Military Times calls for Firing of Rumsfeld

[PD]

Deadzone, would you be so quick to send your wife to walk the streets of Syria or Iran? Have you ever been there yourself? How safe would you feel?
I have been out of the country many times. Sling insults at me all you want. Iran and Syria are not our friends and they aren’t friendly to Americans.

[zk]

“So the enemy of your enemy is your friend, zk?”

No.

“Those some citizens you respect so much would love to vaporize you, your family and your friends.”

What makes you think that the citizens of Iran want to vaporize us? It’s a small minority of Iranians or Syrians who want to vaporize us. There’s also a small minority of Americans who would want to vaporize my family because my wife is Chinese and my daughter is half Chinese. Do I lack respect for American citizens as a whole because some of them are ignorant and backwards? No. The vast majority of Syrians and Iranians and the citizens in general of any country in the world are just people who want the best for their families. To assume that they want to vaporize us because their leaders claim to hate us is irresponsible, xenophobic, paranoid, wrong and dangerous.

[Anonymous]

PD, there are many places in the world where I wouldn’t want my wive walking the streets, including in our own country. Does that mean we should invade them?

[Anonymous]

You're mistaken, zk; President Bush clearly laid out the domino theory rationale beforehand.

Date discussed on PBS:  February 2003

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html

Date of invasion:  March 2003 

I don't like the source — PBS — but it suffices for my point.

[zk]

I stand corrected on one point: he did “lay out” the theory that democracy may flourish. But what is important is that that was not the reason he gave us for going to war at the time. And it probably wouldn’t have been a good enough reason for congress if congress knew the truth about the intelligence that bush was using. If for no other reason than that congress probably would have seen how unlikely such a thing (flourishing democracy) was.

Which brings me to my next point: In the article that the above link points to, Murhaf Jouejati seems phenomenally prescient, while the other guy sounds like an ass clown for president bush whose optimism is exceeded only by his ignorance. Optimism is nice if you’re talking to your friends about the weather. But if you’re sending your kids to war, I think realism is a better way to go.

(The debate about how much congress knew rages to this day, and I agree that it is a matter of debate. And I place a huge amount of blame on all of congress, democrats included. A lot of them probably voted for the war for fear of the republican rhetoric machine scalding them for appearing soft on terror and hurting their chances of getting reelected. Which is as much the democrats’ fault for being such pansies about it as it is republicans’ for being such jackasses about it. It all goes back to the point I try to make again and again, which is that we need to start running this country based on logic, reason, ideas and rational discourse and dialogue, not on rhetoric and bullying and emotional manipulation.)

[PerryChase]

Iran Is Key to Course Change on Iraq

Two political earthquakes hit the United States this week – the Democrats took control of Congress and Rumsfeld was replaced by Robert Gates. There is much speculation as to whether this can help create an opening to Iran. But to make headway on the Iranian nuclear issue, or on Iraq, the two issues need to be linked – something Bush and Rumsfeld have refused to do thus far.

Link to full article below

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35432

————————

The big screw up in Iraq is that it turned Iran into the regional power. One reason GHWB did not depose Sadam is because he needed Iraq to keep Iran in check.

[Anonymous]

PC, many on the right — led by Michael Ledeen of National Review — have been pointing to Iran as the right first target forever.

Iran has always been THE regional power: lots of oil money, much greater population, smart Persians.

The game plan was and is that Iraq was an easier convert-to-democracy target than Iran. Then, Iraqi democracy would spread to Iran. As you know, Iran has a highly restive, young, Western-oriented population, and the gamble was that a democracy in Iraq would be irrestistible for Iranians, and would provide the final impetus needed for a coup/counterrevolution.

The key assumption in the article is that the Iranians will do as we wish, or can live with, in regard to nuclear weapons, Hezbollah, North Korea, support for Chechens, etc. Iran wants to maintain their preeminence, and they do that through weaponry, support of terrorists, and quashing of local dissent. Wishful thinking by Baker and the old fogies to ‘accomodating’ Iran. Coup or counterrevolution is the only solution.

Yep, you guys on the left are going to be ‘discovering’ all of the permutations that we right-wingers have gone through, already. Kind of like me with my kids.

[zk]

“Yep, you guys on the left are going to be ‘discovering’ all of the permutations that we right-wingers have gone through, already.”

That’s pretty funny. You right wingers have had it figured out all along. So why have you screwed it up so badly? Oh, that’s right, you don’t see yet that it’s screwed up.

[lindismith]

jg, thanks for the info, but all of us on the left are just as well-schooled about Iran.

What we’re still trying to get over is how you guys think you can millitarily install democracy by a foreign power. Last I checked, it’s done by the people themselves. Funny how we all get this, and you guys don’t.

Help me understand how a millitary option could have worked in the middle east? Even now, all of you guys are looking for a millitary exit strategy. Heck, all my Dem friends know that we need an economic exit strategy. If we’d spent $4 billion a month on finding M E fuel alternatives for the last 6 months alone, we’d have been out of there already!

[blahblahblah]

We have meddled in Iran before. Our CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup to overthrow Iranian President Mossadegh back in 1953. For those who are rusty on your Middle Eastern history, President Mossadegh was democratically-elected and a fierce anti-communist ally. Why then did we overthrow him? He nationalized Iran’s oil, shutting out the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Whoopsie! Goodbye, democratic government, hello repressive monarchy. In order to get that oil money flowing to its proper owners in England again, we backed a coup to install the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His brutal, CIA-trained SAVAK police kept the opposition at bay and helped to foster anti-US sentiment until it finally exploded in the Iranian revolution of 1979. Now the people live under a system even MORE repressive than the Shah. If we interfere again, I wonder what Iran will look like next?

Here’s a good overview of Iranian history since WWII at Wikipedia.

[L_Thek_onomics]

“The big screw up in Iraq is that it turned Iran into the regional power. One reason GHWB did not depose Sadam is because he needed Iraq to keep Iran in check.”

It’s a brilliant gamble. Wait until they nuke each other, or if they decide to destroy the West first via giving a few nukes to both side of the terrorist world…
I feel more comfortable knowing, we have staging areas and military intelligence training institutions between Iran and Syria.

L Thek

[JES]

REMINDER:

81 Democratics in the House and 29 Democrats in the Senate voted to AUTHORIZE war with Iraq in October 2002.

It’s conveinant to place all of the blame on the Republicans and the President. But to the Lindismiths out there please don’t forget that there were many Democrats who thought a military option would work in the Middle East. There were many Democrats who thought that Democracy would have a chance in Iraq.

Ask yourself this: What exactly did the 110 Democratic Congressmen and Senators who voted FOR the war think would happen after we toppled Saddam? Did they think we would turn it over to another dictator? Doubt it. Did they think we would just leave the country in chaos? No way. I would venture to guess that they, just like the President, had hopes for some kind of democracy in Iraq.

But these 110 Democratic Congressmen and Senators probably never planned for the type of chaos we are now seeing, just like the President didn’t. For that I blame them all for being so blind as to think we could just go in there and leave again by the the summer of 2003. but I blame them ALL, not just Bush. Bush has the added responsibility of failing to respond to the chaos, failing to replace Rumsfeld sooner and putting himself in a ‘state of denial.’ The buck stops with him, and for his failings he delivered the House and Senate to the Democrats.

Let’s not pretend that the Democrats had no part to play in this though. Plently of them thought a military option would work, and plenty of them had hopes for democracy in Iraq.

[PerryChase]

No, I don’t think that the Democrats voted for the war. That was not a declaration of war. They gave the president the option to go to war because they did not want to restrain the executive and thus give the appearance of supporting the ennemy. Had they voted against that resolution, Bush would still have gone to war and would have labeled them as defeatists. It was the Administration’s job plan the war and it’s aftermath. Legislators can only do oversight of executive but the Republican-held Congress did not even do that. Remember, Republicans controlled the legislative agenda.

[PerryChase]

Back to the original thread topic, the firing of Rumsfeld was a closely held secret; otherwise, the Army Times might not have run the editorial and spared Republican embarassment. That might have affected the elections in Virginia and the balance of power in the Senate.

Had the president fired Rumsfeld before the elections, I think that the Republicans might have done better.

I wonder if Rumsfeld was pushed out or he voluntarily stepped down. I’m thinking that he was fired.

[L_Thek_onomics]

“I wonder if Rumsfeld was pushed out or he voluntarily stepped down. I’m thinking that he was fired.”

Nobody talking about the obvious. A week before the elections George
Bush confirmed his full support for Rumsfeld. Elections are not 100%
predictable. As a mature leader should, Rumsfeld submitted plan A
and B to the President. Plan A, if the Republicans hold on at least one
of the Houses, he stays, if the Democrats take over both he’ll resign. To
run the Pentagon and an extremely complex war is impossible when he
has to seat full time at the “Hang Rumsfeld” hearings.

L Thek

[Author]

Posts