August 03, 2005
Rummy is right on!
Rumsfeld says extremist, moderate Muslims at odds.
Donald Rumsfeld, a fascinating and a proper communicator in the English language medium, whose impeccable and detailed logic occasionally escapes the grasp of some reporters, has put the issue of struggle within Islam upfront and in the mainstream discussion. It is about time. Click here for the story .
Until this latest Rummyspeak, the West has been collectively looking for a conventional answer to the inspiration behind terrorism. We wring our hands uttering excuses of all manners, occasionally reciting sins of our own ancestors to find some logical rationale for a totally irrational behavior of others using practices such as decapitation and suicide, practices that are totally abhorrent and unthinkable for us. After London, sane people have concluded that we have been debating the wrong issues. It is time to shift the debate to the problem rather than the probable or imagined causes.
The fact is that Islam has always been a fractious movement. Based on Muhammad"s account of his unwitnessed private conversations with the angel Gabriel, the Koran had become the Book of the new religion. Having no sons, Muhammad paid no attention to what happened after his death and the schism in Islam started in the ensuing succession struggle on his death. Since then, the schisms have continued to multiply to this day to the point where many Muslims refuse Islam to other Muslims! For example, in Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims, members of a reformist Muslim sect that attempts to rejuvenate Islam with moral and spiritual values and preaches peace, brotherhood and freedom of religion are denied the right to call themselves Muslims, punishable by three years of imprisonment. [International Religious Freedom Report - Pakistan - U.S. Department of State - October 7, 2002]
Rummy has rightly raised this issue, perhaps belatedly, that the struggle for control of terrorism rightly belongs square in the lap of the Ummah (the Muslim community at large). For far too long, Muslims have been on the fence on terrorism in public while privately cheering it. This will stop soon. Why? Because, the fence is on fire.
On 9/11 and 9/12 many of us were astounded by the deafening silence from the Muslim community both in the US and abroad. If members of any Christian or Jewish sect commited a horror of that magnitude condemnation would rain down from every pulpit/bima, radio&TV station, website in the world. The message would be absolutely clear: we do not support this and it runs completely contrary to the tenets of our faith, our grief goes to the victims and their families. They are not us! Since then a few isolated cases of Imans publicly condemning the terrorists have been heard, but very little, very late, and not anything like a unified front that would make non Muslims feel safe with Muslims.
-Monica
Posted by: Monica at August 3, 2005 11:27 AMKrishan,
What you’re saying about Islam is also true about Christianity.
The fact is that Christianity has always been a fractious movement. Based on accounts of Jesus, the Bible had become the Book of the new religion. Having no sons, Jesus paid no attention to what happened after his death and the schism in Christianity started in the ensuing succession struggle on his death. Since then, the schisms have continued to multiply to this day to the point where many Christians refuse to acknowledge other Christians!
Monica,
Why haven’t Christian leaders spoken out about terrorist acts commited by Christian extremists like Eric Rudolph? If you are gonna hold leaders of one faith to a particular standard, you have to hold leaders of all faiths to that same standard.
Astonishing. Many folks on the right condemn others who speak out in disagreement. As if that isn’t bad enough, now they they want to condemn those who don’t speak at all. What’s next from conservatives, loyalty oaths to them duly notarized and filed, so they can sift out the bad guys from the good? How anti-American can some of you get? Fear is a powerful emotion, but, that’s no excuse for this kind of absurdity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2005 12:11 PMSince David basically commented in exactly the same way that I was going to on this topic, I believe I’ll focus on the other aspect of this article.
Krishan:
“Donald Rumsfeld, a fascinating and a proper communicator in the English language medium,”
This is funny - and sad. Republican’s now seem to feel that a public figure being able to stand before reporters and speak is something terribly noteworthy. Compared to W, Rummy must seem a truly remarkable orator.
“whose impeccable and detailed logic occasionally escapes the grasp of some reporters,”
Neocon nonsense happens to escape a lot of us. Here are my picks for top ten Rummy quotes that might fail to be grasped reporters - or anyone else:
1. “I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.”
2. “We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.”
3. “Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
4. “I believe what I said yesterday. I don’t know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it’s what I said.”
5. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” -on WMD
6. “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
7. “If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I’m disinclined to mislead anyone.”
8. “There’s another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist.”
9. “I don’t know what the facts are but somebody’s certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know.”
10. “I’m not into this detail stuff. I’m more concepty.”
Posted by: Adrienne at August 3, 2005 12:20 PMEllittBay
Eric Rudolph is not a leader.
Eric Rudolph does not show the evidence of being a Christian.
So using him in comparison or example is sure asking for a ton of understanding.
Adrienne:
Thanks for sharing the fun Rummy material. Not only, it makes sense, it is also very balanced and has a healthy dose of raw, dry humor. What is wrong with that?
Krishan,
I’m still unsure. When you praise Rumsfeld as a communicator of impeccable logic, you’re kidding, right? It makes sense as tongue-in-cheek satire, but a person unfamiliar with Rumsfeld’s speaking style and humorously loopy logic might take the comments seriously.
ElliotBay
Your statement that Jesus paid no attention after his death needs correction. Three days after the death of Jesus he rose from the dead and is sitting at the right hand of GOD. He is alive. Muhammed is dead.
Jesus has, is, and will continue to pay attention to all that goes on.
Christians who refuse to acknowledge other Christians only have a problem with their attitude and behavior. That is not a schism.
The Bible has not changed. It is still the foundational document of all of Christianity.
Organizations that profess Christianity have had schisms. Christianity as a belief does not have schisms. Man has tried to change the teachings of Christianity to fit the desires of whoever and whatever. The original teaching of Jesus are still as true as ever without change.
Islam was founded by man. Therefore followers as time has progressed have altered the original beliefs. It will continue to alter to fit as time goes on. That is why Baptists change. That is why Mormons change. That is why Episcopalians change. And so on. That is man at work all trying to be supreme beings. It fails each and every time.
Posted by: tom at August 3, 2005 12:54 PMRepublican Talking Points:
1. Its the fault of Muslims that Iraq is a mess.
2. Its the fault of Islam that 14 Marines died in two days.
3. When we are forced to reduce our Troops in Iraq due to manpower shortages, we are just giving the Iraqis the chance to control more of their country.
4. Always stick a yellow magnet on your SUV. It will save you from having to volunteer to Spread Freedom!!!
Posted by: Aldous at August 3, 2005 01:02 PMGee, I don’t get it. If terrorism is the fault of Islam, when did Eric Rudolph and Timoth McVeigh (and all their buddies) convert?
You know, this administration will exit Iraq, leaving it a worse place for the Iraqis that before and a hotbed of terroristic recruiting, training, and activity, without one ounce of evidence that terrorism in the world has done anything but increase, and you know what? They will never, ever, ever admit that they made a mistake going in there. Mark my words.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 3, 2005 01:53 PMElliottBay,
Having no sons, Jesus paid no attention to what happened after his death and the schism in Christianity started in the ensuing succession struggle on his death. Since then, the schisms have continued to multiply to this day to the point where many Christians refuse to acknowledge other Christians!
Well that will make very little sense to those of us who know something about the history of Christianity and what Christians actually believe…
Aldous,
Republican Talking Points:
1. Its the fault of Muslims that Iraq is a mess.
2. Its the fault of Islam that 14 Marines died in two days.
It’s only the fault of certain Muslims, and other Muslims need to speak out against such acts. I believe that was Rumsfeld’s point.
3. When we are forced to reduce our Troops in Iraq due to manpower shortages, we are just giving the Iraqis the chance to control more of their country.
Considering that most of our troops aren’t deployed, this doesn’t make much sense, either.
4. Always stick a yellow magnet on your SUV. It will save you from having to volunteer to Spread Freedom!!!
From your previous posts it seams you believe that republicans own SUV’s with magnets and non-Republicans own other vehicles and don’t have magnets (a quick drive in New England might change your mind about this, but let’s continue).
Here’s something for you to think about. I’m not a republican, yet I support the war in Iraq. I don’t own an SUV, yet I have a “support our troops” magnet on my car. I have the magnet, and yet I’ve volunteered for military duty and believe in spreading freedom. Doesn’t my very existence invalidate almost everything you’ve ever posted here?
Wimp,
Gee, I don’t get it. If terrorism is the fault of Islam, when did Eric Rudolph and Timoth McVeigh (and all their buddies) convert?
Most terrorism. Certainly not all, but look at the statistics.
Posted by: TheTraveler at August 3, 2005 02:16 PMtom,
I never said Eric Rudolph was a Christian leader - I asked why the Christian leaders didn’t condemn his terrorist activities. I apologize if I left any other impression.
