OVER THERE
I am just gonna come out and say it...
when we are told "we are fighting them over there so they don't attack us here"...didnt we mean the middle east?
Four London Blasts Kill 40, Injure 700 (and the numbers may go up)
what I find most striking is this...
"...either Britain's police nor the intelligence services had any warning of the attacks."
that's what we get for taking our eye off the ball.
shame on bush for getting us into this mess in iraq and not fighting the real war on terror, shame on congress for letting him do whatever he pleases and shame on the american people
(that includes me) for letting all of them get away with it!
so any of you out there with your..."they haven't attacked us again so bush is doing a good job" bull shit...please change that to..."at least they haven't decided to attack an american city again yet." because (as much as i hate to admit this) they probibly could have done this in the US if they so desired right at this moment.
(I would just like to say "hi" to all the FBI/CIA agents visiting our site today.)
when we are told "we are fighting them over there so they don't attack us here"...didnt we mean the middle east?
Four London Blasts Kill 40, Injure 700 (and the numbers may go up)
what I find most striking is this...
"...either Britain's police nor the intelligence services had any warning of the attacks."
that's what we get for taking our eye off the ball.
shame on bush for getting us into this mess in iraq and not fighting the real war on terror, shame on congress for letting him do whatever he pleases and shame on the american people
(that includes me) for letting all of them get away with it!
so any of you out there with your..."they haven't attacked us again so bush is doing a good job" bull shit...please change that to..."at least they haven't decided to attack an american city again yet." because (as much as i hate to admit this) they probibly could have done this in the US if they so desired right at this moment.
(I would just like to say "hi" to all the FBI/CIA agents visiting our site today.)
posted by M. Martin at 7:25 PM
56 Comments:
Araider, as much as I hate to side with democrats (something I'm doing more and more which depresses me,) you have got to be joking. Liberal legislators are stopping and causing exactly nothing at the federal level that they can't filibuster and here are some things they can't filibuster:
Military appropriations,
Military planning,
Military execution,
Bombing anything. Somalia, is a good example, glad you mentioned it.
As for helping our country protect itself, if you're in the service I commend you. Pro-Bush blogging doesn't count.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm glad things are going well over there and I'm proud of our soldiers and I'm glad you support them, too. I still think that if Bush is being stifled by a Senate with 55 Republicans of whom maybe 5 have minds and spines and peckers and his mostly Republican house, then it isn't the liberals who should have their manhood questioned.
I just don't get why you jumped on Strider. His point's a good one. We don't know if we're getting safer.
Commenter's note: Olympia Snowe has a mind and a spine and is probably better hung than Frist so maybe 6 Republicans.
OK, then. I brought up Somalia because it was done by the President without consulting congress. Didn't know you guys were friends. I'll walk away humbly. It was good to get that out of my system, though.
Boycott Bulgaria. Just cuz.
Ok, now that araider has proceeded to make us a lot dumber with his random assertions and moves to boycott everything (isn't that against the free-market-solves-everything values of most conservatives?), I want to comment on the original post.
Strider, what a fabulous post. As much as I want to stay away from making this a partisan issue, it is time to face the facts. We did drop the ball. Like strider said, "that's what we get for taking our eye off the ball." I think it might even be more like, "we lost the ball and now we have an excellent idea where it is, but can't get it because of sovereignty issues." but remember, those sovereignty issues didn't stop us from going into Iraq.
As for fighting the cowardly and crazy terrorist who committed this despicable act, attacking some random state (most likely with brown people, as araider might say) as araider says we should do is absolutely absurd.
I recommend any basic college level text on international relations to understand that the theory of realism is pretty much dead. states aren't the only actors anymore. Terrorists are transnational actors who sometimes receive state support. Mostly, they're nomadic peoples or those disappointed with the intellectual and cultural lifestyles of the west which push them to the radical fringes of what could be--or I should say is--a peaceful religion of tolerance and faith.
I'm not a big fan of giving out my personal information, and I definitely won't do it on a public board. I can say that Strider does have a brother in the military (8 years now), and has a cousin who is stationed in Mosul, Iraq at the moment. I'm the brother, and a result of the Uniform Code of Military Justice I am unable to publicly denounce the policies set forth by the President, as it would be going against someone in my chain of command.
