Comments on: Time for him to go

By: tombo

tombo — Thu, 13 May 2004 23:38:52 +0000

Bill, I’m a liberal. I support the war. I’m voting for Bush. There are millions who see things as I do, and we also find Ted Kennedy an embarrassment. You should take a look sometime at the writings of Christopher Hitchens or Ron Rosenbaum or Andrew Sullivan. Might broaden your outlook. Best regards, Tombo

By: bill truesdale

bill truesdale — Thu, 13 May 2004 21:39:36 +0000

Recent rantings by Sen Ted Kennedy strongly supports the notion that he’s the biggest bombastic moron in the Democratic party.. Now that’s saying a lot when one considers that moron is synonomous with liberal thinkers everywhere. I firmly believe that liberals are visitors from another planet or more likely, another galaxy, far, far, away. Barnacle

By: tombo

tombo — Thu, 13 May 2004 17:52:03 +0000

From today’s NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/international/middleeast/13IRAQ.html?pagewanted=print&position= “[US] Special Forces soldiers led teams of Iraqi commandos to the area and drove the insurgents from the shrine during an intense firefight. The two dozen or so Iraqi commandos who helped the Americans in the battle were part of the Iraqi Counter Terrorist Force, trained in Jordan to combat insurgents. They acted under the supervision of Special Forces, who instructed them on clearing munitions from the Mukhaiyam Mosque and shrine and from the high school. Special Forces soldiers guided much of the battle on the ground, storming the mosque and setting up a base there to direct troops. “…The Special Forces soldiers appeared impressed by the weapons caches found in the area. Those included powerful 155-millimeter artillery shells, Italian land mines and sniper rifles. In all, the munitions were the equivalent of more than 100 roadside bombs, one of the most effective killers of American soldiers in Iraq, a military intelligence analyst said….”

By: tombo

tombo — Thu, 13 May 2004 17:47:25 +0000

t sur la t – Ce que vous lisez en Le Monde, c’est pas la verite. This war is in fact being won. As I type, Iraqi forces trained and led by US Special Forces are routing the thugs of Al Sadr. This indicates that 1) Al Sadr and his militia are not only completely isolated politically but also nearly finished militarily; and 2) Iraqi security forces, with US training and support, are beginning to step up to the challenge which awaits them after the handoff. You won’t read this in Le Monde, and you have struggle to find it in the back pages of the New York Times, but the fact is that Iraqis are already holding local elections in the south and Kurdistan, and most of Iraq’s governmental ministries are already being managed by Iraqis. Schools are open and flourishing. Sales of all kinds of consumer goods are soaring. Iraqi courts are preparing, with US and European assistance, to try Saddam, Chemical Ali and other gruppenfuehrers. The simple fact is that, despite many screw-ups, we and the Iraqis are defeating the fascists and are creating a normal and representative democracy there. Do many, perhaps most, Iraqis resent us for occupying their country? Sure. Do most Iraqis feel a sense of humiliation that they could not overthrow a mass-murdering tyrant and were forced to rely on yankees to liberate them? Sure. Does this sound like a country you know, t?

By: push

push — Thu, 13 May 2004 11:47:58 +0000

Another one: Anatole Kaletsky in the Times today.

By: Tomba sur la tete

Tomba sur la tete — Thu, 13 May 2004 01:32:24 +0000

tombo: j’ai mal a croire que tu parles francais neanmoins pour le plaisir. Cette guerre ne peut etre gagne, pas plus que les israeliens n’arriveront a eliminer la menace constante du monde arabe. Ce que tu proposes est donc de mener une guerre a resoudre ces problemes, qui restent irresolus depuis les croisades. Tu es comme tout le reste des intellectuels moraux, une croyance aveugle en la supremacie de ta moralite et a ta capacite a l’imposer par un rationalisme base sur des faits non-prouvables. Tu es l’anti-these de l’humanisme par le fait que tu ne vois la solution que par la force. Je quitte la civilite pour te convier mon degout profond de ta pense.

By: tombo

tombo — Wed, 12 May 2004 22:27:30 +0000

Paul makes good points re Rumsfeld, for which I don’t have a compelling riposte. As I say, I’ll wait until Congress finishes its investigation. As to the last point, I really don’t find the matter all that complex. Again, there were three, and only three, choices—bad choices all, but one of them clearly superior from a liberal, moral point of view: either contain Saddam with sanctions and limited force, or “engage” Saddam, ie lift sanctions, or work to overthrow his and his sons’ regime. Clinton and leading Democrats overwhelmingly endorsed option # 3 when they passed legislation that, if I remember the wording, made “regime change in Iraq” the “official policy of the United States.” And how was that regime change to take place? With Saudi troops? Blue helmets? I know France and Russia intimately from study and business—I speak both languages, work for a French multinational and have worked extensively in Russia as well—and find utterly ludicrous the notion that we should have sought the backing of these two nations that considered Saddam an ally and a client. OF COURSE we would never win UNSC blessing for a war that would obliterate France and Russia’s only remaining claim to any real influence in the region. And OF COURSE we will be hated for invading a sovereign nation, just as we were hated in 1999 by nearly every Russian I’ve ever met when we bombed Serbia. But again, why would our wish for approval outweigh the moral repulsiveness of continuing with sanctions or even doing business with Saddam? Since when do liberals make common cause with a corrupt, cynical old thief like Chirac and an FSB bully like Putin, or justify opposition to Bush by noting that the IRANIAN and SAUDI fascists opposed the invasion? Insane. If you want a ritual denunciation of Bush and Rumsfeld from me, I don’t really see the point, but I will say that while I can’t bear to listen to Bush speak, he’s nowhere near so foolish people who say things like, “Saddam is not the enemy, Bush is” or who make smirking potshots at those thousands of brave people who are working tirelessly to reverse the extraordinary mess that Saddam created over some three and half decades of slaughter, aggression and misrule. I’m against goons and fascists of any race or religious persuasion and I care neither for Marx nor for Jesus, as Aron put it. But like Hitchens, Walzer, Berman and plenty of other secular-minded liberals I think it is disastrous to give aid and comfort to the forces, in the Arab world as well as in Europe, that wish us ill in our struggle. This, not the fight against Bush, is the paramount struggle of our age. Forget health care, inequality, social security—none of that will matter if we are seen to retreat yet again in the face of Islamist fascism. We must win this—period. If McCain or Hillary or some other tough and smart challenger can show me a realistic, no bullshit plan for winning this war, then great, let’s put him or her in charge. If Hillary were to run, and were to pledge to increase our troops and apply even more pressure to this war, then I’d gladly vote for her. But John Kerry is not a serious man. In the middle east, the French are not our ally. They like me find it ludicrous to hear such talk from a man in his next breath voices his strong support for Ariel Sharon. I simply can’t vote for such a shamelessly opportunistic, not to mention incoherent, lightweight. I’d sooner vote Nader.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 12 May 2004 21:29:25 +0000

brilliant in strategic and organizational matters. Considering that you've faulted Rumsfeld for not putting enough troops on the ground, I fault him for not putting enough troops on the ground, and, much more importantly, that military critics like General Shinseki predicted just these very problems before the invasion (and got nothing but the back of administration's collective hand) I suggest that the Secretary's strategic and organizational skills are something less than brilliant. Good question—haven’t made up my mind yet. You don't know why he should've been replaced months ago, but now isn't the right time to replace him? The only reasons I can think of are that A) you believe his unique talents in some other area presently mitigate his ineffectiveness in prosecuting the war effort, or B) you believe his dismissal might damage his or his administration's prestige, a prestige more important than the war effort. If I've neglected something, tell me. By the nature of his office, Rumsfeld is complicit in whatever happens in Iraq. His personal complicity I can't speak to, though I suspect it's rather high if the practices at Abu Ghraib were the result of implict or explicit military policy. Pile this damage to the war effort atop the results of his "organizational genius" and well, I can't think of an organization in America he wouldn't be fired from. Invasion was the least bad choice, and the only choice that any true liberal could support. Look, if you're a smart guy (and you seem to be) and you really care, then you must know that it was never that simple. Maybe war was ultimately inevitable, but the time and the means certainly weren't. Disregarding the fact that the war didn't have to happen as it has, and merely asserting that any "true liberal" must have supported this war won't convince anyone who wasn't convinced already. Fine if you want a shot of moral righteousness, otherwise not so useful.

By: robbo

robbo — Wed, 12 May 2004 21:16:25 +0000

Well, Tombo, I was going to give you the last word, but you’ve acquitted yourself pretty well so I’m going to give you credit. My main qualms with this war were that it was fought on false terms, and that post-war planning was obviously and perhaps fatally inept. I don’t disagree with you that the Middle East is massively screwed up and that the sanctions were not helping matters. I didn’t protest the first Gulf War and I didn’t protest our Afghanistan invasion. I do have major problems with the way Bush went about building his case for the Iraq war. It was a very tricky maneuver that he handled with the dexterity of a bull in a china shop. As you can tell I’m quite annoyed at where the neocons’ bungling has brought us, and at those who enabled them to do it their way by marginalizing/ridiculing all dissenting voices about 18 months ago. Anyway, for better or worse, I don’t think we’re as far apart in our mindset as it might appear.

By: tombo

tombo — Wed, 12 May 2004 18:33:25 +0000

Andrew Brown, “Of course Germany would have been infinitely better off if the Soviets, who actually did the raping, had withdrawn in 1945 instead of 1989. Once an occupying army starts behaving like that, almost anything is better.” Agreed. Which is why the analogy bears close scrutiny and why it’s clear that we, unlike the Soviets, have been a positive force on the emerging Iraq. Start with the obvious: rape, torture, and murder by Red Army soldiers were routine in Germany throughout the war. These crimes were not highlighted or punished by Soviet authorities. The tortures and murders committed in Iraq by a few of our soldiers have been highlighted, and are being punished, by our authorities. These acts are not at all typical of our soldiers’ behavior. We have been and continue to be extremely scrupulous about civilian casualties, even where, arguably, massive force would be advised. Despite numerous screw-ups of all kinds, the overall impact on Iraq’s infrastructure, courts, and schools of our development projects, training and political advice has been favorable to the emergence, for the first time in nearly half a century, of a normal, moderate, reasonably democratic Iraq. The Soviets looted most of Germany’s industrial plant and equipment—literally hauling it off to the Urals—and then put their own toxic political system in place. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Soviet influence on Germany? “There is also the small point that the misfortunes of Germany, and Germans, after the war, were the consequence of losing a war of aggression which they had started.” There’s also the larger point of Stalin’s complicity in aiding Hitler and thus his responsibility for the war that his duplicitous ally launched. Had the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact not been signed, ie, had Stalin not sold Russia’s allegiance to the highest bidder but instead made common cause with Britain and France, then Hitler, facing a two-front war, might not have launched WWII. Again, the Soviets’ cause in WWII was, from a moral perspective, deeply tainted from start to finish. Does that mean that their victory over German fascism was not legitimate? “I don’t remember Saddam’s invasion of the USA, or even Britain.” Welcome to the 21st century. You don’t need to invade nations in order to determine the outcome of their elections (3/14/2004), wreak havoc on their economic and financial or military command centers (9/11/2001), or reduce an entire nation to a starved, medieval prison state like the Taliban’s Afghanistan. Again, the question incumbent on those who oppose the Iraq War is how, if at all, they would have resolved the security and moral nightmare created by the Saddam-Uday-Qusay slaughterhouse. Sanctions were a cruel failure. For everyone but an oil exec or a French or Russian pimping pol, lifting the sanctions would have been even worse. Invasion was the least bad choice, and the only choice that any true liberal could support.

By: tombo

tombo — Wed, 12 May 2004 18:06:39 +0000

Paul, “Which is it, Thomas? Is the Secretary an incompetent who should’ve been replaced or a military genius?” Rumsfeld is clearly incompetent in diplomatic and PR matters and brilliant in strategic and organizational matters. Brilliant men are often tone-deaf or stupid in certain ways. Clinton was brilliant in policy matters and dumb as a post on certain political and ethical matters. Patton was a brilliant general who deeply cared for his men, whatever their background or race, while also expressing openly racist and anti-Semitic views. “If you think he should’ve been replaced, why not replace him now? Do these current revelations mitigate his past failures?” Good question—haven’t made up my mind yet. Which is why it’s crucial that Congress complete a thorough, impartial, unpoliticized investigation. If Rumsfeld authorized the Abu Ghraid atrocities or impeded their investigation or resolution, then he of course deserves to go. If not, then the question becomes whether his opposition to increasing the troops, his tin ear for PR and diplomacy, outweighs his organizational genius and the many brilliant reforms he’s pushing through the bureaucratic dinosaur that is DOD. Ultimately, though, Rumsfeld is either complicit in Abu Ghraib or not. If the former, he goes; if the latter, then he should probably stay, for if he’s fired now it will be interpreted by all as a signal that Abu Ghraib bore the Rumsfeld stamp. That is precisely what Congress must assess in the coming days.

By: tombo

tombo — Wed, 12 May 2004 17:52:12 +0000

Robbo, I’m glad to see you try to grapple with the difficulties of Iraq instead of putting forth more sneers and smirks. I’ll respond first to your charge re the Coalition: “Funny that you refer to my “evasions” Tombo while carefully tip-toeing around how you faked the Middle Eastern countries participating in the Coalition of the Willing” You seem to specialize in building straw men. I did not say that Iran and Saudi and Syrian fascist/fundamentalist regimes see equate our intersts with theirs. What I did say was that 1) Saddam was a major threat to the peace and stability of the region; 2) Saddam was harboring terrorists (such as Zarqawi, who slaughtered a US diplomat in Jordan several years ago) who, along with his agents (such as those identified by Dick Clarke and other Clinton NSC staffers as behind the spread of chemical weapons to E. Africa—read Clarke’s book) were spreading mayhem far beyond the region. Add to the above the fact that a major portion of world oil supplies were under this psychopathic mass murderer’s control and you have a problem—for us, for the nations of the region, and for the industrialized world—that could not be kicked down the road indefinitely. Which makes it incumbent on anyone who criticizes a policy toward Iraq to offer a solution to Iraq. The sanctions were a cruel failure. Lifting the sanctions would have been even worse. The only decent policy was to overthrow Saddam, which was of course to displace the Kremlin and the Elysee’s msot lucrative middle eastern client. Of course you’re correct that not all of the neighboring regimes’—note emphasis on REGIME, not people, esp in the case fo Iran—interests are aligned with ours. The Saudi wahhabis and Iranian fundamentalists (and of course the Ba’athist regime in Syria) have their own designs on Iraq, and will wage a proxy war on our soldiers there in order to advance the partition that they fervently desire. To point this out is to support not a progressive or liberal policy but the cynical, and failed, Kissingerite policy pursued by the so-called “realists” surrounding GHW Bush. It failed morally, by failing to prevent Saddam’s slaughter of at least 50,000 Iraqis every year; it failed strategically, by failing to prevent the creation of a central terrorist hub in Iraq (and winking at the terrorists’ bankers and evangelists in Riyadh). Adding to this was the dark farce that was the French and Russian concern for “international law” even as they flouted it in exchange for multi-billion $ oil deals (truly “blood-for-oil”) and millions of dollars in kickbacks to French and Russian politicians. So in short we have a pro-status quo “coalition,” as it were, of: —cynical Cold War realpolitikers in the US State Department and around Bush’s father—corrupt French and Russian politicians determined to preserve a mass-murdering client—arab and muslim fascists and fundamentalists whose fear of Saddam was matched only by their determination to support terrorist attacks on US targets around the world. In view of the above it’s clear that overthrowing Saddam was the morally superior course of action. My anger is directed at those liberals who supported the Franco-Russian-Annan sham while spouting the facile Scowcroft/Kissinger realpolitik slogans about “stability” that led us into this mess. To me such talk is far more distasteful, and more dangerous to us over the long term, than supporting the Clinton/Bush war that overthrew Saddam and that, despite the media orgy of deathporn imagery, is leading inexorably to the first shot at elections and a normal life in 40 years for 25 million Iraqis. My business is software, BTW. I am a liberal-to-moderate Democrat and was an early and strong supporter of Bill Clinton. I agree that Clinton’s options were limited because of the weakness of his position via-a-vis the military. Does this mean that you would have supported an invasion if Clinton, or Gore, or another Democrat, had ordered it? Rgds, T

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 12 May 2004 17:32:05 +0000

Robbo wrote: “Of the five Middle Eastern countries you listed (Kuwait, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Israel), exactly two are members of the “coalition of the willing.” [http://tinyurl.com/2szr2] It’s funny that you just threw those out there hoping nobody would check.” Oh, my goodness. You seriously thought Tombo was listing Iran as being in the coalition of the willing? He listed the names of those countries in a sentence that was a direct reply to your assertion that: “Iraq has been shown pretty convincingly to have been about as menacing to its neighbors as Canada is to us.” Was Iraq shown to be menacing to Iran, or wasn’t it?

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 12 May 2004 17:26:02 +0000

“There is also the small point that the misfortunes of Germany, and Germans, after the war, were the consequence of losing a war of aggression which they had started.” Iraq started, and lost, a war of aggression. “I don’t remember Saddam’s invasion of the USA, or even Britain.” I don’t remember Hitler’s invasion of the USA, or even Canada.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 12 May 2004 16:58:41 +0000

Rumsfeld probably should have been replaced several months ago because of his refusal to send more troops to Iraq. His war plan for Iraq was brilliantly designed and executed, Which is it, Thomas? Is the Secretary an incompetent who should've been replaced or a military genius? If you think he should've been replaced, why not replace him now? Do these current revelations mitigate his past failures. Or isn't it cool to dismiss Rumsfeld now that lots of people want the same thing? ("But there is no accounting for forcing naked men to enact sexual practices, some apparently perverse, for the gratification of an assembly apparently stripped of any thought of humane behavior. Buckley (whom I once heard tell a dirty joke at a graduation speech. (well, it involved the F-word. And Henry Kissinger.)) is one of those writers I can't read without hearing his voice. That sentence may be the Best. Buckleyism. Ever.)