Pelosi Under Fire
Nancy Pelosi continues to give her fellow Democrats a severe headache. This time she said that Republicans “like war.”
Yesterday, word came out that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had spent some $16,000 on flowers (she presumably bought an entire forest). She was, rightfully, ridiculed for it at websites like Wake Up America! and this humble blog. Today, there’s another controversy surrounding the Democratic Leader: yesterday she said that Democrats are unable to force Bush to bring home the troops because Republicans “like this war.”
Right. That’s probably the reason many Republicans - and others may I add - believe that the US shouldn’t withdraw from Iraq right now. It’s not because they want what’s best for America’s security, nor because they believe that “if you broke it, you’ve got to fix it”; no, it’s because they (we actually) “like” the war.
It’s, of course, a far left talking point. Some far left bloggers push this meme but there’s not a single non-radical-left person out there who actually agrees with it. We’ve got quite some liberal commenters here, but I’m sure that most (all, save one probably) of them do not believe that the hawks at this blog “like” the war.
The disagreement between hawks and doves, isolationists and conservatives, etc. isn’t based on who ‘likes’ war and who ‘dislikes’ it, it’s based on what the ones involved works best, what’s most effective and what will produce the best possible result. Most hawks think “yes, it’s awful, but if Iraq isn’t fixed it will become even more awful,” while those who call for a nearly immediate withdrawal probably think “they can take care of themselves now, we have no business policing another country in a different part of the world, nor should American soldiers die because of the mistake of a president who thought that liberating and democratizing Iraq would be a piece of cake.”
Of course there are also pacifists who oppose the war, but since they oppose every war I don’t consider it particularly useful to argue with them about this subject. You won’t change their mind, they won’t change your mind - in other words, useless.
Back to Pelosi’s words: to pretend that Republicans like the war is more than silly. As Hot Air’s Bryan put it: “Republicans don’t ‘like’ the war. We just want to fight it to win it.” A.J. Strata adds: “The woman is simply mad with frustration. We don’t like war, we prefer to vanquish our enemies so they will not rise up to attack us again.”
Not only that, of course, it’s remarkable to see that the Democrats keep repeating their talking points while the situation on the ground has radically improved. As Kate McMillan writes: ” Despite their best efforts, success keeps breaking out all over. Just think how bad it could be if media actually reported on victory?”
Now, the irony is that Pelosi attacked Republicans but that the attack backfired immediately. She peddled back a bit when she was asked to clarify her “they like this war” remark, but that was too little, too late. She shouldn’t have said it in the first place. Conservative - and non-conservative - bloggers were both angered and probably smelled an opportunity to once again blast Pelosi… and rightfully so.
Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard, for instance, writes: “I’ve said all along that Pelosi and Reid would end up reviled by the rank and file. This is an example of why. How much worse are relations with House and Senate Republicans be after this latest insult. Supporting the war is not the same as liking it - Pelosi knows that or she has been drinking leftist Koolaid to excess. I’m quite sure that House Republicans can make her life even more miserable than they have up until now - and Pelosi just practically begged them to do so.”
BlackFive: “She is really a piece of work eh? I mean I’m just trying to wrap my tired little melon around her sad belief that you can just end a war, you can’t.You either lose it or win it.”
PoliPundit: “Only the Democrats could put such a political liability in charge.”
The conclusion? Pelosi said something utterly stupid and, by doing so, she has hurt the Democratic Party… again. As Joe Gandelman writes:
This just isn’t foot in mouth. In political terms, it’s foot in mouth that will end with her foot emerging out of her other foot.
Republican campaign strategists who seek to paint the Democrats as way out there must be smiling tonight. People can (and will) debate the accuracy of her statement, but in political terms it’s a wonderful gift (just think of what former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will do with it if he is the nominee as he continues to fine-tune his talent for political ridicule).
And that’s the irony of it all. Pelosi listen so much to her radical friends that she think she can repeat what they tell her in private publicly.
I’ve always maintained that if the Democrats want to lose elections, all they need to do is to move to the left politically. Move to the left, listen to the liberal base, and they’re done for.
It seems to me that the Democrats should consider asking Pelosi to step down. She’s only causing problems for them. She’s a very ineffective Speaker, and when she Speaks she often says ludicrous things which to do great damage to the image of the Democratic Party as a whole.
She should have said- neoconservatives, military-industrial complex and many, many republicans love the war.
Then she would have been right on the money….
She should have said- neoconservatives, military-industrial complex and many, many republicans love the war.
Then she would have been right on the money….
No she wouldn’t and that you don’t understand that is a bit awkward. People should stop thinking that their political opponents are evil. Both sides do this, but in this case it’s the far-left.
You love dictators don’t you? You want them to remain in power, to kill their citizens at random. O, you also love people stoning women to death right?
That’s returning the favor, and both are ludicrous statements.
I still think I am correct, Michael.
And as far as love for dictators, nobody loves them more then Bush and his followers. Need examples?
Do you really think, that was the reason we went into Iraq?
Liberate people from Saddam? Even C. Hitchens does not think this anymore…
And BTW, I do not think , that my political opponents are evil, Michael( who could that be, btw, cause I am liberal -in European understanding, classical. And conservative in the old American way, before Bush and his gang corrupted GOP beyond recognition).
But I do think, that neoconservatives ARE EVIL…warmongers, bloodthirsty non decent human beings, hating everything Arabian and Muslim..
And btw, I know a few neocon adherents( personally) ,who if given the ultimate power, would exterminate with pleasure every Arab, Muslim being on Earth…. True…
I think you just answered your own question, sashal. And even if you know a few bigoted individuals who subscribe to neoconservatism for the wrong reasons, why would you paint all of your political opponents with the same brush?
Exactly Christine. I know neoconservatives who oppose such a thing very strongly. So, my assessment was correct Sashal. You basically seem to believe that neoconservatives are the new nazis. Sure there are some bad neocons, but there are plenty of other neoconservatives who think that their policies are simply in the best interest of the world and the US.
Never forget, by the way, that neoconservatives were fed up with the Democratic Party because they believed that the Democrats abandoned those who were oppressed in other countries. Neoconservatism is at heart actually quite compassionate.
Michael, there is a saying(Russian)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
As far as neocons good intentions some of them)?
May be in their own mind, but certainly bad for the USA and the world
sashal, that expression is used by many conservatives to explain our distaste for many liberal/progressive policies. And the fact that it can be applied to neoconservatism highlights Michael’s point- that this type of foreign policy is really an offshoot of liberal/progressivism. Apparently you are not that type of liberal, so that probably explains why you would criticize it on that basis, and that’s a fair enough complaint. But it’s a far cry from saying that neoconservatives are actually motivated by racism, bigotry, hatred, or desire for war.
Twice ‘exactly Christine.’
And it’s undeniably an offshoot of progressivism. In this regard it’s interesting to note that many neoconservatives are still members of the Democratic Party. They basically joined the GOP because it was easier to get the Republican Party to advocate a hawkish foreign policy (especially with regards to the war on terrorism, but before that already with regards to the Cold War).
Neoconservatism actually favors quite a big domestic government. If there was no terrorism problem, it’s likely that most neoconservatives would vote Democratic.
I agree, Christine. I am not THAT type of liberal, which is lately in the USA used to describe lefties or socialists.
Christine and Michael, I give you that,that the main point of neocons is to advance American interests. But
Which ones? Who those interests are supposed to serve? And how in actuality that hurts USA and the world community.
I strongly believe that many of the neocons really hate the Arabs and Muslim ( I have my reasons to think so, I can’t disclose it here ).
Please, Michael and Christine, note that I strongly differentiate between neoconservatism and traditional American conservatism and liberalism. I really think that there are plenty of parallels between how they want to advance their ideas with permanent aggression, interference , regime changes etc… with old Bolshevism of the Trotskiite type.
I feel, like I need the disclosure here.:
I was and I am big fan of Reagan and Bush Sr., who had realistic foriegn policies and were instrumental in the cold war defeat of the USSR.
But no matter how happy I was that Russian got rid of the Communist dictatorship, which gave many people freedoms, and me personally to be here in the USA. I would never approved of the military intervention in order to make those changes. This is the case , when patriotism beats all other consideration, besides, how much that freedom would have beem worth for me if I ,God forbid have lost the loved ones or relatives as collateral damage in the "liberation" attempt "
Michael, you missed one reason for withdrawal. I for instance don’t pretend that the Iraqis can take care of themselves, that they can’t is glaringly obvious IMO. I appreciate the "we broke it, we gotta fix it sentiment" it’s just that I don’t really think we can fix it. The argument that once we leave it’ll be (even more) a blood bath is a reasonable one, I just don’t see that we can avoid it. Personally I think this is a debacle, and that by staying we’re basically just refusing to admit that we’ve lost. The absolute refusal to admit even the possiblity that the US can lose at anything irks me. Not wanting to lose is great, not giving up inmediately is fine, but refusing to even consider that aspect is not living in a reality based world.