I've never been a big fan of the knee jerk response of bombing such and such a country into oblivion, especially when dealing with a non uniformed foe, as more civilians will get hit and all that does is solidify a populace against us. I’ve heard differing viewpoints at work ranging from we should never have been there to begin with, to something akin to the Roman phrase of being magnanimous in your victories, oddly enough none of them seem to remember that the second part of that phrase is to be defiant in your defeats (which is happening, like history advises us it will). It also seems to skew in an odd way that the people that want to stay there because leaving now would ruin the country’s infrastructure and kill even more people in the long run are the people that didn’t want to be there in the first place. The people that want out right now were the people that were so intent on making there way there. I’d guestimate that at the moment that the people for and against that I have talked to at work are about a 50/50 decision on the whole thing. It’s hard for me to take their opinion with more than a grain of salt, as they have the option to volunteer to go over there, and only three people in the last two years at my current station have.
I’m tempted to say that the only real way to quell a country that has animosity against us would be with the tactics employed through fear. Not the leaflet type booga booga garbage, but a police state (think bad alternate future movie, big brother is watching you, crush their spirit. As sad as it is it worked for the USSR and it worked for Germany in WWII [It just doesn’t work forever]. Fear is more effective than good will at quashing a rebellion, it just doesn’t make you any friends). I also hope that we don’t try and use these techniques as it would bring the rest of the world against us more than it already is, that and it destroys any credibility of a moral high ground that we attempt to preach.
I am a fan of Iran offering to aid Iraq in the training of their military/ police force in an attempt to gain stability in the region. It is something that good neighbors do, sadly though it’s not out of good will, but because having a powder keg next door is something that should be rectified quickly. I still wonder why no one ever brings up Afghanistan any more. Perhaps if we had finished up what we were doing there first, things wouldn’t have gotten this bad. Then again they might have, who really knows?
I could say more on other topics, but this is too long already. (Lake Afgahanastan would actually have horrible bass fishing as the chemical residue in the water or residual radaition, depending on how you made it a lake, would make for a foul fish. If you were planning on mounting it, the mutated strains would make for a whitty conversation piece.)
the fish or the lake?
Don't be araider. I'm plenty dumb enough.
Anonymous, Thanks. I forgot Sar and Strider had a brother in the military.
araider, you think congress acts in opposition to Bush? Perhaps you've been away for a few years. The republicans control all three branches of government. Congress and the president approve everything they send to each other. And the Democrats voted overwhelmingly to go to war. Where have you been? And by the way, France didn't engage in Bush's invasion because they correctly stated that Bush was lying and fabricating reasons to engage in what his father called "naked aggression" against a country that was no threat to us and had done nothing to us. Now really... you're just here to make us laugh, aren't you?
First and foremost, our brother rocks, and he sure knows his shit. Right on, my bro, you make me proud!
Doug & Mr. Woods - you two certainly know your shit as well, and continue to impress me. Get in there, dig your heels, and keep on fighting the good fight. I'll pick up and join you in the morning, as I'm too tired now and needing to go to bed soon.
As for you, araider. I've cut you a lot of slack because I know who you are, and from what I remember, you're good people. And you're right about one thing. We do welcome all viewpoints and encourage healthy, intellectual dialog and debate here. However, ignorant statements like demanding the boycot of France and Germany are simply not welcome. I am part German and my husband's family is also part German & part French, which makes our daughters part German and French as well. That means your comments are a personal insult to me and my family. Again, though I wholeheartedly disagree with your opposing views, they are welcome here so long as they don't desend to the point of personal insult.
(And where the hell is Strider through all of this?!?!)
Shea - seems we were posting simultaneously. And you're absolutely CORRECT my fine friend.
Parts of my previous comments may have been inflamatory. For that I apologize.
For the rest of it, I stand by it.
As for araider, some responses:
1) You say "I'm not boycotting everthing [sic] just France and Germany because they didn't help us with Iraq and they should have."--Why is that? Logic and positive reasoning are required for an acceptable answer.
I'd say that the demands of the domestic public opinion should trump the demands of a nation that is imperialistic and makes fun of you constantly.
2) "the only reason they didn't is because they had too much money invested in Iraq and they didn't want to lose it. OIL FOR FOOD meant more money to France not food for the needy Iraqis."--please provide me a link to the investigation conducted by the United Nations and other organizations that proved this supposed connection.
As of today, I've seen no substantive connection from anything reliable.
3) Are you going to comment on what I said discussing international relations theories on state/transnational actor politics?
Ok, I'm done with araider.
As for anonymous, thank you for bravely serving our country. you're a role model to us all--someone bigger and better than the partisan reality. you keep America running.
Shea, awesome job at pointing out reality for mr. araider. Sometimes we all need a good dose of it.
Sar, thanks for the positive reinforcement. I'm digging my heels in on this one just for you.
And you're right: Where is strider when we need him?
Oh, and as for boycotting France for not helping in the war on terror (if Iraq really was connected, which any rational person would have had said no prior to going to war), see this Washington Post article about the massive amount of help that France is providing in tracking down and fighting the terrorist threat we face.
strider was spending some much needed time with his daughter...then after she went to bed some much need time with a pillow.
seems to me you all are doing pretty well here.
don't fret my friends...i am always with you.
araider is great people. misguided sometimes...but great people all the same...he has been this way ever sense i first met him.
...but don't hold back on laying into him on my account...it's all good here. he's tough. he can take it.
ps. araider...i will call you tomorrow. sorry i didnt get your call before.
Araider, here's my issue: I consider myself a conservative, by which I mean I believe in the things that conservatism stood for for 35 years:
1. The the American people can do better for themselves and by each other without Government telling them what to do.
2. That an expression of the individualism expressed in #1 is that decentralized power is better than centralized statism.
3. That free trade, balanced budgets and the rule of law make for a prosperous nation.
4. That human value is richer in the individual than in groups.
5. That a strong military, judiciously employed is just smart.
6. That religion is the backbone of society and deserves to be respected especially regarding an individual's relationship with God.
As recently as 2002 all of these were still things conservatives talked about on radio, TV amongst themselves.
The fact that I think our President is a catastrophe doesn't make me a liberal it makes me a conservative. Anyone who thinks our President should be given more power is a liberal without the compassion, idealism and communitarianism that have made liberals worthy contestants of conservatives.
While I'm on a rant, conservatives of the jack-ass variety used to comlain that liberals were oversensitive, paranoid, politically correct victims. Read some "conservative" blogs sometime with that framework in mind.
I consider the Bush administration to be the triumph of liberalism because now both parties believe in a strong central government regulating the behavior and choosing the values of the people. The outcome of the Bush administration may be the triumph of conservatism because I wonder if liberals, watching the past 8 years, won't be a lot more resistant to government intervention. We could end up with two small-government parties in 2008 instead of the two big-government parties we have right now.
Just want to let you know that I am back blogging again. My internet connection has been down and I have also been away. Speak to you soon, love T xxx
You know who was a good anti-terrorism president? Chester A. Arthur. There wasn't one single terrorist attack on American soil during his tenure.
Ha.
I take minor issue with the assertion that Bush is a good anti-terrorism presidente. The "we haven't been attacked again" standard is ridiculous because that's got nothing to do with Bush himself. Fact is there have only been two attacks (that I can think of) in history, so the fact that we haven't had one in four years is hardly a miraculous achievement of foreign policy.
If anything, we're more likely to have one now than we were in, say, 1962 because of the idea that we are playing "the bad guy" in the eyes of many extra-nationals.
Our war on terrorism should be just that. A war on terrorism. That war is financial. That war is on the ground against terrorist cells. That war is over information and plans. That war is focused and dedicated.
This meandering into the affairs of foreign governments is unrelated and just exposes us to more risk, so maybe it is a miracle that we haven't been attacked again in the last four years. Ha.
But does that make El Presidente the terrorism buster? Hardly.
Hey, Sar & Strider, 34 comments so far and a lot of good points made. You two are becoming media giants!
Thanks, Nedhead. One of the ironies post-2000 is in the blogging pseudo-world, I seem to get along better with Democrats than Republicans on-line. It chafes, but in a good way. And Maine, I too get misty thinking about the Arthur administration.
First of, before Strider gets all up in arms with me, let me say for the record, I'm glad araider stops by and states his case (though sometimes the delivery is questionable, Strider assures me it's just araider yanking my chain; so for now, araider gets the benefit of the doubt - but, like Strider said, don't hold back because apparently araider can give as good as he gets).
We can all sit here and kick around our own ideals, but it's never as much fun as when someone with an opposing view joins the mix. It keeps us on our toes and our heads in the game.
CW - you are a class act and unbelievably politically savvy. Great links and back up too. Keep it up! And, just say the word, and I'll join your campaign trail when that day comes! :)
Doug - I did not know you consider yourself conservative. There's a certain irony and beauty in that. An intelligent conservative who sees through the rhetoric and deception of his party's leader, yet holds true to his original party ideals. That's admirable.
TS - Welcome back, girlfriend! I'll stop by...
Maine - I'm inclined to agree with you. I think ostracizing our global counterparts and unneccessarily engaging in a pre-emptive war against Iraq when there was ligitimate business that hadn't been yet resolved in Afghanistan does not make us safer. It engages us in a dangerous game of Russian Roulette.
Nedhead - "violence beggets violence". Precisely the point.
Shea - who would've thunk it?!
Just to further expound on my last comment about Chris Woods, don't just take my word about his political savviness. Check it out for yourselvs (Political Forecast - see blogroll).
For the record, Sar, I said I consider myself conservative, not Republican. I belong to the Pox-on-Both-Houses party, Ambrose Bierce founder and late chairman emeritus.
Call me a red guy in a blue state?
Given that credit for the London attacks has been claimed by a group calling itself "Quaida al Jihad in EUROPE", what country would you recommend we invade, araider? Their name suggests they operate within the European continent, so by your logic we should invade...
As of today, it has been posited by investigators that there is a connection between these attacks and Abu Musab al Zarqaui's network in Iraq. This would suggest that the occupation of Iraq has not made the world safer, nor is it containing the fight against terrorism in that country, as your man Bush repeatedly insists.
Doug - Okay, you're a red guy in a blue state. ;)
Maine was mentioning on his site yesterday that he hopes Bush & Co. won't use the attacks in London to help bolster justification for our presence in Iraq. Kid B's excellent commentary sounds like the annecdote to that potential rhetoric to me.
And I was too tired to make this point last night. As you all read, our brother is legally prohibited from exercising his first ammendment right of freedom of speech because he is military. While I can understand wanting to prevent desent among the ranks, I think there's something fudamentally wrong when the very people who fight to preserve our freedom of speech are themselves denied that same right. It also explains why we do not hear publicly from those soldiers who hold views of opposition to the war in Iraq.
I'll say this much... I'm actually really interested to see how this gets spun into a justification for continued action in Iraq. That'll take some real wordsmithing.
Unless somebody "traces their emails" and finds out that they "live in Iraq" and can only be stopped by "installing freedom" for another few years.
I'm all for kicking ass and murdering terrorists. They're criminals, guilty of mass murder, and they deserve it. I just don't see how waging a war with a nation actually achieves that purpose...
Like... that kid in Germany who invented the Sasser Worm? If the USA hates him because of the millions of dollars of damage he caused in our economy, are we justified in taking action against Germany because they "harbor" him? Wouldn't our aggressive actions against the sovereign nation just convince more German nationalists to make more Worms and do more damage to the USA's computer networks?
I say you address the problem directly. Nobody (even those who oppose the US) likes a terrorist. You've got free reign to hunt, restrict and kill them. So, do that.
Or maybe I'm looking at this all wrong or something?
Bush's relationship to the Senate reminds me of Caligula.
Actually, as conspiratorial as it sounds, the Daily Dirt really nailed it yesterday. These attacks were a tragedy to some...but an out-and-out blessing for FoxNews and their ilk. Now the attention is off of Wilsongate, Downing Street, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, Approval Ratings, Impeachment talks, etc.
)+(
sar, I don't think it's all that unusual to stand up for principles, while at the same time ignoring the rhetoric. I'm sure you'll admit that your party is just as crafty as mine when it comes to generating rhetoric, but I know you can see through it. (As can I.)
Despite what some may think, a good number of Republicans are *not* sheep.
I have nothing else to say at the moment... I just wanted to post the 47th comment. :)
Maine - your hacker analogy is fresh, and you're spot on with it. We bombed the living shit out of Iraq because we were led to believe there was an emminant threat. Now, if in fact that war was knowingly predicated on a lie, would our attacks not be deemed an act of terrorism in turn?
Gabe - you ain't kidding and that is very, very disturbing to me. Because this is how it will go down. When folks make the insuation you just did, they'll be pegged as liberal conspirators hellbent on undermining the administration and as such obviously don't have any empathy for the victims in London (which of course we all do). Sound familiar?
TLM - I wish I could admit my party was as crafty as yours. At least there'd be a level playing field. And it's good to know for the record that you're not a sheep (I'd imagine it'd be brutally hot this time of year) and that your eyes are wide open.
And btw, TLM, comment 47 -- you so rock! :)
And I wanted to be the 48th comment. But I'll probably be the 50th--like Hawaii is the 50th state--a nice place to visit when you're dead. If I don't make sense, haven't really slept and my brain is moldy like the weather in NY
Was reading your great post and the comments when Doug emailed me that he linked your post to mine or vice versa. Wrote a post that culminated (finally) with being on the subway last night. The policeman looked more scared than I was. I wasn't, just sad.
And sadder still that people persist in hating each other in this country over politics.
Truthfully Bush sat on intelligance info (August 6, 2001) that might have possibly averted 9/11--and more.
Clinton always acted on intelligence info without making a big deal about it.
It's all in the 9/11 Commission Report. Find it ironic that Doug, a true Conservative is more "liberal" than many self-professed liberals.
And that I, categorized always as a liberal, go around preaching law and order--as in report unattended bags, not people (had to get that in)
I'm not against fighting terrorists. Far from that, I want to, but why are we in Iraq?
Sar and Strider's brother, I think that you brought up some excellent points. I've often wondered about Afghanistan, and wish that I was in a condition to talk about that some more. And yes, gosh darn it, I respect the troops, more than people will ever know.
But yesterday brought so much back, and I (and many other people) had flashbacks, were generally pains to know (ask Moxie), and want to go back to the last innocent Sunday 9/9/01--or maybe to before the impeachment.
Araider's right. They will attack. But he's wrong in bashing Bush bashers (wow weird illeteration)
Bush made up an enemy. The real enemy is (was) Bin Laden and others still unknown. Why didn't we go after them when we could?
Another sad truth is that this is similiar to and worse than Viet Nam. thought we learned from that, that when people have little, they will sacrifice all to achieve a goal, even if the goal is wrong, or we think it is, or don't understand it, as they don't understand us.
Bin Laden has many resources yet he's willing and happy to sacrifice people who have little to achieve his goal, and the goal that they think they believe in.
And I would love to personally hang Bin Laden.
Sorry for this long and maybe pointless rant, but observing one policeman, yesterday, with slightly trembling hands made my vulnerablility, and the threat of attacks in whatever form very real.
This country has to get its act together, and we can't hate each other because we don't like the others political stance. Thought that ended with Viet Nam also.
We're so filled with hate, and hatred for each others stances that we can't see the forest...yes a cliche, Sar, sometimes they're the only lines that fit. Don't mean to sound sarcastic. If I do it's lack of sleep.
But what do I know? Somebody called me a new age hippie yesterday. Thought that they went out with the '80's.
God I love ranting on other peoples' sites.
Woo-hoo! 50th comment!
Enjoy joy, moving back on to substance. Well, some substance anyway, since araider hasn't come back yet to answer my questions. I bet he'll be back soon though.
Sar, thanks for the unbelievable compliments. I do hope to run for office someday, but I hope it is sometime after I'm out of college (I'm only 19 and a sophomore right now--with tons of loans to pay off--if I'm gonna fundraise at all, its to pay off loans :-D).
And I completely agree with Kid Bastard on his comments about the group claiming credit. They're disillusioned and fanatic Muslims from Europe, an entire continent. Launching a war against a continent seems like a pretty bad idea--but I wouldn't put it past Bush. I'm surprised he didn't retaliate against Scotland for that stupid cop being in his way on that terribly rainy road the other day.
And this from liberal traitor "Or is your idea of "supporting the troops" just spamming the blogs of people who disagree with you and slapping some stupid made-in-China magnetic ribbon on your gas guzzling SUV?" reminded me of this great comic from NatalieDee.com, which is also my desktop on my computer. LINK
If being the 50th comment would have made Pia Hawaii, I call Iraq!
Wow. Lots of comments. I don't really have anything original to say. I have never agreed with Bush. It's not the US vs. Iraq. Its The World vs. Terror. If you want real news tap into something thats not censored by western politics. Our propaganda is ridiculous!
