Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

a perceptive analysis of bush. another flaw of the bush administration is cheney. yes, bush owes a large sum of his political muscle to the neo-con political machinery that helped him get elected, but what has been the value of this particularly powerful vice-president? cheney's influence is responsible for the gross overspending on private contractors in iraq, expediting the ever widening rift between the white house and the intelligence units, and methodically replacing bush's trusted homegrown advisors with career washington insiders that have a first allegiance to cheney. it is hard to predict how the administration would have progressed differently with a vice-president that supported bush, rather than a cumbersome powerhungry meddler, but, it is fair to say that things would not be nearly as chaotic as they are now. i suppose the hollywood fantasy ending for this presidency would be if bush got drunk, called cheney to the white house, and then gave cheney a deft right foot to his arse which spewed cheney out onto pennsylvania avenue like the bum he is. but, fantasies remain fantasies. cheney is far too inbred in the political corporate structure of the republican party for bush to alienate the neo-cons now. but still, it is a nice thought. cheney seems to be of the same ilk of clinton; a smart, sociopathic man who really has no interest in philanthropic acheivement, but a contemptible manipulator that we seem to be stuck with. as for this anti-war posturing by the democrats, there is no credible democratic presidential cantidate that will have U.S. troops removed from iraq before 2013; there is simply too much oil at stake, and continuing a military presence in iraq is the only way to secure U.S. access to it. as much as democatratic politicians would like to convince us all that they will pull troops out of iraq, it is really just a political sham that is designed to attract voters who are opposed to the war. it is disheartening to see so many people who are so focused on stopping the war to be so easily swayed.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by todd1007 on May 3, 2007 at 3:47 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

Go read COBRA II or FIASCO before you post here again KUCatholic08. This is not loony rambling from the left. This is clearly established fact.

KUCatholic08: "Fault lies at a lower lvl of command....you know, with maybe the generals who were architects of the plan?"

You have no idea what you are talking about. You think lower-level generals are the ones in charge of war-planning? You sir, are an idiot of the first order.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 4, 2007 at 8:14 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

IF YOU THINK A CIVILIAN IS THE ONE WHO CRAFTED THE PLAN YOU ARE AN IDIOT OF THE FIRST ORDER s77white. Honestly, dude, your knowledge of the military is none.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 4, 2007 at 11:18 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about civilians crafting war plans? You have completely lost it.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 4, 2007 at 11:41 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

KUCatholic, you can't be pro life and pro war, end of story.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by llama726 on May 4, 2007 at 11:49 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

You REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension. Where did I blame Rumsfeld for anything?

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens," April 11, 2003

The weapons that were looted from the depots in the days after our invasion were the building blocks of the IED's that destroyed and maimed so many of our troops. But, oh well, stuff happens.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 4, 2007 at 1:44 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

Didn't you just criticize him? Perhaps I am that incompetent at English, but isn't what you just wrote critcizing him? Lets quote what you wrote:

"The violence that has resulted from our illegal operations in Iraq WAS America's goal. Don't you ever ask yourself why Rumsfeld was unconcerned with the looting of the weapons depots in the days after our invasion?"

You have intimated that it was US policy to let the depots be looted which is ludacris. Now perhaps you did not blame Rumsfeld for the happening but you clearly intimate he was in the know, in the know of a decision that NEVER OCCURRED. The planners made a critical mistake, but to intimate they did so on purpose.......that is just beyond me. I really don't know what to say to such a crazy accusation. To believe the US would want the ensuing violence...crazy.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 4, 2007 at 3:07 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

I must wonder how a timeline in Iraq is really going to solve the issue. The place is a mess, and if we leave, all we are doing is saving our own asses and abandoning our UN MANDATED peacekeeping effort in Iraq. Yes, thats right, after we blew it up, the UN said we gotta fix what we did. So are we really just going to blow the joint and let it crumble even further into the pits? Also, todd is right on the point of the Democrats not going to pull us out. They won't. This bill was simply a political ploy to suck up to the antiwar movement in the country. Also, I don't see how the President could have signed onto a bill which had somewhere around $26 billion of pork barrell spending which was placed in there to purchase the votes to get it to pass through Congress. This bill was dead on arrival and everyone knows it.

I also don't understand the statment in the article "A dangerous sign is his apparent unwillingness to consider the political fallout, which has always been the top priority for the Bush White House, taking precedence by far over policy matters." Are you saying that most of the Bush Presidency has been based on politics and not policy? I think Bush's low approval rating would be an indication that he could care less about politics and cares more for the policy he believes in. This policy is to believe in the ability of America to win this damned war and to leave the strategy for that win with the military commanders and not with politicians.

Also, another point: we have what, 3200 dead in Iraq? We have been there for what, 4 years? We are facing what, insurgents who will blow themselves up just to kill one of us? We have killed or captured how many? 15,000 last year. I think the total is about 50,000 insurgents captured or killed total period of war, but don't quote me on that. It is somewhere around there. So, is that losing? Is America's will so weak that we can't handle a 1 to 15 loss ratio? If we leave, thousands upon thousands of more Iraqis will die then currently do, and we will not have "strategically redeployed" as some like to term it, we will have admitted defeat. We will lose a war we can win. We have not lost and we will not lose.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 3, 2007 at 4:21 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

KU08: Your incredulity at the assertion of the triumph of politics over policy in the Bush administration is perplexing. So perplexing, in fact, that I honestly can't tell if you're joking. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the Bush White House knows that politics has been the top priority from day one. Don't take it from Bush critics; take it from ex-White House officials--Dilulio, McClellan, Dowd, Fleischer, Shrum, et al. Every one of them has condemned and castigated the White House for putting political strategy miles ahead of policy concerns. Dilulio even called them the "Mayberry Machiavellians." Again, these are not the words of Bush critics-- they are the words of former Bush loyalists. What else do you expect from a White House that puts Karl Rove, a lifelong political strategist, in the top policy position in the executive branch?

The Democratic bill is not the answer, and is never promoted in this article. But it is a way to start thinking about our eventual exit. Continuing to double down our bets (which are human lives, by the way) is clearly not working. That is the point: Bush's refusal to consider alternate plans of action is the main threat.

Frankly, I'm also surprised that someone (based on your past posts) who is so devoted to the Vatican could exhibit such a callous disregard for human life. Demeaning the deaths of thousands of Americans by just calling it a "loss ratio" is disturbing. How can you be so devoted to Church dogma on issues like abortion and homosexuality but completely ignore their stance on the war?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by TigerHawk on May 3, 2007 at 6:08 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

Though the Vatican was opposed to starting the war, attempting to quell the violence that has resulted in the country, which is America's goal, is not an evil pursuit. It shows a caring for the lives of the Iraqis, treats them as equal to American lives and of equal importance. Leaving the country and letting the death toll escalate is not a moral action but is irresponsible and would reflect an unwilligness to take responsibility for the chaos that has insued in that country.

Also, I will not go into it, but there is the concept of just war which I think the situation in Iraq (not the original invasion, but the current peacekeeping operation) fits under.

I use the term "loss ratio." Yes, these are peoples lives, all of which are of infinite worth. I come from a military family, do not lecture me on the cost of war. But all human lives are of the same infinite worth. My point was that what we are trying to gain in Iraq is an ending of the violence. There would be alot more loss of life if we were not present. To treat American lives ABOVE that of other people's lives is wrong, it makes the judgement that one person is worth more than another. This is untrue. For those American's lost in the war and their families each and every death is a terrible tragedy and all of America prays for them and mourns their loss.

I used the term loss ratio simply to highlight the fact that we are not losing this battle from a statistical and real standpoint. It is a cold term, but it is from these standpoints that real world policy is made. All war is a dispicable evil, but that war exists is a reality. We cannot avoid that cold reality by running away and hiding in our own country believing nothing is wrong and abandoning the world. Though the saying "Fighting for peace is like having sex for chastity" seems to be very popular in antiwar circles, the reality is the only solution to the violence is to settle things there as the victor. Though you will all lambast me after this for saying this, I think Iraq's only real hope now is "Peace through superior firepower." We can all wish for peace, but we cannot achieve it if we are not willing to sacrafice.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 3, 2007 at 7:13 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is," - George W. Bush, April 9, 1999, criticizing President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn," - George W. Bush, June 5, 1999.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 3, 2007 at 7:33 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

KUCatholic08: "Though the Vatican was opposed to starting the war, attempting to quell the violence that has resulted in the country, which is America's goal, is not an evil pursuit."

The violence that has resulted from our illegal operations in Iraq WAS America's goal. Don't you ever ask yourself why Rumsfeld was unconcerned with the looting of the weapons depots in the days after our invasion?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 3, 2007 at 7:39 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

Alright s77white, spit out your conspiracy theories. I suppose 9/11 was an inside job as well?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 3, 2007 at 8:04 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

KUCatholic08: "I suppose 9/11 was an inside job as well?"

Why would you type something as stupid as that? I don't think that the looting of the Iraqi weapons depots was a conspiracy theory. How out of touch with reality are you? The wholesale looting of Iraq happened 4 years ago and was widely reported at the time. Are you trying to say that the depots weren't looted? Because if you are, you are most definetely insane.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 3, 2007 at 10:20 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

No, I am not saying they weren't looted. I am saying that blaming Rumsfeld and the administration for it is perposterous. Fault lies at a lower lvl of command....you know, with maybe the generals who were architects of the plan? And to say we WANTED it to happen is where I am saying you are really nuts.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 3, 2007 at 11:37 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

Wow...first, the situation of the start of the war is not the same as the current and thus DO NOT fit under the same just war criteria. And if you think the current situation doesn't fit, then I hope you don't advocate intervention in Darfur, which many liberals do. It is the same horrible murder seen in both places.

Next, you forget that the deaths in Iraq would be occuring without the war, just at the hands of Saddam who nicely shot, gassed, and tortured thousands of his own people

How do you militarily defeat an insurgency....um.....you kill every last one of the militants. How? You train police (doing that) you train an Iraqi army (oh, doing that too) and you kill them with your forces (which we do well). How bout this question, how do you come to a diplomatic solution with people who will BLOW THEMSELVES UP JUST SO THEY CAN KILL YOU. There is no reasoning with that kind of murderous fundamentalism.

Finally, your intimation about the administration is such left wing looney garbage...do you have any proof of those statments? The answer is no. And the more likely answer is, "Well I read it off of a website....like MoveOn.org" You leftists are like broken records with your contrived accusations against the administration. Is your entire political reasoning based on personal attacks and hatred? I can sum your views to this "I f'ing hate Bush and he is the cause of everything wrong in the world today." Go study and come up with some real arguments rather than sullying the reputation of the President and his administration.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 4, 2007 at 12:30 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

s77white, you blamed Rumsfeld who is a civilian. You do realize that don't you?

llama726, I hope you have read all my comments on this page, because it should illuminate why I think you can support the stability operations in Iraq as one who respects life. The concept of just war pertains to the current situation in that country in my opinion.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 4, 2007 at 12:05 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

Dear moron,

Read COBRA II or FIASCO...destabilization was the goal. This is not difficult.

Sincerely,

s77white

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 4, 2007 at 3:32 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

KUCatholic08: "Perhaps I am that incompetent at English, but isn't what you just wrote critcizing him?"

Dude, how did you even get accepted to KU? There is a crucial difference between criticism and blame. Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really that dense? I sure hope your good at math or something because your reasoning and reading skills are sadly lacking.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 4, 2007 at 3:37 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

I like how the books you suggest I read are by a member of the New York Times and a member of the Washington Post. Perhaps you consider those credible sources, but I don't. I may give them a look, we will see. I am very wary of the writings of members of the main stream media.

I am just drawing conclusions from your words. If what you suggest were true, then I would blame Rumsfeld. From my perspective, if you know of something and you do nothing to prevent it, you are just as much to blame as those who committed the act. Thats how I draw blame from your criticism. You simply don't see it that way and I can accept that.

Also, if this so called plan did exist, who is to blame in the opinion of these books?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUCatholic08 on May 4, 2007 at 8:01 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

KUCatholic08: "Also, if this so called plan did exist, who is to blame in the opinion of these books?" Why are you so obessed with blame? It is as if you have no intellectual curiosity beyond simple finger pointing. The world isn't that simple, bud.

COBRA II was written by the Chief military correspondent for the NYT and a retired Marine general who was the director of Harvard's School of Government. The author of FIASCO is a 17-year veteran writer for the Wall Street Journal (that bastion of liberalism, give me a f*cking break) who is a military correspondent for the Washington Post, a Pulitzer Prize winner and a member of Harvard's Senior Advisory Council on the Project for U.S. Civil/Military Relations...and you are going to question their credentials. Unbelievable. So tell me, who is qualified to write about the invasion of Iraq?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by s77white on May 4, 2007 at 11:53 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Bush’s ‘blind faith’ problematic

The word is spelled "ludicrous," not "ludacris." You're spelling it the way the rapper spells it.

Do you really not consider the NYT a credible source? I hope you realize that regardless of political leanings (which only affect the OpEd pages, by the way), it is still the most important media organization in the world. If you can't at least acknowledge that, your comments are put in a much shakier light.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Carraway on May 5, 2007 at 8:55 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal