Harry's Place

Hilarious spoof post.Well done!

Wading through the verbiage: “The most fundamental decision in western security policy [...] has been the recognition that the most voluble adversaries of western society [..] are a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable.”

See – its a clash of civilizations, an ideological battle of cosmic proportions. The enemy are completely alien, irrational, pure evil, and inhuman (of course). Nothing we have done in the past or currently has any relevance to the situation – that simply hate our very essence. We are up against pure evil, its as simple as that.

Does anyone buy this childish nonsense?

“Does anyone buy this childish nonsense?” Yup.’Fraid so.But there are less of them every day ,as more and more wake up.

You wait we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they will be found, just a matter of the Americans remembering where they put them.

Does anyone buy this childish nonsense?

No, for the very good reason you have made it up.

Are you suggesting that Al Qaeda is a civilisation?

Since the Afghan government and the Iraqi government are fighting on our side, it is quite obviously not a clash of civilisations, but a clash between civilisation and a bunch of reactionary religious fanatics.

Of course, for you, “brown people” are all the same and their only role is to be some form of anti-imperialist fodder to fight your childish battles.

“theocratic barbarism”.Surely it matters little if the barbarism is theocratic or not? I don’t want to step on a cluster bomb even if the cluster bomb is a liberal,secular ,democratic cluster bomb,thank
you.

Neil D. please define al quada.What is its nuclear strenghth? How many hydrogen bombs does it have? Does it have any kind of command structure? Any leadership with any authority over its “members”?

you seem to have quoted Kamm selectively.

A passage that you missed out:

There is an integral connection between the terrorism that targets western societies and the autocratic states in which Islamist fanaticism is incubated.

and which county is still America’s most important ally in the middle east, after 8 years of this wonderful chap George Bush?

that’s right – SAUDI ARABIA.

The argument is typical Kamm – high on windbag ‘verbosity’, but incredibly low on actual logic.

The most fundamental decision in western security policy in the past seven years has not been the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

I hear that scraping sound of goalposts being moved again.

No, not fundamental at all: the billions spent, the thousands upon thousands of lives lost – it’s all so passé, Oliver! As for the world being a “safer” place, I suppose it depends on whom you ask.

The world has always been a pretty safe place for Oliver in his banking profession. However, for those seeking asylum from war-torn Iraq, they might beg to differ, no matter how much they hated Saddam. I guess they might be called “moral relativists” though, and there’s always an easy pigeon hole handy.

If these poor folk wind up in the UK, not just a pigeon hole: a chartered jet ready for deportation – air mail special courtesy of the Labour Party.

However, such invisible people don’t get to be scribes for Rupert Murdoch, like Oliver here.

Anyhow – what’s all this about a “safe” world? Don’t be a whoosie, Oliver. Get with the program – it is all about ‘creative destruction’ these days.

Does anyone buy this childish nonsense?

You mean apart from the martyrs?

Oh lord, a choice beween defending an incompetent President and agreeing with the Pro Authoritarian left.

1.Bush may have correctly identified the problem, but dealt with it incompetently.Competence matters.Katrina will have at least the impact on the US Elections that Iraq has.

2.The main target of Al Queda and other violent Islamists is not the west but other Muslims.

According to Kamm himself, Bush is guilty of

verbal infelicity, diplomatic brusqueness, negligence in planning for post-Saddam Iraq, and insouciance regarding standards of due process when prosecuting the war on terror

was wrong, in his 2002 state of the union address, to speak of an “axis of evil” connecting Saddam, Iran and North Korea – not because he overstated these actors’ malevolence but because they were not a homogeneous threat

and

is culpable for much that went wrong after the overthrow of Saddam

Now I’m certainly not going to argue with any of that, and they are all pretty damning arguments, but the best that Kamm can credit him with in mitigation is

the recognition that the most voluble adversaries of western society are not merely a criminal subculture, and still less an incipient liberation movement. Rather, they are a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable.

Well yes, but doesn’t explain how in practice this in itself has made us safer. He doesn’t argue how a different president might have taken a different view and how that might have damaged our interests. In fact he doesn’t seem to have many arguments to back up his case at all.

benjamin.
I presume if your analysis of where is safer rests on refugee movements, then you will agree that Afghanistan is a much safer place, given the return of millions of refugees.

Blah, I haven’t got time to write you an essay about Al Qaeda’s present structure (which is more of a loose McTerror franchise now), but suffice it to note that the in the past 7 years we have effectively destroyed them as an organised structure in a settled position.

That is something to celebrate, and the fact you can come here and start to suggest Al Qaeda does not exist in a substantial form is part of Bush’s legacy.

Oh lord, a choice beween defending an incompetent President and agreeing with the Pro Authoritarian left.

Well that’s it isn’t it. I do think that some people can’t honestly appraise Bush because they might appear to agree with certain people on the left they particularly dislike.

Of course there isn’t such a choice at all, you can just give an honest opinion and not worry about who alse might have the same view.

Bush may have correctly identified the problem, but dealt with it incompetently.Competence matters.

It does. Certainly looking back at the Clinton years there was a lack of competence then on this issue too, lobbing the odd cruise missile into pharmaceutical plants in Sudan. However, there are signs that the US has innovated and is learning.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened under a Gore Presidency in 2000. 911 would still have happened, so would the invasion of Afghanistan, and perhaps even Iraq.

Now perhaps Gore could have UN agreement on the need to enforce resolutions about WMD, or perhaps he would have decided not to invade Iraq, or done the post-invasion reconstruction more competently (although he would have faced the same jihadist threat).

But I suggest, that the US would be hated just as much under Gore, even if he was a paragon of virtue on the issue of global warming, as it is under Bush.

“No more war,
No more Gore!”

Neil, i did not suggest anything,i asked you a few questions,none of which have you replied to.heres one more-Did al qaeda have any hydrogen bombs seven years ago?

perhaps he would have decided not to invade Iraq

i don’t think there’s much ‘perhaps’ about it. he would not have invaded Iraq.

I suggest, that the US would be hated just as much under Gore

on the sole, made-up basis that he would have probably also invaded Iraq.

He would not have done. This was a Bush admin war from start to finish.

That original Kamm post is the most hilarious excercise in saying very little, very loudly. It’s all unfounded assertion, misdirection and loaded ideological terminology that would make a Maoist proud – but ultimately all it actually says is that post 9-11 policy has been a flailing disaster as regards Iraq and North Korea and that things MIGHT now be getting better thanks to some very belated action.

Anyhow Bush didn’t declare war on “theocratic barbarism”, did he? He declared war on the far more nebulous “evil” and “terror”. Declaring that “theocracy” was “barbaric” would have alienated half of his own constituency. At least he had THAT much nous.

Silly.

.Bush made the world a safer place

Well, (and at the risk of sounding like Benji), maybe. And maybe not.

The only reasonable response is to say: it’s far too soon to say for one way or the other. Or even to make a preliminary assessment. And ultimately the decision of which assessment is correct will depend to a large extent on which direction Iraq develops AFTER the US pulls out: then the invasion (and its disastrous mismanagement) will be revealed either as reckless folly, or an inspired and responsible act. Having (perhaps naively: frankly the US’s record in the middle east region as a whole is utterly and completely deplorable) supported the invasion, I’d like to think it would be the latter, but I am far from convinced now that will prove to be so.

blah:

Um, do they now?

He doesn’t argue how a different president might have taken a different view and how that might have damaged our interests

There’s a pretty strong hint when he talks about Bush’s pre-9/11 isolationist tendencies. Bush was elected partly on a promise to leave behind “Clinton’s wars”. I don’t take a whole lot of convincing that an inhibited president and an isolationist congress post-9/11 wold have meant a less safe world in 2008.

I do think that some people can’t honestly appraise Bush because they might appear to agree with certain people on the left they particularly dislike.

Unlike a 2CV, this works in reverse, too.

mephisto-
Um,how the fuck should i know?it was a question,and i am sure neil
knows better than anyone.If Al gator does not have much weaponry
to speak of then why piss yrslvs in terror?

I don’t take a whole lot of convincing that an inhibited president and an isolationist congress post-9/11 wold have meant a less safe world in 2008.

even a very isolationist president would still have probably launched the war against the Taliban.

But he/she would certainly not have launhed the utterly pointless Iraq war.

Surely it matters little if the barbarism is theocratic or not?

Aye just as it mattered little if barbarism in the forties was nazi or not.

What a totally idiotic statement from “Blah”.

The last thing you wrote gives me the idea that you think Hilary Clinton is a woman,Demon.

But he/she would certainly not have launhed the utterly pointless Iraq war.

A war so utterly pointless that a majority of Iraqis, even now, still think it should have been waged.

Blah – how many hydrogen bombs have been dropped in Iraq, and who by?

Also, if Chewbacca is a Wookie how come he lives on Endor? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!

As with all these counterfactuals the question is “safer than what?”

The world certainly could have been worse (might even have been as bad as the manic middle-class lefty I met in Somerfields on the day Bush was elected and who was predicting global nuclear war within weeks.

Um,how the fuck should i know?it was a question,and i am sure neil
knows better than anyone.If Al gator does not have much weaponry
to speak of then why piss yrslvs in terror?

Because, you semi-literate twit, you don’t need hydrogen bombs to cause catastrophic loss of life, economic disruption and political crisis.

Or should we only start worrying when we’re counting the dead in the tens of millions?

What a completely useless, pointless, senseless person you are.

Irie and Blah’s disingenuity is appalling. So what if we invaded Iraq, Scotland has never won the World Cup. Relevance? As much as H-bombs.

In the meantime, sensible discussion, what Tim said with bells and ribbons on. The invasion of Afghanistan was in response to the mass-murder of thousands of civilians on American soil, at which point all the cant about understanding grievances after July 2005 or attacks against Israel goes out the window. These were just Americans, and not to be avenged. Some of the bottom-feeders in the ‘anti-war’ movement make no pretence of their loathing of American, other hypocrites like Irie and Blah seek every way to be considered nice people and still approve of certain wars.

But competency matters.

The world has always been a pretty safe place for Oliver in his banking profession.

Oh, fuck off, Mackie.

Meanwhile, on a slightly related note, any thoughts on the quashing of the conviction of the so-called ‘Lyrical Terrorist’?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/18/uksecurity

I remember DavidT posting some very strong comments on the matter in January:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/01/08/lyrical-terrorist-samina-malik-and-her-jihadist-chum/

Prima-Quite right.I am sure you would be happy to be tortured by the NKVD,but if the gestapo tried such knavish tricks why!an englishman would never stand for that.

@TheIrie

When does the past stop providing an excuse for the excessive actions of religious fanatics of today?

I’m a Jew of Polish descent yet I don’t argue that the Germans/Poles/Russians caused my people’s ruination and that this grievance enables me to hate these people today.

Where do you draw the line when you keep referring to historical issues? Palestine in 48? My extended family were turned into ash only 4 years before that – is that too long ago? Why don’t you tell us all where you draw the line with regards to these past events that you keep referring to?

Did al qaeda have any hydrogen bombs seven years ago?

Ah, the sole basis of action against terrorist threats is if they have a nuclear bomb now?

Also, is “Did Bush make the world safer?” even the right question? Even if it were beyond question that at the end of his tenure the world was less-safe, is that in itself a valid criticism? How difficult is it to think of scenarios whereby your actions make things worse before they get better? And whatever happened to doing the right thing?

You may believe that Bush never did a right thing in his puff, but then this is the basis upon which you should criticise his presidency, not this “am I safer?” nonsense.

Oh, and as to the topic in hand – what Ven said, really.

I am sure you would be happy to be tortured by the NKVD,but if the gestapo tried such knavish tricks why!an englishman would never stand for that.

Are you able to rise above the personal Blah? (Here is a hint, politicians often have to do so.)

In the case of the NKVD and Stalin the world made a decision (rightly or wrongly) that they were not as destructive a force as the nazis. The choice between Bush and Al Qaeda should be a no brainer unless you have no brain.

Mephisto-A good point was well made-you dont need hydrogen bombs to kill large numbers of innocent people-but are you sure you want to talk about mass killing?when should you start worrying indeed?ten million? one million? 650000???

blah:

Thank you very much for bringing up the number of people killed in Iraq by Al-Qaeda and other “insurgent” groups. I think it rather demonstrates the point that AQ and other terror groups are capable of causing mass casualties, don’t you?

Or were you trying to make another point?

But he/she would certainly not have launhed the utterly pointless Iraq war.

Saddam hanging on a noose – the very opposite of pointlessness.

The world certainly could have been worse (might even have been as bad as the manic middle-class lefty I met in Somerfields on the day Bush was elected and who was predicting global nuclear war within weeks.

Quite.

Weren’t we meant to have invaded Iran at least 15 times by now as well?

Bush never quite lives up to their imaginings.

What empty lives they will lead after he has gone. What will make them get up in a morning?

The main reason I want Obama to win (I’m exaggerating for effect, it isn’t really) is because a McCain presidency will give continued cover for the knee-jerk anti-Americans. An Obama victory will expose how much anti-Americanism has fuck all to do with Bush. He’ll get barracked just as much as Bush.

Anyway, the great thing about Kamm’s article is it winds up the right people.

I like these threads which are basically all about predicting what historians will think in the future. Based on studies of historians in the past, unless someone is widely percieved as evil or saintly (neither of which you could sanely apply to Bush – in fact he is not that big a personality) in their lifetime then historians of the future will say absolutely everything about them at different times in the future.

In the case of the NKVD and Stalin the world made a decision (rightly or wrongly) that they were not as destructive a force as the nazis.

NO: the western world declined that it was strategically expedient to ally with one against the other. Having seen what happened in Ukraine in 1933, or more broadly in the Yezhovshchina, or in the Baltic States during the first period of Soviet Occupation, no reasonable person could have had any illusions about the destructive nature of ths USSR.

Realpolitik.

No more, no less.

Kind of like constantly making excuses for Saudi Arabia while never missing an opportunity to threaten Iran

Regarding the choce between the destuctive power of bush and al queda,surely you should consider the actual ability of al queda,and not what they would like to have.The same applies to “bush”.

Anyway, the great thing about Kamm’s article is it winds up the right people.

No – all it does is prove that he is a political commentator of exactly the same class and credibility as that bloke who threatened to sue him (and the latter at least gives the impression of being a likeable fellow)

MR Mephisto-Are you seriously suggesting that al queda have killed 650000 people in iraq?

Ask that question when Iraq reaches 650,000, Blah.

An Obama victory will expose how much anti-Americanism has fuck all to do with Bush. He’ll get barracked just as much as Bush.

A hard-core, certainly (complete with charmless references to racial servitude), but I do think the periphery is down to chagrin at a dumb Texan not feeling any need to defer to Old Europe.

Anyway, the great thing about Kamm’s article is it winds up the right people.

Indeed.

blah:

Regarding the choce between the destuctive power of bush and al queda,surely you should consider the actual ability of al queda,and not what they would like to have.

It’s just one lot of nonsense after another with you, isn’t it?

First of all, the “destructive power” of the two isn’t relevant. It’s the actual destruction wrought. And the intention to cause destruction. In this measure, AQ is miles ahead.

And the “actual ability” of Al-Qaeda includes 9/11, Bali, Madrid, 7/7, thousands upon thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on, and on. Or, I ask you again, are we only going to start worrying when we push into the tens of millions?

Blah makes Flanker look like Isaiah Berlin.

blah:

MR Mephisto-Are you seriously suggesting that al queda have killed 650000 people in iraq?

Are you seriously suggesting “Bush” has?

The number killed by coalition soldiers in Iraq is dwarfed by the number killed by Al-Qaeda and other “insurgent” groups. Which is sort of relevant to your non-point about the destructive power of AQ and “Bush”.

the great thing about Kamm’s article is it winds up the right people.

no matter how few points it makes despite its windbag verbosity?

no matter how little Kamm seems to understand either current affairs or history?

you put it on HP anyway. Purely to wind people up? So do you actually agree with the points in it? seems an odd approach to running a political blog. couldn’t we all have read it on comment is free yesterday anyway?

Saddam hanging on a noose – the very opposite of pointlessness.

Iraq occupied for an indefinite time, an occupation which will certainly be followed by a civil war, Iran (a genuine threat) massively more powerful, the loss of any kind of authority the USA and the UN had in the world, over a million Iraqis having fled the country, al-Qaeda rampant in the country, Islamism massively popular and powerful, the US ‘peace’ reliant on the temporary ceasfire of a militia it has no control over, and in all probability Iraq will not exist as a country in a few years’ time.

but Saddam is dead, so all is well, obviously.

Ven,

I think not

I do think the periphery is down to chagrin at a dumb Texan not feeling any need to defer to Old Europe.
decent telepathy at work again.

a shame that i don’t need telepathy to know that Neil D thinks that Kamm’s atrociously-written and illogical assessment of Bush is ‘a fair assessment’ – one which he curiously only prints 3 paragraphs from.

So do you actually agree with the points in it?

Yes.

couldn’t we all have read it on comment is free yesterday anyway?

I believe blogs often link to other blogs. Perhaps some people don’t read CIF because of the filth in the comments?

mephistopheles,now you are just spouting lies,which goes well with your moniker ,you being their father.So all the death and destuction in iraq and afghanistan is attributable to Al quaeda is it?
Fine.Who lost 200,000 ak47s? who “accidently” lost $9 billion ,or was it $12 in cash?who used white phosphorous? Who is supporting the Badr brigades in the interior ministry{clue-your heroes}?

Neil D, ah, yes, I’d forgotten that. Good point.

I find the hyprocrisy of the likes of “demonstrative” appaling. For you can sure, that if Saddam hadn’t been overthrown, and Bush et al had taken “demonstrative”’s advice and focused on Iran instread, “demonstrative” would have been out marching to support the Mullahs.

In short, with the likes of TheIrie and “demonstrative”, there is nothing that the West could do right.

I seem to remember high up Clinton aides complaining about Bush’s complete lack of interest in Al Qaeda when he first got into power. Admittedly a lot of this was after Sept 11th, so it might just be hindsight, but it must still raise some doubts whether Sept 11th would definitely have happened if Gore got into power.

Also, Kamm says that the world is a safer place. What, all of it? Since Bush got into power, there have been terrorist attacks in the US, Britain, and Spain in the West. Whatever you think about the Lancet study, it is hard to believe that Iraq is safer. So where exactly is safer?

Finally, looking at the world apart from terrorism, it is hard to argue that it is safer. Energy prices have doubled, to be followed soon by fertiliser prices. Food prices are up massively, the world may be about to enter a recession, and we’ve started to see clearly the first effects of climate change.

Obviously you can’t blame all these on Bush, but if you wanted to say he’s made the world a safer place, you should at least show he hasn’t helped make them worse.

If Bush’s or the “neocon” plan all along was to open up a new front against AL-Qaeda, in order to divert jihadi atacks from the US mainland then it is clearly a huge success – from a US perspective. The fact that there has not been another successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11 is a measure of success.

Now one could argue that the US, for their own national interests have instead created chaos in a foreign country – Iraq. The ethics of that strategy should be debated but from an American perspective he did the right thing – in my opinion.

What i find kind of funny is the anti-war line that this was was about stealing oil. Anyone with half a brain and basic maths skills can work out that it could not have been for oil because the US has spent far more on the war than they could ever recoup in Iraqi oil.

The Bush admin was clearly happy for the anti-war folks to claim it was about oil. They did not even try to debunk the oil conspiracy theory, and that should really be a big hint that Iraq was not about wmds, or oil, or anything other than a diversion strategy in order to stop attacks on the US mainland.

It worked whether we like it or not.

For god’s sake blah, at least learn to read. Mephisto said “The number killed by coalition soldiers in Iraq is dwarfed by the number killed by Al-Qaeda and other “insurgent” groups”; he did not say “all the death and destuction in iraq and afghanistan is attributable to Al quaeda”. You must surely be able to tell the difference between those two statements.

which he curiously only prints 3 paragraphs from.

Curiously? It’s a fucking quote. Quoting the whole article, would not have been a quote. I believe it is common practice of bloggers to use small quotes from other blogs, because if they didn’t blogs would be full of huge fucking articles. Jesus wept.

As for the curious part of this…

Yes, my lizard masters told me I was to selectively quote Kamm, and told me that no-one would notice there was more text at Kamm’s site, even though I PUT THE FUCKING LINK AT THE TOP OF THE POST YOU BRAINLESS FUCKWIT!

even a very isolationist president would still have probably launched the war against the Taliban.

But he/she would certainly not have launched the utterly pointless Iraq war.

Maybe, but unless you think the dangers we face today are only directly attributable to the war in Iraq, so what? Pre-9/11, Bin Laden’s biggest gripe was the presence of US troops on Saudi soil.

If it’s not one thing, it’s the other.

Yes ,i can tell the difference.trouble is,crystal meth wants it both ways.once you start to look at all the different groups in iraq,meths
main point,the awesome threat of “al qaeda” becomes ridiculous.

Short Order Cook,

Bush was not hired to be president of the world. He is the US president and his first obligation is to protect US citizens within their own country. he has done that very well.

So i would say he certainly made the US safer. That is his main responsibility.

decent telepathy at work again.

Do we really have to have this tedious discussion again?

Iran (a genuine threat) massively more powerful,

Is this like Michael Moore’s position on gun-ownership, when we suspect he supports it in actual fact? Invading Iraq at least had the practical advantage of being feasible, if bloody to maintain, from a realistic base. Unlike Iran.

Would you have supported an invasion of Iran, or are you talking bollocks?

the loss of any kind of authority the USA and the UN had in the world,

Again, as bizarre statement as anything Blah has said. Discounting the authority which the USA has been loosing since the Spanish-American War, what on Earth has the UN done over the invasion of Iraq which it did not endorse? It fails to prevent Darfur or Bosnia or Burma or Zimbabwe, but only when the USA is involved is its credibility damaged.

You really are an unprincipled twat, aren’t you?

you can sure, that if Saddam hadn’t been overthrown, and Bush et al had taken “demonstrative”’s advice and focused on Iran instread, “demonstrative” would have been out marching to support the Mullahs.

decent telepathy at work again I see.

I prefer to focus on the actual views of commentators, online or in print, as they are expressed, rather than inventing their hypothetical opinions in order to rather weakly ‘rubbish’ them as mullah-supporters or whatever weak insult you can think of.

you are aware that those who opposed the illegal and pointless Iraq war weren’t necessarily supporting Saddam’s regime, no matter how often Nick Cohen makes that illogical jump?

If you genuinely think that saddam on a noose outweighs everything I’ve written up there about the current and future situation in Iraq then fine. But the country will have a civil war as soon as the USA leaves. The place is only in a period of relative calm because of the wishes of one man, al-Sadr, and he has not disappeared. the puppet government that the Bush administration installed is a sham.

Bush started this pointless war and his support of the clearly not-fit-for-purpose Rumsfeld was one of the key reasons why this ever-so-easy-to-win war has become a messy conflict that will in all probability lead to the eventual destruction of the nation of Iraq.

easier to smear me with invented hypothetical beliefs than answer these points isn’t it.

Since you mention Saudi, Brownie, I find it a bit odd that Kammo praises Bush for recognising the “integral connection between the terrorism that targets western societies and the autocratic states in which Islamist fanaticism is incubated”, without once mentioning the Saudis, especially given that he’s previously written that their promotion of Wahhabism “to divert political dissent into the mosque and then outward to the world…could scarcely be a more effective way of incubating the forces of fanaticism that threaten us”.

If you agree that extremist Islamist ideology is incubated by autocratic states then Saudi Arabia has to be the top of the incubation pops.

decent telepathy at work again I see.

CTRL+V on overtime, I see. Are you Flying Rodent, perchance?

Is the person who said this:

I prefer to focus on the actual views of commentators, online or in print, as they are expressed, rather than inventing their hypothetical opinions in order to rather weakly ‘rubbish’ them

The same as the one who said this a few posts earlier?:

a shame that i don’t need telepathy to know that Neil D thinks that Kamm’s atrociously-written and illogical assessment of Bush is ‘a fair assessment’ – one which he curiously only prints 3 paragraphs from.

No nobody could be that hypocritical could they?

since almost every response to me has involved a personal insult (so much for ‘the poisonous nature of CiF eh), instead of an actual engagement with my points, I’m not going to dignify much of it with a response.

only this:

Would you have supported an invasion of Iran

what an odd question. an invasion on what grounds? the ones used to invade Iraq? can you explain the question?

Kamm’s piece would make a fine subject for a Bateman cartoon.

http://www.hmbateman.com/

‘The Man Who Said Bush wasn’t all bad’. It would be up there with ‘The Man Who Crept Into the Royal Enclosure in a Bowler’ and ‘The Man Who Lit His Cigar Before the Royal Toast’.

Wardytron,

I think it is fair to say that Kamm is no fan of Saudi Arabia, even to the point of criticising a politician he admires over the issue of how to deal with them.

decent telepathy at work again I see.

Me, a “decent”?

That’s hilarious.

since almost every response to me has involved a personal insult (so much for ‘the poisonous nature of CiF eh)

No, this poisonous nature involves borderline and more antisemitic comments and advocacy of bloody violence or political destruction of a country (the two can be separated, but often go together). These personal insults are directed only at *you* and now, after second-guessing and accusing others of base motives, you’re whining about propriety. So, *are* you Flying Rodent?

what an odd question. an invasion on what grounds? the ones used to invade Iraq? can you explain the question?

It was pretty clear you lunatic, and I don’t intend to play your game (FR does this a lot).

demonstrative,

“Bush started this pointless war” – that is your opinion.

I think it had a very good point. To allow jihadi fruitcakes a battleground on which they could attempt to murder as many Americans as they wanted; but far away from the states.

It worked.

since almost every response to me has involved a personal insult (so much for ‘the poisonous nature of CiF eh), instead of an actual engagement with my points, I’m not going to dignify much of it with a response.

That really should tell you something about the reevance of your points and your approach to argument.

Neil, that’s sort of my point. The sentence I quoted was from that Times article – which is why I can’t square praising Bush for invading Iraq on the grounds that such states promote terrorism with the fact that Bush has failed to do anything about the Saudis’ promotion of terrorism.

Bush has failed to do anything about the Saudis’ promotion of terrorism

Fair point, although short of an invasion (which is out of the question for obvious reasons), there are reasons for why such pressure may not be as visible perhaps as we’d like it.

“They did not even try to debunk the oil conspiracy theory, and that should really be a big hint that Iraq was not about wmds, or oil, or anything other than a diversion strategy in order to stop attacks on the US mainland.”

If they were indeed hinting that the invasion was not connected to WMDs, they should have said as much instead of shamelessly lying.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bDeYUBtFIzI

“It would have been interesting to see what would have happened under a Gore Presidency in 2000. 911 would still have happened, so would the invasion of Afghanistan, and perhaps even Iraq.”

I’m not particularly interested in what Al Gore may have done, I’m appalled by what George Bush has done. Under him, white phosphorus has been used, torture reintroduced and civil liberties shattered. He has ensured the death of hundreds of thousands and lied repeatedly.

Would any of you accept an article on Fidel Castro that admitted he was “intolerant” and had a “fast temper” but went on to praise his healthcare?

Respectfully,

Ben

They didn’t lie. They got it wrong. There’s a difference.

And again, you take away the responsibility of the majority of those deaths from Al Qaeda and so-called resistance (resisting an elected Iraqi government).

what an odd question. an invasion on what grounds? the ones used to invade Iraq? can you explain the question?

It was pretty clear you lunatic, and I don’t intend to play your game (FR does this a lot).

no, it wasn’t clear. You asked the question, would i have supported a war against Iran. You have refused to say on what grounds. the question is utterly pointless without this qualification.

advocacy of bloody violence or political destruction of a country

something not in evidence at all on this thread.

and calling me a lunatic with no justification. Great work. This place is clearly so much less ‘poisonous’ than CiF.

to return to the point of my first post on here:

I can’t square praising Bush for invading Iraq on the grounds that such states promote terrorism with the fact that Bush has failed to do anything about the Saudis’ promotion of terrorism.

this is entirely correct. Kamm’s piece make absolutely no sense, it is based on a contradiction which is covered over by lots of waffly language. having read it, it is pretty much impossible to suggest that it is a ‘fair assessment’, since it contradicts itself.

unless Neil you were only talking about the bit you quoted and ignoring the rest… oh and I’m not flying rodent.

resisting an elected Iraqi government

remind me what happened to the first leader of this government.

Don’t matter. It’s an elected government. They have the mandate of the people to impose order. The resistance have none.

neil,were the people of anbar province pemitted to vote?

“And again, you take away the responsibility of the majority of those deaths from Al Qaeda and so-called resistance (resisting an elected Iraqi government).”

No I don’t, ably shown by your failure to illustrate the assertion.

Don’t matter. It’s an elected government. They have the mandate of the people to impose order.

so what happened to the first democratically-elected leader of Iraq? how did his attempts to impose order go?

is he still in power? did he fulfil his mandate?

Lord, another controlling sub-Leninist Pooterish nobody, in that case.

You have refused to say on what grounds. the question is utterly pointless without this qualification.

I am under no obligation to endlessly explain myself whilst you make vague, unverifiable statements. Given that you had described Iran as a “genuine threat” becoming “more powerful”, which Iraq was not and is not. It should be safe to assume that these were the grounds.

So, would you have supported an invasion of Iran? Which would have been far more wide-reaching and bloody, both for occupation forces and Iranians. If so, you’re concern for the Iraqis are the civilian casualties is inconsistent as you’d consider Iranian civilian casualties justifiable in responding to the Iranian threat. If you’d support neither invasion, this was a pointless remark.

something not in evidence at all on this thread.

Your critics are supporting A-Q in Iraq or targeted violence against Iraqi civilians? They opposed the transfer of political power to majority opinion of the Iraqi populous? What are you talking about?

This place is clearly so much less ‘poisonous’ than CiF.

No, it’s just you we think is a fucking moron.

so what happened to the first democratically-elected leader of Iraq?

remind me what happened to the first leader of this government.

Are you referring to the post-2003 Elections or last century?

Did Bush make the world safer? That’s not his job.

However, I remember in the weeks and months after 9-11 that I thought another major attack in America was a matter of time. It hasn’t happened. America, then, seems safer. So safe that President Obama wants to extend to OBL, should he be captured, the full panoply of rights enjoyed by yours truly.

Bensix,

“If they were indeed hinting that the invasion was not connected to WMDs, they should have said as much instead of shamelessly lying.”

Of course they were not going to say ” we invaded Iraq in order to divert attacks from the US to iraq, and we can kill a bunch of jihadis while we do it”.

I think that would have done down even worse from a pr perspective. Atleast oil is a tangible asset. Saddam Hussein with his stupidity gave the Americans a perfect bad guy to invade, and at the same time create a playing field in Iraq for the worlds jihadi nutters. 5000 American soldiers have died in Iraq over 4 or 5 years. Compare that to the civilian deaths from 9/11 and its a pretty good trade – from a cold-hearted foreign policy point of view.

“They didn’t lie. They got it wrong. There’s a difference.”

Bush: “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised…”
Congress Report: http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Rumsfeld:
- “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
- “There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . .so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.”
- “We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.”

Robert Tuttle: “[US forces] do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons..”

George Bush: “We do not torture..”
Michael Haydn: “[We have used waterboarding] on only three detainees..”

Even if these men were only “wrong” then their incompetence, you must surely admit, is staggering.

Respectfully,

Ben

would you have supported an invasion of Iran? Which would have been far more wide-reaching and bloody, both for occupation forces and Iranians. If so, you’re concern for the Iraqis are the civilian casualties is inconsistent as you’d consider Iranian civilian casualties justifiable in responding to the Iranian threat. If you’d support neither invasion, this was a pointless remark.

I’m not going to say whether i would have supported a hypothetical invasion of Iran if you’re not going to suggest reasons for this hypothetical invasion.

Iran has gained in power and influnce in the region thanks to the Iraq war. If the USA was not in Iraq it would be able to match its showboating threats with military justification. I don’t support these threats, but it’s clear that if the USA was stronger Iran would not be so brazenly pursuing nuclear weapons.

it’s just you we think is a fucking moron.

and yet contributors to your site think that Oliver Kamm’s article makes sense.

forgive me if I’m not too upset at such intellectual heavyweights disliking me for having the temerity to disagree with their clearly watertight opinions and calling me a cunt as a result.

Are you referring to the post-2003 Elections

resisting an elected Iraqi government

remind me what happened to the first leader of this government.

now who’s being obtuse.

another controlling sub-Leninist Pooterish nobody

as opposed to the person I’m apaprently arguing with who has enough time in the day to waste on abusing people he clearly doesn’t care about over the internet.

I’m not going to say whether i would have supported a hypothetical invasion of Iran if you’re not going to suggest reasons for this hypothetical invasion.

Ha! And you expect me and others to pass comment on a hypothetical invasion of Iran on precisely the same terms! One of Flying Rodent’s suspected sockpuppets did precisely this – declaring off-limits questions and issues which don’t validate his position – yesterday. If you ain’t him it’s a hell of a coincidence.

now who’s being obtuse.

It was a direct question to another poster who has made two differently termed claims. And I didn’t quote only half of a sentence, as you did with me, and then ascribe one of another poster’s (NeilD) comments (”resisting an elected Iraqi government”) to you.

I don’t support these threats, but it’s clear that if the USA was stronger Iran would not be so brazenly pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran’s nuclear programme pre-dates the 2003 invasion by years, even decades. As with your insinuating that I and others advocate destruction of Iraqi civilian and political structure a la Hezbo-fucking-llah over Israel, what are you talking about?

as opposed to the person I’m apaprently arguing with who has enough time in the day to waste on abusing people he clearly doesn’t care about over the internet.

You haven’t really thought that through.

Mephisto,

“Did Bush make the world safer? That’s not his job.

However, I remember in the weeks and months after 9-11 that I thought another major attack in America was a matter of time. It hasn’t happened. America, then, seems safer. So safe that President Obama wants to extend to OBL, should he be captured, the full panoply of rights enjoyed by yours truly.”

Absolutely agreed. In fact Europe is in far more danger from terrorist attacks because it is considered such a soft touch.

I think the yanks got it absolutely right from their own perspective.

Why is it that every islamist terrorist organisation in the world is routing for an Obama election win? Because they know he will be another ditherer like Jimmy Carter.

What possible altruistic reason could there be for jihadis supporting Obamas campaign?

Whoa, Minoan. That was me, Pardner.

As with your insinuating that I and others advocate destruction of Iraqi civilian and political structure a la Hezbo-fucking-llah over Israel

can you identify where you found this insinuation in my posts please. also can you identify any Leninism anywhere in my thinking. surely you aren’t inventing my opinions again?

you expect me and others to pass comment on a hypothetical invasion of Iran on precisely the same terms

well i didn’t expect that at all. nowhere in my posts does it suggest so. You are the one who asked me whether I’d support a war against Iran.

i do expect the people who post here regularly to have exhibited a bit of intelligence when reading the whole of Kamm’s self-contradictory article. but hey, if it annoys peopel because it’s so badly written, it must be doing something right eh.

You haven’t really thought that through

actually i have. essentially, I am a nobody when it comes to politics. I don’t get paid for what i write on blogs. i don’t have any role in any political party. I have enough free time in the day to waste it arguing with people i have little respect for on the internet.

the irony in your post, in case you missed it, which in fact you obviously did, was that despite correctly identifying me as a political nobody, you have spent the morning arguing with me online. If i was so unimportant why would you waste your time on me?

I await your proof of my leninism… and I’m still not flying rodent.

I am a nobody when it comes to politics. I don’t get paid for what i write on blogs. i don’t have any role in any political party. I have enough free time in the day to waste it arguing with people i have little respect for on the internet.

Er, which makes you just the same as everyone else.

I remember in the weeks and months after 9/11 thinking i had human variant creutzfeldt jacob disease.It hasn’t happened(i don’t).
Clearly,then,bush has improved my health and cured my hypochondria.

Mesquito,

I apologise..sorry :-) I was reading through to fast and thought it was Mephisto.

which makes you just the same as everyone else.

which was my point exactly.

which makes you just the same as everyone else.

which was my point exactly.

Then why are you assuming that anybody else is important enough to be wasting their time on you?

Yes, that’s right, Dem, completely blank the one about your conflating, or not distinguishing between, my comments and NeilD’s. Nothing which contradicts you is allowed to exist. Then try and drag everyone else down to your low standards – I’m a nobody, so anyone who engages with me is a nobody – so you look reputable by comparison.

I have enough free time in the day to waste it arguing with people i have little respect for on the internet.

Add low personal ethics. You want praise for this? How odd.

nowhere in my posts does it suggest so.

In dismissing the relevance and effectiveness of the invasion of Iraq, you stated that Iran was/is a more potent threat (and declined to address the matter of the nuclear programme having been in full swing when before the sapping effect of Iraq, and actually halting in 2003). If you weren’t criticizing supporters of the invasion for not addressing a greater threat, you were talking bollocks.

Once again, whilst others are require to make every statement unambiguous and covering all conceivable permutations positions, you can make non-specific airy-fairy comments. Because the normal rules of debate apply only to little people.

Pooterism, low personal ethics, nobody and now liar. Is there no beginning to your talents?

the irony in your post, in case you missed it,

Unfortunate coincidence is not irony.

i do expect the people who post here regularly to have exhibited a bit of intelligence when reading the whole of Kamm’s self-contradictory article.

As you’re so keen on demanding that everyone else read your comments in their minutiae, please point to where I have endorsed the article. And not stated opposition to it.

If i was so unimportant why would you waste your time on me?

I called you a nobody. I did not say you were not worth engaging with.

also can you identify any Leninism anywhere in my thinking. surely you aren’t inventing my opinions again?

It was code for your being a middle-class twit.

i’m not, but I am being insulted as a nobody by someone who is most definitely also a nobody, which is the irony of the insult.

the other strange thing about the attempted insult being that he has called me a leninist with no justification whatsoever.

i’m not, but I am being insulted as a nobody by someone who is most definitely also a nobody, which is the irony of the insult.

Why don’t you start again with less loaded and childish points then?

(Just a suggestion like.)

i’m not, but I am being insulted as a nobody by someone who is most definitely also a nobody,

But I am required to be insulted by someone who is a self-confessed nobody? Some nobodies are more equal than others.

which is the irony of the insult.

Still no cigar.

called me a leninist with no justification whatsoever.

Sub-Leninism.

Sub-Leninism.

yawn. wake me up when you’re ready to have a discussion that doesn’t revolve around your pointless insults.

wake me up when you’re ready to have a discussion

Oooof, the nobody’s hitting me but I’m not allowed to respond.

that doesn’t revolve around your pointless insults.

I have addressed considerably more questions to you which you have studiously ignored. Your not distinguishing between me and NeilD for one.

Maybe Bush made the world safer, maybe he didn’t. But how can people label him the ‘world’s no. 1 terrorist’ and still keep a straight face? I’d rather live in a world ruled by Bush, for all his many faults, than one ruled by Bin Laden, Nasrallah et al.

Does a genuine nobody actually care about opposition and insults, or, as Paul Moloney may say, is Dem a pointless Plastic Nobody?

my favourite bit is the implication that somehow the United States stirred up trouble by being ‘isolationist’ :D

Brownie,

There’s a pretty strong hint when he talks about Bush’s pre-9/11 isolationist tendencies. Bush was elected partly on a promise to leave behind “Clinton’s wars”. I don’t take a whole lot of convincing that an inhibited president and an isolationist congress post-9/11 would have meant a less safe world in 2008.

I don’t think that isolationism would have been an option for any president post-9/11. If Kamm is really claiming that Bush made us safer purely by not being isolationist then I think he is missing the point. Actually I agree the point you made that he is asking the wrong question anyway.

What I don’t buy is the argument made by others that any other president would have been equally unpopular. Of course there is a minority on the fringes who hate America and everything about it and it would not make any difference to them who was president, but my perception is that there was in general markedly more hostility to Bush than there was to Clinton.

George W. Bush will go down in history is probably the most incompetent president in modern times, when compared with previous incumbents even Hoover

if there was a mistake to be made in Iraq Bush, Bremmer and Rove made it

I’ll bet that Scott Mcclellan’s book confirms the above

Of course there is a minority on the fringes who hate America and everything about it and it would not make any difference to them who was president, but my perception is that there was in general markedly more hostility to Bush than there was to Clinton.

OK, I’d agree with that. But Clinton didn’t have to invade Afghanistan or start a war on terror (although he did start the policy of regime change in Iraq). Regardless of who was in office, they would have had to prosecute some form of war, and had the ensuing deluge of anti-American bollocks that was uncovered. Bush may have worsened it somewhat, but the fundamental problem is bigger than Bush. In any case, we can test this hypothesis in a few months when he has gone.

I bet you Have Your Say, Comment is Free, dinner parties, and AL Qaeda statements will be back on track within three to four months.

Bush may have worsened it somewhat

That’s a bit of an understatement. The CiF thread to Kammo’s article is good, by the way. Apparently Kammo is “as much an extremist as Osama himself”, and Bush is “the greatest mass killer since Hitler”.

Or even better than that, apparently the invasion of Iraq (April 2003) is responsble for the Bali Bombing (October 2002).

But Clinton didn’t have to invade Afghanistan or start a war on terror (although he did start the policy of regime change in Iraq). Regardless of who was in office, they would have had to prosecute some form of war, and had the ensuing deluge of anti-American bollocks that was uncovered.

Bush was already unpopular pretty much from the day he took office and much of the criticism of him has been entirely justified, based on his actions and things that have happend on his watch. If Gore had behaved the same as Bush then of course he would have got the same criticism but the point is that a lot of us believe that in many ways he wouldn’t have.

Bush may have worsened it somewhat, but the fundamental problem is bigger than Bush. In any case, we can test this hypothesis in a few months when he has gone. I bet you Have Your Say, Comment is Free, dinner parties, and AL Qaeda statements will be back on track within three to four months.

I don’t think this “fundamental problem” is anywhere near as big as you think; the comments at CiF are not exactly representative of public opinion you know. I have no idea what people say at dinner parties as I rarely get invited to them.
As you say, we will see. Obviously it depends on what Obama or McCain actually do when they are in office but my prediction is that many people will be more sympathetic to them than to Bush.

I always love that Clinton Bush comparison, well I often refer to it as Bush taking his eye off of the egg, because Clinton defined it as an egg, so Bush did not know he had a ball to keep his eye on, part of the issue was that Bush wanted it to be a small egg, of course all the games played by Clintons people to extend the period it took for Bush to get into power did not help either.

I still remember saying to my trouble and strife after Clinton had lobbed a few cruise misiles at an evacuated AQ bases in Afghanistan, thankyou Pakistan, with allies like them who needs enemies, bloody hell he should take this Osama Bin Laden a bit more seriously because he has the capacity to do something really nasty…

Most people just can not shift their thinking to understand what we face, but anyway, at least the decent left here seem to see it, well in part.

Oh, dear. Kamm is often better than that.

No, Bush was NOT committed to war avoidance and to the scaling down of American military commitments abroad until 11th September 2001. No one like that ever had Dick Cheney on his ticket, or ever nominated Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, or ever gave jobs to Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, among a host of others.

And with Robert Kagan directing John McCain, don’t be fooled a second time. The best thing that could happen to conservatives (and everyone else, for that matter) would be if, in 2012 or 2016, the Republicans had to field a candidate who was specifically able to out-do Obama or his legatee on war avoidance and on the scaling down of American military commitments abroad.

Leaving aside the strategic merits of the invasion of Iraq, one lesson that should be taken away from the decision to do so is, considering that the intelligence agencies of most of the major Western nations were all in error about the existence of WMD’s, just how devilishly
hard it is to get accurate information out of closed societies. Tightly
controlled totalitarian regimes decades-long in power present very real
dilemmas to decision-makers who must act with very incomplete infor-
mation or not act at all.

Remember, in the wake of Watergate, the Church commission on domestic spying by the CIA gutted the human intelligence capabilities of that agency to such a degree that it has never fully recovered. But
even the “un-gutted” agencies of GB,FR, Germany, Poland, Russia, et al, were fooled as well, underscoring that the problem is universal.

Technology is no cure all either. One satellite reconnaissance expert is on record in the Atlantic Monthly years ago as saying, regarding the old SU, that each and every time they atttempted surprise by either speeding up the satellite to arrive over targets early or changed the orbit slightly to cover heretofore unobserved areas, they: “saw something we’ve never seen before.” Everyone keeps track of satellite
orbit arrival times these days and, as most are predictable, hiding
either modifications to fixed installations or movement of assets is
easier than many think. (PS: This fact is a great advertisement for
the flexibility of reconnaissance aircraft–the downside being overflight of soverign airspace and potential loss or capture of pilots
with all the attendant political flaps)

my perception is that there was in general markedly more hostility to Bush than there was to Clinton.

I’d agree with that, though I think it has to do with the perception that the US is the controlling hand of globalisation. Bush is just the scapegoat.

8 years of Bush have irreparably damaged America’s reputation made the world a much more insecure place.

The proof of this resides in the fact that domestice security budgets and domestice security surveillance in nearly ALL western countries has gone through the roof.

14 of the 911 highjackers were Saudi nationals, and yet S.A. continues to export its its peculiar brand of fascism, and at times appears to do so with America’s tacit support.

In Iraq we’ve done little more than replace a secular dictator,(and a sworn enemy of Saudi wahabbism,) with an islamist directoire (MORE Saudi friendly) which will, in the long, run prove a much greater danger to both Israel and America.

The next time we opt for a Mid East adventure, I suggest we target Saudi Arabia, the ultimate source of all of this misery.

The price of oil will plummet, and millions of anxious muslims eager to throw off the mullahs and clerics and to lead a decent life will thank us.

Even a mongoose knows than when killing a serpent, it’s best to aim directly at its head.

We haven’t mustered the courage to learn that trick, and so radical madrassas and islamic centres contiune to spring up, the demands for ‘religious’ accommodation grow ever louder and more aggressive, and the islamistaion of our culture and our society continues apace.

I forgot to mention something both important and distrubing; America has decided to give Saudi Arabia a leg up on its nuclear programme which, as the Saudis so honestly assert, is part and parcel of their ‘energy’ strategy.

And Iran’s ambitions in the same field are going gang-busters and have met with virtually no opposition.

It isn’t Bush that’s at fault, by the way, but rather his entire administration.

And I say that as someone who is resolutely pro-american.

One thing I’ll say for Oliver Kamm: he’s made the world an absurder place.

“It has been the recognition that the most voluble adversaries of western society are not merely a criminal subculture, and still less an incipient liberation movement. Rather, they are a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable.”

I thought they were freedom fighters and the moral equivalnet of the Founding Fathers (R Reagan) when they were fighting the Soviets

No, Bush was NOT committed to war avoidance and to the scaling down of American military commitments abroad until 11th September 2001

Bush and Cheney were definitely promising a more isolationist/Chamberlainian foreign policy on the campaign trail and did nothing to change that until after Sept. 11. Witness Rumsfeld and Cheney’s plan and Bush’s assent to a plan that would topple Saddam on the cheap with far too few troops to provide security for Iraqis during the occupation phase and their Chamberlanian appeasement of the Saudis the latter, which was not what a lot of neoconservatives wanted. Outside of Wolfowitz and Kagan, and I would guess, Libby, (but correct me if I’m wrong on Libby), neither *Rumsfeld, *Cheney, nor Bush were ever considered part of the minority neoconservative faction within the Republican party.

David Lindsay and perhaps other stoppers see things otherwise. But that’s either because neat and simplified, inaccurate narratives of one’s political antagonists and allegations of their political antagonists’ monolithic nature – repeated often enough – make immediately effective sound bytes and/or because they choose to be willfully deaf and blind to the history of political and ideological factionalism within Republican Party politics since the Supreme Court allowed George W Bush to assume office.

* Can’t recall if Cheney was a signatory or not, (Bush wasn’t), but although Rumsfeld was a signatory to at least one of the Project for a New American Century documents, because he agreed with the PNAC document on one point: that the US military had to be reconfigured to rely more on technology than boots on the ground soldiering, neither Rumsfeld, nor Cheney, nor Bush were members of the PNAC group, nor were they part of the neocon faction that opposed appeasing either the Saudis or Saddam.

Don’t be fooled by David ‘The best thing that could happen to conservatives (and everyone else, for that matter) would be … the scaling down of American military commitments abroad’ Lindsay. He makes it abundantly clear that he wants all foreign policy decisions to be isolationist through to 2012 or 2016 at least, no matter what happens. Sounds like Kucinich or Ron Paul were, or ought to have been his preferred candidates, not necessarily Obama. Btw, only Ghandian pacifists, will seek to avoid war, no matter the circumstances and no matter what the terms.

In what alternate twisted mirror Universe, has Bush Jr. made the world a safer place? He has not and his reckless Iraqi fiasco has left the US utterly unable to respond to any other threat eslewhere in the world including the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. It has also given a real opportunity for the Taliban with help their mentors, Pakistan’s InterService Intelligence (ISI) agency to retake Afghanistan and brought the Sunni Islamic extremists a giant step closer to controlling nuclear armed Pakistan. This is not to mention things like coodling of the people really responsible for 9/11, the Saudis; global climate change, gas prices through the ceiling and world wide recession. This is just a brief summary of this idiot Bush and his incompetent Administration has brought to the world. Katrina is the perfect single example of Bush Administration failure.

The problem with Bush is also the reason he was elected. He is a regular; a regular Joe. He loves barbecues and dogs and hanging out with his friends. He is (according to a very liberal friend who’s met him) a very likeable fellow. He has his heart in the right place.

That pretty much describes most of my neighbors–and lovely as they are I would not want them President. ***(It does not describe the one neighbor down the street who seems to have a grudge against almost the rest of the neighborhood)

And while my neighbors can identify the problems and sort of idly provide really broad-stroke solutions to them, they really don’t know how to implement their solutions. In a President that inability to implement is called incompetence.

That, incidentally, is why the Cap and Trade bill failing in the Senate is the most important (not covered) story this election. Both Obama and McCain are on record as supporting Cap and Trade. Both Obama and McCain are senators. The bill failed in the Senate. In other words, neither Obama nor McCain could get their bill through the Senate.

And when a presidential candidate promises to provide this or that stimulus to the economy, what he’s really saying is that he will get legislation through Congress. Given how much both candidates have promised us thus far, I would very much like them to step back for a second and tell us how they plan to fulfill their promises.

I want them to tell us what they’ve learned from the Cap and Trade failure–their first failure as “presidents” and what they would do differently if in office.

But no-one in the media is interested in asking them that….

Let’s talk about flag pins instead. Much more important, really.

Regards,

Inna

My personal take on Bush that I push anytime and anywhere a question like this is debated is that the entire American polity is so drenched in Wilsonian (we are going down in Mexico to teach the Mexicans how to elect good men!”) idealism that it precludes the political system from thrusting up to positions of power the sort of men capable of playing the oft hard-edged, but necessary role of “Perfidious Albion.” As such, I am afraid that you good people on Harry’s side of the pond are going to continue to be bitterly disappointed in American Presidents. History has amply demonstrated how well Wilson’s Mexican adventure turned out just by viewing that Athenian exemplar that is the Mexico of today–at least Wilson’s interventionist fandango produced a genuine war hero–Gen.
“Black Jack” Pershing (so named for his ability to successfully lead and motivate Black troops). But of course, Wilson’s foray into Mexico
was only the precursor of things to come, will Bush……..?

By the way, this to David All: As a Katrina “survivor,” while I can personally attest to the ham-fisted way the Feds under Bush performed, believe me when I say that both the Democrat Governor of Louisiana and the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans have given new meaning to the word “incompetence” and finish in a dead heat with Bush for full honors for utter futility not only for being in total disarray at the time of the immediate disaster but continuing on unto this day(excepting the new Governor, about which the jury is still out).

I think in the future the decision to invade Iraq will be viewed as a classic example of the ’security dilemma’: The US and its allies felt Iraq was a threat to the global security, but to go to war would itself disrupt global security. Moreover, both sides gave plenty of signals that they wanted to avoid war – albeit on different terms. I disagree with Kamm that the world is a ’safer place’ – if it is, why are our governments insisting that it is necessary to continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? these countries are still hugely insecure, but the threat is mainly to the citizens of those countries, not us.

Among all the enjoyable lunacy on the CiF thread there was someone asking if the world has become “safer”, why exactly is it that our Government are trying to extend detention without trial to 42 days? Which I thought was a good question.

David All

global climate change, gas prices through the ceiling and world wide recession. This is just a brief summary of this idiot Bush and his incompetent Administration has brought to the world

Global climate change began 150 years ago with the birth of the industrial revolution, which, incidently, started in Europe. High oil prices are mostly related to competition with China and India.

However, the Bush Administration is definitely to blame for the termite infestation in my basement.

Very good point indeed, Wardytron.

Ibnaz – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Kagan, and Bush’s brighter brother (not saying much, I know) the Florida vote counter were all fully signed up PNAC stalwarts. In 2000, the old Trots who successfully infiltrated the Republican Party, on the perfectly correct understanding that nobody would ever look for them there, finally staged their long-planned coup.

With Kagan directing McCain, Obama is the only hope of restoring the American ‘res publica’ that these so-called Republicans have come so very close to overthrowing. A republic. Not an empire.

Virgil Xenophon: You are right, Katrina was the perfect failure at all levels of government, local, state and federal. The federal incompetency was the one remembered because they are responsible for the entire country. Also to some extent, most people have a general low level of expectency, to put it mildy, about the govts. of Louisana and New Orleans, unless it concerns corruption. The country as a whole does expect a competent response to a crisis from the federal govt. if nobody else. Thank you for giving us a viewpoint of Katrina that is a lot closer and more personal then we usually hear. Did your family and friends come through okay? Have you been able to move back to where you were before Katrina?

You are also right about the deep impact of Wilsonian Idealism on American Foreign Policy. No many how many Mexicos, Vietnams or Iraqs it produces, the belief that if Americans go into a foreign land with good intentions, we should be able to transform it into a second USA is just overwhelming.* The one President who did have a more realistic foreign policy, Nixon with the help of Kissinger, a Bismarck follower, was forced to resign and rightly so, because of Watergate. Dispite their achievements with China & Russian this policy of realpolitick did not survive Nixon’s downfall. The next elected President, Jimmy Carter, preached about Human Rights to dictators, both friendly and unfriendly.

*In regards to what Americans think we can do in transforming foreign countries’ should also remember the statement of Senator Ken Wherry, Rep-Nebraska, shortly after WWII that “we (the US) were going to build up China until it is all just like Kansas City”!
Yes, he really said that!

PS: Have finally made a reply to your comment on the Sucessionist Thread. Sorry for not being able to make it sooner. Thanks for your patience.

David ALL:

For several years before Katrina there was a bumper sticker about town that said, in purple lettering on white:”New Orleans, Proud to call it home” That was shortly followed by another of the same color scheme and lettering style with: “New Orleans, Proud to crawl home” (The overriding favorite). After Katrina a follow-on appeared in the same style as before:”New Orleans, Proud to swim home.”

I was relatively lucky. The part of town we live in, the “slender sliver” that follows the curve of the river and is at or above sea-level, did not
flood, but we did loose an old original slate roof w. much assoc. rain damage on the interior. The good news is that I decamped with all pictures, mementos, all my wife’s clothing, jewelry, shoes(THE most important part) art-work, computers and vital records prior to land fall. I was one of the last out at 6:15 pm, on Sunday. Katrina hit at 5:29am Mon. Morning. The bad news is that the place to which I fled was my Mother in-law’s in Opelousas (home of Jim Bowie) just to have Hurricane Rita hit and almost take the roof of hers a few days later. My wife and son were out in our other place in Marina del Rey, CA., at the time (as I’ve mentioned here before, I’m BI…..coastal that is.) and only a few days from returning, so a bit of luck there. The damage to the city was worse than can be conveyed
by any means…one time when a picture is NOT worth 10,000 words.
Over 80% of Orleans Parish(which is only 50% of the municipal area proper as the other part across the street, Jefferson Parish is a separate legal entity.) was under water–mainly the bedroom neighbor-
hoods–the land of the original French settlement–the French Quarter, Business District, “Uptown,” and the University area, the
“Garden” and “Lower-Garden” Districts were all pretty much high and dry. Although “minor” flooding reached as far our way towards the river side as Tulane and Loyola Universities. It will probably be another decade (if OSAKA is any guide) before we are near to pre-Katrina. And that’s if things are done right (takin’ bets?) and the creek don’t rise.

We are back, but keeping our bags packed, as it were. We’ve lost some good friends who’ve moved on. Several who lived near the lake-front lost everything. I’m only now decompressing, really. Until now I hadn’t the time to do THIS–I guess it’s an outlet that’s all part of the cathartic process. As to whether we will still make N.O. our primary home? As much as we love it, it’s touch and go, As the saying goes, life is not a dress-rehearsal, and at our age we aren’t sure if we want to end our days “pioneering” until we step off the planet. We’ve already renovated four homes in two cities. I feel like we’ve “already given at the office,” so to speak. As I type this I’m sitting out in Cali, preparing to dive back into the humidity mid-Aug. Beach-front breezes, temperatures and humidity levels sure do spoil one. But I have to get back for LSU football in the fall! Sick, isn’t it?

Thanks, Virgil, hope it goes well for you back in New Orleans.

About returning to Summer heat and humidity from California. Ten years ago, I returned from a week and half in beautiful, breezy cool San Francisco to Washington, DC. The blast of humidity and stickiness that hit me when I stepped out of the air-conditioned terminal at DC’s National Airport wilted me so much I almost turned around and took the next flight back to San Fran!

About Fremont: Besides grabbing California for the US with his army of cut-throat brigands, he also gave the name “Golden Gate” for San Francisco’s stunning coastline.