What political administration, at any level local or national level “handles criticism well?” Hell, how many individuals do you know that handle criticism well? Both political parties in the US are cut throat. They didn’t rise to the highest levels of government by being milk toast.
And that comment about civilian deaths is ridiculous. The military had gone out of its way to minimize civilian deaths. The US could have killed Saddam on day one is they wanted to nuke Baghdad, or completely carpet bomb the place, but they didn’t. I’m not saying it’s pretty out there, because it itsn’t. But to say that the US doesn’t care about civilian deaths cashews a lack of awareness of the military action in IRAQ
Blair has already invoked the Official Secrets Act to legally gag the media on the leaked document. The dead tree edition had a lot more on this but you need to subscribe for that.
If Bush cared about minimizing civilian deaths he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place. The very decision to start the war was, in itself, a decision to kill civilians for no reason.
I also don’t buy the official line that the military tries particularly hard not to kill civilians.
Wow. Just, wow. **Dio **says Bush = Osama bin Ladin, I call him on it, and what is the repsonse? Other posters jump to his defense. There’s a Pit thread in here somewhere. Give me a few minutes…
You have so little faith in the US that you think Bush just wanted to kill as many people as possible for no reason except his blood lust? For no reason? That statement is so full of hyperbole that is doesn’t bear serious comment.
And the military trying to avoid killing innocent civilians isn’t the official line, it’s reality. Soldiers and Marines and dying because air strikes and artillery are not being called in in certain situations due to collateral damage to civilians. Doesn’t happen all the time, but it does happen. Who the hell do you think is in the military? Where do you think the government breeding all of these sadistic blood thirsty bastards? These are the same guys you went to high school and College with. The same guys that dated your sister. The men and women you work with. How can you be so out of touch?
Because my gentle and sweet cousin Clay was in Viet Nam. He told me what he did, and saw, and I believe him. Because I know that the brutality and fear that war generates is corrosive to the human soul, and rots away the humanity of even the best of us. With the worst of us, it just takes less time.
I still don’t really know why Bush started the war. I do know that it wasn’t for the reasons he cited, that it wasn’t defensive or necessary, that he knew it wasn’t defensive or necessary, and that the fact that it would kill civilians didn’t bother him. I don’t think he started the war so that he could kill civilians, I’m just observing that he didn’t care if civilians got in the way of whatever his real motives were.
I was in the Navy. My father was in the Air Force in SE Asia during Vietnam. Both of my grandfathers fought im WWII. One of them was at Omaha Beach. One of my brothers was in the Air Force. I have various and sundry other relatives (uncles, cousins, etc.) who are military. I’m from a military family. Did you ever see the movie The Great Santini where Robert Duval ran his household like a military unit? That was my dad. He was even a pilot. You don’t have to lecture me about the military. I know the difference bewteen reality and the official line, believe me. Most of the individual troops aren’t out to kill civilians but the reality of air strikes is that collateral damage happens frequently, and those who give the orders (i.e the civilian leadership) don’t lose that much sleep about it.
In context I read it as him continuing his point about the psychologically. Anyway you had already posted about equating Bush with OBL before the part you quote.
Well, if gentle and sweet cousin Clay, who has never stepped foot in Iraq, said it’s so, it must be so. I apologize. Had I know your assertions that were based on second hand, 35 year old anecdotal evidence, I wouldn’t have questioned it.
:dubious: The “everybody does it” defense won’t fly here, spiff. The Bush Admin’s demonization of critics and dissenters has far surpassed all precedent. Things weren’t this bad even in the Nixon Administration.
Don’t know good question. Between the terrorists, Saddam on one hand, the President Bush on the other, I don’t know. Do you consider the terrorists innocent people? When a car bomb goes off in Baghdad, do you fault the terrorist for that? What about the Kurds that aren’t dieing since Saddam has left power? How do you factor those in?
You say that you are from a military family, so you don’t need a lecture about the official line and reality. So tell me then, were dad, and grandpa, your uncles and brother cold blooded killers who didn’t “try particularly hard not to kill civilians,” or are they the men and women who agonize over the death they may cause ?
Has anyone considered the possibility that Bush was just confused about Al-Jazeera? Forgive me for not having a cite, but I clearly recall a poll in which some obscene percentage of respondents advocating attacking Al-Jazeera, simply because they didn’t recognize the name and associated it with Al-Qaeda. Personally, I don’t think Bush is insane of evil, but I do think he is lacking in intellegence and good judgment – I wouldn’t be surprised if he was simply experiencing a moment of Al-Jazeera/Al-Qaeda confusion.
I doubt that. At the time in question, U.S. forces were attacking Fallujah; the Administration had a very specific beef with al-Jazeera about its coverage of that. (See the original story linked in the OP.) I think Bush was, at the very least, entirely clear that al-Jazeera is a news network, not a terrorist underground.
Will it fly?, Ohh sure it will. First off, the statement that they “don’t take criticism well” isn’t the worst thing in the world. Thought it was a pretty weak indictment actually. I can live with that. Everybody does it isn’t sure a bad excuse in some ways. Arguing what the norm is in terms on behavior is a yardstick we use frequently.
What does Saddam have to do with anything? The question was between Bush and Osama. Osama’ killed what, 3000? 5000? Bush has killed tens of thousands if not hundreds. This is an easy question. Bush is the greater mass murderer by far. Your strawmen about insurgents (who wouldn’t exist if Bush hadn’t stared an illegal war for no reason) and “the terrorists” and your “Kurds who arent dieing [sic]” have no relevance to the question I asked about Bush and ObL so they do need to be answered.
Don’t forget me. I was in the military too.
I never said that anyone in the military was a “cold blooded killer.” I said that the civilian leadership didn’t care about killing civilians. I didn’t say the troops felt that way (although the military has its share of psychos like any other gigantic sampling of human beings).
