Bush supporters' aftermath thread

HofT--

While I agree with your idea that 1) racism is not defined by an absence of blacks

We [Americans] have held ogether a pretty daunting set of goals, and work doggedly toward them. [..] Australia has at last check 0% black population. How do you like that? I know you're very concerned about racism.

Australia has 7% Asians, all of immigrant origin (as well as the Aborogines, of course).

No blacks, though, true. Something to do with not having had slavery.

Nimh-- So, Australia is a black-free zone soley due to the absence of slavery? That is your assertion? I guess they enslaved the aboriginals... I'll check into that.

The presence of blacks in America to an overwhelming extent most surely is the result of slavery. Or are you denying that most of today's Afro-Americans are descendants of those brought there in the time of slavery?

In that light to compare Australia's lack of blacks with America's presence of them as evidence that Australia is the racist country is simply bizarre.

Hey, it's OK. Most blacks in Holland descend from inhabitants of former colonies. Same in the UK. Germany on the other hand has a lot fewer blacks, exactly because of its [nod to HoT: relative] lack of former colonies. On the other hand, they have a lot of Turks. Australia has a lot of Asians - 7% is not a low number for a population born in recent immigration. [..] So your original point was?

Take a look at that beacon of racial harmony, Australia.

Is this what you defend, nimh? Freeduck? No racism, you say?

Australia's horrific treatment of their dark-skinned scapegoats has been swept under a rug. Their discriminatory immigration policy is shameful--but seems fine with the liberals here.

Blatham and dlowan appear to be saying that addressing atrocities anywhere but America should be verboten. Why is that?

Only adding that I actively work against those "xenophobic Euroaustralian asylum or immigration policies"

Will the real liars please stand up?
David Limbaugh (archive)

July 1, 2005

Democrat leaders, preparing their rebuttal to the president's speech even before he delivered it, said he should concede he made mistakes as a means to reclaiming credibility on Iraq -- as if they actually want him to have greater credibility.

In the same breath they say he lied to get us into war -- an offense so grave that some of them are advocating he be impeached over it. While national Democrat politicians have long been confused over the distinction between intentional wrongs and mistakes -- thanks to Bill Clinton successfully depicting his pre-meditated transgressions as mistakes -- isn't it clear that if President Bush lied to get us into the war, he didn't merely make a mistake?

But let's explore this beyond semantics. As everyone should know by now, President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn't pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles.

This assessment was bolstered by Saddam's intractable behavior in persistently defying U.N. weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide and repeatedly violating U.N. resolutions. He had the burden of proving he had disposed of the WMD he demonstrably had and used on his own people, but instead submitted a bogus 12,000-page document, virtually inviting us to attack.

President Bush believed -- and the evidence confirms -- that Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for international terrorists not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban. Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings.

But Democrats contend that our failure to find Saddam's WMD stockpiles after we deposed him proves that President Bush lied about their existence in the first place. President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior.

As I've written before, Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.

Among the worst of them is Sen. Kerry, who still pathetically clings to the fantasy that he can be president someday. In his latest lurch for relevance -- on "Larry King Live" -- he again accused President Bush of deceiving the American people, this time by constantly switching his rationale for attacking Iraq: from WMD, to spreading democracy, to suppressing a "hotbed of terrorism."

But it's Kerry who's doing the misleading. From the very beginning, President Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was that under Saddam, she was our enemy in the global war on terror and a threat -- indirect and direct -- to our national security. The three reasons Kerry cites are not incompatible, but of a piece. President Bush believed Saddam was amassing WMD and acting in concert with Islamic terrorists. And, he's always had a vision that the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East would be a natural antidote to the proliferation of terrorism. That's not why we attacked Iraq, because we are not in the business of gratuitous nation building, but it's a potentially glorious byproduct that we shouldn't underestimate and is certainly consistent with our war aims.

No matter how incapable Kerry's Democrats are of comprehending this, 9-11 confirmed that Islamic radicals throughout the world are at war with the United States. The terrorist threat is not localized to Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrats' quixotic refrain that we concentrate our resources only on capturing Saddam reveals how radically they misapprehend the global scope of this war.

Saddam was begging to be removed, and President Bush neither lied nor made a mistake in removing him. But he would be making a catastrophic mistake if he acceded to the Democrats' suicidal demand that we telegraph a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq or take other action to undermine our cause -- and the cause of the Iraqi people -- there.

While I'm sure President Bush appreciates all their unsolicited advice and carping, Democrats might be well advised to clean up their own house for a change. Instead of gloating over the president's inconsistent poll numbers, they might awaken to the sobering fact that they are the ones who have been losing elections and need help in the credibility department, especially concerning national security.

But until they demonstrate some comprehension of the global reach and gravity of this war, quit exploiting every morsel of negative news flowing from Iraq for political purposes and start supporting our cause, it's hard to envision a scenario where Americans will entrust them with safeguarding our national security.

Tico -- I just finished reading Mr. Limbaugh's piece, but I'm not sure whether or how to respond: Did you post David Limbaugh's opinion piece as evidence that his statements are true,

or because you agree with it,

or because you disagree with it,

or because you just think it's nice reading fodder for Bush supporters in the aftermath of their candidate's victory?

There's nothing wrong with copy&pastes, but for me as a correspondent it would be nice if you could also write a few lines about your own opinion of the piece you posted.

Mr. President, please talk more about Sept. 11
Byron York

Remember awhile back, nearly four years now ?- it may have been in September ?- something really bad happened?

We don't like to talk about it now, but you may recall that it was in New York, and in Washington, and in a field in Pennsylvania.

A lot of people died. It changed the lives of millions of Americans, some in profound ways. And many people vowed to make sure it didn't happen again.

But we don't like to talk about it now. In fact, if the president even brings the Bad Thing up, some people become very agitated.

So it was no surprise that when George W. Bush gave a speech Tuesday night on the war in Iraq, and he mentioned the Bad Thing ?- he called it "Sept. 11" ?- there were lots of hurt feelings.

Like those of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 show the weakness of his arguments," Pelosi said after the speech. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9-11, knowing that there is no connection between 9-11 and the war in Iraq."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was also unhappy. "The president's numerous references to Sept. 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," he said.

And, of course, The New York Times was upset. "We had hoped [Bush] would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again," the paper editorialized, "to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks."

But what's so wrong with talking about Sept. 11? It was only a world-historic, before-and-after event that has fundamentally changed the way the United States deals with the rest of the planet.

If Bush administration officials have made a mistake on the national security front in the months since the election, it is that they have not talked about Sept. 11 enough.

As many critics pointed out, Bush mentioned September 11 five times in his speech Tuesday.

First, the president said that American troops "are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001."

Well, that's true.

Second, the president said, "After Sept. 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

That's true, too.

Third, the president said, "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden."

That's true, too.

Fourth, the president said that terrorists "are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail."

That's true, too.

And finally, the president said, "After Sept. 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult and we are prevailing."

That ?- hopefully ?- is true, too.

Still, the president's critics became angry, accusing Bush of claiming that Iraq had a role in Sept. 11.

But wasn't the plain meaning of Bush's words that the same people who perpetrated Sept. 11 are today fighting the U.S. in Iraq?

That seems indisputable. Osama bin Laden has given his blessing to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; Zarqawi has proclaimed his allegiance to bin Laden. And al Qaeda appears to view Iraq as its main battleground today.

So this is the situation: No, Iraq did not plan Sept. 11 ?- even though many officials, chief among them Richard Clarke, worried about a Saddam-bin Laden connection ?- but the United States is now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.

Accept, if you choose, the Democratic premise that Iraq, when the president decided to invade, had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Even if that was true then, it's not true now. If we're fighting al Qaeda ?- along with a host of foreign jihadists ?- it's part of the war on terror.

But if some Democrats had their way, the United States would have to fight that war on terrorism without ever mentioning Sept. 11. Does that make sense to you?

Even though a much-publicized series of polls has shown that many Americans believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq, the surveys also suggest that the public knows the United States has to stay there now.

And they apparently weren't offended by Bush's five references to Sept. 11. After the speech, Gallup pollsters found that 74 percent of those surveyed had a very positive or somewhat positive reaction to it.

They remember the Bad Thing very well ?- even if some people don't want to talk about it.

While I'm sure President Bush appreciates all their unsolicited advice and carping, Democrats might be well advised to clean up their own house for a change. Instead of gloating over the president's inconsistent poll numbers, they might awaken to the sobering fact that they are the ones who have been losing elections and need help in the credibility department, especially concerning national security.

"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.

Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."

Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings

"It's all about the war,'' Zogby tells Bloomberg. "This war has really polarized Americans. This is what his presidency is all about. The only thing that could change is if things start to go better on the ground, and it's not good to be at the mercy of external events."

Another poll result that's "not good" for the president: The concept of impeachment is slowly sinking in for a substantial portion of the American people. It's not a majority, but 42 percent of the public, including 25 percent of the Republicans surveyed, now say that Bush should be impeached if -- and is this really an "if," now? -- he misled the country about the reasons for going to war.

Even though a much-publicized series of polls has shown that many Americans believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq, the surveys also suggest that the public knows the United States has to stay there now.

And they apparently weren't offended by Bush's five references to Sept. 11. After the speech, Gallup pollsters found that 74 percent of those surveyed had a very positive or somewhat positive reaction to it.

ps...relevancy of this brief and sparkly paste might be inferred through consideration of the term "aftermath" in the thread's title.

Sorry Tico. I didn't look at the previous page before posting that article. But since you posted it twice, it must have been worth repeating.

Lash wrote:

HofT--

While I agree with your idea that 1) racism is not defined by an absence of blacks

Good. Cause your rather bizarre statement submitting that it was, encompassed pretty much the entirety of what I, at least, took issue with in the first place, as you'll easily see when reading back on the conversation:

Quote:

It's rather sloppy, maybe purposefully so, to equate any of my statements with a belief that the mere absence of blacks is racist. You obviously choose not to take my words as they are, so why bother reading or responding? The WHY of demographics of Australia and some European countries is at question--not the result. I'm pretty sure you know that

.

Lash wrote:

We [Americans] have held ogether a pretty daunting set of goals, and work doggedly toward them. [..] Australia has at last check 0% black population. How do you like that? I know you're very concerned about racism.

nimh wrote:

Australia has 7% Asians, all of immigrant origin (as well as the Aborogines, of course).

Quote:

I didn't say anything about Asians. Why do you bring up Asians when they clearly aren't part of the conversation? Aborigines aren't qualified in the conversation eiher. They were born there. Although, many have been killed off. The discussion is black immigrants. They were barred openly until recently, and are said to STILL be barred, but secretly. Does that concern you, or are you more indignant that I brought it up?

No blacks, though, true. Something to do with not having had slavery.

Quote:

Something to have more to do with racism. Why is it OK? You're main line of conversation seems o be anger at me for bringing it up, rather than concern or opinion about what is going on there. Why is that?

Lash wrote:

Nimh-- So, Australia is a black-free zone soley due to the absence of slavery? That is your assertion? I guess they enslaved the aboriginals... I'll check into that.

nimh wrote:

The presence of blacks in America to an overwhelming extent most surely is the result of slavery. Or are you denying that most of today's Afro-Americans are descendants of those brought there in the time of slavery?

Quote:

Sigh. Australia's immigration policy. Australia's demographic anomaly... Finland's demographics, Finland's racist immigraion policies... We can do America for the thousandth time elsewhere.

In that light to compare Australia's lack of blacks with America's presence of them as evidence that Australia is the racist country is simply bizarre.

Quote:

Probably why no one has done that--but the absence of any measurable percentage of dark-skinned immigrant IS evidence, along with an anti-black immigration policy. Did you know about it, or are you just trying to avoid admitting it---which would TRULY be bizarre.

Hey, it's OK. Most blacks in Holland descend from inhabitants of former colonies. Same in the UK. Germany on the other hand has a lot fewer blacks, exactly because of its [nod to HoT: relative] lack of former colonies. On the other hand, they have a lot of Turks. Australia has a lot of Asians - 7% is not a low number for a population born in recent immigration. [..] So your original point was?

The only offense I take is on behalf of the people who are being barred from countries for no other reason that their skin color

The statement that "0% blacks in Australia" proved racism, was surreal, as I pointed out.

Code:Where was that statement?

That doesn't mean that there is no racism in Australia, however, and none of us here has actually claimed there wasn't - that's where you're "hitting the wrong sack".

This is a persistent problem. You make a wild assertion, we challenge it, you indignantly claim that our objection means we are on the wrong side of some much broader moral divide (leaving you as brave fighter for enlightenment confronting us about it, I suppose). The problem in that lies in how you don't hesitate to make it up as you go along. As happened here: I note that Australia does actually have at least 7% immigrants and that the absence of blacks, in comparison with America, has a lot to do with your history of slavery, so you come back at me with a:

Code:This IS a persistent problem. I bring up something the liberals at the site don't want to hear, you jump in and attempt to avoid the point while also trying to turn what I have said in to something different. You then make it about me, rather than examining the facts I'm talking about. An example-- I didn't say lack of black immigrants in and of itself was proof of racism. It IS a symptom, though, and when you look further, as I did when I discovered their racial demographic, you see that they actively avoided black immigrants.

As I said earlier, ASIAN immigrants do not = black immigrants. You continued insistence in trying to equate the two is bizarre.

Lash wrote:

Take a look at that beacon of racial harmony, Australia.

Is this what you defend, nimh? Freeduck? No racism, you say?

Never mind that I never said nor implied "no racism". (As Walter put it: "Your argumentation is quite fast .... jumping from one point to the next".)

The same disconnect continues in particular in your last post now.

Lash wrote:

Australia's horrific treatment of their dark-skinned scapegoats has been swept under a rug. Their discriminatory immigration policy is shameful--but seems fine with the liberals here.

Blatham and dlowan appear to be saying that addressing atrocities anywhere but America should be verboten. Why is that?

This is just utterly bizarre. Dlowan has posted countless, passionate arguments against her country's discriminatory immigration policies - whole threads of 'em. In fact, almost every single time you've brought up Australia's "dirt" in an argument with her - almost always in the context of, "Oh and it's like your country's any better?" - she promptly acknowledged what she considers to have been wrong in that policy.

The same, at least, goes for me, as any cursory read of my posts on Dutch politics, especially where it comes to immigrants and asylum-seekers, will show (& I posted the odd thing about the UK and Denmark as well).

What you confuse here is people correcting bizarre statements on your part, and their unwillingness to discuss the issue altogether.

Code:Instead of the huge tirade, why don't you point to my bizarre statement and correct it? That would save alot of space.

For example, your statement that "The Finns hardly allow dark skinned people in their country, same with Sweden" is bizarre. There is no skin-colour check on the Finnish border. However, several Scandinavian countries do have very restrictive asylum/immigration policies. I think Sweden is actually quite OK on this count, but Denmark is atrocious. And racism plays a part in that, but on the other hand those policies are applied regardless of colour - just ask any Russian would-be immigrant.

Code:OK, at least you have separated something out to disagree with. You say Finns and Sweden don't have restrictive policies against dark-skinned immigrants. Why didn't you do that in the first place? I have a point to elucidate. I've been interested and reading from a few sources. I'll be glad to bring them.

Now it is your jump to say that anyone who corrects or disputes your assertion on them not allowing "dark skinned people in their country" must thus be refusing to face up to the reality of discriminatory asylum policies. That of course is belied in plenty of threads here - with Dlowan posting in them, too. Instead, you could also have concluded - and I wish you would - that wild assertions will not lead you to any frank discussion on the subject you may be trying to broach - it'll just result in people knocking you.

Code:If the Finnish immigration statement I made is what you consider a wild accusation, I think you're a little too sensitive. Knock all you like, if you're correct

.
And that goes all the more if you only ever broached it in the first place to fend off complaints about your country. You want to discuss xenophobic Euroaustralian asylum or immigration policies? Go ahead, start a thread about it or join one of the existing ones. As it stands, what we have here is a post in which you try to fend off criticisms about American misdemeanours by making somewhat bizarre statements about how others are no better. "Oh yeah and how about you, huh?" - but then incorrect on top of that. You got the corresponding reactions.