An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
I hope Laura was Kidding
Crooks and Liars has a video up of Laura Bush saying downright stupid things. I quote:
“Many parts of Iraq are stable… But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody.”
Obviously she’s right about “most parts of Iraq” being stable, but the second part is, umh, slightly less accurate.
I’m sorry, but I cannot be ‘moderate’ about this: it’s downright idiotic.
50 Responses to “I hope Laura was Kidding”
Pretty dumb choice of words, but I still think it’s harsh to criticize her. There are two people that should never really be expected to criticize the POTUS: The White House press secretary and the first lady (I suppose in the future we may have to say the first spouse.) Both of those people are in a position where there job is to support the president no matter what, and unfortunately at times like these they’re in an impossible situation where they can’t possibly answer questions like this without at times sounding inane.
Her comments are discordant in the face of breaking news headlines like this one, on CNN right now:
A car bomb has killed 18 children at a soccer field in Ramadi, Iraqi state television reports.
It’s not just how many bombs. It’s the horrible damage they do.
CS- I don’t expect her to criticize her husband, but she is adding her voice to those who blame the media for the bad news coming out of Iraq. As she’s in a position of leadership, shouldn’t she be a bit more responsible? She’s starting to make the same kind of moronic statements about Iraq that Cheney does. Many Americans blindly look up to and follow these people because they have faith in them, or because of their patriotism.
The woman is clueless, which is her right.
In any event, this remark still doesn’t top the TV interview in which she said that the “Mission Accomplished” dog-and-pony show aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 was all about the aircraft carrier returning to its home port. Astonishing!
At least she doesn’t consult her astrologer before coming up with these words of wisdom. First Lady’s need a pet project, all other matters should be “no comment”. Maybe a seance to speak to ANS…..
C.S. – but her fuction is not just to support her husband – there is much more to being a first lady than that. She must also say the right things, she should be compassionate and considerate. “One bombing a day” doesn’t just deny reality (she could support her husband by saying that it’s worth it, that she believes that the surge will work, etc. instead insulting all those Iraqis who have died due to sectarian violence), it’s idiotic and cold-hearted.
Kim,
I didn’t see her comment as blaming the media. What I got out of it was that it’s human nature to be so upset by the horrors of war that we feel concern over whether or not the war has a noble purpose, and to some degree it’s almost impossible to objectively evaluate these things. I interpret her this way because her comment was about our reaction to the stories of bombs, not a criticism of the media that carry such stories. She didn’t seem to me to be saying that those stories shouldn’t make the news, but she was just commenting on how it’s natural that we’re discouraged by the bad news.
I think she could have phrased her response much better, but I give her a pass.
She’s saying that the media is focussing on the one bombing a day- which supporters of the war have often accused the press of. Its a common tactic among conservatives, who intimate that Iraq is going much better than the press coverage would let on. That’s pretty much been the argument from day one—the press covers the bad news, so no one knows how peaceful the country really is. Its a argument,and a shame that she’s a mouthpiece for such a flawed rationale.
Kim,
I don’t know how you got all that out of her comment, but we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I think your interpretation is colored by your belief that conservatives deliberately use this tactic, while I think that to conservatives these statements simply make sense. It rings true to me that it’s really impossible to see the tragedies that take place in a war zone and not be shaken by them. That’s something that we have to factor into any war in modern times, now that the media brings it into our homes.
I wish Laura would consult an astrologer – the odds of ANY astrologer being right on the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan are signficantly higher than what is coming out of the mouths of the Bush Administration, including the holy Laura.
Delusional is the only word to describe Bush and his minions.
Yes, of course it is impossible not to be shaken up by them–but short of instituting state-sponsored censorship that is part and parcel of living in a democracy. The press reports what they see happening. Its true they don’t do many stories of GI’s handing out pencils to schoolchildren, but isn’t that because Iraq has become so dangerous, that they can no longer cover what the troops are doing? And so we get the bombings.
