Is it me...

[chm2023]

This election promises to reach a high water mark in terms of just how stupid the politicians think we are. On the plus side, there is actual stupidity on both sides:

If Bush wants to run images of 9/11 and spec 9/11 victims, what's the problem? The survivors of 9/11 do not own this tragedy. The Dems think we are morons!

Is the theory that if you say it often enough, it must be true? Bush continues to refer to the war in Iraq as part of "the war on terror". Bull****. The Republicans think we are idiots!

And both sides are stuck in the 80's with their campaign ads--what hookum, if I see another skipping/running/laughing child in soft focus I will toss my cookies! Good grief, is a complete lack of creativity a prerequisite for these campaign jobs????

Thank you, I feel better now.

[keithbenjamin]

Is the theory that if you say it often enough, it must be true? Bush continues to refer to the war in Iraq as part of "the war on terror". Bull****.

Oh, so the terrorist bombs were set off in Madrid for Spain's support of US action in Iraq... because there are no ties between Iraq and terrorism.

[Darris Chambless]

It's an election year. Need I say more? :D

The commercials target those that typically know little or nothing about the actual issues and are based on a 6th grade intellect (as most commercials are) Do they think we're stupid? They're hoping we are just enough to be swayed by the propoganda.

Like I said, it's an election year. Sorry.

Darris C.

[chm2023]

Iraq may now be a terrorist threat in the sense it is a rallying point for radical Islamists (note: Spain arrested 4 suspects, all from Morrocco--look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls, whole different continent!) Prior to the war, Iraq was not a terrorist threat--but hey if you can't win the war you're in, start another war you can win!!! You're Arab, you're a despot,we don't like you, we've been attacked by Arabs: close enough, bombs away!!! And don't give me that " Isn't Iraq better off today?" Are we so naive that we think this is the end game in Iraq--let's pose that question a couple of years from now. My money says a civil war is at least a 50% likelihood, so let's keep the corks in the Crystal.

While we've been busy nation building in Iraq, Osama walks around a free man--2 1/2 years, and please spare me how hard this is, we elected to concentrate our forces on Iraq to the detriment of the effort to capture the real villian. And don't get me started on playing patty-cake with Pakistan, the Wal-Mart of nuclear weapons--how can we be so myopic? Is there no-one Bush/Cheney won't go to bed with?

[chm2023]

I know it's an election year, Lord how can you avoid it!! I just think it keeps getting worse and worse, or am I getting crankier and crankier as I get older???

[keithbenjamin]

(note: Spain arrested 4 suspects, all from Morrocco--look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls, whole different continent!)

Since when did al-Qaeda begin to exist in any one particular nation or continent!?

Prior to the war, Iraq was not a terrorist threat--but hey if you can't win the war you're in, start another war you can win!!! You're Arab, you're a despot,we don't like you, we've been attacked by Arabs: close enough, bombs away!!!

Umm, yeaaah. That's why Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy and countless other dems all touted the dangers of Saddam, his WMD, and links to terrorism (when it was convenient for them), because it wasn't a theat.

And don't give me that " Isn't Iraq better off today?" Are we so naive that we think this is the end game in Iraq--let's pose that question a couple of years from now. My money says a civil war is at least a 50% likelihood, so let's keep the corks in the Crystal.

You may think its carp, but I'd be willing to bet the Iraqi's would rather take their shot at freedom.

While we've been busy nation building in Iraq, Osama walks around a free man--2 1/2 years, and please spare me how hard this is, we elected to concentrate our forces on Iraq to the detriment of the effort to capture the real villian.

Right. The US military is built to fight wars on no less than 2 major fronts, yet the military and intelligence agencies of the most powerful nation in the world are somehow unable to fight a war in Iraq and chase a guy hiding in a cave at the same time? We can't possibly concentrate on both? Give me a break.

And don't get me started on playing patty-cake with Pakistan, the Wal-Mart of nuclear weapons--how can we be so myopic? Is there no-one Bush/Cheney won't go to bed with?

Interesting how there at this moment news reports of the possibility of the Pakastanis surrounding Bin Laden's #2.

I think your seething hatred of Bush may be clouding your logic. I know you're capable of better, chm. I've read it.

[Darris Chambless]

While I would like to respond to your post to kieth I will refrain since we've been over all that ad nauseum and you still don't get it and never will and that's okay...just as long as there are more people like me who do ;)

The election wars are getting worse and worse I'm afraid and will continue to get that way. The more restrictions you put on elections (CFR) the worse these campaigns will become primarily because the candidate will have little choice since it would take too much time to explain all the issues. It's easier, quicker and more cost effective to get on TV and call the other guy a "poopy head," show frolicking children being desimated by a nuclear explosion or saying something like "You shouldn't vote for my oponent because he's an idiot."

It has gotten worse and will continue to get worse so be expecting it. Base your choices on issues and ideology and leave the stupidity for those willing to buy into it. That's my advice since we can't escape it in an election year.

Take care,

Darris C.

[chm2023]

Oh you sweet talker you!! And really I don't have a seething hatred of Bush--I am just so weary of his ham-fisted approach to foreign policy. (Interesting article I read somewhere, can't remember where, talks about gender gap--men heavily favor Bush, women heavily favor Kerry. Their theory is that women are all about nuance and Bush doesn't know from nuance, all black and white. ) If you want to read something really sobering about terrorism, pick up a copy of this month's Vanity Fair--there is an article about the French brouhaha re girls wearing headscarves to schools; the article goes way beyond this--France is now 10% Islamic, birthrate of Islamites about twice that of native French, do the math as they say. It's very interesting to see the clash of the French government and culture (arguably the most secular on earth) with a highly idealogical culture/religion. The women lead particularly grim lives, some of them living within 20 miles of Paris and never been there, young girls taken on "vacation" to various Arab countries, never to return and forced to marry the highest bidder. The question that comes to mind is, will the Islamites become French, or will France become Islam-lite. (The headscarf controversy was resolved with the govt saying no headscarves, no large crosses, no religious symbols in schools. I think this is going too far, even though I am a real separation of church/state gal, but you have to give the French their due, they keep to their guns.)

[Darris Chambless]

"I think this is going too far, even though I am a real separation of church/state gal, but you have to give the French their due, they keep to their guns.)"

They sure do...just as long as there is a white flag tied to the end of them and unconditional surrend is envolved. :D

Sorry I couldn't resist. :D

Darris C.

[keithbenjamin]

This is precisely why terrorism has to be destroyed. Not even the surrendering French are immune. Terrorism knows no boundaries, morals, or rules. It cannot be appeased or negotiated with. It cannot be treated as a law enforcement issue. The guy nabbed for the '96 WTC bombing got something like 260 yrs... look where that got us.

[chm2023]

Terrorism certainly has to be destroyed, but it's not so easy. The French Islamite example: well what do you do? Do you force people to reject their (IMO) repugant cultural mores? Is this not a sure-fire way of fanning the flames as it were? I don't pretend to have the answer, I just think our policy to date has been "Aim, Fire, Ready"; this is a very complex issue, terrorists aren't one day happy go lucky regular folks, who the next day wake up and decide to be suicide bombers. They are formed by their environment and it is my belief that we ignore this fundamental fact and the root causes of terrorism at our peril. Have you heard Bush/Cheney/Rumfield even once talk about this?

I know nobody likes to hear this, and I know I will rile up all you chest-beaters, but we better figure out a way to make nice with Islam. Our policy to date reinforces the propaganda that the most radical elements spread about us. How is this a good idea? As someone smarter than me said "Iraq is the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda ever had." I suspect you would find a lot of citizens of Madrid fervertly in agreement with me. (Heads up, Poland will be the next ally to bail.)

[karen]

chm2023 said:
--France is now 10% Islamic, birthrate of Islamites about twice that of native French,

I had heard somewhere it was actually a higher percentage. I can't remember where and do admit to the fact that it may have been my favorite inflammatory afternoon talk show radio hosts. The theory was that was why France was so dead set against getting involved in the war (previous chicken-sh*t behaviour aside;) )
I agree with Darris (imagine that!) that the commercials are aimed at people way less informed than we all are. We are all smart enough to know each side has their skeletons and idiot moments and are not likely to be swayed by very expensive mud slinging. Can't wait to see what each side drags up the last few months before election!

[keithbenjamin]

CHM,

...and Hitler probably had a bad childhood. Should we have tried harder to play nice with him?

How much do you have to know about Islamic fundamentals, how many people do they have to kill, to realize that they are willing to stop at nothing, cannot be appeased, negotiated with, or played nice with? They're not adolecents crying out for attention. They're hell-bent on destroying Jews and Americans (the Great Satan). Do you think, if we're nice to them, they'll just wake up one morning say, "Oh ok, we were wrong. You guys aren't really Satan, your just a nice bunch of guilty white folks. I can't believe we were ever hell-bent on destroying you."

Spain did a great disservice to the world in giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted. Poland and maybe even GB could follow. But, we're the big kid on the block and must not fall from this challenge, unless we wish to be ruled by terror.

[shanbaum]

chm2023 said:

If Bush wants to run images of 9/11 and spec 9/11 victims, what's the problem? The survivors of 9/11 do not own this tragedy. The Dems think we are morons!

The Dems think we're morons?

On the contrary, this is a standard gambit for these guys: sell your weaknesses as strengths.

I am impressed by the sheer temerity of the administration - they were nothing less than asleep at the wheel on 9/11 (the answer to everything on 9/10 having been tax cuts, missile defense, and faith-based everything else) and yet, they have portrayed themselves as somehow successfully managing things in the aftermath. Bush can't even quite grasp with what we're at war; he's set out to "rid the world of evil-doers". Not on my nickel, Bubba.

War on Terror? Can you imagine FDR seeking a declaration of war against air power and pilots in the aftermath of 12/7?

"Terror" is a tactic, and "terrorists" are practitioners of that tactic.

What attacked us was a group of religious fanatics - in fact, a specific group of religious fanatics. So George, being a little short on "the vision thing", declares war on Evil. Great idea. Good way to stay on point. Let's seek our objective by first of all, mis-naming it.

I am particularly amused by this comment: "Oh, so the terrorist bombs were set off in Madrid for Spain's support of US action in Iraq... because there are no ties between Iraq and terrorism."

No, there were apparently no demonstrable ones, at least, not until we actually invaded.

But there clearly are now. See how this works? Do you know what "counter-productive" means? It describes the results you frequently get when you put a really dumb guy in charge.

There are two books that everyone who wants to know something substantial, or who thinks he knows anything, about George Bush, should read: The Right Man by David Frum, and Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill. The former is written by a guy who must have taken some kind of Bush-bonding drug, and the latter by a someone you'd have to call a critic. A Republican, but a critic (pay attention to those!)

Amazingly, they say the same thing.

[Darris Chambless]

"Terror" is a tactic, and "terrorists" are practitioners of that tactic."

REALLY? Wow! I had no idea...That's...that's uncanny. I knew I could count on you Robert. Mind like a steal trap.

Oh and by the way Captain Obviou...er...Robert does this mean that construction is actually being done by (drum roll) construction workers? :D

"There are two books that everyone who wants to know something substantial, or who thinks he knows anything, about George Bush, should read: The Right Man by David Frum, and Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill. The former is written by a guy who must have taken some kind of Bush-bonding drug, and the latter by a someone you'd have to call a critic. A Republican, but a critic (pay attention to those!)"

Hmmm. Well I read three books by Ann Coulter, one by Bernard Goldberg, one by Max Lucado and another by Ravi Zacharias and while none of them said the same thing they were very good books with some good information in them. "Dereliction Of Duty" was intresting because this guy worked for Clinton but was a critic (pay attention to those!) and "Useful Idiots" was a must read for anyone that thinks they know much about...well, anything.

I don't mean to poke fun...Yes I do, but it's meant in fun. This subject matter is just so last week. And we "chest-beater" think you "chest-beaters" are just the funniest lot. We watch...and then we laugh :D More fun than a barrel of monkeys I can tell you.

Anyway, keep up the good work and keep us entertained; we love ya for it.

Darris C.

[keithbenjamin]

What attacked us was a group of religious fanatics - in fact, a specific group of religious fanatics. So George, being a little short on "the vision thing", declares war on Evil. Great idea. Good way to stay on point. Let's seek our objective by first of all, mis-naming it.

Oh I see, so Islamic fundamentalists are really Good. You folks have to wake up are realize that evil does exist. It's not just some religious fantasy. Ever hear of Hitler? Stalin?

I am particularly amused by this comment: "Oh, so the terrorist bombs were set off in Madrid for Spain's support of US action in Iraq... because there are no ties between Iraq and terrorism.

No, there were apparently no demonstrable ones, at least, not until we actually invaded.

But there clearly are now. See how this works? Do you know what "counter-productive" means? It describes the results you frequently get when you put a really dumb guy in charge.
"

Do we really need to pull out all the quotes from your liberal pals stating that there was a threat. That every intelligence agency in the world, including the French, Germans, and Russians thought Saddam had WMD. Heck, even Madeline Albright admited it earlier this week. Doesn't anyone remember the terrorist training facilities in Iraq, the passenger plane hulls? The Taliban-run Ansar al-Islam? Saddam's financial support for Hamas and Abu Nidal.

"The really dumb guys" are the ones trying to pretend like they never thought there was a serious threat in Iraq because it would benefit the Republican in office instead of themselves, putting their own re-election and politics over national security.

Counter-productive? Hardly. I'm sure Al-Qaeda planned all along to attack the US on 9/11 and be satisfied with that. Sure, Iraq is stirring up a hornets nest... actually acting more like a roach motel. The terrorists check in, but they don't check out.

[shanbaum]

Gosh, if I had known that this was a rope-a-dope strategy - invade Iraq to turn it into a terrorist magnet, so we'd just a-whomp an' a-stomp 'em all in one place - well, heck. Why didden ya say so?

The after-the-fact apologistics do not change the facts: there was no significant threat, and it is simply not true that "every intelligence agency in the world, including the French, Germans, and Russians thought Saddam had WMD," at least, not if you're talking about last year. ALL of these believed that the problem could be handled without invading. Now, they had a different understanding of "the problem" than the Bushmen, who thought, Saddam is Evil, and we're at war with Evil, therefore, they're the enemy; it's right to invade.

It's clear that you support the guys you should; they also see no distinction between Hamas (who have never attacked America) and al-Qaeda (who, uh, have). They also probably think that the Taliban was active in Iraq. What the hell, they're all Evil; they're all terrorists. They would probably connect the dots exactly as you did: "you think it's stupid to declare war on Evil - why, hell, you never hear of Hitler? Stalin?"

Brilliant.

Evil though he was, we declared war on Germany in WWII, not on Evil. And Evil though he was, we never declared war on Stalin, nor on the Soviet Union (in fact, you will not recall, we were allies in the Big One... hmm... Evil against Evil) - and, why, look what happened! What lesson might one learn from the rise and fall of that Evil Empire?

And lest you forget to ask: yes, I believe the world was in fact a more secure place prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Safer, 13 months ago. Evidence? Almost 600 dead Americans, and God-knows-how-many dead Iraqis (astoundingly, we're not counting). Oh, and a couple of hundred dead Spaniards (think "lack of focus").

It was also a more secure place prior to the election of George W. Bush.

He may not have looked as good in a bomber jacket, but I like to think that Gore would have had more sense than to declare war on Evil, for God's sake.

Certainly not for God's sake.

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:

Hmmm. Well I read three books by Ann Coulter, one by Bernard Goldberg, one by Max Lucado and another by Ravi Zacharias and while none of them said the same thing they were very good books with some good information in them.

THREE BOOKS BY ANN COULTER???. What were you thinking??

Quick, somebody call 911!!! This man is in immediate need of emergency intellectual therapy!!!

Hang in there, big guy, help is on the way...

[BobV]

We have 600 dead soldiers in Iraq...but no more dead civilians in the United States from terror attacks. I think the administration knows what it is doing.

600 dead in one year, and a few of those were careless road accidents. 3000 dead in 4 hours and no more twin towers.

Now Shanbaum, what were trying to tell me???

Bob V.

[shanbaum]

Assuming that your question was, "what were you trying to tell me"...

The fact that there have been no attacks on this country since 9/11 is a combination of a few things:

1. Al-Qaeda works on a long timetable, judging from the intervals between the first WTC attack, the Cole bombing, and the second WTC attack;

2. We have stopped merely going through the motions of providing airline security (in the absence of which, additional airplane-as-weapon attacks might have been attempted, though I think that approach is not likely to ever succeed again);

3. Sheer dumb luck.

Our country's ports are still essentially wide open - as wide-open as they were 3 years ago. The so-called Department of Homeland Defense is a joke; like most of the government, it's utterly underfunded, because it's more important to the necons to cut the taxes of the super-wealthy and invade Iraq than it is to do the things that would actually protect us from the next attack. And I believe that the next attack will come, because we're not taking any steps that are actually likely to prevent it. Steps which would, in fact, be really expensive - ready to have your taxes raised, or do you buy into the free-lunch philosophy of the neocons (I suspect the latter)?

(Actually, not even the neocons believe that "infinitely-large deficits don't matter"; so they force themselves to govern - and invade - on the cheap).

By exactly what mechanism do you think that the invasion of Iraq (and those 600 American deaths) has prevented an attack here?

The recent attack in Spain could be instructive, couldn't it? An individual with even a partially-functioning intellect might reason that the kind of attack that occurred couldn't really have been prevented by military action of any kind. What might have prevented it would have been intelligence and detective work (hmm... sounds like... treating it more like crime prevention than anything remotely military). Find these guys before they strike and whisk them away - preferably, silently. How, exactly, does an army do that?

The assertion that this administration "knows what it is doing" is just plain comical. What the hell has gone right - starting with 9/11?

[keithbenjamin]

And Evil though he was, we never declared war on Stalin, nor on the Soviet Union (in fact, you will not recall, we were allies in the Big One... hmm... Evil against Evil) - and, why, look what happened! What lesson might one learn from the rise and fall of that Evil Empire?

Oh, I don't know. That if we allow evil to exist, only 12,000,000 people will be slaughtered?

[keithbenjamin]

What's absurd, Robert, is that you dont' think the US, the Iraqis, and the world are better off without Saddam.

I think perhaps you've been blinded by your own self-proclaimed brilliance.

[chm2023]

Interestingly, Connie Rice on CNN this AM, downplaying the impact of (potentially) capturing AQ #2 guy, saying: "Al Qaeda is a movement, it has spread far beyond the group that planned 9/11". Geez, how did THIS happen, I mean we kicked out Saddam...... And Robert in answer to your question--a lot of people don't understand what counter-productive means.

Herein lies the problem, when attempting to have intelligent conversation, people get hysterical and bring up Hitler. (The idea I guess is terrorists are evil and Hitler was evil, so...ok, I don't know what the idea is.) As difficult as this may be to grasp, not all threats are the same, nor should they be handled the same. One big difference is that Hitler was the head of a large nation who successfully invaded and occupied our allies--this is not the case with the AQ terrorists. Hitler had and used conventionial warfare means, again, not so with the AQ crowd. Do you see how this works? You may want to tune into Sesame Street and observe the "One of these things is not the other" segment. Twice.

As we speak there are thousands of young Islamic men being programmed to step into the shoes of the 9/11 guys. They are in at least a couple dozen nations. They do not attack in conventional military units, they are not openly aligned with a single nation or group of nations. So how do we defeat them? Assuming we know where they are, do we invade all these countries? So we bomb them and hope our intelligence is right and accept the civilian casualties--which of course would serve to recruit further terrorists. We are dealing with muliple moving and morphing targets, who have a twisted notion that they are doing God's work. (Again what were the Germans fighting for? To negate the Versailles treaty and expand their borders--you see how this is different than fighting because you are doing "God's work?" Please don't tell me if you don't, it's too depressing.)

I am teaching my 11 year old nephew to play chess. He is getting the hang of it and immediately grasped the importance of seeing beyond the next move. What do you bet George W isn't a chess player.........

[shanbaum]

keithbenjamin said:
What's absurd, Robert, is that you dont' think the US, the Iraqis, and the world are better off without Saddam.

I think perhaps you've been blinded by your own self-proclaimed brilliance.

To quote me: "I believe the world was in fact a more secure place prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Safer, 13 months ago."

I may not be a master of English expression, but it is my first language; and I submit that no competent reader of English could deduce that the above sentence says what you read it to say.

"Better off without Saddam." We'll be hearing that phrase a lot for the next seven months or so.

Typically, the administration tries to reduce complexity to simple language, which will appeal to people who really don't want to think critically about complex issues (such as their leader).

Of course, the point of this phrase is to create a binary choice, tantamount to: "you oppose what we're doing, so you must prefer that we bring Saddam back."

The choice was never "invade or ignore". I opposed the unilateral rush to war. I specifically found the president's vision that in the absence of Saddam, democracy would bloom, to be pathetically naive - and I daresay, so far, I've been right. There may yet be a democratic Iraq, but it will take a heap of good luck. I still believe that the most likely outcome is the Islamic Republic of Iraq - for which, I believe, it will have been a mistake to have shed our children's blood, and to have disrupted a half-century's worth of effort at building peaceful, rational international relations.

My point was, and remains: there was no threat that required we invade, and the invasion has done nothing to promote our position relative to the enemy who attacked us; on the contrary, the invasion, the run-up to it, and its immediate aftermath, may well have promoted the enemy's position.

And if I have to make a binary choice - between being "blinded by my self-proclaimed brilliance" and blinded by some ideology cooked up by a bunch of right-wing sociopaths - I'll take the former. I'm not absolutely sure what it means, or how it works, or where exactly I proclaimed it, but I have a number of reasons to believe that I am capable of critical thought, so if that's what it means, I will indeed put my faith in it.

[chm2023]

Oh, and for the fact that DR D has read 3 books by Ann Coulter. I have to say I am stunned. (Who knew Ann Coulter had READ 3 books????) This reminds me of the assertion that given enough time a hundred monkeys with typewriters could re-produce the works of Shakespeare--anything is possible but it sooo hard to grasp!! Damn opposable thumbs, this is where you've gotten us!