It's far easier to be elegant when you're writing fiction.

Right.

But when you're giving a speech, it's a bit more difficult. But Bush did it.

"Whether you oppose this war or support it, the time has come, barring a last moment epiphany by Sadaam, to pray for a speedy and successful conclusion to the conflict ahead."

I agree, and add that we who oppose the war, because we do not believe Bush capable of humanitarian intervention, have an obligation to prove ourselves wrong. Even if we end up allowing the fool to be reelected. We can't let him fail as much as he deserves to fail.

No, Bush's speechwriters did. Bush read something he's clearly been rehearsing reasonably well.

I hope this is over quickly. It's all we have left.

I applaud your initiative, PG. Good luck to you in you efforts. But I think it's laughable to suggest the anti-war left is going to have any say in whether "the fool" is "allowed" to be reelected. A majority of Americans support the war now, and even more of them will support it after it's been won.

Besides, don't you remember? Bush was "selected."

Just wait and see.
Iraq is about to be liberated.
There will be cheering in the streets for our troops, just like Afghanistan. Do you remember that? The Afghans are rebuilding their country, only because the US chucked out the God-Damned Taliban.
And the secrets that will be revealed in Iraq will chill the soul of the world, and the anti-war folks will be shamed to their core. Damn-straight.
Just wait and see.

OK, Iris Nostradamus, we'll wait and see. Do I remember Afghanistan? Yes, but apparently Bush didn't since he forgot to include any money in his budget for reconstructing Afghanistan. Oh, and nevermind the fact that the country is still in shambles and that the only place that is actually developing is Kabul.
Apparently, all that matters is that brief moment of American flag waving. Once we see the Iraqi's singing "god bless america", we can shut off the TV and feel happy for supporting the president on his crusade..I mean "Operation Enduring Infinite Liberty and Justice for all, amen".

Dave, there was so much damage done by the Taliban in Afghanistan that it will take a long time to make it look anything like Manhattan. But we have not left. The media has turned it off, but our brave men and women are still there, and our money is still there rebuilding the place. For once, just once Dave, try actually communicating with the real people who are living the lives in these places instead of just guessing what's going on there. Try reading this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html
Yes, you, Dave, and all the rest of you. I DARE you to read that article and still be willing to say we don't have the responsibility to save these people. I dare you. And the responsibility to protect our country and the liberty and freedom that so many have died for, so that you may spew your hatred and leftist drivel.

Dave, you mean a country that's been in a civil war for 25 years is still in a shambles a whole year after it was liberated? Outrageous!

A few small improvements have been made, but their all minor:

1. The Afghans elected their own government.

2. Guys in black turbans aren't collapsing walls on gays anymore.

3. Soccer stadiums are being used for games instead of public executions.

4. More than 2 million Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan, even though it's not quite Marin County there yet.

5. More than 3 million Afghan children – boys and girls – returned to school, 15 million Afghan children were immunized against polio, and 8 million children were immunized against measles.

You might, might want to look up your history of Germany in the year 1946. It was still a shambles. Guess we screwed that one up too, eh?

R. McLeod,

While no country is going to be fixed overnight, especially a war-torn nation like Afghanistan, there's a sense of it being a "passe" cause. Even Karzai recognized this when he testified before Congress recently. He actually pleaded with them to not forget about Afghanistan, no matter what option they chose in Iraq. Like Dave pointed out, for many Americans, if it's out of sight, it's out of mind. I imagine there's quite a difference in the number of people who knew where Afghanistan was before 9/11 and afterwards.

Security can't be guaranteed anywhere, but I would hate to think that money perhaps originally intended for rebuilding Afghanistan to be diverted for a use like Iraq (because of my personal beliefs on the war). I can't recall offhand, but I don't believe the Marshall Plan (and focus on Europe) faded in 2 years and neither should it happen with Afghanistan. While there have been successes, more time, money, and attention (shared with other countries) would help it even faster.

True, we are still doing things in the nation Iris, but some PR (or focusing on it once in a while in place of Iraq) can't hurt either. Might even improve the mood of the nightly news too. :) Knowing that a country is still helping someone else after war would help any image problems if they're doing as much as possible and are sincere about the effort. Otherwise, it might even backfire and hurt our image/reputation for nation-building. Critics will eagerly point out any flaws that may lie in Afghanistan reconstruction in order to say that the US isn't up to the task for Iraq because it hasn't finished the first one yet.

