Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > May > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.US‘It’s always better to talk than to shoot’
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It might be hard to tell, but beneath the name-calling and posturing, John McCain and Barack Obama are actually debating two critically important questions confronting the American people:
First, under what conditions should we turn to force to resolve our differences with other nations?
Second, how willing should we be to turn to negotiations to resolve differences as a way of avoiding war?
Both candidates have a history on such issues: McCain, for example, was an early advocate of war with Iraq; Obama was an early opponent. In fact, it’s telling that most of the neoconservatives who helped drive us to war with Iraq backed McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries against George W. Bush, believing McCain to be more aggressive about the use of force.
In general, the difference between the candidates can be described in a single sentence: Both men are willing to go to war to protect America; McCain is more willing to go to war to protect American interests.
That may seem at first a subtle distinction, but it is not. Protecting America, and protecting American interests, are two very different thresholds for going to war. Defending America and her allies is always a cause worth fighting for — we should never balk at that duty, and we never will.
The invasion of Afghanistan, for example, was a clear use of force to protect America, because that country’s territory had been used to launch a devastating attack on our soil. Both McCain and Obama backed that decision.
However, sending our fellow Americans off to fight and die to advance American interests is a very different thing. Our interests, while important, don’t directly affect our security. They seek less tangible goals such as economic benefit, strategic advantage and the removal of leaders who frustrate our goals. And in general, most Americans are leery of asking their countrymen to die in pursuit of national interests rather than national security.
But as we’ve seen, there are ways around that reluctance. If you want public support for a war intended to advance national interests, you get it by deceiving the American people into believing that it is instead a war to defend America herself.
The invasion of Iraq was sold just that way, as a war to protect America against mushroom clouds that might rise over U.S. cities and unmanned aerial vehicles from Iraq that might spread smallpox or anthrax over the American landscape. Saddam Hussein was cast as the new Hitler, and anybody who dared question the need to remove him by force was condemned as a dangeous appeaser.
It’s a little late, but the American people now understand how they were fooled, which is why only 33 percent of us still believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
However, similar issues are now being raised by the debate over how to deal with Iran and Syria and extremist groups such as Hamas. President Bush and McCain both dismiss the possibility of negotiation with those parties, with President Bush suggesting to the Israeli Knesset that those who advocate negotiation sought “the false comfort of appeasement” like that which led to the rise of Hitler.
That talk is nonsense, and Bush knows it. While he came into office refusing to talk to North Korea, he’s now sending personal letters to Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s dictator. In Iraq, we initially refused to negotiate with Sunni groups that were launching attacks against U.S. forces; now, through negotiations, we have turned them into at least temporary allies. Even in Israel, 64 percent of adults in a recent poll said they back negotiations with Hamas, and a few days after Bush’s speech, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert announced he had begun direct negotiations with Syria, explaining that “it is always better to talk than to shoot.”
In the world that Bush and McCain occupy, that makes the Israelis appeasers. For the rest of us, it sounds like plain common sense.
Comments
By tljfinancier
May 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Boy George should expound on the activities of his Grandpa Prescott’s direct financial support of HITLER in the late 1930’s. I am sure in Boy George’s extensive vocabulary, he has a word to describe the actions of his Nazi Loving Grandpa.
By ron
May 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
I don’t have any trouble talking to people who want to do me harm.I just think that sometimes it is better to beat them over the head a little first to get their attention so to make sure everyone is on the same page.
By Matthew
May 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
TLJ, I doubt you have any problem with George Soros’ tainted past when it comes to Nazis.
Bookman really needs to realize that nobody knows or respects him as a journalist. So when he makes vague assertions without support, people really aren’t going to listen.
Also, Bookman continues to show his liberal pettiness by stating that Americans were “fooled” about the Iraq war. Like many rabid liberals who fail to defend their points with logic or evidence, he provides no evidence of manipulation or lawbreaking by the administration. The much more likely answer is that we were simply WRONG (you know, like Israel, England and Australia), but that simply isn’t an attractive rationale for a group of people so intent on shedding responsibility in favor of scapegoating.
By Lena Lawrence
May 26, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
I think Hillary should defiitely address the primaries held prematurely, especially Florida. Has anyone other than me read up in Obama. Has anyone read up on this in the Bible. He is proclaiming to be something he isn’t as far as ethnicity. His roots started with a Musline father and a mother who was an atheist and then she divorced when he was 2 and married a man who had terroristic links. Catholic schools do accept Muslim students. The Bible gives us a clear picture that a person from afar will be the issue in the destruction of our land. Get wise folks! Go to your search engines and enter “Barack Obama”. Hillary definitely best candidate. McCain nice man, but will follow in Bush’s footsteps. Then, again, look at the first ladies. Do you think they will follow suite of former first ladies? Not me!
By James
May 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman:
Sometimes.
That said, I could never vote for Obama over McCain (who was not my first choice) for many reasons but there is also much wisdom in your article. As an infantryman in the debacle called Vietnam, I witnessed a “war of attrition” firsthand.
Here is a statistic you may want to research and include in a future article. In May of 1968 (the month I rotated home) President Johnson made his “infamous” speech that he would not run again for President and that he was bringing the troops home. What’s wrong with that? A little over half of the 58,000+ names on the Vietnam Wall died AFTER the date of that speech. That is CRIMINAL and no one was ever held to account.
The same thing is happening again. A decision has already been made to leave Iraq and pull the troops out - the only question is depending on the election - when ! And good soldiers continue to die fighting another war of attrition in a country whose very Constitution says “nothing in this Constitution shall violate the tenets of Islam”.
By southside girl
May 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
I read Lena Lawrence’s comment and burst out laughing……..
By Angus
May 26, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Read up on Obama in the Bible!!! Find a n asylum somewhere pal, this is the REAL world where stuff happens. Did you read up G.W.Bush there too? Style up and get out of the bible into the REAL world. Out of your saltshaker…
I guess all the ancestors and fathers of America’s presidents have been Christian!!! No atheists or devil worshipers!!! Or white = Christian. Go pee in the ocean dear friend. Open up your mind. No wonder we Americans elected Dubya, stuff like you does indeed happen!!!
By They gave all
May 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
Maybe Obama is a terrorist Al Queda plant. But maybe it will take a terrorist to fix our country and pass universal healthcare, repair our educational quagmire, and invest in our infrastructure.
Did you know that unless a terrorists blows up an old condemned bridge or abandoned building, it could cost trillions to tear it down? Why not have a terrorist prez who will do it for free, then we can rebuild new bridges, impeach the terrorist guy, and everybodys happy.
Win win.
By They gave all
May 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Why did George Bush give up golf when he’s so good with sand traps?
By They gave all
May 26, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
It’s better to talk than to shoot, mr. bookman, but if you’re going to shoot, shoot, dont talk. (the good the bad and the ugly)
By tljfinancier
May 26, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this
Why would a Readers comments be deleted/censored by a so-called Progressive?
By Jay Bookman
May 26, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this
To TJJ Financier:
We lost a lot of comments on several threads due to a technical glitch. As a rule, we only delete comments if a poster becomes abusive.
By Montag
May 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Link to this
Good observations. I came in recently at the post concerning the study of drilling for oil in the ANWR and decided to keep hanging around.
thanks.
By Flubber
May 26, 2008 8:13 PM | Link to this
Matthew
I’d much rather listen to Jay Bookman — who is a joy to read — make convincing arguments about various topics than read some commenter on a website who actually gives the White House a pass for sending troops to Iraq based on the possibility they may “have gotten it wrong.”
Seems to me that when a baker gets a wedding cake “wrong,” he gets fired. Accountants get fired for getting things “wrong.” What happens to Presidents?
They get reelected.
By Dreamon
May 26, 2008 9:04 PM | Link to this
hey Bookman, has there been another attack on US soil since 9/11? No, right? Why do you think that is? Perhaps maybe b/c the Islamofascists are too busy dying in Iraq and N.Africa where our special forces are killing them left and right. Remember, the best defense is a good offense. Bush/Cheney 08!!!
By jarvis
May 26, 2008 11:27 PM | Link to this
Blah, blah, blah Jay.
Obviously McCain knew all of the facts whereas the Democrats in Congress did not because Bush was lying to them, while he was being completely open with his own side of the Congressional Aisle. (Please note the sarcasm.)
By Bruinfan
May 26, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this
The point about Americans being fooled by the proponents of the war is well-documented by anyone who has been paying attention and doesn’t just tune into Faux News.
My favorite flip-flop is listening to Dick Cheney saying that going into Baghdad would result in a quagmire- in 1994. Then listen to any of his speeches in 2002 or 2003. I also personally like Bill Kristol’s comments that anyone who thought the Shia and Shiites couldn’t get along were adhering to a sort of “pop psychology”.
And yet he still shows up on TV as a so-called “expert”.
By Copyleft
May 27, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this
There are some indisputable facts about Iraq:
Saddam was not involved in 9/11.
Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam did not threaten the U.S. and was unable to threaten us.
With all those simple facts verified as 100% accurate, why exactly should we be in Iraq?
Just because overwhelming military force is “something we’re good at” doesn’t mean it should be our first solution to every situation. We need more tools in our toolbox than a sledgehammer.
By GOP"S got to go
May 27, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
hank you Mr. Bookman for this well written article. Of course Cheney and Bush knew they were lying. Then when Valerie Plame’s husband tried to tell the truth, he was retaliated against. Hey Lena Lunatic, Thou Shall Not Lie about facts to start foreign wars based on BS. But poor old Shrub is not playing golf in penance for causing the death or maiming of hundred’s of thousands Iraqis and Americans. That should make their families feel better. Obama should and will talk to enemies when he is elected. If the present policies are followed we should invade Iran, Syria, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea….. to name a few. We will need a draft to keep the military functioning. Hmm, then maybe Bush might be able to play golf with a clear conscience and the burden will be shared with the Lena’s of the world. Congresses kids get the low numbers on that draft by the way.
By Copyleft
May 27, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
It’s amazing how short some people’s memories are. I was amazed at watching the process: each week, a Bushdrone would announce “Saddam has WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda.” And then, when asked for any proof whatsoever to back up this claim, the speaker retreated and changed the subject… only to come out with the same claim again NEXT week.
It was the Big Lie tactic done so obviously, so ham-handedly, that I was amazed anyone fell for it. I didn’t. I knew Bush had nothing on Saddam and was just itching for an excuse, and 9/11 was it.
Too bad it took the rest of the country so long to figure out what SHOULD have been obvious all along. Bush invaded Iraq because he felt like it; his neocon buddies want an American Empire, in blatant defiance of the Constitution. And for over seven years now, we’ve let them get away with it.
Bush’s legacy will be more shameful than Nixon’s.
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
To Copyleft and all of the other appeasers on this blog, you still haven’t explained a glaring fact as to why there hasn’t been another attack on US soil since 9/11. Perhaps it’s b/c the Islamofascists resources are being used in their fights in Iraq and Afganistan. Perhaps it’s b/c the Patriot Act has hampered them. If someone told be on 9/12/01 that there would not be another attack on our homeland in the next 7 yrs—I would have said they were crazy. Look at the 3 main attacks that have occured since, Italy, Spain, and Britain—they all relented to the appeasers and guess what? The terrorists saw it as a weakness and attacked them. A president’s most important duty is first and foremost to protect our country—not to provide free healthcare, cheap gas, social security, yada yada yada. In that regard, Bush has done a fine job. Remember, no one disputes we are in a war. And wars do cost soldiers lives and limbs. So I’ll ask you and the other appeasers once again: why hasn’t the Islamofascist terrorists struck us since 9/11/01?
By Copyleft
May 27, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
They haven’t needed to, Dreamon… you and the other Bushdrones have done their work for them, cheerfully sacrificing our freedoms and destroying our status around the globe.
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, there isn’t a single freedom I’ve had to sacrifice since 9/11 other than wait longer at the airport. What terrible freedom has been taken from you that has affected your daily life? Also you mean they haven’t needed to attack us—you mean they don’t want to attack our land? Really? Have they decided to play nice? Please wake up and be an adult. It’s b/c our brave soldiers are killing them in Iraq, N. Africa, Sudan and elsewhere. Better their than in Savannah, New Orleans, or Topeka. So obviously Copyleft can’t answer why we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11, any of you other appeaser-peaceniks have any reasons why?
By RealityKing
May 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
“Obama was an early opponent”??
Please tell us Jay, where was Jr. Senator Obama 5 years ago today and what were his political views at that time?? Especially considering that a full 69% of American favored the war when the going was easy..
By Slick
May 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Dreamon obviously swallowed all of the lies told by the neocons to get us into the quagmire in Iraq. The surprising thing is he still believes them in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
And what in the hell is an “islamofascist”?
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
Slick, you can divert all you want from the question I posed. A question that you can’t and obviously don’t want to answer—Why have we not been attacked on our homeland in the past seven years since 9/11? I gave my answer, where is yours?
By FSJR
May 27, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Dreamon, just because we’re fighting all over the place does not validate your rhetoric for US not being attacked since 9/11. Please substantiate your tired refrain by leading us to your sources.
By Copyleft
May 27, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
Dreamon is completely disconnected from reailty—or he’s listening to talk radio, which is the same thing.
First of all, “Islamofascists” do not exist, so they can’t attack us. There’s no such thing.
There ARE Islamic fundamentalists, whose irrational ravings sometimes extend all the way into violence. Those folks ARE nuts, and no amount of “rational deterrence” (i.e, anything government can do) will affect them.
Secondly, we haven’t had another 9//11 since 2001 for the same reason we never had one BEFORE Bush took office: luck. You may not like to hear it, but it’s pure luck. 9/11 demonstrated how fragile our illusion of “safety” really is, and all security and intelligence analysis since then shows that we’re no safer today than we were before.
When you take motivation into account, in fact, we’re even LESS safe thanks to the insane Bush policies of “shoot first, think later—or never.”
Just because you’ve been driving drunk every Saturday night this year without an accident doesn’t mean you’re safe. It means you’re lucky—and luck will eventually run out. Especially if you keep up the stupid behavior that’s putting you at risk.
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
FSJR—you give no explanation.
Copyleft—Lucky??? For SEVEN years??? You are kidding right? Is that the best you can do?? Tut tut, I was hoping for something intelligent from you. That’s the problem with liberals, when you can’t make a logical sense, you resort to name calling and “luck”. But it did bring a smile to my face. That was a good one.
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
Oh by the way Copyleft, Webster’s definition of fascism—a government of complete power suppressing opposition and criticism. Islamo refers to a government based on Islamic rule of law—hence, Islamofascism. Get it? I know, it must sound like a made up word—sort of like “global warming”, or is it “climate change”. Hard for my conservative pea brain to keep it all straight.
So besides Copyleft explanation of “Luck” as the reason we haven’t been attacked again in 7 yrs, any or the other liberal bloggers got one nearly as good (if not as entertaining)?
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
Oh, and one more thing Copyleft, no attacks prior ot 9/11—what about the World Trade center bombing—was that just a giant deadly fart?
And as for “rational deterrence”—I got one for ya, Kill ‘em.
I’m still waiting liberals, any other reasons about no attacks in 7 yrs?
By FSJR
May 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Dreamon, Copyleft opined that we are lucky. You did not accept his opinion. I have concluded the only opinion you will accept is your own, therefore there’s really no need for anybody to explain anything contrary to you…true? Is there an argument that exists outside of yours that you’ll accept? I’m afraid not. And no one’s here to appease you. Holla.
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
FSJR, You came to the wrong conclusion. I reject Copylefts opinion b/c “Luck” makes no logical sense to me. I am open to any and all reasons/arguments, liberal or conservative, but retain the personal right to criticise or praise them. If you have an opinion that makes sense, perhaps you could sway me. So whats your explanation?
By FSJR
May 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Dreamon, the terrorist are achieving their goals without really being in the fight or attacking US soil. Their statements are heard every time an IED kills one of us; their visions are realized every time you see painful images of the maimed on screen. Dreamon, we should be in Afghanistan right now pounding the rocks for Bin Laden or wherever he is. The only way the events of 9/11 (which is what this is all about or have we forgotten) can be vindicated is bringing those responsible to justice. Otherwise this foray in Iraq is to protect our “interests” not protect US. Again, the terrorist don’t need to attack here to achieve their goals, it’s happening on a grander scale. They were roundly criticized and or condemned by every civilized nation for what they did on 9/11 which did not advance their cause compared to the suport we garnered to go to Afghanistan to wipe them out. We blew it with that foray into Iraq. I submit to you they are not yet inclined to have the world mobilize against them but wallow in the calamity that is Iraw.
By FSJR
May 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
One more thing Dreamon, and this is not a shot at you (however I’m quoting you here) or anyone in particular just something that nerves me. I reject that insane rhetoric, “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” and “Better their than in Savannah, New Orleans, or Topeka”. That rhetoric sounds like we choose to send our sons and daughters to fight or die on foreign soil so “we” don’t have to fight or die ourselves. That is pathetic. We keep sending our sons and daughters to die so we can do what? Everybody who spews that rhetoric needs to join up, take arms and protect America themselves. Let them see what it feels like to be a sitting duck…again, for what?
Please, don’t get it twisted, Iraq is not a war for American freedoms or a war to protect us. That was the war in Afghanistan.
Dreamon, do me a favor. When you post, remind us why we’re in Iraq. Remind us why Afghanistan is still on the map or not a US territory. Remind us why we were more focused on Sadam than Bin Laden.
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
FSJR, at least you have some coherent albeit misguided points, unlike Copyleft. I would submit to you that they would MUCH rather be plotting a new attack on the US than spending their resources fighting in Iraq—more bang for their buck. Remember their stated goal—to destroy the US and Israel at all costs. I don’t think they are particularly concerned with world public opinion.If they weren’t interested in attacking the West, why did they attack Britain, Spain, and Italy? To get them to withdraw, which they did promptly. To use your logic, why did we declare war on Nazi Germany? They didn’t bomb us in Pearl Harbor. Perhaps it was b/c of our so called “interests”. Was our war against Germany a bad idea? Remember, there were plenty of people at the time who didn’t want to fight the Germans then either. As for serving, I have served in Iraq, and contrary to the mainstream driveby reports, the vast majority of my comrades support our cause there. I have sacrificed and will again if called on. How have you sacrificed for our nation in this war against terror—or are you one of those who believe this is more of a “law enforcement issue”. So once again, why haven’t they attacked us again since 9/11? It is my belief that they are finding it very difficult to do so while dying over their in Iraq. And yes, the Patriot Act has hindered them as well. That’s what soldiers do in wartime, protect the homeland.
By Frederick Douglass
May 27, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this
7 1/2 years of pure incompetence,and still there are those who’re going to opt to do it all over again, and for what——-unbridled prejudice. SHAME, SHAME,SHAME, you’ll reap what you sow!
By Dreamon
May 27, 2008 11:56 PM | Link to this
Not much more blogging since I last checked in. Funny how liberals stay quiet when logic and reason is at odds with their emotional, hysterical ideology. Frederick Douglass—what in the world are you talking about??? Unbridled prejudice—against Islamofascist who killed 3000+ of my countrymen?—I suppose I am guilty as charged in that regard. No Fred, the SHAME, SHAME, SHAME should be on those who take our American way of life for granted, who think freedom is not worth fighting for, who think logic and reason will work with these crazed jihadists.
By Copyleft
May 28, 2008 7:07 AM | Link to this
Oh, I see it now! Dreamon is right—the ONLY reason we haven’t had another 9/11 since 2001 is because Bush is actually a Superhero! He’s been flying above us all this time, bouncing missiles off his chest and sending out telepathic “fear rays” that have all our enemies cowering and hiding rather than launching new attacks at convenient American targets (say, the ones invading their own homes).
Silly me. And here I thought Dreamon didn’t have a LOGICAL explanation for his question. What a deluded tool.
By FSJR
May 28, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this
Dreamon, good morning. I retired from the Air Force in 2000 after 20 years of honorable and decorated service. That said, I’ve learned to be an independent thinker along the way. You have consumed and interpreted the facts (and I use the word facts loosely) as you have received them. Tell me, does Scott McClellan’s revelations give you pause and reconsideration of the so-called “facts”?
There is a difference between protecting and dying for your allies and protecting and dying for your interests. Jay pointed out we should negotiate our interests but kill those who attack us or our allies. What part of that, don’t you get?
We’re in Iraq because they attacked who? Scott McClellan said he was lied to. How about the rest of us?
I have to clock in, I’ll return at break.
By Dreamon
May 28, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, if you want to lash out at me and divert attention b/c of your previous idiotic blogs which were self contradicted, I’m here for you. I hope you feel better about yourself now.
FSJR, I’ll repeat myself. Should we not have waged war against Germany?—were they the ones who dropped the bombs on Pearl Harbor? Or were we protecting our self interests?
As for Scott McClelland, wonder how I should believe a man who stayed silent for so long while he claimed to have been manipulated by the administration. Can you say $$$$$?
By FSJR
May 28, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
Dreamon, there was a lot going on leading to our engagement in WWII. There was the Axis (them) and the Allies (us). Germany was a part of the Axis that attacked Great Britain who was our Ally. You attack an Ally you attack us - simple enough? Which of our Allies did Iraq attack?
You all believed McClellan when he was telling the other story. At some point you have to question what you are being told. Have you ever?
Being an ex-military man, you know there are things that are done but told differently to the public. You know this right?
I wonder what your opinion of this entire Iraqi fiasco would be if this was a democratic administration running it.
Dreamon, you sound as if we had no alternative but to go into Iraq. With all the (faulty) intellingence suggesting WMD in Iraq and omitting any intelligence (and common sense) to the contrary, how come no other country sought this war?
Although not to your satisfaction, I’ve answered every question you’ve asked me.
I’ve asked you a few you haven’t responded to yet.
Here are more: What is justice for 9/11? Do you feel a so-called “victory” (whatever that is, that goal post and been moved a few times) in Iraq is justice for 9/11? Do you feel we are putting as much effort in killing Bin laden as we are in Iraq?
By Slick
May 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
Dreamon: Webster defines fascism as “a POLITICAL philosophy, movement, or regime that exhalts NATION and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic GOVERNMENT headed by A dictatorial LEADER, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.” That is NOT a description of what our forces face in Iraq. When you try to stretch the definition to include Islam, which is RELIGION you change the definition completely.
And where is the centralized and autocratic GOVERNMENT we are facing in Iraq? Now do YOU get it??
By Copyleft
May 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
DreamOn, tell us: What government has declared war on us? What country attacked us? (Hint: IRAQ is not the answer to either question.)