No. Were the anti establiment protesters the one's that stuck flowers in the barrels of the rifles of the national guard "liberals"? Maybe. Many outspoken war protesters were returned Vietnam vets. Bottom line is that the war tore apart America far beyond party lines and labels like liberals and conservatives. Guess you had to be there. Or read about it. See the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" for a little feel for that era in history. People who spat on our returning troops were lowlifes in all shapes and of varying political views. Any maniac can express anger in a crude and inhuman ways. Politics were not much of a factor. Peace, RS
As regards the differences between Iraq and the Soviet Union, you're neglecting several hundred divisions of the Red Army, and several thousand ICBMs, among other things. I agree, the Soviet Union was a great potential threat on the basis of their known weapons. Was Iraq in their league from a threat perspective? Or am I missing something? Perhaps our policy is simply to engage in wars we know we can win and/or win easily. If you paid attention I was one who thought the war would be a virtual cakewalk...which it was, further lending credibility to those who opposed the war claiming Hussein was no real threat to the national security. As for the timing issue, your formulation again neglects the existence of a legal state of war between the US and Iraq prior to the pressing of the issue at the UN. You may also recall that some in the Administration wanted an ultimatum and a commitment to direct military action much earlier, but that timing naturally became a political and practical concern. One perceived risk in going to the UN, as was borne out, was that the discussion would be sidetracked and distorted, and that other actors - such as Saddam Hussein, Jacques Chirac, and Hans Blix - would attempt to seize control of the timetable, even while American resolve was tested and political passions on both sides were inflamed. Explaining the other factors that went into the issue of timing would require a recitation of the entire political, strategic, and tactical context. That legality is in question. Are you suggesting that there wasn't an urgency in the Bush administration to attack Iraq? The administration continually told us there was no reason to wait, that all the waiting had been done, and we had to act now, for fear of delay would be giving Hussein a chance to use his WMD against the USA or further fund/train terrorists. As far as the legitimacy/legality of war, from the point of view you are taking, don't we also have the right to attack Great Britain, American Indians, North Vietnam, North Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. Is it written into declaration of war a date at which the war expires? Or is there an objective of that declaration, once completed that voids the open ended nature of that declaration? When we went to war with Iraq in the Gulf War, we won that war...jointly with the support of the U.N. and drew up terms of surrender. It is factual that Iraq did not comply with those terms of surrender, yet was it spelled out the consequences of failure to keep to those terms? Was it spelled out that the USA, or any other country, could at their own whim act as the police for that body? Bush had been given a green light to fight terrorism by the congressional branch, but Bush needed to make a case that a war with Iraq fell into that category..i.e., war with Iraq was a necessary part of the war on terrorism. Two key components of his argument were WMD and sponsoring terrorism...not liberating the people of Iraq. We did not authorize war on countries for humanitarian purposes. You can't "take out the WMD issue," and not only because the issue even in the narrowest sense of "immediate threat" is far from settled. Prior to the armed "inspection" of the country that the US has initiated, no one outside Iraq knew all of the details regarding Iraq's WMDs, but all of the leading intelligence services in the world, including those of nations that opposed US action, agreed that Iraq did possess WMDs and agents in significant quantities when last inspected, and had given no serious evidence that it had disposed either of them or of the capability to produce more of them. For the Bush Administration to have argued the issue differently in any substantial way than it did would have required it to speak contrary to its own beliefs - whose fundamental precepts were shared even by the chief opponents of US policy. The core argument regarding WMDs, and the basis for what was intended to be the "last chance" inspections, was stated explicitly and famously by Condoleeza Rice as "we can't wait for a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." After Gulf War I, the burden was on Hussein to remove any doubt. After 9/11, the US policy became that such doubt would no longer be tolerated. At some time between 1998 and March 2003, Iraq may have disposed of (or merely have securely hidden) the particular WMDs and agents catalogued when the last pre-Bush inspection regime was halted. Without certain knowledge that Iraq had done so, and of how it had done so, to treat the regime as presenting anything other than an "immediate threat" would have been foolhardy. Even if Iraq had secretly destroyed all of its WMDs, it retained a WMD capacity - as recent discoveries have begun to demonstrate - and it persisted in a clear pattern of deception and defiance. It's impossible to argue about how things might have gone differently if the Bush Administration had possessed clear intelligence of no immediate WMD threat, because such a situation would have had to presume many different elements within the overall context - including a much more cooperative regime in Iraq. Once someone has been convicted in a court of law, and sentenced to death, and put to death...and then DNA evidence is brought to bear showing the innocence of the convicted party, it is indeed too late to change that situation. So why bother looking at the case, or the reasons for the conviction? We bother because we are supposed to be about getting it right. And when we are wrong, we admit it and take steps so as to not make the same errors going forward. Those who are unwilling to examining the motives, arguments, and case for the war on Iraq now, seem to me unwilling to think that it is possible we were wrong, and possibly the administration acted improperly in making their case to the American people. When someone begins to think that they are not possibly wrong when it come to to political policy, they become convinced that they are absolutely right, and history has shown us that leaders who believe they are dogmatically right and unwilling to admit uncertainty in the face of uncertain elements are dangerous to the cause of freedom. One common element in totalitarian states is the certainty that they are right and are infallible in their thinking, despite any evidence to the contrary. In fact, evidence to the contrary is often censored or those who present ideas to the contrary are labeled as enemies of the state. Don't think for a moment Powell's going to the U.N. was about convincing France, the Soviets, China, etc. It was about convincing the American people that Bush and company were right to proceed without support from the U.N. And the key "evidence" in the argument for war was WMD and the suggested connection between Hussein and terrorism that was a threat to national security. I submit that your characterization of my position as "end justifies the means" is totally inaccurate. You are free to submit that. I am only watching you continue to make justifications that have secondary importance to the initial argument put forth by Bush as to the immediacy of war, and I watch you diminish the importance of fact and evidence as it relates WMD and terrorist connections to our efforts. Is that a rationalization process on your part, a means to an end protocol? I say yes, you say no. A simplistic and totally unrealistic view of the world, that, aside from ignoring the differences between threats of different types, also ignores the different kinds of direct and indirect responses that may be available or preferable. That is your view of the world, which coming from a supporter of "you are either with us or the terrorists" I find amusing. Threat sufficient to justify preemptive wars is either real or fiction. I am still waiting for the real proof. Again, the thought experiment of removing WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 from the equation is frivolous - they were all principle variables of the equation, and could not be removed without imagining an entirely different world than the one in which we live. Frivolous? I disagree. The WMD and terrorism were central to Bush and company and their arguments about the need for war. WMD and terrorism were principle variables because the administration and Bush rammed them down our throats. Pre-War, we saw the pro-war members of the administration and Bush on TV on a very regular basis selling the war. You could not watch any of the weekly political shows without seeing someone advancing the argument of war with Iraq on the basis of WMD or terrorism. The war was not inevitable, was it? Or do you now subscribe to a fatalistic and/or Nostradamian version of reality. We still look back to Vietnam in order to learn and debate about policy going forward...and that was over 30 years ago. You don't want to look back less than a year because you deem it frivolous?
I believe our policy is to wage war when doing so is the best solution, and by the best means. We and the Soviet Union did wage war with each other for around 40 years, almost entirely through proxy fights and other indirect means. No other option other than surrender or mutual annihilation was available. I don't recall where you were during week 1 of the war when many of those same people were invoking quagmire and Vietnam, and loudly proclaiming that the famous "plan" was a sham and a scandal. That, in retrospect, the military victory appears easy is a credit to the armed forces and its military and political leadership. The threat posed by Hussein to US security was never that the Republican Guard was going to storm Washington DC, and was not merely the threat as it existed on or around the middle of March 2003, so the inability of Hussein's regular forces to withstand the concentrated force of the US military is somewhat irrelevant to the core issues. No, and I don't see where you draw any such suggestion from my remarks. That set of arguments still stands. Some of those examples are obviously frivolous. Others pertain to conflicts that were concluded on the basis of peace treaties. North Korea is an interesting example, in that the conflict ended by ceasefire, and the establishment of a formal peace agreement - implying or coinciding with legal recognition of the NK regime's legitimacy - is one of NK's chief current political goals. Vietnam is another interesting example. That conflict was concluded according to a laboriously negotiated peace treaty - whose terms were flagrantly violated by the North Vietnamese. The US lacked the will to attempt to enforce the agreement - much to the detriment of US allies, and, in the opinion of many historians, to US credibility and larger interests. When a conflict is concluded on the basis of a ceasefire agreement, the presumption is that violation of that agreement returns relations to the status quo ante. You are certainly correct, however, that the legal status of the war with Iraq has been the subject of controversy. While a reading of the pertinent UNSC Resolutions makes it clear that Iraq never complied fully with any of the resolutions that codified ceasefire terms, there are contradictions and uncertainties between and within specific resolutions, and questions about the UN itself that also come into play. The inability of Security Council members to agree upon an interpretation of their own resolutions - whose language at least from the Anglo-American legal perspective seemed clear, and supportive of the UK-US position - raised serious questions about the UN's own competence and relevance. Lacking a coherent and consequential new policy from the UN, the US and UK governments, among others, believed themselves justified in falling back on their own interpretations both of their national interests and of extant international agreements, conventions, and precedents. Bush received specific authorization and relative freedom of action regarding Iraq prior to returning to the UN. The text of the Congressional Authorization can be found at the link below. If you check it for yourself, you will see that, in the the four pages of "Whereas"'s setting forth the justifications for authorizing the President to use force, there is no mention of "immediate" threats of WMD attacks. There is mention of the risk of WMD attacks either directly or through third party terrorist groups, without respect to immediacy, and there is much mention of Iraq's long history of defiance, aggression, and hostility. Almost any one of the "Whereas" clauses can be read as presenting in itself a necessary and sufficient cause for action. http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf In legal terms, within the US, once that Resolution was passed, Bush did not need any other justification to go to war. You can argue, as some others have, that the fear of immediate attack alone made adoption of the resolution possible, though I believe that is to engage in facile revisionism, politically self-serving in particular for those Democrafts who need to distance themselves from Bush ahead of next year's elections. In any event, given all that we knew or thought we knew then, and all that we know or suspect now, there is nothing that would have definitively removed that fear. There has been and will continue to be examination of the motives, arguments, and case. If the examination and whatever conclusions don't suit your precepts, it may as well be that your precepts are flawed. I might describe the role and the content of the Powell presentation differently, but, though individual items in his presentation seem clearly to have been ill-founded, in all critical respects his arguments and evidence still stand. You appear to be waiting for the kind of proof that could only be called "real" after it was too late to be dealt with except at huge cost, it at all - for Iraq to have, in effect, become North Korea in the Persian Gulf. What's frivolous is trying to imagine a policy that evolved directly in relationship to these issues in the absence of those issues. It's like trying to imagine how a marriage might have developed if only the husband and wife had been two entirely different people. I'm happy to look back. I think it's a valuable exercise. I even enjoy it. I object to being forced to argue from artificially narrowed and distorted, wholly counterfactual premises. Given what the Bush Administration knew and believed, which was not much different from what others knew and believed, it couldn't and shouldn't have argued the case for war very much differently. Was their presentation perfect, unmarked by elements of political salesmanship, by emphases heightened for political convenience, and by some misstatements? It would be absurd for anyone in the Bush Administration or for any war supporter to claim so, or even want to claim so. I believe you mistake your decisionmaking process and standards for the nation's. The tipping point for you was your belief that an immediate and absolutely incontrovertible urgent physical threat, as you define all relevant terms, had been established. (And how urgent would it have had to have been? A minute? A day? A week? A month? A year?) Those may not be everyone's terms, and even those who largely share them may define them differently.
President Bush dies and goes to the gates of Heaven. Saint Peter asks who's there. "George W. Bush," he replies. Saint Peter asks for proof. "I'm the president of the United States," Bush protests. Saint Peter says that Mozart, Picasso and Einstein had to prove who they were. "Who were they?" asks Bush, bewildered. "Come right in, George," replies Saint Peter. "There's now speculation in Washington that President Bush is planning to increase the economic sanctions on Iraq. And let me tell you if they are half as tough as the economic sanctions Bush has imposed on this country, they are screwed." Yesterday, the State Department released a list of all the gifts President Bush has received since becoming president. Gift number one, the election." âJay Leno Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush. His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush. He drank like a fish while he drove all about. But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out. DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up. Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale. He can't spell his name but they never let him fail. He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk. And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke. Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy. The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam. Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom." Let the common people get maimed and scarred. We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard. Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy. Twenty years later George gets a little bored. He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord. He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be." So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP. Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms. Come November 7, the election ran late. Kin folks said "Jeb, give the boy your state!" "Don't let those colored folks get into the polls." So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes. Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade. Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in. Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win." "Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation. And that's how George finally got his coronation. Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority. Y'all come vote now. Ya hear? CREEP (Committee to re-Elect the President)
When Bush won the previous election (after it dragged on for what seemed like weeks), I literally cried. I was so liberal and wanted Gore to win so badly. I felt that I had been cheated. In retrospect, I realize that I was wrong. I remember during the debates, I told my father, "Bush can't win this -- look how much more intelligent Gore is!" My dad had a lot more wisdom than I did about politics and we disagreed. The other day during the 4'th of July I just told him that this country is going through very tough times but he was always right -- Bush is just the type of person we need to lead us through uncertain times. He's a good guy -- regardless of what people may say. There is all this conspiracy BS about his true motives and what not. However, I sincerely believe that he does want the best for this country and being the president of the United States is a tough job to carry -- far moreso than most people would ever realize. He may not always do the right thing once time passes and analysts have time to sit down and observe the situation from all angles. However, he does do what he believes is the appropriate thing. What makes me most sad is the realization that many Americans take for granted how great this country really is and how it is all too easy to criticize someone when the very thing they should be doing is standing behind our Commander in Chief. You don't have to blindly follow authority, but you should always respect the decision that your Commander in Chief makes. Society is designed in such a way that ultimately someone must take responsibility for the security of the union. He's not a perfect man, but I truly believe that he is far more honest than Clinton ever was. God bless the United States!
