Can we agree that Bush was right? ...Finally?

Here is the name and more details on the LA attack that was thwarted.

He didn't lie about this....

www.geostrategy-direct.com...

.S. officials have identified the Al Qaida terrorist behind the plot to fly airliners into a Los Angeles building as Zaini Zakaria, a Malaysian national.
Zakaria, 38, was captured by Malaysian authorities in February 2002 and gave up the names of three other members of a terrorist cell that planned to attack the Library Tower in downtown Los Angeles.

He is part of the a group known as Malaysian Mujahadeen Group (KMM), an offshoot of the Jemaah Islamiah.

The group is linked to Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. According to the article, it was originally part of the 9/11 attack but was psotponed.

www.fas.org... They are not CIA either....

Mr. Bush has done more right than he has wrong. Has he goofed on occaision, yeah he has. Goof #1 (and his biggest to my mind): the border situation. Far too easy to get in and disappear into American society. Several presidents have failed to address this huge problem. Goof #2: should have finished the job in Afghanistan first, Al Quaida should have remained priority #1. Allowed himself to be sidetracked into Iraq. Goof #3:
should have rethought our alliance with Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud are not our friends, despite polite noises to the contrary. No amount of oil is worth selling the nations soul. Goof #4: not slapping down loose cannons within his own administration, SecDef Rumsfeld, and VP Cheney come to mind, should be seen, not heard.

The things he's gotten right: I am no economist, so I can only speak for myself, I'm better off than I was 10 years ago. I own my own home, my own car, this computer I'm playing on, my debt is very managable. I'm heading to Austrailia for a couple of weeks later this year. So to my mind the economy seems fine to me (I am sure someone will dispute this with me). Iraq: this is more problematic. Problems do exist, only a fool would say otherwise, but there are signs of progress. Schools are reopening, infrastructure is slowly coming back on line. Elections, free and unencumbered, have been held on several occaisions. The Iraqi's are working to form a stable and lasting democracy. They seem to be turning on the terrorists in their midst. These are all good things that Mr. Bush has had a hand in. Iran: Oooh boy, this is a problem. But again, Mr. Bush is approaching it the right way, going to the UN, and mustering the rest of the western world, or at least attempting to. Still too early to tell.

One of my longer posts. All I'm attempting to say is Mr. Bush is a good man attempting to do a job that ages every single person to hold it dramatically overnight. This job has killed more than one of them. It's a wonder anyone wants the damned thing, what with people like us sitting very complacently at our keyboards merrily second guessing him, not to mention slandering him (and you know who you are).

So I suppose you could say I agree with the original poster.


[edit on 20-2-2006 by seagull]

Originally posted by Majic
Democrat and Republican evangelists alike have no problems hurling bitter accusations at one another, but are seemingly allergic to taking responsibility for the negative consequences of their own misdeeds.

I mean no personal offense to any ATSer, but the word that comes to my mind when I see this sort of behavior is “infantile”.

Really ... sounds rather disingenous to me Magic. I mean, why pull your punches? If you want to take a shot man, and it appears that's what you're doing, by all means take responsibility for it. HOW ABOUT SOME ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE WORLD! It should start in this place. Own it or don't bother dishing it.

It's a mindset that is founded on the notion that one's party and its deities can do no wrong, while those outside the ideological herd can do no right.

It's a distorted, pathological and dishonest way to look at the world, which is why I want no part of it.

Then begin by being honest with how you present your own position.

As to the meat of your argument, I believe understand why you take the position you do. Partisan knife throwing, while a great American tradition, solves less than nothing. Oh, I could argue that 'they' started it with the "revolution" with the likes of Newt, but what's the point in that, right? But I will state categorically that the Repub's, and especially the neocons, have turned it into a very ugly art form. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

The first really nasty example I can recall was when Bush 41 put out that commercial showing a revolving prison door after a violent offender was released on (I believe) parole and went out and committed another offense. Bush asked whether Dukakis was right for the job of president based on something he had no control over but it was salacious and caught the pub's and media attention. These kinds of pot-shots are typical of these people. I have no respect for them. I didn't vote for Gore or Bush in 2000. It goes beyond politics for me.

I've seen examples of scurrilous skullduggery on both sides of the aisle, but the repeated deceptions of the Bush camp astonish me. And, fortunately, many Republicans who are true conservatives are seeing his/their bs for what it is and calling him/them on it. Considering the risk they're taking with the Bush camp's history of exacting their pound of flesh for those who don't tow the line it shows how far it's gone - TOO FAR.

