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
• 
My point being, Jerry, shoot for the smart posts with a summary people can walk away with. Don’t leave them to summarize it with “Bush sucks.”
“Republicans [neo-cons] measure strength by dominance.”
Fine. But you’ve said that many times and the question of what is a neocon was still posed by someone who had read your posts. Don’t get me wrong here. I see what you’re saying and I’m not arguing your position VS mine. But there needs to be both in any debate. One criticism of the Republicans that support the neocon ideals and the Democrats that oppose them is that they often just spew out “playbook, bumper sticker, sound byte” arguments.
If you just say that the neocons measure strength by dominance and do not give an example or five of what they do then you fall under the bumper sticker category. Too many people just say that Bush is bad. Ask what he does and you often get the, “just look at all he has done” type of response. No detail.
Or you get more bumper stickers. I see this one all the time.
CNN is a lib network.
Why?
They’re the Clinton News Network.
How?
They just promote anti-American propaganda.
What?
They always show things in the worst light.
Explain?
They have that Begalla guy on there spitting anti-Bush and anti-American rhetoric.
Oh, you mean, rather then on a news report or show, on that opinion/editorial show rather then a news report or show were Pat Novak then defends the Bush ideas and counters his other points of view? Both sides are held up there. Seems fair to me. How is the news Liberal?
Uh… I have to go now.
If I go after Fox News I go the point by point route and give examples.
1) They made up Kerry quotes and reported them as fact.
2) They reported about a conservative run parody site as though it were a solid news story about a real site. The story? Web site “Communists for Kerry” gives its support to Kerry. If you went to their homepage it made clear that it was a parody site run by a self identified conservative group of people.
3) They recently read word for word a Tom Delay email sent to supporters to downplay recent charges as though it were any other news copy. They provided bullet points on screen to highlight key points and did not identify the source as the email.
4) Even after one of their own (The Factor) pointed out faults in Swift Boat Vets stories and had John O’Neil (sp) admitting to weak points in their book, they still ran those same accusations and stories as parts of their news programming and not just the op/ed shows. Even after SBV stories were being recanted by members they were still run by Fox News.
Just saying, “Fox is a neocon network that lies” doesn’t stand up on its own. Responding to questions of how they are with more bumper stickers (just look at Murdock and what he does, they’re conservative water carriers, etc.) also falls flat.
If all you can do is argue bumper stickers then your message is weakened and easily brushed aside. It also does little to convert the undecided. Both tacts are needed. If your better with one and I the other then that’s great because we covers all the bases.
“I don’t see the Bill you refer to in “Don’t agree with everything you wrote but it was good stuff nonetheless.””
Maybe because this topic, unlike others he’s kicked me over, deals with that fine line of POV perspective and opinion and not cold, hard facts. He can disagree with mine and I his without going after each other. That’s why I didn’t ask him what he didn’t agree with this go round. What are we going to say to each other? That the non existent POV line between A and B is here rather then there? I have friends who are vegans for moral reasons. I’m a big meat eater. We disagree on it. We don’t argue, don’t name call (except in fun) and we don’t try to convert each other on it because that fine line of POV is just that. There is no hard facts to back up their POV or mine on the moral issue (save for the factories that should and do get shut down for abusing their livestock. But that’s something even a meat eater agrees with so it doesn’t really work.) Dig?
“Don’t leave them to summarize it with “Bush sucks.””
Like it matters with that idiot. He doesn’t touch anything in a post that has any meaning anyhow. He’s a twit.
Maybe because this topic, unlike others he’s kicked me over, deals with that fine line of POV perspective and opinion and not cold, hard facts. He can disagree with mine and I his without going after each other. That’s why I didn’t ask him what he didn’t agree with this go round. What are we going to say to each other? That the non existent POV line between A and B is here rather then there? I have friends who are vegans for moral reasons. I’m a big meat eater. We disagree on it. We don’t argue, don’t name call (except in fun) and we don’t try to convert each other on it because that fine line of POV is just that. There is no hard facts to back up their POV or mine on the moral issue (save for the factories that should and do get shut down for abusing their livestock. But that’s something even a meat eater agrees with so it doesn’t really work.) Dig?
Well, I was gonna respond but you just explained it way better than I would have, so thanks.
It utterly amazes me how people on BOTH sides of any political issue have a terrible time distinguishing between facts and opinions.
As for whether or not I’m a neo-con…well, not if you take Karen or your definition. Closer to Mr Kristols, but not totally. Since everyone seems to have their own definition I guess I could just take all of my own positions and stake them as the basic tenants of neo-conism. Which would be great if it somehow got me residuals or something but otherwise…
(My typo makes my point about leaving the readers a point they can take from your post, yes?)
Yes. Your postings have repeatedly made the point that it’s a waste of time to write a post with no obvious thesis.
The main problem with defining a neocon is that there is no official clubhouse. People do not define themselves as a neocon. Those in Jerry’s post belong to a group that advocate the neocon position, but believe themselves to be a part of a conservative think-tank. It’s one of those “I know ’em when I see ’em.” kind of things.
And Bill, I will let the official States Tights non-profit Association know of your leanings so they can send you dozens of emails, snail mail, and call you at dinnertime for donations to the cause. 😉
Sorry, X-idiot, it affects me if Bush uses my tax money to pour down a rathole. I am a conservative, but that doesn’t mean that I have to accept whatever swill Bush and his chicken hawks decide to feed me. Bush talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk. Smaller government? I don’t think so. Bush has produced record deficits and to date has vetoed, I think, one spending bill. Honesty in government? Please. It’ll take more than your ploy to shove the label “liberal” on someone in an attempt to smear them. If I didn’t think this would be censored, I’d tell you to kiss my ***.
“Don’t leave them to summarize it with “Bush sucks.””
If the shoe fits…
NEWS ARTICLE:
U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq.
We’ve been told repeatedly by those on the Left — which includes most journalists — that Bush Lied! when he gave the danger posed by Saddam’s WMD programs as one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Did the United Nations lie, too? Is it lying now? When did Karl Rove go to work for Kofi Annan?
Two themes have dominated media coverage of the war in Iraq: that the casus belli was illegitimate (which is why we hear so much about WMD that hasn’t been found and so little about mass graves that have been found), and that the cause is hopeless.
Journalists constantly compare the war in Iraq to the Vietnam War. This may be because Vietnam is the only war with which they are familiar, the study of military history not being foremost on the agenda of most scribes. More likely it’s because it suits their ideological purposes to compare Iraq to the only war America has ever lost.
Those who have studied military history think a more apt historical parallel is with the battle of Okinawa, which concluded 60 years ago this month.
Okinawa was the bloodiest battle of the Pacific war. More than 12,000 Americans were killed (along with 101,000 Japanese soldiers and about 100,000 Okinawan civilians), and 38,000 wounded in two and a half months of fighting.
The first parallel between Okinawa then and Iraq today is that it was clear when the battle of Okinawa began on April 1st, 1945, that the U.S. would win World War II. It has been clear since the elections in January that the insurgents would lose in Iraq.
The second parallel, the emergence of the suicide bomber, is a proof of the first.
Okinawa was as bloody as it was chiefly because of the kamikaze pilots. Nearly 5,000 of the 12,000 American dead were sailors killed in kamikaze attacks.
The kamikaze behind the wheel of a car or truck has become the weapon of choice in Iraq, and — as our media constantly remind us — has created much carnage in the last two months.
The suicide bomber is a weapon of fanatics. But it is also a weapon of desperation. The Japanese were fanatical from Pearl Harbor on. But the kamikaze didn’t make an appearance until Oct. 19, 1944, near the end of the battle of Leyte Gulf, which marked the effective destruction of the Japanese navy. The Japanese didn’t turn to suicide bombers until defeat was staring them in the face.
Perhaps the silliest of the many silly things journalists have written about the war in Iraq is that the wave of suicide bombings is happening despite Iraqi/American offensives such as Operation Lightning in Baghdad. It is more likely that the increasingly indiscriminate bombings are a desperate effort to fend off destruction as the terrorists are flushed from their hiding places.
“The Iraqi insurgency is running out of tricks, and like a cornered rat it is fighting back furiously,” wrote Gary Anderson, a retired Marine officer who has advised the Defense Department on Iraq in The Washington Post June 2. “The recent spate of suicide bombings … has many commentators wringing their hands and wondering what is going wrong. In reality, the question might be: What is going right?”
By going after ever softer targets, Iraq’s kamikazes have racked up an impressive body count, but are failing in their strategic purpose.
Amir Taheri notes the terrorists began with targeted attacks on American troops. But this failed to dislodge the Americans, and resulted in many insurgent deaths.
