SOTU answers Iraq questions
President Bush waited more than thirty minutes into the SOTU to mention in the elephant in the room—Iraq. Probably a good oratory strategy since the “surge” and the President’s larger Iraq plan needed further explanation and I with anxious anticipation to hear a clear and honest account of the administration’s plan for Iraq. It was not worth the wait. President Bush added nothing to the discourse on Iraq. In fact, he only further muddled the situation.
Bush seems intent on viewing the world in black and white—he shows little interest in nuance even when the situation in Iraq obviously demands a sophisticated response. He seems not to understand the mess in Iraq and continues to insist that it is simply a battle between Good and Evil. In the SOTU Bush says "[t]he Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.” "Whatever slogans they chant ... they have the same wicked purpose. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale." The escalating violence in Iraq is more complicated than the armies of Freedom battling the forces of Tyranny. Does Bush really believe that the Shiites and Sunnis are the same? And that totalitarian best describes their sameness? Does he distinguish the small minority of al-Qaida in Iraq from Shiites and Sunnis?
I must conclude that the President does not fully comprehend the situation in Iraq and that he is unwilling to honestly examine the dire complexities of the war.
Bush seems intent on viewing the world in black and white—he shows little interest in nuance even when the situation in Iraq obviously demands a sophisticated response. He seems not to understand the mess in Iraq and continues to insist that it is simply a battle between Good and Evil. In the SOTU Bush says "[t]he Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.” "Whatever slogans they chant ... they have the same wicked purpose. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale." The escalating violence in Iraq is more complicated than the armies of Freedom battling the forces of Tyranny. Does Bush really believe that the Shiites and Sunnis are the same? And that totalitarian best describes their sameness? Does he distinguish the small minority of al-Qaida in Iraq from Shiites and Sunnis?
I must conclude that the President does not fully comprehend the situation in Iraq and that he is unwilling to honestly examine the dire complexities of the war.
posted by Richard Stanislaw at
8:46 PM
81 Comments:
I honestly don't think that the President has a good grasp on the situation in Iraq. He contintues to preach that steps are being taken in the right direction, which may hold truth in some aspects. But the state of order in Iraq is simply never going to be there and our President has a lot to do with that. Bush does not seem to understand the complexity of his actions and believes in his ever popular strategy of sending more and more troops into the warzone. I don't know if he will ever realize that the situation may never be fully resolved there and the fact that America is going to have a constant presence in the country is not going to help matters or make the citizens of Iraq feel free or independent. Sadaam may be gone now, but Bush continues to get no where with the freeing of Iraq because he can't figure out how to free the country from its own people and extremists. He created a mess that will only continue to take the lives of U.S. citizens and their tax dollars, yet never accomplish what he initially set out to do.
The situation in Iraq is truly disheartening. I agree that Bush employed good oratory strategy in delaying his mentioning of Iraq until past the half-way point of his speech. Not only for the aforementioned reason, but also because those viewers whose attention span allowed them to remain for only the first thirty minutes saw their president call for bipartisanship, tout and lay out future plans for the economy and No Child Left Behind, as well as outline reform for health care, immigration, and, what he called, "global climate change." The viewers who tuned in and stayed only for the first half likely left on a far more optimistic note that had they stayed around for the “elephant in the room.” I mention this solely for the political considerations of the Iraq War's placement in the speech. Regarding the original post- I have no doubt that the president has mis-painted the situation black and white, leaving out a diverse palate of grays. As a 20 year-old college student, busy with classes and such, I am well aware of the fact that I am unable to fully wrap my head around the complexities of the situation. However, I am confidant enough in my intelligence to be able to say that situation can not simply be boiled down to "black vs. white", "us vs. them", "good vs. evil", "freedom vs. tyranny." That being said, I am not sure if I can fully agree with the author of the original post when they say that the President “is unwilling to honestly examine the dire complexities of the war." The language the president uses may lead to this belief, however, I would venture to guess he could very simply be using the “Good vs. Evil”, “us vs. them” language because he believes is easier to sell to the public. I don’t imagine that discussion in the Oval Office is as rudimentary as “They’re evil; we’re good.” Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I have some faith that the complexities of the war have been examined by this President. That does not mean that I believe they have been examined and analyzed correctly, only that an examination and analysis has occurred.
Sorry about the length.
-Jonathan Duffy
Just because everyone commenting has the same opinion on Iraq I am going to take a different opinion. I did not agree with this war from the onset and the fact that Bush was able to get away with some of the things that he did is beyond me. I was a fighter to stop this war from going on. However after we re-elected Bush I kind of gave the fight up. It is a fact that after this war was started and was not going well we as a nation decided to re-elect this president.Now we want to pick apart everything that Bush says and does Why? and Why now? Whether you like the way bush runs his administration or not WE ELECTED HIM AND RE-ELECTED HIM! based on the fact that noone else would be able to solve the problems in Iraq.In response to what skerns wrote it is not uncommon for our military to have a constant presence post war we will never leave south korea or germany even though these regions are stable we may never leave Iraq that does not mean that Iraq can not be stable
We do need to trust what the president decides to do now because we have no other options everyone agrees a pull of troops would be a disaster and who knows maybe a surge in troops would be a disaster as well but we have to give this plan a chance. Bush's SOTU address was different than others and if you are used to watching bush speak than you concluded from this address that he has no idea what to do in Iraq and not in so many words he made that clear Tues.Bush does not usually give any indications of weakness and hasnt since 9/11 but indirectly I did pick this up in his SOTU address.
In class we talked about the danger of truth to a society. Interestingly, the State of the Union Address left me aware of the dangers of avoiding the truth. President Bush, in glossing over the Iraq war and presenting his hardly innovative ideas for domestic policy seems to have completely sidestepped any admittal of the extremetity of the situation the Republic now faces.
I was blown away that he is still relying on the "Good and Evil" strategy, that he still insists that we must "take the fight to the enemy" and that it is a conflict in which the enemy can be identified. It is beating a dead horse. A very, very dead horse.
And what if he had told the truth?
Would things be any worse off? Or would everyone breath a sigh of relief that what they have felt (as shown by Bush's historically low approval rating) had been validated?
But who cares about approval ratings? Has the majority ever really mattered to this administration? And what does it say about the country that we have tolerated it?
I think President Bush knows exactly how to win the War in Iraq. They are going way easy to on the insurgents they fear what the world will think so they are not going to the full extent the army is capable of. If they would unleash hell on Iraq for one week we could win this war in no time. Bush is not given much credit but he is doing a great job for what he has to deal with from the left. All they do is attack the war and try to turn this into another Vietnam. It is another stab in the back to the army by many people who live in America but hate it and wish it to lose this war. Has everyone forgot what happened on 9/11? Maybe everyone should remember the sadness and anger that you felt that day and then think about the war maybe our country would realize that Iraq is a war that must be fought. I know i havent forgot that day and love this country so i stand in full support of our President and his policies.
Did the President truly answer any questions on this war? True enough the fight we entered is not the fight we are in. But what exactly does that mean? The President seems to think an additional 20,000+ troops is sufficent to quell the uprising in that country when military analysts (and let us give some room for exageration) say as many as 100,000 additional troops may be needed. The President has bungled this war from phase one- bad enough that entered this war at all but even worse is that he failed in his duty as commander in chief to save as many American lives as possible. He used the bare minimum of US resources to direct this fight, mainly in my opinion because he knew that using all of our resources would be unacceptable to the American people- but he failed to realize that even more so, the American people did not want to create a quagmire from which there is no escape for years to come. Providing our troops with poor equipment, not sending enough and the bungled leadership within Iraq itself has created a vacuum of power in that country that could very well end in bloodshed and tyranny even if the US "succeeds", which in my opinion the President has yet to define.
I agree that the President very much simplified the stratagy for Iraq and that he relied upon "good and evil" for his reasoning for the war, but in class the other day we talked about the American public and their ability to understand public policy. It's true that the President was talking directly to congress, but he also was talking to all of America in what is probly his most telivized speech of the year. I don't think that it was the place for extensive military stratagy and even if it was I don't know that it would be a great idea. Certianly the enemies that we do have will have been listening to the speech as well. Also, because of the amount of material and the amount of time that he had (which has to be fairly short due to attention spans)the president was unable to give extensive strategy on any of the policies which he introduced such as the new health care plan which he introduced or the new engery goals that we have. I agree that it would be nice to know a little more about what is going to happen in Iraq, but I don't think that the state of the union address was the place to look for it.
