WaPo Calls Bullshit on Rumsfeld, Bush; I Wax Religious
The editorial writers at the Washington Post are not happy: War crimes.
This isn’t my country acting this way. These people do not govern in my name. They are fucking Nazis who have seized power for their own sick, twisted purposes and are destroying everything noble and true about America.
You people who voted for them have exactly two excuses: You were ignorant, or you were immoral. Way to go, guys.
I don’t know how, or when. But there will be a reckoning for this. Sadly, that reckoning will fall upon the just and the unjust alike; my children will inherit the same fucked-up country and fucked-up world that the religious right (among others) are creating for their own kids. And no, there will be no Rapture that will save your virtuous asses from the upfuckery.
The people you are following are Pharisees. If Christ were here, he’d expose them as such. He’d direct your attention to the poor, the weak, the innocent victims of their violent schemes of domination. If you read the Gospels you’d see that. But no; you listen to televangelists and Bible-thumping con men who focus almost exclusively on the writings of Saul of Tarsus, since his words make it so easy to justify all manner of sins.
Sigh. You people are really thick, you know?
Let’s stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that Christ was infallible. He was the Way and the Light. But his followers were not infallible. They were human. They erred. They erred even when they had Christ around to admonish and correct them. And those errors compounded once Christ left the scene.
Let’s put this in terms you can understand. Let’s talk about Satan.
Satan is a deceiver. He’s a nasty, clever adversary. Sure, he lost a round against Jesus. But he didn’t go away. He bided his time. Soon enough, Jesus left the earth, leaving his followers to do their best to carry on His work.
And Satan deceived them. He turned them into the wrong path. He twisted Jesus’ teachings. Steadily, he perverted the message. And Saul of Tarsus was the perfect instrument for that.
Who do you think really appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus? It wasn’t Jesus. It was Satan. And here you are, blindly following his teachings, so smug in your righteousness, so superior.
Like I said; way to go, guys.
December 25th, 2004 at 7:16 am
It may not be deemed very “liberal” of me, but: Merry Christmas, John! :)
Sven
December 25th, 2004 at 10:56 am
If a person is a true Christian, war would go against many of the teachings of Christ: Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you”. and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. “Love thy enemy as thyself”. Also what about “Thou shalt not kill.” – I heard Ann Coulter accusing “liberals” for not allowing the ten commandments to be mentioned in public. Well, Bush and anyone who supports war, period, cannot be a true Christian. Jesus was a pacifist. I am not a “church going ” person, but I consider myself a Christian and everything the GOP does lately seems to go against what it means to be a Christian. Being a Christian has to do with how you ACT not whether or not you go to church, display Christian bumper stickers, or mention how you pray all the time to people who need to hear it. Being a Christian means being nice to people, trying to avoid conflict and understand one another. Being a Christian means that you take care of the environment we live in for future generations. It doesn’t mean driving an H2 around guzzling gas with a “God Bless America” sticker on the back. Okay, that about says it all.
Have a Merry Christmas
Jenny
December 26th, 2004 at 12:18 pm
Being a Christian has nothing to do with ACTING; it is the ACT of accepting Christ and His message. In His words, no one will gain entry into the place He prepared for us “by good deeds alone.” I go to church because He said to do so. I drive a gas-guzzling SUV, but without bumper stickers; perhaps I am wrong to not attach messages, because He instructed His believers to go into the world and spread the Word. We make mistakes, and that is a primary reason for prayer.
His Father sanctioned war against those who oppressed their people, if the Word of his “recorders of history” in the Old Testament (our primary source of ancient history) are accepted. Ousting an evil dictatorial oppressor of his own people, in the land designated as the origin of all civilization by most historians, does not make George Bush a Christian – only his acceptance of Christ does that. He only followed the dictates of history, our greatest teacher. I have no regrets for Saddam, his sons, or those who resist because they were the favored ones who benefitted from Saddam’s regime.
I support the efforts of our troops and their leadership, due in great part to a microcosmic comparison – if someone in our community was hopelessly imprisoned and oppressed, I support the efforts of our law enforcement to resolve the situation. WMD was an expressed concern, but the PRIMARY, STATED purposes of the war were regime change and a representative democratic state.
We don’t hear much about Iran any more – they are isolated between two democratic states, Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria and Jordan are isolated between two democratic states, Iraq and Israel. The murder of Israelis has diminished greatly since the financial awards of Saddam to families of homicide bombers have ceased; before the Iraq war, those murderous events were in the news almost every single day.
The Iraq War was the right thing to do, even if it is painful, and even if some folks care nothing about those with whom they have no personal acquaintance. If not the “Christian” thing to do, it is certainly the “human” thing to do. The War on Terror will continue for many years, because failure to pursue it is suicide via cowardice. My Marine nephew leaves for Al Fallujah in 10 days; I wish it was not necessary for him to go, but it is just that – necessary.
The argumentative extremes to which “doves” will stoop to argue are beyond reason. An example, the stupid question asked of Rumsfeld by a reporter through a now-regretful GI about armour on Humvees. Of more than 800 Humvees in question, only 20 had no appropriate armour – and that 2.5% had already been scheduled for outfitting of armour. Has anyone heard a “mainstream” news report that 97.5% of those vehicles already had the armour? The question was typical – a baseless attempt to sabotage morale and leadership.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” If I was in the same oppressed society as the Iraqi people, I would surely hope that the free nations of the world would ACT to liberate. ACTING is a pretense, and has nothing to do with TAKING ACTION. We exercised great patience to avoid conflict, and I am certain that we took ACTION only as a last resort. I could never support waiting for another attack on our soil to do so.
That does not even begin to say it all, but it will have to suffice for now.
Merry Christmas!
Bill
December 26th, 2004 at 4:33 pm
Boy Bill, your soooo rite. Gosh darn’it, if we didn’t take out Say’dam, him and all his terrorist gambling buddies would be roolin the world!!!! They would be forcing thier people to fight in wars half way around the world while talking about God or Allah or whatever. And if they still wanna cause some trouble we’ll just build a big wall to keep those troublemakers out like ol’Izzy.
December 26th, 2004 at 8:54 pm
Bill: The argumentative extremes to which “hawks” will stoop to argue are beyond reason. The war on Iraq has little to do with the war on terror or the defense of our country, considering they had nothing to do with the attacks on our country on 9/11/01. This war would seem to be more about filling up the gas tank on your SUV. Jesus is the “Reason for the Season”, yet you ignore his teachings in the New Testament in your defense of this senseless war. Whatever lets you sleep at night, I suppose.
I find your defense of Rumsfeld most distasteful, considering he was pals with Saddam back in the 80s when most of the atrocities in Iraq took place. Our government is now commiting more than a few atrocities of its own on the people of Iraq. I haven’t heard of the G.I. being “regretfull” of asking what to me seems an appropriate question of Rumsfeld. I suppose you believe the thousands of G.I.’s cheering his question behind him was staged as well? Perhaps you’d like to go on patrol in one of the mere 20 Humvees in question, and see how “stupid” his question really was. I’m sure you wouldn’t wish that on your nephew, and neither would I.
