Andrew Ferguson, Bloomberg News:
President George W. Bush released his second National Security Strategy last week, and almost immediately the capital’s foreign policy experts began pecking at it like barnyard hens.
It’s a funny thing about these foreign policy experts.
Washington is often caricatured as a transient town, a rootless place where ambitious people come to make their mark and then vamoose. We should be so lucky. The real problem with Washington is the people who come to town and never leave.
Most prominent among them are foreign-policy intellectuals—a loose coagulation of think tankers, retired foreign-service officers, worn-out spooks, high-brow journalists and kibitzers with a fetish for the faraway.
When they’re not having lunch, they hold conferences and seminars where they argue furiously over the great perspectives that supposedly divide them.
At the moment they are united by one thing only: They all pretend to hate Bush.
“Pretend”?
I say “pretend’’ because it is never clear what these main-chancers are really thinking. To the outsider their arguments may look like artifice, but no one should doubt that their need to argue is absolute. If they weren’t second-guessing the people who actually have the responsibility of executing U.S. foreign policy, the kibitzers might have to leave Washington and get a job.
[…]
For years now the great issue dividing them has involved “realism’’ and “idealism’’ in foreign policy.
To simplify what is already pretty simple: Realists say they want a foreign policy governed exclusively by a clear, narrowly defined idea of the U.S. national interest. In practice, this means they are usually suspicious of military entanglements.
Idealists say they want a foreign policy that implants U.S. ideals of human rights and self-government in despotic countries—because, they say, the spread of democracy is always in the U.S. national interest. In practice, this means idealists are quite enthusiastic about military entanglements so long as they leave some form of democracy in their wake.
Okay, gotcha on the “pretend” thing. Because to be honest, for a moment there I thought you’d dropped a dose and were seeing the kind of colored “nuance” Ken Kesey used to doodle on the metal backs of bus seats with the big box of 64 Crayolas.
You don’t have to think too long before you see that what looks to be a vast chasm separating the two sides isn’t a chasm at all. Both realists and idealists place the enhanced security of the U.S. as the goal of foreign policy. Neither would push a policy they believed would make their country less secure.
Idealists would not advocate toppling a dictator if they thought it would endanger U.S. security. And realists would topple any dictator if, in their belief, the security of the country required it.
[My emphasis]
Compare this to commenters visiting us from some of the more “progressive” leftwing sites, who seriously believe (or perhaps they are just “pretending”?) that people who support the Iraq campaign as part of the larger GWOT “appear to be the type of people who are rather comfortable in ordering the military to invade countries simply as an expression of American power.” For my part, I am not a fan of global manifest destiny. But as Ferguson notes, I also don’t feel like we should be afraid to use US military power when it serves our national interests and is justified by world events. And spreading and supporting the memes of classic western liberalism—which some people see as cultural imperialism—is to me a spreading of the philosophical underpinnings for freedom and personal autonomy. Unlike others who have spent a considerable time in the academic world, I was never won over by the feel-good utopianism of multiculturalist dogma. Which is only to say, I never surrendered my natural and quite human inclinations to draw distinctions, whether it be between competing philosophies or competing cultures.
Ferguson continues:
What these foreign policy kibitzers wish was a difference of profound principle, in other words, quickly shrinks on brief examination into a much less grandiose, merely prudential judgment about what works.
Where a military entanglement advances security, both agree, it’s necessary; where it endangers the national interest, it’s to be avoided. The only genuine argument here is about which kind of entanglement is which.
[…]
Just don’t tell them that. The kibitzers must believe they are engaged in an epochal clash of philosophies. But with so little philosophical substance at issue, the debate inevitably degenerates into motive-mongering and accusations of bad faith.
Idealists routinely accuse realists of placing their own crass commercial interests above the cause of freedom. They’ve argued, for example, that the reason the godfather of realism, Henry Kissinger, is reluctant to push for democratic reforms in China is to protect his own financial holdings there.
Realists, for their part, accuse idealists of being hypocritical “chicken hawks,’’ blithely indifferent to the costs that others must bear of their bloodlust and craving for imperial glory.
To sum up: This is an unseemly and unedifying debate.
Unfortunately, it is a debate that nags real policymakers with its confusions.
