Iraq Stirs Old Mideast Feuds July 1, 1961

When Britain on June 19 exchanged an anachronistic treaty of protection with Kuwait for a more modern treaty of friendship, consultation and assistance, few Kuwaitis took much notice. Nothing changed in Kuwait except a few papers.

But Premier Abdul Karim Kassim of Iraq, Kuwait’s northern neighbor, took the change to signify the withdrawal of British protection and moved to take advantage of it. He announced the annexation of Kuwait.

You want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force. But it’s — this will be — this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It’s a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration’s ability to keep the peace. AND

Our goal is not merely to limit Iraq’s violations of Security Council resolutions, or to slow down its weapons program. Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully.

Bush said those things. Kerry’s caveat-filled comments, in defense of his “yea” vote, echo that reasoning (I’d have to pull it from his Senate website, and I don’t feel like it right now). Kerry’s position, therein, giving Bush a big stick to use to force Saddam to comply is intellectually defensible. Except that… well… I don’t believe Bush (I didn’t believe Bush at the time) and I don’t believe Kerry.

Ted Rall puts the general problem here. Political calculations are us. I think that a “no” vote would put Kerry in a more tenuable position electorally right now, even if a “yea” is intellectually defensible, but it didn’t look that way to Kerry at the time. (As it stands, every response from the Bush Administration to any criticism made by Kerry about Iraq is He voted for the war resolution.) There’s a weird trick to understanding swing voters, which has to do with “gutso” more than position statements.

Explaining Hans Blix, and why the Iraq War hawks think he’s “completely backtracked” to a position that “Saddam was giving us everything we wanted”, is a matter of probing simple office politics. Hans Blix is a diplomat, and in his diplomatic demenor to the US and Iraq and the UN, he’s going to offer caveats to everybody’s position… particularly the most powerful of nations, which was then on his back constantly. I have not reread Hans Blix’s testimony. But, remember some of those UN battles. Recall that a week after the Colin Powell testimony (universally heralded throughout the US media), Hans Blix blasted the testimony… in diplomatic language. (Which sent Iraq War hawks’ heads exploding in righteous anger… recall that the Washington Times (or it might have been the New York Post) published in what would otherwise be a photograph of Hans Blix a cartoon of Inspector Magoo.

I’ve been thinking of spooling together a page of “most important” pieces from this blog. Chronos, an entry posted on September 4, is entry #1 on the list. The point there is that Colin Powell, in March of 2001, said that Saddam didn’t have any “weapons of mass destruction”, and Bush’s State of the Union speech in 2002 did not say that he had any. You can go from there any direction you want…

June 25, 1972: Motive Is Big Mystery In Raid on Democrats

The Republicans quickly discharged Mr. McCord as their security man and denied emphatically that they had had any connection with the raid on the Democratic headquarters.

Mr. Mitchell described this as “another example of sheer demagoguery on the part of Mr. O’Brien.” Mr. O’Brien said that there was “a developing clear line to the White House.”

With that preposterous theory out of the way, we turn to other, more plausible motives:

More or less simultaneously with the political exchanges, the reporters about former spies began to come in. All five of the arrested men were said to have had ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.

While it was conjectured that a Cuban group might have been seeking to curry favor with the Republicans or to battle leftists, this theory, like all the others, was uncertain.

“We knew what we had to do and we went about it and did it. Great Britain is great again.”

Margaret Thatcher said that. Yes. Great Britain. Great agan. Because they won a war against Argentina for the Falkland Islands.

Hm.

My only reference point to the Falkland Islands War, to be honest, is from The Simpsons. Krusty the Clown puts in a tape of an old show because he has to be leaving for one reason or other, and says “I hope nobody notices.” The broadcast goes, Krusty juggling — and someone hands him a cuecard. “Breaking news. The Falkland Islands have been invaded! I repeat: The Falkland Islands have been invaded.” (whips out a map of the action and goes on). Krusty, watching the tape, says “Oy oy oy”, or whatever.

I wonder: did Reagan say “The United States is Great Again” after successfully bombing Grenada? We know that George H W Bush said that the “Vietnam syndrome has been wiped away and buried forever in the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula” after Operation Desert Storm.

I neither condemn nor condone.

For those staunch Kerry supporters who want anyone but Bush, I encourage you to vote for Kerry and do what you have to do to get him out . . . a change would be real nice . . . . yet I really hope that there is tie like last election and a real showdown this November and total chaos arrives where Kerry doesn’t back down this time and starts his own revolution.

at this moment. . . I can’t consciously vote for anyone right now, except for maybe Johnny Depp because Reagan proved beyond a shadow of a doubt a good underrated but extremely charismatic actor is the only shred of unity the American voter’s ever agreed on.

“Mixed signals are the wrong signals to send to the enemy,” Bush said on Monday. “Mixed signals are the wrong signals to send to the people of Iraq.” (quote found here, along with other places and from other Administration officials.)

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go. This prospective policy is based on Iraq’s national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.
Robert Novak wrote that. Seems to be a trial balloon from Bush Campaign… an attempt to placate what anti-war Republicans there are. (Who all read the semi – anti-war Robert Novak.)

The advance of freedom always carries a cost, paid by the bravest among us. America mourns the losses to our nation, and to many others. And today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled.” That was said by President Bush at the UN on September 21.

“At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we’ll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country.” Rumsfeld said that. I think that’s a riddle… an onion that you keep peeling, paring down meaning after meaning.

Costa Rica is no longer a member of the “Coalition of the Willing”.

“Forty-three days before the election, my opponent has now suddenly settled on a proposal for what to do next, and it’s exactly what we’re currently doing.” Bush said that. He also said that Kerry was sending “Mixed Signals.”

“John Kerry’s latest position on Iraq is to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror.” This was a statement issued by the Bush Campaign concurrently with the “exactly what we’re currently doing” statement.

Do I dare dredge up everything from Administration spokespeople, Administration Apologists, and “Those in the Know” on the subject of Iran?

Taking a gander at the electoral map at electoral-vote.com, you notice that, here at the very end of the natural Bush flow in the ebb and flow cycle of the campaign season, Bush shot up and Kerry shot down one day, to a ridiculous situation where Bush was ahead 331 to 207; and then shot down while Kerry rose again to the more sensible and unsettled 256 to 239 advantage. (and even there, you have to believe that the Maryland result is an anomolie (things do not change that quickly) and toss that one back to Kerry).

This is the result of little other than the latest Zogby polls replacing the latest Gallup polls. Zogby points something completely funky out about the Gallup polls, and since it looks like Gallup is using this same methodology straight to the election — you can toss out the Gallups in your understanding of the horse race.

Nuts and bolts look like this:
Gallup’s sample:
Total Sample: 767 GOP: 305 (40%) Dem: 253 (33%) Ind: 208 (28%)

Last three elections… take it away Gallup:

The spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

That’s a rather high percentage of Republicans. So, in that formation, the weird effect we just had where the latest Gallup result moved Bush ahead from a 10 or 11% lead to a 14% lead, while Zogby moved Bush from a 4 point lead to a tie, can be explained by Bush consolidating Republicans, losing some Independents. Tricky, ain’t it? (Actually, I need to take a peek back to see if that is indeed what just happened… I may be wrong.)

We’re in polarized land, where something like 90% of Republicans are voting for Bush and 90% of Democrats (probably a little less than the Republicans) are voting for Kerry. You can excuse these guys and Lincoln Chafee as being in the ten percent minority. (Chafee says that he is thinking of writing in Bush’s father, which begs a question: in the event that his vote is counted, would the vote-counters count it as “a vote for Bush”, or would they teek heed of the “H” in between “George” and “W Bush”?)

Take a closer look at the “Democrats for Bush” page: take a look at their bookmarks. These links, you can pretty much expect to find on any right-wing or conservative website’s page of link… right wing radio pundit Sean Hannity, the Scaife founded Free Republic, and on and on. Now, take a look at the Replicans for Kerry link-page. If the Republicans for Kerry page had the same jibe as the “Democrats for Bush” page, you would find — say Democratic Underground, Moveon.org and partisan sites like that. What you see are a couple articles (granted, Oliphant is a liberal), the non-partisan factcheck.org , … a better comparison might be here, which are, if they’re democratic frong organizations, are at least vying for a breed of Republicans … other than the special type of Democrat who inherited their Democratic label from their grandparents, who hated Lincoln, and haven’t bothered to change their registration yet.

Other than that: it looks like the Republican expected to win the senate seat from South Carolina has wounded himself a bit, which has helped drag the Bush numbers down in that very conservative state. Two things are hurting the Republicans, and allowing the Democrats to move up in the polls: (1) advocacy of a national sales tax, which opens up “class warfare rhetoric”. AND (2) (hee hee hee hee)… backdoor draft. I had noticed, a month or two ago, a story coming out of South Carolina of ensuring controversy when the South Carolina Democratic Party made explicit in their voter-drive the issue of the draft. I more or less dismissed it — a desparate party with few prospects jumps to what they could find. But– they might be onto something there, electorally speaking. (Edwards came out swinging, and the Bush — Cheney team issued “that’s absurd” statements that, read in between the lines, suggest mum’s the word) … But, for Bush, if I accept that Kerry has a chance in South Carolina, I have to accept that Bush has a chance in New Jersey. To partisans on both sides, I ask: Do you believe in miracles?

(A giant caveat for the preceeding post: the Cell phones are destroying everybody’s polling ability thesis is gaining momentum.)

(Guns and Butter):
June 30, 1966

President Johnson said today that US air strikes on military targets in North Vietnam will continue to impose a growing burden and a high price on those who wage war against the freedom of their neighbors.

The resolute tone of Mr Johnson’s remarks, made in a speech, indicated no wavering in his decision to step up the tempo of the war to convince North Vietnam that it cannot win and should seek to netotiate a settlement.

It was the President’s first pronouncement alluding to the important escalation of the war signaled by the US bombing raids yesterday on fuel dumps close to Hanoi and Haiphong. The tenor of the President’s remarks made it plain that he was unswayed by criticism of the raids in Congress and abroad.

In a broad-ranging speech, Mr. Johnson emphasized the perils posed by developing world food shortages and his hope that nations, no matter what their ideologies, could cooperate to end poverty, ignorance and disease.

He also urged Americans to stand fast behind his policy in Vietnam.

“If you are too busy and not inclined to help, please count to 10 before you hurt,” the President asked.

The President chose for his earlier speech a site calculated to underscore the peaceful intentions of the US: The Omaha Municipal Dock on the Missouri River.

Tied up there was a barage loaded with the five millionth ton of grain to be sent to India since emergency shipments began in January. Mr Johnson gave the signal [… lots of Butter …]

Mr. Johsnon declared that he was convinced that “after decades of war and threats of war, peace is more within our reach than at any time in this century.”

This is so, he said, because “we have made up our mind to deal iwth the two most common threats to the peace of the world.” These he said, are the desire of most people to win a better way of life and the design of some to force their way of life on others.

“Now if we ignore these threats or if we attempt to meet them only by the rhetoric of visionary intentions instead of good works of determination, I am certain that tyranny and not peace will be our ultimate fate,” Mr. Johnson declared.
[…]

The President devoted a major portion of his speech to outlining the basic reasons for the US commitment in Vietnam. He presumably was trying to allay the growing discontent reflected by public opinion polls.

He cited three basic reasons for the US presence in Vietnam:

The United States is obligated to help those whose rights are threatened by force.

South Vietnam is important to the security of the rest of “free Asia” where, shielded by the courage of the South Vietnamese, other nations “are driving toward economic and social development in a new spirit of regional cooperation.”

The outcome in South Vietnam will determine whether “ambitious and aggressive nations can use guerrilla warfare to take over their weaker neighbors.”

President Johnson dealt with the last point at considerble length, reflecting the Administration view that the war waged without traditional military fronts, was a difficult one for the American people to understand.

In 1965, the President said the Communists killed or kidnapped 12,000 South Vietnamese civilians.

“If, by such methods, the agents of one nation can go out and hold and seize power where turbulent change is occurring in another nation,” he declared, “our hope for peace and order will suffer a crushing blowas over the world it will be an invitation to the would-be conquerer to keep on marching. And that is why the problem of guerrilla warfare, the problem of Vietnam, is a very critical threat to peace not just in South Vietnam, but in all of this world in whcih we live.”

The purpose of the United States, Mr. Johnson said, “is to convince North Vietnam that this kind of aggression is too costly and cannot succeed.”

He said that the tide of war had started to turn against the North Vietnamese, but added this sober warning:

“No one knows how long it will take. Only Hanoi can be the judge of that. No one can tell you how much effort it will take. No once can tell you how much sacrifice it will take. No one can tell you how costly it will be. But I can and I do here and now tell you this: The aggression they are conducting will not succeed” […]

The Communists have shown no sign of wanting to negotiate, he said, and they believe that political disgreement in Washington and confusion and doubt in the United States will give them victory. “They are wrong,” the President added.