John Mellencamp's open letter to Bush
- Thread starter anitram
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
AvsGirl41
New Yorker
Take out the references "To Washington" and it could be written by any good journalist, in my opinion.
Well said, Mellencamp.
Well said, Mellencamp.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
*Stands up and applauds*
A true letter if ever there was one.
He's absolutely right. Particularly about the whole thing with patriotism. I'm sorry, but those who said that us anti-war people were "unpatriotic" were far from being right. They didn't seem to get the fact that this is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we had every right to speak out against this war.
Your question "Just another celebrity with an opinion" brings up something else-I've been confused about why there were people in our country getting all upset when celebrities voiced their opinions during this war and after. Let's not forget we actually had an actor for president, and the people of California just elected an actor for governor. Charlton Heston, another actor, was involved with the NRA. Nobody seemed to mind those celebrities spouting their political views.
And then there's those of us here who are fans of a band that's been politically minded, whose lead singer in particular has been heavily involved with political things.
If we allow those people to voice their views...if we ELECTED two of those four people to offices of some kind...why, then, were people complaining about other celebrities voicing their views during the war? It makes no sense to me.
Meh, anyway, getting back on the topic at hand here...I couldn't agree more with this letter. The part about patriotism and the soliders coming back and having their lives in shambles in particular are bits I think that those who slammed us anti-war people during the war deserve to read.
And I think the Bush administration would do well to read this letter, too.
Angela
A true letter if ever there was one.
He's absolutely right. Particularly about the whole thing with patriotism. I'm sorry, but those who said that us anti-war people were "unpatriotic" were far from being right. They didn't seem to get the fact that this is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we had every right to speak out against this war.
Your question "Just another celebrity with an opinion" brings up something else-I've been confused about why there were people in our country getting all upset when celebrities voiced their opinions during this war and after. Let's not forget we actually had an actor for president, and the people of California just elected an actor for governor. Charlton Heston, another actor, was involved with the NRA. Nobody seemed to mind those celebrities spouting their political views.
And then there's those of us here who are fans of a band that's been politically minded, whose lead singer in particular has been heavily involved with political things.
If we allow those people to voice their views...if we ELECTED two of those four people to offices of some kind...why, then, were people complaining about other celebrities voicing their views during the war? It makes no sense to me.
Meh, anyway, getting back on the topic at hand here...I couldn't agree more with this letter. The part about patriotism and the soliders coming back and having their lives in shambles in particular are bits I think that those who slammed us anti-war people during the war deserve to read.
And I think the Bush administration would do well to read this letter, too.
Angela
pub crawler
New Yorker
Although I agree with some of the sentiment expressed in Mellencamp's essay (specifically many of the comments he makes in relation to the invasion of Iraq), I think that in his effort to tie together a number of "liberal" touchstones he only diffuses his message. Mellencamp would have done better not to bother here with such issues as the California recall and the notion that Bush has created "financial chaos." Also, to me he comes across as outraged and at the same time apologetic, like he doesn't want to piss too many people off. A bit weak, in my opinion.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
who is john cougar and how come he has changed his name over the decades from-
John Cougar
to
John Cougar Mellancamp
to
John Mellencamp...
and why the hell are his writings being cited on a U2 message board ?.
He makes crap music.
thank u-
dB9
John Cougar
to
John Cougar Mellancamp
to
John Mellencamp...
and why the hell are his writings being cited on a U2 message board ?.
He makes crap music.
thank u-
dB9
ah good old mellencamp
"I find U2 so pretentious I couldn't even like their records. They probably make great records, but the things that come out of those guys' mouths is offensive to me. 'We are the greatest band in the world.' If you were, why would you say that?" -the coug
really shows he is a good thinker, i dont put much stock into what he says
"I find U2 so pretentious I couldn't even like their records. They probably make great records, but the things that come out of those guys' mouths is offensive to me. 'We are the greatest band in the world.' If you were, why would you say that?" -the coug
really shows he is a good thinker, i dont put much stock into what he says
yertle-the-turtle
ONE love, blood, life
can't give an opinion on the letter
but I can give an opinion on 'Jack and Diane'
it sucks
but I can give an opinion on 'Jack and Diane'
it sucks
[Q]As the echo of the war drums fades away and the angry masses calling for blood slowly disperse, we as a nation must now confront the truth. We face the unpleasant reality of an uncertain future, compromised safety, a failing economy, and the question of how a society of otherwise reasonable citizens was systematically lied to and manipulated into backing the political 'hijacking' of Iraq.[/Q]
The economy is turning around. Many indicators are showing this, including some of the stocks. Buy now if you have money. However, you are conveniently ignoring the past twelve years of ignored resolutions by Iraq as well as the Human Rights violations by its dictator, and that how many lives are now being saved on a monthly basis in Iraq because of the removal of the regime.
How about the fact that schools are now being rebuilt, electricity is beuing restored, and a stardard of living is being put in place that is better than theone that existed before.
[Q]"Before a single bomb was ever dropped, some of us, formerly called the 'anti-American and unpatriotic,' have questioned or opposed this war. Now, each day, as the dust settles and the truth slowly surfaces, more and more people come to the inevitable conclusion of what a debacle this whole war was. [/Q]
I never heard the President call anyone anti-American and unpatriotic.
[Q]"Thirty-nine-thousand bombs later, no weapons of mass destruction uncovered, no dangerous dictators captured, no connection to September 11th. What have we gained but relentless media coverage of a fallen statue and some stolen oil fields--the spoils of this misadventure. Not to mention lucrative corporate payoffs and an enormous price tag of over $80 Billion...some tax cut. [/Q]
We have not stolen a single drop of oil, that is insulting to any person who wears the uniform of the US service. The relentless media covereage has failed us as citicens to include the fact that the report does show evidence that the WMD program did exist in a holding pattern, that there is apparently evidence more and more appearing theat Al-Qaeda was more connected to Iraq than we thought, and that the ENTIRE international community, even those opposed to the war believed there was WMD. They may still find the WMD.
[Q]"But what have we lost? We have lost the lives of over 300 Americans. Approximately two U.S. troop deaths each day, 193 deaths since the war was declared over. In total, an estimated 20,000 people have died, thus far, in this conflict. [/Q]
I do agree, tjhe loss of life is tragic. It saddens me. But, John, I wonder if you know how many people were dying under Saddam. I also wonder if you realize that potentially, we will have by the end of the year saved more lives than have been lost since the end of the war was declared?
[Q]"In addition to the lives given for this effort, our nation has suffered the loss of respect within the world community, particularly the United Nations. We have managed to squander any goodwill we once had to now succeed in solidifying our image as the globe's leading bully. Arrogant and thoughtless. [/Q]
John, have you been paying attention? Seriously? Since the war has ended there have been two unanimous resolutions passed by the UN security council that support the rebuilding of Iraq. UNANIMOUS. The US has taken a hit, but it is no where near as dire as you would like us to believe.
[Q]"The word Democracy means literally 'by the people.' This is the basis of our government and society. It is what this country was founded upon and what makes us American. It is not just our 'right' but also our duty to speak out and voice our thoughts and opinions. How, then, was it possible that, in the land of freedom, those who opposed the common opinion were called...'un-American?' Resentfully, we wonder. [/Q]
Again, John, when did the President label you un-American? Not to lecture you further on our form of governement but you do not live in a democracy. If you did you would be voting every day. You live in a democratic republic. You may want to educate yourself about the republic part, because, the Representatives voted and gave the President the power to take actionin Iraq.
[Q]The song 'To Washington' was met with criticism and was labeled an anti-war song. That was not at all the case or intention--it was merely a report of the political climate, in the age-old tradition of the troubadour spreading the news through song and story. Professionally, we, the Mellencamps, have the opportunity to travel extensively, and we take full advantage of that by talking to, listening to, and experiencing the diversity our vast country has to offer. The lyrics of 'To Washington' are not just a personal opinion, but also the view from a very wide horizon.
Who is to say what is or isn't 'patriotic?' Do the flags that wave from every minivan really offer any support? Where is the support for the thousands of servicemen and women who return to the states to see their benefits cut, their health problems ignored, their jobs gone, and their families living in poverty? How are they repaid for their efforts, for risking or losing their lives? So far, dismally.
"This nation was founded to enable freedom and diversity of opinion, and many lives have been lost to secure that liberty. Paradoxically, some still resist the open mindedness that is the very foundation of this country. [/Q]
Personally, I cannot stand your music. I will not say anything else about it. If you wrote it for the reasons you stated good for you. We need all kinds of people here in the US.
[Q]The Governor of California was removed from office based on finance troubles. And yet George W. Bush has lied to us, failed to keep our own borders secure, entered a war under false pretense, endangered lives, and created financial chaos. How is it that he hasn't been recalled? Perhaps this time we could even have a real election...but that wouldn't fit the Bush administration's 'take what you want and fire people later' policy. Take an election; take an oil field; take advantage of your own people--a game of political Three-Card Monte. [/Q]
More political 'BULLSHIT". John, please read everything again. Our borders were insecure before the Bush admninistration the war with Al-Qaeda started under the prior administration which was much more content not dealing with it. the economy was already failing coupled with 9/11 it really failed. The election was real Johh, once again, I think you have failed to properly study your constitution, and finally please stop saying we have stolen oil.
[Q]"The fight for freedom in this country has been long, painful, and ongoing. It is time to take back our country. Take it back from political agendas, corporate greed, and overall manipulation. It is time to take action here in our land, in our own schools, neighborhoods, farms, and businesses. We have been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take action. Now is the time to come together[/Q]
The economy is turning around. Many indicators are showing this, including some of the stocks. Buy now if you have money. However, you are conveniently ignoring the past twelve years of ignored resolutions by Iraq as well as the Human Rights violations by its dictator, and that how many lives are now being saved on a monthly basis in Iraq because of the removal of the regime.
How about the fact that schools are now being rebuilt, electricity is beuing restored, and a stardard of living is being put in place that is better than theone that existed before.
[Q]"Before a single bomb was ever dropped, some of us, formerly called the 'anti-American and unpatriotic,' have questioned or opposed this war. Now, each day, as the dust settles and the truth slowly surfaces, more and more people come to the inevitable conclusion of what a debacle this whole war was. [/Q]
I never heard the President call anyone anti-American and unpatriotic.
[Q]"Thirty-nine-thousand bombs later, no weapons of mass destruction uncovered, no dangerous dictators captured, no connection to September 11th. What have we gained but relentless media coverage of a fallen statue and some stolen oil fields--the spoils of this misadventure. Not to mention lucrative corporate payoffs and an enormous price tag of over $80 Billion...some tax cut. [/Q]
We have not stolen a single drop of oil, that is insulting to any person who wears the uniform of the US service. The relentless media covereage has failed us as citicens to include the fact that the report does show evidence that the WMD program did exist in a holding pattern, that there is apparently evidence more and more appearing theat Al-Qaeda was more connected to Iraq than we thought, and that the ENTIRE international community, even those opposed to the war believed there was WMD. They may still find the WMD.
[Q]"But what have we lost? We have lost the lives of over 300 Americans. Approximately two U.S. troop deaths each day, 193 deaths since the war was declared over. In total, an estimated 20,000 people have died, thus far, in this conflict. [/Q]
I do agree, tjhe loss of life is tragic. It saddens me. But, John, I wonder if you know how many people were dying under Saddam. I also wonder if you realize that potentially, we will have by the end of the year saved more lives than have been lost since the end of the war was declared?
[Q]"In addition to the lives given for this effort, our nation has suffered the loss of respect within the world community, particularly the United Nations. We have managed to squander any goodwill we once had to now succeed in solidifying our image as the globe's leading bully. Arrogant and thoughtless. [/Q]
John, have you been paying attention? Seriously? Since the war has ended there have been two unanimous resolutions passed by the UN security council that support the rebuilding of Iraq. UNANIMOUS. The US has taken a hit, but it is no where near as dire as you would like us to believe.
[Q]"The word Democracy means literally 'by the people.' This is the basis of our government and society. It is what this country was founded upon and what makes us American. It is not just our 'right' but also our duty to speak out and voice our thoughts and opinions. How, then, was it possible that, in the land of freedom, those who opposed the common opinion were called...'un-American?' Resentfully, we wonder. [/Q]
Again, John, when did the President label you un-American? Not to lecture you further on our form of governement but you do not live in a democracy. If you did you would be voting every day. You live in a democratic republic. You may want to educate yourself about the republic part, because, the Representatives voted and gave the President the power to take actionin Iraq.
[Q]The song 'To Washington' was met with criticism and was labeled an anti-war song. That was not at all the case or intention--it was merely a report of the political climate, in the age-old tradition of the troubadour spreading the news through song and story. Professionally, we, the Mellencamps, have the opportunity to travel extensively, and we take full advantage of that by talking to, listening to, and experiencing the diversity our vast country has to offer. The lyrics of 'To Washington' are not just a personal opinion, but also the view from a very wide horizon.
Who is to say what is or isn't 'patriotic?' Do the flags that wave from every minivan really offer any support? Where is the support for the thousands of servicemen and women who return to the states to see their benefits cut, their health problems ignored, their jobs gone, and their families living in poverty? How are they repaid for their efforts, for risking or losing their lives? So far, dismally.
"This nation was founded to enable freedom and diversity of opinion, and many lives have been lost to secure that liberty. Paradoxically, some still resist the open mindedness that is the very foundation of this country. [/Q]
Personally, I cannot stand your music. I will not say anything else about it. If you wrote it for the reasons you stated good for you. We need all kinds of people here in the US.
[Q]The Governor of California was removed from office based on finance troubles. And yet George W. Bush has lied to us, failed to keep our own borders secure, entered a war under false pretense, endangered lives, and created financial chaos. How is it that he hasn't been recalled? Perhaps this time we could even have a real election...but that wouldn't fit the Bush administration's 'take what you want and fire people later' policy. Take an election; take an oil field; take advantage of your own people--a game of political Three-Card Monte. [/Q]
More political 'BULLSHIT". John, please read everything again. Our borders were insecure before the Bush admninistration the war with Al-Qaeda started under the prior administration which was much more content not dealing with it. the economy was already failing coupled with 9/11 it really failed. The election was real Johh, once again, I think you have failed to properly study your constitution, and finally please stop saying we have stolen oil.
[Q]"The fight for freedom in this country has been long, painful, and ongoing. It is time to take back our country. Take it back from political agendas, corporate greed, and overall manipulation. It is time to take action here in our land, in our own schools, neighborhoods, farms, and businesses. We have been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take action. Now is the time to come together[/Q]
Last edited:
shaun vox
New Yorker
this man suxs! have you heard his song that he came up with after 911 .radio station 9.55 classic rock played it once and then the dj said lets hear that again and played it again it was so funny and im glad the dj got it ,man his music suxs.
plese go find an mp3 of this song(thats what he calls it) plese hahahaha.
plese go find an mp3 of this song(thats what he calls it) plese hahahaha.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I think he makes some good points. Just my purple tuppence's worth. I don't plan to vote for Bush next year either. I can do without Mellencamp's dumbass swipes at U2, too.
pub crawler
New Yorker
Dread, I don't buy that as a justification for the invasion. Bush did not base his case to go to war on human rights violations. He based his case on WMD violations. Furthermore, prior to the war, there was no national discourse about Hussein's human rights violations. This topic was only raised when it became convenient.Dreadsox said:
[Q]
I never heard the President call anyone anti-American and unpatriotic.[/Q]
I think what Mellencamp is getting at is that many of the Bush/war-supporting public called the anti-war crowd unpatriotic. Are you denying that that occured?
[Q]I do agree, tjhe loss of life is tragic. It saddens me. But, John, I wonder if you know how many people were dying under Saddam. I also wonder if you realize that potentially, we will have by the end of the year saved more lives than have been lost since the end of the war was declared?[/Q]
Again, this 'saving the oppressed' reasoning came into play after Bush had already established the we needed to bomb Iraq because of the WMD threat. America did not give a damn about tortured Iraqis until it became convenient to do so.
