<p>I don’t know how you hijacked Buckley’s column at the National Review, but this will drive Driver up the wall as the NRO is one of her favorite sources.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp</a>
</p>
<p>Really good–</p>
<p>What’s that, CGM? You <em>didn’t</em> hijack Buckley’s computer? </p>
<p>Uh-oh. </p>
<p>Then this is one of the bigger rats to abandon ship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That one will be easy for Bush. “Stay the course! The Iraqi people are making progress towards democracy and freedom every day…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alas, it has become abundantly clear that the administration and the defense department never gave a moment’s thought to any of that. They had no post-invasion plan beyond sticking Chalabi or Allawi in as a puppet, awarding a ton of contracts to Halliburton, and hoping for the best. I’m shaking my head over it. It’s hard to fathom. But, it’s impossible to draw any other conclusion.</p>
<p>I feel speshul</p>
<p>They’re passing out flannel pajamas in Hades this morning. TheDad has discovered National Review. I’m guessing there was a link at the DailyKos.</p>
<p>Mr. Buckley is always worth reading, and not just because he is, along with TD, one of the few mortals who can use words like “anent” and get away with it. He’s been off the reservation anent Iraq for quite some time now, putting him at odds with the great majority of NR staffers, and making for interesting reading. It’s interesting though, that his criticism has more to do with his belief that Iraqis constitute a primitive, tribal society that is incapable of engaging democracy (unless bombed into subjugation like the Germans and Japanese), than with any specific criticisms of the administration’s war effort. Here’s a classic column from two years ago, to help get you up-to-speed with where Buckley’s coming from (rather prescient, I might add):
<a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200402101112.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200402101112.asp</a>
Why is it that all of the substantive debate seems to occur on my side?</p>
<p>on your side? I think not…on your side its “trust us” “we have a plan” “have faith”</p>
<p>all this talk about how prepared the Iraqi Police are to protect its population and sites and I heard on the news that the Army wanted to guard the mosques etc because they KNEW the Iraqs didn’t have the manpower to do it, contrary to what Bush has claimed all this time, that there are all these troops ready to take over</p>
<p>well, even our army knows that ain’t true</p>
<p>Does anyone here know who said, on February 17, 2003, the following:</p>
<hr>
<p>I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America’s security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein. . . . </p>
<p>Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.</p>
<p>That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.</p>
<p>The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.</p>
<p>To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.</p>
<p>The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled. </p>
<p>…</p>
<p>We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.</p>
<p>We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war. </p>
<p>If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration’s assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.</p>
<p>I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic.</p>
<p>I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.</p>
<p>It is possible, however, that events could go differently, . . . . </p>
<p>Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms. </p>
<p>Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil. </p>
<p>And last week’s tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.</p>
<p>There are other risks. Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms. </p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.</p>
<p>However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection. . . .</p>
<p>Secretary Powell’s recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness. . . </p>
<hr>
<p>Driver, one of the underlying and unappreciated problems about Iraq is that many…probably most…Iraqis don’t think of themselves as “Iraqis” as much as they do by tribal and religious identification. I’ve often said that the problem with Islam is that they haven’t had their Reformation and Enlightenment. It occured to me yesterday that the parallel to Iraq isn’t Vietnam but Europe in the Thirty Years War.</p>
<p>Btw, you need corrective lenses for your parallax view. I seldom post on Kos, being of a more centrist persuasion, and when I do it’s generally to offer a centrist corrective to some thread or another. However, the power of Bush is such that he has made former adversaries into allies…for at least the next few years.</p>
<p>TD, interesting historical point you make. As I was reading about the recent bombings I too was reminded of the thirty years war. If only they could get it over quickly and leave the rest of the world out of it.</p>
<p>
I agree! The Thirty Years War is an under-understood event, IMO. But boy, is it important.</p>
<p>Not only is the world far more interconnected–and hence, they aren’t going to leave us out of it…and, fwiw, we barged in with an astounding amount of ignorance and acted as a catayst for it–it is a far more lethal conflict today than one that involved bombards, primitive muskets, pikes, and three feet of steel wielded by folk with plumed hats, tabards, and capes.</p>
<p>We’ve taken a mess and made it worse. Beyond punishing those responsible and consigning them to the utmost reaches of hell unto the seventh generation of their seventh generation, I don’t know what to do. Definition by exclusion is useful only to a point. I am fairly certain, however, that the grammar and vocabulary with which we make our primary statements totally ill-suited to the task.</p>
<p>I wrote his up for elsewhere but it has bearing here:</p>
<p>I’ve long asserted that the underlying problem in dealing with radical Islam is that Islam as a whole has experienced neither its Reformation nor its Enlightenment; pax to all the apologists who point to the Golden Age of Islam, arguably running from the late 8th century through the end of the 12th century, but being out of the game for nearly a millennium puts you out of the game period.</p>
<p>Tieing that abstraction to events unfolding in Iraq the past few days finally made the light bulb go on, the penny drop, etc. The parallel circumstances to Iraq right now are not the U.S. in Vietnam but Iraq as a whole to Western Europe in the Thirty Years War, albeit with weaponry bearing a higher degree of lethality than bombards, primitive muskets, pikes, and three feet of steel waved around by men wearing plumed hats, tabards, and capes. Even the contemporary accounts of intermarried Sunni/Shiite families can be read in narratives of Protestant/Catholic intermarriages at the time of the Thirty Years War.</p>
<p>As the animosities in the Balkans exploded once the confining hand of Tito was removed by his death, so the previously damped–via brutal suppression–conflicts in Iraq of have exploded with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps the subtlest error of the planners, to use the term loosely, of American intervention in Iraq was the assumption that Iraqis would respond more or less like Americans in a similar situation. The crucial difference, which has been evident for some time, is that Iraqis are far more likely to self-identify with family/clan/tribe and religious identity than they are with a common national identity. [I’ll wager right now that someone will say “Not all Iraqis are like that” and I agree…but that’s not what I said.] Given that, the ability for “the center to hold,” or for democracy to take root in a meaningful way, is in great jeopardy.</p>
<p>I believe that nationalism is overrated…unless you haven’t already been there.
Unfortunately, one of the best ways to inspire nationalistic feeling is to face a common an enemy. Such as an army increasingly seen as an occupying force rather than a liberator. [See LTG Petraeus’ comment about the half-life of liberating armies.] Unfortunately, the next venue where the United States may learn about nationalism inspired in the face of the enemy is right next door in Iran, where notions about the benefits of a regime change may be just as useful as they were in Iraq.</p>
<p>Interesting. As religions go, Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity which puts its development at around 1430 CE. I think you have made a good point and worth considering. I have thought about it a lot. </p>
<p>Two Iraqui hairdressers, one for my son and one for me, don’t live in Iraq anymore. They are progressive in outlook. One is satisfied with his life here and the other is young and would love to be in the states. Both are Christains. That’s why they can be here. We can’t make broad generalizations about them or the folks we see on the news except that lines are definitely draw around religious orientation, not just there but in this whole region!</p>
<p>NYMomof2: OK, who said this two days later:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hint - it’s the same guy. The ironic thing is that it is also almost exactly the route that Bush followed.</p>
<p>Flip-flopping and using war for politics appears to run deep in the Democratic party - so deep that they reward the above-quoted person with the chairmanship of the party.</p>
<p>Fundingfather,</p>
<p>First, your quote is not from “the same guy”, but from a writer paraphrasing him. But it’s probably not inaccurate, although taken out of context. The telling phrase is “in the end”, which means after all avenues other than war have been exhausted. </p>
<p>I don’t see any inconsistency with the speech I quoted above. From that same speech:</p>
<hr>
<p>I agree with President Bush - he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. </p>
<p>He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. </p>
<p>He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. </p>
<p>He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. </p>
<p>And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. </p>
<p>Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. </p>
<p>So I want to be clear. </p>
<p>Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given. </p>
<p>The questions are: how - when - under what circumstances - and by whom he is to be disarmed. </p>
<p>The Administration thinks the right answers to those questions are war, now, regardless of the circumstances, and with most if not all the fighting done by Americans. </p>
<p>I, for one, am not ready to abandon the search for better answers. </p>
<p>As a doctor, I was trained to treat illness, and to examine a variety of options before deciding which to prescribe. I worried about side effects and took the time to see what else might work before proceeding to high-risk measures. </p>
<p>Before going to war with Iraq, we need to explore fully and carefully what else might work. </p>
<p>Saddam Hussein should not mistake a debate in this country about the best way to disarm him for any lack of resolve, here or elsewhere, that he must be disarmed. We will ensure that Saddam Hussein is disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. </p>
<p>But we must be smart as well as tough. </p>
<p>In the past, UN inspections destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity in Iraq than were destroyed in the Gulf War. </p>
<p>The inspectors are now back inside Iraq. </p>
<p>They are interviewing scientists. Confiscating papers. Conducting surprise visits. This past weekend, the lead inspectors reported that Iraqi cooperation, while still not satisfactory, is improving. Iraq has dropped its longstanding objections to U-2 surveillance flights. And serious proposals are being made for strengthening the inspection teams, making them bigger, and shielding them from intimidation. </p>
<p>The President dismisses all this, calling it a movie he has seen before. </p>
<p>He says we don’t need more inspections, because we already have enough information to justify going to war. </p>
<p>My question is, why not use our information to help the UN disarm Iraq without war? </p>
<p>Secretary Powell’s recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness. He said there would be no smoking gun, and there was none. </p>
<p>At the same time, it seems to me we are in possession of information that would be very helpful to UN inspectors. For example, if we know Iraqi scientists are being detained at an Iraqi guesthouse, why not surround the building and knock on the door? </p>
<p>If we think a facility is being used for biological weapons, why not send the inspectors to check it out? </p>
<p>And if we believe terrorists - especially if they are terrorists linked to al Qaeda - have set up a poison and explosives training center in Northern Iraq, outside Saddam Hussein’s control, why haven’t we verified that information and destroyed that camp? </p>
<p>We know that Saddam will get away with whatever he can. </p>
<p>But what can he get away with as long as Iraq is inspected, under constant surveillance, surrounded, grounded because of no fly zones, and barred from receiving weapons and other strategic materials? </p>
<p>The CIA and Defense Department have indicated that, by far, the most likely scenario for Saddam using chemical or biological weapons - or sponsoring a terrorist attack - would be precisely if we invaded Iraq, because then he would have nothing to lose. </p>
<p>Neither President Bush in the State of the Union nor Secretary Powell at the UN mentioned that intelligence assessment. And it is just one of many issues the President has not yet adequately addressed. </p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred. </p>
<p>However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection. </p>
<p>We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action. </p>
<p>If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach. </p>
<p>Saddam Hussein must not have weapons of mass destruction. But particular weapons can be destroyed without an all-out war to impose a change of regimes. That is a much larger step, for which the case has not yet been made. </p>
<hr>
<p>How does one make those nice gray boxes?</p>
<p>nymom:
Type it like this:</p>
<p>[put the word quote right here]put your quote here and end it with[/put the word quote right here]</p>
<p>Does that make sense - I can’t type it like it’s supposed to look or it will turn into the box! So only type a bracket thing, then the word quote, then another bracket thing at the beginning of the quote, then at the end do the same thing only with a slash before it. It’s HTML.</p>
<p>OK?</p>
<p>Thanks so much, weenie! I looked at the FAQ but couldn’t find the information.</p>
<p>You can get really fancy with these tools…if you want to.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode</a></p>
<p>Thanks, driver! I’ll have to save this dangerous knowledge for a special occasion.</p>
<p>The New Al Qaeda…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From The Times <a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2058597,00.html[/url]”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;
<p>From my view, the administration is hitting it’s (unstated) goals. A bloody civil war involving Iran? Works for them.</p>