Yes, you all know who he is. I will now respond to the two questions he’s been howlingly repeating because, y’know…why not? And the rub of it is, he probably won’t understand either answer.
Response number one: The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it’s an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless.
Response number two: He has demanded to know how any of our individual lives are hurt or worsened because of the actions of George W. Bush…a man who needlessly launched a war that’s resulted in the deaths of 1600+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. The answer is quite simple:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
–John Donne
And thus am I Donne with the clod.
PAD
• 
Personally, I WANT us to interfere in a lot more countries. I’d like to see Mugabe lined up against a wall. The massacre in Darfur should not go unanswered. Slavery in Sudan? We ALLOW this to happen in 2005??? Obviously we would have to do it alone–Europe is useless even to each other, China is only interested in the outside world in so far as they can dominate or sell goods to them, India has enough trouble dragging itself into the modern age (But watch India; it may end up being what many think that China will be), Japan can send money but little else, Antarctica will do what it can.
So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side…hey, here’s Charlei Rangal!
Top House Democrat Charles Rangel complained on Monday that the Bush administration’s decision to concoct a “fraudulent” war in Iraq was as bad as “the Holocaust.”
“It’s the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country,” Rangel told WWRL Radio’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. “This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn’t their ox that was being gored.”
Wow.
“The Iraqis are GLAD we are there; they don’t care on what pretext we are there, they are thrilled that we are making a difference.”
Umm…
Yeah, some. But a lot of guys I know talk as though almost half the Iraqi people they come across wave and smile as they walk up and then throw rocks or shoot at them from behind their backs when they go by. And some of those people are small children and women. Not all of those people are loving us or what we’re doing there.
“Ignore the papers and talk to the guys on the ground. They do a hard and ugly job, but their work is for the people and for us regardless of how they were put there.”
True. But that still doesn’t change how they got there, the lies invloved, what is going on, the need to find a way to get them out of there without watching everything go to hëll or the desire to see Bush (and a few others) spend the rest of his life in bright orange cloths and a small room :).
We had foolish leaders who did foolish things but the final act,
Was preventable.
Since it was not prevented, I blame every president going back the last 30 years for ignoring every possibility to prevent 9/11.
I blame the airline industry for ignoring recommendations that date back to the 70’s, iirc, that they should install reinforced cockpit doors. Why didn’t they? The cost.
Tell it to the women and children of Iraq that our soldier’s deaths are senseless. They don’t agree.
Maybe not, but the major problem is the reasons why we went there.
We didn’t go there for freedom or democracy. We went on the false pretense that Saddam had WMD.
When they didn’t find WMD, the Bush Administration did what they do best: revise history to best suit their needs and desires.
Bill, personally, your opinion frightens me. What right does the US have to go around playing World Police? And I’m being quite honest…by what right does the US have to invade another sovereign nation? Because atrocities occur there? Even some perpetrated by the government? We execute people in the US. Many people in the world today view capital punishment as barbaric and violative of basic human rights. If your rationale is because the US has the power and the ability to use military might to impose it’s moral standard where and when it chooses, it’s only a matter of time before that message gets embraced by another world power…say China, or maybe North Korea…and they decide to do something about those barbaric Americans that kill their criminals instead of seeking to reform them, or allows it’s poor to suffer on the streets when billions of $ are wasted on parties and government elections.
I don’t agree that Bush is as bad as Hitler…yet. He’s got a few years left, though. I DO agree, however, that the rest of the world is pretty much in a position of watching the US trample over international law, and helpless to do anything about it. Those that have the capability are increasing their defense and offense (China, Korea, India) in case Bush turns his warmongering ways to them next…while those that lack any significant military capacity just try to not attract attention.
Bush attacked Iraq to make the US safer? Every day, North Korea gets closer to the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon using ICBM technology. Every day, more people worldwise come to hate the US and our government. Every day, we create future martyrs, willing to die for their cause.
I’ve never felt less safe in my life.
I’ve been ignoring X-Ray’s comments, but these quickies made me laugh… It’s the whispery second one that clenches it.
Posted by: X-Ray at June 9, 2005 03:39 AM
You left out the most important one… BUSH SUCKS!
Posted by: X-Ray at June 9, 2005 03:40 AM
(Upper case mandatory!)
“So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side…hey, here’s Charlei Rangal!”
Whom I didn’t vote for.
There’s stupid people saying stupid things on both sides. But I think we both know that if it had been Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq…if for no other reason than that the GOP would have refused to give him the necessary resources to do so (as opposed to falling into step behind Bush.)
PAD
Bill, what’s astonishing is that you continue your support for a predatory agenda, because of the criticism of that predatory agenda was indulgent.
George Bush refused to cut short a vacation over the bin Laden memo that he cut short to restore Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube — but Rangel enjoyed himself a little bit too much criticising Bush, so let’s keep Bush in a position to continue feeding the insurgency?
I’m sorry, Bill, but that’s patently stupid.
Mr. David said, “Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq.”
——–
Correct! Gore would have done nothing but talk. I agree.
“Bill, personally, your opinion frightens me. What right does the US have to go around playing World Police? And I’m being quite honest…by what right does the US have to invade another sovereign nation? Because atrocities occur there? Even some perpetrated by the government? We execute people in the US. Many people in the world today view capital punishment as barbaric and violative of basic human rights. If your rationale is because the US has the power and the ability to use military might to impose it’s moral standard where and when it chooses, it’s only a matter of time before that message gets embraced by another world power…say China, or maybe North Korea…and they decide to do something about those barbaric Americans that kill their criminals instead of seeking to reform them, or allows it’s poor to suffer on the streets when billions of $ are wasted on parties and government elections.”
By that rationale, we had no right to execute German officials for doing what they did to the Jews if killing Jews was not an illegal act in Germany? (I know, I just brought Nazis into the argument. I lose)
If I have the power to stop an atrocity and I don’t, I may not be as bad as the perpetrator but I’m still pretty dámņ bad.
Hmmm…hard to imagine the Chinese or North Koreans getting TOO upset over either poverty or capital punishment, if one knows even a little about what is going on in those countries…but your point still has validity even if the examples are poorly chosen. Well, it is highly unlikely that any country will be powerful enough to invade the United States. Similarly, there is little we can do about human right violations in China. One has to choose ones battles. Mugabe is not as bad as the leaders of North Korea but he can be toppled without releasing screaming nuclear hëll.
As to whether saving the lives of few hundred thousand Africans is worth the moral pain of imposing my will on another country…I can imagine myself sleeping comfortably.
ME- “So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side…hey, here’s Charlei Rangal!”
PAD-
Whom I didn’t vote for.
Well…ok, but that really wasn’t what I was suggesting. I tend to vote republican because I see too many of the leaders on the Democrats as indicative of a party that can’t be trusted with big issues. To give another example–and I’m not suggesting you voted for him either–when one looks at the people that the parties selected to lead them, well…
We have Dean, who spreads a message of hate that may play well with the already converted but looks like a loose cannon to any impartial observer. The Republicans have Mehlman, who is trying to reach out to voters who have not yet voted Republican.
But at least Dean is good at raising money…er, except he isn’t–the republicans have raised at least twice as much.
I just see the Democrat party as too immature for the job and the Republicans win by default. Note though that several Democrats– Hillary for one–seem to me to be an order of magnitude (or even exponentially) smarter than most of their peers and well worth a serious look.
I think it’s very possible that Hillary as president will make me look like an isolationist. One can hope.
But I think we both know that if it had been Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq…if for no other reason than that the GOP would have refused to give him the necessary resources to do so (as opposed to falling into step behind Bush.)
can’t speak for the GOP…but I would have supported it. And, like my suspicion that many of the “anti-war” activists would have enthusiastically supported a Gore-led effort, neither of us can ever truly “know”. We may just be self indulgently thinking the worst of our opponents, bereft as they are of our steller consitancy.
Mike says:
Bill, what’s astonishing is that you continue your support for a predatory agenda, because of the criticism of that predatory agenda was indulgent.
George Bush refused to cut short a vacation over the bin Laden memo that he cut short to restore Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube — but Rangel enjoyed himself a little bit too much criticising Bush, so let’s keep Bush in a position to continue feeding the insurgency?
I’m sorry, Bill, but that’s patently stupid.
You assume much. Since I don’t believe that the memo said anything everyone did not already know–I mean, were you actually SURPRISED when 9/11 happened because you never dreamed that Bin Laden wanted to do something like that–I just can’t work up the level of outrage you deem appropriate.
I also disagree that we are “feeding the insurgency”. They don’t seem to be thriving from the feeding. Some may see their ability to blow up funeral parties as evidence of strength–I see it as the opposite.
Rangel’s comments are simply the latest in a long line from Democrat leaders (not all, as I mention above) that make me leery of their ability to lead in the fight against terrorism, an issue that dwarfs things like Terri Schiavo, tragic as it was, into insignificance.
Others, people of obvious intelligence, disagree with me on any and all the details. That’s why I tend not to use the word stupid to describe them–it ensures that, should I be proven wrong, I won’t look like such a dìçk.
puny humans, hulk is strongest one there is!!!!
on a serious note, if we go back to the posts happening during the election, i see we are duplicating them again.
BUSH IS EVIL.
BUSH IS GOOD.
I HATE REPUBLICANS.
I HATE DEMOCRATS.
I LOVE REPUBLICANS.
I LOVE DEMOCRATS.
I HATE EVERYONE.
I LOVE EVERYONE.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.
Unless I’m mistaken, the “we” that executed Nazi war criminals was a world court. Not a US court. You don’t lose just for bringing in Nazis…although it doesn’t help your argument at all.
Essentially, you’re saying “might makes right.” It’s a time tested truism…as is “there’s always a bigger fish.” The whole point of democracy is that might making right often leads to despots and tyrants, who more often than not end up abusing someone, somewhere, trampling those little things we call “rights” and have come to value quite dearly. In recognizing that we don’t have the military capacity to take on China, you’ve demonstrated exactly why I feel more in danger now than I ever have…because eventually we’re start to run out of Mugabes…the little guys that can’t fight back. Or maybe a few of them will band together and wait for an opportunity to strike back at the US bully…or just go off and sell their freedom to China or North Korea for protection from the US Moral Expansion wars.
I’d suggest that you can rest easy while US troops invade another country because you live under the false impression that we are safe from retribution. We’re not. Sure, it would take a military the likes of which this world has never seen in order to stage even a minor successful invasion on continental US soil….but if we should have learned anything from incidents like the OKC bombing and 9/11, we are not insulated, we are not immune, and we certainly have been, are and will continue to be vulnerable to attacks.
Well, looking at the other side…hey, here’s Charlei Rangal!
I suppose this is on par with calling Gitmo the “gulag of our time”?
Atleast Amnesty Intnl is a little closer to the truth. But, to be honest, I’m not sure if I’d heard of Rangal before today.
If I have the power to stop an atrocity and I don’t, I may not be as bad as the perpetrator but I’m still pretty dámņ bad.
Which I think is pretty true, and it’s why I would smack Clinton if I could for pulling out of Somalia like he did.
It’s why I think everybody should watch the movie Hotel Rwanda, to see how badly ALL leaders of the world are failing Africa, not just Clinton, or Bush, or other previous US presidents.
I just see the Democrat party as too immature for the job and the Republicans win by default.
And, sadly, the Republicans are no better than the Democrats – they are just as immature, but have garnered the religious & war vote to get them into office anyways.
…which George Bush has demonstrated — by taking a monthlong vacation after receiving the bin Laden memo (after 6½ months in office) and cutting his vacation short to keep the feeding tube in Terri Schiavo.
Bush demonstrated priorities opposite of those you claim to espouse. There’s no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like persistence in supporting his agenda of domination.
“Unless I’m mistaken, the “we” that executed Nazi war criminals was a world court. Not a US court. You don’t lose just for bringing in Nazis…although it doesn’t help your argument at all.”
You’re quite right but it would not have bothered me in the slightest if we or the Russians or the French or a couple of Germans had done the job. Perhaps a better example would have been Israel’s capture and execution of Eichmann. No doubt it is a glaring example of a country going into another country, snatching one of its citizens and executing them. Does anyone, other Mrs. Eichmann and all the little Eichmanns (copyright Ward Curchill) think this was a bad thing?
No, might does not make right. But if you have the power to stop genocide and you don’t you are on the wrong side of history.
Any country that would “sell their freedom to China or North Korea for protection from the US Moral Expansion wars” deserves what they get and it’s a bit hard to imagine that. You DO know what it’s like in North Korea, right? I mean, South Korea could join up with them now if they wanted to–strangely, they are instead allowing troops of the mean old USA in their country to prevent such a thing. Taiwan and Japan also seem to be oddly reticent over joining up with those swell Chinese.
If your fear comes true it could well be more because of a fear that the USA will NOT try to do anything about it. If I were Taiwan and I thought that America would just stand by and watch the Chinese launch an attack I might try to cut the best deal I could. Japan would more likely go the other route and strengthen its military, including nukes. A expansionist China and an armed Japan—hey, who needs the USA to start WW3?
I’d suggest that you can rest easy while US troops invade another country because you live under the false impression that we are safe from retribution.
See, this is why it’s hard to take some people seriously. We disagree on some issues and you just can’t see how that can be so you have to imagine that I am just so naive that the Obvious Truths just haven’t hit me yet. No, Bobb, I really do know that we are not safe from retribution. In fact, my experience in biotech research has given me the uncomfortable wisdom to know a few ways we can be hit that so far haven’t gotten much attention (thank God). In fact it is SO easy to hit us and SO impossible to prevent (outside of a complete police state and shooting anyone crossing the border or straying into forbidden water or airspace–any takers?) it amazes me that it has not happened since 9/11. Perhaps that is why I am not as dismissive of the “flypaper” argument for Iraq as others are.
But I won’t be so self indulgent as to assume that those who disagree must be doing so out of capriciousness, ignorance, or lack of intelligence.
And we may never know who was right. If an attack happens tommorrow it won’t prove me wrong and if it never happens again it won’t prove me right. In life, sometimes the truth remains elusive.
Bill, I’m glad you’re aware of our vulnerability. Where we differ, I’d imagine, is that I’m taking a longer term view than you. I have a lot of respect for the rights of sovereign nations. I am made extremely uncomfortable when our country takes any action that violates another nation’s rights. The “go it alone” attitude of imposing your moral will on another country, even when seeking out a result you see as “good,” will eventually earn you a place of solitude…no allies, nor friends. You’ve alienated anyone that might have come to your defense. And, literally, God help you when you’re no longer the big kid on the block, because there are going to be an awful lot of people wanting to see you get some comeuppance.
Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you can and should. Are the evils in the world? Yes. Should the US be the sole nation taking action to prevent and end those evils? No. Are we? Sometimes. I don’t think a military invasion should ever be a solution…more death and destruction will not stop death and destruction. It might pause it, cause it to move somewhere else, or maybe go into hiding, but you can’t kill an idea. And so long as that idea is allowed to flourish, and is not countered by other ideas, no amount of bullets, tanks, or bombs will stop the killing.
Someone wrote, “So why do I vote republican when they tend to let me down? Well, looking at the other side…hey, here’s Charlie Rangal!”
Mr. David replied, “Whom I didn’t vote for.”
This reply is intended to give the impression that David had a choice, and choose not to vote for Rangel. Thisis not the case.
The truth: Mr. David couldn’t have voted for Rangel even if he wanted to. Rangle is a rep from Harlem. David doesn’t live in Harlem. (Except, of course, in his mind. “No man is an island,” after all.)
Yet ANOTHER case of Peter David caught stretching the truth. David has no problem with doing this, because he feels he is SO obviously correct in all things it’s OK. The end justifies the means, right Mr. David?
(I can’t WAIT to see how he tries to get out of this one. It’s all so … exponential!)
Bobb,
I respect that reply.
I don’t know which of us takes the longer view…I can see the argument being made that one musty allow a certain level of atrocity for the greater good but I can also argue that in allowing it you are helping to create a future where such things become ever more the norm.
Not to be snarky and put you in a position of having to agree with someone I rather doubt you support but “I don’t think a military invasion should ever be a solution…more death and destruction will not stop death and destruction. It might pause it, cause it to move somewhere else, or maybe go into hiding, but you can’t kill an idea. And so long as that idea is allowed to flourish, and is not countered by other ideas, no amount of bullets, tanks, or bombs will stop the killing.” is disturbingly like what Pat Buchanan has recently been arguing over World War 2–that we would have been far better to have allowed Hitler and the Soviets to have slugged it out and that either eventual “winner” would have fallen from internal problems, as the Soviets eventually did. One can argue, as he does, that the result would have been far less death and destruction.
Personally, I’m of the belief that had Hitler achieved any semblance of victory and died peacefully in his sleep we would have seen a whole lot more of his ilk in the last 60 years.
My last point is–what exactly is a “nation”? If we invaded the Sudan and stopped the genocide would we be violating the nation’s rights? Is the nation personified by whoever is in charge of it at any given moment? Do the wishes of the people count or is that imposing the idea of democracy on them?
I’d prefer to err on the side of life and liberty and if the liberated don’t like it they will have ample opportunity to revert back to death and dictatorship (But I find that unlikely as I don’t think that people are all that different, whatever their color or creed).
Oh wait .. I forgot. Peter David is ignoring me. (Except for the seven or eight posts he’s made about me since he declared he was “donne” with me, that is. You have to admit that is an exponential amount of posts!)
Bill, I’m still chuckling at having Pat Buchanon’s words come out of my mouth…because he and I, sharing the same space, would probably cause a matter-anti-matter explosion.
Well, maybe that just proves me both wrong and right. In joining with Britain and Russia against Germany, we helped end a terribly evil regime. The difference, I think, is that we acted in concert with others. It wasn’t just the US saying “someone has to stop that madman…” The rest of the world (sans Japan and Italy) were practically begging us to come stop him. But the idea didn’t die…racial superiority still exists. We try to counter it with education and enlightenment whenever we can.
But I also recognize that there does come a time when you need to do more than teach. I just don’t want any country to have the power and abilty to make that decision on their own.
Nations have recognized borders and governments. They may be fuzzy borders, but someone claims the Sudan…er, maybe. I’m not as up on that part of the world as I could be.
“I’d prefer to err on the side of life and liberty and if the liberated don’t like it they will have ample opportunity to revert back to death and dictatorship”…the problem with this is that, once you establish the precedent of might makes right, that becomes the model everyone else follows. So, even if you could impose “order” to a destabilized region, the only thing keeping that order is threat of force. Once you remove that, order will break down. Using might to impose order creates a situation where you need to maintain that threat of force, and the longer it takes you to deploy force, the more likely order will break down.
And if anarchy does return, do you go back in to stop the attrocities again?
heh heh…me and Pat Buchanon…bwahahah
Wow — my thread is up to 219 comments. Hottest thread this site has ever seen! Exponentially more than any other!
Yeah, Bobb, you couldn’t have made a better strawman for Bill if he had written your reply himself.
“I tend to vote republican because I see too many of the leaders on the Democrats as indicative of a party that can’t be trusted with big issues”
Can’t be trusted with big issues? Every issue from state’s rights to privacy rights to this country’s security to international relations has been botched by GOP leaders at the highest levels. I simply can’t parse what you’re talking about.
PAD
“Hottest thread this site has ever seen!”
Wrong. I’ve seen them in the 300s. Ego much?
“can’t speak for the GOP…but I would have supported it. And, like my suspicion that many of the “anti-war” activists would have enthusiastically supported a Gore-led effort, neither of us can ever truly “know”. We may just be self indulgently thinking the worst of our opponents, bereft as they are of our steller consitancy.”
Yeah, but to be a tad more clear about time lines:
Most, not all but most, anti-war activists that were/are against the Iraq war supported Bush when we went after the people that hit us on 9/11 and the people giving them support, a home base and money. Only after Bush and Co. put Iraq through the spin cycle and lie to link it to 9/11 that he lost support both here and abroad.
I believe Gore would have gone after Bin Laden and crew. I KNOW we would have not gone into Iraq though. There was no intel that linked 9/11 to Iraq, The project for a New American Century crew would not make up the largest % of a Gore admin and the intel would not have been twisted and cherry picked the same way to create the fear/support needed to go in.
“Personally, I WANT us to interfere in a lot more countries. I’d like to see Mugabe lined up against a wall. The massacre in Darfur should not go unanswered. Slavery in Sudan? We ALLOW this to happen in 2005??? Obviously we would have to do it alone–Europe is useless even to each other, China is only interested in the outside world in so far as they can dominate or sell goods to them, India has enough trouble dragging itself into the modern age (But watch India; it may end up being what many think that China will be), Japan can send money but little else, Antarctica will do what it can.”
Hey, I agree that there are a lot of bad guys out there that should die nasty deaths. But if we start marching like the Roman Empire, how long do you think we could go it alone before we’re stopped by the force that rises up because of those actions. We start just going after countries that we don’t like and every country that thinks it’s on the hit list will take notice real fast. And, somehow, I can’t see our friends jumping to our aid if we start taking actions like that and end up facing a quarter of the Earth in a war we started. How many will we take out before the others join forces? How much blood, civi blood, are you willing to see spilled on American soil when a multi-nation force backs terrorist in ways that they’ve never been backed before? And how fast do you think we would go broke with a R attitude of spend, spend and spend more while cutting taxes on the richest and jacking the debt (a debt that might well get called in by China and others should we decide to start acting like the Roman Empire 2005 A.D.)
———–
And now I give you Tweedle Dee the Wonder Dummy as proof (small proof, but proof) to show that some of the weak minded and stupid WERE brainwashed (in this case it only took a quick rinse) by the Bush & Co. P.R. machine:
“Posted by: X-Ray at June 9, 2005 12:36 PM
Mr. David said, “Gore in office instead of Bush when the towers fell, we would NOT have wound up attacking Iraq.”
——–
Correct! Gore would have done nothing but talk. I agree.”
Yeah, he was just soooo against going after Bin Laden and spoke out so much against going into Afganistan, huh. Iraq had zip to do with 9/11. Gore and others spoke out against Iraq only. Now, we have more and more proof showing that the game was rigged by Bush and that Bush lied his tiny little mind off. Gore would have gone after Bin Laden in Afganistan. Of that I have no doubt. But he wouldn’t have gone into Iraq and he wouldn’t have trashed the U.S. reputation by telling lies daily to get there and then making up reasons to be there everytime his past lies fell through. I’m sure you won’t get that though as you have shown in spades that you drink the kool-aid and bought the Bush spin that anyone against going into Iraq was, despite no connections to the attacks, against going after the terrorists in Afganistan and the 9/11 planners and backers and if you don’t like Bush and his war you hate America.
See, not every Bush voter was brainwashed. But, at this point, I think we can all agree and point to at least one weak mind that shows every sign of having been. Even if, as I said above, it may have only taken a quick rinse to do so.
I read an interesting article earlier this year, in I believe the Atlantic Monthly, that looked at the presidential campaign last year. In it, the author talked about how a major problem with the Democratic party is currently composed of an overly heterogenous mix of competing interests that compete against each other, while the Republican party serves a group of very complimentary interests that work well together. Any thoughts on this?
The Republicans were so hot for alternate solutions with the Medicaid deal, so I’m gonna offer them an alternative to sending our people across the planet to protect Americans.
SEAL THE &%$#ING BORDERS.
This country doesn’t have to be everybody’s buddy. It also doesn’t have to be the planetary police force. This country has to act like the country it was founded to be, only a little wiser. Instead of sending uniformed-types all over the planet, why not take care of things here first? All over the news that the US is building schools in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yay! Now build better ones, say, HERE. You wanna make the country safer? Worry less about pointing fingers at this party or that party and worry more about taking care of people on this continent (and Hawaii) first before you send a couple hundred million to Africa. Not to be to ethnocentric, and it’s not that I don’t have sympathy for those elsewhere, but you know what? If your pipes are flooding your basement and you have no heat, you don’t go next door to find out if you can fix your neighbor’s cable. Gotta love the conservatives but they should spend more time worrying about the people around them and less about Paris Hilton in a bathing suit selling burgers.
“SEAL THE &%$#ING BORDERS.”
I couldn’t agree more. I can understand Democratic opposition to this, but I can’t understand Bush’s reason for opposing it, or at least remaining inactive on it.
Any thoughts on this?
It cuts to the core of the matter.
Bush has surrounded himself with a small group of people that are basically there to fall in line with whatever Bush (& whomever is pulling the strings) want.
If you don’t get in line? You’re out of a job, ala Colin Powell.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats, right now, is that the Republicans are speaking with one voice that doesn’t listen to reason or the ideas of others.
The Democrats, while not having leadership, aren’t willing to sacrifice their identity as a group and turn to the Dark Side. And yes, that is a jab at the fact that there is a reason some are called ‘neocons’ – because they’re not the same kind of Republican that used to exist. 🙂
Jerry, Bobb, I see your point but it’s difficult to imagine the world rising up in arms because we saved a bunch of starving Africans from a brutal dictator…they certainly didn’t hammer 2 by 4s over the windows when they asked us to go bomb Yugoslavia. What was the difference? The fact that they asked us to interfere. If we wait for the French to become concerned for the welfare of Africans who are far enough away to not be any kind of immigration problem they will all die of old age (which in the Sudan is probably around 35).
Bobb,
I respect that reply.
Yeah, Bobb, you couldn’t have made a better strawman for Bill if he had written your reply himself.
No, I said I respected the reply because, hold your hat, I respected the reply. It was direct, unemotional, well reasoned. It wasn’t because I cut knock it out of the park and I don’t think I did, but thanks.
Slavery in Sudan? We ALLOW this to happen in 2005???
Why not? We have slavery in Florida
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/5/14284/58499
Geez, you don’t visit a site for a couple days and all heck breaks loose. Well, I figure I would throw in my two cents. As to how Bush has affected my life, let me tell you. I travel outside the US borders for me job from time to time and I now have to be careful about telling people that I am an American. Thanks to Bush’s “We have the most weapons so screw you and your opinion, I’m gonna do what I want”, he has managed to tick off most every country and sometimes I just don’t feel safe.
My safety has been affected, good enough for you?
No self-respecting patriotic American would evr want to leave this country, so your point is null and void. The borders ought to be closed both ways.
I’ve noticed in online liberal communities that republican attacks are overwhelmingly optimized to drive the liberal subjects from casualness to formality.
Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this.
Driving the liberal subjects from casualness to formality effectively splits the democratic party in 2. Most people tend to either be “harmony-promoting” of “possibility-realizing” — the latter relying on spontaneity and, yes, casualness.
The republicans are not suffering from such a split, because they shelter their “shrill” wing — Limbaugh, Coulter, Falwell, etc.
My point:
Democrats, when you see someone under attack from conservatives as “shrill,” or something related, take every opportunity to rephrase, succinctly, the point the conservatives are trying to drive into hiding. If it aggravates, it may have merit.
I even have a “for instance” from today:
Rangal tried to make the point that indifference shelters evil.
In what at best can be described as giddy-clumsiness to criticise Bush, his attempt at comparing the indifference to the unjustified invasion to the indifference to the nazis came out of his mouth as a minimization of the holocaust, comparing the 6 million executed Jews to what may not even be a ¼ million lost since the 2003 invasion.
If Rangal becomes a topic for trolls to carry in the liberal communities, that’s a strong indicator it’s a point — indifference to the unjustified invasion compared to indifference to the nazis — they don’t want to hear. You can leave it to oafs like me to make the point, or you can try to finesse the point yourself.
Succinctly. In comprehensive 3-sentence posts.
Bill,
What you were saying didn’t come off as a “one off” deal. Even then though, it starts to fall under that overly and sometimes poorly used slippery slope argument. Where do we stop when we set out to be world police? Africa? Well, what about the warlords in the smaller Asian countries? What about North Korea and its people? China? What about the human rights abuses by the leaders of that country? What, we just tell all of them that Asians don’t count as much as Africans? How about the South American warlords? Go or no? But heres something to think about if you say no. With Hispanics growing to out number blacks in this country the Pols desire to pander will grow as well. Do you think any Pol, R or D, is going to tell that much of a voter base that they and their families back home (many with closer blood ties then most blacks have to people in Africa) don’t rate?
Where does the number of deaths line get drawn? Say, 999,999 deaths we don’t go but 1,000,000 we do?
Were do we draw the country size line? Do we just kick around little tin pot countries and look like bullies? Do we go as far as fair sized countries like Korea? Do we tell China to stop its human rights abuses or else?
What about our “friends.” Some of our friends and trade partners have higher rankings for human rights abuses then Saddam had. Hëll, members of the Saudi Royal Family (big time the Saudi Princes) almost always ranked above Saddam for being bášŧárdš and those are Bush’s his family’s and his friend’s friends and business partners. How well do you think that plays in the Middle East when he talks of bringing freedom and human rights to the world? How do you think that would play if we started going after bad guys only so long as they weren’t “our” bad guys?
I would love to see something come along and clean up a whole lot of Hëll holes all over our little blue green ball. But have you really sat down and thoght out just how messed up we would have to be to get to the point that we become the world police? Just coming up with the ground rules for who, how, where, when and why would be almost impossible. Keeping pandering Pols or an entire pandering party from abusing those rules or actions for their own gain would be even harder.
Again, I’m kinda with you. I turn the TV on and wish that someting could be done in a lot of places. But I know that, in the real world, we would be fools to start that kind of action. We would stretch so thin, go so broke and make so many enemies that it may well end this country as we now it.
posted by mike weber:
I trust you are going to be happy with the picture on your new Internal Passport, whose mandating if not actual issuance i see as a real possibility by the end of this Administration.
Actually, with the recent passage of the Real ID Act, Internal Passports have moved from the realm of mere possibility into that of virtual certainty. Welcome to the Police State.
Welcome to the Police State.
Maybe I’m not liberal enough after all, because, on this issue, I don’t really see the problem of a national ID system.
I’ve heard reports that a healthy percentage of Americans already have passports, and, having worked in a position where ID requests are made, having one single type of ID would go a long way.
I just think it’s ridiculous that 50 states have 50 different ways of doing id’s, and that’s not counting the states that lay their id’s out based on even more specific criteria: drivers license, id, under-21 license, etc.
I don’t really see the problem of a national ID system.
After all, what could possibly go wrong with having the government compile a single database with all it’s citizen’s travels, purchases, & personal information?
“Bush has surrounded himself with a small group of people that are basically there to fall in line with whatever Bush wants.”
——-
The idiot. He SHOULD surround himself with people who oppose him and want to defeat his program. Now THAT’S the way you get things DONE!
After all, what could possibly go wrong with having the government compile a single database with all it’s citizen’s travels, purchases, & personal information?
Well, as I said on another thread, if you want to be an optimist, and not a conspiracy theorist.
It’s not like they couldn’t do that now if they wanted to anyways.
It’s not like they couldn’t do that now if they wanted to anyways.
Yes, but why make it any easier for them than we need to? It won’t make us any safer or make it any harder for criminals or terrorists to obtain fake ID’s.
They have our SSANs. They don’t need anything else to compile data on us. The national ID will only make it more difficult for those durn furriners who are takin all our jobs…..
From Section 102 of the Real ID Act:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction—
(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.
No, clearly there’s absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
“They have our SSANs. They don’t need anything else to compile data on us. The national ID will only make it more difficult for those durn furriners who are takin all our jobs…..”
Don’t know if you’re being sarky there.
1) How many new forms of ID have been put forward to thwart forgers? How many of them got forged anyhow in under a month? Same with money. it will take, at best, three months, from what I’ve read, before perfect or near perfect copies are floating about.
2)How does a record of all of this information on me make me safer? It doesn’t as far as law enforcement and national security go. The best argument I’ve seen has been that it would make rounding up illegals and terrorists easy.
Problem A) It won’t do zip for illegals. We come across illegals all the time in the streets of Richmond. What happens? Well, the law says that we call INS and they deal with it. The real world says that we call INS and INS tells us to take their information (their faked name, faked address, faked DOB and ID#, faked etc.)and cut them loose. INS will send somebody out to check up on them when they have the time. My father joined the force thirty years ago. He’s said that they got the same thing then that we get now. A new card is going to change this?
Problem B) Terrorist that get caught pre-act who haven’t done anything before, ain’t on a higher ups BOLO and seem to be just another illegal will get treated, in most cases, like any other illegal. Get info, cut loose, wave good-bye, watch them on news next week as something goes boom. And, they have to do something to raise an eyebrow in order to be checked on in the first place. Well, as we’ve seen before, the kind of thing that raises eyebrows now seem to be mostly what I’ve seen described for this thing. No real change there. That’s kinda the bare bones simple version of the argument but it covers enough of it.
3) Why do so many people want to turn so much power over to the people who are supposed to be our elected servants and not our lords and masters? Yes, they can dig around now and find out a bunch of what this ID will tell them. But, as Michael Brunner just put it in a 100% perfect way:
“Yes, but why make it any easier for them than we need to?”
Another point about the REALID’s – If you think identity theft is easy now, with personal information spread all over the place, imagine what it’ll be like when all our information is concentrated in one place.
And don’t try telling me that the information will be kept confidential – the same thing was said about social security numbers.
Mike says:
“I’ve noticed in online liberal communities that republican attacks are overwhelmingly optimized to drive the liberal subjects from casualness to formality.”
“Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this.”
Oooookay. (Backs up slowly, smiling).
Jerry,
You raise a lot of good points. And yeah, it is hard to decide when to act and when to just sit back and watch. Sometimes it’s capricious. Why does one murder grab the nation’s headlines when another one does not? There isn’t always a lot of rhyme or reason to it. It may take just one photo, one clever turn of phrase.
But dámņ it, the fact that we can’t save everyone doesn’t mean we are justified in sitting back and doing nothing. It’s easier, it may be (arguably) safer(though history has more than a few situations that worsened as they were allowed to fester). And I’ve heard some folks take it to the extreme, argue that by sending food and medicine to places where there is mass starvation and sickness we are just prolonging the inevitable and we’d be kinder to just let them die or, in the case of dictatorships, let things get to the point where the people have no choice but to rise up and take control, even if it means bloody slaughter. I just don’t buy it.
It’s like that old story they hand out at EVERY teacher event I’ve ever been to–the one where some guy sees a kid picking up starfish on the beach and throwing them back into the water and tells the kid that he’s wasting his time and there are too many and he isn’t going to make a difference and the kid throws another one back in and says “Made a difference to that one.”
No, clearly there’s absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
If you’re this worried about what that supposedly says, you’re already fûçkëd: the Patriot Act has been on the books for several years now.
If you think identity theft is easy now, with personal information spread all over the place, imagine what it’ll be like when all our information is concentrated in one place.
Like it matters (there, now I’m being pessimistic).
The most important of our information is concentrated with three companies (the credit report companies) that really don’t seem to give a dámņ if your identity is stolen to begin with.
But, yes, I tend to feel that this is no different than your SSN. This just puts a picture to the number.
100,000+ innocent iraquis actually (by last august’s numbers: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596 ).
That said I wouldn’t at all have minded the intervention against a dictature responsible for killing 2 million people (with Reagan’s help through enormous weapons supply) if it hadn’t been carried out in such an unfathomably cold-blooded, cynical, manipulative and dishonest fashion.
I’d like to add that the genocides of Cambodia, Rwanda, and the Congo will go down in history as 3 of the most shameful chapters of the 20th century and I doubt very much that people in the future will be sympathetic to our claims that we did nothing because we didn’t want to be the policeman of the world.
At the very least, lets send the cvictims some weapons–the experience of Yugoslavia seems to t show that genocide is somewhat impaired by an armed populace.
(if Zimbabwe becomes, as it seems, the next Rwanda, can any of us say we didn’t see it coming? That there was nothing that could have been done to stop it?)
“100,000+ innocent iraquis actually (by last august’s numbers: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596 ).”
The article references a Lancet study that has been somewhat discredited– see the note at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/
The iraqbodycount.net site is an anti-war one but they also have a high enough degree of credibility to note that Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website’s front-page headline “100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion”, the authors clearly state that “many” of the dead in their sample may have been combatants
Lancet is a highly respected journal. I think they may have let their desire to do good get the better of their scientific objectivity this time.
Bill,
I don’t know. I agree with the emotion and the desire. I see things that should be done and think, “if only we could do something about that.” But I just don’t know.
The starfish situation doesn’t face the evils of politics, politicians or human nature in pack mentality. My greatest fear with those actions is that they will be abused and that so many will allow them to be abused. We just watched our entire country get talked into going into a war with Iraq with the ease of ant being led to a pile of sugar. I’m not sure I trust the leaders who did that or the people who allowed it to take on a task like that and get it right.
Maybe your faith in our doing it right is better then my lack of faith. But I’ve read several articles in the last day or so that read just like the articles before the run up to war with Iraq. The only dif is the word Iraq is gone and Iran is now in its place. And they’re coming from the same sources that helped build the support for the war with Iraq.
If the American people, after everything that has happened in the last two years and everything that has come to light in the last two months, get herded into another war frenzy then I will never trust our leaders or the people to be able to do that right. If they don’t, well, maybe enough of my faith will come back that I’ll start inching closer to your side on this. But I don’t think it will happen.