December 27th, 2004 at 9:15 am
Being a big fan of lies.com, I am shocked to hear such an angry outburst against the Christian faith. Make no mistake, what is going on has nothing to do with the Christian faith. As a Christian, I see many of the churches and right wing Christian leaders twisting the Bible to support this President. They are so fearful of the non-religonous left and some of the imoral acts that are happening in this country, that they are putting on blinders and not looking at the sins of this administration. This does make them Pharisees. But like much of the country, fear is ruling their thoughts.
I voted for Kerry, cause my faith says to help people, to make peace not war. I have become a minority in this country, somehow neither conseritive or liberal. I am insulted by the left and told I am wrong in my faith by the right.
December 27th, 2004 at 9:16 am
Forgot something. Merry Christmas.
December 27th, 2004 at 2:33 pm
Hm. I suppose my screed could have been taken as an attack on Christianity generally, what with my dismissive views about the writings of Paul. For what it’s worth, though, I was only thinking about the religious right, since I find their particular version of Christianity to be so lacking in Christian virtues that it really doesn’t deserve to be called Christianity. Just as suicide bombers’ version of Islam doesn’t deserve the name. Just as…
Hm. I was going to try to offer a version of Buddhism that doesn’t live up to the name, but I couldn’t think of one. Yay, Buddhists.
December 27th, 2004 at 4:49 pm
Understood. They piss me off too. I believe Paul would have written a real harsh letter to the Christian right. Keep up the good work, remember there are Christians trying to correct this situation.
December 27th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
Sorry folks, but I guess I wasn’t clear. I was trying to say that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with religion; it was commenced for the same reason President Clinton justifiably committed our troops in his various wars – governmental change to free afflicted people. It was not about oil, either; that should be evident by the simple fact that, while our troops have protected the oil fields to preserve the greatest opportunity for the economy of the Iraqi people, we have not taken over any of those oil fields. If we had wished to do so, it would have been done long before now.
I have never been convinced, nor have I ever said, that Saddam was directly involved with the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Commission gave conflicting reports of their findings with regard to Saddam’s involvement, and that allowed each “side” in our own Civil War society to pick sections of the report as evidence to support their arguments, while necessarily ignoring other sections of the document. As I reread the Commission’s report, direct involvement in the 9/11 events was not credited to Saddam, but they also did not absolve him of any involvement because of the great numbers of terrorists who were living and operating out of Baghdad prior to our declaration of war against Saddam.
We declared a War on Terror – a worldwide problem for about 3 decades – and it was long overdue. We DID NOT declare war on Osama bin Laden, his terrorist network, or any other specific and limiting individual or group. The declaration of war was a response to the war that was declared on us, but our own response was an acceptance of war against all terrorists and terrorism.
We also declared war on any nation that harbored terrorists; Baghdad was “safe harbor” and a sanctuary for headquarters to many who had murdered American citizens in various incidents since 1991, with minimal (even laughable?) retribution. Need I name them? If anyone is truly unaware, I am prepared do so; the names can be found in the 9/11 Commission report.
Why no mention of the dissapation of terrorist attacks in Israel and elsewhere? Saddam provided financial rewards/incentives to terrorists’ families, but he was not a terrorist? I repeat, we are engaged in a War on Terror.
—————–
The 20 “unprotected” Humvees were not even being used in the most sensitive areas – they were used only for safer operations, awaiting the appropriate armour, while the 800+ were used for the more difficult missions. And yes, even the Chattanooga Times reporter who fed the stupid question to the GI admits that the GI regrets being led down that road. That reporter is a regular customer in my mother’s family business in Ft. Oglethorpe, living less than 5 miles from her shop. He admits that the question was rhetorical, simply an attempt to embarrass Rumsfeld. Should I ignore his word in lieu of mainstream news reports?
Matthew, I understand, but I cannot see how the newfound freedom of the Iraqi people is not an example of helping people. President Bush did not take the action because of his faith – but he did spend much soul-searching time in prayer before making his decision. President Clinton supported the action, and even Sen. Kerry had the courage to vote for the war… and vowed to continue it if elected.
Osama bin Laden issued threats/intimidation against any Iraqis who participate in the democratic process. Perhaps it is overly simplistic and too all-encompassing to say so, but it seems that the folks who are most vigilently opposed to individual freedom and democracy in the Middle East are terrorists and American Democrats; terrorists who FEAR such societal freedom, and Democrats who would deny that freedom because it occurred on the Bush watch.
Happy New Year!
Bill
December 27th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
Bill: where are you getting these numbers for unarmoured Humvees? I’m no military expert, but 800+ in all of Iraq seems like a rediculously low number. Here is a report from last april:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731185/
“the Army had no official plan to “retrofit” most of the 12,000-odd Humvees in Iraq. This in spite of continuing attacks on convoys and complaints from combat units that they were taking unnecessary casualties in the thin-skinned Humvees.”
So if there were 12,000 “thin-skinned” Humvees back in April, and there are only 20 now as you claim, where are the other 11,980 Humvees? Blown up? Things must be worse than I thought. If you can’t get the number of Hummers in Iraq right, I question your sources credibility.
As to your last comment: I don’t believe any Democrats wish to deny anyone freedom. We aren’t giving Freedom or Democracy to the people of Iraq by forcing it on them– even killing thousands of women and children in the process. That isn’t freedom, it’s a travesty.
December 27th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
jbc,
After reading your verbal masturbation (F!#$% this and F#&^% that) I must say that I am proud to stand with those whom you deem immoral and ignorant. Their company is surely less offensive than yours. Trying to make sense out of your juvenile diatribe proved to be a waste of time. You should stick to making charts (a previous post). It was refreshing for you to admit at the end of that post that the charts were statistically meaningless. Recommendation: chart casualty per 1000 troops in-country per month and see how it shakes out. Oh oh, it won’t substantiate your preconceived idea. Damned logic, don’t you just hate it?
The problem with you liberal Dems is you can’t face the fact that your core ideas are anathema to we who live in the “fly-over states”. So your leadership has latched onto “family values and Christian values” as the cause of your continued decline. You’re looking for the silver bullet that will get you back in power, but you simply don’t have it. You see, rather than try to understand where the majority of the country is politically, you call us names (immoral and ignorant) because we don’t agree with you. Well, we ignorant, immoral dolts, are in power and you super intelligent, foul mouthed bottom feeders are reduced to obstruction. It will be a long winter for you Twink.
What you don’t see, or can’t admit, is that this whole sad situation is your fault. Bush is as inspiring as a wet dog, but he beat your best! What does that say about your “best”?
December 27th, 2004 at 8:33 pm
Sven,
I was only including the Humvees in the company Rumsfeld was talking to at that time, not the entire Iraq contingent. The insurgency problem has greatly expanded since your reference dated 8 months ago, and we made the decision to provide appropriate vehicle protection since that time. As Gen. Franks has so aptly stated, in any battle plan or war plan “the enemy gets a vote.” Our plans and preparations are constantly altered, or even entirely changed, to adapt to responses and changing circumstances.
Not much different from life itself. I’ve been married 37 years, and that couldn’t have been possible if I hadn’t been capable of altering, sometimes even tossing aside, my preconceived notions and plans for marriage maintenance and longevity. Bad analogy? Perhaps. A better analogy would be the classroom; we lay out detailed lesson plans prior to each class, but in classes that encourage student involvement we must frequently deviate from the intended plans, reacting to situations as they evolve.
I seriously doubt the civilian casualty numbers that are given by our agenda-driven mainstream media – complete with the ever-present “unnamed sources.” Yes, there have been civilian casualties while fighting in an urban invironment, but I doubt the numbers. Almost ten years ago, I was charged with a felony. Law enforcement, prosecutors, and (especially) the media presented anonymous statements to support the charge, and it was covered extensively by newspaper and TV outlets, always quoting “unnamed sources.” The prosecutors, very reluctantly (they hate it when they make fools of themselves), were forced to drop all charges at the hearing when they discovered that I had irrefutable proof that completely exonerated me. They were so sure of themselves that they never even tried to talk to me before publicizing the charges. Can you guess how many retractions were issued in the media? You guessed it – none! Also, none of their “credible, unnamed sources” could be held accountable because of their anonymity. Can anyone seriously wonder why I don’t believe in such cowardly tactics as hidden sources.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe any “story” containing such suspicious garbage. Anonymity is obviously justifiable in many circumstances, but the print media has resorted to using it extensively, and recklessly – I believe in order to advance their own agendas, with their own opinions, often, as their only “unnamed source.” Almost every newspaper quote we are referred to – e.g., the Washington Post article that prompted John to start this string – provides only suspicious “unnamed sources” as references. When the agenda is obvious, they can gain credibility only by providing identifiable sources – sometimes, at least one!
December 27th, 2004 at 11:50 pm
Thankfully, I am not a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew. So – let me tell ya folks, from where I sit, you all look rather foolish, not to mention hypocritical! Damn! You all proclaim your religion(s) with your words and then you go right ahead and commit your criminal acts anyway – making up excuses and rationalizations after-the-fact! All three of these interconnected Middle Eastern “religions” are obsessed with death: avoiding it as well as creating and committing it. I certainly hope you will take a moment during your “holy-day” season to think about the basic messages of your three death-obsessed religions and how you might bring your own actions more in-line with the true meaning of what your holy men taught. You people are really messing up a perfectly good planet with your fighting amongst yourselves over dwindling resources and your death-obsessed religious nonsense! Please! Grow up and take some responsibility for your own business! Stop acting like primative lunatics! If you believe your religious teachings – then start actling like you do! Sheesh! The rest of us are really sick of your crap!
December 28th, 2004 at 1:33 am
Mark,
Obviously you believe that this war against the secular regime of Saddam Hussein was based on religion – but that makes no sense. And, you obviously think it was also about oil – but that, too, makes no sense. If it was about oil, when are our troops going to take over the oil fields? Come on… forget about your petty jealosies and use some logic. It was about exactly the things that George Bush discussed for months prior to the war; regime change to free an oppressed people. A study of developments in the last 20+ months since the onset of the war will reveal that both contentions are false. It took many years of difficult struggle for this country to establish a working democracy, and it’s still a developing and ever-changing process. It is developing at a much faster rate in Afghanistan and Iraq. How long did it take in Germany after World War II?
I attend church quite regularly, and I can’t remember a single instance of death-obsessed speech in any of the churches I have attended. The Creeds of those churches make no mention of death or hatred. Please inform us which of our “religions” is death-obsessed so that I might avoid those churches; please be specific, without generalizing, in citing your examples.
At the present time, the U.S. is preparing to render very expensive aid to Indonesian countries who were hit by the tsunami. That response also has nothing to do with religion; it is also merely the human thing to do. Based on the same principles argued by those who protest the war in Iraq, surely some would tell us to stay out of it – it’s not our business, and the money would be better spent in give-away programs here at home! Sheesh! I disagree. And some people believe that we are pompous, arrogant and ignorant.
Bill
December 28th, 2004 at 10:34 am
Freeing the Iraqian people was a good thing in itself. But it does not excuse the lies used to go in. It does not excuse the weak support of our troops in Iraq (lack of armour, lack of number of troops to hold the peace ( see WWII) etc. Lets face it Reagan, FDR, Truman, Wilson and Teddy, all would have won this war on terror. They all knew to go in big. They knew to commit big. And none of them would have issued a tax cut during a war. This administartion is obessed with changing our taxes, social program spending to their adgenda. The problem is that they cannot keep the eye on the ball in the two wars they have going. Bin Laden should have been nailed in the mountains. We did not commit enough resourses to do this. The other problem for this country is that we do not appear to have a great president canidate available.
By the way I am not death obessed. I want this world to follow the basic teachings of my Faith, it would be a better behaving world. And by the way, the non-religous people of this planet are messing it up just as bad ( see Saddam, Hilter, Stalin etc). Every man has a god,if when they say they don’t. Usually themselves, money or cold hard science.
December 28th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
Matthew,
Please consider the following: Our local law enforcement gets several credible tips that a man with a violent history is running a meth lab in his home; they get a search permit using the information provided, and forcibly gain entry into the home. Upon gaining entry they find no meth lab, but instead discover a starving kid locked in a closet and clues leading to graves of other children in the back yard. In the entry process, police officers are met with resistance; two cops are killed, along with several of the weapon-toting resisters.
Should the police chief be removed for “lying” to the judge to gain the search warrant? Would that decision be decided based on his political affiliation? Should the man of the house be released with an apology? If he is held and charged, should the starving kid be left alone to fend for himself? Can you find the analogies?
More analogous situations could be added, such as prior evidence of hosting known members of the “mob” and paying them to commit murders, hosting known sex offenders, firing at police surveillance vehicles for several years, successfully refusing to yield to police searches 17 times in more than a decade, and many more – but I think the first situation alone makes the point. Of course, I expect that it will not be accepted because of political considerations.
December 28th, 2004 at 2:22 pm
To go by your analogy, the “local law enforcement” would have helped set up the meth lab, and only later busted them after they’d lost their usefullness. After busting them, the “police” are now setting up their own “drug lab”, while making peace or being allies with other drug lords: dictators in Pakistan and Libya.
And so are we also going to “police” the dictators over the entire globe: Cuba, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. Where does it end?
And if this war isn’t about oil, we shouldn’t act like it is: securing the oil fields first and formost; setting up our V.P.’s oil corporation Haliburton to rake in our tax dollars, etc.
December 28th, 2004 at 2:29 pm
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
What are you, a child? Were you born yesterday? Do you really think that any of the idiots that were running for President can change any of your problems?
Wake up buddy.
December 28th, 2004 at 3:03 pm
Police example doesn’t work. House next door was selling crack on the front porch ( north Korea and nukes).
December 28th, 2004 at 5:48 pm
My comments are obviously too lengthy and encompassing, so the primary points are missed – responses always focus in on the well-worn talking points about pet issues, ignoring others. I’ll try taking things one at a time.
This post… addresses our past “alliance” with Iraq. In WWII we allied ourselves with Russia – we needed them, and they needed us. They were not our “friends,” they were our Ally in the war against Hitler. When the war ended, the alliance ended; the Cold War ensued immediately, lasting for several decades.
About two decades ago, we helped to arm Iraq in their war with Iran, the nation that had held our people hostage during the previous administration of Jimmy Carter, hostage-taking at the Olympic Games, and other terrorist activities. They were not our “friends”; we needed them, and they needed us. When that war ended, the alliance ended; and the animosity of Saddam ensued immediately.
In both situations, the temporary alliance was the right thing to do at that point in time. The alliances do not make us “friends,” and it does not mean that we are obliged to stand by while either Nikita Kruschev or Saddam Hussein make public statements of their intentions of “crushing” our country. Times change, alliances change (just as in everyday life personal situations), and we must react for our own self-preservation.
Please correct me. If the two situations have less in common than I have described, I will do something unheard of in the 21st century American Civil War…I will cede the point and move to the next topic – Halliburton.
Bill
December 28th, 2004 at 9:06 pm
That might be the Fox News version to justify the aid we gave to Saddam in the Iran Iraq war. A comparison to WWII is just silly. We were aiding both Iran & Iraq during their war while publicly our government claimed to be neutral. Our reasons then are the same as now: oil. I doubt you’ll cede anything.
December 28th, 2004 at 11:56 pm
Comparing two identical situations is silly? I compared our like actions with two different countries in wartime, and the identical results after each of the wars, but I didn’t compare the wars. If that’s the logic I’m dealing with, all I can possibly do is cede the point.
Halliburton: Let’s see, I think Cheney removed himself from the company prior to any discussions of war with Iraq, and it doesn’t reflect in the records that Halliburton was ever “our V.P.’s oil corporation.” He was in a leadership role in the company when President Clinton, with no bidding process, chose Halliburton to do the same job in the aftermath of his various wars, and Cheney certainly profitted financially on those occasions. Where was the outrage?
Let me save you some time – yes, Cheney still has a financial interest and investment in the company, and, as before, he profitted financially, but it certainly is not his company. Perhaps we should celebrate the deaths of their 62 employees (and counting) just as we do the deaths of our GIs in the continuing effort to embolden the enemy – anything to further the hatred of a Commander in Chief.
Anticipating the deep thought and logic that will surely lend itself to the response, the well-worn talking points, I cede in advance; but I still want to hear if there is anything fresh, new, or original on the topic, so please respond.
Next topic, “oil” and the “oil-for-food” program – they go hand-in-hand.
After that, perhaps we can discuss Osama’s latest tape, in which he reminds Zarqawi (sp?) of the pacts he made with Al Qaeda prior to the Iraq War. It is an blatant admission of the guy’s involvement with Osama’s terrorist outfit – while he was in the city of Baghdad! Please try to deny the temptation to respond until we get to that topic in more detail – just giving you advance notice that it is forthcoming; it might take more thought, since it wasn’t confirmed when the “talking-point” texts were composed.
Bill
December 29th, 2004 at 8:02 am
So, why then, do you speak the word of the Devil?
You evil hypocritical bastard.
December 29th, 2004 at 10:52 am
Ah, the intellectualism of the Left. Apparently you don’t know my parents.
Please identify the areas of my argument that are hypocritical, along with the references of the Devils’ words.
December 29th, 2004 at 12:16 pm
Bill You may be right when you say that we form and break alliances all the time. However , you cannot arm someone with chemical weapons and , when they use them , turn around and use it for justification to start a war. If you give a monkey a gun and he shoots someone , you cannot blame the monkey. Another analogy. If a heroin dealer sells your kid a bag and he OD’s and dies , who will you blame , the dealer or your kid? In other words , Papa Bush and the Gipper are the ones who should shoulder the blame for any and all deaths caused by Saddam’s use of chemical weapons.
December 29th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
Thanks for the mature response, Brian, and perhaps you’re right to some degree. However, in your “another analogy,” both the heroine dealer and my kid should be blamed. The use of WMD was a major concern for our troops, but it was not the reason given for the war; Iraqi Freedom.
December 29th, 2004 at 7:29 pm
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
December 29th, 2004 at 10:18 pm
Did anyone notice that the content, implications, and obvious conclusions of Osama bin Laden’s latest “public communication” with Zarqawi was buried deep in today’s edition of the New York Times?
After the many months of having only “anonymous sources” to document Iraq’s lack of involvement with Al Qaeda, they finally have access to first-hand testimony…and they don’t consider it worthy of front-page coverage. Of course, they insist that George Bush acknowledge any and all miscalculations, complete with full disclosure of his sources. Amazing.
December 30th, 2004 at 8:47 am
Given the fact that Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Queda to justify his war makes these “anonymous sources” quite suspect, especially when used by Neocons to “prove” anything.
And any possible alliance between elements inside Iraq and Al Quaeda was discussed as front-page news many, many times BEFORE the war – but as a consequence of our invasion, not a reason for it. And now that it comes to pass, you say “see, there are terrorists in Iraq”?
Finally, perhaps you should consider Bush’s imability to admit to ANY miscalculation whatsoever before you complain that he is being unfairly scrutinized. He apparently considers himself infallible, and since this is clearly a false and irrational belief it is necessary to point out every mistake he makes until he does see the errors. Otherwise he will just continue to make mistakes and never learn from them – and we will all continue to pay the consequences for his hubris.
December 30th, 2004 at 12:34 pm
Come on, Steve, surely you can do better than repeat the old “Bush lied” mantra. Before the war, Bush gave reasons for suspicion that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda, and Osama has now proven/confirmed that connection. That exonerates Bush from the silly allegation that he “lied” by presenting his suspicions to Congress and the American people. Obviously, the NY Times and other Bush-haters are incapable of admitting that they were wrong; is there a double-standard here?
“Admissions” of miscalculations are evident in the ever-changing battle plans in Iraq and Afghanistan if anyone wishes to examine those, but no, he would not fall into the trap presented in a debate during the heat of an election.
He took the high road in responding to the question, stating acknowledgement of the underlying purpose of the “question,” the antiwar sentiment, and correctly responded that he did not believe pursuit of Iraqi Freedom was a mistake. But he should have answered, “The biggest mistake I have made was to miscalculate the hatred of my political adversaries in Congress and elsewhere, not realizing that they would even sacrifice the security of the U.S. in an effort to bring down this administration. All other mistakes have grown out of that miscalculation.”
The effort continues…..
December 30th, 2004 at 3:04 pm
The “connection” between Al-Quaeda didn’t exist BEFORE we invaded. That was the LIE part that apparently is simply “mantra” to you. And yes, I will continue to repeat it like a mantra because you can’t change the fact that there was no evidence of a link. And you can continue to recite your mantra that Bush was somehow just kinda suggesting that Saddam was a problem – a problem that required 150K troops and $200B+ to deal with. The difference here of course is that the facts are on my side, or rather I that am not blinded by my ideology as you are by yours.
Again, the connection exists NOW for obvious reasons; because we created the conditions where Al-Quaeda joined forces with anti-American elements in Iraq. Even now Bush has never admitted that his “suspicions” were false, or even a mistake. He is incapable of admitting error – just like you apparently.
And there was no “trap” in the debate, just a citizen asking a question of the President. It speaks volumes that you consider a question the President is unwilling (or unable) to answer a “trap” and everyone who disagrees a “Bush-hater”. Believing that everyone who sees thing differently from you is just out to get you is delusional. And the irony is that the delusion prevents you from seeing it.
Finally, we didn’t invade Iraq to give them their “freedom” – we invaded because they were a direct threat to us ala the threat of 9/11 type attack. Now that the fact show otherwise (they were never a threat to us) Bush changes his story and says it was about “freedom”. That was clearly wrong and at best a huge overstatement, and given Bush’s refusal to admit his “error” he is either a liar or (like you) delusional. Or you’re a liar too, or both, whatever, it doesn’t matter. Either way he is unfit to be President and you are unfit to have a conversation with. Because neither you nor he are willing to address the facts.
So continue your “efforts” (to spin? lie? what?). The facts speak for themselves.
December 30th, 2004 at 3:29 pm
Bill: Your logic is that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda because they were and are operating in Iraq. By that logic, you must conclude that our government has similar ties because they operate in our own country? Al Qaeda is in many countries all over the globe. That doesn’t mean the government they operate in is working with them.
And yes, Saddam was/is a bad guy. But he was not a threat to us here in the United States. Are we going to invade every country led by a tyrannical dicatator? We’ve spent billions in our occupation of Iraq, and at the rate Bush is racking up our deficit, our country is going bankrupt. If that happens, Al Qaeda wins.
Those who support Bush support his efforts and the war on terror. They also support his wreckless tax cuts during this time of war. There is nothing “conservative” about Bush’s spending policies, and those who support him must be truly selfish to want a war, but expect not to sacrifice your precious tax dollars to pay for it. As long as you can keep filling up the gas tank on your SUV, and go about life as usual here in the U.S., you think Bush is doing a great job. And our children will be the ones to pay for it. Way to go guys.
December 30th, 2004 at 4:05 pm
Let’s look more closely at the known “facts” prior to the war:
1) The 9/11 Commission documents the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in Iraq, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons prior to the invasion.
2) The 9/11 Commission acknowledged many specific connections between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to the war, but stated that it could not prove active participation in the 9/11 events.
3) Bush should not, especially now, “admit” that his suspicions were false, because they were not false – as verified by Osama bin Ladin himself. Examine the transcript of Osama’s dialogue closely; he was reminding Zarqawi of pacts they had made prior to the Iraq War.
4) Saddam not only hosted terrorists, he was actively involved as a terrorist himself, financing such activities in the region. I have never heard that fact disputed.
5) The war was entitled “Operation Iraqi Freedom” prior to the start of the conflict, not later, as in “now that the fact show otherwise.”
6) I said, “Bush gave reasons for suspicion that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda,” not that “Bush was somehow just kinda suggesting that Saddam was a problem.”
I’m glad that you are not blinded by your ideology. I deal with immature minds daily, and invariably, argumentative conversation turns to name-calling only when there is no intelligent argument to advance.
December 30th, 2004 at 4:38 pm
Sven, I can draw no such conclusions because of the nature of the two governments. As acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission, Saddam hosted known terrorists and sanctioned their activities without disruption (see the above reference to the Zarqawi-run camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists); conversely, such activities by al Qaeda groups within our own borders must necessarily remain covert, and they are obviously not guests of our government.
Please name the U.S. Congressman/woman who is not supportive of the War on Terror.
Bankruptcy? I will make a bet with anyone out there, on equal terms. If this country goes backrupt as a result of Bush’s spending policies, I will sell my house and autos, and bet my family’s total tax liability over the next 4 years that it will not happen. Any takers? I will happily sign any such reciprocal agreement, and you may raise the stakes if you wish. We can make the arrangements with John Callendar as the executor, with the loser of the bet paying up on Inauguration Day 2008.
December 30th, 2004 at 5:00 pm
I’m not making any bets, so you can keep your trailer. It may take four years or one hundred, but if we continue with dubya’s wreckless spending policies and tax cuts, our country will be bankrupt. That isn’t something I want for my children. If you support his war and his tax cuts, you are either selfish, foolish, or both.
December 30th, 2004 at 5:17 pm
That’s too bad for me, Sven. My trailer is tri-level, about 3,500 square feet, and I needed the money for some renovation. My only income is a teacher’s salary in a poor, dumb, low-salary “Red State.”
Bush’s wreckless spending should abate, although we will still have to continue to finance the security agencies created in response to the 9/11 events, as well as those needs addressed by the 9/11 Commission. Tax cuts have always benefitted the economy, as we discovered under JFK, et al, so I certainly do support such cuts. Those who disagree should excercise their right to do as Bush did with his refund in April 2003 – tell the IRS to “keep the change.” Already, some of the non-essential spending in the budget has been cut from 15% to less than 2%. Pork is expensive, so the savings should eventually be noticeable.
December 30th, 2004 at 6:19 pm
REPLY to “teachervet” —You need a specific explanation? How could you you spend all that time sitting in the pews listening to X-tian “teachings” and be unaware that it is a death-based philosophy? Christianity is a death-based religion ___because__ the stated core purpose of its agenda is to insure X-tain followers may avoid dissolution and realize an “eternal life” in paradise with the creator, at the same time avoiding an eternity burning in the fires of hell and damnantion. The principle mechanism used by X-tianity to motivate, frighten and blackmail their followers is the innate fear of death. Avoiding death (and pain) is a fundamental drive of all life. One of the fundamental meta-programs of all life forms dictates: “you must survive at least long enough to transmit your genetic DNA message.” i.e ‘propgate your species.’ (‘Go forth and multiply’ it says in the book.) Xtianity exploits this fundamental drive like a carnival trick as an instrument of power and control. Islam uses the exact same tactic.
RE the Bushite agenda and the lies, fabrications and false witness used to propagandize their war of acquisition in Iraq: you ask why the military has not yet seizd oil fields… Where have you been? THAT was one of the first things they tried to do 18 months ago!
