Let's see now. Even though Clinton's administration set up extraordinary rendition to countries that torture, and is responsible for the deaths of perhaps as many as a half million Iraqi children from the sanctions ("it was worth it" says Albright), yet you praise the "good bombing" in the Bosnia-Serbia War and do not suggest saving a cell for Slick Willie in the Hague.
That's very interesting. And revealing.
I wonder if this recent Rasmussen poll observation is related: "In an automated survey of 1000 likely voters, Rasmussen found that 49 percent of respondents believed reporters would favor Obama in their coverage this fall, compared with just 14 percent who expected them to boost Sen. John McCain. The number of Americans who see pro-Obama bias in the press has increased by five percent in the last month. According to Rasmussen’s numbers, less than a quarter of voters – 24 percent – now trust the press to report on the election without bias. "
Well Jon, you should be a member in good standing with the mainstream media. You don't even need a secret handshake. Just show them your bias.
JonCummings
· 1 year ago
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Nice talking points.
smashpOp
· 1 year ago
good post
StandingDamaged
· 1 year ago
I thought when they tried to impeach the Clenis they went after him for the wrong thing, it should have been for his allowing the use of depleted uranium in Kovoo etc. And if it is 'just' to 'go after' them for violating our vaunted 'moral superiority' then turnabout etc... Killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent Iraqis makes US worthy of a 'just' invasion on 'moral grounds' , does it not? But then being a survivor of the American Holocaust (Shawnee/Renape) I may have a view other than the gung ho hypocritical moral superiority 'Shining City on the Hill' bullshit myth most Murikans deceive themselves with .... Other'n that? great post...
Jonathan
· 1 year ago
"Still, it was difficult to argue with Bush 41’s simple goal, to “kick Saddam out of Kuwait,” and it must be said that he and his military planners did things right: he gathered an airtight international coalition, they softened Iraq up with a month of (relatively) low-casualty bombing" - Jon, while I am glad we both share anti-war sentiments, I do not agree with what you have said above. Bush had no business to inavde Iraq and no moral grouds to attack except for Oil and there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Besides, what does low casualty mean? Around 200000 iraqis died during the first gulf war and mostly in the incessant Air Raids. Even conservative righwing neocon groups admit to a Iraqi deathcount of 20000 to 30000 deaths. These were real people, fathers, mothers, childrens, husbands.. who died for no reason. The US -UK led coalition even bombed schools, orphanages and hospitals. I was a volunteer who spent more than 2 months on the ground and it was sheer madness.
JonCummings
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the reminder of why so many folks were so unsure how to feel about the Gulf War. That war was a mess of low-access, low-knowledge media reporting, blatant lies from the Pentagon as to the accuracy of the "smart bombs," and wildly divergent casualty counts from groups with varying agendas. (The mere fact that you cite counts of 20 to 30 thousand on one hand, and 200,000 on the other, shows how difficult it was for ordinary citizens to make judgments about what was actually going on.)
I believe I was like many folks in that time: I distrusted Poppy Bush's motives and intentions; I despised the jingoism of my fellow citizens before, during and after the war, as well as the government's attempts to market the war by incessantly using the catchphrase "Desert Storm"; I hated the idea of a single Iraqi civilian death, much less as many as there were (and, really, who knows?); and I was uncomfortable that we knew so much more about the oil we were over there to liberate than about the people of Kuwait.
However, all that said, I could not (and still cannot) shake the nagging sense that this was a war that had to be fought and that Saddam's aggression needed to be overturned. There's can't help but be a lot of moral questions about wars that involve a lot of low-stakes (for your own side), high-potential-for-damage-and-death (on the other side) air bombings; perhaps it would have been more moral to launch a ground war immediately in Iraq, so that (hopefully) only troops would be fighting and dying. But that's not really the nature of wars anymore, and it's doubtful the coalition nations would have put up with a large number of combat deaths.
One other thing: Bush 41 didn't invade Iraq during the Gulf War; in retrospect, he sure looks like a genius on that score.
Thanks again for your view.
Jonathan
· 1 year ago
jon, what a cynical world we live in. We join Saddam when he fights Iran cos thats our enemy..and when he starts flexing his muscles, we remind who is the boss. and we kill thousands as collateral damage.
We are hypocrites without a conscience. No doubt, why we Americans are despised so much. Might was never right and its high time, we realized this.
steve
· 1 year ago
Jon - question for you. If you were president when 9/11 happened, would you have gone and kicked the Taliban out fo Afghanistan (all other circumstances the same)?
JonCummings
· 1 year ago
You bet your sweet ass I would have--I didn't discuss Afghanistan in this piece because I believe the necessity of that war was obvious to just about everybody except Michael Moore. Bush had overwhelming approval from the American people for that war, he had a worldwide coalition at his back--he even, though it didn't seem that way as it was unfolding, had a good plan for using Afghani forces to lead the way toward removing the Taliban from power. And so he accomplished step one, then took his eye off the urinal and pissed all over the world's shoes by going after Saddam.
Imagine the world today that would have resulted from our capturing Osama and decimating al Qaeda in 2001-03 (while respecting American values, by the way), and then pouring just a fraction of a single year's Iraq-War budget into an intensive campaign to improve the lives of people in the Muslim world and burnish the image of the United States over there. For approximately the same amount of money Bush now wants to commit to African AIDS relief (for which I applaud him), we could have worked with Middle Eastern governments to build hundreds of schools, improve roads and other transportation, modernize agriculture, etc., etc., etc. The benefits would have been enormous, both for those countries and for us.
Anti-Western extremism will be eradicated, in the long run, not by imposing democracy at the point of a gun, but by encouraging and helping to facilitate the development of societies that don't breed terrorists. So, yeah, I would have put a boot up the Taliban's ass (to misquote Toby Keith)...but then I would have removed said boot and inserted a flower.
steve
· 1 year ago
I just asked because I know you are a staunch liberal and I have serious problems with either far left or far right folks who refuse to acknowledge anything positive from the other side. I'm a fierce independent and loathe both "party dogmas", but I appreciate folks like yourself who, while stating and defending their party positions, will also admit when the other party (the monsters) have done something right. Bush's decision to remove the Taliban was the right one and backed by most (except Hollywood freaks and that Socialist Senator in Vermont) in 2001, but I think you are incorrect now in saying everyone backs Afghanistan. Most Americans couldn't find it on a map and just equate it into the "one of Bush's wars" bin in a negative sense. Seven years is far too long ago in our ADD society.
I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs but also rightly praising Bush for his African relief efforts. Most far left folks when asked about that will just say "well how about Iraq?" and refuse to say anything good about the man. He's not a monster who goes around killing little babies on weekends and plotting world destruction, but if you only listened to the far left, that's what you get. The far right did the same to Clinton in the 90s. To me, Bush has done some things right, but the Iraq debacle - the worst US foreign policy disaster in a long long time - will be his legacy. He blew it and then tried covering it up. Imagine what he could have had as a legacy - liberating 10 million women in Afghanistan from a regime that wouldn't allow them to go to school or even expose their faces in public (N.O.W. would never give him credit for that, he's a monster), having African American Secretaries of State for his entire 8 year reign (NAACP will just say "but they're Uncle Toms"), record foreign aid to Africa (NAACP will say "no comment, he's a monster"), getting Libya to give up a nuclear program and having North Korea destroy Youngbon through diplomacy. IMHO, if you take away Iraq he'd be a middle of the road pres who just happens to talk funny and often lsounds kinda dumb. Hell, but Stephen Hawking isn't to eloquent in front of a camera either is he, but he's pretty smart.
I think Bush will go to his grave regretting Iraq and thinking how much better his legacy could have been. And he should.
