Blame America First

It would appear that the reason things aren't going well in Iraq is that the American people are craven and weak. At least, that's according to Mort Kondracke, a right-wing columnist, as published in Roll Call (subscription only, so I've linked to a public blog discussing the article).

Great quotes from the newest branch of the Blame America First tree:

All over the world, scoundrels are ascendant, rising on a tide of American weakness. It makes for a perilous future.

President Bush bet his presidency — and America’s world leadership — on the war in Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though he bit off more than the American people were willing to chew.

The U.S. is failing in Iraq. Bush’s policy was repudiated by the American people in the last election. And now America’s enemies and rivals are pressing their advantage, including Iran, Syria, the Taliban, Sudan, Russia and Venezuela. We have yet to hear from al-Qaida.

Damn you, American voters! If not for your fecklessness, America would be triumphant! How dare you betray the Great Leader!

Oh wait Lemur the far right will soon get even more such comments in.

Unfortunately the valid comments will be hidden behind the Far-Right fringe lunancy.

Almost makes me cringe to be a conservative, having the far-right show such disregard for the democratic republic process of the nation.

For more "joyful" reading of the right this site sometimes has links to some acid filled right leaning editorials

http://townhall.com/

(make sure you have an active ad blocker running since the nasty capitialists of the site will attempt to overwhelm you with pop-up ads.)

Enjoy the reading. I found Prager's article on the recent election of a muslim to congress deeply distrubing. :no:

That's a great grab-bag site, Redleg. Finally, someone has the guts to talk about the War on Christmas. I was wondering if I was going to hear about it at all this year.

It will be interesting to see how far and wide this "Americans are too weak and stupid to support Bush" meme will spread.

Well I think it would have been different if Al Gore got in, but the Recount screwed that up. Johny Kerry could have got him in, but his morals were screwed up, and the Vietnam commicals and false Papers about Bush screwed him up also..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It will be interesting to see how far and wide this "Americans are too weak and stupid to support Bush" meme will spread.

---

Well that site contains what I view as the majority of the right leaning voices in the States. Some are a bit far right from my views but sometimes it makes for interesting reading material. Haven't found a good left leaning "grab-bag" site yet to balance the information from townhall if you know of any send me a link.

While I am very consersative in most of my opinions and politics on the national level - I often find myself drawn to the more socialized policies for my community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It would appear that the reason things aren't going well in Iraq is that the American people are craven and weak.

---

Slaughter and stuff me if I'm wrong, Lemur, but that is not what the guy says. He does not speak about 'weak Americans', he speaks of 'American weakness' due to the outcome of the last elections.

Besides, at least this guy has a view on what should happen with regard to Iraq. You can't say that about the present majority in Congress.

Last I checked, America never had a definitive withdrawl policy in Iraq. It feels to me like we went in guns blazing and then figured the Iraqi people would be so grateful to be out from under the yoke of Saddam Hussain that they'd spontaneously become a democracy.

Americans are slowing beginning to realize that the costs of this military campaign are going to be very, very steep. That's why Bush's approval rating is in the toilet right now. He said it wasn't going to be a quagmire, and it is.

This is exactly the reason why we didn't push to Bagdad in '91.


And calling the American weak-willed simply because they are no longer willing to support a war they are beginning to realize they don't understand the purpose of is unfair. Just because we're in the middle of a conflict doesn't mean the democratic process should come to a screetching halt. Some Right-Wingers have the mentality that if you don't support the Republicans, you are somehow un-American. That type of thinking is actually what is unamerican, to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Enjoy the reading. I found Prager's article on the recent election of a muslim to congress deeply distrubing. :no:

---

You mean this one?

I think he had a valid point when he said that jews and atheists were also obliged to swear an oath on the Bible. But to say that letting him swear his oath on the Qu'ran is going to usher in the Islamiztion of America...:inquisitive:
Is there even any legal reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

This is exactly the reason why we didn't push to Bagdad in '91.

---

Just for the sake of Historical accuracy: The reason we did not "push on" to Baghdad is that we had a very clear mandate to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The recent mandate against Iraq was intentionally vague and the US filled in the blank spots.

If we would have continued to occupy the country, we would immediately loose the coalition and it would be a very different war. Remember what happened when we were so confident in Korea that we forsook (oh, God, that’s spelled correctly?) our goal of pushing NK back and decided to push on to the Yalu river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

He does not speak about 'weak Americans', he speaks of 'American weakness' due to the outcome of the last elections.

---

It's a fine point, but I'm happy to grant it to ya. The bottom line is that this particular editorialist blames the American voters for not supporting the Great Leader. And I use the term "blame" advisedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

You mean this one?

---

Yep

Quote:

---

I think he had a valid point when he said that jews and atheists were also obliged to swear an oath on the Bible.

---

That point I agreed with

Quote:

---

But to say that letting him swear his oath on the Qu'ran is going to usher in the Islamiztion of America...:inquisitive:

---

That is the part that distrubed me.

Quote:

---

Is there even any legal reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so?

---

Not that I am aware of. I took an oath of office when I took a commission - and I did not have to place my hand on the bible. All I had to do was swear or affirm my committment to the Constitution and the Officers appointed over me. I can not see where the Oath for Office for a Congressman requires swearing on a bible or the Qu'ran. I rather see them swear to uphold the constitution regardless of what holy book, god or philisophy that they affirm that oath with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The bottom line is that this particular editorialist blames the American voters for not supporting the Great Leader.

---

Well, pluck me and hang me out to dry, but all he does is criticise the majority.

He says the majority made the wrong choice, resulting in what he perceives as a weak policy. What is so bad about that?

I remember you being far harsher on the majority of your fellow citizens who do not support your fiscal conservatism. Lack of intelligence and abundance of gelatinous body mass were among the least of your insults.

Me and my 5% nation of fiscal conservatives will one day rule the world. Or maybe a county. Okay, maybe just a library board. And a minority on the board. But still!

Um, right, I'm a hypocrite for criticizing a far-right loonbat who argues that the majority of Americans are betraying America. And if I've ever assumed a minority opinion, I'm not entitled to poke fun at somebody who says the majority of Americans are letting America down.

Are you going somewhere with this, or did you feel a need to call the lemur out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Just for the sake of Historical accuracy: The reason we did not "push on" to Baghdad is that we had a very clear mandate to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The recent mandate against Iraq was intentionally vague and the US filled in the blank spots.

If we would have continued to occupy the country, we would immediately loose the coalition and it would be a very different war. Remember what happened when we were so confident in Korea that we forsook (oh, God, that’s spelled correctly?) our goal of pushing NK back and decided to push on to the Yalu river.

---

I was under the distinct impression that there were several people American Military "higher ups" who absolutely DID want to push on to Bagdad at the time, but Schwartzkopf and Powell (among others) recommended against it, because of the reasons that you mentioned (the mission was, for all intents and purposes, "accomplished").

But had "hotter" heads prevailed, I think we probably would have experienced in 95 exactly what we're experiencing today: The occupation of a semi-hostile Iraq, with no imminent withdrawal possible.

Heck, beginning with WWII, America has always kept military forces in those countries she has defeated. We still have bases in Japan, German, and South Korea (technically not defeated). I'm unsure of Italy.

Perhaps America has no withdrawl strategy for Iraq because they never planned on withdrawing... I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Me and my 5% nation of fiscal conservatives will one day rule the world. Or maybe a county. Okay, maybe just a library board. And a minority on the board. But still!

Um, right, I'm a hypocrite for criticizing a far-right loonbat who argues that the majority of Americans are betraying America. And if I've ever assumed a minority opinion, I'm not entitled to poke fun at somebody who says the majority of Americans are letting America down.

Are you going somewhere with this, or did you feel a need to call the lemur out?

---

Actually, Lemur, I have to respect the fact that you consider yourself a conservative and are still willing to critisize other conservatives when they make crazy statements.

Far too many people just take the side of whoever is politically aligned with them, even if they statements they are supporting are ridiculous.

I don't know either. I like to think that the occupation of Iraq is part of a long-term, comprehensive strategy in the Middle East but I'm not sure. One thing I am for sure of though is that the region is definitely in need of change. However, knowing ahead of time about our criticized “lack of will", I'm not quite sure what the plan was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh wait Lemur the far right will soon get even more such comments in.

Unfortunately the valid comments will be hidden behind the Far-Right fringe lunancy.

Almost makes me cringe to be a conservative, having the far-right show such disregard for the democratic republic process of the nation.

For more "joyful" reading of the right this site sometimes has links to some acid filled right leaning editorials

http://townhall.com/

(make sure you have an active ad blocker running since the nasty capitialists of the site will attempt to overwhelm you with pop-up ads.)

Enjoy the reading. I found Prager's article on the recent election of a muslim to congress deeply distrubing. :no:

---

American Conservative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Are you going somewhere with this, or did you feel a need to call the lemur out?

---

Turn me over and smother me in gravy, but I believe you have shot your own straw turkey.

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

And no, I am not the devil's advocate. The Master doesn't need one. I am his masseur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

---

Correct and correct.

Quote:

---

And no, I am not the devil's advocate. The Master doesn't need one. I am his masseur.

---

I thought you were his sommelier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Turn me over and smother me in gravy...

---

Is it just me, or are these little expressions becoming more and more like innuendos as you progress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

---

And now for what the writer actually wrote:

All over the world, scoundrels are ascendant, rising on a tide of American weakness. It makes for a perilous future.

"All over the world scoundrels are ascendant" doesn't sound like a reasonable or reasoned argument to this lemur. It's a rather hysterical sentiment, really. "Rising on a tide of American weakness" -- nothing about creating a "weak impression," as you soft-shoe it. The language is absolute.

President Bush bet his presidency — and America’s world leadership — on the war in Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though he bit off more than the American people were willing to chew.

Take a look at that last sentence again: "more than the American people were willing to chew." You state that the author "does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven.' " This hinges on whether or not you believe the American peoples' masticatory abilities have any relationship to their fortitude. It certainly sounds to this lemur as though the reasoning is: America is becoming weak, because American's can't take this war. You are free to explore alternate readings, of course.

You write that "American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee." Earlier, you castigated the new Congress for "not having a clue" about what to do with Iraq.

Honestly, we are faced with at most three or four alternatives, all of them bad. If people are hesitant to declare which policy they believe to be least-bad, you can at least understand where they're coming from. Choosing from a menu of unsavory outcomes is not any politician's idea of a good time.

If you still want to defend this lummox, I have no doubt you'll let me know.

Simply addressing your first quote it seems quite reasonable to me. He isn’t exactly speaking in txt msg and seems very well spoken. Compare that sentence to something someone on the extreme left would say (i.e. “He lied to us! He prayed on our fears!!” a la Algore).

It’s an opinion piece: scoundrels are ascendant means that democrats have been elected. Calling the likes of Pelosi and Murtha scoundrels is his personal opinion and one shared by many. You’re reading too much into this and adding your own bias.

I thought "blaming America first over anything" was Leftist turf. Is nothing safe from these gun-toting WASP scoundrels anymore...? :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This hinges on whether or not you believe the American peoples' masticatory abilities have any relationship to their fortitude.

---

The author decries their lack of masticatory 'willingness', not 'abilities'. He doesn't say they gave up chewing, he says they chose not to. And he deplores that choice.

The author's political leanings are probably further removed from Adrian's than they are from the Lemur's, but he has a point when he stresses the impression of weakness. That is an added burden, on top of the unsavoury choices Washington faces. And to make things even worse, Democratic leaders such as Senator Levin, Congressman Murtha and Speaker Pelosi are now demanding a timetable for withdrawal. Such timetables are Ye Compleat and Utter Idiot's Solution to Militarye Intervention.

*childlike voice: 'Master, may I recommend a heady Chianti to go with that tasty timetable?' *

Mort's far closer to being a moderate than a "right-wing moonbat" Lemur. Unless you've read more of him than this, I'd suggest you not form your opinions based on the rantings of a left-wing blog. Read up.

Quote:

---

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

---

Bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It’s an opinion piece: scoundrels are ascendant means that democrats have been elected. Calling the likes of Pelosi and Murtha scoundrels is his personal opinion and one shared by many. You’re reading too much into this and adding your own bias.

---

Pelosi and Murtha are not "all over the world," as his first sentence reads. If his meaning matched your reading, it would read that in Washington scoundrels are ascendant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The author's political leanings are probably further removed from Adrian's than they are from the Lemur's, but he has a point when he stresses the impression of weakness.

---

The author never discussed impression, appearance or facade. He refers to the reality of weakness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Mort's far closer to being a moderate than a "right-wing moonbat" Lemur. Unless you've read more of him than this, I'd suggest you not form your opinions based on the rantings of a left-wing blog.

---

I missed you too, Xiahou. Mort's spent too much of his time on the Fox News Channel for my liking, and in this editorial, yes, I think he's being a moonbat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

...it would read that in Washington scoundrels are ascendant.

---

Isn't this always the case?

If Iraq really was the watershed issue of this last election, and most polls/pundits feel that to be the case, then:

The American public collectively saying "this phase of the war on terror has been malfed up -- come up with something much more effective" is a very appropriate response. Even accepting the need for regime change in Iraq (and most did at the time but NOT everyone), lots of things were mis-handled.

However, if:

The American public is collectively saying "we will not support a difficult policy that costs us lives and treasure without producing a definitive result within the space of one administration" -- an interpretation I fear to be accurate -- then the USA is marginalizing itself as a power, as an ally, and as an active promoter of Western-style freedom and democracy.

If you are not willing to expend the lives of your military to achieve political objectives, you will give ground to those who will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

However, if:

The American public is collectively saying "we will not support a difficult policy that costs us lives and treasure without producing a definitive result within the space of one administration" -- an interpretation I fear to be accurate -- then the USA is marginalizing itself as a power, as an ally, and as an active promoter of Western-style freedom and democracy. If you are not willing to expend the lives of your military to achieve political objectives, you will give ground to those who will.

---

Yup. I hate to see the U.S. making mistakes, but I hate to see the country turn its back on its firmest commitments even more.

My true Master, I must confess, is not Baäl-Zebub, Lord of the Flies (Book of Kings II, 1:2-8), but Anthony Cordesman, He of Superior Standing in U.S. Iraq Policy-Making Circles.

Cordesman regularly produces reports, fact sheets, briefs and press brfiefings for CSIS on the situation. I have come to respect him as an expert of profound political insight. Cordesman has recently given a briefing in connection with the Iraq Study Group process. He stressed hat the situation on the ground in Iraq is far, far worse than the White House will admit and that it is needlessly compounded by a lack of leadership in Washington, and this on both sides of the aisle. However, the worst 'solution' for everyone concerned would be to find the easy way out:

This is a time which to have any hope of succeeding, you are going to need a level of leadership which admits the risk, the costs, and past mistakes. That is a choice for the administration to make. I do think it is perhaps unfair to say that the administration has not actively sought to deal
with many of the problems I am raising. If it has exaggerated its successes and understated the causes of its problems, it has talked about a sustained effort, about a long war.

We don’t know what the efforts are going on in the joint staff or the National
Security Council, but I think they are based on a high degree of realism, at least as to the scale of the problem. I am much more concerned about the realism over the need for economic aid to fix the Iraqi force development effort to be more objective there.

I think, too, one of the problems when we talk about the Congress is the Congress has not yet met, the leadership has not taken strong positions. When you look at some of the most important people of the new Congress, like Senator Biden, they have put forward ideas, but they have also talked about the need to be flexible and responsive, and set priorities that look beyond the immediate moment.

I think this is going to be a real crisis for American society. If all we do is react to past failures by trying to find the easiest way out, or some simply option we can use as at least an excuse, then we necessarily will make things far worse.

Interesting stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If you are not willing to expend the lives of your military to achieve political objectives, you will give ground to those who will.

---

I don't think remaining stuck essentially impotent smack in the middle of a local approximation of the Yugoslav wars crossbred with the old bad days in Lebanon is a particularly more fruitful situation, though. It's Devil if you do and Devil if you don't, and around the exact one aspect of the whole mess that wasn't FUBARed from the word go was the actual military conquest anyway.

There's such a thing as painting yourself into a corner with a succession of poor choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The author decries their lack of masticatory 'willingness', not 'abilities'. He doesn't say they gave up chewing, he says they chose not to. And he deplores that choice.

---

Nah, that's not really what he said. He said the scoundrels were rising on a tide of American weakness. You can't choose to be weak, you either are or you aren't. And the phrase is usually "bit off more than you could chew"; he changed "could" to "willing" in his article because it's he knows we could chew it. He's saying the decision was made out of weakness when for many people it's simply a cause they don't believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I missed you too, Xiahou. Mort's spent too much of his time on the Fox News Channel for my liking, and in this editorial, yes, I think he's being a moonbat.

---

I wish I could take the blinders off like you and realize that anyone, even a former editor for the New Republic becomes a right-wing hack just because they take a job at a certain news network... but then, I guess I'll never be a moderate. :wink:

Quote:

---

in this editorial, yes, I think he's being a moonbat

---

I think we'd all be better able to comment if we could read the whole column instead of selected excerpts chosen for a hit-piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Nah, that's not really what he said. He said the scoundrels were rising on a tide of American weakness. You can't choose to be weak, you either are or you aren't. And the phrase is usually "bit off more than you could chew"; he changed "could" to "willing" in his article because it's he knows we could chew it. He's saying the decision was made out of weakness when for many people it's simply a cause they don't believe in.

---

In world politics I'd say there's often little difference between perceived weakness and actual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

In world politics I'd say there's often little difference between perceived weakness and actual.

---

If the author is an example I'd have to say you're right. What harmful effects are supposed to come from being perceived weak by the way?

Other countries will try and get away with more stuff than they might otherwise- stuff you wouldn't want to happen. Like building big walls and parking missiles off your coast, or storming your embassy.

I recall a Vietcong general saying they tested Ford's or Carter's (forget which, exactly) will by launching an attack upon south vietnam to see how they responded.

Currently, think assorted terrorist groups (we just have to hold them off for an administration or less if the dems are in power!) and Iran.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What harmful effects are supposed to come from being perceived weak by the way?

---

Hello Sasaki,

In any conflict the perception of weakness emboldens the enemy. Recall one of Bin Laden's early tacks revolving around his declaration of war against the U.S. played off of the strong horse/weak horse comparison. He said a person will naturally be drawn to the strong horse. Thus the perception of strength or weakness plays directly into rhetoric of conflict as well as diplomacy in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Other countries will try and get away with more stuff than they might otherwise- stuff you wouldn't want to happen. Like building big walls and parking missiles off your coast, or storming your embassy.

I recall a Vietcong general saying they tested Ford's or Carter's (forget which, exactly) will by launching an attack upon south vietnam to see how they responded.

Currently, think assorted terrorist groups (we just have to hold them off for an administration or less if the dems are in power!) and Iran.

CR

---

Yeah, and then we don't let them, and they say "oh, I guess you weren't weak after all. Problem solved. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Yup. I hate to see the U.S. making mistakes, but I hate to see the country turn its back on its firmest commitments even more.

---

Based on this post, it seems that your argument is not so much in favor of three hysterical paragraphs from Roll Call Magazine, but rather against a muddled and defeatist approach to the war in Iraq. You've sniped at the Congress that won't even be in place for another month for not having a clear plan. You've shown disdain for the "committee" issuing reports and suggestions for how the U.S. should proceed. It seems only fair to ask what the Adrian II policy would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

I was under the distinct impression that there were several people American Military "higher ups" who absolutely DID want to push on to Bagdad at the time, but Schwartzkopf and Powell (among others) recommended against it, because of the reasons that you mentioned (the mission was, for all intents and purposes, "accomplished").

But had "hotter" heads prevailed, I think we probably would have experienced in 95 exactly what we're experiencing today: The occupation of a semi-hostile Iraq, with no imminent withdrawal possible.

---

Confirmation of your theory, in handy video format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You've sniped at the Congress that won't even be in place for another month for not having a clear plan.

---

Noper. I have sniped at Democratic Congress leaders who have been at the center of federal politics for years, yet whose only notion of Iraq policy seems to consist of a quick and murky withdrawal that leaves nothing accomplished. On the other hand, we have a White House that doesn't have a clue and is dying to blame the lack of accomplishment in Iraq on the Democrats on account of their negative attitude and their refusal to 'stay the course'.

The likely outcome of this impasse is, indeed, a quick and murky withdrawal that leaves nothing accomplished. Meanwhile on the ground America is dealing with enemies who profoundly appreciate that outcome. All they have left to ask for, really, is a timetable.

I doubt we'll see a withdrawal while Bush is still in office. After he leaves office, I wouldn't want to guess what will happen though...

I think we will see a more contrarian Congress that will oppose his Iraq policy more and more- but they'd never have the stomach to cut funding and force a withdrawal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The likely outcome of this impasse is, indeed, a quick and murky withdrawal that leaves nothing accomplished. Meanwhile on the ground America is dealing with enemies who profoundly appreciate that outcome. All they have left to ask for, really, is a timetable.

---

It's beginning to look like that to me, too. Some kind of clumsy, tragic Saigon evacuation redux.

If that happens, we forfeit any standing to even have a opinion on what happens in the rest of the world, for a generation. We should then sell our nuclear arsenal to Canada, cut our military manpower by 95%, turn the US Navy into a tuna boat fleet, apply for membership in the EU - and wait, with the rest of the world, crouching, quivering in the corner, for the next terrorist to say "BOO!".

And apologize to Iraq people for yet again giving them false hope. And apologize to America people for the disgusting waste of resource, and the sqandering of a world leadership position/opportunity on cheap floozy military adventures.

I almost wish my country's leadership would take up drinking again. Maybe then they'd remember what leadership is - we haven't seen it here for years.

Uh-oh; this turned into an off-topic rant. I'm sorry. With my own son in Iraq, my personal stake in the outcome of events there, and my boiling frustration with the dullards in DC, all got the best of me.

OK. So did the half-dozen beers.

I'll shut up now, and resume my "hope for the best, plan for the worst" persona tomorrow. Thanks for your time. :bow:

KukriKhan, I think there is a ray of light, dim as it might be, in recent events in Iraq. With al-Maliki seemingly close to going under, and the coalition which is set to replace him not at all in favor of U.S. occupation, there is a possibility that a new government might actually ask the U.S. to withdraw.

While such a solution would probably mean that Bush and Co. could save at least some face, I don't really care. Even if it saves Bush's bacon from the fire, the point is to get our troops home from a pointless entanglement.

Meanwhile, I noticed that one of the prime architects of this little fiasco has resigned. Rumsfeld's "hatchetman" in the Pentagon, Stephen Cambone, will be stepping down with his boss at the end of the year. (Pentagon intelligence chief resigns). This really comes as no big surprise, after the recent elections. If Cambone stayed, then he would certainly be sent multiple subpoenas to appear before various Congressional committees to testify under oath. He may still end up having to do so. He is believed by some to be the guy who pushed for pro-war intelligence. He is believed to be the guy who enabled the "softening up" of detainees (torture) at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. There's even a legend that one general joked to a Congressional staffer not long ago, "If I had one round left in my revolver, I would take out Stephen Cambone." He's also being tried in absentia by Germany for war crimes related to Abu Ghraib, under their controversial universal jurisdiction theory. He certainly won't be able to vacation in Germany any time soon. :wink:

The majority of Blame America First policy comes from the liberal left, not from conservatives. Allow me to provide some examples:

*9/11 was a result of American Middle East Policy and our "thirst for oil" (excuse us for purchasing a product at prices established by the sellers.)

*Global Warming is a result of American capitalism driven by base consumer culture.

*North Korea has nuclear weapons because America isn't engaging in unilateral discussions with Kim.


Pretty unfair of you to attack an individual's viewpoint as "blaming America first" when the author clearly is frustrated with the gutless instant gratification culture of the American liberal left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

*9/11 was a result of American Middle East Policy and our "thirst for oil" (excuse us for purchasing a product at prices established by the sellers.)

---

Actually on that they aren't wrong. Just not for the reasons you might think. 9/11 happened because of Gulf war 1. By an extremely narrow intrpretation of the Koran any state that encompases Mecca and Medina is sacred Muslim ground. Thusly Saudi Arabia as a whole is sacred ground. By that same view point it's a huge sin for Muslims to allow infidels (Christians) onto that sacred ground. Thus when the US and the NATO send troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 the Saudi government engaged in a huge sin by letting Christians (who then had the audacity to go and celebrate christmas for all to see) North Americans and Europeans onto holy Saudi soil. Bin Laden was a person who held such views. To him the Sauds allowing the US and it's allies into Saudi Arabia was submission to infidel interests. This turned his wrath from Russia to the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The majority of Blame America First policy comes from the liberal left, not from conservatives.

---

You're arriving at the pile-on a bit late, aren't you? Anyway, the entire point of the over-parsed three paragraphs I originally posted were that the author was angry at the voters for not "staying the course." He was blaming America, only from an angle you aren't used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Pretty unfair of you to attack an individual's viewpoint as "blaming America first" when the author clearly is frustrated with the gutless instant gratification culture of the American liberal left.

---

Thank you for illustrating my original point. If and when the Iraq War seems like a terminally bad idea, there will be blame-slinging aplenty, and I have no doubt that a fraction of the right will cast their blame blanket on the American voters for their lack of character. You've chosen to qualify your condemnation with the "American liberal left" phrase, which is interesting, since the "American liberal left" has about as much clout as the fiscal conservatives. Which is to say, oh, 5% or so. There are more self-identified "conservatives" than "liberals" in the U.S., if you choose to believe polls. So which subset of the American electorate are we going to blame for Iraq, if Iraq turns out the way it looks it will turn out?

Quote:

---

Yeah, and then we don't let them

---

Oh? Remind me what Carter did to free the hostages and what the world has done to stop Iran from getting nukes? Nothing, and the EU continues its thumb twiddling.

CR

Would you like to explain to me what exactly has the US has thus far managed to do about the Irani nukes that the rest of the world didn't anyway then, oh Super Macho Man ? :coffeenews:

And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?

---

Oach...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Maybe then they'd remember what leadership is - we haven't seen it here for years.

---

Bush Senior was a leader. During the 1990-1991 Quwait crisis he forged (1) internal consensus, (2) an international coalition that included most of Iraq's unstable neighbours as well as the about-to-be-dissolved Soviet Union, and (3) a good operational plan. You can say whatever you want about the wisdom of that intervention, but it was well-prepared, well-led and quickly concluded. In the present Iraq operation, the internal consensus and the multilateral approach are missing and there has been no operational plan including the staff and means to implement it. Bush, Rumsfeld and others pretended they could 'go it alone' in every sense of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?

---

Because this President thought he could pull off an invasion on the basis of a pack of lies, without the full backing of Congress or his own military staff and practically without international support. The inevitable fall-out is now blamed on the opposition, instead of where it belongs.

Nah, it's not just Iraq. The same "spineless weaklings of the home front backstabbed our brave warriors" argumentation happens over Vietnam too, after all. Seen it myself. That's why I'm kind of curious, also of if the proponents of such thinking quite realize the pedigree of the basic idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Nah, it's not just Iraq. The same "spineless weaklings of the home front backstabbed our brave warriors" argumentation happens over Vietnam too, after all. Seen it myself. That's why I'm kind of curious, also of if the proponents of such thinking quite realize the pedigree of the basic idea.

---

I doubt it, Watchman. People who believe such nonsense aren't usually capable of grasping irony, especially when it's they who are being unintentionally ironic. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

You mean this one?

---

I have a few questions on this area.

Why is it that one has to swear on the Bible to take public office, if there's supposed to be some separation of church and state. If you're a congressman aren't you then part of the State?

Why swear on anything at all? its already against the law to abuse your position in office.

Second sort of unrelated question is; If in court as a witness, do you also have to swear on the Bible (i.e. "do you agree to tell the truth ...so help you God")? if you don't believe in God then what does your oath mean?
Surely the religious aspects of any state procedure or ritual should be removed in favour of something that is more relevant to the multicultural population of America.

If God is out of Schools, then sHe should be off the money, out of the court and out of the rituals of politics as well. Shouldn't sHe?

Never heard of the author but he has a point when he says that it is more then americans are willing to chew. The insurgents understand america a whole lot better then vica versa, and they understand that the real war is fought in the public opinion within america's borders. Terror works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?

---

I did a search and came up with no hits in google or wikipedia for Dolchschlagslegende. What is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh? Remind me what Carter did to free the hostages

---

Actually, I just watched a "Military Blunders" show on cable that talked about the rescue attempt. Apparently Carter approved a military operation to free the hostages, but it was, for all intents and purposes, a failure. They lost several helicopters (there was actually a collision between a helicopter and a transport plane) in the operation.

After that failure, the Iranians freed the hostages because the Shaw was overthrown and the Iatola came to power, which is what the Iranian people wanted anyway, so the need for the hostages ceased to exist.


