Brain Fertilizer

Okay, I'm game. For clarity I did oppose the invasion of Iraq. I was very in favor of an invasion of Afganistan, even 3 years before we actually invaded. Hope that clarifies that I am not a passivist.

As to Iraq, I believed then, and still believe that it was truly the wrong war at the wrong time. I believe this not because of anything to do with the middle east or events there, but because I'm an American, and I believe that the Iraq war was detrimental to my country. This I think is where the dialogue between the right and the left (whatever those terms mean anymore) radically breaks down. Many like to view what's happening over there as signs of progress towards a better world. I rather view much of what's happening right here to be hurting America. War corporatism and profiteering, further erosions of civil rights, a country becoming increasing hostile and exclusionary: these are all indirect results of the invasion of Iraq. So, if (and its still a very big if) these early signs of growing democratic reform in the ME bare fruit, the question still remains, was it worth it for us, the people of the US?

The connection that you attempt to draw between the invasion and the listed events is very plausable, but causal relations are often the hardest to prove. It's very easy to believe that it wasn't the US invasion that is changing minds, but rather the Iraqi vote. The immediate argument is that there wouldn't have been an Iraqi vote without US force. That is factually true, only in this case, but it does not preclude that the Iraqis could have taken back their country all on their own, with more limited US help, or none at all. In my personal view, I don't think we, as Americans, had any obligation or moral imperative to help them find democracy. That may sound heartless, but it reflects the fundamental principal of liberty. If you want freedom, then pick yourself up and claim it. To sum that up, a good result over there does not justify the means expended over here.

As to whether or not I'm wrong about Bush, no my opinion hasn't changed. His preemptive and poorly orchestrated war on Iraq may have great results in the long run, or it could still all blow up in our faces. But, as I've indicated, that's over there. GW Bush isn't president of Iraq, or Syria or Egypt. He's President of the USA. They can hail him as a hero and build as many statues of him as they like ... and it makes not one bit of difference to my opinion of the man. He should be answering to you and I, not history, or the vision of the future of the PNAC. On that score of being accountable to the US, he has done a very poor job.

I don't know if these ramblings of mine add anything to the mix, or offer any insight into the opposing views. I would hope so, but it frequently seems as if people are approaching the issues with such widely varied value sets that there is no chance of understanding or acceptance; tower of Babel all over again.

Wow. No, that was an excellent answer that helps me to understand better where you (and those who feel pretty much the same) are coming from.

Here's a few thoughts I'd like to toss back at you, though:
After the 1st Gulf War, the first President Bush encouraged the Kurds and Shias to rise up against Saddam, that we'd help them in their overthrow. Then due to political atmospheres in the US at the time they did rise up, we didn't lift a finger to help. Thousands were slaughtered, an entire village of Kurds were murdered with chemical gas, because they believed us. So in light of that, I do think we had a moral imperative to see it through this time. And if they weren't as eager to overthrow Saddam without our help, well, isn't that at least partially our fault?
I can see there's some room for debate on that, though.

I do agree with you that the Iraqi election was the tipping point, not our invasion. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" truly applies in this case. But they did drink, and drank deeply. And the other Middle-Eastern nations saw, and many of them want change, and more freedom.

There are short-term problems, true. Nothing is static, and it may hurt us in the bottom line in some things. But "war profiteering", if it really is such, still contributes to the economy and keeps US dollars at home, rather than outsourcing. I know it's not an 'either/or', but is it better for the US Govt to get gouged building the next Robert C. Byrd Memorial Golf Course or to help rebuild Iraq? ...and I'm still not convinced Halliburton and other contracters are gouging the US Govt in this...and a good portion of it is getting paid for by Iraqi oil dollars, too.

I still don't see any erosion of liberties...in fact, I see more freedom now than 8 years ago. I see Padilla's release ordered by the US Judicial system, despite the insinuation that Bush has got his stormtroopers just waiting to lock up anyone who dissents.
Has there been even one incident of govt overreaching itself like with Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, or Elian Gonzales (sending armed troops into a private home to seize an adolescent boy?!?!?!)...? Nope.

But I respect your opinion and courage in voicing it, even if I disagree with it. There's probably nothing President Bush could do to change your mind, and that's fine. At this point, you're kind of stuck with him! [grin] You'll have your next good chance to limit his actions in 2006, I guess.

I myself was VERY disappointed with our national behavior towards Iraq in 1991. We did pooch that one, and we missed a significant opportunity. I believe that that does go a long way to explaining GW's motivations. His response is of arguable moral value, but that argument is way too belated to have.

One other point that I would like to clarify is concerning the errosion of liberties. You are correct that the Govt. isn't using the forceful tactics of the past, but that doesn't mean that we are more free to think and act as we choose. Dissent is being methodically radicalized, ostracized and silenced. Ann Coulter (admittedly the extreme) has called several times for the internment or direct inprisonment of "Liberals". The warning doesn't reside in her saying that, it's that we, as Americans, aren't standing up and telling her where to shove that fascist garbage. Her thinking is becoming more mainstream daily. Add to that the more radical elements of Christian fundamentalism, and you don't need to use force to silence and belittle people. You can use legislators, lawyers and pundits to accomplish the same thing. Now I'm a Montana moderate Democrat. Few things get my hackles up more than be called a traitor to my country. But that's happening more and more everyday, and what's worse, is that we as a people aren't putting the brakes to this garbage.

Final response, I don't know how many people who hold similar beliefs as I do would agree with me on this, but Bush isn't the problem to me. I've always considered him somewhat incompetant, based on his history. But he surrounds himself with people that are very competant and very scary. If anyone were to ask me what the worst thing the Bush administration has done, I would not say Iraq. It would be that Dick Cheney has covered the nation's energy policy under a judicially supported blanket of state secrecy. That's not right, at all. That does tend to color my view somewhat.

I do want to thank you for this opportunity for a polite exchange. That's a very rare thing anymore.

...well, unless you call me a fascist or an idiot, I can usually keep things polite! [grin]

I think the smartest (from my opinion, the best, but I can certainly understand your view of it being the worst) thing W did was surround himself with capable advisors. That's why George Tenet's "It's a slam dunk [that Iraq has WMD]" is so galling to me: W *depends* on his people giving him good information, or having the courage to say, "we don't know". I think Tenet inadvertantly betrayed W with that statement of assurance...

I'm not still not convinced about the erosion of freedom of speech angle, though. I think it is basically the same thing as when Bill Clinton tried to claim the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing was caused by right-wing talk radio, when Hillary Clinton said flat-out that Bill's dalliance with Ms Lewinsky were the fabrications of a Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy and nothing more, when liberals and/or Democrats want Fox News Channel off the air, or severely restricted, when liberals and/or Democrats are happy when Rush Limbaugh has a setback (hoping that will drive him off the air, I guess).

People still have the right to say what they choose, and no one has been thrown in jail over it. The only person I know of who lost his job over saying something was Trent Lott. Oh, and Governer Dean lost his candidacy, but that's hardly the fault of President Bush, but of Democrat voters changing their opinion of him.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth based every allegation against John Kerry in verifiable facts. Kerry's only response was to call them all liars and attempt to smear their backgrounds...he could have laid every accusation to rest if he had just signed the Form 180, something he promised to do on TV, but still has not. Is that a loss of liberty?

...Dan Rather lost his position not because of any erosion of civil rights, but because he rushed to push fairly obvious forgeries onto an unsuspecting public. Eason Jordon didn't *have* to resign...what does it say that he would rather resign than release the tape of his statement? That doesn't seem to be a loss of liberty to me, but rather being held accountable to your words, much like Trent Lott was held accountable.

I don't know...the Patriot Act *could* be abused, but it seems like the Courts are doing a good job of preventing any abuse. And technology is advancing on, with PDAs and chatrooms and WiFi and Blackberrys and such...I guess I have to believe that the laws should evolve to match the capabilities of the terrorists and criminals. The law-abiding citizens deserve to have a chance to be kept safe, as long as the information gathered is done so legally and disposed of (or processed) legally and appropriately. And believe me, the rules regarding information gathering on US citizens are VERY robust, detailed, and strongly enforced.

Cheney and the energy situation, I'm not too sure of. I definitely didn't like what Enron did in California...but weren't the seeds of that sown under Clinton? Did Cheney contribute to that? Wasn't it a pretty tough winter in the Northeast this year? ...but I don't remember hearing stories of heating oil shortages and price gouging like I did in '98 and '99...
If the oil companies make a profit, but people get a more plentiful, cheaper product, is that a bad thing?
Now, if you have specific examples of shortages due to the current energy policy, I wouldn't reject them out of hand...I just haven't seen any in the news in casual perusal.