This is going to sound slightly off topic, but I think that it really should be brought up as it is important in some respects. It's just about simple wordplay. I've just found that bringing up a point in an openly hostile (curse words, taking jabs at someone's intelligence, physique, etc.), or saying that your position on a matter is absolute and infallable is the worst way to express yourself to other people. All it does is allow the person that you are conversing with to have an easy excuse to stop paying any attention to whatever points you might be trying to make (even if they are valid). Irritability does nothing more than release layers upon layers of a mental nacre to form a smooth pearl over it. The argument is lost at that point because the original irritation has been glazed down into something totaly different. Unlike the pearl though, it becomes worthless.
Just something to think about,
The brother again
Post Script: Nacre really is the goo that molluscs secrete to make pearls. Learning is fun.
OK. Now you have enough cards to play Bid Wist.
The London bombing shows the absurdity of the theory of “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Unless “over there” means anyplace outside of Crawford, TX.
BTW, Araider is right about Polish vodka. Luksusowa (sp?) is way better than Stoli.
Wow...I wish I got 50-something comments on MY blog.
I guess I need to do that RSS thing...
)+(
Liberal Traitor - While we're at it, let's send the Bush twins too. (sorry I neglected to address your comment earlier).
Pia - As a mom, I'm trying to teach my kids the value of recognizing and learning from our mistakes. I too wish the White House would do the same.
(btw, LOST is filmed in Hawaii)
CW - another great link yields a great comic! :)
Doug - Are you answering Liberal Traitor's call to go to Iraq? ;)
Laura - I echo your sentiments. I primarily turn to the BBC for news.
Bro - I'll email you; Strider & I were thinking about expounding on your excellent comment and making a new post (nice pearl analogy, btw!).
Tom H - Sadly, there will still be the minions who think that because the London attacks did not occur on US soil, it still qualifies as "not in our backyard".
Gabe - I'm as astounded as you are, and I don't even know what an RSS thing is!
1st Battalion, third sarcasm division. I'll bring my own uniform.
ARAIDER'S BACK - YAY!!!
(btw: by the way)
Araider - you're welcome. Btw, "Urban Dictionary" (see link in the sidebar) is a useful tool for learning lingo. And thanks in turn to you for being a great sport, though I still think you're a misguided right-wing nut! ;)
It's ok, araider. I forgive you. But make sure to stop by my blog sometime and we'll have some more interesting discussions, I'm sure.
Though I do wish I was able to be traveling like you are (I'm assuming thats why you're in a hotel in Toledo).
I love flying and going to different cities. My favorite cities have to be Salt Lake City or DC. I love Dupont Circle and the Georgetown area in DC best, though I hate 'K' Street (political joke, its ok if you don't get it).
Salt Lake City, while being in the middle of Utah, is nonetheless one of the most beautiful and hospitable cities that I've been in. Plus, for such a red state, they've got an amazing Democratic activist life in the actual limits of the city. That and the weather is like Iowa, but without any humidity. Oh, and the city planning/layout is amazing and quite friendly for all travelers.
Yeah, the folks around the tabernacle were fishy. I was surprised to see so many people of color there last summer when I visited, because as far as I know, the Mormon church didn't allow people of color in until the early 1990s.
Oh, and did you know, that to be a Mormon you have to have an official Mormon ID card and name badge? Freaky stuff, huh. They keep all of that data on huge servers in SLC too, with the info on every Mormon in the world. Freaky stuff.
Stop on by the blog and leave comments. I definitely need a thread now with 70 comments, just compete with Sar and strider. ;-)
here's the link araider: The Political Forecast
i thought for sure someone would put something silly for the 69th post...
i guess i am just a perv.
Araider & CW - so happy to see the dialog continues. I'll peruse and comment further in the A.M. ... :)
Wow, Strider & I posted simultaneously!
(Hey Strider, you owe me a phone call or two, but not now, obviously)
72? thats it?
No, Strider, apparently 73 is it. now 74. Which is 47 reversed - cool!!!
Yep it's 74.
Definitely 74.
TLM - I'm banking on your being the 4700th visitor!
Strider I'd like to hear what you think the "real war on terror" ought to be? If Bush had focussed on "the ball" instead of Iraq it would have meant what, exactly? Do you think we were ever paying attention to the ball? What's the ball - Afghanistan? How many of the serious left-wingers commenting here actually supported that war? -I remember Noam Chomsky arguing in the Nation in fall of 2001 that such an invasion would be unjustified and create a holocaust in the region killing millions. Which security measures undertaken since 9/11 by the Bush administration would you be happy to intensify once we free all of that man-power, money, and energy from America's latest big sin of a war?
Post a Comment
<< Home