Centerfield

I agree that the facts must be agreed upon before sincere debate and progress can be made. Unfortunately I don't agree with all your facts.

#1 - Read Osama's letter to Americans - Starts out answering why they attack us: "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us..The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years;"

It is impossible to get a clear perspective on the Middle East while ignoring the U.S. role in the establishment of the state of Israel on ground considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims. Ultimtaely we need a solution that allows both groups access and rights to their sacred land. Until that happens, and as long as we continue to support Israel, we are offending radical Muslims. This does not justify 9/11, but it does provide reasoning.

3) We were not under threat from Saddam - even if he had WMD he couldn't reach us with them. Other factors are involved, he was certainly a threat to Americans in the region, Israel, and our economic interests in oil in the area.

I agree with the rest of your points, and am particularly encouraged by your final one about criticism of the war and support for the war. The extreme accusations of war crimes and treason are counter productive toward finding a solution.

But I cannot agree with turning a blind eye to the 50 years before 9/11 when evaluating the factors that brought it on.

Posted by: JP at March 22, 2006 08:19 AM

The use of "Undisputed" was a joke, right?
I love a good joke.

Now, if you wanted to create a list of real nonpartisan facts it wouldn't be that hard, but this isn't it. I assume you went for the most sensationalistic statements to provoke a response. To bad, because there probably are some undisputed facts that centrists could agree on.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 22, 2006 08:44 AM

JP, that's a very instructive letter. Let's look at all of it and see whether it really supports your premise, that we have but to reexamine our policy in Isreal and Palestine to get Osama off our backs. As you will see, the answer is "no".

Osama makes it clear that his claim to Palestine on behalf of all Arab Muslims is not based on recent events but on historical religion:

"It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this."

It's clear from this statement that, even if Isreal were the only or even the main problem, no solution short of the destruction of the Jewish state would satisfy Bin Laden and his followers. But Isreal is not even his biggest concern.

His letter goes on to say that he doesn't like our "supervision, consent and orders" of the governments of "our countries" because, first and foremost: "(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so." Shariah law, which we see from the current horror in Afghanistan, calls for the execution of all Muslims who renounce their faith and convert to any other, including Christianity.

For those of you who supported continued inspections and sanctions, rather than military action, in Iraq, note that wouldn't get us off the hook with Bin Laden, either: "(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down." Please note that he places no blame on Saddam Hussein or the murder, rape, and pillaging which he wreaked on fellow Muslims in Kuwait or the Muslims in Iraq and Iran upon whom he unleashed poison gas.

Another crime of "the Jews"? "Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it."

Now, what does Bin Laden want us to do? What's the very first thing he calls upon us to do? Withdraw support from Isreal? Nope:

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

That is, he wants us all to convert and adopt Sharia law. I'm not going to stand in line for that one. You?

Maybe withdrawing support from Isreal is the second thing he calls on us to do? Nope, wrong again!

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

He then condemns us for our very form of government:

"(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

Apparently, Monica is partly to blame, too:

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

Don't forget, his hatred of America is also because them Jews run our country:

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

He doesn't call on us to stop supporting Isreal until Item #4, and then merely lumps Isreal in with the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens (I recall we long condemned the Russian actions against Chechnya), and theh Manila government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 22, 2006 08:59 AM

To the list of reasons for removing Saddam, I would add another multipart one.

a) Bin Laden and his ilk have fed off of the social pathologies of the Muslim Middle East in order to recruit jihadist agents. This doesn't require that the recruits personally be victims of these social pathologies, it is sufficient that they empathize with the fellow Muslims who do and cast the blame for their plight on the West.

b) Saddam Hussein was a substantial, though by no means the only, contributor to these social pathologies. He did so by putting his priorities in his military while his countrymen lacked food and medicine among other things.

Now going to war for this reason is only justified if every effort is made such that doing so would actually eliminate the social pathologies propagated by Saddam rather than allow them to "return or be replaced by new and more virulent difficulties" afterward, to use the wording of Douglas Lovelace of the US Army War College. However, that is an issue of the implementation of the war, not the decision itself.

Posted by: Scott Smith at March 22, 2006 09:25 AM

I won't quibble with adjectives. I think what you've listed is reasonable. I'd add an 8th, 9th, and 10th point that IMO balances things out a little.

8. Pursuant to your number 2 (we must be ready to act against terrorist threats), the question of whether Iraq represented a grave enough threat to act as we did when we did was debatable. President Bush very much made a judgement call, which for better or worse, reflects upon his character and temperament. [By the way, IMO the most important part of this is not using this acknowledgement to make our own judgements about the character and temperament of the president. It's acknowledging that the President has the difficult responsibility of making such hard judgement calls. It's his job to do these things, and I think there should be more respect for this.]

9. Again pursuant to your number 2. In the real world, there is no free lunch. This means that all costs and all benefits must be tallied. America has finite resources and using them carries two costs; the cost of paying for the chosen actions, and the opportunity cost of not having those resources for use elsewhere.

10. A main source of the objections of the public to this war relates to the way the admin marketed it. The primary rationale was #2, and the majority public impression has come to be that we were sold something of a bill of goods. #3 and #4 were not mentioned as rationales, they were mentioned as corollary benefits.

As an aside, for all who don't know this. I believe that Osama bin Laden, like his other muslim fundy cohorts, is trying to pull a fast one when he speaks of the "Sharia of allah." Someone please correct me if I am wrong about this, but I don't believe that Sharia law is actually in the Koran, so it's not "of Allah." It's "of men," and so it's really a matter of theological dispute, because the Koran is editorially certified as the word of Allah as delivered directly to Mohammed. Sh'aria is not certified as the word of Allah.

If this latter is true, then that means that you can argue that you are faithful to Allah and Islam without following Sh'aria. Again without knowing much about it, I'll go ahead and speculate that much of Sh'aria is indeed closely based on the Koran, but that mileage varies from law to law. For example, I doubt that Allah told Muhammed, "if your wife or daughter is raped, stone her to death to protect your honor." I also wonder whether Allah told Mohammed "Women can be unruly if we let them experience desire due to finding that sex can be very pleasurable. To avoid this, it's best to cut off their clitoris."

Or maybe he did give such directives. Perhaps an expert on the koran and sh'aria can tell us more?

Posted by: bk at March 22, 2006 09:59 AM

Pat,

Good comments, but you should know that you consistently spell Israel wrong. Somehow English pronunication has shifted so that your spelling makes sense, but it's wrong nonetheless. If you remember that "El" refers to God, then it should be easier to remember.

BK,

Good points, and I also stand to be corrected, but I think you're injecting a protestant "sola scriptura" bias here. For instance, Judaism considers the oral law -- meaning what the rabbis wrote down -- to be equally authoritative with the Torah. And then think of the Catholic church where tradition has equal weight to scripture. I may be wrong, but your request to forget Sharia may be akin to telling Jews to toss the Talmud -- which is a legal document as well.

But I think you're onto to something nonetheless.

Posted by: Adam at March 22, 2006 10:53 AM

No expert, but that's a fair description of Sharia law. Up through 200 years ago or so it was uncodified, differed from region to region, and was largely based on local traditions.

I frankly don't give a flying Ferdinand about Osama's "historical" reasoning. Some of that crowd blame us for the Crusades. (Obviously not great students of history.) The end result is the same--they attack us. And if they attack us, then I don't give a Crusader's crap about why anymore, we WILL retaliate, and continue to do so until the threat ceases. If they want to quit threatening us so that we can quit fighting, that's cool. But the threat cannot be ignored.

Criticism of the war is not treason, and support for the war is not apology for war crimes.

Huzzah and agree. But be careful what company you keep. The organized anti-war movement and its leaders are indeed anti-American, and when you sup with the Devil you need to bring a long spoon.

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 10:56 AM

Rafique,

From posts I've made before I'm obviously a strong war supporter, but I take a lot of exceptions to your post. Bob's reply would be more like my own.

I hear the phrase of "mistakes were made" being used more and more. What mistakes would those be exactly? De-Bathification? Not doing this could have been the largest mistake ever. We don't know that. More troops initially? What would have been the response from the populace to a complete clampdown when we were there to liberate the people? A larger force initially would have been unsustainable. What happens when we pull 50% or more of our troops out in less than a year. The list goes on. My point is that the "mistakes were made" seems to have become a mantra to mollify the left. The "mistakes" are pure conjecture and I object to them being considered facts.

As to your factual points:
1.Unprovoked? 50 years of the CIA mucking around in Arab internal affairs. Propped up dictators. Raping their oil supplies. Unprovoked?

2. Obligation? Hmm. To protect ourselves possibly. Policing the world hardly seems an obligation to me.

3. WMD I can agree with although many can't. As for the brutal dictator thing - How many are there in the world right now. But they aren't setting on stratigic oil supplies. Saddam offered the best chance of success at changing what looked to be a dismal future to our energy dependant economy if Arab countries were to coalesce into an anti-American block. Don't even kid yourself as to why we are over there. High moral ground it ain't.

4. That remains to be seen.

6. They are our military arm doing a dangerous job at a low rate of pay. Thanks guys. You should be paid more. Let's not overblow the Hero thing though. I'm sure there are a couple of them that would just as soon be back home.

7. Just a value judgement, but critisizm of the war for temporary political gain at the possible future expense of all of us does seem treasonous to me.

Posted by: Dennis at March 22, 2006 11:03 AM

Adam, thanks for the correction. I certainly know the proper spelling, but I still find that I ALWAYS do that, and it annoys me to no end. I really need to use my Google Toolbar spellchecker.

My understanding is that the commentaries and customs and interpretations which have accumulated over the years is not the definitive law, not the unalterable word of Allah. Only the Koran itself is that. However, if all the people in power and all the judges applying it accept those interpretations as authoritative, then there's little practical difference.

By the way, in Catholicism, not all traditions have equal force with scripture, and not all sayings of the Pope are considered infallible. Only certain traditions, which were generally adopted only after prolonged debate and examination, are considered absolutely definitive.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 22, 2006 11:06 AM

1. America was hit with an unprovoked attack on 9/11, by radical Islamists who want to destroy us. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. America did NOTHING to deserve this attack.

I don't think this fact is undisputable, and my personal view on the assertion of this fact is just as irrelevent as that of anyone who replies to this comment. With that said, I would expand upon Tully's comment regarding this "fact." I don't really care what we may have done to deserve this attack, at least in so far as it relates to the response. I favor killing anyone who wants to kill me or anyone I care about.

Posted by: WHQ at March 22, 2006 11:25 AM

My fingers have typos that my brain does not....

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 11:28 AM

Let give the undisputed Iraq list thing another try!

I've alternated the list with pro and anti war facts to give it some balance, but like all humans, I can't totally eliminate my own bias.

1) Prior to the war, Saddam fired on US military aircraft and tried to have and ex-president assassinated.

2) The president rushed the invasion, ignored the advice of the military and the results have been bad.

3) Saddam was a sadistic mass murdering monster.

4) We originally supplied Saddam with WMD help (I.E. Chemical weapons).

5) The Kurdish region has become a very nice, peaceful place to live.

6) NBC weapons programs are hard to hide. If the CIA and the inspectors couldn't find them they didn't exist. (After all, we found out about Iran's)

7) The final outcome of the war is unclear, but all is not yet lost or won.

8) The American people are not willing to let this drag on for another decade.

9) Some Muslims seem to really hate us enough to die while hurting us. The underlying reason is in dispute.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

Adam, one reason I bring up the Sh'aria/allah's word thing is because the Koran starts with an especially clever introductory editorial device. It basically declares that the Koran is the unchallengeably accurate and unaltered word of Allah as delivered directly to Mohammed. Pure. Unpolluted. Unchallengable. 100% certified. Gaaaaaaaaa-RON-teeeeeeeed.

So the Koran itself, by mentioning this, makes the pretty clear implication that by comparison, other texts and appendices must be less trustworthy. So any true follower of true islam, as manifested by by allah's true words in the Koran, can make the case that Osama Bin Laden or anyone else sporting an interpretation to use to establish sh'aria law is a false prophet. Bin Laden and other fundamentalists repeatedly appeal to the authority of Allah, but Sh'aria doesn't have the ultimate unadulterated authority of Allah. This is a presumption.

I think we sould be fighting fundamentalists by challenging whatever aspects of sh'aria law are based upon the weakest interpretations, and use alternate plausible interpretations to argue the virtues of western practices which, while they might be against strict sh'aria, can be seen as not in conflict with the original intent of Allah. The virtue of such an approach is that it makes a conservative appeal to the acknowledged highest authority, Allah, not his minions. It's a very difficult approach for Bin Laden to counter. Sure he can call us untrustworthy infidels trying to corrupt and confuse the faithful, but we'll have the self interest of the faithful on our side when we say "It's not allah who wants you to be miserable and oppressed, it's Osama Bin Laden and the parade of fundy a-holes who misinterpreted Allah's intent."

Posted by: bk at March 22, 2006 11:55 AM

I, too, supported removing Saddam even while Clinton was President. After all, Bill was in favor of "regime change".

The real difficulty about Iraq gets back to the re-emergence of "pre-emption". Our NSS, going back to Truman, was effected by 9/11. No longer was America to use prevention and intervention, but pre-emption as well.

Without going into the reasons for our being in the Gulf and our supporting the State of Israel (which is consistent with our historically bi-partisan NSS), our NSS for the last sixty years sets out broad centrist principles which Republicans are botching and many Democrats are now rejecting. Bush certainly did not establish a sound criteria for pre-emption. Neither did the Germans at the outbreak of WW1.

The validity of invading Iraq ultimately rests on the soundness of pre-emption. The centrists must develop a criteria for pre-emption as well as the responsibilities of the pre-emptor to the international community. This must include a reasonable intelligence basis for pre-emption as well as a policy for dealing with the consequence of pre-emption such as radiation containment or the spread of bio-weapons from a targeted terrorist sight. If Bush had to seek centrist consensus of his intelligence judgments, his post-invasion plan and diplomatic strategy BEFORE he invaded Iraq, the American people through their representitives would have favored the Clinton plan and the Powell Doctrine. That approach called for a "deal" with the Security Counsel to abstain from vetoing American force by 2004 in exchange for a final round of inspections and acceptance of constraints and monitoring both Saddm's military production and human rights abuses. It is clear Saddam was certainly more than two years away from wmd delivery. It is most probable that the Bush timetable was based on partisan politics -which might be a "high crimes and misdemeanor" given the consequence of that intentional decision.

I do think it would be suicide for the Dems to even breath the word impeachment before the 2006 elections. Yet, intelligence seems not to be either Party's inclination. The difficulty with Centrist supporting removing Saddam ala Bush was the lack of criteria and the "clear and present danger" intelligence which MUST be present in order to mitigate the effect on international consensus & law as well as the needed international commitment to the consequence of pre-emption.

Americans drift to extremes partly due to the inablility of Centrist-minded people to stand up to these political extremes and to explain that Western Hegemony is not "American domination" and is the greatest force behind the international consensus required to resist terrorism, proliferation, human rights abuses and constraint on both China and Russia.

Rove would be the other reason for domestic polarity. Hillary is under attack by her own Party which Rove has managed to back into a corner with the Far Left. To see Rove spin the Democrats to reject Wilsonian Internationalism, Bill Clinton and decry the clear merit and success of our modern NSS is almost as bad as Bush bungling. Almost...

Discussion of Iraq invariably falls into this political abyss of our NSS and pre-emption is popularly replaced with "Evil Empire" or "oil exploitation". David Duke and Harvard seem to think Iraq was an Israeli conspiracy. Does this prove Western political space is curved like the universe and extremes meet at the ends of a apparently straight line?

How the Right concludes from the transcripts of Saddam's secret cabinet discussions in the 90s that he had any real wmd ability is ludicrous. How the Left concludes Saddam was not a maniacal butcher seeking wmd and that he would not have quickly become a 100x more difficult a job to remove is equally pathetic.

Jefferson built a navy to go after pirates. Madison had General Jackson to save face in 1812 while the Federalists were swept away in a wave of nationalism. Perhaps it is the Center's roleat the moment to remind both Parties that ignorance of history and global realities often lead to repeated mistakes with increasing consequence (especially political). Today, American leadership is seriously challenged by a failure of Centrist American Leaders from gaining the power to apply non-ideological solutions to present conflicts. In this, the Dems and Repugs SHARE blame for the polarized statemate of unsound thinking and performance that marginalizes the Center. Dems respond that the Center is merely the average between extremes. Talk about marginizing! Our times require informed debate, decisive action and consistent principles. Niether Repugs or Dems have shown that much over the last six years. Another six might be too late for America to recover.

To have Bush lead the charge forward is however, a bit like Custer directing the battle. Now there was a general who had trouble understanding the difference between single shot and repeating rifles -which the government wouldn't buy because the Army didn't manufacture it directly. Unfortunately the Indians bought them on the free market and the result wasn't too good for Custer.

Perhaps, Centrists in both Parties should defect to a Centrist Party before the Dems would have us squander American leadership, security and commerce, or the Repugs leave us bankrupt, militarily broken, Constitutionally weakened and no longer invited as the defender of freedom and the system of prosperity. A wonderful outcome for the greatest generation to witness before departing.

Then America would at least have a Party that represents the majority view......

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 22, 2006 01:00 PM

Hey Max, keep coming! Some of your views might be debatable, but anyone who can cover that much ground that concisely and that reasonably is a welcome visitor, IMO.

Posted by: bk at March 22, 2006 01:15 PM

Pat,

No problem. If you speak French, just say EEZ-RAH-EL multiple times and when you spell it; that should do the trick. They don't have the spelling/pronunciation mix-up we do. I've had to extirpate some deeply ingrained spelling/pronunciation errors too -- sucks doesn't it?

Brian,

I agree with the strategy Brian; just not sure how easy it will be . . .

Maxtrue,

Good stuff. Now how can we learn our leaders to think like that? ;)

Posted by: Adam at March 22, 2006 01:41 PM

Some facts to add:

10) The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people favored, and still favor, ousting Saddam by force, including having a foreign power come in an do it on their behalf.

11) The Muslim Middle East is littered with social pathologies, including poverty and a lack of free expression.

11a) Several figures exploit these pathologies and tell their co-religionists that the West is responsible for the pathologies, thus inducing the will to kill anyone associated with the West.

11b) Saddam was a substantial contributor to these pathologies.

As for the Crusades: One defining characteristic was that political and religious leaders consolidated their positions by declaring a religious obligation to do battle on behalf of "God." These calls inspired mass volunteerism for the war effort. Along the way, particularly if the primary military effort faltered, the volunteer warriors turned their effort to killing an easier target, the Jews they happened to pass. Sound like anything today?

Posted by: Scott Smith at March 22, 2006 02:19 PM

Some other relevant observations on the likely results of a cut & run scenario.

There's also this from some folks at the National Bureau of Economic Research, exploring the price of not having invaded in the first place. What, you thought there was a free lunch?

We are where we are. When you get finished blamestorming and framing and everything else, deal with it from there. You don't have to like it, or how we got here, but do be aware of the price of what you advocate we do next, and the price of the alternatives. There is no costless path, no perfect war, no perfect peace, and nobody rides for free.

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 02:41 PM

Bob, I would take issue with the second point:

2) The president rushed the invasion, ignored the advice of the military and the results have been bad.

Indeed, there were some in the military (most prominently Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki and former CENTCOM commander retired General Anthony Zinni) who, consistent with the Powell Doctrine's requirement for overwhelming military superiority, believed that we needed more time in order to get more troops and more hardware over to Iraq. Short of making this magical mark (which, by the way, was based off historical correlation of force ratios in military operations), they felt we would not be successful.

But there were other generals who argued differently. Special Operations commander, General Wayne Downing, fresh from their dynamic victory using Special Ops, US air power, and indigenous landpower to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, actually argued that he could utilize a similar method in Iraq in 2002. Far from needing more troops and more time, Downing's faction actually argued that we could achieve victory with fewer troops and a year earlier than we actually did. When his approach was rejected, Downing resigned and retired from active duty (and now heads my alma mater's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point).

