cthulu23

Ummmm....Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

cthulu23

Is it really so far fetched to believe that invading a Middle Eastern country under false pretenses could inflame the passions of Islamic fundamentalists?

As for the topic of this thread, can't you see it for what it is? "Why are liberals so eager for the US to fail" is nothing but an inflammatory, insulting jab and reduces the debate to childish "with us or against us," unfair terms. How would you feel about a thread tilted "why do conservatives hate brown people" or "why do republicans like to kill muslims?" I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect a little civility and respect for different opinions.

ARTelevision

For the most part, this thread has been civil.
My statement regards staying on topic.

__________________
create evolution

boatin

Riiiiight. As cthulu23 says, this thread is just inflammatory. If you disagree, please show us the "every" in the first paragraph. Hell, show me 10 posts that do what the poster says. 5? 2? 1?

Shouldn't be a tough challenge for the poster: go to the first two pages, and just copy links of what you mean. Surely you can get that many from the first two or three pages.

If you can not, perhaps that illustrates that this thread is, in fact, staying on target. There isn't a desire by liberals to see the US fail, and most if not all of the postings over the last year are about poor decisions and idiotic things the people in charge are doing. If there is no validity to his post, then it's impossible to stay on target. Hmmmm?

You don't have a problem with civil dissent, do you? You don't think Tecumsah, Harmless Rabbit or Superbelt are unpatriotic, do you?

ARTelevision

I believe that an impartial observer could indeed come to the conclusion that Liberals are eager for the US to fail. That seems a reasonable perception to make.

Perhaps the rhetoric of incessant bashing could be intermixed with some small doses of appreciation for this country and its political system, the Commander in Chief, and our contributions to the world's stability and prosperity. One would think that an individual who had even a small amount of affection or allegiance to his or her country would occasionally state something along those lines whether it is fashionable among one's peer group to do so or not.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

Reasonable only if one is so blinded by their own ideas that they refuse to acknowledge that any others might be valid. I've been disturbed by the recent theme in US Republican political dogma that
reduces Republican enemies to unpatriotic, conniving, anti-American traitors. I'm not talking about some wacko fringe groups, but popular conservative pundits, such as Ann Coulter. Can you understand that others might share a common goal while disagree completely on the best method to achieve that goal? This demonization of the American left can only serve to freeze the political dialogue and forment misunderstandings and resentment between the parties. The accusation of "traitor" (which the title of this thread implies) is a serious one to make, and it's use conjures up unpleasant images of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare (Ann Coulter has been trying to polish McCarthy's tarnished image lately...a disturbing thought).

So if I simply preface every post with "God Bless America and Dubya," then I can espouse my own beliefs without being accused of trying to lose or betraying my country. Golly, that sounds fair. Especially since Republicans showed complete restaint and fairness when they politely criticized President Clinton, right? I can love my country yet oppose my President (or any other elected official). That's the American way.

Edited to correct tag

ARTelevision

Sure. We're talking about a group here - not individuals of either stripe who may have a great deal of integrity.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

What group is that? Liberals as a whole? That's the title of this thread. Do you understand how that is an unfair generalization, albeit a common one these days? Wars almost always have a polarizing effect, but it is at times of great national distress that we must be most careful not to demonize the political oppostion. I find it extremely galling to be accused of being unfair to my political opponents while I'm simultaneously dubbed a traitor.

yatzr

Okay, so bush never should've went after al-queida since that only endangered people's lives. I can see what you mean with the WAR ON IRAQ....but the war on terror is a little different. Why do you think they are the same...you do know that afghanistan was a productive part of the war on terror right?? I know that terrorism didn't start with 9/11, but do you really think that terrorism in those other countries started with the war on iraq??

i don't remember saying anything about iraq. I know that everyone considers the war on terror and the war on iraq to be the same, but I don't. To me the war on iraq and against saddam is a different thing. I know they didn't have much if anything to do with 9/11. I know it's bush's own agenda. I don't even really consider it part of the "war on terrorism". But when you say the entire war on terrorism has been a failure and only making things worse, all you're doing is forgetting about afghanistan. If you want to say that that was a failure too, then I think you are one of those eager to see the US fail.

__________________
Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

cthulu23

When the US invaded Afghanistan, there was no great debate or crying foul from mainstream leftists. sure, anti-war groups were opposed, but that is there mission. To paraphrase David Cross, Ralph Nader would have invaded Afghanistan after 9-11. It is the war in Iraq and it's tenuous connection with terror that has inflamed the ire of many on the left (and some on the right). Although you may not consider the "war on terror" as connected with the war in Iraq, that is not the popular conception, nor the way that our leaders have described this war. Some quotes:
So, with that in mind, you may understand why I (and most people with a memory) consider Iraq as part of Bush's "War on Terrorism." I have not forgotten Afghanistan...if anything, I beleive that we should pay more attention to it rather than squandering our military strength and global political capital on a war that people like Paul Wolfowitz have been itching to fight for a decade.

I never said that the "entire war on terrorism is a failure." I argue against the shakey rationale that led to the invasion of Iraq under the rubric of the "war on terror." Do you consider misleading the public to justify invasion of a foreign nation a serious offense? I remember how Republican's cried out "wag the dog" when Clinton let loose a few Tomahawks on Afghanistan...where's the outrage now?

hannukah harry

to say that the war on terror is a failure, does not mean that you're eager for the US to fail. that's like saying "the yankee's are losing" when the score's 3-1 in the third inning must mean you want the yank's to lose. it doesn't, it's stating an observation. iraq so far has been a failure, and considering how much coverage iraq is getting over afghanistan, there's no wonder people may leave out/forget/not think to mention that afghanistan is in there.

i don't think that most liberals think of iraq as being part of the war on terror, other than that it has made it worse because it's making iraq a breeding ground for terrorist groups and increasing anti-american sentiments abroad.

finally, it seems to me that we may be failing in afghanistan too. i haven't heard any reports recently, but osama and the taliban head are still out there, opium fields are thriving, and i don't know if tehre's even a stable govt. in there at the moment. until there is and OBL's been caught, i'd say we're not meeting our objectives.

i do not want us to fail. but under the current administration, i believe we are. i love my country, but i hate the direction it has been going in under the leadership of Bush, and i do not think he's a good man or has much integrity. but that doesn't make me anti-american and it doesn't make me a "traitor."

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

ARTelevision

Groups exist. They are part of the lexicon and part of socio-linguistic praxis/methodology. As such groups are characterized by group tendencies and qualities. To say the concept of a group is a generalization is to state a truism.

Feel free to start a decent thread about conservatives and I'll tell you the issues I as an individual have with conservatives as a group.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

Wow, that must be an expensive textbook you have. Can I get my differential equations text and read from that? It should be as relevant as your mini lecture. Anyway, you didn't address the unfair part of the statement..."saying all liberal want to see America fail is an UNFAIR generalization." Well, do you think it's unfair or not? we can debate linguistics in another thread.

A decent thread with a title like "Why are conservatives determined to destroy America?" Does that sound accurate and fair? Can't you admit that the title of this thread is untrue and intellectually dishonest? I hate to ruin the good 'ol liberal bashing fun, but come on....

tecoyah

Here we go, Time to head it off at the pass.......Art is an intellegent guy, and I am sure knows that all who dislike or refuse to support Bush are not hoping for American failure.
cthulu23, you also seem a well informed and intellectually blessed individual, and are obviously passionate about this issue, as am I.
There is no reason for this to get any closer to the flames than it already is.....you are both right in your understanding of things.

We all know that Bush is less than perfect, and that the War is not going as planned, but the Liberal label is becoming a witches pole while the conservative label heads towards the great Satan.....how about losing the labels, and talking as people of opinion.

Many very bright people believe in the current administration....and there must be a reason for this. Many equally bright people do not, again what are the reasons.
Perhaps if this thread is to be hijacked(and it probably should be), it could be used as a forum of understanding, rather than bashing.

Or.....I could be talking out my ass, and have no clue whatsoever.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

ARTelevision

In my initial post, I indicated that it was stated in a loaded way to begin with. But it's a good question as far as perceptions go.

Another tack responses might have taken would have been to discuss the wording and loading and to attempt to clarify the statement - with an addition of some willingness to criticize one's own group. That's not so hard to do. But it is probably harder than becoming defensive and refusing to acknowledge any problems one's group might exhibit.

I would respond to a thread entitled "Why are conservatives determined to destroy America?" by saying that in my opinion they are not. I might also inquire as to what motivates the thread and question its wording. Perhaps I might even suggest a re-wording that seems fairer to me. I would also offer criticism of conservatives - a group which albeit characterized by obvious generalization - is a group to which I belong.

Another staff person - perhaps another Admin or Moderator might see it as a troll. Some might see this one that way. I decided to simply respond to it and see where it goes.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

If you look through my earlier posts, you will see that I argue against the demonization of political opponents, be they conservative or liberal. I have attempted to point out why the "unpatriotic liberal" meme that seems to be popular in conservative circles these days is absurd, wrong headed and dangerous. The example thread title that I gave was blatantly incorrect, just as I consider this thread to be. To admit that there are those of the leftist persuasion that do not wish for America to fail is an implicit rejection of that very notion. I've only attempted to illustrate that point.

analog

I initially decided to quell any "troll-like" atmosphere by posting something designed to convey my feelings and steer the conversation in the correct, productive direction.

I believe that there are some threads, like this one, that start questionable- but with a perceptible aura of opportunity. Some of you have used this opportunity to create a good debate. Some of you are just griping, it seems.

In any event, I do not appreciate the tone some of these posts are taking. I think I will find a positive adjustment in attitudes and a focus on respect and debate in this thread, or you all will find a padlock on it.

As a side note- I don't look kindly on people attacking someone who has consistently maintained composure and decorum throughout the attack. Yes, i'm talking about ART, but this is a universal truth as far as I am concerned.

-analog.

Publius

My final thoughts that I have on this post. Why is it that the "liberals" are accused of wanting to see America fail when in fact they are simply pointing out what they believe to be failures in American national/international policy. I think there is a key difference here. Pointing out (what they believe to be) failures does not equal wanting to fail (or being unpatriotic or a traitor). In fact it is quit the reverse. They are doing doing this because they want to fix these (believed) failures to make America stronger. Besides some whacko fringe groups (on both sides I might add) I cannot think of anyone in mainstream politics who seriously wants to see America fail. We (they) are all Americans, we love this country, and we simply want to see that everything that can possibly be done to make America stronger is done properly. Sure, we may disagree but that doesn't mean that one side (or the other) wants to see the whole country fail over petty politics. But unfortunatly the neo-conservative machine (neo-cons, like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Carl Rove) don't exactly paint the picture that way, and unfortunatly many people in this country are buy into what they are selling hook, line, and sinker. I'm not saying that the liberals are right (god knows they've made mistakes before) I just wish people would wake up and start paying attention to what is happening and think things through themselves once they have seen both sides of the evidence before they come to a hard and fast conclusion that the other side must be wrong and wants them to fail.

DJ Happy

You really need to look at the big picture. Bush needs to look at why people hate America and address those issues, not just blow them up when they do so. That path will never, ever end. He has the chance to rectify it, but his gung-ho attitude won't let him.

To give you and example, Afghanistan was productive. I happen to believe that he didn't handle that in the best way possible either, but it ended reasonably well. However, without any of the crap that America engages in so frequently with regards to international meddling, Afghanistan wouldn't exist. There would've been no problem to solve. But instead of learning from these mistakes, they just blunder on obstinately, exacerbating the problem. In my opinion, we are headed down the path to the third world war right now.

Someone told me to read John McCain's book about courage, I imagine because he wants me to understand why we need to be physically and mentally courageous in these troubled times. If you ask me, moral and ethical courage is just as important as these other two forms. Bush needs to be the bigger man. He must realise the mistakes that he's made and continues to make and force himself to find a way for peace. At the moment he just seems hell-bent on revenge. And as some skinny Indian chap once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Hwed

The jury is still out on that. We do know that Saddam and Al Qaeda had plenty of pre-9/11 mingling.

The point is, Saddam had everything to do with the next 9/11. Preemptive action is always risky, because the benefits aren't as tangible.

This is a war on terrorism, and when it comes to terrorism, Saddam was a clear threat to the US. The man sponsored terrorists, had WMDs, used them on his own people, defied UN resolutions for over a decade while suffering severe economic sanctions brought on by his unprovoked invasion of a sovreign nation.

I realize it makes folks feel good to paint flowers on their faces and carry signs and wear communist flags and say "Peace!" But what is peace? Is it simply the absence of conflict? Lots of European countries tried that version of peace in WWII by appeasing Hitler, and Hitler ate them for lunch.

True peace is the absence of threat and the presence of justice. In Iraq, we are eliminating a threat to our country while bringing justice to theirs.

ARTelevision

Hwed, yes.

DJ Happy, as for "Bush needs to look at why people hate America and address those issues..."
That sort of thing is well and good. However, I don't get any indication at all that folks who think so-called "free expression" is the be all and end all of existence have any willingness at all to look at the sort of cultural rubbish we produce and consign it to the dead-letter bin.

__________________
create evolution

tecoyah

There is so very much to take issue with in this short statement.

There was very little threat to the U.S from Iraq, at least no more so than from many other countries. As for the "Justice" we are imposing, perhaps when viewed from outside our borders, it is not quite so obvious. Justice is a relative term, relative to the observer. To most outside entities, we are not the benign hand of justice you portray, but a mix of blind aggression, and corrupt deceiver.
Before you all attempt to tear me apart as a liberal, America hater, understand these are not My views, but the observations I have made of what a large portion of the world sees.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Harshaw

Yeah, lets remember who we are bashing here people. Remember your Emily Post; It's rude to bash someone in a thread about bashing someone else.

__________________
This too shall pass.

cthulu23

ALthough Saddam Hussein did have some loose ties with Al-Qaeda, we know that he considered Muslim fundamentailists as a threat to his stability. Does anyone else remember the message from Bin Laden that welcomed the invasion of Iraq as it was toppling a secular leader? Saying that Saddam would undoubtedly be involved the "next 9-11" smacks of wishful thinking and is not based on any fact that I am aware of.

In any case, if there were any sort of damning evidence implicating Saddam in 9-11, we would have heard of it by now....instead, we've heard statements from Rumsfeld himself admitting that no such connection can be made. While there is always a possiblilty that new evidence could emerge, I'm not holding my breath.

If you look through my earlier posts, you can see that I argue that the invasion of Iraq had very little to do with 9-11, as it has been a large point on the neocon to-do list for at least a decade.

Even Rumsfeld has backed off of the "imminent threat" business, as could be witnessed by his contortionist-like act on "Face the Nation." Here are some choice quotes as he tries to deny that the administration ever said that Saddam was an "imminent" threat:

Kind of reminiscent of the whole "definition of is" business, isn't it?

Comparing anti-war forces to the appeasers in Europe pre-WWII is misleading, as Saddam was already under sanctions and was not being given any concessions to appease him. I'll ignore your mischaracterization of all who oppose the Iraq war as communist hippies as it is beneath comment.

DJ Happy

Again, I don't think that the Islamic fundamentalists are really that bothered about the aspects of US culture that conflicts with aspects of theirs. What they care about is the US imposing that culture upon them and meddling in their affairs for their own personal gain.

DJ Happy

Sponsors terrorists, has WMDs, defies UN resolutions..........are you talking about Saddam or Bush?

You say that invading Iraq has removed a threat to the US. I say you couldn't be further from the truth. Invading Iraq has created more of a threat to the US than ever existed before.

Finally, his invasion of Kuwait wasn't unprovoked. It was a slightly extreme reaction, but it wasn't unprovoked. There are two sides to every story - I don't think you've listened to the other one in this regard.

Hwed

More of a threat than the United States? Clearly not, in hindsight.

As you said, he had ties with Al Qaeda. Now that those ties are proven, they become "loose ties" as the liberals keep running the goal-posts down the field.



Would you rather wait for the mushroom cloud so we have something to point at? Either way, you'd have blamed Bush, if not for doing too much, for doing too little. As I said, the benefits of preemption aren't something you can't point at, because you're preventing something terrible, not responding to it.

As for WMDs, here's what we've found so far:

Biologics:

Brucella
Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever

Chemical:

Ricin
Sarin
Aflatoxin

Not to mention plans for nuclear weapons, attempts at buying nuclear materials, long-range missiles in violation of UN sanctions that clearly weren't working to begin with, except to line the pockets of corrupt Russian and French politicians.

Now if Saddam wasn't a threat, and had no intention of developing WMDs, why do you think he endured twelve years of harmful economic sanctions while sneaking around with all of the above?

DJ Happy

Good point. Maybe Bush should just nuke the rest of the world right now to make sure that no-one can attack the US ever again.

Hwed

Oh, I'm sorry. You're quite right. Kuwait, a sovreign nation, had the audacity to produce more oil than OPEC allowed, and they insulted Saddam's honor.

So am I hearing you right? The overproduction of oil and some uncivil comments are justification for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Well then, you surely don't see a problem with the US invasion of Iraq, given twelve years of defying the agreements of the ceasefire back in the early 90's.

DJ Happy

Again, that's not the whole story. It's also not the point in this discussion. I mentioned it because you seem to twist facts to suit your opinion.

I never mentioned anything about the attack being justified, so I don't know where you got your last paragraph from (although I can guess).

cthulu23

Cultural rubbish meaning what? I would bet that our individual definitions of what constitutes "cultural rubbish" vary greatly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that we must look to characteristics of our own culture as causes for terrorist aggression. Ignoring for the moment that Bin Laden named the American military presence in the Middle East as the primary motivation for his "jihad," Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell made that same cultural claim shortly after 9-11:

This was such a popular opinion that both Falwell and Robertson issued public apologies. Attempts by liberals to assign blame via foreign policy critiques were given just as warm a reception.

My point here is that the American public has shown great wisdom in resisting calls to place blame on our fellow Americans for the actions of madmen, regardless of whether these calls originate from the left or from the right. I would hope that we could maintain that composure.

cthulu23

I don't think that you can fairly estimate exactly what I would or wouldn't have blamed Bush for. Back to the matter at hand, there are many examples given by Colin Powell prior to 9-11 that claimed that Saddam was contained and not a threat:

There are also quotes by George Tenet and Condaleeza Rice that downplay Saddam's threat...the tune changed, of course, after 9-11.

Saddam was a secular thug, not a religous fanatic. His main interest was staying in power no matter the cost, and, as such, was a much greater threat to his own people than to any other nation. But don't take my word for it, just reread the Colin Powell quotes above.

If you are interested in what the real motive of the invasion was, simply read up on the Wolfowitz Doctrine. You may agree with Wolfowitz's reasons for invading Iraq, but they have nothing to do with the arguments that our government used to sell the war to us.

roachboy

there is no way that the "wolfowitz doctrine"---which you can derive from the mission statement of the project for a new american century--could have been sold to the americans---it provides no specific motives for war at any particular time. if the bush people followed its logic, they had no choice but to lie about the specifics....the problem with hussein was not that he was a thug--the americans have backed worse thugs than he for years, particularly under the logic of the cold war--but rather than hussein was not playing by the american's rules any more (he became inconvient)--this was doubled by the symbolic problems raised for the neocons by the outcome of the first gulf war--that international institutions, symbolized by the un--overrode nation-states and the (neoconservative "mayberry machiavellian") understanding of national interests--a problem that for them has been exacerbated by the development of globalizing capitalism---the logic of this interpretation can go on at length, but you can probably derive the moves and conclusions.

the point, with reference to this thread, is that the colonial war in iraq is carried out in terms of a very particular vision of america, its nature, its interests, its role, etc.. that it circulates in the context of conservative ideology in general domestically enables these assumptions to blur into the claims to a monopoly on americanness that nitwits on the order of limbaugh have been trafficking in for a decade--a move that links back to the jurassic mists of the history of american conservativism. the bush administration operates with a very particular, theologically based vision of this fiction called america---it does not cross with the country in general. it is entirely possible and legitimate, as others on this thread have pointed out, to oppose the bushvision of america, its wolfowitz-inspired "logic" for international affairs---and not find oneself being any less american for it. only those who work from inside conservative ideology would understand things in those terms---and i find this strange--because using the term "america" as conservatives do is an obvious tactic for shutting down debate amongst members of an informed citizenry--which is of a piece with shutting down even the shallow version of democracy that functions in the states---even as that same ideology legitimates the colonial war in iraq by claiming it is in part about the export of democracy.

sadly, the neocons have turned out to be better students of gramsci and the notion of war of position than have people on the left, such as it is---they have understood that if you control the frame of reference, the terms of debate, you control the logic within which conversations can happen. the problem with arguments that happen between conservatives and their many opponents is one of frame of reference--for the right, the terms of the now-dominant discourse are abosulte--they have no interest in relativizing those terms--they think through them--because it is a matter of faith--while people outside that frame of reference tend to relativize that framework and in doing so use terms and modes of arguments that simply fly past the modes of thinking particular to conservative operatives.

personally, i oppose bushwar and bushworld entirely. i am not happy to watch it fail because the failure of these people generates consequences that the rest of us have to endure. on the other hand, each step that conservativism in its present form takes toward the ash-heap of history is fine with me. the war in iraq is simply the most extreme and absurd manifestation of that vision.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

irseg

I didn't read thru the whole thread so my apologies if it's been said already, but...

I think liberals are anxious to see the US fail because of their extreme hatred of GWB. They hope anything he does will fail, regardless of the consquences. If it means we lose American lives, oh well. At least Dubya's plan didn't work out and it made him look bad.

I seriously wonder how some liberals would react if GWB were to express his opposition to stomping on puppies.

cthulu23

HAHAHA! Man, you should read over the old posts as a lot has been said on the subject. My take: reducing your opponents to caricatures is harmful to the political dialogue and processes of this country. Also, the entire "traitor liberal" meme is a dangerous idea that seems to be taking hold, a la this thread. It only takes a casual student of history to see the dark repercussions that are created when one begins to demonize their enemy.

I don't see how you can say that the political opponents of Dubya don't care for the lives of soldiers...if anything, IMHO those opposed to the war consider the sacrifice of soldier's lives as needless and obscene.

I don't hate Dubya, but I do not like him, either, nor should I be forced to like him. It may make it easier for one to justify their beliefs if they think of their enemies as raving, irrational hate mongers, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Edited for grammar

smooth

Why can't you understand that I don't even think about George Bush?

I don't hate him. I wouldn't even know he existed if it wasn't for the fact that he is the president. I didn't know or care about him when he was in Texas.


I also don't get this constant linkage between George Bush and the interests of the US. Having grown up in this nation, and my family having lived here since the beginning of the US coming into existence, I have at least as much claim to holding the ideals this nation stands for as the next person. Why is Bush's, or some conservative's, idea of what this nation stands for more important than mine? I can quite accurately say that Bush wants the US to fail, using such absurd reasoning as I see in this thread. But we both live here, so neither makes much sense to claim unless one of us is then going to argue that one or the other is irrational. I guess I just want my lifestyle to end. Yep, that must be it. I wish civilization as I know it, and have known it to exist for nearly 30 years, would just end. I must hate George Bush so much that I want my lights to shut off. I don't want potable water. This man I never knew, never will meet, and who's life history and path will never cross with mine, raises my ire so much that I just wish the sun would stop shining. Yeah, you sure got "us" liberals figured out.

Even if I hated George Bush, I must then hate the US?

I wonder what the motivation of the rest of the world is. The entire world, and US liberals, must hate George Bush. They must hate this man so much that they want the US to fail. Although, what they want it to fail at, or what "it" (as if that were the entire nation all in one descriptor) is, is never really explicit.

To us, and a huge portion of the world, George Bush and "the US" is already failing. That's the reason underlying such criticism. No matter how much one hated someone else or wanted someone else to fail, it wouldn't occur unless the person or agency actually failed. I can sit in my house and hate and criticize all day long. But that isn't going to make George Bush fail unless he is a failure.


Maybe a more accurate description is that supporters are so enamored with George Bush that they can't recognize when the things he and his administration set out to do fail.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

tecoyah

Damn....wish I had said that.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

yatzr

Now lets be serious. We are human. Don't try to say you've never enjoyed seeing G.W. fail. Unfortunately, when G.W. fails, that means some part of the US fails. I know you don't go out and hope that all our troops get shot. I know that you really want america to be a success, but you can't say that you've never had a grin on your face (or at least on the inside) when one of bush's plans blew up in his face. Lots of people are eager for Bush to fail (which i think should be the actual topic since nobody is really eager for the US to fail). It happened when Clinton was president too. It happens for all presidents. The fact that when the president fails some part of the US fails is just an unfortunate side effect of what everybody really wants.

__________________
Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

cthulu23

Although I may enjoy the occasional Bush malapropism, there isn't anything funny about military failure. I don't want him elected, but I don't want the body count increased either. If we could somehow pull out of Iraq tomorrow while leaving a stable, democratic government, I would be fully supportive. It might play in Bush's favor, but some things take precedence over politics. I'd still work like hell to see that he isn't reelected, though.

smooth

No, I don't get a grin on my face when anyone fails.

It's disturbing me that, although you build this caricature of liberals in your mind, you still project your viewpoint onto that shadow.

Think back to all the commie, peacenik, hippy, tree-hugging, sandal wearing, pot smoking, organic food eating, vegan diet, vegetarians, hybrid driving, bicycle pedaling, people you slam under the huge liberal umbrella. None of those people would grin when someone else fails--they'd feal sorry for the person.

Somehow, "bleeding heart liberals" morph into war-mongering, vehement, hateful people when the neo-cons control and subvert the discourse. I would venture to say that the people who enjoy and engage in warfare are more likely to grin and mock when people fail--not the people who can't stomach confrontation even to the point of "appeasing" evil dictators.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman