Mr Bush, stop sniveling that the Congress won’t do everything that you want them to do, in your way, and support the fucking bill already. You should know, that you can’t serve as president with the Congress that you want… you have to serve with the Congress you have… you can’t wait around for the Congress you wish to have at a later time.
I remember someone *cough* Rumsfeld *cough* saying that same thing about the military… interesting… that perspective totally applies here too! But, I am sure that things are too dark down there in the sand to actually see the parallel, and you know that these folks would never admit that they were careless, thoughtless, or disrespectful, you know?
Man, I love you Randi Rhodes.
So you think setting a time line is good military strategy?
Oh, and why don’t you call him “President Bush”?
or scumbag.
I think one could just as easily say “Congressional Democrats, stop sniveling that President Bush won’t do everything that you want him to do, in your way, and submit a realistic bill already. You should know, that you can’t serve your congressional terms with the President that you want… you have to serve with the President you have… you can’t wait around for the President you wish to have at a later time.”
Hey, I like this re-application principle!
you should know, that the president doesn’t read your blog.
The letters in “Cyanbane” spell out “Be A Nancy” haha
What happened to my comment?
Bugboy, the reason I don’t call him “the president”, is because I didn’t vote for him, and so, he isn’t MY president.
As for the cyanbane thing… that sounds a little demeaning…
duane, he’s your President whether you voted for him or not. Sorry about that. And, why did you answer that question of BugBoy’s but not the one about setting a timeline being a good idea?
Also, if Bush is so completely wrong, then Congress can overturn his veto. That’s not going to happen so apparently he’s not as out-of-touch with the population as you feel.
Eugene, sorry about that, dude… I was away from the house, and couldn’t “approve” your comment; I have a plug in that flags potential spam, and if you haven’t commented before, it puts your comment in moderation. You should be good to go from here on out.
Also, do you not see how the Congress was put in place to actually regulate what the president does, and actually serve as a voice for the people of the country?? That application that you speak of is a TALKING POINT. The bill is realistic. It provides aid to the military. It does a lot of things, but BUSH is the one that won’t approve it. I believe there are a few republicans on there too, so stop the democrat vs. republican thing already… that talking point is worn out.
Dave, I have answered Bugboy’s question many times; setting a time-line is a must. It indicates a plan of action. It shows that we are indeed serious about getting out of Iraq, and letting the people run their own country. It shows that we have an endgame in this so called war on terror. To ignore that is not “waging” a war with anyone, it is occupying a nation so that we can further our own agenda of acquiring wealth for contract corporations, as well as to make sure we secure our piece of the oil pie that sits beneath the country of Iraq. Bush doesn’t want to get out of Iraq, THAT is his plan. Ignoring the need for a real plan, one that would require a time line (non-binding mind you) shows that there never was any intention of leaving; which is what he keeps saying, which makes him a LIAR.
And if you think that Bush is NOT out of touch with society, you are right; he is deeply in touch with 19% of our society. The rest of the 81% want their voices to be listened to, and their needs accounted for. I am sure that you must not truly believe that Bush even has an awareness of what most Americans believe or experience day to day. He is simply unaware; either on purpose, or out of sheer wealthy ignorance.
“Bugboy, the reason I don’t call him “the president”, is because I didn’t vote for him, and so, he isn’t MY president.”
It’s looking like it’s impossible for you to look at anything he does objectively. I didn’t like Clinton, but I recognized and respected his authority and wanted him to do a good job for the nation (despite the whole cigar thing). To this day I admire him for not giving up during his impeachment. Similarly, I would admire Gore if he got back into the race.
Leaving Iraq early will result in disaster. The place will fall apart far worse than things are now. Would you agree to blame the resulting deaths on the Democrats for losing the war with the pullout if this happens? This pullout plan of the Dems is simply mindless. At least W’s invasion of Iraq was (and still could be) an attempt to transform the middle east. But the way things look now, I’m thinking it will have to be broken into 3 nations.
At least W’s invasion of Iraq was (and still could be) an attempt to transform the middle east.
Yes, and transform the allocation of federal tax money of all US citizens into the bank accounts of an array of companies which in turn gets “transformed” into shareholders bankaccounts.
…which in turn gets *transformed* into federal tax receipts to make up for the allocation to begin with.
rofl. right, thats definetly a 1 to 1 coorelation.
Heres 1/10th back to the gov’t. Here is the other 90% for me.
Bugboy, who are we trying to benefit? The pockets of already wealthy contract companies, or are we trying to empower the Iraqi people? It is pretty widely reported that instead of letting the Iraqis gain employment, we still send contractors in to do jobs that they could easily do. The obvious conclusion, is that we just want to continue exploiting them for as long as we can… and the war makes that whole process possible.
Leaving Iraq early will result in disaster. The place will fall apart far worse than things are now. Would you agree to blame the resulting deaths on the Democrats for losing the war with the pullout if this happens? This pullout plan of the Dems is simply mindless. At least W’s invasion of Iraq was (and still could be) an attempt to transform the middle east. But the way things look now, I’m thinking it will have to be broken into 3 nations.
There is so much falsehood packed into this short graph, it is almost not worth taking the time to unpack.
The place is a disaster… in large part because of us, not in spite of. (The other party bearing primary responsibility has been hanged.)
I’d blame the resulting deaths on the initial decision-makers who decided to invade.
W is not transforming the Middle East, and accepting that notion at face value is frankly ignorant.
Partitioning the country will be a disaster. The Kurds to the north will likely be attacked by Turkey, who is already on the edges of their seats with worry about that scenario. The Sunnis will be left choking in dust, with no reserves of oil or any other natural resource to speak of. Baghdad will continue as a sectarian fault line.
All of this may come to pass with or without or presence.
“Heres 1/10th back to the gov’t. Here is the other 90% for me.”
The return is actually pretty good.
“The place is a disaster… in large part because of us, not in spite of.”
Yeah, and those mass graves of Saddam speak volumes about your selective definition of disaster.
“I’d blame the resulting deaths on the initial decision-makers who decided to invade.”
Your blame would be sadly misplaced as you selectively exempt the Dems for creating a certain bloodbath.
“W is not transforming the Middle East, and accepting that notion at face value is frankly ignorant.”
First, I never said he was transforming the M.E., so much for your ironic claims of my ignorance. Transformation has yet to be determined. Elections in Lebanon, statehood for Palestine, al Qaeda leadership decimated, the possibility of Iraq working out…Bush’s policies still have a lot of potential despite the daily spin you hear on the news.
Partitioning Iraq might very well work. Turkey wouldn’t dare attack the Kurds if we had troops there. Oil revenues could be split, and so could Bagdhad.
Bugboy, you say that Bush wasn’t transforming the Middle East, yet, again, this is exactly what you said:
Trying to transform is the SAME THING as an attempt to transform. Wow.
Bugboy,
Did you miss my very next sentence about the other party bearing primary responsibility has already been hanged? Is that too oblique a reference for you to understand?
Where did I exempt the democrats? I am far from a partisan. The democrats and republicans largely accept the same value system when it comes to foreign policy. Domestic as well. Most of the dems went along for the ride, they deserve a significant amount of blame for enabling.
I thought when you said, “At least W’s invasion of Iraq was (and still could be) an attempt to transform the middle east,” that meant you thought W’s invasion was an …um… attempt to transform the Middle East. That is an ignorant statement, because changing the Middle East really wasn’t part of the impetus behind invading Iraq with the exception of replacing Saddam with a government more amenable to American interests, or “regime change.” After the initial pretext crumbled, Bush made some rhetorical maneuvers to change the framing of his invasion into some sort of messianic democratic vision, most notably in the 2005 state of the union. The words were never really accompanied with action. For example, at the same time it was quietly announced that funding for democracy building was being cut, right after the SOTU speech his handlers told the press that there would be no change in U.S. policy, and throughout he has continued subsidizing Egypt’s state police apparatus and strengthening ties with the Saudis.*
Do you think we care about the Kurds? Turkey was one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid and purchasers of U.S. weaponry in the 1990s, which they used to slaughter the Kurdish subpopulation in Turkey. They could very easily make it sound like it was in our interests to let them resume the bloodbath in northern Iraq, which they would if the region looked like an emerging Kurdistan.
Baghdad already is splitting apart, probably not what you mean though.
* Balz & Vandehei, Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say, in Washington Post. January 2005
Baker, P., Democracy in Iraq not a priority in U.S. budget, in Washington Post. 2006.
Chandrasekaran, R., Iraq rebuilding short on qualified civilians, in Washington Post. 2007.
“Trying to transform is the SAME THING as an attempt to transform. Wow.”
First, even if I did say that (which I didn’t) does that really qualify as a “wow” to you? Is this the level you want to argue on?
What I said was this:
(a) ‘At least W’s invasion of Iraq was (and still could be) an attempt to transform the middle east.’
and later:
(b) ‘First, I never said he was transforming the M.E., so much for your ironic claims of my ignorance. Transformation has yet to be determined.’
I have no idea where you got your quotes from, but (a) and (b) are what I said on the matter. Attempting to transform is not the same as transforming. Ok?
(do you need to have a “wow” on me that bad?)
“Did you miss my very next sentence about the other party bearing primary responsibility has already been hanged? Is that too oblique a reference for you to understand?”
Yes, it is oblique. If that sentence referred to the Democrats, and not Saddam Hussein, then it is not a clear reference considering SH bears a lot of responsibility and he was hanged. First you refer to “us” and then the “other party”, as opposed to “us”. Semantically, the reference was to something other than “us”. Therefore, it is your writing that is at fault, not my reading.
“That is an ignorant statement, because changing the Middle East really wasn’t part of the impetus behind invading Iraq ”
Before and after the invasion, the White House has made so many statements about spreading democracy in the Middle East it isn’t even funny.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050419-102116-1165r.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1419366,00.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.iraq27feb27,0,5448984.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil
“Do you think we care about the Kurds?”
I think the CIA and WH care about them so much they get a hard on. Have you actually seen a map with the Kurd region shown on it? Do you remember what country is right next to it? Do you know what the WH is planning on doing to that country? Oh they care about the Kurds alright.
“* Balz & Vandehei, Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say, in Washington Post. January 2005″
Did you read your own cite?
Here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27672-2005Jan21.html
…and here are some quotes from it:
-In the 21-minute speech, Bush mentioned neither Iraq nor terrorism but defined what he called a generations-long struggle to encourage democracy to make America safe from terrorist attack.
-Bush’s grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters, who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary.
-…the possibility that Bush’s grand vision of spreading democracy could prove successful, and perhaps historic, if the right choices are made in the years ahead.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
I’m being censored!!!!!!!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Everybody wants a “wow” on bugboy. Damn I’m good.
Bugboy, do you take everyone at their word or just American politicians?
I’ll let you in on a secret: people lie about what they are doing. Politicians are the most notorious liars. A significant function of government is deception. You are correct, the White House says all kinds of stuff about spreading democracy in the Middle East. Take a minute and look at what they actually do. I provided a few hints, say Egypt and the Saudis. By your standards we should probably free a large percentage or our prison populations because they have maintained their innocence.
A truism of human behavior is that the most odious actions in history have been preceded and accompanied by soaring rhetoric. In almost all human interaction, not just copulation, the phrase “I love you” only serves to facilitate the fucking.
Bush had nothing to do with putting those dictators in power but has a strong track record of trying to spread democracy, even at the expense of his reputation (note the lies told about him by these politicians you speak of). Considering Bush’s actions (which I thought I could take for granted with you) and his words (which, also, should be common knowledge) it is obvious Bush is trying to spread democracy in the Middle East.
These dictators do not like Bush one bit and fear for their own power if democracy spreads in that region. Even liberal analysts will say this.
All right, I’ll type slowly so you can understand.
I didn’t cite any politicians’ remarks about Bush as part of my argument, not sure what you are talking about.
As I said, you are right, Bush’s speechwriters can string together a lot of pretty words for him to recite that are laudatory of democracy. Again though, his actions tell a different story. Nothing new about this, even the Soviet commies, Nazis, and imperialist Japanese talked about how selfless they were and how they wanted to free other people. Public speeches and stage managed press conferences are not evidence of anything. What people say in public speeches are virtually meaningless and are of the lowest possible importance when determining what someone believes. Look at deeds, not words.
Here are a few of the actions, as I see them:
* On the eve of the Iraq war, Turkey’s parliament voted not to let the U.S. use Turkey as a military base with which to invade Iraq. This was in agreement with about 95% of the Turkish population. The Bush administration was apoplectic about this.
* The Bush administration separated old Europe and new Europe; the distinction being that new European countries were will to go along with what Washington wanted against the will of their populations while old Europe followed their constituents.
* The Bush administration has continued, and continues to, overrule the wishes of the Iraqi population by perpetuating a highly unpopular military occupation.
* The Bush administration has forged ties to a number of brutal dictators around the world, including Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Perez Musharraf of Pakistan, Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, Mubarak of Egypt, etc.
* Whatever we may think of him, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected politician. The U.S. approved of and participated in a coup to overthrow him a few years ago.
* Finally, let’s take the big showcase here: Iraq. Ask a question, what would a democratic Iraq look like? It would be autonomous, the majority Shiites would have a majority of the government and be closely aligned with Shiite Iran. They have already been forging close ties with Iran, which the U.S. has discouraged and tried to break apart. Do you think the U.S. would accept a democratic Iraq?
Finally, I don’t give a shit about what liberal analysts say and conventional wisdom doesn’t always have the ring of truth to it. If liberal pundits or whatever are willing to take his words at face value that doesn’t mean I have to. Most people are idiots.
Bugboy, your comment probably went to moderation because of the links; you aren’t be censored, so chill.
As for where I got my quote, dude, I got it from YOUR COMMENT!!!! I am in awe that you won’t admit that you said it, and continue to pretend that you didn’t. That is definitely deserved of a wow. In my opinion, it really speaks to your logic, if you won’t acknowledge that you stated something so clearly, and on top of the lack of acknowledgment, you pretend you didn’t even say it in the first place.
There are a group of people that do that same thing… they are the ones that you are supporting so hard.
“As for where I got my quote, dude, I got it from YOUR COMMENT!!!!”
But you then said this, which is completely false:
“Trying to transform is the SAME THING as an attempt to transform. Wow.”
…I never said that or implied that or anything like that. I did say what you had in quotes, but that has not been what I’ve been referring to. I was referring to the sentence of yours right before the offensive “wow”. You have misspoken. I already outlined exactly what I said, and you still haven’t gotten it right.
“That is definitely deserved of a wow.”
No, you misunderstood and therefore have a misplaced and ill-conceived “wow” on your plate that frankly you should apologize for.
” In my opinion, it really speaks to your logic, if you won’t acknowledge that you stated something so clearly, and on top of the lack of acknowledgment, you pretend you didn’t even say it in the first place….There are a group of people that do that same thing… they are the ones that you are supporting so hard. ”
Ok, now that we have cleared up that I wasn’t referring to your “quote” (which is EXACTLY what I requoted in (a) above, so I’m obviously not pretending or running from anything) let’s see how YOU act, considering all that you just said. Let’s see if YOU admit you were wrong and apologize to me for that very false and hurtful “wow”.
So will you admit to your mistake or will you continue spreading slur and innuendo about me, Bugboy, in the form of “wow”? Or will you continue acting like the group you support so hard by not admitting your fault but lying and blaming someone else (me, Bugboy, who deserves an apology).
PS: can you make this little typing box bigger?
Good grief. My friends are right… I really DO ask for it.
“I didn’t cite any politicians’ remarks about Bush as part of my argument, not sure what you are talking about.”
You referenced your words with a citation to the article I found. That is what I was referring to.
“Look at deeds, not words.”
Well, his words also include the self-interest involved in trying to make us safer. But his deeds include all of the sacrifices involved in installing democracy in 2 nations, and the huge cost in blood and money. How those 2 huge prices, plus the damage done to his reputation by dishonest politicians and media, can be overlooked by you is amazing.
“The Bush administration separated old Europe and new Europe”
There have been deep divisions brewing for a long time on this. Blaming on Bush requires justification on your part which you did not provide.
“Bush administration has continued, and continues to, overrule the wishes of the Iraqi population ”
Polling data shows they do want us out but not right now, though polling might not be the way to get thru this. I’m curious what you base your interpretation of the wishes of the Iraqis on.
“Bush has forged ties to a number of brutal dictators”
Every single POTUS has done this, even Jimmy Carter. But Bush has taken down a lot of dictators, too. If you really are as unbiased as you claim then you can give W credit for this.
“Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected politician.”
Funny how first you claim to know the wishes of the Iraqis and now you claim Chavez had a fair election. There is every reason to believe there was fraud in that election.
Here is some interesting reading on him that has been flagged but nonetheless this is conventional theory of him with cites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
I put this cite just in case you really want to see how substantiated (thru the cites) the claims against Hugo are. But somehow I doubt this…you are all about the leftwing talking points.
“Do you think the U.S. would accept a democratic Iraq?”
When we pull out there is little we would do about it, this is why i believe now in dividing it into 3 nations (Bush has rejected this idea, so haha I’m not all about the talking points).
I assume you know Iraq was never a “natural” country but created by the allies on a drawing board map, so I see such a split up as being the only way. They cannot handle democracy the way Bush intended it. They hate each other too much. However, the result of this can still be the start of a transformation as we were discussing earlier.
“Good grief. My friends are right… I really DO ask for it.”
You can’t admit you are wrong and you get so frustrated by refutations that you lose all humor. Maybe that’s how you ask for it.
Dude, I can totally admit when I am wrong; can you?
“Dude, I can totally admit when I am wrong; can you?”
Then show me where I said that trying to transform was not the same thing as attempting to transform.
Duane: “Trying to transform is the SAME THING as an attempt to transform. Wow.”
…or “totally admit you are wrong”.
PS: When can I expect this typing box to get bigger?
thx
Bugboy:
It doesn’t matter if you said attempting or trying; they are the same thing. I never said that you said trying to transform was different than that; your statement of:
indicates that you are not cogniscent of the fact that you used the argument of his invasion as an attempt to transform the region to illustrate why the Democratically supported pull out is such a bad idea. If the attempt to transform the region is a moot point, then why is it being used as an argument against the pull out?
Just to clear this up: I was basing what I said, on what you said. You did say that W’s invasion of Iraq was an attempt to transform the region, and you said this as an argument to back up your point that a pull out would be a disastrous blow to that plan. They why, oh why, do you even refer to transforming the region, then? If, by your own admission, that even though it was an attempt to do so, he hasn’t transformed the region, why is it relevant to the subject of the war? Again, you used this argument to substantiate why the Democrats’ pull out is so bad, yet, by your own admission, it hasn’t happened, and again, by your own admission, it is a moot point, because it has not been determined if said attempt to change has, or even will, work.
I think that the point, then, is that it is an irrelevant argument to use against the Democrats’ plan; which is what you used it against. It doesn’t matter if you never said trying and attempting weren’t the same thing, which is what I incorrectly got caught up on. What does matter, is that you are using this (by your own admission) moot point to argue against the actions the Democrats are taking.
And what browser are you using? Because the text box is fine in firefox, and I don’t modify my website to meet the needs of IE. Sorry.
“if the attempt to transform the region is a moot point, then why is it being used as an argument against the pull out?”
Because his attempt may or may not work. I never said it would or would not. Therefore, “transforming” and “attempting to transform” are not the same thing. But I’ve felt all along that something had to be tried, as the ME will never transform itself. But you are correct in your statements that the endgame on this needs to be soon. That’s why I say abandon W’s original goal and split into 3 and do the best we can from that. That may be workable.
“If the attempt to transform the region is a moot point, then why is it being used as an argument against the pull out?”
Because it MIGHT just work (”it” being the transformation) and should not be abandoned just yet (for all but those who don’t want it to work).
“What does matter, is that you are using this (by your own admission) moot point to argue against the actions the Democrats are taking.”
Wrong. The Democrats are trying to spoil the chances of a democratic middle east so they can win elections off of lies. Therefore, it’s obvious who really likes dictators and oppression. Like Justin was saying, you must look beyond what is actually said.
Are you going to apologize now? You said wow when it really wasn’t justifiable.
I’m using Firefox too. On my monitor it’s about 3 inches high and about 5.5 inches horizontal.
Do you have any idea why gays in purple dresses are marching around Midtown today?
“And, why did you answer that question of BugBoy’s but not the one about setting a time line being a good idea?”
Dave, the time line the Democrats are proposing does have a few flaws in it, but at the same time it has its merits.
The timeline is more of a motivational device for the Iraqis and should be modified to become flexible. Even you must admit the Iraqis haven’t stepped up b/c they haven’t had to. Well, we need to make th em.
The bill should not be a drop dead pullout as it was but it should be legislated in a way to fully fund the training of the IA that will be necessary as our numbers over there draw down. Let Bush veto, the two sides will come together, and lets hope both sides adjust this initial, flawed bill the Dems proposed in a way that will (a) benefit the Iraqis and help them restore law and order (b) wind down our involvement and bring our troops home to redeploy to other missions, thereby benefiting us. This can be a win-win, which the status quo ain’t.
There won’t be peace in Iraq for 100 years now due to ancient hatreds now being free, but our departure will be a step in the right direction. This much should be obvious from the fact that even the Sunni minority attacks us. If the Shi’ite hits the fan big time we can come back if necessary.
Four years is too long for that many of our troops to be over there, and as long as we are tied down in Iraq you Reds won’t be able to have fun properly cleaning Iran’s clock on the nuke issue. Also, it’s a known fact that Pat Buchannan has spent so much time arguing over Iraq that he hasn’t had a book burning in years. I know this must be upsetting.
Though Bush’s policies are not without merit, he has not adequately explained his intransigence on this issue to us. The Dems now control the purse and though he as POTUS sets the policy, he must submit to checks and balances. We feel a lot of violence in Iraq is due to myopic policy making which must be revisited. Up until Rummy’s departure there seemed to be very little in the way of policy debate. As the public grows weary you must admit more debate over policy change should occur whether this new surge works or not. Both the status quo and the proposals from the radial left are unacceptable.
“Also, if Bush is so completely wrong, then Congress can overturn his veto. That’s not going to happen so apparently he’s not as out-of-touch with the population as you feel.”
Dave, Dave, Dave. You appear to have forgotten that electorally the country is close to a 50-50 split, but on the issue of the war it is anything but. If people voted on the issue of the war alone then overriding W’s veto would be a done deal. So please do not try and judge Bush’s performance on the war in terms of the balance of power in the congress. We both know that things like gerrymandering, lobbying, and pork spending have as much to do with incumbents being re-elected as issues, even more sometimes. The war is just 1 issue.
Also, just as I can admit that some of the anti-war sentiment has to do with misplaced trust on the left, you must admit the same for the right. Such an accounting would have little affect on the numbers against the war, but a larger affect on the considerable smaller numbers for the war, statistically speaking.
Well, his words also include the self-interest involved in trying to make us safer. But his deeds include all of the sacrifices involved in installing democracy in 2 nations, and the huge cost in blood and money. How those 2 huge prices, plus the damage done to his reputation by dishonest politicians and media, can be overlooked by you is amazing.
We didn’t install democracy in two nations, that is my point. A lot of ink is spilled but the contradictions are self-evident. Aside from the evidence I already cited as well as a hypothetical question about what a democratic Iraq would look like and whether the U.S. would tolerate that, here are a few more things to chew over,
1. Right after the U.S. took over Baghdad, General Jay Garner was put in charge. He immediately called for elections and referendums to rehabilitate Iraq’s political structure. He was fired almost on the spot and replaced by Paul Bremer, who imposed a sweeping set of reforms on Iraq’s economic and political institutions and appointed officials in Iraq’s ministries. The laws and appointments were to last after he stepped down and could not be overturned by Iraqi law. I can discuss some of these reforms if you like, they are not anything a sovereign country would have likely accepted and have proven to be immensely unpopular.
2. Democracy is not installed like a lighting system, it is built up with institutions. Things like a free press, informed citizenry trust in legal and justice systems, etc. In August of 2006, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration has been cutting funding across the board for organizations dedicated to “building democratic institutions such as political parties and civil society groups.” At the time, I thought this quite odd: everyone “knows” that Bush is a hopeless idealist and committed to exporting democracy in the Middle East. It is, was, and ever shall be his legacy, right? Why was he cutting the already niggardly funding for these groups across the board? Bush’s supporters in places like Freedom House called it a “travesty” and were “appalled” at the budget. It seems that the funding for democracy promotion competes with funding for other things, and democracy lost by a landslide. [1]
A follow up of sorts appeared in the 24 February 2007 edition of the Washington Post. Another reporter, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, found that the people put in charge of rebuilding civil institutions in Iraq were wholly unqualified. For example, the person in charge of promoting democracy was someone who “has never lived or worked in a democracy.” In the 2007 State of the Union address, Bush called for a civilian reserve corps that would work to promote democracy. Surprise! He “forgot” to allocate money for it in the budget. And surprise again, Bush has starved an existing institution in the State Department of funding, the State Department of Reconstruction and Stabilization. (Rajiv is also the author of a book documenting the reconstruction process of the green zone, good read.)
Now, recall also that the “reconstruction” of Iraq has been marred by almost unbelievable corruption. One C.P.A. official called it “the wild west” under Congressional testimony. Pallets of shrink wrapped money disappeared. There was no book keeping. About $10 billion(!) remains wholly unaccounted for and much of that money was Iraq’s, not the U.S.’s. A U.N. report in 2005 found that the U.S. owed Iraq $208 million because of Halliburton’s theft alone. We currently spend approximately $8 billion a month in Iraq, up from $4 billion in the beginning of this mess. In all of this, the Bush Administration “whittled down” an initial budget posed by the State Department of Reconstruction and Stabilization of $350 million to $100 million. When Congress got done with it, the SCRS received $7 million in 2005. In 2006, $10 million.[2]
This is why I want to scream every time I read about Bush’s commitment to democracy promotion, or that the U.S. invaded Iraq to spread democracy, or some other permutation of that phony sentiment. Let’s assume that the SCRS had some idea of what they needed to spend. They got less than 3% of what they asked for. The amount was not even a rounding error in the “wild west” that is the Iraq reconstruction budget. Let’s turn to another source: in 2003 a joint World Bank-U.N. study found that Iraq needed $36 billion to repair its civil institutions and infrastructure - they recommended $9 billion for 2004 alone. They excluded the oil sector, but included things like “government institutions, rule of law, civil society, media, human rights, gender, environment, education, health, employment creation, agriculture, water resources, food security,” etc. This false narrative about being the world’s largest democracy pusher has almost no support based on available evidence and yet it keeps getting repeated in news report, editorial, and blog posts many times over.[3]
I’m curious what you base your interpretation of the wishes of the Iraqis on.
I am basing my interpretation on what they have repeatedly told us. Here is a brief but by no means exhaustive account:
(September 2006) A Program on International Policy Attitudes poll found the following; a growing majority of Iraqis are in favor of attacks on American led forces (61%). 78 percent of Iraqis believe the US military is causing more conflict than it is preventing. This includes almost 100% of Sunnis, who it should be remembered are a minority and the primary targets of Shiite death squads now terrorizing Baghdad and dominating U.S. headlines.[4] At the same time, the Washington Post reported that another poll by the State Department found, “A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence.” In Baghdad, nearly 75% of respondents reported they would feel safer if U.S. troops were withdrawn. 65% wanted immediate withdrawal. Note that Baghdad is a city wracked with violence, something that conventional wisdom holds U.S. forces are keeping a lid on. An Iraqi poll found that 80% of the population wants an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. [5]
Some other polls that corroborate the above findings, briefly:
May 2004: An occupational authority poll found that 80% of Iraqis had a negative view of foreign troops. Several other polls at the same time by USA Today, CNN, and Gallop found that almost 60% of Iraqis wanted immediate withdrawal. [6]
October 2005: A secret poll by the British military found that 65% of Iraqi citizens supported violent attacks on occupational troops. Some Iraqis believed U.S. troops were improving security, the precise number was “fewer than one percent,” and 67% reported feeling less secure in the presence of coalition troops. 82% were strongly opposed to the presence of foreign troops.[7]
Every single POTUS has done this [warmly embraced dictators], even Jimmy Carter. But Bush has taken down a lot of dictators, too.
He took down one, Hussein. He has also supported a lot of dictators around the world. My earlier point was that rhetoric aside, as his aides told the press after his landmark 2005 state of the union speech, actual policy was not going to change. I already cited the link up thread. You just agreed with me, even if you didn’t mean to.
You are admitting Bush is a continuation of long standing U.S. foreign policy. That policy supports dictators when they are amenable to “our” interests and overthrows democracies (or other dictators) when they don’t.
Lastly, you blew some smoke about Chavez, but the fact is that he is a democratically elected leader that we helped try to overthrow. That doesn’t square with your assertion about Bush loving democracy. I am not defending Chavez or his election, nor is it my place to since I am not a Venezuelan. I’ll concede whatever nasty thing you want to say about him. If your point is that any election that may have some fraud in it is not truly a democracy and is fair game to overthrow by a foreign power, then the U.S. falls into that category as well. (And by the way, as a counterpoint to your wikipedia article, here is one by the Economist that explains the elections in Venezuela and concludes they were “secret and free.”[8] – again though, the issue is not Venezuela’s elections or how good/bad Chavez is.)
Notes:
1. Baker, P., Democracy in Iraq not a priority in U.S. budget, in Washington Post. 2006.
2. Chandrasekaran, R., Iraq rebuilding short on qualified civilians, in Washington Post. 2007.
On corruption, see Harriman, E., Where has all the money gone?, in London Review of Books. 2005.
3. UN and WorldBank, Joint Iraq Needs Assessment. 2003, United Nations
World Bank.
4. Reuters. Poll Says Most Iraqis Want U.S. Out. Reuters, 29 September 2006
5. Paley, Amit. Washington Post. 27 September 2006
6. Ricks, Thomas. Washington Post. 13 May 2004.
7. Rayment, Sean. Telegraph. 23 October 2005
8. McCoy, Jennifer. “What Really Happened in Venezuela?” The Economist, 2 September 2004
“We didn’t install democracy in two nations”
We sure did. Not sure if you want to split hairs over what a pure democracy is, but both countries got to vote for representational gov’t in free elections. Bush gets credit. Deal with it.
“Democracy is not installed like a lighting system”
First of all, who cares? That wouldn’t be the issue anyway. Secondly, playing along, it most certainly can be done that way, it just might not look like what you want it to look like.
You blamed funding cuts on Bush. I would guess that you already are aware of where spending bills originate, which makes me wonder why you said that.
“people put in charge of rebuilding civil institutions in Iraq were wholly unqualified”
Then Iraq is being built in our image after all. AHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! AHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HA!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!……HA! Tee heee hehe hhehehe!!!…..actually, that’s not so funny.
“This is why I want to scream every time I read about Bush’s commitment to democracy promotion,”
What level of concern do you have about Congress’s or the Democrats’ level of commitment to Iraq’s democracy? They were largely opposed to allowing it to happen in the first place. The Dems were quite happy with the status quo of oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I am basing my interpretation on what they have repeatedly told us. Here is a brief but by no means exhaustive account:”
I’ve seen polling data to the contrary. But polling might not be the way to run this. Polling data shows Iraqis are very optimistic, and many polls show they want us to leave but not immediately.
“If your point is that any election that may have some fraud in it is not truly a democracy and is fair game to overthrow by a foreign power, then the U.S. falls into that category as well”
How about one that is a total fraud? One where power was obviously taken by a dictator? I think your comment on Chavez being democratically elected is a very dubious claim. I know many Venezuelans and they all say he’s a corrupt and brutal dictator. I see no reason to assume the best with this guy. In fact, I think it’s dangerous.
You can take as many shots at Bush as you want but he has still done a lot to promote democracy in the middle east. It would be amazing if it actually worked, considering how hard the leftwing has been struggling to make it fail.
We sure did. Not sure if you want to split hairs over what a pure democracy is, but both countries got to vote for representational gov’t in free elections. Bush gets credit. Deal with it.
You can keep saying this, as Bush does, but I have given you a number of contradictions. You have explained or refuted none of them. Here is one last one, Bush opposed elections in Iraq. He was compelled to allow them by the Shiite cleric Sistani, who threatened an insurrection if the U.S. did not allow elections. (Hint: Google “sistani iraq elections bush” and educate yourself.)
You blamed funding cuts on Bush. I would guess that you already are aware of where spending bills originate, which makes me wonder why you said that.
I did no such thing. I cited a a report making that argument and explaining what happened. I gave you some financial information to put it into context. And if you follow the link, you will see that staunch Bush supporters and true believers such as yourself were very critical of what happened. Specifically:
Baker, P., Democracy in Iraq not a priority in U.S. budget, in Washington Post. 2006.
Chandrasekaran, R., Iraq rebuilding short on qualified civilians, in Washington Post. 2007
How about one that is a total fraud? One where power was obviously taken by a dictator? I think your comment on Chavez being democratically elected is a very dubious claim. I know many Venezuelans and they all say he’s a corrupt and brutal dictator. I see no reason to assume the best with this guy. In fact, I think it’s dangerous.
Once again, I am not defending Chavez in the least, so I didn’t assume the best with him. I even conceded that he is a bad character so we wouldn’t get away from the issue at hand. Your charges about him being an obvious dictator seizing power are simply without merit. I already pointed you to an article in The Economist analyzing Chavez’s election. Bush, the democracy lover, supported a coup of a democratic government. If all you are bringing to the table is the opinions of your Venezuelan friends, well, I think that speaks for itself.
I’ve seen polling data to the contrary. But polling might not be the way to run this. Polling data shows Iraqis are very optimistic, and many polls show they want us to leave but not immediately.
I’d love to see you find and cite those polls. But again, you concede the point: Bush, the democracy lover, has absolutely overruled a timeline for withdrawal, which is the clearly expressed desire of Iraqis. If democracy had any meaning, then determining whether or not a country ought to be occupied by a foreign power would be determined by the people being occupied, not the occupying power.
‘You can keep saying this, as Bush does”
I’m not disagreeing with your facts but your interpretation of them. They had elections with a reasonable appearance of being free and fair in a part of the world where corruption, fear, oppression and hatred are the norm. What has been started in both nations is I believe a positive development and a good start for them and is nowhere near our norm of supporting a dictator. Your selective focus of blame is not exactly a novel intellectual short cut and impresses no one. My biggest concern over this has been the inclination of the American public to accept it without question as if it were an icon of pop culture. Bush is such a horrible spokesman this problem won’t be resolved until after he leaves office.
“I did no such thing.”
You most certainly did when you said “Why was he cutting the already niggardly funding…”
“If all you are bringing to the table is the opinions of your Venezuelan friends, well, I think that speaks for itself.”
It’s not, but if all you have is the Economist, and have never discussed this issue with the people involved as I have, then how do you expect to know what the average VN thinks? If you aren’t willing to temper the predictable academics of the Economist then you, sir, must be enjoying the Kool Aid.
“I’d love to see you find and cite those polls.”
Why’s that? So you can argue that your poll is more recent and therefore your predilection is affirmed? The polls I referenced are common knowledge. I’m sure you can find them too.
“If democracy had any meaning, then determining whether or not a country ought to be occupied by a foreign power would be determined by the people being occupied, not the occupying power.”
The Iraqi gov’t, elected by 9 million voters, wants us there for now, despite your thinking supreme power (and policy formation) rests in polling data.
I suppose you concede the point that Bush gets credit for promoting democracy in the middle east despite those legislating defeat and dictatorship.
Hopefully, this is the last necro-post on this thread. You have not cited one fact to support anything you have said.
You are basically saying that the facts support your interpretation, or they would if you wanted to find them but you won’t bother. That is a pretty nifty trick. “I’m sure some study out there supports what I am going to say, so I won’t bother finding it, …” Did you even know that most Iraqis voted because they thought they were ending the U.S. occupation? That every list had that as part of their platform? I could dig up the cites, but you will just ignore them. (Hint: Google “Iraqis vote end occupation”)
The average Venezuelan is not an expat living in America, btw. And the issue was NEVER about Chavez’s character, as I clearly stated and conceded. The issue was about the U.S. supporting a coup of a democratically elected government in Venezuela several years ago and how that squares with your assertion about Bush’s democracy agenda. What some Venezuelans you know think of the guy is irrelevant. The Economist is not an academic journal, btw. It is a very pro-business, conservative British weekly. The article I cited was about the findings of the international monitors who observed Venezuelans elections. They found them “free and private.” In contrast, the “democratic” elections in Iraq couldn’t be observed because of the security situation. Candidates ran anonymously for the same reasons. And a significant segment of the population boycotted them.
I cited a mountain of evidence contradicting your cognitive interpretation of Bush’s policies with respect to democracy. Iraq had an election in 2005, but it was opposed by the Bush administration, who were compelled to allow it and then took credit for it. As I said, Google “Bush Sistani Iraq Elections”
(Jackson Diehl has an editorial in the Washington Post about this stuff too, if interested.)
Bugboy, here’s a pretty clear visual of the “progress” this war has brought to Iraq.
“You have not cited one fact to support anything you have said.”
Once again you make a patently (and easily provable) incorrect statement, as demonstrated by my post on 4/27 @ 11:01.
“I’m sure some study out there supports what I am going to say, so I won’t bother finding it, …”
This polling data was from last year. Google “Iraq poll US withdrawal”.
You won’t believe the poll anyway, so why bother?
“Did you even know that most Iraqis voted because they thought they were ending the U.S. occupation? That every list had that as part of their platform?”
If every list had that platform then there is really no way you can logically conclude the predisposition in your preceding sentence.
In fact, your 2 statements above are self-refuting.
Apparently you concede the point on the democratically elected iraqi gov’t not wanting us to leave now. Instead you try and introduce a misdirection as fact as you flee from the central issue.
“The average Venezuelan is not an expat living in America, btw”
But my sources have proven themselves knowledgeable and trustworthy to ME. I added that not as proof but to partially explain why I hold the position I do.
“…that squares with your assertion about Bush’s democracy agenda”
The democracy agenda I referred to was spreading it in the middle east, so your premise is false and therefore negated.
“. The Economist is not an academic journal, btw. It is a very pro-business, conservative British weekly. ”
I know what it is and read it regularly. Was my use of the word “academic” too arcane for you?
“I cited a mountain of evidence contradicting your cognitive interpretation of Bush’s policies with respect to democracy.”
I refuted most or all of it, too, as you have a tendency to argue at a tangent. The rules are you can’t win by being evasive.
Duane, don’t you think that is an incredibly biased take on the war? Would you let me get by with posting something so incredibly one-sided?
Dude, how are facts (!!!) such as real numbers one sided? If a flower is yellow, and I say it is yellow, it doesn’t matter if you think it is red; if the fact is that it is yellow, saying so doesn’t make it one sided.
The presentation of only those facts, and absolutely nothing that would be an objective look at the war, is one-sided.
For example, why didn’t they cite the number of Iraqi women who voted for the first time? Or the increase in commerce in the Kurd region?
I would think that those things are overshadowed by the fact that people are being killed every day. It is a matter of perspective and priority. It means nothing if women can vote, if they will get blown up by a car bomb the next day.
“But views of the U.S. military presence are contradictory among Iraqis just as they are in this country.
About four in five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops but only a third want those U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=2963150&page=2
Those car bombs–directed not at our troops but civilians– are going to vanish the moment we pull out? No.
I would never rank oppression as low of a priority as you do.
But that snippet of facts was about as one-sided a picture as can be shown.
This polling data was from last year. Google “Iraq poll US withdrawal”.
You won’t believe the poll anyway, so why bother?
High comedy, here is the first result of that exact search.
World Public Opinion
New WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, But Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq. Half of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on US Forces…
Yup, certainly nothing there to suggest Iraqis want us to leave… or that by insisting on staying Bush is overruling the democratically expressed opinions of Iraqis…
I refuted most or all of it, too, as you have a tendency to argue at a tangent. The rules are you can’t win by being evasive.
Ok, dude. What did I argue at a tangent? Where was I being evasive? The discussion was about whether or not Bush’s democracy agenda was bullshit (my position) or legit (your position.)
To that end I cited a number of dictators he has warmly embraced, his support of the overthrow of a democracy, the fact that he opposed elections in Iraq, and that he has absolutely no regard for the wishes of Iraqis. It isn’t tangential when you build your argument/opinion up with facts. See, that’s how “intelligent” people come to “informed” opinions.
Now where did you refute any of this other than to say that Chavez is a bad guy (irrelevant)? Or cite some public speeches from Bush (irrelevant)?
If every list had that platform then there is really no way you can logically conclude the predisposition in your preceding sentence.
In fact, your 2 statements above are self-refuting.
English, much?
Here is a study about why Iraqis voted: “Most Iraqis (Shiites and Kurds included) answered overwhelmingly that they were for the end of the occupation…” That supports my point about why many Iraqis voted.
Here is evidence supporting what I said about withdrawal being a part of many of the platforms of the political groups in the 2005 elections.
Relevant quote: Last Thursday, in the Baghdad neighborhood of Kadhimiya, the 14-point pact was signed by an impressive array of political heavyweights. Among them: the two main Shi’ite parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Da’wa; the Sadrists; the Iraqi Concord Front (which is a coalition of the three major Sunni Arab parties); Ahmad Chalabi (in person); members of the de-Ba’aathification committee; a number of tribal chiefs; unions; social associations; and government employees.
Among the crucial points of the pact are: withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq; elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country
Maybe the way I put things is sometimes self-refuting, predispositionaly speaking of course, and I sometimes end a sentence on a preposition, but the evidence is what it is.
I think that it is interesting that few people address the fact that you can’t force a country to become democratic; that is a choice they have to make.
We cannot expect to force democracy on Iraq and have them just take it. They are going to resist, like they are currently doing. Why not try something else?
And Justin, THANK YOU for your comments!
The poll says they want us to stay for now, which was my position.
“We cannot expect to force democracy on Iraq and have them just take it. They are going to resist, like they are currently doing. Why not try something else?”
Not necessarily a bad idea….IF WE DON’T PULLOUT. Ultimately, Bush’s original notion of a free Iraq won’t exist, but let’s hope for something as close as possible.
I can think of no greater joy for the DC Dems than a complete humanitarian disaster following a total pullout. Nothing is more obvious than their cynicism towards the Iraqis as to cause this to happen. I keep bringing this up, but you don’t seem to question these so-called leaders (many of whom voted for the war) and immediately critique the right for not doing the same.