Bruce

Do you have any sense of Bush's actual role in his Iraq policy? The thing that is so striking about all the books on Iraq is how little Bush really figures in them. For example Abizaid, an Arabic speaking General, wanted to put an Iraqi face on the post Saddem era. However, there is no evidence that Bush, the Commander-in-Chief, ever paid any attention to Abizaid.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The president's decision won't have anything to do with reality in Iraq or the US or diplomatic problems. It will be based entirely on political and economic considerations: the politics of party and legacy, and the economic wellbeing of friends and supporters who stand to gain from expanding the military.*

Sound cynical? I'm beyond cynicism. Like you, like our friends and neighbors who are actually in Iraq, fighting Bush's war, I'm stuck with the desperate reality Bush (and still many in the media) refuse to face.

In polls, a majority of Americans have signalled that they want Congress to take over the decision-making process. If that isn't virtual impeachment, I don't know what is!

*Re expanding the military: isn't this a sharp uppercut to Rumsfeld's jaw? the implication being that if Rumsfeld had made the right decisions, "we" might have "won"? Is there hope that Don Rumsfeld is seething and may blow a gasket?

Please watch your language.

LMAO...excuse me?  Whatever...

It's a punt, that's all. It avoids accepting failure of the approach to date. It delays the inevitable for political purposes.

I feel no obligation to solve this conundrum (if I could; I can't). That responsibility lies on the White House, which bulldozed Congress  and the country into it. How about personal responsibility? Wasn't that an important GOP issue?

Double-down will invite impeachment sooner, my guess.

If Bush had another million troops, another three or four trillion dollars, and maybe 25 more years as President, maybe.......his odds of success would rise above his IQ.

...not on moronic ventures such as Iraq.

Tom

It would be worse if he called GHaines so.

/Tuomas

Ok, so we're going to "Go Big." Iraq is a country of 26.8 million, with 5.7 million in Baghdad alone. Past history indicates that a stabilization mission requires a force of at least 20 police (troops) for every 1,000 people being "stabilized." So if we're going to "win" we'll need something like 114,000 troops for Baghdad, and a total of 536,000 for all of Iraq. (500,000; where have I heard that number before? Oh, yes, Eric Shinseki was talking about something like that before he was muzzled.)

All the current "Go Big" proposals don't come close to this. I've previously noted McCain's cynicism in this regard. We don't have enough man-power to achieve these troop levels, and even if we imposed a draft today, we still wouldn't be able to get this many troops to Iraq for over a year. So we'll throw another 20,000 troops into Baghdad, still be short of the number needed for the job, sustain an increasing number of casualties, and in the end we'll limp out humiliated.

I wish this weren't so, but the calculus of warfare is brutally simple. Donald Rumsfeld, no matter what his ego told him, couldn't change it. Cheney, no matter how much he tells people to go f*** themselves, can't change it. Bush, no matter how much he ignores it, can't change it. Either you go in with enough boots on the ground or you are going to loose. Force multipliers work on attack and defense, but have limited applicability to an occupation.

So, are we going "Big?" Hardly. Going "Long?" For the next two years, certainly. Going "Home?" Yeah, with a whole lot more body bags and amputees, and a Mideast in turmoil. I sure hope Big Oil makes a mint off this, because no one else will.

Your comment reminds me of a memorable story of Benjamin O. Davis Sr., the first black general in the US Army. Davis, ostracized through West Point, was assigned to duty in the South, rather deliberately.

One day, he was ignored by some white enlisted men, who did not give the salute called for by military regulation and custom. Davis confronted them, and pointed to the Great Seal of the United States on his uniform. Details differ, but he told them that while he didn't much care what they thought of him personally, they were going to respect the authority behind his uniform...or, perhaps, it was a good day to die.

I respect the Office of the Presidency and its Constitutional role. I desire no President to fail for political reasons. In a formal context, I would pay every courtesy to the President.

For the record, I've only been in the immediate proximity of Richard Nixon, on two occasions. On one, I learned he indeed played the piano decently. On the other one, he demonstrated his legendary clumsiness. I both campaigned for Nixon and believe his resignation was necessary.

It may well be that I respect the Office of the Presidency, in its Constitutional context, more than does George W. Bush. "Dumbass" would not be my choice of words. Harry S Truman's comment about Nixon, while again not my choice of words, may be on point: "I don't think the SOB ever read the Constitution. If he did, he didn't understand it."

Respect for the office can only go so far in preserving, or losing, respect for the man.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I'd rather be insulted than have someone mock the leader of my country.
Maybe I'm crazy.

When did it become o.k. to make fun of America? When did it become o.k. to mock western values?
The Daily Show is having a bigger impact on people's minds than Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson.
When is the last time you heard of a protest because someone burned, ripped or stepped on an American flag? I have never heard of one.
It is supposedly understandable to protest Danish cartoons, but it is wrong for us to protest when they burn the Danish flag.

I think the west gave up the fight. We might as well convert now and give bin Laden the keys to our civilization. We don't even like it.

Big Oil prefers dictators, easier to cut deals. The oil companies sure as heck do not like war zones. I don't think Big Oil was the prime mover in this fiasco.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public".



Theodore Roosevelt
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Nice to see you back Howard...you were missed around here.

What's wrong with the spelling?

Well, it's "blithe," not "blythe."

Your criticism of my harsh critique of the George W. Bush's lack of brain power is a great example  of how the RW reacts to not only criticisms of Bush but even those who dare question his policies...call into question the person's patriotism or loyalty.  To quote Samuel Johnson "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"...

Leader of your country? The United States has a head of government and a head of state in the same body. In many democracies, those are separate functions, but it doesn't interfere with their freedoms. Ever listened to Question Period in the British or Canadian Parliaments? The Prime Minister, and indeed the Cabinet, have no choice there but to respond -- there's no ducking into staged media opportunities.

When did it become ok to make fun of America? Excuse me, but I fail to note when it was not ok, as in political satire and criticism. When did it become ok to mock Western values? Being able to mock them is a Western value.

Let's come back to the Leader. I don't seem to find that term anywhere in the Constitution. With due regard for proper translation, I do find a Leader Principle in the theories of Hegel and Nietzsche, as well as of assorted political systems that adopted the Principle.

When is the last time you heard of a protest because someone burned, ripped or stepped on an American flag? I have never heard of one.

Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Oh, how nice to read your pieces!

(And that also when I do not agree on your tendency, which I most certainly do this time.)

As for the Danish attitude to flag burning:
We, most of us, realize that these here hinted at occasions were intended as insults, just like we, most of us, realize that the satiric cartoons had a rather similar intension. Most of the Danes would be concerned about well known Danes burning the Danish flag, or of masses of Danish youhts had flag burning parties on the streets. That had been really concerning.

But beside that portion of the nation that see semite immigrants as the most scary phenomenon since the revolutions of 1848 (on the Continent), Danes are a lot more concerned about the economic consequences of these events for Danish export corporations.

That's is real damage.
Insults are not.

How about finding at least some connection between what you comment on and your comment?

First, you were the one who brought up the special role of a Leader, on which I was commenting with specific historical, philosophical, and linguistic references. I should be happy to discuss it.

You will notice that I have not used scatologic or anatomic references to George W. Bush. Now, I did speak of the relevance of part of Winston Churchill's characterization of Clement Attlee, "...a great deal to be modest about." I might draw on an apocryphal story of why the Israelis are concerned with hosting a summit, for they remember what happened the last time they talked to a Bush in the Desert.

I shall also be happy to discuss cultural and insurgency issues with Iraq, and the relevance (or lack thereof) of the Iraq campaign, within the theater of US Central Command, within the global national security policy of the United States. With respect to Iran, I shall be happy to get some aspects of its religious and political system corrected, and then move into that excellent term coined by Soviet military theoreticians, "correlation of forces". Correlation of forces conveys much more meaning than the usual US term, "net assessment". Apropos of the latter, we can always get into the nuances of distinction between net assessments and intelligence estimates, and their misuse or bias.

As to Somalia, I don't stay as current as in other areas, but I certainly can get into the lessons learned from UNOSOM and OPERATION GOTHIC SERPENT. Wazaristan is more of an interest, as is Pakistan, and the balance between FATA locals, ISI, and Mubarrak.

I would be delighted to get into a substantive discussion of Sudanese issues including Darfur. Indeed, I have a current point about the role of the French in both helping and hindering the situation in the western border areas of Sudan.

As far as doo-doo, I have, indeed, done chemical and microscopic analysis of fecal specimens. While I would hardly call that pleasant, I was born in Newark, New Jersey, where mere doo-doo cannot compete with the subtle scents of the Jersey Meadows, burning tires, and refineries. Ah, the loss of tradition when the Secaucus pig farms went away. Pig doo-doo tends to be the ultimate goal of fecal evolution.

Shall we get back to the Vozhd or the Leader Principle?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Me thinks thou were thinking Danner.

Protected speech can be offensive or in bad taste, but be protected.

I have real problems with generic hate speech criminalization. There is a difference between hate speech and immediate threat; the latter is a legitimate area of concern. Nevertheless, I fondly remember going face-to-face with American Nazis, and I'd much rather have demonstrated them as fools than merely have it suspected if their spew is suppressed.

There is no right not to be offended. Of course, my First Amendment rights allow me to respond.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The first amendment isn't an order! It doesn't say you have to be crass.

You have the freedom to fart in a crowded elevator too, that doesn't make it appropriate. You have the freedom to give the finger to an old lady, but why would you do that? Stop hiding behind your freedoms. Stop exploiting.

Get a grip on reality for a second, please.

"Stop hiding behind your freedoms.  Stop exploiting."? 

Well that is a telling statement in terms of your mindset G.  Do you think we have too much freedom in this country?  Do you believe those freedoms should be limited?  You think it is of a higher importance to protect the "reputation" of a term limited Executive then it is to protect the liberties that make our country great? 

I think you are the one who needs to get a grip...and for more then a second.

Straw man #2. This is too easy.

Let's mix a little ad hominem in there on this next one. Call me fat or something.
Actually I am in more of a post hoc mood. What's on the menu?
You know what-- surprise me!

I am done with this nonsense. Back to the issues.

To me (as hate speech paragraphs are used in my surrounding, including present-day Germany) the hate speech against Jews (I may by some be considered as one, although I am not) are no different than hate speech against immigrants in general, homosexuals in general, negroes in general, etc, etc. Such utterances carry a message that is a threat, also when it's not explicitely expressed.

In effect, it is of no relevance for man-to-man conversations, which I consider good. In practice, it is public utterances that are prosecuted - in the rare cases when that happends. Such utterances can only seldom be discussed. At least not in a way that reach the audience.

And attempts by individuals to discuss makes them into targets, which has a rather chilling effect on one's motivation.

Speaking of exchanges, Bush and Rove wile away their spare time exchanging fart jokes which, according to ear-witnesses, they enjoy immensely.

Maybe, rather than calling the president a dumb-ass, it would have been more respectful to call the president a dumb-fart - better yet leave off the dumb.

I didn't "call" you anything in that post...except call you out.  I quoted you and asked you to explain what you said.  If that is an ad hominem attack you've been dropping too many Ludes dude.  You still haven't explained "Stop hiding behind your freedom.  Stop exploiting.".  What the hell did you mean by that?  But if you would like to retreat from the intellectual field of battle feel free...run away, run away!!!

J. McCutchen

Merry Christmas, Happy Chanuka to one and all.

I encourage you all to go shopping George Bush

Thanks!

I'm glad that made some sense to someone - I tried explaining it today to some other people and - well..

But anyways - thanks!

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.

If he really did listen to his Generals - then we would have actual progress or at least a general idea as to how to come about in the situation that is Iraq...

I think the Generals he's listening to are the cartoon ones in his head...

Good one on the IQ though

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.

Actually, once again, we're going to "Go Stupid".

Tom

Howard,
I am choosing to respond to you because you obviously are a deep thinker.
Here are my responses:
"Excuse me, but I fail to note when it was not ok, as in political satire and criticism"

You are too smart to accidentally confuse the words criticize and mock. You know better than that. I assume I was somehow unclear in stating that accusing me of being intolerant of criticism was a classic straw man. Either that or you are being deliberately dishonest. I will assume it was my fault.
Dumb ass, idiot, etc are juvenile ways to express juvenile opinions. You are above that, I would think. Others may not be, but I have given up trying to prove that to them. They can fart in the elevator they want. I choose not to, and I am hoping you would choose not to as well.

"Let's come back to the Leader. I don't seem to find that term anywhere in the Constitution."

You are playing semantic games here and it is not helpful in any way. Obviously the President is a leader. The president of Ford Motors might not have the title "Leader" on his office door, but to say that proves he is not a leader is just silly.
Mayors are leaders, Governors are leaders, Imams are leaders, University presidents are leaders, Sports captains are leaders, etc. You and I both know this. I am disappointed that you would claim otherwise.

"Must not have been around during Vietnam, eh?"

Vietnam was the last time you saw a protest over flag burning? My guess is that there have been more recent ones, but I was specifically talking about the barrage of flag burning images we see weekly (daily?) coming out of the Middle East. Americans do not flood into the streets to protest the people who commit these acts. They protest America when Denmark prints cartoons insulting their belief system, but we don't care when they insult our belief system.
I think this blog proves my point that maybe that is because we no longer believe in ourselves, we no longer believe in America.

It angered me to see the Danish flag get trampled on, and I am not Danish. However, I have respect for their system, their beliefs, their culture and that is what their flag represents. It is not a piece of cloth, it is a symbol of their beliefs. Trampling on their flag is a sign of disrespect. It demeans their values, and trampling that flag is disgusting to me.

"May I ask you if you are familiar with a few Danish activities in October 1943"

Are you talking about the Danes protesting the Nazi treatment of Jews? I am not very familiar with the protests other than it was my understanding they didn't accomplish anything. Am I wrong? Tell me more about it.

"We can't, of course, ignore ex parte Milligan, can we?"

Wasn't that a case about detaining American citizens? I am assuming you are bringing it up in regard to Gitmo?

I am not an ogre, I am not a radical, I am simply a guy who believes in America and wants to have discussion and debate that isn't riddled with childish name calling and nonsense. I hope you take that for what it's worth and respond in kind.

You are playing semantic games here and it is not helpful in any way. Obviously the President is a leader. The president of Ford Motors might not have the title "Leader" on his office door, but to say that proves he is not a leader is just silly.

Mayors are leaders, Governors are leaders, Imams are leaders, University presidents are leaders, Sports captains are leaders, etc. You and I both know this. I am disappointed that you would claim otherwise.

Americans do not flood into the streets to protest the people who commit these acts. They protest America when Denmark prints cartoons insulting their belief system, but we don't care when they insult our belief system.

[Referring to October 1943] Are you talking about the Danes protesting the Nazi treatment of Jews? I am not very familiar with the protests other than it was my understanding they didn't accomplish anything. Am I wrong? Tell me more about it.

I think this blog proves my point that maybe that is because we no longer believe in ourselves, we no longer believe in America.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard,
I am sorry, but somehow we have miscommunicated yet again. I can not think of any other way to say it than the ways I have already said it. Either you aren't reading very carefully, or you simply don't care to learn what I am saying.

"But is anyone saying it is treasonous to mock the president of Ford?"

Here comes the straw man yet again. I think it is telling that it is truly impossible to explain to people that JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A RIGHT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO EXERCISE IT.
I'll say it again-
You have the right to fart on a crowded elevator, but why fart? Why hide behind your rights? Why exploit that freedom? Why not have self-control? Why push the limits of your rights? Just so that if people criticize you for being rude you can say "Hey, man, I have my rights! I have a right to fart on an elevator!" That's what we are talking about here.
If you don't get it this time, I won't bother again.
You are the one bringing up some Orwellian conspiracy to curtail civil rights.
I am the one talking about how being rude is acceptable in our culture and that’s unfortunate. Why are people proud of being rude and classless? It is a right, but it is certainly not a virtue.
But then again, who needs virtue? Virtue requires self control.

"Actually, I don't flood into the streets to protest either."

The people who want to take away your right to draw a picture of Mohammed DO FLOOD INTO THE STREETS. THEY DO. THEY FLOOD INTO THE STREETS WHEN WE INSULT SYMBOLS OF THEIR BELIEFS BUT WE DON'T CARE WHEN THEY INSULT OURS BY BURNING AND TRAMPLING OUR FLAGS.

I lived in Denmark, so I'm sure we both know how much hatred there is of Muslims in Denmark. Muslims get blamed for virtually every sexual assault in the country. I have no idea what the actual percentage is, but I know what the perception is, as I'm sure you do.

"I also reject that Americans do not have a right to call elected officials whatever they care to call them"

Hopefully I have already addressed and defeated this straw man sufficiently.

Thanks for the 1 "Unproductive", GHaines. I'll tell you what's unproductive - lying the American people into a war that's resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Tom

You've got me thinking about possible cultural differences regarding the treatment of hate speech in the US, Western Europe and Canada, and elsewhere. I hasten to add that I refer to the intelligent treatment; I'm reminded of a friend, a Swedish citizen married to an American and living in the US, who was asked "do you speak European?" Actually, she commented that not only could she speak and think in more-or-less standard English, but, as she phoned me with the delighted news one day, she could also speak and think in Texan. When in Texan, she'd say things that she just wouldn't say otherwise.

Obviously, the US did not have the German occupation, and the much more direct experience with not just Nazi racial theory but practice. In Germany proper, my sense is that there is such a sense of horror about the Nazi period that there is a chilling effect even on legitimate historical research.

Within what I will loosely call the social democratic system, and I include Canada in this, I believe there is generally more sense of mutual obligation and less tradition of individualism than in the US. Could it be, then, that hate speech is especially of concern because it upsets a social contract not universal in the US?

I've been present when a fair bit of hate speech has been used, but I've never felt I had trouble distinguishing between speech and incipient threats. In my personal confrontations, I did not take counsel of fear, and instead took the initiative. For example, I didn't tell the Nazis how terrible they were in terms of my values, but cross-examined them and accused them of ideological impurity. They just didn't know how to deal with being accused of being too liberal to be loyal to Hitler.

I've also had a time or two where someone indeed went into physical threat, but fell afoul of their own stereotyping. Now, I didn't feel a need to tell them of the advice of my judo and tae kwon do instructors of how to look weak in a street situation, immediately before some fast and decisive moves. My comment afterwards was "It's a bad idea to assume that just because someone looks mainstream, they are going to curl up and shake merely because you pull out a small knife that you don't hold very well. May I suggest, should you try that again, that it is far more to your advantage to hold the knife close to your body? Oh, let me give you back the pieces of blade. Cheap steel."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Can you assert that you were as vigilant in protecting his reputation? If not, your concern is convenient and political."

I think the daily jokes about cigars and the impression that Clinton was not taking his job seriously hurt our reputation. If your leader, (or "head of state" or whatever hair you want to split with his job title) is mocked, it reflects on you.

Commenting on someone's character is one thing, being juvenile about it is another. It demeans the criticism as well as the person giving the criticism.

"Another positive value is that a freedom is only that if exercised."

That is largely true. Valid point. My point, which has been largely ignored is that dissent has a negative side too.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if your boss leaves the room and everyone mocks him/her, you are not going to be successful. Going into a meeting with a valid criticism of the policies that you disagree with can be very constructive, but making a face as they turn their back is destructive and silly.

That's all I'm saying. Being a gentleman is a good thing, contrary to popular opinion.

My polite criticism of someone using locker room language has been attacked, but the locker room language is acceptable.

I am on the side that says, "We should try to be gentlemen."

Amazingly, that is a controversial opinion. What does that say about our society?

You ducked the question; I asked whether you were (past tense) vigilant. Nu? I'll assert that I didn't complain about Clinton jokes, only that that seemed the best his opponents could do.

At my job we do mock the boss, regularly, and with enthusiasm. The Chicago Symphony has a pretty good rep for product, nonetheless. Sir George Solti was known as "the screaming skull" for his scratchy falsetto voice when he tried to sing a melody. Christoph Eschenbach was "the steaming skull" for his sweaty skull yielding a vapor trail on humid nights in outdoor concerts. Pierre Boulez was "the French Correction", and Daniel Barenboim was "the spoiled brat." Franz Welser-Most has picked up, in Cleveland, the moniker "Frankly Worse than Most." And these are the conductors we admire!

I heard from a friend, who worked on missile guidance programs in the Pentagon during Packard's tenure at Defense, that Hewlitt must have been a genius, because clearly Packard wasn't.

Join the fun, don't be a square. 

"Actually, you'd understand my impulse better if you had the misfortune of knowing my Aunt Shirley."

That is the funniest thing I have read on this site.
Good work.

"the fact that Bush is a lying warmonger"

At least you are trying to maintain objectivity on the situation.

You forgot the "fact" that Dick Cheney likes to shoot Heroin or the "fact" that all gay people are child molesters, or the "fact" that blacks are less evolved than whites, or the "fact" that people routinely confuse their opinion with the truth.

Who is it who said, "You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts" ?

At least you are trying to maintain objectivity on the situation.

So you think the claims that Bush is (i) a liar and (ii) a warmonger are absurdities that rank up their with the claim that Dick Cheney shoots heroin and gay people are child molesters? Don't you think those two claims about Bush have more merit than that?

It seems to me that you have gone back and forth several times between two different objections. On the one hand you object to certain kinds of language because they are childish and crude - words like "dumbass" and "poopyhead".

On the other hand, you seem to have a strong general objection to the president being "mocked", whether mocked by childish language or more adult language. While you accept that people have the right to mock the president, you nevertheless think it is something they should not do - that it is a right they should not exercise.

As far as I can tell, your objection to mocking the president is based on the idea that the president is our nation's leader, that mockery diminishes the leader's stature and power, and that weakening our leader's power is a bad thing.

A few points here:

I actually agree with you that public mockery and scorn can have a real effect on the power of a public official, and can weaken him. Where we seem to disagree is that I think this can in many cases be a very good thing. Since in my view Bush is an incompetent fool, and a brutish and fascistic un-American criminal, I sincerely hope his political power will continue to decline.

It is also my hope that when the new congress is seated, some newer congressional leaders will emerge as the consciences of the country, and will manage to sieze control of the public debate over our foreign policy. It is much to be desired that Bush will continue to be weakened by public ridicule and condemnation, so that in the end he is reduced to following the winds blowing from the public and congress, rather than leading. So to my fellow Americans: mock away, and be as crude and disrespectful as you like! Perhaps the western values we most need to rely on now are those of Moliere, Voltaire, Swift, Russell, Rabelais, Twain and Stephen Colbert.

I also think that where our presidents are concerned, a certain amount of indiscriminate, equal opportunity mockery is is a valuable thing. This is the kind of mockery we see in our great traditions of political cartoons and comedic revues. The soaring aspirations of the presidential ego, the self-satisfied flattery and conceit of the Washington court, and the superstitious public infatuation with the presidential cult are forces that, left unchecked, would tend to drive presidential power through the stratosphere. There are so many spontaneously inflating balloons driving executive power aloft that one can barely keep up with them. It is good to burst as many of them as we can find.

It takes a really big President to be immune to mockery. After William Howard Taft got stuck in the White House bathtub, what could anyone say?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

What frightens me most about the man is that he means what he is saying, and believes himself.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

That is fine. You might be scared to death by his evangelical ties, his idealism in the Middle East, the fact that he still says nuculur war, whatever it may be.
I agree with you though, that he believes what he says. (allowing for the fact that he is a politician)

Um, I think he meant that YOU actually believe the bullshit you are spouting. No one believes for a minute that George Bush belives it!

Jan Knaus

Hey Howard,
You came dangerously close to defending me there!

Um...Jan...are you flirting with me?

I think there is more than enough information now in the public record to render it beyond reasonable doubt that Bush and his administration engaged in a systematic, organized campaign of misinformation and disinformation in order to sell the war to the public. So yes, all politicians lie. But Bush and friends engaged in systematic lying about the very gravest matters of life and death, and in the end successfully sold a war to the public which lead directly to many thousands of American and Iraqi casualties.

And as an eager and repeated seller of war, Bush is quite literally a war-monger. He spends every day selling his war.

If your definition of "fact" and "opinion" requires apodictic certainty before some belief moves from the realm of mere opinion to that of established fact, your usage is idiosyncratic. The belief that Bush is a systematic liar goes well beyond conjecture at this point. To believe the opposite is in fact a matter of willful credulity and blindness.

I rated this particular comment a "1" for the unhelpful and unsubstantiated assumption GH made about the previous poster.

You might be scared to death by his evangelical ties, his idealism in the Middle East, the fact that he still says nuculur war, whatever it may be.

Jan Knaus

Dang, I can't find the original--way up-thread I guess.

I see your point but the alternate meaning is what I inferred, as in "If you are the kind of person that is scared to death...".

"Might" of course can mean "may" which is then serving as "Considering that you are..." or "Given that you are..."

I took the first meaning.

There is a very delicate balance about personal protection. For legal means to cover all cases, then the police must be omnipresent, which in turn raises concerns of civil liberties.

On the one hand, I don't consider private ownership of military weapons as any serious check on a totalitarian government. On the other, however, I recognize a right of individual self-defense. A classic what-if concerns what might have happened if once the Holocaust was known, Jews would never passively and obediently go with the Nazis.

In another thread, I also am rather resistant to the idea that a street demonstrator has the authority to limit my freedom of action.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

In both Vietnam and Iraq, the number of casualties from mines/IED is far greater than the casualties from gunshot wounds. As you point out, all that was available in Federalist times was cannot, rather than easily portable explosive devices. So far, we have been lucky in not seeing significant explosive attacks on critical infrastructure, or using other means such as cybernetic attack. The latter is closer than it might seem; the 2003 Ohio Valley Blackout started with weather problems, spread through old equipment, but system operators could not isolate the problem because the Slammer virus had gotten into the SCADA control network.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

In a civilized society, what is the appropriate action when a demonstrator will not let you proceed? Further, if it is the right to protest that is in question, what if the demonstrator is protesting newspapers printing satirical cartoons of Mohammed, rather than arguing against Bush Administration military policy? It would appear to me that the demonstrators, at least those block rather than engage in protected symbolic speech, are the ones operating outside the law.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Sorry, Kid - they don't go on sale for a year....

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.

That damn Santa - no new President in my stocking, ne?

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.

Not going to win any arguments that way, thus "1". Nothing personal.

He's raised a few points that count as argument, although I felt they were easily countered. It wasn't his arguing style in question, though.

Sharpen your knife and call him reflexive, knee-jerk, or hidebound. My favorite put-down was that of either Neils Bohr, or Wolfgang Pauli (or one of those guys) that described one proposal in theoretical physics as "not even wrong".

Is that an alternate restatement of the Pauli Exclusion Principle? :-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Perhaps not, but GWB speeches are frequently Bohring, no matter who the Teller.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Recounting the tale of a Battle of Britain pilot, the transcript, somewhat confusingly, quoted him saying "There were Fokkers to the left of me, there were Fokkers to the right of me, there were Fokkers everywhere."

He responded to a historical reviewer, who pointed out Fokker aircraft had no significant role in the Battle of Britain with "Of course, silly man. All those fokkers were Messerschmidts."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

*makes careful note to avoid references to Satan forking anyone*

Also reminds self not to mention Nakajima aircraft.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Overheard at a party in honor of Mr. Chikuhei Nakajima, whose demonic fighters dominated the Pacific skies in the early months of WWII with almost supernatural agility:

"I suppose one must give the devil his do."

Just for the pun of it, tell me, if you can,how many cunning linguists can dance on the head of a pin?

Don't fence me in, Howard.

Only one at a time, to be effective, no matter what anyone else may tell you.

Those that annoy me even more than the official security people are those hired by "celebrities", often in sports or entertainment. It was rather common, in Washington DC, to have a large gentleman in black clothing, with absolutely no official authority, growl "security" at me so his VIP could enter a limousine without interference by commoners.

After a while, I found it effective to growl back, in equally stern tones, "trigonometry", and walk by, as his neurons sizzled. Acting as if one has authority often is more effective than actually having it.

Admittedly, in 40 years or so of living in and around Washington DC, it might be understood that I found myself inconvenienced by a wide range of demonstrations, sometimes more than once a day over sometimes completely obscure causes. Only the fall of a snowflake would be more paralytic to Washington traffic.

As far as the interaction of weather and Washington driving patterns, John F. Kennedy's observation remains true: "Washington is the city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*