Will Bush Be Blamed?

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Airto
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 07:55 AM

Back in the seventies, the then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Liam Cosgrave addressed the United Nations and called on Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences "in a proper Christian manner".

His advisors pointed out the incongruity beforehand, suggesting it wouldn't go down too well with either party. He conceded that might have been true, but that it would go down very well with the voters of Dun Laoghaire (his home constituency).

The rest of the world needs American presidents to rise above that sort of parochialism.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:04 AM

Been away from this thread for a while.

Bartholomew, I just want to say that, in my opinion, your post is among the finest posts I've seen on the subject of what happened last Tuesday.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:08 AM

Esopecially the last sentence in Bartholome's post:

If any good comes out of this, let it be that we begin to work toward becoming the nation that we imagine ourselves to be.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:45 AM

Oh this is just getting classic. I have heard that Bush is a Chickenshit, that we are to blame, that Bin Ladin should go free (after all he did deny his involvement), and nitpicking about choice of words.

Bush being chickenshit. Personally I have a strong admiration for him, and I didn't vote for him. He has made himself a target. Do you think this is not so? He shows up to examine each site, a place filled with possible dangers, from people or environment. He did exactly what I would have expected any president to do in this situation. Gather together all of the information, from a safe location. That does not make him a coward, it does make him a responsible person, knowing what sort of fury this nation would pitch into if something happened to it's president.

Our blame because of Palastine? Get over it. Seriously, no I mean it... People love waving that banner around. Because we are so uncaring about the conflict, people are going to attack us? Please, this needed no excuse, and to provide a scapegoat is insulting. If they wanted to make a point about that there would have been many other effective ways to have done so.

Bin Ladin's claim of "I didn't do it." Do I care, nope. This man is not some John Doe on the street, being fingered for a mugging. This is a man that HAS ATTACKED, HAS THREATENED, the United States. But Peg, I suppose your'e right, he didn't do this one... so lets just let him go. Please! This man has done horrible things and made the mistake (three weeks prior) of saying that there would be an unprecedented attack against the US. Hmmm.. perhaps it was a misquote, perhaps he was just ranting, perhaps he is a prophet? Or, perhaps, just on a wild chace, he knew something about this attack. Due process, it is a wonderful word when we don't wish to get our hands dirty. Our hands are already dirty, if Bin Ladin wanted to prove his innocense. He would have turned himself in. An Islamic court would try him, and may even let him go. The US would not attempt to attack him while in custody of a court. That would have a potentially disasterous backlash.

Picking and choosing words. Personally, I was glad when I heard bush say 'Dead or Alive.' It is the measure of this nation's resolve. Should he have chosen words more carefully, sure... let's see how about....

"If the Taliban would please, talk to Bin Ladin and find out if he did this. I mean, he has alot of people nervous, he has said very, very mean things about us and we just want to know that he is sorry. So, please tell him to give us a call sometime so that we can discuss this like adults."

I prefer Dead or Alive. let him and the world know the measure of our resolve, and let there be no misunderstanding of our anger.

Respectfully, Nobody

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM

GUEST, just a nobody, I do think we need to choose our words wisely. For the reason that if we don't, we can make it more difficult for the Muslim countries who want to help us to be able to do so. We need all the help we can get. If we let our anger make it more difficult for our friends and allies to help us, we only hurt ourselves. Not Bin Laden.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 09:49 AM

CarolC, I agree, we need to choose our words carefully, something I am not prone to do really well. I guess I am rather upset that it seems people are more than willing to criticize our leaders. I think people have a right to do such things, but at the same time they need to put themselves in the position of our leaders. I don't think any of the people condemning Bush have really paused to think, what would they do in his position. Bush is facing something that no other leader has faced in this country. It is easy to say, he is doing something wrong, but I don't see anyone saying what the right way is (unless it is only from a partisan point of view). Maybe that is why I am more than a little irritated. Hope you did not take offense.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:04 AM

No, I didn't take offense. And I think I can understand where you're coming from.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: InOBU
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:52 AM

Hi nobody...
at times like these,...
i for one...
would like a president with a triple digit IQ...
Larry

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 11:11 AM

Larry

Ahhh, I love that one. So, what is his IQ? Do you know? or is it just yet another opportunity to slam the president? Besides, you think that triple digits would make the person respond better? Nope, we would be just as likely to have someone fly off the handle and do something truly screwed up.

God I love partisanship. Any other good ones larry? Maybe a president with a bigger dick, a president with more muscle mass, how about a darker hair color?

Sorry to seem so short, maybe I misread your post, but it just seems that many seem willing to jump the leaders of this country, without any good ideas of their own. I have some faith that they do know what they are doing. I may not like everything that is done, but I refrain from petty insults, against our leaders, as many here seem to love.

No offense meant, especially if I misunderstood the attitude your post was meant to carry.

Nobody

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 11:49 AM

Nope, Nobody, you didn't misread it. That's just Larry's way of re-emphasising that he doesn't approve of our President. He doesn't know what Bush's IQ is, and I seriously doubt anyone on the Mudcat does. That's not really the point though. There is nothing GWB could do that would meet Larry's approval other than to resign. :>)

I haven't seen you around the Mudcat much, Nobody. Perhaps I have just missed your posts. Anyway, you need to know that if you espouse the Liberal POV, you can say anything you like, and expect to receive a great deal of support for whatever you say. Why? Because Liberals are charitable, caring people.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are tolerated on the Mudcat (probably because they can't shut us up) but do not expect much support for their views. Why? Most Mudcatters are Liberals. I don't know what your political philosophy is but you seem to lean toward the conservative POV, and I thought a bit of forewarning might be in order.

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:53 PM

M.Ted,

Having felt my emotions run the gamut living some 1500 miles from ground zero with no friends or relatives near the attcks, I can only imagine that those emotions must be multiplied by a thousand in your case. I'm sure my overreactionary posts only made things worse. While I don't apologize for my patriotic feelings, I do apologize for the manner in which I expressed them, and for only stirring things up more by doing so. I didn't take the time to focus my argument on the specific areas of specific posts I wanted to call into question, and it must have read as a much more vicious and blanketed rant than it was intended to be. I thank you, Troll, and everyone else for the civility you've shown, and promise to try to breathe deep and count slowly to ten before clicking the submit button in the future.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:18 PM

DougR

I have noticed a tendency for several posters to lean toward the libral ideals. I don't really have any affiliation myself, other than what makes sense. I can't side with one or the other because you have extremists on both sides. Perhaps I do lean more to a conservative side. I think it balances out since my wife is a liberal.

I don't expect for people to agree with what I say, but I hope that they (as I do) pause to think about what is said here. I don't agree with what I see, but I do stop and think as to why I do not. Larry just needs to get some help. I would hope that politics as usuall would end in the light of what has happened. But... as per the usual... I stand corrected.

I've been around, I just never posted. I look up lyrics for the most part, but when this happened I really needed a place to vent, and to mourn without bringing it into work... whoops that's where I'm posting from... :) and without alienating my friends with comments that they may not agree with.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Midchuck
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:18 PM

Amos sayeth: ...there is a difference between justice and war. Under justice, a suspect is prosecuted until the evidence convicts him, or finds him not guilty, based on a regulated process. A war is prosecuted without reservation until the acheivement of "a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy". (Klausewitz). There is no such thing as just war, although some wars are mopre justified than others perhaps. Nor is there such a thing as war-like justice.

All true. The problem is that we find ourselves in a situation that can't be treated as either a war or a criminal justice issue.

A war requires a known enemy. We can't very well fight a war against the entire Muslim world. All but three or four out of any given million Muslims are innocent. So we can't fight until we find out who's involved that isn't dead already, and where they are. To do otherwise - aside from the total unfairness involved - would simply make enemies of all of the Muslim world that isn't mad at us already - which was exactly the terrorists' goal. And the criminal justice system only works - even as imperfectly as it does - within a given country, or at least between countries that have clear-cut extradition agreements.

In this case neither model works. We have to design a new one as we go along. That's why we're all so confused, on top of grief.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:21 PM

When you get a handle on it,Loopy< pass it alone. There are several here on the forum who shoot from the lip on ocassion.
Not ME of course. HEAVENS no. ALL my posts are very carefully thought out, concise, statements concerned only with the education and edification of my fellow man.

troll***Yeah.Right!***

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:24 PM

That should have read " pass it ALONG."
PROOFREAD FOOL!

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Wordsmith
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:39 PM

The word crusade may be construed as having the same meaning that it did in the Middle Ages. However, it is much less "loaded" in current common usage. I have heard of crusades against hunger, AIDS, illiteracy, etc. As someone said earlier, the Arab world does not seem to be reacting negatively to its usage, rather its the folks on this board with a partisan axe to grind.

As for Georgie's "Dead or Alive Statement," my impression (based on some knowledge of Western history) is that it is used in reference to criminals/suspects for whom deadly force could be legally used in the course of apprehending them. Considering that Bin Laden has been a primary suspect in various acts of terrorism (and in fact hasn't he already been indicted for some), I don't find anything outrageous in Bush's statement. But then again, i am not in the camp of people who continue to judge Bush on according to their exaggeration of his words rather than his deeds.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: InOBU
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 05:55 PM

Hi gang... actualy, Bush's IQ was published in a newspaper as 91. As to dead or alive, without a living person, in court, there will always be questions. As the United States A.G. said, (paraphrasing) we will have to relax the objections to the use of foriegn agents attached to the CIA, well wasn't ben laudin one of those our CIA once used? I don't know, I just think at times like these, great nations should act with wisdom and deliberation, not to run in where many have already jumped off the cliff. Cheersmdears, Larry

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 07:44 PM

Larry: Bush's IQ is 91? It appeared in local newspapers?

You are referring, I believe, to a cartoon strip that appeared in newspapers. "Doonsbury," drawn and written by that great fair minded cartoonist, Gary Trudeau (sp?). That was exposed as a hoax weeks ago, and the cartoonist has apologized (sort of)!

Catch up, IBOU! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:49 PM

GUEST, Wordsmith,

In fact, the concern for Bush's choice of words does concern people in Muslim nations. Not because they necessarily feel offended, but because they can serve to cause dissention between different factions within those countries, which could cause serious problems for them, as well as for us.

My sources are panel members from various Islamic countries on PBS' News Hour With Jim Leherer, as well as panelists on other news related programs.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:57 PM

Thanks for the sources Carol.
Larry, Doug is right; the whole I.Q. thing was a hoax. The "Institute" that released the information doesn't exist. There was a thread about it but I don't recall the title.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 09:05 PM

CarolC: You can read my capitulation to "problem" related to the use of the seven letter word (I don't dare write it) on ...I believe the "Fly the Flag" thread, or maybe the last thread Spaw started on the attack, if you're interested.

I mean the fact that you got your information on NPR should bring an end to the subject, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 09:13 PM

DougR, I already responded to your post on that thread.

I'm beginning to wonder which you are more concerned with... the good of this country and its citizens, or being right.

I can't speak for you, but for myself, I would like to help to bring about a better understanding of what is needed in this most desperate of situations. I don't see how this can happen without dialogue.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 11:45 PM

And I salute you, CarolC. Obviously I care nothing for my country, otherwise, I would agree with everything you, and and those who think like you believe. Right?

I don't agree with 99.9% of your positions, politically, but I don't, for a minute, question your love for your country, or the sincerity of your belief.

Of course I guess I could argue that what I believe IS best for the country, but what would be the point?

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:01 AM

Gee, Douglas, someone tries to support the far-fetched idea that the use of the word "crusade" might just be a little counter-productive by saying she saw actual testimony to that fact from actual Arab panelists on the Newshour With Jim Lehrer, but that's not good enough?? Where do you suggest we get our news? Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Paul Harvey, and Pat Robertson?

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:05 AM

DougR, I don't understand why you are singling me out for what comes across to me as a rather strange effort to shut me up. I'm hardly the only person participating in these discussions.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:47 AM

Ah, Armen, I have already capitulated (you obiviously haven't read all the threads on this) I'm a dunce, obviously! It was on NPR, so it's got to be right! Right? Anyone with any sensibility at all knows that NPR is a totally unbiased news source, right?

Words are more damaging than bullets, bombs, and airlines loaded with innocent people right?

I probably won't satisfy you, I know, but let me make my position clear on the subject (I thought I already had).

Over 5,000 people from over 60 countries lost their lives in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Arguing over a word seems, to me, a pretty trifle thing. So if you, Carol, McGrath, Lonesome E. J., or anyone else who seems so hung up on this word would be happier to have me say that Bush shouldn't have used that word, Okay!

HE FUCKING WELL SHOULDN'T HAVE USED IT! Ok? I have never used such language on the Mudcat, I don't think, but in light of what has happened, the concentration, by so many people on a simple word misused, just boggles my mind.

If all of us were so perfect. What a wonderful world it would be.

DougR

P. S. CarolC.: Please accept this as my reply to your post above. Thanks.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 01:01 AM

DougR, I don't think anyone really cares whether or not you are willing to agree with some of us about whether or not Bush should have used that word.

I would like to point out that my reference to the subject in question in my post of 18-Sep-01 - 08:49 PM, was not adressed to you all, but to GUEST, Wordsmith ...unless you are GUEST, Wordsmith, in which case it was addressed to you.

In either case, I don't understand how my having an opinion that differs from yours makes me deserving of the rather snide tone that you have begun to adopt with me.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 01:31 AM

Carol: I'm sure no one does gives a tinker's damn what I think, on any subject. Most of you would probably be very happy to be just talking to yourselves.

Opposing views? Perish the thought.

I never took your remarks on the subject personally myself. I did direct personal replies to your postings on some subjects because I did not agree with them. That doesn't mean I don't like you, don't respect your views or anything else.

I will refrain from doing so in the future. Obviously, you are more comfortable not having your views challenged.

Okie dokie. Now. As to the "C" word. How can I make it more clear than I already have in several threads that I capitulate?

That I was wrong?

That the President should have not used the "C" word?

That by the very mention of the "word" Bush ran the risk of starting WW III?

Whatever you suggest, I will do.

How about 40 lashes?

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 01:38 AM

DougR, I really don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you aren't entitled to hold you own opinions. Just as I would hope that you would not think that I am not entitled to my own opinion. The fact that other people hold opinions that are different than yours s not necessarily an indication that we think you are not entitled to yours.

My statement that I don't think people care whether or not you are willing to agree with some of us is certainly a pretty good indication that I am not telling you you have to change your opinions. It simply doesn't matter if we hold differing opinions. What matters is how we treat each other.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 01:51 AM

Doug,

Relax, buddy. We're on the same side. I've said many times that I thought the President was doing a good job in a tough situation. I also said I thought use of the C word was a mistake, and apparently the White House agrees since they issued a statement retracting it. I will, at this juncture, return to full, unmitigated support of the administration, at least until he says something else I find objectionable. McGrath can also relax, free now of the strange sensation of being in agreement with me. :>}

LEJ

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 02:18 AM

Yep, LEJ, you're right!

CarolC; Smaaaaaaaaaaack!

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: InOBU
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 06:53 AM

Hi Guys, I will get back to the lawyer who gave me the information about Bush's IQ... By the way... do we know if in the retraction, we found out if Bush's IQ was higher or lower???? Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 09:51 AM

President Bush has apologised for calling this a Crusade, and the White House has issued a formal statement about it, and you have agreed that it was a mistake, I can't see why you are getting so upset about it Doug.

I'm relieved that it was a mistake, and that the White House have said so, because I was worried that it might even have been intentional and an indication of the way they were thinking about things. Or that even if it was a mistake they'd brush it aside, and give a propaganda card to people on both sides trying to turn this into a war against Islam. (And see this thread as a mild emough example of what I'm talking about.)

It wasn't nit-picking. But it would be if I kept on about it now.

Back in the seventies, the then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Liam Cosgrave addressed the United Nations and called on Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences "in a proper Christian manner". It occurred to me, when I read what Airto wrote there, that unfortunately perhaps they may have taken Cosgrave's advice.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Wordsmith
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 10:38 AM

CarolC's point is well taken and I am pleased to see someone citing actual sources to support their statements. However, I would like to point out that the tone of the Arab panelists was that the word Crusade had the potential (i.e. it might) to create dissension within certain (perhaps extremist) factions. That is a far cry from the extreme stance that some folks were taking when they said that use of the word would inflame the entire Islamic world. Furthermore, my interpretation of the Bush "apology" was that he was sorry if people chose to interpret it as something other than its modern usage implies. Look folks, obviously his choice of the word was not the best decision. However, my beef is with the people who take a minor episode like this and try to spin it into a broad condemnation of a man whose reaction to terrorist acts is, thus far, better than we have seen in recent years. .

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 03:52 PM

And, McGrath, were I to comment on your comment, it would be additiional nit-picking. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Rush is Right
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 04:00 PM

If Clinton was still president, you wetbrains would not be raising hell over his choice of words. Why don't you just admit that your assaults on Bush stem from your inability to deal with the fact that people in your party were too fucking stupid to fill out an election ballot correctly.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 04:21 PM

You are a bigger man than I am DougR... I will comment on McGrath's comment. Maybe not the same comment but what the hell... who's nitpicking... oh.. I am... :)

'Back in the seventies, the then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Liam Cosgrave addressed the United Nations and called on Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences "in a proper Christian manner". It occurred to me, when I read what Airto wrote there, that unfortunately perhaps they may have taken Cosgrave's advice. '

Elegant and well put McGrath... Very moving.. Very narrow minded and showing the exact intolerence that everyone says we should not be showing. The best thing I have heard was a Sunday School teacher. He told me that his children were asking about what had happened and basically he needed to try to put things into perspective for them. He said 'This act was not just hijacking planes, but it hijacked the Muslims as well. There are those that will now veiw all Muslims as terrorists. That is wrong, just as it is wrong for others to judge christians based on corrupt leaders that use God's name for personal or political gain, or David Kiresh."

I hate it when sunday school teachers go spitting that sort of seething hatred to young ears, don't you. Think about it for a moment McGrath. I defend no ones individual religion. But I will defend religions that needlessly come under attack by blind and hypocritical comments such as your own. Or should we follow your example and hate Muslims because of what a handful have done? I hope you would say no... but since it is obvious you believe that such blanket and condemning statements are fine, I am not so sure...

Lets play a little game shall we? I like to call it McGrath logic.

African Americans should not trust police because of incidents like the Rodney King beating.

Whites should not trust blacks because there have been black on white crimes.

No one should trust Muslims... look what just happened.

No one should trust Christians, look at that bloody history.

No one should trust the government, they have lied to us before.

We should not trust businesses. After all, some have actually hidden things from the public.

We should never trust people, as children many have lied...

Ahhh.. what a wonderful world that would be. Thank you McGrath for showing us a little more into your world. Blanket statements directed at groups as a whole are dangerous toys. Expect that sooner or later they will be turned back at you.

Just a nobody

My son one time lied to me... should I continue to love him? or care about any child... after all some do lie. I hope that the length of this post did not bother people. And the flame was well intended. It is not a personal attack against you McGrath, but it seems that when people say that bush needs to watch what is said, maybe you should too....

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 04:35 PM

Guest, Rush is Right:

Please, i log in here as a Guest myself. I don't like the name you are giving us. if you don't agree with them, make your points as to why? Attack their points and views with counter views... don't just attack them in general...

Just a nobody

I hate politics as usual. I know I may get mean spirited and jump on an idea with viger... but I don't just break it down to insults and cursing...

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Rush is Right
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 04:50 PM

Evidently you are not smart enough to get my point, so I will draw you a picture. Much of the resentment toward Bush is sour grapes stemming from the election. That is the only reason why a lot of chumps here choose to make a mountain out of a molehill about everything that Bush does. ITS PARTISAN POLITICS IN A TIME OF NATIONAL CRISIS!!

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 05:13 PM

Ahh.. god how could I have missed your point with such vivid words as 'wetbrains' and 'stupid fucks'... silly me I must have missed your point entirely until now. Besides, I find it odd that you would attack people on thier politics during a national crisis for attacking peoples politics during a national crisis. Hmmmm...

Perhaps, my friend, I got your point, but pointed out that there were better ways to deliver your ideas. Rather than bring about more seperation in the parties. I am not a large fan of rush... in fact.. I don't care for him at all really. But the times that I have heard him he brings his points up with much more elegance than you did. Sorry you took offence.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Rush is Right
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 05:20 PM

If you are going to make a serious effort to debate me, at least try to avoid misquoting me. As for "attacking," there is a difference between the rabblerousers who seek to de-stabalize Bush thru partisan attacks and those such as myself who point out the flawed nature of such attacks.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 05:37 PM

You presume too much Nobody. I'm a practicing Candle (Cathoioc that is) myself, which is why I feel entitled to make a comment like that. We ought to know better, and pay more attention to the beam in our own eye is the underlying thought behind the quip.

With the way Christians have been treating each other in Ireland for the past 30 years it's a valid enough point to make. And I know that religion's got nothing to with the devision and the trouble in Ireland. No more than it really has in the Holy Land.

And Rush, it's a good idea to read the threads before pontificating about them. As said specifically in an earlier post on the thread: "I am certain that, if I had been an American and had voted for Bush, and if I admired his politics, and liked him enormously as a person, I would feel no different about it. Angry, scared, and betrayed." In fact if it had been Clinton who'd said it I'd have been even angrier, because I'd have been certain that he knew exactly what he was saying, and therefore would have meant to alienate Muslims.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 05:46 PM

For Cathoioc read Catholic.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 09:29 PM

Rush:

Right... And you point out the flaws by calling them wetbrains and fucking stupid. Ok... when you learn how to debate rather than name call... you come right back and join the rest of the crowd. Disagree is one thing, and everyone has the right to the opinion they have. Your first post here did nothing to debate, only insult. Your post did nothing to show the flaws in someones thoughts, only to insult. I know... it was all metaphoric or some crap... bottom line is, any point you wanted to make was lost behind your insults. Make your points by showing flaws in thier arguments, not by showing that you can do a really good job at insulting them.

Mcgrath:

I didn't really care what your faith is. You can see that your quip about christianity is just as insulting to some. I was merely pointing out that before you run Bush into the ground, you should look at your own words under as close a scrutiny. I have no debate that you feel the words should not have been spoken by Bush, but the attacks and insinuation that those words caused irreputible damage was grossly unfounded. I found a way to show (in your quip about Christians) that just about anything can be exagerated and have more meaning put into it than there should be. I do think that Bush is under much more scrutiny, due to the close election. And I do see that there are people here, and elswhere that are looking for anything to bash him with. Rush did not make that point real clear in his first post, but living in Florida I can tell you the tension runs high in Democratic areas. I would just hate to see people judging the President because they were upset that he won. Sorry about the length. Just wanted to make sure you knew, I presumed nothing abo9ut you, and meant no offense. I took only one quote and ran with it to emphasise my point. I do appologize that it looked like I was targeting you personally, I too should watch what I say sometimes.

I still like my world full of....

Nobody...

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 09:29 PM

Hmmm, McGrath, I thought maybe you had started a new religion! :>)

DougR