So Carter's administration did make an attempt to rescue them. To be honest, some blame for the operation's failure should lie on his shoulders, since he was the commander in chief at the time. But there was plenty of blame to go around. He was in a difficult situation and I'm not sure that Regan or any other president could have been more successful. The Iranians did NOT want to negotiate, BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

I did a search and came up with no hits in google or wikipedia for Dolchschlagslegende. What is it?

---

It should be Dolchstosslegende. It originates in WW1, it blames part of the people itself and it's politicians for not supporting, if not downright sabotaging the war effort. The German capitulation is a prime example, some people just couldn't understand why the government had surrendered when German troops were still fighting (and holding) the frontier, and these people would have preferred to fight till the last man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

It should be Dolchstosslegende. It originates in WW1, it blames part of the people itself and it's politicians for not supporting, if not downright sabotaging the war effort. The German capitulation is a prime example, some people just couldn't understand why the government had surrendered when German troops were still fighting (and holding) the frontier, and these people would have preferred to fight till the last man.

---

Thanks!


And BWAHAHA!


I love it when people assert that the people should support the government and not vice versa. Usually these people were the LOUDEST complainers during the Clinton administration.

It's Stoss ? Drat. Last I saw it written it was Schlag...

Quote:

---

Apparently Carter approved a military operation to free the hostages, but it was, for all intents and purposes, a failure. They lost several helicopters (there was actually a collision between a helicopter and a transport plane) in the operation.

After that failure, the Iranians freed the hostages because the Shaw was overthrown and the Iatola came to power, which is what the Iranian people wanted anyway, so the need for the hostages ceased to exist.

---

He also required that the soldiers take along non-lethal crowd control measures and attempt to use non-lethal means to disperse any opposing or hostile crowds or people they encountered, and worried about Iranian casualties.

Also, the hostages were taken during (or sometime around, not exactly sure) the revolution and held long after it was over, and released on the day Reagan came to power. Gee, I wonder if the Iranians didn't percieve him to be as weak as Carter?

Crazed Rabbit

I always assumed the war with Iraq might of have had something to do with it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

It's Stoss ? Drat. Last I saw it written it was Schlag...

---

Stoss, schlag...same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

We should then sell our nuclear arsenal to Canada,

---

"We" won't take it. Canada became a nuclear weapon-free country shortly after the States put the muscle on the government to can the Avro Arrow deal, and Diefenbaker copped out by saying that the money would be heading towards nuclear weapons. Shortly thereafter (six months? A year? I don't remember), it was announced that Canada wouldn't do the nuclear weapon thing.

I'm sure Canada will buy your supersonic interceptors at a reduced price, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also, the hostages were taken during (or sometime around, not exactly sure) the revolution and held long after it was over, and released on the day Reagan came to power. Gee, I wonder if the Iranians didn't percieve him to be as weak as Carter?

Crazed Rabbit

---

ALGIERS ACCORDS

The US signed this at the date you see in the link. Reagan became president at January 20 1981. See a connection?

And they were terrified, so terrified that they took that arms deal 4 years later...

Thanks for posting that Algiers link, I was looking for one to post.

The Algiers accord is the "reason" Bush would not honor the damages given to the former hostages by siezing Iranian assets a couple of years ago. It is also the reason we have ignored Iranian nuclear progress. You see, if we were to get involved, and breach the accords non-intervention agreement, the Iranians may start
unclassifying documents that would be severely damaging to certain people in the United States. Funny how one of
the hostage takers is preident of Iran now, too. Even funnier to think that future arms sales and a don't-release-until-after-the-election scenario wasn't being discussed by the negotiator who just happened to running for president back home.

Dang, this world is a big place, yet we all keep running into the same people everytime something stinks.

"Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho. We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away -- even though they're bad guys -- that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way." --George H. Bush after Desert Storm

"We didn't have the troops to go into Baghdad because it would have turned into a long-term, guerilla war, with us as the occupying force. All at the same time, our
soldiers would have been acting as police to keep the country from falling into civil war, they'd have to secure the borders of Iraq from outside interests, and they'd have to fight the Iraqi army. We just don't have a plan for something like that, it was not a good idea" -- Dick Cheney, 1993

The commanders on the ground will have that which they need. And they have yet to say, "We need a substantial number of troops."
And if the commanders were to bring forth a request, I would look at it, I would listen to it very seriously and implement the request. -- George W. Bush, December 2004