December 18, 2005
REACHING THE DARKEST CORNERS:
ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION (President George W. Bush, 12/18/05)
Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders – a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted … a new government formed … and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote – 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world – means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
All who had a part in this achievement – Iraqis, Americans, and Coalition partners – can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.
From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our Coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council Resolutions … violated a cease-fire agreement … sponsored terrorism … and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator … we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction … but we did not find those weapons.
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum – and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant – only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.
Since the removal of Saddam, this war – like other wars in our history – has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols – fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists – has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation – and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims – a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals – to de-moralize free nations … to drive us out of the Middle East … to spread an empire of fear across that region … and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield – and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaida to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere – they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq … in Afghanistan … in Southeast Asia … and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens – they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq … we were not in Afghanistan … but the terrorists attacked us anyway – and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad … removing their safe havens … and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.
This work has been especially difficult in Iraq – more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal – unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.
Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose – and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.
The terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult – it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.
America, our Coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal – a democratic Iraq that can defend itself … that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists … and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.
We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal – a strategy I have been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements.
First, our Coalition will remain on the offense – finding and clearing out the enemy … transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units … and building up the Iraqi Security Forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy … more than 50 are taking the lead … and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.
Second, we are helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq’s peoples are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls – including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love – and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: “This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists.” Another voter was asked, “Are you Sunni or Shia?” He responded, “I am Iraqi.”
Third, after a number of setbacks, our Coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq’s economy and infrastructure – and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well – and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic – and that optimism is justified.
In all three aspects of our strategy – security, democracy, and reconstruction – we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq – we are winning the war in Iraq.
It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends – and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops – by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us – and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.
We are approaching a New Year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice – from our military … their families … and the Iraqi people. We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward. As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders – not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory – and that is the road that will take them home.
In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war. Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work. And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war … to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing … and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause.
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country – victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.
Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much – but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.
I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss – and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial – yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.
Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home – in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other dangerous places. Our Nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: “God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men.”
Thank you, and good night.
This was an especially tough line: "Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts." Posted by Orrin Judd at December 18, 2005 9:15 PM
Jacksonian. As in January 8, 1815. Whites of their eyes and all that.
Posted by: ghostcat at December 18, 2005 9:41 PMOJ said:
"Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders a landmark day in the history of liberty."
Perhaps this would have "landmark day" would have happened years earlier were it not for the U.S. helping Saddam into power in the first place, and would have followed the example of folks like Noam Chomsky who was supporting the Iraqi democratic resistance to Saddam when it was illegal in the U.S. to do so, only to later be called "anti-American" by the usual lineup of shortsighted hypocrites. Maybe? KB
"In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted a new government formed and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world."
So, there is an implicit message here folks should take notice of. The people suffered tyranny "for so long" and yet the U.S. apparently has no responsibilitry at all even though Saddam was kept in power all of those years by constant U.S. support. The U.S.'s committment to the "free world" was not quite so apparent to those folks who were being gassed by Saddam with the U.S. turning their heads the other way and cliaming it not to be any of our business what Saddam does internally. Anyway, the selective memory of trhe pseod-patriots never ceases to amaze, at least those folks who are not pseudo-patriots themselves. I guess Bush 1's okaying of one billion dollars to the tyrant Saddam the day before he invaded that "beacon of democracy" Kuwait, was just an accounting error. Memory hole here we come!KB
"This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East."
Which makes one wonder why the U.S. has been such buddy buddy with som many of these non-democracies for so long, and continue to be so.KB
"And this vote 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror."
Is this to make up for it's supporting of terror for so long? Is the memory of your ilk just damaged or do you have to work at non acknowledging this quite simple, basic, and uncontroversial facts? Simply amazing.KB
"All who had a part in this achievement Iraqis, Americans, and Coalition partners can be proud."
Before patting themselves on the backs too awfully much about their part in "freeing" Iraq, perhaps they should be a little more humble given the record of supporting Saddam. KB
"Yet our work is not done"
Our work? Who the hell gave "us" the right to do anything? Our work? Oh, I forgot, our duty to carry out Manifest Destiny.KB
"There is more testing and sacrifice before us"
Not to mention the Iraqis who are sacrificing FAR more, as usual.KB
"I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war"
Yes, this I definitely WILL agree with.KB
"So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead."
Notice that the "how far we've come in Iraq" has the implicit notion that "we" have business doing anything at all. I would still like to know the answer to this basic question. And when answering this basic question, do other countries have the same right to implement their versions of "democracy" on the U.S. if they see fit? KB
I'll be back. KB
Posted by: kb at December 18, 2005 10:33 PMkb: Yawn. So I suppose that the governments of Japan & Germany are totally illegitimate? Who gave us the right to force democracy on them? You're totally boring, dude.
Posted by: b at December 18, 2005 10:39 PMKB:
Glad your coming back - but you should certainly be aware that GWB's policy has been to invert that of the State Department since at least 1979. Do you hold 43 responsible for decisions made in the early 1980s?
And what of the policy or regime change, first promulgated in 1998? Under a different President? With virtually unanimous consent in the Senate? Do those 'facts' mean anything to you?
But, the real question is this - was/is America's "Manifest Destiny" (as you put it) better or worse than that of the Soviets, the Chinese, the Saudis, Al Qaeda, the French, or even the UN?
And, as you wrote in your first paragraph, the landmark day should have happened earlier. But as I asked another ranter the other day - were YOU going to go to Baghdad in, say 1994, to kill Saddam and pave the way for elections?
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 18, 2005 10:52 PMJim, didn't you read the second paragraph -- Noam Chomsky was going to do it.
Posted by: John at December 19, 2005 12:01 AMThis was an especially tough line: "Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts."
I didn't see the whole speech, but just skimming the above post that line jumped out at me. Ya think maybe he means something by that?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 19, 2005 12:19 AMKB:
I usually ignore foamers-at-the-mouth, but your psychotic breaks are interesting enough to warrant a response. I'm intrigued by your analysis that we were committing wanton acts of tyranny in supporting Saddam Hussein but were completely unjustified in reversing that mistake. Your internal logic suggests you care little for the freedom of Iraqis but place America at the center of your ideological universe. Hint: I don't think it's because you give a damn about your country, except in the sense that you have what John O'Sullivan once called jingoism in reverse.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 19, 2005 12:27 AMObjections to the Bush administration's conduct in the war on terror is neither defeatist nor partisan, and Bush speeches are hardly the justified by the "facts" as I would see them:
"..means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror."
-no, we just have a new puppet government to prop up in the war on terror. Granted, our military's use of its land will be helpful in conducting more same military operations that have been going on for decades, against Iran, Syria and others.
"...violated a cease-fire agreement sponsored terrorism and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction."
-we have been bombing Iraq for 15 years, what cease-fire agreement is he referring to? Sponsore terrorism, says who, Ahmed Chalabi? WMD's? Everyone knew that they have been gone since the Gulf War, and only the most unreliable and completely fabricated information said otherwise. A complete lie.
"...And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
-Lets be honest with ourselves. Bush doesn't really make many real policy decisions. Men much smarter than he a better off doing that.
I'd love to keep going but I've run out of time.
Shorter kb:
Supporting democracy in Iraq was great when St. Noam was for it, but now St. Noam opposes it, so its bad, bad, bad.
shorter grog: don't kn
I'm so unfamiliar with recent history that I have no clue what cease-fire agreement Bush was referrring to.
However, you should pay great attention to my criticisms of Bush's speech.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at December 19, 2005 12:54 AMI think Grog has exceeded KB in his 'foaminess'. Of course he would love to keep going, but it's very difficult to just keep spewing diarrhea.
A puppet government? Who is going to count the ballots - the FL Supreme Court?
"Everyone" knew the WMDs were gone after the Gulf War? Tell that to the Clintons, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, the French, the Germans, the Italians, and on and on and on.
As to Bush's mental heft, well, you just keep on believing that he's a moron. A fat lot of good that's done the left over the past 5 years.
Posted by: ratbert at December 19, 2005 12:54 AMGrog:
Yeah, since when have objections to establishing democracy in Iraq ever been motivated by partisanship?
You've got your script but you need a rewrite.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 19, 2005 1:43 AMBe nice to them now. First they put the rope around their own necks, now Bush is playing with the trap door release.
Posted by: ng ghostcat at December 19, 2005 2:14 AMThese posts are like those ads Fox is running for American Idol...you know, when the auditioners are shown the door and they can't help making a fool of themselves on the way out?
Posted by: RC at December 19, 2005 2:29 AMYea, verily. They are hurting bad, real bad.
Alas, the prayed-for quagmire might indeed not materialize. The dismal failure may yet be forestalled. The terrible defeat, overturned.
Can't one feel their pain? Their grim disappointment? Their dismaying disillusion? The self-righteous anger after being so awfully betrayal by an ungenerous and unfair fate? (Though I suppose they can always resort to insisting that it's nonetheless a failure and will always be a failure---by definition!)
And can't grace transform to compassion the contempt one ought to feel for their earnest, fervent desire for absolute failure, for utter defeat? Since, after all, such desire stems from the highest moral principles and a genuine love of country. (Moreover, defeat may yet occur---hope springing, as it does, eternal!)
They are going through intensely difficult times. And it behooves us simpletons to try to understand.
Surely, they'd do the same for us!
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 19, 2005 2:44 AMJim:
Saddam was required by the terms of the cease-fire that ended the first Iraq war to follow all the UN resolutions, including the one essentially requiring him to leave power.
Posted by: oj at December 19, 2005 7:16 AMOJ:
I think Jim was speaking in the voice of Grog. Took me a minute to get.
Grog:
Rooting against your own nation's policy is defeatist and partisan. Rooting against the Iraqi people evil.