Anna Strawn
We can't forget that Bush was also playing to an international audience, maybe more so than he was to America. I think his tie color, tone and choice of words was much more timid so that he wouldn't look like the stereotypical cowboy he's been in the past. He's pretty sure he can count on the support of patriotic Americans, but he can't afford to turn off important allies. Great Britain is especially important. Tony Blair has become increasing unpopular because of his unwavering support of Bush. Other EU leaders, those in Canada and, indeed, leaders all over the world are feeling the political heat because of Bush. He must hold the international coalition together, or else we lose important diplomatic ground. Think of slipping back to before the League of Nations.
We've had to go through a lot with this president. I was opposed to the war from the beginning, and feel that we've been dragged into something that we won't be able to get out of anytime in the near future. When he said "We did not vote for failure" during the state of the union, it just seems like it was his humble way of saying "i messed up, but we have to keep fighting." I just don't understand how the president thought that we could win a war on an ideology, terrorism. Of course we should do everything we can to protect ourselves from, and try reducing terrorism throughout the globe, but these are people's thoughts. Someone, somewhere in the world will probably subscribe to this method of thought for the rest of time. Not only this but we get dragged into Iraq, which is surrounded by people who think like this. And if we are ever able to leave from Iraq, the muslim extremists will probably just flow in.
With all this being said, I feel it was ridiculous not to even mention the war until half an hour into the speech. And also totally avoiding the issue of New Orleans. It just seems like he beats around the bush when it comes to the mistakes he's made. I know all people make mistakes, but adults usually admit to their mistakes.
I agree that in the SOTU speech on Tuesday nothing new and mind altering was presented that would make me feel any better concerning Iraq. Of course, I didn’t really expect there to be. The “surge” plan of the president had been laid out only days before, and with the low public support for the war, I think it was safe to assume he would steer more towards demotic policy issues.
I would also agree with your assumption that the president has a lack of understanding about the war. The generalization about Shia and Sunni Muslims having the same face was especially disappointing. So few people today want to call Iraq what it is, a civil war. In this civil war the difference between sides lies in secretarial divides. To call al-Qaida in Mesopotamia the only or even the strongest factor generating unrest in Iraq shows this lack of understanding and a dangerous disregard for many other militias functioning in Iraq (Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army).
Furthermore I could understand the president not being an Islamic, foreign relation, or military expert, but he has experts working for him. The Backer report was thrown out the window with out a second glance. His top generals don’t support the “surge” approach ether. It is this lack of understanding coupled with the president’s inability to take the advice of the experts around him that I just can’t understand. –Matt De Pompei
Correction*** The Baker Report***
I'm far from being a bleeding heart liberal; however the dying in Iraq must stop. Instead of using made up words such as "the decider" and "evil doers", it's important that the American people prove to be a smarter communicator than the Bush regime when it comes to Iraq. We all know we were duped and sold into an initial invasion of a foreign country with no direct threat to the U.S. which subsequently transformed into a bloody war on the streets of Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah and other cities.
President Bush's invasion of an independent nation and wiretapping Americans' telephone conversations certainly qualifies for the label as a regime and these policies are failing in the name of the war on terror. President Bush's failure to recognize the absolute failure in Iraq is clouded with the power struggle of Good vs. Evil. There's evil all over the world- Is Iraq our first of many stops around the globe?
It's remarkable how the Bush team justifies the war now by using so-called free Iraqi elections last year and the death of Saddam as solid evidence of the invasion in 2003. What happened to the WMD?
Why is the United States in the business of invading foreign nations in order to spread freedom dust- American style?
It's not surprising the President focused on domestic issues during his SOTU and then essentially begged Congress for more time to cling onto any hope of salvaging anything at all for staying in Iraq. He fails to recognize his objective in Iraq is failing and America is caught in a deep civil war.
Remember, "Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego?
In the global community, Bush's strategy in Iraq is a perfect example of flawed foreign policy which is costing us dearly- in loved ones and billions of dollars.
For a president who heavily promotes "Liberty, Justice and Freedom", why is the U.S. borrowing Billions of dollars from Communist China to help fund this failure in Iraq? Why do we renew oil contracts with Saudi Arabia- a nation which considers women second class citizens and operates under oppressive leadership?
The United States is the greatest nation on the planet and I would not want to live anywhere else. However, we cannot keep isolating ourselves by invading foreign countries which pose no threat to us. We can spend the $1.7 Billion a week it costs to run the sinking ship in Iraq on rebuilding our own country, including health care, education and New Orleans. Hopefully that will be mentioned in the next SOTU.
I have learned in undertaking the undestanding of the oratories of our president, that it is likely that he does not grasp much of what is happening in the U.S. yet the entire world. Besides not ecognizing the differences in the Middle east, he made no comment on improving the slowly rehabilitated egion of the south hit by Hurricane Katrina. He continues to beg for support without giving any clea conscise explanation of the policies in which he thinks we should lend this support to. I'm all for abiding by the rule of our president, but political power should not outweigh reason and any thinking citizen, immigrant or other foreign national in this country would be bling to realize Bush has not said anything truly meaningful since the beginning of his terms
It's really sad that someone thinks the President doesn't understand the difference between Sunni Al-Qaeda members and members of the Shiite run regime in Iran. Either way the President is right... both want to kill the infadel in the name of Allah because they believe they are correct. As a conservative, I don't agree with the President's new plan in Iraq; however, that being said something has to be done. I love how liberals complain and complain but yet I'm still waiting for an idea from the democrats that sound better. Instead of saying how the president does not understand the difference between the two different sects of Islam maybe people should come up with ideas about of how to make the situation better in Iraq.
"No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil."- Eminem.
When Daddy Bush came to power the rest of the world thought it couldn't get any worse.Today, 17 years later we have yet another Bush in power and America has gone down yet another embarrassing path. I'm not sure why the United States has taken it upon itself to purge the world of "evil." Bush and the rest of the self-called moralists need to spend more time and money on matters affecting their own people and less time on people in other countries who are getting along just fine without American help.
SO WHAT if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Doesn't the United States have the same? Is someone forgetting Hiroshima-Nagasaki already? Is it just me, being neutral and non-American or are there double standards here? India and Pakistan were slammed with sanctions after they tested their nukes. WHY? Double standards again. Don't get me wrong, I love Americans...just not the government. They're a bunch of stuck up snobs who want the world to live by their rules. Now who's being the dictator? Saddam, the Taliban or the United States?
Back to the topic- George W. Bush brought up the "elephant" half an hour into the SOTU speech. WHY? Maybe because he's emabarrassed. And guess what...if I were him, I would be too.
I wonder if Bush really expects Congress to give his "surge" a chance. For as much as he talked about bi-partisanship at the beginning of the SOTU Address, he doesn't really mean it. The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has publicly asked the president to reconsider, but he is unwilling to listen. And, it is not just the Democrats who are opposed to this troop surge. A growing number of Republicans have voiced their disapproval.
Bush hopes that someday History will rememeber him as a great president who democratized the Middle East, but if he keeps going the way he is, he will only be remembered as the stubborn president who sent thousands of American soldiers to their deaths because he couldn't admit that was wrong.
-Tom
I consider myself a conservative, realist, hawk. Therefore, reading (the majority) of your posts turns my stomach. What in the hell does an eighteen year-old college student know about war, or what this administration is thinking, or anything worldly for that matter? Perhaps your parents (none of whom worked in manufacturing, as stated during class on wed., and most likely never served in the military) have spoon-fed you a diet of liberal rhetoric until you out grew the teat and headed off to college. Maybe your parents are conservatives and you are desperately trying to be your own persons, or you just feel the need to be a part of something, and as Kent students that usually means some form of socialist(all unfounded personal opinions). Whatever your reasons may be, they are nauseating! Nearly all of you say the same damn thing and have nothing to back it up. A liberal, socialist, conspiracy theorist, friend of mine says some off the wall things. But, he backs all of it up with research; he does not disagree with the President just because it is popular, or because he can. Furthermore, when he does not have enough information on a subject he does not spout the first (popular) thing that comes to mind, he admits he does not know. Why is that so terribly difficult for most you to attempt? I realize that most of you do not possess many real-world experiences so finding truth in anything can be difficult and confusing. However, just because a professor, the Kent Stater, your parents, or a friend tell you something does not necessarily make it true; please start thinking for yourselves.
