Hijacking
I'm hijacking a thread from Tom since I can't seem to post on his blog:
http://tbrooks.blogspot.com/2004/10/2-thoughts-for-day.html#comments
At issue is Anne Coulter's comments in an Amazon interview that the "fate of the republic" rests on this election. (definately an exaggeration). My response to this also embodies 2 of my pet issues on this election: The flip-flopper BS on Kerry and Corporate influence. Here's my response:
I disagree with you both (to a degree).
First Chez:
Since Bill Clinton came onto the scene in 1992, the Republicans have had a real problem. Now, I'm not a Clinton fan at all, but Clinton came on as a "new democrat" and embraced welfare reform, death penalty, and middle-class tax cuts. This had the effect of stripping the Republicans of their price ideology. And since 1992, the Republicans have resorted to fear and character assasinations rather than political arguments to run elections. Thankfully, that failed in 1992 and 1996 (despite the fact that I was duped back then). In 2000, they did the same with Al Gore and now they are doing it w/ a vengance on John Kerry - especially the "flip-flop" creation. (as a side argument, ccording to TNR: The Bush Campaign lists 37 Kerry flip-flops on their website. 6 of these seem to be real reversals. The liberal Center for American Progress lists 30 Bush flip-flops, of which 13 seem to be real reversals. Who's really the flip-flopper in this election?) Ann C is just taking this to a new level of alarmism to fire up the base and scare the undecideds. These kind of tactics should make intelligent people really sit down and look at things more closely - to look through the hype and the ideology.
Now Tom:
There are 2 points I'd like to make on why I do think this election (while single-handedly will not destroy the republic) is important to the long-term survival of the republic as we know it:
1.) While I agree with you that no single election is going to put the life of the republic at stake, what we do in the next 4 years (and what we have done/not done in the last 3) will shape the future and the world profoundly for years to come. The war on Terror, while not new, has been stepped up to epic proportions as result of Tom's birthday in 2001. We had an unprecedented opportunity to squash it and to win the hearts and minds of the world... to unify our country. And Bush has squandered that moment. Terrorism is done by people and to truly fight it takes more than just Military braun. It takes ideology and it takes relationships and it takes perception of the USA in the world. We used to be the most loved country in the world and now we're the most hated. How much more difficult will our job be in the future? This is the important point that GW does not get. You cannot simply throw bombs at the problem. Yes, that looks "resolute" and "strong", but it's foolish, weak, and ineffective. There is a line of more jihadists lining up to die. And their numbers are growing because of what we're doing. Idiots! And the terrorists know this and are, therefore, pulling for Bush in this election. That is why the Madrid train bomber groups said to an Arabic newspaper in March they are "very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."
2.) Corporate influence, power, and pandering: While both parties are guilty of this, the level that the Bush administration has taken this is disgusting. Govertment by the people and for the people is quickly disolving and the last 4 years has seen an alarming escalation. No wonder Nadar has this at the forefront of his campaign.
So I think the future of the republic IS at stake to some degree. It won't be lost in one election, but it could be altered negatively for years and years to come if Bush is elected. Chez is right: one person (the President) does have a lot of power.
Some of the other stuff:
At worst, Kerry is a left-wing wack-job Massachusettes Liberal who will still make a better leader than frat-boy Bush. I don't think he's as liberal as the Bushies are trying to make him out to be. He never would have won the nomination if he was.
Chez, I have no idea how you can say "despite the difficulties and miscalculations on Iraq" that Bush is the best leader. The difficulties and miscalculations are a direct result of the decisions (poor judgements) that Bush made!!! The appearance of being resolute does not make you a good leader. It's like letting someone babysit your kid, having them drop the kid on his head and rush him to the emergency room... then say "well, despite the difficulties with my child, little Johnny is still the best babysitter for my kid"! Where's the biblical principle of accountability?! Even your statement "Other countries have made it clear that they won't send troops to Iraq" is a result of how poorly the Bush administration handled that part of the war (immediately after the invation).
posted by chewie at 1:23 PM
15 Comments:
when it comes to character assassination how can you overlook all the stuff people have said about bush? every week there's a new book in barnes and noble about how terrible bush is. michael moore lies in his movie. dan rather and cbs broadcast forged documents. ted kennedy calls the president a liar on the floor of the senate. al gore says george bush betrayed his country.
john kerry has had to endore the title of "flip flopper"??? you are upset about that??? come on chew.
john kerry has been kind of flip floppy on iraq depending on what is popular. that has been obvious. what's with the duck hunting? he doesn't like guns.
read unfit for command. you'll see some of kerry's exploits that disqualifies him for commander in chief. i look at his votes and don't want him leading.
bush has liberated afghanistan. we haven't heard about the elections for some reason. the media is in the democrat tank. its obvious to me. libya has stopped its nuclear program because of our use of force in the middle east. iraq has an interim gov't with elections set for january. it is amazing that bush is demonized and so much overlooked.
and the oil for food scandal is being buried. france and russia were getting money from saddam. don't tell me bush ruined relations. with saddam out of power these nations would never get the money they were owed.
shit is unravelling and its because bush is resolute.
i think it is pretty clear that terrorists want John Kerry to be president. Yasser Arafat endorsed Kerry.
people will always hate america no matter who is president. but it won't ever stop them from coming to this great country for the freedom and opportunity that very few experience- whether in the middle east or even europe.
as for accountability...there's a lot france, germany, and russia have to answer for. there's a lot john kerry hasn't answered for.
bush has shown me too much character in the face of all the criticism, fanaticism and liberalism. he gets how to lead. in his speech at the convention i saw it.
kerry has shown me nothing compared to bush. i read his "plan for america". he made some good points but he hasn't really expounded on them. he can be a senator from massachusettes all he wants. but not my president.
bush is a frat boy? get off the michael moore bandwagon. ad hominem attacks piss me off.
i believe that the american people see through john kerry. bush is going to win big. he's a better man, president, christian, and leader than he will ever get credit for.
1:13 PM
>Chez Chez - you're over the top dude! I love it - makes for great blogging, but let me know when we need to shelf this discussion to preserve the frienship. You're getting pretty serious about this! What I love about discussing this stuff is getting the other point of view and challenging my current thinking. I hope you're doing the same. Note: This could make you a flip-flopper some day!
>> when it comes to character assassination how can you overlook all the stuff people have said about bush?
>I don't think I'm ignoring it. We're in the midst of a political election here and let's not be delusional. Lots of people will say lots of things (look at us!). Even the canidates will say and do things to improve or build on a part of their image (hence Kerry going hunting). What we have to focus on is the big picture that is coming from the canidates and their campaigns. My point is that one of the main thrusts of the Bush campaign - if not the MAIN message - is that he's resolute and Kerry is not; and therefore you should vote for him and that this assertion is wrong. Kerry's message is that Bush has made poor judgements and that asserstion is at least debatable, if not highly likely.
>> john kerry has had to endore the title of "flip flopper"??? you are upset about that??? come on chew.
>I am because it detracts from the issues at hand and it is not true.
>> john kerry has been kind of flip floppy on iraq depending on what is popular. that has been obvious.
>Well, I don't think this statement is correct. The bills and issues before the congress are rarely as cut and dry as "for" or "against" something. There's issues of how to pay for it and there's issues of how the executive branch sells certain things. Let me just quote straight from TNR on this very topic: [Kerry] favored a tightened inspections regime and recognized that only the threat of unilateral U.S. action embodied by congressional authorization for war would spur the United Nations to act. He subsequently opposed the way Bush used that authority. Bush now says that, by endorsing a use-of-force resolution, Kerry "voted for the war." At the time, though, Bush sold the resolution in exactly the way Kerry saw it. "If you want to keep the peace," Bush argued in 2002, "you've got to have the authorization to use force."
>And on the funding: He voted for a bill to spend $87 billion on fighting and rebuilding in Iraq and to pay for it by repealing upper-bracket tax cuts, but he voted against a bill to spend the same money financed by borrowing. (Thus his famous explanation, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.")
>> what's with the duck hunting? he doesn't like guns.
What's with Bush reaching out to women? He's not a feminist! :) It's politics, I'm sure. The truth is that Kerry has probably done a fair amount of hunting and now his campaign is trying to highlight that.
>> read unfit for command. you'll see some of kerry's exploits that disqualifies him for commander in chief. i look at his votes and don't want him leading.
> If you look for some mistakes or shortcomings in someone you can make a case for disqualifying them from ANY job. Is there anything in that book that indicates worse qualities in Kerry than Bush's stubornness, infexibility, and the way he chooses a course of action? Read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6160550/site/newsweek/ (see? I give you articles and you give me BOOKS!)
>> bush has liberated afghanistan.
>And he got mad props from the world and the country for that... then he decided to invade Iraq... and pissed everyone off so much that no one remembers the good he did! If I give you $1K but then turn around and cut your hand off, you're probably not going to talk much about the money I gave you! That's the way a lot of people see it.
>> we haven't heard about the elections for some reason. the media is in the democrat tank. its obvious to me.
> When I was a Republican, it was "obvious" to me that the media was left-wing liberal. Now that I'm a centrist, I hear both sides more and I'm amazed at how many liberals say that the media is so right-wing! I think the media is closer to the middle than most people think. If you think it's bent one way or another, it is probably more of a reflection of your views than the media... but I could be wrong. (I personally think the media is slightly right of center these days)
>> iraq has an interim gov't with elections set for january.
> You're painting a very rosy (and unrealistic) picture here, dude, but touting Iraq as anything close to democratic or stable.
>> and the oil for food scandal is being buried. france and russia were getting money from saddam.
> I'll have to agree with you on this. This was widely reported, but not emphasized and it's criminal. But it doesn't make Bush's policies correct. And France and Russia are not the only countries we've damaged relationships with. Our stock within countries that are our allies (ie: Britain) is really low. Have you seen a public opinion poll on how the Brits view us these days? It's alarming. And it's not because of what we're doing... it's HOW we're doing it.
>> don't tell me bush ruined relations. with saddam out of power these nations would never get the money they were owed. shit is unravelling and its because bush is resolute.
> Shit is unravelling alright, but it's not the same shit you think!
>> people will always hate america no matter who is president.
> When my family immigrated to this country, we did so because of opportunity and because my father (an "Arab") loved this country - what he had heard about it anyway. I assure you that has changed for the negative and there are a lot more people who hate us and a lot less people who love us.
>> as for accountability...there's a lot france, germany, and russia have to answer for. there's a lot john kerry hasn't answered for.
> Oh come on! this is a cop-out! To say that the excuse for Bush not being accountable for his MAJOR decisions is that there are things John Kerry hasn't answered for?
>> bush has shown me too much character in the face of all the criticism, fanaticism and liberalism. he gets how to lead. in his speech at the convention i saw it.
> Your position makes sense if you think being "resolute" (and by that I mean making snap decisions based on gut and being unwavering in the face of changes, facts, etc.) is the right way to lead. I take any speach any candidate makes with a grain of salt. Their actions speak much more loudly. To those ends, I know Bush will act even more irresponsibly in the next term (lame duck factor). It's always a risk going w/ the new guy, but I'm willing to give it a chance. At least Kerry is on the side of most Christian values such as peace, love, being a good steward of the environment, and showing grace to the needy and poor.
>> kerry has shown me nothing compared to bush.
he's had less of a chance, but I do think you need to open your eyes to the ideologies that are being tossed around. They're usually indicative of the direction of a presidency (unless you're Bush in 2000... then you lie about uniting the country and working with everyone to get elected and proceed to be devisive and abusing of your party's power in the executive and legislative brances).
