Bush, in describing Cindy Sheehan, stated, "She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it."
This puts Cindy Sheehan in the company of military experts who told Bush things he didn't want to hear prior to the attack on Iraq. Experts who turned out to be correct.
PAD
Sheehan has gone on record saying that "America is not worth dying for." Considering what her opinion is, I'm going to say that I disagree with her too.
Darin
She's expressed her opinion on the Israeli/Plaestinain conflict as well, an opinion that PAD would apparently disagree with, given the comment a few postings down.
This puts PAD in the company of...Bush.
Cindy Sheehan posted to her blog again today and I have a few questions for her. I have posted comments to her blog asking questions but for some strange reason they never get past her censorship. As always, I will use quotes…
“Bringing our troops home from the quagmire that he has gotten us into will be weakening the United States? George: even if you pretend you didn't know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was not threat to the USA before you invaded, Americans know differently.”
Ms. Sheehan, whether you like, dislike or are ambivalent to an individual It is incredibly impolite to use first name only when you are not on a first named basis with an individual. I would not presume to call you “Cindy”. In fact judging by the tone of your recent blogs using the first name only of George Bush was meant to heighten your disrespect, you earn no points there, you are obviously not a well-mannered individual regardless of your feelings.
“Why don't you channel some courage from my son and come down and face me. Face the truth. Your house of cards built on smoke and mirrors is crumbling and you know it.”
Here you call him a coward, not in those words but you know exactly what you meant. Again, not the way to get things done nor is it the way civil human beings talk to one another. You keep losing points in the etiquette category. Ms. Sheehan. I tend to listen to other views and try to keep an open mind on issues; you are doing nothing but pushing people farther away (except for those who are closed minded like the extremes of both parties).
“I didn't go to Crawford to meet with Steven "Yellow cake uranium liar" Hadley or the other "high-ranking" official they sent out. I went to meet with George. Does he get that yet? I did meet with him 10 weeks after his insane and arrogant Iraq war policies killed Casey and 9 weeks after I buried my oldest child. George: things are different between you and I now.”
Yellow cake uranium liar???? Now you are getting completely irrational Ms Sheehan.
“I never said I did. I want one answer: What is the "noble cause" MY son died for. There are also dozens, if not hundreds of families from all over the country who want to know the same thing.”
Dozens possibly hundreds… which is it Ms. Sheehan? Dozens, hundreds or America, which is quite a bit more than either of those two figures.
“A Democratic Constitution? Is anyone else insulted that he thinks we are stupid and think that the Constitution they will form in Iraq will be democratic and ensure equal rights to all citizens? Does anyone else know what "democratic" means? It simply means majority rule. Not some high-minded, free-floating, pie in the sky ideal. It means 50 percent plus one. Up to 62% of Americans think our troops should be coming home soon. That is a majority, so why don't we force our employee, the president, to do what we want him to do?”
Possibly because the United States of America is not a democracy but a republic. Majority does not rule in the US and never did. We elect representatives that take everything into account when making decisions. If it was majority rule 50% plus one could vote to open hunting season on any given group of people and it would become legal. That is a democracy… want one?
“Another sham election where the country is shut down for the day and no one knows what the heck they are voting for?”
Sure sounds like the USA….
“As hard as George is working riding bikes and taking naps? If he cares so much about an Iraqi Constitution, why doesn't he take some time from his busy vacation activities and read the US Constitution. He may find out that he started an un-Constitutional war in Iraq. He may lose some sleep over it. (What am I saying?)”
Please back that one up. What exact article of the U.S. Constitution is being violated and how?
“Amen to that George. You got one thing right. Thanks to you and your lies the people of Iraq are suffering from a tragic and unnecessary war and my son was violently killed and ripped out of the heart of our family.”
And how many Iraqi families have you talked to in Iraq to form that factual statement? I have gotten the complete opposite opinion from service men that constantly hear from Iraqis that they are grateful we became involved.
“Then bring our troops home.” Then she said, “This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops,”
These contradictory statements were within a paragraph of each other. Which is it Ms. Sheehan?
“His policies of preemptive wars of aggression for power and greed don't bring America safety, either.”
What additional financial income has George Bush received from this war? How exactly has his net worth increased? That after all is what the “greed” part would indicate.
“How does he honor the soldiers by killing more of their buddies? People say Casey is ashamed of me and I dishonor his memory! I knew my son better than anyone on earth and I know he is appalled by the continued carnage in his name.”
If your brave son feels or felt that way why did he re-enlist?
Ms Sheehan, please answer these questions. America wants to know.
What additional financial income has George Bush received from this war? How exactly has his net worth increased? That after all is what the “greed” part would indicate.
No, that's one of the possible things it could indicate.
It could also indicate that friends, relatives, or corporate backers are in a position to make an obscene profit from the war -- which is, in fact, true given things like Halliburton.
Some of your other questions are quite valid. However, you take a lot away from that with your initial points about her "ill-mannered" style, which are just borderline silly. Taking her to task for addressing Bush by his first name? What, you think we're in Parliament all of a sudden?
The woman's got counter-protestors addressing her by name and saying things at least as rude as she is. She's had a truck come and run down crosses in her camp, which is hardly good for the equanimity -- AND, let's point out, not only has she lost her son, but she just went home to Vacaville to take care of her mother after said mother suffered a stroke.
I hardly think a lecture on rudeness is particularly important to the issues at hand.
TWL
People might also be interested to know (and can find out by following GvdM's link) that GvdM has apparently been posting this link on several blogs.
It seems carpet-bombing is now being used in the political arena, not just the military one.
That doesn't necessarily change the validity of the questions -- but I think it's good information to have.
TWL
Some of your other questions are quite valid. However, you take a lot away from that with your initial points about her "ill-mannered" style, which are just borderline silly. Taking her to task for addressing Bush by his first name? What, you think we're in Parliament all of a sudden?
Especially since, reportedly, when W originally met her and other grieving mothers, he tagged her with the nickname "Mom" and continued to use it despite being hinted at that it was overly familiar.
This is a favorite tactic of Bush's, to give lip service to his detractors whilst misrepresenting their positions, then to talk about how his detractors don't represent the majority of Americans even when they do. And he's still not asked to supply any sort of proof for his statements, because everyone treats them as sort of "gospel opinions"...
No, people don't treat Bush's statements as gospel opinions. It's just that so many people now know that Bush has no clue about what's real and what's not when he's speaking about something that they all just shrug and let it go. How do you argue with somebody who believes facts are whatever he says that makes him feel good about himself at that moment?
I used to just think that Bush was a good straight faced con man. These days I honestly believe that the man, who states that he doesn't read news papers or mags or watch TV news, has no idea what's really going on in the world or what damage his actions cause in the world.
Every past Prez, D or R, in my lifetime I've had some respect for even if I disagreed with them. Bush is the first who I agree with almost 0% of the time and have 0 respect for. I think that Cindy Sheehan is a complete wingnut. 75% of his job, as far as getting me on his side of this issue, is done before he has to say one word. And he's shown that he's too stupid and/or too out of touch with the real world to make the easy argument that would get the other 25% in the bag (and it's an argument that's been made by me, several posters here and PAD with ease.) How can you respect that?
I heartily disagree with Jerry C's comments that the President is stupid. His ideas may be described as stupid. But 'stupid' men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States. There's just too many hoops to jump through with running for office and winning partisan nomination for 'stupid' men to be elected leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Many Republicans felt that President Clinton was 'stupid.' That was the result of bitter partisanship blinding them from clear thinking. President Clinton was an intelligent man who made very stupid decisions when it came to his personal life. The rash of name calling and belittling of the Presidency over the past 13 years has been a product of the ultra-partisanship that has gripped Washington, D.C. in particular and the rest of the country in general.
Dozens possibly hundreds… which is it Ms. Sheehan? Dozens, hundreds or America, which is quite a bit more than either of those two figures.
Please back that one up.
Now you are getting completely irrational Ms Sheehan.
These contradictory statements were within a paragraph of each other. Which is it Ms. Sheehan?
Thank you, Captain Nitpick.
I think GvDm is a little confused as to which smear tactics he should be using. He is going over her every word with a fine-tooth comb, looking for inconsistencies as if that somehow proves that she is lying.
See, Mrs. Sheehan is NOT a criminal trying to keep her story straight. (That would be the OTHER party...) She is a citizen expressing her opinion. Who CARES if she sometimes says things that are inconsistent. Everyone does, unless they are a professional politician with speechwriters and handlers carefully culling every word in carefully prepared speeches. (That would be the OTHER party...) Mrs. Sheehan knows what her own opinions are better than anyone else. If she sometimes doesn't express herself articulately, that doesn't mean her opponents can shout, "AHA!!" as if they have somehow caught her in a lie.
"What additional financial income has George Bush received from this war? How exactly has his net worth increased? That after all is what the “greed” part would indicate."
well, it sure got him re-elected.
I am confused, did the war get him elected or was it moral issues? Or does that just depend on what excuse the libs on any given day?
Depends on which lie the cons are using that day...
GvdM asked that Cindy back up where the Constitution was being violated. Allow me to demonstrate what I have seen. If I am incorrect, I welcome clarification.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 grants Congress the power to declare war. This power is not granted to any other section of government and certainly not the President.
Congress has not declared war upon Iraq. They did however vote to grant the President extreme leeway in dealing with terrorism in the wake of the acts almost four years ago. Now it has been stated that when another country declares war upon us or engages in war upon us, the US does not need a congressional declaration. (I found reference to that on http://www.noematic.org/news/archives/009455.html)
Anyway, the war on Iraq is of debatable legality. Add to this debates about the lengths about legal police actions (spurred from the days of Vietnam when it was decided that police actions could not last very long without being declared as a war) and you can see that Cindy does indeed have at least have a leg to stand on where this point is concerned. I personally think that this is something that should be discussed further in the various media. I would like to see it receive more airtime and for a resolution to be acquired quickly.
Ms. Sheehan, whether you like, dislike or are ambivalent to an individual It is incredibly impolite to use first name only when you are not on a first named basis with an individual.
Bush... Bush.
I tend to say it in a way that makes it rhyme with "ass", so maybe calling him George would be best. Certainly beats calling him "Dubya".
But at least I didn't call Cindy Sheehan "Mom".
And how many Iraqi families have you talked to in Iraq to form that factual statement?
Well, there are the families of plenty of dead Iraqis to talk to.
But 'stupid' men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States.
Well, I'd certainly like to know which of Bush's inner circle has his arm shoved up Bush's ass, because the man comes across as nothing more than a puppet alot of the time.
did the war get him elected or was it moral issues?
The man wanted a legacy, and he wanted to stay in office. A war takes him halfway there on the re-election part.
"Moral values" (of which the neocons have none) are the other half.
Or does that just depend on what excuse the libs on any given day?
Ahh, now we get into the "let's blame the liberals for the fuckups of neocons" part of the discussion.
You could do a "Top Ten Reasons Why Bush Dragged Us Into the Quagmire Known as Iraq" and still have half a dozen reasons left over.
Posted by Scipio at August 23, 2005 09:53 PM
I heartily disagree with Jerry C's comments that the President is stupid. His ideas may be described as stupid. But 'stupid' men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States. There's just too many hoops to jump through with running for office and winning partisan nomination for 'stupid' men to be elected leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Actually, you can be quite stupid and get elected President.
Your handlers and scriptwriters (particuarloy in the casde of ex-actors with incipient Alzheimers) have to be smart and totally unethical.
This quite neatly explains 2000 and 2004.
Posted by Scipio at August 23, 2005 09:53 PM
I heartily disagree with Jerry C's comments that the President is stupid. His ideas may be described as stupid. But 'stupid' men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States. There's just too many hoops to jump through with running for office and winning partisan nomination for 'stupid' men to be elected leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Actually, you can be quite stupid and get elected President.
Your handlers and scriptwriters (particuarloy in the casde of ex-actors with incipient Alzheimers) have to be smart and totally unethical.
This quite neatly explains 2000 and 2004.
I wouldn't neccessarily call Bush stupid, but I would definitely call him intellecutually lazy and not very curious about the world around him. As has been stated, he doesn't read any papers and has only advisors who filter news to him. All press conference questions are submitted in advance, probably due to his inability to speak off-the-cuff. His college transcript was nothing to shout from the mountaintops about either. And I wouldn't be surprised if the drug use he did all the way into his mid-20s, if not later, may have had a hand in dulling his mind a bit...
Ms. Sheehan, whether you like, dislike or are ambivalent to an individual It is incredibly impolite to use first name only when you are not on a first named basis with an individual.
You know what is incredibly impolite? Making up cutsey nicknames for foreign heads of state. Nothing says "We don't take your country seriously" like calling the president of Russia "Mr. Pootie-Poot".
I wouldn't neccessarily call Bush stupid, but I would definitely call him intellecutually lazy and not very curious about the world around him.
I would say that is probably the most accurate description of him. Bush managed to skate through the first 40 years or so of his life just depending on his family connections. Since then, he's been surrounded by a bubble of media handlers and yes men who only tell him what he wants to hear. It's not exactly the kind of environment that fosters a sharp intellect.
Spend five years where the only "average" people you meet are handpicked shills reading you scripted questions and platitudes about how great you are and you'll probably start buying into the hype, too.
No wonder he's always giggling during his press conferences.
As has been stated, he doesn't read any papers and has only advisors who filter news to him. All press conference questions are submitted in advance, probably due to his inability to speak off-the-cuff.
Well, if you were one of his handlers and knew he had a tendency to say idiotic things like saying he doesn't want to meet with a the mom of a dead solder because, "I need to get on with my life" while he's in the middle of a monthlong vacation, would you let him speak off the cuff?
"But 'stupid' men do not ascend over their peers to the level of President of the United States."
Huh? If only this were true. The American way, unfortunately, is not based on intellectual merit for advancement. It's based on popularity and accumulated power. There's nothing in the Constitution that says a Presidential candidate has to demonstrate a certain IQ or competancy. It's all about votes. And you don't have to be very smart to generate votes. All it really takes is a good public image, a few phrases to spout off in front of cameras, and decent spin doctors around you to do damage control. Stay away from really big scandals, or in some cases, engage in some, and you've got yourself a good chance to get elected.
Maybe it's not accurate to say that Bush is dumb, or an idiot. He is, after all, an experienced pilot, and he has managed to win several elections. He is not, however, what I would call smart, or as his father might have said, prudent. He's the duly elected leader of the world's leading country, and he doesn't see the value of reading about the events that occur in the world around him? How can he expect to lead if he's making little to no effort to determine what the needs of the country are?
Here's the difference I see between dumb people and smart people. Smart people do dumb things, and when someone points out to them that they did, they feel dumb, and try not to do those things again. Dumb people do dumb things, but never understand that they shouldn't have.
Ahh, now we get into the "let's blame the liberals for the ****ups of neocons" part of the discussion.
You could do a "Top Ten Reasons Why Bush Dragged Us Into the Quagmire Known as Iraq" and still have half a dozen reasons left over.
Wasn't doing that, I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency.
Well, if you were one of his handlers and knew he had a tendency to say idiotic things like saying he doesn't want to meet with a the mom of a dead solder because, "I need to get on with my life" while he's in the middle of a monthlong vacation, would you let him speak off the cuff?
I don't know about you, but when I take a vacation I leave everything behind. I don't get daily updates on how my workplace is progressing. I don't spend hours every morning being kept up-to-date on all facets of my company. The President does. Hardly a 'vacation' at all!
I'm a couple hours of policy updates are squeezed in between the biking, golfing, and brush-clearing photo-ops, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush spends more time away from the Oval Office than any other president in recent history. He's our first part-time president.
And I'll note you jumped on the offhand comment about vacationing and completely ignored my central point about the "I need to get on with my life" comment. Can't defend that, huh?
As per most things liberal, there is no consistency.
As opposed to the multiple justifications for invading Iraq, which has now moved into the self-perpetuation phase, ie, the war is justified because so many have already died in it that we owe it to them to continue.
Can't defend that, huh?
Don't really see why I need to. The press kept hounding him on a something that was dealt with(He has already met with her) and should not be re-hashed over and over, and he gave a response. Nothing to defend.
As for intelligence, I think it's clear that its not a prerequisite for the job. In fact, it's clear that being too smart is actually an impediment. Look at the last election, where we had a choice between two sons of wealthy families who attended elite prep schools and Ivy League universities. One presented himself as a hyper-intellectual policy wonk. The other put on an image as a plain ole' ordinary joe.
Now, which one took the oath of the presdiency last January?
Keep ducking, Ken. My point wasn't that refused to meet with her again. It was the idiotic statement he made to explain why didn't want to.
"Wasn't doing that, I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency."
Whereas Bush is the ideal of all things conservative: See matters only in terms of black and white; never perceive multiple aspects of any subject; never admit a mistake; do what you're told.
Plus your argument is based on a wholly false premise: No one has EVER made the argument that the entirety of ANY group must walk in lockstep (although the GOP is certainly pretty close to that.) Different people believe different reasons as to why Kerry lost. To say that the difference of opinions invalidates all of them is just foolishness.
Me, I've been consistent: I said Kerry was going to lose if he didn't manage to distinguish himself from Bush on Iraq. To me, it was that simple. When he subsequently stated that, if he knew then what he knew now, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, and presented no alternative to the current situation, I flat out said, "That's it. Election's done. He's going to lose." Bush concocted the war because it was reasoned, correctly, that Americans would be reluctant to switch horses in midstream unless given real incentive to do so. Kerry didn't do it. Therefore, they didn't. That simple.
PAD
"Wasn't doing that, I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency."
well, yeah. i mean, look at all the excuses those liberals have concocted for attacking Iraq.
"I don't know about you, but when I take a vacation I leave everything behind. I don't get daily updates on how my workplace is progressing. I don't spend hours every morning being kept up-to-date on all facets of my company. The President does. Hardly a 'vacation' at all!"
Is this supposed to generate sympathy? As in "lay off the guy, he's on vacation?"
You know who gets vacations? Peons. People that, in the greater scheme of things, can afford to go away from work for an extended period of time, and not be missed. I'll admit, most times, I'm a peon. I usually don't have projects that can't wait a week or two for me to get back from kicking my heels up. You know who doesn't get vacations? Heads of businesses, agency leaders, heads of state...pretty much people whose job is so important that they have to make on a dialy basis decisions that guide and steer an organization. The President is one of those positions...you don't get days off. The country's problems don't go on hold for you when you want to go chill at your ranch. You want the seat, it's pretty much work for each and every day of your administration. Why? Because, constitutionally, you really can't delegate all of your responsibilities. There's going to be something that comes up every single day that's going to require your attention.
"...I was just pointing out that the libs excuses for losing the election changes depending on the topic at hand. As per most things liberal, there is no consistency."
There's no "liberal" inconsistancy here at all. You're dealing with arguments being made by different people and lumping them together to attack them.
Lots of different people looked at the facts that were out there after the 2004 elections and walked away with a theory about the main reason Bush won based on the top three or so reasons. Some people think that the main reason Bush won was the faith card. Some believe, as I do, that the main reason Bush won was that he played the war/fear cards so well. That doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge the other person's main cause theory as a supporting factor in Bush's win. We just disagree on what reason was the #1, #2 and #3 reason. Different people with slightly different takes on the matter. No inconsistancy at all.
Now, if you want REAL inconsistancy on the faith issue then you need look no farther then the many Bush backers out there. The day after the election you had the man on the street, the radio goons, the Fox News Zoo and the Bush Admin themselves going on about how the elections was a mandate on faith in this country based on how many people made that the prime reason for voting Bush. But all these same people brushed aside any and all news reports about the many reasons people voted against Bush or for Kerry or reports of how data showed stronger Kerry turn out then the final vote showed.
The reason that all of this stuff was based on worthless, meaningless, useless garbage news was, in their own words, because it was all based on election night polling data that was, is and always has been nothing but a waste of time because it is and has never been the slightest bit correct (big lie by the R's there by the by.) No one who knew anything, it was said over and over and over again, believes anything that the polling data from election night says.
Major inconsistancy. Why? Because all that data on the faith issue came from the very same polling data that they were badmouthing at every chance. But now, now that it said something that they liked, that polling data was the unquestioned truth about the state of the nation and all that was real in America. But only on that one issue that they liked.
As per all things neo-conservative, there is no consistency.
Sheehan has gone on record saying that "America is not worth dying for."
She's expressed her opinion on the Israeli/Plaestinain conflict as well, an opinion that PAD would apparently disagree with, given the comment a few postings down.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I'll just pop the bubbles here and note that Mrs. Sheehan has never said those things. Her statement about "this country is not worth dying for" is a reference to Iraq, and the Israel/Palestinean quote appears to have been created out of whole cloth by her critics.
Just another edition of Stuff You Won't Hear About On Fox News(tm)...
--R.J.
" ... I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live, and will do so."
- gwb
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050824/ts_usatoday/bushdoggedonvacationbycritics
Look at the last election, where we had a choice between two sons of wealthy families who attended elite prep schools and Ivy League universities. One presented himself as a hyper-intellectual policy wonk. The other put on an image as a plain ole' ordinary joe.
yeah but maybe one reason the voters made the choice they did is because they thought that the "Hyoer-intellectual" part wasn't true. Given Kerry's fairly clodish campaign and the revelation of his sub-Bush college grades, maybe they were right.
No one has EVER made the argument that the entirety of ANY group must walk in lockstep (although the GOP is certainly pretty close to that.)
You'll see far more diversity of opinion in the people running for the GOP peresidential race than in the Democratic one. Bet on it. McCain, Giuliani, Frist, Brownback,---hell of a lot bigger differences between these guys than between Clinton, Kerry and Edwards. (obviously it could well end up being someone not even on the radar scope). I'd say the Deocrats only WISH they were so diverse but given the rumblings from the Daily Kos crowd about purging the party of the Clinton DLC types I guess they really don't.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I'll just pop the bubbles here and note that Mrs. Sheehan has never said those things. Her statement about "this country is not worth dying for" is a reference to Iraq, and the Israel/Palestinean quote appears to have been created out of whole cloth by her critics.
Just another edition of Stuff You Won't Hear About On Fox News(tm)...
No idea about the veracity of the first comment but the second one came from a letter that she apparently wrote. She now denies that she wrote the specific anti-Israeli section of the letter, though there are reasons to doubt the truth of that--but even if she did write it and now is sorry she did so, that's good enough for me.
However, to pretend that conservatives just made up the quote to discredit her is ridiculous. Even id her version of the story is true, it was not "her critics" who made it up. Ms. Sheehan herself made the following statement on Michael Moore's website: A former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism is telling everyone who is listening that I believe that Casey died for Israel and has gone so far as to apparently doctor an email from me. If you are going to mock Fox News it behooves you to get the facts straight. I look forward to your correction.
What correction? She never endorsed that view, but the right-wing smear machine keeps perpetuating the lie that she did.
But hey, this is a group that has no qualms about labeling a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs in combat as an anti-American supporter of terrorism, so nothing they do surprises me any more. Disgusts, yes; surprise, no.
--R.J.
"yeah but maybe one reason the voters made the choice they did is because they thought that the "Hyoer-intellectual" part wasn't true. Given Kerry's fairly clodish campaign and the revelation of his sub-Bush college grades, maybe they were right."
i'm not in the habit of giving the average voter much credit, but i really don't think there are many people out there who actually believe John Kerry is less intelligent that George Bush.
after the whole swift-boat thing (not to mention the push-polls against John McCain in 2000, or the perpetuation of the Love Canal/Love Story/Invented the Internet misquotes), i don't think it was unreasonable to assume that the damaging statements attributed to Ms. Sheehan were the product of some right-wing smear campaign.
that said, there are of course cranks on both sides. it's just that the cranks on the right tend to be much better organized.
after the whole swift-boat thing (not to mention the push-polls against John McCain in 2000, or the perpetuation of the Love Canal/Love Story/Invented the Internet misquotes), i don't think it was unreasonable to assume that the damaging statements attributed to Ms. Sheehan were the product of some right-wing smear campaign.
Given that the statement was consistent with other rhetoric she has said and rather mild compared to the anti-Israel stuff spewed by the people she associates with...AND given that HER story is that a "former friend" is responsible for the story...yeah, it really is unreasonable.
What correction? She never endorsed that view, but the right-wing smear machine keeps perpetuating the lie that she did.
Just kidding, nobody expects you to admit that "the Israel/Palestinean quote appears to have been created out of whole cloth by her critics." is inconsistant with EVERY version of the truth that's out there. Whether or not you believe that Ms Sheehan is 100% telling the truth about her "former friend" or if you think that the quote was actually hers, either way there was no "right wong smear machine" creating the quote out of whole cloth.
You were wrong. No big. I've been wrong before and will be again--on a regular basis, in the minds of some. I just hope the next time its not right before I make a snarky comment about the accuracy of others.
Hi! Sorry to be off-topic, but PAD, you said you wanted to know when the "Spike" one-shot shipped to comic shops... It's at shops today.
Thanks!
Matt Hawes
COMICS UNLIMITED
654-B E. Diamond Avenue
Evansville, IN. 47711
Given that the statement was consistent with other rhetoric she has said and rather mild compared to the anti-Israel stuff spewed by the people she associates with...AND given that HER story is that a "former friend" is responsible for the story...yeah, it really is unreasonable.
The point made is that it wasn't unreasonable to make the original assumption, given past patterns of behavior.
I would agree that holding fast to that opinion NOW in light of new facts is unreasonable, however.
TWL
yeah but maybe one reason the voters made the choice they did is because they thought that the "Hyoer-intellectual" part wasn't true. Given Kerry's fairly clodish campaign and the revelation of his sub-Bush college grades, maybe they were right.
First of all, his grades weren't even released until after the election, so they had no impact on the outcome. Second, the really "clodish" thing about his campaign was the air intellectual superiority that he cloaked himself in. Unfortunately for him, the average American voter apparently based their decision on who they would rather have a beer with than who looked smarter.
You'll see far more diversity of opinion in the people running for the GOP peresidential race than in the Democratic one. Bet on it. McCain, Giuliani, Frist, Brownback,---hell of a lot bigger differences between these guys than between Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.
As a newly-minted Democrat, I'm going to jump on this one. I love how Republicans tout how diverse their presidential candidates are and then name a bunch of people who have no chance in hell of getting the nomination. McCain is despised by the GOP leadership. Giuliani will get killed over the adultary and living with a gay couple. And Frist just killed his support from the social conservatives by backing stem cells in a desperate bid to regain some credibility as a physician after torpedoing that with his video tape diagnosis of Terri Schiavo. And yes, I don't care how he spins it now. I saw his entire statement on the Senate floor. He invoked his expertise as a physician in saying that he didn't think she looked like she was in a persistant vegetative state.
First of all, his grades weren't even released until after the election, so they had no impact on the outcome.
Well, yeah, I know that. My point was that voters saw through his faux-intellectual attitude and later developments showed that they were right to do so.
I love how Republicans tout how diverse their presidential candidates are and then name a bunch of people who have no chance in hell of getting the nomination.
Well, we'll see. Just who do you think DOES have the inside track? Right now the polls show that Republicans prefer, in order, Giuliani, McCain, Rice, Frist. I didn't include Rice because I don't think she is interested in running.
As for them having no chance in hell of winning...again, we'll see.
Well, we'll see. Just who do you think DOES have the inside track?
Right now? Someone with the last name 'Bush', maybe...?
Wouldn't surprise me at all to see Jeb get put forth as the time approaches.
Well...On a slightly less political note.
PAD, I 've been mulling over the recent development with Madrox and I had a thought, but I didn't know how else to bring it to your attention.
Eons ago, in the eighties, there was a Marvel short-run called "Contest of Champions". It had one of those Elders of the Universe trying to get back his brother (the Gamesmaster and the Collector as I recall, but I may be wrong). It introduced several "international heroes" like Shamrock from Ireland {lame}, Perigrine from France {REALLY lame}, and Blitzkreig from Germany {Sadistically lame}. It also featured a Chinese hero called "The Collective Man". Basically they/he were/was three brothers who merged and had the the stregnth of three men (yes, I know...lame, but hear me out). In one scene, though, he channelled all the stregnth of 3+ billion Chinese citizens in one HUGE burst of strength. The shock knocked him out, but he kicked Ben Grimm into orbit. In the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, it also stated that he was "connected" to any Chinese citizen and could, with effort, recall any fact or idea of any Chinese person. For example, a genius chinese inventor knows how to build a bomb from from toothpaste and hair gel, this guy could, through meditation and concentration, latch onto that information as well.
Now I know lately Madrox has been exhibiting the latter function (knowing what any dupe knows or studies). Could he, however, do the former? Could he create a bunch of dupes and then merge back with them and for a (very) short time have super-stregnth?
He used to shoot electric power beams from his suit as he converts energy to matter to make his dupes (and his body supplies the energy - like Cyclops or Storm) and could use any "extra" energy as force bolts. It just seemed like a cool way to use his powers. Just an idea and you being the cool writer you are, I just wanted to pass it on to you. :)
Trace
You'll see far more diversity of opinion in the people running for the GOP peresidential race than in the Democratic one.
When Person A looks at a group of five people, all of whom oppose Person A on several key issues, they all look the same to Person A.
However, Person B, who is closer in the political spectrum to these five people, is much more likely to see their differences.
Of course, take another five people, and Person A and Person B are switched. It's human nature.
The "most likely" Democrat you didn't name in your list, is Dean. I know several moderates who refused to vote for Kerry, but at least claim they would have voted for Dean. He was successfully painted as "angry" by his primary opponents in 2004, but America likes passion.
Senator Biden was putting some feelers out a few months ago, but I think his time came and went in 88.
Maybe PAD should run. ;-)
not to start another war, but has anyone seen the bumper sticker:
"no one died when Clinton lied..."
Kirk and I were driving around Portland and spotted ten of them in a row within a 10 minute drive home. not trying to be funny, but I guess some things just have a way of blowing over, while other things you can't bury no matter what you do, or who you are.
This entire situation is very surreal. I don't really want to get too into the politics of it all... but I know this woman. She's a sweet lady who was a youth leader at my church. It's very weird seeing someone you know and think is an amazingly kind and good person dragged through the mud by just about everyone. John Stewart said it best when he said (I'm paraphrasing) "What kind of woman raises a altar boy, eagle scout, honor student marine?! What a crackpot!"
It's a shame that she's getting attacked so heavily when she's just airing her grievances.
I've seen a few of the "No one died when Clinton lied" bumper stickers, too.
Here's a nifty quote from our wonderful leader, who would probably prefer to be referred to as "George" if he heard some of the things I've referred to him as in my less-temperate moments:
"I understand [Cindy Sheehan's] anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I'll continue to meet with families." (from an article by Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times, which I read in the Baltimore Sun dated 8/24/05)
Given this administration's penchant for carefully orchestrating every event where someone might ask the President a question, and making damn sure no one asks him anything that might be embarrassing or off-message, is it really all that surprising that he hasn't encountered a lot of anti-war sentiment from the families he's met with?
Just who do you think DOES have the inside track? Right now the polls show that Republicans prefer, in order, Giuliani, McCain, Rice, Frist
Polls at this point are meaningless. The primaries are still three years away. People may say they like Giuliani now because outside of NYC, most of what they know about him stems from his performance on 9/11. That event actually resurrected his political career because before then, NYers were ready to toss him out. Giuliani is like Dean in one respect: the more people see of him, the less they like him. McCain I discount because I know Rove will be out in full force slandering him again just as he did in 2000. Plus, using recent history as a guide, the Senate is just about the worst place to launch a presidential race. Too many compromises. Frist faces that obstacle plus social conservatives have already pledged not to support him over stem cells, so he's toast. Rice is one of those candidates that may look good if you want to make history, but she has the biggest obstacles: 1) She has no campaign experience whatsoever. She's a policy wonk, not a campaigner. You can't just go from the kiddie pool to the triathlon in one leap; 2) She'll get hammered over and over again about the "Bin Laden determined to attack the US" memo. Maybe that isn't fair, but that's politics; and 3) She needs intensive lessons on smiling. Honestly, everytime I see her on TV, she looks like she just sucked down a lemon. Like it or not, a friendly public image is critical in a presidential race.
So, given those particulars, my bet is that both parties will look outside of the beltway and pit two governors against each other.
Of course, if the GOP wanted to really self-destruct, they could just let the social conservatives run roughshod over the party and nominate Santorum.
"3) She needs intensive lessons on smiling. Honestly, everytime I see her on TV, she looks like she just sucked down a lemon. Like it or not, a friendly public image is critical in a presidential race."
as opposed to George Jr., who can't seem to talk about how much he grieves for each and every soldier lost without grinning.
Haven't seen the Clinton bumper sticker, but I have seen an "Iraq ... the 51st state" one.
I'm in D.C.. Unfortunately, it's the only place a training course on a new system we've purchased is being given, so ...
I have to admit, I was aghast.
In Canada, we don't have postcards with politicians on them. In Japan and Hong Kong, I never saw post cards with politicians on them.
In Washington? Post cards with Shrub ... er, Bush Jr. on them. One had Cheney in the background.
Between those, and the uber-tacky t-shirts showing photos of the planes about to strike the towers/Pentagon, I'm going to be VERY glad when I get back home in a couple of days.
1 There seems to be three main arguments against the Iraqi War 1) The war was unjustified (faulty WMD info), 2) We should have let the U.N. handle the situation and 3) if we had to go to war, we should have done it better.
First off, the WMD's were a judgement call. Saddam had a zillion dollars, an intense personal hatred of the U.S. and was obviously re-arming his military. Bush was wrong in the assumption, but the odds were in his favor.
And frankly, SO WHAT that they haven't found WMD's? What authorities have found are mass graves. Hundreds of thousands of people killed and dumped like garbage in a land-fill. Saddam would have killed thousands more and he had two homicidal sons ready to take over the reins.
That, in my view, more than justifies intervention.
No anti-war argument has ever really addressed that issue and if you wish to rebutt me, tell me how our dead are worth so much and thiers are worth so little.
The best response I've heard to that is that the U.S. should have let the U.N. handle it. (Point #2)
Which U.N.? The one that stood around with thier thumb up thier ass while nearly a million got slaughtered in Rwanda? Or, the one that whored itself in the Food-For-Oil scandal?
Third and finally, I'm not a military guy, so I can't tell you how the war should have been fought or how the occupation should be run. But, from a historical standpoint, things are not going badly. Take a look at how ugly Reconstruction went after our own Civil War.
Or, for a more recent example, World War Two. Japan surrendered in 1945, but we didn't sign a peace accord with them until 1951, with troops maintaining an occupied presence until 1952.
I'm not a knee-jerk Bush supporter. I seriously disagree with him on the subjects of stem-cell research and his environmental policies. But, I can't fault him on his position on the war in Iraq.
Posted by Robert Jung at August 24, 2005 06:08 PM.
But hey, this is a group that has no qualms about labeling a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs in combat as an anti-American supporter of terrorism, so nothing they do surprises me any more. Disgusts, yes; surprise, no.
nor correction from a Georgian who supports the man -- Max Cleland's injury was only marginally "in combat" -- it was due to a grenade dropped by one of his fellow soldiers while exiting a helicopter.
For some time he believed that he himself had dropped the munition, but it was eventually determined it was someone else.
As to the "When Clinton lied, nobody died" bumper stickers -- that was originally a button that Ohio union political organising committees were handing out before the election.
The "most likely" Democrat you didn't name in your list, is Dean.
I thought Dean agreed not to run in exchange for getting the DNC chair.
Of course, if the GOP wanted to really self-destruct, they could just let the social conservatives run roughshod over the party and nominate Santorum.
Santorum won't even be a senator by 2008. Wishful thinking on the part of Democrats.
I did leave out Mitt Romney but I think he'll have a hard time overcoming the anti-Mormon attacks.
Given this administration's penchant for carefully orchestrating every event where someone might ask the President a question, and making damn sure no one asks him anything that might be embarrassing or off-message, is it really all that surprising that he hasn't encountered a lot of anti-war sentiment from the families he's met with?
Sooooo...just how did Ms. Sheehan get that meeting with him? She has stated that she had every intention of asking him questions but decided that it wasn't what casey would have wanted her to do. (obviously her assessment has changed.)
"Sooooo...just how did Ms. Sheehan get that meeting with him? She has stated that she had every intention of asking him questions but decided that it wasn't what casey would have wanted her to do."
Well, going back to that very first news piece from way back you see that she and her husband decided that. He may have made a bit of a dif in the thinking back then. Plus she has had about a year to stew on old things while new things came to light about Bush and the pre-war deals to change her mind about how she would want to act around Bush.
Plus, we still don't really know who had the most pre-meeting contact with Bush's people. Was it her or her more Bush friendly husband? Again, it would make a bit of a dif. I've never seen any news bits covering anything pre first meeting with Bush. If you have then, by all means, kick the link my way.
Santorum won't even be a senator by 2008. Wishful thinking on the part of Democrats.
I pray for that every night.
Sooooo...just how did Ms. Sheehan get that meeting with him? She has stated that she had every intention of asking him questions but decided that it wasn't what casey would have wanted her to do. (obviously her assessment has changed.)
Since I don't have access to her innermost thoughts and neither do you, speculation as to why she changed her mind is pointless.
1) The war was unjustified (faulty WMD info),
And when you cherry pick your intelligence, it's easy to prove anything you want.
2) We should have let the U.N. handle the situation and
I don't agree with it. I think we should have kept the sanctions in place to contain him, but I would never expect the UN to overthrow the ruler of a nation, no matter how despicable he was.
3) if we had to go to war, we should have done it better.
That's not an argument against the war, that's just an indictment with the incompetence with which it was conducted. Remember, we were told that the Iraqis would greet our troops with "candy and flowers"; that the war would last "six monthgs, tops"; and that the oil revenue would pay for the whole thing. None of those turned out to be true.
The fact remains this administration went with no plan to deal with the situation after Saddam's government had been toppled and no plan to get us out. I love how people keep invoking Japan and Germany like these situations have some kind of revelance. We had a plan to reconstruct Europe and Japan and the Emperor of Japan surrendered and stayed on as a figurehead to help ease the transition. Right now, we no plan, no real leaders in Iraq and the only thing the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds agree on is that they want us out ASAP.
Now, let's look at the justifications for the war.
1) WMDs - bogus.
2) 9/11 - Also bogus. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
3) Saddan harbors terrorists in general - Maybe so, but so do Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Pakistan. Yet somehow, these countries are considered our "friends."
4) "We're fightin' 'em there so we don' hafta fight 'em in Wichita." Riiiiight. I'm sure the average Iraqi loves the fact that we chose their backyard as our staging area for the war on terror. Of course, recent information released shows that the vast majorit of insurgents are in fact native Iraqis. There are some foreigners coming in, but mostly we're fighting people who us to leave their homeland. And even if Iraq has now become a terrorist paradise, that's a direct result of the invasion.
5) We owe it to those who have already died. If we are going to justify every war based on how many people died in it, then every war becomes self-justifying and we'd still be in Vietnam.
I don't think we should cut and run now. We broke it, so now we have to figure out how to put it together. But we never should have gone there in the first place and now we're stuck trusting the people whose incompetence got us in this mess to fix it.
I'd say and we and the Iraqis are royally screwed.
Iraqis would greet our troops with "candy and flowers"; that the war would last "six monthgs, tops"; and that the oil revenue would pay for the whole thing.
I would like to see a single quote where any of these things were said, especially the last.
Because, we all know that going to war for the oil revenue would have been an idea embraced by the whole nation!
Yo, Dan.
First off, the sanctions were NOT containing Saddam or his regime. As I said, the Food-For-Oil scandals prove that they were a joke.
Secondly, you're not addressing my biggest point. Specifically, the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed under Saddam's regime.
Forget the WMD's. I'm talking about the Iraqi mass graves. Doesn't that justify armed intervention?
Forget the WMD's. I'm talking about the Iraqi mass graves. Doesn't that justify armed intervention?
Not unless you're prepared to overthrow every mass-murdering dictator in the world.
I would like to see a single quote where any of these things were said, especially the last.
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/editorial/12346352.htm
``Iraq has oil,'' U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fortune magazine in 2002, discussing the potential cost of an Iraq invasion and how it would be met. ``They have financial resources.''
Paul Wolfowitz, formerly Rumsfeld's deputy, was bolder: ``The oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 (billion) and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years,'' he told Congress as the war began. ``We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction.''
Glad to oblige.
As for the sanctions, I was not referring to the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program. I was referring to the no-fly zones and other containment measures that the US and our allies (not the UN) were enforcing. They were what was keeping Saddam contained.
That, in my view, more than justifies intervention.
It also justifies intervention in a dozen other nations, including North Korea, China, and most of Africa.
But you don't see Bush saying we're going to invade those countries, do we?
This wasn't a war for humanitarian reasons, in any way, shape or form.
Which U.N.? The one that stood around with thier thumb up thier ass while nearly a million got slaughtered in Rwanda?
Just like the US did.
Or, the one that whored itself in the Food-For-Oil scandal?
Oh, please. The US whores itself every day to fanatical governments all over the world.
Or, for a more recent example, World War Two. Japan surrendered in 1945
I don't recall our soldiers being murdered by angry Japanese after their surrender, either.
"Mission Accomplished" was declared awhile back, yet our soldiers are still dying.
I'd say the two situations don't compare.
You're conveniently forgetting that because of the Gulf War and existing broken sanctions we had a pretext to go into Iraq.
Anyone who thinks this is about oil and not about doing SOMETHING about the Middle East sitation is kidding themselves.
"Which U.N.? The one that stood around with thier thumb up thier ass while nearly a million got slaughtered in Rwanda? Or, the one that whored itself in the Food-For-Oil scandal?"
hmm, how about leaving it up to the country whose navy turned a blind eye to the smuggling? or perhaps the country who has "lost" $8 billion of reconstruction money?
according to the CIA report, the bulk of illicit transactions were goverment to goverment outside of the OFF program. it should also be pointed out that the decision to do nothing about Iraq's trading with Jordan (their largest source of income and one of America's closest allies in the region) was made by the Security Council, on which the U.S. is the most influential member.
and yes, it is a positive that we've stopped the attrocities that Saddam committed with the weapons we gave him. unfortunately, we've turned the country into a warzone in the process. they've gone from brutal regime to perpetual war. it's kind of like breaking a whole chicken farm to make an omelette.
Anyone who thinks this is about oil and not about doing SOMETHING about the Middle East sitation is kidding themselves.
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it assumes that doing something, *anything*, is better than sticking the rule of "first do no harm." Now we're stuck in another quagmire and our leaders have no clue of how to get us out. Iraq's power and water infrastructure is still a shambles and our soldiers have become walking targets while the so-called leaders in Iraq are drafting a constitution that will inevitably lead to a new Iranian-style theocracy.
Yeah, that's a lot better.
Or, as Dick Cheney put it back in 1992 when he was still opposed to overthrowing Saddam: "I don't know how we would have let go of that tar baby once we had grabbed hold of it."
13 years later and he doesn't know how we're going to let go of it.
I don't recall our soldiers being murdered by angry Japanese after their surrender, either.
Maybe not in Japan, but in post WW2 Germany, over 1000 Americans were killed by German terrorists (in the span of just over a year). The interim German government finally put a stop to it, but it was bloody and violent (no tribunals or trials). It was just "taken care of", but the German army.
Japan was quite a bit smoother, but not sure if that was a culture thing or what.
Japan was quite a bit smoother, but not sure if that was a culture thing or what.
Most likely, it had to do with the detonation of nuclear devices!
"Secondly, you're not addressing my biggest point. Specifically, the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed under Saddam's regime.
Forget the WMD's. I'm talking about the Iraqi mass graves. Doesn't that justify armed intervention?"
No, it doesn't.
I'm going to come off as a cold blooded bastard here but truth is truth. That's a part of the world where stealing gets hands chopped off, being gay can get you hung and a woman can be stoned to death just because her husband says that she had an affair. What do you think they do to you for treason against the state?
A number of those graves are in areas, from what I've seen on maps, that Saddam had more then just the odd few revolt problems. They were people he saw as enimies of his state who supported the concept of armed revolt to throw him out of power, hurt him or even kill him. Some with the aid of other countries.
Remember Gulf War 1? Remeber Bush the 1st telling all those people, men, women and children, that if they helped us to kick out Saddam then we would protect them and back their play? Remember us turning our backs on them and letting Saddam and his army round them up and take them away? What, you thought that they were all taken away to be treated to a nice dinner and ice cream? They were rounded up and killed for acts of treason against the state.
Forget the whole good leader, bad leader or evil leader or what is or isn't a freedom fighter debates for a moment. If you go up against your own government with the idea that you and those who follow you are going to throw out the sitting government and kill the sitting leader then you are engaged in an act of treason in that government's eyes. If you play and loose with stakes at those levels then you pay. Hard.
Try this....
Next week we round up 3000 people, all American born, who have outfitted themselves with weapons and have active plans to, one month from now, storm DC and remove Bush from power. They think that Bush is evil for what he's done and they want to remove him by force of arms and out him to death for war crimes. But we stop them and arrest them.
How many backers of this war, of Bush himself, do you think would be out there screaming from every talk radio show, news paper, TV show and street corner that these people should be put to death for treason? How many Americans in general would feel that way as well? I think it would be a pretty big number.
Let us take it one more step. We do put them to death. How many countries out there, including our allies, tell us that the death penalty is wrong? If some of those countries decided to attack us to stop a mass grave of 3000 people now plus all the others that we would "murder" with the death penalty; would you back their side on that play?
A sitting government, whether you like them or not, has the right to put people to death for treason if that is the law of the land. And that was the law of the land under Saddam.
Are there innocent men, women and children in those graves? Yeah, I'm sure of it. But we've killed a whole lotta innocents as well since we stared this war. Saddam and Bush both claimed it was for the greater good of the country. Either way innocent people die.
And there is one other thing about many of those innocent people. Many of them (not all) hated us as much as they did Saddam at the time of their deaths. Study up on the tribes and peoples of those areas. A number of them looked at us as the big evil. Others hated us because we empowered and were buddy buddy with their #1 enemy, Saddam. Still others wanted to take Saddam out so that they could become the new Saddam themselves. They just wanted to kill different people in the country then he did. Then there were those that were just innocent.
Given the history of that country, the warlike nature of many its tribes and the beliefs held by many of its peoples..... I just can't get behind the mass graves argument as reason to go in. There's just too much garbage to filter through for me to declare that a country that isn't a threat to us, hadn't attacked us and has as messed up a history as Iraq was worth so much as one American life when we had the situation under control to begin with. Given that Bush lied his ass off to get us there it makes me care even less for the mass grave argument.
Now let the hate posts begin.
The current vogue seems to be to compare the situation in Iraq to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan. I guess that was the instruction from Sean Hannity this month. There are a number of reasons why this comparison doesn't hold up.
First and foremost is that we had the Marshall Plan for reconstructing Europe and MacArthur had a plan for occupying Japan. We had no plan for a post-Saddam Iraq. Well, we sort of had a plan, but the guy who we intended to install turned out to be an Iranian spy.
Second is that in Japan, the Emperor urged the people to accept the surrender while in Germany we were able to utilize the existing Germany authorities to help quell Operation: Wolfpack. Iraq, we dismantled the entire army and the Baathist government and have had to rebuild a security force from scratch. The result is a force of Iraqis who are ill-trained and not even close to ready to deal with the insurgents. A closer comparison is Nixon's plan to "Vietnamize" the Vietman conflict and we know how well that turned out.
Third is the fact that the neighboring nations in Europe and East Asia had an incentive to help stabilize the situation in Germany and Japan. Iraq's neighbors, particulary Iran and Syria, have nothing to lose and everything to gain by encouraging more insurgency and keeping out forces tied up in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Hey, At least David Duke supports her.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=105139
You grieve girl! Its all about the grieving. Nothing else.
>Hey, At least David Duke supports her.
>http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=105139
>You grieve girl! Its all about the grieving. Nothing else.
Lousy attempt at the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association/Ad Hominem, Anthony.
Lame, as expected - but expected nevertheless.
Shall we just jump to the logical conclusion of this thread, and bring up Hitler being a Christian, since most Christians vehemently object to being associated with that devout Catholic - and get Godwin's Law out of the way?
Let's concentrate on Miss Sheehan, and not any of the sideshow that has popped up on either side.
"Hey, At least David Duke supports her.
"http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=105139"
The last time I looked........
Didn't David Duke win office as an R? Doesn't Mr. Duke claim to promote Christian values? Why, don't most of the members of the KKK claim that the Bible and God are the driving force behind why blacks and whites shouldn't be together (as they say that the mark of Cain is black skin) and should never "breed" together? Aren't most the KKK GOP voters? Yes.
Doesn't mean a damned thing though. Nor does Dipwad throwing his support behind Wingnut mean a damned thing either.
All the good arguments against her and this is the kind of petty stuff that keeps getting thrown out there.
Sheesh......
Well, going back to that very first news piece from way back you see that she and her husband decided that. He may have made a bit of a dif in the thinking back then. Plus she has had about a year to stew on old things while new things came to light about Bush and the pre-war deals to change her mind about how she would want to act around Bush.
I understand that. My point was that, if it is true as you state that people who have any liklihood of publically disagreeing with Bush are refused access, then how did someone like the Sheehan's, who were quite possibly going to do so, let in?
It's possible that the husband made some kind of pre-meeting deal but there hasn't been a single bit of evidence to support that. Might it not be possible that your assumption is incorrect?
Since I don't have access to her innermost thoughts and neither do you, speculation as to why she changed her mind is pointless.
Um, ok, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. The issue was whether people who disagree with Bush and might ask him anything that might be embarrassing or off-message are allowed to meet with him.
Not unless you're prepared to overthrow every mass-murdering dictator in the world.
Would that apply to other things--let's not offer aid to the Tsunami victims unless we are willing to offer as much to every other victim of natural disasters around the world?
The issue was whether people who disagree with Bush and might ask him anything that might be embarrassing or off-message are allowed to meet with him.
They may be allowed to meet with him, just not when there are cameras present which could record him hearing something other than, "Thank God you're our president"*
Would that apply to other things--let's not offer aid to the Tsunami victims unless we are willing to offer as much to every other victim of natural disasters around the world?
Bogus comparison. We can offer aid without being the world's police force. We can offer aid without having to decide which dictators are "bad enough" and need to be taken down. We can offer aid without killing thousands of people in the process.
*Actual "spontaneous" quote from an "ordinary" citizen at one of Bush's fake townhall meetings.
First, the "America armed Saddam" argument is a proven fallacy. The majority of weapons provided to Iraq (70 percent) were from the French and the Russians. America provided less than one percent.
Second, Clinton (Not the current administration) stood by while the Rwanda massacre/ U.N. Boogdoggle occurred. Amazingly enough, Slick Willie did jack, looked sad for the cameras and everybody ate it up.
Third, and most important, are you fucking insane?
You throw away hundreds of thousands of people with the flimsy excuses of "treason against the state"?
I'm certain that the Nazis used that excuse a time or two as well. Murder is murder, whatever you choose to call it.
And one more thing, everybody says "Well, why don't we intervene against other dictatorships?"
Saddam was a guy who violated a dozen aspects of the peace treaty from the first Gulf War. Notaby, the re-arming his military, using humanitarian aid for personal use and violations of the no-fly zones. Under the terms of that treaty, the invasion was perfectly legit.
And, G.W. still got a shower of shit because of it. Imagine what would happen if he intervened in Gabon or Zimbabwe.
"It's possible that the husband made some kind of pre-meeting deal but there hasn't been a single bit of evidence to support that. Might it not be possible that your assumption is incorrect?"
Maybe. But that's not my assumption.
From everything that I've seen and read from her and about her I think that she may just not have been as outwardly anti-Bush and anti-war then as she is now. Throw in a husband who doesn't agree with her and they may have, together, agreed to "not go there" back then.
I would also think that because of how Bush's people have kept critics from getting near him at every other event that they've staged. People with bumper stickers on their cars that Bush's handlers didn't like have been asked to leave the area before Bush does a photo op speach. No other reason then that. They weren't yelling, didn't have protest signs and weren't causing trouble. They just had a pro Kerry or bring the troops home type of bumper sticker on their car.
Add those things up and I don't think that she would have gotten near him back then had she been acting the way she is now. And I think that is, from comments in The Reporter way back when, because she and her husband decided **together** not to start asking Bush or his people those types of questions. I mean, that is a quote from her in the Reporter piece. She wanted to ask those questions but her husband talked her out of it.
Not much of a stretch in logic there....
"Would that apply to other things--let's not offer aid to the Tsunami victims unless we are willing to offer as much to every other victim of natural disasters around the world?"
I don't know. How many soldiers died for a lie when America helped the Tsunami victims?
First, the "America armed Saddam" argument is a proven fallacy.
Umm, who was it that propped up his government against Iran?
It wasn't the French or the Russians.
Amazingly enough, Slick Willie did jack, looked sad for the cameras and everybody ate it up.
And Bush smiles at the camera instead while the same thing continues to happen.
Murder is murder, whatever you choose to call it.
Yep, and Bush is just as guilty of the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Under the terms of that treaty, the invasion was perfectly legit.
Invasions are usually done for credible reasons. Like, you know the invader being an actual threat.
Iraq wasn't a threat. Iraq was contained.
The only threat is Bush toward whoever is next on his list.
How many soldiers died for a lie when America helped the Tsunami victims?
Huh?
Here's a better question: how many Republican presidents in recent memory didn't sit on their "laurels" and continued to do something about the problems of the world?
How many Democrat presidents didn't?
"Third, and most important, are you fucking insane?
You throw away hundreds of thousands of people with the flimsy excuses of "treason against the state"?
I'm certain that the Nazis used that excuse a time or two as well. Murder is murder, whatever you choose to call it."
No, I'm not insane.
But when all the B.S. is removed you have to look at things as they are. An uprising against a government by its people, with or without outside help, is going to be seen by that government as an act of treason.
If another act of terror were to happen in london and by traced to 100 homegrown, born and breed in England terrorists with ties to Osama and they were caught and sentanced to death for treason.....
If 1000 home grown, born in America terrorists were to attack DC, be caught and sentanced to death for treason....
If 100 home grown Japanese, Irish, German, etc. were....
You get the idea....
Would you call that murder or justice? Why?
Saddam was a monster and evil as hell. But we can not put him on trial for "crimes" if we or our allies do the same thing ourselves (yeah, I know we don't really do that anymore now...)
Any government has the right to put to death any persons who try to commit treason or bring about a violent revolt against it. Good and evil don't count until the history books are written or until after the battle is won.
Saddam, evil or not, won most of those fights. They lost. They died. Fact of life.
Was it wrong? Yeah, in the grand scheme of things and all that karma stuff. Would I have liked it to not have happened? Yeah. But I'm not going to call on American soldiers to die for them if there is no threat what so ever to this country because a revolt was squished. Plus there were other ways to do something about it that wouldn't have us where we're at now.
You wanna go save people for those reasons? Fine. Now tell me where you stop. How many countries and wars do we go through to stop the hundreds of Saddams and the thousands of Saddam wanna be rulers in the world today making all those other mass graves? Who chooses what people we let die and who we save? Are you going to go tell mother after mother after mother, in person yourself, that her child died fighting a war that means nothing to what happens in this country and means less then nothing to our safty and security? Have fun.
We are of finite resources. This isn't a comic book, movie of the week or adventure novel. This is the real world. We make choices and have to live with them and they don't always work out all sun shine in the end. We can not play world police (great movie by the by) and wage war in every country we don't like or decide is run by someone who is evil and survive as a nation for too long.
You think we can clean up the world. Then by all means tell us the plan (leaving out the parts involving Superman, Thor and Batman.)
Hey, all of you anti-war guys just shut up! We've given the Iraqi people the gift of freedom and democracy! Well, ok, all of the non-female Iraqi people the gift of freedom. OK, all of the Islamic Iraqi people freedom. Um, all of the Shiite Iraqi people freedom... to obey the words of their imams. Yeah. So there.
"How many soldiers died for a lie when America helped the Tsunami victims?
Huh?"
Ok. I'll help you out a bit. The answer is zero. That's why using the Tsunami argument when talking about Iraq is bogus.
I'm guessing you missed the exchange above that went...
""Not unless you're prepared to overthrow every mass-murdering dictator in the world."
Would that apply to other things--let's not offer aid to the Tsunami victims unless we are willing to offer as much to every other victim of natural disasters around the world?"
Are you un"Huh?" yet?
"Second, Clinton (Not the current administration) stood by while the Rwanda massacre/ U.N. Boogdoggle occurred. Amazingly enough, Slick Willie did jack, looked sad for the cameras and everybody ate it up."
And, when debating people who say we shouldn't have gotten into a war...... That's supposed to make sense how? Did I miss a post somewhere?
the thing here is the "Opinion" and we all the know that saying about opinions everybody has them. But the differnece is HERE in the USA we can have that without killing the other side. This all could be solved with a game of dodgeball..Who is with me...
"They may be allowed to meet with him, just not when there are cameras present which could record him hearing something other than, "Thank God you're our president"*"
Maybe not video cameras. Still cameras are obviously allowed, as there was a photo on the Sheehan family webpage showing Bush giving Ms. Sheehan a kiss. It isn't there now.
Bogus comparison. We can offer aid without being the world's police force. We can offer aid without having to decide which dictators are "bad enough" and need to be taken down. We can offer aid without killing thousands of people in the process.
Ok, so it isn't the hypocrisy of offing one dictator while allowing others that bothers you--it's the nature of warefare itself. That's ok, it's a lot more defendable than the position implied by
Didn't David Duke win office as an R?
Yeah, but to be completely accurate he can best be described as a longtime Democrat turned Republican turned Reform Party advocate. Any way you slice him, he's still nuts. At any rate, the Republicans did everything they could to repudiate him--I'd no more tag them wth him than I would the Democrats over Fred Phelps.
Add those things up and I don't think that she would have gotten near him back then had she been acting the way she is now.
Well, yeah, I would guess not. I was no Clinton fan but I wouldn't expect anyone so hostile to him to have been allowed any where near.
Was it wrong? Yeah, in the grand scheme of things and all that karma stuff.
There's nothing wrong with just saying it was an atrocity but not something we had to do something about. That's fine. When you give this grudging "yeah, it's wrong, in the grand scheme of things" you end up looking awful. And I don't thionk you're an awful guy at all.
It's also counter productive--given a choice between someone who says "We will pay any price, we will bear any burden, we will meet any hardship, we will fight any enemy, we will support any friend, to assure the survival of liberty." and one who essentially says "Yeah, it's sort of too bad about all those dead folks but hey, whatcha gonna do?" I think many Americans will find themselves going for the idealist.
I'll take a stab at this, Remo:
(1) the reason why it was still wrong to go to war with Iraq, despite the mass graves of Saddam, is simple: Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq, and there were no WMDs in Iraq.
If you want to go to war with Iraq and stop Saddam from filling those mass graves, fine, I'm behind the idea 100%... but make THAT case before the American people! Make the case that Saddam is evil and needed to be deposed, on the strength of his genocide and his genocide alone! DON'T go before the people you ostensibly represent, before the people of the entire world, and tell them you're sending those troops in there for WMDs when you're really sending them in there to stop Saddam from being a genocidal shithead!
If you're going to send people to kill or to be killed, if you're going to send America's men and women into harm's way, you'd better make damned sure that the reason you're sending them is (in the best case) worth it and (in the worst case) the only option you have left to you. Otherwise, you're a liar. You're knowingly sending people to their deaths for a cause that you have knowingly misrepresented. The very least you can do for someone whom you're sending to their death is to be straight with them about what they're dying for... that's not a question of 'the odds being in your favor' of a tangental outcome, that's just simple human decency, which this administration did not have and continues not to have in this regard.
In essence, don't sell me a horse, then give me a camel instead, while saying "well, at least it's got four legs, right?" That's the fast one Bush pulled: the American people were promised a safer world without the threat of Saddam's WMDs. Yes, the world may indeed be safer without Saddam, but -and let me say this in as clear terms as possible- THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE NOT MADE ANY SAFER FROM WMDs BY INVADING IRAQ! So, then, what was the point? The Bush administration has changed their reasons for invading so many times no that they have lost all credibility with me... they've cried wolf too many times.
(2) The UN sanctions were indeed ineffective. So what the US, with its open dominance of the UN, should have done was seek to enforce even more draconian sanctions upon Iraq. Hell, if we really wanted to, we could take over the sanctioning ourselves to see that it was done right... you're telling me that the US couldn't make the UN dance to that tune? The US, which exerts the most control and dominance over the United Nations, was unable to enact stricter sanctions, and instead chose invasion as the better choice?
Not buying it.
(3) The war is going VERY badly. Field commanders are routinely turned down in their requests for more troops and more material, told to make do with what they've got. We have no clear exit strategy -something that should have, in a saner world, been developed BEFORE invading- and having no clear exit strategy all but guarantees that the occupation will continue to be mismanaged. Requests for better or safer equipment have been denied. Some units are already on their third tour of duty, when they were told they would barely be there long enough to serve one. The suicide and divorce rates of those who have served or are currently serving have spiked to record high numbers. We can't even agree on how to properly total up the Iraqi civilian casualties, for God's sake! How can anyone look at such a mismanaged quagmire and say "it's really not that bad?"
No plan of attack, no plan of withdrawal, no realistic timetable of either... and while the Bush administration continues to pick their noses on the public dime, between dozens and hundreds of people a day (depending on who you believe) are dying over there in that hotbed of unrest! You want to win my approval, Dubya? Have your hotshot spin doctors spin up a plan that will get our troops home and get Iraqis a goverment that works!
Bottom line: If you're going to go to war, if you're going to spend money, material and lives, than you damned well better make sure you're going to do it right on your first and only try, because to do it any other way is an insult to those who serve, those at home, and those who you're ostensibly 'liberating.'
"Didn't David Duke win office as an R?
Yeah, but to be completely accurate he can best be described as a longtime Democrat turned Republican turned Reform Party advocate. Any way you slice him, he's still nuts. At any rate, the Republicans did everything they could to repudiate him--I'd no more tag them wth him than I would the Democrats over Fred Phelps."
Yeah, I know. The post that you pulled that from was pointing out that it didn't matter that he claimed he was an R (as every in office R up to Bush 1 slagged on the guy) or that any of the other stuff mattered as far as painting the entire party with that brush. No more then Duke siding with Sheehan means anything as far as her or her supporters (and one 'o' them I ain't myself by the by.)
Of course, we D's at the time had the good taste and class to not support the guy or get him elected when he ran for Prez as a D. We wouldn't even support him enough to get 2% of the vote.
;)
"I think many Americans will find themselves going for the idealist."
Maybe. But they'll turn their backs on him after he shows that he has lots of good idealist talk but very little leadership skill. Or they'll follow him and get stuck in a mess because he's an idiot.
You ever read My Jihad (One American's Journey Through the World of Usama Bin Laden--As a Covert Operative for the American Government)
by Aukai Collins? Have you ever seen him or others who did what he did speak? You know one thing that they talk about when the subject of all those freedom fighters and poor people come up? Many of them (not all but many), including the ones that we were supporting at the time we were supporting them, don't like us. If we had brushed "our" enemies off the face of the Middle East then we would have many times been left with friends who would turn around and become the enemy we just helped them remove.
Usama Bin Laden was our friend. Saddam was our friend. Hell, for a while Iran was our sorta friend while we helped back Saddam. Over half the people in Iraq that wanted Saddam dead would be or would support a leader that we would call as evil or as wrong as Saddam. They would support a leader or a system that would set up the next Saddam or the new Iran. And most of them would love to see us booted out of their lands.
And it's not just guys who worked for the U.S. as long term agents in the Middle East who say this stuff. I know people who lived there and left to become a U.S. citizen who have said point blank that most the family they have back home feels like that. And that was before the war.
Most of what I've seen and read from there seems to show that they hated Saddam mostly because he wasn't their type of evil bastard rather then just because he was an evil bastard. If Saddam and family had been killed in a coup 20 or 10 years ago I think we would have just had a different kind of problem there now. Iraq would just been more like Iran most likely. And Iran would be more of a threat for not having an enemy as a neighbor to waste resources on.
So, no I don't quite see all the people Saddam killed as all sweet and innocent. And, yeah, I can just go the pure logic route and see how Saddam would feel he had the right to execute people he saw as enemies of his state the same as damned near everybody in the U.S. would feel about people who would try or support those who did try and take down our Gov. or kill our leaders in the same fashion.
And, no, I don't see the value in wasting the lives of U.S. soldiers to create a state in Iraq that, I believe, will just end up as a new Iran before the end of it and one day wind up on our enemies list again. Especially when we're wasting those lives on a war based on lies, smoke and mirrors.
Sorry if that makes me a bad guy here.
Most of what I've seen and read from there seems to show that they hated Saddam mostly because he wasn't their type of evil bastard rather then just because he was an evil bastard.
I just don't see anything that would support the idea that Iraqis, seemingly alone among humanity, DESIRE evil leaders. Do you really think that whoever campaigns as the one most likely to return Iraq to the good old days is the one who will win?
Such a view reminds me of nothing more than the attitudes among many during the height of the cold war that the Russian people themselves were as bad as their leaders.
And, yeah, I can just go the pure logic route and see how Saddam would feel he had the right to execute people he saw as enemies of his state the same as damned near everybody in the U.S. would feel about people who would try or support those who did try and take down our Gov. or kill our leaders in the same fashion.
If our leaders were filling mass graves with their political opponents "damned near everybody" would not include me.
"I just don't see anything that would support the idea that Iraqis, seemingly alone among humanity, DESIRE evil leaders. Do you really think that whoever campaigns as the one most likely to return Iraq to the good old days is the one who will win?"
No. But we have a slightly different idea of freedom then many in the Middle East. Sure, there is a segmant of the population that wants something kinda like what Jane and Joe Average in the U.S.A. would think of when you ask them to describe freedom. But there are many more that are quite happy with a theocracy that would be, in our eyes, extreme and unjust. Why, because that kind of leadership would keep them from becoming evil infidels like us with our "freedom" and all its sins. The definition of "freedom" is not, no matter how much Bush and crew wanna sing that song, the same in the hearts and minds of everybody on the planet.
Plus you have the "hate the infidels" factor. Remember when Iraq fell and Saddam was in hiding? Remember how many people came out of hiding, some who were given haven in Iran, that the people flocked to and spoke of as the next leader that gave the Bush Admin fits over and had them running to press mics to yell, "oh, hell no!!!!"
They, the people of Iraq, wanted to embrace a number of people that we wouldn't even let them put on the ballot because our government saw them as a big a future problem as Saddam had been. And people were flocking to them in droves. Can you not see the tiny problem with this concept?
There many are people in the Mid East that see as evil things that we don't as well as the other way around. We will not get the promised "American" democracy and love of freedom over there any time soon or in the next two or three generations (if even then.)
There was a BBC News net feed report the other day about the new Constitution in Iraq. One of the things they were talking about was that the first line or a line in the first paragraph stated that nothing that followed that statement in that document could or would supersede or replace militant Islamic law (they named the one and discussed the major beliefs but I'm drawing ablank at the moment.) Most of what was discussed as what the laws would be and give the people as a framework for living is the exact opposite of what Bush and crew are crowing about giving Iraq and spilling U.S. blood for. Big victory there.
"If our leaders were filling mass graves with their political opponents "damned near everybody" would not include me."
So a bunch of people could arm themselves against our government or help a foreign government to try and overthrow our government and kill our leaders and you would be allfine and dandy with that and happy with just slapping the traitors on the wrist? No. I think you would back seeing them put on trial and executed. But maybe not.
Brak Yeller stated that:
---the reason why it was still wrong to go to war with Iraq, despite the mass graves of Saddam, is simple: Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq, and there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Scipio's Reply:
Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq? Where was I three years ago when this happened. I remember a cause for war being that Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the UN resolutions against him. I remember a cause for war being that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as evidenced by the Iraqi intelligence service officer meeting with Al Qaeda in Prague and the presence of Abu Nidal in Baghdad. I remember a cause being that Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors into his country creating a very suspicious cloud over a possible banned weapons program. I remember a cause being that intelligence estimates stated that Saddam had an active WMD program and the French, Germans, Russians and British all signed off on that intelligence and believed it to be credible which is why they passed UN Resolution 1441 demanding unrestricted access by weapons inspectors to locate these banned weapons.
To back up these claims, the 9/11 Commission discovered that Saddam Hussein had dispatched agents to Afghanistan in 1998 to discuss developing ties to Osama Bin Laden.
Did Bush have it out for Saddam Hussein before he took office? Absolutely. The man tried to assasinate his father. Personally, I believe that any attack on a sitting or former President by another government is an act of war. Do I think President Bush declare war on Iraq just to settle a grudge? No. Presidents are above this kind of pettiness (except for a well known break-in at the Watergate hotel).
Bush sincerely believed, as even Clinton has stated, that Saddam Hussein represented a real and growing threat to the United States. Could he be contained? Not forever. The UN sanctions were failing miserably. The "Oil for Palaces" scheme has proved that sanctions were not working and Saddam was able to funnel millions of dollars into non-humanitarian programs. Did Bush play up the WMD case for an American public that was skittish about taking on a second war following the Afghanistan operation? Most assuredly. But he did not lie about this. He simply focused on what he knew could galavanize the people for war which was simply part of the reason to initiate regime change in Iraq. The intelligence stated Saddam had an active WMD program. Our allies agreed with these assesments. But now they are armchair quarterbacking the pre-war intelligence and pretending that they never saw or agreed with those assesments.
CRAIG J RIES: You said
First, the "America armed Saddam" argument is a proven fallacy.
Umm, who was it that propped up his government against Iran?
It wasn't the French or the Russians.
I SAY: Yes it was. Add the Chinese as well. IN fact, Brazil and Poland armed Saddam to a higher level than the US.
The Stockholm International Peace Institute, you know Stockholm in Sweden- Right wing nutters the lot of them.
This info was from them.
Cliches versus facts. Facts always win.
Plllleeeeaasssse do the clicky and learn!
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
Check this out as well
"If our leaders were filling mass graves with their political opponents "damned near everybody" would not include me."
So a bunch of people could arm themselves against our government or help a foreign government to try and overthrow our government and kill our leaders and you would be allfine and dandy with that and happy with just slapping the traitors on the wrist? No. I think you would back seeing them put on trial and executed. But maybe not.
No. You are deliberately ignoring the important part. Was I too subtle?
If our leaders were filling mass graves with their political opponents not only would I welcome a bunch of people arming themselves against our government or helping a foreign government to try and overthrow our government and kill our leaders, I would hope that I would BE one of those people.
You do see the part about "filling mass graves with their political opponents", right?
"First, the "America armed Saddam" argument is a proven fallacy. The majority of weapons provided to Iraq (70 percent) were from the French and the Russians. America provided less than one percent."
apparently a great deal came from Germany and Britain as well.
however, according to the 1994 Senate banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Hearings we sold them Sarin, Soman, Tabun, VX, Lewisite, Cyanogen Chloride, Hydrogen Cyanide, blister agents and Mustard Gas. Some of the powerful biological agents sold included anthrax, Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum (causes a tuberculosis-like disease) , Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens and Escherichia Coli.
we may be behind in quantity, but we did pretty well in quality.
"I think many Americans will find themselves going for the idealist."
perhaps, but lets see how many of them enlist when we're fighting simultaneous wars in Burma, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Chechnya, Haiti and China. the "we're going to overthrow brutal regimes everywhere" doctrine will also be very bad for our national debt, i'd imagine.
i'm also worried about the potential abuses of such a doctrine. given the history of people we've allied ourselves with, i'd argue that maybe the U.S. isn't a great judge of character.
unfortunately, there's no easy answer to brutal regimes. ostensibly we're trying to save the people. to wage war, we're going to be killing a lot of those people.
sanctions have a tendency to hurt the poor rather than their leaders. they also allow the leader to scapegoat those imposing the sanctions.
Fareed Zakaria (hardly a left-wing extremist) wrote a very interesting column recently on the effectiveness of sanctions.
Regarding the David Duke comparison. Yeah that was a cheap shot and lazy.
And so is this!
White Nationalist nazi's support Cindy!!!
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2119672&posted=1
It seems to me that the people who promoted the war in Iraq misled the public with regards to WMD and the connection to terrorism. Beyond that they were also not very well prepared to the complexities involved in taking over Iraq and rebuilding a democracy.
