You guys are kidding, right? There might not be a single claim Boortz makes here that is factually true or which stands up to more than a minutes reflection.
Quote:We are fighting a war against terror.
No, you're not. You're told this, you've bought it, you repeat it. You've attacked and occupied a country without evidenciary connection to 9-11. You'd been told there was a connection, and you bought that story. More recently, it's been admitted that there wasn't a connection after all(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush) but, somehow, it is still justified as 'part of the war on terror', and you buy that.
Yes we are.
Iraq remains a part of the war on Terror even though there is no direct or appreciably indirect link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11.
Irrespective of how the mission is going (Not so badly as some would have it and not so well as we might otherwise have hoped or expected), if it succeeds, and results in a free and democratic Arab state within the Middle East, it has an excellent chance of delivering a crushing blow to the forces in the region who have centered their ambitions on the use of terror.
Given the oppressive grip of the despotic regimes within the region, violent, fundamentalist Islam has become the only viable avenue for the opposition of the people.
Surely we do not need to engage in a debate on whether or not men like Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi are freedom fighters or would be conquerers. They do not offer the people of the Middle East anymore of a democratic or freedom based alternative to the despots than did the Iranian mullahs.
There is no assurance that even if the mission succeeds, that a democratic Iraq can work in offering the people of the Middle East an alternative to the terrorists' way, but it presents a viable possibility.
What is the alternative to this approach?
Work to bring down the despots? Didn't we do that in Iraq?
Do so in a more peaceful manner, and leave the vacuum to be filled by the fundamentalists?
Underlying all of these considerations is the fact that our economy, as well as that of the world's, is dependent upon a continued flow of Middle Eastern oil. Avoiding the consequences of a major disruption of this flow must always be major goal, whether or not it squares with the sensibilities of the people who take the rewards of free flowing Middle Eastern oil for granted.
What the Islamic terrorist attacks have taught us is that we cannot continue to ignore the will and wishes of the people of the Middle East in our foreign policy strategy for the region.
For certain, some traditional Liberals saw the promise of this approach and the soundness of its reasoning, but, obviously, not all. There are those on the Left for whom any war is immoral and to be opposed, and there are others for whom any war led by a Republican is immoral and to be opposed. Others on the Left cannot believe that there are any good intentions at the heart of American foreign policy.
Quote:The problem here is that not everyone is on board.
No, it's not a problem. That is, it's not a problem unless one believes that divergent opinion is a problem. Boortz apparently holds that all citizens in all circumstances ought always to support an administration's goals and policies. After all, that seems the principle he's arguing here. Perhaps he is saying, "in this situation only", but rather too obviously, a person can always make that claim...that he sees things more clearly than others and so everyone ought to agree with him and that disagreement is foolish or traitorous. You guys want to buy into that principle?
I agree. It is not the problem, and it is only a problem to the extent that deliberate misinformation is employed to forward an anti-war position. Let's not forget that all who oppose the war are not on the Left, there are isolationist conservatives, as well, who seethe at the notion of neo-conservative policy and think the mission to be overreaching folly. Are they aiding and abetting the enemy?
Quote: I don't think anyone foresaw the level of the insurgency that would dog our efforts to establish a free and independent Iraq.
Factually wrong. Many did. Go back to the beginning thread of US, UN, and Iraq and you'll find hundreds of posts quoting sources from military, political, academic, and media voices that described this outcome or some close variation of it. The danger of civil war as a consequence, the danger of a Vietnam-type quagmire as a consequence, the danger of a large and formidable insurgency and expanding anti-American sentiment were all described as potential outcomes.
And most of those "many" predicted a situation far worse that what has occurred, not a close variation. The precognition of both sides was hardly on the mark.
I do believe though that the Administration didn't account and plan properly for the level of the insurgency, nor react quickly enough to it.
I'm not happy these mistakes, but I don't believe they are reason to abandon the mission.
