Join 3,524 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Worth Sharing II
June 3, 2004 1:45 AM   Subscribe

Remarks by President Bush Long, but worth it.
posted by David Dark (139 comments total)

 
Like other totalitarian movements, the terrorists seek to impose a grim vision in which dissent is crushed, and every man and woman must think and live in colorless conformity.

Well, that just sucks. So I can't vote for Bush.
posted by attackthetaxi at 1:52 AM on June 3, 2004


The word terror is mentioned 56 times, he sure does love that word doesn't he?
posted by sebas at 2:26 AM on June 3, 2004


it appears he finished just in time for the gay miniature golf
posted by mr.marx at 2:27 AM on June 3, 2004


Wow, that's a great speech. It's good that there doesn't seem to be much dispute about this (except outside the mainstream, like here in MeFi...). Sure John Kerry might want even more troops involved, and even more allies present, but those are tactical questions, not strategic ones. Iraq will soon gain its independence, and for the first time in decades be allowed to hope for a better future. Bravo America!
posted by dagny at 2:29 AM on June 3, 2004


Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States.

That's not really, like, true, is it? WW2 didn't begin that way, and neither did the current US involvement in Iraq. Regardless of whether you support Bush or not.
posted by ikalliom at 2:52 AM on June 3, 2004


Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States.

- I would add that here is probably where any similarities with that great generation both begin and end. Smearing yourself in those memories of sixty odd years ago to try and add the veneer of legitimacy, nobility, pathetic.
posted by johnnyboy at 3:02 AM on June 3, 2004


Bravo America!

God bless America! God bless the rapists and the torturers and the President who made it all possible, god bless Enron and Halliburton and the Vice President who steers the course, god bless the 16% of American children living in poverty, god bless the opium-growers in Afghanistan and the help they've been given!

Bravo America! Mission accomplished! Bravo on the destabilizing of an entire region of the world! Bravo on going to war based on the lies of an Iranian spy! Bravo on so ably swelling the ranks of your enemy with new recruits who want nothing more than to kill Americans -- and Canadians and Brits and Aussies too, if they get the chance! Well done, America! Keep on ignoring those Geneva conventions, keep on bombing the shit out of wedding parties, and all the Freedom, Liberty and Strength in the universe won't mean squat, for any of us. But that's OK, because America will be safe! Totally safe from harm! And the rest of the world, that hates us now? They'll get over it! Time heals all wounds, doesn't it?

And most importantly, thank you, George Bush, our flightsuited hero, our leader, the proud man with the gun on his wall. Thanks for showing us so clearly that we need not ascribe to evil what mere incompetence will explain.

Tears, I tell you, tears of barely repressed emotion rise at the mere thought of how America has once again, as in the great days of the Greatest Generation, shown that it is a force for right in the world, and that might is meaningless without the will and the determination to do the ethical thing, and to make the world a safer place for us all. God bless America!



Riiiiight.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:03 AM on June 3, 2004 [1 favorite]


Dagny, grab a history book and look up these previous attempts by the U.S. to "spread democracy" by assassination and election rigging:

Iran 1953
Guatemala 1954
Lebanon 1957
Zaire 1961
Chile 1973

Q: In which of these countries do they shout "Bravo America!" on the anniversary of their independence?
posted by planetkyoto at 3:05 AM on June 3, 2004


God Bless America....and no one else!





ahem. not.
posted by jaded at 3:17 AM on June 3, 2004


from the notoriously out-of-the-mainstream, freedom-hating Financial Times:

US starts to think the unthinkable about Iraq
The consequences of US defeat in Iraq are, in the words of President George W. Bush, "unthinkable". Even so, some in the administration have started to contemplate the prospect, while other outspoken war advocates in Washington are already proclaiming failure.

then:

Car bombs, mortar shells, fighting kill 13 across Iraq

Truce in southern Iraq fails


U.S. hand in picking Iraq leaders decried

New Iraq Government Gets Off to a Sluggish Start
Ministers say U.S. bears responsibility for failure or success.


funny how it only takes a canned speech to get the wingnuts all amped and sweaty again.
you throw a stick and the good doggies are happy to run, run, run.
woof-woof

Bravo America!

I appreciate the sentiment, there's plenty to be proud about, but if you're talking about the Iraq occupation, just keep your gloating to MeFi, where it may be out of the mainstream but it's safe. please don't go to Iraq this summer to be personally greeted as a liberator. please don't.
or if you do, just don't get out of Baghdad's heavily armed Green Zone.
posted by matteo at 3:20 AM on June 3, 2004


Here are the words of al Qaeda's self-described military spokesman in Europe, on a tape

Here are the words of another al Qaeda spokesman, Suleiman Abu Gheith. Last year, in an article published on an al Qaeda website............

In all these threats.....

we hear the echoes of ....... that same swagger and demented logic of the fanatic
posted by kenaman at 3:30 AM on June 3, 2004


I just love Bush's rhetoric: "The enemies of freedom are opposed by a great and growing alliance." Poor freedom, what did it ever do to make enemies? Doesn’t it scare you to think that before Bush freedom was completely defenseless? In any case, I feel much better knowing that people like Bush defend freedom by, say, sending those horrible pot smokers to prison, by cleaning up the airwaves of all dirty words, and by passing acts like PATRIOT. What I want to know is: when they’re done with freedom, what are they going to tackle next? Boredom? Love?
posted by epimorph at 3:43 AM on June 3, 2004


"if the terrorists hate freedom so much, why didn't they attack the Netherlands?"
posted by Space Coyote at 4:06 AM on June 3, 2004


...I have set a clear doctrine that the sponsors of terror will be held equally accountable for the acts of terrorists. (Applause.) Regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan learned that providing support and sanctuary to terrorists carries with it enormous costs.

None of the terrorist organizations that Hussein supported share a philosophy remotely related to al Qaeda, or have staged a major attack against Western targets since the late 1980s (Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Whatever Iraq was being held accountable for, it wasn't the equal of 816 American lives.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:06 AM on June 3, 2004


The enemies of freedom are opposed by a great and growing alliance.

Which alliance is that? Eurasia? Oceania?

Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States.

Another subtle attempt to blame Saddam's Iraq for participating in 911. Did anyone else catch that, or was it just me?

Also, ikalliom is absolutely correct. Seems to me the US was already involved diplomatically and with the transport of materiel (particularly with lend-lease) in WWII a couple of years before actually sending troops in. The lack of parallel between this war and that one is staggering. Did Sam Seaborn write this speech?

It should go without saying, but I do not root for US failure in this conflict, and still hope a pray for a successful outcome, both for the Iraqi people and for the safe return of our troops, but I find it difficult to imagine that happening with such a simple-minded, unimaginative commander-in-chief at the helm.
posted by psmealey at 4:12 AM on June 3, 2004


Wow, that's a great speech. It's good that there doesn't seem to be much dispute about this (except outside the mainstream, like here in MeFi...). Sure John Kerry might want even more troops involved, and even more allies present, but those are tactical questions, not strategic ones. Iraq will soon gain its independence, and for the first time in decades be allowed to hope for a better future. Bravo America!

You do know dagny that the President does not write his own speeches don't you?
posted by banished at 4:15 AM on June 3, 2004


You do know dagny that the President does not write his own speeches don't you?

Or read them.
posted by riviera at 4:31 AM on June 3, 2004


I was talking to my 87 year-old grandmother at the weekend about the 2nd world war; the way we Brits declared war on a fascist expansionary state that actually bore us no malice, about the children evacuated from the cities, the blitz, the rationing, the total wartime existence that my grandparent's generation underwent.

The illegal occupation of Iraq, the torture and murder of civilians because a Saudi living in afghanistan and a few other men crashed planes into the WTC has *nothing* in common with world war 2.

What a fucking prick.
posted by Pericles at 4:34 AM on June 3, 2004


those are tactical questions, not strategic ones. - dagny

Since I am a MeFi regular and thus must be far out of the mainstream, could you please explain to me about this comment, originated by Condi, fantasy wife of BushCo?

WTF is the difference? Perhaps one of you Bushwhackers, with your superior intellect and superb ability to parrot the official talking points, could explain this to poor little ignorant, unmainstream me?

And tell Fearless ChickenHawk Leader to stop the ridiculous linking of Saddam to terrorism, damn it!! That's fucking delusional!
posted by nofundy at 5:01 AM on June 3, 2004


Jesus. Like this tool would be fit to empty FDR's colostomy bag.
posted by Optamystic at 5:13 AM on June 3, 2004


"What a fucking prick."

Bingo. And now might be a good time to donate to the Kerry campaign, yes? Even if you aren't going to vote I hope you can see the need to have American run by someone other than Bush.

Quite literally; the most important thing you can do to help America would be to help make sure Bush loses the next election.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:16 AM on June 3, 2004


In WW2, we knew who we were fighting against.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:30 AM on June 3, 2004


I think I'm beginning to change my mind on this one.

Let Bush win. Let him have a crack at another four years, just so nobody ends up blaming Kerry for this huge fiasco that's unfolding.

Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States.

And after we beat Japan, we went and invaded Australia, because we think they helped them nips fashion the bamboo spears they were using on the islands. Look, we've even got photos taken from a B-52 that clearly shows bamboo weapons on the mainland.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:31 AM on June 3, 2004


Do you think Bush's new attempt to wrap his Iraq war in a Greatest Generation cloak could backfire? I know a WWII vet who initially supported the President but says now he can't vote for a man who would waste boy's lives and the country's reputation on a political pipe dream.
posted by sacre_bleu at 5:35 AM on June 3, 2004


It's abhorrent to compare what we're doing in Iraq with WW2. And to continue to say "Iraq" and "terrorists" in the same sentence.

And when will Bush speak before any audience that isn't ordered to clap?

And Bush lifted Eisenhower's words spoken just before Normandy, but conveniently dropped this part: "Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."
posted by amberglow at 5:49 AM on June 3, 2004


And to continue to say "Iraq" and "terrorists" in the same sentence. There is a connection. It just isn't being reported.

Look, I was half asleep last night with the channel on PBS...some liberal columnist with the NYT was on being interviewed- paraphrasing here, he said that some things were true even if George Bush believed them.

No matter how bad we think things are right now they had the potential to be much much worse. And still do.
posted by konolia at 5:57 AM on June 3, 2004


War is Peace
posted by dayvin at 6:00 AM on June 3, 2004


I'd hit it.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:09 AM on June 3, 2004


he said that some things were true even if George Bush believed them

That would be a Thomas Friedman line.
posted by luser at 6:12 AM on June 3, 2004


konolia, I agree. There is the potential for things to be much much worse. And sometimes Bush is right in what he says.

But that's not the problem, and never has been. Things could (and should) have been much much better. Instead of being glad the landmine didn't blow off your leg, you should be wondering why you stepped on it in the first place.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:20 AM on June 3, 2004


konolia: ...some liberal columnist with the NYT was on being interviewed- paraphrasing here, he said that some things were true even if George Bush believed them.

That sounds like a Thomas Friedman line (as, on preview, I see luser has already mentioned). If his moustache didn't clue you in, the guy is absolutely nuts. See this old pile-on, which references these two piss-takings by Matt Taibbi.
posted by UKnowForKids at 6:21 AM on June 3, 2004


Then and Now
posted by konolia at 6:22 AM on June 3, 2004


Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States.

That's where I stopped reading.
posted by archimago at 6:23 AM on June 3, 2004


There is a connection. It just isn't being reported.

come again?
posted by mr.marx at 6:24 AM on June 3, 2004


Oh, I just asked my son (who was watching with me) and it was Thomas Friedman. Thanks for the links.
posted by konolia at 6:28 AM on June 3, 2004


I agree with Civil Disobedient. It's a shitty state of affairs, but if the Middle East peace process remains dead in the water (likely) and Iraq remains a clusterfuck (highly likely), terrorist activity will increase and probably hit the mainland again. The swing back to the hard right in 2008 might seem inevitable in hindsight - and all because of the good work W put into foreign policy in his single term. Goodbye Hillary.

And it's nice to find out that WW2 actually began with Pearl Harbor in 1941. Ignorant tool.
posted by Mocata at 6:29 AM on June 3, 2004


No matter how bad we think things are right now they had the potential to be much much worse. And still do.
That's not good enough--we dropped the ball on Al Qaeda, and went to Iraq instead (based on lies), and we're paying the price for that--in lives and money and lost opportunity to actually fight terrorists. Invading and occupying Iraq had zero to do with the people that attacked us, and until Bush learns that, he's both hopeless, clueless, and making us more of a target.

I guess i should be thankful that my city's not a crater (yet) or something?
posted by amberglow at 6:29 AM on June 3, 2004


Saddam and Osama
posted by konolia at 6:33 AM on June 3, 2004


don't insult me, konolia.
posted by mr.marx at 6:40 AM on June 3, 2004


"There is a connection. It just isn't being reported."

Sure. Now.

But before we invaded Iraq was the most terrorist free country in the region. Now Bush has turned in into a terrorist playground.

He's right - We need to finish the job. But letting him try and finish it is lunacy. How about rather than staying the course we actually strive for results rather than sound bites? Bush is not a results kind of guy.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:40 AM on June 3, 2004


Thomas Friedman is hardly a liberal.

The word terror is mentioned 56 times, he sure does love that word doesn't he?

By contrast, "peace" shows up 9 times. More than half of them relate to the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:42 AM on June 3, 2004


It's good that there doesn't seem to be much dispute about this (except outside the mainstream, like here in MeFi...).

The American "mainstream" are a apathetic, brainless children content to elect a father figure and give him unlimited power, ignoring reality to live in a safe fantasy world where daddy is always doing what's best for them.

But when they cling to this fantasy by ignoring or rationalizing corruption, abuse of power, injustice and pain, are they just as much villains as the politicians who take advantage of them?
posted by Shane at 6:43 AM on June 3, 2004


Saddam and Osama

A fact-free op-ed piece in the Moonie Times to support an assertion you half-heard while going to sleep? Does Paul Wolfowitz know about your mad investigative skillz?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:43 AM on June 3, 2004


Saddam and Osama
posted by konolia at 6:33 AM PST on June 3


First a link to townhall and now a link to the Moonie Times

What exactly kind of a Christian are you again?

Perhaps a member of the fundie division of the GOP, the Southern Baptists?

Shouldn't real Christians be too ashamed to link to the Moonie Times? Or are you a true believer of the True Parents?

Give us some real meat, not GOP lite talking points. Show us the connections from a REPUTABLE source between Saddam and Osama please. Until then, only delusional Bushwhackers can STILL believe such BS. Want me to believe? Show me. Real evidence. Solid evidence. Where is the blue dress?
posted by nofundy at 6:49 AM on June 3, 2004


Let it go, konolia. The fact that Saddam "reached out" to bin Laden has been reported to death, and is usually (when not "reported" in rags like the WT) accompanied with something to the effect of "and bin Laden turned him down, calling Hussein a bad Muslim".
posted by mkultra at 7:06 AM on June 3, 2004


Is your best evidence an op-ed in the Washington Times?

The op-ed is pretty weak, itself--assertions about Saddam's courting of Osama, without assertions of his success, assertions about their common enemy, without assertions of actual cooperation against that enemy, the incredibly qualified "U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden"....is that really the best you have? Are you willing to re-elect this man as President based on this?
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:12 AM on June 3, 2004


is this supposed to be the best of the web or something?
posted by mcsweetie at 7:17 AM on June 3, 2004


"Prophetically, on the eve of Bush's appearance at the Army War College, its strategic studies institute released a report, Vietnam and Iraq: Differences, Similarities and Insights, observing the similarities as failures of strategy, maintaining public support and nation building. It also noted: 'Prospects for creating a stable, prosperous, and democratic Iraq are problematic, and observers and decision makers should not be misled by false analogies to American state-building success in Germany and Japan after World War II.'" - Bush takes refuge in history.
posted by xowie at 7:17 AM on June 3, 2004


None of us has a crystal ball that can see the future; we're all just guessing.

As such, I'd like to say that I hope that David Dark is correct, that the world will be safer because of his actions.

I personally believe that even President Bush knows that he screwed it all up, and that he's now putting politics ahead of the future of our nation. But I hope I'm just cynical, and wrong.
posted by mosch at 7:26 AM on June 3, 2004


Like other totalitarian movements, the terrorists seek to impose a grim vision in which dissent is crushed, and every man and woman must think and live in colorless conformity. So to the oppressed peoples everywhere, we are offering the great alternative of human liberty.

I KNEW there was something wrong with a home owners association! Thanks for the heads up President Bush!
posted by rough ashlar at 7:31 AM on June 3, 2004


talked to my friend's grandfather last weekend. he was trained as a machine gunner on a WW2 bomber. he spent about 8 years bitching and moaning about what a weasely sack of lying shit clinton was, and how we would be better off with a republican in office. he was a major influence in my friend being raised as a hard-core conservative republican. well, this weekend he mentioned bush, and simply said "i can't even stand to look at the man any more."

i walk across this college campus and everywhere i look i see stickers, t-shirts, stencils spray-painted on the sidewalk, all anti-bush messages. "not my president". "one-term president". "wanted for war crimes". "anyone but bush 2004". i'm not that old, i was too young to remember the reaction against nixon, but through carter, reagan, bush 1, and clinton i never remember ever seeing as many people openly denouncing the elected(?) leader of my country. as with my friend's grandpa, even people who consider themselves republicans are getting fed up with this shit. but somehow we still see him in front of a crowd of cheering people. the so-called "liberal" media isn't being very damn liberal about this man. he's been given a free pass for most of his term in office. the big stories that explode on sites like this one never take hold in the mainstream press.

the problem as i see it isn't that the "apathetic, brainless children" in the mainstream don't seem to get the message. it's that the 70% of us freedom-loving americans that don't even bother to vote in the first place are willing to let these apathetic, brainless children choose an overly aggressive imbecile and his corrupt cronies to run our country.

i don't think that we americans are by and large a stupid, aggressive people. collectively we aren't very extreme on any of our views. our problem is that only the people with extreme views care enough to vote, so we get extremists in office. we get stupid legislation that caters to a vocal minority, like all the fundamentalist christian-based crap bush co. has been trying to force down our throats - removal of birth control info from govt. websites, refusal to participate in global population conferences because the rest of the world refuses to go along with our "condoms are evil" attitude, that kind of shit. (and that's just the fundy stuff. we've already talked the oil conglomerate connections to death.)

so i ask you: did any of you who spent the entire bush term complaining actually exercise your right to choose your own leader? in my book, if you don't participate in the democratic process, you lose your right to have an opinion about it. you deserve exactly what you get. he's not the problem folks, you non-voters are. you people who could vote but choose not to are the reason that a small but dedicated group of people with extreme left or right views can affect the outcome of an election so strongly. and don't give me any shit about how one vote can't change the system - ask the people in florida how much one vote can affect things. don't give me any shit about how the guy you wanted to elect isn't in the running - there's not one damn thing stopping you from adding a write-in candidate to your ballot.

the fact is that bitching about the world on your weblog won't do a damn thing to change it. if you don't vote with your ballot and your dollars, nobody in the government is going to pay any damn attention to you at all. there's a link on the front page of mefi. click the damn thing, register to vote, and come november take the 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to tell bush exactly what you think of the job he's been doing.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:37 AM on June 3, 2004


hate to pile on, but it's hard to take GOP fundies seriously when they complain about the liberal media and quote discredited, zero-fact right-wing rants in the same comment.

konolia, not even the White House is still actively peddling the Saddam=Osama crap (they let Laurie Mylroie and a few others out in the swamps to fight the good fight)

let it go, k. let it go. Iraq was attacked because of those invisible wmd's, the aluminum tubes, Niger's yellowcake, the "mushroom cloud".
"regime change", remember? "exporting democracy".

too bad Ahmad Chalabi was just a wily prankster. do you like his sense of humor now?

well, anyway it's too late -- enjoy the occupation you have been craving for so long.
posted by matteo at 7:40 AM on June 3, 2004


Here's another remark by george Bush, according to the NY Times news alert: "George Tenet Resigns as C.I.A. Chief, President Bush Announces."
posted by stonerose at 7:44 AM on June 3, 2004


I think we're pretty much voters here, caution, except for grumble, and maybe Keyser (and any other teens here). It's true, tho, that way too many people don't vote--i think that'll be changing, especially among college kids, who may be drafted if Bush gets another term.

on preview: I wonder what's up with Tenet?
posted by amberglow at 7:47 AM on June 3, 2004


with Tenet gone, who'll be the 9/11 commission fallguy? hint: the buck stops where?
posted by amberglow at 7:55 AM on June 3, 2004


What exactly kind of a Christian are you again? Perhaps a member of the fundie division of the GOP, the Southern Baptists? Shouldn't real Christians be too ashamed to link to the Moonie Times? Or are you a true believer of the True Parents?

Completely irrelevant to konolia's point, and yours, nofundy. You should know better.
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:55 AM on June 3, 2004


caution live frogs - While I agree that blogs are redirecting our attention away from where it's needed - action - I disagree that not voting means losing your right to bitch.

Freedom to vote implies freedom to not vote. Free speech is a good thing, even if we extend it to people you loath because they don't vote.

Don't get me wrong; I voted against Bush. But I haven't voted in many other elections. I didn't vote for Clinton, but I did vote against Reagan. Twice. Using voting as a litmus test is missing the forest for the trees - Our government has built itself into a quagmire that most people feel uncomfortable voting for, regardless of the candidates.

Rather than lash out at those who feel the process is irrelevant, try reframing the debate so that non-voters feel they have a reason to take action.

It seems to me that most non-voters claim they don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. Or voting for the candidate who sucks less. To me this is illogical. Given two candidates who suck, wouldn't it make sense to try and ensure the one who sucks most isn't put in charge of the country?
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:01 AM on June 3, 2004


Jesus I hope Tenet doesn't let them hang all the shit on him now. He can blow their shit wide open if he wants.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:03 AM on June 3, 2004


Do you think Bush's new attempt to wrap his Iraq war in a Greatest Generation cloak could backfire?

Anectdotally: I come from a military family, Army and Army Air Corps. In a recent conversation, two my of my uncles - both career men, both decorated veterans of Vietnam, both lifelong Republicans - confirmed what the media's been hinting at: no self-respecting military man (or woman, I presume - these guys are old enough that "women in the military" still basically means "nurse") would even consider voting for W this fall. His complete and utter disrespect for their discipline and his cynical, marketing-driven abuse of selective military history put him completely out of the picture. I found it interesting too that neither of them was willing to "forgive" W for what are basically the sins of others - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woflowitz, Perle, et. al. - and reserved an even deeper scorn, if possible, for Powell, who they believe should have resigned long ago when it was clear he couldn't stop the onrushing train wreck...
posted by JollyWanker at 8:07 AM on June 3, 2004


I think we're pretty much voters here, caution, except for grumble, and maybe Keyser (and any other teens here)

and us foreigners...
posted by mr.marx at 8:10 AM on June 3, 2004


There is a connection. It just isn't being reported.

This pretty much sums up my frustration with all the polling that shows that some 60+% of Americans think there was a Saddam-Al Quaeda link pre 911. Powell denied it, Rumsfeld denied it, Cheney suggested it (smarmily) then denied it, Bush denied it, Tenet denied it, Rice denied it... WTF.

Now where in the name of all things sacred does this information come from if no one is reporting it (other than the Loony Times), and everyone of stature in the administration is saying it doesn't exist? Is it just many people sitting around the barbecue pit drinking beers saying "well there must be a link, even if no one is saying it"?

Who says that the right isn't just as prone to conspiracy theories as the left. Jeez.
posted by psmealey at 8:49 AM on June 3, 2004


did any of you who spent the entire bush term complaining actually exercise your right to choose your own leader?

Of course I did. I even campaigned for Jesse Jackson in the primary for the '84 election, starry-eyed and hoping for a big shake-up. I passed out leaflets and slowly realized that no one knew or cared when the primary was or where to vote. I started madly scribbling dates and voting locations on the handbills :-)

Where I live, the last political bumper sticker I noticed this week said "Proud Bush Republican." It was on a pretty beat up car, so the owner was probably working class and wasn't getting any advantage out of Bush's economic policies. Similar stickers outnumber opposite stickers at least ten-to-one here, literally :-(

. . . the problem [is] the 70% of us freedom-loving americans that don't even bother to vote in the first place . . .

Don't you think maybe the 70% non-voters (which seems a bit high) and the "brainless mainstream" are two groups that overlap significantly? I think so...
posted by Shane at 8:58 AM on June 3, 2004


.. In the terrorists' vision of the world, the Middle East must fall under the rule of radical governments, moderate Arab states must be overthrown, nonbelievers must be expelled from Muslim lands..

..Our vision is completely different. We believe that every person has a right to think and pray and live in obedience to God and conscience, not in frightened submission to despots. .


How many times does he refer to the lands of Islam or Muslim countries? Does anyone else find this ridiculous? I realize that many countries in the Middle East tend to mingle religious and government leaders, but that doesn't mean that's the way of things. I read a post on the VP of Iran's weblog last week about how he attended a local Jewish celebration. While that may be a so-called Islamic state, there are diverse people there as well.

There seems to be a strong undercurrent to every public statement I've read recently that defines all Middle Eastern countries as Islamic states. Why?
posted by mikeh at 9:00 AM on June 3, 2004


Can I remind everyone that I was not necessarily in favor of us invading Iraq before this started?

I am very much in favor of doing what it takes to clean up our mess before we go home. I am a huge proponent of "fix the problem not the blame." And I dang sure ain't wanting to let Kerry anywhere near the White House to try his hand at it, as anyone who would call his secret service agent a son of a bitch is no one I want for president.
posted by konolia at 9:15 AM on June 3, 2004


David Warren:
No one else will say this, so I will. The Bush administration has handled the transfer of power in Iraq more cleverly than anyone expected, including me. The summoning of the U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, looked like very bad news (a poisonous old Arab League chauvinist who brokered the sell-out of Lebanon to Syria in 1982). In grim moments, I believed the Bush people were cynically using him to wash their hands of Iraq, and as it were, dump the quagmire back in the swamp of the U.N. Instead, they froze the ground beneath Brahimi's feet, and skated rings around him, haggling behind his back with Iraq's new political heavyweights to leave him endorsing a fait accompli. If it were not vulgar, I would say the Bushies suckered the U.N. into signing on to the New Iraq through Brahimi. A sovereign, free Iraq which will, incidentally, have a few things to say about the U.N.'s $100-billion "oil-for-food" scam, in due course.
posted by David Dark at 9:19 AM on June 3, 2004


I think mikeh has an excellent point.

I think this speaks more to the Bush/fundy/neocon mentality than anything else. It sets up an us vs. them paradigm based on something that's relatively easy to get a lot of people upset about: religion. Personally, I think it's the wrong way to talk about it, and approaching it this way legitimizes the extremist/fundamentalist world view.

If there is a greater example of the tragedy that fundamentalist fervor brings to a civilization, look no further than what happened in Lebanon in the last half of the 20th century. What was once an idyllic multi-religious, multi-cultural haven, was brought to its knees by religiously motivated civil war.

Beirut was and is no more a Muslim city than Detroit is, but look at what taken steps down that path facillitated.

On preview: yes, fix the problem not the blame, konolia... but let's not proceed down the path that Bush is the one to fix it, because he's the one who created the problem. That's the sort of logic that dictates once you get elected president, you should immediately start a war (any war) asap, so that you can spend your re-election campaign beating the drum of "we can't change horses in the middle of a war".

As far as rationale for voing against Kerry because he was quoted as saying something that he may or may not have said in or out of context, that's making a decision based on style points and not substance. I am reminded of my 72 year old mother saying that Clinton was an awful president because of his dalliances, despite how well he managed the economy, and that no matter how poorly the economy does or how many soldiers do for no reason under Bush, she'll support him because he's "a good man". Flabbergasted am I when I hear that.
posted by psmealey at 9:24 AM on June 3, 2004


sorry... too much caffeine... a few unfinished thoughts there, but hope you got my gist. last line should be, "...how many soldiers die for no reason...", not "do"
posted by psmealey at 9:31 AM on June 3, 2004


Wisconsin surprise
"It was amazing. Had I not been there to see it and hear it, I never would have believed it. But I, and thousands of others, witnessed it in Madison, Wis.," Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Laney writes, referring to the reaction to the commencement address at the University of Wisconsin.
"The school had chosen an actor for the honor because he had grown up in Madison. He began his speech with this: 'I bring you greetings from the acting president of the United States!'
"The throng of graduates erupted in cheers," the columnist said.
"The actor-speaker, you see, was none other than Bradley Whitford, who is seen weekly on the television series 'The West Wing.' And he was on a roll ... or so he thought.
"He followed his message with a question: How was he asked to speak at the University of Wisconsin in Madison when the real president of the United States spoke the day before at a small college of 5,000 students in Mequon near Milwaukee?
"This is where the amazing thing happened. When Whitford said, 'President George Bush was at Concordia [University] yesterday,' the students erupted with applause and cheers. They were cheering for George W. Bush! The University of Wisconsin — where Students for a Democratic Society, SDS, was born; the place known to be so far left it's off the charts — had students cheering for a Republican president!
"It appeared to surprise the speaker as his speech abruptly turned to a list of suggestions — a formula, so to speak — on how to achieve their goals in life."
The columnist added: "Later, I asked some of the graduates what they thought of the commencement address and why they had cheered the president. Their answers came quickly. They didn't like Whitford's remarks about the president. They didn't think the time was right to attack a president who was leading the country in a war against terrorism."
posted by David Dark at 9:36 AM on June 3, 2004


I dang sure ain't wanting to let Kerry anywhere near the White House to try his hand at it, as anyone who would call his secret service agent a son of a bitch is no one I want for president

I hear Bush call's everyone who works for him "my little buttercup" and brings them chocolates and wonderful flowers

seriously, if this is the kind of shit the U.S. electorate bases their votes on, I understand why your country is so fucked up.

If it didn't fuck up the rest of the world as well , I'd be laughing my ass off. now I just weep.
posted by mr.marx at 9:38 AM on June 3, 2004


konolia:

What's your love affair with the random secret service guy? He a cousin of yours or something?
posted by Irontom at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2004


If a man has the gall to call a secret service agent-a man whose job it is to protect and maybe even take a bullet for him-a son of a bitch, simply because he supposedly knocked him down on a ski slope-what kind of man is that? Yes, that seems like a small thing. But if he has no respect for the Secret Service, would he have any respect for me, a prospective constituent?

The remark he made about Bush falling off his mountain bike (the "training wheels" remark) pissed me off even more. One of my fitness instructors does a lot of mountain biking, and she has had her shares of spills and injuries. It's a tough sport. Kerry's lack of respect galls me. The mark was totally uncalled for.

I'd take Clinton-a man I despised for turning the Oval Office into a cathouse-before I would Kerry.
posted by konolia at 9:57 AM on June 3, 2004


I'm sure that Bush has a lot of respect for his current constituents, he just generally masks it in stonewalling and contempt.

Not to open this discussion again, but Kerry's "training-wheels" remark had more to do with responding to Bush's condescending training wheels remark (re: handing over limited sovereignity to the Iraqi people) than it did to do with the President's apparent clumsiness. I thought it was pretty clever myself, and definitely in the right spirit.
posted by psmealey at 10:14 AM on June 3, 2004


david dark - guess the students in east lansing are smarter than the ones in madison. there were protests and little cheering for the prez when condi came to speak. plus her face spray painted on the ground with "war criminal". they tried to cover them up but there were lots of them.

the last prez we had speak here was clinton. he got applause.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:17 AM on June 3, 2004


"Yes, that seems like a small thing."

It's a small thing.

Encouraging lies to justify invading a country which isn't a threat to us. That's a big thing.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:18 AM on June 3, 2004


Not to open this discussion again, but Kerry's "training-wheels" remark had more to do with responding to Bush's condescending training wheels remark (re: handing over limited sovereignity to the Iraqi people) than it did to do with the President's apparent clumsiness. I thought it was pretty clever myself, and definitely in the right spirit.

and he didn't even say it
posted by mr.marx at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2004


Wow. So, Oval Office blowjobs are more tolerable to you than snide remarks? That's an amazing admission.

One more question - is it the office of the president that deserves this "respect" or is it just the current president? Because if you ever said anything disrespectful about Clinton, you're as guilty as Kerry of this high crime of "disrespect". And that would make you a hypocrite...
posted by Irontom at 10:26 AM on June 3, 2004


I didn't think like konolia really existed.

OK, so Kerry called the agent an SOB. Bush called a reporter a "major league asshole" back in 2000. I think that shows a little disrepect for that thing called freedom of the press (Amendment 1).
posted by josephtate at 10:26 AM on June 3, 2004


correction: "I didn't think people like konolia really existed."

Also, glad to know konolia "despised" Clinton for the cathouse thing. I'm over it too.
posted by josephtate at 10:28 AM on June 3, 2004


Remarks by President Bush Long, but worth it.

Hardly.

The "war on terror" is really World War II. Wow. Bush is Churchill. Oh.

Next up: comparisons of the invasion of Iraq to D-day, storming the sands of Normandy and Baghdad to bring American values to, uh, Abu Ghraib. Brave liberators making Iraq safe for, uh, Halliburton.

And frankly, konolia, I'd take a man who says exactly what's on his mind over Bush, the flip-flopper in chief, any day.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2004


Foldy - this is the first time I think I've ever been happy to see you show up. That link is perfect - I've been looking for something like it for some time now. All the ones I have found have been far inferior to that one.
posted by Irontom at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2004


I am aghast at your stated priorities, konolia.

Maybe the secret service guy was showing off to the ladies when he knocked over his charge? Not very professional, which ever way you lool at it, and worthy of a dressing down. I am fairly sure the expression 'son of a bitch' would not be one that offended a graduate from a government covert operations establishment. He is likely to have heard it before.

Bush is so far from acting in a 'gentlemanly' way AFAIK that these minor indescretions on the part of Kerry would seem inconsequential in the face of the behaviour of Bush, if I were choosing who to vote for based on the good-sportsmanship and manners of the candidates.

Have you seen the documentary of Bush on the campaign trail? Might be good for you if you want to get to know him, and see him talking without a script.
posted by asok at 10:52 AM on June 3, 2004


"Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States"

Shameless
posted by fullerine at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2004


Kerry got knocked over. he was probably very surprised and caught off guard, and probably being filmed/photographed and therefore very embarrassed....

who gives a fuck? you're ALL sons-of-bitches.
posted by Satapher at 11:36 AM on June 3, 2004


Metafilter: You are all sons of bitches.
posted by psmealey at 11:49 AM on June 3, 2004


konolia: here's how our president treats other people, for just one comparison.
posted by amberglow at 1:11 PM on June 3, 2004


the terrorists seek to impose a grim vision in which dissent is crushed, and every man and woman must think and live in colorless conformity

I think Bush had balls to call out the Academy for what it is.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 1:14 PM on June 3, 2004


Excuse me, why would you believe Bush would lie about Iraq? What if he was given wrong info by the CIA or whatever? What if he was given info that is still classified for national security reasons?

YOu may dislike Bush and his policies, but he is no monster, and he didn't send our troops into harm's way on a whim. He really had nothing to gain from it, politically or otherwise.

Look, Clinton might have been able to prevent 9/11. Understandably he would have caught hell for doing whatever he would have needed to do, and pre-twin towers it might not have been understood by the general populace. That's all spilled milk. But just understand that to the detriment of his own political future, Bush is trying to keep our sorry butts safe on our own soil.

Maybe we should draw a line down the center of this nation and split up, we leftists and rightists. As it is this nation is getting divided again, and we all know what happens to a house divided. We Republicans will keep Florida, but you Democrats can have California. Heck, take New York and New Jersey with you.
posted by konolia at 1:18 PM on June 3, 2004


We Republicans will keep Florida

mainly by not letting black people vote....
posted by lord_wolf at 1:27 PM on June 3, 2004


YOu may dislike Bush and his policies, but he is no monster,

you're right. the real villains are in his cabinet. it would almost be worth electing lieberman just to flush them out.

He really had nothing to gain from it, politically

*spit take* have you been to america recently?

Look, Clinton might have been able to prevent 9/11.

and in all fairness, reagan definitely could've.

Maybe we should draw a line down the center of this nation and split up, we leftists and rightists. As it is this nation is getting divided again, and we all know what happens to a house divided.

indeed. I reckon it would only be a matter of time before the rightists liberated the leftists.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:34 PM on June 3, 2004


A delightful reverse-troll, DD. It's a hoot to see the wonderfully visceral reaction from the Usual Suspects when their own tactics get used against them.
posted by darukaru at 1:52 PM on June 3, 2004


Bush is trying to keep our sorry butts safe on our own soil.

no, he's not.
Fact: Of the $6.3 billion in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terrorism preparedness grants since Sept. 11, 2001, $5.2 billion remains stuck in the administrative pipeline, unspent.

Fact: Forty percent of the total state terrorism preparedness grants are being allocated with no regard for the threat of a terrorist attack, the vulnerability of key assets, the terrorists’ known capabilities and intentions, or even state or regional population. Almost as bad, the remaining 60 percent is allocated strictly according to population — the crudest form of approximating risk.

posted by amberglow at 1:58 PM on June 3, 2004


Excuse me, why would you believe Bush would lie about Iraq?

I assume people are generally honest. Trust, but verify. However, when somebody lies as a matter of course I assume every thing they say is a lie. Verify, then trust.

The real question is why given all the lies we've been told from this administration would you assume they'd be telling the truth. Maybe they are, but I see no point in believing it until I can confirm it.
posted by willnot at 2:07 PM on June 3, 2004


A delightful reverse-troll, DD.

wouldn't a reverse-troll be a post, person, or topic that disinclines people from responding to it?

in any event, i'm puzzled as to why you think this is some great victory for the Other Usual Suspects in seeing the reaction of the Usual Suspects to their own tactics being used against them.

when something that the Other Usual Suspects don't like comes up on mefi, they start posting and complaining about how it's newsfilter and how they're suffering sooooo much by being forced to read something they don't like, and how so many great and wonderful things are being done in america, iraq and afghanistan by the cheney-rove (let's call it what it is) administration that we never get to hear about....

...whereas the reaction to this reverse troll has been mostly, though not completely, refutation or counter-evidence to many of the points bush made in his speech. even the topic-within a-topic of konolia's postings and the reactions to it aren't the usual moaning and bitching that accompanies the Other Usual Suspect's pitiful cries of "newsfilter."

if this is truly what a "reverse-troll" is, i actually gotta say i wouldn't mind seeing more of them.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:17 PM on June 3, 2004


How D-day would have been reported today...
posted by konolia at 2:27 PM on June 3, 2004


mainly by not letting black people vote....

I call BS on that. I used to live in Florida, and I never saw anyone running off black people at the polls. Give us a specific example if you are going to say things like that.
posted by konolia at 2:35 PM on June 3, 2004


YOu may dislike Bush and his policies, but he is no monster, and he didn't send our troops into harm's way on a whim. He really had nothing to gain from it, politically or otherwise.

Wow.

I mean, this thread was already a bit of a mess by this point, but this is one of the most jawdroppingly naive things I've ever come across in these parts. Felt it needed cropping and reframing. Just stunning.

Wow.
posted by gompa at 2:40 PM on June 3, 2004


How D-day would have been reported today...

Here's a tip... satire works a lot better when it's funny.
posted by COBRA! at 2:45 PM on June 3, 2004


I call BS on that.

here's my reverse-BS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/politics/main520754.shtml (sorry, i remain ignorant of how to post clickable links)

entering "blacks 2000 election felon"

or "NAACP lawsuit florida 2000 election"

will get you plenty of results in google.

i won't even go into the reported, though unsubstantiated afaik, reports of police checkpoints being set up in black precincts on voting day -- perfectly harmless and all, as they were.


posted by lord_wolf at 2:54 PM on June 3, 2004


I used to live in Florida, and I never saw anyone running off black people at the polls.

On the off chance that anything at all happened anywhere in the state while you weren't looking, you could try going to this site and typing in, say, "florida black vote".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:02 PM on June 3, 2004


meanwhile, in baltimore...
posted by mcsweetie at 3:03 PM on June 3, 2004


They even tried to suppress the Black vote in Baltimore, let alone Florida. konolia--not everyone is a good guy, and especially not everyone that wears a uniform or holds office.

on preview--mcsweet beat me to it : >
posted by amberglow at 3:05 PM on June 3, 2004


I call BS on that. I used to live in Florida, and I never saw anyone running off black people at the polls. Give us a specific example if you are going to say things like that.

Whoa boy, konolia. I hate to tell you this, but the illegal purge of African Americans from the voter registration lists prior to the 2000 election is awfully well documented. You can start learning about it by reading up on the NAACP lawsuit, which was settled with the Florida Secretary of State back in 2002. Greg Palast has written on it extensively; he's not an unbiased source, but he's dug up a mountain of irrefutably objective physical and documentary evidence.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:06 PM on June 3, 2004


Give us a specific example if you are going to say things like that.

here's my reverse-BS: link

Ok, konolia, you're up.

</crickets>
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:13 PM on June 3, 2004


lord_wolf, here is some help regarding HTML and posting pretty things on MetaFilter.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:18 PM on June 3, 2004


For those who keep insisting that the War in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, or those who stopped reading for whatever reason, a reiteration:
Fourth and finally, we are denying the terrorists the ideological victories they seek by working for freedom and reform in the broader Middle East. Fighting terror is not just a matter of killing or capturing terrorists. To stop the flow of recruits into terrorist movement, young people in the region must see a real and hopeful alternative -- a society that rewards their talent and turns their energies to constructive purpose. And here the vision of freedom has great advantages. Terrorists incite young men and women to strap bombs on their bodies and dedicate their deaths to the death of others. Free societies inspire young men and women to work, and achieve, and dedicate their lives to the life of their country. And in the long run, I have great faith that the appeal of freedom and life is stronger than the lure of hatred and death.

Freedom's advance in the Middle East will have another very practical effect. The terrorist movement feeds on the appearance of inevitability. It claims to rise on the currents of history, using past America withdrawals from Somalia and Beirut to sustain this myth and to gain new followers. The success of free and stable governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere will shatter the myth and discredit the radicals. (Applause.) And as the entire region sees the promise of freedom in its midst, the terrorist ideology will become more and more irrelevant, until that day when it is viewed with contempt or ignored altogether. (Applause.)

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. (Applause.) Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy. (Applause.)
I'm glad America has leaders who recognize that we can't beat terrorism solely by chasing individuals around the globe, and who have implemented the early stages of the only effective plan to squelch the Hydra-effect of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's recruiting efforts. This speech was the first time I've seen this concept stated so concisely and eloquently.
posted by David Dark at 3:26 PM on June 3, 2004


thanks, Blue_Train. now i can make my posts as purty and kewl as everyone else makes theirs. :-)
posted by lord_wolf at 3:27 PM on June 3, 2004


David Dark nails it: finally, only a year or so later, Bush gives his justification for going to war in Iraq! Or, at least that'll be the justification until something else goes wrong.

Btw, this thread blows, I'm embarassed for myself for having participated.
posted by psmealey at 3:39 PM on June 3, 2004


so...we are in Iraq to deny terrorists ideological victories? what happened to the "roach motel?" anyways, I think I understand. if Iraq becomes a sort of mini-america, then the terrorists will be all, "well, I'll be damned: a hopeful alternative! I'm going to unhook this explosive from my chest and get my GED!" or am I way off?
posted by mcsweetie at 3:41 PM on June 3, 2004


oh, we are starting over? cool!

it appears he finished just in time for the gay miniature golf
posted by mr.marx at 3:44 PM on June 3, 2004


David: Bush is pretty much just reiterating the PNAS mission statement in that quote. Everyone here understands the PNAS "strategy" for democratization of the Middle East by invasion and nation-building. It's a pretty little idea, driven by a tragic geopolitical naivete. And the mainstream of the Republican party is rapidly abandoning it: I think you'll learn soon that the days of neocon power in Washington have come to an end.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:47 PM on June 3, 2004


i love mr.marx : >
posted by amberglow at 3:50 PM on June 3, 2004


erm... That should be PNAC. PNAS are the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which is where that came from.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:02 PM on June 3, 2004


That Secret Service guy was an asshole, but he was not a major league asshole like Adam Clymer.

And Civil_Disobedient, don't you realize that while she lived in Florida she had the power to monitor every voting site in the state. I watched the Thudercats too. Give me sight beyond sight!
posted by john at 4:17 PM on June 3, 2004


Freedom's advance in the Middle East will have another very practical effect. The terrorist movement feeds on the appearance of inevitability. It claims to rise on the currents of history, using past America withdrawals from Somalia That would be Clinton,

and Beirut That would be Saint Reagan

to sustain this myth and to gain new followers.

Myth? It actually happened, in both cases. Hardly a myth. New terrorist followers come along as America does stupid things that offend others. No myth required, George. Is Rummy the Tattoo on Bush's fantasy island? One wonders.

The success of free and stable governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere will shatter the myth and discredit the radicals.

There is no stable government in Iraq, yet, and to call the government of Kabulistan stable is a fucking joke. That's it. Bush is telling jokes. He's looking under tables wondering if the Iraqi WMDs are under there and letting loud farts just to get a chuckle. Haha.

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region.

And our expectations mean jack shit, why? We only have the power of military coercion. To promote a plan based on expectation is childish, foolish and Bush league stupid. We can force the Middle East to do what we want, or get the fuck out. Your choice, of course.

Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy.

It seems that George needs to learn his history. The rule of law took hold in America over a period of about 20 years. The only way that it was solidified without compromise was a civil war after 80 years of Constitutional rule. When others write for him, George talks real purty, but he hasn't got anything to say that mirrors the truth.

I'm glad America has leaders who recognize that we can't beat terrorism solely by chasing individuals around the globe, and who have implemented the early stages of the only effective plan to squelch the Hydra-effect of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's recruiting efforts. This speech was the first time I've seen this concept stated so concisely and eloquently.

David, I've said it before and I'll say it again ... you're a fool. You ascribe to one man the credit you give "our leaders", without ever addressing the actions of all those leaders that you laud. Cheney is a profiteering asshole, Rumsfeld is incompetent, Rice disavows any knowledge or control of PRECISELY what a National Security Advisor should have control over, and the administration as a whole is weak and incompetant ... except in speeches prepared well ahead of delivery. It may be that you've never seen these concepts so well presented, but you haven't seen them in action either, have you? Huh? Well? Come on, show what you got, except pretty words with no backing. Give it a shot, David. What do you have to lose, except your faith in those who will lie as a matter of re-elective course?
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:34 PM on June 3, 2004


Maybe we should draw a line down the center of this nation and split up, we leftists and rightists. As it is this nation is getting divided again, and we all know what happens to a house divided. We Republicans will keep Florida, but you Democrats can have California. Heck, take New York and New Jersey with you.

Jeez, konolia. Color me disappointed. Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the book, and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
posted by jonmc at 4:36 PM on June 3, 2004


Where's Konolia?
posted by Slimemonster at 5:58 PM on June 3, 2004


No, the WWII analogy is apt. After all, FDR did retaliate against Japan by attacking Japan. And Spain.
posted by trondant at 6:24 PM on June 3, 2004


Spain was neutral in World War II; neither side attacked it. Remember, Franco was in power until the 70s.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:31 PM on June 3, 2004


Domo Arigato.
posted by trondant at 7:05 PM on June 3, 2004


Where's Konolia?

I'm back....

Re purging voter lists, I have never seen a voter list that listed race on it.

At the present time I am a poll judge in North Carolina, plus I have had experience looking at voter lists (since my dh is politically active.) Periodically what is supposed to happen is that voter lists are purged of people who have not voted in a certain number of elections. This way, people who have moved, died, or otherwise become inactive aren't cluttering up the list. These lists are used by candidates and political parties for campaign purposes as well as for keeping track at the polls. Now what I can believe is that A. incompetents went nuts purging the lists, and/or B. Someone who was originally registered didn't vote for a long time and didn't realize that periodic purging happens. Now it is possible that the purgers went by neighborhood, as neighborhoods tended to be more segregated in Florida than they are where I live now.

Here, what happens if you think you are supposed to be able to vote but you aren't on the list, or aren't in the right precint or whatever, is that you are allowed to vote BUT it is a provisional ballot (extra work for the chief poll judge, but whatever.) I have no idea how Florida handles that. The person who uses a provisional ballot is able to call the Board of Elections later to check on their vote.

I have no doubt that some people might have been turned away, but it will take some convincing to make me believe that it was because of their race. Besides, if you were going to tamper with votes wouldn't it make more sense to tamper by political affiliation than race-there are white Democrats in Florida too.
posted by konolia at 7:51 PM on June 3, 2004


"in my book, if you don't participate in the democratic process, you lose your right to have an opinion about it. "

This is SO wrong.
posted by lathrop at 8:14 PM on June 3, 2004


I was going to point to that, too, lathrop, and amend it to 'if you don't participate in the democratic process, you have every right to have an opinion about the process, but you should probably just shut the fuck up about it.'

I think that's closer to reasonable!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:58 PM on June 3, 2004


David Dark nails it: finally, only a year or so later, Bush gives his justification for going to war in Iraq! Or, at least that'll be the justification until something else goes wrong.

psmealey, Actually, the theme has been present in nearly every speech that even mentions justifications, including here, here, here, here, here and here. Oh, and the State of the Union Address, as well. I never said it was the first time I've seen it, I said it was the first time I've seen it stated so concisely and so eloquently. There is a difference, of course. But I understand how you could've missed it up to now. When you are filled with irrational hatred for a man from the moment he takes office, you probably tune out the actual words he speaks to focus on chanting "lies, lies, lies, lies" under your breath, or whatever it is you do that keeps you from actually listening. With that level of misunderstanding, I'd be embarrassed about my participation in this thread, too.

so...we are in Iraq to deny terrorists ideological victories? what happened to the "roach motel?" anyways, I think I understand. if Iraq becomes a sort of mini-america, then the terrorists will be all, "well, I'll be damned: a hopeful alternative! I'm going to unhook this explosive from my chest and get my GED!" or am I way off?

No, mcsweetie. The ones who already have explosives on their chests likely won't unhook them, no. Those are the ones we have to chase across the globe, and hopefully we find them and arrest them before they detonate their bombs. That was the first point in the list, and it's absolutely necessary, no question. However, I was referring to the fourth point, which doesn't state that democracy will show terrorists the errors of their ways or get them to lay down their weapons and become fully functioning members of society. That's not going to happen. That's why we've got so many resources fighting terrorism on so many different levels.

The fourth point makes a reference to future generations, the young kids who aren't already strapped in with explosives, the ones who still might have a chance to choose a different path before they are hopelessly brainwashed into martyring themselves, who, because of democracy, won't grow up in schools where the only curriculum is Learning to Hate America and other Western Nations. Democracy could be a useful weapon in that regard, stopping the Hydra-effect, as I said above. Who knows, way down the road in some future scenario, a few terrorists may exhibit your level of epiphany and join in participating in a democracy instead of a jihad organization, but I agree that it's doubtful. And it's unnecessary. If we can stop the organizations from growing, from recruiting more and more into their ranks, then their numbers will inevitably decrease as the foot soldiers are killed, arrested, and/or eventually get tired of losing all the time. I wouldn't endorse this strategy, standing alone, as a solution in and of itself, though taken in conjunction with the other facets of the war on terror, it's a good strategy.
_______________________________________________

I also liked this part of the speech, so let me reiterate it:
As we fight the war on terror in Iraq and on other fronts, we must keep in mind the nature of the enemy. No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it. The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence. Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornet's nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. (Applause.) If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do, suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if America had not liberated Iraq? We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

We are confident of our cause in Iraq, but the struggle we have entered will not end with success in Iraq. Overcoming terrorism, and bringing greater freedom to the nations of the Middle East, is the work of decades. To prevail, America will need the swift and able transformed military you will help to build and lead. America will need a generation of Arab linguists, and experts on Middle Eastern history and culture. America will need improved intelligence capabilities to track threats and expose the plans of unseen enemies.

Above all, America will need perseverance. This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable belief: We believe, in Ronald Reagan's words, that "the future belongs to the free." (Applause.) And we've seen the appeal of liberty with our own eyes. We have seen freedom firmly established in former enemies like Japan and Germany. We have seen freedom arrive, on waves of unstoppable progress, to nations in Latin America, and Asia, and Africa, and Eastern Europe. Now freedom is stirring in the Middle East, and no one should bet against it. (Applause.)
Now quick, someone cue Sven to link to the picture of hugging soldiers and call it gay miniature golf again. Hey, did anyone notice that amberglow isn't nearly as indignant about gay comments when they don't come from 111 and the poster is making fun of the military or President Bush at the same time? This is an astounding observation! Had I known, just think of all of the unoffensive gay jokes we could have made, and the diva himself will even profess his love for it! Wait, I just thought of something. What if the stipulation isn't making fun of the military, but instead making fun of miniature golf? Hmmm.

I know. Let's test it. amberglow, which one of these comments makes you want to have me banned, and which one makes you love me and want to post emoticons?

"Hey everybody, President Bush gave a speech to a bunch of queers!"

OR

"Hey everybody, look how excited queers get about miniature golf!"

Please be honest, this is a scientific inquiry. Thank you for your participation.

Bush is pretty much just reiterating the PNAS mission statement in that quote. Everyone here understands the PNAS "strategy" for democratization of the Middle East by invasion and nation-building. It's a pretty little idea, driven by a tragic geopolitical naivete.

mr_roboto, I'll say this, I'm confused by your link. That letter, written in 1998 to Bill Clinton, has nothing to do with advocating a policy of invasion followed by nation building as you suggest. It may have led to the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton in October 1998, but I couldn't say for sure. Regardless, neither the Iraq letter nor Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act are strategies for invasion followed by nation building, and neither is a strategy for dealing with the war on terror, which obviously hadn't yet begun in its present form.

Perhaps you meant to link to this, the PNAC's Statement of Principles, but still, there is nothing there that advocates a policy of invasion and nation-building. I agree that both advocate the spread of democracy through the world, and therefore I feel compelled to ask why you are so vehemently opposed to giving the rest of the world's population the voice in government that you were lucky enough to be born with? Is it that democracy is so horrible or so wonderful that makes you unable to stand the idea of sharing it with others?
posted by David Dark at 12:23 AM on June 4, 2004


bork! bork! bork!
posted by mr.marx at 12:49 AM on June 4, 2004



I have no doubt that some people might have been turned away


I have no doubt that some other people might not have been turned away.
posted by trondant at 1:19 AM on June 4, 2004


There goes a man with a real loathing for gay miniature golf.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:28 AM on June 4, 2004


subtle racism and homophobia. DD you embody all that is good in this current *sheds tear* administration.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:56 AM on June 4, 2004


There goes a man with a real loathing for gay miniature golf.

All miniature golf is gay.
posted by jonmc at 8:25 AM on June 4, 2004


Mr. Dark, I think you vastly misinterpret my position vis-à-vis any "irrational hatred" that I may harbor for President Bush; which I do not. My disdain for President Bush is quite rational and based on my interpretation of the effects of the activities of this Administration starting in January of 2001. I won't go into the details of it, but to summarize, as a moderate Republican of 18 years, I wanted him to succeed as much as anyone. Almost from the very beginning, with that nonsensical $300 tax rebate to where we now find ourselves in Iraq, I can't find a single instance where it has succeeded, or in essence, made things better now than they were when the Administration arrived on inauguration day.

My embarrassment stems more from having participated in this ridiculous thread that consists of little more than 100+ posts of trolls and counter-trolls, name calling and nearly everyone demonstrating a tin ear with regard to the opposing viewpoint, and no, I don't exclude myself from that.

Clearly the point was made early on that a possible outcome of an Iraqi occupation might be a home base from which to fight terror, but it was never presented as a reason for launching the war (whether we agree it was WMD, UN Resolutions, Saddam and his sons' human rights abuses), only couched as a potential positive outcome. Now that things have not gone according to plan, if indeed there ever was a plan, this effect is now being recast as the reason for launching the invasion. You may think that a subtle distinction, but in my view, which I know you do not share, it speaks volumes to the credibility of this administration.
posted by psmealey at 8:39 AM on June 4, 2004


All miniature golf is gay.

Tell that to the lumberjacks, jonmc.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:14 AM on June 4, 2004


Good lord, psmealy, that's one of the most rational and cohesive arguments I've ever read on this website.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:19 AM on June 4, 2004


Tell that to the lumberjacks, jonmc.

Don't even get me started on the lumberjacks, octobersurprise.
posted by jonmc at 9:28 AM on June 4, 2004


I can't ever decide whether konolia is hopelessly naive, dedicated to being right, or controlled by someone else. She never fails to astound with her dedication to supporting falsehoods.

It seems to me that there's plenty of parallel between WWII and this Iraq war. They're both making the Bush family a ton of money.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:49 AM on June 4, 2004


I know. Let's test it. amberglow, which one of these comments makes you want to have me banned, and which one makes you love me and want to post emoticons?

"Hey everybody, President Bush gave a speech to a bunch of queers!"
OR
"Hey everybody, look how excited queers get about miniature golf!"

Please be honest, this is a scientific inquiry. Thank you for your participation.

Neither. Go troll elsewhere hon.
posted by amberglow at 9:54 AM on June 4, 2004


David Dark, it may be of interest for you, hearing Clinton's speech - book kickoff 06/03/04 - on CSPAN. His ending words dealt with the war on terrorism which may back your views. These are the words he wanted everyone to leave with.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:32 AM on June 4, 2004


Under the Banner of the 'War' on Terror
posted by homunculus at 1:03 PM on June 4, 2004


Also worth sharing:

Iraq as a Failed State: Report #2 October 2003 through March 2004

The Fund for Peace is pleased to release its second report: Iraq as a Failed State: #2. The first report on Iraq, covering the first six months of the post-war period from April to September 2003, concluded that the U.S.-led invasion precipitated the collapse of the Iraqi state, which had been deteriorating for years. The second report concludes that instead of addressing the fundamental requirements of rebuilding the state, post-war policies undertaken by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) focused on completing the process of regime change, with an emphasis on de-Ba'athification, physical infrastructure reconstruction and incremental political transformation.

In the six months reviewed in this report, Iraq descended into what may be described as a failed state syndrome, a condition in which a number of trends reinforced each other to produce spiraling conflict that the country has little or no independent capacity to stop. A year after the invasion, Iraq is as shattered as it was the day that Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the main difference being that organized militias and terrorist groups have gained a foothold they did not have before.

posted by y2karl at 1:22 PM on June 4, 2004


I think Bush has made some great speeches in his time, to be sure. But sadly it seems that his speechwriters are the biggest geniuses in the organization. We haven't seen much get done that is talked about in the speeches, for example he said the US would adhere to resolution 242, and use it as a basis for the mideast peace process. But it has not been the case at all.

Also wrt Iraq, I like what he's saying too, just like David does,. but based on past track record I have very little faith that he will do any of those things. It seems like a lot of hot air. Anyway I think he will have 4 more years to either let us down, or realize 1/4 of what he promises and become the greatest US president in terms of foreign affairs of all time.
posted by chaz at 2:33 PM on June 4, 2004


"Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States." It might have done for you guys. My father's generation in the British Empire and Europe had been fighting WW2 since 1939 and the Nazi invasion of Poland, but never mind. Maybe it wasn't really WW2 until you turned up...

A good speech though, whoever wrote it. Nice to get the whole rationale in one place. Up until now I had the impression Bush only spoke in two sentence soundbites.
posted by terrymiles at 5:10 PM on June 4, 2004


« Older Amazon's trying out "blogging"...  |  The Copenhagen Consensus... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments