Posted by Mark Silva at 11 am CDT
With his September series of speeches about staying the course in Iraq well underway, President Bush devoted his weekly radio address from his Labor Day weekend retreat at Camp David to his rationale for fighting a war which he maintains is center to the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century.''
Calling the "path to victory… uphill and uneven,'' Bush said it will require more "patience'' and "sacrifice'' from Americans. On Tuesday, in Washington, Bush will deliver the next in his series of these speeches timed for the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That anniversary of 9/11 has provided the pivot for the Democratic radio response to Bush's address, which was delivered today by Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who drew on a lack of progress in the recovery from Hurricane Katrina to charge that "the Bush Administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress have failed to adequately prepare our nation, leaving us vulnerable to large-scale disasters.'' It's the Democrats, he said, who will keep the nation safe.
This is the text of the president's radio address:
"Good morning. This week, I spoke to the American Legion in Salt Lake City. I thanked the military veterans for their lifetime of service to our country. And I gave them an update on the war that America is now fighting in defense of freedom in our time.
"We're approaching the fifth anniversary of the September the 11th attacks -- and since that day, we have taken the fight to the enemy. Yet this war is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, worship, and live in liberty. On the other side are those driven by tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest. We did not ask for this war, but we're answering history's call with confidence -- and we will prevail.
"We are using every element of national power to defeat the terrorists. First, we're staying on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. Second, we made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you're as guilty as the terrorists, you're an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account. And third, we have launched a bold new agenda to defeat the ideology of the enemy by supporting the forces of freedom and moderation in the Middle East and beyond.
"A vital part of our strategy to defeat the terrorists is to help establish a democratic Iraq, which will be a beacon of liberty in the region and an ally in the global war on terror. The terrorists understand the threat a democratic Iraq poses to their cause, so they've been fighting a bloody campaign of sectarian violence, which they hope will plunge that country into a civil war. Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war. They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country. America will stand with the Iraqi people as they protect their new freedom -- and build a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.
"Working side-by-side with Iraqi forces, we recently launched a major new campaign to end the security crisis in Baghdad. This operation is still in its early stages, yet the initial results are encouraging. The people of Baghdad are seeing their security forces in the streets, dealing a blow to criminals and terrorists. According to one military report, a Sunni man in a diverse Baghdad neighborhood said this about the Shia soldiers on patrol: "Their image has changed. Now you feel they are there to protect you." Over the coming weeks and months, the operation will expand throughout Baghdad -- until Iraq's democratic government is in full control of the capital. This work is difficult and dangerous, but Iraqi forces are determined to succeed -- and America is determined to help them.
"Here at home, some politicians say that our best option is to pull out of Iraq, regardless of th
e situation on the ground. Many of these people are sincere and patriotic -- but they could not be more wrong. If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to the terrorists, giving them a base of operations and huge oil riches to fund their ambitions. And we know exactly where those ambitions lead. If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities. The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq, so America will not leave until victory is achieved.
"For all the debate, American policy in the Middle East comes down to a straightforward choice: We can allow the Middle East to continue on the course that led to September the 11th -- and a generation from now, our children will face a region dominated by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons. Or we can stop that from happening, by rallying the world to confront the ideology of hate, by supporting the forces of liberty and moderation in the region, and by helping give the people of the Middle East a future of hope. And that is the choice America has made.
"The path to victory will be uphill and uneven, and it will require more patience and sacrifice from our Nation. Yet we can be confident of the outcome, because America will not waver -- and because the direction of history leads toward freedom.
"Thank you for listening.''
This is the text of the Democratic Party's response to the president's address, delivered by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D, Miss):
"Good morning. This is Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.
"This Labor Day weekend comes in the midst of several important and painful anniversaries. On Tuesday, Americans remembered Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the tragedies that befell the Gulf Coast region, including my own home state of Mississippi. Next week we will mark the 5th Anniversary of the tragic events of September 11th.
"Unfortunately, though there has been progress to remedy the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina, here we are one year later and many residents still remain displaced and homes and communities still need to be rebuilt. In my own home state, thousands of people are still homeless. And throughout the Gulf Coast, 80 percent of businesses with approved federal disaster loans are still waiting for their money.
"And while Gulf Coast residents have done all that they can, it is time that the federal government step up to the plate and lead the recovery efforts
"Immediately after the storm, Democrats in the House and Senate led by the Congressional Black Caucus and Gulf Coast members acted swiftly and introduced legislation that would help jump start the reconstruction efforts. Unfortunately, Republicans let partisanship get in the way of doing the right thing.
"Resources have been identified but the funding is slow getting to those on the ground and continues to be bogged down in bureaucratic red tape. While the recovery efforts sluggishly move along and neighborhoods languish, the Gulf Coast faces another storm seasoned virtually un-recovered from last year.
"The Katrina Anniversary also reminds us of the need to ensure we do all we can to keep Americans safe. As the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, I fully understand what's at stake when we fail to protect our nation from catastrophic events whether it is from the likes of a hurricane or a terrorist attack.
"Despite multiple warnings of future and possible man-made or natural disasters, the Bush Administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress have failed to adequately prepare our nation, leaving us vulnerable to large-scale disasters.
"In March I released a report on the state of homeland security and the Bush Administration received a failing grade on emergency preparedness and response. From our ports to our nuclear facilities, to transportation and aviation security, this Administration has failed and continues to fail to keep our country safe.
"There are remarkably troubling gaps that exist in our homeland security. Yet, time and time again, this Administration and the Republican Congress have ignored the recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission. And time and time again, Republicans have blocked Democratic efforts to implement and fund these recommendations to ensure our safety.
"Rather than implementing policies that will strengthen our security at home and abroad, the Administration serves up slogans and PR campaigns. America needs real solutions for real security - not jingles and slick posters.
"Our president continues to resort to name-calling and fear mongering in an attempt to distract from his failure to keep America safe. But sadly, Americans have seen this page of the Republican playbook before.
"As we witnessed from the events of Hurricane Katrina, September of 11th, and from recent news of thwarted attacks in London, we cannot afford to shortchange our first responders or neglect our national security.
"While we must focus on rebuilding businesses and communities and bringing back jobs, we cannot undermine these efforts by failing to prevent similar disasters and catastrophic events which threaten the progress made.
"America - the Gulf Coast will rebuild and recover. Our sisters, brothers, and neighbors are hard at work to make it happen.
"Now we just need to insist that the federal government does right and that matches the fervor and resilience of the American spirit.
"Democrats are offering a new direction for America that will strengthen our security at home and abroad with policies that are both tough and smart. Only then can we truly restore this country to its standing of a nation that answers the call for help at home and abroad.
"This is Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi. Thank you for listening.''
• 
•
Comments
"Many of these people are sincere and patriotic -- but they could not be more wrong."
Many, but not all are patriotic?
Defend your policy on its own merit, Mr. President, and quite questioning the patriotism of your citizens.
Pitting American against American to shore up support for your failed policies is decidedly the most UNPATRIOTIC act of all.
Posted by: johnf | September 2, 2006 11:46 AM
Mark, I think you meant Katrina in that second Paragraph.
Posted by: johnf | September 2, 2006 12:03 PM
Sorry for the distration (or perhaps we could use one).
A couple of days ago a moratorium on namecalling was put forward by a number of bloggers in the Swamp. That lasted about 15 seconds it seems.
While I continue to recommend that the vitriol in the Swamp be toned down to something intelligent, I thought you might be interested in William Safire's NYT discussion of the etymology of Moonbat and Wingnut (two dreaded labels recommended for the moratorum). Don't be encouraged....
Note that the Trib's Royko gets credit for dubbing Jerry Brown "Governor Moonbeam."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/magazine/03wwln_safire.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | September 2, 2006 12:28 PM
Katrina, indeed. Thanks, John. I covered Hurricane Andrew, which may explain my lapse of synapses. I think they've recovered.
Posted by: Mark Silva | September 2, 2006 12:46 PM
The Momentum is swinging the GOP's way and should be peaking in Nov!!!!
"Republicans have moved closer to the Democrats in a congressional voter-preference poll just as the election campaigns near the official Labor Day starting gate.
The surprising findings in a little-noticed Gallup Poll that were ignored by most of the national news media shows the Democrats barely leading the Republicans by just two points -- 47 percent to 45 percent.
After months of generic polling numbers by Gallup and others showing the GOP lagged far behind the Democrats by a seemingly insurmountable nine to 10 points, the titanic political battle for control of Congress is virtually dead even. This means we may not experience the feared Category 5 political storm some election analysts have forecast that would topple the GOP's House majority and cut deeply into its grip on the Senate.
The venerable and respected Gallup organization, which did the poll for USA Today, said the GOP's unexpected rise in the polls "represents the Republicans' best performance in a single poll during the 2006 election cycle on this important measure of electoral strength."
In an analysis accompanying its findings last week, Gallup said, "The Republican increase does appear to be significant." "
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060830-085509-2091r.htm
Yo Libs, get ready for another depressing November! It's not too late to come over to the side of the good guys.
Posted by: Mumood Akmar | September 2, 2006 12:47 PM
The findings of that Gallup Poll, in fact, were reported here on The Swamp the day they came out.
Posted by: Mark Silva | September 2, 2006 12:51 PM
I should proof read my own comments so closely.
quite s/b quit
Posted by: johnf | September 2, 2006 12:53 PM
Congrats Mark on having the Gallup results posted the day they came available (at least on the Swamp, I am not sure if they were page 1 headlines on the Trib). Many news organizations chose to bury. The polls usually published are headlined with "Bush polling at historic lows". You'd think the Prez would be in negative numbers by now.
Now in two weeks, I am looking forward to your Swamp review of "The Path to 9/11" TV movie on ABC on 9/10 & 9/11.
Keep up the good work. It is good to hear opinions from all sides.
Posted by: Mumood Akmar | September 2, 2006 1:07 PM
Yeah, c'mon fellow posters, let's observe the moratorium on name-calling.
Posted by: Bill | September 2, 2006 1:36 PM
So, OK, where's the "Democrats are offering a new direction for America" described & delineated? Stop the monotonous griping Dems and come up with some effective alternatives to what President Bush is doing. Timetable for withdrawal? We ALL know that THAT's a recipe for disaster. Got any better ideas? We're all listening.
Posted by: StuartZ | September 2, 2006 2:01 PM
Bill, Kenny Bunkport, I'm afraid that without name calling a couple of posters here will have nothing at all to say.
Spirited debate is one thing -- I'm all for the bare knuckle approach -- but if the whole of somebody's "argument" consists of a string of pejoratives (and the same tired ones at that) then that demonstrates that person's lack of ideas far better than any rebuttal.
To these few people I say why even bother posting? Find a new hobby. Maybe stamp collecting?
Posted by: Juanito | September 2, 2006 2:45 PM
Kenny and Bill,
So its O.K for the President to infer that Americans that disagree with his policy are unpatriotic, but it is impolite to call the President on it?
Rubbish.
I did not attack the President personally, just the tactic he is using.
Come on, this type of thing smacks of McCarthyism.
Again, Bush can not refrain from attacking the public instead of honestly defending his policy.
Its disgusting, cheap, divisive - not to mention unpatriotic in its total lack of regard for what is good for the country.
"I'm a uniter,not a divider."
The President clearly has a very, very short memory.
Posted by: johnf | September 2, 2006 2:47 PM
Stuart,
The dems are still working out a couple of details on their slogan "Democrats - a new direction for America". They can't decide if its downhill or reverse.
Posted by: Terry | September 2, 2006 3:38 PM
John F.,Your first post was right on the money,well spoken.
Don't pay any mind to Juanito,if the posting doesn't go his way he starts crying.
Posted by: John E. | September 2, 2006 3:58 PM
StuartZ,
How does "Stay The Course" grab ya???
Change will begin Stuart,when we start replacing the neo-cons that are in congress right now,and we start to prosecute President DumDum,Dark Cheney,and Rummey for war crimes.
Posted by: John E. | September 2, 2006 4:03 PM
And Terry, you're absolutely right on both counts. Kerry is a dssembling weasel and prior military service is a nonissue.
Posted by: Juanito | Sep 2, 2006 11:23:33 AM
Juanito,
May I send you a few stamps to start your collection?
Posted by: johnf | September 2, 2006 4:05 PM
Drooling Imbecile,
FYI politics happens to be about ideas. If you ever have one, please let us know.
Posted by: Juanito | Aug 31, 2006 11:05:26 AM
Sorry, Knucklehead Nagin has to take the blame for that.
Posted by: Juanito | Aug 29, 2006 7:20:02 AM
It's curious though, that in this particular corner of the blogosphere it seems that the most vicious of the utterly mindless goons align themselves with the Democrats. I mean no offense to Democrats in general, but in The Swamp that certainly to be the case.
This is the only time I will break more own Ignore-the-Troglodytes rule. In case anybody is wondering about the creature who signs himself "Raving Loon" (he thinks that's clever for some reason) -- he did not serve. Plus he is as stupidly offensive in real life as he is here.
Posted by: Juanito | Aug 25, 2006 10:40:56 AM
Juanito, it appears that your memory is as short as the Presidents.
Breaking your own rules.
Tsk. Tsk.
Posted by: johnf | September 2, 2006 4:56 PM
Johnito,I'm afraid without name calling,some posters would have nothing to say.
That's Johnito's post @2:45 pm.
His other post @11:45,he calls Senator John Kerry,a Viet Nam Veteran,a dis-sembling weasel.
I think you should get a new hobby,a spine.
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 2, 2006 5:01 PM
StuartZ,
No, WE don't all know that a timetable for leaving Iraq is a recipe for disaster.
Putting in place a timetable tells the do nothing Iraqi leadership that they have to get their forces organized and properly deployed or they won't be safe themselves.
And by the way, what does "stay the course" mean?
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 2, 2006 5:06 PM
John F,
The suggestion a few days ago was made after a number of posts containing offensive, non-sensical, racist, or baseless name calling of other bloggers -- nastiness perhaps out of a lack of substance as Juanito suggests above. It reflects badly on the poster no matter what his/her political bent, but it continues.
Besides, it wasn't the President I was worried about. If he took offense, he'd have the NSA shut down the blog :-) He's a big boy -- perhaps not as big as his saunter suggests, but he's a big boy.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | September 2, 2006 5:32 PM
JohnF. Bush and Rummy aren't questioning your patriotism, they are questioning your understanding of the threat we face and how to deal with it.
You guys love to cry "how dare you question my patriotism!!!" Its gets headlines and is a nice rallying cry, but its not what is happening.
Posted by: JD | September 2, 2006 6:36 PM
John D.aka JD,
I thought your class went on a field trip this weekend????
Please pick up some stamps for Juanito,and some Bush administration lockstep legos for Terry,also pick up a 'Poster Policeman" badge for Billy.
Thanks Johnny D.,you're a swell kid.
Posted by: John E. | September 2, 2006 7:21 PM
When Nixon lost to Kennedy, he didn't cry about Mayor Daley #1 stuffing the ballots with votes from dead people, Illinois went dem and Kennedy won.
When Ford lost to Carter, he didn't cry.
When Bush #1 lost to B.J. Clinton, he didn't blame it on Ross Perot for the 19% of the votes that he took away.
No, but when a dem loses it's "swiftboating", voter fraud,racism,the polls closed too early,the polls closed too late, the dem voters were told to vote on Wednesday not on Tuesday,the voting machines were to difficult to understand and on and on and on.
The challenge ahead is keep cry babies out of world leadership, so we can all keep living!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | September 2, 2006 7:44 PM
With the 5th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks upon us, isn't it time to reflect upon the results of President Bush's purported "war on terror?"
Half a trillion dollars spent, 2,700 of our military dead with another 20,000 maimed, a miasma of murder in Iraq, and what is the result? Oasama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are still at large and still killing Americans.
This is failure on an historic scale.
Posted by: Paddy O'Shea | September 2, 2006 8:29 PM
John f,
Thank you for actually reading my posts. I didn't realize I had a fan here.
As you've you've noted, most of my insults are directed toward politcians rather than the posters here. I think they richly deserve it, don't you?
The single poster that i've called a nasty name also richly deserves it. Other than that, my policy has always been to be tough if the situation demands it but to refrain from childish name calling to other posters.
Wouldn't it be so much better if everybody played by that rule?
Posted by: Juanito | September 2, 2006 9:05 PM
"On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, worship, and live in liberty. On the other side are those driven by tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest."
I'm just not sure which side George W. is on, but I have a pretty good idea. My idea is supported by things like The Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps, hundreds of executive orders detrimental to American democracy, the unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11 (and the lack of interest in answering them), support for Semitic extremism and the Likud party, inaction and folly during hurricane Katrina, etc etc etc.
Because on the one hand, his cadre of cronies from the boodleboys appear to be doing everything in their power to thwart the terrorist boogeyman, TO THE MAX. But on the other all their actions are consistent with -- and their backgrounds and ideologies supportive of -- a massive con job to fuel the military industrial complex and line their pockets, the pockets of their campaign supporters, and to empower the globalist corporate agenda.
My issue is not so much with what they are doing, it is with their perceived attempt to deceive and delude the public of America and indeed all the world, into believing they are doing it out of altruism.
Posted by: Davor du Nord | September 2, 2006 9:20 PM
For the record:
September 11th happend on Bush's watch after receiving over 50 high level warnings.
Bush opposed the 911 commission and the recommended changes.
There have been more terrorists attacks since Bush took office than the last 50 years combined.
Bush stayed on vacation for 5 more days after Hurricane Katrina. One again showing a complete lack of leadership.
There has been almost as much waste and fraud as there has been money spent on Katrina.
Under dictator Bush government spending, waste and the overall size of government is the largest it has ever been.
If Bush were the CEO of the US he would have been fired and found guilty of several crimes.
The Bush team made sure that the assault weapons were allowed back on the US streets.
Bush has created more terroriots around the world with his complete lack of .... just about everything.
The only reason they do not want to stop the Bush War in Iraq is that people would then focus on how illegal it was and all the fraud and waste that is going on.
Posted by: john miller | September 2, 2006 9:22 PM
Ya know....a strange thing happened up I-94 today (saturday the 2nd).... gas dropped almost .10 a gal this afternoon....kinda odd for a labor day weekend saturday where, traditionaly, gas goes up...Kinda strange when the markets were not open today....
kinda stange that gas has dropped almost .40 in the past three weeks around here in the milwaukee area...
looks as if gas will be around 2.20 - 2.30 per gal when the elections strike in Nov....
wonder who big oil wants in power???? i cant wait to hear the "see, gas prices are going down. Iraq must be getting better!!!" arguments come mid-Oct from the GoP...
Posted by: Fallen001 | September 2, 2006 10:30 PM
Okay folks, here's the Real Clear Politics average of polls on the issue of Country - Right Direction? Wrong Direction?
RCP Average 08/10 - 08/27 25.0% 67.0% -42.0%
Traditionally, this is a bad sign for incumbents. So, I wouldn't put too much weight on how close Rs and Ds might be getting in other polls. Real Clear, by the by, is not a site run by and for liberals. It's pretty conservative.
Regardless, I've lived 57 years in this country. I wouldn't impugn the patriotism of anyone. I have no qualms, however, in asserting that this government (controlled entirely by one party for nigh on to six years) has made us less secure, less economically fair, and more environmentally damaged. They think that's the right way to go. I think they're wrong.
Posted by: Alan Neff | September 2, 2006 11:11 PM
Paddy O'Shea. Even tho you exaggerated everything in your post, could you please tell our president and our ally's in this "purported" war on terror how to do a quick, paddy o'shea, fix on this.
And looking back, the failure on a historic scale, was B.J. Clinton having 3 opportunities to take out bin Laden, but he didn't! OR, how about Jimma Carter not supporting the Shaw of Iran which resulated in the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was an Islamic Fundamentalist and now Iran supports terrorists!
Just think paddy o'shea, our soldiers protect and sometimes die to protect your freedom of ignorance. Have a safe Labor Day.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | September 2, 2006 11:12 PM
Hey, Gas prices are going down because we now are through putting in summer additivies. Its cheaper to refine now. just think how cheap gas would be if they only made regular. Cliff
Posted by: cliff zeider | September 2, 2006 11:42 PM
considering this coming up nov... I agree with fallen001, and i hope everyone goes out there and votes DEM. so we won't have to put up with govermental abuse much longer,... then in 08' we'll get a democrat in office so he or she?... can fix this mess up... im keeping the fingers crossed, and rallying the message...
Posted by: John Chixo | September 3, 2006 12:15 AM
Well...another weekly address has come and gone. The drumbeat of war continues. The president's focused on Iraq. We've heard so much about Iraq, you'd think that it would be rated number 1 of fifty one states. And you know what, I'm a clairvoyant--I can predict the topic of George W's weekly address for the next four weeks--Iraq.
http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com
Posted by: Digital Traveler | September 3, 2006 4:22 AM
I am a Democrat college student, but this is a good speech by Bush, and i might vote republican depending on the canidates in my area. That democrat congresswoman plays all the cards she can and blames everything partisenly. If I was listening to that I would tell her to shut her mouth. If you read bush's speech while opening your mind a bit, It really is a worthy cause to fight for. I know we could use the iraqi money for roads and schools, but the iraqis honestly need that money more then we do.
Posted by: Dan | September 3, 2006 6:32 AM
If we lose the war in Iraq, we won't be able to send the military to the local pub to break up a two-man fight.
We have to win. But the only way we realistically win is by staying there 10 years or more. That will likely mean we will need more than just volunteer recruits.
I am prepared to join the military as soon as I sell my house- can't make the payments on GI pay.
Who's with me?
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 3, 2006 6:52 AM
"The intelligent man wins his battles with pointed words. I'm sorry -- I meant sticks. Pointed sticks."
-- Homer Simpson
Posted by: Juanito | September 3, 2006 7:27 AM
Dan..I think you need to look a little closer at
the real issues. If you want to decide your vote on one speech, than that is your right. Politics
has become very nasty and partisan. Unfortunately
both sides have stooped to the low road. Name calling exists and the republicans have done their share also. Those that have a different view of the war have been called unpatriotic, cut and runners, defeat-ocrts, hezbo-crats, and many others. I served my country before in the past and yet I I am called these names because of my opinions...do you feel thats right? Stick to the issues because politics and politicians
will tell you anything to get the vote.
Posted by: bill r. | September 3, 2006 8:35 AM
My interest in the speech relates to Bush's statement: "The path to victory will be uphill and uneven, and it will require more patience and sacrifice from our Nation"
It is interesting what type of "sacrifice" he is recommending for the wealthiest americans: those whose finances demonstrate they are best able to afford it. Additional tax breaks? No bid contracts?
What specifically are the sacrifices the president is asking of those most capable?
Posted by: dibbs | September 3, 2006 9:02 AM
"The terrorists (in Iraq) are in their last throes."
"We know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
"The Iraqi people will welcome us with open arms!"
Do you remember these statements by Cheney (2) and Wolfowitz (1)? How far from the truth were they, are they? Based upon their falsity, do we have a right to trust **anything** the Bush Adminstration says or predicts about Iraq? Would you bet your own money on what they are saying **now**???
"I'm a news reporter. I've been to Iraq many times. Each time I've been there, and most recently, it's worse than the last time I was there."
So says at least one news reporter. Is there anyone (other than in the Bush Addministration or a general on the ground there) who is saying anything differently? How does one refute obvious bad news? Answer: Name-calling of the source.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | September 3, 2006 10:41 AM
I want to address the first and (currently) last posts in this thread directly.
Johnf begins with "Many of these people are sincere and patriotic -- but they could not be more wrong."
Many, but not all are patriotic?
Defend your policy on its own merit, Mr. President, and quite questioning the patriotism of your citizens."
I think that the suggestion that “many, but not all are patriotic” is very accurate. Simple statistics about human nature makes this statement virtually impossible to refute but more to the point, it is completely fair to question the patriotism of others just as it is to question their judgment or intellect (all of which happen routinely in criticism of the President). There are times when the motive behind a political position must be questioned in order to understand the reasoning behind it. Put more simply, when someone claims that someone supports the war because they want oil, are imperialist, or otherwise do so out of greed, personal pride, or the hunger for power, are they not questioning the patriotism of that person? If its fair for one side, why not for the other?
At least some of the more vocal critics of the Bush administration certainly seem to me to be unpatriotic. They do not seem to have any “pride in or devotion to” their country (to use Encarta’s definition) and their words seem to me to speak of a real desire to see the nation fail. I am sure these posters say they love their country but I can assure you that virtually every family abuser claims they love their children or spouse. Regardless, patriotism is a fair issue and one that the President’s address touched on in an appropriate manner.
As to Mr. dibbs questions about sacrifices, I just want to point out that realistically the sacrifices involved with Iraq or the war on terror have little to do with financial well-being. Compared to vast numbers – a very real majority – of the rest of the world’s population, even our poorest live a better life from a material standpoint and have greater personal safety. The sacrifices that are required are more personal than mere money and you will find that the rich and powerful play a greater direct role in the military (the people making the real sacrifices) than you might think. The rank and file of the military is middle class (with higher education levels than the population as a whole) and those from families with the highest levels of income are overrepresented in perspective of the overall population. Please note the anecdotal cases of the enlistments of the sons of Mayor Daley and Senator McCain and the fact that a very disproportionate percent of the US congress has served as well. Very few of these people were underprivileged in their youth and most volunteered.
RRD
Posted by: RRD | September 3, 2006 11:36 AM
Paulo,
May I offer you a little bit of help as far as late 20th Century Iranian history is concerned.
"OR, how about Jimma Carter not supporting the Shaw of Iran which resulated in the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was an Islamic Fundamentalist and now Iran supports terrorists!"
The Shah was toppled because he was a corrupt despot who spent around 90 per cent of Iran's considerable oil wealth on his immediate and extended family. This rather upset the non-Pahlavi element, which, quite reasonably, wanted shot of the man.
Your assertion that Iran now supports terrorists is an interesting one. SAVAK, the pre-revolutionary Iranian security services had a major presence in Lebanon throughout the 1970's, and aided the Shiite militias with both cash, arms and training. According to the logic of the current US administration, anything that isn't Israeli is terrorist, and so, QED, pre-revolutionary Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism. You are therefore criticising Carter for not supporting the same?
I am not sure how you can link a revolution in Iran with Bush's lamentable handling of the situation post 9/11. Like it or not, the Iranian revolution was a popular one with Iranians. The war in Iraq is not popular with Iraqis.
Just for good measure, I'd also point out that if you trot down to the basement coffee shop in Tehran's Homa Hotel, you'll see more Canadians than you will in Toronto. The odd thing is - they all seem to have developed Texan accents.
Do the math.
Posted by: OHCD | September 3, 2006 11:49 AM
Fallen001,
Gasoline prices always go down at the end of summer. It's not some nefarious plot, it's the result of both market forces and a seasonal change in the fuel blend.
I really can't see the Republicans attempting to tie that seasonal trend to "success" in Iraq, simply because it is so far fetched that nobody would buy it.
Posted by: Juanito | September 3, 2006 11:51 AM
I don't think anyone here has advocated not calling politicians names - especially ones who go around doing their fair share of name-calling.
The things that a whole bunch of posters were most concerned were the usual names like wing nut and commie lib that get posted here. Just because we vote for the politicians doesn't mean we have to sacrifice our civility like they do.
Posted by: Bill | September 3, 2006 11:53 AM
"With the failure of the United States and Israel to achieve decisive victories in Iraq and Lebanon, the age of Western military dominance in the Middle East appears to be ending. It's time for a new strategy."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full
Posted by: Juanito | September 3, 2006 4:22 PM
When Nixon lost to Kennedy, he didn't cry about Mayor Daley #1 stuffing the ballots with votes from dead people, Illinois went dem and Kennedy won.
When Ford lost to Carter, he didn't cry.
When Bush #1 lost to B.J. Clinton, he didn't blame it on Ross Perot for the 19% of the votes that he took away.
No, but when a dem loses it's "swiftboating", voter fraud,racism,the polls closed too early,the polls closed too late, the dem voters were told to vote on Wednesday not on Tuesday,the voting machines were to difficult to understand and on and on and on.
The challenge ahead is keep cry babies out of world leadership, so we can all keep living!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Sep 2, 2006 7:44:36 PM
Paulo:
Please print links to any "Swiftboating" attacks against Nixon when he lost to Kennedy.
Please print links to any "Swiftboating" attacks against Fordwhen he lost to Carter.
Please print links to any "Swiftboating" attacks against George H.W. Bush when he lost to Clinton.
You can't, because they never happened. However, the Republicans that you support did "Swiftboat" against Kerry in his presidential campaign against GW Bush in 2004. That's one hell of a difference in tactics, don't you think?
Posted by: BC | September 3, 2006 4:32 PM
I'll take that one up, BC. When Nixon ran against Kennedy, Joe Kennedy specifically asked Frank Sinatra, who was working for the Kennedy campaign, to ask Sam Giancana to lean on the right people so that he would receive the labor vote. Momo did more than just lean. In Chicago alone thousands of people who were deceased and never removed from the voter rolls voted for Kennedy. Labor's votes in the West Virginia primary were also suspected to be influenced by the mafia.
Since Swiftboating isn't a word I have no idea what your definition is, but you certainly have to admit that those tactics were dirty, illegal and a disgrace to the electoral process.
Posted by: Bill | September 3, 2006 7:24 PM
RRD,
Why spread your post out so long??
It's unbeliveable that some in the Republican party like you,and John D.continually lockstep with the Bush administration.You do realize that your post backs up the claim that people who don't agree with Cowboy George,and co. are unpatriotic??
Thanks for backing up the claims of two guys Dubya,and Darth Cheney who ran from the draft when it was their time to serve in Vietnam.
It's no wonder they would get us into another Vietnam like situation,they didn't have to deal with it when it was going on,it didn't have any affect on their "silverspoon" lifestyle.
You lose alot of credability making that argument,and don't try to say you're not making it.
I can understand it from John D.,he has always bought everything that the Dubya numnuts have sold us,and he's still buying it.Karl Rove loves guys like him, who can't think for themselves.
I truly believe that if Dubya,and Dark Cheney came out and said that all good republicans should jump off a cliff in order to save the GOP,little JD would look for the nearest cliff.
RRD,I know you're a GOP dog,and I'm a liberal,but come on.
Posted by: John E. | September 3, 2006 9:41 PM
"Put more simply, when someone claims that someone supports the war because they want oil, are imperialist, or otherwise do so out of greed, personal pride, or the hunger for power, are they not questioning the patriotism of that person? "
–RRD Sept. 3, 2006 11:36 AM
What is wrong with you? Do you mean to say that criticism=unpatriotic? Labeling someone's motives as greedy, prideful, or power-hungry is NOT the same as calling them unpatriotic. Questions about someone's patriotism are dangerous just because what is patriotic is so up to someone's point of view--not written in stone.
Even the "definition" is not definite. For example, you say you can't understand how people who criticize Bush and his policies can be patriotic and equate them to wife-beaters (how base is that?). But I could make the same claim about the corrupt, money-grubbing, religious nuts who are running this country--if I were a simplistic person, I might make the mistake of questioning their patriotism, since it hardly seems likely that, from my point of view, they have any "pride or devotion to their country" as I see it, seeing as how, under their watch and due to their policies, the majority of this country is going down the toilet, hardly a patriotic result. See what a slippery slope it is?
Nothing about the whole so-called "patriotism" issue is "fair" which is why any right-minded person doesn't stoop to such childish antics. Once you go there, you might as well start pulling out the six guns and stepping into the street for duals because that is the level of discourse we are talking about.
Posted by: blonde | September 3, 2006 10:08 PM
John E and Blonde
Are you going to provide some level of proof that NO ONE who opposes this administration is unpatriotic? Of course not. With 290 million people in this country, you have to know that some of them are not patriotic. How many - not many - but if it were only one quarter of one percent, it would be about 700,000 people. Enough to make a lot of noise, post on a lot of blogs, and spread a lot of nonsense.
By the way Blondie, " Do you mean to say that criticism=unpatriotic?" is not a logical supposition based on my post. If you read it carefully, it is quite clear that I suggest that only a small number of critics are unpatriotic. The exact quote is "many but not all" so clearly you have leaped to a conclusion based on your visceral disagreement with my statement and you attempted to reshape the facts to make your case. Pretty common with the left.
By the way, get back to me on your explanation of how, if someone claims that someone’s motivations for a war are something other than the best interests of the country, they are not challenging their patriotism? In what way could it be patriotic to go to war for greed? Yes, it is an inferred questioning of one’s patriotisms when that type of accusation is cast about and it happens every day in this country. So, if you really believe it is unfair to question someone’s patriotism in this context, you need to start chastening dozens of leftists on this blog alone.
By the way, I am also quite specific about comparing only the unpatriotic critics to wife beaters and yes, I consider both types of creature to be equally troubled and vile.
As for JohnE, why would I try to deny exactly what I wrote? Yes, I believe SOME (not ALL) critics of the Iraq war and the current administration are not patriotic. Was I unclear about that? The truth of the matter is, it is sort of an unfair argument to make – probably some critics of every administration are unpatriotic. However, in this case, it is a matter of degree. Regardless, my primary contention – “patriotism is a fair issue and one that the President’s address touched on in an appropriate manner” stands.
Furthermore, anyone who falls back on the “they did not serve in Viet Nam” crap has no basis to question my credibility. First of all, Bush joined the Air Guard at a time when virtually all Guard pilots were called into combat duties – claims that his choice of service was to avoid combat are just nonsense. More to the point is that the basic suggestion that you must have served in the military in order to be Commander in Chief are hypocritical when the come from the political left (the party that elected a real draft-dodger to the Presidency and whose most likely 2008 candidates never served), historically baseless (FDR comes to mind as an immediate refutation), and contrary to the intent of the Constitution.
Finally for OHCD, your claim that the Iranian Revolution was a popular one and some of your comments about the Shah are a little overstated and simplistic. As there was no real election (just a Soviet-style chance to vote for one option despite the promises of the Prime Minister who convinced the Shah to depart) it is awfully hard to make the case that the Ayatollah’s reign was truly the people’s choice. Yes, they welcomed him back from exile but they also thought he was going to set up a Vatican-like religious community, not run the country.
Its also hard to call the Shah a despot when his most unpopular policies were the institution of women’s suffrage and land reforms that gave over 4 million sharecroppers land of their own. Yes, SAVAK did some terrible things but so did its replacement under the Ayatollah and many of the personnel were the same under both regimes. It is far more accurate to call the transition from Shah to Ayatollah to be a coup gone wrong with a lot of room to debate which side was the lesser of two evils. Still, the Shah was the legitimate constitutional leader of Iran, had been a dependable ally in WW2, and had enormously improved the economic life of the people of his country.
It is interesting to speculate on what might have happened in the Mideast had he not contracted lymphoma. He was a dying man when he left the country, otherwise the return of the Ayatollah was in no way inevitable, and the rise of radical Islam might never have happened.
By the way, even if your claim (“According to the logic of the current US administration, anything that isn't Israeli is terrorist”) were true, trying to apply it retroactively is specious. Things change over time and our policies regarding Russia, Germany, and Japan (even Afghanistan and Iraq) are certainly different than they used to be.
RRD
Posted by: RRD | September 4, 2006 11:04 AM
Dr. Johnson* was right when he noted that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And whenever the word emanates from the piehole of any politician I am automatically skeptical of his/her motives.
And I fully understand, Blonde and John E, that the word is emotionally charged, and questioning one's patriotism can lead to hurt feelings or fistfights.
All that said, RRD makes cogent points. I think that the emotional baggage attached to the word "patriotism" prevents you from reading his remarks objectively.
* That Dr. Johnson was more than a great basketball player!
Posted by: Juanito | September 4, 2006 11:44 AM
RRD...As one who opposes the mistakes of this war
and one who has served this country before...I very much take it to heart when someone questions
my patriotism.
Posted by: billr | September 4, 2006 1:54 PM
Boy you guys. Both Parties have no plan for Iraq. Meanwhile my family there get a plan.Stay the course is done it did not work. Redeployment won't work. Iran has now made it clear they know we can not attack because our military is broke. If you think a Air War would work my family down wind and your not thinking about fallout. Come up with a plan so our families can come home. Yes John D I do think we can win only when we have a plan for victory right now its a stalemate and our kids are in the middle. Talk is very cheap your not there. As a Combat vet from Vietnem I can tell you right know its going to end up the same way without a plan. Damit sit down both sides and get a plan for victory here.
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 4, 2006 3:24 PM
RRD
My argument is not that Khomeini was the peoples' choice, more that the Shah was not.
Yes, he did institute a number of western-type reforms, but it is hard to get away from the fact that the Peacock Throne had become a byword for corruption. It is perhaps interesting to note that the Bazaari's had far more to lose from the toppling of the Shah, and yet, as a class, are probably the most conservative in today's Iran.
You say that things change over time. I'd observe that the position of the US viz a vis Israel has remained absolutely constant; despite Israel's constant flouting of UN Resolutions, the NPT and accepted norms of behaviour in terms of things such as Collective Punishment, detention without trial and land theft, I can not remember any condemnation coming from the US.
It's a big world out there today. As a European, I'd observe that the trans-Atlantic ties that have done much to foster peace and economic growth since the end of WWII are beginning to loosen off. Much of this is as a result of the European view of the Middle East, which is, quite frequently, entirely at odds with that found in the US.
If the US continues to pursue what is an increasingly isolationist policy in terms of the War on Terror, Iraq, Lebanon et al, then it runs the risk of increasing the divisions between it and Europe. This may not seem important now, but I'd worry about it in the future. Any US President - now or in the future - who fails to pay heed to this risk can only be seen to be storing up problems for the future.
Posted by: OHCD | September 4, 2006 7:36 PM
billr
You should take it to heart when someone questions
your patriotism - it would be a verious serious accusation. That said, what in either Mr. Bush's speech or my posts would lead you to think that either of us consider you to be among the few rather than the "many"? Here is the exact quote in question:
"Here at home, some politicians say that our best option is to pull out of Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these people are sincere and patriotic -- but they could not be more wrong"
So, in Mr Bush's case, your patriotism is not coming into question at all (I am assuming you are not a politician). In my case, I must admit I have not been as specific. Let me assure you that I see nothing in your current posts and recall nothing in previous posts that lead me to question your patriotism. However, if you advocate an immediate or otherwise premature withdrawal from Iraq, I think it is fair to say that the President and I both think you are wrong.
I really do not feel that this medium (relatively brief written exchanges) is a good place to try to explain when I personally question the patriotism of others. I am afraid it is as a Supreme Court Justice once said of pornography - (paraphrased)its hard to define but I know it when I see it. Furthermore, I would probably never form that opinion about anyone based only on a blog - there is too much nuance lost in this format to feel confident about something so severe.
Nonetheless, I believe that there are people whose positions on Iraq are so hypocritical, inconsistent, and/or irrational that those positons are not based on any real concern for the country or their countrymen but on their personal self-interests. In particular, I feel there are a number of politicians who have based their "opinions" on the desire to be elected (or re-elected) rather than a thoughtful consideration of the situation. Given their responsiblities, their access to information and advice, and the time to give it thought (vs those of us who are not paid to attend to the affairs of the state), I begin to question their patriotism.
RRD
PS to Juanito, thanks for the support. You might want to pay attention to posts from C Morris. I tend to disagree with him a bit more than you but he is capable and willing to engage in very thoughtful exchanges. There is a nice piece in today's Swamp about an improving level of discourse in this blog and it made me think that exchanges with the two of you are helping to raise this level. Thanks.
Posted by: RRD | September 4, 2006 9:28 PM
Thank you President RRd,
And a fine lockstep rebuttal from Vice-President Juanito.
Juanito Bandito,I'm still waiting for you to solve the Iraq situation,I stuck my neck out,now it's your turn.
Maybe you can hook up jumper cables to RRd's brain,and suck out some of that superior knowledge for all of us little peasant people to draw inspiration from.
Bill,I hope I didn't hurt you're feelings with this post,if I did I apoligize before hand.
Posted by: John E. | September 4, 2006 9:59 PM
John E,
I've said more than once that:
1. Simply withdrawing and/or setting a specific timetable for withdrawing would be a disaster. Many people (both Left and Right) agree with that.
2. What we (US & UK) are doing now obviously isn't working, as the violence escalates, the government remains impotent, the militias grow. And so,
3. Some change of strategey is called for. Again, what that change should be is beyond my poor abilities. I'm not military man or a statesman. So, I'm listening to the respective political parties for a specific plan. And I'm still listening.
I don't know what more you want from me on that account.
However, I also must repeat that I think that your willingness to automatically vote for whatever candidate appears on the Democratic ticket is foolish. I for one, would like to hear some specifics for each side. I guess that makes me Mr. Stay-the-Course, doesn't it?
Posted by: Juanito | September 5, 2006 7:10 AM
RRD,
Yes, I've noticed that C Morris is somebody who's willing to think and listen. Kudos to him.
Posted by: Juanito | September 5, 2006 9:14 AM
Why is it up to Democrats to come up w/ a plan for Iraq? Republicans control all the switches and they got us into this mess. It's comforting to know that RRD is able to see into other peoples hearts. How else would he know that people who criticize the government are really unpatriotic?
Posted by: Janet | September 5, 2006 9:18 AM
OHCD
Your latest post clears up most of what I questioned and I also recognize that sometimes blogs are not conducive to complete comments on complex issues. I just felt that it was better to make clear that the Khomeini regime was probably not what the Iranians had in mind at the time. On the other hand, for Paulo’s benefit, I would also have to say that given the degree of opposition and the Shah’s health, there probably was not much Carter could have done to control that situation.
As to your other points, especially regarding our relationships with Europe and our unilateralism (I am choosing that term rather than isolationism because of our willingness to intervene abroad), I agree that more partnerships abroad would benefit the Western world in general. That said, I cannot agree with your assessment of Israel or its actions.
While my country (and I) do condemn a very limited number of actions by Israelis (we did challenge them on some of the settlement issues, destruction of Palestinian homes, etc), by and large, we not only support them but wonder what the heck is wrong with the rest of the Western world for not being more supportive. That nation was in essence created by Europe and America in an environment that has not been politically stable in hundreds of years and that was hostile to the immigration of large numbers of (largely) Europeans with a different culture and religion.
It is important to note that wave after wave of Jews still found it preferable to live in the Jewish homeland despite Arab rejection – apparently it was still better than the prejudice and violence they experienced elsewhere. 60 years or so ago, the UN (then mainly controlled by the Allied nations of WW2) made it official and legal and unavoidable that there would be an Israeli state and despite that, even now, there are many nations and vast numbers of their neighbors who do not believe that nation or those people have a right to exist.
Given the extremity of the situation, I cannot accept most of the condemnations that are aimed at Israel. It is apparent to me that given the long history of unprovoked aggression and overt intention to destroy them, that most (not all but an overwhelming majority) of the actions Israel takes on the military and political fronts are acceptable measures of self-preservation.
Clearly, we have gone off topic in this thread (and I offer my apologies for that) and I need to move on but my point is that I think Europe has forced us into near unilateralism because it has taken the wrong position on the Mideast in general and Israel in particular.
I would also like to add that I think Europeans need to consider something about the perspective of the USA about your politics and decision making. We are very skeptical of it and we think we have good reason to be. I mean no disrespect but when we look at the past century, many of us see European errors leading to two world wars. We see the origins of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and Colonialism and all the problems those ideas created. We see these as problems that the USA ended up dealing with in disproportionate levels.
I know that I am oversimplifying this (I don’t have the time to write in more detail and I am sure no one wants to read a thesis on this blog) and I do not consider the USA perfect but given the past hundred years or so, when I see our country diverging from European views, I begin to fear far more for you than for us. More to the point, we do also fear for our well-being and have a mind set that says early opposition to threats could have prevented WW2 and other disasters and that we just proved that with the end of the Cold War. It’s going to take a lot to convince me (and a lot of other Americans) that our partnerships with European nations take priority over doing what we consider the right thing.
Posted by: RRD | September 5, 2006 10:10 AM
'll take that one up, BC. When Nixon ran against Kennedy, Joe Kennedy specifically asked Frank Sinatra, who was working for the Kennedy campaign, to ask Sam Giancana to lean on the right people so that he would receive the labor vote. Momo did more than just lean. In Chicago alone thousands of people who were deceased and never removed from the voter rolls voted for Kennedy. Labor's votes in the West Virginia primary were also suspected to be influenced by the mafia.
Since Swiftboating isn't a word I have no idea what your definition is, but you certainly have to admit that those tactics were dirty, illegal and a disgrace to the electoral process.
Posted by: Bill | Sep 3, 2006 7:24:45 PM
Bill:
Your post provides no answer or rebuttal to the questions that I presented. My point was to discuss the PERSONAL ATTACKS used during the various campaigns, similar with those that ocurred during the 2004 campaign against Kerry. Your response was to go completely off-topic and talk about allegations of the Mafia and Labor committing vote fraud.
Vote fraud has always been with us, committed by both major parties and the various third parties America has had throughout its history. No one is arguing that point.
Posted by: BC | September 5, 2006 10:20 AM
Juanito,
As usual,you have a long post that tells us nothing other than you're right wing hack,I'm sorry,....that doesn't sound right......how about "devoted blindly"??
I read your posts Juanito,your not fooling anyone with your neutral talk,it's ok to come out of the closet ya know.
My plan will happen Juanito,mark it down,it will happen as a result of the administations failure.
Posted by: John E. | September 5, 2006 11:39 AM
John E,
You hear nothing, so what's the point of going on?
Let's stop wasting each other's time.
Posted by: Juanito | September 5, 2006 2:16 PM
BC
I happen to disagree with the Swift Boat crew - I felt that Kerry's decision to serve voluntarily was commendable and I wrote a letter to the editors of the Tribune (which was printed) to that effect during the campaign (my issues with Kerry start after his hitch was over). However, in that letter, I also chastised those who criticized Bush's service record (see my comments to JohnE, above).
Within that context, I would like to answer your challenge regarding personal political attacks. In the same election as the dreaded swift boat events, CBS defamed the sitting President by making allegations based on a forged document - a document that their own experts had warned them was unreliable.
So compare the two personal attacks - the Swift Boat Veterans knew Kerry personally and served with him. While I disagree with them, they are qualified to offer their opinions of his leadership and character based on their direct experience. Furthermore, much of their criticism is based on his subsequent anti-war activities - all of which is documented.
CBS made accusations that have been proven to be baseless, using amateurish forged documents acquired from a known political hack. I am sure we could go on point/counterpoint with Dem vs. Rep examples of unacceptable behavior but I believe it is fair to ask of you "That's one hell of a difference in tactics, don't you think?"
RRD
PS to Janet. The Dems need to come up with a plan because if you want me to vote Democratic (which I have done before) you need to convince me you will do a better job than the Republicans (which they have failed to do lately).
“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?” Lamont Cranston?
Posted by: RRD | September 5, 2006 4:02 PM
RRD - you're right - this is heading off topic at a rate of knots.
But one observation.
Compare the cohesiveness of Gulf War v1 and - to a similar extent - the war against the Taleban with the current misdaventure in Iraq. In the case of the first two, there was a demonstrable level of agreement that something had to be done, and so it was. However, with the most recent excursion, there is an increasing view that the US is acting in its own self interest, but is asking for the backing of others in order to pursue that. With Iraq v1 / Afghanistan, members of the global community were stakeholders in a war for the common good; with Iraq v2 - and with many other events in the Middle East - there is an air of cynicism within Europe in terms of the US agenda.
As such, it's fine for the US to be unilateralist - it's just a bit awkward asking for the rest of the world to unite behind that same unilateralism.
Posted by: OHCD | September 5, 2006 4:09 PM
Well, I am glad to see my comments provoked so passionate a response. Lest you think any of this matters to me, think again. I just hate to see such blatent logical errors given any serious consideration.
So, back to patriotism (and you know, the problem is that I really don't give a rat's rear end about it as a concept, I think it borders on Nationalism and we all know where that gets us) what is the point of labeling people "unpatriotic"? Where does it get you? What can you do about it? In the end, because the concept is akin to faith, you can't prove it (see Janet) and it becomes all about name calling and swagger and bravado, ie. much ado about nada. OR witch hunts, not a fantastic option either. So, I don't know where you got your degree (and obviously you got some sort of degree), but I am here to tell you, you did not get your money's worth. They should have had better courses on logic and critical thinking. It's a pity because you write okay and some of your ideas are interesting, but your arguments are sorely lacking in the logic department.
As per the greed and patriotic thing, are you really going to tell me that all the people in the country who are greedy are not patriotic? Where is it written you can only be one or the other? I just don't understand (and I am being 100% sincere here) why you can not grasp this concept. People are many things and patriotic can go hand in hand with many other qualities that may be less desireable. Actually I have a theory about this lack of ability to understand shades of gray and why people who lack it tend to vote Republican, but I will save that for another post.
Posted by: blonde | September 5, 2006 10:21 PM
Blonde,
For someone who is guestioning my training in logic, you sure throw around a lot of straw men. First your " Do you mean to say that criticism=unpatriotic?" statement and then the "all people in the country who are greedy are not patriotic" statement.
I have already taken care of the first one, so we will jump right into the greed fallacy. Yes, one can be greedy and patriotic - I am certain that it happens all the time. One could manifest their greed in many relatively harmless forms or even harmful forms that do not rise to the level of unpatriotic. However, I posed a very specific question: "In what way could it be patriotic to go to war for greed?" Starting a war is a little different than cheating on your taxes or not leaving a tip.
In my opinion, if a person or persons start a war solely for greed, that war would come at a such an unacceptable cost to their country(in lives, time, money, world opinion, etc)that their action would clearly demonstrate a lack of patriotism. If you wish to differ with MY opinion (not one that you make up for me), I would be interested in hearing your viewpoint. However, your post fails to do this.
I suppose it is possible that you are deliberately choosing a straw man position, thinking it is a winning strategy (just between us, its not working well at all). However, I doubt that is the case. Instead, you are the one ignoring the shades of gray in my posts (and as Juanito has suggested, it seems that it is your emotions getting in the way - you do protest too much about not caring about the patriotism concept). This is the second time you have supported my pet theory about the left - trying to revise reality to support their feelings.
RRD
Posted by: RRD | September 6, 2006 10:56 AM
Blonde
On the other hand feel free to "guestion" my spelling. Rereading the thread I find a have developed a "verious serious" problem.
RRD
Posted by: RRD | September 6, 2006 10:29 PM