Bush Iraq Speech: By The Numbers
References to “September 11″: 5
References to “weapons of mass destruction”: 0
References to “freedom”: 21
References to “exit strategy”: 0
References to “Saddam Hussein”: 2
References to “Osama Bin Laden”: 2
References to “a mistake”: 1 (setting a timetable for withdrawal)
References to “mission”: 11
References to “mission accomplished”: 0
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Looks like we could have gotten smashed on freedom..
June 28th, 2005 at 8:49 pmDarn, I only drank to 9-11, barely caught a buzz.
According to my count:
9/11/2001 = 6
Terrorist = 33
Enemy = 15
“They” = 45
Insurgent = 6
paraphrase “war is hard” “difficult” “tough” = 8
progress = 6
improve = 4
al Zarq = 1
June 28th, 2005 at 8:50 pmAl Queda = 1
Bin Laden = 2
Saddam = 2
Mentions of permanent military bases in Iraq: 0
June 28th, 2005 at 8:52 pmWhat about Liberty? I have got to know how Liberty is doing as compared to Freedom! ( I think the Jan. 20, 2005 count was 21F 15L)
June 28th, 2005 at 8:59 pmDidn’t count them, but there were many, many references to the training of the Iraqi armed forces. Also, continued disingenuous linking of 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:03 pmWhy is BOB KOSTIS interviewing John Kerry? Since when is he a political commentator?
June 28th, 2005 at 9:08 pmI decided today to drink to the word terror or terrorist, whhoooT!!!
June 28th, 2005 at 9:10 pmAccording to Terry Moran (ABC News), the single interruption for applause was started by one of the shrub’s advance team.
Fake war. Fake applause.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:11 pm“Terrorists” and “they” - his trump cards in the same, endless hand. Will people ever catch on?
June 28th, 2005 at 9:19 pmI’ll let you count because I refuse to listen to him lie and whine. Our five year old Great-grandson does less of both.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:28 pmPay us for writing The Usurper’s speech!
June 28th, 2005 at 9:31 pmOpening his speech with the charge that the opponent is a totalitarian is the Bush Totalitarian Pot calling the kettle black.
A more exhaustive count over here
June 28th, 2005 at 9:39 pmYeah, but tomorrow the prozac sheeple will push his approval rating back into the 50’s. That will be the signal to the reich to continue the lie campaign.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:41 pmMy search of the transcript for “terror� = 34 (terror, terrorism, terrorist, anti-terrorism).
June 28th, 2005 at 9:41 pmIf I had made a drinking game out of this - I’d be dead from alcohol poisoning!
Mike in Texas: “Fake war. Fake applause.”
Fake president.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:14 pmI can’t watch W at all. My blood pressure soars and my bs meter goes off the scale. All this talk of “freedom,” “liberty” and “evildoers” - ambiguous words that have meaning only in the mind of the listener - salesman talk that plays on our fears and fantasies - but words that don’t lead us to truth, but lead us instead to “feelings” - designed to numb us into submission. I’m tired of it. I can’t take any more of this Orwellian hocus-pocus. Oh and by the way, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:16 pmBesides being embarrassed and infuriated by the Commander-in-Chief, it’s time for us (his opponents) to set forth an agenda and find a leader that can present our cause. It is beyond obvious that we must find a way to win over the American people. This leader must find a way to present a logical, ethical, and moral argument that can not be countered by the fallacious statements of the neo-cons. So, my dear bloggers, while venting may be therapeutic, it’s time for action.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:30 pmMe and Zeke see the Dub the same…I CANNOT watch, I WILL NOT allow his picture to come unbidden into my living room! PUKE, SPEW, BARF. WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:36 pm“nucular” = 2 times (Libya) — nothing about North Korea or Iran.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:41 pmDid he mention abuse or allegations of abuse?
June 28th, 2005 at 10:45 pmWhen will the sheople wake up to the core issue? It’s Iraqis not wanting permanent US bases there, pure and simple. How many in US know that the Bush neocon gang changed the Iraqi government’s wish for a two-third yes vote to ratify a treaty, to simple majority? That way we can have our Iraqi puppet parliament OK a future “US military assistance pact” agreement giving us perpetual military bases there. Wake up, sheople!
June 28th, 2005 at 10:49 pmJoseph Göebbels - “Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.”
Joseph Göebbels - “During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than information.”
Joseph Göebbels - “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion. ”
Adolf Hitler - “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.”
Adolf Hitler - “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it… Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”
Adolf Hitler - “The great masses of the people … will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. ”
…kinda scary, huh?
June 28th, 2005 at 10:49 pmBUSH/CHENEY find any WMD yet?
just checking…………
June 28th, 2005 at 10:52 pmTERROR=6
terrorist=26
June 28th, 2005 at 10:52 pm=32
I couldn’t watch the bum, either. Give him the bum’s rush.
This war was done for big bucks and nothing else. It must stop.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:52 pmI have better things to do than listen
to man that I despise. I cut my toenails
and listened to the radio. I don’t hate
the chimplike creature but when he smirks
and snikers like a chimp. I get a stomach
ache.
I believe we must start a rebellion by
hitting the place where it hurts. Their
wallets. National work slowdowns. Boycotts
interruption of commerce etc. It works in
France. It could work her.
Anyone with me?
Bob (a proud veteran)
June 28th, 2005 at 10:58 pmI just don’t get it. We have guys dieing over there. We are spending billions of dollars while states have had to cut cost everywhere. Will some please give me a clue am I just missing something? As I understand we went into Iraq for WMD now what the hell are we doing. I just so sick of this man I could scream! Bush’s nose should be a mile long. What’s wrong with this people?
June 28th, 2005 at 10:59 pmI’m with ya Navy Vet. I do worry about the effect on the already sluggish economy by boycotting commerce though.
We have one recourse and that is to impeach. Bushie WILL amend the constitution to allow himself a third term.
Sign Ramsey Clarks petition to impeach Bushie, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft @ votetoimpeach.org
On September 24, 2005 you are invited to join over one half of a million PEOPLE to demonstrate in front of the White House and demand impeachment hearings.
Sign the petition, lets be heard once and for all.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:10 pmWill do, Susan…
And don’t forget to look to the 2006 congressional elections. That could be our turning point. If we can get Congress back (which, according to polls, looks to be a real possibility), impeachment could become a reality.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:16 pmI agree with Zeke and Joe. Can’t even stomach looking at the fake SOB. All that was missing was the “Mission Accomplished” banner. What a miserable piece of sh-t. I’m sure the 1700+ families who lost their sons and daughters over there for his lies feel that it was “worth it”.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:24 pmTo all of you who “can’t stand to watch W” and whose “BS meters go off” and who think he’s a “fake president” and who generally disagree with the guy:
Thankfully this is why you are not running our country. I think that although it’s unpopular (in the islands of blue America, anyway) and not pretty, what we’re doing in the Middle East is necessary. Religious fanaticism and thuggery created the problems in the ME, not the United States. It is easy for you to sit in our country and be all high and mighty about what’s going on, but know this: if any of you lived in any of the countries in the ME, you would have been beheaded long ago for your dissenting ways. Something to chew on while you lean farther leftward.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:24 pmWow, Tony, thanks for showing up. We thought nobody bought that load of garbage. It’s nice to know that Bushie still has one supporter.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:28 pmSusan,
Hey, it’s not my fault you’re wrong.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:29 pmWell Tony let the ME deal with there own problems I not sending my tax dollars. Call me what you will but its my money there spending and by the way are you over there or our your children there.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:30 pmYou need to wipe that KoolAid moustache off your upper lip, tony…
June 28th, 2005 at 11:31 pmGee, Tony. “we” is real easy to say while you are sitting in your comfortable living room hugging your flag. Take another drink of Bush Koolaid and numb your mind. Seems to be working for you. Probably never served in the military a day in your sorry ass life. Oh, one other thing why do you guys fixate on the beheadings?
June 28th, 2005 at 11:32 pmBush’s speech…. BORING!
It was the same old crap. I don’t know why I was hoping for something new to be revealed. Bush hasn’t said anything new about Iraq in a long time. All I kept thinking was: Iraq wasn’t a part of the war on terror until Bush turned it into a terrorist…
June 28th, 2005 at 11:32 pmHey, you guys give me one reason why I am incorrect in saying that you’d be beheaded in the middle east for dissent and I’ll listen. Until then, keep up the fantastic logic, if that’s what you call it.
P.S. I will also accept one good reason why you support a part of the world that has openly vowed to kill you (and dont give me that “They don’t want to kill me, I didn’t vote for Bush” business), and that openly oppresses women and anyone who is not muslim.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:36 pm[…] collecter leurs bénéfices sociaux, pourtant promis à leur départ. Mise à jour 4 : Vu sur Think Progress, un groupe de pensée libéral (donc de gauche) References to […]
June 28th, 2005 at 11:36 pmStill did’nt anwser my question Tony why are you not over there fighting for us or maybe send your daughter son or grandchildren.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:38 pmJust because I won’t be beheaded here for dissenting that means I am not supposed to dissent just out of sheer appreciation? I am sure that when the American Taliban finishes their takeover of the government they may break out the crosses for their dissenters. A religious fanatic is a religious fanatic whether here or there.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:40 pmMargaret,
Because we have a volunteer army, and I don’t want to join. In a free country, margaret, it is acceptable to do this.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:41 pmYou’d be executed in China for dissent, too, tony. Should we invade them next? Or how about Saudi Arabia? They stone women to death for adultery. Yet they’re one of our allies. What’s your point, tony?
June 28th, 2005 at 11:42 pmI knew it. A paper patriot, to good to serve but more than willing for others to fight for his cause.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:42 pmThe comment about “fanaticism” and “thuggery” couldn’t be more appropriate - for Bush I mean…..wake up!! You seem to forget Tony, that we’re the ones who are insisting to LET THE SOLDIERS LEAVE. The Iraqi citizens feel the same way…. YOU are the one who should be concerned about being “beheaded”.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:43 pm…”In a free country, margaret, it is acceptable to do this…”
Yet,in your version of a free country, it’s not acceptable to dissent against an illegal war?
June 28th, 2005 at 11:46 pmJohn, good point on being able to dissent. I agree. Am I not allowed to disagree with you? Listen, I am sure you are all good people, but I — and enough of a majority of Americans — believe that you have chosen the wrong side of the debate, that’s all. I get angry when I hear blanket statements calling Bush “Hitler”, our country “nazis” and the like. Sure, I use beheadings as an exreme reference, but at least it’s a reference grounded in fact, unlike statements like :
June 28th, 2005 at 11:47 pm“Bushie WILL amend the constitution to allow himself a third term.”
“Guantanamo=gulag”
and the like.
As with any extremes the truth is usually found in the middle ground. As for your majority of America you need to look at the latest polls dude. The good ship Bush is taking on water.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:50 pmRight, because the polls were so correct on calling the presidential election. Oh wait, that may be the reason why Bush “stole the election… again!”
June 28th, 2005 at 11:52 pmNo, I concede he won this one fair and square but still only got 51% of the vote. Not much of a mandate.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:56 pmOk, true. And yes the polls are slipping on Iraq. But I think this is because all we see is the bad on TV. I have a feeling if someone in the MSM were to play some good old Saddam torture tapes, we’d have a little better feeling about what we’re doing over there. And I have to say I’m too tired to get into WMD’s but I read the resolution authorizing the war and it was just one reason, and human rights violations was another. And Iraq not complying with the U.N. for some 12 odd years..and many other valid reasons which some people on this site conveniently seem to ignore.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:59 pmOne thing I didn’t hear/read was a reference to freedom since Iran just held elections and run-off elections and even women got to vote. Since we’re going over the old history of freedoms in the region since we were nice enough to “liberate Iraq” it doesn’t sound very good to leave the out. Gee, it makes us sound like we didn’t approve of the outcome of their exercise of freedom. Oh! My bad!
I’m really leery of the impeach process just yet. I don’t think we have enough members of Congress with the backbone to stand up and vote against the “Commander-in-Chief” while we have soldiers in the field. That’s going to take a lot more pressure from us first. The worst outcome I can think of is to try and get a motion for impeachment and lose.
They would be beating America with that club for the next 3+ years. But we need to keep in touch and keep working, especially cheering any individual member of Congress who stands up or even speaks out. Especially if they’re from your state!
But while we still have the option, please fly the flag upside down on the 4th of July as a signal of distress, patriotism and support for our troops. If America was ever in distress it’s NOW. If 60% of Americans feel we’re going in the wrong direction and even half fly their flags upside down, that’s a few million attention getters. Especially you folks in Nebraska. They can’t arrest you all!
June 28th, 2005 at 11:59 pm…”but at least it’s a reference grounded in fact, unlike statements like :
“Bushie WILL amend the constitution to allow himself a third term.â€?…
From Newsday:
Last February, five Republican congressmen introduced House Joint Resolution 24, “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.” The 22nd Amendment, limiting U.S. presidents to two full terms (or ten years’ total service in the office), was enacted in the wake of Franklin Roosevelt’s four-term presidency.
-that doesn’t seem so far-fetched to me…
June 28th, 2005 at 11:59 pmTo the guy that mentioned a work stoppage. If diesel prices keep getting higher, you WILL see a truck stoppage. There are owner/operators out there that are losing the shirts because they can’t afford to pay the price at the pump. More and more trucking companies are slowing down their trucls to 63 mph, just to save fuel costs. In the next month or so, it’ll start affecting you at the store. Help us, help you…If you all want your product at the store and at a fair price…you better start protesting the price of fuel. We can’t do it with out your help.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:00 amTony, didn’t bush say that there would be no casualties in this war? Didn’t he? He did.
