And we all know we can take dGAB at his word, right? Hmmm, why then did he write the following yesterday: Yeah, you can tell what dGAB really thinks about Reagan...
THINKING THINGS OVER Wow, Who Are the Smart Guys? Bush's vision is a winner in Iraq, and America. BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY Monday, April 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT Jubilant crowds in Baghdad show that President Bush and his team were spectacularly right and his critics spectacularly wrong. And this says something about who are the smart guys and who are the dullards in this society--or at least, what kind of mindset leads to good judgments. "We will be greeted as liberators," Vice President Dick Cheney told Tim Russert, making himself the special target of the critics. He elaborated, "The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but [that] they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." He continued that only the special Republican Guard and Saddam's security organization would likely offer strong resistance: "I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside." Put to the battlefield test, this is as precise a prediction of what has now happened as ever occurs in human affairs. Mr. Cheney drew similar howls, remember, with his explanation of the administration's energy policy. He pointed out that while nuclear plants generate 20% of the nation's electricity, "the government has not granted a single new nuclear power permit in more than 20 years, and many existing plants are going to be shutting down. If we're serious about environmental protection, then we must seriously question the wisdom of backing away from what is, as a matter of record, a safe, clean, very plentiful energy source." Even more inflammatory, he said, "conservation is an important part of the total effort. But to speak exclusively of conservation is to duck the tough issues. Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive energy policy. We also have to produce more." To many of us, no doubt including the vice president, these remarks seem unexceptionable common sense. Modest, even. Clearly, though, to others they seem outrageous. Sacrilegious, even. They're an affront to the received wisdom of "right-thinking" people. It's no accident that Mr. Cheney's critics on the environment are also his critics on the war. Thomas Sowell has written two books pondering why the same people end up on the same side of issues that have no intrinsic connection. In "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles," he writes that this is because they operate from two different "visions" of how the world works, indeed of human nature. In "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy," he argues that the prevailing vision in the press, academy and politics has become so dogmatic that it has lost touch with reality. Mr. Sowell labels the competing visions "constrained" and "unconstrained." The constrained vision argues that perfection is impossible, that social policy consists of structuring incentives for self-centered men, that life is a series of trade-offs. This vision is represented by the likes of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton (and of course, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration mindset). The unconstrained version argues that man's imperfections are the result of bad institutions, that pure intentions matter more than actual effects, that rationality can solve problems once and for all. In the time of Smith and Burke, this tradition was epitomized by William Godwin, whose "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice" was popular in Great Britain until the public started to witness the excesses of the French Revolution. For the path of the unconstrained vision ran through Rosseau, Voltaire and Thomas Paine (a defender of the French Revolution as well as a hero of the American one). Today's academy is in thrall of descendants of these French ideas. The academically popular "deconstructionism" promoted by Jacques Derrida argues that the conception of meaning or truth is another corrupting institution, merely expressing power relationships. Students and journalists who have never heard of Derrida reflect his influence in preoccupation with issues of gender, class and race. As Mr. Sowell writes, the "vision of the anointed" has become impervious to evidence. Rather, it's "a badge of honor and a proclamation of identity: To affirm it is to be one of us and to oppose it is to be one of them." This is relevant today because these two visions were put to a stark test on the streets of Baghdad. Those who followed the constrained version were proved right; those associated with the unconstrained version, Mr. Sowell's "anointed," proved foolish. This rare empirical test should be weighed in the competing claims offered on other issues--energy policy, the environment, racial quotas and, to come to the present crux, economic policy. Seeking the social approval of the anointed, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe held out for an uneasy compromise on the budget resolution, effectively paring the president's tax cut by half. The real problem is not a few wayward Republicans but the Democrats, who voted almost in lockstep against even the compromise. It's time for the president to take the offensive, arguing that the public should trust him and not his critics on how to revive the economy. After all, the war's outcome makes patently clear that they were wrong and he and his administration were right on the last big issue. Historic philosophers aside, after all, we find in everyday life that those who display good judgment in one arena tend to display it in another. And between the two great visions, perhaps the Iraqi campaign will change minds the way the French Revolution did in an earlier century. Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
