| Author | Message | ||
     Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 892 Registered: 7-2004 |
Bob Herbert: "So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America. "What is also dismaying is the way in which the administration has taken every opportunity since Sept. 11, 2001, to utilize the lofty language of freedom, democracy and the rule of law while secretly pursuing policies that are both unjust and profoundly inhumane." | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3162 Registered: 8-2003 |
Herbert has been out to lunch for so long, I wonder why he's still included in the NY Times. It certainly isn't for his writing. Writing this when the threat of Saddam has been vanquished, and the winds of freedom and democracy are at Bush's back as he addresses the Euro-weenies this week makes Herbert look even worse than he predictably comes across on a daily basis. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 893 Registered: 7-2004 |
The winds of freedom and democracy.  That's good. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3163 Registered: 8-2003 |
It is. That's why Hillary is even more on board with this exercise, and profoundly stepped back from wackos like Boxer, Reid and Pelosi. Did she lose your vote? | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1337 Registered: 9-2001  |
Did you see Hilary and McCain on Meet the Press yesterday? They are saying the same thing--it is too late to look back at the mistakes that got us to this point. We have to face facts on the ground and support the Iraqi government as best we can, regardless of the screw-ups by the Bushido. Both whacked the administration in polite DC tones for the situation, but both agreed that a pullout in the next five years is likely a pipe dream. I hardly think this qualifies as "being even more on board with this"--I can't in conscience call it an "exercise", let's say "mess". Hilary and McCain are sounding like very pragmatic Senators who are trying to realistically assess the situation as it exists today. Both the Bushies and Ted Kennedy are sounding like people smoking crack in their assessments of the situation. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1338 Registered: 9-2001 |
By the way, cjc, do you disagree that we have energized the enemy, as Herbert says? Let me quote McCain to you from Meet the Press: MR. RUSSERT: Senator McCain, the director of the CIA, Porter Goss, said this week that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the new breeding ground for international terrorists. Have you learned anything about that during your trip so far? SEN. McCAIN: I don't think that there's anything illogical about that. Iraq has attracted people from all over the Middle East to come and fight, and they are being financed at least to some degree, by the same people that financed Al-Qaeda, including some who didn't. And I think it's a major challenge, and it argues for success. If we fail, then this place would become a breeding ground, and I think we all understand that we're not going to win the war on terror inside the borders of the United States of America. That, I think, indicates how much is at stake here. | ||
| Sgt. Pepper Citizen Username: Jjkatz Post Number: 701 Registered: 12-2003  |
cjc - I think you meant that Bush is passing wind and calling it "foreign policy." | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 894 Registered: 7-2004 |
cjc: I laugh at those kind of statements because they are, used by both the president and in turn the nutterbutters on this board, just completely intellectually lazy. For anyone seriously comtemplating the cause and effects of this war, they are devoid of any real information. It is a way to avoid the phony pretenses on which this war was launched, and answers nothing in response to very real concerns about what is happening over there (as indicated by Goss and company). In other words, it's bullsh|t. The bigger problem, though, is that most lazy Americans buy into this ideologically driven crap, and are satisfied with rote insipid answers. Herbert simply isn't satisfied with dogged responses about freedom and democracy being on the march. Of all the rabid Bush supporters here, I am disappointed that you, cjc, would engage in such blind acceptance of obvious jingoism. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 896 Registered: 7-2004 |
Oh, is this another example of spreadable freedom? http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005022113450002453854&dt=20050 221134500&w=RTR&coview= Iraqi women no better off post-Saddam - Amnesty LONDON, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Nearly two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, women there are no better off than under the rule of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, the human rights group Amnesty International said on Tuesday. In a report entitled "Iraq -- Decades of Suffering," it said that while the systematic repression under Saddam had ended, it had been replaced by increased murders, and sexual abuse -- including by U.S. forces. Washington promised that the overthrow of Saddam would free the Iraqi people from years of oppression and set them on the road to democracy. But Amnesty said post-war insecurity had left women at risk of violence and curtailed their freedoms. "The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work," Amnesty said. "Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some women detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped," it added. Amnesty said several women detained by U.S. troops had spoken in interviews with them of beatings, threats of rape, humiliating treatment and long periods of solitary confinement. The Pentagon said it had not seen the report, but took any allegations of detainee abuse seriously. "We have demonstrated our commitment to ensuring that kind of behaviour is identified and dealt with properly," spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Joe Richard said in Washington. "With this report, we would like the opportunity to review it and to test the validity of the allegations." Amnesty said women's rights activists and political leaders had also been targeted by armed insurgent groups. Women continued to suffer legal discrimination under laws that granted husbands effective impunity to beat their wives and treated so-called "honour" killers leniently, the group said. "Within their own communities, many women and girls remain at risk of death from male relatives if they are accused of behaviour held to have brought dishonour on the family," Amnesty said, noting some attempts by religious zealots to make the laws even more repressive against women. But on the positive side, the report said several women's rights groups had been formed -- including ones that focused on the protection of women from violence. Amnesty called on the Iraqi authorities and newly elected members of the National Assembly to enshrine the rights of women in the new constitution. This included treating honour killings as murder, outlawing violence within marriage and making sure that the punishment was commensurate with the crime committed. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3166 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hillary voted for the war, as did McCain. Some mistakes made in it's execution? Surely. She had to keep supporting it as she brought up her brilliant foreign policy forays into the Balkans as well. Plus, there's the other issue of it being the right thing to do. Energizing the terrorists? Maybe. Doesn't seem to translate to victory. Why do you have to recruit terrorists from outside of 'occupied' lands is good question, as it points to not enough homegrown talent. I think the recruits to democracy far outweight recruits to terrorism and Islamic jihad. And if we get them mad, they might blow up the World Trade Center or something like that. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5609 Registered: 1-2003  |
Why keep a tally of who is for the war and who is against it? It doesn't matter. You haven't listed a single claim of Bob Herbert's that is false. You just say he's out to lunch. Sure Saddam is out of power. That is good. The war effort isn't to keep him out of power, so what is it about? | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 488 Registered: 6-2004  |
for the record cjc, I believe the correct term is "chimes of freedom." if Bush has a wind, it's beneath his wings. it's important to be precise in these usages. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1593 Registered: 1-2003  |
Tom, Herbert isn't making claims, he's giving opinions. Claims are based on facts, you know that. Point to any fact that Herbert is alledging. How do you quantify "energizing the enemy"? Or how about "Wasting talents"? Those aren't facts, or even real assertions, because assertions can be backed up. The only fact he gives is "Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed" Yes, absolutely true... but he then adds "in this ill-advised war". Is it ill advised? Where are the facts to back up that statement? There aren't any yet. Its way too soon to say this was an ill advised exersize, especially with the way things are now going in the middle east. So far, based on the actions of Libya, the PLO, LEbanon, Saudi, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq- it appears that the Iraq war was very well advised. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 64 Registered: 4-2003  |
CJC; They voted for the authorization for the use of force after all other options had been exhausted, the Bush Admin did not even come close to meeting these requirements, they just went to war and to hell with the consequences. Now that we have been led down this slippery slope by the administration for the US under any leadership to up and leave would be the worst thing that they could possibly do given the present circumstances. The country has no choice but to support the war but that does not excuse those who threw us into this situation without adequate planning or the support of the international community. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3175 Registered: 8-2003 |
To say Bush didn't exhaust all other options is a matter of opinion. The UN would never have authorized the use of force as 1) some had their hands in the oil till and contracts on top of that and 2) it would only take Russia or China to vote 'no' at the Security Council. That's why Kosovo didn't go through the UN. (Interesting op-ed in the NY Times today on what a winning operation that is now that the UN is running things). To imply the Administration didn't care about the consequences is a bit far. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 65 Registered: 4-2003 |
Firstly we are talking about the vote in the Senate not at the UN, I think many more people both here in the US and worldwide would have supported the use of force if there had been adequate proof of a growing threat but nothing but supposition was ever provided as evidence. If they had cared about the consequences they would have sent in a much better equipped force i.e. so the soldiers do not have to have family send them body armor (what did they expect not to get shot at), not to mention their addictive reliance on the national guard as a peace keeping force. The only way this "war" would have ever been close to a good idea would have been with a lot more international support and the only way that would have happened would have been if the US had an actual case to use force. We can only hope that the promises for support that the President has received on his latest trips to Europe bear fruit. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5623 Registered: 1-2003 |
James Henley writes I support the occupation of Iraq, but I don't support our troops. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 490 Registered: 6-2004 |
Henley makes some pretty compelling points. It's a must-read. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1602 Registered: 1-2003 |
From David Ignatius' column in the Washington Post yesterday: The leader of this Lebanese intifada [for independence from Syria] is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus... "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3186 Registered: 8-2003 |
Mr. Jumblatt -- it's strange for a lot of people to say change has started because of the invasion of Iraq. Many people didn't think you could handle democracy, and the Arab Street was monolithic, and then there was the soft bigotry of low expectations given your racial make-up as well. Wait until you hear who they give the credit for this 'Berlin Wall" falling. Those same people liked to give credit to Gorbachev the Communist who had no intention of bringing democracy to the Soviet Union for the democracy they're working with today. Perhaps, to be true to form, those people will credit Saddam Hussein for your freedom. |