Just my 2...well prolly 10 cents. :)

But why dou you american people think you're doing all good stuff ?
Examples : You dropped the first atom bom. Over more than 100000 people died. Your goverment dropped a second one. It wasn't needed but they did it anyway. Vietnam was a useless war but it lasted to long. It took the american people long the understand that. Hundred of peoples died just because you think that communism is wrong. Your goverment supported Pinochet. It is one of the most scary dictators (jsut like sadaam) ever lived. He killed thousands of men. America has supported Sadaam for many years (and so also supporting that he killed a lot of people) but you don't hear a think about that now. In the 80s America trained Osama Bin Laden to fight against russia , when the war was over you left the people there in their own misery. Don't you see what you are doing ? You just support the people you have benefit of. The rest of the world has to be with you are otherwise they are against you... it isn't right.. the world is one big community ans we have to listen to each other... what stands the UN for ???

Dag, Iris, you're being worded up.
Give up now.

the fact that the country is still in shambles

How long has it been since we routed out the Taliban??? It took us 12 years to act against Saddam - and you liberals are willing to waiting even longer! Yet when it comes to Afghanistan you are getting impatient.

People keep thinking the world should run on Internet time. "Damn! I identified this problem a week ago - why isn't it FIXED YET!"

Rebuilding a country like Afganistan isn't like installing the next service pack to fix the visible glitches. That country's got to be rebuild from nearly the ground up - and if the US did it 'unilaterally' there'd be people bitching about that too.

As it is, they're rebuilding. Look on Afghanistan in 10 REAL years, and give them a chance to make the country what THEY want it to be - and if it's not your idea of heaven on earth then it's fair to bitch. But you can bet that the people there won't be longing for the good old days when the Taliban were in charge and there were public executions on the soccer fields.

(Then again, there's Russians who are nostalgic for Stalin, despite all the joy HE brought to the USSR. So I could well be wrong.)

J.

"But why dou you american people think you're doing all good stuff ?"

Americans don't think our country only does good stuff. But if we didn't point out the good stuff, noone would.

"You just support the people you have benefit of."

Sounds like every other country in the world!

"The rest of the world has to be with you are otherwise they are against you... "

Hey, where have I heard that before?

"what stands the UN for ???"

Based on past performance, the UN stands for passing resolutions condemning Israel.

Oh yeah, great job Bush has done in Afghanistan. Let's see: warlords are still terrorizing large segments of the Afghan people, rapes and terrorism continue apace, the Bush budget forgot to list any aid to send to the country, religious fundamentalist run riot in many communities. Oh yeah, great job, Bush.

xa4 why didn't you mention the Crusades, the inquisition and the homo sapiens' domination and possible destruction of neanderthal man - I'm sure that these actions are just as valid proofs of the perfidy of GW Bush's administration as Nagasaki and Vietnam are.

I hear that there would still be proud neanderthals living with us in peace and harmony if it wasn't for Wolfowitz and Rice.

Let's see: warlords are still terrorizing large segments of the Afghan people, rapes and terrorism continue apace

Well, if you consider 12 years a reasonable amount of time to let Saddam lie to us... Then why not give it at least 12 years for Afghanistan to change?

merrijane, some polls already show that an unnamed Democrat would beat Bush in the 2004 election. I think if Bush fails as badly in the reconstruction of Iraq, and the rebound of the American economy, as he is on track to do if he has his way, he would be defeated.
$300 billion deficit (not counting cost of war and reconstruction) and he wants a tax cut targeted to wealthier Americans? The level of hypocrisy for this man to say that Americans are sacrificing while he wants to end the estate tax and the dividends tax -- and pays grunts in the field $14000 a year to take a bullet -- is mind-boggling.

Fortunately, there is still an opposition pushing for the stuff that Bush will say "no" to, until he realizes that the American people want it, at which point he jumps on the bandwagon and takes the credit. If you don't think he does this, see: recent campaign finance reform legislation; 9/11 independent inquiry.

Bush doesn't keep promises when it comes to m-o-n-e-y. He's stiffed NYC (lower Manhattan isn't doing as well as Iris apparently thinks), he hasn't fully funded Afghanistan, the good Lord and Arthur Anderson accountants only know how he'll fund Iraq's invasion and reconstruction. Check out NYU law prof Steven Schulhofer on how Bush is curtailing civil liberties but not spending to improve security anywhere except airports (b/c al Qaida is dumb enough to go that route again, when there's thousands of ships that get waved in without a second thought). Loss of liberty without increase in safety.

I'm saying that this stuff is too important to let Bush hang himself.

I too hope and pray the war costs as few lives as possible. I expect (based on every statement by every Iraqi exile I have seen) that Iraqis will demand democracy quickly; I hope and pray the transition goes quickly and smoothly.

I have one comment on an extraneous issue: nobody's position on the war will give them any cause for shame. If the war leads to a democratic Iraq and a greater hope of peace, that will happen because the gracious and merciful Creator has answered our prayers, not because those who called for non-violence miscalculated. Whatever the revelations about Saddam Hussein's criminal regime (and I have no doubt we will see, as we have seen, some ghastly ones) they will not make the war any less of a risk, they will not make the final resort to arms to remove him less of a failure, and they will not give anyone who considered and rejected the resort to military action any cause for a moment's shame.

Likewise, if the war goes badly, it will not give anyone who honestly and honourably considered war the best option to remove a very bad man a reason for shame. The shame, if we must assign it, belongs to those who, for profit or political advantage, supported Saddam Hussein's regime after he made his brutality apparent, and with those who designed the Gulf War sanctions and the so-called "oil for food" program so badly that they have made resistance to this hated man almost impossible for ordinary Iraqis.

Let us, in any case, ignore our ideological bickering and hope and pray for the Iraqi people, and for the men and women in the Gulf.

"Whether you oppose this war or support it, the time has come, barring a last moment epiphany by Sadaam, to pray for a speedy and successful conclusion to the conflict ahead"

Just as when Hitler gassed the Jews it was proper to pray for a speedy and successful conclusion?

David,

Don't you think that is just a wee bit over the top? *Sheesh*

You dropped the first atom bom. Over more than 100000 people died.

How many people would've died (including civilians) if we tried taking over Japan with conventional means? Please get back to me.

Your goverment dropped a second one.

You neglect to hold Japan responsible for the fact that they did not capitulate after first bomb. How come? Also, after the 2nd bomb was dropped - wasn't there an attempted coup when it became known that the Emperor decided to capitulate?

Just as when Hitler gassed the Jews it was proper to pray for a speedy and successful conclusion?

As a Jew (Ukranian born Jew at that) I resent that statement. Your type was directly responsible for appeasing Hitler, as they are now appeasing Saddam.

"Don't you think that is just a wee bit over the top? *Sheesh*"

Well actually I'm trying to kick it up a notch after reading that the POPE has come out and said Americans are war criminals upon whom God will take vengeance. I can't be beaten by the POPE!!!

Anyway to specifically reply: you know what I am saying. Praying for an evil event? That's nuts. The Pope doesn't appear to be praying for America. Why can't you just accept that America is THE BAD GUY here? I wouldn't have to underline that point so heavily if it was not accepted.

"How many people would've died (including civilians) if we tried taking over Japan with conventional means?"

Stan that old lie has been debunked. Are you so unoriginal you can't make up new lies? The records of the day show that this excuse was not made until well after the bomb was dropped (for propaganda purposes) and military at the time simply didn't want or need the bomb. On the day, the US president lied on radio and called Hiroshima a military base with no civilians. Subsequently the propaganda changed from this simple lie to the lie you quoted.

I tire of how unworthy you are as an opponent.

"As a Jew (Ukranian born Jew at that) I resent that statement."

LOL did you really expect me to defer to you simply on the basis of your claimed racial heritage? Hahaha.

"Your type was directly responsible for appeasing Hitler"

But YOU are the one appeasing Bush.

I'm trying to kick it up a notch after reading that the POPE has come out and said Americans are war criminals upon whom God will take vengeance.

What nonsense. What the Vatican spokesman said was:

"Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history," said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls.

Sean-Paul, I speak from experience -- DavidByron will take over and poison your comments threads forever once he latches on. The crass Holocaust references are par for the course with this kid; civil discussion can't last long in such an environment.

It's your site, of course. I'll still come around.

Stan that old lie has been debunked.

What lie is this? So what's the estimate, David? How many people (American, Japanese, military AND civilians) would've died if tried to invade Japan with conventional means?
How many died in the battle for Berlin?

But YOU are the one appeasing Bush.

Hah! The Chewbacca defense.

I'm laughing at Tacitus.
Gosh. Strike me down now. I'm gobsmacked that an American newspaper wouldn't report the facts accurately but would instead gloss over what the Papacy said. I'm simply astounded. Here try a newspaper from a democracy:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6145925%5E1702,00.html

"War is a crime against peace which cries for vengeance before God"

Tacitus you must be about the last blogger on the planet to still be relying on these American mush-zines for your news. that above is a direct quote. The newspaper also characterised,

"He stressed the deeply unjust and immoral nature of war, saying it was condemned by God because civilians were the worst sufferers"

David, I see you don't feel like answering my question... Typical.

Cripes, David. You say you're quoting the Pope; no Papal quote can be found; I find a quote, at least, from the Papal spokesman; you respond with some errant bishop on Vatican radio. What's next -- your parish priest?

You forgot a Holocaust reference in your last post, too.

I swear you two are too stupid to live. Tacitus the pope has ministers to make official statements just like any country.

Stan you're questions haven't been worth answering for several weeks now. I remember a time when you made some kind of sense (unlike Tacitus) but not since about January. Please repeat your "question" because I can't find it amongst the dross that is your post.

David,

So what's the estimate, David? How many people (American, Japanese, military AND civilians) would've died if tried to invade Japan with conventional means?
How many died in the battle for Berlin?

Answer that.

Tacitus the pope has ministers to make official statements just like any country.

That's funny. From your article:

"I want to remind UN members and particularly those who make up the Security Council that the use of force is the last resort after having exhausted all peaceful solutions, as stipulated by the UN charter," the Pope told tens of thousands of worshippers gathered in St Peter's Square.

The stipulations of the UN Charter supercede those of the Bible? The Pope is senile.

Stan your thoughts seem all over the place recently. You're scatter-brained. These questions seem to have no relevence and I only answer them to show willing.

(1) None because they didn't and wouldn't have invaded Japan. Now if you mean hypothetically if the US army had been suicidal and dumb then I suppose all the US army would have died because their generals would have told the men to beat each other to death with 'freedom fries'. I may be wrong about the fries. Possibly some other vegetable product but it is a hypothetical situation.

(2) I don't know how many soviets died "liberating" Berlin.

(3) The pope presumably feels the UN charter is fully compatable with christianity.

I don't know how many soviets died "liberating" Berlin.

What a bad communist you are! Not knowing your history...

Berlin’s fate was sealed, but the resistance continued. Fighting was heavy, with house-to-house and hand-to-hand combat. The Soviets sustained 305,000 dead; the Germans sustained as many as 325,000, including civilians.

That's almost 650,000 dead . But who cares, right? Not like anyone dropped an a-bomb.

The pope presumably feels the UN charter is fully compatable with christianity.

Uh, no. This is not an issue of mere compatibility. You talk about Pope and morals and provide a quote were Pope delegates the authority to the UN charter. if your quote is true, then it looks like the Pope has transformed himself from a moral authority to a political one.
I'll invite any Christian to argue otherwise based on the quote that David has provided.

I guess you *think* that what you said was rational....

Let's recap Stan. I pointed out that the excuse for the bombing of Hiroshima was not presented at the time of the bombing. I said that military leaders of the day said the bombing was unnecessary and that the president presented a different excuse (he said Hiroshima was a military base with no civilians) on the day, and the fictitious excuse you presented was created some time afterwards.

Your answer is a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter if Berlin's capture cost lives. It doesn't even matter if you turned out to be correct in your contradiction of the military command of the day in saying the bombing was militarily necessary. You were claiming that the motivation for the bombing was to save lives. It was not. You coming along 60 years latter and saying that you would have had a certain motivation if _you_ had been the military command, does not make any difference. That is true EVEN IF we ignore the fact that you are a clueless clown and therefore unlikely to know more about operation military necessity re. WW2 than the military leaders of the day.

You really just don't "get it" on so many levels do you?

And this nonsense about the pope. OF COURSE he is a political authority. Do you think politcs has nothing to do with morality?

It doesn't matter if Berlin's capture cost lives

Well there you have it. Your disregard for human life is evident.

OF COURSE he is a political authority

If that is so, then he is no longer impartial and hence his statements are irrelevant.

Ok Stan those comments were deliberately dumb. I can tell when you're being deliberately dumb and when you're being accidentally dumb and that was the former.

At least I hope the second one wasn't serious.

Ok Stan those comments were deliberately dumb.

Yea, we all know. Please refrain from being deliberately dumb.

At least I hope the second one wasn't serious.

Sure it was. The Pope is a religous figure - not a political one.