Perhaps, after reading this post you will understand how I feel after reading many of yours, and hopefully you will put a little more thought into your carbon-copy opinions.
Vince Yafanaro
In response to Vince. SOB seems to sum it up correctly not everyone in the class is 18 years old some of us are older have children and yes even own our own busness that must blow your mind. You do not have to be a genius to see things for what they are. What positive has come from the war in Iraq so far? Are we any safer? If we are tell that to anyone that has lost a son,brother,husband,father and then tell them how their loved one died for a just and fair cause. You said 18 yr olds dont know anything the president that you support has no problem sending them to a war that you would agree is keeping you safe what right do you have to insult the very demographic that is protecting and dying for all of us everyday.They do understand what is going on and they are the perfect targets for the draft if one should happen if you are old enough to vote you have as much say in anything as anyone else whether you are 18 or 100 last time I checked and you can look this up Vince if you disagree WE ALL ONLY GET ONE VOTE.
To be honest, I think that perhaps the president has a better grasp of the situation then we really know, however I wonder what other factors enter into his decision making that we are not immediately aware of. There is the possibility of tainted council from the old hawks he's had in his cabinet. Rumsfeild and Wolfowitz were both calling for Hussen's head back during the first Gulf War and Wolfowitz's stratagy memo on the subject caused quite a stir when it was leaked if memory serves.
There is also the question of what those actually fighting the war feel they need to perform their job, and what they're asking for.
On top of this is the ever present question of what other alternatives and their honest pros and cons. I don't agree with his decision, but I think it may be the best action if all we value is to "save face."
As for his dichotomic thought process that I cannot fathom, and for the sake of fair debate, I have tried. Maybe there is some piece I am missing, but in this he seems to have completely ignored the details of the situation for a completely nationalistic view in which America is good, as are those that stand with her, and all others are evil in the eyes of God. And if that's all the justification he needs then I should be much much more worried than I am. I hope it is not that simple.
-Garrett
In response to Vince and others in general.
It is in my opinion that this president has become stubborn in his ways. Yes, he intelligently (some would say diabolically)connected Iraq and 9/11 at a most opportunistic time, he got us stuck in a war that has many parallels to Vietnam. Many say our economy is great because of this terrific leader; i see the GDP growth but know no one (in the middle or lower class) who has seen the effects of this "booming" economy. I am not going to say that President Bush is an idiot, but it is obvious to me that he has a very strict view on right and wrong, black and white. And even when 2/3 of the population does not agree with his policy in Iraq, he gets this air of grandeur about him that he is invincible, and as he says, "the decider." It is this president's arrogance and naivety that not only spurred this generalization of the term "terrorist", but this same Highlander Complex (its a movie, look it up) is what caused this administration to think of the US as invincible, and when a memo entitled "Al Qaeda Determined to Strike Within US" came across this president's desk, he did NOTHING. BOTTOM LINE. I know many conservatives will say that you could not have predicted where and when this could’ve happened, however our government knew that there were al Qaeda cells training their minions to fly planes. SOMETHING could’ve been done, other than Operation: Ignorance. Ive read in these past posts that some of you believe that president bush knows exactly what he's doing in Iraq. What these people are missing is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE THERE ANYMORE. I understand we're there now and "cannot cut and run", however the American people should be the President's driving force, not his own agenda. Lastly, this generalization of who’s a terrorist and who’s not is really hurting the US in the world’s view. For those who haven’t figured it out yet, Sunnis and Shiites are DIFFERENT. Al Qaeda and the forces prior to the invasion of Iraq are DIFFERENT. What is ironic is that before the toppling of Saddam’s empire in Iraq, al qaeda did not exist there, for Saddam viewed them as a threat to his “peace”, now that he’s gone, we’re battling Al Qaeda, Sunni extremists, Shiite extremists, and we’re even engaging Syrian troops. This view of completely separate factions is only hurting us in the long run, and having a heavy hand when dealing with the world has only lead to more violence and despotism.
Now for the ridiculous response about liberals, yes I am one, however not a crazy leftist. I shall venture to say that both parties have made mistakes to date, historically, its not a tally as to who’s screwed up more, but what implications this messing up has on our society at the present time. In this case, yes it was a Conservative administration, an evangelical Christian leader, who seems to be leading yet another of the infamous crusades. This isn’t a war against terrorists, this is a war against anything different than what we know. Different is scary, we all know this. The fact that we generalize in this day and age only proves this point more. We are fighting an enemy in Iraq that is no longer fighting to have Saddam reinstated as dictator, but is fighting for their freedom, not the freedom that we shove down their throats.
-James Mc
Since most of us believe that the president has a simple understanding of the war in Iraq I offer a simple analogy. If you want to convert your neighbor to your religious beliefs, what do you do? Do you go to their house with your AK-47 and put it to their head and tell them unless they wish to die they must be converted to your ideas? Or do you bake them cookies and invite them to dinner and whisper sweet nothings about the good of your beliefs to try to win them over? This battle is one of ideology, and we are definitely not winning the propaganda battle. We must begin to examine that the promises that Bush made in his speech and follow up, mainly that our troops would be in an advising role to the Iraqis. This is not happening. Several NY Times articles and other news outlets have reported that when Iraqi forces even show up, they are late, do not follow basic military strategies, and have poor communication with American military officers. If the Iraqis are not concerned with the security of their country why should our young soldiers be?
Examination into the actual purpose of this "surge" is needed also. Although the president sounded conciliatory in his speech, I really can not believe that he has abandoned his deep seated views on these subjects. He believes that he can democratize the Middle East. And I think that 20,000 more troops are an excuse to get more troops into the region for a possible invasion of Iran.
The problem is this president is the boy that cried "wolf". He used his scary words like "weapons of mass destruction” to get us to acquiesce to his idea of invading Iraq. Now the scrutiny of an action in Iran is going to be incredible. The sad part here, although I don't want to advocate going to war, is that if Iran is really the greatest threat we have already worn out our welcome. If the president had forgone his Iraq war and waited until now, and walked into Iran with a UN mandate he might have possible been seen as the "great liberator” that he wants to be.
There are too many "oops" and "we should haves" and "if onlys” on this president’s agenda. Someone needs to send the guys from Queer Eye out to the ranch to revamp his failing image.
In response to robbo. First, if you are not 18, I was not directing my post to you; but thank you for taking the time to read it. Second, I do not believe there is anything that would blow my mind, especially the fact that you have children and own a business; big deal, so do I. Last, but certainly not least, I am not attempting to insult anyone; I am trying to get a point across. After 7 political science courses I have heard the same crap. Oh and by the way, I specifically wrote "college kids". That does not include the 18 year olds serving in the armed forces. Oh yes, I almost forgot; I am an SOB. (sorry mom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vinny you went to great lengths to criticize and discredit other students post. Much of what you said I couldn’t fully disagree with. Nevertheless, I notice you are extremely willing to tell everyone why his or her opinion of the President and/or his plan is horseshit while not giving your own. Do you believe the President truly understands the complex situation that is the Iraq war? Does he understand the many different players, their goals, and the relationships between them? Is the oversimplification of the war in the SOTU and other speeches simply so the undereducated can get a grasp of it? Why has the President on numerous occasions not taken the advice of the experts he surrounds himself with? I don’t fault the President for not fully understanding every detail of Iraq, the military, economic conditions, and the secretarial differences of Islam. We can’t all be experts of all things. But why not listen to those that have a better understand of these things? -Matt De Pompei
I'm going to have to go with Buechele here and ask, do you honestly think the president of the United States of America doesn't understand the basic vocabulary of the Sunni and Shiite regimes? I respect the right those of you use to criticize our administration but the majority of the statements made are disturbingly naïve.
Yes, the situation in Iraq is much more complex than the recent State of the Union gave credit, but it would be interesting to see what those who strongly oppose the president would say if they were given a brief 50 minutes to address the entire world.
And if you would have liked to hear more about Iraq, do you find the other issues such as economic reforms, insurance reforms, border security, and alternative energy supplies to be unimportant?
Most that see themselves as so much more intelligent than Bush have yet to share any of their suggestions on situations like Iraq, global warming and so on. (Most likely because they have none.) Bush’s suggestion to design and establish a volunteer civilian reserve corps has received little to no attention from the public and the media. And the majority that has shown no interest in the reserve corps still claims that they would like to better the situation in Iraq.
Those of you that see the time we’ve spent in Iraq as wasted also argue that the world isn’t any safer. This is also a generally ignorant statement made by the naïve ‘puppets’ that grace us with their trendy opinions. I know men and women in the service that would strongly disagree with most of what you say ‘Robbo.’
In no way do I think the situation in Iraq has been handled perfectly, but I think that it would help to have a little more faith in our elected officials and not dumb them down for the sake of your own entertainment.
While Bush is our commander in chief, he also does not soley make decisions on how to fight this war, if he did then we probably would be in a hell of a lot more trouble. Do not forget instead he DOES rely on advice from experts; military generals have better intelligence on our enemy, our situation, plan of attack, strategies, etc and more experience fighting than the average person who says, "Bush has no idea what he's doing." Does this mean that our advisors are not getting it done? We need to be more patient and not expect results right now. We also need to have faith in our President and the skills of our advisors.
Goldfish, while I agree allies are important they certainly are not fighting for us, they are fighting to defend their own convictions and freedoms. The need to fight this war is their duty too. Is GB an important ally? Yes, but Bush is not going to be the one to cause them to back out. Also the League of Nations was more of a European thing. Yes, we joined of our own interests, but it wasnt something we drafted up, remember we did not enter WWI until it was well underway.
Krittika, at least you agree with the President in one way. I guess it is good we have people like you who are not afraid of the possibility of nukes in hands of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, because some would be pretty alarmed by this concept. I think you are missing the point.
Robbo, the majority of people that you talk to, who have lost someone in Iraq, will say that it was for a just cause, and they will say that they admire their sacrifice and ALL Americans should too, but face it war will never be fair.
James m., I am sure many leftists have called the President more than just "diabolical." However, to say that 2/3 of the population does not agree with his policy is ridiculous. Half of the population does not even vote.
I agree totally with vdelo86, I believe that the president knows what is going on in Iraq and is afraid of what he knows. His approval rating already is very low, so if he announced to the publich that us "Good guys" are fight several "Bad guys" not just one is would complicate things greatly. Bush knows that the people of this country do not know the entire situation in Iraq and he wants to keep it that way. I think that he believes in the saying "what you don't know won't hurt you".
give the guy a break, he has no understanding of Forein Policy, and his comunication skills could not get him out of a argument with a transexual mime. Hey we elected him and some where, someone understands him. Besides you really think Bush wrote that speech. He has others write it for him. Give him a break he can't always make good decisions about whom he should hire to write his speechs. The mans from Texas so he probably can't read what hes about to say anyways. And as to Forein Policy, he has none, but that is why he got Dick Channey as his go-to-guy. People should have known when we elected him that he was not the ripest apple in the bunch. So there must be a majority out there that can understand what he is saying out there, and believe in him too. Besides who really wants to hear whats going on over there... we got enough problems at him.
Over and Out
Now, camon you guys you don't give Dubya enough credit. He's THE DECIDER! He's also a survivor. He survived as a struggling oil CEO to eventually become Governor of Texas. Then even though his state ranked near the bottom of education he was able to win the 2000 election with one of his platforms being education. (Not a surprise that his No Child Left Behind Policy hasn't been successful.) Then we were attacked on 9-11, even though about one month earlier we know he was given a memo about probable attacks that he chose to ignore. Then we entered a war with Iraq which at the time had sketchy connections to Al-Qieda at best. Then even with 9-11, not catching Bin Laden, and Iraq on his resume; Bush still won the 2004 election. Then a couple years later we hear Bush say we're winning and that soon troops can be pulled out. Finally we get to the 2007 SOTU where he announces the need for the 20thousand troop surge. He says we are now in a different fight then what we entered in. Meanwhile. . . Osama has still not been found because 1/7th of troops in Iraq are looking for him.
My point is I cannot believe this President anymore. He lies on top of lies in the sake of our country. He's not unpatriotic, I think to question that is wrong. What I think he is, is an ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE leader. When you find yourself lying to the country about our sucesses in Iraq, using scare tactics to have people to continue to support an unpopular war, and compromising domestic issues for a poorly managed "War on Terror". I believe that makes you a bad leader. Why should I think 20,000
plus troops should help matters?
simple and plain explanation, one must understand economics to understand war...our administration constantly speaks about expanding the economy,FACT, agreed. one can not deny that the goal of the UNITED STATES in a realist view is to expand and get bigger, more wealth and more power, FACT, undisputable. The US is in the inner periphery of the global economy, LDC's(lower developed country) are on the outter periphery, those countries whom the US relies upon for our imports, whom the US outsourced our industry to, FACT. In a capitalist world, motive being PROFIT, a class structure must be formed to help facilitate to the capitalist global economy. If everyone was rich, no one would be rich?!?!! if everyone was poor, no one would be poor!!??!! this illusion of material wealth is brought to light through the class structures that exists in our world, the fact that a man is rich he can have things a poor man can not have, making what one has that the other can not obtain makes material have substantive value!! people have to be poor for people to be rich, FACT. So when analyzing a leader in arguabley the largest capitalist nation ever, remember his motives are for the economy to grow...When it is time to rebuild these nations that the US has entered, US companies will be at the forefront when it comes to establishing a system of an economy, capitalism. War in Iraq and the middle east helps make this class structure, putting those countries on the outter periphery, to also help facilitate a larger global economy. Democrats and republicans had money invested in this war, FACT. there exists many sources to prove that many capitlists profitted a great deal from this war, and will continue to profit from this war. Iran is attempting to do the same exact thing the US is doing by helping rebuild Iraqs' economy, the US is denying them because that was intended for US companies/capitlists. Do you think that G.W.Bush is able to explain that to the dumbest industrialized nation in the world(FACT). everything that goes on in this nation through our media and administration is a part of the growth of the global economy, psychologically attempting and successing in molding people in to capitalists. 16 foot wide hole in the pentagon caused by 125 ft wide airliner, with no debri found at all!!!!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!! ..."cause you can't fool all the people all the time, sooo now you seeee the light, YEEAAHHhh u betta WATCH out and STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!"
I was unable to watch the SOTU, however from what we talked about in class about it, I probably would have quickly turned the channel anyways. I am ashamed to say that George W. Bush is my president. The man has a personal agenda and doesn't seem to understand anything that is going on in the world. The fact that there are now over 3,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq and that the majority of the country opposes even being in Iraq should give him a hint.
He is sneaky, and he does things how he thinks they should be done. The biggest issue going on in our country right now and for the past several years has been the "war on terror", the War in Iraq, yet in his speech he addressed everything else before he even touched on the issue. That is ridiculous.
It's like he doesn't even want to think about the war, let alone do something to fix it. November 2008 cannot come soon enough.
-Vince Slomsky
In response to what Khenry had to say-
Firstly, I was in no way saying crazy fundamentalists should have nukes. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. My point is not whether the Saddam's and Laden's should have nukes but that the United States and other countries shouldn't either. You can't have one rule for one country and another rule for another country. Either let everyone manufacture arms or forbid everyone from doing so. Half the countries can't afford to spend too much on arms anyway. The United States hasn't been very responsible in the past and so it has no moral right to tell any other country off. George W. Bush talks about going on a "crusade for democracy," and I'm not sure what he means by that. Had I been in his place I wouldn't throw words like "crusade" out there because in my opinion it isn't something the western world should be very proud of. Crusade indeed..I scoff at that!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think that President Bush has no idea what he is doing in Iraq. He has not accomplished what he initially went to Iraq for and continues to waste our tax dollars. I think that enough American lives have been lost to this war that has no direction whatsoever. His new plan is nothing but a deployment of more troops to a cause unknown. Bush wants to spread democracy to Iraq and for the country to continue with their newly formed government. But if the people of Iraq wanted this type of government, why are the extremists rising against this new government? He isn't helping anyone, he is creating chaos in Iraq and within the region. I think that the war is a complete mess with no direction and Bush needs to be stopped from making the same mistake twice and not be allowed to send more troops unless he has a decisive plan of action.
~Breanne Miller
In class today, we talked about Democracy impeding Justice and Democracy being a deficient way to organize government. I suppose it’s easy to think that philosopher kings could fix all our problems and tell us exactly how to order society. But what about an individual’s right to be free? Under the wise, benevolent dictator model, we forgot to consider free choice. If the masses want to watch American Idol, it’s their right. If I want to eat a doughnut instead of cauliflower, it’s my right. In spite of my self, I should still have the right to make bad decisions. Is a perfectly Just society worth sacrificing free choice? No. Is Democracy the best way to achieve a sense of both Justice and Freedom? I say it is.
I ask this question of those who do not believe we are winning the war in Iraq. What if George Washington would have given up after early losses and a horrible winter at Valley Forge in the first 2 years of the Revolution? The answer is we would not have had a country. If when things get hard we retreat then what does that mean for America in the future. Is our generation really that kind of people where we retreat when things get hard, i hope not. People say they dont want democracy in Iraq well that simply is not true. When they held elections the turnout was amazing. There is a reason the world war 2 generation is seen as the greatest generation they did what had to be done to defeat evil. Our generation wants quick wins and is not willing to stand behind their country and that is sad. Bush will be remembered for making our generation safer and all of those opposed to him will someday thank him.
I think that George Bush’s speechwriter employed a good oratory tactic when s/he rushed through domestic issues at the beginning of the State of the Union Address and then moved in to Iraq policy – or should I say the lack there of ? It is my thinking that we, and our government, be most concerned with the events taking place in American borders. I feel that we should be more concerned with rebuilding the Gulf Coast rather than Iraq. I am not saying that life there is wonderful or that diplomatic involvement is not warranted, however, I must wonder if getting resources to Katrina victims would have taken so long (or even if the rebuilding would be taking so long) if our resources were not already dedicated to Iraq.
I was recently near the Lebanese border in Israel. After all the bombing that that specific area suffered through this summer, I was unsure of what to expect. Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw in that area. I saw houses and schools and clean streets and no debris. If you didn’t know there was a war there, you wouldn’t know. Within months, the most bombed of areas was rebuilt. Granted the situations in northern Israel and southern America are different, however the similarity is that both places to some extent need(ed) rebuilding. Why has it taken us over a year?
I don’t think that the Bush administration knows the best way to handle this conflict, this war. I’m not sure if anyone does. People have been comparing what is happening in Iraq to various other US wars (declared or non) and I’m not sure I agree with that. First of all, we are militarily involved with people who hold their religious convictions very closely and in many cases will not accept anything that does not adhere to those religious convictions. In wars before, it has been about land. Now it’s about ideology. (One could arguer that Vietnam was about land. The United States had a vested interest in preventing nations, states, lands from becoming communist.) How does one, how do we, fight an ideology?
I recognize that some of this – most of this is a rant and I apologize if it is not relevant to the initial prompt. To be quite honest, I am opposed to war. I am naive enough to think that issues can be resolved without resorting to the violence of war. In many cases, nearly all to be truthful, I am opposed to Bush’s policies. I don’t like how he has “handled” this war but I am not sure if there is a single person who knows how to. I’m not sure if that makes sense. Sorry if I’ve wasted your time with this jumbled babbling.
I agree with the statement by skerns. I also believe that President Bush was not expecting the Iraq situation to escalate to where it is today. I also agree Bush does not fully understand every aspect of the war, including the differences between the people of Iraq (what they want and/or need).
Since President Bush has pursued the war in Iraq he has encountered many different situations that were unexpected. This has caused a division between many people within the United States on how they feel about Bush, the war in Iraq, the armed services, today's government, and the future government.
We would like to give the President of our country enough to credit to think that the comments he made regarding the Shiites and Al-Quida members were vague on purpose. he must know the difference between the two groups, and he must also know what he's doing to keep sending troops there. Right? He has been elected as our president, and re-elected a second term as president. For this reason we must assume that his administration has objectives they want to accomplish in the future, that it is good for our country and democracy, and that they can actually execute it. Is their plan working and are we seeing results? If you count dead terrorists and dead soldiers as progress then I guess they are making some. Sometimes violence is the answer, and sometimes it is not. It is now 5.5 years since 9/11, and as Americans do we feel we have gotten revenge? Maybe revenge isn't what it's about. Anyway, the chaos that still exists in the Middle East today would lead us to believe that there is still much work to be done to get this situation under control. Don't expect it to happen in this decade.
Words can’t express how I feel about the war on Iraq. Bush’s Evil policies have led the world in unpredictable situations. Hunger for more or world domination has been the roots of political history since the dawn of civilization. Alexander the great biography is best explanation. Alex strange ambitions for conquering the world led to his downfall. The doctrine of bush has brought social upheavals and darkened democracy in the world.
The justification in the world was WMD were is it? The prevalent reason in search for Oil and to change the American peoples view for his insufficient administration has led him to wage war on Iraq because of the Sept 11 attack, in other words Iraq has been the scapegoat of his ruthless sword. The psyche of bush is none other than Hitler who both has Chauvinistic attitudes. Democracy cannot be exported it is not a product. No matter what bush says he will always be wrong because he is not an Iraqi. He is not an expert in Shite and Sunni relations even to the fact he is not a Muslim. Don’t get me wrong I am not saying Saddam Hussein is an angel but the Iraqi people must fight their own battle to liberate themselves from Tyranny. Bush must differentiate between the democrats and Anti-democrats and assist the democrats to come to power.
I am completely opposed to the current war in Iraq and the addition of 20,000 plus troops. However, I have never believed that Bush intended to turn America into an Imperialist nation or that he acted to spite America. He intended to do what was right for the nation, but was misguided by his polictal puppetiers. What happen to a Presidents who are leaders, men that could make the tough decisions. It appears that is what Bush lacks, he holds no ability to determine the proper course of action. But did we expect anything different? This is a man who ran oil companies to the ground, and he was choosen (again) to protect America from a new threat in the world.
- John Fellabaum
The thing that baffles me the most regarding this absurd war is the acceptance from the American people who continue to rationalize and make excuses. The president lied..There were no WMDS..how can everyone simply overlook that fact. How can your intelligence "fail"? You would think you would be really sure of your inforamtion before you began a war....unless of course you knew you from the beginning.The average American citizen still confuses the crucial differences between Osama Bin Laden, WMDS, Saddam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The average citizen clumps all these terms together under the title of Sept 11th or terrorism. It seems as if the American government has completely snowballed the American people...we couldn't find Osama so then it was ..well...Iraq has WMDS...then it was..oops we can't find them...but Saddam is a dicatator so we have to take him down...then suddenly people are arguing that we entered Iraq pretending to be heroes in order to " liberate the Iraqis." It sincerely boggles my mind that the American people accept the clear continuation of lies . We are in the middle of a civil war with no exit plan...I am enraged just writing this...
- Rebecca Alexander
Khenry
The League of Nations was actually a US idea. It was Wilson’s baby. No one pushed harder for the creation of the league. Also it should be noted that we never joined the League.
First off, Matt- thanks for picking up on the League of Nations bit. I am glad I was not the only one to catch that.
In response to crp18’s hypothetical…I think one must be careful when comparing the current war in Iraq to previous wars, especially the American Revolution. As many in this dialogue have already pointed out, the war in Iraq is incredibly nuanced and that can be said for all wars, including the American Revolution. The complexity of war makes over simplified analogies somewhat useless. If one absolutely had to make a comparison, I would say that the best comparison would indeed be Vietnam. While Vietnam is often brought up as a sort of criticism, I am only bringing it up because I think it best applies to crp18’s hypothetical. I also think it is negligent to say those who are calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are 1) calling for retreat and 2) doing so because things in Iraq are “hard”. People have their reasons for thinking we should withdrawal, but I know of no one who holds this belief simple because it is too “hard.” Just my thoughts…
Oh and just because I don’t think Bob Marley is getting enough coverage on this blog, I feel the urge to *playfully* correct “darkwing”… Mr. Marley was concerned not with your “Rights” (plural), but solely with your “Right” (singular). : )
- Jonathan Duffy
I am, and have always been, opposed to Bush's war in Iraq and his new idea for sending 21,500 more troops into that mess. The fact that 30% of Americans still think that occupying Iraq was an effective way to combat terror blows my mind. After 9/11 Bush pledged, and rightly so, to go after the terrorists and either capture or kill them no matter where they might be hiding. That is why the entire country, including myself, was behind his decision to invade Afghanistan and eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. Now, almost 4 years after his decision to invade and occupy Iraq, we are stuck in a war we cannot win militarily and we seem to be forgetting the people who actually attacked us on 9/11. It still amazes me that we haven't captured Osama bin Laden. We don't even have the slightest clue as to where he might be. The man knocked down two of the largest buildings in the world while sitting in a cave half a world away and we are not even concentrating the bulk of our forces on capturing or killing him. Bush's war in Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes this country has ever made.
By saying that Sunnis and Shiites are "different faces of the same totalitarian threat" and that they have "the same wicked purpose" is at the very least racist and severely irresponsible. It proves that he has no real understanding of the situation in Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites are different sects of the same religion. The differences between them are not that monumental to someone who is not of the Muslim faith, but to them they are very different.
The problem in Iraq is that the Sunnis and Shiites' (the non-insurgents) main goal is not to kill us, but to kill each other. We're caught in the middle of a war that has been going on since the 6th century and it is naive of us to think that we can end it. Meanwhile, the small group of al-Qaeda in Iraq are hell bent on killing Americans and driving the country into even more chaos.
After 4 years of this I've come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is not winnable, at least not militarily. We have been there since 2003 and the war has only gotten worse. Bush makes the argument that we can't leave until the job is done because if we do, Iran and Syria are going to come in and turn Iraq into another anti-American country in the Middle East. In my opinion, that argument isn't valid. No matter what the outcome, whether we win the war or leave before it gets worse, the minute we leave Iran is going into Iraq, whether we leave tomorrow or 10 years from now.
Either way, the war in Iraq will come to an end eventually and we will leave. The question is will we leave in the near future before more American lives are wasted, or will we leave "when the job is done" after thousands more Americans have sacrificed their lives for the failed policies of a stubborn man?
As much as I might like to thrash Bush for his approach at the State of the Union I can't. That does not mean that I agree with what is going on in Iraq. It also does not mean that I don't want answers, but that's not so much the purpose of the SOTU. He was promoting new ideas and possible HOPE for tomorrow. It is not so much to tell us the how and the why, but just the what. Plans for immigration, national debt, and health care. It's easy to say you disagree with somebody based on values, but these were simply ideas. Putting too much emphasis on the war in Iraq would be disheartening and drive down hope.
As disheartening as the subject may be, it is not one we can ignore either. With Iraq, Americans are constantly angered by the "losing battle" that our President is responsible for. First off, I would really like to know what everyone's definition of winning a war is. Last time I checked people died on both sides, and they usually end in a treaty that doesn't change much, or at least only affects certain people or regions. Perhaps our expectations and standards are too high for our leaders. As far as Bush leading us through a losing battle, maybe he is, but he is not the only one to blame. Presidents have had a substantial control over foreign policy for years. It does not help that every time we get into a crisis we give more and more power to the executive branch. Congress could cut funding, or envoke the War Powers Act that they never use. This war was never formally declared as a war, it was started as "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" or AUMF Resolution, just like Vietnam. Bush is not the only one making the decisions. I may completely disagree with what he's doing, but just complaining about it won't do anything.
One common attribute to success in American History was our ability to stand together in a time of need. We were all effected by the devastation of 9/11. Some of us still are, but most of us at the time wanted action. We may not have intended on going as far as attacking Iraq, but it's our fault. We're the ones that elected him, and we were the ones that stood idly by while he continued to pass legislation like the USA Patriot Act. Instead, 4 or 5 years later we complain about it. All and all if we all need someone to blame so badly for this war, maybe we should just look in the mirror.
I believe that even though the president did not go in depth with the situation in Iraq, he knows the most about the entire situation (other than the soilders there). I think that the reason that he did not tell the world that much about the war during the SOTU was because it is still confidential. There are many things that he knows that he is not going to say becasue it could help our enemy. We are in the middle of the war, and information that leaks out could be devistating to the United States.
David Turkovic
I believe it is foolish to think that President Bush does not know the different complexities in Iraq. He is constantly being briefed on the situation in Iraq and is constantly in contact with the Iraqi government. So how could he not know the about the complex situation that is occuring over there?
Is the President wrong when he makes the argument that the Shia and the Sunni are the same? No because he is refering to the Shia and the Sunni militas that day in and day out slaughter civilians. So there is no distiction between Al-Qaida and these militas. Murder is murder no matter how you look at it.
When he came up with his new plan for Iraq, it was not just President Bush's plan of action but our military commanders as well because they were apart of the planning. So to say that his plan for solving the situation in Iraq is nonsense it is saying that our commanders do not have a clue about what is going on or what is needed for success. So i am pretty sure they do know what going on in Iraq cause they are there more then anyone else. So I believe you can cut the President some slack cause he is at least trying a different plan in Iraq. Every one likes to criticize the President for his course of action but no one else is coming up with a stragedy to win the war. Which is what we want to do cause that is in the best interest not only for the US and Iraq but for humanity and the future.
Mike Phillips
I do agree that President Bush does not fully understand the reality of the war in Iraq but neither did we because we allowed our emotions to lead us into this war. The State of the Union did not offer a straight forward answer to the war because it does not exist. This war is taken day by day. There culture over there is completely different then ours and we need to realize that before we start forcing them to change. The complexities of the war are immense but as a member of the typical public he basically told me that this war is going to last a long time and I am going to have to pay for it and all of this is in the name of freedom. I do find it ironic though that President Bush continues to speak about the weapons of mass destruction that lead us into the war, as if we need further assurance that what we are doing is justifiable.
I agree with ralexan1 on the fact that the President lied and some people are so forgiving of this and seem to simply "forget" it happened. Bush lied about something huge...WMD's. This didn't just affect his administration or the people leading this country. It affected every citizen as well. I've heard people compare Bush to a puppet, who allowed his father to set his agenda for running the country. After watching what the President has done over his 2 terms in office, I've started to see where the comparison came from. Jr. went after Sadam because of personal vendettas his father had and could not finish while he was in office. There was not enough proof of the presence of WMD's in Iraq to do what we did, but Bush did it anyway. Bush has done a good job of tying terrorism and 9-11 to Sadam, when Osama Bin Laden is the person to blame and we still haven't found him over 5 years later. kph9186 makes a good point because Bush has our country entered in a war we can't win militarily and I do feel some have forgotten about the people who are to blame for 9-11. That says something about our President's priorities.
I think one thing is greatly being over look about the state of the union, it is that shrub wore a cornflower blue neck tie. I feel this is one of his greatest accomplishments!!
I think that the President has handled the war pretty well. I will agree that the President has mishandled some parts of the war and he would even admit that. But like he said in the state of the union adress he believes more troops will make Iraq a stronger and safer place. The president is trying to correct the mistakes he has made in Iraq. Overall though his administration has done a very good job in Iraq. For example Saddam Hussein is now dead and can no longer murder his own people. This was overall has been a success and i belive that in the future this will be shown.
I think that everyone could agree whether you support the war or not, that it is too late to turn back. I do agree that there has been some success with the overthrow of Hussein, but the current situation is far to delicate for the President to admit that he was mistaken in his pursuit of the Iraq war. As far as his generalizations of the groups that are currently in Iraq, I think that he honestly believes that they are all a part of the same cause with respect to the goals of the United States, whether it be true or not. Pertaining to the current situation, one would have to weigh the success of an established, democratic Iraq with that of the losses that the United States has already endured and may face in the future. I'm not saying that I have a solution, but as far as supporting the war or not, it definately has to be considered.
-Mike Rudolph
While I agree with the ideas that General Cabbage put forth in his original post, I must say that I can't necessarily agree with his summation of the situation.
This president has acted with impunity on some very important matters. It is my understanding that the "warrantless wiretap" program employed under his administration are in violation of the FISA statue. I have researched the data on my own, trying to be independent of political rhetoric from the opposition, and while it is seemingly more complicated an issue than the left-wing talking points would make it out to be, in my opinion there does seem to be merit to the issue. If I'm mistaken in my interpretation I would be welcome for the oppurtunity to hear it. Anyway, this may all seem beside the point, but it isn't, I promise. The administration has acted autonomously in this matter, a matter in which they do not have the authority to do so, again, as far as I can tell. In addition to that point, I would cite the recent mid-term elections of Congress, in which the Democrats reclaimed a majority in both the House and Senate. The president, when asked for reaction to the elections, said, and I'm paraphrasing here, I couldn't find the quote because the internet is ridiculous, something to the effect of: We were narrowly defeated, yet we got a thumping. While there may not have been an OVERWHELMING majority of voters who, and again, these are just MY opinions, voted against this president's chronies in Congress, there was a majority almost EVERYWHERE, certainly an increasingly large one, at any rate. And yet the administration continues onward, with their "new" strategy of a troop surge, despite public oppisition as well as similar opposition in Congress. Again, were the internet not a total piece of crap, I would here quote the president as saying something to the effect of him continuing his Iraq policy if his wife and his dog were his last remaining supporters. And I could go on and on to the effect that this president has unflichingly acted in defiance of not only the public will and the constitution, but the will of his generals on the ground as well, citing things such as General Abizaid's testimony before Congress in November of last year that he did not think a troop surge was the right idea, as well as an increasing number of military officials' surprising public opposition to this PARTICULAR idea of a troop surge without any kind of timetables or benchmarks, but I won't (even though I just did). The point of all this being, my opinion is that I believe that the president HAS looked clearly at the situation in Iraq and decided that all those who voice their opposition are just simply wrong and don't have the facts, as opposed to the notion that he isn't seeing the situation clearly. This might seem like a subtle difference for such a long-winded response, but I think it's an important one.
-Matt Potisuk
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Today when we started talking about Augustin and his notion of surrendering to your problems and whole-heartedly accepting God's will, I couldn't help but draw a parallel to Islam. Islam means submission, and a Muslim is one who submits to God. I would love to compare the writings of Muhammad to the writings of Augustin.
Now that I'm seeing the origins of the Catholic Church, I'm also seeing remarkable similarities to the consolidation of religious power that exists today in some Middle Eastern nations like Iran. ("Wives obey your husbands.")
When Augustin talks about the City of God, I also see parallels to the Muslim idea of an Ummah, or rightly-ordered Muslim city. For devout Muslims too, separation of church and state is not a debatable issue. It’s the people’s way of life that makes the city both spiritual and civic at the same time. First, everyone must live a correct Muslim life, and then the government will take care of itself. We can live happily if we all submit to Allah.
Budget lecture on Tuesday
Saddam will not be able to appear in court that is scheduled in the
near future for obvious reasons! I'm not advocating for the man in any way at all. if you did not know he was to appear in court to testify to where he got the weapons that he killed those innocent people with...THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA...does that make any sense at all??? why kill a man who knows the entire history, creation, and war for civilization in the middle east?? why not let him sit in a jail cell, does his death have any direct result at all??? the fact is, our administration has some questions it needs to answer and we the
people are stuck in our fight for survival, and our not demanding
answers!!! our presidents words " either your with us or your with
them!" thats border line dictator status, sounds like something that
would have come out of saddams mouth!? dick cheney - "we know
personally that this man, saddam, has weapons of mass destruction!"
well where are they! the murder rate is breaking records every day in new orleans, people still without homes, but yet our president asks for hundreds of billions of more dollars to fight wars!! but DOES NOT EVEN MENTION louisiana!!! current prime minister in IRAQ asked GW Bush
to withdrawal troops 6 months ago!!! read the news, 2 British men were caught dressed as arabs by Iraqi MP's, found in their vehicle was a car full of explosives, the British army was there within days with 20 tanks and plenty men to free these men from their holding. continually year after year, test scores come out to show that american children are at the bottom of the list of industrialized nations, on math, science, reading, and writing!! but we let our president spend billions more on war...promising to cut the deficit without raising taxes but LOWERING THEM!!!! what?!! our president has a job to do for the poeple of this country and he is not doing it!
why can a man who takes the stand to demand the invasion of a country not be held accountable for a negative outcome, is he not an equal being in our society, why can one man kill almost half a million people and waist billion of dollars for no adherent reason?? and why not ask why these so called terrorist groups would want to attack us, why would a man want to go so far as to want to strap a bomb to his chest!!! he must be pretty mad!! but mad at what!!!? this depresses me
- Iian McCloud
I do not have much to say about the SOTU speech. I feel no matter who the president, these speeches are a huge PR stunt. Does anything get resolved or fully answered after the speech??? What can the average citizen actually take away? I do however feel the President spent too much time speaking about Iraq. I am sick of hearing about other countries, how can we fix Iraq when we need help ourselves? I would have felt more satisfied if the domestic issues had as much coverage as Iraq.
I support the troops I and everyone involved with the war. I support our President 100%, whether he/she is Republican or a Democrat. If the people of the United States wanted him to be President again in 2004 then by God support the man! I understand that people do not think this war is necessary but remember September 11? How many lives were lost, just think how many little children will never get to know their mother or fathers because they died because of some stupid terrorist group. Although the terrorist groups we want to conquer are spread out all over the world I think that we should make them pay for all the damage that was done, do whatever is necessary to get 'er done!
-D.Slovan
Aquinas said natural law is different from divine law, which is revealed in scriptures. He also said natural law is accesible to all humans and must also be consistant with human purpose. All people can understand what is right or wrong through human reason, without the bible. While what Aqinas said may be true,people go against what they may know to be right for a number of reasons including power and selfishness. Aquinas These forces are corrupt and prevent divine law from being carried out.
With reference to Machiavelli and how a ruler should appear, here's a great article from AOL news about the Democratic presidential candidates. It debates how important a ruler’s race, religion and gender really are. Take a look:
http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/021307/_a/what-matters-in-2008/20070213111309990001
There are so many different opinions here I don't know what to think. I do think that we need to keep in mind the real reasons why we went to war in the first place. Also, like everyone else has said time and time again if you are not happy with the way our government is doing things then we need to cahnge it. VOTE! Be aware of what is going on in our government. I don't have a strong opinion going either way about the war in Iraq. I'm not for it but I am not against it. I would like to know how we went from trying to find Bin Ladin to not finding him? And it has slowly been dissappearing from the news. Isn't he the reason we kinda went to war because he was responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks? What's really going on??? I don't care for Bush and I didn't vote for him so I can say that I am not happy with the way he is doing things. I think that he and his admin. and what they are doing, trying to smooze through congress is getting a little old. I hate the fact too that we went to war with Iraq and it is being destroyed and it takes a lot to rebuild a COUNTRY!! And start from scratch and make a new government when like we saw when Iraq went to vote they had threats and bombings. And we have to pay for everything. Yes, I think we did the right thing by going to war for SEPT 11th and that's it. We can't fight the whole world , I mean we probably could but that's besides the point. We need to worry about our own country and help our people. It's also funny that other countries say thay hate the U.S. but when they need help they run to the U.S.
~Colla
"In the SOTU Bush says "[t]he Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.” "Whatever slogans they chant ... they have the same wicked purpose. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale." The escalating violence in Iraq is more complicated than the armies of Freedom battling the forces of Tyranny. Does Bush really believe that the Shiites and Sunnis are the same? "
This reminds me of a NYTimes piece a couple months ago. It’s fairly old by now, but in it, contributor Jeff Stein asks Washington counter-terrorism officials point blank if they know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. They don’t — and it’s disturbing.
I’m sure Bush, after myriad security briefings since (and before) the onset of the war, understands that Iraq and Iran are primarily Shiite, while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. I’m sure he knows Osama bin Laden is Sunni. But I don’t think he fully grasps the culture of Islam, nor does he fully understand the nightmarish depths to which this conflict has plummeted.
-- Ryan Loew
I agree with your conclusion that President Bush has no idea what he is talking about most of the time (as far as Iraq goes). However I don't know if anyone really does know whats going on over there. What we need is experts in the field who can actually assess the situtation. For instance experts who know the difference between these two groups to start. Possibly some sociologists who specialize in Iraqi social relations, structures, etc. I think the second thing would be to have their reports be made public. Perhaps then our president would have half an understanding of the war.
Basically, someone should study up on the whole situtation to get a better handle on it and not leave it up to old W.
in response to to the person who wrote that they are pleased the US went to war because of Sept 11th. 16 of the 19 believed terrorists hijackers were from saudi arabia. LOL! all you gotta do is pay attention, thats all...u know just cause we have cell phones, lap tops, and mint flavored condoms does not make us civilized! humans in their masses are becoming less intelligent, as the result of a global/world market of goods that enslave your mind to almost the point that one day humans brains will actually shrink!! really...apes that lived in different environments whom ate different types of foods, actually had major evolutionary changes in their sculls that helped them adapt to their environment to better serve them to eat those foods. more we dont use our entire brain, its just gunna shrink!
So Prince Harry is headed to fight in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_en_ot/britain_prince_harry_iraq
Is he doing it for publicity like this article suggests? Or does he really feel a sense of duty? Probably a bit of both. I'm sure he also wants to prove himself and correct his party animal image. He's spent a lot of time in his older brother's shadow.
This move relates closely to the SOTU and a ruler's outward appearance. It is also surprisingly Machiavellian. A prince ought to appear powerful and patriotic. But should a prince needlessly risk his life? I think Machiavelli would probably criticize Harry because enlisting is unnecessary and does nothing to increase his power. Reputation isn’t all that important to Machiavelli who says that even if a few people think little of you, they won’t dare share their thoughts with the group.
President Bush seemed to speak very little about the severity of the situation in Iraq. He rather, spoke about the fact that things seem to be going as planned. Anything other than that may make it seem as if the State of the union is less that 100 percent stong. The president is nearly finished with his final term in office and certainly would wish to be remembered as a strong president; rather than one who got our nation into a troublesome situation.
I agree that President Bush does not seem to understand the complexities of the Muslim faith. I think that he could benefit from a good lesson on the Quaran or at least a general synopsis of the different sects of Islam and differing beliefs. The war in Iraq is a geopolitical strategy to forcefully make the West's presence felt in the middle east. I was not at all impressed by his SOTU address when he mentioned Iraq; although, it was expected!
In a couple of weeks, we will mark the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Baghdad quickly turned into a war on the crowded streets of the capital, Falluja, Tikrit and Mosul. Now, it is simply a civil war and therefore a true failure.
President Bush must recognize this fact and withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before we pass the $500 Billion mark on expenditure for this failure. Secondly, it’s amazing how the President and VP Cheney justify this failure by reminding Americans that Saddam is gone, Iraqis freely voted last year and reasonably good progress is being made winning Iraqi hearts and minds. Hey, Dick and Dubya: What happened to those WMD?
As D. Slovan states on his blog on this page, “I support the troops…I support our President 100%, whether he/she is a Republican or Democrat”. This level of support must be admired in the face of dealing with this incompetent President.
Whatever critics may believe, it is perfectly fine to 100% support our brave men and women- yet we can deeply be opposed to this failure in Iraq. Our troops need our support now more than ever- due to the seriously flawed foreign policy which placed them in Iraq in the first place.
D. Slovan mentions the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the connection to the war in Iraq. There is no link to Iraq or Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. Attacking Iraq was President Bush’s intention from the beginning of being elected (barely) in 2000 and he was influenced by his father, “to get the job done in Iraq”.
We cab spend the billions of dollars more effectively in our fight against terror. By attacking foreign nations who do not present any security threat to the U.S., we are seriously damaging our positive global image. The U.S. has the resources to do a much better job in finding the terrorist (bin Laden) who actually attacked us on 9/11.
President Bush: Take all of the U.S. troops out of Iraq and move them to the Afghanistan / Pakistan border where bin Laden is hiding in a cave.
Remember- we must support our troops- not he twisted foreign policies which landed them in Iraq. This should be made clear in the new President’s SOTU Address.
I believe that the reason which the topic was avoided is the fact that it is nationally televised and with disclosing information about the war there would be information easily available to the enemy. Therefore I do not discredit Bush for revealing his full intentions during the state of the uniion address.
-Chris Pataky
I think that Bush is well informed on the situation in Iraq and knows the difference between Shia and Sunni. I think that he also knows that there is a minority of extremist from those religious groups that are terrorists and not the whole group. I think he is trying to maintain whatever support he can get from the people he has left. He is playing on Americans fear of the Middle East and using that fear to further exploit people’s misconception and lack of knowledge to decipher between terrorists and religious groups. It is always easier to generalize a group of people, especially when doing so will help your cause. Does it not make one seem more patriotic if you have the feeling that you are on the side of good and taking on the evil terrorists?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I can complain about the Iraq war and the presidents speech, but right now thats a mute point. Yes, I want all of our troops back home and I want us to stop spending billions of dollars a day. We all know that the majority in America want it to end, yet do you know the the majority in Iraq want us to stay? Surprising isn't it, yet that doesn't mean they like us. Yes we've lost +3,000 men and billions of dollars, they've lost at least +100,000-600,00 civilians. We have created the power vacuum in order for this civil war to happen. Iraqis fear how much more violent it would become if U.S. leaves. Unfortunately, we have become a catalyst to their problems, and we cannot simply leave because its easier. Yes there are better policy's and diplomatic solutions that we could use, but to abandon all hope by leaving would be detrimental to the Iraqis.
I agree with the statement that most of the time President Bush doesn't know what he is talking about especially about the iraqi war. I feel that we are getting know where with this war, and a President who doesn't know much about the war, can't be good for America.
Then Danielle, what do we do about this war? Do we pullout and leave, and allow Iraq to finish its civil war and watch as the number of deaths multiply as we casually sit back at home and watch, knowing that our troops are at least safe. Or do we stay and lose troops, and hope that we are at least detering the country from complete chaos and eventually some new solution will be provided from diplomacy, which will take years in either case. Its easier to point out who and whats wrong, yet its harder to provide a solution. I dont think the next president will have any better handle with Iraq. America is in this together.
I don’t think that Bush comprehends the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. Regardless whether it is legitimate or not, the war on Iraq reflects a total ignorance and a very weak understanding of cultural differences. I think that that it is very dumb to think that someone can go to a different country where people have a total different culture, beliefs, traditions, and morals, and think that they can teach them or make them adopt a concept that they never heard of. There are many things that one should do first before he starts preaching about democracy. A good intellectual foundation in Iraq is mandatory to convince the Iraqi people that they need to make some changes. Before America tries to “impose” “democracy”, it should intellectually prepare the people to ease the transition afterwards. Democracy is obviously the best political regime in America and the west in general, because those people are intellectually able to adopt it in their politics. It’s really amazing how people sharing different political and religious views can live together in harmony. It is amazing how one party or one presidential candidate loses the elections and be like: “Damn it, we’ll win next time. Iraq, on the other hand, is another country where people have different assumptions, and live a different life. Maybe what is works in the American culture doesn’t necessary work in the Iraqi culture. Maybe democracy works with Americans to keep order, and dictatorship is what is needed to keep order in Iraq. Bush doesn’t seem to understand that. He thinks that since democracy worked out in America, it MUST workout in another place in the other side of the globe. As a matter of fact, under the rule of Saddam, Iraq was very peaceful and pretty much united. After the war, and in an attempt to democratize it, Iraq became a living hell where each one is killing the hell outta the other.
In a nutshell, democracy isn’t the best thing for Iraq at the moment. I believe that democracy is the best political system ever, and the US aught to be appreciated for trying to export that idea for the rest of the world, but the way it is adapting isn’t the right one. It should first prepare the people, and built the intellectual infrastructure among them that will ease the political transition; otherwise, democracy will be nothing but a fairy tale in those countries.
Perhaps the president is neither ignorant nor unwilling to really deal with the situation in Iraq. Perhaps he is simply playing the game, and using his language willfully to his own advantage. We want to be the good guys, and in order to be the good guys we need to have bad guys and so in a way George W. Bush is doing us a favor and he is willing to be our scapegoat. He gives us what we want -moral indignation and a sense of superior feelings and motives -while being figuratively stoned for doing so.
~Anna Dowell
Wait, you expect the President to understand the situation? That might mean he has to open a book... He couldn't possibly do that. In any case I am curious as to what the plain is anyway. Are we hoping that in a few decades the Iraqis will straighten themselves out and be just like Germany. I am tired of people trying to correlate the situation in post WWII in Germany and the current situation in Iraq. Bathists aren't the same thing as nazis for one, that kind of thinking is partially to blame for the current situation. Also the people of the United States were behind the German occupation the people are not for the Iraqi occupation. I'm just wondering what the goal is... Is there one? Or did we just go to break a working country for the fun of it, then realize how much of a mess it was and leave for the Iraqis or some one else to pick up the pieces?
-Craig Myers
I'm sure president Bush completely understands the situation in Iraq but he doesn't want to come out and say that things are not going well. He was already wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and people are angry about that so he wants to redeem himself. He is a lame duck and he just wants to leave a legacy. Being remembered for spreading democracy is a lot better than being remembered for starting a war based on false information.
-Kim Gos
Is anyone else concerned about our president's slave mentality and where it is going to lead us in the next 18 months?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home