• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

An Oedipal struggle amid Washington's warring tribes

Haltickling

2nd Level Green Feather
Joined
Apr 3, 2001
Messages
4,353
Points
0
This is from International Herald Tribune, 04/03/03, written by Maureen Dowd (New York Times). I found it quite interesting as it reveals a bit of the not-so-well known internal struggle within the Republican party.

Going schismatic

WASHINGTON The president and his war council did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance in Iraq. And they really did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance at home. But you can't have transformation without provocation.
.
This was a war designed to change the nature of American foreign policy, military policy and even the national character - flushing out ambivalence and embracing absolutism.
.
As two members of the preemptive Bush doctrine's neoconservative brain trust, Bill Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan, argued in a book-length call for battle, "The War Over Iraq": "Well, what is wrong with dominance, in the service of sound principles and high ideals?"
.
So it should not be a surprise that the troubled opening phase of the war has exacerbated territorial and ideological fissures in the administration and the Republican Party.
.
Democrats are muter than mute. But a dozen days of real war in the desert has turned the usually disciplined Bush crowd into a bunch of schismatics: There is internecine warfare between the "hold out a hand" Bush I team and the "back of the hand" Bush II team. There's a feud between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and some of his generals and former generals, and animosity between the Pentagon - where Rummy, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith spin schemes for intimidating the world and remodeling the Middle East - and the State Department. Colin Powell and his deputies wince as old alliances shatter and the Arab world seethes, and mutter that there had to be a way to get rid of Saddam without making everyone on the planet despise America.
.
The Washington Post reported Monday that moderate Republicans were trying to show the president that hawks were giving him "bum advice."
.
The article was clearly referring to the Bush I realpolitik crowd of James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger and Powell and his acolytes at State. These pals of Poppy Bush are alarmed that the Hobbesian Dick Cheney - who has been down in his undisclosed locations reading books about how war is the natural state of mankind - the flamboyantly belligerent Rummy and the crusading neocons have mesmerized the president with their macho schemes.
.
"There is a behind-the-scenes effort by former senior Republican government officials and party leaders to convince President Bush that the advice he has received from Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz … has been wrong and even dangerous to long-term U.S. national interests," The Post said.
.
One former senior Republican official noted: "The only one who can reach the president is his father. But it is not timely yet to talk to him." This raised the odd specter of the president's being dragged off from running a war and taken to Kennebunkport for a Metternichian outing in the family cigarette boat. Scowcroft and Eagleburger could pin W. down while Baker steered and Poppy explained the facts of international life.
.
The Oedipal struggle of the Bushes - a father who was an ambassador to the United Nations and an envoy to China, a globe-trotting vice president and an internationalist president, and a son who was a Texas governor with little knowledge of the world - was bound to be aggravated by an invasion of Iraq not sanctioned by the United Nations.
.
Here was a son acting to correct his father's "mistakes" in the first Gulf War, when his father did not think he had made a mistake, but rather a great contribution to history.
.
The neocons egged on Bush junior to war in Iraq by writing, as Kristol and Kaplan did, that Bush senior's foreign policy was "defective" and that Bush senior had urged Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to revolt and then, afraid that Iraq would break up, turned "a blind eye" when they did that and were slaughtered by Saddam.
.
When the Iraqi Shiites did not greet U.S. soldiers with flowers last week, as the hawks had promised, the stung warriors again blamed Bush senior.
.
"We bear a certain responsibility for what we didn't do in 1991," a senior American military commander at Central Command in Qatar told reporters.
.
Bush junior is busy trying to do something his dad thought he'd done. The title of Bush senior's book: "A World Transformed."
.
E-mail: [email protected]
 
Katze kampf!!! Hal, any chance of us being a controversial tag-team? 😀
 
Certainly, Jim. We agree on large parts of the current situation (as our signatures show), although we might differ on other points. 😎
 
Interesting post hal but............

........have a look at Q,s post "E mails" for a bit of balance.
 
Oh, I think the balance on the TMF is rather lopsided pro-war already, so I'm just trying to add a little weight to the other side. Currently it's a huge majority of the civilized world against war (their governments' views not necessarily representing the population), and a huge majority of Americans pro-war.
 
Semantics...

We're not pro-war....we're anti-terrorist supporting dictatorships. Actually, the Emails post has more to do with the smear tactics of our "elite", high profile protestors in the entertainment field. I never argue with logical reasoning, but I disagree all to hell and back with unsupported crap. It's just my way.... Q
 
If it helps Hal,

I'm in accord opposing this thing. I don't think Saddam was that big a threat to the US before our invasion (and so we won't be that much more secure). And I think the $100 billion plus we are spending on this could have been better spent securing our sea ports, supporting state and local governments prepare for chemical attack or biological attack, provide restitution for smallpox vaccine victims, or provide humanitarian aid in areas where terrorism breeds from poverty. If we have to attack someone, I think Syria or Iran would have made better choices.

Rook
 
Haltickling said:
Certainly, Jim. We agree on large parts of the current situation (as our signatures show), although we might differ on other points. 😎


Hmmm, such as the EU being full of corruption, money laudering and interfereing office-jockeys? 😀😀😀 I seem to remember we politely discussed that one before.


I have to say though, that I'm not anti war. If I believed everything that our politicians and media outlets told us, I'd be 100% behind it. It's just that I happen to believe that both of them are lying bastards with their own agendas, who don't give a shit about the public. But hey, that's just me....... 😀
 
BigJim said:
I happen to believe that both of them are lying bastards with their own agendas, who don't give a shit about the public. But hey, that's just me....... 😀

:wow: We agree on something political? :wow:

hehe, I tend to believe a bit more what Georgie says, but that's a gut thing with me. Being part of the current aggressor nation, I guess it's my duty to follow my commander. 😉

But, damn, Jim...I'm just pleased as blueberry punch that we share a political sentiment. Wanna have a drink to celebrate?

Jo
 
JoBelle said:


:wow: We agree on something political? :wow:

hehe, I tend to believe a bit more what Georgie says, but that's a gut thing with me. Being part of the current aggressor nation, I guess it's my duty to follow my commander. 😉

But, damn, Jim...I'm just pleased as blueberry punch that we share a political sentiment. Wanna have a drink to celebrate?

Jo

Say whaaaaaaaaaaatttttttt???????? 😱 😱 😱 You agree with me?????? 😱 😱 😱 Oh hell yeah, break out a case of blueberry punch and pour me a glass! 😀 After that we'll go on to whatever stimulates nerve endings more. :devil:
 
I'm not exactly pro-war, either, and to be honest...I'm starting to get a bit offended by being profiled so.

I don't understand why this is still an issue. I just can't seem to get my mind around this. Why do we have to be at each other's throats? We can bitch and moan about each other's governments until we're all blue in the face, not stopping anything, and certainly not helping. Or we can start being proactive about the near future.

This is a global issue. Not just the war itself, but the aftermath. Just because some people are comfortable being reactive and overly hopeful (not that these are bad things, it's just a difference in culture) doesn't mean that this situation isn't global.

Q: What was the tallest mountain in the world before they disovered Mt. Everest?

A: Mt. Everest. Even though they didn't discover it, it was still the tallest mountain.

Just because not everyone wants to accept a threat doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Containment was not going to work. This was tried once before, with drastic results. In the 1930's, Europe had Hitler "contained", he was only a threat to his own people. We all know how that turned out.

One thing that started the ball rolling on all this US vs. Europe crap wasn't even about Iraq, it was over Afghanistan. Taking this into light helps explain how this tension ripped apart. After 9/11, all of NATO was behind us, offering military support, intellegence and full allegiance in an Afghanistan raid to rout the Taliban and al-Quida. George Bush basically said "Thank you very much, but no thank you. We'll handle it ourselves."

Now, hear me out before either side starts to lash out at me. NATO and the adjoining governments are of course very offended by this. They come to our aid in a show of global brotherhood and are royally spurned. You can understand how this would start a rift. On the other hand, it was never intended as the snub it was taken to be, or the grandstanding isolationism it was acuused of being. Bush was well aware of the Kosovo operation under the Clinton administration, which involved so many NATO nations that things as mundane bombing targets were winding up in commitee. There's nothing wrong with a coalition of forces, but if you get too many involved, especially of vastly different types of government, it just doesn't work on a military basis. It looks good on paper, but in practice is very hard to pull off with sustained success. The Taliban and al-Quida were fleeing, not defending (not to level of Iraq, anyway), and we needed to be in quickly and decisively, under one central leadership.

It really boils down to a vast difference in Old World cultures and New World cultures. We don't really completely understand each other, so it's easier to find fault than similarities. I have nothing against anyone from anywhere for holding true to something they believe in. But at least believe in the facts of something, not just the stories, rumors and stereotypes. I don't hate Europeans, and I don't hate European governments. I may think that some are wrong, or may not agree with the way they handle things, but it can't be a personal thing. This is how societies get torn apart. I get pissed at being labelled war-loving and shit, but I don't hold hatred for those who think that...they are simply misinformed, as I'm sure I am about many things.

I think we've reached the point where the accusations and mud-slinging can come to a halt, having been utterly exhausted and realize that this isn't about the US vs. Europe or Christians vs. Muslims...it's about the Civilized World vs. Insane Militant Extremists.

Which side are we on?
 
What's New

4/16/2025
Check out the TMF Welcome forum and say hello!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad11701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top