Nothing new.
I am sitting here, watching President Bush attempt to justify the war in Iraq. Sad. Very sad. I can't sit idly by while he bobs and weaves to save his skin. Your aggressive move is a sham, sir. You can attempt to divert our attention with red herrings if you wish, Mr. Bush, but you do not make up for the lies upon which you stand.
Justifying the war by detailing all the things you've done since you invaded illegally is not a legitimate argument. You act like the defender of freedom, when you violate international law with your reckless violence.
Do not use the blood of the 9/11 victims to defend your misguided aims. "Your watch" has been wasted. You do not defend freedom. You defend the ideology of the rich and powerful. You defend yourself and your family. You do not defend me.
Don't get me wrong, this is not a partisan issue for me. All you "liberals" out there (Ms. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, and your ilk) that supported this mess from the beginning are equally to blame. Blood is on your hands.
This militarism has been engineered since the early '90s. There is a design to promote democracy through force. I'm not buying it. I'm not buying you, sir. You say, "If evil is not confronted, it rises to face us on another day." I rise to confront you, then, Mr. President. I despise your manipulation of the American people by leading them to believe that lack of support for your violent policies is a rejection of our troops. Shame on you. Shame on you.
Mr. Bush, you say, "We've made progress, but he have a lot more to do." I should say so.
I should say so.
35 comments:
This is not a typical post for me. I wrote this while watching the speech, and I simply let my emotions guide me.
While it is an accurate portrayal of how I feel, it is not a well-reasoned, thoughtful response. So, I'm going to leave it up a little longer, then I'll take it down.
A well-reasoned and thoughtful response? That's an awful lot to expect of ourselves at this point. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the speech. It said everything I needed to know that he would only give it in front of an audience that could be ordered on pain of court martial to sit quietly and not trouble our fearless leader with any pesky questions.
seemed well reasoned to me
Let the post stand. Righteous indignation, indeed.
And well said, Mrs. Tool. Very well said.
Keep it up so in 20 years you can review it along with the rejection of Reagan's challenge to communism, etc. It's interesting to note that roughly 20% of Americans thought the fight for freedom from England worth the effort. Ah, this is why you sit in a corner office @ a second-rate University talking of platitudes with no real measure of accomplishment necessary for your rantings. But, hey, it's America, and you do make me laugh.
Wow - an anonymous personal attack.
That really takes some cojones.
Oh wait a second. No it doesn't.
BL
Ironic, BL, that your "lack of cojones" personal attack is also anonymous. This blogger launches an ad hominem attack against my President as "evil", starting this militarism in the 90's, etc. All of this to delegitimize our efforts in Iraq. There's not enough room here to bore you all with the facts to refute this and to go into detail of how this effort is justified via violations of U.N. sanctions,etc. We wouldn't agree, anyway. But, if he can go personal w/vicious falsified slander; then I will stoop to his level w/ a much less harmful jab. If he gets his feelings hurt, get out of the Blog realm.
the truth is, i look to people like you for substance. i know i'm not the only one. i am at an enormous, obviously liberal, college campus where there's "no such thing" as truth. clearly it is a lot easier for people do be ignorant when they are in the majority. you don't find many democrats in my neighborhood with "well-reasoned and thoughtful" responses. they're not like you. but that's just another of the many examples (from both sides) of human immaturity and emotionalism, it doesn't mean what you're saying and where you're coming from aren't valid. i know that. but where does that bring us, me and my peers, the "future of our country?" the ones of us who are searching for substance? we can look to michael moore and our political science professors who have all the answers for everything and the ingredients for a peaceful planet. they say we are victims of a right wing agenda, but i haven't met anyone yet that doesn't have an agenda. i wouldn't trust anyone with the reigns. but it's truth that i want. when i sift past all our labels and our prejudices, things don't seem so threatening anymore. i have to be honest, i am really surprised at your views on some issues, but you don't know how much i want to know why you see things the way you do. so, i hope mrs. tool is wrong, and that a well-reasoned and thoughtful response isn't too much to expect. it isn't the norm, but there are some of us to whom it still means an awful lot.
Gee whiz, Mr. Anonymous:
While my comment may be anonymous, the reacher knows who I am and so also, no doubt, do some other readers of this blog who are paying attention.
Please realize as well, that Mr. Bush is not just your president.
He's mine also as he is the Reacher's president.
Blood is on his hands. As it is on the hands of all Americans and especially our elected representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
To Annie Schumm: this is a great place for reasoned commentary but if there are never any passionate outbursts, it can become mechanical, much like a computer program or a robot.
If our blood never gets boiling over the most important things, then what's the point of having blood coursing through our veins.
You know, the main reason I thought about taking this post down is that the contoversial, polarizing issues are the posts that seem to draw the high traffic and commentary. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, other than the fact that I would like to do more here than just provide a vehicle for incessant titting and tatting in our society. But, here we are; so, I guess I'll see it through.
Anon, it warms my cockles that I make you laugh. What is life without mirth? And you're right, I it is a second-rate university (after all, it's clearly not the bastion of higher thought like your alma mater), but it would be a mistake to argue by extension that my ideas are second-rate (I think that would be an ad hominem fallacy.). I'm not going to rehearse ALL the arguments against the war in Iraq, except to say this: Reagan's challenge to communism did not involve preemptive attacks, more than 20% of the colonists still considered themselves British (besides, I get that number changed after they won), and the violation of UN sanctions was clearly rhetorical, not material, since there were no WMDs (even though we were shown sattelite footage of "where there are"). Add to all this, the 1990s neo-con design, outlined in the Project for a New American Century, displays an ideology that is determined to spread democratic capitalism through force. 9/11 and UN violations just provided the necessary provocation for pulic support. Karl Rove and his minions raise red-state support by quoting Bibles and toting guns, when I'm quite certain few Roveans own guns or read Bibles. Oh, and by the way, my office is almost on the corner, but there's a breakroom that actually sits on the corner. Someday.
BL, thanks for covering me. Pretty intense for a registered Republican!
Annie, your comment is the one that grabs my heart and head. I think you represent the "silent majority" that are fed up with mindless polarization. Your authenic desire to transcend all that, gives me joy. You need to understand this about me: I am not a Democrat. I tend to lean democratic these days, because their positions square better with my views on the issues. But make no mistake about it, if Republicans John Danforth or John McCain were to run for president, I could see myself supporting them. They both seem to be genuinely interested in doing what is best for the country. I would vehemently opppose them on some issues, but I think I would respect them.
My change occurred because of grace. When I began to see God as primarily the source of love and extravagant favor, I saw less merit in a public religion that favored the powerful and the shrill forces that so quickly choose cultural and physical violence as their de facto response to evil.
You're right, there aren't many voices out there to follow. Everybody's selling something. So, what about you? To paraphrase Jim Wallis, "You are the one you've been waiting for." Quit looking for someone to follow and start leading. Be like Jesus and see where that takes you. And, let's keep talking.
By the way, I suspect there are more balanced people on your campus than you think. Maybe not, but if you listen closely and look hard, you can find them.
So...I guess I ain't taking this post down. Keep it coming.
Reacher,
I respectfully could not disagree w/you more. I too could state a litany of international evidence showing a resolute correlation b/w Iraq and 9/11. We all believe what we want to believe. The issue here is your personal attacks against a man you don't know from sic 'em. I respect your right to disagree w/ what you feel is a preimptive military strike and an unmerrited one. I,however, disagree w/you whole heartedly.
And I should apologize to all affiliates of your university, I can call it a second-teir, but I should not have typed so hastily and called it second-rate.
I stand by my rhetoric about your self-righteous rantings leading to what you feel are merited insults about a man's personal integrity. That is a fallacy common to the left. Keep it up, we'll be glad to have a few more Senate seats in '06. You speak so eloquently about grace and God's love and then dismiss yourself entirely w/your rants re: Bush's morality. Piss on the tens of thousands Saddam killed, eh'...let's not weigh that into the equation. I guess placidly watching injustice to others is eqitable w/grace. I need to brush up on my theology.
The fact is, there are two sides to the story and I could match you tit for tat w/studies to contradict you. The difference is I'm not on a roost spouting out my bile condeming those w/oposing views. Your "tolerance" rhetoric is empty and void.
"The issue here is your personal attacks against a man you don't know from sic 'em."
You keep referring to this, and I'm wondering where all these personal attacks are. Seems to me this post is about the war in Iraq, the lack of adequate justification for it, and the disconnect between the president's rhetoric and his policies.
"The difference is I'm not on a roost spouting out my bile condeming those w/oposing views."
This is demonstrably false.
Reacher quotes Bush "If evil is not confronted...." and goes on to say"I rise to confront you, then, Mr. President" the obvious implication being he is on his crusade to rid the world of evil; starting w/ G.W.
This shows again we all believe what we want to believe. You want to defend and believe Reacher, I am defending G.W., whom I believe is doing what he feels led to do justly.
So, you are mistaken w/ your "demonstrably false" accusation, and I stand by my condeming of Reaher for his lofty assumptions about foreign policy and impugning of Mr. Bush; a.k.a. "bile"
I guess your "litany of international evidence" didn't make it's way to the 9/11 Commission, many of whom were loyal Republicans.
I love how conservatives trot out the self-righteousness argument, when their commander-in-chief is questioned.
Here's the difference in worldviews: I support an approach to policymaking that assumes a certain humility and commitment to dialogue, designed to bring communities together, not establish hierarchies based on force and intimidation. The Bush administration repeatedly uses the atmosphere of terrorism to justify everything from military attacks to oil drilling to leaving no child behind.
Hear this: I do not object to all conservative ideas. I object to an approach to leadership that assumes it is imbued with divine sanction.
When liberals do it, I object to them too.
This why I orginally considered taking down the post. It was not intended as a comprehensive argument on the matter - more of a throwing open of the window and shouting "I'm madder than hell, and I'm not going to take it any more" kind of yawp. You are free to yawp back. You have. Now, I have to go get some of that second-tier work done.
Thanks for skirmish.
Boy, who needs a drink...
Reacher,
Okay, for those of you who are willing to look away from your ideologiacal diatribe....The 9/11 - Iraq connection did make the 9/11 Commission report. I refer you to "9/11 Commission Staff Statement # 15, Overview of the Enemy, p.3" and "9/11 Commission Staff Statement # 15, p.5" It didn't make the
"Daily Show" or Al Frankein, but it did make the 9/11 Commission Report. Dan Rather might have had time to mention it, but some pesky Guard Reserve story was occupying his time. Secondly, if you're willing to take off your blinders, go to PBS.org www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
This is hardly a conservitive bastion. And, I could go on and on....Again, I submit; you believe what you want to believe. Now, I'll leave you alone so you can get back to some of that second teir work
TIER. For the love of God, man, the word is TIER. Insults about other people's academic bona fides tend to be more effective if they're spelled correctly.
well, the sum of your argument has resulted to spelling. I'll make a note of that and I'm a better person for it.
Dude, did you READ the sources you sent me? There is a vague HINT of al Quaeda activity in Iraq and about 10 other countries in the mid-1990s, but absolutely no link to 9/11. Here is a direct quote from Commission Staff Statement #15:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
I don't if it could be stated more plainly.
As for your source in the PBS interview, when pressed to determine if the terrorists training there were al Quaeda, he says,
"Nobody came and told us, 'This is Al Qaeda people,' but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization."
But here's the kicker--a note from the editor:
"A year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein."
Granted, questionable motives don't make your argument illegitimate; but it does prevent you from extending the claims you are making.
You have no evidence. Show me some, and we can move forward; but claiming it is all buried by liberal media bias is just sad.
You're right, Sadaam was not flying those airliners. You can accuse me of a leap of faith since "there was no direct link", but I can and will turn around and accuse you of a leap of faith to assume that those training camps were teaching knot tying to Boyscouts, or for that matter, that no terrorist involved in 9/11 were not trained there. Look, we're in a pissing match now. You're not going to give Bush any credibility until if and when Sadaam is shown flying those planes, and then it might be his twin. So, we have accomplished nothing here as is the case w/the public discourse in America now. You think I am inherantly an idiot to put my faith in a man who stumbles pronouncing "nuclear", I cannot convince you otherwise. So, I acquiesce in lieu of tending to chores more pertinent to my well-being.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you. We are to declare an impasse and go our separate ways, because we choose to see the world differently? I don't accept that kind of nihilism. I still believe that there is a role for discourse and evidence. The problem is our inflammatory media culture has taught us to put our politics before our relationships. If you are someone I know, I would recommend that we have coffee and talk about it. If that doesn't solve it, we could arm wrestle.
I don't think you are an idiot, but I do think you have committed yourself to an ideology that you then seek evidence to corroborate. Doesn't make you unique. Folks on all sides are doing the same. I've done it, and I don't like it.
But when the president commits a nation and the lives of thousands of people to a unilateral course of military action, and justifies it on claims that repeatedly prove to be false, or, at least, suspiciously motivated, we need to ask questions. Until the burden of proof is met, and genuine efforts are made to behave as a member of an international community, I can't support the president in this war.
E-mail me, Anon, if you want to continue.
A thought crushed my mind a few days ago...
The United States of America is only a little over 200 years old. 200 years old!
Yes, this directly relates to this post.
Draw your own conclusions.
A man of too many words, I need practice at being short and sweet and just sitting back and listening.
Brett,
Wow, this is better than Sunday afternoon wraslin' on the television.
I do have a question for you. It centers around the theme of one of both of our favorite movies, "The Mission". We've talked often and we both know that we see politics from a different perspective. I'd definitely be Robert DeNiro's character in "The Mission". I'm making weapons to defend the defenseless and kill the aggressors. You, I believe, from reading one of your postings (I've included the pasted section below), see the world more as Jeremy Iron's character:
"Here's the difference in worldviews: I support an approach to policymaking that assumes a certain humility and commitment to dialogue, designed to bring communities together, not establish hierarchies based on force and intimidation. The Bush administration repeatedly uses the atmosphere of terrorism to justify everything from military attacks to oil drilling to leaving no child behind..."
So, I ask you, not disrespectfully, but honestly, "Do you think that people such as Al-Qaeda really have an interest in dialogue"? Because I feel that is pretty naive. And, a follow-up, how close to home do you let the aggressor's violence get before you strike back yourself?
Just wondering.
Jim D.
P.S. Remember the end to the movie... the pacifist gets annihilated
Reacher,
I don't believe in nihilism either, based upon our impass. And I try my darndest not to look for information to corroborate my world view. But, I, and others who are honest, will admit to dismissing evidence to the contrary as poppycock. Especially in today's world of airbrushing and digital manipulation, poll driven news, etc. You're right; our inflammatory media culture has taught us to cease meaningful dialog.
I wish I lived close enough to you that I could arm wrestle you, I lost my last good match in high school and I'm seeking redemption.
I'm going to sit back on this one, not out of nihilism..but out of respect for time(In other words, I don't want to get my ass fired).
Hey, Jim. Good analogy to draw the differences. Don't forget DeNiro's character was killed too! The movie does a nice job of exploring two approaches by setting them in sharp contrast. It is also designed around an attack against faith practices and spiritual authority.
However, I have no problem with justifiable force to protect the innocent. If a group of young men attack my daughters, I will stop them through violence. If I have evidence that they are planning to attack my daughters, I will call the police, or my neighbors to help me stop them. If no one comes to my aid, I'll stop them myself. If my daughters were attacked by someone who was vaguely related to the group of young men, and another teenager, who has an axe to grind, tells me they probably did it, I am not going to go burn down their houses with their families inside. Crude analogy, but the point to me is that a worldview that is bent on vengeance will stop at nothing to see blood shed. What do we become when our insatiable appetite for blood drives us all over the world? Safe? Maybe. Paranoid, violent, mean? Definitely.
Your question of "how close to home" do we let the violence get, is balanced by the question, "How far from home and from verifiable threat will we allow our violence to extend?" A worldview that privileges mercy may err on the side of not defending enough, as it attempts to see love triumph. A worldview that privileges aggression will err on the side of taking violence to the extreme of domination.
As for dialogue and al-Qaeda, I don't think they are probably capable of it, no, but there are a great number of other countries who might have been brought together as a meaningful coalition, had not the US slapped down an "our way or the highway" approach. All the signs are that the Bush administration didn't want the support of the UN. That's where the dialogue needed to grow.
My take is that US wartime evangelicalism, as shaped by this administration, has adopted an aggressive militarism that is nowhere near the teachings or life of Christ. You can only use that "clearing the temple" scene so many times before you wear a hole in your bible.
Goodness, there's more to say. Gotta go. Thanks for dropping in, Jim.
Brett,
I'm taking just a few moments here @ work to read your response. I appreciate the genuineness of your response.
A thought occurred to me while thinking it over: You and I, and for that matter, both sides of this war, could debate for time and eternity whether the Bush Admin. took adequate steps to procure a more unified front @ the U.N., etc. You say "no", I say greedy ulterior motives kept a few countries w/veto power from authorizing U.S. use of force in protecting its sovereignty...and on and on the battle goes. And so, we never get to the more important issues of growing in grace and in our Christ-likeness because we're beating the hell out of our opponnents, "in the name of Jesus and for His Glory"
So, the question of the hour is...can we disagree on such a monumental issue and still walk side by side to further God's Kingdom? Or, do we need to resolve first whether Jesus would be a SUV driving, Aspen skiing, 2nd Ammendment loving, personal responsibility practicing GOP vs. a Hybrid driving, GreenPeace supporting, Brady Bill advocate, "all for one", Democrat?
I hope it's the former. I think Satan loves the distraction of politics and the divisiveness it fosters.
This is an incomplete thought...I hope it makes coherent sense.
Jim D.
Did you notice Mr. Anonymous talked about training camps?
The terrorist training camps were in Afghanistan. They weren't in Iraq.
It's almost enough to make your head spin.
Crazy.
BL
BL,
You're intellect is enough to make your head spin. The camps I speak of, Salman Pak, are in Iraq. Pay attention and put down the pipe.
So Mr. Anonymous, if your argument is hard for me to follow, then I must be smoking something?
Please keep reading the posts on this blog. Some of the discussions of grace could be useful for you.
Jim,
Of course we can set aside our differences for the sake of relationship. Maybe the answer is that such people should recognize who they are in relation to the other, focus on the common ground they share, and let go of the intractables...for the time being. Let grace grow the common ground.
Maybe, if they learn to care enough about each other and listen closely to each other, they might start to hear the arguments differently. I hate that our current political/cultural environment has brought an end to the rowdy conversation where all are friends in the end.
You're my friend, Jimmy. Come on, give us a kiss, now. I ain't gonna marry you, though.
There's too much sexy in here. I'm going home now.
I'm afraid I'm not hip to the insider lingo of kissin' and marrying. But, the thought of razor burn from you kinda' makes my skin crawl. I'll settle for a firm handshake and something manly like emminating noises from an orifice of choice.
Hey Reacher,
This is Malcolm. Just got back from Iraq - was there for a year as a medic in an infantry unit. Glad as hell to be back.
Just wanted to say hi and let you know from a soldiers standpoint (and from someone who's been in seminary and served for years in ministry) that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. I wish we could have gone in and gotten out as quick as we did in the Gulf War but that's not going to happen right now.
I don't want to bitch and moan about whether being there now is right or wrong because from a soldier's standpoint, we just want to do what we're trained to do - conduct military operations.
If our country wants to rebuild Iraq, let someone else do it. Let our military do what we're trained to do and then let us come home to prepare for the next conflict or national emergency.
Anywho, just glad to be home and wish all of our guys could be home as well. But we're soldiers and that's what we do. So support the men and women in the trenches and keep up the dialogue of why we should or shouldn't be there.
Peace and Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Glad you're back, my brother. Happy to hear that you are safe and of sound mind.
Go to my profile and email me. Let's get back in touch. I want to hear your stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Erushlimbaugh%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Ftoday%2Eguest%2Ehtml
Do y'all need any more rope to hang yourself? Cuz' there's plenty more where this came from. History will not judge you kindly.
Post a Comment