Here is the late breaking news.
WASHINGTON – A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”
It’s going to go as far as the President’s desk, where it will be vetoed and die.
House Dems are doing a heckuva job reminding the country just why it is that legislatures don’t run wars.
Robert, in your view, has the executive done a good job running this war?
And your homeboy Bush is doing a heckuva job?
Oops, Amp already said that.
No, I don’t.
And what could he (Bush) do better?
He could have formulated the case for war a lot better. He could have done a much better job of explaining how Iraq is a battle, not the war itself. He could have been more forthright up front about how there would be setbacks, and he could have been more aggressive in stating the long-term nature of the commitment we’ve undertaken.
None of which has anything to do with whether a unitary executive, or the legislature, is the proper locus of control over a war effort. The worst President is a better Commander in Chief than the best Congress.
Robert, is it your view that the only errors the president made were about presentation to the public? Because nothing in what you’ve said here acknowledges that there was anything at all wrong in any of the Bush’s policies or execution in Iraq.
In our system, the President is the proper locus of control over a war effort, but he’s subject to checks and balances from Congress. That — not the dictatorial executive that Bush appears to prefer — is the way things should be.
So if the President wanted to nuke all our allies for no reason, but congress disagreed, you’d side with the President?
He could have formulated the case for war a lot better.
Or he could have told the truth. But being honest is something this entire administration views as anathema.
He could have done a much better job of explaining how Iraq is a battle, not the war itself.
Only if he believed that. All indications are that he didn’t believe that Iraq was a battle and not the war itself when he began it.
He could have been more forthright up front about how there would be setbacks, and he could have been more aggressive in stating the long-term nature of the commitment we’ve undertaken.
Again, only true if he believed that to be the case. All of the documentation that we have access to shows that Bushcoadmin believed Iraq would be a cakewalk and that there would be no long-term commitment of troops and money.
The whole group was living in a fantasy world about the effects of invading Iraq. Any dissent was so distasteful to them that they got rid of all the military leaders who disagreed with them.
The worst President is a better Commander in Chief than the best Congress.
It is hard to realistically imagine how even the worst congress could have done a worse job of Commander-in-Chiefing it over the last 4 years. Seriously, a 9th grader with either an interest in military history or the willingness to take advice from military experts would’ve done a better job.
That said, I do agree with Robert that (unfortunately) this isn’t going to go far. The Democrats simply don’t have a strong enough majority to override the President, and the Republicans (by and large) are too incapable of rational thought to be able to ever disagree with Dear Leader in a way that has any teeth.
So until we have a new President, we’re stuck with our Iraq policy being run by incompetent, hubristic war-mongers. Hopefully their utter humiliation and failure in Iraq will limit the number of needless wars the Bush administration starts in the next two years.
However, this vote does at least make it clear which party is responsible for the disaster in Iraq. Having settled that matter, I hope the Democrats settle down to hemming in the incompetent president with investigations into the many aspects of this war which have been poorly run and which have been corruptly run, as well as to running the government as best as can be done with a closely-divided congress and Republican control of the other two branches.
The U.S. military did an excellent job in running the initial invasion and setting up the occupation. The Bush Administration has done a bad job in running the occupation and taking the necessary steps to deal with the indigenous and foreign insurgents and terrorists. The current “surge”, however, is starting to show some good results. Not so much because of the additional troops (although they are necessary), but because the troops are being re-deployed out of their large bases and into the various areas where problems exist in a much less centralized fashion. This gets the troops closer to the sources of intel, while making the neighborhood residents feel more secure and more ready to provide that intel. It also enables the troops to react quicker once they find out about a problem. Murders are down, car bombings are down, etc., etc. Violence is decreasing. This also makes it easier to get the Iraqi forces up and running.
Of course, al-Queda, the Sadrists and the Baathist remnants would like nothing better than to have a specific timeframe for the Coalition withdrawal. All they have to do then is lay low until then and conserve their resources until the Coalition leaves. This kind of thing will also help dry up any assistance that we would get from the locals, since they will then have to think “After date ‘x’, the Americans will be gone and we’ll be at the mercy of [whoever].” There may be a worse strategic/tactical move than telling your enemy when you’re leaving the field, but I can’t think of one right now. Fortunately, this whole thing will get $hit-canned by either the Senate or the President.
I’m really having a hard time figuring out what Speaker Pelosi is trying to do here. Why would she deliberately try to lose this war? Does she hate Bush that bad? Does she have a complete disregard for Iraqi citizens that she’ll just throw them under the bus for political gain? It’s telling that she couldn’t get a straight up and down vote on the question of the war. I wonder why she didn’t have the courage to do so? Instead, she had to load it up with hundreds of millions of dollars of completely unrelated pork to what resembles very much like bribes for various representatives. Given that it only passed by 6 votes, it probably wouldn’t have passed otherwise. I guess letting people vote their consciences wasn’t a concept she could work with. Politics, you know.
The U.S. military did an excellent job in running the initial invasion and setting up the occupation.
That is certainly debatable. The execution of the strategy was flawless, yes. However, disbanding the Iraqi army and sending them home was a colossal error. The U.S. military was incapable of doing a good job setting up the occupation since the strategy for doing so was so flawed. Witness the immediate and widespread looting in Baghdad. However, the US military didn’t have as many troops available as they had said they needed, so I don’t see the failure of the strategy as that of the military. Rather, the failure is on the Commander in Chief and his advisers.
Why would she deliberately try to lose this war? Does she hate Bush that bad? Does she have a complete disregard for Iraqi citizens that she’ll just throw them under the bus for political gain?
Now, this is patently absurd. Bushcoadmin has done a fine job setting about losing the war all on their own. Granted, that wasn’t their object, it’s just that they lacked the competence and grasp on reality to do otherwise. And you seriously think that Bushcoadmin doesn’t have such utter disregard for Iraqi citizens that they have repeatedly thrown them under the bus for political gain? Damn, they’ve done it over and over and over. It’s just that it hasn’t gotten them political gain for quite some time.
At this point, with pretty much no allies to help us out in Iraq, I have yet to see a strategy that holds the possibility of winning the war. Unless you define winning the war as “US troops don’t leave Iraq.”
I hate to break it to the liberals here– the troops are most definitely not coming home– not anytime soon anyway. This is just empty posturing by the democrats.
If we put a little class into our analysis, we might come up with formulation that America’s ruling class is not about to let the world’s most important energy (oil) region descend into further chaos, which would probably happen with a total withdrawel. Their plan is probably to contain the mess to Iraq by sticking around for a few years (and longer) until the Iraq civil war burns itself out. No doubt their are some political elements that want to attack Iran, but that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon.
For those that still think the Iraq war is about fighting terrorism, national defense, bring democracy to the mideast etc. I hate to break it to you too– you’ve been duped.
So far so good, drydock, but I see no signs whatever that Americans who are not in the “ruling class” (whoever this ruling class may be) are willing to live with more and more expensive gasoline plus all the other costs associated with a restricted oil supply. These folks just usually don’t get the connection between this war and a lifestyle which permits – nay, encourages – the kind of profligate waste we’ve become accustomed to here.
But are most Americans willing to buy peace by living more frugally? (What! Why is all I hear silence?)
Oh. And the Europeans. They’re no more eager to do that than we are – they’ve just managed to get us to do most of the dirty work.
However, disbanding the Iraqi army and sending them home was a colossal error.
Yeah, but I doubt that was a military decision. Although I could be wrong. But I think the basis was the perception (a reality at least in the higher officer ranks) that the Iraqi military was more of a political organ than a military one.
The U.S. military was incapable of doing a good job setting up the occupation since the strategy for doing so was so flawed. Witness the immediate and widespread looting in Baghdad. However, the US military didn’t have as many troops available as they had said they needed, so I don’t see the failure of the strategy as that of the military. Rather, the failure is on the Commander in Chief and his advisers.
Can’t argue with that at all.
At this point, with pretty much no allies to help us out in Iraq, I have yet to see a strategy that holds the possibility of winning the war. Unless you define winning the war as “US troops don’t leave Iraq.”
The latest strategy seems to have a good effect, and it’s something that people (including the Iraq Study Group) have been pushing for a while.
This war will be won when the democratically elected government of Iraq can enforce civil order and secure it’s own borders. It took the new Federal Government of the U.S. a number of years to do that – hell, we didn’t even have the Constitution for about 7 or 8 years after we had won the Revolutionary War. President Washington had to use the Army to put down armed rebellion. Considering what they had to start with, Iraq is way ahead of us on this one.
A lot of mistakes have been made, mistakes that have cost lives. That happens in war; hindsight is always 20/20, and in war especially decisions have to be made with incomplete information. That’s not to say that all of the decisions made couldn’t have been made better even with the information available at the time. But; here we are. We have a few choices. One is to pull out immediately, regardless of the consequences. Another is to set a deadline and pull out then, again regardless of the consequences. Another is that rather than give up, change our strategies and try to win this. I personally vote for the latter.
Robert, the President has done a lousy job of explaining this war, repeatedly. Bush is not dumb. But he is not particularly articulate. In this day and age that’s a major leadership flaw. Unfortunately, people tend to mistake “articulate” for both “smart” and “correct”, and “inarticulate” for “dumb” and “wrong”.
One thing that could have been done better, and still could be, is to give local commanders much more individual perogative over the conduct of the war in their locality (which the decentralized strategy is starting to do) and over the priority of civil infrastructure rebuilding efforts in their command areas. Let them decide what gets rebuilt and when, instead of cycling those decisions through multiple layers in Baghdad and Washington. When the local leaders see the local American commanders as the source of money and effort, they’ll respect them more and work with them more.
Robert, is it your view that the only errors the president made were about presentation to the public? Because nothing in what you’ve said here acknowledges that there was anything at all wrong in any of the Bush’s policies or execution in Iraq.
I’m sure that lots of execution errors have been made; wars are hard. It is my judgment that the Bush policies in Iraq are correct, so obviously I don’t want to see him apologizing for them.
In our system, the President is the proper locus of control over a war effort, but he’s subject to checks and balances from Congress.
Of course. Congress’ power in this matter is quite extensive. They control the funds for both the military and for the specific war in question, and they control the question of whether or not the country is at war at all. I have no objection to Congressional exercise of any of its power in this matter. (Well, I’d object, but would agree they were within their rights.)
So if the President wanted to nuke all our allies for no reason, but congress disagreed, you’d side with the President?
No, obviously not.
What connection does this have to whether, as a principle, the executive or the legislature should hold command authority?
It’s going to go as far as the President’s desk, where it will be vetoed and die.
Pretty simple, huh? And the Democrats will pass the bill again and send it back. Over and over. Pretty pointless, huh?
Until the end of the fiscal year, when the current money for the war effort has run out, and Bush gets to choose between funding the continuing war effort until 2008, or running out of money and bringing the troops home immediately. Then what?
And during the next election cycle when the US’s defeat can no longer be obsured and the public is mad as hell, the Democrats will be trumpetting the fact that they voted FOR funding our troops whereas the Republicans voted AGAINST them. Democrats will be noting that Republicans never vetod a single spending bill in the past eight years – no matter how wasteful or pointless or pork-laden – until Bush decided to veto providing funds to the very troops he condemned to fight in a doomed war. What then?
I’m curious to see how it turn out. I don’t know how many more moves Bush has on this board.
From # 14 above: “However, disbanding the Iraqi army and sending them home was a colossal error.
Yeah, but I doubt that was a military decision. ”
Paul Bremer is the one who disbanded the Iraqi Army.
A retired general named Garner was the first civilian in charge. He was replaced after only a short time (I forget why) by L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer. Garner did not and did not want to disband the army.
BTW, if Speaker Pelosi grew a big enough set she would tell Bush that this is the only supplemental authorization bill that the House will vote on. If Bush needs the money in 3 weeks, he better be doing some compromising.
Nobody, I suspect that the population is sophisticated enough to comprehend who, in that situation, would be putting the boot in.
Frankly, this is a win win for the Dems in the house.
I don’t think we should have ever gone to war in the first place and all the issues that are happening now were all predicted by the shushhed voice of dissidents in the beginning.
But, now that we made this mess, it is time to clean it up. I’d like us to get the hell out as soon as possible, but a line in the sand withdrawl date isn’t the best option.
I suspect everyone knows this. Everyone also know the President will veto it and that they don’t have the votes for an override. So where exactly is the loss for Dems? They made a public move to TRY to end the war, they were thwarted by the Republicans. They did what the Nov. election mandated… not their fault if they couldn’t get it passed. next election, elect more Dems and maybe it will.
So, win win for Dems.
Oh both political parties are responsible for this mess. Both parties were well represented in the votes taken to support this war when it first started. And it never should have just started, because there was no reason to believe that Iraq was enough of a threat to the security of this country(as portrayed) to do so.
The Democrats have finally woken up, smelled the coffee and realized that the public and more importantly as far as they are concerned, the voting public, particularly that in their own party doesn’t support the war. So now, they’ve decided they don’t either. But they went along with it(and that odious piece of crap called the Patriot Act) when it really counted. Way before hundreds to thousands of troops have died and tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
So it’s not the Democrats that are responsible for these latest actions, it’s the public who spoke out whether in surveys, protests or at the polls that they didn’t support this war and they didn’t want this war for a variety of reasons. And also that it was indeed possible to both oppose the war and support those sent over to fight it for men and women in power who wouldn’t even send their own children to do this.
Though it’s true in a sense that this was a war that hadn’t really ended after the Persian Gulf War I as Bill Clinton as president kept military actions going in that country in the form of bombings during his terms in office.
I agree, definitely.
Robert, you say;
“he could have formulated the case for war a lot better.”
No, He couldn´t, because THERE WAS AND THERE IS NOT a case for war. There were not WMD and US presence there is unaceptable and unjust. So how could have Bush made a case at all for the war?
There weren’t WMDs, for which let us all be thankful. However, the case for war, although drawing on the possibility of Iraqi WMDs, was not completely dependent on them for its validity.
What was the case for war against Hitler? Hussein was less successful in some of his ambitions, but off-hand I can’t think of anything Hitler did that Saddam didn’t do. (Genocidal actions, check. Invasion of inoffensive neutrals, check. Horrible civil rights abuses, check. Fascist political ideology, check.)
Now, you might honestly and sincerely believe that Hussein’s regime wasn’t bad enough to justify armed intervention, in which case you might say that the case for war was too weak for its costs and risks. Is that what you meant?
Oh really? In these reports you can find the official body counts based on Iraqi Government figures. No cluster-sampling methods here, just bodies on mortuary slabs. And the Iraqi Government is as keen to downplay the violence as the US Gov is.
May 2,669
June 3,149
July 3,590
August 3,009
September 3,345
October 3,709
November 3,462
December 2,941
Annual total: 34,452
Monthly Average: 2871
It’s true that December wasn’t as God-awful as the any of the previous six month, but it was still higher than the average for the year. The murder rate has exploded during the year, and to latch onto one months figures and call them a decline is denialist nonsense.
Err…There was no case against Hitler. Hitler declared the war on the US, not viceversa. But if you were going to make a case against Hitler, you could point to nazi submarines attacks to US military and civil ships on international waters. Not the case with Hussein.
So at the end the whole case against Hussein was that he had WMD. But that case was not only based on lies -evident for eveybody in the world except US conservatives-, but also on false pressumptions (that a presumptive war, is a justifiable one).
The point is not if Hussein regime wasn´t bad enought, since we all know it was really bad. The point is that alone is hardly a justification to start a war against it. Not only cause it lacks of justification to start a war against another country cause it regime is “bad enought”, but cause it will imply the US should start wars all over the globe based on that premise (since there are plenty of “bad enought” goverments around). And lets not even talk about US previous support to Hussein, including US turning its eyes aside to his genocidal practizes….US intervention in Iraq is not simply unjustifiable, it is pure hypocrecy.
But if you were going to make a case against Hitler, you could point to nazi submarines attacks to US military and civil ships on international waters. Not the case with Hussein.
Iraqi attacks on US airplanes, and Iraqi-sponsored terror attacks on Israeli civilians?
Robert:
Iraq attacked US and British airplaines on its own airspace, so that comparison is not going to help you.
Concerning Iraq support to terrorists on Israel, and aside from the fact that Israel attacked Iraq back in the 80´s first, 1- If Iraq supports palestinian terroris, sSo does the US, supporting Israel state terrorism 2. That will make a causis belli for Israel, not the US 3. If that is rational for the war, why the US isn´t attacking FIRST every country in the region that has supported palestinian terrorism, starting with Iran?
There is a distinction between a justification for war and a mandate for war. That we can justify taking out one bad regime does not oblige us to take out all bad regimes.
Iraq’s attacks on British and American planes was an attempt to destroy the aerial blockade that were preventing further genocide. If that constitutes legitimate self-defense, then we can throw in the towel right now on this conversation. Although from “Israeli state terrorism”, I suspect we can do that anyway.
One further note: like it or not, Israel is our military ally. An attack on them is a causus belli for us.
Robert
It’s not causus belli. It’s casus belly.
Casus belli, you mean. Thank you for the correction. My Latin just hasn’t been the same ever since they vernacularized the Mass.
Yes, the “belly” was my little joke. I didn’t want to sound too severe about the correction, so thought I would soften it by making a little accidental-on-purpose slip of my own. WASTED on you, of course. Sigh.
Apologies. We’re adrift on a sea of typos; it’s hard to tell sometimes.
Robert:
The fact that the US is not attacking other regimes similar to Iraq is very relevant for two reasons: 1, cause while people like you claim the US is in th buisness of overthrowing criminal regimes, the US is allied with other regimens that are as criminal or very badly criminal (as before it was an Iraqi ally, inspite of its crimes, something you forget very conviniently) 2. Cause following 1, it clearly shows what is US real motivation (oil, military spending, geostrateci control of center asia etc). I will, anyways, that even if Iraqi regime was criminal, the US had NO right to overthrow it. That was the buisness of iraqies, as an organized society to do.
On the other side, British and american blockade was ilegal and inmoral, and instead of saving any life it was killing thousends. So Iraqi regimen had the right to shoot down those planes, since they were on their hostile planes performing hostile actions on its territory.
Sergio, when the US supported Iraq, we were in the midst of a different geopolitical conflict, the Cold War. The calculus of nuclear morality is sometimes bitter, and we had friends who under better circumstances we would consider enemies.
Of course we had no “right” to overthrow the Iraqi regime. Nations have no rights; they have abilities, and interests.
Your contention appears to be that no outside power should ever stop a criminal regime, even if that regime is conducting genocide. Is that in fact your position?
Robert:
I don´t give a damm about the geopolitical context. The point is the US supported a guy who was a genocidal maniach: So how come is that the US is now claiming that they fought a war to overtrow him in the name of “democracy” and well, to prevent genocide? Actually you make my whole point: you supported hussein when it was CONVINIENT and you overtrew him when it was convinient again. It has nothing to do with him being a genocidal maniach. It has to do with the nation interests (namely, the motherfuckers who rule the nation and claim to speak and act on its name).
My contention is very simple: it is not the buisness or the right of the ruling class of a nation to start a war against another just cause it has a “criminal goverment”, more specially when that justification is a lie to cover the real interests. In wars people die, and the only trully justified war is a defensive one: the US was not fighthing a in Iraq.
“He could have formulated the case for war a lot better. He could have done a much better job of explaining how Iraq is a battle, not the war itself. He could have been more forthright up front about how there would be setbacks, and he could have been more aggressive in stating the long-term nature of the commitment we’ve undertaken.”
The war was contentious from the beginning and the major selling point was that it was going to be a cakewalk. Talk of setbacks and long term commitment could have put the kibosh on the whole misadventure from the getgo.
Of course, there is a harder, nuttier core of extremists whose goal from the very beginning was permanent deployment of military forces into the Middle East, which is why the ban on permanent military bases was a rare stroke of genius on the Dems’ part: it at least calls them out to confirm or deny.
“However, this vote does at least make it clear which party is responsible for the disaster in Iraq.”
If all works out, that is everything that could be hoped for with this legislation. By this point, Republicans aren’t looking for a victory. They’re looking for a defeat that they can blame on someone else. What counts as victory anymore? Americans dying at a slower rate, and civil war breaking out only every other day?
“However, disbanding the Iraqi army and sending them home was a colossal error.”
Not only that, but they put thousands of government employees out of work; undoubtedly because public sector employment is Initiation of Force. Thousands of unemployed, desperate men in a war zone with an axe to grind against the US? Small price to pay for small government.
The only people who can swallow this tripe are those who are ignorant of the running history of such policies, particularly in the third world and global south. Which perhaps explains why a country where one sixth have the geographical arrangement of Canada and Mexico mixed up would also be the one without national health insurance. Food for thought.
Robert, the US continues to have allies in some sticky places, nearly two decades after the ‘end of history’.
RonF, perhaps Pelosi indeed does have complete disregard for Iraqi civilians, but if she had ascended to power just four years prior, some 800,000 odd of them could care less. Wink wink.
Daran, I was talking about the effect of the current decentralization strategy on killings. I therefore obviously wasn’t basing it on this last December’s numbers. Having said that, it’s too early to tell if this is going to work as a long-term strategy, but initial indications are good. Of course, the opposition will try to adapt. We’ll see how it goes.
Sergio said:
On the other side, British and american blockade was ilegal and inmoral, and instead of saving any life it was killing thousends. So Iraqi regimen had the right to shoot down those planes, since they were on their hostile planes performing hostile actions on its territory.
No, the blockades killed no one. What killed people was Saddam’s decision to divert the resources that were limited by the blockades to building up military forces, military bases (a.k.a. “palaces”), etc. instead of on food and healthcare for his subjects. The bodies of those who died of starvation or disease can be laid at Saddam’s feet, not the U.S. In fact, given what Saddam did end up spending money on, who’s to say that a lack of a blockade would not have resulted in a rapid build-up of either conventional military forces or terroristic forces that would have been used against his neighbors and farther afield? Concern for his subjects’ and neighbors’ welfare was not Saddam’s hallmarks; just ask the Kuwaitis, the Iranians, the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs (there’s probably a better name for that last group, but I’m not aware of it). There’s no guarantee that a lack of a blockade would have made life better for anyone; the odds are reasonable that it simply shifted the national and ethnic makeup of those Saddam would have killed.
slyphhead said:
The war was contentious from the beginning and the major selling point was that it was going to be a cakewalk.
Maybe to you. I was under no such illusion.
perhaps Pelosi indeed does have complete disregard for Iraqi civilians, but if she had ascended to power just four years prior, some 800,000 odd of them could care less. Wink wink.
I presume that you are basing that estimate on the Lancet study that claimed there have been 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq up to the point it was conducted. That number was quite controversial at the time, and it was debated here fairly extensively. There has been a recent development regarding the conduct of that study asserting a number of flaws in the methodology and conduct; it seems a number of people raise legitimate questions about the study. This is summarized here, in the Times. It seems a lot of scientists don’t consider the issue settled at all.
Also, so far Speaker Pelosi has accomplished little; even her erstwhile allies (Code Pink, etc.) criticize her, and in the most recent opinion polls Congress’ rating as a whole is comparable to the President’s. I personally don’t find this surprising. The Democratic party did a good job at criticizing the Administration’s policies, but they put forward very few proposals for action on their own part; at least, few that they are actually likely to get passed. They couldn’t even get all of their own party to vote on this last military funding resolution. Even after they loaded it up with $24 billion of “pork” (i.e., government spending that has nothing to do with the subject of the resolution and that favors pet projects in the Congressional districts of Representatives that the party leadership hoped to influence to vote for the resolution thereby), a significant number of them still refused to vote for it.
Pelosi can’t even effectively bribe her own party. I wouldn’t look for big things from her. The current strategy seems to be “drum up scandals to keep the President occupied.” It worked against President Clinton to a certain extent, but it also means that the opposition leadership is also preoccupied, and they don’t get much else done either. It actually worked against Clinton better than it will against Bush, since the Executive has more power to act unilaterally in foreign policy than it does in domestic policy and the effects of defunding deployed troops will rebound against the Congress more than, say, defunding welfare.
The war was contentious from the beginning and the major selling point was that it was going to be a cakewalk.
Maybe to you. I was under no such illusion.
You may have been under no such illusion, but that does nothing to refute the fact that a major selling point of the war was that it was going to be a cakewalk.
Jake, got some cites? Links to video clips? Editorials by the President, promising a quick victory, etc.? Republican Senators saying “our boys will be home by Christmas” in front of cheering crowds?
Because I remember the Administration signaling pretty clearly that this was going to be a multiyear, if not multigenerational, effort.
If anything, people saying that the battle in Iraq would be a cakewalk (which it was) were also saying that we had to remember that the conflict was a lot more than the battle, and that we couldn’t be fooled by the rapid way our Army was going to crush the regime’s temporal force.
Robert, all I have to say to that is, “Mission Accomplished.” I will skip over the whole, “greet us as liberators and throw flowers,” statements we repeatedly heard early on.
… also saying that we had to remember that the conflict was a lot more than the battle…
Oh, and as I recall, “the conflict” to which you refer was the “War on Terra” and not the invasion of Iraq.
Jake, are you under the impression that during a long war, there are never inflection points? We’ve had “mission accomplished” a thousand times – as a thousand missions have been accomplished. Not that I’m quite sure how “we did it” equates to “it will be easy and quick for us to win this conflict, I promise.”
Nor am I sure how “we will be greeted as liberators” – and we were, for a brief time – equates to “it will be easy and quick for us to win this conflict, I promise”.
Iraq is part of the war on terror. I know, I know, you disagree.
Jake, are you under the impression that during a long war, there are never inflection points?
Yes [/sarcasm]
We’ve had “mission accomplished” a thousand times – as a thousand missions have been accomplished.
So you didn’t (and don’t) believe that “Mission Accomplished” aboard the aircraft carrier to which our becodpieced Ruler flew in a fighter jet referred to the invasion of Iraq and the completion of our mission there? If so, you were a member of a small minority. If “Mission Accomplished” didn’t refer to the Iraq war, how come Bushadminco was so eager to distance themselves from the banner months later when it became clear that the situation in Iraq was beyond our control.
Nor am I sure how “we will be greeted as liberators” – and we were, for a brief time – equates to “it will be easy and quick for us to win this conflict, I promise”.
Yes we were – by small, staged crowds (remember the toppling of the statue of Hussein?) and for nearly a fortnight. Well, you and Mr. Cheney have me there!
Not that I’m quite sure how “we did it” equates to “it will be easy and quick for us to win this conflict, I promise.”
The way it equates is simple. They said it will be quick and easy for us to accomplish our goals and put a stable democracy in place in Iraq. Then they held a big press event on an aircraft carrier in front of a huge banner that read “Mission Accomplished” (which most people understand to mean “We did it!”). Yet, 4 years later it is clear to even the dimmest among us that, in fact, we haven’t done it (accomplished our mission).
However, I do note that you are attempting the same verbal gymnastics here as Bushadminco has been practicing for several years. You refer to “a long war” (the War on Terra) and purposely word things in order to have us believe you are referring to the Iraq War. Now, you may well believe that the Iraq War is merely a battle in the larger War on Terra, but “Mission Accomplished” & Cheney’s statement that we’d be out in a matter of months clearly refer to the Iraq War Battle.
I can see that you’d really, really, really like (us) to believe that the Iraq Invasion was always put forth as the quick & easy thing and that the Iraq War was clearly stated to be a long (possibly decades) war – even prior to the invasion. Unfortunately for that fantasy, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Even 6 months after the invasion, Bushadminco was promising us that we’d be out of there in a year.
Ah, the lovely smell of revisionist history in the morning.
So you didn’t (and don’t) believe that “Mission Accomplished” aboard the aircraft carrier to which our becodpieced Ruler flew in a fighter jet referred to the invasion of Iraq and the completion of our mission there?
It referred to the military defeat of the Iraqi regime.
They said it will be quick and easy for us to accomplish our goals and put a stable democracy in place in Iraq…Even 6 months after the invasion, Bushadminco was promising us that we’d be out of there in a year.
And again – please provide a cite or a quote or a video clip of this ever happening. Saying “they said it!” over and over again, but being unable to show a case of them actually saying it, is not helping your credibility.
I think the discusion is headed in the wrong issue. The point is not if the war is going well or not, the point is that this is an inmoral and unjustified war that was sold to the world using lies; a war that is being fought to preserve the ugly interests of oil companies, military contractors and its friends, the members of the republican – and lets admit it- democratic party (who voted for this war too). If you recognize that, the whole subject of “how the war is going” is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is if we the troops are going to be retired ASAP and if the people who started this war are going to recieve the punishment they deserve.
The only relevant thing is if we the troops are going to be retired ASAP…
Not likely. Depends on if the Democrats can steel themselves to be the party that cut off funding for troops in combat. I don’t think they can, but that’s just my opinion.
…and if the people who started this war are going to recieve the punishment they deserve.
The person who started the war was executed a few months ago. Whether that was a deserved punishment is arguable, I suppose, but I can live with it.
“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” –Vice President Dick Cheney, “Meet the Press,” March 16, 2003
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” –President Bush, standing under a “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003
It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.” –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003
“Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day.” —President Bush, telling Time magazine that he underestimated the Iraqi resistance, Aug. 2004
“Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties
Iraq will be “ an affordable endeavor ” that “ will not require sustained aid ” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly… (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]
And from John McCain:
“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]
“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]
“The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]
Before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, estimates of the war’s cost were $50 billion, with assurances from administration officials that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for much of the effort.
The person who started the war was executed a few months ago.
Really, what was the event that defines Saddam Hussein as starting the war? I certainly haven’t heard of the attack on the US by Iraq that started this war.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. That started the war.
Your quotes are all very nice. They show an Administration that was optimistic about the war. They don’t show the Administration claiming that we would quickly and easily create a democracy in Iraq.
Taking it quote for quote:
“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” –Vice President Dick Cheney, “Meet the Press,” March 16, 2003
Not material to your claim.
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” –President Bush, standing under a “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003
Quote is true. Major combat operations were over, and we defeated the Iraqi regime. Not material to your claim.
It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.” –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003
Yeah, he was wrong about that one, wasn’t he. But, it isn’t material to your claim. Hmm, I begin to notice a pattern.
“Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day.” —President Bush, telling Time magazine that he underestimated the Iraqi resistance, Aug. 2004
Not material to your claim.
“Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties
And by historical standards we haven’t. In four years of war, we’ve lost fewer troops than we lost in the first hours of D-Day. And again, not material to your claim.
Iraq will be “ an affordable endeavor ” that “ will not require sustained aid ” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
Yep, he was wrong about this one. Of course, once again, not material to your claim.
The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
An incorrect speculation on his part. But obviously a speculation, and not a promise or an assertion.
We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly… (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]
Huh, again with the “I think”. You know, it’s odd, when my wife tells me that she thinks she’s pregnant, but then turns out not to be, I don’t accuse her of having promised me a child.
And from John McCain:
“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]
John McCain is not part of the Administration. And again he is presenting speculation or a hope, not a promise.
“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]
Don’t know who’s talking, but s/he was correct. In the overthrow of the Iraqi regime, we didn’t get into house to house fighting, and didn’t have to fight any battles where we took mass casualties.
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
And we did. Again, winning the conflict and creating a democracy, not the same thing.
Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]
And as noted, we were, briefly. Again, not a promise.
“The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]
Before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, estimates of the war’s cost were $50 billion, with assurances from administration officials that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for much of the effort.
Not material to your claim.
You’ve presented an amazing array of statements that either do nothing for your claim, or are completely tangential or immaterial to it. You do know what evidence is, right?
Robert:
You have some nerve claiming that the actual war in Iraq is the same thing than the second gulf war. The first gulf war ended more than 10 years before the US INVASION to Iraq (which was never justified by the rational of Iraq agresion against Kwait). So I am still waiting the real agressors in this war – and liars- to be judged and punished to justice.
The point is not if the war is going well or not, the point is that this is an inmoral and unjustified war
The justification for the war was that Saddam Hussein repeatedly defied 16 different U.N. resolutions that required, among other things, that he open up his nuclear and other WMD facilities, and that if he did not there would be severe consequences. He refused to do so. The fact that there may not have been WMDs in Iraq by the time the invasion was over and we could look for them does not mean that there were not such at the time before the invasion. In any case, all Saddam had to do was to comply with the resolutions and neither the blockade nor the invasion would have happened.
that was sold to the world using lies;
Not established. There may have been some bad mistakes, but it’s not at all established that there was any deliberate deception by either the President or his direct reports.
It a war that is being fought to preserve the ugly interests of oil companies, military contractors and its friends, the members of the republican – and lets admit it- democratic party (who voted for this war too).
Sheer speculation.
If you recognize that,
Kind of hard to recognize something that there’s no evidence for.
the whole subject of “how the war is going” is irrelevant.
Not to the people of Iraq. Nor, I suspect, to the Islamic facists in Syria or Iran or the Taliban, or the remnants of the Baathists. I bet they think it’s damned important, and they have repeatedly stated that they don’t want the U.S. to leave until the terrorists and insurgents have been put down.
Sergio, I suggest that you look into the legal framework of the war. On this, as on so many other issues, your facts don’t jibe with the ones everyone else is using.
“Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties
And by historical standards we haven’t. In four years of war, we’ve lost fewer troops than we lost in the first hours of D-Day. And again, not material to your claim.
That’s very, very funny. No logical gymnastics on your part there.
And, hey! Wasn’t my claim that Bushadminco claimed Iraq would be a cakewalk? Let’s check and see, shall we? Oh, here it is from comment # 42: You may have been under no such illusion, but that does nothing to refute the fact that a major selling point of the war was that it was going to be a cakewalk. Well, I’ve provided the evidence that Bushadminco made lots of statements indicating that the war would be short & we’d be home quickly.
How ’bout this one?
Robert – comment # 43:
Republican Senators saying “our boys will be home by Christmas” in front of cheering crowds?
Robert – comment # 53:
John McCain is not part of the Administration.
Geeze. Rough crowd. You provide what they ask for and then they say that it is meaningless.
And we did. Again, winning the conflict and creating a democracy, not the same thing.
We won the conflict? Then why are our troops in Iraq? It really seems, to most rational people, that the conflict is still going on 4 years later.
Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]
And as noted, we were, briefly. Again, not a promise.
This is perhaps the most odious of your evasions. “Promise,” is your word, not mine. My words are “selling point.” The fact is that Cheney, among others – including, as requested, a Republican Senator – claimed that the Iraq war would be fast, easy, that Iraq would pay most of the rebuilding costs and that we wouldn’t have to be there for an extended period of time. I have provided cites, as requested, that address the fact that Bushadminco & their allies (including Republican Senators) sold Iraq as a cakewalk. Somehow you think that this is immaterial to the claim that Bushadminco sold Iraq as a cakewalk.
Not to the people of Iraq. Nor, I suspect, to the Islamic facists in Syria or Iran or the Taliban, or the remnants of the Baathists. I bet they think it’s damned important, and they have repeatedly stated that they don’t want the U.S. to leave until the terrorists and insurgents have been put down.
Oh, but those things don’t matter, Ron. They’re part of the “geopolitical context” that Sergio doesn’t give a damn about.
So the destruction of Karbala was just part of creating democracy, and not part of a war, not a military effort at all? Likewise the escalation this spring, just a part of creating democracy, not a military effort, not part of an ongoing war? Likewise, when you say that the Democrats won’t dare to defund troops in combat, that combat has nothing to do with a 4 years and ongoing war, that combat is just the natural, healthy process of supporting a young democracy?
Robert, this is just sad.
You have tortured the language so badly that it has died on you.
The justification for the war was that Saddam Hussein repeatedly defied 16 different U.N. resolutions that required, among other things, that he open up his nuclear and other WMD facilities, and that if he did not there would be severe consequences.
Was there a UN resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq?
I understand why you put the McCain quote in now. I’d moved on to your second and third claims (see below) by the time that one got posted. My bad – I concede that there was a Republican Senator making optimistic comments.
So far you’ve made three substantial claims.
1.”a major selling point of the war was that it was going to be a cakewalk.”
You haven’t demonstrated this. People hoping that it’s going to be a cakewalk are not people saying that it will be a cakewalk.
Even if they had, that doesn’t make it a major selling point. As I recall, the major selling point of the war was that Iraq was a dangerous regime pursuing WMDs, not “this will be easy so let’s do it”.
2. “They said it will be quick and easy for us to accomplish our goals and put a stable democracy in place in Iraq.”
You have provided nothing to support this.
3. “Even 6 months after the invasion, Bushadminco was promising us that we’d be out of there in a year.”
You have provided nothing to support this.
So the destruction of Karbala was just part of creating democracy, and not part of a war, not a military effort at all? Likewise the escalation this spring, just a part of creating democracy, not a military effort, not part of an ongoing war? Likewise, when you say that the Democrats won’t dare to defund troops in combat, that combat has nothing to do with a 4 years and ongoing war, that combat is just the natural, healthy process of supporting a young democracy?
There’s an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq, Charles. I would never dispute that.
That doesn’t make “mission accomplished” insane. It means that we live in a universe where events continue to occur even after we draw assessments of them – or over-optimistically think we’ve reached an end point.
Robert:
No, I am looking at the moral framework of the war (since many “legal things” are usually inmoral, and that will include this war if it was legale, which is not). But it looks to me is YOU who is completly missing the facts on this discusion when you claim the invasion of Iraq was a war that Saddam Hussein started when he invaed Kwait 13 years…which is simply not true, and a way to evade the fact that the US is the agressor here
Sorry, Sergio. As I said, you have some reading to do. You’re wrong on the facts of the war – particularly the terms and conditions of the cease fire that brought the fighting to a close for a short time. The US is the aggressor here in exactly the same way we were the aggressors at Normandy.
Robert:
Exactly how Iraq violated the cease fire? You are the one divagating here to justify what has no justification, sorry.
Sergio, bless you for using “divagate”. You learn a new one every day, and that one’s a beauty.
The legal record is readily available for public research, Sergio; for the third time, you have some reading to do.
Since this has gotten hot and heavy, I’m monopolizing the thread, and will quieten down some. One last thought:
It might be helpful to analogize this to World War II. When Hitler started rattling sabers, the Allied powers hesitated and appeased. They have been roundly criticized for that ever since – all the trouble and bloodshed that could have been saved.
Saddam Hussein began rattling his saber in earnest when he annexed Kuwait. Instead of appeasement, he was met with a savage rebuke and knocked back into his borders by an international coalition.
In subsequent years it became clear that the dictator was not going to chill out and be a nice player, and had to be taken out. If in the late 1930s the Allies had stood up to Hitler, we know as a matter of Hitler’s own word that he would have retreated, withdrawn – but not given up. The world stood up to him this time around, and eventually ended up taking him down.
The problem with the world isn’t that there are so many stories like Saddam Hussein’s, it is that there are so few. It takes a lot of time, trouble, blood and suffering to do what we’re trying to do – some of it ours, most of it theirs. But the potential outcome – a nation turned into another Germany or Japan, strong, free and nearly always at peace – is proving hard to realize. Well, we knew it would be hard going in, any of us with sense, and there’s no use pretending otherwise.
This concludes my Iraq war bloviating, unless someone pushes one of my buttons. ;)
There are many criticisms to be made of the handling of the war in all its aspects, and I’m sure you, Jake and Sergio, among others will be making them. I don’t think – though maybe I’m wrong – that smearing the Bush administration for talking about the future in hopeful tones will contribute to that process.
Robert:
Your argument about how removing Saddam Hussein equates removing Hitler is old and tired. More thoughfull neocons have tried it, abused it. It fails, among many things, cause the US intervention in Iraq was NOT about removing a murderous dictator, no matter how many times you repeat that nonsense.
Concerning Hussein supposed agression, the only ones you can claim are the attacks on US and British planes on the non fly zones, but the I don´t think those fly zones were legal at all to start, since they were not authorized by the UN. And since you haven´t bothered to present any other possible evidence, I do not see why we should accept your point.
Ron, of course a study is going to be ‘controversial’ and ‘in dispute’ if a group’s entire ideological underpinnings stand in the balance. That says nothing of the merits of the actual dispute itself. The methods used by the Iraqi physicians and Johns Hopkins researchers is the exact same method used whenever there is a mass genocide or famine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1636543,00.html (in reference to the earlier 2004 study)
[quote] … The standard response, exemplified by a letter from the BBC’s online news service last week, is that the study’s “technique of sampling and extrapolating from samples has been criticised”. That’s true, and by the same reasoning we could dismiss the fact that 6 million people were killed in the Holocaust, on the grounds that this figure has also been criticised, albeit by skinheads. The issue is not whether the study has been criticised, but whether the criticism is valid.
As Medialens has pointed out, it was the same lead author, using the same techniques, who reported that 1.7 million people had died as a result of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). That finding has been cited by Tony Blair, Colin Powell and almost every major newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic, and none has challenged either the method or the result. Using the Congo study as justification, the UN security council called for all foreign armies to leave the DRC and doubled the country’s UN aid budget. [/quote]
The following I include only because it talks about the more recent 2006 study, though Monbiot’s article is far better.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_davies/2006/10/how_to_not_lie_with_statistics.html
Jake Squid, thanks for taking up the argument in my absence.
Robert, all I can say is that I quiver for the future of conservatism if it has so betrayed its focus group tested anti-government hardline to let politicians who use their signature oily language off the hook. Oh, he prefaced so and so with ‘could be’, or that ‘he thinks’; therefore, he’s in no way responsible for other three-quarters of the sentence that he’s addressing the nation’s representatives (or worse, the nation directly) with. Yeesh.
Even at the arbitrary place where you set the bar, though, we find NewsMax – no, seriously – denouncing an administration official for promising a cakewalk:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/12/85454.shtml
(A few addenda here: JakeSquid, you missed Ken Adelman, who in fact promised a cakewalk and, alas, forgot to add an ‘I believe’ or even an ‘IMO’, which of course would have exonerated him of all accountability for what he said. The writer of the article there is Paul Craig Roberts – his right-wing bona fides may have been revoked a long time ago, but hey, Newsmax is Newsmax.)
Just google ‘Iraq cakewalk’ or something and you’ll find more than enough. Really, no one can rationally dispute the role that ‘optimism’, if you want to call it that, played in the buildup to the war. No one talked of the difficulties of building a democracy – that particular ad hoc re-justification would have to wait until the WMD’s proved to be a no-show.
slyphhead, if you think that the basis of conservative thought in the U.S. is a) anti-government and b) focus group tested, I suspect that you haven’t spent much time looking into the subject. Conservatives are not anti-government; you apparently confuse them with anarchists, who are. Conservatives think that governments should stay within their proper defined spheres, but should definitely exercise their authority within those spheres. What conservatives oppose is when governments start exercising authority that has not been granted to them under the U.S. Constitution, taking that authority away from lower levels of government (which are more accountable to the governed than higher levels are) or from the people themselves.
Well, the Senate passed this bill 50 – 48; I don’t know if it needs to go to committee or not. If not, that just means that President Bush will veto it sooner rather than later. I’d give a few bucks to see Speaker Pelosi re-introduce this bill without the bribes on it just to see how much support the issue itself has.
The UK and NZ folks could check me on this, but IIRC there is a such thing in their Parliaments as a “vote of conscience” – that is, the party leadership releases their members from any party discipline and tells them to vote as their own consciences dictate. I wonder if Pelosi would have the courage to do the same?
If the UK/NZ/Aus contingent would indulge me further; is taking a bill like this and adding another 25% of the total spending amount in completely extraneous spending to try to get members to vote for it a common occurrence there?
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » It’s Still Alive: Senate Supports Non-Binding Timeline
“slyphhead, if you think that the basis of conservative thought in the U.S. …”
Thought? No. Rhetoric? Yes. How else would you explain gems such as “Big Government Liberals?” So if your contention was that letting politicians off the hook for sneaky language doesn’t violate conservative thought – only rhetoric – fine by me.