The realist talk of the Iraq Study Group report inspired more over the weekend.
Weary of seeing U.S. troops die for an unclear cause, Sen. Gordon Smith (in photo), R-Ore., explained his startling change of heart on Iraq this way on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos”: “The American people are not quitters but they’re not fools either, and they will not long follow a strategy that leads to defeat.”
Meanwhile, on “Fox News Sunday,” our own Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., newly put some distance between himself and the White House on the war, talking up a more aggressive regional diplomacy and sounding impatient with the sight of our troops caught up in sectarian violence: “I think it is really time for us to engage a new strategy. I hope the president is going to lay that out. And I think he’s got somewhat of a blueprint here in this Baker-Hamilton report.” He added: “I’m not jumping ship. I just think it’s time that we really put pressure on the situation.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
73 Comments
I thought Sam Brownback never sat on a fence? It sure sounds like he is trying to distance himself from the failed Bush war but yet he wants to give Bush all the credit that he can. Whatever!
Brownback is using all kinds of words to get as many voters as he can – he surely is running for president!
Politics!
The American peoples cowardice is the reason so many Jews died in World War 2. We sit around and gripe, throw around ideas like spoiled children while the masses die. We’re too cowardly to get involved with anything that could involve struggle or pain. If it hadn’t have been for Pearl Harbor, we would have still sat around while Nazi Germany killed every Jew.
War and human rights need to uqit being such a political issue. This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats. It’s about the US being a super power and the rest of the world hurting. Isolationism is crap.
Janice,Amen Amen Amen.
Janice Thurmond,
“Isolationism is crap.”
Indeed it is. And you know what’s worse? Unilateralism.
I also agree with another sentence from your post. Iraq is, indeed, about the US “being a superpower” and “the rest of the world hurting,” though what Iraq has shown us is that the second part (’the world hurting’) is the result of the first (’the US being a superpower’).
By calling the American people ‘cowards,’ I take it that you endorse George Bush’s insistence that the US ’stay the course’ (sit and spin) in Iraq?
Janice: I’m confused. What, precisely, are you advocating? In short, “in” or “out”? “US=Superpower”. “Rest of the world=hurting”. OK, that’s fair enough. In your ideal world, what do we do next? Stay or go? I’m not criticizing anything you say. I just don’t see where you’re headed with this. GNut, help, please? Obviously, I need it here.
I, too, am not sure where CF sits on this issue. Seems like he/she doesn’t want the US to be a superpower.
CF? Elucidate, please.
I don’t know why Testicles is saying Amen, Isolationism is what the conservatives pushed. Remember all the ‘we can do it, screw what the rest of the world thinks”
That came from which party?
And we do need to worry about human rights.
Who is stalking whom?
Anyway, I don’t think you know the meaning of isolationism.
For once, I’m too clever by half. I’m never too clever, much less by half.
My point was to challenge the intellectual dishonesty that says people opposed to the invasion of Iraq are ‘isolationist.’ This is an ad hominem argumentative strategy designed to silence opposition.
We have no more business being in Iraq now than we did in 2003. But this judgment has nothing to do with ‘isolationism,’ a phony Right-Wing rhetorical ploy since, as political_mom correctly notes, isolationism is far more characteristic of the nativist Right than the populist Left.
Instead, it has everything to do with sanity, intelligence, and strategic thinking–none of which has been evident from any of the Bush Administration’s policies. It’s gotten so bad that even Republicans are starting to wake up.
I don’t know whether the US ‘ought’ to be a superpower or not. The question is beside the point. I do know, however, that since America IS the sole superpower, that it ought to act like one. And when one acts like a superpower, one acts like a leader, not a bully or a sulky child.
Ok, so (on this board, at least) both representative republicans and democrats are trying to distance themselves from being isolationists. Interesting…
i·so·la·tion·ism
–the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Clearly, our presence in Iraq is contrary to this definition.
Moreover, the democrats ongoing desire to “stop shipping our jobs overseas” is further isolationism.
I would also argue, that the original post that spawned this debate came from Janice. And she used isolationism (properly) to mean “standing by while atrocities are being commited” – please correct me if I’m wrong, Janice.
uh, no. It’s protecting our own interests to stop outsourcing jobs.
we refused kyoto, are backing out of geneva conventions, everything the repubs are trying to do is to make us the world dominator- everytime the dems say we need to work with the world, the repubs say ’screw that- we’re AMERICANS we can do whatever we want’.
Question:Do you believe the world still looks to the United States for leadership?
In the infamous words of GWB – ‘Bring it on’. Those are words that turn off the rest of the world and I think that is what political mom is relating to. I see where the Republicans have demonstrated that they think they can do whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want and at anytime they want. There is no sense of accoutability on their part because they are ‘above the law’.
We are not the only country on this planet, and the sooner George W. learns that – the better off we will be.
Why would the world look to the US for leadership when it is obvious to everyone that the current leadership is severely lacking?
the Bush administration has tried to portrat themselves as some sort of mission from God spreading democracy. This Iraq war is about who controls the oil – plain and simple. It has taken 3 years for the rest of Americans to finally realize it.
I disagree.
This war is about terrorism. Stopping terrorism and the countries that empower terrorists.
KSGolfnut |- If that is so, you are one country off target!
Boy O boy there is an awful lot of America bashing going on today.
Why do so many people want to continue to immigrate to our country from all over the world?This is a link of LEGAL immigration.Yes, maybe we should be just like their countries and keep them from coming. (sarcasm)
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS13_immigration_US_2006.pdf
MrK,I think the world takes the US for granted. If you have an earthquake or a typhoon, we’ll be there overnight with humanitarian aid. And you expect it.
I also think the world is jealous of the US and our economic machine. Other free countries with they had the levels of output and unemployment that we have.
And no other country on the planet has the freedoms that we have. The middle east HATES our freedoms. They HATE that we can choose to worship whatever God or idol that we want – or to worship nothing at all. We’re infidels.
We thought the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. They didn’t. We miscalculated. However, there is reason to hope that once Saddam is dead, public opinion in Iraq will change…
Time will tell.
Richard Nixon spurned the advice of ‘elders’ within his own party. As a result, he knew that enough Republicans would vote to convict in the senate that he would be ousted if he did not resign. I suspect that the Baker report will give enough republicans in the Senate a reason to split from Bush that the same thing might happen.
Golfer, Janice – I am NOT an isolationist. I believe that my country MUST be involved on the world stage. That does not, however, mean randomly invading countries at a whim.
Ben,Do you think we invaded Iraq (or any other country) on a whim?
Yes. To show up Poppy.
Are you not familiar with all the 16 UN Resolutions that Iraq violated and the countless opportunities we gave them to comply? And the fact that we warned them for more than a year that they had to comply or face the consequences.
AND that the majority of congress voted to give the president the authority to invade; AND that the vast majority of the US population agreed.
Are you sure it was just a whim?
I thought it was 17 UN resolutions?
Yes, I am familiar with the UN resolutions. I am also familiar with many more demending that Israel withdraw from Palestine and quit violating Lebanese territory. When do we bomb Tel Aviv and establish regime change there?
Iraq was FAR from the leader in violated UN resolutions.
Ben, so you’re acknowledging that it wasn’t “on a whim”?
By Ben’s logic: Let’s invade them all. If you invade one violator, and not the others, why?
MrK,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
…says 16. I think Sean Hannity says 17. I dunno. The point is, there were many.
Good point SOB, by YOUR logic we should invade them all.
Don’t you get it? Isreal is not our enemy. The terrorists in Iraq and other countries are. Duh.
“heh, I got an itchy trigger finger…let’s go invade Iraq!”
That sounds like a whim. We do that you think? You really think that?
This blog is full of idiots who think we invaded for oil, or people were lieing, or Bush wanted to show up Poppy and on and on. The credibility of these people is suspect.Who in the hell would want to go to a meet up with this bunch?jr might show up with a sharp stick.
The illegal immigrants come to US because we have employers exploiting them. Immigrants come to the US for our educational system and our money so they can send American dollars back home.
And I do not see anyone disagreeing with the Bushies as anti-American and America bashing. I, for one, am tired of Bush and Company using that old song and dance to label people who disagree with them as unpatriotic. That horse left the barn quite a few years ago and will never come back.
I expect the US president to be truthful and forthright in all matters pertaining to America’s safety and I don’t see that in the Bush Administration.
There are so many unanswered questions about the Iraq War but one thing is certain – Halliburton and the other profiteers are the ones that are surely wanting this war to escalate – huh?
All the wishing in the world doesn’t make it so.
Free stock tip of the day: Invest in Halliburton.
To all you Bush loyalists – why do you not question anything that this administration does or says?
Do you not have a brain with which to think for yourselves? Does it not bother you that we’ve been told for 3 years that the US soldiers are training the Iraqis to defend themselves. It is now 3 years later and they are still not trained? I just don’t believe that a bunch of Iraqis, who are supposedly hungry for democracy and has the chance to be trained by the US military, wouldn’t just jump at the chance to change their country. Just what is the problem?
I expect the US president to be truthful and forthright in all matters pertaining to America’s safety and I don’t see that in the Bush Administration.Posted by: sunny | December 11, 2006 at 04:22 PM
I respect that those are your wishes. I think we all agree on that.However it’s a fundamental difference obviously in the beliefs of the two sides in the country as to the President’s honestly.
Iraq was our ally when we supplied them during their war against Iraq. April Glasspie gave them a green light to go into Kuwait. Then we changed our mind abou that one. But, beyond getting a bit uppity what turned dictator Saddam from being our ally to our enemy?
SOB – so the UN resolutions that golfer gave as a reason are irrelevant since they don’t count when we want them violated?
Perhaps the real point is that the UN is irrelevent.
In that case why do Bush, Hannity, and Golfer use it as justification for the invasion?
The UN should be relevant; however for it to be so the US must be a full player – i.e. not isolationist.
Bush, etc use it because it is true. All those resolutions for what? Just more dead trees.UN = irrelevent
UN resolutions that are not enforced = irrelevant UN
In that case golfer, how do they become the justification? Just a whim as to which ones matter?
Israel has been flouting the UN for years.
If Israel had you people, they would have given up long ago.
How many UN resolutions does it take to convince the offending nation that the UN means business? Answer – None! Communist, Socialist and Islamic-facist nations all know how ineffective the UN is under Anan.
That’s right ID – Israel has shown them by its massive front-runner status in violations.
I’ve never understood where it’s written that the US is responsible for enforcing UN resolutions.
I don’t think Bush ever answered that one!
Imagine that!
The US is NOT responsible for enforcing the UN resolutions. However, in this case, it WAS in our best interest.
And still is.
gster – it is the US job to enforce them when the “whim” is right.
I guess it depends on the definiation of “was”, sort like the definition of “is”. Remember that one?
“Isolationism is to ignore all that is going on in the world that is wrong. Imperialism is thinking that the only answer to what is wrong with the world is to impose your will“.
It was not the isolationism of the United States that caused the death of the Jews in Germany and the occupied countries. It was the Nazis and those in power that caused the death of the Jews. The U.S. was not aware of the Death camps and the ovens till later in WWII, once we came in to the fight. In fact many that lived just down the road from the death camps did not really know what was going on there other then the inurnment of prisoners. Much I might add like those living close to the camps here in the U.S. where those of Japanese decent were imprisoned.
Isolationism is not the answer, “All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing”.But then neither is Imperialism, the biggest kid on the block is limited in his power when the point comes that all the littler kids stop taking the will of the bully and band together. I hate to say it but thinking that the world is on our side in this is truly “Isolationism”. The majority of the world wants to see us fall on our faces in Iraq. Both “friend and enemy alike”, many for their own self interests. Both in the Middle east and Europe they have seen this completely different then the U.S. “Why should we care what they think?”, they are the littler kids on the block. We could defeat any one of them, but band together there would be no hope. Even simply with out their support we would be in danger of losing a medium conflict.
Was Iraq on a whim? Not really but it was on the thoughts of a few that were not thinking of this country’s best interest. Nor any real desire to fight the enemies of this nation, Iran, Syria, Somalia, the list goes on of those that are the main supports of Terrorism. Saddam was at the bottom of that list and sadly Bush & Co. had plenty of proof of that before the invasion and did not like the Intel so they made their own.
KSGolfnut,
Part of your dictionary definition (and since when are dictionary definitions the final word? I tell my students that’s the surest way to defend something they ought to be questioning) of isolationism contained the following:
“by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.,”
Given your own definition, what part of the Bush Administration’s last six years DOESN’T count as ‘isolationist?’
Any day CF is called an idiot by the likes of fleettwood is a day he feels particularly ‘reality-based.’
You got nothin’, fleettwood. Calling me and others names proves it.
RE; Geneva conventions.So we have to be the one to play by the rules when the enemy isn’t?
Read World War 2 history… America has always fiddled while the world burns. We’re more worried about state basketball and the starting 5 of the local high school than human rights and world affairs.
Its funny to see the die hard ‘Defenders of Berlin’ still supporting Bush and the disaster in Iraq.
30% approve of Bush21% approve of his handling of Iraq63% think the war was a mistake in the first place.
According to ‘people’ like fleettwood, seven in ten Americans are ‘America-bashers.’
You have to be mentally ill to still support the Bush regime. This description is okay, though, since it so aptly describes most wingnuts and their warped worldviews.
This photo essay with many graphic pictures, does not convey much “good news” from Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/iraq/082701iraqplane/im:/061211/photos_wl_me_afp/82c93e9dafc8ced2fbff0013ece46242?sp=-1&lsp=6000
I would suspect that there is a lot of good news coming out of Iraq, but looking at pictures of houses that are not burning is not interesting.Outside of Bagdad, things are going fairly well.
84% of the people surveyed in a USA Today poll did not think we were winning in Iraq.
But, you know how those people in the reality based community are. They fail to make shit up and create their own reality. Those poor deluded assholes…
As George of the Bungle consults with various groups to develop a “New Way Forward”, by not changing anything, he might do well to consult the Rule Book, Catch-22.
Yossarian , Major Major ,et al, could provide many useful scenarios, and the logic used would seem very familiar to our hero!
Outside of Baghdad? Like Ramadi? Falluji? Rahweh? Basra?
No, fleettwood, it ain’t.
I doubt all those Republicans on the Baker Commission would have missed all that wonderful news – if it existed.
fleettwood,
“Outside of Bagdad, things are going fairly well.”
Tell that to the families and friends of the people who have died “outside of Baghdad”.Some examples here,http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties
fleettwood,
“This blog is full of idiots who think we invaded for oil,”
Facts:* Iraq has world’s 2nd largest reserves of (cheap to produce) oil.
* During looting after invasion, U.S. forces protected only the Oil Ministry building.
* The U.S. has pushed oil “profit sharing agreements” on Iraq, which takes PROFITS and CONTROL away from them.
* # 62 and 63 of the ISG report,’Troops Out, Oil Companies In: The Baker Agenda?’http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/troops-out-oil-companies_b_35816.html
Huffington post?Tom Hayden?Sounds like Cooty-ville.No thanks.
Typical fleet… shoot the messenger when the truth destroys fleet’s opinion.
Then read # 62 and 63 (page 56)http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html
cosmos,
You are asking fleet to read and think?
And, I thought GW Bush had a problem with unwarranted optimism.
Rush says it = Fleet repeats it – end of story.
I don’t remember Rush saying you were a dope.
Steven,
You’re right, I shouldn’t expect fleet to read anything.And fleet said you’re right, Rush IS his source.
Fleet does branch out to use Sean Hannity sometimes. Take pity on Fleet he CAN’T HELP sounding like a dope.