Re: OT: 43 at 41


"A. Brain" <abrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E9Y9g.62015$Fs1.56230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"O" <owenxremovexs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:140520062333315418%owenxremovexs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <RqQ9g.60786$Fs1.37703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
A. Brain <abrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While you are apparently a subscriber to the Bush personality cult.

"Personality cult?" That's a new one to me.


It's clearly what is going on with the base of GWB's
support. A couple of years ago, I got an e-mail from
a friend with a site having as its theme "My heroes
have always been cowboys", featuring Bush as
a "High Noon" Gary Cooper type guy. I guess he
can't ride a horse but the brush-clearing is sufficiently
Reaganesque to sell this malarkey.


Of course most Bush supporters have never seen this e-mail. Any many voted
for Bush simply as an antidote to Gore/Gerry.

I'm still awaiting substantive responses explaining why this war is
a good thing for the U.S. or anyone, or has been a good thing for
anyone besides Halliburton and the GOP in 2002 and 2004.

Good things about the war in Iraq:

Well, at least you tried, but you fail to recognize the basic
inquiry, which is whether the war was or is worth the cost
and consequences.

And your ruminations about the war have?



1) a major sadistic dictator is out of office and in a war crimes
trial.

Just how was he "major"? Other than being well-known as
a bad guy?

One measure this by the sheer numbers of people he is reputed to have
murdered, plus lack of freedom to the Iraqis he didn't murder. This might
stack up well against Mugabe.


There are plenty of others, including Robert
Mugabe, who arguably were and are doing more damage
to their countries and people. There is no way Hussein was a
threat to the US or the UK, as advertised. In October
2002, the CIA told Bush and Cheney that if he had the
fabled WMD (hardly anyone asked what those might be,
or how effective they might be), Saddam would only use
them if we invaded. In other words, if they existed,
they would be defensive weapons. And we had a guy
from Saddam's inner circle telling us that he did not
have the WMD. But that's not what Bush and Cheney
wanted to hear.


2) Terrorist resources have been directed at the US military instead
of
the US civilian population, certainly a more formidable target.

How do you know this?

How do you know it's not?

And if it's true, why do we need
the domestic spying program?


Maybe we don't. But "domestic spying" seems a prejudiced description of a
program that supposedly spies on people who interact with suspected foreign
terrorists.

In fact, the idea that "the terrorists" are a monolithic mob
and are confined to Iraq is ridiculous on its face. The
Iraq invasion has spawned new "terrorists" like those
who attacked in London not long ago.

A very weakly supported assertion.


This idiotic idea that we can fight "the terrorists" "over
there" instead of "over here" is ludicrous. Al Quaeda
has already succeeded here once, big time.

But we don't need a "domestic spying program."

The money
and resources spent on the Iraq war could have been
spent on domestic security and real defenses to terrorist
attacks

But not a "domestic spying program."
..


3) The previous state of Iraq, with no-fly zones and Iraq frequently
attempting to fire missiles at US planes, was hardly a stable
situation.

And you contend that the situation is now more stable? Then
by all means, let's withdraw our troops immediately.


Maybe our presence there is an ongoing attempt to make the situation more
stable.



4) The net result to Osama bin Ladin has been the loss of two
countries, one of which he used for personal protection. Let's check
the score: Osama: 2 major buildings full of people, Bush: 2 major
countries full of people.

So you contend that Osama was in control in Iraq? In fact,
the real danger was and is Pakistan, which has nukes. And is
harboring Osama.

And there's no evidence that the Iraq war did much to reduce the likelihood
of capturing bin Laden. Pakistan has nukes, and is therefore more dangerous
(though to whom you didn't specify). Are you proposing we should have
invaded Pakistan? If not, what does that have to do with whether we
invaded Iraq. Hint: nothing.

In trying to subdue terrorism, I believe that terrorist success will
do
more to foster terrorism than terrorist setbacks. In this sense, the
thinking man's terrorist has to be sitting back and saying, "what are
we winning here?"


You're talking about people who think they're going to
encounter several dozen virgins in heaven, etc. And over here,
a large percentage of Bush supporters are near eschatological
ecstasy over what is going on.

What percentage? Provide evidence, please. I nearly voted for Bush, but
ended up voting Libertarian. Of the many people I know who voted for Bush,
few can be characterized as right wing religious fanatics (none, actually).

I could probably think of more, but that's enough for now.

What's your response to another terrorist attack here? That
Bush did not crack down on civil liberties enough?

It's rather like the tax cuts. Republicans are still claiming that
the Clinton economy was the result of the Reagan tax cuts
from over a decade earlier and that the Clinton tax increase
was harmful in that things would have been even better if
he had cut taxes. Never mind what we see now in the federal
deficit that so-called "conservatives" used to care about.


OK, tax cuts are good, increased deficit spending is bad, ceteris paribus.
But IF a war is necessary, deficit spending can be good investment. About
entitlements, we probably agree. But I will simply not attribute evil to
someone simply because he favors policies different than those I prefer.

Starting a war for domestic political purposes. What could be
lower than that morally speaking?

Losing it?


That's an assumption that belies the facts. Almost everyone in
congress, and in the Clinton administration, believed in Iraq's WMD.

So what? This war was cooked up in Crawford in August 2002.
Some of the media joked at the time about "General Rove",
but they never followed through on that. In October 2002,
the CIA told Bush/Cheney that if Saddam had chemical or
biological weapons, they would be used only to defend against
an invasion. No evidence of nukes. But the war was sold on
the idea that he had nukes and was ready to use them against
the US or the UK or Israel. What utter nonsense. Saddam
had no means to deliver any weapons to the US or the UK.
Any attack on Israel would have been suicidal.

Oh, and in case you've forgotten, there were UN inspectors
in Iraq advising us that they were getting the job done, and
they just needed more time. We threw them out. Rumsfeld
had said that he knew where the WMD were, but when
David Kaye went in with his experts after the invasion, they
were nowhere to be found. "Well, just give us more time",
the administration responded. What a cruel joke.


You know, you guys love to have it both ways. Is Bush really just
a
dope, or is he instead craftily turning all the countries resources
into the Halliburton coffers? So what is it? Is he dumb? Or is
he
dumb like a fox?


He is a little of both. No question that he learned a lot about
nasty short-term political strategy at the feet of Karl Rove and
the infamous Lee Atwater. Atwater repented when he was
near-death. Bush and Cheney will never repent; they can't
even admit they made a mistake.

Bush is a classic spoiled brat. He grew up in a family where
privilege was a tradition, and he traded on his daddy's name
to the point of influence peddling to make a lot of money.
He gets his way, never mind the consequences or the cost.


You can't be dumb and not dumb. You have to pick one. You're trying
to play both sides of the fence.

He is dumb and dumber. He confuses his own stature with the
long-term interests of the country.

You would't say this about ANYONE who followed policies you strongly
disagreed with, now would you?

He has shrewd political advisors
who only care about advancing the agenda of their plutocratic
constituents.

Translation: policies you don't agree with and are therefore evil and
anyone who supports them is evil. Or stupid. Or both simultaneously.


There's been quite a lot of progress against some crimes, such as
child abuse, demonstrating that criminal laws can be effective.

There's also the war on drugs, demonstrating that criminal laws can be
quite ineffective.


Well, I support legalization of all drugs, with government regulation
and high taxes. And how about a hefty tax on assault weapons?

And I don't think the public supports the availability
of assault weapons. The Dems wrongly think that their support of gun
control has cost them in past elections. They have simply failed
to explain it. A simple television ad showing the assault weapons,
which cannot be used for hunting anything other than people,
would help a lot.

"Assault" weapons are not used in most types of gun crimes. You can't
stick them in your belt, hide them in a holster, or keep them in your
glove compartment. The "assault" weapons ban is just a feel-good red
herring. All the ban-the-assault-weapons people got the
warm-and-fuzzies when they heard Malvo used a variant of an M16, until
they found out he got it illegally anyway. All the gun control was
already applied to Malvo, but he got it anyway.

Assault weapons owners should be tracked the way sex criminals are.

Really. Isn't that rather like saying anyone with a penis should be
tracked?


Also, try this exercise: Consider what new intrusions on privacy
or
civil liberties you would NOT support.

How about this one? Paid government agents monitoring internet
news
groups to identify opponents of the war or the administration,
then
getting
warrantless wiretaps and access to e-mails of those identified? I
bet
it's already happening.

You hearing those clicks on your phone again?


Notice how Owen takes the same tactic as Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales. Gonzo refuses to discuss the limits of
surveillance, or to rule out anything, because they want to
preserve their options.

Tell me how any of this surveillance has personally affected you,
other
than feeding your paranoia. "I bet it's already happening" sounds
like
you've been reading too much Hunter S. Thompson and taking him
seriously.

I don't know how it has affected me or anyone else. That's the point.
All they need to do is to get a court order or warrants from a court
that has been friendly to anti-terrorist surveillance. When Qwest
questioned them about FISA clearance, they had to explain that
they didn't have such clearance. So it's prima facie illegal
surveillance.

This is a constitutional question, as you well know.





.

Relevant Pages

  • This war is brought to you by ...
    ... This war is brought to you by ... ... against Iraq. ... The American corporate media are not inclined to spell it out, ... enshrined in a goal of the Bush ...
    (misc.consumers)
  • WPost: Why Bush Thinks Were Winning
    ... the war in Iraq is his insistence that we're winning. ... "Absolutely, we're winning," Bush said. ... "The president flatly said today the United States is winning. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Condi Rice pulls a Nixon
    ... The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism ... The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Corruption: Bush, Google (supremacy)
    ... Bush said Saddam harbors terrorists. ... Iraq intended. ... Roman Democracy he is erecting Iraq as a Model Roman Democracy in the ... the Iraq war. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: ~ Bush Regimes Pat Tillman Story Is Another Big Lie ~
    ... The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism ... The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward. ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
Loading