As to Pelosi, she said something utterly idiotic, maybe her speechwriter had been spending too much time on Kos, I dunno. But don’t count on it hurting her politically. Here’s why:
1. Pelosi represents my ex-district of San Francisco. In San Francisco mayoral elections are between democrats and radicals, republicans often don’t even bother. If there’s anywhere in the country saying something bad about Republicans will pass muster, it’s in her district.
2. She’s the ranking rep. in Congress. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of San Franciscans who will roll their eyes and groan at this little episode, but they’ll think twice before voting against her. Having a high ranking rep is important to a district. She’d have to flay a live puppy on television while spitting on a gay couple in order to be unelected.
Lynx, I understand the concern that some people don’t want to face the reality if Iraq is unwinnable, but some of us see a similar inability for some on the left to refuse to see any possibility of winning. Counterinsurgencies are incredibly difficult, but they take will and the correct strategy to win. From the way things are now going, it appears to me that we’ve made the appropriate adjustments to the military strategy- and if we can couple that with the will to stay WHILE also pushing hard for the diplomatic and reconstructive efforts (getting the regional players to help rather than disrupt stability, getting them to invest, etc) then I think stabilization is possible.
As for Pelosi, it’s no longer about whether the voters in her district will punish her. As Speaker, she now has a responsibility to the entire party, and that includes the Dems from moderate districts.
sashal: Direct military intervention in USSR was never an option, for obvious reasons. But the Cold War policies that helped lead to the demise of the USSR were still very interventionist. Do you approve of that? Because in many ways, I don’t think that our policies of containment were all that morally justifiable either, when in some cases we were promoting totalitarian regimes as long as they were led by dictators who were under our sphere of influence.
Bah, I do not like the word "evil" one bit.
Anyway, Pelosi really is ye olde guarde - playing with the melody on torture because she doesn’t want to be portrayed as some "silk-gloved democrat who coddles the bad guys" and then she snaps right back when the media is actually present, serving up some "tough" (read: careless and utterly useless) rhetoric about the other side to deflect the anger from those on the left she has betrayed.
She is a triangulator, a big-talker and most of all someone who is so afraid of what John Q will think that she won’t dare to upset the status quo. It’s her, Clinton and the other baby-boomer politrickers that I think about when I support Obama, not just his positive message and positioning but also their negative influence on American politics and Democrat policies.
Yes, Christine, I did approve of that.
As long as war can be avoided I am all for the other means to influence the changes and to advance American interests.
sashal, it is the "neocons" who believe that we can, in fact, promote and spread democracy abroad. In the current political climate, it is the Democrats who have, essentially, been arguing that Iraqis (and Arabs in that part of the world in general) are not capable of true democracy, of self-government. It is the Democrats who want to make "realpolitik" deals with Iran so that Iran can play a role in shaping Iraq, regardless of the wishes of the Iraqis themselves. It is Democrats who largely say that we cannot "impose democracy by force." It is the neocons who say that everyone in the world is entitled to the benefits of democracy, that everyone in the world can benefit from democracy. Which of those is racist?
But you know what, I’m tired of listening to you call me and everybody else who agrees with the war a racist. I’m not going to hereafter waste my breath arguing with someone who tells me I must be a murdering racist because I believe the war to be just. I’m done. Oppose the war all you want. That’s fine, it’s a free society and we’re all entitled to our opinion. There are rational reasons to both support and oppose the war. But you cross the line so frequently into personal slander against an entire class of people, declaring that because we disagree with your policy positions we must be immoral, murdering racists. Forget it. Go be smug in your self-righteousness.
"sashal, it is the "neocons" who believe that we can, in fact, promote and spread democracy abroad."-you forgot to add with means of war and aggression( and I don’t get the "” thing"" around neocon, why?)
In the current political climate, it is the Democrats who have, essentially, been arguing that Iraqis (and Arabs in that part of the world in general) are not capable of true democracy, of self-government.-really, did they ?
… regardless of the wishes of the Iraqis themselves.-yeah, those Iraqi wishes, I am sure neocons know the best wishes of Iraqis.
A little presumptuous, don’t you think, to claim to know what others want. I am sure they want peace, stability food and prosperity before our ephemeral and live- costly freedoms and democracy. And, btw, they still are not there yet, even with Maliki and did you notice Bush abandoned the democracy shtick requirements towards Iraq, now our goals are much lower-stability…And yes, Pat , some nations are more or are less ready for that. Not because they are stupider or lower human beings then us, but because of the different historical stages of development and cultural differences. Artificial impregnation with democracy may result in failure, many of times…
It is Democrats who largely say that we cannot "impose democracy by force."-I agree, and not only democrats but conservatives as well
It is the neocons who say that everyone in the world is entitled to the benefits of democracy, that everyone in the world can benefit from democracy. Which of those is racist? - neocons, they deny nations ability for self achieving their own goalsBut you know what, I’m tired of listening to you call me and everybody else who agrees with the war a racist.-distortion alert, the racists are the neocons, the rest who support them just do not know or were propagandized and unable to see the distinction.
I’m not going to hereafter waste my breath arguing with someone who tells me I must be a murdering racist because I believe the war to be just. -The only just wars are when nations are fighting the aggression and immediate credible threat to the nation’s self-preservation, the other wars are never, ever just..
I do think people like Bill Kristol, NoPod and Jonah Goldberg "like" war for whatever reason. That’s why they’re willing to outright lie for the cause of starting wars and say things like:
Well, I’ve long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
Thanks, Chris.
very revealing quote.
And, btw, neocons are not bounded by the GOP party lines.
Check similar ideas from T.Friedman token American "liberal"
sashal: I think the point is that you are quick to presume that bigotry underlies the motives of those who supported the invasion (kill the Arabs! Conquer and control the oil!) while you ignore that some people who are now opposing the war are doing so on the basis of presuming inferiority of the Arab people (I have to go out now, but will try to find you quotes later if you’d like.) And that is a racist attitude. I agree with you, that some peoples are more or less ready, and that the neocons who promoted our current foreign policy misjudged that factor (see Fukuyama for a more thoughtful neocon.) But I also have definitely seen statements which indicate more racist underpinnings- that the cultures of the middle east are simply incapable of developing more enlightened political systems.
And the other point we’re trying to get you to see is that the policies of containment via support of dictators are not less immoral than a war to remove a dictator. When you say that neocons ‘deny nations ability for self achieving their own goals’, this is equally true if we enable a totalitarian regime to surpress popular movements toward democracy and human rights.
Actually, although that’s a quote I can’t support, that one doesn’t imply that they think war is ‘fun.’ You do realize the reasoning behind it, right? It’s "to keep America safe we’ve got to use our military power every now and then, if we don’t, they think we’re weak and spineless."
Now, you can disagree with that, but that’s not the same as ‘they love war.’
Of course, radical progressives don’t care, but I’d expect better of you Sashal. After all, you partially funded the redesign and move of this blog which means that you tend to be extremely intelligent and reasonable
Christine, you are giving the best rebuttals, I admit.
O’k, let’s see:
sashal: I think the point is that you are quick to presume that bigotry underlies the motives of those who supported the invasion (kill the Arabs! Conquer and control the oil!)-
only the neoconservatrives for the most part ( I did not say anything about oil, that motive can be attributed to many others not necessarily the neocons )
while you ignore that some people who are now opposing the war are doing so on the basis of presuming inferiority of the Arab people (I have to go out now, but will try to find you quotes later if you’d like.) And that is a racist attitude.-Christine, I really have to see yet that anybody who was against this war claimed Arabs inferiority (do you have any quotes, proofs ? seriously )
I agree with you, that some peoples are more or less ready, and that the neocons who promoted our current foreign policy misjudged that factor (see Fukuyama for a more thoughtful neocon.)– and Fukuyama has rejected his ideological brethren after Iraq war. "The end of history" was too soon to claim, by his own admission
And the other point we’re trying to get you to see is that the policies of containment via support of dictators are not less immoral than a war to remove a dictator.-I agree,Christine, they are immoral too, but not as much as immorality of unjust wars, which cause so much death and destruction to people we want to liberate. Between two evils I would choose the one which does not involve wars.
When you say that neocons ‘deny nations ability for self achieving their own goals’, this is equally true if we enable a totalitarian regime to surpress popular movements toward democracy and human rights.-I agree here too, Christine, we should not enable totalitarian regimes to suppress movements toward democracy and human rights, we should actually encourage those. Operative word is ENABLE, SUPPORT, SANCTIONS, DIPLOMACY.
Just loose the word war from the means to influence and help, and I will be with you 100%, Christine, on the rest of your arguments..
I really do have to go out now, but will work on the quotes later.
On your last sentence, I just want to say that I’d certainly agree that war is to be avoided at all cost and I’m not sure we met that standard in Iraq. However, at the time (and somewhat to this day) I feel that the international community didn’t back us on ways to attempt other means of keeping Hussein contained, and certainly it was a good thing that we no longer had the mindset of keeping him in power there. Keep in mind too, that his sons would have been taking over after he died, so it wasn’t even a Castro type of situation where we’d wait out the clock.
LOL, Michael, that’ because I love your blog.
Very rare occurrence when diverse opinions are allowed on the same pages ( I tried that on Malkin’s ,Riehl, neo-neocon, etc and was banned, the only one as good as yours is Captain’s Ed ).
You are typical classical liberal ( just like me), Michael. And that is a very high praise.( insert smily face here-how you do it?)
How about Dick Meyers, editorial director for CBS News? He said:
Got that? Muslim cultures believe in "nationalism, divine justice, predetermination and theocracy," and thus aren’t going to become democratic anytime soon. When CBS News calls Republicans "theocratic," they mean it as a slur, in the context of denouncing the irrational rubes. Does it mean something different when they apply it to an entire people and culture?
What I’m wondering is how many folks realize that the war in Iraq didn’t actually end in the 1990s.
"Actually, although that’s a quote I can’t support, that one doesn’t imply that they think war is ‘fun.’"
Michael,
It may not imply that war is fun, but it implies that Mr. Goldberg is ready to send other people to their deaths just to look strong. No concern for our soldiers, no concern for the victims, no concern for whether or not the chosen enemy is a threat… and so on…
One could say that Jonah Goldberg likes the way that war makes him feel strong and respected.
Or one could say something that makes more sense - that we are willing to respond to attacks against our citizens with such force as to make anyone else think twice, long and hard, before they do it as well. That, by the way, is the very heart of Ledeen’s belief on the matter, and Goldberg’s and mine as well. The memory of the tyrants who run those crappy little countries is not especially long. Then they need to be reminded again that it is never, ever, ever a good idea to kidnap, kill, or attempt to kill American citizens, no matter where they are.
I would have liked to have seen this applied somewhere around 1992 or so. It would have saved several thousand American lives.
Or, Chris, one could say that the concern is not over "looking strong," but over the consequences (in the innocent lives of our own citizens and greater tolerance for repressive regimes) of not "looking strong." Preventing those consequences may indeed be worth the negative consequences of the occasional war.
But of course it’s far easier to simply dismiss those ideas as foolishness by ridiculing them, calling them bigoted, and looking at them in the harshest possible light rather than to actually address the merits of their arguments.
"Or one could say something that makes more sense - that we are willing to respond to attacks against our citizens with such force as to make anyone else think twice, long and hard, before they do it as well. That, by the way, is the very heart of Ledeen’s belief on the matter, and Goldberg’s and mine as well."
Jimmie,
That’s not what Goldberg said. And since he was talking about Iraq at the time, it’s clear that an attack on our citizens is not a prerequisite for throwing the "crappy little country" against the wall.
and Dick Meyers is authority in what exactly, Pat ?
We all can find random quotes from assorted characters , which do not prove your or mine theories.
I do not make my assertions or statements based on somebody else’s opinion or misjudgement.
I formed my philosophical views on my own, studying and experiencing first hand the craziness of socialism, and unjust interventions in somebody else’ affairs…
Jimmie… I would have liked to seen the concept employed against Iran back in 1979, myself. That was an act of war and should have been treated as such. Had President Carter responded forcefully (i.e. "Ayatollah, you have 48 hours to release our embassy personnel. If you do not, there will be no Tehran in 72 hours."), then I don’t think we would have had nearly so many problems in the region since then.
Pat,
See comment #30. And, do you think we are regarded as a stronger country now than we were before the invasion of Iraq?
Jimmy, what Iraqi people did on 9/11 which entitled us to throw them against the wall ?
And you’re entitled to your view that the war is misguided or unjust or whatever, sashal. But I do not think you are entitled to apply such labels as "racist" and "warmongers" to those who disagree with you. It’s wrong, malicious, and just plain stupid. It cheapens you and weakens your arguments.
As for Dick Meyers, you asked for quotes from serious people who seriously argued that Arabs weren’t ready for democracy. That was the first one I came to. I think the editor of CBS News qualifies as a serious person making a serious argument, and I’m betting the odds that he’s a Democrat.
And since he was talking about Iraq at the time, it’s clear that an attack on our citizens is not a prerequisite for throwing the "crappy little country" against the wall.
