Bush is back!

Bitterness and anger are signs that your emotions are interferring with your thinking, which means you are more likely to be wrong. Yep. Why argue? You believe you're right.

I'm not sure whether to bow in awe of your prescience...or snicker in mockery of your overweening arrogance. But since you've opened the bidding on snickering, I'll up the ante and choose the latter. Perhaps it's comforting for you to think so. These are my own views, expressed in my own language. I'm sorry if they read like press releases from Rumsfeld's office to you...it's my style of writing. To a degree, but as you acknowledged, they did support terrorist groups that targetted Israel. Again, it's debatable whether these are or are not a matter of US concern. IMO they are. Correct, and a strategic error in retrospect. There have been bipartisan strategic errors in dealing with the Middle East for a generation. Neither one of us, I suspect, is a professional on this issue. I don't find your critique compelling, however. And professionals (e.g. GEN Franks vs GEN Clark) can and do differ sharply on what the correct tactics to apply are. In many cases, this can only be known after the fact. If I am not mistaken the British established a monarchy with an imported Hashemite king, not a democracy. In any case, is your argument really "the British tried and failed, therefore it is impossible" ?The British and French attempted to establish democracy in Germany after WW1 (Weimar Republic) and failed. The post WW2 attempt was more successful so far. Granted, in both the case of Iraq and Germany the argument is more complex. The key question is, is it startegically sound to try ? Unanswered to date, IMO. I don't think I said that. Certainly, the US will evolve, as will China and India. The US is in much better demographic shape than Europe,and US immigrants show indications of assimilation, as well as shaping US culture, as has always been the case.Europe's Muslim immigrants, OTOH are largely unassimilated, alienated, and angry. This is as much a fault of the Europeans as of the immigrants, but it is a situation that must be dealt with soon.A situation in which Sharia is the price of a young Muslim majority supporting the high taxes needed to maintain the entitlements of an aging European minority is not far-fetched somewhere by the end of this century...as always, if present trends continue. Or Europeans may start having kids again. Or there may be a revival of anti-immigrant violent fascism somewhere. Demographics (correct me if I am wrong but Poland's native birth rate is close to replacement level) and a good transition to a free market economy. If I'm wrong, refute me with something more robust than citing how well travelled you are. It is possible to live in a foreign country for years, and learn nothing about it. I see it in many Europeans I know here. Not at all. Euro-style green socialism, as symbolized and advocated by Moore, is deeply, deeply unpopular in the US, and has essentially zero chance of ever being enacted democratically. Yet it is this wing of the Democrats that has dominated its agenda.The Democrats brought out their whole arsenal...big media, academia, the literati, and relentless negativity...and got clobbered at the polls. I see the Congressional gains as exceeding Bush's re-election in significance.Bush got 42% of Hispanic vote, and this is why the Democrats must falsely portray the Republicans as racist. If the Republicans could poll 42% of the black vote...the Democrats are finished as a major party. I'm not "requiring" anything. Not do I think Bush has been mistake-free. But on the larger issue of the scope and strategy of the war on terror, IMO, Bush gets it, and Kerry did not get it. IMO. OK ?

Some of the founding fathers would agree with you, Crash. They felt that a revolution every now and then was good for keeping peoples liberties. In fact they felt that, through laziness or lack of education the people will allow government to become tyrannical. That the people will allow the government to abridge their liberties. We can not allow a tyrannical majority to abridge our liberties. It goes against the basic principles that this country was founded on.

Hangdawg,Since it's doubtful we could fight any stupider (I am referring to Irag)I guess we have to fight harder. I'm depressed that your obvious intelligence is in the service of dogmatic religious conservatism but there is nothing I can do about that.There is also nothing I can do about the course of empire. This happened to Rome, and Great Britian, and now the US is sliding on the down side of empire. It's a huge addiction that eventually grows far too expensive but there is no stopping it.You don't appear to care that Bush lied and used calculated lies to manipulate congress and public opinion. You don't seem to care that the US is bearing a huge expense in fighting this war of indeterminable outcome in Iraq. Bush wouldn't wait for a UN or NATO action to spread the expense and to soften the diplomatic impact.Politics, dipolomacy, war are not Hollywood movies. John Waynge was not a real war hero nor did he experience combat, he was an actor. The real world is far more complex than movies and war rhetoric portray. But I fear you are too young to understand that. On the other hand once the dynamics of addiction to empire are underway the momentum will carry us through to the end. And that is not that bad. Italy and England are slowly recovering.Irag had little to nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. In the end the expense of a militarily sustained empire will grow from the current bleeding to massive hemorrhaging. But again the massive debt that Bush is casually subjecting us to won't affect him and his wealthy friends. Look at the poor countries of Latin and South America. The wealthy retain priviledges amidst massive poverty.Bush and his neoconservative cohorts are manipulating your patriotism and naivete. Kerry while not a stellar choice was preferable on the issues. But then nothing can stop the inevitable course of empire. I fortunately am old enough that I won't be around when the bill comes due. You just might be. You are intelligent. Please give some real study to the situation and not just to the things the authorities are telling you to believe.lfen

Hangdawg, your capacity for arrogance and condescension continues to astound me as I read through this thread. You're not going to gain anybody's respect talking the way you do. Are you trying to convince us that loving Jesus makes everyone into an asshole? It's this kind of behavior that keeps me from ever wondering why I left the flock.Your boy Dubya acts nothing like the Christ he claims to follow, and the way you're addressing your "enemies" around here puts you faithfully in his footsteps.

I'm just afraid of the following scenerio.Congress reinstates the draft. I'm forced to join the army. Bush declares all homosexuals to be enemies of the state. Bush's minions kick the crap out of me. Christian fundies carry put up statues saying "Lam deserved it." Bush declares that in order to protect people like me he'd have to ship them to an island. Coincidently, the island will also have a nuclear reactor which some time in the future will accidently explode for no apparent reason. Bush declares himself as god's chosen leader and crown himself as president for life. The constitution is then burned and the United States becomes a theocracy. Since Canada is still a liberal state, Bush declares that Canada harbors terrorists and invades it. Even though WMD and terrorists are never found, Bush still declares that Canada is finally free from the liberal agenda and is back to god.Because of the 1st commandment, Bush launches a preemptive nuclear strike against the rest of the world, whom he considers to be infidels.*100 years later*Christian fundies deny any that any gay or infidels were ever harmed at all... just like holocaust deniers. Bush is then declared as the 4th deity.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

quote:

---

We do need to fight the War on Terror against religious extremism - and we need to start in our own backyards.

---

I strongly encourage you to start a new "Coffee House" topic on this!It has just struck home to me that the U.S. government has become far too close to being a Christian Fundimentalist theocracy. We need to stike back at this HARD - Including that the mainstream Christian churches need to LOUDLY speak out against the excesses of Christian fundimentalism.I said it upthread, and I'll say it again. The second plane has just hit the tower of U.S. democracy. Our response needs to be as Crashfrog said in the above quote.Moose

Suddently my "worst-case-not-likely-to-happen-but-still-possible" scenerio of invading other middle eastern countries, feeding the rich, taking away rights, and abolishing separation of church and state entirely seems a bit tame! lol. It's ok Lam...the 48% of us who voted for Kerry have the most logically sound people on our side, and I think we'd be smart enough to lead a successful rebellion against the fundies before they could ship you to an island. Hey, maybe when it's all said and done we'll be shipping the fundies to the island? (;. Of course, that would not be before we eliminated any and all instances of their religious texts on the island, so they are left only with their brains. Perhaps after a good 200 years we could check back and see if any logical reasoning processes developed.In all seriousness though, a draft could never go through in our country right now. At least, I would only hope...

I agree completely. I've found it quite difficult to have much of an influence on this trend, though. Any suggestions as to how one might make steps towards this goal?

In this part of the country, people are talking about Roe v. Wade. Lots of fundie christians voted for W because they want that ruling overturned. I think it's likely that the battle will be joined with W's first Supreme Court apointment.The fundies I know are not going to settle for a ban on partial-birth. They want Roe overturned as quickly as possible because they regard all abortion as murder.When news headlines like "Bush Nominee Vows to Overturn Roe v. Wade" start to appear across the country I think we might see the greatest political realignment in our history.If W doesn't nominate a judge willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, I think the fundies will feel betrayed and it might be decades before they vote in such huge numbers again.It's a pleasant thought, anyway.

I just got done mentioning some of them. Is this denial or something?Let me repeat, there was such a decided split in what was being promised that you had a leader of the religious wing saying they were voting for Bush, not for Cheney, and you had leaders of the more traditional conservatives saying that whatever Bush said, Cheney was explaining how it would be carried out. You are right about that. I think to promise that would have been promising the impossible. He didn't (show me where I am wrong). He said that was what they would be trying to achieve. Events on the ground would surely have made things more difficult, and plans would change.I think if you had watched the debates, or understood them, you would understand this distinction.Bush's plan? Actually this is not true either. What I find sort of funny is that you are now complaining about deficit spending when Bush is the one that created it, and now that the election is over is revealing he is set for much greater deficit spending.This is going to be the great thing about the next 4 years, watching a Republican owned gov't explain how everything is not their fault.By the way I love the reinvent reality mentality you got going for you. It was pretty widely acknowledged that Kerry won every single debate. So to depict him as the pie in the sky talk out his ass guy is a little disengenuous, no?Bush's plan? He gave one interesting defense of his invasion of Iraq during the second debate, which totally reinvented the reason although I admit made it sound a bit more compelling. Of course that is to forget our actual reasons for going in the first place, the way he botched it, and the way it has nothing to do with actually providing security here and now, rather about a giant social engineering project at taxpayers expense that is set to payoff, when?In the end Bush promised the deficit would be lowered, the people would have health insurance, secure retirements, better jobs, more money, and the entire middle east would be "saved" by realizing how great democracy is (as if Israeli issues were about hating democracy), and all of this while cutting taxes and spending more on massive military operations. That's less pie in the sky?Suckers got their man. Let's see where we are four years from now. No sweat for me, I think I've said repeatedly I am not a Democrat and essentially a Libertarian. That said, I'd rather just see an end to parties altogether so we don't see partisan fiascos like this last election. I'd rather see reasoned voting based on real world qualifications and assessments of performance. Which just goes to show you didn't listen to Nader either. I'm not going to defend all the mechanisms he proposed for the pursuit, I did not agree with them, but he was for nailing OBL. You misunderstood. The man was being interviewed on CNN. Though western, he is not american, and pretty well ranked by everyone, including our own intelligence agencies, as one of the top experts in AQ and OBL.As a side comment, it was also interesting to hear what he had to say about our losing OBL at Tora Bora. The guy was there and said it is pretty well without question that OBL was there and did escape because we handed the job off to the warlords. He said that it seemed there were more press reporters there than US troops. Obviously that wasn't literally the case, but you get the point. There has been enough information coming from other AQ members to substantiate that OBL was there and escaped.AKA Tommy Franks blew it and was a partisan hack (not to mention saving his own rep).Regardless of the election, my guess is OBL was quite glad during those days that we did not come in with all the forces we could (and did at Hussein), and let the tribal factions chase after him. Why? Are you bucking to be his press advisor or something?If we stick to facts as the journalist did, rather than partisan fantasy as you seem to enjoy, you would note that this tape was not similar to his others. The environmental setting was different as well as the nature of his comments. For example this is the first one where he did not have a rifle sitting around in frame. That is a dramatic departure and meant to indicate he no longer had to hold a military posture, but was comfortable and speaking as a solid diplomatic leader.We may all find it quite absurd, even as did the journalist who noted how he acted as if he could be a diplomatic partner with the american people after murdering 1000's in a terror attack, but that does not change the fact of what OBL was trying to do.Gee, do the actions of a megalomaniac disappoint your expectations? No, I'd say half-baked. Heheheh.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Another comment on this topic:I was speaking with my republican fundie friend (who I consider to be pretty knowledgeable in regards to the workings of the republican party), and he thinks it's pretty likely that the issue of abortion will be sent to the states, and that many of them will choose to have it illegal from conception. Granted, I would say this would require a pretty biased judge appointment, but I'd say that will likely be the case, as well. I certainly hope enough resistance is offered up to prevent this, but it seems as if it might be inevitable. Thoughts?This message has been edited by Glordag, 11-05-2004 05:08 AM

Ned,I would have to agree that our making OBL et al a bunch of persecuted martyrs (perceived in Islamic countries) isn't likely to achieve a peaceful solution. However, He and his group have repeatedly rebuffed any attempt to negotiate short of giving them everything they want and converting to their faith. (Hmmmm...seeing some parallels here...). As long as the fundamentalists see the rest of us as the great evil and as their persecuters it will be so...despite any evidence that we are not trying to persecute them.So what solution is left? Perhaps a middle ground of strong offense with the olive branch being offered behind the scenes. I say offence instead of defense because no castle has ever kept it's inhabitants safe against an assault for very long.

Ohhh, I see you weren't around for the pre Iraq war debates at EvC. If you were you would realize (if the only choice is prescience or arrogance) that it was the former, even if I happen to have plenty of arrogance too.People like Red Vento spouted the Bush line at the time, and I countered with publicly stated intelligence assessments from overseas, as well as the assessments from prominent US intelligence officials.Are you aware that before the Iraq War began a number of high-ranking, highly respected, ex-intelligence officials formed a group to publically counter the misinformation coming out of the Bush administration?All the data "discovered" later by Congress and the US press, was public knowledge beforehand. At the time the administration, and its defenders, kept hinting that "our leaders" must know something more.Well they didn't. Rather than act like I am the one who is arrogant, why can't you look at the facts? This administration made many claims and they were all wrong... thus they were the one's who were (and still are) arrogant.I was just right because I listened to facts and reasoning from high placed intelligence officials. Really? The explanation you espoused before going into Iraq, is the one you are stating now? Are you honestly saying that while Bush and Co were talking about imminent threats of WMDs, you said: "no no, they aren't there, but what is important is that we invade some of these nations and convert them to democracies, because terrorists cannot form or exist in democratic countries and/or it will serve as a model government to reduce fascism across the midEast"?Pardon me if I don't believe you. When you make statements which clearly reflect current policy positions, separate from original policy positions, using language which is almost identical to what was developed and used during the campaign... I'm sorry I just do not buy it. Matter of concern? Yes. I have stated that after 9-11 it was wise to put more clamps on Hussein's military ambitions and I did not mind saber-rattling to get inspections back in to ensure he could not develop any WMDs. In that I would have included putting the clamps on his support for Palestinian Terrorist actions.You will have to explain how a military invasion of Iraq was necessary to end his form of support which was almost purely monetary?You will also have to explain how in a now democratic Iraq the free civilians will not be free to fund Palestinian terrorist actions on their own? It is amazing that Bush was able to sell people on the idea that anti-Israeli sentiment has something to do with democracy. As far as I can tell we have just opened up a larger can of worms for the Israelis. Now religious radicals, on top of purely palestinian sympathetic Iraqis, have a much freer hand at forming anti-Israeli initiatives.Hussein was limited in not wanting to fund purely Islamic Fundamentalist militant organizations which could come back to bite him in the ass. Free Iraqis will not have that limitation.Yes, yes I would like to hear your carefully reasoned explanation for why an invasion of Iraq helped reduce the terrorist threat against Israel, which other mechanisms could not have done for less cost (in money, prestige, and life). I agree. Thankfully I was never in either party. To be honest, it wasn't even a purely US muckup (whoops am I gonna bust the US bashing stereotype of an antiBushie?).France, Germany, I think Holland... heck there were a lot of nations which were gambling on Hussein's brand of gentle fascism to act as a cockblock on sweeping militant Islamic Fundamentalism in the region... which ironically grew in part as a reaction to our mucking around in Iran and the soviet union in Afghanistan.Frankly I think Britain holds most of the blame for starting the problems we are now facing across the midEast.However that does not change facts regarding Hussein's not being a part of the groups we are currently fighting and pose a real risk to the US. I am not a professional, nor do I play one on this forum. However I am a pretty good policy analyst (sometimes a philosophy degree can be handy) and look to some of the best sources for information on methods.Franks I would not trust to find me out of a paper bag. I am sick to death of hearing how great he was. He was a fuck up. He was the leading planner for our actions. He took the greatest military in the world against two of the most shrunken and decrepit military systems in history and won? Arnold Horschak could have beaten both Iraq and the Taliban.Heck Franks has now coined the term "catastrophic success" to explain how everything is so bad because he was so gooooooood. From the jaws of victory and all that. What is the sound of one hand clapping?In any case neither Franks, nor Clark, are intelligence professionals and that is the kind of war we are fighting. In fact I wish we'd stop calling it a war because it makes people think the military is a useful tool.Asymmetric warfare, and you can read plenty on this by many different professionals and they will agree, involves organizations which avoid military conflicts and fronts, opting for espionage style actions. Rumsfeld himself used this when explaining we had to change the nature of our military, but this goes doubly so for our intelligence agencies which must become more robust.This is essentially bond vs spectre kind of "warfare".Its too bad you must have also missed my big debate with Quetzal regarding the war on terror. I thought it was really well done from both sides. We definitely came off as more intelligent than we may actually be, heheheh. No, I am merely countering the pie in the sky "if you build a democracy they will come" arguments this administration has made.There is no guarantee that a democracy will stick, and even if it does (which I am hopeful it will and agree we should fight for at this point) that still does nothing to add security to the US regarding terrorism. A democracy will not mean that there is no poverty. A democracy will not mean there is no religious intolerance and as an extension, militarism.A democracy will in no way shape or form stop even reasonable people from being upset with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the US's unquestioned support for its brutal practices.Please detail a logical argument for any of the above. Stats please? We just had a series of studies in the Netherlands on this very issue. This was debunked. It is true that there are radicals coming in and trying to convince people to convert and they themselves are not assimilating. However that is not the trend. Ironically Islam is not race related, and they appeal to white Europeans as well as foreign immigrants. This is what is occuring. People want to believe what you have said despite the facts on the ground and are creating policies which are doing damage by making immigrants want to be oppositional rather than intergrational.I mentioned the study that debunked your claim. The people who started it were trying to prove your point. When it turned out 180 degrees opposite, they drew up a conclusion that their policies were still necessary because even if integration is happening it is obviously "in spite of" current liberal policies.What is the sound of one hand clapping? Oh that could be true. I would not deny it. What I was questioning was your assertion that Poland was "on the rise". If that is your qualification for "on the rise" then you are correct.I took it to mean that they were somehow gaining in prominence as a European power. I think they are definitely improving their lives from what they had under soviet control. And they are gaining some standing as European once again. But nothing close to becoming some major European player. Ah, I must be wrong when I am here and you never leave there, because you see so many people from here while you stay there. What is the sound of one hand clapping? 1) It is not deeply deeply unpopular. There is a clear majority who would not support a candidate at this time which was critical of US policies. It was not a humongous majority or significant that LIBERAL POLICIES are deeply deeply unpopular in the the US. Give me a 25-40% lead for a consistent "conservative" policy over a liberal one and we can begin making such statements.2) You are repeatedly making my point. While it is true that Moore sided with those critical of Bush and some liberal policies, the idea that Moore is a symbol of anyone voting Democrat or against Bush is simply ridiculous. It is however what helped Republicans scare themselves into voting style over substance (apparently Hannity, Limbaugh, Roberts, Fallwell, Carlson, Coulter, and O'Reilly were less scary).3) What dominated many people voting for a democrat this year, or simply not voting for Bush, was not signing on to a Moore agenda. You can see this in people like Quetzal and myself. Or how about the many conservatives (such as Clancy, Clark, Clarke, Buchanan, etc etc) who were highly critical of Bush. You think they are Moore-types? Give me a break. The performance of this president was so poor even from a staunch conservative perspective, that he was simply not a good candidate.I do not feel so bad for democrats having run Kerry, as I am for republicans voting in a man who was so clearly inefficient and costly to this nation. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... shame on the republicans who let themselves get fooled again. I hope they all realize this and join the republican party. That'll be about as interesting as what the next 4 years will bring as Republicans are forced to take sides against themselves. This is exactly the problem. See you make it that if a person disagrees with Bush, or goes further and agrees with Kerry with regard to the war on terror, then they are less centrist. That was your statement.The fact is you could be plenty centrist and still find fault with Bush's strategies. No, not just strategies, his entire performance of his duties. His assembled teams failed time and time again. Remember that is how he is passing the buck? His intelligence officers failed and his military commanders were so good they create "catastrophic successes"? To my mind, and many consistent conservatives, that makes him a failure.I am hardpressed to call Tom Clancy and Richard Clarke noncentrist or Moore-ish.In fact, I am actually pretty centrist on military matters, which is why I actually preferred Bush over Gore during 2000 on those very points. Bush betrayed every position he held during the 2000 election regarding military and intelligence. Whoops, sorry for maintaining consistence to a centrist view... not to mention a pragmatic assessor of results in general... now I'm a lefty on defense?This message has been edited by holmes, 11-05-2004 06:32 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, US policy certainly has something to do with it, doesn't it? Your response almost seems to suggest that Bin Laden was prompted to act by specific Bush II policies. But as we all know, these attacks have been going on since Bush I and all the way through the Clinton years, so obviously the jihading fundamentalists' hostility is at more than just presidential style. You make it sounds as though Kerry would have embarked on some policy of appeasement, perhaps issuing apologies for the harsh treatment of the foreign nationals held at Guantanimo, then having Osama over to the Whitehouse for a chat and a nut roast. I don't think I'm saying anything very controversial if I suggest Kerry wouldn't have changed any of the policies that upset Bin Laden.By American policies, I assume Bin Laden was referring to really general things that American governments have been doing for decades, regardless of whether a Demoncrat or Replican is in office. You know, stuff like supporting undemocratic or repressive regimes and being nice to Israel. I'm not making any value judgement of American foreign policy here. I'm just a bit confused about what you said.1) Why else are Islamic fundamentalists pissed off with America if not American policies? Because American presidents love freedom and justice too much?2) Where are Kerry and Osama in agreement, other than they both publicly state Bush is a twunt?PS... apropo of nothing... I went to factcheck and saw what they had to say about the "Wolves" advert. It was so cunning! "The first attacks on american soil"... in 1993 or whatever. So clever.