the_gneech | Argh

Current Mood: shaking my head at madness

Argh

Okay, look:

The capture of Saddam Hussien is not as significant to internal U.S. politics as a lot of people seem to think it is. Swing voters generally swing on economic issues, not foreign policy.
Saddam Hussien did not "magically appear during an election year." What do people think those guys in Iraq have been doing for the past year, standing around with targets on their chests until it was politically expedient to do something? The man was hard to find, for cryin' out loud.
How come if something is perceived as being going badly in Iraq, Bush gets all the blame, but if something is perceived as being good, he gets none of the credit? Is he "Fall Guy in Chief?"
Most importantly, on Saddam's orders, populations were slaughtered; one of his elite guard's favorite ways of dealing with dissenters was to force them to watch family members being raped or brutalized; he basically bled the country dry so his own family and favored lackeys would be rich, rich, rich. If somebody's first reaction upon hearing of his capture is to think, "Uh oh, Bush might get a blip in the polls," I gotta think that person's priorities are way out of whack. It's like the Palestinians saying, "Yes, he was a brutal tyrant, but at least he's Muslim" -- isn't that missing the big picture? There is so much more going on in the world than the incessant bickering of Demidupes vs. Pooblioobs!

Let fly with your flames if you want, I'll put on my asbestos undies. But if you decide to yell at me, at least try to understand my point first.

-The Gneech

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It is very easy to get so worked up with "I hate Bush (or anyone)" that I cannot see the things he does right -- or that those who oppose him do wrong.

You are emminently sensible. Or eminemly.

I'll take the former, thanks. ;) -TG

3. It isn’t easy being President. Wars have stressed out a few Presidents. I noticed Bush stumbled a few times during his address, especially the part where he says that the people on the side of Iraqi freedom had “lost their leader.” But you’re right: One person shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of many more.

4. That reminded me of a Time article months back about an Iraqi who had to witness his family members being raped and killed after the man made a joke about Saddam’s mother. Did you read it?

-Gatorman

I don't remember if I read that specific article, but I do remember hearing about such incidents back during the Clinton days. Eeeew.

-TG

I'll just address point 3.

Bush gets the blame because he initiated the action, without his decision to go to war, the troops wouldn't be in harms way.

He doesn't get the credit because, well, it wasn't him crawling into the spider hole.

And for the record, I do think the capture of Saddam is unequivocally good. But I still find Bush a troubling president.

Yes, but if he hadn't given the order, Saddam wouldn't have been captured.

FWIW, I agree, Bush is a mixed bag at best.

-TG

Your post was sensible and reasonable.

Thus, you may be in for it. Good luck!

===|==============/ Level Head

Well, yeah. The president is a professional scapegoat. It's in the job description. ;)

Sorry if my post was part of what caused you to froth. Sensible, educated people see your point. However, there are few of those. My post was lamenting armchair patriotism and the uneducated masses.

Well, I think I took the quote from your post, but I'd heard the sentiment from a variety of places before then. :)

Hear hear, re: uneducated masses. :)

-TG

1. Totally agree there...
2. Same there...

3. Really, I don't belive he should get any of the credit of the capture though. He wasn't out there doing the work, he wasn't out there putting his life on the line to collect information. All the credit should be given to the 600 soliders that actualy went there and pulled it off and to the other soliders in Iraq that constantly have their lives put at risk.

He should, however, get a lot of the blame because it's his policy, the policy of cabinet, and the policy of his party that's put us and our soliders into this mess of Iraq.

4. Totally agreed...Saddam was a very bad person. The world is a batter place now that he is out of power. However, the determination to remove him from power shouldn't have been made by one person or government.

I don't belive he should get any of the credit of the capture though.

In that case, let's take the credit away from Wilson for commanding the American efforts in WWI and from Roosevelt for commanding the efforts in WWII. Let's take the blame for Vietnam away from Nixon and McNamara, and for the Civil War away from Lincoln. Washington may keep his credit for the Revolution, because he was General at the time.

Oh, and of course, we should take any credit Eisenhower gets for D-Day away from him, too, because he stayed in England while soldiers lost their lives in Normandy. Grant and Lee failed to engage with their fronts in the Civil war. And why did the president fire MacArthur in Korea? He wasn't the one who lost the front-- it was the soldiers who lost to the Chinese, not the generals!

How far down the line of command shall we go? Do we blame Vietnam's mire on the sargeants for each platoon? Sounds about right! Let's rally all the ones that survived and try them for treason!

*pant, pant*

President Bush is Commander in Chief of the United States' Armed Forces. Yes, he is a civillian. Yes, he stays in the Oval Office while the troops go to the front. Do you want him at the front, playing infantryman? I certainly hope not-- enough presidents have been killed during their terms, thankyouverymuch!

Give credit where credit is due. Celebrate the 600 infantrymen that found him. Then celebrate the soldiers who brought the front to the point where they were inserted. Then celebrate the commanders who sent them there. And finally, celebrate the Commander in Chief who authorized the war and approves the soldiers' actions in the first place.

-=TK, who will support any CmdrChf who fights for the best interests of the US, regardless of party affiliation

Dude! :) Breathe. :)

-The Gneech

I did! See me panting? ;)

-=TK

You're confusing 'policy' with 'action'.

I blame Bush for the 'policy' that put us in that war.

I give credit to the soliders for their 'action's in getting Sadam.

You can't separate them: without the policy, there would be no action.

Machiavelli was right when he said that all men (and women) act in their own self interest. Nations are the same way. Were we not, as a nation, interested in the war, we would not be acting in such a way as to arrest Saddam. That is Bush's policy: to act, as our leader, in our national-self interest. As he and his advisors see it, the current war in Iraq satisfies what is, at minimum, a thirteen-year-old national interest. Without it, there is nothing to drive the arrest. If the policy is bad, then the arrest is bad, because it is made on the basis of the policy. If the arrest is good, then the policy is good, because it is the cause for the arrest.

-=TK, who thinks the Arrest is better than the Fall of the Wall

I dunno, we'll see in ten years, but I think it's premature to elevate the arrest of Saddam over the fall of the wall. It depends on what it leads to.

-TG

Possibly...but a country with the power and size of the US should restrain itself more then we (as a country) have in this matter.

We should have worked within the system, not thrown the system out when it didn't meet our needs or timetable. I agree that the Saddam government should have been dealt with because they were a threat to their neighbors and their own citizens. However, I don't agree with how it was done in this case. This is the main reason I don't agree with Bush's policy in this matter because of him rushing into war, it put all the responsibilities squarly on our shoulders with little real backing from other countries (except for England)

I have to also disagree with your comparision of the falling of the Berlin Wall and the arest of Saddam. The wall represetend Communisim, a direct and massive threat to our way of life...something we lived under for 40+ years. Saddam was a head of a dictator of a 3rd world country that represented little threat outside of his region.

The UN has no power in this issue. Our nation-state is sovreign, and as a sovreign, conquering nation, we had the right to revoke the ceasefire given in the armistice treaty of 1991 when Saddam failed to live up to the demands of that armistice as leader of the conquered nation. The treaty was between the US and Iraq. The UN has nothing to do with it, and therefore, as a system, is impotent.

-=TK

Point #1 is especially true. Remember Bush's father. Though the economy is growing, it's not trickling down into new jobs. Though we might be happy that Saddam has been found (and, personally, I'm much happier that he will go to justice than become a martyr), people vote on their pocketbooks.

Let whatever deity is listening be praised for THAT small mercy.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on almost all of that. However, our involvement in Iraq has been a high point of political debate since Bush first mentioned it, so it cannot be ignored that we got Saddam when it comes to the election, which is so close at hand. I think this is very unfortunate. But I appreciate what our CmdrChf is doing to not stick his neck out for the pollsters on it! *watches the speech again*

Besides, most polls are saying Bush already has the election in the bag, anyway. When polled against a Democratic opponent, he only gets 30%. But when polled against any specific candidate from the Dems, he wins over 80%. Hee!

But anyhoo... you're right. The arrest of Saddam Hussein did not happen in a vacuum. And anyone arrogant enough to think it was staged to be at this particular moment in time is pretty damn sick. Like Palestinians dancing at the death of thousands of Americans, or Afghanis saying "he's an Iraqi and deserves to live free in Iraq!"

-=TK

The election is a year away and he has a long time to screw things up even more. I am not looking forward to what the next year will hold, job-wise. But then again, the worse he does, the better in the long run.

/me votes Bush in elec_2004 *

-=TK

but President Bushie has underwhelmed me in foreign policy, domestic policy, and, except for 9/11, leadership qualities. This llama's voting for Nader and she did in '96 and 2000 (no crap about me contributing towards the election---Gore had won my county and state hands down)....now, while I wouldn't mind going to a baseball game with Bushie, I don't want him by my side in battle (note: I voted for his father in 1992 and have a lot more respect for his parents and his wife)....MLD

After all, it's a free country. :)

-=TK

That's kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face, isn't it?

-TG

The sooner he is gone the better. Unless, of course, you think all these new tax cuts are going to be so beneficial for us 5 years down the line... if so, by all means, do vote for him.

I do not believe in Bush, I do not trust him nor do I think he is capable or able. And above all, if you can't generate ONE non-prompted sentence without sounding like a goddamn idiot, then perhaps you -shouldn't- be president. If compared to you, Goofy sounds like Aristophanes, then perhaps you shouldn't be president. If you have quite a few bakrupcies in your record, you shouldn't be president. If you push your religion onto others and make a political show of it in order to get the bible thumpers' votes, you shouldn't be president. George is the Christina Aguilera of politics: a lot of glitz, good advisors, a little talent, money and a lot of blonde.

Yes, well, cutting through all the personal insults you enjoy throwing at Mr. Bush, your statement that the worse Bush does, the better, implies that it's fine and dandy if the country goes up in flames, just so long as it gets Bush out of office. This is not a view I share.

I want the U.S. to be a prosperous, safe, and free country, regardless of who is in office, myself.

-The Gneech

That may be so, but I'm a realist: With Bush in office, it ain't gonna happen. Therefore, the faster he gets out, the better. Whether it be a Republican or Democrat or an independent Candidate that has the capacity, I would cheer them on. Right now, though, I do not see many candidates I WOULD cheer on, but most of them are preferable to Bush 2004 (by most I mean FEASIBLE candidates. Pat is, of course, what I like to call the Bat-mite of elections. He's there for humoristic appeal, as well as most of his ilk). Edwards supposedly is a good candidate, but I am very suspicious. The man is too charming and has a squeaky-clean feel to him I do not trust on a politician. I do not believe Bush can make the U.S. prosperous, or safe- although at this point, considering what the present and previous presidents have done with foreign policy, I do not think 'safe' will be a word we'll ever use again with all security. I want to see this country prosper as well, but I have never for a moment believed that Bush was the man to do it.

But perhaps more important, I want to note that Bush is not "pushing his religion to get the Bible Thumper's votes". He is one of the few politicians in the last fifty years at least who has not simply worn his Christianity on his sleeve. It is rare indeed to find a politician brazen enough to stand against the national Anti-Christian sentiment and express the beliefs which purvey his every action. For that is what it is: a belief so strong that it infuses every action of his life. Sure he's not perfect, but he is striving to be so, and is not ashamed to let us know it. If that means that the Christian community applauds, then so be it. For as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, "let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and praise your Father, who is in Heaven".

-=TK

Religion has NO PLACE in politics. EVER.

Then you will have to purge the head of this government of anyone influenced by Christendom. Not Christianity-- Christendom: the general set of thoughts, and beliefs by which our society is founded, and has been founded, for the last 1679 years, since the joint edict of Milan by the Roman and Byzantine emperors.

If you want to get closer, you'll have to strip the United States of it's history, because we were founded on the principles of Puritans, Quakers and Presbyterians. The very basis and shape of our government was borrowed from the leadership of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

In addition, you will have to execrate religion of any sort from every single person who ever sets foot in a government building. Not just the people who hold offices there-- but every person who enters. Because this is a republic, which means the people are still the heart of the system. Thus, the officers and bureaucrats are answerable to the people. Which means they are answerable even to the individuals guided by religion who come in to their offices.

You will have to strip the United States of most of its laws, because they are founded on the moral principles of Christendom. That includes the laws protecting property (thou shall not steal), life (thou shall not murder), even the sanctity of marriage (thou shall not covet thy neigbor's wife). And of course, the Declaration of Independence is null and void, because it explicitly states that we are created equal, which requires that there be a Creator. So in that case, I guess you belong to England.

But of course, you can't belong to them, either, because the power of their government stems from the Divine Right of Kings, as all European Thrones were established by the Papacy. So that means you are an individual without a nation, which means you are not protected by any laws anywhere. See, the muslim governments are set up by the divine laws of Allah, the Chinese government gained it's legitimacy from turning Buddha into a god, the Japanese empire believed the Sun God gave them their authority. Even the tribes in the Amazon base their local government on religion.

So please tell me how you are ever going to strip religion from the government?

-=TK

And as far as 'praising the father', I guess that since Gandhi was an infinitively greater man than a lot of christians in this century have shown to be, I guess we should be praising Rama and Sita now?

Your god is not the only god, your religion is not the only religion there is, and neither is it the 'right' religion. Older religions have laid claim to the right path just as yours has, and guess what? Neither has shown irrefutable proof of such a miraculous power.

Religion lies in the world of the subjective. It has NO PLACE in politics, where VERY objective subjects are treated, and religion's pestilent prejudices become obstacles (the execution of gay men in Egypt, the refusal to grant such marriages in the state, the stoning of women who refuse to wear the garb, the list is endless.)
Politics is about administration and diplomacy. Keep the pustulant religions OUT of it, they have caused nothing but trouble.

Ok, now you're just succumbing to the fallacy of ad-homonym attacks. In which case, your argument really has no value or worth, other than to feed anger, which I must refuse to allow myself to succumb to in The Gneech's journal. Out of respect for The Gneech, this conversation is over.

-=TK

(deleted comment)

I agree. Evenheaded even.

Well thanks, to both of you. :)

-TG

Yay! I'm innocent of these charges for once! I didn't say nuthin'! :)

This is true! :)

-TG

Bravo, Skipper!

Personally, I feel getting Saddam out of circulation is a Good Thing. Now, how they handle him from here, that concerns me. He needs to be fairly tried and convicted, and I'm not sure this administration and their ~~colonial~~ provisional government in Iraq can do that.

This does not change my opinion that the president is a twit, and that this country can do sooo much better. (Actually, the president doesn't annoy me nearly as much as Ashcroft, Rumsfield, and Cheney do; those guys I'd love to see get the boot...like, say, in early 2005? :)

You mean Hewey, Dewey and Louie? Yes, I will be very glad to see them go. I do think that Saddam out of his boots is a good thing (for goodness sake, someone hand that man a comb, that's the Mother of All Bad Hair Days).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Argh

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Does the phrase, "Commander in Chief", mean nothing?

Re: Does the phrase, "Commander in Chief", mean nothing?

Re: Does the phrase, "Commander in Chief", mean nothing?

Re: Does the phrase, "Commander in Chief", mean nothing?

Re: Does the phrase, "Commander in Chief", mean nothing?

no subject

Re: Does the phrase, "Commander in Chief", mean nothing?

In retrospect, I think I'll leave a calmer note...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

love ya sweetie...

Vote your conscience, of course!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

In defense of the President's faith...

Re: In defense of the President's faith...

Oh, really?

Re: In defense of the President's faith...

Fallacy!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject