Bush Vindication

[hokie4redskins]

I think I've only met two liberals who've eaten their words. Calling all liberals!! The Post's Krauthammer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45508-2005Mar17.html

What's Left? Shame.

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A23

At his news conference on Wednesday, President Bush declined an invitation to claim vindication for his policy of spreading democracy in the Middle East. After two years of attacks on him as a historical illiterate pursuing the childish fantasy of Middle East democracy, he was entitled to claim a bit of credit. Yet he declined, partly out of modesty (as with Ronald Reagan, one of the secrets of his political success) and partly because he has learned the perils of declaring any mission accomplished.

The democracy project is, of course, just beginning. We do not yet know whether the Middle East today is Europe 1989 or Europe 1848. In 1989 we saw the swift collapse of the Soviet empire; in 1848 there was a flowering of liberal revolutions throughout Europe that, within a short time, were all suppressed.
_____Today's Op-Eds_____
• Why Filibusters Should Be Allowed (Post, March 20, 2005)
• He Wrote, She Wrote (Post, March 20, 2005)
• Clay Shaw's Alternative (Post, March 20, 2005)
• For Bush, Personnel as Policy (Post, March 20, 2005)
• Painful Echoes Of My Father's Ordeal (Post, March 20, 2005)

_____What's Your Opinion?_____
Message Boards • Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
• About Message Boards
_____More Krauthammer_____
• Thou Shalt Not Create (The Washington Post, Mar 11, 2005)
• The Road to Damascus (The Washington Post, Mar 4, 2005)
• Israel Draws the Line (The Washington Post, Feb 25, 2005)
• About Charles Krauthammer


Add Charles Krauthammer to your personal home page.



_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
• Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

Nonetheless, 1848 did presage the coming of the liberal idea throughout Europe. (By 1871, it had been restored to France, for example.) It marked a turning point from which there was no going back. The Arab Spring of 2005 will be noted by history as a similar turning point for the Arab world.

We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeed. The Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, their jihadist allies, and the various regional autocrats are quite determined to suppress it. But we do know one thing: Those who claimed, with great certainty, that Arabs are an exception to the human tendency toward freedom, that they live in a stunted and distorted culture that makes them love their chains -- and that the notion the United States could help trigger a democratic revolution by militarily deposing their oppressors was a fantasy -- have been proved wrong.

As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false. I am surprised only that it was proved false so quickly -- that the voters in Iraq, the people of Lebanon, the women of Kuwait, the followers of Ayman Nour in Egypt would rise so eagerly at the first breaking of the dictatorial "stability" they had so long experienced (and we had so long supported) to claim their democratic rights.

This amazing display has prompted a wave of soul-searching. When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened.

It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left's patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt, too.

After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.

A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero -- a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing -- Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons -- nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.

The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.

[Johnny Punani2]

Excellent read...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[SEF]

What does Jonah Goldberg think about this topic? Now, THAT would be interesting. :rolleyes:

[chomerics]

Read this quote. . .




We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeed. The Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, their jihadist allies, and the various regional autocrats are quite determined to suppress it. But we do know one thing: Those who claimed, with great certainty, that Arabs are an exception to the human tendency toward freedom, that they live in a stunted and distorted culture that makes them love their chains -- and that the notion the United States could help trigger a democratic revolution by militarily deposing their oppressors was a fantasy -- have been proved wrong.

How can you be proven wrong if the outcome has not been decided yet?

Furthermor, the left's talking points was never that the Arab nations would not embrace democracy, it was about the destructive forign policy of the Bush administration, and how this does nothing to fight terrorism. In fact, it has bread an entire generation of children who hate America.

Two sides to each coin my friend.

[esteffan]

Originally posted by chomerics
Read this quote. . .



In fact, it has bread an entire generation of children who hate America.

Two sides to each coin my friend.

Here we go again.

Do you actually think that it was only Bush's foreign policy that created an 'entire generation of children who hate America'?

Hate to bring this to your attention, but the US has been a target of terrorists BEFORE GW Bush was in office.

[esteffan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hokie4redskins
[B]I think I've only met two liberals who've eaten their words. Calling all liberals!! The Post's Krauthammer.

Great post Hokie. Thanks.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by esteffan
[B]

Here we go again.

Do you actually think that it was only Bush's foreign policy that created an 'entire generation of children who hate America'?

No, but it has not improved the impression of the US around the world by any stretch of the immagination.

It has been the past 20 years of forign policy under both parties which have created the hatred, Bush has only stepped it up a notch.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by chomerics


No, but it has not improved the impression of the US around the world by any stretch of the immagination.

It has been the past 20 years of forign policy under both parties which have created the hatred, Bush has only stepped it up a notch.

Actually i think your wrong. As each additional country aspires for freedom the stock of the Coalition rises... Hence, the liberal apology.
duh!

I was going to add and out: But Fred's below is perfect...

[Fred Jones]

I think it is a little premature to claim vindication, however, at this point in time things are looking up in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Whether Democracy can continue to gain momentum is another matter. With a large contingent of U.S. Military personnel currently in Iraq it is not hard for Democracy to begin and even prosper. How long will this last? How long will a large contingent of U.S. military personnel have to stay before Democracy takes a foothold for good? I don’t know, and I guarantee the current administration doesn’t know. Syria and Iran pose problems for Democracy in the region and Saudi Arabia isn’t exactly a bastion of democracy either.
However, at this point in time, Bush can smile and claim a small victory.

[esteffan]

Good post Fred.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Fred Jones
I think it is a little premature to claim vindication, however, at this point in time things are looking up in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Whether Democracy can continue to gain momentum is another matter. With a large contingent of U.S. Military personnel currently in Iraq it is not hard for Democracy to begin and even prosper. How long will this last? How long will a large contingent of U.S. military personnel have to stay before Democracy takes a foothold for good? I don’t know, and I guarantee the current administration doesn’t know. Syria and Iran pose problems for Democracy in the region and Saudi Arabia isn’t exactly a bastion of democracy either.
However, at this point in time, Bush can smile and claim a small victory.

I don't necessarily disagree with you Fred, but Bush already ended up with mud on his face with the Mission Accomplished speech, so I think he is a wee bit hesitent to proclaim even a small victory when the outcome has not been determined.

I remain slightly optimistic in the outcome, not because of Bush, but because of our soldiers. I just hope when we leave a civil war does not break out.

[esteffan]

Originally posted by chomerics


No, but it has not improved the impression of the US around the world by any stretch of the immagination.

It has been the past 20 years of forign policy under both parties which have created the hatred, Bush has only stepped it up a notch.

Ok, I really need clarification on your comment. Are you saying that essentially every politician over the past 20 years has contributed to the current atmosphere of hatred, yet Bush, by actually doing something to fight against these lunatics, has created MORE hatred for America? I think that is laughable. Terrorists attacked US interests FIVE times while Bill 'gettin' a hummer' Clinton was in office. Yet he did nothing. NOTHING (other than to launch a few cruise missiles to take the heat off himself).

Sending terrorists a nice e-card and a Vermont teddy bear won't stop them from killing innocent people. I would be very interested to know what you think the proper approach should be. These fanatics are blowing up buses with children on them, and are using mentally retarded children as suicide bombers. Do you really think that it's our fault that they hate us?

[chomerics]

Originally posted by esteffan


Ok, I really need clarification on your comment. Are you saying that essentially every politician over the past 20 years has contributed to the current atmosphere of hatred, yet Bush, by actually doing something to fight against these lunatics, has created MORE hatred for America? I think that is laughable. Terrorists attacked US interests FIVE times while Bill 'gettin' a hummer' Clinton was in office. Yet he did nothing. NOTHING (other than to launch a few cruise missiles to take the heat off himself).

Stop being naieve. Bush invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, all of his talking points have dissappeared, the failure to find WMDs, failure to link Saddam with 9-11 AND a working relationship with Al Qaeda. Absolutely nothing. We have been over all of this before, use the search function and you can find thread after thread where this is discussed, I don't feel like going through it yet again. Espcially for somebody who just ran in another thread when he tried to claim the Swifties were not lying and that Kerry was a coward.



Sending terrorists a nice e-card and a Vermont teddy bear won't stop them from killing innocent people. I would be very interested to know what you think the proper approach should be. These fanatics are blowing up buses with children on them, and are using mentally retarded children as suicide bombers. Do you really think that it's our fault that they hate us?

Yes, it is our backing of people such as Saddam Hussen, the Shah and other dictators, our backing of Israel and numerous other reasons. To say our forign policy in the Middle East is not the reason for terrorism is completely disengenuous. I would further state that you have never read anything Bin Laden has written, if you actually think our forign policy had nothing to do with the foundation of Al Qaeda and the jihad against the US.

[Fred Jones]

I will add that Clinton didn't have the political climate that Bush enjoys today. I will admit that the current administration's policies have probably made some countries think twice about their actions. However, to dismiss what the previous administration did is stupid. What is Bush going to do with China?, with N. Korea?, with Iran?

[Mad Mike]

It kills me when I hear people talk about how our foreign policys have created the hatred.

NO. I'm sorry but you are WRONG. What has created the hatred is the warped view that is spread about our foreign policys by those who would use us as a scapegoat and those who's religious extremism drives them to hate us as infidels anyway.

You want to know why they hate us? Let's ask Bin Laden...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html


It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world.

Show of hands... Who here thinks we are to blame for those "massacres"? Who here thinks we should have allowed the muslims access to more arms in bosnia? Who here thinks we did anything wrong in Somalia by trying to help feed those starving people and get the warlords to stop the killing?

But hey, if we only listened to the united nations, everything would be OK; right? Ooops, that's right, bin Laden doesn't like them either.


And after a long absence, imposed on the scholars (Ulama) and callers (Da'ees) of Islam by the iniquitous crusaders movement under the leadership of the USA; who fears that they, the scholars and callers of Islam, will instigate the Ummah of Islam against its' enemies as their ancestor scholars-may Allah be pleased with them- like Ibn Taymiyyah and Al'iz Ibn Abdes-Salaam did. And therefore the Zionist-Crusader alliance resorted to killing and arresting the truthful Ulama and the working Da'ees (We are not praising or sanctifying them; Allah sanctify whom He pleased). They killed the Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzaam, and they arrested the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmad Yaseen and the Mujahid Sheikh Omar Abdur Rahman (in America).

Oh man we really screwed up there. :rolleyes:
Sheikh Omar Abdur-Rahman was convicted in 1995 on charges of conspiracy to bomb various New York landmarks. Sheikh Ahmad Yaseen was the spiritual leader of Hamas, he was killed by the Israelis. Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzaam preached "Jihad must not be abandoned until Allah (SWT) Alone is worshipped. Jihad continues until Allah's Word is raised high. Jihad until all the oppressed peoples are freed. Jihad to protect our dignity and restore our occupied lands. Jihad is the way of everlasting glory." Interestingly from what I have seen, he was killed by a roadside IED (not exactly U.S. MO) and coincidentally had a break with bin Laden because Azzam opposed making war against fellow-Muslims. Also Zawahiri undermined Azzam's position by spreading rumors that he was a spy.


More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children.

Ah, my favorite excuse. UBL blames America for the suffering while Saddam builds multi-million dollar palaces, and UN officials get rich along with French and Russian government officials. But hey "the sanctions were working". "Saddam was contained". So what should we have done? Dropped the sanctions and allowed Saddam to rebuild his military and WMD capabilities as the Duelfer report stated was his intent? Continued the sanctions while the Iraqi people suffered and Bin Laden and his followers blamed the US? Maybe if we sang KumbaYa... :rolleyes:

The fact is that America tries harder than any other nation on earth to do the right thing. Some times we screw up, but nobody tries harder than us to get it right. The fact is that bin Laden and those who follow him are sociopathic terrorists and it's not our fault. The fact is that when millions of Iraqi voters turn out to determine their own future despite a couple of thousand terrorists, we ARE winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people.

[Ignatius J.]

This thread is such a joke.

First, many liberals supported the war. So we're supposed to say what now?

Second, In other threads, like the thread about the daily show, liberals have been quick to point out that bush's policies have appeared to go better than we had expected. In fact, so a search funtion on any newspaper and you'll see plenty of liberal media saying exactly the same thing. Bush did better than we expected.

So, again, this thread is a joke, based on a lie.

[sith lord]

Interesting read,but what does it really say?That we should give credit to Bush for being humble?And besides,he already had a mission accomplished speech before the mission was actually accomplished.If I remember correctly,the main objective of this war in Iraq was to find there WMDs,and yes,that was the main objective.Did we find any?

N.Korea has told everyone that they have WMDs and said they would use them against anybody,the U.S. included.Lets go remove there's and lets see what happends.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.
This thread is such a joke.

First, many liberals supported the war. So we're supposed to say what now?

Please. Show me some quotes of liberals who supported the war. I'm not doubting that there are a few (very few) liberal individuals who supported it but by an large they were rabidly against it.


Second, In other threads, like the thread about the daily show, liberals have been quick to point out that bush's policies have appeared to go better than we had expected. In fact, so a search funtion on any newspaper and you'll see plenty of liberal media saying exactly the same thing. Bush did better than we expected.

So, again, this thread is a joke, based on a lie.

I'll have to say, I've seen a few big name liberals admit that things seem to be going well. I also saw an interview on fox with the woman who was blasted for her comments on the daily show and she seemed to be a reasonable, rational personwho wants the US to succeed even if it is under Bush. Kudos to them.

Now I agree, this thread could have been posted in a less confrontational manner. But it is only fair for those who believe in the war to post positive stories about it. Is it not?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by sith lord
N.Korea has told everyone that they have WMDs and said they would use them against anybody,the U.S. included.Lets go remove there's and lets see what happends.

Yeah! Damn that Bush for not starting a nuclear war with N. Korea and chosing to be sure that we never have to face that posibility with Iraq! :rolleyes:

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Mad Mike


Please. Show me some quotes of liberals who supported the war. I'm not doubting that there are a few (very few) liberal individuals who supported it but by an large they were rabidly against it.



John Kerry

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Liberty


John Kerry

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

[Ignatius J.]

It's funny that you laugh. At the only moment in history when the invasion depended on Kerry, he voted for it, as did many other democrats. That means they supported the war.

Just because you don't understand Kerry's criticisms of the war doesn't mean he didn;t support it. I can't believe we're still talking about this. Go back and look at the day of invasion threads if you can, I supported the war.

I think bush made a thousand mistakes in the way he went to war, just like Kerry did. But I supported the war, despite the fact that I am a liberal.

[sith lord]

Originally posted by Mad Mike


Yeah! Damn that Bush for not starting a nuclear war with N. Korea and chosing to be sure that we never have to face that posibility with Iraq! :rolleyes:

Do you really believe we would of ever had to face Iraq in a nuclear war?

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

People just can't get it thorugh your head that we agree we need to finish the job huh. You can't understand that you can be against the president and his actions, yet support the troops. You don't realize that the fact is we are in Iraq right now, and we need to focus on finishing the job.

I don't agree that it was the right thing to do, but I do understand that we can't just pack up and leave. Rational people just can't come to the reasoning that we went in for the wrong reasons, yet we can still manage to do some good.

I guess it's the black and white mentality, the "your either with us or against us" type of BS where people can't understand the true intricacies of what forign policy should be. But then again, it is this type of mentality which got us there in the first place.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by chomerics


People just can't get it thorugh your head that we agree we need to finish the job huh. You can't understand that you can be against the president and his actions, yet support the troops. You don't realize that the fact is we are in Iraq right now, and we need to focus on finishing the job.

I don't agree that it was the right thing to do, but I do understand that we can't just pack up and leave. Rational people just can't come to the reasoning that we went in for the wrong reasons, yet we can still manage to do some good.

I guess it's the black and white mentality, the "your either with us or against us" type of BS where people can't understand the true intricacies of what forign policy should be. But then again, it is this type of mentality which got us there in the first place.

Another BS rant that isn't related to this thread whatsoever....

[Ignatius J.]

Johnny Punani,

it's the whole point of the thread, you just don't get it.

The thread said liberals should suck some corw for not supporting the war. We said we did support the war. You said that's not the point.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.
Johnny Punani,

it's the whole point of the thread, you just don't get it.

No, you don't get it. Re-read the article and get back to me when you understand it.

[Ignatius J.]

Originally posted by hokie4redskins
I think I've only met two liberals who've eaten their words. Calling all liberals!! The Post's Krauthammer.



The article was a good article punani. I never took issue with the article. I took issue with the thread, since so many liberals were pro war leading up to it, they just thought bush was an idiot.

Then someone asked which liberals supported the war. We answered that. Where did we go off topic?

someone ELSE brought up Kerry's election speeches which had nothing to do with Kerry's support of the principle of the war, and yet you blame chomerics for trying to explain the comments that had no place in the discussion?

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.


The article was a good article punani. I never took issue with the article. I took issue with the thread.

I'm only commenting on the article not individual posts.

Krauthammer is talking about European Socialists ONLY. Are you or anyone in here a European Socialist? No but I guess some are confused if they are or not...

[Ignatius J.]

Then we are agreed. The thread is a joke, the article is not.

but don't blast chomerics for defending against baseless acusations in the thread by saying the article made sense.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.
Then we are agreed. The thread is a joke, the article is not.

but don't blast chomerics for defending against baseless acusations in the thread by saying the article made sense.

Well, I don't think the thread is a joke. I'm glad hokie4redskins posted it. It was an excellent article. However, he was mistaken by making a comment about "calling all liberals" even though there were a lot who were against the war in the first place.

[esteffan]

Originally posted by chomerics



I guess it's the black and white mentality, the "your either with us or against us" type of BS where people can't understand the true intricacies of what forign policy should be. But then again, it is this type of mentality which got us there in the first place.


Based on your comment, you imply that you know what foreign policy "should be". I am all ears, tell me, what should it be? It sure is easy to criticize when you don't have to actually make the decision.

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by chomerics
Read this quote. . .



How can you be proven wrong if the outcome has not been decided yet?

Furthermor, the left's talking points was never that the Arab nations would not embrace democracy, it was about the destructive forign policy of the Bush administration, and how this does nothing to fight terrorism. In fact, it has bread an entire generation of children who hate America.

Two sides to each coin my friend.

they already bread entire generations who hated america

[esteffan]

Originally posted by sith lord
Interesting read,but what does it really say?That we should give credit to Bush for being humble?And besides,he already had a mission accomplished speech before the mission was actually accomplished.If I remember correctly,the main objective of this war in Iraq was to find there WMDs,and yes,that was the main objective.Did we find any?

N.Korea has told everyone that they have WMDs and said they would use them against anybody,the U.S. included.Lets go remove there's and lets see what happends.

Your statement makes no sense. Many democratic leaders also stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? You conveniently did not mention that. And yes, we found that Iraq had missiles that were not permitted under UN sanctions. Missiles which could have carried a chemical payload. Is that not weapons of mass destruction considering that Saddam killed thousands of his own people with chemical weapons, what more proof do you need?

[sith lord]

Originally posted by esteffan


Your statement makes no sense. Many democratic leaders also stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? You conveniently did not mention that. And yes, we found that Iraq had missiles that were not permitted under UN sanctions. Missiles which could have carried a chemical payload. Is that not weapons of mass destruction considering that Saddam killed thousands of his own people with chemical weapons, what more proof do you need?

The democratic leaders who believed that Iraq had WMDs were just as wrong as Bush.But the one difference is that Bush is the commander and chief and please don't insult my intellegence by saying a senator in Iowa saying Iraq has WMDs carries the same weight as when Bush says it.And by the way,Saddam wasn't the only dictator killing his own people.Are we going to liberate every country that needs to be liberated?

[MaddogCT]

I stopped when the writer said Regan was modest. There is no such thing as a modest politician or actor and Regan was both.

Iran doesn't seem that democratic to me. Nor does Jordan. Or Syria. or....well you get my point.
As it was said in one of the best movies of our times:

"Let not start sucking each others' d***'s just yet fellas. We still got plenty of work to do."

:logo:

[chomerics]

Originally posted by esteffan



Based on your comment, you imply that you know what foreign policy "should be". I am all ears, tell me, what should it be? It sure is easy to criticize when you don't have to actually make the decision.

Hint: use the search function if you want to find my views on forign policy, there's plenty out there.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Even though I have supported the President in our actions in the Middle East (and if my very first posts were not deleted you would see initially I was opposed to an invasion of Iraq) I am not sure if he is "vindicated"

Things are progressing and going well. I think it is more that the left has been so toxic in its criticsm about each and every facet of what we are doing over there, that we conservatives have to say "hey look, this thing is working"

Perhaps if there was more constructive debate to begin with, one side would not be going "ha ha I told you so"

My personal opinion is there is still plenty of work left to do, this isn't 1989 in Europe because that was the end of decades of work, this is simply the start of impending change.

When will it happen? Hopefully sooner then later. I am just glad to see that something is finally happening, and in part thanks to the actions and leadership of Bush.

[Baculus]

Between 9-11 and the WMD issue that was pounded into the heads of Americans, there were a number of "mainstream" liberals that supported the war. The article was simply an attempt to crow about Bush's "success," even though much of it happened inspite of the administration's poor planning and missteps. I mean, Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq with 80,000 troops, right? Our troops fought well and have performed their duty, but the question has always been, should we have been there in the first place?

And the basis for the war turned out to be, so far, false, since large stores of WMDs have not be located, so now it has turned into the "liberation of Iraq." (BTW, has anyone even posed the question if the WMDs would even be useful, since some of them have a short lifespan?) So, no, Bush was not "right" in that case, which seems to have been conviently forgotten by the article's author as well as the Bush supporters on this thread.

If he was right, where are the WMDs?

And I don't think anyone that opposed the war dfelt that Iraqis were undeserving of being freed of Saddam's tyranny. But most anti-war folks knew that freeing Iraq wasn't the primary reason for the invasion. And now, it just seems like a false image placed upon a mission whose original supposed intent has turned out to be incorrect.

Yes, one of the few good things out of this whole deal is that Saddam is gone. It's about time we cleaned up our mess, after all.

A belief that our foreign policy cannot produce a backlash is demonstrating an ignorance of human nature, behavior, and history, and a misguided belief that our country can do no wrong in its foreign policy. Are some of us really that arrogant?

If you continue to believe that our government cannot make blunders, then we will never learn from our mistakes. Saddam is a prime example of what happens when our foreign policy comes back to bite us in the arse.

By the way, some of us tend to forget that some conservatives have been extremely critical of the war from its inception. This isn't merely a Left vs Right issue. In fact, on principle, many traditional conservatives would oppose the war and would view it as an entangling conflict. In fact, some conservatives view this as a conflict borne of "neoliberal internationalist" ideas.

[dreamingwolf]

well I should definately take your opinion cause your clearly unbiased.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Baculus
Between 9-11 and the WMD issue that was pounded into the heads of Americans, there were a number of "mainstream" liberals that supported the war. The article was simply an attempt to crow about Bush's "success," even though much of it happened inspite of the administration's poor planning and missteps. I mean, Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq with 80,000 troops, right? Our troops fought well and have performed their duty, but the question has always been, should we have been there in the first place?

And the basis for the war turned out to be, so far, false, since large stores of WMDs have not be located, so now it has turned into the "liberation of Iraq." (BTW, has anyone even posed the question if the WMDs would even be useful, since some of them have a short lifespan?) So, no, Bush was not "right" in that case, which seems to have been conviently forgotten by the article's author as well as the Bush supporters on this thread.

If he was right, where are the WMDs?

And I don't think anyone that opposed the war dfelt that Iraqis were undeserving of being freed of Saddam's tyranny. But most anti-war folks knew that freeing Iraq wasn't the primary reason for the invasion. And now, it just seems like a false image placed upon a mission whose original supposed intent has turned out to be incorrect.

Yes, one of the few good things out of this whole deal is that Saddam is gone. It's about time we cleaned up our mess, after all.

A belief that our foreign policy cannot produce a backlash is demonstrating an ignorance of human nature, behavior, and history, and a misguided belief that our country can do no wrong in its foreign policy. Are some of us really that arrogant?

If you continue to believe that our government cannot make blunders, then we will never learn from our mistakes. Saddam is a prime example of what happens when our foreign policy comes back to bite us in the arse.

By the way, some of us tend to forget that some conservatives have been extremely critical of the war from its inception. This isn't merely a Left vs Right issue. In fact, on principle, many traditional conservatives would oppose the war and would view it as an entangling conflict. In fact, some conservatives view this as a conflict borne of "neoliberal internationalist" ideas.

Most people who opposed the war remember only the WMD issue. In fact Bush Spoke extensively about liberty as a tool againt terrorism, Iraq's support for terrorists, hatred for America, and his brutal treatment of his own people.


Bush State of the Union address
January 29, 2002

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

...

And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace. All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.

If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history -- with its centuries of learning, and tolerance, and progress.

America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture -- but America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law ... limits on the power of the state ... respect for women ... private property ... free speech ... equal justice ... and religious tolerance.

America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world -- including the Islamic world -- because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.

[Chief skin]

The Iraq war was based and sold to the country on a pack of lies, and scare tactics. There was no WMD, there was no Saddam Bin laden connection ever uncovered. The fact remains that this administration bull$hited the population, the congress, and our allies. A democracy any democracy can't survive on the ends justifies the means mentality. 1, 520 brave men and women gave there lives for lies

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Chief skin
The Iraq war was based and sold to the country on a pack of lies, and scare tactics. There was no WMD, there was no Saddam Bin laden connection ever uncovered. The fact remains that this administration bull$hited the population, the congress, and our allies. A democracy any democracy can't survive on the ends justifies the means mentality. 1, 520 brave men and women gave there lives for lies


This tired rhetoric has no bearing now.

get over it, most people disagree and understand your false premise as partisanship.

Why not try and celebrate the fact that democracy is gaining hold in the ME and see reality?

[roqnap1]

I am a Liberal. Proud of that fact actually. Just look the definition of Liberal up in Webster's...I don't understand why people try to use it as a demeaning term.

That being said, I supported the war...still do.

I don't agree with Bush's priorities. Yes, we are having sucess in Iraq and thank God/Allah/whatever for that. No one deserves to live like that.

However, focusing on Iraq to the extent that we have, I have a problem with. There is a murderer out there. A mass-murderer. One who, in the matter of a few hours, killed 2,900+ people. This happened 3.5 years ago...and he has NOT been brought to justice.

Bin Laden is known to be somewhere in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is 146% the size of Iraq in square footage, however there are currently 12% of the amount of troops stationed in Afghanistan as are stationed in Iraq.

Not cool... We entered a war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence and now we have to babysit that situation until we can ease up on the focus of Iraq and readdress Afghanistan/Bin Laden.

But now what? Iran is calling us out...as is North Korea. We will more than likely have to address those problem children first. So when exactly will the 2900+ families have closure? Not in this Presidency.

...and that's too bad.

I am a liberal...and I will ALWAYS support the war and the troops.

I am a liberal...and I will mourn for 2900+ families until Bin Laden is brought to justice.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by roqnap1
I am a Liberal. Proud of that fact actually. Just look the definition of Liberal up in Webster's...I don't understand why people try to use it as a demeaning term.

That being said, I supported the war...still do.

I don't agree with Bush's priorities. Yes, we are having sucess in Iraq and thank God/Allah/whatever for that. No one deserves to live like that.

However, focusing on Iraq to the extent that we have, I have a problem with. There is a murderer out there. A mass-murderer. One who, in the matter of a few hours, killed 2,900+ people. This happened 3.5 years ago...and he has NOT been brought to justice.

Bin Laden is known to be somewhere in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is 146% the size of Iraq in square footage, however there are currently 12% of the amount of troops stationed in Afghanistan as are stationed in Iraq.

Not cool... We entered a war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence and now we have to babysit that situation until we can ease up on the focus of Iraq and readdress Afghanistan/Bin Laden.

But now what? Iran is calling us out...as is North Korea. We will more than likely have to address those problem children first. So when exactly will the 2900+ families have closure? Not in this Presidency.

...and that's too bad.

I am a liberal...and I will ALWAYS support the war and the troops.

I am a liberal...and I will mourn for 2900+ families until Bin Laden is brought to justice.




nobody has thought Bin Laden has been in Afganistan for a few years now. He is thought to be in Pakistan, and our troops are not allowed to go in there. We are working with the Pakistani government to capture him.

I agree, however that it would sure look nicer to get Bin Laden, but disagree that he should be a porioirty as he is becoming persona non grata in relation to the terror threats we now receive.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by roqnap1
I am a Liberal. Proud of that fact actually. Just look the definition of Liberal up in Webster's...I don't understand why people try to use it as a demeaning term.

That being said, I supported the war...still do.

I don't agree with Bush's priorities. Yes, we are having sucess in Iraq and thank God/Allah/whatever for that. No one deserves to live like that.

However, focusing on Iraq to the extent that we have, I have a problem with. There is a murderer out there. A mass-murderer. One who, in the matter of a few hours, killed 2,900+ people. This happened 3.5 years ago...and he has NOT been brought to justice.

Bin Laden is known to be somewhere in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is 146% the size of Iraq in square footage, however there are currently 12% of the amount of troops stationed in Afghanistan as are stationed in Iraq.

Not cool... We entered a war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence and now we have to babysit that situation until we can ease up on the focus of Iraq and readdress Afghanistan/Bin Laden.

But now what? Iran is calling us out...as is North Korea. We will more than likely have to address those problem children first. So when exactly will the 2900+ families have closure? Not in this Presidency.

...and that's too bad.

I am a liberal...and I will ALWAYS support the war and the troops.

I am a liberal...and I will mourn for 2900+ families until Bin Laden is brought to justice.

I don't have any major issues with this post. It is by and large an understandable position, even if I don't completely agree.

However there are inaccuracy's.

First, we don't know where UBL is. We THINK he may be in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. But finding one man is no easy task. And no, even if we transfered all of our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, it would not get any easier. If he's in Pakistan it does not help at all. The problem there is politics. Musharraf has done his best to help but his support is thin. If he is seen as being too agressive in his support for us he may be overthrown and that would be dangerous becaust Pakistan has nukes. So we can't just send our forces into Pakisan's tribal areas where UBL is most likely hiding and Musharraf has to try to find UBL as "quietly" as posible.

Second. Iran is less of a threat now, with us on two of their borders, and we are in a better position to presure them because we have shown that we are serious with Iraq. Nothing has changed with N. Korea other than the demonstration of our resolve in Iraq.

One last thing. I expect that by this time next year our troop levels in Iraq will be cut in half as Iraqi forces grow more capable of defending their own country.

[Chief skin]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas



This tired rhetoric has no bearing now.

get over it, most people disagree and understand your false premise as partisanship.

Why not try and celebrate the fact that democracy is gaining hold in the ME and see reality?


It is amazing that you are able to dismiss the fact that we were all led to believe a falsehood which was part of a vast government conspiracy to take this nation to war. The reality is the ends justifies the means and that is a dangerous precedent. The founding fathers must be turming over in their graves.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Chief skin



It is amazing that you are able to dismiss the fact that we were all led to believe a falsehood which was part of a vast government conspiracy to take this nation to war. The reality is the ends justifies the means and that is a dangerous precedent. The founding fathers must be turming over in their graves.


kind of looks like the end is justifying the means.

Please, even the most avid Bush haters can see the huge srides towards democracy in the ME.

There have been hundreds of threads here that you can view that will prove that we were not lied to.

It's tired, old, and disingenuous to persist in that tyopic at this stage.


Vast government conspiracy? ummm, OK. :doh:

[Ignatius J.]

skin,

I for one don't believe that there was a mass government conspiracy, but we were lied to.

Bush led us to believe that chemical weapons production was underway in various stages. He told us that Sadam did not disarm. It appears that he did.

Our intelligence was wrong.

Liberals have been forthcoming in admitting that bush's policies have managed to do some good in the region.

But no that does not mean that the end has justified the means. There are thousands dead who would not be had it not been for the invasion.

We were lied to. I fully believe that bush believed every word he said when he said it, but that doesn't make everything he said true.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.
skin,

I for one don't believe that there was a mass government conspiracy, but we were lied to.

Bush led us to believe that chemical weapons production was underway in various stages. He told us that Sadam did not disarm. It appears that he did.

Our intelligence was wrong.

Liberals have been forthcoming in admitting that bush's policies have managed to do some good in the region.

But no that does not mean that the end has justified the means. There are thousands dead who would not be had it not been for the invasion.

We were lied to. I fully believe that bush believed every word he said when he said it, but that doesn't make everything he said true.


Hey iggy...

Tomato...toma'to dude,

I believe a lie must be with malicious intent to be a lie.

An error is another matter.

I just want to be fair and call it like I see it, just like you man!

We'll probably never see eye to eye on this one.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas


I believe a lie must be with malicious intent to be a lie.

An error is another matter.

Umm, we're talking about taking our country to war, and now you are saying an error doesn't matter:doh:

As for the lie, does the administrations saying N. Korea sold nukes to Syria fall under that title in your eyes, probably not huh.

[36SKINS56]

Great Read...but if your waiting for liberals to eat their words it'll never happen

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by chomerics


Umm, we're talking about taking our country to war, and now you are saying an error doesn't matter:doh:

As for the lie, does the administrations saying N. Korea sold nukes to Syria fall under that title in your eyes, probably not huh.


You and I see things differently Cho, but I can't rise to the bait any longer here.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't like some of the things that happened in the war, but many good things have also come out of it as well and that can't be denied.

Again, I don't believe President Bush lied and yes, I do think a mistake is something to be concerned with. I just don't believe you hang someone who made an error unintentionally.

I'm just more forgiving, thats all.