Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis week marks the fifth anniversary of Congress's vote to authorize the Bush Administration to overthrow the government of Iraq by military force. The Nation opposed the war authorization. In "An Open Letter to Congress," which we published on the magazine's cover on the eve of the vote, we argued that it would have "a significance that goes far beyond the war." Our opposition has been fully, tragically confirmed by the human and political disasters of these last few years.
As we mark this anniversary, it is time to consider the longterm damage the grievously misconceived "war on terrorism" has inflicted on our security and relationship with the world. Eventually US troops will leave Iraq because the brutal facts on the ground will compel it. But even as we struggle for an exit strategy, our political system continues to evade the challenge of finding an exit from the "war on terror." At a time when we need a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine and an alternative vision of what this country's role in the world should be, we see both parties calling for intensifying the "war on terror" --even for increasing the size of the military, and for expanding its ability to go places and do things. But who is asking the fundamental question: Won't a war without end do more to weaken our security and democracy than seriously address the threats and challenges ahead?
Witness the collateral damage to our democracy. This Administration has used the "war" as justification for almost anything--unlawful spying on Americans, illegal detention policies, hyper-secrecy, equating dissent with disloyalty and condoning torture.
The Administration has also justified the expansion of America's military capacity--over 700 bases in more than 60 countries, annual military budgets nearing 700 billion dollars--as necessary to counter the threat of Islamic extremism. What too few politicians are willing to say is that combating terrorism--a brutal, horrifying tactic--is not a "war" and that military action is the wrong weapon. Illegality and immorality aside, it simply doesn't succeed. Yes, terrorism does pose a threat to national and international security that can never be eliminated. But there are far more effective (and ethical) ways to advance US security than a forward-based and military-heavy strategy of intrusion into the Islamic world. Indeed, the failed Iraq war demonstrated anew the limits of military power.
Fighting terror requires genuine cooperation with other nations in policing and lawful and targeted intelligence work; smart diplomacy; withdrawal of support for oppressive regimes that generate hatred of the US; and real pressure to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and justice and a secure state for the Palestinians.
It is also worth remembering as we mark this anniversary that military invasion and occupation, and crusades masquerading as foreign policy, divert precious resources from real security. Five years ago, the doubts and warnings about military action in Iraq were brushed aside (including those clearly and consistently expressed by the Nation). Now that reality has confirmed the argument, isn't it time to act on the knowledge?
Alongside the get-out-of-Iraq debate, the political system needs a parallel debate that lays out how we will exit this "long war" -- which is a formula for unlimited militarization and recurring military conflicts. (As an industrial project for the arms industry, it could be even more open-ended than the Cold War.) We need a debate that confronts the danger of inflating a very real, but limited threat of terrorism into an open-ended global war, to be fought simultaneously on countless obscure battle fronts, large and small, visible and secret.
Major political leaders in both parties continue to buy into a view of US global supremacy--the "indispensable nation" scenario. They were silent when the Pentagon opened a new "Africa Command" to hunt down Islamists on that continent. Nor they did object when CIA gunships bombed villages earlier this year in Somalia. When Bush announced intentions to increase Army troop strength by 90,000, many Democrats boasted it was their idea first.
To what end? These new troops won't be available for Iraq. Are they for the next war or occupation? The delusion of military power is deeply rooted.
We would do better--both in addressing the danger of a wider sectarian war with failing regimes in the Middle East, and in combating terrorism--to reduce the heavy US military and geopolitical footprint in the region. That means withdrawing US forces from Iraq and organizing regional diplomacy, including with Iran and Syria, to contain the civil war from spreading. It would mean addressing the legitimate grievances of many in the Islamic world, especially Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And it would mean changing the conversation with the people of the Arab and Islamic worlds from the danger of extremism to the economic opportunity that peace and cooperation could bring.
A purposeful opposition must form to rethink America's role in the world. There are large and fateful questions to confront: What kind of country does the US want to be in the 21st century? Republic or Empire? Global leader or global cop? Where, as Sherle Schwenninger asked in the Nation's pages a few years ago, "is the America that is less one of warrior and preacher/proselytizer and more one of architect and builder?" How can America act like an imperial power in a post-imperial world? Much can be accomplished by focusing on the questions that conventional opinion ignores. And starting the discussion now can help establish new terms and limits for the next president elected in 2008.
Concretely, Congress should be pushed to take legislative action to renounce the Bush doctrine of "preventive war." As The Nation warned on the eve of the 2002 war resolution vote, "the decision to go to war has a significance that goes far beyond the war....It declares a policy of military supremacy over the entire earth-- an objective never attained by any power....The new policy [of preventive war] reverses a long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks. It gives the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by them...It accords the US the right to overthrow any regime--like the one in Iraq--it decided should be overthrown...It declares that the defense of the US and the world against nuclear proliferation is military force." Declaring the Bush doctrine of endless war defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future.
With the 2008 elections upon us, it is unlikely that the Democrats (with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns and values. If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is generating greater instability and inequality.
A real security plan would widen the definition of security to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty--a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world -- reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half.
Yes, at home, all this will take time and will have to overcome the fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the first wise step toward restoring genuine national security.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Money, Ms vanden Heuvel, money will end it.
Only the most delusional neo-con (no names needed, but he's not SAD) thinks that we can sustain an infinity of "off the books" deficits and billions going into TRILLIONS of dollars spent on a debacle in the Middle East.
Even Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee (who TALK BIG now about both Iraq and Iran) will have some Wall Street boys (as Hillary will) tell them "Uh, Boss. We need to get the REAL deficit under control or we're looking at both a financial and NATIONAL SECURITY disaster in the making!"...and they'll pull the plug.
In the end what will get us out of Iraq, may well be what some postulate got us into it...big moneied guys signalling and saying "We're looking at the spreadsheet, not 'The Weekly Standard'!"
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 12:28pm
righto, MASK...we cannot afford it...
but will we realize before its too late? probably not.
power - the most dangerous drug. steroids for the soul.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 1:09pm
I'm not sure even the harsh realities of our crippling debt can end it. When the Administration emphasizes the importance of this struggle, we probably need to take them seriously.
If we lift our military control of Iraq and allow a measure of real self-determination to the Iraqis, the possibility of greater alliance of Iraqi Shias with Iran is naturally increased. Eventually, this alliance could well draw the Shiite majority in Saudi Arabia into its orbit, and thereby most of the world's oil. Considering the overtures made by China and its allies to these groups, and the real problems the United States and its allies have in exercising effective control over those influences, we're looking at a scenario that could literally turn the U.S. into a second-rate power. The stakes are indeed high!
Never mind that virtually everything we do to maintain our status is morally bankrupt. To the movers and shakers on our side, this may be viewed as the Mother Of All Battles. It may be that we're still greatly underestimating the intensity of opposition to a more humane and rational approach.
I absolutely agree with Ms. Vanden Heuvel that this is about what kind of country we want to be in the 21st century. But let's be clear that this is an issue where there is very intense disagreement.
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/10/2007 @ 1:23pm
Eventually, this alliance could well draw the Shiite majority in Saudi Arabia into its orbit, and thereby most of the world's oil.---Posted by DONALD WEED 10/10/2007 @ 1:23pm
DONALD....Saudi Arabia is 80% SUNNI, and only 20% Shiia.
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/10/2007 @ 1:09pm
Money trumps power, IBBLE. Aside from maybe Gandhi or Dr King, rare that a POOR person is "powerful".
The Financial Guys won't tolerate endless deficits spent in Iraq and despite their loudness, the neo-cons are a minority in the GOP, and especially in the power elites.
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 1:32pm
MASK, my phrasings were culled from a talk given by Noam Chomsky at MIT last November [mitworld.mit.edu], and I'll confess up front that I used them without sufficient reflection.
I'm thinking it's worth researching why Chomsky would have phrased it in that way, and it should be obvious by now that I don't have the answer. I'm in and out today, but I'll see what I can dig up on this. Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/10/2007 @ 2:03pm
From Chomsky's Failed States, p. 145 (quotes are for an article from the Washington Post):
For the first time, "the Shiites of eastern Saudi Arabia, the only part of the kingdom where they are a majority, are preparing to win a small measure of political power." That is also the region where most Saudi oil happens to be.
That appears to have been Chomsky's point, which I managed to clumsily step all over.
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/10/2007 @ 2:22pm
Posted by DONALD WEED 10/10/2007 @ 2:22pm
Well, DONALD either you or Dr. Chomsky got it wrong (Yes, it IS possible for Noam Chomsky to be wrong, believe it or not).
If Shiia Iraq allies with Shiia Iran, then it's more likely the 85-90% Sunni countries (the majority of the Middle East from SA to Syria to Egypt) will ally themselves AGAINST the Shiia and we face a worse possibility than some "over-arching Shiia Middle East"...
but a regional WAR between said factions.
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 3:02pm
power - the most dangerous drug. steroids for the soul.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/10/2007 @ 1:09pm
don't steroids make you impotent?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
rare that a POOR person is "powerful".
Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 1:32pm
¿jesus?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/10/2007 @ 3:11pm
MASK, I'm still at a relatively early stage of a serious plunge into Chomsky's work, and that makes me currently more dangerous than productive. Meantime, don't pull any punches. Your comments are well taken.
Posted by Donald Weed at 10/10/2007 @ 3:39pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/10/2007 @ 3:11pm
Until Constantine, not so much. And certainly not in his own lifetime.
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 3:55pm
Posted by DONALD WEED 10/10/2007 @ 3:39pm
I'm not attacking you on this. I just want to correct your (or Dr Chomsky's) nightmare scenario, with what most analysts I've heard say is the more realistic nightmare scenario!
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 3:56pm
Fantastic post Katrina.
Yet it really is difficult to see how we can escape the pit that we've dug ourselves into as a nation. We have slipped slowly into a television induced coma of self-centered ignorance and apathy. The corporatist state has shown itself largely incapable of generating any of the life sustaining oxygen of intelligent discourse.
If anything is notable about American society today it is probably the rapidity with which we've accomplished this historic feat of auto-asphyxiation.
Although I am a strong advocate for grass roots democratic organizations and their ability to intelligently apply useful force on critical nodes of the political superstructure, I strongly suspect that we've crossed an event horizon of sorts that simply will not permit escape the accreted mass of Washington corruption.
No one should give up their hope because unlike scientific laws the "laws" of political reality are not immutable. But there is a reason why "Major political leaders in both parties continue to buy into a view of US global supremacy--the "indispensable nation" scenario...."
In short, both parties are being held by powerful forces beyond their control --forces that continue to gain strength in spite of the clear evidence of their counterproductive nature.
An escape at this juncture would appear to involve only two most probable scenarios. 1) We get really lucky and someone steps into the country's leadership, and through some combination of charisma and brilliance is able to realign the entire national outlook --from our wreckless defense spending, imperial foreign policy, and hydrocarbon addiction to the broad swath of failed domestic policies including job outsourcing, national health care, and debt slavery.
Or 2) we get a giant self-correction in the form of an economic and/or war driven collapse.
In the meantime we should all keep pushing the dialogue in spite of the long odds because hope is humanity's lungs and brilliant ideas are resuscitating.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/10/2007 @ 5:13pm
"This is the system we have now. It transcends politics." ~Freiheit
Interesting quote coming from a free market capitalist as I understand you to be. You are, of course, correct Freiheit. The system we have is a result of a concatenation of events which has developed ultimately from the natural forces of unfettered greed --it's the snake that eventually eats its tail, or the two snails locked in coprophagous sixty-nine.
As portrayed by today's popular conservatism --e.g. George Will-- the fundamental struggle is between freedom and egalitarianism. But their "freedom" is a facade for greed unbridled. The real human struggle is probably better encapsulated as an attempt to balance competition with cooperation.
The concept of political checks and balances is the seed of this idea, and it needs to be broadened to encompass the realm of corporate power.
That is the challenge of our time. No small task, obviously.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/10/2007 @ 6:37pm
This week marks the fifth anniversary of Congress's vote to authorize the Bush Administration to overthrow the government of Iraq by military force. - Katrina Vanden Heuvel
Kat...please tell all your leftist followers here that your first sentence explains why this war is NOT illegal. They keep insisting that it is.
I promise that they won't call you a "Hamster". :)~
Posted by Sliver at 10/10/2007 @ 6:44pm
KVH, I'm trying to understand your thinking. When our interest (both domestic and abroad) were attacked during the last administration, all we got was lip service and condemnation from the Arabs (and our allies). We invested and relied heavily in artificial intel instead of good old fashion human intel to cut costs. No one was really offering to assist us in apprending the offenders. We were blamed for everything and our "diplomacy" got us nowhere. And now you want a new and improved version of what we had before.....which was absolutly nothing?!
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 6:52pm
KvH: A real security plan would widen the definition of security to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty....
As lengthy as this pie-in-the-sky commentary is, Ms. KvH left out a number of other threats to human life that ACTUALLY are far more down to earth and personal:
Abortion (ok, past the first Trimester)
Alcoholism
Drug Addiction
Drunk Driving
Extreme Recreations (Hot air balloon rides or skydiving, anyone?)
Pedophiles
Obesity
Smoking (weeds too)
Aren't these the truly serious "threats to human life" that cost millions of American lifes each and every year....and that these threats can actually be dealt with literally FOR NOTHING.
Posted by Happy at 10/10/2007 @ 6:54pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/10/2007 @ 6:54pm
No, Happy you can't talk about them.
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 7:23pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/10/2007 @ 6:54pm
"Abortion (ok, past the first trimester)"?!?!?!
Uh, HAPP...who's the leading Repub contender for the nomination and what has he said (prior to this year of course) on that subject? (Hint- bald fellow, used to run a big city)
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 7:27pm
Okay, ACOOK...let me guess, you will actually stand behind this statement...
"No one was really offering to assist us in apprending the offenders."----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 6:52pm
Correct? And ignore or demean any evidence to the contrary?
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 7:29pm
Is there any particular reason there is not more coverage of the Kucinich campaign? He is the only candidate who has NEVER supported the war/occupation. He has NEVER voted for an Iraq funding bill. He is totally for eliminating the significant subsidy to the oil & military industry that this occupation is all about. AND, yes, last time I looked he IS a Democratic candidate.
Posted by unionnorthoh at 10/10/2007 @ 7:40pm
The war will finally end when those of us who make up the 70% who want to end it find the courage to forcefully speak out and demand that our elected representatives really hear us and take action. Our voices must not be fragmentary, but united so that we can amplify each others' courage. The same is true today as it was in 1967 regarding Vietnam. ML King Jr. had it right then and his message is right now: "A time comes when silence is betrayal. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak."
Posted by eejjoo at 10/10/2007 @ 7:50pm
"Okay, ACOOK...let me guess, you will actually stand behind this statement..."
"No one was really offering to assist us in apprending the offenders."----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 6:52pm
"Correct? And ignore or demean any evidence to the contrary?"
Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 7:29pm
Yes, I stand behind my statements and I'm not ignoring or demeaning any evidence. We shelled out a lot of money and trade agreements and the results were less than stellar. It took some 20 years to get the Libyan government to hand over its agents to the International Court to be prosecuted for the PanAm bombing over Lockerbie, Scottland. Why?
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 7:53pm
Posted by UNIONNORTHOH 10/10/2007 @ 7:40pm
That's why he'll never become president.
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 7:54pm
Posted by EEJJOO 10/10/2007 @ 7:50pm
Uh, ya'll did that already. November 2006 ring a bell?
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 7:57pm
Okay, ACOOK, let's start over... "No one was really offering to assist us in apprending the offenders."----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 6:52pm
Yes, I stand behind my statements and I'm not ignoring or demeaning any evidence.----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 7:53pm
and so...
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 is a counter-terrorism measure adopted September 28, 2001 following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States[1].The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and is therefore binding on all UN member states.
The resolution aimed to place barriers on the movement, organization and fund-raising activities of terrorist groups. UN member states were encouraged to share their intelligence on terrorist groups in order to assist in combating international terrorism. The resolution also calls on all states to adjust their national laws so that they can ratify all of the existing International conventions on terrorism.
The resolution established the Security Council's Counter Terrorism Committee [CTC]to monitor state compliance with is provisions.
However, the resolution failed to define 'Terrorism', and the working group initially only added Al-Qaida and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan on the sanctions list. This also entailed the danger that authoritarian regimes could label even non-violent activities as terrorist acts, hurting thus basic human rights.
The absence of any specific reference to human rights considerations was remedied in part by Resolution 1456 (2003)which declared that "States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law."
UN Security Council Resolution 1566 picked up loose ends from 1373 by actually spelling out what the Security Council sees as terrorism:
"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
Although this definition has operative effect for the purposes of Security Council action, it does not represent a definition of "terrorism" which binds all states in international law. That is a task which would could only be achieved by way of agreeing an international treaty under the auspices of the UN General Assembly. Negotiations towards agreeing such are ongoing, and a Comprehensive Convention exists in draft form, however agreement its exact terms, most particularly the definition of "terrorism", remains elusive.
Resolution 1566 also called for the creation of a working group that will expand the list of terrorist entities under sanction beyond the Taliban and Al-Qaida.
....doesn't count, right?
Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 8:18pm
HERE IS THE LEGACY OF GEORGE W. BUSH...
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, unprecedented presidential powers, unmatched incompetence, unparalleled corruption, unwarranted eavesdropping, Katrina, Enron, Halliburton, global warming, Cheney's secret energy task force, record oil company profits, $3 gasoline, FEMA, the Supreme Court, Diebold, Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, Terri Schiavo, stem cell research, golden parachutes, shrunken pensions, unavailable and expensive health care, habeas corpus, no weapons of mass destruction, sacrificed soldiers and Iraqi civilians, wasted billions, Taliban resurgence, expiration of the assault weapons ban, North Korea, Iran, intelligent design, swift boat hit squads....
Just a reminder....
Posted by w_m_bear at 10/10/2007 @ 9:17pm
Hey W_M_Bear,
You are slightly confused. Here is the legacy of George W. Bush:
Arrives at the White House in 2001, bringing morality and ethics to a place where there had been nothing but stench for the previous 8 years.
Promises to be "A Uniter, not a Divider" as he was when he was Governor of Texas. This was followed by a commitment by libs to engage in the worst full-bore opposition and personal hatred of a President, of either party, that I have seen in my lifetime. (I'm getting old- so that quite a while)
Establishes No Child Left Behind to make education better for kids in this country, so they actually learn something. No Child Left Behind, as I see it, basically codifies what many people thought the purpose of public school was all along, and were paying taxes for. This was followed by crucification by libs.
Signs the education bill, honoring co-sponsor Sen. Edward Kennedy at a White House ceremony. This was followed by Sen. Kennedy crucifying President Bush.
After September 11, begins the pro-active effort to stop terror before it kills us again. This was followed by extreme and daily crucification of President Bush by libs, this time with Tony Blair placed on a cross next to George W. Bush and subjected to daily crucification, also.
Says complimentary things about Sen. Hillary Clinton when her husband's portrait was officially unveiled at a White House ceremony. This was followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton crucifying President Bush at every opportunity.
Cut taxes to grow the economy and increase revenue to the Treasury (because this happens every time taxes are cut- as when JFK and LBJ cut taxes). The economy grew, rebounded from the 2001 recession, rebounded to the shock to the economy on September 11, created millions of new jobs, increased money to the Treasury. This was followed by crucification by libs, who claim he is stealing money from the poor.
Tried to save Social Security, which was said to be in crisis when Bill Clinton was President. This was followed by crucification by Libs, who say Social Security is not in crisis, just needs some tweaking.
Tried to help the poor with faith based initiatives. This was followed by crucification by libs, who say the President is instituting state theocracy.
Appointed justices to the Supreme Court who will and have done what the constitution says their job is. This was followed by crucification by libs, as well as harassment by libs of the prospective nominees during their confirmation hearings.
Has provided more money than the Clinton administration for aid to fight AIDS in Africa. By more money I mean millions more, the two numbers (Clinton aid and Bush aid) are not even close. This was followed by libs ignoring this, too busy crucifying President Bush to pay attention.
Has created the most color blind administration in U.S. history with more people of color rising to positions of meaningful authority then ever before. This was followed by standard lib crucification of Republicans as racist while proclaiming Bill Clinton was the first black President. This was also followed by some of the most vulgar and racist remarks by libs about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice imaginable.
So, as you can see, not only does George W. Bush have a legacy, but the lib crucificaton team is writing a legacy of their own, as well.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/10/2007 @ 9:58pm
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/10/2007 @ 9:58pm
alas, you've been decided by the decider.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/10/2007 @ 10:07pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/10/2007 @ 9:17pm
Sorry Bear, Bush won 2000 and 2004, you're gonna have to let it go.
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 10:08pm
"....doesn't count, right?"
Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 8:18pm
Nope. I have no faith in the abilities of the UN. Any resolutions they came up with pales in comparison to the corrupt Oil-for-Food Program. They paid lipservice and stymied our agencies efforts just about at every turn. The UN was more concerned about controlling us then fighting Al-Qaida or the Taliban.
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 10:17pm
"Resolution 1566 also called for the creation of a working group that will expand the list of terrorist entities under sanction beyond the Taliban and Al-Qaida."
Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 8:18pm
All while blowing smoke up our butts.
Posted by ACook at 10/10/2007 @ 10:21pm
Authoritarian Republican Conservatives GO TO HELL!!!! America hates you, the world hates you, Republican Authoritarian Bush supporters you are the very scum.
Posted by conshame at 10/11/2007 @ 01:16am
America is ANGRY with Conservatives. America HATES Republicans. All you Conservative Republicans are is uptight Authoritarians who still support Bush.
Posted by conshame at 10/11/2007 @ 01:22am
Bush and his Republicans are Armenian Genocide Deniers, calling Musharraf of Pakistan to congratulate him on his "election" victory. Anyone who believes Bush about how he is killing Americans for Freedom is a fool, what a farce. Americans and everyone on the planet are ANGRY with Republicans.
Posted by conshame at 10/11/2007 @ 01:34am
Posted by CONSHAME 10/11/2007 @ 01:16am
Posted by CONSHAME 10/11/2007 @ 01:22am
Posted by CONSHAME 10/11/2007 @ 01:34am |
I see the adopted child of the Adams family is at it again at 1:30 in the morning with more intelligent blat.....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Posted by john maasch at 10/11/2007 @ 07:15am
No, Katrina, this month marks the fifth anniversary of Congresses vote to allow the United States to finally eliminate the butcher Hussein and his family. Now, Bush & Friends screwed it up later, but lets keep the purpose in perspective, shall we?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/11/2007 @ 08:46am
Okay, class...time to review--
Okay, ACOOK...let me guess, you will actually stand behind this statement...
"No one was really offering to assist us in apprending the offenders."----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 6:52pm
Correct? And (you'll) ignore or demean any evidence to the contrary?----Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 7:29pm
Yes, I stand behind my statements and I'm not ignoring or demeaning any evidence. -----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 7:53pm
(After posting UN Resolution 1373)....doesn't count, right?----Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 8:18pm
Nope.----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 10:17pm
All while blowing smoke up our butts.----Posted by ACOOK 10/10/2007 @ 10:21pm
(BTW, next time some right-winger talks about how we "had to go into Iraq and we had UN resolutions to back us up on that"...save these posts from ACOOK and RIO)
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 09:10am
Now, Bush & Friends screwed it up later, but lets keep the purpose in perspective, shall we?----Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/11/2007 @ 08:46am
Okay, CHIP, just to clarify what camp you fall into. You think the Iraq invasion was a good idea, but you ADMIT that "Bush & Friends" have screwed up the post-invasion situation?
Sure you don't want to soft-pedal or add "caveats" to that, before you distance yourself from the neo-con loyalists?
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 09:12am
Members of Congress! Be faithful to your oaths of office and to the traditions of your branch of government. Think of the country, not of your re-election. Assert your power. Stand up for the prerogatives of Congress. Defend the Constitution. Reject the arrogance--and the ignorance--of power. Show respect for your constituents--they require your honest judgment, not capitulation to the executive. Say no to empire. Affirm the Republic. Preserve the peace. Vote against war in Iraq.
*sigh*
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2007 @ 09:31am
Something to think about:
If 70% of the population is against staying in Iraq, then why isn't Congress taking action to pull us out?? Why aren't even those poll-driven Democrats not taking the easy road to reelection by forcing the will of 70% of the country??
My guess is this: While the 70% of the public that doesn't want us there receive all they know of Iraq from media reports, and their offshoots, Members of Congress are receiving their information directly from the field of operations.
Given that...could there possibly be a difference of opinion as to how things are actually going in Iraq?? Do those in the know of the hard facts see a success where the media only sees a body count? How else could you explain it?
Posted by Sliver at 10/11/2007 @ 10:26am
Members of Congress are receiving their information directly from the field of operations. ----Posted by SLIVER 10/11/2007 @ 10:26am
Okay, so your theory is....the Democratic Congress KNOWS that we're "winning in Iraq" and that's why they won't pass a defunding bill, despite 70% public support for it?
Interesting. But why would they suffer an 11% approval and not come out at a press conference and TELL the American people we're "winning" in Iraq and boost their approvals?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 10:29am
Jimmy Carter is 100 percent correct, George Bush is pro-torture, and America is being forced to torture people because we have bad people in our government.
The White House spokespeople said, "it's sad when a former President tells it like it is. it's happy when a current President orders people to be tortured and then lies about it. But how dare anyone ever tell the truth about Conservative Republican Authoritarians".
It is time for America to GET TOUGH on Conservatives. Americans are tired of the lies, tired of seeing American prestige squandered, Americans are tired of being a pariah in the eyes of the world.
Americans hate George Bush and Dick Cheney, and we want the world to hate them too, but WE should not be hated for what they have done. That is why it is time for Democrats and decent Republicans to rise up, realize that WE HAVE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM IN AMERICA.
Posted by conshame at 10/11/2007 @ 10:37am
It is time for America to GET TOUGH on Conservatives.----Posted by CONSHAME 10/11/2007 @ 10:37am
CS, there are NO "conservatives"....you said so!
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 10:56am
the Democratic Congress KNOWS that we're "winning in Iraq" and that's why they won't pass a defunding bill, despite 70% public support for it?
I wouldn't phrase it as strongly as "Know that we're winning", rather something along the lines that they understand the ramifications if we were to pull out, and perhaps the actual progress that is being made, yet won't publicly admit it.
But why would they suffer an 11% approval and not come out at a press conference and TELL the American people we're "winning" in Iraq and boost their approvals?!?!?
Posted by MASK 10/11/2007 @ 10:29am
Well...the 11% approval also includes 48% of Congress which are Republicans. The general consensus is that Dems are most likely gonna pickup seats in the next Congressional election and also have a damn good shot at the White House, so why bother telling the whole story? Why not keep your powder dry until Dems gain a majority in Congress and assume the presidency? If that happens, watch for the "conditions" in Iraq change to a positive from those in Congress and the media.
Conshame...you've got issues, girl...get some help.
-"I've never looked at things I've liked, only things I hate" - Kelly Jones.
Posted by Sliver at 10/11/2007 @ 11:14am
Posted by SLIVER 10/11/2007 @ 11:14am
Ahhhh, I get it. So when Hillary wins the Presidency, and the Dems hold Congress, suddenly they and their Liberal Media buddies (who know the "secret victory we're achieving") will announce that they are winning the war, Baghdad will be safer than Geneva, Al Qaeda in Iraq (otherwise known as "Iraqi Sunnis") will vanish, and it will become a model democracy and democracy will bloom like a thousand flowers across the Middle East...
just like Bush and you neo-cons promised, but those rascally Dems and Her Nibs will take credit for it!
Is THAT your theory?
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 12:35pm
Naturally, once again, you're too black and white on the issue. "Progress is now being made" is more like it.
Otherwise, with no pull-out and the "disaster in Iraq" being handed off to a Dem Congress and POTUS, Hillary risks the pox of being likened to Nixon ala Vietnam, No?? I half expected this to be the case when Dems took over Congress, but I believe that they were calculating more long-term.
And yes...it's only a theory. I don't profess to have the crystal clarity of a Conshame, WillC., Frankgrits, et al.
How else would you explain Cindy Sheehan no longer camped out in Crawford, but in front of uber-lib Pelosi's house, while Nancy is having no consideration of a pull-out either??
Posted by Sliver at 10/11/2007 @ 12:46pm
Hello CONSHAME,
Just to let you know you have a typo in your post above. You said "........Jimmy Carter is 100 percent correct,........
That should read "Jimmy Carter is 0 percent correct". From everything I see, Mr. Carter is correct 0% of the time. It is a shame he does not focus on and stick to humanitarian issues only, because the man knows nothing of domestic or international affairs.
I recently read a book by he and his wife Rosalyn, and this was not a political book but a book about how to live live, mostly oriented about healthy living, productive living, etc. with tips on how to eat healthy, do exercise, etc.
A few things did pop into the book, however, where Rosalyn was talking about how they had to cope with returning to their home in Plains after the 1980 election, and cope with the angst of losing the White House.
It was clear from her description that these two individuals, she and Jimmy, supposedly intellectual heavyweights, had no clue what had happened to them or why! Not a clue, and I am sure to this day they do not understand.
On another subject, about your comment "....Americans hate George Bush and Dick Cheney................"
You should have said you and some Americans, not Americans. You on the left do this all the time, where you take your opinion, which you do have a right to have, but then project that everybody has that opinion.
Matt Rothschild on The Progressive magazine (www.progressive.org) does this all the time.
You need to stop doing that. If it is your opinion, say so, but stop putting your words in other peoples mouths, because there are people who do not agree with you.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/11/2007 @ 1:15pm
just like Bush and you neo-cons promised, but those rascally Dems and Her Nibs will take credit for it!
Is THAT your theory?
Posted by MASK 10/11/2007 @ 12:35pm
Careful with the "You neo-cons" business...since you're only resigned to an either/or scenario, one might label you a "socialist?"
Posted by Sliver at 10/11/2007 @ 1:40pm
Posted by SLIVER 10/11/2007 @ 12:46pm
Okay, but again, what you're saying is that the Dems know we're "winning" (or "making progress" if you like) in Iraq....won't cut the funding because of that AND because they figure they'll win the White House and hold Congress....
and with their "secret info", know that instead of losing Iraq "the way Nixon lost Vietnam" (BTW, he did? I thought it was the "Democratic Congress of 1974-75"...that's what RIO and SJCHERMAK said?!??!?)...
they're going to stick it out and when Iraq is safe, stable, secure, happy, healthy, prosperous, and the "Switzerland of Mesopotamia" (as you and others have said is "just around the corner")....they get to take credit for that?
You know, I agree that CONSHAME is need of some psychiatric treatment...but I think she might need some company in group therapy, SLIVER!
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 1:40pm
"On another subject, about your comment "....Americans hate George Bush and Dick Cheney................" ----Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/11/2007 @ 1:15pm
BTW, in the spirit of bipartisanship, SJCHER is right. Americans don't "hate" Bush and Cheney....
they just don't approve of the job they're doing by 65-75%!
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 1:43pm
I'm sorry folks, but FREIHEIT has said the most intelligent thing here. You DO need to look further upstream! Who is the Federal Reserve? And What do they do? Has anyone ever asked themselves this question: Do you know of ANY so-called Government agency that charges INTEREST on what they do to it's own Government?? That's exactly what they do, because they are neither "Federal" nor do they have any "Reserves"!! If people will just wake up to this fact and reclaim their Constitutional right to have Government abide by the restraints placed on it by our Constitution; by our Founding fathers, we would not be in the mess we are in now! Folks, we are living in the finest Plutocracy that money can buy!
Posted by LoveLiberty at 10/11/2007 @ 1:57pm
we are living in the finest Plutocracy that money can buy!----Posted by LOVELIBERTY 10/11/2007 @ 1:57pm
I ALMOST thought it was him, the original LVLIBERTY...until THAT part!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 2:19pm
Folks, we are living in the finest Plutocracy that money can buy!
Posted by LOVELIBERTY 10/11/2007 @ 1:57pm
......that money can conjure.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2007 @ 9:52pm
Very good piece on our recent history and historical perspectives Ms Vanden Heuvel! It makes me chill to visualize how near we are from ancient Rome and what happened to it. And though they had an empire that lasted for centuries finally it fall to barbarians.
Like Rome we prefer an empire than a democratic republic, to put an emphasis on military than in dialogue and to reap hatred from conquered people than thanks from people we could reach to alleviate hunger and lodge.
Like you, I think we are at crossroads with destiny. Thanks to GWB that his administration was so poor, because neocons like DeLay were preparing to hold into power for 50 years in alliance with imperialists, hawks, and big capital. Such bad performance gives us a last chance to think of the following.
The essence of the lesson our people must get from this, is say NO to ultranationalism. The nationalism that exploded from 9-11 and GWB exploited to hit anything at hand, e.g. Saddam. The same nationalism that Hitler used against Jews, Poles, Russians, and half Europe. A nation has the right to have a powerful military, but that does not give right to impose its will and/or culture or political system or economic homage.
So, I don't think like other participants that money saturation alone will end the war. The war will end the very next minute the American people are committed to end it. Unfortunately, maybe only 60% want to stop it. Many of them lukewarmingly like the majority of Dems in congress.There is still too much Americans contaminated with that pseudopatriotism that Reps sell so well.
It is the duty of everyone of us to convince them (bang on them) that people are more important than vengeance, that the lives and limbs of Americans have a value that mesianic neocons will never, ever understand in a thousand years. And that finally, to get more terrorists we need not to kick everybody's a... but to use intelligence, patience, and common sense.
Hail to the principles of the Founding Fathers, that they will always guide our passes.
Posted by Frank42 at 10/12/2007 @ 12:03am
MASK, what I need, and what all Americans need, is DECENT PEOPLE in the government. Americans are pissed off, MASK.
Bush is out here - just like Ahmadinejad - DENYING the Genocide. Telling Congress you better deny the Genocide ever happened.
Turkey, is getting defended by the idiot George Bush. I am sure they really appreciate HIM being the one who stands up for them.
Turkey, needs help, MASK. They put people in jail for NOT engaging in holocaust revisionism. They were supposedly against the war in Iraq - but they learned to live with it. They can't live with non-holocaust-revisionism, because it offends their character. Turkey puts people in jail for speaking the Kurdish language. You can go to prison in Turkey for speaking Kurdish. And they were offended by the movie "Midnight Express", for once again, telling the truth.
So Bush is counting on Turkey to be the only country that puts up with us, and in return he warns Congress they better go along with him on his Ahmadinejad-like denial of the Genocide.
MASK, Americans are pissed off, we are tired of this nonsense, we are tired of America getting forced down this dark Authoritarian path, Mask.
Posted by conshame at 10/12/2007 @ 10:30am
Turkey is running heroin, denying the holocaust, jailing people for speaking Kurdish, and threatening American interests.
Turkey does not deserve their hero George Bush defending them.
Posted by conshame at 10/12/2007 @ 10:34am
Turkey is always concerned that the facts make them look bad, how bad does it look when the idiot George Bush is the ONLY one coming to your defense? Now THATS a national embarrassment to Turkey if ever there was one.
Posted by conshame at 10/12/2007 @ 10:36am
George Bush: Now look, Turkey, don't threaten American interests in Iraq, please don't, or we'll have to stand by and take it and look weak.
Posted by conshame at 10/12/2007 @ 10:39am