Oh happy day. As the Gary Trudeau cartoon said it all best yesterday: Christmas comes early for Republicans…
Remember that misguided letter-writing attempt to get voters in that Ohio county to vote against Bush. I have a feeling. I have a dream I should say that this will go down in history as the absolute nullpunkt of the left and its mindless posturing. I do hope they travel through the Southern states. haha
[quote]Jane Fonda will join George Galloway, the most radical member of the British parliament, on a tour of the United States to accuse the Bush administration of spending money on Iraq that should be spent to help the poor of New Orleans.
The argument, likely to offend many Americans, follows British newspaper and television coverage of Hurricane Katrina that focused on the bungled handling of the aftermath of the storm.
Mr. Galloway, a passionate supporter of anti-Western causes in the Arab world, has been sneered at in Parliament as the “member for Baghdad” because of his regular trips there before the U.S.-led invasion.
He also has been accused of receiving allocations to buy and sell 20 million barrels of Iraqi oil, a charge he has strongly denied.
Miss Fonda was persuaded to join Mr. Galloway’s eight-city traveling show later this month by a friend, Eve Ensler, author of “The Vagina Monologues.” Mrs. Ensler had been impressed by Mr. Galloway’s pugnacious performance in May in front of a Senate committee investigating the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, the London Sunday Times reported. [/quote]
Like many millions of Americans, I am left thinking to myself, “If only fruitcakes like this are opposed to the war, maybe I should reassess my ideas.”
Yeah, Garry was right. But you forgot to mention why:
[quote=“Garry Trudeau”]Rightwing character: “So you must be very excited about Jane Fonda’s anti-war bus tour.”
Leftwing character: “Yeah, right.”
Rightwing character: “But she’s going to fuel the bus with vegetable oil! I would think this is just your cup of tea!”
Leftwing character: “Gimme a break, Chase. You know perfectly well it’ll be a disaster. She’ll be tarred as Baghdad Jane wherever she goes, [color=blue]completely obscuring the message of how shameful this war is![/color]”[/quote]
I read Doonesbury every morning, right before checking Forumosa. Along with Jon Stewart, it’s some of the best political commentary in the mainstream media, sad commentary on the state of the media though that is. ucomics.com/doonesbury/
Is the war shameful? I don’t know why the left suddenly finds itself uninterested in helping with regard to humanitarian issues. From that perspective, please explain how Iraq is different from Afghanistan (also opposed by the Left), Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Haiti et al?
Compare the death rates in Iraq under Saddam and… where is the shame in freeing the Iraqis from such a man? Where is the shame in bringing a constitution and possibility for democratic governance? for determining once and all that Saddam did not have wmds and would not be a threat to his neighbors?
[quote=“fred smith”]Is the war shameful? I don’t know why the left suddenly finds itself uninterested in helping with regard to humanitarian issues. From that perspective, please explain how Iraq is different from Afghanistan (also opposed by the Left), Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Haiti et al?
Compare the death rates in Iraq under Saddam and… where is the shame in freeing the Iraqis from such a man? Where is the shame in bringing a constitution and possibility for democratic governance? for determining once and all that Saddam did not have wmds and would not be a threat to his neighbors?[/quote]The way the US was “led” into this war was shameful. Dressing this up, after the fact, as a humanitarian intervention, is shameful. Supporting Saddam and the Taleban (and the Northern Alliance) in the first place, was shameful. Not intervening in Rwanda, was shameful. Not taking action earlier in Bosnia and Kosovo was shameful. Sierra Leone and Haiti, both shameful… but I’m not pinning those on anyone in particular. You want someone to defend the position of “the Left”? Sorry, I can’t help you out there. As I’ve said, again and again, I can only speak for myself, and occasionally speak to my understanding of another’s position. But speak for an entire section of the political spectrum? Ha! Lots of luck. You might as well try to defend, on behalf of all on “the Right”–from McCain to Greenspan to Bolten–Bush’s spending record. :loco:
[quote=“President Bush on 24 June 2002”]For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region.
[color=red]For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East
[/color]
I see you have not read Bush’s speeches either where he lays out ALL the reasons why we were going to take out Saddam. The media often focused on wmds only because of the debate in the UN. That was not the only place where debate was taking place. We were right to take him out.
Wrong again. Want the figures on who supplied and armed Saddam. We aided the Mujahadin. I realize that this is difficult for some of you to keep up with, but these are after all the basics. Look to Germany, France, China and Russia to find out who armed Saddam. Curious. Along with the UN were not these the four nations most opposed to our invasion?
Yes, but I am letting Clinton off the hook on that one. Anyone with a serious plan for stopping this can provide it, but at the time… just another civil war in Africa where there were no civil institutions to replace or remove. Nothing but the law of the jungle as the country inexorably moves back to the jungle. Oh for the days of colonia oppression…
Thank the Germans for this one and also the Europeans who were going to have “their hour.”
The British are in Sierra Leone, the Americans and French in Haiti but the truth of the matter is that neither of those places is going to improve because of the people involved. To some extent, this was also seen in New Orleans. Why the looting and rapes? This did not occur to nearly the same extent after the Asian tsunami. Why not?
I have no problem defending those four. But you do make a valid point. I am furious with Bush regarding spending and enlargement of government. BUT what can I do? Other considerations mean that I have to balance and compromise. I guess that is life.
It’s likely that they did, but the news media was not permitted to cover areas like Aceh. Oh, a reporter might have sneaked a quick peek here and there, but they were not allowed even a tiny fraction of the presence that they have in New Orleans.
Actually, not true. From what I have heard, most of the population was very quiet. I did hear of one or two rapes mostly in Sri Lanka. But you are right. They probably did not have the ability to cover this.
But back to Jane and George traveling across America. I am sure that they will get the kind of welcome that they so richly deserve. More! More! More!
[quote=“President Bush on 24 June 2002”]For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region.
[color=red]For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East
[/color]
[quote=“Namahottie”]
Oh is it is correct that [color=darkred]Killing people who kill people is a good way to stop people from killing[/color]. :homer:“duh” it’s all so clear to me now… [/quote]
By killing lots of Germans, the US 82d and 101st Airborne Divisions certainly stopped the Germans from killing even more people in concentration camps. So I guess it does work.
So if you’re on the Right you’re allowed to have a detailed, shade-of-grey perspective, but you still refer to The Left as a monolithic oneness as though every single person on that side is exactly the same as Fonda and Friends? I think I smell something funny in that… something remarkably bovine.
WMD were the primary reason given and everything else was just thrown in for good measure, without the WMD threat Bush & Co. would not have cared about the people of Iraq and probably still wouldn’t today.
After embarassing themselves by not finding the ‘smoking gun’ they are doing everything possible to shift the focus to so-called humanitarian reasons, and thus away from their failures, but there is no doubt that there wouldn’t have been an invasion for humanitarian reasons alone. Bunch of hypocrites they are.
In fact Bush shouldn’t even be allowed to mention the word ‘humanity’, let alone to be allowed to speak on behalf of mankind.
What utter nonsense. The fact is, Bush laid out a very compelling reason for invading Iraq and ousting Saddam and the WMD issue was simply the issue that gave the matter urgency.
If, as you so ridiculously claim, WMD was the primary reason for going into Iraq, then please explain why we are still in Iraq after 1) Saddam has been ousted and 2) there appear to be no WMD.
That’s an incredibly stupid remark. How in the world can you know what Bush cares about?
Read the damned speeches… it is absolutely clear that the action in Iraq is all part of the overall WOT and is necessary to enable Bush’s plan for a free indepenent Palestinian state to have a chance at succeeding.
I am amazed that despite all that Bush has said and done, anyone could post such garbage. Its truly amazing.
Who is embarrassed? We finally have resolved the issue of whether or not Saddam possessed WMD and we have finally done what was necessary to prevent him from obtaining or producing WMD.
Can you read? Read the goddamned speeches, ferchrissakes… Bush spoke of the humanitarian reasons for reforming the Middle East… he explained why nations such as Iraq were thwarting the peace process in Israel-Palestine. Do you deny that Bush spoke often of these things well before the US and coalition invaded Iraq?
Unfuckingbelievable!
What failures?
Right… because we have never in the past used our military for humanitarian reasons alone…
Anyway, do you even know what the word “hypocrite” means? It doesn’t look like you do.
Wanna talk about hypocrites? Let’s point the finger at the German government and Germany’s actions before the invasion of Iraq.
Jaboney stated that it was shameful that Bush and Co. are dressing the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, after the fact, as a humanitarian intervention.
I responded to that statement with exerpts of several speeches given by Bush well before the invasion in which Bush explained the humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq.
I am simply correcting the false perception held by so many that Bush never mentioned or argued a humanitarian reason for going into Iraq and removing Saddam and his regime.
not according to Bush and not according to the comments which are there for all to see. Otherwise, PROVE that he did not make these statements. The main reason it was about wmds in the press was because this was the single issue raised at the UN. If you cannot prove your point and you continue to persist in making such statements, then by your own definitions, you would be willfully and deliberately misleading debate on this forum and therefore lying. Correct? If you disagree with this, PROVE your point. Since you have been unable to, then I strongly suggest you desist from what appears to be dangerously close to libel and slander.
Correct in that I believe military action would not have been likely but here you seem to suggest that the Bush team really did believe that wmds existed and that is why they invaded NOT for huminitarian reasons but frequently your posts seem to suggest that you believe that Bush KNEW there were no wmds but chose to invade anyway. Which is it? Please clarify.
disagree.
If Schroeder can do it and not raise your ire when he links his opposition to the war in Iraq to lure people away from economic failure… but I don’t think that is what is really happening here. EVERYONE believed that Saddam was not complying. No one knew for sure what he was up to but even the Duelfer report said he would start his wmds once sanctions were lifted. Did you read that?
Hmmm interesting. Bunch of hypocrites. Ah that is sort of like Germans pretending they care when the nation and its businesspeople and political leaders were responsible for selling Saddam a full 50 percent of his nuclear, chemical and missile equipment pre-Gulf War I AND that is why it is Germany alone that is being sued by the Iranian Government for deaths and destruction caused by use of said chemical weapons against its soldiers and civilians… Right? I love this exploration of hypocrisy. It becomes most enjoyable. Enjoyable! Enjoyable!!! Can we keep playing this game? I mean your nation which you are a citizen of and one which allows you to vote takes no responsibility for the actions of YOUR government which you duly elected but that is something you do not wish to discuss right? You only want to focus on American “EVIL.” But how is liberating 27 million people from a tyrant like Saddam evil? Do you hear the Iraqis complaining about the liberation? No. You hear them complaining about the occupation but nearly everyone supported the removal of Saddam and if they are happy to see him gone, what is your big beef? Do you want us to leave and give the country back to Saddam? What?
and coming from a national of the nation that gave us Hitler and the Holocaust, this must MUST be more of that humor regarding hypocrisy. Do continue. Most enjoyable! Most enjoyable! hahahaha You can demean Bush all you want but really Rascal, these desperate flailing efforts to endlessly paint Bush as some kind of Hitler and Americans as some sort of violent gunslinging cowboys. If you want to do this, then you open yourself up to the very same kind of attacks don’t you? I really do believe that this excessive interest in Bush, the US and its policies is acceptable but then you have to rate this against a uniform set of objective criteria. If as we find your outrage is confined ONLY when Bush and America are involved, then I would have to conclude that this is borderline if not open racism. Or whatever you want to call this kind of prejudiced discrimination.
Again, all this criticism of Bush for hypocrisy but none for your own government? All this criticism of violence and unnecessary war from a nation that has the worst record in Europe for starting wars? All this concern about humanity from the nation that was most responsible outside Serbia for starting the Balkan conflagration? This from the nation that has not met its commitments to train the police in Afghanistan? Concern about international law from a national of a nation that has flouted treaty after treaty starting with the Euro Stability Pact? Excessive criticism of possible (alleged) torture by US forces when Germany has had a NATIONAL debate on the uses of torture with key politicians across the spectrum coming out publicy in FAVOR of it.
So this why these debates are so tiresome. You ignore everything that would give these issues relative weight to focus only on the American aspect. That to me is racism. Am I the only one who views your diatribes against Americans and Bush this way?
Jaboney stated that it was shameful that Bush and Co. are dressing the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, after the fact, as a humanitarian intervention.
I responded to that statement with exerpts of several speeches given by Bush well before the invasion in which Bush explained the humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq.
I am simply correcting the false perception held by so many that Bush never mentioned or argued a humanitarian reason for going into Iraq and removing Saddam and his regime.[/quote]
Got that. But going to war isn’t exactly humanitarian in my book.
