What Causes Irrational Hatred of George Bush?
 

I was prompted to start this thread by another discussion on the politics board in which multiple contributors bought into a serious comparison between George Bush and Hitler. The discussion prompted me to contemplate the irrationality of some, if not most, forms of Bush hatred I see both on this forum and in the real world. By coincidence, I then stumbled upon this article, which effectively expresses a lot of thoughts that I had not yet assembled cohesively.

I suggest you follow this link to the full article, as Dr. Sanity's commentary is very insightful...

There are a lot of things....

For me... it seems to be

a) his accent
b) his use of words (crusade, axis of evil etc)
c) his general speed of delivery
d) his politics - which are "far to the right" of anything I'm used to
e) his frequent references to god (I'm an atheist)... particularly in
the context of conflict in an area in which god has been at the heart
of a lot of conflict

Please don't shoot me on this one. We're talking about things that provoke an irrational dislike ok. Not stuff that truly matters policy-wise.

For the record... I looked on Dr. Sanity's website a while back (Aug?). Some of her views seem fairly extreme.

In fact, while I am sure that she has some useful things to say - I would suggest that the site is going to be fairly difficult going to anybody who is not a highly vocal christian, enthusiastic Bush supporter, and white-skinned euro descendant.

....which sorta seems to defeat the purpose of writing a blog I would have thought.

I'm just as interested in what causes the irrational excusing of every mistake he's ever made. I bet it has something to do with clinton.

Agreed. The problem is that politics have become so partisan that neither side can see anything other than their own view. To one side, Bush is the devil incarnate and can do no good, to the other, he is Jesus incarnate and can do no wrong.

I'm not sure how Dr. Sanity's commentary could be considered insightful. The word that comes to mind for me is ridiculous.
Perhaps Dr. Sanity should also ask herself what causes the irrational hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton? What causes the irrational hatred of Michael Moore?
There are always going to be crazies who develop this intense hatred of people who believe differently than they do. It's nothing new and it has nothing to do with "displacement".

It is because regular hatred failed to get him out of office.

I'm not sure how this can lead to any useful discussion when the title already makes the conclusion that all the hatred for Bush is irrational.

Very nice. Again, the right wing redefines the terms of discussion. Now being against Bush is irrational.

My hatred of George Bush is perfectly rational, thank you very much.

filth, isn't that something of an irrational, hateful remark? This could be interesting if we leave the junk at the door.

sailor, is that offhand, or do you really think everyone who doesn't hate Bush thinks he's an angel? I voted for the guy and have been disgusted as often as not. Unfortunately it was a turd sandwich or douchebag choice. We'll likely have another in a couple years.

I've had my moments with every prez for the last 25yrs but it's fairly boring, useless stuff. The guy does a few things I don't agree with and I start categorizing everything as bad. Could start with a decision I passionately disagree with, could be slow and progressive, could just be I'm tired of fighting. Whatever, once we stop looking rationally at effects and motives (on all sides, at all levels) we're just part of the pointless horse race.

My grandfather once told me hate really only hurts one person. I'm not so sure. I agree we've reached a level of partisanship that hurts everyone. Is it useful?

What have you done to improve the situation?

I seriously dislike Bush....although I dont usually hate him. My primary reasons have to do with my own perception of his honesty, and corruption by Industry. Though I would show such dislike for any corrupt politician, he is the President of the United States, and thus is the target of my dissatisfaction, Rational or Not. Added to this is the Utter embarasment I feel every freakin' Time he talks....I mean Every time. He comes off as the most ignorant individual in politics, and this man represents me in the eyes of the world.
In my opinion Bush has surrounded himself with a group of people that are dishonest and I simply cannot trust my government right now....this upsets me immensly. My ideology is virtually opposite what Bush stands for in many ways, and the Christianization of the White house, Blatantly, is also very disturbing. Mind you I have little issue with religious belief of any kind, but I do not want it legislated. As a final note, I sincerely believe the adminstration presented false/misleading information in order to garner support that led us into a war.

Other than that....I would have a beer with him....if he bought.

bush is not hitler, the only nazis were the nazis.
no one can legitimately blame bush for natural disasters, so it is a waste of time to defend these supposed accusations.
however, as president, he should shoulder blame/responsibility because he is in charge.
as for terrorism, since it is mentioned in the article, the adminstration's policies are cetainly debatable. the insurgency in iraq is not in it's death throes, we have not borken it's back, and killing insurgents is not slowing the insurgency. sadly, a democratic middle east would be less US friendly than the exiting authoritarian regimes. and more specifically, the record of mistreatment of individuals in custody, and the reluctance to alter the established protocol, is winning neither hearts nor minds of foreigners and likely fueling the "islamofascist" movement.

i think it is equally irrational to broadly claim people hate bush. it's a conclusion to make if you want pseudo-political infotainment. raising issues with his policies is not the same as hating the man.

All hate is irrational. Human, but irrational.

I'm indifferent to the man, but I abhor many of the president's policies and the neocon ideology that directs him and his administration. Some here will brand me a "leftist" for that statement when in fact I am a moderate. If there is a hint of fiscal conservatism in this administration, I have yet to see it.

If so, then reason isn't useful at deciding the value of something. There are things in this world that it's worth hating.

I disagree with this entirely. Hatred of things that are evil or produce evil are completly rational.

How does hate help? What does it offer? I mean what does it offer to us as individuals, not to those at the mic/pulpit for whom it's a tool.

For me hate clouds perception, distracts from any honest analysis. At best it's the cart before the horse. It solves nothing for me. It's so often used by leaders to keep their flock in tow that I don't trust it. It means issues, baggage. Dump it. At least, that's what I try to do.

Rekna, I meant having emotions is rational. The emotions themselves are not. Is that closer? I'm happy to give into my humanity when the effects are positive, but hate is nothing but an evil we inflict on ourselves.

I don't see anything irrational or hateful. It was as honest a question as the one posed by the OP.

Actually, I thought the thread title left open the possibility of the existence of rational hatred. The question is, what causes IRrational hatred of George Bush. Taken that way, it would be worthy of exploration.

I have a rational dislike of George Bush. It is mostly founded on my feeling that his thinking and policies are unclear. I believe that there is no real, feasible plan for Iraq beyond "get through the next few months". I also think there is no real, feasible PLAN for Social Security beyond "make it more privatized". I don't think there is a real, feasible goal in our current foreign policy. For that matter, I don't think there is a clear goal for domestic policies. This seems to be an administration that is making policies based on reacting to stuff that happens.

I'd feel better if there was a clear goal that was being articulated or clear answers given when tough questions are asked. It seems like this administration is surrounded by some sort of all-pervading fuzz. It diffuses their answers, thinking, and policies. This is not the same thing as knee jerking and saying that our president is stupid, which I don't think he is.

cyrnel...

i'll copy rekna and say that the hatred of evil is one of the most rational acts a human being can engage in. i make distinction between hatred of act and actor, but i do know the line is awful thin...

but i'm unwilling to live in a world that is so imbued with systematic evil, and not condemn it, even to hate it. i hate the fact that while i'm writing this and thinking about getting a cheeseburger 'cause i missed dinner....that some kid has died from hunger. I hate the fact that as i man, i can walk to my car tonight and not worry about being sexually assualted. i hate the senselessness of the war in iraq, and how civilians are paying the price for Dubya's miscalculations.

hate can drive me to action, give me courage to stand up against the wrong, and keep me motivated despite failure. i got very angry about the lack of training and resources put behind suicide prevention at my undergrad institution...and got angrier still at the "we don't know what we're doing" response to a completed suicide right after the admin turned me down. you best believe me, there's annual mental health awareness programming done now, and the RA's get better training on how to refer residents to the resources of the college and community. It ain't perfect...but i watched a campus message board fill up with people's stories and joys and worries about mental illness in friends and themselves...

I knew that my anger had turned a problem into something good. I could put that emotion down, that as a tool it had served it's purpose.

I think it has something to do with GW's irrational condescending manner when he is put on the spot and asked the important questions.

Ratbastid, the title of this post is "What Causes Irrational Hatred of George Bush?". This is certainly not meant to imply that one cannot rationally hate him. What I am interested in discussing is why there are people who hate Bush in ways that don't make any sense.

Examples of things one might rationally hate Bush for:
-destroying the environment
-effectively sentencing over 2,000 soldiers to die for a war that was based on totally false premises
-destroying the credibility of the United States in the international arena
-allowing the deficit to grow to unprecidented levels
-using Christianity as a tool to manipulate and mobilize Christian voters
-opposing women's right to an abortion
-curtailing fundamental civil liberties
-nominating underqualified and/or very conservative justices to the Supreme Court
-and the list goes on...

It is, however, irrational to use these policy blunders to compare Bush to Hitler, to argue that he has declared war on Islam, to say that he attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for the oil, and to say that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen because he thought it would be good for his approval ratings.

This second type of hatred is frighteningly widespread and I would like to know why there seems to be so much of it attached to George Bush.

The common characteristic of links posted on this forum by members who consistently espouse POV's from the right of the mainstream American right, (where most of the rest us.... according to roachboy....live) is that they are nearly always on the fringe, as the site referenced in the thread starter, http://drsanity.blogspot.com/ is. In the rare instance when a link to a "news" site is posted, it is usually to foxnews.com or to washingtontimes.com .

Why are the places on the web where the "rest of us" find our news reports and commentary (AP articles are an example of consistently unbiased reports) almost never referenced by those who attempt to counter strong critics of Bush, for example?

According to Fox, a source you probably consider "fair and balanced" latest polls indicate that Bush is overwhelmingly disapproved of, in the categories of the job he is doing and in the ethics of his administration compared to past administrations, by <b>Independent</b> voters:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_111005.pdf
His job approval number among republican voters has dropped from 80 percent, to 72 percent, and among all those polled, to a new low, 36 percent. Dr. Sanity's "article" would have been more persuausive four years and 54 polling percentage points ago, than it is now.

By the way politicophile, the discussion that you say prompted you to "start this thread", was intended to be a discussion of how to avoid being a "good German", taking the example of Ann Wright, a patriot who is setting an example of how to object to and resist the Bush administration and it's policies.
My intent was to discuss examples like these, and how they compare to our present circumstances and the choices that Ann Wright has had to make to be true to her convictions:
You elected to turn my discussion into a Bush vs. Hitler debate with this post, and then you moved on.

While it's irrational to say that Bush=Hitler or some nonsense like that, I don't think it's irrational to simply make an honest comparison/contrast. I didn't see anyone in the thread you are referring to cross the line. I did, however, see some people irrationally reject any comparison to Hitler at all.
As far as your second example, Bush has referred to the War on Terror as a Crusade and has seemingly focused solely on Islamic terrorism. So while it may not be completely correct, it would not be irrational to say that Bush has declared war on Islam.
It's no more irrational to say that Bush attacked Iraq for oil than it is to say that he liberated Iraq in order to spread freedom and democracy.
Your last example is indeed irrational, but I haven't heard many people say that. There are the usual conspiracy nuts, but I wouldn't consider that widespread by any means. Just because a few people post something on a message board doesn't mean that the opinion is widespread among the general population.

nothing to say

I don't irrationally hate Bush, I despise his policies and the abuses of office, the lies, the corruption and the way he took 9/11 and instead of promoting world peace and keeping allies and new friends close, he chose to play "cowboy" and threaten and attack other leaders that did not want to do as he told them.

His "you're either with us or against us" speech will go down as one of the world's most divisive. He took every other countries goodwill and peace overtones and used them to benefit his own interests, not the country's.

As an individual, I do not know Bush to judge him, nor is that my job. History and his God will.

HOWEVER, as a citizen, it is my RIGHT and DUTY to judge the man's policies and whether or not I believe he is helping America move forward or hurting America and regressing our society. My judgement is the latter.

It is unpatriotic, unAmerican and IMHO more filled with hate and anger to believe those that dislike his policies and speak out against him do so just because they simply disagree with you.

We have freedom of speech, freedom to question the government and it's policies, freedom to say "we don't like this", freedom to compare past leaders to present...... with those freedoms comes the duty to use them and to make those judgements so that in the end we do not lose them.

To me the people who blindly have followed (or followed but knew that Bush was and is abusing his powers) and then dismissed any discussions that point out opposing views as "irrational hatred" is admitting there is something there but not wanting to truly debate and defend rationally because they can't.

And in the end the American people are starting to see for themselves and the polls are dropping for Bush like a lead balloon. And yet again, instead of looking at what the vast majority see and trying to figure out how to correct what has gone wrong, the Administration and Bush supporters take to the name calling, anti-patriotism, anti-troop, anti-God, anti-everything attack mode, hoping that works instead of having to legitimately answer to the people, and explain the lies, coverups, leaks and contempt for the right to speak out and question and hold leaders accountable.

By George, you're right:

One of many links

The actual article requires a subscription, so I didn't post that link.

I take it from this remark that you will chastise anyone who uses the term, "Radical right?"

The left wing has certainly defined all conservatives as "radicals."

I don't label all conservatives as radicals nor do I believe they are. Just as not everyone on the Left is radical.

Those who blindly follow Bush and turn legitimate questions and debates into pissing contests, attacks on patriotism and personal attacks, those are radicals.

There are many Conservatives that debate their views on here and most of the time show the respect I show them that I find interesting, well read and just have come to a differing philosophy and viewpoint as me. I respect their opinions and when they honestly can show me how they can get from point "A" to point "B" and expect me to do so with the same respect, I find it quite a learning experience for both of us, as we have shared and shown each other respect, dignity and understanding.

Then there are those that twist, attack and show no respect, those are the radicals.

Those that fill posts with twists, turns, refuse to answer how they get from point to point, refuses to see where the opposition has come to their opinion and views, and in the end shows no respect, garners no respect from me.

It never ceases to amaze me how some on the Right who supposed despise everything Clinton stood for will use him as defense for Bush's WMD excuse for the war.

2 wrongs do not make it right. Yet, I assume that the way the keep using Clinton and Gore and others it justifies Bush's lieing and thus justifies the war with the never ending changing of reasons for going.

The fact that he did not have a passport before becoming president, because he never left the United States. I don't understand how people can elect someone like that, someone who has so little knowledge of the world around him.

Clinton, as much of an idiot as he was for doing/saying what he did, was still the president and as such it can be assumed that he was privy to the same quality of intellegence as the present administration. Therefore, if he is coming out and saying that there are WMDs in Iraq, then that shows that Bush didn't "lie", like the accusations say.

Just like many on the right post quotes from Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and others who are now coming after Bush for starting a war "under false pretenses". If they saw the intellegence and believed it, how can they go after the president for it?

A bit of both. I know there are a lot of voters out there who voted for him because they saw him as the lesser of two evils, or that really dont like him even though they voted for him, etc. Unfortunately though, it seems as though, at least where I'm from (NC), there seems to be a good bit of the "shut up you damn liberal, its unamerican to question Bush," or the "shut up, you're just complaining, he didn't do anything wrong."

So yeah, a bit of both. I know what I said wasn't an absolute, and there are millions of people in the US just like you. But at the same time, I've experienced a lot of the "with us or against us," with both sides taking a blind eye to any errors their politicians might have commited. Maybe I'm just surrounded by idiots who can't see anything other than black and white :(

That seems to sum up the reactions I see most of the time. From both sides--though admittedly I tend to see it more from the right.

I don't hate Bush. I see him as more pityful because of his dishonesty and lack of honor. His position requires a unique amount of loyalty to the citizens of the US, a seemingly unlimited amount of patience, a superb intelect, and the ability to do the right thing (legally and morally) even if no one is looking. He has demenstrated either a serious lack of honesty and integtiry (probable), or a serious lack of intelect (not as liklely, but just as bad), and people have died because of it. He is responsible for the armed forces and the entire executive branch, not to mention he is to answer for the legislation and judicial ruling of his party members. Each of those has ahd serious failings durring his terms. I am dissapointed in Bush, and I hope to stop either his dishonesty or his ignorance.

Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, refuted some of your points, just three weeks after Bush took office in 2002. Powell and Rice made statments in 2001 that were identical to what Tenet said:
The article linked here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...er=rssuserland

and other links displayed in my post earlier today, persuasively indicate that congress did not have access to the comprehensive, and contradictory intelligence information that the Bush administration had access to before congress had to make the decision to vote for authorization for a possible war in Iraq..... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...05&postcount=3

It does take time to examine these details. The alternative is to listen to Bush's Nov. 11 speech or Ken Mehlman's statements on Russert's "Meet the Press", yesterday. Bush and Mehlman are both "on message" concerning the intelligence information that congress was privy to....the problem is that what those two are saying is not backed up by news reporting, including the WaPo reporting on Nov. 11:

That's the point of my post, which some tried to ignore. However, it's finally leaking out via the national media, so it's possible this disinformation campaign by Teddy, Hillary, Bill, and their friends will die out soon.

*wave*

I don't consider my own rejection to be irrational at all.

In fact, I just addressed your concern.


:D

Sure, but what's the point here? Are you saying that if Clinton believed the same thing that Bush believed, then Bush was right in believing it? If so, then your premise is false, because Clinton did not believe that the intelligence warranted a full-scale invasion and occupation of the country. He certainly did not believe there was any actionable connection between Saddam and AQ.

SO if Clinton's views are being cited as evidence for the quality of the intelligence, then we are led to the opposite conclusion: the intelligence did not warrant what the U.S. is currently doing in Iraq.

It is of course easy to make a dishonest case for going to war without falsifying any intelligence: you can do it by cherry-picking those bits of intelligence that support your case, refusing to declassify those that don't support your case, or declassifying them at the last minute, and redacting caveats and disclaimers from those you do declassify. The commissions were not empowered to evaluate the use of any of these obfuscating methods.

There certainly is evidence that Bush did do some of this. For instance, the NIE report that "Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner" was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote. If the report had concluded the opposite, I'm sure it would have been cleared months before.

Irrational dislikes: Bush's use of fourth grade nicknames, ie: "Brownie", "Turd Blossom", "Fredo", "Big Country", "Big Time".

Rational dislikes: His fourth grade competency, ie: handing out important positions to poilitical donors and hacks, his ridiculous shenanigans in Iraq, his abandonment of statesment like Colin Powell when his own fuckups come to light, his boosting of a dizzy headed cheerleader for the supreme court.

Rational dislikes of his followers: Their penchant for screaming "umme finish! umme finish!" whenever they have to defend another stupid action committed by their deer leeder, almost always followed by, "Clinton said the same thing!" or "Clinton got a blowjob!"

Link

The liberal historical revisionists would have you believe that George Bush and his cronies came up with the idea of invading Iraq before 9/11. Well, that's true... in a way. The appeal to Clinton is not intended to be a statement about the quality of the intelligence for invading Iraq.

What this story does prove, however, is that those who hate Bush for fabricating the justification for the Iraq war are... hating Bush for irrational reasons. Hence, this thread.

John McCain, on Face the Nation last sunday:

Jay Rockefeller being interviewed by Chris Wallace of Fox News, sunday:

Old and busted: BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED
New and accurate: CONGRESS LIED, PEOPLE DIED

*Irrational hatred of Bush (aka Bush Derangement Syndrome) can lead to a denial of reality, blurry thought, and acute constipated political slogans.

Clinton attacked Iraq yes. Tactical airstrikes to send a message. He did not engage in a land war with the stated goals of a regime change. THAT is called a war of aggression.

As a Canadian my view of Bush is different. I do however travel more in the States then most Americans (and I have the flight log to prove it). I dont see an irrational hatred of Bush. I see the constant degredation of the values of the invididual (Freedom act searches without warrent, detainment of prisoners against the Geneva convention) I see the melding of church and state, where there was always a nice division, and I see a partisanship that has gotten so rotten that the president of the united states feels it nessesary to blast the opposition on the one day set aside to remember those who fell in war to ensure that the world is free..

Isnt that enough for hate? ;)

You've ignored the following because it destroys your argument. I apologize for posting these quotes again....in the same forum topic, but I know of no better examples of what "holdouts" at this late date, must ignore in order to use "the appeal to Clinton". 26 months after Clinton's speech, his CIA director made it clear that Saddam did not even pose a threat to his neighbors, and that the "no fly zones" were achieving the intended effect. Two weeks later, Powell, the general who had prosecuted the '91 gulf war against Iraq, when he served as chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated even more persuasively, what Tenet had said. Five months after that, Rice again backed both earlier statements.

There is never a response to these quotes, presumably because there is no convincing way to refute the assessments made in each one. They are consistent in that all three....CIA Director Tenet, Sec'y of State Powell, and NS Advisor Rice....<b>in a time period that began with Tenet, 26 months after your citation, continuing to Rice's statements, 31 months after Clinton's speech,</b> presumably after the new Bush administration had more time to assess the "threat" or, in this case....lack of one....that Saddam's Iraq actually posed:
politicophile, the statements above seem to speak in unison, they were made, beginning 26 months after the Clinton "smoking gun" speech that you cited. <b>Do the 2001 statements of Tenet, Powell, or Rice, indicate to you that a few months later, this would be a logical "followup" reported about the Bush administration, just 40 days after Rice spoke to CNN?:</b>
or this....in March 2002?
or this...nine months after Rice's CNN appearance....
Even Wolfowitz, in this "pitch" for the proposed invasion, did not deny that the existing Iraq "containment" policy had been effective. He seemed to think that invading Iraq would save money......
So today, politicophile, we have a president who has used military, "captive audiences", this past friday, and again on monday, to provide forums for incendiary speeches where he ranted about the damage that the dissent of an opposition political party was causing to the war "effort". When you combine this unprecedented, improper exploitation of our troops, in a time of Bush's "war", for partisan political purposes, with his 36 percent approval rating, down from a high of 90 percent, and the voluminous record of facts and quotes that Bush....and you must ignore, as a prerequisite for speeches like he makes to troops, and like the content of your preceding post, isn't it time to consider that, if Bush is mostly correct about who is "attempting tp rewrite history", he would be able to make public appearances in front of a wider audience, and his poll numbers might be a tad higher? The facts in our clash of opinions speak for themselves....the "threat" posed by Saddam was manufactured by the Bush administration, the spectacle of Bush trying to conduct "business as usual" while ignoring the loss of his own credibility and the shift in public opinion, is a fascinating one to watch. Why not come around from the back of the TV, pull up a chair, dip your hand into the popcorn bowl, and observe the failure to sell a campaign of lies....<b>instead of rooting for it?</b>

I did the TRULY rational thing... I voted my conscience. And by that I mean, I didn't vote for Bush (becuase I dislike his policies, his speaking capabilities and his general leadership skills), I didn't vote for Kerry (becuase I DO think he was wishy-washy, and also a 'true politician" as far as stereotypes go)... I voted for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. Was it a wasted vote? NO! There's no such damend thing. If everyone actually voted their conscience... voted for the person they felt was TRULY best for the job (i.e.- not the guy with the best hair, or the most money, or the coolest commericals) then we wouldn't have such an issue with partisanship.

As for the (ir)rational hatred of W. Well, I'm a soldier. He's not won most of us over with his willingness to sacrifice our lives in the name of Democracy that is not generally well supported in the Middle East. I'm middle-class America. He's not won most of us over because his domecstic policies don't help anyone except the bloody rich (this is a truth, not an opinion. Read some news, look at patterns, you'll see it if you really let yourself). I'm a non-Christian. He's not won most of us over because he talks about his religion as if it powers the very core of America. I think it's great he's a Christian. I think it's great that his religious morals steer him. There's nothing wrong with that. But he doesn't need to push it so far into the public eye. That, I believe, is not right.

Under his presidency (regime?) we have lost more freedoms and rights that at ANY other time in our country's history. The PATRIOT act is just one of many. Security at the expense of freedom is the ANTITHESIS of American principals and ideals. This is exaclty OPPOSITE of the founding fathers desires for our country. Yes, terrorists are scary... oooooo... but I refuse to allow scary men in turbins to STEAL MY FREEDOM! That's exactly what they love. Why feed their egos?

100% false.

I hesitate to give examples, being they are so basic to history class they might seem insulting.

Ustwo, rather than look at the entire history of our country, how about the last 30 years?

There are a few groups yet who do not have the entire franchise, but we're about as close as we're going to get. So how does this administration stack up against the admins of the last 30 years as far as revocation of liberty?

Ustwo... feel free to insult me. I'd like an example please. Thanks!

Very true one must vote their conscience, that's why in '00 I voted Nader.

However, with a 3rd party president, we'd see both parties ganging up on the "invader". You think the last 2 presidencies have been full of mud slinging, nothing truly getting accomplished and divisiveness? Wait till you get a third party president...... and there WILL be one within the next 12-20 years, unless the partisanship ends and politics returns somewhat civil again.

Yes, let us ignore past times of conflict and focus on the recent past. Those interment camps didn't really count after all, I mean even the children forced to live in those camps are getting close retirement. I only bring up the camps since they were the most blatant loss of civil liberty in living memory, but it is hardly the first time Americans lost rights in times of conflict, and far more rights than the supposed loss of rights we now must 'endure'.

Perhaps you would care to compare Bush to the West Wing or some other arbitrary measure designed to make your side 'look good'? Not to get snide here, but I find your argument sad based on the circumstances we face. To me it says 'I am young, I only understand what has happened to me in my adult life time, the past doesn't matter as I wasn't alive then.'

The Patriot act is the most overhyped document in the last 30 years of US history. I have read the claims, and then read the document, most often the two did not meet. It has become the straw man, which has not changed ANY of our lives one iota, but is waved about as the equivalent of mien kampf and before the good Mr. Goodwin is invoked, you need not look further than this board to see such logic in action by those who oppose this administration.

So as for the last 30 years I really can not say if we have 'lost more rights'. I can say the bill of rights has not been infringed, and its rather difficult to say how the laws on surveillance and such have changed over the last 30 years to know if we have lost anything in the past or more in the last 5 years. I can state that communication technology has greatly changed in the last 30 years and as such, whatever laws we had are quite antiquated, or do you think that in 1975 they foresaw cell phones, the internet, and 128 bit encryption and wrote the laws accordingly?

The only loss of rights I have seen which has disturbed me to any degree was not due to the machinations of president Bush, or his supposed puppet masters, but the Supreme court, where liberal elements decided the government has the right to assume your land and do with it what it sees fit just because it may bring in more tax money. The legal theft of property by our government based on the most vague concept of public good is far more vexing to me than wondering if the FBI needs a warrant prior too, or within X amount of days before monitoring the computer activities of a foreign national.

I forget, were we the agressors in WW2, or was it Japan? Hy history's a little rusty. Yes, those were terrible times. Those were terrible losses of libery for American citizens. I feel angry that the US was willing to do something so extreme. Of course, the question was "in the past 30 years", so even mentioning this is ignoring the parameters of the question.
That was a different thread. If you want to address those issues, I welcome you to post some in that thread.
Ask Brandon Mayfield who was wrongly accused by the government of involvement in the Madrid bombing as a result of evidence, including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant if he has been effected one iota.

Ask Tariq Ramadan, who is regarded as a leading moderate Muslim intellectuals, and had his visa revoked to teach at the University of Notre Dame under Section 411 of the Patriot Act, which permits the government to exclude non-citizens from the country if in the government’s view they have “used [their] position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or to persuade others to support terrorist activity" if he has been effected.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

In Doe v. Ashcroft, a federal district court struck down a “national security letter” records power expanded by the section 505(a) of the Patriot Act, noting that the failure to provide any explicit right for a recipient to challenge a such a broad national security letter search order power violated the Fourth Amendment.

In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section 2339A, as amended by the Patriot Act section 805(a)(2)(B), violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights.
(information above came from http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatr...constitutional)
I'm sorry, did you just admit that you can't name any revocations of liberty in the last 30 years that compares to the current losses? Just trying to clairify.

Ustwo, I asked for focus on the last 30 years not because I'm willfully ignorant of the prior 200. To judge an administration, you have to do it in the modern era. I think the internment camps were a travesty. I lived a mile away from one when I was a boy (it was a park by then - with a monument to those interned, I'm not 90).

You stated this:
Which is exactly why I ask about the modern era. Current rules are made due to current technologies and predicaments. Really, you would have to compare Bush jr to Bush sr for the most accurate match. The CIA and FBI have much more leeway to look through your library books, sample your DNA, and listen to your phone calls than they did under Bush sr.

By the way, cell phones and the internet both existed in 1975. I'm sure many people figured they'd be widely used in the near future. My parents were telling me about the net when we lived in California and they worked at IBM way back in the 70's.

The internet of the '70s ("internet" coined '74) was a very different animal both in capability, traffic, and most importantly, audience. The 'net of today began in the '90's with the critical mass of other digital technology, enabling standards, widespread adoption, and the resulting influx of megabucks. (Bringing the massive group-think MLM scheme knows as "The Bubble" along for the ride.)

Consider the public and commercial adoption ramp '93-'95 to mainstream status by the late 90's. It isn't difficult to see why major regulator/legislator actions on digital rights have happened in the last ~ten years. I emphasize "reactions". The powers that be aren't stellar at proactive decisions unless large interests are involved. They certainly are now.

Sorry, mostly along for the ride here but had to pick this nit. We've come to take so many things for granted that were only geekware 10-15yrs ago.

So obviously you are for the internment of all Arabs in the US?

I find this statement of yours implies you do not understand the circumstances involved otherwise you would have not made such a, dare I say for fear of censure, ridiculous statement.

You claim it was a 'terrible loss of liberty' which indeed it was, but then justify it as their country of origin, be it them or their great grandparents, was one we were having hostilities with?

You then sweep it under the rug by holding onto the 'last 30 years' as if there is something special about it, beyond the time when most of us grew up? I see that history is only convenient for some when it can be meshed with their philosophies, and ignored when it shows how wrong they are.

I admit I stopped reading at this point, the justification, condemnation, and dismissal of what is perhaps the greatest loss of liberty Americans have faced required its own response. If circumstance permits I will continue reading at a later time.

not sure how a double post happened, apologies.

I hope you reread what I said a few times until you understand that I will never support any kind of internment camp anywhere for any reason whatsoever. I was trying to make two points: one is that the internment camps of WW2, while truely horrible, wrong, and illegal, have little to do with the camps we are currently operating because the current camps are involved in a war of aggrssion and are being covered for by an unconstitutional "Act" thus making both terrible situations a case of apples and oranges, and two that you were not working within the parameters of the question asked of you.
Hahaha. If you can twist my words that much, you must be able to do wonderful things with baloons. How did I justify the internment camps?
The 'special' thing about the last 30 years was already stated by Poppinjay.
So you read and completly misinterpret my opening, and then skip the part in which I directly take on your argument that the Patriot Act is "most overhyped document in the last 30 years of US history"? Well, now that I have explained to you in clearer language what I wrote, you can go back and read my full response.

Let's see if I understand your logic here.

Clinton believed the intelligence justified a surgical military strike against Iraq.
Bush believed the intelligence justified a large scale invasion and occupation.

Therefore, anybody who points out that there is evidence that Bush manipulated intelligence to persuade people that a large scale invasion and occupation was necessary, is irrational?

Sorry, this is just a whopping non-sequitur, as far as I can see. There is nothing irrational about bringing up evidence that the president has been dishonest in his arguments in favor of a large scale invasion and long term occupation of Iraq. And there is nothing irrational about disliking a president for behaving in this manner. Regardless of what Clinton said or did.

Ustwo...

First, the internment camps were horrific. However, and this is not meant as justification, it didn't affect 100% of the American populace. Not that it makes it okay, however, the Patriot act does, in fact, go against the civil rights and liberties of not just all American citizens, but also those that may travel to the US for legitimate purposes.

Second, if nothing else, we should learn from previous right infringements, and not perform even similar feats again. Isn't that what history is for?

As for being a young whipper snapper, not able to distinguish between the fables of the past and the horrors of today, or whatever nonsense you were trying to imply... Yes, I'm young. I'm also well read in history and pay fairly close attention to politics, both domestic and foreign. Having an alternate POV does not make me young and foolish, as you seem to think. Personally, I wouldn't compare Bush to anyone to make anybody (or side) "look good". As an American citizen, born and raised, it is not my job to make anyone look good or defend anyone based on anything specific. It is my job to stand up for my rights, and the rights of my fellow citizens. It is my responsibility as a flag waving American to not sit idly by while my rights are stripped from beneath me. Politics in this country (and many others) is trash in modern times. Sure, there has always been a smear campaign here, some dirt digging there. But there were also candidates who had platforms, could speak intelligently and DO THE JOB they were elected to do. It's been a while since we've had a president like that, and it gets worse every four years. I don't have a side. Or, more specifically, my side is Joe American citizen... not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the Libertarians or Green Party or Nazis or any other tagline group. Maybe your own partisanship clouds your vision a bit?

I don't see what the focus on the last 30 years is supposed to prove. To me, it seems like an arbitrary point with no real significance. Also, it fails to adjust for important changes in the last 30 years. Some have been technological, some social, and some have been do to outside forces. For instance, the Bush administration might have the worst record on infringing on rights in the last 20 years (and I'm not making that claim), but I would like people to point out where in the 30 years previous to the Bush administration where there was a significant attack on US soil that caused the loss of life of 9/11. Is that justification for all acts afterwards? No, but by the same token it puts this period in a different frame than the last 30 years. By only focusing on the supposed loss of liberty in the last 30 years, you fail to look at other factors that might contribute to the supposed loss of freedoms.

Well than let's compare Bush to every major political figure since the dawn of time. We'll start with the first political leaders in the history of mankind: warlords. During the dawn of human intelligence, humans were pack animals, moving in small family units. When the first organizations of multi family units formed, or tribes, competition excalated to what could be considered the first human wars. The leaders of the tribes were not patriarchs, but military leaders. Those with the best strategy and most powerful tribes would win and accumulate more and more land. How does this political leader relate to Bush. I'm glad I asked. The military leaders of ancient human tribes were very rarely the most intelligent. They were the alpha males who would surround themselves with the intelligent members of the pack, while keeping other males from trying to usurp his position by using any and every motive necessary, whether honorable or not. Bush, like the cave man military leader, is obviously not of the same intelligence of those around him. He uses the intelligence of those around him to keep his position in power, even if that means acting in a dishonorable way (see the 2000 and 2004 elections).

We'll move onto the second great political leader in history. With the development of basic philosophy came basic spirituality and the roots of religion. Those who were in charge of interpreting signs from Gods and teaching spirituality and philosophy were called priests. The preists used religious dogma and complete control of any religious stories and texts to control those who worshiped under them. It was not uncommon for a priest to elevate themselves to near God or God positions, being served and worshiped by their followers. The used their ability to interpret or speak to God as a way to control those who believed in their Gods. In much the same way, George W. Bush flaunts his religion in speaking of political decisions in order to give the illusion that his decisions coincide with his support's religion.

As tribes grew, their developed nations. Political leaders, in order to guarentee that their posterity stayed in power, established monarchies. In a monarchy, the king was (and still is in some places) a male soverign ruler of his domain or kingdom. Mush the same way, Bush was given a better chance to win because of his fathers connections to the established government. Also, because Bush's party rules over all three branches of government, he is the closest leader in a democratic nation to a king, IMHO.

I can go on. I can even start to compare Bush to every political person in history. The fact is that going back more than maybe 60 years would be completly unnecessary. I admit to hesitating about the 30 year thing (but I wanted to respect the question put fourth by Poppinjay), as the 9/11 attacks can be compared at least on a superficial level to Pearl Harbor. And 9/11 has deep connections to most peoples hatred, mistrust, or dissapointment for Bush.

Can we all agree not to go back further than 60 years?

Your statements about leaders at the dawn of humanity seem to imply that Ustwo was wrong to go back to the internment of Japanese Americans. That it was somehow unfair to go back that far.

The effort in this thread to compare Bush to past presidents seems to have started with xepherys' claim that Ustwo seemed to be responding legitimately to that statement.

Also, alansmithee's suggestion that we should look at the issues in the context of an attack on US soil like no other in the last 30 years seems reasonable. 9/11 was a unique event in recent US history.

Yes, Ustwo did respond legtimately to that statement. There is no harm tough, in asking for a limit to the past 30 years. Prior to that, our country had some deplorable civil rights issues, from the time our founding fathers wanted all voterd to be wealthy, white, and male up to being dragged, kicking and screaming into allowing all people the same access to politics (though we still don't really have that, the government can arrest you, try you, and convict you, and take that right away).

The latest news on the Patriot act in particular, what I consider the worst parts are going to be left in - the ability to snoop through your library records and check your bookstore receipts. Obstensibly, a person could become "watched" for buying 1984. How ironic.

I think anybody who believes these provisions should be a permanent part of America is not qualified to hold any public office. And that starts with the President, who wants the entire thing set in stone for all time.

With the current drop in approval ratings, and Congress' demonstrated distrust and cold-shouldering of bush, I think the chances are better than they ever have been that these provisions will be eventually dropped.

And circular ;)

Some of the worst things that have been slipped into the Patriot Act however are searches without warrents. The idea behind a search warrent is that investigators need to sjow just cause for the search from a judge. Now, if the FBI claims it is a matter of security, they can search without the warrent.. and the paperwork they file doesn't even have to include WHY they searched.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush%20...%20Fascism.pdf

have a look at the essay (in pdf form) entitled "rush, newspeak and fascism, an exegesis" pp. 12-13 for a working defintion of fascism drawn from umberto eco. it is an interesting read.

i also find the quotes from limbaugh that precede this definition, in the course of which you get a sense of the arbitrary usage he makes of the term (and limbaugh remains an interesting laboratory for the devolution of conservative political discourse in general)....

it is most insructive to think about the american responses to fascism in europe immediately after world war 2: the americans seemed particularly concerned that fascism was going to give nationalism, including radical nationalism, a bad name...you can see some indices of how the americans wanted to redefine fascism--for example via bretton woods, which departed from the assumption that fascism was a response to economic crisis of a type that could have been prevented via international currency stabilization. you can see another index in world war 2 films, during which fascism is presented without any ideological content, as simply a fashion statement. you can see it in the repeated moves on the part of american occupation forces to rehabilitate former nazis and to support them political out of fear of advances made by the left.

no time at the moment.....

Perhaps I don't see how Ford is more modern than FDR. It would make more sense to compare war time presidents than it is to compare presidents based on the date. The 80's global climate was FAR FAR different than the 90's which is far different than the 2000's.


Or perhaps they didn't have enough leeway in the past since they were working under rules written before DNA matching and the communications boom.

Yes and our lawmakers in their infinite wisdom foresaw the technology boom of the 80's and 90's, correctly predicted the future, foresaw the fall of the USSR and the rise of global terrorists. All based on a handful of gadgets and a couple of early computers primitively linked.

Do you think we, as a people, are that much different than our grandparents?

Yes. Yes we are. I don't think it's appropriate to judge war time presidents because modern day war a vastly different animal from what it used to be. If we had been in WW2 for four years and had 2,000 dead, it would be considered a miracle and a massive victory. Now, pretty much all this stuff could have been done by drones and planes, like Clinton and Bush sr. did. Not by a needless ground war in a country uninvolved with the 9/11 attacks.
So notification should be suspended for rifling your book bag, but still used for searching your house? I think the Miranda rule was written well enough to cover new technologies. The government should not be allowed to search your house, your DNA, or your shopping habits without telling you why. Kind of funny how Rush Limbaugh is now preaching that these rights are only "rights", and not anything to be concerned about. Meanwhile, he's been fighting a battle in Florida courts trying to protect his "right" for his medical records to remain private.

Also meanwhile, the President unearthed this Dick "Big Time" Cheney guy last night, who is apparently still next in line to the oval office, to grumble and growl that anybody who criticizes the current administration is committing a "travesty". How having a man who is little more despised than the President himself perform this odd little seminar is supposed to endear them to the rest of us, I have no idea. The whole act was kind of like a negligent parent batting around his kid and saying, "I DEMAND you respect me!"

This is the reason 66% of America is not pleased with this bungling administration.

That was cute, but entirely irrelevant. My point was mainly that 30 years is entirely arbitrary. Why not 100 years? Why not 19.3 years? To accurately try to compare different leaders, you also have to look in the context of the times. That's one of the reasons that the original presidents usually are still seen as virtuous and great men, despite most being slaveholders. Each time period is different. So when you try to do a comparison, you also have to look at the surrounding situations.

Examining an issue by 30 year periods is considered academically correct. Whenever you consider now to thirty years prior it is called the "modern era".

There is an academic standard in history and poli sci under which people only examine historical phenomena in 30 year increments? What is the rationale for this? It seems doubtful and arbitrary.

What is academically correct?

not without justification it isnt.
i don't know where you got this idea from--the interval of 30 years has no particular significance. you might find something like that in analyses of professional cadres or generations, but even that would not stand without significant clarification concerning methods--which would include arguments for the use of a 30 year interval as some kind of requirement--but that would only follow from the content of the analysis--as an a priori standard, it means nothing.

but at least here there is some contact between what is being passed off as history, particularly from the conservative set, and history as it is understood outside that strange little land of hero-worshipping dilletantes making arbitrary claims by routing them through "history"--like that nonsense in ustwo's post about the reagan administration's clairvoyant abilities and the implication that computers (a commodity) brought down the ussr--which is something that i would not even imagine a writer as worthless as dinesh de souza would trot out as a serious claim, and that even in the middle of one of his hagiographies of reagan. it is an idiotic claim, as is everything that surrounds it: conservative history is not even history, it is a kind of authoritarian mythology. it is not worth taking seriously, here or anywhere else.

Very good, that means we can completely ignore Watergate next year since it will all pass out of the 'modern era' and have no bearing current politics. :rolleyes:

This is truly an academic question because while on the one hand we have the patriot act, the other hand is '30' years of gradual changes, which no one here is going to go through and quantify. I can't tell you if we lost 'more rights' because we don't have all the information. This also makes one wonder if what we have 'lost' was something that was needed.

Over 30 years ago, back when we had this thing called WWII, which is obviously unimportant to todays politics, the most terrifying weapon brought to bear on the US were the kamikazai's at the end of the war in the pacific. You can plan defenses around what you think of as 'sane' attacks, but how do you stop someone who is not just willing to die but expecting to die? What saved the US from horrifying losses was how the kamikazi's attacked. Instead of concentrating on the capital ships en' mass, they would come in 1's and 2's, and despite having all of the firepower of the ships directed at these single targets, they still managed to cause great harm.

Today we face the same kind of weapon, only the targets are not armored warships bristling with guns, but hotels, schools, office buildings, restaurants and other 'soft targets'. Our weapons in stopping them are not adequate to do so. Whats ironic is that while some fret about imagined infractions of their rights, the most obvious weapon, that of racial/religious profiling, is not allowed because we are so worried about rights.

There comes a time where you must trust your government to some extent. If they are going to abuse their powers, they will do so regardless of the law. I know again, this example is too old to matter, but ask J.E. Hoover what he thought of wiretapping rules, and if they mattered to him. The foundation of the US is such that if such abuses do happen they can be questioned and changed, but to hobble us in trying times out of a fear that maybe someone might find a way to abuse such powers is in itself irrational. I have no fear of the FBI using my library records to harm me in any way. I am doing nothing illegal and if they wanted to somehow blackmail me for checking out the illustrated Karma Sutra for the 10th time, they would do so regardless of the legality of the search. If they do start such abuses, such as Hoovers time they can be delt with.

you know, this just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.

now, in the midst of some dilletante potted summary of arbitrary information about the post 1945 history of the united states, we get the limbaugh argument: whaddya worried about? rights are abstract-----they come and go-----and since everything always works out for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds (iraq anyone?)-----dont worry be happy. if the nice people in the bush administration decide that you should be placed under surveillance, dont worry, be happy. because we support this administration politically, we never need to even consider that they have, are or could be doing anything wrong. on the other hand, if you are far enough to the right, you can count on not being put under surveillance, and can then imagine that those who would be are all people that you would consider to be enemies of the "nation"----so dont worry be happy----in the end, the law is only draw to the guilty.

that fascism is a possibility within radical nationalist politics is given. usually it is evident enough that the first sign of drift from the latter toward the former is enough to instantly delegitimate the politics, be that individual or organizational. perhaps this explains why the antecedents to the ideologies now at the center of the american populist conservative movement spent so much of the preceding 50 years hiding under rocks----opposition to the united nations borrowed from the john birch society, extreme right christian ideology with all its explicitly antidemocratic aspects, etc. now the situation is different, the old political lines blur--and even with all this, the drift from hardline radical nationalism toward fascism would not in itself be a problem. it is the willing submission to the logic along which this drift would take place that is a problem: a suspicion of legal protections from state power, a disregard for legality in general, ranging from due process to treatment of prisoners. the assumption that the law is only drawn to the guilty.

last times out, fascism drew its primary inspiration and support from what you might call petit bourgeois common sense. it is convenient to imagine such regimes as state-driven, that the ideology was imposed on unwitting folk from the top down. but that is not how it went: people internalized this politics, recapitulated its logic, supported it because they imagined that it made them safe---from the Big Scary Other, from Change economic, social, cultural---from percieved contaminants that endangered some illusory pure culture--a notion (pure culture) that is wholly absurd, wholly indefensable, that cannot be discussed explicitly and expect to survive the conversation--perhaps all these are the more powerful because they are types of secret beliefs, held away from critique by all kinds of psychological defense mechanisms..

most of the above rests upon and draws support from a profound ignorance of history.
the most dangerous kind of ignorance of history is that which pretends it is otherwise.

