Questioning the Government - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 11-15-2005, 07:55 AM

This is an interesting read I found on Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175554,00.html

Quote:

Bush Tries to Blame War Critics for Administration's Failings

When a president of the United States makes truly outrageous statements, he deserves to be called on them. That’s exactly what happened last Friday when President Bush spoke on Veterans Day.

Here’s the “call.”

First, let me qualify the witness.

As a Democratic member of Congress, I cast the following votes: In 1991, I voted to give "Bush 41" the right to commit troops against Saddam Hussein; In 2002, I voted to give "Bush 43" the right to commit troops against Saddam Hussein. Additionally, I voted for the $87 billion to conduct the war.

President Bush on Friday attacked the patriotism of Democratic congressmen and senators by saying that elected officials who now raise questions about the actions leading up to the current war in Iraq are letting down our troops in the field and giving aid and comfort to the insurgents.

Somewhere along the line, President Bush seems to have forgotten his basic civics lesson about how a democracy works. Thanks to our successful revolution against King George III, we have the right to dissent in this country. We have the right to question the actions of our own government. To suggest otherwise would be to relegate us to a dictatorship. And, after all, we have been telling the Iraqi people about the virtues of a democracy.

We now know that the intelligence relied upon by the Bush administration to take us to war was faulty. We have every right to ask for a full explanation about how the administration got it so wrong, and about how they used the intelligence to convince Congress and the American people that military action against Saddam Hussein was justified. That’s exactly what the current bi-partisan six member investigation in the U.S. Senate is undertaking.

In the meantime, Congress and the American people are clearly supporting our troops in the field. We all want them to be successful in helping bring democracy to Iraq and we hope they can complete their mission as quickly as possible. For the president to suggest that Congress does not support the troops is truly outrageous.

Now, let’s get to the question of the pre-war intelligence. The issue is not whether the administration intentionally falsified the intelligence but whether the administration was diligent enough in pursuing accurate intelligence— and whether the administration hyped the intelligence it had obtained to sell the war.

I was a member of the Democratic leadership (serving as caucus chairman) in the months leading up to the congressional vote in 2002. We were bombarded by the administration with conclusions about the intelligence rather than the actual intelligence itself.

Specifically, we were constantly reminded that Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds, and that, at the time when U.N. monitoring of Iraq began in 1992 following the successful first Gulf War, he had biological and chemical weapons. Even though these weapons had subsequently been destroyed, we were assured that he must now have more since he'd had the original capability. We were also told that intelligence sources indicated he was well on his way to developing nuclear weapons.

All of this turned out to be false.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to inquire about how the administration got it so terribly wrong and why it hyped this intelligence so aggressively. In fact, press reports have now indicated that Italian intelligence sources tried to warn the administration that its information about efforts by Iraq to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger was based on a forged document.

In hindsight, members of the House and the Senate could have insisted on seeing documented proof about the administration’s claims; however, we should all — elected officials as well as the public — be able to assume that our own government is telling us the truth about something this important.

It’s time for the president to get on with our country’s business rather than trying to blame Democrats for the mistakes that his own people made.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel, and is currently a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.

I have to say I agree with this author. Questioning the governments actions is NEVER unpatriotic. If someone has a concern about something that the government is doing or has done it is their duty to question it even if that means questioning one's own actions.

I'll be the first to admit that I supported the idea of invading Iraq leading up to the war because I felt that he was a threat. (in fact I defended it on some different forums). I kept hearing the administration saying that there was all of this proof that he was a threat to us. Now in hindsight that proof is not proof at all. If I would have known that all that intellegence was false I would not have supported going into Iraq. I understand the concept of a nation looking united for moral support to the troops but I do not believe that this benefit outweighs the freedom and democracy this nation was built on.

So what do you think, is there a case where openly questioning our government is unpatriotic?

d*d · 11-15-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'll be the first to admit that I supported the idea of invading Iraq leading up to the war because I felt that he was a threat. (in fact I defended it on some different forums). I kept hearing the administration saying that there was all of this proof that he was a threat to us.

So what do you think, is there a case where openly questioning our government is unpatriotic?

You were lied to so your government could get the support it needed for a war that you probably will never get a satisfactory reason for.
To be able to question a government for it's actions is a basic requirement for democracy, it is your government, you chose them and pay for them, in essence - they work for you.
Bush is getting away with murder (literally) by creating a climate of fear and abusing the term 'patriotism', making people afraid and unsure as to wether they should question his judgement and methods.
You should not feel bad for supporting the war previously, you did so based on what your government was telling you - this sort of information should be trustworthy, lying whilst president usually means a jail, why Bush has not been impeached yet amazes me.

pan6467 · 11-15-2005, 08:48 AM

It is NEVER unpatriotic to question your government, in fact in this country it is imperative and our right to question and force them to answer to the people.

To do otherwise is to allow tyranny and to allow a president to lay guilt trips for doing so, shows his disregard for the rights given to us by the Constitution, his blatant hate for the people and him not taking his oath to defend the Constitution in a just manner.

Congressmen should be held to those standards also.

It is OUR government, OUR country, not just his. The people gave him a job to do and instead of being held accountable or taking responsibility for his unjust actions, he threatens, accuses and makes personal attacks against any who oppose him.

Jinn · 11-15-2005, 09:02 AM

Bush: 35% and plummetting approval rate. Something tells me the author isn't alone in believing that blaming your critics is not a mature way to live.

Bush sounds like a little crybaby pushing the blame to anyone who questions his methods (re: LYING).

The determining characteristic of a good plan and a good leader is not HAVING to ignore your critics. You either won't have any, or their critiques will be valid, and you will respond to them. Blaming them for criticising you is quitting before the game started-- QED.

powerclown · 11-15-2005, 09:16 AM

It's like the Law of the Jungle, Internet-style.

Vent, people. VENT!

Bill O'Rights · 11-15-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

...his blatant hate for the people...

You had me. Up until this point. Then you started to make sense again.
I don't, for one minute, think that George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, blatantly "hates" it's citizens. He may act in a consescending manner toward them. He may actively deceive them. He may disregard them. Hell, he even may even be trying to actively suspend the rights of some.
But, blatantly hate? I don't think so.
Thing is...that one acidic statement spoiled an otherwise intelligent, thought provoking post. Turn away from the dark side.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-15-2005, 09:20 AM

Questioning the government is not a bad thing. But there comes a point, when it is no longer mere questioning, and it becomes harmful. Osama and other terrorists/insurgents have learned many lessons over the years, starting from Lebanon through Mogadishu, and now into Iraq. If they put on the heat, the American public will become weak and fold, Osama called us the paper tiger. To me there is a big difference in questioning and being patriotic which is completely legit and legal and agreed that it should be done; and then taking to it a point were it is unpatriotic heeding the war effort and giving aid and comfort to the enemies. As it goes we are committed to Iraq, we need to finish what we started on our terms and no one elses, anything else would be totally moronic and only harm our country further.

pan6467 · 11-15-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

You had me. Up until this point. Then you started to make sense again.
I don't, for one minute, think that George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, blatantly "hates" it's citizens. He may act in a consescending manner toward them. He may actively deceive them. He may disregard them. Hell, he even may even be trying to actively suspend the rights of some.
But, blatantly hate? I don't think so.
Thing is...that one acidic statement spoiled an otherwise intelligent, thought provoking post. Turn away from the dark side.

Very good point Bill, I couldn't think of a word to go there and in haste did hurt the argument...... I still have a hard time finding the right word, maybe contempt for the people?

Elphaba · 11-15-2005, 09:40 AM

The Republican leadership (Frist and Warner) are also demanding accountability from the administration only days after Bush's speech. Bush makes some outrageous claims to a group of military personnel that neither party is willing to support. That sounds so, well...demoralizing.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111505Z.shtml

Quote:

Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times

Tuesday 15 November 2005

Washington - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.

The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.

The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

Mr. Warner said the underlying message was, "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." The senator, an influential party voice on military issues, said he did not interpret the wording of his plan as critical of the administration, describing it as a "forward-looking" approach.

"It is not a question of satisfaction or dissatisfaction," he said. "This reflects what has to be done."

Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

Mr. Frist said an important reason for the Republican proposal was to offer an alternative to the Democratic call for a withdrawal timetable. "The real objective was to get out of this timeline of cutting and running that the Democrats have in their amendment," he said.

Mr. Warner said he decided to take the Democratic proposal and edit it to his satisfaction in an effort to find common ground between the parties on the issue.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said he saw the proposal as a potential "turning point" in Congressional deliberation over Iraq and related issues.

The competing amendments include some of the most specific and expansive Congressional statements on the war in months and are being proposed for inclusion in a measure that also wrestles with the issues of treatment of terror detainees and their rights in American courts.

In announcing the compromise on the rights of detainees, Senator Graham said, "We have brought legal certainty to legal confusion." He said detainees would still be barred from mounting a wide array of court challenges regarding their treatment or the conditions of their confinement.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the compromise had eased some of his previous objections to the restrictions on the detainees.

On the Iraq resolutions, the Democratic and Republican proposals say that "2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

The plan also seeks to put pressure on the Iraqis to find ways to resolve their internal political turmoil, saying the "administration should tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency."

The White House is also directed "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq." Democrats have complained persistently that the administration has failed to outline a plan.

Lawmakers also seek much more specific regular reports from the administration covering "the current military mission and the diplomatic, political, economic and military measures, if any, that are being or have been undertaken to successfully complete or support that mission."

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said the provision would improve accountability.

"The president needs to report to the American people and leaders in Congress as this war develops," Mr. Durbin said. "It shouldn't be a matter of haphazard Congressional committee hearings."

The primary differences between the party approaches regards fixing dates for a withdrawal. The Democratic plan called for the administration to provide "estimated dates" for redeployment of American troops once a series of conditions was met, with the caveat that "unexpected contingencies may arise."

But Republicans said that provision was cutting too close to setting a schedule for withdrawal. "We are not going to have any timetable," Mr. Warner said.

Ok, I get it now. Republican's are forward looking and Democrat's are traitors when both parties are essentially asking for the same thing.

Bill O'Rights · 11-15-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Very good point Bill, I couldn't think of a word to go there and in haste did hurt the argument...... I still have a hard time finding the right word, maybe contempt for the people?

I would say that you could make a much more persusive argument that the POTUS shows contempt for the people, as opposed to blatantly hates them. Yes...that's much better.
Now you might get a few of those, that tend to lean a little toward the "right", to actually read, and to think about, what you're trying to say, instead of just blowing it off as "another baseless left wing rant".

Ustwo · 11-15-2005, 10:03 AM

Let us not confuse the concept of questioning, with the concept of political slander.

Its one thing to question, to search for answers, its another do to what so many in the opposition leadership have been doing.

One is patriotic, another is almost sedition.

It is the difference between on honest question and a leading one. To use such tactics when we have troops on the ground and an on going mission is not patriotic, its self-serving and vile. It is a few attempting to regain their political power at the expense of millions, whos fate they will later blame others for while washing their hands of it as if they had nothing to do with it.

Whats ironic is while so many complain about phantom violation of rights, in the past such conduct would have been met with a true suspension of 'rights'. It has made me something of a believer in the cognitive dissonance theory, as I can find no other explanation for the almost religious fervor some have in propagating lies which fly in the face of logic and the facts as known.

So no, questioning your government is not unpatriotic, but subverting it in time of war under the guise of 'questioning' surely is.

ratbastid · 11-15-2005, 10:09 AM

I'm not sure contempt quite captures it either.

I can't decide whether I think that Bush thinks he's doing the best thing for the country. I suspect he's doing what he thought was going to put him in the history books alongside Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt. He said it February 8, 2004: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind."

I don't think he hates the people or even has contempt for them. I just think he's more interested in his own legacy than he is in the truth or the safety of thousands of American soldiers. I think 9/11 was a huge opportunity for him, and he took it, and damn the consequences. And now that's catching up to him bigtime, he's seeing the whole shooting match sliding down the tubes, and he's flailing around looking for any scapegoat he can pin it on.

What's funny is, he thinks he can get away with accusing somebody else of rewriting history. Mr Shifting Justification for War thinks he can pin that on somebody else. It's just amazing.

Ustwo · 11-15-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

What's funny is, he thinks he can get away with accusing somebody else of rewriting history. Mr Shifting Justification for War thinks he can pin that on somebody else. It's just amazing.

Amazingly I have not seen a shift in justification for the war, if you would care to enlighten me as to what has changed?

I would say the only major question involved is why our intelligence agencies were either so wrong for the 12 years in claiming WMD's or so bad at finding them after the war.

Jinn · 11-15-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

It is the difference between on honest question and a leading one. To use such tactics when we have troops on the ground and an on going mission is not patriotic, its self-serving and vile. It is a few attempting to regain their political power at the expense of millions, whos fate they will later blame others for while washing their hands of it as if they had nothing to do with it.

Give me an example of an act that you consider "self-serving and vile", sedition, or "subverting [the country] in a time of war." I'm having a hard time believing you, simply because I cannot find an example of 'questioning our government' that would fall under these labels. Should we blindly follow Our Leader because the country in a state of 'war' ?

politicophile · 11-15-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

What's funny is, he thinks he can get away with accusing somebody else of rewriting history. Mr Shifting Justification for War thinks he can pin that on somebody else. It's just amazing.

I take it you haven't seen this video . While I agree with you that Bush has repeatedly changed his justification for the invasion of Iraq, Bush is totally right when he says that his critics are attempting to rewrite history. Your method of argument is called "ad hominem tu quoque", which is another way of saying that hypocritical statements are less true than non-hypocritical ones, which obviously is false.

pan6467 · 11-15-2005, 01:19 PM

Let's see, justifications for the war........

Quote:

Top Ten Bogus Justifications for the Iraqi War

by Christopher Deliso
balkanalysis.com

On last week's episode of The McLaughlin Group, pundit Pat Buchanan stated flatly that, "the only people who will benefit from this war are Richard Perle, Ariel Sharon and Osama bin Laden." Indeed, the top priorities of the Bush Administration right now are to feed the War Party's insatiable appetite for bloodshed, to enable the Israeli Right Wing, and to provide terrorist masterminds with a pretext for further symbolic attacks. Unfortunately, the grave that the Administration is currently digging for itself will be big enough for all of us.

However obvious this may be, and despite the widespread misgivings of sane people the world over, reality is currently being overwhelmed by this administration's boundless stores of belligerence. As we will see, toppling the flimsy foundations on which the pro-war edifice rests is not a very difficult matter. While the War Party's fraudulent justifications for war are myriad, debunking the top ten will suffice.

1. War on Iraq Will Make the World Safer From Terrorism

In a recent speech, Anthony Cordesman of the CSIS warned that, "five years from now, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it is today." The ripple effect of a war on Iraq would cause scores of new terrorist groups to spring up all over the Islamic world. The decimation of the Iraqi civilian population – an unavoidable result of the Pentagon's use of quasi-nukes, and indeed of its general plan for a massive attack – would immediately and irrevocably turn millions of Muslims against the United States.

CIA director George Tenet has repeatedly said that terrorism will only increase in the event of a war. Certainly, he is someone who has the inside knowledge to support this rather commonsensical belief. Recently his agency reaffirmed it, and added that anti-Americanism will be a strong force in the dark new world of the immediate future: "…in human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a phalanx of security personnel." American troops stationed in Iraq would be directly targeted by terrorists "sucked in" from far and wide.

However, the Bush Administration has been fairly successful in convincing Americans that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are somehow working in tandem. They have been able to exploit widespread American ignorance to bury the fact that Saddam and Osama are mutual antagonists. Hussein's regime, while brutal, is relatively secular. And, whereas bin Laden promotes the creation of a multi-national "pan-Arab theocracy," Hussein is an Iraqi nationalist. The former has openly declared his loathing for the latter.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case, the wheels of propaganda have been greased by gaping ignorance:

"A recent Knight Ridder survey showed that 45 percent of those polled believe that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. In fact, 15 of the 19 were Saudis."

No matter. This is one misconception that the White House has no interest in correcting. Yet even as the buildup of troops in the Gulf grows larger – and more costly – by the day, the administration is forced to admit that its counter-terrorism budget is "meager" – and that we are no closer to finding bin Laden, either. A suggestion: have they checked Saddam's palaces?

The most dangerous outcome of the erroneous association is aptly stated in the CSM article cited above:

"As the US continues to press its case against these two men, US policymakers must identify and understand the differences between them, says Roxanne Euben, a political science professor at Wellesley College. The more they are lumped together, she says, "the more we risk bringing about the collaboration we most fear, thereby making it a self-fulfilling prophecy."

This statement needs to be qualified somewhat. It is not so much that Osama and Saddam would be sitting in some bunker together, plotting and poring over maps. Rather, it's the independent collaboration of goals – the probability that bin Laden will hijack the Iraqi cause for his own (theocratic) ends, while Saddam will try to do the same for his own (nationalistic) purposes. In the event of a war, either or both of these movements will look pretty appealing to many frustrated, disenfranchised budding jihadis.

That said, the professor is right about the result – that any ensuing terrorism should have been predicted. Surely the Bush Administration is well aware that it is fulfilling that prophecy as we speak.

Sadly, when the inevitable occurs, and the United States is again attacked, the clear causative connection between Iraq and terrorism will be quietly buried by the needs of the moment. When the free world's fearless leader attempts to rally the people after the next unspeakable act of terror, Americans will be too shocked to even think of blaming their government for bringing death and destruction upon them. And for bravely leading a nation in crisis, Bush may even win an election – or at least the favorable mention in the history books that would have almost certainly been denied him, before this whole mess started. Sadly, modern America is a country where leaders rally, and liars lead.

2. Saddam Hussein – the Biggest Threat to American National Security

Contrary to what the Bush Administration would have us believe, Saddam is not the biggest threat to national security. The CIA and FBI continue to reserve that honor for al Qaeda. Indeed, Saddam – "…perhaps only fifth or sixth on the list," according to recent intelligence analyses – has been contained for so many years, his army so diminished, that it is ludicrous to believe Iraq presents a threat to America. The US government has continually presented the case that Saddam possesses the infamous "WMD" (weapons of mass destruction), and intends to use them. Yet, if this is indeed the case, hasn't he certainly had ample time and reason to deploy them over the past 12 years? The fact that Saddam has never used such weapons against the Americans – even when they were invading his own country – shows that he is far more cautious than Bush and Co. would have us believe. Again, the greater danger from Iraq is that such weapons – if they do indeed exist – could fall into the hands of freelance terrorists (i.e., not state-sponsored) during the chaos of battle. And that is when we could really be in trouble.

More than a threat to American national security, Saddam Hussein is currently a threat to the collective pride of the War Party. One simply cannot whip up as much antagonistic rhetoric as they have and then meekly back down. Especially since failing to catch Osama bin Laden was a big (but now buried) personal blow, their overweening hubris can only be satisfied by eliminating Saddam Hussein. It is unfortunate that, when the ineluctable result of this Greek tragedy arrives, the rest of us will also share in the fall.

3. Overthrowing Saddam Will Stabilize the Region

Replacing the Iraqi government with an American military lordship, and indefinitely occupying a completely shattered country – do they really consider this a recipe for regional stability? Unfortunately, the Bush Administration did not really think out the whole operation to its logical conclusion. As recently as September, the president said that it was "up to the international community" to pick a successor, and that he would accept "any alternative" to Saddam. It seems that for the Americans, the idea of who would run the post-war Iraq is merely an unpleasant and irritating afterthought.

The original plan – to set up Iraqi National Congress head Ahmed Chalabi as president – was considered until early February, but retracted after the CIA objected. The Iraqi expat banker was seen as too compromised and too unpopular at home.

By ignoring Hussein's Ba'athist Party, the US has greatly limited its options. After axing Chalabi, the only players left were the Kurds and the Shiite fundamentalists (the Turkoman and Assyrian minorities, it is thought, aren't sufficiently powerful to lead).

The final decision – to install "Guv'nah" Tommy Franks as military dictator, ruling over a coterie of US Army "cabinet ministers" – was hit upon as the Administration realized, too late, that all other contenders were fatally compromised. Empowering the Kurds would involve instant intervention from Turkey. Inviting in the Iran-backed fundamentalists from the "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq" would – well, you figure it out.

However, the exclusion of any of these groups will also cause turmoil and even civil war. And so the brilliant plan that will make Iraq the 51st state was reached as a kind of desperate nod to pragmatism. The Kurds, who are wary of American betrayal in the past, want safeguards against Turkish attacks from the north. And the Turks want their liabilities covered, too – only that they're not counting on the Americans to do it, especially after raising the stakes by denying American troops access to the country. Yet despite Ankara's assurances, it is hard to believe that the installation of up to 80,000 Turkish troops in northern Iraq would not quickly spill over into all-out war. The US naïvely seems to believe that, if only its soldiers were leading the march from southern Turkey, it could keep the two enemies at bay. However, there is the volatile issue of Kirkuk – de facto capital of northern, Kurdish Iraq and a prize coveted for its wealth of oil. Both the Turks and Kurds have demanded the city; the Americans, therefore, are determined to see that neither of them gets it. But will they believe to do so, without access from Turkey? Things could get very messy very soon.

Iran and Syria, which also have their own Kurdish minorities, share Turkey's anxieties. Should Kurdish militias be perceived as dangerous, one should not rule out the intervention of either. It has proven difficult for the US to reassure Iraq's neighbors of their safety in the wake of an attack. Even worse, the domestic opposition the US would like to court – namely, the Iraqi Kurds and the Shiites – are fractious and retain dark, decade-old memories of American betrayal. Getting this cast of characters united behind Uncle Sam, for any length of time and for any coherent purpose is unlikely.

4. A War Will Save the US Economy

The likelihood of war is causing daily fluctuations in major economic indices such as the price of oil and stocks. Analysts are fairly unanimous in saying that war fears are impacting negatively on the world economy. Indeed, every time Washington issues a new ultimatum (or, indeed, every time Donald Rumsfeld opens his mouth) stocks fall and investor confidence plunges.

Right now American oil reserves are as low as they've ever been, and world prices are now hovering at almost $40 a barrel – and could soon top $50 a barrel. However, the latest predictions are that in an extended war oil could hit $80 a barrel, according to New Zealand treasury officials. The potential effects of such a hike are hard to imagine. Yet even if oil doesn't go through the roof in such a way, merely remaining at $40 will cause major harm to the US economy over the next 6 months.

In addition, war jitters have led to the biggest collapse of American consumer confidence in a decade. Reports the Times of London:

"The slump in American consumer confidence caught financial markets totally unaware. Most analysts predicted a modest decline, but the 15-point drop in the US Conference Board's index to 64.0 was comparable to the 17-point drop seen immediately after the September 11 attacks, far worse than any analyst had been expecting.

"Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics, said: 'This is not an immediate disaster for the economy, but it will be if there is no resolution of the Iraq crisis in the next month or two.'"

The report concludes that if current trends continue, consumer spending may not grow at all this year: "…this is clearly very worrying since consumer spending has been almost the only thing keeping the economy afloat." Apparently, not even the run on plastic sheets and duct tape will save us now.

There is also the question of how we will fund this little adventure. Currently, there are over 200,000 American soldiers in the Gulf, poised for action. According to Donald Rumsfeld, estimating the war's cost is "impossible" – in other words, more than anyone could ever imagine.

Even worse are the post-war estimates. On 25 February, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, "…something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required," to keep the peace. A figure "in the many billions" was thrown out recently by another American official. It is clear that without being consulted and without approving, the American taxpayer is going to bear the brunt of the coming folly.

5. War Will Bring Democracy to the Arabs

The United States claims that by overthrowing Saddam a new and more democratic government can be installed – something that will be greeted with joyous praise from all those living in Iraq.

The only problem is that it will be a democracy imposed by tyrants – a point that will not be forgotten. Further, whatever "government" the Americans install will have no validity whatsoever among the Iraqi people (should there be any left after the massive bombings being planned). The "opposition" is fractious and unruly, riven by internal dissent and the ulterior motives of external sponsors. It is "just large enough to be useless," in the words of one delegate, and composed of parties whose allegiances are doubtful. As the Guardian put it last November, "…the fact that most have foreign patrons also raises a question about the degree of their legitimacy and autonomy."

Some – like the 'Islamic Revolution' folks – gamely assert their love of democracy. Says party rep Hamid al-Bayati, "…everybody believes in democracy, even Islamists. We are Islamists, and we believe that democracy is the only way to ensure freedom." However, al-Bayati's Islamist peer among the Kurds, Sheikh Assar Feily, quite bluntly states that, "…Iraqis will never let an American soldier be the ruler."

This sentiment only increases as the opposition parties realize that they won't get what they want. If united, theirs will be a coalition based on shared deprivation.

In short, no matter what kind of puppet regime is installed, the military occupation of Iraq is doomed to fail. Almost daily, new reports emerge that indicate American forces will be greeted with widespread resentment from the residents (of all ethnicities) in Iraq. In short, Americans who expect the troops will be greeted with cheers and American flags are beyond deluded:

"…virtually all Iraqis will fiercely resist any U.S.-led invasion, (Engineer Qusai) Jabbar predicts.

"You don't need to be in love with Saddam to defend your country to the last," he said. "Americans think they will come here and rule us. They don't know what they are coming into. If they get food from someone, it will be poisoned. If they turn around with their back to us, we will stick a knife in it. Snipers will be looking for them from every rooftop."

Even if such a sprightly defense does not spring up from the locals, the upheaval and chaos of the ensuing "reconstruction" will open up a new and attractive market for suicide bombers from far and wide. But one does not even need to look far. Indeed, sporadic reports have attested to the existence of an al Qaeda-linked group existing in "free" Kurdish areas near the Iran border. The borders with all neighboring states are both vast and porous. The US will find that blowing things up from high altitudes is much more simple than is defending even one building from a terrorist attack.

Yet if Saddam is the hated oppressor, than why does such apparent resentment of America exist? Fundamentally, the practice of overthrowing governments in the name of democracy building is the problematic issue. For it is, in another time and under another name, the same thing as the medieval Crusades. In the end, regime change for "democracy" differs little from Muslim extremists' desires to forcibly spread Islam across the globe.

However, the analogy seem to have gone over the head of warmonger-in-chief Richard Perle, who is now demanding regime changes in Iran, Syria and Libya:

"Perle said he does not expect significant Arab opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East.

'What interests me is that almost all Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of their own interests on this issue."

Imagine that! The unnamed "12 Arab states" supporting the US are, no doubt, cowering in fear, lest their regimes be changed too.

6. Because We're Already There

Perhaps the lamest reason is the one most cited by military planners: that it would be a shame not to have a war, since we've gone to so much trouble already to send massive amounts of troops, aircraft and armaments. The fact that most of these are floating on aircraft carriers is a good reminder that none of them had been invited by anyone in the region.

7. Because George W. Bush is a Moral Man

The strangest justification for war is one dear to the hearts of "Christian conservatives," who incidentally enough make up the president's power base. This view states that war is justified because George Bush is a moral man, and therefore, a moral (read: infallible) leader. Armstrong Williams, a popular black Evangelical radio host, declared as much in a passionate speech recently in Arlington, Virginia. The frightening thing, to judge from the many nodding heads in the crowd, is that many people actually believe this logic.

It is an utterly subjective issue, whether or not the president – or anyone, for that matter – is "moral." And it would not even be a topic for serious thought, except that the morality madness has influential backers. Yet now that such criteria are being used to justify military action, we are swerving disturbingly close to mindsets thought long retired, such as the (literally) god-given authority of the Roman emperors, or the divine right of kings promulgated by medieval rulers in Western Europe.

However, the president himself seems to enjoy such laudations. Don't forget that he turned down Saddam's invite for a debate out of fear of "moral equivalency." Hopefully Bush's policy will catch on – and we can all start refusing to speak to people we find less moral than ourselves.

Attending functions such as the 51st Annual National Prayer Breakfast, hiring fundamentalists like Attorney General John Ashcroft, and empowering the religious right in general are proof that Bush's is the most theocratic administration in recent memory. When it comes time for the bombs to fall, he can surely count on the support of those who see the war as an opportunity to bring on the Apocalypse and Second Coming as quickly as possible.

But no matter. We should have faith in our leaders and military, what with all of their modern, high-tech equipment. Indeed, if the smart bombs, night-vision goggles, surveillance planes, etc. were not formidable enough, we should remember that the US has a secret weapon:

"CIA Director George Tenet told the (prayer) breakfast, "God teaches us to be resolute in the face of evil, using all of the weapons and armor that the word of God supplies."

And we wonder why Osama is still at large.

8. War: The American People Want It

American public support is shaky at best and continues to waver. It is currently hovering at just over 50 percent, but since the beginning of February just keeps on slipping. After the massive peace demonstrations of 15 February, antiwar activists did not take a breather, but actually have stepped up the pace. Last week's "virtual march" on Washington saw hundreds of thousands of phone calls and faxes from all across America flood White House and congressional switchboards. The nation's largest labor union, AFL-CIO, just announced its official opposition to the war. 59 major American musicians and Ben & Jerry's founder Ben Cohen have publicized the antiwar movement in recent days. Even senior citizens are out there kicking up a storm.

The administration's reply to this notable dissent can best be described as utterly contemptuous. In his official reaction to the 11-million strong world protest, President Bush compared the peace-loving majority to a "focus group," and ruled out taking their concerns into consideration. This regrettable statement shows that George Bush is completely out of touch with the reality of the world's antiwar feeling. In fact, if you want to talk about narrow-minded interest groups, why don't we consider the president's supporters:

"…Pew found support among college graduates was 13 points lower than among those without degrees. Backing among rural residents was 16 points higher than among city dwellers. White evangelical Christians were the strongest backers of all – 85 percent in the Pew poll."

Nevertheless, even this dependable bedrock of support may be eroded as Americans learn more and more of the truth. After having been lied to every time an intervention took place, Americans are growing increasingly wary of giving their unreserved trust to the government – especially one that loves domestic spying. The media is also coming under scrutiny. We know that CNN is now actively cooperating with Pentagon requests that all reports be censored by "monitors" before they can be broadcast. Since this information is now in the public domain, viewers will be watching the news far more critically than they did during the first Gulf War.

In the end, even the most gung-ho war supporters may be swayed when they see American civilians being targeted as "enemy combatants."

9. Because We're Supported by an 'Alliance of the Willing'

Turkey's miraculous, unexpected defiance of American warmongering on Saturday left Washington "stunned," and its war plans in jeopardy. By refusing to accept American troops on its territory, the Turkish parliament took a risk that will hopefully embolden other countries that have much less to lose by standing up for themselves.

Indeed, if we want to talk about democracy, the much-maligned Turkey appears to be the only US ally that has heeded the popular will of its citizens. Its population is dead set against a war, its new government is unsettled by the mere thought of one, and the all-powerful military is extremely hostile to the idea of tens of thousands of US troops intervening on its soil. The bravery of its parliament in upholding democracy is to be commended.

Most analysts and/or pessimists (such as myself) did not really believe Turkey would pull through. Its initial bargaining price – $92 billion – was quite obviously a bluff. The request provoked open anger in Washington; surely, the Turks never expected to get it. They were instead presented with $26 billion as the US' final offer.

Those who accuse Turkey of greediness have to consider that the first Gulf War – undoubtedly, less dangerous and costly than its coming sequel – eliminated $80 billion from the Turkish economy. The $26 billion that the US was recently offering is a drop in the bucket compared to what Turkey will incur in losses. And, if this war goes as badly as many believe, the country's economic and even territorial security will be severely jeopardized. In overthrowing Saddam, the US may just send the entire region into chaos. And how much will $26 billion – or even $92 billion – matter then?

But even in the best-case scenario, war funding tends to be a myth. Although the bribery amounts look very generous on paper, the full amount never arrives. Indeed, it's not as if the US Treasury writes out checks for $26 billion, saying, "there boys, go wild."

No, the granting of aid means simply that the donators are given even more control over the country in question, deciding what can be spent where, calling on loans at random, and finally, issuing thinly veiled political threats. Turkey remains vulnerable to US coercion because the latter has saddled it with so many unpayable IMF loans. In Macedonia's case, a dependence on outside aid has reduced it to a mere object of political manipulation. Indeed, that country has still not received funds promised for the major strain that came from accepting 400,000 Kosovo Albanian refugees in 1999. There is no reason to believe that things will turn out differently in the case of Iraq and the "coalition of the willing."

US officials quite happily admit that they are merely buying off countries. But they deny bullying some of them. However, even countries that seem happy enough in public (like Mexico) are privately in distress:

"…Mexican diplomats have previously described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and complained that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government, whose people are overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iraq.

"They actually told us: 'any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a heavy price,' one Mexican diplomat said recently."

Courted merely for its temporary Security Council membership, Mexico is (or was) showing more gumption than other Council part-timers. US officials have descended on the Dark Continent to try and buy three votes from Cameroon, Guinea and Angola. Since a relatively small amount of cash goes a long way in Africa, they will probably be successful.

Washington has used harsher tactics when dealing with real countries. Yet US intransigence continues to alienate important Security Council members Russia, China and France. The sentiment is that at no time in its history has America bullied so much as now. Many warn that the US could well lose its allies over Iraq – and especially if it decides to buck the Security Council and rush recklessly off to war. Even the stalwart Brits are unnerved by the news that America plans to use toxic gas against the Iraqis – something forbidden by UK law.

Furthermore, cooperation is set to plummet now that a secret NSA document leaked to the Observer has exposed Condeleeza Rice's plan to tap the phones and monitor the emails of Security Council ambassadors in New York. As this brazen affront to good diplomatic relations sinks in, and as the courageous example of Turkey resonates around the world, we just may see the "alliance of the willing" unravel before our eyes.

10. Because Empire's Duty Demands Noble Sacrifice

As I have noted elsewhere, a disturbing new trend in War Party apologia, from Right and Left alike, has sprung up from the ashes of September 11th. It is the rhetoric of empire – one justified by our alleged benevolence – and is repeatedly cast in terms of Americans called to fulfill a "duty" that inherently involves "sacrifice." This logic speaks of a war we are undertaking "unwillingly," one that has been "thrust upon us." At the above-mentioned "National Prayer Breakfast," the president said, "one thing is for certain, we didn't ask for these challenges. But we will meet them." One might think he was talking about a broken leg.

Of course, in reality the only ones doing the thrusting are the hawks in the current administration. And the main sacrifice they seem to be making is of their sanity.

Sacrifice for the greater good has long been one of the trickiest issues for American politicians to utilize. A trite CNN synopsis recalls that Jimmy Carter once asked the people to wear sweaters and lower their thermostats; however, the article doesn't report the strong negative backlash to Carter's plea. Nor does it consider the fundamental disparities existing between different "sacrifices" at different times. However, America's traditionally anti-Socialist mindset means that, historically speaking, calls to sacrifice for society as a whole have been met with considerable suspicion. It is evident that political stratagems invoking conditions for "sacrifice" have differed considerably when used by Democrats and Republicans.

That said, one has to wonder how the American people will react now, in regards to a war that is publicly being associated with the narrow interests of the business partners of Bush, Cheney et al. Even as Americans at home are told to "sacrifice" their livelihood for the war, it's come out that certain companies are set for $900 million in future Iraq reconstruction contracts. This number is eclipsed, of course by the profits that oil companies and military contractors will make off of Iraq.

Indeed, the issue of noble sacrifice may just prove to be the Bush Administration's undoing. Most Americans prefer a republic, not an empire, and a strong economy as well. Especially after Enron, there is little interest in sacrificing to ensure the bottom line of characters like Dick Cheney.

President Bush is currently out of step not only with public antiwar opinion – but also, with the importance of the economy to most Americans. Perhaps there will be some brief surge of popular support when the bombs start falling, but in the long, violent and messy peace that will follow, widespread grumbling will almost certainly set in. Invokers of sacrifice as a national principle have traditionally had a rough time of it. In regards to Iraq (which has, after all, never attacked the US) gung-ho patriotism is at low ebb. The Bush Administration may well need to seek out a new strategy for unity in the Empire – or forever hold its peace.

LInk: http://www.anti-war.com/deliso/?articleid=689

And in the website are the links to direct news articles where there is support for each argument, from press files and direct quotes. I just am not going to list every link.

flstf · 11-15-2005, 01:19 PM

I don't have much regard for either major political party and the way they have consolidated power in this country to themselves and this includes the Republicans and Bush. I think it goes way too far to accuse Bush of having contempt for us much less hate. I believe he is doing what he thinks is best for the country and thinks his policy is the right way to fight global terrorism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Give me an example of an act that you consider "self-serving and vile", sedition, or "subverting [the country] in a time of war." I'm having a hard time believing you, simply because I cannot find an example of 'questioning our government' that would fall under these labels. Should we blindly follow Our Leader because the country in a state of 'war' ?

I think the accusations that he doctored intelligence in order to trick the innocent Democrats to vote for war is close to being self-serving and is probably just political posturing. To do this while we have troops on the ground seems like a vile thing to do.

Willravel · 11-15-2005, 01:32 PM

Pan, that was a fantastic article. Thanks!

pan6467 · 11-15-2005, 01:41 PM

Didn't even have to use WMD in the article.

Elphaba · 11-16-2005, 05:16 PM

But, Pan. You need WMD to change any opinions around here.

This was a heartening article that I read today. The concerted effort on the part of Bush and some members of his administration to paint Democrats as aiding the enemy, was smacked down Chuck Hagel today. I have great respect for the man because he has walked the talk, having served in Viet Nam.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111605F.shtml

Quote:

Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy
By Glenn Kessler
The Washington Post

Wednesday 16 November 2005

Administration calls statements by Democrats harmful to war effort, troops.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling US troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."

Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late."

"To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be constructive in their criticism, but he accused the administration of "dividing the country" with its rhetorical tactics.

Hagel supported the 2002 resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, but he has emerged as a strong skeptic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In his speech, he called for a regional security conference to help invest Iraq's neighbors in the effort to stabilize the country.

At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld joined other administration officials yesterday in attacking critics of the Iraq war for attempting to "rewrite" history, warning that setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing US troops could "give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us."

At the same time, Rumsfeld acknowledged what he called honest mistakes in the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. "There's no doubt in my mind that people made honest mistakes in . . . the pieces of that intelligence that were presented at the United Nations," he said at a news briefing.

Rumsfeld described an evolution of US policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction.

However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.

Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.

In the same link, is an article that suggests continuing this line of attack against Iraq war critics may have a negative influence on Republican moderate and independent voters. That is a huge risk with the upcoming midterm elections.

Quote:

Bush Risks Alienating GOP over Iraq War
By Tom Raum
The Associated Press

Wednesday 16 November 2005

Washington - President Bush's efforts to paint Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after they once warned that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat could backfire on Republicans.

[/b]Polls show marked declines in support for the war, notably among moderate Republicans, especially Republican women, and independents - voting blocs that the GOP needs to woo or keep in their camp.[/b]

If Bush castigates Democrats for changing their minds on the war, he might wind up alienating Republicans who have done so, too.

The administration has been engaging in a rhetorical high-wire act in its efforts to defend its use of prewar intelligence - so much that some analysts have likened it to President Clinton's remark in his deposition on the Monica Lewinsky case: "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Bush and his advisers have conceded that the administration was wrong in its assessment of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. So the debate centers on whether they misled members of Congress and the American people.

"The fact is this was a truly major failure in intelligence and analysis," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert and former Pentagon intelligence official. "But that does not mean that information was not manipulated or used to create a case for war that was much stronger than the assessments made before the conflict."

Well, maybe it depends on what the definition of "manipulated" is.

"In reality in this city, on a bipartisan basis, everybody always spins the facts to support the policy they advocate. There are no innocents," said Cordesman, now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He suggested those in the intelligence community didn't have to be told that, if they wanted to exert influence and have their advice taken seriously, "you better tell policy makers there was a really good case for war."

Anxiety over Iraq among both Republicans and Democrats seemed apparent as the Senate voted 79-19 on Tuesday to demand regular updates from the White House on progress in Iraq until all US troops are withdrawn.

The vote on a defense policy bill came after the GOP-led chamber rejected a far more restrictive Democratic amendment demanding that Bush set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Bush and senior members of his administration have stepped up their attack on Democrats, singling out those criticizing the war now who supported the October 2002 war resolution like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

In a speech to US troops in Alaska on his way to a trip to Asia, Bush said Monday it was "irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," suggesting lawmakers had access to the same intelligence - faulty as it turns out - as did the administration and foreign allies.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Republican National Committee joined the fray on Tuesday.

Rumsfeld quoted Clinton administration officials who contended in the late 1990s that Saddam was a security threat to the US and its allies, including Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser.

The RNC, meanwhile, put on its Web site (http://www.gop.com) a video compilation of such statements, including more recent ones by current Democratic leaders and potential 2008 presidential contenders, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware and Edwards.

The video implies that such Democrats had later turned against the war, even though Mrs. Clinton has been consistent in supporting Bush's efforts.

Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University political scientist who studies war and politics, said the administration's case that it didn't manipulate Iraq information was undermined by the CIA-leak case. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, was indicted on five counts for obstructing an investigation into the leaking of the identity of an intelligence officer married to an outspoken war critic.

Top Bush strategist Karl Rove remains under investigation.

"The critics of Bush's Iraq policy have more ammunition now," said Cimbala. "And Republicans in Congress are very nervous because they know that, if Bush's numbers don't come up, they could be in big trouble next year in the midterm elections."

Bush's approval is at the low point of his presidency, 37 percent in a recent AP-Ipsos poll.

His Republican base still supports him on Iraq, but that support has been eroding.

His approval on handling Iraq fell from 87 percent among all Republicans in November 2004 to 78 percent this month. Among Republican women, from 88 percent a year ago to 73 percent now. Among independents, approval on Iraq fell from 49 percent in November 2004 to 33 percent now.

Among Democrats, where he has enjoyed little support for his war policies all along, it fell from just 15 percent a year ago to 12 percent now.

11-15-2005, 08:48 AM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It is NEVER unpatriotic to question your government, in fact in this country it is imperative and our right to question and force them to answer to the people. To do otherwise is to allow tyranny and to allow a president to lay guilt trips for doing so, shows his disregard for the rights given to us by the Constitution, his blatant hate for the people and him not taking his oath to defend the Constitution in a just manner. Congressmen should be held to those standards also. It is OUR government, OUR country, not just his. The people gave him a job to do and instead of being held accountable or taking responsibility for his unjust actions, he threatens, accuses and makes personal attacks against any who oppose him. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-15-2005, 09:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Bush: 35% and plummetting approval rate. Something tells me the author isn't alone in believing that blaming your critics is not a mature way to live. Bush sounds like a little crybaby pushing the blame to anyone who questions his methods (re: LYING). The determining characteristic of a good plan and a good leader is not HAVING to ignore your critics. You either won't have any, or their critiques will be valid, and you will respond to them. Blaming them for criticising you is quitting before the game started-- QED. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

11-15-2005, 09:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Questioning the government is not a bad thing. But there comes a point, when it is no longer mere questioning, and it becomes harmful. Osama and other terrorists/insurgents have learned many lessons over the years, starting from Lebanon through Mogadishu, and now into Iraq. If they put on the heat, the American public will become weak and fold, Osama called us the paper tiger. To me there is a big difference in questioning and being patriotic which is completely legit and legal and agreed that it should be done; and then taking to it a point were it is unpatriotic heeding the war effort and giving aid and comfort to the enemies. As it goes we are committed to Iraq, we need to finish what we started on our terms and no one elses, anything else would be totally moronic and only harm our country further. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-15-2005, 10:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Let us not confuse the concept of questioning, with the concept of political slander. Its one thing to question, to search for answers, its another do to what so many in the opposition leadership have been doing. One is patriotic, another is almost sedition. It is the difference between on honest question and a leading one. To use such tactics when we have troops on the ground and an on going mission is not patriotic, its self-serving and vile. It is a few attempting to regain their political power at the expense of millions, whos fate they will later blame others for while washing their hands of it as if they had nothing to do with it. Whats ironic is while so many complain about phantom violation of rights, in the past such conduct would have been met with a true suspension of 'rights'. It has made me something of a believer in the cognitive dissonance theory, as I can find no other explanation for the almost religious fervor some have in propagating lies which fly in the face of logic and the facts as known. So no, questioning your government is not unpatriotic, but subverting it in time of war under the guise of 'questioning' surely is. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-15-2005, 01:41 PM	#19 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Didn't even have to use WMD in the article. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-15-2005, 09:16 AM	#5 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	It's like the Law of the Jungle, Internet-style. Vent, people. VENT!

11-15-2005, 10:09 AM	#12 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm not sure contempt quite captures it either. I can't decide whether I think that Bush thinks he's doing the best thing for the country. I suspect he's doing what he thought was going to put him in the history books alongside Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt. He said it February 8, 2004: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind." I don't think he hates the people or even has contempt for them. I just think he's more interested in his own legacy than he is in the truth or the safety of thousands of American soldiers. I think 9/11 was a huge opportunity for him, and he took it, and damn the consequences. And now that's catching up to him bigtime, he's seeing the whole shooting match sliding down the tubes, and he's flailing around looking for any scapegoat he can pin it on. What's funny is, he thinks he can get away with accusing somebody else of rewriting history. Mr Shifting Justification for War thinks he can pin that on somebody else. It's just amazing.

11-15-2005, 01:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Pan, that was a fantastic article. Thanks!