Bush supporters' aftermath thread

One good link deserves another. We should all know who is writing what we're reading.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/uscfl.php

Is it safe to order French fries again?

2005-02-19 / Knight Ridder / By Robert Steinback

Darn it! I must have missed the memo. When did it become OK to be nice to Europeans again? Wasn't it just two years ago that the French and Germans were targets of the meanest scorn among U.S. President George W. Bush's supporters for refusing to endorse his plan to invade Iraq? Conservative pundits dusted off 60-year-old insults about France succumbing to the Nazi war machine in World War II. We poured French wine down drains and called them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." We depicted them as jaded champions of an "Old Europe" teetering on the edge of irrelevancy. Even fried potatoes lost their Gallic prenom in a show of patriotic defiance.

But there was newly minted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week in Paris describing how much the United States and France have in common.

"The history of the United States and that of France are intertwined," Rice said during her speech at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. "Our history is a history of shared values, of shared sacrifice and of shared successes. So, too, will be our shared future." But what about ... aren't they cheese-eating ... what do you mean you don't serve Freedom Fries?

Back in March 2003 I wrote in a column, "The insults Americans have directed at the French are childish, embarrassing and unbecoming of a nation of honorable people." Those words fell flat with the Bush faithful at the time, for whom the word French had become a joke punch-line all by itself. Last week, though, I had the feeling that Bush's closest adviser would have concurred with me.

Politicians are prone to changing with shifting political winds. But it's downright scary when the American people - highly educated, democracy-trained and First Amendment-protected - robotically accept what we are told seemingly without question or deliberation. But this has become a pattern in America since 9-11. Fear clouds rational, critical thought, and this administration and its conservative supporters have fed America a steady diet of fear since that dark day.

Just months after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacked the United States, we were told that the "Axis of Evil," Iraq, Iran and North Korea, was our greatest menace - and many Americans accepted this without question. We were told that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq posed such an immediate threat that crushing al-Qaida could wait - and many Americans accepted that, too.

Then we were told to disregard that no WMDs were found in Iraq; bringing democracy to the Middle East was now our noblest mission. This, too, we accepted - even though many of these same spread-democracy advocates not long before were howling that not a single American soldier's life should be lost in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo or Somalia.

Conservatives in the 1990s told us balancing the federal budget was so important, they included it in the very first principle of the 1994 "Contract with America" - and we accepted that. Now, the conservative government is running the largest deficits in history, and we've accepted that. And Bush now wants to sell us a plan to overhaul Social Security that could force America to borrow US$2 trillion - and he's counting on us to accept this as well.

Contradictions - even outright, 180-degree reversals of position - now glide by the American consciousness without provoking even the faintest suspicion of irony, never mind hypocrisy. Conservatives crowed three months ago that Democrats lost the election because the left didn't address issues of religion and morality. I tuned in to conservative pundit Sean Hannity's radio program this week and heard a segment titled, "Are Democrats using religion for political expediency?" I wonder if his audience noticed that this would make Democrats fools if they don't talk about religion and insincere if they do.

A conservative friend of mine has long railed about liberal bias in the mainstream media. Since learning that the Bush administration paid conservative talk-show hosts, gave credentials to phony White House journalists and circulated bogus newscasts for air as legitimate news, he now argues that only mainstream journalists have an obligation to be ethical, and that it's OK for "personalities and pundits" to "lie and spin."

It's hard to reason with people for whom grounded, unyielding truth can change so swiftly. But I figure I'd better go grab an order of French fries and a good Chablis while the coast is clear.


Robert Steinback is a columnist for The Miami Herald.

<sighs> What is your point, FreeDuck? The links on that page are clearly posted for all to see. Do you have a problem with the facts presented? If so, which?

Ps. May I suggest you read the actual definition of Argumentum ad hominem (click here). .

FreeDuck wrote:

One good link deserves another. We should all know who is writing what we're reading.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/uscfl.php

precisely duck. same bunch that brought us the the whole chalabi, wmd, terrorist threat of iraq.

btw, bill, i did read the stuff. hezbollah ?? what else is new?

chirac pursues his own agenda rather than lockstepping with bush. what else is new ?

you guys hate the u.n. what else is new ?

also, did you notice that the article is a year old ?

did you notice that it also mentioned that the administration would be keeping it quiet re; syria and lebanon until after the u.s. election ? now, why would they do that ?

As a result of Assad's refusal to halt military assistance to Saddam Hussein's army before the war and covert support for anti-American insurgents after the war, US-Syrian relations hit a 20-year nadir in 2003. However, the Bush administration has been slow to resume its tough talk on Hezbollah. There is a feeling among Washington insiders that the issue has been deferred until after the American presidential election, but a more substantial consideration is also at work - the prospect of Nasrallah inciting a Shiite uprising against American forces in Iraq.

in my view, the same old game is being played here;

iran has weapons of mass destruction - time for regime change !

syria is pals wih iran - bad, bad syria !

lebanese live under a brutal dictator... they want their freedom. we must liberate them !

sounds awfully familiar to me. let's roll !!

oh. wait... we can't. our military is tapped out in iraq and nobody else wants to join in the fun.

anything to avoid dealing with the north korean issue...

OCCOM BILL wrote:

<sighs> What is your point, FreeDuck? The links on that page are clearly posted for all to see. Do you have a problem with the facts presented? If so, which?

Ps. May I suggest you read the actual definition of Argumentum ad hominem (click here). .

I'd suggest you read that definition yourself. Don't leap to the conclusion that investigating and knowing your sources is the same thing as attacking them. When choosing how much weight to give a piece of information that comes my way, I take the very good advice once offered to me and consider the source. I suggest you do the same. There's more than one side to every story.

What do you call it when instead of actually disputing facts, someone chooses to draw attention away from the facts in favor of redirecting it towards the source of same?

You still have provided not one single complaint with anything written in that piece, but persist in trying to make the source the issue anyway.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

One good link deserves another. We should all know who is writing what we're reading.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/uscfl.php

precisely duck. same bunch that brought us the the whole chalabi, wmd, terrorist threat of iraq.

btw, bill, i did read the stuff. hezbollah ?? what else is new?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I retract what I said about your straight shooting DTOM.

speaking of ad hominem attacks... **

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Rather than raise a single issue-relevant point with the facts presented, you elaborated on your **Ad Hominem attack on the article.

and rather than consider what i'm getting at, you launch an ad hominem attack on me, is that it ?
the article was published by a consortium of neo-cons, the roster of which is nearly identical to another group publishing similar papers. the group was called "the committee for the liberation of iraq". the cli roster and the uscfl both have in common membership with the project for the new american century.

if the same names keep popping up in the same context over and over again, it's fair to say that there is an agenda, don't you think ? you certainly do each time chirac's name comes up.

look bill, it's not that i love chirac. i find him to be a pompous and petty napoleon wannabe. frankly, i think that the people who keep pounding on the guy give him credit for way more influence than he really has. therefore it's a waste of time that could be well spent pounding on bin-laden, alzawquiri, l'il kim and other fun dudes.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Tell me this:
Do you think Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?

like i said, "what else is new" ? we've been here before with hezbollah and lebanon. about 25 years ago during the first reagan term.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you think taking (non-military) steps to stop funding for terrorist organizations is a good idea?

of course it is.

you know what else i think is a good idea ? since they don't seem to be going away, just could be smart to actually talk to them, whether or not it's the u.s., france or the republic of togo, and engage them directly. look them in the eyes and see what's there. it will probably be the rabid hatred and intolerance that we expect, but it is far easier to put someone on the spot face to face than across a sea of propaganda and media distortion.

thinking logically, you can't kill all of the "terrorists" because of the whole martyr mindset that the middle easterners have. kill one, two more are created. but, it may be possible to breed it out of the culture by showing to the average middle easterner that it is nasrallah or the ayatollah or assad who is in fact the oppressor via his willingness to let the people be sacrificed for impure ideology rather than sit down and discuss with the west. keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

and by the way bill. i don't always agree (or even disagree) with what you say. but, i have never pronounced your opinions to be mere drivel. so let's keep the straight shooter comments down a little, okay ?

"chirac pursues his own agenda rather than lockstepping with bush. what else is new ? "

Huh?

Let's try this...

Bush and America pursue their own agenda rather than lockstepping with Europe.

Hey! I like that! It makes it seem as though we care about our country instead of bending to the whims of outside forces.

FRANCE SUCKS!

speaking of ad hominem attacks... **

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Rather than raise a single issue-relevant point with the facts presented, you elaborated on your **Ad Hominem attack on the article.

and rather than consider what i'm getting at, you launch an ad hominem attack on me, is that it ?

and by the way bill. i don't always agree (or even disagree) with what you say. but, i have never pronounced your opinions to be mere drivel. so let's keep the straight shooter comments down a little, okay ?

JustWonders wrote:

FRANCE SUCKS!

naw... they just don't understand why american religious leaders are so hung up on sex.

i don't either...

