Ten

« If Voting Changed Anything, It'd be Abolished | Main | Charities for Poor in Trouble »

March 15, 2003

Vote No on Bush for Emperor

Jack Stephens writes in comments:

"The reason Nathan Newman outdoes even America's enemies and adversaries in attacking American foreign policy is not because he hates America...Rather it is simply because he hates the present administration...The same moves by a Gore administration would have received his unwavering support."
What's odd about the comment is he acts as if that would somehow make opposing the war led by Bush illegitimate or inconsistent.

But if I don't think Bush is fit to run the United States, why shouldn't I think he's unfit to run Iraq and the world? Bush has been auditioning for over a year as emperor of the world. And the world has turned a big thumbs down on him. There's no global ballot box except in the streets, but February 15th saw the largest global demonstrations in history adding their imperial thumbs down as well.

Bush tried to get a UN vote in support of his imperial rule but is getting a thumbs down there as well, quite incredible given the bribes and threats available. Which indicates a level of global antipathy and distrust of the man that is quite incredible, and yes gratifying to those of us who despise him at home.

Not that I'd support this war with Gore-- Jack doesn't read my blog much or he would have seen how much I've slammed Democrats who support the war. But the fact that Bush is a liar -- where's the democracy in Afghanistan for example -- means that no one trusts him at his word.

You've got two oil men in the White House who have been obsessed with drilling in Alaska, changing their story on why we need it every couple of months, then claiming their only interest in Iraq is freedom for the Kurds, only to sell the Kurds out the second they needed help from Turkey-- which leads you back to thinking the oil and the military dominance of the region is the only thing they really care about.

Guess what-- I did support the war in Kosovo because I had enough limited trust in Clinton's intentions. And the results have largely born out that trust. The US did a limited intervention, Kosovar refugees have gone home, elections have been held, the people of Serbia dumped Milosevic on their own, and many war criminals are being tried.

Contrast that with Afghanistan where power was turned over to an ex-oil executive backed (or subverted) by non-elected warlords around the country. Maybe elections will happen in 2004 as promised but with the population terrorized by warlords, who can take them too seriously?

So yes, Bush has proven himself unfit to govern a world where he ignores both global and local democracy, just as his economic malfeasance makes him unfit to govern here at home.

But apparently, just as Bush was not elected to office at home, but appointed by the Supreme Court, he will use military power in defiance of the United Nations to appoint himself emperor of the world.

Well, I hope as many people as possible will come out to vote in the streets on March 22. Here in New York City, we'll be marching down Broadway to express a big thumbs down on Emperor Bush.

Posted by Nathan at March 15, 2003 08:36 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nathannewman.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/627

Comments

So who is Jack Stephens?

I had also written at Nathan's ellipsis that attacking American foreign policy out of hatred for America would at least have the virtue of honesty. To attack American foreign policy out of hatred for the Bush administration is to play politics with America's national security. It is tremendously irresponsible.

Nathan's hatred for the Bush administration appears to be such that he is willing to accept that the lives of American service people should be endangered by continued delay and uncertainty, that the UN Security Council should be severely weakened or rendered irrelevant, and that Kim Jong Il should be given a large window of opportunity in which to ratchet up tensions further in Asia while America is distracted with Iraq.

In this, Nathan is merely following the example of the French, whom he will continue to defend. Chirac's opposition to US-British initiatives on the Security Council is also based in political considerations external to those deliberations--here, in Chirac's long-standing intention to oppose the American hyperpower and the Atlanticist Tony Blair. Like Nathan, Chirac appears willing to poison the EU and destroy NATO in the process if that's what it takes.

Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 15, 2003 10:03 AM

Good fucking grief. Please let's keep the debate focused on the actual issues and stay away from analyzing the motavations behind everybody's stance on the issues. Who in the world doesn't have an axe to grind? Anybody who says their political opinions are not influenced by their innate biases and/or self interest is a liar or very very deluded. Etc etc.

And please let's not even touch the "opposing war in Iraq is endangering the lives of American soldiers" argument. If Jack Stephens wants to believe that by not responding to that claim we are conceeding it to him, let him go ahead and be happy for himself.

Posted by: cs at March 15, 2003 12:32 PM

Thanks for your guidance, cs.
Do humor me just this once, though:

The only reason Saddam has been cooperating at all is because a quarter million coalition troops are massed on his borders. Maintaining a state of readiness in the desert for weeks on end is already taking its effects on morale and machines, gradually rendering coalition troops a less effective fighting force.

Attacking US foreign policy because you hate Bush (which, "let's please" note, Nathan has not ventured to deny) amounts to playing politics with the lives of our men and women in uniform.

-----------------------------------------------

THE PRICE OF DELAY
By JONATHAN FOREMAN
NY Post Op/Ed
March 15, 2003

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/32264.htm

Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 15, 2003 08:08 PM

Yep-- those of us who don't want to send the soldiers to die are the ones endangering their lives.

Peace is war.

I love Orwellian language. It's so entertaining.

Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 15, 2003 08:25 PM

Jack Stephens,

Oh Please, give it a rest, If Kim Jong Ill attacks it is not because we paid too little attention to Saddam it is because we paid too much. We have got a man in Kim Jong Ill who has Nuclear Weapons and has threatened to use them yet we are in the Middle East trying to fight a guy who has to use balsa wood and duct tape to make a drone.

Posted by: Davarro at March 15, 2003 08:39 PM

"Orwellian language":
The troops are already there, Nathan, so it's a bit late not to want to send them there. As mentioned earlier (and as has been acknowledged by both Blix AND Chirac at one time or another) the troops are the only reason Saddam is pretending to cooperate with the inspectors.

So, should we just scrap 1441 and pull the troops home?
What is your idea of appeasement, Nathan?

North Korea:
Yes, well, the idea is to *prevent* another petty anti-American dictator from getting WMD. If we threaten Kim, he'll take out Seoul, just for starters. This is a minor difference, I think you'll agree.
We've tried disarmament diplomacy for 12 years with Saddam, and it hasn't worked. The UN Security Council just received the N. Korea case.

My argument was precisely that we are being compelled by the unprincipled opposition of France, leaders of the useful idiot "peace" movement, to devote to Iraq *more* attention and assets than would otherwise be necessary, giving Kim an opportunity to destabilize Asia.

Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 15, 2003 09:19 PM

Jack, the troops are not in Bagdad, which is where many of them will die, probably from continual suicide bombings as they try to occupy the city.

As for 1441, if it authorized force, Bush would not be having problem getting his nine votes. Obviously, Syria never signed onto a resolution authorizing force-- it has stated from the beginning it was against it.

So it is pure dishonest fiction, having lost the vote, to go back and pretend authorization is not needed-- authorization that is clearly required by 1441 itself.

But then, Bush lost a vote in Florida and decided he didn't need to actually win the vote there-- he just used the Supreme Court. Now he's just using the military to avoid a vote he didn't win.

Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 15, 2003 09:31 PM

I've got the major point here boiled down to soundbites.

1. If you can't trust someone with a small job, how can you trust them with a big job?

2. The military can win the war. Bush can't. (Let's put credit where credit is due).

3. But Bush can lose the war, and he almost certainly will lose the peace. He's screwed averything else up so far.

Posted by: zizka at March 15, 2003 10:14 PM

Nathan,
Bush has consistently maintained from day one that another resolution is not necessary. He is continuing to pursue one largely because Tony Blair needs it politically. So, Bush is not "going back" in any way whatsoever.

Resolution 1441 closes by threatening Iraq with "serious consequences," which as you know, is diplomatese for war. The insistence that this issue be resolved "peacefully" is nowhere to be found in this document. Months of additional inspections are nowhere to be found in this document.

The defense of U.S. national security cannot be beholden to what the poor Syrians thought they were signing, and I'm completely astounded that you think this is important.

No vote has been held for Bush to have "lost." Surely you want to show at least some fidelity to the facts of the matter.

I have not seen the claim that 1441 "clearly requires" additional authorization. With all due respect, it again seems that you outstrip America's adversaries and enemies with your attacks on American foreign policy. Would you be willing to show where you find this requirement?

So we should just pull the troops home, then.
What would appeasement be, in your mind?

Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 15, 2003 10:34 PM

The UN just recieved the North Korea case????? They have had it for 50 years. So your basic point is that we should attack Saddam because he is an easy target but not attack North Korea because they are more difficult???

How do you know France's position is unprincipled? Are you Jacque Chirac? There you go again assuming somebodies stances are unprincipled because they disagree with you.

Comparing Nathan to the enemy again huh? Last time I checked this was a free country, despite what John Ashcroft thinks. Nathan can criticize American foreign policy just as good as anybody else can and he shouldn't be called an enemy for it.

"The Defense of US National Security is not beholden to what the Syrians think" You have been reading the RNC fax releases too much. The defense of US National Security is beholden to what everybody thinks. It has been reported that there are Al Qaida cells in 60 countries throughout the world. In some of these countries the US has bases, embassies, and diplomats. If you are going to have an organized effort to bring down Al Qaida then you have to have the cooperations of other countries. International Coalitions are not a matter of convenience they are a matter of necessity in our modern day world and economy.

"Appeasement"

Saddam is not Adolf Hitler. He knows what the consequences would be if he took any action taken against countries that surround him. However what we have done now is boxed Saddam into a corner where I feel he is going to launch a pre-emptive strike against us(After all, we are not the only ones who can launch pre-emptive strikes". this is about his only chance of surviving and that is slim. That is the danger of the pre-emptive strike policy, after this war pre-emption will not only be an option for us but for other countries as well (such as India, Pakistan, Syria, North Korea, China,) and the whole rest of the modern world.

You can't go to war on what if's because I can come up with a million what if's for every other country in the world. What if China decides to ratchet up tensions with Tiawan. After all, China has Weapons of Mass Destruction so why don't we go after them? The aforementioned North Korea? All of these situations and many more I feel are a bigger threat to our national security than Iraq.

The inconsistency of our American Foreign Policy begs many legitimate questions that need to be answered and should be answered but won't be answered because we have a president that has to have scripted press conferences. You can call me an appeaser all you want and you can say I hate Bush up and down this whole comments board but legitimate questions should not be treated as hostile to America is should be treated as essential to American democracy and patriotism.

Posted by: Davarro at March 16, 2003 01:43 AM

To answer your question about what we should do. We should keep around 50,000-75,000 Troops in Kuwait so that there is still sufficent pressure on Saddam to allow the inspections to go on.(After all we have kept troops in South Korea for 50 years. We also still have troops in Europe protecting Western Europe from the Warsaw Pact countries that don't exist anymore) once the the inspections are complete and all reports are in there could be many options available to us. Such as funding insurgency groups in Iraq and actually taking make real change in Iraq brought about by the Iraqi people. However, if we do fund insurgency groups at higher levels than we are currently funding them there would be a possibility of us using air support to help the insurgents. This would be enormously cheaper than the current crisis we are in and I feel more effective in bringing about good will toward the United States in Iraq. Instead of what I feel will be a country that despises us once we invade and kill thousands of civilians.

There is also the option of going to the UN after the inspections are complete and having a resolution that states clearly that if Iraq uses Weapons of Mass Destruction at any point and time that it would trigger an international coalition that would bring down the regime. I believe this would probably pass because we would have proven by letting the inspectors complete there job that we want peace and not war. This would also allow our international coalition to be revived.

There are many more options that we could use that I don't feel like typing down right now. The war first option is an option that I do not believe should be considered right now.

Posted by: Davarro at March 16, 2003 02:10 AM

"The idiot Peace Movement"

Wow that is taking this debate to a whole new level of intellectualism. Calling people idiots because you disagree with them. Yeah that really must of took some serious thought

"Devote to Iraq more attention and assets than would otherwise be necessary."

What in the living name of christ are you talking about? We are going to war with Iraq we have to devote attention and assets to this. War costs money, it is not cheap. If we are going to war I personally want our country to have alot of attention on the country we are fighting. That is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever heard we are devoting to much attention to a country we are about to go to war against.

"Allowing Kim Jon Ill to further destabilize Asia."

There are consequences to every decision that is made. When a president makes a decision to go to war other diplomatic, political, and global crisis's are not going to get as much attention. When war happens this is one of the risks. At any point in American and World History this has been the case.

Posted by: Barberie at March 16, 2003 02:43 AM

"Attacking US foreign policy because you hate Bush"

Hmmm, I wonder if Jack attacked US Foreign Policy during the Clinton Administration? You know Jack, Tom Delay, Don Nickles, and Trent Lott all opposed the War in Serbia. I guess they where just members of the idiot peace movement also. In 1997 or 98 Don Nickles issued a statement that was against an attack in Iraq during the Clinton Administration.

"gradually Rendering coalition troops a less effective fighting force."

In Desert Storm our troops stayed in a state of readiness for about 6 months. Not to mention, the fact that many of our troops and many of our machines for this Gulf War are just now arriving.


Posted by: Meto at March 16, 2003 03:13 AM

Wow, next thing you know Jack is going to get George Bush to attack Nathan Newman for trying to subvert American Foreign Policy.

In any War there is a need to work out deals with International Leaders to use bases, bring there troops into the fight, and or give money to the cause. there is almost always since Vietnam a viable peace movement against War. If Bush cannot handle these things then maybe he shouldn't be President. Too attack other countries and saying they are unprincipled is ridiculous. It is not becoming of a nation that is practicing a "humble foreign policy" as Bush stated he wanted his foreign policy to be during the debates with Gore.

Posted by: au01 at March 16, 2003 03:30 AM

So Jack,

Since you're making the appeasement claim, maybe you can tell me how not revoking the breathing privileges of a shitheap is appeasing said shitheap.

You know what, I despise George Bush. And it's my right to. I'm an American because I pledge allegiance to no one individual. It's the very reason for our existence, in case you right-wing sleazes forgot.

Get the fuck out of my country and go live in Saudi Arabia, where your kind can get the royalty you want.

Posted by: Dr. Squid at March 17, 2003 10:50 AM

big fight on the hill ,haliburton has to come up with a dummy company and name fast ,I think bush&chenny inc.wouldnt draw attention .what do you think? part 2 how to convince the 70% of americans who are still in a stooper and blind with support on who to attack next, iran or syria? they both have to go so as to give dominace to that part of the mideast.also paving the way for u.s. bases,which in turn will give us some incredible power to take over the rest of the middle east.now with these 3 easy targets done away with, and with israel as an ally ,guess what ? you just got your new world order, As an added bonus ,complete control of most of the worlds oil supply, and you guys thought bush was dumb. And all this started with our love for the iraqi people.I also have 650 000 acres of swamp land i need to sell,Im absolutely certain that this band of con artists could help me get rid of it.

Posted by: william at April 3, 2003 04:38 AM

big fight on the hill ,haliburton has to come up with a dummy company and name fast ,I think bush&chenny inc.wouldnt draw attention .what do you think? part 2 how to convince the 70% of americans who are still in a stooper and blind with support on who to attack next, iran or syria? they both have to go so as to give dominace to that part of the mideast.also paving the way for u.s. bases,which in turn will give us some incredible power to take over the rest of the middle east.now with these 3 easy targets done away with, and with israel as an ally ,guess what ? you just got your new world order, As an added bonus ,complete control of most of the worlds oil supply, and you guys thought bush was dumb. And all this started with our love for the iraqi people.I also have 650 000 acres of swamp land i need to sell,Im absolutely certain that this band of con artists could help me get rid of it.

Posted by: william at April 3, 2003 04:38 AM

big fight on the hill ,haliburton has to come up with a dummy company and name fast ,I think bush&chenny inc.wouldnt draw attention .what do you think? part 2 how to convince the 70% of americans who are still in a stooper and blind with support on who to attack next, iran or syria? they both have to go so as to give dominace to that part of the mideast.also paving the way for u.s. bases,which in turn will give us some incredible power to take over the rest of the middle east.now with these 3 easy targets done away with, and with israel as an ally ,guess what ? you just got your new world order, As an added bonus ,complete control of most of the worlds oil supply, and you guys thought bush was dumb. And all this started with our love for the iraqi people.I also have 650 000 acres of swamp land i need to sell,Im absolutely certain that this band of con artists could help me get rid of it.

Posted by: william at April 3, 2003 04:38 AM

Help 'Crown' Emperor Bush on Saturday August 23rd, 2003, the NEXT International Day of Action.

http://www.CrownEmperorBush.TYO.ca


Posted by: Emperor Bush at July 18, 2003 12:38 AM

Hi My name is Colette Guindon I live In Ontario Canada...I alway did wonder why United State call themself a Free Country when they are in war all the time...dont have any Medical Coverage paid for their own people..dont have welfare plan for their own people...I find this real sad...Here in Canada we have full Medical Coverage since the first day you are born to the last day you die..if you are not working you are not on the Street like your people are we got full welfare...single mother got full welfare with low income gear full medical for them and their child...something you dont give your peoples overthere...I got some friend overther in the State that dont even have medical coverage and cannot get health care because they dont have money..and other who cannot find work and they are stuck from one shelter to the other because they dont have welfare that is real sad when we see what the United State do with their money..spending it on war going to mars..I cannot understand this at all...why instead of killing innocent peoples they dont mind their own business and help their own people...I am very glad I am not American and live in Canada...US we are a free country..our Goverment dont go and kill innocent people or to go Mars he help his own people..nobody is on the street without money..without medical..and without a place to stay...think about what I have said..still not understand that in the year 2004 I need to see some of my friend in the State on the sidewalk with no welfare no place to stay and no medical..Thank you Mrs Guindon

Posted by: colette guindon at March 15, 2004 11:48 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)