[Grovenet] As the spin churns . . .

[allnutt]

I think you are mischaracterizing the efforts to change course.
The push is not to leave Iraq regardless of the long term consequences.
The push is to have our troops not in the middle of the civil war and to 
deal with the long term consequences in a more productive way.  Right now we 
are causing the long term consequences to be worse. With the majority of the 
Iraqis believing that our current level of occupation is part of the problem 
it is a self fulfilling prophecy if we continue or escalate our level of 
occupation.  Our ongoing surge had one day of success and since then we are 
back to 30 or 40 or more dead civilians every day.  Some dead from suicide 
bombers and some just the now common torture victims found bound and shot 
and dumped along a road somewhere.
The contractors may want us to keep troop levels up in Iraq regardless of 
the long term consequences because it is still very profitable for the war 
to continue at its current pace. But the people who believe it is time for a 
change are not disregarding the long term consequences. They are looking at 
all the data and trying to find a way to minimize both the long term and the 
short term problems that continue to mount. Bush continues to look at 
selected data that fits his 'pay me on the back and tell me I'm doing a good 
job' mentality.  As long as he is getting his way with the surge every 
increase in dead civilians will just be a sign of how well things are 
working and Cheney will see it as a sign that the insurgents are still in 
their last throes.

How long will the Bush supporters put up with this?  Evidently a long long 
time. At least long enough for the long term consequences of the mistakes 
from 3 years ago to become the current consequences of today. And probably 
until the long term consequences of today become the short term problems of 
Nov '08. Only when there is a new president will there be a large cry for 
somebody to do something, and who ever is the president will be blamed that 
they didn't fix it their first month in office.

The defining characteristic of this administration is that if you make a 
huge mistake all you have to do screw things up even worse and then your 
original mistake seems inconsequential.  How about this for a current 
example...Bush messed up and didn't get Osama bin Laden after bin Laden 
launched the attack on 9/11. Now even the top military is saying that bin 
Laden is not a big deal.  Wow! The whole impetus for 9/11 is no longer a big 
deal because all the other mistakes make it pale in comparison.

Our country will reclaim its ownership of greatness when we hold people 
accountable for their screwups.  We are not willing to do that. 
Unfortunately Bush is still very much the dysfunctional boss because he is 
the commander in chief of the armed forces and he has the legitimate power 
to veto anything that doesn't pass with a 60% majority. I am truly not 
scared of an attack from the outside defeating our democracy, it is starting 
to rot from the inside and from the very top. We have the capability to 
wipeout the rest of the world on Bush's orders and he is proud to claim that 
this option is alive and well for anyone who doesn't agree with his way of 
thinking.

I would much prefer for Bush to offer the rest of the world some help in 
establishing a democracy. The 'try it you'll like it' philosophy is much 
more effective than what we are doing now.  Right now we are bringing 
democracy in with a stick of dynamite and then when it blows up and people 
can't get electricity or clean water or sewers and they are afraid of their 
neighbors we are asking, 'hey, isn't this democracy thing great?' The long 
term consequences of this approach is that people are going to reject 
democracy as being too harsh to even try.  Who wants it now that we have 
made it look so horrible?

Many people want a change in our Iraq strategy so that the long term 
consequences look like democracy is a good deal and people want to try it. 
Not that we will shove you a stick of dynamite and democracy at the same 
time and tell you to enjoy your evening.

Katie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] As the spin churns . . .


> You make some good points about President Bush, Katie, but President Bush 
> is
> not the one calling for us to leave Iraq. The voters of that It's enough 
> of
> the US population that our Congress is almost stampeding to pull our 
> troops
> out of there, regardless of the long-term consequences, because the
> immediate consequences they perceive is that they'll lose the next 
> election
> if they don't.
>
> President Bush was a "boss" only as long as Congress gave him that power 
> in
> time of a perceived national emergency with the support of the American
> people. That power is now rescinded.
>
> The President has a lot to account for in his administration, but leaving
> Iraq now isn't one of them. Indeed, the President has less to account for
> than many people claim. After all, the voters of America chose him again 
> in
> the last Presidential election. The American voter had little to say about
> going into Iraq, but how we leave is our choice, a choice with far-ranging
> consequences, just as JFK's mistakes with Cuba and her allies have 
> produced
> consequences that we must deal with every day, even now.
>
> America is a good country but we have no perfect answers. There's no magic
> in our system of government that automatically makes our decisions right 
> for
> us or for the world. Like most other countries, we're feeling our way 
> along
> in a wilderness trying to do the best we can. We look out for the 
> interests
> of our neighbors to the extent it protects our self-interests. As a nation
> we're uncertain, often afraid and, thankfully, we do things to be proud of
> at times. I had hoped that taking responsibility for Iraq would be one of
> those. It's not likely. We're not secure enough or mature enough as a 
> nation
> to do that. We still believe that "might makes right." That makes us
> incapable of doing anything that suggests otherwise.
>
> We will learn better, if we survive. Our biggest challenge today is that 
> we
> have such an awful ability to wreak havoc on our neighbors that we are
> creating enemies such as we've never faced before. Because we have the 
> power
> to intimidate and destroy other nations there are those in the world who 
> are
> committed to doing whatever it takes to match that awful power. Their goal
> is to be able to wreak as much havoc on us as we might on them. Once they
> achieve that power we have no control over how or when they might choose 
> use
> it. 9/11 was just the first little feint by showing us that we are not 
> safe;
> it was the opening jab of a fight that will last until our civilization is
> destroyed, unless we find a way to stop it.
>
> As other groups become more powerful we will have to face the same fears,
> dangers and uncertainty the rest of the world sees now in an often angry,
> unpredictable United States of America.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of allnutt
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:40 AM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] As the spin churns . . .
>
>
> Declare a victory and get out.....
>
> It can be viewed in various ways, but let me say this first.
> I disagree with you about how many Americans care or feel a sense of
> responsibility about what is going on in Iraq.  Instead of the number 
> being
> 'a few' I think it is more accurate to say 'a lot'.
> And for those who do care about innocent life and who do think that the
> estimated hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis killed is a significant
> number the question becomes how do we get this administration to care and
> take some responsibility?  Not an easy task by any means.
>
> Have you ever had a boss who only liked ideas when he thought they were 
> his
> own? Or who would only act if he would get 'credit' for the good parts but
> no blame for the bad parts?  That is what our current leader is like. He
> only talks about mistakes in the abstract, not as if there is any reality 
> to
>
> them.  "IF mistakes were made, I take responsibility for them."  This is
> classic for the kind of guy who feels compelled to ACT like a leader but 
> who
>
> won't really take responsibility.  Mistakes are ultimately the commanders
> fault but only if they happen.  He would have been a stronger leader to 
> say,
>
> 'since obviously mistakes were made, I take responsibility...' but of 
> course
>
> he prefers to think that the 'if' is still in operation.
>
> Declaring victory and getting out.  As we have seen in the last two days,
> the Brits are doing just that and Cheney is agreeing. So much agreement 
> that
>
> the Brits leaving is a good sign in Cheney's eyes. Proof that victory can 
> be
>
> declared. (Or at least it is important to spin it that way.)
>
> When you have the kind of boss who only responds to declaring victory, 
> then
> it is rational for people to declare victory in spite of any reality.
> Things have to be framed for the boss to view it as his own idea and his 
> own
>
> glory to leave.  That is what faces the country right now and any talk of
> reality does absolutely no good.
> Regardless of what you want to have happen in Iraq (for us to stay or for 
> us
>
> to go or something in between) in order for George to listen, you have to
> pat him on the back and tell him how wonderful he is doing and slip in the
