And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For? What ARE We Fighting For?
Published October 29, 2006
We're about two weeks away from a national event. Normally, this wouldn't be such a critical election as to be called an event but with an administration in office which has been extremely divisive and controversial, not to mention prone to excessive use of the word "terror", it's anyone's guess how this will play out.
If the election were held tomorrow, it would most likely go to the Dems. And if it were held the day after, it would be anyone's guess. Not that the Democrats are winning any popularity contests, but they haven't put us in the middle of a holy war that's been going on for two thousand years. This just demonstrates the fickleness of the American people. This is not an attractive attribute, it's shameful.
Take this one step at a time. This president brought us to a war in Iraq, purportedly to search for weapons of mass destruction, even though no other country, aside from England, agreed such weapons existed. Every other country in the U.N. had up-to-date information (information our agencies, the USA's agencies, had wrong, in the sense that it wasn't the information the White House wanted to hear) the weapons didn't exist and Iraq didn't have the means to devise them.
Nonetheless, "W" decided we would go and find them, stating it would be a relatively easy operation, lasting weeks rather than months. We went to war. In approximately six weeks, this President made a grandstanding appearance as he landed, as though he himself made the flight, dressed in a full flight suit, on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. There he stood, below a banner stating "Mission Accomplished" and reached way the fuck around and patted himself on the back, stating the war was over, and we had won and could now begin Iraq's "reconstruction" phase. Not that he had found any WMDs, but no matter, so long as we were there, well there's always Saddam Hussein, who tried to kill his daddy once. We booted him out of power, but might not have been enough.
That was May, 2003. He managed to make the appearance in time to clean up Iraq a bit and begin the hunt for Saddam Hussein, releasing the Iraqi people from Saddam's reign of terror, giving himself enough time before his next election to put his ducks in a row. He did that, and won the election only because the Democrats were such a bunch of spineless weasels they couldn't cut it, plus they appeared to stop campaigning a month before the elections. For this, the Democrats are almost as responsible as Bush.
Still, it was Bush who lied to this country and illegally entered Iraq under false pretenses, strong arming the CIA, the FBI, and his own staff to "find" evidence there were WMDs and provide him with the evidence he needed to invade the country. The Bush administration argued the people of Iraq would welcome our presence and would welcome us, throwing flowers at our soldiers' feet. Now, three-and-a-half years later and with some two thousand eight hundred of our troops dead, (we call them troops, as it doesn't sound so humanizing), many more injured, countless innocent Iraqis killed and injured, this war doesn't sound quite as appealing as it did when we wanted to fry someone for 9/11. Now, with the country torn by rebels and no real police force aside from American soldiers, it's estimated that one and a half million Iraqis have fled the country so far. What could Bush possibly do two weeks before an election, which could have such a tremendous bearing on the results that it would secure his place in history as the precious fifth head on Mt. Rushmore?
- And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For? What ARE We Fighting For?
- Published: October 29, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Policy, Politics: U.S., Politics: War and Terrorism
- Writer: Peter J
- Peter J's BC Writer page
- Peter J's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn...
To quote the next line of the song.
But seriously, if you're going to write an attack piece like this you might want to base it on the truth rather than just repeating talking points and misconceptions. Here are just a few of the factual errors you perpetuate.
• We went into Iraq looking for WMDs. Wrong. None of the 17 counts on which war was authorized included a determination that there were WMDs. We wanted to know if there WERE WMDs there and do the job the UN had failed to do, but the authorization does not cite the known existence of WMDs as a cause of action.
• The war in Iraq is illegal. You can say a lot of bad things about it, but calling it illegal is totally off base. The Congress authorized military action there in accordance with US law and UN mandates. It may have been a bad idea, but it was legal.
• " Military Commissions Act, which could be used to charge anyone as an "unlawful enemy combatant". This is clearly not the case if you read the MCA. It is limited to enemy aliens and people who can be proven to have materially supported or aided terrorists, and an accusation does require an evidentiary hearing and ultmately a trial which can be appealed to the regular federal court system.
• Fearmongering. Come again? What has Bush said to suggest we should be afraid? His efforts in the War on Terror seem to have worked. We appear to be under far more threat from pimply highschoolers with pipe bombs than from foreign terrorists. I have a VERY good idea how vulnerable we are and I'm not scared, nor are most people I know. Are you quaking under your bed for fear of bin Laden?
Dave
Re comment #2;
Please note this brave rhetoric was written safely from inside the confines of the author's fortified compound, 10,000 miles away from the action.
*Here are just a few of the factual errors you perpetuate.
• We went into Iraq looking for WMDs. Wrong. None of the 17 counts on which war was authorized included a determination that there were WMDs. We wanted to know if there WERE WMDs there and do the job the UN had failed to do, but the authorization does not cite the known existence of WMDs as a cause of action.*
I guess it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is huh
Dave - this is one of your worst apologies yet
I read the stuff coming out of the States on the elections and the war and I begin to understand what it is like to be tied to the back of a pickup and dragged till you stumble and fall with the rocks and pebbles cutting your face and making you panic.
That is what it is like to be dragged behind History's Chariot, folks, and that is exactly what you are all experiencing...
Ruvy, most of the country loses its collective mind leading up to elections. I suspect it has ever been so; it has certainly been so within my memory.
Most of us tune it out, I think.
We seem to be fighting to make the world safe for Ossama Bin Ladin.
Dave, why do you even bother trying a point-by-point refutation of an article that is wrong on every point? If the article was mostly accurate, it'd be worth fixing a few errors. But no article is this wrong by accident or misinformation. You could replace every third word with "chipmunk" and the article wouldn't be less correct.
Hey Dave,
you say;
•" We went into Iraq looking for WMDs. Wrong. None of the 17 counts on which war was authorized included a determination that there were WMDs. We wanted to know if there WERE WMDs there and do the job the UN had failed to do, but the authorization does not cite the known existence of WMDs as a cause of action."
The people (remember us? we're the ones to whom this government is responsible) were lied to. Your 17 points aside, we were told that we had to go in because there WERE weapons of mass destruction.
you say;
• "The war in Iraq is illegal. You can say a lot of bad things about it, but calling it illegal is totally off base. The Congress authorized military action there in accordance with US law and UN mandates. It may have been a bad idea, but it was legal"
I'm embarrassed, I don't know how to place a link here but if you need proof I'll give you sites that verify that the CIA was forced to sit on so-called proof, falsified evidence of WMD's, which is what this administrations president presented as proof to go to war.
Isn't that illegal?
you say;
• " Military Commissions Act, which could be used to charge anyone as an "unlawful enemy combatant". This is clearly not the case if you read the MCA. It is limited to enemy aliens and people who can be proven to have materially supported or aided terrorists, and an accusation does require an evidentiary hearing and ultmately a trial which can be appealed to the regular federal court system."
Dave, you're a smart guy. I don't think we need to argue this. Laws like these are what dictatorships are made of and we all KNOW how "W" feels abour dictatorships.
you say;
• Fearmongering. Come again? What has Bush said to suggest we should be afraid? His efforts in the War on Terror seem to have worked. We appear to be under far more threat from pimply highschoolers with pipe bombs than from foreign terrorists. I have a VERY good idea how vulnerable we are and I'm not scared, nor are most people I know. Are you quaking under your bed for fear of bin Laden?
C'mon Dave, I know you and I aren't afraid of boogy-men, we're both armed to the teeth, but how many millions of innocents out there jump up and lock their doors every time Dubya says "be afraid"? If he doesn't use fear as a control mechanism then why do we have something as ridiculous as a "Terror Alert"? Again, in case you don't get it. I'm not afraid. As far as the war goes. It probably would have been a "noble" war had it were approached honestly and with a plan. The people in this Country are pissed, we've been suckered, now we want it fixed, by someone new, who we can trust. No more lies and bullshit. I know, as well as anyone that to pull out of Iraq now would be the most dis-honorable, cruel and ignorant thing we could do. We just set the middle east back a hundred years. There's a lot more than Iraq involved now. Now we have civil war, religious conflict and people being randomly slaughtered in the streets. I think that to argue semantics now is like "trying to close the barn door,,,,"
Baronius - there is a certain amount of misdirection and revisionist history that Dave wants to get out there (of course he would call it a realistic perspective) and extreme/propagandizing articles like this one serve as great platforms
answer your question - ?
