I think the following would be an interesting script for a commerical for a Democratic activist group:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he’s against nation building.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from “F 9/11.”
3) Footage of Bush declaring “MIssion Accomplished.”
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
7) Footage of Bush saying that he’s keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
“While he’s lyin’, we’re dyin’.”
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Don’t Want to See More People Die On George Bush’s Watch.
Just a passing thought.
PAD
• 
“Maybe because so much of the terrorist organizations’ focus is directed on Iraq. Iraq has become a kind of black hole sucking in every available violent Islamic extremist– the sort of people who used to join Al Qaeda.”
1) If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, thereby destablizing the entire nation, it wouldn’t be the magnet. However,
2) Most of the violence there is being committed by Iraqi citizens who are fighting against an invading force & it’s puppet government.
3) This still doesn’t answer my initial question, What does invading Iraq have to do with fighting terrorism when most of the terrorists come from & are funded by Saudia Arabia?
“I doubt the war planners were precognitive, but if the USDOD somehow could have planned that”
The USDOD didn’t plan this war. The Bush administration / PNAC members did. The USDOD did anticipate much of what is happening, Warned that there weren’t enough troops for the job, that it would destablize the region, but were overruled by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. They said no, it’ll be a cakewalk, the troops would by welcomed with flowers, etc.
“that would have been the kind of lie about war aims that I could live with”
Unless you’re in Iraq risking having your ášš shot off, It’s easy to say that you can live with the lies that led into this war.
Um, has EITHER candidate state what their “exit strategy” for Iraq is?
— Ken from Chicago
I agree that the lengthy posting of nonsense anti-Bush statistics (Are we to take this guy at his word? Are there any sources for all of this?) from a British source is completely unpersuasive. And yes, I had the option of not reading it and largely didn’t, except to skim it and notice the obvious bias.
Sheesh!
Dennis Donohoe
“Maybe because so much of the terrorist organizations’ focus is directed on Iraq. Iraq has become a kind of black hole sucking in every available violent Islamic extremist– the sort of people who used to join Al Qaeda.”
1) If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, thereby destablizing the entire nation, it wouldn’t be the magnet. However,
2) Most of the violence there is being committed by Iraqi citizens who are fighting against an invading force & it’s puppet government.
1) “Its puppet government.” Not “it’s puppet government.” Pet peeve of mine.
2) Yes, most. Not all. There are significant numbers of foreign insurgents.
3) This still doesn’t answer my initial question, What does invading Iraq have to do with fighting terrorism when most of the terrorists come from & are funded by Saudia Arabia?
Actually, it does. I’m assuming that you’re questioning the decision-making process about going to war, rather than the (unintended) consequences. I think it’s very likely that a result of the war has been a diversion of money, attention, and manpower from terrorist groups to insurgents in Iraq, but unless the DoD (see below) was unbelievably clever and highly dishonest, that doesn’t affect their decision at the time of the invasion. As for the interpretation I believe you meant for your question, what the decision to invade has to do with keeping terrorists off the street, I responded with a counterfactual– that it would be highly relevant if we had known in advance that invading Iraq would have redirected terrorists into a theater in which we could fight them with soldiers on our terms. That would have been a brilliant move, albeit underhanded. My use of the word “precognitive” should provide some hint as to whether I think that actually was the plan rather than an unintended consequence as I believe, but then again you seem to have difficulties with logical reasoning. Such as:
“I doubt the war planners were precognitive, but if the USDOD somehow could have planned that”
The USDOD didn’t plan this war. The Bush administration / PNAC members did. The USDOD did anticipate much of what is happening, Warned that there weren’t enough troops for the job, that it would destablize the region, but were overruled by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. They said no, it’ll be a cakewalk, the troops would by welcomed with flowers, etc.
So you’re saying that Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) and Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense) planned the war but the Department of Defense didn’t? Do you seriously want to allege that the Secretary isn’t part of the Department he heads? I’m sure the Department of Justice would be thrilled to know they’re not responsible for Ashcroft.
“that would have been the kind of lie about war aims that I could live with”
Unless you’re in Iraq risking having your ášš shot off, It’s easy to say that you can live with the lies that led into this war.
Hypothetical lies are always easy to live with. As are hypothetical locusts, frogs, and plague. I spun out a scenario in which the previous post made sense in the context you asked about. That doesn’t make it any more real than an Air National Guard memo. However, I don’t think the Administration lied. I think they believed that the Iraqi people would be more welcoming than they are, I think they fully expected to find significant WMD programs [As an aside, I base that opinion on 1) the fact that the Army ordered large quantities of body bags, which we would have known we wouldn’t need in a conventional war and 2) I don’t think the Administration was dumb enough to lie about the war in a way that would have exploded in their faces the moment they won and, gosh, found no WMDs, and 3) if they were dishonest enough to lie about the WMDs they’d have been dishonest enough to plant some plutonium in a spiderhole somewhere and say “We told you so.”], and I believe that they saw Iraq as a way to combat terror because a democratic Iraq is a good first step toward remaking the Middle East in our image. It may not work, but I think that was the plan.
Much easier to keep saying 9/11 over and over than to do anything about it…
REPORT SHOWS BUSH NEGLECTING HUNT FOR AL QAEDA
In the months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised America he
would make the hunt for al Qaeda the number one objective of his
administration. “[We] do everything we can to chase [al Qaeda] down and
bring them to justice,” Bush said. “That’s a key priority, obviously, for me
and my administration.”[1] But according to a new report, the President has
dangerously underfunded and understaffed the intelligence unit charged with
tracking down al Qaeda’s leader.
The New York Times reports “Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New
York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced
case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden
than it did at the time of the attacks.” The bin Laden unit is “stretched so
thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to
90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any
meaningful work.”[2]
The revelation comes months after the Associated Press reported the Bush
Treasury Department “has assigned five times as many agents to investigate
Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden’s” financial
infrastructure.[3] It also comes after USA Today reported that the President
shifted “resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq” in 2002.
Specifically, Bush moved special forces tracking al Qaeda out of Afghanistan
and into Iraq war preparations. He also left the CIA “stretched badly in its
capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from
Afghanistan.”[4] That has allowed these terrorists to regroup: according to
the senior intelligence officials in July of this year, bin Laden and other
top al Qaeda leaders are now directing a plot “to carry out a large-scale
terror attack against the United States” and are overseeing the plan “from
their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.”[5]
Sources:
1. “President Calls for Ticket to Independence in Welfare Reform,”
WhiteHouse.gov, 5/10/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55681.
2. “C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells
Lawmakers,” New York Times, 9/15/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55682.
3. “More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden,” Common Dreams News Center,
4/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55683.
4. “Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions,” USA Today, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55684.
5. “Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.,” CNN.com, 7/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55685.
And why we’ll never find out the truth about what’s going on…
http://www.house.gov/waxman/
Secrecy in the Bush Administration
A comprehensive report released by Rep. Waxman shows that the Bush
Administration has consistently undermined the laws that promote public
access to government records while systematically expanding the laws
that authorize secret government operations. Rep. Waxman and other
members of the Government Reform Committee are introducing the Restore
Open Government Act to reverse this assault on the principle of open and
accountable government.
“So you’re saying that Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) and Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense) planned the war but the Department of Defense didn’t? Do you seriously want to allege that the Secretary isn’t part of the Department he heads”
Point taken. Allow me to rephrase. The Generals, who spent their carreers planning & fighting wars, anticipated much of what is happening, warned that there weren’t enough troops for the job, that it would destablize the region, but were overruled by civilian appointees with no military experience such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. They said no, it’ll be a cakewalk, the troops would by welcomed with flowers, etc
“Hypothetical lies are always easy to live with”
Hypothetical or not, being a couple thousand miles from the result of the lie makes it very easy to live with. Like challenging people to “bring it on” when you don’t have to face ‘it’.
Kingbobb: When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil? It’s not the system, it’s the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics.
Luigi Novi: Of course they are. In dictatorships, the dictator
Yes, it is possible to convert certain semi-automatic weapons to fire in full-auto mode. It destroys the barrel, of course, and the accuracy is even worse than the usual automatic fire, but it is possible.
It’s also possible to convert a length of ordinary lead pipe into a deadly explosive device.
We must immediately ban the sale of all new lead pipes in this country!
“Footage of Bush declaring “MIssion Accomplished.””
Bush never declared “mission accomplished.” He declared “an end to major military operations in Iraq.” He chose to do this at a ceremony that was already celebrating the conclusion of the USS Abraham Lincoln’s mission in Iraq… hence the banner which read “mission accomplished.” This appears to be a common misconception which liberal pundits have tried their best to perpetuate.
Craig –
“Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.”
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
This may be a nitpick, but, I don’t really like my name being attributed to somebody elses comment. 🙂
By the way,are you under the impression that the assault weapons ban actually banned all assault weapons?
No, and I think it’s a sad loophole in the law.
I see no reason whatsoever for a private citizen to have any fully automatic weapon.
If you need a fully automatic weapon to go hunting, you should find a new hobby.
0 — Probable number of people (even Bush-haters) who slogged through the irritatingly-long laundry list you posted
Actually, I read the whole thing. The sad part is that you find the truth so dámņ irritating.
He declared “an end to major military operations in Iraq.”
Last I checked, that was still as far from the truth as one can get.
Ok, reposting for the sake of the fact I apparently missed a closing tag, and otherwise nobody will be able to tell what I’m quoting. 😛
Craig –
“Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.”
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
This may be a nitpick, but, I don’t really like my name being attributed to somebody elses comment. 🙂
By the way,are you under the impression that the assault weapons ban actually banned all assault weapons?
No, and I think it’s a sad loophole in the law.
I see no reason whatsoever for a private citizen to have any fully automatic weapon.
If you need a fully automatic weapon to go hunting, you should find a new hobby.
0 — Probable number of people (even Bush-haters) who slogged through the irritatingly-long laundry list you posted
Actually, I read the whole thing. The sad part is that you find the truth so dámņ irritating.
He declared “an end to major military operations in Iraq.”
Last I checked, that was still as far from the truth as one can get.
“Craig –
“Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.”
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
This may be a nitpick, but, I don’t really like my name being attributed to somebody elses comment. :)”
Sorry. My bad.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, when Clinton was in office for only 37 days. Let
“Luigi Novi: Yeah, when Clinton was in office for only 37 days. Let
Nothing to do with the topic, but my unabashed opporunity to wish you Peter and your family L’Shanna Tovah, as well as any other members of the threads or forums who are of the Jewish faith. May the coming year bring you all peace and happiness, good health and joy, success and love.
Simple facts:
Under Bill Clinton
-The highest budget surplus in U.S. History.
-Lied about blow-job, didn’t affect my life what-so-ever.
Under George Bush2:
-Largest Budget deficit in the last 10 years, (possibly in U.S. history)
-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers.
-Bin Laden still not captured, world sympathies squandered resulting in increased Anti-U.S. sentiment World-Wide.
Republican? Democrat? Who care.
Facts should determine who gets your vote.
“-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers.”
Show me where he lied. Not that he had bad information that everyone else had, but actually lied.
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/000958.html
Rather: “Prove I’m Not Queen of the Space Unicorns”
NEW YORK — For the fourth time in as many days, CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather interrupted his telecast tonight to reiterate his claim that he has been crowned Queen of the Space Unicorns.
Glaring into the camera, Rather leveled a stern denunciation of his skeptics, terming them “hateful” and “jealous.”
“I have told you again and again the tales of my ascension, my travels and adventures amongst the Cloud People, my ongoing struggle with Lord Gnarl and the Carved Army of the Fateful Forest. You’ve heard the facts, and that’s the end of it. You think you can challenge my claim to the throne? Go for it. But you can’t, can you? You can’t, and you know it. So let’s just get past this.”
Holding up a document that he insisted was proof of his royal lineage, Rather repeated his demand to be addressed as “Queen Alareol the Wise, Protector of the Rainbow-Flame.” The document appeared to be a doorknob menu for a local Chinese restaurant.
“I don’t expect you people to understand what I’m going through,” continued Rather. “I don’t have to take this. All I want is a little consideration here. A little consideration, and some nice green grass. Crunchy, delicious grass. Nnnnnyaaaaar.”
The CBS Evening News airs at 6:30 p.m. EST.
Sorry, already old news. My bad.
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/000965.html
Rather Alters Stance on Space-Unicorn Royalty
NEW YORK — In a stunning reversal yesterday, embattled CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather renounced his claim to the throne of the Space Unicorns, instead declaring himself to be the Bonnukarr, culmination of human evolution, sent back in time from the 857th Century by the warrior-god Kobaltine IV to prepare mankind for the coming Insect Wars.
“All light flows through me,” Rather explained. “All vision is mine.”
Poking himself in the left temple with increasing force and rapidity, Rather noted that this revelation of his true nature has brought with it a host of supernatural powers, including the ability to dissolve most solid matter with invisible beams from his fingers, great physical strength and endurance, and the ability to sense the presence of his arch-enemy Lord Gnarl, who “flits from one soul to the next, never far, always just out of reach.”
Rather then finished the remainder of his newscast without using vowels.
(Spokesmen for Kobaltine IV could not be reached for comment.)
Jesus! The news is coming in so fast i can’t keep up!.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/09/rather_blames_r.html
RATHER BLAMES ROVE IN ROCKET-SKATE MISHAP
NEW YORK – Veteran anchorman Dan Rather implicated White House Political Director Karl Rove as “the mastermind behind the so-called Acme Group” after his rocket-powered roller skates exploded during a Wednesday CBS Evening News investigative report.
Rather had donned the controversial Acme skates — along with an Acme brand Bat-Man suit — in a complicated sting operation to reveal what he termed a “deep conspiracy between the White House and internet partisans to cover up George Bush’s shameful military records.”
The investigation went awry soon after Rather lit the skates, releasing what NYU Physics professor Alan Sokol estimated as “20,000 to 30,000 pounds of thrust.” The heat of the initial explosion was so intense that it singed the hair off several nearby CBS reporters, including Rather’s anchor heir-apparent John Roberts.
The blast sent Rather hurtling along 53rd Street toward the Hudson River at speeds estimated upwards of 200 miles per hour, scarcely slowing as the runaway skates drug the helpless journalist over, under and through stalled rush hour traffic.
Rather frantically righted himself just in time to hurtle cleanly though the side of an MTA bus at 7th Avenue, leaving a gaping Rather-shaped hole. The impact sent Rather careening down the stairs of the 50th Street subway terminal, through a turnstile, and onto the tracks of the Uptown-bound 1 train.
“The incoming tunnel was sparking and lighting up, I thought there was some kind of power problem,” said Carla Robertson, who witnessed Rather speeding through the tunnel at the 34th Street platform. “Later I realized it must have been his ášš hitting the third rail.”
Robertson said she didn’t pay much attention whe she saw a spread-eagle Rather, screaming along the tracks on rocket roller skates.
“This is New York, so we see celebrities all the time,” said Robertson. “Then I realized he was heading downtown on the uptown tracks.”
Witnesses as far as Chelsea report hearing the collision as Rather met the next oncoming train, which sent the newsman rocketing skyward through a man hole cover at 31st and Broadway, arms flailing wildly, his rocket skates sputtering their last spare ounces of fuel.
Midtown bystanders looked on in horror as the award-winning broadcast titan began plummeting from his 3000-foot apex. Amazingly, though, Rather’s arm-flailing and prescient decision to wear the Bat-Man suit had paid off. Regaining composure after the initial shock, he began soaring over the skyline of Manhattan, swooping through its concrete canyons.
Rather’s high-flying antics came to a abrupt conclusion when he splattered into the New York Times building. Momentarily stunned, he peeled off the side into a desperate pummet, not realizing his Bat-Man wings remained adhered to a 38th floor window.
Gasping for breath as he climbed from his Rather-shaped crater on 43rd Street, he quickly faced another ignomy: his impact had jarred loose a grand piano that was hanging from a rope outside William Safire’s 30th-story office. As the shadow of the piano slowly grew, Rather pulled out a tiny umbrella and picket sign that read “Yipes!!”
His lump-covered head peering through the demolished keyboard, Rather finally played a off-key rendition of “Taps” on his piano-key teeth.
Rather remains in guarded condition at Cedars-Sinai hospital, but says his legendary investigative ferocity “is as healthy as Olympic weightlifter’s liver.”
“Batten down the barn door, Aunt Gussie, we’re got more stories coming, and I promise you that these will sting the Bush boys like syphillitic urine,” said a defiant Rather.
Rather said that the CBS news team was already working on a new story that would “prove, once and for all, that Karl Rove made those rocket skates.”
“I can’t reveal much right now,” added Rather. “We’re still trying to line up the necessary catapult.”
These sound like the types of articles the Bush Administration used to justify the war in Iraq.
Craig wrote:
>>>Actually, I read the whole thing. The sad part is that you find the truth so dámņ irritating.
No, I find it irritating that someone would cut and paste such a looooooooong laundry list on someone ele’s blog, a piece which is, as it’s presented (without footnotes and references), merely an unsubstantiated opinion list — and not even James’ direct personal opinion, at that. A link would have been much more thoughtful.
“Republican? Democrat? Who care.
Facts should determine who gets your vote.”
You’d think that, wouldn’t you.
You will generally find that Bush supporters are able to support him, not because of the facts, but in spite of them. The facts you put forward–which really are indisputable–will be disputed. Will be aggressively denied. They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush’s track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor. Bush never lied, he was…misunderstood. Or he himself was lied to. Bush has made no mistakes, it’s just that his success is taking much, much longer than planned. A body count far outpacing Vietnam’s? A result not of bullets and bombs, but instead a liberal media focusing only on corpses instead of all the “good stuff” that’s going on in Iraq.
I will agree that Kerry hasn’t helped himself. Carving out a position on Iraq that is similar to Bush’s was just flat-out dumb. People need an alternative to Bush, not Bush redux but with a better vocabulary. The biggest problem, though, is that people prefer single mindedness, even simple mindedness, to complexity. If nothing else, it plays better in soundbites. Many people can’t hold more than one thought in their heads at a time, and so someone as intellectually disengaged as Bush is able to portray someone who can do so as uncertain instead of simply more aware of the shifting world around him.
Eighty percent of the people in the United States didn’t read a book last year…including, supposedly, its leader. Welcome to Bush country. You get the president you deserve. Unfortunately, we get him, too.
PAD
>2) Most of the violence there is
>being committed by Iraqi citizens who
>are fighting against an invading force &
>it’s puppet government.
On what basis do you make this claim? My personal contacts with first hand knowledge disagree.
I have a friend who has worked with Iraqi refugees for well over 15 years. He lived in Jordan for 12 of the last 13 years. He is Lebanese and speaks fluent Arabic. He knows numerous families who still have relatives in Iraq. Some of those families are making plans to return to Iraq.
My point: According to my friend, the overwhelming majority of “average” Iraqi’s are *not* invovled with the insurgency, nor do they support it. They understand we are not an “invading force” come to rule their country.
The so called “insurgency” is made up of 3 groups:
1.) Sadaam friends and allies who have lost power and want to regain it. While we have captured many of Sadaam’s top men, by no means have we caputred everyone. All over the country, there are Sadaam loyalists who were corrupt and gained enormous amounts of money while Sadaam was in power. Now their “money supply” has been ended, and they don’t like it. They were well armed by Sadaam, and they are now using those weapons.
2.) Shiite radicals. This should be obvious from watching the last 2 months of news. There is a power vacuum, and certain radical elements want to seize the power.
3.) Foreign fighters. This is the smallest of the group, but they are a real part, and help supply others.
Most of the people in Iraq do NOT want America to leave yet. Why? Because they know things would revert to an all out civil war. Most are very glad Sadaam is gone. Most want us to leave as soon as possible. But most are not trying to fight us. They want a stable government, and whether they like that we “invaded” or not, they want us to end what we started. They don’t see the current government as a puppet government.
Let me finish by saying that I realize this was one person’s perspective, not a “researched” news item. But my friend is not even an American citizen, nor does he have a western mindset. He does not have any reason to support Bush. He was just telling me what he has heard in working with Iraqi refugees.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
I think you may be leaving out a fourth faction – young Iraqi males who for whatever reason ( hatred of US; Islamic fervor; being easily influenced) have joined up with one of the three previously menioned groups.
PAD,
I still can’t wrap my head around your point. Most of the decisions to come out of this administration have been detrimental to the average American, yet so many still support him so totally. I keep trying to figure out why. I don’t really believe people want a simple-minded answer to everything, but with the assaults on our liberties, the catastophe in Iraq, trying to turn our secular government into a fundamental religious one, allowing development in so many of our wilderness areas, not funding programs they proposed…
Just how is all this reconciled with the “good-ol-boy” compassionate conservative image? No one can tell me how these policies have made their lives better, but the keep defending all these poor choices. Do you have any insight? Does anyone?
PAD wrote:
“I will agree that Kerry hasn’t helped himself. Carving out a position on Iraq that is similar to Bush’s was just flat-out dumb. People need an alternative to Bush, not Bush redux but with a better vocabulary.”
I think the biggest mistake Kerry made there was by not emphasizing that he won’t immediately pull US troops out of Iraq because Bush made a huge mess in Iraq and its up to the US to clean it up before we can leave.
Just how is all this reconciled with the “good-ol-boy” compassionate conservative image?
It can’t, because the actions just don’t match with the rhetoric. This is the same old right wing ideology, hostile to gays and minorities, dressed up in PC terms (which is why it works, I guess; it’s OK coming from conservatives, but not OK coming from liberals).
KAren:
I think its all become ( on both sides, though moreso for the Republicans) about “my side winning” as opposed to who would do the best job running the country.
Carl: Worked for people that wanted to blame GWB for 9/11, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander…
Luigi Novi: I never blamed GWB for 9/11, and 9/11 didn
They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush’s track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor…
People need an alternative to Bush, not Bush redux but with a better vocabulary. The biggest problem, though, is that people prefer single mindedness, even simple mindedness, to complexity. If nothing else, it plays better in soundbites. Many people can’t hold more than one thought in their heads at a time.
Guess what. Some Bush supporters do consider the alternatives. Personally I wish Joe Lieberman would have been nominated. At least then I think there may have been a choice. We have two mediocre alternatives – and Bush is the better option, IMHO.
Kerry, as you rightly say, hasn’t helped himself. I’m more than willing to listen, but so far I can’t tell that he’s said anything worth listening to. His Iraq policy boils down to “get us out, put NATO in” – as if the NATO allies are going to go marching in once we are pulling out. His terrorism policy is “get them after they get us” – which is intolerable to me after 9/11. His spending policy is no better than Bush’s – but I don’t like Bush’s much either. They both want to spend more money than we have. The surplus was an accounting myth anyway – and anyone who paid attention knew it – but both sides were trumpeting how to spend it rather than something novel like pay off some of the debt.
So, domestically, it’s a toss-up for me. Internationally, I prefer Bush’s policy. Now, you can call me simple-minded, you can say I have a religious fervor, but the “simple” 🙂 fact is that – in my consideration – Bush is the better choice.
Karen:
>Just how is all this reconciled with the “good-ol-boy” compassionate conservative image? No one can tell me how these policies have made their lives better, but the keep defending all these poor choices. Do you have any insight? Does anyone?
From the people I’ve spoken with individually and what I’ve seen in group conversation, on the news and online, it appears to me to be:
1) Fear
2) The tendency that nations have to become blindingly nationalistic when there is conflict with outside forces.
or…
3) A combination of the two.
Fred
Okay, that’s the third time I’ve put in a multi-paragraph bold quote and it’s ended it early. I’m going to run a test here to see if my editing has just been THAT off lately:
This is a test
This is a test
All right, I guess the newline is ending the tag. Good to know.
PAD wrote:
“You will generally find that Bush supporters are able to support him, not because of the facts, but in spite of them. The facts you put forward–which really are indisputable–will be disputed. Will be aggressively denied. They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush’s track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor.”
Excuse me? I find your comments insulting. I am a rational, well read person who fully supports George W. Bush. I read at least 30 books last year (and not just fiction books like the 3 or 4 I read of yours). I read extensively on both sides of issues. And I DO reject many of the opinions disguised as facts posted on this site about Bush, including the one in the post you cite. I feel no need to ignore any facts about Bush anymore than you ignore facts about Kerry and his record. You can support a candidate without agreeing with everything they say or do.
So let’s deal with specifics.
>Under Bill Clinton
>-The highest budget surplus in U.S. History.
The fact is true, but one question: How, exactly, did Clinton bring this about? He did NOT cut overall spending (and other than the military, most programs went up). Furthermore, a rational person may point to the fact that many of the corporate scandals were going on during Clinton’s time. Some of the recession came from the bust of the inflated internet bubble. Does that mean Clinton is to blame for the recession as well? (If Bush had been president, he would currently being blamed for the scandals and for the recession. Oh, wait, he is. Never mind,)
-Lied about blow-job, didn’t affect my life what-so-ever.
First, this is an opinion, not a fact. Second, there is an interesting correlation between the missle lobs Clinton made towards Iraq and Suddan that conicided with the investigation of his blow-jobs. One might also wonder if he had paid more attention to an attack on the World Trade Center than to getting his next blow-job if we might have avoided 9-11. (Unfair? This is the kind of logic being used against Bush today.)
>Under George Bush2:
>-Largest Budget deficit in the last 10 years, (possibly in U.S. history)
Again the problem is not the fact, but the implied analysis of the fact. No mention is made of the recession Bush inherited from Clinton. (And history shows the start of the boom Clinton is given credit for began before he ever took office.) No mention is made of the financial impact of 9-11. Bush did not just decide to buy a car for everyone in America and squander the surplus.
Let me insert my opinion: As a conservative, I do have a problem with the deficit. It did not come from the tax cuts, which were tiny in the big scheme of things. They have come from spending, and not just on the war in Iraq. So I do have a problem with Bush on this issue to some degree. But 20 years of Kerry’s Senate votes (what, he served in the Senate? wonder why he seldom mentions it??) demonstrate pretty well that Kerry is not a fiscal conservative. While Bush (and yes, a Republican congress) have failed to control spending, the only reason a Kerry administration might possibly do better is because the Republicans would oppose a lot of what Kerry proposes. (However, I doubt the Senate Republicans will ever be as vicious about it as the Democrats have been for the last 4 years).
-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers.
Once again, the “Big Lie” that Bush lied. Nice try. There is an *overwhelming* amount of evidence for the last 10 years of Republicans and Democrats and leaders of other countries who all believed what Bush said about Iraq. Yes, some disagreed with what to do about it. Yes, we have not found stockpiles of weapons. Does that mean Bush lied? No.
(By the way, for those willing to do a little research, here is one of many articles clearly showing that Sadaam was actively involved in WMD’s :
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml
The lack of finding WMD’s makes for a quick sound bite, but the truth is clear that Bush did not lie about WMD’s.)
>-Bin Laden still not captured, world
>sympathies squandered resulting in
>increased Anti-U.S. sentiment World-Wide.
Again, this is more of an opinion than a fact.
Let me give an analogy. A few weeks ago, President Clinton had heart surgery. Most conservatives, myself included, hoped for his recovery. If I then say he is out to lunch with his views, does that mean he “squandered” my sympathy? This whole argument is bogus. Sympahty for us after 9-11 never meant they agreed with our philosophy.
But let’s dig deeper. Take France as an example. There is a large amount of evidence that France actively supported Sadaam. The same with Russia. We did not lose their support because of our haste, we never had it because they wanted their “bribe” from Sadaam. (Which is also why Kerry’s proposals are a joke. There is NO reason for these “allies” to suddenly join in after Bush is gone, and every reason for them to not do so.)
Of course, I have no “facts” to support this, but I have never met a Republican who supports Bush “in spite of” the facts. I strongly doubt I am the exception. Your generalization implies a bias and contempt for those who look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion.
One final thought: Of the two candidates, I would suggest that it is Kerry (and his supporters) who is tryint to distance himself from his track record. Bush and those of us who support him may disagree with how his record is portrayed, and may disagree with parts of it, but we are overall in agreement with him.
Why is Kerry afraid to have his statements to congress after he returned from Vietnam replayed? (I am fine with playing them in their entiriety (sp??) and not just the “juicy” sound bites.) Why does Kerry say virtually nothing about his 19+ years in the Senate? Didn’t he sponsor at least one bill he is proud of? From listening to Kerry, two things are being said: he served honorably in Vietnam and he would do a better job than Bush. From listening to many Kerry supporters on this site, it still comes down to him being better than Bush. There is very little said about any other agenda.
Oh, I did forget to mention I also read comics. Does that count for being literate and informed? Don’t care, I will still check out Madrox anyways.
Jim in Iowa
>I think you may be leaving out a
>fourth faction – young Iraqi males who
>for whatever reason ( hatred of US; Islamic >fervor; being easily influenced) have
>joined up with one of the three previously >menioned groups.
My friend did not mention them. I would be curious to ask.
My suspicion is that they mainly fit under the second category, the radical Shiite groups. Read the news stories carefully. Where did one of the last bombs go off? In a group of Iraqi people who were training to be police. There is clearly a group of young males who agree with what is happening in their own country and want to help. Do they not count?
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
>>I think you may be leaving out a
>fourth faction – young Iraqi males who
>for whatever reason ( hatred of US; Islamic >fervor; being easily influenced) have
>joined up with one of the three previously >menioned groups.
>My friend did not mention them. I would be curious to ask.
>My suspicion is that they mainly fit under the second category, the radical Shiite groups. Read the news stories carefully. Where did one of the last bombs go off? In a group of Iraqi people who were training to be police. There is clearly a group of young males who agree with what is happening in their own country and want to help. Do they not count?
Jim in Iowa
I’ve heard that one of the prominent pushes of the new leadership in Iraq has been to get these young men jobs to keep them focused on a positive change in Iraq, rather than the destruction, chaos and death that they are surrounded by. It has been theorized, some discussion with a few *whohiswhatshisnames experts* that these men see no future in their country, are unemployed and have too much idle time…. this is why they are joining. Not sure that I buy into this fully, but it makes as much sense as many of the other belifs floating around.
A link would have been much more thoughtful.
Actually, if you bothered to read the article, instead of dismissing it outright, you would have seen that the link for where the article came from was posted.
Now, granted, the site it goes to is a registration site, so it does little good.
But, either way, you dismiss the article when it was posted, I rather doubt that you would’ve bothered to follow a link had it alone been posted, or read the article anyways.
Your own comments prove that.
“They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush’s track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor.”
This would be equally silly emotional partisanship if it were a Bush supporter claiming “in their hearts, Kerry fans KNOW that he will be an inferior president to Bush but they will make any rationalization to avoid admitting their mistake”.
If you want a rational reason to vote for Bush ask a few of your friends who are planning to do so why they think that way. If you don’t have
any such friends…the problem lies elsewhere.
Since a couple people have quoted one or two lines of what I wrote without bothering to read the whole message… I will elaborate on my point (I posted my message after an all night shift, so perhaps I wasn’t clear.)
My point was that manufactoring jobs are not as important as they once were. They are quickly becoming obsolete in the modern era, and within a decade times WON’T EVEN EXIST in any large number except in third world countries.
The assembly line worker has been being replaced by robotics and computers for decades now. Robotics and computers are becoming more complex and versitile by the day. If you want to see what factories will look like in the near future, watch Minority Report and pay attention to the chase scene in the car factory. Notice there were no people there.
The REST of my point was that instead of spending huge amounts of efforts to save jobs that, in the long run, will be gone soon anyways doesn’t make much sense. Focusing on RETRAINING and EDUCATING the EXISTING workforce for the changing workplace, as WELL as properly EDUCATING FUTURE workers is a MUCH greater priority.
Of course the problem is this is America. We don’t think about things long term, only about the here and now and what can make us the most profit in the short term.
People will lose their jobs. Thats a given. Instead of focusing on that, focusing on training them and assisting them to find NEW jobs that will have long term benefit makes more sense than trying to keep ones that are soon to be gone regardless.
Instead of giving tax breaks to corporations that are the most evil and underhanded in increasing their bottom line, the government should give them to those that invest in the future of our society by helping to shift the workforce into a more future ready group. The government also needs to take a more active role in this themselves, though sadly its rare to find a President who has dreams for the future (Kennedy and to a much lesser extent Clinton are all I can think of really) instead of their own personal power, wealth, and agenda. Not that they don’t all have that as well…
Anyways… go ahead and quote me out of context again and go about thinking of things in your petty, partisan, close-minded ways.
Mike,
You still haven’t answered the question, what do we do for the people NOW.
Yes, of course we need to improve the education and training for the future (though there’s no guarantee that corporations will send techical jobs overseas, especially if they can save money) but you’re neglecting the people, ages 35-55. What do they do?
New training? New education? So, what, they can compete with people years younger for the same jobs? And who will companies hire? People in their 20’s, right out of a four year school or some middle aged person, having just finished training classes.
It’s very easy to bring up EDUCATING FUTURE workers, but forgetting the people of today shouldn’t be forgotten.
Craig wrote:
“Actually, if you bothered to read the article, instead of dismissing it outright, you would have seen that the link for where the article came from was posted.”
OK, let me re-phrase what I said, even though my point was obvious: “JUST THE link would have been much more thoughtful.”
And let me point out one more thing. In addition to being inconsiderate to other bloggers, reproducing someone’s entire copyrighted story, without his permission, tramples the author’s ownership rights and violates copyright law. It’s no different than if someone cut and pasted one of PAD’s books and posted it on a Web site or Web log somewhere. It’s wrong.
Craig also wrote: “But, either way, you dismiss the article when it was posted, I rather doubt that you would’ve bothered to follow a link had it alone been posted, or read the article anyways.
Your own comments prove that.”
But that’s MY decision to make anyway, isn’t it? It’s still a free country, isn’t it? Actually, I did start reading it, but when I realized it went on and on and on and on, I scrolled all the way to the end and continued reading other posts.
As a public service to those who read this site, here is a non-partisan review of what each candidate believes on various issues:
http://www.presidentmatch.com and click on “compare” and then select Bush & Kerry.
As I read through the list, I am in agreement with Bush on about 95% of the items, and disagree with Kerry on about 85% of the items (a little lower than agreeing with Bush since Kerry and Bush agree on some things). As a rational individual, I have looked at the records of both and see that overall their actions match their stated position. Therefore I am voting FOR Bush (and not just “against” Kerry).
Guess there really are a few of us rational people who are not avoiding Bush’s record and voting in spite of what he has done.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
That just means you are a simple-minded Republican drone who only understands black-and-white, not the real, gray world.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek since I’m a Bush-voter too)
Okay, I have a couple of comments to make. None of them are that important but seems like as good a time as any to post them.
I will not be voting for Bush this November. I may, or may not vote for Kerry, mostly it doesn’t matter my state is not going to be swayed that easily anyway (I live in Michigan, a very Conservative part of Michigan. My Township will go for Bush, but I am pretty sure the state will go for Kerry).
“-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers.”
Show me where he lied. Not that he had bad information that everyone else had, but actually lied.
Personally (so you may or may not agree with this stance) I think it doesn’t matter if he had bad information. If someone presents me with bad information, wether intentional or not. They lied to me. I’ll usually understand and have no real problem with it when they apologize (depends on the fall out and wether it was inentional or not).
lie
Function: noun
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
So Clinton lied, may have been unintentional (maybe he truly believed that what he did, did not constitute as “sexual relations”) it may have been intentional. Bush also lied. Once again, intentional or not he did it. To know that it happened hurts me, but what annoys me more than anything is this constant “passing the buck.” If he would have simply come out and said something like “I am sorry for misleading you all; we operated on world class intelligence, but some of that intelligence proved faulty. Ultimately, it came down to me and I made the mistake. However let us not deter now, while mistakes have been made we cannot abandon the Iraqi Citizans to anarchy and turmoil. Please support my administration as we stay this course…”
Something like that. Then I would have much more respect for the PotUS. I have respect for leaders that claim some culpability even when it is those that serve him that failed. Then again, that isn’t good politics (which is one reason I get disillusioned with politics).
I am not going to say Kerry would be a better President. I am not going to say that in the same situation he would have done it much better. I can’t really know. I just wanted so much for someone who was going to “bring integrity back to the white house” to actually make me happy and not play politics because in a couple years they’d be up for re-election.
—
On another point: the economy. Okay first off (to let you know ‘where I am coming from’ again) As a result of many factors I lost my government job during this administration. I have also found a new job (at a nice pay cut) as well. One of the factories in my home town just closed down causing atleast 471 people to lose their jobs directly (thats a little more than 1% of the town’s population directly laid off).
So needless to say I don’t have to be told that the economy has been kind of stingy lately. However I do have this economic theory, and while I don’t want to bore anyone with the details of it I like it. In this thoery we did kind of need republicans in power during this past four years, and while this administration has been a little off of the “norm” for “fiscal conservatives.” They did perform the trickle down part that I wanted quite nicely. However, due to the high impact time of being centered right after an economic boom/bust it had a stronger/quicker effect than normal. So to fit with my plan we need a government that does pump priming for the next four years. Now full-throttle pump priming will fail too, so a bit more fiscally responsible pump-priming would be better, So I think a republican congress with a strong democratic backbone would be best. Then in four years we should be (if done well) ready for some more TrickleDown goodness.
—
This has already gotten to be a long post so I’ll stop here.
Alright so theres a little opinion on the matter from me. Any comments on it?
In addition to being inconsiderate to other bloggers, reproducing someone’s entire copyrighted story, without his permission, tramples the author’s ownership rights and violates copyright law.
Well, PAD hasn’t complained about the article (and I get the feeling he won’t), as atleast some of us find it rather informative, so I don’t see it being inconsiderate in the least.
YOU find it inconsiderate because it paints Bush in a bad light, apparently.
As for the story itself, it was quoted, in full, with source and author. This isn’t the first time that this has happened, nor the last.
So, if you feel like whining to the company that posted the article, be my guest.
Andrew/Andy/Me wrote:
“If someone presents me with bad information, wether intentional or not. They lied to me. I’ll usually understand and have no real problem with it when they apologize (depends on the fall out and wether it was inentional or not).”
Here are my comments:
It is important to understand the difference between a noun and a verb. When you say Bush “lied,” that is a verb, not a noun. According to my Webster’s Ninth Edition Collegiate dictionary, the definition for the VERB is as follows:
1: to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive;
2: to create a false or misleading impression
In normal, everyday English, we do not call someone a “liar” or say he “lied” if he said something he really believed at the time to be true. Yes, if the fact was untrue, then it is a lie. So you could say, technically, that Bush told a lie. But it is misleading and deceptive (dare I say a lie?) to say Bush “lied” (a verb) if he truly believed the fact to be true at the time.
I agree that if a fact is later shown to be not true, then it is best for the person to correct the record. I would argue that while we have not found WMD’s, it is inaccurate to say we have proved there were none. In fact, as the link I posted suggests, what Bush said was not a lie in the first place.
One further thought: Step back for a moment and view this objectively. In my opinion, the Democrats have been so partisan about these issues that for Bush to make a statement like you suggest would be political suicide. This is not about Bush being arrogant and unable to learn from his mistakes. Why do I say that? An arrogant man would still be pounding his fist and saying there are stockplies of WMD’s. Bush has adjusted what he now says based on the evidence (not on speculation one way or another). The fact is, which so many choose to ignore, the UN resolutions demonstrate that a large number of countries believed Sadaam had WMD’s. Sadaam used WMD’s. Sadaam refused to provide any evidence he destroyed those WMD’s. I would suggest that General Tommy Frank’s analogy is the best statement of what happened: We did not find a loaded gun when we entered Iraq, but we did find all of the parts there ready to be assembled (and it would not have taken very long to do so).
Bottom line, Bush did not lie, nor was he deliberately deceptive. Our intelligence was wrong in some regards, but it was not completely wrong. So I stand by my statement that it is the “Big Lie” that Bush lied.
Jim in Iowa
” I would argue that while we have not found WMD’s, “
Clarification: I meant to say “stockpiles” of WMD’s. I believe he had the components for WMD’s, and suspect some of the stockpiles he was known to have for the last 10 years were shipped out to other countries before the war began. Just a suspicion, can’t prove it. But the undisputable fact is that they did exist at one time. The question should be what happened to them.
Jim in Iowa
Condemning soldiers to death on false information that he didn’t bother to check because he was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, Bush commited the lie of omission.
When a man has as much power as the president, I hold him to higher standards and expect full examination of all facts when deciding to declare war. Bush is a war criminal who invaded and is occupying a sovreign nation.