And yes, CS = journalist Craig Crawford wrote a book called “Attack the Messenger- How Politicians Turn you Against the Media”- detailing this tactic by politicians.
knowing she’s got to back her man…can’t understand why’d anybody waste their time watching her.
But Kim, if we both accept that seeing these images affects the public support for a war, shouldn’t we talk about that? Shouldn’t we as a society reflect on whether or not this erodes our ability to fight even just wars? Obviously if the public opinion on whether or not a particular war is just is shaky to begin with, as in the case of the Iraq war, then it’s even more likely that the public support will falter. But other than quickly won campaigns that are done mainly through targeted air raids, I wonder whether we can still wage war effectively at all, and that concerns me. I’d like for people to be able to have that discussion without those discussions being automatically assumed to be pro-war propaganda.
1 bombing a day, 183 bombings a day, what’s the difference?
Kritter said: “The press reports what they see happening. Its true they don’t do many stories of GI’s handing out pencils to schoolchildren, but isn’t that because Iraq has become so dangerous, that they can no longer cover what the troops are doing?”
Actually, no. There is a clear spin on the news even when they don’t have to be in Iraq.
I have written here before of a story of a suicide bombing in northern Iraq in 2006. It was reported in the NYT that the bombing targeted a convoy of parked US troops, and killed about two dozen children.
I thought this odd – why would a bombing targetting US troops kill so many children – and looked for the original AP source. The AP story was identical to the NYT story except for two sentences the Times cut out:
(1)The troops were parked, as they were stopped beside a hospital, where the army Corps of Engineers were evaluating reconstruction assistance and need for new equipment.
(2)The children had all gathered around the US troops, as the troops were handing out candy to them.
I.E. The two sentences with details of US troops doing good – trying to help Iraqis – were deleted from the New York Times account (for reasons of space I am sure).
The media has its narrative, and things that don’t fit the narrative will not get reported. It does this on almost any issue you can name, until a paradigm shift occurs and the narrative changes.
This is one reason for the widely reported resentment of troops towards the homefront and the media. They feel no one reports or cares about the good that they try to do, or the risks they take.
Laura Bush: ‘what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody’
CS: ‘I didn’t see her comment as blaming the media.’
It’s called reading. Granted, no one expects a First Lady to be smart, she basically has to be a well dressed mannekin, but jeez.
Also, this is not a just war. There are no good sides, and we started it. The main theme is oil. W/o it, we wd not be there. Remove any other element of our so called reasons, and one could argue we’d still be there. Remove oil from the equation and there’s no reason to be there.
As fucked up as Vietnam was, we cd at least say the Soviets were an evil empire, w the means to impose it, therefore we were standing against it. Saddam was impotent, and so were the Jihadists, who’ve only gotten stronger because we misconstrued 9/11 as an act of war rather than a criminal act.
Every Republican reign in my lifetime has ended in disaster for this nation: Nixon/Ford ended up in nearly destroying the Constitution, and worsening the Vietnam stupidity LBJ started. Reagan and Bush 1 sent the economy into the worst dumper since the Great Depression (87=92), destroyed a generation of inner city youth by defunding some really great programs that were lowering poverty, drug, and starvation rates, and let loose corporate evil with deregulation- S&L scandal through Enron and on. Now, Bush 2 has set us up for who knows how long an involvement in this inane war, while more and more Americans slide into poverty, and the rich get richer.
Don’t get me wrong- the Dems have been no winners, w LBJ almost as bad as the R’s, but Carter was a virtual cipher and Clinton a powerhungry do nothing.
Last point, all of these bad to mediocre Presidents have been part of the system of primary voting to pick candidates. say, let the back room Buddhas take over.
From TR to FDR to Truman and JFK, they produced quality. Even Ike, who was not great, was better, in retrospect than any Prez of my lifetime.
Laura prob still smokes some of W’s vintage doobies.
CS: “I wonder whether we can still wage war effectively at all, and that concerns me.”
I’m young and probably stupid, but in my view the post-WWII years have shown that a) we can take any military action as long as it’s quick and painless and b) any action that isn’t has to have a near 100% direct relationship between our physical safety and our actions. Now you could argue the public is dumb for not taking geopolitical concerns into account but that’s a separate issue. If another World War broke out I don’t think we’d have any problem fighting.
Greta points, Mikkel.
Great points, Mikkel.
But Marlowe- you can also easily point to the time leading up to the war when the media wasn’t critical enough. Look at Judith Miller’s stories on WMD’s- she was just Cheney’s mouthpiece.
The reason the public stopped supporting the war, was not because of negative stories in the media, but because they realized the disconnect between what the administration was reporting and what they learned was the reality on the ground. Who would still support a war that we’d been falsely told we were winning for 3 1/2 years? It took the ISG to confirm what the media had been telling us all along. The administration is now paying the price of its inherent dishonesty; the loss of credibility with the public. Even if the conditions on the ground improved dramatically, would anyone believe it??? Its the administration’s own fault if no one believes a word that comes out of their mouths anymore. The press takes the attitude that they are the American peoples’ eyes and ears and I am behind them 100%. American citizens are paying for this war with their money and their sons and daughters’ lives-they deserve to know the truth about this war, instead of a bunch of happy talk.
Laura needs to go back to reading books to school children and modeling designer gowns at state dinners. I no longer respect her since she has become part of her husband’s war propaganda machine.
I’m not so sure of even that, Mikkel. I think we forget that there was an isolationist sentiment in the US until Pearl Harbor, and I’d be willing to bet that if the war reels weren’t censored and sanitized, public opinion would not have been so pro-war from ’41 through ’45. And if Hiroshima had been beamed into our living rooms, would Nagasaki have happened? (and don’t misunderstand: I’m not getting into the moral issue of whether those bombings should have happened, just making the point that the public probably doesn’t have the will to be as brutal as is necessary in war to force a surrender of the enemy.)
And on your other point, of course I agree:
If we want diplomacy to work, we have to be willing to use force when necessary. Without the will to fight for our interests, we lack the leverage to bring fruit to negotiations.
Kim,
I can’t speak for Marlowe but I don’t think that anyone here is trying to claim that public support has turned south solely because of a liberally biased media. But things aren’t all or nothing; the media’s reporting on the tragedies of war (which I think it has every right to do) has an effect on public opinion. That doesn’t mean it’s the only or even the most significant effect, but it’s an effect. What I’m saying is not so much that we ought to enforce censorship of the media (though I’ve pointed out in the past that this was exactly what was done in WWII), but that the public needs to consider how much we’re being affected emotionally by the images we see and whether or not we need to try to steel ourselves against that.
I’m tired of the “no good news is ever reported” meme and it’s implicit corallary “we need to make sure the public support stays behind the war.” When we’re at war all actions are in support of the mission — I’ve read lots of direct quotes saying that the military views our humanitarian work in this way. I don’t care if we’re the most benevolent people in history and are perfectly trying to win hearts and minds…if we aren’t decreasing the number of people dying (or at least making noticeable progress in accomplishing a defined goal) then we’re failing.
On the flip side, I’m also tired of how our media doesn’t report on what actually matters. For instance, Abu Gharib was a major issue for the Iraqi perspective and was properly reported on. On the other hand, I’ve read numerous stories (and Iraqis directly) saying localized instances of troops committing crimes — no matter how brutal — don’t really factor into our image. Unless the events are being written about to make a broader point about troop morale or our general perception, I don’t see how focusing on them causes anything but hand wringing.
And I think our good side isn’t written about enough, but in a separate context. For example, after we stabilized Afghanistan I don’t think the mainstream press wrote enough about how we were helping to build up the area and try to maintain the gains. I read numerous articles talking about how much we were appreciated but that the reconstruction was underfunded. I also read numerous ones that pointed out the Taliban was making a reemergence in areas where we were destroying the poppy fields the farmers felt like they had no choice to plant. I think that the “forgotten war” was partially forgotten because the media didn’t highlight it and if it had been then there might have been more effort to maintain the gains we had that I feel were lost because of small shortsightedness.
Well I agree somewhat, CS, but do think that the public has hung in for 4 years, even after learning that our motives for going into Iraq was somewhat suspect, and that a lot of the prewar intelligence had been manipulated. Its pretty hard to support a president after that- the country as a whole has to feel that we are there for the right reasons.
Many do not believe that anymore, and that has nothing to do with the violent bombings on TV.
WWII was much more clear-cut -we were attacked by the Axis powers and went to war with
them. We can look back on it now and be proud of the way our parents fought and sacrificed to free Europe. This war and Vietnam, are not being fought on the moral high ground, so its much more difficult to keep public support. I agree that watching the bombings on TV does affect support, but its not the main thing.
Well I think you have a point there. Support for the war was pretty high at the outset (I think close to 70%?) but part of that group was people like me who saw all of the different rationales and felt that there was a convergence of several important goals, while many other people only heard the legalistic arguments about WMD…so when that turned out to be based on misleading intel, a whole segment that had previously supported the war dropped out. And, when some believed that Bush and Co. had deliberately lied about the intel, these people not only had changed their opinion about the war but at that point became bitterly opposed to it.
You recognize support for the war was very high at the outset and you doubt, if there were a World War, that we would have enough support for it. Color me confused.
So much about this war is people trying to have it both ways. I was opposed to the war from the beginning. Members of my family bought into it solely on the imminent danger clause. We all considered war grave enough to be faught for only very serious reasons. We had very heated debates.
But we never asked to have it both ways. And we always wanted it told how it was. Which this isn’t. None of it is. It’s just changing lies and rationales.
Color me very bitter.
Yes, because support needs to not only be high at the outset, but remain high when things aren’t looking good. I doubt that would have been the case if the newsreels showed the real brutality of WWII or the battles where we didn’t fair well, or the civilian collateral damage. Do you disagree?
And did they not notice when Bush specifically said that this was to prevent a future danger rather than to deal with an imminent one? (from the Jan 2003 SOTU address):
CS- you are missing Mikkel’s point that a real grave danger- such as a total World war, would not be diff to mobilize.
The fact is that Bush’s advice after 9/11 was to shop more. Not exactly FDR stating we need to mobilize and ration.
Kim, I agree that disconnecvt is part of the turnoff, but the reason behind that disconnect is we were told WMDs were why we went into Iraq, when it was, is, and always will be oil.
I’ve tried to see the other arg’s for the war, but as I said, we cd still be there if you removed any single one of them. But, remove the oil and we’re never within a 1000 miles of Baghdad.
Another point, people who say that the public still believes in this war forget a key point. Vietnam had a draft, this one does not. If a draft was started the war would end within a month.
CS: ‘doubt that would have been the case if the newsreels showed the real brutality of WWII or the battles where we didn’t fair well, or the civilian collateral damage. Do you disagree?’
Yes, because Japan and Germany were real threats to actually take over and subdue us. Had Hitler been a bit more patient, and a bit less brutala conqueror, he would have had the whole of middle Asia to produce food and oil for the Axis powers, and likely only Island America would have been fre from Axis grip.
The nutty cowherders w box cutters are criminals, and no real threat to Western Society.
We all KNOW this at a fundamental level, which is why we shop and don’t ration. We’ve already become inured to the rainbow alert system. If a resrvoir were poisoned, or a dirty bomb dropped in Miami, we’d be alarmed, sleep, and go right on w life. Osama is no Adolf!
Apples to oranges. The threats are not the same, but in some ways the differences make the current threat even more challenging. As Entropy pointed out in another thread, we’re the stronger boxer but we’re constrained by rules that the other guys don’t play by. Partly that’s of our own making: we do want to play by rules that are more civilized, but we can’t make the other guy do the same. Partly it’s also due to geopolitical realities that we can’t change: we can’t afford to drop old friends even when we know they are only friends of convenience, so we’re stuck with allies that are in many cases giving aid to our enemies. Strange days these are.
CS-
I find it fruitless to agonize over the role of the media. The media does what it does, produces news that will appeal to customers. In the process it also provides the public with vital information we will not get from government press releases.Unless you are proposing muzzling the media entirely, accept it for what it is, the good and the bad, and move on.
You are right in pointing out that images from Hiroshima beamed into our living rooms would have afftectted public sentiment. But it’s really high time we stopped refighting WWII. The world has changed. Any government worth its salt, will stop railing against what is inevitalbe and plan for the execution of its policies in the world as it finds it.
Any war now will be an ‘instant message’ war. Maybe that should prod governemtns to be more wary before waging one.
That’s why my focus is not on muzzling the media, but on asking the public to reflect on how we react to the news.
Yes, that is a positive way of looking at it, but my fear is that govts also might be hampered in their ability to wage just and necessary wars. I don’t see where we’d have any more ability to stomach the site of civilian casualties (or even our military casualties, particularly if a draft were necessary) if we believed in the goals of the war than we do when there’s doubt about the goals. I think there would ALWAYS be reasonable doubt that would grow each time the gruesome details of war were broadcast.
This isn’t about whether or not we have the stomach for future wars or not. This about this war in this time. Which is a failure, a fiasco, and a disaster. This is not a philosophical debate: it is what it is.
And every time someone tries to extract something poetic and true out of simple facts it stinks of rationalization.
This is not about the stomach to fight future wars, and it is not about whether or not we should fear that mass media has crippled our ability to properly kill others in the name of diplomacy.
It’s about the oil. And pride. And human irrationality. And not wanting to be wrong about something so terribile.
I’m not trying to be poetic (though I guess poetry can be about awful truths as well as magnificent ones). Philosophical though, yes, I’d say that’s what I’m trying to be. Yet you dismiss it as a rationalization. Well, sorry, but if that’s the lens you look through then you’ll miss important lessons that we should be taking from the present situation. Why do you have to dismiss this discussion? If you disagree with my belief that the public’s reaction to the media is highly influential on our support of all war, that’s fine, we can agree to disagree. But why try to say that I’m rationalizing? I’m trying to at least take a useful lesson from the current situation, and I disagree with you on the extent to which current public perception has ONLY been soured because of the way the war was handled; I think that’s a big part of it but I also think that any war that isn’t quick and surgical is going to be a hard sell- and maybe an impossible sell.
Imagine this. You live in a neighborhood with twenty houses. One night, a fire breaks out in one house and quickly spreads to an adjacent house. Fifteen minutes later, two fire engines, their siren blaring, come speeding down the street. The fire fighters manage to put out both fires, but despite their heroics, both houses have burnt down, leaving four people dead.
Meanwhile, across town, a couple is watching the local news, which is live at the scene of the fires. Decrying “media bias”, the man turns his wife and asks angrily, “Why didn’t the media spend equal time covering the eighteen houses that didn’t burn down?”
It’s all fine and good for her to support her husband, but if you can’t say anything nice AND honest, then Laura, please say nothing at all.
CS-
“my fear is that govts also might be hampered in their ability to wage just and necessary wars.”
============
Frankly, I’m bothered by this emphasis on wars it is ‘necessary’ to fight. We would benefit more by concentrating on how to avoid war/
We are always ready to finance any venture that prepares us for war, but ignore strategies that would lead to peaceful solutions. Our efforts in humanitarian projects are shamefully small. We are withdrawing from more international efforts (outlawing cluster bombs) than we are joining.
I’m not so naive as to suggest that war can always be avoided. But we jump much too readily from a position of defense to one of pre-emptive military actions. When you talk about just wars, it had better be at the end of an exhaustive process of eliminating all other alternatives, rather than a reflex reaction to some perceived national security issue. Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex is a serious one. If you think in terms of wars, you will find reasons to engage in them.
If a war, then, is actually just, it had better not be ‘sold’ to the public. Rather, the negatives as well as the positives should be laid out in graphic detail, so that the public is not surprised by bad news. Proclaiming victory too soon, sets the stage for dismayal when victory turns into protracted battles.
The Bush bashers that you so often cite arose out of a sense of betraysl, a sense that too much was going on while they are at the mall shopping. Honesty and engagement are the best antidotes to bad press.
CS wrote-“my fear is that govts also might be hampered in their ability to wage just and necessary wars.�
I must agree with domojot- the problem is that not enough is done to avoid unnecessary wars, and humanitarian efforts are a great way to build goodwill. In this circumstance become energy independent and noninterventional in the ME (except to defend true allies) would also be a great step in this direction. Wouldn’t that protect the national interest as much as going after another country’s oil and calling it spreading democracy?
Our country had no problem getting behind the president when he invaded Afghanistan with coalition forces. You didn’t have all these claims of lefty’s emboldening the enemy. Why? Because the vast majority knew it was necessary. Iraq, on the other hand, was sold to us on bogus grounds, and fake progress reports were spoon-fed to us, to pacify the masses. Any doubter was attacked as a coward or a traitor.
Maybe most of the nation supports a war that they see as genuinely being fought for self-defense, but not one fought for oil. The steps we took in Iraq opened up free markets, but failed to provide any sense of security or jobs for the Iraqis. Must not have been a high priority.
CS:
‘Apples to oranges.’
No, Box Cutters to nukes. We can only be hurt by terrorists if we get arrogant and lazy- which is why 9/11.
That is a HUGE difference. And the media plays no role in that.
I’d say that both are problems. I agree with you that we should do much more to build goodwill (and should make sure we get enough credit for the good that we already do) but at the same time, the will to go to war when it’s necessary is important. If we lack that, and particularly if the rest of the world knows that we lack it, then wars will actually be more likely. There will always be those who will provoke us if they believe we’re a bully that doesn’t have the strength to actually back up our bluffs with a real fight. Those provocations will become more frequent if we continue to show a lot of tendency to waver in war efforts. And, the threat of war is always a strong component to make diplomatic efforts more effective.
CS: “There will always be those who will provoke us if they believe we’re a bully that doesn’t have the strength to actually back up our bluffs with a real fight”
==========
First, maybe we should consider NOT acting like a bully.
Then, ease up on the love affair of the US as a military tough guy.
Blexing your arsenal in public too much invites contenders to test your powers as much as the appearance of weakness.
Thinking so much in military terms grooms you for blindness to better alternatives. Think how much we might have gained by paying attention to treating detainees fairly instead of allowing Abu Graib to happen. ‘Tough’ without ‘Smart’ is a recipe for disaster.
Again, I don’t think anyone will back down from fighting a just war, its the unjust ones that eat away at our national psyche and tear us apart as a country. Wars should never be fought on false pretenses, and only as a last resort, after all possible alternatives have been exhausted.
The foreign policy initiatives of this president have been a disaster. The US is viewed now in the world as the ultimate bully, which is a lot different than being respected for our strength and power. The overreliance on military force, the unilateralism of the first term, the tendency to treat diplomacy as a privilege that we only grant to other countries when they meet our terms has all backfired.Bush and Cheney seem to be looking for confrontations that we haven’t the military power to back up—like what we are doing now with Iran.
I think Bush has himself confused with Reagan, who understood the value of diplomacy, and knew when to back down. I didn’t agree with him on many issues, but he knew which risks to take with the Soviets and exactly how far to push them.
Well, her first statement is koolaid land. Most of Iraq is not okay, its a mess. Unless, by ‘most’ she means Kurdistan, which is at arguable. Lol. The second part seems pretty unfeeling, at least to me anyway. Then again it sure does appear to be all on big game to the neocons in charge anyway, so its not so surprising.
As to media influencing opionon? Sure it does. Their job is to inform, from which we make judgements. Well, maybe its more accurate to say entertain or titilate lately… In any event, media coverge is really pretty mixed so far as I can tell. It could be more postive, but it could easily be worse too. Quite a lot of bad things also go un, or under, reported as well. Frankly, its not safe for them or their stringers to go out much, so its no surprise that coverage is not very substansive and spotty either way for quite a few issues.
Also, Its the cooked intelligence, stupidity and arrogance of the current leaders that have us depressed. Well, that and we are losing and have been for quite some time if we are honest about it. And, the realization that no surge, ripple or whatever is going to change that fact. Why? Because at the end of the day its going to take political settlement to salvage anything, and the policy makers and politcal side we have are largely flat out incompetant.
But Kim, people used to say the same things about Reagan that you are saying about Bush now. MANY people were afraid that he was pushing us to the brink of war with the Soviet Union or that he was pushing the arms buildup too much. But as you are acknowledging, in hindsight he did the right thing. How do you know that it won’t turn out that way with Iran? The problems there have been going on for decades, and maybe now they will finally resolve with a regime change that favors human rights and increased modernization for Iran, which will be good for the Iranians and good for us.
domajot:
Even if we were to act completely benevolently and spend 50% of our GDP on aid programs, it would take probably two generations before we’d stop having the reputation of being a bully. Even then, I’m doubtful. The simple fact of our existence and our power are seen as a threat to some people. And the fact is that the Islamic leaders themselves have specifically written about ways to exploit any show of weakness by the US. If you read their fatwas and manifestos, this is exactly what they are saying. So while winning hearts and minds of moderates is extremely important for the long term strategy (and we haven’t done nearly enough in that regard), we still have to maintain military strength and readiness because we’ll never win over the extremists. Radical Islamic fundamentalists believe that the US is a threat to their way of life simply by our existence; even if we were not involving ourselves with their governments, they would feel threatened because of the spread of modern social values. Their type of religious practice can’t exist in our kind of world, and there’s nothing we could do to convince them otherwise. Our worlds simply can’t coexist, and when you have a group that has that kind of mindset, you have no choice but to fight or they will continue taking the fight to us- unless they believe that it’s a fight that they can’t win.
I have no love of military strength and certainly no love of war, but I believe that military strength actually helps to keep the peace because it deters attacks. And I reject your notion that thinking in those terms means that we can’t think in terms of diplomacy or humanitarian acts to win hearts and minds. Those who can be won over will not feel threatened by our military, but those who do feel threatened by it are the ones that we will never win over.
Yes, I realize that CS. But, Bush is just a pale imitation of Reagan. He has read up a lot on Reagan’s life and admits to admiring RR’s style and ideology more than his own father’s. Reagan, at least knew that it was not worth losing endless numbers of American lives in Lebanon, which in my book gives him a boost over W’s flawed policies any day. Also, Reagan was never afraid to negotiate with our enemies, but negotiated from a position of strength. With the results of W’s foreign policy decisions (except NK) we have no position of strength to negotiate from.
Look at what is going on with Iran. While Bush is saber-rattling,
Peter Pace is testifying in congressional hearings about how our military is in no shape to respond to another global threat. Pace also questioned W’s purported claim that the gov’t of Iran is sponsoring the production of the explosives that are killing Americans.
Whatever Reagan’s flaws or extra-legal activities I never remember him bucking the military. Iran-Contra itself was extra-legal and dangerous, but not as dangerous as funding extremist Sunni groups would be so that they would go up against Hezbollah. A far better tactic is the use of economic sanctions against Iran—freeze their assets in international institutions. That’s worked for us in NK, when most people thought the situation was hopeless.
I don’t think there’s much question that Bush will be viewed as a poor imitation of Reagan in the history books.
Kim,
You’re judging a situation that is ongoing and pretending you know how it is going to turn out. We ARE using sanctions and international pressure against Iran, and there are signs that it is working. We are showing a military threat as well but I believe that is because we have to show that if all else fails, we will use force. That doesn’t mean we’re going to do it, it is more likely a bluff, but that is part of diplomacy as well. It’s all part of gaining leverage, which is the essential condition under which diplomacy can occur. We didn’t have any leverage against Iran 6-9 months ago; now we do. Gates even hinted at this when he was asked about his policy difference with Bush over negotiating with Iran (since Gates was part of the ISG that recommended that). Gates said that diplomacy is only possible once we have leverage. I haven’t heard Baker or anyone else from the ISG criticize Bush for not following their plan. Why? More than likely it is because they too knew that diplomacy with Iran and Syria would need to take place only under certain conditions, that this situation needed to be set up first. For all the criticism from Bush opponents that he is ignoring the ISG, I think we will over time see that he’s actually implementing much of their proposals, but doing so in due time.
Marlowecan wrote:
“I thought this odd – why would a bombing targetting US troops kill so many children – and looked for the original AP source. The AP story was identical to the NYT story except for two sentences the Times cut out:
(1)The troops were parked, as they were stopped beside a hospital, where the army Corps of Engineers were evaluating reconstruction assistance and need for new equipment.
(2)The children had all gathered around the US troops, as the troops were handing out candy to them.
I.E. The two sentences with details of US troops doing good – trying to help Iraqis – were deleted from the New York Times account (for reasons of space I am sure).”
What I find oddest about this is that someone is actually criticizing the media for not reporting the “good things” that are happening with a story describing a bombing in which two dozen children were killed, and carping because the article didn’t mention that the soldiers were handing out candy to the kids when they were murdered. Does the criticizer expect that, by reporting the children died with Almond Joys in their mouths, the story becomes a positive one of the good things happening in Iraq? I’m sorry, but if that’s the best example of the “good things” in Iraq, that children got a piece of candy before they were blown to bits, then I am not impressed with the complaint about the media.
Mrs Bush’s statements did not take into account the 185 insurgent and militia attacks a day as reported by the Brookings Institute. Maybe there’s a lot more bad going on each day than good?
I was on a conservative web site the other day that had a blogger interview with a soldier in Iraq. The soldier claimed, among other things, that the good things being done included the building of schools for women, which he contrasted with the deplorable state of women’s rights elsewhere in the Middle East. I asked in comments if there were schools for women before the war in Iraq, if schools in Iraq before the war were coed, etc. Very polite I was, indicated no partisanship, but simply asked what the state of education was in Iraq before the war. The site is moderated and my comment was never posted.
So this is why I have a problem with the complaint about the media not reporting the “good things”. It isn’t that the “good things”, such as they are, aren’t happening, but the people who want the “good things” reported don’t want them reported in a fair way. It wouldn’t be fair to say the US military has built 250 schools in Iraq since the war “ended” without reporting that 90% of them have been blown up (just making the numbers up, so don’t get excited). It wouldn’t be fair to report that the US military has built 40 schools for women in Iraq unless it was also reported that they were all blown up and also that women attended the same schools as men before the war and that they no longer have that level of equality. So maybe that is where the space consideration comes in.
Kim: I was agreeing with you till the Bush as imitation of Reagan deal. Reagan was a DISASTER for the USA. Working class and poorer folks have still not recovered from the damage that bastard did. Other than reinflating the deficit, Bush’s domestic agenda is not nerarly as bad as Reagan’s, and it’s the national, not int’l policies that stick longest in public memory.
If not, Nixon wd look much better than he does in the history books.
CS- do you ever not toe the party line? My God. Bush’s Iraq failure is simply not disputable. Whether or not he lied about why we went to war is, but that it has been an abject and totally mismanaged failure is not.
Also, let’s stop w this canard that most of the country is peacefu. Yes, only 4 or 5 of the provinces are bloody, but that’s where 80% of the people live- the peaceful areas are desert!
Cosmo,
I don’t recall anything in the exchange above where I denied the disaster that Iraq is today. I do fault Bush for that. I hold on to a shred of hope that we can salvage something of the situation to create an iota of stability before we leave.
But the discussion above was about Iran. There too I think that Bush has made serious mistakes (Axis of Evil) but I see positive changes now. I simply think that it’s too soon to judge the outcome of ongoing events. If Bush continues/repeats some of the grave errors he’s made then the outcome will be very bad but I think the next two years will be significantly different. Am I overly optimistic to even think there’s a chance of that? Maybe, but time will tell.