The Bush Love-Fest

6 Responses to “The Bush Love-Fest ”

1. Russell Lane Says:
   August 30th, 2004 at 8:52 pm

   Hey Scott-

   This is going to sound like a wise-ass comment, but it’s not:

   When and where did Bush last bomb a terrorist?

   Cheers-

   R

2. Scott Says:
   August 31st, 2004 at 9:42 pm

   You’re right, Russ. It is a wiseass comment. You’re smarter than that . Put down the Michael Moore books. They rot your brain.

3. Russell Lane Says:
   September 1st, 2004 at 8:12 am

   Hey Scott -

   Never read anything by Michael Moore, haven’t seen any of his movies. I appreciate your opinion of my intelligence, thanks.

   My question stands.

   Here are my answers, I’d be curious to know yours:

   I consider whatever efforts we are still pursuing in Afghanistan to be an active military campaign against terror.

   Our fight in Iraq has been and continues to be primarily against an organized, indigenous army or militia. Guerrillas yes, terrorists no.

   Why does that matter? Because the folks we’re fighting have expressed no interest in attacking America, or Americans who aren’t in Iraq.

   There are terrorists in Iraq, but as far as I can tell our military is not fighting them. We did have an opportunity to rub out Zubaida & co when they were in Kurdistan before the war started, but apparently Bush declined to pursue the operations that the Pentagon presented him with because Zubaida was worth more to him alive, as an excuse to invade Iraq proper.

   As far as I can tell, all significant advances against Al Qaeda since the fall of the Taliban have come out of intelligence and police work. I’m referring to the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and elsewhere.

   I could go on about this further, but this is already more than long enough. I appreciate, and share, your anger about September 11 and your desire to annihilate the folks responsible, and others like them. My point is that that does not appear to be the primary agenda of Bush’s “war on terror”.

   So, I don’t give him credit for a tough, aggressive, serious, or effective stance against actual terrorists. I’m not sure what he’s up to, and it’s not clear to me if he knows. It’s disturbing.

   Sorry for the long post.

   Best -

   R

4. Scott Says:
   September 1st, 2004 at 9:54 pm

   Why did we just do an airstrike on Zarqawi? He’s not Iraqi. And what was Abu Nidal doing in Baghdad, if Saddam had no connections to terror?

   And why was he paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers?

   And what about those training camps that were found - the ones with cut up airliner fuselages?

   If you recall, Bin Laden in 1998 laid out three reasons for his hatred of America. These were merely red herrings, but they did resound in certain parts of the Islamic world.

   1. American presence in Saudi Arabia. Why were we in Saudi Arabia? To protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam? Not really. To protect the world’s oil supply from Saddam. I remember quite clearly what happened in the summer of 1990 before he invaded Kuwait. He was trying to manipulate the world market - and wanted the Kuwaitis to vote with him in OPEC and not side with the Saudis. The Gulf War was about oil - the control of it.

   2. UN Sanctions on Iraq. Why were these sanctions there? In order to keep Saddam at bay. Saddam was very good at beating these sanctions, while his people suffered. Would you have sanctions put back in place instead of the liberation of Iraq?

   3. The end of American support of Israel. Not going to happen. Ever. At least, not as long as I’m around.

   What seems to separate the two of us in the war on terror is scale. I see Iraq as part of a long term strategy of “draining the swamp” that breeds terror in the Middle East. We need a viable Arab democracy in the Middle East that can give hope to the millions of disenfranchised in the area.

   At the same time we need to force countries like our “allies” in the region to “knock it off”. They have bred anti-Americanism as a kind of safety valve to divert the attention of the intelligentsia from overthrowing their regimes. Cutting off the $2 billion we ship Egypt thanks to Pres. Jimmy Carter’s Camp David Accord would be a start.

   I see everything that Bush has done since 9-11 Foreign Policy wise as supporting this “draining of the swamp” in the Middle East.

   This is truly the greatest progressive Foreign Policy our nation has seen since the 1940s, and that radicalism scares people. But in the same way that we helped transform Western Europe and Japan, I believe we have to do the same to the Middle East.

   I always laugh whenever I hear talk about Bush “destabilizing” that region. That region is what PJ O’Rourke once called “God’s Monkeyhouse”. It is the most unstable region on the planet, and it needs to be shocked. Bush has delivered that shock, and I am confident it is the right thing to do.

5. Russell Lane Says:
   September 2nd, 2004 at 8:23 am

   Hey Scott -

   Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough reply. I was not aware of the airstrike on Zarqawi, I stand corrected on that point of fact.

   Here are my thoughts on all of the above.

   1. I am firmly in support of military action against terrorism. The invasion of Afghanistan, for instance, was in my opinion 100% righteous. We have had a history of not making a decisive military response to acts of violence against Americans, and in hindsight that was a mistake. This was a bipartisan error, including presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton.

   2. The neocon agenda has little to do with spreading the gospel of democracy, and much to do with establishing and maintaining our global predominance through the projection of military force. Their interest in the middle east, specifically, is all about the political and economic importance of oil. I come to this opinion from reading their own articles and white papers.

   3. The invasion of Iraq, from the point of view of keeping the US safe from acts of terror, was unjustifiable and counter-productive. Further, it’s execution has been famously fubar’d from beginning to now.

   My belief is that the neocons have long had an interest in establishing a friendly regime in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, terror, or the physical safety of Americans, and have seized on terrorism as their ticket to ride. To get their way, they have distorted and politicized the intelligence process and corrupted the military. And, incidentally, their buddies and present and former business partners are making shitloads of money. Big, big shitloads.

   I think they’re playing the American public for chumps, and putting us in more, rather than less, danger, because they’re neglecting the real threats. It’s fucked up.

   Anyway, that’s my point of view. As always, much respect and all good wishes to you.

   Thanks -

   R

6. Russell Lane Says:
   September 2nd, 2004 at 8:33 am

   Hey Scott -

   Sorry to soak up all your bandwidth, but I realized that you raised a very important issue that I did not address, i.e., the actual desirability of reform in the middle east.

   I agree with you, and also believe that it would incredibly constructive, and also a huge step forward toward global stability and peace, if a true, viable democratic government (or at least something based on rule of law, transparency, accountability, etc.) were established in the middle east.

   For that to happen, we in the US would have to accept the possibility that such a nation might do things we don’t like, and would have to agree to leave them the fuck alone, or least deal with them legally and fairly, in that eventuality.

   It’s also unfortunately not likely to happen through a military intervention. WWII didn’t create democracy in Japan and Western Europe, although it did clean the slate. It was decades of constructive support from the US afterwards that did it.

   Are we ready to sign up for that? Is that what has been proposed?

   Cheers -

   R