My Vintage Video: The McLaughlin Group 10/03/03: No WMD in Iraq

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Eleanor Clift, nailed it early on in this show when she said the War in Iraq was over soled and the evidence going in never justified for the War in Iraq. She makes this seven months after the War in Iraq was launched in March, 2003. Remember, the original justification for the War in Iraq was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and get them out of the Saddam Hussein Regime. And then they don’t find them. The reason and evidence for the War in Iraq was never there.

Neoconservatives in and out of the Bush Administration blew this story and war from day one and they haven’t gotten any better. And why the Republican Party is struggling so much at the presidential level and even within their own party. With Conservatives, “saying America shouldn’t try to police the world and that we should even be fiscally conservative with the defense budget and not run up our debt and deficits with the military budget.’ To Neoconservatives still saying, “that we should spend whatever takes to police the world. Because no one else will and debts and deficits don’t matter to begin with.”

As far as the Joe Wilson story. I just wish this was as big as a story in 2003-04, as it was in 2005-06 and John Kerry beats President Bush by winning both Ohio and Florida. Had this story broke in 2001 or 02 and then continued to grow instead of late 2003, I think President Bush would’ve been in huge trouble going into the fall of 2004. In a lot of way George W. Bush is one of the luckiest politicians who has ever lived. Because even with all the obvious mistakes he and his administration made in their eight years, the Democratic Party for the most part was never in strong enough position to take advantage of them. In his first term, but in his second term they came together and went to work politically on the Bush Administration and scored a lot of points.

Read Full Post »

Foreign Policy Journal: Opinion: Paul Craig Roberts: The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

Foreign Policy Journal: Opinion: Paul Craig Roberts: The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

This is going to sound somewhat partisan at least from a Neoconservative’s perspective and if that is the case you’re more than welcome to way in on this and attempt to contradict me. But then I’ll get to Europe where I believe there is a lot of common ground on both the Left and Right when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

The reason why we are dealing with all of these independent terrorists groups now that are free to flow everywhere in Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia is because of the 2003 War in Iraq. ISIS didn’t exist pre-Iraq and yes the War in Afghanistan was something we had to do because the Taliban in Afghanistan were subsidizing and protecting the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. And even though it has taken a long time thanks to the War in Iraq and Afghan corruption that mission is starting to finally pay off. As that country is finally stabilizing and their economy is finally moving.

The Middle East was a fairly stable area pre-War in Iraq. And as horrible as the Saddam Regime was there and most people including myself are glad he’s no longer running that country and even dead, you didn’t have terrorists in Iraq killing Americans before the war. And you didn’t have terrorists occupying Northern Iraq and Northern Syria. Which would be ISIS today because the central government’s in both countries were strong enough to secure their countries even if they were horrible to their people.

You also didn’t have a jealous Vladimir Putin as President of Russia thinking who needed to make his own power play because of what America was doing to countries that were close to Russia. Part of President Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine has been that he doesn’t believe America should be the sole power in the world that can act unilaterally even in their own interests. The world was a much safer place in 2002 pre-Iraq when our main security threat was Al-Qaeda, a nuclear armed North Korea that still can’t even feed its people. And a potential terrorist state in Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Now where there I believe there is bipartisan agreement, lets look at Europe. Part of the rise of Russia has to do with the fall, or at least steep decline in Europe. Where only Germany as far as a large country in Europe has a healthy economy. But Europe is falling in population and young people and gaining in older people. Because they don’t take in many immigrants each year unlike America and as a result their social democratic economic systems are collapsing. Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Greece all drowning in high debt, and deficits, unemployment. Greece having to take a bailout package that is actually larger than their national economy to stay afloat. And have just elected a new socialist government that’s against austerity.

But if that is not bad enough for Europe, as their populations and economies continue to decline, so does their militaries. Where NATO is essentially just made up of America now as far as real military threat. And to a certain degree Britain, France and Germany to some extent. Europe is more than capable of responding to Russia in any way themselves at least as far as resources, but has chosen not to. Wouldn’t be great to go back to 2002 and far as the security situations for the Western world, but subtract George W. Bush for Al Gore and only be dealing with Afghanistan right now. But we of course can’t go back in time.

Read Full Post »

Politics and Prose: James Mann on President George W. Bush

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Just to state out first George W. Bush is the worst U.S. President in my entire thirty-nine-years on Earth. And that includes Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush’s father, who is G.W.’s father of course and Barack Obama. And all of these president’s aren’t looking very good right now and all had plenty of issues. The differences being that other than G.W. the other president’s by in large successfully dealt with the issues that came up under their presidencies.

You can’t say that about G.W. if you look at the economy, national debt, deficit, banking system, two wars oversees and I could probably go on. American president’s are judged by the situation of the country when they came to office and the situation of the country when they leave office. And other than not getting hit again inside of the United States after 9/11, which of course he deserves credit for as Commander-in-Chief, its hard to find an area of the country where it was better off in 2009 when President Bush left office and 2001 when he came into office. And even 9/11 a big fact is we got hit in the first place in America because of intelligence failures.

