MR. BROOKS: Well, if we leave, we could see 250,000 Iraqis die. You had the John Burns’ quotation earlier in the program. So are we willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans? That’s a tough moral issue, but it’s also a tough national interest issue because we don’t know what the consequences of getting out are. And the frustration of watching the debate in Washington, very few people are willing to, to grapple with those two facts, that there’s””that the surge will not work in the short-term, but getting out will be cataclysmic. And you see politicians on both sides evading one of those two facts. But you’ve got to grapple with them both.
MR. HAYES: And, and one of the things that the president said at this discussion that David was at, and I was at as well, was that he intends to make the case that, “Look, this is going to be a disaster if we get out.” He didn’t say it in exactly those terms, but he’s going to start making, in many cases, the negative case. “Look at what Iraq will look like if we leave. We have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to stay.”
MR. WOODWARD: And the problem, though, is, we don’t know. People can say, “Oh, it’s going to be a disaster.”
MR. BROOKS: Uh-huh.
MR. WOODWARD: I mean, you cite numbers which you have pulled out of the air of 10,000 dying. I mean, that’s””that””where does that come from?
MR. BROOKS: Well, A, it comes from John Burns. Second, it comes from the national intelligence…
MR. WOODWARD: Well, no, he doesn’t say 10,000.
MR. BROOKS: Well, no, no, but it talks about genocide.
MR. WOODWARD: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: So I just picked that 10,000 out of the air.
MR. WOODWARD: OK, but that””we’ve got…
MR. BROOKS: The National Intelligence Estimate says that””well, most people, as Burns reports, say it will get much, much worse. So that’s the, that’s the dilemma.
MR. RUSSERT: But, David Brooks, you, you will hear a lot of people will say, you know, “The administration has made misjudgments before about WMD, about the level of troops needed, about being greeted as liberators. They could be wrong about what would flow from a redeployment of American troops.”
MR. BROOKS: Absolutely they could be wrong. And, and so we’ve””and, and it could be that peace will break out. But I think, if you look at Iraq, you see four or five civil wars going on at once. You see Shia fighting each other. You see the Sunni-Shia thing. It could be that there’s””this is just a process they need to go through, and there’s no way we can stop it in any case. Joe Biden was very honest this week. He said it’s a moral failure if we leave, but we’re going to have to do it. That at least is grappling with the issue.
For the Democrats, genocide isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. It can be pinned on Bush, hence it serves the highest goal possible: the acquisition and retention of the levers of the Central State’s power.
[blockquote] Joe Biden was very honest this week. He said it’s a moral failure if we leave, but we’re going to have to do it. That at least is grappling with the issue.[/blockquote]
I’m unimpressed with his “grappling with the issue.” The choice to choose a moral failure leaves me cold.
Agree with #1, trying to foist “who lost Iraq” on one side or another is a political sham, not a policy recommendation.
What I see happening is the political and strategic realization that neither a blank-check for unlimited intervention (think “Iran”) nor a white feathered withdrawl is the best policy prescription.
Funny thing, in that respect, not much has changed since March 2003.
Our national press and our politicians are being manipulated by our enemies.
As that famous American philosopher, Yoggi Berra, once said, “It’s de je vu all over again.”
Feingold stated that he’s going to submit a censure motion against the president and then, when asked if it carried any weight, responded in the negative. What a windbag. It would be pleasant to see Democrats offerring up ideas supporting our Iraq campaign, if only to suggest a certain minimalist act of patriotism. To date, during their current “control” of Congress, they have succeeded in raising the minimum wage.
Patriotism is not lying your way into a war of choice, managing it with the skill of a 10 year old, then stalling for 3 years.
Patriotism is not abandoning any leadership in the battle with radical Islam, any leadership in securing the homeland while respecting the liberties our founders founded this country on.
Mr. Bush & Mr. Cheney – not exactly models of patriotism in our country.
According to Hillary Clinton in a speech to the Code Pink group in 2003, and to Al Gore on the campaign trail in 2000, Bush has not lied, but has acted on the intel to which they all had access. In fact Hillary said that given her independent study of the intel, she saw no other course then to invade to disarm Saddam, even to the point of acting unilaterally.
Mr. Carlton, you are an example of the coarseness of our public debate in this country. It’s possible, and even plausible to to disagree with the President on Iraq without calling him a liar. Any number of observations can be made, from the intelligence error that said WMDs were there that could not be found, to the argument that war should only be conducted when vital national interests are at stake.
Moreover, neither you, nor anyone else that agrees with you can actually prove that the President lied. So, use the word as often as you like–it says more about you each time you use it, than it does about President Bush.
Thank you, William #2. How many times do we have to plow that ground before people like Mr. Carlton understand? It certainly does no good to let people like Carlton get us riled, but you would think that eventually they would hear the message. The intelligence predates the Bush presidency, and we need to remember that the United States has not been attacked on our own soil since 9-11. But that can’t possibly be anything that our president has anything to do with, can it?
Denise, keep plowing that ground. For the last 2.5 years, Americans have watched the Bush Regime plow & plow & plow – the conscious disregard shown after Katrina, the corruption across all facets of gvt, the politicization science & policy – all have paled in comparison to Americans – patriots like me & you – disgust with a President sticks his head in the sand & acts like a petulant rich kid from Kennebunkport.
“Patriotism is not abandoning any leadership in the battle with radical Islam, any leadership in securing the homeland while respecting the liberties our founders founded this country on. ”
Are there any specifics in #6 which can be responded to within any coherent post? Patriotism isn’t [i]dairy farming[/i] either. And when did impunging somebody’s patriotism constitute a measure of policy correctness?
#6 is the type of argument that inspired Johnson’s “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
I’d be happy to, Tom.
We cut & run from the real front with radical Islam in Pakistan & Afghanistan, despite the pleas of military leaders & allies in the area. We have let Saudi Arabia off scott free, despite their role as financier for much of radical Islam. We have shirked the responsibility of building a global alliance against radical Islam, which was central to our victories in the last 2 great global wars.
Tom, you are aware of the irny of the Johnson quote, aren’t you ? The Bush Regime has routinely questioned the patriotism of any one who saw a different way of addressing a post-9/11 world, opposing the creation of the Homeland Secuirity dept, rejecting the bi-partisian 9/11 comission & the Iraq Study Group.
I would not characterize this regime as scoundrel – they are neither unprincipled or dishonorable. Their policies have set us back decades, their execution is pathetic & they are obsessively political. But they are not scoundrels, nor are they unpatriotic.
Bob- I’m not carrying water for GWB in this thread. In your last two paragraphs, if not in your posts #6 and 12, you have used precisely their patterns of argument which you scorn. Again, I find you present nothing to respond to, other than simply to ask what your recommendations actually are. Do you actually espouse invasions of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? This thread is winding all over the map after starting in Iraq, if that is actually your recommendations right now.
Tom, I espouse what our military experts have recommended
– go at radical Islam in Afghanistan & the borders of Pakistan
– establish a clear set of checks & balances with the Saudis
– pursue a set of networks & alliances globally to choke off the spread of radical Islam
– commit our domestic policy to supporting this efforts, with invetsments in infrastructure & 1st responders (rather than the pathetic tax cuts, unprecedented in the midst of what appears to be a generational struggle)
Mr. Carlton, You exhibit a naivete about the real world that is almost breathtaking:
1. Tax cuts have increased, not decreased, the GNP to the extent that out deficit has been cut in half during the current administration. Hence, your reference to tax cuts as “pathetic” is nothing less than your revelation that you lack familiarity with the subject.
2. Please indicate your methodology for pursuing “a set of networks and alliances globally…”.
3. What, for you, are the “last 2 great global wars”? You imply that they were against “radical Islam” by your comment. That does not sound like history with which I am familiar.
4. You state that the current administration [“regime”] is none of the following: “unprincipled, scoundrels, dishonorable, unpatriotic”.
Then what do you suggest they must be ?
5. What is the “irony of the Johnson quote”? What Johnson ? Magic ? Lyndon ? Jeremiah ? Howard ?
6. Since we still have troops fighting in Afghanistan, what is the purpose of your reference that we “cut and run”? We are there.
7. What precisely did the Iraq Study Group and the 9/11 Commission offer that causes you to suggest that their relevance is not being taken seriously? What was unique that they offerred ?
8. What specifically is the “conscious disregard shown after Katrina”? Please provide names, facts and situations.
9. Please explain precisely how our president acts like a “petulant rich kid from Kennebunkport”. I understood him to be from Texas. His parents own a summer place in Maine. He is said to be a spirit-filled Christian, prays daily and you, offerring your thoughts on a Christian blog site, might give a bit more thought to that comment.
10. Please define for us the ” corruption across all facets of government ” [ brought on, allegedly, according to your remarks, by the current administration ]. That’s a blanket statement.
11. Please define with precision how our president has operated with his “head in the sand”. It is my understanding there have been no further attacks on the US since 9/11. Is that not your understanding ?
12. What, for you, is the “politicization of science and policy’ as being particularly to your disliking in the current administration ?
I suggest, in summary, that you learn to speak the truth to facts, avoid ad hominem comments, and define your terms precisely. Otherwise you sound like tinkling brass.