Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.
Yes I just love it when people question Bush's policies his supporters say " You're anti american ".
After all that's what this country is all about. The right to question.
SDW2001, hey my man, hats off for standing your ground. Jubelum, this goes out to you also...
I just want to say this to you. Allow yourself to be open minded enough to examine thoughtfully what is to you an opposing philosophical or political argument. The same goes for values and beliefs you hold true.
I wasn't going to post in this thread but your red states comment pushed me a bit. I'm a long time Republican. Heh, probably longer than you guys have been alive, maybe. I don't go to church anymore as religious dogma has lost it's appeal to me. I also beleive the Gov should keep it's nose out of the marraige business. Just because 50 million of my (well intentioned and ignorant) fellow Americans think gays are going to hell doesn't make it so. I am a patriotic SOB and in 3 or 4 square blocks around me only a Chicano (Dad is a veteran) family on the corner of my block and I are the only folks around here presenting the flag when appropriate. 2 households in 3 or 4 square blocks. I consider that to be somewhat pathetic. On the other hand, just because you are not an overtly patriotic flag waver does not mean you are anti-American.
I want GWB and his merry band of chicken hawks OUT. Do you know what a chicken hawk is? Over all the arguments and reasons given to change administration next term, this is the one that really gets my goat and makes feel disrespect toward the whole bunch. The only one of them whom doesn't really qualify as a chicken hawk is C. Powell. Isn't it amazing that he was so moderate sounding compared to the rest in the beginning until he too had to step into line. Yeah C. Rice is a chicken hawk.
Afghanistan is NOT settled yet. Have Americans lost their interest in Afghanistan already. Probably, what with our short national attention span. We probably had Osama trapped at Tora Bora. Why weren't our ass-kickers allowed to go in and finish the job. That's only one aspect of this administration that I find very disturbing.
I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out of business. I'm glad he was found in a hole. You know what though, we were LIED to. We, the American public, are so stupid that we can't handle the truth?!? What arrogant bastards.
The Bush family has so much blood on it's hands, it's amazing when you stop and think about it. Starting with grandpa who may have (probably) collaborated with the Nazis, the first president Bush (whom I voted for...) going on TV and telling the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. Well, they did and they got slaughtered while our military was forced to stand down and watch... Despicable in the extreme.
Clinton's (I have no love for him...) people warning GWB of Osama and Al Queda planning on using planes for acts of terror. I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, so I will say that someone did not take good advice very seriously. Why??? Why haven't heads rolled over this?
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.
See, this is typical, you assume that I am not patriotic simply because I am not going to church or waving a flag and because I am critical of a President that has been a major major liability to the country that I hold dear.
It is upon this kind of image mongering that you then base your opinions . . . you are blinkered by your ideology . . .
. . . for you the idea of believing in 'right and wong' is better than actually knowing what is right and/or striving to look beyond the image to find out . . . you would prefer idiotic stubborness to reflective hesitation when faced with dire ambiguity
Why, because its in your little picture of what good-old-folksy people are all about . .. the 'common people'
and clearly Bush is an elitist pretending to be a common man . . . and pandering to an image that is far from the mark
real common people are more complex then his idiotic 'folk' . . . and I hope they are more complex then your notion of them as well
unfortunately Rove knows that that image SELLS . . . because it is, just as are the false images of the Urban Sophisticate in black, a lie that erases the reality
My point is that when the Democrats attack Bush for being stupid they play into the hands of that FALSE image: 'Right and Wrong knowing, Church going, golden light breakfast cereal eating, flag waving, good-ole-folksy folk'
That image is just as fake (even if you do all of those things it can still be a false image in the collective imaginary) as the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest' and Bush is blatantly using the appeal of that image to millions of people who eat it up . . . and in 'eating it up' they don't look beyond it to what Bush really is . . . . he is antithetical to the false image and to the lives that are superficially similar to that image . . . . they are being taken for a ride
We've been over this before SDW! Also when did you become the perfect typist or speller? I've always found that when people start using such things in their arguments they're are getting desparate. Also they leave themselves open to the same kind of comments.
About the " Lying ". Well when you've pretty well exausted all the other possibilities you have to go with the most likely conclusion. No there is no direct evidence that Bush lied. However most everybody here knows that's probably the case. That's 99.9999999999999% positive. Any other explaination is very hard to swallow.
Also the voters have these same facts and I'm sure they know also. It's just the ones that are in denial that......well you know.
When I see that Bush lied...he loses my vote. I'm not about to just assume that he did because we haven't found WMD. There are so many other possibilites. Our government believed Saddam had WMD long before Bush. If Bush was lying, so was Clinton.
People being uninformed has never been equated with stupidity in my mind. A stupid person is one who has the facts, considers them, and goes against what those facts suggest.
Inner cities need money. Where does the money come from? Suburbanites who often vote republican. So who is preventing the inner cities from obtaining money needed to improve the quality of life? The republicans... QED.
"Inner cities need money". Now let me ask, WTF does that mean? Money for what? Housing? Urban redevelopment? SUV's that throw cash into the crowds? Regardless, we SPEND BILLIONS on the inner cities and nothing gets better. Money from the government isn't the problem. Or actually...it's part of the problem. It doesn't make things better, it makes them worse. But as with liberals, the billions (actually, trillions) we spend isn't enough. 50% of my income isn't enough. I should feel guilty for only paying 50% of my income to a government agency every year. And let me ask...who's been the party of the War on Poverty? Which party supports greater social spending? Which party is the party of minority voters? Hmmmm..
Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
Are you saying we must improve inner-city conditions?
GOOD.
Then I hope you will support an agenda actually seeking to do that.
Common fool who got to be president through a fluke of course. Look I'm all for patriotism but Bush is all for himself not america or the american people. That's clear from his actions.
Even the republicans are starting to realize he's a liability.
1. Bush stole the election! Stole! Stole! Thief! A fluke I say!
2. He's against America? How? How can you really believe that? I thought you said he was a unilateral cowboy who only considere the American viewpoint...and was ignorant of the "global community"?
3. Then explain why 90% of Republicans support him, even if they disagree with him on some issues.
Quote:
Information is important! Bush's policies just don't hold water. Let me say it again quite simply : Where's the WOMD? It's a simple question based on a decision Bush railroaded through the government, our allies, and the UN. It just wasn't true. And no they're not going to find them " just any day now " because they don't exist. We fought that war for NOTHING BUT BUSH'S AGENDA! And this is just one example.
Where are the WMD? Either they don't exist or they're somewhere like Syria. Again....why is that no one is asking Clinton the same question?
Quote:
I think it's you SDW that's rapidly becoming the dinosaur in american opinion.
Then explain the polls....which show 2/3 of the country opposes gay marriage and full 50% supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it. And btw, the last time I checked, gay marriage was not the same as "the private sector".
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.
I don't know that I was promised flowers and parades. There was quite a bit of celebrating when we removed Saddam, as with when we captured him. Overall, I think we've been welcomed. The attackers are not even thought to be Iraqis is many cases, btw.
Quote:
orry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.
Even if this is all true...it's Bush's fault? The invasion was successful...not perfect. I've heard all of the stories about Rumsfeld and supply lines...but I'm not sure the point you are making. Do you honestly believe the military was not prepared to fight a war? I don't think you do.
Quote:
The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.
It has not been a disaster. There have been mistakes and problems, which is to be expected. Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably a mistake. I don't see how the fact that Saddam devastated his own infastructure is our fault. We're the ones fixing it. Things are getting much better in Iraq, from the infastructure to the political situation.
Quote:
he economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."
Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."
9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."
9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."
And on, and on.
But those things are all undeniable facts. We WERE in the beginnings of recession when Bush took office. We DID get bad intelligence (and so did Blair, apparently). 9/11 WAS partially about FBI intelligence failures. There is no way Bush knew...the suggestion is absurd. These things cannot be blamed on Bush.
Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.
Where are the WMD? Either they don't exist or they're somewhere like Syria. Again....why is that no one is asking Clinton the same question?
Clinton didn't invade Iraq using WMD intelligence as a justification. But that's not the point. The point here is that all indications are that Bush deliberately misrepresented/lied about the intelligence coming out of Iraq.
The issue for you isn't about Clinton. It's about what it's going to take for you to stop making excuses for Bush and admit that he misled the people.
I don't know that I was promised flowers and parades.
Then you weren't paying attention closely enough. A grateful Iraqi people would welcome their liberators with open arms and cut flowers, they told us.
Quote:
There was quite a bit of celebrating when we removed Saddam, as with when we captured him.
OK. Cut flowers would have been nice, too.
