Nation-building without a nation

Newark Star Ledger ^ | 11/30/03 | Paul Mulshine

[Incorrigible]

I have figured out who the Democrats should choose to oppose the Republican presidential candidate of 2004.

The Republican presidential candidate of 2000.

That would be George W. Bush. The George W. Bush of 2000 offered the best criticism of the foreign policy of the president who now goes by that name.

[Incorrigible]

Paul is hard to like sometimes but he makes points here using GW's own words.  The only difference is that we are addressing terrorism in this case rather than heavy handedness with people who are not threatening us ala the Clinton administration.

"You read 'Army Times' and they hate this administration.

Anyone know if this is actually the case?

[AmericanVictory]

Bump!

[Cicero]

A good deal depends on whether a particular war is in the national interest. Clinton's war in Yugoslavia was NOT in the national interest. In fact if was clean against the national interest, since we poked Russia in the eye, weakened our old allies the Serbs, and helped gangs of drug runners and Islamic terrorists take over that part of Europe. This was done in the name of NWO nation building.

Bush, OTOH, brought down a regime that supported our enemies, the Islamic terrorists, and is well on the way to removing their base of support. We are nation building in Iraq in support of our own national interest, because it's the best way to weaken Islamic terrorism.

[stylin19a]

Not sure what he means about not raising salaries....

Year 2003 Base Pay All Military members receive a "base pay," based upon their rank and years of military service. The FY 2003 pay raise includes a minimum raise of 4.1 percent for all military personnel, with a higher-percentage (targeted) raise (up to 9.5 percent) for some (mostly mid-level officers and mid-level to senior level-NCOs). The new base pay is effective on 1 January 2003.

FY 2004 Base Pay The Fiscal Year 2004 military base pay raise includes a 4.1 average increase for all military members. As with last year, raises are targeted, based upon paygrade with some members receiving 3.7 percent and others as high as 6.25 percent.

[Incorrigible]

I agree with your sentiments.

I had to laugh at the "White man's burden" reference though!

For those so interested:

"The White Man's Burden" and Its Critics

[tbpiper]

Paul is completely full of sh*t. He cites the following:

McWilliams believes that it was the Bush crew's very dislike of the concept of nation-building that deluded them into thinking the Iraq war would end quickly and neatly.

Nowhere in anything the president said was this sentiment indicated, quite the contrary. This, I believe, is just an echo of the liberal talking points on Iraq.

The rest of his 'analysis' is equally fecal:

"In an odd sense, they wanted to be consistent," he said. "They wanted to get rid of this dictator and they had no plans for nation- building.

Ok, Paul, if your so damn smart, where did the idea of the Iraqui governing council come from? Or how about the genesis of the infrastructure repairs? Just because you weren't priviy to it, doesn't mean there wasn't a plan.

[OpusatFR]

I think he may be stretching this (I would say lie, but I won't) by using a blog from the ahem..."Progressive Populist" with the title of the article, "Why does the Bush Administration Hate Our Troops?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm

The article pulls a short paragraph FROM the Army Times to wit: "As Army Times wrote: "Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale – especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease."

But I cannot find in the Army Times itself where it states as this author appears to believe (hmmmm...) that "The Army Times hates this administration."

I believe this fellow has taken literary license a bit far, could be wrong, but then again I don't think so.

[Incorrigible]

The guy quoted stating the information about "Army Times" is Cary McWilliams.  He's a prof at Rutgers University (Marxist hotbed).  He's also a member of "The Communitarian Network".

Their about page states:

In the late 1980s, a growing number of academicians and social commentators began to notice a breakdown in the moral fabric of society. Attributing this condition to an excessive emphasis on individualism in the public sphere, they recognized the need for a social philosophy that at once protected individual rights and attended to corresponding responsibilities to the community. Transcending the stalemate between left and right, this new "responsive communitarian" philosophy articulated a middle way between the politics of radical individualism and excessive statism.

Enough said!

I didn't trust his characterization of the military and that's why I asked.

[Incorrigible]

Yep. See post #8.

[Incorrigible]

Upon further research, I've discovered that the Carey McWilliams Paul cites in this article is actually Wilson Cary McWilliams and his father was Cary McWilliams (1905-1980), a former editor of The Nation and an early on California radical.

Also of note is that this Rutgers Professor McWilliams is featured on the same website as I pulled the White Man's Burden link from.  Looks like Paul's writing his columns using Google!