallow understanding of Dem priorities.
Hi John,
If you'd like people to take your views seriously, you might learn to correctly spell the name of the person you're criticizing. Otherwise, your opinion -- normally misguided -- also seems uninformed.
Lincoln also had this to say, on the subject of the president's power to make pre-emptive war:
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,  'I see no probability of the British invading us;' but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'
"The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood," - Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, Feb. 15, 1848.
John, oops!
"Lincoln also had this to say, on the subject of the president's power to make pre-emptive war:"
Which, of course, is why President Bush asked Congress to authorize this war, and why they did, overwhelmingly. Just ask Sen. Hillary Clinton, who's now trying to pretend she never voted to authorize it.
Try telling this Marine and his new bride that it was worth it to set up a new civil-war-ridden, Islamo-theocratic haven for terrorists where none existed before:
http://www.worldpressphoto.com/index.php?option=com_photogallery&task=view&id=875&Itemid=146&bandwidth=high]?rss
Just look at the expression on the bride's face! How can any person of good faith perpetuate this sort of suffering rather than admitting, as is clear to eveyone, that this war has been a waste of the most sorrowful proportions? How many more are going to come home like this, or not at all, before we admit that?
Obama pleases the Democrats because A) he is the Antigeorge and B) well, there is no B.
Let's ask Lieberman about his experiences, shall we?
I don't think Democrats hear to the Johnny-one-note they portray.
We are NOT at war. Congress did not authorize an Iraq WAR. There was never a Declaration of War. Watch your terminology please.
Also--"Just because something initially was a mistake, doesn't mean that upon realizing that, the best response is to drop it immediately." Is similar to continuing to beat the slaves until moral increases because the first beating didn't bring smiles to their faces?
Subtlety is not one of Mr. Bramfeld's strong points, so we shouldn't expect him to remember what Colin Powell said back when the neocons were ginning up the case for invading Iraq. Paraphrased, his comment was that the china shop rule applies -- you break it; you pay for it. No reasonable person who sees the chaos we have created in Iraq thinks the proper course would now be to immediately walk away with no concern for trying to alleviate the damage we have done. I can see why Bramfeld et al would love to lure the Democrats into taking such a position; maybe they could increase the 28 percent of the country that is still buying their propaganda up to 30 percent. Sorry, guys, it won't work.
Which, of course, is why President Bush asked Congress to authorize this war, and why they did, overwhelmingly. Just ask Sen. Hillary Clinton, who's now trying to pretend she never voted to authorize it.
If you are talking about the same Sen. Hillary Clinton, the statement I heard was that she voted to authorize it based on the information that the administration was presenting at the time.
Obviously, it depends on what you think of that evidence, and whether you agree with her that the evidence was fabricated heinously, but certainly you can understand why someone might vote that way and then speak aggressively against the war?
The problem is that we have either quitters like the liberal Dems or pusilanimous sycophants like Bramfeld.
Hers's the real war, the war for the future, the war for souls. If the average Iraqi wanted us to win, they would help.They do not.
The radical Muslims are correct, this is a Holy War. We should simply win it, and to do so we should use any means necessary including nuclear. Simply, kill them all. Now. Unless you are too sqeamish, unless you don't have the stomach for it. If that is so, then just surrender, and in 200 years your descendants who grimly hang on to the Gospel will curse your graves.
Otherwise, whether Republican cowboy or Democratic sissy, you are just blowing hot air.
Prove it not using some wacko (I like the way Bramfeld writes) MSM source.
"If you are talking about the same Sen. Hillary Clinton, the statement I heard was that she voted to authorize it based on the information that the administration was presenting at the time.
Obviously, it depends on what you think of that evidence, and whether you agree with her that the evidence was fabricated heinously, but certainly you can understand why someone might vote that way and then speak aggressively against the war?"
Of course, Hillary's excuse is that she authorized the war based on the information she had at the time. She's not going to say she made a mistake - that she misinterpreted the information, because it's easier to say that she was a victim of lies and manipulations. Hopefully, Dem primaries voters aren't dumb enough to let her get away with it, but it's been reinforced as Gospel for so long, who knows?
Of course, the administration has used the same justification - they thought Saddam was a greater threat than he was because of the overwhelming evidence that he had possessed, had used, wanted to again possess and very likely had at that time WMDs.
The difference is that people will give Hillary the benefit of the doubt - excusing her decision based on the information she had at the time. But in the Administration's case, you'll argue that having bad information just isn't possible - they must have manipulated it, fabricated it, used it to snooker poor Hillary and others.
Of course, there's no explanation for:
There's no end to the evil motives that some of you - including you, xian, as I've pointed out here and elsewhere previously - will assign to the Bush Administration that you'd never think of assigning to anyone else.
You'll of course accuse me of being an apologist for the administration, and you'll quote some left-wing site that says "Everyone knew all along there were no WMDs, you stupid conservative!" Of course, if everyone knew that, then why did so many Democrats vote to authorize the war!?!
You'll respond that the Bush Administration - which, in your view, is the most incompetent and immoral of all time - somehow pulled off the greatest of hoaxes and fooled everyone.
And around and around we'll go...
Meanwhile, those of you in the "reality-based community" will somehow allow a Senator who sat on the Intelligence Committee to make claims about her motives at the time she made them that are clearly false, because in your mind it's easier to believe that a massively incompetent Administration, led by a man with little intelligence and no morals, somehow fooled everybody. (Reality-based, indeed.)
And around and around we'll go....
You hate Bush for so many things that sometimes it's hard to keep track of exactly what you're blaming him for today. But lying to Hillary to get her to vote for the war - now that's rich.
Why the Bush administration would want to lie to go to war in Iraq. "It's all about oil!" doesn't quite cut it given their unwillingness to control the oil supply after the invasion
Nice strawman. It's not about oil. It's about the Bush administration having wanted to go into Iraq long before 9/11, and then fabricating one justification after another to go in until one of them stuck. I've seen that plenty of times--people are in over their head and don't have a thought process, so they just make up new justifications as their other ones are shot down. It's cute when you are five, but not when you are the most powerful figure in the known universe. Then I like competency.
I don't assign evil motives randomly. That's really foolish in my opinion. In this case, we have someone who has lied about everything under the sun and shows no shame or wish to correct his errors, and that's truly a rare set of attributes, at least in my experience. So yes, I assign evil motives to him more often. If Harriet Tubman and Goebbels were in a room in which something bad happened, I would probably be more likely to believe Harriet's story than Goebbels.
It's also really insulting for you to speak for me and then tear apart YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS. Give me a fricking break. There's plenty of us who were against the war in the beginning and we were right. The fact that a bunch of people in party that I'm not entirely satisfied with, including a candidate for President I'm not going to vote for supported the inital invasion, is completely irrelevant to me being 100% right on every single point about the war.
I had a better understanding of what was going to happen with the exisiting divisions in Iraq, with our military and its insufficient cultural and language skills, and the reality of the "ease" of the occupation.
And I'm some dumbass school teacher. That's why I don't trust this administration and I don't trust Hillary. I don't want people dumber than me running the entire country.
I'd rather just agree to impeach Bush and pick his successor out of a giant hat with 300,000,000 names in it. Yeah, I know that counts kids, but at this point, I'd be willing to waive the age requirement. Heck, I'd probably be willing to pick out of a hat that just had IP posters' names in it. Except Mean Anonymous and Adam, anyway.
"It's about the Bush administration having wanted to go into Iraq long before 9/11"
Why? What basis do you have for making this assertion? Evidence?
Can you point me to statements from this administration prior to 9/11 that proves that they were searching for a justification to invade Iraq?
Why should I give evidence? Are you going to actually read any of the articles I'm looking at or have read in the past? Or will you just say, "It's not written by some reactionary, I don't buy it!"
Well, I'm a push over, so here you go...why don't you throw me something worth reading once in awhile? (For the love of everything good, no more Goldberg!)
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html
Do you know that right now somewhere on file at the State Department and the Pentagon, are plans for what to do if China attacks Taiwan, or North Korea attacks Japan? Some of those plans probably call for an invasion of some country or another.
If President Bush wanted to know how to get Saddam Hussein (terrorism sponsor and world-class pain in the rear) out of power, they probably already had a plan. What other plans were there that got put back on the shelf? Plenty, I hope.
Xian I am not sure what the treasury secutary would have to do with defense but it seems he wasn't doing his job and left. The Clarke guy seems to be complaining that Bush was not moving fast enough on going after Al-qeada whats wrong with that unless I am just up to late. I know it's before 9/11 but Clinton should of dealt with Al-qeada before also. It doesn't mean Bush had an oppertunity to get Bin Laden like Clinton did. I don't see anything here that says he wants to go to Iraq before 9/11 but if there was Al-qeada there I say go. There was Al-qeada there as far as I am concerned.
Good night
Most of the reasons listed in the 2002 Authorization of Force that Hillary voted for pre-dated 9/11 and many even pre-dated Bush.
She herself even claimed that the consensus on Iraq was the same from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration, and that it was the same intelligence beliefs as our allies around the world.
If she wants to claim that she was misled to believe Iraq had WMDs, she should probably be blaming her husband who clearly argued as such when he was office, years before Bush took office. He then not only claimed Iraq still had them, but that they were a threat to us now as he could provide them to terrorists or criminal organizations who could use them against us.
If she claims that Bush should have only invaded with UN approval, why then did she vote for an authorization that specifically charged the President to go forward without one when they made it became clear any such resolution would be vetoed by the UN Security Council?
Hillary would have a lot of explaining to do if someone actually forced her to back up her current rhetoric. She'd either have to admit to lying about being misled or go back to original defense on the matter, that everyone believed it, and everyone was simply wrong.
She'd have to either admit to lying about what she authorized, or concede that she did indeed authorize Bush to invade Iraq under the circumstances and for reasons that mostly pre-dated both 9/11 and his administration.
If President Bush wanted to know how to get Saddam Hussein (terrorism sponsor and world-class pain in the rear) out of power, they probably already had a plan.
I agree about the "world-class pain in the rear" part, but I'm not convinced that he was a terrorism sponsor. From what I've heard, Al-Quaeda was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, and the terrorism has gotten much worse since the invasion.
History will judge this war to have been one of the worst mistakes in American history. We invaded a secular country which posed no threat to us on flimsy and ultimately false evidence and turned it into a theocratic Islamic satellite of Iran ridden by a civil war we cannot stop. The provincial philistine neocons who led us to war did not understand Iraqi culture and had no plan to stabilize it, and now, in the bloodbath we created, there's a haven for terrorists where none existed before. In the words of John Kerry, how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?
anonymous... Isn't that essentially what the point of this post was? That the democrats who are supporting a withdrawal later on while believing the war was a mistake are doing exactly that? Especially if they believe that there is nothing we can do to improve the situation, why extend our stay there at all?
There is plenty we can do to improve the situation with a capable leader. I don't want necessarily even want a withdrawal plan, just some sort of plan with a likelihood of success.
Let me put it this way: If you own a business and everyone who quits says that the manager has no idea what s/he is doing and all of the menu items suck and the food reviews in the newspaper suck, everytime you think about replacing the manager they whip up some new menu that sucks, and when you ask what the heck is going on they just change their answer about what their vision of the restaurant theme is, will you have a lot of confidence in the manager to continue forward? If you want to change leadership, does that mean you think that the business is unsalvageable? If the manager has a T-contract and are going to be around awhile longer, are you going to agree to some new fancy remodel of the restaurant for a new theme of their design?
Now change the scenario to one where there are thousands of lives, millions of people's life conditions, and billions of dollars on the line.
Let's go back to Iraq--has anyone even considered that maybe the reason why we aren't winning the war is because our coalition is too small? The purpose of getting the UN's approval is not only to nebulously justify the war, but also to ensure that we have the maximum amount of resources and intelligence at our disposal.
Getting UN approval wasn't an option. Veto members were against enforcing the resolutions even though they agreed that Iraq had been in constant violation of those resolutions. They were the same two members that John Kerry had previously accused of having no backbone in confronting the Iraq situation with further accusations that it conflicted with their financial interests.
They weren't on board with military action against Iraq long before Bush came onto the scene and weren't about to change their minds, no matter what was said. A larger coalition would have been nice, but we did the best we could with what we had available.
"Why should I give evidence? Are you going to actually read any of the articles I'm looking at or have read in the past? Or will you just say, "It's not written by some reactionary, I don't buy it!"
Well, I'm a push over, so here you go...why don't you throw me something worth reading once in awhile? (For the love of everything good, no more Goldberg!)
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html"
xian,
I've read the articles and remain unconvinced - mostly because the articles were written after 9/11 and after the left and the media had turned against the war, but also because they were written by a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind.
Do you have anything to back up your statement that the Bush Administration was always looking for a reason to attack Iraq, well before 9/11? Any evidence of actions the Admin took? Otherwise, I must conclude that your hatred of Bush is coloring your views.
"Getting UN approval wasn't an option."
It wasn't an option because Saddam was bribing two of the vetoing nations with discounted oil, and bribing high-ranking UN officials with cash and vouchers. The UN is a farce, anyway - look at their "peacekeeping" efforts in Africa.
If this is the sort of writing and reasoning that Mr. Bramfeld is proud enough to post publicly, I'm never gonig to hire him as a lawyer.
IlliniPundit, one reason you remain conservative is because you don't pay attention. The case for invading Iraq was being made even before the election by a group of which Cheney and Rumsfeld were a part. The group was called the Project for a New American Century and they sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998. I'm sure with a little help from Google you can get the text of the actual letter. (This by the way, is not some obscure tidbit. It's been all over the news for at least six years.)
Anonymous, don't let Bramfeld's public writings deter you from hiring him as a lawyer. I assure you he is a much better lawyer than he is a wit.
Sick of hypocritical Dems and lying Rebubs? Vote for someone with some real integrity. Kucinich 08.
"IlliniPundit, one reason you remain conservative is because you don't pay attention. The case for invading Iraq was being made even before the election by a group of which Cheney and Rumsfeld were a part. The group was called the Project for a New American Century and they sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998. I'm sure with a little help from Google you can get the text of the actual letter. (This by the way, is not some obscure tidbit. It's been all over the news for at least six years.) "
I think this is the letter to which you refer:
It was signed by, among others, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton & Armitage (but not by Cheney).
You'll also notice on that website at least a hundred other papers/letters on a hundred other subjects, including the Balkans, SE Asia, and Russia, some of which agree with Bush Admin positions/actions, and some of which don't. To pick out one letter and point to it as part of a larger conspiracy to fabricate evidence to invade Iraq is quite a stretch.
Regardless, in this letter I see no call for invasion. I see calls here for increased pressure - diplomatic, economic and military - on Saddam's access to WMDs. I see a call for a "strategy to implement" regime change, but if I'm not mistaken, America's official position regarding Saddam has been regime change since early in Clinton's presidency.
Xian writes that the Bush WH was so desperate to invade Iraq that they fabricated evidence - this letter does not support that contention - unless you think that the authors had such foresight as to begin fabricating intelligence a full three years before Bush took office - before he was re-elected as Governor of Texas - and a full five years before the invasion of Iraq.
Again, why would Bush be so desperately dedicated to the notion of invading Iraq? If that's your theory, what was his motivation?
What evidence is there (besides Paul O'Neill) that his administration took any actions from January 20 - September 10, 2001 to move the US closer towards invading Iraq?
"Democrats have allowed their dislike of things Bush to become so central to their party that anything he promotes, they oppose; anything he opposes, they promote; and if on anything he is silent, he is to blame. "
Now rewind about 8 years, and correct for the time displacement...
"Republicans have allowed their dislike of things Clinton to become so central to their party that anything he promotes, they oppose; anything he opposes, they promote; and if on anything he is silent, he is to blame. "
When this is done in 2007, over war, it's despicable and treasonous to the President and the USA. When done in 1999, over lying about an affair with a chubby intern. it's Congress doing it's job , protecting the People, the Country, and is indeed God's Work.
Thanks for further raising the noise floor of the discussion with partisan screeching.
CheapEngineer
gave us welfare reform and NAFTA.
IP, it seems like the goalposts keep changing. Evidence that before Bush's elections, top administration officials like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (and, I thought, Cheney) were calling for military action to remove Saddam Hussein; testimony by two Republican administration insiders is not good enough to convince you that even before 9/11, the Bush Administration was looking for a reason to attack Iraq. Now you want evidence for a conspiracy to fabricate evidence before 9/11. It depends on what you mean by "conspiracy" and what you mean by "fabricate." One piece of evidence, probably not enough to convince you, but no evidence will do that, was the report just the other day by the Pentagon Inspector General that Douglas Feith and others were presenting intelligence that they represented as consensus opinion when there was wide disagreement within the intelligence community about the accuracy and the significance of it. Another piece of evidence is the famous 16 words in the State of the Union address reporting as a fact, when it wasn't a fact and the Administration knew it was highly dubious that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake uranium in Nigeria. You can parse all you want to, but it is a fact that the Bush Administration was intent on taking out Saddam Hussein militarily long before 9/11, and that the arguments they used to make their case that it was necessary was based on information that they knew was flawed or wrong. (And, by the way, you can parse all you want to, but Iraq is engaged in a civil war and has been for some time.)
"Now you want evidence for a conspiracy to fabricate evidence before 9/11."
I want evidence to support xian's contention - that even before 9/11, the Bush Administration was so desperate to attack Iraq that they were fabricating justifications to do so, even in the 8 months they held power before 9/11.
I've not heard any explanation or even speculation for what the Administration's motives might be. I've not seen any evidence other than a letter by some people who later ended up in the Administration asking President Clinton to please take Saddam and his WMDs more seriously - a letter written three years before Bush was elected.
"it is a fact that the Bush Administration was intent on taking out Saddam Hussein militarily long before 9/11,"
If this is a fact, prove it, it should be easy to prove, yet you can't. You're just relying on the samed urban myths that have been debunked so many times before, and tying in some very weak circumstantial evidence, and drawing the conclusion that reiforces your preconcieved notions. Where are the facts?