I suppose if you like Bush nothing else really matters.
I think that it has more to do with a strident (and imo deluded) belief that Republicans are somehow less socialistic than Democrats and must be supported at any cost
Well you might want to ask Cpl Joe Raicaldo who came home with thng he didn't hve when he left: an honorable discharge, metal rods and screws up and down his spine, and an arm that moves like a robot's . But he is also homeless, living in his car. Or you might want to ask the 600 other homeless veterans back from Iraq. Or You might want to ask the 600,000 veterans denied their health care last year alone. Or maybe the kids being sent back to Iraq with mental problems on meds. Or you can ask me one of the men who pick up the wounded with no legs, arms, faces, and minds left. Oh by the way I am a veteran.
What is it with people who like Bush? Anyone who doesn't like Bush is a democrat? I'm not a democrat, I just don't like an administration which thinks that laws and rules don't apply to them. It's ok if you do, that's your right, as it is mine to not like Bush and believe that people who do like him like to be led around with a ring through their nose
I find it ironic in the extreme that Bush is always extolling the military & mouthing platitudes about "support our troops" bush-shit, when he & his minions have screwed more veterans out of their rightful medical care than any other administration in history thus far. It's a wonder homeless, medical-care-less vets don't put their military skills to use making hits on the bastards. Serve them (the administration) right, too. The hypocrisy of this president & his yes-men is mind-boggling. If there's any justice in the world, he'll go down in history with a legacy as the biggest failure, incompetent, liar, and poseur/hypocrite among all the US presidents, with the lowest or most non-existant morals, ethics, and sense of honor. Bush, Cheney, and that slimeball Rove are a disgrace to humanity, and this in a species that can enumerate lovelies like Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and so many other scumbags.
C'mon now Dale,
those things don't really happen here. I want the name and address of every one of them as proof.
Those "kids" with mental problems make the best soldiers. Their already all fucked up so we don't have to worry about them having any silly little problems like guilt holding them back. What is it with the people in this country, you give them the permission to go and kill people randomly and all they can do is piss and moan about some little thing like insurance.
Hi Nancy, tell us how you really feel.
I can't believe that, at this point, when everyone is running from the Burning Bush that there are still some people holding on for dear life.
Now that's loyalty.
But would they climb the steps of the gallows for him, put their hand on the block?
I don't think they'd like him that much.
Leave it to Nalle to try and refute the obvious.
It's kind of like changing the name of your modest compound to rambling shack. It must be a duck.
I say that Bush should be impeached and then we can find out if his lies are truly lies, and then when we find out the difference between is is, then we take the entire organization of BushCo. and sentence them to 10 years in Iraq trying to clean up the mess they created. Since BushCo. seem to be experts of Democracy, then they can teach the Iraqi's and get their MISSION really accomplished.
Hey Martin,
I believe before it was a modest compound it was an armed gated compound.
I suppose he has to keep stepping down , trying to live on one of those minimum wage budgets he claims are so livable.
Dave, why do you even bother trying a point-by-point refutation of an article that is wrong on every point? If the article was mostly accurate, it'd be worth fixing a few errors. But no article is this wrong by accident or misinformation. You could replace every third word with "chipmunk" and the article wouldn't be less correct.
Well put, Baronius. But I responded mostly out of boredom and because I wasn't getting anything done on the article I was working on at the time - which should be posting shortly - and needed to write something. Plus if you let them keep saying their ridiculous shit, people who don't know any better start believing it.
Peter J:
The people (remember us? we're the ones to whom this government is responsible) were lied to. Your 17 points aside, we were told that we had to go in because there WERE weapons of mass destruction.
Speak for yourself, Kemosabe. I actually paid attention to the news way back then, and I remember distinctly that it was his non-compliance which was at issue along with what was clearly presented as a SUSPICION of WMDs. Even the most questionable stuff the administration offered up was clearly only part of a body of evidence, not absolute proof. The biggest reason we believed it all was that everyone knew that Saddam would have had WMDs if he could figure out a way to do it. And who doesn't still believe that to be true?
I'm embarrassed, I don't know how to place a link here but if you need proof I'll give you sites that verify that the CIA was forced to sit on so-called proof, falsified evidence of WMD's, which is what this administrations president presented as proof to go to war.
Isn't that illegal?
Actually, it probably isn't. But if true, it's certainly a very bad thing. The CIA works for the executive branch, so as far as the legality goes, it's probably technically legal. But your question was about the war, not the inteligence. The nature of the flaws in the information given to congress are irrelevant to the basic legality of their actions.
Dave, you're a smart guy. I don't think we need to argue this. Laws like these are what dictatorships are made of and we all KNOW how "W" feels abour dictatorships.
Not positive based on his animosity towards Chavez. But seriously, PJ - read the act.
C'mon Dave, I know you and I aren't afraid of boogy-men, we're both armed to the teeth, but how many millions of innocents out there jump up and lock their doors every time Dubya says "be afraid"?
Some old ladies living in Ohio and a few illegals who think he's talking about rounding them up.
If he doesn't use fear as a control mechanism then why do we have something as ridiculous as a "Terror Alert"?
Because that's the kind of stupid shit which bureaucrats think is useful.
Again, in case you don't get it. I'm not afraid. As far as the war goes. It probably would have been a "noble" war had it were approached honestly and with a plan. The people in this Country are pissed, we've been suckered, now we want it fixed, by someone new, who we can trust. No more lies and bullshit. I know, as well as anyone that to pull out of Iraq now would be the most dis-honorable, cruel and ignorant thing we could do. We just set the middle east back a hundred years. There's a lot more than Iraq involved now. Now we have civil war, religious conflict and people being randomly slaughtered in the streets. I think that to argue semantics now is like "trying to close the barn door,,,,"
You know, most of this I actually agree with, but it doesn't mean we should play fast and loose with the history of how we got in the situation we're in today.
Troll:
Baronius - there is a certain amount of misdirection and revisionist history that Dave wants to get out there (of course he would call it a realistic perspective) and extreme/propagandizing articles like this one serve as great platforms
Troll, I didn't write this article. But I agree that it's extreme propagandizing.
Nancy:
I find it ironic in the extreme that Bush is always extolling the military & mouthing platitudes about "support our troops" bush-shit,
He's president. You want him to say something different? Like what? No more war for oil?
Martin Lav:
Leave it to Nalle to try and refute the obvious.
Sorry. If I thought you were actually paying attention to the facts I wouldn't have to refute things which were obviously untrue.
It's kind of like changing the name of your modest compound to rambling shack. It must be a duck.
I changed the description again, just in your honor.
I say that Bush should be impeached and then we can find out if his lies are truly lies, and then when we find out the difference between is is, then we take the entire organization of BushCo. and sentence them to 10 years in Iraq trying to clean up the mess they created. Since BushCo. seem to be experts of Democracy, then they can teach the Iraqi's and get their MISSION really accomplished.
And I say we round up all the socialists in the country and shoot them, starting with the Neocons. Oh wait, that would be ILLEGAL because we have a CONSTITUTION. Same applies to your silly twaddle.
Dave
Did anyone NOT die in Iraq today Dave?
I'm sure no one died in your modest rambling shack, so of course it's easy for you to think this war is just and your President is just. Well I think he's just an untreated alcholic that has endangered our country needlessly. You think he is.........who knows?
But if it's 1, 2, 3, 4 what are we fighting for?
You don't give a damn, just like you don't give a damn if some Iraqi's half way around the world are killed, then I think that's where you're coming from in your "pimped-out duck blind just outside Austin"
I dunno Dave, I'm starting to wonder if JustOneMan isn't right - and how depressing is that? Maybe we should just give up and pretend to believe the Lie. There's one falsehood that I always try to correct, whatever site I'm on, and it's exhausting. Speaking of which,
BUSH WON IN 2000. BUSH WON IN 2004.
Anyway, how are you going to take on dozens of lies? But when you're trying to avoid writing, anything seems like a good idea.
Oh, I've got to add one comment. Peter says, "So now, what are our options in Iraq? Well, Bush has it all figured out, and he'll let us know right after the elections." The thing is, Bush isn't running. It's up to the people who are running to lay out their positions, and I haven't seen many candidates of either party doing it.
Martin is starting to remind me of JoM.
it's easy for you to think this war is just and your President is just.
Now hold on a second. When have you EVER seen me say anything like either of these things. Let's see a quote where I've EVER said the war was 'just' or that the president is.
But if it's 1, 2, 3, 4 what are we fighting for?
You don't give a damn, just like you don't give a damn if some Iraqi's half way around the world are killed
Actually, I care a lot about the Iraqis, but the objective of the war is not to kill innocent Iraqis and most of those deaths are caused by other Iraqis or terrorist invaders not by the US.
Your choices here are pull out and see hundreds of thousands of innocents die in a sectarian bloodbath or increase US military involvement until we utterly crush the insurgency killing a lot of bad people but far fewer innocents in the process. Pick one. I'll leave it in your hands and you can wash the blood off.
Dave
"but they haven't put us in the middle of a holy war that's been going on for two thousand years."
Exsqueeze me? George Bush put us in the middle of a holy war? beiruit bombings in 83' wtc bombing in 93' uss cole and 911. yeah you're absolutley right Peter Peter kool aid eater (drinker doesn't rhyme).
It was only when the current admin invaded Iraq that America experienced hostility from the radical muslim terrorists of the world.
Dave,
I'm beginning to see that the best response to you is no response at all.
You disagree just to see your words in type. Anyone can find a link to substantiate any kind of crap, correct or incorrect and you sometimes go to great lengths to find them. You don't care if you're right or wrong and you don't (obviously)care, for you being correct doesn't matter, the pay-off is the act of dis-agreeing.
I've just never seen anyone dis-agree so compulsively before.
Arch, yeah, I never understood the "holy war" thing either. We're secular; the terrorists are religious. We issue UN resolutions; they issue fatwas. But Bush used the word "crusade" once - once, in one of his thousand speeches - so the war must secretly be about religion. No, I mean oil. Either way, he planned it. The Middle East was peaceful before the US got involved. I remember Michael Moore showed a lot of people flying kites.
In Iraq, we're not fighting for anything anymore. We WERE, though. The vast majority of Iraqis, who lived in a constant state of fear and who suffered dreadfully during the Ba'ath party's 34-year reign of terror, are very grateful to the US and its coalition partners for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
The war was as well planned as wars can be, and Americans shouldn't think the whole thing has been a military disaster. It was, in fact, a great feat of arms. However, we in the west have lost the peace in Iraq.
That is the problem. And that is where the planning has fallen down. It is for this continuing adeventurism that Bush, Blair, Cheney and co should be castigated, not the waging of the war in the first place.
It really is time to hand this over to Iraqis, forget about the oil (they'll sell it to us anyway), and get the hell out of there.
The majority of Iraqis now want us to go, and as much as I hate to say it, perhaps it's time for them to reap the consequences. On the other hand, the whole world might be pleasantly surprised by what happens if we go - but whatever the case, our continued presence there just aggravates the situation. And when the cost to us of Empire-building outweighs the benefits, it's time to go.
Let's concentrate ALL our resources on preventing more attacks like 9/11, London, Bali, Madrid, etc. That is the REAL war on terror.
Iraq is now about other stuff, including face-saving. Don't let the powers that be keep conning you about it.
The Truth shall set you free". All that I posted can be found on this site
http://www.vawatchdog.org
Where are articles come from the VA or news
The Truth shall set you free". All that I posted can be found on this site vawatchdog.org
Where are articles come from the VA or news
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/54670)
Its look like we are fighting for people like this. Its Time for Major changes