Two good friends of mine, high power Washington attorney types, spent the better part of yesterday afternoon sparring over President Bush's conduct of the war against terrorism. While their respective law firms may miss out on some billable hours, the public square is the better for their exchange. They manage to cover the liberal and conservative perspectives on the subject in a comprehensive manner. The question is, who won the exchange?
Note: Minor edits in the following exchange are solely to protect the authors' confidentiality.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:49 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Curious
... I am not trying to "bait the bear," but I have been trying to determine all day what intelligent conservatives like yourself thought of the news conference last night, particularly the Q and A session. The closest that I have come to finding any comment was Andrew Sullivan's anemic "this was a great performance and he should do more," without any real analysis of why Bush did such a good job.
I think that you can probably guess what [our] liberal trial lawyer feminist …household thought.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
I loved it. I felt that he made more than a dozen points Americans, the terrorists and the world needed to hear from the President: 1. We ain't going anywhere; 2. He would have gone to war with Iraq even without WMD because of the threat Saddam posed to world peace and human rights; 3. the people we are fighting do not represent Iraqi opinion or its future; 4. it isn't going to be easy but it must be done; 5. The Iraq war is just one theatre in a wider conflict; 6. Iraq is key to transforming the nature of the region that produces attacks on the U.S.; 7. whatever the commanders on the ground need they will get; 8. consensual government is possible in Arab nations.(I'm not sure this is true but if it’s not there is no solution to our problems short of imperialism old school); 9. the Iraqi people will begin to control their own destiny on June 30 and no amount of violence will stop that; 10. the troops in the field are waging a battle worth fighting for the U.S.; 11. Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis; 12. he is in constant contact with our allies (Japan, U.K. etc..); and, 13. the Iraq war has helped get cooperation on other fronts of the terror war from Pakistan on the selling of nuclear secrets and Libya on WMD, and Japan on Korea. 14. IF YOU WANT AN APOLOGY TALK TO OSAMA (or Clinton).
For years interviewers tried to get Truman to second guess dropping both bombs on Japan and he steadfastly refused to say anything but that he slept well that night. Good for him and good for Bush. I mean I wish he'd said "I made a mistake in not firing George Tenet and by keeping on a failed NSC staff (Clarke) of the previous administration. I wanted to keep them on for continuity and to avoid a loss of institutional memory, and it was a mistake. I should have shaken up every one of those institutions. Tonight they are all fired. I also made a mistake in reaching out to Democrats like Ted Kennedy who in his blind partisanship, has repaid that courtesy by telling falsehoods to the American people and undermining our war effort and endangering the lives of the men fighting in the field. I also think we have been to kind to those causing the disturbances in Falluja and Najaf, there will be no cease fires, any further attacks on free Iraqis or coalition forces will be met by utter destruction." I don't think that is what the jackals were looking for however. It is amazing to me that no one asked any question about whether we had been to soft in our use of force.
As you know because of my place of birth and profession I would prefer a more glib, facile and aggressive response to the jackals of the press but the key thing for me is that I think to most Americans he will seem more real, in control and sincere than John Kerry does when they eventually go head to head. The memo from that terrorist Al Sawari where he said they have to stop the handover of sovereignty because once that happens they are dead is an accurate analysis. Nothing is certain but I think if the hand off goes through on June 30 a host of Iraqis will have a stake in the success of the Iraqi project. After that, the violent sheiks and old Baathists are in huge trouble. It could all end in tears as everything can but I think it is less likely under this guy because he won't quit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:58 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Interesting. But it isn't troubling to you in the least that Bush: 1) can't remember the entirety of a question while he is in the middle of answering it; 2) can't bring to mind the names of major world leaders who are more imminent threats to the U.S. than Saddam was; 3) can't conjure up one single mistake or thing that he might have done differently without the benefit of Rove, Uncle Dick, Condi, or Andy putting the words right into his mouth; 4) can't admit any mistakes, ever; 5) can't answer a pretty direct question about why he and Uncle Dick aren't going to speak separately with the 9/11 Commission; 6) can't (or didn't) offer ANY sort of concrete plan about what or how the US is going to do about Iraq going forward, other than that we are going to hand over sovereignty in a little over 2 1/2 months to some as yet unknown entity, and that we are destined to throw even MORE troops into Iraq; 7) sucks the @#*# of a known terrorist like Quaddifi (who basically paid off the US and the Lockerbie families because GUESS WHAT . . . ECONOMIC SANCTIONS CRIPPLED LIBYA, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME) by holding him up as a shining example of how we can reform terrorists and murderers.
I could go on. But more fundamentally, how is it that someone as intelligent as you isn't just blatantly offended by such gross ignorance and stupidity. Last night for me, it wasn't even so much about what he said (or didn't say) -- I was just cringing as a halfway intelligent person because he is just SUCH a moron. It's just downright embarrassing.
Also, I know that "jackals of the press" is one of your trademark beliefs, but if you have a problem with what wasn't asked, maybe you should call your friends at Fox News or the Washington Times (who got their turn, as you might recall) and ask why even they didn't serve up the kind of softball question that you are "amazed" that no one asked.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
I don't think my question was softball. Most Americans want to use more force in Iraq. Why doesn't the press reflect that. Next, I know why he didn't answer a number of those questions. He is using the old Eisenhower gambit of appearing not to be clear on the question. Reporters thought Ike was out of it too. Quadaffi just happened to cave to sanctions now? I would admit to no mistakes at a press conference either because that is the headline the next day. The press is unfair and it can't expect fair answers. They are speaking together so that there is no perceived daylight between them. He can't say that but I do wish they'd presented something better. And of course we aren't saying who is getting power on June 30. We are negotiating and arguing in country with a myriad of forces. I'm sure when you are negotiating settlements you tell everybody exactly what you will settle for and where you are ultimately going at the very beginning so as to get the best deal for your clients? Does that make you a moron?
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:18 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
You think most Americans want to use more force in Iraq? That's not what public opinion polls say, so I'm curious where that comes from. My understanding is that more than half of Americans disagree with Bush's Iraq policy, and just want to get the hell out of there, to stop spending money there, and to stop the deaths of Americans.
It is one thing to pretend not be clear on questions, and quite another to be truly out of it. You may believe it was the former, but I don't think anyone can feign the "deer in the headlights" look quite so masterfully.
Quadaffi's negotiations were started well before the Iraq war.
You yourself enumerated plenty of "mistakes" that Bush could have identified, which would have made very nice headlines for your side.
That's one way to spin the issue of the handover. Another way to look at it is that as the New York Times notes (after the jump in its off-lead) that the U.N. team that arrived in Iraq last week has made almost no progress in hammering out who or what exactly will inherit the sovereignty the U.S. means to transfer on June 30. "Even meeting with some of the key leaders has been a logistical nightmare," the paper writes. Both the Los Angeles Times’s lead and a separate front-page New York Times story about the military dangers of Iraq's political sclerosis quote administrator L. Paul Bremer's response on NBC yesterday when he was asked who'll be taking over in two and a half months. "Well, that's a good question," he said, "and it's an important part of the ongoing crisis we have here now." (from Slate).
If I went to the table to negotiate and there was no one sitting across from me, that would make me a moron.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
The polls state that Americans are not averse to more force and in fact would use more. They want the killing of Americans to stop. The dissatisfaction with Bush's Iraq policy is about 50% but a lot of that is the "we're not killing enough of them variety." Nor do a majority of Americans want to pull out. I am quite content to wait and see what happens on June 30 and hope for the best. Also, I am very happy with the "Bush is a moron" chant coming back. It has always presaged a catastrophic Democratic defeat.
Suppose the New York Times stories on massive American casualties and an nightmarish humanitarian disaster also came true? (I thought taking Iraq would cost 2 to 5,000 American lives and was way off). The exit strategy is victory. We are still in ,Germany and Japan and Korea (and Bosnia) but the nature of that commitment has changed. It will be the same in Iraq. I also note almost complete silence on the 20% of Iraqis who without question love America and are making a success of self-government already in Kurdistan. The Arab areas also have a majority view that the Americans should leave as soon as possible but not immediately. The Baathist heartland and the cities infiltrated by Iranians (Najaf, etc.) are the only outliers. That is where the deaths and the press go but that is not what is happening in Iraq. Armed men who see their days numbered are fighting. If Iraqis were against us we would be having a lot more problems.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:47 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Oh, I see. We have to start bombing Cambodia, and that will make things all better.
What polls are you looking at? http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11260
Remember, I predicted a long time ago that Bush was going to win again, and that I was very depressed by it. That doesn't make him any less of a complete moron.
We are working on that 2,000 to 5,000 casualties -- up to 686 dead so far, and another 3,466 wounded. But what's a few hundred American soldiers dead, when we expected thousands? A victory, I say!
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
Victories are judged by outcomes. Getting rid of Saddam with all the benefits that flow from that is easily worth the cost. We are still losing men in Afghanistan but getting rid of the Taliban and an Al Queda safe haven was also worth it. The days of casualty-less victories are over. Iran, Syria, North Korea all have to topple and Saudi Arabia has to reform or die. It is a 30-year war at least and what happens in Iraq matters.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:17 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Well, I agree with you that the war on Afghanistan was worth the cost.
Just what exactly are the benefits that have flowed from those nearly 700 dead, the 3,500 wounded (which might actually be a gross understatement of the wounded -- there are plenty of estimates that the wounded count is more like 11,000 to 22,000), and the $110 billion-plus spent to date on the war? And are you really saying that we need to go in, on the offensive (and quite possibly the military offensive) and take out Iran, Syria, North Korea, and maybe even Saudi Arabia?
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky
To: 'Spanky'
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: Curious
Those regimes have to go one way or another. I don't think it will require military intervention depending on how Iraq goes but yes, they have to go. Advantages gained: 1. US out of Saudi Arabia; Christian army no longer defends the Moslem holy places; 2. No chance of Saddam escaping from the "box" that was leaking like a sieve; 3. No more chance of Saddam serving as a rally point or causing trouble at critical juncture; 4. No more Iraqi's buying WMD's on black market; 5. chance for Turkish-style democracy in Mid-East; 6. defunding of suicide bombers and other terrorists in Mid-East (no more 25k bounty for Israeli bombings that kill Americans); 7. Libyan cave in; 8. unraveling of Pakistani nuke market; 9. destabilization of Syrian regime; 10. destabilization of Iranian regime; 11. release of Iraqi oil onto world markets; 12. no more mass killings in Iraq; 13. American military on border of Iran and Syria; 14. Iraqi pressure off of moderate state Jordan and US ally Kuwait; 15. Iran surrounded by two American allied nations Iraq and Afghanistan; 16. revitalization of southern marshes reversing enormous environmental damage to the region; 17. increase in GNP of Iraq, Jordan and Turkey from new free flow of goods reinforcing rule of law in Moslem states; 18. demonstration American power capable of toppling entrenched regime always salutary lesson for the wicked; 19. free Iraqi newspapers and broadcasts; 20. killing of American killing terrorist Abu Nidal; 21. destruction of Al Queda allied Ansar Anselem; 21. increased Saudi cooperation in killing and handing over terrorists; 22. revelation of Oil for Fraud program and highly compromised bribes in U.N., France and Arab press; and, 23. end of starvation and deprivation of Saddam’s enemies within Iraq.
-----Original Message-----
From: Spanky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 6:10 PM
To: Sparky
Subject: Re: Curious
Now wait a minute . . . let's separate what has actually been accomplished from what may in the future come to pass. 1) Yes, the U.S. military is out of Saudi Arabia, which is a good thing. 2) No question that Saddam isn't going anywhere. 3) No question that Saddam won't cause any more trouble, but he could still be seen as a rallying point (i.e. holy Islamic martyr). 4) You mean, no more Iraq government officials buying WMD's on the black market -- of course, since there weren't any found, I guess they weren't buying any previously, so that isn't much of an achievement. 5) That of course remains to be seen. Since there has never been a democracy in Iraq, it seems unlikely that one will flourish there now. 6) Yes, suicide bombers have been defunded, but not eliminated. 7) Libya didn't cave in because of Iraq. I defy you to give me any hard evidence of a connection. 8) I don’t think that the Pakistani nuke market has completely unraveled yet, and I think that it has a lot more to do with the improved relations with Pakistan that were necessitated by the Afghanistan invasion. 9) So the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 is just window dressing, unnecessary diplomatic and economic sanctions that are really superfluous in light of the Iraq war? 10) There are at least some arguments that a destabilized Iran is more dangerous to us than Iraq was. 11) Bought any gas lately? Big benefit! 12) Yes, there are no more mass killings in Iraq. But if I hear one more Republican spin this war as some humanitarian mission to save innocent Iraqis, I think I am going to puke. You know darn well that is post hac rationalization! 13) I thought the goal was to get the American military out of there as soon as possible? 14) Yes, pressure on Jordan and Kuwait is gone. 15) It remains to be seen what Iraq will end up being, so don't count this as an achievement of the war. 16) Yes, this war was all about the environment. That is just unbelievable… ! How can you say that with a straight face? 17) Not yet, my friend. 18) Yes, we have a bigger #@*# than all other nations. Big deal. 19) Oh great -- now there will be Iraqi "jackals of the press." You kill me! 20) Yes, we got one. But Bin Laden is still at large. 21) See #20. 21 [sic]) Not because of Iraq -- we got increased Saudi cooperation because of the bombings in Riyadh. 22) Ah yes, Kofi Annan's son's little dodge . . . we had to go to war to find that out? 23) You're just repeating yourself, and that is another post hac rationalization.
If all this great stuff was going to transpire by taking out Saddam, why wasn't that included in Colin Powell's case to the UN? Maybe a few more members of the Security Council would have been convinced that war was the right way to go. You know and I know that at least half of this is just after the fact make weight.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sparky
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 6:34 PM
To: 'Spanky'
Subject: RE: Curious
The humanitarian element was stressed in every Bush speech to Congress and to the U.N. The fact that Saddam was killing and torturing his own people in large numbers was part of the rationale every time and is not post hac rationalization, it may not be a Cheney reason but it is a Bush reason. It is also a reason that helps us in Iraq. Also, you asked me what the benefits were not whether we said them ahead of time. One of the benefits to entering WWII was discovering nuclear power but nobody said that before hand. The revitalization of the southern marshes is a big deal and it was a side benefit but a benefit it is. On Libya we just disagree. That 15 years of defiance suddenly becomes peaches and cream is very telling to me. I agree Afghanistan had an effect on Pakistan but I also know that the unraveling of that connection was done with intelligence gathered in Libya and Iraq.
Also, my goal is not to get the U.S. out as soon as possible; it is to win. If we have to stay in some capacity to do so as we have stayed to stabilize a host of other allies so be it. Also, the argument that democracy can't prosper there because it never has would mean democracy can't prosper anywhere cause most of the world has never had it. Finally, I can't believe you of all people believe No. 18 isn't important in world affairs. The ability and will to take over a country of 27 million at a cost of less than 1000 American lives is awe inspiring and will be noted well. Brinkmanship with this President and this country is not going to be done lightly.
In short, if you told America two and a half years ago that by now Afghanistan would have a friendly government and Al Queda had been dispersed from its hideouts. Saddam would be in American custody, sanctions lifted on that country, a possible democratic regime being fostered, riots against the Iranian mullahs, better relations between India and Pakistan and an increase in the well being of the 50 million in Iraq, Afghanistan and the surrounding countries, and American unemployment at 5.6% and inflation virtually zero and the policies chosen by the Bush administration to accomplish all of this cost less than 1/3 the number of people we lost on September 11 people would think you were mad. Yet that is what we have. It is a miracle, and that you can't see it is unbelievable to me.