[Q]You may want to educate yourself about the republic part, because, the Representatives voted and gave the President the power to take actionin Iraq.[/Q]
I'll give you that. There are many in Congress who should be ashamed of themselves.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think it's a good letter. I don't think his music or comments about U2 have anything to do with this letter. I'd argue the rebuttals, but honestly I'm getting a little tired of the same rhetoric about this war and Bush in FYM. I'm taking a break from discussing these issues for awhile.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
It would be nice if the letter had a clear point. It appears to be a mishmash of questions on the war and the economy sprinkled with weeping victimization about being called unpatriotic (which, as Dreadsox correctly notes, was not done by Bush).
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
pub crawler said:
There were many here, including sting and myself, who made that argument repeatedly about the humanitarian reasons for war. We repeatedly argued this point in this forum and quoted extensive facts and statistics.
I EVEN went so far as to criticize the White House for NOT making it the main thrust of their case for war.
the White House did mention it but does it make good headlines? I think not? So the press and the White House did not make it the thrust of the case.
I EVEN went so far as to criticize the White House for NOT making it the main thrust of their case for war.
the White House did mention it but does it make good headlines? I think not? So the press and the White House did not make it the thrust of the case.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I didn't start reading or posting in FYM until about two weeks before the war started, so I actually missed a hell of alot of the debate. I wish the *White House* had used the human rights argument because I think it's much stronger than the WMD argument. Up until then, I was strictly a PLEBA girl. I'm *still* a PLEBA girl.
Uh, no more comments...........
Uh, no more comments...........
verte76 said:I didn't start reading or posting in FYM until about two weeks before the war started, so I actually missed a hell of alot of the debate. I wish the *White House* had used the human rights argument because I think it's much stronger than the WMD argument. Up until then, I was strictly a PLEBA girl. I'm *still* a PLEBA girl.
Uh, no more comments...........
Not anymore you are not..you have been sucked in!!!!
Paul Wolfowitz said, "The [third issue everyone could agree on] is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did."
The administration is flat out lying if they now claim they went to war for humanitarian reasons. They didn't. It really is that simple. And while some who supported the war (like our own Dread and STING) may have mentioned that as a reason, the fact remains that it was NOT a good enough reason for the administration itself.
The administration is flat out lying if they now claim they went to war for humanitarian reasons. They didn't. It really is that simple. And while some who supported the war (like our own Dread and STING) may have mentioned that as a reason, the fact remains that it was NOT a good enough reason for the administration itself.
[Q]Leftist Hypocrites on Iraq
By Michael P. Tremoglie
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 22, 2003
It is one thing to criticize the president?s foreign policy in principle - to be opposed, because of one's deeply held beliefs, to the president?s actions to invade Iraq. It is quite another to criticize the president?s foreign policy simply to obtain political power.
Unfortunately, for all Americans, the Democratic Party critics of President Bush?s invasion of Iraq - and many other critics of the war - are motivated by politics, not principle. This is revealed by the hypocrisy of their condemnations.
Democrat Senate minority leader Tom Daschle echoed the sentiments of many antiwar protesters by objecting to military action in Iraq because of the lack of UN approval. Yet, he was not concerned about the UN?s opinion when Bill Clinton wanted to take military action in Bosnia and Kosovo. During a 1999 interview Jim Lehrer asked Senator Daschle, ?(A)re you convinced that the American people understand the need to put U.S. troops on the ground in Kosovo??
Daschle replied, ?We have to be able to convince the American people that this is in our interest. I don't think you need much of an imagination, though, to know what happens if all of this gets out of hand.?I think we can avoid that with a little preventative medicine. That's what this is all about. It's preventative, and I think it will work.?
It was an interesting choice of words by Daschle. When Democratic President Bill Clinton wanted to take military action against nations that did not, could not and would not want to do anything against the United States it was called preventative. However, when Republican President George Bush wanted to take military action against a nation that violated a treaty and committed an act of war, it was called preemptive.
Now some might argue there was a difference. They may say that genocide was being committed in the Balkans. This justified taking military action without UN approval.
Such an argument is specious. There was genocide of enormous proportions in Rwanda, yet Clinton did nothing. Meanwhile, Hussein had committed acts of genocide against the Kurds and was known to murder his own people routinely.
