Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Amen, Stephen.

That’s a post which I can wholeheartedly and passionately agree with word for word.

But if you feel this way, then…. never mind.

Let’s enjoy this rare moment of bi-partisanship unity. Great post. High fives. Raised drinks. Kisses and hugs.

Stephen,
Excellent letter. OBL just really don’t understand.

Encore, encore.

Well said that man, well said.

Well, I may agree with your impetus for this article, I think it unfortunate that you verge on apologizing for Bush by blaming Osama for our invasion of Iraq. Don’t you think that’s as bad as Osama’s hollow justifications for his own brand of violence? It’s not that I am so partisan that I hate to see any mitigation of blame for Bush, I just think it disingenuous and opportunistic of anyone who has argued for Bush’s accountability in his handling of Iraq to suddenly shift into an apologist posture simply to vent hatred for the enemy.

And I am certainly not an apologist for Osama, but I think you engage in empty rhetoric when you call him a terrible fool or obnoxious liar - as bad as Bush’s stick-figure profile of him hating us for our freedom. There is enough to use against him without sinking to vacuous assertions that lead us no closer to a resolution. And it certainly doesn’t add any strength to your response.

Is there an independently translated transcript of this new video out yet?

Something Bin Laden allegedly said raised my eyebrows. “I had no idea that Bush would leave 50,000 people in the buildings to die, while he concerned himself with reading a story of goats to the children.” (something to that effect - I have a poor memory)

I don’t know about you all, but so long as there’s going to be no inquiry whatsoever into whether or not Bush himself had anything to do with 9/11 at the national level by the so-called ‘mainstream media’, I’m going to continue to go with my gut, seek the truth, and doubt the validity of anything the media passes to me from the government.

In other words, the news organizations have outright refused to investigate what some of us ordinary citizens feel is painfully obvious: the Saudi’s hijacked the planes, and Bush is in bed with the Saudi’s. Oil is the precursor to mass destruction, and Bush used our partiotic heroes in the military to take it from Iraq with any excuse necessary. Large companies of all kinds profit from war, and no-bid contracts from our government may just be the tip of the iceburg.

Where is my voice in America? Who will address these concerns if not the ‘main-stream’ media? With which politician should I make my reluctant alliance? Who else in America feels as though they have only this choice: Join the empire divided and pick a line to stand in, or shut your mouth, you conspiratorial manic?

Now, I wish death upon Bin Laden just as much as any other red-blooded american. I’d kill him with my bare hands if I got close enough. Therein lies the problem … I can’t trust that the President of the United States actually desires to let anyone get close enough. Afterall, does anyone care? If you listen to CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, you get the sinking feeling that you’re all alone. I do, anyway.

I want to say a few things, in closing, about our troops. You know, when the invasion of Iraq began, I really wasn’t worried about our guys n’ gals in uniform - it was, and is still in my mind that they are superior to any other warrior on the globe. I trusted that Bush had a great plan to use them effectively, even though I wasn’t sure that our country was doing the right thing. When I was watching that grainy video from the imbedded journalists, I looked at the troops’ faces, and listened to the anxiety in their words, and felt that they were all but invincible. I knew that some would not be coming home, but I also knew that these troops shared that reality, and were prepared to fight anyway.

I know two people in the Army reserves who are scheduled to be called up. One of them has three little girls, and a normal life that just sort of melds into the american landscape of prosperity, like any other american. He’s the same age as me, and all it took was a five minute conversation for me to admire this guy, and consider him a good friend. Like any other dad, he’d much rather watch his kids get on the school bus than gear up for a controversial battle in a desert thousands of miles from home.

At the risk of being seen as weak, I need to say that I just want them to come home. Every time I hear that another soldier or soldiers have been killed, it hurts me deeply. It really feels like a knife in the heart - I hate the thought that their family is going to get a call from the military, telling them that their beloved son, daughter, husband, or whichever, is dead … not ever coming home.

It’s the thought that splits my mind: I want to believe that troop-morale is going to be good enough to keep them alive, and that they know what to do, and feel generously equipped with the best stuff money can buy, but I desperately want them out of Iraq. I hate this war, and I’m totally disgusted with our Commander-in-chief for going about it the way he has. I just wish there were something more that I could do besides making a difficult choice with a supposed “vote” that might not even be counted. I say difficult, not because I can’t decide between Kerry or Bush - that’s a no brainer. I say it because a vote for either one will be considered a vote of confidence in the failed foreign policies of our divided empire.

Will,
Here’s a transcript of OBL tape: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

sorry you have to post it yourselve, but my other link didn’t work.

Thank you Henry.

o america

Joseph-
I apologize for Bush in no way. It is my firm belief that 9/11 took an otherwise mediocre leader and elevated him. Without that elevation, he could not have had the political capital to send us to Iraq to “fight terrorism”. Osama gave him incident that made his leadership suddenly more highly regarded. Bush said the right things, promised the right promises, and here we are.

The truth of the matter is, Bin Laden has made things harder on his fellow Arabs and Muslims. He increased support for greater interventionalism in the Middle East, greater passivity towards the plight of the Palestinians, who after all are lead by a man who allows terrorism to flow out of his nation. The only reason why Bush has not been impeached by congress yet is that he has that cache of being a president who stood up to Bin Laden.

I also tell him to butt out of the political conversation, by reminding him that our arguments about this subject are motivated by one common goal: electing a Commander in Chief to champion the cause of kicking his ass.

I know I get a little flowery in my prose at the end, but note what I say:

My nation is in the forge right now, the buffets coming down on both sides of the blade. The metal glows red with anger. In a few days, the metal will be quenched and the steel hardened. The blade that comes of that forging will have two edges, and should one dull, the other edge will remain. If that sword should be broken, you should not rejoice, because America will use whatever edge remains, even beat you with the pommel if that is all that remains.

Should one edge dull… Two edges… It’s a metaphor. Should Bush and the Republicans fail, the Democrats will be ready and willing to step in. And Vice Versa.

Should the blade break- Should the worst happen to us, we will none the less persist, and he will not enjoy his successes forever. We will have our vengeance, one way or another.

Hail to Stephen, a consistently temperate and intelligent voice. Anyone? Stephen for President?

Not that I sanction torture, but I kind of hope a couple of Marines with a baseball bat get to him first.

Bravo, Stephen.

I think every American who reads this feels that whatever we have done in this world, good or bad, Neither God nor any decent spirit within mankind sanctions the murder of innocent people.

Unless they happen to be in Fallujah or Gaza…

I agree with the sentiment, Stephen. I believe Kerry will fight a “smarter, more effective war on terror.” One which will cull the militants, dissolve bin Laden’s support system, and stem the rising tide of new recruits.

Wouldn’t it be delicious irony if we could destroy bin Laden by undermining his center of gravity - his central argument that he’s waging ‘defensive’ jihad - the same way the North Vietnamese undermined our public support for the Vietnam war?

OBL is a monster for killing 3000 innocent civilians.
When those bombs and shells and cruise missiles go off in Fallujah, what does everyone think happens? Anyone care to justify the US killing innocent civilians? Are you three times or even thirty times as outraged at what is being done in your name in Iraq as you are at OBL?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3605297&thesection=news&thesubsection=worl
Or google the story, ‘Lancet.’
Feel free to use the Lancet article’s numbers of 100,000 civilian casualties, or an extremely conservative number like 10,000. Comparisons of death by jumping from the 101st floor with instantaneous obliteration by 500 lb bomb would be appropriate. Remember, in breezy justifications using phrases like ‘collateral damage,’ ‘eggs,’ and ‘omelettes,’ please remember to include the phrase ‘innocent civilians,’ or ‘men, women, and children.’
Killing enormous numbers of civilians happens when one country invades another, and bombs cities. It is not unforeseeable.
Condemnation of OBL is unanimous. So why is it ok for the US to slaughter Iraqis?

Innocent. Civilians.

Don-
I agree. Fact is, though, you will not get a full scale war in the middle of a populated area without civilian deaths.

People talk too much about us avoiding civilian casualties. It’s something we should do more than raise expectations for. I think we threw a monkey wrench into the works when we started telling the Iraqis that we would somehow magically not kill any of them in the middle of a war like this.

Rest assured, I have not changed my mind about the worthlessness and unjustified nature of the invasion. I’m only telling Osama Bin Laden he’s got no business acting like he didn’t have a hand in all those fellow arab and muslims killed there. The blood of those innocent Iraqis is as much on Osama’s hands as it is on Bush’s

I apologize for Bush in no way.

But without your acts, nobody would have taken [Bush] seriously. It was our anger kindled against you by that murderous act of yours that sent us to Iraq. We were only convinced to go after Saddam, after all his tricks and machinations after our president linked him to you and yours. If the innocent suffer there, it is because of the blood you spilled in our lands, which cried out for vengeance against you.

I used the word “verge” because you drew a precarious line and then straddled it. You say we only took Bush seriously because of Osama. You say it was our anger at Osama that sent us into Iraq. You say (if) the innocent suffer in Iraq (it is) because of our desire for vengeance against Osama. You hedge from completely acquitting Bush by saying he mislead us but the rest is directly blaming Osama. Your characterization of us and our lame excuse for killing 10,000 Iraqis is that we were so angry at this other guy, Osama, that we just couldn’t control ourselves. I find this pernicious and reprehensible.

Please don’t take this the wrong way. You are a valuable resource here at WatchBlog. You are generally well-reasoned and highly informed. You engage with tempered yet impassioned articles and comments. And you are obviously sincere to the core. I understand the over-zealousness of your article, but if Osama’s video drives you to abandon reason in favor of surrendering to your anger then Osama has won this exchange.

To prove these points, Democrats must urge other Democrats to stay home on November 2nd.

Willard, I call bullshit or bad joke. Either way it isn’t appreciated.

Here’s another reason to discount Willard’s irresponsible attempt at humor: Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights. (Since I can’t link directly to the truth out dot org article, you might have to register for free at latimes.)

Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election.

Willard, are you kidding? Or are you insane? Or are you a Republican operative?

-Cf

Willard, are you kidding? Or are you insane? Or are you a Republican operative?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 30, 2004 04:12 PM

Christopher,

This guy is clearly not a very bright Republican who thinks that Democrats can be as easily swayed by illogical, vacuous and trite arguements as their Republican counterparts. Counterparts who, despite Bushs’ policies being directly contrary to their interests, will still go out and vote for him. After all, most of these Republicans are ordinary middle and poorer Americans who will not benefit from the policies designed to further enrich the constituency that the Bush administration prostrates itself before.

Jus pay him no nevah mind chil!

Joseph-
One of the reason I hate Bush’s push to invade so much is that innocent people are dying for that decision without even the catharsis of the collateral casualties being in a war that would protect innocent people elsewhere.

When you analyze what I write, I think it helps to consider my writings in context of each other. I did not think to emphasize Bush’s role in the deaths of the innocent, as he was not the addressed party. Also, you have have to understand that sometimes I just state things matter of factly.

My assertion that Osama Bin Laden bears great responsibility in the plight of the Iraqis is a matter of fact chain of causal links.

Like so:
Osama Bin Laden attacked us, and killed many of our fellow citizens.

That mass murder so enraged and so terrified Americans that they became anxious of other terrorists and WMD oriented threats.

Bush, whether by incompetence or malfeasance misleads American into believing that Saddam poses such a threat, and waiting on that threat could bring about a disaster to dwarf the mass death of 9/11.

Without Osama’s terrorist act present to skew the critical faculties of the average American citizen, Bush could not justify an invasion of Iraq, at least not in the near term.

Osama’s terrorist act also elevate Bush’s status as a leader from an early-term lame duck to a War President. People flock to him as people always flock to a leader in a time of crisis.

Bush opportunistically abuses the uncritical acceptance of his policy and his newfound popularity to steer us into Iraq.

Without Osama in the equation, Bush would never be capable of getting us all, Arab or American, into this mess. As The Iraq war is a direct result of Bush’s increased power of political persuasion, which 9/11 and Bush’s telegenic response (after the first day) to the tragedy, it is not unreasonable to say that Osama galvanizing terrorist act gave Bush a gift he might not have had otherwise.

If Osama had set his sights lower, taken a strategy of harrassment and sabotage, instead of mass death and destruction, Bush might not have gotten the political cache from the act. But Osama’s intentions are meant to be provocative. Plainly put, he has always wanted war with us, and he definitely wanted Someone like Bush on the other side, because Bush can be quite easily provoked, and a provoked enemy is one that can goaded into doing stupid things.

Bush I criticize because he has always been unprepared for this job. Osama I criticize because this is what he has planned for. Both I criticize for being unwilling to consider the lives of those who get in the way of this war on terrorism. Fortunately, we can get rid of Bush. Unfortunately, we can’t get rid of Osama so easily.

Stephen, there’s no doubt that Bush used 9/11 to whip up support for “finishing the job” in Iraq. That’s something Bush’s senior advisors have been advocating in open letters and publications like “The Weekly Standard” for almost a decade now.

I don’t think it has anything to do with being “easily provoked” into some kind of knee-jerk attack on Iraq. After all, Bush went into Afghanistan first.

Oh, and I’d like to encourage all true conservatives to vote for someone other than Bush. From a conservative standpoint, the Bush administration has been a disaster. Stand up for your principles! :)