You also said that Rudolph “does not show the evidence of being a Christian”. Your statement has proved my point that Christianity is similar to Islam in that it is so fractured that many Christians refuse to acknowledge other Christians.
EVERY religion has its zealots - those who think that they are the only true believers and arbitors of the “true faith”. Those who think that their cause is the only true one, and that it justifies their actions, no matter how heinous. These people exist in EVERY major religion. I think we can all agree on that.
So, how can you reasonably expect Muslim leaders to unite against the zealots within their faith when you don’t demand the same behavior from Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/[insert other religions here] leaders?
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 3, 2005 02:30 PMWimp,
According to Rumsfeld, “This is not a war between the United States and the Muslim faith, or between the West and the Muslim faith. It is a struggle within the Muslim faith, between the extremists and the moderates, with the extremists representing an extremely small minority.”
And, according to the link, the US has been “caught up” in this struggle.
We’ll see a lot more articles like this in the next six months. Forget Iraq, the GWOT, all that. They don’t hate us for our freedom, or democracy, or even our actions anymore. It’s just a struggle between extremist & moderate Muslims, and somehow- somehow- gosh, who knows how it happened- we’ve been “caught up” in this struggle.
Posted by: phx8 at August 3, 2005 02:35 PMKrishan,
I guess Rummy has been misunderestimated all this time. One question, what does this mean: “Muhammad paid no attention to what happened after his death” He was awake after he died?
tom,
Man you people are scary. But, how do you know that Jesus hasn’t been replaced by Mohammed or that Mohamded is at Gods left hand? Or that the Koran is the New New Testament or that only the Old Testament is true and the rest is heresy or the work of Satan or just wrong?
Thanks Adrienne, those are even better than all those Bushism’s. But it’s even more amazing to think he said those things on purpose and with the intent to sate the thirst of his faithful.
Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2005 02:45 PMElliotBay,
I’m not sure why you think Rudolph was a Christian. From wikipedia:
It has been alleged that Rudolph is an adherent of the extremist group Christian Identity, a sect that holds that white Christians are God’s chosen people, and that others will be condemned to Hell. However, in a statement released after he entered a guilty plea, Rudolph denied being a supporter of that movement, claiming that his involvement amounted to a brief association with the daughter of a Christian Identity adherent. In one of the over 200 undated letters provided to USA Today by Rudolph’s mother, Rudolph states that, “I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible.”
Posted by: TheTraveler at August 3, 2005 02:53 PMAldous,
Do you just cut and paste from one thread to the next? Makes it seem as though you don’t have any new or original thoughts and kind of discredits the points your trying to get across.
Just an Observation.
ElliotBay
The Bible is the basis for the Christian belief. The Bible gives guidelines and references to many things to live by. The Bible clearly states what it takes to be a Christian. My point is that Eric Rudolph does not exhibit the traits of being a Christian. There is nothing fractual about that.
Dave
I had no intention to scare anybody. There is no basis to believe that anybody but the trinity sits at the throne of GOD. There are no errors in the Bible. The Bible makes no direct reference to any Islamic leader. Islam claims that Allah and God are one and the same. That is impossible. The diffent claims of who GOD is and who Allah is have many points that contradict.
tom,
What I’m not sure of is strict believers such as yourself understand that dogmatic answers such as “the bible is perfect” are what is scary. To me, no one sits at the throne of god and the trinity is just myth. It has no more validity than the Koran and, other than as an anachronistic morality play, less than Zen and the Art of Motorcylce Maintenance and the Hitchikers Guide to the universe.
The New Testaments were written about 3700 years after the Old Testaments and about 1300 years before the Koran. Why would it mention Islamic leaders? How is that different than not talking about Popes? BTW, ‘allah’ is the arabic word for God. Only where you are born and who your parents are determine what religion you may ascribe to.
Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2005 03:28 PMTom,
The Bible clearly states what it takes to be a Christian. My point is that Eric Rudolph does not exhibit the traits of being a Christian.
Well, the Koran forbids suicide, so does that mean that all the suicide bombers aren’t really muslim? If that’s so, then why try to blame it on the religion? Posted by: Brian Poole at August 3, 2005 03:38 PM
Dave
I have compassion for those who feel that the trinity is non existent. There is too much proof that GOD does exist, and that he is all knowing and is everywhere.
The closing sentence is truly baffling.
Where I was born and what by beliefs are make no difference. I believe different from the way I was brought up. I do not need permission to ascribe to anything. I choose Christianity because the values and beliefs within the Bible make the most sense for me and they do have a track record of success.
Corrected/Re-posted
Dave:
“Krishan,
I guess Rummy has been misunderestimated all this time. One question, what does this mean: “Muhammad paid no attention to what happened after his death” He was awake after he died?”
Obviously by “what happened”, I implied “what would happen”. Does that help?
I still see a lot of breast beating in the comments posted. Can we get it straight please? There were no US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan on 9/11/2001. It is perplexing when some keep seeking for answers in the wrong place. Now let us see if GWB and Rice pick up the pace on this issue.
Posted by: Krishan Kumra at August 3, 2005 03:43 PMKrishan,
“There were no US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan on 9/11/2001. It is perplexing when some keep seeking for answers in the wrong place.”
There was no open conflict between extremist and moderate Muslims, either.
So, what happened? How did the US become involved in a conflict between religious factions?
In Afghanistan, a long ethnic conflict between the predominantly Pashtun Taliban and the Northern Alliance, a loose confederacy of Tajik, Uzbek, & other ethnic groups, was nearing a close.
No conflict between extremist & moderate Muslims there, eh?
In Iraq, the secular Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein kept the Kurdish ethnic group & the Shia muslims in check, mostly through brute oppression.
No conflict between extemist & moderate Muslims there, either.
Well, shucky-durn! How on earth did the US get caught up in a conflict between extremist & moderate Muslims? I mean, that’s what is going on, right? That’s what Rumsfeld says. Because otherwise, Rumsfeld would be a liar. Hmmmm. Just some kinda strange, inexplicable accident, I guess. It’s a mystery.
Because otherwise, Rumsfeld is a liar (again), or the foreign policy of this adminstration’s Neocons is incompetent, or just plain stupid.
Posted by: phx8 at August 3, 2005 04:20 PMKrishan,
Could U.S. policy in the Middle East over the past 30 years, you know arm one country to fight another, support resistance movements then abandon the people who bought into them on a whim, and our unwavering support for Isreal have something to do with the terrorists attacks against the west?
If the extremists view Isreal as their major enemy,would’nt we then be allies of their major enemy and therefore an enemy of the extremists.
(The above was my attempt at sounding like Rumsfeld,I apologize in advance.)
Dave:
“What I’m not sure of is strict believers such as yourself understand that dogmatic answers such as “the bible is perfect” are what is scary.”
I know what you mean Dave, and I totally agree.
So did Saint Thomas Aquinas who warned us to: “Beware of the person of one book”.
phx8 — excellent posts! Your logic is flawless, therefore, certain to be unappreciated by those who actually think Rummy’s verbal meanderings make perfect sense.
PS. I love the expression “shucky durn”! :^) In fact, I just used it — and made someone laugh.
Something that occurs to me:
Islam and Christianity, as many people before me have stated, are really fairly similar when it comes to their basic tenets.
However, their histories, and especially their recent histories are enormously different. Christianity has, for over a thousand years, been the faith of a culture enjoying unparalleled dominance, of those that colonize, enslave, and exploit the resources of others.
However, I read a statistic recently (sorry, can’t recall where it was) that something like 80% of all Muslims in the world were, until relatively recently, living under the rule of foreign, colonial empires, and that this looms large in the memory of contemporary Muslims. Is it such a big surprise that they are quick to adopt the tactics of rebels? Let’s try to remember that the tactics of rebels have garnered condemnation from various quarters throughout history, for instance, those of revolutionary America were condemned by Britain.
I’m just trying to put this in perspective, and demonstrate that maybe putting Christianity and Islam on a level playing field when comparing their respective belief systems and behaviors turns a blind eye to an undenaible difference in context. Muslims have had it pretty hard and Christians have had it pretty soft.
Just a thought.
Posted by: unkind K at August 3, 2005 04:55 PMAndre M. Hernandez:
Again, we can keep looking for the real or imaginary faults of our fore-fathers, but that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. Why is that we automatically become defensive thinking we collectively must have done something to incite them? How do you explain or justify London, Madrid, Bali, Amsterdam, Kashmir and the insane bloodthirst that is swallowing Iraqis every day? Quit looking into the mirror with guilt and look beyond. The Ummah kept mostly quiet when most of the blood that was shed was non-Muslim blood. The real question for the Ummah is how much bloodshed of Muslims must it endure before it has to act against its own.
phx8:
Shucky-darn, you did not understand that? Lemme ‘splain. See there has been this bloodthirst for non-Muslims forever in Islam, which now has taken a life of its own, and has begin to spill Muslim blood in London, Riyadh, Kabul and Iraq at an alrming rate. What Rummy says now is not a lie though it is not what he said before. It does not make him a liar since he is speaking a new truth. It would be a lie if he knew the new truth when he embraced the old truth acting unharmoniously with the truth of the new truth. There is only true truth, which leads me to observe that it is truly true that Rummy grasps the truth better than most and is not afraid to admit that a new truth can replace an old truth. It is also true that a new truth does not make the old truth a lie, jst a notch in human progress.
Posted by: Krishan Kumra at August 3, 2005 05:03 PMHey, kids! Here’s another great group of Christians.
One can always point to the bad behavers in a group and claim either a) the group fosters their bad behavior or b) they aren’t really a part of the group because they act bad. Unless the group expressly espouses the bad behavior (arguments can be made in both directions for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but not for Buddhism), or the behavior is characteristic of the group as a whole (no argument can be made for any major religion on these grounds), it is unfair to characterize that group with the behavior. This is called stereotyping and in this instance it is a bad thing. Now the argument that good Muslims ought to be more loudly protesting the bad behavior of the terrorists who are Muslim and using Islam as their rationale reminds me of the argument that good conservatives who are against stuff like killing civilians and abusing prisoners ought to be loudly protesting the behavior of this administration. But we definitely see a reluctance by conservatives to protest; on the contrary, most energetically argue that such things aren’t happening, and point to the terrorists’ bad behavior and say that the administration isn’t as bad as they are. This is parallel to good Muslims pointing to the US’s behavior in the Middle East for the last 60 years (e.g., overthrowing Mossadegh, instating the Shah, propping up Saddam, etc.) and saying that the terrorists are just reacting to our bad behavior.
Such arguments get us nowhere. We all agree terrorists are bad. We should agree that religion is not the basis for the bad behavior. We should also agree that fairness and justice ought to be one goal the US has in the Middle East, as well as respect for national autonomy. And finally, we should agree that we want to leave Iraq a better place than we found it, not just trade one set of problems for another. If we allow the administration to storm into Iraq, throw out the dictator, create a mess of terrorism and civil war, then walk out proclaiming it’s all the fault of those damn good Muslims who didn’t stop the terrorists, we have failed as a nation.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 3, 2005 05:30 PMKrishan,
I’ll rephrase. It is past and present U.S. policy that is (used) to justify attacks against the U.S and our allies.
We made some mistakes in the past but I’m not feeling that we should be targets. I see U.S. policy in Africa and the Middle East as flawed at best.
I disagree with Isreal’s policies.
Not that we should be terror targets, but that to me is the terrorists most popular selling point.
Krishan,
I seem to remember that even Iran and Yasser Arafat expressed dismay over Sept. 11th.
That kinda flies in the face of Rumsfeld’s assertations that no one spoke up.
Maybe Rumsfeld could get a job as a comedian when his time as SOD is up. I haven’t heard that kind of double talk since Norm Crosby.
Posted by: Rocky at August 3, 2005 06:27 PMTom
Islam was founded by man. Therefore followers as time has progressed have altered the original beliefs. It will continue to alter to fit as time goes on. That is why Baptists change. That is why Mormons change. That is why Episcopalians change. And so on. That is man at work all trying to be supreme beings. It fails each and every time.
Your so right. However, true christianity never has changed and never will. Ture christianity has never enslaved anyone, has never started a war(altough serveral wars have been started in the name of christianity), and has always been about telling others about Christ while letting them decide for themselves what they believe or don’t.
Aldous,
4. Always stick a yellow magnet on your SUV. It will save you from having to volunteer to Spread Freedom!!!
I’d decided not to respond to anymore of your post, however I’m going to make an exception here.
I HAVE YELLOW RIBBONS ON MY SUV and on my pickup, and on my RV.
I ALSO DEFENDED FREEDOM FOR 20 YEARS. I also have a son, a soninlaw, 3 nephews, and a niece who are currantly defending freedom.
THEY ALSO HAVE YELLOW RIBBONS ON THEIR CARS. And so do their parents.
How many years have YOU defended freedom?
Krishan,
The ‘new truth.’ That’s great! Good post!
“There has been this bloodthirst for non-Muslims forever in Islam, which now has taken a life of its own, and has begin to spill Muslim blood in London, Riyadh, Kabul and Iraq at an alrming rate.”
It’s not that simple. Bloodthirst in the Middle East arises for many reasons, as the US discovered during the debacle in Lebanon under Reagan. Conflicts rage between Muslims (Sunnis & Shia), Christians, Jews, nations, ethnic groups, clans, tribes, and secular groups such as Baathists, in just about every combination imaginable.
OBL provoked our active involvement with a series of attacks culminating in 9/11. Sadly, we reacted in precisely the wrong way. Among other things, terrorism seeks to publicize through asymmetrical warfare, inspire additional violence & over-reaction, & perhaps most importantly, to polarize, thus destroying the peaceful solutions & accomodations advocated by the middle.
In strategic terms, OBL laid a trap. He baited us, & we walked right into it. We played his game. Now, here we are. And now, Rumsfeld wonders if the whole thing is really just a struggle between Islamic factions.
It’s much more than that. Unfortunately, our actions inadvertently aided the extremist faction.
As Alexander Haig once said, “now we are being subsumed in the vortex of criticality.”
Posted by: phx8 at August 3, 2005 07:53 PM
Wonderful. Since so many are willing to Defend Freedom, will you Post your Names and Emails below?
Posted by: Aldous at August 3, 2005 08:24 PMKrishan:
“It does not make him a liar since he is speaking a new truth. It would be a lie if he knew the new truth when he embraced the old truth acting unharmoniously with the truth of the new truth. There is only true truth, which leads me to observe that it is truly true that Rummy grasps the truth better than most and is not afraid to admit that a new truth can replace an old truth. It is also true that a new truth does not make the old truth a lie, jst a notch in human progress.”
Uh… Is this a joke? I think it has to be, because it sounds exactly like one of those quotes of Rummy’s that I put up this morning!
Truly the term truth has been trotted out too many times to be taken as typical!
(How’d ya like that alliteration? she asked, making her brows go up and down like Groucho… };^)
Adrienne,
Perhaps proactive practice piling “pro” nouns precludes presumptuous postings?
Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2005 09:11 PMDid you guys know that within 24 hours after Rumsfeld left Iraq, the Base he spoke from suffered from the worst mortar shelling in 6 months? That’s the cut-off point people. It takes 24 hours for the Insurgents to mount this kind of attack. Rummy must have been counting seconds even while giving his speech.
Posted by: Aldous at August 3, 2005 09:44 PMAldous,
I’m glad to see others have picked up on your lack of worthwhile comments. You did pretty good for a while, but went back to your old tricks.
Give it up or:
“Since you are so unwilling to Defend Freedom, will you Post your Name and Email below?”
Cliff:
I would stop if a single Republican actually DID give me his Name and Email that I can forward to Recruiters. The plain Truth is, you Conservatives have been avoiding the topic since forever.
Posted by: Aldous at August 4, 2005 04:50 AMbtw. The Fact that Rummy is talking about this being a Muslim Problem is just the latest attempt to pass the blame for Iraq. Get ready for the big “Withdrawal with Honor” Speech.
Posted by: Aldous at August 4, 2005 04:54 AMron brown posted:
“I’d decided not to respond to anymore of your post, however I’m going to make an exception here.
I HAVE YELLOW RIBBONS ON MY SUV and on my pickup, and on my RV.
I ALSO DEFENDED FREEDOM FOR 20 YEARS. I also have a son, a soninlaw, 3 nephews, and a niece who are currantly defending freedom.
THEY ALSO HAVE YELLOW RIBBONS ON THEIR CARS. And so do their parents.
How many years have YOU defended freedom?”
ron, as much as i admire what you and members of your family have done and are doing in service to our country, i have a problem with your arguement.
having a yellow ribbon on your car doesn’t make you a better person or a better american. it simply is your voice showing support.
i show support by sending my friends who are over there supplies and essentials..(candy and maxim mostly)
i don’t have a yellow ribbon on my car why? am i a bad unpatriotic american? no. i simply would rather most of that money spent on magnets go to the troops rather than the magnet making company in china.
and attack aldous for not serving…as i said i admire what you have done for this country. but it doesn’t mean you are better than me. nor do i think i am better than you.
i choose to just be a citizen and speak up and write my congress people, because that is my right as well as yours.
defending this country, and spreading freedom, doesn’t make you any more american than me.
it just makes you are a soldier.
if i had the chance, i’d buy you a beer and listen to your story, and hope that you’d be interested in mine.
Posted by: guy at August 4, 2005 05:44 AMI don’t have any problem with Rummy’s language, but his logic is atrocious. If this is a conflict between branches of Islam, then what are US troops, only a small minority of whom are Muslim, doing in Iraq? Why are American taxpayers, only a small minority of whom are Muslim, footing the bill? And, to reach the ultimate point, why don’t we get of out the way and let them work this out? According to Rummy it is none of our business.
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 4, 2005 07:56 AMAldous:
I would stop if a single Republican actually DID give me his Name and Email that I can forward to Recruiters.
Finally, I can get you to stop the stupid posts.
My Name:
Richard Lowe
My e-mail:
richlowe62@yahoo.com
Now, stop the stupid postings and hold to your word. I held to mine for four years in the Air Force and would gladly do it again. Bring on the recruiters and end your untruthful postings.
Guy,
Aldous was posting comments as to having a yellow magnet on your car is not enough,if You support this war You should join up and go fight on the front, which doesn’t make any sense to begin with. People can support the war efforts in many ways as you have written. I’m sure that Ron just got a little caught up in Aldous’s game.
Ron,
Aldous has been posting the SAME old thing on other blogs and this one for a while now, it’s not worth getting wound up about.
Rich,
Why Chi Chi then? I like your real name a lot better :)
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 10:00 AMLawnboy:
Chi Chi vs Rich
I have had that nickname for about 20 years. It’s a golf thing. Can’t seem to golf worth a crap unless someone bets me that I can’t do something. Then I miraculously kick butt. Some one tagged me with it and it just stuck.
Posted by: Chi Chi at August 4, 2005 10:17 AMLawnboy,
I speak a little spanish and I’ kinda partial to Chi Chi’s in the spanish context! ;)
Kevin,
Care to enlighten us? Google doesn’t translate Chi Chi :)
Chi Chi,
Your nickname’s a golf thing. Mine’s a music thing. It’s all good :)
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 10:27 AMLawnboy,
It probably wouldn’t be in google, It’s a slang word I heard while I lived in the western part of the states, It’s a part of the female anatomy, they have two of them and some use them as a way to feed infants.
Kevin,
Yeah, I would have guessed that…
Thanks
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 11:05 AMAdrienne,
Terrific stuff on the Rumsfeld quotes. Some of them are pretty deep.
Is there a stupid quotes by Democrats.com?
Posted by: steve smith at August 4, 2005 11:30 AMI’m coming in to this discussion late. It’s amusing to me, the logic of these liberals! If I don’t join, then that means I can’t support the war effort. So conversely, since they oppose the war effort, then doesn’t that mean they must now join the terrorist insurgency? They have the nerve to question Rumsfeld’s logic, when they fail to see the obvious flaw in their own logic. Rumsfeld has a singular wit, and each one of the quotes that moonbat cited sounded pithy and humorous, if not entirely semantically correct. When you look at some of the quotes of their own icons, it leads me to wonder, is that all they’ve got? They think bush is stupid because he flubs words and mixes metaphors? Here’s John Kerry demonstrating that he can talk for hours without saying anything at all!
“The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.”
- John F. Kerry
“If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.”
- John F. Kerry
“One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is ‘to be prepared’.”
- John F. Kerry
“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”
- John F. Kerry
“The future will be better tomorrow.”
- John F. Kerry
“We’re going to have the best educated American people in the world.”
- John F. Kerry
“I stand by all the misstatements that I’ve made.”
- John F. Kerry
“We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe.”
- John F. Kerry
“Public speaking is very easy.”
- John F. Kerry
“A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.”
- John F. Kerry
“We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.”
- John F. Kerry
“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”
- John F. Kerry
“Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.”
- John F. Kerry
“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
- John F. Kerry
“It’s time for the human race to enter the solar system.”
- John F. Kerry
i choose to just be a citizen and speak up and write my congress people, because that is my right as well as yours.
Posted by guy at August 4, 2005 05:44 AM
Guy,
I think most people forget that our freedoms came at a price and that there is interest due. Speaking up is our obligation. I can’t satnd the “I didn’t vote so don’t blame me” fools any more than I can stand the “love it or leave it” clowns.
Matt,
Good quotes. Just goes to show that even smart people can speak poorly.
Posted by: Dave at August 4, 2005 11:49 AMmadmatt7g,
Uhhh… Those are misattributes Dan Quayle quotes.
Look it up.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 11:58 AMLawnboy,
You’re right, I just checked. The quotes Madmatt attributes to Kerry were actually said by Quayle.
Madmatt, that’s pretty embarrassing. Fifteen times the Kerry’s name is inaccurately cited as the source of the quote.
Care to explain?
Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2005 12:07 PMAll these “coments” have basis—the mind of the person writing them. Why don’t you people just concentrate on what’s RIGHT and WRONG? There is no in-between—no fence riding—you either agree with taking out the WTC, Pentagon, and the field in rural PA, or you don’t. How about YOUR neighborhood? YOUR home? YOUR family? YOUR commuter trains, buses, planes, cars? Our parents and grandparents know what it’s like to have to fight back and the consequences be danged!
Go ahead, condemn Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the administration—but if this crap hits home again—-THANK YOU!!!! And by the way-who gives a sh— who said it!
Paulette,
I can disagree with “taking out the WTC, Pentagon, and the field in rural PA” without agreeing with Bush’s choice of a response.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 12:28 PMPaulette,
Really? Why not? Is this a logical argument? By logic, they are separate concepts. Which assumptions are making that are not obvious?
And, yes, I can.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 12:45 PMI’m curious how much you think we have to agree with Bush’s decision so as not to be supporting what happened on 9/11.
Do I have to agree with the invasion of Afghanistan?
Do I have to agree with the invasion of Iraq?
Do I have to agree with the his choice of UN ambassador?
Do I have to agree with the his tax policy?
Do I have to agree with his opinion of “Because of Winn-Dixie”?
Do I have to agree with the way he played that hand of Bridge last weekend?
Do I have to agree with his choice of suits?
I ask because I don’t want to be confused with someone who supported what happened on 9/11, so I want to make sure how far you are willing to combine logically separate concepts in order to smear your opponents.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 12:53 PMPaulette,
“Why don’t you people just concentrate on what’s RIGHT and WRONG?”
“And by the way-who gives a sh— who said it!”
In one paragraph you go from commenting upon what’s right & wrong, to dismissing concern for truth & accuracy. Personally, I care about truth, and I care about accuracy.
“Go ahead, condemn Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the administration—but if this crap hits home again—-THANK YOU!!!!”
9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. If it happens again on Bush’s watch, he will be held responsible. No one said anything about fair- that’s part of being a leader.
Condemnation of 9/11 is universal. The administration response to 9/11 is open to debate, hence the topic & Rumsfeld’s ‘new truth.’
Lawnboy:
“Uhhh… Those are misattributes Dan Quayle quotes.”
phx8:
“Madmatt, that’s pretty embarrassing. Fifteen times the Kerry’s name is inaccurately cited as the source of the quote.”
And he called me a “moonbat”? :^D
Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2005 01:13 PMIt is wrong to blame a religion.
It is extremely irresponsible and endangers innocent people (to blame a religion).
These things don’t harm people:
__________________________________
(01) Religions
(02) Race
(03) Color
(04) Level of Wealth
(05) Political Parties
(06) Level of Education
(07) Gender
(08) Nationality
(09) Age
(10) Language
(11) Heritage/Class
(12) Profession
__________________________________
The things above harm no one.
People harm people.
People that use and abuse the things above harm people to:
(01) control,
(02) seduce,
(03) discriminate,
(04) brain-wash,
(05) distract,
(06) obscure the facts and truth,
(07) force their beliefs on others,
(08) shift blame to others,
(09) pervert the law,
(10) plunder,
(11) violate others rights,
(12) etc.
“9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. If it happens again on Bush’s watch, he will be held responsible. No one said anything about fair- that’s part of being a leader.”
That’s true, but I don’t feel he should be blamed for the first attack either. The argument could be made that Clinton should share some of that blame and even perhaps Bush Sr.
Posted by: Kevin at August 4, 2005 01:26 PMRE: 9/11
The sad truth is that our government failed us.
They simply did not do a good job.
The airlines are largely to blame also.
The failed to adhere to security measures.
But, we voted for those that control government, we empower them to be the way they are, and tolerate their irresponsibility.
So, everyone of voting age is responsible too.
However, slightly more blame belongs to government, because it’s their job to provide national defense, and they ignored several warnings of exactly what happened on 9/11, and allowed airlines to ignore simple safety measures for many years. And, despite the irresponsibility of the airlines too, the airlines immediately parlayed it into a $15 billion hand-out (at the expense of tax payers).
And he called me a “moonbat”? :^D
Ummm… I think it’d be best for you to take that as a compliment. :)
BTW, I posted here in September about the same misattributions that matt used: http:// www.watchblog.com/ democrats/ archives/ 001491.html
(remove the spaces. I can’t post links for some reason)
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 02:03 PMI don’t blame anyone for 9/11 except the idiots that carried out the attack—they are the only ones who could have prevented it. Terrorism goes back a long, long way and we (the free nations of the west) continually talked, bargained, made excuses, all for nothing. When there are peoples whose actions are “tolerated” over and over, a message is sent—“we will take whatever you want to dish out, just please go easy on us”! Phooey!!
Paulette,
There’s a world of difference between tolerating continued terrorism and disagreeing with Bush’s choice of response.
Do you understand that?
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 03:04 PM“9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. If it happens again on Bush’s watch, he will be held responsible. No one said anything about fair- that’s part of being a leader.”
That’s true, but I don’t feel he should be blamed for the first attack either. The argument could be made that Clinton should share some of that blame and even perhaps Bush Sr.
Posted by Kevin at August 4, 2005 01:26 PM
==============================================
Actually, I blame Bush for 9/11. If you believe the terror Czar, he was kept from seeing Bush about continuing Clintons anti-terror program against OBL for months. His first meeting was scheduled for November (+/-) a full 10 months after taking office. Bush didn’t care about terrorism, he cared about stopping stem cell research and getting re-elected more. How much more negligent can you get?
Posted by: Dave at August 4, 2005 03:27 PMLawnboy
We all think we know more about what should have been or should be done. What great solutions do you have?
Posted by: Paulette Fancher at August 4, 2005 03:27 PMDave
You’re another one. Let’s have your solutions to this problem. Don’t give me the “he did this, or he did that”. Tell me outright what you would do.
And why do you think your idea is so great? And if it is so great—why aren’t you in the White House doing all this great, grand and wonderful stuff?
We all think we know more about what should have been or should be done. What great solutions do you have?…And why do you think your idea is so great? And if it is so great—why aren’t you in the White House doing all this great, grand and wonderful stuff?
What does that have to do with anything? You’re just trying to avoid the point.
You said that disagreeing with Bush’s choice of a response to 9/11 is equivalent to supporting 9/11. That’s false on its face.
It doesn’t matter if I think that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq at all or that we should have used twice the troops. It doesn’t matter if I supported Afghanistan or not. It doesn’t matter if I believed that there were WMD or not. The point is that one can’t conflate rejecting terrorism with disagreement on the proper response. They are logically distinct issues.
Or, are you saying that you supported Clinton in his every thought, word, and deed because anything less would be supporting the bombings of the Cole and the African embassies?
I didn’t think so.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 03:43 PMPaulette,
Yes, you’re right. I’m “another one.” An American who believes that this nation needs to have a transparent and accountable gov’t with constructive public discussions.
And that is what my solution is:
Transparent and accountable gov’t
From that, the right answers will develop. Not this “trust us we’re freakin’ perfect” bullshit we get from a coke head and his pathological liar of a brain. Everything they’ve done so far has made things worse. This weeks statement is the first inkling of the first glimmer of understanding from Crawford’s village idiot.
But, I’m sure your plan is better.
Posted by: Dave at August 4, 2005 03:54 PMI never agreed with anything Clinton said. He was and idiot. About WMD—an oozie in the hands of one of those radicals is a WMD! You can agree or disagree with anyone you want to—that’s what makes this country far superior to others. What I am saying is this—and you can take it at face value—no mind games here. I support Bush. I am a radical, right-winged conservative Republican—I’m so much so, I make Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal! I support the war effort and the troops fighting it. I have a long family history of military and a rightly proud of it! My forefathers and family members (literally) fought, died, and lost limbs for the freedoms you so much enjoy. Don’t ever forget the ones who have gone before. Freedom isn’t free and we have to pay the price or we are not free—like the Iraqis, the French, the Germans—they accepted without a fight the ones who would take over—of course we (meaning the US) went over along with our allies to free them hopefully for the last time. Who would you have come save us?
Posted by: Paulette Fancher at August 4, 2005 03:59 PMPaulette,
My great-grandfather fought in WWI. My grandfather fought in WWII. One uncle was a Colonel in the Air Force. Another served in the Army in the 60s. Another was a nurse in the Air Force. Two cousins are currently in the Marines, one of whom is deploying to Iraq in February. Another cousin served in the Air Force Reserves.
You have no right or reason to lecture me on family military history, or on the price paid for our freedoms.
Despite my family history, I recognize that it’s possible to disagree with the President and still be patriotic. It’s strange that you would deny me that right when you exercised it yourself with the last President.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 04:08 PMDave, Lawnboy
Paulette has drunk the Kool-Aid. Logic has no impact on her thought or speech. She simply recites the RNC memos and sits back and waits until the next phrase triggers some more of the memos. No actual processing goes on, just waiting and triggering of text. It’s what is so scary about politics right now. Vast swaths of America have given up their cortices to the Republicans for which they stand. Either you agree with Bush or you love what the terrorists did, no in between. It’s not logical, but it’s what they are told. Have pity.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 4, 2005 04:19 PMI am not lecturing you about your family military history at all. We all have the right to be proud of our families-military or not-they have all stood tall in times of great trials. And it is your right also to critisize.
No one said it wasn’t your right. It’s just like a liberal to take words that aren’t their’s and make them what they want them to be. I said you cannot disagree with the war effort against terriorism if you’re against the war. How can you not be for blasting those idiots into the next kingdom and stamping out this kind of action for good? Why can’t you just be for something? So far, I don’t know what you are FOR! All I’ve read is that you oppose, oppose, oppose.
Lawnboy
Paulette doesn’t have the right to lecture you on military and family? Geuss what. She can lecture you or me anytime she wants. I happen to agree with most of what she has said. But, to say someone does not have the right to do this or that a careful examination needs to be done.
Dave
You need to audition for SNL with that last diatribe. You will never cut it there either, but you can audition.
Paulette
You go girl!!
To blame anybody except the attackers for 9/11 requires some gall. There are all kinds of positions and people that had threads of input but, not definitive enough to do anything about it. Many questions have been posited and they still are unanswered. Some things are preventable and some are not. The errors and mistakes made are learning tools to prevent and provide a better position for the future. The coarse language in describing people here or in government solves nothing. High blood pressure is curable. A vile tongue can be changed. The facts of life and the events of life outside our own little niches have to be dealt with. The only way to change government is get people registered to vote, run for office, and vote.
We are digressing here into inanery. Shall we go back to the original issue or are we all exhausted?
Posted by: Krishan Kumra at August 4, 2005 04:31 PMtransparent and accountable gov’t
Hear ! Hear !
Someone is playing my song again (see d.a.n link below for details).
Yes, the terrorists are on top of the blame list.
But, government, and the airlines (no one person) are largely responsible too, because:
(1) both were irresponsibly laxed and ignoring safety measures and warnings,
(2) government is still irresponsible, by ignoring wide-open borders,
(3) airlines are still irresponsible for not building adequate barriers to the cock-pits and still not following simple safety guidelines
(4) government is alienating our allies,
(5) airlines used 9/11 to get billions in handouts at the taxpayers expense, etc.
And Rumsfeld is very irresponsible to try to use religion and blame it, because that will cause harm to innocent people of that islamic faith.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 4, 2005 04:34 PMtom,
“The errors and mistakes made are learning tools to prevent and provide a better position for the future.”
Your statement makes a great leap of faith. It assmues that learning is actually taking place.
You can’t learn from a mistake if you never admit that a mistake occured.
Posted by: Rocky at August 4, 2005 04:35 PMIt’s just like a liberal to take words that aren’t their’s and make them what they want them to be.
Oh, can I play this game?
“It’s just like a Conservative to take something one person does and create a stereotype from it.”
Nah, that wasn’t fun.
You may not have intended to lecture me about family military history, but that’s how it came across to me.
I said you cannot disagree with the war effort against terriorism if you’re against the war.
No, that’s not what you said. This is what you said:
you either agree with taking out the WTC, Pentagon, and the field in rural PA, or you don’t. How about YOUR neighborhood? YOUR home? YOUR family? YOUR commuter trains, buses, planes, cars? Our parents and grandparents know what it’s like to have to fight back and the consequences be danged!
Go ahead, condemn Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the administration—but if this crap hits home again—-THANK YOU!!!!
You said that disagreeing with Bush is tantamount to agreeing with the actions on 9/11. That’s what I found objectionable. What you just claimed you said (you cannot disagree with the war effort against terriorism if you’re against the war) is a tautology not worth debating.
How can you not be for blasting those idiots into the next kingdom and stamping out this kind of action for good?
Because the people in Iraq were not the ones who attacked us. It’s really a simple distinction.
Why can’t you just be for something? So far, I don’t know what you are FOR! All I’ve read is that you oppose, oppose, oppose.
What have you read of mine that opposes anything? And doesn’t supporting Bush mean that you oppose many things yourself? For instance, Bush opposed Kerry. He opposed letting sanctions continue. He opposed letting diplomatic efforts continue. He opposed letting the WMD inspectors finish their jobs. He opposed direct elections in Iraq.
Any argument can be framed as supporting or opposing something. Don’t be so easily fooled by rhetoric.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 04:48 PMThe only way to change government is get people registered to vote, run for office, and vote.
Hear ! Hear !
Someone is playing my favorite song again !
And, we’re not helping ourselves at all, or building a base of support, or reducing alienation of potential allies, by blaming people of a particular faith that don’t all abide or support terrorism.
Also, it is irresponsible to try to use a religion to blame for terrorism because it can endanger innocent people.
Dave,
President Bush is the only pres that has allowed federal money to be spent on stem cell research. Period! And why should the federal government spend this money? Why do liberals/dems think it is the governments job to spend money on everything. If dems and republicans would do an audit on where the money that they do have is going and end some of these ridiculous handouts then we would have enough money to pay teachers, soldiers, and other important things that actually help our country out in the long run.
One thing people need to understand is that our government does NOTHING efficient in the business sector of our country. Our federal government is here to Protect us not spend our hard earned money!
Lawnboy Paulette doesn’t have the right to lecture you on military and family? Geuss what. She can lecture you or me anytime she wants. I happen to agree with most of what she has said. But, to say someone does not have the right to do this or that a careful examination needs to be done.
Fair enough. She of course has the right to lecture me. I would like to rephrase my sentence to this:
You have no grounds or reason to lecture me on family military history, or on the price paid for our freedoms.
It that acceptable?
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 04:50 PMGuys—I believe we could all be very good friends. After all, opposits attract! I really do enjoy the debates that cover this very important subject. Please forgive any grammar or spelling errors—but take seriously my opinions. I do yours.
I believe in the all-time favorite saying, “People are responsible for their actions and should take full responsibility for them”. (I think that was a saying, wasn’t it?) Therefore, why blame the airlines—they are supposed to furnish a safe way to travel by air-not guarantee there won’t be a fanatic on board that wants to take the plane down! (They do now). Boarders are wide open because we have a beautiful lady in New York harbor (I think) that says “come on in”! We also have a bunch of citizens that scream, “My rights!, My rights, My rights!” and if the admin doesn’t hear them-they get a visit from JJ. Good Grief, Charlie Brown! How do we satisfy everyone!!
President Bush is the only pres that has allowed federal money to be spent on stem cell research. Period!A nice disingenuous statement that ignores the fact that the science didn’t exist before the Clinton presidency started, and that federal funding for stem cell research happened under the Clinton administration; he just didn’t have a policy to explicitly limit or support it. Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2005 04:57 PM
Mental Wimp—
I am a volunteer-not in the military-I’m a 61 year old grandmother with rhumatoid arthritis-they wouldn’t take me! However, I have never turned down a good cause. And no, I did not raise boys for the military—I raised two daughters and they have sons that will some day serve this nation.
Hmmm…
Still no reply from Aldous or a recruiter.
Hmmm…
I wonder what I should think about this.
I gave my name and e-mail. Still no reply. I was asked to supply information in exchange for the end of some ridiculous rhetoric. Perhaps silence is the end.
“Why do liberals/dems think it is the governments job to spend money on everything. If dems and republicans would do an audit on where the money that they do have is going and end some of these ridiculous handouts then we would have enough money to pay teachers, soldiers, and other important things that actually help our country out in the long run.”
well…dems are for a strong federal govt, that helps all of its citizens.
look, the republicans are the ones that have put us back into huge deficit, even using the social security surpluses and now that is a problem again.
but you are right, an audit would be good. personally..i think all bills up for passage in the congress (house or senate) should be scrubbed throroughly for pork, and all said pork removed.
i know that republicans are for a strong defense, but pushing more money into nuclear weapon development is the wrong way to go. the usa has more nuclear weapons than any other country, enough to take out most of the planet if need be…do we really need to make a light-beer version of an icbm?
instead, use some of those billions to help pay the medical costs of wounded soldiers, or up their payscale so that the vast majority of soldiers aren’t living on food stamps and way below the poverty line.
or how about supplying them with newer and better useful equipment? the average marine can’t really use a handy-dandy bunkerbuster nuke, but he sure could use some body armor!
as for paying for stemcell research…fine. let private research take place like it already is. but you would think that the gov’t would want to invest in making it’s citizens healthier, along with protecting them and their freedom.
money is gonna be spent, clearly as this republican administration has shown us they have unboundless spending ability…
i just wish they’d spend the money in the right places, instead of giving oil companies huge payouts, only to have said oil companies rape the us citizenry for profit.
but that’s just me.
Posted by: views at August 4, 2005 05:51 PMum…let me add a correction…by “unboundless” i meant “boundless”
way to go off on a rant and make a stupid mistake….sheesh.
Posted by: views at August 4, 2005 05:55 PMGuy,
i don’t have a yellow ribbon on my car why? am i a bad unpatriotic american?
NO! it does not make you bad or unpatriotic.
I was responding to Aldous’ post. He is always making these crazy post. I guess he just got the better of my bad mood yesterday.
I’m glad you send your friends care packages. I know from experiance that it helps the morale of not only those you send them to, but also their buddies. It lets them know that someone cares about them.
I would encourage anyone who has a freind or loved one in a war zone(or just over seas) to send care packages to them.
Thanks for caring about your friends.
Chi Chi
I held to mine for four years in the Air Force and would gladly do it again. Bring on the recruiters and end your untruthful postings.
I’m a retired Air Force MSgt and just want to say Thankyou for your service to our counrty.
Aldous,
Ronald Brown
ronb1046@sbcglobal.net
Ron,
Aldous has been posting the SAME old thing on other blogs and this one for a while now, it’s not worth getting wound up about.
I know Kevin, like I said above, he just got the better end of my already bad mood.
Lawnboy, I always enjoy following your debates — because you’re so damn good at it. I also can’t help but think that your pearls of wisdom are all too often bestowed on those who can’t and won’t appreciate them.
Dave, Yes! Transparent and accountable govt. I must be “another one” too.
Mental Wimp, I think your “kool aid” post was Spot On!
Rocky, excellent point.
Paulette:
“Boarders are wide open because we have a beautiful lady in New York harbor (I think) that says “come on in”!”
Yes, she was given to us by the French to mark both of our nations commitment to liberty and as a sign of friendship. France provided the statue, and fundraising in the US came up with the money for the pedestal which was later carved with the poem entitled “The New Colossus” which was written by the Jewish-American poet Emma Lazarus — who was inspired by the thought that it would always be a beacon to the entire world:
The New ColossusNot like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
�”Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”� cries she
With silent lips. �Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Reading this always reminds me of first time I went to visit the statue. I was with my grandparents who told me they both cried on the boat when they first saw it when emigrating to this country from Scotland.
I’m also thinking of how different a kind of sentiment the poem imparts from the article that started this thread…
“We also have a bunch of citizens that scream, “My rights!, My rights, My rights!”“
Yeah, that pesky Constitution started all the trouble.
But not to worry, this administration is well on it’s way to completely destroying it.
Adrienne— You don’t get it either. I do know the history of The Statue of Liberty—even tho you may think I don’t. I am an educated person, believe it or not. None of my ancestors viewed the Statue such as yours did—mine were already here. The constitution doesn’t have anything to do with my statement. “My rights” comes from those who have never contributed one thing to this country—they take, take, take. But you don’t worry—it will be in tact when this admin leaves office—probably in much better shape than in 2000.
Posted by: Paulette Fancher at August 4, 2005 06:57 PMLawnboy
That is certainly fair enough. It is acceptable to me.
Thanks for the response.
Paulette:
“I do know the history of The Statue of Liberty—even tho you may think I don’t.”
Oh. Well, you sounded kind of vague about it:
“we have a beautiful lady in New York harbor (I think) that says “come on in”!”
“None of my ancestors viewed the Statue such as yours did—mine were already here.”
That’s nice — half of mine were already here too. And the majority on both sides served in the military. Some of them died, and some of them were wounded while serving this country — and hard as you might find this to believe, most of them have been hardcore Democrats.
“”My rights” comes from those who have never contributed one thing to this country—they take, take, take.”
Could you be a bit more specific? Who exactly are “they” who are doing so much taking?
“But you don’t worry—it will be in tact when this admin leaves office—probably in much better shape than in 2000.”
If we want our Constitution to remain intact, we’ll need to do away with the unconstitutional provisions in the Patriot Act. And if we want our country to be in much better shape than it was in 2000, the Republican’s are going to have start acting a hell of a lot more fiscally responsible than they have been.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2005 07:52 PMJoseph Briggs,
Can’t you participate with out the vulgarity and dropping the F-bomb, and insulting everyone you disagree with?
Also, critique the message, not the messenger.
Joseph Briggs wrote: I’m angry but I’m civil.
Really ?
Posted by: d.a.n at August 5, 2005 12:24 AMOh yeah, ‘cause my “F-bomb” is so much more offensive than you’re blatant and relentless self-promotion. Which, by the way, is critiquing your self-promotion, not you, personally.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 5, 2005 12:30 AMStike a nerve?
No. Stooping to your level of vulgarity hurts only yourself.
I just don’t know how to say this nicely - but there is very little intelligent life on this blog. Wow. Maybe a test should be given before the right to vote. Annie
Posted by: Annie at August 5, 2005 12:56 AMAdrienne,
Thanks for the compliment. I’m always happy to see youjoin a debate, too.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 5, 2005 01:14 AMHmmmmm, rudeness appears to be the dominant factor in these posts - it is a pity for many of you do have strong arguments based on their own merits. My views are really quite simplistic - we were attacked on our soil and we responded in military fashion. We have a military for just that purpose > fighting the enemy and preferably on their soil. Only this is a cowardly enemy that hides behind the skirts of the very women they view as having less value than that of a goat. What truly astonishes me are the people that screech about human rights but make excuses for OBL and Saddam H.
I understand that appeasement is not an option and placing blame on anyone but the terrorists for their actions is ridiculous and solves nothing. I am thankful that we are approaching 4 years without another terrorist attack on our soil. I believe that in itself is evidence that the current administration is doing something right. As it stands we have lost less souls on the battlefield than we did on that fateful day. Please do understand it saddens me knowing of the young lives that are being lost but also I hold what I believe is the realistic view that these young people are doing their jobs, what they enlisted to do - protecting our citizens and our homeland. Ripping apart our leaders serves them no justice.
I find Rummy’s comments very entertaining (oh I know this will set off a tirade) and rife with sarcasm. I appreciate his dry humor.
Trish Hoffman (Air Force Veteran)
caplessbottle@yahoo.com
Joseph Briggs,
You’re only making yourself look worse. Not me.
So? Is that all you’ve got? I’m making myself look bad so… what? That makes all the junk you’ve posted somehow more valid? That would coincide with your MO: try to make the other guy look bad in the hope of making your position look more favorable. At least I actually have counter-arguments, laced with profanity, rudeness, and anger as they may be. You never counter-point; all you’ve got are red herrings.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 5, 2005 02:00 AMTrish Hoffman,
“I find Rummy’s comments very entertaining (oh I know this will set off a tirade) and rife with sarcasm. I appreciate his dry humor.”
His comments would be more appropriate if he was headlining at the MGM Grand.
This man is the head of the DOD, and, last time I checked there was no red brick wall behind him.
I, for one have disagreed with his stratagies from the time we left Afganistan, and the focus was no longer on bin Laden.
Where was the “shock and awe” in the shock and awe?
Oh, and those guys hiding behind those skirts are kicking our asses.
When can we assume that once we take an objective we will hold it so they won’t take it back?
Joseph Briggs,
You sound as though you’re coming unhinged. Get a grip, tell me exactly what you want to discuss, try to be civil, and perhaps I’ll discuss it with you. But, the way you’re going at it, it’s unlikely anyone will want to.
Oh, are you now trying to posture as if you’re actually willing to engage? That’s hilarious. Do I really need to pull out all of your useless comments? Maybe I should just suggest that, as proof, you should google them? You think I’m verging on unhinged when I’m just having fun. I am thoroughly enjoying the fact that I address everything you assert while you consistently try to deflect the matter to some issue you have with my character.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 5, 2005 02:30 AMJoseph and Dan,
No offence guy’s, but we seem to have a large influx of new writers at watchblog and I would hate to see them go away because of a flamefest.
BTW, I don’t care who started it.
Posted by: Rocky at August 5, 2005 02:35 AMIt is so sad for me personally to see this topic come down to totally non-sensical personal gripes. d.a.n.: This is Mr. Spock. You are entirely consistent and entirely illogical. Mr. Briggs is only guilty of a faux pas of using a form of a common verb as an adjective. Given his service to the country, we shall ignore that. But we cannot ignore the idiotically illogical thoughts that you spout forth, such as,
“Joseph Briggs, You’re only making yourself look worse. Not me.” really irritate us for not having any logical basis.
Can we all please go back to the original topic, that there is a civil war brewing within Islam.
And let us all help, all we can, to get them to do it right.
Hello, is there any intelligent life out there?
Or do we want to beat ourselves up more in unearned remorse and guilt? Wake up, America!
Oh, I know, Rocky, and no offense taken. I’ve just been thinking that David will do the right thing and delete all our useless posts (and probably ban me). Meanwhile, I’m going to call d.a.n on his crappy comments and enjoy my evening entertainment. As I said in the other thread; I’m not the bigger man. If d.a.n wants to poke back at me, I’m going to smack right back.
It’s too bad, too. I was really going to dig and and attack this article for its disingenuousness. This blatant prejudice that Islam is somehow steeped in violent fractiousness and the followup that Christianity is somehow not is quite bogus. It’s really amazing how cognitive dissonance can entrench itself so blindly. Ah well.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 5, 2005 02:59 AMWell, hey. Maybe there is hope for me. Thanks, Krishan. Let me get some sleep, and if I can still post tomorrow, I’ll try to dig up some support for my assertions. (Though, really, Christianity free of schism? Why do I even need to. ;))
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 5, 2005 03:03 AMKrishan Kumra,
I don’t see an all out war taking place in Saudi Arabia or Iran or…
We can’t assume that any “Democracy” in the Middle East will take the form of what we are used to seeing, if Democracy takes hold there at all.
BTW, we also can’t assume that we can spread Democracy at the end of a gun.
Posted by: Rocky at August 5, 2005 03:06 AMOoh, and this:
Or do we want to beat ourselves up more in unearned remorse and guilt?
Unearned? Related to my above point. Do you really think that the fractiousness in Islam completely frees us from blame? Sure we weren’t the colonial powers that created the borders of what we know to be the states of the modern Middle East but we certainly took great advantage of them. As unkind mentioned, there is some context to how the populations of the area feel toward western power over them. Most, if not all, of the problems we face in the Middle East have developed in the last 50 or so years and in no way go back to 600 CE.
And I don’t think any of these necessarily equates with a civil war within Islam. Sectarian conflict? Sure, but as you mentioned, it’s been there since Omar, Othman and Ali. And, really, where do the extremists fit in in this conflict except as opportunists feeding off of the above mentioned seething over colonialist-like influence.
Okay, now I’m going to sleep.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 5, 2005 03:26 AMJoseph Briggs:
There is no need for any rational thinker to bring in Christianity on the defensive here. None of the musclemen and their pilots on 9/11/01, or the perps behind the Madrid and London atrocoties were Christians. Christianity is not on trial here. Can we all please get that?
Posted by: Krishan Kumra at August 5, 2005 03:33 AMOk. I have Chi Chi’s Name and Email. Will any other Republican care to share their Names and Emails as well?
Chi Chi:
Your Name was added to a queue. Please be patient.
Posted by: Aldous at August 5, 2005 04:00 AMYes Tom, Tis true:
The Bible has not changed. It is still the foundational document of all of Christianity.
Posted by: tom at August 3, 2005 12:54 PM
It is now and will remain the greatest work of FICTION the world has ever seen. And don’t forget, How many interpritations you can buy. I am sure if you look hard enough you’ll find ones that you like. My personal favorite are the Mormans….They go around the world Prostelizing to the masses, helping aid you with menial household chores, performing baptisms on dead non-mormans, give me a break. What Gives?
Monica:
I agree with you I didn’t see much support from the Muslim Communities here or abroad, after 9/11. However, I must remind you of the fact that we also didn’t cry a lot over several recent tragedies:
Number 1 that comes to mind is the Holocaust, number 2 Would be the recent genocides in Africa, Pol Pot in Cambodia, The Bosnia-Herzegovina debaucle. And while we are at it, Let’s add the Dec 26 Tsunami, our President took almost a full day to decide to send aid, and it was a paltry sum when we did.* Note, The initial Figures quoted were ridicously low, however in the end it was SubStantially more.
“On 9/11 and 9/12 many of us were astounded by the deafening silence from the Muslim community both in the US and abroad….. They are not us! Since then a few isolated cases of Imans publicly condemning the terrorists have been heard, but very little, very late, and not anything like a unified front that would make non Muslims feel safe with Muslims.”
-Monica
Posted by: Monica at August 3, 2005 11:27 AM
As Always,
Wayne
You can agree or disagree with anyone you want to—that’s what makes this country far superior to others.
Free speech is not limited to US.
And what makes US far superior to others country is your arrogant mind. Only.
To military posters-
I think few Blue Column folks think much of OBL and Saddam. We think Bush’s strategy for this war has been idiotic and at times immoral, and his means of selling us on this war dishonest. We don’t oppose this war out of opposition to our country’s interests. Folks who think that should take a moment to think over the absurdity of that, and perhaps another one to read what we actually write.
We wanted the War on the Terrorists to be productive, to set them back. This war in Iraq has set us back instead, but we’re in the unfortunate position of having no choice but to finish it off.
We don’t blame the troops for the choice of this war, or the way their superiors in Washington have them fighting it. We don’t blame America for the Terrorists attacking us. We might say that our foreign policy in the past might have contributed to the situation, but nobody could have foreseen this as a consequence.
I don’t blame folks for being confused by our stance. It’s difficult to condemn the reason for going to war and the strategy of that war, and yet express hopes for victory and not get people confused. It’s best to see our position in terms of necessity. We don’t like how we got in this war, and how it’s been run, but we know losing it is not an option. We do not want to suffer the consequences of Iraq as a failed state.
We see Bush as having dug us into a hole. We want him to dig us back out of it, to redeem the error and make it to where we can once again focus on what’s left of the War on Terrorism. Our concern is that we’re going to be stuck, unable to extract ourselves from the situation, or worse, have to see ourselves pull out of another losing war.
Personally, I wish this War on Terrorism had been fought with better integrity, a oneness of intent and result on the part of our leaders. All too often, good intentions have been invoked to avoid criticism and judgment on policies, where the best course would have been to admit the mistakes and correct us. Bush has compounded his failure to be honest with us about getting us into this war with a failure to admit his mistakes, much less make up for them in a timely fashion.
We just wish we had more responsible, more competent people in charge.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2005 08:05 AMWayne
There are many versions of the original text of the Bible. I do not use anything but KJV and original Greek and Hebrew.
There is so much truth in the Bible. To call it fiction is to acknowledge that one needs to study the Bible to know what it says.
When speaking of Christianity, I was not refering to church or any organization. I was speaking of a belief structure.
Krishan, this is hilarious. Once again Republicans finally come around to what Democrats have been saying all along, and you treat is like some kind of revelation.
I see this happening with North Korea now, too. All of a sudden we’re engaged in bilateral negotiations with the North.
And don’t forget Iran. We’re now actively engaged in those negotiations along with Britain, Germany, and France. Just like Democrats said we should be.
Get ready for more shockers as Republicans take Democratic positions on China, Europe, and the UN.
My views are really quite simplistic - we were attacked on our soil and we responded in military fashion.
Trish, Iraq didn’t attack us.
this is a cowardly enemy that hides behind the skirts of the very women they view as having less value than that of a goat.
So it must really cheese you that Bush replaced a secular society in Iraq where women had equal rights, and replaced it with a fundamentalist Islamic regime that treats women as property.
Aldous:
Ok. I have Chi Chi’s Name and Email. Will any other Republican care to share their Names and Emails as well?
Several have already. The deal was to stop the posts if “one” gave you the info. Hold to your word. Stop the posts. We’re all fed up.
I’m a retired Air Force MSgt and just want to say Thankyou for your service to our counrty.Aldous,
Ronald Brown
ronb1046@sbcglobal.net
And thank you sir.
Trish Hoffman (Air Force Veteran) caplessbottle@yahoo.com
And thank you ma’am.
Getting the picture Aldous?
Wayne,
“It is now and will remain the greatest work of FICTION the world has ever seen.”
Many scientists and historians that have studied, more than myself (and probably you) have logicaly came to conclusions that the Bible cannot be discounted as a fact based historical document of the past based on other historical religious and non-religious documents that coincide with the Bible. I have read the “case against the case for Christ” by Scott Bidstrup and also “Review of Lee Strobel The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus” by Jeffery J. Lowder and I know about the $10,000 prize that the Skeptics Society has offered for proof, so I have dabbled in both sides of the issue. One thin they all have in common is that none are willing to accept “copyist, translational or editing errors” citing that you can “conceivably explain anything in it” that way. That is true but they tie people hands in the process of doing that.
Science has also been labeled as fiction much like religion but not quite to the extent. (http://www.optionality.net/mag/jul96c.html ,is one reference)
I’m sure there are others that have come up “proofs and “disproofs” of the bible and almost everything, surely the debate of religion will be around for many generations to come. There are to many things that the humand mind does not understand or can comprehend and I don’t think it ever will.
Basically it comes down to faith, I don’t undertand any more why you don’t have faith as you understand why I do. I can’t fully explain to your satisfaction why I have faith and visa-versa.
I hope you can appreciate my opinion as I do yours.
Regarding the Iraq war- I wonder how many who make comments about it being such a losing situation actually know anyone personally who was affected by Saddam Hussein, and have talked with them about their feelings?
I live in Germany (a US expat) and know 2 women (who dont know each other) who are Kurdish. When the war first started, the first said she was glad- because “finally now my people have a chance to be free”. She came from Kirkuk. The second is a Turkish-Kurdish national living here in Germany- and about 100 of her family members were among those gassed in the early 90’s. As she put it, for 30+ years Saddam was “voted” in by means of coercion, finally today there is a PM voted democratically. And while violence continues today, within the next 10 years it will be phenominally better off. She is very passionate that the US made a good tough decision that even her host country Germany wasn’t prepared to.
Krishan,
There is no need for any rational thinker to bring in Christianity on the defensive here.
It’s not offensive, it’s correlative.
The fact is that Islam has always been a fractious movement. […] the schism in Islam started in the ensuing succession struggle on his death. Since then, the schisms have continued to multiply to this day to the point where many Muslims refuse Islam to other Muslims!
This sounds to me like some rationalization of this Islamic Civil War idea. Now in order to understand the rationale, I, like ElliotBay, choose to compare and contrast this idea with Christianity. Given that both (if not all organized religions) have similar conflicts but the claim of a civil war is only being levied at Islam, I might, and do, conclude that the assertion is fallacious and biased.
Now to the main point of the article, which I read as “the struggle is not between the US and Islam, it is within Islam itself,” sounds like deflective apologia. Which you have diligently defended. This idea that Muslim leaders bear some blame for their lack of effort in taming the extremists in their ranks is faulty but you’ve tried to justify it by insinuating their tacit approval.
See there has been this bloodthirst for non-Muslims forever in Islam […]
Again, as if Christianity has never exhibited similar tendencies since Constantine. Certainly this wouldn’t excuse the behavior, if it were truly there, but I find the assertion disingenuous because, as has been pointed out, the same standard is not applied to other religions.
So we come back to the premise: Are we free of blame in the 9/11 attacks. I still say no. You let the scorpion ride on your back, don’t be surprised when it stings you and drowns you both. We invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and insurgencies develop to strike back, no surprise there, either. The biggest difference, as you have noted, is that this “insurgency” of low-tech stateless terrorists has expanded beyond simple theaters of war and struck various locales across the globe. But this has nothing to do with Islam except as opportunistic rhetoric.
Just like all the conflicts that have reflected poorly on Christianity have been dismissed as “only in the name of,” so, too, are these groups “only in the name of” Islam. Might the pawns think they are doing it for the glory of Allah? Sure. Might the Christian warriors who fought the pagan Vikings have thought they were doing it for the glory of Jehova? Sure, but the pawns were put