A political quagmire for Bush

The State ^ | May 16, 04 | Dick Polman

[churchillbuff]

Four decades separate the war in the jungle from the war in the desert, yet the current president from Texas sounds eerily similar to another president from Texas.

George W. Bush says, "Now is the time, and Iraq is the place." Lyndon B. Johnson said, "The time is now, and the place is Vietnam." Bush says, "Bring 'em on." Johnson said, "Nail the coonskin to the wall."

Bush says, "We are fighting that enemy in Iraq... so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities." Johnson said, "If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."

[huck von finn]

So,you're saying that those of us who are Conservatives,but disagree with Pat/Isolationists/the anti-war crowd and have been ACTIVELY Conservative,not to mention politically involved and news/current affairs junkies to boot,for 30 or more years,don't REALLY know what we're talking about and only became "aware" AFTER Pat went off the cliff PUBLICLY? Is THAT what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read my post again. It seems to me that Churchillbuff's brand of conservatism goes back to a time when conservatism was different from what it is today, back to a Goldwater kind of conservatism, a time when knee-jerk, reactionary lock-step was not something to be desired. Nor was nation-building. This wasn't isolationism; it was pragmatism and good common sense. It was a time in which people argued not just to "win," but to explore and expand ideas. And if I'm not mistaken, that's what he is referring to when he mentions independent thinking. This Iraq war is anathema to all of that.

Before you take it upon yourself to put the rest of us in "our place",it would behooved you to consider the fact that you don't know WHO you're responding to.You don't understand the WoT at all,and obviously,the logic of our going into Iraq escapes you completely. THIS IS PART AND PARCEL OF GOING AFTER AL QAEDA AND ITS TENTICLES.

And you don't know who you're talking to either, I might add. You're right about one thing: the logic of going into Iraq escapes me completely. But it's not because I don't understand the "war on terror." In fact, I'd like to see the U.S. concentrate more on the war on terror and less on Iraq, but it's too late for that now.

[huck von finn]

At the climax of Antony and Cleopatra, when Cleopatra is about to kill herself, Shakespeare introduces a Clown. The clown, or fool, or jester in Shakespeare is most often the truth-teller, the character who can tell painful truths to the monarch with impunity. He also seems to be the voice of the dramatist commenting on the action.

I personally love the clowning of the rood mechanicals in A Midsummer Night's Dream.

[nopardons]

Barry Goldwater was NOT the progenitor of Conservatism;just the standardbedarer of that one window in time.And after closer scrutiny,not to mention his rapid lefty fall afterward,an idol with feet of clay up to his neck.

It is hardly pragmatic to revere principles and/or ideas,which doom a person/party to utter failure and loss after loss. It is hardly pragmatic and good common sense to ignore the smoke and wait for the raging inferno.When you see someone dousing a roaring fire with gasoline,it behooves one to act;not to wait for said gasoline to hit the bonfire.

At least you admit that you don't understand warfare and tactics.Still, you and a few others mewl about going after al Qaeda,without acknowledging the ancillary sources,which Iraq was one of.

Al Qaeda and terrorists in general,are all over the globe.There ARE cells in Germany,France,Morocco,Spain,England,America,all of Scandinavia,throughout the Middle-east,Japan,and you name it.We can't be everywhere at once.We are NOT "ignoring"/failing to go after them,by also being in Iraq.And claiming that Iraq is diverting us from the WoT,is spurious,disingenuous,and just plain old silly!

[nopardons]

Who were NOT "jesters" at all.

I can offer you a book list,which WOULD help you understand Elizabethian thedatre and Shakesperean plays. :-)

[Stentor]

I have to say these unpopular truths

HAHAHAHAHA.

[churchillbuff]

"Tell a tale of cock and bull, Of convincing detail full, "

--- ---a duet from Yoeman of the Guard.

Looks lik a "tale of cock and bull" is what Chalabi fed the US!

[nopardons]

Well,that IS a duet regarding the coverup of deriliction of duty,after all;not to mention the peculiar disappearance of a political,war weary prisoner,from the Tower. LOL

Not the piece I was referring to though. I'll post that later.:-)

[armymarinedad]

I have talked to troops returning from Iraq who keep telling me that the Iraqis are much more behind them than the liberal press would lead you to believe. Somehow I think they have much more credibility than the press. Please remember the kool-aid the press serves is not good for you.

[veronica]

We know. You are "just trying to help." ;)

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I think many observers here (and elsewhere) don’t yet appreciate how bad this will likely get politically.

For example, the way I see it, we've got a Secretary of Defense who's come about as close to criminal negligence as anyone who's held the office since the civil war; someone who not only disregard the advice of his military advisors but publicly humiliated them for differing with his opinions, and as a result entangled us in a ill-planned occupation with somewhere around a third of the troops the professional military believed were required to successfully undertake the occupation even if it had been properly planned.

And that was his level of competence within the scope of his formal responsibilities. In addition, overstepping them, he acted politically (for example) to attempt to create against the consistent advice of his allies and his own state department a government headed by a man who's unvarnished political ambition is now subverting our attempts to somehow untangle ourselves with what honor we can salvage.

Perhaps worst of all from the standpoint of effective support (or even concern) for US troops, when things began to unravel he set the tone for deputies who ordered (and perhaps himself approved)interrogation efforts which resulted ordinary Americans resorting to abuses so horrific that it turns stomachs here and abroad – a problem with repercussions that may only be starting: the reason that organized militaries treat POWs and others under their control humanely is that leadership understands that some of their own troops will likely fall into enemy hands.

Clearly US personnel, especially women, many have forfeited such protection, and our military now operates under the additional handicap of having to make additional and exceptional efforts to prevent the capture of US troops by the insurgents, despite which there is great likelihood this may happen anyway.

In my opinion the inevitable public examination (let alone possible formal investigation) of how we got here will revel something more that the normal operation of incompetence and bad judgment, or the normal reverses and disappointment of war, it will demonstrate that Rumsfeld et al engaged in that amounted to reckless disregard for the lives of US troops, or worse.

And this isn’t something that someone or something else did to the President, or the Republican Party, or the reputation and creditability of conservatives; it's a self-inflicted wound, a ongoing nightmare inflicted by a willingness to be lead into an unnecessary war by a cadre of what are now reveled as self-deluded dreamers - men and women who are now insisting that the rest of pick up the check least onlookers realize that they are bankrupt – and bankrupting the rest of us in the process.

[iconoclast]

That story doesn't say how he was an imminent threat to the United States. No tie to 9-11. No WMDs. No imminent threat to the US, and US troops should only be sent into harms way -- especially in a preemptive war -- to address an imminent threat to the United States.

Bingo! Well and concisely stated.

We have here a very long rant that illustrates that Saddam was an enthusiastic supporter of PALESTINIAN terrorists (something most aware people knew).

So the very simple question is .... Is GWB President of the U.S.A. or Prime Minister of Israel?

[Buck72]

I've soured on the war. No real evidence of WMDs, close to 1000 KIA, tens of thousands wounded, the Abu Ghraib disaster, billions of dollars spent. I really thought they'd find nukes, or small pox or a smoking gun link to 9/11 or Al Queda or something as big but they haven't. It just wasn't worth it. Maybe the media's negative spin barrage has finally worn me down but that's what I think about it now. It's time to turn this mess over to someone else and get the hell out.

[huck von finn]

You are right--they aren't jesters. But they do a lot of clowning around. And I love the vulgarity. ;-)

Feel free to send me your list! I teach Shakespeare sometimes and would love to compare it with what I already have. That's very kind of you.

And don't worry--I consider the very notion of "deconstructionism" an abhorrent marketing angle, my reasoning being that it is much more useful and delightful to study literature from the opposite direction. So your list won't contribute to anything close to Derrida. ;0)

[Stentor]

Do you use aspirin to bring down fever.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Do you use aspirin to bring down fever.

Respectfully, I don't understand the question (statement?)

[Paulus Invictus]

How is it not going well in Iraq if the citizens are doing much better than before? Except for the imported terrorists and Baathist holdouts that we are dealing with. along with the demented Shite mullah-- all of whom will soon be history, I cannot see your reasons to criticize the mission in Iraq.

I'm not "in a cave, but I do read all the news on the internet daily, including the good news about Iraq. No need to get personal, that's what the RATs do (or are you one too?).

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Oh Court Jester! Where would the republic be without you! You truly are wasting your great insights and talents on puny ants like us.

I have an idea. Go to the White House, climb over the fence and head toward the West Wing. When you get outside the Oval Office, tell his secretary that you have special information that will help him win the election.

Please. You must do this.

[section9]

Actually, Bush is going to win the election, so he doesn't need the kind of advice that would make Nevill Chamberlain blush.

Those people on FR who spoke up against this war deserved to be flamed with nuclear intensity. Your kind fail to realize the sole, home truth of this war: fight them there or fight them here. Just because LBJ said it, and was wrong, does not mean that if Bush says it, the latter is also wrong.

That you are still against this war, in light of all we have found out about Saddam and his squalid regime, proves that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[nopardons]

Yes,they are "clowns",used to lighten the mood and also to play to the "mob"/lower classes.But of course,everybody enjoyed the humor.Elizabethan and Restoration audiences were used to and enjoyed far more bawdy humor,than did audiences of later eras.Unlike today,that type of humor,though in some places quite ribald,didn't rely on obscenities,nor in your face profanity;but rather,on double entre,puns,whit,and clever, suggestive language.Then,there all of the "INSIDE",company/theatre jokes,that everyone missed,except for the cast and the insular world of theatre.Most audiences have been missing the jokes,for at least 200+ years.

I was going to send the wee book list to you via FREEPmail,however,it occurred to me that lurkers might also enjoy seeing the titles...so here's the list.

"The Annotated Shakespeare", by A.L. Rowse ( you've probably read/have this 3 volume set,but it's a must read for those interested in Shakespeare's plays.

The Background of Shakespeare's Plays",by Karl J. Holzknecht I an oldy but a goody and required reading,in college courses about Shakespeare.)

"Reinventing Shakespeare A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present",by Gary Taylor (VERY interesting overview,food for thought,and places some "standard" opinion in perspective.)

"Naughty Shakespeare",by Michael Macrone ( since you enjoy the vulgarity... hehehehehe)

"The Bawdy Bard" (for the same reason as above. Sorry,I don't remember the author and I don't own this book,but read it.)

"Theatre Through The Ages",by Cesare Molinari (a must read,for anyone interested in theatre/plays both ancient and modern and history.)

Didn't want to over burden you,nor waste bandwidth, so the list isn't all inclusive;just a few good books.If you'd care to talk about this further/swap book titles, let's do it in FREEPmail. :-)

Deconstruction is a sick joked,absolute worthless,and intellectually disingenuous.Dirreda is a conman ! Thankfully we have common ground here. :-)

[CWOJackson]

"Yes, I have to admit it's fun getting under the skin of folks like you."

Oh, but you over rate yourself...again. You don't get anyones' skin. You're more like the feeling one gets when the step in dog crap wearing good shoes...it's kind of like, who left this annoying waste lying around.