Clinton?s actions in Bosnia and Kosovo have been termed illegal by some foreign policy experts. These experts have been both nonpartisan and uniform in their condemnation of American military action in Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq.
Democratic Party politicians and Bush-haters have reiterated the argument that UN benediction was needed before invading Iraq. Yet, it was President Clinton?s special envoy to the Balkans, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who recently wrote in the New York Times, ? No serious policy maker would advocate subordinating American national security interests to the United Nations; for this reason President Clinton twice used force in the Balkans (in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999) without Security Council authority.?1
President Bush?s most vituperative critic, Ted Kennedy, voted to allow all necessary force in Kosovo. Yet, when it came to Bush?s proposed military action in Iraq Kennedy said, "UN inspectors are on the ground and making progress, and their work should continue?."
When the first American soldier was killed in Bosnia in February 1996, Democrat Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont said, ?the American people were going to have accept more casualties.? Senator Leahy?s attitude now is very different. He is not as glib about military casualties in Iraq as he was about military casualties in Bosnia. About Iraq Leahy said, ?We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.?
Democrat New York Congressman Charles Rangel is an excellent example of the hypocrisy of the Iraq war critics. During an interview with Sean Hannity he said, ?There are a lot of bums in the world and we shouldn?t go after them without the approval of the international community.? Yet, Rangel approved Clinton?s military involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo without UN authorization.
What about the media? Their hypocrisy is just as apparent.
At least George Bush went to the UN to ask for assistance. However, Clinton?s team purposely excluded the UN from the Balkans. Yet, there were no New York Times editorials condemning Clinton for not seeking the approval of the UN. Not one major TV network had someone like Scott Ritter claiming Bush should be impeached because the action in Kosovo violated international law.
What about the entertainers whose vitriolic remarks about President Bush are common? What disparagements did Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Janeane Garofalo make about Clinton?
None. As Garofalo said, ? It wasn?t hip to protest then.?
The remarks by Republicans and conservatives criticizing Clinton?s policies in the Balkans were very different from those who criticize President Bush. When President Clinton wanted to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia, the Republican leader in the Senate, Robert Dole, said that although he does not agree with Clinton, "we have one president at a time. He's the commander-in-chief.2
What a difference between Bob Dole and Senator Robert Byrd, who said of President Bush and the pending invasion of Iraq, ?This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine?The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening?appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter?.?
Democratic Party politicians like Kennedy and Daschle, editors like Howell Raines, entertainer/activists like Susan Sarandon need to be tell us why they were not opposed to sending Americans to die in the Balkans when there was no threat whatsoever to America. Yet, they are so vehemently opposed to sending troops to Iraq where there was clearly a threat ? if even only a remote one. Is it simply a matter of politics? Is the real reason NOW condemn?s the Iraq invasion more a function the president?s opinion of abortion than it is foreign policy? What do you think?
The president?s critics need to answer this question for the sake of the American people.
ENDNOTES:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/books/review/28HOLBROT.html?pagewanted=3
[2] http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N60/dole.60w.html
[/Q]
By Michael P. Tremoglie
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 22, 2003
It is one thing to criticize the president?s foreign policy in principle - to be opposed, because of one's deeply held beliefs, to the president?s actions to invade Iraq. It is quite another to criticize the president?s foreign policy simply to obtain political power.
Unfortunately, for all Americans, the Democratic Party critics of President Bush?s invasion of Iraq - and many other critics of the war - are motivated by politics, not principle. This is revealed by the hypocrisy of their condemnations.
Democrat Senate minority leader Tom Daschle echoed the sentiments of many antiwar protesters by objecting to military action in Iraq because of the lack of UN approval. Yet, he was not concerned about the UN?s opinion when Bill Clinton wanted to take military action in Bosnia and Kosovo. During a 1999 interview Jim Lehrer asked Senator Daschle, ?(A)re you convinced that the American people understand the need to put U.S. troops on the ground in Kosovo??
Daschle replied, ?We have to be able to convince the American people that this is in our interest. I don't think you need much of an imagination, though, to know what happens if all of this gets out of hand.?I think we can avoid that with a little preventative medicine. That's what this is all about. It's preventative, and I think it will work.?
It was an interesting choice of words by Daschle. When Democratic President Bill Clinton wanted to take military action against nations that did not, could not and would not want to do anything against the United States it was called preventative. However, when Republican President George Bush wanted to take military action against a nation that violated a treaty and committed an act of war, it was called preemptive.
Now some might argue there was a difference. They may say that genocide was being committed in the Balkans. This justified taking military action without UN approval.
Such an argument is specious. There was genocide of enormous proportions in Rwanda, yet Clinton did nothing. Meanwhile, Hussein had committed acts of genocide against the Kurds and was known to murder his own people routinely.
Clinton?s actions in Bosnia and Kosovo have been termed illegal by some foreign policy experts. These experts have been both nonpartisan and uniform in their condemnation of American military action in Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq.
Democratic Party politicians and Bush-haters have reiterated the argument that UN benediction was needed before invading Iraq. Yet, it was President Clinton?s special envoy to the Balkans, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who recently wrote in the New York Times, ? No serious policy maker would advocate subordinating American national security interests to the United Nations; for this reason President Clinton twice used force in the Balkans (in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999) without Security Council authority.?1
President Bush?s most vituperative critic, Ted Kennedy, voted to allow all necessary force in Kosovo. Yet, when it came to Bush?s proposed military action in Iraq Kennedy said, "UN inspectors are on the ground and making progress, and their work should continue?."
When the first American soldier was killed in Bosnia in February 1996, Democrat Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont said, ?the American people were going to have accept more casualties.? Senator Leahy?s attitude now is very different. He is not as glib about military casualties in Iraq as he was about military casualties in Bosnia. About Iraq Leahy said, ?We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.?
Democrat New York Congressman Charles Rangel is an excellent example of the hypocrisy of the Iraq war critics. During an interview with Sean Hannity he said, ?There are a lot of bums in the world and we shouldn?t go after them without the approval of the international community.? Yet, Rangel approved Clinton?s military involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo without UN authorization.
What about the media? Their hypocrisy is just as apparent.
At least George Bush went to the UN to ask for assistance. However, Clinton?s team purposely excluded the UN from the Balkans. Yet, there were no New York Times editorials condemning Clinton for not seeking the approval of the UN. Not one major TV network had someone like Scott Ritter claiming Bush should be impeached because the action in Kosovo violated international law.
What about the entertainers whose vitriolic remarks about President Bush are common? What disparagements did Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Janeane Garofalo make about Clinton?
None. As Garofalo said, ? It wasn?t hip to protest then.?
The remarks by Republicans and conservatives criticizing Clinton?s policies in the Balkans were very different from those who criticize President Bush. When President Clinton wanted to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia, the Republican leader in the Senate, Robert Dole, said that although he does not agree with Clinton, "we have one president at a time. He's the commander-in-chief.2
What a difference between Bob Dole and Senator Robert Byrd, who said of President Bush and the pending invasion of Iraq, ?This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine?The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening?appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter?.?
Democratic Party politicians like Kennedy and Daschle, editors like Howell Raines, entertainer/activists like Susan Sarandon need to be tell us why they were not opposed to sending Americans to die in the Balkans when there was no threat whatsoever to America. Yet, they are so vehemently opposed to sending troops to Iraq where there was clearly a threat ? if even only a remote one. Is it simply a matter of politics? Is the real reason NOW condemn?s the Iraq invasion more a function the president?s opinion of abortion than it is foreign policy? What do you think?
The president?s critics need to answer this question for the sake of the American people.
ENDNOTES:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/books/review/28HOLBROT.html?pagewanted=3
[2] http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N60/dole.60w.html
[/Q]
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
No kidding. How do either of those things have any correlation to the whole topic of Mellencamp's letter?
I didn't know he didn't like U2 until now...but if he doesn't like them...*shrugs*. His opinion. At least he doesn't repeatedly let us know he doesn't like them, unlike some people I could mention *cough, cough...HENRY ROLLINS...cough, cough*.
And haven't we heard some people on this very board making comments about the whole "greatest band in the world" bit that U2 uttered?
