This is the new Republican strategy I guess. Don't criticize Bush -- it's the wrong time for that -- 9/11 just happened -- if you criticize him you're aiding the terrorists -- that's unpatriotic and shameful. Then it's don't criticize him -- we're in Afghanistan -- any criticism is aid to Osama bin Laden. Then it's time for the 02 elections -- don't criticize Bush when we're gearing up for war with Iraq -- you're aiding Saddam -- that's unpatriotic and petty. Now we're in the war and it's don't criticize Bush -- not the right time for that -- you're aiding Saddam and not supporting the troops -- it's unpatriotic, inappropriate and vile. In other words, don't say a cross word about Bush til the general election (would it be okay then?) or you're a Saddam loving, anti-American, anti-troops traitor. Give me a freaking break. Thank god ONE viable candidate for president finally said enough's enough. What's vile is a bunch of chickenhawks questioning a decorated veteran's patriotism or support for the troops while cutting funding to vets hospitals. The nerve to turn it around on Kerry and accuse HIM of being thin-skinned. And let's remember DeLay was the same guy who mercilessly criticized Clinton during Kosovo, openly disdaining a war effort (not just an administration, but the war itself) while bullets were flying. Kerry hasn't done anything near that. He has simply said we need a new president, which is hardly controversial considering he's running for president.
Don't know enough about Kerry yet...am pretty disenchanted with most candidates for either party, unless Powell gets into the running, and out from under Bush's thumb...and as far away from Rumsfeld as humanely possible, and I don't know how to reconcile my objection to this war with my admiration for powell, excpet to say that he has often been the voice of soem reason in the administration while following orders in general...but, as a non-partisan political wathcer, i would have to say that your portrayal of the current Republican rhetoric is bang on. Wag the what?
You know what, aside from Possum here, I have yet to hear anyone say what you just wrote, Batman. This whole thing about anyone who is not antiwar saying that if you disagree with them, don't support Bush, the war, etc, then you're a Saddam-lover, unpatriotic - that's BS. No one is saying that. We might call you idiots for various reasons, but we haven't said that. Frankly, I'm getting tired of people (particularly you, MacBeth) putting those particular words in my mouth.
.......are.......you.....kidding? Oh God, if you're not, I could, were I so inclined ( probably BJ has more ability/patience to do so than I) cite dozens of examples of just myself alone being called unpatriotic, a Saddm-Lover, etc...I am amazed that I even have to say this. Would be the equivalent of some one on the basktetball board saying " I know people have criticized mobley's play, but no one has ever said we should actually trade him."....Stunned...I would think that, even though they would defend them by saying it's deserved beccause of my 'constant anti-USness', or whatever...I would suggest that most pro-war folks in here would agree that i have been called all of the things you mentioned and more... Wow.
Daschle was accused of being dangerously close to giving comfort to Saddam because he criticized Bush's diplomatic efforts. He was accused of this by DeLay who did the exact same thing during Kosovo but worse -- he did it while troops were in harm's way. Kerry's patriotism and support of the troops is being questioned simply because he's said we need a new president. Play semantics, say your side never quite said exactly these things -- doesn't matter. The message is clear -- if you're not with Bush you're with the other guys or at the very least you're not a good patriot. I'm glad there's at least one guy who's not gonna take that crap anymore.
Not to mention the outrageous attacks on MacBeth's patriotism which are too voluminous to count. I'm late for rehearsal now and have to go. If you continue to defend this defenseless position, I'll post more later. This is from Mark Shields at the CNN site. GOP hypocrisy in attacks upon Daschle Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 4:11 PM EST (2111 GMT) WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- From March 24,1999, until June 10,1999, the United States and NATO waged a military campaign to save ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from Serbian oppression. On May 4, 1999 -- while American troops were engaged in combat -- two Republican congressional leaders publicly criticized the Democratic president and his policy: Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi: "As a matter of fact, you know, I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Then House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas: "(In the Balkans) we have a (U.S.) president I don't trust who has proven my reason for not trusting him, had no plan." Compare these please to the following. On March 17, 2003 -- after it became apparent that the United States had been able to win only four of the 15 votes on the U.N. Security Council and before the president would tell the nation that the United States would almost certainly, in two days, initiate military action against Iraq -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, publicly criticized the Republican president and his policy: "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're forced to war, saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort so critical for our country." It is true that generally "war represents a failure of diplomacy." And even though Daschle -- unlike DeLay and Lott -- delivered his criticisms before the first shot was fired and before American troops were in combat, a clear plurality of all Washington GOP politicians in shoe-leather launched a blistering press attack on the South Dakota Democrat. Tom DeLay (who should know one when he sees one) asked, "Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, a man of personal and verbal restraint, went nuclear, charging that Daschle's comments "may not undermine the president as he leads us into war and they may not comfort our adversaries, but they come mighty close." Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, reflecting the GOP's continuing Francophobia, added, "Sen. Daschle clearly articulated the French position." Of course, dissent is not disloyalty, and of course, Tom Daschle -- who spent from 1969 through 1972 in uniform as an Air Force intelligence officer -- personally has more active-duty military experience than DeLay, Hastert and Lott, to say nothing of Vice President Dick Cheney, combined. At a time when three out of four college graduates served in the military, this quartet of red-white-and-blue patriots figured out how to game the system and qualify for deferments to skip the burden of defending the nation they so obviously love. Interestingly, Tom Daschle could have qualified for a draft deferment because he was married when he graduated from South Dakota State University in 1969. He chose instead to honor his commitment to serve. He has explained the intense rivalry between his alma mater and the University of South Dakota this way: "We're a lot like Harvard and Yale, except we have a better school of animal husbandry." He explained his decision: "I just viewed my time in the service as giving back to your country, something I needed to do just as my father had done before me." In Ed Pokorny of Texas and Fred Marr of Idaho, Tom Daschle has a gift his critics will never know -- lifetime friendships forged from shared military service. Daschle, who was not sent to Southeast Asia, remembers, "A lot of the people I served with went to Vietnam, and some did not come home." He continues to visit the Vietnam memorial, seeks out the names on the wall and admits "that hole in your heart and your memory is always there" -- and so, too, are "the tears." Let us not forget: Debate and dissent are the very oxygen of democracy. This nation was founded not by conformists or the complacent, but by dissenters who had the courage to defend their beliefs and their homeland -- which sounds a lot more like Tom Daschle than his critics.
Macbeth: Go ahead. Cite away. Please. Batman: The message is clear? Don't you mean, "I interpret it as being thus"? My point is that no one here (Possum excepted) is calling anyone unpatriotic simply because they aren't Bush supporters or don't support the war. I have said that some of the antiwar protesters are anti-America because they clearly are - ANSWER is organized by a Stalinist group, for example. But I have not said that all antiwar people are unpatriotic; on the contrary I have stated my belief that most of them are simply misguided. I would question MacBeth's patriotism because he is a dual-citizenship holder (correct?), which I personally think makes it difficult for him to be loyal to the US when it is at odds with Canada. But not simply because he opposes the war. Please, show me where I have called someone unpatriotic, a Saddam-lover, etc on this BBS simply because they opposed Bush or the war?
MacBeth, Don't bother. It is not worth the effort. he is wrong and he knows it. If he honestly can not remember the threads in question, then his memory is even shorter than his ... well you know.
Well, I am one. I think though that you said that I hated America, in an attempt to place me beyond the anti_america crowd.
Oh please. I'm so wrong, I tell MacBeth to go ahead and expose me for the idiot that I obviously am??? Why don't you bud out and let MacBeth do his research? Or you can help him... Since I can't remember those threads where I said something, maybe you could find them for me? Sounds like you know which ones you're talking about...
I said tha you obviously hated America because every single article you post/quote, every single argument or point you try to make, either serves to point out how much we are hated or to reinforce and/or increase that hatred. All of your conspiracy theories have the US as the bad guy, and you expect me to believe that you yourself do not think the US is the bad guy? Again - please...
I am still amazed...What bothers me more, though, is that even those who agree with him/disagree with me on the war itself, and have accused me of bias will know he's completely re-writing history here...but it will in no way make them see the bias therein. And it's not just a lack of effort which prevents me, it's my ( previously mentioned) inablity to do that kind of computer thing without A) Search function, or B) having to type out all the stuff in the URL... But if tree is actually interested in this at all, among the many, many examples you ( or someone else...maybe even Clutch?) can look for are the 2 BBS reports i cited...one re: American soldiers killed, one re: Market bombing...the 1st debate about US involvment in WWI I had with johnheath...hell,tree, even guys I usually get along with like DD stated that they were starting a fund to get me shipped out of the country I hate...I have been called Saddam...a 'fan' of Saddam...someone who thinks Saddam is a boyscout...etc. etc. One well wisher even said that they hoped i would go join my friend Saddam in Iraq and get hit with a US missile bearing an inscription for me...Tree, this is ridiculous, and stuff like this and your defense of Rumsfled's defense of the US breaking treaties re: using chemical weapons is what makes me convinced that you have no perspective on your own bias.
MacBeth: Just a couple of points - 1) You are not unbiased. You keep claiming that unlike the rest of humanity (you know, us little people) you are not chained down intelectually by petty biases. Everyone here can see that you are biased - just as biased as I am. Everyone except for you, that is. At least I know that I'm biased. Your denial of your bias is really sort of pathetic, and no one buys it. 2) Re: market bombing - I actually do not remember that one, but I suspect that it involved you asking for proof that it wasn't the result of US action - or something along those lines. When you ask questions like that, which are obviously designed to pin blame on the US and make us look like the bad guys, then I question your motives. 3) US WWI involvement thread - I do remember that one. I think we agreed that the US did not "save" Europe in that one. What are you talking about? 4) POWs killed - again, you were asking for proof that they were tortured and executed, when all you had to do was turn on your friggen TV and used your big head. Assuming that you were capable of both, I was curious why you would want to apparently absolve the Iraqis of any blame (for something it turns out that they *did* do, BTW). I still am. 4) Nice cop out - "And it's not just a lack of effort which prevents me"... It is either lack of effort or knowledge that I am right. One or the other. 5) As I said, I do question your patriotism, but not simply because you oppose the war and Bush. There's the dualy thing, and then some of the arguments you make force me to suspect your motives... I think you may have some sort of paranoid personality disorder; you seem to play the "Oh, I'm just a poor little persecuted unbiased really-really-smart academic, and all these warmongers always gang up on me" part on a daily basis. It gets old.
tree...have to run...will real with your point by point post when i get back, but 1st...I did give specific examples...I even attributed at least one of them...Look it up yourself. Gotta go.
Why even bother Mac. Even the most solid posters here( and I would consider treeman a very solid poster although I usually agree with absolutely 0 of what he says) have problems admitting they are wrong. It just makes him look foolish, so let him.
Five minute break from rehearsal and I go straight to the BBS. First step is admitting I have a problem. Just a quick note to say that while this sort of attitude is, say, annoying on the BBS, it's not what bothers me. What bothers me is the official GOP line that it's not okay to say one bad thing about Bush (1) shortly following the inauguration - time to heal the divisive election battle, (2) within 6 months of 9/11, (3) while we're in Afghanistan, (4) while we're gearing up for Iraq, (5) while we're in Iraq. That it's inappropriate and offensive and that it borders on unpatriotic, anti-American behavior which gives comfort to the enemy. I don't too much care what's said on the BBS. The official GOP party line is free ride for Bush from start to finish and to wait to criticize til the debates. That's just stupid. I've been bothered by the Dems buying into it and I'm liking Kerry a lot for calling BS on it.
