Last night I watched "Capote." Perhaps the most poignant moment of the film was the very end when Capote, in the early stages of drug and alcohol addiction, was speaking to Nelle Harper Lee. He had just returned from the hanging of Perry Edward Smith and said to Lee, "I did all I could. I couldn't stop it." Lee replied "No Truman. You didn't want to stop it."
How many American critics of the war in Iraq want it to go badly, meaning that they want an even higher death toll of Americans and Iraqis over the coming years, only to complete the story or to further prove their argument?
It would require a diagnosable sociopath to hold such views and they would be shot
down (verbally) on site by both sides. It is only the daily demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh and Dinesh D’Souza, who claim war opponents hold such views. D’Souza even goes so far as to blame the 9/11 attacks of liberal Democrats, which has been countered for the nonsensical argument that it is, by respected conservative scholars like Victor Davis Hanson and Hugh Hewitt. The question: "Do you want want the US to win in Iraq?" is a favorite of Bill O'Reilly and other FOX News guys. And if you don't say "Yes," it is concluded that whatever else you said, you mean no.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031607.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1102-10.htm
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/229f1c65-40c1-4579-8a00-3e8865a8b2c6
I could make a case against the Bush administration using the simple
old mnemonic that is used to remember the criteria for antisocial personality disorders.
CORRUPT
C - cannot follow law
O - obligations ignored
R - remorselessness
R - recklessness
U - underhandedness
P - planning deficit
T - temper
Yet, it's difficult to find a government this "would not" apply to.
Personally, I don't care if George Bush secures Baghdad and rides down the streets in a chariot and an ermine cape and The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani puts a laurel wreath on his head. The goal is to secure Baghdad. It is part of a defensive strategy and has some political and propoganda value. The numbers suggest it won't work, but the Iraqi police and army are an unknown factor. If the new "surge" tactic of the invasion can contain Baghdad, reduces insurgency and is deemed successful, it will stop some of the damage and loss of life.
I will be glad for it, but it will not change my views.
The Iraq invasion is a colossal human disaster, a gross political miscalculation, a strategic
and logistic error, and an immeasurable fiscal waste. Critics of the Iraq invasion don't need any more body counts or a potential "surge" failure to establish what already exists. Our neoconservative friends don't even understand the basic rudiments of warfare. They need to be made aware of that fact.
To quote Carl Von Clausewitz
"No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
Nevertheless, I didn't post'em in my various presidential camaign groups here on gather (hillaryclinton08, billrichardson08, joebiden08, barackobama08, johnedwards08, & algore08 - all dot gather dot com) because they are not about the candidates and their campaigns, which is what those sites are for.
Once I get your point though, I agree with you that the war was an incredibly stupid mistake, and my biggest concern is that I have been right all along - right that we shouldn't go in, right that it would be easy to win the war but not the peace, right that a disaster would result, right that it would distract us from our true mission (defeating al Quaeda and their ilk). The reason this is my biggest concern is:
How come a Joe Schmoe like me saw this coming miles away and the "professionals" didn't?
I admit to being both complacent and uninformed in the early days of the Iraq invasion. As a nation, we collectively watched the invasion on television and cheered our troops along every foot of the way. It was a natural thing to do.
The early protests to the Iraq invasion, came only from a few groups that did so based on ideaology: isolationist conservatives, libertarian conservatives, and assorted pacifists. I think you only have to visit Antiwar.com to see that more conservatives opposed the war than liberals from the beginning..
I don't give Democrats any free ride on this one, which is probably why you don't want such information on your presidential campaign groups.
To answer your question: How come a Joe Schmoe like me saw this coming miles away and the "professionals" didn't? Answer: You are probably a closeted conservative.
Thank you for commenting. I'm one of those very pissed off conservatives that is reacting to the hijacking of our government by global imperialist neoconservatives and social conservatives that seek to inherit big government programs to further their religious and social agenda.
I write a mean headline, but it gets attention!
Justin Raimondo and Pat Buchanan were the primary forces in early antiwar efforts, while your blessed political prostitutes like Hillary Clinton rode in the war wagon. And we should not forget Republican Ron Paul. He makes every one of your Democrat contenders look like the hypocrites they are.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
Voting for a Democrat is like voting for a rat with the hope that it might leave some cheese left in the trap.
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002
QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
The last time the Shiites and Sunnis actually fought was centuries ago. They didn't go at each other's throats until we came in and yanked jobs out from under them, favoring one sect over another, and upsetting their fragile balance. We are the fly in the ointment.
There are mixed loyalties, to be certain. But I'm not willing to let Democrats off the hook for their support of the war. A "peace party" they are not.
I do find it puzzling that I can write an article that is decidedly in support of criticism of the Iraq war, and yet be lambasted by leftists that think they have a monopoly on any such thoughts. I have serious questions about the Bush administration, and it is not looking good for them. I'm a realist in that I take what I have and work with it. Surge included.
In a war, there's always someone who benefits just by merely having the war. Defense contractors who make ready to eat meals as well as bombs. People who need jobs join. It also keeps journalists busy.
This from a person who grew up an Army brat (and my dad was in Korea and Viet Nam.) Some die, and some live.
What makes you think the neocons are not clear on what they intend to achieve? They are. They just haven't achieved it yet. Total control of the Iraqi oil fields.
I think the neoconservatives had a fairly clear idea of what they wanted, but it is the type of clarity that we might see in schizophrenics. You may recall that the invasion of Iraq was justified by numerous arguments in succession, the presence of WMDs, the presence of al-Quaida and the export of democracy to the middle east. As each idea fell to reality, it was replaced by another. Neoconservatism displays many aspects of a psychological disorder that makes them very argumentative and not able to easily distinguish between fiction and reality.
I have 8 years of military service behind me. In retrospect, it was a good experience. I probably shouldn't start on the topic of defense contractors. Were it up to me I would prosecute the entire management of Haliburton for war profiteering. They wouldn't be moving their corporate headquarters to Dubai, they would be moving to Gitmo.
Carl you've adopted every talking and campaign point of the Dems and still call yourself Republican and Conservative.
This is because Carl understands this isn't about Dems vs GOP.
Thanks for commenting. I think you will find with a little research that my views are entirely consistant with conservative libertarians. I am a Republican although I vote for very few of them. I have had the privilege and honor of voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger twice.
I have posted in my earlier comments that anti-war positions were common among conservatives in the pre-war days. Read what Ron Paul wrote in 2002. Tell me why Hillary Clinton and John Kerry could not arrive at the same conclusions. You may think I'm using Democratic talking points, but they originate in the heart of libertarian ideaology. Good Gawd, there hasn't been an original idea in the Democratic Party since Roosevelt.
The "inconvenient truth" is that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are out there sucking up to the very same neoconservative groups that inspired Bush and Cheney.
Thanks for the support. I'm glad you reminded us of the scope of US presence in Iraq. The new embassy complex alone is composed of 21 buildings on 104 acres. It is a fortress that will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewater-treatment facility.
"I think the neoconservatives had a fairly clear idea of what they wanted, but it is the type of clarity that we might see in schizophrenics. You may recall that the invasion of Iraq was justified by numerous arguments in succession, the presence of WMDs, the presence of al-Quaida and the export of democracy to the middle east. As each idea fell to reality, it was replaced by another. Neoconservatism displays many aspects of a psychological disorder that makes them very argumentative and not able to easily distinguish between fiction and reality."
I believe that all of those reasons were just excuses to mask the real intent of stealing Iraqi oil. Of course, the neocons couldn't have possibly come to the American public and said, "we need to attack Iraq because we need their oil." This would not have flown, but was the truth.
Why do I know this? The excuses just keep on flying, but none of the excuses are even valid. They have WMD. So does a lot of other countries that hate us. We need to bring democracy to Iraq. Why? We have not been in the nation building business ever before. Saddam is a tyrant. So are a lot of those folks we work with throughout the world. Saddam killed his own people. This has happened over and over again in other countries without us doing anything.
No, Carl, the reason was, and still is, oil. Bush doesn't give a s**t about the people of this country, the people of Iraq, or the people of the world for that matter. This exercise was, and still is, about greed.
That isn't incorrect, oil is certainly one reason to invade Iraq, but it is too simple. You need to be more creative to get at the heart of it.
Let's consider what happens when we destabilize the region by invading Iraq.
1. Iran and Saudi Arabia battle over Iraq, depleting resources that would be used to support world wide terrorism.
2. Fly Paper Theory. Al-Quaeda recruits are drawn to Iraq to kill Americans. Iraq becomes a "killing field" with al-Quaeda right in the middle of it.
3. Israel becomes more secure, with Iran preoccupied with Iraqi affairs. Funding for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the Kurdistan Workers Party would shrink or be eliminated.
4. War profits are huge, every sort of corruption is possible. The cost of the Iraq invasion will easily top 1 trillion US dollars and could go as high as 3 trillion.
5. US deficit. Republicans are a crafty lot. They know that they can't hold office forever. There isn't any question in my mind that they have intentionally run up the US deficit from 5.8 trillion to 9.2 trillion in just 5 years. They will hand over the government to the Democrats, but it will be so mired in debt, it won't matter much.
6. Stepping Stone Theory. Iran is the principle target and Iraq provides the bases for an attack.
7. Empire building. If you have been to the PNAC website, you can see that these guys have some incredibly grandiose plans for the world. But I still cannot figure out how that myopic hamster, Gary Bauer got in the group.
8. Mohammed Land. Disney builds its first all Islamic theme park outside of Baghdad. Within a few years it will get more visitors than Mecca.
And yeah, it's all about greed too!
Liberals are damned sneaky bunch. They intend to use all this oil money to build a chain of Barbra Streisand Museums in the ghettos of American cities.
One of the reasons I became a conservative is to save America's children from this horror!
ty phoon, you are so clever. I just can't keep up with you.
Iraqi
Liberation
O.I.L.
We're never leaving.
Clark, we will leave when the Iraqi's can take care of their own security. We dont want to leave and have a civil war start. Unlike you, our government actually cares what happens in Iraq.
Even if we went into Iraq under false pretences, does that give us the right to leave millions of Iraqis to die? We can win the war. When we stop believing we can win this war is when we have truely lost.
Even though I probably have more liberal views than you, I also dislike Barbara Streisand, but for different reasons. She's the main reason we have $125-700 concert ticket prices, yes, she was the first to jack them up.
I am also glad that you see the neoconservative agenda for what it is: A New World Order. They won't be content until they achieve complete global dominance so they can push their agenda anywhere they please.
They are extremely sick individuals with delusions of grandeur.
Yeah, right. It took a disaster of these proportions for Republicans and other Americans previously loyal to the President to start questioning their leadership.
Thanks for your comments. My views/philosophy is closely alligned with the Cato Institute, which has been strongly critical of the expansion of executive power under the Bush administration and the Iraq War. Libertarians advocate policies that advance individual liberty, smaller government, free markets, diminished government intervention in domestic, social, and economic policies and decreased military and political intervention worldwide. Needless to say, the Republican party has been ignoring us for a few years.
So, ty phoon, who was to blame for the Katrina disaster and how was Bush a victim?
How about having more sympathy for the real victims: The citizens of New Orleans.
No one expects the Federal Government to do everything. But they certainly didn't do nearly enough when it came to the citizens of New Orleans.
Thanks for stopping by to comment. Ron Paul can be described as a strict constitutionalist. He will use the constitution as a guide to determine what crimes were committed and whether or not Congress has the authority to pursue them. I think it will be difficult to prove that intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion was falsified or cherry-picked, although I believe it happened and that these are treasonous acts. I think it is less difficult to prove that Haliburton and many other contractors engaged in war profiteering. Congress has been unwilling to pass Pat Leahy's "War Profiteering Prevention Act" which make war profiteering a felony since he introduced it in 2003, but he has introduced it again and I hope it will pass.
War Profiteering Prevention Act Of 2007
The fact is, something could have been done long ago by the Bush
Administration to help prevent the Katrina disaster, but they opted
to fund the Iraq war instead.
There may have been mistakes made by Mayor Nagin, but whatever mistakes
he made still does not exonerate Bush.
Your argument is inconsistent and doesn't make sense. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
As much as you hate the Federal Government having any responsibility in helping people, FEMA was set up to help prevent disasters, which it did not do in the case of Hurricane Katrina.
Most people think Federal programs such as disaster relief are good things, and most support them, including most Republicans. Most people would disagree with you.
Federal programs such as the American Red Cross.
As much as you might think Federal programs such as the Red Cross are examples of nanny-state liberalism, they are here to stay.
President Jimmy Carter created FEMA by Executive Order. But Democratic Presidents aren't the only ones who create Federal programs.
The Environmental Protection Agency is another big Federal program.
Guess who created that?
President Richard Nixon.