Also, I like his music, personally. He's got some great songs.
But anywho, back to the letter...verte76, pub crawler, and anitram are making good arguments.
Angela
pub crawler
New Yorker
Dreadsox said:
Er, it probably should be mentioned that Front Page Magazine is essentially another townhall.com or worldnetdaily, i.e. a site filled with commentary Rush Limbaugh could have written.
pub crawler said:
Er, it probably should be mentioned that Front Page Magazine is essentially another townhall.com or worldnetdaily, i.e. a site filled with commentary Rush Limbaugh could have written.
Excellent Job Old Chap!!!! It is a tactic I would use 100% in any debate go for the source!
I will now deflect and say...Rush Limbaugh did not right it though, nice try.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
My main criticism of Bush's policy on Iraq isn't really that he did it without the U.N. After all France was doing business with Iraq. I've heard reliable reports of French weapons in Iraq, a violation of the embargo. Like I said he should have used the appalling human rights situation in Iraq the way they used Milosevic's appalling human rights record against him. This was quite effective. I supported those wars because I thought Milosevic was another Hitler. People here did indeed use the human rights argument against Saddam. Unfortunately Bush didn't--he relied on the much weaker WMD argument.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Maybe you should ask Bono or the Edge about that namething,..diamond said:who is john cougar and how come he has changed his name over the decades from-
John Cougar
to
John Cougar Mellancamp
to
John Mellencamp...
and why the hell are his writings being cited on a U2 message board ?.
He makes crap music.
thank u-
dB9
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
This adminstration is going to have to answer all the questions that John Mellencamp and other's have brought up here in this forum and aroung the world. They won't be able to say it's a liberal agenda or a left wing conspiracy. They (the republicans) opened that door when the millions that were spent on white water never produced anything. This adminstration is going to have to prove and or deny 1 of 2 things: This entire Iraqi invasion was pre-determined and a forgone conclusion to begin with or convince the voting public that they were duped by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. and they were too stupid to catch it. Either way the "so called" reports are going to be subpoened and the White House will have to answer. This isn't the ranting's of a "liberal". I have the right to know just what motivates my government to do what it does.
You are indeed forgetting one very important thing. The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans. It will be pinned on the CIA as a failure insulating the White House if it indeed turns into some kind of crisis. As it is now.....I suggest you start by asking why your congress gave Bush the authority to wage war. They had to give him permission. Maybe they did not ask enouhg questions. Not a single actions the President took could not have been taken without the support of Democrats like Lieberman, Kerry, Clinton....shall I name more who voted to give the President the power to wage war?
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
How is that really important Dread? Unless it is of more importance for one to have a party to blame or a particular politician. That's buck passing. Can these discussions not go on without it resorting to "Ha! YOUR party [insert party/and or poli's name here] supported this" Who cares. It's a bit pedantic imo. (not saying this is your point though, lol) What matters is the royal fuck up this operation has become. It was successful in getting rid of Saddam and I'd think everyone is pretty tickled pink over that. Now there is the clean up and that should be the most important thing as there's still too many lives being lost. I am not so naive as to start giving ignorant blame in matters which are way out of my league, by criticising the administration or the military and so on. But these people are as experienced as I am naive.
While I'm rambling incoherantly, may as well add the quote Anitram posted from Wolfowitz is a bit tricky. No one's life is worth losing but if anyone was going to undertake this operation it was going to be with the loss of some life. It was unfortunately inevitable. The catch is it was always going to be worthwhile to finally step up and help Iraq. The UN weren't going to do it. America is damned no matter what it does.
While I'm rambling incoherantly, may as well add the quote Anitram posted from Wolfowitz is a bit tricky. No one's life is worth losing but if anyone was going to undertake this operation it was going to be with the loss of some life. It was unfortunately inevitable. The catch is it was always going to be worthwhile to finally step up and help Iraq. The UN weren't going to do it. America is damned no matter what it does.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
The Red Cross was attacked in Baghdad today. A report in my ISP's news said that 34 were killed, and the attacks are getting worse. They're escalating. This is a mess. It's really sad. I hate it that this is going on.
