loss of your rights, or loss of you life? do you want to fight this battle on the streets of houston, nyc, dc, and la, or in bagdahd, mosul, damascus, and tehran )the latter two being inevitable, IMHO)
talk about being paranoid.. so you're saying you'd rather have american soldiers die in Iraq/Iran than you die in the street from a terrorist attack..
OF course the Londong bombings, the Madrid bombings, the bombings in Morocco etc. have shown us that terrorists are capable of fighting both in Iraq and elsewhere. Fighting terrorists there does not mean they won't also attack here.
so how and where would you propose fighting them? by your logic, we shouldn't be in afghanistan. and don't the madrid, london, etc. bombings simply reinforce my point about who the attacks are directed at? would it be a far more effective, and yes, patriotic, display of dissent to note "you rat bastards are killing our troops- we're going to stay in iraq until we've defeated every last one of you and established a stable democracy. then we're going to come home and vote the hypocritical ****s out of office who got us into this mess in the first place. but until then, let there be no mistake about where our true allegiance lies, with our countrymen, not with our party." but then, that might be too nuanced for you...
I remember when media pundits used to say Kerry was too nuanced to defeat a straight-talking, shoot-from-the-hip guy like our beloved president Bush.
I agree with your point about fighting the fight in bagdahd, mosul,damascus, , tehran,london,germany or any other country.But If our troops have to fight with gloves ON while the emeny can do what ever they want WHATS the difference.it just like there fighting the fight right here in the States. This problem could be solve if they let our troops do what they are trained to do this would have be over a long time ago.That's the real loss of rights so tell our troops about the loss of there rights to do the job they were sent over there to do.
YOu can talk to the people in London about how well this Roach Motel (terrorists check into Iraq and they don't check out) works. We need to fight terrorists where ever they are but the problem is that terrorism is a cancer but you don't fight cancer with a sledgehammer. We need to root it out and as much as possible removing the causes of cancer. Given that terrorism has increased rather than diminished since invading Iraq that hasn't worked while at the same time making it more difficult to root out the cancer as we alienate populations who we need to help us in the fight. I agree it would be foolish to haphazardly pull out of Iraq but I don't buy at all that invading Iraq has struck a major blow in the war on terrorism when it seems likely its had the opposite effect.
I was wondering when you'd turn up. So, are you going to vote the "rat bastards" out of office in the mid-term elections? You know, the guys in charge of the Congress who have rubber stamped every stupid thing George W. Bush has done? Golly, I can't wait. Keep D&D Civil!!
My logic never indicated that we shouldn't fight them outside of the U.S. You know that I've always supported going into Afghanistan. That was an action where we went after people who were an actual threat to us. What I said was that just because we fight terrorists in Iraq, doesn't mean they can't also attack us here. Also please note that I haven't said that I was in favor of pulling out of Iraq. But sadly the administration you defended so much have botched the situation so badly that even they admit what will come out of Iraq won't be the model democracy that was one of their rationales in a chain of unsuccessful rationales for the invasion. I don't think their is any mistake about where our true allegiance lies. Only to people who want to try and deny our allegiance in some sort of an attempt at a political put down was the left's allegiance ever really in question. As far as trying to silence dissent when people are accusing those who disagree with actions taken by the administration as being unpatriotic and actually even helping the terrorists it is an attempt to crush dissent. It is also one sure fire way to divide rather than unite a nation that is supposed to at war.
so dissent isn't divisive, but pointing it out is an attempt to crush dissent and is divisive? my, what an odd little world you live in yossarian.
dissent is a disagreement, which isn't divisive. Pointing out disent isn't divisive either. Demonizing dissenters is divisive. That is exactly what happens when folks like you and others on your side try and claim that those who are unhappy with the war in Iraq, or how the leadership is handling the war in Iraq try and accuse them of supporting the terrorists. That isn't merely pointing out dissent, and you know it. Your side can keep doing the 'Who...? li'l ol me?' routine all day long, but I think more and more people are starting to see through it. Legitimate disagreement about what is the best course of action for our nation, and which course of action upholds our nation's principles the best is not in itself divisive. When one or both sides try and demonize the other, that is divisive.
See: Constitution, U.S. - Amendment, First. Basso....why do you think there is dissent against the War in Iraq?
Bush: Show us your WMDs Iraq: We can't, we don't have any. Bush: I know you have them, we taught you how to make them. (Um, I would like that to be stricken from the UN's record.) Iraq: Seriously, we don't have them. *Bush invades, finds no WMDs* Iraq: See, we don't have them. Bush: Yes, but you were unable to prove that you don't have them. Iraq: That's because WE DON'T HAVE THEM. Bush: And THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO INVADE YOU. We weren't about to invade a country with real weaspons of mass destruction like North Korea. For the love of god, they might actually use them against our troops. This moment of catch-22 zen brought to you by, our beloved leader.
Thanks for instructing on Catch 22. There was at least one report that Austrailian Commanders told their troops ahead of time that there were no wmd, so not to worry. Of course never forget that the US was advised by the highest ranking Iraqi defectors of all time, Sadam's son in laws that the wmd had been destroyed. The Bushies suppressed that info, but selectively took from their debriefing some info to mislead Americans.
For Dubya, this War cannot be over since otherwise he would be called the "Struggle Time President". Glad we have GWOT -> GSAVE -> GWOT again.
Why Bush Believes His Lies With every passing week, President Bush marches deeper and deeper into a world of his own making. His August move to Crawford and his refusal/inability to meet with Cindy Sheehan are only the latest steps in that long retreat from the real world. Central to Bush's world is an iron will which demands that external reality be changed to conform to his personal view of how things are. Starting with his June 28th speech to the nation, insisting that he was right to invade Iraq unprovoked, Bush continues to hold fast to his familiar phrases through the tragic London bombings, the accusations swirling around Karl Rove, the wave of deaths in the first week of August, into the persistent challenge posed by families camped outside his prairie fortress that he personally explain to them why their sons had to die. June 28th will be remembered as the "turning point" in America's perception of Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. August 15 will be remembered as the "tipping point" in America's perception of Bush's humanity. For on that day he became a Marie Antoinette clone -- using his own version of "Let them eat cake" -- when he said of his choosing strenuous exercise over talking to Cindy Sheehan, "I have to get on with my life." Leading Republicans, such as Senator Chuck Hagel, have already found fraudulence in the party line, claiming that President Bush and his cheerleaders were "disconnected from reality." On August 3 he continued to offer nothing more than more of the same, prompting Sheehan to go to Crawford the following Saturday. He keeps saying our world is safer while his world continues to shrink. Now columnist Frank Rich writes "Someone tell the President the war's over." As a psychoanalyst who has been studying Bush's words and behavior in hopes of better understanding his mind, I'm heartened that so many critics have drawn the nation's attention to Bush's need to repeat points and phrases -- even after their inaccuracy has been established. Now critics see clearly his distaste for having to meet with the people whose lives he has forever changed. But recognition only raises the deeper question: why, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, does Bush persist in this way? How does it help him to continue repeating himself to a nation that increasingly believes he is lying on several fronts? How does his refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan help him? There is a two-part answer to this question: First, as far as Bush is concerned, he is telling the truth; as Madeleine Albright recently said to Columbia Magazine: "the most serious problem is that George Bush now believes what he says." Like many of my hospitalized patients, Bush has created a vast, detailed but vague delusional system he feels compelled to maintain at all costs. This system helps him manage the terrifying anxiety that threatens to make his already endangered inner world more chaotic. The second answer is made clear by his reaction to Cindy Sheehan: he believes his lies because he feels his survival depends on it. He cannot help her mourn; he cannot take responsibility for his destructiveness. If he could he would. His inner need to be right would not just be modified; his entire internal mental structure would be shattered. Psychoanalytic theory suggests that Bush's true enemy is an aspect of himself -- the overwhelming anxiety he works so hard to manage. For Bush, lying remains a central defense mechanism in managing his fears; he lies foremost to himself, altering his perception of external or internal reality to fulfill his psychic need to maintain order. His anxiety is so great that he cannot shift his thinking to account for new information --especially the fact that patriotic families of patriotic soldiers demand that he speak with them. Taking responsibility has always been hard for George W. Bush. And taking responsibility for inflicting harm on others, a major step in the development of maturity, is a step President Bush has yet to make. Instead, he persists in lying to himself, surrounding himself with people who agree with him. And now he is not safe even inside his own closed circle. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/justin-frank/why-bush-believes-his-lie_5752.html
