his critics believe he is "hopelessly idealistic."

Yeah my critics believe that I am too smart, too rich and dare I say too darn handsome.

Democracy in Iraq is bringing a repressive theocracy.

Yay freedom.

"trying to foster democracy in nations that have not known it before, like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Oh yes. It really worked so well with the Crusades forcing Christianity on them, let's try it now with 'democracy' being forced them by Bush & Co. That always works best. (how soon they forget they forge Spanish American War, which really accomplished nothing but creating a Cuba ripe for Castro to eventually take over.)

/snark

Perhaps the "experts" are persistent voices in Ms. Stolberg's head. I line my windows with tinfoil to prevent that.

Same article, farther along:

He went on to praise the broadcasters for “standing up for our values, including the right to life,� and pledged to veto any legislation that would reinstitute the so-called “fairness doctrine,� which required broadcasters to give air time to opposing views.

Of course, there is no such legislation. This has been a recurring right wing fantasy and another fine example of Mr. Bush "catapulting the propaganda."

"Ronald Reagan warned that "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."

Especially in the United States of America with republicans in charge.

but freedom is on the march. george bush says so. it's just taking the long, long way to get to places like egypt and saudi arabia.

That god damned liberal NYT!

There's nothing more dangerous as an idealist who doesn't care for his ideals.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin:

Asked whether he agreed with former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's description of him as an "impeccable democrat", Putin replied laughing:

"Of course I am an absolute, pure democrat. But you know the problem? It's not even a problem, it's a real tragedy. The thing is that I am the only one, there just aren't any others in the world."

"After the death of Mahatma Gandhi there's nobody to talk to."

The "freedom agenda" consists not of actually making any place free, but in declaring that certain places are "free" or "not free", based solely on whether keeping the current government in place is beneficial to the administration's interests or not.

And this it the paper the right wing assumes is slanted towards the far left? I'd like to see someone try to get such a soft piece through the editors of the Washington Times on Obama or Clinton. Another example of the mainstream pressing bending so far backwards that they might as well be Hugh Hewitt standing up.

his critics believe he is "hopeless."

fixed it for ya.

Kevin wrote: "We invaded Iraq because.....well, I'm not entirely sure why we invaded Iraq."

Very funny.

The Cheney/Bush administration invaded Iraq in order to install a puppet government headed by Ahmed Chalabi that would hand over control of Iraq's oil reserves to Cheney/Bush cronies and financial backers in the US-based transnational oil corporations, and would acquiesce to a large permanent US military occupation to enforce that control.

The pretense that there was any other reason for the invasion of Iraq than extending US corporate-military domination of Middle Eastern oil supplies is ludicrous.

It is absolutely essential to appreciate the importance of Iraq's oil. Global oil production has already peaked and begun to decline. The Middle East has the world's last, biggest reserves of high-quality, cheaply-extractable oil -- what pre-VP Dick Cheney called "the prize". While much of the Middle Eastern oil is already near or at peak production, Iraq's oil reserves -- which may ultimately prove to be larger than those of Saudi Arabia -- are by comparison barely exploited, and some are completely untouched.

Iraq's oil represents TRILLIONS of dollars of potential profit for western oil corporations. To these folks, and their bought-and-paid-for servants Bush and Cheney, spending a few trillion dollars of the taxpayers' money, sending a few thousand US troops to their deaths, and murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, are a small price to pay to gain control of Iraq's oil.

Meanwhile the Cheney/Bush administration has done nothing but destroy and undermine democracy, not only in other countries but within the USA.

As part of America's corporate-owned mass media, the NY Times -- from the crimes of Judith Miller right up to this article -- is actively, deliberately, knowingly complicit in promoting the blatant fraud of "democracy promotion" by the cartel of corporate criminals and war profiteers that is the Cheney/Bush administration.

The critics Bush cites are half right: he's hopeless.

Meanwhile Iraq and Afghanistan are falling to pieces as "democracy" is "spread" across them, like slices of Wonderbread when you chop off a hunk of margarine straight from the refrigerator and drag it across as fast as possible. And McSame can't wait to take "democracy" to Iran.

I have heard that the Bush family NOW OWNS the oil leases in Kuwait. Possibly a rumor, as I don't how to find out if it is true. (1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT)

"Outside of AEI and the Weekly Standard"

Well, and the NYT. And the Washington Post. And TNR. And all over NPR. And most liberal blogs, until it wasn't cool anymore to support the war.

Our press is dominated by dishonest neo-cons, who will all say, "what, you don't think Muslims are capable of democracy?"

"his critics believe he is 'hopelessly idealistic.'"

Which critics are these? The author seems to confuse criticisms such as "out of touch with reality" or "putting politics over policy" or "wearing ideological blinders" or "overly simplistic" with idealism.

George W Bush has a lot of problems, but idealistic isnt one of them and only someone who confuses words like simplistic with idealistic could even begin to make such a mistaken claim.

This does not even appear to be labeled opinion. Does the NYT think this kind of BS is what passes for objective analysis these days?

Why didn't he just say so five years ago? He could have avoided humiliating Colin Powell at the U.N.

from Stolberg's article
“The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries,� Mr. Bush said. “It will show others what’s possible. And we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That’s why we’re doing this. No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.�

We didn't need all that conflating of Saddam with Osama, or the WMDs, and the "mushroom cloud/smoking gun" scary talk.

We invaded Iraq because
All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free
I can't understand it, so simple to me
People everywhere just got to be free
Ah, ah, yeah . . . ah, ah, yeah

The Young Rascals said it waaay back in those crazy 60's, but Republicans didn't seem to respect it then.

SecularAnimist nails it.

Yes, the truth does hurt sometimes but it also supports healing (not to mention making us free).

Time to start the healing process.

"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." - Robert F. Kennedy

Agree, spreading freedom certainly was not the motivation, or at least the stated motivation for going into either country. Plus I firmly believe going into Iraq was a mistake. But, so what? The question becomes, by pulling out of Iraq and for some even, Afghanistan, what agenda is the Left pushing? Certainly not a "Spreading Freedom" agenda as Wilson pushed, so what is that agenda exactly?

About oil and Iraq, the original motivation was simply to get the full measure of Iraqi oil back on the market. We'd boycotted Iraq because of Saddam and to lift the embargo (as Cheney wanted) was a non-starter. (There's a position paper on this from the James A. Baker Institute.)

Unfortunately, the course of war isn't predictable. And putting the 3 Stooges in charge wasn't a wonderful idea either.

>"We invaded Afghanistan because it was harboring a mass murderer who launched an attack on the United States"

Someone refresh my memory here...

Didn't the Afghanistan govt agree to turn over Osama bin Laden to the World Court?

We invaded Afghanistan because it was harboring a mass murderer who launched an attack on the United States.

That's a good one.

The intervention in Afghanistan was planned well before 9/11. For an excellent exposition of the planning that went into both wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, read The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War by R.W. Behan.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm

Kevin cries, "Could we please hear who these supposed experts are?"

Why sure!

Let's see, there's George Hussein Bush, Dick Hussein Cheney, Fred Hussein Kagan, William Hussein Kristol, Sean Hussein Hannity, Dennis Hussein Prager, Robert Hussein Novak, Ann Hussein Coulter, Rush Hussein Limbaugh, Ben Hussein Stein....

You forgot one thing...

The most persuasive wingnut argument for staying in Iraq.

More soldiers must die so that those who have died will not have died in vain.

You just can't argue with logic like that.

Mike wrote: "The question becomes, by pulling out of Iraq and for some even, Afghanistan, what agenda is the Left pushing? Certainly not a 'Spreading Freedom' agenda as Wilson pushed, so what is that agenda exactly?"

I don't claim to represent "the Left", whatever that may mean to you.

The Cheney/Bush administration invasion and occupation of Iraq was, and is, a crime. It was, and is, a war of unprovoked aggression based on sickening, deliberate, repeated, elaborate lies about a nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" and nonexistent "links between Saddam and Al Qaeda". It has directly caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and the maiming, impoverishment and displacement of millions more. It was a violation of the United Nations Charter and a crime against humanity under the Nuremburg Principles.

My "agenda" is to see this ongoing crime ended and its perpetrators brought to justice.

Beyond that, my "agenda" is to see the United States Of America renounce, completely and forever, a so-called "foreign policy" of corporate-imperialist militarism under which a half-trillion dollars per year of the taxpayers' money is spent on a giant military machine that is consistently deployed as a mercenary army for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for wealthy and powerful corporations, to the detriment of actual US national security, not to mention the detriment of populations of other countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan who are subjected to its brutality.

With regard to other countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, my "agenda" is simply self-determination for the peoples of the world. It is not the place of the United States Of America, let alone the career corporate criminals and war profiteers masquerading as "neoconservative" politicians of the Cheney/Bush administration, to enforce at gunpoint, with bombings and mass murders, a bogus "democracy" which means nothing but subservience to US corporate-military domination.

If George Bush were serious about freedom, wouldn't he apply it to Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and other repressive US allies?

This BS about Bush and democracy reached its zenith recently when Bush visited the United Arab Emirates. In a speech in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, Bush said: "Here in Abu Dhabi, we see clearly the outlines of this future. . .In my country, we speak of these developments as the advance of freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080113-1.html

Flipping over to the the CIA Factbook for the UAE we see this entry: "Suffrage: none" That's right, nobody votes in the UAE, Bush's vision for the US probably.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html

The so-called Freedom Agenda was adopted as the second or third reason for invading both Afghanistan and Iraq after our first one or two justifications failed.

Reasons for invading Afghanistan:

1. Remove the Taliban from power to stop them from sponsoring international terrorism and further their radical theocratic agenda
2. Catch Osama bin Laden
3. Put some kind of government in place that resembled democracy to "stabilize" the region in a way that furthered US foreign policy interests (ie, create a friendly buffer state near a big future source of oil)

Reasons for invading Iraq:

1. Dick Cheney was tired of Iraq violating the No Fly Zone restrictions & trade embargo because it made Bush & Cheney look weak
1. To stop Saddam Hussein from building weapons of mass destruction our distorted and falsified intelligence said he was building
2. Stop terrorism (al Qaeda, Syria, Iran) from spreading to Iraq & the rest of the ME, even though our intelligence said Saddam Hussein was already an avowed enemy of Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria
4. Try to "stabilize" the region in a way that favored US foreign policy interests (ie, oil)
5. Put some kind of government in place that resembled democracy and that would further US foreign policy interests in the region (ie, oil)

This sounds like the phony faults people cite during job interviews.

No one is perfect. Name your biggest fault. "I work too hard and forget about eating and cashing my paychecks."

I can almost see the wheels turning. "OK. To appear fair and balanced we need some criticism along with the praise. I know. He is a great man with great ideas who had a little too much optimism, gosh darn it."

Jeffrey Davis wrote: "About oil and Iraq, the original motivation was simply to get the full measure of Iraqi oil back on the market."

Back on the market -- but under the control of, and with the vast majority of the profits going to, the western (primarily US) oil companies. That's what the so-called "Iraq Hydrocarbon Law" dictates, and passage of that law has always been the primary "benchmark" that any Iraqi government is required to meet by the US.

Bush is sort of a combination of PC lib on spending, affirmative action, and perspective on other cultures; a privileged rich boy who is too shallow to see the nation or the world outside of this narrow perspective of cronyism and favor; rather isolated behind loyalists; and a born-again Christian on life and Israel.

A very complex person. Sort of reminds you of Michael Jackson, doesn't he? Put the parts together and they don't work very well, making him flop around in policy like a chicken without a head.

I don't know if even Bush knows why he attacked Iraq. He is an intuitive guy who goes by gut feeling and takes pride in making the big decisions whether they are right or wrong. I would guess his motives were a combination of personal vendetta for Saddam's attack on his father, either competing with or trying to please his father, Evangelical Christian love for Israel, poor advice from the neoconservatives close to him and the bully boy Cheney, the childlike naivete and idealism of a Jimmy Carter or PC lib in thinking every culture is like our culture and craves "fweedom, democwacy, and feminithm"--so good he is good for nothing, as they say.

Mr. Bush conceded in an interview with conservative commentators last year that his critics believe he is "hopelessly idealistic."

You don't "concede" that someone else believes something. He asserted this. "Admitted" is more legitimate, yet still misleading. A concession is admitting something you had previously denied.

1. Show me where he previously said that his conservative critics to NOT believe he is "hopelessly idealistic".

2. Show me a group of "conservative critics" who "believe" Bush is hopelessly idealistic.

I don't think either is possible. Specifically on (2), I'd say anyone who calls Bush hopelessly idealistic is not likely a critic.

Bush is planting seeds here. Let's not let the weeds grow.

"Didn't the Afghanistan govt agree to turn over Osama bin Laden to the World Court?"

Yes, the Taliban leaders agreed to turn him over, shut down al Qaeda bases. The Arab outsiders were not very popular in Pashtun Afghanistan, stood out like sore thumbs. Probably were less than 100 of them.

At that time, I thought the US should wait to give them time to turn him over. We didn't, nor was the offer heavily reported in US media. In fact, Bush would say things like, "the Taliban refuses to turn OBL over" and our neo-con press would repeat it.

My favorite bumper sticker:

"America: Do as we say or we'll bring democracy to your country."

Most experts certainly agree that he has used that as a feeble excuse when all others have run out. And "almost everyone" now knows he has zero interest in implementing democracy at home, either. Probably less so, since the consequences to his party will prove fatal in the long run.

Of course, the long run interests him least of all.

"In the rest of the world, and particularly in the Middle East and central Asia, we've done virtually nothing to promote democracy."

Actually we have done THE OPPOSITE of promoting democracy in the Middle East when we, with Great Britain, overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mssedegh in 1953. He was replaced by the Shah. This history is essential to understanding the roots of middle eastern violence and terrorism.

Kevin: "We invaded Iraq because ... well, I'm not entirely sure why we invaded Iraq."

Oh, please. What's with this over-the-top emoting? You know perfectly well -- in hindsight, of course -- the primary and foremost reason why we're now in Iraq. Why can't you just say it?

Or are you lobbying for Yearly Kos' "Faye Dunaway Award" for political punditry? Sorry, but Markos Moulitas has already reserved that honor for himself. And he deserves it.

You have misread Stolberg's piece. In all fairness to her, she doesn't say that the Administration's purpose in invading Iraq and Afghanistan was to foster freedom and democracy. The passage you quoted only says that the Administration has attempted to "foster" democracy there. That's certainly the case.

Whatever the purpose of those two invasions, the Administration certainly has tried to impose democratic forms of governments there.

Don Friedman immediately above wrote:

"Whatever the purpose of those two invasions, the Administration certainly has tried to impose democratic forms of governments there."

Just to pinpoint one of the many inherent contradictions in this: how do you "impose" "democratic" forms of government?

. . . how do you "impose" "democratic" forms of government?

With a military invasion and occupation, of course. Just like happened in the United States, when the French and Polish invaded and helped us write our Constitution. Of course they had it easier here than we do in Iraq, since at least they already knew our alphabet.

But of course by heavily promoting the idea that we were there to promote democracy and freedom we have succeeded in rendering those concepts radioactive. But thats pretty much what Bush has done with everything he touches. If gold were radioactive Bush would be king Midas.

He's not hopelessly idealistic, he's lying.

Actually we have done THE OPPOSITE of promoting democracy in the Middle East when we, with Great Britain, overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mssedegh in 1953. He was replaced by the Shah. This history is essential to understanding the roots of middle eastern violence and terrorism.Posted by: Bill

Bill, you're a bit late to the party. We did the same again five years later in, wait, IRAQ!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/14/newsid_3736000/3736391.stm

So, couple that with our hands off treatment of Israel since 1947, and it's a wonder that anyone in the region other than the Israelis will even talk to us.

I dunno, Bush seems desperate to change histories opinion of him, but its too late. That the US is dependent on oil no one can dispute. So viewing Iraq as a resource grab makes more sense in a Machiavellian kinda way then spreading democracy. I would prefer innovation to move off oil, perhaps using the same spirit that Kennedy engaged for the Apollo missions, but Bush is an oilman, what would you expect. I would give Bush credit is he came out and said we did it for the oil. That spreading democracy boilerplate is so 2003.