Then the terrorists attacked the Iraqi police and army, but these failed to stem recruitment or slow deployment of new units.
So the terrorists began indiscriminate attacks on Shiite civilians. But these failed to provoke a civil war.
Now they are attacking Sunni Arabs, obliterating in the process their base of support.
“The insurgents know how to kill, but they no longer know who to kill,” Taheri said.
The democrats have a bumper sticker? Care to share it with me? A playbook? A sound byte?
…
Anyone care to cite a full post as an example?
The three were frequently muttered in the same breath, and some may even say intentionally so, but the direct statement was never made.
It’s called an “insinuation”.
It’s a blatant attempt to make people think that the two are related, without outright saying as much.
Why do you think, at one point, 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11? Because the Bush Administration insinuated as much. They wanted us to believe as much, even though they never said “1 + 1 = 2”.
Well, Crqaig, that’s the kind of nonsense spouted in I Used To Be a Neocon — which, according to Bill and David, was an essay we are all reasonable to dismiss.
That should be “Craig” of course
Well, I know why he didn’t source the thing. He only used enough of the news blip to paint half a story.
From the A.P. June 10th, 2005
“U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.
U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.
[A UN spokesman] said analysts found, for example, that 53 of the 98 vessels that could be used for a wide range of chemical reactions had disappeared. “Due to its characteristics, this equipment can be used for the production of both commercial chemicals and chemical warfare agents,” he said.
The report said 3,380 valves, 107 pumps, and more than 7.8 miles of pipes were known to have been located at the 39 chemical sites.
A third of the chemical items removed came from the Qaa Qaa industrial complex south of Baghdad which the report said “was among the sites possessing the highest number of dual-use production equipment,” whose fate is now unknown.” Significant quantities of missing material were also located at the Fallujah II and Fallujah III facilities north of the city, which was besieged last year.”
Let’s see:
“U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003”
“equipment had both civilian and military uses”
“can be used for the production of both commercial chemicals and chemical warfare”
From the sites listed it would seem that all of these are the same sites that were cleared by the inspection teams years ago. They were tagged because they could have been converted to chemical weapons use but were not designed for that function only. Many were 100% legal under the agreements Saddam had after Gulf 1. They were along the lines of any factory stateside. Yeah, we could cook up a batch of nasty stuff in many here but we don’t. That hardly falls under the header of the 100% fact of existance that Bush burbled on about and poor Powell had to give up his cred for at the UN.
The story also does not make clear who removed the items. It was most likely bad guys but could have been us since we have been in control of many of those sites and the UN is having to guess at it. Who knows until more is reported?
Also, look at the Bush lied part of this story. Sites that were under UN seal prior to the Iraq war have been looted since the invasion. Say, when that story broke a year or so ago…. Didn’t the Bush admin claim that that was a lie by the lib press? X, you’re actually saying that Bush and crew lied? Thanks for finally comming around. It’s about time.
If you want to use half truths and out of context bits to lie to us you’ll have to work harder then that , X.
I wrote: Yes. Your postings have repeatedly made the point that it’s a waste of time to write a post with no obvious thesis.
Mike wrote Anyone care to cite a full post as an example?
Other than the one in which you said that?
Well, Crqaig, that’s the kind of nonsense spouted in I Used To Be a Neocon — which, according to Bill and David, was an essay we are all reasonable to dismiss.
OK, this is at least the third time you’ve put the link to that essay in this thread. It’s time for you to put up or (please, God) shut up: Precisely what is it that you think is so valuable in that essay? What is its thesis, what is the support for that thesis, and where is that support presented in the essay? Why do you persist in bringing it up? What merit does that composition have? Enlighten us, O wise one, we beg.
???
???
“The democrats have a bumper sticker? Care to share it with me? A playbook? A sound byte?”
Go to http://www.airamerica.com and look at their shop section. Or, for that matter the shop sections og http://www.whitehouse.org (not the oft confused pørņ site), http://www.moveon.org, http://www.idiots4bush.com or http://www.irregulartimes.com to name a few.
They have a playbook in the same way that the Republicans have one. And, like the R’s, it’s put out by their voices in the opinion media as well.
“No war for oil” ring a bell? How about, “Bush lied. People died.”
“”If you just say that the neocons measure strength by dominance and do not give an example or five of what they do then you fall under the bumper sticker category.
Anyone care to cite a full post as an example?”
Dude, you’ve been telling everyone, in this thread a whole lot, that the good bits that win people over should be done in three sentence posts and throwing out, well, one line bumper sticker sound bytes. You pointed to JFK to show how great a thing it can be.
The “I used to be a neocon” thing is just a collection of all of those to express an opinion while a few facts that actually contradict the writer’s main point or just plain don’t stand up at all are thrown in. Most of the things that he says the press didn’t cover were covered. Some of them weren’t pre-war and don’t fit that part of the argument that he was making. Also, if he admits to having become a Fox News watching, Rush and clones listening, no lib media for me type then he isn’t really in the best place to say that things weren’t talked about by all the other press that he was avoiding. It’s kind of hard to say that something wasn’t being talked about if you weren’t part of the conversation and had no interest in finding out about it. The thing may read great but it is not something I would prop an argument up with.
I’m not saying that your 100% wrong. You’re actually very right in one way. Short shots and one line sound bytes work. That’s why both sides use them so much. They stick in the head and get played on TV and radio far more then a list of facts.
But sound bytes don’t make really sound, fact filled debates. They’re the fast food of the debate world. Or maybe the Chinese food of the debate world. You can eat all you want of them but you end up feeling empty in no time at all. Good facts can be chewed on all night.
I wrote OK, this is at least the third time you’ve put the link to that essay in this thread…. Precisely what is it that you think is so valuable in that essay?
Mike wrote in response ???
Well, šhìŧ, if you don’t know either, why keep bringing it up?
Or, since you want the short versions:
Short bits and sound bytes make great talking points but little else. They are blown off for their lack of factual content by the people who don’t believe as you do (i.e. the ones you want to win over) and discounted all to quickly for their lack of substance. The only people you win over by using them as the main thrust of an argument are the people who agree with your POV to start with, weak minded twits who don’t think but only feel their way through debates and no one else.
Well, šhìŧ, if you don’t know either, why keep bringing it up?
*chuckle* Couldn’t have said it better myself. 🙂
Now, please cite the passages in your very smart yet lengthy “pax, romana, pax britannica, pax americana” post which refers to the neo-con resolve to wage war for oil and to lie and to kill people.
Dude, I was just like replying to Craig’s post, and you’re all like, “Why are you replying to Craig post in a way I don’t like?” and I’m like “???” and you’re like, “If you don’t know why you’re replying to Craig post in a way I don’t like, why do you keep doing it?”
David, what’s your problem?
Sometimes I see these couples in their 50s in public, where the guy will hold the back of his wife’s neck like he’s steering her by the neck. Is there a lucky woman whose neck fits the back of your hand when you go out?
Robbnn,
Thank you for being positive intelligeny voice in support of our troops.
Craig,
I agree with you about the need for a national ID.
Jerry,
You add intelligence and civility to your side of the debate.
Karen,
The term “neocon”, while people may misinterpret it, is based primarily on a strong, aggressive foreign policy. They would be among the last to give a dámņ about social issues.
Fred,
About the war simply “causing more recruits” you’re wrong. As is PAD. Speaking of which…
PAD,
You continuously bring up the “causing more recruits argument”.
Isn’t it possible that there are many Iraqis who are LESS likely to hate us now because of our daily interactions with them? Those who are now being educated? Women who now have hope for more rights? Those who now have more of a say in their government? Those who came out to vote?
Was is this deemed insignificant?
Now over 1700 Americans military have lost their lives in this neocon engineered war of choice, not necessity.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
That should be “fits into your hand…”
“”No war for oil” ring a bell? How about, “Bush lied. People died.”
Now, please cite the passages in your very smart yet lengthy “pax, romana, pax britannica, pax americana” post which refers to the neo-con resolve to wage war for oil and to lie and to kill people.”
You won’t find it in my posts. You asked about bumper stickers and sound bytes by the left. I gave you two of the most common found in left the leaning op/ed media sources, on web sites and on cars in the streets.
“Posted by: Mike at June 12, 2005 05:50 PM
“One criticism of the Republicans that support the neocon ideals and the Democrats that oppose them is that they often just spew out “playbook, bumper sticker, sound byte” arguments.”
The democrats have a bumper sticker? Care to share it with me? A playbook? A sound byte?”
You asked. I answered. What’s so hard to grasp about that?
What good then are democratic bumper stickers you don’t even believe in?
You said, “there needs to be both [lengthy discourse and, as David called it, an obvious thesis] in any debate” Where are the democratic bumper sticker slogans you do believe? Where is your obvious thesis?
Jeesus. You liberal tire me.
Is it still really a mystery why Bush beat Kerry?
Dude, I was just like replying to Craig’s post, and you’re all like, “Why are you replying to Craig post in a way I don’t like?” and I’m like “???” and you’re like, “If you don’t know why you’re replying to Craig post in a way I don’t like, why do you keep doing it?”
This is a public forum. We reply to each other’s posts, even to the point of replying to other replies. My point is not that you are replying to Craig’s post in a way that I don’t like, my point is that you are replying to various posts by citing an authority, and it’s a flipping bad authority. Typically when someone cites another work, it is to support a position, but I’m still at a loss as to what position you think that essay supports, and when I asked what you mean by it, your response was “???”. You’re free to participate in the discussion or not, but you do need to understand that when you are discussing things with other people, those people may have a few questions about those parts of your participation that are completely incoherent.
And I’m really hoping that you lapsed into surfer-speak just to be funny.
David, what’s your problem?
I have problems with sloppy thinking, poor arguments, and inane commentary, just to name a few.
I’m a liberal for, and let me make sure I have this straight, not just buying into and believing any and all of the most out there claims made about and against Republicans, conservatives and Bush that turn up in no thought sound bytes and on bumper stickers? Tell me something. Is your head screwed on straight?
I don’t use or buy into 90% of the bumper stickers or sound bytes out there from any side because they are often without any real substance. But, just because I don’t believe in them does not mean that others don’t. Besides, you never asked me about the ones I believed in. You only asked for me to share some of the Democrat ones with you.
But if you want one I believe in:
I have said in posts that Bush lied, people have died and that many who died would not have if Bush had not lied. I just don’t care for shouting, “Bush lied. People died” and not backing it with anything but more bumper sticker and sound byte arguments. Now, can you put two and two together this time without getting seven?
I wasn’t citing the essay as an authority. I cited it to compare obvious theses.
Are you now going to say your point wasn’t that I was replying to Craig’s post in a way that you didn’t like, but was really that I was citing related theses?
So, there needs to be both lengthy discourse and an obvious thesis in any debate… but matching the obvious thesis to the discourse is optional?
That’s muuuch better.
My point is not that you are replying to Craig’s post in a way that I don’t like, my point is that you are replying to various posts by citing an authority, and it’s a flipping bad authority.
My problem with it is that he just keeps copying & pasting the same crap, again and again.
Mike, once is enough.
Isn’t it possible that there are many Iraqis who are LESS likely to hate us now because of our daily interactions with them?
Oh, I’m sure of it.
But, after we ousted Saddam, there were those outisde of Iraq heading into the country to fight our troops. Now, these are the ones I consider the true terrorists elements.
Not these Baath party guys, who were going to fight regardless because, duh, they see us as invaders who toppled their government.
And I’m sure there there are those who are fighting us because, while they may have hated Saddam, they still hate us, too, and we’re nothing more than another occupational force.
So, I really wish some would just quit assuming that every person fighting us in Iraq is some sort of terrorist. I mean, geez, I know the Bush Administration takes the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” to heart, but it gets ridiculous, you know?
…
I mean, dude, how is that even different than what I said?
I’m sorry, Jerome. You said such nice things about me and I’m about to make a lier out of you.
Mike,
Thank you. You’ve answered my questions quite well.
No, your head is not screwed on straight.
No, you can’t add two plus two without getting seven.
Yes, you know how to copy and paste and edit over and over and over until you have removed most of the original meaning from the posts.
Yes, you’re very good at answering the meaningless copy, paste and edits you create.
And since have I said to you that long form debate, short answers and even sound byte bumper sticker stuff all work well when blended together in a debate a number of times now…..
“So, there needs to be both lengthy discourse and an obvious thesis in any debate… but matching the obvious thesis to the discourse is optional?
That’s muuuch better.”
No. You can’t understand what you’re reading well enough to have an intelligent debate on almost any level.
Bye.
“Liar”
I hate that this computer won’t let me use the preview option.
“Sometimes I see these couples in their 50s in public, where the guy will hold the back of his wife’s neck like he’s steering her by the neck. Is there a lucky woman whose neck fits the back of your hand when you go out?”
You’re crossing the line into serious creepy now.
Posted by Rat at June 9, 2005 05:59 PM
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.
Great idea, but as long as we depend on, oh, oil from Arabia and Venezuela, or chromium from SOuth Africa – or is that one Zimbabwe? — and so many other things that our highly-advanced society requires that we can’t get within our own borders — that ain’t gonna work.
The main problem with the Iraqi war is that our valiant troops are being led by people who are not worthy of them. As can be seen by the recent news about a memo written by British officials, Bush was seeking a pretext to invade Iraq, not seeking facts in order to determine what to do. And all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, rolled over like sheep and let him do it. We should have elected a leader who knows what it means to fight in a war. I mean, George Sr. knew better than to invade Iraq, he just limited the gulf war to a simple objective, and then got out leaving safeguards like no-fly zones and a close US military presence in the area. And avoided the quagmire we are in now. Now, I am tired of the word “quagmire”, but it applies.
“Isn’t it possible that there are many Iraqis who are LESS likely to hate us now because of our daily interactions with them? Those who are now being educated? Women who now have hope for more rights? Those who now have more of a say in their government? Those who came out to vote?
Was is this deemed insignificant?”
No, Jerome. It’s deemed irrelevant to the concept of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States. It’s irrelevant to the fact that Bush was wrong (best case) or lied (worse case). It’s irrelevant when my concern is less a woman’s right to vote in Iraq than it is my daughters’ right to keep sucking oxygen that could well be impeded by newly minted fanatics recruited by bin Laden, courtesy of the Bush administration. It’s irrelevant to the fact that Bush shamelessly exploited a shellshocked nation for the purpose of promoting a Neo-con promoted Iraqi invasion that was on the dockets since the early 1990s.
It’s irrelevant because if our intention was humanitarian rather than self-defense, there was any number of places we could have gone that needed us just as much, if not more.
But our intention WAS self-defense, our concerns on that score were groundless, and no belated attempts to rewrite history are ever going to change that, no matter how much the Bush apologists such as yourself wish it to be so.
PAD
I’ll stick to the simple idea that the ends do not justify the means. IF, and that is a mighty big IF, the decision to invade Iraq was merely fear-induced mistake, then so be it. Admit the mistake, clean up your mess, accept your punishment, and move on.
There is mounting evidence that it was not a mistake…that it was a deliberate decision based upon “evidence” that was tweaked and twisted in order to justify the invasion, including feeding the fears of a wounded nation. But the motivation was far from the publicly heralded motivation: I’ll even grant that Bush honestly felt that invading Iraq was an act of self-defense…but rather than the imminent “destruction is nigh unless we act NOW” self-defense, it was more a remote, possible future harm that Bush was defending against. And that’s not what he told the American people.
Our legel system does allow taking lethal action in self-defense, IF the harm is imminent. So if you know a man across from you has a gun, and he’s telling you he’s going to pull it and shoot you, you’re allowed to defend yourself, including using lethal force (the specifics vary, some states would require you to try and flee, first, if such could be done without increasing the risk to you or others). But, if the same man says he has a gun at home, and he’s going to go home and get it, and come back and if you’re still there, he’s going to shoot you…and you shoot him dead…that’s not self-defense. You might still not be convicted of murder, but chances are you’re going to get arrested and prosecuted with something.
Coming out now and giving all these reasons that justify our invasion in Iraq…because our ORIGINAL justification has proven to be so much smoke and mirrors…only highlights just how much this administration has manipulated the public. What would America lose by denouncing this administration, calling for its resignation, and replacing it? America, the country, would lose.. nothing. It would gain a good measure of the international respect we once held. And it would show the rest of the world that we do not consider ourselves, our government, and our elected officials, to be above the rule of law. Indeed, that we adhere so much to the rule of law, that we would impose it upon our own leaders, when those leaders violate their authority.
Want to see a true act of democracy? Stop looking to Iraq, and start recognizing what’s going on in your own house.
I sent Peter the following:
Peter asked for a summary (which I observed with irony).
Peter answered my question:
To which I replied:
To this,Peter replied:
I asked Peter if I could cite our exchange to make my last point and he generously agreed. I’m going to refer to a personal anecdote, so I feel comfortable leavng the discussion on it.
About 10 years ago I was a substitute teacher for 2 weeks in a middle-school special ed class. One of the students was a kid who, if you asked her what 5 and 7 added to, she couldn’t tell you. She couldn’t add it in her head or on paper. So when the class was being instructed in math, she was given a bucket of dried lima beans to count with and finish her classwork.
She could still count, and I supposed that she was capable of doing anything I was capable of doing. So I told her to write out a number-line, and to move a bean right or left to add and subtract. Nothing we all don’t do in our heads. When I was called in to sub in the class weeks later, she was doing her classwork at her desk still using the number-line I asked her to write out.
Since then, I’ve read Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle,” where he had a line about measuring the quality of a scientist by how he explains the principles he works with to lay-people. I’ve taken opinions like this as agreement that the merit of lengthy discourse can be measured by what the “lay-people” take away.
If I’m interpreting what everyone is saying, we all agree the democrats will continue to lose to the neo-cons as long as they give up on the voter, but we disagree that it can be accomplished. Or maybe y’all think the voters will simply overlook being neglected before medicare and deficits have harvested middle-class savings. From what I’ve experienced, and from the reinforcement that experience has gotten, I really can’t fathom giving up on the voter in the manner I see the democrats doing.
PAD,
“No, Jerome. It’s deemed irrelevant to the concept of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States”
See, that statement would be relevant if that is the point I was trying to make. Which was, since you seem to have missed it, that the “invasion of Iraq has been a Bin Laden wet dream” argument – if you want to call such an assertion that has no grounding in reality an argument – is a load of bûllšhìŧ. By having reached out and interacted with these people on a daily basis, helped and freed these people and fedthem, clothed them and (helping)educating them, we are winning over hearts and minds. Those who we cannot win over, who would likely hate us if we had stayed here in the U.S.A., we’re killing them. It’s quite an effective double-pronged strategy.
Bin Laden is on the run, al-Quaida is in diarray, and millions of people took advantage of their fought-for right to vote.
Those who view us as the Great Satan because of the way we dress, the music we listen to and the programs we watch and the status our women have and/or because we strongly support Israel will either always feel that way or just might be having their distant fears soothed.
Libya gained so many new recruits they are out of the terrorism business.
No matter how you spin it, this is how it stands.
Jerome, I’m hoping it’s just the medium of print that’s preventing the true tone of your opinion from carrying over. Because, as your words describe our actions in Iraq, it’s pretty much the message of “love the US or DIE!”
Sure’ we’re treating the people of Iraq, those that don’t hate us, with kindness and sympathy, and doing our best to allow them to create a democratic government. That’s all well and good. But for everyone else, our solution is…death? That’s not just cold, that’s, to my eyes, evil, pure and simple. Reward fealty with love and comfort? Visit rage and devasation on those that disagree with us? Sure sounds pretty despotic to me.
Sure sounds pretty despotic to me.
And yet, it’s impossible to convince people like Jerome that they sound like madmen when they talk like this.
PAD,
“No, Jerome. It’s deemed irrelevant to the concept of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States”
“See, that statement would be relevant if that is the point I was trying to make.”
But the point you’re making is ALSO irrelevant. The point you’re making is this: We’re doing some good in Iraq, so therefore the ends justifies the means. And I’m saying, No, it doesn’t, it never has, and it never will, and you’re a Bush apologist no matter which way you slice it.
“Which was, since you seem to have missed it, that the “invasion of Iraq has been a Bin Laden wet dream” argument – if you want to call such an assertion that has no grounding in reality an argument – is a load of bûllšhìŧ.”
No, it’s really not. Bush’s caterwauling about WMDs is the load of bûllšhìŧ, and if you want to smear it on a sliced bagel, chow down on it, smile, and call it cream cheese, be my guest, but bûllšhìŧ it was and bûllšhìŧ it remains.
“By having reached out and interacted with these people on a daily basis, helped and freed these people and fedthem, clothed them and (helping)educating them, we are winning over hearts and minds.”
Some. And alienating others.
“Those who we cannot win over, who would likely hate us if we had stayed here in the U.S.A., we’re killing them. It’s quite an effective double-pronged strategy.”
Oh. My God.
Jerome, you’ve just crossed over into Cloud-Cuckoo Land. I mean, the Bush apologist aspect of you, I’m used to. But that comment is just sick. Love us or we kill you? You call death to dissenters an “effective strategy?”
“Bin Laden is on the run,”
Really. I hear Bush doesn’t think much about him these days.
“”al-Quaida is in diarray,”
Presuming you mean “disarray,” prove it. Show me proof. Show me a diary from bin Laden with an entry dated “June 13, 2005–Completely screwed. Game over, man, game over.”
“and millions of people took advantage of their fought-for right to vote.”
Yes, I’m sure that meant a lot to the tens of thousands of innocents who died to achieve it.
“Those who view us as the Great Satan because of the way we dress, the music we listen to and the programs we watch and the status our women have and/or because we strongly support Israel will either always feel that way or just might be having their distant fears soothed.”
They’re having “their distant fears soothed” by our BOMBING THE CRAP OUT OF THEM? Have you gone COMPLETELY mental?
“Libya gained so many new recruits they are out of the terrorism business.
No matter how you spin it, this is how it stands.”
No, it’s really not, and considering you’re aggressively ignoring the indisputable fact that Bush lied to the American people, you don’t get to point to me and claim I’m spinning anything.
You might want to consider, however, wiping that bit of bullsh–I’m sorry, cream cheese–off your upper lip.
PAD
“If I’m interpreting what everyone is saying, we all agree the democrats will continue to lose to the neo-cons as long as they give up on the voter, but we disagree that it can be accomplished. Or maybe y’all think the voters will simply overlook being neglected before medicare and deficits have harvested middle-class savings. From what I’ve experienced, and from the reinforcement that experience has gotten, I really can’t fathom giving up on the voter in the manner I see the democrats doing.”
This is well worth responding to.
On the one hand I agree. Not only is the idea that the voters voted as they did out of stupidity, fear or any combination of the two just plain self indulgent, it will also lead the party to go in the absolute WORST direction–either by playing the voters for bigger chumps than the are or by trying to make them afraid of the Republicans. The fact is, you can’t beat something with nothing–if the only message is that you hate the other guy it will not fire up your base enough to make up for the massive turn-off that such a strategy is to the average voter.
BUT…it’s too easy to write off the Democrats when in actuality they came pretty close to winning in both of the last Presidential elections. Ignore all of the hanging chads–if Gore had campaigned just one day more in Florida or if Kerry had spent some of that 13 million dollars in Ohio that he (inexplicably) had left over at the end of his campaign, they could very well have pulled it off and we might be talking about how the Republicans could ever win again.
If I had to bet money I’d bet on Hillary winning the next presidential election She has fanatical loyalty among most of the base and her neo-con stance on the war will appeal to many conservatives. She is a mediocre speaker but she can appear to be a great listener so that would be one way to turn a weakness into a strength. Of the Republican candidates I can only see Rudy or McCain easily beating her.
I’m looking for Hillary to solidify her position by engineering the ouster of Dean as chairman. She will gain prestige among centrists and old school democrats and the far left Dean supporters will forgive her just so they can get Bill Clinton back in the White House. Since GW Bush isn’t running again, electing Hillary is the last chance any democrat will have to repudiate the Bush administration.
So yeah, the Democrats seem to be on the wrong course but it will not take very much to turn their fortunes right around. The Republicans will have to play a very smart game to win in 2008.
You can’t get anywhere with the Bush apologists bringing up the fact that he lied. They don’t care. Bush gave them a thrilling TV spectacle on Fox to watch, called “Shock and Awe.”
That’s all that matters t them.
Another reason the Iraq invasion is a “Bin Laden wet dream”, besides the recruiting aspect, is that the regions only secular government has been removed, leaving room for a far-right religious islamic government to be formed.
“I’m looking for Hillary to solidify her position by engineering the ouster of Dean as chairman”
The conspiracist in me already sees this happening…because Dean is already setting himself up for a coup. He’s a very public figure, and he’s certainly shown himself capable of committing public gaffes on his own. What better ploy than to have him continue “leading” the democratic party, saying some of the things he’s been saying lately. Then, along comes Hillary with the “voice of reason,” and not only deposes the crazy Dean, but does so in such a moderate way that she wins over a lot of moderate GOPS voters as well?
At least, that’s the way I’d portray it, were I controlling member of the democratic party, and desperate just to get the GOP out of the White House. Forget this competition thing…just pick someone that can win, and make them look like they won the Primaries….
By the way, the U.S. government is telling the Iranians to boycott the upcoming elections.
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_7295.shtml
So now democracy is not voting?
———————
The Republicans will have to play a very smart game to win in 2008.
Not really, all they have to do is play to fear, purge voting rolls, & increase the use of Diebold machines.