First, we're at the halfway point in this presidency, so there is a long way to go. But, in the Iraqi invasion, the shining impression for Americans and some Iraqis will be the Saddam statue coming down. For the Arab world, however, the lasting impression seems to be this armless Ali boy. Until we fix Iraq, and by that I mean a stable government, jobs, a thriving economy (which will take at least 3-5 years), give Afghanistan a chance to work, and there is a Palestinian state, the Arab world won't change their minds. Everyone knows we can beat the shit out of any piss-ant country in the middle east, but can we build one? That's the question that Bush has to, at least, start to answer before the next election. I can tell you this... if this conflict has only cost 20 billion dollars, and Bush thinks our country can afford a 500+ billion tax cut, I think his priorities are out of order. We need to recognize that we have the chance to do this right for a change.... and it's on the relatively cheap side of things. Would we pay 200 billion over 3 to 5 years to have a completely free Iraq, with public works, a working legal system, law enforcement system, governmental system, and that's a friend to the US? I think that would be a great deal. Especially since the original estimates for the war were between 70 and 100 billion. If there is any country in the middle east that can pull themselves up by the boot straps, it's Iraq. They are very well educated, have a strong history, great natural resources, and know what it's like, at least on a local level, to have democracy. Plus, they can tolerate a secular form of government. Very important when you're in a neighborhood of nutcases.
To find out how dumb Dubya is, do the following: 1. Add the IQ of Bungrider and Magna together. 2. Add 10 pts. to that total to get Dubya's IQ 3. Add about 5 yrs of education at elite schools 4. Add about 20 yrs of practical life experience, including being the governor of texas. At this point you will have some idea of how "dumb" dubya is !
You have to be fair though... he wasn't "all there" when he attended school... and what about subtracting points for the Cocaine and Alcohol abuse? I think that probably contributes to the awkward, searching pauses in his speech. However, you can't argue with his vision for a lasting Middle East peace. He's doing a pretty good so far... and it's only been a year and a half since 9/11. 2 of the worst countries down, and if he gets just one more I'll be happy. I just hope he leaves Iran alone and gets Syria and/or Lebanon straightened out. Iran's going to take care of it's own problems in due time.
I don't know that you're right, but the two images are not so different on a psychological level: Both offer symbols of the Arab world as "disarmed" (this inevitable dream-symbolic pun has already turned up in anti-war propaganda) - as helpless maimed orphans in the world. Initial reactions include pity, self-pity, and impotent rage against the warriors, but there are signs of a strong parallel reaction against the leaders and media that led the Arabs, "yet once again," to stake their emotions on an unworthy champion in a hopeless cause. (See, for example, this article on reactions among Saddam's most fervent supporters - the Palestinians: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=fattah041603). That the Europeans have likewise seized on this image suggests the possibility of a similar two-sided reaction. On the surface, "little Ali" offers the opportunity for a grotesque "I-told-you-so," yet at the same time he offers both a reminder and objective proof of the peace movement's impotence (they couldn't prevent it from occurring). Put more simply in the form of a question: Would you rather remain eternally in the position of little Ali, or maybe next time be on Tommy Franks' and George Bush's side? After World War II, the Japanese and Germans, faced with a somewhat comparable choice, eventually decided that "might made right," and that, even and especially on the terms of the defeated militarists, victory offered objective proof that the victors were more worthy of being emulated than of being impotently defied. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I agree with you on the importance of a friendly, stable and prosperous Iraq with justice and freedom for all its citizens. But why do you assume we should have to pay for it? Iraq has the second largest oil resources in the world. They can produce close to 3 million barrels a day, and probably a good bit more once Halliburton has worked over those neglected wells and fields. We need to ensure that these revenues are spent properly(hint: no French contracts), but there is no reason for us to bear the cost. In fact, they should reimburse us for the cost of the liberation. It is our responsibility to put in place a government that is friendly to us, so that we do not have to redo this job. A good way for them to demonstrate their good will is to pay the costs we have incurred. a good first place to free up some funds will be the international debt owed mainly to French banks. That debt was incurred by an illegal regime, it was incurred to buy weapons in violation of the embargo and it is appropriate for the new government to disavow it, just as Castro, the Chinese and Soviets did.
Baghdad Residents Protest U.S. Troops By REUTERS BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Muslims poured out of mosques and into the streets of Baghdad, calling for an Islamic state to be established, after the first Friday prayers since U.S. forces took control of the Iraqi capital. Carrying Korans, prayer mats and banners, tens of thousands of people marched in the city's biggest protest since U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein more than a week ago -- a protest unthinkable under the former president. ``Leave our country, we want peace,'' read one banner aimed at the Americans who seized control nine days ago but failed to check looting, power blackouts and chaos in the aftermath. ``No Bush, No Saddam, Yes Yes to Islam,'' read another. The organizers called themselves the Iraqi National United Movement and said they represented both Iraq's majority Shi'ite Muslims and powerful Sunnis. Shi'ites, close to Iran's leaders, were marginalized under Saddam's Sunni-dominated government and some Iraqis have feared sectarian clashes could erupt. ``No Shi'ites, No Sunnis, Yes Yes for United Islam,'' another banner read. The marchers came from several mosques and converged in a central district, Aadhamiya, for the peaceful protest. One of the biggest columns came from Abi Hanifah Nouman mosque. Its dome was bombed during the recent war. The imam, Ahmed al-Kubaisi, said in his sermon that the United States invaded Iraq to defend Israel, and also denied Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ``This is not the America we know, which respects international law, respects the right of people,'' he said. His followers poured out chanting anti-U.S. slogans and waving banners that read ``No to America. No to Secular State. Yes to Islamic State'' and ``We reject American hegemony.'' Saddam's Baath Party, which ruled for three decades, was secular. VOW TO FIGHT U.S. TROOPS WITH KNIVES Standing on and all around a tanker truck crawling down the road, the men, some in turbans and with long beards, chanted: ``We are Sunni and Shi'ite brothers, we will not sell this nation.'' ``We will give the American troops a few months to leave Iraq. If they do not, we will fight them with knives,'' one demonstrator said. One woman watching the crowds said it would not be easy to force out the U.S. troops. ``What are these people talking about? They want to force the American troops to leave? It is too late to do so. The American troops dug in Baghdad and now it is difficult to get them out,'' said Um Huda, a housekeeper. A statement issued by the movement urged Iraqis to oppose a ``federal government that the United States wants to set up in the coming few days.'' ``Our movement wants every Iraqi to take part in rebuilding Iraq and set up a new modern state,'' said the statement, signed by Kubaisi. In Tehran, one influential conservative Shi'ite cleric also called for the U.S.-led forces to leave. ``Unite with each other and send America and Britain out of your country. It is a duty for the Iraqi nation,'' Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani said in a sermon broadcast live on radio. The United States has said a former U.S. general will lead an interim government in Iraq for an indefinite period but insists it will hand over control as soon as possible. ``People will have the right to demonstrate in a free Iraq,'' said U.S. Brigadier General Vincent Brooks. ``There may be some that say, 'Get the coalition out of here'.'' ``We want the governance of Iraq to be handed over to, passed over to the Iraqi people as quickly as we can and we've made a commitment to not staying any longer than it takes to get those key actions completed,'' he told a news briefing on Friday.
Holy crap....msfe did a cut and paste!!!!! Hey, msfe, do you ever express an original thought? This article from Reuters is one guy's slant. They don't call these "stories" for nothing. Shiites and Sunnis as "brothers".....this is REAL typical! What did Iraq and Iran fight over for so long? These people hate each other as much as they hate Christians and Jews. Are there exceptions? Always. But in general........ And the Palestinians? They could not care less if it was Reagan, Bush, Saddam, Gandhi, Hitler, Mother Theresa, or the Shah of Iran. If they felt that someone sided with them against Israel, they'd love them. Not about religion, politics, racism, social customs, money, love, or rock 'n roll. The only thing they care about is "if your enemy is my enemy"....and there is only one enemy...Israel. (and peace, apparently).