For the last few months, there has been many voices asking for more discussion about the coming war. The very fact that this has taken place shows that Bush's war preparations were a failure. If people want to discuss the action, it means that they want to get a chance to give their own opinion, and you can bet it won't be the opinion that Bush wants to hear. The problem was that he went about this like a bureaucrat (I decided this is good for you, so you have to do it) instead of a corporate executive (Hey, there is something called an X. You want the X. You need the X. What, you want to buy one? Well it just so happens that we sell them. How convenient.) The problem with the former is that you automatically create friction, and everyone will want to check the facts to make sure it is actually good for us. He should have built up anti-Iraq feelings first. Without putting forth the idea that we should use any force against Iraq, the government should have put out press release after press release tarring Iraq. Slowly at first, probably dealing with things like the no-fly zones. Then building up, including things about their history and current chemical warfare capability. Then start a flurry of terrorist connection stuff - including whatever lies you can get away with (no one cares if Iraq denies it). When you create that kind of groundswell, then the media gets swept up into it - each outlet trying to outdo each other in anti-Iraq denunciations. The fact checking is left to the Pacifica network. Only then do you present the idea that we should invade. It must seem that it is the Inevitable Fate of the Universe that we invade Iraq. That way, there will be little questioning. It will seem that the reasons for war are obvious, and there wouldn't be this questioning of motives (like the rather large interest the popular media is showing towards Iraqi oil at the moment). If the war goes badly or there are complications, then it is just the way things are instead of being the fault of the man who single handedly led us to war. I know that Bush the Younger is mixing in some of this in his current speeches ("use of force may become unavoidable") but it does not fit in with the demand language ("Delay, indecision, and inaction are not options for America, because they could lead to massive and sudden horror.") that he must use right now.
Dumbya shoulda hired the same folks who sold his Pappy's war to us although I doubt people these days would fall for fake "town hall meetings" and ambassadors' kids telling lies about incubators this time around. "Can't get fooled again", ya know!
This is where I stopped paying attention. The fact that people want to discuss a possible war on Iraq means that war preparations area failure? Your logic can't get more flawed than that.
Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq I don't think the war is as popular as you seem to. I mean, Bush and the Reps are having to work very hard to build support and sell this thing to the American people. If everyone was as cheerfully gung-ho for war as you seem to think, then why is all the flim-flam and selling even necessary? This is especially true considering our past history with Iraq, the unquestioned evil of Saddam, the events of 9/11 and decades of carefully stoked, media-led hatred of Arabs in general. I mean, selling this war should have been absolute child's play and yet instead of creating a massive groundswell of support, all Bush has done is cause people to question whether or not we should do this. Given the circumstances, that alone is a monumental failure in social programming and control. Even the lapdog US news media who have dutifully done their part by keeping Saddam in the headlines for months and not asking Bush any tough questions about his plans are now starting to do their job... er, I mean, starting to tentatively ask questions about whether this is really a good idea right now. Our inarticulate Boy President will probably get to have his excellent adventure and play soldier eventually, but the contrast between the slick, well-delivered build-up to Gulf War 1 and the fumbling, stumbling, bumbling sell-job of today could hardly be greater.
> The fact that people want to discuss a possible > war on Iraq means that war preparations area > failure? Your logic can't get more flawed than > that. If you read the rest you should understand. If you tell people to do something because it is good for them, they will automatically question it. If you convince them it was their idea in the first place, then you have it easy. The fact that people want to discuss it means that those people do not believe in the original reasons. They want something more and Bush does not have that something more. That is why he should have started with an emotional argument rather than a rational one, and employ a more indirect method than his current direct one.
Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq I think war is very popular. They have been having wars for years now and I think that I would enjoy a good war. It could be like Fantasy Football. Keeping track of all that stats. I think in my draft I would choose the US Aircraft Carrier George Washington first. Then move on to the 82nd Airborne.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq I said "THE war" (referencing Bush's proposed war), not just "war". Can you spot the difference? War is extremely popular among those who don't have be personally affected by it.
Boy, are you misguided. What Bush is doing is called leadership. It is the anti-thesis of the bureaucratic approach. He has consulted with experts on his staff and concluded that Iraq presents a serious and deadly threat to the United States and its citizens. His job as commander-in-chief requires him to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the American people, despite what polls say. I applaud his fortitude and resiliency and courage in doing his job. Oh, it's easy to be some faceless yahoo on the Internet pontificating over these issues like at a college symposium but the fact remains if a horrific event happened tomorrow it will be on his shoulders to bear for all eternity. The fact that he is being pro-active rather than re-active in the wake of 9/11 is a strong positive in my opinion of him. History is littered with the remains of the Neville Chamberlains of the world who reacted too late.
Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq Never fear - a lapdog Congress will bail him out of really testing public opinion since we will be "united" after this week, having passed the GW war resolution easily. Bush still will need to deal with receiving the tougher sanctions regime he asked for. He'll get it and then: a) choose to find fault with it anyway on the general ground that any sanctions regime is useless as it is not the "regime" that he wants changed b) Sadaam will refuse tougher sanctions paving the way for war or internal coup; or c) horrors - we actually have to send those mope UN inspectors back in. Actually, I'm a bit on the fence over this issue. I don't believe we have sufficient justification to initiate a war, but I would not be surprised if the result of a war is successful geopolitically.
Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq 2 reactions: 1. What time did Rush say this today? 2. There you go with 9/11 again. Connect Iraq and 9/11 please.
Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq Talk about pontificating!! The comparison to Chamberlain and WWII is laughable, though appealing if you want to lead your audience to the conclusion that war is necessary.
Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq 1. Whatever. 2. I don't give a rats SS about linking Iraq to 9/11. This war is about the future, not the past. The 9/11 importance is the wake up call to what will happen (1000 times worse) if nothing is done. Those who demand an Iraq link to 9/11 are really just pissing in the wind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq 1. If the shoe fits 2. You brought up 9/11 in relation to a discussion of Iraq. Stick to your guns, soldier.
Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq Boy, are you delusional. Bush has done the opposite of what you have said. He decided to rattle the sabre to distract people from domestic issues in an election year and only then tried to reverse-engineer reasons for which we should go to war. Neither foreign leaders nor the Amercian people believed Bush's reasons and still don't. Of course, it would help if Bush wasn't so utterly afflicted with conflicts of interest and hypocrisy and wouldn't proffer such obvious fantasies as world peace breaking out the day after Saddam is out of power. So Bush has been reduced to trying to poke Saddam with a stick in order to get a reaction that he can then use to justify a war. So far, that hasn't happened. Also, the Bush team has offered no credible plan for what happens after Saddam is ousted beyond vague assurances that Iraq will suddenly bask in a shower of world peace and secular democracy. Foreign leaders and the Amercian people are rightly skeptical of Bush's war despite universal agreement that Saddam is a bad, bad man and the world would be better off if he died tomorrow. Sorry, but given the circumstances, selling this war (to Muslim-hating Americans, at least) should have been easier than falling off a cliff. It took Bush's ineptitude to make people start to ask questions about what is really going on here and whether a war is a good idea now. Only the True Believers are still all unquestioningly gung-ho for giving our Boy President his war and letting him loose in the Middle East.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq OK - let's get to the real issue. You are suggesting (as did Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld in no particular order) that Sadaam + nukes is THE justification. So the real issue is nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. But you will never hear any Republican talk about it since it involves namby-pamby international cooperation. Easier to hone it all down to a good-ole-boy ousting of Sadaam. I'm not saying that the world wouldn't be safer without Hussein in charge of Iraq, but the selective application of a "policy" to contain the nuclear threat is breathtaking.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq You see, you make the same mistake that gun control freaks do. Guns don't kill, people kill. You can't eliminate guns. Guns in the hands of a criminal mind is something that needs to be dealt with swiftly and with overwhelming force. Substitute "nuclear or chemical weapons" for the word "guns" and you have your answer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq "Saddam is a brutal dictator addicted to [guns]." Naw, just doesn't work as well.
> What Bush is doing is called leadership. Then why is it that Bush originally said that he did not need anyone, and now he seeks support from congress, the UN security council and international opionion? Why hasn't he actually done anything yet? So far he hasn't actually led anything - he just keeps talking about how he is going to lead. > His job as commander-in-chief requires him to > take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of > the American people, despite what polls say. I don't question that, but I do question the way he is going about that. By doing this the direct way, he has opened himself to delaying debate, the disasterous inspection option, and political destruction if anything goes wrong. This isn't the first time that an administration wanted to invade someone. But just about every other invasion had better planning than this one. > Oh, it's easy to be some faceless yahoo on the > Internet pontificating over these issues like at a > college symposium I'm sure you know. You are doing it too. > but the fact remains if a horrific event happened > tomorrow it will be on his shoulders to bear for all > eternity. Bush the Younger is not asking us to prevent an attack - at a more basic level he is asking us to go to war. War is a horrific event and it won't be a hypothetical possibility, but an actuality. He has not done a good job of preparing the American people for that. > History is littered with the remains of the Neville > Chamberlains of the world who reacted too late. Neville Chamberlain did not hurt anything. The war that was going to happen happened anyway.
> You see, you make the same mistake that gun > control freaks do So you think that if someone is stockpiling guns, the ATF should bust in and arrest them?
Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq Which experts would these be? Colin Powell? Brent Scowcroft? Norman Schwarzkopf? Anthony Zinni? So why is he doing nothing about al-Qaeda, or the regimes that actually bankrolled Osama? History is also littered with those sacrificed for short-term political gain. Iraq is no imminent threat. They can be bombed flat as soon as the inspectors say "boo." Meanwhile, our allies in Saudi Arabia get a free ride. Bringing up Neville Chamberlain, by the way, technically falls under a Godwin's Law violation. But the whole Saddam issue has been Godwinned since Bush I compared him to Hitler.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq Exactly as you said and I think that why many people have such a problem with attacking Iraq, what kind of policy precedent are we setting here? My senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia said it best when discussing the resolution to give the president power to invade Iraq, "We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict. The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head." If you have a chance to read his complete speech to the senate please do because it's wise. Here is a link http://australianpolitics.com.au/news/2002/10/02-10-03a.shtml
Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq Given Ian's political philosophy, isn't anything he posts a violation?
A lot is being done behind the scenes. You know that you can't just mobilize an Army halfway around the world in a drop of the hat. Remember in the days after 9/11 when everyone was growing impatient that nothing was being done. Then, coolly, one month later lethal force was injected and the vaunted Taliban were destroyed. Bush is a patient man and knows that if you are going to put US troops at risk, do it with overwhelming force. The Iraqi army will be destroyed from the air. The ground troops will pick up the pieces after Saddam is overthrown by his own people. I'm convinced this war will be easier than most people think and a far greater good will result because I believe Iran is on the verge of collapse as well and the vast youthful population there is ready for democracy.
Re: Re: Re: How Bush has screwed up the War against Iraq I specifically said experts "ON HIS STAFF". Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf, and Zinni all have "retired" in front of their rank at this point. Unless you're privy to insider information, Powell has not gone on the record opposing a regime change in Iraq. Quite the contrary. Only rumors insinuate that Powell is against a strike. In his position as SoS, I wouldn't doubt that the White House is leaking purposely that Powell is dovish on the matter, to further his ability to negotiate with the UN council.