Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

BWhite · 2004-10-11 14:48:05

THE WAR AND THE DEMS: One of the central questions in this election is simply: can John Kerry be trusted to fight the war on terror? Worrying about this is what keeps me from making the jump to supporting him. I'm a believer in the notion that we are at war, that you cannot ignore state sponsors of terrorism, and that the 1990s approach obviously failed. Bush rightly shifted our direction toward regime change rather than police work, something long overdue. But when you look ahead, it's more difficult to see where the differences between Kerry and Bush would actually lie. Bush, after all, doesn't deny the importance of police work or nation-building in the war (indeed, at this point, they're the bulk of his policy). And Kerry has no option but to acquiesce in regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the future policy mix is bound to be somewhat similar. More to the point: I don't see a huge difference between Bush's and Kerry's approaches to North Korea and Iran. In some respects, Kerry even seems tougher on Saudi Arabia than Bush is. In Iraq, Bush declared last Friday night that Kerry's plan was a carbon copy of his own. Why, then, would Kerry be such a risk?
BUSH AS BAD COP: Kerry also brings some obvious advantages. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has committed any successor to a process of lengthy and difficult nation-building. If that truly is the major task of the next few years, wouldn't it be better to have people who have experience in nation-building and who actually believe in it (like Holbrooke), rather than people like Rummy and Cheney who clearly disdain it and keep under-funding and under-manning it? One of the advantages of being a democracy in wartime is that we can shift leaders and tactics as circumstances permit. Think of this strategy as a bad-cop-good-cop routine in a war against an elusive enemy. Bush has scared the living daylights out of our foes, removed two dictatorships and regained the initiative against Jihadism (all very, very good). But it's in America's interests also to show that we can reach out to moderate Muslims, placate the Europeans, and expand the anti-terror alliance. Why wouldn't a Kerry administration be effective in that respect? As long as it is seen as a shift in tactics, rather than an exercise in appeasement, I don't see the major downside. We're fighting two wars: one against the terror-masters in Jihadist regimes, and another in world and Muslim opinion against the ideology of Islamo-fascism. Bush has done well in the former and not-so-well in the latter. A hammer clad in a little Kerry velvet might not be so bad a weapon in the coming four years.
KERRY AS GOOD COP: The major objection to this, of course, is that Kerry simply cannot be trusted. He won't simply change tactics in the war; he'll change direction. His long record of appeasing America's enemies certainly suggests as much. And I don't blame anyone who thinks that's enough evidence and votes for Bush as a result. But it behooves fair-minded people also to listen to what Kerry has actually said in this campaign: that he won't relent against terrorism. He isn't Howard Dean. And 9/11 has changed things - even within the Democratic party. Moreover, the war on terror, if we are going to succeed in the long run, has to be a bipartisan affair. By far the most worrying legacy of the Bush years is the sense that this is a Republican war: that one party owns it and that our partisan battles will define it. Simply put: that's bad for the country and bad for the war. Electing Kerry would force the Democrats to take responsibility for a war that is theirs' as well. It would deny the Deaniac-Mooreish wing a perpetual chance to whine and pretend that we are not threatened, or to entertain such excrescences as the notion that president Bush is as big a threat as al Qaeda or Saddam. It would call their bluff and force the Democrats to get serious again about defending this country. Maybe I'm naive in hoping this could happen. But it is not an inappropriate hope. And it is offered in the broader belief that we can win this war - united rather than divided.

Interesting. . .

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php … 43606]Link

clark · 2004-10-12 05:39:06

More news from the front:

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45 … &aid=72659

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a
foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."
What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.
Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.
America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.
I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

Some sit here in judgement reacting to the beheading of a man taped and shown on TV, in the comfort of your living room. Realize this, people live with this stuff right outside their window now. We haven't given them freedom, we've given them chaos. Is it any wonder we are despised? Is it any wonder that they don't jump up to help us?

