Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

quickjustice — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:51:57 -0000

I need to correct myself on one point: Madeline Albright presented the evidence of the 1993 Iraqi Intelligence Service assassination attempt on President Bush I to the U.N. Security Council. The Clinton Administration then launched a cruise missile that hit Iraqi Intelligence headquarters, killing several people. Clinton did respond to the assassination attempt.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Seth — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:16:49 -0000

This is my last post here. I've really enjoyed this discussion. Although we disagree on some fundamentals, I think we still engaged a bit.

To end, I don't buy "amoral" decisions when lives and well-being are on the line. Moral or ethical decisions don't equal the decision that eliminates any risk or harm to anyone, and just because they can't doesn't make them amoral or immoral. I think claiming amoral leadership is an unnecessary relinquishment of morality when the decisions become difficult.

Anyway, it's been a pleasure.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Steve Carpinelli — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:09:22 -0000

I’d like to correct several inaccuracies about your statements Ed. George Soros did not fund the Center’s latest Iraq War Card project and he has never directly funded any Center project. The Center has received foundation support from the Open Society Institute, a Soros foundation, over the years, most recently in 2004. The Open Source Society, like most foundations, awards grants independently from their founders. All of the Center’s recent foundation funders are posted on our website and represent a variety of foundations, from the Ford Foundation to the Wallace Global Fund. All of the Center’s projects are editorially independent and managed solely by in-house journalists and staff. The Center does not accept contributions from corporations, labor unions, governments or anonymous donors and the bulk of our financial support comes from foundations and individual contributions. This is a claim that no newspaper or national media outlet can claim. The Center’s mission is to simply hold our public institutions accountable and to make our democracy more transparent. The Center does not and has never endorsed any legislation, political candidate, party or organizations. Our investigations present public information in an easy format so they can be read and shared among the media, public and policy makers alike.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

E1701 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:58:24 -0000

Oh I agree on that point - one must always shape philosophy and ideals to reality... the reverse is what has produced some of the bloodiest episodes in our history. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

That being said, I believe the reality of nationhood is very much an amoral concept. A citizen, and even a local politician should be guided by morality - be it philosophical or religious, or civilization cannot exist. Even if we accept the Hobbesian proviso that humans only behave morally under threat of punishment for immorality. And of course ignoring the varying nature of morals hinging upon culture, religion, local history, etc.

However, a leader - be it military, business, or the head of a nation, must be able to act in amoral ways. A moral leader is faced with decisions they cannot make, or can be forced into poor decisions that are both moral and unalterably wrong. An immoral leader of course is typically guided by unenlightened self-interest, and very often destructive to what he leads. An amoral leader can choose the moral path when that produces the best results, but is able to choose the right path even when it is not the moral one. Reconsidering decisions is perfectly fine - but there comes a point where "a pause" loses the moment, or where that pause turns into indecision. And any leader worth the name must put the priority on his own people - the President of the United States must be first and foremost concerned with the well being of the United States, and its citizens (in that order).

As to nations not being people... yes, it is a strong statement, and yes, if taken to extremes it can lead to totalitarianship. On the other hand, "concern for all" and "the common good" is often an even easier path to the same end... it is remarkably easy for a man convinced that he is doing the moral thing to justify even greater immorality. You certainly don't think Josef Stalin or Mao thought of themselves as evil, now do you? A clear division of thought processes between dealing with nations and dealing with people is, I feel, a far more realistic and logical way, as well as being less likely to result in totalitarianship.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

C. Beanie — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:09:02 -0000

c'mon, do you really need a George Soros funding to tell if bush lied? Since when to we have an honest politician?

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

nightjar — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:43:53 -0000

complete and utter nonsense, jack.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Jennifer — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:34:15 -0000

Yes, it's surely just a huge coincidence that on 935 separate occassions, Bush and various administration figures made incorrect statements in support of an agenda for war...at times making the same incorrect statements or claims multiple times after having to concede that the statements were incorrect...hell, that could happen to anyone.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Seth — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:56:51 -0000

I think we both realize the problems with taking either a consequentialist approach or a rights based approach. Consequentialist theory must rely on knowledge of the future in order to maximize the good (of a nation or humans in general), it often becomes a cost/benefit decision that ignores the idea that a human life is incommensurable with other lives and resources, and it eventually people forget about maximizing the overall good and instead pursue self-interest over the common good. But I also see the weaknesses of rights-based theory that your are alluding to when you write of being paralyzed.

So I guess I want some sort of a hybrid, some that J.S. Mill was originally trying to do. People forget that he tried to incorporate rights in his utilitarian theory. I'd like to see some work that picks up on that philosophical thread. (I'm thinking about going to grad school to do just that).

To continue, being concerned about everyone doesn't necessarily paralyze anyone. It will give one pause, in which her or she will recognize the significance of their decision and will naturally lead to a reconsideration. Even consequentialists such as Peter Singer recognize that we need to expand our circle of concern.

Finally, your assertion that "Nations aren't people. They are the sum..." is a very strong philsophical statement, and I think a very dangerous one. I recommend reading "The Ethics of Ambiguity" by Simone de Beauvoir. She discusses this very issue and provides examples how it can lead to the totalitarian ethic of Hitlers and Stalin. The individual gets subsumed by the interests of the state. I don't think its essentially any different with nations. Of course, they aren't individual people, but they are made up of people. That sounds trite, but I think it's important to keep in mind especially when discussing foreign policy. It is not a chess game of abstract entities or "sums".

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Jennifer — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:40:55 -0000

Actually, while the intelligence agencies for many other countries assumed that there might be some WMDs left over from the Gulf War era laying around in Iraq, many were notably unconvinced. You mention the French. You should add: the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese...none of whom elected to join in Bush's quagmire. In fact, what powerful nation other than Britain did? (And the evidence is deep that M5 knew the "case for war" was bullshit as well...) I know you might believe that they didn't join in because they "hate America" but isn't it more plausible that each of these countries, all of whom also have a stake in clamping down on international terrorism, simply could not via their own intelligence verify the bullshit emanating from the Bush administration? I mean, come on...you're actually claiming that the majority of the world's most powerful nations - those with the most at stake in fighting terrorism - were presented and/or collected on their own incontravertible evidence of part or all of the Iraqi wrongdoing claimed by Bush...and decided, "ah, to hell with it. We don't care if these terrorists destabilize the world or our own country, so we'll not only sit on the sidelines but we'll also try to tie the hands of anyone who wants to solve the problem...and as an added bonus, we'll be on the shitlist of the world's only superpower!!!"

You see the problem there? People for the most part are rational actors and do things that are in at least their perceived best interest. So your explanation for how they were all on board and buying the same line is quite simply bogus, not only because we know that all of these countries raised questions about the "case for war" but because they also elected to keep out of it. Which means they weren't buying the Iraq "Happy Fun Party!" scenario of candy and flowers, either. So then you're reduced to the position that these intell agencies thought the Bushies were lying about the happy fun party, but believed everything else. You see where I'm going here.

Scott Ritter and I are in good company - including the 62% of Americans on the very eve of war who were still not in favor of the action absent a broad international coalition, some 80% of Italian citizens and some 60+% of British citizens. I suspect that the one thing that all of us have in common is that we were careful in looking at evidence for ourselves. And I'm sorry, but they just did not present anything close to a compelling case for launching a war of choice. Telling us to be afraid is not evidence. And when they got to telling me about how I might be sprayed with deadly anthrax from a balsa wood remote controlled model plane flying over my house, I called bullshit on the whole enterprise. I remain quite frankly astonished that even after all we've learned, there are those who still cannot see the absurdity of that claim as a rationale for war. And to extend that...who cannot look at it and say, yeah, that IS pretty far out there...why were they saying that if they had solid proof of more likely and plausible things? I mean, how can you avoid that? When a lawyer goes to trial, he brings the best evidence he has. He doesn't save back the strongest evidence and go with shaky and preposterous circumstantial claims that cannot be supported by evidence if he can instead present concrete evidence. So when they told me I was going to be sprayed with anthrax by a model airplane...words fail. I could only conclude that they would have never floated such a ridiculous claim if they had anything better, and in that split second realized that they had nothing at all.

I see where many went wrong - it was in starting from a default position of trust. But as your sainted Reagan himself said, "trust but verify". And when it came to verifying, not one thing that was claimed held up...most of them had been debunked before the war got underway. Because I did not trust blindly, I recognized that a cartoon rendering of a "mobile weapons lab" was not the same thing as a photo of an actual mobile weapons lab. I recognized that satellite photos of large warehouse buildings showed just that - large warehouse buildings - and that they could be Baghdad Wal-Mart as easily as a weapons factory. I recognized that a small vial held up to illustrate how small a portion of anthrax would be needed to kill thousands was an illustration, not an actual vial of anthrax, and so on.

You see? If you aren't starting from a position of belief in the supernatural goodness of your leaders (or anyone else), a flimsy case quite rapidly becomes readily apparent as a flimsy case. And as cases go, the Bush "case for war" will go down in history as one of the most flaccid ever.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

E1701 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:34:38 -0000

Nations aren't people. They are the sums of their people, what those people make of their nation, and the sort of people they either place into positions of power, or allow to remain there.

I believe in maximum liberty and individual freedom for all people, everywhere. I would cheerfully apply that system, as eloquently expressed in our Constitution, to everyone, citizen or not. But freedom does entail responsibility - which is where government becomes necessary to maintain a civilization and not anarchy. Nations do not have a government to oversee them (and such a thing would be incredibly dangerous for the above-mentioned reasons), which means they do in effect operate according to a social Darwinism. Nations establish civilization and prevent anarchy for their citizens - the *international* scene in a very real way *is* anarchy. Hence the big club rules all analogy from before... bearing in mind that the club represents economic, political, and social power as well as military.

If a person abuses their freedom and rights, usually by interfering in another person's freedom and rights (ie, crime), the government imprisons them, executes them if the crime is particularly heinous, or punishes them economically. In an anarchic situation, where no government exists, a strong person can do as he pleases, and a weak person who does "wrong" is punished by one of the strong ones. You just hope like hell that the strong people are also good and wise.

So as it is in the international realm - a nation can do as it pleases unless a stronger nation says "no." The United States was able to invade and conquer Mexico on a thin pretext in 1848, then take half their territory because the US was strong, Mexico was weak, and stronger nations like Britain and France didn't care enough to intervene. In 1991, Iraq invaded the much weaker Kuwait to strengthen itself - but Kuwait was friendly and a major oil supplier, so the west *did* care, as did Kuwait's similarly weak neighbors, and the much stronger US kicked Iraq out and punished them for being "bad". Had we not cared, Kuwait would be an Iraqi province, and the invasion would have gone down as a glorious victory in Iraqi textbooks.

This is why I say morality and rights are a non issue when discussing nations. There is only what they want to do, and what they have the ability to do. This is not to be deliberately cruel - but if we try to account for morality for morality's sake, and concern ourselves with every person affected by any national action, we'll be paralyzed into inactivity, which is invariably national suicide.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

E1701 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:49:07 -0000

From some of his statement recently, I think Bush Sr probably did feel that way in retrospect. But hindsight is 20/20.

Yes, occupation is inherently long, difficult, bloody, and expensive. And sometimes it's even futile (much of our success in Germany and Japan post WWII had to do with the degree to which they had been hammered flat during the war... they depended on us for more basic needs). But it's also necessary unless we're prepared to spend the next two centuries attempting to contain Islamic radicalism while the religion comes to terms with itself the way Christianity had to do throughout the Reformation period (and those resultant bloodlettings)... and do so without provoking an "Islam vs the World" jihad that could only realistically result in the annihilation of every Muslim dominated nation on Earth.

With that as a too likely possibility weighed against our intervening directly to establish a distinctly Islamic yet modern and representative society with a much higher standard of living than that to be found in most parts of the region (which moreso, should not be dependent upon oil exports)... we don't have much of an alternative.

I don't agree with Bush Jr on a lot of issues, but this is one I think he took control of - however bumbling the PR campaign and some of the politicial decision making, he did what a proper republican (as in the system, not the party) executive should - he made a difficult decision, carried it out, is backing it to the hilt, and is doing so regardless of the whims of the fickle public. Caution has its place, but it should never lead to national paralysis.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

txslr — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:44:06 -0000

A little logic tip - the two alternatives you have offered are not mutually exclusive. That is, one can reasonably hold them both simultaneously.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

txslr — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:34:59 -0000

The reason the "16 words" became such a cause célèbre is that Bush's critics thought that Joe Wilson had provided them the evidence that Bush said something that he knew was not true - that is, that he lied. This belief crashed and burned when Britain reconfirmed that what Bush had said was true and that they still believed the underlying assertion was accurate. Ample supplies of gasoline were poured on the resulting conflagration when it was revealed that Joe Wilson was retailing "falsehoods" and was very likely lying.

The other statements provided do not constitute evidence that Bush lied, and so aren't worth dealing with in a discussion of whether Bush was telling the truth as he knew it.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

txslr — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:25:37 -0000

Your position is that the case for WMDs was so weak that no one in his right mind could have believed it. And yet, every intelligence agency in the world (including France) did believe it. As did the leaders of both political parties in the U.S. and the majority of the people who opposed the war. (Remember that one of the oft given reasons for NOT invading Iraq was that thousands of our soldiers would be killed by Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

So your position is that pretty much everybody in the world except you and Scott Ritter are idiots? Well, at least you're not being "intellectually lazy".

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

txslr — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:17:13 -0000

So the only way to know whether Bush lied is to measure public opinion?! But public opinion is made up of people who can't know whether Bush lied until they measure public opinion. So public opinion can't render a verdict until it has a verdict to review, which it can't do until it has verdict to review, which it can't do until it has verdict to review, which it can't...infinite recursion!

What a strange epistimology!

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Seth — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:49:28 -0000

Yup, we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

You seem to be some sort of social Darwinist of the inter-specie competitive sort where group progress trumps individual rights. Essentially, we are debating between consequentialist and rights-based moral systems, which is what the issues of war, torture, and surveillance are founded on. Although you would probably grant a rights-based framework for domestic issues and then a consequentialist framework for foreign policy. That is what I'm questioning. Why is it that individual rights theory dominate domestic issues, but is then replaced by consequentialist/social darwinist theory when non-U.S. citizens are involved?

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

txslr — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:41:54 -0000

Bush I believed that Saddam would fall to a coup or an uprising. He didn't, and so Bush II faced a different reality. Leaving Saddam and his sons in control of Iraq in perpetuity was not acceptable given their desire and intention to gain WMD's and to lead a type of revanchist Islamic movement. They showed no signs of losing control of the country to any internal opponent. The sanctions were clearing failing and would soon be lifted in total. Bush II was left with little choice.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

E1701 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:19:30 -0000

Oh certainly - though I am still referring specifically to the international political realm... morals do have somewhat more bearing on domestic issues and in our personal lives (I'm agnostic, so I'm speaking from a philosophical point of view, not a religious one), where they are absolutely vital to establishing a functional social order. I don't really subscribe to Hobbes on that score, although I can't say his view doesn't apply to some people.

Yes, in the international realm when a politician or national leader speaks of the "right thing," that's merely code for "what I intend to do anyway but need to sell people on." Individuals who demand "the right thing" are too often allowing ideals to override common sense and future planning (as in the case of those insisting we retreat from Iraq in order to invade Sudan), but their values are clearly morality-based. People like that however tend to make very dangerous politicians, because their morals demand action and do not submit to compromise, and are not suited to the amoral landscape of international relations. Jimmy Carter is usually cited as a prime example of that.

I'm not thinking of any books in particular when I discuss nationalism, although I do indeed think of Kissenger and realpolitik - as you say, almost everyone does. But I'm also looking from a historical perspective on the rise and nature of nationhood itself, and the course of interaction and competition between states, and the long view of the progress of the species itself. In that latter respect, nationalism is also necessary as it forces growth and development out of competition without a force external to our species. The longest periods of peace and stability have typically been the most stagnant in our history. How much technological,social, and philosophical progress was made in the first three thousand years of relatively peaceful Egyptian dominance compared to the past five hundred years of violence, competition, warfare, and rebuilding?

In the end though, as our expansionist drive forces us off the planet Earth, it comes down to the simple fact that I think we would be far better served for the coming millennia by the ideals of freedom, self-determination, and justice espoused by the (often fallible) western world, or, for example, the semi-benevolent overlordship of Islamic fascism.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

txslr — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:41:36 -0000

Interesting. Two days of posts and still no one has offered any evidence that Bush lied. You know, I'm starting to think that, just maybe, he didn't.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Seth — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:05:23 -0000

Bush I would probably agree with your diagnosis, but he stopped at the border for the same reasons the U.S. public wants to get out--occupation is inherently difficult, long, bloody, and expensive. I don't understand why his son didn't inherent that caution.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Seth — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:54:12 -0000

I think we are on same page in regards to describing how discussions of morality are shallow propaganda serving agendas based on pure desire for power. We I hear newscasters and politicians ranting about the "right" thing, my eyes glaze over. These non-religious claims of moral authority function in the same way as "God is on our side" justifications always have.

Anyway, my main concern is how foreign policy discussion becomes or perhaps always has been philosophically or morally ungrounded (authentically, that is). Anti-realist pragmatism is the dominating hidden ideology, and I think it's scary because it makes meaningful discussion theoretically impossible. Everything is propaganda if that form of pragmatism is assumed.

I'd like to know what books are running in the back of your mind when you speak of nationalism. I'm guessing you are heavily influenced by Kissenger and realpolitik, which isn't a very prescient claim I guess since everyone is.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Chuckdps — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:54:48 -0000

Wow, what a great argument. Make fun of my log in, wet your pants over a few idiots with sand in their crotch, and then assume you know what I do for a living.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

Chuckdps — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:51:43 -0000

"The economy is a powerhouse next to eight years ago"

is perfect evidence of your credibility. The economy is not going in the toilet, its just the media's fault. Clearly, the Onion has a better handle on reality than do you.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

E1701 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:29:31 -0000

I disagree (yeah, I'm sure that surprises you =) ).

In the first place, I believe you overstate the impact of 9/11 on public perception of the United States across the world. Oh, no doubt the sympathy and offers of aid from the western world, and even Russia and China were genuine (even if merely to ensure reciprocation if they were attacked by the same maniacs). Invading Afghanistan met with almost immediate opposition from the usual suspects - insistence on some fronts that we'd meet the same fate as the Soviets did in there, protests and demonstrations across the Middle East, cries of sympathy for the civilians who would no doubt be killed in the process, etc. Afghanistan was not as popular a war around the world as you seem to be implying, but it was one that could be mostly ignored except by Islamists. Iran for example was *not* happy with having the US military on their border... but they were "quietly supportive" because the Taliban were a thorn in their sides and being openly opposed would put them on the wrong side of an "us and them" equation that had most of the planet on the "us" side.

Responding to Iran's overtures at that time, minimal as they were, would have done little - need I remind you that Iran is also one of the primary terrorism supporting states on Earth, and has been since the Ayatollah's took power? The nation is a dichotomy - a relatively educated, westernized population that by and large does not buy into the terrorist "Islam is under assault" meme, and a government (not Ahmadinejad - the real power is the Ayatollah's and Guardian Council) that has, since the revolution, been a wellspring of radical Islam and religious fundamentalism. The average urban Iranian might, as you suggest, have been opposed to al-Queda and supportive of restored ties to the US... but the government most certainly is not. And how could we in good conscience restore ties with one terrorism-exporting regime while waging war on another for the very same reason?

However, this is beside the point - Al Queda is not the real enemy, and never was. Al-Queda is a symptom movement of radical Islam, not a heirarchical "Dr. Evil" organization that takes marching orders from the top. It has leaders and some organization, but by and large it is a movement aimed at jihad against the very social and political values we hold in esteem, but one that is too weak for the time being to wage open warfare. Hence terrorism.

So, radical Islam being the real threat here, the goal is not the oversimplistic "kill Osama, declare victory, and make nice with the other brutal Middle East kleptocrats", but a much more difficult and long term strategy of cultural shift. The culture that spawns fanatic religious fundamentalism as anything other than a lunatic fringe (ala Westboro Baptist Church) has to be modified. That can't be done from the tribal hinterlands of Afghanistan, nor can it be done simply by swamping them in American merchandise and TV shows. The culture that develops must be their own, but one that does not hinge upon "Islam is under siege" and the desperation of government oppression and extreme poverty.

That bring us to Iraq and the cold-blooded long term view. Centrally located, a history as a unified country, the heart of Arabic culture, location of Baghdad, former seat of the Caliphate... if we intend to effect a cultural change that will spread to the whole region, you can't ask for a better target than Iraq - Afghanistan is too tribal and too far removed, and the moderate Gulf States don't have enough influence or large enough populations to effect that kind of change across the region. Further, we had already fought a war with them, and signed only a cease-fire, it's leader was a Hitlerian tyrant already familiar to the American public, it was believed to be working on a WMD program much like Iran's current nuclear project (as we now know it was in remission awaiting the end of sanctions, but poor intel appears to have been rife on that score), it was known to have employed WMD's in the past against civilian targets, the UN sanctions regime was breaking down because France, Russia, and China wanted that weapons market opened up again, and to top it off, the US/British containment was becoming untenable. If that weren't enough, unlike many other tyrants, Saddam had two even worse heirs waiting in the wings, so waiting for him to die would have been akin to waiting for Kim Il Sung to kick off.

No, if there was a failure involving Iraq, it was that we should have toppled Saddam and begun this process in 1991, but Bush Sr. didn't want to upset the Arab League or look like a bully. Then he failed to support the Shiite/Kurdish uprisings who thought they could bank on our support... and were massacred in Al-Anfal for their trouble because we didn't (anyone who expected them to greet us with open arms this time around was smoking the wacky tabbacy). Then we had a number of opportunities during the mid-nineties, but Clinton felt random missile strikes and strongly lettered statements would suffice, and when Iraq really became a thorn in his second term, he initiated Desert Fox because it was more politically expedient, and it won him more brownie points to embroil us in a Balkan civil war instead. The current Iraq war was necessary, it just should have come a decade ago.

Re: George Soros Funded Study Says Bush Lied

liberal — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:33:54 -0000

So far only one of the statements included in the database, the "sixteen words" has been challenged as not true. What about the other 934? I assume that your qualms about the bias of the compilers has merit. I want you to refute their conclusions, not their bias. Everyone in this arena has bias. The question is who is correct? But when you commit a country to a preemptive war, you have a responsibility to get all the facts, not just the ones that support your bias. We have lost almost 4,000 young men and women, we have over 20,000 seriously wounded, and we don't even count the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died. We will end up spending at least 1 or 2 trillion dollars; and you grumble about the Ford Foundation's bias!!!!! And we lost an opportunity to actually do the right thing in Afghanistan. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the unbelievably incompetent job of the Bush administration's prosecution of this war of choice. Just what exactly are you defending?