I think that’s an unkind and unfair thing to say against Templeton.
Well, I (a moderate Dem) had exactly this conversation with my Mom yesterday.
She’s from NYC (Brooklyn). She’s well-educated (Masters in education from a public college). She doesn’t read any conservative columnists except David Brooks in the Times; she watches The Lehrer Report and listens to NPR; she doesn’t listen to Rush and doesn’t even have cable to watch Fox News on. She doesn’t watch NASCAR, and as a true New Yorker she doesn’t even own a car! She’s fairly religious but is Catholic and not a fundamentalist; she reads St. Augustine and her inner-city church is mostly black and Hispanic, and her friends are of all colors and religions.
I asked her how she could understand or forgive (insert outrage or bumble here). You know what? Some of them, she can’t. She’s totally against the Social Security “reform”. She’s very worried about the Iraq war, and is starting to question her support (always lukewarm anyway) for it. She’s worried about people she knows like me who are under-employed. But…
She sees a basic disconnect between the sort of people like Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg (she cited them by name) and her values. His unsubtle America-is-always-greedy motif, her four casual abortions and potty mouth–it bothers her that Kerry, whom she otherwise admires, solicited their support (or at least didn’t dissuade them). She’s pro-life and, while she treats gay friends the same way as anybody else, she’s uncomfortable with any redefinition of marriage (an important sacrament to her) to suit them. When I bring up Bush’s pointless and cosseted early life she agrees but says that his is a story of redemption and religious strengthening that she can relate to very well.
She lives in the Bronx, near me. Our electoral district went 81% for Kerry (you’d be amazed at how many black folks I knew cast a protest vote for Bush because of abortion and gay rights) but she feels that she did the right thing. But please don’t think that she voted for Bush without any reservations or doubts or second thoughts. She had plenty. But not enough to overcome the lack of connection to what Kerry represented to her.
And she does deeply resent anybody who tries to tell her she was dumb or brainwashed for voting the way she did. Take it from me. 
Who are “they” and how is 9/11 “their” fault? And where the fuck does Iraq fit into that particular harangue? And no, it doesn’t sound “grandeous [sic] and starry-eyed”, it sounds delusional, xenophobic and myoptic.
From reading just what you quoted I would have to presume he is talking about the arab world. In wich case Iraq is somewhere right in the middle of “the fuck”.
And how would you know what it sounds like if you didn’t know who he was talking about?
Well, it sounds like a state of war with just about everybody Islamic and or Arabic. In other words, page one of ObL’s talking points.
I’ve heard that it may have actually been Liechtenstein’s fault. We have found just as many pre- 9/11 Bin Laden connections there as in Iraq. And it hasn’t escaped notice that Liechtenstein also did not have WMD either. Coincidence? I think not.
Really? I just read the OP and can’t figure out what the debate is, other than some absurd strawman statement that conservatives never criticize Bush. No cites, no statistics, no nuthin’. Just one more rant against Bush. This thread would do better in the Pit.
There are more of “them” then there are of “us”. NASCAR fans + pro wrestling fans = more than 50%. Add in the snake handlers and you have a landslide. Of course there may be some overlap.
Thank-you, Dan. I rest my case.
The last couple of posts are a shame, as this one was really getting somewhere (especially thanks to some candid posts from Airman Doors and Martin Hyde. The thing is, a great deal of people (internationally) do fail to understand why the Bush administration is seemingly called into question.
I think **edwino ** makes a good point. A large majority (in UK parlance) allows more radical government as the opportunities for dissention are limited to debate rather than active pressure (eg. through voting). We have had a similar situation in the UK since ‘New’ Labour took over in 1997 and it is not a coincidence that there is also some concern here about the way in which we are being led. This concern is fuelled by a lack of credible opposition - many people don’t have a voice and feel powerless as a result. There is also a snowball effect. Increasingly contentious decisions are made and there seems to be no resistance. Part of the strategy is attacking the media, the only opposition that is left. The media succumb to pretty much toeing the line, if they didn’t anyway, and the party message is reiterated and advertised.
Somewhat ironically, this seems to be the measure of success for political parties - it is not necessarily what is best for the country, but what is most likely to keep them in power.
All opinion I guess, which is why I don’t often post in GD. Also, I’m conscious that my thoughts relate at least as much to the UK system as the US.
I think everyone (even the French!) agrees that a stable, democratic and prosperoous middle east is in the best interests of the US in particular, and the world in general. However, that evades the original question: Why Iraq, and why now?
The best you can do is dredge up the spectre of 9/11 and terrorism. You have bought the whole administration line, bait, hook and sinker.
Well, there’s the answer to the OP.
It’s not because people are stupid, it’s because they’re too lazy to even bother informing themselves of the facts. Regurgitating a 5-second sound bite is much easier than wading through reams of reports and newspaper articles (many without pictures, even!) and deriving your own conclusions which can often be messy, ragged-ended things. Much easier and tidier to just spout the latest blurb from MiniTruth and get onto the really important issues; Reality TV!!!
Well I’m not giving Jake any points for this, certainly. But I felt that calling Bush a liar, and the way he was called a liar, was intellectually dishonest. And most of the examples cited weren’t nearly concrete enough to say anything about whether Bush lied in those specific incidents (since he presented a lot of quotes from people who were decidedly not George W Bush and used them as evidence that Bush was lying in said quote.)
And of course it was just patently false that Bush “continuall lied” as Jake asserted.
However I do agree on a base level that Bush is flawed, obviously. I don’t feel he is generally inept but I think he has been very inept in certain key instances. And admitting such is just a good way to analyze problems and look at policy.
The question “why do we forgive some ineptitude” is somewhat valid, although it is loaded because it presupposes Bush is an inept man.
That sums up my feeling looking over this thread very well, thanks. I was also impressed with the honesty from some people.
Mehitabel, your mother is not one of the people I would include in my (obviously gross) dipiction of Republicans (mostly the types like - well, I won’t name names). They are, like any other group, diverse and intricate. My grandmother voted for Bush because the tax cuts helped her business (which isn’t doing so well). She wasn’t overly concerned about any wars or anything, just her daily life. She’s practical like that, and I can respect that.
I guess what is hard for me, and I presume many other left-wingers, to understand is how… how shall I put it… how easily many of those Republicans throw away the concept of human life and rights internationally, and ignore the issues that aren’t pertinent to them. Obviously, people weigh things more heavily when it affects their daily lives. I think that is a fundamental difference between, well, people like me, and everyone else. I look at this and think how horrible, something must be done, and weigh what affects someone I don’t know in another country halfway around the world as much as I weigh things that affect me personally (as a side note, I would like to emphasize that if you are really interested in what affects you personally, you should be involved in local politics as much as national politics. All to often, city elections and the like are horribly ignored by people who would otherwise be watching out for themselves. If Bush makes a $300 tax cut and your city passes a 2% city tax hike, they may cancel out).
Well, you have to understand, there are levels of hatred. Bush managed to go deep and expand mine. But until that point, Clinton really irked me (I voted Dole in '96, obviously). His approach to many issues bothered me, his middle of the road position on most issues - really, his lack of doing anything. He won’t be remembered for accomplishing anything, because he didn’t. He just rode out 8 years by being bland and his personal charisma. I disagreed with him on how we approached Yugoslavia and ignored the UN. I was also upset by how he handled Iraq after the Gulf War (also pissed at Bush I for the same stuff) - he just let it sit there. He didn’t do anything. He COULD have helped build their infrastructure and get the UN involved in overseeing the elections process, maybe getting Saddam out illegally, or at least giving a voice to the people (again, this is a holdover complain from Bush I). I liked his budget management, though. The blowjob deal also bugged me - I mean, that was a lie with no fuzzy area, but he was a lame duck at that point anyway.
But then there is one thing I will never forgive him for. Rwanda.
To answer the OP, I’d say that at least they have the right goals. I prefer someone who tries to do the right thing and does it badly to someone who denies the problem or does not seriously try to solve it.
I started a thread once asking for specific, concrete and plausible alternatives to the neocon plan of knocking off a dictator and trying to plant democracy and hoping it takes root in the ME. I hadn’t seen any, and I still haven’t. I’ve heard bromides and bumperstickers (such as vague suggestions of “get the UN involved”), and of course plenty of critiques regarding how to proceed, but nothing that I considered fundamentally different.
And there are some Democrats and people on the left who have seemed to acknowledge this, and whose criticisms have been sane, sober and measured. Lieberman and Biden are examples, but there are others. Kerry was at times. But Kerry also at times catered to the far left that, IMO, criticized Bush without offering feasible, realistic alternatives. I wasn’t sure where he stood and so couldn’t vote for him.
I’m not a Republican; I was OK with Clinton, and I can name a dozen Democrats I could pull a lever for tomorrow. But none of them are acceptable to what I call the Idiot Left, and hence will have a hard time getting a nomination.
But you presume. Again, I am not a Republican, but there are many who have support (tepid, perhaps, but support nonetheless) for Bush precisely because they care about human life and human rights.
There is a leftist case to be made for intervention – which your mention of Rwanda makes me think you’d agree – and many on the left make it; Christopher Hitchens being an obvious example. But conversely, some on the left – just like some on the right – are willing to abandon principle in favor of partisanship and oppose anything that helps Bush because it helps Bush.
Great. So thanks to Turkey we’re done, and we didn’t need Iraq.
Reminds me of a photoshop I saw once. Picture of Bush with his pretzel-bruised face, text “Strategery: A dangerous plan is better than no plan at all”
You mean, care about American human life? Or like… ? I don’t see the big Republican push to care about Sudan or Rwanda or finish Afghanistan.
I never claimed the left were saints. I don’t even like most of the left.
Ah, so Clinton did not lie, perjure himself, or in any other way commit a misdeed. After all, he did not consider fellatio to be sexual intercourse, and as such was being perfectly truthful.
I think the oft-quoted “one successful ME democratic state” doesn’t apply to currently existing ME democratic states.
In list form, here’s my take on it:
Laziness - willingness to buy into poorly crafted soundbites instead of looking deeper.
Gullibility - “Our” leader would never ever lie to us.
Prejudice - “We” are better than “they” are.
Bigotry - “They” are not the same religion or religions. They even look different.
Stupidity - Complete disregard for obvious falsehoods (willful cognitive dissonence).
Superpatriotism - “My country right or wrong”.
Well then, we’d better hope democracy doesn’t take in Iraq. Then they’ll be an existing democratic state, and we’ll need another example. And I for one don’t want to have to move to Canada in short order for the Iran war draft.