I would prefer innovation to move off oil, perhaps using the same spirit that Kennedy engaged for the Apollo missions, but Bush is an oilman, what would you expect. Posted by: The fake fake al

Funny you should mention the Apollo Project.

http://www.amazon.com/Apollos-Fire-Igniting-Americas-Economy/dp/1597261750

Jay Inslee is my congress critter in the H of R. He has, unfortunately and much to the chagrin of a lot of his constituency, hitched his cart to HRC presidential bid as her "main man" in the Evergreen State. Odd since he voted against the Iraq invasion and carried on with a handful of like minded representatives holding the equivalent of all night vigils in the House denouncing the war. I think he hopes to get the Secretary of Energy gig if HRC wins.

What I was hoping for is that he would have run for Murray's Senate seat in 2010 since she plans to retire after her current term. Might happen yet.

Sadly, his freedom agenda has to do with his psychologically damaging complex about his father and over-bearing mother, and since he was a blank-slated C student, he was easily lured by opportunistic neo-conservatives.
And don't forget he always wanted to be the war president.
Most conservatives I know who took the time to google PNAC know what Bush is all about.
Freedom for halliburton and exxon, maybe...

*

From the editors of The Nation--

It's the War Economy, Stupid!
[from the March 31, 2008 issue]

"With the country poised on the precipice of a recession, if not already in one, the economy has eclipsed Iraq as the most pressing issue of the moment. But rather than being treated as discrete items on a laundry list of issues, the war and the economy should be linked. While the current economic meltdown has other causes, one of the biggest obstacles we face in pulling out of this crisis is the staggering cost of the war in Iraq.

In the five years since the war began, the United States has spent more than $522 billion in Iraq. This year spending will easily top $160 billion. Yet, as Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes point out in their new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, the short-term costs pale in comparison with the sum our nation will spend over the long term. Ongoing veterans' health costs, debt payments and the cost of re-equipping the military are some of the reasons for this outrageous $3 trillion bill. At the same time that the war has imposed a huge burden on taxpayers, it has precipitated one of the largest transfers of wealth and power in modern history. By helping to drive up world oil prices, it has produced a massive redistribution of wealth from working Americans and other oil and gas consumers to a handful of oil producers.

Given the logic of military Keynesianism, one might think that spending on the war would keep the economy humming. With soldiers receiving signing bonuses of $10,000 or more, defense industry stocks rising nearly 20 percent last year and military contractor CEOs bagging tens of millions (see centerfold), some pockets are flush with cash. But, as Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier explain on page 15, military spending is one of the least effective tools for stimulating the economy. Redirecting Iraq War funds to education, healthcare, renewable energy and infrastructure would create up to twice as many jobs.

In the heat of their battle for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have neglected to emphasize the relationship between war spending and our economic woes. And the fact is, their Iraq plans--both of which allow for a residual force to remain after combat troops are withdrawn--do not do enough to rein in the costs. As for GOP nominee John McCain, his announcement that it wouldn't trouble him if US troops stay in Iraq for "a hundred years" suggests that the long-term costs will exceed $3 trillion if he is elected President. All the candidates, meanwhile, want to increase the already enormous military budget.

Former candidate John Edwards is lending his voice to the Iraq/Recession campaign led by MoveOn.org, which aims to emphasize the connection between the billions spent in Iraq and our crumbling economy. As MoveOn frames it, "the tradeoffs are stark: Bombs or unemployment insurance for people laid off as the economy slows? Billions for Halliburton and Blackwater, or help for people on the verge of losing their homes because of the subprime meltdown?"

Withdrawing from Iraq would also free up resources for the government to spend on targeted humanitarian relief for Iraqis, ideally through an independent relief organization. If the United States provides war reparations, it should put the money in a UN-administered trust for the Iraqi people, to be used for reconstruction or to help fund a multinational peace force. The United States must not compound one strategic mistake--invading Iraq and breaking the Iraqi state--with another, funding an intensified civil war and a corrupt Iraqi government.

For both America and Iraq, peace is the path to prosperity."

Egypt is a sick joke. I met a man in Rome, an Egyptian who was a graduate engineer who was working as a waiter. When he discovered that my companion and I were Anericans, he began foaming at the mouth with rage. His anger was misplaced- it should have been directed at his country who had no work for him and led him to make a living in what he considered a menial way, waiting on American tourists. In the West. Islam is a vast area that produces more and more people and gives them less and less to do, cynically blaming it on the US. Of course hate-America-first liberals blame their usual suspect. Posted by: mhr

It is a legitimate question to ask why Egyptians, Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis (Cuban, Chileans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, etc., etc.) haven't risen up over the years in revolution. Oh, that's right! Three do come to mind - Batista was replaced by Castro, the Shah died in exile, and though it took a while, the Sandanistas finally defeated the "contras" (aka - CIA backed, right wing thugs).

The reason people like your waiter in Rome get pissed off is because we've been, perhaps, bigger enablers of tin pot dictators than even the Soviets were during the Cold War. Shrub's administration, though not even real politik savvy, is just one more example of either backing the wrong guys or simply getting involved where we have no right to be involved and, once again, trying to sell the whole pathetic effort as a way of "promoting democracy." In short, yes, we are the problem much of the time anymore.

mhr | pre *: "Of course hate-America-first liberals blame their usual suspect."

Which, of course, is you and yours. Buh-bye ...

Stupid Egyptians, they don't even know whom to blame for their despotic government. Why blame the world's leading power just because the US enforces the status quo and rewards dictators with billions, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Egypt to . . .you name it? We know who's at fault, don't we. It's THEM.

Lest we forget, "bringing democracy to the Iraqis" was about the fourth lame-ass justification for the invasion after the smoking mushroom cloud turned out to be Dick Cheney and Condi Rice just smoking mushrooms; after the "newkular tubes" turned out to be milk-processing equipment; after Rumsfeld's entirely mendacious statement of "We know where the WMD are" (with coordinates) turned out to be a heap of goat turds...after every other excuse this administration fabricated for invading a country that had been well and truly contained and broken by Bush's daddy and kept in that state by Mr. Clinton. ONLY after all other excuses were exhausted did we suddenly hit on the "oh, we're giving them democracy, so long as the right people get elected (right, Mr. Chalabi?). Nobody with two brain cells to rub together than possibly believe that George Bush is anything other than a complete and total idiot. His ideals are irrelevant in the same way that an idealistic four-year-old might want to grow up to be The Flash.

Talk is cheap. Ask one of the 2.5 million displaced Iraqis, living in squalor in Syria or Jordan, about how much "freedom" Bush has given to them.

And is it just me, or has anyone noticed that Iraq is yet again spiraling out of control.

42 Iraqi deaths the other day, severed fingers today, troops deaths in green zone two days ago, and something like 10 US troop members dead a day following the green zone bomber incident? So I wonder, will Bush or McCain have a re-surge? How do they do that I wonder, since our US miltiary has just about hit rock bottom? How about a military draft?

Oh yeah, it's spring - wasn't that supposed to be problematic for Bush and the surge venue?

Hey Kevin is it save to invest in Iraq yet? You know, like Kevin recommended just last week?

Time to start another unbid contract for some fresh new Blackwater like military security members making over 200 thousand a year per person for the heady risk of having your fingers severed. Yeah, it's not like the US is in recession or anything like that. Maybe EXXON/Mobil can supplement the funds for the needed extra mercenaries, instead of the US taxpayer for the many, many, many unbid contracts that "so-called" conserative Bushie so fervently loves to hand out to his buds, right along with the GOP and redneck merika, seeing no anti-conservative problem with unbid contracts EVER. Bush want's to give LOADS of money to his good buds, consevative merika has never seen a problem with it. NRO and Weekly Standard just love it.

It sure as hell ain't your father's GOP, anymore.

Kevin,
You're not entirely sure why we invaded Iraq?

I know it's fun to lay the blame entirely on this administration's double talk, but what got the media, the public, and congress on board for this fiasco were:
WMD's & immanent threat (with a large dose of allegations of Iraq sponsored radio active material bombs weilded by Al Qaida members)
Damn near no one was willing to call this administration on the BS until it was far too late (years late) and the very few who did were mercilessly persecuted by both Democrats and Republicans in the months leading up to the start of the war.
Kevin, you yourself were not entirely innocent of attacking those who had the bravery to challenge this administration's lies in the lead up to the war. Stop shoveling the BS. I ain't buying it.

