I may not always agree with the policies of President Bush. But the following story is one reason why I always respect him:
Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:
"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."
Bush stopped and turned back.
"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."
Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.
"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.'"
"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."
Special for Lynn Faulkner because the Golden Lamb was the place he and his wife, Wendy Faulkner, celebrated their anniversary every year until she died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, where she had traveled for business.
The day was also special for Ashley, a 15-year-old Mason High School student, because the visit was reminiscent of a trip she took four years ago with her mother and Prince. They spent all afternoon in the rain waiting to see Bush on the campaign trail. Ashley remembers holding her mother's hand, eating Triscuits she packed and bringing along a book in case she got bored.
But this time was different. She understood what the president was saying, and she got close enough to see him face to face.
"The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me," Ashley said. "I thought, 'Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I'm safe.' I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me."
…
"I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life," Faulkner said of the moment with the president. "But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart."
For all of the questions I have about how he has run his administration, I can't deny that Bush is a decent and good person at heart. I'm not sure if anyone heard the story as he kept it on the down low, but there was a boy that drowned near his ranch in Texas. Without hesitation Bush dispatched all of his secret service and they type to help. They weren't able to save the boy, but an anonymous source paid for all of the funeral arrangements. The mother did some dgging and beleives that it was Bush that was the donor. I think a lesser person in his position would have used this for some kind of positive PR.
This story reminds of why President Bush has my vote. He stands with me on the major issues, and he is a man of great compassion.
A man like this is worthy of our respect.
Sean,
The story you just relayed is an urban legend. Bush did not pay for the child's funeral. The Secret Service and other resources did help try to find and save the child however. You can read about it at http://snopes.com/politics/bush/funeral.asp. For another inspirational act that Bush did recently, but that was not publicized, check out http://snopes.com/politics/bush/jogging.asp
Well don't I feel stupid. That lady actually was on a local talk show and that's how I heard about it. That torques me off.
Joe
It's amazing the great lengths some people will go to persuade themselves that Bush has made the country safer.
The goalposts keep getting moved. How can it be that by infuriating the Arab world with our pre-emptive and compledly loused up invasion of a Middle Eastern that we have improved security? Can you imagine how many new terrorists were just spawned in the last two weeks alone?
Remember what the alternative was: continue the sanctions against Saddam Hussein, keep him under control with inspections as we had been doing all along, maintain and improve the incredible good will with the rest of the world which followed 9/11, finish the fight in Afghanistan and work to improve the conditions in that country, and improve security in our own country.
Instead Bush and Co. created a huge stinking pile of dogcrap that my children will be paying for in tax money or (God help us) with their blood.
Bush will go down in history as the most corrupt and inept president since Nixon (although Nixon was a hell of a lot smarter). Mark my words. And he will also signal the point at which the Christian right overplayed their hand and destroyed their political credibility once and for all. Again, mark my words. More crap is coming soon and the situation in Iraq is going to get much much worse before it gets any better.
Don't you realize that at this juncture a "terrorist" attack on the U.S. wouldn't be perceived as unjustified by a majority of the world??? Is that a good thing??? Who is to blame for this shift in perception since October 2001???
Don't tell me: Clinton, right?
"He wants to make sure I'm safe."
What a joke. Cue up the orchestra and hand me a kleenex. He wants to get elected is what he wants.
It's amazing the great lengths some people will go to persuade themselves that Bush has made the country safer.
Definately less than the lengths that people have gone to convince themselves that Bush is the incarnation of evil, leader of a grand corporate conspiracy to subjigate the world, and dumb to boot.
Remember what the alternative was:
Yes, lets do that.
continue the sanctions against Saddam Hussein, keep him under control with inspections as we had been doing all along
Saddam had half of the world in his pocket throught the corruption of the "sanctions". The main protest of liberals before Bush's speech at the U.N. on Sept. 12, 2002, was that the sanctions should be lifted. The sanctions themselves were one of the largest grievences that OBL cited against America. Saddam was not under control, and the inspections were next to worthless.
good will
Yeah, everyone loved America. As opposed to doing what was right, we should have let dangers continue to grow and so we could say, "You like me...you really like me."
Bush will go down in history as the most corrupt and inept president since Nixon
Yep, especially because of all of those donations he received from the Chinese to modify his foreign policy. Oh wait...
Don't you realize that at this juncture a "terrorist" attack on the U.S. wouldn't be perceived as unjustified by a majority of the world??? Is that a good thing??? Who is to blame for this shift in perception since October 2001???
Whether or not "the rest of the world" might think that a terrorist attack is justified is irrelevant. If people hate us because what is we is the right thing to do, so be it.
Bush is a sincere man with a good heart. He would make a fine small-town sheriff, business proprietor, or Driver's ed. teacher/coach. Unfortunately, he lacks the foresight and insight to be the chief executive of the most powerful nation in the world. He is a devisive force, both domestically and internationally. Having him as President like letting a fourteen-year-old boy drive an eighteen-wheeler down a busy six-lane highway.
Doug said,
"Definately less than the lengths that people have gone to convince themselves that Bush is the incarnation of evil, leader of a grand corporate conspiracy to subjigate the world, and dumb to boot."
Poor Doug. Someone's picking on his favowite littow pwesident so he has to lash out at a strawman. I never said any of the stuff you refer to. I never even said Bush was dumb. The ineptitude of his administration is a fair subject for debate. I'm not some wingnut from the "far left." Please let me hear your predictions for what's going to happen in the next three months in Iraq. Do you think we've bottomed out and it's going to get better from this day forward? Or do we still have a ways to go? I say it's going to get much worse from here. In three months, we can follow up. And we can watch the polls to see how American's perception of their safety changes. Fair enough?
"Saddam had half of the world in his pocket throught the corruption of the "sanctions"."
Sure. We were all just pawns in his game. Oh, how he humiliated us! I hated wearing that "I am a tool for Saddam" T-shirt. And what a monumental cost to our country to monitor Saddam Hussein. How much per year? $1 billion? I'm sure you know the numbers Doug. Please share them with us.
"The main protest of liberals before Bush's speech at the U.N. on Sept. 12, 2002, was that the sanctions should be lifted."
Nice try. Some liberals wanted sanctions lifted because the sanctions were adversely affected Iraqi people. But the main focus was shifting the burden of the sanctions from the Iraqi people to Saddam's regime. Perhaps you've forgotten that before 9/11 the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was proposing a switch to "smart sanctions" before 9/11 to remove Saddam's sympathy card from his hand. The plan including easing restrictions on imports of civilian goods, tightening controls on arms-related products and clamping down on oil smuggling. The plan was tabled after 9/11, although overhauled sanctions were put in place May 2002 by the UN Security Council and APPROVED by the U.S. See, e.g.,
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/05/14/iraq_un020514
"The sanctions themselves were one of the largest grievences that OBL cited against America."
Again, work was being done to address problems with the sactions by the Bush administration BEFORE 9/11. And modified sanctions were implemented in May 2002. Had we continued with those sancations and focused on Afghanistan and the roots of terrorism in the Middle East, we surely would not have (less than three years later) 700+ soldiers dead and thousands more maimed and thousands of blown up and countless thousands of dead or maimed innocent Iraqi men, women and children. We know now that Saddam did not have WMDs and that, in fact, our WMD intelligence was bogus and flawed by the administration's inept reliance on a genuine snake of a human being, Mr. Chalabi.
"Saddam was not under control, and the inspections were next to worthless."
Why, because they didn't find the WMDs which didn't exist?
"Yeah, everyone loved America. As opposed to doing what was right, we should have let dangers continue to grow and so we could say, "You like me...you really like me." "
Yo, Doug, who are you debating? Me or Sally Fields? Certainly we should not have let "dangers continue to grow." We should have done what I said above, "continue the sanctions against Saddam Hussein, keep him under control with inspections as we had been doing all along, maintain and improve the incredible good will with the rest of the world which followed 9/11, finish the fight in Afghanistan and work to improve the conditions in that country, and improve security in our own country."
I believe we're at 107 BILLION dollars for Bush's "plan" and that number is only going to go up. 107 billion to totally piss off the Arab world like never before. If we choose to "stay the course" as Bush proposes we will have troops there for another three years. Bets on that? Let's just wait and see.
"Whether or not "the rest of the world" might think that a terrorist attack is justified is irrelevant. If people hate us because what is we is the right thing to do, so be it."
Doug, you forgot to recite your most important line: "Bring it on!" Shame on you. I'm telling Karl Rove.
Oops, I stand corrected. Make that 174 BILLION (And counting):
From the Washington Post:
"Bush included no war funding in his fiscal 2005 budget, and he had hoped to avoid such a request until after the November election, fearing a divisive, campaign-year debate over the war's conduct and future, Republican congressional aides said. Congress has already approved two wartime emergency spending laws totaling $166 billion, of which $149 billion went to Iraq.
But in recent weeks, military officials publicly stated that U.S. forces were already running into financial problems, and would likely run out of money even before Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year..."
After everything this Administration has accomplished, still no respect. The economy is growing, we have not been attacked since 9/11.
"he lacks the foresight and insight to be the chief executive of the most powerful nation in the world."
Foresight? What does that mean? What do want him to foresee? What can anyone foresee? This is an invisible war friends, we're fighting and invisible enemy politically, economically, militarily, and it's a global conflict. What do you want him to foresee? What attack since 9/11 did we fail to thwart? And what ideas do you have on the opposing end?
Our President is not an entertainer, I don't want a slick talker in the Oval Office while children still mourn the loss of their mothers post 9/11.
Let's keep talking national security, by the way. I want John Kerry to be weighed by his Senate record on national security.
There are two sad stories here. The first is in the post and the tremendous loss that family experienced. The second are the bickering (comments) that follow the post. This is an amazing story of love, compassion and understanding, and an amazing example of sympathy, empathy and unselfishness. What the President did for this family by lifting their spirits is only being torn down by the diatribe that ensues with the comments on the post.
It is sad that more people cannot display the level of compassion for their fellow man, as the President did. We are not forced to vote for the President; we are not forced to vote at all. We are not forced to have love and compassion; we can hate all we want. We are not forced to treat each other with respect and kindness; we can argue and degrade one another to point of complete destruction. We will be forced to give an account of those choices someday, and I pray the salvation of Christ be upon you on that day. Because there is no doubt you will need it; we all need it!
"we have not been attacked since 9/11."
And when we do get attacked, Michael, what line will you recite then? Let me guess, "This means we need a President like George Bush now more than ever."
As for the growth of our economy, it has not grown anywhere close to where Bush promised it would grow due to his ridiculous tax cuts (with more to come, according to his "plan").
"This is an invisible war friends, we're fighting and invisible enemy politically, economically, militarily, and it's a global conflict. What do you want him to foresee? "
HOw about asking the proper question, Michael, which is what DID I want him to foresee. I wanted Bush to foresee exactly what I and millions of others wanted him to foresee, including people in his own Administration: that a pre-emptive War on Iraq was a stupid idea. He failed to foresee this. Others did not.
I also wanted him to foresee that if he was going to ignore the rest of the world and members of his own administration and go ahead with the War, that he make sure he plans it carefully so that we get in and out QUICKLY. He failed to do foresee this. Others did not.
I won't bother rehashing the facts about how his arrogance with respect to "bring it on" and "mission accomplished" and how all his politically motivated distortions about links between Iraq and 9/11 and the evidence for WMDs would bite him in the ass. Again, others foresaw that.
"And what ideas do you have on the opposing end?"
Now? After this big-hearted buffoon has screwed it up for everybody with his arrogant blindness? Geez, how about a bunch of apologies, a bunch of firings of idiots from his administration, a bunch of asking for help from the rest of the world cleaning up the mess, a bunch of promises not to start pre-emptive wars again, and any other President.
"I don't want a slick talker in the Oval Office while children still mourn the loss of their mothers post 9/11."
Puke. I have to give you credit for longevity though -- you'll be able to play that riff for another fifty years.
"Let's keep talking national security, by the way. I want John Kerry to be weighed by his Senate record on national security."
Short version of Michael's viewpoint: John Kerry hates America. Yawn.
Jeff said
"What the President did for this family by lifting their spirits is only being torn down by the diatribe that ensues with the comments on the post. "
No it's not. The comments here can not possibly have an effect on something the President did in the past. I WISH THAT WERE THE CASE BUT SADLY IT IS NOT.
"we can argue and degrade one another to point of complete destruction."
You're right, Jeff. It's called war.
President Bush started one with Iraq, remember?
Sean,
As for the growth of our economy, it has not grown anywhere close to where Bush promised it would grow due to his ridiculous tax cuts (with more to come, according to his "plan").
What is it with you leftists always bashing tax cuts? Do you think taxes are too low? Or is it that you deep down despise your fellow citizens and want to confiscate their property? Be honest
Are you so ignorant of economics that you fail to realize that lowering tax rates ALWAYS has resulted in higher revenues to the government, and raising taxes ALWAYS reduces revenues. I would think that leftist like yourself would prefer that the government have more money to spend on social programs. Not to mention the fact that lower taxes means that the Citizens of this country will have more money to buy houses, retire debts, pay for their childrens education, clothing etc. Oh, I forget, you leftists want the citizens of this country to have to depend on government for all this.
President Bush has made huge mistakes in the last four years, and the execution of what was a good idea if ridding the world of Saddam and his sons has been absolutely, inexcusably abysmal. I likely will be voting Libertarian or CP this November (spare me the wasting my vote crap - it is my vote to use as I please), but the tax cut packages that the Congress passed and Bush signed are among the very few Really Good Things this Administration has done from start to finish.
"the execution of what was a good idea if ridding the world of Saddam" should have read "the execution of what was a good idea - ridding the world of Saddam "
Sorry for the error
Fyi, sfa95, I'm no leftist. I've voted Republican before and I'll do it again if necessary. I would just like to see George Bush act like a leader instead of some worthless Christian Cowboy symbol of "American ideals". George Bush is irresponsible for all the reasons I stated above. I won't vote for him.
"raising taxes ALWAYS reduces revenues"
This is a bald faced lie or, at best, an unsupportable proposition. Please define "revenue" and "tax rates" and provide a cite if you insist on propogating theories from the lunatic fringe. After you provide the definitions, I will provide you with an example which proves that your statement "lowering tax rates ALWAYS has resulted in higher revenues to the government" is also false.
"President Bush has made huge mistakes in the last four years, and the execution of what was a good idea if ridding the world of Saddam and his sons has been absolutely, inexcusably abysmal."
Well, other than the "good idea" part, yeah, inexcusably abysmal pretty much sums it up. But if you think so now, just wait! There is more awfulness to come, you can rest assured of that.
As my husband, a southern-baptist-raised, tobacco chewin' guy says, he's sure he'd have a much better time going fishing with Bush than with Kerry. But that doesn't mean who wants Bush running the country for another four years.
Choosing the leader of this nation based on who comes off as more fun or friendly is nuts. AS for Bush huggin that little girl-- that was really nice and I am truly glad that it made her feel better BUT, to claim that the hug and the one minute of time that Bush gave to this child and her father was "an amazing example of sympathy, empathy and unselfishness" makes no sense- very few doubt that our president is gifted in the interpersonal arena--but how was it "amazing unselfishness" for Bush to do what he did? it may have had a moving, touching effect on you and others, but i think for it to be an unselfish act, it would have had to have some real cost to him, when actually, he only stood to gain by embracing a 9.11 orphan. I don't mean to say that that's why he did it, but let's be real here, it was not a great sacrfice for him to hug that child.
Again, he may be a loving father, husband, and friend to many, but that doesn't mean I trust him and 5-deferrment Cheney to be in charge of this nation for another four years while my brother, cousin and brother-in-law are active duty military. I do not trust this man who has never seen combat (and who has no close realatives currently on active duty) and who, along with his vice-president, did everything to avoid serving this country, to make the decision to send my loved ones off to kill and possibly be killed.
I pray daily that God will give my fellow Americans the wisdom to choose our next president based which candidate has a real record of sacrifice for their fellow Americans rather than just voting for the man who is really good at giving some people warm fuzzy feelings while he is actually doing things that make us (especially our troops)less safe.
Kelly,
What a sad pathetic way of thinking you have. I just have to shake my head.
Kelly,
Let Finlay shake his head all he wants, Kelly. I thought it was a great post, especially paragraph 2.
I've read a few posts on this blog about our inept press corps and frankly, given what's happening in the world right now, it's seems a bit much to run as a "Top Story" a column entitled "Bush pauses to comfort teen."
It would be refreshing to see Bush "pause" to show up at few funerals for the hundreds of troops that have been killed under his command. I'm sure he'll do that once his handlers decide it's politically appropriate to do so. On the other hand, maybe he just "hasn't seen the memo" which lists how many troops have been killed? He's probably waiting for Condi to finish reading it.
Kelly: While Finlay shakes his head, I'd like to shake your hand.
http://www.socialistaction.org/news/200010/castro.html
It is simply amazing to see how delusional people are when it comes to President Bush, his policies and his war. The lengths to which conservatives, the Religious Right and Freepers go to continuously apologize for Bush and his incompetence is staggering. Simply put, Bush should be impeached for taking this country into Iraq when he doesn't have the competence or guts to do the job right, Fallujah being a case in point. Just because he hugs a girl whose mother was killed on 9/11 doesn't make him a good or decent man, it just makes him another mediocre (at best) pol looking for a photo-op to help him get re-elected. His behavior sickens me. Bush's craven hunger for power at the expense of blood, be it innocent Iraqi's who got in the way of our bullets and bombs, or for American men and women in uniform whose sacrifice is made meaningless by a war Bush will not allow them to win. Bottom line: Vote Libertarian or vote Constitution Party. Just don't vote Republican (or Democrat). Neither party deserves it. Neither has earned it.
Boy, liberals are PO'd tonight.
What happened? Did Kennedy die? Was Clinton caught with his pants down again? Was Friends taken off . . . ah, never mind.
Who you callin' a liberal? Sure ain't me.
i am a registered democrat and i read joe's post with tears in my eyes. mostly for the humanity that was displayed. then i read the bickering and persnickity ex post comments with deep sadness. when will you partisans realize that they want to kill us all. yes they have their reasons for wanting to kill us, but they are their reasons, not ours. if scoop jackson, a presidential candidate i supported and voted for, was still around, we would have finished the job in 1991 or at least by 1994. few remember the time that liberals beleived in freedom for all, no matter what treasure was spent.
'Bush is a sincere man with a good heart. He would make a fine small-town sheriff, business proprietor, or Driver's ed. teacher/coach.'
couldn't have said it better myself. bush is sincere, and thiat is what he is and has always rode on. he soes believe waht he is told by his advisors and truly beleives that he is their as an instrument of god.
i think he is the false prophet as outlined in revelations. go and read the description, it is very creepy. god, save us from your followers.
Kelly apparently had no trouble trusting Clinton, though.
"when will you partisans realize that they want to kill us all. yes they have their reasons for wanting to kill us, but they are their reasons, not ours."
Who is "they" ?????
"Kelly apparently had no trouble trusting Clinton, though."
A total non-sequitur, but one we've all heard ad nauseum from talk radio geniuses like Rush Limbaugh and his small-minded minions.
I remember when Rush and his friends got all frothy at the shocking thought of a fifty year old having an affair with a younger woman in his office. The horror! The horror!
Now we can hear Mr. Limbaugh and friends describe the sexual torture of groups of naked men in Iraqi prisons as just as "pranks" pulled off by a bunch of kids "letting of steam."
Hypocritical? Yes. Disgusting? Yes? Christian? No fxxxing way. Not the kind of Christianity I want to be associated with anyhow.
Quoth sean:
``Sure. We were all just pawns in his game. Oh, how he humiliated us! I hated wearing that "I am a tool for Saddam" T-shirt. And what a monumental cost to our country to monitor Saddam Hussein. How much per year? $1 billion? I'm sure you know the numbers Doug. Please share them with us.''
You can see some more relevant numbers for yourself here,
which really leaves only one question:
Now that you know that those you were protesting with against America and her military were on the take, don't you feel just a little bit used that you were willing to support Saddam for free?
Well, dontcha?
You guys can't have it both ways--you can't say that Bush is an uneducated moron who is laughably inept, then say he is an "evil genius" out to manipulate the organs of political power to his benefit. The antichrist of Revelation?--that one has to take the cake.
It's funny to read the above threads. So many of you are so confused, so bitter, what's gonna happen in November, when the country gives the guy another four years? Glad I won't be in you living rooms when the returns come in.
Actually, I take that back--it would be fun to be there.
Jim,
"Now that you know that those you were protesting with against America and her military were on the take,"
I wasn't protesting "against America and her military," nor was I protesting "with those people," so no I don't feel a "litte bit used."
I imagine some Republicans who voted for Bush might feel a little bit used. But not me. I didn't vote for the twit.
kevin,
i said the false prophit, not the antichrist. the false prophit is a pawn of a larger evil power.
sean,
christianity as christ taught it is dead in america. christians want world power, not to spread the gospel. it is the next crusade.
Hi Kevin,
Welcome to Earth! Humans live here. Humans are sometimes sarcastic. You can read about it in a dictionary.
Oh, and Kevin -- I can't see where ANY person here referred to Bush as an "evil genius" (a term you put in quotes, suggesting that you were quoting someone). I admit that I said that Bush was inept. But I fail to see any inconsistency in my posts describing Bush.
It would appear that you are confused about what constitutes a fact and what constitutes a falsehood. Or perhaps you are just too lazy to read the thread carefully.
Fair enough, Sean.
Get together with your Liberal/Libertarian/Socialist/Anti-Bush pals, and try to stay on the same page. But here is what I can surmise from your, and others', posts of the past few months:
1. Bush is the most evil, corrupt politician of our times. He manipulated world opinion, the national media, the intelligence agencies, and even the naysayers in his own cabinet to bring the country into an unpopular war. He sold the Congress a fake bill of goods centered around WMD's, so that his wealthy oil friends can profit handsomely from the privatization of Iraqi oil fields. He has entered into secret agreements with the Saudis to slash gas prices immediately prior to the 2004 elections. He successfully "talked down" the economy leading up to his inauguration, so as to promote deficit-producing tax cuts on wealthy Americans and businesses.
Or
2. George Bush is horribly inept. Everything he touches turns into a disaster. He is dumb, cannot speak properly, and is a dupe of Dick Cheney. He stole the 2000 election, which is the last thing that worked out for him. His degrees from Yale and Harvard Business School cannot count, because he couldn't have even gotten in there had it not been for his rich daddy. He is a backwards religious nut who alienates all those who don't subscibe to his Protestant faith, but he is too dumb to realize it.
My point is only this: you cannot believe that both (1) and (2) are true. It is dissonant to believe that he is stupid, but that he manipulated successfully the US Congress, his cabinet, and members of the previous administration, and you. Unless you're dumber than he is.
Which is what I think.
Sean - Just because you can't (or won't) follow it doesn't make it a non sequitir.
Kelly wrote, "I do not trust this man who has never seen combat (and who has no close realatives currently on active duty) and who, along with his vice-president, did everything to avoid serving this country, to make the decision to send my loved ones off to kill and possibly be killed."
My point was that I doubt that the folks who share Kelly's viewpoint did not "trust" or vote for George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole because they, as combat veterans, had "a real record of sacrifice for their fellow Americans" and Bill Clinton, who was "really good at giving some people warm fuzzy feelings," did not.
If you think you reconcile these seemingly inconsistent attitudes, please do, but don't try to excuse them by pointing out what you think is an inconsistency on someone else's part.
Jim, last year when I protested the impending invasion of Iraq, I walked alongside a coworker of mine who is the mother of a 19 year-old soldier who was already overseas. [Once the war started he was sent into Iraq] I also walked along with my husband, who's much beloved younger brother is a NAVY commander who served in Desert Storm and also served in Afghanistan right after 9/11, leaving his wife and two very young sons without him for 8 months, and who stood a very good chance of being sent back into a war zone when we invaded Iraq. I marched not only because I did not believe Saddam was a real threat to our country and not only because I wanted to do what tiny little bit I could do to add my voice to stopping an invasion that was sure to cause civilian casualties--but I also marched for a very selfish reason. My brother is an active duty Marine and I didn't want him sent away to possibly be horribly injured or killed in a war of choice rather than necessity. Your are being dishonest, or at least ignorant, when you smear your fellow Americans against the war by saying that we are against the military or against America and for Saddam That is simply not true. If my brother and brother-in-law, my cousin, my coworker's son, can understand that protesting this war is not an attack on our military (and believe me, none of these guys have any problem with our family's anti-Iraq invasion stance) then why can't you get it?
Gee, Kevin, you should try Sanka Brand decaffeinated coffee. Seriously, don't be surprised if a resurrected Robert Young appears in your living room, hopefully on election night, to offer you something to take the edge off.
If anyone said "genius" and Bush in the same sentence, I would assume heavy verbal irony. News flash: the "anti-Bush" crowd doesn't speak with one voice. Neither does the conservative crowd or the Christian crowd or any other crowd more general than a single-issue crowd. The anti-Bush crowd agrees on what is most important: our current president must be replaced, or his bumbling will take a generation to fix.
The only people who would enjoy being in my living room on election night if Bush is re-elected are people who delight in the misery of others.
1. The "anti-Bush crowd" is a one-issue crowd.
2. There are many people whose misery I delight in, including those in Category (1).
3. On November 3, you'll be one of them!
Being evil and corrupt does not rule out that one cannot also be inept. Evil and corruption have many faces - no two alike. Whether Bush himself is evil can be debated. Whether he is corrupt can also be debated. That he is inept is highly possible - and as each day goes by with his poor handling of the "War on Terror", a more likely proposition.
I take no pleasure from arriving at this conclusion since where it is taking this country and the world is straight into WWIV. Frankly, this scares the living daylights out of me.
Let's see - the main choices in November are between a man who believes he was sent by God to rule this nation at a time of war or a man who committed war crimes. Shudder.
The bottome line is that America has no LEADERSHIP from either party. The Democratic Party is morally bankrupt and the Republican Party is stupid and inept. Both are corrupted.
4. Sorry! I hit POST by accident.
5. Hate coffee, unless it's ice cream. Drink a lot of sweet tea, though. Iced tea, of course.
6. Don't understand the Robert Young metaphor. The Marcus Welby, MD guy? Or the author? Come to think of it, I didn't even know he was dead.
"My point was that I doubt that the folks who share Kelly's viewpoint did not "trust" or vote for George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole because they, as combat veterans, had "a real record of sacrifice for their fellow Americans" and Bill Clinton, who was "really good at giving some people warm fuzzy feelings," did not."
Oh, so THAT was your point? All you did was mumble something about trusting Clinton.
I trusted Clinton not to stick his finger into the eye of diplomacy, destroy our nations's good will with most of the world's nations, and drag us into a ill-planned "pre-emptive" war supported by misrepresentations to the American people and Congress with respect to (1) the threat posed to our country and (2) the cost and time that would be involved.
And guess what, intense? Clinton didn't let me down, at least in that respect.
Bush's problem is not merely that he didn't have combat experience. It's that he didn't have a combat experience BUT he (and his administration members who also didn't have combat experience) didn't bother to take the time to LISTEN to ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DID HAVE COMBAT EXPERIENCE when they told him (1) this war is a dumb idea and (2) if you're going to do it, you need to make sure you have enough troops to win the peace, not just enough troops to knock down Saddam's statue.
My apologies, intense, if you still find this position is "inconsistent." Perhaps it's just too nuanced for you to comprehend. It was certainly too nuanced for George Bush to comprehend.
Okay Drago.
Let's have it. What were John Kerry's "war crimes" ?
I just realized what "nuance" means, whatever it might say in the dictionary: it means being able to support two or more mutually exclusive alternatives. Leftists do it best!!
Example:
I support the troops, but not the war.
Example:
We should repeal Bush's tax cuts, but I'll be cashing MY refund check, thank you very much.
Example:
We have a coalition of over 40 nations with us in Iraq, but because we don't have the French and the Germans on board, we have "destroyed our nation's good will" among the international community.
Example:
We need to go after the terrorists, provided that doesn't involve troops in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, or Africa, and we mustn't ruffle international feathers by going after Muslim "charities".
Example:
I voted for the bill before I voted against it.
Example:
Those aren't MY SUV's--those belong to my family.
Example:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski
Kevin: The Marcus Welby guy did Sanka commercials in the 70's. Guess I'm showing my age.
I don't delight in the misery of anyone. Can an atheist be a better Christian than a Christian? Whatever happened to "love thy neighbor?". Perhaps you think I'm evil because my ideology differs from yours. My Christian friends would be amused at that thought. I'm a nice person; you shouldn't delight in my pain. I assure you I could never delight in yours unless you murdered my family or something, and even then my pleasure would be short-lived.
By the way, my big-ass tax cut went to charity.
Kevin, Do you honsetly believe that one MUST support the Iraq war in order to support the troops? Please explain. Your insistance on the denial of reality by effectively stating that the only way to suppor tthe troops is to support having them sent to Iraq makes no sense.
While Kevin amuses himself fighting those crazy "Leftists," I wanted everyone to take a big gulp of air as we prepare for Round 2 of the Abu Ghraib debacle.
I believe Jim referred to this second stage in his remarks relating to Joe's "Frat Boy Hazing" theories.
Is everyone feeling safer these days?
[from Rummy's testimony today]
RUMSFELD: First, beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman . . . Second, there are many more photographs, and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this.
Kevin:
Actually, Sean is a sophist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sophist
Rob:
If there is no God, and this life is really all there is, why give to charity?
Actually, I'm having fun here. Most of my posts tend to be light-hearted, and I hate nobody, but herein is a short list of people in whose misery I take great delight:
1. Minnesota Vikings fans--may their frustrations and pain last forever
2. Donald Trump--is there a bigger house of cards (no pun intended) than the Trump organization? WHY is this guy on TV, and not in a debtor's prison somewhere?
3. Dan Snyder--should be self-evident
4. The Osbourne's, and their fans--see #3
5. Organized crime figures
6. Dr. Phil--can't quite put a finger on why I can't stand the guy. Maybe it's me.
7. dicknbush--at least he should take the taffy out of his keyboard before posting.
"Kevin, Do you honsetly believe that one MUST support the Iraq war in order to support the troops? Please explain."
Happy to. "I support what the troops are doing in Iraq, but not what the troops are doing in Iraq" Does that about sum up your position? The military is doing valuable things there, and not just for our country, but for freedom and democracy in the Middle East. We can either go after the insurgents, suffering some unfortunate but necessary casualties in doing so, or, we can let the same insurgents return to rule in Iraq.
I wish I knew the answer to the Middle East puzzle. I don't. The choices, to me, appear clear however:
1. We do our best to bring democracy to a region that has never known it. Whether we succeed or we fail is yet to be seen.
2. Complete abandonment of hope, we write off the whole region, bombing as we go, leaving it back in the hands of the extremists.
As expensive and time-consuming as it is, I believe we should engage the region, and hope for the best. There ARE millions of good, decent, hard-working Iraqis, who deserve a future after this horrible war is over. And hundreds of American troops who would have died in vain if they don't get that chance.
Kelly:
Do you fail to recognize that participating in the anti war rallies was giving encouragement to those who want to kill us?
It isn't that you have to support the invasion to support the troops. Can't you see that?
"Kevin: The Marcus Welby guy did Sanka commercials in the 70's. Guess I'm showing my age."
OK, I remember now. Pretty clever of you, then, I don't mind saying. Something Dennis Miller might have said, and my compliments don't come any better than that.
Kelly,
Don't fall into Kevin's stupid trap about supporting the troops versus supporting the war.
The question "do you support the troops" is just a loaded gun which wingnuts like Kevin like to point at the heads of anyone they suspect of having different political views than they do.
The proper question is:
Do I want any of our troops to die?
Answer: No. Of course not. And you're a jerk for asking.
Do I support the war?
Nope. Never did. It was a stupid idea and stupidly planned to boot. It was so stupidly planned, in fact, that more of our troops ended up being killed than would have been killed had some time been taken to plan the war properly.
And just so you have no doubts about where I stand, Kevin: when you imply that by criticizing the people who drummed up and planned this war that I am somehow ambivalent about the fate of our troops, you disgust me.
It doesn't sound like Sean is having any fun.
He gets more shrill with each post.
Actually, the war had been planned for fifteen years!! How much more planning do ya want?
No, the question on troop support comes from my own military experience. I had anti-war protestors outside my base in California and in Europe, even when there was no war on. They said they loved us, but hated the work we did to agitate the Soviets. Missiles in Europe? Running operations against the KGB? Frustrating Soviet aspirations in the Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia? That was what we did for a living, what we thought was important, what we thought was worth dying for. The demonstrators just pretended to speak for me and my friends--they didn't have a clue.
I'm sorry I disgust you, Sean. Are you really Dr. Phil? Or are you still waiting on the Vikes to win the big one?
Sean said:
"The proper question is:
Do I want any of our troops to die?
Answer: No. Of course not. And you're a jerk for asking."
When would the answer to that question EVER be yes? (I'll go ahead and give you the answer, Sean, because you obviously are not thinking clearly. It's NEVER.)
So, how exactly is this a 'proper question'?
Voting for anyone other than Bush in November could encourage the insurgents and make our troops less safe. We should just cancel the election and install Bush as King of the United States. I'm sorry, but I am NOT about to let the insurgents dictate my actions in this free country. I WILL follow my conscience and my convictions. Bush asking the insurgents to "bring it on" did not endanger our troops but me shouting "bring them home" does?
While saying "I told you so" can sometimes be fun, May 7, it certainly is not fun in this instance. It makes me sick to my stomach.
You see, unlike you, I don't have to resort to completely bogus propoganda like "participating in the anti war rallies [is] giving encouragement to those who want to kill us" in order to make my points about the war being stupid. Nor do I have to launch into unprovoked attacks on "Rightists" or any other poorly defined group of Americans whose viewpoint I disagree with.
Even if your tired propaganda were true, May 7, and you weren't so lazy that you could dig up some support for it (good luck!), the fact is that "those who want to kill us" need not look any further than recent events in their own country to find plenty of valid reasons to do so.
Kevin,
"No, the question on troop support comes from my own military experience."
Oh really? Well Kevin if you're such a little pussy that protesters make you question your oath and ability to do as your commmanded to your utmost ability, then you don't deserve to be in my country's military. If people like you make up a significant percentage of our Armed Forces, then that's just one more reason for me to worry about their safety, particularly the safety of those who aren't pussies like you. God help them.
Kelly:
I'm sorry, dear, is logical thought too dificult for you?
Between you and Sean, the term cognitive dissonance is being taken to new heights.
Where did I say anything about voting for Bush? Where did I say that I even support Bush?
How do you equate a very public, controversial anti war protest, with a vote that you cast in private as a duty as a citizen?
Sean:
Kevin did not say that about the anti war protests. Nor was that comment even directed at you.
And I never said anything about 'leftists' or 'rightists' or any other 'ists'.
Your comment totally neglects the FACT that the 'people who want to kill us' have wanted to kill us (and been working on same) for decades. Recent events have nothing to do with it.
And clean up your language. It's really unbecoming.
Whoa, Sean. I never questioned my oath because of the protesters, and my cadre at the military schools might take issue with my being called a "pussy". Pussies don't graduate the schools, and don't serve. And my friends who stayed in aren't pussies either, even if they happen to disagree with you.
No, what I questioned were the motives of the protestors, not my own.
Thanks for making my point for me, though. It just isn't possible to have a rational discourse with those who are full of hate and bitterness. Pussy. Wow.
Kevin:
Like I said, Sean gets more shrill with each post.
May 7
Wrt to Kelly's post,your sarcasm detector is broken. Fix it, if you can.
Wrt to "how exactly is this a 'proper question'"?
It's a proper question because unlike your question about "supporting the troops" it gets to the point without trapping the person into a debate about what constitutes "support."
The only way your statements make sense is if we define "support" the way Kevin defines it: suppressing commentary and the free exchange of ideas while blowing smoke up the behinds of ENLISTED ADULTS and pretending that everything is perfect when it clearly is not.
Again, the administration planned this fiasco in such a way that it was virtually guaranteed to fail -- many many people warned them about this in advance. As a result, the military this week (well, actually quite a few months ago -- we're just getting the details now thanks to our inept and "liberal" press) just blew its own foot off. Now it has to grow itself a new one.
Some of us are actually concerned about the safety of our troops because undoubtedly the environment they are in has just become more hostile than it had been. We want to see how these war planners, who have screwed up pretty much ever major decision to date, handle this crisis.
Others, like May 7, think the best thing we can do is to just shut up and yell GO TEAM GO TEAM GO TEAM over and over until we believe that we're doing the right thing. Oh, and also accuse anyone who doesn't participate of not caring about the safety of our troops. Jerk.
And, please don't call me shrilly.
I'll say this for him--he's a fast typist.
So, the only acceptable way to voice one's opinion when there is a war going on or an invasion about to take place (the rally i went to took place before the invasion) is privately, in the voting booth, otherwise, our enemies are strengthened? Hmmm.
Then we shouldn't have a real opposition party, because that requires not only votes in private, but rallies for the candidate, ads on tv, public debate--all of which could possibly give comfort to the enemy. We are back to King George, for the good of our troops. You are too easily frightened by the bad guys. No thanks. I'll continue to support my brother and other loved ones in my way--they understand my motivation just fine.
Kevin,
"No, what I questioned were the motives of the protestors, not my own."
Exactly. And as a protestor, let me tell you (again) what my motives were (and are): don't start a stupid pre-emptive war when it isn't necessary and if you are going to start it, plan it so that it doesn't turn into a nightmare.
So what is it that you are questioning about my motives, Kevin? What about not wanting troops to die unnecessarily is "mutually exclusive" with "supporting the troops"?
Or is it true that when you say "support the troops," you really mean "support the war", and those who don't support the war are actually AGAINST THE TROOPS? Is this not what you mean? And could you explain to me how it is that speaking out here to force our congressmen to take steps to improve the likelihood of our troops returning home safely is going to diminish the likelihood that our troops return home safely?
My apologies if this is post is too shrill for May 7.
Dear anonymous person who posted at 4:17 P.M. :
I don't claim there is no god. How would I know?
There are "weak" atheists and "strong" atheists (not my terminology). I am of the former. Besides, good works don't get your ticket punched anyway, right? Whatever good I do I do for the sake of goodness. I am a parent. If I can improve the world, however slightly, and set a good example for my children, I will do so.
It is BECAUSE I think that life is all there is that I try to help others. Where is the altruism when one expects a reward? I wouldn't even have brought it up except for my friend Kevin's cynical allusion to "leftist" philosophy.
Kevin: Thanks for the Dennis Miller quasi-compliment. Never liked the guy myself, though. He's not "ha-ha" funny, just sort-of "ah!" witty. Like Al Franken, only on the wrong side.
Sean,
Here is a snippet from article found in a Google search re: John Kerry & War Crimes:
Again and again, the question was asked: Did Kerry commit atrocities or see them committed by others? Kerry stuck to his script.
"I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty. But we are not trying to find war criminals. That is not our purpose. It never has been."
(Because if they - the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - were trying to find war criminals, they could begin their search with John F. Kerry, who both admits to violations of the laws of warfare and accuses others in the military of doing so as well.) (words in parentheses are mine)
-- Boston Globe article, “John F. Kerry, Candidate in the Making,” by Michael Kranish, June 17, 2003
Drago
Thanks for providing a source for your war crimes allegations. The Boston Globe is reknowned for its excellent and fair reporting, particularly when it comes to John Kerry.
see Kerry's comments as a powerful criticism of the way the Vietnam War was fought generally by those troops who were unfortunate enough to be drafted into the war, and hardly grounds for his (and others) conviction of war crimes. The prevalence of the sorts of activities in Vietnam of which Kerry speaks were among the main reasons the U.S. was forced to end its war, acts which were described regretfully by many veterans (including Kerry) when they returned from combat.
Good luck with your "war crimes" smear, though. Please spend all of your available energy trying to make that stick. You just might succeed if you try hard enough.
It seems to me that it would be more fruitful to keep plugging away at Kerry's alleged infidelity with that former aide of his. I don't know if you are a Republican, but it seems to me that Republicans get much more upset when they hear about marital infidelity than they do about any atrocities arising out of a military effort.
Sean,
Since I do not live in Boston or MA and am not a regular reader of the Boston Globe I do not know whether they are "fair" in their reporting on Kerry, his actions and his words, though the article that I quoted from seemed quite balanced in its presenation of his history.Furthermore, all I did was read Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, read his comments from Meet the Press, read comments made by those who served alongside him in Vietnam, and read numerous other quotes from Kerry, all which lead me to believe that he actually committed these war crimes that he tried to hang others with. If you wish to call this a smear, that is your choice. I certainly am not going to spend any time trying to persuade you otherwise.
As to whether I am a Republican, it really is none of your business and not relevant, but here goes. No, I am not a Republican. GWB and others like him are the reason why I cannot be a Republican nor will I vote for one in the future. If I were, however, to classify my political leanings, they would be seen as Libertarian.
To close my comment, let me state I think you have posted numerous points on this thread that I would agree with and some that I would not. My contributions here are not meant to smear anyone nor to attack anyone, but to shed some light on the state of affairs in this country and around the world with the hope that it will somehow make a difference.
Given the "evidence," you refer to above, then yeah, I do maintain that your statement that Kerry "committed war crimes" is a smear. Kind of a quintessential example of one, actually.
Good luck with Libertarianism. Do you live the life or just preach it?
I'm still saddened about the departure from this earth of Sam Konkin III. I had some great times partying all night long with him and some mutual friends in Madison and at his apartment in Long Beach in the late 80s and early 90s. There will never be another libertarian like him.
Sean:
If you knew that it wasn't Kevin you were responding to, then you're even more full of crap than I thought.
Your 'unlike you' comment has absolutely no basis in anything I've ever said to either you or Kelly.
If you want to debate, stick to comments I've actually made, rather than making up my thoughts for me. I realize that probably makes it more difficult for you, but tough.
Kelly:
You continue to prove my point that logical thought escapes you.
You were the one who brought up voting for Bush to begin with, not me. And where did I say it was an either/or proposition?
Rob:
You sound more like an agnostic from your description. What is the dif btw 'weak' and 'strong' atheism? I'm not familiar with the terms.
So, from your perspective, how are Good and Evil defined? Are there any absolutes? If so, from where do they originate?
These are sincere questions.
Sean said,
"Others, like May 7, think the best thing we can do is to just shut up and yell GO TEAM GO TEAM GO TEAM over and over until we believe that we're doing the right thing. Oh, and also accuse anyone who doesn't participate of not caring about the safety of our troops."
Hmmmm. Where exactly did I say that? The point is there is a right way and a wrong way to voice those opinions. From what I PERSONNALLY witnessed of the anti-war protests, none of those people were supporting the troops in any way.
"Wrt to "how exactly is this a 'proper question'"?
It's a proper question because unlike your question about "supporting the troops" it gets to the point without trapping the person into a debate about what constitutes "support." "
You make even less sense than normal, if that's possible. There are many ways to support the troops without supporting the war. In order for your original question to be 'proper', one would have to believe that there are some real sick freaks (from the US) out there who WANT our troops to get killed. There is nothing proper about the quesiton.
"The only way your statements make sense is if we define "support" the way Kevin defines it: suppressing commentary and the free exchange of ideas while blowing smoke up the behinds of ENLISTED ADULTS and pretending that everything is perfect when it clearly is not. "
Where have I said anything about 'suppressing commentary' or the 'free exchange of ideas'? This is not an either/or between your opinion and Kevin's. You need to take a step back and take a hard look at where you are coming from.
"Some of us are actually concerned about the safety of our troops because undoubtedly the environment they are in has just become more hostile than it had been. We want to see how these war planners, who have screwed up pretty much ever major decision to date, handle this crisis."
OK, so now you're telling us that instead of just hating us and wanting to kill us, they really, really, really hate us and really, really, really want to kill us? I thought they already hated us infinity...
And you are so far out in left field on 'screwed up pretty much ever major decision to date' it is laughable. After the 'cessation of major combat', you are probably right. But up until then, they did a pretty good job.
"Others, like May 7, think the best thing we can do is to just shut up and yell GO TEAM GO TEAM GO TEAM over and over until we believe that we're doing the right thing. Oh, and also accuse anyone who doesn't participate of not caring about the safety of our troops. Jerk."
Oh, Sean, thank goodness I have you to tell me what I think. Where did I say I thought we were doing the right thing? You seem to keep arguing with ghosts or, maybe, you are arguing with what you think anyone who does not agree with you "must" think.
I'll take 'Jerk' as a compliment from someone like you. Thanks!
Anonymous poster: We are way off topic, so I'll be brief. Weak atheism is roughly equivalent to agnosticism. Strong atheism states that there is no god(s). I find the latter to be an absolute statement with regard to an unknown, no more supportable than theism.
Good and evil are human words, applied to human concepts. Different people have different ideas as to what constitutes each. I know of no objective standard. Fortunately, in human society there are large areas of commonality respecting these concepts. I suspect that your view of good and evil differs little from mine. In a nutshell, I think it's wrong to hurt others if you can avoid it. What Christians refer to as The Golden Rule is a good moral guide.
Rob:
Thanks!
Yeah, I know it was off topic, but it's a far more interesting conversation than most of the other comments.
Plus, I used to believe very close to what you currently believe.
If you are interested, I'll e-mail you to continue the conversation.
May 7:
You asked Kelly, who was quite clear in her posts what her position was, the following question:
"Do you fail to recognize that participating in the anti war rallies was giving encouragement to those who want to kill us?"
You can sit and argue with Sean and Kelly all you want about what you did or did not *say*, but the fact that you asked this question in this particular way says enough about you to justify Sean's response to you and his response to your follow up question.
Just my humble opinion.
Steve:
I'm sorry if subtlety is lost on you and Sean.
My response was worded precisely that way in direct referece to Kelly's "can't you get it" post.
I love all the Patton wannabees out there who think that all that was needed was a plan and the war in Iraq would have been over in a weekend and Iraq would have been Sweeden South by the end of the month. Shows how few people, even military people have any grasp of military history. I am pretty sure that the Battle of the Bulge was not in Eisenhower's plan, having 2 SS armor divisions in Arnhem was probably not included in Monty's Market Garden plan, and I am pretty sure that MacArthur didn't plan on the Chinese invading North Korea during the Korean War. Does that mean that all these men were military failures, worthy only of ridicule? The war in Iraq is not going as planned, is this something new? The only thing the problems in Iraq show is how many people lack the will to see it through and how many people subscribe the the theory "my country, always wrong, especially when a Republican is in the White House."
Very well said, ucfengr.
At another time, I'd like to discuss Operation Market Garden--shows you what happens when you throw a bone to a coalition general, just for the hell of it, when the advance is going just fine, thank you very much.
Very spot on with the Battle of the Bulge. That's what Fallujah is, to the Iraqis. And the end is no less in doubt for them than it was for the Nazis.
"I love all the Patton wannabees out there who think that all that was needed was a plan and the war in Iraq would have been over in a weekend and Iraq would have been Sweeden South by the end of the month."
Patton wannabees? You mean like the President and his administration? The President who staged an aircraft carrier landing with a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign some time last year?
"The only thing the problems in Iraq show is how many people lack the will to see it through"
Yeah, that's all the problems in Iraq show. If only everyone would shut up and recite their lines from the same script you do, we'd be Kings of the World, worshipped by all.
"The war in Iraq is not going as planned, is this something new?"
Wow, you are taking the words right out of Rummy's mouth. Congratulations! Of course a war that doesn't go as planned is not something new. That is why the Administration was encouraged to consider alternatives and to plan for contingencies. Thus far, they have shown to be surprisingly inflexible and unprepared. That is why many of our Senators and Congressmen from BOTH sides of the aisle are disgusted.
"That's what Fallujah is, to the Iraqis. And the end is no less in doubt for them than it was for the Nazis."
Off course, the Iraqis we are exterminating didn't start the war, unlike the Nazis. But I doubt that would matter to Kevin. The more dead Arabs, the safer he feels.
What is most annoying about wingnuts like Kevin and ucfengr is that their memories are so selective that they can't remember the statements were made by their Dear Leaders which were used to garner support for the war in the first place. EVERYBODY, including the Bush administration, knows that the American public is impatient and does not want to be involved in an incredibly expensive war lasting years (or even a decade) which costs thousands of American lives. That's why the war was sold to the public as essential to stop an immediate threat to our security and as one which would be over, lickety split, as soon as we got rid of Saddam. The Iraqis would proclaim us their saviors and throw flowers on us and everything would be Oh So Wonderful.
A lot of people cried "Bullshxt" at the time and, unforunately, they were RIGHT. But rather than criticize the administration, Kevin and ucfengr insist on defending it from misinformed people like me and, oh, this guy quoted in the Washington Post this morning:
A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it -- and they should not."
Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said. "Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice."
ucfengr
"The only thing the problems in Iraq show is . . . how many people subscribe the the theory "my country, always wrong, especially when a Republican is in the White House."
Tell that to all the Republicans in Congress (and Republican citizens) who have had it with George Bush and his idiotic administration.v
Steve's not so subtle comparison of our President to Kim Il Jong shows how deranged he truly is, but I guess it is an improvement over the Bush=Hitler comments I usually here. What I do find funny though, is usually you Saddam defenders like to point out how great life is in Cuba and North Korea because they have universal education and healthcare. Steve you should take off your tin-foil hat and get out more.
Joe: Reading over the thread of comments from your post it makes me wonder, are you using some kind of vodoo magic?
I hate to see the posts where you are actually debating some important issue.
I enjoyed the post, but the comments, well, I guess that's part of what's good about America.
-jdm
JD Mays:
Have you noticed that ANY time Joe posts something even remotely positive about Bush, the Bush haters come here with their usual diatribe?
They come here and simply try to shout down any positive statement about Bush. And if you dare disagree with them, they just get increasingly vitriolic.
I certainly do disagree with Bush on many issues, but the hatred these people consistently espouse is quite disgusting.
"usually you Saddam defenders like to point out how great life is in Cuba and North Korea because they have universal education and healthcare"
Perhaps if I was a "Saddam defender" I'd make the stupid statement you refer to. But I'm not. Usually you wingnuts like to bring up Clinton. Thus far,ucfengr, you've managed not to do that. Congratulations, I know it's really hard not to do that.
"I certainly do disagree with Bush on many issues, but the hatred these people consistently espouse is quite disgusting."
Yeah. Sure. You're disgusted by people who criticize Bush. Boo hoo. It must be tough to be you. Meanwhile, I'm disgusted by the damage Bush has done to my country on the world stage which will take a generation to repair (that's assuming nothing worse happens which is not an assumption I'm willing to make). I'm disgusted by seeing Americans treating Iraqis the way the Nazis treated anyone who disagreed them. I'm disgusted by an administration that refuses to take responsiblity for its actions and that issues apologies only when forced to by public opinion. I'm disgusted by dead and crippled troops and dead and crippled Iraqi men, women and babies who will never ever get to see the "freedom" which we forced on them at gunpoint.
"Have you noticed that ANY time Joe posts something even remotely positive about Bush . . ."
No. But I've noticed that every time Joe posts pure propaganda intended to glorify Thee Almighty Bush, by some amazing coincidence every one else in the world is talking about some rotten mess the administration got itself into.