For All The "I'm for the Troops" Crowd

[xrayzebra]

I'm sure SA210 (stuck under a bridge) and others will love this little
article.



Put up or shut up
By Tony Snow

Jan 5, 2006


Add "domestic spying" to the long list of botched attempts to unseat George W. Bush. The New York Times' would-be bombshell alleging Nixonian snoopery has detonated in its builders' faces. The story not only hasn't shaken Washington, it has restored the president's standing by reinforcing popular suspicions that he, unlike leading Democrats, takes seriously (a) terrorists' intentions and (b) the necessity of winning the war.

The seriousness gap is important. While the president attempts to press the case for continued engagement, key Democrats respond with hollow grade-school cant. Not even they believe their claims that the president is a liar, a slaver, a BTK-type voyeur, a draft-dodging mass murderer. Nor do they buy the alternative scenario -- that George Walker Bush is a feckless dope in the thrall of the Rasputin-like Dick Cheney and a cadre of cigar-munching, rib-eye slurping, back-slapping, conniving oilmen.

Similarly, the media have failed to depict the Commander-in-Chief as a petrol-punk. One-by-one, the would-be exposes have crumbled into dust: Abu Ghraib, the Koran in the Guantanamo toilet, secret prisons, horrifying interrogations, endless Halliburton conspiracy theories and, now, the "domestic spying" tale.

For whatever reason, the president's critics are dodging the one question that really matters: Is the war morally justifiable? Americans care about such things. We have a national desire to do the right things for the right reasons at the right times.

Until recently, just-war questions were easy to answer: Nations had a right to fight back against aggressors and oppressors: Japan bombs, FDR responds.

But what happens when the invader isn't a nation, doesn't have formally constituted or uniformed armies, doesn't play by rules, doesn't declare its martial intentions and doesn't even have leaders with whom one might reason or negotiate?

And what do you do when that enemy doesn't want to seize ground but merely wants to commit scattered acts of mass destruction? How should the world's pre-eminent superpower respond to jihadis who strike indiscriminately -- against Christians, Jews and Muslims, on the soil of Asia, Africa, Europe, America and Arabia?

Statecraft won't do the trick. The Clinton administration tried it after al Qaeda attacked New York (the first World Trade Center bombing), Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen. It turned down the chance to take custody of Osama bin Laden, citing legal concerns, and instead tried to scare him by bombing some empty tents and taking out the night watchman at a Sudanese aspirin factory.

Bin Laden interpreted these actions as weaknesses and ordered the hijackers to board their jets on Sept. 11. Team Clinton responded to the killing of 500 Americans by attempting a mix of diplomacy -- negotiations through third parties -- and symbolic action. Al Qaeda responded by killing another 3,000.

That scenario lays the groundwork for a new definition of a just war. A just war is one in which peace is not an option -- and the alternative to war is not tranquility but carnage. As Michael Novak argued three years ago, "The aim of a just war is the blocking of great evil, the restoration of peace and the defense of minimum conditions of justice and world order."

By those standards, the war in Iraq is just. Saddam Hussein was the perpetrator of great evil. Far more Iraqis died by his hand in "peacetime" than have perished in the three-year war. Furthermore, he was active in trying to organize and foment global terror.

Meanwhile, contrary to the frettings of the pant-soiling Murtha brigades, the war hasn't failed. Previously inimical Shi'a, Sunni and Kurdish factions are busy cutting deals and forming a new government -- that's progress -- and we haven't had a repeat Sept. 11. That's progress, too.

As for establishing conditions for justice and global order, the war has put terrorists to flight, reducing al Qaeda to little more than a production company for bad jihadi videos. Death-loving Islamosadists, while still active, have been forced to alter their plans and targets. And tiny seeds of democracy have begun to sprout throughout the region.

The one argument used most commonly against the war -- that it was for oil -- hasn't panned out. The people chiefly interested in Iraqi oil were the ones most opposed to the war -- the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese.

This leaves critics with a simple put-up or shut-up choice. They can look for principled arguments against the moral basis for the war, or they can continue playing the "I'm for the troops but against the war" game. Either way, they'll have to explain how the abandonment of Iraq would make the world a safer place.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2006/01/05/181090

[Oh, Gee!!]

Zing!

[ChumpDumper]

So the moral basis for invading Iraq was Osama is a bad man? The continued attempt to link these two is laughable.

[boutons_]

"is laughable"

is criminal, is impeachable.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/wheresthelink.jpg

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't support the troops

[Oh, Gee!!]

but I do support the war

[FromWayDowntown]

Another Presidential panderer attempting to offer after the fact justifications for a war that the majority of the American people still find unjustifiable.

Three things about me:

1. I absolutely support the war in Afghanistan -- it was the right thing to do and we should prosecute that war to its conclusion.

2. I absolutely respect and support the troops who are now in Iraq.

3. I absolutely do not support the decisions that placed those troops in Iraq in the first place.

Somehow, I'm sure that articulation of those views will result in someone labelling me anti-American, or unpatriotic, or a terrorist sympathizer, or something like that. Nuanced views based on definable principles so often get lost in a forum that deals so often in only black-and-white in matters of politics.

[Vashner]

Didn't yall hear? The Iraqi people said "Fuck you" to all liberal pussies with the purple fingers.

How did you guys get that purple mess out of your fucking stupid ass eye's?

Go play with your barbie collection pussies.. leave the fighting to the Marines and Army...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Are you in the military, Vashie?

[FromWayDowntown]

Didn't yall hear? The Iraqi people said "Fuck you" to all liberal pussies with the purple fingers.

How did you guys get that purple mess out of your fucking stupid ass eye's?

Go play with your barbie collection pussies.. leave the fighting to the Marines and Army...

Then explain to me, oh wise one, why we aren't "exporting democracy" to other non-democratic countries. Why haven't we expanded this democratic imperialism to other downtrodden folks who live under the rule of tyrants? Are the Iraqi people somehow uniquely entitled to democracy while the people of some African countries or some Asian nations are not?

The birth of democracy in Iraq is a wonderful byproduct of an otherwise unjustifiable war.

[xrayzebra]

Then explain to me, oh wise one, why we aren't "exporting democracy" to other non-democratic countries. Why haven't we expanded this democratic imperialism to other downtrodden folks who live under the rule of tyrants? Are the Iraqi people somehow uniquely entitled to democracy while the people of some African countries or some Asian nations are not?

The birth of democracy in Iraq is a wonderful byproduct of an otherwise unjustifiable war.

Well two words says why no given explanation would satisfy you. Your selection of the two words: "democratic imperialism ". Those two
words give you away completely.

[SA210]

Didn't yall hear? The Iraqi people said "Fuck you" to all liberal pussies with the purple fingers.

How did you guys get that purple mess out of your fucking stupid ass eye's?

Go play with your barbie collection pussies.. leave the fighting to the Marines and Army...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_we-werent-soldiers.jpg

[FromWayDowntown]

Well two words says why no given explanation would satisfy you. Your selection of the two words: "democratic imperialism ". Those two
words give you away completely.

I'm asking for an explanation because I want to see consistency in foreign policy. If our foreign policy is to export our way of life -- which is exportation and in days of yore, was known as imperialism -- then why aren't we doing that everywhere? I'm earnestly asking the question because if that is truly a foreign policy choice, I'd like to see it applied consistently.

I certainly understand and support the idea that democratic societies are preferrable to tyrannical and authoritarian governmental structures; but if we've decided that we should convert governments, why hasn't our effort been more widespread? Seriously, there are millions of people suffering in Africa under tyrannical regimes. Why haven't we gone there and done what we've done in Iraq?

[Oh, Gee!!]

because those people are black and have no oil to give us.

[xrayzebra]

I'm asking for an explanation because I want to see consistency in foreign policy. If our foreign policy is to export our way of life -- which is exportation and in days of yore, was known as imperialism -- then why aren't we doing that everywhere? I'm earnestly asking the question because if that is truly a foreign policy choice, I'd like to see it applied consistently.

I certainly understand and support the idea that democratic societies are preferrable to tyrannical and authoritarian governmental structures; but if we've decided that we should convert governments, why hasn't our effort been more widespread? Seriously, there are millions of people suffering in Africa under tyrannical regimes. Why haven't we gone there and done what we've done in Iraq?

My thoughts, and mine alone. I really don't think we are exporting
our way of government. I think we are just trying to help them and
others sit up a democratic type government or parliamentary type government
that is freely elected. I have some doubts it will work in the short haul.
I say this because of several reasons. First, like Mexico, graft has played
such a role in everyday life in these countries it is going to be hard
to overcome. Second, because of the first reason given, those who
have benefited the most from the corruption don't wont to give up
the source of their wealth, or in some cases, just their way of life.
But maybe, just maybe, they will get a taste of what it is like to live in
a truly free society, without the corruption and want to really accept
it as a way of life. We have had success in helping form truly free
governments, Japan, as an example. But we are seeing a resurgence of
socialism in the America's which is worrisome to me. And corruption
has played a big part in bring this type of government (socialism)
to the fore.

[SA210]

^^^ I thought we went to war in Iraq because there was a link with Sept 11. I don't know, I'm just thinking here.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^^ I thought we went to war in Iraq because there was a link with Sept 11. I don't know, I'm just thinking here.

I think that's sort of the point here. The post-invasion justifications for the war have been essentially disproven so we're now to rationalizations for our actions. The Right rationalizes the war now as an exercise that was beneficial to the Iraqi people because it deposed Saddam and brought about the possibility of democracy. If that's now become a justification for using military force, then -- again -- why aren't we using our military might to bring democracy to other parts of the world, where people are at least as oppressed (and likely more oppressed) as the Iraqis were under Saddam?

Snow is rationalizing the war while arguing that the President is, essentially, morally bulletproof as long as he wraps himself in the mantle of fighting terrorism -- that the American people should be unconcerned with possible Constitutional issues or misrepresentations so long as the White House can couch its actions as efforts to prosecute the amorphous war on terror.

[SA210]

great posts FWD :tu

[Ocotillo]

Tony Snow is quivering at his keyboard. Osama has already claimed is sorry ass. Here take my freedom, take my way of life, please don't hurt me Mr. Terrorist. He is the kind of guy that would knock a pregnant woman down to get out of burning building.

[xrayzebra]

The last three post prove one thing. You ask a question, someone tries to answer
that question and it all goes back to the same old crap. You people talk to hear
the echo's in your head. What a bunch of twerps.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_emperor_dictator.jpg

[xrayzebra]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_emperor_dictator.jpg

There you go again, using up all that web space.
SA210=stuck under a bridge

[FromWayDowntown]

The last three post prove one thing. You ask a question, someone tries to answer
that question and it all goes back to the same old crap. You people talk to hear
the echo's in your head. What a bunch of twerps.

It would help me to respond to you if you actually bothered to answer my question, rather than resorting to name-calling.

You say that we're not exporting our form of government, but turn around and say that we're trying to help the Iraqis set up a governmental form that is similar to ours. Which is it?

You offered predictions about the possibility that democracy will fail in Iraq -- and I hope you're wrong about that -- but you didn't explain why this nation isn't trying to do the same thing in other parts of the world.

What was I supposed to do to respond to your philosophical viewpoint when it was only tangentially related to the question I posed?

[SA210]

Xray,



Blah, blah, blah

[SA210]

It would help me to respond to you if you actually bothered to answer my question, rather than resorting to name-calling.

You say that we're not exporting our form of government, but turn around and say that we're trying to help the Iraqis set up a governmental form that is similar to ours. Which is it?

You offered predictions about the possibility that democracy will fail in Iraq -- and I hope you're wrong about that -- but you didn't explain why this nation isn't trying to do the same thing in other parts of the world.

What was I supposed to do to respond to your philosophical viewpoint when it was only tangentially related to the question I posed?

I think Xray's head is about to hurt.

[xrayzebra]

It would help me to respond to you if you actually bothered to answer my question, rather than resorting to name-calling.

You say that we're not exporting our form of government, but turn around and say that we're trying to help the Iraqis set up a governmental form that is similar to ours. Which is it?

You offered predictions about the possibility that democracy will fail in Iraq -- and I hope you're wrong about that -- but you didn't explain why this nation isn't trying to do the same thing in other parts of the world.

What was I supposed to do to respond to your philosophical viewpoint when it was only tangentially related to the question I posed?

You really don't want an answer. I cant answer some thing, no more than
you can. I can only respond by what my opinion is. What is your answer
to the question you pose? Is there a solution? How do you fight
corruption? How do you fight terrorist who have no central point? You
give me some answers?

[xrayzebra]

I think Xray's head is about to hurt.

SA210, any answer I gave to you would only be answered by
you posting some other editorial cartoon. Grown up.

[SA210]

SA210, any answer I gave to you would only be answered by
you posting some other editorial cartoon. Grown up.
And any editorial cartoon has more substance and truth than any jibberish you post.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_chickenlittles.jpg

[xrayzebra]

^^okay you answer the questions I posted. You are so smart. Give me the
answer all knowing one.

[SA210]

I cant answer some thing, no more than
you can. I can only respond by what my opinion is.
Thanks for finally admitting that you DO NOT respond with facts, but only your opinions to back up your opinions.


How do you fight corruption?
You could start by getting rid of these guys
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/republicans_banana_republic.jpg


How do you fight terrorist?
By going after the guy that actually attacked us.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_binladen.jpg

Next.

[xrayzebra]

Thanks for finally admitting that you DO NOT respond with facts, but only your opinions to back up your opinions.


You could start by getting rid of these guys
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/republicans_banana_republic.jpg


By going after the guy that actually attacked us.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_binladen.jpg

Next.

You really are a twerp!

[FromWayDowntown]

You really don't want an answer. I cant answer some thing, no more than
you can. I can only respond by what my opinion is. What is your answer
to the question you pose? Is there a solution? How do you fight
corruption? How do you fight terrorist who have no central point? You
give me some answers?

Curious that I have to answer my questions before you'll do so.

Nevertheless, I do want your answer. I'm interested to know why you think that policy hasn't been applied consistently elsewhere.

I can answer my own question, but will acknowledge up front the great likelihood that you will reject my answer simply because I'm on the opposite side of the political fence from you. I doubt it would matter much what I say because, no matter what it is that I say, you have decided that my opinions aren't worthy of any sort of respect. So be it.

My answer is this: I think it's bad foreign policy to rationalize wars by the subsequent importation of democracy. It's bad foreign policy because it's impossible to be consistent without severely overtaxing the resources of this country -- most of which could be put to better use in dealing with the problems of the American people.

Am I glad that the Iraqis are flirting with the democracy that we have helped them to develop? Sure. Do I think it justifies going to war with a country that had done no direct ill to any other sovereign nation after the first Gulf War? Absolutely not.

I think the foreign policy failure of this Administration is one resulting from a lack of focus. Like I said eariler in this thread, I wholeheartedly support the war in Afghanistan. I think that war should be at the forefront of our national concern, because THAT war is being prosecuted to put an end to those who undertook 9/11. But this Administration barely acknowledges that anything is going on in Afghanistan and is so busy trying to justify an unpopular war in Iraq that it seems to have forgotten that the primary target in the war on terror should be the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.

That war -- that goal -- was not one that was grossly unpopular with the rest of the world and it was not one that caused great societal upheavals in the theater of operations.

Had the White House fully prosecuted that war to its end and THEN begun to think about Iraq, I suspect that questions about the foreign policy goals of the White House would be far less strident. But that's not what the White House did, and I find that course of action to be imprudent.

I think the White House's decision to attack Iraq has done more to fuel terrorists than it has to eliminate them. By invading Iraq without any immediate justification for doing so, this nation now appears to be nothing other than the proverbial bully on the block, willing to depose governments we don't like -- not because they've done anything to us directly, but simply because we disagree with their operation or, more specifically, with their leaders.

I think the notion of exporting democracy in a first-strike fashion isn't a consistently-applied foreign policy because other nations with similarly-subjugated people don't offer any sort of tactical or strategic advantage.

[SA210]

You really are a twerp!
:lmao :lmao You are too ridiculous. It seems that even if your life depended on it, you couldn't debate using facts. :lmao I answered your questions and u call me a twerp. :lmao

I can't take you serious. I'd rather debate with someone intelligent.

[SA210]

Great post FromWayDowntown. :tu

[xrayzebra]

FWD: You said: "My answer is this: I think it's bad foreign policy to rationalize wars by the subsequent importation of democracy. It's bad foreign policy because it's impossible to be consistent without severely overtaxing the resources of this country -- most of which could be put to better use in dealing with the problems of the American people."

How do you overtax the resources of a country by protecting it. Yes, I
know you don't think we are, but I don't.

then:
"Am I glad that the Iraqis are flirting with the democracy that we have helped them to develop? Sure. Do I think it justifies going to war with a country that had done no direct ill to any other sovereign nation after the first Gulf War? Absolutely not.

They did no direct ill to another country? You are not serious are you?
$25,000 to terrorist that died killing people Israel? Gave statuary to
terrorist. And they did.

And:

"think the foreign policy failure of this Administration is one resulting from a lack of focus. Like I said earlier in this thread, I wholeheartedly support the war in Afghanistan. I think that war should be at the forefront of our national concern, because THAT war is being prosecuted to put an end to those who undertook 9/11. But this Administration barely acknowledges that anything is going on in Afghanistan and is so busy trying to justify an unpopular war in Iraq that it seems to have forgotten that the primary target in the war on terror should be the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. "

No the media did that. Our government has kept it's commitment to
the Afghanistan war. It is just that things have gone well there and
there is nothing that the media wants to report and doesn't want to give
any credit to the present administration.

"I think the White House's decision to attack Iraq has done more to fuel terrorists than it has to eliminate them. By invading Iraq without any immediate justification for doing so, this nation now appears to be nothing other than the proverbial bully on the block, willing to depose governments we don't like -- not because they've done anything to us directly, but simply because we disagree with their operation or, more specifically, with their leaders."

Terrorist existed before Iraq, not only existed, but attacked us before and
would again if it were possible. You know WTC was attacked twice not
just once. We lost troops in Saudi Arabia, had embassies attacked in
several countries and and ship blown out of the water. All by terrorist.

Your statement:
"I think the notion of exporting democracy in a first-strike fashion isn't a consistently-applied foreign policy because other nations with similarly-subjugated people don't offer any sort of tactical or strategic advantage."

Just doesn't make sense. We will more than likely make more
"first-strike" strategies before it is all over. Should we wait till they kill
more of us...that includes you too, you know.

[ChumpDumper]

Terrorist existed before Iraq, not only existed, but attacked us before and
would again if it were possible. You know WTC was attacked twice not
just once. We lost troops in Saudi Arabia, had embassies attacked in
several countries and and ship blown out of the water. All by terrorist.All this would make sense if the terrorists behind all these attacks had been Iraqi.

They weren't.

[xrayzebra]

All this would make sense if the terrorists behind all these attacks had been Iraqi.

They weren't.

Okay, tell me where they are? You must know, the CIA, FBI and NSA really
wants to talk to you. Anyhow, they are now, aren't they? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, tell me where they are? You must know, the CIA, FBI and NSA really
wants to talk to you.If I knew, I'd already be wiretapped wouldn't I?
Anyhow, they are now, aren't they? Well, it's your choice to laugh at all the dead US and Iraqi folk if you like. I'm don't find it quite so humorous that they died for a distraction.

[xrayzebra]

If I knew, I'd already be wiretapped wouldn't I?Well, it's your choice to laugh at all the dead US and Iraqi folk if you like. I'm don't find it quite so humorous that they died for a distraction.


shhheeeesssh. Never mind. You better learn to have a sense of humor
otherwise it is going to be a long life for you.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, seen too much death up close lately to joke much about it.

[xrayzebra]

Sorry, seen too much death up close lately to joke much about it.

Believe me when I tell you all the more reason to have a sense of humor.
Sometimes life really does come to you too fast. I respect the fact that
you have seen it. Death sometimes can be horrible and violent. Not to pretty. But sometimes it can be peaceful and welcomed. I think being my
age helped. I was taught that death is part of life. We all must face it
in our life (or time).

[ChumpDumper]

Well, we certainly had a sense of humor about it while we could -- right up to the end -- but it was far too soon in this case and so I'm particularly sensitive about folks going before their time.

[SA210]

Believe me when I tell you all the more reason to have a sense of humor.
Sometimes life really does come to you too fast. I respect the fact that
you have seen it. Death sometimes can be horrible and violent. Not to pretty. But sometimes it can be peaceful and welcomed. I think being my
age helped. I was taught that death is part of life. We all must face it
in our life (or time).
People die. It happens. It's a fact. That's proof enough to bomb anyone we want. :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

People die. It happens. It's a fact. That's proof enough to bomb anyone we want. :rolleyes

Watch it, we may say something that will hurt your feelings again.
Wouldn't want that to happen.

[SA210]

Watch it, we may say something that will hurt your feelings again.
Wouldn't want that to happen.
OMG, that's it XRAY. You did it. Your post changed things!!


NOT.

[chode_regulator]

cliffs notes on the original post please?

[xrayzebra]

OMG, that's it XRAY. You did it. Your post changed things!!


NOT.

Such a nice lady you are.

[SA210]

^^^ so how was your night with Gtown?

[JoeChalupa]

I support the troops!!!!!!

[xrayzebra]

^^^ so how was your night with Gtown?

No, meant it. You are a female. Took me a while to realize that, but
it finally dawned on me. Nothing wrong with that. I like the ladies.