> idea of what to do next.  When he is convinced he will get a pat on the 
> back
>
> for what ever he does then he will do it.
>
> Flattery and insincerity go a long way in dealing with people like Bush.
> Tell him he is wonderful for declaring victory and switching the troops to 
> a
>
> non combat role (training or intelligence or focused on Al Qaeda or 
> whatever
>
> would be helpful to winding it down) and he will probably do it.  Just 
> don't
>
> tell him about any mistakes.
> People need to lie through their teeth and tell him he has his victory and
> lie some more to tell him how wonderful he is, then he will do what is
> necessary.
> Tony Blair has always had a better handle on what was happening in Iraq 
> and
> he has given us a golden opportunity to expand on the very rational idea 
> of
> just declaring victory and getting out.
>
> We can then work through the UN or humanitarian groups to rebuild Iraq so 
> we
>
> fulfill our responsibility for the havoc we have created.
>
> Katie
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
> To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] As the spin churns . . .
>
>
>> "Declare a victory and get out. "
>>
>> And that's not just an empty statement in the eyes of many.
>>
>> I think there are four broad beliefs about the Iraqi war. Obviously
>> some people ascribe to some combination of all four, others focus on
>> just one.
>>
>> 1) The USA has shown that it can "kick a$$ anywhere and any time we
>> want!" For those folks it is a victory. We did it. We destroyed a
>> government and a nation, defeating its army. We won. Now we can go
>> home and leave the country
>> to the thugs and vandals who are jockeying for control. It's of no
>> consequence to us.
>>
>> 2) The USA protected itself from an imminent attack with Saddam's WMD.
>> It doesn't really matter that they weren't found. They *could* have
>> been there. They *could* have been moved. So it was enough that we
>> invaded to ensure the
>> attack against us would not occur.
>>
>> 3) Iraq was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attack, and it is right
>> and proper for people to seek vengeance against our attackers.
>> (Usually cloaked in the nice phrase: bring them to 'justice').
>>
>> 4) We should not have attacked at all. Our military should only be
>> used to defend us after we've been attacked. As tragic as a surprise
>> attack like we experienced at Pearl Harbor in 1941, we should never
>> launch a preemptive attack on another nation.
>>
>> We have satisfied three of the four of these. The fourth, those who
>> said
>> we
>> should not launch preemptive attacks, have been shouted down again and
>> again
>> over the years. Iraq was no exception.
>>
>> Notice that missing here is anything about "bringing democracy to
>> Iraq" or any acknowledgement of a responsibility to leave Iraq a
>> better place to live than it was under Saddam. As Joy pointed out, the
>> President did not specifically say we'd do those things. There's no
>> legal contract people like
>> me can enforce. It appears that relatively few Americans care or feel any
>> sense of responsibility.
>>
>> So, I think you're right Alan. We'll leave and we'll smugly declare it
>> a victory. After all, in time the region that is Iraq may again be a
>> prosperous and beautiful place. But that wouldn't be the result of
>> hard work in the part of those "rag heads". Obviously it is our gift
>> to them by deposing Saddam. And if it doesn't happen, obviously it was
>> because those "rag heads" squandered the opportunity we gave them.
>>
>> Clearly it's a "win-win" for America.
>>
>> Ron D'Eau Claire
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]
>> On Behalf Of Allen Warren
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:43 PM
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>> Subject: [Grovenet] As the spin churns . . .
>>
>>
>> With the British announcement today they're starting the process of
>> reducing troops in Iraq, It looks like the Bush Administration is
>> explaining the impending British troop reductions by taking the
>> opportunity to use the advice of the late Senator George Aiken to both
>> Presidents Johnson and Nixon
>> (R-Vt) during the Vietnam era: Declare a victory and get out.
>>
>> Vice President Cheney, in an interview in Tokyo said Britain's plans
>> to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq - while the United States
>> adds more troops - was a positive step. "I look at it and see it is
>> actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are
>> going pretty well," the vice president said.
>>
>> As for Cheney's assertion that the partial British pullout is a sign
>> that things are going well in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi said: "If it's
>> going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."
>>
>> I'm sure Cheney will probably answer back that things in the South
>> where
>> the
>> British are stationed are going very, very well but of course where our
>> American troops are stationed things aren't nearly as positive.
>>
>> Allen Warren
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ______
>> ________
>> Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the
>> Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>