Quote:We also didn't foresee the degree to which the left in this country would continue, day after day, to criticize and condemn virtually every step taken by George Bush and coalition leaders in first liberating and then attempting to secure Iraq.
Strawman argument. And deceitful. Many on the left have supported various aspects of the Iraq project and many on the right have criticized aspects of it as well.
Some on the left, and some on the right would be more accurate, but point taken. Actually I did foresee with great clarity the degree to which most of the Left would criticize and condemn virtually every step taken by George Bush and Coalition leaders. I'm sure others did too. So what? Given that advance knowledge, should we have argued for somehow stifling the criticism?
The criticism may anger us and it may, in some ways, hinder the mission, but it is fundamental to our freedom and the freedom we are trying to bring to Iraq.
Quote: Virtually every action taken by the American military in Iraq has been criticized by the left. First coalition forces didn't move on Fallujah soon enough, then it was too soon.
Misleading and disingenuous. I know of not one instance where any voice on the 'left' argued that the US ought to move on Fallujah quickly, if at all.
Quote:Too many troops, not enough troops, too bold, too timid.
As above. Boortz is...lying. Who on the 'left' complained there were too many troops? As to 'not enough', that criticism came from many military and state department and intelligence people. And of course, Bremer said it too. Boortz here is doing a trick on you, and you ought to face up to how he's doing this, if for your own cognitive clarity. He is simply forwarding a PR line that the 'left' or opponents to the war are not steadfast and single-minded and firm - they flipflop. And that's a PR line designed precisely to contrast with the PR line that Rove wants you to believe regarding Bush.
Quote: Since the very beginning there has been virtually no support for the liberation of Iraq from the left in this country,
Here, in a gesture of intellectual magniminity, he tempers his claim with 'virtually'. But then he does the slick use of 'liberation'. And that makes the claim disingenuous and deceitful. Had a disaffected Iraqi put a bullet in Saddam's head, an infinitesimal few of
any political persuasion would have been unhappy. Even if the CIA had been successful in assassination (a deeply questionable state activity), I personally would not have protested in this instance. Had the sanctions brought about a revolt and overthrow, that would have been just fine. So it wasn't 'liberation' that was at issue, it was the decision to begin a unilateral war. The difference between these two is huge, and Boortz displays his typical lack of intellectual or journalistic integrity in avoiding it.
Quote:As soon as the United States appointed an interim Iraqi government to run the show until elections could be held,the left launched attacks on the validity of that government and predicted that it would fail.
Again with 'the left'. Generalizations like that are usually attempts to deceive, and always intellectually suspect, if not plain stupid. But aside from this standard Boortz trick, there were a hell of a lot of people who figured an ex-CIA agent was probably not the most prudent individual to put on top. Likewise the previous contender, before he fell out of favor. As to the legitimacy of this interim government, the protest from many of us on the left didn't involve the who aspect, but rather the pretence that this appointment established self-governance of Iraqis by Iraqis, because of the pervasive limitations and legislation imposed upon it by American planners.
Quote:When Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi visited Washington DC this past Fall the American media virtually ignored him, an attempt to strip him of any vestige of legitimacy, respectability and authority.
Patently false. You can go back and check the archives of any major paper or tv network and find coverage on this visit. Just google it and see.
Much of the preceding is blatham's defense of the Left. Here we, once again, part ways. I will defend the right for all quarters to criticize, but there's very little of the Left's arguments that I will defend.
Quote:There are people in the Middle East, around the world and here at home who earnestly want the US to fail miserably in Iraq.
Here's where Boortz first comes close to speaking truth. Close. I wish the US to fail in Iraq, but only in one very particular sense. I do not wish Iraq to descend into chaos and murderousness. I do not wish American soldiers to die, not one more. But I will argue for, and wish for, American militarism and arrogance and selfishness to decline. Unilateral decision to begin war cannot be justified as it then becomes justified for anyone else to do it too. China can use the same justification in Tibet or Taiwan. Thus it is not America I wish to see fail, but certain specific policies. Boortz, of course, won't be much in favor of your opinions and understandings to be that nuanced.
The ends not justifying the means is a cliche dependent upon one's valuation of the end as well as the means. unilateral war can be justified, just not to the satisfaction of blatham. Fair enough, he gets to speak out against it.
Quote:In the Middle East you have leaders in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other lesser countries who are frightened to death over what a freely elected government in Iraq would mean to them.
Here Boortz is again close. But it is double-edged and not simple. Does the US and the west wish Saudi Arabia (and a number of other ME states) to have a freely elected government? Not necessarily, not if the government that arises acts contrary to US/Western interests, eg cutting off increasing the price of oil, or kicking all Western interests out. US interests and Saudi ruling family interests are deeply intertwined, and that's why there has been a history of mutual support, even though that regime is arguably as responsible for forwarding extremist muslim sentiment as Osama.
This Administration, and those who have been deemed Neo-cons, are, obviously, of the opinion that over the long run, freely elected governments are a much safer bet than continued despotism, and that ultimately the the interests of the US/West are more likely to be in sync with democracies than dictatorships. This is not wishful thinking.
It surprises me that more Liberals do not have more faith in the concept that a world made up of democracies offers the best chance for lasting peace on this planet.
Quote: Around the world we have nations and leaders who want to see the role of the United States in international affairs weakened. They want a power vacuum that perhaps they can move to fill.
Foolish, disingenuous, and fear-mongering. Look at the public polls from every country outside of the US, even Britain. The public wish to see NOT that the US be weakened, but that the US merely abide by standards and agreements designed to forward civilized conduct and democratic values. Does sticking to previous promises mean weakness, or agreeing to abide by certain laws and international codes of conduct mean weakness? Boortz tries to suggest that such demands and wishes for civilized international conduct are merely derived from some game of macho leader conflict, and so you are in danger of being oppressed by others.
Now who is being disingenuous?
They would all love us if we would just stop being such a bunch of assholes and grow up...like they have.
Yeah, right.
I don't believe that they want us to fall, just to stop using our economic and military muscle for anything other than defending them. It's perfectly natural and nothing to really fear.
Quote: And that brings us here to our own people. There are people in this country: call them Bush-haters, Democrats, liberals, progressives ... call them what you will ... but they are dedicated to the idea of discrediting George Bush in any way that they can. They are dismayed over even the most remote possibility that Bush might actually pull a free, independent and stable Iraq out of his hat. They know that success in Iraq could change the face of the Middle East forever. It could be the beginning of the end of radical Islam .. and eventually make Islamic terrorism a thing of the past. Freedom is the greatest enemy of tyranny .. and those are the two sides battling it out in Iraq; but to listen to the left in this country you would think they're leading the cheers for the tyranny side.
Do you guys recognize a 'strawman argument' when you see one? This paragraph is a textbook example. I wish to discredit Bush, but not any way I can. I wish to discredit him for deceit and for what I see as hugely dangerous and destructive policies. A free and independent Iraq would be lovely, but what does one do when one see policies that, yourself and other very bright and thoughtful people with years of experience in political and foreign affairs or decades of work with the middle east, that seem likely to make things far worse rather than achieving the stated goal? If you have any integrity at all, you don't bow down and say 'yes, sir'. You fight and argue.
And what better word, for Boortz's argument that anyone who disagrees with him or the administration is some species of traitor, than 'tyrannical'? Tyrannies ALWAYS demand unity of thought. Tyrannies cannot abide divergent or oppositional ideas.
The Left may be misguided, but they are not evil or traitorous (certain Leftists excluded) and it really is over the line for Boortz to clearly suggest as much. Again, we can be annoyed and frustrated, even sickened or angered by their incessant and spiteful criticism (certain Leftists excepted), but even intimating that they need to be quieted is wrong.