In any case, the "alliance" of General Myers and General Franks was actually something of a compromise that rejected both factions-- that Joint effects made Shinseki's reliance on ground forces unnecessary, but that we needed a few Divisions nonetheless to accomplish our objectives.

In any case, it's hard to say that anyone "ignored" the advice of the military, when the military itself was not monolithic and was advocating competing-- and indeed contradictory-- alternatives.

Posted by: Bobby at March 22, 2006 02:44 PM

Bob (and others),

OK. I'll cede that the word undisputed was a bit inflexible. I really do think that most of these points are reasonable assertions.

As far as pointing out that "mistakes were made," I'm not trying to mollify anyone here.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at March 22, 2006 03:10 PM

As I'm sure Bobby would second, mistakes are always made. As I put it, there is no such thing as a perfect war. Just as there was no unanimous agreement among the top brass about the "right" time or method to do everything, or even to do it at all.

Critics (and boosters, for that matter) have the unassailable advantages of responsibility-free hindsight, and of not having been in the command chair when it was time to make the actual decisions.

I'd call Bob out on a few of his list assertions, but he made it clear he was simply alternating steals from different opinion factions. I will dispute the blanket assertion of "factuality" for that list. I can spot at least a half-dozen misrepresentations of opinion as fact, and I'm not even trying. ;-)

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 03:24 PM

Tully: It's not just about blame. The American people may be asked to make this same decision about Iran. Iraq discussions help clarify the choices and consequences.

Bobby: I'm not sure how to reply. As much as I would like a transcript of bush's pre-war briefings, I don't think we will every see them. So I have to use what's available.

Like this report from the Newshour. I've watched them for years and they tend to be more neutral then most. Also consider the resulting breakdown of civil order and looting in Iraq. I would say the historical correlation of force ratios seemed like good advice that was ignored. If your about to start a war, then plan for the worst case scenario.

Rafique: Ok.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 22, 2006 03:25 PM

Thanks for the comments.

Here in NYC there is quite a battle between Centrist Democrats and the New Left. I think both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (ignore his satire of Foxnews talking heads) represent more of the Democratic Centrists. New York would vote Bill Clinton over Dean or Gore. Just imagine what isolation, protectionism, capitualtion to a Russian/Chinese obstructionist strategy or radical Islam, retreat from the Middle East and the Far East as well as Africa and Central Asia would mean to New Yorkers, let alone America.

The New Left seems to believe that the disintergration of the US-lead hegemony of law and human rights (now more supported by a Europe heading Center) will have a POSITIVE EFFECT on peace and stability. And Eve was created from the rib of Adam. It is a wonder these same brilliant thinkers object to creationism which requires a similar suspension of disbelief. NYC may be the most international and LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC city in the world. Liberals and Conservatives here tend to both distance themselves from their Parties and have little patience for BS. Harvard now thinks that he New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are part of the Israel plot to run America.

The Far Right has forced McCain's silence. The New Left has made Hillary and Biden duck and Gary Hart, Bob Kerry, Clarke and others to proclaim that much coming from the anti-war and anti-Bush wing is "not Liberalism" or "Democratic".

So, it is not so much a matter of learning our leaders to think as it is for them to do what Clinton did so well: co-opt your adversary. You create your own blueprint for security and pound away at the Republican mistakes. Biden and others have done just that but the New Left considers such Centrists as Republican-lites.

The irony is that Chomsky hated Liberals. The only rejectionist view Chomsky likes is his rejection of all others. Rove has indeed created strange bedfellows when David Duke agrees with a Dean at Harvard over the Bush/Jewish problem. It is as though the New Left is actually trying to get life to imitate fiction (1984) right down to the "Jewish Conspiracy". Is La Rouche supplying the Left with talking points?

I would say that learning Democrats that there are more historical narratives than the Orwellian Dialectic and that bigger government often diminishes individual rights (not what our founding fathers wanted to happen) is a start. Socialized medicine, protectionism, a tax on wealth and capital, isolationism, self-censorship of religious satire (except Christian and Jewish), reduced defense spending, end of ballistic missile defense, retreat from strategic alliances and overseas basing, no outsourcing, more nuclear energy (its okay for Iran to build 26 nuclear power plants on earthquake prone terra?) do not reflect American opinion or the Center. This is the battle between Dean and Clinton.

Then the Republicans must be learned how to govern in a Constitutional Democracy despite their intension to break the law, subsidize the rich, polarize debate and use religion and patriotism as tools to secure political power. They seem to think that the Clash of Civilization Dialectic is the only important narrative and that somehow allows them to unconstitutionally change America and blurr the lines between politics and scientific thought. They should also be taught not to lie, steal or abuse power or substitute religious thinking for the secular obligations of holding office. Repugs control all branches of government and are fortunate Osama has given them a weak justification for the 2 trillion dollar debt. Remember when they said Iraq would be 50 billion? Try 1 trillion. We could have built a cage around Iraq for that money, or invented a car that runs on Republican crap.

Anyway, I will return to see what Centrism means to your blog. Until then, Center is somewhere between Horowitz and Zinn. LOL Neither, I expect is a frequent viewer of the Council on Foreign Relations. And I doubt either would agree with Rand Group reports. Center isn't an average between extremes. Perhaps it is a state of mind, or simply a refusal to suspend disbelief...

Maxtrue NYC

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 22, 2006 03:26 PM

Tully: Well I tried, but if the subject wasn't contentious we wouldn't be talking about it.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 22, 2006 03:32 PM

Center isn't an average between extremes.

"Center" may be, at times. Centrism is most assuredly not. So if you're looking for a unified centrist position, you may be disappointed. Even with a centrist party and platform, there would still be disagreement. The major difference (IMHO) would be that centrists would be better able to accept that.

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 03:51 PM

One last remark for Bobby,

I am not sure I understand your view as a West Point graduate.
1. Didn't DIA know that there was more than 500,000lbs of munition storage sites around Iraq before our invasion?

2. Didn't a US news team broadcast a video in one such bunker showing broken UN seals on ultra high explosives which were subsequently stolen?

3. Didn't military officials complain that insurgents were crossing in from unsecured borders?

4. Didn't the military understand the underlying religious tension in Iraq and the possible civil war removing Saddam, disbanding the Iraq army and banning Batthist from participating in a new government would cause?

5. Didn't the military hold the Powell Doctrine to be the only recourse against insurgency and that by-passing militant strongholds and be unable to sieze and hold would fail to prevent the clear foreseeable "new front in the war on terrorism"?

6. And how could anybody deny that the problems mentioned above were not the direct result of invading and occupying without the troop levels and coherent plan advocated by several senior military officials?

7. And what military expert on what grounds advised the Bush administration to invade in 2003? How is the present mess along with the numerous long term bases in Iraq better than having done Iraq right?

8. Do you mean victory as just "getting Saddam"? What military general didn't know full well that victory meant stabilizing, normalizing and creating a new government and army/police was not the greater part of the mission? Please tell me how strategies other than Shinseki's could possibly have worked? And Rumsfeld wanted 50,000 troops?

And how has this military planning including elimination of the Saddam-supported Iranian insurgency force made us stronger both militarily and diplomatically as we face Iran, Syria, NK and others? How many lives saved by deploying a year later with better armor or even a greater coalition because intelligent military planners wanted MORE time to do it right. That time, as Clinton suggested could have been used to wrestle a no veto from the UN for a final tour of inspection, monitoring equipment and a pledge on human rights regarding the Shiites and Kurds. If Saddam screwed up, no matter. We would have gotten the edge we needed. What thinkers in the military saw this fairly obvious and discussed plan before the war?

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 22, 2006 04:01 PM

One last remark for Bobby,

I am not sure I understand your view as a West Point graduate.

1. Didn't military intelligence know that there were more than 500,000lbs of munition storage sites around Iraq before our invasion?

2. Didn't a US news team broadcast a video in one such bunker showing broken UN seals on ultra high explosives which were subsequently stolen?

3. Didn't military officials complain that insurgents were crossing in from unsecured borders?

4. Didn't the military understand the underlying religious tension in Iraq and the possible civil war removing Saddam, disbanding the Iraq army and banning Batthist from participating in a new government would probably cause?

5. Didn't the military hold the Powell Doctrine to be the only recourse against insurgency and that by-passing militant strongholds and being unable to "seize and hold" would fail to prevent the clear foreseeable "new front in the war on terrorism"?

6. And how could anybody deny that the problems mentioned above were not the direct result of invading and occupying without the troop levels and coherent plan advocated by several senior military officials? (not to mention outsourcing prinson wardens to questionable parties and fail to protect oil lines so Halliburton could make millions every time they were blow up?)

7. And what military expert on what grounds advised the Bush administration to invade in 2003? Invade in 2002 and hold Iraq together how?How is the present mess along with the numerous long term bases in Iraq better than having done Iraq right?

8. Or do you mean victory as just "getting Saddam"? What military general didn't know full well that victory meant stabilizing, normalizing and creating a new government and army/police was not the greater part of the mission? Please tell me how strategies other than Shinseki's could possibly have worked? And Rumsfeld wanted 50,000 troops?

How has this military "planning" including elimination of the Saddam-supported Iranian insurgency force made us stronger both militarily and diplomatically as we face Iran, Syria, NK and others? How many soldiers have died from munitions the military failed to guard or destroy? And were wmd materials stolen too? How many lives would have been saved by deploying a year later with better armor or even a greater coalition because intelligent military planners wanted MORE time to do it right. Did Rumsfeld threaten anyone?

That additional time, as Clinton suggested could have been used to wrestle a no veto from the UN for a final tour of inspection, monitoring equipment and a pledge on human rights regarding the Shiites and Kurds. If Saddam screwed up, no matter. We would have gotten the edge we needed. What thinkers in the military saw this fairly obvious and discussed plan before the war? I certainly saw similar thinking on the internet.

Maxtrue

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 22, 2006 04:09 PM

I saw a few days ago an article explaining why the Democrats do not need a unified message. Well, if they want to hold power they need a unified message, at least on the basic strategy of domestic and foreign policy.

There will never be complete agreement. Some think the National Guard should be expanded for domestic security and infrastructure renewal as well as preparation for future disasters and nation building. Some do not want the military expanded that way including the military who obviously prefers to subcontract nation building than have an Army Corp of Engineering that can build leeves to specs. They fear a bigger guard will mean less for the "real" army.

If a Centrist Party can not assemble a clear message with competent plans and strategies, then the "center" will be locked between extremes rather than "Centrism" marginalizing them.

Another way to put it would be that centrism seeks the best engineering solutions for goals that are consistent with both the Constitution and national self-interest. In that light, the two Party system is failing miserably. Hopefully, corporations, the MIC, leaders in Washington will see the coming consequence of the present Bush mess and make the "center" the place for a candidate to be. Until then I take Centrism to be more about a non-ideological attitude about data and solutions. Personally, I am a bit more to the left than dead center. LOL Flushing embryos down the toilet instead of using them for scientific research doesn't strike my Centrist chord. Nor do soldiers dying from lack of foresight, radicals aquiring wmd from lack international consensus, nor the Antartic melting away while corporations walk the path of greatest profit. Surely there is a Centrist plank on which to force our leaders to walk.

When two Centrists disgree they usually try to find a way to test each other's position. If it works, congrats...I prefer that to our President consulting God, Cheney and Rove over issues of national security and when the plan needs serious redirection, he refuses to listen to even Centrists in his own party........

PS. sorry for the double post to Bob...hit the Post before I finished.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 22, 2006 04:36 PM

A perfect example of armchair-quarterbacking! Complete to scattergunning. Truth, Max, if you have an argument to make, don't scattergun. It actually dilutes the argument and makes you look like an obsessed ranter.

You go to war with the resources you have, not the ones you wish. Knowing there will be problems does not mean that all problems can be solved, or that you should not take action. It means there is no such thing as a perfect war.

EX: How many troops are required to secure several thousand miles of border in a foreign nation the approximate size of California, while also accomplishing all other objectives? Now explain why that's relevant to whatever argument you'r trying to make.

Didn't a US news team broadcast a video in one such bunker showing broken UN seals on ultra high explosives which were subsequently stolen?

No. Gratutitous and abbreviated debunking of something we checked out pretty damn closely, and pounded very thoroughly to death at the time, follows:

The barrels shown in the news video were later claimed by admin critics to be some of the tons of missing high explosive under IAEA seal. Shortly before the election, of course. But they were not the missing HMX and RDX. Markings on the barrels clearly showed the Hazmat class ID of 1.1D and UN munitions code of #239. This clearly identified them as nitrostarch, a common material in munitions manufacture. Not exactly a surprising find at a munitions plant, but also not terribly useful in raw form for improv bomb manufacture.

HMX and RDX would be UN#'s 140 to 144, inclusive. QED--The barrels filmed were NOT the missing HMX and RDX, and it's not known what happened to the HMX and RDX after the seals were first placed on those bunkers over four years before the invasion, or even if they were still there 18 months before the invasion when the seals (but not the bunker contents themselves) were last checked by the IAEA. All we know for sure is that shortly after the film of the nitrostarch was shot the 3ID came through and blew up everything they could find that tested out as an explosive. Something between 300 and 500 tons of explosives and precursor chemicals were destroyed by the 3ID at Al Qaqaa.

(I have a neat digital photo from one of my 3ID buddies that he took of the explosion their first "materials destruction" blast made. Boom! BIG Badda BOOM! Cool.)

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 06:27 PM

Max,

A proper answer to your questions would require more time than I currently have available, so let me just say that my point wasn't that the Bush Administration didn't make and hasn't made mistakes in OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM-- they certainly did. Nor would I argue that the military didn't make and hasn't made mistakes in conducting operations in the War in Iraq. Clearly, that is not the case. Of course, as Tully pointed out, no military plan survives first contact and mistakes are made in all operations-- sometimes we go into the Bakara merket without sufficient firepower, sometimes we bomb the Chinese Embassy, and sometimes the mistakes are a whole lot worse.

My point was merely that arguing that "Bush ignored the military's advice" is misleading since "the military" is not monolithic and that, indeed, officials at the highest-ranking levels disagreed amongst themselves about how or whether the War in Iraq should take place. The President and the SECDEF almost certainly discounted the arguments of Generals Shinseki and Zinni, but Generals Myers and Franks had also refuted their claims on a variety of grounds (I won't get into it here, but can later if anyone is interested). And meanwhile General Downing had been leading the charge for an asymmetric OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM-style strike that Shinseki, Zinni, Myers, and Franks had all believed was too bold... An operation that would have commenced in 2002 with no more than about 30,000 US troops. To put it simply, the three positions, by definition, could not easily be reconciled, so which one represents "the military's" advice?

When viewed in that context, it becomes impossible to say the President "ignored the military's advice" without defining whom you mean by "the military." Even had he sided with General Shinseki, critics could charge that he "ignored the military's advice" since Myers, Franks, and Downing all had serious migivings about Shinseki's claims.

For some reason (I'll leave it to the reader to determine why), critics have decided to view General Shinseki's arguments as indicative of "the military's advice," even though numerous-- more senior, in fact-- military officers were offering contradictory advice. Thus, Shinseki is "the military," but somehow Myers, Franks, and Downing are not. That's somewhat disingenous.

Like any organization, the military is filled with individuals with varying experiences and that leads to differing opinions on how things should be done. To take one faction of that organization and argue that it represents the advice of the whole is misleading, at best.

Posted by: Bobby at March 22, 2006 07:24 PM

Then why did UN inspectors identify the broken seals as theirs? And why was nitrostarch put under seal in the first place. Surely you are not contending that the lack of troop numbers did not lead to unsecure munitions for years until the press made a stink about it. Are you saying that that more than a third of unsecured munitions including some wmd materials were not stolen due to lack of site security?

You did not show how a military expert could possibly conclude less than 300,000 troops could "effectively" monitor and police the likely border areas insurgents and weapons could cross, secure the green area, protect infrastructure and "seize and hold" militant strongholds. Phosphorous is not the answer nor bombing to make up for insufficient forces. You don't bomb a people into democracy. Do you really think a military scholar would possibly ascribe to the absurd program Bush and company pushed onto the military?

And the use of subcontractors caught doing a Saddam at Abu Graib as well as the disbanding of the Iraqi army was a military idea?

Finally, and I am not trying to be a butt head, you go to war when ABSOLUTELY necessary, based on sound intelligence and proper planning. Not even the Repugs believe that this was the case anymore. You fail to show how a smart general would not have demanded a force sufficient to fulfill the President's stated objective on a timetable relative to the urgency of action. And 50 billion? What drugs were these people on? The Clinton senario was rejected for what reason? Because it didn't fit Rove's timetable? There was time to deal ourselves a better hand and increase production of armored humvees, deploy border drones, negotiate a better UN attitude thus bringing in more of a coalition. The transcrips of Saddam's conversations clearly show this to be the case.

Afganistan was a great example of ground directed air power, but there too, we subcontracted warlords and Osama escaped. And based on our kill ratio in Afganistan, how many fighter bombers would it take US pilots to take out all suspect facilities and military assets in Iran if we did it the way Israel would have to: by fighter bombers and bunker busters. How many aircraft? You know the M-1 has the best dollar for dollar kill ratio. I suspect Israel would have to fly over four hundred aircraft to effectively take out facilities. I digress here because ground forces are important and air power is only part of any pre-emptive strategy. Is the West really prepared for a shooting war in the Gulf? Shouldn't the Center be concerned?

Bush pulled forces and money from Afganistan. Now the Taliban has made a come back. Bush simply won't adress deployment issues, how iraq prematurely did hurt the US in the pocket and the world stage. To ignore this reality is part of what sustains this White House.

I hope West Point studies American strategy in Iraq and learns what not to do. With a general like Bush, I shudder at the mess Iran will surely bring. Add cavitation torpedoes, stealthy subs, moblie missiles and pilotless drones and the asymetry that is coming our way will really present military planners with migraines....

And how do you rate this administration's managment of missile defense? I bet the airborne laser gets cancelled. After how many billions? Who would argue that lasers are not the future with one planned for the belly of the new joint fighter? Will it work? Can we afford a trillion in Iraq while unmanaged funding of ballistic defense systems is floundering with poor results and at present risk of being cut by REPUBLICANS?

The DLC is certainly upset about a number of points I am making. We can't afford to misstep with Russia on its way to an inflatable manueverable capsule (warhead) and with Putin thinking nuclear reactors are a good thing for Iran.

Sorry for the ground I cover. Time is short and I am sure nothing I've said is new.

You have seen the polls and Custer is not doing well. A total reversal of American policy presents another nightmare. Still, I can see why Murtha is so disgusted -he rather bail than see us sitting targets of a poorly managed plan. Surely there is a Centrist position that can succeed. Foreign Affairs had a smart article a few months back on how to win in Iraq. I do not think Bush is listening to more than polls......

Thanks for listening to the digressions and I bet that blast in Iraq shook some cobwebs loose. Unfortunately, alot of high explosive may end up in Jordan, Egypt, Afganistan, Europe. Clearly this was not thoughtout correctly and a good general knows when to change tactics. That doesn't mean change talking points. It means rethinking the approach. Another confrontation somewhere and the draft is not far behind. Good soldiers need good leaders. Yes?

Posted by: maxtrue at March 22, 2006 07:29 PM

See the problem with scattergunning, Max? It's tough to take you as seriously interested in sober answers when you do it.

Then why did UN inspectors identify the broken seals as theirs?

They identified some broken seals from Al Qaqaa as theirs. They did not identify the seal broken in the video as theirs.

...why was nitrostarch put under seal in the first place.

Ask Saddam. The barrels and bags in the video were nitrostarch. But I already noted that seals can be faked, and I further note that we put seals and locks on our own armories, on our own military bases, and at our own munitions plants. We don't need the IAEA to ask us to, it's simple secure inventory control. Count it, seal it. Saves counting it all over again every inspection. Heck, we seal warehouses and rail cars. My electric meter has a seal on it.

As I said, we beat this particular horse to death in October 2004. There ain't no there there in that particular meme. Just wing chatter that ignores any real analysis of the available data. But don't fret, there's always lots of real stuff to criticize. You don't have to fixate on the non-existent.

You did not show how a military expert could possibly conclude less than 300,000 troops could "effectively" monitor and police the likely border areas insurgents and weapons could cross, secure the green area, protect infrastructure and "seize and hold" militant strongholds.

You did not show that they could not, or why it would be relevant, or why your apparent personal standards should apply. More scattergunning. Credentials, please? Authorities and references? See above reply from actual military personnel with time in theater. I will certainly defer to experience and expertise over unreferenced and agendized amateur angst.

You don't bomb a people into democracy.

No? How do you explain Germany and Japan? But we didn't do that in Iraq, did we? In fact, we went to some extreme lengths to NOT do that.

Armchair quarterbacking is the easiest job in the world, Max. And scattergunning the easiest rhetorical tactic. When challenged, expand scope and increase volume. Burns up a lot of shells but rarely hits anything. As the Bard said, it is to be "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

You still haven't made any actual argument about the war yet, just bounced all over the landscape with tangential rants while not producing any data, and in such a fashion that suggests your opinion is fixed, regardless of the data. Wanna try again, with maybe a single solid thesis or contention? Have you got anything you can put in one sentence? Really. Start with the basics.

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 08:21 PM

If I stick to one argument at a time I will be here forever. However, refering to the "military experts" is a device Bush uses constantly. Biden says he has spoken to many generals and officers in Iraq and they have confirmed Biden's and McCain's suspicions that too few troops were deployed. Common sense would seem to indicate that our elected officials and general public need more than "some of our military experts say we used enough troops". Why can't you explain the apparent flight from the Powell Doctrine and controlling the ground to secure stability? The number one reason Iraqis want us out is the instability caused by a lack of order in a country ready to explode with sectarian violence. You seem to simply dismiss McCain's analysis. You fail to explain why we can't hold an area we clear. My credentials? Do I need credentials to observe the situation in Iraq? How about emails from soldiers who could not stop to secure munitions they feared would come back to hurt them? How about the President who himself said mistakes were made? How about Shinseki, Hagel, Lugar and other cvilian officials? There should be a simple reason why the military believed less than 100,000 troops could accomplish Bush's mission in a country with the problems Iraq has. The American people do not believe that the plan was sound. So I am not going to give you one question to answer. You know my line of questioning and obviously you have no problem with troop strength, the urgency of going in March of 03, the post war instability or even the disposal of munitions and force protection or disbanding the Iraqi army. Doesn't sound Centrist, a bit more like Rove and company.

I do appreciate the explanation for the news video. It doesn't refute the observation that thousands of tons of munitions were stolen.

Here's one for you: do you think Bush's Iraq strategy has left us in a better position to face Iran, hold Afganistan or deal with other hotspots? Or is Murtha right that we are breaking our military at a moment when other problems are looming large, not to mention the financial cost of over a trillion dollars?

South Park at ten pm. The Chief returns...I'll read your answer tomorrow.

Thanks

Posted by: maxtrue at March 22, 2006 10:12 PM

It doesn't refute the observation that thousands of tons of munitions were stolen.

When? How? Where? You seem to be missing something there, Max. There's no verifiable evidence that ANY explosives were stolen after troops came in. By the available evidence, all the known munitions on site at the time of the invasion were BLOWN UP by the 3ID. There's no evidence that the IAEA-sealed explosives were there when troops came in. You're into Egyptian river territory.

Catch this right now: Those who make claims bear the burden of proof for same. You have offered...none. Zero. Nada. Zip. Once again, you wanna get some traction, put on the tires. Start with the basics.

You know my line of questioning...So I am not going to give you one question to answer...Doesn't sound Centrist, a bit more like Rove and company.

Uh huh. We've seen this a lot over the last few years. Nobody is centrist unless they agree with you. Got it. Thank you for the copious confirmation.

Posted by: Tully at March 22, 2006 10:28 PM

Centrism means more than simply believing EVERYBODY else to be a moron.

One simple point. As Bobby noted above, the Army is not monolithic in its thoughts and opinions. Some generals believe one thing, other generals something else. I'm quite certain that Joe Biden was listening to (and promoting) one set of views, which are in active competition with the set of views promoted by the generals whose advice President Bush is taking. And if you think those generals talking to Biden aren't playing politics by doing so, then I've got a bridge to sell you...

Posted by: PatHMV at March 22, 2006 10:54 PM

Rafique makes some very good points but, as people have pointed out, hardly indisputable. I have to take issue with the idea that 9/11 was motivated by a desire to destroy America. In their own minds, Al Quaeda had specific reasons for the attack that were not necessarily aimed at destroying America. And, if that was its aim, they could hardly have believed that destroying two buildings, no matter how symbolic, would do that. There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda hate America and would like to see us disappear. But, it seems to me, that wasn’t the specific motivation for the attack; it was designed to send a message. Maybe the message was unacceptable, but if their specific intent was to destroy us, they should have waited until they had a nuclear device before showing their hand. I certainly agree that we did nothing to deserve the attack, but that doesn’t mean that Al Quaeda didn’t have reasons in its own twisted logic. The problem I have with the statement is that it simplifies the issue and enables us to avoid addressing the issue of why they did it. And, just saying they want to destroy us is not a satisfactory answer.

I agree that Iraq is not a war crime, but that doesn’t mean that it was a just or prudent action. Actions done as part of the war may not rise to the level of war crimes, but could still be immoral. For example, I certainly don’t think that the administration wanted things like Abu Gharib to happen, but they did and you can’t gloss over the moral issues there. Personally, I think it was wrong to start a war without considering the likely consequences on the Iraqi people–in terms of “collateral damage”, and general dislocation. We didn’t ask the Iraqis if they wanted us to come take out Saddam. And, while a lot may have wanted that, they probably didn’t want the kinds of things that have happened. I don’t think Bush is a war criminal, but I also don’t think you can just ignore what the war has done to Iraq. And, yes, it has installed some kind of democracy, but, again, at what cost?

I don’t know how you can possibly know that reporters are “imposing their own antiwar biases on their reporting.” You could just as easily say you are imposing your own prowar biases on how you receive their reporting. What bothers me is the facile way that people assume that any bad news being reported is simply bias and, therefore, not worthy of consideration.

It's clearly debatable that the “war is the central front on the war on terror.” That’s exactly the point that opponents dispute. So I don’t know how you can call that indisputable.

I think the fallacy here is to conflate bin Laden himself with the larger problems the US faces in the region. Let’s face it, if bin Laden didn’t command significant support, he would still be dangerous, but would essentially be a manageable threat. It’s the danger that he can bring along the Muslim public that, to me, is really the key issue. And, whatever we may think about the logic involved, it is clear that much of the Muslim public is alienated from American policy. Bin Laden probably does hate western culture and politics and he may well wish to convert us to Islam. But there is no evidence that the Muslim public at large supports his more millenarian goals or hates the US because of what we are. The bigger problem is that large numbers of Muslims support bin Laden because they see him as a counterweight to the U.S. So, while I certainly agree that the policy issues did not justify 9/11 in the slightest, you can’t simply ignore those issues with respect to the Middle East.

And, Pat, JP did NOT say that “we have but to reexamine our policy in Israel and Palestine to get Osama off our backs.” He didn’t say anything like that; all he said was you can’t ignore the cogence of the issue.

Scott talks about social pathologies in the Middle East. I certainly agree that those exist and they have a lot to do with the origins of bin Laden and jihadism. But, it seems to me that the war is exactly the wrong way to deal with the social pathologies; if anything, it is exacerbating them. And he argues that “the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people favored, and still favor, ousting Saddam by force, including having a foreign power come in and do it on their behalf.” Do you have any support for that statement. I have never read anything like that anywhere. As far as Saddam being a substantial part of the pathologies, that’s true, but we contributed to that when we supported him. Do you really think the Iraqis see the United States as an honest broker when it was clear we would have kept supporting Saddam as long as he played ball with us? And that is part of the pathology because Iraqis don’t believe, in my view, that we are there for anything but our own interest.

Maxtrue made some very cogent points initially, but then went off into a rant about the Democrats that I don’t understand. I agree with his argument about the validity of the invasion resting on the soundness of pre-emption. And that soundness is open to question under the circumstances. But, he talks about Democrats squandering American leadership. I think it’s Bush that is squandering American leadership. Europeans have always questioned how Americans think, but now they are positively afraid of us and the political leaders are afraid to follow even when we make sense. The negotiations with Iran are an example. I think it is critical that the West show a united front and the United States should lead, but Bush has alienated the Europeans so much that they simply do not trust him and, more importantly for politicians, their publics despise him. So, who is squandering American leadership?

As for this stuff about the “New Left”, what are you talking about? Are you seriously arguing that Gore and Dean are New Leftists? You need to look at Dean’s record in Vermont and Gore’s in the Senate. I don’t think either one would be a favorite of Noam Chomsky. Maxtrue is doing what many seem to do–any Democrat to the left of them is the same as Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore. Maxtrue fashions himself as some sort of centrist, but apparently your idea of centrism is nothing to the left of Bill Buckley.

Posted by: Marc at March 22, 2006 10:58 PM

So tell me, how many of you "Centrists" are really moonbats/wingnuts trolling undercover?

I have been banned from RedState and DailyKos, so my Centrist credibility is beyond question, heh.

The Iraq War was clearly a mistake, not so much on it's own merits, but as a result of the men behind it. So it's guilt by association. George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are all Ideologues of the worst sort. They extreme and inflexible in their beliefs. They have consistently ignored expert advice on a wide range of issues. This is the problem with ideologues. They have some nice ideas, but they tend to be incompetent when it comes to the execution of said ideas.

To put it into perspective, what if we handed matters of foreign policy over to Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich and Ward Churchill?

You'd get the inverse of the nightmare we are currently living in.

It's not about whether Saddam was or was not bad, that has never been in dispute. As had often been pointed out by the Iraq Hawks, Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US.

What it's about is whether or not Bush and friends are competent. That is very much in dispute.

If you're going to have a centrist discussion of policy, the first undisputed fact is that Bush is an extremist... an ideologue, and a dim one at that. This is something he has shown repeatedly and it is the primary reason the public have turned sharply against him, even in a time of crisis.

I feel the sad fact fact is, as long as Bush remains in power, things will get worse. Replacing Bush is the first step towards fixing the problems we face.

If Hagel or McCain were installed into the White House ala Gerald Ford, then we could do business. So long as Bush calls the shots, we're screwed.

Posted by: jl at March 22, 2006 11:08 PM

jl, being kicked off that many blogs doesn't mean you're a centrist. It may just mean you're crazy.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 22, 2006 11:24 PM

Marc, you make some good points (well, until you bothered responding to Maxtrue's later ramblings). It's too late to respond to all of them, but I wanted to touch on the issue of media bias briefly.

For myself, I am quite certain that it is not just my bias that leads me to conclude that the news only reports bad news. I reach that opinion from many conversations, even debates, with the many reporters who are friends of mine and with the editor in chief of our local paper. There is a strong and prevalent view, which I believe to be entirely representative of the entire media, that bad news is the only real news, while good news is nothing more than "cheerleading". Good results, in their view, are to be expected, and thus are not "news".

As I continually point out to them, yet they refuse to accept, this is extraordinarily dangerous to the body politic, as the public (the ultimate decision makers) is presented with a very incomplete picture of the entire situation. Imagine a balance sheet which tallied only liabilities but no assets. It would give a very distorted view of the real picture. If you made decisions on that balance sheet, you would panic and start increasing your savings rate immediately... but would never wind up seeing the benefits of the savings down the road.

The problem is not that the bad news isn't really bad (although that is sometimes the case), but that NO good news is reported at all, or at least very little. No tally of schools rebuilt, no regular interviews with people who are happy we're there, etc. Have you seen the letter from the mayor of Tal Afar reported in the major news outlets? Nope. That's the mayor who sent a very heartfelt letter of gratitude to our troops for kicking Abu Al Zarqawi out of his town. He describes the contrast between the town's welfare under strong American occupation and its welfare under occupation by the "insurgents". This is good news about our presence and the good job our troops are doing, at least in some areas. But if it's not reported, all the public hears is "Iraqi insurgents keep bombing our troops", which is an incomplete portrayal.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 22, 2006 11:43 PM

Well, I really don't have the luxury to get into a debate about the fundamental questions of the War in Iraq, nor do I think that was the point of this thread. But since the whole troop level issue keeps coming up again and again, I'll address it. The best explanation for how you would impose security in Iraq with less than half a million soldiers could probably be found in Andy Krepenivich's Foreign Affairs article, "How to Win in Iraq." We call it the "oil spot" method-- you start by establishing security in a small area that you can "clear and hold" (which is not really the doctrinal definition of what our forces would be doing, but it suffices for this discussion)-- and then slowly expand your influence like a growing spot of oil-- hence it's name. The strategy is really not that different, in fact, from what Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and LTG David Barno implemented in Afghanistan-- where just 20,000 Coalition troops were able to provide far greater security for a country of 25M than the 150,000 Coalition troops in Iraq were able to do for their country of 25M.

I did about the best I could to explain the issue on my own blog last September, and will link to it here. As I argued, it's really not about how many troops you have-- it's about their capabilities and (most importantly) how they are employed. The fundamental thesis of military history is that no amount of tactical brilliance can overcome strategic and political blundering; but only slightly less valid is the point that no amount of troops-- not even half a million US and Coalition soldiers on the Vietnamese Peninsula-- can guarantee victory if the tactics and strategy are fundamentally unsound.

Conventional military theorists (and, yes, I'm talking about many of our generals-- including many whom I've personally worked for) don't really understand that-- they're trapped in a military tradition that has always viewed warfare in a symmetric, linear, attrition-based fashion. There's a good reason for that, of course-- despite fighting mostly unconventional conflicts throughout our nation's history, the professional officer corps has always viewed the rare conventional war (i.e., WWI, WWII, Desert Storm) as the epitome of warfare; then, too, most of them came of age when defending against the Soviets horde pouring through the Fulda Gap was indeed our greatest threat. But those of us trained in effects-based operations, however, view military operations in a slightly different manner. We understand that capabilities are not static, but dynamic; that effects can multiply exponentially, if properly implemented; and that troop strengths are secondary to the operations in which they are conducting.

And, in any case, as I pointed out in my blog article, if you're going to use conventional metrics to define how many troops you need to be successful in Iraq, then the actual number would be one-and-a-half million US, Coalition, and indigenous troops (and that was with admittedly rosy estimates). The whole "we needed more troops" argument is a smokescreen advocated by some US military commanders who, quite frankly, wouldn't be able to achieve victory no matter how many troops you give them (they're brilliant at conventional warfare-- completely hopeless at the asymmetric kind)-- and amplified by Administration critics who, quite frankly, don't understand unconventional military operations and don't really care-- their agenda is simply to critique the Bush Administration.

If you buy into the "We just need 50,000 more troops and we can win" war cry, you're eventually going to have 500,000 troops on the Vietnamese peninsula, with victory nowhere in sight. (And in fact, having too many Coalition troops can actually be detrimental to achieving your political objectives). If, however, you've adopted an effects-based strategy (and if we haven't, that would be the fault not of the Administration but of the senior military commanders on the ground), then you can be more successful with a fraction of the force we currently have in Iraq.

It seems counterintuitive, I know, but if you think about a game of chess (and these analogies are never my favorite, but for the purposes of our discussion...), it may make sense. If you started with five more pieces, and you took away half of Bobby Fischer's, would you beat him? What if he had to play four games at one time? The answer, of course, is that Fischer is likely to win-- as he has demonstrated on several occasions (not knowing your skill, it's possible that you could defy the odds, of course). Why? Not because of the number of pieces, but because of the manner (i.e., the strategy) in which he employed them. Unfortunately, when it comes to the War in Iraq, too many view the number of pieces as the definitive factor in a game of chess.

Posted by: Bobby at March 22, 2006 11:57 PM

I think a distinction needs to be made between "we NEEDED more troops" and "we NEED more troops".

I view the start of the looting as the inflection point where the insurgence realized that we couldn't control the country. More troops may have been able to stop the looting and keep a lid on the country.

Since then, things have changed. The average Iraqi likes to watch videos of Americans being blow up as entertainment. As of today's situation, I would agree that more, is no longer better.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 23, 2006 08:57 AM

The average Iraqi likes to watch videos of Americans being blow up as entertainment.

I know you don't like to provide sources, Bob, but could you kindly provide something to back up this assertion? Posted by: PatHMV at March 23, 2006 09:22 AM

The Iraq War was clearly a mistake, not so much on it's own merits, but as a result of the men behind it.

Here's Michael Kelley, as quoted by Jeff Jacoby. Note that Jacoby's status in the eyes of the left as a righty tool blunts not one iota the force of these words:

"Tyranny truly is a horror: an immense, endlessly bloody, endlessly painful, endlessly varied, endless crime against not humanity in the abstract but a lot of humans in the flesh. It is, as Orwell wrote, a jackboot forever stomping on a human face."

''I understand why some dislike the idea, and fear the ramifications, of America as a liberator. But I do not understand why they do not see that anything is better than life with your face under the boot. And that any rescue of a people under the boot (be they Afghan, Kuwaiti, or Iraqi) is something to be desired. Even if the rescue is less than perfectly realized. Even if the rescuer is a great, overmuscled, bossy, selfish oaf. Or would you, for yourself, choose the boot?"

I willingly concede that doing the right thing for the wrong reason (if you believe this is the case, mileage varies here) is deeply unsatisfying, unpure, and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's sort of like banking in a 3-pointer off the glass by mistake. Maybe you don't deserve credit for shooting skill, but it still counts. If a semi-democratic Iraq endures ten years from now under greatly diminished US troop levels (say a 10 or 20k maintenance force similar to our presence in various other nations), invading won't have been a mistake.

Posted by: bk at March 23, 2006 09:39 AM

Have you seen the letter from the mayor of Tal Afar reported in the major news outlets? Nope.

Perhaps it did not include that specific letter, but 60 Minutes had an entire segment on the liberation of Tal Afar from al Qaeda, covered as a liberation.

Posted by: Scott Smith at March 23, 2006 09:53 AM

Thanks for the info, Scott, and I'm glad to hear it. I stopped watching 60 Minutes long ago, about the time they caved in to the tobacco lawyers and refused to run that segment on the tobacco whistleblower guy.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 23, 2006 10:33 AM

"I know you don't like to provide sources, Bob "

PatHMV: Since when? I've provided tons of links on this site.
I'm just not so obsessed that I keep a list of Iraq IED links at my fingertips.
I have read several articles describing how popular the videos are with the general public.
Are you implying that I'm lying?

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 23, 2006 10:41 AM

I'm implying that there's a vast difference between a few former Ba'athists watching videos of IEDs killing American troops and "the average Iraqi" liking to sit around watching them. Details matter. Details of the Iraqi war and the feelings of the Iraqi people matter. Details of the Patriot Act matter. Details of the opinions of the people in our own country matter. It's not enough to make assertions of great negativism without examining the details to see if the truth is really what you perceive it to be.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 23, 2006 10:46 AM

The problem with using Tal Afar as an example of "good" news is that Al Quaeda wouldn't have even been there but for the war. Clearly, the town is better off without the insurgents,butthe occupation was a direct result of the war. I don't see how that constitutes "good news."

Posted by: Marc at March 23, 2006 11:57 AM

Some good comments.

I did mention the article in Foreign Affairs and I do understand the Chess analogy. I simply do not agree with the blanket assertion that no munitions were stolen. It defies the reporting and common sense, but I recognize the burden is on me. I will get back here sometime with a list of people claiming they know of munitions vanishing. I am quite shocked over the claim zero munitions were stolen. I guess Biden and others don't know what they're talking about.

The entire scene of Iraqis looting after we stormed in is a fairly vivid picture. And weren't there wmd materials reported missing? Not to beat the point; it defies common sense that insurgents were unable to aquire unguarded munitions and are not using them now.

The number one reason Iraqis want us out is because of the more dangerous lives they live AFTER Saddam. Is it the press that points to constant oil sabatoge, insurgent border crossings, unprotected caravans being hit and failure to prevent militias and insurgents from re-entering areas the US has cleared? Read the new reports on the state of Iraqi police. No amored vehicles? Of course I point to discussions at the Counsel on Foreign Relations, Rand and Foreign Affairs as sources where "experts" make the same observations.

Why hasn't Bush said, "no munitions were stolen. No piplelines were destroyed and no insurgents entered Iraq as the result of insufficient manpower"?

I repeat 1. what military experts agree that the time had completely run out and that war was absolutely necessary in March of 03? 2. What military expert felt that less than 150,000 troops could expeditiously accomplish Bush's stated goal of building a democracy in Iraq to change the balance of power in the Middle East? 3. What military expert feels that in light of the trillion+ dollars Iraq will cost, this operation has put America in a better position to face Iran and continue American Leadership of western hegemony including continued pressure against Russia's and China's increasingly adversarial role? These are not questions that require credentials. And Americans do want answers.

Now I didn't say that if we disagree you are not Centrist (that would entail a conversation as to what Centrism is). I simply said you know the gist of my line of reasoning so why frame it like we were at the Harvard Debating society? Many of my remarks are echoed by people from the DLC to Rand. I mentioned such an article in Foreign Affairs that has been referenced above by another. If you say no mistakes were made and that we ABSOLUTELY had to invade Iraq when we did (not a Rove thing) then your response does mimic the Bush administration which apparently many here feel is not particularly centrist. And even Bush is not saying that lately. I suppose if we can't keep out Mexicans here, no amount of troop strength would prevent ALL insurgents and materials from crossing in from Syria. My intent was to ask, "wouldn't more troops have brought a great enough degree of stability that civil war would be less likely than it appears now'? That was my amateur understanding of the CIA's position, the Counsel on Foreign Relations' position and the crux of many article in Foreign Affairs. And it obviously was SOME military expert's opinion.

To others, I personally do feel Bush has diminished American's standing and influence. So why my remarks about the Democrats? If you think quickly pulling out now will help our standing while Iraq burns to the ground, then I guess you don't see how the Democrat's plan would hurt us even more than Bush has (forget the domestic disaster). I have read Democratic attacks on Clinton and Biden. I have read some Democratic blogs that claim Dean, Finnegold, Murtha and Gore are the only real Democrats -the rest should leave the Party (not that these four could actually stand each other for too long!). I have read attack after attack on the DLC even at CommonSense and other Liberal blogs. So I base my remarks about Democrats squandering security, commerce etc. on simply the stand they are taking now which appears isolationist, anti-Wilsonian, protectionist, anti-pro democracy, and even anti-capitalistic and above all ANTI_BUSH. Sometimes I can't distinguish Liberal blogs from Chavez, Khomeni, Hamas or other PR rants by our ADVERSARIES. Lastly, I am tired of hearing some Democrats say we caused 9/11, are run by a Jewish conspiracy and that Iran and NK want nukes to protect themselves from us. Since I have always been a Democrat, I find this reversal quite depressing. Without a viable democratic Party, the Repugs run wild. I do agree that over the last six years, it has been Bush that has squandered 9/11, American's international reputation and our even assualted our own Constitution. Now is not the time to show how he has done this. If you think Bush has helped our cause in a way the Democrats would not have after 9/11, then why then be "Centrist" as opposed to "Republican"?

As I said from the start, Saddam was a disaster waiting to explode again. I surely hope we CAN create an Iraq that fails to slip into radicalness and destruction. It will certainly not be the Democrat's fault if does under a government completely controlled by Reublicans and their lobbyists. Many Americans feel the war and rebuilding as been incompetently run. One Democrat friend, who was Bush's classmate at Yale, served in the civilian administration. He like others who have been there say they have never witnessed such a poorly run reconstruction program. My friend prefers to travel (when he does) with the Brits (he feels safer). Though I am not an expert, if the "mission" was to bring democracy to Iraq, this presently does not appear to be the best (and cheapest) way to do it and it leads us back to pre-emption and the international requirements of pre-emption.

Terrorism and tyranny both require international cooperation to contain. Perception is a large part of the battle. I believe the center is the place the criteria for pre-emption must come from to be free of ideological strings making it less useful to the rest of the international community. NK mocks us by threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US. (That we have a missile defense in Alaska to prevent this is equally mocking.) Unless we want to retreat into regional alliances, the international community must recognize the right of pre-emption and accept that international consensus armed with serious sanctions and the threat of pre-emption is the only peaceful tool we have to change a county's threatening behavior in the coming era of wmd know-how. This requires a clear framework defining when it is in a nation's self defense to pre-empt terroristic and proliferating actions by others. There must be a standard. Without enforcement of international law, there can be no peaceful conflict resolution. Shouting "clear and present danger", "Mushroom clouds", "Saddam was working with Al Queda" doesn't cut it without the intelligence (tubes were clearly for rockets) shared with the international community to back i up such claims (like Kennedy did without much mention of his missiles in Turkey)and a plan to accomplish resolving the fallout from such pre-emption. In this regard, the Democrats have also flip-flopped. They are now skeptical of the "consensus" forming over Iran. They resist the "consensus" over cartoons, the UN consensus calling for woman's rights in Muslim countries.

Finally, each blog has its own civlity. I have been in some emotional debates lately. When I understand the characters here, I am sure I will settle down to a more linear style. Please forgive the "scattergun" nature of my posts. You all have some meaningful points that I am sure will enlighten my understanding. Perhaps for now, regard me more as a person on the streets of Manhattan with one hand on the pulse of fellow New Yorkers and the other on the search to make sense of the political and global realities now unfolding. It is hard to find time from the daily grind to visit the blogworld and I consider the Centerfield an interesting and refreshing place. The only credential I will refer to at the moment is my High School -Horace Mann.

Max NYC

Posted by: maxtrue at March 23, 2006 11:58 AM

JL, I agree with your point about Chomsky. The New Left seems to be a fusion of former Far Leftists (who were discredited by Reagan and slapped by Clinton) with the growing more-liberal wing of the democratic party. The polls reflect that Americans are as concerned about where the Democrats will take us as where Bush HAS taken us.

Bush is extreme for two reasons. 1. He is extreme and one of the most unqualified men to be President. His behavior reflects serious divergence from the spirit of the Constitution and informed debate upon which our political process depends. 2. Rove has actually used extremism to polarize politics which he obviously feels is to the Republican's political advantage.

If the Democrats refuse to change this perception and wait for Bush to do something like beat up an old lady, they are making a huge mistake. Well, running on a plank in 2006 to impeach Bush is looney. And who doesn't think Dean and others would love to do just that?

Republicans can't govern and Democrats can't win. This stalemate is not good for America or the Free World.

I wonder how many here are frankly embarrassed by our President and appalled by his appointments and top advisors. Ask a liberal or a conservative if Bush is extreme. I bet they give the same answer. Miers was his first pick.....

Posted by: maxtrue at March 23, 2006 12:27 PM

Many of the things you say make me think you may find centerfield a more enriching visit than dailykos or redstate. A couple points:

• reconsider your continued use of "repugs" unless you think other posters saying democridiots or democr@ssholes would not bother you.

As to settling in. if and when you do, you'll be able to answer the following question that you posed all by yourself:

If you think Bush has helped our cause in a way the Democrats would not have after 9/11, then why then be "Centrist" as opposed to "Republican"?

For now, let the short answer be that for us the bottom line is not to pick one of two sides as your team and to blindly support your team's program as a matter of team loyalty. It's about forging defensible, sustainable policies, and bridging the partisaan divide when we believe that the positions of each side stand in the way of substantive progress on important issues.

When we say that our loyalty is to our country before our party, we try to make that the truth from day to day and from issue to issue.

Posted by: bk at March 23, 2006 12:38 PM

Well said and the approach refreshing. I almost prefer to use "Repugs" and "Demwits", but I accept the civility encouraged. I guess I've become an balanced basher having watched too much South Park.

Of course, the discourse you hope to ignite is the most important one: bridging the divide before divided we fall. Given the present climate, I can think of nothing more vital to political discourse.

Bravo to you all.......

Max

Posted by: maxtrue at March 23, 2006 01:48 PM

I simply do not agree with the blanket assertion that no munitions were stolen....I am quite shocked over the claim zero munitions were stolen.

What claim? What "blanket assertion?" There's a critical reading problem there on your part, as I didn't do either of those things. Please do not attribute to me that which I have not said. Conflation will get you nowhere. I was speaking to a very specific claim, which we investigated thoroughly when it was first made, and found completely wanting in evidence. It remains so.

I said that there was no substantive evidence that the IAEA-sealed munitions HMX and RDX reported as under seal at Al Qaqaa 18 months before the invasion were present at the time American troops came through, or removed from Al Qaqaa after American troops had been there. That's a very specific statement, not a "blanket assertion" that no munitions were stolen anwhere, anyhow, anytime. Iraq had enough munitions lying around to satisfy any paranoid dictator. We're still finding them. Daily. People will still be finding them decades from now. Heck, they're still finding unexploded ordinance and arms caches in Germany from WW2.

The sole basis for the contention the IAEA-sealed munitions HMX and RDX reported as under seal at Al Qaqaa 18 months before the invasion were even present at the time American troops came through is a news video that, when analyzed, simply does not show what critics claimed it showed. A news video released to great fanfare in the closing days of a presidential election after lying around unnoticed for over a year. Gee, how could we ever doubt?

Could those IAEA-registered HMX and RDX stores have been there at the time of the invasion, been completely missed by the combat troops and demolitions teams, and been subsequently looted? Absolutely! But there's no credible evidence at all that happened. To boost that a notch, there's the matter of relevance. High explosives are a drug on the black market, and as noted, Iraq had/has no shortage. The only reason these particular chemicals were under seal is that, given a high-tech production facility, they could conceivably be used for shaped fission bomb triggers and solid-fuel rocket propellant cores. Other than that they're just more precursors for explosives/propellant manufacture. Iraq had no shortage of pre-made explosives (still doesn't). Stuff that requires a major facility to turn into usable weaponry simply isn't all that generally useful without the facilities. Said facilities aren't garage labs.

No HMX or RDX was seen in that video. None has shown up in IED's in Iraq. It hasn't shown up on the black market that anyone has noticed. Indeed, there's no evidence that it was even still in the bunkers when the IAEA checked the seals 18 months prior to the invasion. All we know is that the seals were reported as present and intact at that time--and that the bunkers themselves were not really secure, but could be accessed through the air shafts. At that point the materials had not been actually seen by inspectors in thirty months, and they didn't see them then. Just the seals. IOW, there's a four YEAR gap between the last known IAEA confirmation of materials presence and the invasion, and no verified sighting of said materials since. None. That's over seven years now since the materials were known to be in a place certain.

And we know that the 3ID came through Al Qaqaa, searched every buidling they could, and blew up several hundred tons of materials at that site, without cataloging it. Just checked to make sure it was explosives and not bio or chem weapons, then BOOM!

Now, you can maintain the claim that materials were there and were looted, but you have to produce some real and verifiable substantive evidence of same to be taken seriously. Wing rants don't cut it. Clear that hurdle, you still have to show what relevance it has. I mean, George Bush may have a pimple on his right butt cheek, and Harry Reid may have one on his left butt cheek, but why should we care? (Though it would be fun to name them--the pimples, that is.)

See what I'm getting at? I'm arguing for verifiable facts as the basis for claims of fact, as versus the infinity of wingnut rants about things that may or may not be true, but which are promulgated as gospel in the fever swamps of extremists. [Colonel Mustard killed Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll with a candlestick...]

Posted by: Tully at March 23, 2006 02:45 PM

Well, we know it wasn't a candlestick.... :-)

Posted by: bk at March 23, 2006 03:04 PM

I think there is too much emphasis on what is said on the blogs. Max talks about the liberal blogs and I agree they are bad and, perhaps, some could be construed to be "New Left." But that's hardly the entire story. There is a reality separate from what is shown on the blogs. And, if you assume that there are xx million Democrats in the United States, I doubt you would find a majority supporting Noam Chomsky. So to conflate Noam Chomsky, left-wing blogs, and the Democratic Party is, IMO, unfair and misleading. I understand how that could happen if you spend too much time reading blogs. But the fact is, it would be hard (impossible) to find a serious Democratic candidate that is "anti-capitalist." Of course, it depends on what your definition of that is.

Point is, there is a world beyond the blogosphere and don't judge either party or its members solely by what you read on the blogs.

Posted by: Marc at March 23, 2006 03:52 PM

I'd like to make a simple proposition. Let's post how we would grade the Bush administration on their conduct of this war without getting into disputes on the specific reasons. I'm curious to see where we all fall given the positions I've seem people taking on various facets of the situation. I'll start.

C minus

Posted by: WHQ at March 23, 2006 04:27 PM

Using the following scale, and not getting into why, I find it hard to give him anything but an overall grade of “F”.
I would say he is currently doing “C-” level work, but that doesn't make up for the string of “F's” he started off with.

A Excellent
B Good
C Satisfactory
D Lowest passing grade
F Failure

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 23, 2006 05:54 PM

The string of Fs he started off with? Katrina was recent, as was Miers, Dubai and other wonderful Administration moves. I rate him a D+ when I consider the possible long term domestic effect and the damage done to international cooperation we desperately need now to contain growing international radicalism. That is another story better left off this thread. I just say D+ for now.

My remarks about the munitions to Tully was originally mentioned in the context of troop size. I think it is reasonable that the MIA or whatever agency is responsible for pre-war intelligence had a decent idea of the hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions we would have to confiscate. Nor do I think for a moment that the Tito effect wasn't a real possbility for Iraq to military planners once we removed Saddam. Just look at the articles at the Counsel on Foreign Relations just months before our invasion. My contention, based on dozens of sources, suggests that tons of munitions AND POSSIBLY RDX are in the hands of insurgents. If this is in fact true, I then put forward the much mentioned idea that more troops initially may have prevented the level of theft. That is a reasonable contention which McCain and Biden have mentioned. Perhaps I was wrong about Al Qaqaa by listening to the lead UN inspector tell CNN that the seals he observed in the video were his. You can check CNN transcripts yourself.....

Shall I go to Iraq and interview Iraqis and soldiers to bring back facts? (no answer is required...LOL) Like many Americans, I draw facts from papers, books, the internet, TV, cable. I am sure those with better data will inform me should we have a chance to exchange thoughts.

As far as my experiance in the Blogworld, I am quite aware of comments made by Dean and other Democrats that do attack capitalism in a typical round-about way. Let's just say that calling the Bush's administration's managment of government as designed to gut it and subsidize corporate America at the expense of our environment, the middle class and the poor, our reputation and future economic heath as well as the claim that Big Oil, the Jewish lobby and Halliburton lead us into Iraq is not a nice review of Capitalism. Just because the mainstream leaders don't come out and say that directly, I believe the thoughts are there. Has anyone read the DNC news letters?And many outlets for Democratic expression carry this theme. Why else is there a thread of socialism running through a number of envisioned Democratic prescriptions? Bad drug companies, bad energy companies, bad MIC, bad Wal-Mart, bad heath insurers. The Democrats have less than subtely played both the race card and the class card. Just witness the King funeral. I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that with the infux of the Farther Left which some Democratic leaders desire, the message has become more shrill. And there is alot to complain about, isn't there? There is some merit to the accusations, but there is an overview here at work that seeks to suggest the redistribute of wealth to help energize a populist pro-Democrat movement. Even the Katrina fiasco was portrayed as "indifference to the poor" as though it was a conservative principle espoused by Republicans.

As a Democrat-leaning person, I think the attacks have gone a bit over the top, or at least over-played and a bit off base. That is just my opinion. I have travelled a bit up the East Coast lately and many Democrats seem to feel the Republicans have sold out to Big Money and that our multinationals are running our foreign policy and fleecing America while outsourcing our jobs. They also think outsourcing is wrong and that China is leveraging its obstructionist foreign policy with financing our debt. They opposed the Chinese by-out of an American oil company. I have heard a number of Democratic Congressional leaders suggest that "free markets" actually mean to the Republicans an American corporate domination and exploitation, inevitable worker's rights abuses abroad (as well as environmental degradation) and privately they enjoy the barbs by Chavez and Moore. I have heard Democratic stratagists even suggesting on cable news that our foreign policy encourages others to seek wmd.

I guess it goes back to the Democrats focusing on the "Democratic" part of "Liberal Democracy" and putting the Republicans more in the camp of our wealthy, "Individual Rights" Founding Fathers. Now, I know this is not accurate nor a true reflection of the Democratic electorate, but Left-leaning blogs, papers and media tend to follow this line. Just read the op ed pages. Perception counts alot in America (and the world). So I am not sure why my opinion of the creep towards a "New Liberalism" fueled by a very vocal and encouraged radical left minorty is just my experiance on the internet.

I also mentioned Chomsky in regard to how Democrats (who have traditionally supported Israel) have taken an often quiet and disturbing line on America's relationship with Israel. Although Kerry has visited Israel recently, who could miss the "Sharon is Hilter" posters at Democratic rallies in NYC. How ironic that Abbas was sad to see him in a coma. In the sixties and seventies Chomsky did not hide his distain for Liberals. One reason was the Democratic rejection of PLO terrorism. I find it strange how many Democrats now think we are in the Middle East for oil domiation and unqualified support for Israel. Although 75% of Jewish Americans voted for Kerry, there is a growing Democratic perception that American Jews are somehoe responsible for America's problems in Iraq and Iran. Enough for the moment.

I think I have briefly mentioned a number of valid public observations to suggest that Bush's rejection of terrorism is seen by some Democrats as a doomed approach, as Chomsky felt the rejectionist view towards Arab terrorism would doom any peace in the Middle East. Negotiate and listen to what "they" want. Well, then Chomsky suggested we went to Viet Nam to keep the Japanese in line.

Let's just say defeat makes strange bedfellows and in the attempt to galvanize a political victory, too many Democrats have remained silent as the Far Left has stepped forward under the Democratic tent. Is Cindy Sheehan a Democrat? I have read dozens of op ed letters from "garden type liberals" who advocate positons I had always thought were a bit extreme. Well, Sheehan is another thread. Perhaps these "Democrats" are just a smaller fringe than I imagine wearing Elephant's clothing.....

I will try to shorten my responses. How else could I present supporting material? LOL. Hope I haven't brought pointless comments to your Centerfield.

Max NYC

Posted by: maxtrue at March 23, 2006 08:21 PM

P.S. Please excuse my typos. I don't actually type. I poke.

Posted by: maxtrue at March 23, 2006 08:45 PM

Max, if you weren't saying anything interesting, we wouldn't bother to reply.

I beat Al Qaqaa to death because it's a great example of a common-knowledge "fact" that isn't. Too much of that going around.

Posted by: Tully at March 24, 2006 12:33 AM

Here's a thought: a two hour network news special where the major players (military, administration, Democrats and Republican leaders, news executives, major think tanks and their senior experts etc.) sit around a table armed with their "responses" to the questions they know are coming. Clearly and civilly, they discuss the truth and myths about Iraq.

Remember how journalism used to be? I'm thinking of that Harvard Law Professor with his Who's Who of guests as they discuss an important legal issue of the day. How hard can it be to get to the bottom of the facts? What mistakes were made? How is our present policy the best one? We all know the questions, but without the answers clearly presented to the public; how can there really be informed debate? There is no referee between the partisan leaders.

Al Qaqaa is just one example and hardly the worst or the last. An honest third-party verification to evaluate everyone's claims seems to be the problem from Iraq to the Patriot Act, from the NSA to a no-bid Hong Kong Co inspecting the cargo coming here from Asia. What are the facts and what is spin?

Someone please explain to me why media and government can't seem to set the record straight. Even Media Matters can't touch the scope of this problem. I read that the fifty or so air strikes during Shock and Awe succeeded in killing hundreds, possibly thousands of innocents except the intended targeted people (NYT April of 2003). I have read reports that, like Serbia, Saddam had a way to detect our stealth fighter (which was the first American aircraft lost over Iraq). I read reports that the Russians showed Saddam how to jam our GPS and that missiles we fired went astray and killed more innocents. If th