The inestimable Dr. Hunter S. Thompson doesn’t seem to appreciate the finer points of G. W. Bush.
Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?
If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a “liberal” candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today — and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected “American people”) don’t rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd. …Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.”
Fear and Loathing, Campaign 2004 [rollingstone.com]
Enjoyed that a lot. He writes like a river about to overflow its banks.
I’ve read about something called “Bush Derangement Syndrome” – people that are incapable of evaluating facts, but merely spew words like “Halliburton” and “no blood for oil” while defaming the President. Bush is more of a traditional Democrat than a Republican, with his disasterous steel tarrifs and prescription drug benefit.
None of the personal attacks on Bush were found to have merit upon very close examination. Some were fraudulent, some were irrelevant. And most of his policy decisions, when examined through the lens of history and even a hint of sobriety, have been historic home-runs. Afghanistan is forming a free society out of the ruins of thousands of years of tribal bickering and, more recently, the autocratic slavery of the Soviet Union and the even worse (if that’s possible, which I doubt) torment of the Taliban’s insane theocracy.
Iraq, about which very little material fact is discussed, but every car bomb and mortar attack is trumpeted as a catastrophe on the scale of the London Blitz, is also on the verge of forming a consensual society, with its capital on the site of the palaces of the original Muslim Caliphs back before Islam was the “religion of peace” and was embarking on its pre-Crusade across the Middle East, North Africa and southwestern Europe.
The cold facts in Iraq unequivocally support the war, and discredit the bizarre campaign notion that somehow we need support from France or Russia before we do something. From terrorist training camps, to uranium stockpiles (somehow that didn’t make the evening news), to the murder of their own citizens in mass graves that the Euros refuse to inspect because such inspection will likely certify the death penalty for Hussein given the sheer number of brutalized corpses subject to every form of physical mortification.
Bush is driving a stake into the heart of Islamic state-sponsored terrorism, and is ruining the environment for the mullah’s in Iran and the sheiks in Saudi Arabia. John Kerry won’t do this – he’s opposed the U.S. since he likely committed a form of treason in 1971 (I’m amazed he wasn’t brought before a court martial for that).
Bush is far from perfect – but for every detail that’s microanalyzed, small blemishes raised to the level catastrophe – there’s a major strategic victory.
War is messy. Look at Admiral Nagumo, who lost four aircraft carriers at Midway to an outgunned, inferior American force, despite acting appropriately at every instance. No doubt the Times would have included that in a footnote – but would have focused on the loss of the torpedo bombers that effectively embarked upon a suicide mission. The misrepresentation of a broad conflict by focusing on trivial tactical failures is absolutely insane.
cdg
cdg,
you discredit yourself with at least the following statements:
“Iraq, about which very little material fact is discussed,…”
“The cold facts in Iraq unequivocally support the war…”
“John Kerry … opposed the U.S. since he likely committed a form of treason in 1971…”
reads to me like you’re just another one of those “… people that are incapable of evaluating facts.”
go spew your trash somewhere else.
John Kerry *has* generally opposed U.S. policy since 1971. There’s a long Senate voting record to prove it. U.S. policy in 1991, for example was to invade Iraq in defense of Kuwait. Kerry voted against, therefore, he opposed U.S. policy.
Most people, including the Russians in power at the time, draw a direct line of causality between Reagan’s activities and policies and the Soviet collapse. Kerry tended to vote against, and stump against, Reagan and his policies. This was generally good U.S. policy opposed by Kerry.
In 1971, Kerry was meeting with Viet Cong and NVA representatives regarding, among other things, VVAW. He was a commissioned Naval officer negotiating and meeting with senior enemy representatives, once again, against U.S. policy.
Those observations aren’t “trash” – they’re relevant historical facts.
cdg
cdg,
What exactly is “U.S. policy” to you?
To go around the globe kicking ass?
If that were the only means of conflict resolution, fine.
Kerry has his record because he believes in alternative strategies.
btw, I never did catch your “cold facts [that] … unequivocally support the war”…
Here some facts (note that I’m avoiding anecdotal stuff here):
1) Saddam Hussein is no longer in power
2) Iraq, while not involved in 9/11, was involved with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations (in other words, it’s a state sponsor of Islamic anti-Western terrorist activity), providing funding, training camps and sanctuary to various groups and individuals
3) Iraq had an apparently effective plan to undermine sanctions via bribery using Oil-for-Food as a vehicle, with documentary evidence supporting not only cash and voucher payments, but weapons import deals, evidenced by the presence of large quantities of prohibited weapons and materials
4) Poll results indicate that Iraqis prefer self-determination to Saddam’s insanity and the imposition of fundamentalist Islamic rule
5) Iraq has acted as a lightning rod for Islamic fundamentalist fighters, which is bad for Iraq today but very good for Iraq tomorrow and good for most everyone else today
6) Over 300,000 discovered so far in mass graves, most still recognizably human – and subjected to every type of mortification
And here’s some commentary:
There absolutely have been tactical failures – from easing up on Fallujah, to the overly-optimistic plans about post-war stability. But wars aren’t won by tactics, usually, unless in rapid and continued sequence – and even then, tactical brilliancies can still precede defeat (witness Hannibal of Carthage, Germany in WWII, the U.S. in Vietnam). They are won in the broader strategic context, and in the war against fundamentalist Islamic lunacy, a self-determining Arab state is a strategic home run worth an enormous price. Further, we have accomplished our first strategic goal: defeating Saddam Hussein.
Afghanistan appears to be mostly working much to the chagrin of bin Laden (he talks about it in his latest tape), and it seems likely that Iraqis will take to the polls in January. Afghanistan was a quagmire on the editorial pages of the NY Times, too, for a while, remember.
It’s immature to believe that wars can be won at no cost in blood and foolish to believe anyone who tells you that tactical perfection is achievable on a broad scale – but the cost in Iraq is very small, both from a historical and from a strategic value perspective. And, it’s a conflict where the U.S. vision can be achieved through steadfast adherence to the plan – but it’s a conflict that can also be lost by cutting and running, which we must not do.
Iraq isn’t just about Iraq anymore, and the world will be worse for our defeat which, as should be clear, will only occur if we choose to lose.
cdg