Who's Really in Denial? It's not President Bush (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Who's Really in Denial?
It's not President Bush.
by William Kristol
10/09/2006, Volume 012, Issue 04

"Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror."
--George W. Bush, September 28, 2006 ​

President Bush is right. It would be nice if he weren't. The country would be better off if there were bipartisan agreement on what is at stake in the struggle against jihadist Islam. But despite areas of consensus, there is still a fundamental difference between the parties. Bush and the Republicans know we are in a serious war. It's not the Bush administration that is in a "State of Denial" (as the new Bob Woodward book has it). It's the Democrats.

Consider developments over the last week. Democrats hyped last Sunday's news stories breathlessly reporting on one judgment from April's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)--that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists. More than would otherwise have been created if Saddam were still in power? Who knows? The NIE seems not even to have contemplated how many terrorists might have been created by our backing down, by Saddam's remaining in power to sponsor and inspire terror, and the like. (To read the sections of the NIE subsequently released is to despair about the quality of our intelligence agencies. But that's another story.) In any case, the NIE also made the obvious points that, going forward, "perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," while jihadist failure in Iraq would inspire "fewer fighters . . . to carry on the fight."

What is the Democratic response to these latter judgements? Silence. The left wing of the party continues to insist on withdrawal now. The center of the party wants withdrawal on a vaguer timetable.
Bush, on other hand, understands that the only acceptable exit strategy is victory. (If, as Woodward reports, he's been bolstered in that view by Henry Kissinger, then good for Henry. Invite him to the Oval Office more often!) To that end, Bush should do more. He should send substantially more troops and insist on a change of strategy to allow a real counterinsurgency and prevent civil war. But at least he's staying and fighting. And the great majority of Republicans are standing with him. The Democrats, as Bush has put it, "offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut-and-run."

So there really is a profound difference between the parties, as Democrats are happy to acknowledge, since they think Iraq is a winning issue for them. The Democratic talking point is this: We're against Bush on Iraq, but we are as resolute as Bush in the real war on terror (understood by them to exclude Iraq). Except that they're not.

That's why last week's votes in Congress on the detainees legislation were so significant. The legislation had nothing to do with Iraq. It was a "pure" war-on-terror vote. And the parties split. Three-quarters of the Democrats in the House and Senate stood with the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union for more rights for al Qaeda detainees, and against legislation supported by the Bush administration (as well as by John McCain and Joe Lieberman). Some Democrats in competitive races--such as Rep. Harold Ford, running for the Senate in Tennessee--supported the legislation. But it remains the case that a vote for Democrats is a vote for congressional leaders committed to kinder and gentler treatment of terrorists.

Read More: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/753pbkao.asp

.........................................................

 

[KidRocks]

This is not breaking news, it is not even news, it seems to falls under the "editorializing", is this allowed?

Mods?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Imagine that, William Kristol, one of the ideological God Fathers of Neo-Conservatism, writes an editorial in defense of his now largely discredited ideology.

You guys are really grasping at straws at this point. Tell me TOT, when you denounce reason and swear eternal allegiance to Republican Mythology, do they make you take a blood oath, or is it like a baptism?

 

[MSgt]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved to appropriate forum.

 

[MSgt]

Imagine that, William Kristol, one of the ideological God Fathers of Neo-Conservatism, writes an editorial in defense of his now largely discredited ideology.

You guys are really grasping at straws at this point. Tell me TOT, when you denounce reason and swear eternal allegiance to Republican Mythology, do they make you take a blood oath, or is it like a baptism?

Said the guy with the word "Democrat" in his name. C'mon, man. You can't complain about another's partisanship whiling standing firmly on the other side.

Besides, I don't see how the Republican Party is grabbing at straws. They have proven to be more successful over the last 26 years, especially since the mid 90's.

 

[Thorgasm]

Said the guy with the word "Democrat" in his name. C'mon, man. You can't complain about another's partisanship whiling standing firmly on the other side.

Besides, I don't see how the Republican Party is grabbing at straws. They have proven to be more successful over the last 26 years, especially since the mid 90's.

More successful doesn't mean better or more correct. An objective viewpoint would be simply that they are better liars.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Said the guy with the word "Democrat" in his name. C'mon, man. You can't complain about another's partisanship whiling standing firmly on the other side.

Besides, I don't see how the Republican Party is grabbing at straws. They have proven to be more successful over the last 26 years, especially since the mid 90's.

Neo-Conservatism has not been more successful over the last 26 years. Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton all rejected the Neo-Conservative foreign policy agenda that was promoted by guys like Kristol. Now after seeing it in action for a few years, we can see why 3 out of the 4 last Administrations rejected it. In a multi-ethnic society, with no history of democracy, you cannot simply go directly from the battlefield to the ballot box and have much of a chance of long term success and stability. Of course, what did the Reagan Administration know about foriegn policy...They only won the Cold War.

 

[MSgt]

More successful doesn't mean better or more correct. An objective viewpoint would be simply that they are better liars.

However, you wish to spin it. Either way, the Democratic Party has been the ones grabbing at straws for quite some time while the Republican Party has been winning at the booths. This, despite the fact that registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans. I believe this is still true.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Actually you're right TOT. Bush was never in denial... it is his staff that is.

 

[MSgt]

Neo-Conservatism has not been more successful over the last 26 years. Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton all rejected the Neo-Conservative foreign policy agenda that was promoted by guys like Kristol. Now after seeing it in action for a few years, we can see why 3 out of the 4 last Administrations rejected it. In a multi-ethnic society, with no history of democracy, you cannot simply go directly from the battlefield to the ballot box and have much of a chance of long term success and stability. Of course, what did the Reagan Administration know about foriegn policy...They only won the Cold War.

....and what has made up the last 4 administrations? It's really quite simple. What Party has won more elections and sat much more often in the White House in the last 26 years than the other? Using descriptions like "NeoCon" and referring to Iraq really hasn't any purpose here does it?

 

[Thorgasm]

However, you wish to spin it. Either way, the Democratic Party has been the ones grabbing at straws for quite some time while the Republican Party has been winning at the booths. This, despite the fact that registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans. I believe this is still true.

Yes, the GOP has been winning at the booths. That is why we have no one to blame but the GOP.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, the GOP has been winning at the booths. That is why we have no one to blame but the GOP.

The GOP has been winning because they pander to the electorate. You might remember promises by Bush that his tax cuts would not cause deficits. Who doesn't like tax cuts? The give the electorate tax cuts and at the same time mortgage out future by running huge deficits.

If Bush and GOP had been honest in 2000 and 2004 and said we'll cut your taxes, but we are also slashing SS and medicare/caid to pay for it, do you think they would have gotten elected?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

....and what has made up the last 4 administrations? It's really quite simple. What Party has won more elections and sat much more often in the White House in the last 26 years than the other? Using descriptions like "NeoCon" and referring to Iraq really hasn't any purpose here does it?

I don't throw around the term "NeoCon" like a lot of partisan liberals do. A lot of partisan liberals call any and all conservatives "NeoCons". That would be an incorrect assessment on their part. For example, many times they refer to the religious right as "NeoCons", when in fact, Neo-Conservative ideology is typically socially liberal.

When I use the term Neo-Conservative, I use it in reference to Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy. As that would be what would correctly differentiate the ideology of say Neo-Conservatives and Classical Conservatives, Libertarians, Moderates, or Liberals. As such, the forced democratization of the Middle East has been a Neo-Conservative foreign policy goal since the beginning of the Neo-Conservative movement. The same people who convinced President Bush to go into Iraq are by and large the same people who failed to convince Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton of similar Middle East policies.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't throw around the term "NeoCon" like a lot of partisan liberals do. A lot of partisan liberals call any and all conservatives "NeoCons". That would be an incorrect assessment on their part. For example, many times they refer to the religious right as "NeoCons", when in fact, Neo-Conservative ideology is typically socially liberal.

When I use the term Neo-Conservative, I use it in reference to Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy. As that would be what would correctly differentiate the ideology of say Neo-Conservatives and Classical Conservatives, Libertarians, Moderates, or Liberals. As such, the forced democratization of the Middle East has been a Neo-Conservative foreign policy goal since the beginning of the Neo-Conservative movement. The same people who convinced President Bush to go into Iraq are by and large the same people who failed to convince Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton of similar Middle East policies.

I believe that to be a fairly accurate statement.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I believe that to be a fairly accurate statement.

Well there you go, the Devil must be passing out some ice water because we agree.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Imagine that, William Kristol, one of the ideological God Fathers of Neo-Conservatism, writes an editorial in defense of his now largely discredited ideology.

You guys are really grasping at straws at this point. Tell me TOT, when you denounce reason and swear eternal allegiance to Republican Mythology, do they make you take a blood oath, or is it like a baptism?

Well way to contradict Mr. Kristol's points sir brav-fuc/king-vo.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't throw around the term "NeoCon" like a lot of partisan liberals do. A lot of partisan liberals call any and all conservatives "NeoCons". That would be an incorrect assessment on their part. For example, many times they refer to the religious right as "NeoCons", when in fact, Neo-Conservative ideology is typically socially liberal.

When I use the term Neo-Conservative, I use it in reference to Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy. As that would be what would correctly differentiate the ideology of say Neo-Conservatives and Classical Conservatives, Libertarians, Moderates, or Liberals. As such, the forced democratization of the Middle East has been a Neo-Conservative foreign policy goal since the beginning of the Neo-Conservative movement. The same people who convinced President Bush to go into Iraq are by and large the same people who failed to convince Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton of similar Middle East policies.

Neo-cons only put into action what liberals wish they had the balls to do. Oh ya didn't you know liberals are all for the Democratic Peace theory until it comes to action in implementing it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Well way to contradict Mr. Kristol's points sir brav-fuc/king-vo.

His entire editorial is based in an absurdity. He starts it with the following statement:

Consider developments over the last week. Democrats hyped last Sunday's news stories breathlessly reporting on one judgment from April's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)--that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists. More than would otherwise have been created if Saddam were still in power? Who knows? The NIE seems not even to have contemplated how many terrorists might have been created by our backing down, by Saddam's remaining in power to sponsor and inspire terror, and the like.

The problem with his assertion, and thus everything that followed it, is that Saddam, while a murderous thug, was a secular dictator. Other than writing some checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, Saddam inspired no terrorism. Iraq was no hub of international terrorism. It was simply the home of a dictator who was contained, and posed no real threat to the United States. Thus, its safe for any reasoned individual to conclude (Unfortunately TOT, I am afraid that might exclude you), that more Muslims were inspired to join the Jihadist Movement because of the war in Iraq, than would have been inspired to join the Jihadist Movement, if Saddam were still in power.

All the same, as the NIE pointed out, because the war in Iraq has inspired so many to join the Jihadist Movement, we cannot afford to fail in Iraq. By definition, thats something of a quagmire.

As to your second post, anyone other than a Fascist knows that Democracy usually fosters peace. However, the flip side of that is that failed Democracies and Civil War are a far greater obstacle to peace than even totalitarianism. Moreover, there is not a single historical example of a multi-ethnic society going directly from the battlefield to the ballot box and having long term success and stability. You cannot just walk into a nation of three different ethnicities, all of whom hate each other, and successfully create a peaceful democracy at the end of a bayonet. There are more ingredients to a successful democracy than just the ability to vote.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The problem with his assertion, and thus everything that followed it, is that Saddam, while a murderous thug, was a secular dictator. Other than writing some checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, Saddam inspired no terrorism.

Oh really then explain this:

Throughout the 1980s, including the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam cast himself as a holy warrior in his public rhetoric to counter the claims from Iran that he was an infidel. This posturing continued during and after the first Gulf war in 1990-91. Saddam famously ordered "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) added to the Iraqi flag. Internally, he launched "The Faith Campaign," which according to leading Saddam Hussein scholar Amatzia Baram included the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). According to Baram, "The Iraqi president initiated laws forbidding the public consumption of alcohol and introduced enhanced compulsory study of the Koran at all educational levels, including Baath Party branches."

Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law who defected to Jordan in 1995, explained these changes in an interview with Rolf Ekeus, then head of the U.N. weapons inspection program. "The government of Iraq is instigating fundamentalism in the country," he said, adding, "Every party member has to pass a religious exam. They even stopped party meetings for prayers."

And throughout the decade, the Iraqi regime sponsored "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state." Dickey continued:

Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it.​

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6550&R

Iraq was no hub of international terrorism. It was simply the home of a dictator who was contained, and posed no real threat to the United States. Thus, its safe for any reasoned individual to conclude (Unfortunately TOT, I am afraid that might exclude you), that more Muslims were inspired to join the Jihadist Movement because of the war in Iraq, than would have been inspired to join the Jihadist Movement, if Saddam were still in power.

If it wasn't Iraq it would have been Afghanistan.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Oh really then explain this:





If it wasn't Iraq it would have been Afghanistan.

That article you quoted started out talking about supposed Documents that never actually turned up later. Moreover, contrary to the articles assertion, you could by a beer in Iraq.

If it was Afghanistan instead of Iraq, which is pure conjecture on your part, at least in the eyes of moderate Muslims and the rest of the world, Afghanistan was a justified war in direct response to the attacks on 9/11. Thus the reason why it was not Afghanistan, is that radical Islam had and would have a much harder time selling it as nothing but western imperialism.

One can always tell when an ideological radical is full of ****, because its those times that they resort to nothing but the most partisan of sources to bolster their arguments. In the case of Bush Administration apologists, generally its the Weekly Standard and its very discredited Stephen Hayes. In the case of the far left, its The Nation. Either way, the problem is that mainstream media completely rejects their claims. Of course, thats for good reason, because, in the end, they are full of **** and simply grasping at straws because of an absurd notion that they know the truth and everyone else is wrong, and its just some big conspiracy in the mainstream media against them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That article you quoted started out talking about supposed Documents that never actually turned up later. Moreover, contrary to the articles assertion, you could by a beer in Iraq.

A) The DOCEX release did turn up what are you talking about?

B) Nice dodge explain this:

And throughout the decade, the Iraqi regime sponsored "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state." Dickey continued:

Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it.​

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6550&R

If it was Afghanistan instead of Iraq, which is pure conjecture on your part,

It's not pure conjecture it's called learning the lessons of history.

at least in the eyes of moderate Muslims and the rest of the world, Afghanistan was a justified war in direct response to the attacks on 9/11.

Ya and the moderate Muslim world suddenly became extremist. :roll: Bullshit the Iraq war just gave the extremists a place to go and kill Americans like I said if it wasn't Iraq it would have been Afghanistan.

Thus the reason why it was not Afghanistan, is that radical Islam had and would have a much harder time selling it as nothing but western imperialism.

So what you're saying is the insurgency in Iraq is made up of everyday Muslim moderates who the U.S. by its evil actions forced into this extremist life and that they were so angry by the U.S. ousting the evil dictator Saddam that they just had to abandon their entire lives to go to Iraq to wage Jihad? Is that what you're saying?

No no ofcourse you're right if these people hadn't been given an excuse in Iraq they would have been upstanding members of the respective societies it's all America's fault. [sarcastic emphasis added]


Do you know how ****ing ridiculous that sounds? If these were moderate Muslims to begin with they would not be waging jihad in Iraq in the first place.

One can always tell when an ideological radical is full of ****, because its those times that they resort to nothing but the most partisan of sources to bolster their arguments.

So Newsweek's Christopher Dickey who said the following:

Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it.

is one of the most partisan of sources?

In the case of Bush Administration apologists, generally its the Weekly Standard and its very discredited Stephen Hayes.

Oh ad-hominem how I've missed you.

 

[Mr. D]

Brilliant! Kristol is one of the NeoCon Fascists that got us into this mess! Why not ask Cheney his opinion too! Geez! :roll: Talk about denial!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Brilliant! Kristol is one of the NeoCon Fascists that got us into this mess! Why not ask Cheney his opinion too! Geez! :roll: Talk about denial!

Aww poor baby can't counter Mr. Kristol's points so he must resort to childish name calling take your ball and go home baby that's a good lad.

 

[MSgt]

The same people who convinced President Bush to go into Iraq are by and large the same people who failed to convince Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton of similar Middle East policies.

Which is not such a good thing. Perhaps if a 9/11 occurred on their watch they might have done something as well. Perhaps in fifty years the Middle East will have a new face upon it, because of an interdiction called "Iraqi Freedom" occurred. There is no sense in complaining about the inevitable snags along the way that would be there regardless.

The Middle East very much needs a bit of the "NeoCon plan." The problem with the plan is that it does not account properly for the culture. This is where our country's party representatives need to come together instead of bickering like old women. The whole stigma that the "NeoCon plan" is a Republican venture is exactly why Democrats scoff at it. Everything else is just tools to be exploited.

Considering...

- With Saddam sitting squarely in the middle of the Middle East,

- The religious right's fixing of the democratic election in Iran and pulling the strings on Ahmenadejad's push towards a nuclear Iran,

- Hezbollah sitting and festering in Lebanon,

- Al-Queda agents all over the world and creating focused terror in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia,

- And the Muslim Brotherhood seeking every angle to take advantage of the continued oppression of Muslims.....

...The "NeoCon plan" is something of substance where there was none before. It is a plan that needs to be ever changing to reflect the ever changing "War on Terror." We have immediate goals and we have long term goals. Some will require the death of people and some will require our humanitarian face. Some will require our gracious funds and some will require our acceptance of inevitable immediate failure for the long run.

 

[Thorgasm]

The Middle East very much needs a bit of the "NeoCon plan." The problem with the plan is that it does not account properly for the culture. This is where our country's party representatives need to come together instead of bickering like old women.

I think that they bicker like 8th grade girls. :lol:

The problem is also that our enemies are electable in their countries. An uneducated constituency is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than a dictator. I do not mean that these people are stupid. I mean that the version of truth that they get is different than the one we get, or reality for that matter.