1
   

Sarasota Principal Defends Bush

 
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:08 am
Setanta wrote:
You're ignoring several significant distinctions here, CR. Between the world wars, Guido Douhet contended that strategic terror bombing could effectively knock a nation out of a war. Hitler adhered to this policy (he was militarily and idiot), so much so that, although a jet fighter was available late in 1943, he held up production because he wanted a bomber rather than a fighter.

The Germans bombed the bejeezus out of the east end of London, and then nearly obliterated Coventry. In The Second World War, Churchill unashamedly states that he and Sir Aruthur Harris--known as "Bomber" Harris--decided that factory workers who got no sleep were less efficient, and so advocated area bombing of German cities. Curtis Le May intentionally fire-bombed Japanese cities in order to sap the will of the people--and told his young aid, Rober McNamara, that if we had lost the war, they would have been tried as war criminals.

But since Gulf War I, and the current Return of the Son of Gulf War, we have been regaled with accounts of the precision of our munitions, and assured that civilian casualties would be kept to a minimum. Instead, we've killed many thousands of Iraqis as a result of the speciousness of these claims about accuracy. The claim that we have freed them from a brutal dictator has only been advanced since the war was well underway, and the other causii belli about WoMD and terrorist links have evaporated. It is questionable indeed what benefit the Iraqis have derived from the deaths they've suffered ostensibly in the name of removing a murderous dictator. A great many of the people Hussein killed were killed during and after an uprising in 1991 which the elder Bush encouraged, and then did nothing to support. It's the disgusting high moral tone the administration takes, while so many die, to which so many decent people (decent despite not subscribing to your political opinions) object to.


Who is to say Set that civilian casualties have not been "kept to a minimum"? What would be an acceptable minimum? Personally, zero casualties would be great, but regardless of the weapons used, absolutely unattainable.

And again, I make no claims as to the necessity of this war. I personally believe that prior to the start of the war there was a strong belief that there were WMD's in Iraq. The fact that that has turned out to be erroneous does not mitigate the belief. I suspect the reasons for going in were not simply WMD's, but rather were a combination of that and terrorism and removing Saddam. Again, I could be wrong and this is my own personal opinion.

Regardless of the why, I believe the Iraqi people will be better off in the long run without Saddam. But anyone who thought change there would happen quickly and without bloodshed is and was fooling themselves.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:12 am
Deleted by author - duplicate.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:14 am
Beliefs are what one wants to be true not necessarily what is true. The US and the British (on some trumped up evidence at that) convinced a lot of the world that there were WMD -- if the few that actually have secret intelligence groups of any impact had the smoking gun they would have presented it. The fact is there wasn't even a gun let along a smoking gun. It was all wrapped up in beliefs and they were abstracted from people like George Tenet who has conveniently resigned.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:19 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Beliefs are what one wants to be true not necessarily what is true. The US and the British (on some trumped up evidence at that) convinced a lot of the world that there were WMD -- if the few that actually have secret intelligence groups of any impact had the smoking gun, they would have presented it. The fact is there wasn't even a gun let along a smoking gun.


I agree that what is believed is not necessarily true. I have said that currently it is apparent there were few if any WMD's in Iraq. But please don't try to make a case that we all knew that from the start. I don't see how that case can be made. Did we believe it based on faulty intel? Looks like it, but we still (for the most part) believed it. And that belief was a factor in going to war. We can argue all day that based on hindsight we should not have gone in there like we did.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:23 am
If you read the original Iraq threads here which date from before the war, you will see that a great many of us here seriously doubted the contentions about WoMD, and strongly objected against the contention of links of Hussein to terrorists, and for cogent reasons we explained then. Before leaving this site in disgust for several months just before the war started, i pointed out that WoMD or not, Hussein was contained, and wouldn't dare deploy the weapons or give them away--he would immediately be toast, and he knew it. He got where he was and stayed there because he was a savvy, natural politician, and would never have knowingly given the west an excuse for invasion.

Don't use "we" when making statements about what some people believed before the war.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:23 am
As I stated in another thread, and as was stated above, I don't understand why he wouldn't politely excuse himself, and go out in the hall to talk to the people who knew something about what the hell was going on!

I understand that you neocons have to defend your boy from us evil liberals who want to do nothing but criticize his behavior. That is understandable, and while I disagree with your ideology I certainly don't fault your loyalty.

My personal thoughts? I think that he was sitting there, wondering how to turn it to his advantage. It's just the way his 'base' operates, yaknow?

Cycloptichorn

P.S. To the people who say, 'well, the decision to let the Bin Laden family leave was not Bush's call,' I say that that is bullshit. Ever hear of the phrase, 'the buck stops here?' It was Bush's responsibility, even if he delegated the decision to someone else. It was a boneheaded move, and I'm sure that the fact that the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are well connected had NOTHING to do with it. Just like none of the business connections of our political elite have NOTHING to do with policy.

It astounds me how obtuse some people can be...
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:27 am
The difference between us and them is they believe everything they hear and see; we can tell the difference between satire and truth then act accordingly Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:30 am
I am truly offended by CR's remarks about what "we" believed. I'm a natural born bullshit salesman, and i never bought any of the Shrub's BS at any time before the war.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:32 am
Setana, they can no longer offend me - they are the bottom of the barrel and treated accordingly. Irrelevant to the nth degree....
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:49 am
Setanta wrote:
I am truly offended by CR's remarks about what "we" believed. I'm a natural born bullshit salesman, and i never bought any of the Shrub's BS at any time before the war.


Setanta (and anyone else I offended), please reread what I said. I did say we, but added "for the most part" for a reason. That reason being that I am not stupid enough to think that everyone believed it. The "we" would refer to my belief that a majority of Americans believed our leaders (both repub and dems) who led us into war using the WMD card as the primary reason. I am absolutely certain that there were people who did not believe it.

Sorry if my choice of expression did not make my intended point clear.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:52 am
BillW wrote:
Setana, they can no longer offend me - they are the bottom of the barrel and treated accordingly. Irrelevant to the nth degree....


And it is statements like this that make intelligent dialogue with people downright impossible. If you can't say anything intelligent, then just call names, right?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 10:55 am
One last thing I meant to mention, out of my sense of fairness. If anyone wishes to dispute my opinion that the majority of americans believed in the existence of WMD's prior to the war, please show me that I am wrong. I really am open-minded about things and will certainly admit a mistake in my opinion if proof is offered.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 12:17 pm
So therefore; belief in a lie makes that lie ok...... Good spin and to the point of my comment <sigh>
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 12:31 pm
BillW wrote:
So therefore; belief in a lie makes that lie ok...... Good spin and to the point of my comment <sigh>


You keep saying I am believing in a lie. I assume that lie is that a majority of Americans believed, prior to the war, that Saddam had WMD's. So prove me wrong. Give me data. You are really good at calling my belief into account but have yet to show me with data that I am wrong. I don't think I am asking for much when I ask you to give me the proof that my belief is mistaken.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 12:34 pm
a majority of the people also voted for Gore for president, does that mean Gore IS president?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 12:42 pm
dyslexia wrote:
a majority of the people also voted for Gore for president, does that mean Gore IS president?


But you miss the point here dys. Of course it does not mean Gore is President, anymore than the fact that a majority thought there were WMD's means there were/are. I am not trying to prove that there are or were. I was responding to a post and made a comment about why I thought we went into Iraq, one reason being the supposed WMD's.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 12:48 pm
Quote:
Bad Voting Habits
Bush in a not-shell.

by Alan Bisbort - June 24, 2004

I am working up the courage to ask my brother-in-law why he will vote (again) for George W. Bush this November. My brother-in-law is a G-man, one of the most upstanding, outstanding and clean-living people I know. He is filled with integrity and driven to do right in a world gone wrong. He works hard, doesn't complain about pain (from which he suffers constantly due to a back ailment), puts his ass on the line every day he reports to work, loves his family intensely, and admires his older sister (my wife) with a quiet pride that is touching beyond words.

And so, I have often found myself wondering what he finds appealing about George W. Bush, the antithesis of all the things he has devoted his life to battling, a man who even cut the funds for his own G-Man office to reward his fabulously wealthy campaign donors. Or about Rush Limbaugh, to whom he not only listens on the radio but to whose publication ( The Limbaugh Letter ) he subscribes. That would be Rush Limbaugh, drug addict, pathological liar and laugher-at-torture.

Maybe the more appropriate question I should ask my brother-in-law is: What has GWB accomplished to warrant your rewarding your vote to him for a second term?

My guess is that my brother-in-law would start by saying, "Well, he is not a liberal." And that would be true enough. George W. Bush is not a liberal. And I am not a pedophile, but that does not qualify me for the priesthood. Nor am I a crook or a crack addict, but that doesn't qualify me to be a G-man.

Then, he would say, "And he is not a member of either the Clinton or Kennedy families." End of discussion.

Maybe these "negatives" explain why otherwise rational people would consider voting (again) to hand our nation's most crucial job at a time when we're facing our gravest dangers to a man who hears voices from God, taunts his enemies, thumbs his nose at the rest of the world, lies to the United Nations, the Congress and the American people and finds adolescent humor in all this.

Indeed, the only things GWB has going for him are negatives. He is not a liberal. Not a woman. Not black. Not any persuasion, really, other than Connecticut WASP. Not gay (although Betty Bowers offers a "fabulous" assessment of that possibility at her hilarious Web site: www.bettybowers.com ). Not a vegetarian, not a tree hugger, not even as smart as Billy Carter. Not, not, not: GWBush in a not-shell. He is simply "not" and nothing else can be said for him.

So, when did we stop demanding that our elected leaders have a positive vision? And I don't mean ridiculous things like, as one poll determined, Bush being "the guy you'd most want to have a beer with."

As far as I can see -- and, yes, I'm capable of seeing some "positives" in Republicans like Eisenhower, McCain, even Nixon -- there is nothing positive about the incumbent. He is inarticulate, petty, small-minded, bitter, inattentive, incurious, lazy, vindictive, rash, irresponsible with our money and our children's lives, deceitful if not pathologically truth-challenged, cowardly in the face of physical danger. And, as far as I can tell, his "vision" resembles the final pages of the Bible, an Apocalypse toward which he is dragging the rest of us who are not enraptured with his delusional prophecies.

And, likewise, there is little positive about the upcoming election that I can see. It will be ugly, deceitful, brutish, slimy, nauseating, vision-less, storebought, propaganda-driven, small-minded, mawkish. It will be an extension of the Reagan Funeral Mythologizing, featuring the tired old saws of Gay-Baiting, Fetus-Flogging, Class and Holy Wars, Flag-Waving, and Gun-Toting.

Because historian Theodore Sorenson's recent New School commencement speech stated the case so unsurpassably, I quote from it here: "This is not a speech. This is a cry from the heart, a lamentation for the loss of this country's goodness and therefore its greatness. Future historians studying the decline and fall of America will mark this time as the time the tide began to turn -- toward a mean-spirited mediocrity in place of a noble beacon ... . 'There is a time to laugh,' the Bible tells us, 'and a time to weep.' Today I weep for the country to which my four grandparents sailed over a century ago with hopes for a new land of peace and freedom. I cannot remain silent when that country is in the deepest trouble of my lifetime."

The deep political divides that exist in this country right now, and the fear and loathing that wafts out of Washington, D.C. to stoke this mean-spirited malaise, may make it impossible for Americans to be fully honest with themselves. Because if American voters were honest with themselves, they'd have to admit that, just this one time, the incumbent's miserable failings do not warrant turning to the Republican Party out of habit this November.

http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:71142
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 01:45 pm
The majority also thought there was a working connection between bin Laden and Sadaam. No empirical proof there either and there really never was. If a sharp salesman sells you something that doesn't perform as advertised and was sold to you under false pretenses, do you just keep the product and figure he was a good man so he gets a pass? Anybody else here have buyer's remorse?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 02:09 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
The majority also thought there was a working connection between bin Laden and Sadaam. No empirical proof their either and there really never was. If a sharp salesman sells you something that doesn't perform as advertised and was sold to you under false pretenses, do you just keep the product and figure he was a good man so he gets a pass? Anybody else here have buyer's remorse?


This is exactly my point LW. I made a statement in answer the whether or not this war was necessary. I said that it was my belief that there were various reasons for going in to Iraq. When someone objected to the WMD reason, I stated that prior to the war a majority of people believed he did have WMD's. You now state that a majority also believed in a connection between bin Laden and Saddam. Which backs up the reasons for going to war. These reasons may have been proven to be wrong, but it does not invalidate them as reasons for going to war.

Now that we have not found any mass of WMD's and there is no apparent connection between Saddam and bin Laden does not in any way lesson what a majority believed before. So were we wrong to go to war? The answer is no now if your answer was no before based on the info we (the admin, the majority of Americans, etc) believed at that time.

BillW has told me I am believing in a lie when it comes to my belief that a majority of americans believed in the existence of WMD's. I have asked at least twice for proof of the fallacy of my belief and I have been ignored and again had a condescending comment made toward me. This is why dialogue on here often is useless. Too many people object and make light of beliefs without proof of why they think another position is in error.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 02:22 pm
It doesn't matter how the lie was passed down or how much of it was contrived and how much to it was bad intelligence. Bush questioned Tenet's assurances that the intelligence was accurate without asking to see all the facts and if they were facts. Salesmen are often told what a product or service has merit and will sell it not knowing the haven't been told the entire truth. Is this the fault of the salesman? You betcha. Bush is a salesman and not a very good one because he assumes a sale and hard closes. If you never bought something that was misrepresented, you're in a small minority. It's no different being sold an idea...or a war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 08:27:20