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)
• 
“I’m not entirely sure we’ll even survive it.”
I’ll bet you ten dollars that we do!
“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.”
My God! You mean John Kerry actually envisioned a bi-partisan presidency, working hand in glove with a man he likes and respects and he felt could serve this country…a man demonized by his own party even though he was a POW in Vietnam while the man the party preferred had his daddy pull strings to keep him out of the war?
Shame! Shame, I say!
PAD
My God! You mean John Kerry actually envisioned a bi-partisan presidency, working hand in glove with a man he likes and respects and he felt could serve this country…a man demonized by his own party even though he was a POW in Vietnam while the man the party preferred had his daddy pull strings to keep him out of the war?
Shame! Shame, I say!
PAD
Ahem. Back in reality-based world (as opposed to the emotion-based one), here’s some of what Newsweek reports:
“To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer. If McCain said yes, he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy.”
McCain’s response? “You’re out of your mind. I don’t even know if it’s constitutional, and it certainly wouldn’t sell.”
I’m with McCain on this one. Unconstitutional and indicative of someone who is out of his mind. Had this come out before the election Kerry would have lost by an even wider margin.
I wonder if all of the “plans” Kerry had were as nutty as this one.
If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn’t fit to lead…after all, THEIR guy was willing to cede him control of foreign policy!
I wonder what the Democrat spin would have been had McCain made all this public?
Novafan wrote:
“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.”
Obviously, you didn’t follow the URL. For each of the 10 media outlets listed, there are several examples of conservative bias. Now, in the fact-based ones you listed, such as the NY Times and CBS (and yes, they do sometimes get things wrong) the repeating of the conservative talking points in a misguided attempt to be even-handed. Or just lazy reporting.
9 out of 10 are liberal? I’d like to see your list. That just isn’t true. Let’s take a look at a few
Fox. Pretty self-evident, very conservative bias. See Media Matters, outfoxed, watch it for an hour.
Washington Times: Owned by Rev. Moon, who was recently proclaimed King of the World and living Messiah by some Repubs.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index_np.html
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004_05_01_barchive.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38947
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html
The Wall Street Journal: Although neutral to slightly conservative on the news pages, but on its editorial page, facts are out the window
There you go, three with strong conservative (or neo-conservative) bias. Just enough to show your 9 out of 10 figure as totally baseless. And as for the rest, I recommend you go check out the URL for media matters that I posted before
As for David Brock, who runs the biased but FACT BASED website, you can hear him on the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio (airamericaradio.com/listen.asp, another biased but FACT BASED source)
And some interviews that you can read
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html
And the next time you make a flat assertion “Like 9 out of 10 are liberal,” please be knid enough to include some sources.
Bill Mulligan said…
If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn’t fit to lead
That’s true, and while the Democrats would obviously try to defeat him, they wouldn’t be nearly as upset if they lost than they are now.
It’s not the fact that Republicans are in the White House per se that has many Democrats so upset…it’s the current administration’s extremism.
I’m sure many Democrats would be perfectly comfortable with a moderate Republican like McCain in charge.
Novafan wrote:
“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.”
Obviously, you didn’t follow the URL. For each of the 10 media outlets listed, there are several examples of conservative bias. Now, in the fact-based ones you listed, such as the NY Times and CBS (and yes, they do sometimes get things wrong) the repeating of the conservative talking points in a misguided attempt to be even-handed. Or just lazy reporting.
9 out of 10 are liberal? I’d like to see your list. That just isn’t true. Let’s take a look at a few
Fox. Pretty self-evident, very conservative bias. See Media Matters, outfoxed, watch it for an hour.
Washington Times: Owned by Rev. Moon, who was recently proclaimed King of the World and living Messiah by some Repubs.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index_np.html
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004_05_01_barchive.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38947
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html
The Wall Street Journal: Although neutral to slightly conservative on the news pages, but on its editorial page, facts are out the window
There you go, three with strong conservative (or neo-conservative) bias. Just enough to show your 9 out of 10 figure as totally baseless. And as for the rest, I recommend you go check out the URL for media matters that I posted before
As for David Brock, who runs the biased but FACT BASED website, you can hear him on the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio (airamericaradio.com/listen.asp, another biased but FACT BASED source)
And some interviews that you can read
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html
And the next time you make a flat assertion “Like 9 out of 10 are liberal,” please be knid enough to include some sources.
and put McCain in charghe of national security…a job that the, you know, CONSTITUTION gives to the president.
The way I read things, it would be the positions of Secretary of Defense and National Security Adviser.
But hey, Bush is allowed to create offices and departments in the government…
I’m with McCain on this one. Unconstitutional and indicative of someone who is out of his mind.
I don’t see why it’s so insane of an idea. I think the insane part is that McCain is willing to bend over backwards for his party, rather than caring about the country as a whole.
“It’s up to the reader to sift through the material.“
Oh, that’s just great. I already have a hard enough time sifting through the information put out by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, etc.
Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn’t even funny. Good grief. I think I’ll pass on that one. I’ll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.
Oh, good grief. So 7 out of 10 makes such a big difference as opposed to 9 out of 10. That’s still more than half of the list that you said were slanted to the conservative side when the opposite is true. Am I right?
Novafan wrote…
Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn’t even funny. Good grief. I think I’ll pass on that one. I’ll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.
I was referring to all media, not this one site in particular.
If you’d truly rather take all information that you don’t agree with and dismiss it outright, without even investigating it, then we have nothing further to discuss. I wouldn’t imagine you’re going to win over anybody with that attitude.
Posted by: Jeff Lawson at November 6, 2004 09:04 PM
Bill Mulligan said…
If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn’t fit to lead
That’s true, and while the Democrats would obviously try to defeat him, they wouldn’t be nearly as upset if they lost than they are now.
It’s not the fact that Republicans are in the White House per se that has many Democrats so upset…it’s the current administration’s extremism.
I’m sure many Democrats would be perfectly comfortable with a moderate Republican like McCain in charge.
I agree. I could live with a McCain presidency. I could possibly even vote for him, say if the Democratic Nominee was Al Sharpton.
Posted by Novafan at November 6, 2004 09:24 PM
“It’s up to the reader to sift through the material.”
Oh, that’s just great. I already have a hard enough time sifting through the information put out by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, etc.
Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn’t even funny. Good grief. I think I’ll pass on that one. I’ll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.
Actually, if you had looked at the site, you would see that all it contains are quotes and transcripts from various shows (often with accompanying links to audio and visual clips). So what it is doing, essentially, is sifting through all the media for you.
By the way, there is no liberal media (outside of Air America, that is). Sorry. That’s just one of those nice little Republican distortions.
ECK wrote…
By the way, there is no liberal media (outside of Air America, that is). Sorry. That’s just one of those nice little Republican distortions.
I believe that’s mostly true, but I was under the impression that a few media outlets, like the New York Times and possibly CBS, were more left-leaning than, say, FOX.
I get my news exclusively from Canadian outlets and The Daily Show, so I’m not too familiar with the American media.
“I think the insane part is that McCain is willing to bend over backwards for his party, rather than caring about the country as a whole.”
You assume that McCain agrees with you that Kerry was better for the country than Bush. Obviously he disagrees, to the point where he gave up a great deal of power rather than ensure that kerry became president.
And I agree with those who think that McCaine would be acceptable to many Democrats…so there’s a good chance we may have at least 8 years of republican administrations ahead of us. (He’d be 76 when he would have to run for a second term…possibly too old?)
Jeff Lawson wrote:
[b]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.[/b]
Speaking as a fellow Canadian, I’d say that’s [i]why[/i] it’s a 4-letter word.
– Z
^ Sorry. If every board would be as sensible as this one and allow HTML, posts like that wouldn’t happen.
– Z
Zeke, use > instead of [] for the html tags.
Zeke wrote…
Speaking as a fellow Canadian, I’d say that’s why it’s a 4-letter word.
Haha, a good point!
To clarify, the Liberal party has fallen out of favour as of late, particularly in certain areas of the country. My point, of course, was that the word liberal (small “L”) hasn’t been demonized here in the same way as it has in the States.
Jerome, is there, like, a conservative playbook or something that you guys are all working from? ‘Cause it’s the same crap over and over again.
I quote statistics, I’m asked for a source. I give the source, and the response is basically, “Well, it’s the liberal media, can’t trust it.” People claim Clinton did such and such, I say, “Well, according to Clinton he actually did so-and-so,” and the response is, “Well, you can’t trust Clinton.”
But ohhhhh, question any of the demonstrable lies that Bush and Co. have foisted upon the American public, and for shame! For shame! Criticize Bush and the playbook response is, “How dare you criticize Bush because, hey, you supported Clinton and Clinton did stupid stuff too!”
As if that’s relevant. As if that has anything to do with anything. Yeah, I hated that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act. Which means…what? That Bush should get a free pass in supporting a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise one American out of ten?
Open your eyes.
PAD
Ok, Peter, you say “But ohhhhh, question any of the demonstrable lies that Bush and Co. have foisted upon the American public“
Can you provide examples of where Bush has lied to the stupid hicks that voted him back into office?
I’m not aware of any lies and I watch CBS, NBC, ABC, and visit CNN regularly. All of them have more of a liberal slant than conservative. I don’t remember seeing any reports of these lies you mention. Can you direct me to the lies?
“Can you provide examples of where Bush has lied to the stupid hicks that voted him back into office? I’m not aware of any lies and I watch CBS, NBC, ABC, and visit CNN regularly. All of them have more of a liberal slant than conservative. I don’t remember seeing any reports of these lies you mention. Can you direct me to the lies?”
You need to start reading more. It is nothing less than horrifying that TV is the main source for news when it doesn’t even begin to address stories that can’t be photogenic or summarized in ten second sound bytes.
In any event, beyond the obvious lies of “I’m a uniter, not a divider” and “I don’t believe in nation building” and “We’ll get Osama bin Laden dead or alive” and the whole thing about major operations being ended in Iraq (so the 1100+ and counting who have died since are just minor deaths, I guess) the following link should give you a nice intro into Bush’s lies:
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
PAD
Just wondering if any of you have seen “Voices of Iraq”? It is a powerful documentary. They gave 150 digital video cameras to Iraqis and the Iraqis made comments on the video from roughly January through September of this year.
This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded. For those of you who say about the holocaust in WW2, “never again,” you seem to ignore that it indeed did happen in the last 20 years in Iraq where, by conservative estimates, at least 1 million (and some say 5 million) Iraqi’s died under Saddam’s cruel regime.
This documentary shows the true prison abuse that happened in Iraqi prisons, abuse that is far worse than anything we did there.
This documentary has people who are mad at America, who want us to leave, but it also has people who understand why we are there. It has very little commentary about what is being shown. Many of you will come out still feeling the war was a mistake. But you will at least see the truth of another side that is being widely ignored: we ARE doing some very good things in Iraq.
Obviously the directors had a choice in what footage they used. And they chose to use a lot of footage that had Iraqi’s looking at the future with hope. But that does not lessen the impact of the documentary. You will hear and see a side of Iraq that you do not see on any of the mainstream media.
Jim in Iowa
“This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded.”
Really. Does it show Saddam making WMDs?
Seriously. Because if it shows citizens being hurt, tortured, killed…well, not to sound cold, but there’s lots of documentaries that can be made about lots of countries that’s happened in. Now if you want to make the argument that America should be (with deference to Parker and Stone) the world police, storming in and taking over countries on a humanitarian basis, feel free. It’s an interesting position to take.
But Bush never took it. If that had been his position, Congress would never have supported it. (And, let’s face it, if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to invade in the first place). Bush’s position was that we should invade Iraq specifically because Saddam was cultivating WMDs and had links to Al Qaeda. That’s the bill of goods he sold, that’s the reason we went to war, that’s the reason 1100 and more young Americans have died, that’s the reason we’re stuck there, and absolutely every other position he’s taken since then is post-invasion rationalizing.
PAD
Peter, you say “You need to start reading more. It is nothing less than horrifying that TV is the main source for news when it doesn’t even begin to address stories that can’t be photogenic or summarized in ten second sound bytes. In any event, beyond the obvious lies of “I’m a uniter, not a divider” and “I don’t believe in nation building” and “We’ll get Osama bin Laden dead or alive” and the whole thing about major operations being ended in Iraq (so the 1100+ and counting who have died since are just minor deaths, I guess) the following link should give you a nice intro into Bush’s lies:“
I read things all the time from newspapers, to magazines, to comics, to great literature. How can you tell someone they need to read more when you have no idea if they do or don’t? Don’t you think this was a little bit presumptious on your part.
You might think that those statements are lies, but I don’t. What proof do you have that his statements are lies besides your personal beliefs?
Do you agree that every politician goes for their party the majority of the time? If so, then don’t tell me that the Democrats are more uniters than Republicans. It doesn’t work that way. Bush has had several Democrats support him throughout the last 4 years. So, you could actually argue that he is a uniter by reaching across party lines succesfully.
So you’re saying we are nation building in Iraq? I’m not sure if that’s what you meant or not.
Osama will be found eventually. Bush saying he would get him dead or alive was not a lie. Or maybe you’re saying when Bush said he wasn’t really worried about Osama as much anymore. That still didn’t make it a lie. He was telling the truth since most of Osama’s network had been disrupted at that point in time.
Major operations did end in Iraq. The country was overrun and Saddam was removed from power and in hiding. This has been argued before by other people and you still consider this a lie?
In regards to the defense of marriage act, one of the main authors (REP. BOB BARR (R-GA)), came out and refused to support Bush for re-election (or 1st election, depending on your point of view) has criticized the current administration for the Patriot Act abuses and has come out against the marriage ammendment
Peter said “This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded.” Really. Does it show Saddam making WMDs?
I guess you would say that Bush lied about the WMD’s too. Didn’t Kerry see the exact same intelligence that Bush saw? That wasn’t a lie either. It was faulty intelligence. Want to know what happens when you receive faulty intelligence? see this:
“Clinton authorized the launching of missile in to both Sudan and Afghanistan based on intelligence that Osama was at the camp in Afghanistan and that the target in Sudan was a Chemical weapons factory. It turned out that neither was the case. Osama was long gone before the launch commenced and the chemical weapons factory was in fact an asprin factory. Both sites were selected based on intelligence gathered that was wrong”
So, how can you call someone a liar if they make a decision on faulty intelligence? Heck, most of the world believed Saddam had WMDs. The questions that should be asked are if he did have them, where did he put them. Or if he didn’t have them, how could all of the intelligence sources have been so wrong.
I am a devout Christian living in a so-called “red state” and I did not vote for Bush (while I’m no Kerry fan and he ran a poor campaign he got my vote; I had to do whatever I could to get Bush out of office). I know many other Christians who didn’t vote for W either.
This is not to discount the huge impact of conservative Christian voters on the election but to clarify that this is not solely a “religious vs. non-religious” vote issue.
Many of the same Christians who reduced the election to a Bush (good) vs. Kerry (evil) choice based on a few perceived “key” issues would also demonize me for the particulars of my individual views, regardless of how fervently I believe in Christ or attempt to follow his teachings.
Thus, regardless of how un-“Christlike” starting a war based on falsehoods and half-truths (and then doing little to nothing about yet another African genocide) is, because Bush says the “right” thing at the “right” time on, say, gay marriage, he is the “right” candidate for many. Given the general lack of knowledge, education and unwillingless to learn about the world among many Americans (see international rankings on such subjects as geography), it is much easier to zero in on hyped perceived right/wrong “issues” than to face the challenging prospect of intense study of complex matters with complex world-reaching implications.
Thus, if I talked of the notion that maybe Bush shouldn’t get our vote because the administration has not been doing that great a job on the “War on Terror,” which has implications for the welfare of the entire earth, it would be like a foreign language for many because their minds had already drawn lines between the candidates based on what they perceived as clear-cut “yes/no” issues, even when such labels were not as clear as they thought.
This struggle extends within the state of Christian religion itself. In many circles, it’s depressingly more “say the right thing” over anything else (so much for freedom in Christ). If I don’t think gay marriage should be illegal (personally, I think it’s an infringement upon rights), it’s unlikely I’ll get a ministry position in a conservative church, regardless of the sincerity of my belief or the content of my character.
(This is not to say all religious people who voted for Bush are simple-minded or those that voted for Kerry aren’t, nor am I saying that I am necessarily right… I’m just making trying to make sense of things based on my own many troubled observations.)
While I am distraught and discouraged that some of those of my faith had such a big role of re-electing Bush, I will maintain that it’s not such a clear-cut issue as red religious vs. blue non-religious, as I and many others I know would have no place in such a framework. What place I do have is a frustrating question, but I am here and I am an American Christian.
ECK said or 1st election, depending on your point of view
And your point of view would be that Bush didn’t win the 2000 election I take it. If that was the case, then why didn’t Gore run against him again in 2004. If the election was stolen from him, why didn’t he prove it this year? How exactly did Bush not win the first election again? Is it the ‘popular vote’ argument? Or do you think Gore was robbed in Florida? That the recount was not corect?
I’ve said before that I didn’t care who won the 2000 election because both candidates were acceptable to me. But for someone to say he didn’t win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn’t true.
Action Speedo, you said If I don’t think gay marriage should be illegal (personally, I think it’s an infringement upon rights), it’s unlikely I’ll get a ministry position in a conservative church, regardless of the sincerity of my belief or the content of my character.
I’m curious. How can a Christian believe in gay marriage? Doesn’t the Bible say it’s an abomination? Can you let me know how you came to this conclusion? Maybe you can change my mind.
Did you know that the person you voted for voted against the ban on partial birth abortion 6 times? Have you ever seen this procedure done?
Well, before we all go zonky here, let’s all calm down and get to the crux of the problem:
The crux of the problem as far as terrorism and more specifically OBL is concerned is that the government has been crisis-respondent instead of crisis-avoidant. That’s why North America is a sitting duck for those guys.
BOTH the Clinton and Bush administrations had intelligence that indicated the potential for the 9/11 attack. Witness the FBI memos which advised of the presence of foreign flight students, which were ignored largely because they did not get to the right people.
OK. So both administrations can share blame, but in fact it’s really irrelevant to point fingers now because that’s all past. We have to deal with the present and focus on preventing another calamity of ewual or worse magnitude.
The problem is that Al Queda goes about its business and everyone scrambles to figure out what their true intent is. Well, here’s a flash for you: their true intent is to destroy the Western way of life as we know it. Plain and simple. And they’ll do it by any means possible because they put no value on human life and in fact encourage folks to go sacrifice themselves for a mythical heroism that they sell to these idiots.
Meantime at our end there is no coordination whatsoever as far as intelligence is concerned, and as long as this situation persists, OBL and his gang get to sit back and laugh while they watch everyone scurrying around like ants as they pull whatever strings they want to pull.
So forget all the stuff about who’s to blame for this and who’s to blame for that. What the government (Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter) and any allies they can convince to join in the cause, needs to do is get their collective s–t together and formulate a plan to:
1.) locate and isolate OBL and either take him out or capture him
2.) cut off the source of funding for terrorist activities, even if it means sanctioning Saudi Arabia. Now that’s harsh, but it’s also reality.
3.) determine the chain of command in AQ and eliminate all or part of it
4.) Eradicate the insurgents currently in Iraq to allow for some modicum of stabization of the country and subsequent downsizing of US forces
Surely with the resources that Western Civilization has at its disposal, someone (and I don’t care of its President Bush or someone else in the administration or even someone in another country altogether) can take a strong leadership role to focus on these goals one at a time and achieve each one in a logical, progressive manner.
THEN we can start to worry about other matters in terms of social policies and the great societal chasm that needs to be healed.
But Bush never took it. If that had been his position, Congress would never have supported it. (And, let’s face it, if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to invade in the first place). Bush’s position was that we should invade Iraq specifically because Saddam was cultivating WMDs and had links to Al Qaeda. That’s the bill of goods he sold, that’s the reason we went to war, that’s the reason 1100 and more young Americans have died, that’s the reason we’re stuck there, and absolutely every other position he’s taken since then is post-invasion rationalizing.
Bush and Powell and others DID talk about the human rights abuses. I agree that WMD’s were at the top of the list, but the human rights issues were very clearly a part. The issue of the Kurd’s and the no fly zone, all factored into what was presented. Saddam shot daily at our planes that were doing what? Preventing Saddam from attacking and murdering the Kurds and others. The torture and mass executions were all talked about before we ever invaded. If that had been his only reason, I agree, he may not have been given the authorization. But that doesn’t mean it was not said.
Let me point out, though, that I never said this film would give justification for WMD’s or even for why Bush decided to go to war. I specifically said that this film documents a part of this story that has not been show on the news. Perhaps it is because of bias, or perhaps it is because it is too dangerous to get in there to do the work. Either way, this film shows a wide range of people and their lives in the war torn country.
I was told by many on this site that I needed to see F-911 by M. Moore before I judged it. I am suggesting the same standard be used here. I believe this movie is an extremely well made documentary that will show you a side of Iraq that you are not seeing anywhere else. It gives voices to the people of Iraq in a way that has not occurred since before Saddam took power.
Your point, also, seems to be secondary to the truth. Why does it matter if Bush never mentioned this? If it is the truth, then it should matter. Not to go back and “justify” the war, but to avoid a repeat of past mistakes. Isn’t that why we say “never again” about WW2? And then, “never again” about the atrocities that happened in Rwanda, yet are repeating themselves in the Sudan?
Imagine, for a moment, that before Hitler invaded Poland, he turned on his own people and began executing all of the Jews in his country. I don’t know if there were 6 million in Germany, but it really doesn’t matter, the fact was that he was slaughtering them. The rest of Europe decided to “contain” him, but did not go in and remove him from power. He then tried invading Poland, but was beaten back. He then tried invading France, but was beaten back. During this time, he continued to be a brutal dictator over his own people.
How should the world have reacted? Should they have invaded to have stopped the first massacre? What if nothing was done then and it was 15 years later, and Hitler was still executing people (although the Jews were now somewhat protected by a no fly zone)?
That is what happened in Iraq. Saddam massacred over 150,000 Kurds. He murdered at least 1 million in his own country during his 24 year reign of terror. Whether it was Reagan, Bush H., or Clinton who should have done more, nothing was done. Whether for good reasons or bad, George W. chose to do something about it. The question remains, why was Saddam allowed to kill over 1 million people? Why does this not seem to matter?
Even if Bush was wrong to invade, why is there an unwillingness to be honest about the brutality of Saddam Hussein? This film is not a propoganda film giving Bush excuses for why he invaded. This is a documentary that puts faces to those who were tortured, had hands cut off, and who were put in mass graves. One Iraqi said it well in the film. There are French activists who fight for animal rights. Why are they not willing to fight for his rights as a human?
The documentary does not touch on WMDs. As I said, it is almost entirely what Iraqi’s said into the camera, sometimes on their own, sometimes in response to a question (by another Iraqi).
It does touch on Al Qaeda (sp? I never remember and don’t care to look it up). One person specifically says that Saddam welcomed and supported members of Al Qaeda in Baghdad. He gives some very specific stories about it. If true (since I understand that one person’s comments do not prove it conclusively), it would show what Bush and Cheney actually said, that there are ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda (NOT that Saddam knew or was invovled with 9-11), is true.
For any of you who are daring enough to go and see the truth (and some of it is very brutal and graphic), then I encourage you to go and see this film. I don’t care if you agree with Bush and why he went to war or not. If you can’t face the facts of what Iraq was like then, and yes, the mess it is in now, it really will turn into the pit some of you already think it is.
Jim in Iowa
To avoid any confusion, let me clarify the following:
“One Iraqi said it well in the film. There are French activists who fight for animal rights. Why are they not willing to fight for his rights as a human? “
The Iraqi was referring to the 24 years Saddam was in power and nothing was done to stop him. He was not saying that he was now being abused and needed his rights protected.
Jim in Iowa
Some of Bush’s old lies can be seen here, in this rare Bush vs. Bush debate
http://www.thedailyshow.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media
Posted by Novafan at November 7, 2004 01:22 AM
>i I guess you would say that Bush lied about the WMD’s too. Didn’t Kerry see the exact same intelligence that Bush saw? >/i
No, Kerry did NOT see the same intelligence that the President saw. No Senator gets too see all of the same intelligence that the President sees. The Senate gets to see what the President allows them to see. The Senate was presented with all the dubious info, labeled as fact, without getting to see all contradicting info (e.g., yellowcake uranium, T-6 aluminum tubing)
“And your point of view would be that Bush didn’t win the 2000 election I take it. If that was the case, then why didn’t Gore run against him again in 2004. If the election was stolen from him, why didn’t he prove it this year? How exactly did Bush not win the first election again? Is it the ‘popular vote’ argument? Or do you think Gore was robbed in Florida? That the recount was not corect?
“I’ve said before that I didn’t care who won the 2000 election because both candidates were acceptable to me. But for someone to say he didn’t win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn’t true.”
Posted by Novafan at November 7, 2004 01:30 AM
Alright, the recount wasn’t done until well after Bush was in office. Immediate after the election in 2000, Gore asked for a recount of three counties in Florida. The Florida Supreme court stepped in and stopped the recount. A few days later, it was restarted for the entire state. At this point, the US supreme court stepped in and put a stop to the recount, declaring Bush the winner, 5-4, along party lines (I have knowingly skipped some of the steps involved for the sake of brevity).
Later, under a Freedom of Information Act inquiry (I believe, I’m too tired to google it right now) several new organizations got together and conducted a recount. The results:
If the recount had been limited to the three counties Gore had initially asked to be recounted, he still would have lost, by two hundred something votes instead of the 573
If the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have won,
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm — notice, not a liberal source at all. you can google and find some others
Now keep in mind, that this is in addition to the tens of thousands of people erroneously removed from the voter registration rolls, under the guise of being felons, but for the actual crime of being black. This includes about 8000 people who committed misdemeanors — not felonies — in Texas.
And you said “But for someone to say he didn’t win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn’t true.” Well, it really bothers me that such blatant election fraud could be perpetrated in my country. It really bothers me that when widespread disenfranchisement was occurring, all we heard about were dimpled chads and hanging chads. It really bothers me that the country that I grew up in has been stolen and turned into some kind of banana republic where it’s OK to commit torture and ignore the Geneva conventions, where it is OK to arrest US citizens in a US city and to declare them an enemy combatant in order to whisk them away to another country to deprive them of the right of due process. And I am ever so slightly peeved that 51% of the former citizens of this country so obliviously unaware, or think that hating gays is more important that civil liberties or competent government, that they want to continue with the degradation of America.
“I read things all the time from newspapers, to magazines, to comics, to great literature. How can you tell someone they need to read more when you have no idea if they do or don’t? Don’t you think this was a little bit presumptious on your part.”
Well, number one, I wasn’t talking to you, and number two, since the poster listed nothing but TV news sources, my response was perfectly reasonable in saying he was representative of a sizable percentage of people who get their news only from TV, and I thought that was unfortunate.
Geez, why did I even bother to respond to you? No point. No point at all.
Won’t make that mistake again.
PAD
“While I am distraught and discouraged that some of those of my faith had such a big role of re-electing Bush, I will maintain that it’s not such a clear-cut issue as red religious vs. blue non-religious, as I and many others I know would have no place in such a framework. What place I do have is a frustrating question, but I am here and I am an American Christian.”
I can understand your frustration. It’s the same frustration I feel when, as a liberal, I’m lumped in with the most extreme proponents of liberalism. It’s the frustration a moderate feminist feels when she’s lumped in with women who believe that all men are potential rapists and thus should not be trusted. Or that Muslims feel when they’re lumped in with people who distort the Koran so they can kill innocent people.
I mean, my wife is Catholic, for heaven’s sake, so obviously I know that simply saying “Christian values” or somesuch is not one sweeping statement that means the same thing for all. To some, Christian values means Christian charity, to be forgiving and accepting of all. To others, it means to despise as hellbound sinners all those who do not share their exact views, and to treat them with accordant scorn.
PAD
“And you said “But for someone to say he didn’t win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn’t true.” Well, it really bothers me that such blatant election fraud could be perpetrated in my country.”
Yeah, well, hold on, it gets better. Remember how there was this exit polling that indicated Kerry was winning…and then, lo and behold, the machines said, no, Bush won, and people shrugged and said, Oh, well, the exit polling was wrong.
Not necessarily. Consider the interesting voting result in one precinct in Ohio:
Franklin County, OH: Gahanna 1-B Precinct
638 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST
US Senator:
Fingerhut (D) – 167 votes
Voinovich (R) – 300 votes
US President:
Kerry (D) – 260 votes
Bush (R) – 4,258 votes
No, that’s not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast…and Bush got 4,258 votes. Look at that discrepency. Now think of an error such as that multiplied by twenty, maybe thirty districts, think of what Bush won Ohio by, and fear for your country just a little more.
PAD
You know, Jim, I’m getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust. Especially when you’re presenting the argument to someone who had relatives that died in German concentration camps. So it’s pretty dámņëd offensive to me that you’re implying the situations are analagous when they’re not. As if to be critical of Bush’s war is to endorse the deaths of German Jews, because unless one supports Bush, then one is supporting the notion of allowing Jews to have been gassed. Yeah. Pretty dámņëd offensive.
One million lives over 24 years? A tragedy. And compared to Hitler’s annihilation of six million Jews in a fraction of the time (to say nothing of the millions more of other races)? Not even in the ballpark.
Furthermore, other countries didn’t attack Hitler because he was killing Jews. They did it because he was trying to conquer them. And consider this: Sixty years ago, Europe told America that we should attack, and we ignored them. Three years ago, Europe told America we should NOT attack…and we ignored them.
If George Bush wanted a world wide coalition to go in and get Saddam on humanitarian grounds, then that’s what he should have come forward with. He should have assembled a genuine gathering of nations and convinced them to do it. Instead he made half-assed claims based upon incomplete and false information, was dead wrong, damaged our credibility with the world, put us out on a limb and sawed it off behind us.
Yes, Saddam was a bad man. A very bad man, who belonged in the cornfield. And I believe he killed one million Iraqis in twenty four years. That’s 41,666 Iraqis per year. So just out of curiosity, in the past eighteen months, how many Iraqis have we killed? Estimates range from 30,000 to as high as 100,000, what with our cluster bombs killing in one throw hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children who apparently were unaware that we’re improving their lives. And we’re just getting warmed up. The world is safer without Saddam in charge? My God, *Iraq* isn’t safer without Saddam in charge.
Has anyone considered the possibility that they’re trying to kill us because, to them, the only difference between us and Saddam is that, under Saddam, they had electricity and water?
As for people being killed, let’s not forget to factor in that we’ve transformed Iraq, a country with no ties to Al Qaeda, into an Al Qaeda recruitment machine. Muslims who now believe everything bin Laden ever told them are hurrying to join the fight against the Great Satan. How many thousands, millions of lives will THEY be taking?
It’s not as simple as you’re making it. It never is. But one thing is simple, and that is that if Conservatives get to claim that, noooo, Iraq isn’t the same as Vietnam because the body count can’t compare, then I’m saying that Iraq isn’t the same as the Holocaust because the body count can’t compare. Of course, the difference is, we’re the ones involved in the pile up now, with no end in sight. Pogo was right: We’ve met the enemy, and he is us.
PAD
“You know, Jim, I’m getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust.”
And some of us are getting sick and tired of people comparing the United States to Nazi Germany. But what can you do?
I was wondering how long before we’d see this:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-suic1107,0,2157220,print.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines
“Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast, police said yesterday.”
My favorite quote:”…Frank Franca, an East Village artist and registered Democrat, suggested the suicide was symbolic.
“I’m very moved by it,” he said. “Obviously, this person was devastated. I can see why he would come here.”
Can a little of sanity’s light break through the darkness here? EVERY election is seen as Armageddon by the folks who lose. I had friends in college who were convinced that Ronald Reagan was going to launch World War 3 the day he took office. (those with a grasp of history may remember that this failed to take place). Get on with your lives! Democrats should talk to friends who are depressed and lift them up, before we see more of this madness (or the lesser but still crazy stuff, like the recent vanadalizing of the republican offices in Raleigh). Republicans should avoid gloating-karma can be a bìŧçh.
PAD:
>>”You know, Jim, I’m getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust.”
Bill:
>And some of us are getting sick and tired of people comparing the United States to Nazi Germany. But what can you do?
I’d think that the most reasonable thing to do would be to carefully examine the similarities and distinctions, before casting the analogy aside or accepting it as valid. If dismissed completey, one can move on knowing that it doesn’t fit. If central aspects hold true, initiate action, dialogue, etc to further ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself.
To compare Iraq to the Holocaust isn’t a fair comparison, to be sure. But then, we really didn’t attack Germany to end the Holocaust (the news of the Holocaust was largely surpressed in this country by isolationists). We attacked Germany because Germany was invading a, as Stan Lee put it, “gobbling up countries” … many of which were friends of the US. We also attacked Germany because they had chosen to associate with the nation which attacked Pearl Harbor. In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there. Saddam associated with Al Qaida, but did not have a direct hand in 9-11 (as the Commission concluded)… similarly to Hitler having associated with Imperial Japan, but not having a direct hand in the Pearl Harbor attack. There is the similarity. But to compare the Iraq front of the War On Terror specifically to the Holocaust isn’t accurate.
Darin:
>We also attacked Germany because they had chosen to associate with the nation which attacked Pearl Harbor. In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there.
Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn’t fit with “the War on Terror”…. well, he didn’t until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define.
Also, consdering the fighting of a “War on Terror” and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous. The first serves the entire world, while the latter is not only self-serving, but very egocentric.
>Saddam associated with Al Qaida, but did not have a direct hand in 9-11 (as the Commission concluded)… similarly to Hitler having associated with Imperial Japan, but not having a direct hand in the Pearl Harbor attack.
Nothing similar about it. Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions.
Fred
“Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn’t fit with “the War on Terror”…. well, he didn’t until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define.”
Well, he sent big bucks to the families of people who murdered jews in Israel by blowing themselves up…if that’s not supporting terrorism what is?
Fred, Saddam was a terrorist and a terrorist support ever since he gained political power in that region. That fact is indisputable.
“Also, consdering the fighting of a “War on Terror” and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous.”
When did I say anything about establishing democracy WORLDWIDE?
“Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions.”
Bin Laden and Saddam would probably never have broken bread with each other, but their respective organizations were associating with each other throughout the 1990’s. Al Qaida and Saddam’s own terror network aided each other in that time. Again, the Commission verified this.
DW
Darin:
>>”Also, consdering the fighting of a “War on Terror” and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous.”
>When did I say anything about establishing democracy WORLDWIDE?
Sorry, I’ll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a “War on Terror” and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous.
>>”Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions.”
>Bin Laden and Saddam would probably never have broken bread with each other, but their respective organizations were associating with each other throughout the 1990’s. Al Qaida and Saddam’s own terror network aided each other in that time. Again, the Commission verified this.
The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn’t give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation’s decision to invade us.
It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies. Bin Laden had regularly released statements about fighting against Hussein up until days before the U.S. invaded Iraq, placing Hussein in league with the U.S. as enemies.
Peter said Well, number one, I wasn’t talking to you, and number two, since the poster listed nothing but TV news sources, my response was perfectly reasonable in saying he was representative of a sizable percentage of people who get their news only from TV, and I thought that was unfortunate. Geez, why did I even bother to respond to you? No point. No point at all.Won’t make that mistake again.PAD
I’m just curious here Peter. Just who do you think you were responding to if you weren’t talking to me? The poster you quoted was me so if you weren’t talking to me, who were you talking to? You reposnded directly to the post you quoted didn’t you? That poster was me wasn’t it? Hmmm, in my book, 1 + 1 still equals 2.
You did to me exactly what Kerry did when the New York times article came out. You jumped to conclusions based on what was posted or printed out without researching the facts.
Did I forget to mention that you were responding to my post that you quoted again? Just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.
Novafan who needs to read more.
“Sorry, I’ll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a “War on Terror” and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous.”
Okaaayyy… now when did I ever say or imply that they were synonymous?
“It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies.”
They were allies, but they didn’t particularly like each other. Their relationship is analgous to Hitler’s with the Japanese Empiror. Hitler hated all races except his Aryan master race, yet he had working relationships with the Italians and the Japanese.
“The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn’t give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation’s decision to invade us.”
I point out that Saddam’s terror network and Al Qaida worked with each other throughout the 1990s and this is what you respond with? Let’s keep this discussion reasonably timely.
Peter said No, that’s not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast…and Bush got 4,258 votes.
Could you direct us to the news source that printed that information? I can’t find it. If it’s true, then I hope it’s investigated.
Darin:
>>”Sorry, I’ll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a “War on Terror” and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous.”
>Okaaayyy… now when did I ever say or imply that they were synonymous?
It appeared to be implied by your statement of “In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there.” Cause and effect. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Your meaning wasn’t clear.
>>”It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies.”
>They were allies, but they didn’t particularly like each other. Their relationship is analgous to Hitler’s with the Japanese Empiror. Hitler hated all races except his Aryan master race, yet he had working relationships with the Italians and the Japanese.
They were not allies when the U.S. used it as a basis for their invasion and hadn’t been for some time.
>>”The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn’t give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation’s decision to invade us.”
>I point out that Saddam’s terror network and Al Qaida worked with each other throughout the 1990s and this is what you respond with? Let’s keep this discussion reasonably timely.
Darin, you neglected to post my final statement, which tied my point to yours….”It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies. Bin Laden had regularly released statements about fighting against Hussein up until days before the U.S. invaded Iraq, placing Hussein in league with the U.S. as enemies.”
Fred