The Tide Has begun to turn on Bush administration

[12voltman59]

My God--it may have taken far too long, but the tide has begun to turn against the Bush administration in the way it operates at least in regards to to Iraq.

For a great story on this, click on the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13808927/

[Just_Gem]

All I can say is that it's about time he got called to the carpet and held accountable - the rest of the government and military included.

Gemm

[Brian]

I heard someone, I think it might have been one of Jon Stewart's guests the other week, make a statement that I thought was profound, and summed up some loose thoughts that had been bouncing around my head. He said, of the Bush adminstration's approach to the war on terrorism, that it's possible that some countries are simply too religious for democracy to work. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia being perhaps prime examples. My reaction to that was "Yes!", it's about time someone said that.

The Bush adminstration has hung their hat on the fact that the troublesome countries of the world just need democracy. But I agree with the speaker, that I don't think it's that simple at all. Democracy doesn't really work if the vast majority of the populace are fundamentalists (Muslims, Jews or Christians). You will just end up with situations such as the recent example in Afghanistan where a man was convicted of death for converting between religions - based on laws passed by the majority of Afghany politicians since liberation from the Taliban. (Or another example, albeit to a much less serious degree: the crime of owning a dildo in Alabama (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=alabama+dildo+laws))

Religious fundamentalism and freedom are diametrically opposed to one another, and inserting democracy into religious fundamentalism doesn't change that.

It's an especially important point, I think, when you consider that the Bush adminstration (and the current Congress?) is the most fundamentally religious US government in 100 years. This perhaps explains their blind spot on this issue, and their insistence that all that is needed is a bit of democracy in the Middle East and everything will be just fine.

It's also interesting that the Bush adminstration is perhaps the weakest adminstration in several generations on the domestic freedom issues - wiretapping, broad data collection, looking at bank records without warrants, flag burning, GLBT rights and so on. It just proves the point: that fundamentalist religion and freedom are opposites.

Which brings me to a point that I've mentioned before in other threads; that freedom is the religious right's achilles heel - that will be their downfall. Or to be melodramatic about it; freedom is the silver dagger that will slay the evangelical monster.

What is needed in the Middle East is not just democracy, but the idea that the Qur'an is not literally the word of god. Just like the Bible is not literally the word of god. In otherwords what is needed is liberalism.

- Drew :paw:

[JohnnyV]

Well said! :)

I think that not only Bush, but Bushism in general, will be looked upon as an embarrassing phase of US history. He'll go down with Nixon, Buchanan, Hoover, and other presidents that history simply can't rehabilitate much.

In the meantime, because the Democrats are so weak, I think we're going to have to live with a one-party system (with the Repubs in control of everything) for a long time. Eventually the Democrats will disintegrate, maybe a third party will emerge. Until then, I have reconciled myself to the fact that I do not live in a democracy for all intents and purposes. Democracy for us may reappear in a few decades; right now, with the GOP so lockstep and in control of everything, we are in a one-party oligarchy.

J


I heard someone, I think it might have been one of Jon Stewart's guests the other week, make a statement that I thought was profound, and summed up some loose thoughts that had been bouncing around my head. He said, of the Bush adminstration's approach to the war on terrorism, that it's possible that some countries are simply too religious for democracy to work. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia being perhaps prime examples. My reaction to that was "Yes!", it's about time someone said that.

The Bush adminstration has hung their hat on the fact that the troublesome countries of the world just need democracy. But I agree with the speaker, that I don't think it's that simple at all. Democracy doesn't really work if the vast majority of the populace are fundamentalists (Muslims, Jews or Christians). You will just end up with situations such as the recent example in Afghanistan where a man was convicted of death for converting between religions - based on laws passed by the majority of Afghany politicians since liberation from the Taliban. (Or another example, albeit to a much less serious degree: the crime of owning a dildo in Alabama (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=alabama+dildo+laws))

Religious fundamentalism and freedom are diametrically opposed to one another, and inserting democracy into religious fundamentalism doesn't change that.

It's an especially important point, I think, when you consider that the Bush adminstration (and the current Congress?) is the most fundamentally religious US government in 100 years. This perhaps explains their blind spot on this issue, and their insistence that all that is needed is a bit of democracy in the Middle East and everything will be just fine.

It's also interesting that the Bush adminstration is perhaps the weakest adminstration in several generations on the domestic freedom issues - wiretapping, broad data collection, looking at bank records without warrants, flag burning, GLBT rights and so on. It just proves the point: that fundamentalist religion and freedom are opposites.

Which brings me to a point that I've mentioned before in other threads; that freedom is the religious right's achilles heel - that will be their downfall. Or to be melodramatic about it; freedom is the silver dagger that will slay the evangelical monster.

What is needed in the Middle East is not just democracy, but the idea that the Qur'an is not literally the word of god. Just like the Bible is not literally the word of god. In otherwords what is needed is liberalism.

- Drew :paw:

[smokey]

it would not surprise me one iota that the shrub, Cheney the dick, Rice and Dumbsfeld will be indited for war crimes once they leaves office and if they are we should turn them over to be tried.

[anne27]

Bumper sticker saw in a bookstore parking lot last week-

Frodo failed. Bush got the ring.

[Roan's Man]

Good one, Anne.
In Atlanta, a woman was ticketed for displaying profanity with a bumper sticker that said: No More Bushit. Judge promptly threw it out -- ruling Bushit was not a word.

Well said, Drew.

[jedinudist]

Someday, in the far future, I will regail my grandchildren, and perhaps their children with the horrors of living under Bush and the psuedo-christian republicans. The erosion of human rights, personal liberty, the era of Big Brother watching our every move, listening to our every word. The suffering of living in a facsist regime bent on the "christainizing" of it's subjects, it's demand that we must all bow down and accept the edicts from on high.
Tales of how anyone who dared question was initially labelled unpatriotic by those who ignored the words of a founding father that said "A true patriot must always be prepared to defend his country from it's own government" and how to question is inherently American.
Of how we became known as the evil bully of the world and how we wanted to lay waste to any who opposed us. Of how we demanded other countries stop polluting while we cranked the smog machines up to their highest setting.

I could go on and on but....

Will they believe me?

I love America, and dearly hope we get it back someday!

[Qetesh]

This thread is wonderful timing. I was just talking about polotics with my hubby this morning when we came accross this thread. Hubby's words were "about time!" Politics is a hot subject in my house at the min with the threat of my hubbys sqn having to go into Afghanistan soon although they have heavy commitments out in Iraq too. It all sucks, my only hope is that Tony Blair gets the message and f**ks off SOON!
And I dont mean to offend anyone but it really pisses me off that Blair is permanently stuck to Bush's arse when neither of them have a brain cell to share between them!!!

I'll stop now or I'll be ranting all night!!! :eek:

Q

[smokey]

my favorite one is..."the only bush I trust is my own" :bigrin: :bigrin: :bigrin:

[timsgfdmo]

Well said! :)

I think that not only Bush, but Bushism in general, will be looked upon as an embarrassing phase of US history. He'll go down with Nixon, Buchanan, Hoover, and other presidents that history simply can't rehabilitate much.

In the meantime, because the Democrats are so weak, I think we're going to have to live with a one-party system (with the Repubs in control of everything) for a long time. Eventually the Democrats will disintegrate, maybe a third party will emerge. Until then, I have reconciled myself to the fact that I do not live in a democracy for all intents and purposes. Democracy for us may reappear in a few decades; right now, with the GOP so lockstep and in control of everything, we are in a one-party oligarchy.

J

I think your defeatism is a result of buying into the message form the corporate media that the Republicans dominate. It was not that long ago that Clinton won two terms and Congress was controlled by Democrats. Gore won the poular vote in 2000. In 2004 if you read a recent article in Rolling Stone it makesa good arguement that that election was also stolen. Hands down the Democrats have won 3 of 4 of the last 4 popular votes for president. The fourth was probably stolen like 2000 was as well.

I am concerned about a world wide coup by the oil companies. US president who wins razor thin elections with accusations of corruption is an oil executive. Failed oil executive but still an oil executive. Mexico has an oil executive win in an razor thin election with accusations of fraud. Mexico is a country with huge numbers of dirt poor people but the guy that wins runs agianst their interests. The guy that won wants the status quo. I cant believe the poor in Mexico want the staus quo. Putin who is associated with oil in Russia wins even though he works to end democracy. These things makes no sense to me and calls into question if there is massive corruption in the election process worldwide.

[timsgfdmo]

Democrats controlled Congress from FDR to 1994. It took them that long to upset enough people to lose power. Talk radio with its propaganda pretending to be news was a big culprit in that result. Reagan's elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in radio has been a big and under reported culprit in the rise of fascism in America. Take heart, the Republicans have controlled Congress for a little over 10 years and have pissed off enough people to possibly lose control. Republicans brag about how they bring efficiency to govt. That is pretty efficient to lose power in 10 years as opposed to the Democrats 50+. In all the time Democrats controlled Congress I dont recall people saying the Republicans were going to disintegrate. A wild card this fall is the fact that so many Congresional districts have been gerymandered to ensure incumbent re-election. So where is the Supreme Court to stop this undemocratic gerrymandering? Another wildcard is fascist talk radio lying and stoking fear.

[smokey]

I used to think that there was no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I was wrong. The big difference between them is that at least the Democrats try and kiss ya before they tell you to bend over...with the Republicans, its closer to date rape. :bigrin: :eek: ;)

[BI BOYTOY]

I used to think that there was no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I was wrong. The big difference between them is that at least the Democrats try and kiss ya before they tell you to bend over...with the Republicans, its closer to date rape. :bigrin: :eek: ;)
hah ha so so true, :eek: :eek: :eek: about the war thing my wife always says especailly with bush that we are constantly going over and forcing our brand of democricy on others. what works for one dont always work for another.

[wyrd_truth]

I must say that I do hope that Bush does face charges for war crimes. But one must admit that his administration is good at propoganda. After 9/11 a lot of the American population was all for the "war on terror". The idea being to go after the terrorists before they hit us. When that happened I told everyone that Bush would use this as an excuse to send troops over to Iraq. And wouldn't you know it we have Hussen on trial and Osama and other leaders of the Taliban are still out there. The idea was never to spread democracy throughout the land, but to avenge a personal vendetta. We seem to have forgotten how we gained this, oh so precious, democracy. We fought for it. When people are pushed hard enough they push back, by god. Another thing that I wonder about is with all the money that the Bush admin has wasted on this "war" if it had been put to another use what could have been accomplished? Maybe the cure for cancer, aids, alzheimer's disease?
Now, I've been accused of not supporting our troops. And all I have to say to that is that I've lost friends to Iraq due to Bush and I have family still fighting. So I support the heck out of them-by wanting to bring them home.

[timsgfdmo]

Bush or any of his cronies will not be tried for war crimes. If you havent figured it out yet nobody in America who is one of the elite class pays for what they do. Nixon was pardoned by Ford prior to a trial so that it prevented all the facts about what Nixon did from comng out. Reagan did not pay for Iran-Contra, LBJ did not pay for Gulf of Tonkin lying, etc.

If you want to go back real far William Sherman did not pay for war crimes against the South. In WWII Americans and British firebombed population centers with no pretense of targeting military targets. Nobody paid for that. Nobody paid for use of chemical warfare agents against the Vietnamese. The only people who get tried for war crimes are the countries that unconditionally surrender. Examples of that were the commandant of Andersonville in the Civil War even though contemporary thought is he did not commit any crimes. He was victim of too many prisoners and too few resources. His casualty rates were exceeded by Northern POW camps. In WWII, Yamashita, the only general to defeat McCarthur was executed as a war crimminal. Evidence was weak that he had control of the troops under his command or advocated their acts. It was retribution for beating McCarther.

Bush like his whole life will walk away form this mess for others to clean up. What is sad is Bush doesnt realize what a fuck-up he is. In his mind he is another Lincoln or Washington. Alll that coke he did lets him live a secure life in his own fantasy land in his head. New amendment to Constitution should be IQ testing for any presidential candidiate. That number should than be disclosed.

[Diane54]

I support our Troops - Let them live , at home!!

But I have always said that Iraq is Bush's answer to unemployment.
Sent the back-bone of our young people overseas to get killed for NO reason and their jobs can go to someone else.
'
That sounds harsh but I have friends who have to live that horror.

in 1776 We fought for our freedom, with help from PAID mersenaries.
Iraq is fighting for their freedom - from us.
I have always been a Republican - until Bush.

[Azrael]

Perhaps I should spare myself the redundancy of going on a tangent... aw hell that never stops me. Here's an excerpt from my mental hospital composition notebook that should sum up my feelings on current events. I was checking the casualty list for friends.
6-18-06 Day 37
Now, as it has been for some time my attention is focused on this most absurd of wars. 2500 dead US troops, over 10000 injured and 50000 dead Iraqi civilians. This is not Vietnam, this is worse. Worse in the lack of action by our own fucking populace. Where is the civil disobedience? Beaten down by our shadowy department of "homeland security", no doubt. We sold Hussein all his evil destructive toys! This amounts to little more than corrupt would-be dictatorship that has building itself for generations keeping the masses paralyzed with fear. And I'm guilty too. All the aluminium and copper I scrapped from old appliances goes straight to the war machine to build moreinstruments of terror. All because I saw little more to the situation than a high exchange rate and me needing money for morphine. Drugs equal control, or the submission thereof. Fuck Silence, Fuck being a sheep. This is me thinking very clearly on an antipsychotic and a mood stabilizer. I will not be governed by my passions but I refuse to silence them any longer. Fuck Tom Ridge in his stupid ass. As Jello Biafra asked back in the early 90s, who are the REAL superpredators? As Slayer's Expendable Youth fills my ears I press on this tangent of wounded trust. I ceased to trust authority figures as soon as I reached the age of reason, but it used to be so much easier to put my head in the sand and jerk off my brain. I remember Tom Araya when I saw Slayer a few years ago. He started talking about Vietnam when he introduced the song "Mandatory Suicide". He said that it's something you think will never happen to your generation. I knew what he meant then just as 'shock and awe' was beginning. Now I'm haunted by his words in my dreams. Haunted by the unimaginable horror my Father must have seen as a combat medic in Vietnam. He hardly ever talks about it, except for the good times. This is one of many reasons my dad and I don't communicate for shit, beyond casual banter :( Reminds me of my dad showing me the round that came within an inch of severing his spine. What it must have been like to be there as a healer surrounded by grotesqueries of war. To be the one who had to maintain composure. For myself, I do not bitch. I have a medical disqualification from military service because of metal in my left shoulder. But I think of all my old friends or just people I knew who joined the various branches because other opportunities were slim. War destroys all life, especially those left standing. Now I continue listening to Slayer's Seasons in the Abyss album. Probably my favorite Slayer song 'Skeletons of Society" 'shades of death are all I see, fragments of what used to be". Every Sunday I read the paper I check the recent casualty list to see if anyone I know has fallen. Like I can do anything about it. I just want to know.I'll find the master casualty list to be sure, but I'll never be sure. Even the ones I don't know I weep for, like the people of Basra and Haditha and all the others that get no mention in the press. All the statistics are always with me and against me. Ever since I took sociology in High School, that is. My teacher told me to never trust statistics, as they are easily manipulated and slanted. I have no idea who said this, but 'killing is killing whether done for duty, profit or fun'.

On a side note, here's the latest attempt at a civilian tally, it appears I dramatically undershot it: REPORTED- 37-49000 estimated 100,000 :(

[wanderingrichard]

didn't we say and do this same shit when Reagan was in office?? and didnt we also have the same b.s. abuse of authority when j.edgar hoover was director of the fbi??

so, who isn't learning from the past here??

[Azrael]

i'm deeply saddened at the lack of understanding that is being shown on this thread..#1..the United States is NOT a democracy..it IS a representative republic..#2..Bush indicted on war crimes...surely you can't be serious..are there rape rooms in Washington?...are people tortured and made to disappear for disagreeing with the govenment...#3..this is not an illegal war...the last gulf war ended in a ceasefire with Iraq agreeing to certain resolutions put upon them by the UN...14 times the Iraqi govermnment ignored UN resoloutions...and there is irefuttable proof of links between Saddam and Al-Queda..you need to realize that you live in the greatest richest most generous nation in the history of the world...why do you listen to left wing bloggers that hate their country ..be glad that you have a president( whether you agree with him or not) that does wet his finger and stick it in the wind to see which way the political wind is blowing..in the end history will judge Bush's actions as just and correct given the information at the time.God bless the USA..this from your friend from the north

I am neither a blogger nor a hater of my country. Do a little research on Cheney and Rumsfeld back in the 70's, that in itself should shed some light on the matter. That's all, I was merely sharing my journal, not attempting to start a pissing contest.

[LouiseBrookslover]

What amuses me is that Bush's defenders point to the wall of liberties that was built up BEFORE him as proof that HE is harmless. All the while, they ignore the sledgehammer he has behind his back.

Do note that the reason we don't have rape rooms is because of the legacy of freedom in this country that preceded Bush. Do note that the reason people don't often disappear is due to the legacy of freedom that preceded Bush.

But don't think Bush created these freedoms for you, and don't think he hasn't been one of the greatest eroders of such freedoms in the history of this republic.

[JohnnyV]

i'm deeply saddened at the lack of understanding that is being shown on this thread..#1..the United States is NOT a democracy..it IS a representative republic..#2..Bush indicted on war crimes...surely you can't be serious..are there rape rooms in Washington?...are people tortured and made to disappear for disagreeing with the govenment...#3..this is not an illegal war...the last gulf war ended in a ceasefire with Iraq agreeing to certain resolutions put upon them by the UN...14 times the Iraqi govermnment ignored UN resoloutions...and there is irefuttable proof of links between Saddam and Al-Queda..you need to realize that you live in the greatest richest most generous nation in the history of the world...why do you listen to left wing bloggers that hate their country ..be glad that you have a president( whether you agree with him or not) that does wet his finger and stick it in the wind to see which way the political wind is blowing..in the end history will judge Bush's actions as just and correct given the information at the time.God bless the USA..this from your friend from the north

Cottrell,

I am sorry that our discussion has saddened you. Some of what you have written above is true; some is false. I don't think it serves much purpose trying to separate fact from misconception, though. I'm glad that as a Canadian you are refraining from condemning Americans, but I am nonetheless critical of Bush on very logical grounds. And in the end, it is my country and not yours that has to deal with the worst legacy he will leave.

J

[JohnnyV]

What amuses me is that Bush's defenders point to the wall of liberties that was built up BEFORE him as proof that HE is harmless. All the while, they ignore the sledgehammer he has behind his back.

Do note that the reason we don't have rape rooms is because of the legacy of freedom in this country that preceded Bush. Do note that the reason people don't often disappear is due to the legacy of freedom that preceded Bush.

But don't think Bush created these freedoms for you, and don't think he hasn't been one of the greatest eroders of such freedoms in the history of this republic.

Just as a small addendum, the United States does have rape rooms in our prison system, which currently holds, incarcerated, a little under 1% of the adult population. The majority of prisoners are held on nonviolent drug-related offenses, and a large number were convicted with only the most minimal representation from public attorneys who never even spoke to them before their hearings. Often they are convicted based on one police officer's testimony. There has been widespread and systematic rape documented in the US prison system, tied closely to the spread of AIDs among African Americans, Latinos, and poor whites.

Currently the United States has surpassed Russia and has the highest percentage of its civilian population incarcerated, of any country in the entire world, including Iraq, Lybia, Cuba, North Korea, and every other dictatorship.

J

[JohnnyV]

Oh, a little fact to add:

There are over 2 million adult prisoners in the US prison system. There are also large numbers of children in the juvenile prison system. The US population is currently 300 million, of which, if I am not mistaken, about 230 million are adults. The median age of US residents is 33, so if you do the math... you get the idea. That's where I get the figure that a little under 1 in 100 American adults is currently in prison.

J

[LouiseBrookslover]

Well, Bush isn't the first asshole to start breaking down the walls of liberty that the founders put up. You're quite right. The penal system in this country is a joke, particularly its treatment of nonviolent offenders, which is, frankly, heinous.

[timsgfdmo]

i'm deeply saddened at the lack of understanding that is being shown on this thread..#1..the United States is NOT a democracy..it IS a representative republic..#2..Bush indicted on war crimes...surely you can't be serious..are there rape rooms in Washington?...are people tortured and made to disappear for disagreeing with the govenment...#3..this is not an illegal war...the last gulf war ended in a ceasefire with Iraq agreeing to certain resolutions put upon them by the UN...14 times the Iraqi govermnment ignored UN resoloutions...and there is irefuttable proof of links between Saddam and Al-Queda..you need to realize that you live in the greatest richest most generous nation in the history of the world...why do you listen to left wing bloggers that hate their country ..be glad that you have a president( whether you agree with him or not) that does wet his finger and stick it in the wind to see which way the political wind is blowing..in the end history will judge Bush's actions as just and correct given the information at the time.God bless the USA..this from your friend from the north


Ordering your military and intelligence agenices to violate international law that was agreed to by the US and was intended to protect prisoners from torture and humiliation is a war crime. The catch will be proving Bush ordered it. Guys like him and tha mafia are very good at covering their tracks. Article 51 of the UN Charter says it is illegal for one country to invade another unless attcked by that country. Only exception is if Security Council authorizes an invasion. This did not happen. Bush violated this agreement that the US is a signatory. That can be prosecuted as a war crime.

Lying to the American public about reasons to invade another sovereign country is impeachable. Catch is to prove it. Bush's choices are that he is stupid or lied. Neither will make Bush look like a great president once the history is written.

Reagan should have been impeached for Iran-Contra and only wasnt becuase he hired Howard Baker as Chief of Staff and Baker promissed to Congress to fix things so as to avoid a national soap opera and another Republican being digracefully forced from office.

Lastly even if you think war is legal it does not mean it is a good idea to do it. A country wants leaders who know the difference and can make good decisions. Good luck in trying to defend invading Iraq as a good idea. That arguement is long since over. You are not even an American. Your country has no dog in this Iraq hunt. Although if you really believe it is a good idea I am sure there is a way to get over there and contribute.

[dfwbi-cyclist]

Oh where to begin?? Perhaps I better not since I will be called a mindless follower as I am from Texas (even though I did not vote for Bush (or the "other" guy either)).

So instead of pointing out the similarities of each party bashing each other for the same exact thing when they are "in power", I will just take one more quick second to address JohnnyV's response to Cotrell.

It's interesting that he tries to nail Cotrell for making false staements, but then posts outright LIES about the US Prison system...interesting...

Secondly most of the discussion has to do with Bush/the US and the ramifications of his acting on "our behalf" upon the rest of the world. So why the comment (once again from JohnnyV) telling Cotrell to stay out of it because "in the end, it is my country and not yours that has to deal with" it. I think it is rather obvious that just about every country has a concern as to what the last "superpower" is doing at any given time.
Right or wrong.

By the way, where do I stand? In the next election for Governer, I'll be voting for Kinky thank you very much.http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/

[Brian]

1..the United States is NOT a democracy..it IS a representative republic. You are just playing with words there. You are right if you use a narrow definition of democracy. But most people use the broader definition of democracy in discussions such as this one, namely that people get to elect their own government one way or another. Ask George W. Bush and all 100 members of the US Senate if the USA is a democracy or not, and 95% of them will probably answer "yes", the other, more academic 5% will ask you to clarify what you mean by democracy before answerring.


in the end history will judge Bush's actions as just and correct given the information at the time.God bless the USA..this from your friend from the north My sense of the public mood in the USA is that you are full of wishful thinking there and are dead wrong. The tide is turning against Bush and his mission from god.

As for the invocation of "God". No one has yet been able to produce even one tiny shred of evidence for the existance of any gods, let alone just one, let alone just one who blesses nations.

I DO wish the USA well - it is a great nation by any measure. But I have high standards for nations and governments, and George W. Bush and the bible-thumpers are making the USA less great by the week. And our country, Canada, is slowly turning down the same dark path of fear too.

- Drew :paw:

[orpheus_lost]

i'm deeply saddened at the lack of understanding that is being shown on this thread..#1..the United States is NOT a democracy..it IS a representative republic..#2..Bush indicted on war crimes...surely you can't be serious..are there rape rooms in Washington?...are people tortured and made to disappear for disagreeing with the govenment...#3..this is not an illegal war...the last gulf war ended in a ceasefire with Iraq agreeing to certain resolutions put upon them by the UN...14 times the Iraqi govermnment ignored UN resoloutions...and there is irefuttable proof of links between Saddam and Al-Queda..you need to realize that you live in the greatest richest most generous nation in the history of the world...why do you listen to left wing bloggers that hate their country ..be glad that you have a president( whether you agree with him or not) that does wet his finger and stick it in the wind to see which way the political wind is blowing..in the end history will judge Bush's actions as just and correct given the information at the time.God bless the USA..this from your friend from the north

Okay, I know other have answered some of these comments but let's take each in turn.

#1. The US is indeed a representative republic BASED upon democratic principles. That is why we have direct election of our congressmen. Of course this is also a non-issue as both republicans and democrats usually refer to the US as a democracy.

#2. Have you not heard of Abu Ghraib? That prison is only one of the bush sanctioned rape rooms/torture chambers that functioned or is currently functioning in Iraq today under US control.

#3. This is an illegal war under international law. The UN was created to stop this very kind of aggression against smaller nations. If you haven't heard the news yet that the bush administration lied repeatedly to the world about WMDs and connections between Iraq and Al Quaida, then you are purposely not wanting to hear it.

#4. It's not been proven that Iraq did indeed substantively follow UN resolutions in dismantling their WMDs. It has also been proven that there was absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al Quaida. The only sources still repeating that absolute lie are the bush sanctioned propaganda machines like FOX "news".

#5. The US give less money for foreign aid based upon GDP than any other western nation. In fact, we can't even seem to pay up on our UN bill. That does not sound like the most generous nation on earth to me.

#6. It honestly disgusts me when some right winger claims that we on the left hate America. We're the ones trying to save this country from the ravages of the insanely greedy and the psuedo-religious right wingers who have decimated our budget, out social safety net, our personal freedoms, and our world standing. You can rant all day long about "saving our flag" or "protecting the sanctity of marriage", but we'd rather work on saving our economy and stopping the decline of the middle class.

#7. This old bs about bush not sticking his finger in the wind is assinine. The so called president has reversed himself on nearly every unpopular decision he's made - if it would gain more votes for republicans. Did you not hear about the steel tariffs that were protested in Ohio? Bush flipped so many times on that issue he was looking like a pinwheel.

#8. How anyone can claim that bush will be viewed as correct or even as a competent president boggles the imagination. This is an administration that has failed at every turn to create a better America. Truly the only accomplishments that this administration can point to involve taking money out of the hands of the middle class and poor and putting into the off shore bank accounts of the outrageously wealthy. Even this unjust war has moved $291 billion from the public coffers into the pockets of executives at Halliburton.

#9. If this is the result of your God's blessings, I would prefer you not bless us any more. We can't afford too much more of this right wing God's good will.

[tink1978]

well said. I agree. But the problem is America voted for Bush even if you or I did not so we only have ourselves to blame.

Tink

No I did not vote for Bush.

[allbimyself]

Damn, I hate it when people make me defend the indefensible. I won't pick apart what cotrell said as there seem to be plenty doing just that. However, if we are to make informed decisions we need to have REAL facts not made up BS.

Orpheus:


This is an illegal war under international law.Not quite. An argument can be made that this is a continuation of hostilities from the 1991 gulf war. There were conditions placed upon Iraq that they failed to meet. The obstruction and expulsion of inspectors being the most obvious.


It's not been proven that Iraq did indeed substantively follow UN resolutions in dismantling their WMDs.I'll assume you didn't mean "not" otherwise I don't see the point of your argument. At any rate, how was this proven? Remember, the inspectors had been sent packing before they were able to account for KNOWN stockpiles of chemical weapons, much less able to verify that Iraq was not producing more since they were denied access to facilities capable of producing those weapons (again in violation of the cease fire agreements). NOW we know, but only because of the invasion.


The US give less money for foreign aid based upon GDP than any other western nation.Wrong again. I know where you got this information. It's a purposeful obfuscation of the facts and it's sad that so many get sucked in by this lie. When you take into account ONLY contribution in foreign aid made by federal governments it does appear that the US is not as generous as some. However, when you include aid provided by NGOs, the US has nothing of which to be ashamed. This also fails to include aid provided by the US military. In the aftermath of the tsunami, the US military provided millions in transportation, temporary shelter, etc. These expenditures are not counted by the folks to which you refer.

All that being said, I am NOT a supporter of Bush or of the war. The so called Patriot Act scares the hell out of me. The religious "wrong" scares the hell out of me.

However, I am intellectually honest enough to NOT need to rearrange facts to suit my positions. Something that which neither republicans nor democrats seem able to be.

Both parties seem to be catering to the extremists in their ranks. During the last election, the democrats had the opportunity to take the presidency by nominating a centrist. They didn't do that. We were left with two extremists as our choices. I can only hope that one or both decide to nominate a centrist in 2008.

[timsgfdmo]

All Bi Myself,

The initial Gulf War in 1991 was approved by the UN Security Council. So therefore if ceasefire conditions were violated and a continuation of the war was required that would have required approval by the initial approving authority, the UN Security Council. The US never got UN Security Council approval for the war in 2002. Therefore it is an illegal war. The US is not the UN Security Council by itself as much as King George thinks it is. The US violated Article 51 of the UN charter. That article was adopted because of the behavior of Germany, Japan and Italy prior to the existence of the UN.

Japan explained its invasions of other countries to the world by saying it was trying to create a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This common wealth was to kick out the European colonial powers who had used force to set up colonies so that Asians benefitted from Asia. Germany explained its behavior as trying to benefit all the German people by uniting them in one country. He also explained his behavior as an appropriate response to harsh WWI armistice terms. The point of digging up this history is that any country can find justification for invading another. That is why article 51 exists. The UN did not pass a new rule that said its rules do not apply to the US. Prior to the UN there were countries who acted unilateraly because they were powerful enough to do it. The lesson from WWI and WWII is that that unilateral action dooms the world to continual war much like we have now. The UN is diminshed because of powerful countries like the US that flagrantly violate the charter. To say the US is justified because others do it is play ground ethics that cause wars.

[orpheus_lost]

Damn, I hate it when people make me defend the indefensible. I won't pick apart what cotrell said as there seem to be plenty doing just that. However, if we are to make informed decisions we need to have REAL facts not made up BS.

Orpheus:

Not quite. An argument can be made that this is a continuation of hostilities from the 1991 gulf war. There were conditions placed upon Iraq that they failed to meet. The obstruction and expulsion of inspectors being the most obvious.
I'll assume you didn't mean "not" otherwise I don't see the point of your argument. At any rate, how was this proven? Remember, the inspectors had been sent packing before they were able to account for KNOWN stockpiles of chemical weapons, much less able to verify that Iraq was not producing more since they were denied access to facilities capable of producing those weapons (again in violation of the cease fire agreements). NOW we know, but only because of the invasion.

Wrong again. I know where you got this information. It's a purposeful obfuscation of the facts and it's sad that so many get sucked in by this lie. When you take into account ONLY contribution in foreign aid made by federal governments it does appear that the US is not as generous as some. However, when you include aid provided by NGOs, the US has nothing of which to be ashamed. This also fails to include aid provided by the US military. In the aftermath of the tsunami, the US military provided millions in transportation, temporary shelter, etc. These expenditures are not counted by the folks to which you refer.

All that being said, I am NOT a supporter of Bush or of the war. The so called Patriot Act scares the hell out of me. The religious "wrong" scares the hell out of me.

However, I am intellectually honest enough to NOT need to rearrange facts to suit my positions. Something that which neither republicans nor democrats seem able to be.

Both parties seem to be catering to the extremists in their ranks. During the last election, the democrats had the opportunity to take the presidency by nominating a centrist. They didn't do that. We were left with two extremists as our choices. I can only hope that one or both decide to nominate a centrist in 2008.

As the first point was already answered quite well, I'll take on the others. You mention that the weapons inspectors were forced out of Iraq. This is true but you "forget" to mention it was bush who forced them out, not Hussein, just before the attacks began. Those who were willing to listen to what those inspectors had to say knew that Iraq either had very little or no WMDs at the time. It is also now known that those inspectors did have free range throughout Iraq before the war began. In fact, Hussein was even willing to let the US station soldiers in Iraq in order to keep bush from attacking.

As for the attack on my statement about aid to foreign countries, I was speaking strictly of the US government and not it's citizens. Many people in the US are generous to a fault, but that is not enough in some cases. Our government needs to step up to the plate more in providing assistance to other parts of the world in ways that can lead to greater stabilization. Civilian donations can not be directed in ways that do that like governmental assistance can. You also forget all the other countries that sent troops to the far east after the tsunami. We were not alone in offering assistance and should not be so arrogant as to imply so.

As for your comment about "intellectual honesty", I'm not going to say that your twisting of my comments was dishonest, but it wasn't very intelligent, either. It's always a sign of a weak argument when one needs to pick out typos from a previous post. Also, I would like to know what "centrist" means to you. As this country has lurched to the right over the last thirty years, are you talking about a centrist as viewed then or now? It makes a tremendous difference as now even Nixon would be considered a centrist and too liberal for his party.

[allbimyself]

Tim,

I said "it could be argued."

Orpheus,


As for the attack on my statement about aid to foreign countries, I was speaking strictly of the US government and not it's citizens.That wasn't an attack, it was a clarification of the statement. If what you intended to say was governemental aid then you should have said that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of this bias in the numbers. Since you were offended by my clarification it makes me wonder if you were aware.


You also forget all the other countries that sent troops to the far east after the tsunami. We were not alone in offering assistance and should not be so arrogant as to imply so.Hmmm, I don't see where I implied that at all. My point is that when you add up all forms of assistance -- direct governemental monetary aid, military supplied aid and NGO donations -- and compare that to the same forms of aid from other western countries AND compare that to GNP, the US is more generous than many other western nations. If you want a fair comparison that is the only way to do it. I'm sorry it doesn't fit in with US bashing, tho.


Civilian donations can not be directed in ways that do that like governmental assistance canHow so?

BTW, it depends on how the governement does it. If they can manage foreign aid like the SSA (0.9% administrative overhead), great. (Source:ssa.gov) If they manage it like the USDA food stamp program (33% administrative overhead) not so great (Source: Dayton Daily News). For comparison will look at two NGO agencies. The American Red Cross had administrative overhead of 6.66% in FYE 6/2004. United Way Internation had administrative overhead of 5% in FYE 12/2004. Source for both was charitynavigator.org. I picked those out at random as well known charities. Obviously, not all are that great and many are corrupt, just like governement programs. Oh, and a note on the SSA's overhead. Given the HUGE amount of money involved, the overhead is still steep.

So no, I don't necessarily agree that governmental aid is better.


It's always a sign of a weak argument when one needs to pick out typos from a previous post.Typo it may have been, and if it had been a minor typo I certainly wouldn't have mentioned it. However, a negating modifier is not minor. It fundamentally changed what you said. I only brought it up so that our communication could be clear.


Also, I would like to know what "centrist" means to you.To me a centrist supports individual rights for all. Takes into account the rights of the minority even if it will cost votes. Both parties are too concerned with their "base," which in today's terms means "special interests." The republicans are way too cozy with the religious nuts and certain industries. The democrats are cozy with certain other industries as well and embrace every nut job special interest they can. The reason special interests are so powerful is that they are motivated voters, but more importantly single issue voters. If one issue is more important to you than any other, you will vote for whomever supports that issue no matter how many other issues you might disagree with.

Unfortunately, I don't see either party nominating a centrist for president. The democrats could have had Bradley a few years back, the republicans Spectre. However, the primaries are too controlled. Very few people vote in them and those that do, usually vote as they're told. Neither party wants someone "unreliable" to win the nomination as they are afraid the extremists in their parties will not go out and vote for them, costing the election.

I've heard it said that 40% of voters always vote democratic and 40% always vote republican. The other 20% are who really decide, but both parties are too worried about loosing some of their 40% to woo the 20% in the middle.

[Brian]

To me a centrist supports individual rights for all. Takes into account the rights of the minority even if it will cost votes. Both parties are too concerned with their "base," which in today's terms means "special interests." The republicans are way too cozy with the religious nuts and certain industries. The democrats are cozy with certain other industries as well and embrace every nut job special interest they can. The reason special interests are so powerful is that they are motivated voters, but more importantly single issue voters. If one issue is more important to you than any other, you will vote for whomever supports that issue no matter how many other issues you might disagree with.

Unfortunately, I don't see either party nominating a centrist for president. The democrats could have had Bradley a few years back, the republicans Spectre. However, the primaries are too controlled. Very few people vote in them and those that do, usually vote as they're told. Neither party wants someone "unreliable" to win the nomination as they are afraid the extremists in their parties will not go out and vote for them, costing the election.

I've heard it said that 40% of voters always vote democratic and 40% always vote republican. The other 20% are who really decide, but both parties are too worried about loosing some of their 40% to woo the 20% in the middle. Well said.

- Drew :paw:

[orpheus_lost]

To me a centrist supports individual rights for all. Takes into account the rights of the minority even if it will cost votes. Both parties are too concerned with their "base," which in today's terms means "special interests." The republicans are way too cozy with the religious nuts and certain industries. The democrats are cozy with certain other industries as well and embrace every nut job special interest they can. The reason special interests are so powerful is that they are motivated voters, but more importantly single issue voters. If one issue is more important to you than any other, you will vote for whomever supports that issue no matter how many other issues you might disagree with.

Unfortunately, I don't see either party nominating a centrist for president. The democrats could have had Bradley a few years back, the republicans Spectre. However, the primaries are too controlled. Very few people vote in them and those that do, usually vote as they're told. Neither party wants someone "unreliable" to win the nomination as they are afraid the extremists in their parties will not go out and vote for them, costing the election.

I've heard it said that 40% of voters always vote democratic and 40% always vote republican. The other 20% are who really decide, but both parties are too worried about loosing some of their 40% to woo the 20% in the middle.

I won't continue debating the foreign aid point as I think we're just on different pages there with little hope of even agreeing what constitutes governmental and private contributions. I also think we've said enough about the implications of typing the word "not" versus "now". I think it was pretty easy to infer my meaning from the rest of the paragraph and you think it was important enough to single out. I just can't spent too much of my life worrying about it. However, I would like to talk about the "centrist" idea.

It's my contention that the democratic party today is the centrist party and that the left wing has been completely marginalized (ie. green party, socialists, communists, etc...). The republican party, with a very few fringe exceptions such as specter or chafee, has been highjacked by corporations and the religious right. You mention that democrats embrace "every nutjob special interest they can", but you don't name any examples. That would be fine if I could think of any fringe organizations they support but I can't. Once again, with a very few exceptions, the democratic party is solidly in the middle of nearly every issue out there today. This is why I asked what "centrist" means to you. A centrist who just wants to stand in the middle of the average democrat and republican will be much further to the right of the scale than a centrist who wants to stand solidly in the middle of what would generally be considered "American values". Lastly, if you're looking to be a true "moderate", that would mean positioning yourself far to the left of most democrats or even green party members. Of course no major or minor party is consistantly on the left or right.

Some examples (based upon party majority, not individual members):

Republican - anti abortion, pro drug war, pro capital punishment, anti gay rights, anti separation of church and state.

Democrats - pro choice, pro drug war, 50/50 capital punishment, pro most gay rights (anti gay marriage but against amendment), pro separation of church and state.

If you look at the opinions of a majority of Americans, you'll find that the democrats line up with popular opinion so would they be the centrist party? On the other hand, based on very limited information, it sounds like you subcribe to a more libertarian philosophy of keeping the government's hands out of nearly everything other than defense (of course I could be very wrong about that).

So after all that, my question is where do you stand as a centrist based upon what I've just written?

[timsgfdmo]

A party that has internalized extremist views are the Republicans. They advocate spying by the executive branch on citizens with no legislative or judicial checks. That is contrary to everything the Bill of Rights and the Constitution stands for. Our founding fathers worked very hard to create the circumstances where power in the US would be shared between state and federal govts and most importantly between 3 equal branches of govt. They did not want the legislative or judical branchs to give a blank check to the executive. Thankfully the Republicans have not co-opted the Supreme Court like they have Congress. Constitutional govt is hanging by that thread the Supreme Court of 4-3 margin.

The Republicans have also embraced this concept of moral laws like trying to ban gay marriage, stop flag burning, end abortion, etc. The old Republicans were against the govt intruding into peoples lifes. The new Republicans intruded into Schiavo, move heaven and earth to end estate tax and shift tax burden away from owners onto workers. Only about 800 people were effected by the estate tax. That is a national crisis?

Lastly and most dangerously the Republican party thinks the US has the right to overthrow any govt they dont like or invade those countries. They have no respect for international law or sovernity (sp?) Republicans say they are afraid of one world govt. It seems to me they want the US govt be the one world govt. They dont seem to live by the golden rule. How would they like it if some country interfered in our govt choices? They wouldnt like it a bit. So why cant these religious Republicans live by the golden rule?

The Republicans are the radicals.

Allbimyself,

Good luck making that arguement that the invasion of Iraq did not violate international law. If you are successful with that maybe you can then argue the holocaust did not happen. Both are equally unwinable to educated, logical and rational people.

[allbimyself]

If you look at the opinions of a majority of Americans, you'll find that the democrats line up with popular opinion so would they be the centrist party?You honestly believe that majority opinion is what makes a centrist opinion?

Tim, I'm so glad I had someone point out your personal attack to me. Not being logical, rational or educated I missed it completely.

[timsgfdmo]

You honestly believe that majority opinion is what makes a centrist opinion?

Tim, I'm so glad I had someone point out your personal attack to me. Not being logical, rational or educated I missed it completely.

How did I personally attack you? I said anybody who tried to make that arguement that the Iraq invasion and occupation was legal because it was a continuation of the Gulf War in 91 would not be logical,rational, or educated. You said previously you were not making that arguement just pointing it out. So were you or were you not making that arguement? It seems your replies have been inconsistent.

One more time. The party that authorized the Gulf War in 91 was the UN Security Council. Therefore the UN Security Council is the only party that could say the peace terms it agreed to were violated. Any other party that invades Iraq is in violation of article 51 of the UN charter. The US had no authority to make the claim that the agreement was violated and then attack Iraq without UN Security Council approval. The US violated article 51 of the UN charter. That article was in response to the aggression of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union in WWII. Nice club the US joined.

[timsgfdmo]

Cotrell,

The electoral college like the president's right to pardon anybody are leftovers from an undemocratic beginning to the US. When the US was started slavery existed and only white male property owners could vote. In most states even those elites did not vote directly for president. They voted for their state legislaters who then voted for the presidential electors at the electoral college.

Fortunately as America has grown it has become more of a real democracy. Although untill there are publicly financed campaigns it does not rise to a real democracy. I know the technical terms are federal republic, democratic republic (This I believe this is the official name of the USA; Democratic Republic of the United States), etc. Hopefully with time the electoral college and the pardon will be changed by amendment. However if you take pride in a president not winning the popular vote then I think you do not truely understand the idea of Lincoln's "by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE and of the PEOPLE".

This not quite understanding democracy comes through in your comment about not wanting a president to stick his finger in the wind to find out what the people want. When Americans who profess love of freedom and democracy make this claim it blows my mind. It just seems to me they just dont want democracy. It seems they would prefer a monarchy or dictatorship if they dont want govt to listen to the opinion of the PEOPLE. Those conservatives who criticized Clinton for this I remember thinking they were complimenting Clinton when they thought they were criticizing him. Based on his popularity in contrast to Bush maybe they were secretly complimenting Clinton. The PEOPLE are the president's boss. A democratic president would care about the will of the PEOPLE. Only undemocratic authoritarians like Bush dont care about the will of the PEOPLE as expressed in polls. If you are a boss and hire someone and they dont do what you expect them to do you try to change their behavior and last resort you fire them. The president is the PEOPLE'S employee. He has a moral responsibility to listen to the PEOPLE and carry out the will of the PEOPLE.

[Azrael]

Perhaps we should take a moment to consider the context of things before flying off the handle and getting high on patriotism :bigrin:

[timsgfdmo]

we need another Reagan....let's put his likeness on Mount Rushmore

Ah Reagan?

I cant figure out why the conservatives espouse Reagan as the greatest president and the man we need now. Wasn't he the original president to "cut and run" in the Middle East? Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing 250+ marines and sailors. Was Reagan's response to stay and fight Hezbollah? Noooooooo. He packed up the Marines and went home.

Maybe try a successful Republican war time president as your model like maybe Lincoln. However, from what I know about Lincoln he would have nothing to do with the modern Republican party. Other than Lincoln I cant think of a Republican president who was successful in a major war. I guess Bush I would get credit for Desert Storm if you consider that a major war. Maybe he should be your savior?

[JohnnyV]

Ah Reagan?

I cant figure out why the conservatives espouse Reagan as the greatest president and the man we need now. Wasn't he the original president to "cut and run" in the Middle East? Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing 250+ marines and sailors. Was Reagan's response to stay and fight Hezbollah? Noooooooo. He packed up the Marines and went home.

I'm not a big Reagan lover, I will admit.

But Reagan's decision not to get entangled with Lebanon back then, to my naive eyes, made sense. I was only about 13 years old, of course. But it seemed that Reagan knew that Hezbollah could not be defeated by sheer military force, without laying waste to a lot of a wartorn country and simply causing never-ending escalation.

I spent the last few days glued to CNN watching Israeli official after Israeli official swearing "we will not stop until Hezbollah is destroyed." My response: "Okay, great idea! To destroy Hezbollah, you will have to destroy most of Lebanon and kill a large number of civilians. In doing that, you will create another terrorist organization made of discontented refugees in Syria. Which means you will have to carpetbomb Syria. Which will then drive Syrian terrorists to turn to Iran, which has a population almost ten times the size of Israel. Which then means you will have to use your nuclear bomb on Iran before Iran builds a nuclear bomb to use on Israel. Which will then galvanize the entire Islamic world against you. Which will force you to turn to the United States to deploy massive numbers of troops all over Northern Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, effectively beginning World War IV."

Reagan didn't always make great decisions. But pulling out of Lebanon and just letting go of any dreams of stamping out Hezbollah was a good decision. He saw the slippery slope and decided to get off. I hope and pray that George W Bush will not descend into an earthly Hell with Israel and take us all with them.

Now, in all likelihood, some would attack me for my opinion, saying that Israel has been provoked and has many enemies that it has to worry about. My pre-emptive response is, read Machiavelli. The art of politics is the art of pulling rabbits out of hats. Every nation has to contend with hostilities and setbacks; the point is, in 60 years you should already have found a way of co-existing with neighbors, even if it means making some compromises and even surrendering a little. That's called practicality! :)

J

[JohnnyV]

During the last election, the democrats had the opportunity to take the presidency by nominating a centrist. They didn't do that. We were left with two extremists as our choices. I can only hope that one or both decide to nominate a centrist in 2008.


Allbi,

For the life of me I can't see how you define John Kerry as a left-wing extremist.

About all these factoids going back and forth, I would just like to point out that this why I changed my major from Political Science to Literature. The nuances that you're splitting hairs about, in your argument with Orpheus and Tim, are not really what matters much. The left always has its facts, the right has its facts, and then the contrarians who try to appear "neutral" roll out their facts. If I didn't have a job and family and things I enjoy doing, maybe I could spend my entire day double-checking every single fact, figure, and calculation. The main ideas are what count, of course taking into account the most reasonable interpretation of the status quo that one can gather from a little due diligence. Whether you count the war as "illegal" or whether you include private donations as part of international aid is beside the point; Orpheus' and Tim's larger contention is that the war in Iraq didn't follow the standards that its planners claimed to uphold, and the United States could give much more money to other countries than it does. I agree with them and find much evidence to support the spirit of their statements.

I wouldn't consider their ideas "BS;" in fact I try not to resort to that kind of attack because it opens the door to fruitless banter.

Just a friendly dissent from a neighbor.

J

[12voltman59]

I am glad that I started an ongoing conversation on here--- I just had to make a few more comments:

to Cotrell--you say that you have never seen people heap such hate upon a president? Just think back to the Clinton years--my God man-the vitriol that spewed forth from many a conservative source had no bounds.

Ann Coulter, Lucianne Goldberg, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, the FOX-News network and more owe their careers to Clinton.

It was an entire industry for God's sake--

I even recall one conservative Congressman make a statement back in the Clinton era to the effect that he would have no problem with any person in the military who not follow an order issued by Bill Clinton since Clinton was such a horrible person and not a vet who he felt had no authority to issue any order to the military---you sure as hell don't hear anyone saying anything like that about Bush. Fortunately, saner voices on the right did tamp that idiot down--but those sorts of things made the rounds in rightwing talk radio land at the time. That was one of the milder things said about Clinton that were uttered by some on the right.

Congress did engage in impeachment hearings against Clinton for basically getting his wanker sucked by an impressionable, star-struck young woman.

Some top ranked generals in the Pentagon did cross Bush and Rummy on the value of invading Iraq prior to action taking place, and they were shown the door.

Clinton's failings, shortcomings and misdeeds were not good--but the man did not send this country into a war that may in some way, serve to play a part in the downfall of this country should the Middle East erupt into a firestorm of open, widescale warfare--a probability that grows now with each passing day.

As far as the "intelligence" that Bush administration officials relied upon to justify the war is concerned and the supposed failings of the CIA in realtion to said intelligence--the people who were the underlings at CIA and elsewhere spun things to fit what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest wanted----the message was clear in the CIA and the Pentagon---if you don't go with the plan--you are out of your job....

When the boss man wants the shit, and especially when the boss man is the President of the United States of America--by God--you give the so and so what the hell he wants!!!!

[Brian]

is [Bush] a liar?..definitely not...for if he were you would also have to call Kerry Clinton Putin and Blair liars also as they all publicly stated that Saddam had WMD's..all this based on inteeligence not just from th CIA but their own country's intelligence communities You are twisting the truth around like a pretzel. Kerry, Clinton, and Blair publicaly stated that Iraq must have WMDs because President Bush said that Iraq had WMDs (during a state of the union address no less), and traditionally Presidents don't lie about crucial facts like that. Hell, even I, a raving Canadian liberal, believed him and supported the invasion of Iraq. About 6 months later I realized I had been duped - I wonder if Blair, Kerry and Clinton realized it at about the same time?

Historically, Presidents of the United States always chose their words very carefully. If the President of the United States said something you could take it to the bank. With, what, 100,000 people working for him, Presidents always had things verified ten times over. This was the source of much of the strength of the office. But Bush has changed that forever. I for one will never take the President of the United States at his word again - next time he or she will have to provide the evidence for what they say, simple as that. Bush has dummied down the most respected office in the world forever. That's why most people agree he is easily the worst President ever.

I think there are some religious conservatives who will never accept that Bush is a failure and a moron. I think they are angry at the world that we aren't all bowing down to their conservative god, and are thrilled that Bush sees things the same way as them. I think Bush could bite the heads off of fluffy bunny rabbits and his religious base would still defend him. I don't know if you are one of those folks or not, but the fact that you would try to pull a Fox News fast one and state that Kerry and Clinton also concluded that Iraq had WMDs suggests you might be of that extreme right wing.

I'm curious where you stand on sodomy laws? Since many people who are of the far neo-con right, also think that gay and bi men should be thrown in jail for having blowjobs and anal sex - for the same reason that Bush can do no wrong, the (conservative) bible says so.

- Drew :paw:

[Qetesh]

Just a quick comment. If Blair, at least, didnt realise until then, Drew, he must be a bigger idiot than I thought. I havent met anyone in this Country who supported us going into Iraq. And no-one was suprised that there were no WMDs.

[canuckotter]

Hell, even I, a raving Canadian liberal, believed him and supported the invasion of Iraq. About 6 months later I realized I had been duped - I wonder if Blair, Kerry and Clinton realized it at about the same time?
Really? I knew there were no WMD in Iraq right from the get-go, and my impression was that a lot of Canadians also had figured that out. My perception was that Canadians were largely against the war not because the invasion was a bad idea (although it was obvious that Bush had no real plan) but because Bush was so obviously lying to us, and then threatening and bullying us when we didn't instantly dance to his tune.

Whoever succeeds Bush is going to have an intensely hard time undoing the diplomatic damage that Bush has caused. :( I remember when 9/11 happened, there was no thought of hesitation. Most people I talked to wanted to go to New York and help out. I remember sitting in the Red Cross blood donor clinic, with literally hundreds of other people, so many that they had to start turning people away because even after pulling in every nurse they could find and working 12 hours they still couldn't handle all the donors. They brought out empty coffee cans and set them out for people to put donations in; there was a lineup of people waiting to stuff them with $20s. In some areas of the country, where travelling Americans were stranded because they couldn't fly home, entire communities would open up their doors and make room for strangers.

These days... I honestly don't know. Canadians don't look at America as a friend any more. Americans haven't changed much, but the country as a whole has gotten a lot nastier. Imagine you had a friend who was a great guy, really nice, you argued occasionally but always in a friendly sort of way, and then one night this friend turns around and starts threatening you. Even when he goes back to being buddy-buddy... you're going to keep in the back of your mind that he's not stable. And you're probably going to start looking to see if there are other friends you should be spending more time with.

[charmed_goddess87]

Bumper sticker saw in a bookstore parking lot last week-

Frodo failed. Bush got the ring.

LMAO! Too funny!

[timsgfdmo]

Why didnt Bush do anything about the Cole attack? It was not identifed as an al-Quaida atack untill Bush had taken office?

I am a little fuzzy on the Bosnia war facts. I believe Clinton had NATO and EU approval but not the UN. If those facts are right Bosnia was an illegal war and Clinton has added to the problem of violations of article 51. This is bad for the world. However Clinton did not try to do it alone. He knew he needed allies to give creditability and to share the load. So compare the cost of Iraq to Bosnia. However you appear to be right in saying Bosnia was illegal. Inevitably there will be another mass conflageration between two or more parties resulting in the use of nuclear weapons. I dont know how much time people have left on the world. We dont seem to learn from the past and change our behavior or respond to true threats such as global warming. I think the future of the Earth some day will be a world inhabited by cock roaches with the defective human race not to be found.

The UN needs to be fixed. No country should have a veto or if countries do have a veto there should be a provision for it being overriden like in the US. The current system allows the US , Russia, China and other Security Council members to bully the world by thwarting themajority will.

As for my comment about Reagan and "cut and run". I was trying to point out Cotrel's inconsistencies. Kerry and Clinton are "cut and runners" to him but Reagan isnt? I am not a Reagan fan. It seems to me every time a Republican takes office there is some kind of foreign misadventure that is illegal. Look at the facts. We have Nixon ilegally bombing Cambodia and Laos, Reagan with illegal funding or the Nicaraguan Contras by selling arms to Iran, Reagan also poured huge sums of money into Afghanistan training the extremists who now try to kill us. To be fair to Reagan that effort started with Carter. Now we have Bush and hs foreign misadventures. I heard that Iraq will cost $500 billion dollars if we are out by the end of next year. That debt is being deferred. After Vietnam interest rates went through the roof because of US govt borrowing to pay for the Vietnam war. Wait to see interest rates in 10 years. (20, 30% for a house loan?) I believe the Panama adventure was Bush I. So that leaves Ford. His crime was to prevent Nixon from being tried for his crimes and sent to jail. A trial would have exposed all of Nixon's crimes and his serving a long prison term would have been a warning to all future presidents that they would be held accountable for their actions.

[orpheus_lost]

to Drew...things were verified and coroberated by Britain Russia as i mentioned before ....this was the best available evidence at the time ....were there errors? ..undoubtedly....and for those who say this war is illegal...why was it ok for the Clinton administration to bomb Iraq in 1993?..oh yes..that's right..WMD'S that Saddam must not be allowed to have....and as far as Reagan cutting and running??...what was the Clinton response to the first attack on the WTC when they blew up the parking garage?...what was the response to the attcak on the USS Cole?....the Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to had him over to the US...clinton's responinton's response?..well you know the answer to that one....there are just as many far left wackos if not more than on the right.Al Franken George Soros Alec Baldwin....see it's easy to point these things out...what's harder is to come up with a fair and honest view from the left..just one more thing..no connection to Saddam and Al Queda?..look up Salmam Pak.....let's keep this dicussion going....i'm enjoying it immensely and enjoy some of your views...no matter how wrong they are

Cotrell,

That post was filled with nothing but misinformation and slanderous innuendo. I really can't find a nicer way of putting it. Clinton bombed Iraq for violating terms of the UN accords, not for having WMDs. Fortunately, at that time we had a president who understood that a full fledged war for simple violations would be a seriously overzealous action. Your allegation that Sudan had bin Laden gift wrapped and ready for delivery has been disproved time and again, but I guess you just didn't manage to catch the followup to that story on Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly when they reported it. When the WTC was attacked under Clinton, the perpetrators were caught, tried in accordance with federal law and the Constitution, found guilty, and are even now sit in jail with lifetime sentences. The attack on the Cole happened three months before Clinton was to leave office. Having learned a valuable lesson from the eldar Bush who sent soldiers into Somalia with no real plan just before Clinton assumed office in 1993, he decided to turn the matter over to the next president due to it's long term implications. It's a shame that president didn't find the time to do anything about it, isn't it?

You then go on to attack Al Frankin, George Soros, and Alec Baldwin. Let's see how wacky they are compared to their right wing counterparts. Did Al Frankin ever advocate killing US citizens like Ann Coulter? Did George Soros ever fund an illegal, slander filled, witch hunt into the private sex life of a president like Richard Mellon Scaife? Has Alec Baldwin ever held a pro-gun protest on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings - in Columbine itself, no less - as did Charlton Heston? You see all things are not equal. You've aligned yourself with some pretty unsavory characters and there are many, many more just as bad over on the right. Should we talk about religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston, or Jim Dobson, who all blame people like you and me for the attacks on 9/11 and for AIDS? Should we talk about Political leaders such as Jesse Helms, Strom Thurman, or David Duke, all known for their hatred of anyone who isn't a white heterosexual? Maybe we should just talk about pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, or Bill O'Reilly who's hate filled venom, much like Coulter's, continues to spread fear and mistrust of anyone but American republicans.

Can you name anyone on the left who has made comments as vile as these people? Everyone I've named has a rather large following and is allowed tremendous amounts of airtime to spread hatred. Is there any Democrat able to call for the murder of FOX news reporters and still be allowed on the air? I'm very interested to know so if you can tell me that would be great. If you can't then I think we can safely say that the vast majority of insanely hateful people lie on the right.

[timsgfdmo]

I do believe Contrell is one of the "true believers" who will never look at the facts through an objective lens. Afterall when Nixon resigned there were still 25-30% who saw no wrong in what he did.

With some people it is a waste of time to try to have a true exchange of ideas. I dont mean this as an insult. I believe it is a physcological condition. All of us have psycholgical conditions that effect our behavior in one way or another. It is a pity because there is a growing trend of more and more right wing authoritarians out there. John Dean's new book, "Conservatives without Conscience" just came out. Unfortunately the title is inflamatory as is the trend. However, instead of a he said she said like we are having here, he relies on physchological experiments since the 50s to define and explain the growing rise of right wing authoritarians (RWA) in America. One of the characteristics of a RWA is that their beliefs are so strong and they refuse to compromise or change because it is inmoral to do so in their eyes. Compromise is essential for democracy to work. Therefore facts cant be processed by RWAs in a logical and objective manner if they contradict their view of the world. Hence the 30% who still think Iraq is a good idea.

Orpheus you made me think about right wing hypocrisy with mention of Thurmond. He ran for president on a platform of segregation while fucking his underage black servant. I guess Thurmond thinks it is ok to fuck them as long as they go live on the other side of town afterwards. Rush Limbaugh and his stance of every drug user should got to prison except him. Bill Bennet preaching morality while gambling millions. Bill O'Reilly preaching moralitry while he is sexually harrassing a female producer. Lack of respect for minorities and women is a trait of RWA. Billy Graham usiong racial slurs in discussion with Nixon that was caught on tape. Leaders of catholic church preaching morailty while hiding pedophile priests. etc, etc.

[orpheus_lost]

You honestly believe that majority opinion is what makes a centrist opinion?

allbimyself,

I gave several examples of what could be considered centrist by various people. As you stated you were a centrist but didn't really define what centrist meant to you, I wanted to get a clearer definition before continuing our discussion.

So again, I ask, what does centrist mean to you?

[Azrael]

what was the response to the attcak on the USS Cole?

How about the USS Liberty? Strange, how noone ever mentions that one. Our blind support of Israel is one thing I have never understood.
http://www.ussliberty.org/

[12voltman59]

Below is an interesting excerpt from the book "Banana Republicans..How the Right Wing is Turning America into a One-Party State" by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

This passage details a book given to Republican Congress members back in the election of 2000 by then majority whip Tom DeLay.

The book, written by David Horowitz--a lion of the conservative movement titled: "The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight to Win" contains a forward by Karl Rove, George W. Bush's "political brain."

From "Banana Republicans":

True to its title, "The Act of Political War" argues that "Politics is war conducted by other means. In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy's fighting ability...In political wars, the aggressor usually prevails." Moreover, "Politics is a war of position. In war there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency as possibly compatible with your principles, while defining your opponent as the enemy whenever you can. The act of defining combatants is analoguos to the military concept of choosing the terrain of battle. Choose the terrrain that makes the fight as easy for you as possible."
The concept of politics as warfare is intimately connected to Horowitz's personal political roots. In the 1960's, he was a militant Marxist and editor of "Ramparts," one of the most radical leftist magazines in the United States..."

(The passage goes on to detail Horowitz's evolution from radical lefty to righty and concludes by noting...)

"In a strange way he remains a Leninist, right down to his appearance (balding with a Lenin-like goatee). He even continues to offer Lenin's words as advice. "You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him a political debate," he explains in "The Art of Political War."
"You can only do it by following Lenin's injunction: "In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth."

Many of the things cited here does seem to be the modus operandi of the radical right from Ann Coulter's dictum that to be a liberal is tatamount to treason to comments made in a speech by conservative commentator and one time Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan at the 1988 Republican convention where he noted that "the political pendulum always swings to the left and the right--we need to stop it from ever swinging left again and we need to be the victors in the culture war.."


Gosh--back to war again--these righties love anything when its a war..LOL

[Brian]

to Drew...things were verified and coroberated by Britain Russia as i mentioned before ....this was the best available evidence at the time ....were there errors? ..undoubtedly....and for those who say this war is illegal...why was it ok for the Clinton administration to bomb Iraq in 1993?..oh yes..that's right..WMD'S that Saddam must not be allowed to have....and as far as Reagan cutting and running??...what was the Clinton response to the first attack on the WTC when they blew up the parking garage?...what was the response to the attcak on the USS Cole?....the Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to had him over to the US...clinton's responinton's response?..well you know the answer to that one....there are just as many far left wackos if not more than on the right.Al Franken George Soros Alec Baldwin....see it's easy to point these things out...what's harder is to come up with a fair and honest view from the left..just one more thing..no connection to Saddam and Al Queda?..look up Salmam Pak.....let's keep this dicussion going....i'm enjoying it immensely and enjoy some of your views...no matter how wrong they are Frankly, I can't understand a word you are saying anymore, but as near as I can figure, you are just proving the point I made in the third paragraph of my previous post.

- Drew :paw: