Jim Wallis: What the President Should Say Tonight
Tuesday evening, President Bush will deliver his State of the Union speech. He is expected to address challenges and policy proposals facing our country. Here is what I would like to hear the president say:
I have a vision for the United States of America this evening. It is an America safe and secure, at peace with our neighbors in the world community. An America where every person able to work is productively working and able to support a family while building assets for their future. An America where every person has access to affordable healthcare, a secure roof over their heads, adequate food to eat, and a quality education. An America where immigrants from other countries are welcomed in an orderly way that allows them to become productive members of our society. I also have a vision for our world. It is a world where no child dies for lack of food and medicine. A world where strong multinational institutions protect human rights and economic justice.
It's a vision first proclaimed by the prophet Isaiah:
No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old
person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who dies at a hundred years
will be considered a youth, and one who falls short of a hundred will be
considered accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant
vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they
shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of
my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall
not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity ...
While keeping that vision as our goal, this session of Congress has the opportunity to take a number of real and concrete steps toward its accomplishment.
Making work work. I applaud the House for its bipartisan vote to increase the minimum wage, and urge the Senate to quickly do the same. But that action, important though it is, is only a first step toward guaranteeing that those who are working full time are able to support their families. I believe that all those who work responsibly should have a living family income in which a combination of a family's earnings, with supports for transportation, health care, nutrition, child care, education, housing, and other basic needs together provide a decent standard of living. This requires creative thinking about work supports, as well as tax policies that reward work and family stability, ownership and asset creation, job training, and financial education. I urge Congress to appoint a bipartisan joint committee to hold hearings and recommend appropriate legislation.
Insure all our kids. The State Children's Health Insurance Program has been a remarkable success in providing health coverage to children living in poverty. The program is up for Congressional reauthorization this year, and I urge the Congress to promptly do so. But despite that success, more than 8 million children still lack insurance. The Congress should also enact the necessary legislation to expand the program so that all eligible children are covered. Ensuring quality health care for all our children is an important step toward lifting them out of poverty and to a better future. It is a significant part of the commitment I have made to reduce the number of children in poverty by half in the next 10 years. And for all Americans who need health insurance, our states are taking the lead in developing new approaches and innovative programs. We will examine those, and using the best ideas, propose a program that guarantees universal health insurance that will benefit every American.
Comprehensive immigration reform. I urge Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that is both compassionate and just. It is important to make our borders secure and enforce our nation's laws, but we should do so in humane and realistic ways. Immigration policies should establish a dignified guest worker program that can lead to citizenship. Those individuals and families who are already living in the U.S. and working hard should have the option to apply for permanent legal status and citizenship if they choose to do so, by meeting specific application criteria. We must transcend a narrow debate about walls and fences to foster better dialogue about the root causes of immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform can be pro-work and pro-family, and create opportunities to strengthen the common good of families and employers and the vitality of America.
Abortion. I support the creation of a culture of life that advances the dignity and equality of women, protects and defends the vulnerable unborn, and promotes a consistent and healthy sexual ethic, especially for teens and young adults. I therefore support approaches that reduce abortions, incorporate reasonable restrictions, and promote policies that reduce unintended pregnancies, increase adequate health care for women, and reform adoption and foster care so that they are viable options for women who want to carry children to term. There is no one solution for reducing abortions in America. Therefore, we need a strategy employing multiple approaches that results in a reasonable, comprehensive strategy to effectively lower our abortion rate. Several bills toward that end have already been introduced in Congress, and I will support these efforts.
In our world, major crises also demand our attention.
The war in Iraq. After nearly four years of war, the violence in Iraq is increasing rather than decreasing. Rather than an escalated war with additional troops, I will accept the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and begin "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts … that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." As a first step, I pledge that there will be no permanent American military bases in Iraq, the U.S. will make no unique claim on Iraqi oil, and that we will substantially fund the re-building of Iraq, working with the international community. I will ask Secretary-General Ban and the U.N. Security Council to convene a conference of all countries in the region, specifically including Iran and Syria, to agree on measures to stabilize Iraq's political and security future. The war should never have been started, and it has gone on long enough. We must find a way to reverse course.
Genocide in Darfur. Here too, violence increases as hundreds of thousands of people have been massacred and millions more turned into refugees. Only a large and strong multi-national peacekeeping force, with the authority (in the words of the U.N. Security Council) "to use all necessary means … to prevent attacks and threats against civilians," will end the genocide. I will ask the Secretary of State to apply the maximum possible political and diplomatic pressure to force Sudan to accept such a force, including gaining the cooperation of other key Security Council nations. We will take strong economic action against Sudan and personally against top government officials, including initiating and rigorously enforcing sanctions. If necessary, we will discuss with the Security Council stronger actions that could include a no-fly zone over Darfur and a possible naval blockade. Enough is enough – if the government of Sudan will not stop the killing, we will lead the international community in doing so.
Iran. I will continue to work to ensure that Iran does not produce nuclear weapons. As a first step toward that objective, I pledge my opposition to all efforts to build and test new nuclear weapons for the U.S. arsenal. It is time to lead by example. If we are to stop other countries from securing these terrible weapons, we must live up to our own non-proliferation obligations. I will continue to cooperate with European countries and international agencies in multilateral talks with Iran, but I will also instruct the Secretary of State to work to begin direct U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran without preconditions. We can negotiate with Iran on a mutually acceptable settlement of the nuclear standoff while making it clear that Americans absolutely reject anti-Semitism and threats against Israel. We will seriously and persistently apply strategic combinations of pressures and incentives, beginning with direct negotiations.
Foreign aid. We must honor our commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (addressing poverty and hunger; education; gender equality; child mortality; maternal health; HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; environmental sustainability; and increasing effective aid, debt cancellation, and just trade policies). I urge the Congress in this year's budget to increase U.S. international development assistance by an additional one percent of the federal budget in order to do our part in the goal of reducing global poverty in half by 2015.
In all of these areas, we need a new politics inspired by our most deeply held values. We must summon the best in the American people, and unite to solve some of the moral issues of our time. Americans are not essentially concerned about what is liberal or conservative; what is Democrat or Republican. Rather, we care about what is right and what works. The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America. Building that new America will require greater moral leadership from both Democrats and Republicans, and also from each and every one of us.
Thank you, and God bless you.
What are your thoughts? Which issue facing us do you think is the biggest one the president and Congress should address?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Fortunately for President Bush, the Democrats are beginning to deal with him much as they expect the US to deal with its enemies: ask nicely, pass meaningless resolutions, generally avoid firm, decisive action.
Hence Jim Wallis is left fantasizing about President Bush doing an about face in Iraq; the Democrats lack the courage of their convictions and cannot bring themselves to defund the war.
Look, this is your anti-war crusade, not mine. I'm willing to give the surge a chance. If the Democrats believed what they say, they wouldn't give the surge a chance. And if Sojourners wants to be thought of as something other than an arm of the Democratic Party, they would call them on it.
It's one thing to be too nice to declare war. It's another to be too nice to bring a war you disagree with vehemently to an end when it's in your power to do so.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 23, 2007 8:59 PM
What should the President say tonight?
"I resign."
.>
Posted by: justintime | January 23, 2007 9:07 PM
pass meaningless resolutions... avoid firm, decisive action... Jim Wallis is left fantasizing... the Democrats lack the courage of their convictions... if Sojourners wants to be thought of as something other than an arm of the Democratic Party
blahblahblahblahblah
UNfortunately for us, you revert to the same sad song every time you can't engage the issues and pointlessly distract the thread. If you have something constructive to add then do share. If not, please refrain from posting here. Some of us are trying to have a conversation.
Jim - thanks for this conprehensive set of proposals. There's so much here, but let me start with the first.
Making work work
I was just reading a series of ILO reports on poverty reduction strategies and there has been a marked shift recently from just addressing the issue of unemployment to talking about meaningful work from which a person can earn a livelihood and support a household. This proposal is spot on with the increasing recognition that the issue of work goes far beyond the unemployment rate.>
Posted by: badmash | January 23, 2007 9:20 PM
Jim,
Positively inspired. I like the format as well - this serves as a watermark by which we can register the President's philosophy and language.
On Iraq, what he will say is that he is surging and if the Democrats choose not to fund a surge they are leaving our currently deployed troops behind, then he'll urge they have the courage to authorize his policy.
On abortion what he will say is nothing at all.
It is widely known that he will propose a market-based response to global warming. I will reserve commentary until I hear this proposal but I suspect it will include language that throws down a gauntlet of insults that effectively labels anyone who supports regulation (i.e. Kyoto) as a communist.
After the speech, I'd love to see a follow up, comparing the two visions on-point.>
Posted by: Daniel | January 23, 2007 9:29 PM
Jim Wallis,
In response to your question, I think the biggest issue facing the US is the war in Iraq.
The war affects every other issue you raise, all of which are admirable, in my view.
The continuation of the war further adds to the lack of confidence other countries have for the US.
I agree with you that the US should ask other countries which may have greater success in Iraq to cooperate through the UN to reduce the instability in Iraq and create the opportunity for Iraqi citizens to live in security.
Then the US can support those efforts and refocus its other resources on the other issues you identify. Work on those other issues can go forward, but not as effectively while our US government continues to be the sole force behind restoration of stability in Iraq.
In my view.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 23, 2007 9:42 PM
I suspect the President will be a great deal more specific than this. If he is not, I will be disappointed. I do not think he will bring up Darfur unless he has a concrete plan. Otherwise, it would be simply a political gesture (not that he is beyond political gestures).
I think, moreso than abortion, he needs to encourage congress to deal with the ethical concerns surrounding cloning. If we embrace the promise of science without considering its moral inadequacy, we run the risk of repeating Germany's mistake in the early 1900s.
On Iran, I don't think the public is on board with the idea that we should give up our nuclear weapons in hopes of encouraging rogue nations to do the same.
As for whether he should negotiate with Iran while they continue to develop nuclear technology, I can certainly see why they wouldn't. The negotiations will serve as an opportunity for Ahmadinejad to improve his international standing. Bringing the worlds most powerful nation to the table makes him a leader. It stands to reason he should make powerful concessions in exchange.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 23, 2007 9:43 PM
think, moreso than abortion, he needs to encourage congress to deal with the ethical concerns surrounding cloning.
True - there is a need for the ethical/moral issued to be dealt engaged, rather than repressing this promising avenue of research under the parameters of the pro choice/life debate. Still, I thought Jim's proposal regarding abortion was holistic and has the potential to be far more effective in preserviing precious lives than what we have now or what we could have if there was an outright ban.
The negotiations will serve as an opportunity for Ahmadinejad to improve his international standing.
Good news yesterday - influential and dissenting clerics in Iran are skewering ol' Ahmedinejad on his record as President so far. I'll be interested to see whatheppens in the next election.>
Posted by: splinterlog | January 23, 2007 9:51 PM
Naturally, the President won't come anywhere close to sounding like Jim's sample speech. In many ways, it's more shameful to think that if he did, the ones that would be most apoplectic would be our brothers and sisters in Christ who have bought more into the doctrines of the Republican or Democratic Party than they have in the church of Jesus Christ.
One of the things I don't see in Jim's list, but is important to me: a responsible, long-term energy policy. One that recognizes the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource that will one day disappear completely, so we had better begin to find its replacement sooner, rather than later. It would also be nice if this long-term view of our nation's energy use considered good environmental stewardship to be at least as important as the almighty dollar.
I mean hey, if we're going to dream, let's dream big, right?>
Posted by: Eric | January 23, 2007 9:53 PM
"Rather than an escalated war with additional troops, I will accept the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group."
Nevermind that the Iraq Study Group report says the following (page 48 ):
"While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. We should continue to maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations forces, intelligence units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection units.
While the size and composition of the Iraqi Army is ultimately a matter for the Iraqi government to determine, we should be firm on the urgent near-term need for significant additional trained Army brigades, since this is the key to Iraqis taking over full responsibility for their own security, which they want to do and which we need them to do. It is clear that they will still need security assistance from the United States for some time to come as they work to achieve political and security changes.">
Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 9:57 PM
Eric,
I don't see any real dissonance between Wallis' speech and the Dems talking points. I don't see any difference at all between Wallis' speech and Sen. Obama's talking points. So the most "apoplectic" would probably be those who disagree with Sen. Obama, who I do not think has the corner on God's politics.
Also, Anonymous is correct that the ISG did not oppose an increase in troop levels.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 23, 2007 10:08 PM
...blahblahblahbalhblah
Look, Sojourners position is that the surge is a mistake -- not an unreasonable position by any means. I'm pointing out that the Democrats are in a position to stop it, but won't, due to a combination of internal division and political calculation.
If I'm wrong, tell me why. But don't tell me it's not relevant. Jim Wallis wants to see the President pull out. The Democrats could force him to if they had the nerve to do it. You'd think a "prophetic" voice from the Christian left would take note of that.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 23, 2007 10:46 PM
>>I suspect the President will be a great deal more specific than this. If he is not, I will be disappointed.
You will be disappointed. Specifics and details aren't exactly your president's strong points.>
Posted by: WW | January 23, 2007 10:59 PM
so wolverine, you criticize the dems for wanting to pull out AND for not blocking bush's surge plan? gimme a break.
the surge plan was calculated to force the dems to block it so the administration can point the blame at the dems when iraq blows all to hell (which it will, either way). then people like you criticize the dems for NOT falling into the trap and blocking the surge. either way, the reps maybe have a chance at gaining a little popular respect. it's ALL political calculation and it's ALL disgusting. you can't really be so naive to think that political calculation only exists on the democrat side.>
Posted by: mingus | January 23, 2007 11:05 PM
jim - i agree with mike hayes that the single most important issue facing us today is the war in iraq. but i'll go ya one further and say that the most important issue is more broadly how we, as a nation, have chosen to pursue the "war on terror". the unilateral approach and pre-emptive war doctrines may seem to be the gut-level, knee-jerk appropriate reaction to the unquestionable threats facing us. but this reaction will NEVER bring us security. it will NEVER bring the world peace. it will only serve to isolate us, strengthen the causes of "the terrorists", and rip the moral high ground out from under our feet.
of course, tonight's speech will contain nothing addressing this problem.
all of the above aside, i can only hope and pray that bush will throw his support behind a fair minimum wage and quality health care for those who need it.>
Posted by: mingus | January 23, 2007 11:29 PM
One of the most important/least discussed topics is US poverty and the impact of our welfare "reform" policies.
I think it'll be a long time before we openly discuss the impact of the sudden creation of an essentially captive workforce a(of citizens who are paid minimum wage or less/no job security or benefits) on wages and working conditions for nearly all Americans. How many know that we now have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world? Or that the life expectancy for America's poor is dropping below 60 years of age? Or that hunger and homelessness have been skyrocketing?
This has become an unpopular topic, after all those years of anti-welfare/anti-poor propaganda.
But the suffering is very real, and only continues to increase.>
Posted by: DHFabian | January 23, 2007 11:33 PM
Mingus,
I don't expect that Sojourners will be as rough on the Democrats as they are on Bush. An expression of disappointment and a call for more courage in the future would suffice.
Lemme ask you: you seem like the WWJD type, if Jesus was absolutely certain that the surge would fail, would Jesus make political calculations or would he do whatever he could to prevent it?
Do you guys realize what you are saying? This isn't some obscure tax break we're talking about here, its war. If you're right and this thing is doomed people will die. I would have thought that would bother you more than a couple Congressmen losing their seats.
Are you sure that the surge is a mistake? If you are, why don't you act like you really mean it?
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 23, 2007 11:34 PM
Perhaps a prophetic (and internally consistent)position would be to "protect and defend (sic) the vulnerable unborn" from those who do NOT "want to carry children to term"?
Just a thought.>
Posted by: cs | January 24, 2007 12:17 AM
Jim,
When you pray for Iraq, do you pray for them to secure peace, or do you pray they don't so your denunciation of Bush will be vindicated?
cheers, Paul>
Posted by: Paul | January 24, 2007 12:20 AM
wolverine,
why do you assume that i agree with everything the democrats do? i've never given you reason to do so.
i know that the surge will fail because we lost the war about a year ago. at best, a surge will bring a temporary lull in violence. it will not provide anything close to a "victory", if you define a "victory" as a stable, democratic iraq and a secure america. neither of these things are in our immediate future. and frankly, it doesn't matter at this point what bush or the democrats do.>
Posted by: mingus | January 24, 2007 1:32 AM
"You will be disappointed. Specifics and details aren't exactly your president's strong points."
Neither are they Jim Wallis's.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 24, 2007 2:49 AM
"so wolverine, you criticize the dems for wanting to pull out AND for not blocking bush's surge plan? gimme a break."
For me, the problem is that Democrats pine for an immediate pullout, but are unwilling to stand by their principles. I think that is what Wolverine is getting at, and it is a completely valid criticism.
"at best, a surge will bring a temporary lull in violence."
But if it can achieve this, why is there no question in your mind that it can help achieve a long term peace? A lull in violence would allow for quite a bit of substantive change, in my view.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 24, 2007 4:00 AM
Pretty bold to try to put words in the president's mouth, dontyathink?
Bush actually didn't give a bad speech. Acknowledgement of Global Warming was something of a surprise.
And I was quite impressed by Jim Webb's response.>
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | January 24, 2007 4:00 AM
A few words for the president, well said tonight and long overdue.There are a great many Americans who think it's past time to "show him the way". Bravo Jim Webb.
A few of us in own just got enough signatures to put an initiative on the town ballot to declare our Vermont town's call for impeachment.
Have a good night warheads and may the good Lord show you the way.>
Posted by: Joseph T | January 24, 2007 4:00 AM
kevin,
a lull in violence is not a stable iraq. it's a temporary stand down to avoid facing an american army that in a traditional war can annihilate you. it does not mean peace, it just puts off more bloodshed. have we not figured out how this works yet? can our leaders not pick up a history book?
anyone who thinks that "winning" in iraq is still an option has not been paying attention.
bush said at least one true thing tonight: a loss in iraq will have greivous and far-reaching effects. may God protect us in the days ahead...>
Posted by: mingus | January 24, 2007 4:09 AM
Why do so many, including Jim Wallis, say 'God bless you' instead of 'MAY God bless you'. Is it simply a lack of precision in words, or does it betray a deeper (lack of) thought or presumption or arrogance, namely, that God serves us, rather than we serve Him. After all, isn't He the one who decides to bless and curse?>
Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 4:30 AM
May some very lucky turn of events occur so that the people of Iraq can begin to enjoy security and so that US troops can get out of the present circumstance in which they appear to the Iraqi people as occupiers.
And may future US governments, including the US congress, react with intense questioning of requests for preemptive attacks upon other countries, on the claim that an invasion is the only way to adequately protect US citizens.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 24, 2007 5:15 AM
Joseph T,
And kudos to Jim Webb for insisting upon writing his own response to the president.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 24, 2007 5:17 AM
kudos to Jim Webb for insisting upon writing his own response to the president.
I don't think kudos are appropriate for people who create their own facts.
Did anyone notice this line:
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military.
How you suppose he could know what the majority of the military supports?
He doesn't know this and and he couldn't know it.
He made it up out of wishful thinking.
And the certain knowledge that it will be believed by millions who never challenge anything they already want to believe.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 6:18 AM
Jim Wallis?
How did this guy ever become a mouthpiece for anything to do with a Christian perspective, albeit Leftist and heretical?
Why not a socialist voodoo priest leading a denomination from Frisco and Boston for a perspective on President Bush?
These Lefties are delusional at best. Not one place in their political-religion would Peter or Paul feel comfortable.
What ever happened to Christians that tested all things? If that still happened, Sojo would have Wallis and a couple of other Marxist fanatics meeting at Starbucks and nothing more.>
Posted by: Donny | January 24, 2007 6:35 AM
"Bringing the worlds most powerful nation to the table makes him a leader."
They don't want us at the table; we threatened them, now we are tied down in Iraq. Iran hopes we are in Iraq for 100 years. As it works out Iraq gives China huge opportunity in the Middle East.
They will defeat us with a proxy army.>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 8:03 AM
Mr. Wallis,
You have ranted against the involvement of The Religious Right in to politics until we're sick of hearing it.
And all you do is promote Democrats, over and over and over again.
The evil promoted by Democrats cannot be reconciled with a Biblical approach.
Liberals (Democrats) idea of family is to keep it broken and support those that destroy the structure of it. Rewarding the evil people do and keeping it flowing. Communism human-style is not Christian. Yet, the taxation that drives the leftist mind is steeped in controling the masses. It is a failed and evil ideology.
Abortion is the wanton murder of an inconvenient child. To a Progressive/Liberal Democrat it is no different than a condom to excuse away lascivious licentiousness.
Didn't Jesus tell the whore to go and sin no more? Maybe you Progressives should raed a Bible not cut to pieces by your editing process? You cannot pass the test without the research study material.
Fight Islam on war. Not fellow-Americans. It is not the Religious Right that is beheading non-believers. Stop your partisan hypocrisy Mr Wallis.
No war in Darfur either.
Think of those people as really, really, really, late term abortions. Then you can forget about them too. Easily.
Taxing good people into communism. Murdering the inconvenient unborn. Promoting hedonsim as a civil rights issue.
How is that you Progressives can claim to be Christians?
I have a New Testament not chopped and cut by Leftist party-members. I don't see any indication that Progressives are included in the followers designation. Though when reading Romans, or anything written by Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John Matthew or Luke, I see reasons to resist Progressive and their ideology, as I would other individuals those Biblical writers warn me about.>
Posted by: Donny | January 24, 2007 1:13 PM
"a lull in violence is not a stable iraq."
Didn't say it was.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 24, 2007 1:42 PM
Donny doesn't even realize it, but he's what's wrong with this country.>
Posted by: Aaron | January 24, 2007 2:17 PM
You have ranted... until we're sick of hearing it.
Umm, is it just me who sees the irony in this statement? Donny, this is Jim's party. If you don't like the house music you're welcome to go some place else.>
Posted by: splinterlog | January 24, 2007 2:35 PM
R. Weinhagen,
Jim Webb refused to deliver a response to the president that was written by party persons who apparently do that as a matter of course.
The majority of the citizens of the US do oppose the way the war is being conducted, as polls indicate.
My wild guess is that Jim Webb is saying that the majority of the military oppose the way the war is being conducted based on his own contacts as a former member of the military and Secretary of the Navy under President Regan.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 24, 2007 2:50 PM
Jim, if I were you I would hit the fact that Bush had soiled beyond repair the trust of the USAmerican people over and over again.
We really do need a leader we can trust and if he truly wants to take the responsibility for GWII then he needs to do the right thing: replace Cheney and resign.
dlw>
Posted by: dlw | January 24, 2007 4:09 PM
My wild guess is that Jim Webb is saying that the majority of the military oppose the way the war is being conducted based on his own contacts...
You think he has contacts with every member of the military? That sure is a wild guess.
I'll stick with my guess. He doesn't know this and and he couldn't know it.
It works the same way as the rest of the usual litany "Bush lied" "illegal war" "pre-emptive" and "international police force"
He made it up out of wishful thinking.
And the certain knowledge that it will be believed by millions who never challenge anything they already want to believe. >
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 4:12 PM
Mike Hayes,
The problem is, this is a huge statement and Webb offers it without giving us any idea where he got it from.
Look, if he just said "from my conversations with men and women throughout our armed forces, I have come to the conclusion that most of our military is opposed to the way we are condicting this war" at least we'd know what his source is and could evaluate his statement.
But he didn't, so we can't. Maybe he has a brilliant insight, and maybe he made something up out of his head. Your guess is as good as mine.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 24, 2007 4:22 PM
I will venture a guess that Webb got his info about war support from the troops from the military times poll that was released last month.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/
"Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush s handling of the war. While approval of the president s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll."
whether or not this is where he got it, i don't think he was making it up.>
Posted by: nad2 | January 24, 2007 4:51 PM
Look, if he just said "from my conversations with men and women throughout our armed forces, I have come to the conclusion that most of our military is opposed to the way we are condicting this war" at least we'd know what his source is and could evaluate his statement.
You're trying to be magnanimous where it isn't called for. If he had said as you suggested, we actually wouldn't know his source, and we wouldn't know anything about the reasoning employed. All we would know is the claim.
Just as with the rest of his claims:
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed.
What is the evidence offered for the claim that the President took us to war recklessly?-- None. Just another claim- that he "disregarded warnings".
What is the evidence ofered for disregarding anything?--
None. Just more claims about "many, many,others"
What we really know is that the President disagreed with- not disregarded- a previous NSA advisor and some former Generals. What about the Generals and NSA advisors he agreed with? There is no evidence for any claim of recklesness, and no evidence of disregarding anything.
The only thing this nation is being held hostage to is its wilingness to accept and tolerate a disloyal opposition that engages in falsehoods and personal attack as a substitute for reasoning and discourse.
What we have from the official response of the Democratic Party and Jim Webb is personal attacks on the President and Commander in Chief, with absolutely nothing offered in support, only claims that offer nothing by way of reasoning- just belief supported by more claims and attacks.
And, of course, as I suggested in the first post--the certain knowledge that it will be believed by millions who never challenge anything they already want to believe.
What alternative plan was offered?
None.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 5:09 PM
Anyone else think that, given his unbelievably cartoonish statements, Donny is a classic troll? By that I mean he may very well be the alter ego of one of the regulars.
Heck, he might even be a Sojo who just likes to stir things up. Or enjoys setting up a rightwing kook strawman that all libs and progs can take aim at.>
Posted by: Carl Copas | January 24, 2007 5:23 PM
Nad2,
Thanks for posting that. At least now we have something to work on.
Here's the part that I think is most interesting:
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 percent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today s military is stretched too thin to be effective.
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.
So half of the military wanted a bigger force in Iraq, and only 13% want a total pullout. And the poll was conducted in November and December, before it was clear that the President was planning to increase troop levels.
Very interesting...
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 24, 2007 5:53 PM
As I've posted before there are Republican think tanks that produce talking points to influence the direction of the country.
There are books describing these, if you think there are Democratic equivalents then discount both.
I would like to look at history to inform my thinking.
I've posted the many times in history that some power faced insurgents and could not subdue them. They spent lives, money and position then finally gave up and the situation was resolved when the "power" got out of the way.
Vietnam is an easy one; they fought the Japanese then the French and finally the US to a stand still, now they are doing fairly well. You can but I don't want to discuss whether you approve of their political or economic model. By the way we can t fight Vietnam again, it is history so what is the lesson?
To answer the 1st argument; that we would have "won" if we had done it right. My understanding of history says there was no right way.>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 6:01 PM
I would like to look at history to inform my thinking.
I've posted the many times in history that some power faced insurgents and could not subdue them. They spent lives, money and position then finally gave up and the situation was resolved when the "power" got out of the way.
Good,lets look at history. I think that would have to include the times that some power faced insurgents and did subdue them.
Do you think all the "powers" should "get out of the way" in Iraq or only some? Who gets to pick?
Are you content with leaving the Iraqi people to face whatever fate is in store when all the powers except the US are allowed to "resolve" their lives for them?>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 6:52 PM
Give me an example of a power subduing an insurgency and I'll give you 5 that did not, poor odds for success.
G Britain couldn't do it in N Ireland
France coundn't do it in Algiers
Spain the Bathist (sp)
USSR in Afganistan; in this case we armed trained the Taliban exactly like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and maybe others are doing in modern day Iraq.
It can be done with brute murderous force on the short term.
Various Iraqi factions want to run Iraq or at least parts of Iraq and we can not beat them into changing their minds.
We've opened up ethic conflicts that have festered for centuries.>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 7:12 PM
A great and kind start. We need to go further in securing sustainable resources and a clean environment for all the Earth's people. This means greater investigation and implementation of technology that will ammeliorate climate change. If dependence on fossil fuels can be greatly reduced globally, much of the strife we see between the producers and consumers of these limited resources will also be greatly reduced and it will be easier to concentrate on other issues that can promote quality of life and life itself.>
Posted by: Andrea | January 24, 2007 7:30 PM
Give us examples that show you know what you are talking about.
What on earth is this an example of?
G Britain couldn't do it in N Ireland
Is Ireland now ruled by the NRA?
How about just answering the questions so people here know what it is you're advocating--
Do you think all the "powers" should "get out of the way" in Iraq or only some? Who gets to pick?
Are you content with leaving the Iraqi people to face whatever fate is in store when all the powers except the US are allowed to "resolve" their lives for them?>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 7:32 PM
Andrea search "terra preta" a wonderful new project based on ancient technology.
Provides fertilizer which improves growth and creates bio-diesel and the main thing is; it is co2 negative or neutral.>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 7:36 PM
A brief history of who to blame for the devastation of Iraq. First they said it was Baathists and Saddaam loyalists who were the insurgents, so we had deBaathification, then oops it's Syria who was interfering and sending in insugents, no, no, no... the fallujans did it, then it was Zarqawi who achieved mythical status as the ringleader and chief organizer of insurgent resistance, then the Mahdi Army were the cause of the problem, no, sectarian violence is the problem. Thank God George finally figured it out, and some of you thought he was missing some major links to reality. It was Iran the whole time. Iran suckered us into the war with Iraq, Iran set up the practices in Abu Graibh, Iran convinced us to de Baathify, it was Iran's idea to give all the reconstruction money to Halliburton and Bechtel and be sure none was used by Iraqis to rebuild there country and give them jobs and money to rebuild their lives. It was Iran who convinced Rummy to ignore our military leaders and use a third of the needed troops to stabilize the country, it was Iran who specially trained American soldiers to shoot civilians for the crime of not speaking English, it was Iran who kept telling us that the insurgency was almost over and things were going well in Iraq. And now the geniuses like Donny and Weinhagen have caught on, Iran is behind it all.
Here's what I see. Bush's brain, Karl Rove, defecates on national TV and some of you serve it up on this blog like it was toast and jam.
No thanks. Even the 70% of Americans who used to believe Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks have caught on and the people are about to show George,Dick and Karl the way.>
Posted by: Joseph T | January 24, 2007 7:48 PM
I don't feel you addressed my points but I'll try to address this on your terms, hopefully we will reach a bi-partisan approach (between you and me).
N Ireland is ruled by a government, which evolved after GB got out of the way. The Protestant and Catholic factions settled their differences when GB left.
Do you think all the "powers" should "get out of the way" in Iraq or only some? Who gets to pick? Those who are there, which is a really difficult decision.
All those who feel they have a stake will settle it when we are gone and we may not like it.
I know these 2 answers do not give you the method you feel is proper but I believe it is the way it will finally be done.
I m saying that we are pinned down exactly like the USSR was in Afghanistan with no chance to win or maintain control. A parallel in my mind to the US pinned down by Iran.>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 7:49 PM
Joseph you used all of the standard apologies run up the flagpole, where can blame be placed now. I suggest they will find a place other than the incompetent US leadership.>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 7:54 PM
Bush didn't hesitate to claim he was a Christian when he was campaigning. Where is the proof of that in the policies he promotes now??
Because this is a Christian forum, I would have thought that more of you would have aligned your beliefs along the lines with Jesus' teachings than Bush's when thinking about our country's relationship with the rest of the world.
I would presume that because Christians put their faith in Jesus, they would promote his teachings. How would he fight terrorism? Consider these quotes:
"I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in Heaven." (Mt 5:44-45)
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also..."(Lk 6:27-29)
"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful even as your Father is merciful." (Lk 6:35-36)
And to fight terror[ism], consider what John wrote: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar..." (I Jn 4:18-20)
From what I have seen so far, Jim Wallis's ideas come closer to following these teachings than most of the fundamental 'righteous' have promoted, and certainly more than Bush's.
Bush is like a noisy gong; he has claimed Christianity when it served him the opportunity to win votes, but now, he keeps clanging his war toys in some desparate attempt to be the top cock strutting around the dung heap.>
Posted by: Esther | January 24, 2007 8:14 PM
I'm the top cock on this dung heap!
LOL>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 8:25 PM
N Ireland is ruled by a government, which evolved after GB got out of the way. The Protestant and Catholic factions settled their differences when GB left.
Where did you get this idea from Butch- that Great Britain got out of the way? you're simply making up your own version of history.
All those who feel they have a stake will settle it when we are gone and we may not like it.
Well-of course they would. And if we do stay they may not like it. As you evidently don't.
I see no reason- and certainly no Christian reason- to suggest that the US should get out of the way so that the ones who get to settle things are those commited to the rule of brute force and mass murder of civilians.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 8:28 PM
Esther,
I do not see where attempting to preserve a democracy from sectarian conflict constitutes not loving our enemies. The majority of theologians acknowledge that war can be biblically justified.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 24, 2007 8:32 PM
I would presume that because Christians put their faith in Jesus, they would promote his teachings. How would he fight terrorism?
Good idea, promote his teachings.
Contrary to a popular belief, Jesus wasn't preaching to the Roman Senate.
Nowhere in his teaching- or anywhere in the OT or NT,the Psalms,the Law,the Prophets,-- nowhere is there any categorical rejection of the use of force by those tasked with the implementation of earthly justice.
No one is suggesting that America's churches draft an army from out of the pews to go fight wars.
