A President's Thought

David Chalk wrote: GWB & OBL are both terrorists under this definition, in the same way that they guy with the baseball bat and they guy with the gun are both criminals. "even if what we do isn't as bad as what they do - it's still wrong"

Well, the glaring worst of it is that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I think we were on a good track with Afghanistan, but the chickenhawk dropped that whole effort and poured unbelievable resources into getting even with Saddam for a personal grudge.

That's what makes our war in Iraq criminal--not the guys over there fighting for what they believe we're there for: the chickenhawk who plunged our mighty nation into quagmire for a personal grudge and still let Osama go free!!!

The result? Al Quaeda is stronger now than ever and we are much more likely to have another terrorist attack on US soil. And if and when we do, no one should point the finger anywhere other than George Walker Bush.

W: the Worst.

David

Neil Mick wrote: **I basically just pwned you in every way there is to be pwned.

**section paraphrased by Ryan Sanford.

I like how nobody tried to argue with you, Niel.

Ryan Sanford wrote: **I basically just pwned you in every way there is to be pwned. **section paraphrased by Ryan Sanford.

Hey! I never said that!

Ryan Sanford wrote: I like how nobody tried to argue with you, Niel.

I'd like to see 'em just try to argue relativity out of the phrase "dead is dead."

Neil Mick wrote: ... I'd like to see 'em just try to argue relativity out of the phrase "dead is dead."

Depends on what the definition of 'IS' is.

E=mc2?

Mark Murray wrote: This current war is probably the most humane war we've undertaken. If even a slight rumor that our soldiers have killed civilians gets out, there's an inquiry. and that's from a rumor, not cold hard facts. We have severe rules of behaviour. Our enemies? Strapping bombs to anything in sight and blowing up anyone at all. Yeah, there's similarities between us. For those that can't read well, that last sentence is all sarcasm. If you really can't tell the difference between us, our president, and the way we're conducting this war, why don't you go ask Daniel Pearl how he was treated by terrorists. Oh, wait. They beheaded him and he was only a journalist. Can't ask him. How about the 3000 innocent civilians at the twin towers? Oh, yeah, they decided to purposefully strike civilian targets and kill men, women, and children. All this "Bush lied, people died", "Bush is a terrorist", "Bush is a nazi", "this war is our Vietnam", etc is some of the worst intellectual dishonesty I've seen. It comes from people who can't reason, think, or have any intellectual substance at all, but rather fall back on sloganed rhetoric that's usually just being spewed back like a tape recorder being replayed again and again. Our current president has kept U.S. citizens safe ever since the terrorists murdered innocent people on September 11th, 2001. There is a very huge difference between our actions and the terrorist's actions. And one man's terrorist is most decidedly not another man's patriot. A patriot would never use a knife to hack off a journalist's head. A patriot would never use a plane to kill innocent men, women, and children. A patriot would never use a bomb strapped to his/her chest to kill innocent kids. Would you liken one man's patriot to the Dahmer's of the world? Those that prey on the innocent? If you really can't tell the differences, I suggest a visit to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc and find a place among the terrorists. Just give that thought some undivided attention and think about long and hard. Think about truly doing it, being there. And if those thoughts somehow give you an uneasy feeling, then you know in some part of yourself that there are differences. Here, you won't be killed. There, your chances are a lot greater that you'll be tortured and/or murdered. Here you can say and write what you want. There you would be killed for those actions. If you really can't tell the difference between our actions and these: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iraq then there isn't any need for us to converse. Mark

Thank you for this post Mark, I agree completely...

Guy Weeks wrote: Mark Murray wrote: then there isn't any need for us to converse. Thank you for this post Mark, I agree completely...

And there you see it. That's how democracy dies, step by step...

1. We cede power to one small part of government (October 12, 2002: Congress voted away their right to tell the President when he can go to war. This Act released the President to declare war on anyone/thing, so long as it could be tied to the "danger" emerging from Iraq) because of fear;

2. They (meaning the Executive Branch) lie, cherrypick intel, wave flags and break international laws, corrupting the essential nature of our government (cf, "unitary Executive," a term unknown in Constitutional scholar circles, pre-Bush);

3. A lot of unnecessary war ensues, all the while this Executive keeps telling the people, Congress, and the fawning media that we "need to wait (till September...no, I mean: November...err, 2009...um, no benchmarks can be set...)" until we can end this unnecessary war...

4. Our civil liberties get tossed. BushCo dances around the rubberstamping FISA court to fish through emails, financial records. Bye bye Habeas Corpus.

5. Millions killed, displaced, wrongly imprisoned and tortured (on all sides) from all this: and at least TWO people HERE feel that any suggestion comparing suicide bombers to cluster-bombs dropped on innocents (or heck, ANY bombs dropped on innocents, cf the US bombing of Iraq; or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, etc) means that the discussion is over and there's nothing more need be said.

Now, THAT, is how democracy dies. Not because a few men and women abuse their power...but that enough people in this country decide that there's nothing to talk about...nothing to do, really: while the stealing is going on.

Neil Mick wrote: ... 5. ...and at least TWO people HERE feel that any suggestion comparing suicide bombers to cluster-bombs dropped on innocents (or heck, ANY bombs dropped on innocents, cf the US bombing of Iraq; or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, etc) means that the discussion is over and there's nothing more need be said.....

You fail to see the difference between intentional & accidental.

John Hogan wrote: You fail to see the difference between intentional & accidental.

No, I think that you fail to acknowledge what is so plainly intentional...the evidence is overwhelming.

Israel didn't accidentally drop most of its cluster bombs in the last few days of the war last Summer (when peace was imminent); the US didn't accidentally include children's vaccines within the embargo list to Iraq, in 1998; and murdering innocents while bombing Iraq as a part of a genocidal Sanctions policy might be claimed to be "accidental:" but you can file that "accident" under "just following orders, Germany, circa 1942."

Neil Mick wrote: No, I think that you fail to acknowledge what is so plainly intentional...the evidence is overwhelming. Israel didn't accidentally drop most of its cluster bombs in the last few days of the war last Summer (when peace was imminent); the US didn't accidentally include children's vaccines within the embargo list to Iraq, in 1998; and murdering innocents while bombing Iraq as a part of a genocidal Sanctions policy might be claimed to be "accidental:" but you can file that "accident" under "just following orders, Germany, circa 1942."

Oh no you DIDehN'T... this calls for a patented Neil Mick SNAP™...

"You brought up WWII... you lose".

NEXT!

John Hogan wrote: Oh no you DIDehN'T... this calls for a patented Neil Mick SNAP™... "You brought up WWII... you lose". NEXT!

Great, John, I "lost:" you "win."

Considering the question with any seriousness is beyond your capability, it seems.

So, enjoy your hollow "victory."

(PS: A very hollow victory, since you are simply parroting my style, without really understanding the usage of Godwin's Rule. From wikipedia:

wikipedia wrote: However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons)

A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons)

A source at the magazine tells me they added this proviso after reading your attempts to ridicule other valid arguments here...

So, um...congrats...

John Hogan wrote: A source at the magazine tells me they added this proviso after reading your attempts to ridicule other valid arguments here... So, um...congrats...

Look, you can continue to use hyperbole and misdirection to avoid the statement all you want, but the statement still remains.

Neil Mick wrote: you fail to acknowledge what is so plainly intentional...the evidence is overwhelming.

Intention and willful conspiracy to commit mass murder by BushCo is easy to document (cf, Downing St Memo, et al. And, failing to document willful intention leaves only one other option, incompetence; and I contend that incompetent leaders who commit acts of genocide are as bad as willful leaders whose policies lead to the same result). And if our leaders are creating policies and passing laws that are genocidal in scope and effect, then you really haven't a rhetorical leg to stand on, contending that there is any real difference between us, or the terrorists.

Yet you try to pass it all off as "accidental." Still waiting for any justification for this claim:

John Hogan wrote: You fail to see the difference between intentional & accidental.

or a reasonable rebut to mine.

You cannot seem to respond to a simple statement without resorting to misdirection, which makes me (and, likely, most readers) think that you really don't have a serious answer to my statement.

In other words....

...wait for it....

NEXT!!!

Neil Mick wrote: ... You cannot seem to respond to a simple statement without resorting to misdirection, which makes me (and, likely, most readers) think that you really don't have a serious answer to my statement. ..

Wow... you think you have the pulse of most readers? That you and most readers are on the same wavelength?

ahahaha.... you're funny... do it again... c'mon, do it again...

::eating popcorn in sweet anticipation::

Well, Nick is right about one thing...snappy one liners do not a debate make.

It's far more interesting to read Mike Sigman's blatent insults to Nick. And there is more debating and alternative information in them than in any of the one liner posts...

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Well, Nick is right about one thing...snappy one liners do not a debate make. It's far more interesting to read Mike Sigman's blatent insults to Nick. And there is more debating and alternative information in them than in any of the one liner posts... Best, Ron

Thank you, Ron: my sentiment exactly. Mike had his own set of issues, but at least he debated some of the time.

Conservatives seem less willing (able?) to carry on an extended discussion, nowadays. Not long ago, I had a conversation with an old friend of mine. Not pro-Bush (as fewer and fewer are, nowadays...he really could be the most unpopular President in history): but definitely Conservative.

The subject came up of what was your greatest fear? He said Iran (mine was the erosion of the enviroment..an old fear. We didn't pursue this topic for very long. I think we both felt the same on this: always have). He kept talking about nuclear weapons being sneaked in, et al. We explored his knowledge of Iran, which turned out to be mostly pictures of Irani leaders calling for the end of Israel coupled with clips of angry Irani's protesting the US, along with angry denunciations by US leaders of Iran arming and sending insurgents into Iraq (and this guy works within the Pentagon).

I pointed out that Iran is much more diverse than that, that the President of Iran holds very little power, that actually the Supreme Leader holds a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons, that Iran is on the cusp of great change (most of its population is under 20) and political reform could well come about...in time of peace: certainly not if the US bombs Iran...that the charges of US leaders are unproven, and made by the same people who lied about Iraqi wmd's...

It was a good conversation. Did he walk away, converted to the "cause?" No, of course not. But, I'm sure that the next time he sees the usual mass-media pablum, he'll consider the issue of bombing Iran a little more carefully. Good. Mission accomplished.

It was a refreshing meeting of minds that you only occasionally see in the media in shows like "Bill Moyers." It would be nice to see more like that, here.

Gotta luv PBS. Thank god.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Well, Nick is right about one thing...snappy one liners do not a debate make. It's far more interesting to read Mike Sigman's blatent insults to Nick. And there is more debating and alternative information in them than in any of the one liner posts... Best, Ron

I don't seriously debate false & misleading information given by people who refuse to accept information that is not Mick Approved™ - It's a waste.

Snappy one-liners are much more fulfilling.

Mark Murray wrote: This current war is probably the most humane war we've undertaken.

"Humane war" has to be the worst oxymoron possible. And I guarantee that if China was conducting a "humane war" in your backyard, you would cease to feel that way. War is never humane. That is why, like all use of force, it can only be justified in defense, or to throw off oppression. Period. The costs, even to the "winners," are always great.

Neil Mick wrote: Conservatives seem less willing (able?) to carry on an extended discussion, nowadays.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in the "conservative" position these days. I think that if more of them realized what, exactly, it is that they are conserving the discussion could resume.

Neil Mick wrote: And there you see it. That's how democracy dies, step by step... 1. We cede power to one small part of government (October 12, 2002: Congress voted away their right to tell the President when he can go to war. This Act released the President to declare war on anyone/thing, so long as it could be tied to the "danger" emerging from Iraq) because of fear; 2. They (meaning the Executive Branch) lie, cherrypick intel, wave flags and break international laws, corrupting the essential nature of our government (cf, "unitary Executive," a term unknown in Constitutional scholar circles, pre-Bush); 3. A lot of unnecessary war ensues, all the while this Executive keeps telling the people, Congress, and the fawning media that we "need to wait (till September...no, I mean: November...err, 2009...um, no benchmarks can be set...)" until we can end this unnecessary war... 4. Our civil liberties get tossed. BushCo dances around the rubberstamping FISA court to fish through emails, financial records. Bye bye Habeas Corpus. 5. Millions killed, displaced, wrongly imprisoned and tortured (on all sides) from all this: and at least TWO people HERE feel that any suggestion comparing suicide bombers to cluster-bombs dropped on innocents (or heck, ANY bombs dropped on innocents, cf the US bombing of Iraq; or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, etc) means that the discussion is over and there's nothing more need be said. Now, THAT, is how democracy dies. Not because a few men and women abuse their power...but that enough people in this country decide that there's nothing to talk about...nothing to do, really: while the stealing is going on.

Good list, Neil, but you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!

By the way, the above list is not particular to the Bush administration. It has been carried out many times in many parts of the world and will continue to be used until we wake up and stop idolizing those who use it. Lincoln and FDR are some of the most glaring examples.

I often hear people say, "Freedom isn't free." Freedom does have a price, but it's not dollars spent on foreign wars, or soldiers' lives. It is always keeping a watchful eye, not on the terrorists, but on our own government.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

Michael Varin wrote: "Humane war" has to be the worst oxymoron possible. And I guarantee that if China was conducting a "humane war" in your backyard, you would cease to feel that way.

Trade deficit.
China is kicking our asses, and most people aren't even aware of it. It can't be all bad if it gets some chinese people out of poverty, though.

Michael Varin wrote: War is never humane. That is why, like all use of force, it can only be justified in defense, or to throw off oppression. Period. The costs, even to the "winners," are always great.

All true. The question that comes to my mind is, 'When do we get to start defending ourselves?' Do we wait for the punch to land, or do we get proactive?

Michael Varin wrote: There is a lot of hypocrisy in the "conservative" position these days. I think that if more of them realized what, exactly, it is that they are conserving the discussion could resume.

What, then, do you believe conservatives are conserving?

Michael Varin wrote: Good list, Neil, but you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!

I recall someone saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what they'll have for dinner.

Michael Varin wrote: I often hear people say, "Freedom isn't free." Freedom does have a price, but it's not dollars spent on foreign wars, or soldiers' lives. It is always keeping a watchful eye, not on the terrorists, but on our own government. "But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

Good stuff. We just have to remember that it gets harder to watch every time it gets bigger.

I recall someone saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what they'll have for dinner.

Oh man, lots of good stuff there.

AQ in Iraq -- wolf
Former Bath'ists -- wolf
Shia Militias -- wolf
Iraqi populace at large -- one fat scared sheep.

Guess what though? We don't have a true democracy...something about a constitution, I think.

Best,
Ron

Someone was saying that most of the readers here aren't on the same wavelength as Niel here? Well, I'm a part of "most readers," and I totally agree with him.
My whole generation is more liberal than previous ones, most of my friends think similar to me. Bet you can't wait for us all to grow up and take over Congress, eh?

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Trade deficit. China is kicking our asses, and most people aren't even aware of it. It can't be all bad if it gets some chinese people out of poverty, though.

It won't matter a fig if global warming isn't addressed. And is it worth it to get a few ppl out of poverty (ie, corporate owners) at the expense of good working conditions and a lack of a guaranteed safe product (cf, the recent Chines recalls, and globilization)?

James Davis wrote: All true. The question that comes to my mind is, 'When do we get to start defending ourselves?' Do we wait for the punch to land, or do we get proactive?

How much more proactive can we get, than preemptive?

Pre-pre-emptive? Our military wants to weaponize space...how much more proactive can we be, than "full spectrum dominance?"

I say we've gone so far over with the "defending ourselves" rationale (for well over 100 years' now) that its time we need to re-think what "defending ourselves" really means. Isn't the best defence, a well maintained society, for all its members? It is, at least, for me.

James Davis wrote: Good stuff. We just have to remember that it gets harder to watch every time it gets bigger.

Ron Tisdale wrote: Oh man, lots of good stuff there.

Yes, agreed. Good comments, all.

Ron Tisdale wrote: AQ in Iraq -- wolf Former Bath'ists -- wolf Shia Militias -- wolf Iraqi populace at large -- one fat scared sheep.

Sorry, Ron, but what is going on in Iraq hardly qualifies as "democracy,,," and where is the US in this equation?

US establishment --- wolf avatar-god
Americans -- apathetic, polarized and confused sheep

Ron Tisdale wrote: Guess what though? We don't have a true democracy...something about a constitution, I think

Michael Varin wrote: you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!

Right. I guess when I said "democracy," I actually meant "the democratic process." I was thinking in terms of the relationship btw a people and their leaders. The more open and fluid it is, the more democratic the system. A true democratic process would have no need for secrecy from its society. When that democratic process becomes more opaque, less open (like a highway closed off, no traffic can get through), then you have the beginnings of a dictatorship.

At this point, the US possesses BOTH a democratic process, AND an international empire. But as with the Roman Empire, more and more of our economy will go toward maintaining our standing army (the Pentagon, which by now is acting as an economic pump, for certain, less humane, sectors of society, the economy, and corporations) as our reach extends, at the price of civil liberties.

When a society surrenders its political decisionmaking process to its security and standing armies, then you have the beginnings of a fascist state.

The US is several years' down that road: but I'm an optimist. We can go back.

Ryan Sanford wrote: Someone was saying that most of the readers here aren't on the same wavelength as Niel here? Well, I'm a part of "most readers," and I totally agree with him. My whole generation is more liberal than previous ones, most of my friends think similar to me. Bet you can't wait for us all to grow up and take over Congress, eh?

Ron Tisdale wrote: snappy one liners do not a debate make.

John Hogan wrote: Wow... you think you have the pulse of most readers? That you and most readers are on the same wavelength? ahahaha.... you're funny... do it again... c'mon, do it again... ::eating popcorn in sweet anticipation::

Guess that that "sweet anticipation" wasn't so "sweet," after all, eh...?

Ah well...no worries for John...he can survive on his "snappy quips..."

John Hogan wrote: Snappy one-liners are much more fulfilling.

Tho it makes for stringy and unappetizing fare, I'm sure...

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Trade deficit. China is kicking our asses, and most people aren't even aware of it. It can't be all bad if it gets some chinese people out of poverty, though.

It won't matter a fig if global warming isn't addressed.

James Davis wrote: All true. The question that comes to my mind is, 'When do we get to start defending ourselves?' Do we wait for the punch to land, or do we get proactive?

How much more proactive can we get, than preemptive?

Pre-pre-emptive? Our military wants to weaponize space...how much more poractive can we be, than "full spectrum dominance?"

I say we've gone so far over with the "defending ourselves" rationale (for well over 100 years' now) that its time we need to re-think what "defending ourselves" really means. Isn't the best defence, a well maintained society, for all its members? It is, at least, for me.

James Davis wrote: Good stuff. We just have to remember that it gets harder to watch every time it gets bigger.

Ron Tisdale wrote: Oh man, lots of good stuff there.

Yes, agreed. Good comments, all.

Ron Tisdale wrote: AQ in Iraq -- wolf Former Bath'ists -- wolf Shia Militias -- wolf Iraqi populace at large -- one fat scared sheep.

Sorry, Ron, but what is going on in Iraq hardly qualifies as "democracy,,," and where is the US in this equation?

US establishment --- wolf avatar-god
Americans -- apathetic, polarized and confused sheep

Ron Tisdale wrote: Guess what though? We don't have a true democracy...something about a constitution, I think

Michael Varin wrote: you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!

Right. I guess when I said "democracy," I actually meant "the democratic process." I was thinking in terms of the relationship btw a people and their leaders. The more open and fluid it is, the more democratic the system. A true democratic process would have no need for secrecy from its society. When that democratic process becomes more opaque, less open (like a highway closed off, no traffic can get through), then you have the beginnings of a dictatorship.

At this point, the US is BOTH a democracy, AND an international empire. But as with the Roman Empire, more and more of our economy will go toward maintaining our standing army (the Pentagon, which by now is acting as an economic pump, for certain, less humane, sectors of society, the economy, and corporations) as our reach extends, at the price of civil liberties.

When a society surrenders its political decisionmaking process to its security and standing armies, then you have the beginnings of a fascist state.

The US is several years' down that road: but I'm an optimist. We can go back.

Ryan Sanford wrote: Someone was saying that most of the readers here aren't on the same wavelength as Niel here? Well, I'm a part of "most readers," and I totally agree with him. My whole generation is more liberal than previous ones, most of my friends think similar to me. Bet you can't wait for us all to grow up and take over Congress, eh?

John Hogan wrote: Wow... you think you have the pulse of most readers? That you and most readers are on the same wavelength? ahahaha.... you're funny... do it again... c'mon, do it again... ::eating popcorn in sweet anticipation::

Guess that that "sweet anticipation" wasn't so "sweet," after all, eh...?

Ah well...no worries for John...he can survive on his "snappy quips..."

John Hogan wrote: Snappy one-liners are much more fulfilling.

Tho it makes for stringy and unappetizing fare, I'm sure...

(why did my post repeat itself...? I didn't hit the button twice...weird...)