The latest attempt by the West to impose its political ideals on Islam - which might well be called the Bush Crusade - is crumbling. Of course, the real purpose of this Crusade may have nothing to do with the claimed spread of "democracy," but that matters little. What matters, is that, whatever its purpose, it is quickly following in the fatal footsteps of all of its predecessors from 800 to 1,000 years ago.
The Bush Crusade was formalized on September 20, 2002, with the release of a doctrine called "The National Security Strategy of the United States." This creative and enabling document introduced into the arena of American Foreign Relations the concept of Preventive war, to wit: "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
One year earlier, Bush had issued his famous "Wanted, Dead or Alive" speech just prior to invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban in two days, but failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
And nine months earlier, Bush had dramatically alleged in his State of the Union speech that North Korea, Iran and Iraq constituted an "axis of evil."
But, coming back to September of 2002, following his general declaration of preemptive war, President Bush used the next six months to justify and initiate his second defensive invasion, on March 19, 2003, "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
And we all remember the "Mission Accomplished" announcement from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln less than 1 1/2 months later. Perhaps we should have taken it as an omen that the victory celebration took place on "Mayday," which, of course, is also an international signal of distress.
However, at that time, Bush and the Republican establishment were riding high, certain that the world quaked in fear over just what government the United States might decide to destroy next. There was no doubt in the smug minds of our leaders that their concept for world order was firmly in place, and that such countries as Iran and North Korea would fall into lock step with American policy and do so with the greatest amount of head-bowing respect.
Other than the fact that the whole idea of "Cowboy Diplomacy" was faulty to a fault, what the designers really failed to take into account was Murphy. That gentleman's Law states quite clearly: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and, in fact, will go wrong at the worst possible time."
That, in essence is the history of the Bush Crusade, which brings us to the present day situation.
In sum, Iraq, with 3,709 civilian deaths last month, is now deteriorating into chaos faster than our clumsy efforts can plug up the holes in the dyke. Over 200 people were massacred in a Shiite neighborhood in Sadr City on Thursday, our Thanksgiving Day, and retaliatory attacks have been ongoing since. Powerful Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr has demanded that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki cancel his planned meeting with President Bush in Jordan this coming week. Sadr's representatives said they would withdraw from Maliki's government if the prime minister did not meet their demands, a move that would probably cause the government's collapse and plunge the nation deeper into disarray.
Meanwhile, the Taliban is resurrecting itself in Afghanistan where we and the government are quickly losing control. Hamid Karzai, the country's president has little authority outside of Kabul. Regional warlords are as entrenched as ever in the provinces, fielding private armies and profiting from the blossoming opium trade which, among other things is providing the funds for the construction of many new mansions in the provinces as well as in and around Kabul.
Lebanon, which early last year had been hailed by Bush as a showcase example of the "Arab spring" he saw sweeping through the region, is, itself, on the verge of civil insurrection following the invasion by Israel and the assassination, last Tuesday, of Pierre Gemayel, a Cabinet minister and scion of one of the country's leading Maronite Catholic families. After the funeral, Shiites turned their rage on any and all Sunni targets they could find and the Sunnis fought back. A cycle of violence, with uncomfortable echoes of Lebanon's past civil war, appears to be getting underway at this time.
And as for Iran and North Korea - the two other villainous states identified by Bush nearly five years ago - they're about as afraid of us as they are of Antarctica. Realizing that the United States is a wounded duck with a lame duck leader, these countries are brazenly forging ahead on the road to nuclear armament, essentially unimpeded by a steadily weaker sounding Bush.
Iran, in fact, is acting more and more like the potential savior for the embattled citizens of the Middle East. Being a Shiite Muslim nation, it has significant influence over the Shiite militias that have increasingly attacked Iraq's minority Sunnis, as well as over the angry Shiites of Lebanon. Last Monday, Iraqi leaders said they would be interested in three-way talks with Iran and Syria, a proposal that raises further doubt about the level of American influence in Iraq.
Also, last Monday, Senator Barack Obama, the popular Illinois Democrat who is considering a run for the White House, called for a reduction in U.S. troops within the next four to six months, and a renewed emphasis on training Iraqi police.
However, the question of the moment is whether this is, in fact, the end of the Bush Crusade, or whether we are only about to be swept into a new and dangerous Phase II.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 106
Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.
That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.
And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.
2. When are the Iraqi people going to be allowed to stand or fall on their own feet?
3.How much longer are we going to lurch around the world as addicts to petroleum?
Perhaps Americans finally are asking these basic questions and realizing that the Bush administration - with, until recently, the complicity of the media - has been misrepresenting its policy of seeking global dominance as a "War on Terror" and a crusade against the threat of radical Islam and evil regimes in the name of "democracy." The majority of the people in Iraq, in the Middle East and globally view us as behaving like an imperialist power seeking global dominasce.
Why are we in Iraq? What constitutes "victory" ? Today, the Bush Cheney cabal wants the Iraqi government to pass pending legislation in December that will grant concessions over Iraq's oil to the mulitinational oil companies. PM Maliki is being pressured by the US to support the legislation . Many, if not most, Iraqis know what is going on with the grab for their oil rights and that the factional power struggles over their shares of oil revenue is only part of the picture. Chaos favors the Bush Cheney cabal on the one hand, because it makes the Iraqi government weak and its representatives easier to bribe; on the other hand, if the chaos becomes uncontrollable, Bush Cheney might not get the oil rights they want the government to approve.
What in the world made us think that the Middle East would have the slightest interest in democracy or in switching from the kinds of political systems that they have practiced for thousands of years?
It seems like the sunni insurgents and the shiites would have something in common at that point, wouldn't they? Or are they killing each other too?
As to the present question, what happens next, I see one of two possibilities. Bush will scramble to find some decent interval, to borrow a phrase from the Vietnam era, and pack it in and leave Iraq. The hope would be that U.S. forces would be clear of Iraq by 2008 in enough time for some voters to forget just what a disaster it has been.
Or the administration will push aside any discussion of our motivations for the war in the first place and any analysis of our misteps in this endeavor, and then put forward a new plan to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
While the former is cynical, all the good intentions of the latter won't change the Bush legacy. Instead, we will only prolong our losses and inability to be effective in any other geopolitical situation. Meanwhile, Iraq will continue its spiral into chaos.
Did you miss the TWO elections that have been held in Iraq?
You know, the ones where almost every eligible Iraqi citizen came to the polls.
It's just one big Pandora's Box and I don't see hope coming out of this one.
We should never have started up this war with Iraq until we'd finished sorting things out in Afghanistan. I know we still have some troops there but when our focus turned to Iraq it seems that the Taliban and the Warlords took that as their signal to rejoin the fight for control of Afghanistan.
As a transplanted Canadian with some knowledge of the Canadian Military (all be it a few years out dated) I see and hear news and information from Canada on the loss of Canadian and British lives as a woefully inadequate Nato force tries to keep Afghanistan from completely falling apart.
As for the references to WWII, yeah it took the USA less time to clean that one up... but then we/they (I can't help but Identify as an American as well as an expat Canadian!) didn't join the fight until almost 3 years after Britain and Canada had been struggling with the rest of their allies to stop Hitler's advances on Europe!
In fact if it weren't for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the US might never have joined the fight and the map of Europe would look very different today!
Now we're the ones needing help to stem the tides of War; whether from within by increased troop strength in Iraq if we plan on staying OR a viable plan for turning Iraq over to their own people or the other Middle Eastern states that doesn't leave our people overseas open to further attack, and our Nations open to attack from without.
I said Nations because a sustained attack on the US would soon become an attack on Canada as well, because contrary to what some may believe Canada is our closest ally and friend. After all, where were our air flights diverted to immediatly after 9/11 when we shut down US airspace??
"Iraq had an efficient army and plenty of well-trained, functioning police before we invaded them, didn't they? Where are they, and what are they doing now?" - Meryl Johnson
The failed Paul Bremer administration spent a year driving away any sympathetic Baathist governmental officials and Iraqi military, many of whom undoubtedly went over to the insurrection. US military in Iraq were complaining about the disconnect with the Bremer administration almost from the beginning. As we now understand, Iraqis who could help with administration and rebuilding efforts were rebuffed in favor of US contractors. The ignorance of the US adminstration in its mishandling of Iraq following the showy "Mission Accomplished" speech by Bush in May 2003 is almost beyond belief.
The insurrection (for lack of a better term) is actually a second war in Iraq, following the overthrow of Sadaam and the dissolution of the Republican Guard. This time around, Iran and its lap dog, Syria, are funding the reversal of fortune for Cheney and Bush, with the eager support of assorted misfits, irregulars, and terrorists.
Phase II, to which David alludes at the end of his article, is the dropping of a massive load of nuclear bombs on Iran, in an attempt to halt their development of nuclear capacity. I say "nuclear bombs" because the Bush administration has widely advertised their "bunker buster" nuke as a tool to destroy hardened underground sites, such as those that are rumored to protect bomb-development sites in Iran. It's a crazy, unbelievable scenario, but--hey, Dick Cheney--and Bush--are running the show and how crazy is that? This gang is still looking for the lasting imprimatur for the GWB years, and they seem to gravitate toward the dark and the deadly. Let's hope that common sense and congressional pressure brings us back from the brink.
All ancient religious, spiritual and even metaphysical writings have been warning mankind of pending doom should we go down certain paths ... we are now headed down one of them. The sad thing is that many many very religious people approve of this because they mistakenly believe that they are exempt from the outcome. Many actually believe that they will be 'raptured' off of earth to their heaven prior to the real upheavals that will take place. Most of them look forward to such with a sooner the better attitude. Heck, I am nothing like them in the specifics, and they would be the first to say so, but even I am sometimes tempted to call for the speeding up of the process ... because I am getting very tired of it all also.
So I am just reminding those that will listen, that there is/was a war in the heavens of a spiritual nature that is being belatedly played out here on earth for the final control of this rock for the spiritual future ... and into whose hands it falls, between the so-called good or evil will depend upon the decisions that we all make, both personally and socially.
There will be a division of sorts and a spiritual future waiting according to our decisions made here in the near future. It may well turn out to be nothing like those that believe they know even suspect. Our individual eternity is really at stake here ... the sooner more come to that realization the better.
Thanks for the facts David, shoot we can't get that kind of turnout here in the U.S. and we don't even have terrorists to contend with.
That being said and the fact that in every poll taken of the Iraqi people they have said they want to be a democratic country, how does that equate to, "The latest attempt by the West to impose its political ideals on Islam".
Just wondering.
Did you miss the TWO elections that have been held in Iraq?
You know, the ones where almost every eligible Iraqi citizen came to the polls.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan E.
How could we miss them? All those hopeful, shining faces and all those purple fingers. Maybe no one told them that it's not the size of the turn-out but who actually votes--in "our" kind of democracy--and who has the clout to go with the vote. And, who knows what they think a democracy is supposed to be anyway--and how were they to know that we would in fact superimpose our "picks" over their "picks" -- and are still doing it--and will have to do it yet again--given what is happening as we write.
The mother of all ironies. How sad for them -- and for us. It's possible I suppose that there are not that many bad guys--just a few really rotten ones--who are messing things up -- and most of those are probably coming over the border from Syria and Iran. [We do know that Al Quaida is really setting up camp, now].
Now that the people "we picked" haven't really worked out all that well, we'll have to begin spreading largesse around with all the democracy--more than we've spread thus far, that is--and hope we get it right before we have to get out.
We need all the spiritual help we can get--the world needs it--things are pretty shaky right now. I don't know that Bush gets it though. He may still be thinking that if he just keeps saying everything is fine, and gets everyone to agree with him by threat of force or coercion--that it will be. Hopefully, something constructive will come out of his visit this week to Jordan--even if Al Maliki doesn't show up.
Speaking of things not spiritual, notice that Sultan didn't come here; Cheny went there. And, I don't think he came home with a "well done, Brownie." Look for the real results in the next budget and pray to god, or the trees, or rocks or whatever, that we don't go down the path of mutually assured destruction. Whatever happened to that concept as a deterrent anyway. . . and nonproliferation for ALL ?
The $64 question--good, good question. I'm not a believer [I like the bumper sticker: when the rapture comes, can I have your car?] and I have a hard time believing that he does either, except as it is convenient, or something to cling to when temptations beckon. Or, it's possisble -- as I think it is -- to hold conflicting beliefs; i.e., there's nothing wrong with preaching democracy and manipulating the election results in Iraq [or here]--as in, we're just helping them out--for their own good. [Just speculating-who can know-except as facts surface and events turn out.]
THANK YOU, Oh Canada. Let's hope that citizens in Canada and the U.S. will respectively and aggressively lobby their government to be transparent--as they go about making decisions regarding troop levels; and , to aggressively pursue diplomatic solutions for a road map to peace between Palestine and Israel. Without the latter, and cooperation from other mid east states, Iraq is doomed. If Bush continues to stick his head in the sand, and congress allows him to do it, we are all doomed.
Do you have any thing that backs up your belief?
"And, who knows what they think a democracy is supposed to be anyway"
Well Missy we do know that they want to have a voice in their country, they want to vote, to choose their leaders and thats exactly what they did.
"The latest attempt by the West to impose its political ideals on Islam" for effect knowing you would preaching to the choir and would not have to back it up in any way.
I haven't had the pleasure of your spiritual rants before, and I can't say I totally disagree with your post.
But what are the spiritual repercussions to letting pure evil run rampant on the world?
Would it have been better that Japan and or the Nazi's won in WW2?
The Islamic radicals we are now faced with are indeed, just as the Japanese and Nazi forces were, pure evil, they believe their prophet has given them authority to kill any who are non believers, they have no regard for life, not theirs nor any other.
The rapture, something not taught in the Bible but believed by many.
The terrorists kill the infidel and the believers in rapture pray that God will do it for them in the last days, well my comparison is a bit unfair actually the believers in the rapture are praying for their reward but in their selfishness they show that they also have a very similar disregard for life as the terrorist.
"because I am getting very tired of it all also" I'm sorry to hear that.
The only way to combat both of these extremes is through the truth,
Christians must educate the "rapturists" as to the correct teachings of the Bible.
Islam must come together to teach that the truth of the Koran is not as the terrorists believe.
A dictatorship? A theocracy?
We have not imposed any type of government on these people, these people have asked for the opportunity to govern themselves and we are making an effort to allow them to do so.
You only have to read the newspapers to know that there was a grand round of musical chairs for the top leadership positions and especially appointments for positions which held the real power. Don't know where Chalabi is in the hierarchy for the moment -- we do know that one moment he was sitting at Laura Bush's left--or was it the right--the next moment he was being indicted--and then up he popped again, and so on. But most voting Iraqi's have no idea of the shennigans going on behind the scenes--other than they have to duck and run for cover a lot--depending on who is issuing the latest edict; and this more and more to no avail.
As for type of government? Daresay the sunni's want the same style of government as they had under Sadam--speaking of the news--and the shias seem to want a theocracy. Who knows how many on each side want plain old vanilla democracy.
Whether it is a good idea, whether the implementation was handled well, or whether people in Iraq will continue to support it over time, are all great but separate questions.
David's point that the government is not supported by all Iraqis (many of whom were in fact driven from positions of authority at the inception of the occupation) is not diminished by the fact that outside interests (including Iran) are lending support to the insurgency.
and can we please stop claiming that iraqis voting justifies anything? the same people who are still for the war typically harbor resentment against muslims, so i find it hard to believe that their biggest concern was whether iraqis ever voted. besides, there are many other countries who would benefit from a democratic election (darfur, turkmenistan, myanmar, etc) but when the american government is spearheading things, election results are nearly meaningless.
Perhaps if we let them settle it for themselves whatever solution would at least last awhile. It has only been American propaganda that convinced them to vote and an unstable regime that bows to whoever has the largest force. So as long as we are there no real solution exists only propaganda.
When all is said and done, and our troops have again died for some nitwit's grand plan, the country will fall back into warring tribes of men. These stupid wars are like vultures (Halliburton!) seeing an opportunity to feast on the carcass of the dead camel and making the meal last until the last bone is picked clean.
None of these invasions have been about democracy. They are about power and greed. Period.
"We did not start this war,but we do have to fight it. "
The war we are talking about is the Iraq War, and - yes - we did start it....
and Micky D also said: ""resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
Dan E. adds:
"So Dave what form of government do you think these people can handle?
A dictatorship? A theocracy?
We have not imposed any type of government on these people, these
people have asked for the opportunity to govern themselves and we are
making an effort to allow them to do so. "
In answer to Micky and Dan, I would remind them that we invaded Iraq
under false pretenses and we did impose our system on them.
Let me ask in return to all who feel we are justified to force our form
of government on others -
Who should we invade next? Here's a partial list of candidates that do
not have our democratic form of government...
Tunisia/Libya/Egypt/Algeria/Gabon/Cameroon/Togo/Uganda/Equitorial Guinea/Djibouti/Gambia/Congo Brazzaville/Zimbabwe/Rwanda/Eritrea/Swaziland/Cote d'Ivoire/Sudan/Angola/Ethiopa/Chad/Guinea/Niger/Central African Republic/
Congo Kinshasa/Somalia/Cuba/Tonga/Singapore/Brunei/United Arab Emirates/Quatar/Thailand/Oman/Kazakhstan/Saudi Arabia/Azerbaijan/China/Syria/Vietnam/Maldives/Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan/
Tajikistan/North Korea/Bhutan/Myanmar/Yemen/Cambodia/Belarus.......
OK, so who's next? (and if none, why none?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, I can't provide accurate data for each and every candidate elected,"
Do you have data for even ONE candidate?
Evidence that the U.S. paid or some how forced Iraqis to vote for a certain candidate?
"Who knows how many on each side want plain old vanilla democracy."
The polls of the Iraqi people indicate they want democracy plain and simple.
Alex F.
I don't recall comparing Iraq or Iran to Hitler's Germany.
Seth C.,
"dan, sunnis only vote for sunnis, and shi'ites only vote for shi'ites. there wasnt much of a choice,"
There were 275 candidates, there was plenty of choice and since it was a secret ballot we don't know who voted for whom.
David McGill
"The war we are talking about is the Iraq War, and - yes - we did start it.…"
Did you forget that Iraq invaded Kuwait?
See David that conflict never ended, according to the ceasefire conditions Iraq had to cease hostilities against the coalition forces, they did not, according to the ceasefire conditions Iraq had to abide by the U.N. resolutions, they did not.
According to the ceasefire conditions the coalition forces could invade Iraq immediately after the Iraqis fired the first missile at a coalition aircraft.
"I would remind them that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses" and that pertains to what?
"and we did impose our system on them"
David you may believe in your heart of hearts that it is so, but that don't make it a fact.
Not one person here has responded to my posts with a single fact.
You are welcome to your opinion but you can't back any of it up with facts, it all come down that these post are nothing more than your opinions.
While the great turnout for the elections is heartening (to those of us who dig the democratic form of government), it is nonetheless a REACTION and response of the Iraqis to the imposition of will by the US through its takeover and occupation of the country. The thought of ending the occupation must have been on the minds of many as they voted.
Both the occupation and the fledgling government that those voters put into office are in serious trouble right now, brought on primarily, although not exclusively, by Iraqi citizens participating in the insurgency.
So how do you feel about the rest of David's article?
God - I hope no one!!!!
"Dan E., I've gone over your posts and the only evidence you provide to counter the suggestion that the US invasion of Iraq was "the latest attempt by the West to impose its political ideals on Islam" is that people came out to vote for people who stood for election."
No thats not correct Dave I also quoted polls of the Iraqi people in which they claimed the desire to be a Democratic country.
The First National Opinion Poll in Iraq conducted by Justice not vengeance 2003
DEMOCRACY
'Regarding their future, 90.3 per cent of interviewees said they somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that the country needed an Iraqi democracy.' (AP, 2 Dec.) This is quite a turn-around from earlier polls, which showed luke-warm support for democracy. It may be that the public perception of what the word 'democracy' means has shifted.
A poll conducted by Oxford international in 2004 for the BBC, 28% said a Democracy was needed in Iraq within 12 months and 41% within 5 years.
A poll conducted by Oxford international for ABC/Time in 2005 states that 57% desire a democracy for Iraq.
If you look at earlier polls, the Iraqi's show a desire that the coalition forces stay until they can stabilize their country.
Taking into consideration that the Iraqi people have expressed a desire to be a Democratic country and that they want the coalition forces to stay until they can stabilize their country it's unlikely that your suggestion,
"it is nonetheless a REACTION and response of the Iraqis to the imposition of will by the US through its takeover and occupation of the country."
Is correct.
"The thought of ending the occupation must have been on the minds of many as they voted."
Of course it is the desire of the Iraqi people is to be an independent Democracy free of any outside forces, they expressed this in the earliest polls and have continued to do so in every poll taken.
It would be so much more easier for the Bush haters to validate their position if it just weren't for those pesky facts.
Jerry if you choose to conduct your life relying on spiritualism, mysticism and intuition that's fine with me but if your going to come into a venue such as this one you have to realize that not all of these discussions are going to back slapin rah rah we all hate Bush discussions some times your going to be asked to either put up or shut up, which by the looks of the replies I have received in this thread the latter would have been the wiser choice.
Muqtada al-Sadr has been in the news lately and he and his followers are not big fans of democracy in Iraq. Here are excerpts from a USA Today article by Elliot Blair Smith, from 3/21/2005 following the attack on students in Basra. You'll enjoy the inclusion of some "facts" (I have to put it in quotes following Jerry's posts. Thanks for being a mensch, Jerry!) having to do with university students' understanding of democracy in Iraq in 2005.
Although I'm honestly not sure where you wanted to go with your dialog, this will have to be about it for me. Best of luck, and we'll see ya in another thread!
--------------------
Shiite Muslim fundamentalists loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr waded into a picnic of about 700 Basra University students [in March, 2005]. They beat several students with sticks and fired their guns in the air.
The clash in the southern Iraqi city was symbolic of deeper fissures in a society struggling with change.
The non-partisan Iraqi Prospect Organization says 60% of Iraqi university students believe democracy is superior to any other form of government, according to a nationwide poll published today.
But young Iraqis' understanding of democracy is "superficial," according to the pollsters....
The dramatic philosophical divide between al-Sadr's fundamentalists, who battled U.S. and Iraqi forces last year in Baghdad and Najaf, and students who represent more progressive aspirations for Iraq's future, is likely to sharpen.... The Baghdad-based Iraqi Prospect Organization... interviewed 834 Iraqi university students about democracy in December [2004] and January [2005]....
...Al-Sadr supporter Sheik Ahmed al-Basri defended the actions of the attackers. He expressed outrage that students at the picnic had engaged in "dancing, sexy dress and corruption." Al-Basri added, "We beat them because we are authorized by Allah to do so, and that is our duty. It is we who should deal with such disobedience and not the police." Students and their families demonstrated for three days in Basra after the assault....
"The religious leaders have their social positions and respect, but that doesn't mean that they have the right to make others obey their orders by force," said Furssan Salah Al-Deen Ahmed, 22, a third-year political science student at the University of Baghdad. "These fundamental groups know well how to monopolize fear and strike back at democracy," said Nadiya Shaban, 22, a fourth-year political science student at the university. Shaban said she believes in freedom of speech. "There is no meaning of democracy without being able to express yourself," she said. But she also fears retaliation. "Let us take gradually to the (democratic) process," she said....
...Al-Sadr's group has made strong inroads at university campuses when mainstream political movements are all but invisible there. "The most organized groups inside the university are people loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr," he said. "They are definitely not playing a positive role in improving the understanding of democracy."
By comparison, he added, more mainstream parties have not made "a good effort to educate university students what democracy is."
The Iraqi Prospect Organization's interviews with university students — half in Baghdad and the rest distributed evenly in the north and south — showed that university students' enthusiasm for democracy is accompanied by a weak grasp of what democracy means.
For instance, 91% of the polled students said living without fear of arrest is essential to democracy. A third said majority rule is not essential. Almost half said the right to belong to one's political party of choice is not an essential component of democracy....
"People see criticizing the government as (equivalent to) being opposed to the new government, as being opposed to the new Iraq," Shames said. "It shows how much needs to be done to improve the understanding of democracy."
...In other findings:
• 44% agree the president should be able to exercise absolute power during crises.
• 45% agree the judiciary should defer to the executive branch on key decisions.
• 55% agree the army should be allowed to intervene and govern when necessary.
--------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-20-young-iraqis_x.htm
1)-The first was that Iraq invaded Kuwait and that this international insult somehow remained punishable.
The invasion of Kuwait took place sixteen years and four months ago. Only through your extremely creative right wing rationale could this justify our invasion of Iraq in 2003. What you are ignoring here, Dan, is that the actual reasons given for our invasion have all been discredited, and the one reason you now espouse was barely mentioned at the time.
2)- The polls indicated the Iraqis wanted democracy.
It appears that this conclusion was refuted by the very information that you, yourself, presented. A poll in 2003 showed they favored democracy, you said. A poll in 2004, seemed to indicate that a majority did not, and a poll in 2005 showed that over 40% seemed to be opposed to a democracy. That's not very good. What do you think those numbers would be like in the U.S?
3)-There were strong turnouts at the polls and 8,000 candidates ran for the 275 seats.
This is a little bit of a bait and switch tactic here......It doesn't mean they favor democracy, it doesn't mean they can handle democracy.....It doesn't mean that we didn't impose our democratic system on them....It's interesting, but irrelevant to the point or points of this discussion.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we're seeing the proof right now as Iraq tumbles into chaos and even our own news media - that has previously rubber stamped much of Bush's agenda - is beginning to call it what it is - a civil war.
Iraq needs a strong leader who can effectively deal with the disparate and hostile factions..... Oh, that's right, they had one, didn't they.........
A "crusade" against "Islam"?
Isn't that a little to far "out there" even for you, David?
"1)-The first was that Iraq invaded Kuwait and that this international insult somehow remained punishable."
Now you're engaging in creative reading comprehension because I never even implied that.
"Only through your extremely creative right wing rationale could this justify our invasion of Iraq in 2003. What you are ignoring here, Dan, is that the actual reasons given for our invasion have all been discredited, and the one reason you now espouse was barely mentioned at the time."
No extremely creative right wing rational needed, the conditions of the ceasefire allowed for the coalition forces to invade and subdue the forces of Iraq if they (Iraq) did not abide by them.
Unless you are willing to do the research and present facts that show that my claim is not valid.
"the actual reasons given for our invasion have all been discredited,"
And what reasons might they be?
How about the violation of 16 U.N. resolutions? (or was it more?)
"2)- The polls indicated the Iraqis wanted democracy."
Yup they sure do.
"It appears that this conclusion was refuted by the very information that you, yourself, presented."
Very good spin David I like it.
The second poll I quoted also had the question "what does Iraq needs at this time"
72.2 strongly agreed a democracy 13.7 somewhat agreed.
"a poll in 2005 showed that over 40% seemed to be opposed to a democracy."
And your flailing about with that one.
"3)-There were strong turnouts at the polls and 8,000 candidates ran for the 275 seats."
David you really should follow your own thread.
I posted the 8,000 candidate bit when Missy claimed they were "our picks" and when Seth C. claimed there was no choice.
"news media - that has previously rubber stamped much of Bush's agenda"
Are you out of your ever-loving mind? You have got to be way far left of left to make that claim.
You mean you're not satisfied with the exclusively negative media coverage of Iraq since day one? The almost continuous droning of the media that "Bush lied" was not good enough for you?
I wonder why you are trying to discredit my facts rather than to prove your own points valid?
Could it be that your positions are indefensable?
I can also tell that everyone in this forum/article debate would want to see Iraq as a burgeoning and self sufficiant country- regardless of their chosen path of governance.
But what you propose is a "Hate America First" opinion that presumes there's no hope for Iraq and that America is to blame all the way back to Babalonian times.
Still, it's only opinion. And there's somethign both refreshing as well as enlightening to that perspective.
Still- I have to stand with Dan E. on most everything he's stated. "Facts are facts" and taking only "smidges" of one fact to invalidate the another is analogous to "fuzzy logic"... Let's have a look at your latest rebuttal:
"1- The first was that Iraq invaded Kuwait and that this international insult somehow remained punishable.
The invasion of Kuwait took place sixteen years and four months ago. Only through your extremely creative right wing rationale could this justify our invasion of Iraq in 2003. What you are ignoring here, Dan, is that the actual reasons given for our invasion have all been discredited, and the one reason you now espouse was barely mentioned at the time."
Shall we discuss the 12 UN backed/initiated sanctions, the "Oil for Food" debacle, the ignored UN written "No Fly Zone", or perhaps the "Dr. Whodunnit" Hans Blix and his merry band of "not here" nuke sniffers?
Perhaps the 250,000 political disappearances of Sadam's own populace doesn't matter as fact? Perhaps the civil rights violations under the hands of Sadam's darling sons, with that "Elvis mansion" inspired series of rape, electro-shock and wood-chipper rooms doesn't effectively garner a call to action.
None of these items have been discreditted- so, in fact- your ruse that "the actual reasons given for our invasion have all been discredited" is woefully incorrect.
Oh- and by the way- "this just in"...
Published on Saturday, May 10, 2003 by the Washington Post
Seven Nuclear Sites Looted
Iraqi Scientific Files, Some Containers Missing
by Barton Gellman
BAGHDAD -- Seven nuclear facilities in Iraq have been damaged or effectively destroyed by the looting that began in the first days of April, when U.S. ground forces thrust into Baghdad, according to U.S. investigators and others with detailed knowledge of their work. The Bush administration fears that technical documents, sensitive equipment and possibly radiation sources have been scattered.
If so, there are potentially significant consequences for public health and the spread of materials to build a nuclear or radiological bomb. President Bush had said the war was fought to prevent the spread of "the world's most dangerous weapons."
Uh, huh... "Nope- "no nukes there..."
"2)- The polls indicated the Iraqis wanted democracy.
It appears that this conclusion was refuted by the very information that you, yourself, presented. A poll in 2003 showed they favored democracy, you said. A poll in 2004, seemed to indicate that a majority did not, and a poll in 2005 showed that over 40% seemed to be opposed to a democracy. That's not very good. What do you think those numbers would be like in the U.S?"
2 words-
"What poll"? Please quote a source as this is a tit-for-tat with no trace to back it up.
"What do you think those numbers would be like in the U.S?"
Oddly enough, for America, you'd think about the same- all one has to do is look to our country's abysmal voter turn-out in the last elections.
America as a socio-political society is becoming more and more largesse. "Vote by Proxy" could be a great starting point for some fledgeling Secular Progressive/MoveOn type group to try to sell one day. So many people [I'll go out on a limb and preface by saying no one in this forum- obviously there's passion with this group of lively people!] see their own part in the governmental process as so meager they hold little regard to themselves and an even higher regard to their own country.
The Iraqis have now had a taste of democracy- their vote doesn't apply to "just" Saddam. They have a choice- and yes since there's no concept of religious pluralism in their culture this also would predicate a political "non-pluralism" as well.
What many fail to see in Iraq is the microcosm of American history played out in years instead of decades- every single country that has seen democratization in one form or another has had it's own malase, strife and internal wars coming to grips with the ideal of 'self actualization'- that yes, individuality is important but that it's the combinations of multiple personalities, ethnicities, views and faiths that make a vastly stronger whole than the parts.
"Iraq tumbling into chaos" is perhaps in the "here-n-now" if you're spritually inclined like Jerry- the same thing happened in Russia, Germany, Bosnia and other places where dictators were toppled or iron fisted rule was "normal" for the longest time.
What I find laughable is the notion that a person can not equate Imperial Japan or Natzi Germany with our current events in Iraq...
Oh, certainly Iraq is/was no imperialistic state, nor were the dictatorial measures of Saddam "the same" as Hitler; but the timelines needed to democratize [or "hearts-n-minds" if so desired] are actually QUITE similar.
Japan needed 7 years of occupation in order to finally stand on its own- even now it has no true "standing army". And Germany- split in two for quite a while and though now united, is still coming to grips with its own identity after such a sad and dispicable past.
So- "no" we can't "use" post WW II data [aka "facts"] to lay a groundwork or case-study for today's Iraq? But we CAN use WW II as a plot twist "hate Bush hoorah" because our trials in Iraq have lasted longer than that World Conflict?
Sorry- if it doesn't apply to one side- it cannot apply to the other.
Jerry summed it up when it came to opposing views and argument: Tit-for-tat can be endless, provided there's a basis on which one side is no stronger or less correct than the other.
In this instance I have no problem diminishing the US presense in the region to help nudge [or "force" if needed] the Iraquis to stand on their own. I DO have a problem with "Hate America First" aphorisms that try to place us [whether as a country or as a society] as some Evil Empire. Good people make terrible mistakes, that makes the crime all the more necessary to repent and continue to create bigger and better good works.
Is Iraq better now than it was 4 years ago under Saddam?
If you equate their current cultural/social/political turmoil by no other measure than body count and bullets- no. But I'll preface that with "rape, woodchipper and electrocution rooms they were no better then either."
Even though you made me laugh with your comments, it is probably the neo-cons plan. This whole thing about pre-emptive strike reminds of basketball fast break - easy points. By engagging overseas we are leaving our goal unattended.
Well-written piece. You certainly have a talent for communicating via the written word. I suggest you enter this article in the upcoming Amazon Writing Competition announced here on Gather - it would stand a good chance of winning first prize in the fiction catagory.
Despite the obvious craftmanship in the writing, to facts presented; or more precisely, the interpretation of those facts, is lacking.
One particular statement caught my eye:
"And we all remember the "Mission Accomplished" announcement from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln less than 1 1/2 months later. Perhaps we should have taken it as an omen that the victory celebration took place on "Mayday," which, of course, is also an international signal of distress. "
This is a clear misrepresentation of factual events, David. The crew of the Lincoln was coming home from an 18-month tour of duty, that included participation in the re-invasion of Iraq. The "Mission Accomplsihed" banner was made and erected by the CREW of the Lincoln to commemorate THEIR completing the mission to which they had been assigned. No one at the White House directed, or even suggested, that banner be erected. So, to assign some sort of motive to the President and his advisors for any premature message they hoped to convey is so far off the mark it borders on intentional distortion.
Indeed, in the remarks the President made later that evening from the deck of the Lincoln, he said the exact opposite of what you alledge about a "victory celebration". The President said, specifically;
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
So David, from Day One, the President has been clear about why we are in Iraq, and what we have faced, and will continue to face into the future. Your claim to the contrary just doesn't jibe with the facts. Dan E. and Russell have both effectively countered your other misrepresentations, so I won't be repetitive of their comments.
Again, nice writing Mr. McGill. Fiction is defintely your forte'.
The Bush administration should have watched more episodes of The Sopranos. Then, they might have understood that when you "take out" a dominant faction's leader you either appoint one of his underlings or rivals; or, you have all of them executed and put your own strong arms in place.
If you let them live and don't put them to mutually acceptable use they will work against you and form sometimes odd, but always very powerful alliances.
Being honest, even though America's spirits maybe running more cowboy than the rough riders, and more gangsta than the Dillingers, executing all of Hussein's underlings was, of course, never an option.
Our commanders had the generals pull a brick from the dang center of a powerful dam; and our standing armies can't keep their fingers lodged well enough in the broadening hole that that created.
Imagine if the Dems and Repubs had a full scale -guns, tanks, bombs- WAR, for dominance of the United States. That is what the common Iraqi lives in.
The only lasting solution now, will have to come from the Spiritual communities.
The common Iraqi needs a Messiah, preferably someone other than Bin Laden; whom one of the scariest things about is that he knows our scripture's teachings better than most of us do.
And that's powerful.
The thought of going to war with anyone should make anyone pause for thought. The failure to execute and fully fund such a war once embarked upon is immoral.
The fact that I havve two children in the military makes me understand the consequences of such actions better than most. Those who think any war is justified should show up at their local recruiter's office at 9:00 tomorrow morning.
Congrats for having your article featured.
Bottom line - again - look at the mess our deception, lack of planning and missteps have created.....
Today, at Sadr's behest, our traveling Emperor was suddenly disinvited. Wonderful!
David McGill commented Nov 29, 2006
David! Holy Cow, buddy! Did you READ the quote from the speech? Go read the whole speech. The President specifically said there was "much work to be done". Nothing could be construed by his words that the job in Iraq was over. I'm not naive in the slightest. If you had reserached the subject at all, you would have found muversous references to the banner, its origins and what it meant. Don't let your cynicism cloud your judgement -- and defintely don't let your cynicism lead you to may rash charcterizations of me.
Yes, David, I listen to what people say and I pay close attention when that person happens to be the President of the United States. You're saying to me, "Don't listen to what he said, listen to what I say the sign behind him means." That's outrageous -- and arrogant as hell. I'm perfectly capable of understanding what the President said that day and it was nothing like you characterize it. But, you would rather turn a congratulatory message to the sailors on that ship into some nefarious message.
Read to qoute again, David. You're wrong.
My memory is crystal clear that the administration at that time, including especially Bush and Cheney, were characterizing the situation as essentially done, or mission essentially accomplished, if you will....Certainly, Bush said there was more to be done, but nothing in the magnitude of what actually developed, and you, I'm sure are aware of that.
It just represents another - albeit small - example of the misjudgements and poor planning that have created the current mess....
"My memory is crystal clear that the administration at that time, including especially Bush and Cheney, were characterizing the situation as essentially done, or mission essentially accomplished, if you will..."
David McGill commented Nov 29, 2006
Hmmmmmmm
The President said:
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq." and;
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."
Well, if you read it, the maybe you should work on that comprehension thing, David. It's perfectly clear what he said - to everyone who isn't on the Bush-hating, lunatic-left.
There was announcement by the President under a huge banner reading "Mission Accomplished." Sorry, David B., that makes it a "'Mission Accomplished' announcement" no matter what GWB said.
What you are doing by parsing the specifics of the announcement is emphatically proving David McGill's point: the association of the President with the image of "Mission Accomplished" was an ironic and sorry contrast to the ensuing disaster.
THAT's a VICTORY...
Now you all get the Dems to put their collective balls where their mouths are and get on with the Impeachment and retreat!
Just settle this thing between you fundamentalists ... after all, if God be on your side ... what's to lose.
"Fundamentalists"? "NeoCons"?
You do of course realize that "NeoCon" has often been construed as an epithet to Jewish culture, right?
"Just settle this thing between you fundamentalists ... after all, if God be on your side ... what's to lose."
Gee whiz, Amigo, one would think there's a trace of Confusion philosophy there- "hell on Earth; ready to die/accept one's fate" kind of complacency...
Truly, a learned man would look to what he sees as "folly" and shake his head in wise, enlightened disappointment- not "Point one finger in acusation with the same hand pointing three back at himself".
David- obviously we obviously share the commonality of "agreeing to disagree"- truly, I sincerely hope you'll always ask the tough questions!
All I'd ask, is that the question be a search for the truth and not some form of intimated affirmation of personal agenda- hence my "Hate America First" mention: may I suggest the works of Berkley Prof. George Lakoff and his seminal work "How Democrats and Progressives can Win"? One element suggests posing questions of "leaders" [aka Non- Liberal/Democrat/Humanist, etc] that intimates the repliers "preconviction"... One could sum it up as "For a million dollars, would you stop beating your wife..?"
It is in that vernacular that I see the seeds of discontent.
But in so asking "the questions", one must truly want the truthful answers even if it becomes obvious that "the truth" is not what we want. By being true to your ideals, you in turn allow me to be true to mine: Or if I'm incorrect, a chance to learn!
Again- peace be with you.
I have heard something about neocon being Jewish related, but personally believe it has no relative significance to the common understanding ( but then, on second thought, maybe it does when we take the 'PROTOCOLS' into consideration?)
Confusion philosophy ? What is that ? Yes, many are very confused, that is the problem. I just do not consider myself one of them.
I can tell that you are an intelligent man Russell, I am always open to wisdom.
No- Confucius as I remember was more a socio-political philosopher than a religious figure, though it would seem his life has escalated to such over teh centuries... He once said-
"Lead the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law, and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously." (Analects II, 3)
If this is indeed where you're trying to go, I'd say you've got a bit of the Kong Fu-Zi warrior in you, esteemed sir!
When it comes to words, voices, banter- only 'man' as a species can place value on the intangible- that includes another's thoughts. Most asian cultures have no "true" swear words as we anglo saxons might spout- but their concept of "politeness level" in their speech- what might be considered "tone" I suppose- is an extreme to how we as 'mankind' will try to control another's thoughts...
Hence my mentioning the "For a million dollars..." metaphore.
Confucius would most likely have us look into ourselves for governance first above all other governments...
"To govern by virtue, let us compare it to the North Star: it stays in its place, while the myriad stars wait upon it." (Analects II, 1)
You're pretty darn intelligent too, Jerry- keep on, keepin' on, Comrade.
BTW, I did earlier check your 'profile', and feared that we might be at odds on our belief systems, what with my normal rant against Fox personalities ... but I am here very much heartened that we could still have something in common ... I will attempt to continue with that assumption :-)
Thanks very much for your most gracious comment.
Peace, j.
David Beall, I caught that little dance you did - I think it's called the Republican Halfstep. If I understand it correctly, you're saying that the message that Bush stood in front of announcing unequivocally: "Mission Accomplished" was actually just relating to the crew of the USS Lincoln.
hmmmmm...................yeah right...............(nice twirl, though, David)
Let me ask you a question,
Do you want the U.S. to win the war in Iraq?
The fact that its been 2000 days since we've been attacked on our soil--and how many days before that?--simply points to the fact that we've been damned lucky relative to the rest of the world and no particular thanks or relevance to security here at home [not all that much] or the blood letting that is taking place in Iraq right now. The ultimate and way premature photo op known now as "Mission Accomplished" is just that--one more picture to be added to a montage illustrating the consequences of declaring war on Iraq--instead of focusing on Afghanistan. It wasn't a slam dunk and the mission--at least as Bush sees it--has not and will not be accomplished no matter how tall he tries to stand in the face of the Baker Commission Report--which from all accounts is pure pablum. Let's face it, the Iraqi's voted--and it didn't turn out the way we wanted; i.e., we weren't able to insert a "controllable" version of Sadam and now other regional players are going to have their say--for better or worse.
But wait a minute Missy, I thought you said we already had.
"and how were they to know that we would in fact superimpose our "picks" over their "picks" -- and are still doing it--and will have to do it yet again"
You can't have it both ways Missy.
There are rumors that negotiations with the insurgents are ongoing. I'm sure, if they are successful, it will be a "win." In reality, however, it'll be a negotiated truce.
Do I want us to "win"...or the war to stop? Of course. I believe our first national priority should be to get our soldiers out of harms way and our second should be to stop the unrestricted flow of money into this seemeingly bottomless pit.
The welfare of the Iraqi people is of concern, but why should it be of any greater concern than the welfare of the people of Darfur?
The security of the oil industry in Iraq has important economic implications, and that should perhaps be one of our main concerns.
I smell a familiar tune when I hear it -- the key word here is "controllable". As for facts and research, we are all paying now for the selective use and skewing of "facts" and "research," and propaganda couched in carefully crafted argument. As for having it both ways -- why not? Didn't Bush tell us we could? Have it both ways? Slam Dunk?
Jerry: since you've been back, I HAVE to ask; you, the peaceful guru did not study Confucius- you just channel him? lol
And Jerry, as to your other point - the winner was declared LONG AGO - whether YOU and your ilk (or myself), accept it or not is rather irrevelent.
Missy: Slam Dunk? THAT was Mr. Tennet, the CIA director of Clinton's also, whom many tried to get to act on Iraq -besides Monica's War- and spoke out strongly against him, to wit:
February, 1998 Tenet Head of C.I.A.- US President Bill Clinton remarks "(Hussein's) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act."
Senate Democrats also passed Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Of course, in the rewrite of history, the Dems will point out the wisdom of Clinton. Some of us others will point out his focus on the Camp David accords and his kissing Arafat's ass so he might get a Nobel Peace Prize - which Arafat screwed up by immediately declaring an intifada on Israel. Clinton did not want to risk pissing off the Arabs in a nutshell.
His Congress:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
David wants to call it old news. It is THE news... Iraq was only a danger to be dealt with when Bill was in charge. All of a sudden, he was compliant and a good citizen in the sandbox after 2000!
Thats funny.
David,
I was just going to ask Missy if she had missed her medication being that her post was so incoherent.
But maybe its a liberal thing? Or should I say a Bush bashing thing, as long as you're bashing bush you get a big thumbs up and you don't even have to make sense.
:-)
I want the Bush Administration to stop making policy decisions that ultimately breed more animosity towards the U.S., and empower those who do wish harm upon us. I want the Bush Administration to stop politicizing this war. Denying the fact that it is a civil war is plain retarded, and it makes us all look stupid to every other civilized nation in the world. Of course its a civil war. To try to convince people otherwise just makes you look silly.
Most of all, I dont want any more American soldiers to die on account of the collosal errors of made by the architects of this war.
As for "Mission Accomplished", Frank Rich's book "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" talks about that. Bush's "handlers" hired some Hollywood set coordinator to do their photo-ops not long before then. He was the genius behind Bush's televised address in front of shot of the Statue of Liberty in 2002. The banner was his Idea. As for the context of it's meaning, well, lets take Davids advice and go by what he said that day: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ceased."
Mission Accomplished.
Perhaps you "forgot" and doubled up on your meds and it makes you a bit "confused"? Or, perhaps you cut back on your dosage and it makes you a tad pugnacious and cranky--especially when Nursie won't argue with you. Either way, you get an A+ for figuring out that I don't like Bush or his incoherent policies. In the meantime, have a nice little nap and maybe you'll be able to think better when you wake up. Nurse might even bring you something special for dessert. Hopefully, you'll get to enjoy it before Bush blows us all up.