Now to try to sound somewhat positive about President Bush and even factual. I give him credit for giving the Republican Party alternatives to how to look at poverty in America which he actually took seriously and providing a vision for how government can help low-income people when it comes to poverty and education. By empowering state and local government’s, as well as non-profits in the private sector to help Americans in poverty. But also help people in poverty around the world. That so-called Reform Conservatives people like Representative Paul Ryan and his brother Jeb Bush are pushing today. Which is something that Republicans desperately need to do in order to connect with Americans who aren’t wealthy.

Another thing about President Bush. Imagine had President Bush’s foreign and national security policy been what he ran on in 2000. A humble foreign policy where we are engaged around the world with out allies, but not trying to govern the world ourselves. 9/11 happens and we invade Afghanistan which is what she should’ve done to knockout that terrorist state that was harboring terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. But we don’t go to Iraq at least by ourselves and certainly not on the evidence that we had. Because Collin Powell is chief national security and foreign policy adviser. Instead of Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or Condi Rice as Secretary of State. Collin Powell becomes G.W.’s Henry Kissinger.

The last thing I would say about George W. is that he’s not stupid. Which probably puts me in a tiny minority inside of the Democratic Party. But he’s not stupid, but unqualified to be President of the United States which can be said about probably ninety-percent of the country. Had G.W. continued as Governor of Texas, maybe he goes down as a great Governor and runs for President in 2004 or 2008 as an experienced Governor of a huge successful state. Takes a couple of years off before running for president and learns about foreign policy and national security and becomes the Ronald Reagan of his generation. But we’ll never know.

Politics and Prose: James Mann- George W. Bush

Read Full Post »

Up & Open Channel: Video: HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher: Ann Coulter in 2004

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I hate to break this to anyone who might read this who is not a fan of Ann Coulter and even seriously dislikes her and that might be when they are feeling very generous on high on pot. But I have to call them as I see them. Well strike that! I’m choosing to call this as I see it. Ann Coulter actually made two good points on this show. And those might have been the only two good points that she made in all of 2004.

A reason why John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in 2004, which was like the 1972 Miami Dolphins losing to the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and you’re not a football fan, look up the records of those two teams, is because President Bush was seen as honest and straight with American voters. “Hey President Bush might have an IQ below zero, but at least I know where he is on the issues”. With John Kerry, “he sounds like a smart guy who didn’t need his father to get through Yale or his girlfriend to do his homework for him. But what the hell does he believe on anything controversial, like the Iraq War?”

The other good point that Ann Coulter AKA The Giraffe because her neck is longer than her arms, is about the whole President Bush staying at the Florida school for a few extra minutes after he was informed about the 9/11 attacks scene. Only the Far-Left that Bill Maher apparently fell into, has an issue about that. If he suddenly got up and left the school, people there would know something is up right away and there might have been a panic. Also no one at the time knew when and where the next attack was coming from and where it was going to hit. President Bush’s best spot at least at that moment was to stay there at least for a little while longer. And then maybe take off because they need to be back in Washington for an unplanned meeting or something.

So before you accuse me of always bashing Ann Coulter, first of all I don’t write about her everyday. Because if I did I would always have a migraine headache or flu from having to listen to her. So you can’t say I always bash her anyway. The other reason being I just gave her credit for two points, which would be four points in basketball unless one of the shots was a three-pointer. But The Giraffe couldn’t hit a free with a baseball bat, or the basket was the size of an ocean. So I give her credit for two layups and you can’t say I don’t give her credit for anything.

Read Full Post »

RAND Corporation: Opinion: Brian Michael Jenkins: Iraq Observations: The Future of Iraq

Iraq

RAND Corporation: Opinion: Brian Michael Jenkins: Iraq Observations

I posted this a few days ago on this blog about then Senator Joe Biden proposing back in 2007-08 to partition Iraq which of course the Iraqi people would have to approve themselves. And how that may of seem radical then and even a few months ago when Iraq still look fairly stable. But now with the chaos going on in Iraq that 3-4 state solution inside of a Federal Republic of Iraq with a federalist system. Which each state having autonomy over their own domestic affairs now looks like a very reasonable approach.

It wouldn’t make much sense to propose that now especially in an ongoing civil war in Iraq. Some level of security would have to be retained first that leaves the country as one. Without the North breaking away from Baghdad and the South and West remaining part of the Federal Republic as well. But assuming the Federal Government and Iraq with their military can regain control of the country at least to the point that the country is still officially one country, then maybe the partition idea would make a lot of sense.

The partition idea would have to have a responsible government in the Province of Baghdad where Baghdad City is also located which in the Central West of the country. A responsible government in the West where the Sunnis would govern. A responsible government in the North where the Kurds would govern. And a responsible government in the South where the Shia would government. Meaning the terrorists in each of these areas would have to be defeated first. Which is no small order considering the current Federal Government in Iraq.

