Contributors

Sunday, November 06, 2005

The Evolution of Mark

Some of you have emailed me recently or repsonded in the "Comments" section and wondered how I went from supporting the Iraq War to being against it. Many of you on the conservative side have wondered what happened to me as I spent much time arguing for some of the things the president was doing after 9-11.

I remember when Notes From the Front was an email list back then and I recall being called a fascist, a racist, and a right wing zealot. Scanning some of the recent emails and posts recently I see that now I am communist, feminist, and kook left wing zealot. My oh my how I have grown.

What made me grow and change? Well let's take a look at a timeline of events...something I am going to call the Evolution of Mark.

Nov 2000. The election debacle. I remember saying to myself at Thanksgiving that they should just give it to Bush. Even though I loathed his stance on social issues, I really wasn't involved in politics much at the time so I didn't care. I feel ashamed for feeling this way five years later.

Summer 2001. Bush gives a speech on stem cell research. I remember thinking when I saw him on TV that he looked like he had no idea what he was doing. He then goes on vacation for the entire month of August. I recall saying to some friends, "Is he really working down there?"

Sept 11. This was a day that I will never forget. It was just horrible. I really felt at the time that I should rally around the president....that we all should. Having first hand experience with Muslim extremism, I knew that the only way to deal with those people was force. There is no reasoning with them. I remember being proud of President Bush when he said that he would get bin Laden dead or alive. We attacked Afghanistan. Bush talked of nations being terrorist havens (Iran and North Korea) and they would pay for that in kind. I thought, finally, we were taking the fight to them.

Summer 2002. I was watching a press conferance with Bush. He was asked where Osama bin Laden was and was he still a threat. He had been asked that time and again. Over the last few months, he had dodged answering that question and instead chose to talk about Iraq. I thought this odd. Sure, Iraq was a problem. But did they really have WMDs? We already knew Iran and North Korea did. And most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a hotbed of anti American sentiment. Why was he talking about Iraq? Something just seemed wrong. Osama and Zawahari were still out there. They attacked us. Not Saddam.

Then he answered and I couldn't fucking believe it. He said the bin Laden was insignificant and didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Here was a man who was responsible for the worst attack on our country's soil and he didn't matter anymore to our president? If you don't believe me, look it up. He said it. I have a copy of the news conference.

March 2003 The Iraq War unfolded and I felt that maybe we could take care of matters quickly and then move to the real enemies at hand. Maybe Bush had a reason for going there that I did not know about it. What did I know, anyway? I remember the famous "Mission Accomplished" speech and was actually thinking that the war might be over. Wow. I was so wrong. Looking back on "Mission Accomplished," I just have to laugh. What have we accomplished? The war is NOT over.

Summer 2004. Farenheit 9-11 comes out. I know that Michael Moore is the devil incarnate but if you go to his web site, he presents a ton of facts to back his claims. Here are all those pesky facts y'all have been asking about:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

It is very hard as a man of good conscience to ignore this stuff. George Bush has pursued a policy that is extremly detremental to the United States and you'll have to pardon me if I get infuriated when people don't see this. Or even want to see a part of it.

Since that time we have seen that the Iraq policy has largely failed because the initail plan was flawed. High ranking generals fired, realities ignored, countless lives lost, and a president (and supporters) who refuse to look at bad news. And all the while, Al Qaeda is still out there with both of its leaders. The Iraq War could have been a good idea. At the time, I felt like we needed to take the fight to them. In retrospect, I was wrong. Iraq was the wrong choice.

So, why did we invade Iraq? Well, I think based upon the fact that US corporations are making a ton of money over there the reason why is self evident. In the end, all you have to do is follow the money. Haliburton is the number one contractor in Iraq. Cheney used to work there. I don't think I am going out on a limb by saying that the owners of that company are sympathetic to Bush. And he to them. The big money guys who helped elect Bush got their war. It has been going like that since President Eisenhower gave his farewell address in which he warned of the military industrial complex running (or ruining) or country.

The organizing force for any society is war. And in this particular situation we had a war that we NEEDED to fight and didn't and sill aren't. We, instead, fought one that we didn't have to fight. Supporters of the war claim that we are democratizing the Middle East and Iraq is the first step. I say fighting Al Qaeda is the first step.

Now I know that most of you on the right would like me to present an alternate plan to what the president has done. Here it is step by step.

1. Find bin Laden
2. Kill him
3. Find Zawahari
4. Kill him
5. Take the billions of dollars Bush was going to use in Iraq and develop an alternative source to oil.
6. Tell the Saudis to fuck off.
7. Tell Iran and North Korea that if we get credible intelligence that they sell a candy bar to any Muslim extemist group that has a beef with us that they will be able to live in their respective countries again in oh...about 90 years.

Maybe steps 5-7 are tough to do but 1-4? C'mon people. It's two guys for crying out loud. It's embarassing that our Secretary of Defense says things like, "Well, we don't do manhunts."

Yes, Don. We do manhunts when the people we are hunting want to destroy our entire way of life. Yes, President Bush, Osama bin Laden is significant because he is the leader of the group that WANTS TO KILL US!!!

I want the conservative people who read this to imagine a Gore or Kerry presidency. Close your eyes and really think about it. Now imagine if, on their watch, we lost the following: a spy plane over China, our budget surplus, most of our allies, four airplanes, the World Trade Center, a chunk of the Pentagon, 5000+ American lives and the City Of New Orleans.

That's a lousy track record and if it were a Democrat, conservatives and I would be very upset. As it stands, just I guess it's just me that's angry.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

As you’ve said that you were once a bit more conservative, or at least middle of the road, I’d spend time on this, but in the end, nobody is going to change their opinion and as mom always said, “Always wear clean underwear and never argue with crazy people.” But I’ll give it one last shot before signing off for good.

(I’ll just address it line by line rather than just calling you a kook because, true as it may be, name calling really doesn’t get us anywhere.)

Nov. 2000: Bush won fair and square and if you still has an issue with it, petition your congressman to change our election system away from the Electoral College.

Summer 2001: Stem cells are a complicated business and I’m happy to see that strides are being made practically daily.
By having the most stressful job on earth, I don’t fault Presidents for vacations. Nearly every day of their supposed vacation is made up of business, meetings w/ world leaders, etc. A President’s vacation is harder than my regular work week.

911: I was in London and after spending the afternoon in shock around a TV with a group of clients I went home to be treated to the BBC interviewing various clerics from North London praising the attacks and then turn it over to ‘another view’ which was basically some appeaser telling us that we got what we deserved and should look to change our foreign policy; i.e. turn our backs on our only Middle East ally, Israel.

Bush did talk of terrorist harboring nations, but isn’t it your fault for assuming it was only Iran and North Korea he was referencing?

Summer 2002: The President was talking about Iraq because Iraq was one of those terrorist harboring countries and in direct violation of multiple UN mandates, amongst other reasons.
Look it up? It’s your site, shouldn’t you provide the link?

My take on it was that we were still going after bin Laden, but that we were expanding our operations to take on terrorists, not in a law enforcement style, but in direct conflict.

March 2003: I thought the President outlined his reasons clearly. He put the focus on WMD because that was the ‘hot button’ issue, but he outlined numerous reasons. If you choose not to listen, or have other opinions, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean he didn’t outline the reasons.
The ‘Mission Accomplished’ thing, in hindsight, was not so smart, but at the time, we had just won an unprecedented victory over the 9th largest army in the world in record time with relatively little loss of American lives and, at that brief time at least, were welcomed as liberators.

Summer 2004: this is why you’re being called, kook. Anyone who actually lists Michael Moore as their source for facts deserves to be called a kook. Not every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie, many as simply distortions. You want me to wade through the BS at Michael Moore’s website to find the facts? What more can be said?

Seeing the Iraq War as a failure is just your opinion. I too think the initial plan was flawed in that the post-war plan was not clear enough. But to state that supports refuse to look at bad news is just narrow sighted. We see the bad things; we just don’t focus on them to such a degree that we lose sight of the good things.

Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton. I love how liberals throw Haliburton out there like it’s the boogeyman thinking it’ll scare away conservatives. Are they sympathetic to the current administration? Of course. But they’ve been sympathetic to every administration. Liberals didn’t have a problem with them when President Clinton renewed their contract.

It’s a no-bid contract so that when the sh_ _ hits the fan, the gov’t can call in a company to get to work without having to waste time re-bidding for every little contract. Besides, Haliburton re-bids out half the contracts to many smaller, local and EU firms anyway. (I thought it shameful they robbed the US on that gas price scandal during a time of war, but I read somewhere they paid it back…and they weren’t exactly the 1st company to charge us $1,000 for a hammer.) And companies have made money off wars since the dawn of time. A sad business, but are you opposed to capitalism?

But to say we went to war “for” Haliburton puts someone in the kook category. Bush is already a millionaire. So is Cheney. So are their friends. They’re not as rich as Kerry or Edwards, no doubt, but what’s the motivation? How many boats can t they water-ski behind?

Had a war to fight, and didn’t and still aren’t? What do you call Iraq and Afghanistan? Getting bin Laden is the 1st step and ‘was’ the 1st step and we’re still going after him. Finding a needle in a haystack takes time and may never be found, it doesn’t mean you give up everything else just to put every man looking through that haystack when there are other dangerous haystacks out there.

I like your points 1-7, but aren’t we already trying to do that? Too many people think we’re incapable of doing more than 1 thing at a time. Our military is designed to fight multiple wars at the same time and has been that way since pre-WWI so that we can properly fight wars like WWII (2+ major theaters of operation) and have operations around the world (like our major bases in Germany, Korea, Japan, Cuba, etc). Perhaps we should close up shop in Germany and shift them directly to Iraq?

(5) An alternate source for oil. Great! We ‘are’ working on it, but until it comes, we have to make do and work on finding more of it, making our cars use less of it and modernizing our refineries to produce it cheaper.

(7) Tell Saudis where to go? Great! They deserve it, but economics makes strange bedfellows and until we’re secured in our oil supply, you can’t shoot the provider.

By your last paragraph, I hope you’re not saying that Bush was responsible for 911 or New Orleans going under. That’s kooks-ville. I do think about what it would be like if Gore or Kerry were President and it makes me shudder. I don’t think they’d be up to the task. In hindsight Bush could have done better but that’s hindsight…and I can only imagine the limp approach a Kerry or Gore would have taken after 911 sending notes of protest to the UN and hoping for France to save us. All the while the terrorist licking their lips and rubbing their hands, saying, “See, I told you they were weak” whilst planning out their next attack.

When someone is out to get you, you need to act. It's not perfect, but I'm happy this President had the guts to focus on the important stuff and not worry (or be as good at) just getting everyone to like him.

A poignant quote by a Holocaust survivor: when asked what he learned from the experience, he replied, “When someone says they want to kill you, believe them.”

Anonymous said...

Mark, I give you credit....I only wish GWB had as much guts as you to put himself out there and say "I was wrong". I would bet that most of us have been from time to time.

Anonymous said...

Because the game of refuting conjecture and baseless allegation grows wearisome to me, I thought it might be interesting to provide a comparison timeline from my point of view. We had (and still do, I guess) shared similar viewpoints in 2000, so a comparison of the evolution of two viewpoints subjected to common circumstance might be interesting.

Pre-Nov 2000: Being a raging conservative out of college, the Clinton years were politically troubling to me. Nagging questions about my view of "right" and "wrong" were dogging me. By election time, I vote for GWB not because I necessarily endorse his platform, but more so because I'm tired of the Clinton/Gore regime. I figure no one individual can mess up this country as President too badly, so a vote for GWB seems fairly harmless.

Nov. 2000: The election was indeed a debacle. I'm dumbfounded by the kooks who just won't let it die, and who insist upon counting the votes of people too stupid to punch a hole through paper or understand a ballot. Ultimately, I'm content in the knowledge that the kooks likely will go away soon enough.

Summer 2001: Having just started a new job, for me GWB is "out of sight, out of mind".

Sept 11: "A day I will never forget" should go without saying. Three images that clearly stand out in my mind:
1) The look on GWB's face when he got the news. Clearly he was as angry as I was, and my connection with him as a person grew beyond limit.
2) The image of people leaping/falling from the towers. What those people went through is beyond my comprehension.
3) The image of people in various countries around the world celebrating what just happened. The damage to them in my esteem is irreparable.
Like you, I celebrated the "let's take the fight to them" stance.

Summer 2002: Our response to 9/11 seems to be well measured and well supported in the world. OBL is on the run. The Taliban is crippled. "OBL is insignificant"...that's an odd thing to say, Mr. President, but I suppose you are right to a certain degree. For terrorists to be effective they need media attention, and the only media attention on OBL right now is the count of days until his head is on a pike on the front lawn of the White House.

March 2003: "Mission Accomplished"
D'oh! GWB's handlers needed to be shot after this one. Oh well, at least my admiration for our military and their leaders is undaunted.

Summer 2004: F911 comes out and suddenly I realize that I was badly mistaken back in Nov 2000. Not with respect to GWB not being able to mess up the country, but with respect to the staying power of kooks. It is now frighteningly clear to me that there is a very vocal element of this country who is determined to:
a) blame everything that has happened on GWB
b) do anything in their power to take down GWB
even to the degree that they wish US failure in Iraq. The weaving together of half-truths and innuendo knows no bound with this part of society. As soon as one false claim or blatant lie is exposed, it's quickly replaced by another. Apparently the strategy is to overwhelm unwitting Americans with propaganda until finally the appearance of impropriety will lead to GWB's downfall.

Nov. 2004: My faith in American common sense is restored to some degree as, unexpectedly to me, GWB is re-elected. Having been worn down by relentess bashing, I take the bold personal step of voting for the other guy, cursing the two party system the entire way. I'm ready to be done with GWB merely because Summer 2004 taught me that another four years with him will result in nothing but bickering and ineffectiveness, and four years of a Dem. President will likely bolster the campaign of the 2008 Repub. candidate.


Looking back and pondering an Al Gore presidency, I see that we still would have lost a spy plane over China, our imaginary budget surplus, four airplanes, the WTC, a chunk of the Pentagon, 3000+ American lives, and the city of New Orleans. I suppose the French might still be our friends, though, so that's something. I wonder if maybe they'd be willing to share this magical alternative energy source that they have. Somebody must already have it, at least, if we're only billions of dollars away from revolutionizing how our industrial society works and eliminating our dependence on ME oil.

johnwaxey said...

I do have a problem with both of the last elections and a lot of other people do to...not because our candidate didn't win, but because there were clearly voting irregularities. Not that there aren't always irregularities, but they seemed particularly pronounced in crucial states, in crucial districts that were managed by Republicans. I did write my congresswoman and senator and maybe there will be change and maybe their won't. I feel that I have done what I could regarding that issue, but it does not change the fact that those irregularities have not been addressed at the national level, but there has been success in places like California where it has been demonstrated how easy it is to change electronic ballots before they are tallied.

As for the war, I have been against it since the beginning. Mind you, I am not a pacifist by any means. I teach classes about warfare and am completely aware of the necessity of war and what it has accomplished in the last 3000 years. I have also studied intensively why wars are fought and what are the logical and historical consequences of those conflicts. In that regard, I feel that I can support my opinion to my satisfaction that something was not right with the war in Iraq right from the start. I wrote prolifically at the beginning about why the war was bogus and there has been nothing that has happened that has changed my opinion. The Downing Street Memo confirmed the trumped-up nature of the reasons for going to war and the recent unpleasantness with Valerie Plaine (sp?) has once again raised the specter of abuse of intelligence by this administration. This will be an ongoing investigation that will conviently be concluded when Bush is out of office and the results will be buried as an embarassement to several important people who may or may not write memoirs. For Just Dave...I have four words for him that apply not only to this war, but the last major conflict we engaged in...Gulf of Tonkin Incident. You don't think that our government would manufacture reasons to go to war? Then either you are naive or you are unaware of the past. Your support of the idea of freedom to vote for everyone in the world is admirable, but it is not a reality in most cultures nor will it ever be. Through understanding how we would react to having our voting rights taken away you may be able to conceive of how people who don't have a culture of "democracy" (whatever that entails) might respond to being forced by a minority to create a culture that includes democracy. You see democracy as desirable and the end all of cultural development. That is an arrogance that has been afforded you by western society. I value my rights to democracy, but I do not believe that it is admirable nor right to force others to believe as I do or live in the same culture as I do.

I do not think the world is a better place because of Bush and his administration nor is it a safer place as statistics have shown. Statistics, I might add, that were provided by this administration. The economy is only marginally better than it was two years ago and it is nowhere near where it was when Clinton left. This administration has seen competent people fired or resigned and there is corruption that will eventually come to light that goes far beyond a man's denial of having sex with an intern. People have died because of this corruption and although I can't prove it, it doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't existed. That issue aside....

I once saw a documentary about WWII from the German perspective. It was interesting to me for several reasons, but what really caught my eye was the repeated testimony of elderly people who had been children/young adults at the time who still felt that Hitler had done glorious things and that they had lived in glorious times. I am not comparing the Bush administration to Nazi Germany, (although several people have noted striking similarities) but rather I find the power of belief and faith to be of such a magnitude that it allows individuals to ignore incontrivertible proof of misdeeds by governments and still see a glowing positive where none exists. People belived in Hitler because of the way he made people feel about themselves and their country, not because of the other things he did. There will be people, some of which who have written here, who will never see anything that is not through rose-colored glasses in regards to this administration and the things it has done. There will be others, myself included, who will see very little or nothing that is positive. We can compare notes and slap each other in the face with accusations of not being factual or being guilty of bias in interpretation of facts, but in the end, it will come down to whether you "believe" in the president and his administration.

I do not believe in him and it doesn't matter one bit because I can't change things and I could never provide enough "facts" to change a believers mind. As I have said before, I may as well try to convince a Catholic that heaven or God doesn't exist. Not gonna happen.

So, if you are a supporter of this administration and its policies I say Rejoice and enjoy the time for what it is. At the end of the ride however, I don't expect to hear any complaints about the way things are in this country as your party of choice has had its 8 years to bring to the population all of the positive things that Clinton/Gore brought in their 8 years. I wouldn't hold my breath though to see much of George Bush after his term. I don't suspect that he will be in high demand for the lecture circuit or be a choice candidate for someone elses cause. Maybe its best that he return to his ranch to disappear into the history books and let his actions speak for him to future generations.

Anonymous said...

Supporter of the administration or not, this is a tough time to Rejoice. American soldiers are dying on a daily basis fighting in our name.

Speaking only for myself, I can say that my goal of posting has never been to change anybody's mind re: GWB, nor even always to offer support for his positions. From the get-go, I've taken exception to the kind of postings that accuse GWB of being a criminal, one whose sole purpose is financial gain for himself and his friends while knowingly lying to the American people, which ultimately led to the death of American troops. Pretty strong accusations, no?

When submitted as conjecture, I certainly agree that there is enough of a question to at least investigate the issue. But when taken to the point where it dictates an entire portion of society's political agenda -- yes, even an entire political party's agenda -- then I feel compelled to object. When taken to the point where half-truths and innuendo are held up as "fact" and "evidence", and people -- even broadcast news -- regurgitate those "facts" and "evidence", then I feel compelled to object.

When the "smoking gun" proof of this giant conspiracy turns out to be the DSM, the minutes of what some British officals said that some Americans said that Bush said, I guess I'm just not moved by that. Especially in light of the fact that 4 different investigations (2 American, 2 British) to date have found that, while flawed, intelligence was not intentionally misused.

If that's looking at the GWB administration through rose colored glasses, then color me guilty. But for what it's worth, I think it's BS that it will come down to whether you "believe" in the president and his administration. That's the sort of black-and-white thinking that makes politics on both sides of the aisle a bitter pill to swallow. Believe it or not (and obviously you don't), there are some people out there capable of rational, critical thought that support some or all of GWB's policies. Some of them even bother to post on this blog.

johnwaxey said...

My point PL is that what is considered "factual" is VERY slippery. We don't have access to the very highest levels of information and there are so many players involved each saying something slightly different, we are all faced with the same dilema, who is telling the truth? What actually happened in any given circumstance? This administration more than any that I can remember have been able to hide behind this sort of confusion. One group of people interpret the "facts" in one way and the other group looks at it another way. Or each individual looks at it differently, however you want to put it. Short of the ability to measure legitimate (and more importantly, accurate) facts, what is left to use as a measuring stick for the truth?

I would argue that it is repetition of the same patterns of decision making and application of some simple logic.

If you are displeased with Americans dying in Iraq PL, you don't seem very moved to advocate against the war. You seem to see it as a necessity at this point although the justifications for the war are and were purely fiction. The decision to go to war was based on the administrations insistence that there were WMD's and mobile chemical labs and that Hussein was a threat to us and the region. There were sources inside and outside of the administration that provided facts to the contrary and yet the president insisted on his course of action. Was the intelligence correct? How the hell should an average Joe know...but then again it isn't our job to know, it is the presidents job, because he is making the call. If the intelligence was not 100% then the decision should not have made to involve the US in a situation that would inevitably lead to a civil war. Was the intelligence manipulated? Considering the CIA concluded that there was no evidence for purchasing of yellow cake from Nigeria, the ambassador sent to glean the truth decided it was false and there was no supporting evidence, either this is a case of GROSS INCOMPETENCE or deliberate manipulation. Combined with the Downing Street Memo, I am led to believe that this war was contrived for some purpose other than those stated by Bush.

I am sure at this point we will be flooded with a torrent of the "joy of freedom" that the people of Iraq now have and how important it is to establish a democracy in the Middle East. We will see how long that lasts and aren't we indulging in a reverse Domino Theory that worked so well for the Communists in southeast Asia. The spread of communism through southeast Asia went nowhere, not because of the war fought in Vietnam, but because it didn't fit with the cultural paradigms of the people of the region. What makes us think that the spread of democracy would be recieved any better in the Middle East? What examples in history have shown that you can successfully transplant a cultural paradigm into a region where it has never succesfully existed before?

As for rational and critical thought by people on this blog, that issue cannot be denied, but look at your own statements PL...you conclude with statements like not being moved ... short for, you don't believe in the validity of the DSM. So the DSM says one thing in print, and although its validity has never been denied by the administration, you still are not moved by it. It's okay with me if you want to believe in the administration and its policies, just don't tell me that you are a completely fact-based critical observer...belief plays a big role in how you have presented your opinions, just as it has for me.

Anonymous said...

John,

You and I have a history of not communicating well, which is too bad. I'm not sure where the breakdown occurs, but in the event that it's something that I've said or failed to say, let me try to clarify...

I never said that I am a completely fact-based, critical observer. Nor would I contend that you, Markadelphia, or anybody else in this world can claim to be. Of course belief has a lot to do with any assessment of a situation where all the facts are not known.

Yes I have supported and continue to support the war. Yes I'm displeased with Americans dying in Iraq. What do the two have to do with each other?

Your presumption, then, is that I support the administration, its policies, and its case for war. It must be a presumption on your part, anyway, because nowhere have I said I believe the administration and its case. To the contrary, I've criticized the administration and its case, given the fact that there were (and are) legitimate reasons for taking out SH that didn't explicitly involve WMD.

I never said I don't believe in the DSM. What I said is that the DSM is a second-hand.....no, third-hand accounting of a situation. I have no doubt that the author of the DSM believes everything that was written. (There's that pesky belief thing again.) That belief doesn't make it factual from a disinterested, third-party perspective. Nor does the administration's lack of refutation, given repeated analyses by multiple bodies that supports the notion that flawed intelligence was used in good faith.

The conclusion to which I take exception is that the DSM is somehow the final building block in the "fabricated evidence, intentional deception" argument. Frankly, from what I've seen, it's nothing more than a clear illustration of how messed up the intelligence system was. (Not only in this country, mind you.) From what I've seen, it seems gross incompetence on many levels is as likely a possibility as the more sinister option, particularly given the administration's concession that troubling inadequacies were revealed.

The conclusion to which I take exception is that there is this pile of "fact" and "evidence" that proves an intentional deception so that money could be made. Do we know for sure everything that transpired? No, of course not. Should we continue to investigate? Of course, given the gravity of the situation.

But just as you'd like to see GWB, his administration, and his supporters be accountable for his actions, I'd like to see Markadelphia and his ilk held accountable for continually leveling accusations of criminal activity against GWB and his administration should they ultimately prove false. (Oh wait. How convenient. They can never be proven false, so nobody will ever be held accountable for baseless accusations.) I don't take exception to the questioning....I do object to the ersatz reality proffered as reality by an increasingly vocal portion of our country.

Just as belief plays a large role in my interpretation of the lead up to war, so too does it play a role in the absolute certainty with which people present:
** GWB lied to us in order to make a profit for his buddies
** If you support the war, you were duped by GWB, and continue to be duped by his "spreading Democracy" argument

If that's what you believe, more power to you. But don't pretend to offer it as clear reality, as Markadelphia continues to do. It's one thing to question a fiscal policy or a stance on education. It's another thing to accuse the President of this country of being a criminal with no repercussion for doing so.

Mark Ward said...

I better weigh in here since my name is being bandied about.

Here is a reality for you. George Bush said that Osama bin Laden was insignificant and didn't matter. This is a fact. PL and Dave...you guys can't spin this to make it look alright. We went from "Wanted Dead or Alive" to "insignificant" and "doesn't matter" in eight months.

I don't think it is a "kook" liberal point of view to want to focus more on Al Qaeda and less on Iraq. They attacked us, after all, and they are the true enemy here. This is, in essence, why I think Bush is a weak and ineffective leader. He has not finished the job of 9-11. Tom Daschle, (PL's fave!) wants to re-deploy 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and finsh the job there. I think that is a good idea.

I did think, based on Colin Powell's speech to the UN, that Iraq was a threat. Much of that evidence, by Powell's own admission, has been proven to be false. They were and still are far less a threat than those harboring or supplying Al Qaeda.

I think you and Dave should come over some night and watch Farenheit 9-11 with me if you haven't already seen it. I would like to see where you think facts are distorted or omitted. If you don't want to, well, than you aren't getting both sides and are not looking at the whole picture.

Even Crab will agree with me on this one....the scene in the film in which we see a huge meeting of various corporations discussing how to benefit financially from Iraq illustrates the actual driving point behind the war. PL, I know you don't have a problem with this but I do. Our soldiers blood should never be spilled so American companies can make more money.

And when it is sugar coated into a fight for freedom and spreading democracy, well, it just sickens me.

In the end, it's all about spin. This administration does that very well (See my column: The Language of Love) They are also helped by the fact that the Democrats have no message and are completly without spine.

In this day and age, you can look at any event and judge it based on your own beliefs. Reality is in the perception of the beholder.

Anonymous said...

To be clear....I definitely have a problem with shedding our soldiers' blood so that American companies can make more money. (It's mind boggling to me that you would think I have no problem with that.)

The "fact" that this has happened in Iraq is yet to be proven by you, Michael Moore, and everybody else. This very issue illustrates one of the many effective techniques used in F911. Taken out of context, the meeting you describe becomes one that drives the war, not one that results from impending war.

I have a laundry list of items from F911 that I know to be blatantly false or half-truth packaged to mislead. If you'd really like me to provide such a list, I can do so. I would have thought, however, that you might have read a refutation in order to familiarize yourself with both sides. Certainly you don't take the movie at face value, do you? If this is the basis for your "misleading the American public to start a war for financial gain" argument, then you have no argument. What you have is the absolutely creative, absolutely effective workings of a man with a clear political agenda.

Some of the many problems with F911:
** Quoting Jim McDermott as a "source" of the motivations of the Bush administration. Might as well just grab a Packers fan and have him critique the Vikings.
** Editing and taking out of context statements and reactions from Mrs. Lipscomb, Mark Kennedy, and Condi Rice, just to name a few.
** Exploiting without permission the trauma of a slain soldier and a severely wounded soldier
** Flat-out lies that GWB had not read the Aug 6 pres. briefing, and attempts to gloss over the fact that the briefing was actually quite vague in terms of details
** Gleefully pointing out the connection between the Saudis, the Bin Ladens, and the Bush family, while neglecting to point out similar connections to the Clinton family, and neglecting to point out the different ways in which the Bush family business dealings have hurt the Saudis and Bin Ladens over the years.

Need I go on? It's true that a great deal of the information in F911 is accurate. But why on Earth would you view that information to be any less "spun" than information coming out of the White House? (I believe I know the answer to that one, even though you deny it.)

Anonymous said...

If my company makes body bags and, heaven forbid, we go to war and I make a profit, am I a bad guy?

Anonymous said...

How many times can I say this before you listen...I would have used different wording than "insignificant", but you're arguing an insignificant point because we "ARE" looking for bin Laden. We're simply doing something else too. Ever heard of chewing gum and walking at the same time?

Mark Ward said...

There are actually a number of problems I have with F911.

Mainly, I think his potrayal of soldiers being war mongers and psycho is just way off. There are few bad apples in every bunch but the movie depicts them all that way mostly.

Clearly Michael Moore and I differ on the use of our armed forces. He seems a little too far left for me and I condsider myself to be quite hawkish and extremly repsectful of anyone in the armed forces.

The Saudis have had a long relationship with the US. It is sick and must stop. Yes, they had a relationship with the Clintons. They have a stronger one with the Bushes. I think you would agree on that. I voted for Kerry because he claimed that the Saudis would have to answer for 911. Who knows what he would've done?

I also think his experience in combat made him a more heady person to be commander in chief. I have to laugh when Dave "shudders" at a Kerry presidency insinuating that he would be weak. Who is weaker? A man who served his country in combat and, according to a life long Republican and Green Beret Jim Rassman, one of the bravest Americans he knows. Or a man who's rich daddy got him out of combat so he could serve, maybe(?)in the national guard.

Funny how when Clinton's draft dodging stories (all true) came out everyone on the right believed them. But now when it is one of their own...well, it's different isn't it? It must be all lies!!

All of us wouldn't even be having this debate if the administration had listened to General Shinseke when he said we would need 500,000 troops in Iraq. Others like General Zinni, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, and O'Neill have also spoken up on this administrations flat out incompetence and unpreparedenss. My question is how many more people will it take for people that support this war to realize that it was a mistake then and a mistake now.

It makes ME shudder to think that we are almost right back where we were before 9-11...ignoring a major threat while our focus is in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

This is pointless. As you say, it all comes down to who you believe in any particular circumstance and situation. You believe Joe Wilson; I believe our CIA and Britain’s MI6. You believe Michael Moore, I believe the administration. You believe this, I believe that. Generally speaking I believe our US Government (R or D) over the UN or miscellaneous 3rd parties and generally speaking you believe any allegation which ascribes the maximum evil to President Bush or American under his administration.

When it comes to toppling murderous dictators, there's no such thing as an "illegitimate" rationale. But what I do find telling is your ideas on the spread of democracy as somehow being a bad thing. How you equate it to the spread of communism (or Islam) speaks volumes. Like somehow freedom doesn’t fit into their culture and who are we to provide it. Nobody chooses to live in a communist dictatorship. Nobody chooses to live under the Taliban. And you say I’m arrogant? Simply because a country isn’t as developed as ours or no longer possesses the will to resist or doesn’t have the military means to defend itself doesn’t mean they don’t relish freedom. Democracy IS desirable. Freedom IS desirable. And you bury your head. If your house is burning down and I just keep walking by without helping because “who was I to impose my will on you”, what kind of man would I be?

Cambridge Dictionary: Democracy is the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=20618&dict=CALD

If the subject matter wasn’t so serious, it would almost be quaint to quibble with you over little sidebars like which one of Joe Wilson’s lies was most outrageous. But I can only explain it to you; I can’t comprehend it for you.

Anonymous said...

Is being in the Army Reserve or National Guard the equivalent of being a draft dodger? I think the Reservists and Guard over in Iraq would beg to differ.

Mark Ward said...

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Anonymous said...

Funny...I see little tolerance from "liberals" toward anything conservative? Or is it open-mindedness toward anything you already agree with?

Mark Ward said...

That depends. I am tolerant and even agree with the following Republican party lines.

1. Less taxes
2. Smaller more efficient government
3. States rights over federal rights.
4. No welfare.
5. Incentives for small businesses
6. Tough laws for Violent Crime

I am intolerant of the following

1. Ignoring threats to our nation and alienating the world while waging a war for corporate profit.
2. Lowering taxes and increasing spendning.
3. Ignoring states rights, breaking federal law to appeal to part of their base of voters.
4. Threatening the life of someone by breaking a federal law through revealing the name of a CIA agent.
5. Treating gay people as criminals.
6. People who blindly forgive all of these things because the people doing them are Republicans.

johnwaxey said...

So let me get this straight Just Dave...are you suggesting that prior to 230 years ago everyone was miserable and unhappy and constantly striving to achieve a democratic government. Or wait, right now in the world, there are no people alive or extant countries that have managed to live a fullfilling existence without living in a democratic society? What a crock! You make your statements out of beliefs generated from ONLY a Western perspective. Belive it or not, there are whole nations both now and in the past that have opted for different forms of government and social organization other than democracy. At any given time a culture decides what it wants or doesn't want and makes changes accordingly. Yes, I think your opinion comes from arrogance that is afforded you by not knowing anything different that what is outside your own door. I am well aware of the definition of democracy....now how about you look up one...ETHNOCENTRISM. Fulfilling my own role as a teacher who believes that ignorence should be overcome with some modicum of effort on the part of the ill-informed, you look it up.

Comparisons of body bag manufacturers and other companies profiting from the war are ludicris. Do body bag manufacturers stand to profit millions and millions of dollars? Do they have longstanding multi-decade contracts that will allow them to dole out money to others? I think not. Try to provide some legitimate comparisons, the effort might be informative for you.

So now Joe Wilson is a liar. And the justification for this statement would be....

What exactly did he lie about? More importantly, are you accusing him of lying to justify the outing of his wife? If so, you need to think that through again very carefully. Consistently throughout the last 4 years that our country is "at war" and that we all need to adjust to this reality. So be it. If we are at war, then the outing of an intelligence agent by their own countrymen is considered TREASON. The punishment for treason during war time is death, is it not? I hope old Scooter Libby has good representation.

And finally we have an Anonymous person who sees no acceptance by "liberals" (whatever the hell that is) of conservative ideas. Perhaps if you elucidated those conservative ideals and then provided how they are different from liberal ideas someone might be able to respond. But as it is, you have provided a Limbaughism, that is, a statement that is made that is neither supported nor specific that leaves all to imply that a slight has been made to someone, but without actually having to commit to making the slight. Own the consequences of your statement and provide some basis.

Anonymous said...

John,

I love it! See, you and I aren't too different after all. I'm a big fan of Own the consequences of your statement and provide some basis.

I can't help but wonder, though, whether in addition to Anonymous it might also be appropriately directed at:
** Michael Moore
** Rush Limbaugh
** Al Franken
** FNC
** CNN
** Ted Kennedy
** Harry Reid
** Karl Rove
** every person who utters "Liberals think..."
** every person who utters "Conservatives think..."

I would throw Markadelphia in there, too, but I don't want to impugn the integrity of the main man. Lord knows I don't want another smack down like the one that resulted from suggesting he had an anti-GWB bias!

johnwaxey said...

Amen PL!

Anonymous said...

I agree with everything everyone has said.

I'm in Amsterdam and I've ingested a few foreign substances that are hindering my ability to say anything intelligence.

My name is Crab - I enjoy horse and granny porn.

I oficially don't like peple using the name anonmous. To anyone using the name "anonymous" - did you get your job back at the sperm bank or are you stil drinking on the job?

I am king shit on turd island.

Anyone who disagres with GWB is wrong. I'm not talking wrong like "Oops, I'm a philosophy major"....I'm talking "Hey honey - it's 1997, let's invest our whole retirement savings in Enron" wrong.

Mark Ward said...

Crab, Hope you get this before you come back. Buy me an Arctic Monkeys T Shirt if you see one in London. If you can't find one, than go back to the original plan.

And now back to the news....

I actually think that some of the people on the list provide a lot of basis for what they say. Even though I disagree a lot with Rush Limbaugh, think that he should really shut up about anything to do with anti-war liberals etc as he himself had 6 deferements in Vietnam, and think his show is just entertainment he is still a pioneer in talk radio and should be respected for that.

As for Michael Moore and Al Franken, well, I say the present facts that can't be ignored. They can be re-interpreted but not ignored.

Anonymous said...

Wow! John, my point actually got through to you? I must admit I didn’t think you had it in you. Well, I supposed it didn’t get fully through. I’m saying they live without freedom, I never mentioned the word ‘happiness’.

A crock? I don’t think so. I can’t think of any countries off the top of my head that’ve “opted” against freedom since by definition, once they do, they’ll not have the chance to later make those changes. Unless of course, you believe Hussein really did get 100% of the vote in his last Iraqi election. (And please don’t be foolish and pull out some tiny group living on an island in their own little utopia as an example of a culture living in freedom without democracy.)

All of Europe is a classic example. People enjoyed no freedom except that granted to them by unelected kings and the associated royalty who pretty much decided every aspect of their fate until they developed some basic forms of freedom and representation. The Czars or Ming Dynasty weren’t exactly voted in. Communist countries? Please. Nobody votes in a communist government. 3rd world countries run by dictators aren’t really jumping to mind as freedom-loving places to me. The Middle East hasn’t changed much in thousands of years; people there have little or no say in their own fate much less that of their country.

I’ve been in the military, have friends of all persuasions, lived overseas for 4 years and have traveled enough to know a little something about other cultures, in addition to your brand of BS. I’m simply patriotic and you through out ethnocentric as the end-all, race-baiting term you hope will stick when you have no other argument. I believe that though not perfect, America is the most powerful, humane, diverse and free country the world has known. Most of us call that ‘patriotism’. But I suppose to you, patriotism means the freedom to crap on your country and burn the flag, so I’ve included more handy definitions of all the relevant terms for you below.

I’ve spent enough time with you go-nowhere losers. I have neither the time nor inclination to debate an ostrich and you don’t have the brainpower to understand even if I did.

Ethnocentrism: believing that the people, customs and traditions of your own race or nationality are better than those of other races.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=26415&dict=CALD

Patriotism: when you love your country and are proud of it and willing to fight for it.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=58085&dict=CALD

Democracy: the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=20618&dict=CALD

Opted: to make a choice or decision.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opted

johnwaxey said...

Run Just Dave, run, run, run. Your response to a sincere debate is that of a 5 year old..."I can't see anyone elses point of view so I will call anyone who disagrees with me a loser and hide behind rhetoric and strongly worded dismissals." See, that really is the problem with you and people who think like you. Someone challenges your opinion and you get up on your hind legs like a boxing kangaroo ready to lash out.

I don't crap on my country or burn the flag, I have one hanging up inside my house that we practice saying the pledge of allegiance to on a weekly basis and what does that have to do with anything anyway? I vote like everyone else, I have served on jury duty, read the Constitution, registered for the draft etc. I pointed out that democracy and cultures of freedom are NOT the only way in the world. I did not suggest that the US should change its culture nor did I try to incite rebellion from within. What I did say was that it was wrong of this administration to try to force other people to believe as we do. If anyone here is unpatriotic, it is you. Patriotism has nothing to do with forcing others to believe and behave as you do. Maybe that is the fundamental problem here. You seem to have a fundamental disconnect between your provided definition and the way that you employ it in reality. How does loving your country and protecting it equate to what is going on in Iraq or your insistence that others desire to be westernized? NONE. Talk about low brain power! You might want to try eating more fish. I've heard that it helps build brain cells or rejuvenate them or something.

Your list of nations and governments that have existed without democracy proves my point exactly. Nice try though.

It must really bother you that there are good Americans out there that disagree with a poorly founded and executed war in Iraq. Get used to it. The fall out from other policies is on the way.

Anonymous said...

Mark --
Agreed. Michael Moore and Al Franken do present facts that cannot be ignored. They also repeatedly present fiction in the guise of fact that, unfortunately, is not ignored. And they do so in a seemingly consequence-free environment, since they have no obligation (or desire, apparently) to stand up and say "OK, I was wrong when I accused X of Y".

I don't know or understand what compels them to do so, but I would submit that it's a very destructive behavior. Doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it originates.

You are angry at the "evils" they expose....some true, some not. My anger is directed at those who bring nothing constructive to the table. The ends (fixing the problems with the country and Bush administration) do not justify their means, which is leveling accusation after accusation, even when only marginally supported by evidence (or not supoprted at all).

Just Dave --
Don't leave. You'll never change their minds, but you can help keep the kooks in check. Lord knows we need more people doing that!

Crabby --
I'm on board with the horse porn. But granny porn? That's just sick. ;)

Mark Ward said...

Dave, if you stop posting that would be a real bummer. We might throw barbs and fight but I have much respect for you.

Unknown said...

Dave,
As soon as the people of a democratic society are ostracized and scorned for questioning their government – or called unpatriotic, to use your vernacular – then that democratic society has lost touch with what makes it so great. I truly hope I am misunderstanding you. You can’t be suggesting that people who don’t agree with the administration, by virtue of that fact alone, are not patriots??
I generally do not like hypotheticals, but humor me by following this one, based on two truths we – as smart, cognizant geocitizens – surely can all agree to: the United States finds itself currently in an unprecedented position with hegemonic economic, political, and militaristic power. Fact two: this will not always be the case. If you want an articulate, well-researched argument supporting this second maxim, read Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers.
Now for the hypothetical: If, years from now, the United States is on the fringes of power instead of the at the center of it, and our government fails to take necessary and practical steps to protect our democracy, the choruses of critique would resound and none of those people would be labeled unpatriotic.
It is not up to a select few (the administration, its supporters or detractors) to determine when a critical voice is appropriate. I hope my ugly hypothetical suggests that while there are circumstances that would require criticism on a grand scale, those are not the only instances in which a healthy debate creates progress. And if we marginalize criticism now, we cannot count on it playing the crucial role a true democracy needs it to play in the future. It is not unpatriotic to demand accountability and truth.
Now back to the hypothetical: A patriot, and I’ll use the definition you provided, loves his country and is proud of it. As patriots, we need to think about the future of our country. We need to use our unprecedented position of power to create a world we can benefit from when we no longer enjoy such a status. Nobody wants to be the high school bully at the class reunion. Debate and critique are even more salient in this globalizing world when so much of the equation is out of our direct control. We need to make friends just as vigorously as we pursue enemies. And we need to let our people demand accountability and truth from our representative government. Don’t forget who holds the power. I’m not sure what you are saying about patriotism and democracy is ethnocentric, but to suggest there should not be dissent and critique is to suffocate a principle that any patriot can recognize as American.

Anonymous said...

regarding:
if it were a Democrat, conservatives and I would be very upset. As it stands, just I guess it's just me that's angry.

It doesn't matter who's in office EVER. The other side of the Isle will balme everything on the President.