BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:13 PM

Amos,

That was the post from 2005 that I had posted. I was pointing out to Don that his blame of the Bush administration was not justified, and merely an example of his ( perhaps justified in other cases, but not this one) bigotry.

I am sure we slang enough at the time to fulfil both of our desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:03 PM

Bruce:

Do not vent your bitterness on me with false assumptions. It is a bottomless pit of woe not worth the falling itno, to start that kind of a slanging match. Based on these petty forum scribblings you have no gauge or metric of what I feel about what.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:50 AM

2 weeks after Cheney went to Pakistan, Musharev (President of Pakistan by coup) has fired/arrested the Supreme Court Judge of Paksistan. The Supreme Judge of Pakistan is the only person who could block the continued rule of Musharev who would otherwise have to undergo an election.


Amos, you are becoming my news source.



PS

I fear that Ceasar may get so annoyed with the Senate that he may take some extreme measures.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

"And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."


You obviously have not read the threads on Darfur. The Bush Administration DID go to the UN, who refused to declare it "genocide" and basically did nothing. For all our disagreements about what this administration has done, IMO you are trying blaming them even when they do the "right " thing by your own standards.

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=73826&messages=97

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."


thread.cfm?threadid=69879&messages=48



A true pity, Amos, that when the Bush adminstration called it genocide, and the UN disagreed, you felt it was nothing to be concerned over. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:39 AM

Okay, BB.

"There you go, making judgments."

Exactly so! I don't buy the precept (no matter who said it) of "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I say, "Use your judgment. Judge—and be prepared to be judged for the judgments you make."

Point:   I don't recall the Bush administration considering much of anything that the U. N. said or did prior to our invasion of Iraq. Since when has that stopped the Bush administration from doing whatever it damn well pleased? And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue.

And a question about the way we "handled" Saddam Hussein. How many Iraqis did Saddam kill compared to the number of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the American invasion?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

Remarking on the pattern of political encroachment on the judiciary represented by the recent firings of eight Attorney General for not carrying otu the wishes of the Executive branch, the Times opines:

"In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on "fraud," the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.

John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor's race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. "There was no evidence," he said, "and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."

...
Mr. McKay is not the only one of the federal attorneys who may have been brought down for refusing to pursue dubious voter fraud cases. ... The White House said that last October, just weeks before Mr. McKay and most of the others were fired, President Bush complained that United States attorneys were not pursuing voter fraud aggressively enough.

... Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups. They have intimidated Native American voter registration campaigners in South Dakota with baseless charges of fraud. They have pushed through harsh voter ID bills in states like Georgia and Missouri, both blocked by the courts, that were designed to make it hard for people who lack drivers' licenses — who are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities — to vote. Florida passed a law placing such onerous conditions on voter registration drives, which register many members of minorities and poor people, that the League of Women Voters of Florida suspended its registration work in the state.

The claims of vote fraud used to promote these measures usually fall apart on close inspection, as Mr. McKay saw. Missouri Republicans have long charged that St. Louis voters, by which they mean black voters, registered as living on vacant lots. But when The St. Louis Post-Dispatch checked, it found that thousands of people lived in buildings on lots that the city had erroneously classified as vacant.

The United States attorney purge appears to have been prompted by an array of improper political motives. Carol Lam, the San Diego attorney, seems to have been fired to stop her from continuing an investigation that put Republican officials and campaign contributors at risk. These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:26 AM

Today's New York Times editorilaizes:

"The Bush administration's mania for secrecy has been dealt an overdue blow by the House. Significant numbers of Republicans voted with Democrats to reverse the erosion of the public's right to know how its government operates. A package of strong open-government measures would repair some of the damage inflicted in the past six years on laws governing taxpayers' access to federal records and presidential archives, while bolstering the standing of whistle-blowers to report abuses in agencies without fear of retaliation.

Overwhelming majorities were registered for the measures despite the White House's threat of a presidential veto. We say bring it on. The majorities were vetoproof in size, and an override confrontation is just the medicine the administration needs for the hubris it has shown in enshrouding all manner of information. The Senate should move quickly on companion sunshine measures. The bipartisan support that's emerging is no doubt driven by the administration's unalloyed dedication to secret machinations — whether in the Iraq war fiasco or the bare-knuckled purging of federal prosecutors.

The freedom of information law has been steadily undermined, to the point where agencies are blithely ducking their lawful responsibility and taking years to answer legitimate requests. The House voted to mandate initial answers within 20 days, and computerized tracking of pending requests. Another measure would effectively revoke President Bush's 2001 executive order that allows former presidents and vice presidents to use their official libraries as mausoleums to bury controversial and historical documents indefinitely beyond public discovery. Who knows — if lawmakers stand firm against White House objections, historians may someday be able to plumb the full depths of the Bush-Cheney administration's devotion to governance by murk.

..."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:33 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6iB0QECqoaI&mode=related&search=

In this clip a BBC reporter and anchor desk discuss the falling down of building 7. However bld 7 is seen clearly behind the reporter.
Eventually the building falls down.

Propoganda is hard to coordinate sometimes...
or this clip could be deemed a fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:11 AM

"By the way, BB, if the Bush administration is so all-fired concerned about human rights, why aren't we in Darfur? Now there we could do a lot of good by stopping the slaughter."

1. The Bush administration HAS declared that it is genocide, but the UN refuses to say that, so that the international laws that would allow interferencce are not in effect.

2. I have protested the lack of action, publicly and here on Mudcat, by both the US and the UN, and tried to keep it in the active threads- but nobody HERE seems to think we should take ANY action.

3. There you go, making judgements. After we do go in, I suppose you will protest ( like dianavan has stated already) how we just went in after the oil.


I consider the US inaction about Cambodia ( due to the anti-war folks here at the time, no action could even be proposed), Rwanda ( Check to see how effectively Clinton ignored the problem) and Bosnia ( We waited until the Europeans were ready to act- too late.)will be our greatest regret and shame in the future.


So how many Kurds would have had to die before you would "approve" of US action in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:10 AM

Dickey, it is pretty much the same people...or their close associates...who own the media in Canada. But the mood and attitude of the Canadian public is quite different, they're not as easily fooled by American policy as Americans are, and the media must shape their reporting a bit differently in Canada to be seen as doing their job. Our government pretty well does most of what the coporatocracy wants, I assure you, because it is also controlled by the corporatocracy. That's why we sent soldiers to Afghanistan.

Britain's media and government are also controlled by the corporatocracy, but they too must tread a little differently than in the USA, because the British population is not as easily fooled either as the American population.

Part of the political game is to play off the public against each other by dividing them over phony political parties and red herring issues. The Democrats will always badmouth the Republicans, and vice versa. That's the way the game works, and the game is to fool you, the voters, into thinking you still have a say in things.

It's much the same game in Canada and in the UK in that respect. Our elections are about as phony as yours are.

Of COURSE corporations are driven by profit! That's exactly the problem, and it is the key to understanding all important foreign and domestic policy decisions in the USA, Canada, and the UK, as well as just about everywhere else. Profit is the one objective. Profit is the reason for all the crazy, idiotic stuff that is going on in this world, because when people seek ONLY profit, and don't really give a damn who or what gets hurt in the process...then you have wars, disaster, suffering, and destruction.

This isn't the case with small scale capitalism, which is a very healthy thing in society. It is the case with multinational giant-scale corporate capitalism as it exists now. It's as bad as communism, but more clever in how it fools people and controls them.

Your media right now are most likely preparing the ground for the next election and getting things ready to switch to the Democrats, so that's why Bush is getting kicked around so much. He's a lame duck in the making. That's the game. He's got less than 2 years left to hang himself and kill the Republicans chances at the polls. If the Democrats get in next time (which they will if they don't really screw up and pick someone unelectable), the same bunch of mega-corporations will be running them from behind the scenes, and the policy won't change much. The agenda will still go forward. It'll change some, but not much.

Anyway, given Bush's present very low popularity rating, why would the media not be emboldened to go after him? They are only reflecting the mood of the majority of Americans at this time. Bush is unpopular, so he's fair game.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:41 PM

Little Hawk: Not to be discourteous but Bullshit ;). You have been Chomskyised.

What drives corporations is profit. They publish and broadcast what they think the public wants to hear. You hear phrases like news porno and if it bleeds, it leads. Right now the fad is calling Bush an idiot so that's most of you hear out of the MSM due to the bandwagon effect. The only one out of the bunch that does not dogpile Bush is Fox so all the anti-war folks claim Fox is the evil mouthpiece of the administration. So there is CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and even PBS is biased against the administration to the glee of the anti-war crowd.

The way the corporations influence the government is through lobbying and handing out cash contributions (sometimes personal payoffs) for certain legislation or decisions. Something I am 100% opposed to.

If the mean old pro-war corporations control the government, how do anti-war documentaries, TV programs, music etc. ever come to be?

If what you claim is true how would you ever know about embarrassing things like Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse?

Who owns the Media in Canada?

"Nations such as Italy and Canada are often accused of possessing an Imperial media structure, based on the fact that much of their media is controlled by one corporation or owner."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_imperialism

How about BBC?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:33 PM

By the way, BB, if the Bush administration is so all-fired concerned about human rights, why aren't we in Darfur? Now there we could do a lot of good by stopping the slaughter.

But I hear diddly squat from both Bush and the Bush apologists about that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:25 PM

BB, I've been gone for a bit today, but when I returned, I saw you're question, then noted that Amos did a fine job of answering it.

I did not condone Saddam Hussein's actions. But there are much better ways in which it could have been handled than the one the Bush administration took.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM

Dickey, the fact is that the major media chains in the USA are owned by a few enormous corporate entities, and that what gets on the news and how it is covered is determined by a few powerful men in the management of those corporate entities. When you consider that your government itself is controlled by a consortium of major corporate entities (among whom are those ones who own the main medio chains) then you do have what amounts to a controlled media...and a controlled government. It's not a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" anymore...if it ever was. It's a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires, and there isn't a darned thing you or I can do about that.