But you missed my point, which was that whenever anyone identifies the misdeads of Bush 43, his mindless minions start pointing fingers at Clinton rather than respond to the CURRENT issues presented by the CURRENT president and HIS staff. It's a 'duck and cover' manuever and it shows no balls. It's a typical Republican response to controversy - blame someone else. In fact, most reprehensibly, they typically blame the victim. This is similar to a lawyer blaming the rape victim for the rape based upon the clothing she wore or who she was with last year.

An current example is the Cheney shooting. The first 'duck and cover' response to the incident was to blame this 78 year old supporter for getting shot by not announcing his presence behind Cheney. They pulled back on this bs only when every hunter in the nation called them on it and they remembered that gun owners are one of their core constituent groups.

But on those occasions when they can't find a warm body to fall on his knife the way Wittington did when he took the 200 pellets, had a heart attack and stumbled out to the media to moan about how sorry he was for Cheney (i.e., take the blame for Bush's bad behavior) they just go back to 'Old Faithful,' the Clintons. Heck, it's at least good for a chuckle or two and these folks are all about distraction.

It's also why part of me fears Cheney shot this guy in the face on purpose. It was the same weekend Cheney put out the BIG LIE that he was legally privleged to tell his henchman Libby to go ahead and release the identify of a covert CIA operative to the media for no other possible purpose than to hurt the man (the CIA op's husband, Joe Wilson) who courageously and publicly called the administration on it's bs forged yellow cake Niger document allegedly linking Saddam to nukes.

Well, needless to say, it sure worked. Instead of people justly converging on Cheney for again breaking federal law by exposing a CIA operative (working on weapons of mass destruction issues) and her entire network of professional contacts abroad to MURDER for spying, as well as exposing the NATION by damaging our NATIONAL SECURITY, the media and short-sighted public gave him a PASS and some actually FELT SORRY FOR HIM.

I am not amused.

This guy should be in prison with a very large and angry minority cell mate with a violent history.

You people astound me sometimes.

Honest Majic The Railsplitter

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Then begin by being honest with how you present your own position.

I have. Prove me wrong.

Point To Point

Originally posted by seattlelaw
But you missed my point, which was that whenever anyone identifies the misdeads of Bush 43, his mindless minions start pointing fingers at Clinton rather than respond to the CURRENT issues presented by the CURRENT president and HIS staff.

Actually, I think you missed my point, even while proving it.

The Perfect Fit

Originally posted by seattlelaw
You people astound me sometimes.

There is plenty of astonishment to go around.

You may want to re-read my post and make sure the shoe fits properly before wearing it.

I simply don't know how I could possibly have been more clear. But I will endeavor to make myself plainer.

You state that you do not intend to offend anyone here and yet this is exactly what you do with your infantile link to the definition of infantile. It is disingenous to disclaim the clear intent of insulting members when the proof is in the pudding, as it were. I said "own it" because you pointedly refused to do so.

I don't mind a broadside that's well aimed but I do mind when 'the shooter' claims he was aiming for a bird and not me!

And my point in forecasting that the Bushies would ultimately blame Clinton for the economy (and the weather, for that matter) is that this is their M.O. It is what they do. They blame others, usually the victim, but it is always someone else's fault. Your self-righteous blather simply provides more cover for them to do so. Quite apart from providing the cure, you are pouring hot puss on the boil of their festering illogical ass of an argument.

It is your right to do so. I simply point out that you are not being who you claim to be. Your disdain for the argument does not elevate you to higher ground, it merely provides additional distraction from what is truly a shameful failure by the Bushies to address the continuing lack of merit attributable to the deceptive and murdering behaviors of this group of brutish thugs known as neocons.

Get it?

Baby Needs A New Pair Of Shoes

Originally posted by seattlelaw
You state that you do not intend to offend anyone here and yet this is exactly what you do with your infantile link to the definition of infantile. It is disingenous to disclaim the clear intent of insulting members when the proof is in the pudding, as it were. I said "own it" because you pointedly refused to do so.

What makes this problematic for me is that my desire truly is not to insult anyone, but rather to point out what I see as infantile behavior.

Doing so honestly will necessarily offend the egos of those who see themselves as behaving this way, but I don't know of a better way to broach the subject other than being direct about it. The purpose of the link was to make sure my use of the word was not misunderstood, not to offend.

Your responses indicate that you are reading meanings into my words that I didn't put there, and that I am attacking you personally when I am not.

When I see you doing this, it tells me that you believe this is true about yourself. Hence my reference to the adage “if the shoe fits”.

In my opinion – which is what I am expressing when I post here – demanding accountability from others while shirking it oneself is infantile, and that's what characterizes partisan finger pointing here and in the many other forums in which I have observed it.

You are free to mistake my honest opinion regarding puerile behavior for a personal insult, but in doing so, you are effectively telling me that I can't be honest with you.

I'm telling you that I'm going to be honest with you whether you like it or not.

Hitting The Links

As for my use of links to drive home a point, if you find links to be infantile or insulting, prepare to feel insulted a lot, because this is the Internet. Hypertext comes with the territory, and helps advance communication to levels previously considered unattainable.

Why not celebrate that?

Autonomic Marksmanship

Originally posted by seattlelaw
I don't mind a broadside that's well aimed but I do mind when 'the shooter' claims he was aiming for a bird and not me!

I'm not shooting at anyone, but am trying to help some of my fellow members avoid shooting themselves in the foot.

Some are more determined to do so than others and are already missing a few toes, but I'm an incurable optimist and keep trying anyway.

Those who consider themselves my targets should consider that my target is their misbehavior, which I believe can be corrected. At least, the attempt can be made, and even if it should fail in some cases, I consider it worth the effort.

Why?

Because I used to do the exact same thing all the damn time. I played this game for years – far too many years – before I realized that it was wrong.

Yes, my behavior was infantile. It was also hypocritical, as well as a lot of other unflattering things.

I'm ashamed of it, but I'm willing to admit it. And, if I may quote the legendary John Cleese, “It got better.”

Those who are willing to acknowledge that partisan finger-pointing is irrational and undesirable can free themselves of its curse.

Those who aren't, can't.

I say: why not?

Pots Versus Kettles

Originally posted by seattlelaw
And my point in forecasting that the Bushies would ultimately blame Clinton for the economy (and the weather, for that matter) is that this is their M.O. It is what they do. They blame others, usually the victim, but it is always someone else's fault. Your self-righteous blather simply provides more cover for them to do so. Quite apart from providing the cure, you are pouring hot puss on the boil of their festering illogical ass of an argument.

Actually, I'm pointing out that this practice is not confined to “Bushies”. Partisan ideologues of all stripes do this and seem to think people don't notice.

I'm saying that I do notice, see this sort of behavior as infantile (which it is) and am not at all shy about calling attention to it.

Pointing fingers at me for pointing out the obvious will not change the facts, nor is it doing anything other than making my point more eloquently than I can.

And I really do try to be eloquent about it.

Elevating Others By Lowering Oneself

Originally posted by seattlelaw
It is your right to do so. I simply point out that you are not being who you claim to be. Your disdain for the argument does not elevate you to higher ground, it merely provides additional distraction from what is truly a shameful failure by the Bushies to address the continuing lack of merit attributable to the deceptive and murdering behaviors of this group of brutish thugs known as neocons.

I claim to be nothing other than myself, and as anyone who has become familiar with me can attest, that claim includes the explicit assertion that I can be wrong about anything.

I could be wrong about this.

Perhaps someone can make the case that denigrating others for doing what one does oneself is not infantile, nor even hypocritical. Being a skeptic, I can leave the possibility open – although I hope it's obvious why I consider it unlikely that anyone will succeed at such an endeavor.

The irony of your observation is that I don't see how my pointing out self-discrediting behavior elevates me at all. Rather, I'm saying that indulging in it diminishes those who choose to.

I would rather that we all avoid such debasement.

What makes this exchange truly baffling to me is the fact that we seem to agree that this sort of hypocrisy is wrong.

Where we apparently disagree is on my point that it is wrong for everyone, not just one's partisan foes.

Perhaps we can come to agree on that as well.

Got It

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Get it?

I get it more than you may realize.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
You state that you do not intend to offend anyone here and yet this is exactly what you do with your infantile link to the definition of infantile. It is disingenous to disclaim the clear intent of insulting members when the proof is in the pudding, as it were. I said "own it" because you pointedly refused to do so.

Originally posted by MajicWhat makes this problematic for me is that my desire truly is not to insult anyone, but rather to point out what I see as infantile behavior.

Assigning descriptive terms such as 'infantile' to the discussions of adults is by definition demeaning and pejorative.

Doing so honestly will necessarily offend the egos of those who see themselves as behaving this way, but I don't know of a better way to broach the subject other than being direct about it. The purpose of the link was to make sure my use of the word was not misunderstood, not to offend.

This is pop psychology in action. You once again attempt to belittle your opponent by chastisement. A more common way of phrasing this would be, 'Gee, I guess I struck a nerve there ... Must be something to it, eh?' However, the fact that I stated my disagreement with your pusillanimous approach does not mean that your method was successful.

Your responses indicate that you are reading meanings into my words that I didn't put there, and that I am attacking you personally when I am not.

I disagree and believe you were verbally chastising (attacking is way too strong) everyone engaged in the argument and your continued disingenous disclaimer while you do it is merely unfortunate.

When I see you doing this, it tells me that you believe this is true about yourself. Hence my reference to the adage “if the shoe fits”.

Yes, yes, you are the all powerful wizard and we are the acolytes. More pop psychology.

In my opinion – which is what I am expressing when I post here – demanding accountability from others while shirking it oneself is infantile, and that's what characterizes partisan finger pointing here and in the many other forums in which I have observed it.

I cannot disagree with the gist of this statement, however taken in the context of what was written you continue to fail to acknowledge that pointing out the discrepancies and outright lies of those in power is required in order to acknowledge the reality of the situation. As I have said to you in the past, this is absolultey necessary to informed change.

I encourage the Bushies, neocons and anyone else to take meaningful shots at the arguments of progressives, liberals, lefties, etc., etc. Without exposing the weaknesses of our own leaders and positions we will not overcome or exceed them. But for this to be successful there does need to be more than finger-pointing. There has to be accountability.

For example, the Gingerich Repub's held a witch hunt and finally got Clinton when he lied about a sexual liason with an intern. Clinton was impeached. This is called being accountable. Bush lied about WMD, the threat of Saddam, etc. He needs to be impeached for accountability purposes. Leaders need to be held accountable. Cheney exposed a CIA covert op. for personal revenge. He needs to be in jail. This is not 'finger pointing', these are statements of fact demanding certain action under the rule of law. The neocon apologists, rather than addressing these positions on their merits point a Clinton or a bird as the problem. That is finger pointing. That is what they do. Am I or are others finger pointing back by pointing out their finger pointing? That is your argument. I believe you are mistaken.

You are free to mistake my honest opinion regarding puerile behavior for a personal insult, but in doing so, you are effectively telling me that I can't be honest with you.

No I am telling you that you are being dishonest with yourself and, hence, everyone else when you make the infantile remark and then disavow it in the same sentence. It is the behavior of Rovian neocons.

I'm telling you that I'm going to be honest with you whether you like it or not.

I would appreciate if you were honest with yourself. The rest will follow.

I could be wrong about this.

It simply is. I do not attach judgments of right and wrong.

Perhaps someone can make the case that denigrating others for doing what one does oneself is not infantile, nor even hypocritical. Being a skeptic, I can leave the possibility open – although I hope it's obvious why I consider it unlikely that anyone will succeed at such an endeavor.

Identifying the avoidance tactics of others is not denigrating them. If someone wants to get to Seattle from San Jose and they begin by going east it is not denigration to point out the directional discrepancy.

The irony of your observation is that I don't see how my pointing out self-discrediting behavior elevates me at all. Rather, I'm saying that indulging in it diminishes those who choose to.

The self-elevation comes from the use of terminology such as 'infantile' in describing others for behavior that you disdain. Since you disdain it you must be superior to those 'infantile' enough to employ it. It's simple deduction.

I would rather that we all avoid such debasement.

Then perhaps you shouldn't 'debase' in order to make your point.

What makes this exchange truly baffling to me is the fact that we seem to agree that this sort of hypocrisy is wrong.

Where we apparently disagree is on my point that it is wrong for everyone, not just one's partisan foes.

Again, it is not hypocrisy to point out the avoidance tactics of another's argument. Their decision to do so is a tactical choice. The purpose of my identification of it is not to 'finger point' as you indicated. My purpose is to expose them to the truth of the matter in hopes that they will choose another way, such as discussing the discrepancies they are so desparate to avoid.

I get it more than you may realize.

We shall see.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by seattlelaw]

[edit on 21-2-2006 by seattlelaw]

Just knock it off and get back on topic, please!
Who wants to here you guys argue? Off topic at that.

I was reading this, then I realised, why am I reading this? Then I stopped reading, it felt good!

[edit on 21-2-2006 by Toadmund]

Aiming For The Toe

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Assigning descriptive terms such as 'infantile' to the discussions of adults is by definition demeaning and pejorative.

Only if they don't apply.

When adults act like infants, pointing it out is not demeaning or pejorative. Rather, such behavior is demeaning and pejorative to those who indulge in it, which is the point you seem so determined to miss.

The rest of your reply continues your pattern of evading it and insisting on taking personally what I offer generally – effectively convicting yourself where I chose to leave the question open.

While I sometimes enjoy a good point/counterpoint cascade-fest, I will decline the invitation in this case, because it rapidly becomes tedious, difficult for readers to follow and ultimately irrelevant.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing any political administration or questioning the U.S. government. Those who bother to read my words know that I consider it a duty of Americans to do so. That applies regardless of who may be in power at the time.

What I take exception to is the dereliction of this duty in favor of mendacious bickering that does nothing other than reinforce the concept that political partisanship stands in direct opposition to rational thought. That instead of party members contributing their opinions to their party platforms, they are willing instead to accept the dictates of those platforms as gospel truths, rejecting all others, regardless of whether they personally agree with them -- or are, in fact, even true or not.

Those who embrace partisanship as a religion are often blind to this form of pathology, though it is obvious to those who are not.

You may accept the truth that my objection is to this sort of nonsense, or take it upon yourself to defend it as some sort of personal crusade and make assumptions and insinuations about my motives that I know are false. Though I consider it foolhardy to do so, the choice is yours, as well it should be.

I will continue nonetheless to suggest that you avoid taking up the mantle of attempting to justify what is nothing more nor less than patent hypocrisy.

The shoes may fit, but I can't say they look good on you.

Why This Bugs Me

The grim irony of the spectacle I am decrying is that some critics of the Bush administration, by reflexively accusing it of every misdeed under the sun and falsely attributing all the woes of human history to George W. Bush personally, serve the dubious purpose of discrediting all legitimate criticism of the administration and its policies.

I strongly suspect that some of the people who do this do so at the behest of the Bush administration itself, because so far, it's working perfectly, and makes far too many of Bush's critics look like a bunch of hysterical nut jobs who couldn't be trusted with a soggy pretzel.

I know for an irrefutable fact that the Bush administration is guilty of many sins. Heck, even the right-wing demagogs on talk radio complain about them. Unfortunately, there's so much obfuscation of these sins by the alleged political opponents of Bush that meaningful discussion of them becomes virtually impossible.

Just look at this thread and the thousands of others like it. What do they accomplish?

Whether they realize it or not, those who contribute to this smokescreen by maintaining a constant barrage of false accusations and obvious lies accomplish nothing better than creating a political landscape in which Bush and his cronies can operate with relative impunity.

And good luck trying to point that out in an environment where the operating philosophy of both Bush's supporters and critics alike is “you're either with us or against us” and “anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot”.

I'm an optimist, but even I can see no hope as long as this mindset persists and partisans dig themselves ever deeper into a festering pit of deceit, self-righteousness and paranoid insularity.

Please note that I am not the only one who has been trying to get this point across, and failing.

The Harvard Try

Originally posted by seattlelaw
We shall see.

Only if we look, which is what I am recommending.

I have made my case as best I can. Past a certain point we will see diminishing returns in this sort of discussion, and I think we have passed that point already.

Your statements make it clear to me that you don't understand what I'm saying. Saying more of it is unlikely to change that.

Others may examine this thread and this exchange and decide for themselves what they think is right or wrong. I am quite comfortable with that, and hope you are as well.

I suspect the underlying problem here is one of communication, and I'm doing my best.

Sometimes, however, my best is not good enough. I regret that, but my best is all I can offer.

Still, I'm glad I tried.

Although I totally skimmed through the first part of your post, the last half had merit, merit enough for a reply!
Majik said:

And good luck trying to point that out in an environment where the operating philosophy of both Bush's supporters and critics alike is “you're either with us or against us” and “anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot”.

Or a 'liberal'.
See what I don't understand is how folks can defend a government that does nothing for them, and is trying it's hardest to reward their cronies by taking away from you.
How does free trade work for the common man?
What would Bush do with your social security money if he had his way?
Why money for war, but none for the poor, or a national medicare system?
The list goes on and on.

Now back to the term 'liberal', that word has been given such a bad meaning, only because Bush supporters made the term sound bad, and his supporters are 'with' him on that. Let's look at the definition of the word liberal:

liberal

adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative] 4: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded] 5: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" [syn: free, loose] n 1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Sounds to me that that is what America is supposed to be, imagine giving that term such ridicule, and such a black eye. When one knocks a liberal, you are knocking all the values listed above and are supporting rich men who run roughshod over your American way of life. Liberal values cut into profits.

And some of you lap it up like a thirsty dog!

You can call me a liberal if you want, if I can call you a sheep.
Baaaaah!

Originally posted by Majic
Aiming For The Toe

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Assigning descriptive terms such as 'infantile' to the discussions of adults is by definition demeaning and pejorative.

By MajicOnly if they don't apply.

When adults act like infants, pointing it out is not demeaning or pejorative. Rather, such behavior is demeaning and pejorative to those who indulge in it, which is the point you seem so determined to miss.

Again, I do understand your position. I don't disagree with you in principle, and I think you know that.

I have stated that pointing fingers back and forth rather than discussing positions which address agreed upon factual premises is, at best, tilting at windmills. It is your objection to the tactic of finger pointing while employing much the same by relying upon pejoratives to make your points that I am attempting to illustrate. It is your personal hypocrisy. And it's OK. I find it amusing, not offending. But I will continue to point out personal hypocrisy by those I respect here. A back-handed compliment perhaps. But I would not take the time to point it out with 95% of those I read here.

The reason I took issue with your objection was not due to the objection you stated, but rather due to my personal disappointment with your decision to use pejorative to demean those apparently engaging in meaningless pejorative attacks themselves based upon allegiance to their party (ii.e., pointing fingers).

It is no less pejorative or, if you will, 'infantile' in behavior to begin an argument with a heading such as "Baby Needs a New Pair of Shoes." Again, it does me no harm but it serves to undermine your position by displaying your belief that you are engaged in dialogue with an inferior - a baby - and a poor baby at that. Whatever.

The rest of your reply continues your pattern of evading it and insisting on taking personally what I offer generally – effectively convicting yourself where I chose to leave the question open.

That's interesting. I do not understand this position. I believe I have agreed with your position in principle and contest only your employment of pejorative remarks to disparage those you disagree with. I believe your posts in this thread are replete with examples. Again, no problemo. I merely ask that you acknowledge your decision to engage in behavior similar, if not identical, to that you protest.

In other words, your position is intellectually dishonest as presented. You can solve this dilemma if you choose by either removing the pejoratives in castigating those whose finger-pointing behavior you object to, or admitting your intention to use pejoratives and the resulting hypocrisy inherent caused by the conflict between the objection itself and the simultaneous use of pejoratives and I have no problemo with your position. Or do nothing and live within the maze of your own contradiction. It matters little to me in the long run, although from your previous posting excellence (IMO) it is a disappointment.

While I sometimes enjoy a good point/counterpoint cascade-fest, I will decline the invitation in this case, because it rapidly becomes tedious, difficult for readers to follow and ultimately irrelevant.

I agree that it can become tedious, especially for others. However I also believe firmly that intellectual honesty demands clarity and if we allow the use of hypocrisy to pass unchallenged we make it a permissible state of nature and it changes the playing field in an unpalatable way, vis intellectual dishonesty becomes the norm and resolutions are not achieved. Thus, I contest that your objection as stated contributes to the problem - which is not your stated intention. Thus you can see that the dilemma, such that it does exist (it does for me) needs to be addressed and resolved.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing any political administration or questioning the U.S. government. Those who bother to read my words know that I consider it a duty of Americans to do so. That applies regardless of who may be in power at the time.

Certainly criticism of pol's and govt. is fine to do, yet criticism of those who criticize pol's and govt. is where we are presently. You have stated your objection to how people here criticize pol's and govt. That makes it personal. That's certainly fine, however, for the reasons previously stated I believe that anyone who steps into an argument to criticize those arguing for using "infantile" means to advance their argument are stepping in their own mess. Baby needs a new pair of shoes, indeed.

I will continue nonetheless to suggest that you avoid taking up the mantle of attempting to justify what is nothing more nor less than patent hypocrisy.

The shoes may fit, but I can't say they look good on you.

And I must say that your shoes need a good cleaning as well. I have yet to understand how I have been hypocritical but the hypocrisy of your position is, I believe, well stated. Your presumptions about who has adopted the jingoistic anti-logic of party subservience are simply that - presumptions. There is little to support them as far as I am concerned.

The grim irony of the spectacle I am decrying is that some critics of the Bush administration, by reflexively accusing it of every misdeed under the sun and falsely attributing all the woes of human history to George W. Bush personally, serve the dubious purpose of discrediting all legitimate criticism of the administration and its policies.

This much we do agree on. This is why I object when the Clinton Factor is rolled out by these people whenever they find themselves in a corner. It is what led to my post in the first place. So, grasshopper, we come full circle. The student is now the master and the circle is complete.

I strongly suspect that some of the people who do this do so at the behest of the Bush administration itself, because so far, it's working perfectly, and makes far too many of Bush's critics look like a bunch of hysterical nut jobs who couldn't be trusted with a soggy pretzel.

This tactic serves them well. It is not unlike the cops infiltrating protesters at WTO events and such and instigating them to property destruction or violence. It works far too well and they rely upon the disorder that comes from it. Divide and conquer.

Just look at this thread and the thousands of others like it. What do they accomplish?

