George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Well put, and perhaps one might also ask just because someone hates me, why do I have to change so that I hate myself? If my values are against theirs and I am proud of it and believe it is the KEY to a good life and success, why would I embrace theirs? Isn't that surrendering? Heheheh... you forgot. First he handed them the explosives and then he said "bring it on" (specifically meaning "attack our troops"). I don't see how a dem would have ever survived that mistake and the resulting carnage. That was not just aiding and abetting, it was incitement to kill our troops.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

But that wasn't during a time of WAR! See if he had been a wartime president Clinton could certainly have been excused. Maybe he needed to relax so that he could make better decisions for the troops, or keep morale up among his staff (uh, his people staff). And it would be absolutely essential that no discredit befall the president during wartime and so weaken our position (globally).If Bush were caught doing this I am sure it would be lauded how MANLY such an act was, and how anyone pointing out he claimed it had not happened earlier would be aiding and abedding (I mean abetting) the enemy.In any case it would not be open to scrutiny by investigators or courts. Remember Bush and Dick have been able to hide who they met with and what they talked about, because of the need for executive secrecy in private meetings. That is even with the overt shadow of financial and legal wrongdoing hanging over those meetings (which almost certainly included people later indicted in conspiratorial financial wrongdoings on the same subject as those meetings). THAT is covered by executive privelege, yet a staffer coming in to give the president a hummer is not, when the investigation relates to a financial scandal outside the white house.What would not surprise me is if such investigations were able to be launched, they'd find Bush and Dick owned a few dresses with energy exec dna splashed over them.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Awesomely delicious.I will only add that pretty much the rest of the world has followed suit. All those nations which caved to US pressure regarding Iraq were equally cowards in this case. They gave up international law to get in bed with Bush, for protection... of what? If international law goes out the window, what's the point? That's the liberty of nations.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I'm not sure how much you missed. I assume you know about the materials which have fallen into enemy (terrorist) hands because of our invasion.There was regular military hardware as well as wmd capable material under UN watch. They warned us to protect it, anti war advocates warned it would likely be lost during an invasion. Still we didn't protect it and material was lost... well except the stuff showing up in IEDs. If you want links to that find Tal threads where he claims WMDs have been found. The links are usually to articles addressing that (though he still doesn't get it).As far as the incitement part goes, here's a link. From the article... Note, at the time he said this only 65 troops had died so far. Attacks escalated and we now stand at over 2200 dead.In context... And as it turns out we didn't... which he now admits to. So what does this make his actions back then? Hmmmmm. Ari tried to cover the rather treasonous activity as follows... Uh-huh. How about "Watch out", "Think again", "Don't make that mistake"? "Bring 'em on" means they should attack our troops. That they are still in the middle of a military mission is exactly when you don't incite the enemy into increasing attacks.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

After 5 years of the "war" president, I'm definitely getting nostalgic for the "love" president. I'd be willing to grant him the power of commanding bjs of interns, if I thought it would help him mellow out and do something right for a change.Hell turn guantanamo bay into a sex dungeon for him and his cabinet to play around in. Maybe they could all use it.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

If a dem had said it, it would have been labelled as such. I think that much is obvious.I see what your are saying and agree that the negligence regarding actual weaponry was worse. However, I do believe that his statement did act to incite the enemy to action, and so put troops in harm's way.Acting "ballsy" is a double-edged sword when you are talking about the media. When one is directly on a battlefield or in some closed compound, that is one thing. Talking to the media is another. A soldier yelling "bring 'em on" is different than a president at a press conference. His words were likely to result in positive reactions from the enemy, including recruitment.Note that the enemy did exactly what he said, and given that he was wrong in his assumptions regarding our control of security this resulted in losses the enemy has used for press advantage.He's the guy that's supposed to be winning the war through making good decisions, including proper rhetoric that gets our people back in one piece and our nation some sort of credence.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I don't want to get into this too much more, since we are pretty much in agreement on what was more important. But let me pitch it to you the way I see it. You had an interesting idea of what didn't happen (the two terrorists sitting around), and you are likely right. Here is where I think something could have happened...A nation invades your country and is currently occupying it. They have destroyed your business and killed some friends and/or family of yours. The soldiers act in a gloating and demeaning fashion toward you, and may have even searched your home, wrecking things with no compensation.Then the leader of that nation says that anyone who thinks they can take on the might of that army should "bring 'em on".I don't know about you, but that would be a final straw for me. I would want to strike back and show that asshole some pain.We created a very volatile situation and provocative statements of bravado were more likely to make people angry with us to join those against us... or at least not help us. I mean how many simply gave up trying to defend us from others after that? Would you want to join a fledgling security force where the leader of it is egging on attacks?(Whatever happened to "never a boast or brag" anyway?)This message has been edited by holmes, 02-04-2006 12:44 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)