George Bush leads us into the world of Kafka.

You're right that there's a reason for Americans to feel powerless, namely that we are somewhat powerless, and getting more that way all the time.However, that powerlessness is of our own choosing, though not without reason. It reminds me of the Declaration of Independence... People may still pin hopes on the system to right itself. Bush only has a couple of years left and there will be a chance at change.When you ask what we're supposed to do about it, the real answer (under this administration/power structure) might have to be some form of grassroots revolution, if the next election cannot provide a solution. Unfortunately as you pointed out, fighting the power (even peacefully) will likely get one's ass handed back with a couple tank shell and clusterbomb holes... or at the very least an unpaid vacation to a secret prison somewhere.Then again, there is the concept of "Live free or Die", and "give me liberty or give me death". There is a point when people should and do take command. Again from the DoI... The question would be if Americans have reached that point yet. I don't think so, especially given the chance for change. I think people should try and get active in this upcoming election as well as 2008. Even if you are right, it makes sense to work a "revolution" at both ends. If chance favors an electoral process a lot of hassle is avoided. I'm not sure if Gatsby wasn't American, but I agree with your point here and will add to it. The rest of the world's nations are the one's taking the biggest snooze. There is no way Bush could be getting away with everything except for the acceptance by other nations.What's more some other nations, even European ones, have the same policies and back the same agendas. In some cases Bush is only trying to enact what they already have in place. I'm astounded at reading critiques of Americans and the American gov't by people who live under worse, and whose own gov't is giving free pass (or directly aiding) everything Bush does.If someone outside the US wants to criticize the US, or the people of the US, they ought to show that their own gov't and citizenry are doing a bit better. Right now the only European countries that might be able to say that are Spain, France, and Belgium.P.S.- I might open a thread on this later, but on the subject of freedoms lost Bush began a major push in his war on porn this summer (coordinating both Fed and State attacks on individuals and companies). Freedom of sexual speech has just been hit in a big way. You might want to keep an eye out for news on that. Edited by holmes, : tightening

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I gotta admit I laughed a bit when you said what you said. While the actual situation is deplorable and not funny at all, the way you said it originally my first thought was...
"They captured Austin Powers?" Okay, perhaps you can explain what your nationality is and how your gov't and people have set themselves apart from "the American public". With the exception of France, Belgium, and most importantly the people of Spain, I'm unaware of any western national gov't or population which has acted any differently than Bush and the American people.Edited by holmes, : captured

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

There's no question the SC gave Bush the presidency whether he deserved it or not in 2000.But didn't some newspapers finally count the vote and find out Bush would have taken office anyway? I suppose that doesn't deal with other irregularities in Florida which might have changed things (people barred from voting), but of those votes cast I thought that's how its been figured. If you have info on that I'd be interested.Also, while I wonder whether irregularities occured in 2004, is there solid evidence of cheating that would have given Bush a victory? All I had heard is that we cannot know because many of the new electronic systems, not that we know it happened. I'm also interested in info on that.I'm not arguing against your claim, so much as saying I have no idea other than the impressions I mentioned above, and would like more info.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Yes, and in addition to the ballot problem there was the case of all the disenfranchised voters whose potential effect I guess we'll never know about now. Its kind of funny to have it ruled that "well you guys were deprived of your votes, but you know the election is over so we can't do anything about it now." Thanks, I couldn't remember the source but that's kind of how I remember the outcome too.Edited by holmes, : potential effect

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't think the worry is that we have reached that level. The problem is that we are heading that way and the people who are pushing for it are using the exact same arguments.The fact is that we have lost civil liberties, and more losses are being requested. At the same time, and this is worse still, power is being centralized to a single figure where questioning that figure is treated as dangerous, traitorous. I'm not sure what that point means. Yeah, most people don't have problems with the things they don't know about. It seems to me the fact that people do have problems once they find out about it is of interest when deciding whether it is worthy. Right but most people aren't threatening the US by taking a bath. And what's more free people tend to get their jollies by bathing without someone potentially spying on them.It's not about what they won't do, its about what we have a right not to have them doing. I'll totally grant you that makes more sense and would have had better results than invading Iraq.