Take off your blinders. You’re chompin’ at the bit to keep murka involved in the ME, but somebody else can do it. You’re not in the fight, so to speak.
George Bush keeps talking like everything is hunkydory in Iraq, but goes to the suckers who voted for him, with hat in hand, and asks for some more help. As if he hasn’t had enough already.
Tony, go give him a helping hand if he needs it so much and quit harassing those who would rather help somebody here in the US of A. If you haven’t noticed, people here need some help these days. From what I can see from here, you need some, too.
Stop this war.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:09 amAnd to think, after we’ve turned Iraq into the “central front in the war on terror” that they would, in any way, be friendly to us whether they become a democracy or not, is a fantasy. We’ll be lucky if they only became an Iran type “democracy”. In all honesty, they will probably become a theocracy.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:10 amIraq’s government will be as corrupt as ours.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:15 amRon,
Bush never said everything is perfect in Iraq. Quite the opposite. However, Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer called. They said to take a nap.
All I see is America finally stepping up and doing something about the festering backwardness and decay that is the middle east. No other country can do what we did. Europe’s army.. oh wait, we protect Europe under NATO. Maybe you can be more constructive and worry about the US getting out of europe so they can pony up the dough for their own defense. It would save a hell of a lot of money that could be used elsewhere. Oh yeah, Europe won’t do that because their 35 hour work weeks, extensive welfare system, and massive joblessness can’t pay for it.
Oh and it’s one thing to not volunteer to fight, quite another to completely object. Please take off the high and mighty hat.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:16 amI’m just dumbfounded like Margaret-I want to scream and vent against all the blind sheep who buy into this man’s lies-this was a worse speech-if that’s possible-than I ever expected-the American people have re-elected an imbecile-they should be so proud of their stupidity-meanwhile more body bags coming home.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:18 amDo you all willingly blind yourselves to the fact that many, many more Iraqis are killed by “insurgents” than US soldiers? Sorry that facts get in the way of your america-bashing good times.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:21 amIt is ironic that the president of the country with the highest number of prisoners on Earth preaches the freedom.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:21 amHi Tony,
June 29th, 2005 at 12:21 amCan you tell us why you think this is a just war? Do you think Iraq had anything to do with 9-11? Do you have any doubts about the WMD being an issue? Surely, you have figured out that we are there for other reasons. The rest of the world has, as well. Under the circumstances, I can think of many countries that are suppressing and abusing their people in much worse and painful ways. While definately in the top 10, Iraq wouldn’t be in the top 5 cruelest places to be born. I we were doing it for human preservation, why start in the middle of the line up? So my question becomes, “Why, then, are we there in the first place?” What do you honestly think? I would really like to know.
It is remarkable - no, it is disgusting - that GWB and his cadre of cowards, who themselves actively avoided Viet Nam service, are now so enthusiastic about continuing to expose our service men and women to death or disability in a senseless war based on lies and misrepresentation.
Fool us once, shame on him. Fool us twice, impeach the liar!
June 29th, 2005 at 12:25 amHave to go to bed now and pray for sanity in this messed up world we live in. I just pray that it gets better for my children and lies and deceit will not be part of it.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:31 amAmen, margaret.
There’s nothing wrong with healthy debate. Be glad we have a vehicle like this for it. In other countries we’d be out in the streets shooting each other.
Goodnight all (even tony);)
June 29th, 2005 at 12:36 amKathy,
I think that a terrorist is a terrorist. Just because Hezzbolah (sp) or the Chechens didn’t have anything to do with 9-11 doesn’t mean that they don’t enjoy killing people. Non-muslim people. They say so themselves, I’m not stereotyping.
I think Iraq is part of a bigger problem in the middle east than no resolutions, meetings, or anything short of going in there and changing it ourselves can solve. Really, the US is the only country that can go in and do what we did. Bush said, among other reasons, that he was taking us out to the middle east so the middle east doesn’t come here (by ME I mean islamic fanaticism). Just because Afghanistan was the first middle estern country to create a terrorist organization capable of 9-11 doesn’t mean that the rest of the countries around it were a bed of roses. They are having just as bad of a time.
Geopolitics works in funny ways. For example, in WWII we did not go right to the source (germany and japan), but we attacked strategic interests and strongholds on the way. We started in N. Africa (and we won’t go any farther than Iraq if the other middle eastern countries get the hint. see:Syria).
In the case of Iraq, yeah sure, other middle eastern countries have worse regimes and hate us more, but we knew that we could go to Iraq with non-compliance with the UN resolutions as enough justification. The UN didn’t want to go to war cause France and Germany had too much money involved in Iraq that they wouldn’t get back.
So are we to sit there and let more middle eastern countries degrade to the point where they’re all Afghanistan/Taliban-esque? Me, and a lot of other Americans, didn’t think so. The middle east won’t magically get better human rights and better economies and services (drinking water, electricity) because we wish them well. That area of the world is unfortunately in a bad state, and pushing over the domino that is Iraq (which, so far, is working. again, see:syria, egypt, lebanon, etc.) was a proactive step that at best is all we need to do, and at worst will expose truly hostile countries. I mean, the terrorism war is unique because we’re not fighing any one country. We’re fighting islamic fundamenalism. We’re all just too PC to say it.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:41 amamerica-bashing? No, its more like feeling the need to correct your child. We are very proud of America and stand up for her everyday. Against all that would hurt her. But we expect her to act like she’s been raised. Wise & kind, strong, intelligent, even tempered and unbiased. She has a lot of responsibility and has no time for teenage antics. She knows better. She’s good people.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:41 amdoes it bother anyone else here that the right talks about being defenders of the country when in the last 100 years the only conquests repub administrations have overseen are grenada, panama and iraq twice?
June 29th, 2005 at 12:41 ami guess that if you repeat something often enough, no matter how offbase, it become true. at least to some.
Tony, thank you for explaining your position. Do you think we may be creating a similar “taliban” here with the stong hold christian fundamentalists are getting here? Like Roy Moore’s followers?
June 29th, 2005 at 12:47 amKathy,
No I don’t. I don’t because fundamentalist Christians, for some reason, do not want to kill everybody that isn’t Christian. They also don’t try to convert people by force. They may want you to be one, and may tell you you’re going to hell, but that doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in hell : ) (BTW, I’m agnostic)
Plus I think the whole “christian fundamentalists are taking over america” thing is hogwash. They’ve always been in rural america. The libs in the big cities finally noticed that they’re there, that’s all.
I have to sleep, but I’ll try to reply to you when I wake up if I you have any more questions for me : )
-Tony
June 29th, 2005 at 12:51 am“Oh and it’s one thing to not volunteer to fight, quite another to completely object. Please take off the high and mighty hat.”
Eh? I guess it is completely different to object to the backdoor draft of the stop-loss orders than to refuse to volunteer. The objection to a backdoor draft certainly doesn’t do anything for me, who currently has no loved ones in the armed forces. I don’t know why I bother to object. Those soldiers signed up to be exploited to the full extent of the law, and how dare they object?
The refusal to volunteer does a lot for me and mine. We get to pursue our interests, jobs, family life, etc. with all our limbs, without being inconvenienced by the unpleasantness in Iraq. The refusal is made easier by the knowledge that the war in Iraq is illegal, stupid and destined to failure.
If you felt differently about the war, you might be moved to enlist. But of course you’re perfectly free to cheerlead while refusing to make the least sacrifice for it.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:52 amnot to mention that you get rid of terrorists through intelligence and special forces — not by trying to occupy a country.
go ask the british how well occupation works (ie, northern ireland). been going on for a hundred years.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:56 amThe president’s speech tonight: an apolitical perspective
June 29th, 2005 at 12:58 amThis guy Bush looks and acts like the “What me worry?” character in Mad Magazine. Alfred E. Newman, as I recall. Why will no prominent “leader” come forward to push for withdrawal? Too many of them violated their
June 29th, 2005 at 1:08 amConstitutional duty–Only Congress can declare war–by delegating this responsibilty to Bush. The rest are either Neocons or dependent on them for political support.
ATTENTION REPUBLICANS!
June 29th, 2005 at 1:13 amNow is the time to discard your blind allegiance to Bush and the toxic group that surrounds him. Turn off Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and the rest and all those that spread hate and distortion.
Join the rest of the world in finding solutions to the damage that these fools have forced upon all of us.
Together we can work to end this disastrous dead end the Bush Administration has driven us towards.
We need your cooperation in finding the way out of this chaos.
Help us bring back sanity to the middle east.
Wow, Tony. So the chechens and hezbollah are interested in killing people because they are non-muslim? I suppose that when you lump two groups who happen to be majority muslims together who have a beef with their oppresors who happen to be majority no-muslim you can come to such an ignoranr conclusion. Chechnya’s problem in fact has more to do with nationalism which is a normal reaction for colonies when the empire thta so long abused them begins to lose its hold.
What gets my goat is the way so many like you are quick to judge the muslim world without considering that the majority of islamic nations are nationalistic for this very reason. Under the ottomans and then under vatious European masters, and then under puppet princes and kings of there former western masters.
Why don’t you take a few weeks off from opining and seek some knowledge. I challenge you to learn about Islam from a muslim who practices Islam. I know it is more convenient for many to remain in the shadows and avoid seeking true knowledge. I can guarantee you that an informed muslim is fairly well versed in Christianity, and the Koran, by the way, emphasises that Christians and Jews are people of the book, and as long as they do not wage war, muslims are bound to live with them in peace.
I suppose what I am saying is that true religion has nothing to do with the problems in the world today, rather it is the broken and twisted wreckage of human baseness that claims to be in the name of God.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:14 amUsing the word “they” to refer to the 9/11 terrorists AND Iraqi insurgents, in the same sentence…BRILLIANT. Exactly how they manipulated us into Iraq in the first place! This guy is the embodiment of “dumb and dumber” in the same body! (I don’t give him the credit for the brilliant manipulation) But lets face it his “staying the course” policy isn’t dumb its also (other people’s) brilliance. The US has no intention, never had any, never will have any intentions of ever leaving Iraq! Thats why a dumbass like W got hiself elected! We can assume its his stupidity & incompetance that prolongs the war and focus on that instead of on the Project for a New American Century’s deliberate plan of permanent occupation of the middle east. W is just the stooge that is too dumb to know he looks stupid when he advances PNAC’s evil agenda. It should be easy to impeach W and he pro’lly will be, but that won’t change a thing for the folks who are really running the show…BRILLIANT!
June 29th, 2005 at 1:26 amGeorge W. Bush has done so much harm to America’s national security, the only real option is to impeach him.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:36 amhttp://billmon.org/archives/001952.html billmon detects a subtle change in the Bush verbage, and predicts USA will be sitting down with the [Sunni] “insurgents� and negotiating . . . which I think might provoke intense dismay from some [Shiite] members of the interim Iraq govt.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:38 amthat’s the most educated thing i have ever heard on this forum, stuart! It’s important to understand that the reason for the unrest in the ME is not the religion of Islam, but the economic oppression, poverty and corruption in those countries. These issues can’t be solved by war. Instead, they are only aggravated by war and killings. If the US had spent 200 billion dollars over 2 years on eliminating poverty and eliminating corruption in the ME instead of on war, people there would have definitely stopped disliking it so much. If the US had focused its efforts on capturing UBL and solving the Palestine issue, the war on terror would surely have been much closer to victory. Instead, the US has created a new breeding ground of hate and terror in the heart of the ME.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:45 amIts a no-win situation over there right now, and closely resembles the the mess created with the demise of the former Yugoslavian Republic.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:46 amTaz:
June 29th, 2005 at 1:52 amA great saint once said that man has the potential to be greater than the angels or lower than the beasts. The solutions you speak of are of the former and the direction that we are headed in today is of the latter
President Bush delivered his much awaited speech on Iraq to an audience of soldiers assembled at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
As theater, the President’s was a confident rhetorical performance. But if the intent was to rebuild American support for the Iraq war by showing accountability for the missteps to date, providing a plan for success and asking for needed sacrifices, George W. Bush failed miserably…
For the full report card, see:
“Bush’s Iraq Report Card”
June 29th, 2005 at 2:39 amfighting worldwar 3? so he said
June 29th, 2005 at 3:52 amThere are no terrorists. Those called such are all freedom fighters. A war against terrorists is a war of terror. The only way to stop terrorism is to remove conditions where people lose the value of life. Then their freedom fighting becomes life enhancing science.
Nation-state social experiment is failing. The most corrupt and beguiling gain the greatest power over life and death. Information explosion has brought the tools and means to usurp the checks and balances. Look for a new experiment to come soon, probably the killer social software application in the form of a peer-to-peer collaboration program.
We’ll need to learn how to recognize and lay aside the second order cybernetic assumptions and give our attention to the war of life against death. Nothing else can sustain.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:21 amTony,
When a real man sees injustice and dishonesty, they speak out. Real men aren’t afraid to dissent.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:26 amTHIRD WORLD WAR - once
Where are the posts referencing that phrase and its implications?
…Bush validated World War 3 on national TV by not refuting it, which means he recognizes it as truth.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:42 amDoes it happen to bother anyone that not supporting the troops is deemed unpatriotic? Well excuse me, but aren’t they all hired killers, being pimped out overseas by whorish politicians on behalf of AmeriKKKa INC? I don’t like bush anymore than I enjoy getting the runs, but kerry would’ve stayed in Iraq “until the job is done” . Two parties one punchbowl, and one puppeteer. Amerikkka’s two
June 29th, 2005 at 8:39 ambiggest threats: Corporate greed and false pride…
Boy Stewart, you got me. I compared muslims to muslims. Opressors? Who’s opressing poor old Hizbollah? Nobody. In fact, they’re opressing the Lebanese, or at least they were, until we went into Iraq and they got the message and began to leave.
Also, look how nice the chechens are. They take over schools and kill hundreds of children. I’d love to send my kids to their schools!
DO I need to say sarcasm?
June 29th, 2005 at 8:42 amYou forgot mention of terror/terrorist. My count is 34 times.
Takes about a minute to say terrorist 34 times. Speech was less than 30 minutes. So at least 3% of the speech was terror/terrorist
June 29th, 2005 at 8:51 amTony-
Yet another chickenhawk, eh? You are of course free to form whatever opinions you like. Just be aware that since you have cited that we have an all volunteer army which you “decline” to be a part of, coupled with your adamant pro-war stance makes you the classic definiton of a chickenhawk.
Sadly, being such a person lends you a shortfall of credibility because clearly you advocate a line that you aren’t even willing to walk yourself. Which in a greater sense makes you something even worse than a metaphorical avian: It makes you a hypocrite.
June 29th, 2005 at 8:58 amJohn,
June 29th, 2005 at 9:00 amI disagree. My personal status in the army has nothing to do with whether or not we should be in Iraq. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite at all. It makes you think I am one, but it doesn’t make me one. By your logic, if my friends jumped off a bridge, I should too. Boy the most tired cliche proves my point. You are a moonbat, sir!
Tony-
Why don’t you heed the call of the commander-in-chief that you love so much? After all, last night he was talking to you!
“And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation’s uniform.”
So go on, be a REAL proponent of war. You clearly love the war, so now go out and grab your uniform and let the war love you back.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:20 amHogwash.
Bush blathers that when confronted by problems, “Americans dom’t falter”. But the fact is that “America” already HAS faltered — A LONG TIME AGO (and not just on Georgie W.’s “watch”).
The failure was in not rising responsibly to the looming need to GET SERIOUS about ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING alternative energy resources to wean “ourselves” OFF our ADDICTIVE DEPENDENCY ON OTHER PEOPLES’ OIL. The (collective) (mis)”leadership” of this supposedly “enlightened” and “superior” society evidently preferred (above all else) to “cultivate” and perpetuate it’s “American Oil Empire”. It has been quite happy to cycle bazilions of what is nowadays being called American “dollars” through the fingers of Arab and other “Oil Sheikhs”, on their journey back over here to line “American” pockets.
The sheer MAGNITUDE of that flow IS WHAT HAS GIVEN RISE TO ALL THE REST OF IT — the depredations of not only Saddam, but also those of repressive “regimes” in “Saudi Arabia”, Egypt, Pakistan, and other corners of the oil-rich areas —and now the violence that plagues Iraq in the aftermath of “destabilization” of the precarious equilibrium that had been established. And the devil take all the poor victims!
As for me, I now drive a Toyota Prius hybrid, which cuts my gasoline consumption in HALF (honest, folks — 47 MPG!)
And I feel sorry for Georgie W. Bush. He has to stand there and pretend to play a fool who “just doesn’t get it”, in order to cater to and placate a lot of other fools who, if they ever “catch on” to the whole dismal scam, are apt to become very, very angry (and not just at HIM). But that, I suppose, is what he gets paid for! (As though THAT could somehow compensate for being reduced to such a sorry pass.)
June 29th, 2005 at 9:28 amFrank, you have really summed up the heart of the problem. This is one of the reasons that I believed that John Kerry was going to make an excellent President. He had the courage to talk about alternative sources of energy (referred to the effort to convert the entire energy infrastructure as a “New Manhattan Project” I believe). The current regime will not get serious about our enregy problem. Bush can talk all he likes about building nuclear power plants, but as long as they continue to promote and implement energy policies that are not only huge giveaways to the oil industry but are actually written in conjunction with them….well, we’ll have to fight wars to secure what’s left of the worlds oil.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:56 amFrank, does the Prius drive like a go-cart? I’m just wondering about power (I have a pretty long commute) and how long the car can go at a sustained high speed without losing power?
June 29th, 2005 at 10:00 am“I disagree. My personal status in the army has nothing to do with whether or not we should be in Iraq. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite at all. It makes you think I am one, but it doesn’t make me one. By your logic, if my friends jumped off a bridge, I should too. Boy the most tired cliche proves my point. You are a moonbat, sir!”
-Tony-
By your logic you would be cheering on your friend to jump off the bridge. Moonbat? I’ll take moonbat over chickenhawk anyday. And, yes, you ARE the definition of a Chickenhawk.
June 29th, 2005 at 10:48 amThat would be “exit strategery.”
June 29th, 2005 at 11:09 amFrank was right on. It is vital for our country to get off of oil ASAP. It only goes to line the pockets of the Saudis and other holes in the earth that have not contributed to the society for anything whatsoever aside from giving us the means to pollute our planet. Stop the flow of big oil dollars to the ME and let them rot over there. We have so many programs we have cut back on over here to fund the illegal war (can someone give me a ‘compassionate conservative’ I say amen).
The neo-cons are using up the resources over here ($$$) to justify cutting medicaid, funding to libraries, and multiple other social programs. Sounds a little too 1984. That book was supposed to be a warning, not the neo-cons text book.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:20 pmThe Reality Agenda
Tonight, President Bush’s face will flicker on millions of American television screens, as he addresses the country on the anniversary of the so-called transfer of power to an Iraqi civilian government one year ago. His neo-con backers will talk loudly
June 29th, 2005 at 12:51 pmI think Tony has been successfully eviscerated from this board. After all, it has hard to be taken seriously on a topic which you know absolutely nothing about.
This is the real problem with the chickenhawk. It isn’t that the points or arguments that they make are invalid (though surely some are) but rather that they have NO credibility in making them.
Since this is an informal debate, it must be treated as thus. Therefore, if each of us is to represent a particular “side”, then that means we must qualify to be a delegate. I myself am and always have been anti-war. I do not engage in violence in my life, have never been in any sort of physical altercation, and therefore qualify as a delegate to represent the side I am on.
Tony on the other hand as a non-member of the military, but more importantly having stated that he is completely unwilling or open to the notion of serving, does not qualify as a delegate for the pro-war side. This is the trouble with chickenhawks, and as EeE accurately pointed out, this is tantamount to cheering someone on to jump off a bridge that you have no intention of leaping from, despite giving the impression otherwise.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:38 pmI didnt watch the speech and i wont read it because I know the usual “pack of lies” that will be peddled and delivered. Everytime I see him on tv or hear people praising the chimperor I just black out and wake up in strange places with my shirt off, my jeans ripped to shreds at the knees, and my shoes torn open. I cant figure it out.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:07 pmIt seems fairly clear to me that the Iraq war is about resources and the economy. Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud are vulnerable to radicals and their oil fields are in decline. I believe that a determination was made because of this and because of the emergence of arab fundamentalism and the increased demand by emerging nations for oil that the U.S. had to do something to secure production for itself. It will not be publicly admitted by politicians that oil production is peaking or will peak in the next 5 years or so, and with brings a world rescession (see trucker comment above) and potentially more resource wars. Some might agree that war in the service of the economy is justified. (I don’t) But nowhere is it being debated whether or not this is appropriate policy. The Republican administration and those who fund it and support it may feel they are acting in the best interests of our country (in addition to feathering their own nests, of course), but this strikes me as undemocratic and paternalistic, not to mention an extreme sacrifice on the part of military families who are disproportionately from a lower economic class. This is a class war and the corporate ownership class is profiting and securing their profit for the future. If this war represents a worthy policy it should hold up to more scrutiny. The extent to which Bush and the Republicans lie and obfuscate implies this is not a worthy policy.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:13 pmBUSH didnt pass his exam A+ but he was C and D how come he became president see he not doing his homework SHAME SHAME SHAME BUSHY
June 29th, 2005 at 2:35 pmUm, by simply blowing off my points because I am not and do not want to be in the military is quite an easy out for actually debating the validity and purpose of the war. Have fun changing the rules of discussion as the discussion moves forward, solely to suit your needs of arguement.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:46 pmI agree with you. Let’s get to the purpose and validity. The rationales that you brought up I believe were Saddam’s brutalization of his people and the breaking of U.N. resolutions. There is probably not space enough to list the torture regimes that the U.S. and specifically the Bush administration has supported, see, e.g., Khazakstan, Egypt, Nigeria. The U.N. resolutions? See, e.g., Israel. The Bush administration pimps the U.N. when it suits its purpose. The “moral imperative” depends on the administration’s political and economic goals.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:18 pmBullshit - All over the place!
June 29th, 2005 at 3:34 pmDon’t Let Bush Change the Subject
Last night President Bush tried to rescue his failed Iraq policy in a nationally televised address by connecting the Iraq war to the war on terror. He is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11—implying that Iraq at…
June 29th, 2005 at 3:38 pmWhoops, now that I go back, I think what you said was that the war is about containing muslim fundamentalism but everybody is too p.c. to say so. So…how did ousting Saddam, a secular, anti-cleric and strictly regional despot further this goal? It now appears that there is a good potential as a result of this country’s failure to understand the consequences of the war, that fundamentalists have far greater political power in Iraq than had when they were being gunned down in the marshes, as well as moral credibility which the U.S. now entirely lacks in that country.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:47 pmTony,
June 29th, 2005 at 4:18 pmAn earlier point you made was that the insurgants were killing more Iraqis than our troops. Are you aware that most of the insurgents are Iraqis? On CBS last night retired Col. Douglas MacGreagor (not sure of the spelling) stated that only about 5% of the insugents were foreign fighters. In other words, it is not foreign terrorist we are killing and detaining, but the Iraqi people. People who are trying to fight what they see ( as we would if it happened here) as a foreign invasion into their counrty. Thsi is quite different from ANY of the arguements to why we need to be here or why we needed to go in the first place.
I am wondering if impeachment might not be the best thing for the war on terror. It would seem to be that Bush is the face of this country to terrorists. He is who they point to when they say “see those Americans want to destroy us” The only way to change the image of America around the region and thus bring about some chace for peace is to change that face. Agreeing with Bush or not is really not the point now. It is to find the best way to win the war on terror. Palestine was never going to make any headway with Isreal until leadership was changes, could it be the same for us now?
June 29th, 2005 at 4:23 pmMary Beth,
June 29th, 2005 at 4:29 pmI think that the US has historically chosen to back regimes that suited the interests of the US, human rights and equality be damned. I think that 9-11 has made the US rethink the policy of backing a government solely for the sake of stability. Bush has changed that policy into support for democratically-based governments, and I think that it will take a lot of time to see the actual shift in how that policy change will play out in the world.
Yes, I also mentioned containing islamic fundamentalism (I maybe should have said islamo-facism? not too sure). Yes, Saddam ran a seculaf government, but it was rooted in religious beliefs (see the “allahu akbar” on the Iraqi national flag). I won’t delude myself or you and say that even America is 100%secular. Our founding fathers were religious, and I do not believe that a little dose of religious morality can be good foundation for societal law. The point I was trying to make is that while Iraq perhaps does not fully embody the ideals that make the middle east so volatile, it was, from a geopolitical standpoint, low hanging fruit for the US to go into– meaning, we had a decent argument to go in there (lack of UN compliance, human rights violations, and yes, a lot of world governments– including Saddam– believed there were WMD’s in there. Hell, America sold them to Iraq.), and we knew that by creating a presence in the ME, the US showed that unlike the UN, we mean what we say when we say something (which a lot of countries, Iraq included, took advantage of as a sign of weakness in policy). It also made a large point to even more potentially dangerous regimes that the US military–really one of te few effective militaries in the world– was at their doorsteps. This mere presence in the region is, in come cases (see: Syria and lebanon and egypt), dictators and quasi-religious governments are starting to rethink how they act toward their own people and toward the rest of the world.
Military Husband,
I think you have to account for the thousands of former Saddam regime members that brutalized their way into power, and are not going to give it up that easily. They really were like the schoolyard bully, and it will take time for the general population to gain their backbone and resist these former- and current- thugs. I am not too sure about the 5% figure. I’d like to see some stats, but I’d think the number would be a little higher than that. Again, not 100 percent, as we all know from reading through this post that I’m not in the military : )
June 29th, 2005 at 4:32 pmTO add to that last post, I think we all can agree that Saddam did murder hundreds of thousands of his own people through the Baathist thugs I described above. I can’t say, if I were a common Iraqi, how I’d feel when the government that would have me so easily detained, tortured, and killed were suddenly removed from power by some huge foreign power. I don’t think any of us can really empathize or understand how that would feel.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:35 pmA correction/clarification: (I’m typing on a crappy laptop, and I’m trying to think too fast and type. forgive me)
I meant to say in #113 that a little dose of religious morality can be a good thing for a foundation of law. I went to catholi school for 12 years, and while the main effect was that I argued with nuns and haven’t gone to church since, I did learn about other religions and belief systems. For the most part, I think they provide decent rules for good societal behavior ten commandments, 8-fold path). I think that decent religious morality can be part of a foundation of law, like it is in the US. Of course, when religion goes wild, you can get opression of people who are not of the domintaing religion, and I think that is one of the problems in the ME today.
Had to clarify that.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:44 pm“Bush has changed that policy into support for democratically-based governments, and I think that it will take a lot of time to see the actual shift in how that policy change will play out in the world.”
I guess that is why Bush was holding hands with the Saudi Prince in an effort to remain Saudi Arabia’s Thirstiest Oil Bitch!
He claims that if you harbor terrorists, you are an enemy of the United States, but I guess he has to make an exception to the family that helped make his family so rich.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:49 pmBy the way Tony, you can quit using the “He broke UN resolutions” argument. You can’t have it both ways. On one hand stating that the UN is so relevant that a country that breaks the resolution is going to be invaded, and then on the other hand state that the UN is so IRRELEVANT that when they adamantly oppose military action they are ignored.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:55 pmWell, the crappy unspoken thing is that as a nation, we’ve become more than dependent on oil to exist. We’re not evil because we want to drive places like to work, or to visit famil or friends, or to go get groceries. I agree, we are the Saudi’s oil bitch. Unfortunately, if we decided to get the cajones to go in here, not only would we lose saudi oil, but OPEC would cut us off entirely, effectively stopping us cold in our tracks. I like being able to debate with people online. We’d be so hard pressed for energy if we lost that oil that we’d be lucky to have lights on for a few hours at night. We’d have to divert so much energy from the grid to power transportation that we’d be screwed. Again, I agree. The US is the saudi’s oil bitch.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:56 pmElliott,
Hey I do’nt think the UN is very effective at all, and the tsunami more than proves that point. Obviously, since I voted for Bush, you know that’s how I feel : )
And there is no duality to my statement. The UN talks a riteous talk, but fails to walk the walk. The UN made demands of Iraq after teh first gulf war, and Iraq didn’t comply. When the US finally tried to get the UN to act on their resolutions, the UN didn’t. That’s more likely because the UN is comprised of countries that would have been on the receiving end of the stick.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:59 pm…Partly comprised of countries that would be on the receiving end of the sick.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:02 pmThe UN had inspectors there that the Bushleviks ousted so they could rush to a war that didn’t have to be fought. The UN was doing its job, Saddam didn’t have any WMD.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:07 pmThe UN sanctions were working just fine. Saddam’s army was less than half the size of the first Gulf war (which I supported and we did the right thing). Bush the elder even said that he didn’t oust Saddam then because we would be tied down in a quagmire. Saddam posed no threat whatsoever to us before our unprecedented invasion.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:11 pmWell, I know that may be a talking point for you Elliot, but you have to remember that everyone-including saddam- believed there to be WMD’s in there. Also, the inspectors were being told to wait at the front doors of facilities while people inside did who-knows-what. To me, that doesn’t exactly display forthrightness and honesty.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:12 pmthe point is this: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. His country (at that time & as far as military experts & ambassadors agree) had no contact with Al-Queda. Sure, he killed his own people (a lot of them), but that had nothing to do with 9/11. stop trying to make applesauce out of oranges. Saddam had oil. We wanted that oil. That was the reason we attacked Iraq. It had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had nothing to do with spreading democracy abroad. It had nothing to do with WMD (as we already knew there were none). Try to stay on task here. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.
If you are for the war & refuse to support it with your presence, then you really do not support the troops or the war. Why should others do what you will not do yourself? You can’t say you support it & continue to sit on your ass in your recliner at home surfing the internet & posting to blog type websites. That makes you a hypocrit. HYPOCRIT!
June 29th, 2005 at 5:14 pmBarbara,
Please read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/ mccarthy/ mccarthy200506290912.asp
Maybe Andrew McCarthy was right, Bush’s speech did piss off all the right people.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:16 pmThe reason everyone “knew” there were WMD was that Bush held evidence to the contrary a secret from even Congress. The Downing Street Memo proves what us real thinkers have known for a long time: that Bush wanted to go to war with Saddam, but the case was thin. He fixed the facts around his policy to justify the war.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:17 pmAMEN ELLIOTT!
June 29th, 2005 at 5:18 pmTony, I guess you prove my point about Republicans being like the pupil of an eye: the more light you shed on it, the narrower it becomes.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:18 pmbait & switch. bait & switch. i will not take my eye off the ball. you can at your peril tony.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:20 pmThe Downing memo is way overblown for what you want it to mean elliot.
To quote Inigo Montoya, if he were talking about “fixing intelligence” in the Downing memo: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
June 29th, 2005 at 5:22 pmBarbara,
So the list of facts at the end of that NR article mean nothing to you? Perhaps your feelings have more credibility than facts on the global scale?
June 29th, 2005 at 5:23 pmTony, I think what you are saying is: (1) 9/11 represented a sea change in U.S. policy, and the Bush administration determined that we now must now install and support democratic regimes in the ME so that over time a culture of democracy can take root and support for terrorism will diminish; (2) there are indications that this is working, and (3) Iraq was low-hanging fruit because the war could be “justified.”
I guess I think it is too early to tell if its working and I would be interested to hear about what it is about the behavior of Syria, etc. that you think is promising. Also I think the manner by which the war was promoted and prosecuted seem to give lie to the premise that we are only there to spread democracy. There wasn’t any planning for that kind of an undertaking. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the goals were political and economic. For example, the oil ministry was fully protected during the invasion of Baghdad while the city’s cultural artifacts were looted. The U.S. government continues to pay bloated and corrupt defense contractors instead of local contractors to rebuild the country.
Backing up a step, isn’t it complete, chauvanistic hubris to think that we can bring democracy to a country by bombing the living shit out of it, incarcerating vast numbers of its population, employing torture on a widespread basis, sending armies of 18-25 year olds to drive tanks through its cities, gunning down families at checkpoints, misunderstanding their language, culture and religion, destroying their infrastruture, and purporting to be doing this for their own good? The ends don’t justify the means, brother.
And then there are the lies. If the war was for a just and righteous cause, why did it have to be marketed? Why didn’t they just announce the policy on its merits? With the incredible, obscene amount of bloodshed and money being spent, aren’t we entitled to debate whether the actual reason for going to war is a worthy cause? I think that although some, like Perle and even Bush, really believe the spread of democracy thing, but I do not think it was the only reason, or even the main reason - it just dovetails nicely with the Cheney/realpolitik. Bush wants to go down in the history books as a noble freedom-n-liberty guy, cut from the cloth as our founding fathers. He is not that president. He is a small man with a small mind, lacking any sense of the commonwealth and having an abiding need to shut down any voices that don’t square with the fantasy.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:32 pmi stopped reading so called “main stream press” a long time ago. what they report is not news. the news was cancelled years ago & no one seems to realize it … or miss it. all we are fed is republican propaganda. you can swallow if you want to. no one can make ME swallow it.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:37 pmI’m a couple of comments behind. Tony, it sounds like we are closer in view on this than I first believed. It’s about the oil. But what really gets me is that this is never acknowledged. The shit is going to well and truly hit the fan when the oil stops flowing. Maybe we have to fight wars over it. But maybe if people were actually debating the worthiness of going to war over oil, someone else would step in and start talking about making fundamental changes in our oil dependence, not just penny-ante tax incentives for wind energy. But I suppose that would disenfranchise the campaign contributers. I like debating on line too. The problem isn’t just Bush (but MY GOD he is an unworthy leader in these times), it’s systemic, it goes back decades, its an election-cycle problem, its a corporate lobbying problem and its a problem because people are parochial and assume that things will always go on being the way they are now.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:39 pmMary Beth,
You have a lot of points, and I’d like to try to answer them all.
“For example, the oil ministry was fully protected during the invasion of Baghdad while the city’s cultural artifacts were looted.”
-Unfortunaltely, vehicles and generators do not run on museum artifacts.
“I guess I think it is too early to tell if its working and I would be interested to hear about what it is about the behavior of Syria, etc. that you think is promising.”
-Syria pulled its army out of lebanon, which it had occupied for many years.
“Backing up a step, isn’t it complete, chauvanistic hubris to think that we can bring democracy to a country by bombing the living shit out of it, incarcerating vast numbers of its population, employing torture on a widespread basis, sending armies of 18-25 year olds to drive tanks through its cities, gunning down families at checkpoints, misunderstanding their language, culture and religion, destroying their infrastruture, and purporting to be doing this for their own good? The ends don’t justify the means, brother.”
-The United States carried out the most precise and targeted military attack in the history of the world. Perfect? Not by a long shot, but you bet you sweet bippy it was better than anything human beings have ever seen in the history of human beings.
“If the war was for a just and righteous cause, why did it have to be marketed? Why didn’t they just announce the policy on its merits? ”
-Perhaps the anti-war community that resides here can better answer that question. They’re still not convinced, and I am sure never will be : )
“With the incredible, obscene amount of bloodshed and money being spent, aren’t we entitled to debate whether the actual reason for going to war is a worthy cause? ”
-Of course we are. I’m glad you and I are right now. But please remember, the amount of US casualties is the lowest a militarty has ever seen… ever. Money… the US creates 40 trillion dollars per year. 200-500 billion really isn’t going to break our bank. Heck, I think we’d have saved a ton of money by stopping our protection of Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc. A shift of resources would have been better, but I can’t really answer why we’re still aying for the military protection of Europe.
” I think that although some, like Perle and even Bush, really believe the spread of democracy thing, but I do not think it was the only reason, or even the main reason - it just dovetails nicely with the Cheney/realpolitik. Bush wants to go down in the history books as a noble freedom-n-liberty guy, cut from the cloth as our founding fathers. He is not that president. He is a small man with a small mind, lacking any sense of the commonwealth and having an abiding need to shut down any voices that don’t square with the fantasy.”
June 29th, 2005 at 5:42 pm-We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one : )
Great count, simply amazing he mentioned freedom almost once a minute.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:42 pmMary Beth,
Re: your #135
I agree with you except for the Bush thing : )
June 29th, 2005 at 5:43 pmMary Beth,
I slightly take my 138 back. I think oil played a part, but I do not think it was solely for oil. If not for oil, the middle east would not have been able to create regimes that took all oil profits for themselves, while ignoring the well being of their citizens. These same governments might not have allowed their civilizations to degrade into the middle ages, where religious dogma carries more weight than knowledge, and where people lack the infrastructure (water, food, heat, light, information, schools, etc) to live like we do in the US. (I think a lot of americans take our lives for granted, BTW)
If not for oil, and the west’s past indifference to the wuality of the regimes it backed, we wouldn’t be where we are now. But now it’s more than just the oil. Islamofacisim attacked us on 9-11 and an entire portion of the world has decayed and allowed such thuggery to be created.
-a long caveat, to be sure : )
June 29th, 2005 at 5:54 pmMy rebuttal to Tony:
The Oil Ministry isn’t where the oil is. It’s where the engineering plans are. The how-to manual as it were. The oil that runs the war machine comes from Kuwait, I’m pretty sure. I read something about price-gouging from the refiner there.
What evidence is there that Syria pulled out of Lebanon as a consequence of the U.S. invasion of Iraq? (serious inquiry, not snide rhetorical question)
Yes, but isn’t it complete, chauvanistic hubris to think that we can bring democracy to a country by bombing the living shit out of it, albeit bombing the living shit in a far more targeted way then we ever have before? It ain’t just the bombing, its the lack of food, clean water and electric, its the scared trigger-happy troops, its the great white man telling the little brown man his way is better, at the point of a gun.
The anti-war community wasn’t marketing the war. The Bush administration and its apologists to this day are citing rationales that have nothing to do with the war. There is no attempt to level with the public. Why is this something that the anti-war community should explain?
What kind of logic is it that says a war is justified because less are dead? How many have to be dead? There are less dead in this war and more wounded because of the body armor. The cumulative costs of this war haven’t even come due. You have got to be kidding about us being able to afford this war…the costs are mindblowing. It’s not money we have to spend, its debt that will burden generations.
George W. Bush - I don’t think there’s any way to sway people on that score personally - he’s extremely polarizing. If you tell me some concrete thing he’s done for the good of this country instead of the country club set, then we could talk about it.
June 29th, 2005 at 6:13 pmTony-
While your points vassilate to and fro across a wide range of opinions, you sure have been just as successful as your pal Bush in throwing people off the real issue.
The bottom line is that Bush’s entire speech was geared around reinforcing the fallacy that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or the greater threat of terrorism.
That is of course until the United States made it a nexus of terrorists - some of whom may or may not have had connections to 9/11.
But just because Iraq is presently the #1 battlefield in the war on terror does not mean that such was the case when the invasion began.
Talk about changing the rules as you go along…
June 29th, 2005 at 6:22 pmTo quote Inigo Montoya, if he were talking about “fixing intelligence� in the Downing memo: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.�
Tony, what kind of crack have you been smoking? Or rather, that is some good crack you’ve been getting from the GOP.
Without descending into the GOP talking points, would you to care to explain what else “fixing intelligence” can possibly mean in the Queen’s English besides what everyone else (except you and the right) thinks it does?
Everytime one of you right-wing zagnuts puts forth this ludicrous notion, the people of Great Britain laugh heartily at our stupidity and complete lack of mastery of the language that they imparted to us.
June 29th, 2005 at 6:27 pmBaloney,
What it means is that contingencies were drafted in case we went to war, wchich we ultimately did. We’ve created a plan in case we have to invade Canada. The administration was critized for having no plan, and now, with the Downing memo, they’re being critized for having a plan. It’s the duality of the criticism that boggles me.
June 29th, 2005 at 8:29 pmJohn S.
Read the bullet points at the bottom of the article I posted. I have had this agument with so many people, I’ll let the National Review pick this one up this time.
June 29th, 2005 at 8:30 pmMary Beth,
On the oil ministry: Well then, just having the machinery in place to keep oil moving must not be good enough. Perhaps you need to have the offices to do the planning and that to get it done. I’ve never worked in the oil industry, so I don’t know much more than that.
On Syria: http://www.cnn.com/ 2005/ WORLD/ meast/