Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, "one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life."
The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn't realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are. We are an occupying force, mistreating its captives, claiming that we're restoring control of the nation's fate to itself while making clear that 130,000 troops are staying right where they are, with more to come if we decide it's needed.
What's frightening is that more than 40% of Americans still don't grasp that.
By the way, check out this link. It's eerily hypnotic. I think it'd make a great screensaver.
PAD
In that 40% is "Poison Elves" writer Drew Hayes who, in the editorial of his latest issue, says it's okay to bomb Iraqies since they blew up the World Trade Centres. I don't know why people haven't learned the difference between Osama and Sadam. I can't stop my head from hanging low and shaking from side to side.
"In that 40% is "Poison Elves" writer Drew Hayes who, in the editorial of his latest issue, says it's okay to bomb Iraqies since they blew up the World Trade Centres. I don't know why people haven't learned the difference between Osama and Sadam. I can't stop my head from hanging low and shaking from side to side."
They haven't learned it because of the deceit of George W. Bush, who so completely linked Saddam and terrorism in the public's mind that 71% of the American public came to believe that it was Iraqis who flew the planes, rather than our "allies," the Saudis. I haven't read Drew's editorial, but I certainly hope it isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be.
PAD
The other thing that they don't seem to get is that this "war" in Iraq was nothing but a smoke screen to boost Bush's sagging poll numbers to begin with. If there had been WMDs in Iraq and we had found them, I'd probably feel differently, but none were found and I can't help feeling that the whole of the US has just had the mother of ALL pieces of wool pulled over their eyes.
I wonder if all this is just divine punishment by God, in response to Bush and the GOP staling the 2000 elections. "Okay, George, you can be President, but I'll make it so your Administration goes down in history as one of the most despicable and deceitful ever, and your name will be scorned by all freedom-loving Americans for seven generations."
Of course, that also means God has to give us a President Kerry who will save our hash from George's mistakes... Hmmmm...
Posted by Marcus Keller at May 25, 2004 11:47 AM
"The other thing that they don't seem to get is that this "war" in Iraq was nothing but a smoke screen to boost Bush's sagging poll numbers to begin with"
Luckily, that doesn't seem to be working in the long run. From what I hear on the news lately, his numbers seem to be going down the worse our troubles in Irag become. You are right, however, in that people seem to forget that no WMD were found (that old binary shell not withstanding), and that 9-11 and Iraq have no connection.
After the last month, I think most other countries are fairly certain what we are. It'll be slower for Americans and some will never get there, especially with Bush still using the same false justifications.
The bigger question is, what happened to WMD's that Saddam did have at one time? We know he had them long ago when he used them on his own people, but where did they go and when?
Be a horrible place to find an Al-Qaeda connection, at Saddam's Garage-WMD Sale...
I wouldn't worry about it. All we know that Saddam used were gas artillery shells that would now be long past their expiration date. It takes a lot of artillery shells being fired to make a WMD.
Well, if anyone is still confused about which side is which, here's a simple little test to figure it out:
Imagine the Iraqi society that would be the IDEALRESULT of the US invasion if the war planners in the administration had their way...
Now imagine the Iraqi society that would be the IDEAL RESULT if the insurgents (or freedom fighters if you are Ted Rall and/or drunk) win.
No. Brain. Er.
Yes, but you will never see the "Ideal Result" of anything, as everyone has their own version of an "IDEAL RESULT".
America may be closer to an IDEAL RESULT than Iraq was, but it still any anywhere near IDEAL.
Imagine the Iraqi society that would be the IDEALRESULT of the US invasion if the war planners in the administration had their way...
Problem is, is that we don't have to imagine it...we're getting it right now, thanks to the incompetence of those executing the "plans".
Right now, all I see are bunglers everywhere.
Might as well get my 2 cents in before there are 5000 posts which say "Democrats Bad, Republicans good" or vice versa...
As Lewis Black said: "The Democratic Party is a Party of No Ideas. The Republican Party is a Party of Bad Ideas." In other words, blah to them all.
On the right track now... I'm a believer that the ends do not justify the means. You can't say "But he was a bad guy, so it was okay in the end that he was framed for the one crime he did not commit." That's not justice.
So when people say, "Well, they didn't find WMDs or true links to terrorism and Saddam, but he was a bad guy... so it's okay..."
It's not okay. If Dubya came out and said, "Saddam is a criminal, has committed many human rights violations, etc. etc.... that's why we're going to get him." Then I would understand... may not like it, but I would understand.
Unfortunately, that was never said.
And so what that leads me to believe is that this Admin has a view of the Ends justify the Means.
And we know, that never works.
Unless you're the punisher... or some dark super hero... right?
Whatever
Travis
Might as well get my 2 cents in before there are 5000 posts which say "Democrats Bad, Republicans good" or vice versa...
As Lewis Black said: "The Democratic Party is a Party of No Ideas. The Republican Party is a Party of Bad Ideas." In other words, blah to them all.
On the right track now... I'm a believer that the ends do not justify the means. You can't say "But he was a bad guy, so it was okay in the end that he was framed for the one crime he did not commit." That's not justice.
So when people say, "Well, they didn't find WMDs or true links to terrorism and Saddam, but he was a bad guy... so it's okay..."
It's not okay. If Dubya came out and said, "Saddam is a criminal, has committed many human rights violations, etc. etc.... that's why we're going to get him." Then I would understand... may not like it, but I would understand.
Unfortunately, that was never said.
And so what that leads me to believe is that this Admin has a view of the Ends justify the Means.
And we know, that never works.
Unless you're the punisher... or some dark super hero... right?
Whatever
Travis
Robert Jung: God doesn't have to lift a metaphorical finger to mess up our political system, nor does He need to "create" a "divine punishment" for us. We've taken care of all of that for ourselves.
Bill Mulligan: Wouldn't our government's IDEAL RESULT be an Iraqi puppet government that would give us a foothold in the region? Disregarding that for a second, even if our "IDEAL RESULT" was a good thing and that's what we intended to do, doesn't it seem now that we're traveling down that proverbial well paved road to Hell?
Eric
What's even more bizzare is that Americans think the media coverage of Iraqi prisoner abuse is 'excessive'... at least, according to 70% of FoxNews viewers. What, would the Foxies rather be watching the Berg beheading? I just don't get it.
And to be honest, I've given up trying to convince people that Saddam and Iraq were not responsible for 9/11... I'd settle for my friends and neighbors here in the deep South to stop referring to Iraqis as 'Iraqians.' So sad...
That OTHER John Byrne
I wouldn't worry about the results of a Fox News poll. After all, 70% of Fox viewers probably believe that the anchors on Fox News don't have to practice saying "Fair and Balanced" with a straight face.
Bush doesn't fail to understand how the rest of the world sees the US, he just doesn't think it matters.
As for the WMD, that justification was chosen because the administration decided it was the most "saleable." They couldn't justify a direct connection to 9/11, so they settled for innuendo. Mention 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence enough times even without directly connecting them will create a link in people's minds.
Welcome to the era of war by focus group.
one thing bush said last night that bothered me was something along the lines of the actiions of the enemy were violent, brutal, but instructional
i just dont think it s a good idea for the president to suggest we learned any thing from
the deathof either our soldiers or iraqis
that almost makes it sound like a good thing
bad choice of words mr president
Pray tell, why the hell should I care what the world THINKS of the US?
I mean, really, I don't see what the obsession the left has with the PERCEPTION(and that's all it is, not reality) the rest of the world has of the US. It's a fool's game to care what the rest of the world thinks about the most powerful country in it. There's always going to be people who question our motives. I don't care about those people, nothing would ever convince them of us being anything other than The Great Satan.
I find it laffable that Kerry would play to such a stupid, vacuous stance by claiming foreign leaders wanted him elected. What a joke. I'm supposed to take the opinion of the French or Germans into account when I vote?
Screw that. If Kerry wins it will only be because he's Not Bush. And it'll be as big a disaster as Bush has been. If not worse because Kerry will likely do things that will eventually lead to an act of terrorism that will make 9/11 look like a cake walk. He'll get lax, just like Clinton was, he'll let the perception shift convince him the world really doesn't resent us, and then, after years of planning we'll all be wondering what the hell happened when a major city goes kaboom.
I don't like Bush. But the idea of a democrat who listens to the French and Germans bothers me more.
Everybody keeps saying there is *NO* connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. And they keep saying it enough times that they believe it. It may be true, but not for want of trying, as this article from 1999 shows:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
Picking on Fox News and Bush… I guess my first exploration into this website tells me that I found a home for the liberal mind. I feel sad that all I read is hatred and spite for a man AND his policies. Open your mind and let everything Bush and his detractors say fill your mind before you rant with the obvious hatred that shows you don't think through what you post. Bush has done some great things and let some bad things happen. Doesn’t everyone? Don’t show yourselves to be as ignorant as your writings state. Think through what you say/write, and that goes for Mr. David too.
You might try reading all the things Bush said about the invasion of Iraq. There were more the WMDs in the reasoning for war. The UN wanted the WMD proof so that got the air play. We had the Al Qaeda proof, the proof of mass killings and Bush did say all this before the war. It isn’t our fault the US/foreign press only tells one part of the story.
The horrors of a few soldiers need to be addressed, but to generalize the war Iraq about that or WMD is foolish.
My one statement about Fox News and the media, if you think Fox News is bias and all other media isn’t… clue phone. Fox News seems so ultra conservative because the rest of the media has swung so far left it has to. Talk to conservatives and you will find that they don’t think Fox News is all that conservative. Wake and join the rest of the free thinking world.
How the U.S. is preceived worldwide does affect us. Here are a couple of examples:
Economically - If The U.S. is seen negatively, traders / investors won't invest in the U.S.. This weakens the value of the dollar against other currencies, which means that it takes more money to buy the same amount of goods. A weakened dollar means higher prices.
Defense: When a real threat arises, America will find itself without any real allies, as the current administration has pissed off most of them.
Safety - The more people who see America as a threat, the more danger Americans are in.
I agree that we will never convince everyone that we are a good people, but that doesn't mean that we have to go around antagonizing people & increasing the numbers of those who hate and / or distrust us.
Lastly - I love the screensaver & will probably download it. Also, check out the 404 error page on the site.
My one statement about Fox News and the media, if you think Fox News is bias and all other media isn’t… clue phone.
Never said other media wasn't biased, but Fox is the one that puts out both a very obvious bias and at the same time, advertizes itself constantly as being unbiased.
Everybody keeps saying there is *NO* connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. And they keep saying it enough times that they believe it. It may be true, but not for want of trying, as this article from 1999 shows
Funny how the very article you cite as proof of a connection states that bin Laden specifically rejected Saddam's offer for asylum.
Peter...why do you hate America? JUST KIDDING!
Lets just hope America dishes out the same result to Bush that she has given every President that has failed to win the popular vote.
All I have to say about the Bush Administration is that I'm going on a low carb diet come November....
NO C-heney
NO A-shcroft
NO R-umsfeld
NO B-ush
and "Absolutely > NO RICE!"
What struck me about Bush's speech last night is his lack of historical awareness. Anyone that threatens the occupation of Iraq is a terrorist, plain and simple. Sure, we're turning over the reigns of government to the new Governing Coalition on June 30th, but no one the US doesn't like is making that list. And there is no date for elections. And we're maintaining troop levels, supposedly for the health and welfare of the troops that are there. (Never mind the fact that they'd be safer, and the Iraqis happier, if, y'know, they were somewhere else...like HOME!)
So if you don't like being governed by another country, and take action against it, you're a terrorist. Except, by that definition, we are a nation founded on terrorism. Boston Tea Party? Terrorism. Revolutionary War? Terrorism. George Washington? Terrorist. John Hancock? Filthy terrorist. Why, how dare they want the country for themselves just because they live there!
This isn't about turning a blind eye to the killers of Nick Berg, or the carbombers, or those who choose violence to express their political ways. This is about realizing that we can't do any more good in Iraq. We kicked Hussein out and killed his kids. Great, but now what? More Iraqis have died violently since the end of armed combat per month than under Hussein's reign. We're doing more harm than good now. Time to go home.
Weeeeeee! School is almost over! Let's fisk the board!
"America may be closer to an IDEAL RESULT than Iraq was"
"May be"? MAY??? Yeah, I guess that might be in doubt. True, in Iraq people were fed into paper shredders for espousing unpopular political beliefs but in the U.S. of A. we have dissidents being FORCED to stand hundreds of yards away from the president!
"Wouldn't our government's IDEAL RESULT be an Iraqi puppet government that would give us a foothold in the region? Disregarding that for a second, even if our "IDEAL RESULT" was a good thing and that's what we intended to do, doesn't it seem now that we're traveling down that proverbial well paved road to Hell?"
I guess we will find out. If we allow free elections by January, as Bush stated, then I guess the puppet government plot is just a left wing fantasy.
As for the other point I'm not certain that eliminating fascist dictatorships armed to the teeth is any more of a fast trip to hell than letting them stand (or, as our humanitarian European allies did, profit handsomely from dealing with them)but I'm willing to give it a try.
"I just don’t think it s a good idea for the president to suggest we learned any thing from
the death of either our soldiers or Iraqis"
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Imagine if he had said that he hadn't learned a thing form those deaths. Hoo boy.
"If Kerry wins it will only be because he's Not Bush. And it'll be as big a disaster as Bush has been. If not worse because Kerry will likely do things that will eventually lead to an act of terrorism that will make 9/11 look like a cake walk. He'll get lax, just like Clinton was, he'll let the perception shift convince him the world really doesn't resent us, and then, after years of planning we'll all be wondering what the hell happened when a major city goes kaboom."
I suspect the opposite--he'll try to prove that he's much much smarter than Bush and can yank victory from the jaws of defeat and end up making the middle east into the Vietnam that some think it already is. Note that for all the talk the anti-Bush people have about "disaster" and "quagmire" they are going to have to vote for a guy who at the very least is determined to stay the course (or even add more troops if he listened to Hillary). Or they can vote for Nader.
"If The U.S. is seen negatively, traders / investors won't invest in the U.S.. This weakens the value of the dollar against other currencies, which means that it takes more money to buy the same amount of goods. A weakened dollar means higher prices."
Well, they can invest in their own economies but given the sorry state of much of the European situation (and the demographics look grim indeed for the future), that would be ill advised. Where else are they going to go? The freedom loving land of China? The USA has resources, agriculture, and a highly productive workforce. it's population is expanding due mainly to the influx of hard working immigrants. It's a wise investment. greed will always win out over "principles", especially those that are nothing of the kind.
"When a real threat arises, America will find itself without any real allies, as the current administration has pissed off most of them."
They are far more vulnerable to the threat of Islamofasism than we are. I suspect it will not be the United States that will be needing help.
"The more people who see America as a threat, the more danger Americans are in."
That's probably true. I would be reluctant to travel abroad--I have little faith in the ability of many countries to guarantee any level of safety.
"Sure, we're turning over the reigns of government to the new Governing Coalition on June 30th, but no one the US doesn't like is making that list."
...For might makes right
Until they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Til somebody we like can be elected!...
- Tom Lehrer, "Send the Marines"
"So if you don't like being governed by another country, and take action against it, you're a terrorist. Except, by that definition, we are a nation founded on terrorism. Boston Tea Party? Terrorism. Revolutionary War? Terrorism. George Washington? Terrorist. John Hancock? Filthy terrorist. Why, how dare they want the country for themselves just because they live there!"
Not really. If you don't like being governed by another country and take action against it, said action being you load up a car full of bombs and blow it up in the middle of a street...yeah, you're probably a terrorist.
"We kicked Hussein out and killed his kids. Great, but now what?"
That's like saying, of the second world war, "We overthrew an elected leader and shot his pals."
If we allow free elections by January, as Bush stated, then I guess the puppet government plot is just a left wing fantasy.
And how many times have we promised them free elections already?
How many times have we delayed the transfer of power? And how many more times will we delay it?
The problem with Bush is that the words coming out of his mouth sound like shit and stink like it too.
Well, they can invest in their own economies but given the sorry state of much of the European situation (and the demographics look grim indeed for the future), that would be ill advised.
Hmm. All I know is that fundraisers are looking increasingly to Europe for high net worth individual; for quite some time, Europe has more of them and are growing them quicker than North America and Asia.
Roger Tang said:
" Right now, all I see are bunglers everywhere"
Oh THAT Leftist media......
Does anyone really think that if it looks like the Iraqi elections are going to go a way we don't want them to that we won't interfere. Anyone remember the national election in Vietnam? Canceled because we knew the communist would win. What the wing-nuts who get all there news from Pravada I'm sorry I mean Fox don't understand is that while nearly everyone supported the Afghan campaign the reason Bush lost so many in going after Iraq is that Iraq never attacked the US people. Why can't we say as a people we screwed up if the Iraqis wanted to get rid of Saddam good for them we'll help them out etc. But when we invade a country occupy and tell them we'll figure out how you should be governed were just setting ourselves up for trouble.
Maybe Hussein's kids would've been safer as circus acrobats...
Anthony X....I take it that you think that the sloppy oversight that led to the Abu Ghraib prison is not the fault of the current Administration but is instead the fault of the leftist media? That the underestimation of the Iraqui opposition that has led to the current insurgency is the fault of the media? That the imbroglio involving the over-reliance on Ahmed Chalabi is the sign of competence? That the lack of a program and policy after Hussein was overthrown has been a sign of capable people? That the continued reliance on an undermanned and underprepared military and the dismissal of military people who wanted more and better prepared personnel is the mark of a capable and competent cadre of personnel?
If so, then I am indeed worried about the future of America; they have indeed accepted mediocrity over excellence.
Here we go again? Left vs Right, Democrats vs Republicans, Pro Bush vs Pro Kerry.
same old arguments that will go for the next few days. don't you guys get tired of the same thing?
Joe
"Maybe Hussein's kids would've been safer as circus acrobats..."
LOL.
Joe...
Of course not... it never gets.... *YAWN*.... tiring
Travis
"And how many times have we promised them free elections already?
How many times have we delayed the transfer of power? And how many more times will we delay it?"
Well, you got me. I'm stumped. Because all I've been hearing lately is that critics want Bush to ditch the June 30th deadline, that it was something he was being stubborn about. So just when DID we promise them a transfer, if not june 30th?
"What's even more bizzare is that Americans think the media coverage of Iraqi prisoner abuse is 'excessive'... at least, according to 70% of FoxNews viewers."
I actually think it is excessive, in that the media reports way too much about everything. I just wish that for once the media would stop making big deal out of everything, (Micheal Jackson, O.J., Martha Stewart) that way when something important actually does happen people will be able to tell the difference.
"It's a fool's game to care what the rest of the world thinks about the most powerful country in it."
*sigh* That is what almost every superpower in history has thought, and we don't see them around today. This is why we teach history in our schools.
"Imagine if he had said that he hadn't learned a thing form those deaths. Hoo boy."
He would have been telling the truth for once.
You know, anyone who actually says they're out to 'Fisk' the boards doesn't seem particularly interested in an actual exchange of ideas. The concept of 'Fisking' has been used since day one as a means of attacking someone, not of debating them.
It's rapidly swirling down the drain, folks.
"May be"? MAY??? Yeah, I guess that might be in doubt. True, in Iraq people were fed into paper shredders for espousing unpopular political beliefs but in the U.S. of A. we have dissidents being FORCED to stand hundreds of yards away from the president!
Yeah, in Iraq now, under US management, you'll only be beaten to death and have your dead body the subject of photographic fun for the soldiers who killed you, complete with sunny smiles and thumbs up. That's much better, I agree. That's ideal. Thats exactly what the US should stand for.
As for the other point I'm not certain that eliminating fascist dictatorships armed to the teeth is any more of a fast trip to hell than letting them stand (or, as our humanitarian European allies did, profit handsomely from dealing with them)but I'm willing to give it a try.
Well, then, why aren't you signing up? There are dozens of fascist dictatorships armed to the teeth out there, and we're already stretched to the limit... we need more warm bodies if we're going to invade Syria and Iran, you know. Not to mention the commies in North Korea and maybe even China... gonna take a lot of manpower to invade them. Since you're so willing to find out how many lives we need to spend to fix the world, i suggest you get up front.
Well, they can invest in their own economies but given the sorry state of much of the European situation (and the demographics look grim indeed for the future), that would be ill advised. Where else are they going to go? The freedom loving land of China? The USA has resources, agriculture, and a highly productive workforce. it's population is expanding due mainly to the influx of hard working immigrants. It's a wise investment. greed will always win out over "principles", especially those that are nothing of the kind.
Tell that to Airbus. I live in Seattle, where Boeing is bleeding to death because Europe doesn't want to kick any business America's way, and Asia is following suit. They don't need us and they don't like us. They're more than happy to keep their money at home. Your attitude is both arrogant and untrue... while our jobs are being swept out the door by big companies which would love to save the cash that setting up shop in Bangladesh will allow them to, Europe is investing in itself.
They are far more vulnerable to the threat of Islamofasism than we are. I suspect it will not be the United States that will be needing help
Which country is the one that's quietly restarting the draft? Oh, right. That would be the United States. The rest of the world sees this as a law enforcement problem, and so isn't trying to use raw, untrammeled force... we, on the other hand, are sustaining casualties on two fronts while our allies pull out, and we're the ones going to the UN with our hat in our hands. But we're far less vulnerable than they are. Uh-huh. We don't need help, we're all powerful, get your helmet on faceless teenager and get shot so that Bill can keep telling himself that we're on the side of the angels and nothing bad can come out of a four year policy of antagonizing the entire world, up to and including beating people to death while torturing them for information, and in many cases arresting people who aren't even guilty of a crime. And if you don't think it can happen here, ask Brandon Mayfield about FBI forensic technique and wrongful arrest.
In speaking of fighting evil: Off Topic - Go rent or buy Bubba Ho-Tep with Bruce Campbell. Released today.
Hail to the King...
Travis
There are times when I wonder how someone can look at the same situation and see exactly the opposite picture. We can go back and forth on the ways we like or do not like how Bush has conducted this war, but it is beyond my comprehension to imply that we are not better than Saddam. This is not an attempt to say that Bush at least had good intentions. This is a flat out statement that in the broad picture, America is by far morally superior to Iraq. This is a complete denial of the insinuations that Bush concocted this war for his personal gain in any form (financial, power, legacy, etc.).
There is not doubt that the WMD were the number 1 reason given for the war, but why am I the only one who seems to have clearly heard that terrorism and human rights were also very important? The abuses that Saddam did to his own people far exceed the unfortunate results of our intervention in both scope and number. Saddam was clearly involved with terroism and supported terrorists (and while I don't believe he directly was involved with 9/11, I do believe he was fully behind future attempts to repeat 9/11).
It is also absurd to say Bush lied about the WMD's. Many democrats, including Kerry, looked at the same evidence, and said there were weapons. Clinton said there were weapons. Whether there was an "imminent" threat can be debated, but to say Bush concocted the evidence of their existence is to say he was controlling the CIA while he was still the governor of Texas. And if you believe that, then welcome to the X-Files.
Bottom line, you can argue that Bush has bungled the war. You can argue that our intelligence was grossly inaccurate. But to say that we are no better than Saddam shows either a lack of any moral compass, or a complete ignorance of what a brutal and ruthless dictator Saddam was for many, many years. Most of our troops are handling themselves well. Most of what we are doing in the country is helping. The general population is not plotting to throw us out of the country -- they are ASKING us to leave. Big difference. WE ARE NOT THE SAME AS SADDAM'S REGIME. There are always way we are less than perfect and need to improve. But don't waste my time saying that what Bush is offering is really a vision of tyranny and murder.
James in Iowa
"Screw that. If Kerry wins it will only be because he's Not Bush. And it'll be as big a disaster as Bush has been. If not worse because Kerry will likely do things that will eventually lead to an act of terrorism that will make 9/11 look like a cake walk. He'll get lax, just like Clinton was, he'll let the perception shift convince him the world really doesn't resent us, and then, after years of planning we'll all be wondering what the hell happened when a major city goes kaboom."
-Jam
How come every one thinks that Clinton was lax when it came to terrorism?
Actually, in 2000 Clinton had a plan in place for a full assault on the Taliban, but since it was so close to the elections, he decided to leave it to the new administration to implement it. But Bush put it on the back burner and instead decided to focus on the missile shield -- something that has proven to be a great aid in the war on terror. And it was a modified version of the Clinton plan that Rumsfeld used to invade Afghanistan.
Democrats aren't weak on terror. Especially those with actual war experience. They just have a better understanding of what types of things that wars involve and what they mean for the troops on the ground -- and are thus far less likely to start unnecessary ones. Think about it: if we got wind of an Al Queda training camp in a random country, how able would we be right now to attack that camp? And what are the odds that that country would even believe us and let us in?
-Alonzo
If human rights are so important, then why haven't we invaded China yet? Saudi Arabai hands sure aren't clean in the terrorism or human (or at least women's) right department either...
True, in Iraq people were fed into paper shredders for espousing unpopular political beliefs but in the U.S. of A. we have dissidents being FORCED to stand hundreds of yards away from the president!
Just for the record, it appears the whole "Saddam fed people into plastic shredders" story was a myth. No such shredders have been found in Iraq, and Pastor Kenneth Joseph, the person who first claimed to have heard of such atrocities, doesn't exist.
See http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/03/59508.html for the details.
Ben Lesar: "I actually think it [media coverage of Iraqi prisoner abuse] is excessive, in that the media reports way too much about everything. I just wish that for once the media would stop making big deal out of everything, (Micheal Jackson, O.J., Martha Stewart) that way when something important actually does happen people will be able to tell the difference."
So the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is not 'something important'? We've only seen but the bare tip of the iceberg, yet this reporting is somehow 'excessive?' I implore you to reconsider.
tOjb
"If human rights are so important, then why haven't we invaded China yet?"
Try this in that big bombastic sports guy voice they used to do on Saturday Night live/
Bombs? Atom!
Fallout? Mutations!
Deaths? Many!
Idea? Bad!
Or to put it another way: what did the Chinese General say when he was told his plan would cost a million men?
"So what's the problem?"
"You know, anyone who actually says they're out to 'Fisk' the boards doesn't seem particularly interested in an actual exchange of ideas. The concept of 'Fisking' has been used since day one as a means of attacking someone, not of debating them."
Well I am interested, as, apparently are you. Maybe things are not as dire as you think.
"Yeah, in Iraq now, under US management, you'll only be beaten to death and have your dead body the subject of photographic fun for the soldiers who killed you, complete with sunny smiles and thumbs up. That's much better, I agree. That's ideal. Thats exactly what the US should stand for."
There is a world of difference between evil done as deliberate policy and evil done by individuals. There is not a single instance anywhere of any large group of people who did not have at least a few able of committing atrocity. I'm sure that a few of the Jews in Buchenwald committed some heinous acts--does ANYONE think that this puts the group as a whole on or near the same playing field as the nazis? The same goes for the United States armed forces and the Saddam regime. If you don't see that I doubt I can convince you. One clue though--where are the mass pogroms against the many Bush critics? Why does Michael Moore walk the earth still?
"Well, then, why aren't you signing up? There are dozens of fascist dictatorships armed to the teeth out there, and we're already stretched to the limit... we need more warm bodies if we're going to invade Syria and Iran, you know. Not to mention the commies in North Korea and maybe even China... gonna take a lot of manpower to invade them. Since you're so willing to find out how many lives we need to spend to fix the world, i suggest you get up front."
Ah yes, the knee jerk liberal equivalent of the knuckle dragging conservative comment "Hey, if you don't like the country, leave!" I'm afraid I'm a bit long in the tooth to volunteer but if things get so bad that they need me I'll go. But...I hate to break the news but we aren't invading China. I know, I know, it seems like we're just invading EVERYBODY these days, it'll get to the point where there won't be any dictatorships left to bribe but in reality, it ain't gonna happen. Relax.
"Your attitude is both arrogant and untrue... while our jobs are being swept out the door by big companies which would love to save the cash that setting up shop in Bangladesh will allow them to, Europe is investing in itself."
Wait and see. Europe has serious demographic problems. The population is aging and becoming less productive and more demanding. And I stand by my statement--we have energy, food, and manpower. People are still trying like crazy to get in. Maybe they know something.
"Which country is the one that's quietly restarting the draft? Oh, right. That would be the United States."
Um...where did you hear this. It's been quiet, all right. Seriously.
"Uh-huh. We don't need help, we're all powerful, get your helmet on faceless teenager and get shot so that Bill can keep telling himself that we're on the side of the angels and nothing bad can come out of a four year policy of antagonizing the entire world, up to and including beating people to death while torturing them for information, and in many cases arresting people who aren't even guilty of a crime."
Wow, so when you said at the beginning "The concept of 'Fisking' has been used since day one as a means of attacking someone, not of debating them" you were talking about yourself. Projection much?
The straw man argument wows 'em over a nice Latte Frappacino at the local Starbucks, right before you go to Professor Popalopolous' Economics class, the one where the guy pronounces "macro" and "micro" exactly the same, which makes it tough, lemme tell ya, but c'mon. Haven’t you read enough of these boards to know that all of us aren't going to just jump at the first provocation?
Ben Rosenberg:
I liked your low carb diet so much I sent it out to my whole family. We're going on it too!
Den:
"Funny how the very article you cite as proof of a connection states that bin Laden specifically rejected Saddam's offer for asylum."
I said "but not for want of trying", meaning that Hussein was trying to establish relations, not necessarily that he succeeded.
But Saddam Hussein paid the families of Palistinian suicide bombers after the bombers blew themselves up, so he definitely had links to terrorism. Not Al Qaeda, but terrorism.
BrakYeller, sorry if my post was misleading. What I meant was that if insignifigant things got less coverage, then things like this would be taken more seriously without having to resort to reshowing the same pictures about fifty times a day. Just like after sept. 11 when they kept on showing the planes hitting the toweres and that guy jumping out of a window. They should be covering this more than other things; it's just that they should focus on new information, not the same old, same old, 24/7. So in other words: If they stopped reporting on stupid things so much then they could report on this less, and they would still be reporting on this way more than everything else. I guess I'm just tired of the sensationalistic 24/7 media that lacks variety.
Hmmm... I'm finding a large amount of anti-American sentiment here. This entire thread will be archived and reported to CTU headquarters. Now off to search more boards for more discontent.
My name is Special Agent Jack Bauer and this, like every other day ever, is the longest day of my life.
Not anti-American. Pro-dissent. Anti-administration. Freedom of speech still lives! Uh, hold on, there's a knock on my door....
You know the only reason I would ever consider Kerry winning would be so that the Left wouldn't complain anymore about Bush did this or Bush did that or Bush didn't do this...
It would give us a chance to complain for a change. Can you imagine 4 years of Kerry in office and us complaining the whole time to Peter about it. I wonder if we could be as intense in our dislike of Kerry as Peter is in his hatred for Bush. I hope not.
Nah, when I think about it, if you didn't have anything to complain about, I wouldn't have anything interesting to read.
So let's stick with Bush for another 4 years.
WooHoo!!!
I want to see how many logs you can get slamming him for another 4 years.
First of Jam on why The Rest Of The World Doesn't Matter:
"I mean, really, I don't see what the obsession the left has with the PERCEPTION(and that's all it is, not reality) the rest of the world has of the US. It's a fool's game to care what the rest of the world thinks about the most powerful country in it. There's always going to be people who question our motives. I don't care about those people, nothing would ever convince them of us being anything other than The Great Satan."
So you give up before you start? You think its okay to have soldiers and civilians and representatives of your country all around the world and not care what the world thinks of it? You think the rest of the world has no buisiness being free to say they think the USA is wrong when they enact policy outside their own borders?
They aren't. You don't have to care what they think when you vote, its your perrogative and your right - but to pretend the free-thinking opinions of the rest of the world don't matter because they aren't the strongest nation is a load of bullsh*t. Not only that, its dangerous and as someone who appears to have had a basic schooling that much should be blatant.
We live on a planet, sometimes called Earth, never called the United Planet of America.
And Bill Mulligan on The Rest Of The World soon 'needing help':
"They are far more vulnerable to the threat of Islamofasism than we are. I suspect it will not be the United States that will be needing help."
Oh how dare you, you conceited little sh*t. It's the USA that's seen as the heart of the West, this country's actions are measured as the will and whim of the rest of the Western world - including most of Europe - so get your head out the trap and SEE.
SEE the priveleged, but weighty responsibility the USA holds.
SEE that - right or wrongly percieved - we're all in the same boat if we hold to Western ideals, and the USA is doing the steering and the rowing.
SEE that the USA's power isn't in its weapons and soldiers, it's in being the figurehead of Western life, and as such it had better understand the consequences of its actions for the rest of the West.
SEE that everyone else is raising hell because they know they're going down if the USA is.
and finally
SEE that they do care about your country because it IS a symbol of what their own people left to create. It's a great experiment in democracy that stands for freedom and equality, whether its gotten there or not. It's a place where you can break boundaries, live a good life and get a f*cking huge steak. If America lets itself fail here, by sticking it to the rest of the world because they've got a better army and more guns, then they watch that hopeful thing fall away. It's like shouting at a wonderful bird not to peck at powerlines, and being thwarted because it just doesn't care to listen. And then the shorted cables electrocute the rest of the birds up and down the line.
I care you twat, I care if my country gets attacked because it's affliated with yours. I care that I am free to tell you that I'm scared and alarmed by what your country's actions mean to mine.
And I am not about to let you get away with informing me that if my country gets attacked by these 'Islamofasists' (as you so inaccurately describe them) then I'll want America's help. You're right, the rest of the world is infintely more susceptible to attack than the USA, and you seem to think this is apt because when Prague, or Berlin, or Sydney, or Manchester gets attacked we'll all go 'well that's us shown up as whiney, foolish ingrates, best not disagree with the Americans anymore'.
Well up yours. Because if my country gets attacked it'll be because of its status as a Western nation - as encapsulated by the USA.
"It would give us a chance to complain for a change."
You mean like 1992-2000 inclusive?
Am I really the only one old enough to remember the appearance of the "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers a week after the election, and two months before the man would actually take office?
At least the Dems gave Bush a couple of months to screw things up before they started the rhetoric...
And now, having read that WHOLE THREAD, I remember why I tend to skip Peter's political posts. Not that I don't have respect for everyone's views...I do. But I get SO tired of watching people snipe at each other, cleanly falling along party lines.
A hint for the future, if you think something Peter's going to say, or someone else is going to say, might make you embarass yourself by furiously barking at someone...excercise your right to simply skip it and read something less incindiary?
It sure helps ME sleep at night.
(Love the place, by the way, Peter. I hardly comment, because I rarely have anything to say that I want to bother you with.)
"We kicked Hussein out and killed his kids. Great, but now what?"
We're going to Disney World!
(Sorry. Had to say it.)
"Try this in that big bombastic sports guy voice they used to do on Saturday Night live/
Bombs? Atom!
Fallout? Mutations!
Deaths? Many!
Idea? Bad!"
Where have you gone, Joe Piscopo? A nation turns its lonely eyes on you.
"You know the only reason I would ever consider Kerry winning would be so that the Left wouldn't complain anymore about Bush did this or Bush did that or Bush didn't do this...It would give us a chance to complain for a change."
For a CHANGE? FOR A CHANGE?! Dude, the right has not STOPPED complaining for the last twelve years. Eight years of bitching about Clinton absolutely non-stop, even before he got into office, and four years of bitching about how everything that's gone wrong since he left can be attributed to him.
And as a general response to why it matters what other countries think of the United States, John Donne said it far better than anyone here will:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
PAD
I know it doesn't count because it comes out of London, but let's read a recent report anyway: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida&cid=540&ncid=716
The salient quotes:
The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror — the wars in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq — may have boosted al-Qaida.
Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.
And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaida and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said.
Oh, and as for the restarting draft, look up http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp
"to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
You know the only reason I would ever consider Kerry winning would be so that the Left wouldn't complain anymore about Bush did this or Bush did that or Bush didn't do this...
Yeah, it's much better listening to right tell us how everything is Clinton's fault.
"Absolutely > NO RICE!"
Yeah, because for all its talk we know that the left can't really stand to have a strong intelligent well-spoken african-american woman!
Don't they know their place!!!
Yeah, you're right. I guess we only let them run as a candidate for the presidency...
Hmm.
I've kind of scanned over things, so I'm sorry if I repeat anything anybody else said..
You know..I really don't care for Bush as the President. I mean, all he's really done for the U.S., it seems, is get us into a war.
And ya, he got Saddam and thats good..but we STILL don't have Bin Laden, which is the guy who SHOULD have.
We should have gone after Bin Laden. He was the one responisble for 9/11. I have no idea why we don't have Bin Laden. We got Saddam. IF we can get him, then you'd think we could get Bin Laden!!
Maybe Saddam was captured first cause more people know his name? *SHRUG* I don't know..
Also and I know there are more important things to being a President..BUT...I think Bush is an awful speecher. Whenever he gives a speech, he seems so LOST and CONFUSED. Like I said, I know there are more important things..BUT..I think if you can't even give a good speech and you can't put forward your best foot when speaking to the public..then thats NOT a good sign.
I still can't get that one Bush conference out of my mind. That one where people kept asking him what his biggest mistake was and a whole bunch of other questions that he dodged...
Also: has anyone else noticed that lately Kerry is telling us all the good things about himself and Bush, meanwhile, is telling us all the bad stuff about Kerry?
This whole campaign, at least on TV, seems to be about KERRY lately.
Think about it: Why can't Bush tell us the good stuff about Bush? Maybe...cause there isn't anything good about him??
*shrug* Ya, I know its typical political stuff..but it always makes me laugh when I see the two different commericals that Bush has up about how awful Kerry is and then w see the one commerical about Kerry telling us how great he is.
Personally, I'd rather see good propaganda, rather then the bad propaganda. I'd like to see Bush do a commerical about himself and telling us why we should for vote for him (and not why we shouldn't vote for Kerry).
Then again..I guess I should remember how smug Bush was in that one press conference. How he wasn't worried that he wouldn't lose the reelction. So I guess he feels he doesn't really need to tell us why we should for vote for him. Cause we already know..right..?
Anyway...maybe he does have a commerical about how good he is and I haven't seen it...
DF2506
" And maybe Kerry has a commerical going about how bad Bush is. Hmm. I know there were some commericals like that..just not sure if it was Kerry...haven't seen them lately."
"Yeah, you're right. I guess we only let them run as a candidate for the presidency..."
Really? How many has the left nominated for presidency? Because, only democrats vote in the primaries, yet they don't vote the strong black women in...
Jerry
Andy:
the last paragraph of that article you linked to really jumped out at me:
"Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. "It's a matter of time now for Osama." He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice."
I guess those assurances didn't work out like the Saudi Royal Family thought they would. Who'd a thunk it?
Skii says:
"Oh how dare you, you conceited little sh*t." and a whole bunch of other nice stuff at little old moi.
I hate to drag this back to reality, since your getting all mad at me obviously allowed you to work out some issues, but my sensitive nature just feels bad about having you think I'm such a big meanie and all. As i recall it, someone said that one of the bad things about the USA being isolated was that it would make us more vulnerable to attack.
I states that I thought that it would be other countries that would be the ones who would be in trouble if the 'Islamofascists' (and if you think the term inaccurate, try living under the regime they would set up for you if given the chance) win.
You immediately assume I meant Europe--predictable. But ok, let's go with that. Certainly there is evidence that they would LOVE to avenge past "wrongs' (like losing Spain) and the rapidly growing Muslim populations of some European countries would certainly make it easier to infiltrate. European borders are pretty damn near impossible control. Mass transit is common. The symbolic value is high. So yeah, Europe WOULD be a prime target.
Where exactly the hell did you get the idea I thought that this would be a good thing? I guess that fits into some wacky world view you have but it just ain't so. Even if I were the hard hearted guy you want to believe I am, if Europe falls it will of course embolden our common enemies and they will feel ready to go after the big enchilada--Las Vegas. Or maybe Kalamazoo.
I doubt that you're a bad guy. We have different ideas on how to solve the same problem. The difference is that I have enough confidence in MY solutions that I don't feel the need to boost my self-esteem by coming up with bogus reasons why folks who disagree must be shmucks.
That screen saver thing... Am I the only one who noticed that if you stretch just the right way, it looks like Dana Carvey?
Random Responses:
"If there had been WMDs in Iraq and we had found them, I'd probably feel differently, but none were found and I can't help feeling that the whole of the US has just had the mother of ALL pieces of wool pulled over their eyes."
"You are right, however, in that people seem to forget that no WMD were found (that old binary shell not withstanding)..."
"I wouldn't worry about it. All we know that Saddam used were gas artillery shells that would now be long past their expiration date. It takes a lot of artillery shells being fired to make a WMD."
Oh, so finding that mortar with mustard gas doesn't count? What about the artillery shell with the serin gas? Do they not count? How much proof do you need to see there were and still are WMD's hidden in Iraq? Only now, instead of being found by the UN inspectors years before, they are being found by terrorists. Just how many shells does it take to make a WMD? Here's your answer...ONE. He was supposed to turn over ALL biological and chemical weapons.
"How come every one thinks that Clinton was lax when it came to terrorism?"
Because he chose to treat the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing and other terrorist attacks as police matters, not as attacks on America itself. Clinton's solutions seemed to be "lob a few cruise missles at them...that will show them we're serious".
"We should have gone after Bin Laden. He was the one responisble for 9/11. I have no idea why we don't have Bin Laden. We got Saddam. IF we can get him, then you'd think we could get Bin Laden!!"
News flash...there are soldiers looking for bin Laden. Here's the difference. Saddam had a larger ego, and wouldn't leave the country. It was only a matter of time before he was found. bin Laden, unfortunately, is smarter. He's not staying in one place and moving around a lot. He's not emotionally tied to one place like Saddam was.
"...I guess I should remember how smug Bush was in that one press conference. How he wasn't worried that he wouldn't lose the reelction. So I guess he feels he doesn't really need to tell us why we should for vote for him. Cause we already know..right..?"
No. Because that press conference wasn't about running for reelection. It was about the War on Terror. As much of an outcry there's been about the speech, can you imagine the uproar if he made it into a "vote for me" event?
Because all I've been hearing lately is that critics want Bush to ditch the June 30th deadline, that it was something he was being stubborn about. So just when DID we promise them a transfer, if not june 30th?
I've said from day one that there was no way in hell that we were going to get our troops out of Iraq any time soon, nor were we going to hand over power.
So, yes, I was right.
And I'm going to rub it in your face if you actually believe in Bush's piss-poor planning of this war and continued bs statements about this and that, including the power transfer.
So, what's the next date we'll miss for power handover?
The problem is that Bush won't admit when he's wrong. Or admit when he's lied. Or admit that he's completely @#$^'ed things up.
"to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
Meaning that they'll ship you off to whatever country they invade next in the name of "national defense".
Maybe Saddam was captured first cause more people know his name? *SHRUG* I don't know..
Oh, c'mon. Everybody knows who Saddam bin Laden is...
As much of an outcry there's been about the speech, can you imagine the uproar if he made it into a "vote for me" event?
And you think that speech wasn't a "Vote for Me" event?
The whole spiel about how great a job he claims he's doing on the War on Terror. The whole point is for reelection so he can continue to blow shit up that has nothing to do with terrorism.
Cheap Shot:
"Also and I know there are more important things to being a President..BUT...I think Bush is an awful speecher. Whenever he gives a speech, he seems so LOST and CONFUSED. Like I said, I know there are more important things..BUT..I think if you can't even give a good speech and you can't put forward your best foot when speaking to the public..then thats NOT a good sign."
And by your reasoning, your opinions should be ignored because you have a mistake. Speecher???
Or was it REALLY a mistake? Maybe you really think that's an actual word? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, if it was Bush that said "speecher", it would be all over the news, Al Franken would spend an entire show on it, and the left would be on the summit proclaiming how Bush shouldn't be reelected because of it.
And please folks, don't get your panties in a wad. I'm just teasing, and hopefully making a point as well.
Me:
Because all I've been hearing lately is that critics want Bush to ditch the June 30th deadline, that it was something he was being stubborn about. So just when DID we promise them a transfer, if not june 30th?
Craig:
"I've said from day one that there was no way in hell that we were going to get our troops out of Iraq any time soon, nor were we going to hand over power."
"So, yes, I was right."
"And I'm going to rub it in your face if you actually believe in Bush's piss-poor planning of this war and continued bs statements about this and that, including the power transfer."
"So, what's the next date we'll miss for power handover?"
Ok, let me rephrase the question:So just when DID we promise them a transfer, if not june 30th?
I mean, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there were lots of dates for power handover's that we missed and I don't know about them. Please share. You can "rub my face in it" if it makes you feel better, my fragile ego will just have to take it like a man.
Jeff wrote
"Oh, so finding that mortar with mustard gas doesn't count? "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm
-- Field tests conducted by British and Danish inspectors indicated that the shells - found on 9 January - contained traces of blister gases - including mustard gas compounds.
But further tests by the Iraq Survey Group in South Iraq and the US Department of Energy's National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho proved these results were incorrect.
"The results show the shells from the Danish area did not contain chemical warfare agents," the Danish Army Operational Command confirmed on Sunday. --
Jeff also wrote:
"What about the artillery shell with the serin gas?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm
-- ...a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.
He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained. --
And Jeff wrote some more:
"Do they not count? How much proof do you need to see there were and still are WMD's hidden in Iraq? "
Nope and a lot more than whats been shown.
Derek,
the story on the mustard gas you have seems to be from a much earlier time--the mustard gas shell was supposed to have been discovered only two weeks earler than the sarin one (which would put it in early May). The story you have is from January.
However it is worth remembering that more than a few stories have turned out to be less than they seemed at the time so caution is wise.
PAD wrote:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
Ah, you only bring that up because you had it on hand for that MadroX interview. ;-)
Jeff wrote:
"Oh, so finding that mortar with mustard gas doesn't count? What about the artillery shell with the serin gas? Do they not count?"
As others have pointed out, that's rather thin "evidence" for Saddam's alleged "massive stockpiles" of WMDs. Unless you really want to claim that it was worth starting a war that's killed 20,000 civilians and 800+ US soldiers, and maimed countless others, just to find two shells that are over 20 years old...
If it bears repeating, then so be it:
THE REASON THAT SADDAM HAD ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE THE REAGAN/BUSH ADMINISTRATION SOLD THEM TO HIM IN THE 1980S.
As for Saddam's support of terrorists, it should be noted there has not been any substantive proof of any link to the al-Qaeda network (unlike our Pakistani ally, General Musharraf). There IS a major difference between supporting terrorists and supporting al-Qaeda (after all, hundreds, if not thousands, of good Americans sent money to support the IRA for years). Also, no one ever denied Saddam's support of terrorist groups (of course, the current Israeli Prime Minister allowed Lebanese Christians to massacre Palestinian refugees, and several top Israeli leaders--including at least one Prime Minister--were members of anti-British terrorist groups before and during World War II, so supporting terrorists is not all that really surprising; hell, this very government has been a supporter of terror organizations, such as Iran's SAVAK--which, of course, only terrorized Iranians--and the death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, whose only victims were leftists and Indians).
Concerning those soldiers searching for bin Laden, how much easier would their search have been if Bush hadn't wasted the resources of the Armed Forces on this asinine vendetta against Saddam? What's even more ridiculous is bin Laden's physical condition: The man requires dialysis; he has kidney problems. And in nearly 3 YEARS, no one has been able to find the man? It's easy to understand why Eric Rudolph was hard to find--the man was in pretty decent physical shape when he went into hiding, and is believed to have had a network of sympathizers in the mountain areas he was presumed hiding. But this country's finest personnel cannot find a man who suffers kidney disease in an area that isn't well known for its medical facilities? Sorry, but I blame George W Bush's vendetta for that. (And any "success" in finding bin Laden between July 1 and November 2 of this year will be monstrously suspect.)
Bill:
I wasn't sure what Jeff was talking about because the mid-May mustard gas bomb was completely innefective and according to military officials the insurgents were cluelessas to what they had found.
Either way none of it should be used as the smoking gun to prove that Bush's WMD claims were all gospel.
News flash...there are soldiers looking for bin Laden.
Yeah, now that there's an election coming up. Bush diverted money and manpower away from the hunt for bin Laden so that he could launch Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake.
Bin Laden is dead.
The WMDs were transported to Syria. And are still there.
Please note, when the above issues come to pass I will say I told you so.
Which is what the media is trying to do to Bush and inadvertently to the American public who supports him or might support him. We told you so. This is the unbiased media.
AnthonyX: "Bin Laden is dead."
This isn't the first time you've made this claim. Again, can you point the rest of us toward whatever sources you're using to support your claim? Or are you merely speculating aloud?
Ben Lesar- sorry to have misread you. I will agree that the media often oversaturates the public with fluffy and useless stories... I, too, do not want to see the important issues (such as Iraqi prisoner abuse) buried by news of Micheal Jackson's latest legal blurb.
tOjb
Convince me of a good, realistic reason why the Syrian government would accept transshipment of a massive number of devices certain to make them global pariahs when discovered. Something more convincing than "Arab brotherhood" is required.
Unless, of course, you want to try to tell me that Saddam was so stupid as to repeat the mistake he made with his air forces in Gulf War I, when he sent Iraq's F-14 fighter jets to Iran, to the safety of his "Muslim brothers" (with whom he had recently concluded a war; said "brothers" laughed and thanked him for the new weapons systems...).
Bin Laden is dead.
So, how do you explain the new taperecordings of his voice that come out every few months, some of which have referenced events that have occurred since the fall of the Taliban?
The WMDs were transported to Syria. And are still there.
Let's assume that this is true for a moment. Given that:
1) Syria is a known supporter of terrorism;
2) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to UN resolutions requiring them to submit to inspections;
3) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to an international trade embargo; and
4) The stated goal of Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake was to prevent the WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Wouldn't this mean that OFDM has achieved the exact opposite of its stated goal, that is now easier for terrorists to obtain said WMD?
Way to go, George!
Is Bin Laden dead?
I'd guess that he still lives but there is one very major problem that puzzles me to this day--why is all of the evidence that he is alive only in the form of audio tapes? He wasn't shy about showing himself before, why now? he could not have changed his appearance all that much--and if he did, say, shave his beard, it would be easy to wear a fake one for the video.
One possibility is that he is ill or was badly wounded and looks like hell. I still think the propaganda points of being alive would be worth it.
The long shot is that he is dead...and the audio tapes are a black ops trick to possibly bring others out of hiding. If he is alive and they DO catch him I hope they spend a few days getting him to record various messages like "Let's all meet at Ali's Tuesday at noon for lunch." or something.
Read some of these comments from Iraqis about Saddam. Then tell me that America is doing something wrong.
Example:
I'm an Iraqi citizen and I want to thank president GWB from all my heart for the great service he's done to the Iraqi people by freeing us from one of the worst tyrants in history. This liberation didn't suit the enemies of humanity and freedom, thus we see them committing terrorist acts claiming to resist occupation by killing their own people, but that will not affect the Iraqis lust for freedom. Thanks again GWB.
I'd guess that he still lives but there is one very major problem that puzzles me to this day--why is all of the evidence that he is alive only in the form of audio tapes?
The reason he stopped issuing video tapes is because the CIA was analyzing the background in the tapes for a clue as to his location. Why he didn't just film himself in front of a blank screen, I have no idea.
"Read some of these comments from Iraqis about Saddam. Then tell me that America is doing something wrong."
America is doing something wrong.
Would it be of any use to trot out quotes from grieving families of American GIs? Or angry families upon learning that their sons and daughters are having their stays in Iraq continually extended just when they thought they were coming home? How about the Iraqis who have seen mothers, wives, sons, daughters, husbands, lovers...people who were simply trying to survive...blown to bits under American assault?
Here's a nice one: Let's chat with the dozens of Iraqis who have relatives being sought by American soldiers...and when the Americans can't find the people they're looking for, they kidnap utterly blameless family members and literally hold them hostage as bargaining chips to try and get the people they want to surrender. Yes, you read that right: Dozens of INNOCENT IRAQIs are being held FOR MONTHS. Their captors--Americans--openly admit that they are suspected of nothing, have done no wrong.
The Ends-Justifies-the-Means crowd are unable or unwilling that American is seen as a hypocrite of the highest order. Spouting high flown moral rhetoric, it has been decided at the highest levels that the Geneva Convention does not apply to us. We have power, we are using it, and we don't give a damn whether people like it or not. That is not the action of a high flown democracy; that is the attitude of tyranny.
No question that brutalities are being committed on the other side. But we're supposed to use those actions as models of what to avoid, not excuses for what we want to do. And yes, I know that the quick excuse giving by Bush supporters is that these are the actions of a few random individuals. Uh huh. That was the party line given for Watergate, as I recall.
If anyone had said, when Watergate first broke, that it would lead to Nixon's resignation, they would have been told they're nuts. Mark my words, the actions in Iraq are going to be found to have originated at the highest levels of government, and it would not surprise me in the least if Bush advisors, or even Bush himself, were summoned to the Hague to answer for war crimes. Because holding innocent people hostage for months is a war crime, and yes, terrorists do it too. But the terrorists are not elected, and are not intended to represent the will of the people. Bush ostensibly is. And if it's your will that America commits war crimes but it's okay because a bunch of Iraqis are happy to see Saddam gone, then you really need to get your priorities in order.
PAD
Or read this blog:
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
Umma Raed *wants* to be happy about Saddam's overthrow, *wants* to welcome the Coalition troops - but she's starting to see the troops acting like the thugs they replaced, and starting to hear Bremer and Bush sounding like a kinder, gentler Saddam...
PAD: And if it's your will that America commits war crimes but it's okay because a bunch of Iraqis are happy to see Saddam gone, then you really need to get your priorities in order.
It is not okay that we commit war crimes and the end does not justify any means. However, things are better in Iraq than they were under Saddam. Saddam didn't represent the "will of the people" in Iraq.
If you want to know if I am happy about the prisoner abuse, the answer is no, I'm not. I'm very interested in reports that Sanchez sanctioned and may have been present during some of the time.
However, while that investigation continues, I am also going to support the end goal of helping to create a real democracy in Iraq. Without Saddam, there is a chance of that happening. Before there was none.
"Mark my words, the actions in Iraq are going to be found to have originated at the highest levels of government, and it would not surprise me in the least if Bush advisors, or even Bush himself, were summoned to the Hague to answer for war crimes."
Peter, dude, seriously... stick to the fiction and fantasy where you get to make everything up and no one has to question it. You're just not cut out for the real world, like most entertainment industry folk. Leave it to the thinkers.
(Anyone else reminded of John Cleese at the end of the Bicycle Repairman sketch?)
Sorry M
And del, PAD has a lot more credibility than you do.
Just to throw in my two cents the shell with the gas was found HOWEVER,many sources feel the insurgents did not know what they had and quite frankly one shell does not a massive WMD program make.The ends justifying the means does not work and never did.We should be very concerned and embarassed as a country that other people think we are as bad if not worse than Saddam.I dont go with the screw em they cant stop us or insisting we are the good guys crowd.
The biggest issues i have are that Rumsfeld and others very arrogantly believe we are above the law when it comes to the Geneva conventions and human rights.Part of the reasons the Abu Gharaib and other incidents have occured is the demonizing of muslims ,and middleeastern peoples
by the administration,Limbaugh,savage and hannity
in the news media.If you look at a group of people as less than you it becomes easier to abuse and kill them.
Second beef ,all the lives ,money and time spent in Iraq has allowed the REAL terrorists and threats to hole up,get stronger and get organized.
So now when the next real incident happens we will have no one to blame but the Pres and his advisors Iraq obsession which i never quite get.
Our resources would be better utilized in counter terrorist missions and tactics than searching for WMDs that do not exist.
I felt from the beginning we should have focused on Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia,Pakistan ,and North Korea not necessarily in that order.
Okay enough serious talk ,I need to watch Spongebob:)
del, dude, seriously... stick to the commenting on weblogs where you get to make half-assed assertions and no one has to question them. You're just not cut out for the real world, like most faceless internet drones. Leave it to the thinkers.
Sounds like bullshit, doesn't it? As much as I may rail against the Fiskers, I don't pretend they should sit back and wait for some mystical sign from 'thinkers' (who, pray tell, would be these mythical folks who are supposed to think for us? Do we even bother with an election this fall, or do we just let the 'thinkers' select for us?) who will show them the way.
It's our country. We're supposed to be the ones in charge of it, which is why we call elected officials 'public servants.' I'm not waiting for some damn pundit to tell me what to think, and you shouldn't either, and you sure as hell shouldn't be telling other people to.
Differences of degree are important when the subject is torture. The apologists for what has happened do have points that should be heard and clearly understood. It is a fact that every culture and every politics sometimes expresses itself in cruelty. It is also undeniably true that other countries have and do torture more routinely, and far more brutally, than ours has. George Orwell once characterized life in Stalin's Russia as "a boot stamping on a human face forever." That was the ultimate culture of cruelty, so ingrained, so organic, so systematic that everyone in it lived in terror, even the terrorizers. And that was the nature and degree of state cruelty in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours. And this searing revelation at Abu Ghraib should lead us to examine more thoroughly the routine horrors in our domestic prison system.
But what we do now, in reaction to Abu Ghraib will determine a great deal about who we are at the beginning of the 21st century. It is important to note that just as the abuses of the prisoners flowed directly from the policies of the Bush White House, those policies flowed not only from the instincts of the president and his advisors, but found support in shifting attitudes on the part of some in our country in response to the outrage and fear generated by the attack of September 11th.
From http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/
Al Gore finally finds a heart.
Re: The Link
That's a funny picture of Bush's nose following the dollar sign, however, looking at how John Kerry has gone from one multi-millionaire wife to another, his photo would be a better one to have on the page.
Den,
Tape Recordings???
Really now, I am sure you are smarter than that.
Could you imagine the propaganda victory that is Usama dancing around via video with todays New York Post or whatever. It would sink Bush.
Every Tom, Dick and Abdullah can get video to Al Jazeera (See the Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg PR Stunts) Why not the big guy!
And a video did come out recently with Usama and a fellow sheepherder touring the wilds. of course it came with a voice over that was not OBL's.
Breathe in my friends you just might have OBL atoms floating through your sinuses.
Now to Syria:
YOU : 1) Syria is a known supporter of terrorism;
ME: Yup!
YOU 2) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to UN resolutions requiring them to submit to inspections;
ME: They never attacked another country have they? And with the UN, Syria is a model citizen.
YOU 3) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to an international trade embargo; and
ME: See above and they be under an embargo for there actions towards Israel. But of course you would be posting how horrible the West is for doing so. 50000 children dead a day!! Oh the humanity.
YOU 4) The stated goal of Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake was to prevent the WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Wouldn't this mean that OFDM has achieved the exact opposite of its stated goal, that is now easier for terrorists to obtain said WMD?
Way to go, George!
ME: Don't you mean way to go UN Dithering, UN delays, anit- "war" protesters, French posturing.
ALl of those who delayed and delayed what shopuld have happened years ago????????
Thought you did!
AnthonyX, you still haven't answered the question: What support do you have to back up your claim that bin Ladin is dead? You claim we're breathing in his atomized remains... funny, but I don't remember any tactical nukes being used in Afghanistan. Are you simply stating opinion, or can you walk your talk?
tOjb
I bet we get 280 posts out of this thread, again, all of you arguing the same arguments done over & over during the last few months.
***sigh***
these are fun to read though.
Joe V.
Anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein could have moved "massive stockpiles" of WMDs over the border to Syria -- a longtime enemy of Iraq -- without having those movements picked up by spy satellites and UAV drones is having some serious delusions.
"Anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein could have moved "massive stockpiles" of WMDs over the border to Syria -- a longtime enemy of Iraq -- without having those movements picked up by spy satellites and UAV drones is having some serious delusions."
Especially since we supposedly knew the location of several of the hypothetical weapons.
In regards to the abuse our people are using on the Iraqi prisoners, I've been speaking to the folks of a soldier who has been to both Afghanistan and Iraq. These kids are told that the prisoners are the ones who killed and maimed their buddies. Regardless of why the prisoners are there, someone told these kids things that would ensure they treat them with as little humanity as possible. Do you truly think that these thoughts are not coming from higher up? I was in the military and until you get to a certain rank you are NOT allowed to make decisions. And even then your orders come from higher up. The soldiers who are being convicted of the abuse are not allowed to decide what actions they take. The military is all about discipline and following orders. Those of you who think this is isolated to a few low ranking people should start thinking like an enlisted person and you'll know they didn't do these things without guidance.
"In regards to the abuse our people are using on the Iraqi prisoners, I've been speaking to the folks of a soldier who has been to both Afghanistan and Iraq. These kids are told that the prisoners are the ones who killed and maimed their buddies. Regardless of why the prisoners are there, someone told these kids things that would ensure they treat them with as little humanity as possible. Do you truly think that these thoughts are not coming from higher up? I was in the military and until you get to a certain rank you are NOT allowed to make decisions. And even then your orders come from higher up. The soldiers who are being convicted of the abuse are not allowed to decide what actions they take. The military is all about discipline and following orders. Those of you who think this is isolated to a few low ranking people should start thinking like an enlisted person and you'll know they didn't do these things without guidance. "
Oh bullshit. This is the worst assumption I have seen. There are a million reasons to think these actions were orders form on high, but the assumption that soldiers only ever follow orders is bullshit, unless then you're saying every barfight, raping, awol, and everything else that DOES happen each and every day in this man's army, and every other major armed force in the world, only happens on orders...
People are people are people. It is very likely that orders came from on high. It's also likely that people were just being thugs. But ruling out the latter due to "military discipline" is complete and utter bull.
Jerry wrote:
[i]Oh bullshit. This is the worst assumption I have seen. There are a million reasons to think these actions were orders form on high, but the assumption that soldiers only ever follow orders is bullshit, unless then you're saying every barfight, raping, awol, and everything else that DOES happen each and every day in this man's army, and every other major armed force in the world, only happens on orders...[/i]
Interesting examples. None of them seem to cover on-duty behavior, though.
Robert Jung: Anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein could have moved "massive stockpiles" of WMDs over the border to Syria -- a longtime enemy of Iraq -- without having those movements picked up by spy satellites and UAV drones is having some serious delusions.
Funny you should mention that, considering that two months before the invasion there were reports of increased activity of truck convoys from Iraq into Syria. No, I don't have a link - this was something I noted at the time. It made very little noise in the press and there hasn't been more than a handful of mentions since.
"Interesting examples. None of them seem to cover on-duty behavior, though."
The point is, soldiers regularly do things on duty they weren't ordered to do. Or are you so naive that you think we have an army full of perfect soldiers, that only ever ever ever follow orders? Cause if so, I own some beautiful ocean resort property here in Oklahoma I'd love to make you a deal of a lifetime on.
"And del, PAD has a lot more credibility than you do."
I fail to understand how this could be. Is it because Peter is a writer and this is his site that he has more credibility than someone else who posts?
I think Peter is a great writer, but lately his writing has suffered a little bit (in my opinion) and I'm not sure why and this might be why Captain Marvel is cancelled. I wonder if it's because he spends so much time conversing with us instead of letting his creative juices flow more fluidly.
I don't agree with your political views but I want you to know that I stuck with you the whole way Peter and wish the series was continuing. :0(
My father was a smart man. When I had a problem as a child I went to my father. Before my father died he told me his secret for being able to find the solution as quickly as he did: "Question everything but accept the answer you get even if it doesn't come out the way you want it. Most people want to over-complicate things to show how smart they are. Leave it the way it is and look at it. If you see a problem then first say that's a problem--make excuses for it or try to explain it away after it's fixed." To me, none of that was overly complicated--which goes along with his very solution. Without even looking very hard I think most people in the WORLD can see each and every problem we (the WORLD) are facing today. Somebody attacked America--that's bad. OK, we know who--that's good. We attacked the wrong people for the initial attack--that's bad. Now PEOPLE ARE BEING MISTREATED BY US--that's bad. The person responsible for the first attack is still at large--that's bad. Gas is stupid expensive--that's bad. Poor people are struggling now more than ever for simple survival--that's bad. The world (many countries of which are our friends--all of which are fellow humans) are beginning to look at us like we crawled out from under a rock--that's bad. The government that is put into place by the most powerfully written document in American history is denying any of the above mentioned obvious problems and telling us that we are not seeing any of them--that's bad. Our government is the tool used by the people to implement solutions WE find for our problems and not only will they not step forward and admit a problem exists, they are patting themselves on the back for the wonderful job they see themselves as doing and they wonder why we don't see it.In following that little chart above, simple logic says that the malfunction is a break down in communication between the people and it's tools. Hey, but how can you mistrust a tool that you (the people) are in-charge of? Hmmm, maybe we are simply using the wrong tool? If that's the case then it would be obvious that it is time for another tool. I know that a lot of people don't think the other tool will do the job either but we won't know until we try. Many of you say,"but what if we try it and it's too late...now we're all screwed?". I believe change will occur. That's the natural order of things...the only thing constant is that everything changes. If it gets worse WE are the people in control of the tools...we need to stop acting like the election is Russian Roulette. The neat thing about being an American is that if we don't like something we are supposed to be able to get together in large numbers and change it. If Kerry is elected he may be just the tool (insert tool joke here) we need--or not. I believe that it is obvious Bush isn't the right tool (great tool joke there) for the job. Try a different one--if Kerry isn't right then we DEMAND a new choice. Our Constitution says we have that right and just because it hasn't happened that way before doesn't mean it can't happen that way now!
On a side note - doesn't it seem a little suspicious to anyone else that this election we are hearing more about the right and the left...the republican and democrat...the "holy" and the unjust...the patriotic and sympathizer? It would be a brilliant move to drive the people so far apart that we can't stand together when we need to. I bet a few of ya' have heard of divide and conquer.
I know it's a little long but I've been reading and saving up for an educated opinion. It just came in this morning. lol.
Oh, and as for the restarting draft, look up ">http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp
It's been in committee for 14 months. It's more likely to stay there than it is to be made into law.
Don't you mean way to go UN Dithering, UN delays, anit- "war" protesters, French posturing.
ALl of those who delayed and delayed what shopuld have happened years ago????????
Thought you did!
Wow. Density of black hole magnitude.
So, lemme get this straight...because the UN failed to do anything about Iraq (lie!), and because people protested the Iraq war (which, oh by the way, happened only after the plans to invade were announced, and couldn't have happened "years ago"), and because the French are asses (which may be the case, but is totally irrelevant), Saddam was able to get huge stockpiles of mostly inert WMD into a country that hates him undetected by his longtime enemy Iran, much less an American intelligence which was bearing down on him?
Help me out on the timing on this...either that means the world was totally inept in tracking terrorists after 9/11 (unlikely), or Saddam got them out sometime before 9/11 (also unlikely, considering that the UN had been on their asses the last decade, and the U.S. had bombed them quite a few times before...)
But then again, Saddam did have a nice nine-month grace period to get them out...
Does anyone find the newest terror alert suspicious? I read an article in the Seattle PI today that senior intelligence officials say there is nothing new in the "chatter". No increase in message traffic by the bad guys. Do you think they may be trying to draw our attention elsewhere?
Bladestar: "And del, PAD has a lot more credibility than you do."
Novafan: "I fail to understand how this could be. Is it because Peter is a writer and this is his site that he has more credibility than someone else who posts?"
Me: Writer or not, I think it's because we all know who Peter is. He's a person. I don't know del from Adam. He could be you, or me, or Freddy Prinze Jr. Most of us on this board don't know each other. We're screen names with opinions attached.
Rob
Funny you should mention that, considering that two months before the invasion there were reports of increased activity of truck convoys from Iraq into Syria. No, I don't have a link - this was something I noted at the time. It made very little noise in the press and there hasn't been more than a handful of mentions since.
Given that both CIA and British intelligence couldn't verify the existence of such convoys (with some analysts doubting their existence), I'm not surprised there was much said.
Of course, then again, this is the CIA we're talking about...
Gordon Lyons: But I get SO tired of watching people snipe at each other, cleanly falling along party lines.
I tend not to think of Bush as a Republican. I just tend to think of him as a bad, bad man.
Well,AnthonyX, besides being totally snotty towards me, you didn't really say anything to support your claim that bin Laden is dead or that why Syria getting the alleged WMD is a good thing.
Ok, I'll start off with a bit of honesty here.. I could not get through all the posts. It's late, I'm tired and I have heard all the arguments (at least the ones I read) before.
The only reason I am posting a reply is because one thing I did read really bothered me and it deals with the economy and not the war. The opinions of other countries do matter and imapct our economy. That is why for every job we outsource to another country we get at least two imported to the US. Why? Because we have the most stable government in the world and foreign companies realise that it is safer to send jobs to the US than most other countries.
The dollar speaks louder than most everything else in this world. While there may be some jobs lost because they are being shipped overseas and some countries choose not to invest in the US, this is not the rule, they tend to be the exceptions.
Do not take this post as an endorsement of outsourcing jobs to foreign markets, it is not, it is just a statement of a rarly mentioned fact.
Dee, if you are going to make asshole statements where you wish an attack on the country if Kerry gets elected and then insult a large portion of the people who posted, the least you could do is not be a pussy and lie to us like this:
"and no: Im not a Repub. I hate both parties just as equal."
Especially when you follow it up with these little gems:
"You Dems are getting me so pissed off that I pray for another attack. no wait: you'd blame that on W. too."
"What would you retards do without Bush to bash eh? Im curious to find out."
Admit that you are a Limbaugh lovin', FOX News watchin', Coulter followin', Bush worshippin' republican who'd vote for an illiterate, shit throwing monkey if it were the GOP candidate. Grow a pair and and stand behind your beliefs.
"I think Peter is a great writer, but lately his writing has suffered a little bit (in my opinion) and I'm not sure why and this might be why Captain Marvel is cancelled. I wonder if it's because he spends so much time conversing with us instead of letting his creative juices flow more fluidly."
Hey, shut up! You want him to stop posting? I love this board. And I disagree that A-his writing has suffered one iota and B-this board is any sort of real distraction. I suspect it serves a useful purpose, lets him blow off some steam.
Dee-- You're talking like a crazy man. Whenever someone starts saying stuff so over the top I begin to wonder. Are you deliberately trying to make Bush supporters look bad. 'Cause, you know, you are. Wish for another attack so that Kerry folks will feel bad/ Yee gods, that's as loony as the kooks who think we deserved 9/11
Out of topic.
I've seen Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Great job. Really great. Looking forward to see Farenheit 11/9.
"I think Peter is a great writer, but lately his writing has suffered a little bit (in my opinion) and I'm not sure why and this might be why Captain Marvel is cancelled. I wonder if it's because he spends so much time conversing with us instead of letting his creative juices flow more fluidly."
Right, because lack of promotion, round robin artists, a price increase, and the Marvel PTB not really being interested in supporting a title that's not a Spider, Mutant, or Ultimate book (or with a movie deal pending) couldn't have had a thing to do with it.
But if it bothers you that much that I'm talking to fans, NF, then you're certainly welcome to cease being an enabler.
PAD
" I hope if your anti war hero gets elected that we'll get hit and hit frigging hard. "
That may well be the single sickest thing I've ever seen posted on this board.
PAD
But Mike, two McDonalds counter-person or Wal-Mart drone jobs come nowhere close to 1 Computer Programming or 1 manufacturing job....
You're writing isn't suffering PAD, it's just it's not coming out fast enough so we have to read other stuff while waiting for your next novel, so we get used to the non-PAD stuff and then when we do get another book from you, we're just so mired in the non-PADness we just read....
Don't you have one of those Stephen King word processors that's let you crank 3 novels everytime you sit on the toilet? :)
Hmmm... that last line came out wrong, I enjoy Stephen King's books, he just used to seem to crank them all out so fast...
Dee,
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I can't believe what you just posted. As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am definitely not a Kerry supporter or a "Lefty". I support Bush, enjoy Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, and have been registered Republican all 16 years i have been eligible to vote.
But,
A.) Calling posters who support Kerry "retards" is both childish and offensive. And it is not even accurate. Tim Lynch is a teacher, Karen used to be in the military, and PAD is obviously a very gifted, intelligent person.
You can make your point without insulting people and/or generalizing them
B.)For you to wish an attack on the country, to hope we "get hit and hit hard" and "would love to see" Osama Bin Laden attack the country if kerry were elected, is really depraved thinking.
To wish harm on innocent people....
Part of me wishes you really are just trying to make Bush supporters look bad, because if you really believe what you say, well I just find it beyond sickening.
I hope if your anti war hero gets elected that we'll get hit and hit frigging hard.
I agree with PAD. I believed after 9/11 that we would get hit again before long, and it hasn't happened.
But I can't believe someone would have this twisted a worldview to WANT us to have another 9/11.
The single mindedness of a Dem is frightening.
Well, you've proven that an in-the-closet Republican is far worse.
Derek,
I hope you and others realize that Dee's statements hoping "we get hit and hit frigging hard" if Kerry were elected are NOT the PARTISAN statements of a "Limbaugh lovin', FOX News watchin', Coulter followin', Bush worshippin' Republican".
They are simply sick statements, made by someone - if not pulling a fast one - driven by hatred to make insane comments.
Jerome, I think most of us here, regardless of whether we are pro- or anti-Bush, realize that Dee's statements are over the line and the product of blind hatred.
Mr. David
The Captain Marvel cancellation may be a bit of
a touchy subject to you, but I felt your reply to
Novafan's post was a bit harsh. NF was a fan who
felt your writing has been a bit subpar of your
normal excellence. The opinion may be completely
wrong, but it seemed to be good intentioned and
honest from the heart "constructive" criticism.
I know the analogy isn't perfect, but it
reminded me of Ultimate Spiderman where
Peter Parker is asking J Jonah Jameson why the
Daily Bugle was still supporting the mayor
candidate after ties to murder and the kingpin
were revealed. JJ's answer was to fire Peter.
Thank you for providing this board to let us
converse with you.
Jerome:
I don't lump any of the conservative poster's who frequent this place in with Dee and his/her wacked out statements.
"The Captain Marvel cancellation may be a bit of
a touchy subject to you, but I felt your reply to
Novafan's post was a bit harsh."
My reply to Novafan's post was a bit harsh *because* Captain Marvel's cancellation is a bit of a touchy subject to me. The fact is that of all the reasons for a book's cancellation, the quality of the writing often has the least impact. Yet for some reason, in my case, it's often singled out as the main, if not only, reason. In the meantime I try to give generously of my time on this board and that's held up as a *negative.* So yeah, that bugged me.
PAD
What ever happened to being able to think for one's self and be able to discuss issues with intelligence. All of us come at issues with our own set of beliefs and worldviews, but that doesn't mean that we need to put down and insult those who disagree with us. Instead we should be informed about the issues from as many different sources as possible and formulate our own opinions. Wishing harm on any one (AKA "Dee") is ridiculous and insulting.
By the way, Peter, I have read about 80% of your work and always look forward to more.
Also, thank you Jerome for being a voice of reason and moderation in this blog.
Thanks,
Jack
Robert Jung
Ben Lesat
Marl L
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
Jordan's King Abdullah revealed on Saturday that vehicles reportedly containing chemical weapons and poison gas that were part of a deadly al-Qaida bomb plot came from Syria, the country named by U.S. weapons inspector David Kay last year as a likely repository for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml
David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
Robert Jung
Ben Lesar
Marl L
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123
Iraqi Weapons in Syria
Post April 26, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
On Dec. 24, 2002, nearly three months before fighting in Iraq began, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused Saddam Hussein's regime of transferring key materials for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs to Syria in convoys of 18-wheel trucks to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors. "There is information we are verifying, but we are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria," Sharon told Channel Two television in Israel.
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003039.html
A Dutch newspaper says some of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria - and the Bush administration has a pretty good idea where they are. If you can read Dutch, you can read the full account here. Charles Paul Freund has a summary at the Reason blog.
According to a story Monday in the Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf, a Syrian journalist identified as "Nizar Najoef" has identified three locations in Syria where Iraqi WMD is hidden. "Nizar Najoef" is more commonly spelled Nizar Nayyouf, and he is a remarkable man. He was a journalist and an activist for liberal reform under Hafez Assad, and as a result spent nine years in prison. ... Nayyouf now lives in Europe. ... Where does Nayyouf say the WMD is (or was) hidden? In tunnels beneath the town of al-Baida; near the village of Tal Snan; and in "Sjinsjar" (Dutch spelling), a city east of the highway between Hama and Damascus. Nayyouf says he received the information through connections in Syrian intelligence. He believes the U.S. knows all of this, but is biding its time for political reasons. It will act on the information, he told the newspaper, "when the U.S. thinks it's time to see Assad go."
So, when are we blowing up Syria?
I mean, the hunt for WMD, whereever they are, however illegitimate the claim, is obviously more important than rebuilding a country, right?
BrakYeller
Den
Re: the late OBL.
It is my opinion based on what I have seen.
Or rather not seen.
Carry on!
AnthonyX
Craig J.
The war in Iraq was fought to prevent other wars from happening.
Please see Libya as Exhibit A.
Yes it is AnthonyX day today!
Craig J!!!
Exhibits B & C:
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=4953461
TUNIS (Reuters) - Arab governments, responding to a U.S. campaign for Arab democracy, have promised to carry out political and social reforms in an oil-rich region which includes some of the world's most repressive rulers.
In documents read out at the end of a two-day Arab summit in Tunis on Sunday, the 22 Arab League members promised to promote democracy, expand popular participation in politics and public affairs, reinforce women's rights and expand civil society.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1085208928244
Arab leaders meeting in Tunisia Saturday for a summit on political reform and the Arab-Israeli conflict are expected to adopt a resolution condemning attacks against both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
If the resolution is passed, it will be the first formal condemnation of Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis in the Arab world.
The war in Iraq was fought to prevent other wars from happening.
Please see Libya as Exhibit A.
Ahh, well, you see, last I checked, nobody really gave a rat's ass about Libya. Or had threatened them lately.
Nor have Syria, Iran, N. Korea, and a bunch of other countries given up their WMD since our invading Iraq.
So, I fail to see how it has prevented a war.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml
David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
In subsequent interviews Kay says thqt there was no conclusive evidence the weapons were in Syria. Also, Secretary of State Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice said after the interview in the Telegraph that they did not think any actual weapons were sent to Syria.
A good possibility that these "materials" were notes, research and such.
So again I'll ask, assuming that the WMD have gone to Libya, what exactly did Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake do to prevent WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists?
Do we have control of the alleged WMD? No.
Do we have proof that the alleged WMD was destroyed? No.
Is Libya likely to open a garage sale and start hocking the alleged WMD to every terrorist cell on the globe? Yes.
Still waiting on a answer on that, Anthonyx.
Re: Osama's apparent demise.
So you really have no proof that he's dead. By your logic, since I haven't seen Jason Biggs do a movie since American Wedding came out last year, I can assume he's dead.
"By your logic, since I haven't seen Jason Biggs do a movie since American Wedding came out last year, I can assume he's dead."
Actually, I believe he did a guest shot in the final episode of "Frasier." So apparently he's still sucking oxygen.
To the best of my knowledge, bin Laden wasn't in the episode.
PAD
Well, I didn't watch the last episode of Frasier, so since I didn't see him, I'm going to continue assuming that my next breath will include his atomized remains.
So you really have no proof that he's dead. By your logic, since I haven't seen Jason Biggs do a movie since American Wedding came out last year, I can assume he's dead.
Biggs isn't the best person to do so... he has a couple of commercials out there, and he did make a movie... He was in Jersey Girl and Anything Else.... might be a better person to use is Gillian Anderson or possibly, um Emilio Estevez... both have lackluster careers right now... until X-Files 2 or Mighty Ducks 4, or Young Guns 3: Go Younger (The story of jesse james) comes around...
Travis
I think the original comment was more along the lines that the person just thinks that bin Laden is dead, and is waiting to be proven right.
But then, I can say that the sun is going to go nova. Might have to wait 3 billion years for it to happen, but it will some day.
Either way, it's quite pointless; we all die anyways, so there's no sense in trying to act all prophetical about it.
Travis, you're missing the point. Anthonyx's logic rests solely on his insistance that since he hasn't seen bin Laden, bin Laden is dead. It doesn't matter that others have claimed to be in communication with him. He just wants to believe it, so in his mind, it must be true.
BTW, Bush announced about two months ago that we were stepping up our efforts to find bin Laden. I guess he doesn't believe bin Laden is atomized either.
Okay lots of points here to cover
Dee:You are either one of the worlds biggest a holes or a juvenile, immature ,person who thinks the world is like what you see in Grand Theft Auto games and Rap videos.To even wish the death and carnage of people to show Kerry supporters up
is cosmically moronic.
Karen:I was and still am in the military(reserves now) .While i do agree that that the people at Abu Gharaib did not act without some knowledge and encouragement from higher up,i dont believe that all military folks do or should blindly follow orders.LAWFUL orders ,yes ALL orders ,no.
I do agree that the recent terror alerts do raise my suspicions as well.Its almost like they
want us looking elsewhere.Besides i just read somwhere that some of these guys were believed to be dead or in custody already.Yes ,I am a conspiracy guy and dont believe everything i see or read .
Jerome :You like Sean Hannity????That hurts me
man,hurts me,But to each his own:)
Once again if anybody gets the chance read Boondocks Huey X rules and provides some very funny commentary on politics.
PAD wrote: "We are an occupying force, mistreating its captives, claiming that we're restoring control of the nation's fate to itself while making clear that 130,000 troops are staying right where they are, with more to come if we decide it's needed. What's frightening is that more than 40% of Americans still don't grasp that."
Actually, what's frightening is that an intelligent person like you apparently believes we don't need a large occupying force in Iraq to ensure its stability as the power transition moves forward.
After Germany and Japan were defeated after World War II, did we just whack the dust off our hands, say "OK, that's done," and then hop on our ships and come home? Heck, no. We had an obligation to finish what we started, spending $12 billion in the late 1940s (when $12 billion was considered a lot of money) to rebuild Europe and Japan. We must do the same in Iraq.
U.S. troops in Iraq doesn't mean the scheduled transfer of power will not occur. It certainly was not the case after World War II, and it will not be the case in Iraq after June 30. As you no doubt know, we STILL have troops in Germany and Japan, 61 years later, but no rational person would ever refer to those troops as an "occupying force."
Russ Maheras
"Right, because lack of promotion, round robin artists, a price increase, and the Marvel PTB not really being interested in supporting a title that's not a Spider, Mutant, or Ultimate book (or with a movie deal pending) couldn't have had a thing to do with it.
But if it bothers you that much that I'm talking to fans, NF, then you're certainly welcome to cease being an enabler.
My reply to Novafan's post was a bit harsh *because* Captain Marvel's cancellation is a bit of a touchy subject to me. The fact is that of all the reasons for a book's cancellation, the quality of the writing often has the least impact. Yet for some reason, in my case, it's often singled out as the main, if not only, reason. In the meantime I try to give generously of my time on this board and that's held up as a *negative.* So yeah, that bugged me."
I appoligize if I offended you, it wasn't my intent.
I didn't say that there weren't other factors contributing to the cancellation. Of the ones you mentioned, the fans are only privy to the price increase which was BS and the rotating artists which wasn't that bad in my opinion. The competition between you and Joe might not have been the promotion you were looking for, but it sparked my interest and probably others.
The last 20 issues or so were decent reads, but not your best work by a long shot. This is just an observation of a fan of your writing.
I do like the fact that you provide this message board and post quite often. It does bother me that you show such negativity towards the President in a lot of your posts. Since you are the initiator of the messages, I would hope that you would try to show a little of an unbiased viewpoint and try to get good discussions going. What ends up happening is that people read your initial message posts, get mad if they are attacking something or someone they believe in, and then the flame wars start up.
I don't think this is what you want to do is it? If that's your intent, then maybe I should cease "being an enabler" as you put it.
Actually, what's frightening is that an intelligent person like you apparently believes we don't need a large occupying force in Iraq to ensure its stability as the power transition moves forward.
Russ, gotta agree with you. I think part of the problem is that Rumsfeld believes you can make do with a small force, too. But you need all those military bodies in there for security, policing (because you either can;t trust the locals that much or made the decision not to), and so forth while at the same time trying to seal borders, hunt for terrorists, etc.
Didn't agree with the decision to invade, but if you decide to invade, you damn well better do it right.
Nova Fan wrote: " It does bother me that you show such negativity towards the President in a lot of your posts."
Actually in all his posts :-)
PAD wrote: "We are an occupying force, mistreating its captives, claiming that we're restoring control of the nation's fate to itself while making clear that 130,000 troops are staying right where they are, with more to come if we decide it's needed. What's frightening is that more than 40% of Americans still don't grasp that."
"Actually, what's frightening is that an intelligent person like you apparently believes we don't need a large occupying force in Iraq to ensure its stability as the power transition moves forward. "
And it's a big swing at the point...and a miss! Yes, a swing and a miss, and hear the disappointment from the crowd.
My post wasn't about troop size...troop size, by the way, that was shouted down by Bush and his neocons in the initial estimates as they aggressively endeavored to hide from Americans just what the hell it was we were getting into.
The point of my post was the part you chose to leave off:
"Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, "one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life."
The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn't realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are."
The point is that we're sending mixed messages to the world. We speak of high moral values...but don't practice them. We speak of our concern about wanting to make the world a safer place while ignoring the Geneva convention. And we speak of handing over sovereignty to a country...but refusing to leave if they asked us to.
There is one inescapable fact that Bush supporters simply can't grasp: We said we had to get rid of Saddam. We got rid of Saddam. Mission Accomplished. Which means the longer we stay, the more we're seen as bullshit artists, and the more our motivations add fuel to terrorist organizations looking for recruits. Because terrorists have been telling would-be recruits for years that American wants to destroy the Holy Places and stake a claim on oil. The ineluctable conclusion is that our war on Iraq, ostensibly to make the world a safer place, has played out like a bin Laden wet dream.
The world doesn't give a crap about our interests, they give a crap about their own. And in the grand scheme of things, right now it looks to them like the United States is a superpowered rogue nation.
How anyone can be cool with this is beyond me.
PAD
Novafan wrote:
"Since you are the initiator of the messages, I would hope that you would try to show a little of an unbiased viewpoint and try to get good discussions going."
Me:
There's no such thing as an "unbiased viewpoint." You either try to be unbiased, stifling some of your own view, or you say what you think. No blog has an obligation to be unbiased, and bias is a pretty subjective thing anyway (witness the liberal media/what liberal media? brouhaha). I'm certainly glad people aren't afraid of saying what they think -- whether I think they're right or wrong.
Rob
Personally, I'm waiting for the point where the Iraqis hit 1984. No, not the book, the Reagan campaign slogan as applied to them. Namely, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?". Sub in "two" for "four" at the moment. But what we should honestly be trying to determine, in terms of how we're doing over there, is whether the Iraqis in general think they're better off now.
"The world doesn't give a crap about our interests, they give a crap about their own. And in the grand scheme of things, right now it looks to them like the United States is a superpowered rogue nation."
The problem is, if we leave things go straight to hell--that's one thing that both Bush, Kerry, Hillary and almost everyone except Ralph Nader agree on. So while packing up and leaving might give us the dubious satisfaction of telling teh French "Ha ha, you thought we were imperialists but we aren't, ha ha." it would be at a heavy price. And anyway, it would just be claimed that we left because we caouldn't take triple digit casualties, a very bad message to send indeed.
I cant wait to see what would happen if Kerry was elected and OBL attacked us again on his watch.
Remember the South Park episode where Jim (Uncle Jimbo) tried to convince the Klan to support a PC position, because he couldn't deal with them being on his side? Seeing Dee bash Kerry makes me feel like that.
PAD
(Weird acronym by the way. Yeah, I know it's your initials, but I would've thought that you would have gone for something cooler -- like The Dave ...or something)
I have to agree with Bill on this one. We did make a mess out there, and leaving now would only result in the mother of all messes (I'd like to see Oxy Clean take on a full blown civil war). It's our own responsibility to finish what we started and to not leave until the job is done. And if we do the job right, we may not have to leave at all (i.e. Japan & Germany)
That said, I am by no means a Bush supporter (one of my favorite sites is JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com -- and by the way, he's not). I firmly believe that in order to fix the mess, it will take a lot of creativity and a Fundamental Understanding of the situation. If I knew how to, I would have bolded and italicized that last part like crazy. Bush showed that he lacks both of these qualities by getting us into the quagmire in the first place, and his last stump speech shows that he has learned little to nothing since this war began
-Alonzo
PAD wrote...
"And it's a big swing at the point...and a miss! Yes, a swing and a miss, and hear the disappointment from the crowd."
"...We speak of our concern about wanting to make the world a safer place while ignoring the Geneva convention."
Oh no, the catcher dropped the ball and the batter is off to first!
The Geneva Convention covers ONLY uniformed soldiers in an opposing army. Not rag-tag groups of terrorists and criminals.
"The Dave"
Yeah, on second thought, I guess that is kinda sucky.
Well, how about "The PAD"
Or "PADD" (Peter Allen David: Dynamo!)
Think about it.
-Alonzo
"The Geneva Convention covers ONLY uniformed soldiers in an opposing army. Not rag-tag groups of terrorists and criminals."
Nope.
For one thing, the Geneva Convention forbids the taking prisoner of non-combatants and holding them for no reason other than to force wanted family members to surrender. It is a complete violation of human rights. It is a war crime. And it is going on in Iraq right now.
The rest of the world is aware that Americans are committing war crimes. Why aren't Americans?
PAD
Actually, what's frightening is that an intelligent person like you apparently believes we don't need a large occupying force in Iraq to ensure its stability as the power transition moves forward.
Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that's about the size of Montana?
I mean, what the "occupying force" really should be doing is training willing Iraqis to police themselves. And they are, but apparently it's not enough to cut back on U.S. troops. So that means a good chunk of servicemen will have their stays extended by another 6 months after we've handed sovereignty over (To who, by the way? Because if it's someone who would be totally supportive of the American viewpoint, I predict that leader will be dead before November...)
Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that's about the size of Montana?
Donald Rumsfeld seems to think so. He's sacked damn near every military person who's disagreed with him (and they've all said we need MORE).
Seems like this is another case of the politicians denying the military what they need to execute this war......
Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that's about the size of Montana?
Well, there are currently 39,110 police officers in the NYPD. That's in comparatively friendly territory-- people tend not to shoot back with rocket launchers here. And we're still short-handed.
Den,
Re OBLs current breathing pattern.
Yes it is of course opinion but just take a step back and look at the situation.
And ask why no videos of him have been seen.
If you want to hurt Bush without gambling on the backlash of another murderous attack, get one out there.
I really am not going overboard in my thinking.
If he is not dead he must be clearly incapacitated.
BTW, Bush announced about two months ago that we were stepping up our efforts to find bin Laden. I guess he doesn't believe bin Laden is atomized either.
No, he just knows that capturing or killing bin Laden will help him get reelected.
Remember, it was only last year that bin Laden was "no longer a priority".
After Germany and Japan were defeated after World War II, did we just whack the dust off our hands, say "OK, that's done," and then hop on our ships and come home?
Maybe somebody can provide some numbers, but how many of our servicement died after WWII officially ended in each theatre?
How many people resisted the end of the war and kept on fighting?
Iraq is neither Japan nor Germany.
And ask why no videos of him have been seen.
Already answered. See above.
Just so we're clear: You really have nothing to say about how the alleged WMD going to Syria makes it easier for the terrorists to get ahold of it, right? So, then you agree that OFDM accomplished the exact opposite of its stated goal.
It does bother me that you show such negativity towards the President in a lot of your posts. Since you are the initiator of the messages, I would hope that you would try to show a little of an unbiased viewpoint and try to get good discussions going.
I hate to break it to you, Novafan, but this is PAD's site. He (prusably) pays for the maintaince of this site out of his own money to express his opinions on whatever topic he wants to. He is under no legal or moral obligation present an "unbiased" view on anything. In fact, I think that fact that he doesn't hold back his opinions, whether it is on politics or the cancellation of Captain Marvel that helps get good discussions going.
I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of this talk about how we shouldn't criticize the president because we're at war, it hurts troop morale, gives cheer to terrorists, etc, because you what? It's all bullshit.
America was founded on the idea that every citizen has the right to say to any elected official, "I disagree with what you're doing." Saying that does not affect troop morale because the US military is not George Bush's private praetorian guard. Their service is to the nation not to Caesar, I mean Bush, and we have citizens have the right to say if we think he is missusing them.
After Germany and Japan were defeated after World War II, did we just whack the dust off our hands, say "OK, that's done," and then hop on our ships and come home?
The difference is, Germany and Japan actually surrendered. Bush can hang all the "Mission Accomplished" banners he wants, but his war isn't over, it's just shifted into a guerrilla phase that Dick and Rummy didn't plan for. We may have captured Saddam, but his supporters and now the Shiite fundamentalist factions did not surrender to us, they just changed tactics from open confrontation to terrorist tactics.
I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of this talk about how we shouldn't criticize the president because we're at war, it hurts troop morale, gives cheer to terrorists, etc, because you what? It's all bullshit.
America was founded on the idea that every citizen has the right to say to any elected official, "I disagree with what you're doing." Saying that does not affect troop morale because the US military is not George Bush's private praetorian guard. Their service is to the nation not to Caesar, I mean Bush, and we have citizens have the right to say if we think he is missusing them.
Damn straight.
I mean, that's the WHOLE POINT of being a democracy and a republic. You debate the issues, you examine the decisions. In fact, I'd say you have a DUTY to speak up and criticize if you think the leader is not doing a good job.
Damn straight Den and Roger!
In fact, I think it's UNAMERICAN to *NOT* criticize the government when you see what it's doing in your eyes to be wrong.
Letting the wrongs pile up and saying nothing smacks too much of Big Brother or Totalitarianism for me...
And guess what? Neither side is truly right or wrong, it's all on an idividual basis. All members of the government are (presumably) human and therefore as far from perfect as can be...
OH Dennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
" Just so we're clear: You really have nothing to say about how the alleged WMD going to Syria makes it easier for the terrorists to get ahold of it, right? So, then you agree that OFDM accomplished the exact opposite of its stated goal."
WRONG.
If we are in agreement that they went to Syria, then that stream of weapons has been now permanently stopped! Closed Shop. Going out of business!!!! etc...
Or do you think that was the first and only time.
Saddam can now no longer do this.
Saddam can no longer ignore UN Resolutions.
And as the pressure increases on Syria and North Korea and Iran, we can hope that we disable as many underground weapon networks as we can.
Speaking of which:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13668751.htm
WASHINGTON, May 13 (Reuters) - Libya, which last year said it would give up weapons of mass destruction, will not trade arms with Iran, North Korea, Syria and other nations that may proliferate such weapons, the United States said on Thursday.
"Libya will not deal in any military goods or services with states which Libya considers to be of serious weapons of mass destruction proliferation concern," said U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, saying he was quoting from a Libyan statement.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The lovely, talented and presently certifiable Al Gore!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. (Al Gore, 1998)
Since the State of the Union there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an “Axis of Evil.” As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name. (Al Gore, February 2002)
In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must prepared to go the limit.
Den!
You said.
" The reason he stopped issuing video tapes is because the CIA was analyzing the background in the tapes for a clue as to his location. Why he didn't just film himself in front of a blank screen, I have no idea."
So why not film himself in front of a blank screen
or a freshly painted white wall
or in the dark with a flashlight under his chin,
or in a closet
a plane,
the trunk of a car
Underwater
WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!
He is pushing up Daisies IMHO!
Roger and Bladestar,
Should the networks have at least one reporter on the rebuildig Iraq beat or would that be pandering to the gov't?
If we are in agreement that they went to Syria, then that stream of weapons has been now permanently stopped! Closed Shop. Going out of business!!!! etc...
Once again, a statement of opinion offered without proof is worth nothing.
And an article stating what Libya is doing proves nothing about Syria.
The lovely, talented and presently certifiable Al Gore!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fascinating. Al Gore was in favor of force against Saddam.
Last time I checked, he wasn't president and wasn't the person who sent our troops into this quagmire.
Should the networks have at least one reporter on the rebuildig Iraq beat or would that be pandering to the gov't?
They have 'em.
It's just that, like every one else, you NEVER notice the good news, because it isn't what sells or pulls ratings.
Free market and all that.
DEN: "Once again, a statement of opinion offered without proof is worth nothing."
ME: You're right. Like these fine examples?
**Bush doesn't fail to understand how the rest of the world sees the US, he just doesn't think it matters.
**As for the WMD, that justification was chosen because the administration decided it was the most "saleable."
**The reason he stopped issuing video tapes is because the CIA was analyzing the background in the tapes for a clue as to his location.
**Well,AnthonyX, besides being totally snotty towards me, (I was not. I am now)
Anthony,
Stop presenting your opinions as facts and maybe we'll stop calling you on your BS...
Roger,
The re-building story has gone missing.
When people speak of left wing bias, it is not just the stories that are reported, but the stories that are not reported.
* The biggest unreported story of the past month the UN Oil for Food Scandal. Where Kofi Annan and his family are personally involved.
* The recent Anti-Sadr and anti "militant" protests in Iraq.
How can you judge how the rebuilding is going if no one knows?
Bladestar,
Yes it is true.
I did forget to type IMHO or IMO before I polluted this forum by stating that Bin Laden is dead.
It was clearly an opinion.
Relax.
Grev wrote: "Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that's about the size of Montana?"
As Glenn points out, there are more than 39,000 police in one U.S. city (New York) to keep order -- and even they are somewhat shorthanded.
The city of Chicago (NOT including the suburbs) had almost 600 murders last year. That's less than, but comparable to, all the U.S. war dead in Iraq over a similar one-year period. And if you factored in the total murders in the entire metropolitan Chicago area, which includes the surrounding suburbs, I'll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that the death toll of this ONE U.S. city region would eclipse ALL the U.S. war dead to date in Iraq -- accidental OR combat-related.
Which is why I complained earlier this year to the Chicago Tribune editors regarding their daily fixation with Iraq over an arguably more serious murder issue right in their own back yard. I don't have the stats to prove it, but I'll bet my old Chicago neighborhood of Austin probably has a higher death rate per capita than does any comparable part of Baghdad -- especially over the past 10 years!
Based on these realities regarding the security situation of just ONE U.S. city, perhaps 130,000 troops doesn't seem like too large a security force for an entire country after all.
Russ Maheras
Duck the issue all you want, Anthonyx, you still haven't shown me anything that's convincing of bin Laden being dead or that the alleged WMD going to Syria doesn't make this worse for us.
PAD wrote: "The point of my post was the part you chose to leave off: Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, "one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life." The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn't realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are." The point is that we're sending mixed messages to the world. We speak of high moral values...but don't practice them. We speak of our concern about wanting to make the world a safer place while ignoring the Geneva convention. And we speak of handing over sovereignty to a country...but refusing to leave if they asked us to."
I didn't respond to this point because, for the most part, I happen to agree with it. We do look bad in the eyes of the world because of the recent Iraq prison scandal. However, I disagree with your assumption that once their government has stabilized, we will not leave Iraq if asked to do so. France asked U.S. forces to leave the country in 1966, and we left. Japan, Italy and Germany could have done the same, and we also would have left. And although I agree totally that the recent prison debacle was damaging to the U.S.'s image, I am not so sure that we cannot restore some of the lost faith by doing what most Americans believe is the right thing to do. That is, we should fully investigate and punish those responsible -- regardless of how high up the chain of command the problem goes.
By the way, I find it curious that you care so much about how the world views us for some issues, but not others (gay marriage, women's rights, free press, etc). Isn't that a tad hypocritical? Personally, I always try to do the right thing based on my U.S.-fostered value system, and if the world doesn't like it, that's their problem. I've spent a lot of time overseas, and personally, I find many of "the world's" customs, biases and quirks to be at odds with many of the freedoms and liberties I took for granted growing up in the U.S.
Russ Maheras
"Fascinating. Al Gore was in favor of force against Saddam.
Last time I checked, he wasn't president and wasn't the person who sent our troops into this quagmire."
I see, so what really upsets you is that it was GWB that made the decision, but if it Al had won the election (which in your eyes, he might have) it would be ok.
look, both sides came to the same conclusion, but now one side acted (right or wrong)& the other is pissed because they're still mad about the outcome of an election 4 years ago.
look guys, the president doesn't sit in his office & watch this board. everything we say is simply for our benefits.
what's done is done. you want to make a difference, go vote. ultimately that is the true voice of the people.
we're in iraq. deal with it. if kerry wins & he decides to do whatever he wants to do we (conservatives) will have to deal with it.
all this ranting and raving isn't going to change anything. If as many people are as upset with the president, as Peter & a whole bunch of you say, then Kerry should win by one of the worst landslides in the history of politics.
other then that i don't see the point of continuing to argue the same points over & over & over.
Russ says:
"By the way, I find it curious that you care so much about how the world views us for some issues, but not others (gay marriage, women's rights, free press, etc)."
That's an interesting point. Given the fact that the Islamofascists (and even some of the more moderate Muslims, regrettably) hate homosexuals almost as much as they do Jews, the recent move toward expanding the rights of gays will probably make them even more convinced that we are in league with the devil himself. Which I would file right under "Rat's ass and other things I don't care about" but for those who worry about our place in the world's opinion, it has to be admitted that even without gay marriage we are far more tolerant of gays than most of the world.
(And by most of the world I mean, most of the world--please, no posts from Iceland outraged that I didn't know that the entire 294,300 of
them are as openminded as all hell or whatever.}
Joe V.,
Speaking of arguing "the same points over and over and over"...this is precisely what you do whenever we have a political thread going. Why continue to post on them if you find them so repetitive?
Frankly, I find it refreshing to engage in (usually civil) debate about the issues of the day, particularly Iraq. Even though the media has been obsessed with the prison scandal, people here continue to find new angles and different points.
For the record, THIS is what democracy is about. The exchange of ideas. I have learned a bit by engaging others, and they have said the same in regards to my points. that's how we evolve.
The simple act of voting, by itself, doesn't mean much if it is not an educated choice and if you do not participate the other 1,400+ days between Presidential elections.
I mean, a monkey can be taught how to vote, and in many cases may actually make a more intelligent choice while doing so.
ultimately that is the true voice of the people.
*BUZZER* Wrong.
2000 proved that a majority vote for one candidate doesn't necessarily mean that the majority candidate wins.
"I didn't respond to this point because, for the most part, I happen to agree with it. We do look bad in the eyes of the world because of the recent Iraq prison scandal. However, I disagree with your assumption that once their government has stabilized, we will not leave Iraq if asked to do so."
The number of times everyone from Bush to Cheney to Rumsfeld have said, "We have to keep troops there, and even increase troop numbers, for the next several years to protect US interests" makes it, I think, far more than simply an assumption.
"By the way, I find it curious that you care so much about how the world views us for some issues, but not others (gay marriage, women's rights, free press, etc). Isn't that a tad hypocritical?"
No, and I'm stunned that you'd even try and draw the comparison. How we conduct ourselves in our own backyard is our business. That is 180 degrees from invading someone else's country and imposing our views upon them, asked for or not.
I'm fully aware that there are other countries, other nations, who don't like Americans because they don't like our beliefs and don't like the way we strut our stuff. Too effin bad. But this country's actions in Iraq are another matter entirely. In the hapless, hopeless matter in which this invasion has been handled, we have flooded terrorist organizations with ready recruits. We, the country that declared a war on terrorism, have helped swell their ranks, and guaranteed that all the worst case scenarios that hate mongers have claimed about the US for years now have newfounded credibility.
This entire business is a fiasco. The notion that *anyone* could be supporting the administration that got us into it is just staggering. The thing is, nations throughout the world believe that Bush does not truly represent the voice of the American people (going all the way back to the fact that he didn't win the popular vote.) I think they're going to watch the 2004 election with great interest. If Bush is re-elected (or, if you will, elected for the first time), it will be seen as a national endorsement of a rapacious, greedy, bellicose government. We will all be tarred with the same brush.
PAD
"we're in iraq. deal with it. if kerry wins & he decides to do whatever he wants to do we (conservatives) will have to deal with it.
all this ranting and raving isn't going to change anything."
Talking about it (or, as a conservative would call it, ranting and raving) *is* dealing with it. Forty five percent of this country, insanely, still supports Bush. Forty five don't. And ten percent are undecided. So if pointing out Bush's idiocies and ineptitude loudly enough and frequently enough on websites convinces six of that ten percent to get this guy out of office, so much the better.
I don't like Bush. I feel on solid ground in saying he's the worst president of the 21st Century. And I will continue to say so however and whenever I wish.
Deal with it.
PAD
"Worst president of the 21st century."
I assume you realize that's not saying a whole lot, right? :-)
TWL
who agrees with you about Bush, but tends to get pedantic about math
"Talking about it (or, as a conservative would call it, ranting and raving)"
PAD,
You are very outspoken against the painting of groups with broad brushes, or generalizing if you will.
Yet you seem to have no problem doing so when it comes to "conservatives".
Joe V. made the statement, and as you can see from my post that I made prior to your two most recent, I disagreed with him.
I don't even consider myself a "conservative" in the traditional sense, but I don't feel such generalizations do anyone any good.
Thank you.
PAD wrote: "No, and I'm stunned that you'd even try and draw the comparison. How we conduct ourselves in our own backyard is our business. That is 180 degrees from invading someone else's country and imposing our views upon them, asked for or not. I'm fully aware that there are other countries, other nations, who don't like Americans because they don't like our beliefs and don't like the way we strut our stuff. Too effin bad. But this country's actions in Iraq are another matter entirely. In the hapless, hopeless matter in which this invasion has been handled, we have flooded terrorist organizations with ready recruits."
Because of the melting pot nature of our country, the entire world is our back yard. We are hated for our beliefs and the liberties we fight for, and we are hated because we export our value system around the world via popular culture. As a matter of fact, our exported popular culture is as least as offensive to many fundamentalists as is our presence in Iraq. I'm equally stunned that that is not obvious to you. We've been reviled and a target for decades, and the only reason it's come to a head is because after 9-11, our leadership from BOTH political parties decided it was time to stop fooling around and take the fight to the bad guys. Sure we've ticked off the fanatics. but do you think they would have left us alone if we had done nothing? If you really believe that, then you've got blinders on. The fact of the matter is, regardless of who gets elected this fall, we are still going to be attacked and reviled. Remember, fundamentalists didn't attack us on 9-11 because Bush was president -- they were planning to attack us before Bush was even a NOMINEE. They hated us long before, and the popular culture industry -- which continually exports our "shocking" and "decadent" ideas to areas of the world that are far more conservative than, say, Rush Limbaugh could ever hope to be -- was no doubt a very powerful factor. This is not a war of guns and bombs -- it is a war of ideas.
Russ Maheras
PAD wrote: "If Bush is re-elected (or, if you will, elected for the first time), it will be seen as a national endorsement of a rapacious, greedy, bellicose government. We will all be tarred with the same brush."
As I said previously, it is not going to make a lick of difference who gets elected this fall -- we still will be reviled by fundamentalists. Keep in mind that arguably the nicest U.S. president in history -- Jimmy Carter -- had fundamentalist Iranians kidnap and hold hostage scores of Americans for almost a year. They thumbed their nose at Carter at every turn, humiliating him (and the U.S., for that matter) so that he had an approval rating that was 16 percentage pints lower than Bush's is right now. Yeah, that's right. Carter had a 31 percent approval rating, and he was trounced easily by Reagan. So, this fantasy you have that the U.S. will be loved by the crazy fundamentalists if Bush is not elected again, is just plain wrong.
You see, as an independent, I KNOW this. It is obvious to me. I'm not blinded by partisan blinders. Which is why, if the Democrats REALLY want to get Kerry elected this fall, they'd better find a better reason vote for independents to vote for him than "the terrorists will like the U.S. better if Kerry is president."
That's even worse than Pollyannish -- that's just plain silly.
Russ Maheras
Because of the melting pot nature of our country, the entire world is our back yard.
And this attitude has gotten us in trouble.
We assume that because millions upon millions of people have come here, everybody wants to be like us.
Well, guess what, millions upon millions more have not come to the US, nor do they want to.
You mention about how the Iranian fundamentalists "thumbed their nose" at the US and Carter.
Well, we are doing the exact same thing now to the rest of the world.
And I can tell you, nobody liked it when the Iranians did it, and nobody likes it when we do it.
Russ, I'm pretty sure PAD wasn't talking about fundamentalists there. He was talking about the everyday non fundamentalists who aren't even necessarily muslim. What PAD was saying isn't that he is worried about pissing off fundamentalists; he is worried about creating more of them.
Oh, and I'm also pretty sure we don't force them to watch our movies. :)
PAD: Forty five percent of this country, insanely, still supports Bush. Forty five don't. And ten percent are undecided.
Russ: As I said previously, it is not going to make a lick of difference who gets elected this fall -- we still will be reviled by fundamentalists. Keep in mind that arguably the nicest U.S. president in history -- Jimmy Carter -- had fundamentalist Iranians kidnap and hold hostage scores of Americans for almost a year. They thumbed their nose at Carter at every turn, humiliating him (and the U.S., for that matter) so that he had an approval rating that was 16 percentage pints lower than Bush's is right now. Yeah, that's right. Carter had a 31 percent approval rating, and he was trounced easily by Reagan. So, this fantasy you have that the U.S. will be loved by the crazy fundamentalists if Bush is not elected again, is just plain wrong.
The difference between Carter and Bush - or for that matter Bush and many previous presidents - is that Bush is trying to do something about it. We've ignored the Syrian and Saudi governments as their schools teach anti-American and anti-Israeli racism, all the while supporting borderline governments so the oil keeps flowing.
After 9-11, Bush was given two choices: keep things the way they were, or start working to change some things. He chose the latter - and it is a huge gamble. If successful in helping to create a well-run democracy in the Middle East, then we will no longer be looked at as hypocrites as we prop up petty dictators to get resources from that part of the world.
Bush is going to go down in history as either a visionary or a failure (or perhaps both) - I don't think there's any doubt of that. The main worry in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we may not do enough to keep new governments in power.
To my mind, that is the main issue in the election: how will we help these countries get on the right track. Right now the campaigns are still so busy arguing over whether we should have gone, we're ignoring what we need to do to make things work. Bush wants to stay the course, Kerry wants to internationlize it - but neither is saying what they would really do to make things work better.
"We've ignored the Syrian and Saudi governments as their schools teach anti-American and anti-Israeli racism, all the while supporting borderline governments so the oil keeps flowing."
I agree, we should be putting more pressure on the Saudies. The problem is that Bush is all buddy buddy with them. So next time someone wants to invade a country, please make sure you are invading the right one. And no, I'm not saying we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, I'm just saying that Iraq is only one corrupt country among many; which lately seems to include our own. :)
" I'm equally stunned that that is not obvious to you. We've been reviled and a target for decades, and the only reason it's come to a head is because after 9-11, our leadership from BOTH political parties decided it was time to stop fooling around and take the fight to the bad guys. Sure we've ticked off the fanatics. but do you think they would have left us alone if we had done nothing? If you really believe that, then you've got blinders on. "
Noooo...no blinders, thanks. I can see quite clearly that you've fallen into the Bush trap of believing that attacking Iraq was a necessity on the war on terrorism, when it wasn't. How do I know you've fallen into the trap? Because, according to you, attacking Afghanistan qualifies as "doing nothing."
Any number of times, I've said I thought the attack on Afghanistan was a necessary response. Just as I've said that Iraq was unnecessary. But because you've bought into the Bush rhetoric, you've forgotten where the response ended and the needless assault that turned the world against us began.
Because you're looking where Bush wants you to.
So how are those blinders working for you?
PAD
"You are very outspoken against the painting of groups with broad brushes, or generalizing if you will.
Yet you seem to have no problem doing so when it comes to "conservatives".
Joe V. made the statement, and as you can see from my post that I made prior to your two most recent, I disagreed with him.
I don't even consider myself a "conservative" in the traditional sense, but I don't feel such generalizations do anyone any good."
Ooookay, except that my use of "conservative" (i.e., "or as a conservative would say") was a direct response to his use of speaking for "we conservatives."
PAD
I wrote: "Because of the melting pot nature of our country, the entire world is our back yard."
Craig responded: "And this attitude has gotten us in trouble. We assume that because millions upon millions of people have come here, everybody wants to be like us."
In the context of what I was talking about, that's not at all what I meant. We have people from all countries in the world living in the U.S., and consequently, all these visitors/immigrants regularly provide friends and relatives back home get a running snapshot of "the way it really is" in the United States. And, of course, there's now the Internet. Thus, we have no private backyard. We're living in a global fishbowl.
That's what I meant by that phrase.
Russ Maheras
PAD wrote: "But because you've bought into the Bush rhetoric, you've forgotten where the response ended and the needless assault that turned the world against us began. Because you're looking where Bush wants you to. So how are those blinders working for you?"
My view of the Middle East is not based on conservative rhetoric nor liberal rhetoric. It's based on my own observations of what has unfolded there over the past three decades. I don't agree with some administration decisions that have taken place in the past year, but as a military person who served under two Democratic and two Republican presidential administrations, that's par for the course. I never saw any proof that Iraq was directly involved with Osama bin Laden and his terrorists -- hell, he didn't even like Saddam. But this fact does not mean attacking Iraq was not justified for other reasons -- two of which were Saddam's non-compliance with U.N. resolutions, and the fear of Saddam's WMD program. As I pointed out here a while back, President Truman used a U.N. resolution, WITHOUT approval from Congress, to put U.S. troops in harms way for three years in Korea (1950-1953). At least the current President Bush went and got Congressional approval for his recent foray into Iraq.
The point is, your wild accusations that this is the worst administration in the past 100 years, or whatever, is just too wild an exaggeration for me too shrug off. Every presidential administration I'm familiar with has made terrible mistakes that have cost Americans dearly in some form or another. Heck, sometimes presidential or Congressional policy costs Americans dearly even when it is no mistake at all. I've cited a number of historical examples, but I guess what happened B.B. (Before Bush) is apparently not at all important or illuminating to your line of reasoning.
If John Kerry has any better ideas or solutions that would make us pals with the folks in the Middle East, I'm all ears. As of right now, however, Kerry is conspicuously silent. By the way, as much criticism as the U.S. gets from Europe and other countries about the way the U.S. has failed to solve the Palestinian/Israeli problem, have you noticed that none of these Old World critics have stepped up to the plate and solved it themselves?
But back to Iraq. Personally, I feel that regardless of why we invaded Iraq, it is much too early to point to the outcome and say it was a success or failure. And I've seen enough examples in my life of people who create self-fulfilling prophecies to fall in line with the negativism and one-sided finger-pointing of extreme partisan bias.
Russ Maheras
"Personally, I feel that regardless of why we invaded Iraq, it is much too early to point to the outcome and say it was a success or failure. And I've seen enough examples in my life of people who create self-fulfilling prophecies to fall in line with the negativism and one-sided finger-pointing of extreme partisan bias."
Having partisan bias doesn't mean that one is unable to make an unbiased assessment. Unless you're ready to argue that the eight years of hammering against Clinton by the right was a calm, cool, unbiased assessment of the facts.
Frankly, Russ, the one becoming mired in partisan is you. Your assertions above are ludicrous. "Self-fulfilling prophecies?" What the heck are you talking about? The concerns expressed over a vague mission with no exit strategy were valid. The concerns that the Bush administration was deliberately downplaying the commitment of troops necessary were valid. The concerns that we'd look like assholes to the world if WMDs didn't surface were valid. To loopily claim that such validated concerns were somehow the result of "self-fulfilling prophecies" indicates a partison bias that is far beyond anything approaching reasonable discourse.
Partisan bias? Don't make me laugh. If our troops turned up, say, a huge cache of doomsday weapons, mounted on missiles capable of reaching the US, I would stand up and say, "Bush was right, and he proved it to the world." My guess is that if Gore was president and he'd invaded Iraq (which would never have happened, but never mind) and turned up WMDs, conservatives would be claiming he'd planted them.
As for Saddam violating United Nations sanctions...Russ, what part of "United" is unclear? The attack on Iraq wasn't an isolated incident. Bush and his neocons had barely set foot in the White House before they were making decision after decision that undid treaties and pissed off other countries. The one thing 9/11 did was hand Bush an opportunity to reunite us with the rest of the world and undo the damage his Admin did the first nine months. Big surprise: He bungled that, too.
As for Truman...at least he had the guts to say the buck stopped at his desk.
PAD
"My guess is that if Gore was president and he'd invaded Iraq (which would never have happened, but never mind) and turned up WMDs, conservatives would be claiming he'd planted them."
Before the war the ONE thing that many of my liberal friends agreed on was that WMDs would be discovered and that they would probably be planted there by Bush and co. I'll bet that if they were discovered tomorrow the wingnuts at democraticunderground.com and other such sites would be tripping over their tinfoil helmets to point out how COINCIDENTAL it is that they find them at this point in time (as opposed to any other point in time).
Paranoia is not partisan. Of course, there is little point in arguing what people might or might not have done in The Land Of Our Dreams, which is the only place where poor old Al gets to be pres.
Speaking of Gore....watching his speech the other day not only makes me suspect he would have attacked Iraq but quite possibly Canada, Luxemburg, and Prussia. I've seen power make people unhinged but apparently lack of power can do it too. Sad, really.
PAD:
'If our troops turned up, say, a huge cache of doomsday weapons, mounted on missiles capable of reaching the US, I would stand up and say, "Bush was right, and he proved it to the world." '
Except, that's not what the UN Resolutions said. Saddam was to turn over all chemical and biological weapons. He was to turn over all notes concerning any nuclear program. He was to turn over all ballistic weapons capable of reaching a certain range. All he brought out was a few old missles that could reach Israel, and these were either stripped down already or were in such bad shape they wouldn't have worked anyway. I guess the little fact of the mustard gas mortar (chemical weapon) or the serin gas bomb (biological weapon) don't count because they don't fit your definition of a "huge cache"? How many biological weapons define a huge cache?
"I guess the little fact of the mustard gas mortar (chemical weapon) or the serin gas bomb (biological weapon) don't count because they don't fit your definition of a "huge cache"? How many biological weapons define a huge cache?"
Save the patronizing. Bush sold this country a bill of goods that Saddam posed a direct threat to the United States with his stockpile of WMDs. Claiming that a mortar here or a bomb there serves as validation of those sweeping claims is clutching at more straws than Ray Bolger. Even Bush's own people are backing off that saw, claiming it "no longer matters" why we invaded because, hey, we got Saddam, that's the only important thing.
Some people aren't real big fans of ends justifying the means.
PAD
"Of course, there is little point in arguing what people might or might not have done in The Land Of Our Dreams, which is the only place where poor old Al gets to be pres."
I wish we lived in the land of dreams instead of the land of nightmares, (where Bush is pres.)
PAD: "..hey, we got Saddam, that's the only important thing."
But according to the telegraph/Mark Steyn, this is why it matters:
There are more than 8,000 towns and villages in the country. If the much predicted civil war had erupted in any of 'em, you'd see it. Not from the Western press corps holed up with its Ba'ath Party translators at the Palestine Hotel, but from Arab television networks eager to show the country going to hell. They cannot show it you because it isn't happening. The Sunni Triangle is a little under-policed, but even that's not aflame. Moqtada al-Sadr, the Khomeini-Of-The-Week in mid-April, is al-Sadr al-Wiser these days, down to his last two 12-year-old insurgents and unable even to get to the mosque on Friday to deliver his weekly widely-ignored call to arms.
Meanwhile, more and more towns are holding elections and voting in "secular independents and representatives of non-religious parties". I have been trying to persuade my Washington pals to look on Iraq as an exercise in British-style asymmetrical federalism: the Kurdish areas are Scotland, the Shia south is Wales, the Sunni Triangle is Northern Ireland. No need to let the stragglers in one area slow down progress elsewhere. Iraq won't be perfect, but it will be okay - and in much better shape than most of its neighbours.
PAD wrote: "Unless you're ready to argue that the eight years of hammering against Clinton by the right was a calm, cool, unbiased assessment of the facts."
Clinton was frequently attacked unfairly while he was in office, and now the supposedly compassionate, caring and righteous left is doing the exact same thing to Bush. From an independent's point of view, the extremists on both sides are no different, and such childish polarization is not doing this country one bit of good.
PAD also wrote: “Frankly, Russ, the one becoming mired in partisan is you. Your assertions above are ludicrous. "Self-fulfilling prophecies?" What the heck are you talking about? The concerns expressed over a vague mission with no exit strategy were valid. The concerns that the Bush administration was deliberately downplaying the commitment of troops necessary were valid. The concerns that we'd look like assholes to the world if WMDs didn't surface were valid. To loopily claim that such validated concerns were somehow the result of "self-fulfilling prophecies" indicates a partison bias that is far beyond anything approaching reasonable discourse.”
The concept of self-fulfilling prophecies is ludicrous? Only from your point of view, perhaps. Many times over the years, I’ve seen people, projects and organizations self-destruct because of incessant negativism. From what I've seen -- particularly this past 18 months -- there is no doubt in my mind that many Democrats so badly want Bush to fail at every turn, they are doing and saying everything in their power to make it so. The far right did the same thing with Clinton – hamstringing his presidency as well. I think extremists on both sides need a swift kick in the butt, because neither side helps when it comes to solving problems. This behavior is bad enough during peacetime, but during war it actually emboldens and encourages our enemies, and is deleterious to troop morale.
By the way, I never advocated that objective criticism and open debate should be scaled back. It’s just that when the debate is by someone like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman – who has NEVER said a kind word (or even neutral word) about Bush in the four years he has been writing his columns – it’s not objective criticism. It’s a partisan witch-hunt.
PAD also wrote: “Partisan bias? Don't make me laugh. If our troops turned up, say, a huge cache of doomsday weapons, mounted on missiles capable of reaching the US, I would stand up and say, "Bush was right, and he proved it to the world." My guess is that if Gore was president and he'd invaded Iraq (which would never have happened, but never mind) and turned up WMDs, conservatives would be claiming he'd planted them.”
Bill Mulligan answered this for me, and Anthony X made a good, semi-related point. Although I do think it should be again emphasized that even BEFORE the war started, some leftists were saying “Bush will probably plant WMD in Iraq if he doesn't find any.”
PAD also wrote: “As for Saddam violating United Nations sanctions...Russ, what part of "United" is unclear? The attack on Iraq wasn't an isolated incident. Bush and his neocons had barely set foot in the White House before they were making decision after decision that undid treaties and pissed off other countries. The one thing 9/11 did was hand Bush an opportunity to reunite us with the rest of the world and undo the damage his Admin did the first nine months. Big surprise: He bungled that, too.”
You forget that when 9-11 happened, many people all over the Middle East, Africa and many parts of Asia took to the streets cheering. We even had idiot pseudo-intellectuals in THIS country saying stupid stuff like: “We got what we deserved.” This obvious manifestation of hatred (and self-flagellation on the home front) had nothing to do with Bush’s presidency, which was still in its infancy when 9-11 happened. Is this the “united world” opportunity that Bush allegedly squandered? What you just don’t seem to understand is that this is a war of ideas that has been going on for decades, and the most radical warriors would like nothing better to see our way of life cease to exist. It is no coincidence that the warlords in Somalia showed just as much contempt for Clinton in 1993 as the warlords of western Pakistan are showing for Bush now.
Russ Maheras
I see, so what really upsets you is that it was GWB that made the decision, but if it Al had won the election (which in your eyes, he might have) it would be ok.
I guess it's really easy to debate something by making up stuff and pretending I said it.
That is absolutely untrue. My point is, that GWB is the one who made that decision, therefore, he is responsibly for the consequences. Had Gore displayed level of ineptitude in preparing for the post-"Mission Accomplished" Iraq, I'd be railing against him right now.
"The concept of self-fulfilling prophecies is ludicrous? Only from your point of view, perhaps. Many times over the years, I’ve seen people, projects and organizations self-destruct because of incessant negativism. From what I've seen -- particularly this past 18 months -- there is no doubt in my mind that many Democrats so badly want Bush to fail at every turn, they are doing and saying everything in their power to make it so."
Oh my God. This is just so out there, I don't...
I never said the CONCEPT of "self-fulfilling prophecies" is ludicrous. I said applying it to IRAQ was ludicrous, and now you're taking it to newer and even greater extremes. I mean, my God, you're actually *blaming Democrats* for the global PR fiasco that, thus far, is Iraq. Democrats didn't put Bush on an aircraft carrier to strut around in his flight suit or hang a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" while hundreds of Americans continued to die, month after month, in continued fighting. Democrats didn't hide WMDS so they wouldn't be found. Democrats didn't launch a war with no clear objective and no exit strategy (well, they did; it was called Vietnam.)
What did Democrats do? Buy into Bush's claims that Saddam was an imminent threat and support him. He wasn't. It was all lies in order to perpetuate an agenda that existed pre-9/11. And turning around and trying to blame this fiasco *on* Democrats is just pathetic.
PAD
Well PAD, blaming the opposition when you're fudged everything up is a time honored tradition in politics. I don't see anyone abandoning it anytime soon.
PAD wrote: "What did Democrats do? Buy into Bush's claims that Saddam was an imminent threat and support him. He wasn't. It was all lies in order to perpetuate an agenda that existed pre-9/11. And turning around and trying to blame this fiasco *on* Democrats is just pathetic."
You readily blame conservatives for unfairly hampering Clinton throughout his entire presidency (to which I agree), and yet, when I point out that some Democrats have been doing the exact same thing to Bush, you say my observations are pathetic.
From an independent voter's viewpoint, I've explained my observations and the rationale behind those observations in detail. I can't do much more than that.
By the way, the way to win over the independent voter is not to attack us as stupid when we disagree or make observations -- the way to win us over is to explain how your candidate will do the job better. To that point, I'm still waiting for Kerry to lay out in detail his plans and vision for this country, and to explain why I should vote for him. So far, all I've heard is the usual, "I'm for jobs, education, and health care." Well, duh, JK. What politician isn't?
Russ Maheras
Actually, I no longer blame conservatives for attacking Clinton thru his presidency. I blame the fanatical neocons. McCain, while I don't agree with a lot of what he says, is a conservative. I respect him for his honesty and courage to stand up for what he believes. This administration is full of fanatics. True conservatives are for a balanced budget and want more isolationist policies (which precludes starting a war). There is a great article in "The Nation" about the divide between conservatives and neocons. Please check this out.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=press
You readily blame conservatives for unfairly hampering Clinton throughout his entire presidency (to which I agree), and yet, when I point out that some Democrats have been doing the exact same thing to Bush, you say my observations are pathetic.
On a message board I read, somebody has a great image.
It reads:
"Clinton lied, people cried. Bush lied, people died."
I think that sums it up rather well.
Also, to compare the attacks on Clinton with the attacks on Bush is apples and oranges. Attacks on Clinton were constant and vicious. Attacks on Bush are against his policies. I haven't seen anyone trying to lay multiple murders at Bush's feet.
Karen says:
"I haven't seen anyone trying to lay multiple murders at Bush's feet."
right underneath Craig's attributed quote:
"Clinton lied, people cried. Bush lied, people died."
At any rate, lurk around some of the far left sites and you'll find plenty of people who will gladly tell you that Bush was behind 9/11, the Berg killing, the anthrax attacks, etc etc. However, my sense of fairness precludes me from trying to use these whackjobs as fodder to tar everyone more liberal than myself.
So Bill, let me get this straight. You're saying that either:
(a) Bush didn't lie to Congress and to the public about his reasons for invading Iraq (despite awfully good evidence we have to the contrary)
ooooooor
(b) People have not died as a result of his decision to invade (despite even stronger evidence we have to the contrary).
I like to think I'm a reasonable person on the whole. I certainly don't think Bush was behind the anthrax mailings, 9/11, the Berg killings, the Cubs' loss, etc.
I will, however, hold him firmly responsible for every single meaningless death in Operation Topple Saddam. Do I think he cackles with glee as our soldiers die? Of course not -- but he has acted with reckless disregard for the safety of our nation and our military, and has been so blinded by ideology that he didn't prepare for a scenario a six-year-old could have seen coming. (So much for the "cakewalk.")
The man has Saddam's pistol in his office as a trophy -- and yet the administration has the balls to claim this wasn't a personal vendetta.
The man says Abu Ghraib "is not the America I know", when evidence strongly suggests that the interrogation techniques used there were imported directly from Guantanamo and Afghanistan, and there's further evidence that the White House counsel himself wrote a brief which effectively said the Geneva Convention is no longer operative.
The man said "feels good!" when asked about ordering the military into combat, yet this administration claims war was a last resort.
The man can't think of a mistake he's made in his presidency. I think that speaks volumes in itself.
Even if you support this administration's overall policies, I find it really mind-numbingly weird that anyone could think we've handled Iraq in a way that wasn't laughably incompetent.
TWL
PAD wrote: "What did Democrats do? Buy into Bush's claims that Saddam was an imminent threat and support him. He wasn't. It was all lies in order to perpetuate an agenda that existed pre-9/11. And turning around and trying to blame this fiasco *on* Democrats is just pathetic."
"You readily blame conservatives for unfairly hampering Clinton throughout his entire presidency (to which I agree), and yet, when I point out that some Democrats have been doing the exact same thing to Bush, you say my observations are pathetic."
No, I said blaming on Democrats the continued failure of the war on Iraq to attain its objectives is pathetic. The logical leap required to take Democrats saying, "If we don't find WMDs, Bush's war will make us look like fools" and transforming the failure to find WMDS into a "self-fulfilling prophecy" is what's pathetic. We didn't find what we told the world is there--not because of Democratic concerns--but because they weren't there.
Considering that thus far Bush has more or less gotten a free pass (supported by the conservative media) to do whatever the hell he wants--while Clinton was shackled with everything from gays in the military to pointless investigations into real estate deals and blow jobs--I'm not entirely sure where you get the notion that liberals have been doing "the exact same thing" to Bush. Frankly, the only difference between then and now is that Liberals are getting louder, angrier and fighting back, as opposed to rolling over to Conservatives and begging, "Please stop hitting us." Liberals are hitting back for the first time in decades, and conservatives hate it.
If self-fulfilling prophecies were the order of the day in Iraq, then there would have been an end to fighting when Bush said there was an end to fighting a year ago. Lo and behold...there wasn't. Just as military experts warned Bush would be the case. Or were all those military experts Democrats?
"From an independent voter's viewpoint, I've explained my observations and the rationale behind those observations in detail. I can't do much more than that."
Considering that on the one hand you claim to be Indy while on the other hand you're blaming Democrats for the balls-up that is Iraq, yes, I think you could do more.
"By the way, the way to win over the independent voter is not to attack us as stupid when we disagree or make observations -- the way to win us over is to explain how your candidate will do the job better. To that point, I'm still waiting for Kerry to lay out in detail his plans and vision for this country, and to explain why I should vote for him. So far, all I've heard is the usual, "I'm for jobs, education, and health care." Well, duh, JK. What politician isn't?"
I don't recall saying I was a fan of Kerry's. In fact, as I recall, I said if Kerry advocates "staying the course" the way Bush has, it's probably the final nail in Kerry's coffin. Although frankly, considering the gnat-like attention span of Americans, if Kerry did lay out some sort of constructive plan in June, it'd be forgotten by August. Either that or be blurred to death by attack ads from the GOP, the party that keeps claiming Kerry waffles on major issues while supporting a president who stated flatly in 2000 that we shouldn't be in the nation-building business.
I could wish for a better Democratic candidate. For that matter, I'm waiting to see who he picks as VP, which could be crucial. But as for trying to convince people to vote for Kerry, at the moment "He's not Bush" is enough for me. Hopefully it will be enough for others.
PAD
Tim says:
"So Bill, let me get this straight. You're saying that either:
(a) Bush didn't lie to Congress and to the public about his reasons for invading Iraq (despite awfully good evidence we have to the contrary)
ooooooor
(b) People have not died as a result of his decision to invade (despite even stronger evidence we have to the contrary)."
Sigh. Tim, you are one of the better writers to contribute to this blog and even though I disagree with you on many points, I respect your logic. Usually.
let me reprint what I wrote:
Karen says:
"I haven't seen anyone trying to lay multiple murders at Bush's feet."
right underneath Craig's attributed quote:
"Clinton lied, people cried. Bush lied, people died."
I don't believe for a second you don't get the point I made--that it's kind of ironic to claim that you haven't seen people laying blame for multiple murders at the feet of Bush right beneath a post laying blame for multiple deaths at the feet of Bush.
Now one CAN argue that "deaths" does not equal "murders"--fine. But to use my statement to just get in yet another jab at Bush or raise even the possibility that I don't realize that people have died in Iraq....yeesh.
But for the record, I DON'T believe Iraq has been handled in a laughably incompetent manner. That may make me "mind numbingly weird" in your eyes but that's so subjective a judgment that there is no way I could successfully argue the point. Weird is in the eye of the beholder and we all have our own thresholds beyond which our minds go numb.
For a reasonable alternative look at the situation, I rather like the observations of Marek Edelman at http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_30_chrenkoff_archive.html#108604826777232870
No, I don't think that Mr. Edelman's life story automatically makes his statements fact. But I like his reasoning.
From the great Andrew Sullivan:
JUST A QUESTION: If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out... well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success. And you'd be right. Yes, there are enormous challenges; and yes, so much more could have been achieved without incompetence, infighting and occasional inhumanity. But it's worth acknowledging that, with a little perspective, our current gloom is over-blown. Stocks in Iraq have been way over-sold. I even regret some minor sells myself. Now watch the media do all it can to accentuate the negative.
PAD wrote: "I don't recall saying I was a fan of Kerry's. In fact, as I recall, I said if Kerry advocates "staying the course" the way Bush has, it's probably the final nail in Kerry's coffin. Although frankly, considering the gnat-like attention span of Americans, if Kerry did lay out some sort of constructive plan in June, it'd be forgotten by August. Either that or be blurred to death by attack ads from the GOP, the party that keeps claiming Kerry waffles on major issues while supporting a president who stated flatly in 2000 that we shouldn't be in the nation-building business. I could wish for a better Democratic candidate. For that matter, I'm waiting to see who he picks as VP, which could be crucial."
I agree with almost all of your points here, except I think Kerry COULD sell a vision over the long haul if (a.) He comes up with a vision that makes sense and is compelling, and (b.) He starts exuding a stronger presidential aura of position, leadership and hope.
To be perfectly honest, I've been very underwhelmed by Kerry's handlers to date. Regarding Iraq, North Korea, Iran, terrorism and homeland security -- Kerry is coming across as "Bush Lite."
Russ Maheras
""I'm for jobs, education, and health care." Well, duh, JK. What politician isn't?
Bush?
Bill,
Yes, of course I got your point. I think that it's a bit of a reach to equate deaths with murders. Perhaps more to the point, I think Craig's statement, while simplistic, is true on its face and thus perhaps not a great example of what you were trying to show.
But for the record, I DON'T believe Iraq has been handled in a laughably incompetent manner.
So noted (and I'd be a liar if I said I was surprised). All I can conclude is that we are seeing the situation (and the world at large) through extraordinarily different pairs of eyes.
Thanks for the link -- I'm in the middle of grading finals at the moment, but will take a look-see when time permits.
AnthonyX:
While Sullivan certainly writes well, he's guilty of several major omissions and shadings. First and foremost: by saying the casualty rate is "only" about 800, he (a) assumes it's going to stop here, which I frankly doubt, and (b) is counting only those U.S. soldiers killed in hostile action -- not those wounded, not those killed by friendly fire, not U.S. civilians, and not Iraqi civilians. As such, he is drastically underestimating the overall toll of this war.
A second example: saying "no WMD's had been used" is being misleadingly optimistic. If Saddam had them and had been stopped before getting a chance to use them, then of course that would be a great success -- rah rah, bully for our side and all that.
The evidence suggests, however, that he didn't use them because he didn't have them. That doesn't make it a success on our part -- it means we went to war on the basis of a chimera. It means our leaders misled us through and through. It means this was not a war to stop an imminent threat.
Of course, you can spin it as a great success if you like.
A third example: it's a bit premature to say that this "diverse government ... has been installed", isn't it? The ink's not even dry.
I think that Sullivan's point was to compare the reality of iraq with what was being predicted just a short time ago. While some are now claiming to have known all along what a disaster it all would be--looking back at the actual predictions shows that they are playing Calvinball with what "disaster" means. It used to mean hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, tens of thousands of dead soldiers, WMD falling everywhere, millions of refugees, a civil war, invasion by Turkey, rampant fundamentalism, the destruction of the oilfields and a whole new generation of little Osamas running to sign up for Al Qeada, among other not altogether unreasonable guesses.
While things are not anywhere near perfect they are far from as terrible as some would suggest (And yes, if it's someone you know who has died then it is as terrible as anything can be.}
Bill,
Depends on who the "some" are you're talking about. Can you name someone who predicted all of the above, particularly in a single year?
I for one never thought the initial invasion would be difficult, just the aftermath. (And I certainly didn't expect WMD's falling everywhere, as I never thought they were a threat to begin with.)
And "the reality of Iraq" is subject very strongly at the moment to whose glasses you're looking through. I think the "rampant fundamentalism" and "whole new generation of Osamas" predictions you're making fun of are still very much in play, just to name two. Feel free to ask the Saudis how much safer we've made the region from terrorism, for example.
(And as for "hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties" ... certainly not, but the current estimates are around 10,000. Sure, it's an order of magnitude better. It's still horrible -- it's more than 3X the number of people killed on 9/11, and as a percentage of the population it's the equivalent of 100,000 or so Americans. This to me, isn't so much good news as "not quite as terrible" news.)
I will certainly grant that the most dire predictions made by the most hysterical figures did not come remotely true. In turn, however, I think you really ought to grant that all the "rose petals strewn at our feet" type of pie-in-the-sky predictions also did not come remotely true. Me, I find that much worse given that the pie-in-the-sky types are the ones setting policy -- but your mileage may of course differ.
TWL
Tim,
(before I forget--what classes do you teach? Just finshed up a whole year of 9th grade Earth Science. Not the most exciting subject, though I've learned a lot)
I can't name anyone who got it ALL wrong but I could name all sorts of folks who got some of it wrong--and while you say I'm "making fun" of them I don't know why since I called them and I quote "not altogether unreasonable guesses."
My point is just that Sullivan is probably correct that if someone had, 18 months ago, predicted the war as it has so far happened, they would probably have been accused of predicting a cake walk.
Bill,
(before I forget--what classes do you teach?
Physics -- junior-level and AP at the moment, though I also wrote the course that's taking the school to a ninth-grade "physics first" approach. I'm teaching mostly that next year, along with AP.
I can't name anyone who got it ALL wrong but I could name all sorts of folks who got some of it wrong--and while you say I'm "making fun" of them I don't know why since I called them and I quote "not altogether unreasonable guesses."
To be honest, I missed that last half-sentence. Apologies -- you weren't making fun.
My point is just that Sullivan is probably correct that if someone had, 18 months ago, predicted the war as it has so far happened, they would probably have been accused of predicting a cake walk.
Agreed, at least to a point -- but I wish in turn that you'd respond to my point that there were people in charge who predicted ACTUAL cakewalks and set policy on that expectation. Isn't correction that misconception at least as important as correcting the "not unreasonable" overly pessimistic?
TWL
From Russ Maheras:
The city of Chicago (NOT including the suburbs) had almost 600 murders last year. That's less than, but comparable to, all the U.S. war dead in Iraq over a similar one-year period. And if you factored in the total murders in the entire metropolitan Chicago area, which includes the surrounding suburbs, I'll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that the death toll of this ONE U.S. city region would eclipse ALL the U.S. war dead to date in Iraq -- accidental OR combat-related.
Which is why I complained earlier this year to the Chicago Tribune editors regarding their daily fixation with Iraq over an arguably more serious murder issue right in their own back yard. I don't have the stats to prove it, but I'll bet my old Chicago neighborhood of Austin probably has a higher death rate per capita than does any comparable part of Baghdad -- especially over the past 10 years!
Based on these realities regarding the security situation of just ONE U.S. city, perhaps 130,000 troops doesn't seem like too large a security force for an entire country after all.
And how many of those 600 were cops?
The 800 Iraq casualties aren't for the entire nation. That's just counting members of the main peacekeeping force.
Chicago is a city of about 3 million and we've got ... what 130,000 troops in Iraq? And the two have suffered approximately equal numbers of casualties? Is it any wonder that the Trib finds the latter to be more news-worthy?
Tim,
Congratulations on writing the 9th grade physics course. That's an enviable feather in your cap. To be able to design a class from he ground up...my fantasy is to do a cross curriculum science/history class...The History Of Science or something, showing how events drove technological advancement and visa versa.
Ain't gonna happen though, since they need keep grabbing more and more of us to teach the ever growing body of 9th graders needing Earth Environmental. Chapter 16, where we learn how ocean waves form, snooze....
(I'm a biologist. It's my nature. I'm sure many people, sitting in the ocean, wonder why the waves move as they do and would be fascinated by chapter 16. I, conversely, am more interested in the shark that is about to eat them.)
Oh I'll agree that some of the administration were entirely too rosy in their predictions...plan for the absolute worst, I always say.
Anyway, good luck with the end of year. Physics is a tough class, you have to be highly intelligent to teach it well (and in theory at least, if one really really understands physics, doesn't one get it all? Physics is what drives chemistry and biology is the study of the chemical reactions that we call life. Ipso facto, physics is the study of life, the universe, and everything. Also, ocean waves.)
If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured;
Was that our original goal there? No.
that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed;
Hasn't happened yet.
that elections would be scheduled for January 2005;
I'll believe it when I see it.
with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800;
See: what others have said.
But hey, while we're in the business of chalking up liberation to the number of American soldiers lost, I assume you're working on figures to determine how many soldiers we would lose for the next country Bush plans to invade?
that no oil fields had been set aflame;
I do wonder how many soldiers we have protecting our, ahh, interests right now over there in Iraq.
no WMDs had been used;
Ahh. Now we come to it at last.
Now, tell me again, what was the Numero Uno reason for invading Iraq?
You know, the FIRST reason, before a dozen others were thrown out for Flavor of the Week?
no mass refugee crises had emerged;
I haven't heard of evidence either way on this. Turkey shut their border down anyways to prevent it. Terrorists are streaming in from other countries.
It's not pretty, any way you look at it.
and no civil war had broken out
No, because anybody that wants to fight has united to kill our soldiers instead.
Civil war has not broken out either because the groups aren't exactly mingling - Sunni's have their parts of the country, Shiites have theirs.
Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured;
And here I thought it was the WMD that were the most important thing.
that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed;
Except that it hasn't happened yet.
that elections would be scheduled for January 2005;
I'll believe it when I see it.
with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800;
Well, start calculating how many lives will be lost for Bush's next target then.
that no oil fields had been set aflame;
And I wonder how many of our soldiers are currently protecting our, ahh, "interests" in Iraq right now.
*sarcasm* Because we all know how important that oil is for the Iraqis. */sarcasm*
no WMDs had been used;
And our Numero Uno reason for going to Iraq? WMD!
Yes, that's right, you too can invade the country of your choice on the pretense of their having WMD and being part of an Axis of Evil.
But if those WMD don't show up, don't bother to stick to your guns, but give a Flavor of the Week excuse as to why American lives are being lost in the hopes that everybody is too damn stupid to notice.
and no civil war had broken out...
Yet that hasn't stopped them from joining together to fight our troops.
well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success.
You mean the War on Terror, right?
Because I *thought* that's what Iraq is a part of.
Except, it isn't. It's a war of revenge, it's far from over, and it's definately not an extraordinary success.
Nice.
Stupid board screwed up, I reloaded it, it didn't show my post, and I attempt to retype my thoughts.
And of course, both show up. Bleh.
Bill,
my fantasy is to do a cross curriculum science/history class...The History Of Science or something, showing how events drove technological advancement and visa versa.
Oh, no argument here. If time ever permits, that's one of the courses I'd love to work on creating -- a good astronomy course and something about looking at the science in SF being the other two.
(I'm a biologist. It's my nature. I'm sure many people, sitting in the ocean, wonder why the waves move as they do and would be fascinated by chapter 16. I, conversely, am more interested in the shark that is about to eat them.)
Even as a physicist, I think I'm with you here. (Okay, technically my degrees are in astronomy.) I wouldn't go for the biology over the physics every time (as my wife, a biologist, can confirm), but sharks are neat. :-)
in theory at least, if one really really understands physics, doesn't one get it all?
I've always thought so. That's one of the reasons why so many schools go to a physics-first approach: it provides the conceptual underpinning for everything else. (Of course, I can't get too smug: that's when my colleagues bring out the big mallet'o'humility.)
TWL
Posted by: Peter David at June 1, 2004 01:39 PM
"Liberals are hitting back for the first time in decades, and conservatives hate it."
Actually, as a conservative, I am getting a kick out of it. After 8 years of ulcers raging against Clinton, I am thrilled to see the libs fall into the same trap. After all the attacks on Clinton in his first term, what did we get? Clinton beat Dole. And Dole was a much better man than Kerry is. So I am thinking that, just maybe, history will repeat itself. All the vicious personal attacks on Bush will backfire, just like they did on Clinton, and the conservatives will be able to thank the loony liberal fringe for helping to re-elect Bush. And you can blame Fox News the same way we blamed the New York Times.
The 800 Iraq casualties aren't for the entire nation. That's just counting members of the main peacekeeping force.
And it doesn't count all of the Iraqis that have been killed for working with our forces. Oh, that's right, we don't count Iraqi dead.
Now, imagine a city the size of Chicago in which 800 cops are killed a year and no one even bothers to count the number of civilians that are killed.
That's the situation in Iraq.
After 8 years of ulcers raging against Clinton, I am thrilled to see the libs fall into the same trap.
Bush has to get a 2nd term first. And as I've said, Clinton would have gotten a third if that were still possible.
There's no way in hell Bush would get a third term, not counting the fact that he didn't deserve a first.
Nick S. wrote: "And how many of those 600 were cops? The 800 Iraq casualties aren't for the entire nation. That's just counting members of the main peacekeeping force. Chicago is a city of about 3 million and we've got ... what 130,000 troops in Iraq? And the two have suffered approximately equal numbers of casualties? Is it any wonder that the Trib finds the latter to be more news-worthy?"
The Tribune's stance is ultimately political, in my opinion. To date, two native Chicagoans have died in Iraq, while nearly 600 Chicagoans were murdered last year. And this grim annual statistic is not an anomaly, either. Juggle the numbers any way you want and it still comes out as a horrific local problem. Every day, however, the Tribune headlines bad news in Iraq. As a former newspaper editor, I understand that Iraq is an important story, but Chicago's murder problem is a national disgrace for the city. The per capita murder rate of Chicago was THREE TIMES that of New York City last year. Any newspaper editor knows that local news is important to its largest core of readers -- even for the few U.S. papers with a strong national/international slant (NY Times, LA Times, etc.). The Tribune, in my estimation, had lost sight of this with its fixation over Iraq. The question I posed to the senior editor I wrote to was this: What do you think the people in my old Chicago neighborhood of Austin care about more? Another drive-by shooting at Augusta and Leamington, or a car-bombing in Iraq? The answer ain't rocket science.
To their credit, the Tribune has since picked up their coverage of Chicago's shameful problem quite a bit, including several front page feature stories. We'll see how it ultimately affects the Chicago murder toll for 2004.
Russ Maheras
I dunno. Going to war is pretty big news, even if it is 10,000 miles away from Chicago. I think that anything that happens in Iraq is going to be making headlines for any serious news organization (although perhaps the Trib doesn't qualify, I mean, they do own the Cubbies ;). Even ESPN has coverage on the war (even if it's only because of Tillman).
And it's not like they're the only ones obsessed with Iraq (hello? the administration?).
Is it any wonder that the Trib finds the latter to be more news-worthy?"
Well, the focus of most major newspapers seems to be the War on Iraq.
And it just doesn't come down to politics imo. Alot of it I think also comes down to the fact that that's what people want to read about; the papers are stuck giving people what they want.
It may just be that people would rather hear about things thousands of miles away rather than what's going on in their own back yards.
The truth starts to hurt when it hits close to home.
"..Alot of it I think also comes down to the fact that that's what people want to read about; the papers are stuck giving people what they want."
In the wake of the prison scandal, the Nick Berg story was glossed over and quickly shuffled to the side.
The #1 search listing on the web that week dealt with Nick Berg.
The media does not speak for the people.
In the wake of the prison scandal, the Nick Berg story was glossed over and quickly shuffled to the side.
Not in Pennsylvania, where Berg was from. We've been getting daily mentionings of his murder since it happened.
Nick Berg's story was huge, but there wasn't much to it once you got past "He was alive, then a bunch of animals cut his head off and filmed after Nick couldn't get back to America and out of Iraq as quickly as he wanted to", there wasn't much of a story anymore. Until the perpetrators are positively IDed and captured, there's not much left to that story.
On the other hand, more and more of America's children are leaving their bloods on Bush's hands everyday he keeps them over there...THAT'S newsworthy. Somedays we get reports of progress in the attempt to rebuild Iraq, somedays we get deaths of soldiers. The war is news, learn to deal with it, it IS news, therefore it will be reported on extensively, much to the Bush camp's chagrin...
Nick Berg's story was huge, but there wasn't much to it once you got past "He was alive, then a bunch of animals cut his head off and filmed after Nick couldn't get back to America and out of Iraq as quickly as he wanted to", there wasn't much of a story anymore. Until the perpetrators are positively IDed and captured, there's not much left to that story.
On the other hand, more and more of America's children are leaving their bloods on Bush's hands everyday he keeps them over there...THAT'S newsworthy. Somedays we get reports of progress in the attempt to rebuild Iraq, somedays we get deaths of soldiers. The war is news, learn to deal with it, it IS news, therefore it will be reported on extensively, much to the Bush camp's chagrin...
Hmmmm... not sure how that got double-posted, don't remember having to hit post again for any reason...
"The #1 search listing on the web that week dealt with Nick Berg."
True, but probably half of those were from people who wanted to see the video. With that said, the story was huge.
Craig wrote: "It may just be that people would rather hear about things thousands of miles away rather than what's going on in their own back yards. The truth starts to hurt when it hits close to home."
Whoa, there. There is a reason newspaper editors are taught early on in their careers to emphasize local news over news from elsewhere. First, people CARE about "the local tie" and thus it directly impacts circulation. Second, newspaper editors are also taught they have a responsibility to cover stories that directly impact the lives of their readers.
Den said it perfectly in a post above regarding news coverage of the Nick Berg killing. Berg was a Pennsylvanian, and thus Den pointed out that the local media had daily coverage of the story.
As a former newspaper editor, I am very much in tune with how a story is written and attributed, the "slant" or inference of the headline, the position placement of the story in a paper, and the frequency of coverage of a particular story.
It is amazing how all these factors can be manipulated for a particular story, depending on the politics and integrity of the newspaper staff. I've seen examples where the writer of the story is absolutely neutral, but the headline writer spins the story to his/her political slant when writing the headline. Story placement can also be decided by politics, as can the decision to even run a story in the first place. Also... have you ever noticed that one paper may cover a particular story one time (perhaps burying it in the middle of the paper), while another paper will run with a story for days or weeks, giving it prominent placement?
David Brinkley said in a 1964 TV Guide interview, "News is what I say it is." Soon after becoming the editor of a weekly newspaper, I learned he was absolutely right! It was a sobering lesson, and even a bit scary, at first.
Russ Maheras