Let's not suggest that Jesus taught that the President of the US should act like he was president of a Christian denomination or that the US military should confuse itself with the Salvation Army.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 8:35 PM
"Let's not suggest that Jesus taught that the President of the US should act like he was president of a Christian denomination or that the US military should confuse itself with the Salvation Army."
does this mean that a president who professes a deep christian faith and who was elected in large part by christians should not be held to the christian standards of living?
rome was not a democracy. it's leaders were not believers. things are a little trickier when the government is "of the people".
and why are the people who make statements like the one above the same who then turn around and say that the US government should make gay marriage illegal because it is not christian behavior. bit of a double standard, eh r.?>
Posted by: mingus | January 24, 2007 9:03 PM
does this mean that a president who professes a deep christian faith and who was elected in large part by christians should not be held to the christian standards of living?
No,it means that when a Christian is elected to serve as President of the United States he shouldn't be held to a sectarian Christian standard or a separatist or pacifist Christian standard.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 9:15 PM
From http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/us.iraq.ap/index.html Senator Lugar, who has expressed concerns for months or years about the course in Iraq, believes that more should be done to assure that the administration is planning ahead...
"... Even Republicans opposed to the legislation expressed unease with the revised policy involving a war that has lasted nearly four years, claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops and helped Democrats win control of Congress in last fall's elections.
'I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed,' said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, senior Republican on the committee.
But he said in advance he would vote against the measure. 'It is unclear to me how passing a nonbinding resolution that the president has already said he will ignore will contribute to any improvement or modification of our Iraq policy.'
'The president is deeply invested in this plan, and the deployments ... have already begun,' Lugar added.
He suggested a more forceful role for Congress, and said lawmakers must ensure the administration is 'planning for contingencies, including the failure of the Iraqi government to reach compromises and the persistence of violence despite U.S. and Iraqi government efforts.'...".>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 24, 2007 9:21 PM
nad2,
Thanks for the post about the poll of military personnel on their attitudes about the war in Iraq.
I was going to say that polls of military personnel aren't available, and that many of us ask questions of persons we know when we are curious about what others think on an issue and wonder whether they might think differently.
That may or may not have been what Jim Webb was thinking of.
When you provided that link it reminded me that I had seen something like this poll before (perhaps the same one).
May this concentration of so much time and energy and resources on an ill advised invasion of Iraq come to and end, soon.
May the people of Iraq find a way back to stability and may US and British troops be able to focus on keeping the US and Britain safe, rather than being stuck with a political task of trying to prevent sectarian violence.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 24, 2007 9:31 PM
Nothing will stop the sectarian violence!>
Posted by: butch | January 24, 2007 10:00 PM
So, several persons imply that Jim Webb was playing fast and loose with facts...
I think that the failure of the administration to assure that biological and chemical weapons were present in Iraq prior to launching the invasion is the most significant instance of innaccurate judgement that occurrerd in the four years the war has been going on.
In "State of Denial" Bob Woodward describes interviews he had with the military person charged with responsibility for planning the capture or destruction of the 900 plus suspected weapons sites... he was unable to acquire any substantial information on which to prioritize the seriousness of the various sites in order to protect US troops during the invasion.
Next were the decisions to launch the invasion without adequate numbers of troops.
Close behind that were the decisions to ban members of the top four levels of government in Iraq from participation, and the dismantling of the police and military in Iraq.
Those were decisions that were made without adequate consideration of "facts". The consequences of those decisions were immense.
For myself, I'm willing to believe that Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy and former member of the US military and father of a son now in Iraq has basis for his conclusions that a majority of the military do not support the war in Iraq... but I'm not going to attach prioity to knowing what his basis for that belief is.
I wish the administration had done a better job of justifying the invasion of Iraq... maybe they would have decided not to do it.
And then the time and energy and resources of our government and our troops could be better utilized... and the people of Iraq would be more secure than they are now...>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 24, 2007 10:02 PM
I think that the failure of the administration to assure that biological and chemical weapons were present in Iraq prior to launching the invasion is the most significant instance of innaccurate judgement that occurrerd in the four years the war has been going on.
Thinking that it was the responsibility of the US to assure the presence of WMD in Iraq is a judgement that lacks any basis of understanding and fact regarding the responsibilities of parties to the ceasefire.
It was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein- and soleley Saddam Hussein- to demonstrate complete and unconditional compliance with all conditions of the ceasefire ( not only those regarding WMD) that he agreed to.
I think the failure of those critics of US policy who lay claim to a Chritian perspective to be more responsible in knowing the truth regarding situations they criticize is the most significant failure of judgement and responsibility. In the case of the war with Iraq and criticism of it from America's mainline churches, the failures go back well beyond four years when the Church failed to do anything at all beyond lip service in speaking to the plight of Iraqis, and to this day has completely failed to address the issue of militant extremist Islamism anywhere in the world- instead substituting criticism directed ( with rare and inconsistent exception) soleley at the US.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 10:25 PM
I do not see where attempting to preserve a democracy from sectarian conflict constitutes not loving our enemies.
Very loaded comment Kevin. The reason I don't buy this line of reasoning is because we're dressing up an ulterior motive with a very weak appeal to human rights. It's such a weak appeal that we can't even get our facts straight - So first we were protecting the Shi'ites from Saddam, then we were protecting Iraq from from Al Qaeda, then we were protecting the Sunnis from the Shi'ites, then we were protecting the Shi'ites from the Sunnis and somewhere in there we were protecting women.
At the end of the day we haven't successfully protected anything apart from strategic oil interests! The results display the intentions more clearly than the rhetoric.
The majority of theologians acknowledge that war can be biblically justified.
Really? I'm not saying Christianity isn't a democracy, but the VAST MAJORITY of Christians in the world opposed this war. Theologeans included!>
Posted by: splinterlog | January 24, 2007 10:39 PM
well said, splinterlog.
r., your comment is absurd - critics of the administration's iraq policies have produced and provided mounds of evidence to back up their criticisms. the bush administration have not produced anything to back up their ever-changing reasons for going to war.
and sorry, r., you can close your eyes and wish really hard, but we did not go to war in iraq because of the "plight of the iraqis". this is a ridiculous claim that is not supported by historical fact.>
Posted by: mingus | January 24, 2007 10:57 PM
No, it's your comments that are are absurdand address nothing that I have said.
No one in the adminstration attempted to change anything by stating additional threats.
Which one of these are you prepared to say isn't a threat to the Iraqi people--Baathists, Al Qaeda, Muqtadr, the Iranian mullahs, Syria?
Which have you heard Jim Wallis or any other mainline church leader in America address? What have they done to protect the Iraqi people from any of these threats to their life?
What I said regarding the plight of the Iraqis was that I believed the greatest failure - because I speak as a Christian before I speak as an American- the greatest failure was criticism from America's church leadership that did nothing but criticise political leaders while doing nothing themeselves to address their plight.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 24, 2007 11:25 PM
Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
Mark 9:50>
Posted by: Esther | January 24, 2007 11:47 PM
"If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword."
Revelation 13:9-10>
Posted by: Esther | January 24, 2007 11:55 PM
The country that flaunts nuclear bombs must expect the flaunting of nuclear bombs.
Guess which country in the world has the most bombs?!!>
Posted by: Esther | January 25, 2007 12:10 AM
Esther maybe I can inlist you in my wife's campaign to take over the world.
As her campaign manager it falls to me to develope the slogan.
CASTRATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 1:09 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html says, in party, that Cheney thinks mention of mistakes in Iraq id hogwash...
"... In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, conducted a day after Bush delivered his State of the Union address, Cheney was asked to respond to some Republicans in Congress who 'are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures.'
To that, Cheney answered, "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash.' ...".>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 2:04 AM
R Weinhagen,
"... Thinking that it was the responsibility of the US to assure the presence of WMD in Iraq is a judgement that lacks any basis of understanding and fact regarding the responsibilities of parties to the ceasefire.
It was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein- and soleley Saddam Hussein- to demonstrate complete and unconditional compliance with all conditions of the ceasefire ( not only those regarding WMD) that he agreed to...".
The current administration based its decision to invade Iraq on the claim that it had evidence that biological and chemical weapons were in Iraq and that invasion of Iraq was justified to prevent the use of the weapons against US citizens.
Administration reference to "...mushroom cloud..." and nuclear materials in Africa also comes to mind.
Britain bought in. Other traditional allies of the US did not buy in to the conclusion that Iraq presented an imminent threat warranting an invasion to protect the citizens of their countries.
The inspectors eventually were able to complete their work and determined that it was not possible to prove the existence of the weapons the US had said were there, in the US attempt to justify the invasion.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 2:20 AM
I question the premise of the constant stream of hogwash from the Church, persisting in its failure to offer anything at all by way of credibility, and focusing on nothing beyond criticism of the US administration.
Bashing the administration has nothing to do with peace and nothing todo with the Gospel. It does nothing to prevent war,nothing to end war, nothing of any value at all to any suffering person on earth.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 2:24 AM
Other traditional allies of the US did not buy in to the conclusion that Iraq presented an imminent threat....
The President of the US did not claim any imminent threat. He specifically stated that there was no way to assess imminency.
The inspectors eventually were able to complete their work and determined that it was not possible to prove the existence of the weapons the US had said were there, in the US attempt to justify the invasion.
The inspectors did not complete their work. Their job had nothing to do with proving the existence of WMD, there was no such need or requirement.
There job was to verify Saddams compliancewith the ceasefire, which required full and unconditional compliance with the entire agreement,not solely WMD.
There was no full and unconditional compliance as determined by the UN and there was,in any event, specific, material breach regarding compliance with disclosure of WMD.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 2:35 AM
Mike, Most remember or heard repeated "a few deadenders", I think I know who the deadenders are.
Those who opposed the Vietnam War were bashing Johnson. If anyone disagrees with the adminstration it brings out the Republi-Nazi apologist.
I agree with about 70% of the country who wants a different course. So, if you don't think Democrats have a different course then offer your way out?>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 2:39 AM
"There was no full and unconditional compliance as determined by the UN and there was, in any event, specific, material breach regarding compliance with disclosure of WMD."
So, if the UN holds a country to some agreement or resolution and they are in "material breach" then we, the US, are to mount an army and attack after, of course, giving the leaders 48 hours to get out?>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 3:04 AM
If the UN Security Council determines that there was a material breach of a ceasefire by a party that agreed to full and unconditional compliance with a cease fire agreement,and further re-atates their authorization of all member states to use any means needed to enforce it, then the US ( or any other meber state) would certainly be well within the bounds of international law to take such action.
When authorization is further given by both houses of Congress, the issue of 'legal war" is resolved.
The 48 hour bit would be optional,and absent any Congressional bill to the contrary, at the discretion of the commander in chief.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 3:23 AM
That clears it up for me; we should have invaded Iraq and should in the future attack any country that is not in compliance. And of course we should stay the course.
Case closed.
Now you think we took the proper course and any opinion to the contrary is Bush bashing.
I ll give you some Bush bashing, I think he is the despot of our time not one bit better than Hitler or Stalin or any of the despots in history.>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 3:38 AM
R Weinhagen,
I clearly remember that Hans Blicks summarized the work the UN group had been doing by saying that the UN team had completed its work resulting in no evidence of the presence of chemical or biological weapons and did so at substantially less cost than the work charged to the US inspectors, headed by David Kay.
David Kay of the US team also concluded there was no evidence of biological or chemical weapons.
Yet, the administration had proceeded to invade Iraq on the belief that weapons were present and were an imminent threat. And presented that case to citizens of the US.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 3:54 AM
butch,
I don't agree with your analogy.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 3:55 AM
To: Opponents of the values in "God's Politics"
Subject: Proof of the pudding
If the administration had certainty in its knowledge that biological and chemical (and possibly nuclear) weapons were present at over 900 sites in Iraq, surely it would have provided whatever evidence it had to US troops participating in the invasion.
Bob Woodward (in "State of Denial") reports the interview of the person charged with responsibility for planning the capture or destruction of the weapons, and that person discovered that there were no specifics in the information he could acquire, adequate to plan for the protection of the troops against the use of the weapons.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 4:08 AM
Which analogy?>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 4:14 AM
I clearly remember...Hans Blicks... saying ...no evidence of the presence of chemical or biological weapons.
David Kay of the US team also concluded there was no evidence of biological or chemical weapons...
Check your timeline and the statements--particularly Kay's
Aside from not having any authority to say so, did either one say Saddam was not in material breach, but was in full and unconditional compliance with all requirements of the ceasefire?
As I've stated repeatedly, the issue of WMD was not the sole reason for military action, there was no requirement for the US or inspectors to prove anything about WMD in either the ceasefire requirements or any requirements by the UN Sec.Council or US Congress regarding their respective authporizations for military action.
And,again,the President of the US did not say that the use of WMD was imminent,he said there was no way to tell and if it did become imminent it would be too late to act.
Oddly enough,some who opposed the war actually opposed it specificaly because they believed Saddam had WMD and would use them.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 4:22 AM
I ll give you some Bush bashing, I think he is the despot of our time not one bit better than Hitler or Stalin or any of the despots in history.
Well then,you might consider posting on the Al Qaeda web where your thinking would be more widely appreciated.
If you can't read Arabic,try Daily Kos,they'll love ya too.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 4:25 AM
I do have a way out, Iraq was put together by outside forces about 1918.
I say take it apart again and let each part become whatever those in each area want or are able to create.
Talk about a tough pill to swallow?
Then protect the Kurds from Turkey and leave the other 2 parts on their own.>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 4:25 AM
Mr. Wallis
Making work work. we raise the min. wage and those that need the job the most will more than likely loose it because what they are mfg. or supplying will not support that type of a pay hike. In my city I have yet to see a list for a job that pays min. If you are looking for 100% employment that will never happen Econ 101 in HS taught me that one.
Insure all our kids. I do not want our gov t supplying health insurance. The health care that England and Canada have imposed on their people is barely adequate and in many cases an abysmal failure. I think that Pres Bush s idea of encouraging them to get their own insurance with a tax-deduction is a better way of getting the job done. There is a significant amount of uninsured that could afford to have insurance but elect not to do so. Make it desirable for them to get their own plan.
Comprehensive immigration reform. No argument here. Let us stop of flow of illegals into our country and protect our future by eliminating the anchor baby challenge.
Abortion. Stop 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and then work to create an environment where abortion is no longer needed. Stop financially underwriting illegitimacy in the US.
Genocide in Darfur. Let the UN handle this as we (according to the writers on this site) have screwed up Iraq and now the world hates US. Let them deal with the UN and the UN with Darfur.
Iran. Well the UN can do this one too as well as North Korea. I believe it was about 15+ years ago Israel bombed Iran to stop their developing nuclear weapons. I am sure that when Iran gets the bomb Tel Avi will be removed from the face of the earth. Who knows where the little man in North Korea has his sight on Japan?
Foreign aid. If it were not for this Pres. many things with HIV/AIDS would not be happening around the world. We do more than a lot of other developed countries do combined. I wonder what would happen if aid from the US (public and private) was stopped just for a month. Maybe the world and the US would see how much we do for people outside of our country. I dare say that the shut down of aid from the US for just a week would be disastrous in several areas of the world.
I dare say that Pres Bush could roll over on almost any subject that has been address here on this site and he would still be vilified by most. So in many ways it really does not matter what he says as many of you will not be happy until he is out of office impeachment would be the desired process I m sure.
Here is praying that something good might happen.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 4:28 AM
"Well then,you might consider posting on the Al Qaeda web where your thinking would be more widely appreciated.
If you can't read Arabic,try Daily Kos,they'll love ya too."
You agree with the adminstration and I disagree so you defend and I call them what I think they are.
Since my understanding is different than yours then I need to leave?>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 4:29 AM
butch | 01.24.07 - 11:34 pm |
butch who...?
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 4:32 AM
Rob how many times will you say you are finished with me then return? If you quit picking the scab it may heal.>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 4:35 AM
butch | 01.24.07 - 11:40 pm |
If you quit picking the scab it may heal.
No 'scab picking' here - just find it interesting that you reply to my posting...tootles.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 4:43 AM
butch,
Your example of Bush bashing.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 4:48 AM
R Weinhagen,
The rationale for the invasion of Iraq was the belief that Iraq had biological and chemnical weapons.
Coiln Powell appeared before the UN to make that case, because he reached that conclusion, based on his efforts to get at the facts.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 4:51 AM
robstur,
I think your values statement to Jim Wallis responding to the values he suggested are pretty much aligned with a "strict father" model of family, translated to politics and government.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 4:56 AM
Mike I hope you understand how it pains me to believe it. Part of the pain is how we let him go for so long before there was any attempt to reign in his behavior. Misplaced patriotism, partisan politics, and the religious right thinking they were the only way.
Are you old enough to remember how partisan politics defended Nixon until the weight of evidence became so great. How much evidence do we need. You ve listed the Bush lies several times, what do we need to say enough.>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 4:59 AM
The rationale for the invasion of Iraq was the belief that Iraq had biological and chemnical weapons.
Coiln Powell appeared before the UN to make that case, because he reached that conclusion, based on his efforts to get at the facts.
No. That was a part of the rationale, not the sum total. Lacking Sadam's requires full and unconditional disclosure there was no reason to believe he didn't have WMD.
Read the ceasefire requirements. Read the UN authorization for military action. Read the SOU speech given just prior to the war. Read the joint bill of Congress.
And go back and read Blix and particularly Kay.
It's not all about WMD.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 5:13 AM
"It's not all about WMD."
It is all about finding excuses to justify what they wanted to do.>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 5:17 AM
Mike Hayes | 01.25.07 - 12:01 am |
Not sure that I am the 'strict father' role. I do have strong opinions and the rational to back them. I enjoy hearing others perspectives on any issue and discuss them respectfully. With my children and their friends I have enjoyed defending the opposite of what they are talking about even when I am not in agreement with what I am saying. I have told my kids many times it is just as important to know why you do not believe something as why you do.
Think I am more the mentor.
Have a blessed day.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 1:14 PM
Jim Wallis is a 100% partisan Liberal-Progressive Democrat.
He represents a wierd and perverted group of society. Certainly not decent, moral America. His actions and beliefs better suit Babylon, Rome, Sodom or Gomorrah.
Time for those that can see the destruction hiding in his preaching, to get away as soon as possible.>
Posted by: Donny | January 25, 2007 2:24 PM
Donny why are you here?>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 2:46 PM
Donny | 01.25.07 - 9:29 am |
Attack the content of his writings and thinking. Point out the flaws in his logic.
Please - don't attack his character. My son had the opportunity to be with Mr. Wallis and others in a meeting and he is a very pleasant person. My son does not agree with what Wallis is saying but understands that the person is valued (there are a number of people on this site that disrespect people that post and write here - don't be one of them)
Have a blessed day.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 3:02 PM
R. Weinhagen said, "It's not all about WMD."
You are so right! It's about oil and Haliburton's lucrative contracts.>
Posted by: Esther | January 25, 2007 3:47 PM
Rob How old is your son?>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 4:11 PM
Esther | 01.25.07 - 10:52 am |
It was also about regime change that was voted on during the Clinton Adm.
It was about giving the Iraqi people the same freedoms that we enjoy here in the US. (under Saddam an Esther would not have been tolerated)
Oil - not for us but to make sure that our allies had their supply.
Halliburton - face it there are some things that only Halliburton is equipped to do. I am open to another company getting contract. Even Wm. 'Baba' Clinton and his adm used them.
Have a great day.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 4:12 PM
butch | 01.25.07 - 11:16 am |
21 - junior in college.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 4:13 PM
Rob says;
"Please - don't attack his character."
Do you believe our thoughts and actions flow out of our character?>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 5:06 PM
butch | 01.25.07 - 12:11 pm |
(should I go here...)
Yes - but you advance nothing when it comes to open discussion and meaningful discourse when you attack the persons 'character' and make it an 'US vs. THEM' or a 'YOU vs. ME'.
The topic/issue should be talked about without labeling the person. Almost like the 3rd person in the discussion. (ie. you - me - the issue)
Respecting the person and valuing them as individual(s). Challenging their perspective.
Understanding is more important to me than Agreement on any topic or issue.
Be blessed.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 25, 2007 5:39 PM
Bear with me, I'm having difficulty getting a message through...>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 5:39 PM
I keep getting a message that says try again and then that the message is a duplicate, so maybe this will work...
R. Weinhagen,
The justification for the invasion of Iraq was about whether there were biological or chemical weapons and possibly nuclear materials.
Colin Powell was the one whose job it was to build a convincing case, and he subsequently was disturbed to find out that the information he used in trying to persuade the UN of the presence of those weapons was inaccurate.
And the military person in charge of planning the steps to protect US troops was disturbed to find that there were no specifics to the over 900 sites that were identified by US sources to contain biological or chemical weapons. Nothing to allow him to plan for the defense of US troops during the invasion.
Bob Woodward lays it all out in "State of Denial".>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 5:43 PM
butch,
Under the circumstances, the facts bear repeating.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 25, 2007 5:45 PM
Colin Powell's job and he had one and worked for the Pres. to speak for the Pres and of course the US.
If you have kept up with the reports of people around Powell he had grave doubts and expressed them privately which the only place he had a voice.
I'm not discounting his part but it wasn't his job to make the case only speak the case.>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 6:22 PM
Mike,
"And the military person in charge of planning the steps to protect US troops was disturbed to find that there were no specifics to the over 900 sites that were identified by US sources to contain biological or chemical weapons. Nothing to allow him to plan for the defense of US troops during the invasion."
This is very telling!>
Posted by: butch | January 25, 2007 6:24 PM
The justification for the invasion of Iraq was about whether there were biological or chemical weapons and possibly nuclear materials.
That was part of the justification.
Typing Powell's name and Woodward's name doesn't make it true.
Find a quotation from either one, find testimony from Powell, find a Security Council Resolution,find the section of the joint bill to authorize military action that says the only reason for it was WMD.
Read Kays report. Read the Dulfer report.
Regardless of which,what kins,and how many Saddam had on any fiven dayn Saddam never abandoned his intentions or plans for WMD.
Saddamwas never in compliance with the ceasefire. Saddam was in material breach of the ceasefire. From that point on, every member nation of the UN had the authority to use all necessary means to enforce them- without any need for any inspector to find- or even look for anything.
You may not like it, lots of people may not like it. That doesn't change anything.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 7:03 PM
The justification for the invasion of Iraq was about whether there were biological or chemical weapons and possibly nuclear materials.
That was part of the justification.
No, that WAS the justification, that he HAS them, and that he may supply them to terrorists. It WASN'T that he may or may not have them or he INTENDS to make them, it was that he AT THIS VERY MOMENT,has them. That's what we were told the intelliegence said.>
Posted by: Aaron | January 25, 2007 7:23 PM
I was expecting more along the lines of "I am the Messiah, worship me.">
Posted by: monk | January 25, 2007 7:33 PM
It WASN'T that he may or may not have them or he INTENDS to make them, it was that he AT THIS VERY MOMENT,has them. That's what we were told the intelliegence said.
That is what the intelligence said.
Who disputed that?
- but let's be even more accurate.
That is what some of the intelligence reports said.
Say they were the major justification. Cite more quotations about mushroom clouds.
What's the point?
That doesn't change the fact that WMD violations were part of the justification for war, but not all of the justification.
Read the ceasefire requirements. They are not all about WMD.
Read the UN Security Council Resolutions requiring full and unconditional compliance with all extant resolutions-not only resolutions regarding WMD.
Read the Joint bill of Congress.
Find a place where it says The UN, US Congress,and US Senate require first finding WMD or hereby revoke any authorization for military force.
All of this is public record, and it has been public record for years.
WMD were not the only jusatification for military action and neither the UN or the US Congress had any requirement for finding them in order to justify military action.
The only requirement regarding WMD was of Saddam -full and unconditional compliance with all provisions of the ceasefire,and all extant Security Council Resolutions.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 8:10 PM
LOL Monk.
Butch,
would you agree that down the road Iraq will likely end up as several different nations, even if US doesn't support partition?
Seems like Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds will separate themselves.>
Posted by: Carl Copas | January 25, 2007 8:49 PM
R. Weinhagen, what you say is true but irrelevant, all that was WRAPPED in the packaging presented to the people through incessant talking points and soundbites, which were always linked to 9-11, all of which was simplified to Saddam HAS WMD's and HE will use them against us.>
Posted by: Aaron | January 25, 2007 8:59 PM
Weinhagen is in lala land, the hardcore 28%. Don't feed his ego with answers to his ludicrous arguments. Don't waste your words. Politely inform him that if he can't cope with facts that don't fit his perfectly parroted, Karl Roe approved version of reality, he is more than welcome to go back to the land of dittoheads and little green footballs.
Here's a quote from Garrison Keillor with sobering words for repubs and dems
Winter is satisfying to us. We don't move to the Land of Endless Summer because summer is a destination to be yearned for, which is what makes it beautiful. You need winter to enjoy summer, just as your kids need to work lousy jobs for low pay in order to appreciate having a car and an apartment. You don't want to bestow these things on them casually, or you will steal from them the satisfaction of making their own way uphill in life. You brood about the danger of eating cottage cheese past the expiration date, the danger of brain cancer caused by the use of mobile phones, all the worst scenarios, and this helps make ordinary life seem blessed.