This doesn't mean that every single writer or media person in America is controlled. It just means that most of them are at any given time. Most of them is enough to do easily the job of manipulating the public down any path the controllers desire, mainly through the tactics of appealing to fear, greed, and consumption.

I don't see an embargo as a military action either, but I do see it as the kind of action that can definitely bring on a war...under certain circumstances. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing. He was putting the Japanese in a position where they would go to war, because he wanted the USA to get involved in WWII as soon as possible, and that was the most expeditious way of doing it. He HAD to have a genuine outside attack on some part of America. He couldn't find a practical or feasible way to provoke Germany into attacking the USA, but he could do it with the Japanese, so he did. The rest fell into place perfectly. I think FDR's only miscalculation was his failure to realize how effective the Japanese Navy and its aircraft were...so the initial situation proved much tougher than what he had expected up until the Battle of Midway evened the balance. After that, the Japanese were doomed to lose by steady attrition and lack of resources.

My point, in any case, was that ordinary Japanese people during the war had absolutely no idea their country was in the wrong. In this respect they were just like most ordinary people in other countries that commit aggression on someone. The natural reaction is to assume your country is in the right and rally round the flag to defend it. That is what every citizen's entire upbringing from the time they are a small child prepares them to do. Why should it be surprising that they fall into line so easily?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:56 PM

LH: I do not think the US government owns or controls the media. When the NYT was asked not to publish a story on wiretapping, they refused.

I think the only time the media complied with a request from the governmnet was during the Cuban missle crisis.

I do not see a trade embargo as a military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM

You raise some useful questions there, Dickey...

"What were the motivations of the Japanese and the Muslim extremists for attacking the US?"

Well, for the time being, how about I just discuss the Japanese? The Japanese went through a period of governmental power struggles and instability between the world wars, and it eventually ended up with the Army basically controlling Japan's government (with the Emperor as the symbolic head of state, but the Japanese Army really was calling the shots as far as I can see, and the Emperor was rubber-stamping their decisions, so to speak). It was Army generals who were put in the key positions of political power. This developed into an era of aggressive expansionism on the part of the Japanese. They were seeking a fight with China, for a number of reasons. One was that China was already a hereditary enemy of Japan going way, way back. Another was that the Japanese were a very large nation of people crowded onto some relatively small islands, and they were very short of both land and certain vital resources. Accordingly, they sought to acquire overseas possessions in Korea, Mongolia, and China so they could obtain more good land and resources to feed their growing economy.

Now...those were the motivations behind the actions of those in power. They were not the motivations behind the actions of a vast number of ordinary Japanese soldiers, sailors, and civilians, who were simply doing what people everywhere do...trying to make their way in life, find wives and husbands, raise families, support themselves, etc...

The Japanese Army provoked incidents with the Chinese in order to create a pretext for war. They made it appear that the Chinese had attacked them...but this was not true. However, the Japanese people naturally believed that it was true. Therefore, the motivations of ordinary Japanese soldiers and civilians were, as always, to protect their nation, their families, their loved ones. They fell for false propaganda.

As the fighting continued in China ordinary Japanese were encouraged to make sacrifices to support the war effort, and they did. Victories were won, but the fighting went on. There were a few voices in the Japanese press who did not echo the offical line, but they were silenced, and the media supported the officlal government line. The fighting in China went on.

The USA had decided that the Japanese were expanding too much in East Asia and that this was injurious to American and British interests. (a case of competing empires, as usual) The USA gave substantial assistance to China. This was not appreciated by Japan, just as the USA, for example, does not appreciate people supplying its enemies when it is at war.

FDR then made the crucial move. He placed a trade embargo on Japan's overseas supply of oil and steel, and got the British and Dutch to join the USA in that embargo.

Japan's main source of steel had been the USA. Their main source of oil had been in the Dutch East Indies. They were now placed in a position where their entire war machine would literally run out of fuel and steel within about one year and be unable to remain effective. This meant that they would be unable to sustain their campaign in China, a campaign to which they had already committed the entire strength of their nation.

They were not going to just give up and go home. It was inevitable that they would now fight the USA, Britain, and Holland to get the oil that was in the Dutch East Indies, and to secure other vital resources in those areas.

The young Japanese who served in their armed forces were unaware that Japan was in the wrong in this matter. They were deeply patriotic and they grew up in a society which encouraged the individual to subordinate his own needs for the needs of "the group" or the nation. The spirit of self-sacrifice was basic to their understanding of life. Thus they were seen as "fanatical" and "suicidal" by Americans and Europeans, but if you'd been born Japanese in that era, you would probably have thought just as they did. It was normal behaviour in their society. (We do things they think are crazy too, you know...) ;-)

So, here's what their motivations were (the ordinary soldiers and civilians, I mean):

1. to serve their country and defend it against foreign attack
2. to honor their traditions and way of life
3. to fight back against those who would destroy their way of life
4. to be courageous and loyal

So their goals, Dickey, were the same goals as young American soldiers have....to defend their country, their families, and their way of life.

They were fooled and manipulated by a barrage of government and media propaganda that made them think it happened this way:

1. China attacked us first. (not true)
2. We must not let China defeat us.
3. Now the USA is helping China!
4. Now the USA, Britain, and Holland are ganging up on us, and cutting off our oil and steel in order to cause our defeat by China!
5. We must fight them all to prevent the defeat of our nation.

You see...if you accept one false proposition (that you were attacked first) it can lead to an almost endless series of bad decisions. It can lead to disaster.

I suggest that that is what is now happening to America in regards to Iraq (which never attacked the USA).


Regarding the goals of the German soldiers and civilians in WWII? Pretty much the same, but with a few additional wrinkles.

1. They were trying to restore the honor of Germany after the losses suffered in WWI.
2. They were trying to recover areas of land given up by Germany after WWI (but Hitler didn't stop there...he went farther)
3. They were, as usual, trying to be loyal, patriotic citizens and defend their homeland and their loved ones against foreign attack (as they saw it).

Their views were shaped by their national media which conducted a vigorous propaganda campaign over many years to convince ordinary Germans that the nation was under direct threat of deadly enemies such as Jews, Communists, the British, the French, etc...

As usual, most ordinary Germans believed the propaganda. That's how it happens. Governments manipulate their people through the media. This is what your government does as well, and that's why your people are allowing themselves to be used as pawns in places like Iraq.

As for the Muslim extremists, they also believe they are defending their homes, their families, and their way of life against a deadly foreign threat from the USA and/or Israel.

Everyone thinks he's doing the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:57 PM

BB has a fine point, one that deserves an answer. There is no argument that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein killing people in it. There is some question as to what he was not in compliance with, exactly. If he had in fact discontinued all WMD programs but was simply being an intransigent ass as far as saying so, that is a different matter than if he were in fact secretly doing the things Rice, Rove, Bush and Cheney asserted he was.

Furthermore, you are waving a wide brush, Bruce, when you speak as though everyone who was opposed to Bush's war on Iraq was also silent about Saddam's crimes against the Kurds. I don't think this is justified as a general conclusion.

Finally there is the question of unilateral war and preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation. While Bush, having gotten himself appointed Commander in Chief had the power to invade Iraq, and used it, he did not have the consent of the majority of the people in the country or the full ratification of Congress; to get even their condoning of his actions he had to flood the media with exaggerations and falsehoods.

Being a man of action may be better, especially in a leader, than being a man of no-action, UNLESS the actions are ill-informed, misestimated and destructive in their net effect, as this one has so far been.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:39 PM

"The lowest level in Danté's Inferno is reserved for those who, when they see evil being done, maintain a "colorless neutrality" and avoid "getting involved.""

You mean like those who watched Saddam violate the UN resolutions for 12 years, kill how many Kurds, and then would not demonstrate that he should comply with UN demands, but instead protested any enforcement of those resolutions?


You have missed my point- YOU are making a value judgement that the war was unjustified. Others differ. So who made you God?

I am sure there were those who felt the war against Hitler was unjust, since Germany did not attack the US. But Saddam DID attack US forces in the region, over the 12 years, by attacking those patroling the no-fly zone. The UN resolution gave hime the chance to comply-
BECAUSE of people such as you who protested enforcement and made no effort to demand that Saddam comply, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands have been killed. It seems, IMHO, that you bear some responsibility.

Or is it only YOUR opinion that matters in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

Good for you, Barry!

Heroes are those who act on matters of moral principle when it would be a lot easier—or less dangerous—for them to just look the other way. Heroes act on principle even when they have nothing to gain, and their actions may, indeed, cost them dearly. The person who risks his or her own life to save someone else. Or the whistle-blower who acts even when he or she knows that it will cost them their job. Or those who voice their protest even when doing so could get them thrown in jail.

Villains are those who do something they know, or at least suspect, to be wrong, but invent reasons—excuses—for going ahead anyway, rationalizing to themselves and lying to others to justify their actions. Often they tell the lie so often and so vociferously that they come to believe it themselves.

As do, especially on a national or political level, those afflicted with "patriotism and naiveté," who become their apologists when others protest.

The lowest level in Danté's Inferno is reserved for those who, when they see evil being done, maintain a "colorless neutrality" and avoid "getting involved."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:53 PM

Bush is no hero, he is by far one of the most dangerous humans on the planet today. I'm ashamed to admit that he our President, hopefully that too will soon change.
In 2 days I will be joined hopefully by hundreds of thousands marching on the Pentagon who share the same veiw. To get rid of Bush through impeachment & demand an end to this war.
There I will be joined by those that I consider America's heros.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM

"And YOUR excuse for your actions? Are you not just as human as the rest of us? How do YOU know that YOU are the hero, and not Bush?"

First of all, BB, what actions have I performed that I need to be excused for? And excused by whom? If you are referring to the fact that I am highly critical of Bush and his administration, let me point out to you that if a patriotic American sees his or her elected leaders involved in wrong-doing, it is their duty as good citizens to call them on it. It is unpatriotic not to do so.

Whether one is a villain or a hero is not simply arbitrary. There are certain ethical and moral imperatives that determine the difference. I could present you with a long list—a list I am sure you are familiar with, whether you accept it or not—of what constitutes these imperatives, but it's been my experience that most civilized people agree as to what they are.

High on the list of villainy is when elected officials lie to the citizens in order to get the nation into a needless war, leading to the deaths of thousands of troops, the maiming of tens of thousands more, and the killing of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in order to gain geopolitical power over the world's oil reserves for the purpose of intimidating other countries, such as oil-dependent China, and at the same time, fattening of the wallets of their personal friends with lavish, no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq after being responsible for destroying it in the first place. Not to mention starting a civil war that is liable to go on for generations. Or promising the electorate all kinds of programs, then neglecting to fund them, rendering the promise hollow. Example (one of dozens):   "No Child Left Behind." Or how about this one? Many instances of riding rough-shod over the Constitution and Bill of Rights after taking an oath to "preserve and protect?"

I could present you with a huge list of villainies—which I'm sure you would disagree with—but why go on? Others see what you refuse to.

But suffice it to say that I have not caused the death of one single human being, whereas Bush has given orders—for no moral or ethical reason—that caused the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands. So on a continuum running from heroism to villainy, where, relatively, do Bush and I stand?

I don't consider myself any kind of hero. Neither do I qualify as a villain. Bush, on the other hand. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:29 AM

Looks like this dogpile has turned into a discussion.


What were the motivations of the Japanese and the Muslim extremists for attacking the US?

I can't include the Nazis because they did not directly attack the US but they did attack other countries in Europe.

What were their goals?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:45 AM

Don,

And YOUR excuse for your actions? Are you not just as human as the rest of us? How do YOU know that YOU are the hero, and not Bush?

"he manages to convince himself that he has a good, moral reason for doing what he wants to do. Psychiatrists call it "rationalization." In his own mind, he is the hero of the story."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

It's very rare that a real villain ever considers himself to be a villain. Even if he knows down in his guts that it's power-lust and / or greed, he manages to convince himself that he has a good, moral reason for doing what he wants to do. Psychiatrists call it "rationalization." In his own mind, he is the hero of the story.

Even Cesare Borgia justified all the treachery, deceit, and assassinating by saying that he was trying to unite the independent Italian city-states into one cohesive nation (under his leadership, of course) in order to drive out foreign invaders and exploiters like Spain, France, and Austria. And if he had to invade the city-states and kill their leaders in order to save them? Well, it was all in a good cause!

And the followers of such leaders? Little Hawk said it neatly:    "This combination of patriotism and naiveté. . . ."

And the beat goes on.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM

That's right, BB. They all believed the same sorts of things. I know that, and that's why I am repelled by war movies that cast one side (whoever) as evil, nasty, vicious people who grin in an evil fashion as they mow down their helpless opponents. (this was the way Germans and Japanese were routinely depicted oftentimes in those old war movies, and I don't doubt that the German and Japanese war propaganda films of WWII were similarly distorted).

It's sad.

Countries almost always get into wars over various important interests they have, like: competing spheres of influence, trade considerations, access to vital land and resources, control of some large material agenda.

Your suggestion that the British (and French) could have ignored or swallowed the German attack on Poland is entirely worth considering...and it was certainly exactly what Hitler expected them to do! He grossly miscalculated their reaction, probably because he had been made overconfident by their previous lack of resolve in earlier crises he had provoked.

His next objective after Poland was in the East...Russia. So, if the French and British had decided to sell out the Poles, which they very well might have done, then I believe there would have followed a major war between Germany and Russia sometime in 1940 or '41, and no war in the West at all at that time. Farther on down the road? Hard to say. It would have depended on how well the Germans did in Russia.

Would that have been a better way to go from the point of view of Britain and France? Quite possibly. But who knows? It would not have been nearly so good for the Russians.

As an aside, Britain and France were deeply upset by the Russian attack on Finland in the Winter War as well as the earlier Russian move into Poland in concert with the Germans, and the French were close to declaring war on Russia even after they were already at war with Germany! It's incredible in retrospect that they could have been so foolish as to contemplate that.

I think that everyone would have been better off if the citizens in ALL the involved countries had refused to believe their leaders and had refused to go to war for them. ;-) But how does one arrange that? Most people are essentially fairly sheeplike, and they will obey orders from higher authority, even if those orders cause them to commit mass murder on foreigners.

The propaganda in all the fighting countries was distorted, hate-filled, and intended to inflame people to go out and kill for their country. That's standard prodedure.

The reality was that all those major countries were jockeying for position in the world...Germany, France, the UK, Russia, the USA, Japan, and Italy. It was inevitable that in their jockeying for control of spheres of influence, they would come up against each other. The British and French were only willing to let either Germany or Russia go so far...but no farther. Germany and Russia had both suffered great losses of territory in WWI and were looking to restore their fortunes. They were in an expanding phase (as the USA is now...), looking to enlarge their spheres of influence. That would bring them into conflict with each other and with Britain and France, and eventually the USA. Japan was taking advantage of the decline and weakness of a hereditary enemy (China) and of their own emergence into the only modern military power in East Asia. The USA was not willing to tolerate either Japan or Germany expanding beyond a certain point, again because it would impinge on American spheres of influence. The USA held the wild cards, because it had the greatest GNP in the world, and was basically unattackable behind 2 great oceans.

They all acted in their own self-interest. Their people and a lot of other people paid the price. They all made up grand and noble-sounding stories to prove why it was all worthwhile. It wasn't. It was a tragic, incredible waste of human lives on a vast scale.

Have you seen the recent Japanese movie made in 2005 about the sinking of the battleship Yamato? It's an interesting view of the psychology of people on the Japanese side, seen through the eyes of patriotic young cadet sailors on the doomed ship caught up in the events of the time. They managed to avoid saying anything inflammatory about the Americans during the entire movie, and it has some very striking scenes. Those young men, like all young men everywhere who go to war, figured that they were defending their homeland and their loved ones, and they were ready to die if necessary. War is simply a very, very sad and tragic business. Those Japanese cadets felt exactly the same way as the young American airmen who bombed and torpedoed them, strafed them on the decks of the ship, slaughtered them by the hundreds, and even strafed the survivors in the water after the ship went down. (that last part was not shown in the movie)

War is murder. Bloody murder. If people were not so sheeplike, they would not so easily be fooled into doing it.

Once it starts, though, it takes its own inevitable course until someone gives up fighting. That's why I say the onus is on those who either launch the initial attack(s) or who make the initial declaration of war. They are the ones who open the door to chaos and disaster.

In the case of the invasion of Kuwait, it was Saddam. In the case of the Iraq war in 2003, it was the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM

What was the specific attack on America that caused it to enter WW1?


America's policy of isolation, and thus wanting stay out of any European affairs while also trying to broker a peace resulted in tensions with both Berlin and London. When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, a large passenger liner with 128 Americans also aboard, the United States President, Wilson, vowed "America was too proud to fight", and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson tried to mediate a compromise settlement; yet no compromise was discovered. Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare because it violated America's rights. Wilson was under great pressure from former president Teddy Roosevelt, who denounced German "piracy" and Wilson's cowardice. In January 1917, the Germans announced they would resume unrestricted submarine warfare. Berlin's proposal to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the U.S. was exposed in February [The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. But because Wilson had run for reelection in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.] angering American opinion. After German submarines attacked several American merchant ships, sinking three, Wilson requested that Congress declare war on Germany, which it did on April 6, 1917. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the war resolution 373-50, the U.S. Senate 82-6, with opposition coming especially from German American districts such as Wisconsin. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December 1917.

http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-i

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

BTW, Canada has been involved in a number of wars this century. Please let me know when ANY Canadian territory had been attacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

Be assured that most English and Canadian soldiers in WWII believed implicity that they were doing "the right thing" when they went to war. They trusted their leaders and believed their country's war propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

What about the British duped into supporting the war against Germany? Germany had not attacked them- they were reacting to the attack upon Poland. Seems like they should have just accepted the German control instead of starting a war with 27 million deaths...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

Heh! Yes, I know, BB. That's an argument I can't take seriously...but I know that it's always possible to come up with such arguments if one wants to. That's how the human mind works. Hitler had the Germans convinced that his attack on Poland was legitimate defence too, after all. It's easy to convince people of anything that they want to be convinced of. You just tell them what they want to hear.

Young Japanese servicemen in 1941 were equally convinced that China had caused the war with Japan, and that Japan was legitimately defending itself against a conspiracy on the part of the USA, Britain, and China to destroy Japan. So they had no guilt whatsoever in hitting Clark Field, Hong Kong, the Dutch East Indies, and Pearl Harbor. It was "self-defence"!

People can justify anything in their own minds. Wars are started by choice. The one who starts them is the one who launches the attack. Wars that are "resumed" after a lengthy ceasfire are likewise again started by choice, are in fact a brand NEW war, and the one who starts them is the one who launches the attack. When he outguns the other side by 50:1 and he can't possibly lose, the sheer hypocrisy of it becomes so blatant to the surrounding community of nations that very few are fooled as to what is really going on (except among the ranks of the attackers themselves...they MUST convince themselves that they are "in the right"...morale would suffer badly otherwise, and that would imperil the mission).

Be assured that most German and Japanese soldiers in WWII believed implicity that they were doing "the right thing" when they went to war. They trusted their leaders and believed their country's war propaganda. This combination of patriotism and naivete is what warmongering demagogues depend on to achieve their aggressive ends. Most people are good people who would not dream of murdering their neighbours...but they will murder foreigners if given the order. There's a disconnect in their understanding of what they are really doing to other human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:25 PM

The perceived threat was a thin veneer of Bushwa, IMHO. It was either rampant manipulation for other reasons, or it was blatant stupidity.

The actual threat was mismanaged at the same time as the false one was invested with great effort, wasting of blood and money, and decimation of political capital.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

Al-Qaeda chose to attack US civilians in New York, Kenya, Tanzania and US military in Yemen preemptively.

That does fall under my definition of "unprovoked aggression"

Clinton chose to attack preemptively in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and in Afghanistan in retaliation.

Bush chase to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan in retaliation and The regime in Iraq preemptively.

That does not fall under my definition of "unprovoked aggression"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

"Bush's war with Iraq was freely chosen by America, not by Iraq. The Iraqis have been the recipients of an unprovoked attack by a much superpower."

There are those of us with the opinion that Iraq attacked a treaty ally, Kuwait, and the fighting was only stopped due to a cease-fire agreement. When Iraq refused to comply with the conditions of that cease-fire, even after repeated efforts over 12 years, the decision was made to resume combat, in order to remove a perceived threat ( the WMD development program).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM

Hmmm. Well, I think that in a general sense it is unwise for both individuals and societies to practice deficit spending, but there are times when it may be necessary. For instance, most people have to incur debt in order to buy a house. So they get a mortgage. Similarly, when a nation gets into a huge war it may need to mortgage its future to pay for that war...and that's just a question of national survival at that point. (if defeat is seen as unthinkable, which is normally the case)

Wars that are entered into by choice are a different matter from wars that are defensive in nature, and I believe that is Amos's point. For instance, Hitler freely chose to attack Poland, Norway, Denmark, the USSR, Holland, Belgium, the USA, and some other countries during WWII. They did not choose to attack him. Hitler did NOT, however, choose to fight the UK and France in 1939, they declared war on him over Poland. He then responded to that state of war with the UK and France. There's a difference, right?

Bush's war with Iraq was freely chosen by America, not by Iraq. The Iraqis have been the recipients of an unprovoked attack by a much superpower. That puts the USA in a rather less easily defensible light than supporters of this war would prefer, I should think, and in the view of most people in the world it was an unjustified attack based on false propaganda claims. So mortgaging your future on unprovoked aggression is not the same as mortgaging your future on legitimate self-defence, is it?

To go into debt when it is unavoidable is understandable. To do it capriciously is to behave irresponsibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM

"Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China."


An opinion that I can agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:58 PM

Clinton did not move the nation out of debt by a long shot. But Bush moved it deeper into it.

If the nation had been out of debt you would have seen a different picture indeed.

Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:41 PM

Amos: "The glory of debt free living can barely be imagined"

I was here when the budget was supposedly balanced during the Clinton administration and I did not notice any glory. I did notice an irrational exuberance that caused a stock market bubble to burst, I did notice a rising Fed interest rate rising and I did notice gas prices rising and a slide into a recession.

Likewise I do not feel "bullied, cowed, or harassed into living upside down". I feel rather lucky that the economy has done well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

No problem, LH.

I just object to the double standard- either deficit spending IS bad, or it is not- It should NOT depend on the Party which is doing it.

We ALL have opinions- the trick is to figure out when something is stated as fact, and when it is opinion. I will argue the FACTS- ANY opinion is as valid as any other: That is NOT true about facts. Either they are, or are not valid- does not matter how deeply one wishes to believe in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:34 PM

Arguing about the relative merits of Democrats and Republicans is like trying to decide which is nicer...a rabid hyena or a bubonic plague-carrying rat.

Just to voice a couple of my stronger prejudices... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:17 PM

"Today, he has a lot of unnecessary blood on his hands because he chose otherwise. So do those who support him. A lot of unnecessary, unjustifiable, inappropriate bloodshed, mayhem and cold death. You may sanitize all this until the cows come home. Rationalize to your heart's content."

Gee, that is the way I feel about those "anti-Bush" folks who decided that Saddam should not have to comply with 12 years of UN resolutions, and gave him the impression that he could continue to stay in power and develop WMD, by protesting US actions with NO protest of the Iraqi violations.

Or is it only YOUR opinion that is ever valid?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:10 PM

Amos,

You state:
"As for why soaring deficits are bad for the economy, I can only suggest you look a little deeper into the subject."

Did you even read the comment
"I drew a paralell to deficit spending now and then and the fact that if an even greater degree of deficit spending did not "ruin" us then, why do people claim it will "ruin" us now?"




As for why soaring deficits are bad under a Republican administration at war, and good under a Democratic administration at war, I can only suggest that you try to get beyond your own bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:02 PM

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:01 PM

It is really good of you to search out hard data, old boy.

However, the fact that as a species we do many things to bump ourselves off either accidentally or covertly does NOT mean that it just, ethical or right-minded to seek out additional ways with which to augment the statistic.

As for why soaring deficits are bad for the economy, I can only suggest you look a little deeper into the subject. The glory of debt free living can barely be imagined by those who have been bullied, cowed, or harassed into living upside down. It is not a solid principle of good fidscal management no matter how rationalized it is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

Oh yeah, there's a lot out there to get upset about, isn't there? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:41 PM

Amos: I did not try "to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war"

I drew a paralell to deficit spending now and then and the fact that if an even greater degree of deficit spending did not "ruin" us then, why do people claim it will "ruin" us now?

I think it is another artificial negative claim, a polarising issue to persuade more people to oppose the administration.

Amos seems concernend about people dying unecessarily. How many people die uncessarily every year with or without a war?

Actual Causes of death in the US in 2000:

Tobacco..............................435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity....400,000
Alcohol consumption...................85,000
Microbial Agents......................75,000
Toxic Agents..........................55,000
Motor Vehicle.........................43,000
Firearms..............................29,000
Sexual Behaviors......................20,000
Illicit Drug Use......................17,000
Total..............................1,159,000

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

I like Little Hawk's analysis; it is interesting to reflect that some hundreds of thousands of people have been caught short inthe middle of being as right as they possibly can by the sudden intrusion of shrapnel, lead slugs, overhwelming explosive force, flames, or other violent facets of matter, causing momentary excruciating pain followed by death (hopefully quick). Not to mention those who are slogging through life on artifical limbs or unhealed stumps (depending on their support system), or eyeless, or vegetative, as a result of near death collisions with armament. Or those whose losses of loved ones have thrown them into terminal depression and incurable despond.

These beings are adding up to a population of reincarnations coming up who are probably firmly convinced that Bush's invasion was a very poor idea indeed. These sentiments, most likely, will be accompanied by inexplicable but very intense emotions such as rage, grief, and the other feelings one typically generates when being deprived of a lifetime.

I predict a major generational disagreement in 12-15 years! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:32 AM

Dickey, you said, "Your continued display of animosity toward anyone that dares to oppose your assertions indicates you are only interested in views that comply with yours."

(I added the italics.)

Well, here's the truth of it. We're all guilty of that. 99.999 % of people are really only interested in views that comply with their own. ;-) It's sad, but it's true. They listen to views that do not comply with their own only just long enough to sieze like a hungry raptor upon some detail or inconsistency or perceived weakness in the other person's argument which they can then use to attack and discredit the other person's argument. They seek victory and enhancement of their own identity (their sense of self) at the expence of someone else's identity (sense of self).

I am keenly aware of this tendency in myself as well as others. I watch it sardonically as it works out its nastiness in every political discussion on this forum. I realize that we are all quite prejudiced and subjective in our judgements, specially when it comes to controversial subjects like politics, religion, UFOs, coverups, etc....

And we all like to talk. And we all think we're right. I predict that this process will continue playing itself out over and over again until we all get old and die. And then it will recommence shortly following the beginning of our next incarnation.

It's more fun for those who have not yet acquired the ability to observe self in an accurate fashion. You could say that they are well cushioned by their own innocence, and will get to enjoy being "right" until the day they die.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Sigh.

No, I have no animosity. You tried to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war. The illogic of such a parallel is so obvious I was moved to cry out momentarily, because such un-reason is painful.

In any case, Bush had some wonderful opportunities to make things better, both before and after his Defining Moment of 9-11.

But he did not. He instead made things worse. His choices were made, his actions taken, on the basis of different principles than people belileved he had (those who believed he had any).

"Bush spending mopney on the Iraq War is JUST like FDR spending money on World War II" is a ridiculously improbable proposition, on the order of saying that a cat is just like an orangutang, because they both have fur and breathe. It's absurd on the face of it. Bush's invasion of Iraq was an elective course, pre-emptive and unilateral. Iraq had not invaded American soil, nor had it launched a military attack against an ally, as was the case in Bush Senior's little war in the sand over Kuwait. Bush could have chosen NOT to invade Iraq, limiting his pursuit of terrorists to Al Queda, focusing on the appropriate target, and retaining the sympathy and friendship of nations. Today, he has a lot of unnecessary blood on his hands because he chose otherwise. So do those who support him. A lot of unnecessary, unjustifiable, inappropriate bloodshed, mayhem and cold death. You may sanitize all this until the cows come home. Rationalize to your heart's content. The bottom line, when all the glorious phrases die in the wind, is that it was a bad choice cuausing unjustifiable death, homicide with a blunt instrument writ extraordinarily large in the sands of Mesopotamia.



Go figger.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM

I notice you have avoided addressing the fact that the money was spent by noting it was spent during a war, Do you deny it was spent?

Do you deny it was a much greater overspending than Bush is credited with now?

If it was indeed spent and if it is a greater portion of the GDP than is being spent now, how can it be any more ruinous now than it was then?.

Thus the charge of spending our grandchildren's legacy & dowery was done 60+ years ago and we are probably better off because of it.

Do you deny that Clinton inherited a declining deficit and left an decreasing surplus?

The downhill trend began during Clinton's tenure, continued until mid-2004 and is now in an upward, declining deficit trend. To say that GWB has not turned a negative trend into a positive trend is to put a narrow focus on the current state of affairs.

Notice how I have avoided calling you clever and avoided a display of hostility. Just a contribution to this discussion like you requested.

You continued display of animosity toward anyone that dares to oppose your assertions indicates you are only interested in views that comply with yours. That is why I say this is not discussion, as you have mischaractarized it, but a collection of negative views or "dogpiling".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:03 AM

"According to Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters of a plan to reduce our military presence in Iraq are "undermining" our troops.

No, what undermines our troops, and the security of our nation, is the politicized gobbledygook being spouted by Mr. Cheney and his allies.

Born of hubris, betrayed by incompetence, the administration's war strategy has been a disaster — for Iraq, for America and especially for our troops.

Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and decelerate American involvement in Iraq. Anything less undermines the safety, security and effectiveness of our brave men and women in uniform.

David Alexander
Powell, Ohio, March 13, 2007"