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Okay, no offense but how does that get Brits off the same charge that Americans are stuck with?1) There was plenty of time between the bad things that were done, and the election, for ordinary citizens to change the nature of their parties. How many MPs (or other officials) quit in protest of Blair's floundering? Isn't it true that if the people rose up and demanded change they could have gotten Blair out and someone else in... even if it was simply as a new choice for PM from within his party?2) The same in 1 is true for America, and just as in the UK it didn't happen here and so both turned out the same. Some on the liberal side did not see the dems as offering any real reform from 2000 (or a difference from Bush), and many Reps (though upset with Iraq and/or the suppression of civil liberties) could not reform their own party but did not see any better alternatives. McCain is a great example of that as he keeps leading mini charges to change his party from within and clearly dislikes many things which have happened, but in the 2004 election closed ranks with his own party because he saw no better alternative.No offense to everyone from outside the US, but it really looks like most people around the world are letting their govt's slip the leash and so share equal responsibility for what has happened. It is easy to point fingers at Bush and the Americans, but without the help of other nations Bush would not have been capable of doing what he did, and the American people are just as responsible for Bush as other citizens are responsible for their representatives.Indeed even Blair (and the UK) is not just a dual partner in blame. It took more than two to turn an Iraqi tango into the majorclusterf**k it is.The only people I am aware of who got active and did their job were the people of Spain, with perhaps a nod toward France and Belgium who had rational govt's in place beforehand and tried to hold Bush back.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Crash and Chiro have already made appropriate responses but let me take a puff at your house of cards... 1) Without foreign support the Iraq War would have been practically impossible. It certainly required some semblance of a credible alliance, support for Bush's outrageous claims (which was your country's aub), and actual assistance for military operations. That other nations went along with Bush is how these things got done.2) The US does not dictate the policies of other nations, yours in specific. So all the above mentioned items were, and continue to be the result of your public allowing your gov't to get away with bad policy decisions. If your country supported the war and put troops there, how on earth could it be the result of American voters?3) Even if I were to accept that the rest of the world could not physically stop Bush from trying to do what he wanted, that he was deadset and would have gone ahead without help, other nations could certainly have TRIED to stop Bush from succeeding. Its a bit of convenient cowardice (to my mind) to berate another nation's activities and yet not vote a pair of balls into office for your own so as to STOP wrongs being commited. Its like a bunch of immediate witnesses to a crime (who stood around doing nothing) accusing the family of the criminal for not doing more at home to stop him.4) For all the talk of Bush's civil liberties clampdowns, you are aware that there are worse state's of civil liberties within European nations? I can't speak for the UK, but I find it ironic when some freedom gets put in jeopardy for Americans, and they bash Bush for doing so, when they don't have such freedoms in the first place.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree with that as well as the fact that we'd likely be criticized no matter what we did. However, the right to protect onesself does not legitimate all forms of response, and that we will face criticism does not mean all criticism is without merit or that some responses will meet with less criticism.I don't enjoy debates using stock dilemmas, where it was either what he did or throwing up ones hands. Well, I'll ignore the communist commentary, but yes I agree with your assessment and I am trying to advance that point to European critics. I was watching a Michael Moore movie in a dutch theater and people were tut-tutting at some of the stuff Bush was trying to do, and I felt like standing up and yelling "You know you guys already gave those rights away back in '98?" That was an incorrect response to the quote you put out. Granted I mentioned that civil liberties are eroded, I said the worst part was an increased centralization of power to the executive branch. You have been losing power whether you feel it or not.As to the civil liberties questions, actually I do not people that were searched by the FBI, and thankfully cleared. I suppose that goes with the course of knowing people who happen to be Iraqi. I would have no idea if my phones are tapped or people collect my urine. All I know is that for certain types of crimes they are removing constitutional restraints, and those "types" are expanding. One type of wire tapping which was claimed would not be used against anyone but terrorists was immediately used against a strip club owner.Also, my gf is in the porn biz and I have worked in it as well to some degree. Our freedom of speech is being eroded by this administration, particularly sexual speech. They have strengthened laws and used enforcement of such laws to harass adult businesses into closure. Mind you this is not just getting things labelled obscene. They have created byzantine and opaque recordkeeping requirements that are so draconian with regard to punishment for even accidental errors that people simply can't take a chance.This model of regulatory harassment can be used against other forms of free speech.And as for irony, Ashcroft and Bush had weakened antiterror capabilities of the FBI in order to gear up for a war against porn. They apparently believed it was a larger threat... or maybe that it would be easier to deal with. In any case they had moved resources from terrorism to porn and were set to announce their war against porn right about 9/11. Then those pesky terrorists spoiled it (temporarily) for them.But don't worry, after shuffling resources back to terrorism for a brief time, they managed to move it back and while terrorists may be planning more attacks, starting last summer the FBI has gone into full swing raiding legal porn companies to make sure that every T is crossed and i is dotted on model release forms. Yeah, I can just feel the liberty and the safety. Why wouldn't terrorists use this knowledge to their advantage and say, talk in code or never use something that code be a hot word except when buried in long conversations?In any case, I still don't see your point. I have a right to privacy. I don't care what people aren't doing while invading it. I don't care how infrequently they invade it. I don't care if they use special cues to begin the invasion of my privacy. They don't have that right. And people like me get pissed when they find out such invasions occur. That's pretty much all one needs to know. Well I can't speak for everyone, but your rather Orwellian position cannot speak for everyone either. There is a concept of privacy. There is a concept of a right to it. When you have both then there is offence taken when someone invades it, no matter the reason they give.You are trying to find some ulterior motive for why a person might want privacy, but it is rather a guilt by association argument. Do you have no desire for freedom, just plain old freedom?I could flip that quote of your around to say that the only people who think they need to invade the privacy of others are into some bad stuff themselves (and so don't trust anyone) or have the delusion of grandeur that they can save the world using cheap shortcuts through people's rights. Yes that's a very good description of how rights are eroded. They find some "reason" we need people to watch over us, and then think for us, and then micro manage our lives. That they do this, is not an argument that they should be doing it.I thought the conservative concept was that smaller, less intrusive govt's were better?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You keep bringing up the Patriot Act. I don't remember my mentioning it by name as my main problem. Extraordinary rendition is against the concept of civil liberties and existed well before the Patriot Act. The nature of tribunals that Bush wants to run, and which Jar was complaining about in his OP, is not in the Patriot Act (or there wouldn't be wrangling about it right now in Congress). The centralization of power to a central authority is not in the Patriot Act.I can agree that many people complain about things they are not fully informed on, and the PA may be one of them. I am even willing to agree that large portions of the PA are relatively innocuous. That does not undercut what I have been saying, or other people's complaints about infringements on privacy. Yes, wiretapping has been around. What does that mean regarding my point? I said that one type which was claimed would not be used against anyone but terrorists (in order to argue how people should not be worried about its allowance) was in fact used shortly after its allowance against someone that was not a terrorist. Thus when we allow the gov't to do something we would normally object to with the promise that it is to protect us from extraordinary case of terrorism, they WILL use it outside that extraordinary case. You are simply speaking from ignorance, the very kind you blasted above. With the advent of PCs, video cameras, and the internet, sexual speech (by which I mean communications which involve or focus on graphic sexual activity) moved beyond large corporations to many diverse independent sources.There were many individuals and couples who decided to run their own home based business, essentially run in their free time. Often times it was real and not involving professionals in the biz.The new recordkeeping requirements, as well as the nature of the investigation and prosecution of these requirements, makes such businesses practically impossible. That is to say if they are not making tons of money (which many aren't) or operated as something fun on the side (which many have been). It also drives people away from attempting to express themselves as actors/actresses due to the overtly intrusive data collected by the gov't.I have known more than a couple businesses that have closed, and there are reports of more people going to close because they cannot operate, or are afraid to operate in the hostile environment the Bush administration has imposed on this kind of speech. It has nothing to do with illegality.Furthermore it has driven many companies out of the US. My gf is not a US citizen and we have contacts within foreign adult businesses. They discuss the number of US companies looking to move out of the US, primarily because of this hostility.Further still this does not just affect porn. The regulations affect all movies that contain any graphic sexual content, and that definition has just technically been broadened to encompass plain nudity. It is a standard no company outside the US is likely to follow and so their movies will not be able to be played (legally) in the US. Within the US it would create a chilling effect on companies choosing to have such content or pursue such themes. They are unlikely to start a whole new division to handle recordkeeping duties for FBI raids.This would eliminate movies such classics as Last Tango in Paris, and In the Realm of the Senses. Heck it might even effect Romeo and Juliet. Why is that an oxymoron? Why isn't it possible that people wishing to express their sexuality, just like they might cooking (gourmet shows), or competition (sports shows), or other facets of life and fantasy, would not have a sense of personal space like people involved in all those other things?You go on to hold a dual position on privacy... Freedom and Privacy secured by an observing Gov't is an oxymoron.I guess the first part of desiring freedom is the belief that one does not require a gov't to protect them, particularly when it involves giving up the very thing they want to keep as their own.The Gov't is not damned if they do, damned if they don't to those that desire freedom and privacy. If you are looking for solutions from that quarter it is already given. The gov't must do what it can without invading the privacy of others, and especially without some oversight by the community so as to place a check on such invasions.It may not be the best security but it sure is the best security which allows an assurance of quality of life from our own gov't.No one from your side of the argument has provided any reason why this is necessary. Because someone might not catch something and we have another incident? If that were the criteria for allowing security measures be put in place, why don't we turn the US into Guantanamo and have everyone live in open cells? That would be the most secure.If you start sliding back from that, I am unaware why demanding personal privacy, or in the case of this thread right to evidence against one at one's trial, would be bizarre or unfeasible as a demand. I don't know, and I don't care. The question is are we going to give the gov't tools so that they can break into your privacy whether you know it or not? The answer is no.When they ask, we say no. That way there is no chance that anyone can abuse it. If we discover they are doing it, we repeal that power. That way there is no chance that anyone can abuse it.If you are claiming that we can trust a gov't never to abuse that power, I'd wonder what gave you that idea. The history of gov'ts are to increase power over people's lives, and last century certainly did abuse its investigative powers.If I would not give such a right to AQ, I would not give such a right to the US gov't. Though one is sworn to my destruction and the other my safety, I trust each the same to handle my rights with care. They are all people and so are capable of anything. If I'm going to allow my rights to be crossed by the latter, I might as well let the former win. Its what I want the US to be fighting AQ to preserve in the first place... right?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'll answer your last two posts here... I'm sorry, I did take your argument to suggest that Brits could be excused. Okay, but that still holds true for the US. People generally don't vote out a "war president" and many felt the opposition parties (namely the Dems) were an unelectable mess. There was no coherent message coming from them, especially to those critical voters outside the Dem party. Can't the public rise and have the party change its rules? I didn't say the US didn't threaten nations in order to force policies. And I certainly didn't say it didn't topple gov'ts and institute new ones. All I said is that the US does not dictate the policies of other nations. That is for sovereign nations they do not have Bush and Co actually directing what they do. They have a choice.That may have to include standing up to being bullied. That is the critical point, and not just for the UK. There were plenty that backed this fiasco.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm sorry but I do not see how that would have been possible.He used international support, most especially that by the UK gov't to gain support in the US for his policies. He used intelligence findings from the UK to gain support in the US for his policies.You might have noticed that Bush has been having a much harder time getting anything done, now that other nations are backing out and initial claims by the UK have been undercut. I honestly don't see how he would have found backing for an invasion of Iraq if the world community stood against it, especially major European allies.That is not to mention the physical assistance which made it possible. I guess I can't say it would have been physically impossible for us to invade without it, but it would have been more difficult and again would have resulted in more popular resistance.And of course if Bush's zeal and power was as great as you make it out to be, I don't see how the american electorate would have stopped it either. If armed resistance from other nations would not change his course, how could a bunch of voters?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Okay you might not be aware of this but Congress could have stopped him. With slight exception Congress is the only body with the power to declare war. They gave him the ability because of false info and promises. They allowed him to move forward on the same.It may be true that the "coalition of the willing" was bogus, but it had enough credibility that Congress could give the prez a green light. Without any support, and indeed active resistance, Congress would not likely have allowed it to move forward. That alone might have made military, intelligence, and actual conservatives say wait a minute. It certainly wouldn't have been as easy, and remember they sold this on the "cakewalk" plan. Uh, he already DID seize power by other means. His first election was essentially a coup.I mean he clearly lost the popular vote, and the only reason why he received the majority electoral vote was because his brother and a campaign manager who controlled a state's voting system commited some fraudulent activity, then tried to bury recognition of that activity, and finally the republican led supreme court ordered remedies to the irregularities halted and Bush handed the presidency.I don't see how that couldn't have happened again, or perhaps he'd just call upon some interpretation of the war powers of the presidency to argue "you can't let a populace change horses midstream". When he visits your country why don't the people there rise up against him there? Perhaps you have the numbers there which we do not.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't know how easy it would have been for those guys to do it alone, as Congress would have had a say in it and dems certainly wouldn't be behind helping Jr overcome Sr's "mistake". But since Reps had control I think they might have been interested in such an angle.I'd add to your speculation that in addition to that was an interest in removing an enemy of Israel's under the guise of doing something about terrorism. This was something planners in the Bush administration had been outlining before 9/11. Since the failure of their plan, and a discovery of one of their links to an Israeli spy within the defense dept, both najor authors have left.The connection with Israeli interests is underscored by other activities by this administration, including its apparent lapdog status to sharon.That said, I agree that Saudi Arabia's complicity was of vital importance, though not exactly surprising given their opposition with Hussein.The only point of disagreement I would have is with Iraq's military capability. I think if anything the invasion revealed how bad a shape its military was in. Certainly its lack of airpower made it vulnerable to any tactic we chose, as long as we have a spot to launch an attack from and fall back to for ready support. This is an interesting analysis and one I was not aware of. From what I understood their effort was helpful to take pressure off US forces and keep them mobile. And I was under the impression we really didn't have flexibility to add more divisions, without posing security risks for ourselves (given our global concerns).My opinion is not based on solid research and I am definitely interested in more accurate info. Ah, this is where we may have a difference in definition. First of all there was more NATO support than you suggested, at least as far as political support went. But more importantly, what nations actually OPPOSED our invasion?Remember the criticism here is that citizens of the US didn't do anything to stop Bush. Well neither did the citizens of other nations. While many nations said some negative things, that is they did not support the war, they did not oppose it. That to my mind would have required doing something.France and to some extent Belgium and Germany put a little diplomatic pressure on the US, but essentially negligible. None of them put into play actual threats such as economic, political, or military sanctions if the US went ahead with its plans. This may of course be that they did not exactly like Hussein, and feared repercussions from the US, but that does not change my point. If one opposes something one has to risk something in that opposition, or one is just an observer.An analogy would be a bunch of people standing around watching a murder. If all they did was yell stop, then none of them opposed it, in fact they are somewhat complicit.The only people that took a chance (to my mind) were the people of Spain who altered their gov't in response, and that gov't did what it could to pull support and so cause some indirect pressure (belated as it was).You mentioned Turkey and that's a great example. If European nations as a whole vowed to block air and sea channels to the US, perhaps including commercial traffic, that would likely have grabbed Congressional attention if not Bush's. Imagine Germany denying travel to/from and even threatening ejection from Rammstein... same for other bases.If foreign citizen's were seriously opposed, and their gov'ts were seriously opposed to Bush's campaigns, I think we would have seen opposition, instead of todying and self-congratulating, heckling, bystanding/voyeurism.Look forward to your response.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While that is possible, I am willing to believe many in congress trusted assessments submitted by the administration, which involved convenient cherry picking of data and dismissal of alternative analyses. I think it is a shame that they waited to review the data till after the failure.The media was and still is cowardly. Total agreement on that score.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I wasn't so surprised at the military successes. Given the degraded nature of their airpower, which turnd out to be worse than I expected, it seemed plausible we'd eventually have to achieve success and perhaps in short order. It was always the aftermath which was my main concern. The only weird military problem I wondered about is if the citizens would openly revolt as we tried to move through. If we had to fight through them to get to military targets, that would have been very bad. Oh I'm a buff LIKE you, just not as buff. I actually knew everything you said, except for the details such as specific strengths and unit #'s. I was watching briefings pretty much every time they gave them... much like the first Gulf War.But I did not understand that the units slated for the north did not actually get into play somewhere else, and figured any that were not put in it was for concerns of spreading our forces too thin (on a global scale).Thanks for the info. This I would disagree with. Given the timeline of our buildup, I believe they had plenty of time to do something. Whether they were held back by the unbelievability of the whole thing, or figured it was sable-rattling (which is what I thought at first), I couldn't say. But I think they should have been getting their hands ready and at least warning Bush and Congress through private channels.If they thought they were going to use UN procedures to hold him in check forever, they were vastly mistaken. And unfortunately some at the UN were giving us support. 100% agreement which is why my feathers get a bit ruffled when I hear whining about what the US is doing, and its citizens letting Bush get away with.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)