1) re bias..." Bias..n; mental tenency, esp. prejudice." I have not said that I am superhumanly immune to mental tendencies, what i have said is that I have no prejudices in any of the issues of contention surrounding this war, and as such, have made my conmclusions re: this war without bias. I have done so before, will do so here, just for you ,tree. Possible biases: National; To suggest that there are only two national perspectives on this; American and everyone else, would be absurd, but certainly possessing only one of either might be grounds for the assumption of bias. Being both American ( who has lived extensively in America) and Canadian ( who is currently living in Canada ), I have both, and as such no bias for or against. I have often defended American activities, and indeed wrote a paper calling America the most selfless of all Supoerpowers, and am ironically percieved by many Canadians as very pro-American. Therefore, I have seen/been both American and other than American, and have no reason for automatically siding with/against the US...How about you, tree? Political ; I am neither Republican nor Democratic...at all...have supported both, criticized both in the past. Went into last election sort of leaning towards Gore idealogically, Bush personally, and two factors pushed me into the Bush camp; Colin Powell is by a mile the current political figure I admire the most, although the war has tested that admiration, and I detested the way Gore handled the Florida thing. On the other hand, although i thought Clinto was doing a pretty good job, I was at the time, and remain to this day convinced that he should have been booted out of office, not for the sexual nature of his situatuation ( I couldn't have cared less) but for commiting perjury while being the nominal head of an testimonial based evidenciary judicial system. As you can see, I have/had no political pre-disposition either for or against the Republicans before this war, and my rejection of their stance had nothing whatever to do with any bias, as prior to that i was, if anything, pro-Republican, although short of Powell I was pretty disenchanted with political leadership in general.So as said, i was not anti-Republican at all before this war came up, hence no prejudice...You, I suppose, were not pro-Republican before the issue of the war came up? Idealogical:Contrary to popular belief, I am not really a liberal...My views don't really fit comfortably into any label that I am aware of...On that graph thing we did earlier IRe: market bombing...uh, no...dead wrong. i never demanded anything of the sort... was called a Centrist, but I don't feel even that is accurate as the positions I take, while seemingly polarized on the current definition of right-left, I take strongly. I am anti-death penalty...I am anti-abortion...I will not explain either here and now, but they are supposedly mutually exclusive idealogically in conventional definition. Moreover...and this is about as extremely contrary your assumption that I am a lefty, I would give serious consideration to, and have often proposed to my students the merits of, restricting the vote to those who serve in the military. I am not sure if I would actually do it, and not without present conditions altering ( as I feel that the military as is is not comprised of an accurate reflection of the country) but I have given it serious thought in the past. I do feel that if you are going to vote on whether or not to go to warm you ought to be in something of a position of backing up your stance., and in this way agree with the original Roman Republic/many ancient Greek cities definition of 'citizen' to a degree..Obviously it would be a limited service, and allowances would have to be made for those physically incapable of doing so albeit willing to, but it is not something I would in any way disimiss...which i don;t think you could say of a traditional 'lefty'...As said, I am all over the place idealogically...and as such have no idealogical bias which would have me be against this war. You, tree, can also claim the same,with examples as I have? War/Peace: I have devoted much of my life to studying this very subject, and it's intellectual environs. I have supported wars in the past, both during my lifetime and in a historical sense. I have also, due to years of study, placed a very high standard on what consitutes a justifiable war. I supported the 1st Gulf War as it did just that, IMO. I have opposed other wars, and would, had I been able to at the time, have been against the VietNam War. I have strong opinions on war, but no prejudice for or against, as I have shown myself to support one in my life. My position on this war came about as a result of examining the reasons cited for it, and finding them severely wanting, not the reverse. As such, where lies the prejudice? Where is the rush to judgment? If I was against other wars, how can I be automatically against this one? On the other hand, what US wars have you opposed in your lifetime? 2) Re: market bombing...your suspicions are wrong... I never asked for anything of the sort...I reported word for wrod action for action a BBC report which was the lead story in Europe and in Canada about the bombing, but hadn't gotten a word in here...and was attacked for it, called Saddam...told I enjoyed the situation, or later re-defined as told i was so wrapped up in my argument that I looked past the deaths to see only justficatioon for my argument, and enjoyed that...Bias was claimed everywhere, the number of my anti-US news reports was cited...When it turned out that I had cited exactly 2, both from the BBC, and each onvolving casualties on each side, the argument shifted to me being biased due to my editorializing.....when it turned out that I had reflected the BBC report bang on, and in fact had toned down the anti-US sentiment quite a bit, the argument against me shifted to my bias because I only reflected opinions which were anti-US, however accurately...as though it were my responsibility to report everything, and under tha assumption that both my reports were anti-US, which baffles me in that one of them was about us suffering causlties, which could only be construed as anti-US if you look at this as a " If we win the war we are right, if we lose we are wrong" sitatuation, which is abhorent to me. So your suspicions/memory have failed you yet again in this sitaution...The 'prrof that it wasn't the US' thing never came up, let alone was the thrust of the thread, in any way to do with me. 3) WWII debate, 1st one...not arguing the issue, as I agree that you and I were pretty close on that...but you are talking about the 2nd such debate...the 1st of which was peppered with johnheath and others calling me a traitor, etc. for suggesting that the US did not declare war on Germany to save Europe, as part of a dsicussion on this warthe exact kind of termin...In other words, another example of the kind of terminology you claim never happened, and resent reference to. 4) Re: Cop out...have given several examples...ahve cited some of the posters who said the exact kind of thing you claim never happened...You call it a cop out because i don't know how to type that in here, without putting in the whole thread, when i have statyed as much long before this debate...The evidence is there...all you have to do is look....Not that you'll admit you were wrong/apologize if.when you do, but just for the sake of argument. 5) I resent your assumption that the duality of my citizenship precludes me from being a patriot, and outlined my feelings/lotalty to America in my My Positions Against..etc. thread. To assume that I would lose patriotism due to living in another country is to assume that patriotism comes with blinders, and that any other perspective somehow lessens it. If the stance is valid, exposure to/sympathy with other perspectives can only add to America, not take away from it. ANd for what it's worth re: your allusion to the conflict between Canada and the US over this, while I find myself supporting Chretien's stance as it agrees with mine, I personally think that he is an idiot, and an embarasment, andhave said so in this site, long before the war was a subject of contention. I have never supported the man, so to assume that his stand has affected my stand would be prepostrous, as I fully expected him to sid e with the US, and already was against the war when he didn't. To assume that I am affected by the general Canadian opinion is more possible, but in so doing i would also be refliecting the general opinion of the world, and if agreeing with the world is a bias, it's an obscure one. Seeing as how much of my opposition to this war is centered on the fact that the world opposes us on this, it would be hard to argue that it cause a pre-existing bias which surfaced ovver the issue. 6) Re; your last and latest example of politeness, open mindedness, and genral class: Re: academic persecution, i assume you're refering to the instance where I responded to a thread that included claims that academics were idiots, out of touch, and do-nothings...Clearly i was paranoid to take that as criticism of academics, and defend my profession. Clearly you would have wistfully ignored a thread calling soldiers bloodthirsty baby killers who can't think for themselves... Re: really-really smart..aside from opposing the idea that my profession were inherently idiots, please tell me where I have ever said I was any smarter than anyone else...not that you ever make claims without substance, but just for my education.And if you don't think I have been attacked for opposing the war by those who disagree, just read the Market thread... You want to know what gets old? You making completely inaccurate claims, infounded assumptions, and insulting remarks about me, and then saying that the problem is mine...
Could you please repeat one conspiracy theory I have advocated? I have suggested alternative possible interpretations to the 'bullet holes in the head as evidence of excecution' theory you claimed as fact , but not as my theories, just as alternatives to conclusion based on supposition. But can you name me one....just one, any one will do...conspiracy theory that I have claimed exists? You throw this kind of crap around so much, it's about time you backed some of it up.