Posted by: oj at December 19, 2005 7:20 AMAnd, um, last I saw Saddam Hussein was a Soviet client. The US didn't run around giving its clients T-72 tanks and BMP armored personnel carriers.
And Noam Chomsky? Good God, KB, that immediately disqualifies you from being considered seriously by anyone on anything.
Posted by: Mikey at December 19, 2005 8:44 AMAccording to earlier comments (from 2 or 3 months ago), KB is an adherent of Chomsky. Though how one adheres to jelly, I don't know.
Posted by: ratbert at December 19, 2005 9:58 AMAsume for the purpose of the discussion that he United States had played Iraq against Iran in the past, maneuvering each of them so as to maximize the damages it would inflict on the other.
Is this supposed to have been a BAD thing? Would it have been kinder to have let them join forces in an attack against our client state in the region so as to have drawn us into a war iof annihilation with them?
Keep in mind that all of this was taking place at a time during which we had been engineering the Untergang of the FORMER SOVIET UNION. We were well advised to have kept southwest Asia in balance and weak while we finished off bigger fish.
This troll ranting is repetitively droll. It's the same old, "James Knox Polk lied, people died," business, blaming America for the weakness and contradiction of those whom we have surpassed. Sorry comrades, we're not putting Saddam Hussein back in charge: he is expected to be in no better shape to resume power than was Salvador Allende.
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 19, 2005 10:02 AMAccording to KB, many of us are "ilk". Yay!!
Posted by: Twn at December 19, 2005 10:43 AMLou: Not only are the premises wrong (Saddam was never our guy), but if they were true, wouldn't that just make it our duty to get rid of him?
"You made him the scourge of the Iraqi people, so you're required to leave him in place" just doesn't track.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 19, 2005 10:45 AMPerhaps some of these guys want Saddam back in power because they just don't like Israel. Just a thought.
Posted by: ratbert at December 19, 2005 11:20 AMre: "Ilk"
Ohhh, I like that. (How did you manage to stomach finding that?) Maybe that frapper map should be retitled, "Brothers Judd and Their Ilk." "The Ilk" would make a great band name, too.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 19, 2005 11:46 AMPoor KB. Nothing sends the Chomskyite Left into a rage faster than a real election.
Posted by: andrew at December 19, 2005 12:07 PMThis is the second tough speech in as many days. Bush needs to keep it up. Stop apologizing to the nattering nabobs of negativism, start calling them out as the anti-Americans they truly are. Why, yes, I am questioning their patriotism.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at December 19, 2005 1:35 PMGrog writes:
'-Lets be honest with ourselves. Bush doesn't really make many real policy decisions. Men much smarter than he a better off doing that.'
thanks for clearing that up!
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at December 19, 2005 1:38 PMIf Bush give another speech and another press conference like those of the past day, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to start sounding like KB and Grog (they're already almost there).
Posted by: ratbert at December 19, 2005 2:54 PMrat:
I was in the car for the press conference, so heard most of it. He pretty much threw down the gauntlet, huh? "Folks who voted for the Patriot Act but now oppose it have to explain why there's no longer a threat and why the same laws we use for drug dealers and Medicare fraud shouldn't be used for terrorists."
Posted by: oj at December 19, 2005 3:03 PMTime for the Pedant's Corner: The work "ilk" does not have negative connotations, it's a neutral term. It simply means "of the same kind or type".
But I was struck by the thought that by citing Chomsky, I get the impression that KB would prefer to have Iraq end up like Cambodia.
Of course Grog impresses with his ability to actually notice that he has no idea of the facts of the case without pausing to consider a radical course of action like finding out what was meant.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 19, 2005 4:09 PMb said:
"kb: Yawn."
Yes, go back to sleep.KB
"So I suppose that the governments of Japan & Germany are totally illegitimate?"
What do either of their governments have anything at all to do with the U.S. supporting a murdrering dictator?KB
"Who gave us the right to force democracy on them? You're totally boring, dude."
I gues that clarifies everything, dude. Did you have a point, or was this Coultarian wittlessism supposed to say it all? Yawn.KB
=================================================
Jim said:
"Glad your coming back - but you should certainly be aware that GWB's policy has been to invert that of the State Department since at least 1979. Do you hold 43 responsible for decisions made in the early 1980s?"
Oh, it goes back much further than this. It goes back to the time of the CIA's recruitment of Saddam when he was a lowly assissin, the U.S.'s constant support of him from that day until the day before he invaded Kuwait.KB
"And what of the policy or regime change, first promulgated in 1998?"
What about simply supporting the democratic resistance for the many years when Saddam was carrying out his worst crimes, and when we were looking the other way? This was the position of the left for years when they were being called "anti-American" for not supporting Saddam. Ahhh selective memory IS a fine thing.KB
"Under a different President?"
Probably wouldn't have made much difference.KB
"With virtually unanimous consent in the Senate?"
Like I said.KB
"Do those 'facts' mean anything to you?"
There are lots of facts which mean something to me. It's just the trivialities of the invisably narrow spectrum of Republican and Democrat which doesn't really interest me much. It's amusing though in so far as there are people who actually believe they see a wide spectrum.KB
"But, the real question is this - was/is America's "Manifest Destiny" (as you put it) better or worse than that of the Soviets"
Nope. And the Soviets crimes have little or nothing to do with our crimes.KB
"the Chinese, the Saudis, Al Qaeda, the French, or even the UN?"
The U.N. doesn't commit crimes, though a few rouge personnel may from time to time. Is your position that since other states engage in criminal activities that it's okay for your's to? KB
"And, as you wrote in your first paragraph, the landmark day should have happened earlier."
Yes, like before Saddam was put into the position.KB
"But as I asked another ranter the other day - were YOU going to go to Baghdad in, say 1994, to kill Saddam and pave the way for elections?"
Nope. Wasn't necessary. Just as it wasn't necessary to invade the Soviet Union to have it fall under the weight of it's own tyranny.KB
Posted by: kb at December 19, 2005 8:54 PMAh, the hissing troll.
The UN doesn't commit crimes? Ask the dead in Rwanda, Srejbernica, Darfur, Congo, Split, and a few other places. Or anyone in Iraq (the Oil-for-Food grab bag).
I was unaware that the US recruited Saddam - did the CIA control the al-Tikriti tribe? Did we create the Ba'athist party? Pan-Arabism? One could just as easily say that Al Qaeda is involved in community-building exercises (oops - somebody did say that).
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 19, 2005 9:56 PMJohn said:
"Jim, didn't you read the second paragraph -- Noam Chomsky was going to do it."
Perhaps Jim DID read it and understood the words. As I recall I said "folks like Chomsky". See, in the English language this means that there were others as well, many, in fact. But, yes, if you were to include these other "folks" along with Chomsky, then, yes, they WERE trying to do it, and they failed, as they would readily admit. So, the struggle continues. What's more interesting is to examine the hypocricy of those who now pretend to be patriotic, though it's quite transparent and pseudo-patriotic at best, in their anti-Saddam fervor and wonder why they weren't so anti-Saddam when he was doing is crimes. I mean, I knew the right was usually slow, but this is pathological.KB
=================================================
Matt said:
"I usually ignore foamers-at-the-mouth, but your psychotic breaks are interesting enough to warrant a response."
The only folks I see foaming are the indoctrinated pseudo-patriots here trying to spank each others monkey. Anyway, let's here some of your foam.KB
"I'm intrigued by your analysis that we were committing wanton acts of tyranny in supporting Saddam Hussein"
What analysis? This is just a fact, and an uncontroversial one at that. There's nothing to analyize.KB
"but were completely unjustified in reversing that mistake."
What's the problem? If a mafia don sets up, and continually supports some local goons in the neighborhoods across town, and they rob, steal, kill, etc...for years on end, when they are finally called on their crimes and are to be aprehended, that the mafia don who had supported them should be the ones to do it? Not only that, should the mafia dons expect some sort of praise for eventually ousting the criminals they had supported for all those years? Do you really think the mafia don has any right whatsoever to get his former goon/employee? This is obvious enough that ost elementary school children would balk at the absurd notion. But what's even more interesting in my opinion is that the mafia don can use the very crimes his employee was committing, while under his orders, against him, and that some people even go around repeating the charges not making the obvious connection. Anyway, what's new?KB
"Your internal logic suggests you care little for the freedom of Iraqis"
Yes, and that's why I would have preffered not having them be subjected to Saddam for all the years when other people's "internal logic" was supporting him with billions of dollars so that he could "gas his own people". Yes, people who are against tyranny often don't care about the victims of the tyranny, and that's why they protest against supporting the tyrants in the first place(and are called "anti-American), supporting the democratic forces within the country(and are called "anti-American"), and all the rest of the nonsense.KB
"but place America at the center of your ideological universe."
On the contrary, I don't put it at the center at all. However, it's my country, it's actions are partially my responsibility. I think those who put the U.S. at the center of their universe are a little to the right of anywhere near my neighborhood. Those thinking that they have some right doing anything in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, seem to be the ones putting the U.S. at the center of their universe.KB
"Hint: I don't think it's because you give a damn about your country"
Hint(though not really necessary):Well, you think wrong. There's nothing I've said at all which would infer anything at all about not giving a damn about my country. Not a word. But if you think you see something I'll be more than happy to listen to your hallucinations. (He probably thinks the media is liberal, too.;)KB
"except in the sense that you have what John O'Sullivan once called jingoism in reverse."
Uhhh...I guess. Were you going to make an argument of some sort? And "jingoism in reverse" sounds like a noble thing.KB
Posted by: kb at December 19, 2005 11:25 PMKB: It is just completely untrue that we had much to do with Saddam. He was not CIA, his coup was not US sponsored, he was not our client or our puppet. We did not give him biological or chemical weapons. We sold him some dual use chemicals and gave him some anthrax samples at a time during which we were giving those same samples to anyone who asked as part of an agricultural outreach program.
We did not pay for, promote or encourage Saddam to go to war with Iran. We did not help him invade Iran. When Iran counterattacked and invaded Iraq, we gave Saddam intelligence and some material to help him fight back to a stalemate. What should we have done?
You deny that he sponsored terrorism, but of course he did. He boasted of it. Among many other things, he paid a stipend to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He had, everyone agrees, contacts with Al Qaeda, although as far as we know they were not operational. He gave sanctuary in Iraq to wanted international terrorists.
And if everything you say were true, it was our duty to dispose of him and we have.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 20, 2005 12:02 AM"Nope. Wasn't necessary. Just as it wasn't necessary to invade the Soviet Union to have it fall under the weight of its own tyranny.KB"
No it wasn't necessary to knock out the Soviet Union, but it would have been the moral thing to do. With no Soviet Union around for 70 years about one hundred million people in Russia and around the world wouldn't have died under the tyranny of Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, etc....
I know without those guys the Chomskyites wouldn't have had any "people's revolutions" to support, but personally speaking I'd rather have a better world than having faux-revolutionaries like yourself happy.
Of course 'jingoism in reverse' sounds noble - it allows you to exult in fantasy while also feeling so good about hating all that America stands for. No mushy liberal guilt here with KB: it's the ubermensch rising up to smite the MAN!
Of course, reality is irrelevant. It has to be. History is irrelevant. I suppose gravity is irrelevant, too, but I doubt if KB will be stepping off the 86th floor of the Empire State Building anytime soon.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 20, 2005 12:21 AMKB:
The only folks I see foaming are the indoctrinated pseudo-patriots here trying to spank each others monkey.
That opening nicely encapsulates your essential childishness -- thanks for making it so easy.
What analysis? This is just a fact, and an uncontroversial one at that. There's nothing to analyize.
As David Cohen points out, we gave the guy some piddling assistance in a war between two nasty regimes, which is why Henry Kissinger once said it was a shame that both sides couldn't lose. If you also believe it was a bad idea to pal up with Stalin in the fight against Hitler I'll at least give you brownie points for consistency.
What's the problem? If a mafia don sets up [...]
Comparing America to a Mafia don isn't going to win you any arguments outside the three members of your social circle. For the record, I'd be happy if the Mafia don turned state's evidence, although I don't believe that would wash away his past moral guilt (it counts as a point in his favor, though). It's interesting that you recognize Hussein was bullying and butchering Iraqis but simply object to the United States being the nation that goes in and whacks him. As I note, the United States occupies the epicenter of your worldview.
Yes, and that's why I would have preffered not having them be subjected to Saddam for all the years when other people's "internal logic" was supporting him with billions of dollars so that he could "gas his own people". Yes, people who are against tyranny often don't care about the victims of the tyranny, and that's why they protest against supporting the tyrants in the first place(and are called "anti-American), supporting the democratic forces within the country(and are called "anti-American"), and all the rest of the nonsense.
"I would have preffered not having them be subjected to Saddam for all the years" being apparent codespeak for not liking Saddam but being unwilling to do anything to stop him and damning the people who have the guts to finally step forward. You can talk about supporting democracy all you like, but you opposed the necessary path to getting there, which is almost a trademark symptom of decadence.
On the contrary, I don't put it at the center at all. However, it's my country, it's actions are partially my responsibility. I think those who put the U.S. at the center of their universe are a little to the right of anywhere near my neighborhood. Those thinking that they have some right doing anything in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, seem to be the ones putting the U.S. at the center of their universe.
Whatever side America is on, you're against it. That's what I meant by "reverse jingoism."
Hint(though not really necessary):Well, you think wrong. There's nothing I've said at all which would infer anything at all about not giving a damn about my country. [...]
Other than opposing America in every conceivable scenario?
"jingoism in reverse" sounds like a noble thing.
So does talk about "democracy" until it comes time to put up or shut up.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 21, 2005 1:26 AMKB:
In other words, you didn't put up. So now it's time to shut up.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 21, 2005 1:30 AMMatt said:
What's the problem? If a mafia don sets up [...]
"Comparing America to a Mafia don isn't going to win you any arguments outside the three members of your social circle."
This is meaningless. Who cares about winning friens? If you think there's something wrong or inconsistant about the analogy then point it out. Simply making the statement you did is no different than Ann Coulter saying most everything she does.KB
"For the record, I'd be happy if the Mafia don turned state's evidence"
Yeah, so who wouldn't? I DO hope you know what you're saying here. You're saying that the U.S. should now lay out in detail everything it did to support Saddam, which you know will never happen, and take responsibility for having supported him for all of those years. I mean, if you wish to have your sentence reduced from premeditated murder to being an accomplice. I mean, after all, at this very moment Saddam is on trail for being in charge during the time 100+ people were tortured, maybe, and killed.(People who had just tried to assassinate him. And since when is the subsequent response and punishment to an assassniation attempt on another country's leader any of anyone's business? If a group of people tried to assassinate the U.S. president, and they were caught, and perhaps some were caught that were innocent, and we decided to give them all the death penalty, assuming this is our law, do other countries have the right to hold us accountable for crimes against humanity? Or how about our support of those who have done this very thing time and time again, Saddam for instance.) The international legal analyst just got through saying a few minutes ago that even if Saddam didn't order the killings he'll be held responsible because he was in power and those in power know that these things are happening and are responsible. So, in the name of fairness, consistancy, and anti-hypocrisy, I hope you know what this means for the U.S. and it's VERY LONG list of mass murderers and plunderers it's been in charge of while they killed in the thousands, or millions according to John Stockwell. But I'm sure being God's chosen perfect people, nothing like this has or would ever happened.KB
"although I don't believe that would wash away his past moral guilt (it counts as a point in his favor, though)."
Yes, it would at least be an admission of honesty. This may help a little. It hardly gives him any rights to do anything at all, unless it's to make a formal apology and pay for all the damage it's helped to cause. That's the minimum.KB
"It's interesting that you recognize Hussein was bullying and butchering Iraqis but simply object to the United States being the nation that goes in and whacks him."
Why is that interesting at all? Of course he was bullying and butchering Iraqis, and he was doing it for a LONG time, and it was never an issue for the U.S. who continued to support him before, during, and after he butchered his own people. The U.S> has no right whatsoever to do anything at all except stay out of it completely and hope that it doesn't get arrested for be a willing accomplice, as it was, and as is why the U.S. is so insistant on making sure that they go in to cover up as many tracks as possible, and to spin our being an acomplice into our being the savior. Kind of like if John Gotti heard that all hell was breaking loose because some of his hitmen were about to go down, and so he goes and whacks them first and then expects to have everyone cheer him for being such a humanitarian. And again, if you don't like the analogy, think of a better one or show why this one is lacking.KB
"As I note, the United States occupies the epicenter of your worldview."
Sorry, it doesn't at all, though for the most part it should as it's the country of which I'm a citizen.KB
"Yes, and that's why I would have preffered not having them be subjected to Saddam.."
"I would have preffered not having them be subjected to Saddam for all the years" being apparent codespeak for not liking Saddam but being unwilling to do anything to stop him"
What the hell do you mean "not be willing to do anything to stop him"? That's exactly what the left WAS doing for years, as usual. They were trying to use the democratic system which the pseudo-patriots unwittingly disdain so much. They were called "anti-Americans" at the time by the usual rightwing pseudo-patriotic rabble who complained about not "supporting the president" or "the country". They WERE trying to stop him. Folks like Chomsky were already supporting the anti-Saddam resistance when it was illegal to do so in the U.S. Where the hell were you? I know exactly where the left was. And they were saying 30 years ago that what's happening now would happen exactly as it is. It hardly takes a psychic to see what will probably follow certain actions, or how this will be dealt with by those who allowed it to happen. What's interesting is why you weren't speaking out against Saddam when he actually was a threat. Well?KB
"and damning the people who have the guts to finally step forward."
Your damn right I damn the cowards who finally invade one of the weakest countries in the region after having supported it for all the years when it was killing it's own people. You actually take pride in this, that's what's astounding. This is below shameful, as most of the rest of the unindoctrinated planet easily recognizes. As a matter of fact, it's only in a small portion of the U.S. where this isn't recognized. Perhaps it's you that the "United States occupies the epicenter of your worldview", and that's why you don't see such obvious facts.KB
"You can talk about supporting democracy all you like"
Yes, I do, that's who I'm of the left.KB
"but you opposed the necessary path to getting there"
Why the hell would you say that a person who was in favor of trying to get the country there 30 years ago was opposed to getting there now? I'm opposed to folks like you who come in way late in the game, after most all of the crimes have already been committed with your support, and then acting like you have some say so at all. You have NO say so. You should be held responsible as much as Saddam is given your support for him when he was "gassing his own people". You're the last person who should be deciding anything.KB
"which is almost a trademark symptom of decadence."
The "trademark syptom of decadence" is doing exactly what you and the pseudo-patriots always do. You willingly support the murderers and their crimes, make apologetics for them right and left, and then when it becomes more useful for you to get rid of them, expect some sort of congratulations for wishing to boot them, and what's even more astonishing, though not surprising at all given how well U.S. propaganda works, use the very crimes which you turned a blind eye to against that person to get rid of him. And what's even more astonishing than this, is that there will actually be folks like you who use these very crimes, the ones which the left were using as they were happening, in your arguments to try and prove how patriotic and wonderful you are for ridding the world of evil. Orwell, never offered you the job of just being yourself and let him follow you taking notes so that he could write on how propaganda works on the average joe blow, did he?KB
"On the contrary, I don't put it at the center at all. However, it's my country, it's actions are partially my responsibility."
Yes, that was a good one. Oh, wait, I said that. Yeah, it was still a good one.KB
"Whatever side America is on, you're against it."
Why the hell would you say this? There's nothing in anything I've ever written that even infers this notion. Only a totalitarian-minded pseudo-patriot would perceive anything this absurd. Unless you're a mindless cheerleading pseudo-patriot who DOES put the U.S. at the epicenter on their universe, one would never even think of this. That's as dumb as the whole "anti-American" notion. And there are even a few WAY OFF the deepend village idiots who think Chomsky is "anti-American". Now that's funny.KB
That's what I meant by "reverse jingoism."
Hint(though not really necessary):Well, you think wrong. There's nothing I've said at all which would infer anything at all about not giving a damn about my country. [...]
"Other than opposing America in every conceivable scenario?"
Opposing America? Where? Haven't done it once. Nowhere. Zero. I'm supporting America, and every statement I make is in support of the country. I'm afraid you haven't a clue what democracy means, son. Perhaps a book or two(thousand) might beging to make a dent. Let me know if you'd like a lesson.KB
"jingoism in reverse" sounds like a noble thing.
"So does talk about "democracy" until it comes time to put up or shut up."
I couldn't agree more, so shut up. The left was trying to support the democratic resistance to Saddam and you were collecting toilet paper from the bathroom floor of those who you thought were "real Americans". Sorry, buddy, YOU are the one who needs a lesson in democracy.KB
"KB: In other words, you didn't put up. So now it's time to shut up."
Oh, I more than put up. I showed you for exactly the hypocrite that you and most of the right are. I don't completely blame you though. It's actually kind of difficult to find out what's really going on, and I realize that you're just regugitating what you've been spoon fed via the corporate-controlled right wing mainstream media, which is exactly what it is and has always been. And if your response to this last statement about the media being rightwing is met with a kind of "Huh? The media is liberal. Everyone knows that." This, too, is another indication of your indoctrination and your suseptibilty to propaganda. If you'd like to know why you have these mis^perceptions and erroneous notions, most of which are the exact opposite of the truth, let me know and I'll give you a reading list. Otherwise, you'll just be spinning circles, to the right, of course, in the little round universe of your's, you know, where the U.S. is at the epicenter(which was your projection, by the way).KB
Posted by: kb at December 22, 2005 6:37 AMSo much foaming, so little time.
Meanwhile, the dead (as jim noted, in Bosnia, Serbia, Rwanda, Iraq, along with Cambodia, China, Burma, etc.) stand as witness. They offer witness that words without action are nothing.
And some words are emptier than others. Like KB's and those of his hero, Noam Chomsky.
Posted by: ratbert at December 22, 2005 12:19 PMLooks like KB's mixing up his "Oh, That Liberal Media" rants with his Brothers Judd rants.
Posted by: sharon at December 22, 2005 12:20 PMThis is meaningless. Who cares about winning friens?
You should, if you want your side to win. You seem more concerned about mouthing off, however.
If you think there's something wrong or inconsistant about the analogy then point it out.
I did. Re-read my rebuttal.
Simply making the statement you did is no different than Ann Coulter saying most everything she does.
I didn't call you a traitor, although admittedly you're digging yourself into a hole here.
Yeah, so who wouldn't? I DO hope you know what you're saying here. You're saying that the U.S. should now lay out in detail everything it did to support Saddam, which you know will never happen, and take responsibility for having supported him for all of those years. [...]
Blah, blah. Answer the question David Cohen asked you, and we'll talk. Our help was piddling by any standard.
Yes, it would at least be an admission of honesty. This may help a little. It hardly gives him any rights to do anything at all, unless it's to make a formal apology and pay for all the damage it's helped to cause. That's the minimum.
To the extent we owe an apology, we took care of a guy we had "supported" (very loosely) in the past. Yes, that's the minimum and we accomplished it.
Why is that interesting at all? Of course he was bullying and butchering Iraqis, and he was doing it for a LONG time, and it was never an issue for the U.S. who continued to support him before, during, and after he butchered his own people. The U.S> has no right whatsoever to do anything at all except stay out of it completely [...]
Boy, I hate to belabor the obvious, but again: Your sole complaint is that the United States had no right to clean up its own mess (to the extent this mess can be defined as "ours." Again, you simply object to America's action in any circumstances.
Sorry, it doesn't at all, though for the most part it should as it's the country of which I'm a citizen.
See above. You need to read your own material.
"I would have preffered not having them be subjected to Saddam for all the years" being apparent codespeak for not liking Saddam but being unwilling to do anything to stop him"
What the hell do you mean "not be willing to do anything to stop him"?
You talked a good game about getting rid of him and then opposed doing so when it counted. Duh.
That's exactly what the left WAS doing for years, as usual. They were trying to use the democratic system which the pseudo-patriots unwittingly disdain so much. They were called "anti-Americans" at the time by the usual rightwing pseudo-patriotic rabble who complained about not "supporting the president" or "the country". They WERE trying to stop him. Folks like Chomsky were already supporting the anti-Saddam resistance when it was illegal to do so in the U.S.
Please point me to any law making it illegal to support the anti-Saddam movement at any point in the last 30 years. As for being called "anti-American," I assure you that had much more to do with the hard Left's consistent opposition to America in all circumstances -- a tendency well-illustrated by the viewpoints you express here -- then with that movement's evanescent support for Iraqi democratic forces.
Where the hell were you?
In grade school.
I know exactly where the left was. And they were saying 30 years ago that what's happening now would happen exactly as it is. It hardly takes a psychic to see what will probably follow certain actions, or how this will be dealt with by those who allowed it to happen. What's interesting is why you weren't speaking out against Saddam when he actually was a threat. Well?
Nice to know you think the guy was once a threat. Were we now supposed to believe him when he claimed, without evidence, to no longer be one?
Your damn right I damn the cowards who finally invade one of the weakest countries in the region after having supported it for all the years when it was killing it's own people. [...]
"Finally" invade? So you concede it should've been done -- you just don't like that America did it?
Write on the blackboard one hundred times: "America occupies the epicenter of my worldview."
Yes, I do [talk about supporting democracy,] that's who I'm of the left.
Talk, yes. But nothing else.
Why the hell would you say that a person who was in favor of trying to get the country there 30 years ago was opposed to getting there now?
Because you opposed getting there now.
This isn't tough.
I'm opposed to folks like you who come in way late in the game, after most all of the crimes have already been committed with your support, and then acting like you have some say so at all. You have NO say so. You should be held responsible as much as Saddam is given your support for him when he was "gassing his own people". You're the last person who should be deciding anything.
I, personally, never supported Saddam. Most of the people who thought we ought to aid him in some manner against the Iranians fully recognized that we were dealing with two nasty Middle Eastern regimes and that both of them were dangerous. It was a judgment call, it was never as outright a matter as you suggest, and we're busy cleaning it up right now. So if "liberals" like you want to burnish your image and quit looking like fools (your willingness to do so is admittedly questionable), then you'd be wise to take Mark Steyn's advice and get on the side of the Iraqi people right now, not whine about 30 years ago.
The "trademark syptom of decadence" is doing exactly what you and the pseudo-patriots always do. You willingly support the murderers and their crimes, make apologetics for them right and left [...]
No, I haven't. Don't put words in my mouth. And good luck finding any conservative who ever said Saddam was a good guy. At most, he appeared as the least bad option during the 1980s. That was apparently a mistake, and we're correcting it, while your side won't stop bitching.
There's nothing in anything I've ever written that even infers this notion.
You oppose going in and getting rid of a tyrant because America did it. I'm not inferring anything, I'm observing.
And there are even a few WAY OFF the deepend village idiots who think Chomsky is "anti-American". Now that's funny.
Even Richard Falk once pronounced himself disturbed by Chomsky's inability to render judgment on anybody other than America. On those occasions when the man is able to fault other nations, he has a compulsive need to tie its problems to America in some manner, like when he blamed America for the Khmer Rouge. He once traveled to North Vietnam and gave a radio address in which he congratulated the North Vietnamese leaders for building such a wonderful utopian society. His worldview is defined by opposition to America. Who does that sound like?
Opposing America? Where? Haven't done it once. Nowhere. Zero.
You cite Chomsky favorably. Game, set, match.
I couldn't agree more, so shut up. The left was trying to support the democratic resistance to Saddam and you were collecting toilet paper from the bathroom floor of those who you thought were "real Americans". Sorry, buddy, YOU are the one who needs a lesson in democracy.
Nope, not me. I am personally blameless. And bark about "democratic resistance" all you like -- the hard left's refusal to show any hint of happiness for the Iraqi people right now as they struggle towards a working government speaks volumes. Instead, they compare George W. Bush to Hitler and Saddam. Try removing America as a prism through which you see the rest of the world and tell me what you find.
Oh, I more than put up. I showed you for exactly the hypocrite that you and most of the right are.
Not me.
I don't completely blame you though. It's actually kind of difficult to find out what's really going on, and I realize that you're just regugitating what you've been spoon fed via the corporate-controlled right wing mainstream media, which is exactly what it is and has always been. And if your response to this last statement about the media being rightwing is met with a kind of "Huh? The media is liberal. Everyone knows that." This, too, is another indication of your indoctrination and your suseptibilty to propaganda. If you'd like to know why you have these mis^perceptions and erroneous notions, most of which are the exact opposite of the truth, let me know and I'll give you a reading list. Otherwise, you'll just be spinning circles, to the right, of course, in the little round universe of your's, you know, where the U.S. is at the epicenter(which was your projection, by the way).
I know all your arguments, I've done the background reading. If I asked, you'd probably cite Alterman, Chomsky, Bagdikian, McChesney, Zinn, etc. But I'm not asking -- I know the whole "corporate media" fraud inside and out. But thanks for trying.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 23, 2005 7:13 AM