I understand that you are tired of the chase, but I will counter that dialogue is important and perhaps the essential predecessor to change. Don't give up the chase.

Whether they realize it or not, those who contribute to this smokescreen by maintaining a constant barrage of false accusations and obvious lies accomplish nothing better than creating a political landscape in which Bush and his cronies can operate with relative impunity.

Now you are making my argument for me.

And good luck trying to point that out in an environment where the operating philosophy of both Bush's supporters and critics alike is “you're either with us or against us” and “anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot”.

Careful, Majic, it almost sounds as if you're finger pointing ...

I'm an optimist, but even I can see no hope as long as this mindset persists and partisans dig themselves ever deeper into a festering pit of deceit, self-righteousness and paranoid insularity.

Hope on, my friend, it's what we humans do best.

Sometimes, however, my best is not good enough. I regret that, but my best is all I can offer.

Still, I'm glad I tried.

As am I.

Arguing With The Mirror

Originally posted by seattlelaw
The reason I took issue with your objection was not due to the objection you stated, but rather due to my personal disappointment with your decision to use pejorative to demean those apparently engaging in meaningless pejorative attacks themselves based upon allegiance to their party (ii.e., pointing fingers).

You're right.

I was wrong to do this, you are absolutely right to point it out, and I'm sorry for being such a jackass about it.

In truth, I have been exhibiting many if not all of the same behaviors I have been railing against. Thus if I am to be consistent, I must accept the labels of “infantile” and “hypocritical” for my own conduct.

Here I am demonstrating the hazards of self-righteousness thinking by falling into it myself – and coming across as an insufferable pedant in the process.

Student of irony that I am, I can't help but be amused by that.

Pointing this out – doggedly, in the face of stubborn ignorance, at that -- was the right thing to do, and I thank you for persisting and ultimately succeeding.

Better Than Best

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Originally posted by Majic
Sometimes, however, my best is not good enough. I regret that, but my best is all I can offer.

Still, I'm glad I tried.

As am I.

I think we both know I can do better. I'll see what I can do about that.

A Beacon In The Darkness

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Hope on, my friend, it's what we humans do best.

Good advice no matter what we might think or who we might be.

And um, “way above”, by the way, and so voted.







P.S. At the risk of drifting back on topic, I will summarize my answer to the subject question with a single word: “No.”

Originally posted by Majic
Arguing With The Mirror

Originally posted by seattlelaw
The reason I took issue with your objection was not due to the objection you stated, but rather due to my personal disappointment with your decision to use pejorative to demean those apparently engaging in meaningless pejorative attacks themselves based upon allegiance to their party (ii.e., pointing fingers).

Originally posted by Magic You're right.

I was wrong to do this, you are absolutely right to point it out, and I'm sorry for being such a jackass about it.

P.S. At the risk of drifting back on topic, I will summarize my answer to the subject question with a single word: “No.”

Your acquiescence is most impressive. I congratulate you on your personal dignity and integrity. It is the most impressive thing I have seen here.

My only request is that when I inevitably argue a contradictory position here you will take issue with it and show me the light.

Thanks magic!

But I'm afraid I have forgotten the question you are answering with 'no' and will have to reread the thread.

this is merely the result of blowback from the cold war era. we'd take out any government, whether or not they were elected, if they even looked like they could have once said something leftist.

we're not fighting a war for democracy, because this nation has deposed democracies more times than any other nation.

The Short Form

Originally posted by seattlelaw
But I'm afraid I have forgotten the question you are answering with 'no' and will have to reread the thread.

No need to bother.

Basically it boils down to the question of whether ATSers can agree that Bush was right, and the not-so-surprising answer to that question is a resounding "no".

All the rest is just commentary.

That's right, I remember now.

I cannot illuminate how wrong Bush is any more than he is doing himself.

Here's an email exchange I had recently with a 36 year army vet. A major who has been directly involved in the recent conflicts (not the present conflict) they call war. I haven't sought his permission to disclose this exchange or I would identify him. It's a general discussion but has bearing on the thread. Not much new (if anything) but the source is highly placed and has more merit than most on ATS; certainly more than me.

Q: Regarding Iraq, do you have any concerns as to who is responsible for the 9-11 conspiracy?

A: it was black operations planned and conducted by our secret special forces. no aircaft ever hit the pentagon and while 2 a/c hit the wtc they were brought down by placed explosives as my buddies in new york- police- fire NY ESU have said and has radio communications confirm. especially tower # 7.

clear "pull down" with orders recorded now released.

Q: I admit I am not above questioning the official explanation. I only wish more people were willing to. I find much about the official explanation wanting and the evidence of complicity seems strong, from the lack of a decent investigation to the benefit derived from the tragedy. Since this was a large element of the admin. excuse for invading Iraq I was wondering what your take is.

A: set up to scare folks to allow DODSt/ NATO/ Brits to implement invasion plans we had in place and prepositioned troops to move in.

10th mountasin had been in plavce for months ready to go- one of my
best buds = our special team members- were there on special ops

They had enough intel and actual warnings, as exhibited by the PDBs, etc.,
that indicate they are either fools or complicit.

al quada was never involved--- pure bull #. ben laden is our cia guy anyway and bush sr works for him on his board of directoirs for carlyle group.
we gave him and taliban al the weapons they needed as they were ours iuntil they refuse oil pipe line deal then orders came to eliminate them to put in pioe line.

In either case they should be out on the
streets.

iran is next- been planned for years.

Q: Yes but the dod always has contingency plans for invasions, etc., right?


A: no not like this------- direct invasion plans that is why we gave iraq all of the wmds weaponas before and then set them up during gw1 .


Q: The fact that the plans exist does not mean the action was inevitable.

it is....... these are operational not contingency


Q: We've had plans to annihilate Russia for decades as well and have not taken action. If that is solely due to their nuclear capabilities it's no wonder
everyone wants nukes. What do we seek to accomplish in Iran?

A: oil what else---- has zi[o do with us security or us oil suplies - control of oil., all pof this is...


Q: Is this about imperialism as an end all? Is it truly about the PNAC plan these creeps dreamed up?

A: no clinton staff directives started this in 1994- we finisjhed invasion plans by summer 2000 then herld for troop exercises- field and contonment- computer and real maneuver in early fall 2000 as invasion d-day was nov 20, 2000.

Q: A new American century of despotism?

A: no more than that.

Or a 'liberal'.
See what I don't understand is how folks can defend a government that does nothing for them, and is trying it's hardest to reward their cronies by taking away from you.
How does free trade work for the common man?
What would Bush do with your social security money if he had his way?
Why money for war, but none for the poor, or a national medicare system?
The list goes on and on.

Now back to the term 'liberal', that word has been given such a bad meaning, only because Bush supporters made the term sound bad, and his supporters are 'with' him on that. Let's look at the definition of the word liberal:

External Source

liberal

adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative] 4: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded] 5: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" [syn: free, loose] n 1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
Sounds to me that that is what America is supposed to be, imagine giving that term such ridicule, and such a black eye. When one knocks a liberal, you are knocking all the values listed above and are supporting rich men who run roughshod over your American way of life. Liberal values cut into profits.

Would you please provide a link to this definition's website? I mean, come on! "Handsome"? "A big tipper"? "Her fond and openhanded grandfather"?

I'd LOVE to read their definition of Conservativism.

It's from dictionary.com, the one that firefox provides, however, here is what Webster says:

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Originally posted by Damocles
@seattle: uhhhhh yeah right, well, thats all enough for me personally...wow how much of a fool ive been to not believe....

no....

wait...

oh yeah, i may have just a 'couple' "LITTLE" problems with your nice little story there...

36 years huh? how did he avoid the "up or out" policy in regards to promotions? promoted 3 whole times in 36 years? no, sorry. the army doesnt keep you around if you arent motivated to advance in the officers corps to a point. now, if u had at least made him a ltc, i mighta not thought about the rest.

secondly, how many retired majors with '36 years' u spose have gotten out of the army in the last few years? seems a little suicidal to be givign out that kind of data if its real...simple process of elimination leads to elimination. if what he/she said is real he'd dead, as are you. they will come for you next. sorry to hear about your luck.

3rd, based on what I know of explosives...the wtc didnt have a 'controlled demolition'. they didnt need it to, not to mention the massive fireball would have likely damaged the det. circuits or the explosives themselves. (unless im wrong, plz show me the video if i am, but the demolition started on the floors engulfed in flames)

but dont think im calling you a liar, im perfectly willing to believe that you were misinformed, or are delusionsal.

but thats just me. i find a lot of validity to many of your arguments and pionts here on ats but this one is expecting us to buy a car without kicking the tires and looking under the hood.

got serpo?

tj

Like you say, I'm simply passing along what I received. In fact, most of what he says is already well known. But this guy is legit and he's already been warned, threatened and taken lots of heat for what he's done - which is quite a lot. He's actually quite well known. He's a true patriot and they don't like that.

I appreciate your sckepticism and I'll ask him if he minds whether I disclose him and let you know if he responds. If he allows me to disclose him you will understand why he is a target with a simple google search.

No.