I am not acting as an apologist for the transgressions of the terroists, but I am pointing out that this situation is entirely our own making. The terroists were not in Iraq. We had time, there was no urgent and imminent threat.

Now, of course, there is, and we are stuck because we can't look weak. We broke it, so now we have to fix it. Same old mantra, turn off the brain.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 06:14:30

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

And this has been one of my biggest concerns with the current approach. We're pushing "democracy" too fast. In these cases, security comes before high-minded ideals. We're dealing with people who've lived under a brutal despot for decades, they aren't going to get into a flying rage if we don't let them vote as long as we can maintain order. Unfortunately, that means doing some things that as a nation we're squeamish about. We may be too soft for this empire thing.

I am not acting as an apologist for the transgressions of the terroists, but I am pointing out that this situation is entirely our own making. The terroists were not in Iraq. We had time, there was no urgent and imminent threat.

The terrorists aren't contained by national boundaries. Artifical borders imposed in the last century by the British are meaningless in this war. Our problem is not Iraq, but whether we can occupy Middle Eastern territory in a manner that allows us to maintain order and in time build a free society with a representative government. Focusing on problems in Iraq in many ways misses the entire point, if we can't get our act together there we can't win this war anywhere. In which case we should just extricate ourselves and let the world burn.

Now I must confess a bias of my own in this, Clark, you mention technology allowing these beheadings to be beamed into our homes. That is part of why I have absolutely no problem with the idea of invading these countries, occupying them and remaking them in our own image. As you so blithely point out, millions of people, not only in the MidEast but throughout the world live with fear, starvation, torture and tyranny every day. Millions die at the whim of dictators and petty thugs. There's plenty of misery and death in the world to last a thousand lifetimes. To millions these horrors are an integral part of everyday life, to me they're what splashes across my bigscreen tv while I sit on my couch and eat food that I had no trouble whatsoever acquiring. Every night, despite modest means by modern standards, I'm surrounded by luxury the kings of old could not conceive, able to watch the horrid misery of others, or turn it off and walk away at a whim.

If something helps bring a nation of people closer to my conditions from the wretched state they previously occupied I can get behind it. In most cases, it means we have to kill some people who are perpetuating those conditions. Even if our attackers weren't even Muslims and everyone knew Iraq had no WMD, I'd have no problem with military action to oust Saddam Hussein. I'd have no objections to using military force in Sudan either. We can't save everyone and we can't topple every tyrant, but each time we do it we make the world that much better. Yes, we've made some mistakes in Iraq. Some of the reasons we went in haven't quite panned out. Monkey poo as you so eloquently stated yesterday. Anyone who believes this is really about some third-rate knockoff Stalin with a can of VX is a fool. Maybe Iraq shouldn't have been our next stop, maybe the population of that country is scared and angry and just wishes we'd leave. Certainly a case can be made for saying "we've got time" and ignoring the issue for a few more years, it's a valid position. But too many of our people stake out that plot then presume to lecture the rest of us about morality, lies and rights. Fine, let them whine. Meanwhile the Iraqi people have a chance at a better future, no thanks to them.

clark · 2004-10-12 06:32:34

Cobra, nation building requires a plan to build a nation. I have seen no such evidence of any thought or foresight into this matter from President Bush. I see no reaon to believe that things will be any different with a second term for him.

You want to go an force enlightenment on the rest of the world in every two-bit, third world dictatorship where the major export is dirt, fine. It's a noble goal, misguided, but noble. However, Bush didn't lead us on this crusade as one of nation building. He used 9/11 as a pretext for action to achieve what was ancillary to our man cause for action.

You want Empire, fine, I won't begrudge you that. However, there are a lot of American's who want nothing what so ever to do with Empire or nation building. These American's have been lied to and are continually lied to on the reasons why they should support a war in a country that is slipping away from us.

We went into Iraq to become safer, and in doing so, we are becoming less safe, at home and abroad. The real impetus for war, the one supported by the majority of American's, was to defend the homeland from imminent threat. Terroists plotting in Afghanistan were an imminent threat. Non exsisting terroists were not an imminent threat in Iraq.

We can agree that Saddam needed to go, that an Iraq without Saddam is a good thing for Iraq and the world. However, that was not the rationale that was given to the American people or the world. We needed to invade, alone, quickly, because there was an imminent threat.

If we had waited, we could have finished in Afghanistan, slow and methodical. We could have continued sanctions, which were working. We would have more options to respond to Iran and North Korea, instead now, we are stretched thin and have to worry about their likely responses and our inability to contain them. All because we went headlong into Iraq, alone.

We can do as you want, but it seems to me that America is more successful when we have allies, when we don't over commit. We are over commited. Our reach exceeds our grasp.

Bush screwed up in the way he implemented this war from the get go, without a plan to win the day after, to go quickly when patience was required, to act not in our best interest, but in the interest of available opportunity.

Now we as a nation must pay the price because we can't turn back- we've gone to far. Yet I still see no reason why we should reward a poor decision maker with another chance at the helm.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 06:53:54

Cobra, nation building requires a plan to build a nation. I have seen no such evidence of any thought or foresight into this matter from President Bush. I see no reaon to believe that things will be any different with a second term for him.

And I have repeatedly criticised the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq. They have a plan, that much is clear, but that plan rests on some assumptions that just aren't so. The alternative, hand it over to someone who's a toss up whether he'll do the same thing as now but even weaker, or just pull the plug on the whole deal. Screwed, or more screwed. :hm:

These American's have been lied to and are continually lied to on the reasons why they should support a war in a country that is slipping away from us.

Clark, you've got in in your head that somehow acting on incorrect information is the same as lying. That fallacy corrupts your entire outlook on this. If you want to cling to the "Bush and Blair lied" fantasy that's your call, but it makes rational discussion and a search for rational solutions impossible.

We can do as you want, but it seems to me that America is more successful when we have allies, when we don't over commit. We are over commited. Our reach exceeds our grasp.

Our grasp can reach much farther and tighter than most Americans realize. But not without some sacrifices, we've grown used to not doing anything on a massive scale militarily. Kosovo was considered a major operation by much of the general public. Bringing down the mighty Soviet Union without having to fire a shot has severely skewed our perceptions of what it means to be both successful and over-extended.

Now we as a nation must pay the price because we can't turn back- we've gone to far. Yet I still see no reason why we should reward a poor decision maker with another chance at the helm.

And that's another difference in how we see the world. You see someone who screwed up and say "get out" with no thought for what's next, no plan to win the next day as it were. I see someone who's screwed up and ask "show me someone better." I'm still waiting for an answer, so I'm stuck with the monkey. Poo.

clark · 2004-10-12 07:09:09

Bush has evidenced that he will take us to war on any pretext if the opportunity presents itself. Kerry states emphatically that he will stay the course (and there is no alternative), and at least with him, we have a shot at regaining some credibility. Bush is a lost cause.

I think we need leadership that can priortize- I think hunting down terroists where they are is a greater priority than where they are not, but might one day, in some distant future, be.

You state that Bush was misled, sorry bucko, but I don't buy it. Even assuming he was misled, he plotted a course with the worst possible outcomes. They thought Iraq had WMD's. They said they knew where they were. They wondered what happened to the missing tons. Well, look, we were busy in Afghanistan, and before we finished, before we built a complete case, he took us half-cocked into the sands of Mesoptamia to go on a wild goose chase. I find fault with him because he was misled.

You don't make the ultimate decision that a leader can make unless all options are exhausted. Unless all other choices are unavilable. There were other choices, and even based on the intelligence, we could have waited. We could have built a concensus that supported our conviction based on the intelligence. The fact that so many other countries disagreed with our interpretation of evidence, the fact that the UN inspectors, and the UN itself wanted more time should dispell any certainty that everyone was of the same conviction.

I'll agree that every President since Bush 1 has wanted an exscuse to go into Iraq. Clinton wanted one, I'm sure. Flyinf sorties without end is mindless. However, the other Presidents had their damn priorities straight. Kill the friggin terroists first, defend the homeland first. Bush 2 seems to not quite get this.

Yes, I realize our grasp can reach much further, but not without the sacrificices you leave unmentioned. Not without a draft. Not without a much larger military that allows us to go it alone throughout the world. Not without disenfranchising the world with our image (thereby reducing the value of our soft power). Not without shattering our alliances, and empowering alliances that work against us. Our actions create the stimulus for others to create alternative centers of power to counter act our capabilities.

The plan to win the next day starts with increasing the population of texas by one more.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 07:38:52

Bush has evidenced that he will take us to war on any pretext if the opportunity presents itself.

Do you really believe that? Take us to war whenever the opportunity presents itself?.

Well, look, we were busy in Afghanistan, and before we finished, before we built a complete case, he took us half-cocked into the sands of Mesoptamia to go on a wild goose chase. I find fault with him because he was misled.

First, we did not divert a damn thing except media attention from Afghanistan. Not one soldier, not one dollar. The United States of America can actually do two things at the same time, sometimes even more.

Secondly, "misled" implies a conscious effort. Bush "misled" us, Bush was "misled" by the CIA. You know, sometimes people just #### up, it happens. In this case, the entire world fell into it. Even John Kerry, our great hope, bought into the belief that Saddam had WMD. If your fault with Bush is that he was misled, you need to keep looking for another option.

The fact that so many other countries disagreed with our interpretation of evidence, the fact that the UN inspectors, and the UN itself wanted more time should dispell any certainty that everyone was of the same conviction.

Yes, we all know that the motives of the UN, the French, Germans, Russians et al were entirely pure. Always looking out for the good of all mankind as they are.

Follow the money.

Yes, I realize our grasp can reach much further, but not without the sacrificices you leave unmentioned. Not without a draft. Not without a much larger military that allows us to go it alone throughout the world. Not without disenfranchising the world with our image (thereby reducing the value of our soft power). Not without shattering our alliances, and empowering alliances that work against us.

And here we go... I'm talking about Iran, or North Korea. If we have to take them on we can and still maintain our current commitments. The sacrifices I mention refer to fuel rationing, "war taxes" and a slew of other irritations. You talk about a draft and shattering alliances. No one is suggesting we invade Europe, war with Iran would not be WWII.

We like to think our comfortable lifestyle is stable, that our allies are really "friends" and that any problem we have in the world is a matter of personality conflicts. It just isn't that simple. In order to remain rich and powerful enough to sit on our ass at the top of the world we have to understand that we can't sit on it all the time. Sometimes we have to get up and work, and sometimes we have to fight.

BWhite · 2004-10-12 07:47:03

Sometimes we have to get up and work, and sometimes we have to fight.

In theory, I agree. Yet choose your battles wisely.

That "blue & white flag" encapsulates quite well what the neo-cons thought they were doing. And now its all about CYA and saving face for President Bush.

= = =

It appears our military allowed looters to steal http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ]equipment that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

We invade because of WMD and then fail to safeguard equipment for making WMD.

Can good intentions trump incompetence?

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 08:00:20

That "blue & white flag" encapsulates quite well what the neo-cons thought they were doing. And now its all about CYA and saving face for President Bush.

It's about far more than that now. If we fail in this, or cut and run, our threats will be empty. Next time we need to project force we'll have no option but a massive commitment of troops.

It appears our military allowed looters to steal equipment that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

When we find the stuff and say "we found equipment for making nukes" we're looking for excuses to justify a lie. When the same equipment is stolen it's a proliferation crisis. The Administration isn't the only entity in need of fome CYA.

clark · 2004-10-12 08:21:46

It's about far more than that now. If we fail in this, or cut and run, our threats will be empty. Next time we need to project force we'll have no option but a massive commitment of troops.

And who put us in this precarious situation?

Do you really believe that? Take us to war whenever the opportunity presents itself?.

I merely look at the actions as evidenced. Bush saw an opportunity to go to war in Iraq with a plausible rationale that would be bought by the public, thus allowing him to act freely. I don't believe there was a need, and as time ebss ever on, we clearly see that the rationale for rushing to war in Iraq was foolish.

First, we did not divert a damn thing except media attention from Afghanistan. Not one soldier, not one dollar. The United States of America can actually do two things at the same time, sometimes even more.

Uh-huh. We diverted our attention and the resources to carry through to finish the job in Afghanistan, allowing the situation to simmer and remain on hold. We diverted billions of our treasury to fund a war in iraq that could have been used for any number of things here at home, or even in speeding up the recovery in Afghanistan itself.

We divereted troop deployments from Afghanistan (special forces is just the tip of the iceberg) to hunt for WMD and Saddam in Iraq. We forced NATO to assume responsibility to allow us a free hand to go it alone in Iraq. This is largely why many nations now do not want to send troops into Iraq, as Iraq prevents us from going elsewhere. And it because we cannot act elsewhere that we have limited response available to us to act decively regarding new threats that are emerging.

Bush misled? That's your asserstion. I find fault with his administration that actively massages intelligence to fit their preconcieved motives. From day one, Bush's administration wanted to invade Iraq. Bush surrounded himself- his filters, with people who were actively engaged in finding a reason to go to war with Iraq. If he was misled, it's simply because he allowed himself to be misled.

Yes, we all know that the motives of the UN, the French, Germans, Russians et al were entirely pure. Always looking out for the good of all mankind as they are.

Granted, but is it so hard to accept that perhaps Bush's motives were just as pure? As you so elquotently put it, follow the money.

And here we go... I'm talking about Iran, or North Korea. If we have to take them on we can and still maintain our current commitments. The sacrifices I mention refer to fuel rationing, "war taxes" and a slew of other irritations. You talk about a draft and shattering alliances. No one is suggesting we invade Europe, war with Iran would not be WWII.

No war with Iran or North Korea would be bloody. Body bags upon body bags. Another memorial to fill another lawn in the center of Washington with how many thousands of names?

Our major power isn't in the fact that we can act, it's in the possibility that we might act. That we have capabilities. We have squandered those capabilities, diminished out options to act in response. We fight with Iran, and Europe pays the consquences. We fight with North korea and South East asia pays the consquences. You don't think some smart people over there see that we are a liability when we act alone, without regard to their interests? They will actively work against us to contain us for no other reason than we don't give a damn about them. We end up isolating ourselves and make our job that much harder.

Look, Kerry has stated time and time again that he will stay the course in Iraq. There is no other option now. However, I think Kerry allows us to approach our allies and try and build a stronger alliance among them. Bush has shown nothing but disdain which precludes ANY possibility. I take hope over certainty.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 10:39:15

I merely look at the actions as evidenced. Bush saw an opportunity to go to war in Iraq with a plausible rationale that would be bought by the public, thus allowing him to act freely.

Which begs the question, why did Bush want to start a pointless war?

I'll adjust my tinfoil hat and await the answers.

Uh-huh. We diverted our attention and the resources to carry through to finish the job in Afghanistan, allowing the situation to simmer and remain on hold. We diverted billions of our treasury to fund a war in iraq that could have been used for any number of things here at home, or even in speeding up the recovery in Afghanistan itself.

Now you're just barfing out talking points. We didn't "divert" billions from our treasury, as though we were all set to make Afghansistan perfect, give healthcare to everyone and a chicken in every pot and then... damn, all the money just got diverted to Iraq!

Besides, if we diverted all this money from our treasury then one wonders where this deficit came from. If we had the money just layin' around, then our budget deficit must have come form something other than the war, and if the war is the reason for it, than all this talk of diverting money that could be used for other things is maliciously... misleading.

We divereted troop deployments from Afghanistan (special forces is just the tip of the iceberg) to hunt for WMD and Saddam in Iraq.

So we were planning to send all those troops to Afghanistan but at the last minute BAM! off to Iraq? You mean to say we were planning to overextend ourselves? Either that, or we wouldn't have enough troops in Afghanistan anyway. Playing both ends again.

Bush misled? That's your asserstion. I find fault with his administration that actively massages intelligence to fit their preconcieved motives.

Dude, you're talking like Bush was out there alone talking about this. The world believed Saddam had those weapons. Why the hell was the UN spitting out resolutions about them? Just a fun prank, Kofi just out goofin' on Saddam? Bill Clinton dropping bombs just to see some cool explosions on CNN?

Our major power isn't in the fact that we can act, it's in the possibility that we might act. That we have capabilities.

A power that quickly fades if people don't see it in action from time to time. All anyone has seen recently is American forces leaving a half-finished job to the UN, who promptly botch it further.

Look, Kerry has stated time and time again that he will stay the course in Iraq. There is no other option now.

Yes, and he's said he would have done the same. And that it's the wrong war, and that he'll get our troops out, but we'll stay the course, he doesn't know what he'll have to face if he takes office but has a plan anyway. Do it smarter, get our allies, window dressing, misled.

Always in motion is the future.

A break with some of our allies has been coming for some time. Alliances shift, they always have. I'd rather have the Brits and Australians at our side than any ten of our transitory allies.

BWhite · 2004-10-12 11:37:17

Lets go back to Andrew Sullivan's point.

How can we fight a global war on terror when the party in power (the GOP) refuses to share power with roughly 50% of the population?

Isn't that fighting a global war and a civil war at the same time?

Next, going separate ways from (Old) Europe may be inevitable (and maybe not) but why is it wise to do it now?

= = =

Add: Before 9/11 George Bush openly despised and ridiculed nation building. Now, he says "trust me" as he embarks on the most audacious example of nation building in the history of the world.

A flip-flop? Nah, he says 9/11 changed everything.

So why can't we believe John Kerry when he says he will fight the War on Terror?

= = =

Back to Sullivan:

Moreover, the war on terror, if we are going to succeed in the long run, has to be a bipartisan affair. By far the most worrying legacy of the Bush years is the sense that this is a Republican war: that one party owns it and that our partisan battles will define it. Simply put: that's bad for the country and bad for the war. Electing Kerry would force the Democrats to take responsibility for a war that is theirs' as well.

= = =

PS - - On not sharing power, locking one party out of House/Senate conference committee meetings is a fairly blatant example, IMHO.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 12:04:45

How can we fight a global war on terror when the party in power (the GOP) refuses to share power with roughly 50% of the population?

This isn't entirely accurate. The Administration has tried to work with the Dems, Bush let Ted Kennedy write large portions of the education bill, he's increased funding for the Departments of Education and Labor which Republicans used to seek to shut down, he's made overtures under the guise of his "new tone" but it never gets him anywhere. The shut-out mentality is entrenched on both sides of the aisle.

Next, going separate ways from (Old) Europe may be inevitable (and maybe not) but why is it wise to do it now?

It's not entirely our choice, and it started long before Iraq.

Add: Before 9/11 George Bush openly despised and ridiculed nation building. Now, he says "trust me" as he embarks on the most audacious example of nation building in the history of the world.
A flip-flop? Nah, he says 9/11 changed everything.
So why can't we believe John Kerry when he says he will fight the War on Terror?

Because Bush has been consistent either side of 9/11. There was no flip to the flop. Kerry on the other hand...

