Spiegel: Bush can barely string a sentence together, and more

[carlislematthew]

Wow, what a thread.

Personally, I can’t wait until BOTH sides (liberal-elite lefty sissies AND uneducated right-wing neocon nutjobs) get thrown out of the mainstreams and into their traditional place, the extremes.

I’m fed up of debates that in the Moore vs Limbaugh style. Everyone gets worked up, insults each other and just end up throwing sh*t at each other. Lovely.

L-“Bush is a complete idiot!”
R-“Clinton was worse!”
L-“Bush is a terrorist!”
R-“You hate America!”
L-“Free speech!!! Gotcha! You must hate America more!”
R-“Free speech means I can say what I want!!”

Sigh.

[lindismith]

Yeah, good stuff.

Michael, great letter! Just curious if you got a reply?

[Anonymous]

The criticism of Bush transcends party lines. Whether you are a granola eating hippy liberal or a bible thumping conservative, Bush and the Iraq war are an undeniable failure.

Claiming all criticism is coming from the left is false. For one thing, if you travel anywhere in the world, the criticism was strong from the beginning. If you want true unbiased opinions, you need to read newspapers from places like Australia where they have no interest in American party politics.

Now that the Republicans were thumped in the election thanks to their support of Bush and Iraq, you will see more and more Republicans coming out of the closet to criticise the war and distance themselves from Bush. The only reason they stayed in the closet was for party allegiance (they may come out of the closet for other reasons too..)

[bgates]

deadzone, that’s a poor argument on several levels. First, the war is still ongoing, and it can’t be a success or failure until it’s over. Would you have advocated surrender in WWII in 1943 because the war was not yet won?

When you say newspapers from other countries have no interest in American politics, how do you square that with the assertions of several people on this thread that people from other countries are worldly and cosmopolitan? Wouldn’t such people have knowledge of American politics, and given their knowledge and our power wouldn’t they have to have an interest in who runs this country? I bet if I held up Fox News as a source of unbiased opinion on Australian politics you’d disagree. Why should Australian or British journalists, who tend to hold the same views on common domestic issues as American journalists, view American foreign policy any differently?

Finally, exit polls say the primary issue in the Republican defeat was corruption. I won’t defend them there, they deserved to be hit on that score. I wish there was a better alternative to turning the country over to the party of Alcee Hastings (removed from the federal bench for perjury and bribery) and William Jefferson (in whose freezer the FBI discovered $100,000 in alleged bribe money).

[Anonymous]

bgates, it sounds like you are intent on hanging on to a sinking ship, that is your right.

The Iraq was is clearly the main thing that sunk the Republicans, the scandals only affected a few races. Like I said, we’ll see in the next two years how many Republicans start to publicly criticise the war, and at a minimum the running of the war. Side note: When nine retired generals came out last year to call for Rummy’s firing, did that not send a message??

You completely missed my point on the foreign press. The point is they have no interest or affiliation with American party politics (Rep vs democrat) so their opinions are unbiased from that perspective. EVERYTHING regarding US politics you read in this country has to be taken with a grain of salt due to party affiliations, etc. In Australia, for example, their opinions on American politics are at least honest and direct, not swayed by those influences.

[Anonymous]

The only failure in this war is letting politicians run it.
You can’t wage a half-war or a quarter-war like our leaders continue to do. The terms compassionate war or a limited war are contradictions. War is perhaps the ultimate human atrocity, unfortunately at this stage in human consciousness it still seems to be a necessity.

I have little interest in the “worlds” opinion of us. those critical have little foundation to base their criticisms upon i.e. the pot calling the kettle black. We are a sovereign nation. It’s seems any country in the world is “entitled” to their sovereignity except the U.S. We have no allies in this world, being the richest and most powerful nation at this time makes us the biggest target, everyone wants what we have and are biding their time as to how and when they can take it. International law? It doesnt’ supercede any true sovereign nations laws and it shouldn’t.

The Republicans in this election got what they deserved, they lost the elections all by themselves the Dems just reaped the benefits of the Republican failure.

[bgates]

It may be clear to you, but it wasn’t to CNN, whose exit polls “showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.” I’m sure I’m not as smart as you think you are, but even my meager counting skills put Iraq in 4th place in that list.

I’m glad you threw in that side note. The New York Times managed to interview a couple of those retired generals. Guess what? They want to continue the war, and they want more troops.
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve …There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government.

Yet somehow media coverage before the election convinced even sophisticated people like yourself that the generals’ position was closer to the Democrats’ than to the administration’s. Do you still think their recommendations are sacrosanct, now that you know what they are? Do you still trust the New York Times as much?

I didn’t miss your point on the foreign press. Your writing isn’t so bad, it’s your reasoning. Australian journalists have views on topics like global warming, free trade, the war on terror, etc. Their views tend to go in lockstep with those of self-styled free thinkers the world over. They can identify which American political party better matches their own views, and color their writing correspondingly. To the extent an Australian paper is critical of John Howard, who’s a strong conservative, it will be critical of Bush.

Or do you turn to FNC to find out about Paris?

[Anonymous]

the foreign press has no interest of affilation with american party politics?? How can you say that as their home countries have a vested interest in our political process, to install politicians more inclined to their best interests? Why do their citizens, companies and governments funnel support to those who serve their purposes? For example do you really think the Saudi prince donated to the Clinton presidential library (and others) just because he loves libraries? And that is only a very simplistic view it goes much farther. Wow. Now that is short sighted view.
They constantly interfere and if you question the “truth” or “accuracy” of the american press you have to look even harder at theirs (foreign press)

[Anonymous]

wtf, your logic and supporting references are excellent. Keep up the good work.

bg, you stayed away too long; thanks for returning to the forum and for renewing the fight for even-keeled, logical interpretation/analysis.

[Anonymous]

“I have little interest in the “worlds” opinion of us”. That attitude is the fundamental problem with Bush and his chronies. Unfortunately, America is not “All Powerful” as you would like to belive, that is a very arrogant attitude.

We may be the worlds richest nation, and still have the most powerful military, but the gap is shrinking. Particularly in military might. Barring nukes we do not have the firepower to win a full scale war without allied/coalition support. We don’t have the manpower nor do we have the equipment

You guys have no clue about the military. So maybe the reason we failed in Iraq is that we didn’t send enough troops. Well I know several National guadsmen who have already served two 1-year tours over there, and these people are not even active-duty. In fact over 40% of the troops were Guard and Reserve at one time (don’t know current stats). And the Army, Marine Corps and Navy have all dipped into the IRR to send troops over there (IRR is non drilling reservists, it is very rare for them to be called up).

So if we didn’t send enough troops, and we had to rely so heavily on the Guard/Reserve and even pull people out of the IRR, then how do you think we could send more troops??? Are you willing to have a draft over this dumbass war? Well, maybe if we would have gotten support from the world and had a coalition of some significance, we could have sent enough troops to win this thing. But we didn’t, therefore it is a failure by any measure.

[blahblahblah]

We did have a big coalition for Afghanistan, by the way. Worth noting in those stats is that everyone’s favorite whipping-boys the French sent the largest contingent of troops after the US. We are all Americans, if anyone remembers that…

[Anonymous]

no, it’s an attitude that means I will do what is in my and my countrys best interest. It’s only arrogant as it’s not you speaking it.

You still miss the point – currently we are the big dog on the block why should we act contrary to what serves us best? Think of it this way, the Dems have control of the house and senate but gee, it would be swell if you Dems follow the republican agenda.
There are alot of things I am clueless about. Military isn’t one of them unless you ask my wife, but I digress.

As I stated previously, waging a limited war is a contradiction. War is an atrocity, and going into a war with limitations on how it is waged (beyond the Geneva conventions) is STUPID. What does that mean? It means once we made the decision to go we should have entered Iraq with a campaign of total war. It was short-sighted to enter into a “limited” conflict and not wind up as an occupying force.

The majority of reservists and guardsmen came into Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, most of the initial combat was done by front line troops from all services. Yes, our military is short of regulars, thus the necessity of calling up the Reservists and multiple and/or extended tours. And I will say big mistake by the fact our people aren’t trained to be policemen/women.
Of course our military understaffing goes back to previous administration, not the current one but that is a discussion for a different day.

As it stands we sent enough troops and equipment there to wage a full-scale conflict and “win” (though thats an oxymoron in war)of course you would see the country destroyed like the german cities in WWII. But whiskeytangofoxtrot we’d be in a rebuilding stage instead of a policing stage.

The world looks out for their best interests, yet you make it seem arrogant that we do for ours. You obviously are intellegent I just don’t see how you refuse to look at it from another perspective.

So before you go there no, not a republican, not a conservative and certainly not a war-monger, as I said it’s (war)an atrocity the ultimate atrocity, but when it becomes inevitable Cry ‘Havoc’ and let slip the dogs of war. By the way been there, done that and probably will be there again.

[bgates]

The gap is shrinking? Who’s catching up? It’s ludicrous to say we don’t have the firepower to win a full scale war. We do, and we’re not in one at the moment. Counterinsurgency is not what the Army is built to do at the moment. The way o free up manpower is to ditch the Cold War setup and reorganize into smaller, lighter units. Which Rumsfeld was doing.

What would count as a coalition of some significance? We had Britain and Australia, plus smaller contingents from dozens of countries. Who’s missing that would make it ‘significant’? Aren’t you ashamed of your arrogance calling a coalition of two UN Security Council members plus dozens of other sovereign states insignificant?

Was the war against Japan a failure? That was the US, UK, and Australia as well.

[bgates]

CONCHO, you’re wrong. According to your own link, the French sent ‘4500 including 3500 for the Marine Nationale’, or navy. given that Afghanistan is 500+ miles from any body of water, I’d consider that 3500 less than significant.

Your other link, to the disingenuous ‘we are all Americans’ editorial, doesn’t make it 3 paragraphs before blaming the US for all the sins of the world, up to and including bin Laden.

[PerryChase]

deadzone is right. Republicans will soon be coming out of the closet. The fact that Jim Baker (who’s not even a government official) is talking to Iranian diplomats in New York is a clear sign that something is in the works.

We normalized relations with China in 1971 and pulled out of Vietnam in 1972. Something similar will happen in Iraq. Perhaps we’ll normalize relations with Iran and Syria?

The neo-cons gambled for world dominance. It was a bold move but the gamble didn’t pay off and now the Republican party has to pay off the gambling debts.

[Author]

Posts