Quote:
Overall, I think we've been welcomed. The attackers are not even thought to be Iraqis is many cases, btw.
My understanding is that the attackers are thought to be predominately old members of the Ba'ath party, members of the various military forces, and thugs from elsewhere.
Quote:
Even if this is all true...it's Bush's fault? The invasion was successful...not perfect. I've heard all of the stories about Rumsfeld and supply lines...but I'm not sure the point you are making. Do you honestly believe the military was not prepared to fight a war? I don't think you do.
I think the military was prepared to fight a war on its own terms and wasn't allowed to by this administration. By the way, you sure you want to argue that "it's not Bush's fault"? He is the commander in chief. He wanted a war and he got one. The buck stops with him.
Quote:
It has not been a disaster. There have been mistakes and problems, which is to be expected. Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably a mistake. I don't see how the fact that Saddam devastated his own infastructure is our fault. We're the ones fixing it. Things are getting much better in Iraq, from the infastructure to the political situation.
Again, we're a YEAR IN. Of course things are "getting better." They'd better be, considering how much we're paying Halliburton and Bechtel (through NO BID CONTRACTS) to rebuild it all.
My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that once they got into Baghdad in what, April, this administration looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Major assumptions about how to run Iraq turned out to be as inaccurate as a plagiarized UK Iraq dossier.
Quote:
But those things are all undeniable facts. We WERE in the beginnings of recession when Bush took office. We DID get bad intelligence (and so did Blair, apparently). 9/11 WAS partially about FBI intelligence failures. There is no way Bush knew...the suggestion is absurd. These things cannot be blamed on Bush. [/B]
Bad intelligence...we did a hell of a lot of double-checking on all of that, didn't we? No. It turns out we didn't. 9/11 was about the admin ignoring the threat of al Qaeda for 18 months.
Sing that chorus, SDW, and sing it loudly: "It's not his fault! It's not his fault!"
See, this is typical, you assume that I am not patriotic simply because I am not going to church or waving a flag and because I am critical of a President that has been a major major liability to the country that I hold dear.
It is upon this kind of image mongering that you then base your opinions . . . you are blinkered by your ideology . . .
. . . for you the idea of believing in 'right and wong' is better than actually knowing what is right and/or striving to look beyond the image to find out . . . you would prefer idiotic stubborness to reflective hesitation when faced with dire ambiguity
Why, because its in your little picture of what good-old-folksy people are all about . .. the 'common people'
and clearly Bush is an elitist pretending to be a common man . . . and pandering to an image that is far from the mark
real common people are more complex then his idiotic 'folk' . . . and I hope they are more complex then your notion of them as well
unfortunately Rove knows that that image SELLS . . . because it is, just as are the false images of the Urban Sophisticate in black, a lie that erases the reality
My point is that when the Democrats attack Bush for being stupid they play into the hands of that FALSE image: 'Right and Wrong knowing, Church going, golden light breakfast cereal eating, flag waving, good-ole-folksy folk'
That image is just as fake (even if you do all of those things it can still be a false image in the collective imaginary) as the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest' and Bush is blatantly using the appeal of that image to millions of people who eat it up . . . and in 'eating it up' they don't look beyond it to what Bush really is . . . . he is antithetical to the false image and to the lives that are superficially similar to that image . . . . they are being taken for a ride
Let me translate: Bush is not who he appears to be. The problem with that is, he'd have to be smart enough to pull off that ruse. Oh, but wait....he's a moron. You see, it can't be both. Karl Rove may have written the script, but Bush has to put on the performance.
And while we're on the subject, will you support Kerry over Bush? If so, do you honestly believe he's any more authentic?
Then you weren't paying attention closely enough. A grateful Iraqi people would welcome their liberators with open arms and cut flowers, they told us.
OK. Cut flowers would have been nice, too.
My understanding is that the attackers are thought to be predominately old members of the Ba'ath party, members of the various military forces, and thugs from elsewhere.
I think the military was prepared to fight a war on its own terms and wasn't allowed to by this administration. By the way, you sure you want to argue that "it's not Bush's fault"? He is the commander in chief. He wanted a war and he got one. The buck stops with him.
Again, we're a YEAR IN. Of course things are "getting better." They'd better be, considering how much we're paying Halliburton and Bechtel (through NO BID CONTRACTS) to rebuild it all.
My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that once they got into Baghdad in what, April, this administration looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Major assumptions about how to run Iraq turned out to be as inaccurate as a plagiarized UK Iraq dossier.
Bad intelligence...we did a hell of a lot of double-checking on all of that, didn't we? No. It turns out we didn't. 9/11 was about the admin ignoring the threat of al Qaeda for 18 months.
Sing that chorus, SDW, and sing it loudly: "It's not his fault! It's not his fault!"
They've got you trained well.
Cheers
Scott
1. Attackers are now thought to be non-Iraqis in many cases.
2. Bush's approach, which he has trumpeted again and again is to "let the generals fight the war". Now hold on, isn't Bush always criticized for being uninvolved and hands off?
3. Looked like a deer to whom? You? Big surprise. I saw an agressive plan put into motion for security, infastructure rebuilding, political settlement and humanitarian aid. I also saw mistakes. We don't disagree on those for the most part.
Let me translate: Bush is not who he appears to be. The problem with that is, he'd have to be smart enough to pull off that ruse. Oh, but wait....he's a moron. You see, it can't be both. Karl Rove may have written the script, but Bush has to put on the performance.
And while we're on the subject, will you support Kerry over Bush? If so, do you honestly believe he's any more authentic?
wrong
I'm not calling him a moron . . .
I'm calling him deeply misguided and very dangerous to our great nation!
Clinton didn't invade Iraq using WMD intelligence as a justification. But that's not the point. The point here is that all indications are that Bush deliberately misrepresented/lied about the intelligence coming out of Iraq.
The issue for you isn't about Clinton. It's about what it's going to take for you to stop making excuses for Bush and admit that he misled the people.
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.
As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria.
1. Attackers are now thought to be non-Iraqis in many cases.
Please re-read my comments. I have neither implied nor stated that the terrorist attacks are indicative of the failure of the Iraqis to welcome their new overlords. I have only said that the picture that was painted for us (mostly by Rumsfeld) was not true, and has not come true.
Quote:
2. Bush's approach, which he has trumpeted again and again is to "let the generals fight the war". Now hold on, isn't Bush always criticized for being uninvolved and hands off?
Bush says that, and like most politicians, it means nothing. The State dept. had everything planned. Rumsfeld and the Admin didn't let them fight the war they wanted and pushed for this small force. It's a miracle it was even as large as it was, apparently. This is clearly an example of the generals NOT being allowed to fight the war they wanted. This has been well-documented.
Quote:
3. Looked like a deer to whom? You? Big surprise. I saw an agressive plan put into motion for security, infastructure rebuilding, political settlement and humanitarian aid. I also saw mistakes. We don't disagree on those for the most part.
Looked like a deer to damned near everyone, including the Iraqis and many soldiers fighting there. Why the hell do you think Rumsfeld went to Iraq to boost troop morale?
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Are you really equating a series of targeted cruise missiile attacks (in response to intel on a Bush I assassination attempt) with a full scale invasion? Remember this: Clinton DID NOT INVADE Iraq. He did not try to make more out of their WMD intel than it was. He did not mislead the American people about it. Millions of people around the globe did not march in protest. Clinton did not attempt to bully the UN into going along with him.
Bush did this. Quit trying to change the subject to Clinton, who was a turd, too. But for different reasons.
Quote:
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.
You mistakenly assume I like Kerry. I do not. Again, quit trying to change the subject.
Quote:
As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria. [/B]
And again..."It's not his fault! It was bad intel!"
He said there were WMD. There aren't, and soon there will be an investigation of what he knew beforehand. There will soon be an investigation into why the admin didn't push for more fact-checking. There will be an investigation into whether or not the admin retaliated against unfavorable intel by outing a CIA agent.
He lied. I doubt very seriously that there is anything that will make you see it.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.
Yes I just love it when people question Bush's policies his supporters say " You're anti american ".
After all that's what this country is all about. The right to question.
Anything.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes I just love it when people question Bush's policies his supporters say " You're anti american ".
After all that's what this country is all about. The right to question.
Anything.
I know you are being facetious, but that still pains me to read.
I just want to say this to you. Allow yourself to be open minded enough to examine thoughtfully what is to you an opposing philosophical or political argument. The same goes for values and beliefs you hold true.
I wasn't going to post in this thread but your red states comment pushed me a bit. I'm a long time Republican. Heh, probably longer than you guys have been alive, maybe. I don't go to church anymore as religious dogma has lost it's appeal to me. I also beleive the Gov should keep it's nose out of the marraige business. Just because 50 million of my (well intentioned and ignorant) fellow Americans think gays are going to hell doesn't make it so. I am a patriotic SOB and in 3 or 4 square blocks around me only a Chicano (Dad is a veteran) family on the corner of my block and I are the only folks around here presenting the flag when appropriate. 2 households in 3 or 4 square blocks. I consider that to be somewhat pathetic. On the other hand, just because you are not an overtly patriotic flag waver does not mean you are anti-American.
I want GWB and his merry band of chicken hawks OUT. Do you know what a chicken hawk is? Over all the arguments and reasons given to change administration next term, this is the one that really gets my goat and makes feel disrespect toward the whole bunch. The only one of them whom doesn't really qualify as a chicken hawk is C. Powell. Isn't it amazing that he was so moderate sounding compared to the rest in the beginning until he too had to step into line. Yeah C. Rice is a chicken hawk.
Afghanistan is NOT settled yet. Have Americans lost their interest in Afghanistan already. Probably, what with our short national attention span. We probably had Osama trapped at Tora Bora. Why weren't our ass-kickers allowed to go in and finish the job. That's only one aspect of this administration that I find very disturbing.
I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out of business. I'm glad he was found in a hole. You know what though, we were LIED to. We, the American public, are so stupid that we can't handle the truth?!? What arrogant bastards.
The Bush family has so much blood on it's hands, it's amazing when you stop and think about it. Starting with grandpa who may have (probably) collaborated with the Nazis, the first president Bush (whom I voted for...) going on TV and telling the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. Well, they did and they got slaughtered while our military was forced to stand down and watch... Despicable in the extreme.
Clinton's (I have no love for him...) people warning GWB of Osama and Al Queda planning on using planes for acts of terror. I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, so I will say that someone did not take good advice very seriously. Why??? Why haven't heads rolled over this?
OK, I'll shut up now.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.
See, this is typical, you assume that I am not patriotic simply because I am not going to church or waving a flag and because I am critical of a President that has been a major major liability to the country that I hold dear.
It is upon this kind of image mongering that you then base your opinions . . . you are blinkered by your ideology . . .
. . . for you the idea of believing in 'right and wong' is better than actually knowing what is right and/or striving to look beyond the image to find out . . . you would prefer idiotic stubborness to reflective hesitation when faced with dire ambiguity
Why, because its in your little picture of what good-old-folksy people are all about . .. the 'common people'
and clearly Bush is an elitist pretending to be a common man . . . and pandering to an image that is far from the mark
real common people are more complex then his idiotic 'folk' . . . and I hope they are more complex then your notion of them as well
unfortunately Rove knows that that image SELLS . . . because it is, just as are the false images of the Urban Sophisticate in black, a lie that erases the reality
My point is that when the Democrats attack Bush for being stupid they play into the hands of that FALSE image: 'Right and Wrong knowing, Church going, golden light breakfast cereal eating, flag waving, good-ole-folksy folk'
That image is just as fake (even if you do all of those things it can still be a false image in the collective imaginary) as the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest' and Bush is blatantly using the appeal of that image to millions of people who eat it up . . . and in 'eating it up' they don't look beyond it to what Bush really is . . . . he is antithetical to the false image and to the lives that are superficially similar to that image . . . . they are being taken for a ride
Originally posted by pfflam
the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest'
What?!?!? That's *not* accurate?!?!
Originally posted by jimmac
We've been over this before SDW! Also when did you become the perfect typist or speller? I've always found that when people start using such things in their arguments they're are getting desparate. Also they leave themselves open to the same kind of comments.
About the " Lying ". Well when you've pretty well exausted all the other possibilities you have to go with the most likely conclusion. No there is no direct evidence that Bush lied. However most everybody here knows that's probably the case. That's 99.9999999999999% positive. Any other explaination is very hard to swallow.
Also the voters have these same facts and I'm sure they know also. It's just the ones that are in denial that......well you know.
When I see that Bush lied...he loses my vote. I'm not about to just assume that he did because we haven't found WMD. There are so many other possibilites. Our government believed Saddam had WMD long before Bush. If Bush was lying, so was Clinton.
Originally posted by billybobsky
People being uninformed has never been equated with stupidity in my mind. A stupid person is one who has the facts, considers them, and goes against what those facts suggest.
Inner cities need money. Where does the money come from? Suburbanites who often vote republican. So who is preventing the inner cities from obtaining money needed to improve the quality of life? The republicans... QED.
"Inner cities need money". Now let me ask, WTF does that mean? Money for what? Housing? Urban redevelopment? SUV's that throw cash into the crowds? Regardless, we SPEND BILLIONS on the inner cities and nothing gets better. Money from the government isn't the problem. Or actually...it's part of the problem. It doesn't make things better, it makes them worse. But as with liberals, the billions (actually, trillions) we spend isn't enough. 50% of my income isn't enough. I should feel guilty for only paying 50% of my income to a government agency every year. And let me ask...who's been the party of the War on Poverty? Which party supports greater social spending? Which party is the party of minority voters? Hmmmm..
Originally posted by SDW2001
Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
Are you saying we must improve inner-city conditions?
GOOD.
Then I hope you will support an agenda actually seeking to do that.
VOTE PROGRESSIVE (not conservative).
Common fool who got to be president through a fluke of course. Look I'm all for patriotism but Bush is all for himself not america or the american people. That's clear from his actions.
Even the republicans are starting to realize he's a liability.
1. Bush stole the election! Stole! Stole! Thief! A fluke I say!
2. He's against America? How? How can you really believe that? I thought you said he was a unilateral cowboy who only considere the American viewpoint...and was ignorant of the "global community"?
3. Then explain why 90% of Republicans support him, even if they disagree with him on some issues.
Information is important! Bush's policies just don't hold water. Let me say it again quite simply : Where's the WOMD? It's a simple question based on a decision Bush railroaded through the government, our allies, and the UN. It just wasn't true. And no they're not going to find them " just any day now " because they don't exist. We fought that war for NOTHING BUT BUSH'S AGENDA! And this is just one example.
Where are the WMD? Either they don't exist or they're somewhere like Syria. Again....why is that no one is asking Clinton the same question?
I think it's you SDW that's rapidly becoming the dinosaur in american opinion.
Then explain the polls....which show 2/3 of the country opposes gay marriage and full 50% supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it. And btw, the last time I checked, gay marriage was not the same as "the private sector".
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.
I don't know that I was promised flowers and parades. There was quite a bit of celebrating when we removed Saddam, as with when we captured him. Overall, I think we've been welcomed. The attackers are not even thought to be Iraqis is many cases, btw.
orry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.
Even if this is all true...it's Bush's fault? The invasion was successful...not perfect. I've heard all of the stories about Rumsfeld and supply lines...but I'm not sure the point you are making. Do you honestly believe the military was not prepared to fight a war? I don't think you do.
The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.
It has not been a disaster. There have been mistakes and problems, which is to be expected. Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably a mistake. I don't see how the fact that Saddam devastated his own infastructure is our fault. We're the ones fixing it. Things are getting much better in Iraq, from the infastructure to the political situation.
he economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."
Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."
9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."
9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."
And on, and on.
But those things are all undeniable facts. We WERE in the beginnings of recession when Bush took office. We DID get bad intelligence (and so did Blair, apparently). 9/11 WAS partially about FBI intelligence failures. There is no way Bush knew...the suggestion is absurd. These things cannot be blamed on Bush.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.
50 million Nazis. Who would have thought.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Where are the WMD? Either they don't exist or they're somewhere like Syria. Again....why is that no one is asking Clinton the same question?
Clinton didn't invade Iraq using WMD intelligence as a justification. But that's not the point. The point here is that all indications are that Bush deliberately misrepresented/lied about the intelligence coming out of Iraq.
The issue for you isn't about Clinton. It's about what it's going to take for you to stop making excuses for Bush and admit that he misled the people.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't know that I was promised flowers and parades.
Then you weren't paying attention closely enough. A grateful Iraqi people would welcome their liberators with open arms and cut flowers, they told us.
There was quite a bit of celebrating when we removed Saddam, as with when we captured him.
OK. Cut flowers would have been nice, too.
Overall, I think we've been welcomed. The attackers are not even thought to be Iraqis is many cases, btw.
My understanding is that the attackers are thought to be predominately old members of the Ba'ath party, members of the various military forces, and thugs from elsewhere.
Even if this is all true...it's Bush's fault? The invasion was successful...not perfect. I've heard all of the stories about Rumsfeld and supply lines...but I'm not sure the point you are making. Do you honestly believe the military was not prepared to fight a war? I don't think you do.
I think the military was prepared to fight a war on its own terms and wasn't allowed to by this administration. By the way, you sure you want to argue that "it's not Bush's fault"? He is the commander in chief. He wanted a war and he got one. The buck stops with him.
It has not been a disaster. There have been mistakes and problems, which is to be expected. Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably a mistake. I don't see how the fact that Saddam devastated his own infastructure is our fault. We're the ones fixing it. Things are getting much better in Iraq, from the infastructure to the political situation.
Again, we're a YEAR IN. Of course things are "getting better." They'd better be, considering how much we're paying Halliburton and Bechtel (through NO BID CONTRACTS) to rebuild it all.
My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that once they got into Baghdad in what, April, this administration looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Major assumptions about how to run Iraq turned out to be as inaccurate as a plagiarized UK Iraq dossier.
But those things are all undeniable facts. We WERE in the beginnings of recession when Bush took office. We DID get bad intelligence (and so did Blair, apparently). 9/11 WAS partially about FBI intelligence failures. There is no way Bush knew...the suggestion is absurd. These things cannot be blamed on Bush. [/B]
Bad intelligence...we did a hell of a lot of double-checking on all of that, didn't we? No. It turns out we didn't. 9/11 was about the admin ignoring the threat of al Qaeda for 18 months.
Sing that chorus, SDW, and sing it loudly: "It's not his fault! It's not his fault!"
They've got you trained well.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by pfflam
See, this is typical, you assume that I am not patriotic simply because I am not going to church or waving a flag and because I am critical of a President that has been a major major liability to the country that I hold dear.
It is upon this kind of image mongering that you then base your opinions . . . you are blinkered by your ideology . . .
. . . for you the idea of believing in 'right and wong' is better than actually knowing what is right and/or striving to look beyond the image to find out . . . you would prefer idiotic stubborness to reflective hesitation when faced with dire ambiguity
Why, because its in your little picture of what good-old-folksy people are all about . .. the 'common people'
and clearly Bush is an elitist pretending to be a common man . . . and pandering to an image that is far from the mark
real common people are more complex then his idiotic 'folk' . . . and I hope they are more complex then your notion of them as well
unfortunately Rove knows that that image SELLS . . . because it is, just as are the false images of the Urban Sophisticate in black, a lie that erases the reality
My point is that when the Democrats attack Bush for being stupid they play into the hands of that FALSE image: 'Right and Wrong knowing, Church going, golden light breakfast cereal eating, flag waving, good-ole-folksy folk'
That image is just as fake (even if you do all of those things it can still be a false image in the collective imaginary) as the 'Che-t-shirt wearing, gay academic Urban Liberal athiest' and Bush is blatantly using the appeal of that image to millions of people who eat it up . . . and in 'eating it up' they don't look beyond it to what Bush really is . . . . he is antithetical to the false image and to the lives that are superficially similar to that image . . . . they are being taken for a ride
Let me translate: Bush is not who he appears to be. The problem with that is, he'd have to be smart enough to pull off that ruse. Oh, but wait....he's a moron. You see, it can't be both. Karl Rove may have written the script, but Bush has to put on the performance.
And while we're on the subject, will you support Kerry over Bush? If so, do you honestly believe he's any more authentic?
Originally posted by midwinter
Then you weren't paying attention closely enough. A grateful Iraqi people would welcome their liberators with open arms and cut flowers, they told us.
OK. Cut flowers would have been nice, too.
My understanding is that the attackers are thought to be predominately old members of the Ba'ath party, members of the various military forces, and thugs from elsewhere.
I think the military was prepared to fight a war on its own terms and wasn't allowed to by this administration. By the way, you sure you want to argue that "it's not Bush's fault"? He is the commander in chief. He wanted a war and he got one. The buck stops with him.
Again, we're a YEAR IN. Of course things are "getting better." They'd better be, considering how much we're paying Halliburton and Bechtel (through NO BID CONTRACTS) to rebuild it all.
My point, which you seem to keep missing, is that once they got into Baghdad in what, April, this administration looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Major assumptions about how to run Iraq turned out to be as inaccurate as a plagiarized UK Iraq dossier.
Bad intelligence...we did a hell of a lot of double-checking on all of that, didn't we? No. It turns out we didn't. 9/11 was about the admin ignoring the threat of al Qaeda for 18 months.
Sing that chorus, SDW, and sing it loudly: "It's not his fault! It's not his fault!"
They've got you trained well.
Cheers
Scott
1. Attackers are now thought to be non-Iraqis in many cases.
2. Bush's approach, which he has trumpeted again and again is to "let the generals fight the war". Now hold on, isn't Bush always criticized for being uninvolved and hands off?
3. Looked like a deer to whom? You? Big surprise. I saw an agressive plan put into motion for security, infastructure rebuilding, political settlement and humanitarian aid. I also saw mistakes. We don't disagree on those for the most part.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me translate: Bush is not who he appears to be. The problem with that is, he'd have to be smart enough to pull off that ruse. Oh, but wait....he's a moron. You see, it can't be both. Karl Rove may have written the script, but Bush has to put on the performance.
And while we're on the subject, will you support Kerry over Bush? If so, do you honestly believe he's any more authentic?
wrong
I'm not calling him a moron . . .
I'm calling him deeply misguided and very dangerous to our great nation!
got it?!
Originally posted by midwinter
Clinton didn't invade Iraq using WMD intelligence as a justification. But that's not the point. The point here is that all indications are that Bush deliberately misrepresented/lied about the intelligence coming out of Iraq.
The issue for you isn't about Clinton. It's about what it's going to take for you to stop making excuses for Bush and admit that he misled the people.
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.
As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria.
Originally posted by SDW2001
50 million Nazis. Who would have thought.
Hinterlands is a common (i think) expression referring to homelands or a heartland...
Edit: I completely missed the point of this line... Nationalist = nazi? well, if you want, sure...
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Attackers are now thought to be non-Iraqis in many cases.
Please re-read my comments. I have neither implied nor stated that the terrorist attacks are indicative of the failure of the Iraqis to welcome their new overlords. I have only said that the picture that was painted for us (mostly by Rumsfeld) was not true, and has not come true.
Quote:
2. Bush's approach, which he has trumpeted again and again is to "let the generals fight the war". Now hold on, isn't Bush always criticized for being uninvolved and hands off?
Bush says that, and like most politicians, it means nothing. The State dept. had everything planned. Rumsfeld and the Admin didn't let them fight the war they wanted and pushed for this small force. It's a miracle it was even as large as it was, apparently. This is clearly an example of the generals NOT being allowed to fight the war they wanted. This has been well-documented.
Quote:
3. Looked like a deer to whom? You? Big surprise. I saw an agressive plan put into motion for security, infastructure rebuilding, political settlement and humanitarian aid. I also saw mistakes. We don't disagree on those for the most part.
Looked like a deer to damned near everyone, including the Iraqis and many soldiers fighting there. Why the hell do you think Rumsfeld went to Iraq to boost troop morale?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, but Clinton DID make many statements about Saddam's WMD...and he also bombed the shit out of Iraq in 1998, without UN approval of any kind.
Are you really equating a series of targeted cruise missiile attacks (in response to intel on a Bush I assassination attempt) with a full scale invasion? Remember this: Clinton DID NOT INVADE Iraq. He did not try to make more out of their WMD intel than it was. He did not mislead the American people about it. Millions of people around the globe did not march in protest. Clinton did not attempt to bully the UN into going along with him.
Bush did this. Quit trying to change the subject to Clinton, who was a turd, too. But for different reasons.
Speaking of WMD statements, perhaps you'd like to hear what Kerry said in March of 2003. No, on second thought, it would be more fun to watch your face when it comes out in a few months.
You mistakenly assume I like Kerry. I do not. Again, quit trying to change the subject.
As for Bush, I don't believe he lied or misled anyone. Lack of WMD does not prove he did. When I see that he did, he loses my vote. Period. There are just too many other possible explanations. I don't believe Clinton misled us on Iraq either, btw. I think the intel was bad and/or there are weapons hidden in Syria. [/B]
And again..."It's not his fault! It was bad intel!"
He said there were WMD. There aren't, and soon there will be an investigation of what he knew beforehand. There will soon be an investigation into why the admin didn't push for more fact-checking. There will be an investigation into whether or not the admin retaliated against unfavorable intel by outing a CIA agent.
He lied. I doubt very seriously that there is anything that will make you see it.