But on the other hand, it seems that the opponents of war in the US, Europe, and the UN, have not been able to present a way to deal with four sometimes related problems: (1) How to deal with the grwing threat of terrorism, especially the possibility of chemical, biological or nuclear terrorism? (2) How to deal with bad dictators and the humanitarian crisises resulting from oppressive regimes? (3) How to deal with oppresive regimes when they oppose international pressure/decisions? (4) How to make sure that the judgement of states by the international community (or members of) is really fair and credible?
I think this was part of the reason why Kerry lost.
"Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq? Where was I three years ago when this happened. I remember a cause for war being that Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the UN resolutions against him. I remember a cause for war being that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as evidenced by the Iraqi intelligence service officer meeting with Al Qaeda in Prague and the presence of Abu Nidal in Baghdad. I remember a cause being that Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors into his country creating a very suspicious cloud over a possible banned weapons program. I remember a cause being that intelligence estimates stated that Saddam had an active WMD program and the French, Germans, Russians and British all signed off on that intelligence and believed it to be credible which is why they passed UN Resolution 1441 demanding unrestricted access by weapons inspectors to locate these banned weapons."
i would think that the fact that Saddam capitulated and let inspectors in goes a long way towards undermining these reasons. at the very least, we could have waited for them to do their job and in the meantime have checked out all the Iraq/Al Qaeda connections and found out they were dead ends. this would have saved us 1800 soldiers, $200 billion and the lives of around 25,000 Iraqi civilians (or 100,000 by another estimate).
Jerry C, you keep talking about the people in the mass graves as "people who revolted", which conjures images of sleeper cells a la French Resistance.
Most of them were normal individuals who wanted the basics of human rights. And, one day, one of them said a little too much to the wrong person and damned themselves and thier entire families.
And, most of them weren't "revolting" in the sense that they had taken up arms and were rioting in the streets. They were going about
thier normal business when they got grabbed, in many cases brutally tortured and executed.
Normal people doing normal things and they got killed for it.
If that isn't worth fighting for, then why the Hell did we do the American Civil War?
Lincoln could probably prevented the secession by saying, "Fine, keep the slaves. By and large, they're not treated too badly."
Millions of soldiers died for what was an issue of morality.
And, by the way, how exactly do you mean Bush killed thousands of innocent Iraqis? Back it up with a credible source, please.
On the same note, here's my source for Saddam's mass graves.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/irq-summary-eng
That's Amnesty International, which is both credible and can hardly be accused of being an administration mouthpiece.
If Clinton had started filling mass graves with Newt and the boys I would be with you on this point.
If Bush started filling mass graves with Ted and the boys I would be with you on this point.
Saddam and his mass grave are a whole other nut. I do feel sorry for those that he killed who were innocent. I feel sorry for the woman who were picked up off the streets for no reason and later dumped in some of those same graves (and women may not get much better treatment in the future Iraq if the Constitution and the political forces there keep heading the way they seem to be.) But a large number of Saddam's political opponents held the same beliefs and world views as UBL and others like him. Am I sorry that they bit it and didn't get to set up shop as the new tyrant in charge in Iraq. No. Am I sorry that Iran and Iraq spit on each other for years rather then Saddam getting dethroned by another dictator who may have been friendly to Iran (where many of Saddam's enemies and political opponents went and found safe havens) so that they could have both worked toward the common goal of giving the west the bird? No.
Saddam was in many ways the lesser of two evils in that land. He was a secularist. He gave woman more rights then many of the surrounding Middle Eastern countries. He didn't adhere or allow the type of extreme Islamic beliefs that are shared by the UBLs of the world and other Middle Eastern countries and peoples. A number of his political enemies did. Was Saddam evil? Yeah. Was Saddam more evil or dangerous then UBL or others that share his world views? It's debatable but most would say no. If my choices are Saddam or a theocracy led by a UBL type of person propped up by a country of loyal followers and the faithful then I'll take Saddam every time.
****
Look... If I'm coming off as a bastard here and sounding angry it's because I am (angry.) Every other day we get more and more proof that this war was started on bogus reasons by people who had no plan past "get Saddam" (see the recent papers that came from the State Dept about their pre-war concerns about the Bush Boondoggle.) Do most the Bush backers just come out and say something like, "hey, we got lied to and Bush got us into a mess. We know that now but we're there and we have to do what we can to salvage the situation and repair the damage we did." I could agree with that. We are in it and we can't just pull out and cut and run (one reason I'm not a Cindy backer.) We have to get this situation as close to fixed as we can and Bush and crew ain't showing anymore brains in that department then they did in any other (outside of coming up with good lies and propaganda that is.)
But what do we get? Lines full of bullshit over and over and over about how we went there to spread freedom by taking out a tyrant who was ranked as a lower committer of crimes against humanity by most groups who keep up with that kind of thing then some of Bush's friends and allies in that region. We get bullshit over and over and over again from dittoheads about how all those people over there wanted us there, love us and just can't wait to breath the sweet air of American style freedom. It's bullshit. They didn't, don't and can. If Iraq could stand on its own today and we could leave tomorrow; I guarantee that the people of Iraq would elect themselves into an extremist Islamic state in no time that would be modeled after all the things we hate about Iran and other countries in that area of the world. That is, if they didn't turn around and kill each other in bloody tribe wars over religious beliefs and persecutions to the point that they couldn't stand on their own and Iran just moved in and took the country from them.
Most of the people over there aren't "us". They don't all want the same freedoms or types of freedoms we do. The Cold War analogy is off the mark because the Middle East has something that the old Soviet Union never had. They have some hardcore, and in some case extreme, religious beliefs and leaders. They have a doctrine on how to live and what's right and wrong that is in many ways far more foreign and alien to what we believe then the differences that existed between the peoples of the U.S. and the old Soviet Union ever were. The Reagan fairy tale about the people of the two countries coming together in peace on the many common grounds and shared desires I could see as having a chance and could believe in back in the late 80's. The Bush fairy tale is a joke. And an unfunny one at that.
Didn't David Duke win office as an R?
Yes, he did in fact. He defeated another Republican for a state House seat in 1989 (Louisiana has weird election systems), and both President George H.W. Bush and former President Reagan campaigned against him. So he was a Republican in the sense that the rest of the Republican party didn't want to be associated with him.
Even more so than Dan Quayle.
Remo,
Don't know much about Lincoln, what he said about the issue pre-war, what he said during the war or what we were going to pass as the 13th admendment before the Civil War broke out, do you?
"Most of them were normal individuals who wanted the basics of human rights. And, one day, one of them said a little too much to the wrong person and damned themselves and thier entire families.
And, most of them weren't "revolting" in the sense that they had taken up arms and were rioting in the streets. They were going about
thier normal business when they got grabbed, in many cases brutally tortured and executed.
Normal people doing normal things and they got killed for it."
Some were. No doubt about it. Some were killed because people in their village supported people who were more active in their actions against Saddam and the weapons he chose to use were a wee bit less the discriminating about who they killed (gas attacks often are that way.) They didn't support the actions and were innocent. No argument. Doesn't change the fact that many who died would have supported a theocracy government in the place of Saddam's that would be just as bad or worse in our eyes and to our overall safety.
Look, if I lived under the rule of a Saddam then I would revolt myself or support in some ways those who did as well. The differnce is that I would not be happy to put a new government in place that decided that all law would be based on the Christian church's word, the Bible and God. Nor would I support a government that would try and force that world veiw down the throats of everybody else in the country and around the region. Many of those dead were part of tribes or cultures who would have been quite happy with an extremist theocracy in charge of Iraq instead of Saddam. I'm not gonna get all broken up that the died and he kept ruling rather then the reverse. I also just don't believe that the blood of American G.I.'s was worth what looks to be forming in the new Iraq.
Bush was and is an idiot. He was told what the real world was like. He was told the costs and the most likely outcomes but he wanted to live in his happy little dream world and rule from Crawford while clearing brush. He did and we're screwed. So much fun.
"And, by the way, how exactly do you mean Bush killed thousands of innocent Iraqis? Back it up with a credible source, please."
Read much news? Read any news? It was and is what is so colorfully called in the pres and by the military, "collateral damage." We didn't and don't still do it on purpose as Saddam did but it doesn't make them any less dead and gone then when Saddam killed people. But, hey..... At least they're buried in freedom loving soil now.
Sorry. That last bit about the soil was a bit too snide even for me. I'm tired. I'm going to bed. Argue with you all some more in the morning and tomorrow evening.
:)
Jerry C -
Are you un"Huh?" yet?
I think so. At the time, for some reason, I couldn't wrap my brain around the sentence. It's been a long week.
Scipio -
Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq?
Yep. Don't remember the speeches? "9/11, bin Laden, Saddam, Iraq". Rinse, repeat.
AnthonyX -
Plllleeeeaasssse do the clicky and learn!
Well, I must have just imagined that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam then.
Remo Williams -
If that isn't worth fighting for, then why the Hell did we do the American Civil War?
You conveniently miss the point, which isn't a surprise - it happens quite frequently with your type.
We didn't go to Iraq to play humanitarian. We went there because Bush said Saddam had WMD.
Saddam didn't. So Bush changed his story. And then he changed it again, and again, and again.
We were told this war would last a couple of weeks, cost $2 billion, and the troops would come home.
More bullshit straight from the horse's ass (in this case, Cheney).
Remo Williams -
And, by the way, how exactly do you mean Bush killed thousands of innocent Iraqis? Back it up with a credible source, please.
How about you visit this site: www.iraqbodycount.net and see that their list of sources are around two dozen different news agencies.
But hey, it's not murder if Rummey calls the civilians nothing more than "collateral", right?
Remo Williams -
That's Amnesty International, which is both credible and can hardly be accused of being an administration mouthpiece.
Amazing, really, since this is the same group that called Gitmo the "gulag of our time".
Or are they only credible when you need them to be?
Scipio-
I don't know where you were three years ago, but thank God the White House keeps accurate transcripts. I found this one without even looking too hard (I was looking for the State of the Union address where Bush made his case for invading Iraq, but found this instead, and am offering it up instead because (A) it's a minor speech and thus should be indicative of how the WMD lie made it in to just about every appearance he made while gearing up for the Iraq Attack, and (B) it's late and I have work to finish before I can go home to my comfy bed. If that's not enough for you, I'll be sure to dig up more examples for you tomorrow. Let me know.)
The entire speech can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html . Added emphasis is mine.
"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and INTIMIDATE THE CIVILIZED WORLD -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to STRIKE THIS COUNTRY -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein AND HIS WEAPONS cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)
THE SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEPENDS ON ENDING THIS DIRECT AND GROWING THREAT." -George W. Bush, Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., Feb. 26 2003.
I would hope that the last line alone proves my point that Bush built his case for invading Iraq around the claim that they had WMDs. The fear of WMDs being used by Iraqis against America was (very clearly and directly, without any sort of doublespeak at all) THE number one reason being touted as to why we absolutely needed to invade.
(And FWIW, it's not "armchair quarterbacking" when allied governments own up to the fact that they doctored or misrepresented their 'evidence' that Iraq had WMDs... that's called "blowing the whistle." Closely related, but distinctly two different things.)
Scipio- "Do I think President Bush declare[d] war on Iraq just to settle a grudge? No. Presidents are above this kind of pettiness (except for a well known break-in at the Watergate hotel)."
So Nixon was the ONLY President who proves to be the exception of the rule? Please! Anyone who has witnessed any election run in the past 30 years has seen plenty of 'petty' in all shapes and sizes (and from all sides) in the race for the White House.
Try the other one, it's got bells on.
"In our civilization, and under our [R]epublican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary""
Remo- "If that isn't worth fighting for, then why the Hell did we do the American Civil War?
Lincoln could probably prevented the secession by saying, "Fine, keep the slaves. By and large, they're not treated too badly."
Millions of soldiers died for what was an issue of morality."
Remo, in all seriousness, never make that statement to a Southerner; they will hand you your ass, sinanju or no sinanju.
The American Civil War was fought for three reasons: the issue of slavery, the issue of state's rights (and as much as you'd think they're two seperate issues, regrettably they are not), and Lincoln's insistence on keeping the Union whole rather than allow the Confederacy to secede. And by 1860, the seccession thing had been teetering at a boiling point for well over 20 years; Lincoln saying "keep the slaves" would have done nothing to prevent it.
The American Civil War was fought over many issues, of which slavery was easily the largest focal point for both sides. But saying the Civil War was a war fought solely over 'morality' is not entirely accurate and risks oversimplification... and war is, regrettably, never simple.
PAD, the title you used was also an anti-war song to Bush Sr. - written by a christian band, no less.
http://www.thelostdogs.com/lyrics/scenicroutes/bushleague.html
Maybe not video cameras. Still cameras are obviously allowed, as there was a photo on the Sheehan family webpage showing Bush giving Ms. Sheehan a kiss. It isn't there now.
Still cameras don't record people disrupting the staged event. As for the picture of Bush kissing her, since again I don't know the context of her feelings of that moment, I'm not going to comment.
Ok, so it isn't the hypocrisy of offing one dictator while allowing others that bothers you--it's the nature of warefare itself. That's ok, it's a lot more defendable than the position implied by
If by that you mean that I don't think war should be our first, last, and only resort in response to dictators, then yes. It's easy for pundits sitting in a comfortable studio to say, "send in the marines!" or, as Pat said, "take him out." But war exacts such a terrible cost in human life that we should make sure that our reasons for going to war are legitimate and we have a reasonable chance that our intervention will make things better. So far, the Iraq war fails both tests.
Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq? Where was I three years ago when this happened.
Obviously asleep.
I remember a cause for war being that Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the UN resolutions against him.
And what were those resolutions pertaining to? Oh, yeah! WMDs.
I remember a cause for war being that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as evidenced by the Iraqi intelligence service officer meeting with Al Qaeda in Prague and the presence of Abu Nidal in Baghdad.
The Prague meeting has never been confirmed and wasn't part of the presentation Colin Powell made to the UN. It was all about WMDs.
I remember a cause being that Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors into his country creating a very suspicious cloud over a possible banned weapons program.
1) He let the inspections back in and we invaded away. 2) What were the inspectors looking for? WMDs!
I remember a cause being that intelligence estimates stated that Saddam had an active WMD program and the French, Germans, Russians and British all signed off on that intelligence and believed it to be credible which is why they passed UN Resolution 1441 demanding unrestricted access by weapons inspectors to locate these banned weapons.
So, your argument that Bush's justification for war wasn't about WMDs is that, we believed that he had WMDs. Excuse me, but WTF?????
And that's not even getting into how our "intelligence" was being "fixed around the issue."
"It seems to me that the people who promoted the war in Iraq misled the public with regards to WMD and the connection to terrorism."
Er, the connections to terrorism in general are not in dispute. The connections to Al Queda and Bin Laden are.
"Er, the connections to terrorism in general are not in dispute."
In what way? Publicly, Hussein abhored terrorists. What source can you point to that links Iraq with supporting or harboring terrorists? And I mean actually protecting, not just having terrorists within their borders, since under that definition the US could be said to have connections to terrorism as well.
Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the area. Why would they need to resort to terrorism?
Bobb-
Read this transcript of a wince-inducing debate on Iraqi terrorism between Christopher Hitchens and Ron Reagan. I didn't know all of this when I read it, and so far I haven't been able to disprove any of Hitchens's claims. I doubt I'd care for Hitchens if we ever met, but he seems to be in the right on this point.
http://txfx.net/2005/07/11/hitchens-trounces-ron-reagan/
By the way, didn't Cindy have to sign a release for her son to be in the military the first time he signed up because he was 17?
Didn't he re-up for the second time after the combat begun?
I don't think it takes an expert to tell her "he might be in combat that could result in death", if he didn't believe what he was doing would he re-up? Is it safe to say her son would disapprove of her actions like much of her family?
Is it safe to say her son would disapprove of her actions like much of her family?
Unless you have first hand knowledge of how he would feel, no it isn't. Should people be aware that there's a possibility they could be required to fight and even die if they join the military? Absolutely. Does that mean that their friends and relatives give up their right to question the wisdom of the elected leaders who send them into combat? No. Is it possibl that Casey Sheehan believed in fighting for the freedom of Americans but also had doubts about the wisdom of this particular war? Sure, but that's every bit as speculative as saying, "he signed up, therefore he approved of the war up until the moment he died."
Clay, thanks for the link, although that little chat hardly supports the idea that terrorism was supported, endorsed, tolerated, or used by Iraq. Just checking the write up on Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal, there's enough lack of information, or unsubstantiated facts, to suggest that Nidal wasn't working with or for Iraq at the time, but hiding. It seems plausible to me that Nidal was hoping to cut a deal with Iraq, supplying weapons and such, and it seems that Hussein had something to do with Nidal's death, in that Hussein was either going to have him arrested or killed. In any case, you can't get around the fact that Nidal's death was related to Iraqi/Hussein actions to have him at the least apprehended. And while that's not exactly the same thing as saying Iraq opposed terrorism, it does contradict the idea that they supported terrorism. The claim Hitchens made that Nidal was operating out of government office...Wiki doesn't have anything on that, but what is on Wiki seems to at least partially conflict with what Hitchens states.
Nidal, at least, seems to have not lived long enough to plan or enact any additional terrorist acts while in Iraq. If Iraq really is a haven for terrorists, Hussein was sending a fairly confused message when Nidal was killed during his apprehension.
Hitchens is an old leftist who for some strange reason, drank the Bush Kool-Aid and became a rabid supporter of the Iraq War. There really isn't a hyperbolic claim to support the war that he hasn't made in support of the war, whether it's grounded in reality or not.
Also, he's a severe anti-Catholic and anti-religion in general bigot. Something Republicans should keep in mind if you want to cite him for supporting your positions.
Bobb, you've got a good point about the questions raised by the circumstances of Nidal's death. However, the Wikipedia article also claims that Nidal had been living in a villa owned by the Mukhabarat, who were Saddam's most trusted agents. It seems likely to me that Hussein was plotting with Nidal on one hand and against him on the other- that seems to be the way he dealt with everybody.
I also have been unable to verify or disprove the claim about Nidal working for the Iraqi government. If you or anyone else can find anything, could you please provide a link?
Den-
As a Democratic Catholic, I'm certainly aware of where my ideologies diverge from those of Hitchens. I'd certainly never invite him to dinner, but I am interested in the nature of his claims regarding Abu Nidal's relation to Hussein. If his claims have merit, then I'm willing to consider the evidence without dismissing him on an ad hominem basis.
Well, Clay, I'm not aware of any specific reference that refutes it, except that it was one of the many things that the 9/11 Commission looked at before concluding that there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind.
Now, it is possible he was conspiring with Nidal for other things, but we'll probably never know the truth of that for sure.
From what I gathered, it seems that Nidal was pretty desperate when he went to Iraq. And there's some evidence that he may have initially snuck in. And whether he thought Iraq would be a haven for him, or present some financial opportunities in terms of the weapons trade, he was only there a short time before he died...whether by suicide, or during an Iraqi assassination attempt.
Hitchens refers to a couple other events that I'm nat familiar enough with to look up more on, but it seems that he rested his Iraq terrorism connection strongly on Nidal, and that connection seems to lead one to conclude, if anything, that Iraq opposed such terrorists.
While I can't make any concrete conclusions, I do think that there's more to the Nidal/Hussein connection that meets the eye. When Saddam wanted to kill someone, he did it quickly and decisively (the asassination of his expatriate sons-in-law is a rather gruesome example). The fact that Nidal lived in Iraq for nearly two years (with at least one of them completely in the open)and was granted residence on government property is, I think, pretty stronge circumstatial evidence to a Nidal/Hussein connection.
Den, I agree with you one on at least one point- the issue of Saddam's involvement with 9/11 and his ties to terrorism in general are two separate issues.
"Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the area. Why would they need to resort to terrorism?"
That is hardly a defense against the idea that he would have indulged and funded terrorist activities. The only tie to Al Queda is a one off meeting. And I am searching...but I cannot find any quotes from Saddam denouncing terrorism or anything to suggest he abhorred it. Well, aside from the fact that Bobb said it.
But here is one sample. I've also not seen it disproven thus far.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Or are Palestinian suicide bombers not terrorists?
Be all that as it may, and I certainly don't dispute the possibility that Hussein had contact in some way with known terrorists, it doesn't change that the warcry for invading Iraq was "let's go get those general terrorist supporting evildoers." Although there was some general talk about terrorism, it was the connection between terrorists and WMDs, and the potential that Iraq might be a source of WMDs for terrorists to use against the US, home or abroad. We all know how the connection to WMDs turned out. Even if the other half of the threat equation plays out, would that alone have been enough to justify an invasion? I would say no, and I think that's what we're seeing today. People are finally beginning to talk about how we were snookered into supporting this war. And now that we're asking for accountability, suddenly it's all about supporting the troops.
I'm tellin ya, people, the only way We the People are ever going to take our country back from bad leaders, Left OR Right, is to vote 'em all out of office.
"But here is one sample. I've also not seen it disproven thus far.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Or are Palestinian suicide bombers not terrorists?"
It's hard to say this isn't a support of an organization that uses terroristic methods. But what about the US funded Bin Laden "resistance" of Soviet forces in Afghanistan? Did not they, too, use terrorist methods in combating the invading Soviets? Would this not also be seen as an action that supports terrorism?
Point being, the US needs to be very careful, seeing as how we're lobbing around some pretty large rocks, and one of these days someone's going to notice that at least part of our house is made of glass.
"but I cannot find any quotes from Saddam denouncing terrorism or anything to suggest he abhorred it. Well, aside from the fact that Bobb said it."
And if I said it, it must be true..er, well, maybe not. I may be thinking of the time I heard my buddy, SAM, denounce it, or somesuch. Actually, I was thinking more about the lack of connection between Hussein and Bin Laden, possibly reading more into Hussein's rejection of Bin Laden than I should have.
Bobb, there's some things we can agree on. I certainly wouldn't argue (from what I know at this point) that the president didn't do an awful job of justifying this war to the public. I do think that we would have had to use force against Hussein one way or the other eventually, but building up a mountain of global ill-will and rushing off without a good battle plan- all the while being dishonest with the American public- is certainly no way to get the job done.
yeah, Saddam gave money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. no one was saying he was a good guy.
it's not exactly a smoking gun of terrorist collaboration though. in april of 2002, Saudi state tv ran a telethon that raised over $100 million for Palestinian "martyrs." i believe we have several other allies in the region who support Palestinian terrorism. it is, sadly, not an uncommon thing.
so, i'll give you that it's a link to terrorism. but i don't think it's the sort of direct link that indicates any threat to the U.S.
On of the problems I have with taking the focus on the getting bin Laden and other people who were behind 9/11 and expanding to war on terrorism in general is how do you define the scope of the mission then? If we're at war against terrorists in general, then shouldn't we bomb Syria, Libya, Sudan and our "friends" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Should we send troops into the West Bank? Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology like communism or radical Islam, so why limit the scope? Let's bomb Belfast. Plenty of terrorists still hiding out there. There are leftist guerrillas using terrorist tactics all over South America, send in the marines!
How do we know when we've defeated "terrorism"? When nobody in the world practices it?
Den: "How do we know when we've defeated "terrorism"? When nobody in the world practices it?"
A friend of mine (who's working toward a PhD in religious studies) makes a very good case for how Jesus would be defined as a 'terrorist' under the current administration's rather broad anti-terrorism mandate. I've got to try and find the link to it... it's quite an eye opener.
Didn't he re-up for the second time after the combat begun?
There's alot more to this that simplying saying that somebody re-upped.
For one, alot of these guys are left with no choice.
From all accounts, when you sign up for service, you're not signing up for 2 or 4 years, it's usually 8 total, with 4 of that being "active".
That's where the term 'back door draft' comes from, from those soldiers who were basically pressed back into active duty after not resigning for a second tour after their first four years were up.
Now, for the moment, I'll leave out the stuff like whether these guys knew they were signing on for 8 instead of 4, and comments (from soldiers) that these guys are being threatened with "Resign or we'll send you Iraq".
it is, sadly, not an uncommon thing.
Agreed. The problem stems from the fact that those in support of the war will use the example of Iraq doing this, while excluding the fact that our "allies" did the same damn thing.
Didn't he re-up for the second time after the combat begun?
He may have also done so believing it was right at the time , because it wasn't yet as common knowledge as it is now that bush, et al, were lying their collective asses off to go to war. Who knows? Certainly none of us.
Bobb, there's some things we can agree on. I certainly wouldn't argue (from what I know at this point) that the president didn't do an awful job of justifying this war to the public. I do think that we would have had to use force against Hussein one way or the other eventually, but building up a mountain of global ill-will and rushing off without a good battle plan- all the while being dishonest with the American public- is certainly no way to get the job done.
*sigh*
There are all too many people who think that this IS the way to get "the job done."
Thom: "Er, the connections to terrorism in general are not in dispute."
Bobb: In what way? Publicly, Hussein abhored terrorists.
He may have whored them, but he clearly didn't abhor them. He gave financial support to the families of terrorists, as long as the terrorists took a few Israelis with them. CBS quoted a Baath party spokesman saying, in reference to Saddam making these donations, "The President considers this small gift to the families as just a symbol of support for those who have reached the highest degree of martyrdom." As the American invasion loomed, he expanded the payments from terrorists' families to the survivors of everyone killed in connection with the Palestinian insurrection, but I think it would be a mistake to interpret that as Saddam's disavowal of terrorism. More like, Saddam buying sympathy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
He gave financial support to the families of terrorists, as long as the terrorists took a few Israelis with them.
So, here's the million dollar question:
Why is it that we only give a damn about Palestenian terrorists when they are paid off by Saddam, rather than the fact that they've been fucking with Israel for the last few decades?
Try and wrap your sensibilities and priorities around that one, because Bush doesn't seem to give a damn about Israel.
"Why is it that we only give a damn about Palestenian terrorists when they are paid off by Saddam, rather than the fact that they've been fucking with Israel for the last few decades?"
"Try and wrap your sensibilities and priorities around that one, because Bush doesn't seem to give a damn about Israel."
Well, that's a new one. Most of those on the left seem to think that Bush is way too supportive of Israel. Some even portray him as a puppet dancing on Israel's strings.
Among those who are big israel supporters, the assessment seems different:
WASHINGTON May 17 -- Don Shein disagrees with President Bush on the environment. He disagrees with Bush on stem-cell research. And he disagrees with Bush on abortion.
But he's voting for Bush anyway.
For Shein, a financial adviser from Baltimore, the 2004 presidential election is about only one thing: Israel. The loyal Democrat said he has been impressed by Bush's support for the Jewish state and even donated $500 to Bush's re-election campaign, despite his opposition to the president on many domestic issues.
"My sense is that Bush would stand up for Israel when no Democrat would," Shein said Sunday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual policy conference.
Bush is something of a messiah to those attending the conference in Washington, many of whom traditionally vote Democratic. They are willing to overlook what they don't like about the president because of what they do like.
The very mention of Bush's name or the sight of his image on video screens prompted thunderous rounds of applause and standing ovations at the Washington Convention Center.
Most recently, Bush's unprecedented support for Israeli claims in the West Bank and his rejection of any "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees has made him a darling of many AIPAC members.
He gave financial support to the families of terrorists, as long as the terrorists took a few Israelis with them. CBS quoted a Baath party spokesman saying, in reference to Saddam making these donations, "The President considers this small gift to the families as just a symbol of support for those who have reached the highest degree of martyrdom." As the American invasion loomed, he expanded the payments from terrorists' families to the survivors of everyone killed in connection with the Palestinian insurrection, but I think it would be a mistake to interpret that as Saddam's disavowal of terrorism. More like, Saddam buying sympathy.
Well, yes, it WAS buying sympathy, quite cynically. I also think it'd be a mistake to make it more than that.
Of course, when the New York Times deliberately misquotes people like Condi Rice in order to create a slam at Israel where none exists it's easy to see where people might get the idea that Bush isn't a supporter.
http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2005/08/condoleezza_ric.html for the gory details. Shameful behavior from a once great paper.
Well, yes, it WAS buying sympathy, quite cynically. I also think it'd be a mistake to make it more than that.
Well yes, but he started his sympathy purchase initiative by giving money to the families of suicide bombers, not the Ronald McDonald Houses. I think it would be a bigger mistake to make too LITTLE of that. Besides, the initial statement was that Saddam abhorred terrorists. Hard to square with public financial support, don't you agree?
Okay, one by one.
Den- Other parts of the treaties that Saddam violated included the no-fly zones, re-arming his military and mis-using humanitarian aid. WMD's were only part of that.
BrakYeller- I'm a Texan. Anybody who wants to take a swing at me is welcome to try. Emphasis on the word try.
And yes, I'm aware that there were deeper issues involved in the Civil War. Just as there were deeper issues in World War Two. Or any conflict for that matter.
But, when they enlisted to serve in World War Two, most people didn't consider about how unjust the Treaty of Versailles was towards Germany. They just knew that Hitler was a evil dictator.
Wars, to the common guy in the street, hinge upon an issue of morality. That's also why the Vietnam was so protested against.
And, Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War by placating the Secessionists. He wouldn't have prevented it, but if he had buried his political head in the sand, Lincoln could have kept anything from happening on his watch. After all, his political predecessors had been doing the same thing for decades.
Craig J.- I chose Amnesty International BEACAUSE they don't like Bush. If your opposition agrees with you on something, then you know you've got the truth. Still, if that's not enough, both CNN and the U.N. website have the same info.
Also, I checked out the link. They don't descern between people killed by U.S. forces and people killed by Iraqi opposition. I know that you'll say that they're on Bush's head because he started the war, but I can't agree.
The "insurgents", for example, are terrorists, pure and simple. There is no cause, anywhere, that justifies deliberately targeting civilians like small children. Anybody vicious enough to do that would have ended up a murderer somewhere down the line.
Jerry C.- Two things.
Your argument seems to boil down to "The place is snakepit. The people hate us. The place will always be a snakepit and they will always hate us. It isn't worth it."
I can't argue with that. Hundreds of thousands of people written off like a footnote in history can't really be argued with. All I can say is that I hope you don't believe in karma.
Second, when I ask for proof, don't tell me to read the fucking news. Give me proof.
I don't agree with Craig J. and his proof, but I responded with a logical rebuttal, based on his source. And, when he disagreed with my source, I provided two alternatives.
Don't wave your hand and say, "It's out there somewhere." Prove it. Anything less is intellectual sloth.
Bill Mulligan -
Most of those on the left seem to think that Bush is way too supportive of Israel.
Compared to Clinton, Bush has all but ignored Israel, imo.
Indeed, by creating a war in Iraq where none was necessary, he's probably done more to hurt Israel than help.
Bill Mulligan -
Some even portray him as a puppet dancing on Israel's strings.
Well, yes, this goes back to the idiodic "Jews control America" conspiracy theory that so many nut cases ascribe to.
Remo Williams -
Second, when I ask for proof, don't tell me to read the fucking news. Give me proof.
Well, I guess this article will be useless to you, since, you know, you don't like news that doesn't agree with you any more than Bush does.
A CNN article from 12/12/2003 says the following:
"The Associated Press conducted a major investigation of Iraq's wartime civilian casualties, documenting the deaths of 3,240 civilians between March 20 and April 20 (of 2003). That investigation, conducted in May and June, surveyed about half of Iraq's hospitals, and reported that the real number of civilian deaths was sure to be much higher."
Remember, this is nearly 2.5 years ago and more than 3,000 dead. Want to take a guess as to how many have died since? How many would have lived if not for our invasion, regardless of who pulled the trigger?
And the article ends with the following, *very* important point:
"The U.S. military doesn't count civilian casualties from its wars."
Yes, we don't count them because they're collateral, or perish the thought that Bush feel responsibility for the deaths of so many innocents.
Hard to square with public financial support, don't you agree?
Nope. I work in fundraising, remember? Quite a few figures in this country give to people they could care less about or even despise, because a) it's politically expedient or b) they want to buy goodwill. And that's in a country where it's NOT a life or death matter to get support from certain quarters.
You're making far too much of this.
Compared to Clinton, Bush has all but ignored Israel, imo.
Indeed, by creating a war in Iraq where none was necessary, he's probably done more to hurt Israel than help.
Although I don't subscribe to the moonbat theory
that this war is being fought because it serves Israel's ineterests, it probably is true that it serves Israel's interests. Iraq is the last country to have actually shot missles into Israel (During the first Gulf War--Ironically, Israel was practically the only country NOT invading Iraq at the time).
I'd like to find something regarding the feelings of the Israeli public toward the Iraq war but all I find are left wing sites ranting about how jewish neocons are fighting the war on Israels behalf and a little of that crap goes a long way.
Although I don't subscribe to the moonbat theory
that this war is being fought because it serves Israel's ineterests, it probably is true that it serves Israel's interests.
I fail to see how that's the case - the one thing Israel has a problem with is terrorists.
What has the war in Iraq done? Generate more terrorists.
Craig,
Brutal as it may sound, but civilians get hurt during wars. Especially during the bombing.
This is not unique to the Iraqi War. Check out the London Blitz, the Firebombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Talk about civilian casualties.
Second, post-invasion, the vast majority of deaths are from the terrorists/insurgents. Check out the incident report section of that Iraq Body Count site. As noted earlier, when some scumbag beheads a woman or detonates a carbomb near a bunch of kids, I don't blame the U.S.
Brutal as it may sound, but civilians get hurt during wars.
Well, when it's a war we shouldn't have had in the first place, it's murder.
Remo: "...when they enlisted to serve in World War Two, most people didn't consider about how unjust the Treaty of Versailles was towards Germany. They just knew that Hitler was a evil dictator."
Okay, so what if FDR had told all the enlistees, "You're going over there to ensure the Treaty of Versailles is maintained! Because abrogation of the Treaty represents a direct threat to the safety of the United States!", but then changed his tune once all the troops landed on Normandy Beach to "turns out this Treaty of Versailles isn't worth the paper it's printed on! But it's okay, because we needed to take out Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan, because they're all really bad people!"? Don't you think all the enlistees would feel tricked, or used? Do you think they would retain the right to say "wait a second, I'm here for the wrong reasons! I want out!"?
Because that's essentially what happened with Bush II in Iraq.
"Wars, to the common guy in the street, hinge upon an issue of morality. That's also why Vietnam was so protested against."
So why should this war, with all the parallels to Vietnam (the lack of exit plan, the undermanning of the peacekeeping effort, the lack of a clear and unifying reason as to why we're there to begin with, etc.), be any different? Was Ho Chi Minh less of threat to America's safety than Saddam Hussain, so therefore it's righteous to protest being in Vietnam but immoral to protest being in Iraq? How is the Vietnam conflict more or less moral than the one in Iraq?
I ask you to refine your distinctions between the two.
I fail to see how that's the case - the one thing Israel has a problem with is terrorists.
What has the war in Iraq done? Generate more terrorists.
Actually, the one thing Israel has a problem with is that it is surrounded by countries that have tried, on several occasions, to wipe it off the map. The Israeli army is not there to fight car bombers. The problem is that they are outnumbered and possibly outgunned. That Israel has not been destroyed is a testament to the fact that the superior fighting prowess of the Israeli army and the general incompetance and corruption of the Arab Nations. And a bit of luck. None of which are guaranteed to last forever; the Yom Kippur War was a close thing, at least in the beginning.
THAT'S the one problem Israel has, if you want to limit it to one.
Now as to the Iraq War, since it began Israel has seen it's single most aggressive neighbor (the one last seen flying SCUD missiles at Tel Aviv) defanged, Libya dismantle its WMD, Saudi Arabia finally begin to crackdown on AL Queda, and Lebanon boot out the Syrians.
And the number of suicide bombers has dropped in Israel, pretty much the opposite of what you would expect if, indeed, the result of the war was to "Generate more terrorists".
It's arguable whether or not all of these events are directly tied into the war but the case can certainly be made.
Okay, so what if FDR had told all the enlistees, "You're going over there to ensure the Treaty of Versailles is maintained! Because abrogation of the Treaty represents a direct threat to the safety of the United States!", but then changed his tune once all the troops landed on Normandy Beach to "turns out this Treaty of Versailles isn't worth the paper it's printed on! But it's okay, because we needed to take out Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan, because they're all really bad people!"? Don't you think all the enlistees would feel tricked, or used? Do you think they would retain the right to say "wait a second, I'm here for the wrong reasons! I want out!"
So why are those fighting in Iraq re-enlisting at a higher rate than usual? The army is having trouble getting new enlistees but actually made its target for the last few months--thanks mostly to excellent re-enlistment rates, especially from those in the field of battle.
One might also wonder about the fact that those in the active military voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
Craig J.-
Why is it when we accidentally kill a few thousand civilians during a protracted war, it's murder and the hundreds of thousnads killed by Saddam, deliberately, don't register.
Civilians always get hurt during wars. Revolutionary War, Civil War, you name it. That is the nature of war. Period.
If a few thousand die in order to improve a situation that was killing hundreds of thousands, then it is worth it. Once again, referance to the Civil War.
Brakyeller-
First off, the point I was trying to make is that the common guy on the street chooses to support or condemn a war because of morality. You said that I was simplifying things.
Well, to the layman, it usually boils down to "Good Guys Vs. Bad Guys".
The Treaty of Versailles was enormously unfair to Germany. So, from a socio-political standpoint, Hitler had some justification for his initial invasions, particularily the Sudetenland.
But, that wasn't important that the average joe. He saw what Hitler was doing to other people, concluded that he was a "Bad Guy" and enlisted.
And, I've already pointed out that WMD's were not the sole justification for the war. Was Bush wrong about the no-fly zone violations? Was Bush wrong about Saddam re-arming his military? Was Bush wrong about Saddam misusing Humanitarian aid?
Finally, show me where the lying occurred? Bush acted on the best intelligence that he was presented. It later turned out to be wrong.
One of the reasons we went after Germany in World War Two was that we were worried that they were getting close to completing the atomic bomb. So, despite the fact that Japan was the greater threat and that a two-front war is insanely risky, we went after Germany.
Later, we found out that the Germans weren't even close to making an atomic weapon. Does that nullify everything we did in Europe?
Remo,
From your posts.
"Second, when I ask for proof, don't tell me to read the fucking news. Give me proof."
Then....
"Brutal as it may sound, but civilians get hurt during wars. Especially during the bombing.
This is not unique to the Iraqi War. Check out the London Blitz, the Firebombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Talk about civilian casualties."
I mention collateral damage as civilian casualties (while pointing out that we, unlike Saddam, don't go out and try to kill civilians just for the hell of it) and you demand proof. Yet, you make posts responding to Craig showing that, even without my giving you such proof, you've known about both the concept of collateral damage in war (including this one) and that we've done quite a bit of it ourselves in Iraq.
I'm confused. You need me to show you proof of something that you show knowledge of already knowing existed? Oh, wait... I get it. You're the perfect Bush backer. Different arguments for different people on different days on the same subject even if your arguments can't exist side by side without looking stupid. Go Bush!
"As noted earlier, when some scumbag beheads a woman or detonates a carbomb near a bunch of kids, I don't blame the U.S."
Fine. Neither do I.
"Your argument seems to boil down to "The place is snakepit. The people hate us. The place will always be a snakepit and they will always hate us. It isn't worth it."
Not quite. My argument is the "It's going to be a glorious land full of American style freedoms and they'll love us forever" argument for going in and how that makes U.S. deaths worth it is a load of crap.
Will a new Iraq grow into being somethig as bad as Saddam's Iraq? I doubt it. I also doubt it will grow into anything great either. At worst we get the new Iran. At best we have a new country that we treat like the Saudi government. Yeah, they're a theocracy that treat a number of the people with minority beliefs like crap, they have a long list of human rights violations against them (per Amnesty Int. and others) that share a few common grounds with Saddam's crimes and, yeah, they do have ties to terrorists groups but, damn it, we like them anyhow so stop asking questions about it.
That, and lots of other things about the history of the area and its people from waaaaay before the maps were redrawn to create the mess it became to a week ago last Thursday that support that idea, tend to make me think that the cost in American soldier's lives are not worth the lie of bush's Iraq paradise.
And, sorry guys, the WW II stuff just doesn't fly. I would have had no problem with taking down Hitler when he was invading other free countries, some of whom were are friends and allies, and talking about his master race plans. Would I fight to free a friend or sorta almost friend who was a free country and would return to that state of affairs when it was all said and done? Yeah. But Iraq, unlike Germany, was a country invading nobody. It was contained And what state of affairs will it return to now? Anybody... Anybody... Anybody? At best it will become a theocracy (just look at what thy're doing with the new government and constitution right now) that will be 100% free only for those with the right beliefs and faith (and the minority belief tribes still get screwed, get angry and maybe spill some blood) and may not be as hostile to us as other countries in that area. Yeah, can't wait to send G.I.'s over to die for that.
How about Hitler before he started stomping other countries and was just gassing his own people? Again, I would not have a problem with going in. Why? Because you could look at the culture, beliefs and history of the people and see more then a wee bit of proof of backing the idea of an outcome like the one Bush is talking about there then in Iraq. I don't see that proof in the Middle East. From evrything I've read, seen and learned to a number of friends with friends and family still back in the Middle East (one a girl who no longer has a family who will talk to her because she A) became a cop and B) became a Catholic) who tell them about views and ideas expressed there; I only see proof of a minority that may back something kind of like but not really quite the type of "free government" system and free country that the Bushies claim that we'll put in place in Iraq. I don't see the return for the investment of lives lost. Sorry.
There were missionaries who (even up to this last decade) walked into the jungle to convert the natives, got told that the last dozen or so guys who did that ended up as lunch, went anyhow because God was with the and they were protected as they were spreading His word and got eaten for lunch anyhow. Some went down the darker path of (to riff on a line from Teehouse of the August Moon) "We'll convert them, by God, if we have to kill every last one of them to do it!" Right now, the majority of the Bush backers are reminding me of them.
I can see where it makes you feel good to say that you are going to do great things and all that fun stuff. But you can only really do great things if you know what you're getting into, know what you're doing and have a pretty good plan with a few good backup plans and have a good head to adjust to new problems. Bush has shown that he and his admin know jack all, can lie pretty good, can spin and can screw up pretty bad every time something new comes up. Not really a winning combo there. It's also not, adding to the above stuff, a combo I would want to stake lives or futures on.
"Hundreds of thousands of people written off like a footnote in history can't really be argued with. All I can say is that I hope you don't believe in karma."
If there is karma then there are a whole lot of Bushies in bigger trouble then me right now.
I find it funny that you accuse me of writing off deaths when you start off an argument with, "Brutal as it may sound," and then do the same.
"Brutal as it may sound," I stick to my view that Bush's Iraq fantasy will fall apart in the end and all the lives lost will have been for nothing. Does that make me happy? No. It makes me even less so knowing that we didn't even have to go there to begin with.
Please keep Israel out of the war in Iraq.
Saddam's help to the famililes of suicide bombers was not a significant thing in the grand scheme of the war on terrorism. It would have been good if after 9/11 the world would have presented a clearer opposition to terrorism as a tactic, including in Israel/Palestine. But Saddam's involvement in local Palestinian terrorism cannot justify the Iraqi war. I also don't think that the invasion of Iraq was a major factor in the reduction of suicide bombings. It may have helped a little, but other factors had much greater influence.
I'm certain the Israeli army was happy to erase the threat of missiles from Iraq from its threat list, especially when people still believed that there were WMD. But, the only time that Iraq used missiles against Israel was when it wanted to drag us into the American Gulf War. The fact that Iraq has become a center for terrorists has not affected Israel yet, but it is a threat, probably worse than Saddam. The Arab countries surrounding us are not, at the moment, a threat. The last thing they want is a war with Israel. The biggest threats are (1) terrorism that has no clear addresses, works behind governments and civilians, and cannot be reasoned with; (2) the delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish state, either because of the occupation of the West Bank or for other reasons.
The attitudes for the war in Israel, like in America, were that the more liberal were against it, the more conservative for it, and the middle was uncertain. The general public was mostly indifferent. Most didn't even bother to open to boxes of the gas masks. Israelis sympathise more with the Americans, because of its support for Israel, and because many Israelis tend to mistrust diplomacy, the UN and Europe, and prefer military action.
Micha
"One might also wonder about the fact that those in the active military voted overwhelmingly for Bush."
i haven't been able to find stats on this. what's your source?
The problem with pointing out Bush's lies (besides the fact the Bush backers just won't acknowledge them and pretend they don't exist) is that the Bushies were very smart in one way. They went out and said everything to everyone. They had different arguments, reasons and beliefs to rattle of for each different group that the were speaking to.
You can go and pull quotes from say, Rumsfeld, to back up how the were telling the truth about how long we will have to struggle in the war and how the war may last years.
But then you have this.
Feb. 7, of 03 at Aviano Air Base, Ialy: Rumsfeld, in response to the growing questions of Iraq's strength and how long a war would take, stated that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
You can go out and find members of Bush's admin talking about how they knew it would be a long, hard fight but worth it in the end if we just don't loose faith.
But then you can find....
Feb. 13, 2002: In a Washington Post op-ed , Ken Adelman, a member of Bush's admin at that time and speaking on behalf of their case for war and its ease, said, "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."
I've yet to find any sourced news story where Bush came out and told those guys and others saying dumb crap like that, as it must not have been what he believed (wink, wink) and to stop telling lies. And they must have been lies since all the Bush backers swear that they were told how hard this would be and how long we would be there before the first shot was even fired. And that is true. You can find quotes from the same people saying just that (and even more POV's) while talking to a different portion of the American people or to a different group and out of the other side of their mouths.
And some of you bought it. And then you went even farther and bought it when these guys, after a year of saying black is white, white is black and the colors will change in the next speach for the next voter group for over a year, went and claimed that they knew what they were doing in war. Well, claimed that they knew what they were doing that speach. There could be other speaches where they said that they were idiots who didn't know what the hell they were doing or saying. Why not? They didn't seem to mind taking all sides on every other topic.
From the few months before and then just after we went in....
Just before the war:
March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.
We go in:
March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."
Pre war:
March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."
And the war starts:
March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."
"Some"!?! What, like you and your people?
"i haven't been able to find stats on this. what's your source?"
Mostly the polling data and election day records.
i haven't seen polling data showing a breakdown of the military vote. and it's something i looked for (when i was looking was immediately after the election, possibly before all overseas ballots were in).
Nope. I work in fundraising, remember?
Why would I remember that, or even know it to begin with?
Quite a few figures in this country give to people they could care less about or even despise, because a) it's politically expedient or b) they want to buy goodwill. And that's in a country where it's NOT a life or death matter to get support from certain quarters.
You're making far too much of this
No, I'm not. Saddam wasn't in a country where it was a life or death matter to get support from certain quarters. He was in a country that he ruled absolutely. He thought it was in his best interest to identify himself with the Palestinians, Iraq being a founding member of the Arab League. But again, he didn't identify himself with them by sponsoring charities. He didn't pay for hospitals in the West Bank, orphanages in Gaza, or free medicine in the Golan Heights. His choice of tactics was to sponsor Hamas and other terrorists. You're talking as though that were the only way he could have bought sympathy. It wasn't. He chose that particular tactic for a reason, and given that choice I don't care if anyone thinks that he inwardly, secretly despised terrorists, if indeed there's anyone on this blog who can read his mind to know that-- he liked them well enough to make use of them.
Bear in mind that the original posting was, "Publicly, Hussein abhored terrorists. What source can you point to that links Iraq with supporting or harboring terrorists?" I refuted that point. I now take issue with your claim that financially supporting individual terrorists-- ones known to have carried out suicide bombings-- is somehow unimportant. That confuses me. How is it even possible to make "far too much of" that?
i haven't been able to find stats on this. what's your source?
honestly? Nothing too good. The only poll I could find was a nonscientific one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.
It's amazing to me that none of the big pollsters took a crack at this, given the fact that Bush and Kerry's military records were such big issues in the campaign.
It may be because of articles like this one. Maybe they thought it wasn't worth the time to even ask.
Support for Bush overwhelming at Marine Corps base
It is a measure of President Bush's unassailable popularity among the US Marines on this base that the only one who admitted that he supported John F. Kerry would say so only on condition of anonymity.
According to a 1999 study by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, a consortium sponsored by three North Carolina research universities, Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the officer corps by a ratio of 8 to 1. By comparison, the general civilian population has a roughly equal proportion of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, according to the group.
So it just may be that the pollsters assume everyone knows that it will be a blowout and don't bother doing the poll. Yeah, but they have no problem asking how many Black folks are gonna vote for Bush, knowing that it will be in the high single digits. Unless there's some law that prohibits military folks from being polled I smell a rat.
