Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

WITH ALL OUR MIGHT....Last week I read With All Our Might, a collection of essays by liberal national security wonks that was published recently under the aegis of the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the DLC. As with any collection of essays, the quality is variable, but reading them crystallized in my mind a fundamental problem that this volume shares with Peter Beinart's The Good Fight: although both books sound toughminded about national security, they both tiptoe around the most fundamental question of all.

I've previously mentioned that Beinart's vision for the future is pretty much standard liberal boilerplate, and it turns out that PPI's is too. It might be unfair to foreshorten the arguments so radically, but basically the essays in With All Our Might recommend that we ally ourselves with Muslim moderates, support democracy, pay attention to economic development, support nuclear counterproliferation, transform the military, engage with allies, work toward energy independence, etc. etc. With a few minor exceptions, there's really nothing there that MoveOn or Howard Dean or anyone else on the left would argue with very much.

So what's all the argument about? I feel sort of stupid for saying something so obvious, but the argument is about when to use military force. Or, more accurately, I would feel stupid about saying something so obvious if it weren't for the fact that both books seemingly go out of their way to avoid addressing this question. For all their talk about allies and restraint and soft power, would these authors support military strikes on Iran? North Korea? Darfur? How about special ops attacks on terrorist camps? Should we have crossed the border into Pakistan during the Afghanistan war? Should Russia withdraw from Chechnya? How long should we stay in Iraq?

I know there's no tidy answer to this. There isn't a magic formula that tells us when it's right to support military action and when it isn't. And yet, in a 14-part book about the war on terror, shouldn't at least one chapter be devoted to Iraq? Shouldn't at least one chapter be devoted entirely to the Bush Doctrine and what we'd replace it with? Shouldn't at least one chapter be devoted to explaining when we will support military force, not merely repeating the mantra that we won't use it except as a "last resort"?

Maybe I'm asking the impossible. And God knows this discussion would do nothing except magnify liberal fissures, rather than finding common ground. And yet, if toughminded liberals are going to criticize their weak-kneed brethren, shouldn't they be a little more forthcoming about exactly how tough they think we ought to be?

Kevin Drum 12:42 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (111)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Does the book address how to make international law more effective so we have better diplomatic tools?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on June 14, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

I'm glad Kevin's finally applying some skepticism to those chest beaters over at Democracy Arsenal.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on June 14, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Carl: No, not specifically, althoug WAOM's chapter about the United Nations is fairly decent.

As an aside, Democracy Arsenal isn't associated with either the DLC or PPI (as far as I know). In any case, I typically link to stuff I like and ignore stuff I don't. I like some of the posts at DA and link to them, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on June 14, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

So, what would the prescription be? How about: The US will take appropriate counter-measures, up to and including military force, upon any attack, including attacks on US possessions, vessels, and citizens.

This doesn't address the pre-emptive question, though--and I'm not sure that needs to be addressed.

Posted by: LeisureGuy on June 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Taking to extreme the concept of internalization of Repub's absurd talking points about Dems' 'lack of seriousness' on national security by writing a tome to answer them.

'Go fuck yourself' would have sufficed.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

great points kevin- that the left desperately needs to answer

J.S.

Posted by: J.S. on June 14, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

I think the problem is in specifying force. Only the most ardent right-wing hawks (those without power or influence) come right out and say they'd attack or bomb this or that nation. The Republican mainstream always keeps its options open, and obviously has in almost every case, so it's expecting a bit much to have tough-minded liberals coming out with specifics about how we should be using force, which is always about real-world human beings and actors, not abstract entities.

That said, I think this "tough" posturing is a bunch of crap in some ways, but at least the things you mentioned in the first paragraph sound like sensible approaches to me, in general, though I wonder where there's more lip-synch there than actual readiness to sing those tunes all the way through, and in a just manner.

Posted by: Jimm on June 14, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

And yet, in a 14-part book about the war on terror, shouldn't at least one chapter be devoted to Iraq?

Good question Kevin. The reason why there wasn't the one chapter devoted to Iraq from the liberals was because they would have to admit Bush and conservatives were right about Iraq. The killing of Al-Zarqawi and Bush's visit to Iraq yesterday marks a turning point in the war that shows the terrorists can't win. With their terrorist infrastructure destroyed by the killing of Al-Zarqawi, the terrorists have been effectively eliminated in Iraq and the fledgling free and democratic government in Iraq has prevailed.

Posted by: Al on June 14, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

J. S.

Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

I wrote a diary on Iran today for the DKos extended community, and it basically boils down to framing aggression against Iran as a Bush "mulligan". I have no fear of Iran, and don't know any American who feels they can outcompete us on the world stage, especially the way they're currently constituted, so why are we so worried about threatening force against them in order to win our struggle for influence and power with them? What's wrong with a little healthy competition, rather than being a bully who breaks one of the upstart's legs before agreeing to a golf game with him?

And, as a preemptive by the way, I don't buy the nuclear bogeyman, or that we should not fully enforce the NPT, allowing some nations to skate (like Israel), as the real reason we're putting pressure on Iran. Or that their figurehead president is actually in charge. Or that Iran would deploy nukes against Israel, or give them to terrorists. Or that Iran is expansionary and an aggressor (especially). I don't buy any of that, and it's all a bunch of crap. This really boils down to a power game between us and Iran, and we should have no fear of not being able to outcompete them. What cowards we've become!

Posted by: Jimm on June 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Though, with Bush in charge, maybe we should be fearful of our ability to compete.

Posted by: Jimm on June 14, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent post, and a real marker in the debate (or where the debate SHOULD be headed).

When I posted in chats about Beinart's book, the problem as I see it is not one of policy, but of politics and psychology. Liberals are in a real Catch-22, because the American mindset is generally pro-war (or at lest depressingly easily duped into supporting war). Yet our beliefs require us to use all options short of military action to solve conflicts.

Until we can convince the American public that war is as destructive to the fabric of life here as it is abroad, and that it simply costs too much in blood and treasure for us as a country to be reflexively in favor of the military option, it will be easy for us to be demagogued on this issue.

Right now, the only solution I can see is to take our lumps, continue stating our case, and fight back against charges of weakness and disloyalty. Maybe the public will come around. The other direction leads to some version of imperialism or outright fascism.

If anyone has a better solution to an admittedly thorny problem, I'm all ears. It's very frustrating to know you are right, yet the public discourse rejects the best arguments (i.e., a de-emphasis of the military role in foreign policy) seemingly out of hand.

Posted by: brewmn on June 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

The killing of Al-Zarqawi and Bush's visit to Iraq yesterday marks a turning point in the war that shows the terrorists can't win.

Sorry, Al, but until Bush is able to make a formal visit to Iraq instead of sneaking in like a thief as he's done everytime he's visited in the past 3 years, his Iraq crusade remains f*cked up.

Posted by: Nikki on June 14, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, by using the phrase "how tough", you play into the hands of the hawks, by playing on their turf. The implication is that if you're aggressive with the military you're tough, and if you're more cautious you're not tough, with the implication that you're not tough enough.

In his inaugural address, JFK said "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." The Bush administration fears to negotiate, and it opposes the very concept of binding treaties, perhaps because it has so little confidence in its abilities on that front that it's sure it will get taken by those clever furriners.

A focus on effective diplomacy can make the use of force more effective when it is needed. For example, Bush Sr. was able to line up almost the entire international community to oppose Saddam's invasion of Iraq, and limited the war to the legitimate objective of expelling Saddam from Kuwait (not that I support everything done in that war, like the attacks on civilian infrastructure).

Posted by: Joe Buck on June 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Do we know where the Republicans stand on these issues beyond their capacity to screw up everywhere?

Dems are stupid to let the Republicans dictate the terms of the debate in a manner which makes the liberals appear to be defensive whereas the record of the current administration demands that its should be the GOP which should be defending its positions on national security.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Really it's about honesty.

A lot of liberals would support military intervention to eliminate actual imminent threats, to remove world leaders who are actually committing genocide, and to destroy terrorist training camps in places like northern Iraq before the war. We'd also like a frank and honest public discussion of expected repercussions, exit strategies, and how our actions will affect our standing in the region and the world (including the number and motivation level of international terrorists).

Any discussion of the Bush Doctrine has to include an in depth analysis of how the rhetoric had nothing to do with the actual motives, actions, or results.

Posted by: rewolfrats on June 14, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm willing to use military force to get California out of the union. How's that?

Posted by: craigie on June 14, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Shouldn't at least one chapter be devoted entirely to the Bush Doctrine and what we'd replace it with?

What exactly is the Bush Doctrine? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

Posted by: mmy on June 14, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

God knows this discussion would do nothing except magnify liberal fissures, rather than finding common ground.

Kevin, we need to have those fights now. If we just paper over such issues, they will be exposed with a vengeance come the next close election. To reclaim a lasting majority, the Democrats must show they are tough enough to deal decisively with the hard issues and not just dance around the edges.

Posted by: Keith G on June 14, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

File under: Why NOT to elect liberals in a time of war.

"Maybe I'm asking the impossible. God knows this discussion would do nothing except magnify liberal fissures"

Posted by: Zarqawi Done Dead on June 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

if toughminded liberals are going to criticize their weak-kneed brethren, shouldn't they be a little more forthcoming about exactly how tough they think we ought to be?

Well, exactly as toughminded as the Republicans demand, of course.

Posted by: dj moonbat on June 14, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Shockingly, liberals are so devoted to finding diplomatic appeasement options that they don't even address the option of giving our troops a chance to serve their country.

This is news?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 14, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sick of hearing "But what would the Democrats do?"

How about: The Democrats would do what they did the last time they controlled the executive branch. It is a virtual certainty that a good number of Clinton administration officials would serve in a new Democratic administration because that's just how Washington works.

So what did Democrats do? Work through NATO to stop genocide; broker peace agreements in the Middle East and Northern Ireland; intervene in Haiti and Somalia.

And of course there's the other stuff - more progressive taxation, balanced budgets, saving Social Security and Medicare, more jobs, increased minimum wage.

People talk as if there's absolutely no way of knowing how the Democrats would govern and how it would be different than what we have now (one example: Tim Russert last night on Letterman). I don't like those people.

Posted by: ALevin on June 14, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

My response would be to look at the Founding Fathers intent. This can be gleaned most readily from looking at the Federalist Papers, Essay No. 3, which says The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. Clearly, our current occupation of Iraq does not meet those qualifications, nor do most of the military interventions of the past sixty years.

I interpret the part about violation of treaties to mean that if another nation violates or attempts to violate our sovereignty, then war is justified. But the implication is clear war should only be undertaken for the most direct and egregious assaults on the United States sovereignty. In other words, NOT VERY DAMNED OFTEN!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 14, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

you dems just keep a' worrying about this!
diebold will keep you from having to actually do anything!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on June 14, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

"basically the essays in With All Our Might recommend that we ally ourselves with Muslim moderates, support democracy, pay attention to economic development, support nuclear counterproliferation, transform the military, engage with allies, work toward energy independence, etc. etc. With a few minor exceptions, there's really nothing there that MoveOn or Howard Dean or anyone else on the left would argue with very much."

The thing about that quote is, at least on the surface, neither will any Republicans. The major issue with our current foreign policy travails is that there is such a dearth of solutions; if you were to ask Bush about moderate Muslims I'm sure he would have a lovely 30-second sound bite praising Islam as a religion of peace and how it has been hijacked by a radical few, etc. etc. But it's all a difference of degree, not of type. Point blank, if any serious Dem. candidate is asked about taking force off the table when dealing with N. Korea or Iran or such none of them are going to say "I vow not to attack country x." Maybe it just used to be more unspoken, but the fact is that the threat of force was always a threat in any serious foreign policy conflict. The issue is that Bush and co. are way, way more willing to use force and ignore the other stuff than Dems are.

All this boils down to the central issue: how do we differentiate Dems from Repubs on foreign policy? Spouting out a list of good ideas and then saying, "But WE really mean it" is pretty lame. But because of the current quagmire in Iraq and in dealing with the War on Terrorism, there really aren't a lot of other options.

Posted by: DavidB on June 14, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

ALevin

Some Democrats love to wank each other.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Determining which circumstances require military action and which don't is a little like pornography: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. I actually think it would be a mistake for a progressive candidate, or Democratic institutions, to articulate this issue in the same way it would, say health care policy. It can't be expressed in a prescriptive way -- it simply has to remain part of the unexpressed qualities of a capable leader to know when to talk and when to shoot. If the public sees a Democratic candidate that it feels will come up with the right answers when the time comes, Democrats will have slayed that old canard that their default position will always be wimpiness. Although Kevin is being eminently reasonable here, all the cogent essays and position papers in the world won't do it.

Posted by: jonas on June 14, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: And yet, if toughminded liberals are going to criticize their weak-kneed brethren, shouldn't they be a little more forthcoming about exactly how tough they think we ought to be?

Pacifism is tough-minded.

Militarism is weak-kneed.

The US now accounts for about 48% of the world's $1.12 TRILLION in annual military expenditures. No other country comes anywhere remotely close to that. The next runners-up are the UK, France, Japan and China with 4% to 5% each.

All of this fake, phony posturing about when and where and how to use "military force" is really about justifying that obscenity, so that US taxpayers will continue to fork over a half a trillion dollars every year to line the pockets of the wealthy and powerful CEOs of the corporations that comprise the military-industrial-petroleum complex.

I think that the USA should be "tough enough" to relate to the rest of the world without spending as much as the entire rest of the world combined -- including all of our allies -- on the military.

I think that "liberals" should be tough enough to challenge this obscene insanity and demand that the HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS in annual US military expenditures be substantially re-directed to meet actual human needs, and address the actual threats to human survival, both domestically and internationally.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it also obvious that there can't be any sane, general answer to the question of how "tough" to be? It's like asking, "How much money should we spend on government?" Doesn't make any sense. You have to talk about particular situations, particular policies.

Bush and his crew didn't go into Iraq because they're "tougher" than the lefties who opposed the war. They went into Iraq because they thought it would be easy -- i.e. because they're stupid. Liberals like Beinart, who supported them, are equally stupid -- they haven't shown that they deserve some sort of "toughness" credential.

Posted by: SqueakyRat on June 14, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

A focus on effective diplomacy can make the use of force more effective when it is needed. For example, Bush Sr. was able to line up almost the entire international community to oppose Saddam's invasion of Iraq, and limited the war to the legitimate objective of expelling Saddam from Kuwait (not that I support everything done in that war, like the attacks on civilian infrastructure).

Posted by: Joe Buck on June 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

But that's the question Joe. When is military force or going to war to be used to achieve your diplomatic goals?

These deficiencies in the book that Kevin points out means that it would be a waste of time to even read.

An interesting thought experiment here might to be consider would Bush the Elder have gone it alone if the UN or the international community (apart from Great Britain) did not agree with the USs goal of expelling Saddam from Kuwait. Given the geo-political, strategic and economics concerns, I believe that he would have acted unilaterally. Especially since there was no way that Bush the Elder would have gone on to Baghdad to remove Saddam from power.

Would you guys have supported or opposed the first Gulf War if it was just the US acting unilaterally in pursuit of its diplomatic goal of restoring Kuwaiti sovereignty?

Posted by: Chicounsel on June 14, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Andrew Bacevich that we should follow Article I, section 8 of the constitution and let congress declare war, and not go to war otherwise. It's what the framers intended, because the legislative branch is the closest approximation to the collective will of the citizenry. You know, the ones actually doing the fighting and dying. So the way to solve the problem is to give congress a spine transplant, or, in other words, to get our elected representatives to do their constitutional duty. The use of force resolution, which gave Bush a blank check to use our military, was a monumental cop-out and a tremendous disservice to the citizens of the United States.

Posted by: John P on June 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

It doesn't really make sense to try and come up with a rule of thumb about when to use forcce and when not. How would you end up with anything other than a mish-mash of hypothetical situations, resulting in policy that's a bland gruel of the lowest common denominators of all the possible places and situations one could imagine applpying force.

It would seem better to select a number of situations from the past that combined instances where you do and don't agree with either the use of force or the lack of such use. But even then, you're using hindsight and necessarily avoiding the uncertainty leading up to those situations, so the exercise is of limitied value.

Posted by: cyntax on June 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

A lot of liberals would support military intervention to eliminate actual imminent threats, to remove world leaders who are actually committing genocide, and to destroy terrorist training camps in places like northern Iraq before the war. We'd also like a frank and honest public discussion of expected repercussions, exit strategies, and how our actions will affect our standing in the region and the world (including the number and motivation level of international terrorists).

I buttonholed David Greenberg about this at a party last weekend, and he was kind enough to listen as I argued that liberals don't have an aversion to a strong defense -- it's more that we have an aversion to an incompetent defense or, more accurately, an aversion to aggression masquerading as self-defense.

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

The reason that "liberals" like Beinart aren't going to get close to the question of when the military should be used to carry out US policy is that probably 70-90% of Americans think the military ought to be used ALL the time. We've been conditioned by our magnificent "victories" in the 20th century to believe our military can right all wrongs in other countries. In their view, only an idiot would challenge that perception.

The perception is of course different from the reality of the latter half of the 20th century. But I think there's a belief in the American people that Korea and Vietnam were anomolies and we've figured out "how" to use our military effectively now. As a former warrior, I'm not convinced. My view: "If you continue to live by the sword, you're probably going to die by the sword."

Posted by: Taobhan on June 14, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

this should be an interesting debate:

http://www.theamericanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9954

Posted by: republicrat on June 14, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

The thing is that almost anything we'd articulate would be better than the Republican's "we'll bomb whoever we want to bomb, when we want to bomb, with or without reason."

As for the drunken trolls who think that Iraq is a huge success and that Bush & Co. could run over their grandmothers and it would be A-OK, why is it that you never talk about Afghanistan? Why don't you tell us all what a huge victory that has been?

Posted by: zoe kentucky on June 14, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Al on June 14, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

This post was so amazingly crass it's got to be an Al alias. Doesn't it?

brewmn covers the psychological level and Joe Buck the "perception" factor. Democrats have to state their own case away from the delusional ground broken by Bush and his cadre of interventionist failures.

The US has been too willing to use force independently and to meddle in other countries' politics. In the long run this has bitten us. The present administration has done the most -- in fact it is the only post-WWII administration to bequeath such a legacy -- to destroy international relationships, partnerships, alliances and treaties. It has been an international wrecking ball.

International law and direct threat to the US or to its allies with which it has mutual defence treaties should be the guide.

International aggression and being bully boy tough is immature and ineffective. Hence the present loss in life and treasure and (immeasurable) goodwill.

Kevin, you're tilting at windmills raised by a particularly unrealistic and unworldly group of Repubnuts.

Posted by: notthere on June 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

GREAT point, Kevin. You're exactly right. If the democrats want to be taken seriously on national security, they've got to be explicit. It's time to have this debate. I still think the dems are going to pull defeat from the jaws of victory unless they can say things about national security that the electorate can take seriously. "Last resort" sounds like a cop-out to everyone except the doves, and the doves are not gonna win you an election.

Posted by: Shag on June 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Taobhan is right on, unfortunately. Americans are disgustingly bellicose. The rah-rah good cheer on the news we'd killed Zarqawi creeped me out. It's a very good thing that he's out of action, but there must be a more somber and appropriate way to react to the news that a human being has been concussed to death in the twisted wreckage of a bombed house, along with three other terrorists, a woman and a child.

Posted by: brooksfoe on June 14, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

To me it's fairly simple: use military force where the use of it won't make things worse. Now on the one hand you can say that's very difficult, but on the other it's easy to see certain situations were the use of military force CAN'T make things worse, such as Rawanda, or Kosovo.

Iran? Use of military force would make things immeasurably worse. Ergo, we should not use military force.

Posted by: MNPundit on June 14, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

notthere is also right on. The number one benchmark should be the consensus of democratic industrialized nations on whether the use of force is merited and wise.

Posted by: brooksfoe on June 14, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum >"...Shouldn't at least one chapter be devoted entirely to the Bush Doctrine and what we'd replace it with?..."

Sure if there was actually a Bush Doctrine other than "my homies good, your homies bad" & "gimme all the oil"

You folks gotta be kidding if you are taking any of this crap seriously; seriously

None of this is going anywhere as long as you continue to play the other`s game on the other`s turf, using the other`s rules

Absurd

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

Posted by: daCascadian on June 14, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

What the people in the Middle East are fighting against fundamentally is the feudal monarchical regimes they have to live under, regimes that have seamless evolved into modern transnational corporations. Opposing those regimes is opposing globalization and corporate culture. We can't be against corporate culture and corporate personhood as it exists in the United States without opposing these regimes even more forcibly, and destroying corporate personhood here is only a start and probably won't work unless it can be done trans-nationally, and that means we would have to take a direct lead in attacking, not 'terrorism', but the oily feudalists who are ostensibly our allies.

Posted by: cld on June 14, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Would you guys have supported or opposed the first Gulf War if it was just the US acting unilaterally in pursuit of its diplomatic goal of restoring Kuwaiti sovereignty?"

Shorter Chicounsel:

"When did you liberals agree to stop beating your wives?"

Posted by: brewmn on June 14, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

It's time to have this debate.

If the link I posted to is correct, we are having this debate now.

In the recent race in California's 50th Congressional district, the Iraq war was not extensively debated. It was, indeed, ignored almost completely.

Posted by: republicrat on June 14, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

In the 21st Century resorting to using military force to gain your political goals is a sure sign of failure/incompetence

PERIOD

Nothing in that statement suggests that nation-states don`t have the right to defend themselves when attacked so go f*ck yourselves Fascist Trolls (American Chicken etc)

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Posted by: daCascadian on June 14, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Nibbling at the margins. Maybe it's time that liberals (or progressives or whatever the hell we're calling ourselves) start speaking plainly about our drift toward empire, and start asking some pointed questions about just why we need to spend more money on arms than the next dozen or so powers combined -- especially when not one of them is anything like an enemy.

We won't hear anything about this from the Beltway crowd, save some vague mumbled condescension about "isolationism".

Posted by: sglover on June 14, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"When did you liberals agree to stop beating your wives?"

Hey don't give Peter Beinart the idea. Next thing you know he will write a magnum opus on why the Democrats should start being nice to their other halves, and the DLC or DNC or whatever, will produce a 600 page collection of essays on Good Husbandary.

Posted by: nut on June 14, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK
Nibbling at the margins. Maybe it's time that liberals (or progressives or whatever the hell we're calling ourselves) start speaking plainly about our drift toward empire, and start asking some pointed questions about just why we need to spend more money on arms than the next dozen or so powers combined

Rest of the world, combined, I believe you'll find, not just "the next dozen or so powers".

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

We've been talking about the Bush doctrine for years now. It's called "Ready, Fire, Aim".

Posted by: Quinn on June 14, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

brewmn, is exactly right about the psychology of the American public. Part of the problem is the lack of an honest tv media to stand up to these idiots.
We need to get Soros to leverage buyout CNN from Time Warner Inc. (I can dream, can't I?) and use the television medium to articulate an intelligent policy on a consistent basis.
The political forum cannot be changed without the public's knowledge of the facts and an understanding of possible solutions.
Why would people support a more prudent use of force if they think the military is the only thing that protects, "our freedoms" from oppression?

Posted by: D. on June 14, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

There isn't a magic formula that tells us when it's right to support military action and when it isn't.

No terrorist of any race or religion wants to destroy America or the American way of life without reason.

There are many terrorist organizations around the world, many of which you Americans haven't even heard of. They do plenty of destruction, trust me. They aren't any less than Al-Qaeda.

So, Kevin, to answer your question, An American President should not engage militarily with any terrorist organization that are of no threat to the U.S. He should, however, engage with organizations that are a threat to the U.S.

Now, how would he know which organization is a threat to the U.S. and which isn't? I am sure that any President knows the answer to this question or can easily find out.

The real challenge is to let American public know about which organization is of a threat to their lives and which aren't. The first step towards being informed on this topic is to stop watching TV.

So, Kevin, stop posting fucking book reviews on national security and develop a brain.

Posted by: An Indian on June 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

sglover >"...start asking some pointed questions about just why we need to spend more money on arms than the next dozen or so powers combined..."

Excellent point

This type of over powering military "might" buildup is the traditional Balance of Power methodology to insure that "those others" can`t decide to gang up on the, ta da !, mighty King of the Hill since, ya know, no matter how buddy buddy "they" might be today ya never know what "they" might be up to tomorrow or next week or...

One might even label it Primate Posturing if one was of clear objective mind

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

Posted by: daCascadian on June 14, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you liberals worry about this? 100 thousand people die from crime every year in the USA. So what if a couple thousand buy it in a war.We have oil interests to protect the military complex ect. Gotta break a few eggs....

Posted by: rush l. on June 14, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Now here is some actual "tough-minded" thinking of the sort that Democrats and "liberals" should embrace, instead of fawning obsequiously before the altar of the half-trillion-dollar-per-year corporate military-industrial-petroleum complex:

The 'war on terror' is a dangerous diversion and prevents the international community from responding effectively to the most likely causes of future conflict, according to a new report, Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, published 12 June 2006.

The result of an 18-month long study by Oxford Research Group, one of Britain's leading independent think tanks, the authors argue that the genuine threats to peace and the likely causes of future conflict are:

  • climate change,
  • competition over resources,
  • socio-economic marginalisation, and
  • global militarisation.

These are the trends that are likely to lead to substantial global and regional instability and large-scale loss of life of a magnitude unmatched by other potential threats, including terrorism.

They are far more important than the current focus on the 'war on terror'. This deeply flawed strategy is consuming hundreds of billions of dollars, creating more recruits and supporters of terrorism than it defeats, and is diverting attention from threats to security that are far more serious, lasting and destructive than that of international terrorism.

Furthermore, the current response to insecurity is essentially about "control" - attempting to maintain the status quo through military force, without addressing the root causes. The authors argue that such security policies are self-defeating in the long-term, and so a new approach is urgently needed.

An alternative "sustainable security" approach aims to address the root causes of those threats, cooperatively using the most effective means available. For example:

  • renewable energy and conservation as the most important response to climate change;
  • energy efficiency as a response to resource competition;
  • intensive poverty reduction programmes as a means to address marginalisation; and
  • the halting and reversal of WMD development and proliferation as a main component of checking global militarisation.

These provide the best chance of averting global disaster, as well as addressing some of the root causes of terrorism.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

What's hilarious is that this bunch of pussies who were too afraid of peer pressure to stand up like men while their country was being taken to a disastrous war based on an obvious hoax, try to compensate for their complete lack of balls by giving their book the "manly" title of "With All Our Might".

With all your might? ROTFLMAO.

Posted by: The Fool on June 14, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

rush l
Let's say I take this as a serious question instead of a ridiculous sally to provoke heated response. Then the obvious question is : Do we get to keep any allies at all ? We can't be everywhere and do everything : will people realize that we can be depended on not to jump into every dispute with hobnailed boots and try to run rampant over every disagreement ? Even a dog gets surly when you beat it constantly.

Posted by: opit on June 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

[i]I interpret the part about violation of treaties to mean that if another nation violates or attempts to violate our sovereignty, then war is justified. But the implication is clear war should only be undertaken for the most direct and egregious assaults on the United States sovereignty. In other words, NOT VERY DAMNED OFTEN!!![/i]

That's an awfully narrow view of when to use military intervention. Under that interpretation we wouldn't have lifted a finger against Hitler if he hadn't been retarded enough to Declare war on us after Pearl Harbor. Ditto vis a vis the Cuban Missile Crisis, Somalia and Darfur. Don't you think any doctrine that doesn't include the ability to engage psychopathic mass murderers before they arrive on your doorstep is fatally flawed from the get-go?

Posted by: Ace on June 14, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

We are confusing means and ends here. As a means, military force should be a last resort.
I don't think that's a tricky idea at all. Call it the Sherman doctrine .

But to what end ? Is it the last resort for preventing genocide, is it a last resort for securing access to oil or is it a last resort to keeping the country from being overrun ?
The reason our invasion of Iraq was so clearly a bad idea is that Saddam Hussein was not a serious threat. If, as was originally claimed, Saddam was an imminent serious threat to us or his neighbors, one that could not be reduced by any other means, then war was a valid option, maybe a necessary one. But, as the evidence of this was so clearly hyped and corrupted and bogus, those who supported this war, like Peter Beinart and company, need to do some serious soul searching to determine how they were so easily misled or what other grandiose ideas they were harboring.

Posted by: ralph on June 14, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

sglover wrote: ... start asking some pointed questions about just why we need to spend more money on arms than the next dozen or so powers combined

cmdicely replied: Rest of the world, combined, I believe you'll find, not just "the next dozen or so powers".

See my comment above, posted at 1:41pm:

The US now accounts for about 48% of the world's $1.12 TRILLION in annual military expenditures. No other country comes anywhere remotely close to that. The next runners-up are the UK, France, Japan and China with 4% to 5% each.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 14, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK
Don't you think any doctrine that doesn't include the ability to engage psychopathic mass murderers before they arrive on your doorstep is fatally flawed from the get-go?

The entire concept of separate, soveriegn nation-states is fundamentally flawed from the get-go in a way which makes any doctrine of the use of military force by such nation-states fundamentally flawed.

The relevant questions ought to be (1) how do we structure a world government to deal with the flaws in the separate-states structure, (2) how do we make such a government implementable, (3) what fundamentally flawed doctrine of military force is least bad to follow until then, including (but not limiting oneself to) consideration of the effect of the use of such doctrine on the process required to answer question (2).

To me, it seems like limiting the use of military force to (1) the clearest cases of direct and specific provocation, actual attacks either carried out or in the process of being carried out (the latter being the traditional, narrow definition of "imminent threat"), and (2) cases where a body granted such authority by widely accepted treaty has judged a threat to international peace and security and found that military force is necessary to address it is, among the fundamentally flawed universe of options, far less flawed than most of the options presented to it.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

That's an awfully narrow view of when to use military intervention. Under that interpretation we wouldn't have lifted a finger against Hitler if he hadn't been retarded enough to Declare war on us after Pearl Harbor. Ditto vis a vis the Cuban Missile Crisis, Somalia and Darfur. Don't you think any doctrine that doesn't include the ability to engage psychopathic mass murderers before they arrive on your doorstep is fatally flawed from the get-go?

Ummmm.... But Hitler did declare war against us. Or are we supposed to concoct foreign policies for parallel universe America, too?

Otherwise, you're not exactly making a strong case. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, we managed to avoid ending industrial civilization thanks to dumb luck, and that affair was over an issue that was essentially meaningless (the U.S. had a tremendous superiority in deliverable nuclear weapons, many of them right on the Soviet border). Nobody considers our experience in Somalia a success in any sense, and while the situation in Darfur is certainly horrific, I've yet to hear anybody come up with a plausible intervention scenario there that won't be a reprise of Mogadishu. Our wonderful Southeast Asian adventure was billed by many as a way of keeping Communist hordes from "our doorstep". Thirty years after the defeat, we're still not seeing any Vietnamese landing craft off the California coast.

Shit, we don't need to stop with post-WW II history. The only reason our war with Spain isn't more of a national disgrace is that it's relatively obscure; our counter-insurgency campaign in the Phillipines is a stain on our history. Woodie Wilson's bizarro-land "War to end all wars" logic was as well-informed as any neo-con wish-thinking, and every bit as successful.

We happened to fight a struggle for survival against foes -- Hitlerite Germany and Imperial Japan -- whose malignancy was such that almost any tactic had some redeeming value. But that situation was truly extraordinary. It's time we start learning from ALL of our history, and shed the illusion that we have any special talent for "benevolent" or "wise" uses of military force.

Posted by: sglover on June 14, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

...they don't even want us to spend 1/2 trillion dollars to remain the world's superpower.
Posted by: Cheney on June 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, anyone? If we could have Cheney wake up in a gang-infested neighborhood in some hypothetical inner-city, and see me standing there with an UZI, do you think he'd write a bad-check for $500 Billion to buy the UZI?

Personally, if I were in that position, I'd just write a check to hire some police to enforce some security, law, and order.
As soon as Cheney falls asleep, of course, with his UZI under his pillow, a gang banger comes along and slits his throat. Poor Cheney.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

When to use force? When our security is threatened or when our cost to end in a great evil is substantially less than the evil itself. Since the War of 1812 or standard for the use of force has been whether a friend of those in power can make a nickel out of it. Sometimes -- as in Grenada, for example -- it's whether the use of power can help boost a party's opinion poll numbers.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on June 14, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

The relevant questions ought to be (1) how do we structure a world government to deal with the flaws in the separate-states structure, (2) how do we make such a government implementable, (3) what fundamentally flawed doctrine of military force is least bad to follow until then, including (but not limiting oneself to) consideration of the effect of the use of such doctrine on the process required to answer question (2).

Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't believe there's enough wisdom in the world to make it happen. In the meantime, my reading of the last several decades of American foreign policy suggests that the availability of our enormous military machine induces our "leaders" into adventures that bring us little or no measurable benefit. For the short term, I'm more inclined to defang the beasts at home, and let the rest of the world attend to its problems.

Oooooo..... Isolationism. Horrible, I know.

Posted by: sglover on June 14, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

So what did Democrats do? Work through NATO to stop genocide;

That worked great for the people of Rwanda, didn't it?

broker peace agreements in the Middle East and Northern Ireland; intervene in Haiti and Somalia.

...and launch cruise missile attacks against two sovereign nations.

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Umm, a question: what exactly is wrong with "standard liberal boilerplate"? I mean, except of course that you've read it before and therefore it lacks the shiny-new-object status that we all adore. Bummer that in the face of NeoCon repetition of talking points, we end up repeating our own, but there you have it.

*******

And, on the issue of when to use military force: if you're a liberal, it's impractical to specify, except to say "as a last resort," because you never know what will be available in specific situations. The trick is to have a sufficiently long list of "resorts," so you never get to that "last resort." In the case of the middle east, the list would look something like

"ally ourselves with Muslim moderates, support democracy, pay attention to economic development, support nuclear counterproliferation, transform the military, engage with allies, work toward energy independence, etc. etc." Which is a quote from your own post.

What I'm trying to get at here is that our decision to use military force shouldn't be dependent on some litmus test of how badly others must behave in order to deserve "military" punishment. That's how the Republicans have framed the question, even more so since 9/11, and it hasn't turned out well at all. (Reminds me of the "just war" theorizing, which seems to exist primarily so that ROTC students in Catholic universities will have something to think about other than sex.)

Instead, the decision to use force ought to be based on how many tools we have at our disposal to change the situation. When we've exhausted the list, we use force and hope it works. Often, it doesn't, hence the focus on making sure the list of options is a long one.

Dividing liberals into "tough-minded" and "weak-kneed" groups buys into the litmus test for military punishment concept, and it's just not a very useful concept when it comes to dealing with other nations. The discussion "magnifies liberal fissures" because it asks liberals to come up with artificial answers to the wrong question.

So no, I don't think liberals should have to be more forthcoming about exactly how tough we think we ought to be.

Posted by: erica on June 14, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

So brooksfoe and nothtere want to leave the decision to use our military up to the "industrialized" nations of the world and international law.

Please please please run on that issue.

Kevins suggestions for the democrats:
align ourselves with muslim moderates
support democracy
pay attention to economic development
support nuclear counterproliferation
transform the military
engage with allies
work towards energy independence

Aside from being "feel good" cliches that the left has absolutely no concrete plans of implemntation for, it is also exactly what this administration is doing.

The left has absolutely no chance this fall. You almost feel sorry for them, not really.

Posted by: Jay on June 14, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Military plans at the UN level should be made on maps without borders.

It should be shameful, not a matter of national Sovereignty, that a third party has escaped into your borders.

Posted by: Crissa on June 14, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

just why we need to spend more money on arms than the next dozen or so powers combined

Err..because at this point in time we must defend our access to oil.

Jimmy Carter was so right.

Posted by: Keith G on June 14, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

The relevant questions ought to be (1) how do we structure a world government to deal with the flaws in the separate-states structure, (2) how do we make such a government implementable,

"World Government." Dream on. The social, economic, political and cultural divisions in the world mean that "world government" will be impossible for the foreseeable future.

To me, it seems like limiting the use of military force to (1) the clearest cases of direct and specific provocation, actual attacks either carried out or in the process of being carried out (the latter being the traditional, narrow definition of "imminent threat"), and (2) cases where a body granted such authority by widely accepted treaty has judged a threat to international peace and security and found that military force is necessary to address it is, among the fundamentally flawed universe of options, far less flawed than most of the options presented to it.

Of course, this language is so vague it's hard to know what it means at all. The next time an African or Asian country starts to systematically slaughter millions of its own people, do you believe military intervention by the U.S. to stop the killing should not be an option?

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Too bad OBF you don't consider the U.S. remaining as the world's superpower could even possibly be "enforc[ing] some security, law, and order." And, you really wonder why that kind of thinking keeps losing elections?
Posted by: Cheney on June 14, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney, it's pretty fucking clear that the US is not enforcing some security law and order in Iraq.

The sad thing is - I'm sure we COULD. I KNOW we could. If Bush had taken Rumsfeld's head out of his ass, and sent enough troops to police the streets and secure the weapons sites and depots.

Instead, Rummy got to "test out" his "Military Transformation" hypothesis, and 300 TONS of high explosives got loose from Al Qa Qaa and are now fucking killing our troops, as well as hundreds of innocent Iraqi civillians PER DAY.

Just calling yourself "the worlds only superpower" doesn't make it so. Just having the world's most powerful military doesn't either. You've got to know when to pull your head out of your ass and USE it for something other than a butt-plug.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

I love your blog, Kevin, but whenever it comes to the "vision thing" in foreign policy, I think you are barking up an inexistant tree. Our overseas interests are of course incredibly entangled in "globally local" politics that are far more complex than the domestic US scene. As such, our manoeuvering room is far smaller, and idealistic concerns rapidly give in to pragmatic ones. That's the way it is, no matter how we want it to be, or how we say we want it to be. "Visionary" presidents are inevitably the most irresponsible ones, because their idealistic blah-blah most misleads us from the sinuous contours of reality. In domestic politics, that's okay, because even if Americans are not of the same mind, they're still mostly following the same familiar trajectory (roughly called the American Dream). Foreigners are up to all sorts of different things, and they don't give a hoot (as much as they can) for our visions. They act accordingly...

Posted by: Moe is me on June 14, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I thought the goal was to "enforce some security, law, and order" to the benefit of the U.S.?
Posted by: Cheney on June 14, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

No - it was an allegory, moron.

But now that you mention it - no, the neocon goal is NOT to enforce security, law, and order. The neocon goal is to create chaos and destruction, so they can use it as a false justification to curtail rights, and defraud the taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars on fraudulent reconstruction contracts. It's war profiteering. Plain and simple.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Osama,

Just calling yourself "the worlds only superpower" doesn't make it so.

True, but in the case of the United States, it's so anyway. See, for example, SecularAnimist's military spending figures to give you an idea of the military dimension of our superpower status.

We're also really the only economic and cultural superpower in the world, although China or India might rival our economic preeminence in a few decades.

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

So, we are not really fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here?
Posted by: Cheney on June 14, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

No.

We are creating more terrorists over there, so the neocon war profiteering cabal doesn't have to worry about running out of reasons to continue defrauding taxpayers over here.

True, but in the case of the United States, it's so anyway. See, for example, SecularAnimist's military spending figures to give you an idea of the military dimension of our superpower status.
Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder what percentage of that figure is FRAUD, and how much we can reduce it and STILL be a superpower.

I wonder how much we could reduce it further, and still be a superpower, by virtue of using our force more intelligently.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 14, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Near as I can tell, our foreign policy with regards to the use of force and without regards to the party that the president belongs to is always: we will use force when we goddamn feel the need to. And as much as the public would like to know when that need is (or do they?), on foreign policy matters, we have far less information available to evaluate our politicians' choices than we do for domestic policy. It's not really until you are in that you see what's actually going on out there... Any preconceived notion of force (e.g. the Bush Doctrine) is going to collide with reality the minute it is applied -- more like slam into it.

I am perfectly happy with a Democratic candidate that shows herself to be pragmatic.

Posted by: Moe is me on June 14, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

"I feel sort of stupid for saying something so obvious, but the argument is about when to use military force."

Whenever Hillary says, I gather.

Posted by: Linus on June 14, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

they don't even want us to spend 1/2 trillion dollars to remain the world's superpower.

IF you're interested in democracy promotion then you certainly are not going to remain the world's only superpower. More democracy will lessen U.S. global power and influence not increase our power.
Just look at France and Germany. Neither one of them joined the, 'coalition of the willing' and even Great Britain won't join us in an attack on Iran.
I don't think the right wing wants to promote freedom and democracy. Cheney's view of foreign policy is use our armed forces to promote U.S. domination of the world, which is the antithesis of a democratic republic.

Posted by: D. on June 14, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Oops. Orthographic and other errors today. Sorry! Of course "inexistent". And without bold:

Near as I can tell, our foreign policy with regards to the use of force and without regards to the party that the president belongs to is always: we will use force when we goddamn feel the need to. And as much as the public would like to know when that need is (or do they?), on foreign policy matters, we have far less information available to evaluate our politicians' choices than we do for domestic policy. It's not really until you are in that you see what's actually going on out there... Any preconceived notion of force (e.g. the Bush Doctrine) is going to collide with reality the minute it is applied -- more like slam into it.

I am perfectly happy with a Democratic candidate that shows herself to be pragmatic.

Posted by: Moe is me on June 14, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK
Our view, of course, is the Bush Doctrine - officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

A statement also followed by the US designation of Pakistan -- a nation that has limited US access to fight Taliban and al-Qaeda units on its territory, shown little willingness to hunt them down on its own, and otherwise demonstrated it to be in the "those who harbor them" category (in addition to having a long-term, well-established, and continuing relationship with various groups linked to al-Qaeda) -- as a major non-NATO ally. Demonstrating that the "Bush Doctrine" was nothing but a manly-sounding lie.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

"So what did Democrats do? Work through NATO to stop genocide;

That worked great for the people of Rwanda, didn't it?"

Yes, we all remember the hue and cry from the Republicans over the slaughter in Africa.

"broker peace agreements in the Middle East and Northern Ireland; intervene in Haiti and Somalia.

...and launch cruise missile attacks against two sovereign nations."

WTF? Your party wholeheartedly supported a fullscale invasion of a "sovereign nation."
This is why protofascists like Bush get elected. Because of morons like you, who can't remember what happened three years ago, let alone learn lessons from what happened three or four decades ago.

You know, I don't recall Clinton calling you all a bunch of pussies for opposing his intervention in the Balkans, although he well could have.

Of all the reprehensible things the modern Republican Party has done, by far is the using of foreign policy and the military as a means of political division and to shore up their political support. It shows you don't give a damn about America or the people in it, but only your own political power. Disgusting.

History will not be kind to you.

Posted by: brewmn on June 14, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK
Of course, this language is so vague it's hard to know what it means at all.

You say that quite frequently about lots of pretty specific things.

I think it illustrates, mostly, that you have a serious deficiency when it comes to reading comprehension.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

You say that quite frequently about lots of pretty specific things.

Yeah, like "provocation," whatever that's supposed to cover. That's a typical example of your extremely unspecific "pretty specific things."

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, like "provocation," whatever that's supposed to cover.

I think you've proven my point quite well.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

This liberal favors mandatory military service for all and hanging traitors on the National Mall. Hope that is tough enough for TNR.

Posted by: Republicans=Cowards on June 14, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

brewmn,

Yes, we all remember the hue and cry from the Republicans over the slaughter in Africa. ....

There wasn't much hue and cry from the Democrats, either, and it was a Democratic president, not a Republican one, who chose to sit on his hands while a million people were being slaughtered in Rwanda.

Your party wholeheartedly supported a fullscale invasion of a "sovereign nation."

Assuming this means the War in Iraq, neither party "wholeheartedly" supported it. Anyway, you're changing the subject. The Democrat Clinton Administration launched cruise missile attacks against two sovereign nations.

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

I think you've proven my point quite well.

I think your point is nonsensical.

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

A statement also followed by the US designation of Pakistan -- a nation that has limited US access to fight Taliban and al-Qaeda units on its territory, shown little willingness to hunt them down on its own, and otherwise demonstrated it to be in the "those who harbor them" category (in addition to having a long-term, well-established, and continuing relationship with various groups linked to al-Qaeda) -- as a major non-NATO ally. Demonstrating that the "Bush Doctrine" was nothing but a manly-sounding lie.

Speaking of nonsense....so your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine, as described in the statement you quote, is that unless a country gives the United States unlimited access to "fight Taliban and al-Qaeda units on its territory," it will not be considered an ally.

Let me know when the British government, for example, gives the U.S. this unlimited access.

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

GOP and Cheney,
The Bush doctrine you've desrcibed is suffuciently loose that one can make up a reason for invading half the world. The invasion of Iraq was bogus from the beginning. Saddam was not an islamic fundamentalist, he had almost nothing to do with Al Qaeda, he was no significant threat and he had no serious wmd, certainly nothing that could produce a mushroom cloud. The evidence is overwhelming that Bush and company were selling us a phony war because of a different agenda - whether that's the grandiose schemes of the neo-cons or fear of losing control of the oil supply, or payback for Saddam. But the Bush doctrine ? Please. You can make nearly as good a case for invading South Boston in search of IRA holdouts.

Posted by: ralph on June 14, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK
Speaking of nonsense....so your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine, as described in the statement you quote, is that unless a country gives the United States unlimited access to "fight Taliban and al-Qaeda units on its territory," it will not be considered an ally.

My interpretation is that if a country actively obstructs US efforts to go after al-Qaeda -- the terrorists who attacked the US -- while itself tolerating their continued presence within their own territory, and sponsors groups linked to al-Qaeda as instruments of national policy, and otherwise aids and harbors al-Qaeda, they are clearly "harboring" al-Qaeda.

If one then applies the Bush Doctrine, we must make no distinction between them and al-Qaeda.

Giving them a new designation as an "major ally" seems to be diametrically opposed from what the Bush Doctrine suggests.

Pakistan clearly has, during the "War on Terror" and after the pronouncement of the "Bush Doctrine, harbored al-Qaeda; and the US clearly nonetheless made a pretty substantial distinction between al-Qaeda and Pakistan in terms of treatment. Should it have? Perhaps; its wisdom is an entirely separate question from its consistency with the "Bush Doctrine".

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

EXPECTATIONS !???!!?!


PELOSI THEN

"Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." And she told Tim Russert on a November 17, 2002 appearance NBC's Meet the Press, "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

But flash forward to the "Take Back America" rally where Pelosi insisted:

PELOSI NOW

"[T]here was never anything in the intelligence that said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, never."


Posted by: Zarqawi Done Dead on June 14, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

This liberal favors mandatory military service for all and hanging traitors on the National Mall. Hope that is tough enough for TNR.

Sure you're a liberal? Cause that's pretty gross.

Anyway, I think I'm in concurrence with cmdicely's evaluation of the Pakistani situation. This country will be the next president's nightmare, because all that holds it together is Musharraf. As someone said about the Shah's Iran in the mid-1970's, it's a one-bullet state.

If Bush doesn't find some way to fix the situation, that will be his legacy.

Posted by: sweaty guy on June 14, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

ZDD,

Lots of nations have nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. Most of them do not pose an imminent threat to the United States.

Saying that a nation has or intends to acquire those weapons is not stating that there exists an imminent threat to the United states.

Otherwise, we'd be invading the United Kingdom.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 14, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

so your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine, as described in the statement you quote, is that unless a country gives the United States unlimited access to "fight Taliban and al-Qaeda units on its territory," it will not be considered an ally.

According to Bush, that seems to be the case. As The Decider said on November 6, 2001 "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

So since Pakistan, by actively hampering and limiting our ability to hunt for Bin Laden, is not therefore "with us" it is by Bush's own criteria "against us" in the War on Terror (TM).

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Lots of nations have nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. Most of them do not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Saying that a nation has or intends to acquire those weapons is not stating that there exists an imminent threat to the United states.
Otherwise, we'd be invading the United Kingdom.

Or China, or India, or North Korea, or our good friend and ally Pakistan....

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

This country will be the next president's nightmare, because all that holds it together is Musharraf. As someone said about the Shah's Iran in the mid-1970's, it's a one-bullet state.

Recall also what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito died.

Posted by: Stefan on June 14, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

This country will be the next president's nightmare, because all that holds it together is Musharraf. As someone said about the Shah's Iran in the mid-1970's, it's a one-bullet state.

Recall also what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito died.

It's ridiculous, isn't it? We've spent the last three years wasting time in Iraq, a country that posed no significant threat to the US or its allies, and our good buddy is the nuclear power with an intelligence apparatus stocked with hard core islamists. You could jump up and down saying "Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are gonna be real problems real soon!" and conservatives would get pissed off at you for not clapping hard enough about Zarqawi's body.

Posted by: sweaty guy on June 14, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Ummmm.... But Hitler did declare war against us. Or are we supposed to concoct foreign policies for parallel universe America, too?"

Posting a doctrine that would dictate our conduct in future theoretical situations requires that we run through theoretical situations, don't you think? In the case of Hitler and World War II, FDR was spared a very fractious fight with isolationists when Hitler decided to throw his hat in the ring- something he didn't have to do and that made no sense at all. If the policy the poster outlined tied the fate of the free western world to the irrational decision of a meglomaniac, then I'd venture to say that it is flawed.

"Otherwise, you're not exactly making a strong case. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, we managed to avoid ending industrial civilization thanks to dumb luck, and that affair was over an issue that was essentially meaningless"

I'm a left-of-the-aisle type myself, but I'd hardly call the concept of allowing Castro to have a few dozen nukes to play with after the Soviet Union went belly up "meaningless." That would have been a security concern with very real (albeit possible) consequences.

"Nobody considers our experience in Somalia a success in any sense,"

But most people supported an intervention, contrarian republicans aside. Results of a poor executed doctrine should not besmirch the doctrine itself.


"Our wonderful Southeast Asian adventure was billed by many as a way of keeping Communist hordes from "our doorstep". Thirty years after the defeat, we're still not seeing any Vietnamese landing craft off the California coast."

But there's a difference between a humanitarian intervention (Africa, Serbia) and a political intervention (Vietnam, Korea). No one thinks that the Sudanese government is going to invade Pawtucket, yet 70% of the United States favors intervention.

"We happened to fight a struggle for survival against foes -- Hitlerite Germany and Imperial Japan -- whose malignancy was such that almost any tactic had some redeeming value. But that situation was truly extraordinary."

Extraordinary? Hmm, yeah- "expansionist Empire seeks to conquer its neighbors and mistreat the populace." That hasn't happened very often, now has it?

"It's time we start learning from ALL of our history, and shed the illusion that we have any special talent for "benevolent" or "wise" uses of military force."

Admitting that we've F---ed up repeatedly is one thing, renouncing any possibility of doing interventions correctly ever again is something entirely different. There have been just wars in the past few centuries, and most citizens have felt the obligation to fight them. Assuming that the public doesn't have the will to fight a just war is not a winning election strategy.

Posted by: puggins on June 14, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

I'm always astonished at the trolls who smugly commend themselves for being willing to use military force "against threats" and sneer complacently at liberals as they struggle to define "exactly how tough they think we ought to be." Kindness, generosity, courage and humility are considered virtues throughout the civilized world, but clearly not in trollverse.

Anyhow, threats are not just external realities--they are also in the eye of the individual beholder. Hostile and anxious beholders will feel threatened by situations that others do not regard as threatening. More aggressive temperaments will lash out at perceived threats more quickly and brutally. People who are quick to lash out at perceived, but false, threats are called bullies, thugs and delusional. And Republicans.

What we have learned over the past several years is that we should never, never let the paranoid political bullies of Bushco define threats: Their track record has been very consistent: take bad situations and made them more dangerous.

And the question about how tough we liberals think we ought to be is not precise. "Being tough" isn't a synonym for "use the military against anything that scares you." But if the question was meant to be, "when are liberals willing to use military force?", the answer, imho, encompasses "just war theory": when the cause is just (and real), when all other alternatives have been exhausted, when the use of the military will be effective and when the use of force will improve the condition of those who will suffer the consequences of the war.

Gandhi argued that people need to undergo spiritual regeneration before gaining political power. I believe that Americans need to reflect on that insight before we debate when we ought to use military force. Are American's moral enough to use our political and military power wisely? Reading the trollspew on a thread like this or reflecting on the incompetence of GWB convinces me that no, we aren't.

Posted by: PTate, visiting FR on June 14, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush doctrine you've desrcibed is suffuciently loose that one can make up a reason for invading half the world.

Then I guess so is the Cmdicely Doctrine of "provocation."

"Islamic Head of State Al-JaWhatsHisFace just made a Death-To-America speech. That's provocation. Therefore, we may now justly attack his country."

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

Jay --
Other than misrepresenting what I said, the irony that the USA is at present a global terrorist itself has clearly eluded you.

Posted by: notthere on June 14, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

... the USA is at present a global terrorist ...

That's going at the top of today's list of loony lefty lines. Although, it's not midnight yet, so keep those letters and cards coming.

Posted by: GOP on June 14, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

On Iraq:

Withdraw troops. The main violence is happening between Sunnis and Shiites. They will fight each other until Rapture. Staying in Iraq will only result in our blood and treasure being drained. HOWEVER, if, after the withdraw, the CIA locates any Al Qaeda strongholds, we should launch isolated strikes on those strongholds, like we should have launched the strike on the camp in Khurmal. The Democrats should run on a platform where troops would be withdrawn, but at the same time if any Al Qaeda strongholds would be established in Iraq in the future, they would be dealt with.

We should not cross over into Pakistan. If we do so, then there might be an uprising against the Pakistani government, which is the only friendly government that could probably ever exist there. We should, however, send more military forces into Afghanistan. President Bush allowed 80% of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to escape to the mountains. He believed that once he captured Kabul, those insurgents would be rendered politically powerless and irrelevant. Bush is wrong, and is just as essential that we escalate in Afghanistan as it is we withdraw from Iraq. Sadly, the opposite seems to be happening.

As for Iran, there is still possibility the crisis could be solved diplomatically, but it would require a real carrot and a real stick, not simply small promises of economic integration and weak threats of sanctions and a possible military strike with military forces that are not available to the point we need them to be.

THE STICK: We must either build a military alliance for a last resort against Iran, or, if our allies are unwilling to join us, reposition our military forces in Europe and East Asia to commit themselves to the more essential task of preparing for war with Iran. We must also prepare for the economic damage caused by an oil shortage, so that Tehran knows we will bear that burden.

THE CARROT: The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we ever came to nuclear annihilation, and it was resolved when the U.S. secretly offered to dismantle nuclear sites in Turkey in exchange for a Soviet dismantling of the nuclear sites in Cuba. Iran itself faces a nuclear threat in the region: Israel, which posesses over two hundred nuclear weapons. We fund Israel with roughly $3 Billion a year and provide them with diplomatic support. Israel needs us more than we need them, and because of this, it may be possible that Israel's nukes could be our bargaining chips. We will offer Iran and all the Arab nations a deal: if Iran renounces its nuclear program, and if all Arab nations renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons, Israel will be forced to disarm. If any of those nations ever acquire nuclear weapons, Israel will be reaquipped with nuclear weapons, and the Arab world will live in the shadow of mutally assured destruction.

The U.S. in involved in a massive military commitment in Iraq. The most dangerous enemies that the U.S. faces, however, are not the Sunnis and Shiites fighting a civil war against each other in Iraq. Most of them hate and fear each other too much to care about the U.S.

The most deadly threats facing the U.S. are radical Islam around the globe, Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, specifically, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Bush has failed to deal with these threats. It is essential that the next President deal with them quickly. A hot potato of international disaster can only be passed on to successors for so long before it explodes.

Posted by: brian on June 15, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

It seems that liberalism cannot come to grips with any coherent policy about the use of force. Why is that?

Posted by: brian on June 15, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK
Then I guess so is the Cmdicely Doctrine of "provocation."

"Islamic Head of State Al-JaWhatsHisFace just made a Death-To-America speech. That's provocation. Therefore, we may now justly attack his country."

How is that an actual attack either carried out or in the process of being carried out? If its not, what does it have to do with any characterization of "provocation" I've made int his thread?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 15, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

Anything on how? I doubt it. I'd be curious to see some good ideas, but I'm burnt out on the subject. I think the dems have missed their window on the topic and cried wolf on securty too many times. I've seen to many non-strategies from them for me to even pay attention. For me to pay attention to them, they will need a lot of credible and substantive buzz.

Posted by: aaron on June 16, 2006 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINK

Discount pharmacy UK:
cheap cialis cheap cialis
discount cialis discount cialis
generic cialis generic cialis
buy cialis buy cialis
order cialis order cialis
cheap tadalafil cheap tadalafil
discount tadalafil discount tadalafil
order tadalafil order tadalafil
buy tadalafil buy tadalafil
cheap propecia cheap propecia
generic propecia generic propecia
buy propecia buy propecia
order propecia order propecia
generic propecia generic propecia
cheap proscar cheap proscar
discount proscar discount proscar
order proscar order proscar
buy proscar buy proscar
generic proscar generic proscar
cheap meridia cheap meridia
discount meridia discount meridia
meridia pills meridia pills
order meridia order meridia
buy meridia buy meridia
generic meridia generic meridia
cheap soma cheap soma
generic soma generic soma
discount soma discount soma
order soma order soma
buy soma buy soma

Bad credit: stuff for all with bad credit:
bad credit mortgage bad credit mortgage
bad credit loan bad credit loan
bad credit home loan bad credit home loan
bad credit home equity loan bad credit home equity loan
bad credit personal loan bad credit personal loan
guaranteed bad credit personal loan guaranteed bad credit personal loan
bad credit refinance bad credit refinance
bad credit auto loan bad credit auto loan
bad credit auto loan financing bad credit auto loan financing
bad credit used car loan bad credit used car loan
bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation
bad credit debt consolidation loan bad credit debt consolidation loan
bad credit credit cards bad credit credit cards
credit card for people with bad credit credit card for people with bad credit
unsecured credit card for bad credit unsecured credit card for bad credit
unsecured credit cards unsecured credit cards
bad credit military loan bad credit military loan
bad credit lone mortgage bad credit lone mortgage
bad credit loan mortgage bad credit loan mortgage
bad credit mortgage lender bad credit mortgage lender
bad credit repair bad credit repair
credit repair credit repair
bad credit motorcycle loan bad credit motorcycle loan
bad credit unsecured loan bad credit unsecured loan
bad credit boat loan bad credit boat loan
loan for people with bad credit loan for people with bad credit
second mortgage bad credit second mortgage bad credit
bad credit signature loan bad credit signature loan
bad credit motorcycle financing bad credit motorcycle financing
bad credit home mortgage bad credit home mortgage
bad credit lender bad credit lender
bad credit lenders bad credit lenders
bad credit home improvement loan bad credit home improvement loan
bad credit cash loan bad credit cash loan
california bad credit mortgage california bad credit mortgage
erase bad credit erase bad credit
bad credit visa card bad credit visa card
bad credit secured loan bad credit secured loan
bad debt credit card bad debt credit card
bad credit card bad credit card
online freelance online freelance
freelance jobs freelance jobs
bad credit help bad credit help

discount viagra discount viagra
generic viagra generic viagra
buy viagra buy viagra
order viagra order viagra
cheap viagra cheap viagra
discount levitra discount levitra
generic levitra generic levitra
buy levitra buy levitra
order levitra order levitra
cheap levitra cheap levitra
discount cialis discount cialis
generic cialis generic cialis
buy cialis buy cialis
order cialis order cialis
cheap cialis cheap cialis
mens health pills mens health pills
adult DVD rental adult DVD rental
adult DVD adult DVD
Wholesale adult dvd wholesale adult dvd
adult DVD rentals adult DVD rentals
adult sex movies adult sex movies
adult video adult video
adult DVD movies adult DVD movies
adult DVD empire adult DVD empire
adult video and dvd adult video and dvd
cheap adult DVD cheap adult DVD
adult porn DVD adult porn DVD
adult DVD download adult DVD download
adult xxx DVD adult xxx DVD
rent adult DVD rent adult DVD
online adult DVD rental online adult DVD rental
adult DVD now adult DVD now
Prescription drugs online prescription drugs online
Prescription drugs prescription drugs
Drug prescription drug prescription
drug online prescription drug online prescription
drugs store drugs store
Drugs online drugs online
Discount prescription drugs Discount prescription drugs
Discounted prescription drugs Discounted prescription drugs
Prescription drugs discount prescription drugs discount
Cheap prescription drugs Cheap prescription drugs
Prescription drugs prescription drugs
Discount drugs Discount drugs
Drugs store Drugs store
Adult dating personals Adult dating personals
personal adult dating personal adult dating
dating personals dating personals
Adult dating Adult dating
Adult personals Adult personals
Adult dating personal Adult dating personal
Adult dating services Adult dating services
Adult dating online Adult dating online
Adult dating Adult dating
Online adult dating Online adult dating
dating online dating online
Online dating Online dating
Adult dating services online Adult dating services online
online dating service Online dating service
Adult dating site Adult dating site
Adult sex dating Adult sex dating
Adult dating service Adult dating service
Adult dating online Adult dating online
internet portal internet portal
internet search engine internet search engine
online portal online portal
seek and find seek and find
pay per click search engine pay per click search engine
ppc search engine ppc search engine
internet dating internet dating
free internet dating free internet dating
free online dating free online dating
Posted by: top choice on June 17, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia -
Buy meridia -
Discount meridia -
Buy meridia online -
Generic meridia -
Cheap propecia -
Buy propecia -
Discount propecia -
buy propecia online -
Generic propecia -
Cheap proscar -
buy proscar -
Discount proscar -
Buy oproscar online -
Generic proscar -
Cheap finasteride -
Buy finasteride -
Discount finasteride -
Hair loss pills -
Weight loss pills -
Cheap Rogaine -
Buy Rogaine -
Discount Rogaine -
Generic Rogaine -
Discount minoxidil -
Buy minoxidil -
Cheap cialis -
Discount cialis -
Buy cialis -
Buy cialis online -
Generic cialis -
Cheap tadalafil -
Buy tadalafil -
Discount tadalafil -
Cheap hytrin -
Discount hytrin -
Generic Hytrin -
Buy hytrin -
Buy hytrin online -
Cheap terazosin -
Discount terazosin -
Buy terazosin -
Cheap viagra -
Generic viagra -
Discount viagra -
Buy viagra -
Buy viagra online -
Cheap sildenafil -
Buy sildenafil -
discount sildenafil -
discount anafranil -
buy anafranil -
cheap anafranil -
generic anafranil -
buy anafranil online -
discount asendin -
buy asendin -
cheap asendin -
buy asendin online -
generic asendin -
cheap celexa -
buy celexa -
discount celexa -
buy celexa online -
generic celexa -
cheap effexor -
buy effexor -
discount effexor -
buy effexor online -
generic effexor -
cheap elavil -
discount elavil -
buy elavil -
buy elavil online -
generic elavil -
buy endep -
cheap endep -
discount endep -
cheap luvox -
discount luvox -
buy luvox -
generic luvox -
buy luvox online -
cheap pamelor -
discount pamelor -
buy pamelor -
generic pamelor -
buy pamelor online -
Cheap paxil -
discount paxil -
generic paxil -
buy paxil -
buy paxil online -
cheap prozac -
generic prozac -
discount prozac -
buy prozac -
buy prozac online -
cheap
sinequan
-
buy sinequan -
generic sinequan -
discount sinequan -
buy sinequan online -
cheap
tofranil
-
buy tofranil -
discount tofranil -
generic tofranil -
buy tofranil online -
cheap
wellbutrin
-
generic wellbutrin -
discount wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin online -
cheap bupropion -
buy bupropion -
cheap zoloft -
generic zoloft -
buy zoloft -
discount zoloft -
buy zoloft Online -
cheap
vermox
-
discount vermox -
buy vermox -
buy vermox online -
generic vermox -
cheap aralen -
discount aralen -
generic aralen -
buy aralen -
buy aralen online -
cheap sporanox -
buy sporanox -
generic sporanox -
discount sporanox -
buy sporanox online -
cheap zyprexa -
discount zyprexa -
buy zyprexa -
generic zyprexa -
buy zyprexa online -
cheap compazine -
generic compazine -
buy compazine -
discount compazine -
buy compazine online -
cheap
claritin
-
discount claritin -
generic claritin -
buy claritin -
buy claritin online -
cheap
allegra
-
discount allegra -
buy allegra -
generic allegra -
buy allegra Online -
cheap benadryl -
discount benadryl -
generic benadryl -
buy benadryl -
buy benadryl online -
cheap periactin -
discount periactin -
buy periactin -
generic periactin -
buy periactin online -
cheap advair -
discount advair -
generic advair -
buy advair -
buy advair online -
cheap albuterol -
generic albuterol -
buy albuterol -
discount albuterol -
buy albuterol online -
cheap salbutamol -
buy salbutamol -
buy theophylline -
generic salbutamol -
cheap singulair -
discount singulair -
buy singulair -
generic singulair -
buy singulair online -
cheap aceon -
buy aceon -
generic aceon -
discount aceon -
buy aceon online -
cheap altace -
buy altace -
generic altace -
discount altace -
buy altace online -
cheap avapro -
buy avapro -
generic avapro -
discount avapro -
buy avapro online -
cheap capoten -
discount capoten -
buy capoten -
generic capoten -
buy capoten online -
cheap diamox -
discount diamox -
buy diamox -
generic diamox -
buy diamox online -
cheap lipitor -
buy lipitor -
discount lipitor -
generic lipitor -
buy lipitor online -
cheap zocor -
buy zocor -
discount zocor -
buy zocor online -
generic zocor -
cheap lopid -
discount lopid -
generic lopid -
buy lopid online -
buy lopid -
cheap mevacor -
generic mevacor -
discount mevacor -
buy mevacor -
buy mevacor online -
cheap pravachol -
discount pravachol -
generic pravachol -
buy pravachol -
buy pravachol online -
cheap actos -
discount actos -
generic actos -
buy actos online -
buy actos -
cheap
avandia
-
generic avandia -
buy avandia -
discount avandia -
buy avandia online -
cheap precose -
discount precose -
generic precose -
buy
precose
-
buy precose online -
cheap micronase -
discount micronase -
generic micronase -
buy micronase -
cheap glucovance -
discount glucovance -
generic glucovance -
buy glucovance -
buy glucovance online -
cheap lamictal -
discount lamictal -
buy lamictal -
generic lamictal -
buy lamictal online -
cheap mysoline -
discount mysoline -
buy mysoline -
generic mysoline -
buy mysoline online -
cheap neurontin -
generic neurontin -
buy neurontin -
discount neurontin -
buy neurontin online -
Cheap sodium valproate -
Generic sodium valproate -
Buy sodium valproate -
discount sodium Valproate -
buy sodium valproate online -
cheap tegretol -
discount tegretol -
buy tegretol -
generic tegretol -
buy tegretol online -
cheap dilantin -
discount dilantin -
buy dilantin -
generic dilantin -
buy dilantin online -
cheap aciphex -
discount aciphex -
buy aciphex -
generic aciphex -
buy aciphex online -
cheap bentyl -
discount bentyl -
buy bentyl -
generic bentyl -
buy bentyl online -
Cheap carafate -
discount carafate -
buy carafate -
buy carafate online -
generic carafate -
cheap cephulac -
generic cephulac -
discount cephulac -
buy cephulac -
buy cephulac online -
cheap colace -
generic colace -
buy colace -
discount colace -
buy colace online -
cheap dulcolax -
discount dulcolax -
buy dulcolax -
generic dulcolax -
buy dulcolax online -
cheap imodium -
discount imodium -
buy imodium -
generic imodium -
buy imodium online -
cheap nexium -
discount nexium -
buy nexium -
generic nexium -
buy nexium online -
cheap prevacid -
discount prevacid -
buy prevacid -
generic prevacid -
buy prevacid online -
cheap prilosec -
discount prilosec -
buy prilosec -
generic prilosec -
buy prilosec online -
cheap protonix -
discount protonix -
buy protonix -
generic protonix -
order protonix -
cheap reglan -
buy reglan -
discount reglan -
generic reglan -
order reglan -
cheap zantac -
buy zantac -
discount zantac -
generic zantac -
order zantac -
cheap zofran -
discount zofran -
buy zofran -
generic zofran -
order zofran -
cheap rebetol -
discount rebetol -
buy rebetol -
generic rebetol -
order rebetol -
cheap ribavirin -
buy ribavirin -
order ribavirin -
cheap zovirax -
discount zovirax -
order zovirax -
buy zovirax -
generic zovirax -
cheap epivir -
discount epivir -
buy epivir -
order epivir -
generic epivir -
cheap pyrazinamide -
discount pyrazinamide -
order pyrazinamide -
buy pyrazinamide -
generic pyrazinamide -
cheap retrovir -
discount retrovir -
buy retrovir -
order retrovir -
generic retrovir -
cheap viramune -
discount viramune -
order viramune -
buy viramune -
generic viramune -
cheap zerit -
discount zerit -
buy zerit -
order zerit -
generic zerit -
cheap aldactone -
discount aldactone -
buy aldactone -
order aldactone -
generic aldactone -
cheap calciferol -
discount calciferol -
buy calciferol -
order calciferol -
generic calciferol -
alfa calcidol -
order alfa calcidol -
buy alfa calcidol -
cheap danocrine -
discount danocrine -
order danocrine -
buy danocrine -
generic danocrine -
cheap decadron -
discount decadron -
order decadron -
buy decadron -
generic decadron -
cheap deltasone -
discount deltasone -
buy deltasone -
order deltasone -
generic deltasone -
cheap provera -
discount provera -
buy provera -
order provera -
generic provera -
cheap cycrin -
cheap synthroid -
discount synthroid -
buy synthroid -
order synthroid -
generic levothroid -
cheap levothroid -
cheap robaxin -
discount robaxin -
buy robaxin -
order robaxin -
generic robaxin -
cheap soma -
discount soma -
buy soma -
order soma -
generic soma -
cheap zanaflex -
discount zanaflex -
buy zanaflex -
order zanaflex -
generic zanaflex -
cheap alphagan -
discount alphagan -
buy alphagan -
order alphagan -
generic alphagan -
cheap betagan -
discount betagan -
order betagan -
buy betagan -
generic betagan -
cheap mydriacyl -
discount mydriacyl -
buy mydriacyl -
order mydriacyl -
generic mydriacyl -
cheap propine -
discount propine -
buy propine -
order propine -
generic propine -
discount tobramycin -
buy tobramycin -
cheap tobramycin -
order tobramycin -
buy flour-op -
order flour-op -
cheap flour-op -
discount flour-op -
cheap advil -
generic advil -
order advil -
buy advil -
discount advil -
cheap celebrex -
discount celebrex -
buy celebrex -
order celebrex -
generic celebrex -
cheap imitrex -
discount imitrex -
buy imitrex -
order imitrex -
generic imitrex -
cheap ponstel -
discount ponstel -
order ponstel -
buy ponstel -
generic ponstel -
cheap timoptic -
discount timoptic -
buy timoptic -
order timoptic -
generic timoptic -
cheap tylenol -
discount tylenol -
order tylenol -
buy tylenol -
generic tylenol -
cheap anacin -
buy anacin -
cheap ultram -
discount ultram -
buy ultram -
order ultram -
generic ultram -
cheap benadryl -
order benadryl -
discount benadryl -
buy benadryl -
generic benadryl -
cheap ditropan -
discount ditropan -
order ditropan -
buy ditropan -
generic ditropan -
cheap eldepryl -
discount eldepryl -
buy eldepryl -
order eldepryl -
generic eldepryl -
cheap arava -
discount arava -
order arava -
buy arava -
generic arava -
cheap feldene -
discount feldene -
order feldene -
buy feldene -
generic feldene -
cheap mobic -
discount mobic -
buy mobic -
order mobic -
generic mobic -
cheap naprelan -
discount naprelan -
order naprelan -
buy naprelan -
generic naprelan -
cheap naprosyn -
discount naprosyn -
buy naprosyn -
order naprosyn -
generic naprosyn -
cheap relafen -
generic relafen -
order relafen -
buy relafen -
discount relafen -
cheap zyloprim -
discount zyloprim -
order zyloprim -
buy zyloprim -
generic zyloprim -
cheap ambien -
generic ambien -
discount ambien -
buy ambien -
order ambien -
cheap aygestin -
discount aygestin -
order aygestin -
buy aygestin -
generic aygestin -
cheap clomid -
discount clomid -
order clomid -
buy clomid -
generic clomid -
cheap diflucan -
order diflucan -
discount diflucan -
buy diflucan -
generic diflucan -
cheap evista -
discount evista -
order evista -
buy evista -
generic evista -
cheap fosamax -
discount fosamax -
order fosamax -
buy fosamax -
generic fosamax -
cheap nolvadex -
discount nolvadex -

Posted by: top choice on June 17, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

interesting comments

Posted by: incest porn on June 17, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly