Semi-Daily Journal

You know I grant this administration a few more virutes than you do, but I agree "eloquence" is
far, far from among them. (Of course, this is another game presidents in general and Republicans in particular can never win. Should the nation luck into a president who CAN articulate his sentiment out of a paperbag without stumbling over his own tongue -- his critics with journalism credentials would deride him for being "glib".)

Via Virginia Postel, a note about the name of the current operation:

http://www.tacitus.org/archives/000522.html#000522

"Iraq Freedom" ? How lame is that? I mean, could they get lamer?

Speaking of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" doesn't it strike anyone as odd that they are naming the operation after the two countries which we have most vehemently named as enemies in the past months; Iraq and Freedom? (nb Ampersand posts that he expects Freedom to be renamed Apple Pie soon.)

"I still can't believe they named that thing the fuckin' USA PATRIOT ACT. Grown-ups did that. Never forget that." - get your war on.

I thought it was Operation Avenge Poppy, or Operation Get The Oil, or Operation Shrubya is King of the Whole F***in' WORL!

I thought it was Operation Avenge Poppy, or Operation Get The Oil, or Operation Shrubya is King of the Whole F***in' WORLD!

Hmmm. Sounds like we need to make Collins the philosopher-king in charge of Iraq until the Iraquis are ready with their own legislature and head of state. As for rhetorical eloquence, I think Mr. Wilkes Boothe eradicated whatever of it the Republican party had left. Not that today's Democrats are much better, mind you.

I am not a big-military fan but it's hard not to feel deep respect towards Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins; and yes, I do remember that shameful remark by Dubya, the most embarassing President the US has ever had (could ever have?)... How weird he is unpopular abroad! What I don't get is why there aren't more Americans (though there are many, of course) who are revolted over that kind of mobtalk. It wasn't even picked by the media. Gee, aren't we living in the 21st century?

The Brits are always going to beat us when it comes to ennobling wartime rhetoric--it almost makes me wonder if there is some sort of Victorian volume of boiler-plate speeches to make when occupying various parts of the world. Don't get me wrong. I like the speech. "You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing." It's much more respectful than the usual image of the liberated masses. It's their country, and nobody ought to forget it.

I found it a little disturbing to read of US Marines taking it upon themselves to deface images of Saddam in towns they enter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/international/worldspecial/21CND-TOWN.html
I don't doubt that there are enough Iraqis who would do it themselves.

Hold your horses, Jean-Philippe. Dubya has some way to go before he outranks Nixon as the most malevolent President the U.S. has ever had. But he's setting a good pace.

Ooops. Unless you think malevolence is not also embarrassing. Just to be completely clear.

"Unless you think malevolence is not also embarrassing."

I think it is (but that's only a reflection of my own sense of morality) ;-)

Also the Onion article PK is refering to...:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

... is both very funny and tragically on target.

Why knock Bush for using the same type of language his supporters on cable TV and talk radio use all the time? Compared to his supporters Bush sounds like a panty waist.

"Ampersand posts that he expects Freedom to be renamed Apple Pie soon."

Operation Iraqi Apple Pie In The Sky?

Do I really need to add anything else?

““Antiwar Shame
Facing liberation.

No Saddam Hussein!" called one young man. "Bush!"

Another young man named Abdullah cheered the arriving Americans. "Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher."

An old woman, dressed all in black, hugged an American woman. And knelt at the feet of the Americans. A man pulled her away, sliding his finger across his throat in a signal not to make friends with the enemy.

"Americans very good," a man named Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free."

Some of the townspeople chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!" Others put makeshift white flags on their cars and trucks. And many simply patted their bellies in a sign of hunger.

These are all scenes from the liberation of Safwan, Iraq — a "poor, dirty, wrecked" town near the border with Kuwait. Before crowds of Iraqis, American Marines used their jeeps to pull down portraits of Saddam. Maj. David "Bull" Gurfein told the people of Safwan: "Saddam is done" and launched them in a cheer: "Iraqis! Iraqis! Iraqis!"”

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/goldberg/goldberg032103.asp

I'm sorry, but I don't see that the situations are analogous. In one case, military men and women are engaging the enemy troops, suitably distinguished from civilians as required by international law of war. They are waging war in a country that has known hardship and oppression, and believe they are liberating the people from that. On the other hand, Bush is talking about terrorists, outlaws in every sense of the word--the sort of people who fly planeloads of people into towers in our cities. Why should we expect the language to be the same? Do you really see no difference? Or do you see the difference but ignore it to make a snide and partisan shot?

This is the beginning of the speech, which was not quoted above.

"THE enemy should be in no doubt that we are his Nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of Hell for Saddam. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity. But those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others, I expect you to rock their world. "

_________
Rock their world? This is the eloquence that Bush lacks? And a reference to hell--this sort of bombast is unnecessary in our secular world, isn't it? And the very idea that some of these men are to be killed, and deserve it. Well, I never...

As I thought, it's just partisanship.

letter to editor (North County Times,SD CA)4MAR03:

I’m an American Patriot – completely and unequivocally opposed to Bush. Every Nazi could say “my country right or wrong.” My America is a dynamic state that’s all about Liberty and opportunity. America, love it and improve it. My view is more American than the conservative view, and better. Both are valid; so quit with the name-calling, you conservatives.
So, our long national nightmare of 8 years of Clinton peace and prosperity are over. How bad does it have to get before you conservatives review your faith-based belief in Bush? All our troops overseas? Our loss of international respect and cooperation? How about permanent terrorism? All war all the time? 400 billion deficits forever? Hey, Bush said – “it’s your money.” How about your job, 201K, and health insurance?
Wasn’t that the lowest-class State-of-the Union ever given? What a loathsome person, gloating to an international audience about death. Our president is disgusting. Bush can’t even pull off a “coalition of the billing.” Bush lies, Powell sinks his credibility at the UN, Blair plagiarizes a decade old student report, and off we go – breaking international law.
I’m a Patriot. I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m trying to save America from Bush and his ilk.

"I’m a Patriot. I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m trying to save America from Bush and his ilk."

Have you taken a look at the recent polls? The American people are rejecting you as their savior. You are essentially being marginalized. It will be a long time before the Democrat Party will once again become a viable national entity. Those candidates in local elections will distance themselves from their leader at the head of the ticket. At he current time, the reelection chances of George W. Bush are analogous to a football team entering the fourth quarter leading something like 34-0. I hope you enjoy your time in the boondocks of American politics.

Oh by the way, have you peeked at the stock market in the last few days? Are you not thrilled that oil prices are significantly dropping?

David,

Tell us, where is your cave? Or, are you putting us on?

Bush's re-elect numbers show that he would lose an "unnamed Democrat" David. Don't try to spin poll numbers. Your boy got less votes than his opponent and you want to pretend that you believe in Democracy?

Thomas says "On the other hand, Bush is talking about terrorists, outlaws in every sense of the word." Actually, Bush is talking about suspected terrorists, which makes quite a difference. I, and probably most liberals, figure that there is significant "collatoral damage" among those who are "no longer a problem" to Bush, and so it comes across as chilling. Regardless of the merits or lack thereof in accepting collatoral damage, it's never a topic to be flippant about. Especially since one of our core principles is that the state's power to punish (let alone kill) innocent people should be kept strongly in check. I can't support (or comprehend) the idea of halting this principle abruptly at the US border.

Ben,
Let's be clear about what you're suggesting: wars should be fought as if they were criminal investigations within this country.

To say it is to refute it.

Say, Ben, were you opposed to the lauching of cruise missiles at bin laden when Clinton did it? Were you concerned about collateral damage? Wouldn't it have been better to attempt to arrest him and charge him, and if the proof failed, to let him go? That's what you're suggesting, isn't it? That's where liberalism takes us, isn't it? To a world of ineffectual responses after thousands are killed. Thanks for the reminder.

"Say, Ben, were you opposed to the lauching of cruise missiles at bin laden when Clinton ... To a world of ineffectual responses after thousands are killed."

The cruise missiles were launched after Al Qaeda attacked the US; after they blew up US Embassies in East Africa. Technically Saddam has never attacked the US, though he apparently sponsored an attempt on Bush Sr's life, for which Clinton launched a reprisal attack. Of course, the thwarted attempt and response occurred over 10 years ago. Since then Saddam's regime has been contained, and was recently experiencing even closer scrutiny by the world.

Most liberals would be comfortable with, in fact happy to, go after all the world's bad guys, if it was done within the context of an internationally sanctioned and shared effort and involved diplomacy and police work as well as war. Making ourselves the cop, judge, and executioner places an enormous burden on our country. Doing that for all the dubious claims made by Bush (terroist connections, threat from WMDs, to defend the UN's relevance) just makes it that much harder.

Let's pare Bush's speech down to the "gangster" part just so the objection is clear.

"...many [suspected terrorists] have met a different fate... they are no longer a problem"

My square brackets are justified. "Others" refers back to "suspected terrorists". It's difficult to read this any way other than: There were some people who may or may not have been planning to harm us; they're dead now (implied) so they're not going to. No remorse, just a tough satisfaction. Sorry if I expect something more from my leaders.

None of this is to say that actual terrorists deserve the respect traditionally accorded to a military opponent. Nor is it to suggest that a counterterror campaign can be conducted with the punctiliousness of a normal criminal investigation. The point is just that the president had an opportunity to explain some difficult decisions, but instead he came off sounding as if the decisions were very easy to him and he is entirely satisfied with the outcome.

Wow. After I first wrote my post, I figured someone would want to misinterpret my post as claiming that civilian deaths were in all cases intolerable. So I went back and added the sentence "Regardless of the merits or lack thereof in accepting collatoral damage it's never a topic to be flippant about." It appears I needn't have bothered, since you misintrepreted it anyway. Thomas, you read with filters, where "strongly in check" becomes "prohibit", and you criticize a straw man, rather than taking on my views.

Hey DaveT, I don't know about your electoral calendar, but in mine, it's about the first 5 minutes of the 3rd quarter. And as any Bush knows, it takes a lot less than 2 quarters to squander an 88-12 lead, much less a 47-44 one....

The funny thing is that DT fancies himself clever and intelligent, when he daily proves himself otherwise. I've been accused of spouting liberal drivel here, but I certainly don't have my basic factual assertions proven wrong on a daily basis.

I think it's safe to say that DT is unashamed by Bush because DT is incapable of feeling shame.

"Making ourselves the cop, judge, and executioner places an enormous burden on our country."

Hey, somebody's got to do it. The Old Europeans and the Canadians refuse to live up to their responsibilities. Thank God that the United States and its coalition partners are willing to accept the challenge. Just ask Brad DeLong. He conceded awhile back that President Clinton finally had to give up waiting for the Old Europeans to adequately respond to the Balkans crisis. You don’t believe me? Well, just ask him. I’m sure that Professor DeLong will be glad to set you straight.

I know that this name for the current action against Iraq is inaccurate, since G. H. W. Bush seems to oppose it, but I think that the best name for the operation that I've yet heard is "Operation Bush Bags Baghdad for Dad."

I'm seriously stunned that Brad would refer to the language of Bush re eliminating terrorists as a "gangster's." This is just another example of left-wing emnity towards Bush that is bordering on pathology. Get sane and then we can engage in a discussion.

Julian E: funny.