We made the mistake of GOING there in the first place without solid intelligence (of any form), and then we WENT there without a plan of what to do afterward.
We went there based on fabricated intelligence, deliberately "sexed up" (to use the British term) to make a case for war that did not exist. This is the opinion of the Senate Intelligence Committee (including 2 of the 6 Republicans), anyway, along with many analysts who have sufficient credentials to know what they're talking about.
The Iraqi Provisional Government was put in by us.
If we were to "just leave", as you put it, sure -- the country would implode. (It's already doing that, of course, just more slowly). However, if this implosion would be our "direct responsibility", then so is everything else that has happened post-invasion. (If it's not our responsibility that Sunnis, fed up with the lack of a functioning government, are killing Shi'ites while American troops are in Iraq, how is it our responsibility if this happens after they leave?)
This concern for the Iraqis seems to be the standard neoconservative response to any proposal for leaving Iraq: "But if we leave, the country will deteriorate!" I note that such concern for the wellbeing of Iraqis seems strangely absent at other times; it's only trotted out as a "But there'll be a civil war if we leave!" argument to say we should stay. Even this doesn't hold water: there already is a civil war, and there's a good argument to be made that the only reason the Sunnis and Shi'ites aren't killing each other more actively is because they both hate the Americans more.
I don't want my countrymen used as bullet-decoys.
So Bush's asinine comments are forgiven because he's lacking in the simple intelligence that Nature gave your more intelligent barnyard animals, but Kerry's asinine remarks[citation needed] are condemnable because he's more intelligent?
Then again, all I hear from presidential would-bes is "what we should do" rather than an actual "solutions."
I agree that the proposals are a little vague (I'd like to hear something like "We're going to tax carbon emissions from coal plants at rate X; we anticipate that this will cause Y GW of capacity to shut down, and are prepared to replace it with Z GW of fission, A GW of wind, and so on, and that can be paid for using the taxes on the remaining coal along with $B out of the general budget." But sadly the American political system makes precise proposals like this political suicide.)
We're supposed to be delegating the authority to deal with situations to an individual who is capable of doing so. Why is that so hard to find?
Because Bush systematically fired or chased off those individuals with said capacity (numerous science advisors, Colin Powell, numerous top military brass, and several top counterterrorism officials) because they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear. When you fire your capable subordinates and hire cronies, don't complain when you get bad help.
Neither Obama nor McCain is my ideal next president. Obama's not really said much about what he intends to do; perhaps I agree with him, perhaps not, but he's not said much. McCain will be an utter disaster, as he's not only encumbered with a Texan albatross around his neck but is currently taking a plaster cast of its head to use as a mask if he gets elected.
But none of our leaders have been paragons of wisdom; the best in recent memory, I believe, was Eisenhower. Just because neither Obama nor McCain is perfect doesn't mean that they're both terrible, however; I'd prefer water, but if it's between Kool-Aid and horse piss I know which I'd choose.
I do have ideas for fixing some of our problems. Many of them are technical in nature, because that's what I do; my only idea for fixing our nation's political problems is a sincere desire that greedy bastards who put their own gain ahead of the good of the nation get the Prague treatment, and be thrown out of windows. (Well, that, and fix the voting system to one that can be shown, in a rigorous mathematical manner, to be superior.) Perhaps I shall make a post about them someday.
We went there based on fabricated intelligence, deliberately "sexed up" (to use the British term) to make a case for war that did not exist. This is the opinion of the Senate Intelligence Committee (including 2 of the 6 Republicans), anyway, along with many analysts who have sufficient credentials to know what they're talking about.
The Iraqi Provisional Government was put in by us.
If we were to "just leave", as you put it, sure -- the country would implode. (It's already doing that, of course, just more slowly). However, if this implosion would be our "direct responsibility", then so is everything else that has happened post-invasion. (If it's not our responsibility that Sunnis, fed up with the lack of a functioning government, are killing Shi'ites while American troops are in Iraq, how is it our responsibility if this happens after they leave?)
This concern for the Iraqis seems to be the standard neoconservative response to any proposal for leaving Iraq: "But if we leave, the country will deteriorate!" I note that such concern for the wellbeing of Iraqis seems strangely absent at other times; it's only trotted out as a "But there'll be a civil war if we leave!" argument to say we should stay. Even this doesn't hold water: there already is a civil war, and there's a good argument to be made that the only reason the Sunnis and Shi'ites aren't killing each other more actively is because they both hate the Americans more.
I don't want my countrymen used as bullet-decoys.
So Bush's asinine comments are forgiven because he's lacking in the simple intelligence that Nature gave your more intelligent barnyard animals, but Kerry's asinine remarks[citation needed] are condemnable because he's more intelligent?
Then again, all I hear from presidential would-bes is "what we should do" rather than an actual "solutions."
I agree that the proposals are a little vague (I'd like to hear something like "We're going to tax carbon emissions from coal plants at rate X; we anticipate that this will cause Y GW of capacity to shut down, and are prepared to replace it with Z GW of fission, A GW of wind, and so on, and that can be paid for using the taxes on the remaining coal along with $B out of the general budget." But sadly the American political system makes precise proposals like this political suicide.)
We're supposed to be delegating the authority to deal with situations to an individual who is capable of doing so. Why is that so hard to find?
Because Bush systematically fired or chased off those individuals with said capacity (numerous science advisors, Colin Powell, numerous top military brass, and several top counterterrorism officials) because they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear. When you fire your capable subordinates and hire cronies, don't complain when you get bad help.
Neither Obama nor McCain is my ideal next president. Obama's not really said much about what he intends to do; perhaps I agree with him, perhaps not, but he's not said much. McCain will be an utter disaster, as he's not only encumbered with a Texan albatross around his neck but is currently taking a plaster cast of its head to use as a mask if he gets elected.
But none of our leaders have been paragons of wisdom; the best in recent memory, I believe, was Eisenhower. Just because neither Obama nor McCain is perfect doesn't mean that they're both terrible, however; I'd prefer water, but if it's between Kool-Aid and horse piss I know which I'd choose.
I do have ideas for fixing some of our problems. Many of them are technical in nature, because that's what I do; my only idea for fixing our nation's political problems is a sincere desire that greedy bastards who put their own gain ahead of the good of the nation get the Prague treatment, and be thrown out of windows. (Well, that, and fix the voting system to one that can be shown, in a rigorous mathematical manner, to be superior.) Perhaps I shall make a post about them someday.
Until then, goodnight and good luck.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment