'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B

Politics > Politics-USA > 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"ArKLyte_"
Date:	28 Jul 2004 05:31:40 PM
Object:	'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604
The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?
by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04
It happened again this morning. I saw a picture of our president-my
president-and my feelings about him were instantly rekindled. The
picture was taken after his speech to the graduating seniors at the
Air Force Academy. He was wearing a dark suit, a light-blue tie, and a
white shirt. His unsmiling visage was grim and purposeful, in pointed
contrast to the face of the elaborately uniformed cadet standing next
to him, which was lit up with a cocky grin. Indeed, as something more
than a frozen moment-as a political statement-the picture might have
served, and been intended to serve, as a tableau of the resolve
necessary to lift this nation out of this steep and terrible time. The
cadet represented the best of what America has to offer, all
devil-may-care enthusiasm and willingness to serve. The president, his
hair starting to whiten, might have represented something even more
essential: the kind of brave and, in his case, literally unblinking
leadership that generates enough moral capital to summon the young to
war.
Although one man was essentially being asked to stake his life on
the wisdom of the other, both were melded in an attitude of common
purpose, and so both struck a common pose. With the cadet bent
slightly forward and the commander in chief leaning slightly back,
each man cocked his right arm and made a muscle. They flexed! I didn't
know anything about the cadet. About President George W. Bush, though,
I felt the satisfaction of absolute certainty, and so uttered the
words as essential to my morning as my cup of Kenyan and my dose of
high-minded outrage on the editorial page of the Times :
"What an *****."
Ah. That feels better. George W. Bush is an *****, isn't he?
Moreover, he's the first president who seems merely that, at least in
my lifetime. From Kennedy to Clinton, there is not a single president
who would have been capable of striking such a pose after concluding a
speech about a war in which hundreds of Americans and thousands of
Iraqis are being killed. There is not a single president for whom such
a pose would seem entirely characteristic-not a single president who
might be tempted to confuse a beefcakey photo opportunity with an
expression of national purpose. He has always struck me as a small
man, or at least as a man too small for the task at hand, and
therefore a man doomed to address the discrepancy between his soul and
his situation with displays of political muscle that succeed only in
drawing attention to his diminution. He not only has led us into war,
he seems to get off on war, and it's the greedy pleasure he so clearly
gets from flexing his biceps or from squaring his shoulders and
setting his jaw or from landing a plane on an aircraft carrier-the
greedy pleasure the war president finds in playacting his own
attitudes of belligerence-that permitted me the greedy pleasure of
hating him.
Then I read the text of the speech he gave and was thrown from one
kind of certainty-the comfortable kind-into another. He was speaking,
as he always does, of the moral underpinnings of our mission in Iraq.
He was comparing, as he always does, the challenge that we face, in
the evil of global terrorism, to the challenge our fathers and
grandfathers faced, in the evil of fascism. He was insisting, as he
always does, that the evil of global terrorism is exactly that, an
evil-one of almost transcendent dimension that quite simply must be
met, lest we be remembered for not meeting it . . . lest we allow it
to be our judge. I agreed with most of what he said, as I often do
when he's defining matters of principle. No, more than that, I thought
that he was defining principles that desperately needed defining, with
a clarity that those of my own political stripe demonstrate only when
they're decrying either his policies or his character. He was making a
moral proposition upon which he was basing his entire presidency-or
said he was basing his entire presidency-and I found myself in the
strange position of buying into the proposition without buying into
the presidency, of buying into the words while rejecting, utterly, the
man who spoke them. There is, of course, an easy answer for this
seeming moral schizophrenia: the distance between the principles and
the policy, between the mission and "Mission Accomplished," between
the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Still, I have to admit to
feeling a little uncertain of my disdain for this president when
forced to contemplate the principle that might animate his
determination to stay the course in a war that very well may be the
end of him politically. I have to admit that when I listen to him
speak, with his unbending certainty, I sometimes hear an echo of the
same nagging question I ask myself after I hear a preacher declaim the
agonies of hellfire or an insurance agent enumerate the cold odds of
the actuarial tables. Namely: What if he's right?
As easy as it is to say that we can't abide the president because of
the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does , what
haunts me is the possibility that we can't abide him because of
us-because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What
haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to
ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for
decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.
The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that
opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of the
day. Well, it's not. The most compelling moral issue of the day is
exactly what he says it is, when he's not saying it's gay marriage.
The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November-no matter what
his approval ratings are in the summer-is that his opponents operate
out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be
replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists
are the bad guys and need to be defeated. The first will always sound
merely convenient when compared with the second. Worse, the gulf
between the two kinds of certainty lends credence to the conservative
notion that liberals have settled for the conviction that Bush is
distasteful as a substitute for conviction-because it's easier than
conviction.
IN 1861, AFTER CONFEDERATE FORCES shelled Fort Sumter, President
Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus from Philadelphia
to Washington and thereby made the arrest of American citizens a
matter of military or executive say-so. When the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court objected to the arrest of a Maryland man who trained
troops for Confederate muster, Lincoln essentially ignored his ruling.
He argued that there was no point fixating on one clause in the
Constitution when Southern secession had shredded the whole document,
and asked, "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the
government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" During the
four-year course of the Civil War, he also selectively abridged the
rights of free speech, jury trial, and private property. Not that the
war went well: His army was in the habit of losing long before it
learned to win, and Lincoln did not find a general to his liking until
he found Ulysses S. Grant, whose idea of war was total. He financed
the bloodbath by exposing the nation to ruinous debt and taxation, and
by 1864 he had to contend with an antiwar challenge from Democrats and
a political challenge from a member of his own Cabinet. On August 23,
1864, he was motivated to write in a memorandum that "it seems
exceedingly probable that this administration will not be reelected,"
and yet his position on peace never wavered: He rejected any terms but
the restoration of the union and the abolition of slavery. The war
was, from first to last, portrayed as his war, and after he won
landslide reelection, he made a vow not only to stay the course but to
prosecute it to the brink of catastrophe and beyond: "Fondly do we
hope-fervently do we pray-that this mighty scourge of war may speedily
pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth
piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil
shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash,
shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three
thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the
Lord, are true and righteous altogether.' "
Today, of course, those words, along with Lincoln's appeal to the
better angels of our nature, are chiseled into the wall of his
memorial, on the Mall in Washington. And yet if George Bush were to
speak anything like them today, we would accuse him of pandering to
his evangelical base. We would accuse him of invoking divine authority
for a war of his choosing, and Maureen Dowd would find a way to read
his text in light of the cancellation of some Buffy spin-off. Believe
me: I am not comparing George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln. The latter
was his own lawyer as well as his own writer, and he was alive to the
possibilities of tragedy and comedy-he was human -in a way that our
president doesn't seem to be. Neither am I looking to justify Bush's
forays into shady constitutional ground by invoking Lincoln's
precedents with the same; I'm not a lawyer. I am, however, asking if
the crisis currently facing the country-the crisis, that is, that
announced itself on the morning of September 11, 2001, in New York and
Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia-is as compelling a
justification for the havoc and sacrifice of war as the crisis that
became irrevocable on April 12, 1861, in South Carolina, or, for that
matter, the crisis that emerged from the blue Hawaiian sky on December
7, 1941. I, for one, believe it is and feel somewhat ashamed having to
say so: having to aver that 9/11/01 was a horror sufficient to supply
Bush with a genuine moral cause rather than, as some would have it, a
mere excuse for his adventurism.
We were attacked three years ago, without warning or predicate event.
The attack was not a gesture of heroic resistance nor the offshoot of
some bright utopian resolve, but the very flower of a movement that
delights in the potential for martyrdom expressed in the squalls of
the newly born. It is a movement that is about death-that honors
death, that loves death, that fetishizes death, that worships death,
that seeks to accomplish death wherever it can, on a scale both
intimate and global-and if it does not warrant the expenditure of what
the self-important have taken to calling "blood and treasure," then
what does? Slavery? Fascism? Genocide? Let's not flatter ourselves: If
we do not find it within ourselves to identify the terrorism inspired
by radical Islam as an unequivocal evil-and to pronounce ourselves
morally superior to it-then we have lost the ability to identify any
evil at all, and our democracy is not only diminished, it dissolves
into the meaninglessness of privilege.
YEAH, YEAH, I KNOW: Nobody who opposes Bush thinks that terrorism is a
good thing. The issue is not whether the United States should be
involved in a war on terrorism but rather whether the war on terrorism
is best served by war in Iraq. And now that the war has defied the
optimism of its advocates, the issue is no longer Bush's moral
intention but rather his simple competence. He got us in when he had
no idea how to get us out. He allowed himself to be blinded by
ideology and blindsided by ideologues. His arrogance led him to offend
the very allies whose participation would have enabled us to win not
just the war but the peace. His obsession with Saddam Hussein led him
to rush into a war that was unnecessary. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy.
Sure, the world is a better place without him. But . . .
And there it is: the inevitable but . Trailed by its uncomfortable
ellipsis, it sits squirming at the end of the argument against George
Bush for very good reason: It can't possibly sit at the beginning.
Bush haters have to back into it because there's nothing beyond it.
The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, but . . . but what
? But he wasn't so bad that we had to do anything about him? But he
wasn't so bad that he was worth the shedding of American blood? But
there are other dictators just as bad whom we leave in place? But he
provided Bush the opportunity to establish the doctrine of preemptive
war, in which case the cure is worse than the disease? But we should
have secured Afghanistan before invading Iraq? But we should have
secured the cooperation of allies who were no more inclined to depose
Saddam than they-or we, as head of an international coalition of the
unwilling-were to stop the genocide in Rwanda ten years before? Sure,
genocide is bad, but . . .
We might as well credit the president for his one great
accomplishment: replacing but with and as a basis for foreign policy.
The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and we got rid of
him. And unless we have become so wedded to the politics of regret
that we are obligated to indulge in a perverse kind of nostalgia for
the days of Uday and Qusay, we have to admit that it's hard to imagine
a world with Saddam still in it. And even before the first stem-winder
of the Democratic convention, the possibility of even limited success
in Iraq has reduced the loyal opposition to two strategies: either
signing up for the oversight role they had envisioned for the UN, or
else declaring the whole thing a lost cause, in their own war of
preemption.
Of course, Iraq might be a lost cause. It might be a disaster
unmitigated and unprecedented. But if we permit ourselves to look at
it the way the Republicans look at it-as a historical cause rather
than just a cause assumed to be lost-we might be persuaded to see that
it's history's judgment that matters, not ours. The United States, at
this writing, has been in Iraq fifteen months. At the same point in
the Civil War, Lincoln faced, well, a disaster unmitigated and
unprecedented. He was losing . He didn't lose, at least in part
because he was able to both inspire and draw on the kind of moral
absolutism necessary to win wars. Bush has been unable to do the same,
at least in part because he is undercut by evidence of his own
dishonesty, but also because moral absolutism is nearly impossible to
sustain in the glare of a twenty-four-hour news cycle. In a nation
incapable of feeling any but the freshest wounds, Bush cannot seek to
inspire moral absolutism without his moral absolutism becoming itself
an issue-indeed, the issue. He cannot seek to engender certainty
without being accused of sowing disarray. And he cannot speak the
barest terms necessary for victory in any war-that we will stay the
course, through good or through ill, because our cause is right and
just, and God is on our side-without inspiring a goodly number of his
constituents to aspire to the moral prestige of surrender.
THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE a straight line between Bush's moral
absolutism-between his penchant for calling our enemies "evildoers" or
even, well, "enemies"-and Guant�namo, and then between Guant�namo and
the case of Jose Padilla, and then between Padilla and the depravities
of Abu Ghraib. More than a mere demonstration of cause and effect, the
line is supposed by those opposed to a second Bush presidency to
function as a geometric proof of the proposition that the American
position in Iraq is not only untenable but ignoble. It's supposed to
prove that victory in any such enterprise is not worth the taint and
that withdrawal is tantamount to victory, because it will save the
national soul.
In fact, it proves something quite different: It proves that just
as the existence of the animal-rights movement is said to depend
on the increasing American distance from the realities of the farm,
the liberal consensus on the war in Iraq depends on the increasing
American distance from the realities of soldiering. All Abu Ghraib
proves is what Lincoln made clear in his writings, and what any soldier
has to know from the moment he sizes up another soldier in the sight
of his rifle: that war is undertaken at the risk of the national
soul.
The moral certainty that makes war possible is certain only to unleash
moral havoc, and moral havoc becomes something the nation has to rise
above. We can neither win a war nor save the national soul if all we
seek is to remain unsullied-pristine. Anyway, we are well beyond that
now.
The question is not, and has never been, whether we can fight a war
without perpetrating outrages of our own. The question is whether
the rightness of the American cause is sufficient not only to
justify war but to withstand war's inevitable outrages. The question
is whether-if the cause is right-we are strong enough to make it
remain right in the foggy moral battleground of war.
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and
historians today applaud the restraint he displayed in throwing
thousands of American citizens in jail. By the middle of 2002, George
W. Bush had declared two American citizens enemy combatants, and both
men are still in jail at this writing, uncharged. Both presidents used
war as a rationale for their actions, citing as their primary
constitutional responsibility the protection of the American people.
It was not until two years later that Congress took up Lincoln's
action and pronounced it constitutionally justified. Our willingness
to extend Bush the same latitude will depend on our perception of what
exactly we're up against, post-9/11. Lincoln was fighting for the very
soul of this country; he was fighting to preserve this country, as a
country, and so he had to challenge the Constitution in order to save
it.
Bush seems to think that he's fighting for the very soul of this
country, but that's exactly what many people regard as a dangerous
presumption. He seems to think that he is fighting for our very
survival, when all we're asking him to fight for is our security,
which is a very different thing. A fight for our security? We can
handle that; it means we have to get to the airport early. A fight for
our survival? That means we have to live in a different country
altogether. That means the United States is changing and will continue
to change, the way it did during and after the Civil War, with a
fundamental redefinition of executive authority. That means we have to
endure the constitutional indignity of the president's declaring Jose
Padilla an enemy combatant for contemplating the still-uncommitted
crime of blowing up a radioactive device in an American city, which
seems a constitutional indignity too great to endure, unless we think
of the constitutional indignities we'd have to endure if Padilla had
actually committed the crime he's accused of planning.
Unless we think of how this country might change if we get hit again,
and hit big. In defending his suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln
sought to draw the distinction between liberties that are absolute
and those that are sustainable in time of war. Bush seems to be
relying on the same question, and the same distinction, as an answer
to all the lawyers and editorial writers who suggest that if Jose
Padilla stays in jail, we are losing the war on terror by abrogating
our own ideals.
Losing the war on terror? The terrible truth is that we haven't begun
to find out what that really means.
I WILL NEVER FORGET the sickly smile that crossed the president's face
when he asked us all to go shopping in the wake of 9/11. It was
desperate and a little craven, and I never forgave him for it. As it
turned out, though, his appeal succeeded all too well. We've found the
courage to go shopping. We've welcomed the restoration of the rule of
celebrity. For all our avowals that nothing would ever be the same,
the only thing that really changed is our taste in entertainment,
which has forsaken the frivolity of the sitcom for the grit on display
in The Apprentice . The immediacy of the threat was replaced by the
inexplicability of the threat level. A universal war-the war on
terror-was succeeded by a narrow one, an elective one, a personal one,
in Iraq.
Eventually, the president made it easy to believe that the threat
from within was as great as the threat from without. That those at
home who declared American moral primacy were as dangerous as those
abroad who declared our moral degeneracy. That our national security
was not worth the risk to our soul. That Abu Ghraib disproved the
rightness of our cause and so represented the symbolic end of the war
that began on 9/11. And that the very worst thing that could happen to
this country would be four more years of George W. Bush.
In a nation that loves fairy tales, the president seemed so damned
eager to cry wolf that we decided he was just trying to keep us
scared and that maybe he was just as big a villain as the wolf he
insisted on telling us about. That's the whole point of the story,
isn't it? The boy cries wolf for his own ends, and after a while
people stop believing in the reality of the threat.
I know how this story ends, because I've told it many times myself.
I've told it so many times, in fact, that I'm always surprised when
the wolf turns out to be real, and shows up hungry at the door, long
after the boy is gone.
Copyright � 1997-2004 by the Hearst Corporation.
Find this article at: /pubs/Esquire/2004/08/01/505604
===========================================================
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
.

User: "kuff \Isaac Adams"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	28 Jul 2004 07:58:46 PM

"ArKLyte_" <ArkLyte_@Now.Net> wrote in message
news:i7agg0hnbmk0r1mmqta3hr3bjd9eg7kdmm@4ax.com...

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04

Not bad Arklyte_. (Surprised to find you over at Equire.)
....

Copyright � 1997-2004 by the Hearst Corporation.

Find this article at: /pubs/Esquire/2004/08/01/505604

===========================================================
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

User: ""
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	28 Jul 2004 10:14:01 PM

ArKLyte_ wrote:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04

What if bush is right?
Then Osama is right too.
Bush's unwavering certitude that he is pure and moral
and on the side of the angels is matched by Osama's
equal certitude. This is the same certitude that has
motivated religious wars in the past. This is the same
certitude that the founding fathers feared when they
were writing the bill of rights.
Neither one belongs in the 21st century.
Especially in a western country.
.

User: "kuff \Isaac Adams"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	28 Jul 2004 10:41:39 PM

<xtmprszntwlfd@erols.com> wrote in message news:41086B79.B884BBBB@erols.com...

ArKLyte_ wrote:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04

Granted.

This is the same
certitude that the founding fathers feared when they
were writing the bill of rights.

Maybe.

Neither one belongs in the 21st century.
Especially in a western country.

The undercurrent in the liberal's commentary was one of fear. In a climate of
fear liberal concerns are armchair concerns. So far Bush has protected them.
And so far Bush is doing something about what they fear.
When you are dealing with fear the greatest anxiety producing factor is the
unknown. Kerry is an unknown - Bush is a known.
Kerry is not a choice when it comes to issues of the War on Terrorism. He
simply says he would do it better and with partners. Sorry, those sound like
armchair concerns.
Even without a moderat AQ action in the US I think the election is already
Bush's. The Republicans and the mainstream media have already made Iraq
yesterday's news in just 4 weeks. The bomb of today was probably seen by most
as Iraq's problem not the US's problem. US soldiers continue to die but its
"over there somewhere".
.

User: "Adam Albright"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	28 Jul 2004 11:39:52 PM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:41:39 -0500, "kuff $Isaac Adams$"
<kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:

<xtmprszntwlfd@erols.com> wrote in message news:41086B79.B884BBBB@erols.com...

ArKLyte_ wrote:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04

Granted.

This is the same
certitude that the founding fathers feared when they
were writing the bill of rights.

Maybe.

Neither one belongs in the 21st century.
Especially in a western country.

No kidding. Bush is a KNOWN idiot, liar, drunk and coward. Kerry ISN'T
a unknown, he was tested repeatedly in Vietnam, he not only stood his
ground he charged after the enemy and killed them. Damn you Bush
supporters always border on psychopaths on top of being deliberate
liars.

Kerry is not a choice when it comes to issues of the War on Terrorism. He
simply says he would do it better and with partners. Sorry, those sound like
armchair concerns.

Again, Kerry served two tours in Vietnam. Bush went AWOL. The *****
couldn't even hack state site duty in Texas. LOL!

Even without a moderat AQ action in the US I think the election is already
Bush's. The Republicans and the mainstream media have already made Iraq
yesterday's news in just 4 weeks. The bomb of today was probably seen by most
as Iraq's problem not the US's problem. US soldiers continue to die but its
"over there somewhere".

You ARE a psychopath. We have 140,000 American troops in Iraq. As we
near the election in early November the bastards at the Pentagon are
plannig to rotate in tens of thousands of new troop... but they are
planning on holding back the troops already there so, the idea is to
prevent some October surprise in Iraq so it don't ***** up Bush by
doubling the troops for a few weeks. This is the corrupt Bush junta
playing politics with the lives of American serviceman. May Bush and
Cheney and the whole stinking rat's nest of sons-of-bitches burn in
hell. AND SOON!
.

User: "kuff \Isaac Adams"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 07:39:40 AM

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:eevgg0ptaqr13btg2a7rdc0jqsgoa93a6c@4ax.com...

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:41:39 -0500, "kuff $Isaac Adams$"
<kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:

<xtmprszntwlfd@erols.com> wrote in message

news:41086B79.B884BBBB@erols.com...

ArKLyte_ wrote:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04

Granted.

This is the same
certitude that the founding fathers feared when they
were writing the bill of rights.

Maybe.

Neither one belongs in the 21st century.
Especially in a western country.

The undercurrent in the liberal's commentary was one of fear. In a climate

fear liberal concerns are armchair concerns. So far Bush has protected

them.

And so far Bush is doing something about what they fear.

When you are dealing with fear the greatest anxiety producing factor is the
unknown. Kerry is an unknown - Bush is a known.

No kidding. Bush is a KNOWN idiot, liar, drunk and coward.

Yes, yes. (I don't know about the coward part - opportunist maybe.)
You do know the phrase that ends "...but he's our SOB" don't you?

Kerry ISN'T
a unknown, he was tested repeatedly in Vietnam, he not only stood his
ground he charged after the enemy and killed them. Damn you Bush
supporters always border on psychopaths on top of being deliberate
liars.

Careful now, you're going to cause a lot of head crashes in this group calling
me a Bush supporter. :-)

Kerry is not a choice when it comes to issues of the War on Terrorism. He
simply says he would do it better and with partners. Sorry, those sound

armchair concerns.

Again, Kerry served two tours in Vietnam. Bush went AWOL. The *****
couldn't even hack state site duty in Texas. LOL!

And? He's Commander in Chief now. Top of the military chain of command.
Perhaps he was more suited for a management position than a line one.

most

as Iraq's problem not the US's problem. US soldiers continue to die but its
"over there somewhere".

You ARE a psychopath.

You'll probably get no argument on that here.

We have 140,000 American troops in Iraq.

Yep, something like that. If it's not an issue to the electorate though then
what of it?

As we
near the election in early November the bastards at the Pentagon are
plannig to rotate in tens of thousands of new troop... but they are
planning on holding back the troops already there so, the idea is to
prevent some October surprise in Iraq so it don't ***** up Bush by
doubling the troops for a few weeks. This is the corrupt Bush junta
playing politics with the lives of American serviceman.

And?

May Bush and
Cheney and the whole stinking rat's nest of sons-of-bitches burn in
hell. AND SOON!

And I'm the psychopath? Tsk.

User: "JJ"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	29 Jul 2004 11:48:36 AM

Adam Albright wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:41:39 -0500, "kuff $Isaac Adams$"
<kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:

<xtmprszntwlfd@erols.com> wrote in message news:41086B79.B884BBBB@erols.com...

ArKLyte_ wrote:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04

Granted.

This is the same
certitude that the founding fathers feared when they
were writing the bill of rights.

Maybe.

Neither one belongs in the 21st century.
Especially in a western country.

And it has been shown severl times how he got his medals. He didn't earn
them, he got them through less than heroic means.

Kerry is not a choice when it comes to issues of the War on Terrorism. He
simply says he would do it better and with partners. Sorry, those sound like
armchair concerns.

Again, Kerry served two tours in Vietnam. Bush went AWOL. The *****
couldn't even hack state site duty in Texas. LOL!

And you really think flip flop, I voted for it before I voted against
it, war protester, and communist sympathizer, Kerry can do better? You
need to get educated.
.

User: "ArKLyte_"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 01:27:24 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:39:52 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

May Bush and
Cheney and the whole stinking rat's nest of sons-of-bitches burn in
hell. AND SOON!

This attitude, is precisely why the dems will lose in November.
Good job.
===========================================================
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 02:32:04 AM

ArKLyte_ wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:39:52 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

May Bush and
Cheney and the whole stinking rat's nest of sons-of-bitches burn in
hell. AND SOON!

This attitude, is precisely why the dems will lose in November.

Good job.

Strangely enough, the republicans have the same attitude,
which would seem to be the reason they will lose in november.

===========================================================
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

User: "blazinglaser nospam.please"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 01:49:29 AM

If this author was paid by the word he did pretty well. But it all
boils down to one idea: Bush must be supported in his invasion of
Iraq because he is fighting terrorism.
You can say this many ways. And the author does, ad nauseum, or at
least ad boredom. But when it's all said and done he misses the point
that we 'liberals' made long ago and keep repeating. Listen
carefully. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Quaeda
were not linked. The invasion of Iraq has objectively nothing do to
with terrorism.
Bush himself, when pressed on the issue, will admit as much. But in
his next sentence he's saying 'Of course we had to liberate Iraq--did
you think we were going to do nothing about 9/11?' There he goes
again.
Do we believe Bush is a bad president, dangerous to our Constitution
and our republic? Yes we do. Bush's administration has taken
liberties with the administrative role outlined in the Constitution.
He has felt justified to imprison people without just cause, to hold
them incommunicado without due process or even charges. He has taken
it upon himself to break any treaty that got in his way, including
trade treaties previous Republican presidents fought so hard for. His
adminstration considers dissent treasonous.
Everything Bush has done has only boosted the recruitment
possibilities for the terrorists. He fought two devastating (but
ineffective) wars. He's refused to stand up to Israel. The Iraq
occupation is riddled with corruption and profiteering, 'collateral
damage' of innocents being killed in a guerrilla war where we can't
tell friend from foe, torture and prisoner abuse, and finally handing
over Iraq 'sovereignty' to a government of our own choosing.
Most Americans feel we are less safe now than before, not more safe.
What if Bush is right? What is left for him to be right about?
.

User: "ArKLyte_"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 05:08:39 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:49:29 -0700, blazinglaser <nospam.please> wrote:

Where do Islamist terrorists come from?
Suggestion: Look at a map of the Middle East.. then ask yourself..
why would we want military bases in Iraq?
Do you get it yet? Are you beginning to understand the real
benefit to American security by the Iraq invasion?
WAKE UP!
Also, every major nation's intelligence service on the planet
KNEW that Saddam had WMD. Every one of them. Why should
Bush NOT believe the WMD were there?
If you suddenly become intellectually honest, you would be
able to see why after a bazillion UN resolutions and constant
firing on our planes enforcing the no-fly zone for over 10 YEARS
.... the President took action..
You can't have it both ways. You can't criticise the President
for not doing enough to stop the 9/11 atrocities and in the same
breath say that he's doing TOO MUCH in the war against terrorists
by parking our military's ***** in the middle of the Islamist hornet's nest.
Think about it, or don't. Your choice.
[snip]

Do we believe Bush is a bad president, dangerous to our Constitution
and our republic? Yes we do. Bush's administration has taken
liberties with the administrative role outlined in the Constitution.
He has felt justified to imprison people without just cause, to hold
them incommunicado without due process or even charges. He has taken
it upon himself to break any treaty that got in his way, including
trade treaties previous Republican presidents fought so hard for. His
adminstration considers dissent treasonous.

Did you even read the article? If you did, you would see
how ridiculous your above words are.
In my opinion, of course.

Everything Bush has done has only boosted the recruitment
possibilities for the terrorists. He fought two devastating (but
ineffective) wars.

'Ineffective'? How many terrorist attacks on the U.S. have
occured since 9/11?
It seems to me that Bush, so far, is doing just fine keeping the
terrorist attacks on me and you from happening.

He's refused to stand up to Israel.

We were talking about the Iraq war. Remember?
Please don't change the subject. Thanks.

The Iraq
occupation is riddled with corruption and profiteering, 'collateral
damage' of innocents being killed in a guerrilla war where we can't
tell friend from foe, torture and prisoner abuse, and finally handing
over Iraq 'sovereignty' to a government of our own choosing.

Whew, you must be VERY young. Name a single major war in the
history of mankind where these unfortunate things didn't occur.
Well, go ahead and start listing them...
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
....

Most Americans feel we are less safe now than before, not more safe.

I guess we will find out how 'America' feels in November.
Right? :)

What if Bush is right? What is left for him to be right about?

Take the time to actually read the article before responding. Just a tip.
===========================================================
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
.

User: "JJ"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	29 Jul 2004 11:58:40 AM

ArKLyte_ wrote:

You can't have it both ways. You can't criticise the President
for not doing enough to stop the 9/11 atrocities and in the same
breath say that he's doing TOO MUCH in the war against terrorists
by parking our military's ***** in the middle of the Islamist hornet's nest.

But that is how the liberal dummycrats think. Ted Kennedy thinks he can
have it both ways, accuses Bush of being such a big lier, as if he has
the right to call anyone, especially the President of the U.S. a lier,
when he has lied so many times you can't count them. Remember how he
lied about driving his car off a bridge in a drunker stupor and escaped
while allowing a young girl to drown?
.

User: "blazinglaser nospam.please"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 05:22:07 PM

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:08:39 GMT, ArKLyte_ <ArkLyte_@Now.Net> wrote:

Where do Islamist terrorists come from?

They come from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, from
all over the Middle East, Northern Africa, parts of ex-Soviet states,
as far off as the Philippines. Even Europe.
Why are we fighting a war in Iraq? Because there's oil there.

Suggestion: Look at a map of the Middle East.. then ask yourself..
why would we want military bases in Iraq?

Because there's oil there.

Do you get it yet? Are you beginning to understand the real
benefit to American security by the Iraq invasion?
WAKE UP!

You wake up. You don't fight terrorism with military bases. You have
to fight it with covert action, intelligence, etc. More important
than aerial bombing is the cooperation of our allies. Which GW has
blown big-time.

Also, every major nation's intelligence service on the planet
KNEW that Saddam had WMD. Every one of them. Why should
Bush NOT believe the WMD were there?

No, that's just not true. If there really was good evidence of the
WMD, why did Bush have to cook up fake evidence? Why did Colin Powell
have to present phoney evidence in his speech to the UN?
And anyway, was Bush wrong or was everyone else wrong? Bush doesn't
say 'The CIA told me there was WMD and I believed them but that turned
out not to be true.' Bush still insists there -is- WMD there. So
it's not a valid argument to insist we owe him an apology because he
was misled.
Bush also insisted Saddam had nukes, and then that he was developing
nukes, even though experts told him (and us) that a nuclear program
would require large buildings that are impossible to hide.

If you suddenly become intellectually honest, you would be
able to see why after a bazillion UN resolutions and constant
firing on our planes enforcing the no-fly zone for over 10 YEARS
... the President took action..

I don't feel I'm being intellectually dishonest. In retrospect it is
abundantly clear what our side insisted all along--that the policy of
containment against Saddam was working, and that if there were any
considerable WMDs the UN inspectors would have found them.

You still don't get it. Our primary complaint is not that he's doing
too much or too little, it's that he's doing something completely
unrelated. Something he wanted to do in the first place and is using
9/11 as a pretext. In fact the Iraq war is counter-productive in
protecting us from terrorism. Hell, we can't even protect Iraq
itself!
However, when it comes to 'homeland security' he -is- doing too little
because we are spending all our energy and money on Iraq. The CIA
told us that our harbors are the most vulnerable, the chink in our
armor, so to speak. Since 9/11 we have spent about $300 million on
making our harbors safer, in other words in 3 years we have spent what
we spend in 3 days in Iraq.

Think about it, or don't. Your choice.

Don't insult my intelligence.

In my opinion, of course.

Point well taken. 8^)

Everything Bush has done has only boosted the recruitment
possibilities for the terrorists. He fought two devastating (but
ineffective) wars.

'Ineffective'? How many terrorist attacks on the U.S. have
occured since 9/11?

The same number that happnened in the six years or so before 9/11.

It seems to me that Bush, so far, is doing just fine keeping the
terrorist attacks on me and you from happening.

You know, I sometimes wonder if another big terrorist attack just
before the election would help Bush or hurt him. Without 9/11 and all
the ensuing mishegas, Bush's popularity ratings would be down in the
30s by now.

He's refused to stand up to Israel.

We were talking about the Iraq war. Remember?
Please don't change the subject. Thanks.

Actually that is more related than you might think. You know we have
a problem when we can't even admit to ourselves what it was that
motivated the 9/11 terrorists. The Bush admin uses tired old lines
about them 'hating our freedoms' or hating us because we're so
peaceful and friendly and democratic. But what they were really
unhappy about was (1) American support of the Saudi monarchy and (2)
American support of Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians.
Also, for 30 years Israel has had the policy of fighting terrorism by
punishing the Palestinians, squeezing off their rights and privileges,
bulldozing houses, killing innocent people in attempts to kill leaders
of the terrorists movements. You can see objectively how well this
plan has worked for them. Why should it work for us?

Whew, you must be VERY young. Name a single major war in the
history of mankind where these unfortunate things didn't occur.

Well, go ahead and start listing them...

There is always waste and fraud in anything the government does. When
the Democrats are in you guys find this waste and fraud unacceptable,
but when it's Republican waste and fraud it's unavoidable or maybe
non-existant.
During and after WWI (and during Korea) Congress held long hearings to
uncover corruption and fraud in military procurement. President
Truman in particular spoke very strongly about the issue and pushed
through strong anti-fraud legislation. Not this president and
congress.

I guess we will find out how 'America' feels in November.

Right? :)

I'm with you there.
.

User: "hayden_flare"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 05:37:04 AM

blazinglaser <nospam.please> wrote in message news:<ec6hg0hoskhi1r7t9mfd4av96sg556r22o@4ax.com>...

If this author was paid by the word he did pretty well. But it all
boils down to one idea: Bush must be supported in his invasion of
Iraq because he is fighting terrorism.

You can say this many ways. And the author does, ad nauseum, or at
least ad boredom. But when it's all said and done he misses the point
that we 'liberals' made long ago and keep repeating. Listen
carefully. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Quaeda
were not linked. The invasion of Iraq has objectively nothing do to
with terrorism.

Bush himself, when pressed on the issue, will admit as much. But in
his next sentence he's saying 'Of course we had to liberate Iraq--did
you think we were going to do nothing about 9/11?' There he goes
again.

Do we believe Bush is a bad president, dangerous to our Constitution
and our republic? Yes we do. Bush's administration has taken
liberties with the administrative role outlined in the Constitution.
He has felt justified to imprison people without just cause, to hold
them incommunicado without due process or even charges. He has taken
it upon himself to break any treaty that got in his way, including
trade treaties previous Republican presidents fought so hard for. His
adminstration considers dissent treasonous.

Everything Bush has done has only boosted the recruitment
possibilities for the terrorists. He fought two devastating (but
ineffective) wars. He's refused to stand up to Israel. The Iraq
occupation is riddled with corruption and profiteering, 'collateral
damage' of innocents being killed in a guerrilla war where we can't
tell friend from foe, torture and prisoner abuse, and finally handing
over Iraq 'sovereignty' to a government of our own choosing.

Most Americans feel we are less safe now than before, not more safe.

What if Bush is right? What is left for him to be right about?

good post
.

User: "beber"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 06:57:42 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:31:40 GMT, ArKLyte_ <ArkLyte_@Now.Net> wrote:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

Even if he is right, the danger is far overplayed. Nerve gas attacks
of the kind that could be carried out by terrorists could only kill a
few hundred of us; bio attacks are nice to talk about, but look what
happened with SARS, a far more serious threat than anything a
terrorist could ever mount.
Are cars, our street corners and our swimming pools are far greater
dangers to our way of life than terrorists. You can plot all you want
to blow the containment dome of a nuclear power plant, but doing it
isn't easy. As for 9-11, as the commission has shown, it was our own
incompetence that allowed it to happen.
It doesn't matter if people hate your guts and want to kill you. They
are over there, and we are over here. The ocean has always been our
greatest defensive strength, and will remain so.
.

User: "kuff \Isaac Adams"
Title: November - Bush 59%, Kerry 36%	28 Jul 2004 08:50:57 PM

Provided there are no major surprises.
The 'fear factor' has kicked in.
"ArKLyte_" <ArkLyte_@Now.Net> wrote in message
news:i7agg0hnbmk0r1mmqta3hr3bjd9eg7kdmm@4ax.com...

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604

The Case for George W. Bush - i.e., what if he's right?

by Tom Junod | Aug 01 '04

....

User: "abelincoln"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	28 Jul 2004 05:57:45 PM

ther3 is no case for lies. bush's whole administration is built on them.
he has given the arab/muslim world every excuse they need to increase
terrorism for the foreseeable future. bush has singlehandedly reduced
our safety and increased the threat of terrorism world wide.
bush has failed to address the root causes of terrorism and has provided
the al qaeda members of the world all the incentive they need to keep up
their attacks.
bush invaded another country, murdered its citizens for absolutely no
reason.
every reason he gave was a lie/untruth.
deal with it, don't rationalize it.
.

User: "carlleigh"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	28 Jul 2004 07:47:26 PM

I am ashamed of you. Vapid Liberal lies and thinking.
Do you realize that by supporting the terrorists that you and your ilk
are just causing the deaths of more American soldiers of more Americans
in general and in fact more people in general, that would be men, women
and children, around the world. (Oh! I understand killing children is
your thing,)
I was to young to get much involved during the Vietnam war protests, but
then as now, I can say this, the blood of all who die needlessly because
of you and your ilk is on your hands. When you gave/give aid and comfort
to those that oppose us, you hurt us and you still do. When you give aid
and comfort to terrorists you hurt us. When you give aid and comfort to
the terrorists you are also hurting Iraqi. Those terrorists need the
attention you give them, without your favorable opinion they would have
given up a long time ago. Please let Iraq have peace.
Imagine for a moment, if your capable, a bomber, a real nut case
probably liberal, blowing up people across the United States. His
argument is that the United States should be polluting the streams less.
Mercury used for the making of hats is his complaint. In fact along with
every bomb he leaves the message, "Stop using mercury for making hats."
People are outraged by his nutty thinking and in the newspapers you see.
"Get the bomber headlines", everyday. The bomber is sad, no one
understands him, he doesn't even feel like carrying on. Then he picks up
a newspaper from France. The headline he's looking for is there.
American's pollute streams, bomber is good. Hurray, he has a friend, he
can carry on. In fact from that moment on he redoubles his efforts.
You my friend are creating bombers.
abelincoln wrote:

ther3 is no case for lies. bush's whole administration is built on them.
he has given the arab/muslim world every excuse they need to increase
terrorism for the foreseeable future. bush has singlehandedly reduced
our safety and increased the threat of terrorism world wide.

bush has failed to address the root causes of terrorism and has provided
the al qaeda members of the world all the incentive they need to keep up
their attacks.

bush invaded another country, murdered its citizens for absolutely no
reason.

every reason he gave was a lie/untruth.

deal with it, don't rationalize it.

User: "Eris"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	28 Jul 2004 07:59:12 PM

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:47:26 +0800, carlleigh <carlleigh@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I am ashamed of you. Vapid Liberal lies and thinking.

Do you realize that by supporting the terrorists that you and your ilk
are just causing the deaths of more American soldiers of more Americans
in general and in fact more people in general, that would be men, women
and children, around the world. (Oh! I understand killing children is
your thing,)

I was to young to get much involved during the Vietnam war protests, but
then as now, I can say this, the blood of all who die needlessly because
of you and your ilk is on your hands. When you gave/give aid and comfort
to those that oppose us, you hurt us and you still do. When you give aid
and comfort to terrorists you hurt us. When you give aid and comfort to
the terrorists you are also hurting Iraqi. Those terrorists need the
attention you give them, without your favorable opinion they would have
given up a long time ago. Please let Iraq have peace.

Imagine for a moment, if your capable, a bomber, a real nut case
probably liberal, blowing up people across the United States. His
argument is that the United States should be polluting the streams less.
Mercury used for the making of hats is his complaint. In fact along with
every bomb he leaves the message, "Stop using mercury for making hats."

People are outraged by his nutty thinking and in the newspapers you see.
"Get the bomber headlines", everyday. The bomber is sad, no one
understands him, he doesn't even feel like carrying on. Then he picks up
a newspaper from France. The headline he's looking for is there.
American's pollute streams, bomber is good. Hurray, he has a friend, he
can carry on. In fact from that moment on he redoubles his efforts.

You my friend are creating bombers.

These people did the same thing to the Ottoman empire. Who was
responsible for that. You are truly a propaganda spewing machine.
Sorry your little invasion isn't going well. Hey attack Saudi Arabia
while you are at it, moron.

abelincoln wrote:

ther3 is no case for lies. bush's whole administration is built on them.
he has given the arab/muslim world every excuse they need to increase
terrorism for the foreseeable future. bush has singlehandedly reduced
our safety and increased the threat of terrorism world wide.

bush has failed to address the root causes of terrorism and has provided
the al qaeda members of the world all the incentive they need to keep up
their attacks.

bush invaded another country, murdered its citizens for absolutely no
reason.

every reason he gave was a lie/untruth.

deal with it, don't rationalize it.

User: "mark rivers"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	31 Jul 2004 09:15:21 AM

Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<brigg09ctrf777pdurd247siqlebqogf3f@4ax.com>...

They, the victors of WWI, raped, tortured and massacred millions of
totally innocent and defenseless Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire,
drove them out of thier homes and countries, then they created all
those fake states of Northeren Africa and the Middleeast. The mess
they created is so big and widespread, about a hundred years later,
now they are murdering their allies with whom they muredred innocent
Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire as "war on terrorism". Their allies
and supporters in murdering the Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire
were the people they are fighting their war on terrorism now.
Look at the history of all those fake states the victors of WWI
crated, invaded and exploited as colonialism, you will see nothing but
immense sufferings they inflicted on local peoples.
This is what they call "Western Civilization." What a joke, what a
lie!!!!
.

User: "Boomer"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	01 Aug 2004 10:47:25 AM

"mark rivers" <marktrivers@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5279301.0407310615.17c65829@posting.google.com...

Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:<brigg09ctrf777pdurd247siqlebqogf3f@4ax.com>...

They, the victors of WWI, raped, tortured and massacred millions of
totally innocent and defenseless Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire,
drove them out of thier homes and countries, then they created all
those fake states of Northeren Africa and the Middleeast. The mess
they created is so big and widespread, about a hundred years later,
now they are murdering their allies with whom they muredred innocent
Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire as "war on terrorism". Their allies
and supporters in murdering the Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire
were the people they are fighting their war on terrorism now.

Look at the history of all those fake states the victors of WWI
crated, invaded and exploited as colonialism, you will see nothing but
immense sufferings they inflicted on local peoples.

This is what they call "Western Civilization." What a joke, what a
lie!!!!

With a guilty conscience like that I think that you should really do what
most liberals are wont to do figuratively, i.e. self-immolation on national
TV. That should salve a few overactive flagellators. While your at it,
perhaps you could also convince other liberals to do the same for something
like the depredations of Genghis Khan, the Arab Horde, and the Roman Empire.
It will certainly enhance the gene pool.
.

User: "Roman"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	01 Aug 2004 11:52:09 AM

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 08:47:25 -0700, Boomer wrote:

"mark rivers" is no liberal. He is a brainwashed, fascist turk hiding, like
many of his sort, behind at least 10 different Anglo-Saxon names. He
usually spams usenet with turkish propaganda, copied and pasted from
turkish propaganda websites. Besides, he is not quite right in the head,
which you will easily detect if you care to follow his posts under his
many identities. ;-)
.

User: "Roman"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	31 Jul 2004 11:47:53 AM

On 31 Jul 2004 07:15:21 -0700, mark rivers wrote:

Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<brigg09ctrf777pdurd247siqlebqogf3f@4ax.com>...

They, the victors of WWI, raped, tortured and massacred millions of
totally innocent and defenseless Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire,
drove them out of thier homes and countries, then they created all
those fake states of Northeren Africa and the Middleeast. The mess
they created is so big and widespread, about a hundred years later,
now they are murdering their allies with whom they muredred innocent
Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire as "war on terrorism". Their allies
and supporters in murdering the Turkish subjects of Ottoman empire
were the people they are fighting their war on terrorism now.

Look at the history of all those fake states the victors of WWI
crated, invaded and exploited as colonialism, you will see nothing but
immense sufferings they inflicted on local peoples.

This is what they call "Western Civilization." What a joke, what a
lie!!!!

LOL! You are a turk, aren't you, "mark rivers"? You sound like one. What a
joke! LOL!
.

User: "Malev"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	29 Jul 2004 07:26:33 AM

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:47:26 +0800, carlleigh <carlleigh@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am ashamed of you. Vapid Liberal lies and thinking.

Do you realize that by supporting the terrorists

<crap deleted>
grow up
.

User: "abelincoln"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E RB	30 Jul 2004 07:07:58 PM

grow up, you fucking imbecile.
that's 2nd grade logic.
which is why you fucking repugs adopt such asinine reasoning.
.

User: "ArKLyte_"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 01:25:35 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:57:45 -0400, abelincoln <bushsucks@whitehouse.com> wrote:

ther3 is no case for lies. bush's whole administration is built on them.
he has given the arab/muslim world every excuse they need to increase
terrorism for the foreseeable future. bush has singlehandedly reduced
our safety and increased the threat of terrorism world wide.

bush has failed to address the root causes of terrorism and has provided
the al qaeda members of the world all the incentive they need to keep up
their attacks.

bush invaded another country, murdered its citizens for absolutely no
reason.

every reason he gave was a lie/untruth.

deal with it, don't rationalize it.

No hard feelings, but you sound like a recording.
I bet when people call you on the phone, they get the same comments on
your answering machine. LOL!!
Go back to sleep.
===========================================================
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
.

User: "hayden_flare"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 04:28:17 AM

abelincoln <bushsucks@whitehouse.com> wrote in message news:<41082fb1$0$2815$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...

ther3 is no case for lies. bush's whole administration is built on them.
he has given the arab/muslim world every excuse they need to increase
terrorism for the foreseeable future. bush has singlehandedly reduced
our safety and increased the threat of terrorism world wide.

bush has failed to address the root causes of terrorism and has provided
the al qaeda members of the world all the incentive they need to keep up
their attacks.

bush invaded another country, murdered its citizens for absolutely no
reason.

every reason he gave was a lie/untruth.

deal with it, don't rationalize it.

America's reputation is tarnished all over the world now, and for what?
.

User: "ArKLyte_"
Title: Re: 'What if Bush is right ..' - A liberal's view <=== S U P E R B	29 Jul 2004 05:10:52 AM

On 29 Jul 2004 02:28:17 -0700,

(hayden_flare) wrote:

America's reputation is tarnished all over the world now, and for what?

Really? Then why do foreigners continue to come to America to live?
You don't sound very bright to me. Just an observation.
===========================================================
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Re: liberal Democrats view our soldiers as LOSERS
Re: liberal Democrats view our soldiers as LOSERS
The liberal view
The Liberal View Of The Military
Re: liberal Democrats view our soldiers as LOSERS
Latin America has dismal view of Bush - poll
Re: what's the christian view on violence now they have Passion?
An outside view: democracy and Bush's riddle

52% of voters view Bush favorably, only 47% view Kerry favorably
An outsiders view.Tell me why I am wrong!
majority of Americans view Kerry as untrustworthy
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
a conservative point of view....
View the Film
AN ARAB VIEW OF ELECTION

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232