Bush is a gifted politician

[minionofmidas]

Perhaps, but the thing is that over here (and from what I recall the U.S as well) pretty much everyone, whether for against or neutral, assumed that Iraq still had WMD.

Just goes to show you something about left wing media bias...

Of course if two powerful governments keep drumming out press releases about how dangerous somebody is, and your previous policy was to usually trust these governments, you'll give them the benefit of doubt at first. And Saddam was well-established in the public's mind as an evildoer.
It's the same old "tell little lies and you'll be caught. Tell outrageous lies and you won't" thing that Bush already used to his advantage in Florida, except for the added spice that Bush and Blair (not sure about Rummy and Cheney) even convinced themselves of the garbage they were peddling.

Part of the blame for all this belongs to Clinton, btw.
The US intelligence services (god, I hate that euphemism. US espionage.) had so long been used to giving collecting as damning evidence about Iraq as possible, rather than just search for the truth, that they didn't have to be pushed much further now.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strange... why is that?
[/quote]Pacifism? Eastern European solidarity? (I know the war had no support whatsoever in Hungary, which joined NATO weeks before it began...) Maybe ask Old Europe...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that, but it wasn't (unless my memory has gone fuzzy again) at the time of the Iraq thing in 2002. But then that's the media for you... just reminded me of the way the famine in Niger was only news for about a week
[/quote]The barrage of news and "news" and expert commentary and "expert" commentary about Iraq drowned everything else out of the slot reserved for international news. For months.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course if two powerful governments keep drumming out press releases about how dangerous somebody is, and your previous policy was to usually trust these governments, you'll give them the benefit of doubt at first.

True, but the thing is the media over here (from every angle) was apparently convinced there was WMD in Iraq before any government press release or anything was published... and the press releases didn't actually get much coverage (they've had a lot more media coverage after the war than when they were actually published).
The whole thing is really quite surreal. I gave up trying to make sense of it a long time ago.
I suppose it has an added surreal element for me, because I was very ill at the time and on some strong painkillers (the sort that can make you high) so I wasn't sure what was real and what wasn't at times. Turns out that the very surreal stuff was the real stuff.
I sometimes think that the media (no matter what it's views) wanted a war to boost flagging 24 hour news ratings and newspaper sales and tried to turn up the pressure on *everyone* involved to do things...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybing asking him would make the most sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll repeat this again: I sometimes think that the media (no matter what it's views) wanted a war to boost flagging 24 hour news ratings and newspaper sales and tried to turn up the pressure on *everyone* involved to do things...

[minionofmidas]

The whole thing is really quite surreal. I gave up trying to make sense of it a long time ago.
I suppose it has an added surreal element for me, because I was very ill at the time and on some strong painkillers (the sort that can make you high) so I wasn't sure what was real and what wasn't at times. Turns out that the very surreal stuff was the real stuff.

Whoa. True hallucinations? (pseudohallucinations like you can get from too much marijuana are ones where you can still figure out that what you're seeing isn't the truth. A true hallucination is one where you don't understand that anymore.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's called capitalism.
It certainly played a role here, but it's not the sole reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but the thing is the media over here (from every angle) was apparently convinced there was WMD in Iraq before any government press release or anything was published... and the press releases didn't actually get much coverage (they've had a lot more media coverage after the war than when they were actually published).[/quote]They get told a lot of stuff beforehand.
And yes, they were "convinced" of the fact that there were WMD's in Iraq beforehand, because they'd heard for years of UN arms inspectors in Iraq, embargoes against Iraq being legitimized by WMD's etc but had never bothered much with learning details.
I wonder how many people watching TV or reading a newspaper article about Iran today - or writing these things - even notice that Iran has not yet done anything it doesn't explicitly have the right to do under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's the kind of minor detail journalists don't need to bother with. It's enough to know "might be used to develop a nuke in the future; these guys are not our allies"


EDIT - Forgot to say this twice now. Many an anti-war writer, in order to not appear extremist (always a bad thing for a journalist do appear; they're supposed to be "objective") went along with an "let's assume for the argument's sake that Saddam has some arms ferreted away and still utilisable. While I'm not convinced of that, I would still be against the war even if it were true because..." Just makes you look better than writing "The government are lieing scoundrels and there is no ground for war". Especially in the unlikely case that the government are right after all. For how can you be entirely sure?
But now think about the impression that makes when seen together with a barrage of pro-war propaganda that does not follow any such constraints.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Whoa. True hallucinations? (pseudohallucinations like you can get from too much marijuana are ones where you can still figure out that what you're seeing isn't the truth. A true hallucination is one where you don't understand that anymore.)

It didn't happen that much, but no I sometimes couldn't tell whether what I was seeing or hearing was actually true or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Learning details gets in the way of newspaper sales. It's still more-than-ever-so-slightly disturbing that the media was more concerned with a possibility of WMD that couldn't have actually reached (say) western Europe than with the whole genocide and totalitarianism thing.
Then again, compare how much coverage one of those ferrys in Banagladesh sinking or a mine in China blowing up or getting flooded gets compared to (say) a couple of braindead bimbo "celebrities" getting married, divorced, etc. etc.
Bah humbug

<insert rant abou the media here>

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point. Whenever that does get mentioned though, it's by someone who seems to want Iran to nuke Isreal...
Mind you, Iran isn't in the news that much here. Just the odd headline here or the odd headline there. No one cares at the moment.

[minionofmidas]

Just recently two planes fell from the sky killing everybody on board - 100+ people in each case. The second one was barely a blip in the media. The first one is still on the back pages of the newspaper every day.
Might that have something to do with the fact that one crashed in Greece and the other in Venezuela?
And this is even though most of the people on the plane that crashed in Venezuela were actually EU citizens. (Martiniquans holidaying in ...er, Colombia, I think...don't ask me why...probably their own beaches are too full of French)

[WMS]

The Bolton battle was ebcause Democrats wanted to see some documents about him that Bush refused to release. To say that he was controversial was an understatetment, several members of his own party might have voted against him. His comment about the top 10 floors of the UN building was seriously out of line for a nominee to the UN.

One problem with actual bills, is that the Republicans sometimes get around the fillibuster on controversial bills by attaching them to a budget. They did this with ANWR. Then the vote can be 50-50, with Cheney breaking the tie. Also, lots of the spineless Democrats are afraid to oppose any Republican agenda, but figure they can safely fillibuster 2% of Bush's nominees.

This thread got entertaining.

But ferny first:

From the perspective of many of us Bolton is perfectly suited to that corrupt, autocrat-dominated, incompetent, anti-American edifice known as the UN. Let them at each other!

Both parties pull the old budget trick whenever they're in power. Nothing new there. And the Dems sure pick dumb things to take a stand on, as I pointed out before.

Other stuff answered elsewhere...

[WMS]

If you very strongly opposed the anti-war movement, you supported the war.

Not true at all. I think that being opposed to an unholy coalition of spoilt brat students, Islamofascists, Neo-Nazis, Commies, Trots, hypocritical parasite media types and latte liberal yuppy scum while also being very worried about the fact that a crazy bastard like Rumsfeld was involved in the whole planning of the war and it's aftermath is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh? I didn't say that. Read what I said not what you want me to have said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you are totally ignorant of the history of Iraq from the early '90's onwards. Not suprising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, no they didn't. I've given you an example of that. Pretty much the only people who said that he didn't have WMD also claimed that his genocide against the Kurds didn't happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not? Bubba solved Kosavo on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... thing is I don't think the Saudi regime would be able to keep secret genocide against minority groups and lots and lots of mass graves near the capital...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never heard the anti war left campaigning for anything to be done about Darfur (which didn't even feature in the media at the time). In fact if anything was done, I suspect you'd have all thrown a hissy fit about imperalism (ala Afghanistan).

Good one, Al.

[WMS]

Abortion: Should they abandon the 65% who want Roe vs. Wade upheld?

As I have told you time and time again MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION and also that SUPPORTING UNRESTRICTED ABORTION IS ONE HELL OF A VOTE LOSER

I think you need to WAKE UP to the facts on that issue

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again (and I have told you this SOOOOOOO many times) you are making EXACTLY the same mistakes as the anti-war left in the '60's and '70's made over Vietnam.

JUST BECAUSE MOST AMERICANS DISAPPROVE OF THE HANDLING OF IRAQ RIGHT NOW DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. FAR FROM IT.

Thanks for saying pretty much what I was going to on this one. Especially on abortion - ferny's position is simply incorrect based on the facts (all those abortion polls we've all looked at in months past). And I think the MA bit is about an attempt to revoke what the Massachusetts Supreme Court imposed by judicial fiat, but I could be wrong.

[minionofmidas]

Oh yeah, btw. This is part of the answer to you I've long been evading in the German elections thread.

[WMS]

I know, another reply. Sorry.

And there are more than two positions on Iraq. Until y'all figure that out over in lefty land, you will be unable to capitalize on the growing unease over Iraq.

Note that Jfern didn't answer this

Noted. I've held the centrist position on this for years now - I backed the war but am not very happy with how it's been handled by Rumsfeld & Co. The change of opinion among this group is what has caused the shift in polls over Iraq - the rabid anti-war left and equally rabid pro-war right (although 'Bush is never wrong' might be a better term ) haven't changed their stances at all. And there are of course variations in the centrist theme...

...wait a sec, Stratfor had an interesting bit on this last year...*searches*

From this article:
The U.S. Presidential Election: On Its Own Terms
September 23, 2004 19 52  GMT

Done by the founder of Stratfor, George Friedman, BTW...

I bolded some especially good bits.

The specific dynamic of the 2004 race also poses serious challenges for Kerry. In looking at the polls, it would appear that about 43 percent of likely voters have made the decision to vote for Bush regardless of the course of the campaign, while about 41 percent will vote for Kerry. That is, in effect, a tie, and actually shows a larger Democratic base than in previous elections. That means that the election battle is for 16 percent of the voters. Of that 16 percent, about 6 percent are undecided by reason of stupidity. [WMS note: ] How they vote or whether they vote will depend on almost random events.

About 10 percent of the electorate, therefore, are the intelligent undecideds. They are actively considering the options. This 10 percent seem to be heavily focused on the war against militant Islamists in general and on Iraq in particular. They are far from anti-war voters, in the sense that they have not bought into Michael Moore's view of the war as a vast right-wing conspiracy, nor are they at all impressed with Bush's execution of the war. Their view appears to be -- and it is tricky and not altogether fair to sum up such a diverse and fragmented group -- that the war against terrorism was forced on the United States, that the war in Iraq was probably a mistake, but that withdrawal is not an option. They are looking for someone who can do better than Bush in fighting and winning the war.

[WMS note: This is the group I was in. ]

This should make it Kerry's presidency in a walk. In fact, he thought it would, which is why he led with his military record. Bush struck back at Kerry's center of gravity, attacking what would have appeared to be an unassailable military record. With his own military record known and discounted, Bush had nothing much to lose. He not only tarnished Kerry's record, but forced him onto the defensive when Kerry needed to be taking the offensive instead.

But Kerry's problems are more than simply tactical. Kerry has a severe problem on his left wing. Entirely apart from Nader, Democratic voters have the option of staying home. Many of them, particularly supporters of Howard Dean, have severe doubts about Kerry. More important, they are a single-issue constituency: They are anti-war. If they revolt against Kerry, he can't win.

That means that if Kerry appeals to the intelligent centrists by acknowledging that the war must now be fought and offering himself as a superior commander-in-chief, he faces the very real possibility that he will bleed off support from his left. George W. Bush had exactly the same problem in 2000: He waged a campaign to take the center and did fairly well, but his campaign alienated the right. Several million Republican voters stayed home.

Bush has an advantage over Kerry this time. His right wing is fragmented and can be motivated to vote on issues other than Iraq. Abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage -- all rank as higher-priority issues on the far right of the Republican Party than does Iraq. Moreover, these issues seem to alienate primarily those voters who are never going to vote for Bush anyway. The center is so fixated on the war that these other issues tend to have limited impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you SEE this, ferny?! More than two positions!

[WMS]

Oh yeah, btw. This is part of the answer to you I've long been evading in the German elections thread.

Cool.

Anything in particular you'd like me to comment on? My position is pretty close to Al's BTW...

[minionofmidas]

I know, another reply. Sorry.

And there are more than two positions on Iraq. Until y'all figure that out over in lefty land, you will be unable to capitalize on the growing unease over Iraq.

Note that Jfern didn't answer this

Noted. I've held the centrist position on this for years now - I backed the war but am not very happy with how it's been handled by Rumsfeld & Co. The change of opinion among this group is what has caused the shift in polls over Iraq - the rabid anti-war left

We may have gotten a wee bit more smug for having our views on WMD's proven correct

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "Bush is always" Right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That small? Oh right, I forgot. Most members of this group aren't registered in America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unconditional withdrawal is not an option. In fact, that was probably part of the strategy. It's called Burning Bridges.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. They're anti-Bush. Maybe anti-War on Terror (as in, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever happened to the Neocon revolution I wonder? []quote]Moreover, these issues seem to alienate primarily those voters who are never going to vote for Bush anyway. The center is so fixated on the war that these other issues tend to have limited impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you SEE this, ferny?! More than two positions!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it's not nearly exhaustive...not to mention the fact that there was never much of a chance of the extreme left, or the extreme right, staying at home this election, so they're wrong on that.

[minionofmidas]

Oh yeah, btw. This is part of the answer to you I've long been evading in the German elections thread.

Cool.

Anything in particular you'd like me to comment on? My position is pretty close to Al's BTW...

Anything you feel like commenting.

[WMS]

OK Lewis, I'll comment on this one. Note: Getting the quoting under control was a bitch...

Noted. I've held the centrist position on this for years now - I backed the war but am not very happy with how it's been handled by Rumsfeld & Co. The change of opinion among this group is what has caused the shift in polls over Iraq - the rabid anti-war left

We may have gotten a wee bit more smug for having our views on WMD's proven correct

Despite the illogic of Saddam not having WMDs. It just made no sense for him to get rid of his WMDs but then act as if he had them by hassling the UN inspectors and the like. And he certainly used them in the past. The lack of WMDs was just F-in weird...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "Bush is always" Right? [/quote]

I like that term better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That small? Oh right, I forgot. Most members of this group aren't registered in America. [/quote]

'Likely voters', which is scary enough. But it's true that most of these people aren't registered, and if they get bugged by some group to register, they never vote...well, not themselves, although others may vote in their place . I really wish I could remember something my American Foreign Policy teacher in grad school (quite leftist - you'd have liked her Lewis ) said about the respective %s of Americans on four levels of 'international event awareness'...

Roughly it was...
-about 15-20% are Opinion Leaders who follow everything they can and have quite detailed opinions on it (much of the Forum fits here)
-about 35-40% follow the big stuff (Kosovo at the time of the class, Afghanistan and Iraq now) pretty closely
-about 20% have a vague idea of the big stuff (about the 1991 Gulf War: 'wasn't there some big war or something?')
-about 20% are TOTALLY clueless! As in, ZERO knowledge of ANYTHING!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unconditional withdrawal is not an option. In fact, that was probably part of the strategy. It's called Burning Bridges. [/quote]

They they should've had a better postwar plan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Yeah, 'ol Stratfor can get pretty sarcastic at times. Not that you'd like all of those times - when the Bush Admin totally outmaneuvered the French-German-Russian triumvirate on the issue of Iraq within Europe by the careful bit with 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe' - notice how many countries signed that public statement supporting the U.S.? See below:

Europe: Splintering on Iraq War Shatters Common Policy
January 30, 2003 19 02  GMT

Summary
Eight European nations on Jan. 30 jointly published a letter of support for the U.S. position on Iraq, resulting in a dramatic shift in the calculus for war that may speed up an attack. The letter also signals a significant split in Europe: It is a shot through the heart of Franco-German ambitions to create a common foreign policy with which to challenge U.S. hegemony.

...In a joint letter published Jan. 30 in the Wall Street Journal, the leaders of eight European states -- Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic -- declared their support for the U.S. position on Iraq and called for global unity on that issue. The letter begins with glowing references to U.S. "bravery, generosity and farsightedness" in helping to free Europe from Nazism and communism in the 20th Century.
---------------------------------------------
Oh, was Chirac pissed off when that happened - "It is not really responsible behavior, it is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." - . Stratfor - and most of the U.S. - gloated over this one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. They're anti-Bush. Maybe anti-War on Terror (as in, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc.) [/quote]

In a way, that was even worse for Kerry, because support for the War on Terror is stronger than for the War in Iraq. And the ABB's weren't enough to win, and never were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever happened to the Neocon revolution I wonder?[/quote]

All these Johnny-come-lately ex-realists in the Bush Admin are screwing it up. The real neoconservatives (and everyone keeps confusing the term with 'political conservative' - this is a foreign policy orientation, not a domestic policy orientation - that Christian Science Monitor test had four foreign policy categories, Liberal, Realist, Neoconservative, and Isolationist, which makes me wonder whether the Political Compass should do a separate FP test...) can and are from different domestic ideologies (although on the Forum the communitarians seem to have a lot of them ) and their FP will probably remain dominant (hell, Kerry was, at heart, a neocon based on his FP record before the raving Liberals in the Dem party made him take stances that didn't resonate amongst a large enough part of the public - but Al has already covered that part ).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it's not nearly exhaustive...not to mention the fact that there was never much of a chance of the extreme left, or the extreme right, staying at home this election, so they're wrong on that.
[/quote]

Nope, there are some very complicated FP positions out there. I think they were surprised by turnout like most people were...but yes, they are wrong at times, and will admit it. Stratfor ain't perfect, but they do try to produce a high-quality product, and where else can you purchase this type of analysis?

[minionofmidas]

OK Lewis, I'll comment on this one. Note: Getting the quoting under control was a bitch...

Noted. I've held the centrist position on this for years now - I backed the war but am not very happy with how it's been handled by Rumsfeld & Co. The change of opinion among this group is what has caused the shift in polls over Iraq - the rabid anti-war left

We may have gotten a wee bit more smug for having our views on WMD's proven correct

Despite the illogic of Saddam not having WMDs. It just made no sense for him to get rid of his WMDs but then act as if he had them by hassling the UN inspectors and the like. And he certainly used them in the past. The lack of WMDs was just F-in weird...

Many partial explanations...
Right after the Gulf War he tried to get rid of the stuff in order that the invading Americans wouldn't find it and hang him on that. Later on he may have tried to just keep some dignity, and not have foreign spies measure out every detail of his private residence on some weird pretext like he might have an anthrax factory under his bedside table.
And of course, he played the threat game for political survival, rather like Kim Jong Il does. If the US were absolutely certain that Kim has no usable nukes (which I suppose they believe to be likely, in private) - and that China won't raise a finger to defend him - how long would he remain in power? It paid Saddam to keep some doubt alive. He executed his son-in-law for revealing details about the dismantling of the facilities to the US. (Not that the US had dared to trust him.)

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, 'ol Stratfor can get pretty sarcastic at times. Not that you'd like all of those times - when the Bush Admin totally outmaneuvered the French-German-Russian triumvirate on the issue of Iraq within Europe by the careful bit with 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe' - notice how many countries signed that public statement supporting the U.S.? See below:

Europe: Splintering on Iraq War Shatters Common Policy
January 30, 2003 19 02  GMT

Summary
Eight European nations on Jan. 30 jointly published a letter of support for the U.S. position on Iraq, resulting in a dramatic shift in the calculus for war that may speed up an attack. The letter also signals a significant split in Europe: It is a shot through the heart of Franco-German ambitions to create a common foreign policy with which to challenge U.S. hegemony.

...In a joint letter published Jan. 30 in the Wall Street Journal, the leaders of eight European states -- Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic -- declared their support for the U.S. position on Iraq and called for global unity on that issue. The letter begins with glowing references to U.S. "bravery, generosity and farsightedness" in helping to free Europe from Nazism and communism in the 20th Century.
---------------------------------------------
Oh, was Chirac pissed off when that happened - "It is not really responsible behavior, it is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." - . Stratfor - and most of the U.S. - gloated over this one.

Oh yeah, that weird thingy. The funny thing is ... all four Eastern Europeans who signed this probably agree with Chirac's assessment today. Not that they like the fact that he said that, but they do agree it would have been much wiser not to sign. Oh, and in the Czech Republic, when the PM refused to sign their letter, they asked the lame duck figurehead president. Who semi-retracted his signature about a week later.
Of course, the document's sole intended value was as PR for the home front, in Britain and the US and perhaps some other countries as well. "See, the Europeans are not all against us. [Which was true, of course] It's just that traitor Chirac! [More on that some other time] No reason to be worried. The division between us and out allies is no fault of ours. [Not true, which probably requires some explanation]" And yes, it did needle us, successfully. Just look at Old Europe's username. Of course, it certainly didn't make an Iraq resolution any more likely...

[WMS]

OK Lewis, I'll comment on this one. Note: Getting the quoting under control was a bitch...

Noted. I've held the centrist position on this for years now - I backed the war but am not very happy with how it's been handled by Rumsfeld & Co. The change of opinion among this group is what has caused the shift in polls over Iraq - the rabid anti-war left

We may have gotten a wee bit more smug for having our views on WMD's proven correct

Despite the illogic of Saddam not having WMDs. It just made no sense for him to get rid of his WMDs but then act as if he had them by hassling the UN inspectors and the like. And he certainly used them in the past. The lack of WMDs was just F-in weird...

Many partial explanations...
Right after the Gulf War he tried to get rid of the stuff in order that the invading Americans wouldn't find it and hang him on that. Later on he may have tried to just keep some dignity, and not have foreign spies measure out every detail of his private residence on some weird pretext like he might have an anthrax factory under his bedside table.
And of course, he played the threat game for political survival, rather like Kim Jong Il does. If the US were absolutely certain that Kim has no usable nukes (which I suppose they believe to be likely, in private) - and that China won't raise a finger to defend him - how long would he remain in power? It paid Saddam to keep some doubt alive. He executed his son-in-law for revealing details about the dismantling of the facilities to the US. (Not that the US had dared to trust him.)

The latter reason is probably closer to reality. Still, the governments opposed to U.S. action certainly thought he had WMD...they just didn't care, as long as those secret oil contracts remained.

[WMS]

Yeah, 'ol Stratfor can get pretty sarcastic at times. Not that you'd like all of those times - when the Bush Admin totally outmaneuvered the French-German-Russian triumvirate on the issue of Iraq within Europe by the careful bit with 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe' - notice how many countries signed that public statement supporting the U.S.? See below:

Europe: Splintering on Iraq War Shatters Common Policy
January 30, 2003 19 02  GMT

Summary
Eight European nations on Jan. 30 jointly published a letter of support for the U.S. position on Iraq, resulting in a dramatic shift in the calculus for war that may speed up an attack. The letter also signals a significant split in Europe: It is a shot through the heart of Franco-German ambitions to create a common foreign policy with which to challenge U.S. hegemony.

...In a joint letter published Jan. 30 in the Wall Street Journal, the leaders of eight European states -- Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic -- declared their support for the U.S. position on Iraq and called for global unity on that issue. The letter begins with glowing references to U.S. "bravery, generosity and farsightedness" in helping to free Europe from Nazism and communism in the 20th Century.
---------------------------------------------
Oh, was Chirac pissed off when that happened - "It is not really responsible behavior, it is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." - . Stratfor - and most of the U.S. - gloated over this one.

Oh yeah, that weird thingy. The funny thing is ... all four Eastern Europeans who signed this probably agree with Chirac's assessment today. Not that they like the fact that he said that, but they do agree it would have been much wiser not to sign. Oh, and in the Czech Republic, when the PM refused to sign their letter, they asked the lame duck figurehead president. Who semi-retracted his signature about a week later.
Of course, the document's sole intended value was as PR for the home front, in Britain and the US and perhaps some other countries as well. "See, the Europeans are not all against us. [Which was true, of course] It's just that traitor Chirac! [More on that some other time] No reason to be worried. The division between us and out allies is no fault of ours. [Not true, which probably requires some explanation]" And yes, it did needle us, successfully. Just look at Old Europe's username. Of course, it certainly didn't make an Iraq resolution any more likely...

Bah, by that time it was clear that the French, Russians and Chinese would never agree on a new Iraq resolution, so it was time to play the PR game.

But as for why those countres signed...as Stratfor put it:
American Isolation and the European Reality
March 12, 2003 19 50  GMT
Summary
A general perception exists that the issue of war against Iraq has opened a massive rift between the United States and Europe. Giant anti-war demonstrations, public opinion polls and the behavior of key powers seem to confirm this view, but the reality is actually much more complicated -- and very different. The majority of European governments support the United States on the Iraq issue. Though public opinion certainly opposes war, the European populace also is extremely concerned about Europe's economy, issues of national sovereignty and the effect of French and German power over both. Governments generally have chosen to side with the United States -- not because they are suicidal, but because they understand that on election day, the Iraq war will be a side issue and the power of the Franco-German bloc will be a central issue. The United States is much less isolated in relation to Europe than is generally believed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we can argue about the salience of the Iraq issue, but I'd say it was quite clear that making sure France and Germany didn't get to dominate Europe had a lot to do with the actions of those governments. I've heard this before as well: the main opponents in Europe to the war are France, Germany, and Russia. Let's just say Central Europe has not exactly had good experiences with any of those three, and much more positive experiences with the U.S. - we supported their freedom for decades, and in addition we're way over there, whereas the Trilogy of Terror in Europe is right here.

*edit* -  same article as above
Sixteen countries support the U.S. position on war without a second resolution; five support the U.S. position in favor of war with a second resolution. Taken together, the European vote is 21-6-6 in favor of the United States. It also should be noted that while France and Germany are certainly major powers, the United States is supported by countries such as Britain, Italy and Spain, along with the others -- certainly a match by most variables.

Despite this reality, a general and persistent belief exists that Europe is overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. policy -- when, in fact, the overwhelming majority of European nations have sided with the United States.

There is, of course, a more complicated issue involved here -- what political scientists call "saliency." Saliency refers to the intensity of feeling on a subject. If someone asks whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream, you might answer "vanilla" -- a truthful answer, save that it is either a marginal preference or you really don't care much for ice cream, or the question, at all. In a poll, one could get the feeling that there is overwhelming sentiment in one direction or another, when the truth is that most people really don't care one way or another, but when presented with a stark choice, choose one. Intensity -- issue saliency --isn't reflected in most polls.

For most European countries, Iraq is an issue of low saliency. One suspects that for Poland, for example, the Iraqi question is a marginal matter at best. When forced to make a choice, the Poles supported the United States. We suspect that most of the countries didn't want to make a choice on the Iraq issue -- but when forced to do so, reluctantly chose the U.S. position. Therefore, it is entirely incorrect to say that the United States is isolated in Europe; it is more correct to say that the United States has broad, but lukewarm, support.

However, this doesn't fully capture the picture, either. Though the Iraq issue itself has little significance to most of the countries of Europe, the choice with which they are faced -- aligning with either France and Germany on one hand or the United States and Britain on the other -- does. For most of the countries of Europe, that is an intensely important and even defining question. In a sense, it was France that defined the issue as a choice between the European position and the U.S. position. When pressed to the wall by the French and Germans, most chose to side with the United States. This was not because they cared about the war resolution, but because they were more concerned about Franco-German power than about the possibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
________________________________________________________

[angus]

Look at the situation:

-He's been in hiding for his whole second term, and has accomplished very little
-Gas is approachiong 3 dollars a gallon in many areas (say what you want about how much fault can be assesed to the president here...but it it was 75 cents a gallon Bush would take credit)
-Iraq is enduring one of its worst months, with the constitution deadline come and gone and a high amount of casuaties
-John Roberts isn't the pretty-boy he was a month ago (but this still shouldn't be a major issue)
-John Bolton's nomination is opposed by about 75% of americans (do a google news search of john bolton)

...depite all this...Bush is still exceedingly popular.

I don't like him at all but I am impressed.

Gifted?  Or just lucky?  I haven't been able to figure that out either.  For example, what makes a guy like me, with a 82% philosophical overlap with Kerry, according to SelectSmart.com, and a 19% philosophical overlap with Bush support Bush.  In any case, I think you're giving the GOP too much credit for being good guys and not enough credit to the Democrats for being complete buffoons.  Either one would give Bush a re-election victory and continued support over his opposition in congress.  Hard to say which effect is greater, really.  But I don't think you can conclude based on the evidence you present that he's a gifted politician, only that he had the good luck to serve at a time when nationalist fervor peaked as a result of unfortunate terrorist attacks, and at a time when the opposition party has become a parody.

That, and I still like his FU attitude and cocky swagger. 

I mean, c'mon, compare these statements:

"You may infer from my previous testimony, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have sex with that woman as I understood the term to be defined."

 and

"Well, I did smoke, but I didn't inhale."

with

"That guy's a major-league asshole."

and

"I don't think I really need to answer that question."


Seriously, and you guys wonder why Bush is so popular?  He's a god, man. 

[minionofmidas]

not because they are suicidal, but because they understand that on election day, the Iraq war will be a side issue and the power of the Franco-German bloc will be a central issue.

This misconception has proved suicidal to a number of European governments.
The reason I keep trying to vote off Jan Peter "Harry Potter" Balkenende in World Leaders Survivor is his conduct during the election campaign at the height of the crisis btw. At first he was cautiously in favor of whatever the US might propose - that is the default position for any minor US ally after all, ie the position you take before you stop to think.
Then, the crisis came to a head and Balkenende's election campaign heated up too. The fringey socialists started rising in the polls purely on the strength of their anti-war rhetoric - it was the only issue in their election campaign really. Then the Labour Party (the major left-of-centre party) stole their thunder and the Socialists tumbled back while Labour pulled in neck-and-neck with the Christian Democrats after lagging far behind for years. Balkenende started to talk modest opposition to the war, while his foreign minister, who'd stuck his head much further out of the window before, stuck with the pro-war camp. On election day, the CDA had conserved first place and an overall right-of-centre majority in the Tweede Kamer, and Balkenende was by Bush's side before you could say "war".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely true. It had nothing to do with agreeing with the US on the issue of war in Iraq. It had everything to do with not wanting to antagonize the US, who might be needed as a strategic partner yet. After all, when these guys decided to try and join NATO and the EU, they did count on the US and Europe to be allies. They had no intention of taking sides in any sort of rivalry. Some actually tried their best to heal the rift.
Which probably goes a far way to debunk this next one... no matter who counted (it does look suspicious, not to mention reminds me of Bush's wacky coalition of the willing list)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, here it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what sense?

[WMS]

not because they are suicidal, but because they understand that on election day, the Iraq war will be a side issue and the power of the Franco-German bloc will be a central issue.

This misconception has proved suicidal to a number of European governments.
The reason I keep trying to vote off Jan Peter "Harry Potter" Balkenende in World Leaders Survivor is his conduct during the election campaign at the height of the crisis btw. At first he was cautiously in favor of whatever the US might propose - that is the default position for any minor US ally after all, ie the position you take before you stop to think.
Then, the crisis came to a head and Balkenende's election campaign heated up too. The fringey socialists started rising in the polls purely on the strength of their anti-war rhetoric - it was the only issue in their election campaign really. Then the Labour Party (the major left-of-centre party) stole their thunder and the Socialists tumbled back while Labour pulled in neck-and-neck with the Christian Democrats after lagging far behind for years. Balkenende started to talk modest opposition to the war, while his foreign minister, who'd stuck his head much further out of the window before, stuck with the pro-war camp. On election day, the CDA had conserved first place and an overall right-of-centre majority in the Tweede Kamer, and Balkenende was by Bush's side before you could say "war".

Other than Spain (where the whole ETA thing had an impact) what other governments fell because of it? Heck, which ones have even had elections where it was an issue? Information is a tad sparse over here.

And I find the Balkenende story very funny.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely true. It had nothing to do with agreeing with the US on the issue of war in Iraq. It had everything to do with not wanting to antagonize the US, who might be needed as a strategic partner yet. After all, when these guys decided to try and join NATO and the EU, they did count on the US and Europe to be allies. They had no intention of taking sides in any sort of rivalry. Some actually tried their best to heal the rift.
Which probably goes a far way to debunk this next one... no matter who counted (it does look suspicious, not to mention reminds me of Bush's wacky coalition of the willing list)[/quote]

Other than the last sentence - which I get to below anyway - we seem to be in agreement about this part. I'd say that as the Russian bear growls and the Germans go along with that - look at German investment in Russia - this tendency will increase.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, here it is. [/quote]

Yeah, broad but lukewarm was pretty accurate. I'm going off of Stratfor, so let's see...

From the same article BTW...
This coalition [WMS edit: against the U.S.] is led by a major European power, France, working in concert with another major power, Germany. They have been joined by Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Greece. Russia, more an outsider to the European dynamic, also is aligned with them.

On the other hand, it is not always clearly understood that a large number of European nations have aligned themselves with the United States. Explicitly committed to the U.S. position are the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia and Montenegro, whose foreign policy is independent of Serbia's. Many of these countries have provided at least token material support or are allowing the United States to use military facilities in their countries. This ranges from training Iraqi exiles in Hungary to the use of airfields in Bulgaria to the deployment of chemical defense units from Poland. They are not major contributions, but certainly not opposition.

A second group of European countries support Washington's position, but are somewhat more assertive about wanting a second U.N. resolution before an attack on Iraq occurs. This group includes The Netherlands, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia -- a bloc of five. But of these, The Netherlands sent Patriot missiles to Turkey before NATO approved the shipment, while the Czechs and Slovaks have sent chemical detection teams to Kuwait.

A third group of countries remains rigorously neutral: Ireland, Austria, Finland, Serbia, Switzerland and Norway. Some, like Finland, tilt against the war, but have not aligned themselves officially against the United States.

France's position has the support of only five countries in Europe -- six, counting Russia -- although where the final count will wind up is unclear.
------------------------------------------
And the next sentence was the one about 16 countries in support. So that's where that came from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what sense?

[/quote]

Ask them.

Seriously, the next sentence onward:
When pressed to the wall by the French and Germans, most chose to side with the United States. This was not because they cared about the war resolution, but because they were more concerned about Franco-German power than about the possibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The reasoning was, of course, diverse, but there was a common, geopolitical theme -- concern about being part of a Europe dominated by France and Germany. The Iraq issue was submerged in a much broader, geopolitical question. For each country, the question was: Is it preferable to have a close, subordinate relationship with a Franco-German bloc or to avoid that by aligning with the United States? Except for Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg -- Russia is playing a much broader and even more complex game -- Europe almost universally sided with the United States. The question posed to them was Iraq; the question that concerned them was the future of Europe and their place in it.

Understanding this, we can begin to understand the following paradox. Public opinion polls in Europe overwhelmingly show broad opposition to Washington's policy in Iraq, yet most European leaders support the United States in spite of the polls. This leads to one of two conclusions: Either European politicians are incompetent and all will fall shortly, or they understand something about their constituents that outsiders might not easily grasp. We think the second is the case.

European leaders understand this: If a European is asked whether he opposes or supports the United States over Iraq, the majority will say they are opposed. But assume that a different question was put to them: Do you prefer to live in an integrated Europe dominated by France and Germany, or would you prefer to maintain a degree of independence by aligning with the United States on security issues? There the answer would, in the majority of cases, be for limiting European integration and relying on the United States for security.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, there's more but this post is getting honking long already.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I know, another reply. Sorry.

And there are more than two positions on Iraq. Until y'all figure that out over in lefty land, you will be unable to capitalize on the growing unease over Iraq.

Note that Jfern didn't answer this

Noted. I've held the centrist position on this for years now - I backed the war but am not very happy with how it's been handled by Rumsfeld & Co. The change of opinion among this group is what has caused the shift in polls over Iraq - the rabid anti-war left and equally rabid pro-war right (although 'Bush is never wrong' might be a better term ) haven't changed their stances at all. And there are of course variations in the centrist theme...

...wait a sec, Stratfor had an interesting bit on this last year...*searches*

From this article:
The U.S. Presidential Election: On Its Own Terms
September 23, 2004 19 52  GMT

Done by the founder of Stratfor, George Friedman, BTW...

I bolded some especially good bits.

The specific dynamic of the 2004 race also poses serious challenges for Kerry. In looking at the polls, it would appear that about 43 percent of likely voters have made the decision to vote for Bush regardless of the course of the campaign, while about 41 percent will vote for Kerry. That is, in effect, a tie, and actually shows a larger Democratic base than in previous elections. That means that the election battle is for 16 percent of the voters. Of that 16 percent, about 6 percent are undecided by reason of stupidity. [WMS note: ] How they vote or whether they vote will depend on almost random events.

About 10 percent of the electorate, therefore, are the intelligent undecideds. They are actively considering the options. This 10 percent seem to be heavily focused on the war against militant Islamists in general and on Iraq in particular. They are far from anti-war voters, in the sense that they have not bought into Michael Moore's view of the war as a vast right-wing conspiracy, nor are they at all impressed with Bush's execution of the war. Their view appears to be -- and it is tricky and not altogether fair to sum up such a diverse and fragmented group -- that the war against terrorism was forced on the United States, that the war in Iraq was probably a mistake, but that withdrawal is not an option. They are looking for someone who can do better than Bush in fighting and winning the war.

[WMS note: This is the group I was in. ]

This should make it Kerry's presidency in a walk. In fact, he thought it would, which is why he led with his military record. Bush struck back at Kerry's center of gravity, attacking what would have appeared to be an unassailable military record. With his own military record known and discounted, Bush had nothing much to lose. He not only tarnished Kerry's record, but forced him onto the defensive when Kerry needed to be taking the offensive instead.

But Kerry's problems are more than simply tactical. Kerry has a severe problem on his left wing. Entirely apart from Nader, Democratic voters have the option of staying home. Many of them, particularly supporters of Howard Dean, have severe doubts about Kerry. More important, they are a single-issue constituency: They are anti-war. If they revolt against Kerry, he can't win.

That means that if Kerry appeals to the intelligent centrists by acknowledging that the war must now be fought and offering himself as a superior commander-in-chief, he faces the very real possibility that he will bleed off support from his left. George W. Bush had exactly the same problem in 2000: He waged a campaign to take the center and did fairly well, but his campaign alienated the right. Several million Republican voters stayed home.

Bush has an advantage over Kerry this time. His right wing is fragmented and can be motivated to vote on issues other than Iraq. Abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage -- all rank as higher-priority issues on the far right of the Republican Party than does Iraq. Moreover, these issues seem to alienate primarily those voters who are never going to vote for Bush anyway. The center is so fixated on the war that these other issues tend to have limited impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you SEE this, ferny?! More than two positions!

That 10% is very similar to Kerry. Remember he voted FOR the war? Some combination of them being stupid, them believing the right-wing media, and anti-Kerry attacks happened. Bush's negative campaign worked.

If you look at the polls, Kerry actually won both moderates and new voters by good margins.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, some people think it's all about their position on social issues. When I call Feinstein, Biden, Hillary, and Lieberman spineless, it's mainly because of other issues or how they communicate.

[WMS]

[snip - it's already too f-in long]

That 10% is very similar to Kerry. Remember he voted FOR the war? Some combination of them being stupid, them believing the right-wing media, and anti-Kerry attacks happened. Bush's negative campaign worked.

If you look at the polls, Kerry actually won both moderates and new voters by good margins.

Hey ferny, you're back! Pity I have to leave soon.

In one of my replies to Lewis, somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that Kerry was a secret FP centrist. But he was forced to adopt a more radical position to win the nomination, and that hurt him. Hell, Stratfor talked a fair amount about this, actually...

And is that other post of yours directed at me or people in general?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[snip - it's already too f-in long]

That 10% is very similar to Kerry. Remember he voted FOR the war? Some combination of them being stupid, them believing the right-wing media, and anti-Kerry attacks happened. Bush's negative campaign worked.

If you look at the polls, Kerry actually won both moderates and new voters by good margins.

Hey ferny, you're back! Pity I have to leave soon.

In one of my replies to Lewis, somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that Kerry was a secret FP centrist. But he was forced to adopt a more radical position to win the nomination, and that hurt him. Hell, Stratfor talked a fair amount about this, actually...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In general. It tends to be the more socially liberal Democrats who are less spineless, but that doesn't stop Senators like Feinstein from being spineless.

[/quote]