And about a thousand links, as well.

August 13, 2004 5:50 PM

1,000 Reasons to Vote Against George Bush. Reasons are in alphabetical order, by category. Last updated Friday, August 13, 2004, 5:18 PM
posted by Peter H (60 comments total)

that's a lot of reasons. : >

(I'm amazed there are still undecided voters around--maybe they like being on TV?)
posted by amberglow at 6:02 PM on August 13, 2004

Overkill. Like Clinton's thousand-page (almost) book. I guess the magnitude of W's sins was the point, but, still...
posted by kozad at 6:02 PM on August 13, 2004

Ha, I think Overkill is a word for Iraq, really, but dangit it's not Over yet.
Killing, certainly, though!

List is currently at 1496. Three hundred more and we have one reason for every numeral in our country's founding year.
posted by Peter H at 6:14 PM on August 13, 2004

Oops, my math is awful. That's 280, not 300 to go. A bargain!
posted by Peter H at 6:15 PM on August 13, 2004

I can see all the reasons to vote against GWB. But somebody please give me a few good reasons to vote for Kerry. Without these, I'll go with the devil I know.
posted by Faze at 6:32 PM on August 13, 2004

But, still what? That's exactly the point. No matter how Bush-tolerant you are, and from what walk of life, there's a reason for YOU!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:34 PM on August 13, 2004

I'll kick start:
Reason #1: You don't know he's the devil.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:36 PM on August 13, 2004

John Kerry Sucks Less.
posted by reklaw at 7:01 PM on August 13, 2004

Boy...this post missed being flamebait by thaaaat much!
posted by MrAnonymous at 7:03 PM on August 13, 2004

You don't know he's the devil.

I do know he's just another old white man. He does have a kookie wife, I'll give him that much. She should be entertaining. But as far as I can see, he's just going to be a Bush that you don't hate. Yet.
posted by Faze at 7:19 PM on August 13, 2004

Faze, maybe reason #813 is of interest to you?
posted by Peter H at 7:24 PM on August 13, 2004

1,000 Reasons to Vote Against George Bush.

I only need one.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:54 PM on August 13, 2004

as far as I can see, he's just going to be a Bush that you don't hate.

As far as you can see. But you have no proof, whereas in the contrary case, you do. Doubt trumps certainty when the certainty is negative. Really, it's quite simple.
posted by rushmc at 8:22 PM on August 13, 2004

I have to say Faze really is asking the right question for this part of the election season: even if he grants that Bush sucks, just what is it that's truly right about Kerry? ABB may be good enough for some but it doesn't fetch the swing voters, and I'm disappointed that nobody here seems to be rising to the challenge on principle. Reciting the evils of Bush has probably pursuaded everyone it's going to: you're not going to fetch many more that way. Kerry supporters actually have to be able to say good things about Kerry, in addition to his Vietnam service. (and even that's just a "compared to Bush" thing, really. Most dems don't inherently admire Vietnam service all that much no matter how heroic.) Here are a few keywords to get you started. Kerry's actually really good at going after bad guys and using intelligence responsibly to do it. And right now, don't we want someone to go after bad guys constructively, in addition to not fucking up the country while we're distracted?
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:00 PM on August 13, 2004

Weird, there are only 40 reasons not to vote for Kerry. You'd think they could come up with a lot more -- I mean people hate that guy already.
posted by mathowie at 9:08 PM on August 13, 2004

And even more surprisingly, John Kerry only needs a one point plan for a better America.

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I put a link to The Onion on MetaFilter without trying for a cheap gag or ironic self-reference.
posted by yhbc at 9:12 PM on August 13, 2004

Okay George, to take your request:

What is truly right about Kerry is that, at least in talk, he is willing to acknowledge the living and struggling percentage of Americans that you probably are a part of: those of us with less than 250,000 dollars to spend on an average weekend. Whether or not he's proven his loyalty to that is somewhat uncertain, but I trust his voice as he speaks. In speeches, he acknowledges problems with insurance, with the war, with income, with conflict.

Meanwhile, Bush just pretends like America is an add on the back of a DC comic book. Full of explosions, giveaways and coupons. And did I mention giveaways?

To be absolutely truthful, and I don't mean this too hostile, I really hope you make over a million dollars a year in income and are shallowly insensitive to the rest of your country. Otherwise you're hypnotized by media and talking points. And should seek detox!
posted by Peter H at 9:19 PM on August 13, 2004

Peter H, you're preaching to the converted. ABB is more than good enough for me, because the man is a nightmare, even if I didn't admire Kerry, and I do in fact admire Kerry. What I was saying is that there are voters out there who need to hear a postiive message, to know what there is to admire in the man. I already do, in part for reasons you can find if you follow the links in the search query I posted. That's the word that needs to be gotten out; because the fact that Bush is a horror has probably gotten through to everyone it's going to.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:22 PM on August 13, 2004

(Actually, "preaching to the converted" is an inaccurate phrase , because I'm not converted. I was a Gore voter and am a registered democrat.)
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:23 PM on August 13, 2004

True George, sorry for the drama :)
I guess it's not hard to see if you just consider Bush's arrogance a sin in itself. It amazes me. A few years ago I read a book in a psyche class that suggested, with examples of messages and funding for schools, that Republicans' appeal to the lower class was that they kept the education so dumbed down and underfunded; making democrats an enemy through they're complicated and intimidating book-learning talk (I'm serious, it's a complicated argument, if you consider it) - that Bush can exploit teams of millions of poorly educated people because social planning has pre-calculated their insecure response and leanings for decades.

Therefore, it isn't the responsibility of Democrats to speak to undecideds or Republicans, because either they're rich or a product of social engineering.

It is, instead, just our responsibility in these next four months, to gather as many together to actually vote.

And if you need reasons and aren't motivated enough yet, I offer these 1,000 links.

[/soapbox] bonus emoticon, :)
posted by Peter H at 9:32 PM on August 13, 2004

Shit my math is bug-dumb again, I mean the next Two and a half months. Yipe!
posted by Peter H at 9:35 PM on August 13, 2004

Public school, huh?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:45 PM on August 13, 2004

I guess I'm trying to say unless you make millions of dollars a year, it's really worth your time to consider whether or not you're being manipulated. Because there is no evidence, other than psychologically-considered messages (that feed into your insecurities and doubts about YOURSELF - but actually explot your weakness to be manipulated), that you have any reason to side with Bush.
posted by Peter H at 9:49 PM on August 13, 2004

m_c_d
Ha, if you mean that at me, honey. Come on now... eh?
(laughs and stares straight at you, grinning)
posted by Peter H at 9:53 PM on August 13, 2004

sorry, (notes your very clever joke) excuse that. Actually yes! Public school all the way, k-12

AND I'M VOTING FOR MY MAN G.W.! (not)

scuse me.
posted by Peter H at 9:57 PM on August 13, 2004

I apologize for being snippy, crash davis' joke was actually pretty sharp and funny. Sincerely. Apologies for not getting it.

Yes, public school! d'oh. :0

:)
posted by Peter H at 10:05 PM on August 13, 2004

Strange...after perusing several dozen of the "reasons" on the linked site, I couldn't help but notice that many (most?) of them are reasons that make me WANT to vote for President Bush. Many of "reasons" are flimsy, off-target, or misleading at best.

Next!
posted by davidmsc at 10:08 PM on August 13, 2004

Of the 1496 listed, name twenty.
posted by Peter H at 10:29 PM on August 13, 2004

Shit my math is bug-dumb again, I mean the next Two and a half months. Yipe!

No Child Left Behind! ;)
posted by filmgoerjuan at 10:32 PM on August 13, 2004

Sigh. Only because you asked so nicely, Peter H. But it will have to wait until tomorrow...it's time to hit the hay for the night.
posted by davidmsc at 10:33 PM on August 13, 2004

I do know he's just another old white man.

That's what I said about Gore in 2000... I voted for Nader.

Yes, I am ashamed...
posted by wfrgms at 11:05 PM on August 13, 2004

hey, if we're really talking about ATTITUDE and OVERKILL, i think we should all go here.
posted by NationalKato at 11:18 PM on August 13, 2004

Kerry is a year older than Bush. So this makes Bush not another old white man? Is this what voting has come to? Age and race and convention? Or are they close enough in age that we'll have to seek other reasons to support or not support one of the other? Why do I feel I'm reading superb examples of the theatre of the absurd that rival Jarry, Ionesco, Beckett, when I read Faze?
posted by juiceCake at 11:25 PM on August 13, 2004

You'd think, after all that's happened in the past 4 years, Bush's detractors could come up with 1000 reasons not to vote for him without having to make up so many.
posted by techgnollogic at 11:54 PM on August 13, 2004

Yeah, techgnollogic, these 1,000 reasons don't comprise anything like a case or an argument against Bush. They are judgements, delivered out of a preconceived dislike. You get the impression that the real juice for these people is the "attitude" section, and that there's something about the cut of Bush's mouth, the tilt of his chin, or the set of his shoulders that drives them into a frenzy. They talk about his "arrogance," but he seems like a pretty humble guy to me. Everybody seems to be criticizing him for reading that goat book while the planes were crashing into the WTC. I have yet to grasp what was so evil about that. I thought it was cute. And as it turns out, he could have spent the whole day reading the goat book, and moved on to "Curious George" and "Mike's Steamshovel" and it wouldn't have much difference. The thing had happened. It was over. What would John Kerry have done? Thrown the book down, stood up and shouted: "Everybody worship my penis, I served in Vietnam!", draped himself in machine gun belts, positioned himself on top of the White House, and fired on kites over Mall?
I cherish the image of George Bush, holding that goat book, sitting in the tiny chair, suffering the little children to come to him, the most powerful man on earth, wrapped in a zen-like calm, while Democrats hid under their desks, or frantically paged through the Koran to find out "why they hate us."
Most of these 1,000 Reasons are not reasons at all, but attitudes themselves. I'm not going to vote for Kerry because of someone else's attitude toward Bush. Those of you who hate Bush with this blind passion are simply handing the election to some guy you know nothing about, based on the simple fact that he is not Bush. You may be surprised by what you get.
posted by Faze at 6:00 AM on August 14, 2004

What would John Kerry have done?

He spent 35 minutes sitting down and realizing he couldn't think.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:40 AM on August 14, 2004

and what of those who hate kerry with a blind passion?

at any rate, a better list.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:44 AM on August 14, 2004

Pete H: Of the 1496 listed, name twenty.

OK -- here's a few that I picked. And let it be noted that there are NOT 1,496 reasons, in fact --- many of them are simply recitations or different sources of previously-listed "reasons." That's OK -- I understand that the people who compiled the list might have trouble counting that high. Here we go:

1491: Women's Rights: Bush tried to shut down the Department of Labor's network of regional women's offices.
Women's e-News, 2001-12-20 link
COMMENT: Good. I don't believe that we need "regional women's offices" in the DoL.

1493: Women's Rights: Bush closed the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2001-04-10 link
COMMENT: Same as above. The White House does not need such an office.

1453: War: Bush's preemptive war policy violates international law
The Bush administration's preemptive war policy, wherein he claims the right to overthrow any government suspected of being a danger to the US, goes against international law, specifically the UN Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another unless under imminent threat of invasion. The Guardian, 2002-06-07 link
COMMENT: Tough. The US has the right to defend itself, and in this new era of "asynchronous warfare," pre-emptive action is required.

1446: War: "Shock and awe" is really terrorism
They can call it "Shock And Awe" if they want; but- by the Pentagon's own admission - we've already got a name for this kind of thing, and it is "terrorism." The Plaid Adder, 2003-01-31 link
COMMENT: I can't believe that this actually is cited as somehow being a "legitimate" criticism. War is nasty & ugly & brutal -- and we gave plenty of time (12 years!) for Saddam to stand down. Equating the actions of the US with "terrorism" is beyond childish.

1447: War: Bush demonized Saddam Hussein
In order to generate support for the war against Iraq, Bush demonized Saddam Hussein, but did so with references to atrocities he committed a decade ago. Bush, however, implied that Hussein's crimes were new. ABC News 2003-01-29 link
COMMENT: It was not necessary for Bush to "demonize" Hussein -- Hussein did that quite nicely all by his evil little self.

1443: War: Bush favors UN irrelevance
Bush warned that the UN would become irrelevant unless they went along with his war against Iraq, but when they refused, he defied them and therefore tried to make them irrelevant. But that's part of the plan; the far-right, which Bush represents, has always hated the UN. Express News 2003-03-03 link
COMMENT: Good - I agree with Bush.

1436: War: Bush threatens North Korea as part of his "axis of evil"
North Korea is yet another country that Bush has threatened. According to the Centre Daily Times, "President Bush last year tagged Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an 'axis of evil' that threatens world order. " Centre Daily Time 2003-04-06 link
COMMENT: Good. NK is evil - Bush actually had the guts to say it.

1437: War: Bush's general insensitive to Iraqi deaths
When asked how many Iraqis had been killed in the war, General Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts." His callous indifference hides the estimated 6,000 to 7,000 civilians killed. Iraq Body Count 2003-04-03 link
COMMENT: Wartime Generals are not paid to be "sensitive" -- they are paid to win wars.

1430: War: Bush declares, prematurely, Mission Accomplished
Bush, declaring the war was over in his pilot's outfit, wasted a huge amount of money for purely propaganda reason. Not to mention that he was premature in his announcement. BBC News 2003-05-02 link
COMMENT: The "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to the aircraft carrier's mission, which was in fact complete. Bush explicitly stated that MAJOR combat operations were complete, but that much remained to be done. All true.

1411: War: 9-11 turned into propganda by Bush
Lights, Camera, Exploitation. In the end 9-11 turned out to be a made-for-TV movie, or rather, the basis for one shameless propaganda vehicle for our superstar president George W. Bush. Village Voice 2003-08-27 link
COMMENT: HA HA HA -- in fact, the person who has "propagandized" 9/11 more than any other person is Michael Moore.

3: Attitude: To Err Is Human, to Flip-Flop Divine
NEW YORK -- President Bush is working hard to convince the American people that John F. Kerry has a fatal flaw: He changes his mind. Or, in the current political lexicon, he "flip-flops." But isn't a willingness to change course -- even to admit error -- an asset in a leader?
COMMENT: Bush has not "flip flopped" nearly as much as the Dem nominee. And somehow implying that "changing your mind" is acceptable is fine -- if it's for the right reasons. Bush doesn't "change course" based on polling data, or based on what he thinks a particular audience wants to hear -- unlike Kerry (UAW vs Earth Day).

4: Attitude: Arrogance, big-time
TO TAKE the measure of a man's character, so the saying goes, apply a little pressure. Anyone can behave well when life is easy. The true test comes when the going gets tough. So, while the X-rated insult Vice President Dick Cheney hurled Tuesday at Vermont Democrat Patrick J. Leahy might be forgiven by the senator as the product of a "bad day," it fits so well into a broader pattern of arrogance as to be indicative of the inner life of the man who plays an enormous role in running this country. Baltimore Sun 2004-06-27 link
COMMENT: Um, this is a criticism of Vice President Cheney, and as criticisms go, it's weak. The utterance of one foul word is hardly reason to dismiss his career of public service and ideology.

40: Campaign: Moore to Show 'Fahrenheit' in Bush's Texas Town
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Filmmaker Michael Moore will bring his antiwar documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to President Bush's Texas hometown on Wednesday and has invited the commander-in-chief to attend the viewing, organizers said. In the parking lot of the Crawford High School football field, Moore is expected to make a presentation about the film to an audience that could temporarily double the tiny hamlet's usual population of 705, according to peace activists who first proposed showing the satirical film on the side of a barn. Yahoo News 2004-07-26 link
COMMENT: WTF? How is this a "reason not to vote for Bush?" It is simply a news headline about Moore showing his filth-fest in Bush's hometown. It has nothing to do with Bush, and is not even disguised as a criticism of Bush.

46: Democracy: Don't even think about it
OFFICIALS OF the Bush administration are said to be pondering what power they have -- or should seek -- to postpone national elections in November in the event of terrorist strikes aimed at disrupting the democratic process. The Bush people should drop the idea, lest the hint that terrorism could curb the rights of Americans be an added incentive to our enemies. SF Chronicle 2004-07-12 link
COMMENT: It would be foolish to NOT prepare for emergency situations -- for instance, what if Hurricane Charley struck on Election Day?

54: Democracy: Huge protests are "irrelevant" to Bush
When asked about his reaction to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who rallied on Feb. 15 to oppose a war, Bush brushed them off as irrelevant. To pay attention to the largest worldwide political event in recent history, he said, would be like governing by focus group. Common Dreams 2003-03-03 link
COMMENT: Good! The President has more important things to do than express concern (genuine or not) about a group of people who have made their opinions known, but which opinions are completely irrelevant to the course of action that has already been initiated.

63: Democracy: FCC Chair promotes corporate-friendly agenda
After nine months in office, Powell does appear hellbent on pursuing a corporate-friendly agenda that can only result in a further torrent of mergers in the media industries. The Guardian 2001-10-29 link
COMMENT: Good! It's about damn time.

67: Economy: Bush Says National Sales Tax Worth Considering
NICEVILLE, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush said on Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering. "It's an interesting idea," Bush told an "Ask President Bush" campaign forum here. "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." Yahoo News 2004-08-10 link
COMMENT: Good! It sounds like a reasonably feasible alternative to the current tax code, from what I've read.

651: Government: Bush quietly meets with Amish here; they offer their prayers
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - President Bush met privately with a group of Old Order Amish during his visit to Lancaster County last Friday. He discussed their farms and their hats and his religion. He asked them to vote for him in November. The Amish told the president that not all members of the church vote but they would pray for him. Lancaster Online 2004-07-19 link
COMMENT: I'm an atheist, and put absolutely no stock in religion or prayer -- but why on earth is Bush being criticized for meeting with Amish people? Is there something wrong with that?

688: Government: U.S. Contractor Fired for Military Coffin Photo
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. contractor and her husband have been fired after her photograph of 20 flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers going home from Iraq was published in violation of military rules. Wired 2004-04-22 link
COMMENT: The contractor broke the rules - and suffered the logical consequences. Hm. Hard to figure, eh?

693: Government: Bush on vacation 40% of his presidency
This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency. Washington Post 2004-04-09 link
COMMENT: There is no such thing as a "vacation" for the US President -- he is "on" 24/7. Wherever the President goes (whether it's Bush, Clinton, whatever), the "White House" is with him. He does not need to actually sit in the Oval Office in order to effectively discharge his duties.
posted by davidmsc at 6:58 AM on August 14, 2004

Reciting the evils of Bush has probably pursuaded everyone it's going to

So your contention is that everyone else actively supports evil in their soul? As cynical as I am, I just can't buy that. I think in most cases it's simple ignorance, and that attempts to educate, such as this list, can be very productive.

It's quite simple: When someone does a bad job or isn't up to a task, you replace them. That being the case, it becomes critical to demonstrate to those who inexplicably still aren't aware of what a mindbogglingly bad job Bush has done just how bad it's been, and why. Then trust them to do the right thing.
posted by rushmc at 7:27 AM on August 14, 2004

davidsmc, I noticed you only picked one choice for economy and it was the weakest option there. Although, while you may think it sounds good there is probably no way it would ever happen. Nothing like a little Administration smoke up our asses.

While this list is overstuffed and completely bias, it doesn't change the fact that there are some legitimate reasons in there. Maybe people are too blinded by the words 'tax cut' to bother checking to see where the savings are going. Apparently the largest deficit ever doesn't mean anything to people either.

Based simply on the Bush Administrations economic policies, I will not be voting for him. What kind of person will increase spending when they're broke? Not mine.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 8:40 AM on August 14, 2004

someone mention tax cuts? New Congressional Budget Office Report Confirms that George Bush is Shifting the Tax Burden to the Middle Class
posted by amberglow at 9:40 AM on August 14, 2004

I noticed you only picked one choice for economy

True, but not intentionally. I pretty much just scrolled through randomly and picked out some of the "low hanging fruit." And many of them are simply repeats of a single theme -- for instance, IIRC, at least 300 of the "reasons" are essentially "Bush hates the environment!"
posted by davidmsc at 9:40 AM on August 14, 2004

Good. NK is evil - Bush actually had the guts to say it

That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. (But then, that's Bush supporters all over, isn't it? Simple minds, simple answers...).

What, might I ask, did it serve to label NK as such? It put no extra international pressure on them, it didn't change our economic or diplomatic policy towards them, and cannot be seen as a threat, because even Bush's advisors can't be so stupid as to propose a pre-emptive war against NK (or Iran, for that matter). So I would really like to know why you think this is a good idea (or is this another example of the simple 'plain-speaking' of the Texan that some people seem to find so charming?).
posted by amauck at 9:54 AM on August 14, 2004

FCC Chair promotes corporate-friendly agenda... Good! It's about damn time

And as far as I can tell this delegitimates anything else you say. What possible advantage can media mergers provide?
posted by amauck at 9:58 AM on August 14, 2004

What possible advantage can media mergers provide?

Silly! It provides for the quick and effective dissemination of RNC talking points.
posted by amberglow at 10:00 AM on August 14, 2004

David - damn, bro. Well I will give you props and respect for following through on your word. Very impressed. To respond:

1491: Women's Rights: Bush tried to shut down the Department of Labor's network of regional women's offices.
Women's e-News, 2001-12-20 link
COMMENT: Good. I don't believe that we need "regional women's offices" in the DoL.

Egad ... um. Kind of a bad foot to start out with women's rights. I don't really have a comment, truthfully. I sort of read your response as "women don't belong in government", or something. What?

1493: Women's Rights: Bush closed the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2001-04-10 link
COMMENT: Same as above. The White House does not need such an office.

Again, sorry. What? You're being vague with your reasoning on this, so I'll be vague on my response. Again: What? These are very strange things to be pulled towards as your first and second reasons for calling the entire list a bunch of bunk.

Are you saying, as your lead argument, that Bush should be re-elected because he fired a bunch of ladies because there's no place for them or their voice in Washington?

1453: War: Bush's preemptive war policy violates international law
The Bush administration's preemptive war policy, wherein he claims the right to overthrow any government suspected of being a danger to the US, goes against international law, specifically the UN Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another unless under imminent threat of invasion. The Guardian, 2002-06-07 link
COMMENT: Tough. The US has the right to defend itself, and in this new era of "asynchronous warfare," pre-emptive action is required.

Okay, a somewhat milder discussion topic.
I agree that the US has a right to defend itself, but it doesn't have the right to attack. That's like someone punching you in the face for no reason, based on a theory you're a threat.

You, as a citizen, have the right to say "tough" but Bush, as a leader, does not. It's his responsibility to be both our leader and our protector, and pissing off the world provokes the rest of the world against us more than any protection we achieve through pre-emptive whatever. IMO.

Besides, international law is just that, not ours, not theirs, but the world's. Other violators include: Hitler's Germany, Iraq, etc. Does it not bother you that he's doing something the rest of the world finds threatening, and in line with previous dictators? As a leader, I want someone to keep me from getting bombed. Or at the least, I don't want to get beaten up when I visit Europe for being an American. Etc. But he has made us into an international threat. Through this so-called "TOUGH" behavior.

1446: War: "Shock and awe" is really terrorism
They can call it "Shock And Awe" if they want; but- by the Pentagon's own admission - we've already got a name for this kind of thing, and it is "terrorism." The Plaid Adder, 2003-01-31 link
COMMENT: I can't believe that this actually is cited as somehow being a "legitimate" criticism. War is nasty & ugly & brutal -- and we gave plenty of time (12 years!) for Saddam to stand down. Equating the actions of the US with "terrorism" is beyond childish.

Ha. Well, terrorism is a big word, and I'll agree with you. Thieves, maybe. Who's oil and heroin is it now, right? Afghanistan and Iraq are shocked and awed by our current possession of their GNP

1447: War: Bush demonized Saddam Hussein
In order to generate support for the war against Iraq, Bush demonized Saddam Hussein, but did so with references to atrocities he committed a decade ago. Bush, however, implied that Hussein's crimes were new. ABC News 2003-01-29 link
COMMENT: It was not necessary for Bush to "demonize" Hussein -- Hussein did that quite nicely all by his evil little self.

It was also not neccessary to have business dealings with Hussein for decades. But Bush's family did pretty nicely by that themselves, too. You don't see the smoke and mirrors there? Do plots complicate you when you read books or do you need to see actual video? He's a business partner!

1443: War: Bush favors UN irrelevance
Bush warned that the UN would become irrelevant unless they went along with his war against Iraq, but when they refused, he defied them and therefore tried to make them irrelevant. But that's part of the plan; the far-right, which Bush represents, has always hated the UN. Express News 2003-03-03 link
COMMENT: Good - I agree with Bush.

Oh god! Are you fucking serious? If we separate with the UN, we become an outside threat. It's not America's security, it's a global security. How pea-eyed to not see the clumsy, oafish, completely stupid choice to side with Bush on this. You can try and explain Bush but to agree and say Good makes you seem really, incredibly, well, dumb. Sorry.

1436: War: Bush threatens North Korea as part of his "axis of evil"
North Korea is yet another country that Bush has threatened. According to the Centre Daily Times, "President Bush last year tagged Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an 'axis of evil' that threatens world order. " Centre Daily Time 2003-04-06 link
COMMENT: Good. NK is evil - Bush actually had the guts to say it.

EEEeeeek. Man, I think you misinterpret world politics with football. We live in a global theatre where we are all evil. The thing that keeps us from all being blown up is our respect for each other. Many cultures, ourselves included, will go to war over being insulted. THE NUMBER ONE JOB of a president is to be a peaceful and respectful statesman. Having the "guts" to say it is really idiotic. It's harder to sit on words than to say them.

1437: War: Bush's general insensitive to Iraqi deaths
When asked how many Iraqis had been killed in the war, General Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts." His callous indifference hides the estimated 6,000 to 7,000 civilians killed. Iraq Body Count 2003-04-03 link
COMMENT: Wartime Generals are not paid to be "sensitive" -- they are paid to win wars.

Ha, TALKING POINTS. Cheney tool!

1430: War: Bush declares, prematurely, Mission Accomplished
Bush, declaring the war was over in his pilot's outfit, wasted a huge amount of money for purely propaganda reason. Not to mention that he was premature in his announcement. BBC News 2003-05-02 link
COMMENT: The "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to the aircraft carrier's mission, which was in fact complete. Bush explicitly stated that MAJOR combat operations were complete, but that much remained to be done. All true.

??? confused. What news are you watching? More combat, death, failure and injury has happened since the mission got accomplished, or whatever you call it.

1411: War: 9-11 turned into propganda by Bush
Lights, Camera, Exploitation. In the end 9-11 turned out to be a made-for-TV movie, or rather, the basis for one shameless propaganda vehicle for our superstar president George W. Bush. Village Voice 2003-08-27 link
COMMENT: HA HA HA -- in fact, the person who has "propagandized" 9/11 more than any other person is Michael Moore.

Well .... come on now. One man's two hour documentary is, say, another man's State of the Union speech, Press conferences, Sound bytes, Websites, radio addresses, and television commercials.

3: Attitude: To Err Is Human, to Flip-Flop Divine
NEW YORK -- President Bush is working hard to convince the American people that John F. Kerry has a fatal flaw: He changes his mind. Or, in the current political lexicon, he "flip-flops." But isn't a willingness to change course -- even to admit error -- an asset in a leader?
COMMENT: Bush has not "flip flopped" nearly as much as the Dem nominee. And somehow implying that "changing your mind" is acceptable is fine -- if it's for the right reasons. Bush doesn't "change course" based on polling data, or based on what he thinks a particular audience wants to hear -- unlike Kerry (UAW vs Earth Day).

You're right. Bush instead changes course based on what corporations and warmongers want to hear. Again, if you make over a million dollars, you have a perfectly good reason to buy into his leadership (and probably have) if you don't, you're a TOOL. hypnotized and a victim of persuasion. David, you strike me as someone who takes pride in your intellect. Doesn't it trouble you at all to possibly being manipulated?

4: Attitude: Arrogance, big-time
TO TAKE the measure of a man's character, so the saying goes, apply a little pressure. Anyone can behave well when life is easy. The true test comes when the going gets tough. So, while the X-rated insult Vice President Dick Cheney hurled Tuesday at Vermont Democrat Patrick J. Leahy might be forgiven by the senator as the product of a "bad day," it fits so well into a broader pattern of arrogance as to be indicative of the inner life of the man who plays an enormous role in running this country. Baltimore Sun 2004-06-27 link
COMMENT: Um, this is a criticism of Vice President Cheney, and as criticisms go, it's weak. The utterance of one foul word is hardly reason to dismiss his career of public service and ideology.

I will agree on this. Fuck that. Of course, your side went apeshit over a C-grade comedian's joke of Bush meaning vagina. So who's the squares?

40: Campaign: Moore to Show 'Fahrenheit' in Bush's Texas Town
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Filmmaker Michael Moore will bring his antiwar documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to President Bush's Texas hometown on Wednesday and has invited the commander-in-chief to attend the viewing, organizers said. In the parking lot of the Crawford High School football field, Moore is expected to make a presentation about the film to an audience that could temporarily double the tiny hamlet's usual population of 705, according to peace activists who first proposed showing the satirical film on the side of a barn. Yahoo News 2004-07-26 link
COMMENT: WTF? How is this a "reason not to vote for Bush?" It is simply a news headline about Moore showing his filth-fest in Bush's hometown. It has nothing to do with Bush, and is not even disguised as a criticism of Bush.

I'll agree with you on that. Only 1495 left to knock down!

46: Democracy: Don't even think about it
OFFICIALS OF the Bush administration are said to be pondering what power they have -- or should seek -- to postpone national elections in November in the event of terrorist strikes aimed at disrupting the democratic process. The Bush people should drop the idea, lest the hint that terrorism could curb the rights of Americans be an added incentive to our enemies. SF Chronicle 2004-07-12 link
COMMENT: It would be foolish to NOT prepare for emergency situations -- for instance, what if Hurricane Charley struck on Election Day?

HA. Well, fortunately we'll be out of tornado and hurricane season. Note the word pondering and not preparing, though, and I think you'll see the route of our national anxiety over this.

54: Democracy: Huge protests are "irrelevant" to Bush
When asked about his reaction to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who rallied on Feb. 15 to oppose a war, Bush brushed them off as irrelevant. To pay attention to the largest worldwide political event in recent history, he said, would be like governing by focus group. Common Dreams 2003-03-03 link
COMMENT: Good! The President has more important things to do than express concern (genuine or not) about a group of people who have made their opinions known, but which opinions are completely irrelevant to the course of action that has already been initiated.

Okay, did you not see the entire WORLD protesting?
Arrogance like that is so dangerously Napoleon like that it flabbergasts me that you'd pick this as a reason to knock down. To me, Bush lost every bit of credibility the world over when he said fuck you to a world of concerned and troubled people and still pressed that little red button to go to war. (a war, by the way that we started)

Man, seriously, you shouldve just avoided this example instead of included it in your closing argument.

63: Democracy: FCC Chair promotes corporate-friendly agenda
After nine months in office, Powell does appear hellbent on pursuing a corporate-friendly agenda that can only result in a further torrent of mergers in the media industries. The Guardian 2001-10-29 link
COMMENT: Good! It's about damn time.

Wha? Huh? About damn time for what exactly?

67: Economy: Bush Says National Sales Tax Worth Considering
NICEVILLE, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush said on Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering. "It's an interesting idea," Bush told an "Ask President Bush" campaign forum here. "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." Yahoo News 2004-08-10 link
COMMENT: Good! It sounds like a reasonably feasible alternative to the current tax code, from what I've read.

Except for the fact that if you get rid of the income tax, you only tax the consumers, not the wealthy. People in the lowest possible income bracket would suddenly find their lives about three to four times worse, paying a 14% sales tax for bed sheets, etc. Meanwhile, the wealthy who already have nice things would only have to pay about a third as much.

Man how wealthy and mean does one have to be to side with Bush, really?

651: Government: Bush quietly meets with Amish here; they offer their prayers
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - President Bush met privately with a group of Old Order Amish during his visit to Lancaster County last Friday. He discussed their farms and their hats and his religion. He asked them to vote for him in November. The Amish told the president that not all members of the church vote but they would pray for him. Lancaster Online 2004-07-19 link
COMMENT: I'm an atheist, and put absolutely no stock in religion or prayer -- but why on earth is Bush being criticized for meeting with Amish people? Is there something wrong with that?

Nah. You're right with this on. 1494 to go! ;)
Except for church and state, but Bush has embraces much more corrupt and powerful church leaders than the amish for this to be a big story.

688: Government: U.S. Contractor Fired for Military Coffin Photo
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. contractor and her husband have been fired after her photograph of 20 flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers going home from Iraq was published in violation of military rules. Wired 2004-04-22 link
COMMENT: The contractor broke the rules - and suffered the logical consequences. Hm. Hard to figure, eh?

But the rules were there to keep out the truth. A bloodless war with no fatalities is much easier to get behind than one where your children come back dead or limbless and stuck to medical equipment for the rest of their lives. Right?

693: Government: Bush on vacation 40% of his presidency
This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency. Washington Post 2004-04-09 link
COMMENT: There is no such thing as a "vacation" for the US President -- he is "on" 24/7. Wherever the President goes (whether it's Bush, Clinton, whatever), the "White House" is with him. He does not need to actually sit in the Oval Office in order to effectively discharge his duties.

Oh man, what a point to close on.. No comment!

:)
posted by Peter H at 10:56 AM on August 14, 2004

Davidmsc, that was fun. My respect to you for upping with the twenty reasons. Apologies for any harsh words, ie stupid, dumb, etc. It was in the heat of response. Shoulda edited them out. Best, etc - Peter

Happy to debate more, too.
posted by Peter H at 10:58 AM on August 14, 2004

"Now watch this drive" is the only comment that last point needs.
posted by amberglow at 11:04 AM on August 14, 2004

Wartime Generals are not paid to be "sensitive" -- they are paid to win wars.

Just in case you didn't notice, we haven't won the war in Iraq. Which has been especially apparent since Fallujah--you do remember when, after you had waxed Television Remote Control Specialist 2 expansive on how to reduce it to rubble when the first assaults were mounted, how we got bogged down, then backed down and officially turned it over to the people already running the town.

Nor can the war be won militarily--according to the wartime generals in currently in charge. That is a matter of record.

Next.
posted by y2karl at 7:11 AM on August 15, 2004

Peter H: As you said, I appreciate your response to my response, and your (relatively) civil tone. We'll agree to disagree on virtually everything -- although I am glad that you conceded that two of the points were worthless. :-)


y2karl: ...after you had waxed Television Remote Control Specialist 2

Nuts to you, karl. I've been wearing a uniform for nearly 17 years.
//
posted by davidmsc at 9:18 AM on August 15, 2004

And look where it has gotten you: Supporting Michael Powell for consolidating media, and praising Bush for outright belligerence. Bravo!
posted by amauck at 3:59 PM on August 15, 2004

Brilliant retort, amauck...absolutely brilliant. WTF kind of comment is that, anyway? Is it somehow supposed to be clever? Insightful? Snarky? Witty? Profound?
posted by davidmsc at 4:27 PM on August 15, 2004

Snarky, I suppose, but let me extend an olive branch:

Look, I'm not trying to be critical of the military or those who serve: it is a respectable and necessary vocation, and there are a number of occasions where we could not do without it. I would hope to see a little more subtlety in your responses, however, given that you have had experience in the military. Take the 'generals are paid to win wars' comment. Absolutely true. The question is how best to accomplish this. Sherman's March was arguably the first 'shock and awe' campaign in American history. Here it did not pay to be sensitive: most people living in the Confederacy remained fervent supporters of secession even late in the war when they were starving, and would probably have continued to supply the army as long as possible if Sherman hadn't come along and destroyed everything throughout Georgia and South Carolina. In Iraq you had a population that was not particularly attached to the leadership and in a marginal economic position as a result of years of sanctions. Hussein barely had an army. If anything, 'shock and awe' galvanized people who would otherwise have been more trusting of us. It might have paid here to be a little more 'sensitive' in in the short run (and perhaps have lost a few more troops initially), given the long-run effects we are now witnessing. So while it is true that 'generals are paid to win wars,' the operative word here is win, with the proviso that there is always more than one way to win a war.

I am similarly bothered by the dismissive hand-waiving you apply to other issues as well. you have not answered my initial question of why media consolidation is good: I would really like to know your reasons, as I can think of very few people on either side of the political spectrum who feel this way (unless they are friends with Rupert Murdoch). You're undoubtedly a patriot as your service attests- what do you think Tocqueville or Benjamin Franklin would say about your support of this?
posted by amauck at 4:57 PM on August 15, 2004

I am not necessarily in favor of "media consolidation" per se -- I am, however, in favor of letting the markets decide ON THEIR OWN. I don't think the Federal government should be in the business of telling Mr. Smith that he can't purchase Company ABC. Media consolidation is, in my mind, rather neutral -- I don't particularly care -- but I definitely care about the government trying to impose "controls" on who can or can't own what properties.

Remember: a true "monopoly" can only exist WITH government support and dictate.

Oh - and thank you for clarifying your position on military service -- your earlier comment left me wondering if you held it in low regard. Glad to see that it is not true.
posted by davidmsc at 6:27 PM on August 15, 2004

The airwaves are supposed to serve the public, david. How does just one or two companies owning most of them serve the public? The airwaves belong to the public, and since 1927, the federal government has required broadcasters who use them to serve the public's interests.
posted by amberglow at 6:33 PM on August 15, 2004

The airwaves are supposed to serve the public

In this sense they are a public good, like freeways, air & water, and defense. Even Adam Smith acknowledged the necessity of state oversight for some things.

I understand the arguments behind the free market perspective, and am often willing to accept the validity of this position, but not when applies to the things that we all need to take advantage of equally, or serve as a shelter to the market itself. Media serves the latter purpose by providing for more perfect information. The more media is consolidated in a few hands holding onto it with monopolistic force, the more likely we are to suffer from problems of imperfect information about the market itself. In this respect, it is entirely consistent with a lassez faire economic perspective to limit media consolidation.
posted by amauck at 6:58 PM on August 15, 2004

tv say kerry bad now. ice cream.
posted by Satapher at 7:10 PM on August 15, 2004

tv lie. get me some too.
posted by amberglow at 8:26 PM on August 15, 2004

The airwaves are "supposed to serve the public" according to law -- but I disagree with that.

From the link: "The FCC must ensure that broadcasters provide programming that engages citizens in our democratic processes and allows for the airing of more diverse, independent viewpoints.

One question: WHY? Why must the FCC ensure this? Short answer: It shouldn't.

And let's be honest, people -- the odds of one (or two, or three, etc) person/people owning & controlling ALL BROADCAST media is just preposterous.
posted by davidmsc at 12:08 AM on August 16, 2004

Re: Wartime Generals are not paid to be "sensitive" -- they are paid to win wars.

amuack made the point well enough:

In Iraq you had a population that was not particularly attached to the leadership and in a marginal economic position as a result of years of sanctions. Hussein barely had an army. If anything, 'shock and awe' galvanized people who would otherwise have been more trusting of us. It might have paid here to be a little more 'sensitive' in in the short run (and perhaps have lost a few more troops initially), given the long-run effects we are now witnessing. So while it is true that 'generals are paid to win wars,' the operative word here is win, with the proviso that there is always more than one way to win a war.



US Army chief: Iraq "cannot be won militarily"

A passage from Intel Dump's Assessing blame for post-war Iraq:

On page 393, Gen. Franks tells of another briefing to President Bush and the NSC principals — this time in Aug. 2002, in the White House. Here again, Gen. Franks discussed the post-war issues, but apparently in a brief and optimistic way:

My final chart was potentially the most important: PHASE IV STABILITY OPERATIONS.

"The Generated and Running Starts," I explained, "and the Hybrid Concept all project Phase III ending with a maximum of two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Iraq. We will have to stand up a new Iraqi army, and create a constabulary that includes a representative tribal, religious and ethnic mix. It will take time.

"And well-designed and well-funded reconstruction projects that put large numbers of Iraqis to work and quickly meet community needs — and expectations — will be the keys to our success in Phase IV."

"We will want to get Iraqis in charge of Iraq as soon as possible," Don Rumsfeld said. On hearing his words, heads nodded around the table.

"At some point," I said, "we can begin drawing down our force. We'll want to retain a core strength of at least fifty thousand men, and our troop reductions should parallel deployment of representative, professional Iraqi security forces. Our exit strategy will be tied to effective governance by Iraqis, not to a timeline."

I saw further nods around the table. And then Condi Rice tapped her watch; we were out of time.

Analysis: Wow... the "group think" is so thick in this briefing that you can taste it. Heads nodding... eyes indicating assent without question... this is not an OPLAN briefing, this is a love-fest. Seriously, one can start adding up all of the implicit assumptions in these statements by Gen. Franks, and figure out exactly why the Phase IV plan went so poorly. For starters, there's no discussion of initial security needs, or initial needs for law and order. Second, there's no discussion of institutional responsibility for the key reconstruction projects described as being so essential — something we know now well in the crack between State/USAID and Defense. Third, we have an incredibly optimistic troop redeployment estimate by Gen. Franks that reflects the best case scenario for post-war stability and reconstruction efforts. I don't know whether less optimistic scenarios were presented to the President or not, but it's clear from Franks' book that he certainly didn't give him any. And so, President Bush decided to go to war on the basis of this best case scenario, without the expectation that we could get bogged down in Phase IV. Of course, I blame the President for making that flawed decision and his top advisers (like Secretary Rumsfeld) for pushing it. But a certain amount of blame also belongs to Gen. Franks, for not highlighting the strategic and operational risks of this plan and pushing for their resolution before execution.

I stand corrected on your military service, davidmsc. The fact remains you wrote like a Television Remote Control Specialist 2. The wishful thinking, and speaking in slogans, is quite redolent of the 82nd Couchborne. Hope is not a method, as PhilCarter notes elsewhere in his review of Max Boot's review of Tommy Frank's book in the link above. Another salient passage therefrom:

Second, the review implies that the other post-war criticisms of the Bush administration are unfounded — that the administration's judgment on this operation has been borne out by events. I just don't think you can make a colorable argument to support that point. The fact of the matter is that this administration latched onto every optimistic assumption in the book, as James Fallows reported in the Atlantic Monthly, and failed to effectively plan for the chaos and instability that followed the war. Of course, you couldn't foresee that with any certainty. But you sure as hell could plan for it — and in my opinion, it was derelict not to at least anticipate (and plan for) a worst-case scenario. As I wrote in June 2003 for the Washington Monthly, we have always known that it takes more troops and time to secure the peace than to win the war — it's simply a more complicated endeavor. We ignored the lessons of Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo in Iraq, and we are now paying the price.
posted by y2karl at 10:18 PM on August 16, 2004