I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Nothing is covered in the US Press except tragedy, political assassination, Bush bashing and degradation of the US military.

A great deal of the force of your argument is dissipated from your use of a locution such as " . . . yet it seems to have a strong resonance among leftist thinkers." It suggests that you have motives equally unworthy to those whom you criticize for using their scorn to take a cheap shot.

The objection of many on the left to the Shrub, and his witless implementation of a PNAC agenda articulated well before he ran for office in 2000 is precisely that appearance of trying to bury their mistakes which glares out at one when one considers what good buddies the Reagan administration were with Hussein. Further, most of the people of liberal conviction with whom i am conversant do not point to the past--they point to the hypocricy of crying crocodile tears for the poor suffering population of an oil-rich nation strategically located in the world's largest oil producing region--while ignoring the Liberians, the Rawandans, the Sudanese, the North Koreans and so many others suffering a drab quotidian torment under the heels of vicious governments. Were the neo-cons of the PNAC as concerned for every one of the "Persons sitting in darkness" as they claim to have been for the Iraqis, the argument might be more plausible. But when the PNAC has articulated an agenda to include taking over Iraq and establishing military bases in southwest Asia since 1997, and then justifies doing so upon the basis of a deep compassion which they do not show for people in nations without petroleum resources, then certainly, the left charge them with errant and self-interested hypocricy.

Bush has been consistent in his support of democracy throughout the world.

In a severe rebuke to London and Washington's approach to the region, Britain's former ambassador to the country yesterday said the countries had swallowed Uzbek propaganda that sought to portray the democracy movement as a brand of Islamic extremism.

Craig Murray told the IoS that the Government had to take some responsibility for the unfolding events because it had failed to support those trying to oppose the dictatorship of President Islam Karimov. He revealed that he visited Andizhan a year ago and met those trying to build a democratic opposition movement. In a bid to bolster their cause he asked the UK government to fund them. His requests were turned down by the Foreign Office.

"The Americans and British wouldn't do anything to help democracy in Uzbekistan," he said. Uzbekistan provides a base for US forces engaged in anti-terrorism operations in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Mr Murray added: "We didn't provide support for those who were trying to develop democratic opposition, and that includes these people in Andizhan. People are turning to violence because we ... gave them no support."

Certainly the advancement of democracy has been a much larger factor in the Bush administrations than it was in the Clinton administrations that preceded it...

finn wrote

Quote:

Bush has been consistent in his support of democracy throughout the world.

I'm not sure this is a claim that careful analysis would support. Bush has been consistent in saying it, certainly. But what else suggests it to be true?

It is not at all clear, for example, that the impetus to attack the Taliban was other than to strike back at an organization complicit in events leading to 9/11, and to remove a potential source of further attacks on US interests. Internal reorganization of Afghan politics following the attack, though they have the stated aim of democratization, can be interpreted otherwise, quite in keeping with traditional real politic aims - to maintain a basic control of powers and events such that Taliban-style organizations and ideologies are inhibited on-going. You can ask yourself whether the US would likely choose to support democracy there if it looked to be leading to some unhappy (for the US) consequence or whether they would inhibit such, even if the populace wished it.

Or, we could of course consider the present situation in Uzbekistan...

Quote:

In a severe rebuke to London and Washington's approach to the region, Britain's former ambassador to the country yesterday said the countries had swallowed Uzbek propaganda that sought to portray the democracy movement as a brand of Islamic extremism.

Craig Murray told the IoS that the Government had to take some responsibility for the unfolding events because it had failed to support those trying to oppose the dictatorship of President Islam Karimov. He revealed that he visited Andizhan a year ago and met those trying to build a democratic opposition movement. In a bid to bolster their cause he asked the UK government to fund them. His requests were turned down by the Foreign Office.

"The Americans and British wouldn't do anything to help democracy in Uzbekistan," he said. Uzbekistan provides a base for US forces engaged in anti-terrorism operations in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Mr Murray added: "We didn't provide support for those who were trying to develop democratic opposition, and that includes these people in Andizhan. People are turning to violence because we ... gave them no support."

This is the more typical pattern.

George Walker Bush took the oath of office for a second term yesterday and laid out one of the most expansive manifestos ever offered from an inaugural podium as he dedicated his presidency to spreading democracy and freedom "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

In the first wartime inauguration ceremony in more than three decades, Bush vowed to transform U.S. foreign policy to make human rights the defining priority, arguing that only liberty would "break the reign of hatred and resentment" that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that seared his first term.

From now on, Bush said, relations with "every ruler and every nation" will be predicated on how they treat their own people, a profound break from traditional U.S. policy and from the Bush administration's practices in his first term, when it worked with repressive governments in the war against terrorism. In his doctrine for the next four years, Bush presented the United States as a beacon for the subjugated around the world and promised to confront the despots who enchain them.

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors," Bush told tens of thousands of onlookers from the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in a 21-minute address in which he used the words "free," "freedom" or "liberty" 49 times. "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

I haven't discussed contradictions in previous administrations--either to assert that there were or were not such contradictions. Don't charaterize my opinions or statements based on what you would like to assert O'George, as opposed to what you have evidence to support. You do your own image a disservice by making such specious claims.

You assume that because i despise the Shrub, i must therefore have been an admirer of Clinton. That is not true. I greatly resent you having the gaul to assert that you know one goddamned thing about me which i have not told you, or for which you cannot produce written evidence. Back off

Like Setanta, I've made no comparisons between this administration and others as regards such a theoretical policy. What I point to is the disparity between what this administration claims about itself and what its actual policies and behavior reveals - that it consistently misrepresents what it is up to and why. This is the most deceitful (happily and aggressively deceitful) administration I've seen in my lifetime in a western government

However, if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, you are rooting for the enemy. Anybody who roots for the enemy in a battle against their own country, is not a patriot in my book.

If money talks, the troops are saying, ‘Vote Obama’
By: Steve Benen @ 6:00 PM - PDT

Way back in September, we learned that Barack Obama and Ron Paul, who don’t have too much in common, were the top two presidential candidates when it came to financial support from U.S. troops.

It had a certain political salience " opponents of the war in Iraq took note of the fact that the top two recipients of military donations went to critics of the Bush policy " but it was still relatively early in the process. Would the trend continue once the race grew more competitive? Actually, yes.

The Center for Responsive Politics reported today that Obama has received six times as much money from the troops as John McCain.

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.

Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall " whether stationed overseas or at home " are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military, said, “That’s shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it’s about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one” in Democrats’ favor. “That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans.”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/