REthe $35-million USaid to SE Asia after the tsuanmi… consider this: pledging $35-million in aid while the US will be spending MORE than $45-millon on Bush’s sham innauguration! The US gives Billions – that’s with a “B” – BILLIONS to prop up the terrorist state of Israel and its Askenazi Jewish Gangsters each year, every year in spite of the FACT that the Askenazi Jewish Gangsters who run Israel are in VIOLATION of OVER 60 (sixty) United Nation resolutions.
Try to become a bit more informed before you embarrass yourself making statements in public as you’ve made above. FOX news isn’t news, my frind, …it’s propaganda. Same applies to CNN. STOP sucking the swill they spew… for your own sanity.
And before you go off again, note: YOUR (obvious) failure to stay adequately informed regarding world events does not make anyone who disagrees with your extremely tiny world view a ‘conspiracy theorist.’
It’s NOT what you think it is… it never was and it never will be. I will admit I certainly do not have “the answers” – no one does. No one can. However – the shituation is NOT the simple, cut and dried story your tired, brainwashed, juvenile explanations above paint it. As Shakespeare wrote: ” There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in YOUR philosophy!”
You demonstrate the failure of the American public education system to teach students – future citizens and voters – how to THINK!
December 31st, 2004 at 1:06 am
What I don’t understand is why Sven needs to be so negitive. Why is he implying that Bill lives in a trailer? Is is a bad thing to live in a trailer? What do you have against people who live in a trailer? Sven’s problem is that he is being too negitive about everuthing and he isn’t taking everything into account before he makes his decision. Thats like forgetting to take into account the effects of gravity when you try to calculate the impact zone of something you drop. When talking about the humvees, did you not stop to think that since that number of 820 humvees is such an irrationally low number that he could have possibly been refering to the ones in his own company? The comparison to WW2 and the war in Iraq on the number of troops used is flawed. In 1939-1945 there did not exist a law limiting the United States Armed Forces to a total number of 350,000 bodies, no matter where in the world they re currently stationed. If I recall it was a democratic president that passed that law. Currently the U.S. Military is in violation of that law by having a standing army of around 390,000 troops however congress has decided not to take action due to the current situation. Bush needs to be re-elected to complete his goals and people don’t like to see their family leaving to goto war. Raising the unit cap on the military can be spun all sorts of ways. So without taking the situation of the war on terror into account and worrying about their own simple lives they blame Bush for seeing their son leave. So if Bush didn’t have to worry about making people mad, this war would have already been over. Its the fault of the political machine that is so dead set with trying to bring down the other party. If you want to blame someone\something then blame politics not Bush. Do away with the name calling. If you are going to call me “selfish, foolish, or both” then give me some hard facts. Otherwise you are just making your self out to be exactly that which you are calling people. Bah I believe Ive wasted enough time on this website. Sven is obviously not mentally mature enough to give a good arguement. The logic of this article is flawed and slanted. You should send it back to the factory and have the slant fixed or demand a refund.
:/
December 31st, 2004 at 12:17 pm
Bush claims that the security of this nation is his top priority , yet he continues to allow illegal Mexicans to pour over borders to supply his rich buddies to have a cheap labor source. While I realize THEY are the least of our security concerns , how long do you suppose it will take Al-Quada to start sneaking some of THEIR people in to attack our chemical or neclear plants(also left unguarded in yet another consession to his rich buddies wallets)?
December 31st, 2004 at 10:05 pm
I have personally communicated my own criticism of the immigration policies of this administration, having written my concerns to President Bush’s office in February of 2004. At that same time, I voiced the same concerns with the office of Tom Daschle. Both responses were essentially the same, not assigning responsibility to the other party, but neither expressed a desire to institute major changes in policy with regard to immigration.
Both political parties are “party” to the existing situation, so one individual is to solely responsible. You can blame Bush for anything you wish, including your financial situation, world situations, or your height and hair color, but “laying the blame” accomplishes nothing but for the pleasure of venting.
January 1st, 2005 at 5:46 am
Please go to the following sites to really understand the evil plan that Bush & company are following. They have fooled good Christians into becoming psychopaths of destruction for the benefit of the Luciferian Illuminati dynasties. The mainstream news media is only used for brainwashing the masses to follow the agenda of the New World Order. Think and become educated or stay dom and enslaved!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com (Michael Rivero)
http://www.infowars.com (Alex Jones)
http://www.savethemales.ca (Dr. Henry Makow)
http://www.whtt.org (Chuck Carlson)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com (Michael Ruppert) http://www.copvcia.com
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.yellowtimes.org
http://www.tvnewslies.org
http://www.robert-fisk.com
http://www.altpr.org
http://www.americanfreepress.net
http://www.911truth.org
http://www.williamcooper.com (killed Nov 2001)
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ (True-Torah Jews)
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999/ (Alexander James)
http://www.public-action.com (Carol Valentine)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
http://www.web-tracks.org/
http://www.antiwar.com (Justin Raimondo)
http://www.counterpunch.org
http://cloakanddagger.ca
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
http://www.breakfornews.com/
http://www.nologo.org/ (Naomi Klein)
http://joevialls.altermedia.info/
http://www.michaelmoore.com
http://www.thedyinggod.com (David Livingstone)
http://www.skolnicksreport.com (Sherman Skolnick)
http://www.realityzone.com (G. Edward Griffin)
http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/prosperity.html
http://www.globalreasearch.ca (Michael Chossudovsky, University of Ottawa, Professor of Economics)
http://www.physics911.org
http://www.thepowerhour.com
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/
http://www.karlschwarz.com/
http://illuminati-news.com/
http://www.israelshamir.net
http://www.harunyahya.com
http://69.28.73.17/ (Victor Thorn & Lisa Juliani WING TV)
http://groups.msn.com/TotalTruthSciences/messages.msnw
January 1st, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Why do things like this come down to such petty issues all the time? First of all, all these accusations against Christians are irrelevant, as they do not apply to true Christians. In fact, the Bible spends quite a lot of time blasting the pompous, ignorant hypocritical fools you refer to (just read psalms or romans, my word). Referring to the glory days of this post (from which we have significantly departed) what is all that stuff about Paul? The guy was a pacifist and certainly not a legalist.
What good does it do to swear at each other? Give me a break, grown men acting like three year olds. And if when one quotes a source the other says it is biased, what good does it do to quote anything but firsthand accounts? Or even those, suddenly the “brave American soldiers” become the “slimy puppets for the left” (and don’t bother looking for those, they are not quotes, they are ideas). Of course Bush lied, stop being so naïve, if he didn’t lie then he lied about other things, the government doesn’t trust the people with any information any more. On the other hand Clinton lied, and quite frequently. And Regan was a puppet, and Lincoln was a racist (by today’s standards at least) and on and on and on. And the grand conclusion? Well, there is none. Only that the world is crumbling around us and we can’t decide if the flames are red or blue. For the record I say mostly red. (Too bad we can’t just blame it all on the Russians any more, lol)
January 5th, 2005 at 11:31 am
OK Teachervet ,let me put it another way .Bush ran on a platform(among others) of being dedicated to the security of this nation , even at the expense of certain civil liberties. Then he turns around and embraces the idea of undocumented people coming across the border.In case you forgot , it was 19 people with expired visas(yup , they were among the illegals that Bush wants to allow free access to).He needs to make up his mind. Which does he stand for more?
January 5th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
brian, how many of those people were already in this country when George Bush was inaugurated? When was the attack on the WTC planned? Which civil liberties have you, personally, lost? Are you unwilling to make any sacrifices in the face of an enemy who has vowed to destroy American civilization?
On a microcosmic level, could your family trust you with their lives if your home was threatened? Would you just hide under the bed, trusting the inherent goodness of an intruder? Would you have the guts to put yourself in harm’s way if the intruder had stated his intentions to kill your family?
Both Osama and Saddam had repeatedly made those very threats against all citizens of the United States, both before and after the events of 9/11. If personal sacrifice and the loss of “certain civil liberties” are not justified in the face of such threats, you really would have hated FDR.
Bill
January 7th, 2005 at 11:23 am
OK Bill. i’m going to try this one more time.Bush claims that the security of this nation is his number one priority. That fact is indisputable. Bush also supports the crossing of our borders by illegal , undocumented people who will “do the jobs that Americans don’t want”, even as his more sane Republican collegues are howling in protest. That fact is also indisputable. That would be like telling your family that their safety means the world to you , and then leaving the doors unlocked when you go out. That’s called insecurity. Since the 2 are polar opposites , Bush cannot realistically stand for both. Since actions speak louder than words , anyone with half a brain can see where Shrub stands on this issue
January 7th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Wow, Brian, you almost made it through a logical argument without using derisive name-calling, but just couldn’t quite resist the temptation at the end. For the record, several months before the recent election I e-mailed the RNC with my detailed, very critical concerns in two primary areas – immigration policy and the “No Child Left Behind” legislation. I received a prompt, courteous, personalized reply, with very predictable statements justifying the Bush position. I still disagreed with both sets of policies, and I continue to have serious concerns about both issues.
The same afternoon, I emailed the DNC with similar expressions of concern. I received a prompt reply, which I now realize should have been very predictable – an e-mail with no words; only an attached “worm,” a program that literally ate up my hard drive. The email was traced back to a section of the DNC Web site by 3 different technicians. I still have the original destructive little devil saved on a CD, and would agree to forward it to anyone who finds the act unbelievable – but not happily or vindictively, and only by request. On that day, I made my decision about the character of each party. The absolute meanness of the “Left” has proven that decision to be correct time and again.
I strongly disagree (redundancy) with current immigration policy, but the President is in a familiar kismet; if the borders were shut down, at least two negatives/criticisms surface immediately – a serious lack of workers to do the low-paying, dirty tasks that so many Americans are unwilling to do, and screaming about violations of the sadred words on the Statue of Liberty, “Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses,” etc. The Left will criticize any move that is made, so President Bush must do something that is not understood by many on the Left – make a decison, live with the predictable criticism, and “work to make it work.” Has anyone noticed the news that seems to be somehow leaking out – an increased number of “detainees” on our Southern border?
January 7th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Brian, did you overlook the four questions in the first paragraph of my January 5, 8:14 pm post?
January 7th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
I’ll see if I can get through this post without any insults. I’m glad to hear you can disagree with some of Bush’s policies yourself, Bill. My wife is a teacher herself. I think most teachers would agree that NCLB is a failure, where teachers end up mearly teaching to the test. Although I realize it was a bi-partisan law, to me it seems Democrats are willing to change & fix it (although I’m not sure what that means) whereas Bush touts it as one of his great successes.
I’ll agree that there is too much name calling between the two parties– neither side is innocent. But I do think criticism of our president is justifiable. You disagree with NCLB and his immigration policies, and others of us dissagree with his war in Iraq.
And to answer a question I’ve seen you ask repeatedly here, I don’t believe there was a set amount Bush should have pledged immediately after the Tsunami disaster. But I don’t think he handled it well in the days after either. Rather than offer the paultry 15 million initially, and upping the ante several times in the next several days, he could have pledged to do all we can to aid the Tsunami victims without giving specifics right away. After finding out the enormity of the disaster, he could have then pledged a more generous amount. Being as defensive as he was in the matter was not very presidential in my view. Criticism with the way he handled it is justifiable if it gets the results we are looking for.
And please forgive my previous “trailer” comment, as it was mearly meant as a silly comment in response to what I perceived as a silly bet. As a teacher, be grateful you don’t live in California like we do. If Governor “Ahnold” gets his way with “merit pay” for teachers, we may end up moving into a trailer ourselves.
January 7th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Regarding No Child Left Behind, I just found this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/bush.journalist.ap/index.html
January 8th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Thanks, Sven, I agree with almost everything you said. Criticism of policy is often the most effective method of invoking change. The hateful methods used in recent months and years merely put folks on the defensive, and change seldom results. Assuming that most people realize that fact, it is doubtful that policy change is the real goal when individuals are attacked. Your approach is sensible, and I wish a few lawmakers could learn from it. I care much more about the future of my country than I do about any President or candidate.
Your comments on the tsunami issue are “right on”.
NCLB merit pay? A version of it was tried here (still), and the results were predictable. The same schools are rewarded each year, and those of us teaching in “less privileged” areas never recieve anything (except harrassment from the State Dept. of Education). Thankfully, most of our teachers entered the field realizing that it is a service, not a means to great riches. I have summer employment that pays 5 times the hourly salary, but, like many teachers, I choose education as a career. It is often not true that “Those who can’t do…teach.”
Armstrong Williams has acknowledged that he had “doubts” about the ethics of accepting the money, and he has admitted that he “crossed the line” and is willing to do whatever is expected of him. The money should be returned by any means necessary, but his personal honestly is quite evident.
By the way, the bet wasn’t meant to be silly, but sincere; I’ve never bought a lottery ticket, and wouldn’t know what to do with one – I would bet on nothing less certain than a 4-inch putt.
Bill
January 9th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
I’m sure I’ll be branded a lunatic for saying this, but:
I actually think the Armstrong Williams scandal has the potential to be more damaging to the Bush presidency than Watergate to Nixon, and more impeachable than Clinton’s lying about his indescretions. Sure, Willams has been honest about it AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT. He was more than happy to accept it beforehand. And what has the Bush administration said about it? Nothing, to my knowledge. If they are willing to fund this bit of propaganda about NCLB, who else are they bribing in the media, and for what other issues? Social Security? Iraq? Great way to spend our tax dollars. But will anything be done about it? Probably not with the Republican party in control of virtually everything.
January 9th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Sven, I suppose many are hoping that some impeachable scandalous situation will emerge to give America another black eye. President Bush was criticized for not making a “statement of admission” similar to the one made by Armstrong Williams, knowing that such an “admission” would only encourage the attacks. The administration has issued statements with regard to the Williams episode.
Be careful what you wish for. If the Left manages to get rid of George Bush, they will be left with Dick Cheney – and there may not be enough time to “get” both of them.
I don’t think it is a proper way of using our tax dollars, but I can easily discover worse ways – by searching for some of the ridiculous, self-serving pork that always accompanies “must pass” legislation.
Looking for scandal? It might be time to get into a discussion of the “Oil for Palaces” program. Strangely, in most MSM outlets, the topic is non-existent.
January 9th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
I’m not so much “hoping” to find an impeachable offense as I’m dismayed at the current state of our planet. A government controlled media also frightens me. You’re right, politics and politicians are ripe with scandals, and I wouldn’t relish the thought of a President Cheney either. Unfortunately, not everyone chooses a thankless but honorable profession like teaching.
January 10th, 2005 at 12:57 am
I’ve disagreed with you in the past, but I really disagree this time – while the pay isn’t great, the job certainly isn’t thankless. Some of our “clients” provide us with heartache and constant challenges, but the ones who wait at the front door of the school for you in the mornings, ask you to eat with them at lunch, and drop by the room before loading the bus provide gratitude that can’t be bought. I know that probably sounds corny, but it’s the greatest job in the world.
January 10th, 2005 at 11:29 am
My apologies — after rereading what I wrote, I can see that what I meant as a compliment might not have been taken that way. I meant thankless in terms of monetarily, and in the bureaucracy that comes with it. No doubt, the job itself is very rewarding.
January 10th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
No need to apologize, Sven. I realized your intentions, and should have inserted a happy face after the “really disagree this time” comment, because it was a goofy, unintentionally disguised attempt at humor (I was not expressing serious disagreement).
January 10th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
——————————————————————————–
Commentary: An Urgent Call to Republicans
Hey, Republicans! If you voted for this war, go fight in it.
By Donald Trader
I’d like to put out an urgent call to Republicans to make sure their sons and daughters volunteer for active military service. Uncle Sam needs you. National Guard and Army Reserve recruitment is falling short by some 50%, and it’s getting tougher and tougher for the Marines, the Army and the other services to get the kind of recruit they want. Wait a minute – the Marines and the Army ought to be flooded with volunteers!
I know that George Bush ran as a war president, and his main declaration was that he would stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever he felt military intervention was required. He held one crowded and cheering rally after another on this theme all across the United States, including Tennessee. I saw all those good people on TV waving their American flags and doing high fives. I read many letters in this very newspaper supporting the war, including some from students of fighting age.
Some 59,000,000 Americans voted for George Bush and the Republicans. That includes the majority of the people in Tennessee. So why are we short of recruits to fight in Iraq? We ought to be inundated with enthusiastic volunteers. Tomorrow morning, I’d like to see 59,000,000 SUV’s pulling up in front of Marine Corps and Army enlistment offices. I see Tax Cut Hummers full of happy families, including healthy looking young people, whizzing by U.S. recruitment offices, and I wonder what the problem is: brake failure every time you get close to signing up to fight in a war you supported for a President you elected?
Now if you’re a young Republican who hates taxes and supports the war in Iraq, you can’t get away any longer with a ridiculous yellow ribbon on the back of your car. You’re going to have to pay for the war, and you’re going to have to fight in it. Who did you think was going to do that, if not you? Democrats?
I’ll volunteer to drive busloads of young Republican volunteers to their first military basic training session after they enlist. And there should be a huge number of volunteers; I don’t think Republicans are cowardly blowhards like most Democrats. Otherwise, I’m sorry to say, I’m going to tell my Congressman Lincoln Davis that we need a military draft in this country. The reason is simple: we need to hold people accountable for what they do, and it’s time for Republicans to go face combat and support their Commander in Chief. You voted for it. Now go get in it.
January 10th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
chimpy/neighbor: Are you serious? The last successful attempt to institute a draft was accomplished by a Democrat. The last unsuccessful attempt in institute a draft (in 2004) was introduced/supported by Democracs. I think you forget to include your wish that only registered Republicans be a stipulation, and I know Rep. Davis would never introduce such discriminating legislation. We don’t need a draft, we need exactly what we now have – voluntary service by young men and women who are mature enough to recognize the dangers in our world, with no political considerations.
I don’t have a bus, but this weekend I am driving my marine nephew to North Carolina for immediate deployment to Iraq on the 15th. He believes in the mission, and is willing to submit himself to the inherent dangers for our benefit. He entered the Marines after 9/11, he graduated from high school in the “top 10” of his class, and his parents are fairly wealthy business owners; so he did not enlist either with a need for government entitlements or because he lacks a future in the civilian world. I will be driving his SUV, complete with his ridiculous yellow ribbon, back to his Georgia home. I’m sure that you, in your “heart of hearts,” wish him safety and success.
January 10th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Sorry I misspelled Democrat – unintentional. By the way, Zachary (my nephew) is a registered Democrat.
January 15th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Of course I dont want a draft. Just want those who voted for warmonger bush to prove that they will fight for their president and his causes no matter how ridiculous. If all who voted for war went , the rest of us who dont believe can come home.
January 16th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
The same ridiculous, cowardly arguments were advanced before and during the 18th century fight for independence, the 19th century fight to preserve the Union, and both World Wars. Thank God a sense of self-preservation prevailed every time. I am thankful that we are not under the rule of the Crown, the Kaiser, or the Third Reich; but we would be if opposition voices had prevailed.
I know, many think we should have ignored the threats of Saddam and waited for an attack; and many certainly care nothing about the plight of the Iraqi people under Ba’athist rule (only 15% of the Iraqi population). I suppose those same people were supportive of the small minority who once ruled South Africa. The difference is that the Iraqi people, after 30 years of torture and slaughter, had lost both the will and the means of gaining human rights on their own.
Yeah, right, we found no WMDs, and that is the only reason many choose to remember as the reason for going to war. All we found were (1) newly-manufactured suits to protect Saddam’s troops from their own WMD, unless he was just an eccentric collector of such items, and (2) huge stockpiles of WMD ingredients. (Keep in mind that such weapons lose their effectiveness potential in storage, so the ingredients that we found were not yet mixed). So you’re right, we found no active WMD; only the capacity to produce them within hours.
Saddam was truly an eccentric collector of strange items; WMD ingredients, protective suits, mass graves of dead bodies, and more weapon caches and ammunition dumps than can be imagined. Since he was only an collector (disregarding his history, of course), his repeated threats should have been ignored? Are we really that selfish, or that blind, or that uncaring, or that cowardly? Or is the anti-war effort simply and anti-Bush effort?
The freedom of the Iraqi people was sufficient justification for our actions, just as it was with our 4 wars in the 1990s, and regime change was the consistently stated goal. Take a cue from Bill Clinton, who expressed a necessity for “regime change” in Iraq.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:19 am
JBC – I can’t believe I missed this post the first time around. It is, hands down, one of the nuttiest goddamn things I have ever read on any blog.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:11 am
Heh. I’ll take that as a compliment.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:06 pm
You should, considering the fact I read Lyndon LaRouche a lot, too.