JonCummings
· 1 year ago
I think history will make Bush pay almost as much for torture as he will for Iraq. The latter was a bad idea, executed poorly. But torture is evil, pure and simple, and he and his administration deliberately implemented policies that violate standards held by every civilized nation, including (til recently) ours. For that he'll never be forgiven.
Even the Africa policy has a "yeah, but" attached to it--the fact that US money goes to abstinence programs, but not to condom promotion. Still, the program undoubtedly is doing an enormous amount of good, so credit is due.
I don't know about your belief that folks don't back continued efforts in Afghanistan. I do think you're right that many (relatively uninformed) people, when they hear about it, think, "We're still there?" But there's a difference between that and opposition. I think pretty much everybody just wishes Bush had taken care of business there in the first place.
To me, the misuse of Colin Powell is a real tragedy--a great man turned into a show pony for really, really bad policies. Condi's a puppet. It's a good thing she's "retiring" from public life, if that's truly what she's doing.
Bush has done a lot of nasty stuff, but most of it would be forgotten by history if not for his three or four really disastrous failures (Iraq, torture, Katrina, and the general politicization of "homeland security"). Those, however, are four colossal fuck-ups. We can only hope that al Qaeda won't regroup enough to lay a fifth one at his feet.
I appreciate your compliments about my relative forthrightness in giving credit where it's due--though I probably just threw all that out the window with my litany of Bush failings...
Elaine
· 1 year ago
"Imagine the world today that would have resulted from our capturing Osama and decimating al Qaeda in 2001-03...."
But!, but!, then we wouldn't have all the nifty new laws and alphabet agencies that have popped up since 2001. Let's see, there's the Patriot Act, all the great wire and electronic surveillance, FISA, bank reporting; pretty much everything.... but border control. Kinda makes ya wonder about the nutters' previous claims.
All Comments
That's very interesting. And revealing.
I wonder if this recent Rasmussen poll observation is related: "In an automated survey of 1000 likely voters, Rasmussen found that 49 percent of respondents believed reporters would favor Obama in their coverage this fall, compared with just 14 percent who expected them to boost Sen. John McCain. The number of Americans who see pro-Obama bias in the press has increased by five percent in the last month. According to Rasmussen’s numbers, less than a quarter of voters – 24 percent – now trust the press to report on the election without bias. "
Well Jon, you should be a member in good standing with the mainstream media. You don't even need a secret handshake. Just show them your bias.
And if it is 'just' to 'go after' them for violating our vaunted 'moral superiority' then turnabout etc...
Killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent Iraqis makes US worthy of a 'just' invasion on 'moral grounds' , does it not?
But then being a survivor of the American Holocaust (Shawnee/Renape) I may have a view other than the gung ho hypocritical moral superiority 'Shining City on the Hill' bullshit myth most Murikans deceive themselves with ....
Other'n that? great post...
Besides, what does low casualty mean? Around 200000 iraqis died during the first gulf war and mostly in the incessant Air Raids. Even conservative righwing neocon groups admit to a Iraqi deathcount of 20000 to 30000 deaths. These were real people, fathers, mothers, childrens, husbands.. who died for no reason. The US -UK led coalition even bombed schools, orphanages and hospitals. I was a volunteer who spent more than 2 months on the ground and it was sheer madness.
I believe I was like many folks in that time: I distrusted Poppy Bush's motives and intentions; I despised the jingoism of my fellow citizens before, during and after the war, as well as the government's attempts to market the war by incessantly using the catchphrase "Desert Storm"; I hated the idea of a single Iraqi civilian death, much less as many as there were (and, really, who knows?); and I was uncomfortable that we knew so much more about the oil we were over there to liberate than about the people of Kuwait.
However, all that said, I could not (and still cannot) shake the nagging sense that this was a war that had to be fought and that Saddam's aggression needed to be overturned. There's can't help but be a lot of moral questions about wars that involve a lot of low-stakes (for your own side), high-potential-for-damage-and-death (on the other side) air bombings; perhaps it would have been more moral to launch a ground war immediately in Iraq, so that (hopefully) only troops would be fighting and dying. But that's not really the nature of wars anymore, and it's doubtful the coalition nations would have put up with a large number of combat deaths.
One other thing: Bush 41 didn't invade Iraq during the Gulf War; in retrospect, he sure looks like a genius on that score.
Thanks again for your view.
We are hypocrites without a conscience. No doubt, why we Americans are despised so much. Might was never right and its high time, we realized this.
Imagine the world today that would have resulted from our capturing Osama and decimating al Qaeda in 2001-03 (while respecting American values, by the way), and then pouring just a fraction of a single year's Iraq-War budget into an intensive campaign to improve the lives of people in the Muslim world and burnish the image of the United States over there. For approximately the same amount of money Bush now wants to commit to African AIDS relief (for which I applaud him), we could have worked with Middle Eastern governments to build hundreds of schools, improve roads and other transportation, modernize agriculture, etc., etc., etc. The benefits would have been enormous, both for those countries and for us.
Anti-Western extremism will be eradicated, in the long run, not by imposing democracy at the point of a gun, but by encouraging and helping to facilitate the development of societies that don't breed terrorists. So, yeah, I would have put a boot up the Taliban's ass (to misquote Toby Keith)...but then I would have removed said boot and inserted a flower.
I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs but also rightly praising Bush for his African relief efforts. Most far left folks when asked about that will just say "well how about Iraq?" and refuse to say anything good about the man. He's not a monster who goes around killing little babies on weekends and plotting world destruction, but if you only listened to the far left, that's what you get. The far right did the same to Clinton in the 90s. To me, Bush has done some things right, but the Iraq debacle - the worst US foreign policy disaster in a long long time - will be his legacy. He blew it and then tried covering it up. Imagine what he could have had as a legacy - liberating 10 million women in Afghanistan from a regime that wouldn't allow them to go to school or even expose their faces in public (N.O.W. would never give him credit for that, he's a monster), having African American Secretaries of State for his entire 8 year reign (NAACP will just say "but they're Uncle Toms"), record foreign aid to Africa (NAACP will say "no comment, he's a monster"), getting Libya to give up a nuclear program and having North Korea destroy Youngbon through diplomacy. IMHO, if you take away Iraq he'd be a middle of the road pres who just happens to talk funny and often lsounds kinda dumb. Hell, but Stephen Hawking isn't to eloquent in front of a camera either is he, but he's pretty smart.
I think Bush will go to his grave regretting Iraq and thinking how much better his legacy could have been. And he should.
Even the Africa policy has a "yeah, but" attached to it--the fact that US money goes to abstinence programs, but not to condom promotion. Still, the program undoubtedly is doing an enormous amount of good, so credit is due.
I don't know about your belief that folks don't back continued efforts in Afghanistan. I do think you're right that many (relatively uninformed) people, when they hear about it, think, "We're still there?" But there's a difference between that and opposition. I think pretty much everybody just wishes Bush had taken care of business there in the first place.
To me, the misuse of Colin Powell is a real tragedy--a great man turned into a show pony for really, really bad policies. Condi's a puppet. It's a good thing she's "retiring" from public life, if that's truly what she's doing.
Bush has done a lot of nasty stuff, but most of it would be forgotten by history if not for his three or four really disastrous failures (Iraq, torture, Katrina, and the general politicization of "homeland security"). Those, however, are four colossal fuck-ups. We can only hope that al Qaeda won't regroup enough to lay a fifth one at his feet.
I appreciate your compliments about my relative forthrightness in giving credit where it's due--though I probably just threw all that out the window with my litany of Bush failings...
But!, but!, then we wouldn't have all the nifty new laws and alphabet agencies that have popped up since 2001. Let's see, there's the Patriot Act, all the great wire and electronic surveillance, FISA, bank reporting; pretty much everything.... but border control. Kinda makes ya wonder about the nutters' previous claims.
(Disagree on the flower power, though.)