Bush’s List

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

On this national day of mourning, a.k.a. Inauguration Day, I am going to offer a radical idea on how to fix Social Security. Ready? Here it is.

We stop sending Americans to get killed.

Consider: At the end of “Schindler’s List,” it is stated that due to the 1100 Jews saved because of Schindler, the result was 6000 Jews who lived that would never have been born.

So over a period of ten years back in the 1960s, we lost 50,000 Americans. I’m not mathematician enough to calculate the number of Americans who were never born as a result: Americans added to the workforce, whose salaries would have contributed to social security, or who would have founded companies to hire people whose salaries, etc. But I would not hesitate to guess that would be a lot of warm bodies, all paying in to the program.

But they were killed or never existed. If, as Bush and Company believe, life begins at conception, then certainly they must give a nod toward conception that won’t occur.

Apparently, though, not so much. Because there’s already 1300 names on Bush’s list. So that’s…what? Another 6500 Americans who won’t be born over the next thirty years? We can’t even begin to wrap ourselves around the immensity of the tragedy involved in the sheer waste of young life. We can barely comprehend the “Daily News” headline that reads “Iran Next! Secret US commando teams already inside to identify potential targets, report claims.” So instead we must dwell on the pragmatic aspects, because the human horror and waste of American lives (not to mention Iraqi lives ranging anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000) is just too ghastly to contemplate.

Fix Social Security. Stop Bush’s list from growing.

PAD

158 comments on “Bush’s List”

  1. First, all I’m saying is that Bush is a hypocrite, claiming reverence for unborn life while having no regard for it once it’s born.

    And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better? You can disagree with whether his approach is better, but Bush is not being hypocritical to his core beliefs. You just don’t happent to agree with those beliefs. There is a difference.

    Jim in Iowa

  2. Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)

    Were they wrong in their facts? Did they distort anything? The fact is, the “mainstream” media has made it quite clear that this is the most expensive celebration ever. The Washington Times simply put those figures into historical context. So at the very least, you have two sides trying to push their agenda. But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton’s second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

    Jim in Iowa

  3. And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better?

    And as there is no way of ever knowing that his actions had the effect you ascribe to them, it makes this rather an empty argument, wouldn’t you agree?

  4. But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton’s second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

    And all things being equal, perhaps that little bit of trivia might prove a point of some kind. Except, of course, things aren’t equal, or anywhere close.

    Now, we are in the middle of a war (whether you consider it needless or not really doesn’t matter), then we were not. Now, we’re mired in an ever-incresing deficit, then we were enjoying a surplus.

    And don’t even get me started on the fact that Bush is the first President in the ENTIRE history of the country to not reimburse the city of D.C. for the costs incurred by his little victory lap….

  5. Republicans are not pro-life.

    They are pro birth. It’s “all” about the birth.

    Once your born, they could care less.

  6. PAD wrote: “Obviously, though, Bushies are uncomfortable enough with the simple truth that Bush’s List has pointlessly cost us 1300 Americans and tens of thousands more who will never be…”

    Spoken like a true Tory in 1776! Yeah, in my mind’s eye, I can see you arguing your case as you sit at a Tory pub in the company of other Tories: “This whole war is pointless! People are dying needlessly, property is being destroyed, it’s bad for business, and it will serve no purpose in the end. The uneducated rabble which makes up the majority of the Colonists are fighting for a hopeless cause against hopeless odds. And for what? Freedom and Democracy? It could never work here — it would be total chaos — most of the people here are ignorant and uneducated. How could such a mob govern itself? Washington and those other crazy idealists in the Continental Congress are dragging us all down the road to ruin.”

    Yep! I can see it all now….

  7. “Now, we’re mired in an ever-increasing deficit, then we were enjoying a surplus.”

    Actually I believe that Clinton announced the surplus in 1998, 2 years after the election.

    But this is all just partisan politics and even by THOSE low standards it’s petty.. When it’s the guy you like, an inauguration is a glorious celebration of democracy. When it’s the guy you didn’t vote for it’s a gaudy display of avarice and special interest money.

    Eventually the Democrats will nominate someone who doesn’t run a train wreck of a campaign again and you’ll have your chance to enjoy Jan 20th again.

  8. So over a period of ten years back in the 1960s, we lost 50,000 Americans. I’m not mathematician enough to calculate the number of Americans who were never born as a result: Americans added to the workforce, whose salaries would have contributed to social security, or who would have founded companies to hire people whose salaries, etc. But I would not hesitate to guess that would be a lot of warm bodies, all paying in to the program.

    Well, hëll, if numbers are what you’re after, let’s reduce the number of traffic deaths per year. In 2003 we lost as many as 42,000 people. And that was just one year.

    Or we could always just let in more immigrants to replace the people we lost. Hey, they’re sneaking in anyway.

  9. When it’s the guy you like, an inauguration is a glorious celebration of democracy. When it’s the guy you didn’t vote for it’s a gaudy display of avarice and special interest money.

    Actually, I don’t think there’s anything ‘glorious’ about wasting that kind of money on what is essentially just a victory lap, no matter whose victory it is.

    Current circumstances in the world just happen to make this one especailly appaling, IMO, ’tis all… *g*

  10. Doesn’t this analogy pretty much fall apart before it gets started due to the fact that it is considerably easier to immigrate to America than it is to become Jewish? [depending on whether one is speaking of religious or ethnic Jewishness, the latter is either very difficult or entirely impossible.]

    Or do the people who come into America to join the workforce, pay social security taxes, and found companies not count somehow?

  11. That’s just the liberal media pushing their agenda again. Oh, wait a sec…

    Yeah, I’m being sarcastic again. The media is generally called a bunch of unreliable idiots, except when they happen to support one’s views. Then they’re a reliable, upstanding foundation of society, and the information gleaned therein is deemed indisputable. It’s also not limited to one side or the other.

    Jim in Iowa’s usually fairminded (for either side) with regard to documentation and references, and my jab wasn’t entirely fair. I just couldn’t resist. Sorry, Jim.

  12. Actually Jim, the WTimes is indeed massaging their facts. A few key bits:

    “A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton’s inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.”

    It’s a quick little jump there from “US Taxpayers” to “the District.” The DC city government is not the only people who open their pockets for the event, there’s also the Park service (who are responsible for all the Smithsonian grounds) and other government operations to a lesser extent. Also, the US taxpayers will only be reimbursing the District for about 12.4M of that amount, leaving them to foot the bill for the rest out of their Homeland Security funding, as they were originally ordered to do with the full amount.

    Mind you, we all paid for that HS money in the first place so despite the robbing Peter to pay Paul it’s still all our money. (Or would be if it was real money and not imaginary deficit money)

    The Times also seems mum on the particular odious practice going on this year where the District puts up the parade viewing stands at their expense and the RNC then sells the seats for $60 and puts the proceeds in their coffers. Quite charming.

    Finally, the number comparison seems to be apples and oranges. The Clinton number is the combination of the private expenditure from 97 of around 33M plus the government security number of around 10M where the Bush number is just the private/RNC money. Some estimates have put the total combined expenditure for this year at almost 70M combined private and public monies.

  13. Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)

    Were they wrong in their facts? Did they distort anything? The fact is, the “mainstream” media has made it quite clear that this is the most expensive celebration ever. The Washington Times simply put those figures into historical context. So at the very least, you have two sides trying to push their agenda. But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton’s second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

    Sorry, Jim, but that dog won’t hunt.

    Salient points courtesy of Salon:

    * The Washington Times original reported less than a fortnight ago that the Bush team wanted to raise $50 million for the inaugaration. However, soon after the complaints of the cost of Bush v2.0 inauguration costs started, all such reportage stopped and the Times chopped $10 million off their original estimate of Bush’s expenditures. It is very possible that the actual cost of this shindig will be well above $40 million.
    * The claim that Clinton’s second inauguration’s adjusted cost would be $49 million today is bogus. According to the vast majority of news sources, Clinton’s soire cost around $30 million, which would still be less than $35 million in today’s dollars.
    * The only way to boost the Clinton cost would be to consider the $12 million spent by the Defense Department, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, and the government of the District of Columbia. Using that same accounting technique and adding the $20 million governmental agencies are footing, Bush’s inauguration will cost at least $60 million (and probably more).

    “Were they wrong in their facts”? Yes.

    “Did they distort anything”? Most egregiously so.

    Yes, the both sides are selling an idea, but the Washington Times is selling ersatz product. The facts remain: 1). this is unquestionably the most expensive inauguration in our republic’s history, 2). the amount of corporate cash donated (in return for access and favors) is obscene, 3). the tradition of muted inaugurations during a war is being shucked in favor of affair apparently so ostentatious, Austin Powers would blush, and 4). Washington D.C. is being stiffed by the government for security costs, meaning that our nation’s capitol’s homeland defense budget will be shot (they will not be able to afford the HazMat equipment that they were planning on).

  14. Actually, that would be the conservative media pushing their agenda. (Do you know who owns the Washington Times?)

    Were they wrong in their facts? Did they distort anything? The fact is, the “mainstream” media has made it quite clear that this is the most expensive celebration ever. The Washington Times simply put those figures into historical context. So at the very least, you have two sides trying to push their agenda. But ultimately, the question is what are the facts, and the fact is, when inflation is taken into account, Bill Clinton’s second inaugaration celebration cost more than what Bush is doing today.

    Sorry, Jim, but that dog won’t hunt.

    Salient points courtesy of Salon:

    * The Washington Times original reported less than a fortnight ago that the Bush team wanted to raise $50 million for the inaugaration. However, soon after the complaints of the cost of Bush v2.0 inauguration costs started, all such reportage stopped and the Times chopped $10 million off their original estimate of Bush’s expenditures. It is very possible that the actual cost of this shindig will be well above $40 million.
    * The claim that Clinton’s second inauguration’s adjusted cost would be $49 million today is bogus. According to the vast majority of news sources, Clinton’s soiree cost around $30 million, which would still be less than $35 million in today’s dollars.
    * The only way to boost the Clinton cost would be to consider the $12 million spent by the Defense Department, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, and the government of the District of Columbia. Using that same accounting technique and adding the $20 million governmental agencies are footing, Bush’s inauguration will cost at least $60 million (and probably more).

    “Were they wrong in their facts”? Yes.

    “Did they distort anything”? Most egregiously so.

    Yes, the both sides are selling an idea, but the Washington Times is selling ersatz product. The facts remain: 1). this is unquestionably the most expensive inauguration in our republic’s history, 2). the amount of corporate cash donated (in return for access and favors) is obscene, 3). the tradition of muted inaugurations during a war is being shucked in favor of affair apparently so ostentatious, Austin Powers would blush, and 4). Washington D.C. is being stiffed by the government for security costs, meaning that our nation’s capitol’s homeland defense budget will be shot (they will not be able to afford the HazMat equipment that they were planning on).

  16. “And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better?”

    You DO realize that attacking Iraq when it was Saudis who brought down the Twin Towers had nothing to do with stemming off further attacks? That 70% of the country was brainwashed into believing Iraq was somehow relevant to the terror attacks? You get that, right?

    Don’t worry; the questions were rhetorical. We know the answer already.

    PAD

  17. You mean Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” wasn’t meant to be literal? Man, I wish someone had told me before my barbecue last weekend. And now my cookbook has *no* shot of getting published!

    (Kudos/apologies to SEALAB 2021 for inspiring the above.)

  18. I must go listen to 15 hours of Rush and find out where I went wrong . . .

    Start with Caress of Steel. “Bastille Day” has a lot to say about all this. Then try A Farewell To Kings – and really listen to the title track…

  19. After two days and 11 hours of often contentious hearings, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Rice’s nomination 16-2 Wednesday, despite reservations of some Democrats who nonetheless voted for her. The two dissenting votes came from Boxer and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. “I choose to vote my concerns, not to overlook them. I choose to vote my gut, not custom,” Kerry said during a committee meeting that preceded the vote.

    BwaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!

    Kerry voted his gut. LMAO!!!!

    Once again, he’s on the wrong side of history.

    You’re all just whining because your candidate wasn’t the front man today. Do you want some cheese with that wine?

    Please don’t move out of the country. You’ll add one more statistic to Peter’s flawless list of Social Security losses.

  20. The reality is Bush is not conducting a revenge operation for 9/11 or a personal attack on Iraq, he is waging a war on terror in countries around the world.

    I’ll ask it again: Why are we in Iraq again?

    And if Bush did nothing and we had a second 9/11 attack that cost us 5,000 lives this time, would that make it any better?

    Last I checked, bin Laden was still on the loose. More to the point, bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein, was the man behind the 9/11 attacks.

    Please, dispose of the utter ignorance and replace it with the truth. It would do you and 58 million other Americans alot of good.

    So, will you be satisfied if, knowing we have Hussein in hand, we have a 1/21 tomorrow?
    Would that make it all better, knowing that Bush hadn’t hit the broadside of a barn in the war on terror?

    You elected the dûmbášš. You answer the question for once.

  21. Or we could always just let in more immigrants to replace the people we lost. Hey, they’re sneaking in anyway.

    Which is typical brainless Bush thinking right there.

    No wonder this country is up Shìŧ Creek.

  22. You DO realize that attacking Iraq when it was Saudis who brought down the Twin Towers had nothing to do with stemming off further attacks? That 70% of the country was brainwashed into believing Iraq was somehow relevant to the terror attacks? You get that, right?

    What I get is that when Bush declared war on terrorists, he included not just those who attacked on 9/11, but also others who had the same goal and the same capabilities. The war on terror was not just a war on Al Quada (sp?), but on terrorist threats that were considered large enough to threaten the USA. That is why I specifically stated the war in Iraq — and the war on terror in general — is, in fact, a pre-emptive war on all terrorist threats. I can very much understand why you would oppose such a pre-emptive war. I am wary of it myself. But one thing Bush is not doing by conducting such a war is being a hypocrite. Right or wrong, he is acting in a manner he truly believes will protect our nation.

    Jim in Iowa

  23. Jim in Iowa wrote:
    “I am obviously the minority on this site. But I am convinced that we are safer today with G W Bush as president.”

    I agree. In fact, I thought Thursday was a glorious day for America and I’m looking forward to four more years under President George W. Bush. The only negative is four more years of constant petty whining and over-reaction from the looney Left. Bush won. Deal with it.

  24. So, will you be satisfied if, knowing we have Hussein in hand, we have a 1/21 tomorrow?
    Would that make it all better, knowing that Bush hadn’t hit the broadside of a barn in the war on terror?

    Of course I would not be happy if there was another attack (whether it was Bush or Kerry being sworn in today). I suggest you read the book “Shadow War” that documents what has actually happened in the last 3 years in the war on terror. There IS a reason we have not had another 9/11 in the last 3 years, and it is not just blind luck. Obviously, at some point in history, a terrorist plan will most likely succeed again. But the fact that we are not like Israel or Iraq, in fear of the next car bomb or suicide bomber staging an attack at the local mall, church, or grocery store is because Bush has done some things right.

    Why are we in Iraq? The answer is simple: Bush believed that Saddam was capable of staging the next 9/11. Was Bush wrong? Was invading Iraq the best answer to this perceived threat? I believe yes in this case, you disagree. I believe we not only could but had to fight the war on terror on more than one front. We could not just wait till we caught Bin Laden before dealing with other threats. It makes for a cute sound bite to say Bush “took his eye off the ball,” but the reality is that this was not football but more like juggling — there are multiple balls that need to be watched, and letting any one of them fall to the ground can be disasterous. We may not have caught Bin Laden, but there it is very clear that we have radically reduced him as an active threat, while at the same time we have neutralized the threat of Saddam Hussein. This is something that no previous recent president, including Clinton, has done. And we have 3 years of no attacks on American soil.

    Obviously, the big question is Iraq. And I fully agree that if this gets botched up, it will unravel any good Bush has done in the last 3 years. But I also believe, based on the reports of troops there in Iraq first hand, that the war is going far better than is being portrayed in the media. It is way too premature to write off Iraq as a failure (or a success). We have to wait and see, and do everything possible to make it a success.

    Jim in Iowa

  25. Obviously, the big question is Iraq. And I fully agree that if this gets botched up, it will unravel any good Bush has done in the last 3 years. But I also believe, based on the reports of troops there in Iraq first hand, that the war is going far better than is being portrayed in the media.

    Yes? So? That misses the point.

    Iraq and the rest of the Islamic world that we are trying to reach isn’t listening to our troops. They have no reason to. They trust other sources far more.

    And this is where the Bush Administration has botched this war. They have fought it only on the military level and have sadly neglected the police, economic, social and PR levels of their actions. And it is on those levels that US actions have been found wanting–far too few troops the vital functions of Iraqui society and far too little success in getting Irqui help.

    When power and water have been only intermittently available in Baghdad for over a year after the invasion, it’s easy to make the US look like they’re not doing their job. “Progress” is irrelevant, as it’s progress from US inflicted actions. The failure to take those kind of sentiments into account NO MATTER WHAT THE “ACTUAL” SITUATION is incompetence, plain and simple.

  26. Hmmm…..
    It’s not only the 6500 that would never exist, but their offspring as well and theirs and theirs ad infinitum. Yes, like a bizarre Ponzi scheme, the thing becomes somewhat exponential.
    And I’m still gonna talk about Eisner et al later on.

  28. “But one thing Bush is not doing by conducting such a war is being a hypocrite. Right or wrong, he is acting in a manner he truly believes will protect our nation.”

    And I’m sure Hitler thought he was acting in Germany’s best interests too…

  29. “”But one thing Bush is not doing by conducting such a war is being a hypocrite. Right or wrong, he is acting in a manner he truly believes will protect our nation.”

    Bladstar says:
    And I’m sure Hitler thought he was acting in Germany’s best interests too…

    Godwin’s Law strikes again!

    But if one needs to be convinced that the Brownshirts still walk among us, set those typing fingers to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050120/480/watw10201202221

    Of course, these folks would probably say they support the military, it’s the war they can’t abide…well, that and people who don’t think the way they’re supposed to…

  30. PAD wrote:
    On this national day of mourning, a.k.a. Inauguration Day
    I don’t think you can call it a national day of mourning, since the majority of the nation picked him. “Sore Looser Day”, “How Did We Loose Touch With the People Day”, “Voter Conspiracy Day”, “Take My Ball and Go Home Day” and “Hilary in ’08 Day” would be fine.

  31. You DO realize that attacking Iraq when it was Saudis who brought down the Twin Towers had nothing to do with stemming off further attacks? That 70% of the country was brainwashed into believing Iraq was somehow relevant to the terror attacks? You get that, right?

    Hmm… so let me get this right, PAD would have attacked Saudi Arabia because it was Saudis that brought down the twin towers? Even though the particular Saudis responsible were in Afghanistan? Okay, now I’m confused.

  32. Eric!, a majority of the nation didn’t vote for Bush, he just got the most votes. In fact, more people didn’t vote for either candidate (78 million) than those who voted for them.

    And, yeah, I’ve heard all the “if you don’t vote you don’t count” blah dee blah de blah. Point is, Bush and his adminstration keep saying how the American people voted for him, which is a blatant lie. The best they could say is that they won the election, and nearly half of the eligible voters in American stated that they either didn’t care, or were too disgusted with the whole political/governmental scene that they just didn’t vote. I’ve read in Canada that an abstained vote is recorded as a vote of protest. maybe we should do something similar, to make it harder for Bush to push over one more lie on the public.

    Jim, I have to disagree with you on Bush falling into the hypocrit role. He professes to be man a faith, a devout christian. I understand the whole sword of justice being held by the government thing, but don’t you have to be found guilty of something before justice can be visited upon you? Any pre-emptive military action almost by definition cannot be consistant with a christian view of the world. This is where Bush is a hypocrit.

  33. Well, eclark, that reasoning makes just about as much sense as attacking Iraq becase Al Quaeda was in Afghanistan….

  34. Deal with it.

    Yeah, 1300 dead American soldiers have had to “deal with it”. Uncounted dead Iraqis have had to “deal with it”.

    I wonder who will be next to “deal” with this mass murderer.

    And I fully agree that if this gets botched up

    It already IS botched up. What more do you want?

    Another 4 years again after this set to give Bush a third try to fix his little Vietnam?

  35. Bush and his adminstration keep saying how the American people voted for him…The best they could say is that they won the election

    Which is why he gets to be President and push more of his agenda.

    This election had the highest turnout in years: the last I heard was 60%. He won the electoral college, and his party gained seats in both houses. By every measure, this election was a huge boost for the Republicans.

    You can try and throw out the 40% didn’t vote all day, but in general I’m not going to lose sleep over the concerns of someone who didn’t even bother to show up.

  36. Kingbob wrote:
    The best they could say is that they won the election, and nearly half of the eligible voters in American stated that they either didn’t care, or were too disgusted with the whole political/governmental scene that they just didn’t vote.
    You gotta be dizzy from putting the spin on that.

  37. Eric!, Spin? What spin? It’s fact…about 117 million voted. Bush got 60 million. That leaves over 60 million that didn’t vote. You stated that a majority of nation picked him. That’s just plain wrong. A majority would have to be 80-90 million, which Bush didn’t get. 40% abstaining is nearly half.

    So, where’s the spin? If anything, your statement is the one in danger of suffering the effects of dizzyness.

  38. “I don’t think you can call it a national day of mourning”

    Oh, I think I can. Christmas is a national holiday and not everyone celebrates it. I feel safe in saying there’s people in every single state in the Union who are in mourning for the 1300 on Bush’s growing list, for the gullability of their fellow citizens, for the spiralling lack of esteem in which the US is held abroad, and for the horrifying direction in which this country is going.

    PAD

  39. >>”I don’t think you can call it a national day of mourning”

    >Oh, I think I can. Christmas is a national holiday and not everyone celebrates it. I feel safe in saying there’s people in every single state in the Union who are in mourning for the 1300 on Bush’s growing list, for the gullability of their fellow citizens, for the spiralling lack of esteem in which the US is held abroad, and for the horrifying direction in which this country is going.

    >PAD

    Not to mention *oops, guess it is mentioned now :p* the repeatedly mispoken statements that is being bought into by Americans that our country is safer. Given the 8 year time span between the 1st attack against the U.S. on our soil and the 2nd, there really isn’t any evidence to suggest that we are any safer at all.

    Fred

  40. PAD wrote: “…and for the horrifying direction in which this country is going.”

    I don’t know, PAD. I just don’t have the same negativity vibe as you about the way things are right now. Sure, I have concerns (a terrorist WMD attack or the future U.S. job situation, for example), but compared to the way things were going ACROSS THE BOARD in this country in, say, 1968, things today are definitely better.

    If the late 1960s was “the good old days,” then you can have ’em!

  41. Well, eclark, that reasoning makes just about as much sense as attacking Iraq becase Al Quaeda was in Afghanistan….

    …Or would if it were a reason given for attacking Iraq.

  42. “He professes to be man a faith, a devout christian. I understand the whole sword of justice being held by the government thing, but don’t you have to be found guilty of something before justice can be visited upon you? Any pre-emptive military action almost by definition cannot be consistant with a christian view of the world”

    Christian doctrines and dogma does not require a court to declare titles and lavels of “guilt” in regards to “justice”.

    Besides that, tyrants are never put on trial BEFORE their countries are invaded and their regimes deposed. Your scenario is an odd cart-before-the-horse deal.

    Heck, how many people recieve justice without ever being declared guilty? No one ever declared John Wilkes Booth guilty, yet I shed no tears upon his murder. Stalin died of a brain hemmorage the night before he was going to engage genocidal anti-Semitic policies. I’ll chalk that up to justice and no one ever declared him guilty in a court of law.

    Your definition of justice is wayyyyyyyyyyy too narrow to work in a world that doesn’t always respond or respect every nation’s respective laws.

    “Pre-emptive military actions” are not automatically inconsistent with a Christian view of the world. How many people have killed in self-defense at the sign of potential harm rather than in response to actual harm? How many wars have been launched to stem threats rather than merely react to them? (We joined World War II against Japan because they attacked us; we engaged in the European Theatre because the NAZIs were growing in power and because, heck, they were pouding our Allies. The NAZIs and Japanese were also Axis Powers. Most people who kill in self-defense really are killing before they’re harmed, rather than people who got winged and then struck back…)

    Unless you believe that a Christian view on justice is all about reaction. That’s an honest interpretation and I can respect that… I think it’s downright wrong and it translates into the sort of pacifism that I ultimately equate with institutional helplessness. That’s Great Britain’s problem.

  43. Bush’s own words on using force in Iraq:

    “And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”

    As we’ve since learned, there was no credible evidence that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq, that Iraq had weapons to provide to them, or that Iraq would have provided them weapons if they did have them.

    Bush, in his own words, gave this as a reason for attacking. He was either wrong, or he lied. As only an idiot would willing launch a conventional attack, with troops on the ground, against an enemey with the capacity to use WMDs, I have to conclude that Bush is either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.

  46. Hmmmmm, I am curious to how many Jews (among other peoples) GWB has saved by opposing Islamic terrorism? I know the the nation of Israel is probably dámņëd happy Saddam isn’t raining down SCUDs on their heads or has to wait for them to be tipped with nuclear warheads. Hmmmmm, I never understood this thing with Dimocratic Jewish folks. They’d rather support dictators (or at least stand by idle and let evil things happen) and terrorists that especially target Jews. Must be a Barbara Streisand thing, I’m safe in America behind my estate walls. But what will you do if America falls? Where will you go then? Saudi Arabia? I heard they have loads of freedom there…

  47. Bush, in his own words, gave this as a reason for attacking. He was either wrong, or he lied.

    Read it again, Bush’s reason for attacking Iraq was that it supported terrorism, including Al Qaeda, which we know Saddam did. He also paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Even the 9-11 Commission found co-operation between Saddam and al Qaeda. So yes, a link to Al Queda was made and yes, It was given as a reason to attack Iraq, but it not BECAUSE Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. Oh, and it was a Manhattan federal court during the Clinton administration that found there were links to Al Qaeda and Saddam, long before Bush even ran for office. So there goes that lie.

  49. They’d rather support dictators

    They’re not supporting Bush, are they?

    Bush is World Dictator #1 right now.

  50. “If the late 1960s was “the good old days,” then you can have ’em!”

    Lessee…low gas prices. Expansion of civil rights. Man landing on the moon. Rolling Stones, Woodstock and the Beatles.

    Downsides? Lousy presidents and young men dying in a pointless war.

    Lots of upsides, same downsides, so the latter is a wash. Good ol’ days indeed.

    PAD

Comments are closed.