I believe our policy is to wage war when doing so is the best solution, and by the best means. We and the Soviet Union did wage war with each other for around 40 years, almost entirely through proxy fights and other indirect means. No other option other than surrender or mutual annihilation was available. Yes, this supports my suggestion that we fight wars we believe we can actually win. War with the Soviets was not a reasonable option if it was our choice to initiate such a war, nor is war with China a reasonable option if given a choice. don't recall where you were during week 1 of the war when many of those same people were invoking quagmire and Vietnam, and loudly proclaiming that the famous "plan" was a sham and a scandal. I was front and certer during week 1, suggesting that apart from the danger of Hussein using WMD (as we were told he had them) that we would win easily. Given there were no instances of WMD used by the Iraqi military, the question still remains unanswered: Why didn't Hussein use them if he had them? No, and I don't see where you draw any such suggestion from my remarks. That set of arguments still stands. Lots of arguments stand, yet those arguments are not conclusive. Lacking fact or method of disproving an argument, it stands as an argument that can neither be beaten nor defended properly. Sort of like arguing which is a better car, all you get are opinions, nothing conclusive. In this case, we are left with the results of a war, and a lack of evidence to support the claims of WMD or terrorist ties to Hussein. People can continue to believe we will find this evidence, and we may or may not secure such evidence, but it appears from what I have read of your position that finding WMD or terrorist ties is now irrelevant. Thus your opinion is fixed no matter what happens. You opinion apparently was and is based in something other than the need for direct evidence. Some of those examples are obviously frivolous. Frivolous to you perhaps, pertinent to making a point from my perspective. When a conflict is concluded on the basis of a ceasefire agreement, the presumption is that violation of that agreement returns relations to the status quo ante. You are certainly correct, however, that the legal status of the war with Iraq has been the subject of controversy. Obviously Bush and company projected that they believed themselves justified in their actions. Prisons are full of people who felt justified in their actions. The question remains, did they feel sufficient self justification to dummy up evidence to convince others that their justification was in fact objectively justifiable, and did their sense of entitlement to wage war promote their overstepping their constitutional and/or moral obligations to the American people. Bush received specific authorization and relative freedom of action regarding Iraq prior to returning to the UN. The text of the Congressional Authorization can be found at the link below. The specific right to wage war was focused on WMD and terrorism, not on liberation of Iraq nor regime change. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.âThe President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order toâ (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.âIn connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination thatâ (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. The debate continues as to whether or not there was a threat sufficient to warrant a war, whether or not diplomatic means had indeed failed, and whether or not terrorist threats emanated from Iraq. Nothing conclusive at this point, only opinions. Had WMD been found immediately, and if terrorists camps were found immediately, we would not be having this discussion. In legal terms, within the US, once that Resolution was passed, Bush did not need any other justification to go to war. Within "legal" terms, questions always arise as to whether or not Bush presented evidence sufficient to meet the criteria set forth by Congress. Bush was concerned about the court of public opinion, not a court of law when he made his case of urgency, trumping up the case for WMD and terrorism threats in Iraq. There has been and will continue to be examination of the motives, arguments, and case. If the examination and whatever conclusions don't suit your precepts, it may as well be that your precepts are flawed. If the examinations are inconclusive, we are just left to wonder what the truth really is. Lacking direct evidence, some will believe one way, some another way. I might describe the role and the content of the Powell presentation differently, but, though individual items in his presentation seem clearly to have been ill-founded, in all critical respects his arguments and evidence still stand. You can describe his role any way you want. His arguments stand, but take away the ill-founded aspects and the questionable intelligence, and his argument become weaker, and more subject to doubt. It also leaves one to wonder why any individual items which were ill founded ended up in that presentation and argument. You appear to be waiting for the kind of proof that could only be called "real" after it was too late to be dealt with except at huge cost, it at all - for Iraq to have, in effect, become North Korea in the Persian Gulf. Yes, direct evidence would be nice. The danger in acting on rumor, poor intelligence, fear, innuendo, etc. is clear in my mind, though apparently not clear in your mind. What's frivolous is trying to imagine a policy that evolved directly in relationship to these issues in the absence of those issues. It's like trying to imagine how a marriage might have developed if only the husband and wife had been two entirely different people. Non sequitur. I'm happy to look back. I think it's a valuable exercise. I even enjoy it. I object to being forced to argue from artificially narrowed and distorted, wholly counterfactual premises. Forced to argue? Why is it so difficult to look at the argument that Bush and company gave, and take out the evidence that was not really evidence? I see the threat of WMD and terrorism and material and primary to the argument, you apparently don't. Given what the Bush Administration knew and believed, which was not much different from what others knew and believed, it couldn't and shouldn't have argued the case for war very much differently. Was their presentation perfect, unmarked by elements of political salesmanship, by emphases heightened for political convenience, and by some misstatements? It would be absurd for anyone in the Bush Administration or for any war supporter to claim so, or even want to claim so. So you know what the Bush Administration knew and believed? Are you a member of the inner circle? I believe you mistake your decision making process and standards for the nation's. The tipping point for you was your belief that an immediate and absolutely incontrovertible urgent physical threat, as you define all relevant terms, had been established. (And how urgent would it have had to have been? A minute? A day? A week? A month? A year?) Those may not be everyone's terms, and even those who largely share them may define them differently. Neither one of has any control over the present decision making methods of the electorate. All anyone can hope to do is to educate and elevate the decision making process of the electorate. One would think the scandals with Nixon, Reagan and Iran/Contra, Bush Sr.'s "Read My Lips" statement, Clinton's lying, etc. would bring more skepticism to the table, but maybe not. Many Americans prefer denial to reality, especially when it comes to the political process in this country, and the apathy as displayed by low voter turnout does indicate a sense of powerless by the voters when it come to elected officials.
Nothing really new there, just the standard arguments being trotted out. No doubt that both sides there overstate their cases and can't help infusing their arguments with closely held values about what's best for mankind, but that's to be expected. (How you react to hearing Stravinsky depends very much on how much you like Stravinsky.) Personally, I feel inclined to (but there's little point in it) dissect many of the distortions and misinformations provided by Hanson and May but that's just me. Optional's main concern, as far as I see, is about the Bushies whipping up hysteria to justify the attack on Iraq. It seems ever clearer and clearer to me, especially from reading material published by the New American Century gang and their brethren, that taking over Iraq was a long desired policy objective. 9/11 and the WMD/terrorism scare simply became the convenient excuse. Kymar, it's so clear that's what happened, how about just admitting that that's the case and let's move on? You can certainly still defend the action from a 'greater good' standpoint (as you've been doing) and guys like me can continue to question that.
Of course there was urgency. In my mind I can still hear the breathless scare mongering. The question is why the urgency? Kymar would have us believe that the urgency was legitimate; that had America not acted when it did, WHO KNOWS what disaster would've befallen America right now. That's precisely where pesky liberals with their childish demands for evidence that military action is, yes indeed, THAT URGENT kept getting in the way. Well, we never got that evidence, perhaps because, as it now seems, it never existed. Luckily for us though, the hawks now tell us that, phew, you know folks, evidence wasn't really necessary afterall. So to answer the question 'why the urgency?' I can only imagine that circumstances had conspired -- 9.11 -- that, however unfortunate and tragic, opened up a window of opportunity that simply had to be seized before age old effects of 'time heals all wounds' began to set in. Wisely realizing that lack of evidence is no obstacle when you have popular support the Bushites set about winning that support. I guess it worked.