Ever since the Bush administration made clear its intent to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the kibitzers have tried to classify this plan in one or the other of these two bogus categories. As a result, Bush’s policy has been unfairly criticized as incoherent or cynical.
Note that those NOT included in Ferguson’s critique are those who are neither “realists” (like Will or Buckley) nor idealists (like the “neo-cons” and drifting neo-cons), but are what I’ve called tin-plate Machiavellians—“critics” of the war who are more critics of Bush and Republicans than the plan to free an oppressed people (one would hope this to be the case, at least), and who consequently add nothing to the debate but a repetition of debunked memes (“Bush Lied!) and the kind of partisan vitriol that is meant to discredit one’s ideological opponents rather than to address their ideas.
It is those people I have criticized—and it is always those people who, when they are criticized, hide behind the faux nobility of dissent.
But the dissent of Buckley or Will or Fukuyama or even some of the more principled Democratic leaders—who offer substantive points of disagreement rather than out of context stabs at “gotcha” moments—is quite different than the anti-Bush, anti-War agitprop floated by the likes of Kos or Atrios (or rather, Atrios’s commenters—Duncan having been reduced to a “snip and post” bot, of sorts, one who is so wearied from cutting and pasting blurbs from, say, 1999 studies based on dubious science that he must rest with a series of 2 word posts or the host of “Open Threads” his commenters swarm over like fire ants on a careless toddler’s calf).
Ferguson concludes:
One common critique, most recently revived by the foreign- policy kibitzer Francis Fukuyama, holds that Bush originally justified the Iraq invasion on realist grounds of national security: to remove weapons of mass destruction before they were used against the U.S.
When those weapons weren’t found, says Fukuyama, Bush switched his rationale to idealism—the advance of democracy in the Middle East.
But anyone with a memory—one unclouded by silly debates among intellectuals—will know that Bush’s rationale for the war was multi-pronged from the beginning.
Even New York Times editorial writers once knew this. “President Bush sketched an expansive vision (in a speech) last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq,’’ said the Times in an editorial Feb. 27, 2003, on the eve of war. “Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction … Mr. Bush talked about establishing a `free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a 1dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world.’’
The document released last week, after three years of false critiques, tries once more to make Bush’s case clear.
“Because free nations tend toward peace,’’ it says, “the advance of liberty will make America more secure.’’
Even those who considered the Iraq invasion a bad idea on prudential grounds can appreciate Bush’s attempt to transcend the false categories of foreign-policy intellectuals. He hopes to advance democracy in Iraq and elsewhere because it is the best way to fulfill what he calls his most solemn obligation: “to protect the security of the American people.’’
The idea is easy enough to understand. Only an intellectual could be confused by it.
And this, it seems to me, the crux of the matter. If this was NOT Bush’s objective or “motive” (if one prefers more sinister sounding terms) for going into Iraq, what was?
Sorry, but I have never found the “to avenge Pappy” explanation convincing; and the idea that we wanted to “take over” Iraqi oil fields is quite a different one from wishing to protect them (which, it seems to me, falls under the purview of national interest anyway).
Anyone?
****
(h/t PD)
I, for one, look forward to the Beatnik poems that involve Duncan/Kos and buckets of chicken gravy.
Seriously, I too am tired of fighting the same rhetorical battles over and over again. Personally, I think we need to be better at deciding who is worth our time and who isn’t.
Perhaps that doesn’t help, though. Their words really do have consequences that need to be prevented. Trouble is, that’s like saying I need dialysis to prevent the consequence of my death. I have to do it to survive, but it’s painful, time-consuming, and sometimes humiliating; but must be done nonetheless.
Whats it like to ignore everything Bob Woodward wrote while following Bush around? Ignoring the timeline where Bush said he thought the power of the Presidency should be used when the opportunity arose to invade Iraq is something he just made up?
Oh never mind, I should know better than to ask.
<b>How about ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time?’
Personally, if you go back and read Bush’s speechs about Iraq, Bush is doing precisely what he said he’d do. The surpise is that there’s any surprise at all.
But, in other news, Tim F. over at Balloon-Juice posted about Jeff and they’re now having a comment-referendum regarding Protein Wisdom and its comment section.
They’re up to 70+ posts.
It’s fascinating stuff.
Ack!
Not your day for “close” tags, is it Jeff?
“…the type of people who are rather comfortable in ordering the military to invade countries simply as an expression of American power.â€Â
You say that like it’s a BAD thing. I’m bored with Iraq. We should go invade Mexico now. It’s closer, after all, and I’m sick of hearing about the migrant worker immigration issue. Bet we’ll scare the shit out of Chavez, to boot!
[tw] Next?
Why does Bush confound so many Washington types? Because he’s a fastball pitcher in a league where everybody expects the curve.
The thing that seems to drive lefties nuts is that he very forthrightly stated why he was going to war. (Anybody remember the complaint about the “shifting rationale” for the war…in the days leading up to initial invasion?) If you take him at his word, his actions make sense. But if you have to believe he’s a greater liar than Clinton (which seems to be important to a lot of folks) or just incompetent, then you get locked into a cycle of rhetoric that never goes away because none of it is actually falsifiable. (Seriously, what would these people require to establish that Bush didn’t lie?)
It is folly to attempt to reason with an unreasonable person
I need to do a better job of remembering this little tidbit of mine. When I see the Bush Administration described as evil, stupid, liars, torturers, incompetent hacks, etc. I will not address those commenters. It is a waste of time and bandwidth to try to engage them in debate. We invariably go back to debunking all of the misinformation and selected quotes the cut and pasters have in their library.
While honorable people can disagree about the Bush foreign policy, the necessity of the War in Iraq, the reasons for going to War and, certainly, the prosecution (strategy) of the War, there is room for discussion and one might actually learn something. Yet when someone believes that the President lied to the American public in order to get Congress to authorize War (for whatever nefarious purpose), there is no room for discussion.
So that’s it Jeff. I’m adding all of those people to my “ignore” list beside actus.
Not to mention Bill Ardolino.
Sometime a frightend little boy is a frightened little boy.
Bush’s rationale for the war was multi-pronged from the beginning.
Well, originally the lefties told us it was to steal oil, make Halliburton rich, and for “political gain” (that was back when it was supported by around 70% of people). So even they were attributing multipronged sporks of strategery to the President.
Most of the rhetoric is just reflexive opposition-party stuff, like we heard from the GOP during Kosovo, Somalia, etc. It’s interesting to consider how the war would have been received had it begun under Clinton in 1998, when Saddam kicked out the inspectors.
Of course, absent 9/11, and arguably absent our relatively easy military victory in Afghanistan, the public support would probably not have been there, even before we oconsider the awkwardness of a draft-dodger leading the invasion (and you can bet the GOP would have beat that drum). OTOH, the war would have been far more favorably by the press.
Fred,
Interestingly, hey said pretty much the same thing about FDR.
I always found the “to avenge his daddy” explanation more then unpersuasive, I find it offensive. His daddy isn’t just some guy. He was president of the United States. When Saddam tried to assassinate him, he wasn’t just trying to kill Bush’s dad, he was trying to kill a former president for actions taken while president.
To any good American, that means something. To me, the ‘avenge his daddy’ line is an expression not just of anti-Bush, but of anti-america.
TW: think
Fred:
Herskowitz’s comments are hearsay, first, from what I can determine; they’re his recollection of a conversation he had with Bush, and a conversation the context of which is not given. Who brought up Iraq? Who brought up the use of force, the CiC role in the Presidency in the conversation? Not stated. So for all you or I know, Herskowitz led the “interview” as much as any press corps hack starting a question with, “Do you agree that…”
But more importantly, since regime change in Iraq was a Clinton-era policy as well, and presumably any president following Clinton would have been contemplating a decade of sanctions that were not apparently deterring Saddam Hussein from his pursuit of WMDs, regardless of whether his dad had been the one who turned the key in the lock on Saddam, I’d imagine that all prospective presidential candidates were doing some hard thinking about Iraq prior to the 2000 election. Your point assumes that only Bush would have been considering military action against Iraq, which would suggest that all the other potential candidates were blind.
Avenge his daddy? I’m pretty sure if you reread you’ll see that the point was to get out from under his daddy’s shadow. Who’s shadow are you standing in? Or is it just convieniant to put a negative spin on everything?
I think this dilemma between so-called realists and idealists can be summed up in the simple proposition that these foreign policy mavens are squabling over politics and power, i.e. over the ability to influence decision-makers.
And Bush is operating foreign policy on the basis of principle. I think Ferguson’s descriptions are apt. Bush moved the old line in the sand demarking the middle ground between these competing policies, while those championing the competing positions have taken over the verbal pillow fights.
I’ll add that what changed are that the Kissingerian Cold War prescription of, “Yes, they’re dictators, but they’re our dictators,” and the idealist view of foreign aid with minimal strings attached (Carter’s Camp David accords, Clinton’s Dayton accords), didn’t work out nearly as successfully as their proponents would argue.
And the conditions on the ground are sufficiently different as to make Cold War policies inoperable. Therefore, the mix of policies had to change–and change they did.
And it looks as though Bush’s policy has successfully captured the middle, as his opponents are composed of far-left extremists of International ANSWER, UFPJ, and Buchananite far-righties–A coalition of US anti-semites that support Muslim anti-semites.
I know which side of history I’ll be on–and it’s not even close. How about you?
Fred, Fred. Tim put a negative spin on it?
Is it not likely that Bush, hoping to be elected President, would have realized that he’d naturally be compared with his father, a former President, in fact the last Republican President before himself (if elected)? And in that light, consider how he’d differentiate his presidency from his dad’s? But to suggest that he went out and picked a fight with another country, willfully sent American troops into harm’s way with the full expectation (based on pre-war estimates) that a hundred thousand of them could come home in body bags, to “get out from under his daddy’s shadow” – that is what you’re suggesting – is to ascribe to Bush a level of amorality that, if you actually believe it and haven’t just neglected to follow your own line of reasoning to its conclusion, means we elected the Antichrist or something. Holy cow.
TW: You can’t be serious.
That sounds astonishingly like something you would never in a million years expect the Governor of Texas to say.
But if it wound up in a notepad, it must be true.
As if anyone running for the presidency would ever say anything like that.
Sorry, Fred, it doesn’t pass the common sense test, it doesn’t even pass the “sense that God gave gravel” test. Sounds more like Herskowitz fabricating and speculating.
Ooh. Cold. I rather liked that, heh heh.
I thought PJ O’Rourke did a great job of describe these type of folks in Parliament of Whores, quite some time back. I’ll have to go pull that tome off the shelf and check.
It is, of course, inevitable that at a center of power like Washington, that if there is a perceived loss of power by one person someone else tries to fill the gap. That is the nature of power centers. Bush’s poll numbers are down so people are jockeying for position as the new “leader.â€Â
And since no sensible politician wants to be seen as a weakling, all the people trying to occupy the viable center are discussing variations of the actual policy the government is following, but trying to position themselves as protectors of vital US interests.
The only ones who are not are the hard Left contingent made up of types like Ted Rall or Roger Moore for whom the US and its people is the Great Satan.
Fortunately, Bush and Rumsfeld have followed a strategy that has led to a political situation in the Middle East that is now beyond the ability of the Left to destroy. Iraq is now demonstrating that it has the military force to cope with the insurgency and Bush has demonstrated an unwavering determination to strengthen that ability for the rest of his administration.
Fearless forecast: sometime during this administration, Iran will either change governments or will have it nuclear ambitions destroyed.
More for the ”Gee, Bush Meant It” file
Bush to United Nations re: Iraq September, 2002
The mystery is that there’s any mystery at all.
Given the Left’s comments nowadays, it’s clear that they simply weren’t paying attention then.
Who is Herskowitz and why should I believe him?
I’m just asking in case I pull some outrageous stunt. I don’t expect a credible response, but good excuses are worth remembering.
OK, let’s just suppose for a moment that Bush DID think that spreading democracy was the goal of the Iraq war, and that, in fact, he gave equal emphasis to that goal along with the WMD justification, and that, even, the public really did get and accept that promoting democracy was as basic an aim as rooting out the alleged threat.
Now, that’s some pretty big supposing I think—but let’s ignore that, because there’s something a lot more important going on. Namely, no matter WHAT the goals may have been, they haven’t exactly been achieved, have they?
Really, are you, or are any of you, going to admit that the efforts to achieve EITHER of these goals have failed wretchedly and shamefully?
Can you bring yourselves, at long last, to acknowledge the debacle here? If not, why should reasonable people continue to talk to you?
As far as I can tell, reasonable people have already stopped talking to us.
The goal, as stated, was regime change. That was done in about 3 weeks, and the Iraqi military (with the 4th largest army in the world) was also decimated in that time. Oh, and our troops are far, far more capable than you apparently care to realize.
TW: For the record
The goal, as stated, was regime change.
Move the goal posts much?
frankly0, be sure that the minions will answer you in force. However, since you didn’t address Jeff, maybe he won’t.
Without the help of tapes or sound-bites, people do remember how they felt about the prospects of war before it happened. Additionally, they formulated ideas about its progress and its potential. Those ideas have been blown to hell three years later.
Bush lost the PR war, and nothing that Jeff or any commentor on this blog will change that.
You know the real irony of the situation in Iraq?
Yes, in fact our military performed its capture of Baghdad brilliantly. Perhaps there never has been a military in the history of the world better at that phase of combat.
And, if Bush HAD simply been straight with the American people, and had acknowledged, even after the capture of Baghdad, that the one basic goal of the Iraq war was removing the threat of the WMD, then he could have at least have had a legitimate exit strategy out of Iraq.
He could simply have sucked it up, admitted that he was wrong about the existence of WMD in Iraq, and exited as soon as possible without his idiot attempts at nation building and democracy spreading, and all the woe we and Iraq have endured since.
I of course am talking about a Bush from an alternate universe: one in which he could do something truly courageous and right.
Instead we have the Bush we have. And his legions of lemmings will follow every twist and turn of any justification he trots out, however cynical and post hoc.
Iraq has no more WMDs.
Iraq will not be developing or deploying WMDs again anytime soon.
Iraq has had several free elections.
Iraq has a growing civil and political culture.
Iraq is no longer run by a genocidal dictator.
Iraq is not yet stable enough to be left on its own yet – because it is being attacked from inside and out by those who want to overturn those events.
No matter how many times you say ‘we’ve failed’ doesn’t make it so.
Thank you, frankly0, for making your postition very clear. No matter what anyone says, you’re going to argue for failure. This is nothing but a campaign to convince the US that it has been defeated.
F-Lyo sez:
I think that most of the people in support of the Iraq War are (or at least can be talked into) the notion that goals, objectives and strategies change. Why often appears, however, to be conflated with the suggestion of change is terms like disaster, debacle, incompetent, EvilMcSmirkyChimplerBurtonFascist, neocon cabal and the like.
For my part, at least, I think that the war as originally envisioned was a straight-up high intensity conventional fight. The war that arrived on the door step several months later was a proxy insurgent war, which is a different beast. This too is winnable, very much so, but it requires different metrics, goals, expectations, etc. You can call it moving goal posts, but I just call that understanding that the situation we bid for on Ebay wasn’t the one shipped to our house.
Far as it goes, I don’t think that by any rational measure that Iraq is a debacle, and based on historical measures and a when viewed as a proxy conflict. I rather see much of the shrill analysis as being of the Chicken-Little School of intel processing.
BRD
Franklyo,
I agree that the capture of Baghdad was well executed.
As far as the “one true goal of war” take a quick peek at this, if you wouldn’t mind. You can scroll past the first bit, and then start going through the listed rationales.
BRD
Yep, we shouldn’t be doing something so callous and inconsiderate at all. Much better to smash the place, then leave.
How hard is it to understand that there might be many reasons for doing something? This is the same arguement heard after the initial invasion, when the stockpiles weren’t found. ‘Oh, no, the only reason we invaded was wrong!’ Only? No. Not at all. Primary? Sure. I agree with Kurtz, cited above, that in the end it’s about WMDs – nukes, specifically. Secondary goals: spreading democracy, ending the tyranny of a murderous dictator, putting pressure on our other enemies. These are all good.
A failure? Only because you want it to be one.
frankly0
Suppose that for the sake of argument, I agree that Iraq is a debacle. What is it that you think should happen next?
Yes.
Leaving the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of the Islamofascists and Murderous ex-Saddam bully boys would have been the courageous and right thing to do. Plus by running away, we’d be able to show Al Qaeda that we really meant business. You know, like Clinton did in Somalia. That worked out well.
But anyone with a memoryâ€â€one unclouded by silly debates among intellectualsâ€â€will know that Bush’s rationale for the war was multi-pronged from the beginning.
THE PRESIDENT: Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. 3/6/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
“But make no mistake—as I said earlier—we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html
We did not begin this war on Bush’s say so. This is a democracy. He had to have the consent of congress. It was expressed in JR 114 in 2002:
“http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107”
Any 2nd hand remembrances concerning Bush are about as germane to the subject as a game of senior shuffleboard. This is what our representatives voted in favor of by a pretty large margin (if you are an American).
In Hawaii we have a saying—“pane luna a hoe”. It means “shut up and row”. Hawaiians weren’t much for dissent when there was a job to be done.
He hopes to advance democracy in Iraq and elsewhere because it is the best way to fulfill what he calls his most solemn obligation: “to protect the security of the American people.’’
WATCHING HAMASIssue of 2006-02-06
Posted 2006-01-30
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060206ta_talk_shavit
Shalom Harari is a former Israeli Military Intelligence officer who has been following the rise of Hamasâ€â€the Islamic Resistance Movementâ€â€for almost a quarter century.
But look around, Harari said: “In Jordan, too, wherever there are free elections––trade unions, student unions, professional guilds––the Islamists have the upper hand. If the Hashemite kingsâ€Â––Hussein and Abdullah––“had not played all kinds of tricks, the Islamists would have had a large representation in parliament as well. And when Egypt held its American-inspired parliamentary elections recently, the number of seats won by the Muslim Brotherhood rose fivefold. Throughout the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood is the main power with grassroots support. The Islamists are less corrupt. They are the ones with integrity and compassion. They are of the people and they speak for the people. Today in the Arab world, the choice is clear between democratically elected Islamists and Western-leaning dictators.â€Â
Why do you let these anti-American towelhead lovers post such drivel on your site? A True Patriot would turn over the IP addresses of these losers to the FBI. Its time someone came knocking on their doors.
Its one thing to have political views. It is quite another to dare to criticize our Glorious Leader, who is ordained by God to eradicate all evil from the planet. By critizing our Leader, a man who talks to God, these liberals and democrats are providing aid and comfort to our Satan-loving enemies. I say arrest the whole lot of them for treason.
I hear our Commander has wisely invested $350 million in emergency detention centers in the mid-West. We could send these losers there. Then we could trot out a couple dozen a week for televised executions. The ultimate reality show.
May God continue to bless our Glorious Leader
franklyo, I predicted these comments, but Jeffy has seen fit to block me. I commented just after yours.
My original point was that, unlike those who are backtracking (read cya) here, independents are aware of how they felt at the start of the build up to war and are now questioning what they heard—in conparison to what they here now.
I think people like you float these awful parodies, IloveGeorgeBushSoMuchIWantToSuckHisDick, just so you can use phrases like “towel-head lovers” without the racist repurcussions that would come with doing so without the facade.
Because let’s face it: you think it EVIL that Bushie and his pious band of Jesus humpers freed a bunch of ‘em. And this is your way of venting while trying to preserve your bona fides as a “dissenter.”
Pretty transparent to me, but hey, I’m quite good at teasing this kind of shit out. So maybe you have other people fooled, who knows?
You do have the right idea not appending your name to it, though. I’ll give you that much.
Actually, you commented here. Between 2 frankly0 comments.
And if I blocked you, how are you getting through?
Tell you what. You can apologize for accusing me of blocking you (and for calling me Jeffy), or I will give you your wish and ban you.
You’ve got 10 minutes to reply.
Jeffy is carving out a safe niche for his future. Don’t count on him to tow the party line. He is out for himself in the end. Party line? He will tow it when it suits him.
As for the war on Iraq or Terror—he’s all for that. As long as he gets to screenplay it from his nice toasty seat “just sittin’ there” as his Commander and Chief recalls.
Backtrack all you want. It’s still called cya in common language.
Oh and I meant to type “hear” earlier.
We all are busy
You swift Jeffy
Sorry, had a b-friend with the same name. Is my time up?
You are whittling away at any validity that you had. You have proven that you are NOT a neocon, NOT a conservative. Then what are you? A thinking person? Those who disagree with you are thinking persons as well.
Got a rise out of you, if nothing else
And to think I refrained from correcting your ambiguous langusge this past weekend. Perhaps I should have commented then.
I have absolutely no idea what it is you are talking about.
And I can’t, in good faith, ban a “special” person. So keep on ramblin’ if you feel the need.
Mr. Goldstein,
Thank you for letting the little boobies post so we can see what they really are. I haven’t been this amused in a long time. I think I’d actually begun to take these fools seriously!
Looking back up through the posts here, there isn’t a fresh argument, fresh idea: hell, the original use of an adjective would stand out like a new cowpie.
frankly0 et al are either so totally conditioned to the party line they’re now incapable of othinking for themselves—or they are indeed total idiots. Either way thanks reminding me what silly silly people are passing themselves off as deep thinkers.
franklyo sez:
No.
So now what, fool?
That dipshits like you think three years is a long time?
I have absolutely no idea what it is you are talking about.
And I can’t, in good faith, ban a “special†person. So keep on ramblin’ if you feel the need.
Jeffy, you must realise that you have painted yourself into a corner. You have all the link references and with those references come doubts. If you are truly independant as you claim, you must realize that the PR leading up to the war was faulty (perhaps you have claimed as such on a thread that I missed?) or you are for the war and you buy hook line and sinker the reason(s) WPE gives for attacking Iraq.
You seem to be parsing a view for you to survive through the backlash that will be a titlewave.
all your bases are mine—hehe hah
You are making no sense. Seriously. Peyote, is it?
Smells like patchouli in here.
Gawd, it reeks in here. Noxious troll odor. Bleh.
Sometimes it’s fun to follow Steve J.’s crazy link-o-rama. Like, for example, his first one where he cherry picks the quote without presenting the speech context; the speech being given a day prior to a UN Weapons Inspector report regarding resolution 1441. But even putting that aside, we also find this from the initial comments offered by the President:
(undeniable)
(thanks to the work of Stephen Hayes such has been made even clearer via Iraq’s internal documents)
(OMG- more evidence of Jeff and Rick’s earier thoughts?)
then also…
Now- to be clear, these points are all made within a greater context of disarmament- the reason for this explained above. However, even in a pointed set of comments about one justification for war, references to others were clearly made.
Jeff- I’d recommend you look at that link, I think you might find some useful material.
I sometimes have the impression that the dissenters are being fed drugs that the rest of us have no access to. What’s up with that, do you like them better Jeff?
Me? I’d settle for a little pie. Or hell, a dissenter that knew their were sides in the battles we find ourselves in and were willing to come down on the American one.
Apparently, that is too much to ask these days. So I will console myself with the knowledge that as long as the lunatics are running the Dems, they will never be allowed power again.
You are making no sense.
different name. same game.
You are trying to redefine yourself, through every post. I think you will always be here because you will be able to mold your submissive audience to you will. They can’t think without you (some can’t with you ) sorry I have to stop to laugh. You pride yourself on your complexty. Your commentors bow before you. You back track and your flock backtracks with you.
It’s all too easy. Your readers think you are so complicated and difficult to undrestand. You are an open book. Capitalist. Keep those commenters coming, no matter the political winds.
It’s been fun
It knows you man. Knows you. You’re, like, an open book, and we are merely your yes men.
You don’t really believe in what you say, you’re just doing it for the crazy blog money.
Because it said so.
Yup. Definitely peyote.
further context from the second link- note the press conference took place 4/10/03.
Yup. Definitely peyote.
Now that’s a reasoned retort.
Instead of blocking, you could actually rebut the allegations.
Nah.
Yeah Jeff- I note you have specificly avoided telling your readers where you were when the Lindberg baby was kidnapped.
And just how certain can we be that you aren’t a member of the Golden Dawn, perhaps tasked with influencing the street and highway construction patterns of Colorado to improve the flow of geomantic energies across the US?
WE DEMAND ANSWERS TO NONSENSE QUESTIONS!!! IN CAPS!!!
incontrolados:
So…since “the PR was faulty”, we should retreat from this particular battle?
Dictator toppled, people freed, elections held, governments formed, terrorists killed – but hey, the pre-war PR was faulty, so let’s chuck it all.
Dorita:
I’m presuming that for you, this is some sort of epithet?
Mental midgets, leftists all. Yet they cannot understand how their little sister’s boyfriend keeps beating the shit out of them, and why all their neighbors hate them. I tell you–it’s the smell, it’s the smell…..Good God, Morphius, it’s the smell.
Capitalist!
(thanks to the work of Stephen Hayes such has been made even clearer via Iraq’s internal documents)
Hayes is a seriously disturbed lying whore.
I sometimes have the impression that the dissenters are being fed drugs that the rest of us have no access to.
I’d like to know what drug(s) Buckley, Will, Fukuyama, Sullivan and Bartlett have been on.
That’s pretty funny coming from an obvious liar such as you, Steve.
It’s about time to stick a fork in you.
I think I may need a nap.
Man, there’s some good moonbat barking in here!
what, no cherry-picked quote to back that up? I’m disappointed, Steve J.
Well Steve, perhaps you could tell me which drug you are taking that allows you to carefully cherrypick only the words that support your point of view from the hundreds and hundreds that don’t which surround them.
You can only keep up the lies and mis-directions so long, Steve J. After that, they can come back and bite you in the ass.
….yeah and you eat your boogers…..yeah, yeah,….and uh….your dad ain’t really your dad…..yeah and……uh….your mom’s pussy stinks….and…..
Are you starting to see how difficult it is to rebut some of your shit?
Oh, man, I feel like I’ve just woken up from an all-night bender.
The leftist’s driveling inanities have reduced mi word-use age, 4 naow I c dat werds Mean wateva eye wan’t dem 2 meen.
Knot wat dey ax-oily, errr acts-euly, says.
I read this post, and I could have sworn someone was trying to say there was some meaningful justification offered in the run up to the Iraq War other than Saddam’s refusal to give up his WMD’s and the threat they would pose in the hands of terrorists. Now that’s just plain weird. Did I misunderstand? It was very long and complicated.
David,
Normally long and complicated is my shtick, but it’s not entirely unheard of to have multiple sets of rationales behind a military action. Some may be more important than others, but it certainly has happened. For instance, what was the purpose of the Korean War?
BRD
david, go to Thomas.gov and search for the Joint Authorization for the Use of Force. Oct ‘02, IIRC.
It contains the information you seek.
Let’s balance a few speech lines filled with flowery, expansive rhetoric, against how the war was sold to the public and Congress. Not as a fluid set of generally progressive goals, but as a response to an immediate existential threat. You lie to yourself if you fail to recognize the main thrust of pre-war sales pitch, because you understand full well the characteristics of the conservative base, and you understand the sorts of things that get their attention. Nuanced multi-tiered response ain’t one of em…..try a little fear, revenge and religious prejudice, and now you’re talking.
I mean it’s ludicrous. Presnit say he gotta nooawnced response for them sand niggers….
Shorter Rat:
Don’t read the President’s pre-war speeches. Listen to me.
And you’ve found and read the aforementioned Joint Authorization for the Use of Force, correct? You understand the full width and breadth od the “sales pitch” correct? You’re not thinking in sound bites, correct?
Didn’t think so.
The main problem isn’t Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq, I think. The real problem is the near total failure of the Administration to communicate those reasons and to maintain a dialogue with the public, explaining what the hell is going on and why. Bush and his team have been woefully silent on a number of things that they should be using heavily, instead choosing to concentrate their efforts on domestic policies that seem tailor-made to piss off sizable numbers of voters. My regret is that there was absolutely no one else I could have voted for.
No. They haven’t been silent. You haven’t been listening.
I’m beginning to think the benefit of the doubt has expired for these particular dissenters. I can conceive of dissent from this administration’s policies based in principle and truth. That is not, however, the dissent we have. What we have is manipulation and intimidation so pathetic in its transparency as to be easily mistaken for idiocy or insanity.
That’s not a mistake we can, however, afford to make. It is, on the contrary, a bald-faced power-play not entirely dissimilar to the one engaged in by demogogues of a different stripe flogging their fake cartoons. How best to combat it?