We aren't part of evangelical corporate America, which believes that if we love the Lord, He will make first-quarter sales at Amalgamated Grommet the best ever. It just ain't so. When the Republicans took over the Bible, they cut a lot of stuff out, which of course all of us do. If you took Scripture literally, you'd never make it to the office in the morning. You'd be sitting cross-legged on the kitchen floor, ashes in your hair, rocking back and forth, praying for mercy. The Republicans threw out all the stuff about the poor - and that's OK! The poor are not that attractive. Needy people tend to be so needy, and their personal grooming is poor. You would not want to attend a party in their home.
What was galling about the Church of the Republican was how it eliminated the confession of sin. And now that Democrats are installed in Washington, we want to restore that feature. For six years, Congress has been a herd of buffalo dozing by the waterhole, and now something else is about to happen, a public inquiry into the arrogance, corruption and incompetence of the Current Occupant and his cronies and minions, a truly remarkable story. So let it happen, and spare us the celebrity politics for another six months, please.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's smiley video, tossing her scarf into the ring, saying she wants to engage America in a conversation, was lacking in grit. You have to wonder how many focus groups were shown this piece of nougat and decided that, yes, this is the brand of Hillary they want, a softer, less ideological one. But it is so not what is needed right now.
The Democrats have been installed in Washington for all of three weeks. Let Sen. Barack Obama put his skinny butt in the chair, and let Mrs. Clinton have a conversation with her fellow senators. Just do your job.>
Posted by: Joseph T | January 25, 2007 9:08 PM
...all of which was simplified to Saddam HAS WMD's and HE will use them against us
Yes, indeed. All of it was simplified by ignorant,arrogant, children who thought that shouting their incessant talking points of no WMD, illegal war and bashing the President had something to with the Gospel and would somehow bring peace.
Just ignore the UN Security Council resolutions, ignore the joint bill of congress, ignore the cease-fire violations, ignore the mass graves, ignore the deaths of innocents, just keep shouting and pouting. Hold your breath and stamp your feet.Think of more insults. Make up more lies and call everyone else a liar.
Got peace yet?
Call 911- ask for the International Police Force, tell them you want to report a crime.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 25, 2007 11:09 PM
What a power whiner!!!!
"Got peace yet?
Call 911- ask for the International Police Force, tell them you want to report a crime."--R. Weinhagen>
Posted by: the wich young wulew | January 25, 2007 11:19 PM
"Butch,
would you agree that down the road Iraq will likely end up as several different nations, even if US doesn't support partition? Seems like Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds will separate themselves."
That is exactly what I'm saying; these sectarian forces will not be controlled by our influence or anyone else's. The various players in the region will play a part, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Turkey which no one includes but they may be the biggest influence.>
Posted by: butch | January 26, 2007 2:21 AM
R Weinhagen,
You are ignoring the fact that the US and Britain were the only nations which concluded that it was appropriate to invade Iraq before the UN inspectors concluded their investigations.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 26, 2007 3:25 AM
Mike you are playing with a Republi-Nazi, does it seem odd that his post would have so many references. He is paid to be here or feels so strong about his partican point of view that he is volunteering to work here.>
Posted by: butch | January 26, 2007 3:41 AM
butch,
"Soldier", about Colin Powell, was worthwhile reading... but I admit that I would welcome the opportunity to vote for Colin Powell for president... maybe with Barack Obama as candidate for vice president.
I think Colin Powell would restore confidence of many... most... more than most... citizens in our government.
Some persons condemn Colin Powell for his appeal to the UN to accept the view that chemical and biological weapons were in Iraq and might be used against US citizens, but I think he was the lone ranger trying to persuade Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney to think more objectively about the decision to invade Iraq.
Along that line, Bob Woodward also documented (can't recall which book) the conversation about invading Iraq among the members of the administration within days after the September 2001 attacks.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 26, 2007 3:41 AM
butch,
I have my own logic (about repeatedly making the point about biological and chemical weapons) to counter R Weingahen... it may be wrong... but it's mine...>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 26, 2007 3:44 AM
Mike, You're ignoring the entire concept of a ceasefire agreement.
It wasn't dependent on completed inspections,it was dependent on completed compliance by Saddam.
It was breached. For twelve years.
The UN S.C Resolutions authorized all member nations to use all necessary means to enforce them. The US and Britain chose to act.
You've ignored several other nations who joined them.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 26, 2007 3:45 AM
mike
re; Powell
I don't want to shoot the messenger and loose focus.>
Posted by: butch | January 26, 2007 3:51 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/25/iraq.us/index.html is about John McCain's plan to introduce benchmarks, which I assume would be for the president's plan to "escalate".>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 26, 2007 4:06 AM
butch,
hayesmike@InsightBB.com>
Posted by: Mike Hayes | January 26, 2007 4:06 AM
R. Weinhagen | 01.25.07 - 10:50 pm |
Welcome to the 'Republi-Nazi' club - one of the nicer labels that you will be given on this site.
You can show them all that Saddam did.
You can point out the UN's failures
You can remind them of the 'regime change' passed by congress.
You can...
To them it will never balance out...War for Oil + Bush Lied = Impeach Bush.
There are several other titles that you will be given by those who attack your character and not the issue or logic.
Have a great day.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 26, 2007 2:04 PM
robstur,
I apologize for the lack of civility on the Left. It is wrong, but it os not without reason. I believe it all stems from the post-9/11 statement taht you're either with the terrorists or with the US, where the US was clearly defined as whatever the president said we should do. Those who opposed war were defined right into the enemy camp and intentionally excluded from the political process in that the majority party cut off negotiation and started making legilsation in secret, using threats of committee appoitntments and seniority being revoked if its own members stepped out of party line. As far as I know, this is unprecedented in American history. The outrage and fear I and my friends have experienced over this turn haveoften proven to be a good incubator for Hate. I apologize for that, but I think it would gloss over reality to conclude tat Lefties are just unreasonable idiots who need someone to hate. Not so.
One person who is often above this fray is Mike Hayes. He has provided several specific reasons why he believes invading Iraq was the plan from the get-go and even admitted he might be wrong.
I agree with that conclusion. As a White House source told the press - "We create reality." In his newest book Barack Obama distinguishes between values and ideology - values are applied to teh facts at hand where ideology holds to a concept and course of action and refuses to see facts that do not fit that viewpoint. I very much think this was the case in the lead up to the war. Many intelligence officials and agents have testified it was made clear to them taht the object was not to find out the reality but to build a case for invading Iraq. I'm not sure there's much wiggle room there to argue they're lying, mistaken, or to ignore them entirely.>
Posted by: Daniel | January 26, 2007 8:58 PM
Those who opposed war were defined right into the enemy camp
Oh jeez. That isn't even worth a reply.
I think it would gloss over reality to conclude that Lefties are just unreasonable idiots who need someone to hate. Not so.
I think it glosses over reality to pretend that there is anything reasonable about the display of ignorance in this thread alone.
Mike is "above the fray"- why because he isn't as insulting as some other idiots for peace here?
He still can't answer simple questions about the factual basis of the UN Security Council Resolutions and the reasons for war.
Jim Webb deserves kudos- but none of the kudo kids can respond to any of the questions raised about Webb's claims either.
This isn't that surprising- Jim Wallis himself has been unable to offer anything productive beyond talk about fantasized International Police forces and calims to be some kind of "moderate"- who bashes the President with the best of the real loon fringe, albeit with occasionally somewhat more refined vocabulary.
It is the Church that is called to be peacemakers- If there is no peace, who failed?
Bashing the President will not bring peace.
Insulting people will not bring peace.
And even the most humble,spirit filled Christian will never help to bring peace if he can't be bothered to even get his facts straight.>
Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 26, 2007 9:44 PM
R. Weinhagen | 01.26.07 - 4:49 pm |
Bashing the President will not bring peace.
Insulting people will not bring peace.
And even the most humble,spirit filled Christian will never help to bring peace if he can't be bothered to even get his facts straight.
Never confuse a liberal with the facts - bashing the other side is so much more enjoyable and easy.
If you have not found out yet - there are some 'blue' people on this site that are great to talk with on almost any topic/issue. Then there are others that label - attack - disrespect what ever you write and end with something like 'Impeach Bush'. You will figure out which ones to reply to and which ones to leave alone.
Have a great day
.>