Read Full Post »

Contra Corner: Opinion: Michael Krieger: Mission Accomplished in Iraq

Contra Corner: Opinion: Michael Krieger: Conflagration in Iraq is all the Proof You Need to Know

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

Whatever you think of the War in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 when it officially ended with American troops pulling out the “mission has already been accomplished”. If you look at what the original neoconservative goals from the Bush Administration and outside of the Bush Administration were and what they wanted to accomplish in Iraq they’ve already been accomplished. “A peaceful democratic state in Iraq with a functioning government that can defend itself”. Yes they meaning the Maliki Administration and the Iraqi defense forces lost Northern Iraq. But it was there’s to lose and they were the ones to lose it.

Governing and defending Iraq is not an American responsibility especially if the country is not in danger of going under and being replaced by some type of fringe authoritarian rule. And Iraq doesn’t want us there. It would be one thing if Iraq was being invaded by another power private or another nation and they weren’t in position to defeat that force similar to Britain being under attacked by Nazi Germany during World War II. Then at the request of the Iraqi Government we would then be put into a position of whether we should help them or not.

But that is not the situation in Iraq now. Parts of Northern Iraq are under the control by Islāmic terrorists that seek to create an Islāmic state in Iraq. And it looks like they may be going through the early stages of an Iraqi civil war that the Iraqi people are going to have to figure out for themselves. This is not the business of Americans and our soldiers and our broke taxpayers that one way or the other would have to fund any involvement in Iraq. This is the business of the Iraqi people.

Read Full Post »

DNC Press: ‘Senator Byrd’s Speech Opposing Iraq War 3/19/03’

Source:DNC Press– U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) speaking out against the War in Iraq, in 2003.

“Remarkably prescient speech opposing the Iraq war by Senator Byrd in March of 2003.”

From DNC Press

I wish more people had listened to Senator Byrd in the beginning, especially in Congress but in America as a whole when the war was popular, because Senator Byrd was right all along. And had more people listened to him who wasn’t an isolationist or pacifist, or some other extremist on the Far-Left, we would’ve saved a lot of lives and money in America and Iraq. And not had gone to war over weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there when we went to war in 2003.

Read Full Post »

New York Times: Ross Douthat- ‘The Obama Era, Brought to You by the Iraq War’

Source:New York Times– “An antiwar protest in Washington in 2007. The war divided the left but ultimately energized it.Credit…Jim Bourg/Reuters” Also from the New York Times.

Source:The Daily Times

“WHEN prominent people in Washington spend an anniversary apologizing for being catastrophically, unforgivably wrong about a decade-old decision, you might expect that the decision in question had delivered their party to disaster or defeat. But last week’s many Iraq war mea culpas were rich in irony: one by one, prominent liberals lined up to apologize for supporting a war that’s responsible for liberalism’s current political and cultural ascendance.
History is too contingent to say that had there been no Iraq invasion in 2003, there would be no Democratic majority in 2012. (It’s easy enough to imagine counterfactuals that might have put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.) But the Democratic majority that we do have is a majority that the Iraq war created: its energy and strategies, its leadership and policy goals, and even its cultural advantages were forged in the backlash against George W. Bush’s Middle East policies.

All those now-apologetic liberals who supported the war in 2003 are a big part of this story, because without their hawkishness there would have been no antiwar rebellion on the left — no Michael Moore and Howard Dean, no Daily Kos and all its “netroots” imitators. ”

From the New York Times

OK, so I agree with Ross Douthat that the Iraq War has been good for the Democratic Party.

Political history lesson of the day: in 2003 the Republican Party had The White House with President George W. Bush and his administration, as well as a Republican Congress (House and Senate) with small majorities, but large enough for them to put through most of their economic agenda through, at least during that Congress.

With a divided Democratic opposition that really only had the Senate filibuster as a weapon they could use against the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. And any communications strategy and message that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and the Democratic National Committee could put together against the Republican Party.

In 2004, President Bush is elected, with a small majority, but enough to get him reelected. House Republicans add a few seats to their thin majority. Senate Republicans go from 51 to 55 seats in the Senate. President Bush is at around 50% approval in late 2004 and going into 2005. This all looks like the Republican Party is not only the majority party, but it’s going to be that way for a while.

As the old political saying goes (or one that I just made up) a governing party and majority is only as good as it’s ability to govern and lead. You had a divided Republican Party on Social Security reform in early 2005, with House and Senate Democrats having no political reasons to work with Congressional Republicans on SS reform and that dies in the House and Senate by the summer of 2005. Hurricane Katrina happens in the late summer of 2005 and the disaster and the Bush Administration showing almost no ability to deal with that disaster and cleanup happens as well.

Going into the summer of 2005, I don’t think anyone was predicting that House and Senate Democrats had any real shot at either winning back the House or Senate in 2006, but the debacle in the Iraq War, and hurricane Katrina, President Bush’s low 30s approval rating by late 2005, as well as the corruption that was going on with House Republicans that year and into 2006, started this feeling in the country, especially with Democrats and Independents, that united government wasn’t working and Republican Party needed a check in Washington.

So yes, the War in Iraq has been good politically for the Democratic Party, especially when you look at where they were in 2003 and where they were less 4 years later. But the country has paid a helluva a price for it economically and militarily that I believe most Americans would love to go back to pre-Iraq War and thinking there’s no real good reason to ever invade Iraq, at least at this point.

Read Full Post »