Translation
Bush is winning in Iraq
I know I have sworn off political commentary for the duration, but after having watched a more than healthy amount of mainstream media for the past week, I am fairly ready to burst. I think I really know how the one-eyed king felt in the kingdom of the blind. Unless some two eyed person out there would like to point out my myopia, I would like to make some assertions that I feel are so obvious, I cannot understand why pundits are not shouting them from the rooftops.
I thought we were supposed to have worked so hard and elected a Democratic Congress in order to get some traction on ending the war in Iraq. It was pretty much understood by pollsters and pundits alike that John Q. Public had had enough of this fiasco and for better or worse wanted US out – yesterday – just like nearly all Iraqis. Now the Dems are hemming and hawing even on cutting off money for a war escalation (pardon me, augmentation) – never mind cutting off funds for the war itself. It makes me wonder what Democratic Party I was working for prior to November.
It somehow makes me think that the whole country is ignoring the three-hundred-pound turd in the punchbowl.
First of all we are not losing in Iraq – NOT losing. As far as I can tell, everything is going according to the Neocon plan over there. What is the plan and why is it no one is even discussing what it is? I am talking here about the plan for the oil (remember the sea of oil Iraq is supposedly floating on?) and also the strategic bases being built (and the mega embassy).
Some months ago, one of our loyal opposition (I think it was Kerry) timidly mentioned something about wanting to remove the permanent bases being built in Iraq. Well that was the last I heard of such a proposal even being considered. If anyone has an update on any plans to either abandon or turn over our 12 known Crusader castles to the Iraqis, I would certainly appreciate the update.
So here is why I think, contrary to the administration propaganda and the conventional wisdom, Bush is winning and will continue to win in Iraq. The “Civil War” is a cruel ruse. The only civil war in Iraq is the one we probably fomented and continue to fuel. A full tilt civil war in Iraq can only serve our interests. Most Iraqis believe that we are behind the incitements to sectarian violence, including the biggie – the bombing of the Golden Mosque. Whether it is true or not, most Iraqis believe this is so - and in the final analysis, that is what counts. Chicago’s old Mayor Daley, who always had an uncanny ability to malaprop his way to the truth, had an expression that is a fitting description of this strategy: “The policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”
That is one of our principle goals in Iraq – to keep the Iraqis divided and unable to create any stable society. The inverse of our adage, so often bipartisanly repeated, is actually the closest thing to our actual policy: the more incapable the Iraqis are to stand up the less likely we are to stand down. We have never intended a “stand down,” do not and never will.
Our unstated policy in Iraq is to guarantee our control of the oil, and keep a strategic military presence at this location within which we can threaten the other key players in the area. All this rhetoric on both sides of the isle is just that – hot air used to generate a distraction from this central objective. Bush and the Democrats don’t really care how many die on either side of the conflict as long as the bases get built and supplied. They don’t give a hoot about the “will of the people” as expressed in the latest Congressional election. Neither do they care ultimately whether a puppet or a Shiite rules Iraq, or whether the whole country goes to hell in a hand basket - as long we keep those bases, strong, ready and inviolate.
I lump the Democrats in this “conspiracy” because for better or worse they tacitly refused to oppose Bush on the initial incursion in spite of their having an accurate assessment of the same ambivalent intelligence that Bush had. I used to think of them as merely gutless. Now I feel they were complicit. If I hear one more “progressive” Democrat tell the Iraqis that they have to step up to the plate and somehow redeem themselves because we are tired of supporting their sorry asses, I think I will seriously consider taking an AK47 to both chambers. I believe that in the case of the rape of Iraq not unlike the rape of an unfortunate human victim, makes as much sense to tell her that she needs to “pull herself together” and like Iraq she needs not petition for justice, reparation or punishment of the violator. She needs to be responsible for her own recovery in spite of the vindication and the celebration of the deed of the perpetrator and the promise of future anticipated violations.
I believe our Iraqi policy was, is and will be irresolutely bipartisan. The Democrats in spite of all their posturing about cutting off of funds for the military and the tough questions to try to embarrass the black queen Condi, they will go along because they are secretly behind the Neocon agenda all the way. This vision will prevail in spite of the will of the Iraqis, the will of the American public and whether or not Bush is turned out of office in disgrace. After all his only real crime was to make the crime too obvious, too ham-handed. When Hillary assumes office in January, 2009, the war will still be as strong as it is today. Nothing will change – really.
I would love to be proven wrong on this and I invite refutation. As I said, I do feel like a one eyed man. Perhaps someone with binocular vision can straighten me out. I am so weary of being right all the time.
Bob Boldt is a Political Cartoonist, and an associate editor at MWC News
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Quote this article on your site | Views: 5370Comments (19) |  |
1. 18-01-2007 05:50
Brillant Bob
You obviously do not have scales on your eyes Sir like so many Americans. The war is indeed on , not only in downtown Baghdad but in neighborhoods near you too. Brillant article , most excellent.
Guest
2. 18-01-2007 09:46
Inside Job
Brilliant article. Totally agree. Thank god others can see the wood and the trees.
Now why not turn your attentions - if you haven\'t already - to 911 and the series of three controlled demolitions of buildings 1, 2 and 7?
Peak Oil/Gas and Marvin Bush anyone? Yee haa.
Now why not turn your attentions - if you haven\'t already - to 911 and the series of three controlled demolitions of buildings 1, 2 and 7?
Peak Oil/Gas and Marvin Bush anyone? Yee haa.
Guest
3. 18-01-2007 10:36
Bingo !!
The democrats and republicans are in league with the nwo/pnac neo-cons. The partisan political charade is nothing but a sock-puppet show for the ignorant. Follow the damned money to expose the real agenda, and uncover the real perpetrators.
And, bye the way, 9/11 was an inside job.
And, bye the way, 9/11 was an inside job.
Guest
4. 18-01-2007 11:37
9/11 response
Mr. Lawson & Doug,
Thank you for your kind words concerning my essay. I actually was hoping to evoke some critical comments from those occasional lurkers with less progressive leanings who peruse this forum from time to time. I had at least hoped to raise the ire of some Democrats. I sent this essay to some of my ecorrespondents who are Bush supporters, but as yet have not heard from them.
With regards your suggestion that I turn my attentions to the events surrounding 9/11 and the various conspiracy theories that have been put forth, I must admit to having done a certain amount of research on the matter. I don’t think you will probably agree with my conclusions.
First of all, I must tell you that I am by nature predisposed to the conclusion that Bush and Co. both masterminded the events of 9/11 as well as used these events to force their Neocon agenda down the throats of the American people. I was impressed with the first reports concerning the controlled demolition of the buildings at ground zero as well as many other speculations concerning the hijackers and things like the stand-down orders at NORAD, etc.
I have looked into most of the refutations of these 9/11 conspiracy theories and found them to be pretty convincing and the product of reputable persons – not government lackeys. You are probably aware of most of these refutation arguments – at least I hope you are. I really don’t want to get into ad hominem arguments here, but I think that many people are so interested in proving Bush’s evil that they will accept any plausible argument that demonstrates this evil – without demanding a stringent proof of the argument.
Is Bush & Co. capable of carrying off 9/11? Certainly morally if not logistically. If you would like to know the conclusion I have finally come to after having examined most of the evidence both pro and con – I can tell you that I think Bush certainly bears a lion’s share of culpability for 9/11 in that - either he was criminally negligent in failing to assess the dangers of the terrorist plot that was being hatched under his nose - or I might even be willing to go as far as accepting the theory that he knew of the plot and deliberately allowed the door to remain open to the attack. Of course once the attack occurred there was a whole program ready to be snapped in place to begin to convert this country into the police state it has since become.
I know this conclusion may not suit you as it doesn’t follow the dictates of the conspiracy theorists. All I ask you is try to look at all the arguments with an open mind – as I have tried to do and don’t be manipulated by hysterics, yours or others. We need clear heads in this struggle.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
Thank you for your kind words concerning my essay. I actually was hoping to evoke some critical comments from those occasional lurkers with less progressive leanings who peruse this forum from time to time. I had at least hoped to raise the ire of some Democrats. I sent this essay to some of my ecorrespondents who are Bush supporters, but as yet have not heard from them.
With regards your suggestion that I turn my attentions to the events surrounding 9/11 and the various conspiracy theories that have been put forth, I must admit to having done a certain amount of research on the matter. I don’t think you will probably agree with my conclusions.
First of all, I must tell you that I am by nature predisposed to the conclusion that Bush and Co. both masterminded the events of 9/11 as well as used these events to force their Neocon agenda down the throats of the American people. I was impressed with the first reports concerning the controlled demolition of the buildings at ground zero as well as many other speculations concerning the hijackers and things like the stand-down orders at NORAD, etc.
I have looked into most of the refutations of these 9/11 conspiracy theories and found them to be pretty convincing and the product of reputable persons – not government lackeys. You are probably aware of most of these refutation arguments – at least I hope you are. I really don’t want to get into ad hominem arguments here, but I think that many people are so interested in proving Bush’s evil that they will accept any plausible argument that demonstrates this evil – without demanding a stringent proof of the argument.
Is Bush & Co. capable of carrying off 9/11? Certainly morally if not logistically. If you would like to know the conclusion I have finally come to after having examined most of the evidence both pro and con – I can tell you that I think Bush certainly bears a lion’s share of culpability for 9/11 in that - either he was criminally negligent in failing to assess the dangers of the terrorist plot that was being hatched under his nose - or I might even be willing to go as far as accepting the theory that he knew of the plot and deliberately allowed the door to remain open to the attack. Of course once the attack occurred there was a whole program ready to be snapped in place to begin to convert this country into the police state it has since become.
I know this conclusion may not suit you as it doesn’t follow the dictates of the conspiracy theorists. All I ask you is try to look at all the arguments with an open mind – as I have tried to do and don’t be manipulated by hysterics, yours or others. We need clear heads in this struggle.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
Guest
5. 20-01-2007 04:19
9/11 response
I totally agree with your assessment of 9/11. You seem not to think so, but your theory is perfectly in tune with the theories put forth by conspiracy therorists regarding 9/11. Certainly my conclusions are very similar/almost identical to yours and I have read similar conclusions to yours.
FYI I am British and as an engineer I continue to question the official theories regarding 9/11.
If large oil fields like Gharwar, Burgan etc are at peak, near peak, or past peak, then it makes the conspiracy theories all the more credible.
FYI I am British and as an engineer I continue to question the official theories regarding 9/11.
If large oil fields like Gharwar, Burgan etc are at peak, near peak, or past peak, then it makes the conspiracy theories all the more credible.
Guest
6. 20-01-2007 04:23
9/11 response
Just to add, that I do believe that Bush was AT LEAST complicit in the events of 911. I concluded that the towers were demolished via demolition. Like you say though, that is ultimately perhaps less important than removing these dangerous people from power.
Guest
7. 21-01-2007 19:46
Moderate Conservative Here
I agree with much of the content in your article but just not the spin. The conservatives (not "neo cons") are in the driver's seat here despite the elections and the Dems in office are showing now what they knew to be true all along; that Bush's strategy is a more effective approach than turning tail and leaving. It is in our best interest to keep forward operating bases in Iraq until the Middle East has no strategic value and/or poses no threat to our interests. Why don't you libs get that too? The war was to mantain the steady flow of oil. The rebuilding is to help the people of Iraq and maintain these forward bases near those jerks in Iran. So what? Whether the Iraqis help or not we need to be there for our interests. Not necessarily theirs.
What makes me angry is the fact that the media continues to spin the negative vibes on the war and on our president. I read a few articles in the recent Newsweek about us creating the next generation of terrorists and just about threw-up. Intelligent people who believe in this country and self-preservation realize what we are accomplishing is of great value even for the costs; that the fighting is being done on foreign soil. Plus. The fighting fine tunes our army to meet the ever changing battle front that the world presents. Plus. It disrupts enemy tactical operations and draws a magnet to Iraq (where our ARMY is) and AWAY from the U.S. of A. Plus Plus PLUS!!!!
NO, this shouldn't be a popular strategy for our enemies or even our envious allies. They should be ripping us for it. But not our OWN PRESS.
I think that hating a president is easy. Supporting one is harder no matter who it is.
People who love to be haters are hating on Bush so hard that they are losing site of the image we present to the world. And we are presenting an image of self-hate which is working to our own detriment. They are also forgetting that being in the greatest nation on God's green earth is worth fighting for...even if the fighting never ends.
What makes me angry is the fact that the media continues to spin the negative vibes on the war and on our president. I read a few articles in the recent Newsweek about us creating the next generation of terrorists and just about threw-up. Intelligent people who believe in this country and self-preservation realize what we are accomplishing is of great value even for the costs; that the fighting is being done on foreign soil. Plus. The fighting fine tunes our army to meet the ever changing battle front that the world presents. Plus. It disrupts enemy tactical operations and draws a magnet to Iraq (where our ARMY is) and AWAY from the U.S. of A. Plus Plus PLUS!!!!
NO, this shouldn't be a popular strategy for our enemies or even our envious allies. They should be ripping us for it. But not our OWN PRESS.
I think that hating a president is easy. Supporting one is harder no matter who it is.
People who love to be haters are hating on Bush so hard that they are losing site of the image we present to the world. And we are presenting an image of self-hate which is working to our own detriment. They are also forgetting that being in the greatest nation on God's green earth is worth fighting for...even if the fighting never ends.
Guest
8. 22-01-2007 12:37
Moderate Conservative Here
Oy, beejesus Dave, time to bend over and kiss your bum goodbye; your inner-nazi\'s in a twist.
Bob. Excellent break-down of exactly what\'s going on. It\'s creepy how those castles just don\'t get talked about, I\'ve thought right along that Bush is doing a bang up job of delivering to the oil corps. and the armament industries. I also really wonder about the Saudi connection - Sunni/Shia. I just wonder if any of us will be around when all of this is eventually revealed.
For me, Guantanamo is the most oppressive raping of human decency and is representative in microcosm of the new world order as birthed by the neocons/conservatives. This will never be forgiven or forgotten. It will stand in it\'s way as Auchwitz stands for it\'s crimes. At the same time, I think that it matters very much what the world sees in the manner of political resistance. The majority of Americans believe they have been manipulated and want to change that. The trick is not to give in to the feeling of hopelessness and helplessness. It\'s now a race against time; the urgency is to get Bush/Cheney out of office before they use nuclear weapons on Iran, the rest right now is shadowplay in my opinion. ACT NOW, call your reps and start making noise. And thank-you Bob, never give up, we are in this all together, no matter how bleak it seems at times.
Bob. Excellent break-down of exactly what\'s going on. It\'s creepy how those castles just don\'t get talked about, I\'ve thought right along that Bush is doing a bang up job of delivering to the oil corps. and the armament industries. I also really wonder about the Saudi connection - Sunni/Shia. I just wonder if any of us will be around when all of this is eventually revealed.
For me, Guantanamo is the most oppressive raping of human decency and is representative in microcosm of the new world order as birthed by the neocons/conservatives. This will never be forgiven or forgotten. It will stand in it\'s way as Auchwitz stands for it\'s crimes. At the same time, I think that it matters very much what the world sees in the manner of political resistance. The majority of Americans believe they have been manipulated and want to change that. The trick is not to give in to the feeling of hopelessness and helplessness. It\'s now a race against time; the urgency is to get Bush/Cheney out of office before they use nuclear weapons on Iran, the rest right now is shadowplay in my opinion. ACT NOW, call your reps and start making noise. And thank-you Bob, never give up, we are in this all together, no matter how bleak it seems at times.
Guest
9. 23-01-2007 16:55
Response to Dave
I often wish that Shahram would keep some of these items up a little longer on the main page – especially when the responses are still actively coming in. Nevertheless I wanted to have a chance to respond to Dave’s last post because I am happy to have generated a response from at least a “moderate conservative” on this forum. I am gratified he took the time to respond to me with his opinions. I would hope to treat his response with the same courtesy he showed me. It is refreshing to have a rebuttal from the right that shows an interest in discussing the actual issues at stake here without a resort to a personal attack. Thanks Dave!
The first issue I would take up is that of whether the real conservatives in the Republican Party are really in charge. It appears that not just the moderate but the real conservative elements in the Party seem to be deserting Bush and the Iraqi war. I think that the closer to ’08 we come, the longer the list of Republican defectors will be. I, and many of (what I would call) my conservative friends, would assert that those so-called neoconservatives never represented the true principles of conservatism – certainly not on the international scene. I would also question whether the Democrats’ going along with the Bush doctrine on terror (especially in Iraq) represents not so much the endorsement of the incursion into Iraq as much as an inability to stand up against a bully who is willing to exhibit his own unique kind of domestic executive terrorism.
Dave agrees with me that the Iraqi war was intended to primarily maintain a steady flow of oil. I think we would seriously disagree with whether this is a good thing to do, whether it is a thing that is possible to do and whether it was something that Bush should have honestly told the American people about in the first place.
That being said, I want to say that, for some time, I have been toying with the idea of writing an essay that puts forth what I believe are the most credible points of Bush and Company visa vie the Project for the New Amerikan Century. Back in the days of Debate Club in High School, it used to be necessary for debaters to articulate both sides of an argument. Do they even teach Debate or rhetoric in H.S. any more? I don’t think an advocate worth his/her salt should even be able to argue a position until theyare able to state the other position at least as well as their opponent. That is why I think so many on both ends of the political spectrum are so prone to throw around such vitriolic personal attacks with such impunity – they haven’t even taken the time to seriously examine the assertions of the opposition.
Let me then attempt to state the neocon’s argument in defense of the Bush position visa vie the Iraqi incursion.
I think that a somewhat cogent argument could be made for the establishment of the United States as the sole, all-powerful, dominant empire on earth in the 21st Century. I think however whether such a goal is achievable, desirable by a majority of humanity or even moral would be another issue.
Given the option that the Amerikan way of life is non-negotiable [1], meaning that energy conservation is off the table and any change of lifestyle to reduce the lion’s share of the world’s resources we squander daily... Given also that our refusal to seriously develop alternative energy and transportation technologies will soon have all the major energy consumers playing an ever more frantic game of Mideast musical chairs... It then becomes more and more imperative that we acquire dominance of that area of the world by whatever means necessary. The same argument can be made for our establishing dominance by (force if necessary) of other equally “unstable” resource rich areas of the world as well. Since most Americans are blissfully unaware of our more than century-long “Monroe Doctrine” of imperialism over most of the globe and since awakening them to the reality of our many past and present atrocities in pursuit of this policy would cause unnecessary consternation, a public disinformation campaign is essential for the pursuit of this program in our ostensibly democratic country. The myth of America as a gift of the gods to the freedom seeking people of the world as well as an unswerving trust in the doctrine of presidential infallibility is absolutely necessary and desirable. In an age of even as vestigial a free press as we possess today there is always a possibility for the people to rise up and naively think they are wiser than their rulers, a system of un-refuted propaganda, regulation, surveillance, censorship, citizen “reprogramming” and incarceration must gradually be increased. All these things are accomplished not for the harm of the people but for their ultimate benefit and as the only way to guarantee that the material comforts of the American way of life will not be compromised. After all who among us would be foolish enough to exchange our cable TV for something as ephemeral as freedom?
Sorry Dave, if my satiric pen has added a bit of negative spin to the neocon argument. I believe that this is what, in their heart of hearts, the neoconservatives do believe. I know that while some, like Cheney, may be motivated solely by an obscene acquisition of wealth, influence and power until the Lord takes them, there are still others who just as passionately believe the only way for our survival lies in the ideas advanced by the PNAC documents and position papers. I do agree with the neocons’ belief that the traditional concept of constitutional, representative democracy is anathema to Bush’s dreams, domestic and foreign. We only disagree on whether such a putting aside of our traditional values is a good or a bad thing. Speaking of Bush, it is interesting to see how many prominent neocons have disserted him and his bungling of Iraq. To my understanding it is not so much an argument over principals as results.
I realize that I have not properly responded to your points concerning the need to support our president right or wrong; that Iraq is “battle-hardening” our troops rather than decimating them for future events (including the health, safety and defense of the homeland) [2] or that dissent in this country is a form of self-hate that weakens our credibility on the world stage. I really wish you would review your statements in view of a little bit of a recent historical perspective (Johnson, Nixon &Vietnam?) and get back to me with your revised statements. [3]
Once again, thank you for your feedback on this forum. I would hope you will continue to read and share your ideas. These days I am less interested in who is Red or Blue, conservative or liberal than in the quality of their argument and their willingness to express and discuss them in the free marketplace of ideas such as MWC News.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
Footnotes:
[1] Vice-President Dick Cheney, who before becoming vice-president had been leader of the largest oilfield supply company in the world. Dick Cheney said regarding the goals of "terrorists" and the "appropriate" American response: "The American way of life is non-negotiable".
That mindset explains why President Bush AND presidential nominee John Kerry BOTH favor continuance of the American war in Iraq and why vice-presidential nominee John Edwards said at the Boston convention: "We are going to WIN that war!"
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/ temporary_continuance_of_the_american_way_of_life_at_state_i n_iraq
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war
The first issue I would take up is that of whether the real conservatives in the Republican Party are really in charge. It appears that not just the moderate but the real conservative elements in the Party seem to be deserting Bush and the Iraqi war. I think that the closer to ’08 we come, the longer the list of Republican defectors will be. I, and many of (what I would call) my conservative friends, would assert that those so-called neoconservatives never represented the true principles of conservatism – certainly not on the international scene. I would also question whether the Democrats’ going along with the Bush doctrine on terror (especially in Iraq) represents not so much the endorsement of the incursion into Iraq as much as an inability to stand up against a bully who is willing to exhibit his own unique kind of domestic executive terrorism.
Dave agrees with me that the Iraqi war was intended to primarily maintain a steady flow of oil. I think we would seriously disagree with whether this is a good thing to do, whether it is a thing that is possible to do and whether it was something that Bush should have honestly told the American people about in the first place.
That being said, I want to say that, for some time, I have been toying with the idea of writing an essay that puts forth what I believe are the most credible points of Bush and Company visa vie the Project for the New Amerikan Century. Back in the days of Debate Club in High School, it used to be necessary for debaters to articulate both sides of an argument. Do they even teach Debate or rhetoric in H.S. any more? I don’t think an advocate worth his/her salt should even be able to argue a position until theyare able to state the other position at least as well as their opponent. That is why I think so many on both ends of the political spectrum are so prone to throw around such vitriolic personal attacks with such impunity – they haven’t even taken the time to seriously examine the assertions of the opposition.
Let me then attempt to state the neocon’s argument in defense of the Bush position visa vie the Iraqi incursion.
I think that a somewhat cogent argument could be made for the establishment of the United States as the sole, all-powerful, dominant empire on earth in the 21st Century. I think however whether such a goal is achievable, desirable by a majority of humanity or even moral would be another issue.
Given the option that the Amerikan way of life is non-negotiable [1], meaning that energy conservation is off the table and any change of lifestyle to reduce the lion’s share of the world’s resources we squander daily... Given also that our refusal to seriously develop alternative energy and transportation technologies will soon have all the major energy consumers playing an ever more frantic game of Mideast musical chairs... It then becomes more and more imperative that we acquire dominance of that area of the world by whatever means necessary. The same argument can be made for our establishing dominance by (force if necessary) of other equally “unstable” resource rich areas of the world as well. Since most Americans are blissfully unaware of our more than century-long “Monroe Doctrine” of imperialism over most of the globe and since awakening them to the reality of our many past and present atrocities in pursuit of this policy would cause unnecessary consternation, a public disinformation campaign is essential for the pursuit of this program in our ostensibly democratic country. The myth of America as a gift of the gods to the freedom seeking people of the world as well as an unswerving trust in the doctrine of presidential infallibility is absolutely necessary and desirable. In an age of even as vestigial a free press as we possess today there is always a possibility for the people to rise up and naively think they are wiser than their rulers, a system of un-refuted propaganda, regulation, surveillance, censorship, citizen “reprogramming” and incarceration must gradually be increased. All these things are accomplished not for the harm of the people but for their ultimate benefit and as the only way to guarantee that the material comforts of the American way of life will not be compromised. After all who among us would be foolish enough to exchange our cable TV for something as ephemeral as freedom?
Sorry Dave, if my satiric pen has added a bit of negative spin to the neocon argument. I believe that this is what, in their heart of hearts, the neoconservatives do believe. I know that while some, like Cheney, may be motivated solely by an obscene acquisition of wealth, influence and power until the Lord takes them, there are still others who just as passionately believe the only way for our survival lies in the ideas advanced by the PNAC documents and position papers. I do agree with the neocons’ belief that the traditional concept of constitutional, representative democracy is anathema to Bush’s dreams, domestic and foreign. We only disagree on whether such a putting aside of our traditional values is a good or a bad thing. Speaking of Bush, it is interesting to see how many prominent neocons have disserted him and his bungling of Iraq. To my understanding it is not so much an argument over principals as results.
I realize that I have not properly responded to your points concerning the need to support our president right or wrong; that Iraq is “battle-hardening” our troops rather than decimating them for future events (including the health, safety and defense of the homeland) [2] or that dissent in this country is a form of self-hate that weakens our credibility on the world stage. I really wish you would review your statements in view of a little bit of a recent historical perspective (Johnson, Nixon &Vietnam?) and get back to me with your revised statements. [3]
Once again, thank you for your feedback on this forum. I would hope you will continue to read and share your ideas. These days I am less interested in who is Red or Blue, conservative or liberal than in the quality of their argument and their willingness to express and discuss them in the free marketplace of ideas such as MWC News.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
Footnotes:
[1] Vice-President Dick Cheney, who before becoming vice-president had been leader of the largest oilfield supply company in the world. Dick Cheney said regarding the goals of "terrorists" and the "appropriate" American response: "The American way of life is non-negotiable".
That mindset explains why President Bush AND presidential nominee John Kerry BOTH favor continuance of the American war in Iraq and why vice-presidential nominee John Edwards said at the Boston convention: "We are going to WIN that war!"
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/ temporary_continuance_of_the_american_way_of_life_at_state_i n_iraq
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war
Guest
10. 23-01-2007 17:14
11. 23-01-2007 20:56
The Picture of Bush in a Dunce Cap is a
Attacking the person instead of the policy is a logical flaw known as a \"Staw Man\" if my memory serves me correctly. I am also the recipient of such an attack...Emily, if I'm too in touch with my \"inner Nazi\" then you are too in touch with your inner Hanoi Jane.
Unbelievable. You guys really believe all the crap spewed about Bush on the liberal airwaves. Open your eyes and see that actions are louder than words. At the state of the Union address, as I speak, the whole of Congress is giving our president a standing O (including Pelosi). Many support the war and the president, even the ones who aren't clapping, because they are on the inside with the defense intelligence, unlike you and I.
If the Dems. want to end our involement in Iraq they have the numbers. It would be the worst case scenario, but they either need to put up or (shut up) work to confront the enemy in this ongoing conflict.
Despite the fact that our media's influence can start or prevent attacks on our people as well as our troops, give confidence to our enemies and take it from our own people or start or prevent a civil war, they continue to put us down. NBC, ABC, CBS, and even NPR can't wait for Bush to be done so they can say how wrong he is. Informed people know that we are safer under Bush than we would have been under Gore or Clinton because this president puts the needs of the NATION 1st....what is a president is hired to do!?!?
It's such a shame to see a man who is willing to put his \"legacy\" on the line to do what is in the best interest of the country get caught in the web of a suicidal, self-hating yet self-rightous left-wing media onslaught. He is a true scape goat for problems caused by our enemies.
Did you watch the State of the Union address? Awesome. He spoke about the need to research and utilize new energy sources and asked congress to work with him to set a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years. You all will poo-poo this like a teen dissing a father who is trying to reach out to a child he truly loves. He pushed for health care reform. He thinks we can balance the budget and still maintain tax relief, the reason for the extra income in the 1st place. And his record shows he won't put a dent in our military, something Clinton sacrificed. He also made motions toward combating Global warming.
The president went a long way to extend his hand to the new majority in congress and still maintained a good argument for engaging terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a fact that without security for our nation, none of the other things he mentioned can be realized. Continuing to point out all of the worst things happening and forcasting doom helps those very things to happen. Like the R.E.M. lyrics "Oh, no I've said too much...I set it up!"
Unbelievable. You guys really believe all the crap spewed about Bush on the liberal airwaves. Open your eyes and see that actions are louder than words. At the state of the Union address, as I speak, the whole of Congress is giving our president a standing O (including Pelosi). Many support the war and the president, even the ones who aren't clapping, because they are on the inside with the defense intelligence, unlike you and I.
If the Dems. want to end our involement in Iraq they have the numbers. It would be the worst case scenario, but they either need to put up or (shut up) work to confront the enemy in this ongoing conflict.
Despite the fact that our media's influence can start or prevent attacks on our people as well as our troops, give confidence to our enemies and take it from our own people or start or prevent a civil war, they continue to put us down. NBC, ABC, CBS, and even NPR can't wait for Bush to be done so they can say how wrong he is. Informed people know that we are safer under Bush than we would have been under Gore or Clinton because this president puts the needs of the NATION 1st....what is a president is hired to do!?!?
It's such a shame to see a man who is willing to put his \"legacy\" on the line to do what is in the best interest of the country get caught in the web of a suicidal, self-hating yet self-rightous left-wing media onslaught. He is a true scape goat for problems caused by our enemies.
Did you watch the State of the Union address? Awesome. He spoke about the need to research and utilize new energy sources and asked congress to work with him to set a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years. You all will poo-poo this like a teen dissing a father who is trying to reach out to a child he truly loves. He pushed for health care reform. He thinks we can balance the budget and still maintain tax relief, the reason for the extra income in the 1st place. And his record shows he won't put a dent in our military, something Clinton sacrificed. He also made motions toward combating Global warming.
The president went a long way to extend his hand to the new majority in congress and still maintained a good argument for engaging terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a fact that without security for our nation, none of the other things he mentioned can be realized. Continuing to point out all of the worst things happening and forcasting doom helps those very things to happen. Like the R.E.M. lyrics "Oh, no I've said too much...I set it up!"
Guest
12. 24-01-2007 01:54
Dave versus Bob Boldt
I must sadly agree with Bob Boldt. The Democrats will prove to be some improvement but will still be beholden to the miltary-industrial complex and who else drive American Empire. One hopes that the Democrats will stop the killing, salvage the America the world loves and start restoring its tarnished reputation.
Having said that, Barak Obama would be a vast improvement over Hilary Clinton who - a woman - is deeply complicit in the Amerikan mass murder of millions of Muslim children in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories and as such deserves arraignment before the ICC, albeit on lesser charges to those levelled against Bush, Dr Rice (Dr Death)and their confreres.
As for Bush - it is not a question of hating him; why waste any human emotion on such a mass pedocidal monster? The issue is adherence to fundamental human values, of the equality of all men, of respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of haappiness, of respect for International Law and the Geneva, Universal Human Rights, Rights of the Child and Genocide Conventions.
The latest UN and medical literature estimates are that the post-invasion excess deaths (deaths that should not have happened, avoidable deaths) in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories total 0.3, 0.9 and 2.1 million, respectively; there are about 6 million Palestinian refugees; 2 million external Iraqi refugees plus another 1.7 million internal refugees; and there are about 4 million Afghan refugees - Genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention.
No - decent people should not be HATING. Decent people should be INFORMING others about these horrendous crimes against humanity - and acting ethically in all their dealings (including VOTING and purchasing goods and services) with those complicit in such crimes.
Having said that, Barak Obama would be a vast improvement over Hilary Clinton who - a woman - is deeply complicit in the Amerikan mass murder of millions of Muslim children in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories and as such deserves arraignment before the ICC, albeit on lesser charges to those levelled against Bush, Dr Rice (Dr Death)and their confreres.
As for Bush - it is not a question of hating him; why waste any human emotion on such a mass pedocidal monster? The issue is adherence to fundamental human values, of the equality of all men, of respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of haappiness, of respect for International Law and the Geneva, Universal Human Rights, Rights of the Child and Genocide Conventions.
The latest UN and medical literature estimates are that the post-invasion excess deaths (deaths that should not have happened, avoidable deaths) in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories total 0.3, 0.9 and 2.1 million, respectively; there are about 6 million Palestinian refugees; 2 million external Iraqi refugees plus another 1.7 million internal refugees; and there are about 4 million Afghan refugees - Genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention.
No - decent people should not be HATING. Decent people should be INFORMING others about these horrendous crimes against humanity - and acting ethically in all their dealings (including VOTING and purchasing goods and services) with those complicit in such crimes.
Guest
13. 24-01-2007 13:49
Dave versus Bob Boldt
Quote:
Was that a compliment Dave?
Emily, if I'm too in touch with my "inner Nazi" then you are too in touch with your inner Hanoi Jane.
Was that a compliment Dave?
Guest
14. 25-01-2007 00:48
Dave versus Bob Boldt
I'll take that. Indeed.
Dave do you remember the seventies when we used the common phrase 'bend over and kiss your ass good-bye' in reference to the nuclear winter coming down the line, sooner or later? Based on hoping we weren't having politicians too casual about that button thing?
Well, your president and your unquestioning need for authority, to lead you through this one, has put me and everyone I love and everyone else too at risk because you're trying to make this little side trip to colonialism make sense based on no one else's rights but you and your's own, as if you were living centuries ago and not today, in the nuclear age. I mean with the lessons we've been learning from that.
I don't think he's got a clue, this poor man, not about governance and not about warfare but he's 'the decider'.
Polya said it, 'why waste the energy required to hate' on this one. Something that indicates to me that you've completely missed the point.
There is blood on our hands for our greed. How simple do you want it? Grow up.
Dave do you remember the seventies when we used the common phrase 'bend over and kiss your ass good-bye' in reference to the nuclear winter coming down the line, sooner or later? Based on hoping we weren't having politicians too casual about that button thing?
Well, your president and your unquestioning need for authority, to lead you through this one, has put me and everyone I love and everyone else too at risk because you're trying to make this little side trip to colonialism make sense based on no one else's rights but you and your's own, as if you were living centuries ago and not today, in the nuclear age. I mean with the lessons we've been learning from that.
I don't think he's got a clue, this poor man, not about governance and not about warfare but he's 'the decider'.
Polya said it, 'why waste the energy required to hate' on this one. Something that indicates to me that you've completely missed the point.
There is blood on our hands for our greed. How simple do you want it? Grow up.
Guest
15. 25-01-2007 11:02
Final (?) response to Dave
My apologies to one and all for the length of this reply. Of necessity a comprehensive rebuttal always must be longer than the argument to be countered.
Point of information:
I was not the one who selected the picture of Bush in a dunce cap trying to put Iraq back together that accompanied the initial essay “Bush is Winning in Iraq.” While I agree with the sentiment and have been the source of many satirical Bush cartoons published on these screens in the past, you will have to take this one up with Shahram.
Another point of information for Dave:
Attacking the person instead of the policy is a logical flaw known as an “Ad Hominem” argument not a "Staw Man." The Straw Man strategy is mounting the weakest possible argument attributable to your opponent and them knocking it over easily and saying that you have refuted the argument. [1]
And please let’s everyone let up on the flaming Nazi/Hanoi Jane rhetoric a little. I do reserve the right to call-out and make fun of Bush and his cronies. I just feel uncomfortable calling people who try to put forth arguments on this forum names. Shahram is pretty liberal in the amount of leeway he allows for mean-spirited name calling, but let’s try to keep a civil discussion here. As the designation implies, flaming always generates far more heat than light.
Dave pointed out a number of issues I failed to address in my previous post. I will try to respond to them on a point-counterpoint basis using quotes from Dave’s post.
“You guys really believe all the crap spewed about Bush on the liberal airwaves.”
First of all, I believe next to nothing of the crap spewed about Bush or anyone else on the “liberal” airwaves. Second the so-called “liberal” press has been roundly criticized for their lack of any critical analysis of Bush’s past conduct and programs. [2] I have rarely seen such acquiescence to a president as blatantly controversial (and I am using a very generous word here – “controversial”) as Bush. I remember the lack of slack given to presidents like Truman and Clinton by this same “liberal” press. Finally now, the corporate press is beginning to awaken from their slumbers, put aside their steno pads and begin to criticize the war. I say it is all a little too little a little too late even though I appreciate the sentiment. It certainly does not represent spreading crap about Bush. I say it is about time.
“At the state of the Union address, as I speak, the whole of Congress is giving our president a standing O (including Pelosi).”
Don’t be fooled, Dave. All that demonstrates is that the Democrats (unlike their neighbors across the aisle) have a modicum of civility in the wielding of their power. The President will not feel nearly so lauded if Representatives Conyers and Waxman have their way with investigations (with subpoena power) of wrongdoing on the part of the President and the V.P.
“Many support the war and the president, even the ones who aren't clapping, because they are on the inside with the defense intelligence, unlike you and I.”
I find that a truly amazing interpretation of events and must confess I have never heard it advanced by anyone before. I wish I could believe it, but have never seen any evidence to support that theory. Believe me, if anyone has the skinny on any sort of mitigating defense intelligence that might have a chance to pull us out of the quagmire in Iraq, they wouldn’t be keeping it under their hats – especially the Republicans who are becoming so critical of Bush’s blunders. No, I’m afraid we have only two choices in Iraq. [3] Pull out now on our timetable, or be driven out later on their time table (to the tune of hundreds of thousands more innocent dead.) This is a situation in which victory on any terms is just not an option. Bush was advised of the “slam-dunk” certainty of this well before the invasion.
”Despite the fact that our media's influence can start or prevent attacks on our people as well as our troops, give confidence to our enemies and take it from our own people or start or prevent a civil war, they continue to put us down.”
I think you give the media, even a biased, managed media, too much credit. The media certainly was responsible for helping Bush create an atmosphere of fear and fog in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq as well as keeping a lid on the events on the ground on the more recent destruction of Lebanon by Israel. But to contend that the unrest that was created in the Islamic world by the release of the Abu Ghraib pornography and the rape of 14 year old AbirQassim al-Janabi [4] was the responsibility of the press and not our troops and their leaders is pure sophistry. Yes, as Geraldo learned, the press should not be broadcasting troop movements and putting people in danger unnecessarily. But when critics, the administration and their corporate owners attempt to muzzle the 4th Estate when there is scandal, malfeasance, graft, lies, theft, torture, rape and murder to be uncovered they are doing a disservice to the very idea of a free press.
“Informed people know that we are safer under Bush than we would have been under Gore or Clinton because this president puts the needs of the NATION 1st....what is a president is hired to do!?!?”
Is that a hypothetical question to end all hypothetical questions for you!?!? I contend just the opposite. Prove me wrong. Actually there IS a lot of historical evidence that, in spite of Clinton’s being virtually hamstrung by the Republican Congress, we were far safer under Clinton than Bush ’43. At least Clinton took terrorism seriously. Here is a hypothetical for you: I cannot imagine President Gore not noticing Richard Clarke running around the White House “with his hair on fire.”
“He (Bush) is a true scape goat for problems caused by our enemies.”
I hate to say this, but the situation in Iraq is wholly Bush’s doing. I hope you are not going to counter by telling me Saddam was our enemy in any real sense, responsible for 9/11 or posed any threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby he got himself all stuck all by hisself. [5] Of course Afghanistan was bungled strategically and even this theater of operations is backfiring on us tragically as well. Most Americans supported Bush on his attack on Afghanistan, even though now it looks like a mistake. Here is a hypothetical for you? What would have happened if Bush had kept to the search for Bin Laden in stead of going after the “man who tried to kill my daddy”?
”Did you watch the State of the Union address? Awesome. He spoke about the need to research and utilize new energy sources and asked congress to work with him to set a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years.”
This would be awesome if he had not already promised a coherent, effective action on exactly these same issues in every State of the Union address since he first stole the election in 2000. As you said in your response, in another context: He needs to either put up or shut up.
“He (Bush) thinks we can balance the budget and still maintain tax relief, the reason for the extra income in the 1st place. And his record shows he won't put a dent in our military”
Dave, I wish you would read your words over carefully here and see if you can spot the contradictions therein.
“He also made motions toward combating Global warming.”
You could have knocked me over with a feather!
“... forcasting doom helps those very things to happen. Like the R.E.M. lyrics "Oh, no I've said too much...I set it up”
There is a difference between a pessimist and one who announces, “Iceberg off the starboard bow!”
Well that was fun. Any further questions?
Finally I want to once again thank Dave for hanging in there with his arguments against people whom I’m sure he must think are quite incorrect both in their perceptions and their analysis. I realize that, based upon the previous posts in response to my original essay, there is probably little more that can be said on either side to try to sway each other to another point of view. Absent any major shift on either side I would like to make a couple of observations that might be useful for all concerned in this vital debate. [6]
First of all, we Americans need to be a lot more critical and less willing to take both people and their assertions on faith. We need to examine most critically the opinions and people we feel the closest affinity with. In my original essay I came down quite critically on the Democrats. I must admit to being a life-long, voting Democrat and it goes against my grain to be so critical of most of them, especially considering the beatings they have suffered under Bush and before that, under the Congressional Republicans’ “Contract with America.” Nevertheless, I have concluded that, while they champion certain “liberal” causes I revere, most of them have either been spineless or downright complicit with Bush in terms of not opposing his neocon inspired domestic and foreign policy programs.
As a result of my analysis of the current political scene I have (as I elaborated elsewhere) decided to withdraw from participation in national politics altogether. Hilary will just have to govern without my advise and consent. I regard the whole national political situation as hopeless and not subject to even slight remediation. I’m sure many will disagree with this conclusion. For me, I intend to devote the finite amount of energy left to me to the cause of developing local, sustainable, viable communities that just might be capable of surviving many of the disasters mankind and the Amerikan government has unleashed upon the planet.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
Footnotes:
[1] A straw man
argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy[2] or a scarecrow argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
An ad hominem argument,
also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
[2] Here is an example of the New York Times Mea Culpa concerning its biased coverage on the build up to the War in Iraq:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4621
[3] In case you believed the Pres. When he accused the Dems of not having a plan:
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0121.html
Last week US Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced H.R. 508, the "Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007," the strongest of all current US Congressional bills which seek to de-escalate the US Invasion of Iraq.
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244597,00.html
Her ID card picture here. http://members.aye.net/~hippie/images/blog/rape.jpg
[5] Would that Bush was as briefed on this tale as he was on the “My Pet Goat” file! - The complete story here:
http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm
[6] “These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.
And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don’t hide anymore; none of us.
That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we’re not willing to do it, we’re not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don’t debate this, if we don’t debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.”
Chuck Hagel Senate Republican from Nebraska.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070125_hagel_puts_the_senate_to_shame/
:)
Point of information:
I was not the one who selected the picture of Bush in a dunce cap trying to put Iraq back together that accompanied the initial essay “Bush is Winning in Iraq.” While I agree with the sentiment and have been the source of many satirical Bush cartoons published on these screens in the past, you will have to take this one up with Shahram.
Another point of information for Dave:
Attacking the person instead of the policy is a logical flaw known as an “Ad Hominem” argument not a "Staw Man." The Straw Man strategy is mounting the weakest possible argument attributable to your opponent and them knocking it over easily and saying that you have refuted the argument. [1]
And please let’s everyone let up on the flaming Nazi/Hanoi Jane rhetoric a little. I do reserve the right to call-out and make fun of Bush and his cronies. I just feel uncomfortable calling people who try to put forth arguments on this forum names. Shahram is pretty liberal in the amount of leeway he allows for mean-spirited name calling, but let’s try to keep a civil discussion here. As the designation implies, flaming always generates far more heat than light.
Dave pointed out a number of issues I failed to address in my previous post. I will try to respond to them on a point-counterpoint basis using quotes from Dave’s post.
“You guys really believe all the crap spewed about Bush on the liberal airwaves.”
First of all, I believe next to nothing of the crap spewed about Bush or anyone else on the “liberal” airwaves. Second the so-called “liberal” press has been roundly criticized for their lack of any critical analysis of Bush’s past conduct and programs. [2] I have rarely seen such acquiescence to a president as blatantly controversial (and I am using a very generous word here – “controversial”) as Bush. I remember the lack of slack given to presidents like Truman and Clinton by this same “liberal” press. Finally now, the corporate press is beginning to awaken from their slumbers, put aside their steno pads and begin to criticize the war. I say it is all a little too little a little too late even though I appreciate the sentiment. It certainly does not represent spreading crap about Bush. I say it is about time.
“At the state of the Union address, as I speak, the whole of Congress is giving our president a standing O (including Pelosi).”
Don’t be fooled, Dave. All that demonstrates is that the Democrats (unlike their neighbors across the aisle) have a modicum of civility in the wielding of their power. The President will not feel nearly so lauded if Representatives Conyers and Waxman have their way with investigations (with subpoena power) of wrongdoing on the part of the President and the V.P.
“Many support the war and the president, even the ones who aren't clapping, because they are on the inside with the defense intelligence, unlike you and I.”
I find that a truly amazing interpretation of events and must confess I have never heard it advanced by anyone before. I wish I could believe it, but have never seen any evidence to support that theory. Believe me, if anyone has the skinny on any sort of mitigating defense intelligence that might have a chance to pull us out of the quagmire in Iraq, they wouldn’t be keeping it under their hats – especially the Republicans who are becoming so critical of Bush’s blunders. No, I’m afraid we have only two choices in Iraq. [3] Pull out now on our timetable, or be driven out later on their time table (to the tune of hundreds of thousands more innocent dead.) This is a situation in which victory on any terms is just not an option. Bush was advised of the “slam-dunk” certainty of this well before the invasion.
”Despite the fact that our media's influence can start or prevent attacks on our people as well as our troops, give confidence to our enemies and take it from our own people or start or prevent a civil war, they continue to put us down.”
I think you give the media, even a biased, managed media, too much credit. The media certainly was responsible for helping Bush create an atmosphere of fear and fog in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq as well as keeping a lid on the events on the ground on the more recent destruction of Lebanon by Israel. But to contend that the unrest that was created in the Islamic world by the release of the Abu Ghraib pornography and the rape of 14 year old AbirQassim al-Janabi [4] was the responsibility of the press and not our troops and their leaders is pure sophistry. Yes, as Geraldo learned, the press should not be broadcasting troop movements and putting people in danger unnecessarily. But when critics, the administration and their corporate owners attempt to muzzle the 4th Estate when there is scandal, malfeasance, graft, lies, theft, torture, rape and murder to be uncovered they are doing a disservice to the very idea of a free press.
“Informed people know that we are safer under Bush than we would have been under Gore or Clinton because this president puts the needs of the NATION 1st....what is a president is hired to do!?!?”
Is that a hypothetical question to end all hypothetical questions for you!?!? I contend just the opposite. Prove me wrong. Actually there IS a lot of historical evidence that, in spite of Clinton’s being virtually hamstrung by the Republican Congress, we were far safer under Clinton than Bush ’43. At least Clinton took terrorism seriously. Here is a hypothetical for you: I cannot imagine President Gore not noticing Richard Clarke running around the White House “with his hair on fire.”
“He (Bush) is a true scape goat for problems caused by our enemies.”
I hate to say this, but the situation in Iraq is wholly Bush’s doing. I hope you are not going to counter by telling me Saddam was our enemy in any real sense, responsible for 9/11 or posed any threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby he got himself all stuck all by hisself. [5] Of course Afghanistan was bungled strategically and even this theater of operations is backfiring on us tragically as well. Most Americans supported Bush on his attack on Afghanistan, even though now it looks like a mistake. Here is a hypothetical for you? What would have happened if Bush had kept to the search for Bin Laden in stead of going after the “man who tried to kill my daddy”?
”Did you watch the State of the Union address? Awesome. He spoke about the need to research and utilize new energy sources and asked congress to work with him to set a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years.”
This would be awesome if he had not already promised a coherent, effective action on exactly these same issues in every State of the Union address since he first stole the election in 2000. As you said in your response, in another context: He needs to either put up or shut up.
“He (Bush) thinks we can balance the budget and still maintain tax relief, the reason for the extra income in the 1st place. And his record shows he won't put a dent in our military”
Dave, I wish you would read your words over carefully here and see if you can spot the contradictions therein.
“He also made motions toward combating Global warming.”
You could have knocked me over with a feather!
“... forcasting doom helps those very things to happen. Like the R.E.M. lyrics "Oh, no I've said too much...I set it up”
There is a difference between a pessimist and one who announces, “Iceberg off the starboard bow!”
Well that was fun. Any further questions?
Finally I want to once again thank Dave for hanging in there with his arguments against people whom I’m sure he must think are quite incorrect both in their perceptions and their analysis. I realize that, based upon the previous posts in response to my original essay, there is probably little more that can be said on either side to try to sway each other to another point of view. Absent any major shift on either side I would like to make a couple of observations that might be useful for all concerned in this vital debate. [6]
First of all, we Americans need to be a lot more critical and less willing to take both people and their assertions on faith. We need to examine most critically the opinions and people we feel the closest affinity with. In my original essay I came down quite critically on the Democrats. I must admit to being a life-long, voting Democrat and it goes against my grain to be so critical of most of them, especially considering the beatings they have suffered under Bush and before that, under the Congressional Republicans’ “Contract with America.” Nevertheless, I have concluded that, while they champion certain “liberal” causes I revere, most of them have either been spineless or downright complicit with Bush in terms of not opposing his neocon inspired domestic and foreign policy programs.
As a result of my analysis of the current political scene I have (as I elaborated elsewhere) decided to withdraw from participation in national politics altogether. Hilary will just have to govern without my advise and consent. I regard the whole national political situation as hopeless and not subject to even slight remediation. I’m sure many will disagree with this conclusion. For me, I intend to devote the finite amount of energy left to me to the cause of developing local, sustainable, viable communities that just might be capable of surviving many of the disasters mankind and the Amerikan government has unleashed upon the planet.
Peace,
Bob Boldt
Footnotes:
[1] A straw man
argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy[2] or a scarecrow argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
An ad hominem argument,
also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
[2] Here is an example of the New York Times Mea Culpa concerning its biased coverage on the build up to the War in Iraq:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4621
[3] In case you believed the Pres. When he accused the Dems of not having a plan:
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0121.html
Last week US Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced H.R. 508, the "Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007," the strongest of all current US Congressional bills which seek to de-escalate the US Invasion of Iraq.
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244597,00.html
Her ID card picture here. http://members.aye.net/~hippie/images/blog/rape.jpg
[5] Would that Bush was as briefed on this tale as he was on the “My Pet Goat” file! - The complete story here:
http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm
[6] “These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.
And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don’t hide anymore; none of us.
That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we’re not willing to do it, we’re not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don’t debate this, if we don’t debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.”
Chuck Hagel Senate Republican from Nebraska.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070125_hagel_puts_the_senate_to_shame/
:)
Guest
16. 25-01-2007 12:02
Clarification for all
I choose the graphic accompanied an article base of the content.
I rarely add comic to a serious article, but in this case the title had influenced the picture.
And I thought it is well suited for "Bush winning in Iraq"
I rarely add comic to a serious article, but in this case the title had influenced the picture.
And I thought it is well suited for "Bush winning in Iraq"
Guest
17. 28-01-2007 21:36
Thanks
I haven't taken logic in 10 years and didn't feel like looking up the info at that moment but you are correct, Ad Hominem was what I was referring to.
There's so much to address here that I don't have time to go point by point through everything but I do want to quickly clarify a few things:
To Emily, Jane Fonda acted disgracefully by consorting with the enemy while our troops were being killed in Vietnam. She is very nearly a traitor. They came home to be spit on as they stepped off their planes. This to spite a war they didn't necessarily choose to fight in. She was only upstaged recently by her former husband Ted Turner who went to North Korea and vouched for Kim Jong Il as a decent president. Clue to the naive: his people are starving to death and being murdered by his secret police while he lives like a king.
Gideon, like many libs, is inclined to point at the "awful American military-industrial complex" as the source of so many problems not realizing that, without the amazing technologies brought forth by it, they'd be speaking German, Japanese or Russian right now.
And Bob (shrugs and sighs):
"He (Bush) thinks we can balance the budget and still maintain tax relief, the reason for the extra income in the 1st place. And his record shows he won't put a dent in our military”
"Dave, I wish you would read your words over carefully here and see if you can spot the contradictions therein."
Let me spell it out for you, Bob. You seem like a thinking man. Lowering taxes across the board has the effect of stimulating the economy, especially in the business sector. This provides job growth and increases in wages and spending, thus increasing tax revenue. Easy! More money in my pocket means I spend some more.
"At least Clinton took terrorism seriously. Here is a hypothetical for you: I cannot imagine President Gore not noticing Richard Clarke running around the White House 'with his hair on fire.'"
Are you KIDDING ME? Clinton took terror seriously(?), responding to the attack on the USS Cole by sending a cruise missile or two missing Osama at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He downgraded the army, letting go of so many trained officers and men that we are at the current crisis in enlistment. Let Osama go in Sudan. Did virtually nothing to gather intelligence, in fact hurting the CIA by having us quit the business of espionage. No wonder there's no proper intelligence when Bush needs it in 2002! And, yes, I could see Al Gore oblivious to a lot more than a guy on the White House lawn with his hair on fire. Did you expect George to stand and clap? The coverage makes my case about the liberal media. I think if you took a poll, most Americans would acknowledge that only one network leans to the right, FOX. The others all lean away from the president.
"...a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years.”
"This would be awesome if he had not already promised a coherent, effective action on exactly these same issues in every State of the Union address since he first stole the election in 2000. As you said in your response, in another context: He needs to either put up or shut up."
Bush HAS made similar proposals that were consistently voted DOWN by the Democratic minority in this area and health care reform etc. The Dems have a party full of selfish naysayers.
The bottom line is that George Bush is an American who's doing what he thinks is right for our country. You can criticize him for mistakes he's made in the past because hindsight is always 20/20. But to accuse him of lying and purposefully decieving the country is wrong and destructive.
He didn't "steal" the election as you say. Did HE create the electoral college? Of course not, he won by the rules at hand.
Not ALL Dems are nice and reach across the aisle neither are the Repubicans, I just wish that people understood all that our fore-fathers and mothers did for this country. I wish that we held ourselves to some to the same standards. When the interests of the nation where at stake, they didn't back down or give up, or blindly criticize. They finished the job.
Show a little respect for the president.
There's so much to address here that I don't have time to go point by point through everything but I do want to quickly clarify a few things:
To Emily, Jane Fonda acted disgracefully by consorting with the enemy while our troops were being killed in Vietnam. She is very nearly a traitor. They came home to be spit on as they stepped off their planes. This to spite a war they didn't necessarily choose to fight in. She was only upstaged recently by her former husband Ted Turner who went to North Korea and vouched for Kim Jong Il as a decent president. Clue to the naive: his people are starving to death and being murdered by his secret police while he lives like a king.
Gideon, like many libs, is inclined to point at the "awful American military-industrial complex" as the source of so many problems not realizing that, without the amazing technologies brought forth by it, they'd be speaking German, Japanese or Russian right now.
And Bob (shrugs and sighs):
"He (Bush) thinks we can balance the budget and still maintain tax relief, the reason for the extra income in the 1st place. And his record shows he won't put a dent in our military”
"Dave, I wish you would read your words over carefully here and see if you can spot the contradictions therein."
Let me spell it out for you, Bob. You seem like a thinking man. Lowering taxes across the board has the effect of stimulating the economy, especially in the business sector. This provides job growth and increases in wages and spending, thus increasing tax revenue. Easy! More money in my pocket means I spend some more.
"At least Clinton took terrorism seriously. Here is a hypothetical for you: I cannot imagine President Gore not noticing Richard Clarke running around the White House 'with his hair on fire.'"
Are you KIDDING ME? Clinton took terror seriously(?), responding to the attack on the USS Cole by sending a cruise missile or two missing Osama at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He downgraded the army, letting go of so many trained officers and men that we are at the current crisis in enlistment. Let Osama go in Sudan. Did virtually nothing to gather intelligence, in fact hurting the CIA by having us quit the business of espionage. No wonder there's no proper intelligence when Bush needs it in 2002! And, yes, I could see Al Gore oblivious to a lot more than a guy on the White House lawn with his hair on fire. Did you expect George to stand and clap? The coverage makes my case about the liberal media. I think if you took a poll, most Americans would acknowledge that only one network leans to the right, FOX. The others all lean away from the president.
"...a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years.”
"This would be awesome if he had not already promised a coherent, effective action on exactly these same issues in every State of the Union address since he first stole the election in 2000. As you said in your response, in another context: He needs to either put up or shut up."
Bush HAS made similar proposals that were consistently voted DOWN by the Democratic minority in this area and health care reform etc. The Dems have a party full of selfish naysayers.
The bottom line is that George Bush is an American who's doing what he thinks is right for our country. You can criticize him for mistakes he's made in the past because hindsight is always 20/20. But to accuse him of lying and purposefully decieving the country is wrong and destructive.
He didn't "steal" the election as you say. Did HE create the electoral college? Of course not, he won by the rules at hand.
Not ALL Dems are nice and reach across the aisle neither are the Repubicans, I just wish that people understood all that our fore-fathers and mothers did for this country. I wish that we held ourselves to some to the same standards. When the interests of the nation where at stake, they didn't back down or give up, or blindly criticize. They finished the job.
Show a little respect for the president.
Guest
18. 28-01-2007 21:57
Thanks
Quote:
I think that must be a problem then, because he is not the thinking type.
Jane Fonda put humanity above nationalism, all the power to her. If there was spit on her, it could be translated as spit on American freedom and liberty.
Your enemy is within and you are looking elsewhere,
These are Americans as much as you, they care about America as much as you and maybe more.
Washington rally urges end to war
The bottom line is that George Bush is an American who's doing what he thinks is right for our country.
I think that must be a problem then, because he is not the thinking type.
Jane Fonda put humanity above nationalism, all the power to her. If there was spit on her, it could be translated as spit on American freedom and liberty.
Your enemy is within and you are looking elsewhere,
These are Americans as much as you, they care about America as much as you and maybe more.
Washington rally urges end to war
Guest
19. 30-01-2007 10:57
Alas, I tire of this motif.
This point counterpoint has pretty much played itself out and is now degenerated into two school boys standing in the middle of the playground shouting “is so!” followed by “Is not!” at each other.
I would, as a parting request, suggest that Dave put his dubious faith in our Commander in Chief on hold for a few months and see what develops in the Libby trial and other investigations as the fraud and deceit endemic to this administration gradually comes to light.
This is just too much Deja vu for me all over again. I sometimes think I have lived too long for my own good. It is enough to make you wish for Alzheimer’s when one sees the same insanity repeated over and over again without any remembrance on the part of the body politic. It sometimes seems to me as if each morning Bush supporters must awaken with a Tabula rasa to meet the day. It must be quite exhilarating!
I can remember having arguments (so similar to the one I am currently having with Dave) over those whose blind faith in Ol’ Tailgunner Joe McCarthy (remember him?) and Richard M. Nixon passed all understanding. Yes, gradually their supporters’ zeal waned as they watched their heroes go down in flames as reason gradually achieved the ascendancy in this benighted land and the dumb mob retreated to lick their wounds. It is my prediction that the same thing will happen to Bush & Co. You know who will finally pull the plug on this latest gang of thugs, crooks and liars? - the Republicans!
:upset
I would, as a parting request, suggest that Dave put his dubious faith in our Commander in Chief on hold for a few months and see what develops in the Libby trial and other investigations as the fraud and deceit endemic to this administration gradually comes to light.
This is just too much Deja vu for me all over again. I sometimes think I have lived too long for my own good. It is enough to make you wish for Alzheimer’s when one sees the same insanity repeated over and over again without any remembrance on the part of the body politic. It sometimes seems to me as if each morning Bush supporters must awaken with a Tabula rasa to meet the day. It must be quite exhilarating!
I can remember having arguments (so similar to the one I am currently having with Dave) over those whose blind faith in Ol’ Tailgunner Joe McCarthy (remember him?) and Richard M. Nixon passed all understanding. Yes, gradually their supporters’ zeal waned as they watched their heroes go down in flames as reason gradually achieved the ascendancy in this benighted land and the dumb mob retreated to lick their wounds. It is my prediction that the same thing will happen to Bush & Co. You know who will finally pull the plug on this latest gang of thugs, crooks and liars? - the Republicans!
:upset
Guest
Write Comment
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Bob Boldt Robert Boldt Bush is winning in Iraq