>>bush is a frat boy? get off the michael moore bandwagon. ad hominem attacks piss me off.
> Sorry about that... my intent was to contrast the "frat boy" hominem (?) with the "liberal from massachusettes" one. You need to be consistent in your anger on that.
>> i believe that the american people see through john kerry. bush is going to win big. he's a better man, president, christian, and leader than he will ever get credit for.
> There is no place for "Christian", "Jew", "Muslim" or any other religion in the presidency... but that's a topic for another post!
5:57 PM
>>Chez Chez - you're over the top dude! I love it - makes for great blogging, but let me know when we need to shelf this discussion to preserve the frienship. You're getting pretty serious about this! What I love about discussing this stuff is getting the other point of view and challenging my current thinking. I hope you're doing the same. Note: This could make you a flip-flopper some day!
chew...don't worry about the friendship man! how can we learn if we don't talk about these things??? if we were talking face to face i think i'd be more reserved. writing is a little different for me i guess.
i am serious because i've (somewhere in the past 3 months) come to really like w. i want to defend him were applicable. however i don't want to be and idealogue and defend the indefensible. i'm all for serious blogging on these issues. my mind is open. i'm not a right-wing nut job. my posts might bring some to that conclusion. it's election time so passions are high. i can't wait till it is over so i can start doing something else!
i don't really talk politics much, just with laura. my brother is a kerry supporter so we talk a little.
i'm crunched for time right now but i do want to keep going with this. we've already hit so many subjects to focus on. where to start???!!!
10:20 AM
>>Chez Chez - you're over the top dude! I love it - makes for great blogging, but let me know when we need to shelf this discussion to preserve the frienship. You're getting pretty serious about this! What I love about discussing this stuff is getting the other point of view and challenging my current thinking. I hope you're doing the same. Note: This could make you a flip-flopper some day!
chew...don't worry about the friendship man! how can we learn if we don't talk about these things??? if we were talking face to face i think i'd be more reserved. writing is a little different for me i guess.
i am serious because i've (somewhere in the past 3 months) come to really like w. i want to defend him were applicable. however i don't want to be and idealogue and defend the indefensible. i'm all for serious blogging on these issues. my mind is open. i'm not a right-wing nut job. my posts might bring some to that conclusion. it's election time so passions are high. i can't wait till it is over so i can start doing something else!
i don't really talk politics much, just with laura. my brother is a kerry supporter so we talk a little.
i'm crunched for time right now but i do want to keep going with this. we've already hit so many subjects to focus on. where to start???!!!
10:20 AM
> i believe that the american people see through john kerry. bush is going to
> win big. he's a better man, president, christian, and leader than he will ever
> get credit for.
I agree that Bush is a better Christian. Since I'm a worship the Dark Lord, that's why I'm voting for Nader.
12:59 PM
Damn, where to start!
>And he got mad props from the world and the country for that... then he decided to invade Iraq... and pissed everyone off so much that no one remembers the good he did!I'd like to remind you that John Kerry himself posits the question of going after Iraq and Hussein back in October of 2001, when were were still in Afghanistan, so it's not like Bush was alone in thinking Iraq was a logical next target.
I think the media is closer to the middle than most people think. If you think it's bent one way or another, it is probably more of a reflection of your views than the media... but I could be wrong.Hmmm, this is a very difficult thing to gauge, precisely because our own biases inherently cloud our viewpoint. I'm inclined to believe the media is more centrist now than it has been, though I believe it leans left slightly. Still, attacking the media on perception isn't healthy - if the media should be attacked, it should be on facts, not allegations.
>> iraq has an interim gov't with elections set for january.
> You're painting a very rosy (and unrealistic) picture here, dude, but touting Iraq as anything close to democratic or stable.No, he's simply stating a fact. Iraq IS set to have elections in January, and as far as I can tell there isn't a reason to think that won't happen. Whether they're successful, democratic, etc, is another question.
But it doesn't make Bush's policies correct.I've not yet heard a good argument from you about which Bush's policies are bad and why. Until I do, I can't simply accept your statements against Bush carte blanche. Please, throw us a bone here!
there are a lot more people who hate us and a lot less people who love us.I'd quibble with the nuance here. A lot of people hate BUSH. Americans, studies have found, generally still enjoy quite a bit of international goodwill, though I'm certain that fluxuates. The majority of resentment has been directed at Bush and his administration, not the American people as a whole. I can give you links if you'd like.
That said, I still haven't heard a good argument as to why Bush deserves this glut of hatred from the US Left and many foreigners. I mean, really, what has he done that's so GOD-AWFUL? He sure didn't steal the election, though many of these people believe that. It's not like he hasn't advanced the cause of freedom (that's a liberal position, isn't it?). I'm at a loss here.
>> as for accountability...there's a lot france, germany, and russia have to answer for. there's a lot john kerry hasn't answered for.
> Oh come on! this is a cop-out! To say that the excuse for Bush not being accountable for his MAJOR decisions is that there are things John Kerry hasn't answered for?Agreed, but if anti-Bush folks are going to talk about accountability, let's get it from their end as well.
> Your position makes sense if you think being "resolute" (and by that I mean making snap decisions based on gut and being unwavering in the face of changes, facts, etc.) is the right way to lead.What snap decision? The decision to go to war in Iraq? Bush has admitted that not all has gone swimmingly, but then again, isn't that war? The troops HAVE adapted, though, and if an unwavering general policy of seeing the war through is bad, then there's something wrong with your measuring stick.
Kerry is on the side of most Christian values such as peace, love, being a good steward of the environment, and showing grace to the needy and poor.Kerry is on the side of Kerry. Don't fool yourself, C, just because Kerry is an ideologue doesn't mean he's got a halo and harp.
lie about uniting the country and working with everyone to get elected and proceed to be devisive and abusing of your party's power in the executive and legislative brances).Boo-freakin-hoo. 9/11 really did a lot to separate this strawman. Unity is all well and good, but it MUST be under a policy for the common good. If one side isn't willing to follow that policy, can the other side be blamed for still enacting and following that policy? Yes, it's divisive, but it's the right thing to do. I think that Bush could do a better job of being more accessible to the other side, but he's not demonstrated a malice or intent to divide - it's happened directly as a result of 9/11.
liberal from massachusettesHe is. He's a Michael Dukakis clone...
4:58 PM
Dang it, Chew, get HaloScan comments!
That last one was mine.
-Jeremiah
5:00 PM
>I mean, really, what has he done that's so GOD-AWFUL?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6354133/
11:35 AM
I don't think so, Tom.
Not everything you read straight off the press is gospel, however sensational it sounds.
-Jeremiah
12:32 PM
you asked what bush had done that was so god awful. the answer is that he has led us into a war that has killed thousands of people. the number doesn't matter. 100k, 50k, or 8k.. thats what bush has done that is so god awful.
in the very minimum case, 8k dead, bush has killed over twice the number of innocent civilians than died in the attacks on 9/11. the likely number is much higher than that.
as a side note, i'm more inclined to believe the numbers put forth by a peer reviewed study done by johns hopkins university, columbia university, and baghdad's al-mustansiriya university rather than some on-line reporter.
3:45 PM
Why won't political partisans admit defeat, even on one point or sub-point, or even a fact? 100,000 Iraqi's, 15,000, or 30,000... It's still a HECK of a lot of people!!! C'mon Jeremiah!
The argument by the conservatives up to now has been that the net loss of life is less due to the removal of Saddam's regime. At this rate, it (along w/ so many other things) is no longer true. I understand that there's casualties in war (unfortunately, I understand it first hand)... but that's what makes it that much more important to be sure it's the last resort before you even GO to war. And that's precisely what W did NOT do. His administration RUSHED to war... even if the UN are pansies and even if they were never going to authorize it... and even if France and Russia were protecting interests... and even if John Kerry and other Dems voted for it to put pressure on Iraq... it was so plainly obvious to the whole world that this administration was on a mad dash to go to war (in the name of security and WMD). And that mad dash is what got us in there before we could even question our "key" intelligence. That mad dash is what alienated the whole world (except Poland and any other dictator that needed money)... that mad dash is what diverted attention, troops, and potential troops to fighting real terrorism targets elsewhere... that mad dash was BAD JUDGEMENT. And bad judgement (probably combined w/ the mad dash) and arrogance is what made this administration go into Iraq before they knew how they'd get out (ie: securing the peace, etc.), that arrogance lead them to wrong assumptions, the failure to win the hearts of the iraqis (because we're killing them by the thousands) is leading not only to the loss of extra Iraqi and American lives, but is also precisely what is now CREATING more terrorsits in the minds of Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world. Which is counter-productive to what we set out to do. And all along, the Republican partisans cannot and will not admit even the slightest of mistakes. They stubbornly stand their ground (I suppose they're being "resolute") and say they'd do it all over again. And we're going to reward this with another term?!!!
Even if going after Saddam was the right thing to do at some point, this administration screwed up the timing, diplomacy, and execution. And it's costing thousands of American and Iraqi lives now. It will likely cost thousands of American lives in the future due to the long-term diplomatic failures.
People! WAKE UP. This administration is a failure. And if you agree with me or not... VOTE TOMORROW!!!!
3:55 PM
you asked what bush had done that was so god awful. the answer is that he has led us into a war that has killed thousands of people. the number doesn't matter. 100k, 50k, or 8k.. thats what bush has done that is so god awful.This is not a good rationale. It implies that this war is wrong, and by extension, all wars are wrong. I don't believe either of those premises. Your argument is hardly convincing.
in the very minimum case, 8k dead, bush has killed over twice the number of innocent civilians than died in the attacks on 9/11. the likely number is much higher than that.Bush has killed? Actually, most of those innocent civilians have been killed by terrorists. Our military has an amazingly low mortality rate for civilian population centers--the fact is terrorists are responsible for civilian deaths, not our military, and not Bush.
as a side note, i'm more inclined to believe the numbers put forth by a peer reviewed study done by johns hopkins university, columbia university, and baghdad's al-mustansiriya university rather than some on-line reporter.That's fine for you, but when you line the facts up, the report is still incredibly vague and has such a large margin of error as to be useless. Enjoy believing hype and exaggeration.
-Jeremiah
5:04 PM
Why won't political partisans admit defeat, even on one point or sub-point, or even a fact? 100,000 Iraqi's, 15,000, or 30,000... It's still a HECK of a lot of people!!! C'mon Jeremiah!I'm not denying that a lot of people have died, Chewie. But as my last comment to Tom states, it is largely because of terrorists that civilians are dying. Sure, if we weren't there, perhaps people wouldn't be dying from car bombs and such, but there'd be other, more deaths that we'd not hear about for years to come. The point I am UNWILLING to concede is that this war is wrong, because it IS slowly turning things around, changing things for the better. Just because you don't think that doesn't mean you're automatically right and I'm wrong. Very clearly, there are high emotions related to the war and this election, but flying spittle doesn't convince me that my arguments are hollow. I can support them with as much vigour and strength as you can support yours (perhaps more *grin*).
The argument by the conservatives up to now has been that the net loss of life is less due to the removal of Saddam's regime.Nice strawman. At best this is an ancillary argument made in defense of our continuing presence in Iraq. This has never been a main platform on which the war is based. As I recall, before the war began we had lots of liberals whining about the millions of deaths that would surely result from an invasion. That didn't happen, not even close. Nor did the typical conservative boast that we would walk in and out in 8 months. As usual, the result has been a not wholly unsurprising mixture of the two schools of thought, with 10% of Iraq making 90% of the headlines.
His administration RUSHED to warI simply DO NOT GET how you can say this given all the diplomacy before the war. Given all the resolutions. Given all that we knew Saddam was capable of doing and what we believed he was doing. Given all the statements by politicians of both stripe calling for the removal of Saddam. Given every FUCKING CHANCE we gave Saddam to give up and stand down. I am simply appalled by your statement.
... even if the UN are pansies and even if they were never going to authorize it... and even if France and Russia were protecting interests... and even if John Kerry and other Dems voted for it to put pressure on Iraq...You're making my arguments for me.
it was so plainly obvious to the whole world that this administration was on a mad dash to go to war (in the name of security and WMD).Yes, three years into Bush's administration he madly rushed into war. Give me a break.
None of your reasoning can explain the overwhelming support Bush enjoys with the Iraqi people. None of your erroneous accusations of "that mad dash" can explain away the fact that in a country slightly smaller than the state of California (23 million), there are only about 23,000 terrorists actively engaged in fighting--and those numbers are dropping every day. The rest of the country is now made up of free citizens who will--YES, will--be enjoying democratic elections for the first time, ever.
Securing the peace? Okay, I'll grant you this. This was shortsighted on the administration's part. Nevertheless, I think you're seeing only the bad and none of the good, of which there is more than you probably think. The "peace" as you call it is present, as I've said before, in 90% of the country. That's the truth. No, Iraq isn't perfect, and won't be for years. But it's still a hell of a lot better than it was before.
Even if going after Saddam was the right thing to do at some pointWell, was it or wasn't it? You're dangerously close to defending keeping Saddam in power, and that's a pretty dark place to be, my friend.
this administration screwed up the timing, diplomacy, and execution.Again, I simply fail to see how so.
And it's costing thousands of American and Iraqi lives now. It will likely cost thousands of American lives in the future due to the long-term diplomatic failures.Sacrifice was necessary. Easy? No. Fair? Probably not. But it would have happened eventually, and the reasons would have remained the same. Monsters must not hold the reins of death to trample upon their people and others. They must be stopped. They must not continue. It is unfortunate that death of human life fails to carry with it the respect it once did. These Iraqis and Americans have not died in vain. Yet you wave them around as a flag to throw accusation and venom at the administration.
5:32 PM
This is not a good rationale. It implies that this war is wrong, and by extension, all wars are wrong. I don't believe either of those premises. Your argument is hardly convincing. i never said anything about all wars. this war is wrong. it has caused thousands of innocent lives to be lost. that is what bush has done that is so wrong.
you asked the question indignantly as if you could not comprehend what bush had done. to quote: "That said, I still haven't heard a good argument as to why Bush deserves this glut of hatred from the US Left and many foreigners. I mean, really, what has he done that's so GOD-AWFUL?" you have been provided with the answer by both chew and myself. you may not agree with it, but thats why a lot of americans and the world dislike bush.
as a side note, i don't think most people hate bush. i don't hate the guy. i just think he's an ineffective leader.
Bush has killed? Actually, most of those innocent civilians have been killed by terrorists. Our military has an amazingly low mortality rate for civilian population centers--the fact is terrorists are responsible for civilian deaths, not our military, and not Bush. i don't believe this. do you have proof? even if it is true, those people wouldn't be dying if we hadn't started the war.
That's fine for you, but when you line the facts up, the report is still incredibly vague and has such a large margin of error as to be useless. Enjoy believing hype and exaggeration.
i've already told you that the actual number doesn't matter. but.. why do you believe a reporter as opposed to the study? i love the way right wingers just discount reports that don't agree with their viewpoint as liberal media.
6:00 PM
I don’t understand how you cannot concede that this war is wrong. The reason we went to war was over WMD’s and possible ties to 9/11. Both have been discounted. I realize that we also went to war to free the Iraqi people, but that was really icing on the cake (make the American people feel better about the war). I’ll admit that Iraq will eventually be better off without Saddam, but I firmly believe that our reasons to go to war have been disproved and therefore it is unjustified and wrong. Jeremiah, based on what we know now, would you still go to war?
6:39 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home