Well- a monkey would have shot up the nearest tree at 9/11 and whimpered and hoped for the best covering its eyes up.
cyclo- the one-eyed wrote-
Quote:Even more, I think that you would be hard pressed to take a survey at any time or location which would give Bush a positive approval rating.
Piece of cake.
cicerone imposter wrote:Seriously, a monkey would have been much safer for the world - including the UK.
I have to say honestly, a monkey would have been far better for the country.
spendius wrote:cyclo- the one-eyed wrote-
Quote:Even more, I think that you would be hard pressed to take a survey at any time or location which would give Bush a positive approval rating.
Piece of cake.
No, it wouldn't be. Bush is receiving low numbers across the board right now thanks to Iraq.
All the Dems and Liberals hate him, and half the Republicans do (because he's not conservative enough, sheesh!)
Cycloptichorn
Mid term slush mate.
As Harold Wilson once said- "A week is a long time in politics."
spendius wrote:Well- a monkey would have shot up the nearest tree at 9/11 and whimpered and hoped for the best covering its eyes up.
I don't see a significant difference between that kind of behaviour and what Bush actually did - invade Iraq and whimper and hope for the best covering his eyes up....
If you don't count the thousands of dead that are the result of Bush's course of action, that is.
I've said this before, so forgive the repetition, but the monkey up the tree image is correct when applied to George Bush's reaction to 9/11.
Here's the repetition part:
he panicked. Having missed entirely the threat from Al-Queda,because he was the least engaged President in history, spending most of the first months in office shaking the hands of friends, chopping firewood and disassembling anything that Clinton had accomplished, he looked towards what he thought was the next big threat-Saddam Hussein.
Blinded by panic, by the thought that the terrorists might hook up somehow with Iraq, he ordered the invasion while ignoring every criticism of the unilateral move. It was not steadfastness that drove his actions it was the fear of being blindsided again.
A friend of mine is critical of this view saying that you can't be blindsided unless your eyes are open and you are paying attention. In the early days George Bush was only paying attention to getting his backers a big tax cut and oil buddies a Energy Policy written by the American Petroleum Institute.
He thought being President was going to be easy stuff. Surrounded by a huge cadre of pretty brainy people, he was going to float through life as he always had, turning to the smart people when he got in trouble. The trouble was the smart person he hired to watch his back on terrorism, Condi Rice, thought the world was still in danger from the Russians and the Chinese, not a little bunch of Islamic nutballs.
For this screwup, he promoted her to Sec. of State.
Joe(I bet in a fight when George throws a punch he closes his eyes)Nation
The Iraq war was won by will and lost by the lack there of.
The will of a people fighting an occupation in their country. It was clear it was an occupation and not a liberation early on when haliburton was given no bid contracts and Iraqis were turned away at the door of their country and it's resources. The "hearts and minds" were not only lost but joined the insurgency.
America lost the war but Hallibuton did pretty good. So much for conflict of interest.
Then they lost the will of the American people.
-------------------
"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool's paradise."
- Winston Churchill
spendius wrote:Well- a monkey would have shot up the nearest tree at 9/11 and whimpered and hoped for the best covering its eyes up.
Especially if the tree had been arranged in place.
No, I'm not talking conspiracies... just the ideation re Iraq that had been previously worked up.
Dreamed about, mused about, but not particularly well thought about, tree.
If you go back now and read the urgings of the neo-cons you don't see much in the way of mention regarding the long standing feuds amongst the clans and tribes, between the Sunni and Shi'a sects and the vast system of corruption the flowed like a torrent under the social and political systems of Iraq.
They really believed they were invading a place (in the Middle East, no less) where we would be greeted as liberators.
Joe(I don't think we are in Kansas anymore)Nation
Whether they actually believed that or not (and I personally doubt it) they thought military might must carry the day.
Which is only true if you're willing to kill everybody.
If the population decline to be shocked or awed, a second strategy would be useful.
It certainly does not appear that there was ever a Plan B. That's unsurprising--the neo-con agenda, as laid out at the PNAC, simply called for the establishment of military bases in southwest Asia. No mention was ever made of the logistical, military, political and social problems which might be entailed in such an effort.
revel, Bush doesn't know anything about the bible, because Armageddon will not be fought in Iraq. Here's an excerpt from my travelogue to Israel
In the afternoon we visited Megiddo, inland from the coast and north-east from Caesarea. This settlement dates back 5,000 years, but ceased to exist after the Persian invasion of Palestine 2,300 years ago, and nothing is left except the ruins from the time of King Solomon. The Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III, son of Hatshepsut, invaded Megiddo in 1479 BCE. This city is referred to as "Armageddon" where the last great battle will be fought when the forces of good will win over evil - so the bible says.
I posted this essay here on a2k near its publication date of Oct 2002. Rather interesting to read it now...
Quote:The Push for War
Anatol Lieven considers what the US Administration hopes to gain
The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration. This group has suffered at least a temporary check as a result of the British insistence on UN involvement, and Saddam Hussein's agreement to weapons inspections. They are, however, still determined on war - and their power within the Administration and in the US security policy world means that they are very likely to get their way. Even the Washington Post has joined the radical rightist media in supporting war.
The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless. If I had to put money on it, I'd say that the odds on quick success in destroying the Iraqi regime may be as high as 5/1 or more, given US military superiority, the vile nature of Saddam Hussein's rule, the unreliability of Baghdad's missiles, and the deep divisions in the Arab world. But at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into depression.
These risks are not only to American (and British) lives and interests, but to the political future of the Administration. If the war goes badly wrong, it will be more generally excoriated than any within living memory, and its members will be finished politically - finished for good. If no other fear moved these people, you'd have thought this one would.
full essay at link below
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n19/liev01_.html
blatham, Good post; it shows how an ignorant, war-monger, single-minded, president and his henchmen will not listen to the world about the consequences of starting a war in Iraq.
What is more mind-boggling is simply the fact that with our history in Iraq for three years, and the Hamilton-Baker Report, Bush is still ignoring all to bring democracy to the Middle East.
Bush still doesn't realize the carnage and mayhem he has created in this world.
Let's pause to give credit to those leaders who opposed the invasion of Iraq.
^12/8/06: They Told You So
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly
Standard published a jeering article titled, "The Cassandra Chronicles:
The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers." Among those the article mocked
was a "war novelist" named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from
Virginia.
The article's title was more revealing than its authors knew. People
forget the nature of Cassandra's curse: although nobody would believe
her, all her prophecies came true.
And so it was with those who warned against invading Iraq. At best, they
were ignored. A recent article in The Washington Post ruefully conceded
that the paper's account of the debate in the House of Representatives
over the resolution authorizing the Iraq war -- a resolution opposed by
a major-ity of the Democrats -- gave no coverage at all to those antiwar
arguments that now seem prescient.
At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their
patriotism and/or their sanity questioned. The New Republic now says
that it "deeply regrets its early support for this war." Does it also
deeply regret accusing those who opposed rushing into war of "abject
pacifism"?
Now, only a few neocon dead-enders still believe that this war was
any-thing but a vast exercise in folly. And those who braved political
pressure and ridicule to oppose what Al Gore has rightly called "the
worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States" deserve
some credit.
Unlike The Weekly Standard, which singled out those it thought had been
proved wrong, I'd like to offer some praise to those who got it right.
Here's a partial honor roll:
Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in
1998 why they didn't go on to Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land."
Representative Ike Skelton, September 2002: "I have no doubt that our
military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But
like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider
what we would do after we caught it."
Al Gore, September 2002: "I am deeply concerned that the course of
action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the
potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against
terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."
Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: "I don't
oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed
to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard
Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this
administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats,
irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
Representative John Spratt, October 2002: "The outcome after the
conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less
certain."
Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002:
"When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the
liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could
be unlimited."
Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: "I am increasingly troubled by the
seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When
the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I
think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its
urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has
much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning
the administration's motives."
Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, February 2003: "I firmly believe that the
president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence
agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ...
Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that
share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms."
We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should
also ask why anyone who didn't raise questions about the war -- or, at
any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly --
should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national
security.
Has anybody thought to consider the water supply in Iraq?
Has anybody thought about the western world becoming much less dependent on ME oil which it might be trying to achieve one way or another.
The hearts and minds.
President Bush keeps saying that U.S. troops will "stand down" when Iraqi troops "stand up." Yet the American contractors who won bids to supply the Iraqi army are giving us only "antiquated weapons produced in Eastern Europe." The contractors get this Soviet-era garbage at rock-bottom prices, as Eastern European countries that just joined the European Union scramble to modernize their armies. "This allows them to pocket what's left over from the massive appropriations set aside to modernize the Iraqi army." Our troops, then, wield "scrap metal" for weapons, while the resistance, the militias, and the jihadists are better armed even than coalition troops.
http://www.theweekmagazine.com/news/articles/news.aspx?ArticleID=1819
ABU GHRAIB, Iraq - On the same Sunday that Iraqi guerrillas shot down a Chinook helicopter, killing 16 U.S. soldiers, a less publicized battle was fought, and arguably lost, in the trash-strewn streets of the rough and tumble town of Abu Ghraib, 15 miles west of Baghdad.
A bus was set afire by tracer rounds from an American machine gun after someone threw a hand grenade at a U.S. Humvee. An hour later, dozens of men and teenage boys gathered less than 100 yards away, many of them shouting angrily as they described what they said was indiscriminate fire from the Americans.
Suddenly, an American armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle roared forward and smashed into the bus. The crowd scattered into a narrow alley full of market stalls. Then the Bradley ran over a truck, crushing one side beneath its tracks, and clattered away.
"You see how they behave, and they call us terrorists?" shouted Khassan Naim, a 32-year-old shopkeeper. "You see how they treat us? As long as they are here, and until we have an Iraqi government and are free again, we will continue to fight them."
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/1113-05.htm
Quote:GORDON: I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that any more. I believe we need to figure out not just how to leave Iraq but how to fight the War on Terror and to do it right.
I am wondering if the atmosphere might not be ripe for investigations and dare I even mention
impeachment after all if this kind of talk keeps up from even republicans. Stranger things have happened.
