1 Finish Profile

Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

Locked

.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020548&docId=l:387137685&start=1

Well said, Mort Kondracke

Topic

asinine, ridiculous, absurd

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

Idjits leaking sensitive information should be locked up. People working in such positions that they have the ability to leak that information should damned well know better than to do so over political differences: if they don’t like what they’re doing, they should damned well quit rather than becoming traitors and violating oaths.

On the other hand, equating that with the notion that “Bush-hatred” is a “threat to national security” is unreasonable Cult Of Patriotism BS to a frightening degree. I guess “love it or leave it” wasn’t authoritarian enough for you.

Ok now I am convinced

In reply to asinine, ridiculous, absurd

You are not Max. My apologies. Unless you stepped away from the keyboard and your significant other posted your last reply.

James

Y’know . . .

In reply to Ok now I am convinced

. . . as I was hitting the “Submit My Comments” button, I thought of you.

Cult of Patriotism? Give me a break!

In reply to asinine, ridiculous, absurd

Oh for Pete’s sake. Talking about stretching something to the absurd.

I will say this, however. There are so many people who “hate Bush” to such a degree, and they are out to get him at every turn, regardless of what he does, that yes, I do believe they would even compromise national security to do it. All you have to do is listen to what Osama bin Laden says about President Bush, then listen to what the Democrats say about President Bush, and you couldn’t tell the difference. They’re both reading from the same script.

And the “lied about WMDs” is another case in point. Not only are they compromising national security in their zeal to destroy President Bush, but they’re actually adding fuel to the fire of contempt towards the United States.

It’s not so much of a stretch.

In reply to Cult of Patriotism? Give me a break!

There is sort of a “cult of patriotism”. It’s not a new thing, but it’s a bigger thing currently than it has been in the last twenty years. Maybe you don’t see it because you don’t ever find yourself arguing with them — but the screed to which you linked really has that flavor to it.

“[i]There are so many people who ‘hate Bush’ to such a degree, and they are out to get him at every turn, regardless of what he does, that yes, I do believe they would even compromise national security to do it.[/i]”
I’m in agreement with you on that one statement, taken in a vacuum. That doesn’t mean that “hating Bush” is automatically a threat to national security, however. I personally find the guy’s policies utterly reprehensible in most cases. They’re despicable and horribly mismanaged. I still wouldn’t ever do something like sell out any US soldiers to “get back at Bush”.

I’m always surprised when someone points out very clear, reasonable, logically supportable arguments relating to how one of the two major political parties in the US is dead wrong about many things, and is completely blind to the same problems with different perspectives in the opposing party. That applies to you as well as it does to anyone else.

Interesting

In reply to It’s not so much of a stretch.

You said, [i]”There is sort of a ‘cult of patriotism’. It’s not a new thing, but it’s a bigger thing currently than it has been in the last twenty years. Maybe you don’t see it because you don’t ever find yourself arguing with them…”[/i]

Oh, I see it, but I don’t consider it as bad a thing as a lot of people obviously do. And I’m as pissed at Islamo-Fascists today as I was on 9-11-01. And the more the rest of the world criticizes me for it, in any way at all, the more “patriotic” I might become. The world is Neville Chamberlain of 1936. I see the scope of the threat, they don’t. And I’ve argued with them (the “patriots to whom you refer) as well, even on these threads. I don’t like extremists from either side of an argument.

You said, [i]”….but the screed to which you linked really has that flavor to it.”[/i]

You should read more of Mort Kondracke to keep it in perspective.

You said, [i]”I personally find the guy’s (President Bush) policies utterly reprehensible in most cases. They’re despicable and horribly mismanaged.”[/i]

I’m not crazy about a lot his domestic policies, but in the arena of waging war against Islamo-Fascism, especially the “big picture”, he’s dedicated and unwavering, even in the face of enormous political criticism. Remember back to 9-12-01, and all the predictions that another attack on American soil was almost a given. Well, if it HAD happened, you can bet your ass that President Bush would have been blamed. But it hasn’t happened, has it? And he’s being “blamed” for that as well. All this rampant hate for Bush is clouding peoples’ perspective. It’s almost sick, if you ask me.

You said, [i]”I’m always surprised when someone points out very clear, reasonable, logically supportable arguments relating to how one of the two major political parties in the US is dead wrong about many things, and is completely blind to the same problems with different perspectives in the opposing party. That applies to you as well as it does to anyone else.”[/i]

That’s a meaningless comment ([i]That applies to you as well as it does to anyone else[/i]) unless you provide a specific instance and example. Provide one, and I’ll comment and/or explain myself. But I won’t presume to speak for others.

Blamed

In reply to Interesting

You’re right, Max. GWB would take the rap either way, and if Kerry, Gore, or even Lincoln were in his position they would rightly be blamed also.

No it isn’t directly his fault either way, but he has chosen to dedicate his life’s work to holding the position of accountability and ultimate control. Before you claim he doesn’t have ‘ultimate control’, you’re right on that too, but he is the figurehead for anything and everything American government does or doesn’t do. That’s what the face of being president means.

It is only natural that Bush takes the heat either way, I am confident he will take the credit without hesitation too. Sure he will say “America has succeeded at this and that” but as HE represents America he will go down in history as the man who won the war. (notice the positive WILL’s instead of WOULD’s)

Bush is standing in front of the world and giving the nod, he is therefore rightly the person who people will reflect on either way.

It’s just like all along here, where you have been pushing blame on “ANYONE but Bush”. ‘He didn’t say that’ but someone in his administration did. ‘He didn’t do that’, but someone in his administration did. When a company fails or is sued out of existence, the employees don’t take the blame as much as the boss does.

Why, in Bush’s case, is he not to be held responsible for the actions and decisions carried forth by ‘his’ party?

He’s a representative of everything American government does, ESPECIALLY when it come to foreign policy.

He does try to run his country like a corporation after though, and we all know how well his corporate record has done.

He took a bankrupt,uncompetitive, baseball team to profitability.

In reply to Blamed

The Rangers were not competitive, and losing money.

He took them to being a profitable team. He got a great price for the majority owners and bagged out. That isn’t too bad. The team hasn’t won championships, but for 85 years you couldn’t say the same for the RED SOX one of the most financially successful teams in baseball.

I am an Indians Fan. I know ultimate baseball failure is to not make enough money to survive in your market.

PEANUTS

In reply to He took a bankrupt,uncompetitive, baseball team to profitability.

Jimmy Carter did it with P’nuts and dirt. I don’t see anyone praise him here.

Uh whatever

In reply to He took a bankrupt,uncompetitive, baseball team to profitability.

So while I talk about GWB’s business career, which has been focused on the oil companies that he helped sink and proved himself as a failure to the oil business, you refer to his business career after he questionably bailed out of Haliburton and bought a baseball team?

Like I said, uhhhh, whatever.

Max, I think you misunderstand

In reply to Interesting

The mindset of Winston Churchill. Now I will say first off the bat that this is not an attack, merely a correction of an oversight (or undersight). Winston had the balls to fight Hitler at every turn no matter the cost [b]but[/b] that doesn?t mean he wanted to. Neville Chamberlain was a bit daft (so is bush (cheap shot)) but really no-one (especially the yanks at the time) wanted another world war even Hitler, who had slated war with Russia for 1944 and never planned to fight America or England but no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

Winston Churchill was not the British PM when WW II was started [b]chamberlain was PM until May 1940[/b] which was the beginning of the battle of Brittan. Up until this point Winston was first lord of the admiralty.

Now that history is out of the way the best way to describe Churchill’s thoughts towards the war is when President Roosevelt asked Churchill “what should we call this war” Churchill replied “The unnecessary war”. This along with the rest of what I have read about Churchill (far, far too much to list here) would seem to indicate that Churchill very much thought of WWII as the continuation of WWI.

We know now that Versailles was a supremely stupid idea and Winston (according to his own memoirs) was against it. Churchill believed (IMO seeing as I have never had a chance to ask him 🙂 ) that WWII should never have happened and Germany should not have been punished so harshly or been allowed to reform its own government after WWI (A post WWII like occupation) I don?t know which one he would have abdicated.

What is apparent to me is that Winston Churchill believed that the harsh economic treatment of Germany (War Debts) was the direct cause of the rise of National Socialism and of Hitler which was the cause of WWII. Without Versailles Germany would never have been desperate enough to elect Hitler.

So hopefully you now see why the Chamberlain/Churchill analogy is not appropriate for the world today. I think that a more apt analogy is a dual Hindenburg (Germany 1932) scenario. This is where Hindenburg (Governmental checks and balances and the people) is unable to control Hitler (bush and amahijeen (the Spellings wrong, I know but you get the point)) One in the Mid-East and one in the west. This analogy is not perfect and leaves a lot to be desired (and or explained) but what we have is a new problem, we can?t look for an old solution.

re: the “cult of partriotism”

In reply to Interesting

“[i]Oh, I see it, but I don’t consider it as bad a thing as a lot of people obviously do.[/i]”
In that case, we should probably stop discussing the subject with one another right now, because you’ll never convince me that authoritarianism is good, and it seems that I’ll never convince you it’s bad.

Don’t tell me that you do it too!

In reply to re: the “cult of partriotism”

I didn’t use the word authoritarianism, but rather patriotism. If you see the two as synonymous, one of us is missing something.

Neil did that to me in a different thread. I made a comment (unrelated to the thread) that Winston Churchill was one of my mentors, and he then got on his soapbox criticizing what he called my “hero”.

Just like there’s a difference between hero and mentor, there’s also a difference between authoritarianism and patriotism. (Not to mention things like degree and extent.)

Damn, people do that all the time. I post something, and they post an objection based on something I didn’t say. Geesh, no wonder I find it difficult, if not impossible, to carry on a decent conversation with people around here. I speak a different language than everyone else!

No . . .

In reply to Don’t tell me that you do it too!

Authoritarianism and patriotism aren’t synonymous — but patriotism of the sort that supports a government no matter how wrong certainly smacks of authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is that set of political beliefs that holds that authority is its own justification. Your statements here definitely lean in that direction. You’re listing starboard at about a seventy degree angle, pal.

I know you didn’t say the word “authoritarianism”: you just demonstrated it for me.

“I don’t like extremists from either side of an argument”

In reply to Interesting

Perhaps then you would be kind enough to explain your centrist position.

I’m not a centrist

In reply to “I don’t like extremists from either side of an argument”

Just because I don’t care for either “extreme”, it doesn’t mean that it puts me right smack-dab in the middle. Most likely, on balance, I’m right of center.

I’m strong on national defense. I admit it, I want the biggest dog on the block, as I don’t trust many nations of the world who wish to do us harm.

I lean more towards national sovereignty, and less towards a “world-view”. (And the more the “world-view” is being forced on me, the more I resist.)

Domestically, I’m a civil libertarian who espouses self-responsibility.

I’m a strong advocate of taxation for the purpose of maintaining a strong national defense and a national infrastructure that supports our capitalistic system.

I’m a strong opponent of almost all forms of taxation that are intended to merely redistribute wealth from one person to another.

I’m generally opposed to laws that “protect an individual from him/her self”. (Recreational drugs, seat belt laws, etc.) I hate “nannyism”.

I don’t care where someone might put me on the political spectrum based on those beliefs, but that’s my basis for almost every opinion. Call it whatever you want.

Defence vs Antagonism

In reply to I’m not a centrist

There is a pretty clear difference between a strong defence and blatant antagonism. To be the “biggest dog” is a blatant form of antagonism. This method of defence is intended to intimidate others into doing what you want (hang on a minute, that?s very close to the definition of terrorism). It is very possible to maintain strong defences (even military defence) without extending military influence [b]outside[/b] your own borders. Extending military control outside your borders (even within your own sphere of influence) and adopt the big dog policy serves first and foremost to [b]make you a big target[/b] which is why the US seems to collect enemies like its going out of fashion.

The “big dog” policy of defence is flawed against smaller enemies. You will have to spread you forces out over a greater distance increasing the cost of maintaining an army and giving your enemies a greater selection of targets whilst thinning out your own forces making it much easier for a well hidden enemy to perform hit and run attacks. Maxwell “know your enemy, know yourself and victory will always be yours” – Sun Tzu the art of war. GWB has proven time and time again that he [b]does not know his enemy[/b].

Point in short: a big dog can only fight another big dog.

[i]I lean more towards national sovereignty, and less towards a “world-view”.”[/i] Some chap in 1930’s Europe said some very similar things. Be careful with meaning Max, “national sovereignty” easily becomes “Nationalism” and “Superiority” when the arrogant enter power.

[i]”I’m a strong opponent of almost all forms of taxation that are intended to merely redistribute wealth from one person to another.”[/i] We tried this once in Europe, it was called serfdom and created a large mass of underclasses lorded over by extremely small superclass. When you think about welfare and all you can associate with it is the undesirable elements (Rather than trying to help a student get a good education) remember these words [b]”I will to my lord be true and faithful, love all that he loves and shun all that he shuns”[/b]. That good sir, is the oath of fealty to a feudal lord (which for you would be GWB if we were still living in a theocracy) do you love all that he loves? I’d rather adsorb the beatniks and bludgers than even risk living in servitude, Not everyone gets to be a master and what makes you think that you will.

Now I could go on about nannyism but I neither agree nor disagree I only want to point out that it’s another grey area. When does safety end and nannyism begin? I assume you are in favour of safety laws (safety laws for cars and airplanes, electrical equipment standards, roll cages and crumple zones).

If you are just right of centre

In reply to I’m not a centrist

I think that would probably make George Bush a communist by comparison. 😉

right, left and center

In reply to I’m not a centrist

A problem is the left has become even more “leftish”, which changes where the center is.

There or those in the top of the Democratic party that actually believe they lost because they were not left ENOUGH. The party has been hijacked.

And it is true that even President Bush is to liberal. It is a shame.

And

In reply to Cult of Patriotism? Give me a break!

“lied about WMDs” Pretty much bang on the truth. I know, I know, HE didn’t lie. he presented an untruth…I am sure there is a bushism for LIE that actually sounds creative.

Oz there is a big difference in being wrong and lying.

In reply to And

Clinton lied… He was more popular worldwide than in his home state.

Bush may have been wrong. But I don’t think that the jury can be in yet. We now have long distance delivery methods that Saddam was forbidden to have. A Mach3+ Mig25 and two external tanks giving a 3000K+ radius. How?s that for a delivery system, OZ. Many of the scud missiles that were found were in disrepair. He wasn?t supposed to have any in any state.

We have 35 blank labeled bottles for chlorine and 20,000 tons of chorine. The Agriculture ministry had 26 Ag Cats originally a Rockwell design that could deliver a chlorine spray.

Since they don’t have the farmland, Why did they have all those Ag Cats? There are about 72 registered Ag Cats that do the US?s wheat belt. 50 times the arable land of Iraq. the Canadian wheat belt is also served by many of these planes…

There are other cropdusters, but none as good as the Ag Cats. One Ag Cat does more than any two other dusters? I have flown a Cessna 180 with a spray kit and an Ag Cat. An Ag Cat is awesome. The Cessna Caravan may be comparable to an AgCat in haul, but the multi-Million pricetag makes it out of the reach of all but Arthur-Daniels. The Ag Cat can be flown in much smaller areas. I have flown an Ag Cat under Power lines, 2 feet above the road. It is nimble and maneuverable. From Crazy Harry(a 60+ year old duster, I was about 30, he looked old and weathered to me. Have 20+ years of mileage on me since then), I learned the Caravan handles like a Semi compared to a Ferrari.

Make up your mind. Can 20,000 tons of chlorine be stuffed into 35 1 gallon bottles…

I just want to know how many trips, 35 1 Gallon bottles would take for 40 million pounds of Chlorine gas when diluted into suspension. By the way the suspension solution is a phenol based mixture. No phenol with the chlorine. The other options are soap base in water, again not present. Nor was the water to dilute the chlorine.

The problem is those stupid 35 bottles with blank labels? Since the American media doesn?t understand how a 95 knot Cessna 150 can?t catch up with a 500 knot airliner, why would you expect them to figure this one out. A PSA airliner broke the ceiling and was steaming at 500 knots a Cesna 150 at assign altitude was run over. The PSA flight was reporting at 18,000 feet. (below 18,000 feet there was 250 knot speed limit).
He was at 3000 feet. Either the altimeter was messed up or they were trying to make time and were adjusting the pressure so the transponder would indicate 18000 feet. The altimeter indicated 46+ inches of mercury?. (I suspect they were trying to make up time and save fuel. Higher is more efficient, but if you throttle back you can trade airspeed for altitude.) The media had a 95 knot Cessna flying into the Boeing from behind and below. It was ingested tail first into an engine. The media persisted to use this image for years even though it was explained to them by many sources. NBC finally recanted after many new regulations including the hated GAR system pas put in place. Now most of the airspace is regulated in the US to some extent? Even though the premise was wrong our freedom was gone, too. There is no effort to fix that which was created by the mistakes of the media.

What about all of the precursor chemicals caught at the Syrian border? This is back in 2001/2002. Does Syria, who is proscribed from importing these chemicals, have the real means of producing VX? Stay tuned Bunky, things will be happening. When the tally is done will you apologize and take back your accusations and admit you were wrong? Are you intellectually honest, or you a wingnut?

Does Max need to add the URL of the MIG25 found in IRAQ, again?
As an old pilot, (there are few old bold pilots) I err on the side of caution. If most these Ag cats had entered from their points of origin (the US), I would have had less concern. These AG Cats ended up in Iraq from many other places. Six of them having French tail numbers, but never reported as sold?

Okay

In reply to Oz there is a big difference in being wrong and lying.

While you stumble all over every angle of a topic like a drunken sailor, I will refocus on the point being made here.

CIA agents were sent to Iraq to find out if Sadam had been seekign enriched uranium and nuclear technology. They returened ad said he had NOT. They were absolutely 100% confident that he had not and dwas not able to either.

That night, Bush was on National TV stating he had proof that Saddam had sought niclear weapons and enriched uranium. That woul dbe a lie in any other walk of life, why not in America’s?

His speachwriter has even been interrogated and he said that he was told to put together “something Bush would say” and not to mention the FACT that they KNEW Saddam had not sought such munitions.

As far as his misleading run up to the war itself;
An informant code named ‘curveball’ was the one who had confirmed the information that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Curveball was KNOWN by most, including the American government, to have an ulterior motive and should be questioned. For THIS reason, the allies present at the UN decided it would be better to CONFIRM the suspicion before movng ahead with full scale invasion.

So lets weigh facts, we KNOW the UN hadn’t found anything to be fearful of. We KNOW they were nearing completion of the sites. We KNOW that curveball was a sktchy source of information and anything he said needed to be validated.

So instead of following such sound advice and agreement of other nations, Bush said
screw it, removed inspector and invaded the country, which again was not what the original solution was either, so he even lied about what he woul ddo if inspectors were kicked out again. those are flat out lies, not misinformation but complete personal agenda boosting lies.

Now while you wander off into the land of chemical weapons factories and jet planes found buried in the desert like a bad planet of the apes movie. This does NOT constitute teh stockpile of WMD that were inevitably destined to attack the USA. Before you contest that point by referring to others to support your claims, GWB admitted on national television that he did NOT find the stockpiles of WMD he had expected, but still found the mission to be necessary and just.

Allies had agreed Iraq needed to be rid of Saddam and terrorists, they didnt buy the RUSH to arms and removal of so many troops prematurely from Afghanistan though.

For this, Bush is a hero and the rest of the world is seen as a bunch of back stabber lefties who wouldn’t fight for their freedom.

Manm you guys really need to open your eyes and see the world for what it really is one day.

When someone says something is happening, KNOWING it isn’t it’s called a lie. When someone says he KNOWS something exists, while refusing to find our if it doesn’t we call THAT a lie too.

The funny part is that many of the people who support such actions, are the same ones always blowing their politically correct and righteous horns all the time. Pointing fingers at every move by every nation on Earth, except America. Talk about a mixed up bunch!

Well, for one who seems to wave the “don’t tread on me” flag, …

In reply to Cult of Patriotism? Give me a break!

you do seem to be giving Bush a great deal of leeway with regards to his powers, such as can only be justified under the doctrine of [i]implied[/i] powers.

You can’t have it both ways.

I’ve fully admittted for years

In reply to Well, for one who seems to wave the “don’t tread on me” flag, …

….that I give my government, and especially the president (of any political persuasion, by the way), a lot of leeway when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national defense. I see the government’s primary role as representing and defending the United States in the national arena. I’ve articulated the reasons more times than I can count. I don’t really want to do it again, but they should be pretty obvious.

And if anybody sees this NSA flap as treading on someone like me, then he’s a fool. Because you’re up-in-arms about something that’s not happening. People who say things like “Bush is spying on Americans” are total and absolute idiots, and don’t understand (or won’t admit) what the program really is doing.

Leeway granted vs that taken.

In reply to I’ve fully admittted for years

1) That you might grant such does not require that we all do likewise.

2) Many of us hold that this particular President has [b]taken[/b] much more “leeway” than has been granted.

I, and many others, find the notion that the President has implied powers such as suits his judgement alone wholly at odds with the system of checks and balances intended by our Founders.

Max, you should know better.

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

You know very well that truth and logic has no place here. It’s sad. I was thinking the other day about 9/11. How everyone where I worked stopped what they were doing and went out to their cars to listen to the radio (I worked at a government location and we weren’t allowed anything from outside). That was the only day in my life that I have seen everyone from every walk of life joined together. Driving home to get my son, I didn’t even see the normal traffic or rude drivers. It was as if the whole country sobered up for a minute and agreed on one thing. It’s not that it lasted long. Protests were back at the capital the next day. But is was so nice that for just one day, we came together as a country. It is just terrible that it was such a horrible event that was the cause.
Now it seems that things have spiralled into the opposite direction. With more internal hate. This is not the country of our founders, forefathers, pioneers. This is a country that tends to sicken me when I think of how far off the deep end we have come.
This is a country that was founded on freedoms because we wanted the same freedoms. Freedom to worship as we desire (or not). Freedom to speak on things without fear of persecution. Freedom to protect ourselves and our families from tyrants and thieves. We had personal liberties, but we were united as a nation and had great faith in our nation. What has happened? Where did we go wrong?
We are a nation of hate. Turmoil. It’s a civil war not fought on battlefields, but across dinner tables and in forums. Is there any way to stop this aggressive ignorance that plagues our great nation? And when this nation has succumbed to such, where can we go from here?

I’m sorry, I know I went a bit off track, but it’s something that bothers me.

That’s not off track,

In reply to Max, you should know better.

I think you nailed it to a T. I hope we can find some way to stop the ignorance but I’m afraid that too many people have become so selfish and greedy that it will be torn down. I appreciate the way you worded it.

Thank you.

In reply to That’s not off track,

I often find myself deeply appalled at my generation and the one that is following it. I just wish there was something more I could do for my country. Right now I do what I can and try to pass on my values to my son and hope that one day our future will be our salvation.

Haven’t been outside of America??

In reply to Max, you should know better.

“That was the only day in my life that I have seen everyone from every walk of life joined together. ” I see it daily. Yes there are always some racist people to be found, but you really have to dig deep for one nowdays. I am used to all races and people livign in harmony, it doesn’t take terrorism to do it.

As far as separation of people, your media and you people have done that themselves. As politics is such a major forefront to ANYTHING said or done in America, it’s no wonder there is separation. Your parties are EXTREMES, wheras in Canada and England for example the parties are VERY closely aligned and you find that no matter what party you favour, nobody cares because it’s all the same crap anyway.

As for “What has happened? Where did we go wrong?”
in addition to the above comments, youvoted for Bush TWICE. There is a very smal portion of the world, infact only a portion f America, that deems him as a fit leader. The remaining 4 billion people think he’s a liar, a cheat and a fool, as are those who support him. You separated yourselves.

the medi ajust feeds on your own choice to shun th eother party, it allows them to feed you more and more radical stories, it allows them to play two sides and benefit from both.

if you weren’t so focused on who or what each other supported and then chastizing your fellowman for his decisions, it wouldn’t be so bad.

As far as the article itself, little comments like ‘zillion’ and ‘Muslim fanatics will not only try to destroy the Capitol, but also explode a nuclear bomb, if they can.’ this just takes away any iota of credibility the writer had to begin with, ESPECIALLY with such retarded comments such as his deciding to stay with AT&T because they release records (noting that in Canada such an invasion of personal privacy is illegal). The same laws that allow us to share files legally.

Gotta love America though, ‘land of the free’ (or whatever you guys are lead to believe) LOL. 🙂

It’s nice to see that Max can still find a story to support his conclusions though, even if this one is grasping at straws again.

Get off that horse.

In reply to Haven’t been outside of America??

Your horse is so high you’re in danger of scraping your head on the moon.

She was talking about the way in which a sense of togetherness settled over everyone, pretty much, not about a lack of race riots. I’ve been outside the US quite a lot, and I’ve gotta say, 9/11 in the US was overcome by a sense of quiet, of shared community, that I’ve never seen anywhere else. The usual road rage I’ve seen from El Cajon, CA, USA to Pisa, Italia was absent that day. The fact that a tiny white Fiat cutting off a huge truck in traffic in Italy, with people shaking their fists and honking their horns, doesn’t get as widely mentioned as the same thing happening somewhere in the US doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and doesn’t mean that all the world other than the US lives in perfect harmony like that stupid Coca Cola commercial from the early ’90s.

Well spoken.

In reply to Get off that horse.

I’m glad to see that some people truly understand.

Missing the point?

In reply to Get off that horse.

Yes I have commented many times that I was very impressed with the way the people of New York came together and I have also felt thier pain personally too. I too have lived in a country terrorized with bombing and senseless killing for years. It was resolved, for the time being, peacefully. No I am NOT suggesting that this issue can be resolved peacefully.

I am also NOT against the Iraq war, which too many seem to lump into one Anti-American, opposing force, regardless of the complaint.

The post I replied to was just too sickly sweet and went from remembering how New Yorkers came together to wondering why your political parties have separated the people insuch a way that it takes a terrorist act to make them realize they are all on the same page.

My point, once again for the visually impaired, is that I see this ‘political’ peace/acceptance between people in many developed, democratic nations on Earth, mainly with the exception of the USA.

I have always noticed that Americans place a far greater importance on knowing your political preference than anything else about you.
Usually, within a few sentences you wil be told, “that’s very socialist”, or “communist” or “conservative” or “your government ….in 1526!” whatever.

Politics is the forefront of opinion, obviously you don’t see it because you live it. I know other people who have moved south who can’t stand it, when I had offices there, it was brought up by every person I interviewed. They all somehow seemed to bring up politics. In contrast I don’t think I have EVER had a political discussion with a Canadian employer or client. Nothing beyond a ‘humph’ at something the US has done anyway.

Anyhow, from the outside looking in, if your media hadn’t fuelled the hatred from one party against another and helped the people create a wall where each party becomes an absolute opposite, it would be much easier to see common ground and harmony within your own country.

We all have our political problems but we don’t all dwell on politics, because it really doesn’t make much difference as the parties are very close in thier actions and focus. In he US it is one extreme or the other. Whoever is voted in makes the opposit eparty the enemy, I am sure once you have another democratic party in house it will be the same BS here but on the flip side. Republicans will become righty whiners and the left will become those who could never be wrong.

Black or white, no middle ground, no possible way to amicably resolve any issues.

You have a limited view of Americans, I think.

In reply to Missing the point?

I’m one of the most politically aware Americans I know, and I still tend to not know how someone votes for the first few months we know each other. I think you’re confusing the reactions in politically charged discussions online with the personalities of USians in general.

Frankly, I’d like to see more political awareness. There’s little in life as important as whether or not the humongous authority structure that creates the rules that run our lives is going to throw me in jail for something it’s well within my rights to do.

You’re right about the right and left wingnuts both being equally screwed. I just wish people would take a moment to realize that voting one’s conscience isn’t “throwing away a vote” just because it’s not for a Democrat or a Republican.

vote third party?

In reply to You have a limited view of Americans, I think.

Well, you can personally thank Ross Perot, because it was his splitting of the votes that got President William Jefferson Clinton elected in the first place.

While third parties get the word out, they do end up hurting the ideas they push because which ever major party is more in-line with them is the one that will lose votes and probably the election.

Ross Perot

In reply to vote third party?

And who among my American peers voted for Ross Perot? Why none other than our resident expert on American politics, Maxwell Edison.

Which really doesn’t say much for his understanding of the American political system.

false dilemma

In reply to vote third party?

Because of attitudes like yours, we’re stuck on a treadmill, cycling through two parties that consistently produce increasingly bad candidates.

I don’t much give a damn, most of the time, whether a Democrat or Republican ends up in office. We’re about equally screwed either way. Wake up and smell the jet fuel — until you start voting for someone that won’t just find inventive new ways to drive this country into the ground, you’ll be throwing away your vote on someone that will (predictably) continue driving this country into the ground. Gee, that’s a surprise.

Split the vote? Who gives a damn? So Petty Tyrant B wins instead of Petty Tyrant A. Big fat hairy deal. Until both the petty tyrants lose, it doesn’t matter.

Multiple Parties

In reply to vote third party?

When the US is governed by a coalition of parties and tackles each issue separately – that day I will cdelebrate.

One of our colleagues stated that we already have coalitions, but they are within each party, hashed out in primaries and such. I didn’t buy it then – the power is concentrated by the party leaders, and dissention is not well taken in either party.

In fact, I’d expand the argument to say that not only qould we be better served by debate from more angles, but that we would be better to consider single-item bills in the Legislative Branch. Were I president, I would demand single issue bills or veto everything.

You want money for a road to nowhere? Don’t add it to an education bill.

I WOULD bring the government to a halt, if that’s what it took. And I think the American People would support me in that. Think of all the money we could save and the better debate we could have on every issue!

Of course, with the current two party system, I could never be elected – my viewpoints would keep me out of favor with those who control the parties and so I could not get onto a ballot as a Democrat or a Republican. Without those tags how could I ever aspire to national office?

They are more alike than different.

In reply to Missing the point?

Both parties since Reagan have greatly expanded the role of the Federal government.

The argument is over who controls the bloated buraucracy. The media is left of the American people generally. Fox is more mainstream, note they have garnered a large and devoted following in a short time.

The more socialistic of our two parties is the Democratic party. You think the parties are polarized left and right. The parties are polarized left and far left. The Republican party of today is politically where the 1960’s Democrats were.

I know as I have basically kept the same core values and watch the whole spectrum move left.

The old right was free silver and fiscal restraint, no government regulations, extremely strict constructionists. Today there is no politico who is an old conservative. Pre-Barry Goldwater era Republicans are dead, and so are the ballancing political views to the right.

Today the Party of GoldWater is acting like the party of FDR.

not often.

In reply to Haven’t been outside of America??

I currently do not travel outside of the US, or even much within the US at this point. And what I have seen isn’t much. But you missed the point entirely. I grew up in Washington DC. I’ve been there through some very interesting things, but I cannot expect you to understand just what exactly happened nearly 5 years ago. It was a great uprising of patriotism that I had never before seen in my life.

Pardon me?

In reply to not often.

I am British????

We won the Battle of Britain, one of the most furios and noted air battles in history. A proud ‘country’ that came together to defeat Hitler’s attempts at invading Enland? You bet your life!

But besides living through two world wars and being attacked on our own soil, there was then the issue of the Irish Republic Army, thier trademark was to shoot and bomb in the most pulbic places they could. They bombed a train my mother was on one night after work, she got off safely. They bombed an outdoor concert in Hyde park, when my brother and I were just a half mile away eating an ice cream before going to the park ourselves. Yes I have been very closely affected and have seen the rise and togehterness of the people, without the fanfare.

Here’s an interesting comment from an article written in Washington Post: “The Irish terrorists were setting off their bombs across the ocean and not in New York or Boston, which somehow made the whole thing seem less real. But in Britain the explosions were real enough. In 1982 — the year an IRA bomb killed eight people in Hyde Park — four IRA men were arrested in New York after trying to buy surface-to-air missiles from an FBI agent. In 1984 — the year the IRA tried to kill the whole British cabinet in Brighton — an IRA plot to smuggle seven tons of explosives was foiled, an action that led to the arrests of several Americans. As recently as 1999, long after the IRA had declared its cease-fire, members of an IRA group connected to an American organization, the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid), were arrested for gun-running in Florida.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201943.html

Read it, you will probably find it quite humbling….well I wouldn’t expect you to be humbled but maybe you will understand that while so many Americans (such as yourself) feel nobody understands what you have been through,you are sorely wrong.

I actually really resent it when Americans make such comments. I’ve been there, id I blame the world around me for not supporting me? No.

Am I extremely proud to be a citizen of a country that has suffered so much and come back to be strong and prosperous? YES! You’re damn right I am.

Don’t think for one minute you are the only ones. I am not against ridding the Middle East of terrorists. I am not against helping people to rebuld and become a democracy. I am not opposed to ridding the world of repressive dictators.

I am simply adamantly oppossed to the tactics/lies used to justify the initial invasion and the fact that Bush did not live up to his promises to the allied nations and instead played cowboy with thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American tax dollars, and yet you continue to support it, seemingly as if it is all correct and just? More people ave died as a result of Bush’s actions than would have by his inaction. ALLIED coalition forces should/would have been there if the reasons were right, your allies are fighting terrorism all over the world, not just America.

Ah, whatever, you guys will only see inside anyway.

That is right

In reply to Pardon me?

It is sad that we don’t have the wisdom of the all seeing OZ.

Make your snide comments if you want.

Make your hateful comments if you want.

Beat your chest about how your proud to be a Brit, but damn well better not let any American do it.

Say what you want, you have long ago lost any credibiltiy in a discussion like this.

Take your own often repeaded advice and go give your head a shake. Maybe you will get some class, but it doesn’t look like it.

Girli made a very valid post, which you attacked. She doesn’t even rise to the attack, but simply explains something that means a lot to her. You attack again.

Nice. Half your age, yet twice as mature.

Oz, perhaps a different perspective

In reply to Pardon me?

Shortly after 9/11, conference calls were being made available to American students with Israeli students about the impact of terrorism. What we began to understand was that while we had managed through the Oklahoma City bombing and the first attack on the World Trade Center, we had not learned to cope with attack on our own soil.

I understand that you have been exposed to acts of terrorism via the IRA for many years. I suggest that you learned at least some coping mechanisms for this. Americans took a crash course in the weeks following 9/11. For the first time we were shown that we could be attacked. Were we living in a dream world that we didn’t believe it could happen to us? Possibly. Regardless of the pre 9/11 thought process, the post 9/11 thought process was dramatically different.

ITGirli is right- the sense of that day was very different from anything we had ever seen. I saw people reaching out to comfort strangers, people I had only passed on the street suddenly stopping and asking after you- Are you okay, is you family okay? Do you have family in New York, in Washington DC? The smoking area outside the building, normally a conversational area, became more so. We stood together around whatever media source we coud find. The air was different, people were different. The downtown streets cleared but the curbs were jammed with people who had pulled over to listen to reports on their radios or make cell calls.

I understand that you might have had a different experience. I also know that the collective American experience of 9/11 was something that we had never seen before. And while I valued the courtesy of the people on that day, I don’t want to experience it again in that way.

Until 911 Our oceans on either side of us were thought to be our protection

In reply to Oz, perhaps a different perspective

All the world’s terror problems were “Over there” not “Over HERE”. We could have our people support their native causes “Over There” because it wasn’t our problem.

It was considered kind of American Irish Chic to support the IRA… We had fought for independence against Britain. That is how it was portrayed to me, when I was in Boston by an IRA member. A fight for independence. I laughed at him, and told him to go pound sand. He tried to get me to donate to his cause. I wouldn’t but others did donate.For that I am ashamed that Americans were too stupid to see what was really happening.

That’s right, many were too stupid. They’d even gave money to help patch up the survivors via the red cross. Dumb…

It is a small wonder, OZ, that you despise the current American policies. Let me give you one point on that. But It is way over the top, the way you despise Bush and our leadership. How can you work to fix something you would completely alienate? To fix something of this nature you must seduce it to your opinion, not beat on it with a 2×4. I hate to be political when I would rather use the 2×4 myself.

Without fanfare.

In reply to Pardon me?

I agree many countries have been fighting such similar battles. India for one has been waging a tough battle for decades now. Especially against the Islamo-Fascist terrorists and Maoists Rebels.

Thank you

In reply to Without fanfare.

But I never said other countries did not have the same experiences. I merely stated that it had a profound response on Americans when it hit home. I made no statement about any other country, just that it had a great effect here. I was recalling impressions I experienced. I am not at all sorry if you feel the need to attack me for such remarks.

I did not attack…

In reply to Thank you

You or the Americans. I merely agreed with Oz on how other countries have been dealing with the terrorism, and gave India as an example because [b]ALL[/b] the terrible things that happen do not come to the world light (and I know something about India). Sometimes I feel India is handling it right, and sometimes handling it wrong. We have home-grown and externally aided terroristic acts, so I just brought it to attention here.

I did not mean or neither intend to snatch any amount of [b]righteous[/b] hurt or anger from Americans for what happened on 9/11.

Please rest assured that I was not attacking you on your remarks or your feelings/thoughts towards your country or terrorism.

I am neither humbled nor impressed

In reply to Pardon me?

I did not make any (written or otherwise) attacks against your current country of residence nor your country of origin, did I? Yet you attack mine. Seems that by vocalizing my observations and impressions that occured after my homeland suffered a great travesty that I’ve warranted your caustic sermon. I disagree with you.

ITgirli

In reply to I am neither humbled nor impressed

I AM both humbled and impressed by your grace. Oz is being a shameless id10t on this one.

When will people learn to attack the ISSUE and not the individual? By chosing this route, Oz has set himself up to be the pivot in an US (American) vs THEM (Non American) arguement that really has no place in this discussion.

You carry yourself with uncommon grace and style. I commend you highly.

get used to it Tig

In reply to ITgirli

this is how OZ ALWAYS is when it comes to discussing America.

As I said in my other post, he has no credibility in the political posts anymore because this is how he gets everytime.

Sad really.

What girli said…

In reply to Pardon me?

…had nothing to do with Iraq and our country’s involvement there. Nor did she make any comparison between the US’ and other countries’ trials and tribulations and internal squabbling of other. Why does everything from some non-Americans always have to fall back on the same old “America is evil” theme?

Off track or not- you’re right

In reply to Max, you should know better.

I was two floors above the local FBI office on 9/11. I had a family member working on government in Washington DC. I had an acquaintance working in Tower One. The day was interesting to say the least.

What struck me at the time- still does- was a feature that a local paper ran in the week following the attack. It was a compliation of childrens drawings and essays about the attacks. One essay was submitted by an 11 year old boy who was basically saying “Hey it’s great that suddenly everyone is recognising Police and Firefighters for the jobs they do but what about last week when all anybody could do was criticise them? Suddenly everybody loves law makers and the President but last week everyone commplained about them. And what makes me sick is that next week you won’t care at all”. And what made me sick in reading that was that this 11 year old was right.

Sure enough, we reverted back to the generalised attitude of “It’s all ________ fault”. Fill in the blank based on the conversation.

I was married to an active duty sailor during Desert Storm/Sheild. When I went to our local Mayor to request permission to place yellow ribbons on City property as a show of support in a town that had 4 Navy bases, 1 Air Force base, and an Army base within 30 miles, I was told that “local service people get enough support already”. Colour me very surprised when, as casualties started counting up, that tune changed. And changed again- about 2 years later, in a conversation with friends, I was hearing all the things that the Military had done wrong.

We live in the court of public opinion. I don’t know if people just feel so disenfranchised that the natural response to everything has become, “I can’t do ANYHING. It must be the fault of people who can do SOMETHING”.

I don’t particularly care for GWB. I had the pleasure of meeting his father and mother whom I liked. But regardless of how I feel about the man, he IS the president of my country. I think that we have lost that sense- when I was a kid we were taught to honour Police, Firefighters, and yes- the President of the country. We no longer teach that to our children.

I realise that I have kinda gone all over the board with this post. I agree that we must choose to do something about the apathetic ignorance that has spread like wildfire throughout the country. I don’t know that we will accomplish that in my lifetime. In order to shake off apathy, one must first recognise it.

Keep on asking the questions and raising the issue. We can no longer sit back and wait for the government to carry us along. We must, as a Nation, decide what we stand for.

Thank you, Tig.

In reply to Off track or not- you’re right

I’m sorry for what you had to go through in all cases and I appreciate your empathy.

Right on!

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

we’ll just have to round up all the un-believers. Make them wear ‘I hate bush’ stickers, similar to what the Iranians want to do by making all non-muslims wear badges.

Now that phone companies are co-operating, we can arrest anyone who calls a ‘bush-hater’. Might have to oust Castro and use the whole island as a ‘bush-hater-terrorists’ prison camp.

And we’ll raise the deficit by another 7 trillion to pay for it all! No more taxes, we’ll just have the fed-reserve loan made-up money each night to expand the economy! Ye-haw! Ride-em!

Woops, not supposed to associate cowboys, who could be gay, with bush. And I’m sure we can depend on the wimpy dems to not say a word.

Would make the US a better place. Can’t have people making fun of bush. Arrest them too. That Daily Show fellow will be their martyr.

Guy Falk masks (made in China) for all!!

Bush Bashing Is the Most Patriotic Thing

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

Any and every US citizen who bashes GWB and his administration is more of a patriot than ANY soldier who sacrifices his life in Iraq.

Not that our soldiers are not patriots, they are, and deserve every honor we can bestow upon them. It just takes more courage and internal strength to stand up to the very real threat that the Bush administration presents to our democracy and way of life.

Our continued and inappropriate presence in Iraq is doing more to strengthen the Islamic terrorist networks than it is in helping the cause of peace and democracy.

Why is it that those on the lunatic right label anyone who opposes the Bush doctrine as a Bush hater?

I contend that deep down, they know how week and ineffective GWB is as a leader.

One does not need to hate GWB to see how bad his policies are for both the short and long term health of our democracy and freedoms.

Even George Orwell would be astonished at how the Bush administration is moving this country headlong into a level of monitoring and spying that would make a KGB agent blush.

The people supporting GWB and making excuses for his mis-steps and mis-deeds are the chicken littles running away scared of a threat akin to a flea boxing with an elephant.

The true patriots in the US today are those working to expose the deceit and under-handed actions of the Bush administration.

And Max, I don’t hate GWB.
True, I am proud to be an early Bush Basher. But, I don’t hate him.
Dislike, yes.
Despise, perhaps.
Distrust, definitely.

Plus, now that GWB is functionally a lame duck, it is easy to look at the lack of accomplishments over the last 6 years and restate my claim that history will judge GWB as one of the 10 worst US Presidents.

Chas

Well spoken

In reply to Bush Bashing Is the Most Patriotic Thing

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=195147&messageID=2017151

😀

Like I said, if a democratic party takes office, it will be the same crap from the other side. It’s like two boxers, who will be in the red corner for the next four years? Come to think of it, your election polls are in blue and red, just like a boxing ring. Man, if you could only get your political differences to be less extreme it would be so much easier.

Chas, a point I would like to make

In reply to Bush Bashing Is the Most Patriotic Thing

There is a big difference between disagreeing with policies Bush has made or anything he has done, and people using partisan politics to gain power.

When people are hoping things go poorly for the country, because it will make Bush look bad and Democrats look good, they are NOT heros or patriots. They are trators and scum.

A large portion of the Bush Haters can’t even tell you in their own words WHY they hate him.

There are even people out there that think we DESERVED to have the 911 attack, but they forget that nothing that brought on the 911 attack had ANYTHING to do with Bush. Why is this? Do you have an answer for the attack which resulted from the Clinton Administration, yet no one seems to care about that?

Do you think it is now in ANYONES best interest to pull out of Iraq today?

Screaming hate does not make you a patriot. It just makes you hateful.

good points

In reply to Chas, a point I would like to make

You make very good points. While I find Bush’s policies to be a severe threat to this nation, along with those of his cabinet and other direct support, you’re certainly right about everything you just said. I’ve actually heard people say they hope there’s a terrorist attack that makes Bush look bad. That sort of talk just makes me wish that the next terrorist attack would kill nobody but terrorists and the people who want terrorists to blow something up to make Bush look bad. That’s unethical behavior of the worst kind: wanting others to commit heinous, unpardonable acts just to further some pointless political aim (getting a Democrat in office instead of a Republican hardly has a point), and not even being willing to be the perpetrator and to take responsibility for his own wishes. There’s nothing positive in that at all. At least a suicide bomber (may he rot in Hell) has the courage of his convictions.

Not quite

In reply to Chas, a point I would like to make

Are sure that does who oppose the administration’s policies only do it to gain political power, and they don’t even know their motives? I’ve talked to people that strongly do oppose the president, and they do have clear reasons why they oppose him. They say that such a tight election in 2000 is forgivable, and some of even forgive him for squandering the budget surplus shortly after his election. But what really pisses them off is everything else that came afterwards.

Although GWB was not directly involved in 9/11 they do despise him for what he did before, during, and after it, of how he received intelligence information about the attack well in advance and did nothing about it, of how it took so long for him to react during 9/11, and how digressed to issue to Iraq and the so-called weapons of mass destruction threat, which turned out to be non-existent, of how he attempted to connect it to 9/11 but then shortly after contradicted himself, among other issues.

They don’t hate him personally, but they do find a lot of his policies to be highly questionable, and all of it just continue to diminish their trust in him. Perhaps the following sites can help you better understand this:

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LEB112A.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm

Aldanatech, We heard that someday the sun will go Nova.

In reply to Not quite

You have been warned. Now do something about it. I don’t know when, how far in the future or how, but it will happen…

It was this kind of warning from Al Gore’s Air traffic commission. He was in office two years after the warning. Neither he nor Clinton did anything about it.

Every intelligence agency was wrong about Iraq, or did stuff get hidden. Hey! we just found another MIG25 in Iraq sands… Do you think there may be gas canisters somewhere?

Bush had never received the warning, nor had his staff a decent transition. Clinton locked them out until the innauguration. A Transition team should have fully briefed both Bush and Gore teams. Until the shouting was over.

After that, Clinton should have had his people cooperate rather than vandalize our property. Missing W on all keyboard and phones damaged on their last day. That should have been treated as serious criminal acts. We had to pay $$$ to fix the problems…

Bingo!

In reply to Chas, a point I would like to make

JD, You said it well, I was much more caustic.

He has the right to be an idiot, that he has so well exercised.

He demeans our war dead.

He is jetsam.

Hey Sandy, can you get me a HLAV15 for 2 hours… Have them leave the keys by the 50 Cal Browning…

Ill will and traitors

In reply to Chas, a point I would like to make

“There is a big difference between disagreeing with policies Bush has made or anything he has done, and people using partisan politics to gain power.”

And the republicans didn’t do this with Clinton? C’mon now, this is the sad state of affairs that has become the status quo in politics.

“When people are hoping things go poorly for the country, because it will make Bush look bad and Democrats look good, they are NOT heros or patriots. They are trators and scum.”

Hmmm…I know a lot of liberals, but I don’t know a single one that wants anything but the best for our economy, our military and our citizens. Many Right-wing pundits wanted to make Clinton look bad or spouted mis-information or rumours during his presidency, just as some lefties are doing to bush. Does that make Limbo, Coulter, Savage and Hannity traitors too? Did you want things to go wrong for Clinton because you hate him so much? If so, you are a traitor by your own definition.
BTW, treason is punishible by death and “Hoping things go wrong for the country…” does not have action. Therefore, you believe people should be put to death for a “Thought Crime”!!!! How absurd!!!

Expressing disagreement regarding the President’s administration (any administration) DOES NOT mean wishing ill for the nation and it CERTAINLY does not make one a traitor.

“Do you think it is now in ANYONES best interest to pull out of Iraq today?”

My personal opinion on this is no, not yet, not until they have a stable government. We have made promises to the Iraqi people and we should keep them.

JD, you really seem to love to accuse others of “screaming hate”, you do it often. In my experience, the ones who so vehemently accuse others of a particular thing see that very thing staring out at them every morning when they look in the mirror.

Well Phred, please explain yourself

In reply to Ill will and traitors

A reference to when I have screamed hate would be a nice start.

Politics. Did I ever say that the same thing didn’t happen during the Clinton Administration? No, I did not, but unlike you, I am not using that as an excuse to allow it now.

Partisan politics is destroying the country because [b]both sides[/b] are more interested in making the other side look bad and them good, than EITHER are of doing the right thing.

And there is a big difference between “expressing disagreement” and the hateful politics of the day.

Excuse me from not recognising you from another discussion, but it appears you know far more about me than I do about you. Going through your brief history as a poster here on TR, you have had exactly ONE post that was not anti-Bush, and that was to wish Julian a happy birthday. Got issues?

And take your own advice, as you said

[i]”BTW, dispense with the ?But?Clinton did it!? attitude that has turned into such a defense of the right-wing. Two wrongs do not make a right. Our nation and our constitution are far more important than bi-partisanship.”[/i]

It’s called “projection”, JD

In reply to Well Phred, please explain yourself

I was commenting on your love of accusing others of being hateful, you use this so often that it seems to be projection.

“Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.”

I not about to go searching in your plethora of postings for an exact quote, I?m too busy for that. I would go as far as to say that within the posters at TR you are at least withing the top 3 for posting things that could easily be construed as hateful. A few that I do remember were blanket statements against Muslims, perhaps I will just wait until your evitable post in the future with an example and comment then.

I brought up Clinton to illustrate that you and the pundits that seem to be the source of your rhetoric are most likely guilty of treason by your own definition. I am sorry if you cannot comprehend that.

Like you, someone wishing for bad things to happen to the nation just to ?make Bush look? makes me ill. However, unlike you, I don?t believe that it is up to you or me or anyone else to not ?allow? it. People thoughts cannot and should not be policed.

Yet you, and others on the far right call this, as well as speaking out against the Bush administration, traitors. This is a VERY serious charge which is punishible by death (there has been less than 40 Federal prosecutions for treason and fewer convictions than that) and an accusation should not be issued lightly, especially when there is no act involved. The very idea that someone can be tried as a traitor based upon a thought or speech is a very, very frightening road.

Fortunately, there is already a precedence that will keep people like you from prosecuting people for speech or thought.

Wimmer v. United States, 1920
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

?If we had to do with a case where the conduct which was prosecuted consisted of acts, we would have to consider the line of reasoning upon which Wimmer depends. That Congress has power to take hold of an act which is, in fact, treason, and to say that it shall be severely punished, without the proof which is required to establish treason, and to justify this result because the conduct is given another name, is a proposition which we have no occasion to affirm or deny. Here the only conduct alleged or proved, as making out the offense, consisted of oral statements ? words only. It is well settled that one cannot, by mere words, be guilty of treason…. and thus the fallacy of Wimmer’s contention becomes apparent. It is a mistake to say that the intent is the thing which makes the treason, and that where the disloyal intent is there treason is. The requirement that there shall be two witnesses is purely evidential, but when the requirement is extended to proof of the overt act, it becomes clear that there must be an overt act to constitute the crime, and the act is incorporated into the definition. Thus we find, in the constitutionally defined crime, two elements, the intent and the act; neither is dominant. Intent minus act is not treason, any more than act minus intent is. Since it was declared by Chief Justice Marshall in the Bollman Case, 4 Cranch, 75, 2 L. Ed. 554, it has never been doubted that Congress may punish, under the ordinary rules of prosecution and without trenching upon the constitutional limitation as to treason, acts which are of a seditious nature and tend toward treason, but which are not of the direct character and superdangerous degree which would meet the constitutional test and make them treason; and even more must this be true of words.
Further distinction is found in the very words of the constitutional definition. Treason is “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Both adherence and giving aid are necessary. To “favor or support” is, very likely, to “adhere”; but it does not carry the idea of giving aid and comfort, unless by a rather remote implication. Hence it may well be said that adherence by words only is an offense quite distinct from treason.?

JD, I don?t see why it matters, nor why you even bring up my ?brief history? of posting here at TR, or the fact that the few times I have posted it has been ?Anti-bush?. I am too busy to comment on every little thing, I simply read posts while running queries, rebooting servers, etc. So I have only posted on things that I feel strongly about. One of my ?issues? happens to be people ignorantly (or closet fascists for that matter) screaming ?TREASON!!!? Another would be the action of the Bush administration. In my opinion, they are systematically increasing the power of the presidency and limiting the checks and balances, and the Republican controlled Congress is allowing them to do it. To me, this is a very bad precedence for all future presidents. Believe it or not, I am NOT a Clinton fan, nor am I comfortable to have Hillary doing the same thing if she ever becomes president (god forbid), are you?

Prosecuting people for thoughts or for speaking out is something one expects from fascist regimes, not the United States.

Look deep into the mirror JD! 🙂

Well, project THIS!

In reply to It’s called “projection”, JD

Well, it is friday, so I had to have SOME fun with the title. ;\

I only pointed out your selected posts to show that you seem to have a pattern and it is all anti-bush. Is there nothing else in your life that you care about? Lord, man! there HAS to be something else of interest?

By looking for civil discourse makes me a hateful person? Here I always just thought I was being open to civil discussions with intellegent people. Silly me?

Free speech always has a cost. If you intentionally say something hateful, there are consequences. Free speech just means people can not physically stop you from expressing your opinions. It does NOT mean other people can’t use THEIR free speech to either counter what you say or hold you accountable for what you say.

Hate for fundimental Islamics that do suicide bombings or hack off peoples heads, oh you bet. I would personally throw them in the vat of pig blood before turning on the blender.

But then I also feel hate for the group here in the US that has also perverted the Christian faith and are going around protesting at the funerals of our soldiers, saying this is gods revenge for accepting gays. These people are a disgrace as well, and thank GOD for the Patriot Guard for standing between them and the families.

Oh yeah, I feel a mild amount of hate for my ex-wife as well, but I am not consumed by it.

I don’t even hate Willian Jefferson Clinton. I think he would be a great guy to go party with.

Well, it is friday, and even if it is raining (which it is), it is still too nice a day to let other peoples hate get me in a bad mood. Off to more upbeat topics from people with less negative outlooks on the day! B-)

Be well.

On Iraq and 9/11

In reply to Chas, a point I would like to make

Since the attacks that took place on 9/11 were purported to have taken over 8 years to execute, one can neither point to GWB or Slick Willie as the impetus for the attacks.

One can make a case that the covert support that the Reagan and first Bush administration provided to those in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets both trained the terrorists and provided a seed for attacking the US when our support was both tepid and insufficient.

I do believe that if the Bush administration had not been so singlemindedly focused on Saddam Husein and Iraq that they might have connected the dots and been able to stop or at least disrupt the 9/11 plot.

I said so before the war, and I still say that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do.
Invading Iraq has not made life safer or reduced the threat or prospects of a terrorist attack.

I do think we need to stay in Iraq until they have a functioning government and police force.
However, I don’t think that the American voter is going to accept how long that will take.
It does not matter who the next President is, they will have no choice but to reduce troop levels significantly, if not get us completely out of Iraq.
Further, the fatalist in me says it does not matter if we leave Iraq today or 10 years from now. The outcome will be the same. Shortly after our troops leave Iraq, a very fractious civil war will break out.

True enough, spewing hatred does not make one a patriot. However, questioning the actions, motives and bringing to light the misdeeds of an unjust administration does.

Chas

Chas

In reply to On Iraq and 9/11

I did not say the entire attack was President Clintons fault, but the terrorists did not come to this country to get their flight school training until after he was in office.

tjsanko also completely covered the issue about the Clinton administration NOT working with the Bush administration in a clean handoff of the office, and did everything they could to be disruptive.

Also you can go back and note the massive cuts that the Clinton administration did to our intellegence departments.

I wish as well that we never would have gone into Iraq. While the idea of Democrocy is a great ideal, when you have a savage nation that can only be held in check by someone more savage, I don’t see democrocy or freedom catching on. And the Iraqies have shown that they are hell bent to kill anyone around them. This is shown by the same civil war you have projected, that you can even be Islamic, but the wrong flavor, and you will be deserving death.

And yes, there is nothing unpatriotic about bringing up misdeeds, provide it is done properly and they truly are misdeeds.

Just like there were not massive lockups for the big hubbub for Clinton, there will not be for Bush either. That is because MOST of it is ONLY dirty politics.

“one of the 10 worst US Presidents.”

In reply to Bush Bashing Is the Most Patriotic Thing

I will now give you the quote of the century:

“I consider George Bush to be an honest and honorable man, and the best person to fill the position in 100 years.”

Author: Maxwell Edison, circa early 2003.

Well I wait with bated breath for Maxwell to list all the presidents since 1903 who were worse than Bush.

I’ll go back a bit

In reply to “one of the 10 worst US Presidents.”

1. Wm Henry Harrison. Killed himself by giving 2 hour inaugural address in freezing rain. 8 day Presidency. To dumb to live.

2. Herbert Hoover- He didn’t realize there was a bubble that would burst and create the depression.

3. Lyndon Baynes Johnson – the most obscene and vulgar man ever to fill the office of the president. He escallated Vietnam and he and other politicos micro managed US involvement.

4. Jimmy Carter- currently a traitor, and I am still paying a salary (retirement) to this clown.
A Nobel peace prize for making N.Korea a Nuclear power.

5. James K. Polk

6. Useless S. Grant – See the name.

7. D.D. Eisenhower – Warned us about the Militry-industrial complex, then he gave up and played golf.

8. Gerald Ford – Only one highlight- the Mayaguez incident.

9. William McKinley – Did nothing significant but died.

10. Woodrow Wilson – Kept the US out of WW I way too long…

I still think that GWB is their equal or worse.

In reply to I’ll go back a bit

Now TJ do you mind if I order that list from worst to well, least worst.

Equal 1st – GWB and LBJ – Lead the US into stupid and ridiculously difficult to win wars.

2 – Carter – I’ll take your word that he was a traitor (I don?t know anything about carter so if you could give some details it would be appreciated) which puts him at #2.

3 – Harrison – if you don?t have the stones to be president, don?t run.

4 – Hoover – It’s raining people in NY but the economy is just fine.

5 – Grant and Eisenhower – Good generals don?t make good presidents. I think it was Max who said there was no difference between being a military leader and being a political leader. This should blow that theory out of the water.

6 – Polk, Ford, McKinley – They did nothing, this doesn?t make them bad just not good.

7 – Wilson – Was just following the popular opinion of the day. Whilst you and I may disagree (hindsight is a wonderful thing TJ) but it probably saved the US a Dunkirk-like embarrassment.

Carter

In reply to I still think that GWB is their equal or worse.

Carter broke an unwritten rule regarding ex-presidents by critizing Bush, and I believe he did this while speaking in another country.

Neocon wackos consider this treason simply because he actually spoke up against Bush AND had the audacity to do it in another country. GASP!!!!

Carter is not now, nor ever has been a traitor. TJ is completely ignorant of Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and the court cases regarding treason which have happened since.

He’s just one of those nutbags that thinks that one can give “aid and comfort” simply by exercising free speech without an overt act.

Chaz Patriot = BUSH BASHER, No way.

In reply to Bush Bashing Is the Most Patriotic Thing

You brown nosed, mucus licking blivit.

How dare you dishonor our dead! Either lowering them to your level is an insult, or raising yourself to impugn their sacrifice.

You want to be their equal of the lowest guy to strap on a helmet, go to Iraq, or Saudi and get the terrorists to come out and negotiate a permanent cease fire and truly lasting peace. Get them to respect us, and to help to fix the mess this world is without adding to it. Since that isn’t possible with people who want nothing but to destroy you, so I hope you can understand the contempt in which I hold you is below that of a cur.

You aren’t putting your life on the line to protect others. You want to be equal to even the guy on the chow line, then go join up. They are doing the best job in harsh conditions and sacrificing their time, irreplaceable, and potentially their bodies or their lives…

Flapping your gums, or banging a keyboard isn’t one millionth as patriotic as a guy who’d get cut on a P49 opening a can of beans to feed the men in battle.

Someone who makes that asinine statement about our dead troopers, is to big an idiot to make it through basic.

Great reply

In reply to Chaz Patriot = BUSH BASHER, No way.

I started to reply to this pond scum last night but stopped myself because I was afraid of violating a TOS.

I’m in the reserves, my girl is Active Duty U.S. Army, and I find Chas’ comments to be beyond the pale. It is obvious this induhvidual never wore a uniform.

Dishonoring the military is one of the worst things you can do. Calling the left wing nut jobs more patriotic than the sactifice my brothers and sisters in uniform have made is assinine.

Support the Troops!

Navy Moose

I am going to hate myself in the morning…

In reply to Great reply

I salute your service, and your girl’s service to our country.

I respect TheChaz’s right to be an id10t.

After 10 years as a Navy Wife

In reply to Great reply

I can only salute you and your partner for the sacrifices you choose to make for the country we share.

And I CAN say that because I KNOW just exactly what those sacrifices are.

You are to be honoured, sir, not denigrated. Ever.

YEah

In reply to After 10 years as a Navy Wife

Lets all get on our knees and give him a hummer.

I have a lot of respect fo rthose who place their lives in a retards hands and go to war in his name, it still doesn’t mean that human beings are infallible once they join the force. You guys will pounce all over someone who serves his country and speaks out against the corruption seen while in the forces. But if he doesn’t have anything but sunshine and rainbows, mixed in with some good yarns for the grandkids, you will supoprt him.

I have never seen such a hypocritical nation of people before, and I’ve seen a lot of nations and many people in them.

you

In reply to YEah

are an ass.

Oz

In reply to YEah

Is this really you? Is there some reason you are attacking everyone personally? Do you honestly respect anyone? Do you respect yourself after the way you’ve attacked everyone?
“Lets all get on our knees and give him a hummer.

I have a lot of respect for those who place their lives in a retards hands and go to war in his name, it still doesn’t mean that human beings are infallible once they join the force.”

Where is there the least bit of respect in that? Does being an arse make you feel like a bigger person? This is low, even for you.

oh :0

In reply to Oz

Now. I just got it – :0
I thought he was talking about those big 4-wheel-drive vehicles that resemble what we have in the millitary. :8}
(and I was wondering WHY would somebody want one of those?)

(yea, yea, I fixed something)

Your lack of knowledge rears it’s ugly head

In reply to Great reply

You have absolutely NO idea who Chas is do you? Your post proves your knee jerk ignorance towards an Americans right to protest the government’s actions.

Or did you create a list of ammendments that only applies when you like what people have to say? Sorry but your dear Lord Bush would even allow Chas to speak.

LOL

In reply to Chaz Patriot = BUSH BASHER, No way.

“Get them to respect us,” Riiiiight, just as you respect them!

No…saying they kicked you first is not a worthy reply for mirroring their hatred. Your soldier don’t feel that way, in fact your soldiers have learned to turn from angry revenge to trying to prove they are NOT that ignorant towards terrorists.

All you need to do is start reading these posts and you realize just how different opinions in America are from the opinions and actions of the troops reporting back from Iraq.

Polarization

In reply to Bush Bashing Is the Most Patriotic Thing

At the risk of offending just about everybody, its time for me to climb the soapbox.

Chas, I am truly saddened. I see your passion and frankly its good that you care so much. But its one thing to argue the effectiveness and the decisions of the president – thats your right. Its another to drag the military into this. The soldier doesn’t have the right to decide if and where they will serve. They volunteer to put themselves in harms way, and someone else tells them where to go.

You can’t seem to separate someone’s political stance from their feelings about their country. I don’t exclude the idea that someone protesting the government can be patriotic. If that weren’t the case, all the rebels of the American revolution would not be considered patriots.

But for pity’s sake, you can’t suggest that the anti-Bush anti-Government types are the “true patriots in the US today”. That is just as narrow as how you are trying to portray the war hawks.

I will illustrate with a non Iraq example. My father in law served in the military for 40 years. He lead a regiment. He was prepared to die for his country. Yet in his personal views, he doesn’t support Canada’s mission in Afghanistan ( or the US in Iraq). We differ on Afghanistan, we agree on Iraq, but we don’t see each other as enemies. If he was still in the military and if his unit was committed to Iraq, he may not agree with the mission, but he would go, to serve his country and to do his best by the troops.

It is just as wrong for you to declare that “the true patriots today are….” and exclude those who don’t share your opinion as it is for those “lunatic right” wingers to say the same.

By saying so, all you do is futher deepen the divide. And frankly that doesn’t help resolve anything.

No matter who wins or loses the next election, it will require co-operation from both sides to bring this thing to an end. By throwing around this kind of rhetoric, you aren’t helping that happen.

I’ve seen lots of documentaries on soldiers currently serving in Iraq. Some soldiers agree with the mission, some don’t, but that makes no difference whatsoever in how they feel about their country. They serve their country and each other. The bullets and bombs that come their way don’t distinguish between pro and anti bush supporters.

I’m not suggesting that you are the only one who is contributing to this polarization, far from it. There are those on both sides who are throwing around loaded rhetoric which further serves to divide. But your comparison is so self serving and just plain wrong, I can’t let it pass without comment.

James

Official Secrets Act

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

This act prohibits any secretive information from being made public. This is a lot more restrictive on the type and amount of information that can be stored and classified under this act (Especially compared to the patriot act) and our governments (British and dominion) are less inclined to use it unless necessary. Official secrets are normally declassified after a certain amount of time.

Off topic a bit, one thing that comes to mind is when Himler was captured after he flew to Britain to surrender he wrote a note to Winston Churchill. Churchill never showed this to anyone, He put the note in his drawer and shortly before the end of the war he took the note out of his drawer and burnt it. No one knew what was on that note, it kind of makes me curious what Himler had to say, was it strategic info or political posturing?.

When a campaign of spying is waged by a government against its own people it is difficult to tell the difference between a whistle-blower and someone who just wants to get back at a government they don?t like.

Certain secret should be kept but the more widely a secret is spread the more difficult it is to keep hence restrictions on the Official Secrets Act. Wholesale domestic surveillance should not be covered under any kind of Secrets Act.

Uncovering secrets for political gain is despicable. Tantamount to treason (if this were enforced we would have to charge every polly we have with treason).

However this article is pro-bush propaganda, just as sickening, by proxy using the leakage of sensitive information as political leverage (propaganda to sway opinion). Bush is not a fit leader but your current political system seems to be a perfect breeding ground for unfit leaders.

Interesting that you should mention this, because Bush …

In reply to Official Secrets Act

himself has engaged in selective leaking as served his purposes.

To cover his ass, he first exercised his powers as Commander-in-Chief to de-classify that which he wished leaked!

Can you say “hypocrite?”

He is the one with the authority, Sandy.

In reply to Interesting that you should mention this, because Bush …

Don’t be a moron… He has the highest authority, and it is 100% legal.

He answers to only to Impeachment, or the highest authority.

But, still hypocritical.

In reply to He is the one with the authority, Sandy.

It’s the equivalent of saying that he alone gets to determine what the facts are; that he is the final arbiter of truth.

He’s a President, [b]not[/b] a King!

Isn’t the president still answeable to the people?

In reply to He is the one with the authority, Sandy.

I think the terms “authority” and “power” need to be redefined in US govt.

Yes the president is the highest “authority” but is by far not the highest “power” and should be reminded at every turn that they are not beyond reproach.

[i]”Answers only to impeachment”[/i]

Don?t you think he should answer to the people he represents? and answer to them frequently.

Not as easy as that

In reply to Isn’t the president still answeable to the people?

In practical terms, the president answers to the people every 4 years. Short of that, it would take an impeachment to over-rule him. But the president doesn’t have unlimited powers, far from it. The American system is often discussed as a tri-partite system – the judiciciary (supreme court), Congress and the Presidency all have powers and in some ways act as a check and balance against each other. The President needs Congress to get bills/laws passed. The Congress needs presidential approval on bills/laws (yes if I remember correctly Congress can get around a Presidential veto, but it is time consuming and difficult).

The President is more directly accountable to the people than a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. Conversely though, its easier to change Prime Ministers – ask John Major for example.

James

Or Gough Whitlam

In reply to Not as easy as that

There should be a distinction between “authority” and “power”. as the old saying goes “power corrupts” but authority is given to you (for the most part) under the understanding that the power is held by other people and you are just a nexus for action.

In my opinion Democracy, which has served us so well for many hundreds of years is beginning to fail us as the world grows beyond the scope of democracy as viewed by it’s creators (Instant communication was never envisioned by even when Australia voted on federation in 1904).

The system needs to be redesigned, the ideals of democracy are still good but their implementation needs to be updated. Democracy V2 if you will. One such idea could be to elect each ministry independently rather than with a party vote (Eg. ministry of finance, education, IR and so on). Of course the details of this would need to be worked out. Most of all the development of version 2 of democracy should be an ongoing process, continually improving upon itself and not fixed in stone like many as facets of current democracies.

But maybe this is just another one of my crazy ideas.

Mike

Lame ducks are hard to shoot.

In reply to Isn’t the president still answeable to the people?

Short of impeachment, a President in his 2nd term is pretty much untouchable.

As a result, many of them unduly focus on their “legacy,” and feel more free to take gambles that they might not have during their 1st term. For many of them, these gambles backfire, thus ultimately diminishing their historical stature.

2nd terms are oft times unkind. For more on such, read below StratFor report.

————————————————–

GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT, 11.01.2005

The Bush Presidency: Can It Survive?
By George Friedman

Last week, President George W. Bush’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, withdrew her nomination after being savaged from all directions. Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was indicted on a series of charges having to do with the investigation of a White House leak. And the president of Iran said that Israel has to be wiped off the face of the map. None of these events, by themselves, rise to the level of historical significance. But the three taken together, along with other signs and portents, might well be of enormous significance.

We have long argued that one of the primary reasons for the invasion of Iraq was the Bush administration’s need to demonstrate to the world in general and the Muslim world in particular that the United States not only has the stomach for war, but also can be decisively victorious. This capacity has not been obvious to anyone, including Americans, since the Vietnam War. Rightly or wrongly, it had become an id?e fixe that the United States shied away from wars in general and from potentially extended wars in particular.

Now we are in a period of warfare when the power of the U.S. president — due to a variety of factors — has become uncertain. And that is no trivial matter to either the United States or a host of foreign powers.

The Presidency: A Decisive Force?

In wartime, the power of the U.S. president is critical. It is the job of a skillful politician in wartime to do whatever it takes to keep the presidency strong and decisive. And as history shows, presidents who are able to hold the political center and act decisively– despite challenges faced in the war or on other political fronts — will survive. Franklin D. Roosevelt led the United States through a series of unmitigated disasters — surviving more than a year of defeat and confusion — because he nurtured confidence among the public and carefully manipulated situations so as to deflect blame from himself. Adm. Husband Kimmel, the commander-in-chief of the Pacific region, was fired after Pearl Harbor; Roosevelt was not.

Conversely, the center did not hold under Lyndon B. Johnson. His legitimacy and credibility as a warfighting president collapsed with startling swiftness when his own party turned on him — and the opposition, though still supporting the war, never had any confidence in his warfighting strategy. Roosevelt survived the fall of the Philippines; Johnson could not even survive the Tet Offensive.

Therefore, the question that Bush now faces is whether he can hold the center — whether his presidency can survive as a decisive force. Let’s define this with some care. Unless he was to be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the House of Representatives, Bush will serve as president until January 2009. But there are two kinds of presidents: those with sufficient power to act unilaterally in foreign affairs — that is, who assume they have the political power to speak and act with confidence — and those who lack or have lost that ability.

For instance, by the time of the final North Vietnamese assault, Gerald Ford had no practical military or diplomatic options left. His political and legal position precluded that: The center of his presidency was in shambles. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, retained his military option relative to Yugoslavia in spite of other political problems. He was able to move from military action to covert action to diplomatic action at will — and, in general, without reference to external forces. He was a free agent. Ford could not control the situation in Vietnam, whereas Clinton could control the situation in Kosovo, Bosnia and ultimately in Serbia. The center of Clinton’s presidency held.

Polls and Perceptions: The Fight for the Right

The question now, therefore, is whether the center of Bush’s presidency will hold or whether he will, for a time or permanently, lose the ability to act unilaterally in foreign affairs. There have been many factors influencing the U.S.-jihadist war in general, but the key now is this: Can Bush still make unilateral decisions? For instance, does he have the ability to decide whether to bomb Syria? Or attack Iranian nuclear reactors? Could he withdraw forces from Iraq without appearing to be capitulating? Can he keep promises to Iraqi factions and credibly threaten them as well?

Part of the answer lies in foreign perceptions of the U.S. presidency, which brings us to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent statement on Israel. The statement was rooted in many things. Some of it has to do with domestic Iranian politics; some of it is simply the repetition of long-standing Iranian policy; some of it has to do with the fact that the new president likes to make bellicose statements. But the single most important factor is that Iran does not fear the United States quite as much now as it did six months ago. Words are merely words, but the Iranians were probing for reaction. That the French condemned the statement was of little interest to Tehran; whether the Americans condemned it – and, if so, how — was the key. The Iranians were taking the measure of American politics. And the response from Washington, we note, was quite mild in comparison to most other Western governments.

Bush’s popularity rating, after Libby’s indictment was announced, stood at 39 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll. This is actually pretty good news for Bush, believe it or not. As we attempted to show in past articles, there is a point of support beyond which Bush’s Republican base could be deemed to be fragmenting , and that is the point at which a presidency becomes unrecoverable. Bush has been at that point, which we peg — at the extreme — at 39 percent, for several weeks now. Polls have been showing him in the 37 percent to 45 percent range, which, given error rates, puts him realistically in the very low 40s. Bush’s support did not bounce back (given all the issues at stake, a bounce would have been miraculous), but — and this is the critical point — his core has not fragmented.

This is one reason why Miers, whose nomination to the Supreme Court raised outcries among Bush’s core base of conservatives, had to be ditched fast — before the indictments in the Plame case came out. At this point, Bush must, above all costs, hold his base solidly. He can’t even begin to worry about the center, let alone the left, if the right deserts him. Miers’ appointment raised doubts on the right. Bush could not be certain what the grand jury would say or who would be indicted, but he knew there would be indictments. By getting Miers out of the way, he rallied his base at a moment when they would be the vital — and only — element he could bank on. If the early polls are correct, the move worked.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that Bush is out of the woods. The social conservatives are only one of three core constituencies within the Republican Party. The others are economic conservatives and businesspeople and, finally, the national security constituency. Miers’ withdrawal shored up support among the social conservatives, and the recent nomination of Ben Bernanke to be the new chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve seems to have delighted the economic conservatives. But the Plame affair is raising hackles in the third constituency: The national security core is restive, to say the least.

There are several strands within this constituency. First, there are the military service members and their families, who are extremely unhappy with the failure to expand the military and to halt the frequent and long deployments that active duty, reserve and National Guard troops are enduring. There is another round of stop losses coming for the next rotation to Iraq — further alienating a natural Republican constituency that is in near-revolt. Then there are those who vote Republican because they believe the GOP is more likely to support the defense and intelligence community: These are the ones who are most shaken by the Plame affair, which cuts against their perception of Republican practice. Finally, there are those who generally believe that Republicans are more effective at conducting foreign policy. It is the support of this group that is now at risk.

These are overlapping constituencies, obviously. But that strand of the Republican base that supported the war even without the issue of WMD, or that could accept misleading reasons for going to war, is now raising fundamental questions about the execution of the war. A recent poll shows the president is slipping in this core constituency.

Political Cycles and Windows of Opportunity

The rest of the world is sensing this weakness. They have long experience with the American political cycle and its periodic weakening of the president. They understand that, despite the objective power of the United States, internal constraints frequently tie the president’s hands — limiting his ability to act or to change the pattern of his actions. These cycles can last from months to several years, but they are not permanent. They do, however, open important windows of opportunity.

The obvious example is the Nixon-Ford presidency and Vietnam, but the weakness extended into the Carter presidency as well. As events in Iran and Afghanistan transpired, options that might have been available under other circumstances were not available to Carter. Indeed, except for the perception that political circumstances precluded the United States from taking certain actions, it is not clear that either the Iranian revolutionaries or the Soviet Union would have behaved in exactly the manner they did. They were able to exploit the temporary situation to their benefit.

The United States is enormously powerful, and viewed within the context of a century, these periodic paralyses are not decisive. It has been established that Woodrow Wilson was unable to control U.S. foreign policy after World War I. Roosevelt could not act as early as he would have liked on World War II, and others were unable to keep control in Vietnam and Iran. But these substantial moments of paralysis and failure did not define the main trajectory of U.S. power — which consistently increased throughout the century. To those who doubt this premise, consider the fate of Japan and Germany in World War II or the Soviet Union in the Cold War. There were those — Henry Kissinger included — who were prepared to argue that the United States was a declining power after Vietnam. The decline is hardly visible 30 years later.

This is not to understate the dilemma now facing the president. Bush’s problems are not trivial: He will be president for three more years, and if he is paralyzed, other nations will have opportunities for action they might not otherwise have. But it has to be kept in balance. The United States does not come near to utilizing its full power — a few years of paralysis historically have been compensated for at later dates, with minimal harm. But as we saw in the 1930s and 1970s, these periods of U.S. paralysis can have substantial consequences during that time — and particularly for the history of other nations. The rest of the world may have proceeded pretty much as it would have anyway during those periods, but the course of Vietnamese and Iranian history did not.

At this moment, a number of secondary powers are considering the condition of the American presidency. Iran, as we have noted, is one. Russia is another. For Moscow, the United States is an ally and competitor. If the American presidency is about to enter a black hole, Vladimir Putin will behave differently than he otherwise might. China is dealing with a host of American demands. Those will be dealt with differently if Bush no longer commands the government but only the White House. And in Iraq, of course, every party is looking at American will and American guarantees.

Bush has not lost his presidency. He is merely close to it, and other presidents have recovered from such precarious positions. What he needs is a decisive victory within the United States. That is why he has nominated Samuel Alito, a staunchly conservative judge, for the Supreme Court in place of Miers. Bush is putting all of his eggs in one basket, looking again to shore up his core base of support. If he can win this battle, the entire psychology of his presidency will shift in his favor. If he loses, then he probably will be no worse off than he was before.

Presidents have power to the extent that they are perceived to have power. At this moment, Bush’s status is uncertain. He has certainly not yet lost his presidency, but he has not restored his standing in the polls. It is interesting, therefore, that the status of U.S. foreign policy rests at this moment on the outcome of a decidedly internal matter: the battle for the Supreme Court. The fates of other nations — and the United States can be decisive in determining their fate — rest on the idiosyncrasies of American domestic politics.

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at http://www.stratfor.com . For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

? Copyright 2005 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

No more so than blind subservience

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

Sir, sir is a subservient word surviving from the surly day of old Serbia, when certain serfs, too ignorant to remember their lord’s name, yet too servile too blaspheme them, circumvented the situation by surrogating the subservient word, sir, by which I now belatedly address a certain senior cirriped, who correctlt surmised that I was syrupy enough to say sir after every word I said, Sir.

USNA, [i]Reef Points[/i], the Annual Handbook of the Brigade of Midshipmen, [i]Table Salt[/i]

Mandatory response to the question “Why did’nt you say Sir?”

“Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security”

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

Big deal. What about Bush himself being a PROVEN threat to INTERNATIONAL security?

Because our d*ckhead Prime Monster, John Howard, followed Bush and Blair into Iraq like an obedient puppy dog, Australia’s security is severely undermined.

I agree.

In reply to “Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security”

That first line is totally true.

Basically George is an idiotic moron who shouldn’t be left in charge of pushbike, let alone a major superpower like America – thank the gods he’s only got a few years left (& let’s hope we don’t get President Jeb next). Hopefully congress will try to limit the damage he is able to do in those years.

naww…

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

Bush is the threat to National Security.
His actions have made every nation in the world insecure, cause he might decide to inavde them on a whim.
and his actions have drastically increased [ like in the neighborhood of 6000% ] the hatred of the us in most of the middle east, thereby increasing the motivation to perform terroist attacks on the us and it’s allies.

Lame duck Presidents are a threat to everyone.

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

…

95 posts, and the first big lie is never mentioned

In reply to Bush-Hatred is a threat to national security

The first big lie is the suggestion that it is Bush haters who are releasing national security secrets. The Bush staff is in front of the line of security leaks, outing that CIA agent for starters. Treason starts at the white house (and he never declassified this one).

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

Well, not really; some of us simply tire of repeating ourselves.

In reply to 95 posts, and the first big lie is never mentioned

This matter has in fact been addressed by me, at least, in other discussions which more directly address the matter of domestic spying and the leaks re. such, as well as other political discussions.

You find mention of such at one or more of the below discussions; which, I don’t recall.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194380&start=0

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&start=0

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=194635&start=0

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=194895&start=0

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194981&start=0

[Author]

Replies