NationStates Jolt Archive


The War in Iraq: What is at Stake, What Has Gone Wrong, and What Must be Done.

Dongara
01-05-2006, 05:28
On March 20, 2003 President George W. Bush made a grim announcement to the American people, that "American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." At the time Americans were still upset over what had happened on September 11, 2001 and the administration as well as the CIA recognized Saddam Hussein as a legitimate threat, as a carrier of weapons of mass destruction, a ruthless tyrant, a shameless war monger, and a sponsor of al-Qaeda. Now why I may reserve my own views on the al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction reasonings, it is not hard to imagine how easily an audience would bite at this information. I mean honestly, the man had been an enemy of America ever since the George H.W Bush administration invaded Iraq in 1991. Even though I support the war, my opponents argue this was a war based on deceptive reasoning, an inadequately planned one, and one with considerable consequences in the future. Some argue that we should withdraw immediately, while others flamboyantly support the Iraqi insurgency. I am here today to prove those points false to the best of my abilities, civilly and effectively of course, but my message to all here is more than that. To understand the culture and background of Iraq, to recognize what went wrong and how it can be fixed, and for everyone to remember what this war means to America, our allies, and the Iraqis our soldiers are dieing to protect.

How much does the average American know about Iraq? I'm going to guess not that much, since our schools do a poor job of teaching students of worldly affairs and peoples. Well to know Iraq, one must know that not only is it the birthplace of modern civilization, that it holds some of the most holy and revered sites in the history of Islam and Western religion in general, that it has a lingering conservative outlook in most of the country, and that it has been plagued with civil strife, tyrants, and imperialist colonization by the British since Baghdad was once considered the crown jewel of one of the most brilliant empires in history. The mentality of many Muslims in Iraq is one of devout faith, ingrained patriotism, political conservatism, and disdain for many of the Western powers, including America, who have abandoned them when justice was needed most. America, being a non-Muslim nation, occupying one of the most revered countries of the old Islamic Empire was a shock to many in the Middle East. While so many cheered as the statue of Saddam was brought down, others cursed in disgust at how a Western power smashed the armies of a strongman who had brutalized his country for over two decades and then occupied a Muslim nation with largely Christian soldiers. It's not that Muslims hate Americans, but how would we Americans feel if a Muslim nation invaded and occupied Canada or Mexico based on the same premises? There are many Muslim nations allied with America, such as Pakistan, the UAE, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey (Turkey is a secular democracy, but their population is mostly Muslim) and etc.

We wouldn't like it that's for sure, but many Iraqis at the beginning embraced the fall of Hussein, while most now look bitterly at the challenges their new nation faces ahead. But to detail an example of conservatism in Iraq, one must look at al-Fallujah ("The City of Mosques" as it is locally known) as a pre-war example of a very conservative society. When theaters, music shops, or stores selling pornography were opened by the Hussein regime they were destroyed. When Saddam Hussein invited a prominent tribal leader from the Al-Anbar area to his palace and had exotic Egyptian belly dancers show up, the night ended in bloody violence, where bodyguards for both men were killed or wounded. We Americans tend to view this type of society as "backwards" in a derogatory way, as if the Iraqis feel the same way. There is a tendency for us Americans to look down on Iraqis and Arabs, not always in an "intentionally racist" type of way, but because, in the modern world, we Americans are raised spoiled and lots of us have a warped view on what the world is today. I don't view anyone in this manner because the more I've read about Iraq, the more a realize what a fascinating and historical country it is. But let me give you all a little example of this ingrained hypocrisy and exceptionalism in this country. When Saddam Hussein launched one of the most disgusting acts of human genocide in recent history in the "al-Alfal Campaign" during the 1980's, to exterminate Kurdish populouses from an area, where were the protests? Where was the massive demonstrations and the American outcry for it? Not to be found when compared to the much less costly war today. Many people will march in swarms in suburbs and cities to protest the war, some people devote large chunks of their days to updating their anti-war blog site, or rambling on in extra cirricular activities about how wrong and costly the war is. Yet I guarantee you all, if you go and ask the average high school political activist (of whom have a large audience on the web) about how many people Saddam Hussein killed, you will get answers like "a couple thousand", "I don't know, but he was bad I guess", or "he was a tool of American imperialism so it doesn't matter" for a response. The facts are, most Americans know next to nothing about Iraq or the Middle East in general, and that isn't their fault, because they aren't taught it in schools. But some like to think that because they have an opinion, they are automatically right and must shout it out from the highest beacon of the tallest building, even if they don't know jack about what they speak of.

What went wrong? Lots of critical and tactical objectives that should have been completed, but these incidences vary in circumstance. Let's start with misfires and collateral damage, which goes alongside with almost any war in history. Take Fallujah for example, American and Iraqi soldiers fought exceptionally that day against an almost suicidal enemy, determined to kill as many soldiers as they could, and won. But there was extremely heavy damage in Fallujah, estimates go as high as sixty percent of all buildings were damaged or destroyed, and reconstruction is still underway. More errors include insufficient planning for a guerilla conflict, including adapted urban warfare training in advance of operations, better equipment coming late, and the sloppiness of the Iraqi forces at first. We must also look at errors by officers to stop troop misbehavior and downright atrocious behavior. Such as seen in Abu Ghraib prison, which undermined the largely honest and tough fighting troops there doing their job right. Actions by some individual troops, including the harassment, un-informed raids, and other nit picky things that just make people not like others in general.

And lastly the cost of the war, which is less than three percent of the American gross domestic product thus far (250 billion), and some of the money could have been managed better. But high costs are to be expected when a country is not only fighting insurgents, occupying a country, and rebuilding infastructure at the same time. These errors can be corrected relatively simply in planning, but requires definitive action to correct. Better intelligence on the ground (more agents, better equipment, etc...) is the first step in correcting misfires and empty but intrusive raids, as well as weakening collaterral damage and minimizing soldier risk. Iraqi forces have increased by leaps and strides since then, with the IAF getting its first jets and helicopters, armoured brigades rolling in, which were purchased from Hungary, and a determined and increasingly effective band of soldiers. Adapting to guerilla warfare has already been corrected, the military has organized tactics for protecting vehicles and training troops for door to door combat. There are now bigger problems with militia infiltration of the Iraqi police and ethnic fighting. The first step is for the unity government to bring Iraqis together, the next step is for American forces to keep re-building, as the Iraqis want an increase in their standard of living, and the U.S has the money and power to re-build as well as upgrade Iraqi civilian infastructure. Never kid yourself into thinking they are unfixable just because FOX or CNN start talking about militia violence in Iraq as if it was a new thing, or because the New York Times or the National Review start talking about civil war with different perspectives because of low grade violence heating up after the Sammara bombings in February. These problems are very real, and fixable, the problem is the mainstream media is too busy hyping up everything good or bad about one aspect of the war, constantly missing the big picture.

All one needs to look at to know exactly what is at stake in this war is to look at the Iraqi population, their current conditions, and the people that are delibrately murdering them for self gain. The average American family rakes in roughly 41,000 dollars per year. Now compare that with the average Iraqi household making 3,500 dollars anually. Reconstruction on several water treatment plants and power facilities have been completed and are underway. Hopefully this will improve their quality of life and help strengthen communities, but there is so much work to be done that it is a farce to think Iraq will be cured of poverty or war overnight.

The men American, Iraqi, and Coalition forces fight now is an ignorant, mislead, but absolutely relentless and barbarous enemy. They include the scattered and various "Sunni" insurgencies, the Fedayeen loyalists, and al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers. These are men so merciless, so vile, so mislead, and so uninformed that they would try and bomb places of worship and civilian gatherings, decapitate and execute innocent people as "traitors", and try and destroy construction for the basic life giving necessities that the civilian population needs to survive. I want to ask everyone here who supports an immediate and complete withdrawal of all 138,000 troops in Iraq one simple question? Are you willing to support a decision that would leave tens of millions of innocent people to die at the mercy of these mad men, and if so, will you take full, complete, responsibility for what happens post withdrawal?

In conclusion, this war is a fundamental example of a spoiled developed country at war, with people screaming about things they haven't the slightest clue of. Whether it be the ignorant right winger singing a patriotic song to justify their argument, or an ignorant left winger screaming imperialism and "Vietnam II", ignorance has already started to degrade the level of intellectual debate in this country, and that is part of the reason that discussing Iraq today can be so boring or annoying.

Most know that I am a supporter of the president, and a supporter of this war from the very beginning, but what people don't see is based on pragmatic conservatism. Which does not coincide with the reasoning of George Bush for the war, nor does it entertain those again. I believe we as Americans should learn from the many mistakes of our country, and how many millions of innocent people had to die because Congress didn't have the brains or the steel to commit to a conflict we involve ourselves in. Whether it was in Vietnam (which I oppose btw), Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, The First Gulf War, and Haiti, we have seen our politicians fail humanity when we had the resources and the power to act. I don't believe people who murder hundreds of thousands of their own people should remain in control of their country's, nor do I believe any truly "democratic" nation should ever welcome them as an ally. They are enemies of freedom, and enemies of the human race, and to let them go to reign hell on the Iraqi peoples, and selfishly think little but pity of it, is disgustingly hypocritical to what the rebels who fought for American independance stood for, or what we as Americans stand for today. We stood for a nation, free of opression, where people could speak their minds without being jailed or killed for it, where people could live their lives in harmony and equality while still allowing people to make their living freely. Where has our identity gone? We are a nation of mixed peoples but most of us came here for opportunity and to lead a better life. Yet thousands of miles away, some Iraqi man is desperately trying to hide his family from the insurgents who will try to murder them, some child from Burma is being forcably armed into the military, and someone in Eithiopia is trying to find whatever scraps of food they can to survive. We as Americans must stand up and denounce tyranny and poverty, wherever it may arise or linger, and we must actively fight these horrible facts of 21st Century life, that's how I've always felt. Withdrawing from Iraq now would ne nothing less than yet another faliure of humans to act when others needed it most, and those who fought for a withdrawal will look at the suffering and have nobody to blame but themselves.
Barbaric Tribes
01-05-2006, 05:40
I'd like to applaud you on how much effort you put into this.

Its seems like allot of people in america at least are turning a blind eye to the war and kind of pretending its not happening. Allot like Korea more than Nam, another forgotten war?
Cyrian space
01-05-2006, 05:54
Long post.

In my opinion, only idiots really want to fully withdraw. We know that civilization would collapse there without our soldiers holding things up. When you knock out Atlas, you have to hold up the world yourself until it learns to float on it's own. And no one in their right mind supports the insurgency. By ascribing these qualities to your opponents, you slander them, and assign them positions that they don't necessarily hold. You make strawmen of them before they even enter the argument.
I learned from my public school education plenty about what saddam did. I don't know exact numbers off the top of my head, but I could look them up in about three minutes. That's not really the issue, because if we were going to go to war to liberate a people from a ruthless dictator, we'd go to North Korea. And if we had, I wouldn't have to live in constant fear that Seattle (very near where I live) will go up in a mushroom cloud one day.

There were much bigger mistakes and bits of corruption than the ones you mention, most famously the 380 TONS of saddams old explosives we failed to secure (and thus let the insurgents steal) the no bid contracts to Halliburton, Guantanamo Bay (where God only knows what goes on, and where many being held are guilty of nothing) in the many clean water plans that were dropped before they could really get started (most famously in the very city Saddam gassed) and in the general incompetence at many levels. We are suffering from an administration that cares more about photo ops than soldier's lives.

The patriot act, and the creeping fascism that slowly eminates from it, have undermined our civil rights. President Bush has granted himself the right to torture citizens of the united states, and one of his aids was once quoted saying something like "If it is necessary to torture a child to get their parent to divulge information, we have the right and the will to do it" (I'm not in the mood to find the quote right now, but if you challenge me on it, I will.) How secure does it make you to know that your phones can be tapped, your finances looked into, your house broken into, with no justification needed, and then you can be apprehended without charge and taken to one of many "Detention centers" built by the CIA at home and abroad, where you can be kept indefinitely? That is the state of our civil rights at this moment. We are free only because we have not yet become used to our slavery.
Straughn
01-05-2006, 10:26
While we're talking about "What Has Gone Wrong" ....

*ahem*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1765048,00.html?gusrc=rss
Billions wasted in Iraq, says US audit

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Monday May 1, 2006
The Guardian


A US congressional inspection team set up to monitor reconstruction in Iraq today publishes a scathing report of failures by contractors, mainly from the US, to carry out projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
In one case, the inspection team found that three years after the invasion only six of 150 health centres proposed for Iraq had been completed by a US contractor, in spite of 75% of the $186m (£100m) allocated having been spent.

The report says: "Fourteen more will be completed by the contractor, and the remaining facilities, which are partially constructed, will have to be completed by other means." The inspectors blame the failure in this instance on management problems and security concerns.

The danger facing foreigners in Iraq was highlighted yesterday when a roadside bomb 30 miles south of Baghdad killed three private security firm staff and wounded two others. One of the wounded is British, the Foreign Office said.

The detailed and lengthy report on work projects in Iraq has been drawn up by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (Sigir). Mr Bowen's office was set up after Congress expressed concern about the slow rate of reconstruction and the misuse of funds on a massive scale.

The report says Mr Bowen's inspection team is investigating 72 cases of alleged fraud and corruption, and is pursuing leads not only in the US but in Europe and the Middle East.

In March, investigators conducted a successful sting operation which led to the arrest of a contractor who offered a bribe to one of its undercover agents.

The report says many completed projects "have delivered positive results, but there exists a gap between US project outputs and the delivery of essential services to Iraqis".

While progress has been made in the construction of schools and police stations, many Iraqis still have no access to clean water, and electricity supplies in Baghdad are still below pre-invasion levels. The inspectors say that economic recovery is being hampered by the failure to restore Iraq's oil production to levels before 2003.

The report says that corruption in the oil and gas sector is a continuing problem that could have "devastating effects" on reconstruction in Iraq.

The inspectors audited Task Force Shield, a project established in September 2003 to build Iraq's capacity to protect its oil, gas and electrical infrastructure, and found significant shortcomings. The report concludes the project "failed to meet its goals because it was burdened by a lack of clear management structure and poor accountability. There were also indications of potential fraud, which are now under review by Sigir investigators."

Up to last month, Washington had invested more than $265m to improve the protection of energy infrastructure in Iraq.

Task Force Shield sought to cover 340 key installations, 4,000 miles of oil pipeline, and 8,000 miles of electrical transmission lines.

In a separate section, the report notes that a former contractor and former senior staffer in the now defunct US-led coalition government are facing jail sentences 30 to 40 years on corruption charges.The contractor will have to pay $3.6m in restitution and forfeit $3.6m in assets.

Apart from mismanagement and corruption, the report identifies continuing attacks by Iraqi insurgents as one of the main reasons for the delays and failures. It says: "Insurgent activity continues to impede ongoing reconstruction projects and interrupt their transition to Iraqi control.

"But the attacks remain concentrated in a few areas, leaving daily life in much of the rest of Iraq - particularly the Kurdish north and some areas of the south - in a state of gradual recovery."

The report adds: "Corruption is another form of insurgency. This second insurgency can be defeated only through the development of democratic values and systems, especially the evolution of effective anti-corruption institutions."

Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, said yesterday that he and US officials had met with insurgents and that a deal with some groups to end violence could be reached.

In a statement, Mr Talabani said: "I believe that a deal could be reached with seven armed groups that visited me."

Unfinished business

Congress has approved $21bn for reconstruction since the invasion, of which 67% has been allocated. Precisely how much has been squandered is not known but the congressional team has been carrying out investigations and publishes quarterly reports. In the latest, it highlights the case of a US company which was given a contract to build 150 health centres in Iraq. Only six have been built, all in Baghdad, in spite of 75% of its allocated $186m having been spent. The report says the contractor will only complete a further 14. Last year the congressional team reported that almost $9bn in Iraqi oil revenues disbursed to ministries had gone missing.
Rei-Sareng
01-05-2006, 12:06
Very well thought out and well written, Dongara.

While I didn't (and in some ways still don't) support the war, now America is in there America needs to finish the job - to simply pull out all American troops (if there's a change in government, for instance) would be an atrocity. I don't think it'll happen even if the Democrats win the next election - the thing about political parties is that they always oppose the party in power, but when they're in power they support themselves.

As for your comment about ignorance of world affairs, it's unfortunately true - as is your comment about the media. Unfortunately the media organisations of the Western world have essentially decided it's better to produce sensationalism than to accurately report the facts. How to fix that without turning the media into a mouthpiece of the government I don't know, unfortunately.
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 12:06
My country likes to fix things like Schools and Water works, all your countries only go about destroying them.
Ethane Prime
01-05-2006, 12:34
I think people deserve the leader they get. If Americans didn't like Bush, they wouldn't have let him steal the 2000 election. If Iraqis hated Saddam enough, he would have been overthrown by them. I don't support the invasion at all. If you want to free Iraq, wait for a revolution and then support that with money and supplies. Don't take it into your own hands unless the local majority asks.
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 12:39
Actually i'd lik to see another 2 full Coalition Divisions inserted into Iraq to try and regain order.
They cannot be American.
It would be ideal if the were NZ troops(If only we had that many) it seems everywhere we go we get on well with the locals.
Rei-Sareng
01-05-2006, 12:46
Provided they weren't mistaken for Australians, yes. The New Zealand Defence Force's focus on reconstruction is a very good thing, and usually it's most of what gets called into play in the Pacific (East Timor and the Solomon Islands, for example), but it's gotten to the point where the NZ Army can't defend itself.

Maybe they should split the reconstruction part of the job into it's own branch. Then everyone who wants to build schools and hospitals in Thirdworldistan can do that, and everyone who wants to shoot stuff can do that. It would, at least, clarify the issue.
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 12:53
Provided they weren't mistaken for Australians, yes. The New Zealand Defence Force's focus on reconstruction is a very good thing, and usually it's most of what gets called into play in the Pacific (East Timor and the Solomon Islands, for example), but it's gotten to the point where the NZ Army can't defend itself.

Maybe they should split the reconstruction part of the job into it's own branch. Then everyone who wants to build schools and hospitals in Thirdworldistan can do that, and everyone who wants to shoot stuff can do that. It would, at least, clarify the issue.
That is the understatement of the century, after World War Two it was hoped that we could supply a Division for permanent service in 'The Med' but Britain didn't want to supply the logistical base, woes of losing an empire.

Then our force was wittled down to a Brigade group, except it doesn't have enough Armour or Artillary and no way of getting anywhere quickly.
We have 2 understrength Battalions and one none existent Territorial and that means we can't put a battalion in the field without another taking its place and the other being 'refitted and rested'.

Rather sad really.

But our work in landmines is top notch and our reconstruction work in Afghanistan is highly commended.
Greater Somalia
01-05-2006, 13:31
That is one of the best arguements I've heard which concerns the Iraqi issue. I've noticed that when there is a debate about Iraq, I never see an Iraqi let alone an arab taking part in the debate.
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 13:36
Cyrian space?
Lunatic Goofballs
01-05-2006, 14:01
What is at stake? Presidential Credibility.

What has gone wrong? Well, the short version is that we seem to be under the mistaken impression that giving the Iraqis freedom from oppression would mean as much to them as the freedom we earned ourselves. Silly us. :p

What Must Be Done? We need to let Iraq deal with it's own internal issues. Nothing we do over there will have any meaning if it doesn't have meaning for the people who live there.

That's about it.
Schwarzchild
01-05-2006, 18:39
Wow, talk about your $64,000 questions.

What is at Stake

There are a number of things at stake, but the first thing that gets lost in a political discussion are the lives of the people that we (the US) ostensibly went over there to rescue from the evils of Mr. Hussein. The people of Iraq have a heck of a lot more at stake than we do. If we (the US) withdraw it will be politically embarassing, but no one I know of has ever died of embarassment (though they thought they might). I cannot imagine the image of the US getting much worse than it already is, although I am capable of being surprised.

1. The infrastructure of Iraq is in a shambles. If the the US withdraws without finishing the rebuilding process, we will have left a country in worse shape than when we invaded it in the first place.

2. Politically, the US will be embarassed further. Although, in my opinion, embrassment is good for a nation every now and then, it provides perspective and sticks a sharp pin in the enormous ego of a nation that takes itself too darn seriously.

3. The legitimacy of the US leading in diplomatic affairs in the Middle East, especially in the matter of the Israel-Palestine matter, will be given a severe blow.

What Has Gone Wrong?

The proper question might be; What hasn't gone wrong?

*The President of the United States lied to his citizens about why we were going to war. He has changed his story as to the reasons for our invasion more than five times and none of them were true either.

*The United States failed to take into account the lessons of history about affairs in the Middle East.

*The United States failed to plan properly for after the removal of Mr. Hussein and how many troops it would take to actually secure a peaceful transition.

*The United States has made a terrible hash of the rebuilding process and allowed it to become a scandal-ridden, profit center for major US corporations.

The list here is a lot longer than I have time to bullet-point and type.

What Must be Done

*The United States needs to concentrate on finishing rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq. I know this is not as sexy as nation-building and other more imperial pursuits. But you simply do not win over a country by invading, destroying and then not rebuilding.

*Finish training police and internal security forces to where they may be responsible for their own self-defense.

*Leave with alacrity.

The longer the United States stays there, the bigger hole it digs for itself. Soon it may not be able to climb out of there on it's own. I know this is a hard concept for Americans to swallow, but the longer the troops are there, the less inclined Iraqis are to think of Americans as liberators, once that crucial point is reached, they are occupiers and invaders and will be treated that way.

There is no refuting the fact that the downhill slide has begun, now all it will do is accelerate. American troops occupying Iraq make excellent targets for all of those terrorists we HELPED BREED over there. Our problem may very well be that we exacerbated the situation. Kids are very impressionable, and we may very well be looking at the stark possibility of a multi-generational hatred of Americans that will result in a multi-generational conflict with terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists.

Fulfill our responsibilities and leave. No diddling about. That means withdrawing troops starting sooner rather than later.
Good Lifes
02-05-2006, 02:25
That which is at stake has already been lost.....It is very difficult to get a good reputation---easy to lose it----impossible to get it back.

Gone wrong? Starting a war for no reason.

Where to now? Best idea I've heard so far, commit to withdraw one allied troop for every Bushnam troop or police trained. You want us out? voluteer to fight for your own country, one less foreign troop will be in your country.
Straughn
02-05-2006, 08:11
What is at stake? Presidential Credibility.

What has gone wrong? Well, the short version is that we seem to be under the mistaken impression that giving the Iraqis freedom from oppression would mean as much to them as the freedom we earned ourselves. Silly us. :p

What Must Be Done? We need to let Iraq deal with it's own internal issues. Nothing we do over there will have any meaning if it doesn't have meaning for the people who live there.

That's about it.
What kind of imposter are you? There was nothing Lunatic about that post at all! :(
Blackredwithyellowsuna
02-05-2006, 08:27
I think people deserve the leader they get. If Americans didn't like Bush, they wouldn't have let him steal the 2000 election. If Iraqis hated Saddam enough, he would have been overthrown by them. I don't support the invasion at all. If you want to free Iraq, wait for a revolution and then support that with money and supplies. Don't take it into your own hands unless the local majority asks.

Good point!
Lunatic Goofballs
02-05-2006, 09:51
What kind of imposter are you? There was nothing Lunatic about that post at all! :(

Yes. Sometimes I make lucid and well thought out posts. Just to mess with peoples' heads. :)
Straughn
02-05-2006, 10:05
Yes. Sometimes I make lucid and well thought out posts. Just to mess with peoples' heads. :)
It also helps if you have an iguana as a prop.
Ravvyland
02-05-2006, 10:13
I've talked about the "war in Iraq" so many times, I don't know what to say anymore. It's incredible. All I can say anymore is, Bush got away with it. And America for the most part, seemed to not even notice all the flaws, the non-existing WMDs, the fact Iraq doesn't have that kind of nuclear capability, and hasn't since the 90s, so on & so forth. Especially nowadays with Bush in charge, the American people seem to be very apathetic. Not all I'm sure, but the majority. & you know what's next, right? Bush'll probably invade Iran. Why? Because he can. Bill Cinton passed a law that says no one can do that crap, but since when has Bush adhered to the law, really? When you get down to it, Bush is a criminal of the highest order. He's got the government under his chair, he's got the judicial system in his dresser drawers, and he's got the propaganda machine on full-blast. Just the way he likes it.

:headbang:
Straughn
02-05-2006, 10:18
I've talked about the "war in Iraq" so many times, I don't know what to say anymore. It's incredible. All I can say anymore is, Bush got away with it. And America for the most part, seemed to not even notice all the flaws, the non-existing WMDs, the fact Iraq doesn't have that kind of nuclear capability, and hasn't since the 90s, so on & so forth. Especially nowadays with Bush in charge, the American people seem to be very apathetic. Not all I'm sure, but the majority. & you know what's next, right? Bush'll probably invade Iran. Why? Because he can. Bill Cinton passed a law that says no one can do that crap, but since when has Bush adhered to the law, really? When you get down to it, Bush is a criminal of the highest order. He's got the government under his chair, he's got the judicial system in his dresser drawers, and he's got the propaganda machine on full-blast. Just the way he likes it.

:headbang:
I imagine this will help with the *headbang*ing part ...:

*ahem*

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6ec15f3c-d93d-11da-8b06-0000779e2340.html

Bush in ‘ceaseless push for power’
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: May 1 2006 19:30 | Last updated: May 1 2006 19:30

President George W. Bush had shown disdain and indifference for the US constitution by adopting an “astonishingly broad” view of presidential powers, a leading libertarian think-tank said on Monday.

The critique from the Cato Institute reflects growing criticism by conservatives about administration policy in areas such as the “war on terror” and undermining congressional power.

“The pattern that emerges is one of a ceaseless push for power, unchecked by either the courts or Congress, one in short of disdain for constitutional limits,” the report by legal scholars Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch concludes.

That view was echoed last week by former congressman Bob Barr, a Republican, who called on Congress to exercise “leadership by putting the constitution above party politics and insisting on the facts” in the debate over illegal domestic wiretapping of terrorist suspects.

On Thursday Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the judiciary committee, noted: “Institutionally, the presidency is walking all over Congress.”

Mr Healy and Mr Lynch argue that Mr Bush has also failed to protect the right to political free speech by approving a bill that eliminated “soft money” contributions to political parties. He had also cracked down on dissenters, with non-violent protesters being harassed by secret service agents whenever Mr Bush appears in public, it said.

The more serious charges concern Mr Bush’s actions in the “war on terror”. Citing a 1977 interview with President Richard Nixon, who said, “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal”, the report argues that the administration’s public and private arguments for untrammelled executive power “comes perilously close to that view”.

The authors cite spying by the National Security Agency and the “torture memos”, produced by the Department of Justice to defend the authority of the president over interrogation techniques. “The constitution’s text will not support anything like the doctrine of presidential absolutism the administration flirts with in the torture memos.”
---
:(
Daistallia 2104
02-05-2006, 10:31
President George W. Bush had shown disdain and indifference for the US constitution by adopting an “astonishingly broad” view of presidential powers, a leading libertarian think-tank said on Monday.

The critique from the Cato Institute reflects growing criticism by conservatives about administration policy in areas such as the “war on terror” and undermining congressional power.

This'd be it here:

Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush

by Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch

Gene Healy is senior editor and author of "Arrogance of Power Reborn: The Imperial Presidency and Foreign Policy in the Clinton Years". Timothy Lynch is director of the Project on Criminal Justice and author of "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton."

Executive Summary

In recent judicial confirmation battles, President Bush has repeatedly—and correctly—stressed fidelity to the Constitution as the key qualification for service as a judge. It is also the key qualification for service as the nation's chief executive. On January 20, 2005, for the second time, Mr. Bush took the presidential oath of office set out in the Constitution, swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With five years of the Bush administration behind us, we have more than enough evidence to make an assessment about the president's commitment to our fundamental legal charter

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and
* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

Full Text: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf
Straughn
02-05-2006, 10:48
This'd be it here:


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

Full Text: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf
Yes, yes ... thank you! *bows*