Congratulations on an outstanding post, Khadaji. Allow me to point out that those of us on the right are far from guilt free from the vitriol and noise you are talking about.
Allow me also, as a Bush supporter, to say that there are indeed real and good reasons to vote for John Kerry. He is something of a known commodity. There are sources of information about him and his policies which are not simply “Anyone but Bush arguments.” His website is awash in policy proposals. You have to stay away from some of his speeches, but he has several policy papers with intriguing suggestions. I would also caution you that campaign websites should not be considered original sources about a candidate. They are obviously one sided. But you can get a feel for the directions he would like to take the country.
Finally, allow me to suggest that many of those posting in forums such as this are those who are more interested in being loud about thier opinions than the common citizen. What I mean is that forums such as this are almos guaranteed to generate more vitriol than, say, a coctail party. I agree that it is a shame, but don’t let it affect your faith in humanity.
But, I’m not Republican and I haven’t brought a knife. And, isn’t it me, the undecided you are really trying to win to your side? And BTW, the OP wasn’t talking to the Dems, he was talking to both parties - as was I. And when I hear talk of meeting hate with hate, I certainly don’t think of people that I want leading me.
Well, since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the advent of the Rep machine, the feces on one side has won AM radio, has a very well integrated think tank program–really inseperable from the party (the left think tanks, the few there are, are NOT tightly integrated with the party machinery), has dominated K street in Washington DC, has most of the pitbull pundits on cable TV, while liberals, the ones that their are, keep limping along playing politics the way it used to be played–by trying to sift through the facts fairly. The Reps are playing team politics and the liberals are playing truth politics (not talking about the extreme edge of course). Though I enjoy Michael Moores mirroring of Rep tactics, I’m afraid it may portend the end of what was a process headed in the right direction. The most conservative democratic country on the planet is losing its non-fecal discourse and moving down the road toward an obscurity of truth and a nonstop stream of fecal discourse.
I’m sorry. Things have changed dramatically. It is not till people wake up and notice that their country has been hijacked by the WWE of politics will we perhaps be able to steer the ship back in the right direction. And the bigger war is between a very well funded and vast Rep machine that has upset the balance in their favor. This is the reason and impetus for the aggravation and heal dug in, pitched battled antagonisms in discourse today.
Instead of splitting hairs over the meaning of the term “tensof thousands,” think of it as simply “The death toll from the 9/11 attacks, multiplied three or four times.”
I continue to be astonished at the folks who simultaneously claim to be horrified by the death toll of 9/11 and endorse the threefold (or fourfold) payback of the same to the people of Iraq.
And I continue to be astounded that moral equivilency is drawn between the deliberate targeting of civilians outside of a war and colateral civilian casualties occuring during a war.
Let’s just remember that the “war” was against a nation that wasn’t a threat to the United States, and the President had to lie about the threat and justification in order to “sell” it to the populace. Sounds suspiciously like “deliberate targeting of civilians” to me…
Except that the threat was not so much a lie as it was simply not necessarily imminent. Again, the moral equivilancy drawn between Iraq and other peaceful nations continues to astound me.
But assume for a second that we put that asside. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the reasons for war were actually lies. Your logic still fails. The moral equivalncy drawn between flying commercial jets into comercial buildings and dropping bombs on military targets in residential areas is still very thin indeed.
Except that we are not debating the Iraq war as much as we are debating the hate spewed from each side of that debate at the other.
Some of us cannot resist hashing over the war debate again, mostly as an excuse to spew a bit more hate. But I think they prove the point of the OP with most of thier posts.
If Bush were being honest about his reasons for entering the war, you’d think all the contrary information he was getting from the CIA about WMDs would have given him and/or his advisors pause for thought (like Wison’s warning that Saddam had NOT been trying to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger). Knowing how much info there was about the lack of a real case for war, you HAVE to assume either wilfull stupidity or duplicity on Bush’s part. Neither option makes for a president anyone with half a brain could respect.
Yes, you did. You did so subltly, though. You left out the other options besides incompetence and lies. By limiting your choice to evil or stupid, you were able to suggest that those who believe in Bush’s policies have half a brain.
Would it not have been just as effective to say that you believe that these were the only two choices available and that niether was a good choice for president?
There are some facts that still remain unexplained by this hypothesis:
(1) The Administration was already getting word back through the inspections that their intelligence was “garbage upon garbage upon garbage”. I suppose this doesn’t rule out the possibility that Saddam still had or was working on WMDs but it did call into question the evidence that this was based upon and the credibility of the people providing this evidence.
(2) If the Administration believed that there were WMD and that the spread of these WMD to terrorists constituted a significant threat, then one would expect them to do everything possible to stop this threat. And, yet the evidence suggests that there were very lax in securing sites that potentially contained WMD and sites known by the IAEA to contain nuclear materials. (See here, here, or here, for example.) Given that this was the case, and that the CIA was telling the Administration that Saddam was unlikely to give WMDs to terrorists, one is left to wonder how the Administration could have possibly believed that they were reducing the threat of materials for WMDs or a "dirty bomb"from getting into the hands of terrorists.
Or, Evil Captor you could have simply stated your case the way jshore just did. He called into question the president without calling into question the brain capacity of his supporters. See the difference?
So, it was certainly possible at the time to know that many US intelligence facts were incorrect and also belive that Saddam was still not accepting his role in the disarmament of Iraq. Specifically, I’m saying that some intelligence inaccuracies do not invalidate the entire picture the intelligence services were painting.
As to your second point, the administration noted later that much of the looting of these cites was carried out in so controled a manner as to make it very unlikely that it was simple looting. That is, those in charge of the sites in the first place may have sanitized them before the US had any sort of chance to secure them.
As I said to Evil Captor above, your points are certainly worthy. They can even be used to call into question the motivations or capability of the Bush administration. My only point is that they do not prove that supporting Bush is irrational or “half brained”.
I don’t think characterizing people who fall for obviously fallacious arguments as halfwits is “demonizing” which to my mind involves ascribing evil motives to them.
Except that the arguments are not nearly as “obviously fallacious” as you suggest.
Perhaps you are more comfortable with the term “insulting” rather than “demonizing”?
Again, for reference, see jshore’s post. Notice how he makes the exact same points about the arguments you want to make without infering any sort of demeaning aspect to those who might still disagree with him.
Wow, we’re really going off topic. I’ll just say one last thing and then unsubscribe myself from this thread. Although no WMD’s were found, I don’t believe that Bush lied. Besides the fact that other world leaders believed Saddam had, or would have them soon, the bipartisan 9/11 commission found lots of screw ups and a need for major reform within the various US intelligence agencies, but also came to the conclusion that Bush didn’t pressure The CIA or other intelligence agencies to give false or misleading information. Also, a similar investigation cleared Tony Blaire of similar charges. Also, it is belief that scientists lied to Saddam and told him that they were far along on a WMD program in order to get funding from him, so he may have believed himself that he had some, or was close to getting them.
As for the OP, those who believe the people who surface every now and again saying that they told Bush that there was no threat, fine, I understand. I think that calling Bush a liar is very harsh, and it’s not true, but this is a free country.