Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kiff

HC, we were supposed to be the good guys. That's why Abu Ghraib is freakish. It destroyed that illusion.

No, it didn;t, because it wasn't and isn't an illusion!! What they did does NOT reflect, overall, on America, it reflects on them! That's the truth that the media is trying, very hard, to deflect attention away from.

Americans don't get to decide whether or not their actions reflect on America. The only opinions that matter are those of the Iraqi people, and those aren't too good right now.

Is that actually true, at least based on this? What I've been hearing is that a lot of Iraqis are so used to Hussein's way of doing things that they don't quite see why this is such a big deal to Americans (Iraqis in the street, that is, as opposed to the leaders of the insurgents, who have made a much more in-depth study of our way of thinking).

[quote="TrollKing"]

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Liberals and the press keep trying to find some such evidence, but so far all they've come up with are things the military investigators themselves have found.

is it not the press' job to investigate as well? and would conservatives have not tried to find such evidence had something similar occurred under clinton?


TK

In some ways, that's the essence of my complaint. The press is not so much investigating as they are spinning. See my post upthread about questions they could have asked Bush during his press conference, and didn't.

As for Clinton, during his term it was mostly the right-wing who argued that the military was being badly treated by Clinton and his social experimenters.

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It is irrelevant to the discussion how good or bad a politician is with the press. I should really get a life

and then

Reagan was better at manipulating images and symbols than Bush will ever be. Maybe I should take up racketball?

If the discussion is about "the media and us" and many are alleging that there is "liberal" bias in media, and part of this so-called "liberal" bias is defacing the character of the president, then my comment that George W. Bush does a poor job of representing himself and his ideas to the media is very relevant.
You confirm this by stating in a later conversation that Reagan was a much better politician with the press "at manipulating images and symbols than Bush will ever be." I agree.

The skill of a President in manipulating the press is irrelevant to whether or not the press has a liberal bias. My comment on Reagan was referring to why he had less trouble with them, not what their bias was. Bias either exists or does not exist, regardless of how good a subject is at coping with it.

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Originally Posted by TrollKing

for any purposes we have here, "HopefulCynic68" is a real enough name.

I have no problems with your name Mr. King. Everybody knows no God-fearing person has the surname of Cynic. Only a Conservative would be so evasive about their identity. Care to tell us which shadowy secret government hideaway you are broadcasting from Mr. Cynic?

Do you want to debate the issue like an adult, or behave like a spoiled child? Your call.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

The only opinions that matter are those of the Iraqi people...

"I'm an Iraqi citizen and I want to thank president GWB from all my heart for the great service he's done to the Iraqi people by freeing us from one of the worst tyrants in history. This liberation didn't suit the enemies of humanity and freedom, thus we see them committing terrorist acts claiming to resist occupation by killing their own people, but that will not affect the Iraqis lust for freedom. Thanks again GWB."
Kamal-Adhamya, Baghdad.

"We lived our worst years under Saddam regime, a regime that many Arabs still believe in!We don't know why don't they leave us in peace, especially the Arab media that turns liberation into occupation and criminals into resistant. We, Iraqis, know the truth very well. The situation is much better now for the vast majority of Iraqis. Most of the people are government employees who used to get paid 4 or 6 thousand Iraqi dinars. Now the lowest salary is 100 thousand Iraqi Dinar. We feel free and we don't fear prisons and torture. The Arab media, as expected, made a huge fuss about the prisoners abuse in Abu-Gharib. Shame on them. Where were they when Saddam put explosives around a bunch of young men and blasted their bodies and they all saw that on TV? Where were they?"
Saman, Iraq.

Will Witchiepoo actually care what real Iraqis think?

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Here's a journalist that's launched thousands of directionless youngsters to accept low pay for a tough job. Carl Bernstein wrote the following Op-Ed in monday's ultra-Liberal, anti-American USA Today:

posted for discussion purposes only.

History lesson: GOP must stop BushMon May 24, 7:32 AM ET Add Op/Ed - USATODAY.com to My Yahoo!


By Carl Bernstein

The above clipped highly partisan rant is a good example of how the press tilts liberal. It's perfectly legitimate, as long as he doesn't try to claim that he he isn't making a partisan case.

Woodward and Bernstein are a good example of what's gone wrong with American news coverage in some ways. Highly liberal in outlook, they try to spin their moment of glory (Watergate) as a great moment when principle overcame politics. In fact, it was a contentious and highly partisan affair from start to finish, in which few people involved came off well.

But the press prefers to remember it otherwise.

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Today, the United States is confronted by another ill-considered war, conceived in ideological zeal and pursued with contempt for truth, disregard of history and an arrogant assertion of American power that has stunned and alienated much of the world, including traditional allies.

The allies would have been alienated anyway, since they aren't really our allies anymore. The fall of the Berlin Wall ended the Atlantic Alliance in all but name.

At a juncture in history when the United States needed a president to intelligently and forcefully lead a real international campaign against terrorism and its causes, Bush decided instead to unilaterally declare war on a totalitarian state that never represented a terrorist threat;

This claim needs some supporting evidence, beyond DNC talking points.

to claim exemption from international law regarding the treatment of prisoners;

International law is a null concept.

Instead of using America's moral authority to lead a great global cause, Bush squandered it.

No, he acted unilaterally, which was the only available choice. It's still the only available choice for the most part, since Western Europe doesn't see their self-interest as coinciding with ours. Self-interest governs international relations, not 'international law'.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Woodward and Bernstein are a good example of what's gone wrong with American news coverage in some ways. Highly liberal in outlook, they try to spin their moment of glory (Watergate) as a great moment when principle overcame politics. In fact, it was a contentious and highly partisan affair from start to finish, in which few people involved came off well.

But the press prefers to remember it otherwise.

Bernstein can speak for himself, but I don't think Woodward would write something like that, because he's too fond of keeping his sources happy so he can keep using them over and over.

BTW, Woodward was a registered Republican in 1972. FWIW.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Woodward and Bernstein are a good example of what's gone wrong with American news coverage in some ways. Highly liberal in outlook, they try to spin their moment of glory (Watergate) as a great moment when principle overcame politics. In fact, it was a contentious and highly partisan affair from start to finish, in which few people involved came off well.

But the press prefers to remember it otherwise.

Bernstein can speak for himself, but I don't think Woodward would write something like that, because he's too fond of keeping his sources happy so he can keep using them over and over.

BTW, Woodward was a registered Republican in 1972. FWIW.

That might be a fair case. Woodward has been accused of making up quotes, but nobody's offered any proof, either. Certainly he's had a successful career since then, anyway. As for party affiliation, it means less than it might now, and it meant still less then. The GOP of 1972 had little in common with the GOP of today, just as the Democrats of 1968 have almost nothing in common with the Democrats of today.

But I stand by my assessment of the difference between the way the press wants to remember Watergate, and the actuality.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Um. Chinese Embassy Bombing????
I was shocked by the amount of support the NATO intervention got in 1999.

But it no way prepared me for the gigantic propaganda machine that went into effect somewhere around February 2003.

Originally Posted by my dear Mr. Lamb

But now, wrt Iraq, on the other hand, we have a media that rarely if ever roots for the home team.

I wonder if there was much "rooting" for other than the home team a year ago on the occassion of the Not-War in Mesopotamia from the start of the bombing to the POTUS on the flight deck? Were there howls or even bleats at the attitude of the Washington Post toward this adventure 12 to 15 months ago? Did the battle rage at T4T upon the media coverage of the Not-War?

I was absent, so do advise. I recall the Not-War in Kosova. There was less discussion of the media coverage than the actual folly/wisdom of bombing in the "heart" of Europe and the military/political campaign of Mr. Clinton, Madame Albright, Gen. Clark et al. But there was less argument about the coverage of that adventure if I recall correctly.


A year ago in my local papers, on NBC, ABC, and CBS the Not-War in Iraq was shown with the Red, White and Blue on the set and in the Headlines? The media questioning is about a year too late. It may be that the fantasy of the "election year" divides drives the anger today... but is not Mr. Kerry saying he will not "bug out" and is not Mr. Bush now on bended knee with regard to the U.N.'s Algerian servant? The cousins of Buonaparte are not that far apart.

A Sign of the Times?

Judy's Turn To Cry
The New York Times prepares an "Editors' Note" about its prewar WMD reporting.

Ms. Judith Miller, former cheerleader may have her pom-poms clipped. Was she rooting? Will Mr. Walter Duranty (rooter for Uncle Joe and Progress's Home Team) be next?

Sources inside and close to the New York Times say that the newspaper is preparing an "Editors' Note" that will reassess its pre-Iraq War coverage, particularly its coverage of weapons of mass destruction. The note is said to address the reporting failures of Times staffers, including Judith Miller, and could be published as early as tomorrow (Wednesday, May 26)....

Why has the Times postponed its WMD reckoning for so long? It's absurd that during a year in which the media (BBC's Panorama, 60 Minutes, The New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, the Los Angeles Times, et al.) busied themselves coring the defectors' stories, the Times has continued to ignore the elephant in the room. This isn't to say the Times hasn't done good work since Miller was reassigned to stories where she can't do any damage. Take, for example, this Feb. 13, 2004, story by Times reporter Douglas Jehl (reprinted in slightly different form in the International Herald Tribune), which lays out the method of the defectors' deceptions and the countermeasures adopted by the CIA. Jehl's article was an excellent chance for the Times to acknowledge, "Hey, we were knuckleheads, just like the administration, but we're going to clean up our act, too" to regain its credibility. Instead, the article only feints at a self-critique and moves on.

WaPo, NYT, Dubya...the best and the brightest of our day... :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

In some ways, that's the essence of my complaint. The press is not so much investigating as they are spinning. See my post upthread about questions they could have asked Bush during his press conference, and didn't.

could you do me a favor and provide a link? i was raised by televisions and don't have the attention span to go a-hunting. :-)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

As for Clinton, during his term it was mostly the right-wing who argued that the military was being badly treated by Clinton and his social experimenters.

huh? ya lost me.

*rubs temple with index finger*


TK

The New York Times does a big fat mea culpa on its prewar coverage.

I see Virgil's already posted on this, too. Sorry for the duplication. :oops:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Originally Posted by TrollKing

for any purposes we have here, "HopefulCynic68" is a real enough name.

I have no problems with your name Mr. King. Everybody knows no God-fearing person has the surname of Cynic. Only a Conservative would be so evasive about their identity. Care to tell us which shadowy secret government hideaway you are broadcasting from Mr. Cynic?

Do you want to debate the issue like an adult, or behave like a spoiled child? Your call. I am a complete tool.

Only if you can define for me "liberal," "spoiled child,""adult," and why you are the debate captain here, Mr. Cynic.

Frankly, I believe that "liberal" and "conservative" are outdated, ridiculous terms, and that no "liberal" bias exists in a media that has plenty of outlets to accomodate both sides of the our tiny political spectrum.
I might buy Democrat and Republican - but I won't buy "liberal" and "conservative" because they don't mean anything. They are as fluid as the racial categories of "black" and "white."

Furthermore, Mr. Cumis, my issue with the Bush Administration's policies isn't "Saddam vs. Bush - who has the moral upper hand?"

It is about poor management and planning, deceptive comments, expense, strategy, and lack of leadership.
It also has to do with global strategy and how many nations you intend to retake and remake via force. How big is that commitment, how long will it last? Can you you trust a leadership that told you Saddam was one of the most dangerous leaders in the world, and then took over his country in 14 days. Is there really a WWII correlation here? If you persist in claiming so - that sounds like an insult to our Greatest Generation.

Here's another stake in the heart of your argument.
Mr. Bush's approval numbers are the lowest they've ever been. Is that because of the wicked Liberal media? The same liberal media that was reporting when his approval numbers were the highest last year? Sounds like we have a new addition to Godwin's Law here. When the Republicans are showing themselves for being the greedy, incompetent losers they are - go blame it on the specter of the so-called Liberal Media. That's the Rove/Fox news strategy. It must be yours.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

The New York Times does a big fat mea culpa on its prewar coverage.

The mea culpa only covers the NYT's deviation from the current liberal thinking on the Iraq War, specifically, how the NYT got "fooled" into reporting that WMD might exist in pre-war Iraq. (Since the current group think is that WMD did not exist and that Bush lied about WMD, it is important for the NYT to send those reports down the memory hole....or at least apologize).

The NYT admits that it reported in good faith, but that it should have been tougher, more skeptical, on these reports. So it is appropriate for the NYT to go and sin no more. (I suspect that the NYT will not extend the same penance to the Administration for its good faith judgments at the time...no, no, in that case the NYT will want heads to roll)>

The mea culpa is very narrow because it relates only to reports that were inconvenient in light of today's political climate. No mea culpa about reports of the quagmire in the troop advance caused by the sandstorm, nor the exaggerated projections of expected deaths, nor expected starvation, nor the faux looting scandal, or any of the other anti-administration reports that did not come to pass.

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Can you you trust a leadership that told you Saddam was one of the most dangerous leaders in the world, and then took over his country in 14 days.

That's a wierd thing to say, given that the administration publically anticipated that toppling the regime (as opposed to occupying Iraq afterwards) would be pretty easy. I mean, it's one of the big correct predictions of the Bush administration, and you cite it as an example of why the Bush administration can't be trusted.

Very strange, backwards logic, Amanda...

Don't you remember? There were a dozen war plans in existence for how to conquer Iraq, and the administration picked the one involving the least troops, arguing that it would be sufficient, and the regime would collapse quickly. It was a subject of public debate in 2002 and early 2003. The Army didn't hightail it full speed up to Baghdad, trailing a long and vulnerable supply line, because they thought the war would be hard.

No one now disputes that the Bush administration turned out to be correct that the regime would fall quickly, even when many people at the time predicted that conquering Baghdad would be like another Battle of Stalingrad.

Many argue (correctly, in my opinion) that more troops were required for the occupation, and that other details were done incorrectly (such as dismantling Iraq's army afterwards, instead of keeping it intact where we could keep an eye on it), but this is not what you said in your post.

Originally Posted by eric cumis

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Can you you trust a leadership that told you Saddam was one of the most dangerous leaders in the world, and then took over his country in 14 days.

That's a wierd thing to say, given that the administration publically anticipated that toppling the regime (as opposed to occupying Iraq afterwards) would be pretty easy. I mean, it's one of the big correct predictions of the Bush administration, and you cite it as an example of why the Bush administration can't be trusted.

Very strange, backwards logic, Amanda...

Don't you remember? There were a dozen war plans in existence for how to conquer Iraq, and the administration picked the one involving the least troops, arguing that it would be sufficient, and the regime would collapse quickly. It was a subject of public debate in 2002 and early 2003. The Army didn't hightail it full speed up to Baghdad, trailing a long and vulnerable supply line, because they thought the war would be hard.

No one now disputes that the Bush administration turned out to be correct that the regime would fall quickly, even when many people at the time predicted that conquering Baghdad would be like another Battle of Stalingrad.

Many argue (correctly, in my opinion) that more troops were required for the occupation, and that other details were done incorrectly (such as dismantling Iraq's army afterwards, instead of keeping it intact where we could keep an eye on it), but this is not what you said in your post.

You are completely missing my point. But that's ok. The point is that George W. Bush is a flipper and a flopper, who prefers to cut and run back to his ranch in Texas everytime there is a scandal, and lets other people accept responsibility for things that he, as president, is responsible for. He is a waffler of the worst double speak. A flip flopping, waffler who cuts and runs. Here's an example of double speak:

1) Saddam Hussein is one of the most dangerous men in the world
2) We can easily topple the old regime

Does that jive with you?

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

1) Saddam Hussein is one of the most dangerous men in the world
2) We can easily topple the old regime

Does that jive with you?

Situations involving great danger that is easily averted are commonplace in life. A faulty water heater which could explode and burn the house down may be repaired in a day, for example. A serial murderer may be apprehended by one man.

Since Saddam's regime killed roughly 70,000 of his own people per year, Iraq was attempting to buy nuclear weapon technology from North Korea as late as early 2003, and Iraq was a well-known supporter of international terrorist groups who, among other things provided refuge and a salary for the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing and frequently met with terrorist leaders, I don't find that rhetoric outlandish.

If you think that rhetoric is ridiculous, you must have had a low opinion of Bill Clinton, who used the exact same kind of rhetoric with respect to Saddam.

Hillary Clinton also.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

International law is a null concept.

Then I guess the Free Trade of the Americas Act signed in 2001 is null, as is 1994's North American Free Trade Agreement.
All Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States on faked student visas can rest at ease, knowing that international law is a null concept, and therefore all visa regimes imposed on by states, are optional frivolities.
The European Union better do something to deal with its pending crises, as all international law has become a null concept. How can they share one currency, or travel from state to state without passports? I don't know how they do it. They must be really adept at dealing with these kinds of situations.
Now that I think of it, Tibet's claims to sovereignty are bogus, as are the Palestinians to statehood. In fact, if all international law is a null concept, no recognized nation should really exist anymore. They may have pretty flags and songs, but since all international relationships - for example, rules against double taxation are out of date, then it's really up to the discretion of the authority to decide who pays what, because the entire court system has no need to exist.
Why would an ambassador even have to produce credentials at their embassy in a foreign country?How would a nation use the WTO to open up another nation's markets?
I don't know. It must be some sort of fairy tale being that all international law is a null concept.
And who decreed this? George W. Bush? Saddam Hussein?
No, the little man with no name on an Internet forum. Thanks for keeping us posted on the status of the world Kudos to you!

Originally Posted by eric cumis

long list of quotes from prominent DEMOCRATS

Yeah, that's nice. You still didn't read my post. I guess it must be true. Rednecks can't read. I know the Christian in you loves me Eric, but I am worried about what the conservative in you plans to do with a little old liberal like myself.

Here's a null concept for you. The invasion is over. The Bush Good vs. Saddam Evil analogies are spent. The issue is about who is competent enough to lead. I don't think Bush is.
The issue of this forum is "is the media liberally biased."
I don't believe so. I believe the media is beholden to the corporations that own most of it. If they lean one way or the other on some bone the elites in this country throw peasants like you or I to argue over - like abortion or gun control - it doesn't really make a difference.
I don't know what liberal means. When does liberal become radical? is it radical to like the environment and not want to see it destroyed? Is it radical to enjoy peace more than war? Is it radical to think negatively of killing innocent people and not come up with patronizing excuses like "they'll be better off"? Or is that liberal?
There are Christian "Conservatives" out there who enjoy being federally funded through their "faith based" charities, while there are "Conservative" Libertarians who don't think a dime shoudl be put into such nonsense.
What do I associate with the word "liberal" - easy going, open minded, normal, unencumbered by misconceptions.
There are some liberal/radical nuts out there. I have liberal arts educated friends who are slaves to their textbooks and professors. Who judge every sentence to see if it is clean and non-racist, sexist, offensive. To me -those aren't really liberals. They're just brainwahsed jerks. I feel bad that in a way they've become just like "conservatives."
Which brings us to..."Conservative" - uptight, rigid, no fun, etc.
A conservative might call someone a "spoiled child" and assert their moral superiority over others. These are generally people who favor harsh punishment. Catch them off guard and everybody really should be "bombed and/or killed" including child molestors, drug dealers, rapists, the French and their parents. In other words, conservatives are "the mean people that suck."
Limbaugh,O'Reilly, Hannity, the entire cast of Faux News - they all strike me as angry, obsessive people.
I personally don't trust conservatives because their forebears put this country through a communist witch hunt in the 1950s and 60s. If left unguarded, I'd believe that the children of John Birch would do it again, except this time against "liberals."
It's not so much about the issues - its about the character of their politics. Their civic nature.
I mentioned race before because I believe that is akin to this.
Throughout the early part of this century Dr. Eugene Plecker, from the Department of Vital Statistics in the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to categorize the people of that state into two categories - white and black. All Native Americans became black. All white people with a black great grandma became black. If Tiger Woods has a child with his Swedish bride, that child, according to Dr. Plecker - would be "black."
In 1948 Strom Thurmond ran on the Dixiecrat ticket as a proponent of segregation. Segregation rested upon that Black-White dynamic. There was no "mixed" school. In 2002, Sen. Trent Lott was excoriated after saying that things might have turned out better if Thurmond had had his way.
So there is a direct link between the "black-white" groupthink, the "communist-capitalist" groupthink, and now the "liberal-conservative" groupthink. As George W. Bush said "you are either with us or you are against us"
Spoken like a true conservative. Statements like that help me clear up who exactly the new "liberal" is. It's people who don't agree with George W. Bush. :?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kiff

HC, we were supposed to be the good guys. That's why Abu Ghraib is freakish. It destroyed that illusion.

No, it didn;t, because it wasn't and isn't an illusion!! What they did does NOT reflect, overall, on America, it reflects on them! That's the truth that the media is trying, very hard, to deflect attention away from.

Americans don't get to decide whether or not their actions reflect on America. The only opinions that matter are those of the Iraqi people, and those aren't too good right now.

Is that actually true?

We will find out soon enough.

Originally Posted by Amanda Wilcox'73

Yeah, that's nice. You still didn't read my post. I guess it must be true. Rednecks can't read. I know the Christian in you loves me Eric, but I am worried about what the conservative in you plans to do with a little old liberal like myself.

Chuckle!

While I don't harbor many ill feelings towards "rednecks", depending on the definition (didn't you just complain in another post that terms such as "liberal" were too ill-defined to use?), I doubt you would think to call me that if you knew me.

I was raised in one of the "bluest" cities in the North of our country, and currently reside in another of the "bluest" cities (even farther north). My parent's social circle was filled with PhD's from prestigious universities around the world who were frequent guests at our dinner table. While never exactly converting, I have been an active member of a Zen meditation community.

Amanda, people like you really need to get over their preconceptions about "conservatives". None of what you wrote above about them is particularly accurate or useful.

A conservative is someone who respects the wisdom of the past, and knows that some sad truths are universal and timeless, among which that periodically groups of crazy, evil men arise to attack us, and we must fight them and defend ourselves.

In Buddhist mythology, the Buddha in a previous life killed a man who was about to kill a hundred men.

Re: "redneck"; by resorting to insults, you have admitted that I have won the issue.

Originally Posted by eric cumis

Situations involving great danger that is easily averted are commonplace in life. A faulty water heater which could explode and burn the house down may be repaired in a day, for example. A serial murderer may be apprehended by one man.

You are ignoring detection. A serial murderer is dangerous precisely because he cannot be easily detected, not because once detected he is formidible.

Since Saddam's regime killed roughly 70,000 of his own people per year,

This shows that Saddam's regime was dangerous to the Iraqi people. It says nothing about his danger to us.

Iraq was attempting to buy nuclear weapon technology from North Korea

This makes Iraq about as threatening as China was in ca. 1960, when they were seeking nuclear weapons and were led by a man who makes Saddam look like a choirboy. I can't think of any horrible things that happened to us because of our failure to deal with that threat 40+ years ago.

and Iraq was a well-known supporters of international terrorist groups

July 2001 Article in Air Force magazine:

Iran. Remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Provided increasing support to numerous terror groups, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. It encourages Hezbollah and Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities against Israel.
Iraq. Continued to provide safe haven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, an Iranian terrorist group fighting against Tehran. Regime has not attempted an anti?Western attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait. (italics mine).
Syria. Still provides safe haven and support to several terrorist groups. The Syrian government allowed Hamas to open a new main office in Damascus in March, although the arrangement may be temporary while Hamas continues to seek permission to re-establish its headquarters in Jordan. Syria granted several terrorist groups basing privileges or
refuge in areas of Lebanon?s Bekaa Valley.

Iran and Syria were the primary supporters of Hezbollah, the group who killed more Americans (by far) than any other group (including al Qaeda) at the time of the article. Reagan took no action against them, instead choosing to withdraw from Lebanon, their base of operation. Today they have been inactive against us since the Khobar Towers attack in 1996.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This makes Iraq about as threatening as China was in ca. 1960, when they were seeking nuclear weapons and were led by a man who makes Saddam look like a choirboy.

In 1960, we did not consider the possiblity that terrorist groups could arise that would love to kill thousands of Americans without regard to any rational strategy, but solely to act out their religious fantasies.

After 9/11, we no longer can ignore that possibility.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

...they have been inactive yadda yadda

Just exactly what are you arguing? Are you arguing that terrorists will never use a WMD in an American city? Never is a long time. 1996 is recent history. It's going to be a long century.