Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IS BUSH SURRENDERING?
andrewsullivan.com ^ | Friday, May 24, 2002 | Andrew Sullivan

Posted on 05/24/2002 11:20:22 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow

IS BUSH SURRENDERING? Dreadful news today that the president may be wavering in his intent to destroy the Iraqi regime. If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president. He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade on his desk. He said it almost proudly. His military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration. After all that this president has said, after all that he has asked, a reversal on this central question would be nothing short of a staggering betrayal of trust, a reversal of will and determination. Of course, there should be no peremptory, rushed or botched war. Of course, all options should be examined. But the signs are unmistakable. This president, having begun as an improvement on his father, is showing signs that he could end up as something even worse. It's time he heard from his supporters that this is a critical matter on which there can be no compromise. If he balks, it will be worse than his father's betrayal on taxes. It will be a betrayal of the very security of the American people.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: Nonstatist
I rarely have anything good to say about Dubya but, if true, he is right on this one. An invasion of Iraq would like to hopeless quagmire and draw us even further into that most screwed up part of the world. As it is, we have already been drawn (contrary to the wishful thinking of freepers) into a protracted guerrilla war in Afghanistan and an endless, and futile, campaign of nation building (shades of Haiti). Such is the end result of the conservative social engineering project to police every knook and cranny of the planet.

BTW, "nonstatist" it would also dramatically increase the power of the state. Have you forgotten that "war is the health of the state?"

41 posted on 05/24/2002 12:34:21 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president.

It looks like we've been screwed. There's not going to be an invasion of Iraq...and there will be new terrorist attacks. We look weak, ambivelent, confused and stupid...like ripe terror targets, in other words. The administration doesn't know what it's doing. I was hoping their mishandling of the Arab/Israeli conflict was just a fluke...guess not. Hope like hell I'm wrong.

42 posted on 05/24/2002 12:37:46 PM PDT by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat;hchutch;Poohbah ;JennysCool;Miss Marple;Howlin
Did Roosevelt formulate a plan on December 8th, 1941 where he would deny that he was going to retaliate against the Japanese only to launch his own sneak attack a year or more later?

I didn't think so.

Wars require that you prepare your people for the sacrifices ahead. If my government says its going to attack another country, I don't expect to get a detailed list of what going to happen and on what date. When Rumsfeld tells me that there is going to be NO invasion, and Bush is telling the Germans that he has NO war plans, there is going to be NO war!! If we are going to attack Iraq anyway, any benifits of this super stealth is outweighed by the lack of mental preparedness of the people for the sacrifices they must make, and the morale loss from the nagging feeling that our leaders have betrayed us.

43 posted on 05/24/2002 12:40:58 PM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
Point taken.
44 posted on 05/24/2002 12:42:38 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Too hot to send in troops until after Labor Day. Two or three weeks prior to November elections if Karl Rove gets his way.
45 posted on 05/24/2002 12:45:54 PM PDT by AmusedBystander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Saddam dies and New York and DC are history. That's what the anthrax letters mean

I think you have nailed it.

We cannot at the same time:
(1) retaliate massively against terrorist regimes,
(2) provide a reasonable degree of protection against terrorism within the US, and
(3) continue our current P.C. policy of no profiling and open borders.

So we seem to be choosing for now to discard (1) and keep the other two.

46 posted on 05/24/2002 12:48:11 PM PDT by Charlotte Corday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
BTW, "nonstatist" it would also dramatically increase the power of the state.

I am not interested in "nation building" I am interested in effecting a change in regime, in the interest of securing our protection from unalloyed use of weapons of mass destruction. I have no stake in perpetual governorship of Afghanistan, Bosnia, or elsewhere.

I just don't believe the bilge that says Hussein is not threat to us, does not collude with terrorists, does not trade in terrorist weaponry, does not live outside the reining rules of civilized behavior. If theres one reason to have a state at all, it is to protect and secure the liberty of its citizenry.

47 posted on 05/24/2002 12:48:47 PM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AmusedBystander
It seems like when ever I go on vacation, some big event happens. I will be on Vacation in October, so maybe the war will break out then :)
48 posted on 05/24/2002 12:59:51 PM PDT by Bugbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
But at the same time, did he ever explain details of the plan to go after each of the Axis? Did he say up front, "we're going to bomb Tokyo" or say where we would attack?

A balance is needed, and quite frankly, with CNN and other 24-hour news networks, and the fact that a lot of the reporters are not as patriotic as they used to be. Back then, we could delay confirming that we had lost ships - not today. Times change. No military uses pikes and crossbows any more, and any that did ought to think of committing whoever made the decision to procure them to a mental institution.

49 posted on 05/24/2002 1:02:45 PM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade [Iraq] on his desk

We didn't invade Afghanistan either. We sent in a few thousand guys, and collapsed the regime, and sent the survivors into hiding, and erected a new government, and began training a new army and police force, but we didn't invade.

Maybe we aren't going to invade Iraq either.

50 posted on 05/24/2002 1:03:44 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
...and our troops will be on the this road, under this streetlight, dressed in green uniforms.
51 posted on 05/24/2002 1:05:36 PM PDT by carton253
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
My guess is that there will be more terrorist attacks, perhaps quite more deadly than 9/11, perhaps not. And that these will lead to an invasion of Iraq. The forces of liberal appeasement, at home and abroad, at the head of our State Department and within the ranks of our own military (Clinton had 8 years to pacify them) may have blunted our ability and resolve to strike without further intense provocation.

I trust Bush, deeply. But the President is not all powerful. Thank God for that. The depth of liberal (socialist, communist, ...) insanity in our world today is astounding.

We're trying to tame a pair of enebriated bull elephants: liberalism and terrorism. Bush is a good elephant driver and an honest man. He's right to tell us that this effort will take us many years, perhaps longer than his two terms. At times we see the elephants rampaging through the same places as before, still causing damage, with George Bush sitting right on top. I pray and trust that he will continue to hold on, and use what powers he has to tame these elephants.

But I don't trust that he has it within his powers to succeed at an invasion of Iraq before many more innocents have died. Nor will we make much more progress reining in the liberal expansion of the federal government until we get a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

52 posted on 05/24/2002 1:09:16 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
I don't think this is about liberal appeasment. I think this is about not repeating the past. Bush Sr invaded Iraq to early in his term. At the end of the gulf war he had huge approval ratings. Two years later he was a one termer. We'll invade Iraq... but not right now. In about another a year or a year and a half.
53 posted on 05/24/2002 1:12:07 PM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Looks like some folks are willing to cut GW some slack on immigration if he'll come down hard on Iraq. I think I'll cut him some slack on Iraq if he will come down hard on immigration.
54 posted on 05/24/2002 1:13:00 PM PDT by al_possum39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
What you are interested in doesn't matter when the forces of intervention are unleashed as events have proven (and are proving) over and over again. The state department and and various other foreign policy social engineers who believe in perpetual involvement will inevitably end up in the driver's seat. Nation-building (probably to forstall some sort of bloody civil war between the Shi'ites and the Kurds) would occur after an Iraq invasion whether you like or not. The end result (as it has been in the great democratic state of Kuwait) would be equally depressing for conservatives who now have the Middle East central planning hubris much like they did in 1991.

You may not believe the "bilge" about the Hussein not being a threat but there are many such potential threats in the world (Castro, Chavez in Venzuella, Arafat, Assad, China, terrorist groups operating in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan). If you are suggesting "taking out" all of these "threats," you will not like the end results of the chaos which will be unleashed.

The U.S. government doesn't do much well. I suggest we make its job simple: defending the borders of the U.S. and not try to police the world.

55 posted on 05/24/2002 1:13:15 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: marron
Ah yes...nation building. Oh joy!
56 posted on 05/24/2002 1:16:39 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
The end result (as it has been in the great democratic state of Kuwait) would be equally depressing for conservatives

Actually, the current state of affairs in Kuwait is preferable compared to its state in '91 as a vassal of Hussein's. It, and the money it generates , is far less threatening to us now. And we didnt have to police it, either. In and out.

You may not believe the "bilge" about the Hussein not being a threat but there are many such potential threats in the world (Castro, Chavez in Venzuella, Arafat, Assad, China, terrorist groups operating in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan)

None nearly as threatening; this contention is hardly arguable in the intelligence agencies; given this guy's previous actions (invasion, invasion, gassing,genocide,arbitrary terror,etc) Like I said, we shouldnt police the world, but this guy is a serious threat. We should go in and take care of him, and however the chips fall will be better than current situation. I understand your concerns about nation building, but it would be an egregious mistake to just sit here and wring hands. IMO

57 posted on 05/24/2002 1:38:19 PM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Yep, I think the plan is to appear to go softer than the public wants, figuring the 'rats will leap on it with loud complaints that he isn't going after Saddam. Then they have cut themselves off from future complaining when he does.
58 posted on 05/24/2002 1:38:56 PM PDT by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: trancejeremy
time for you to go back to the "home", "our military can`t handle a simple thing like Afganistan", is the stupidest statement I`ve read this week. Go ask the Russians how simple Afganistan is, and we have pretty much won. GEEEEZ,get a life
59 posted on 05/24/2002 1:40:07 PM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Good Lord. Be patient, people. We're at war. Only a fool rushes into battle. A wise man considers the battle beforehand to help assure victory.

A wise man also doesn't tell his enemy WHEN he's going to attack!

60 posted on 05/24/2002 1:44:57 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson