Politics: J'accuse!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Beauty
When you can't handle the heat, you leave the kitchen. I dig.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with this.

As to your first paragraph, you either seem to be saying the stupid little brown people over there can't read our press, or the true patriots over there fighting the evil US are motivated by zeal for their country, and not by our domestic turmoil. The first is just dumb, and the second is just . . . dumb. You want a cite that proves that they read our press? Read any of the national presses over there, including, of course, AJ. You want a cite that domestic turmoil affects the attitudes, plans, and motivations of our enemies? Read something about VN.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On'

WASHINGTON, DC—In an internationally televised statement Monday, President Bush modified a July 2003 challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces. "Terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and anti-American insurgents: Please stop bringing it on now," Bush said at a Monday press conference. "Nine months and 500 U.S. casualties ago, I may have invited y'all to bring it on, but as of today, I formally rescind that statement. I would officially like for you to step back." The president added that the "it" Iraqis should stop bringing includes gunfire, bombings, grenade attacks, and suicide missions of all types.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Beauty
Cite, please. We have soldiers in Iraq. Iraq does not have soldiers here. They care more about what happens to their country than we do. They also know this. Of all the things that give Iraqis the will to go on doing whatever they are doing, seeing dissent in this country has to be well down the list.

The Iraqi people are not our enemies, pink-eye. Former Baathist party members who engaged in mass murder and Al Queda are our enemies, but not the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by Beauty
I am aware of a lot of speculation by conservatives that speech in this country will have pernicious effects on the war effort, but have never seen one iota of evidence that this matters over there.

You don't watch Al jizm and Al arabia (or whatever it is called) much do you?

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by bilmore At the same time, we have an enemy who is largely informed by our Viet Nam performance - ...

It's nice to see the proper form of using both words separately. (BTW - it used to be referred to as "Nam Viet")

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with this.

Nor did I with your crack about pronouncements. But you are known to change the subject tactically.

As to your first paragraph, you either seem to be saying the stupid little brown people over there can't read our press, or the true patriots over there fighting the evil US are motivated by zeal for their country, and not by our domestic turmoil. The first is just dumb, and the second is just . . . dumb. You want a cite that proves that they read our press? Read any of the national presses over there, including, of course, AJ.

I believe they read our press.

You want a cite that domestic turmoil affects the attitudes, plans, and motivations of our enemies? Read something about VN.

I was talking about Iraq, thank you. I've seen nothing that suggests that dissent in this country has much to do with the fighting there.

Treating dissent as an independent source of difficulty is flat-out misguided. If we don't talk about the fact that the barn door is broken, maybe the horses won't leave. We didn't lose Viet Nam because of domestic opposition to the war. There was domestic opposition to the war for a host of good reasons, which were also why we lost. The same is true with Iraq. There is domestic opposition because it was the wrong war to fight, and the administration is fighting it the wrong way. The great thing about living in a democracy, as opposed to a totalitarian regime, is that we can point this out and do something about it. Something ranging from throwing the bums out to making enough noise that the President reverses course on something.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If Kerry had been Prez. we would have had an entirely different civilian Defense establishment, as well as a largely different national security apparatus, and I don't think there is a chance in hell that we would have even proposed invading Iraq.

I'm not so sure about that. (I agree that he wouldn't have done it, but I'm pretty sure it would have been proposed, different staff or not.) Even the Clinton admin supposedly spent a few years toying with the idea of invading Iraq given the total ineffectiveness (and expense) of sanctions and policing the no-fly zones, even if mainly in a "yeah, well, that would be an improvement over either the status quo or just giving up and leaving, but the public would never tolerate it and the Repubs would start screaming "Wag the Dog!"" sort of way.

This is one reason why it baffles me a bit when people freak out at the idea that Bush II might have wanted to invade Iraq and discussed options pre 9/11 - I mean, given the totally static, worthless situation there under sanctions, they'd have been remiss if they hadn't considered it. And not because of "WMD!" or "save the Iraqi children!" or "democracy now!" or "restore respect and effectiveness to international sanctions!", just purely from a "well, we're stuck in this game of chicken now, and the status quo sucks from everyone's p.o.v. (er, except kick-back recipients, apparently), and regime change by hook or by crook is really the only option since we can't realistically can't be the ones to blink, and all prior attempts to forment an internal coup or poison SH's yoghurt or make his beard fall out or whatever have not worked, so what other options are out there?" perspective.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm not so sure about that. (I agree that he wouldn't have done it, but I'm pretty sure it would have been proposed, different staff or not.) Even the Clinton admin supposedly spent a few years toying with the idea of invading Iraq given the total ineffectiveness (and expense) of sanctions and policing the no-fly zones, even if mainly in a "yeah, well, that would be an improvement over either the status quo or just giving up and leaving, but the public would never tolerate it and the Repubs would start screaming "Wag the Dog!"" sort of way.

Clarke's book suggests that we were much closer to war with Iran in the mid-1990s than I ever realized.

If Kerry thought we needed to go to war with Iraq to protect this country, I don't think he would be dissuaded by French or German opposition. I just don't think there's any question about that.

This is one reason why it baffles me a bit when people freak out at the idea that Bush II might have wanted to invade Iraq and discussed options pre 9/11 - I mean, given the totally static, worthless situation there under sanctions, they'd have been remiss if they hadn't considered it. And not because of "WMD!" or "save the Iraqi children!" or "democracy now!" or "restore respect and effectiveness to international sanctions!", just purely from a "well, we're stuck in this game of chicken now, and the status quo sucks from everyone's p.o.v. (er, except kick-back recipients, apparently), and regime change by hook or by crook is really the only option since we can't realistically can't be the ones to blink, and all prior attempts to forment an internal coup or poison SH's yoghurt or make his beard fall out or whatever have not worked, so what other options are out there?" perspective.

I don't think anyone freaks at the idea that invading Iraq was an option that was considered. But after reading Woodward's book, it's not clear that any other option was seriously considered. It's not like there was a single point where Bush decided to go to war -- it's that he put himself on a course where it was possible, and never seemed to contemplate an alternative. Certainly, the book makes clear that in the closing rounds of "diplomacy," Bush had already given up on the UN and was going through the motions. It's a little jarring to read Bush complaining about the French doing the same thing in reverse.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Beauty
We didn't lose Viet Nam because of domestic opposition to the war. There was domestic opposition to the war for a host of good reasons, which were also why we lost.

This is so wrong as to be stunning.

First, we never, even at the beginning, committed to the effort in more than a quarter-ass way, because of public/political oppsotion to the effort. It's ludicrous to think that, with full public and political backing, we couldn't have rolled right through that entire country in about a week.

Read the NVA generals' memoirs about the war. They knew exactly what their fight was - they spent about half of their efforts affecting US public attitudes towards the war and their motivations. They knew they could never truly win a military victory over us - they had to win the political one within our country. Read the memoirs, and see how attuned they were to every political speech, every march, every protest. We were their greatest comfort.

Iraq will be the exact same situation.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't remember the date of the quote, but he's stated that he will go, hat in hand, back to the UN on the day he is elected and "re-join the international community".

Far as I can tell, the only thing Bush has done to warrant Kerry's characterization that we have left that community is that Bush would not allow the UN to veto our national decisions.

It amazes me that you can create leaping arguments like "Bush lied" out of "but we all thought that he meant something else", but you can't connect Kerry's statements unless the exact words are repeated. It's either willful, or, when the sign said "Drink Me", you did.

It amazes me that you are inclined to honestly, actually believe that Kerry will become a supplicant to the UN.

I really don't read this to mean that Kerry will fly up to NY on Day 2 and kiss Kofi's ring. I read statements like that to mean that he would go around to the smaller kids on the playground and tell them that we won't tell them to fuck off if they won't play our game, but instead that we'll spend more effort trying to convince them that our game is best.

Admittedly, I could be buying a bill of goods, like I did a few years ago when listening to claims of "compassionate conservatism."

I mean, it's great political theatre to say this stuff. Rove comes up with really nifty themes sometimes. But, after his third Cosmopolitan of the evening, I'll bet that even Rove would admit that he doesn't really believe it.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
This is one reason why it baffles me a bit when people freak out at the idea that Bush II might have wanted to invade Iraq and discussed options pre 9/11 - I mean, given the totally static, worthless situation there under sanctions, they'd have been remiss if they hadn't considered it.

Your pre 9/11 point is well taken, but I thought the freakouts were due to Bush preparing war plans for Iraq in the months after 9/11, when we had a good idea that the attacks did not originate in Iraq and when Bush was telling the media that his meetings were focused on Afghanistan. But maybe I don't have a handle on all the freaking out going on.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Has anyone seen any description of how the US (or anyone else, I suppose) expects the security relationship between the interim govt and the US troops to be structured? I've been half-assedly looking for one but I haven't seen anything as yet.

I'm guessing that this relationship won't be defined until the interim govt takes shape, but I'm curious if anyone in the press has thought about it. It seems to me that with the underwhelming response of the Iraqi police to the recent insurgency the new govt is going to want to lean on the US troops to keep the peace in high-risk situations. The question to me is whether we will allow them to exert that kind of control, and how we will avoid being the striking arm for the settlement of individual political scores.

I realize Jon Stewart has made the interim government's undefinedness a catchphrase, so I have no illusions that I'm making new points here, but this security arrangement to me is gonna be a big issue, esp if US casualties continue at even a fraction of the current rate.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Has anyone seen any description of how the US (or anyone else, I suppose) expects the security relationship between the interim govt and the US troops to be structured? I've been half-assedly looking for one but I haven't seen anything as yet.

Somewhere on the net (I've read it, but don't remember where) is the Bremer .pdf document laying out several scenarios for this.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by bilmore
First, we never, even at the beginning, committed to the effort in more than a quarter-ass way, because of public/political oppsotion to the effort. It's ludicrous to think that, with full public and political backing, we couldn't have rolled right through that entire country in about a week.

And then what? I'm not suggesting that North Vietnam's military was, in conventional terms, a match for us. But we were trying to uphold a hollow, corrupt regime.

Read the NVA generals' memoirs about the war. They knew exactly what their fight was - they spent about half of their efforts affecting US public attitudes towards the war and their motivations. They knew they could never truly win a military victory over us - they had to win the political one within our country. Read the memoirs, and see how attuned they were to every political speech, every march, every protest. We were their greatest comfort.

"Half their efforts" is a sort of lazy hyperbole that wishes away the ugliness of what happened. I know what you are getting at, but still.

Iraq will be the exact same situation.

Once again, conservatives slinging this crap are long on comparisons to Viet Nam (the comparisons we're not supposed to be making right now, except when we are), and short on any sort of empirical basis for this. Your post is no different.

[Not Me]

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/disp...story_id=13023

• From Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs
  
  ABOARD USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, At Sea (NNS) -- USS George Washington’s (GW) (CVN 73) aircraft exerted pressure on anti-Iraqi forces in the Iraqi city of Fallujah April 28, with repeated bombardments from Strike Fighter Squadrons (VFA) 136 and VFA-131, and Fighter Squadrons (VF) 11 and VF-143.
  
  Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7’s F/A-18 Hornets and F-14 Tomcats dropped 13 GBU-12 guided bomb units on enemy positions, helping U.S. Marines of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force defend their positions against insurgent attacks.
  
  Continued air support from GW remains vital to the success of Marines on the ground who are working hard to bring security and stability to Fallujah.
  
  All aircraft returned safely, marking this the latest of several successful bombing missions carried out by CVW-7 from George Washington, currently the only aircraft carrier in the Arabian Gulf.
  
  GW departed Norfolk Jan. 20 and arrived on station almost two months ago to contribute to the ongoing global war on terrorism.

[Beauty]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/disp...story_id=13023

• From Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs
  
  ABOARD USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, At Sea (NNS) -- USS George Washington’s (GW) (CVN 73) aircraft exerted pressure on anti-Iraqi forces in the Iraqi city of Fallujah April 28, with repeated bombardments from Strike Fighter Squadrons (VFA) 136 and VFA-131, and Fighter Squadrons (VF) 11 and VF-143.
  
  Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7’s F/A-18 Hornets and F-14 Tomcats dropped 13 GBU-12 guided bomb units on enemy positions, helping U.S. Marines of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force defend their positions against insurgent attacks.
  
  Continued air support from GW remains vital to the success of Marines on the ground who are working hard to bring security and stability to Fallujah.
  
  All aircraft returned safely, marking this the latest of several successful bombing missions carried out by CVW-7 from George Washington, currently the only aircraft carrier in the Arabian Gulf.
  
  GW departed Norfolk Jan. 20 and arrived on station almost two months ago to contribute to the ongoing global war on terrorism.

Bombing a city is usually not a good way to bring security and stability to it. As Hank will tell you, we've never been driven to those measures even in Detroit.

eta: What's with the press releases? Are you making a bid to become the NFH of the PB?