Both President Bush and Cheney have decided that it's a principle of political manhood to ignore the impact of the Iraq War on Republican chances in 2008. I can't find the link, but recently President Bush claimed that he wasn't following politics all that closely and that he was acting on "principle" instead. For Bush, ignoring Congress and public opinion on the war is a test of his character. Bush is determined to do what he wants whatever Congress thinks and he's daring the Democratic leadership to either cut off funding for the war or impeach him. One component of that test is whether he is willing to ignore public opinion to the extent that it hurts the Republicans. Bush appears to believed that changing his policies to avoid a Republican Party meltdown would be a sign of weakness, softness, or femininity. Given that he is determined to avoid all of these things, Bush is quite willing for the Republican Party to take a big fall in 2008.
The same is the case with Dick Cheney. In a May interview with Fox, Cheney announced that:
"We didn't get elected to be popular. We didn't get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party. Our mission is to do everything we can to prevail on what is now, we believe, a global conflict, a fundamental test of the character of the American people, whether or not we're going to be able to prevail against one of the most evil opponents we've ever faced."
Here, Cheney's telling Congressional Republicans that he doesn't care any more about what they think than he cares about the Democrats or anybody else thinks. For Cheney, anybody who disagrees with the Bush administration's vision of the war has failed a "fundamental test of character" and he expects Republicans to fall on their political swords rather than challenge Bush.
That's another test of character.
Posts
31 comments:
Are you actually arguing that Bush and Cheney should be impeached for putting the interest of the United States above that of the Republican Party?
Go ahead and run that one up the Democrats flagpole, perfessor, we can make it a double suicide.
Didn't Bush and Cheney throw out the interest of the United States when they leveraged 9-11 into an invasion of Iraq.
"Didn't Bush and Cheney throw out the interest of the United States when they leveraged 9-11 into an invasion of Iraq."
No. Is that all you got?
Exactly how was the invasion in American interest? Unless you think weakening the U. S. and strengthening our enemies is in our interest. Certainly, the invasion weaknened the U. S. militarily and diplomatically as well as divided the country. The invasion also strengthened al-Qaeda, created a new center of Islamic radicalism in Iraq, and led to terrorist training for streams of militants all over the Islamic world. Of course, you right-wingers might have developed a new concept of American interest.
The war in Iraq has undermined our efforts to fight terrorism. The Iraq war has made terrorism worse on a global scale. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous.The White House response is staggering in its total denial of the truth. What kind of logic is this? We send 150,000(apx) soldiers to Iraq, terrosism spreads. Where al-qaeda was non-existent, they are there. And the responce from The White House, 20,000 more troops!! Violence, terrorists and a full-blown civil war are the only things that Iraq has more of today. The only thing that will help America become safer is to face the truth. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous. Also, sectarian break-up of Iraq is inevitable now.The decision now is only how do they break it up, and what do they do about the oil revenue. This situation is an absolute mess. But this White House will not change course because that would require them to say, well, you know, we did the wrong thing when we let the whole Army go, when we let Abu Ghraib get out of hand. They are not capable of truth. The President has lost all credibility, and the world worries that another war will be waged in Iran in the name of regime change.Presidential advisers like the Vice President continue to encourage a policy of aggression. The President says one thing, but the Vice President says all options are on the table. We have to get out of Iraq. We have to get out now, not 2 years from now. We are killing them, they are killing us, and nothing is getting better. And the reasons we started this whole war have turned out to be false. The American people know this. The Iraqis can't help themselves until we get out. Right now, almost anything constructive that Iraqis do is seen as collaborating with the United States occupiers. We have to get out of the way so the Iraqis can solve their own problems.It is time for new orders to be issued. It is time to end the U.S. role in the Iraq civil war. It is not a war on terrorism; it is a civil war. We can't help; we just make good targets.
"And the reasons we started this whole war have turned out to be false."
We started the war with Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. We resumed it when we did because Saddam refused to honor the agreements of the cease-fire. You may have misunderstood what was happening, it appears to be a common problem for you, but some of us understood it all along.
"We started the war with Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. We resumed it when we did because Saddam refused to honor the agreements of the cease-fire."
That's absurdly naive. You don't really think that Bush and Cheney cared about whether Saddam honored the cease-fire agreements do you?
I do, but I would truly love to hear your theories on the matter, please stop being so coy.
Good God Michael. Even the Administration never used whatever tortured logic you just used to somehow link the current travesty in Iraq to anything about Kuwait. Or, maybe they did. Their reasons for starting this thing have changed so many times, it is hard to keep up so I might have missed "Kuwait-connection day."
A absurd point that can't even stand on its own if the purveyor happened to visit reality or history once in awhile. IF what B Moe/Michael says is true is true, then after Saddam responded to 1441 by allowing inspectors back in why did the President continue to ship arms and troops to Kuwait? Why did he try to win passage for the 4th ID to move through Turkey and into Kurdistan. Those preparations were not needed, Mike, since George had gamely won the diplomatic fight.
Of course, he did those things AND invaded Iraq, because the UN bull was a condition imposed upon Bush by Mr. Blair, who needed the political cover. Neither of them meant the UN thing and both knew they were going to invade anyway.
Seriously, you might want to go get RTO for this, because you're just not up to it.
"Exactly how was the invasion in American interest?"
Liberals are so shortsighted. Do you truly not understand the potential benefits of having democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq? You must not. For if you did, you would understand that it is a cause well worth fighting for, and YES, it IS in America's interest. Iraq is a war zone. It is the main front for the terrorists (as they have said themselves). They are trying their damndest to defeat us there through by killing thousands of innocents with car bombs. They use this tactic because they know there is no way they can defeat us militarily, so they use the American left as their proxy. Their p.r. campaign has worked very well, I admit, but only because every car bomb is used by the left as further evidence of why we should leave. Very naive. Very shortsighted. And very political.
"Certainly, the invasion weaknened the U. S. militarily and diplomatically as well as divided the country."
First off, what do you care about us being weaker militarily? People like you don't like or even want a military, so get off it.
Second, what kind of ignoramous would claim that a war in which the military has suffered (only) 3,500 deaths in almost 5 years of fighting has weakened said military. Wars strengthen militaries, especially if they are facing relatively few casualties.
Third, the only way we are weaker diplomatically from the Iraq war is if we listen to people like you and scurry out of there with our tail between our legs. We will have proven, 1) Bin Laden was right, we are weak, 2) Our allies can't trust us when the going gets tough, and 3) We can't win wars.
But maybe your right... being seen as weak will really strenghten us diplomatically. (???)
And lastly, from the very beginning of this war the left has made it its goal to bring about an American defeat in Iraq. THEY have divided this country on a subject that everyone should be united about.
"The invasion also strengthened al-Qaeda"
AQ is getting their a$$es handed to them in Iraq right now, if you haven't been paying attention.
"created a new center of Islamic radicalism in Iraq"
See previous comment.
"and led to terrorist training for streams of militants all over the Islamic world."
They would have ended up as radicals anyway. Let them go to Iraq so the greatest military the world has ever known can stop their heart. That's one less radical I have to worry about killing innocent Americans.
"Of course, you right-wingers might have developed a new concept of American interest."
Useless comment, Caric (are you really in 'academia' ???). Regardless, "right-wingers" believe in preserving our freedoms, and part of that means killing or otherwise neutralizing those who want to take those freedoms from us. Crazy, I know.
Caric, can you please do me a favor and name one thing that you love about America?
thanks
"...then after Saddam responded to 1441 by allowing inspectors back in why did the President continue to ship arms and troops to Kuwait?"
http://tinyurl.com/33yn2c
I am still waiting for why we really invaded.
Well, I can only infer from your post that you really, for once, care about what someone, besides Jeff or Dan, thinks, because you really don't know. You offer a fantastically ridiculous assertion, I destroy it, Todd laughs at it and you respond with a comic strip. I'd start with Cobra 2. After that read "The One Percent Doctrine" and then you might be ready for "the End of Iraq."
Get to it, Michael, you got some reading to do
I responded with a comic strip hoping to communicate, I see it was still over your head. So can anyone here elucidate a coherent response, rather than just refer me to someone else? Which I have to admit is an interesting strategy after blasting me repeatedly for not thinking for myself.
"You may have misunderstood what was happening, it appears to be a common problem for you, but some of us understood it all along."
So, if you understood it all along, why do you need anyone else to explain to you?
One sure sign of a progressive leaning mindset is difficulty in differentiating the meanings of want and need.
A brief history for the right wingers. The fervor for the war in Iraq was drummed up on a two fold approach. Saddam being linked to Al-qaeda, and Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Both lies and proven so in the public sphere. That's what caused this backlash against the war. Lies and deceit. I can't think of one person who disagreed when we invaded Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden. And why do you think that was the case? Because Bin Laden attacked us. Saddam didn't do jack. Didn't support Bin Laden, didn't have his hand in the 9/11 attacks, and didn't have WMD's.
Unless of course I've mysteriously been transported to Earth 2 by one of Brainiacs nefarious plots! Which sounds about as feasible as Michael's assertion for the war in Iraq!
"The fervor for the war in Iraq was drummed up on a two fold approach. Saddam being linked to Al-qaeda, and Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Both lies and proven so in the public sphere."
First of all, there is ample evidence of ties between AQ and Saddam, the 9/11 Commission even agreed to that. Second, it was widely believed that Saddam had some WMD, and that he was trying to acquire more. The first part was proven wrong, that doesn't mean that the people who believed it were liars, just that they were wrong. He was obviously trying to obtain more, and refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors.
"That's what caused this backlash against the war. Lies and deceit. I can't think of one person who disagreed when we invaded Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden."
Maybe this will jog your memory:
http://tinyurl.com/ytxy43
But all that aside, I have heard four different rebuttals to my opinion, and still no one will venture an alternate opinion of why they think we invaded. If Bush knew there were no WMDs or AQ involvement there, why wouldn't he just have some planted? It would have been easy as hell.
Michael, you might be interested in this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda
And why wouldn't he plant them? Because he believed the war would go so well that it wouldn't become an issue. He believed his own rhetoric and thought US troops would be hailed as liberators.
"Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were alleged by some U.S. Government officials to have established a highly secretive relationship between 1992 and 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service ... The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship..."
Notice they don't deny a link, just an operational relationship, and this is in hindsight after reviewing Saddam's papers. At the time no one was certain of anything, except that AQ had raised the stakes considerably.
"Because he believed the war would go so well that it wouldn't become an issue. He believed his own rhetoric and thought US troops would be hailed as liberators."
I can never get my mind around this blithering idiot/mad genius image you guys seem to have of Bush, but I really think it is a stretch to think that anyone could have thought this was going to be easy and there wouldn't be political hell on the way from the minority party.
And I still haven't heard any alternative reasons to invade Iraq, this is really getting tiresome.
wikipedia is not a reference.
If the whole world knew that Saddam did not have WMD's prior to the war, please direct us to the contemporaneous statements from the countries and/or their intelligence agencies that made that claim.
Did Saddam have links to AQ? Yes, that is indisputable. The standards change from links, to operational control, to blah, blah, blah but the fact remains that AQ was in Iraq prior to 9/11 and prior to the War. Ansar Al Islam. Zark was there prior to the war. Abu Nidal. Paying families cash to bomb Israelis. None of that means Saddam was connected to 9/11.
It is really pointless. You are believers in The Narrative.
You think there is any chance that Sparks or Caric will notice that Sparks last claim that Bush thought Iraq would be a cakewalk contradicts Caric's claim that Bush intentionally sold out the US by invading? Or that they would even care?
B Moe, did you actually just say the administration (who announced the end of "major" combat operations in May of 2003) believed the war would be hard? How irritatingly counter-factual. EVERYTHING they said prior to the war was replete with "liberators", their oil will pay for the invasion, US troops will be withdrawn in late 2003. this is public record. look up any testimony Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld had before Congress and check out the details.
As I said yesterday, RTO's much smarter than you are and you need him for over here. You just aren't prepared to debate anywhere but PW.
So you and sparks both agree that Bush thought the war and reconstruction would be easy and quick? Well then, what is with all the bullshit about Bush lying us into a quagmire? Caric is saying he sold us out, which would imply to me that he knew what he was getting into and did it anyway, you guys are saying he was just stupid, which is it? And still no one can come up with a reason why he invaded.
He thought it would done and easy and over by the time the 2004 election rolled around. I can't speak for Caric, but he seems to be implying the lies were to get into us into a war and the quagmire came later. No president would want a quagmire, even one us uniquely untalented as this one.
Since you keep going back to question within a question, is that ceasefire argument (the one easily debunked) the one you'd like to stick with? I find that hard to believe, given the relative sophistication of your usual tripe.
PS. It's sort of a compliment....
This is stupid.
Yes it is, todd. I said:
"We started the war with Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. We resumed it when we did because Saddam refused to honor the agreements of the cease-fire."
Ric Caric said...
That's absurdly naive. You don't really think that Bush and Cheney cared about whether Saddam honored the cease-fire agreements do you?
Then I said...
I do, but I would truly love to hear your theories on the matter, please stop being so coy.
...and all anyone can do is keep telling me I am wrong. I already understand you think that, all I want is to hear what you think led Bush to invade.
It wasn't that hard for me to put up a theory, why is it so difficult for you?
I hate to repeat myself but honestly, I already posted my argument that we were lied into the war and it is not working. I pointed out what has gone wrong and why we never should have set foot in Iraq. I gave you opinions based on facts as I have seen them. It is my point of view. Here it is again:
"The war in Iraq has undermined our efforts to fight terrorism. The Iraq war has made terrorism worse on a global scale. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous.The White House response is staggering in its total denial of the truth. What kind of logic is this? We send 150,000(apx) soldiers to Iraq, terrosism spreads. Where al-qaeda was non-existent, they are there. And the responce from The White House, 20,000 more troops!! Violence, terrorists and a full-blown civil war are the only things that Iraq has more of today. The only thing that will help America become safer is to face the truth. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous. Also, sectarian break-up of Iraq is inevitable now.The decision now is only how do they break it up, and what do they do about the oil revenue. This situation is an absolute mess. But this White House will not change course because that would require them to say, well, you know, we did the wrong thing when we let the whole Army go, when we let Abu Ghraib get out of hand. They are not capable of truth. The President has lost all credibility, and the world worries that another war will be waged in Iran in the name of regime change.Presidential advisers like the Vice President continue to encourage a policy of aggression. The President says one thing, but the Vice President says all options are on the table. We have to get out of Iraq. We have to get out now, not 2 years from now. We are killing them, they are killing us, and nothing is getting better. And the reasons we started this whole war have turned out to be false. The American people know this. The Iraqis can't help themselves until we get out. Right now, almost anything constructive that Iraqis do is seen as collaborating with the United States occupiers. We have to get out of the way so the Iraqis can solve their own problems.It is time for new orders to be issued. It is time to end the U.S. role in the Iraq civil war. It is not a war on terrorism; it is a civil war. We can't help; we just make good targets."
I give up.
michael - Go yell at a brick wall until it yells back. That is likely to be more successful than convincing todd mayo that AQ was not in Iraq prior to the war. They have their flawed beliefs, and they will stick to them, despite no substantive evidence, making up nefarious motive after nefarious motive and bizarre conspiracy theories that fit with their warped thinking.
Todd, we do not hate you, we just think you are wrong. The hate and the personal attacks come from your side, and though it is often responded to in kind, it eminates from the Left nonetheless.
Pat Tillman ordered to be murdered by Bu$HitlerCo? Wonkette speculates that the Left, fellow travelers, have their fingers crossed that Roberts died? Prof. Caric proclaims that all that do not agree with him are racist, sexist, misogynistic homophobes. Good group of people you choose to side with.
Well, I tried to explain myself without insult. I guess you people just can't stand it if you're not attacking. How sad that your only strategy is to attack and insult me and the other progressives who post here rather than say something substantive based upon fact. My apologies if I did this to you first but if I did why return in kind? We're wasting space with this stuff.
Post a Comment