This does sound a bit like "Trust Big Brother. Big brother knows best. Even if Big Brother doesn't know best, there's nothing you can do about it. So, you might as well trust him."

We do this anyways, 1984 was a great book but its not the be all end all of political thought. One corrupt judge is all it would take to allow the same actions currently if they were going to abuse the system for some gain and wanted to be 'legal'.

But this time out we are not fighting to keep our "pure culture" as america is not made of one type of people, but fighting against people who would strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people celebrating a wedding or praying to God.

I grew up in 1950's America, and I sometimes harken back to a simpler time, like the memories of those days...epitomized in old TV shows like "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver". Trouble is...I don't have the gift of selective memory that would permit my mind to linger back in those times, for very long.

Trouble is....I live here. I envy you for your way of thinking stevo. Mine gives me a headache; the price I pay for living in the here and now, and trying to take it all in. Where do you offload all of the stuff that doesn't make it into your perspective?

Like....for instance....
I wonder if any of the suicide bombers say "let's roll" when they're strappin' em on ?

Thats funny. Not because its a tragedy, but because the suicide bombers are targeting weddings (you did read last weeks news, no?) in Jordan -hmm, don't think there were US troops there. And yesterday in iraq 2 shia mosqus were attacked and 100 or more innocent iraqis were killed - don't look like US troops to me. If they want to say "lets roll" and fight our boys, then so be it. But they are too cowardly to even do that. Yet you call them freedom fighters. You're right, they are fighting against freedom.

I don't understand why this is so hard for the left to grasp here. Like the war or loathe it, these are not freedom fighters, they are evil men fighting for their own power, not freedom.

One more try, stevo....you have selective memory. The problem with having that, for you, is that you are unable to connect the sequence of historial events. They do not exist, unrelated, in a vacuum. You expressed objection to suicide bombers targeting wedding parties of innocents. Your own government forces have done the same thing. The perceptions of the surviving victims of those attacks, and the perceptions of the society that they live in, have memories of those events etched into their psyches.

Your selfrighteousness is symptomatic of the obstacles that inhibit our progression away from a cycle of intervention and violence that has plagued U.S. foreing policy as far back as the Mexican war in the 1840's.

You attempted to shape opinion of the effects of suicide bombers, and I remind you that you come from a house that is not clean enough to qualify you to judge, no matter how high the saddle is that you picture yourself riding on. Your indignation is as naive, un/misinformed, or misplaced as the collective indignation was to the hostage taking at the American embassy in Tehran was, in 1979. Americans failed to ruminate on the fact that the CIA had engineered the <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/">overthrow</a> of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, 26 years before, in 1953, and had installed the brutal regime of the Shah to do the bidding of British Petroleum and othe multi-national oil companies.

Violence begets violence, stevo, it solves nothing. Your indignation about the violence dished out by interests in opposition to the US agenda and.....RECORD....is misplaced.

The case you posted before is what they call a mistake. An accident. Now you tell me the suicide bombers accidently targeted mosques, hotels, markets, weddings. Do you really see these as the same?

the beautiful thing about motive is that is pure speculation, you can assign whichever you like and, if the person to whom you are assigning it is dead, there is no-one to say that you are wrong. so it goes with the conservative mythology of "evil" as the sole motive for a suicide bombing---nothing political could enter into it. i dont see anything in this but an attempt to dehumanize the "enemy".....what ustwo find bewildering, really, is that not everyone buys into the right's hollow and tedious rhetoric, which constitutes such basis that there is for bushwar in its various modalities.

typically, these same conservative ideologues like to act as thought their rhetoric is a necessary frame of reference: so if you do not accept their terms, they impute to you the opposite--so it somehow follows that if you do not see in a suicide bomber someone who is simply "evil" you must necessarily view them as "freedom fighters"--which only makes sense if the assumption above is accepted.

nonsense.
first, you get amongst these various threads on iraq a repeated citation of the "clash of civilizations" narrative, which the right will invoke when it suits their purposes, and which really does switch this bizarre war on ghosts into an attempt to defend western "christandom" against infidels. welcome to the song of roland, folks--nothing more advanced in it that that.

as for target choices--i would not pretend to justify blowing up folk at a wedding on ethical grounds. but how would this act in principle be any different, really, from things like american actions in fallujah--you know, the posting of snipers atop a hosptial who shot everyone and anyone who happened onto the street?
how is it that one set of civilian casualties is Evil and another is not?
this kind of consideration is important--and it is directly at stake in the debates over the legitimacy of the war in iraq, during the course of which 27,000-31,000 civilians are supposed to have been killed.

say the war in iraq is illegitimate, its premises false: that would mean that the united states, driven by its hysterical reaction to 9/11/2001, aided by a credulous legislature which abdicated its responsibilities to check executive power, has put the u.s. in a position within which its actions cannot be coherently distinguished from those of its alleged adversaries, the "terrorists"....

geez, that can't be good.

Maybe it's "selective memory", but if I recall, the cause of that incident was celebritory gunfire from within the group.

Of course, you wouldn't post that part, would you ;)

What I dislike is that 1 in a 100 people hate George Bush because they dislike his decisions, his policies, or other actions he's taken, while the other 99 people do it to be on the cool bandwagon.

If you're gonna hate him have a reason, not "uhhh, cuz he's an idiot!"

Sorry, Rookie, but I'm calling bullshit on your post. "Back it up or shut up." That's how it works in the Politics forum.

PS: Mauser, welcome and catch on quick. New voices are always welcome here as long as you abide by the rules. :icare:

Yeah, think I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one too. Get me a source that proves 99% of those opposed to Bush don't have any reasons and I'll listen.

But thanks for playing.