Dean's World

Dean, you spend alot of time looking for ways to defend this administration and its decision to invade Iraq. You denounce anyone with an opposite opinion on this issue as "hateful jackals" among other things. You are so one-sided and blinded on this issue probably to the point of subconscious intellectual dishonesty. I have yet to read anything you've written critical of the prosecution of this war, and that troubles me.
You read a few articles supporting your argument while neglecting the many more articles refuting your argument. You've got too much emotion tied up in the issue, and you're giving way to facts. Analyze ALL facts before you decide, not just the facts that support what you want to hear. That was the problem the administration had with the Iraq war. They cherry-picked intelligence to support what they wanted to do. That is a fact. That fact is not disputed. They relied on discredited intelligence sources because they told them what they wanted to hear in order to justify going into Iraq.

For the record, I thought invading Iraq when they did was a bad decision and that the planning and execution of the war and aftermath was criminally negligent at best. I've always believed we should have taken down Sadaam Huessin years and years ago. You know, after he gasses the Kurds in the late 80s.

Time may or may not prove me right, but PLEASE, for the love of Molly Shannon, try and be objective about this.

That's a common assertion and it's not true. What's odd is you keep saying it, and then when I respond giving you examples of where I've criticized the administration and/or the handling of the war, it just bounces off you and others like you like it didn't happen. Then a few weeks or months later you're back claiming I never criticize the administration.

I was very harsh about Abu Ghraib--until I lost patience with the people who blew it up into more than it was (deplorable incompetence and an embarrassment, for which those responsible were rightly punished).

I've harshly criticized Bush for signing the deplorable campaign finance "reform" (i.e. speech suppression) bill. I've stated repeatedly that there have obviously been missteps and miscalculations and problems in Iraq--I've just noted that such things will always happen in large operations of this magnitude.

If critics would stop making stuff up so much ("Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction" being one of their biggest, most hateful bits of made-up garbage), and stop exaggerating so much ("civil liberties are under their greatest assault in history!"), it might be possible to have an honest dialogue about the administration and its shortcomings. The problem is that the obsessive hatred of all things Bush makes rational discussion much too rare these days.

That depresses me, but people like your buddies over at qoae.net taught me that there are some people, left and right, with whom it is impossible to expect rational dialogue on politics (or, in some cases, anything vagulely resembling an urge that America succeed in Iraq, because for them American success would equal Bush success, and that's just much too painful for them to contemplate).

American success in Iraq will only be due to the U.S. military's incredible super-human hardwork coupled with an Iraq determination to see peace prevail over violence. I don't care who gets credit for success in Iraq whether it be Bush, Cheney, the guy that makes the donuts, or Martha Stewart, just as long as we repair the damage done and help totally rebuild their nation. The American people are still going to have to pay alot more to rebuild Iraq regardless of troop presence. Oh, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the total costs to the taxpayer. I'm more than willing to put in my share with higher taxes in the short-term, but are the conservatives who supported the war from the beginning willing to say the same?

Jamaal: I can think of at least one more major criticism Dean has levelled at the Bush administration, in which he has roundly condemned and damned them for firing openly gay armed forces Arabic translators. If you like, I can go back through the archives and find more, if you like. I think what you're registering is Dean's complete loss of patience with the majority of anti-Bushies, some of whom blame the man for for hurricane Katrina. I kid you not. It goes back to the Kyoto treaty, don'tcha know...

Me, I have two major concerns about raising taxes, even for wartime. First, the tax never goes away. Ever. Somone on another blog recently pointed out that FDR introduced a "temporary" tax on phone lines during WW2. Ring a bell (pun intended)? We're STILL paying that tax today. Go look at your latest bill. Second, why do we necessarily have to raise taxes? This is something I rarely see addressed. Are you telling me that every single item in the $2 trillion Federal Budget is untouchable?

Let's start with that bloody bridge in Alaska. After that we should tell Bobby Byrd that he's sucked at the government teat long enough. No more goodies for West Virginia. Sorry, kids, y'all gotta pay for your own office buildings and parking garages.

I could go on for a while, but you get the idea. I don't doubt that Jamaal will react with horror and disgust at my suggestion. :)

So when the word "alot" is typed, you have no idea what the meaning or context is? I'm confused because I know that criticizing spelling, grammar, and word usage is generally considered a no no in the blogosphere. Now, if you have no idea what I mean, then I'll correct it, otherwise, stop being a word-nazi....thanks.

Casey: Crikey, I forgot all about the firing of the gay Arabic translators. How fucking stupid can you get? In a time where we desperately need people who can speak and translate Arabic, we fire people for diddling the wrong genitals?!?!!?

Jamaal: Oh I would agree that we haven't sacrified enough. "We" meaning those who aren't serving in uniform or working as contractors over there. I have myself put in a lot of time, more than I really want to, but that's been voluntary.

On the other hand, I do not accept the notion that "we haven't sacrificed enough" means "let's raise taxes on the rich," which is what this apparently means to some people. What exactly do you mean by that?

As for the "war planning" business: we had detailed plans before we went in. With a whole lot of work that went into those plans. Some of those plans worked out very well, some not so much. Now, we're adapting. This is surprising?

I'm really tired of the "it's about Bush" mentality. Do we want to succeed or do we not? The current temporary occupant of the White House is not the central focus of that discussion.