If you think that Republicans have been silent in the wake of all that has gone wrong with the current President's foreign policy, think again. Two former GOP congressmen, Paul Findley of Illinois and Pete McCloskey from California critique W's foreign policy and find it wanting. Of the two, McCloskey takes a more indepth view of the President's Mideast Policy and how it is more in the hands of fundamentalist Jews and Christians than anything else. This would make sense. Every President, from both parties, have tried to be an honest broker. Yes, the did tend to side with Israel, but they tried to be fair. Bush the Senoir played hardball with the Israelis in 1991, threatening to withold aid until they stopped building settlements and forced them to the negotiation table. The current President needs the fundy Christian vote and plays to their bigotry.
I'm glad to see two Republicans who are willing to criticize what has happened to American foreign policy. I hope they are not the last.
Posted by Dennis at June 24, 2004 12:56 AMWASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to that country.
Fifty-four percent of those polled said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, compared with 41 percent who expressed that sentiment in early June.
Most respondents to the poll, 55 percent, also said they don't believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism -- rejecting an argument that President Bush has repeatedly advanced in his rationale for the war.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq/index.html
Posted by: dorsano at June 25, 2004 07:38 PM"Two former GOP congressmen"
Cool. Bet you 100$ I can find a "former" democratic congressmen who thinks Communism is a good idea.
Posted by: Intrepid at June 25, 2004 06:10 PMI'd like to pose a question to anyone lurking on this blog and who might take the time to read Edward Cody's acccount of the events of June 22nd, near Base Gabe Iraq, that I posted below.
Given that the president's father managed to bring along over 100,000 Muslim troops to fight along side us the last time we were Iraq,
Given that the president's father convinced the world that it was fair and proper that it should reimburse the U.S. (almost 100%) for our service as the globe's policeman,
Given that U.S. soldiers died in the first Gulf War to uphold the rule of international law and with their lives bought the too brief moment of hope that blossomed during the Madrid Conference
http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/030303BushSpeech.ht
Given that there is a mutual respect among nations embodied in the rule of international law,
Given that the current adminstration underfunded the war, understaffed it and marched off half-cocked without a plan to end it,
Given that the current adminstration mounted a propoganda campaign to shame Joseph Goebbels in order to exact compliance from a population that was initially opposed to the war,
Given that the current administration planted the seeds for this mission's failure by implying that it was in response to the attacks of 9/11 and thus empowering any wing nut who might be inclined to believe that all Arabs, Persians, Pashtuns and Muslims act alike and are fair game to be abused, raped, tortured and murdered,
Given that too few Americans have managed to crawl beyond the shell shock of the last three years
into outrage,
Why don't we just spit on the graves of any soldiers who thought it worth their lives to defend this country?
On a Hot and Dusty Road, A Young Soldier's Last Battle
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 23, 2004; Page A01
FORWARD OPERATING BASE GABE, Iraq, June 22 -- Army Pfc. Jason N. Lynch was taking his one-hour shift behind a Humvee-mounted .50-caliber machine gun when the AK-47s started crackling again, just before dusk. As he responded by raking the source of enemy fire, sticking his head and torso out the roof to aim, a single 7.62mm round found a mortal opening just below Lynch's body armor and ripped into his right side.
....
Of the 842 U.S. service members who have died in Iraq since the invasion 15 months ago, 622 were killed by hostile fire, according to a Pentagon tally. The largest part of that combat death toll, 513, has come since President Bush's declaration on May 1 last year that major combat was over.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61955-2004Jun22.html
Courtesy of Today in Iraq
http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/
Posted by: dorsano at June 24, 2004 10:46 PMLarry, you contradict yourself.
First you say "Folks, this is not the worldwide war on al Qaeda."
Then you say "SH had significant connections with al Q."
The contradiction is not surprising since the president contradicts himself all the time too.
First, in a press conference in the Cross Hall of the White House on January 31st, 2003 both he and Tony Blair say that Saddam doesn't have any substantial links that they can claim to Quida or 9/11.
------------
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
-------------
Then, in his Declaration of War delivered to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate on March 21, 2003 he says
-------------
"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html
-------------
But in truth, the truth doesn't matter - we kicked some Arab butt and scared all those terrorists and now they'll no doubt think twice before they decide to blow themselves up.
As to whether or not the "world IS safer with him gone!"
The fat lady hasn't even begun to warm up her pipes as far as that one's concerned.
Bush's most serious error re Iraq is mere public relations. He should not have hung Iraq on wmd. Not that they weren't a risk - but we had plenty of other reason to go for Iraq.
(1) Terrorist connections. Folks, this is not the worldwide war on al Qaeda. It is the worldwide war on terrorism. Saddam Hussein (SH) had huge connections to Hezboallah and other terr groups. Example: SH paid the US equivalent of $250,000 to the families of any Palestinian who committed a suicide bombing in Israel. So, I gather from the blogs that it would be perfectly OK with many of you if I paid your neighbor $250K to kill your kids. That is not an analogy. That is EXACTLY what SH was doing. Do you think it is a good idea to allow that to continue as a valid, recognized instrument of international relations?
(2) SH had significant connections with al Q. He trained some of their people, they just weren't used on 911. Oh, goody, we ignore terrs unless they were directly invovled in 911. Huh? Please explain your logic.
(3) SH had a long record of international aggression. Not a good idea in the neighborhood that produces the oil upon which we depend. A valid US security concern.
(4) SH was not a legitimate, elected President whose policies we disliked. He was a thug. No moral reason to refrain from taking him down.
(5) SH hosted, trained and supported various terr groups on a large scale (just not al Q).
(6) SH clearly had WMD programs. He is one of only two powers that have made wmd instruments of national policy since WW2 (our use was entirely justified). Those two are SH and the USSR. It was patently obvious that as soon a sanctions were removed, he would return to making wmd, and in fact kept all the elements needed to do so alive at some expense.
Can people stop dancing on the heads of pins and recognize he was a legitimate target from the point of view of US national interests?
Plain and simple - the world IS safer with him gone!