WHO COULD HAVE KNOWN?
I’ve been taken to task by NutsLikeBush, a regular liberal poster here on LAL, for a column I posted back in 2005. The title of the column was THE WAR IN IRAQ IS JUST, RIGHT AND ALMOST OVER. For my money, the just and right part are still as true today as they were when the war started. By invading Iraq the Bush administration created a “front” in the war against terror. A gamble to be sure, but a master stroke as well. Terrorism cannot fight and win a conventional war and Iraq has forced the terror masters to focus attention and resources in one location.
The ALMOST OVER part is where I was dead wrong. It was a wishful prediction made without the benefit of foresight. After all, who could have predicted the events that would unfold to prolong the war.
Who could have predicted that the Democratic party would have emerged as an ally of our enemy? These were the same Democrats who, under Bill Clinton, proclaimed that regime change in Iraq was official policy, that Iraqi WMD were a looming threat and that voted to authorize Bush’s Iraqi invasion. These same Democrats did a complete about face when election contributions were on the line.
Who could have predicted that the liberal media, lead by the New York Times, CBS news and others, would fabricate stories to damage the war effort and undermine the efforts of our commander-in-chief? For what, journalistic integrity. Please!
Who could have predicted that Nancy Pelosi, third in line of succession to the presidency, would go to Syria, against the wishes of the administraion, to kiss the ring of the terrorist supporter Assad and then months later champion a meaningless House resolution that she knew would enrage our staunchest ally in the muslim world? Who could have predicted that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would declare the war in Iraq lost and the surge a failure before it even got started.
These things can only be considered in threes ways. They were the acts of those sympathetic to our enemies cause, the acts of those blinded by hate and lust for power or sheer stupidity. I never should have said the war was almost over in that headline because, as I’ve also said on this site, you can’t predict what is going to happen in war. That is the great lie that liberals want you to beleive. That a war can be fought according to a plan and a timetable.
This war in Iraq IS just. It IS right and right now we are winning. We are moving closer to the time when our troop levels can be drawn down, when Iraqis can assume more military and police responsibilities. The political power and stability of the government in Iraq needs to improve and it seems to be doing just thatn, but at a much slower pace than anyone would like.
Right now we are winning….but the Democrats will do whatever they to stop that. Who could have known?
nutslikebush Says: October 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Buck,
First it is interesting that you are obsessed with the idea that I am liberal. You should know that I vote Republican approximately 50% of the time. I actually am probably more of a true conservative than you ever have been or will ever be. You express views like those of a neocon (neoconservativism, for those of you who don’t know much about modern politics, is liberalism on steroids. It endorses the use of US military might as a means of cultural engineering in foreign countries. It believes that if you remove dictators democracy will just spring forth. It disregards history and doesn’t learn from its mistakes.)
Hilter, I will remind you, rose to power on a platform that was based on blaming German liberals for Germany’s loss in WWI. His mantra was “we never lost a battle on the battle field. The liberal (i.e., Jews) lost WWI for Germany, Hitler preached, by undermining the war effort on the home front through the newspapers they controlled and their opposition to Germany’s attempts to conquer other countries militarily. Read Mein Kampf sometime. He says almost exactly what you are saying in your article above. It is uncanny. I often wonder if the Limbaughs and their crowds actually plagiarize Mein Kampf by borrowing from it so heavily (I am not kidding).
Almost everyone now agrees that the invasion of Iraq was the greatest strategic blunders in American history. The people of Iraq, if the truth be known, are mostly unemployed, don’t have enough clean water or food, only have about 4 hours per day access to electricity, have a failed economy, a government that made a quorum less than a handful of times last year, a corrupt police force, and an army that consists of people who are insurgents during their free time.
The good news stories ,such as the triumph of the Kurds, are not even properly presented or understood by people like you, Buck. Right now Turkey has amassed 70,000-100,000 troops on Iraq’s border and are preparing to invade the Kurdish regions of Iraq. Turkey, as you know (I hope), is a democracy and a Muslim country. You might say that they are the prototype for what we would have liked to have seen happen in Iraq. The Kurdish region of Iraq (aka, Kurdistan) has a stable government but it is largely controlled by Marxists (the PKK) who have been sponsoring suicide terrorists attacks against the democratic government of Turkey. These Marxists secularists have committed more suicide terrorist attacks against Turkey that Al-Qaeda has in Iraq (fun fact, huh?). So Buck, who will you be pulling for in this upcoming war in Kurdistan, the Marxists Kurds who have a long history of sponsoring terrorism or the Democracy of Turkey? Creates quite a conundrum doesn’t it.
The problem is that when we try to do social and cultural engineering via invasion it can’t end well. Let me recommend a great book on this topic entitled “The Unconquerable World” by Jonathon Schnell. The sort of democracy that we hoped for in Iraq, which already exists in Iraq’s neighbor, Turkey, can only emerge if it is the will of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, they seem to prefer to form a theocratic islamist government. Our founding fathers, in their brilliance, made sure to build effective firewalls to keep religion from poisoning democracy. The Iraqis are struggling mightily to use this opportunity that we gave them to build a government based on sharia law, which is quite the opposite of democracy.
Buck, my view is that we should have the strongest military in the world - stronger than the rest of the world combined - and use it to protect our country, not to try to do cultural engineering and nation building. I voted for Bush in 2000 largely because he pledged to abide by that principle. Another thing that appealed to me about his candidacy was that he was committed to not growing the deficit again (balanced budgets matter). He violated his commitments, plain and simple. He is not a principled leader and I have come to see him in a different light, as a radical liberal who has fooled conservatives who can’t see past the Texas accent and cowboy platitudes. But he doesn’t fool me. For those of you who still buy his nonsense, shame on you. Wake up.
nutslikebush Says: October 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Buck,
I want to add one more thing. I don’t think the terrorists can beat us anywhere. We didn’t need a front. In fact we just created huge supplies of newly minted terrorists for us to fight. You do know that the terrorists in Iraq are not the same ones that were involved in 9/11 and the other attacks against the US, don’t you? They are an entirely new breed we created by invading Iraq.
The terrorists can’t defeat us because 1) they are a small group of poorly funded knuckle heads and 2) they have nothing to offer to their followers but death. That can’t sustain a movement. The only thing that can sustain them if for us to invade their homelands. That is the driving force that keeps Hamas, Hezbhullah, and al Qaeda going. Take that away and they wither quickly.
The Other Side Says: October 20th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
wow, i really don’t think i can take buck seriously because of his hyper-partisanship. that is whats wrong with congress and washington in general.
this article is a joke. but it does prove the point that republicans will blame democrats for the failure of iraq when they control washington. what happened to accountablility? everything that went wrong in iraq happened under the republican led congress and bush administration, plain and simple.
i guess any dissent against bush’s beliefs means that you are un-american. this war was based on a lie and continued with more lies. what about afganistan being the front on terror? iraq had no connection with al-qaida. this article ignores the facts so much that its making my head hurt. at least america isn’t as ignorant/blind/naive as buck is and will vote next election to make sure that democrats will have control.
nutslikebush Says: October 21st, 2007 at 3:39 am
Buck,
If it was just for us to invade Iraq to depose a dictator that leaves 43 countries that are ruled by brutal dictators and still need to be invaded. Do you think we should invade them sequentially or go ahead and attack five or ten at a time since it would not be just to not overthrow all of the brutal dictatorships in the world? If you would go with the sequential plan, what are the next ten or so that you think we should invade?
nutslikebush Says: October 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Syria announced that it is deporting 1.5 million of its Iraqi refugees. They have closed their border already. 4000-5000 Iraqis cross the Iraq/Syria border every day seeking refuge from the war.
JACKSON Says: October 21st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
You know what bothers me, it’s the fact they everyone keeps saying we are loosing, lost the war in Iraq… Meanwhile 3rd/75th is driving on. As a courtesy I would hope my country would have the decency to stick with us. How can we keep our heads straight when our enemies want us to loose and so do our fellow Americans back home. That’s what it feels like. This is how we feel: we are stranded at sea and everyone has given up the rescue, but we haven’t given up, we can’t give up, how can you. If we have lost, send us home, if there is still a chance then stick by us. You ever watch the Super Ball, you notice even if a team was loosing and it seemed like it was going to loose the players and the true fans never gave up. The players don’t give up because they feel they owe it to the fans and the fans don’t leave because they feel they owe it to the players. The fake fans and players rush to other side. I don’t know much about politics but I do know when I look at my shoulder the American Flag is there. I will never give up on my country, I pray my country never gives up on me or abondons me especially when I am still in harms way.
nutslikebush Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 am
Kurdish terrorists attacked Turkey’s army last night and Turkey has started bombing Iraq.
Maliki is furious at US troops for killing lots of civilians today in Sadr city. This could create big problems for the US military with the Iraqi government (such as it is.)
nutslikebush Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 am
Jackson,
Everyone that I know, read, and listen to thinks that the US military is kicking ass in Iraq. There is no debate about that. Please don’t believe that either political party or any significant (there are always the odd fruitcakes out there) segments of the American society want any harm to come to our military, for our military to be damaged in any way, or, heaven forbid, for us to lose a conflict. Such desires would be insane and would weaken all Americans and their interests. Like you, I have heard some very destructive pundits (aka, radio and tv blow hards: note, radio talk show hosts specialize in fanning the flames of hatred) say it about their opponents but the notion that anyone is abandoning their support for the military is a lie that used by the smarmiest characters only to underhandedly attack their political opponents. Ironically, by doing this it is they who hurt the military because people like you believe what they say about their opponents.
It may be the case that we will be in Iraq for the next 50 years fighting the same battles over and over again. If that is our fate, so be it. We will always support our military. We are one.
That having been said. The problem in Iraq is not a military problem. The real problem is that the Iraqi government is losing. The one and only thing that can make Iraq work is for the Iraqis themselves to get their sh*t together, form a real government, and behave like civilized people. I don’t think that the US military can engineer a responsible and civil society in Iraq. That is not the appropriate job for our military in my opinion. I want our military to be used to defend our country.
JACKSON Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Nuts thanks for the reassurance, it actually helps. Unfortunately, many people don’t explain it the way you do. I do agree with you the Iraqi govt needs to seriously step up, I don’t think we(military) can build their government. But at the moment we are all they got, seriously…
nutslikebush Says: October 22nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Buck,
It is interesting that you think that the media, including the NY Times and CBS etc are against the war and against Bush. More objectively, they gave Bush a completely free pass and just served as a conduit to pass the administration’s message, unchecked, straight to the american public. What you call the liberal media has largely just been a cheering section for Bush since 2001. Only recently did they start doing their job which is to make the government prove their case to the american people. We should never have faith in the government. They should always be required to prove, with evidence, that they are not bull shitting us. That is a basic conservative principle.
Emory Says: October 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 am
I definitely feel the same sentiment here, Buck. I struggle with how to think of democrats when they behave in such ways–oh, and you left out the Murtha and Armenian stuff. I am not comfortable with the conclusion that democrats want Bush to lose so bad that they want defeat. Or that they are sympathetic to the enemy. Yet, there is no plausible reason as to why some democrats would carry on this way.
nutslikebush Says: October 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Hi Emory,
I agree that the Armenian genocide issue was bewildering and I don’t know why this issue has been coming up repeatedly for the past 20 years (someone in congress, I don’t know who, has adopted it as a pet issue). The biggest problem with our government, in my opinion, is partisanism. I find both parties to be major insults to our intelligence. I am an equal opportunity critic. Generally I am no fan of either party but most of all I detest the partisans. They are the ones who are killing us.
Buck Evinger Says: October 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
The Democratic Party and liberals in general have invested in the defeat of America in this war on terror in general and in Iraq specifically. Ask yourself this question. If over the next 6 months, thousands of insurgants and terror fighters in Iraq surrended and the Iraqi government began making real progress in bringing the various disputing factions in Iraq together….what would that mean for the Democratic party in the 2008 elections? It would mean defeat for Democrats. It would mean a Republican in the White House and more than likely it would mean Republicans would regain control of the House and Senate. This one issue means victory or defeat, maybe even life or death, for the Democratic party. They want the quagmire! They want slow progress
I can assure you there has been more than one meeting where a Democratic strategist has said, “If things just keep going the way they are…” They are invested in America’s defeat.
Dan Says: October 24th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Buck, I completely agree with you on this subject. All we’ve been hearing lately is the ongoing skepticism, distrust, and intemperance that the democratic party consistently displays through the (untrustworthy) media, by which I mean CNN, New York Times, and more. I see no hope for the democrats winning this upcoming election. I’ve heard liberals complain countless times (from Phil Donahue to Nancy Pelosi) about the current domestic and foreign issues, but I never hear a resolve that they have to offer to the American people, or something to reinforce their beliefs. But I’ve figured out the answer to that a while back, and it is exactly what you pointed out in your statement, that liberals have sided with America’s enemy, and will continue to manipulate the Iraq War for their own impractical cause. “Nutslikebush” can read my response that I have posted here and type up a grand paragraph possibly stating why he/she thinks I’m wrong here, but in the end, the arguement will go in a complete circle.
The Other Side Says: October 24th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
the reason why republicans have no chance to reclaim anything in 2008 isn’t only because of iraq. look at the countless scandals (foley, dude from alaska, vitter, craig), the illegal wiretapping and the siding with the bush administration. the republican party is so far from their fundamental beliefs that the majority of their party and independents dislike/distrust them. bush and the congressional republicans try desperatly to appeal to their base and as a result, alienate the rest of the party. look at the religious right’s threat of a third party candidate if guiliani is the republican nominee.
and dan, the democrats came up with a bill that offers a solution, it was schip. the reason why they cannot pass anything is because of checks and balances, bush has the veto power. also, the republican minority is fillibustering every bill they don’t like and democrats cannot muster 60 votes.
dan and buck can think whatever they want about the next election. however, reality shows that republicans have no chance to win the white house or any part of congress. their rationale for a democratic loss is pathetic, and somewhat desperate.
nutslikebush Says: October 25th, 2007 at 2:20 am
I frankly don’t care whether a politician is a republican or a democrat. That is entirely irrelevant to me. I think that objectively speaking the Iraq war is an absolute unmitigated disaster for everyone concerned (except islamic terrorists, it is a boon for them). If you think about it, you will agree. This is not a political argument. It is simple reality. Abandon politics and pursue the truth instead.
nutslikebush Says: October 25th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Why do I get the feeling that Buck and Dan would rather that I didn’t say and do what I really believe to be right and would prefer for me to ignore my conscience and sense of morality and reason?
Buck Evinger Says: October 25th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
You’re wrong about that Nut. I want you to listen to your conscience, your morality and my reason.
Dan Says: October 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
To tell you the truth, I truly enjoy reading these comments by “nutslikebush”, and “The Other Side”. I get a good laugh out of them every once and a while. It’s good to laugh, makes a person feel good inside. Tell me, “The Other Side”, what bill had the democrats offered that was a solution to anything, and when was the last time Bush vetoed a bill at all that was thought to help our nation? Let me think, as far I as can remember, one comes to mind, the Child Healthcare bill, with an addition of 3 other bills durin gthe course of his presidency, aside from FDR’s dissapointing record. May I must remind of who voted for the Iraq war in Congress?
Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) who supported Bush strongly for the Iraq War said - “it is important for the country “to speak with one voice at this critical moment.”
Now, read that quote for me one more time, and really try to sink it in. Now tell me, what have the democrats been doing all this time since the war started? Complain, bash, cause only dissaray, dispute, and twist the truth. It is truly an absolute disgrace what the liberals have done. Instead of making victory of this war our primary effort, they feel its more important bring our leader down (war hawk), and put a “dove” in the white house. Yeah, great. “Yeah, lets just pull out now while we can, the Iraqi’s can fend for themselves. Let’s just leave the terrorists cells alone in Iraq so they can become organized and prepare for they’re next move.” Hah, I bet you thought I just read your mind right there.
You say our “rationale for a democratic loss is pathetic, and somewhat desperate”? I’m sorry my friend, but it seems as if you are the desperate one here. The democrats are so used to defeat in this nation, they have non other to do than blame the republicans for their efforts in uniting a nation.
You dems really are pitiful, and truly leave a bad taste in American politics.
nutslikebush Says: October 25th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Buck,
I would love it if Iraq quickly turned into a paradise. I would love it if things went well for Americans under republican rule. I just want good outcomes and the republicans simply are not capable of delivering. I don’t really believe the democrats are either. But I don’t see how you can continue your Bush worshiping and partisanship when your guys suck as badly as it is possible to suck.
nutslikebush Says: October 26th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Dan,
I like to laugh too. But I would never laugh “at” another human being or laugh at tragedy (it is called schizophrenia when your emotions don’t match the situation). I don’t think it is wise to laugh at other people’s beliefs. I will energetically offer my analysis of their beliefs though. I found this site because I am interested in fighting partisanship in general. One of the biggest tragedies I see these days is partisanship. When people are so blind that they defend their party, right or wrong, and when they get locked into a black and white caricature of complex, gray, nuanced situations I am willing to work pretty hard to hold the complexity of the world right up in their faces and force them to look at it - and reconsider their views. I know that deep down even the Rush Limbaughs harbor deep seeds of doubt about their views. They need to let those doubts grow because only doubt can lead to wisdom and understanding. Only foolishness comes from certainty.
nutslikebush Says: October 26th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Buck,
The problem is that if we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are heading. And that would be truly unfortunate.
Dan Says: October 26th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Nut,
Here is what amkes your arguement very interesting. When a conservative tries to make a valid distinction between the republican and democratic party, you use “schizophrenia” as an excuse for the person’s incompetence in your point of view? Do you use these types of unsults to others that combat your views? Thats quite deplorable. What especially interests me in your arguements is the use of euphemisms, large words, and familiar sayings. Is this what you hide behind to make people believe you are the right one? Once the facts are laid out, you revert to your own colloquial to prove your arguement? In that case, well done. You’ve successfully intimidated many of the conservative viewers here to combat your unrealistic views. You say, “When people are so blind that they defend their party, right or wrong, and when they get locked into a black and white caricature of complex, gray, nuanced situations,” you are doin gthe exact same thing. Funny how liberals only believe what they saw only goes for the conservatives, but the liberals think they must be “untouched” because they are the spectactors of the Iraq war. Saying that foolishness comes from certainty makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you saying that, because Bush was certain that there were WMD’s in Iraq, that he was foolish for making that decision? Are you saying that it was foolish to take military action after 9/11 because we were certain it was a terrorist operation? You just make yourself seem like the fool here.
The Other Side Says: October 26th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
i saw a study that psychoanalyzed conservatives and liberals. the results showed that conservatives were more likely to stick to their guns and rarely change their views. on the other hand, liberals change their views depending on the information presented them (what republicans refer to as “flip-flopping”). thats why when bush and cheney presented their reasons for war, people believed them. but when the information changed, so did the views of liberals.
conservatives chastize liberals for changing thier views because of a difference in ideologies. the bush administration fooled most people and silenced the dissenters about iraq. if information changes, why shouldn’t a person hear the facts and decide for themselves what to believe? but i guess thats goes against the conservative mind. thats why bush never changes.
and dan, what about the current field of republican candidates makes them look good? guliani has skeletons in his closet, romney flip-flops (maybe he’s liberal), mccain disagrees too much with the base, thompson is lazy and uninformed. and the republican party in general is far weaker than democrats based on polls on every major issue (even the economy). again, why do republicans look goos, and give me reasons to back up your thinking.
The Other Side Says: October 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
dan still hasn’t laid out any facts to back up his views, but needs liberals to.
to say bush was certain about something doesn’t mean it was true. he has an extreme political view which drives his policies. one of the main peices of intelligence to jusify war was coerced by torture and deemed as given by an unreliable source. the information provided the link between saddam and al-qaeda. some of the intelligence about wmds was given by refugees from iraq who had an ax to grind against saddam. any objective observer would need more to invade a country, but to bush it was a self-fulfilling profecy.
i think bush was foolish because he was careless with his “intelligence” before he invaded iraq. the war wasn’t justified and people who still believe it was probably want an attack on iran. war is a last resort and needs careful consideration. bush neglected to use caution and still hasn’t paid the price.
Dan Says: October 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
What is there a one day limit to answer a response here? Take it easy, gosh, no wonder liberals cant keep it together. I am not going to lay out any facts to you. You list each republican candidate and speak of their negatives, as I can do the eact same thing to the Democratic candidates, fair and simple. I’m not fairly intersted in argueing any further primarily because 1) The same things just get repeated over and over 2) I won’t bother to keep posting responses and compete with you on “which side is better”, because everyone has their own views, and sometimes they cannot be changed, clear and simple 3) Argueing with a liberal is a complete waste of my time, because nothing ever changes.
Dan Says: October 27th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Just to be clear though, I came to this website and said what I wanted to say.
nutlikebush Says: October 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Dan,
I wasn’t saying you were schizo at all. You totally misunderstood me. When I recover my computer (Leopard bsod) I will write more. Don’t enjoy typing on iPhone.
The Other Side Says: October 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
dan, you said that republicans were going to win the presidential election and i want to know why. if you don’t want to debate then thats fine but then why did you write your posts? do you go from blog to blog writing things then leave? thats weak.
nutslikebush Says: October 30th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Bad news. My computer is working again.
Dan, I am wrong almost all of the time. I don’t even begin to believe that I understand things nearly well enough. To be human is to be wrong usually. The snake goes everywhere we do. I want you to understand that the schizo comment had nothing to do with you. I was trying to say that I see a lot of tragedy in the world and politics, in particular, makes me nauseous, so I don’t laugh at other people’s political views. The partisans on both sides make me angry and sad. I am not very happy with any of the democrats and even less happy with the republicans.
Dan Says: October 30th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Its not wise to assume things about a person that you’ve barely talked to on the internet “The Other Side”, it just shows how weak you really are. No, I don’t go from blog to blog posting my views and leaving, this is the first blog I’ve decided to to start writing on. Just to write alittle background info, I’m not quite an adult here. I’m a sernior in highschool that has a plethora of concerns at this time. I’m focusing on SAT’s applying to colleges, academics, sports, and extracirricular activities. I’m just not the type of person that will keep coming back to this site to state the same thing over and over again. I’m sure someone as educated as you are can understand that. As for nutslikebush, theres not much I can say. I agree and disagree with you on certain things and mabye the same with you. I didn’t take that schizo comment as what you thought I pictured it as, I was sure that you didn’t mean it like that, but just to prove your point about your view. Back to “The Other Side”, I wrote my posts because when I first came to the site, all I’ve seen are liberals clogging up the comments section here and thought this site could finally use some different opinions rather than from just the same 2 or 3 people saying the same thing on every article buck has written.
nutslikebush Says: October 31st, 2007 at 2:45 am
Dan,
I am happy that you care enough about the issues to spend time thinking and writing here about them. That is what our country needs - young people who care and think. Keep it up.
Dan Says: November 1st, 2007 at 1:42 am
Well for the most part I enjoy discussing politics, I guess you can say its in my nature, but I as well feel that America’s youth should become more involved politics, because it is my generation that will to the lead, and then the following generation, and so forth so on. Aside from that, I really having nothing more to say about Buck’s article here, just about sums up my political views. But the last few days have been quite dicey for the far left, from people yelling blantantly how “9/11 was an inside job” during Bill Clinton’s speech, to a woman harassing Condoleezza Rice with fake blood on her hands. Not looking good at all for them.