I was thinking that I finally agree with George Clooney about something. Let me first state that I'd like to BE George Clooney--at least for a couple weekends. Doesn't that schmuck realize how lucky he is?
Anyway, Clooney wrote over at Huffington the following:
The fear of being criticized can be paralyzing," Clooney writes today on Huffingtonpost.com — pumping up the volume after banging the drum of Hollywood liberalism in his Oscar acceptance speech.
"Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the runup to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and Bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bulls—.
"Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, 'F— you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.'"
Now, it's easy to say in hindsight that he "knew it was all bullshit". It wasn't all bullshit. But I do agree that the time to be against the war was before it started. The President put it up for a vote. He made his position completely clear, and he staked his Presidency on the outcome of his decision. Clooney is exactly right. The Democrats weren't misled. They simply lacked the political balls to oppose the war. The idea of a politician who had genuine misgivings about the war voting for it to save his political hide is nauseating.
Further, I think the President was entitled to think that once it had been voted on, it should be considered a settled issue, time to put aside partisan politics, and let's all get behind the policy and WIN THE DAMNED WAR!
The behavior of the opposition in this war has been a national disgrace. A particularly hot place in hell should be reserved for John Kerry, who voted to go to war, then voted against funding the troops in order to score a cheap victory over Howard Dean, who although I disagree with him, at least had the courage of his convictions.
If there's any way to win politically in this poisonous atmosphere, it's this: Keep putting them on the record. Like today with that miscreant Russ Feingold. You want to walk out there with that bullshit Daily Kos product placement censure--put it to a vote, you gutless wonder.
You want to throw around words like "illegal", go on the record. It was a cheap, transparent political stunt, and everybody knows it.
Democrats better hope that they never actually get any accountability. Payback's a bitch.
Anyway, Clooney wrote over at Huffington the following:
The fear of being criticized can be paralyzing," Clooney writes today on Huffingtonpost.com — pumping up the volume after banging the drum of Hollywood liberalism in his Oscar acceptance speech.
"Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the runup to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and Bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bulls—.
"Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, 'F— you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.'"
Now, it's easy to say in hindsight that he "knew it was all bullshit". It wasn't all bullshit. But I do agree that the time to be against the war was before it started. The President put it up for a vote. He made his position completely clear, and he staked his Presidency on the outcome of his decision. Clooney is exactly right. The Democrats weren't misled. They simply lacked the political balls to oppose the war. The idea of a politician who had genuine misgivings about the war voting for it to save his political hide is nauseating.
Further, I think the President was entitled to think that once it had been voted on, it should be considered a settled issue, time to put aside partisan politics, and let's all get behind the policy and WIN THE DAMNED WAR!
The behavior of the opposition in this war has been a national disgrace. A particularly hot place in hell should be reserved for John Kerry, who voted to go to war, then voted against funding the troops in order to score a cheap victory over Howard Dean, who although I disagree with him, at least had the courage of his convictions.
If there's any way to win politically in this poisonous atmosphere, it's this: Keep putting them on the record. Like today with that miscreant Russ Feingold. You want to walk out there with that bullshit Daily Kos product placement censure--put it to a vote, you gutless wonder.
You want to throw around words like "illegal", go on the record. It was a cheap, transparent political stunt, and everybody knows it.
Democrats better hope that they never actually get any accountability. Payback's a bitch.
posted by alwaysright at
5:56 PM
4 Comments:
Actually, I do read Kos, but candidly I have a real hard time with it. It's just a lot of shrill hysteria most of the time.
You really haven't addressed my point that people have an obligation to vote their conscience, particularly on matters of life and death. If they lacked the political courage to make a stand when it could have counted, I think they forfeit the right to second-guess, or udermine the war effort once it's underway. It's just a cop-out to say that Republicans control the Congress anyway. If you have convictions, make a stand!
I'm not trying to shift blame, because I don't think there's blame to be shifted. I'm as convinced today as I was three years ago that removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do. Nothing that has transpired since changes that conviction.
Our policy vis a vis Saddam was a failure. The oil for food program was utterly corrupted. Tens of thousands of Iraqi's were being killed every year by the regime, Saddam was harboring and training terrorists, including Al Qaeda, and he never verifiably disarmed, as he was required to do after the first Gulf War. Containing him meant keeping troops in Saudi, which in turn provoked bin Laden.
Dropping the sanctions would have resulted in Saddam quickly rebuilding his WMD programs, and enforcing them meant starving Iraqi's.
If Saddam was not actively collaborating with Al Qaeda (I believe he was), how long would it have been before he did?
I'm sorry to say, I'm not hearing a lot of thoughtful analysis from war opponents, just a bunch of overheated rhetoric.
We went in, we toppled the regime very quickly, there was no refugee crisis, the oil fields weren't torched. Extreme care was taken to minimize civilian casualties. Our casualties were astonishingly low.
Overwhelmingly, the Iraqis have bought in. They voted in huge numbers, they're on the verge of forming a government. Much of Iraq is peaceful, parts of it are booming.
And there is some resistance. Some of that resistance come from Al Qaeda, who does not wish to lose Iraq as a safe haven for the jihad, some from former Baathists who hope to return to power, some from Iran and Syria, who do not wish to see democracy succeed.
It is interesting that you view the War on Terror as a cheap political stunt. I do not. Was 9/11 just another Karl Rove stunt? Please tell me that's not what you think.
After 9/11, the Bush Administration radically reshaped American foreign policy. If 9/11 wasn't sufficient reason to change policy, I'd like to know what you think would be.
Since that change in policy, our country has been safe from attack. Oh and by the way, at the same time, the economy came back from the dead.
If you think we should go back to the policy of appeasement and retreat, and passively waiting to be attacked again, fine. Take your message to the American people and try to win an election.
In the meantime, I wish you would quit trying to undermine the policies that are keeping us all safe.
have an obligation to vote their conscience, particularly on matters of life and death.
No they emphatically do not. They are obligated to vote the way their constituency tells them to vote. They are representatives
Righterscramp is right about all the public relations crap the Bushies put out for the public and unfortunately most of them ate it right up without a second thought. Or even thinking at all.
And if people were yelling for war, then it was congress' obligation to do as commanded.
That's one big reason that I vote in every election, sign petitions and stay informed.
I am *tremendously* unhappy with what Bush has done to this country. Unfortunately emotional yahoos that believed the Bush admin's crap are the ones who sent us to war. But the 33% approval rating shows that even yahoos can't be fooled forever.
Actually, Madeleine, they're not. Voters send representatives to Congress to vote the interests of their district, but representatives have freedom to vote their consciences. If the voters don't like it, they can vote their representative out. That's exactly what motivated the courageous, "Bush Lied" crowd, the fear of being voted out. I think elected representatives should be prepared to lose their job every day rather than vote for something they think is wrong.
Righterscramp, it sounds to me like you're now debating the execution of the war plan, as opposed to the morality of the decision to go.
Certainly, we've faced a stubborn, bloodthirsty insurgency. Suicide bombers and IED's are militarily insignificant. There never was one minute when the Coalition was in danger of being overrun. The entire strategy of Al Qaeda and the Baathists has been to inflict casualties in order to turn public opinion here against the war. Any thoughts on how the anti-war movement might in fact be partly responsible for fueling the insurgency?
M, I just love empty statements like, "I am tremendously unhappy with what Bush has done to this country." Like what? What exactly has he done to make you so unhappy?
Actually, I do accept that there's a problem. It's radical Islam and it's not particularly amenable to neat, sanitary solutions. Real change does not come easily. Tyrants don't accept golden parachutes. Fanatics won't be reasoned with.
The whole terror playbook is a war crime. Their objective is to hamstring the West with exactly the sort of internecine squabbling that we're engaged in while they go cheerfully about the business of slaughtering innocents and terrorizing the world.
Just once, I'd like to see someone on the left acknowledge that the US, and the Brits,almost by hemsselves, are standing down the most vicious, amoral ideology the world has seen in like a thousand years.
It's like a football game where the other side is using AK-47's and grenade launchers, and the left is watching from the stands saying, "Hey, wasn't that American guys knuckle an inch offsides on that play? Call it back!"
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home