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)
• 
Sorry, missed a point. The U.S.’s actions with the Contras, its previous support of Hussein, its self-serving actions in the Middle East are more recent examples in a long list. There are no white hats involved.
“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.”
You’re right, you did misinterpret it. My meaning was clear.
“They were not allies when the U.S. used it as a basis for their invasion and hadn’t been for some time.”
That was one basis of a few for the invasion, in fact. Bush even said that any country which harbors terrorists (which, again, Iraq did) would be counted as an enemy. When Bush said that, every Democrat in the room sat up and applauded in agreement. Again, this basis was confirmed by the 9-11 Commission’s findings.
“It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies.”
It is NOW well known that they, in fact, were allies. Again, it’s been established despite whatever rhetoric Bin Laden and Saddam spouted. They shared assets. And there is a historical precedent for this in that Hitler, who hated all races but his own, had allies in Russia, Japan and Italy.
DW
Nevermind, I found the following article which admits there was a problem, but also says the problem was found and corrected:
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/05/20041105-A6-01.html
Peter said 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.
I fear that there’s actually people in this country that believe people rigged the election. That’s what your getting at aren’t you? Like it’s not common for machines to fail sometimes. Did you watch Gates showing of his new operating system that worked with plug and plag to have the blue screen of death appear when he plugged in a scanner?
The problem was found and corrected. You’re assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm.
“Sorry, missed a point. The U.S.’s actions with the Contras, its previous support of Hussein, its self-serving actions in the Middle East are more recent examples in a long list. There are no white hats involved.”
And by establishing a democratic republic in Iraq, instead of simply installing another dictator, we are not committing the same errors all over again in that region as we, as a nation, have in the past. I’d call that progress. You’re right in that there are no white hats involved, but that doesn’t really matter. We’re doing a good thing over there. A strong, free and democratic Iraq will deliver a crippling blow to terrorism in that region. It’s really the best weapon against terrorism.
DW
Btw Peter, eventhough Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct after the error was found and corrected, it still beat Kerry’s 260 votes. That’s an important fact to point out.
“I fear that there’s actually people in this country that believe people rigged the election.”
Don’t worry, Novafan. Had that actually happened, CBS would be all over it. CBS would also probably have fabricated a story if it looked as though they could make the arguement. But they can’t because the Bush victory was too sound. Now, they might try something after a few months, in order to fuel the liberal base, but really, had Bush really stole the election, the liberally-controlled factions of the media would have screamed bloody murder by now.
DW
Darin said We’re doing a good thing over there. A strong, free and democratic Iraq will deliver a crippling blow to terrorism in that region. It’s really the best weapon against terrorism.
Bravo. Exactly correct. And it helps protect Israel, which is important also.
Okay, folks! Gotta go. It’s been fun! 🙂
Novafan writes:
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.
How ’bout CNN, for starters:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html
There are more problems listed in the article. And everybody should be concerned about electronic voting, regardless of party.
E-voting has potential, but it is currently being implemented in an thoroughly incompetent manner. Disclaimer: I have worked on point-of-sale software/machines, very similar to voting machines in design and function.
Two briefs by Johns Hopkins computer science professor Avi Rubin can be read here:
http://www.avirubin.com/judge1.html
http://www.avirubin.com/judge2.html
They are quite eye-opening. His views on the state of e-voting machines are essentially unanimous both in the computer industry and among academics.
Neil, while there are problems with every election, I don’t see that as a reason to “fear for our country”. Do you? Do you believe the errors were caused by Republicans trying to steal a vote?
PAD,
This whole discussion misses my point. Whether you agree or disagree with the war, go see this movie to hear firsthand what the Iraqi’s themselves are saying. As I said before, you are not an idiot. I think you can filter through it to determine if it is accurate or slanted. I suggest that this film shows all sides, but that it particularly shows a side we are not hearing in the media today. It is a documentary that is worth seeing if you want to know the reality of the history of Iraq, past and present.
As I said before, this movie is not propoganda to change someone’s mind about why we went to war. That is not why I suggested in the first place to see it. This movie is about seeing a reality that is completely missing from the media, a reality that we must understand if we are going to move forward from the place we are currently at in Iraq.
Here are a few responses to your comments.
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.
PAD, what part of my post was not clear? You are reading into it something I did not say, that unless you support Bush you are supporting Saddam killing people. The world is far more complicated than that. Stalin also slaughtered millions of people. I am not sure an invasion was feasible. BUT I do think it is far easier to look away for it happening than to face it head on. The situation may not compare in scope, but to say it is not analagous is to ignore what Saddam attempted to do.
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.
Only because this time, a new hitler was denied the power he sought. This time he was thrown back when he tried to attack Iran and later Kuwait (and yes, I know Reagan supported him against Iran). But your response bothers me a lot. It seems to be a tragedy, yet you then go on to say we would still be better off with Saddam in power. See my next response.
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.
You are now comparing apples to oranges. Saddam did not kill one million in an act of war, he killed them to keep his power and simply because of their ethnicity. Yes, dead is dead. But we are not systematically and deliberately herding people together and shooting them. To speak of American “atrocities” is far more absurd than to compare Saddam to Hitler. Unless you include the death count from the car bombs and other attacks by the insurgents, the deaths from American actions is quite low for a time of war. Go watch the film. There are some Iraqi’s who believe as you do, but many who do not.
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?
That is one statement that is categorically false. First, both have been restored in virtually all of the country. The only places they have not is due to current acts by insurgents. Second, the difference between us and Saddam is NOT that they had electricity and water, it is because now they have democracy, which threatens 3 groups of people. It threatens the surrounding nations (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) because of the hope it might give to their people, so they will support terrorism to destablize Iraq. It threatens some muslim factions in the country because it brings freedom to women, and it breaks the link between “church” and state in their country. It threatens and angers those from Saddam’s regime who used to have power and who want it back.
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?
Again, go listen to what the people of Iraq actually say about this. This country did have ties to Iraq according to some who were there and would know firsthand. And your second suggestion is ludicrous. Muslims do not believe everything Bin Laden is telling them.
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.
The body count does not compare, but I would love to find the numbers and see how the percentages compare.
OK, time for me to lose my temper.
PAD: 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.
Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark? Or is admission to the ballpark governed by the efficiency in which one slaughters civilians? You’re discussing A MILLION DEAD HUMAN BEINGS and you’re saying Saddam is less bad than Hitler because he wasn’t as GOOD at slaughtering civilians? This is every bit as stupid as an argument over “who’s worse, Hitler or Stalin?” Your argument is what? That there are degrees of genocide? “Hitler was humanity’s greatest monster. Saddam is at most humanity’s third greatest monster. How dare you compare him to #1?” Hitler is in fact worse; he made an entire nation into his accomplices and murdered countless (literally, we don’t know how many) civilians in the most dehumanizing way imaginable; it’s the worst crime in history. But the fact that you can be offended when someone compares one fascist tyrant who is responsible for millions of deaths (don’t forget the Iran-Iraq war, 2,000,000+ dead) to another fascist tyrant who’s responsible for millions of deaths makes me seriously question your judgment.
I’m frankly offended by the tradition of attacking non-Jews who try to make historical arguments about Nazi Germany. What happened there is part of the common history of humanity. It is the responsibility of every one of the six billion people on this planet to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. And your response of feeling insulted when someone claims it was happening again right there in front of us is exactly the worst thing you or anyone else can do. Hitler wasn’t an alien from another dimension; he was an anti-Semite, very much like thousands of others in Germany and Austria, who rose to political power and tried to exterminate a civilization. Unless we understand how he did that, we guarantee it’s going to happen again, this time in Armenia, or Rwanda, or the Sudan, or… Kurdistan. “Saddam Hussein’s attacks on his own citizens mark the only time since the Holocaust that poison gas has been used to exterminate women and children.” http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1 If you want to honor your family, be vigilant, not possessive.
You’re right about the arguments Bush made for the war; it was primarily premised on the WMD theory which we now know was based on faulty information, instead of on humanitarian grounds, an argument which would have been unassailable. I was opposed to the war because I didn’t think it was worth the cost, but that doesn’t mean I was right; that may just mean that Edmund Burke was talking specifically about people like me. Again with apologies to Parker and Stone, maybe we should be the world police, if the alternative is global inaction.
Neil, while there are problems with every election, I don’t see that as a reason to “fear for our country”. Do you? Do you believe the errors were caused by Republicans trying to steal a vote?
Ok, I’m glad you don’t see a reason to “fear for our country”. I don’t think I said anything about that either.
Yes, it’s true that there are problems with every election. But it’s always been possible to investigate/perform a recount. The newer systems do not lend themselves to any kind of auditing. A recount simply means making sure that the machine still spits out the same numbers, but there’s no way to even begin to verify where these came from.
I personally doubt there were any deliberate manipulations this time around. But problems happen. And now there’s no way to go over the paper trail ’cause there isn’t one. It should be obvious why this is a concern for everyone.
Consider when you have, say, a local levy or initiative. Maybe most people in the area didn’t want property taxes to go up to pay for that new modern art museum. Suppose the machine correctly counts the number of votes, but internally interchanges the “Yes” and the “No”. The totals will look right, but there’s no way to verify things, certainly not after the fact.
Too bad, you’ll be paying those taxes anyway. All it takes is a rich artsy type and a single dishonest official. Farfetched? Not really, it’s pretty trivial. Considering how often fraud has been attempted in the past, even the recent past (by all sides), then the fact that fraud is moving fast from “very difficult” to “trivial” means it’s not an idle concern.
There are a number of simple and inexpensive ways to mitigate the problem. They are not being implemented. Chalk it up to lack of awareness, but it’s still a problem.
Neil,
I think the “fear for our country” bit was ins response to PADS line “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.”
Not that it’s easy to keep up with a thread that’s gotten this big!
The problem was found and corrected. You’re assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm.
Are you aware that the CEO of Diebold, a Republican, the company that, iirc, provided the machines to that precinct in Ohio, said that he was going to “deliver” Ohio to Bush?
Just imagine that if such a mistake was made in one precinct, how easy it would be for such a mistake to occur in hundreds of precincts around the state, and how easily the results could be skewed.
But no, it’s just more liberal paranoia bûllšhìŧ.
This planet should be paraoid right now.
Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?
When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn’t involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven’t gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD’s point.
Until then, you just don’t get it.
Btw, somebody, in one of these threads, mentioned about how ‘major operations’ are over.
How many people constitutes a “major” operation these days? More than 10,000 troops? I mean, that’s how many we’ve got to sack… err… liberate Fallujah.
Apparently it’s more than 10,000 though.
Could the election results be due to fraud? Part of me likes to think that the majority of this country are not stupid and/or cruel enough to vote for Bush and I have to also acknowledge that with all the lying and refusing to take responsibility of this administration, committing fraud would not be much of a leap.
It’s funny…when we elect a new government in Canada, we’re handed a piece of paper with the names of the candidates on it, we mark an “X” next to the candidate of our choice, and we hand the piece of paper back. Then all the pieces of paper are counted.
Is there a reason even the simple American ballots seem to be so much more complicated?
When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn’t involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven’t gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD’s point.
Quoted and emphasized, because I want to hear the answer too.
“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?”
Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I thought that was from someone else; probably because I posted it in the middle of the night and getting tired. So sorry about that.
That said, if you don’t want people to think you don’t read, then don’t list solely television as your source of news.
PAD
“The problem was found and corrected.”
Yes, and I seem to recall the first reports were that Watergate was a third rate burglary that had nothing to do with the White House. Those first, tidy reports are always the ones you want to believe.
“You’re assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm.”
Nooo, I’m the one assuming nothing. You’re the one assuming that since Bush won, it’s the will of the people. Hmmm.
PAD
What I heard as I flicked through the channels today and found myself on FOX News…
“…As the push towards Fallujah continues, in what most people believe will bring an end to terrorism in Iraq…”
Just a quick question. HOW out of touch?
John
“Btw Peter, eventhough Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct after the error was found and corrected, it still beat Kerry’s 260 votes. That’s an important fact to point out.”
I didn’t bother to point that out because, frankly, it makes Bush look even worse. Because if all the tallied totals are that close instead of artificially, ludicrously inflated, then it makes the case for a recount even more compelling.
PAD
“Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?”
Noooo, no no. Conservatives don’t get to change the dance card. I said months ago that Iraq was the new Vietnam, and was told that it was incredibly inaccurate and unfair to say that. And the ONLY reason I was given was that the relative handful of dead soldiers couldn’t begin to compare to the, what–50,000?–killed in the ‘Nam.
So now I’m being told that, hey, Bush prevented another Holocaust because he stopped a guy who killed one million people over two decades, so my response is to throw the conservative excuse right back in their face. If I can’t compare Iraq to Vietnam based on insufficient body count, conservatives don’t get to compare Iraq to the Holocaust if they don’t have the numbers. Especially when genocide is happening just as fast in other countries that we can’t be bothered with. Especially when the reason we went to Iraq was because of WMDs that didn’t exist. Especially when there are dictators in this world far more dangerous to US interests whom we’re not going after. Especially when Iraqis are dying at a faster rate after Saddam than before.
The third rail of this argument is the apparently unassailable position that the world is safer and better off without Saddam in place. So let’s step on that third rail, shall we? Don’t just say it. Prove it. And I don’t mean by quoting conservative rhetoric from the usual suspects. I mean prove it. Prove that Iraqis are NOT dying faster than they were before. Prove it won’t slide into full blown civil war and we won’t be there for years and years and years. Considering the war has already cost us more than the entirety of Vietnam and has helped plunge us into record debt and helped recruit more terrorists for Al Qaeda who haate us with renewed fervor, and that U.S. casualties are piling up like cordwood, soldiers are being pushed into virtual indentured servitude through extended tours, and citizens live in fear of a renewed draft, prove that this country is better off and safer. Prove that the people of Iraq might never have thrown off Saddam themselves, as the Romanians did with their own homegrown dictator.
Prove that the flat statement conservatives so embrace as the fall back excuse to support an operation based on everything except humanitarian interests stems from something other than sheer optimism and ignoring of the facts
PAD
Shana just told me this great joke she heard on “Prairie Home Companion.”
“What’s the difference between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war?”
“George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war.”
Just found this article, which I think is pretty interesting:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
Is this proof the vote was rigged, the “smoking gun” some have been looking for? No, of course not. But, it certainly doesn’t look good, and it raises some interesting questions.
(We’ll see how much attention this story receives in the mainstream “liberal” media.)
When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn’t involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven’t gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD’s point.
What do you think his point was? I thought PAD’s point is that you can’t draw a comparison between atrocities that have different casualty figures without offending him. I’m not disproving his point, I’m saying his assertion was ludicrous. If at any point I claimed that we invaded Iraq because it was the only atrocity going on, you would have an excellent counterargument. Since I actually listed three other sets of atrocities in the last decade, I have to confess that I don’t see why your post isn’t a large non sequitur. Maybe we should have intervened in other occurrences of genocide– which we are obliged by treaty to do, incidentally. That doesn’t mean that the one genocide we did stop didn’t happen.
Until then, you just don’t get it
One of us doesn’t. You picked the wrong one.
What do you think his point was?
You made the claim that just because people have died, we need to go there and do something about it.
Well, since the only other thing that Iraq has that other countries don’t is oil, Bush must have gone to Iraq for the oil, because the WMD didn’t exist.
But then, Bush will try and claim we went to Iraq because Saddam is “a bad man”. Well, there are lots of bad men in the world. He just picked the one that he had a personal vendetta against.
Bush should look in the mirror some time. His ugly mug belongs up there with the rest of those “bad men” he doesn’t want to do anything about.
Well then if the true reason for invasion was for humanitarian reasons, why didn’t your government stand up and say so from the beginning? Why bother with all the rhetoric about WMD if the Administration simply wanted to stop the horrible things going on there?
Why hasn’t your government suggested intervention in any of the other countries in which far worse acts are being committed?
Nobody’s really denying that one could come up with humanitarian reasons for the Iraq invasion (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify the invasion would be another matter). What PAD (in my interpretation) is denying is that this was the primary motivation for going to Iraq. Which it wasn’t.
Using WMDs as a reason to invade was defensible before hand…but the fact that no heads rolled when we found out how lousy the intelligence was not. And the constantly shifting emphasis on the reasons for invasion sure as hëll looked dishonest (and if you think that won’t have repercussions down the line, then you’re being naive).
I’d have a whole lot less problems with this administration if they were at least competent at their jobs….
Craig said, Bush should look in the mirror some time. His ugly mug belongs up there with the rest of those “bad men” he doesn’t want to do anything about.
You know what. I volunteered to defend my country. I would have given my life to ensure civilians could have the rights that they enjoy today. However, it saddens me very deeply that someone can say bad things about our Commander in Chief and nobody does anything about it. Is that was a democracy is all about? Even if, God forbid, Kerry would have been elected President, I would have swallowed my pride and supported him 100% as long as he was in office. To do any less would be futile and conter productive to the welfare of our nation.
I don’t understand how anyone could do any less for any President we have. I just can’t fathom it.
Novafan wrote…
it saddens me very deeply that someone can say bad things about our Commander in Chief and nobody does anything about it.
*snip*
I don’t understand how anyone could do any less for any President we have. I just can’t fathom it.
Really. You “can’t fathom” why it’s a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices.
Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country’s founding principles.
Are you aware that the CEO of Diebold, a Republican, the company that, iirc, provided the machines to that precinct in Ohio, said that he was going to “deliver” Ohio to Bush?
Please show a source for this with an actual quote. I find it hard to believe that someone would risk millions of dollars of business by admitting that they are rigging an election.
Roger said Using WMDs as a reason to invade was defensible before hand…but the fact that no heads rolled when we found out how lousy the intelligence was not.
I wonder if anyone has any idea the reaction Bush and Blair had when no WMD’s were found. If it was me, I would say “oh s*#@” or something to that effect.
I think heads did roll. It almost cost Bush his re-election bid, especially as hard as the Democrats rammed it down his throat.
Is it possible there were no WMDs? Sure.
Is it possible there were WMDs and either hidden or given to another country or terrorists? Sure.
I hope the latter isn’t the case, because if it is, we are in BIG trouble.
Jeff said Really. You “can’t fathom” why it’s a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country’s founding principles.
Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles?
There is a big difference between ‘questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices’ and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don’t like.
And before anyone says anything about Clinton, I followed orders in the military under his presidency and I showed him the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.
Thanks Ken, you said I showed him the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.
Exactly what I tried to say, but you did it much better than me. :0)
Peter said I didn’t bother to point that out because, frankly, it makes Bush look even worse. Because if all the tallied totals are that close instead of artificially, ludicrously inflated, then it makes the case for a recount even more compelling.
Would you be satisfied if a recount was conducted? If the recount showed Bush still won by an overwhelming majority, would you be happy? I don’t think so. If he won by 1 vote or 4 million votes, you would still call foul right?
I’m all for a recount if it’ll make you feel better. However, I’m sure it will show the same results.
Peter said Nooo, I’m the one assuming nothing. You’re the one assuming that since Bush won, it’s the will of the people. Hmmm.
I assumed nothing and don’t remember saying it was the will of the people. However, it was one of the highest majority wins in history right?
Nah, that can’t be the will of the people. It’s all a fraud. The election must have been rigged.
Btw, extreme sarcasm in place in my last post. :0)
I want to thank you Peter for providing us a place for others to come to visit and converse with people. Even if we don’t agree most of the time, it’s still nice to be here.
Does anyone know why Gore didn’t run in 2004, especially since some here believe Bush stole the election from him just like they believe Bush stole the election from Kerry?
“However, it was one of the highest majority wins in history right?”
nope.
bush got a three percent majority.
there have been victors in previous elections that got more a more than three percent majority.
see, its true that the most people voted for bush in this election, more than in any other election in history.
know whats also true?
the most people in any election in history also voted against bush.
the reason?
more people in the country who are registered to vote.
another thing to note?
the second-most votes in history were gotten by who? that’s right, john kerry.
Craig said Well, since the only other thing that Iraq has that other countries don’t is oil, Bush must have gone to Iraq for the oil, because the WMD didn’t exist.
Yes, that must be exactly what happened. I’m glad the U.S. has control of Iraq’s oil now. This way, we don’t have to use the Oil for Food program that was being manipulated by Saddam for his benefit anymore.
I wonder why our gas prices haven’t dropped since we have control of Iraq’s oil now. Darn it, what an injustice. When are we going to see results from our newly acquired oil fields?
Ok, I mispoke. This highest majority wins should have read highest majority votes.
Maybe Kerry should run again in 2008. If he’s that popular, he’s a shoo-in for the next election right?
Wasn’t Reagan vs. Mondale the biggest landslide in American history?
Great point about Kerry getting the second most vote in the history of American votes as well…
Ken wrote…
There is a big difference between ‘questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices’ and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don’t like.
*snip*
I showed him [Clinton] the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.
How do you make that distinction? It can be a mighty fine line between the person and the position. Maybe even moreso with Bush, since his policies seem more “personal” for some reason (completely subjective opinion, of course).
When every single choice an individual makes is, in your estimation, the wrong choice, it’s extremely difficult not to make a judgement of that person.
Now, I agree that it’s unwise (and probably dangerous) to dismiss Bush as “stupid” or make some other character judgment. The problem is, particularly for someone living in another country, the man looks stupid. A lot.
Anyways, this isn’t an attack on you guys so much as a question: how you do strongly question a president’s policies while still showing him the “respect and honor” of the position?
“Does anyone know why Gore didn’t run in 2004, especially since some here believe Bush stole the election from him just like they believe Bush stole the election from Kerry?”
The Demcrat party tends to devour those who lose. Remember Dukakis? Kerry served under him. I’m sure he could have said lots of nice things about him. Unfortunately, he is now in the democrat losing candidates protection program, living under an assumed name next to Henry Hill.
“Wasn’t Reagan vs. Mondale the biggest landslide in American history?”
I’m pretty sure that Johnson vs Goldwater was way more of a blowout.
Not that it matters much. What do you call the guy who wins by 1 vote? Mr President.
PAD wrote (quoting me first): “Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?”
Noooo, no no. Conservatives don’t get to change the dance card. I said months ago that Iraq was the new Vietnam, and was told that it was incredibly inaccurate and unfair to say that. And the ONLY reason I was given was that the relative handful of dead soldiers couldn’t begin to compare to the, what–50,000?–killed in the ‘Nam.
So now I’m being told that, hey, Bush prevented another Holocaust because he stopped a guy who killed one million people over two decades, so my response is to throw the conservative excuse right back in their face. If I can’t compare Iraq to Vietnam based on insufficient body count, conservatives don’t get to compare Iraq to the Holocaust if they don’t have the numbers.
Since when am I bound by what other conservatives have said? I think you’re right. Iraq has the potential to become another Vietnam. (Let’s see: Principled deployment of force gone horribly wrong? Check. International coalition that boils down to the US backed up by a few other Anglosphere allies? Check, plus Poland. Winning every major battle but under constant guerrilla attack? Check. No clue when we get out of there? Check. Yep, there are parallels.) Even if other conservatives did make a stupid argument, that doesn’t give you a free pass to make a stupid argument right back. Additionally, reading your post I didn’t get the impression you were parroting a dumb argument you didn’t believe. When you said you were offended when people compared Iraq to the Holocaust, I was fairly sure you meant it. And that is the exact same point that I have seen made time and again in the historical literature: the Holocaust is not susceptible to historical analysis and comparison because it is unique in human history. That point is and always has been fallacious: it is unique in scope and degree, but not in type. Crimes against humanity are as old as humanity, and if we are to stop the next one– and there WILL be a next one– we have to understand the ones in the past and identify the ones in the present. Writing this one off as a “tragedy” that nonetheless isn’t in “the ballpark” minimizes a humanitarian disaster.
In short, if you didn’t really subscribe to the flatly indefensible position you seemed to be advocating, I apologize.
The third rail of this argument is the apparently unassailable position that the world is safer and better off without Saddam in place. So let’s step on that third rail, shall we? Don’t just say it. Prove it.
I may have been unclear. I didn’t say things were working out in Iraq. I don’t think things are working out in Iraq; maybe the latest attempt to take Falluja will help. I said the invasion would have been justifiable on humanitarian grounds alone. The consequences are irrelevant to the morality of the thing: my position is that military force is justifiable to remove a genocidal tyrant from power. The justification is necessarly antecedent to the consequences. Whether the plan to win postwar Iraq was screwed up from its onset (again, given the Vietnam parallels, I’ve worried about that) is irrelevant to my point.
There is a big difference between ‘questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices’ and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don’t like.
They go hand in hand. Why? Because Bush’s character is on display every day as president, and his character stinks, just as his abilities as president have stunk.
Please show a source for this with an actual quote.
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20030827/localnews/140871.html
Note, the date on this article is August 27th.