But on French and American streets, mutual distrust still simmers.

On the day Bush won re-election in November, freelance journalist Frederic Royer decided to tap into the zeitgeist and start "L'Anti-Americain."

The French-language paper offers an unflattering, if tongue-in-cheek, look at America's perceived shortcomings - from fast food to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Cartoons and editorials featuring sharp-edged critiques of American politicians - mostly Bush - are a fixture of mainstream French dailies. Royer's monthly strives to pack more punch. But he insists it's good-natured ribbing.

"We're so invaded by American culture, we can't resist," he said.

The first edition in December sold 7,500 copies, advertised only by word of mouth and its eye-catching cover, Royer said.

Its Bush re-election headline read "France offers political asylum to Americans!"

The cover of January's issue features a voluptuous blonde clad only in an American flag beside a doctored photo of Bush as a paperboy, proudly pointing to his presidential seal.

"The name is 'anti-American' for laughs, but it's really anti-Bush," said Royer.

By ordering troops into Iraq over European protest and refusing to back international efforts to curb global warming, Bush looks to some Europeans like a cowboy thumbing his nose at the world.

Conversely, some Americans see France as ungrateful for U.S. help during World War II.

"These grudges will probably last a long time. They go deep beyond the White House and Washington, and out to Middle America," said political scientist Steven Ekovich of the American University of Paris.

Royer acknowledges that the success of "L'Anti-Americain" rests on Bush providing good material.

"The danger is to do something too basic, too stupidly anti-American," Royer said. But he expects success "because of the ambient air - maybe what I think a lot of French people are feeling right now."

PS...you staying dry in the monsoons? I'm headed for the tropics in a couple of weeks....wish it was the "tropics of Cali", though LOL.

...Pity that the point was obscured in that manner in the first place... but that was neither your doing nor mine.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

...Pity that the point was obscured in that manner in the first place... but that was neither your doing nor mine.

no problem bill.

i have a high level of frustration with the whole issue of islamic terrorism. it's been pretty much the same bunch of knuckledraggers acting up for over 25 years.

just can't seem to kill enough of them to get ahead of the issue. like i said, kill one, two more pop up. it's a religious war at the core and i just see it as a situation where they will not be taken down by the old ways. the answer lies more in the area of fight spies and sabateurs with the same methods.

so when i see the makings of a replay of the whole run up to the iraq conflict in regard to iran and syria, i see a diversion rather than an affective strategy.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

...Pity that the point was obscured in that manner in the first place... but that was neither your doing nor mine.

no problem bill.

i have a high level of frustration with the whole issue of islamic terrorism. it's been pretty much the same bunch of knuckledraggers acting up for over 25 years.

I don't see how that has anything to do with our previous discussion so I assume you're starting a new one?

no, same discussion. just pointing out that it's not a new problem.

Okay, I'll follow you as far as there has been no fundamental change in the ME in a very long time... but that's as far as I'll go.

well, that's better than not going at all. there rally hasn't been much change at all until recently. afghanistan seems to have turned out fairly decent. good. i hope it blossoms and continues to improve. i had several afghan friends during the russian occupation. they're nice people it seems, so i wish them well.

There are two budding young democracies in the vicinity now ...the cloak and dagger diplomacy you speak of was proven utterly useless over the last century

c & d "diplomacy" is not what i'm referring to. what i'm saying is more like "cloak & dagger infiltrate, recon and then kill as many as you can as often as you can and then find some more to do the same to". you should be into this since it's 1 aspect of what rumsfeld is calling for.

and while we can't know if Bush's plan will yield results; we do know, conclusively, that no other plan has. The conditions of the ME are an utter and complete horror show for half of it's citizens and I don't think there's anyway to dispute that.

there's not and i don't. but i also assign some of the responsibility for the suffering to the people themselves. likewise the responsibility for liberating themselves from tyranny and oppression. an example of that responsibility being embraced was evidenced by the northern coalition in afghanistan. still less than straight up because of the tribal thing, but still better than the freakin' taliban.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

just can't seem to kill enough of them to get ahead of the issue. like i said, kill one, two more pop up. it's a religious war at the core and i just see it as a situation where they will not be taken down by the old ways. the answer lies more in the area of fight spies and sabateurs with the same methods.

This is nonsense and has proven utterly and completely useless while millions paid the ultimate price decade after decade and will continue to forever if we keep trying that.

i would agree with you if in fact the strategy had actually been used. it wasn't. what was used was the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing. example = saddam. saudi arabia. and look how it has turned out with our good friends the saudis. kicked out because we aren't islamically moral enough to protect and die for them over **** like playboy magazines and beer. meanwhile they have fostered terrorism and held telethons for suicide bombers against israel. that's what didn't work out.

I'll respect your dislike for Bush's solution, but that has already proven no solution at all... unless you're ready to be counted in the "we should only worry about American lives" club.

that depends on what the lives are being lost for bill. it had better be something pretty damn worthwhile and it better be done right

I loath that position but respect it nonetheless. It's the tweeners that want to pretend they care about Middle Easterners but offer no meaningful solutions that drive me crazy. Cloak and dagger= the blind eye while millions die and half the population never really lives. Apathy kills.

my "caring about middle easterners" has been diluted quite a bit over the years by the middle easterner's general dislike, envy and disregard for anyone, including themselves, largely thanks to their religion and refusal to embrace the modern world. if it's simply a crusade to free oppressed people, there are other continents and peoples who deserve our care and help far more. one people that needs, and deserves, our help in liberation sits not more than a 100 miles or so south of your state.

I think your pessimism is reasonable but unfair. This kill one, two pop up for 25 years is pure fiction.

not pessismism as much as pragmatism. do you not see what's goes on when one of the "martyrs" is killed ? they carry the guy through the streets holding his picture, chanting his name and "death to (fill in the blank)". then they close their shops, tie a green rag around their head and look for someone to kill. on a good day, they can even encourage their sons and daughters to throw rocks and be shot down or better yet, strap up with plastique and take out a bunch of innocent people.

We've only just begun to truly follow through on our threats to remove the A-holes... and I think more importantly to follow through on our promises to aid the people in finding freedom. If we hadn't turned our backs on the suffering of the common Middle Easterner for all these years, I don't believe September 11th would have happened at all.

i actually agree with you about that. but in the context that the euros really caused a lot of problems through imperialism and then the post world war slice and dice of the region. then the u.s. shows up and all they can see is that we have come for your oil. we could and should have done more to improve their lot beyond the confines of the oil fields

History teaches us that poor hungry people will always rebel.

sometimes. in the case of iraq, it is the fact that they did not rebel against their tyrant that has our involvement. according to our friend, who spent 12 years in saddam's army, it was the sunni officers that were loyal. it would not have taken an awful lot to send the troops into armed rebellion. but nobody seemed to care enough to do it.

It's not possible to pretend we're helping them while leaving their tyrannical slave masters in power. Do you know that North Korea is one of the biggest recipients of foreign aid per capita there is? That type of foreign aid does ZERO for the starving masses.

really ? do you have a link to that info ? cause i really hate that kind of stuff. we shouldn't be giving n.k. anything. not a dime.

Ignore Tyrant= the blind eye while millions die and the half the population never really lives. Apathy kills.

no argument from me about that. now, does that mean that we should invade or bomb every tyrant ? there's a lot of them.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so when i see the makings of a replay of the whole run up to the iraq conflict in regard to iran and syria, i see a diversion rather than an affective strategy.

This is a shallow way of looking at it, sorry. You are circumventing the fact that Bush has made his intentions abundantly clear.

believe it or not bill, in this case it wasn't bush i was referring to but the likes of pearle, abrams etc. from the committee to free lebanon. like i said before, they were the ones behind chalabi, wmd and all of the other neo-con crap that preceeded iraq. they are trying to pull the same stuff again.

if there's anything shallow in this discussion, it is those guys

Free your people of the chains of oppression and you will be rewarded. Seek WMD while promoting terrorism and you will be destroyed. I cannot understand how the so-called liberals could be against assisting the Iranians to some form of liberty, let alone the moderates. What more noble purpose could there be? I would have thought that the bleeding hearts everywhere would be the most grateful of all people when a President declared our alliance with the suffering masses of the world. But all they do is bitch and moan and doubt and slander and it's enough to make me wonder if anyone ever really gave a sh!t in the first place.

again with the liberals and bleeding hearts ? jesus bill. have you ever heard pat buchannon talk about the invasion of iraq ?

There isn't a damn thing Bush could say that wouldn't be wrong on the merits or denied based on doubt that sometimes reaches all the way back to friggin Chile 3 decades ago. Not one damn thing can he say or do to get approval from these people no matter what……………. And I think I better call it quits on this because I'm getting unduly upset by the ridiculousness of this conversation. The old ways were murder, dude. And it makes me sick to hear a moderate push for that nonsense again. Good day.