Victory for Clinton in Iraq

[Tgace]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893/#050131

…we’ve heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.

That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. That Act called for “regime change,” and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that’s what we’re about to get! . . . .

What’s hard to understand is why so many Democrats — including big-name Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry — have taken such a different stance today. Kennedy declared the war lost and the elections a failure just last week. Kerry was churlish and negative on Meet the Press yesterday. Mickey Kaus blames the Internet for this attitude, and there may be something to that. Jim Geraghty thinks it’s the 2008 primaries already. But I don’t think either of these explanations hits the mark.

I think it’s jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can’t stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it’s good for the country, and if it’s something that was their idea originally.​

:jedi1:
​

 

[michaeledward]

What a dumb *** argument.

Oh, well. I really liked what Charlie Pierce had to say today ...

Because every day, even Day One Of Super Bowl week, is Slacker Friday, Part The XXXIV:
You do not own their courage.

The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line in order to justify the dereliction of a kept press. They did not stand in line to make right the wrongs born out of laziness, cowardice, and the easy acceptance of casual lying. They did not stand in line for anyone's grand designs. They did not stand in line to play pawns in anyone's great game, so you don't own their courage, you guys in the PNAC gallery.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify a thousand mistakes that have led to more than a thousand American bodies. They did not stand in line for the purpose of being a national hypnotic for a nation not even their own. They did not stand in line for being the last casus belli standing. They did not stand in line on behalf of people's book deals, TV spots, honorarium checks, or tinpot celebrity. They did not stand in line to be anyone's talking points.

You do not own their courage.

We all should remember that.

 

[Tgace]

Did they stand in line because they wanted Democracy?

 

[GAB]

What a dumb *** argument.

Oh, well. I really liked what Charlie Pierce had to say today ...

Hi, Can you explain the d-a-a.

I thought it really explains some of the reason we are there and the reason others can not come together on this problem.

I mentioned a book I read in another thread "Lincoln's War".

Here is a story about a man who fought everyone and his brother to keep the union together and gave his all. When the time came to reap the reward he was killed, his VP was almost ruined but was not, and it was because of the kind of d-a-a...

There are lots of times these representitives cut their nose off to spite their face...

Regards, Gary

 

[michaeledward]

Hi, Can you explain the d-a-a.

I thought it really explains some of the reason we are there and the reason others can not come together on this problem.

I mentioned a book I read in another thread "Lincoln's War".

Here is a story about a man who fought everyone and his brother to keep the union together and gave his all. When the time came to reap the reward he was killed, his VP was almost ruined but was not, and it was because of the kind of d-a-a...

There are lots of times these representitives cut their nose off to spite their face...

Regards, Gary

Gary, You're right.

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit with interpreting Tgace's intentions with his post.

Until we know why Tgace was congratulating Clinton's policy, perhaps it is not a dumb-*** argument.

Maybe Tgace will tell us, in his own words now, how Clinton was the most insightful and significant President in the last 50 years.

Mike

 

[Sapper6]

great find Tgrace.

nice rebuttal michael

 

[ghostdog2]

EARLY EXIT POLLS IN IRAQI ELECTION SHOW MAJOR LEAD FOR JOHN KERRY

Dennis Kucinich continues to poll at about 0.01%

 

[ghostdog2]

" You do not own their courage. "

Maybe not, but we sure as hell made the down payment.

 

[heretic888]

If I may...

I believe Michael's point was primarily addressed to the article Tgrace linked, rather than a direct attack on Tgrace himself. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

And, to further this point, I must add that the argument used in said article is indeed a "dumbass" one. Essentially, it is using two generalizations between the presidents (both wanted a "regime change" in Iraq and supported democratic governments) as some kind of agreement or vindication of all the particular details and specific points that the Bush Administration has engaged in. Its a logical fallacy to use a generalization to vindicate a number of specifics.

I must also add that, say, individuals such as John Kerry have made it clear that they supported taking action against Saddam Hussein, but do not support the cowboy jingoistic approach the Bush Administration took. This is a sentiment echoed by many in the Democratic Party.

By all accounts, the administration's handling of the Iraqi occupation has by and far been an overwhelming blunder. Yesterday was a great day for the Iraqi people, but even people who initially supported the war (such as New York Times journalist that appeared on The Daily Show last night) will still point out that one great day cannot feasibly make up for a year and a half of complete blunders and mistakes.

If, for example, the author of said article actually believed that President Clinton would somehow support a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq, I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken. Again, and this is quite common among those on the Extreme Right, this is simply a matter of horridly construing the context of historical events.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[loki09789]

If I may...

I believe Michael's point was primarily addressed to the article Tgrace linked, rather than a direct attack on Tgrace himself. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

And, to further this point, I must add that the argument used in said article is indeed a "dumbass" one. Essentially, it is using two generalizations between the presidents (both wanted a "regime change" in Iraq and supported democratic governments) as some kind of agreement or vindication of all the particular details and specific points that the Bush Administration has engaged in. Its a logical fallacy to use a generalization to vindicate a number of specifics.

I must also add that, say, individuals such as John Kerry have made it clear that they supported taking action against Saddam Hussein, but do not support the cowboy jingoistic approach the Bush Administration took. This is a sentiment echoed by many in the Democratic Party.

By all accounts, the administration's handling of the Iraqi occupation has by and far been an overwhelming blunder. Yesterday was a great day for the Iraqi people, but even people who initially supported the war (such as New York Times journalist that appeared on The Daily Show last night) will still point out that one great day cannot feasibly make up for a year and a half of complete blunders and mistakes.

If, for example, the author of said article actually believed that President Clinton would somehow support a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq, I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken. Again, and this is quite common among those on the Extreme Right, this is simply a matter of horridly construing the context of historical events.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Which is better: The perfect tactic at the wrong time/too late or at least some plan, that can be adjusted as you go, that moves quickly?

By no means am I saying that the timing or the plan were perfect, but how many here (and those in politics and media that are criticizing everything that the current admin does) have every run, participated or done anything even close to this scale of war in duration or size?

I think about the old joke of Murphy's law of war or how different a training drill looks compared to real sparring/resistence or flat out fighting.

This dance partner isn't trying to stay with us. They are RESISTING our efforts, they are trying to screw with the operations (even from within politically at times there are frictions that can cause problems).

Expand how we look at the individual level when dealing with a resisting training partner to the level of warfare that an entire theater of operation creates and then think, in perspective how bad it really is.

What and how would/could it have been better? And remember when you answer or throw someone else's theory out there, it is still a what if and didn't get tested against a live/willful resistant opponent.

Oh, and in reference to MWard comments....look at the history of the responses to Tgaces posts and you may change your perspective about it.

 

[Tgace]

Always interesting who the first person to jump on a post is. Should conduct a study....

 

[Tgace]

Apparently Pres. Clinton doesn't agree with the "Iraqis are incapable of Democracy" argument.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

 

[OUMoose]

" You do not own their courage. "

Maybe not, but we sure as hell made the down payment.

Yup. Too bad we took the money from our 3rd mortgage on the family farm to pay for it, and just when we were so close to getting caught up...

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, and in reference to MWard comments....look at the history of the responses to Tgaces posts and you may change your perspective about it.

The nice thing about these boards ... is that responses lead to responses. You may find the reverse is also an interesting way to look at items.

It's all about that 'point of view'. Which are you seeing it from?

 

[Sapper6]

great find Tgrace.

nice rebuttal michael

that's right, i quoted myself here. i received an anonymous neg point for making this statement, although, i do have pretty good idea where it came from. apparently my post was "lacking substance" :idunno:

my comment to you Michael was nice rebuttal, referring to your brilliant comment, "what a dumbass argument". i like how you summed it up, why don't you tell us why you think it's a "dumbass argument", that's what i was getting at. unless of course you prefer to keep things short, sweet, and cloudy.

substance...? if i find some i'll be sure to pass it around :asian:

 

[ghostdog2]

The post bt T'gace was both interesting and pertinent. Common sense and common courtesy would both seem to dictate a more thoughtful and courteous response than "dumbass argument." Which I took to be directed indiscriminately.
Being a bit of a shoot-from- the-lip kind of guy, I know how it can happen. Hopefully, it's nothing personal. Heck, we don't even know each other. Thank
God.( Just a joke ).
Anyway, and returning to the fray, we know Billy C. was too busy interviewing interns to tend to the country's business let alone take action. Or does Rwanda mean nothing at all?
Faced with genocide and a paralized U.N., Clinton did nothing. Oh yeah, he directed his State Department not to use the word "genocide" under any circumstances when forced to discuss the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 souls.
Predictably and long after it made a difference, he had the ****s to "apologize" for his inaction.
If a Clinton apology means anything ( now that's dumbass ), it must in these circumstances mean, given it to do over, the U. S. would have acted alone.
Just a dumbass thought.
p.s. Why is it that when Democrats do nothing and apologize later,it's sound policy. But when Republicans act, it's cowboy jingoism. Is it the thought of taking a stand demo's find so frightening?

 

[michaeledward]

my comment to you Michael was nice rebuttal, referring to your brilliant comment, "what a dumbass argument". i like how you summed it up, why don't you tell us why you think it's a "dumbass argument", that's what i was getting at. unless of course you prefer to keep things short, sweet, and cloudy.

Okay, this may get to be a bit of a rant ... in several directions.

Tgace posting portions of Glenn Reynolds blog with no comments, just a little laserbeam. So, I need to figure out what he means by this.

Is he offering honest credit to Bill Clinton for signing the 'Iraq Liberation Act'. I don't think so for a couple of reasons:
A - the timing. The Act was signed 7 years ago.
B - Tgace seems to be one of the 'Blame Clinton First' crowd. Everything that has been bad about the Bush administration has been Clinton's fault.

From this, I interpreted a posting of sarcasm.

Next thought; from Glenn Reynolds post, the argument seems to be that 'Ted Kennedy' and 'John Kerry' are somehow having difficulty coming to terms with their own integrity if they can not support the elections in Iraq.

Glenn Reynolds (and Tgace by extention) is confusing at least two items (maybe more); the desire to change the regime in Iraq (ala Clintons' signature), and the war in Iraq. It is not impossible to be completely in favor of one and completely against the other.

We have discussed on this board quite extensively how the invasion of Iraq was presented by this administration under pretenses that can legitimately be called spurious (I might go further).

Further, to proclaim the Iraqi elections as a 'resounding success' is, to say the least, a bit premature. The post seems to be questioning the 'Americanism' of the prominent senators from Massachusetts because they are cautious / skeptical of the Iraqi elections.

It might very well be that the elections are the 'turning point' in Iraq. However, to be skeptical of this would be wise considering all of the other 'turning points' we have experienced (pulling down Saddam's statue, end of major combat operations, death of Uday and Qusay, capture of Saddam, handover of soveriegnty) that resulted in no turn, whatsoever.

So, anyhow, seemed to me that Tgace was hoping to annoy some people with this post (look at the title).

So, rather than respond with these thoughts, I countered with Mr. Peirce's article. Yes, we can be joyful in the outpouring of enthusiasm in some quarters in Iraq, but it is their courage, their tenacity, their celebration.

Our part in that celebration, at best, is small.

From John Nichols at the Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=2163

The images of Iraqis crowding polling places for that country's first free election in a half century were both moving and hopeful. The voting, while marred by violence, irregularities and boycotts, went off more smoothly than even the most optimistic members of the Bush administration had dared predict.

Unfortunately, President Bush and his aides could not let the images speak for themselves. The White House spin machine had to declare, even before the last votes were cast, that what happened Sunday was a "turning point" in the painful history of that battered country.
​

Don't piss on my head, and tell me it's raining.

Mike

 

[heretic888]

Why is it that when Democrats do nothing and apologize later,it's sound policy. But when Republicans act, it's cowboy jingoism. Is it the thought of taking a stand demo's find so frightening?

Beats me. Probably has to do with who you're asking.

Typically, Democratic passivity during the past ten or so years is what I would call compliance and cowardice.

Typically, Republican aggression during the past ten or so years is what I would call jingoism and warhawk-ism.

Neither are being particular true to their political ideologies, if you ask me. Republicans are supposed to be isolationist, non-interventionist and fiscally conservative. Democrats are supposed to actively take place in the furthering of human rights and civil liberties.

I haven't seen any of that. Just money-backed arrogance.

 

[heretic888]

Okay, this may get to be a bit of a rant ... in several directions.

Tgace posting portions of Glenn Reynolds blog with no comments, just a little laserbeam. So, I need to figure out what he means by this.

Is he offering honest credit to Bill Clinton for signing the 'Iraq Liberation Act'. I don't think so for a couple of reasons:
A - the timing. The Act was signed 7 years ago.
B - Tgace seems to be one of the 'Blame Clinton First' crowd. Everything that has been bad about the Bush administration has been Clinton's fault.

From this, I interpreted a posting of sarcasm.

Next thought; from Glenn Reynolds post, the argument seems to be that 'Ted Kennedy' and 'John Kerry' are somehow having difficulty coming to terms with their own integrity if they can not support the elections in Iraq.

Glenn Reynolds (and Tgace by extention) is confusing at least two items (maybe more); the desire to change the regime in Iraq (ala Clintons' signature), and the war in Iraq. It is not impossible to be completely in favor of one and completely against the other.

We have discussed on this board quite extensively how the invasion of Iraq was presented by this administration under pretenses that can legitimately be called spurious (I might go further).

Further, to proclaim the Iraqi elections as a 'resounding success' is, to say the least, a bit premature. The post seems to be questioning the 'Americanism' of the prominent senators from Massachusetts because they are cautious / skeptical of the Iraqi elections.

It might very well be that the elections are the 'turning point' in Iraq. However, to be skeptical of this would be wise considering all of the other 'turning points' we have experienced (pulling down Saddam's statue, end of major combat operations, death of Uday and Qusay, capture of Saddam, handover of soveriegnty) that resulted in no turn, whatsoever.

So, anyhow, seemed to me that Tgace was hoping to annoy some people with this post (look at the title).

So, rather than respond with these thoughts, I countered with Mr. Peirce's article. Yes, we can be joyful in the outpouring of enthusiasm in some quarters in Iraq, but it is their courage, their tenacity, their celebration.

Our part in that celebration, at best, is small.

From John Nichols at the Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=2163

The images of Iraqis crowding polling places for that country's first free election in a half century were both moving and hopeful. The voting, while marred by violence, irregularities and boycotts, went off more smoothly than even the most optimistic members of the Bush administration had dared predict.

Unfortunately, President Bush and his aides could not let the images speak for themselves. The White House spin machine had to declare, even before the last votes were cast, that what happened Sunday was a "turning point" in the painful history of that battered country.
​

Don't piss on my head, and tell me it's raining.

Mike

Nicely put, Mike.

 

[ghostdog2]

Our part in that celebration, at best, is small. Posted by michaeledward

NO, IT'S NOT SMALL. WE MADE IT HAPPEN!! IT WAS US, WE DID IT!!! BUT FOR THE U.S. IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!!
STOP BELITTLING YOUR COUNTRY AND ITS LEADERS AND SOLDIERS. THEY HAVE DONE IT, DONE IT ALL...WITHOUT THE U.N., WITHOUT THE FRENCH, WITHOUT THE GERMANS, WITHOUT THE NAYSAYERS AND CRITICS AND WITHOUT THE WHINERS.
"OUR PART IN THAT CELEBRATION.." IS THE BEST AND THE BIGGEST PART BECAUSE WITHOUT US THERE WOULD BE NO CELEBRATION.

Gee, it's hard to get your attention.