By "level" she means "low": "But Mr. Bush, most experts agree, has taken the American freedom agenda to an entirely new low."

Obviously, she intends readers to be able to translate her winking implications while she continues to pose as one of the do-nothing / think-nothing drones who form our modern journamalistic corps like John King, David Gregory, Elisabeth Bumiller, Norah O'Donnell, etc.... A real parade of horribles.

Come on, how dumb are you? "We invaded Iraq because.....well, I'm not entirely sure why we invaded Iraq." We invaded Iraq because it has the second largest reserve of oil. Period. No U.S. oil companies had any rights there. Toppling Hussein, Cheney believed, was a way to "establish a democratic government" and get US oil interests in. This would "stabilize" the Middle East, i.e. make it safer for the US oil interests to get the oil out. It was oil, stupid. Even if they never admit it, Cheney is so enmeshed with oil (and so is Bush for that matter) that they wouldn't even have to think consciously about that black gold to begin the invasion.

Besides her dubious claims about President Bush, Ms Stolberg is in error when she groups Afghanistan with "nations that have not known [democracy] before." Afghanistan enjoyed a democratic government from 1964 to 1973.

This is one more instance where Wikipedia is more reliable than the New York Times.

Aw Kevin, it's simple. In the neocon universe, democracy means privatization. If you substitute 'privatization' just about every time these guys say 'democracy,' you can understand their special language. They want to bring privatization to Iraq. They're promoting privatization in Afghanistan. They want China to allow more privatization. See? It's easy.

(Bet you already knew that!)

Consider Wisely Always,

Whenever you quote The Nation magazine on economics you always have to consider cause and effect.

There are most certainly economic consequences to war, some are economically stimulative, some are not. But the notion that America has an economic need to invade foreign countries is simply an unfounded assertion.

Do you, personally, know of anyone who advocated invading Iraq to boost the value of their retirement portfolio? You speak like an out-of-touch socialist who has never had personal responsibility over the lives of courageous, patriotic men and women.

Also, do you believe that people who over-extended themselves to buy houses they could not afford deserve taxpayer subsidies? I say make the banks and their shareholders pay -- they're the ones who designed the not-so-clever schemes that tricked people into mortgages they should never have bought in the first place. Use the Iraq War peace dividend to fund the NIH, DoE alternative energy researchy -- something with a real ROI.

"by pulling out of Iraq and for some even, Afghanistan, what agenda is the Left pushing? Certainly not a "Spreading Freedom" agenda as Wilson pushed, so what is that agenda exactly?"

I also dont speak for the Left, but slogans are no substitute for rational policy. If you need a slogan how about: "When in a hole, stop digging" or "Stop throwing Gasoline on a fire" or America: Lets stop shooting ourselves in the foot" or "Peace through Strength AND Intelligence."

There are no easy answers to the disasterous decisons that brought us to where we are today in Iraq, but doing the basically same thing and expecting wildly different results is not rational.

To pj in jesusland:

I quoted the entire article from The Nation online magazine. All of my post is from
the editors of The Nation.

Thanks for the compliments, though

Don't think anyone's mentioned this: Stolberg is pretty weak on her twentieth century history also. None of the places Woodrow Wilson invaded to impose "democracy" had "known it before," and, I might add, they didn't know it all that well afterward, either. Think Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Mexico.... Nor did Reagan intervene in places that had democratic traditions. So how exactly has Bush "taken the freedom agenda to a new level"? Really dumb.

Seriously dumb article.

The press has basically failed to narrate all the different ways Bush has taken things to a new level because it could never wrap its mind around the fact that he's a radical. With radical ideas. Radical methods. Radical changes. All presidents struggle when facts on the ground conflict with their agendas, but Bush took it to a whole new level with, say, the Doug Feith and the Office of Special Plans.

Because the press, including the New York Times, has found it inconvenient to tell us about new levels like this, Stolberg's observations are even more suspect.

Once Bush-bashing became so easy it wasn't fun anymore, I realized shit-the-bed Bush was really doing the best he could considering his severely disabled condition. In his particular case, maybe ignorance of the law, as in ignoring it all together,, should be an excuse. Otherwise he's got nothin!