Iraq's Constitution...

[Pete Hanlin]

This isn't intended to be a discussion over whether the US should be in Iraq, but if some feel the need to be self-loathing Americans, feel free to go for it.

I do hope to discuss why Iraq is- and probably will continue- having trouble with determining its own course. I think there are some pretty clearly definable reasons why Iraqis, and even their leaders, are having trouble taking over their own country. In many aspects, I think one can make some pretty interesting comparisons to the process the United States took early on in determining the direction of our government...

1.) Freedom is something that must be purchased- not given away. Compare Iraq to Colonial America. Sure, you had some individuals who were happy under the rule of England (Tories or Royalists, or something like that). However, you also had a significant faction that chose to rebel against what they perceived as unjust rule. While I believe there were many Iraqis who desired freedom from Hussein's rule, I don't recall there being any real rebellion- we just sort of showed up, kicked the bum out, and waited for the Iraqis to embrace freedom from Hussein.

While that's all noble and good, I think there has to be at least an element from within who was willing to fight against the former government. By comparison, if the French had swept in, explained to us how British rule was bad for us (which it undoubtedly was), and kicked George's forces out of the country, I suspect they would have been mystified as well over our lack of ability to self-determine our path.

2.) As a result, there are leaders who have no interest in embracing a freer society- because they were faring pretty well under the old, unjust, society. Now that we've kicked out Hussein (or in America's case, King George), there's no clear cut choice for whom should lead. Again, in America's case, it was pretty clear- the leaders of the rebellion took over after successfully expelling the former form of rule. In Iraq's case, there are few leaders who have much in the way of legitimacy when it comes to ruling- and many who probably fared okay under Hussein anyway.

3.) There's a large disenfranchised group who nobody wants involved. In America, it didn't matter much to the native americans who eventually won- they were going to be screwed anyway (let's be honest). In Iraq, you have a large group called the Kurds. To be honest, these folks were pretty much shafted before Hussein left, and most likely the non-Kurd population wouldn't bat an eye if they went right on being shafted. However, the US is probably going to make sure that this majority population gets adequate representation in any new government (which is again a noble concept- one that just isn't going to work well in practice with Iraqis).

Again, if you want to rabble on about how we shouldn't have gone over there and so on, feel free to spew so much noise. Who knows, you may even be right (however, it seems to me America, and Iraq, is in the longterm better off without Hussein in power). The fact is, we did succeed in tossing out a really really evil guy- but we're now faced with a bunch of Iraqis who have little clue on how to self-govern themselves. Furthermore, we have a sizeable contingency (terrorists) who yearn for the "good ole days" and will try to thwart any steps towards democracy or any other form of self-rule (in which they have no real stake- so their stake is necessarily in preserving the status quo).

An Iraq that is free and able to govern itself (and one that doesn't support people who want to terrorize the planet) is a good thing for the world. Perhaps the world should consider that and lend more of a helping hand. I suspect, however, that those without- and within- our country feel they have more of a stake in watching Iraq fail to self-govern than they do if we are successful. Either way, the Iraqis need to take control of their own destiny (something they weren't willing to do under Hussein, and something they may subsequently be incapable of under the auspices of the United States).

[For-Life]

I agree with the first point. This is where a lot of people talked about Freedom, but did not realize that most Iraqi's did not perceive a problem.

I bring it down to a 8 year old that is abused by his father, but thinks it is normal, because does not know any better. Child services come in and now the boy is upset with Child Services not his father.


With Iraq I felt it was more important for the people to up rise on their own, similar to the French Revolution. Because they didn't, many do not feel strong about the cause, and are against it.

Now you have created a political vacuum.

[chm2023]

1) Iraq was never a nation in the sense of the population having a stake in the whole rather than the parts. There is a long history of tribalism as well as religious leadership versus secular leadership (Note this is information that was readily available to anyone willing to look past the Bush flag-waving. Sorry Pete, I understand that dwelling on the errors of the past is counter-productive, but so is the cavalier attitude of "oh well, spilt milK". If you can't learn from your mistakes, you're condemned to repeat them, to mangle an old saw).

2) Democracy cannot be imposed from without (see not learning from past mistakes above!!!), it needs to be germinated from within. And yes I am familiar with post WWII Germany and Japan--both of these nations had had experience with democracy however.

3) The United States is not viewed positively by many/most? Iraqis. Are they mistaken in their perspective? Yes, but that doesn't matter. What matters in that the more we try to husband along the process of birthing a democracy, the less effective we will be.

4) Disenfranchising the Sunnis is such a manifestly stupid idea that I am stunned Bush and minions keep the happy face nonsense going. When you see two trains heading for each other on the same track, take a wild guess what's going to happen. I must say I feel sorry for Rumfeld, he is starting to get that same look LBJ had in the mid 1960's.

5) The predictable is starting to happen: if/when we fail in Iraq, this will of course not be Bush's fault, it will be the fault of people who oppose the war. The FoxNews folks are already going down this path. How nice not to be held accountable.

Bush needs to come up a new plan. If the only alternatives are 1) stay the course or 2) cut and run, I have to go with 2). New thinking, new paths are needed. Steadfast is good at times, at other times it's plain stubborn and stupid. Newsflash to W: things change.

Did anyone see the CNN documentary "Dead Wrong"? Almost makes you ill.

[Pete Hanlin]

Sorry Pete, I understand that dwelling on the errors of the past is counter-productive, but so is the cavalier attitude of "oh well, spilt milk". If you can't learn from your mistakes, you're condemned to repeat them, to mangle an old saw.
No need for apologies- this is good discussion. As usual, I share your perception here- albeit from the again usual slightly different angle. I believe there were a couple interests at play here- that of the US and the Iraqis themselves. Up until Hussein was removed as the ruler of Iraq, those interests were more or less aligned relatively closely. Now that he has been removed, our interests begin to diverge ever so rapidly. Everyone benefitted from having Hussein out of the picture- but the benefit of setting up an Iraqi federal government that is more or less democratic falls more into our own interests than that of the Jamal-six-pack Iraqi... This is definitely one of the reasons we've run into this murky quagmire- left to their own, the Iraqis would probably adopt a government that would mystify most Americans- yet we'll continue in our attempts to steer them towards a "sensible" form of government (sensible being defined- as always- through our Ameri-vision goggles).

The United States is not viewed positively by many/most? Iraqis. Are they mistaken in their perspective? Yes, but that doesn't matter. What matters in that the more we try to husband along the process of birthing a democracy, the less effective we will be.
Absolutely- and therein, IMHO is the largest miscalculation made by the administration. If there was a great mistake, it was in thinking the Iraqis would come streaming out of their houses with American flags with pleas of "Show us how to set up a democracy like America's!" Its encouraging to see you note that their perspective in hating our guts may be misplaced- but the reality is, they don't want us helping them to set up a government (any more than Jefferson, et. al. would have welcomed the French setting up our government). Ironically, the government adopted by the Americans WAS heavily influenced by the French- because Franklin and others had studied French philosophy and had voluntarily taken away some great concepts. Visit the Pantheon in Paris and you'll see the phrase La vie libère ou morte (or something to that effect, don't remember the spelling exactly) engraved there... Live free or die- our forefathers were heavily influenced by French thinkers.

The solution to this quandry? That one has me- and probably the administration- stumped. I'm not proscribing we call it all spilt milk- just noting that we had an interest in removing Hussein (one shared by the Iraqis, but an interest that they were incapable and unwilling to act upon). So, removing him wasn't a bad thing or idea- that doesn't change the fact that we're left with some tricky problems after accomplishing our original objective.

Disenfranchising the Sunnis is such a manifestly stupid idea that I am stunned Bush and minions keep the happy face nonsense going.
I think this aspect is more of a card game. What you don't want is the Sunnis retaining more than their fair share of control (and by going off and in effect pouting, that's what they're trying to do- reminds me of my 9 year old daughter). At the same time, I'm guessing they have considerable control over the nonsensical violence that's occurring over there- let's not forget, there are a lot more Iraqis being killed by these idiots than US troops. The Iraqis themselves need to tell this group to "cool it."

Bush needs to come up a new plan. If the only alternatives are 1) stay the course or 2) cut and run, I have to go with 2). New thinking, new paths are needed. Steadfast is good at times, at other times it's plain stubborn and stupid. Newsflash to W: things change.
Wow, here we will just have to go in entirely different directions. While I certainly don't believe in "throwing good money after bad," sometimes when you have made an investment the smart move is to see it through. We've already gotten rid of the original regime. There is evidence that Iraq is becoming more capable of governing itself, and we can pretty much guess where the train will go if we pull out (to borrow your expression). Eventually, you cut some deal with the Sunnis, and things get better- you just don't cave to them and say "Oh, oh, please don't be mad with us- we'll give you anything you want- just participate." You also don't say "Ah, well- you've convinced us to just leave- go ahead and run the country the way you were and we'll just deal with the consequences."

I'll save you the trouble and just call myself naive. I think Iraq is going to be okay eventually- perhaps not okay in that its government looks like Americas- but that's okay too. The best thing that could happen- IMO- is that the Iraqis come up with a government that we don't necessarily like (but one that is reasonable). The people see it as their own government- not something we've orchestrated- and allow it to take root. In the end, we might not even have a strong ally in Iraq (but I suspect there will be a sizable number of people who look fondly on America- we did straighten out a lot of garbage in that country), but at least we won't have the chaos that existed before we intervened.

Like I said, I'm naive... Well, back to work!

[rbaker]

Let's just wait and see how this plays out on the ground in Iraq. Let's revisit this question in five years.

[shanbaum]

You confuse the chaos that has existed in Iraq since our invasion with the state of affairs that existed prior to it, which could properly be described as a "repressive police state". Whatever those sorts of places are, they're rarely chaotic, and there's no evidence that that's a accurate description of pre-war Iraq.

In fact, it's not at all clear that the U.S. had a bona fide interest in removing Saddam. As a secularist, he was more likely to be our ally in the fight against Islamicism than the other side's. As it's turned out (what with there being no WMD), he just wasn't worth the effort expended to get rid of him (as Pat Robertson might say).

Like most things, the rosy scenario was just something that the Bush administration believed, which meant to them, they didn't have to think too much about it - which is why their adventure was doomed from the start.

It's what usually happens when you don't think about stuff.

In any case, it's looking more and more as though my pre-war prediction was on the mark: we're going to get The Islamic Republic of Iraq, which will be closely allied with our friends in The Islamic Republic of Iran.

A couple of thousand dead Americans, and an unknown number of dead Iraqis, to give birth to that.

Call it success if you want, but do you really think that another Islamic republic is an improvement over a two-bit dictatorship?

[Pete Hanlin]

You know, when you are not so busy trying to be acrimonious you can come across with some really insightful and educational thoughts...

That said- even with Hussein's restraint regarding religious fanaticism- putting the name Saddam Hussein anywhere near the word ally regarding the US is delusional. Any chance Hussein would ally with the US went up in smoke after his (somewhat bold, actually) decision to invade Kuwait- and our subsequent response out of self-interest (which Hussein should have factored in).

Likewise, its a bit sophomoric and hackneyed to suggest that the administration didn't think about the situation before sending thousands of Americans and billions of American dollars to Iraq. Call it bad thinking if that is your opinion- but portraying Bush as some low-brow who flipped a coin and decided to go after Hussein is a disappointment coming from someone with your intellectual capability. You claim the admin led us into Iraq because it believed in something false and therefore lacked judgement. I would counter that you apparently believe this administration is simply ignorant and therefore lack the capacity to objectively judge their decisions.

As a conservative, Republican, etc., I'm willing to contend that Iraq is not going as well as it could or should be at this point. I agree that some incorrect assumptions have been made (all administrations make them). I have yet to meet many/any from the left who are willing to put sillyness aside, and talk about the issue without resorting to the silly kind of antics Republicans used to pull with President Clinton not so long ago. News flash to the left- we're not all a bunch of Pat Robertsons over here on the right (I suspect you aren't a bunch of Senator Kennedy/Boxer/Clintons over there- but I am continually proven wrong)!

The admin is slugging its way through this situtation- in reality, I think they are doing a half-decent job. The fact that no one seems to be coming up with a realistic alternative to their planned course (simply pulling out is not realistic) is- unfortunately- about par for the course (the same thing has happened on other issues like Social Security Reform, etc.).

[Spexvet]

...
I do hope to discuss why Iraq is- and probably will continue- having trouble with determining its own course. I think there are some pretty clearly definable reasons why Iraqis, and even their leaders, are having trouble taking over their own country...

1. Iraqis have only known rule by a despot (formally) and religious leaders (informally). Ruling themselves is a totally alien concept. I'll bet most Iraqis would choose rule by an Ayatollah-type, if given their choice.

2. Expecting the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis to agree on anything is pretty far-fetched. When Czechoslovakia (sp) and Yugoslavia got self-rule, they split into smaller countries. Why is it imperative that Iraq stays as it was arbitrarily drawn on a map?

[RGC_man]

Most ex colonies were given stupid borders that ignored tribal and ethnic realities. Much as we want to make the current situation work, I can't help thinking it would be better for the country to divide in three regions,who would be free to merge or make alliances with various neighbours.

[Pete Hanlin]

Now HERE are two completely logical and useful observations. A theocratic society (most countries in the middle-east are not theocratic, but religion obviously plays a much larger role in government in the middle-east than it does in the west) is going to lend itself to a more "absolute" government than that with which most Americans (even us wackos on the right ;^) would find comfort. I think we need to realize that the Iraqis may choose to have a form of government that we do not understand and/or approve. If that is their self-determination, shouldn't they be free to so choose?

Also, expecting diverse groups to cooperate in a theocratic society IS asking for a lot. The founding fathers sidestepped this issue by keeping the establishment of a state religion out of our government (other threads can take up the debate regarding whether that translates to freedom from exposure to religious activities in public spaces). Basically, it would paramount to asking a Catholic government to co-exist with a Protestant one (and that didn't work out too well in European history, so one shouldn't be surprised if it didn't wash here either).

Drawing the country into seperate countries is very interesting. The only drawback I could imagine would be the unequal disbursion of oil (i.e., wealth) across the region. As I understand it, the Kurds would end up having all the wealth (that might actually be ironically just, but you'd end up with a Sunni country invasion of the Kurdish country in short order- which brings us back to OUR self-interest in the region).

Great post, though!

[mish]

"AN IDIOT IS SOMEBODY DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN BUT EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT...."

Peter, imagine I was your lab guy and you gave me a pair of glasses to make, but I broke them. And then broke a second pair, and then third, fourth, fifth, etc. After n-th pair you most probably would look for another optician or at least after I demonstrated my "potential and skills" keep me out of the lab.

At this point I do not know what should be done in Iraq - it is way to complicated.

What I know is that the present president and his team demonstrated over and over again that they are INCAPABLE of making inteligent decisions. They are INCAPABLE of telling the truth to american people or even to themselfs. They can only waste - waste money, good will, idealism, human lives, time, resources, etc. It took the best people three hundred years to build a country, the rest of the world was jealous of and looking up to and then it took Bush and Co 4 years to make US the most universally hated country in the world and americans a broadly despised nation. Wouldn't it be good for somebody else to make decisions after present administration showed what they can do?

[Pete Hanlin]

Wow, I didn't realize America was held in such high regard by the rest of the world prior to the Bush administration (perhaps this is why the Iranians took our embassy hostage during President Carter's administration, or perhaps this explains the bombing in Beruit years ago...

Your opinion that the Iraqi war has been mishandled is noted- I didn't note any suggestion as to how to handle the matter differently (just a desire to see "someone else" handling it). Perhaps Senator Kerry would have had some success with his "international symposium..." (that's meant sarcastically, btw).

[mish]

Peter! What does Lebanon, Iran or Kerry have to do with Bushes INABILITY to do anything right? Whether it is eating a pretzel, riding a bike or bombing some far away land he knows nothing about - the results are ... you find the word. And as for war in Iraq being "mishandled" (what a modest word), oh well, I guess a reactor in Chernobil was somewhat malfunctioning or not quite working right or may be a bit noisy....

[shanbaum]

You know, when you are not so busy trying to be acrimonious you can come across with some really insightful and educational thoughts...

I'm actually capable of the latter while being acrimonious, if you'll pay attention.

That said- even with Hussein's restraint regarding religious fanaticism- putting the name Saddam Hussein anywhere near the word ally regarding the US is delusional. Any chance Hussein would ally with the US went up in smoke after his (somewhat bold, actually) decision to invade Kuwait- and our subsequent response out of self-interest (which Hussein should have factored in).

I compared two likelihoods, the upshot of which is this: if Hussein is unlikely to be our ally, he is even less likely to be the Islamicists'.

Likewise, its a bit sophomoric and hackneyed to suggest that the administration didn't think about the situation before sending thousands of Americans and billions of American dollars to Iraq. Call it bad thinking if that is your opinion- but portraying Bush as some low-brow who flipped a coin and decided to go after Hussein is a disappointment coming from someone with your intellectual capability. You claim the admin led us into Iraq because it believed in something false and therefore lacked judgement. I would counter that you apparently believe this administration is simply ignorant and therefore lack the capacity to objectively judge their decisions.

Actually, I've read a handful of books about this administration, and I based my statements on those, and my personal observations of the people in question. In fact, Bush's desire to go after Hussein wasn't even so well thought out as a coin toss.

You simply presume that anyone who could get elected president of the United States must actually think deeply about what he does. My evaluation of this president is that he thinks deeply about nothing. He goes with his gut - which is to say, his instincts and emotions. He lacks the intellectual capacity to do anything more - or if he has the capacity, he does not use it.

If you think that's not true, find some instance in which he has actually demonstrated that capacity - something he's said in a press conference or one of the debates that indicates such a capacity (as opposed to his speeches, which are invariably written for him) - as opposed to the ability to memorize a few talking points. I suspect you haven't watched him that closely.

The admin is slugging its way through this situtation- in reality, I think they are doing a half-decent job. The fact that no one seems to be coming up with a realistic alternative to their planned course (simply pulling out is not realistic) is- unfortunately- about par for the course (the same thing has happened on other issues like Social Security Reform, etc.).

Half-decent job? What would a bad job have looked like?

Planned course? What planned course? There was no plan prior to the war, and there has never been much of one - that is to say, there was little thought put into it before the fact, and there has been an utter failure to recognize the failure of Rumsfeld's approach (Rummy being responsible for the troop level insufficient to establish order in the first place).

And before you start tossing the term sophomoric about, you probably ought to make sure that you actually know something about the topic. Your comments reveal that you do not understand the relations amongst the Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds at all, nor what the putative constitution proposes.

The Shi'a (who dominate the south, and constitute a numerical majority in the country as a whole) and the Kurds (the smallest of the three groups, in the north) were both repressed under Hussein (a Sunni, who mostly occupy the middle) - which makes Kurds and Shi'a natural allies in this three-way contest (under the "enemy of my enemy" rule). The Kurds are generally Sunnis, in religious terms, but ethnically distinct, having their own language (already official in their region) and culture.

The proposal creates a Shi'a 'state' in the south, a Kurdish one in the north, a Sunni one in the middle. This is fine with the Shi'a and Kurds,because there's oil in the south and north where they are (though there's more in the south than the north) - but not much in the middle, where the Sunnis are.

The federal government would also be dominated by Shi'a - so the Sunni get short shrift all around. Of course, that might be expected, given that they comprise only about a third of the population.

The significant animosity is not between the Kurds and the Shi'a (who essentially hammered out the constitution bilaterally) - it's between the Sunni and Shi'a. The Kurds have functionally had their own state since the last war, courtesy of the no-fly zone. The only reason (that I can think of) that they don't simply go their own way is that a Kurdish state would be very strongly opposed by Turkey - maybe "not tolerated" by Turkey, which has a significant Kurdish population. Turkey has long feared that the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq would try to establish an independent Kurdistan, and claim Turkish territory in doing so. The Kurds, having suffered enough, may want to avoid a tangle with Turkey.

[chm2023]

Shanbaum Sir: caught a bit of Bill Mauer (is this spelt correctly??) last evening while holed up in my hotel room, God I hate travel--anyway, he was talking about W appointing Karen Hughes to the post of generating good will in the Muslim world--whatever this is called, can't remember. Anyway, Mauer's comments mirrored my own: what in the world are this woman's qualifications for this position. Payoff line: "So really, does Bush actually know only about 3 people?"

[Bev Heishman]

Shanbaum Sir: caught a bit of Bill Mauer (is this spelt correctly??) last evening while holed up in my hotel room, God I hate travel--anyway, he was talking about W appointing Karen Hughes to the post of generating good will in the Muslim world--whatever this is called, can't remember. Anyway, Mauer's comments mirrored my own: what in the world are this woman's qualifications for this position. Payoff line: "So really, does Bush actually know only about 3 people?"

Yes. This was a brilliant decision by our commander. What was he trying to do? Insult their beliefs as I believe the Muslim world does not recognize a woman the way Americans do? And to think they really recognize Condi? I know all about the way the way the GOB clubs work.

Iraq is a mess and was better off the way it was. America was always despised. Truly there were problems with terrorists attacks on embassies under other administrations I agree with others posting thaT we have seen the disdain increase significantly over the last 4 years. This is decision is based with having several career military members of our family and classmates that the tensions are rising. We are hated in Ubekistan. The sentiment has been noted by militery returning from there but I have only seen one reference as to this in the media.

I am glad W got to stay in for the 4 remaining years. He has to dig us out of this hole that was self created. Maybe he & his daughters should enlist for a tour of duty there. They shouldn't be exempt from service.

[Pete Hanlin]

Well, I'm convinced... we are currently being led by a fellow who is incapable of serious and prolonged thought on any particular subject- much less capable of strategically thinking out the ramifications of invading a country. Obviously, the President committed thousands of troops and billions in resources on a "hunch" he had while taking a shower one Saturday evening! I mean, if he took time to seriously think about the issue, he would obviously come to a conclusion similar to yours regarding our handling of Hussein's regime (that would be sarcasm).

Furthermore, having studied Islam as part of my theological training, I do have a basic understanding of the various factions of this religion- and am capable of understanding why reconciling these groups may be a bit of a challenge. A majority of Iraqis have stated (when polled) that they desire a theocratic society- which spells trouble if we want the factions to rule together in harmony, because they have different understandings of the administration of religious law. Furthermore, only 25% expressed any interest in a Federalistic government. This is why I've been pointing out that the government that emerges may look very little like the government to which Americans are accustomed.

Additionally, I believe I also previously pointed out the difficulties surrounding the establishments of seperate countries. Namely, the Kurds are the majority population in the area where all the oil- or wealth- exists. Seperating out a Kurdish country would be akin to Quebec seperating from Canada (no offense to you non-Quebec residents of our neighbor to the north). Basically, the remainder of the country would be plunged into a dire economic (third world) existance.

As for books on the administration, I've read pro-admin and anti-admin books on both the Bush and Clinton (along with several other) admins. I think the only thing they clarify is you can portray ANY admin as either competent or incompetent- depending on your agenda.

As to issues where the President has demonstrated thoughtfulness or strategic thinking, I believe the Social Security reform plans the administration have proposed (and, sit down- the handling of the war in Iraq) have demonstrated pretty solid thinking. I may not agree with all the decisions, and I would pretty much guarantee and expect mistakes to have been made along the way, but the overall leadership is satisfactory to me (obviously, not to you- which is why you can- and most likely did- vote against the admin).

If you disapprove of the leadership shown in foreign and domestic issues, have away at it. Simply accusing the President of being a simpleton who fails to give serious thought before making decisions is, by definition, sophomoric. Throughout the 90s, Republicans who were too lazy to formulate or express insightful disagreement with President Clinton's policies also resorted to sophomoric statements about "Slick Willy" and unjustly categorized the President as someone who simply lied about everything (heck, I certainly stooped to this level at times- although I try not to swim there very often).

No big revelation here- we criticize those we don't agree with, respect, or like. I can understand how individuals could find things about President Bush to disdain (there's one or two things about his personality that really irk me, and there are certainly administration policies and stands that bug the crap out of me... stem cell research, portions of "no child left behind," etc.).

I'm also not suggesting the President is an astute scholar. Personally, I believe Vice President Cheney is an intellectual giant compared to President Bush. Given his basic lack of charisma (and failing health), however, he would never have won the Presidency. Watching Cheney debate has been some of the most pleasant political footage I've ever watched!

Finally, in retrospect I think it is an entirely plausible argument that invading Iraq was not the best course of action. I can also understand the rationale behind the invasion (meaning, I might or might not agree with it, but I can understand it and recognize that there was a thought out rationale for it). If there was evidence of WMD, or sponsorship of terrorism, I think the decision may have been the correct one (of course, there will be those who claim the admin fabricated any such evidence, yada, yada, yada)- I (and a lot of the members of congress on both sides of the aisle) certainly figured Hussein was developing nukes (and had little doubt that he would have happily passed them on to individuals who would have had no reservation to deploy them against the US).

In enjoy reading the insights you bring to most subjects- because they are usually from a perspective different from my own- and they are usually eloquently expressed and developed. I just find the "Bush is an idiot" posts to be below your usual quality. Additionally, as a person who has voted for him twice, its hard not to take such categorical statements regarding his administration without a smidgeon of personal offense.

One subject I would really like to see your comments on would be the recent withdrawal from the Gaza region (IMO, a lot of misery could have been avoided if General Narkiss' orders NOT to take the Gaza Strip would have been followed during the Six Days War).

[Pete Hanlin]

Iraq is a mess and was better off the way it was... I am glad W got to stay in for the 4 remaining years. He has to dig us out of this hole that was self created. Maybe he & his daughters should enlist for a tour of duty there.

Wow...

PS- Well, I suppose we agree on the being glad W got to stay for four more years... Perhaps for different reasons, but it was nice to able to agree with something in that post, my fellow Pennsylvanian.

[Bev Heishman]

Iraq is a mess and was better off the way it was... I am glad W got to stay in for the 4 remaining years. He has to dig us out of this hole that was self created. Maybe he & his daughters should enlist for a tour of duty there.

Wow...

PS- Well, I suppose we agree on the being glad W got to stay for four more years... Perhaps for different reasons, but it was nice to able to agree with something in that post, my fellow Pennsylvanian.

Glad to oblige! BTW: My husband is a "Bushie" as well as all of those military people I spoke about! Had a heart attack the other week when I contributed to John Kerry's group for advocacy in Kids issues. My fault, Pete, was being born in the late fifties, seeing the unrest of the sixties and the changes that occured moving forward as a woman with a desire to have a career and make money in the late 70's. Nothing shapes your being more to being an individual rather than a sub-servant wife. But he loves me and my money!

[Spexvet]

Well, I'm convinced... we are currently being led by a fellow who is incapable of serious and prolonged thought on any particular subject- much less capable of strategically thinking out the ramifications of invading a country. Obviously, the President committed thousands of troops and billions in resources on a "hunch" he had while taking a shower one Saturday evening! I mean, if he took time to seriously think about the issue, he would obviously come to a conclusion similar to yours regarding our handling of Hussein's regime (that would be sarcasm).

That's not very realistic - W can't even think in the shower! Karl Rove, Cheney, or Rumsey had to come up with the idea, put their hand up the back of W's shirt and use his mouth controls for him to say the words.(that was sarcastic hyperbole, bordering on farce) :p

Simply accusing the President of being a simpleton who fails to give serious thought before making decisions is, by definition, sophomoric. Throughout the 90s, Republicans who were too lazy to formulate or express insightful disagreement with President Clinton's policies also resorted to sophomoric statements about "Slick Willy" and unjustly categorized the President as someone who simply lied about everything (heck, I certainly stooped to this level at times- although I try not to swim there very often).

Are you entering 11th grade, now?;)

I'm also not suggesting the President is an astute scholar. Personally, I believe Vice President Cheney is an intellectual giant compared to President Bush. Given his basic lack of charisma (and failing health), however, he would never have won the Presidency. Watching Cheney debate has been some of the most pleasant political footage I've ever watched!

I agree! Seeing Edwards outwit the intellectual (ho, ho, ho) giant Cheney was priceless.

...If there was evidence of WMD, or sponsorship of terrorism, I think the decision may have been the correct one

But there wasn't

(of course, there will be those who claim the admin fabricated any such evidence, yada, yada, yada)- I (and a lot of the members of congress on both sides of the aisle) certainly figured Hussein was developing nukes

Despite the UN inspectors findings to the contrary.

(and had little doubt that he would have happily passed them on to individuals who would have had no reservation to deploy them against the US).

Hussein was paranoid. Who was he going to share his nukes with? Iran? Noooo! Kuwait? Nooooo! Maybe Syria, but I suspect that he didn't trust anyone, and certainly wouldn't share his nukes with anyone.

In enjoy reading the insights you bring to most subjects- because they are usually from a perspective different from my own- and they are usually eloquently expressed and developed. I just find the "Bush is an idiot" posts to be below your usual quality. Additionally, as a person who has voted for him twice, its hard not to take such categorical statements regarding his administration without a smidgeon of personal offense.

And "Slick Willy" shouldn't? :hammer: What goes around, comes around.

One subject I would really like to see your comments on would be the recent withdrawal from the Gaza region (IMO, a lot of misery could have been avoided if General Narkiss' orders NOT to take the Gaza Strip would have been followed during the Six Days War).

So start a thread, already!

[Pete Hanlin]

Had a heart attack the other week when I contributed to John Kerry's group for advocacy in Kids issues.
Hey, if Sen. Kerry is raising money for children, its great to know individuals are contributing (I'll assume he started his fund with a donation from HIS wife). In fact, I'm sure the Senator is a really great person- I'm just really happy he did not become President of the United States, because I happen to disagree with most of the policies he advocates (and- to be petty- I find him rather schmarmy).

Spexvet,
Always nice to have friends on the other side of the aisle- so to speak. You're just never going to let me meet you halfway though, are you? Every year, I come closer to Steve's land (that is, both parties being pretty much opposite sides of the same coin). Not there yet, but one does have to wonder...

Anyway, I'll give a pass to most of your jabs, but Cheney destroyed both of the hapless Dem VPs he went up against (especially Leiberman). :p

[Spexvet]

Spexvet,
Always nice to have friends on the other side of the aisle- so to speak. You're just never going to let me meet you halfway though, are you? Every year, I come closer to Steve's land (that is, both parties being pretty much opposite sides of the same coin). Not there yet, but one does have to wonder...

Much of my post was merely good-natured barbs. Sorry if I offended, but it's just so much fun that I can't help myself.:)
As a moderate (who, admittedly, can't stomach that whole right wing mindset) I am already half-way - to move closer toward your espoused position (espoused because I know that you're really a liberal;) ) would be to become a dreaded conservative (retch). I just can't go there.

Anyway, I'll give a pass to most of your jabs, but Cheney destroyed both of the hapless Dem VPs he went up against (especially Leiberman). :p

I admit, I don't remember the Leiberman debates. Try this - read the transcripts of the Edwards/Cheney debates. Without Cheney's smug condescension, you may feel differently about his performance.

[chm2023]

As to issues where the President has demonstrated thoughtfulness or strategic thinking, I believe the Social Security reform plans the administration have proposed ).

What plan? You mean the private account thing? This is barely an idea, let alone a plan. Yes W laid out a larger, if non specific in that it had no numbers attached, plan in a speech several months ago. Running into resistance, he appears to have given up on it. Our W doesn't handle adversity well from what I have seen.

And Bev, I am all for drafting Jenna and Barbara!!!

[Pete Hanlin]

And Bev, I am all for drafting Jenna and Barbara!!!
Why don't we just skip all the formalities, line the Bush daughters up and have them shot or something- that seems to be your implied desire. That way, the President- who obviously has no affection for, attachment to, or understanding of the perilous situation our soldiers and their families face because of his policies would really be faced with the horrors of war...

Go ahead and cry, gripe, and moan that the President has chosen to commit our troops, but- and I'll use Cindy Sheehan as an example- I believe the President is somewhat in touch with the misery war can cause. Unless the fellow is a real monster- which you seem to believe he is- I would imagine his personal meetings with hundreds of families who have lost soldiers would have conveyed that message by now.

The last time I checked, our military is comprised of volunteers. My brother ended up in Kuwait during our first war with Iraq, and I can tell you, he never planned to actually see duty when he signed up with the Army. Still, as he liked to say, "It isn't called the 'armed forces' without a reason." He also notes that they don't call the President the "commander-in-chief" without a reason...

Now, if the draft was reinstated (and we were told by the Kerry campaign that it would be- so as an individual who has registered with the selective service I've been waiting and seeing- although at 37 I'm probably getting a bit old), I would assume the President's daughters would also be also be eligible for the draft (although I don't believe females are required to register with the selective service, so I could be wrong).