Indeed it is, Chris. Or did you forget the nearly daily attacks against our pilots while enforcing the No-fly Zones that were created with Iraqi’s consent as part of the cease-fire agreement?
How about the American POW whose whereabouts were specifically demanded in the cease-fire agreement but which Iraq never, ever provided.
How about the attacks against American citizens Iraqi-funded and trained terrorists carried out? Abu Nidal ring a bell? How about the bombmaker from the first WTC bombing who Iraq gave shelter and help? Come on, man. Saddam Hussein was hardly blameless in attacking American citizens. He’s certainly fully to blame for regular violations of a cease-fire agreement that allowed us to resume hostilities, legally and morally, any time we darned-well pleased.
"I would have liked to seen the concept employed against Iran back in 1979, myself. That was an act of war and should have been treated as such. Had President Carter responded forcefully (i.e. "Ayatollah, you have 48 hours to release our embassy personnel. If you do not, there will be no Tehran in 72 hours.")"
And the coup we led against the democratically elected leader or Iran in the 1950s was an act of peace? Blow-back perhaps? Would Iran have been in the right if they had leveled D.C. in response?
I think it’s painfully obvious that you’d be unwilling to universally apply your prerequisites for throwing a country against the wall.
"Indeed it is, Chris. Or did you forget the nearly daily attacks against our pilots while enforcing the No-fly Zones that were created with Iraqi’s consent as part of the cease-fire agreement?"
You mean the legally dubious No-fly zones? The ones we used as an excuse to bomb Iraq just about every single day for about a decade? Seems like tit-for-tat to me. Again, are you willing to apply your standards to the United States?
How far back do you want to go, Chris? There were reasons for our actions in the 1950s which were not entirely unwise or unjust. Trace back far enough and you can start laying the blame at the feet of a trouble-making, expansionist, Nazi-supporting Ottoman Empire. Who would in turn then blame the Crusades or something.
As for the "legally dubious" no-fly zones, those were set up, with UN support, to prevent Saddam from enacting reprisals against the Kurds in the north and the "marsh Arabs" and others in the south. The Gulf War was entirely just and supported by just about the entire world. It could (and perhaps should) have ended with the removal of the criminal tyrant who initiated the unjust invasion of a neighboring sovereign state, in violation of well-established international borders and just about every provision of the U.N. and "international law" you can imagine. The no-fly zones were conditions imposed as a lesser penalty than having Saddam and his regime be deposed and subjected to war crimes tribunals. There’s nothing illegitimate about them in the slightest.
PatHMV,
UN support? And that still didn’t authorize us to bomb other stuff in their territory after the cease-fire. It’d not as black & white as you portray it.
From CSMonitor:
"How far back do you want to go, Chris? There were reasons for our actions in the 1950s which were not entirely unwise or unjust."
You are more or less dodging the real issue. Would the 1952 coup constitute an act of war that would legitimize the destruction of Washington D.C.? (Keep in mind that you said that the hostage crisis legitimized the destruction of Tehran)
I agree with Pat here, Chris.
No-fly zones were legally established by UN resolution.
Pat, being a democrat (assuming the CBS guy is) does not guarantee that the person is immune from being stupid or wrong.
How many incompetents you and me know are in the high positions? Do you know who I mean by that ?
And no , not Bush necessarily, but remember the FEMA guy, remember the first occupation authority in Iraq which screwed up things more to the worse.
So if this guy is the head of CBS department does not mean he is intelligent authority on the said matters…
"I agree with Pat here, Chris.
No-fly zones were legally established by UN resolution."
I don’t know why you’re so ready to embrace something that’s demonstrably false
Read this story on Slate from 1992.
2002, sorry.
Thnk you, Chris.
That shows that even I am not perfect, lol
Haha… no problem. We’re all guilty of parroting conventional wisdom from time to time.
sashal,
I just returned home but a dentist appt with my son took much longer than expected, so I’ve no time to research more quotes. I will remind you what I said earlier, though- that you seem very quick to apply evil motives to the neocons (based on acquaintances of yours, apparently- who I presume don’t hold any position of power) but then when Pat showed you a quote from someone who does have some influence, you dismissed him as insignificant.
I’d also add, that of course no one is going to find quotes from anyone in a prominent position that prove blatant racism. I think we all know that there are statements that would couch that in other terms, but would still imply a feeling of superiority of our people/culture over the Arabs/Middle Eastern cultures.
"essentially, been arguing that Iraqis (and Arabs in that part of the world in general) are not capable of true democracy, of self-government"
Eeeeeeeeeh-no, not "essentially", no.