This is America!

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but at the cost of his reputation.

More valuable than "duty, honor, country"??? See, Gen Powell already had experience from many years before (My Lai Massacre). He knew what had to be done when his nation was going to war.

As for Canadians getting nervous about breaking a hundred, our government has done a piss-poor job at explaining the mission and defining its objective (which is generally hard to do as a junior partner in a coalition). So it's hard to fault the public for getting twitchy about the only metric they can digest.

Junior partner??? To read the domestic chatter one might conclude that Canada is bearing the most burden, and indignant about NATO partners not contributing to the extermination of Taliban large and small.

The USA has given up about 65% of the KIAs in A-stan....are those more righteous corpses compared to Iraq?

Edited September 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Visionseeker]

More valuable than "duty, honor, country"??? See, Gen Powell already had experience from many years before (My Lai Massacre). He knew what had to be done when his nation was going to war.

How is he linked to My Lai?

Junior partner??? To read the domestic chatter one might conclude that Canada is bearing the most burden, and indignant about NATO partners not contributing to the extermination of Taliban large and small.

As I said before, a piss-poor job.

The USA has given up about 65% of the KIAs in A-stan....are those more righteous corpses compared to Iraq?

What an awful way to frame it. But yes, the KIAs in Afghanistan die for a reason; those killed in Iraq died for a lie.

[bush_cheney2004]

How is he linked to My Lai?

Then Major Powell was tasked with investigating a soldier's letter to the theatre commander about pervasive murder and slaughter of civilians in 'Nam. Powell had joined the Americal Division after the massacre, but held the party line when it came to invesitgating such matters. Holding up a jar of powder at the UN would prove far easier by comparison.

As I said before, a piss-poor job.

Benchmarks for such matters are hard to find. Let those who can do better so demonstrate.

What an awful way to frame it. But yes, the KIAs in Afghanistan die for a reason; those killed in Iraq died for a lie.

This is naive at several levels, and far more important for the comfy citizens back home than the dying soldiers, who mostly die for each other, no matter where it is or why they are there.

[Visionseeker]

This is naive at several levels, and far more important for the comfy citizens back home than the dying soldiers, who mostly die for each other, no matter where it is or why they are there.

I have no doubt that they mostly die for each other no matter where they are. But their families are condemned by time and displacement to perform deeper analyses.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no doubt that they mostly die for each other no matter where they are. But their families are condemned by time and displacement to perform deeper analyses.

But of course...far better to have died in Afghanistan than Iraq....it makes such a huge difference to the living. Yea, that's it....red casualty containers for Iraq...blue for Afghanistan. Separate internment areas at Arlington too!

[jbg]

What both are missing in this rather aimless discussion is the fact that for America to retain its miraculous freedoms, it is necessary that war be kep far from our shores. If other powers deign to try to upset what we have built, woe to them.

[bush_cheney2004]

What both are missing in this rather aimless discussion is the fact that for America to retain its miraculous freedoms, it is necessary that war be kep far from our shores. If other powers deign to try to upset what we have built, woe to them.

Perhaps this point is lost on many....America does not get even...it gets ahead. It has been wildly successful not despite such wars, but because of them, starting at birth.

JFK said it best (in a Cold War context):

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Edited September 14, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Perhaps this point is lost on many....America does not get even...it gets ahead. It has been wildly successful not despite such wars, but because of them, starting at birth.

Very good point, and overall true. But as you'll see, you gave a bad example.

JFK said it best (in a Cold War context):

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

His words were soaring and great, but his actions didn't match them:

1. Bay of Pigs - Abandoned rebels in an invasion that had good support in the Monroe Doctrine;
   
2. Test Ban Treaty - Gratuitous gievaway to Soviets, in that nukes are the ultimate defensive "Hail Mary" pass but, except in rare situations like Japan are of little use offensively. Thus, limitations on nukes, without conventional troop drawdowns, are a net loss to US;
   
3. Berlin Wall - Truman would not have stood helplessly by mouthing "ich bin ein berliner" while Soviets turned East Germany into a prison;
   
4. Summitt with Khruschev - Went unprepared, expected his boyish charm to win the day; and
   
5. Cuban missile crisis - Agreed to pull nukes from Turkey, in exchange for Sovieth withdrawal of missiles that clearly violated Monroe Doctrine.
   

Not a great anti-Soviet record, but great words. A lot like Bill Clinton's record in many respects. (Yes, I voted for Bill Clinton. His foreign policy instincts, though not actions, and domestic governance were pretty good).

[Guest American Woman]

(bush_cheney2004 @ Sep 11 2007, 10:03 PM)

But Gen Powell still delivered, didn't he?

Yes, but at the cost of his reputation.

He must have regrets. How could anyone feel the way he did, and still promote going to war? I don't get how anyone's conscience would allow that. He sure disappointed a lot of people who had their faith and trust placed in him.

"....former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

'I tried to avoid this war,' Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. 'I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.'

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war."

Link

[bush_cheney2004]

Very good point, and overall true. But as you'll see, you gave a bad example.

His words were soaring and great, but his actions didn't match them:

No, the example still stands despite your list:

1) US strategic forces continued rapid development (Triad)

2) Soviets were engaged (October 1962) and countered for Jupiter missiles in Turkey; Vietnam escalation from Ike

3) Space program was jump started for intelligence gathering with manned mission cover story (e.g. Corona)

4) CIA backed Iraq coup (sound familiar?)

5) Domestic policies for civil rights, elderly, etc. (New Frontier)

6) Peace Corps

7) Cult of personality leadership unmatched until Ronald Reagan. Clinton not in same league (except for sexual harassment.)

Like President Bush, JFK needn't have gotten everthyting right....but he did need to act. That's what we pay a president to do.

[Higgly]

But Gen Powell still delivered, didn't he?

Cost a lot more than that, but some in Canada get nervous before breaking 100 !!!

Freedom isn't free.

Are you talking golf scores here?

Sure he delivered. And when Senior asked him whether he thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq, he said "You go to Baghdad, and you will be the proud owner of 35 million people."

Any equation between freedom and the invasion of Iraq is ridiculous.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you talking golf scores here?

Sure he delivered. And when Senior asked him whether he thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq, he said "You go to Baghdad, and you will be the proud owner of 35 million people."

"Senior" screwed up....he was not re-elected! Junior finished the dirty work...he did get re-elected. Tah-Da!!

Any equation between freedom and the invasion of Iraq is ridiculous.

The Kurds wouldn't like your math at all.

[jbg]

No, the example still stands despite your list:Like President Bush, JFK needn't have gotten everthyting right....but he did need to act. That's what we pay a president to do.

Like Clinton, I think JFK's instincts were pretty good. The "best and brightest" crew let him down badly. Their help was particularly needed given JFK's youth and relative inexperience, since the Senate is not a good "President school".

[bush_cheney2004]

Like Clinton, I think JFK's instincts were pretty good. The "best and brightest" crew let him down badly. Their help was particularly needed given JFK's youth and relative inexperience, since the Senate is not a good "President school".

That's why I am willing to cut Junior more slack than far more experienced Senior, who should have known better than to do such a half ass job in 1991, leaving the future to deal with a festering sore. Clinton tried in 1998 (Desert Fox), but again with a measured and ineffective effort. What Dubya lacks in Mensa rating is more than made up for by intestinal fortitude.

Be it the "Best and brightest" or "Whiz Kids", there is no substitute for leadership.

[Guest American Woman]

What Dubya lacks in Mensa rating is more than made up for by intestinal fortitude.

Be it the "Best and brightest" or "Whiz Kids", there is no substitute for leadership.

lead·er·ship

–noun

1. the position or function of a leader

And here's something you might want to consider: Hitler "led" too.

There is no substitute for good leadership, and that requires intelligence, wisdom, empathy, and integrity.

Edited September 15, 2007 by American Woman

[sharkman]

Why must the left continually bring up Hitler? The continual referencing shows perhaps a latent love affair with the man. Hey, maybe he was just misunderstood.

[bush_cheney2004]

lead·er·ship

–noun

1. the position or function of a leader

And here's something you might want to consider: Hitler "led" too.

There is no substitute for good leadership, and that requires intelligence, wisdom, empathy, and integrity.

All meaningless without the courage to take risks and accept criticism. Mr. Bush is your self admitted leader.

[Guest American Woman]

Why must the left continually bring up Hitler? The continual referencing shows perhaps a latent love affair with the man. Hey, maybe he was just misunderstood.

Why does it offend you that I brought up Hitler as an example of bad leadership? Would using another example somehow have been ok and therefore not, in your warped view, a symptom of a "latent love affair?"

You're the one with the problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why must the left continually bring up Hitler? The continual referencing shows perhaps a latent love affair with the man. Hey, maybe he was just misunderstood.

Godwin's Law applies.....he/she who jumps to such comparisons has surely lost the point. The longer a debate continues, the probability that Hitler will be invoked approaches 1.0.

[Guest American Woman]

All meaningless without the courage to take risks and accept criticism. Mr. Bush is your self admitted leader.

Sure he is. That's what's so upsetting. And in spite of your protests and inane remarks, he's your leader too.

As for "taking risks" and "accepting criticism," that would all be part of the makeup of someone who leads with intelligence and wisdom-- which would explain why "dubya" has such a difficult time accepting criticism. As for taking risks, he personally has taken no risks, nor has his family. He's only put thousands of other lives at risk, and that is not a characteristic of a good leader.

[Guest American Woman]

Godwin's Law applies.....he/she who jumps to such comparisons has surely lost the point. The longer a debate continues, the probability that Hitler will be invoked approaches 1.0.

So what are you saying-- that Hitler didn't lead? Or that he's not an example of a bad leader?

I look forward to your response because all this time I've been under the impression that 1) Hitler did lead, and 2) he wasn't a good leader.

Seems to me anyone who starts whining about Hitler being brought up as an example of bad leadership is the one who has "surely lost the point" and is unable to respond/continue discussing the actual issue.

Edited September 15, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

So what are you saying-- that Hitler didn't lead? Or that he's not an example of a bad leader?

I look forward to your response because all this time I've been under the impression that 1) Hitler did lead, and 2) he wasn't a good leader.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, etc. were all leaders.....the notion of "good" vs. "bad" is a completely separate notion.

[jbg]

Seems to me anyone who starts whining about Hitler being brought up as an example of bad leadership is the one who has "surely lost the point" and is unable to respond/continue discussing the actual issue.

Hitler was an example of utterly evil leadership. His predescessors provided the bad leadership that made Hitler's accession possible.

I read Bush differently from many on the board. I think that he, like Truman, makes decisions based upon his perception of what is right. He does not have his finger in the air perpetually, testing the political winds, as I believe both JFK and Clinton did. Whether or not Iraq had WMD's or any involvement in September 11, it was a rogue state. It was one of the few, other than China (with Tibet) North Korea and North Vietnam, that openly invaded a neighboring state since the end of WW II. While hardly alone in the perpetration of atrocities, there was almost always some state-directed atrocity in effect. This makes it even worse than Sudan, where the government is apparently guilty of malign neglect.

My view is that if it hadn't been for a belief that Clinton was trying to "wag the dog" the US would have invaded Iraq in 1998.

[bush_cheney2004]

I read Bush differently from many on the board. I think that he, like Truman, makes decisions based upon his perception of what is right. He does not have his finger in the air perpetually, testing the political winds, as I believe both JFK and Clinton did.

Agreed...Bush leads with his heart and belief system, not necessarily his brain. He could be wrong about what is "right", but damn the consequences. A refreshing change from the days of Jimmy Carter!

[Guest American Woman]

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, etc. were all leaders.....the notion of "good" vs. "bad" is a completely separate notion.

Exactly. And you said "What Dubya lacks in Mensa rating is more than made up for by intestinal fortitude. Be it the 'Best and brightest' or 'Whiz Kids', there is no substitute for leadership."

And my point is, leadership in itself, is nothing. I was refuting your claim that "there is no substitute for leadership." I cited Hitler as an example. And your problem with that is what, exactly?