Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Peter, you can call our Commander in Chief a liar, but I point out what you said is lieing, and then you tell me to go to hëll. What a hypocrit. What part of your post I pointed out was factual? Prove it to me.
“Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can’t do it can you? I didn’t think so.”
This is the second time you’ve called me a liar. Read the following and write an apology for both insults, with your real name attached, if you’re man enough to. Otherwise you’re shrouded. I will ignore all further posts from you, and will suggest that others do likewise.
“Polls Find Americans Believe Hussein Linked to 9/11, Support War in Iraq
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
September 8, 2003
WASHINGTON (Talon News) — Most Americans believe Saddam Hussein, the ousted president of Iraq, was connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, according to a new poll released on Saturday.
The Washington Post found that 69 percent of all Americans believe that Hussein worked with al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to carry out terrorist plans nearly two years ago. In fact, the poll found that even a majority Democrats and independents believe Hussein was a key player.
Poll analysts conclude that this belief by a large majority of Americans is why the Bush administration has been able to withstand criticism coming from the Democrats regarding the progress in the rebuilding efforts in Iraq.”
And again, from USA today:
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP)
Or…hey! How about this, of more recent vintage:
IPA POLL: Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Lies
by Paul Rosenberg
It’s not just Bush who’s living in a bubble, according to a report released Thursday. A majority of those who support him are fundamentally misinformed about key justifications for going to war against Iraq, and other important factors in his foreign policy. A new report from PIPA (the Project on Policy Alternatives) titled, Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,Supported al Qaeda, has the following lead findings:
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
The report is based on polls conducted in September and October.
PAD,
I think this thread is getting heated but you said:
“No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn’t do šhìŧ TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it’s all true.”
My point, which I thought was awfully clear, was that Clinton had 8 years to do something – and had repeated terrorist attacks to prod him – and he didn’t do anything. Bush had 8 months. Your heated rejoinders completely ignored what I said. Hey, Bush is a dud, but let’s accurately remember history. To use your phraseology, Clinton didn’t do SHÍT over 8 years. Simple fact.
Sheesh
Dennis
Posted by: Novafan at November 5, 2004 09:20 PM
‘Peter said “Over three thousand people didn’t make it through the first year of GWB…a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of “that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it.”
“So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a freaking break. It wasn’t his fault we were attacked then.”
As outgoing President, Clinton told Bush that one of the biggest problems facing him was Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. Bush’s response — a dull, blank look. Bush’s action — nothing
When given an intelligence summary indicating that Osama bin Laden was planning attacks on the US, George II’s response — go golfing.
When finally pressured into doing something, Bush announced a new Terrorism task Force, to be headed up by Vice President Cheney. Who else was on the task force? No one. They never met. Contrast this to the weekly meetings the Clinton-Gore administration had with representatives of the NSA, CIA, and FBI to coordinate intelligence about Al Queda. Such methods, which Bush was so disdainful of, did work, which is why we don’t talk about the Millennium Bomb Plot in the same way we do 9/11. If the Bushies had had the same level of determination, the available information could have been coordinated and the plan stopped. Bush decided, DECIDED, that doing nothing but lip service was a much better plan, because he didn’t want to do anything the way Clinton did, even if it worked. (say, Contrast Bosnia-Kosovo with Iraq, but that’s another thread)
‘Start singing a new tune why don’t ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can’t help but attack George any chance you get.’
Unfortunately, will be getting far too many chances, as the man makes far too many mistakes.
Good grief
You’re basing your facts on polls that were taken by a news organization? What did the exit polls from the election tell Kerry and Edwards? They thought they were winning by a landslide didn’t they? How accurate were the exit polls?
I appoligize for calling you a liar, eventhough you told me to go to hëll, two times. (“Third…go see first.“)
“That still doesn’t make it right. You can look at where they’re coming from, the reasons for why they believe what they believe, and accept for them it makes perfect sense. It doesn’t mean they were right, or they should have believed. It was wrong for people to believe it was okay to enslave blacks. It was wrong for men to treat women like they were second class citizens. It is wrong to believe that the differences between someone else and you makes them less of a human being than you. it is wrong to believe that the love between two men or two women is less than the love between a man and a woman..”
These are all value judgements which you are making. There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i’d agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are.
Cannibalism wasn’t evil in the societies it was practiced in, it was the norm. In America, cannibalism isn’t the norm, and indeed, anyone who practices it is shunned and the law protects against cannibalism. And a non-violent, non destructive example, polygamy, is prohibited, because a vast majority of lawmakers and the population are against it.
It isn’t a greater step to prohibit gay marriage if thats what our culture and society sees fit.
And yes, fine, animals and children have reasons why having sex with them is not viewed as legitimate, but the point that once a minority group, even a very small one, like gays, forces its position on the majority, then others could do the same thing in time. I’d rather stop this process before worse, destructive things happen down the road.
“Nope, that’s why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect leaders who lead through wisdom. We choose the wisest and they make moral decisions, at least that’s the way its supposed to work.”
The very fact that there is limited direct democracy, mainly these initiatives, proves we have a mixed system. And there are many leaders we have elected who support these initiatives. And they are enforcing the will of their constituients.
What many of the pro-gay marriage people seem to say is that their voice and vote is more important than the majorities, and we don’t have an oligarchy, and i don’t want one. Despite your feelings on teh issues, the majority has a different view than you, and if democracy works how it is supposed to, the majorities opinion and voice should be heard and acted upon. And my main point is that legislating “morality” (which isn’t the best term, since i’m not a christian, and i don’t think gays are immoral) has precedent, and i bet that most of those who support gay marriage would not want to do away with other “moral” controls, like against polygamy, age of consent and such, and drugs. And if the majority passes such a proposal, it is law, and the system worked how it was supposed to. They aren’t evil or stupid people, they just have a different view of the world than you, and they seem to be in the majority.
I don’t think I’ll get into the whole “gay marriage” debate right now. I don’t want to be shrouded, whatever the heck that means.
Is that like being black-balled?
The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country. In fact, you can even protest the president if you think he’s wrong. Oh wait. Never mind. When W. got into office he forced protestors miles and miles away from any site he was going to be at, something that, I believe, the “evil” Mr. Clinton never did even as the right-wing hammerheads dumped on him every single day.
When Bush decided to do that, I knew we were in for trouble.
“Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn’t sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn’t happen again?”
This is the part that I don’t get. It’s not the message that was rejected by the majority of voters, but the delivery??? But then, while trying to clear up the message delivery, you decide it’s just easier to call people stupid that don’t agree with you??? Yeah, that’s a good way to try to persuade someone.
Posted by: hulkeye:
“The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country. In fact, you can even protest the president if you think he’s wrong. Oh wait. Never mind. When W. got into office he forced protestors miles and miles away from any site he was going to be at, something that, I believe, the “evil” Mr. Clinton never did even as the right-wing hammerheads dumped on him every single day.”
And I don’t remember anytime protestors were stopped from protesting. They might have been told not to protest in an area near the President, but they were still allowed to move down the block and protest. News organizations still covered the protest. Crowd control is a nightmare wherever (and whomever) the president is, so asking an unruly mob to move down the street just makes sense. At least the Democrats didn’t do something similar at their convention. Oh wait…
hulkeye (kewl name btw) said “The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country.“
I’m all for that. If somethings proven wrong to me, then I’ll jump up there and yell too. I don’t believe in Flag burning though. That really bothers me.
Btw, I didn’t think Clinton was bad at all, until he had that little incident with his friend behind closed doors. I actually didn’t vote in 2000, since I was fine with Gore (bet I’ll hear insults about this one) or Bush as President back then. I am glad that Bush was President when we are attacked though.
Novafaon spewed, “Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can’t do it can you? I didn’t think so.”
A quick google using the terms “no connection Saddam and 9/11” yielded
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
Commission opens final hearing before release of report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm
Clarke’s Take On Terror
March 21, 2004
Clarke’s Take On Terror
Richard Clarke says the White House dropped the ball against terrorism before Sept. 11.
“My point, which I thought was awfully clear, was that Clinton had 8 years to do something – and had repeated terrorist attacks to prod him – and he didn’t do anything. Bush had 8 months. Your heated rejoinders completely ignored what I said. Hey, Bush is a dud, but let’s accurately remember history. To use your phraseology, Clinton didn’t do SHÍT over 8 years. Simple fact.”
Simple fact? Really. Hunh. Okay.
I mean, I could have sworn that the US Navy, on Clinton’s orders, fired cruise missiles at Al Qaeda encampments in Afghanistan, blowing them up, killing a number of Al Qaeda operatives, and also blew up a Sudanese chemical plant that was producing nerve gas. Even the GOP in Congress applauded the move. He also instituted economic sanctions against bin Laden and the Taliban.
For that matter, according to Clinton’s bio, the CIA rolled up a score of al Qaeda cells, captured terrorist operatives, broke up plots against the US, found and broke up terrorist cells in the Northeast and one in Canada, thwarted planned attacks in Jordan, and intercepted a man crossing the Canadian border into Washington state with bomb making materials that he was going to use to bomb LAX.
True, he didn’t catch bin Laden. But neither has Bush. So if you define that as not doing šhìŧ, so be it. But Bush’s not doing šhìŧ has a way higher body count with far more to come, has fostered increased Muslim hatred for the US (which I wouldn’t have thought possible) and has been a bin Laden wet dreams in terms of providing incentive for new recruits.
Simple fact.
PAD
Peter, you said “I mean, I could have sworn that the US Navy, on Clinton’s orders, fired cruise missiles at Al Qaeda encampments in Afghanistan, blowing them up, killing a number of Al Qaeda operatives“
So, Al Qaeda attacking us on 9/11 could have been a retaliation for the attack on their encampments? What does everyone think on this?
About the Iraq Al-Queda connection…
the polls said 70% of Americans, not just right wing conservatives believed the connection, and without knowing the poll question, this could be misleading. And fine, i agree that many have a mistaken impression, i’ll even agree that many Americans are not nearly as well informed as they ought to be, but that doesn’t mean that all, or even most, conservatives and Bush supporters are ignorant and radical, and too many here have insinuated that.
And also, polls are polls. They aren’t always right, they aren’t always wrong, and i’ll agree that while this poll shows a depressing trend, its still just a poll, and its easy for such numbers to be misinterpreted or skewed.
And about the fact that Americans still believe in a WMD program, not everyone follows the news like they should, and not everyone reads every government report. And even those that read the news get skewed reports and views there, so judging the intelligence of the public on polls on info garnered from news articles is never really going to be fair.
But not only did Clinton fail to catch bin Laden. He also rebuffed the Sudanese government’s offers to capture him, decided that non-retaliation was the best response to the Cole attacks, and hampered in numerous ways FBI and CIA efforts to meet the terrorist challenge.
He even gave away the element of surprise for his 1998 missile attack on Afghanistan by giving advance notice to the Pakistani government… a hotbed of jihadists and bin Laden sympathizers.
Worst of all was the cumulative effect of his failure to act..in a real sense, Bill Clinton created Osama bin Laden(gasp!). Every time the Muslim radical would strike at the U.S. and meet with a weak response, Osama’s prestige in the Islamic world would grow.
Strange thing about them polls.
When I agree with the outcome of the polls, they are more accurate than when I disagree.
Unless they have phrased the question wrong.
Denial, anyone?
You may very well be right about the DEMs convention. And if they are putting protestors blocks away from the event, then they should get a slap on the wrist, too.
Maybe its normal proceedure for a political campaign, but for someone that has worked in the media, it just feels like suppression, which irks me 10x more than when the other side is crowing about something I don’t like.
To wit (and I didn’t have time to investigate this a lot):
Dave Lindorff, investigative reporter, journalist, said, “White House advance teams and the Secret Service have routinely instructed local police at cities where the president or vice president plan to visit to remove demonstrators
I think if that was the case novafan then Osama’s tape would have said so.
These are all value judgements which you are making. There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i’d agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are.
Wow. You’re actuially saying there is no such thing as fundamental human rights? When they wrote we believe these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, That’s not true?
How is I’m opposing change when it’s you who want prevent a new definition of Marriage. i’m for change you’re not.
Change what your saying to interacial marriages and that you want to stop it befoire something worse imposes their will. It’s better to stop blacks and whites frrom marrying because if we allow that then it means other group will want marriage too. Should we have stopped interacial marriage from being legalised so the homosexuals wouldn’t have a leg to stand on?
You have not give one single reason why Gay marriage in and of itself is wrong. You say if we allow it then it could or will lead to the end of age of consent etc etc. (btw Age of consent laws aren’t legislating morality it’s protecting children from sexual abuse.) Assume that Gay marriage was to be allowed under the condition that if they allow it. then marriage can only be between TWO people OVER the age of 18, and there can be no challenges on this definition ever again. Would you still oppose Gay marriage?
And despite what you say about having no problem with hoomosexuals you’e connected it far too often to pedophilia for me to believe that you are being honest about that.
The Majority believe something. That in and of itself doesn’t make it right. All beliefs need to be challenged it’s the only to ensure that these beliefs are worthy. People didn’t wake up one day and say you know I think women do deserve to have the same rights as men. That had to be fought for the old system had to be challenged.
Do you believe that it was a bad thing that a minorty of African Americans ‘forced’ their belief that they are every bit of deserving to have an equal place in society?
In regards to Clinton and how he handled terrorists, I offer the following from the Washington Post:
“In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation
“About the Iraq Al-Queda connection…
the polls said 70% of Americans, not just right wing conservatives believed the connection, and without knowing the poll question, this could be misleading.”
Well, hëll, dude, you’ve got me cold, it seems. If only I had said “70% of Americans” instead of “70% of conservatives.”
Wait…just give me a minute to scroll up so I can reproduce my shamefully misleading posting. Okay, yeah: Here it is. My false and vicious mischaracterizing of conservatives:
“Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11.”
Oh dear. Why…it appears I did NOT single out conservatives. It appears I did, in fact, state exactly what the article said. Could it be that conservatives on this board are trying to twist what I said and make it sound like I’m bashing those in the right wing? No. Never. I refuse to believe it.
PAD
PAD,
Really, PAD. If you’re going to cite cases to support Clinton’s case, don’t you think you can find a more informative source…than the man’s biography?
On that same point, you stood in line for Clinton’s book to be one of the first to get it and were proud to do so, right?
Didn’t Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act? In your opinion, why wasn’t that “legislating bigotry”?
Honestly, as you would say with Bush, he had two years with a Congress controlled by his own party to achieve things, and the only significant part of what he was able to accomplish in those two years that could be remotely described as liberal was the 1993 budget that raised taxes ( and did, to be fair, lead to a balanced budget).
Yet he blew a chance to improve health care. Even Dole was on board, and he blew a historic opportunity. He subsequently signed Welfare Reform, NAFTA, supported the death penalty, and weakened the Kyoto Treaty before Bush had a chance to reject it.
If he had an R after his name and had done these things, I rather doubt you would be standing in line waiting for his book.
But you defend him tooth and nail, while calling Bush a bigot.
Why?
Seriously, especially in his first two years, what did Clinton do to reduce or end the War on Drugs, an absolute joke that has infringed more on civil liberties than the Patriot Act has? Why don’t you ever bring these things up? Why doesn’t Clinton inspire your ire a fraction as much for doing these things and failing to do more when he had the political capital to do so?
Why?
“Maybe its normal proceedure for a political campaign, but for someone that has worked in the media, it just feels like suppression, which irks me 10x more than when the other side is crowing about something I don’t like.”
But, the big difference is that the protestors weren’t being told they couldn’t protest, just where they could protest. Protesting on site might make the protesors feel better, but does it really change anyone’s mind about a particular issue? I think back to some speech Ðìçk Cheney was giving, and some protestor jumped up in the balcony and started screaming things at Cheney during his speech. She was promptly “escorted” out of the room, and became a little side note in the coverage of the speech. What was she protesting or what did she say? I have no idea. It was just a disruption that didn’t affect Cheney’s speech, and put a poor light on the the woman.
This is a widespread problem. The sad fact is that protest has been rendered nearly completely pointless in the last ten years. Protesters are forced miles away from their targets (and by “targets” I mean the people the protestors are trying to deliver their message to), and the media doesn’t cover the content of the protests. Rather than focus on why they’re protesting, and perhaps get off their áššëš and do some actual journalism, they’re content to find the fraction of the group who chooses violent or otherwise inappropriate means of expression.
Unless things change in the future, protest is dead.
From the Washington Post:
…The Clinton administration had defined its enemy as narrowly as its military instruments. Bin Laden and his aides were targets, but not the Talbian regime that gave them sanctuary.
….. For the next two years, Clinton pursued a policy of economic sanctions against the Taliban and sent numerous messages to the de facto government of Afghanistan requesting bin Laden’s delivery for trial. Frustrated by the Taliban’s lack of cooperation, Clinton’s emissaries took on a more menacing tone in the spring of 2000. But though the administration deliberately raised the specter of military confrontation, it chose in the end to step back.
….. In Washington, however, Clinton’s national security cabinet stopped short. “There were verbal scoldings, but that was about it,” Shelton said. “There never was any consideration of going after the Taliban.
http://www.cnn.com
Bob Kerry pretty much hits the nail on the head here. I will say, however, that I think the Bush administration should have come in and cracked down on Al Qaeda when they came into power.
Those attacks included the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia, in 1996; the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.
Commission member Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, said he thought it was a “big mistake” that despite repeated provocations, only one military strike was launched against al Qaeda before September 11: a cruise missile attack on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998.
“I don’t understand, if we’re attacked and attacked and attacked, why we continue to send the FBI over, like the Khobar Towers was a crime scene or the East African embassy bombings was a crime scene,” said Kerrey, who had called for a declaration of war against al Qaeda before September 11.
“I keep hearing the excuse that we didn’t have actionable intelligence. Well, what the hëll does that say to al Qaeda?”
James Tichy wrote…
“But not only did Clinton fail to catch bin Laden. He also rebuffed the Sudanese government’s offers to capture him.”
I direct you to Al Frankens “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them” page 113…
***************************************
Reliable Sources
In “Let Freedom Ring” (Sean) Hannity outlines a charge that he frequently makes both on television and on the radio: that Clinton let bin Laden slip from his grasp. He writes,
“It is truly astonishing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and their liberal allies on Capitol hill were offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government, and they were turned down. They could have taken him into custody and begun unraveling his terrorist network almost six years ago. But they didn’t. And now more than three thosand innocent Americans have paid with their blood.”
That IS astonishing. Hard to think of a more serious charge. You want to be dámņëd sure you have that one locked own pretty tight before you put it into print.
But knowing what we already know about Sean Hannity and the standards to which he holds himself, what arethe chances that this whole thing is baloney?
His entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the U.S. and the Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Bergman and from Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.
Ijaz had urged Berger to lift santions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponser of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponser of slavery and is considered by many to be untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, “Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he’s in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists.”
Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.
The story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.
************************************
^^^
Typos above are my own.
Peter David provided:
“The Washington Post found that 69 percent of all Americans believe that Hussein worked with al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to carry out terrorist plans nearly two years ago. In fact, the poll found that even a majority Democrats and independents believe Hussein was a key player.”
Has anyone actually examined this particular poll in question? What was the sample size? Who was asked this question? How was the question worded? Sorry, but after all this time, I still find it hard to believe that 69% (or 70%) of ALL AMERICANS felt this way… I don’t belive I know anyone who thought Saddam worked with OBL in the attacks on America on 9/11. Anyone here think that or was anyone here actually polled about it? Hmm… didn’t think so.
The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together…
The main difference between supporters of the Iraq war and the opposition is that those who support it see it as part of the war on global terrorism and state sponsors, those who oppose it see it as a separate event. Those who support it think that enabling the spread of freedom over dictatorship in the Islamic world is a good thing in the long run, even though it’s painful in the short run. Those who oppose it apparently have no problem with the Saddams and Iranian mullahs keeping millions of people under their thumbs – all in the name of maintaining the status quo.
The West tried the ignore/appease route in the Middle East for decades. We figured if we ignored fundamentalist Islam, it would go away before it got serious. Saudi Arabia is still the best example of this. How many people are dying in Saudi Arabia because we are allied with the regime there? Next, you might say something like in Iraq they are dying as a direct result of our actions rather than indirect. How many people are dying in Iraq because we are an occupying force? How many were dying there because of sanctions? In every scenario: ally, sanctions or war, the US has received criticism that people die as a result of our foreign policy.
In the gay marriage thread, you’ve talked a lot about how conservatives want to keep the status quo, and how liberals want to move forward. Isn’t it ironic that a conservative president is the one who is not accepting the status quo in response to Islamic terrorism in the Middle East?
Anyway, it’s clear that we disagree on the most basic underpinnings in this discussion, so I doubt we’ll ever be able to get past that into the finer points.
It’s fascinating to see incredibly interesting news about the candidates coming out now–when it’s way too late to do anything about it.
Case in point– Newsweek has an amazing issue full of stuff they promised not to divulge until after the election, such as the unbelievable story of Kerry’s attempts to get John McCain to be his vice president, even going so far as to offer him Secretary of Defense and put McCain in charghe of national security…a job that the, you know, CONSTITUTION gives to the president.
McCain, knowing that the wto of them would probably have won in a landslide, offerred the opportunity to be the second (or arguably, MOST) most powerful man on Earth, turned it down, telling Kerry he was crazy.
We should have known about this.
A man this nuts came within a few hundred thousand votes of getting into office.
Promises shmaises. When you have a story like that you ought to run with it. Shameful.
I wonder what would have happened if CBS 60 Minutes would have been able to wait until the last Sunday of the election to run the news report of the missing weapons in Iraq.
Thank goodness someone put a stop to that. They should be given a medal.
Here’s a question for you. Why didn’t Kerry through his medals away along with everyone else? He saved his medals and threw away his ribbons. Didn’t he wear his medals to the Congressional hearing? Hmmmm.
ugghh, it shold have been ‘throw’, not ‘through’ in the above post.
Novafan
Bill, you said “We should have known about this.“
I agree. However, most of the press and tv stations are biased towards liberals and would not report a story like that until they thought they would get some gain out of it.
I think it’s amazing how everytime I turned on the tv, there was a story blasting Bush and nothing on Kerry except for praises, etc. He never had to answer for anything.
I think we owe a lot to Bloggers who quickly jumped on any false reports that the biased media reported.
Thank goodness for the internet, which was developed by Gore, right? :0)
One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people’s minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason. This is rather chilling, especially in view of the fact that this country wouldn’t exist if not for dissenting political speech.
It’s also pretty gøddámņ hypocritical, in view of the mudslinging that went on during the Clinton administration. I don’t recall anyone yelling “Traitor! Traitor!” at Linda Tripp or Paula Jones or the mopes accusing the Clintons of murder and drug-trafficking.
It bugs me that I can’t, in good conscience, display anything that says “Support Our Troops,” even though I do, because so many people think you can’t support the people fighting the war and still be against the war itself.
It bugs me that “liberal” is being used as a pejorative term by those who call themselves “conservative.” Yeah, I’m a liberal. As in “Liberty.” You know, the word we have on all our money? That was there before “In God we trust?” “Liberty,” as in “Freedom?” The thing the American Revolution was all about?
Four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded George W. Bush the White House, a co-worker of mine who had supported Bush asked me what I thought about the decision. I said, more or less:
“Well, I’m not too happy about it, but the decision is made. He’s the man until at least 2005. I had reasons for not voting for him, and I think they were valid reasons. That said, I’m not wishing him ill. I hope he’s a great success, for all our sakes. He’s going to be the leader of the free world for at least four years, so how can I say I hope he fails? That would be terrible! Nothing would make me happier than to be able to look back in Novemeber 2004 and say, ‘I was wrong about him. He’s done a fine job. He’s been a good President.'”
Now, contrast that with these actual quotes from another Bush-supporting co-worker, which I heard over the course of the day Tuesday:
To a longtime friend and former co-worker, who was a Kerry supporter: “You are no longer welcome in my home.” To another co-worker: “If Kerry wins, I’m flying my flag in distress [upside-down].” During several loud phone conversations with friends and family members: “If [Kerry] wins, there’ll be a big terrorist attack.” “Bin Laden wants Kerry to win.” “We’ll all have to work three jobs just to live.” “He’ll take orders from the French.” And my personal favorite: “He’ll open up the borders and let in all them Mexicans.”
So you’ll have to excuse me if my first thought on seeing the results on Wednesday was, “Jesus Christ, they all swallowed that crap.” My apologies to all conservatives and Republicans who weren’t [i]that[/i] panicked about the possible consequences of a Kerry win.
Bush says he wants to be a uniter for real this time, that he wants a bipartisan effort to solve a lot of problems at home and abroad. I hope to God he means it this time–or at least, that someone explains to him that “being a uniter” and “bipartisan effort” doesn’t mean telling everyone who disagrees to shut up and do as they’re told.
Paul
Paul1963 wrote…
One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people’s minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason.
It seems that to a lot of people, that’s already the case. It’s this sort of brainlessness that makes it tempting to write off Bush supporters as a bunch of zealots. It’s simply astounding that people would say such things.
Paul1963 wrote…
It bugs me that “liberal” is being used as a pejorative term by those who call themselves “conservative.”
That’s got to be the only place in the world where “liberal” has somehow become a 4-letter word. Hëll, in Canada it’s the name of our ruling party.
As for who Osama would have wanted to be elected, one could make a case for either candidate. He could have wanted Bush to win, since his foreign policies are likely creating terrorists at a highly increased rate. Or, he could have wanted Kerry, if he somehow believed that Kerry would be “soft” on terrorism.
Isn’t it more likely, though, that he just doesn’t care? He’s going to hate the U.S. either way, and I’m sure he was quite satisfied seeing the extensive damage he’s done by dividing the country so effectively.
One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people’s minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason.
Do you not remember the Gore rant?
They betrayed this country!
It’s apparently already acceptable to accuse the President OF treason.
However, I think it’s pretty crass to accuse the opposition party as treasonous. I’ve not heard it done in my part of the country – and I’m in Texas 🙂
I guess I’d be bitter too if my candidate lost by almost 4 MILLION votes, and my Party lost 3 seats in the senate, including minority leader Tom Daschel, lost about 16 in the House. Yeah. I’d be bitter too.
So instead of saying, maybe the Democratic party needs to change and do a better job of bringing our message out to the people, what are you guys doing? Getting angrier & going further to the left. You guys keep that up and you’ll loose again in ’08.
Kerry lost despite the fact that he had the support from VOTE FOR CHANGE concert tour. he had Springstein, Peral Jam, Mellencamp, REM, James Taylor, Dixie Chicks, Bonnie Rait, Stevie Wonder, Dave Matthews Band, etc. He had Move On.org, Hollywood actors like Streisand, Affleck, Dicapprio, He had the support of CBS & NBC News, and he lost by almost 4 MILLION votes.
Kerry lost despite promising every american health care, promising to lower taxes on the middle class & raising taxes on the rich. Hëll, he promised just about everything under the sky and he lost. The DNP threw the best they had to offer and lost by almost 4 MILLION votes.
Notice, Senator Clinton is doing it very smart, Her voting record this year is very moderate & she will put herself more in the middle. She just saw that the far left doesn’t win the presidency in this country. If she keeps that up she will have a good chance in ’08.
“Oh dear. Why…it appears I did NOT single out conservatives. It appears I did, in fact, state exactly what the article said. Could it be that conservatives on this board are trying to twist what I said and make it sound like I’m bashing those in the right wing? No. Never. I refuse to believe it.”
Sorry, i messed up in my post. I mixed things up in my head. Mistakes happen, and i didn’t try to twist what you said. But you did say one of the reasons that the Republicans won the election was because Americans are stupid, and i think thats a really poor thing to say. You can’t judge intelligence from one poll. And regardless of the intelligence of Americans, in our system, a mainly representative democracy, a stupid persons vote matters just as much as an intelligent persons. And by complaining about idiots putting our pres in office, it sounds sometimes like you are almost advocating an oligarchy, where just the liberals, who are obviously much smarter than the conservatives and Americans who voted for Bush because of that false connection, should rule.
Thats not how our system works, and i’m insulted by talk like this. Its a little condecending (sp.), saying that the Republicans won because their supporters are idiots. And i’m sure that some of them are, and i’m sure that some liberals are too, but that doesn’t mean their votes don’t count, and their ideas shouldn’t be respected.
And about what i’ve said about gays and relating it to pedophilia. I don’t think gays are immoral or wrong, i was using it as an example of something that in our society is determined to be wrong. Perhaps pedophilia was a bad example, but necrophilia or polygamy are better ones. These are determined to be wrong in our society, even though they don’t really hurt anybody, (cept perhaps disrespecting a body). Just as these are determined to be wrong, by an overwhelming majority, and they are outlawed, an overwhelming majority could outlaw gay marriage. America discriminates against groups all the time, like polygamists, and necrophiliacs, and drug abusers, and NAMBLA members, there doesn’t have to be a reason better than protection of the status quo, it happens. And though you may disagree, unless you are prepared to be rid of all social and moral legislation which exists, which i highly doubt even most gay marriage advocates are prepared to do.
Paul,
I could give you almost an exact word for word example of a KERRY supporter who was just as big a dìçk at my wife’s job the day after the election. So let’s just agree that both sides have their share of tools. Whatcha gonna do?
People keep bringing up polygamy. As a person who supports gay marriage I don’t really know what to say to someone who says that if we allow it we will soon be allowing polygamy as well. It’s not an entirely specious argument. I mean, who is hurt by it? You can argue that most polygamous marriages are pretty creepy these days but that could well be due to it being illegal.
Other than purely religious reasons, why should polygamy be illegal? If anyone has a good argument, let me know. I’m not in favor of making it legal but maybe, for consistancy’s sake, I should be.
From Media Matters for America
TOP TEN REASONS WHY MEDIA MATTERED IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL RACE:
1. FOX News Channel
2. MSNBC
3. CNN
4. The Washington Times
5. The Washington Post
6. The Wall Street Journal
7. The New York Times
8. NBC
9. ABC
10. CBS
BONUS: The Rush Limbaugh Show
URL http://mediamatters.org/items/200411030002
See above for details on how the media did not provide fair and balanced coverage of the candidates, and how the right wing slander machine works.
The founder of the organization is David Brock, a reformed right-wing slander master. Due to his experience, he is very familiar with right wing smear tactics and media manipulation
Bill Mulligan wrote…
As a person who supports gay marriage I don’t really know what to say to someone who says that if we allow it we will soon be allowing polygamy as well.
*snip*
Other than purely religious reasons, why should polygamy be illegal? If anyone has a good argument, let me know. I’m not in favor of making it legal but maybe, for consistancy’s sake, I should be.
Well, from a completely objective, liberal, non-religious point of view, there should be nothing wrong with polygamy. As long as everyone participating in the marriage(s) is a consenting adult, there’s no real reason to outlaw it…
except that it clashes with other rights. For example, if a man has 12 wives, and each wife has 2 kids, there’s no way that this guy is going to be able to support 24 children. I think that would be the basic argument against polygamy (particularly polygyny, which is by far more common that polyandry). If someone could come up with a system to get around that issue, and if all participants in the polygamy were consenting individuals, I guess there’s no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to go ahead and get married.
ECK wrote…
URL “>http://mediamatters.org/items/200411030002
I like the size-adjusted electoral map.
You’ve got to be kidding me ECK. 9 out of 10 of those media that you listed are slanted towards liberals, not conservatives.
Imagine CBS and/or the New York times saying anything positive about Bush. Egads.
And like that site you showed isn’t biased at all. What the heck is a conservative agenda anways?
Novafan said…
And like that site you showed isn’t biased at all. What the heck is a conservative agenda anways?
You’re right, but at least the site is up-front about its bias.
“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”
I’m sure the “conservative agenda” can be loosely defined as the determination to get conservatives/Republicans elected at any cost, and a willingness to distort the truth or fabricate outright lies to accomplish that goal.
Are there people with a similar “liberal agenda?” Undoubtedly.
The fact that this site is biased doesn’t necessarily mean it’s inaccurate. And if it does have some inaccuracies, that doesn’t mean that everything it prints is bûllšhìŧ.
It’s up to the reader to sift through the material.
“I have no problem with people. I don’t care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.”
Am I a bigot? Or just an unfriendly person?
If I get more specific about who I don’t want near me, or more specific about who I do want near me… what business is that of yours?
Then what business is it of yours to saddle me with your “bigot” label?
“The righties spent the Clinton years listening to Flush Limbaugh demonize liberals, and now they wonder why the other side does the same to them.”
if the reason why we are demonized is THIS… then those doing the demonized are gøšhdámņ CHILDREN.
“There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i’d agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are.”
Sorry, I don’t buy moral relativism. Try to sell it somewhere else.