the worse things get----

Foxfyre,

Thank you for your kind words.

Regarding your concerns towards the 9/11 commission: Cameras seem to change the calculus in such gatherings as these hearings. I remember viewing the circus formerly known as the O.J. Simpson murder trial (of course his wife was the victim). Some of the antics of the judge were just unbelievable (in fairness he wasn't the only one) perhaps I am just naive in hoping for judges one views on the TV show "Law and Order". I am hopeful that the report, constructed entirely in the total absence of public scrutiny, will be more helpful for those interested in governmental improvement. I really believe that our leaders are doing their best to make this country better. We as individuals just may think their methods or goals are wrong-headed. That, however, does not make either side evil or malicious.

Yes, I have noted a somewhat kinder tone on A2K (which seems to be, in my limited experience a fine and exemplary forum on the whole--the powers that be responsible should be commended, along with its participants). But skepticism eats at the back of my mind in that perhaps the issues are bland thereby encouraging the responses to follow suit. Any one want to debate Pro-life vs. Pro-Choice? That one is a killer! Oops! I really didn't mean that! Honest!

Thanks again.

JM

LOL, well if you want more salty discourse, there is still plenty of it here.

Perception
People make judgements based upon their mind set, their experience, knowledge and bias. Facts are skewed accordingly. Events are judged according to one's perspective. History is opinion based on conjecture.

The glass is... etc..

Long before Bush became a politician I had him pegged for an immoral person, due to shady business dealings, his dishonoring his national guard uniform, his drug habit - the way he had of coasting into big money off of his association with his father's friends. His service as Texas governor was singularly unspectacular. I thought we had rock bottom but then Bush became president. He has not been moral or decent at all, lying and making big mistakes, disregarding international law, attacking Iraq on false premises that shift as the political landscape shifts, etc. The Republican side calls this Bush bashing, but, it is not a partisan statement at all, just a simple statement of true facts.

edgar

There's more to it than that. Clinton did not get a pass. May I recommend to you Alterman's "What Liberal Media". But only if you want to get really angry.

...as viewed through filters of a different color. Pistoff's post above applies in this case.

Centroles regarding your Post: 661404

In answer to your question, No. I like to write but lack the resources of those such as George Will, Wm Safire or Tom Friedman. I also lack the formal training involved. Research is my biggest problem, mainly because, like every one here on A2K, I have to work to support my family. I would like to try my hand on a limited manner but, must eat also...such is life. I am, however, not destitute just a victim of the "grass is greener over there syndrome". I consider myself extremely lucky to be able to participate in communication with all the A2Kers. I have learned much from the members of this forum.

Your skepticism regarding information exchange and availability and its role in common goals is legitimate. My point was that now, more than ever, we have more info available (Good information) that allows individuals to strive towards good problem definition and resolution. But as you point out, it is an individual effort as to whether that information is put to good use or merely put through various prisms to produce "spin" for support of pre-conceived opinions.

Thank you for that first sentence of your post.

JM

Hey Edgar, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel

I've ordered Bob Woodward's book and am looking forward very much to reading it. Based on what he has said about it and what the White House is saying about it, it should lay to rest at least some of the misinformation that has been flying around.

Well well, what a huge surprise to see Clinton mentioned yet again in a Bush thread! The"cruise missile launch to distract us"? With all the harassment you people gave him, and all our tax dollars wasted to do it, you're lucky he still knew what was going on in the rest of the world! And by the way, were YOU distracted? I bet not. neither was anyone else. And Clinton is a brilliant man, he would have known that it wouldn't have distracted anybody, or got the vicious righty dogs away from his ankles, so he wouldn't have done it for that reason. Only a moron would believe otherwise!
I just read somewhere that Ashcroft refused terrorism funding on September 10, 2001.

I have never, even for one moment, felt that Bush was in any way a moral man. To those that do, please explain whyever you might believe that. Bush is quite the opposite, from what I have observed!

We can list all the missteps of Bush and his neocons, but it seems as if they are strengths rather than mistakes. I'm totally stumped at how different people can interpret the same actions/events/speech so differently. You won't find any answers from this quarter - or .02c as the case may be.

That is indeed the problem. More precisley, it is the fact that most Americans hold this opinion despite the fact that it is demonstrably retarded that is the problem.

Most Americans, however, are morons who overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussien was "personally connected" with Sept 11th, cannot identify Iraq on a map, and are unable to distinguish between Hussien, Islam, and terrorism. So, you'll have to forgive me for not putting much stock in the opinions of the American public.

Kerry may have voted to authorize Bush to use force, but it was Bush who went to war without a real coalition or international support, Bush who had no plan to win the peace, Bush who believed Chalabi's lies about Iraqi's greeting us as liberators, Bush who refused Kofi Annan's offer of help after the invasion, and Bush who told our enemies in Iraq to "Bring it on", etc, etc, ad nauseum. The mess is Bush's and Bush's alone.

A simple answer re people's not changing opinions re highly cathected material in the face of evidence contrary to their opinions comes in the form of cognitive dissonance theory.

Briefly - when beliefs and opinions are important to us and we have a real emotional investment in them, evidence which is dissonant with our beliefs is highly conflicting and sometimes painful.

One theory (which I find persuasive, based on my observations of myself and others) is that we tend to deny such evidence to avoid the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance.

It is argued that, the more the dissonant evidence builds, the more fiercely and emotionally we cling to our preferred belief - particularly if we habitually see things in black and white terms anyway, and are less tolerant of ambiguity.

Sometimes, this intensity of denial will presage a sudden shift of opinion. In the denial phase, though, the more we are argued against, the more fiercely and often angrily we cling.

I know I do!

Stuff like calling folk morons, for instance, probably won't result in any shifts, she said drily...

Well, I use the word that best fits. Moron, in this case, is a demonstrably correct description, not just half-assed ad hominem. Merriam-Webster defines moron as "a very stupid person," and defines stupid as "unreasoned thinking...lack of intelligence." When the vast majority of Americans believe a secular Arab dicatator was personally connected to Sept 11th - despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence corroborating this - they technically qualify as morons. It is not my fault that some people may find this offensive. Reality, I suppose, is offensive from some perspectives.

The difference between some of you who do not like (are ticked off at/disappoint in/are frustrated with/hate/disrespect/etc.) GWB and those of us who see him as an honest and decent man is that some look for anything to accuse and disrespect him even if they have to hang on to discredited sources or even if they have to make it up. The rest of us can just go with the facts that are out there via the 9/11 commission and witnesses, Bob Woodward, the people in Iraq, etc. and feel pretty good about him.

OK, you melons...

Reality is offensive from most perspectives - but prolly ain't much use complainin' about it, as you say, Melion.

ILZ, It's not so much that half of the American Population believes that Saddam was connected to 9-11, but the fact that even with the knowledge that Saddam didn't have any connection, they justify it on the basis that we got rid of a monster that was killing his own people. Balance that with the fact the GWBush was responsible for the killing of over 10,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, that doesn't matter one iota. That really stretching rationalization of defending this monster called president Bush who claims he got his instruction from god. I don't understand it and never will.

I'll take the time to point out - since I don't know if anybody else has already - that there is a difference between somebody being "an honest, decent man" and somebody being qualified to lead the United States of America.

I knew a guy named Sharif who genuinely believed he could communicate with birds and other animals. He was honest in this belief, and he was a decent person. He was also a stark raving lunatic.

I don't doubt that George Bush - in the vague collection of thoughts that he passes off as an ideology - is honest in his beliefs. But that doesn't make those beliefs anything more than the tired, non-rational, traditionalist stupidity that they are.

And it certainly doesn't make him an appealing presidential candidate.



You are ignoring what is now a mountain of indisputable evidence exposing Bush's utter ineptness.

Bush led us to war on false pretenses. That single, fundamental fact is enough to cast the entire operation into doubt. Bush refused to let weapons inspectors finish thier job - despite the fact that Hans Blix affirmed the Iraqis were co-operating. Instead, he took us to war, resulting in the deaths of 600 Americans, and more importantly, at least 10,000 Iraqi civilians. Bush declared victory and then failed to prevent an uprising more severe than the war itself. Bush plunged this nation into the biggest debt in its history. Bush refused to internationalize the effort and then reversed his stand only monthes later, etc, etc, etc.



Bob Woodward?

The same Bob Woodward who has joined the chorus of people alleging Bush planned to go to war with Iraq long before he had a rational reason?

Here's another interesting comarison. According to this article, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/16/1058035074536.html Saddam was responsible for killing about 180,000 Kurds by gas/WMD the US provided Saddam. The massacre on the killings fields of Iraq when the Iraqis were escaping from Kuwait, the (low) estimate killed is over 100,000. This administration keeps justifying the aggression against Iraq on the basis that Saddam killed his own people (180,000 Kurds), but nothing is mentioned of the US killing over 100,000 Iraqis. These numbers are mind-boggling to me, but evidently, the neocons are able to rationalize this kind of killing. If god is leading this country to kill all these people, how can they continue to say "god bless America?"