I seem to remember that recently an extensive breakdown of voters was released. Can't find it though. I assume it would have military people as one of the categories but who knows?
That said, if Bush didn't beat kerry by about 10-15% or more among military voters I'd be very surprised.
Oh, good... I'm not the only one who can't find squat.
After I posted the answer about election data I started an on and off look whenever I got by a computer and found what you found; some speeches about what a blow out for Bush it was and lots of op-eds about Bush winning the military vote. But not a single one actually gives the number of votes the military cast for Bush Vs those for Kerry. I'm sure I saw an actual report on that once but I'll be damned if I can find it now.
I'll go along with your call of about 10-15% but not much more then that. I gotta believe that all the pro bush people would be printing the numbers if it were really a blow out rather then a small lead.
Well, I'd call 10-15% a blow out, actually...anytime you win in double digits it's usually a good sign.
But again, why DON'T we have this information?
Why is it when we accidentally kill a few thousand civilians during a protracted war, it's murder and the hundreds of thousnads killed by Saddam, deliberately, don't register.
See, and here's another mistake on your part: since when does it matter how many Saddam killed in the grand scheme of things, since we're not all over Africa preventing dictators who are just as bad or worse than Saddam?
The old "It's good enough with Saddam, but not anybody else" argument.
But we're not in Africa, and likely never will be.
And you obviously didn't read that second link I posted, because it talked about how the military could AVOID civilian deaths, but didn't.
Jerry C.,
You're just ignoring my points and re-hashing old arguments.
I've already pointed out the logical problems with Craig J's source. If you can refute my analysis, please do so.
Also, I've pointed out the difference between hundreds of thousands of people killed in the context of peace and a few thousand killed in the context of war. If you can refute that, please do so.
Finally, I honestly believe that Iraq is worth the effort. That Human nature is worthy of cultivation, regardless of the culture. I'm probably biased because I've got a few friends who are from the middle east and there the salt of the Earth.
Also, If you don't believe me, then you might believe Michael Yon.
He's a Unaffiliated Journalist who reports and blogs from Iraq. Close enough to get shot at and smell the wounded.
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
Craig J.-
First off, intervention in Africa against other dictators is a classic straw man argument. Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs.
With Iraq, we had treaties that had been violated in several places, and Bush still gets a shower of verbal abuse. Imagine the shitstorm that he'd get if he proposed armed intervention in Africa.
Second, I did click the link. The Human Rights Watch does note that many of the civilian casulties could have been prevented. But, again, the point is somewhat moot, because they don't say HOW the deaths could have been prevented.
Furthermore, they admit that opposition fighters used citizens as human shields and set bases inside mosques and hospitals.
Remo: "Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs.
With Iraq, we had treaties that had been violated in several places, and Bush still gets a shower of verbal abuse. Imagine the shitstorm that he'd get if he proposed armed intervention in Africa."
Wait a minute... I thought you said that "the common guy on the street chooses to support or condemn a war because of morality"? You did say that, didn't you? By that rationale, every 'morally just' invasion America wants to launch should be overwhelmingly supported by the man on the street, opposition be damned. If such a war can be morally supported by the man on the street, then why aren't we going to war with every petty dictator and genocidal shithead on the planet? Which of the two versions of reality you've presented are you going to side with this time?
Bill Mulligan: "So why are those fighting in Iraq re-enlisting at a higher rate than usual? The army is having trouble getting new enlistees but actually made its target for the last few months--thanks mostly to excellent re-enlistment rates, especially from those in the field of battle."
Here's why: recruiters have lowered both their minimal standards and their recruiting goals, making it much easier to clear that lowered bar.
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001850.php
More from Remo-
"...the point I was trying to make is that the common guy on the street chooses to support or condemn a war because of morality. You said that I was simplifying things." No, I said that you were oversimplfying your case for the American Civil War being a war fought exclusively over morality, followed by the blanket statement that "...war is, regrettably, never simple." The implication being that the reasons 'the common guy on the street' choose to support or condemn a war are equally not-so-simple.
I also asked you to justify your commitment to the Iraq war (which you view as a morally just war) with regard to the Vietnam war (which you imply was immoral)... a challenge you did not answer. Given the similarities between the two conflicts, how can you support one but not the other?
"The Treaty of Versailles was enormously unfair to Germany [offers justification for initial German invasions]... but that wasn't important that the average joe. He saw what Hitler was doing to other people, concluded that he was a "Bad Guy" and enlisted." Yeah, but you're forgetting one big difference between Hitler and Saddam: Hitler openly aired his plans for world domination, and he represented a clear and direct threat to America, it's European allies, and everyone in between by succeeding in enacting those plans. On the other hand, Saddam was a petty dictator with an increasingly shrinking military who couldn't mount a campaign to take over one neighboring country, let alone the entire region. BIG difference; big enough for me to invalidate any reasonable comparison of the two situations, at least insofar as the question of the strategic necessity to depose either dictator is concerned.
"I've already pointed out that WMD's were not the sole justification for the war." And I've already pointed out that the case for invading Iraq centered around the existence and neutralization of non-existant Iraqi WMDs, which were by far the most frequently cited case for war. I've even cited (as have others) what the administration said verbatim. Here's one, just for fun, that's already been posted, but I'll post again so that maybe it sticks this time: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on ONE ISSUE, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003. [EMPHASIS MINE]
That ONE ISSUE was the one presented to the American public, and that was the one issue that galvanized the American public to support a war with Iraq. Not the "he's a bad man and needs to be deposed" argument. Not the "he's ignored UN restrictions" argument. Not the "he tried to assassinate Bush Sr. and needs to be punished" argument. Not the "we need to promote security in the Middle East by establishing a beachhead for democracy" argument. What sold the American public on Iraq was the fear of Iraqi WMDs being deployed here at home, a la 9/11, and now that we've been there for two years and still haven't found the source of that fear, an overwhelming majority of the American public want their money back. Consequently, arguing that the main reason for going to war isn't that important because it wasn't the SOLE reason for going to war is both obtuse and insulting.
"Was Bush wrong about the no-fly zone violations? Was Bush wrong about Saddam re-arming his military? Was Bush wrong about Saddam misusing Humanitarian aid?" Was any of the above a clear and direct threat to America? More importantly, was it enough of a threat to be worth the cost of money, material and lives in invading Iraq to stop said offenses? Why haven't we invaded any other regimes that routinely violate no-fly zones or misuse humanitarian aid?
Sure, 'Bush was right' about the three above issues, but it's worth noting that those three issues were not in question... the rest of the world agreed the UN violations had happened, and that Saddam was re-arming his military (and the rest of the world clearly didn't think the above was reason enough to invade Iraq, which should tell you something). What WAS in question was the existence of Iraqi WMDs, which brings me to:
"Finally, show me where the lying occurred? Bush acted on the best intelligence that he was presented. It later turned out to be wrong."
The problem with that statement is that the Bush administration clearly did NOT act upon the best intelligence they were presented. Much 'solid' intelligence was presented by our own intel groups, and by our allies, that said there were no WMDs. Bush & Co. CHOSE to listen to the sketchy information provided by unreliable sources that said there were WMDs, and then proceeded to act surprised when it turned out to be completely wrong.
What I know is this: The Bush administration committed American lives to information that couldn't be verified, and which our best intelligence (as well as the best intel of many of our allies) said was utter fantasy. The information turned out to be untrue, and as time goes by, more and more documents are surfacing that illustrate just how solid and reliable the "there are no WMDs" info was, and how the "sure, there are a bunch of WMDs) info wasn't.
This means the Bush administration either irresponsibly decided to ignore their best intelligence in favor of shakey intel that supported their goals, or that they're so incredibly incompetent that they were duped into invading Iraq. Given the evidence, I choose to believe that the Bush administration is not incompetent, which leaves me with 'irresponsibly decided to ignore their best intelligence in favor of shakey intel,' which was used to sell an invasion of Iraq to the American public. And at that point, the 'sell' becomes a 'lie', because you know it's not necessarily true while you insist that it is. But hey, I mean, Bush isn't the first President to be caught in a lie, right? Why is it coming as such a surprise to people that Presidents lie to achieve their own ends?
"...later, we found out that the Germans weren't even close to making an atomic weapon. Does that nullify everything we did in Europe?" Nope. But it's also got precious little to do with the topic at hand, since we didn't go to war with Germany over the possibility that they might have atom bombs. In fact, the atom bomb race developed over the course of WWII... meaning that it was more of a consequence than a cause. We suspected Russia of working toward atom bomb capability as well, but we never went to war with them, even though their leader was a genocidal shithead who routinely purged his own people, now did we? Wouldn't that have been a morally just war that the people should have overwhelmingly supported?
Bill Mulligan: "So why are those fighting in Iraq re-enlisting at a higher rate than usual? The army is having trouble getting new enlistees but actually made its target for the last few months--thanks mostly to excellent re-enlistment rates, especially from those in the field of battle."
Here's why: recruiters have lowered both their minimal standards and their recruiting goals, making it much easier to clear that lowered bar.
That may be so but the point I was making was that the men and women in the field of battle--the ones that, presumably, would be MOST likely to be angry at Bush for sending them into an unnecessary and losing war--seem to feel differently. They're voting with their lives.
"You're just ignoring my points and re-hashing old arguments.
I've already pointed out the logical problems with Craig J's source. If you can refute my analysis, please do so."
I didn't ignore anything. I actually read what you said and pointed out to you that you asked me for proof of our causing deaths but then point out to Craig that you know about them but don't blame U.S. soldiers for them. Fine, neither do I. I just said that dead is dead no matter who did it and all the happy, happy, joy, joy speeches about how great things will be after a war we didn't need to be in will mean zip to the dead (on either side.) I also said that I know we didn't kill as many as Saddam in the invasion then he did pre-invasion and that we didn't set out to try and kill as many civies as we could. Same page there.
The dumb point was that you acted as if you had no idea that any innocents had died in Iraq by U.S. firepower in the invasion or since and demanded proof while turning around and claiming, in a different argument with a different person, that you know about the deaths but that they're no real big deal. It's just part of the game and how it's played. It happened in this war just like it did here and here and here.... I don't need to refute your point or give you proof. You did it on your own and made your own argument look dumb.
"Finally, I honestly believe that Iraq is worth the effort. That Human nature is worthy of cultivation, regardless of the culture. I'm probably biased because I've got a few friends who are from the middle east and there the salt of the Earth."
So? I've friends from there too. Some (not all) of them, by the way, are against the war as well. But if biase falls into the argument then it over rules your throwing out Africa. I have friends from there who have, since coming to America, lost family in the homelands to the many bloody coups. One guy can't go home because he would be killed if the wrong people saw him. He was a police chief back home and made the local warlords *hit list. What, we should drag America into another war because I know some people and I have a biase? Is that what we should base wars on? Hey, a coworker I had was from China and has friends and family back home that the government made go poof. Let's invade China and start a war there on his biase. What fun we could all have.
I think you miss the point when I talk about culture and history. I'm not saying that one culure is better then another or that one culture should be saved while another should be left to rot and die. What I am saying is that you have to look at both culture and history to determine the odds of pulling off something like what Bush and crew a talking about or to even decide the worth of spilling the blood of U.S. troops. Flower and sunshine speeches about how worthy human nature is don't cut it when you have to put it against the cost of human lives and families that will forever be without a son, daughter, mother or father.
The history and the culture of the Middle East make it a very iffy deal. It's not like we haven't lost U.S. soldiers lives doing this in the middle East before by the by.
Look, Iraq is not a nation in the sense that it is made up of people with a common heritage, history, religion, or culture or a nation that existed that people came flooding into because they wanted to (like here in the U.S.) and added to the overall growth and greatness of. Outsiders who carved up a beaten Middle East drew its boundaries, created leaders from whole cloth and made up the rules for them to live by. Not the greatest way to start good solid countries. The Middle East as a whole is tribal and so is Iraq. This gets driven home again and again and again in that region. Animosities and blood feuds have raged for generations among the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. There has rarely been anything like a democracy in any of these communities. Let's all try and catch a cab to Real Street here. When their wars took long pauses or even were to have said to be ended, there was no Maddison, no Monroe, no Jefferson, no Washington or any other great statesmen waiting to step in and step up. It was almost always the next military nut ball or extreme religious wingnut.
Lebanon, in the last century or so, is the best example of a good try at democracy under sorta similar circumstances. It was tried on several occasions with great loss of American lives to keep democracy going in that country. Every damned time, religious and tribal differences screwed the pooch on our efforts. Democracy in Lebanon has ended up a bad joke. It’s in the dustbin of history. Let’s face facts on this. Syria more or less runs that country now. From that and other past experiences, it's a safe bet to say that if votes are held in Iraq without U.S. presence or influence, Kurds will vote for Kurds, Shia will vote for Shia, Sunnis for Sunnis, and etc. The largest group will control the major offices and it will benefit their people and tribes and their belief system and wants (more so then or system seems to) far more then the others. That means the Shia, just by numbers as it now stands, end up calling the shots. The Sunni and Kurds get to feel bitter and disenfranchised about things, make noises about being repressed and things could get bloody all over again. And it could be topped off with the election of the type of extremist leaders that the people loved but who Bush and company went nuts over when they returned to Iraq from Iran after Saddanm's fall.
Plus, as I keep saying, Iraq and its people have one other major strike against them. Many of the Shia are determined to have a theocracy. Go look at the constitution that’s being written now and the fights over it. The principles of Islam (and even more so with extremist Islam) as they interpret them are inconsistent with the ideas of democracy. There cannot be a democratic theocracy under those laws. This is all facts from history through just up to my last key stroke. You can't refute it.
What you're backing is kinda like giving the car keys to a 10 year old who has never driven, never learned to drive, never learned the rules of the road and never shown any desire to do so and sending him out into rush hour traffic. You're just asking for a massive wreck and needless death. Just don't act shocked when you've pinned all your hopes on a long shot and it goes splat.
You have to look at all that and see how it tips the scale against pretty speeches. That's what I'm talking about when I mention the cultures and history of the area. I look at facts and history and you look at your biase and your desire.
Plus, this is at best a side argument. We went in based on the WMD argument. The Bush admin chose WMD's as their talking points. Bush mentioned other reasons and a side note but spent most of his time talking up WMD's in every speech. Powell went to the U.N. to talk about WMD's. Rice went on talk show after talk show talking up not having the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud or WMD related attack on U.S. soil. Bush even said in a State of the Union address that Iraq had kicked the U.N. inspection teams out and started cranking up his old WMD program as a straight up unquestionable fact (problem being that U.N. teams were on the ground in Iraq when he said it.)
Now that every WMD lie has fallen apart we get new argument #19283: We went in to bring freedom to that land. It's no more true then the WMD lie and it's a poor argument.
Oh, and if you think I'm being tough on my opinions about the Middle East then you should talk to many of the pro-war people. Back when WMD's were still the main cause to invade Iraq there were many in the GOP and their talking heads and supporters who said that we were going to use Iraq as the starting point to clean up the "sespool" that was the Middle East and that we were going to "drain the swamp." Talking points used so much that it became man on the street usage for a while.
All I've ever said is that they're not ready for democracy and that it isn't worth U.S. deaths to fail in putting one in (again) over there. Hell, my comments come off as really nice and loving next to some of theirs.
"First off, intervention in Africa against other dictators is a classic straw man argument."
How? Isn't it all about saving lives and how human nature is worthy of cultivation, regardless of the culture? Or do you just feel that Africa doesn't have the kinda lives or culture that counts? Maybe you don't know enough people from there to support your biase.
For what it's worth I agree with you on Africa (but it would seem for different reasons.) But that argument of yours hardly holds water or refutes any of Craig's points about the topic.
Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs."
And that screamed opposition stopped him from going into Iraq how?
I don't think you're giving Bush and his crew credit. I'm sure they can come up with some great whoppers to spoon feed their supporters just like they did with iraq. And, hey, they'll just ignore everybody else like they did this time or claim that we all hate America if they don't go along with Bush and his war.
Whether Bush wants to intervene or not is a moot point, since, the very moment he would suggest such a thing, his opposition would scream at the top of thier lungs.
People are always going to stream about something.
But Bush never started this war on the basis of being a great humanitarian. Yet, you now try and claim that's the case.
Hell, I never tire of screaming and yelling about Bush, but he would've gotten more support from me if he'd just said from the start "Yeah, Saddam needs to go because he's a bad man".
One of the things that pissed me off most about Clinton's years in office was that we got chased out of Somalia when we should have stayed.
That we still ignore Africa to this day when people are being killed in numbers that are far worse than Saddam.
We can look back upon Kosovo and watch Republicans cry foul and conspiracy, but, regardless of the results, it was done on "humanitarian" rationale. But maybe it really comes down to the fact that Kosovo didn't end up like Iraq has.
Yet, at the end of the day, we're in Iraq based on lies about WMD and Saddam's ability to threaten the rest of the world, specifically the US, rather than his own people.
"Plus, as I keep saying, Iraq and its people have one other major strike against them. Many of the Shia are determined to have a theocracy. Go look at the constitution that’s being written now and the fights over it. The principles of Islam (and even more so with extremist Islam) as they interpret them are inconsistent with the ideas of democracy. There cannot be a democratic theocracy under those laws. This is all facts from history through just up to my last key stroke. You can't refute it."
i wonder how the people who believe our government should be based on Christianity feel about the prospect of an Iraqi democracy being based on Islam.
"I don't think you're giving Bush and his crew credit. I'm sure they can come up with some great whoppers to spoon feed their supporters just like they did with iraq. And, hey, they'll just ignore everybody else like they did this time or claim that we all hate America if they don't go along with Bush and his war."
hey, we could go into nigeria because of the yellowcake they sold Saddam, right?
i wonder how the people who believe our government should be based on Christianity feel about the prospect of an Iraqi democracy being based on Islam.
I wonder how the same folks who praised the Afghanistan Constitution--also based on Islam--now have a problwm with an Iraqi one also based on Islam. Specifically the New York Times.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen this amazing story where a university newspaper, the Southern Illinois Daily Egyptian, was the victim of a hoax seemingly created by one of its reporters/ It involved letters from a precosiouc little girl to her father who was supposedly fighting in Iraq. Full of cute mispellings and details that anyone familiar with the military might have spotted as false (predictably, this does not include anyone at the Southern Illinois Daily Egyptian), the letters followed a painfully predictable path--support for her dad and George Bush, doubts begin to form, An Epiphany, loss of support for the president, and, at last, the death of the father.
Really, you couldn't make this stuff up. Er, except they did. It was all bogus. The exact details of who knew what are still being worked out (the little girl was played by an actual little girl--she came to the newsroom on sevral occasions, possibly under the belief that she was part of a movie).
http://www.dailyegyptian.com/fall05/kodeehoax.html
(To the newspaper's credit, they have left up the orginal stories with a disclaimer instead of just erasing them from the web and hoping everyone forgets).
Amazingly (ok, not at all amazingly) this AP story in the Washington Post seems to imply that the whole thing was a Pro-war hoax! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082600917.html
"I wonder how the same folks who praised the Afghanistan Constitution--also based on Islam--now have a problwm with an Iraqi one also based on Islam."
Well, I'm not in that camp. I never praised the Afghanistan Constitution as it never had me over the moon.
I was for hitting Afghanistan though since there was that guy Bush forgot about for a while jumping up and down shouting, "Me! Me! Me! I did it! Over here!"
That and the government was almost %100 behind that guy. What was his name..... Been so long since Bush mentioned him... Old Sam Band Wagon?
Bill,
Damn... I'll go with you on the hoax being something that should have been spotted right off the bat. The letters I read were screaming, "something is wrong here."
But I gotta ask you where you get the one statement you made about the AP story. I read it twice and can't figure out how it's spinning this hoax into a prowar hoax story. How did you get that take off of it?
But I gotta ask you where you get the one statement you made about the AP story. I read it twice and can't figure out how it's spinning this hoax into a prowar hoax story. How did you get that take off of it?
from the AP story:
Kim Treger, owner of a women's shoe and accessories store, said she followed the story from the start but was not surprised to learn it was fake.
"As long as people dig those sentimental stories and have that yellow-ribbon mentality, there are going to be these hoaxes," she said.
"yellow ribbon mentality"??? That's a direct slam at the folks who put the yellow "Support the Troops" ribbions on their cars and such. While a case can be made against that sort of thing, I suppose, in no way shape or form was this hoax supposed to appeal to that demographic.
C'mon, Bill. That sentence means one person thinks the story had a particular appeal to that demographic -- it tells us precisely nothing about the biases of those who created the story or those who've since reported on the hoax.
I'd read about this before you originally posted it, and I didn't see it as especially political in either direction, at least in intent. So far as I can tell, the reporter's the primary one at fault (no, I'm not buying his denials that he was duped too), and he was more out to make a name for himself than anything else. It's not striking me as a hoax with a particularly political agenda in either direction, as unusual as that might be in this day and age.
You want to take that one quote and see it as indicative of the way this whole story's being presented, fine, but it seems like more than a little bit of a reach.
TWL
Brakyeller-
First off, my point about morality was that most common people use thier personal morality to form a stance on a war. I didn't say that it would automatically make them pro or against any particular conflict.
I never implied that the Vietnam War was immoral, I just used that as an example of a conflict where a large amount of people chose to protest.
The whole point about morality is that, while wars hinge on complex issues, average people tend to consider them based on personal morality.
By the way, you mis-quoted me. That bit about war being complex appeared before the bits about morality. Pulling it out of context like that totally changes the meaning.
Second, while the other reasons may not have copped the ink that the WMD's did, that does not eliminate thier validity.
Third, there was plenty of information supporting the prescence of WMD's. Saddam delayed the weapons inspectors for years. Then, once he let them inside, there were areas that he refused to let them inspect. That's what Bush was referring to in his State of the Union Speech. That alone is a gigantic red-flag.
In contrast, most of the info NOT supporting WMD's was only found after we invaded and access to information. Hindsight is twenty-twenty.
Fourth and Final, Wolfowitz was misquoted by Vanity Fair. He said that WMD's were the core reason, but also that was a total of three main concerns. WMD's, links to terrorism and human rights abuses under the Saddam regime.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm
Wow. Misquoting must be contagious.
Jerry C.- When I pointed out the mass graves filled my Saddam, the comment was made that Bush murdered thousand of Iraqi's as well. I asked for proof and was directed to the Iraq Body Count. In response, I noted that most of the civilian fatalaties caused by the U.S. (The minority of civilian fatalities in Iraq, by the way. Most were caused by the opposition forces/Insurgents.) were caused by the initial bombing raids. Within the context of the history of war, this is not considered murder. Otherwise, every U.S. President that caused civilian fatalities during a war (Stretching back to Washington) would be considered a murderer.
That's not a new argument, that's a logical progression. A to B to C.
You may say that it's murder because it's an unjust war, but that part of the larger debate.
Jerry C. and Craig J.- Going into Africa is a straw man argument, not because they don't deserve help or that Bush wouldn't wish to help them, but because his political opposition would not let him. In Iraq, we had violated treaties. With Africa, we don't have that. Regardless of how people felt about Iraq, we had some legal basis to point to. With Africa, we don't and the Democrats would be all over that like white on rice.
I think Bush would help Africa if he could. Live Aid founder and organizer Bob Geldof pointed out that, with regards towards Africa, Bush's administration has been the most positive since Kennedy. In contrast, the European Union's response is "pathetic and appalling."
Another guy to trust. He's been in the thick of it for decades. Speaking of which, did anyone read Michael Yon? Comment please.
C'mon, Bill. That sentence means one person thinks the story had a particular appeal to that demographic -- it tells us precisely nothing about the biases of those who created the story or those who've since reported on the hoax.
I'd read about this before you originally posted it, and I didn't see it as especially political in either direction, at least in intent. So far as I can tell, the reporter's the primary one at fault (no, I'm not buying his denials that he was duped too), and he was more out to make a name for himself than anything else. It's not striking me as a hoax with a particularly political agenda in either direction, as unusual as that might be in this day and age.
You want to take that one quote and see it as indicative of the way this whole story's being presented, fine, but it seems like more than a little bit of a reach.
Hmm, maybe. I'll grant you that when it comes to AP I expect bias so I may see it where none exists.
But for starters, it's hard to deny a political bias to the hoax. A little girl starts out writing about how her Daddy is gonna fight the bad guys for America and President Bush. Later, when she hears about anti-war protectors, she calls them the "bad people" and has to be assured every night that they aren't under her bed. But then--faster than you can say "Cindy Sheehan"--she comes to her senses and starts writing about how George Bush lied to her and she is "rily mad" at him. Alas, her awareness comes to late as her daddy is killed, another victim of this senseless war.
There's a million fake stories they could have told with the premise of a little girl's daddy going to war but it's hard to imagine one more hostile to the president. Don't think I'm reading too much into this.
Given the anti-war, anti-Bush tone of the hoax, I'm just a little leery that the one quote they find from a reader, noted political pundit/shoe saleswoman Kim Treger, leaves one with at least the impression that the hoax was a feel good rally round the flag piece. At least, that's the impression I would have gotten if I hadn't read the actual hoaxed letters--AP curiously leaves out their content.
Frankly, after being burned repeatedly by AP--anyone remember their bogus, quickly retracted story that absolutely made up a crowd booing when Bush gave out prayers for President Clinton's recovery from heart surgery--I find AP just a bit more reliable than Al Jazeer, though less transparently anti-Israel (another blast from the past--the AP headline read Israeli Military Kills Palestinian and 7 paragraphs down you find out the guy had hand grenades and a rifle and was approaching an army outpost.)
Anyway...have you atarted school yet? We had our first day last thursday. Looks like I have a nice group of kids this semester. Yeah, well, they always look good at first...hope springs eternal!
Hmm, maybe. I'll grant you that when it comes to AP I expect bias so I may see it where none exists.
Have you ever mentioned a news source here that you don't expect bias from?
But for starters, it's hard to deny a political bias to the hoax.
No, it's really not. There's a political tinge to the story being depicted, sure -- but these days, that's one of the ways you're going to get a lot of attention for your writing. If you're going to forge a series of stories in an attempt to make a name for yourself, a four-part series on chartered accountancy isn't going to do the job. You need something with an arc, and having someone's opinions change about the war is a really obvious choice.
As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity -- and in this case, I'd modify it to "don't attribute to a political agenda what can be explained by weaselly self-interest."
As for the AP ... can you name a news source you don't consider biased? Pretty much any source that's come up here seems to be falling into the "biased" category for you, at least so far as I can remember.
I have a lot of problems with a lot of media outlets -- frankly, the fact that Judith Miller still has a job tells me that the NYT is nowhere near as biased towards the left as the typical right-wing pundit would suggest -- but these days I frankly don't think they're competent enough to have a pervasive bias.
Anyway...have you atarted school yet?
Just inservice days so far -- classes start next Wednesday (both for me and for Lisa). Exciting times!
TWL
Off the top of my head it's hard to come up with any sorurce that isn't biased...not that this is a surprize. Humans are, by nature, biased. Fine. What I object to is when they let it get in the way of factual reporting.
For me, the AP story seemed to go out of its way to ignore the anti-Bush tone of the haox and inject a curious implication that it was a pro-war hoax. Your mileage may vary. Since the quote in question was an opinion, not at all relevant to the story, I have to wonder why it was included.
As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity -- and in this case, I'd modify it to "don't attribute to a political agenda what can be explained by weaselly self-interest."
I'm sure Karl Rove would agree. :)
I have a lot of problems with a lot of media outlets -- frankly, the fact that Judith Miller still has a job tells me that the NYT is nowhere near as biased towards the left as the typical right-wing pundit would suggest -- but these days I frankly don't think they're competent enough to have a pervasive bias.
She's their girl. They will circle the wagons around her for as long as they can. It makes for a great story, one in keeping with their own view of their place in the world--noble seekers of truth, willing to pay the ultimate price to protect their source.
Anyway, since when is competence a requirement for pervasive bias?
And keep in mind--I don't really MIND the left wing bias of the media. In fact, I think it is the secret weapon of the conservatives. It's one of the reasons that, more often than not (at least lately), it is those on the left who, the day after elections, are wandering around looking confused, wondering "How the hell did THAT happen?". When a story gets ignored, like the Air America loan scoop, it jut makes it into a bigger story than it would have been (I'm convinced that the Swift Boat Vets story would have flamed out early if it had not been allowed to come out only in dribs and drabs, with a reluctant press prodded on by bloggers and the like).
If Fox News continues to gain influence in the marketplace I expect much the same phenomona will take place, benefitting the left.
Remo,
"You may say that it's murder because it's an unjust war, but that part of the larger debate."
Ah... I think I see the problem with the exchange between you and I. You want me to show proof of how Bush committed murder when I'm not one of the backers of that line. You and I, as I said before, are on the same page as far as believing civie deaths in war is something that is going to happen no matter what. I'm not walking around calling Bush a murderer. The closest I've come to that idea is by saying that Bush is at fault for civie deaths that would not have happened had he not got us into a war we did not have to fight for reasons that turned out to be lies. It may be a fine line but I've not crossed it yet.
I would also note that your best line against that argument has been that we haven't been the cause of the majority of those deaths. That's still acknowledging that we have caused deaths we needn't have caused had Bush not lied us into armed conflict.
Peter David:
"Whereas Bush is the ideal of all things conservative: See matters only in terms of black and white; never perceive multiple aspects of any subject; never admit a mistake; do what you're told."
This is utter fecal matter. Despite various stances and ideologies that are common between President Bush and actual conservatives, it'd be hard to convince a large group of Conservatives to accept the current POTUS as one of them; the Bush Administration has continued the stupid trend of outspending the government under the prior administration (that's not fiscally conservative). POTUS has yet to veto a bill in five years (that's a lot of changes to laws that POTUS isn't stopping; that's not conservative). POTUS would rather accomodate illegal immigrants present in the US rather than endorse the enforcement of existing laws, or providing disincentives for local governments to ignore and/or avoid enforcing immigration laws. In fact the POTUS has done very little for the sake of our own border security.
POTUS is many things I like; I voted for him. We may agree on many social issues and I like some of his fiscal ideas, but overall he's not much of a Conservative.
As for the rest of the stuff, human pride common to every aspect of the political spectrum stops people from admitting mistakes; politicians in high places especially cannot admit mistakes or they endanger other unrelated policies. The only mistake Senator Kerry would admit to was any positive relationship with the President, and not any of his own travesties involving the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Besides: from the start POTUS was mentioning multiple aspects for the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion and then STUPIDLY emphasized only the possibility of WMDs.
Besides: how does one discount the ideas of black and white entirely? I've seen people drown in their shades of grey.
""yellow ribbon mentality"??? That's a direct slam at the folks who put the yellow "Support the Troops" ribbions on their cars and such. While a case can be made against that sort of thing, I suppose, in no way shape or form was this hoax supposed to appeal to that demographic."
OK. I can give you that. But only for your POV. I read that line and got something different from it then you did.
I know or know of quite a few people who have those yellow "Support the Troops" ribbons on trees, cars and front doors that don't like Bush and felt we should not have gone to war. Myself included.
From that POV I read her comment as the same as saying that as long as people will fall for warm and fuzzy stories you'll get this kind of thing. I took the yellow ribbon ref as a tie to the war (since, you know, that's what the hoax and the story of the hoax was about.)
But, yeah, I can see were you could take away from it what you did and be 100% right in your personal POV.
Jerry C.-
Fine, thanks for the clarification. When you argue against multiple people and multiple points, it's easy to slip into generalities.
Second, I acknowledged that Bush caused deaths that he shouldn't have, I said that the deaths caused were endemic of wars everywhere, good or bad.
That leads into the larger question of the overall "Just-ness" of the war. For that, see my previous posts.
Additionally, check out this post by a blogger at Semi-Random Ramblings. He argues that the greatest indicator of whether a fledgling democracy will succeed or fail is economics, not politics or religion. And Iraq is growing quite well economically. I haven't checked the figures yet, but it is good food for thought.
And, before anyone points out Saudi Arabia as an exeception to the rule, let me add that the Saudis don't really have an economy. Basically, it's just a one-trick-pony (oil) with massive expendatures and no alternative industries and inferstructure
Sorry typo,
Above, that should be "When I acknowledeged"
Rush Job.
"Additionally, check out this post by a blogger at Semi-Random Ramblings. He argues that the greatest indicator of whether a fledgling democracy will succeed or fail is economics, not politics or religion. And Iraq is growing quite well economically. I haven't checked the figures yet, but it is good food for thought."
interesting theory. economics are certainly important to living peacefully. however, i believe Iraqi unemployment is around 70% (partly thanks to reconstruction jobs going to foreign workers). perhaps that's not bad for a country that was recently invaded and had its government overthrown, but it doesn't sound good.
the GDP can grow alot while the masses remain very poor. i'm not sure that will help democracy.
Remo,
Cool. Now we can get back to making much better use of our time by being insulting and snide towards one another on points that we actually disagree on rather then that mistaken POV stuff.
;)
Speaking of which, did anyone read Michael Yon?
meant to comment on this. This guy is an amazing writer, worth reading no matter what your position on the war is. A throwback to the kind of war reporting they had in WW2, the Ernie Pyle kind of reporting. I just hope he doesn't end up like Pyle.
Is his stuff being printed anywhere mainstream? It ought to be.
Bill,
Off the top of my head it's hard to come up with any sorurce that isn't biased...not that this is a surprize.
No -- but it does mean that it's awfully difficult to take claims of "X is biased" seriously, since it's in effect saying "X is human." If the claim is that "X's bias is getting in the way," that's cool, but say that. (One of the things -- the very few things, I suspect -- where John Roberts and I agree is on precision of language. Students have griped about it for years, to no avail. :-)
I have a lot of problems with a lot of media outlets -- frankly, the fact that Judith Miller still has a job tells me that the NYT is nowhere near as biased towards the left as the typical right-wing pundit would suggest -- but these days I frankly don't think they're competent enough to have a pervasive bias.
She's their girl. They will circle the wagons around her for as long as they can. It makes for a great story, one in keeping with their own view of their place in the world--noble seekers of truth, willing to pay the ultimate price to protect their source.
I knew someone was going to misinterpret that; I was in a hurry and didn't have time to flesh it out earlier.
I'm not talking about the Rove affair -- I support her completely in terms of not wanting to reveal sources.
I'm talking about the series of metaphorical blowjobs she gave the administration month after month in the run-up to war. Every single bit of scare tactics about WMD's found its way into one or another article of hers, and in the end it was all bullshit.
THAT's why she shouldn't have a job, and that's why I can't take seriously claims that the NYT is biased towards the left. If it were, there would've been far more questions about the lead-up to the invasion than there were; the various studies showing that Gore would've won statewide recounts would've gotten far more press; today's editorial talking about the importance of protecting sources wouldn't make a moral equivalence between Watergate and Monica Lewinsky (read it for yourself and check, they do), and so on.
The "big media is liberally biased" is a pervasive and popular myth which allows the right wing to claim victim status, much the same way that so many Christians can claim with a straight face that they're being hounded despite running the country and being the overwhelming majority of just about any community you care to name.
Anyway, since when is competence a requirement for pervasive bias?
It's not, but it's a requirement for getting it done effectively enough to be noticed. (Of course, as Lisa pointed out to me, if they're REALLY competent nobody ever notices.)
TWL
THAT's why she shouldn't have a job, and that's why I can't take seriously claims that the NYT is biased towards the left.
Well, if all it takes is one example, does that mean if I find a case where Fox made a mistake in favor of a liberal cause they will no longer be considered right wing?
At any rate, while Miller was more supportive of the WMD idea than most in the media, her reporting didn't raise many alarms, in part, because it was consistant with what everyone from Tenet to Clinton believed to be true. I'm not gonna reprint every quote from every Clinton official from Bill and Gore all the way down to Socks the Cat, but they all claimed to know that Saddam had WMD and was probably going to use it again someday.
hell, the CIA said it was a "slam dunk". Miller may have sources in the CIA that relayed that to her. The fact that the sources were wrong doesn't reflect badly on her, necesarily. At any rate, unless they prove that she made up facts there's no way the NYT can afford to fire a reporter for getting the story wrong. They could kiss goodbye any hope of getting hard hitting stories from the reporters who would be left.
If the claim is that "X's bias is getting in the way," that's cool, but say that.
Well, that's what I meant. I don't expect reporters to have to be like me, only with fedoras and a pencil stuck behind their ears. It's when their bias makes them miss the story or report it in a way that slants the facts to advance an agenda that I'm annoyed.
Judith Miller is hardly "one example" in the extreme sense you're using -- she's one of the Times' friggin' stars, for no apparent reason I can tell apart from her willingness to present Bush press releases as objective facts.
I'm not talking about belief here -- I'm talking about presentation of evidence or lack thereof. Sure, Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's -- but, in a point which has been made since the very first time that excuse for Bush has been used, he didn't present it as a case for imminent invasion. Miller did, and was willing to stretch every point well beyond its usual limits in order to make that case.
Even if you want to treat Miller as an isolated example, you're ignoring the other examples which were NOT Miller in the previous post.
TWL
speaking of the NYT
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050815/alterman
i highly recommend Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media?"
today's editorial talking about the importance of protecting sources wouldn't make a moral equivalence between Watergate and Monica Lewinsky (read it for yourself and check, they do)
Even if you want to treat Miller as an isolated example, you're ignoring the other examples which were NOT Miller in the previous post.
Well, ok, here's the quote from the Times:
It's time for the authorities who jailed Ms. Miller to recognize that continued incarceration is not going to sway a reporter who believes she is making a principled sacrifice. As Jack Nelson, a veteran journalist for The Los Angeles Times, wrote recently: "Without leaks, without anonymity for some sources, a free press loses its ability to act as a check and a balance against the power of government." He cited Watergate, Iran-contra and President Bill Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky. If Judith Miller loses this fight, we all lose.
I see nothing that equates the 3 issues morally. If one bothers to go read Mr. Nelson's piece this becomes even less likely:
The stories that have depended on confidential sources, and often on classified information, are legend: Watergate in the Nixon administration, the Iran/Contra scandal and cover-up in the Reagan administration, and President Clinton's lies in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
More recently, leaks aided the Los Angeles Times' investigations of the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to ease up on mercury emissions, dissent within the CIA and the State Department over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the alarming number of Army officers quitting after duty in Iraq.
For the record, I don't think that he is drawing a moral equivalence between Watergate and mercury emmisions either.
I mean, you can't deny that Clinton's lies about Monica ARE legend and DID depend on confidential sources, right? mentioning Monica serves another purpose other than facing reality--it points out to some conservatives who may be happy to see reporters jailed that, had it not been for them, Clinton might have successfully gotten away with it.
Sorry, I think this time it's you who is seeing something more than there really is. I guess the Times could have quoted Mr. Nelson and editted out the Clinton reference; THAt would have sure shown a lack of bias (snort!).
As for the Gore recount, well, they have Paul Krugman on the editorial page lying about how the recounts all showed that Gore would have won. Since reality isn't what Mr. Krugman wants it to be he's had to issue a tortured retraction that STILL has innacuracies but let's give them some credit for trying to keep that dead horse running...
Oooooookay. You think Krugman's lying, we're clearly not going to reach any common ground on alleged media bias. Others can wade into that morass if they like; given the start of the school year, I (and probably you, though it's obviously your choice how to spend your time) have more productive things to do.
TWL
"As for the Gore recount, well, they have Paul Krugman on the editorial page lying about how the recounts all showed that Gore would have won. Since reality isn't what Mr. Krugman wants it to be he's had to issue a tortured retraction that STILL has innacuracies but let's give them some credit for trying to keep that dead horse running..."
you may be referring to a different article, Bill, but i've just read http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200508240848.asp and this guy completely fails to refute Krugman's claim.
Krugman only claimed that the recounts showed that a full recount would have had Gore winning.
under the NYT headed recount, six out of six statewide recounts resulted in Gore winning.
Krugman claims that under the Herald headed recount two out of three statewide recounts resulted in Gore winning.
Luskin responds by pointing to a USA today article that says that according to the Herald headed project, three out of four PARTIAL recounts resulted in Bush winning.
i read the USA today article. nowhere do they mention the results of statewide recounts.
Luskin is guilty of either gross incompetence or clumsy misdirection. when Krugman says, "a equals b," Luskin says, "no no no. USA today tells us that c actually equals d."
he does not even attempt to refute Krugman's claims about the NYT recount.
the only way he catches Krugman in anything is by arguing that Krugman was being misleading when he said "full" recount rather than "statewide" recount.
if you accept the argument that no recount that isn't statewide could be full, there is no problem with Krugman's claims.
Oooooookay. You think Krugman's lying, we're clearly not going to reach any common ground on alleged media bias.
Did I just that I read a correction by Krugman that stated "[T]he public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald."
I'll be generous and take back "lied". It is a loaded word, overused by too many to describe someone who comes to a different conclusion than they do. He "mistated".
Others can wade into that morass if they like; given the start of the school year, I (and probably you, though it's obviously your choice how to spend your time) have more productive things to do.
All too true but I was hoping you'd comment on whether or not you found the stuff on jack Nelson informative.
i've now also read an article on this by Michelle Malkin (i think i deserve a medal for that) where she's quoting Patterico.
Patterico does the same thing as Luskin, and fails to distinguish properly between the statewide and the court-ordered (and yes, Gore requested) recounts.
admittedly, i haven't found a source other than Krugman citing the two out of three from the Herald study, but since i have yet to find someone who actually refutes THAT claim, i'm gonna take his word for it for now
to give a more complete quotation from Krugman:
"[T]he public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three."
It would appear that one of the ironies of the 2000 election is that the kind of recount that Gore wanted was the one LEAST likely to give him the victory.
Personally--and I realize that this may be self serving--I think that the only way to do a proper recount is to include ONLY correctly cast ballots. No undervotes, no overvotes, no dimpled chads. If you stupidly punch a hole and then write in the same guys name, therby invalidating the ballot, the ballot is invalidated.
If the recount had continued with people trying to divine the intent of folks too stupid to follow the instructions Gore might have won, Bush might have won but I guarantee that even more people would have been unhappy with the results--rightly so, I think.
And just to be fair, I admire krugman for at least admitting he made a mistake (as he did a week earlier when he quoted noted fountain of misinformation John Conyers regarding turnout in an Ohio county--whereas Conyers claimed that it was a suspiciously high 98.5%, in the land of reality it was a far more resonable 72.2%--something easily looked up, which was more than Krugman bothered to do.).
Krugman's a smart guy. He's letting his bias get in the way though.
Personally--and I realize that this may be self serving--I think that the only way to do a proper recount is to include ONLY correctly cast ballots.
What I can't understand is why Florida has such a pathetic and ridiculous ballot to begin with that allowed this mess in the first place.
What I can't understand is why Florida has such a pathetic and ridiculous ballot to begin with that allowed this mess in the first place.
The infamous "butterfly ballot" was not in the entire state. As for the rest, I don't know if Florida had any more botched votes than other states but it was the only place where it would matter.
It's not unreasonable to ask that there be a single standard ballot type for the presidential election. Doesn't seem to be much call for it though.
A lot of the mistakes were simply people not following the rules. The 1% or so of the population that can't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight will probably always screw up a ballot, no matter how simple. What can you do?
I think Wikipedia has the best summary of the 2000 Florida Fiasco. This is a slight digression, but the various vote counts have cropped up in several posts, so I thought some readers might find it interesting.
See, here's the thing.
Something intrinsically entirely definitely required for someone to lie about something is for that person to have the knowledge that the thing he's speaking is not the truth.
This Presidential Administration spouted the belief that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. This is a belief shared by many many many other individuals at the time and before that time.
Turning back the clock, how in hell, heaven, earth, or the tiny quasi-realities that exist in some leftist mind did President George Walker Bush, Texan, failed businessman, former Governor, human mortal seemingly normal being know that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction whatsoever? Because he had to know that they had none in order to be lying about them having some. So what it is it? Does POTUS have clairvoyant psionic powers? Super-telepathy? What?
Say whatever you want about the POTUS. You can be accurate; you can be inaccurate; you can have an opinion right or wrong I'm not yelling at anyone to leave the country. Believe that President Bush is incompetent! I don't care. But try to wrap your tongues around what a lie actually is.
Too many people typing all this BS on weblogs and the internet and message boards and can't understand what a farking lie is. Lying entails knowing that the contrary of what you are saying is true.
and yes, ISP peekers, on more than one occasion I am the Blue Spider....
oh and http://husseinandterror.com
It's amazing for a thread that only 200 or so odd comments there's such a diversity of topic.
What does this prove? Probably that Cindy Sheehan isn't enough to hold the attention of a thinking person; we NEED to bring up Donald Luskin vs Krugman or the old Florida thing or we would be bored! maybe if I didn't spent this much time reading this interesting (right OR wrong) stuff I'd have the time and energy to get a date....
Blue Spider, the thing is, we do know that the current administration doctored the facts they were getting. We also know that it nurtures a culture of setting a course, ignoring or even silencing contrary views or opinions, and then fitting the facts to the course.
Did Bush know that Iraq didn't have WMDs? Well, there's really only one person that can honestly answer that, and he's not really likely to appear in these forums and give us an answer. But consider this: looking at the proof trotted out before the world, can you say, looking back, distanced from the fear, anger, and hurt of 9/11, and say, honestly, that the evidence supported the claim that Iraq either had, was producing, or was close to being able to produce, WMDs. Because that's what we were told, and in my opinion, then and now, I don't think the facts bear that out. And I think this adminstration knew that, but played upon the emotions of a wounded nation in order to launch their war against Iraq. In that regard, yes, I think we were lied to. We were told Iraq was an imminent threat, or was on the verge of providing the means to harm the US to others. On both accounts, not only have the facts proven those justifications wrong, but the second part was wrong the moment Bush started uttering it. While Saddam may have supported Palestian actions against Isreal, was there any concrete connection between Iraq and Al Queada?
I've had people that support Bush justify the war by telling me that he had to make the best decision he could, given the best information he had at the time. I respond by saying that, when literally millions of possibly innocent lives are on the line, you don't make that decision until you have solid proof. Anything less is irresponsible.
Bill,
All too true but I was hoping you'd comment on whether or not you found the stuff on jack Nelson informative.
Informative, yes; supportive of your case, not especially.
Firstly, I'm perfectly happy to dispute your claim that Clinton's lies were legendary. In the sense of the word that means gathering much attention and much media ballyhoo, yes they were; in the sense of meaning anything substantive about the running of the country, however, I'd have to say no, they weren't.
Stories that depend upon confidential sources can be landmark exposes of information the public actually needs to know, inveterate (or even invertebrate) gossip-mongering, or anything in between. Watergate, involving the subversion of the Constitution for political ends, is clearly an example of the former. The Lewinsky mess, IMO, is a good deal closer to the latter than the former, and the fact that it led to the impeachment farce suggests to me that it did a lot more harm to the country than good.
Nelson talks about leaks as one of the means by which a free press keeps a check on the power of government. In what way did the Lewinsky affair do anything of the kind?
So no, I don't think the NYT is tossing out Lewinsky as an example for conservatives to look at and say "hmm, good point." (It's also really difficult for you to claim that while also claiming overwhelming liberal bias that slants most of what they do, I think. Are they fair, or not?) While they're not explicitly saying that Watergate and Lewinsky are morally equivalent, by putting the two of them in the same category of "reasons why leaks are important" they're implicitly doing so, and I think it's a horrible attempt to provide balance.
It's akin to talking-head newsdrones insisting that to provide "balanced coverage" of something like global warming, every single story they do about it has to include a quote from some industry-shill hired gun saying "well, we don't think the evidence is really in" -- or the NYT spending three days' worth of front-page stories on intelligent design, which while informative in some ways is going to do nothing but fuel the "teach the controversy!" fires of the ignorant.
So yes, I found your further analysis of the Nelson piece informative, but probably not in the way you expected. Hope this was informative in turn.
TWL
Something intrinsically entirely definitely required for someone to lie about something is for that person to have the knowledge that the thing he's speaking is not the truth.
That is, of course, true, but it doesn't get Bush and company off the hook.
When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. say things like "We know for a fact that he has reconstituted nuclear weapons," they are claiming that their knowledge is beyond dispute. Not "so far as we know," not "here's what the evidence suggests" -- they're claiming a monopoly on Truth.
As such, they themselves raised the bar -- as soon as it comes out that they did NOT in fact know it, but only guessed it based on flimsky evidence, their claim of absolute knowledge DOES in fact turn into a lie.
Argue philosophy all you like, Chris, but I'd recommend caution when you insist liberals are too blitheringly stupid to understand what a lie means. I think most of us are all too clear on the concept, thanks all the same.
TWL
So no, I don't think the NYT is tossing out Lewinsky as an example for conservatives to look at and say "hmm, good point." (It's also really difficult for you to claim that while also claiming overwhelming liberal bias that slants most of what they do, I think. Are they fair, or not?)
Er, not really. See, it is possible to be biased without having to demonstrate that bias 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The fact that the new York Times gets it right more often than they get it wrong does not negate the the idea that they get it wrong too often. Are they fair or not? Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. The fact that some stories betray a bias does not mean that ALL must, does it?
I realize that some liberals seem to honestly believe that EVERY single thing on Fox News is designed to promote the Republican agenda and would be unwilling to ever even imagine that they would ever do a story right...but I refuse to indulge in that kind of chidlishness.
Furthermore, it was Mr Nelson who made the claim, so any desire to provide balance was his, not theirs. I suppose they could have dropped his reference to Clinton in the editorial but as I mentioned, that would have seemed pretty obviously biased.
While they're not explicitly saying that Watergate and Lewinsky are morally equivalent, by putting the two of them in the same category of "reasons why leaks are important" they're implicitly doing so, and I think it's a horrible attempt to provide balance.
Obviously we will have to disagree on whether Clinton should have faced any punishment for his perjury (perhaps you do not even believe that he committed perjury). I'll leave that up to history to decide. Thanks to confidential sources, history will have that opportunity. And I suspect that teh next president dragged before a court may thinktwice before trying to get away with lies and/or evasive statements. there's your check on the power of government right there.
Argue philosophy all you like, Chris, but I'd recommend caution when you insist liberals are too blitheringly stupid to understand what a lie means. I think most of us are all too clear on the concept, thanks all the same.
Forgive me if your comment made me laugh. I couldn't help thinking of Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" and the many liberals who still say it was not a lie. Obviously, if Bush did deliberately and knowingly lie, I would agree it is a far worse lie than one about a personal sex life. My point is simply that liberals have been known to not recognize a lie when it was pretty obvious to the rest of us. (Of course, since I can't think of very many politicians who don't deliberately lie, it often comes down to your political leaning for how you perceive it.)
Iowa Jim
Sorry, Jim -- I'll have to call you on that. Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie. If there are so many of them, it should be a simple enough task.
And I love the fact that "the rest of us" is used as the opposite of "liberals". Gee, you're not trying to marginalize anybody, oh heavens no.
And Bill -- while I'll certainly concede that Clinton lied, I'd need to know more about the legal definition of perjury to make that call one way or the other. Among other things, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are grounds to contest a ruling of perjury if it can be shown that the question was in no way germane to the case being investigated, and I'll certainly argue that Lewinsky had nothing whatsoever to do with Kenneth Starr-Chamber's mandate.
You're also moving the topic from leaks and whether Lewinsky was something so crucial for Americans' understanding that you needed anonymous sources to whether Clinton deserves punishment. Two different topics, and I'm not especially interested in the new one.
I'll ask it straight-out: do you think the Lewinsky matter is of sufficient scope that it should be given equal billing to Watergate and Iran-Contra when discussing the need for leaks? A straight yes-or-no answer would be appreciated.
TWL
Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie.
Surely you jest, though I was not as clear as I meant to be. I was referring to before Clinton himself admitted to having a relationship (though I don't think he ever called it sex). Both prominent liberals and friends of mine who are liberal all said the allegations about Monica were a lie fabricated by right wing extremists. Of course, once Clinton acknowleged there was even a hint of truth to the story, one of my liberal friends (a woman) utterly rejected Clinton and even voted for Bush in the first election.
I can't name names because I don't remember, but there have been people on this site who even now have said Clinton did not lie in his statement "I did not have sex with that woman." They are definitely in the minority and they are definitely hiding behind a very narrow definition of sex, but they do still exist.
If Bush were to admit tomorrow that he deliberately said Iraq had nuclear material when he knew they did not, then I would be the first in line to join you in calling him a liar. That has not yet happened, nor do I ever expect it to. But stranger things can happen.
Iowa Jim
Tim,
BTW -- I was really not trying to argue with you about your point, though it probably came across that way. I just found some humor in your statement. There is some truth that we each can be blind to the faults of someone we support. I try to be objective in evaluating Pres. Bush, but I understand I am far more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than I was Pres. Clinton.
Iowa Jim
And Bill -- while I'll certainly concede that Clinton lied, I'd need to know more about the legal definition of perjury to make that call one way or the other. Among other things, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are grounds to contest a ruling of perjury if it can be shown that the question was in no way germane to the case being investigated, and I'll certainly argue that Lewinsky had nothing whatsoever to do with Kenneth Starr-Chamber's mandate.
Yeah but the question he perjured himself on was not initially anything with Ken Star. It occurred during the Paula Jones case. Clinton's defenders like to say that the questions that Jones' attorneys asked him were not germane to the case and he didn't have to answer them truthfully. Well, my advice to anyone who finds them self in a similar position is that it really isn't up to you to make that assessment. Answer the damn questions! All I know is, if I was brought up on charges like these and tried to lie my way through questions I'd be very very lucky to get off with just having my ability to practice law suspended for a bit (assuming I had a law license).
An argument can be made that Clinton did not commit perjury but it's a bit tortured. Only the fact that the perjury was over a sexual indiscretion gave him the cover to survive impeachment--most people decided that the crime--and it was a crime--just didn't reach the level of seriousness that would justify removal from office. I agree.
So no, while I do not think that the Clinton scandal (let's stop calling it the Lewinski matter--why should SHE be the one it gets named after?) is anywhere NEAR the level of seriousness of Watergate or Iran Contra, I see nothing wrong in listing it alongside them when talking about the need for leaks. Such a listing implies no equivalence in my mind, though it obviously does in your. While your interpretation is every bit as valid as mine, using it to absolve the New York Times of any liberal bent seems a stretch.
Surely you jest,
Not at all.
Given your clarification, then yes, of course a great many people had a lot of doubts about the story -- not least because people had trouble believing that an obviously intelligent man would do such an intensely stupid thing.
Your original statement implied (to me, at least) that "many liberals" were still characterizing the statement as truthful even with the benefit of several years' hindsight. That's what I was challenging.
TWL
So no, while I do not think that the Clinton scandal (let's stop calling it the Lewinski matter--why should SHE be the one it gets named after?) is anywhere NEAR the level of seriousness of Watergate or Iran Contra, I see nothing wrong in listing it alongside them when talking about the need for leaks. Such a listing implies no equivalence in my mind, though it obviously does in your.
Fair enough -- I doubt we're going to get much closer to common ground than that.
I avoid calling it "the Clinton scandal", BTW, because given the way the right-wing conspiracy machine was amped up during his two terms, I'd half expect some people to say "which one, the contract murders or the drug smuggling?" Hopefully no one here, of course -- but using the name of the other person involved makes it crystal clear what's being referenced.
If you could perhaps avoid using the phrase "absolve", BTW, that would help. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to frame the discussion so that having any sort of "liberal bent" is considered a sin -- and I trust you can see how some of us might take a wee bit of offense at that.
TWL
If you could perhaps avoid using the phrase "absolve", BTW, that would help. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to frame the discussion so that having any sort of "liberal bent" is considered a sin -- and I trust you can see how some of us might take a wee bit of offense at that.
Ah, not my intent at all. In fact, I have no problem with the NYT having a liberal bent--it's just that they claim that nothing of the kind exists. It's why I have more respect for The Village Voice. Or Workers' Daily.
Imagine what would happen if he intervened in Gabon or Zimbabwe
Is there oil in those countries? No? Oh. Ok.
I'll step up to the plate on the Clinton thing. According to the way sexual relations were defined for that interview, which did not include oral sex, Clinton didn't lie. In the context of the question that was asked, he was telling the truth.
Is that being weasely worded? Sure it is. But the rules were agreed to by before the tape started rolling, and only when you take the answer out of context for the question do you arrive at the conclusion that Clinton lied.
Which is totally different from Bush and Rumsfeld stating Saddam has WMDs and is trying to give them to terrorists.
And pointing out that "our" guys lie as well as "your" guys do isn't really the best defense, especially considering that Clinton's lie didn't cost nearly as much as Bush's lie.
Tim wrote, Sorry, Jim -- I'll have to call you on that. Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie.
Bill Clinton.
And Bill -- while I'll certainly concede that Clinton lied, I'd need to know more about the legal definition of perjury to make that call one way or the other. Among other things, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are grounds to contest a ruling of perjury if it can be shown that the question was in no way germane to the case being investigated, and I'll certainly argue that Lewinsky had nothing whatsoever to do with Kenneth Starr-Chamber's mandate.
You're right about the definition of perjury-- it does require that the false statement given under oath be relevant to the case at hand. ("Material" is the term of art.) And you're absolutely right that the question had nothing to do with Whitewater... which is why it's vitally important to remember that none of the Whitewater investigators asked the question. The perjury charge against Clinton isn't that he lied in a statement during any Whitewater investigation. (That probably wouldn't even be perjury, because you can't take sworn testimony from a criminal defendant outside of court-- although as Martha Stewart discovered, lying to a Federal investigator carries its own punishment.) The false statement was given during his deposition in Paula Jones's civil suit. The deposition was under oath, in a suit alleging sexual misconduct with one subordinate, and he was asked about a pattern of behavior including sexual misconduct with another subordinate. His pattern of behavior is clearly material to a lawsuit alleging behavior consistent with that pattern, so any lie about that would constitute perjury. I suppose you could raise the argument that it was inappropriate to expand Kenneth Starr's mandate to investigate that particular felony, but that doesn't mean Clinton didn't commit it.
Personally, I think the fact that it was unrelated to Whitewater (of which Clinton was apparently innocent) makes it worse: the guy is being investigated for corruption, and while that highly publicized investigation is going on, he goes and commits a completely different criminal offense. President Clinton is a very smart man but he has done a few unbelievably stupid or careless things in his life, and I really wish he hadn't done them in the White House.
Bill (Mulligan, not Clinton) responded, inter alia, An argument can be made that Clinton did not commit perjury but it's a bit tortured.
I don't see how even a tortured argument could be made with a straight face by any legal professional.
Bobb wrote, I'll step up to the plate on the Clinton thing. According to the way sexual relations were defined for that interview, which did not include oral sex, Clinton didn't lie. In the context of the question that was asked, he was telling the truth.
Unfortunately, his full answer was "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." You're right, with the definition established by the presiding judge, he had a decent argument for the first statement, but he didn't know when to shut up. The second sentence is a blatant lie.
And it wasn't an interview. It was a deposition. That's important.
"Tim wrote, Sorry, Jim -- I'll have to call you on that. Please name for me a single liberal who says that statement is not a lie.
Bill Clinton."
he said liberal.
Clinton's no liberal, David, despite what the allegedly-liberal media would like the public to think.
TWL
David, I only know enough to speak to the "sexual relations" part. Was the term "affair" defined for the deposition? And the fact that it was a deposition is exactly what makes the context of the questions important. The parties went through an exhaustive process setting out the terms and limits of the depo., going to the point of defining what certain terms meant. If we're going with the strict definition of a lie, being that the speaker of said lie has to know the false nature of his words, then explain how Clinton lied. By the terms of the deposition agreement, he didn't speak in any false terms by saying "not have sexual relations with that woman." And if "affair" was not defined, then he could have truthfully speaking if he did not consider his "non-sexual" encounters as an affair.
Whether the rest of the world buys that is maybe a different point altogether, but you can't say that he lied, because of the context of the question.
If "affair" for that deposition included oral sex and the exchange of bodily fluids onto a dress, then yeah, you've got me, and he lied.
Which still place Clinton's lie no where near the lie of saying that Iraq has WMDs, and they're going to give them to terrorists, and we need to go bomb the crap out of them before they do.
Whether the rest of the world buys that is maybe a different point altogether, but you can't say that he lied, because of the context of the question.
Actually, that's exactly what gets him. The legal profession at least makes an attempt to use intelligble English; when terms aren't specially defined, the ordinary definition is used. It's not the case that lawyers need to rewrite the dictionary in anticipation of litigation; you don't actually have to define what "is" is for a deposition. Claiming "It wasn't an 'affair;' it was an ongoing series of sexual liaisons" will not get him off the hook, even if he would like the word "affair" to mean something more specific. You can't honestly think that Clinton wasn't aware that statement would mislead any ordinary listener, and I think knowingly misleading the listener is a pretty good definition of "lie."
I actually haven't seen any definition of "sexual relations" that the presiding judge used in the deposition. (That doesn't mean that she didn't order a specific definition, only that I haven't been able to locate one online.) All I've been able to find so far is a transcript where the judge rejected the definition that Jones's attorneys suggested, which would have encompassed everything imaginiable under the term "sexual relations." If she didn't actually define the term for the litigation, then again the default is ordinary English usage, under which Clinton's answer was highly misleading (as he subsequently admitted). Thus it's not clear to me, based on what I've seen, that his answer to that question was strictly truthful either, which is why I said earlier that he had a "decent" argument rather than a world-beater.
"Claiming "It wasn't an 'affair;' it was an ongoing series of sexual liaisons" will not get him off the hook, even if he would like the word "affair" to mean something more specific. You can't honestly think that Clinton wasn't aware that statement would mislead any ordinary listener, and I think knowingly misleading the listener is a pretty good definition of "lie." "
But here's the big issue...what does affair mean? Webster's defines it as "a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration." In the absence of romance or passion, it's not an affair, but a series of sexual (but not a sexual relation) encounters.
Of course his statements were misleading, when taken out of context. Most things are. Or his even in context. I think it would have just been better had he come clean about the whole thing once the facts came out, but he decided to take the way out that would let him publically deny the issue, to a point, while staying within the legal bounds of telling the truth.
First off, Bmuderau.
Cheap shot from the peanut gallery.
Second, for both sides of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.
Guys, let it go. The whole thing belongs to history now.
"Guys, let it go. The whole thing belongs to history now."
But what use would the internet be if nit-picking laywers like me and David can't use them to discuss meaningless issues like what the definition of "is" is?
And while I'm as sorry as anyone that this dead horse is still being beaten, Clinton also testified that he could not recall if he and Monica were ever alone. He only remembered having her in the office when she delivered a pizza, not when she was giving him a hummer. That must have been one damn good pizza.
Ahh, but what is the definition of "passion"? According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=passion) one meaning is "strong sexual desire; lust." Therefore, as long as Clinton experienced lust, he was having an affair.
Jeez! I take a few days off and you guys are suddenly arguing zippergate all over.
Let's make it simple: Clinton cheated, he lied about it and he got caught. End of story.
It's history now. Shouldn't we really be focusing our energies on finding a solution to the problems of today rather than rehashing a ten-year-old BJ?
Oh, but another meaning of passion is suffering.
Obsolete, sure, but, y'know, maybe Clinton is an old fashioned kind of guy?
First off, Bmuderau. Cheap shot from the peanut gallery.it's not a cheap shot. you brought up a ridiculous "what if". you know that Bush would never overthrow the governments of Gabon or Zimbabwe for the reason I stated: no oil. that's a fact and you know it
I'm hiding from the enormity of dealing with the huge loss of life we're going to be facing over the next few days and weeks by revisiting Clinton's foibles.
We all cope with disasters in our own way, Bobb.
Here's how our commander-in-chief copes:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/capm10208301856
Nero fiddled, Bush riffed.
Do your research, Peanut.
Gabon has been a major oil producer for over two decades. One of the main reasons that they're having problems is that the oil brought serious theft and corruption on both a national and international scale.
For someone so brilliant (and you are), you're blinded by disdain for all-thing-Bush/Republican. There's always disagreements in government. I disagree with folks all the time at work, and sometimes we do things my way, sometimes we don't, and at the end of the day I'm grateful that there's no Peter David sitting on the sidelines bashing my every breath.
But seriously, you're an awsome writer and I can't say enough how much I enjoy your work.
For someone so brilliant (and you are), you're blinded by disdain for all-thing-Bush/Republican.
Obviously, blindness is in the eye of the beholder, because for many of us, the distain we hold for Bush leads us to believe we're the only ones walking around with our eyes open, and for good reason.
Do your research, Peanut. Gabon has been a major oil producer for over two decades
Major oil producer? They output 1/10 of what Iraq produces on a daily basis. Do YOUR research. Besides, his dad never invaded Gabon so he had no beef with them.
That figure only shows what Gabon outputs, not what it actually has.
As I said, Gabon has been a major oil producer for over two decades. It was actually a member of OPEC until the mid-1990's.
But, the decline of thier largest field co-incided with the oil glut of the late 80's and early ninties. They still have billions of barrels of oil left, but it's in harder to reach places, like offshore. Since they didn't invest in advanced oil tech when they were flush (See previous posts on corruption), Gabon is only just starting to find thier feet on the new oil fields.
And, why are you bringing Bush,Sr. into this discussion? He has nothing to do with it.
bmuderau brought up Senior Bush because of the theory that the real reason, or one of them, that W. Bush invaded Iraq was to avenge (or even show up) his father. So, if that were the case, he would not be similarly inclined to invade Gabon.
In the latest in a series of corrections thaqt has now run longer than many Broadway Plays, Krugman gives the LATEST adjustment to his previous misstatements: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/opinion/02corr-krug.html
Boy, for an economist he sure has trouble getting his facts straight. Score another one for the bloggers.
I know that. The point was that the topic was oil.
Krugman's corrections are all technical in nature, Bill -- as he says and as you've even agreed here, they don't affect the validity of his original point.
Boy, you sure have trouble separating the minutiae from the essentials. Score another one for common sense.
TWL
Score another one for common sense.
Speaking of common sense, does it surprise anyone that this guy that heads FEMA, Brown, has no practical experience for the position he was appointed to by Bush?
Krugman's corrections are all technical in nature, Bill -- as he says and as you've even agreed here, they don't affect the validity of his original point.
Yeah but "Untrue But Accurate" has already been copyrighted by CBS.
Boy, you sure have trouble separating the minutiae from the essentials. Score another one for common sense.
You don't think that there may be something to be embarrassed about when you have to issue 3 corrections?
Krugman's mistakes, including the one nobody ever mentions--relying on conspiracy nut John Conyers for data on Ohio voting that apparently was just made up out of whole cloth--are because he does not check sources. This does not seem to be too great an expectation for us to have over someone who merely writes an opinion column. It's not like he's a gumshoe chasing down leads.
If and when Bill O'Rielly has to correct himself this many times in such a short period I expect it will be an entire chapter in Al Franken's next book.
Speaking of common sense, does it surprise anyone that this guy that heads FEMA, Brown, has no practical experience for the position he was appointed to by Bush?
No, unfortunately this is exactly the kind of job that untalented lackies tend to get. Since the odds are that they will not be at the wheel when the Big One hits, they can seem to be doing a good job. The same is also true apparently of whoever was in charge of hurricane preparation in New Orleans itself. It's an easy job, unless a hurricane actually hits.
I don't know enough about Brown to make a judgment yet but nothing I've seen so far has impressed me in the slightest. He'll probably get the Medal of Freedom by the time it's over, given Bush's tendency to reward loyal but ineffectual underlings.
You don't think that there may be something to be embarrassed about when you have to issue 3 corrections?
Depends on the type of corrections. In this case -- frankly no, not really. Certainly not to the degree you clearly think is appropriate.
If and when Bill O'Rielly has to correct himself this many times in such a short period I expect it will be an entire chapter in Al Franken's next book.
If O'Reilly ever has the strength of character to admit the slightest error in any sort of straightforward non-weaselly way, I'll be surprised and even vaguely impressed.
TWL
It was just announced that Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away.
I know. I just read that a half-hour ago.
Good lord, this means Bush gets to fill another seat. Excuse my American, but: Shit. Damndamndamn. I don't like this country anymore.
Well, rest in peace, old fella. We sure won't.
Well, I think this is so far the greatest argument against Intelligent Design yet. What kind of universe do we live in when Pat freakin' Robertson prays for something like this and it happens?
-Rex Hondo-
Robertson didn't pray for Rehnquist's death, Rex. He prayed for the death of the more liberal justices.
Of course, that might mean Robertson's prayers are listened to and God has crappy aim. Uhhhhhh boy.
TWL
Actually, he just prayed for more openings.
Either way, it's another justice that Shrub gets to appoint, and that CAN'T be a good thing.
-Rex Hondo-
I suppose someone is going to claim that this was arranged to take attention away from New Orleans...which was arranged to take attention away from Cindy Sheehan...which was arranged to take attention away from Valery Plame...
I suppose someone is going to claim that this was arranged to take attention away from New Orleans...which was arranged to take attention away from Cindy Sheehan...which was arranged to take attention away from Valery Plame...
I don't. I suppose lots of people are going to make stupid straw man arguments, though.
On a more practical note, I for one hope that MoveOn and other groups really decide to keep their powder dry on the Roberts nomination in light of this. Roberts is by no means my favorite jurist, but from the looks of things we could be facing much, much worse. That means the odds are good that Bush's second nomination WILL be much worse, which means that's the one which needs the attention, not Roberts.
TWL
I don't. I suppose lots of people are going to make stupid straw man arguments, though.
Never, ever underestimate the stupidity potential of people who are so blinded by ideology that they can't tell how foolish they have become:
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #4
5. Bet he died days ago and they are just announcing it now to try and take the heat off bush. One man has died, well guess what, thousands have died and more are still dying.
n a more practical note, I for one hope that MoveOn and other groups really decide to keep their powder dry on the Roberts nomination in light of this.
That would be wise. Of course, Bush has cleverly positioned himself into being able to nominate a woman and/or minority for the Rehnquist position. Judge Edith Clements is both a woman AND from New Orleans, which will give her a very solid story to tell.
If Bush nominates another white male they will probably be dead meat regardless of his qualifications--unless, as you fear, too much capital is spent on trying to defeat Roberts, which seems unlikely (and, frankly, unjustified).
Never, ever underestimate the stupidity potential of people who are so blinded by ideology that they can't tell how foolish they have become:
While I'll concede the depressing point in this case, I would like to make two small notes:
1) I've griped here on occasion about people who hide behind pseudonyms, and the pseudonymous nature of fora like Democratic Underground makes it an even bigger problem. This could just as easily be someone on the right masquerading as an idiot on the left to make them look bad. I believe there have been confirmed reports of such things happening on both sides, so it's not totally farfetched.
2) I assumed your original "this" in "this was arranged" to mean that someone would think the *death* was arranged, not the timing of the announcement. Both are somewhat over the top conspiratorial, but the latter is a couple of orders of magnitude less paranoid than the former.
TWL
I suppose someone is going to claim that this was arranged to take attention away from New Orleans...which was arranged to take attention away from Cindy Sheehan...which was arranged to take attention away from Valery Plame...
You forgot to figure out where Iraq fits into all of this. ;)
I've griped here on occasion about people who hide behind pseudonyms, and the pseudonymous nature of fora like Democratic Underground makes it an even bigger problem. This could just as easily be someone on the right masquerading as an idiot on the left to make them look bad. I believe there have been confirmed reports of such things happening on both sides, so it's not totally farfetched.
You are, of course, absolutely correct. I often think, when I see someone of any political persuasion acting like an ace-high weenie, that either this is some kind of subtle performance art or that they are deliberately trying to look stupid.
Sadly, neither is usually the case; folks like "spazito" are woefully unaware of how bad they look and what an embarassment they are to sane believers of their political philosophies.
The only value of places like Democratic Underground and Free Republic is for people who need to see that others feel the same way they do can go in there and get the equivilant of a security blanket, safe from bothersome differences of opinion. I guess they are also good for people of opposing views to go and yank out some juicy quotes to laugh at.
Well, in my own defense as a pseudonym user, it's mostly out of habit, having used the same pseudonym online for over a decade. *shrug* Besides, if I up and started using my real name after so long, people would have no idea it was me. :P
Although, living in Indiana, home of the hate group, I can't say I relish the thought people showing up at my door with torches and pitchforks because of some stuff I've said online.
-Rex Hondo-
Yeah, but you're saying reasonable things and having actual conversations, Rex, so it's not really an issue (at least for me). It's the people who take advantage of anonymity to make drive-by posts that really get to me.
(I also didn't even know that was a pseudonym in your case, but that may say more about me than anything else.)
TWL