he WSJ today features this powerful account of the Dem establishment turning it’s back on one-time Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman. From “Lieberman at the Bridge” (subscription only, so I’ll quote at length):
The debate over Iraq is getting nastier, if that’s possible, and the new target of antiwar Democrats isn’t even President Bush. It’s Joe Lieberman, the Democrat from Connecticut and 2000 running mate of Al Gore, who has dared to suggest we must and will win the war.
“I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there,” Senator Lieberman wrote on these pages November 29. “What a colossal emistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will [in Iraq].”
When that policy substance was ignored in Washington, the Senator repeated his case last week in the political language the Beltway press corps could finally comprehend: “It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” The media, and his fellow Democrats, seemed agog.
“Agog,” is nice. But I prefer “Zell shocked.”
Go ahead, use it. I’m a giver.
And it’s true that in modern, polarized Washington, such bipartisan sentiments are unusual. But as Mr. Lieberman also noted last week, they have a historic parallel from the early days of the Cold War. Then a Democratic President, Harry Truman, was trying to build alliances to resist Communism amid ferocious criticism from many Republicans, including their Senate leader, Ohio’s Robert Taft. But a GOP Senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, stepped forward to support Truman, and the bipartisan “containment” strategy was born. Forty years later it would result in victory under Ronald Reagan.
We’re now in the early stages of what might be another long, twilight struggle, this time against Islamist terrorism, and now the partisan tables are turned. While a Republican President is trying to win a campaign in Iraq that is part of a larger war, most Democrats are assailing his policy and predicting disaster, and even the party’s senior Members have begun a Vietnam-like chant to “come home, America.”
So it’s revealing of the party’s foreign policy condition that his fellow Democrats are now training their guns not on the enemy in Iraq—but on Mr. Lieberman. “I completely disagree with him,” said Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader who went so far as to associate herself with the isolationist Taft Republicans of the early Cold War years.
And this is key: the party of Wilsonian idealism and JFK is today barely distinguishable from the party of Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo, with whom today’s Democratic leadership, at least ostensibly, shares a foreign policy worldview—for the time being, at least (one suspects that when Democrats are in control of foreign policy, military interventionalism for “human rights’ will be lauded as proof of US benevolence, provided we stick to strategic air strikes and UN-led troops).
Pelosi continues:
“I agree with a Republican Senator, Senator Robert Taft,” she said, who “said that disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy.” That would be fair enough if Ms. Pelosi were merely arguing over the tactics of how to win the war. But she has joined Congressman John Murtha in advocating a six-month deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the consequences. She doesn’t want to win; she wants to quit.
Her Senate counterpart, Minority Leader Harry Reid, averred through a spokesman that while the Senator “has a lot of respect” for his colleague, “he feels that Senator Lieberman’s position on Iraq is at odds with many Americans.” How’s that for wartime leadership? Mr. Reid disagrees with Mr. Lieberman’s support for the war because the opinion polls do too. Never mind that one reason public opinion has turned against the war is because of the relentless pessimism of the likes of Mr. Reid.
Precisely correct. And in fact, so Orwellian has our press become that I watched today in awe as Juan Williams tied himself into knots arguing for the war’s failure, even as he conceded the failure wasn’t military (but rather one tied to public perception), and that the public perception was driven by media reports that were overwhelmingly negative (his debate counterpart Michael Barone cited a MRC report ). Still, he maintained, the polls were proof of the failure; and the failure was reinforced by the polls.
This is more than perception becoming reality. This is a meta-moment wherein the recognition, on the part of the press, that to some, the perception they create is reality—is in fact objective proof that perception really is reality.
Democratic Chairman Howard Dean also took a public shot at Mr. Lieberman, and his brother Jim Dean, who runs something called Democracy for America, is ginning up a letter-writing assault on the Senator. “It is disturbing enough that Senator Lieberman remains one of the President’s biggest cheerleaders. But his call for opponents of the President’s failed policy to keep quiet is outrageous,” Jim Dean wrote last week. Meanwhile, at the fever swamps of MoveOn.org they’re talking about a primary challenge to Mr. Lieberman in 2006.
We’re confident the Senator would whip all comers in Connecticut. But this liberal animosity toward him speaks volumes about how far left Democratic foreign policy has shifted since Bill Clinton’s Presidency. The same Senate Democrats who voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and for the war in Iraq in October 2002 are now claiming they were duped and it was all a mistake.
”LET US LEAD! WE’RE TOO CONFUSED TO ACT!”
Even the supposedly serious Democratic policy voices are offering mostly criticism without any positive advice or counsel. Senator Joe Biden doesn’t advocate withdrawal—“I’m not there yet,” he says—but he too has been consistently negative, predicting the January elections would be “ugly” and now insisting we must “change course” to succeed. Yet the actual policy advice he offered in a recent speech consisted of the Bush strategy dressed up in different rhetoric.
Then there’s former NATO Commander and once-and-future Democratic Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark, whose recent counsel was for Mr. Bush to invite Syria and Iran to help us in Iraq. Just how the U.S. is supposed to win over Tehran’s mullahs without conceding them a nuclear weapon, or Syria’s Assad clique without letting it return to dominate Lebanon, Mr. Clark doesn’t say.
This is all a shame, because President Bush’s conduct of the war could have used a more constructive opposition. There’s no question the U.S. was terribly slow in training Iraqi troops, far too slow in transferring sovereignty to Iraqis, and far too cautious in pursuing insurgency strongholds in Fallujah and elsewhere. But those criticisms all came from the right, or from Iraqis, not from American Democrats.
Well, to be fair, some Democrats have helpfully pointed out that “even Republicans are criticizing the war!”—though they leave off the part about most Republicans wanting us to stay and finish the job, preferring instead point over and over again to Chuck Hagel, presumably because they believe pointing to Pat Buchanan would just lead to a lot of snickering among the neocon warmongers.
But I digress…
Which brings us back to Mr. Lieberman, whose recent candid support for the war surely means the end of his Presidential ambitions. But if Democrats are smart they’ll listen to what he’s saying about the defeatist message they’re now sending about Iraq, and about U.S. foreign policy in general.
The Taft Republicans of the late 1940s never did make it to the White House; Dwight Eisenhower won in 1952 as the heir to the GOP’s Vandenberg wing. Smart Democrats who want to win in 2008 aren’t going to do it as the party of pessimism and retreat.
Well, Hillary is listening—much to the chagrin of the “progressive” Democratic party base. Will she make it to the White House?
That remains to be seen.
(thanks to Terry Hastings)
It boggles the mind how these people try to stitch these competing theories into a believable meme. I mean, redefining “winning” as “losing” and selling that to the public is like selling refrigerators to Eskimos.
Apparently, it can be done.
“There goes the mob. I am their leader; I must follow.” – Alexandre Ledru-Rollin
One of the few beliefs they hold, that is actually grounded in observable reality.
Wow Jeff!
<blockquote>This is more than perception becoming reality. This is a meta-moment wherein the recognition, on the part of the press, that to some, the perception they create is realityâ€â€is in fact objective proof that perception really is reality.
I guess the media realy is the message!
Also, that is one of the best phrased (and accurate) statements I’ve read in some time.
I used to be awed by that too, never to the degree of watching a blonde tie a cherry stem into a knot with her tongue of course, but it’s pretty standard, long-term fare for Juan if you watch Special Report w/Brit Hume.
I cannot fathom the fairy tale world these pin-heads live in.
no kidding bmoe. it’s like when i complain about rto taking too long to make dinner, i don’t cook, couldn’t tell him what to do different, but damn it i’m hungry and i’d like to eat right now!!!!
or have i been missing the alternative actions that have been offered?
There is no question what the critics could not and would not do, they could have done better.
Elections. There have been several; it appears the majority remain unconvinced despite the best efforts of the press and the disloyal opposition.
And, much like that lingually-acrobatic blond, Juan really likes to get spanked by Brit.
Does this mean we have to start calling Lieberman an anti-Democrat? We can’t call him a post-Democrat; the owners of the newspaper would sue.
It appears – especially so for the press – that some mavericks, e.g., McCain/Hagel – are more equal than others. The line has been that the press’s love of McCain in particular emanates from the media’s affinity towards conflict and politicians who stand tall and diverge from his party’s prevailing ideology.
That’s the explanation anyway.
Except, apparently when that heretic is a Democrat.
Moreover, it is even more interesting that a Democrat is a true patriot for challenging George Bush’s policies (“speaking truth to power”, right) but suddenly is persona non grata when that Democrat challenges Democratic policies.
SMG
I think so TomB, especially after I happened to hear Juan on NPR the other day (for the first time), I realized what a debt of gratitude Juan owes Brit. Without that governor to rein him in it’s unpurty.
Ya’know, It just kills me.
The I-really-wanted-Howard-“orange-hat”-Dean-but-I-voted-for-Kerry
-in-the-primaries-because-they-said-he-was-more-electable crowd could have had a viable candidate in JL.
That would have taken war on terror completely out of the national debate, and forced the election campaigns to address the underlying philosophical differences the two parties are suppose to represent. We could have actually had a reasonable debate based on IDEAS! But instead they chose to relive the “glory days” of their defeat of this country in Viet Nam.
It really does show exactly what they are for, and what they are against.
These people must never be allowed to re-acquire power for any reason.
<objective proof that perception really is reality.</i>
I believe the legacy media first realized their awesome power to create reality after the 1992 election. As Autumn wore on, they convinced the nation it was in the throes of depression. Only after Bush left office did we discover that, in the last quarter, the economy WAS IN FACT GROWING AT A RATE OF 3.9%. THAT fact is forever frigging seared in MY memory. Criminey, how do you convince Oliver Willis he’s starving when his mouth is full of eight Twinky Ding Dongs following three Whoppers with cheese? That’s hypnosis.
But this ain’t 1992. They don’t control the message anymore.
Well if Hillary’s going to have a chance she better start leading. I think she has finally reached that infamous “tipping point” the pundits are always talking about. Two other members of her party, Hoyer and Leiberman, have publicy differed with the party while she has remained relatively coy. She is starting to get shit from both sides of the issue. If she stood with Hoyer and Leiberman she might start to save her party and get some brownie points towards 2008.
Hey, I like Juan Williams.
Have you ever watched his body language when he starts shpieling his leftspeak? His shoulders hunch up, his head ducks down, he sort of scowls sideways at Brit Hume from under lowered brow…
It took me a while to figure out who his body language reminded me of, and why.
Richard Nixon. Because on some deep and inexpurgable level, Juan Williams is still capable of shame, unlike, say, Mara Liasson, Ceci Conolly or Bill Kristol, who will spout any crap with an insouciant smirk. But Williams cannot deny to himself that he is lying, and the guilt is there, gnawing, gnawing…
While the anti-war (which are really just anti-Bush) Democrats prevaricate, the butcher bill for the confrontation with the Islamic/Kali death cult just gets bigger.
But I guess the trans-national progressivist omelette will be worth all the broken eggs.
I wonder if there would be more will to fight in the Democratic party if the Islamo-kooks were strictly targetting, homosexuals or minorities?
Rice/Lieberman ‘08!
TW: riiiiiight
I wonder if there would be more will to fight in the Democratic party if the Islamo-kooks were strictly targetting, homosexuals or minorities?
Er. . .Darfur, anyone? How many commentators did you hear on NPR etc. twisting themselves into knots trying to explain that a campaign of rape and murder directed specifically, only, against one racial segment of the population was somehow NOT evidence of any real racist impulse?
If you learn anything about the left, learn this first: they have no principles so universal that they cannot be broken by the right person.
Reminds me of Leon “Pannochio” Pannetta, back in the early Clinton days. You could tell when he was lying because everytime he parroted something he knew was untrue, he would blink. Once someone pointed it out to me, it was uncanny.
Juan needs to work on that conscience tic, because it’s clearly holding back his career. Probably why he’s never made it to an A-List MSM gig like the real pros, who can lie without flinching.
“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx
It’s remarkable. What are the Democrats going to do when we actually do start pulling troops out of Iraq, and it becomes undeniable that the plan they’ve been claiming doesn’t exist (for three years, while opposing it all the while) has actually succeeded?
Will they still try to insist we have been defeated, even when we are manifestly victorious and even the MSM is no longer able to cover it up? Or will they claim the President is finally following their demands to withdraw (as if precipitously withdrawing three years, or six months, ago would have produced the same outcome?
What I predict: they will redefine “victory”. They will point to every anecdotal report of corruption, violence, malfeasance, etc in Iraq as proof that we have, in fact, not accomplished our aims, darkly intimating that whatever lingering problems we’ve left to the Iraqis prove that we have failed, and of course they will not measure the inevitable problems of a nascent democracy by the yardstick of Hussein’s regime for a fair comparison. They will claim that Iraq has been turned into a haven for terrorists, while simultaneously insisting that we accelerate our withdrawal (and leave the terrorists in peace).
RE: Hillary
The effect of Lieberman’s speech is that Hillary can now take a position between him and Pelosi, and claim to represent the “reasonable Dem mainstream.” In practical terms, this will be a move to the right, but in doing so, she will whomp the shit out of Lieberman, so it won’t look so bad to the base.
All you ever need to do, when you are wondering “what will the Dems do when xxx happens in Iraq?” is to look at Afghanistan. That’s been the speed-cycled preview of Iraq strategy from the get-go. It was the new Vietnam, it had the terrorists that could never be beaten, it was going to have the failed elections, it became a home of corruption, and now -after it’s been turned over to NATO- it is suffering from toofew troops and (perhaps?) too much multi-national oversight.
The Dems want a debate about war strategy and I have no problem with that. However, the Lieberman side of the debate apparently need not apply. Which is a shame, because while he may not speak for many Americans, there are other many Americans he speaks for more than Murtha does.
And finally, about Hillary. She is brilliant for staying out of it as much as possible. Sure, it looks like she is avoiding it now. But by the time it counts for her, this will be water under the bridge. She can win NY 2006 without the hysterical crowd.
Although still a Democrat, Joe Lieberman is an honorable man. He will be regarded especially so after the results from the new election come in from Iraq. Stay tuned for developments that make the Democrats look even worse than they do now.
In keeping with the season, I have my own thoughts on the perfidy of the Dems. Not my best, but…
LagDave – The Donks must be getting a collective hernia now from the numbers of times they have attempted to move the goalposts.
And anytime anyone even attempts to pin them down on the definition of “Victory,” they trot out their Bona Fide Medal Wearing War Heroes (some of whom may even have all of their limbs) to moan about the fact that the RethugliKKKan echo chamber is “criticizing their patriotism.”
When the other side isn’t listening, it isn’t productive to converse. Fuggem.
Too bad about Joe, I kinda like the guy. Sure, he has some whacky ideas, but he IS a Dem, after all. You have to make allowances. I think he would have made a good President – not great, maybe, but not an utter disaster like Kerry (shudder).
He’ll never be elected, though, for the same reason a black President (if one arrives) will most likely come from the Republican side of the divide. Sad but true. The Dems talk a good game, but it’s just talk. Actually nominating a black or a jew or a hispanic is beyond them. Weak-willed.
SB: ideas
hey, I’m open
fretless  Never do that dashes thing again. You bent the comments thread all the hell out of shape.
To recap:
Baghdad fell when the Marines and 3rd Infantry were “stuck.”
The interim government won’t work.
No one will show up to elect the delegates to write the constitution.
The constitution won’t be written.
They won’t make it to elections.
The Sunnis won’t participate in the elections.
Oh fuck it…Halliburton.
Don’t forget, had we listened to the Dems and the NYTimes, we’d still be waiting for the ‘all clear’ to hold the first elections in Iraq. Ahh, the wisdom.
You’re way too generous MayBee, rather we’d have held up our hands in surrender to the nearest passerby during the sandstorm a few days into the war.
I was pleasantly amused when I heard the jaws dropping in NYC as the Humvees entered Baghdad a few days later…
Here’s an interesting piece of bigthink from Policy Review on why Iraq is not Vietnam.
As for this,
That kind of backs up what I’ve long suspected: Appearances only seem to be everything.
Here’s a quote from the highest-ranking Iraqi general. You might want to forward it to Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Dean, et al:
Link here.
And since we’re talking about perception
Perception is inherently subjective, there is no <objective</i>. It just looks that way.
Really.
SB: county
another heard from
Hah! Bullseye.
The old saying was “ Declare Victory and pull out” The Dems have change it to “ Declare Defeat and pull out.”
Sunday Morning I heard one of big hair punduts say “ We need to define Victory”
No we don’t need to “DEFINE” victory. They need to explain why they think its a defeat.
One of the phrases you hear used over and over by the leftist gaggle, that calls itself the Democratic party these days, is this “a large number of the American people believeâ€Â, and “the majority of Americans think†memes they use in almost every anti-Bush mini-speech that the “terrible dozen†spews forth. They love saying that repeatedly, although they know full well its generally an outright lie in itself.
– Now comes Dean trying to gamely back-pedal his canoe, claiming his “the idea of winning the war in Iraq is just wrong†comment has been taken out of context.
– Based on their willingness to say anything, no matter how destructive or disrespectful of our service people or our Pres., the inescapable conclusion is rather that the best way to lose not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but most likely the entire WOT, would be to have the Defeat-o-crats in high office.
– The idea that this whole “get-bush†campaign might devolve into exactly that in the minds of the electorate is what has the Dems in complete dis-array and panic right now. Liebermans honesty and forth-rightness on the actual facts of the state of Iraq, which hes seen with his own eyes, is the hardest sort of “truths†for the Dem’s to counter, and thus the open animosity and confusion. Dean, Kerry. Pelossi, Reid, and Kennedrunk may soon find themselves isolated within their party as defeatists if they aren’t already. Moreover, trying to hide behind a red herring theme of “patriotic dissent†doesn’t cut it when you make comments like “Our young men and women in the military don’t need to be terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night….â€Â. Kerry ran this scam once and got away with it. But that was an entirely different time and situation, and no matter how desperately the Dems need to politicize Iraq, and equate it to Viet Nam, its a losing battle because hardly anyone gives that idea credibility.
– The idea that their rabid anti-everything American comments are being taken out of context or mis-understood is just plain laughable for a group of people who fancy themselves “elite†thinkers. It shows a clear lack of respect for the general publics understanding of the Washington political dance, and worse a total disregard for reality.
– What isn’t so laughable is the potential harm it does to our military’s morale on the one hand, and the decidedly bad position the Dems will find themselves in come the 2006 elections if the best “plan†they can put forth is a whiney “we’re so misunderstoodâ€Â.
– As for Hillary, she’s politically savvy enough to avoid the mis-steps of her own party. She knows full well that she can’t hope to carry the 2008 election from a Liberal non-mainstream position. Additionally she’s entering that age of the “Y” in the road where you either opt for common sense and leave the “mental rebellion toys” of non-age aside or you perish.
Is Lieberman the next Zell? That would be great. I’ve always admired Lieberman. He was one of the first to take on the sleaze in the entertainment industry.
“Still, he maintained, the polls were proof of the failure; and the failure was reinforced by the polls.”
This is generally considered to make sense when discussing politics in Washington.
It’s when you apply the argument to a war on the other side of the world that it looks kinda dumb.
Its kind of a shame that the Liebermans or Millers don’t have any power in today’s Democratic party. The country could use a good loyal opposition. Unfortunately, the Democrats seem more interested in attacking a second-term with no possibility of reelection than establishing their own bona fides as capable of making a case beyond third rate bumper stickers.
Wait a sec there Elinor… what’s wrong with sleaze in the entertainment industry?
Unless the problem is “Not Enough Sleeze,” in which case, I’m with ya.
Lieberman is castigated for kissing Bush’s ass, nothing less. I can’t tell you why he’d want to kiss Bush’s ass, but, there it is for all to see, he’s puckered up and planted one right on a butt cheek.
All this rhetoric about winning doesn’t get the job done guys. First, this war wasn’t sold as an Iraqi democracy building deal, second, no one has yet defined the “new” winning, since the “old” winning turned out the total bs – anyonse seen any WMD’s laterly, or any flowers? – beyond some ill defined idea like the following:
“We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq. Our goal is victory, and victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.”
Let’s see, we simultaneously believe America was threatened by Saddam Hussein in a little country in the far away mideast and also believe that we will win in Iraq when Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of Iraqi citizens. Doesn’t anyone else see the incongruity of that position? America is threatened by every madras anywhere in the world, but Iraq will be able to provide for the security of it’s citizens? The Pres has not given us a description of victory, but rather of a permanent occupation.
A question here – in your (any your, I’m not picky THAT way) opinion, would a permanent occuption be preferrable to saying we just couldn’t accomplish what we set out to do?
Jake
Jake, your post is a pile of false premises. To wit—the “‘old’ winning” isn’t as you characterized it; there *is* no incongruity in the statement you quoted (unless you can clarify); and your bit about “permanent occupation” doesn’t follow.
TW: Tighten it up a bit and you might start a conversation.
dr steve, clearly you don’t see the incongruity.
Let me put it this way – if you define winning in such a way that is never provable, or disprovable, for that matter, then you have defined nothing. It’s a lot like ID – if it doesn’t predict anything, then what good is it? In this case, of course, we are not interested in predictions – although I can give you one … we are headed for leaving Iraq sooner rather than later – but rather in definitions.
Your email says econ in it. Tying the econ and the dr part together and making the assumption that means you are a rational being (not that economists have a reputation for rationality – at least not all of them) I ask you if YOU were attemtpting to define a goal for some specific part of the economy, would you prefer some ill defined term subject to later redefintion (this is called mission creep) or something that was actually a definable characteristic of the desired end state?
Interestingly enough, in one of the current set of definitions, the bit about “not a safe haven” the Pres is attempting to get back to the pre-war state of Iraq. There don’t appear to have been any terrorists in Iraq prior to the occupation.
Of course, that depends upon the definition of terrorists. Since dissenting democrats here at home are often villified as terrorists, I guess that is somewhat subject to redefinition as well.
Oh well, when your cause is just, you can justify anything.
Jake
Jake,
Let me beign my saying that you have never offered an alternative for Iraq.
In the beginning, yea, even in those days, when we wore onions on our belts becasue it was the fashion…but I digress…
Elections for a permanent representative government were scheduled for December 2005.
It’s December 2005 and elections are going forward with every indication of wide-scale Sunni participation. I’d call that success. Especially since you’d be pointint directly to a lack of elections at this point (even temporarily until say NEXT month) as a clear sign of failure.
Advocates for cutting and running are not terrorists–just their tools.
Well, wish, I appreciate the upgrade from terrorist to tool. Thank you.
I hope the elections go well, myself. I hope they are an accurate harbinger of good things to come.
As for alternatives for Iraq, I am not the president, I am not in the congress, I am not in the halls of power anywhwere, so to speak. I AM here at PW, and PW ain’t all that and a bag of chips when it comes to influencing policy, if you get my drift.
Besides, my point is that there was precious little actual discussion of ANY kind prior to going to war. And THAT is when the discussion should have been held. Instead, it was quashed with phonied up intel and promises of restraint -“We will only go to war as a last resort” or whatever it was he said, uttered as he raced out the door to push the go button.
As it turns out, the inspectors were right and Bush was wrong. There simply were no WMDs. He’s been wrong on a lot of things – like how the Iraqi’s would fall to the ground prostrate with joy at our arrival – to the point where I, and much of the country, are in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” camp, and not one minute sooner.
Jake
I disagree with all your assertions.
First, the Congress, the UN and even the French had a chance to say their piece. There is no other description that “silly” for claims that the President stampeded everyone. It’s in the Congressional Record if you want to look it up. And a final ultimatum was given to Hussein and his sons to leave.
Second, the intel was not cooked. All intelligence agencies on this planet believed Iraq to be in possession. Under the terms of the UN resolutions, the burden of proof lay on Saddam NOT on the inspectors. He never complied those demands–another resolution and huffing from New York would not have settled it. The inspectors and the US teams came to their conclusions about Iraq’s weapons AFTER the war not before.
The Kurds and Shias in large majorities did welcome coalition forces (Sadr’s forces are an excpetion–but someone was going to grab for power). And (as the media in this country is poll-obsessed), the Iraqis are now among the most optimistic societies in the world. I doubt you could have made that claim in Feb. 2003.
Iraq is on the political schedule that the President offered, which gives the best chance for Iraq to stand on its own legs…and that is the objective, right?
Oh, puhleeeze wish, that old saw about everyone had a chance to speak up? When the whole entire Republican machine is villifying anyone who disagrees, when the intel is cooked, when the French were saying, Merde, where did you get this bullshit, we keep telling you is phony (Niger yellowcake) but we don’t hear that until AFTER, I mean, come on.
As for the Ulitmatum, I wish that had worked. But think about it wish, most of the solders and civvies have died not in the actual invasion, but in the occupation. Now tell me, would we would have accepted ANY leadership left behind by Saddam? So, knowing that, an occupation was inevitable. Given the occupation, all the rest would have been of the same nature.
You boys better hope the elections ARE meaningful, ‘cause the pres hasn’t got a damn thing else up his sleeve. Yes, he has Dick’s arm up his butt, but that ain’t helpful.
All the agencies DIDN’T believe that, wish. But no more than anyone can prove a negative, they couldn’t prove that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, and they too were concerned. You hate to have to take the word of the inspectors when Saddam doesn’t really seem to be in the mood to cooperate. Nonetheless, those other countries didn’t feel the case FOR invasion was compelling, and said so. And, as it turns out, the only compelling parts were the fabricated ones.
You remember, the Al Qaeda connection, the yellow cake, the poison plant in northern Iraq – those clearly false but totalling compelling bits of intel. All phony.
As for the welcome? Sure the Kurds were glad to see us – we’d been keeping Saddam off their backs for a decade, and they put the time to good use. As for the Shia, hmmmm, not so much. What was the name of that town, Najaf? And our soon to be best bud, Moqtada? Ring any bells? Pretty much Shia, I recall.
Jake
Remember to thank Al Gore daily…
He did invent the Internet….
And without the Internet,
We would all be praying 5 times a day or dead.
Jake, you continue to traffic in false claims yourself.
So we can use your own standards to label your contribution as merde.
The bottom line was that the countries who were not convinced as to the wisdom of invading Iraq were among the coalition of the bribed.
SP, label it however you wish. I came here to listen, and I talk in an effort to get people to talk to me, to tell me why you all are so bound to take the fast train to hell.
So I keep learning something. If you think all I say is merde, that’s fine with me. Just keep explaining why you think the way you do.
Jake
– I’m thinking the best way to counter this latest dead-at-birth brainchild of the Defeat-o-crats (but we want to SEEM to be ahead of the curve on this war thing just in case our delusional rhetoric manages to kill the American resolve) would be to make them all view the SUNNI lady who appeared on FOX this evening holding up her purple voting finger defiantly in the camera and saying with fierce determination:
….”We owe our very country to America….without their help we could never be voting like this today….. and Mr Bush…..President Bush….anyone who doesn’t know what President Bush and America has done for us can go to HELL!!!!”….
Put that in your bong and choke on it Jake…
I caught that too Big Bang Hunter, great clip—great for those that get it anyway.
– If you think you smell the odor of burning Liberal brain cells now, just wait till a fledgling Democracy takes hold in Iraq. The thought of a sizable group of young adults suddenly realizing that they’ve been led down the garden path by their Marxist Poly-Sci professors…. Well lets just say it isn’t going to be pretty….
word soup: ….The “trouble” with thinking for yourself is you have to be responsible for the results. Not that theres anything wrong with that…