Another MUST READ from ajc's Jay Bookman I forgot to post: Powerful. And what I would ask the Veep tonight.
I did an 10-3-04 post entitled "The facts ma'am, only the facts, & The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Bush & Iraq. A MUST READ. -- Iraq: Politics or Policy?" It was about a 10-3-04 N.Y. Times by Thomas L. Friedman. If you didn't read it, you should.
I did an 10-2-04 post "You've read the rest, now read the best (MUST, MUST READING) -- The Bush Scowl is destined take its place with the Gore Sigh and the Dean Scream. Giving Democrats Reasons to Smile." It was about a 10-2-04 The Washington Post column by E.J. Dionne, Jr. Again, if you didn't read it, you should.
Having gotten to heavy-duty must reads and keepers from the Times and the Post, I overlooked posting one I had intended to post. Nothing big, I forget things all of the time.
But the problem here was that rather than having to go "out of town," the one I overlooked posting was right here in our backyard, on our home turf no less. I realized my overight while reading my hard copy of the ajc last night.
The keeper: our own Jay Bookman in his 10-4-04 ajc column entitled: "Debate offers little cause for optimism."
Thanks for the title Jay. In another keeper (and by one of my favorites who the ajc publishes as a guest from time to time) about a column by Richard Cohen I said I would try not to write anymore about Debate No. 1. That 10-3-04 post entitled "Debate No. 1. Last post I promise (okay, I promise I will try; this one is great). One reason Kerry won -- Debate Victor: Iraq's Reality," was about his column in The Washington Post dated 10-3-04.
_______________
Before moving on, however, I want to note one thing Jay Bookman writes in his column:
"[The foregoing] is not an argument for withdrawal. The violence taking place daily in Iraq is almost inconsequential compared to what would happen if the United States abandoned the country to its worst elements. On this point, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry are in agreement."
I have tried unsuccessfully to get what I am fixing to relate to Sen. Edwards' campaign prior to tonight's Vice Presidential debate. It concerns something Dick Cheney said while he was a private citizen on the lecture circuit about halfway between his service to Bush I as Secretary of Defense and becoming part of the Bush II team as Vice President.
What I heard I feel certain was said over and over as Mr. Cheney was on a lecture across the country. Some of the same thoughts are in Bush I's book, but dern if you hear anyting about it from the Kerry camp.
The lecture was at the Florida Theater in Jacksonville, Florida, as part of something called the Florida Forum Series. This series seeks to bring some of the world's most widely known public figures to Jacksonville, Florida, with the series benefiting Wolfson Children's Hospital.
The last lecture I attended there was in September 2002, and the lecturer was Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a fascinating evening program and presentation wise.
Anyway, when Cheney was in Jacksonville in the mid-90's, he had no reason to fibracate, exaggerate, etc. Bush I had been retired, and Bush II was still just a cowboy.
After a fascinating lecture, a person in the audience asked the following question: Mr. Secretary, after American troops and U.S. led forces liberated Kuwait, why did we stop at Iraq's southern border; why didn't we go on to Baghdad and take Suddam out.
I remember the respond as if it were this morning, someone having asked a question about which so many Americans such as myself had wondered.
Two reasons citizen Cheney said: First, the history of this region of the world and our own intelligence convinced us that as bad as Suddam was, his not being there would probably be worse. Without question the whole area could be rendered less stable, and just as surely civil war between the Shiites, Sunni and the Kurds would erupt, with more fighting and bloodshed that the liberation of Kuwait had involved.
And second and equally important reason he stated, was that the coalition was not with us; it strongly opposed and would not support going on to Baghdad. And just as was the case with the decison to retake Kuwait, having the coalition was deemed imperative.
But shift the clock forward several years, and Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack tells us that Cheney, unlike Powell, could not wait to get back to Iraq.
Thus if I were asking the questions tonight, I would ask the Veep how were things different in 1992 and 2002. If there were not WMD's and a link with bin Laden, had history changed; was having the coalition no longer important.
(One "I digress" (did someone say this whole post is a digression): In a 9-23-04 post I provided another theory of mine as to why we went in, something I don't really think is true because I don't want it to be, even though I feel I have blood on my hands. The post provided:
This whole thing sort of reminds me of something that happened in 1991 when the Vice President was Secretary of Defense, and is a pet theory of mine of providing at least part of the answer as to why Cheney was so bound and determined to invade Iraq and get Hussein, with or without supporting evidence, and with or without the coalition we had when we went in Kuwait.
After American troops and U.S. led forces liberated Kuwait and then stopped at Iraq's southern border, Bush I encouraged Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south to take matters into their own hands and get rid of Suddam.
Such groups, and especially the Kurds, did just that, rising in revolt against Suddam. But no help was forthcoming from America, as Bush I withheld American military support when their uprisings drew savage retribution from Baghdad.
It is something that I wish I could forget but cannot. I have never blamed Bush I for this per se; rather it is something I regard as America as a country getting blood on its hands.
That is all of this long digression.)
And lastly, before posting Mr. Bookman's column, I want to say that I appreciate him saying you can't up and leave a mess this country created.
In a 9-20-04 post I wrote:
"Tell us Americans that what he and John Edwards are going to have to do before moving to bigger and better things -- and pardon his French, but if the Veep can get away with the f word on the U.S. Senate floor, maybe the Pope will forgive him for his use of the s word -- is to clean up the shit that Bush and Cheney have made and gotten us into in Iraq as they have caused terrorism to increase rather than subside."
_______________
If you're still me, the keeper I said was our own Jay Bookman in his 10-4-04 ajc column:
Debate offers little cause for optimism
Some people are victims of circumstance, ruined not by their mistakes or personal shortcomings, but by events beyond their control.
George W. Bush has been just the opposite, a beneficiary of circumstance who was elevated by the attacks of Sept. 11 to a heroic status beyond what his abilities and accomplishments would justify. In last week's presidential debate, that shining aura finally began to fade, allowing a glimpse at the real man within.
What we saw was not a confident leader, secure in himself and his policies. In his halting, stumbling responses to questions, in his recitation of sound bites searching for a context, Bush looked lost and out of his element. Judging from his facial expressions and his body language, he seemed startled that his opponent, Sen. John Kerry, could actually be allowed to say harsh things about him in public.
Bush's inner teenager showed itself, angry, impatient and frustrated to be called onto the carpet.
In hindsight, Bush's reaction should not have been surprising. During his first term in office, the president's handlers worked hard to protect him from news conferences, interviews and other uncontrolled situations in which he might be forced to defend his policies, hoping that by doing so they could nurse the heroic myth along for a few more months or even years.
The strategy worked for a while, but at a price. His time in the bubble betrayed Bush in the debate, leaving him without the confidence and experience that a president ending his first term would otherwise enjoy.
The president had another problem as well: He was trying to sell a product that was long past its expiration date. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; there were no substantive ties between Saddam and terror groups; we were not greeted as liberators and the cost of our occupation has not been covered by the sale of Iraqi oil, not even close.
Most of all, the idea that we could create a Western-style democracy in Iraq that could then spread throughout the Middle East has been exposed as a tragic hallucination. Chaos, destruction and terrorism are far more likely exports from post-invasion Iraq. President Bush, unable to admit that reality, was left only to insist repeatedly that more of the same would improve things. It is a tale grown stale by retelling.
When the insurgency began, we were told that it was just the work of a few stubborn dead-enders, that once they were rounded up, the situation would improve. It did not. When the heinous sons of Saddam, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a shootout in July 2003, we were told that we had reached the turning point, that without its leaders the insurgency would collapse. It did not.
When Saddam himself was captured in December 2003, we were told that this, surely, would mark the coming of better days. Things got worse. In June, when we handed official sovereignty to Iraqi officials, it was supposed to ease resentment at our occupation and calm the violence. Since then, the rate of casualties, both American and Iraqi civilian, has risen steadily.
Now we are told that the January elections will reverse the decline, but there is little, if any, evidence to support that contention.
That is not an argument for withdrawal. The violence taking place daily in Iraq is almost inconsequential compared to what would happen if the United States abandoned the country to its worst elements. On this point, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry are in agreement.
Sadly, though, the alternative approach laid out by Kerry in the debate doesn't offer cause for optimism. Even if our allies offer help to a newly elected President Kerry that they have withheld from President Bush, they lack enough manpower to really make a difference in Iraq. And it's not realistic to expect that we can greatly accelerate training of Iraqis to replace our own soldiers.
What Kerry does offer, though, is an acknowledgement that a change of direction, and a change of leadership, is absolutely necessary. Those responsible for the repeated, stubborn misjudgments that got us into this mess should not be entrusted with leading us out.
I did an 10-2-04 post "You've read the rest, now read the best (MUST, MUST READING) -- The Bush Scowl is destined take its place with the Gore Sigh and the Dean Scream. Giving Democrats Reasons to Smile." It was about a 10-2-04 The Washington Post column by E.J. Dionne, Jr. Again, if you didn't read it, you should.
Having gotten to heavy-duty must reads and keepers from the Times and the Post, I overlooked posting one I had intended to post. Nothing big, I forget things all of the time.
But the problem here was that rather than having to go "out of town," the one I overlooked posting was right here in our backyard, on our home turf no less. I realized my overight while reading my hard copy of the ajc last night.
The keeper: our own Jay Bookman in his 10-4-04 ajc column entitled: "Debate offers little cause for optimism."
Thanks for the title Jay. In another keeper (and by one of my favorites who the ajc publishes as a guest from time to time) about a column by Richard Cohen I said I would try not to write anymore about Debate No. 1. That 10-3-04 post entitled "Debate No. 1. Last post I promise (okay, I promise I will try; this one is great). One reason Kerry won -- Debate Victor: Iraq's Reality," was about his column in The Washington Post dated 10-3-04.
_______________
Before moving on, however, I want to note one thing Jay Bookman writes in his column:
"[The foregoing] is not an argument for withdrawal. The violence taking place daily in Iraq is almost inconsequential compared to what would happen if the United States abandoned the country to its worst elements. On this point, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry are in agreement."
I have tried unsuccessfully to get what I am fixing to relate to Sen. Edwards' campaign prior to tonight's Vice Presidential debate. It concerns something Dick Cheney said while he was a private citizen on the lecture circuit about halfway between his service to Bush I as Secretary of Defense and becoming part of the Bush II team as Vice President.
What I heard I feel certain was said over and over as Mr. Cheney was on a lecture across the country. Some of the same thoughts are in Bush I's book, but dern if you hear anyting about it from the Kerry camp.
The lecture was at the Florida Theater in Jacksonville, Florida, as part of something called the Florida Forum Series. This series seeks to bring some of the world's most widely known public figures to Jacksonville, Florida, with the series benefiting Wolfson Children's Hospital.
The last lecture I attended there was in September 2002, and the lecturer was Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a fascinating evening program and presentation wise.
Anyway, when Cheney was in Jacksonville in the mid-90's, he had no reason to fibracate, exaggerate, etc. Bush I had been retired, and Bush II was still just a cowboy.
After a fascinating lecture, a person in the audience asked the following question: Mr. Secretary, after American troops and U.S. led forces liberated Kuwait, why did we stop at Iraq's southern border; why didn't we go on to Baghdad and take Suddam out.
I remember the respond as if it were this morning, someone having asked a question about which so many Americans such as myself had wondered.
Two reasons citizen Cheney said: First, the history of this region of the world and our own intelligence convinced us that as bad as Suddam was, his not being there would probably be worse. Without question the whole area could be rendered less stable, and just as surely civil war between the Shiites, Sunni and the Kurds would erupt, with more fighting and bloodshed that the liberation of Kuwait had involved.
And second and equally important reason he stated, was that the coalition was not with us; it strongly opposed and would not support going on to Baghdad. And just as was the case with the decison to retake Kuwait, having the coalition was deemed imperative.
But shift the clock forward several years, and Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack tells us that Cheney, unlike Powell, could not wait to get back to Iraq.
Thus if I were asking the questions tonight, I would ask the Veep how were things different in 1992 and 2002. If there were not WMD's and a link with bin Laden, had history changed; was having the coalition no longer important.
(One "I digress" (did someone say this whole post is a digression): In a 9-23-04 post I provided another theory of mine as to why we went in, something I don't really think is true because I don't want it to be, even though I feel I have blood on my hands. The post provided:
This whole thing sort of reminds me of something that happened in 1991 when the Vice President was Secretary of Defense, and is a pet theory of mine of providing at least part of the answer as to why Cheney was so bound and determined to invade Iraq and get Hussein, with or without supporting evidence, and with or without the coalition we had when we went in Kuwait.
After American troops and U.S. led forces liberated Kuwait and then stopped at Iraq's southern border, Bush I encouraged Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south to take matters into their own hands and get rid of Suddam.
Such groups, and especially the Kurds, did just that, rising in revolt against Suddam. But no help was forthcoming from America, as Bush I withheld American military support when their uprisings drew savage retribution from Baghdad.
It is something that I wish I could forget but cannot. I have never blamed Bush I for this per se; rather it is something I regard as America as a country getting blood on its hands.
That is all of this long digression.)
And lastly, before posting Mr. Bookman's column, I want to say that I appreciate him saying you can't up and leave a mess this country created.
In a 9-20-04 post I wrote:
"Tell us Americans that what he and John Edwards are going to have to do before moving to bigger and better things -- and pardon his French, but if the Veep can get away with the f word on the U.S. Senate floor, maybe the Pope will forgive him for his use of the s word -- is to clean up the shit that Bush and Cheney have made and gotten us into in Iraq as they have caused terrorism to increase rather than subside."
_______________
If you're still me, the keeper I said was our own Jay Bookman in his 10-4-04 ajc column:
Debate offers little cause for optimism
Some people are victims of circumstance, ruined not by their mistakes or personal shortcomings, but by events beyond their control.
George W. Bush has been just the opposite, a beneficiary of circumstance who was elevated by the attacks of Sept. 11 to a heroic status beyond what his abilities and accomplishments would justify. In last week's presidential debate, that shining aura finally began to fade, allowing a glimpse at the real man within.
What we saw was not a confident leader, secure in himself and his policies. In his halting, stumbling responses to questions, in his recitation of sound bites searching for a context, Bush looked lost and out of his element. Judging from his facial expressions and his body language, he seemed startled that his opponent, Sen. John Kerry, could actually be allowed to say harsh things about him in public.
Bush's inner teenager showed itself, angry, impatient and frustrated to be called onto the carpet.
In hindsight, Bush's reaction should not have been surprising. During his first term in office, the president's handlers worked hard to protect him from news conferences, interviews and other uncontrolled situations in which he might be forced to defend his policies, hoping that by doing so they could nurse the heroic myth along for a few more months or even years.
The strategy worked for a while, but at a price. His time in the bubble betrayed Bush in the debate, leaving him without the confidence and experience that a president ending his first term would otherwise enjoy.
The president had another problem as well: He was trying to sell a product that was long past its expiration date. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; there were no substantive ties between Saddam and terror groups; we were not greeted as liberators and the cost of our occupation has not been covered by the sale of Iraqi oil, not even close.
Most of all, the idea that we could create a Western-style democracy in Iraq that could then spread throughout the Middle East has been exposed as a tragic hallucination. Chaos, destruction and terrorism are far more likely exports from post-invasion Iraq. President Bush, unable to admit that reality, was left only to insist repeatedly that more of the same would improve things. It is a tale grown stale by retelling.
When the insurgency began, we were told that it was just the work of a few stubborn dead-enders, that once they were rounded up, the situation would improve. It did not. When the heinous sons of Saddam, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a shootout in July 2003, we were told that we had reached the turning point, that without its leaders the insurgency would collapse. It did not.
When Saddam himself was captured in December 2003, we were told that this, surely, would mark the coming of better days. Things got worse. In June, when we handed official sovereignty to Iraqi officials, it was supposed to ease resentment at our occupation and calm the violence. Since then, the rate of casualties, both American and Iraqi civilian, has risen steadily.
Now we are told that the January elections will reverse the decline, but there is little, if any, evidence to support that contention.
That is not an argument for withdrawal. The violence taking place daily in Iraq is almost inconsequential compared to what would happen if the United States abandoned the country to its worst elements. On this point, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry are in agreement.
Sadly, though, the alternative approach laid out by Kerry in the debate doesn't offer cause for optimism. Even if our allies offer help to a newly elected President Kerry that they have withheld from President Bush, they lack enough manpower to really make a difference in Iraq. And it's not realistic to expect that we can greatly accelerate training of Iraqis to replace our own soldiers.
What Kerry does offer, though, is an acknowledgement that a change of direction, and a change of leadership, is absolutely necessary. Those responsible for the repeated, stubborn misjudgments that got us into this mess should not be entrusted with leading us out.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 12:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home