BWhite · 2004-10-12 12:08:54

Add: Before 9/11 George Bush openly despised and ridiculed nation building. Now, he says "trust me" as he embarks on the most audacious example of nation building in the history of the world.
A flip-flop? Nah, he says 9/11 changed everything.
So why can't we believe John Kerry when he says he will fight the War on Terror?
Because Bush has been consistent either side of 9/11. There was no flip to the flop. Kerry on the other hand...

No flip to flop?

When did George Bush ever support nation building as an appropriate use of American power before 9/11?

In the 2000 campaign Bush was insistent that nation building was a fool's errand. Now he trumpets it as the core of his policy. Turn Afghanistan and Iraq into models of freedom and democracy.

Its a good thing, but not what he stood for before 9/11.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 12:17:16

When did George Bush ever support nation building as an appropriate use of American power before 9/11?

That's what I'm saying, he had one position before 9/11, then one position after 9/11. It allows him to claim that "9/11 changed everything" with some credibility. No denying he's done a 180 on nation-building, but it's tied to a specific event after which he's consistently held the new position.

BWhite · 2004-10-12 12:22:49

When did George Bush ever support nation building as an appropriate use of American power before 9/11?
That's what I'm saying, he had one position before 9/11, then one position after 9/11. It allows him to claim that "9/11 changed everything" with some credibility. No denying he's done a 180 on nation-building, but it's tied to a specific event after which he's consistently held the new position.

One public position.

We have not been spending the Iraq reconstruction money. Meaning he still does not believe in nation building.

He has also been quite consistent on telling us his interpretation of what John Kerry stands for.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 12:28:56

He has also been quite consistent on telling us his interpretation of what John Kerry stands for.

Somebody has to.

"Consistent" and "John Kerry" in the same sentence. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-10-12 13:54:30

He has also been quite consistent on telling us his interpretation of what John Kerry stands for.
Somebody has to.
"Consistent" and "John Kerry" in the same sentence. :laugh:

Bah!

Cobra's credibility score just fell significantly.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 14:04:29

Bah!
Cobra's credibility score just fell significantly.

Hey! I don't use emoticons when I'm being serious.

Oh, what the hell.

BWhite · 2004-10-12 14:30:03

Bah!
Cobra's credibility score just fell significantly.
Hey! I don't use emoticons when I'm being serious.
Oh, what the hell.

???

:sleep:

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-17 05:03:05

The same guy?

British or American, openly gay and a practicing Catholic, in 2003, he wrote he was no longer able to support the American conservative movement?

Don't Take The Trump Bait
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/d … trump-bait
We have begun to move past him. Don't let the FBI take us back.

Sullivan gave out yearly "awards" for various public statements, parodying those of the people the awards were named after. Throughout the year, nominees were mentioned in various blog posts. The readers of his blog chose winners at the end of each year.

The Hugh Hewitt Award, introduced in June 2008 and named after a man Sullivan described as an "absurd partisan fanatic", was for the most egregious attempts to label Barack Obama as un-American, alien, treasonous, and far out of the mainstream of American life and politics.
The John Derbyshire Award was for egregious and outlandish comments on gays, women, and minorities.
The Paul Begala Award was for extreme liberal hyperbole.
The Michelle Malkin Award was for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive, and intemperate right-wing rhetoric. (Ann Coulter was ineligible for this award so that, in Sullivan's words, "other people will have a chance.")
The Michael Moore Award was for divisive, bitter, and intemperate left-wing rhetoric.
The Matthew Yglesias Award was for writers, politicians, columnists, or pundits who criticised their own side of the political spectrum, made enemies among political allies, and generally risked something for the sake of saying what they believed.
The "Poseur Alert" was awarded for passages of prose that stood out for pretension, vanity, and bad writing designed to look profound.
The Dick Morris Award (formerly the Von Hoffman Award) was for stunningly wrong cultural, political, and social predictions. Sullivan renamed this award in September 2012, saying that Von Hoffman was "someone who in many ways got the future right—at least righter than I did."

n 2001, it came to light that Sullivan had posted anonymous online advertisements for unprotected anal sex, preferably with "other HIV-positive men"
https://archive.today/20120914032044/ht … im20010605

German troops back to Bosnia as fear of instability grows
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/g … ws-2884591

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-17 05:09:04)

kbd512 · 2022-08-17 12:37:18

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can now see that President Bush was indeed lied to by the CIA, whether clark bought into that idea or not. CIA made a mountain out of a molehill using Iraq's proven attempt to acquire yellow cake Uranium as proof they were trying to build a bomb. The part about them trying to build a bomb was factual, but what was left out was the fact that they couldn't acquire enough Uranium to build a nuke and CIA agents stopped them from acquiring more. Would Saddam have succeeded in acquiring a nuke if we didn't invade? Eventually, but decades later most likely, and Saddam would've been dead of natural causes by then.

Democrats write a narrative in their heads about why the other party does what it does, and never allow facts or logic to interfere with their narrative.

Bush said we have no business in Iraq, but Cheney reminded him that we were attacked by terrorists after Bush ignored the 9/11 threat. Bush vowed to never make the same mistake twice, but because he's a simpleton (we called him our "village idiot", he made a more profound mistake in trusting the intel from our CIA. Cheney said we have a treaty to protect the oil, and UK / China reminded us of that fact. CIA wanted a war to make themselves look useful, which they received from the Bush Administration. China and UK received the oil, not the US, because we received ours from Saudi Arabia. We didn't care about Kuwait, and Saddam promised us better prices under his regime, but UK vetoed that idea because Kuwait is a protectorate of the UK and UK is an American ally, so we were obligated to defend Kuwait. Saudi said you can use our country, but please leave when you're finished. We didn't do that, that pissed of bin Laden (a Saudi) / al-Qaeda even more, and then they went and did 9/11 a decade after Gulf War I.

Fast Forward to Today:

China is now building out their Navy because they're pissed off that the US won't protect their trade lanes with the US Navy. Ditto for the rest of the Middle East and Asia. Iraq is now a sovereign democratic nation. Afghanistan is still a mess, though now a mess under stable but brutal authoritarian leadership. It was stable when the US was there as well, and still almost as brutal.

kbd512 · 2022-08-17 12:42:36

The moral of the story is that nation building was a waste of time and money. Blowback is a real thing. Every event is connected. There are no coincidences. American Presidents don't do things "just because". They'll say whatever they need to say in public, but behind the scenes our intelligence apparatus is de-facto calling the shots. President Trump was the first one to tell the alphabet soup agencies to go pound sand. They took offense to that. Go figure. Alphabet soup is still there, conducting business as usual. President Trump is gone. Did we get a "good" or "bad" outcome? That's a matter of opinion. The American tax payer is poorer as a result. The area is more stable now, but not likely to remain that way for very long. Dark days lie ahead.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-10-11 14:48:05

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#2 2004-10-12 05:39:06

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#3 2004-10-12 06:14:30

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#4 2004-10-12 06:32:34

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#5 2004-10-12 06:53:54

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#6 2004-10-12 07:09:09

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#7 2004-10-12 07:38:52

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#8 2004-10-12 07:47:03

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#9 2004-10-12 08:00:20

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#10 2004-10-12 08:21:46

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#11 2004-10-12 10:39:15

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#12 2004-10-12 11:37:17

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#13 2004-10-12 12:04:45

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#14 2004-10-12 12:08:54

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#15 2004-10-12 12:17:16

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#16 2004-10-12 12:22:49

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#17 2004-10-12 12:28:56

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#18 2004-10-12 13:54:30

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#19 2004-10-12 14:04:29

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#20 2004-10-12 14:30:03

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#21 2022-08-17 05:03:05

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#22 2022-08-17 12:37:18

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

#23 2022-08-17 12:42:36

Re: Blogger Andrew Sullivan - on Kerry, Bush and Iraq

Board footer