Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, “one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life.”
The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn’t realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are. We are an occupying force, mistreating its captives, claiming that we’re restoring control of the nation’s fate to itself while making clear that 130,000 troops are staying right where they are, with more to come if we decide it’s needed.
What’s frightening is that more than 40% of Americans still don’t grasp that.
By the way, check out this link. It’s eerily hypnotic. I think it’d make a great screensaver.
PAD
• 
Nova Fan wrote: ” It does bother me that you show such negativity towards the President in a lot of your posts.”
Actually in all his posts 🙂
PAD wrote: “We are an occupying force, mistreating its captives, claiming that we’re restoring control of the nation’s fate to itself while making clear that 130,000 troops are staying right where they are, with more to come if we decide it’s needed. What’s frightening is that more than 40% of Americans still don’t grasp that.”
“Actually, what’s frightening is that an intelligent person like you apparently believes we don’t need a large occupying force in Iraq to ensure its stability as the power transition moves forward. “
And it’s a big swing at the point…and a miss! Yes, a swing and a miss, and hear the disappointment from the crowd.
My post wasn’t about troop size…troop size, by the way, that was shouted down by Bush and his neocons in the initial estimates as they aggressively endeavored to hide from Americans just what the hëll it was we were getting into.
The point of my post was the part you chose to leave off:
“Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, “one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life.”
The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn’t realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are.”
The point is that we’re sending mixed messages to the world. We speak of high moral values…but don’t practice them. We speak of our concern about wanting to make the world a safer place while ignoring the Geneva convention. And we speak of handing over sovereignty to a country…but refusing to leave if they asked us to.
There is one inescapable fact that Bush supporters simply can’t grasp: We said we had to get rid of Saddam. We got rid of Saddam. Mission Accomplished. Which means the longer we stay, the more we’re seen as bûllšhìŧ artists, and the more our motivations add fuel to terrorist organizations looking for recruits. Because terrorists have been telling would-be recruits for years that American wants to destroy the Holy Places and stake a claim on oil. The ineluctable conclusion is that our war on Iraq, ostensibly to make the world a safer place, has played out like a bin Laden wet dream.
The world doesn’t give a crap about our interests, they give a crap about their own. And in the grand scheme of things, right now it looks to them like the United States is a superpowered rogue nation.
How anyone can be cool with this is beyond me.
PAD
Novafan wrote:
“Since you are the initiator of the messages, I would hope that you would try to show a little of an unbiased viewpoint and try to get good discussions going.”
Me:
There’s no such thing as an “unbiased viewpoint.” You either try to be unbiased, stifling some of your own view, or you say what you think. No blog has an obligation to be unbiased, and bias is a pretty subjective thing anyway (witness the liberal media/what liberal media? brouhaha). I’m certainly glad people aren’t afraid of saying what they think — whether I think they’re right or wrong.
Rob
Personally, I’m waiting for the point where the Iraqis hit 1984. No, not the book, the Reagan campaign slogan as applied to them. Namely, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”. Sub in “two” for “four” at the moment. But what we should honestly be trying to determine, in terms of how we’re doing over there, is whether the Iraqis in general think they’re better off now.
“The world doesn’t give a crap about our interests, they give a crap about their own. And in the grand scheme of things, right now it looks to them like the United States is a superpowered rogue nation.”
The problem is, if we leave things go straight to hëll–that’s one thing that both Bush, Kerry, Hillary and almost everyone except Ralph Nader agree on. So while packing up and leaving might give us the dubious satisfaction of telling teh French “Ha ha, you thought we were imperialists but we aren’t, ha ha.” it would be at a heavy price. And anyway, it would just be claimed that we left because we caouldn’t take triple digit casualties, a very bad message to send indeed.
I cant wait to see what would happen if Kerry was elected and OBL attacked us again on his watch.
Remember the South Park episode where Jim (Uncle Jimbo) tried to convince the Klan to support a PC position, because he couldn’t deal with them being on his side? Seeing Dee bash Kerry makes me feel like that.
PAD
(Weird acronym by the way. Yeah, I know it’s your initials, but I would’ve thought that you would have gone for something cooler — like The Dave …or something)
I have to agree with Bill on this one. We did make a mess out there, and leaving now would only result in the mother of all messes (I’d like to see Oxy Clean take on a full blown civil war). It’s our own responsibility to finish what we started and to not leave until the job is done. And if we do the job right, we may not have to leave at all (i.e. Japan & Germany)
That said, I am by no means a Bush supporter (one of my favorite sites is JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com — and by the way, he’s not). I firmly believe that in order to fix the mess, it will take a lot of creativity and a Fundamental Understanding of the situation. If I knew how to, I would have bolded and italicized that last part like crazy. Bush showed that he lacks both of these qualities by getting us into the quagmire in the first place, and his last stump speech shows that he has learned little to nothing since this war began
-Alonzo
PAD wrote…
“And it’s a big swing at the point…and a miss! Yes, a swing and a miss, and hear the disappointment from the crowd.”
“…We speak of our concern about wanting to make the world a safer place while ignoring the Geneva convention.”
Oh no, the catcher dropped the ball and the batter is off to first!
The Geneva Convention covers ONLY uniformed soldiers in an opposing army. Not rag-tag groups of terrorists and criminals.
“The Dave”
Yeah, on second thought, I guess that is kinda sucky.
Well, how about “The PAD”
Or “PADD” (Peter Allen David: Dynamo!)
Think about it.
-Alonzo
“The Geneva Convention covers ONLY uniformed soldiers in an opposing army. Not rag-tag groups of terrorists and criminals.”
Nope.
For one thing, the Geneva Convention forbids the taking prisoner of non-combatants and holding them for no reason other than to force wanted family members to surrender. It is a complete violation of human rights. It is a war crime. And it is going on in Iraq right now.
The rest of the world is aware that Americans are committing war crimes. Why aren’t Americans?
PAD
Actually, what’s frightening is that an intelligent person like you apparently believes we don’t need a large occupying force in Iraq to ensure its stability as the power transition moves forward.
Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that’s about the size of Montana?
I mean, what the “occupying force” really should be doing is training willing Iraqis to police themselves. And they are, but apparently it’s not enough to cut back on U.S. troops. So that means a good chunk of servicemen will have their stays extended by another 6 months after we’ve handed sovereignty over (To who, by the way? Because if it’s someone who would be totally supportive of the American viewpoint, I predict that leader will be dead before November…)
Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that’s about the size of Montana?
Donald Rumsfeld seems to think so. He’s sacked dámņ near every military person who’s disagreed with him (and they’ve all said we need MORE).
Seems like this is another case of the politicians denying the military what they need to execute this war……
Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that’s about the size of Montana?
Well, there are currently 39,110 police officers in the NYPD. That’s in comparatively friendly territory– people tend not to shoot back with rocket launchers here. And we’re still short-handed.
Den,
Re OBLs current breathing pattern.
Yes it is of course opinion but just take a step back and look at the situation.
And ask why no videos of him have been seen.
If you want to hurt Bush without gambling on the backlash of another murderous attack, get one out there.
I really am not going overboard in my thinking.
If he is not dead he must be clearly incapacitated.
BTW, Bush announced about two months ago that we were stepping up our efforts to find bin Laden. I guess he doesn’t believe bin Laden is atomized either.
No, he just knows that capturing or killing bin Laden will help him get reelected.
Remember, it was only last year that bin Laden was “no longer a priority”.
After Germany and Japan were defeated after World War II, did we just whack the dust off our hands, say “OK, that’s done,” and then hop on our ships and come home?
Maybe somebody can provide some numbers, but how many of our servicement died after WWII officially ended in each theatre?
How many people resisted the end of the war and kept on fighting?
Iraq is neither Japan nor Germany.
And ask why no videos of him have been seen.
Already answered. See above.
Just so we’re clear: You really have nothing to say about how the alleged WMD going to Syria makes it easier for the terrorists to get áhøld of it, right? So, then you agree that OFDM accomplished the exact opposite of its stated goal.
It does bother me that you show such negativity towards the President in a lot of your posts. Since you are the initiator of the messages, I would hope that you would try to show a little of an unbiased viewpoint and try to get good discussions going.
I hate to break it to you, Novafan, but this is PAD’s site. He (prusably) pays for the maintaince of this site out of his own money to express his opinions on whatever topic he wants to. He is under no legal or moral obligation present an “unbiased” view on anything. In fact, I think that fact that he doesn’t hold back his opinions, whether it is on politics or the cancellation of Captain Marvel that helps get good discussions going.
I’m sorry, but I am sick and tired of this talk about how we shouldn’t criticize the president because we’re at war, it hurts troop morale, gives cheer to terrorists, etc, because you what? It’s all bûllšhìŧ.
America was founded on the idea that every citizen has the right to say to any elected official, “I disagree with what you’re doing.” Saying that does not affect troop morale because the US military is not George Bush’s private praetorian guard. Their service is to the nation not to Caesar, I mean Bush, and we have citizens have the right to say if we think he is missusing them.
After Germany and Japan were defeated after World War II, did we just whack the dust off our hands, say “OK, that’s done,” and then hop on our ships and come home?
The difference is, Germany and Japan actually surrendered. Bush can hang all the “Mission Accomplished” banners he wants, but his war isn’t over, it’s just shifted into a guerrilla phase that Ðìçk and Rummy didn’t plan for. We may have captured Saddam, but his supporters and now the Shiite fundamentalist factions did not surrender to us, they just changed tactics from open confrontation to terrorist tactics.
I’m sorry, but I am sick and tired of this talk about how we shouldn’t criticize the president because we’re at war, it hurts troop morale, gives cheer to terrorists, etc, because you what? It’s all bûllšhìŧ.
America was founded on the idea that every citizen has the right to say to any elected official, “I disagree with what you’re doing.” Saying that does not affect troop morale because the US military is not George Bush’s private praetorian guard. Their service is to the nation not to Caesar, I mean Bush, and we have citizens have the right to say if we think he is missusing them.
Ðámņ straight.
I mean, that’s the WHOLE POINT of being a democracy and a republic. You debate the issues, you examine the decisions. In fact, I’d say you have a DUTY to speak up and criticize if you think the leader is not doing a good job.
Ðámņ straight Den and Roger!
In fact, I think it’s UNAMERICAN to *NOT* criticize the government when you see what it’s doing in your eyes to be wrong.
Letting the wrongs pile up and saying nothing smacks too much of Big Brother or Totalitarianism for me…
And guess what? Neither side is truly right or wrong, it’s all on an idividual basis. All members of the government are (presumably) human and therefore as far from perfect as can be…
OH Dennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
” Just so we’re clear: You really have nothing to say about how the alleged WMD going to Syria makes it easier for the terrorists to get áhøld of it, right? So, then you agree that OFDM accomplished the exact opposite of its stated goal.”
WRONG.
If we are in agreement that they went to Syria, then that stream of weapons has been now permanently stopped! Closed Shop. Going out of business!!!! etc…
Or do you think that was the first and only time.
Saddam can now no longer do this.
Saddam can no longer ignore UN Resolutions.
And as the pressure increases on Syria and North Korea and Iran, we can hope that we disable as many underground weapon networks as we can.
Speaking of which:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13668751.htm
WASHINGTON, May 13 (Reuters) – Libya, which last year said it would give up weapons of mass destruction, will not trade arms with Iran, North Korea, Syria and other nations that may proliferate such weapons, the United States said on Thursday.
“Libya will not deal in any military goods or services with states which Libya considers to be of serious weapons of mass destruction proliferation concern,” said U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, saying he was quoting from a Libyan statement.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The lovely, talented and presently certifiable Al Gore!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. (Al Gore, 1998)
Since the State of the Union there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an
Den!
You said.
” The reason he stopped issuing video tapes is because the CIA was analyzing the background in the tapes for a clue as to his location. Why he didn’t just film himself in front of a blank screen, I have no idea.”
So why not film himself in front of a blank screen
or a freshly painted white wall
or in the dark with a flashlight under his chin,
or in a closet
a plane,
the trunk of a car
Underwater
WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!
He is pushing up Daisies IMHO!
Roger and Bladestar,
Should the networks have at least one reporter on the rebuildig Iraq beat or would that be pandering to the gov’t?
If we are in agreement that they went to Syria, then that stream of weapons has been now permanently stopped! Closed Shop. Going out of business!!!! etc…
Once again, a statement of opinion offered without proof is worth nothing.
And an article stating what Libya is doing proves nothing about Syria.
The lovely, talented and presently certifiable Al Gore!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fascinating. Al Gore was in favor of force against Saddam.
Last time I checked, he wasn’t president and wasn’t the person who sent our troops into this quagmire.
Should the networks have at least one reporter on the rebuildig Iraq beat or would that be pandering to the gov’t?
They have ’em.
It’s just that, like every one else, you NEVER notice the good news, because it isn’t what sells or pulls ratings.
Free market and all that.
DEN: “Once again, a statement of opinion offered without proof is worth nothing.”
ME: You’re right. Like these fine examples?
**Bush doesn’t fail to understand how the rest of the world sees the US, he just doesn’t think it matters.
**As for the WMD, that justification was chosen because the administration decided it was the most “saleable.”
**The reason he stopped issuing video tapes is because the CIA was analyzing the background in the tapes for a clue as to his location.
**Well,AnthonyX, besides being totally snotty towards me, (I was not. I am now)
Anthony,
Stop presenting your opinions as facts and maybe we’ll stop calling you on your BS…
Roger,
The re-building story has gone missing.
When people speak of left wing bias, it is not just the stories that are reported, but the stories that are not reported.
* The biggest unreported story of the past month the UN Oil for Food Scandal. Where Kofi Annan and his family are personally involved.
* The recent Anti-Sadr and anti “militant” protests in Iraq.
How can you judge how the rebuilding is going if no one knows?
Bladestar,
Yes it is true.
I did forget to type IMHO or IMO before I polluted this forum by stating that Bin Laden is dead.
It was clearly an opinion.
Relax.
Grev wrote: “Do we really need 130,000 troops to look after a country that’s about the size of Montana?”
As Glenn points out, there are more than 39,000 police in one U.S. city (New York) to keep order — and even they are somewhat shorthanded.
The city of Chicago (NOT including the suburbs) had almost 600 murders last year. That’s less than, but comparable to, all the U.S. war dead in Iraq over a similar one-year period. And if you factored in the total murders in the entire metropolitan Chicago area, which includes the surrounding suburbs, I’ll bet my Marvel Value Stamps that the death toll of this ONE U.S. city region would eclipse ALL the U.S. war dead to date in Iraq — accidental OR combat-related.
Which is why I complained earlier this year to the Chicago Tribune editors regarding their daily fixation with Iraq over an arguably more serious murder issue right in their own back yard. I don’t have the stats to prove it, but I’ll bet my old Chicago neighborhood of Austin probably has a higher death rate per capita than does any comparable part of Baghdad — especially over the past 10 years!
Based on these realities regarding the security situation of just ONE U.S. city, perhaps 130,000 troops doesn’t seem like too large a security force for an entire country after all.
Russ Maheras
Duck the issue all you want, Anthonyx, you still haven’t shown me anything that’s convincing of bin Laden being dead or that the alleged WMD going to Syria doesn’t make this worse for us.
PAD wrote: “The point of my post was the part you chose to leave off: Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, “one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life.” The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn’t realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are.” The point is that we’re sending mixed messages to the world. We speak of high moral values…but don’t practice them. We speak of our concern about wanting to make the world a safer place while ignoring the Geneva convention. And we speak of handing over sovereignty to a country…but refusing to leave if they asked us to.”
I didn’t respond to this point because, for the most part, I happen to agree with it. We do look bad in the eyes of the world because of the recent Iraq prison scandal. However, I disagree with your assumption that once their government has stabilized, we will not leave Iraq if asked to do so. France asked U.S. forces to leave the country in 1966, and we left. Japan, Italy and Germany could have done the same, and we also would have left. And although I agree totally that the recent prison debacle was damaging to the U.S.’s image, I am not so sure that we cannot restore some of the lost faith by doing what most Americans believe is the right thing to do. That is, we should fully investigate and punish those responsible — regardless of how high up the chain of command the problem goes.
By the way, I find it curious that you care so much about how the world views us for some issues, but not others (gay marriage, women’s rights, free press, etc). Isn’t that a tad hypocritical? Personally, I always try to do the right thing based on my U.S.-fostered value system, and if the world doesn’t like it, that’s their problem. I’ve spent a lot of time overseas, and personally, I find many of “the world’s” customs, biases and quirks to be at odds with many of the freedoms and liberties I took for granted growing up in the U.S.
Russ Maheras
“Fascinating. Al Gore was in favor of force against Saddam.
Last time I checked, he wasn’t president and wasn’t the person who sent our troops into this quagmire.”
I see, so what really upsets you is that it was GWB that made the decision, but if it Al had won the election (which in your eyes, he might have) it would be ok.
look, both sides came to the same conclusion, but now one side acted (right or wrong)& the other is pìššëd because they’re still mad about the outcome of an election 4 years ago.
look guys, the president doesn’t sit in his office & watch this board. everything we say is simply for our benefits.
what’s done is done. you want to make a difference, go vote. ultimately that is the true voice of the people.
we’re in iraq. deal with it. if kerry wins & he decides to do whatever he wants to do we (conservatives) will have to deal with it.
all this ranting and raving isn’t going to change anything. If as many people are as upset with the president, as Peter & a whole bunch of you say, then Kerry should win by one of the worst landslides in the history of politics.
other then that i don’t see the point of continuing to argue the same points over & over & over.
Russ says:
“By the way, I find it curious that you care so much about how the world views us for some issues, but not others (gay marriage, women’s rights, free press, etc).”
That’s an interesting point. Given the fact that the Islamofascists (and even some of the more moderate Muslims, regrettably) hate homosexuals almost as much as they do Jews, the recent move toward expanding the rights of gays will probably make them even more convinced that we are in league with the devil himself. Which I would file right under “Rat’s ášš and other things I don’t care about” but for those who worry about our place in the world’s opinion, it has to be admitted that even without gay marriage we are far more tolerant of gays than most of the world.
(And by most of the world I mean, most of the world–please, no posts from Iceland outraged that I didn’t know that the entire 294,300 of
them are as openminded as all hëll or whatever.}
Joe V.,
Speaking of arguing “the same points over and over and over”…this is precisely what you do whenever we have a political thread going. Why continue to post on them if you find them so repetitive?
Frankly, I find it refreshing to engage in (usually civil) debate about the issues of the day, particularly Iraq. Even though the media has been obsessed with the prison scandal, people here continue to find new angles and different points.
For the record, THIS is what democracy is about. The exchange of ideas. I have learned a bit by engaging others, and they have said the same in regards to my points. that’s how we evolve.
The simple act of voting, by itself, doesn’t mean much if it is not an educated choice and if you do not participate the other 1,400+ days between Presidential elections.
I mean, a monkey can be taught how to vote, and in many cases may actually make a more intelligent choice while doing so.
ultimately that is the true voice of the people.
*BUZZER* Wrong.
2000 proved that a majority vote for one candidate doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority candidate wins.
“I didn’t respond to this point because, for the most part, I happen to agree with it. We do look bad in the eyes of the world because of the recent Iraq prison scandal. However, I disagree with your assumption that once their government has stabilized, we will not leave Iraq if asked to do so.”
The number of times everyone from Bush to Cheney to Rumsfeld have said, “We have to keep troops there, and even increase troop numbers, for the next several years to protect US interests” makes it, I think, far more than simply an assumption.
“By the way, I find it curious that you care so much about how the world views us for some issues, but not others (gay marriage, women’s rights, free press, etc). Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?”
No, and I’m stunned that you’d even try and draw the comparison. How we conduct ourselves in our own backyard is our business. That is 180 degrees from invading someone else’s country and imposing our views upon them, asked for or not.
I’m fully aware that there are other countries, other nations, who don’t like Americans because they don’t like our beliefs and don’t like the way we strut our stuff. Too effin bad. But this country’s actions in Iraq are another matter entirely. In the hapless, hopeless matter in which this invasion has been handled, we have flooded terrorist organizations with ready recruits. We, the country that declared a war on terrorism, have helped swell their ranks, and guaranteed that all the worst case scenarios that hate mongers have claimed about the US for years now have newfounded credibility.
This entire business is a fiasco. The notion that *anyone* could be supporting the administration that got us into it is just staggering. The thing is, nations throughout the world believe that Bush does not truly represent the voice of the American people (going all the way back to the fact that he didn’t win the popular vote.) I think they’re going to watch the 2004 election with great interest. If Bush is re-elected (or, if you will, elected for the first time), it will be seen as a national endorsement of a rapacious, greedy, bellicose government. We will all be tarred with the same brush.
PAD
“we’re in iraq. deal with it. if kerry wins & he decides to do whatever he wants to do we (conservatives) will have to deal with it.
all this ranting and raving isn’t going to change anything.”
Talking about it (or, as a conservative would call it, ranting and raving) *is* dealing with it. Forty five percent of this country, insanely, still supports Bush. Forty five don’t. And ten percent are undecided. So if pointing out Bush’s idiocies and ineptitude loudly enough and frequently enough on websites convinces six of that ten percent to get this guy out of office, so much the better.
I don’t like Bush. I feel on solid ground in saying he’s the worst president of the 21st Century. And I will continue to say so however and whenever I wish.
Deal with it.
PAD
“Worst president of the 21st century.”
I assume you realize that’s not saying a whole lot, right? 🙂
TWL
who agrees with you about Bush, but tends to get pedantic about math
“Talking about it (or, as a conservative would call it, ranting and raving)”
PAD,
You are very outspoken against the painting of groups with broad brushes, or generalizing if you will.
Yet you seem to have no problem doing so when it comes to “conservatives”.
Joe V. made the statement, and as you can see from my post that I made prior to your two most recent, I disagreed with him.
I don’t even consider myself a “conservative” in the traditional sense, but I don’t feel such generalizations do anyone any good.
Thank you.
PAD wrote: “No, and I’m stunned that you’d even try and draw the comparison. How we conduct ourselves in our own backyard is our business. That is 180 degrees from invading someone else’s country and imposing our views upon them, asked for or not. I’m fully aware that there are other countries, other nations, who don’t like Americans because they don’t like our beliefs and don’t like the way we strut our stuff. Too effin bad. But this country’s actions in Iraq are another matter entirely. In the hapless, hopeless matter in which this invasion has been handled, we have flooded terrorist organizations with ready recruits.”
Because of the melting pot nature of our country, the entire world is our back yard. We are hated for our beliefs and the liberties we fight for, and we are hated because we export our value system around the world via popular culture. As a matter of fact, our exported popular culture is as least as offensive to many fundamentalists as is our presence in Iraq. I’m equally stunned that that is not obvious to you. We’ve been reviled and a target for decades, and the only reason it’s come to a head is because after 9-11, our leadership from BOTH political parties decided it was time to stop fooling around and take the fight to the bad guys. Sure we’ve ticked off the fanatics. but do you think they would have left us alone if we had done nothing? If you really believe that, then you’ve got blinders on. The fact of the matter is, regardless of who gets elected this fall, we are still going to be attacked and reviled. Remember, fundamentalists didn’t attack us on 9-11 because Bush was president — they were planning to attack us before Bush was even a NOMINEE. They hated us long before, and the popular culture industry — which continually exports our “shocking” and “decadent” ideas to areas of the world that are far more conservative than, say, Rush Limbaugh could ever hope to be — was no doubt a very powerful factor. This is not a war of guns and bombs — it is a war of ideas.
Russ Maheras
PAD wrote: “If Bush is re-elected (or, if you will, elected for the first time), it will be seen as a national endorsement of a rapacious, greedy, bellicose government. We will all be tarred with the same brush.”
As I said previously, it is not going to make a lick of difference who gets elected this fall — we still will be reviled by fundamentalists. Keep in mind that arguably the nicest U.S. president in history — Jimmy Carter — had fundamentalist Iranians kidnap and hold hostage scores of Americans for almost a year. They thumbed their nose at Carter at every turn, humiliating him (and the U.S., for that matter) so that he had an approval rating that was 16 percentage pints lower than Bush’s is right now. Yeah, that’s right. Carter had a 31 percent approval rating, and he was trounced easily by Reagan. So, this fantasy you have that the U.S. will be loved by the crazy fundamentalists if Bush is not elected again, is just plain wrong.
You see, as an independent, I KNOW this. It is obvious to me. I’m not blinded by partisan blinders. Which is why, if the Democrats REALLY want to get Kerry elected this fall, they’d better find a better reason vote for independents to vote for him than “the terrorists will like the U.S. better if Kerry is president.”
That’s even worse than Pollyannish — that’s just plain silly.
Russ Maheras
Because of the melting pot nature of our country, the entire world is our back yard.
And this attitude has gotten us in trouble.
We assume that because millions upon millions of people have come here, everybody wants to be like us.
Well, guess what, millions upon millions more have not come to the US, nor do they want to.
You mention about how the Iranian fundamentalists “thumbed their nose” at the US and Carter.
Well, we are doing the exact same thing now to the rest of the world.
And I can tell you, nobody liked it when the Iranians did it, and nobody likes it when we do it.
Russ, I’m pretty sure PAD wasn’t talking about fundamentalists there. He was talking about the everyday non fundamentalists who aren’t even necessarily muslim. What PAD was saying isn’t that he is worried about pìššìņg øff fundamentalists; he is worried about creating more of them.
Oh, and I’m also pretty sure we don’t force them to watch our movies. 🙂
PAD: Forty five percent of this country, insanely, still supports Bush. Forty five don’t. And ten percent are undecided.
Russ: As I said previously, it is not going to make a lick of difference who gets elected this fall — we still will be reviled by fundamentalists. Keep in mind that arguably the nicest U.S. president in history — Jimmy Carter — had fundamentalist Iranians kidnap and hold hostage scores of Americans for almost a year. They thumbed their nose at Carter at every turn, humiliating him (and the U.S., for that matter) so that he had an approval rating that was 16 percentage pints lower than Bush’s is right now. Yeah, that’s right. Carter had a 31 percent approval rating, and he was trounced easily by Reagan. So, this fantasy you have that the U.S. will be loved by the crazy fundamentalists if Bush is not elected again, is just plain wrong.
The difference between Carter and Bush – or for that matter Bush and many previous presidents – is that Bush is trying to do something about it. We’ve ignored the Syrian and Saudi governments as their schools teach anti-American and anti-Israeli racism, all the while supporting borderline governments so the oil keeps flowing.
After 9-11, Bush was given two choices: keep things the way they were, or start working to change some things. He chose the latter – and it is a huge gamble. If successful in helping to create a well-run democracy in the Middle East, then we will no longer be looked at as hypocrites as we prop up petty dictators to get resources from that part of the world.
Bush is going to go down in history as either a visionary or a failure (or perhaps both) – I don’t think there’s any doubt of that. The main worry in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we may not do enough to keep new governments in power.
To my mind, that is the main issue in the election: how will we help these countries get on the right track. Right now the campaigns are still so busy arguing over whether we should have gone, we’re ignoring what we need to do to make things work. Bush wants to stay the course, Kerry wants to internationlize it – but neither is saying what they would really do to make things work better.
“We’ve ignored the Syrian and Saudi governments as their schools teach anti-American and anti-Israeli racism, all the while supporting borderline governments so the oil keeps flowing.”
I agree, we should be putting more pressure on the Saudies. The problem is that Bush is all buddy buddy with them. So next time someone wants to invade a country, please make sure you are invading the right one. And no, I’m not saying we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, I’m just saying that Iraq is only one corrupt country among many; which lately seems to include our own. 🙂
” I’m equally stunned that that is not obvious to you. We’ve been reviled and a target for decades, and the only reason it’s come to a head is because after 9-11, our leadership from BOTH political parties decided it was time to stop fooling around and take the fight to the bad guys. Sure we’ve ticked off the fanatics. but do you think they would have left us alone if we had done nothing? If you really believe that, then you’ve got blinders on. “
Noooo…no blinders, thanks. I can see quite clearly that you’ve fallen into the Bush trap of believing that attacking Iraq was a necessity on the war on terrorism, when it wasn’t. How do I know you’ve fallen into the trap? Because, according to you, attacking Afghanistan qualifies as “doing nothing.”
Any number of times, I’ve said I thought the attack on Afghanistan was a necessary response. Just as I’ve said that Iraq was unnecessary. But because you’ve bought into the Bush rhetoric, you’ve forgotten where the response ended and the needless assault that turned the world against us began.
Because you’re looking where Bush wants you to.
So how are those blinders working for you?
PAD