John Mellencamp's open letter to Bush - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-22-2003, 07:09 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:33 PM
I didn't start reading or posting in FYM until about two weeks before the war started, so I actually missed a hell of alot of the debate. I wish the *White House* had used the human rights argument because I think it's much stronger than the WMD argument. Up until then, I was strictly a PLEBA girl. I'm *still* a PLEBA girl.
Uh, no more comments...........
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 07:59 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I didn't start reading or posting in FYM until about two weeks before the war started, so I actually missed a hell of alot of the debate. I wish the *White House* had used the human rights argument because I think it's much stronger than the WMD argument. Up until then, I was strictly a PLEBA girl. I'm *still* a PLEBA girl.
Uh, no more comments...........
Not anymore you are not..you have been sucked in!!!!

__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 08:04 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,276
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Paul Wolfowitz said, "The [third issue everyone could agree on] is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did."

The administration is flat out lying if they now claim they went to war for humanitarian reasons. They didn't. It really is that simple. And while some who supported the war (like our own Dread and STING) may have mentioned that as a reason, the fact remains that it was NOT a good enough reason for the administration itself.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-22-2003, 08:26 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,276
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Now Andy Rooney strikes too:

Quote:
Iraq: The World's Problem

Oct. 12, 2003

You might not think so from listening to me, but I like to be liked. Not only that, I like my country to be liked around the world and it isn't.

I wish President Bush would try to make this country less hated. He could do it if he set his mind to it.

To begin with, we should change our attitude toward the United Nations. There has to be some power in the world superior to our own - for our own sake. Iraq isn't our problem. It's the world's problem.

When the president spoke at the United Nations, he came off as arrogant and it made all of us seem arrogant. We are a little arrogant, of course, and we ought to watch that.

The United States can't force its ideas on the whole world. We have great military power and a store of nuclear and biological weapons that would send us running to the U.N. for help if any other country had as many.

The trouble with our weapons is they don't work against one terrorist with a jar of anthrax or a religious nut with a truckload of dynamite. We're wasting our money on weapons we can't use.

It doesn't matter what I think, but I think like millions of Americans and they do matter. I was opposed to going into Iraq without the approval of the U.N. Things went well at first and I decided I was wrong and apologized.

Now I want to apologize again. I want to apologize for apologizing. We should not have attacked Iraq without the OK of the United Nations. It wasn't all President Bush's fault. U.N. delegates were infuriating - sitting on their hands.

It's an ineffective, namby-pamby organization. The French and the Germans were against attacking Iraq because they do a lot of business there.

The president made the mistake though of deciding to attack anyway and now we have to live with that mistake. We're living with it and too many of our guys are dying with it.

I hope we remain the strongest country in the world but it isn't a sure thing that we'll always be what we are today.

Look what's happened to Great Britain, France, and Germany. They aren't what they were. Things change in the world. It could happen to us - may be happening.

It happened to the great Greek and Roman civilizations. They didn't disappear because there was anything wrong with the ideals on which those civilizations were based. They disappeared because there got to be fewer and fewer Greeks and Romans who believed in those ideals, and they were taken over by people who didn't believe in them at all.

We've got some people who don't believe in our American ideals -- so watch out.

(Written By Andy Rooney © MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-22-2003, 09:06 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Even when I read his column...I hear his whiney freaking voice!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 10:24 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:33 PM
[Q]Leftist Hypocrites on Iraq
By Michael P. Tremoglie
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 22, 2003


It is one thing to criticize the president’s foreign policy in principle - to be opposed, because of one's deeply held beliefs, to the president’s actions to invade Iraq. It is quite another to criticize the president’s foreign policy simply to obtain political power.


Unfortunately, for all Americans, the Democratic Party critics of President Bush’s invasion of Iraq - and many other critics of the war - are motivated by politics, not principle. This is revealed by the hypocrisy of their condemnations.


Democrat Senate minority leader Tom Daschle echoed the sentiments of many antiwar protesters by objecting to military action in Iraq because of the lack of UN approval. Yet, he was not concerned about the UN’s opinion when Bill Clinton wanted to take military action in Bosnia and Kosovo. During a 1999 interview Jim Lehrer asked Senator Daschle, “(A)re you convinced that the American people understand the need to put U.S. troops on the ground in Kosovo?”


Daschle replied, “We have to be able to convince the American people that this is in our interest. I don't think you need much of an imagination, though, to know what happens if all of this gets out of hand.…I think we can avoid that with a little preventative medicine. That's what this is all about. It's preventative, and I think it will work.”


It was an interesting choice of words by Daschle. When Democratic President Bill Clinton wanted to take military action against nations that did not, could not and would not want to do anything against the United States it was called preventative. However, when Republican President George Bush wanted to take military action against a nation that violated a treaty and committed an act of war, it was called preemptive.


Now some might argue there was a difference. They may say that genocide was being committed in the Balkans. This justified taking military action without UN approval.


Such an argument is specious. There was genocide of enormous proportions in Rwanda, yet Clinton did nothing. Meanwhile, Hussein had committed acts of genocide against the Kurds and was known to murder his own people routinely.


Clinton’s actions in Bosnia and Kosovo have been termed illegal by some foreign policy experts. These experts have been both nonpartisan and uniform in their condemnation of American military action in Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq.


Democratic Party politicians and Bush-haters have reiterated the argument that UN benediction was needed before invading Iraq. Yet, it was President Clinton’s special envoy to the Balkans, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who recently wrote in the New York Times, “ No serious policy maker would advocate subordinating American national security interests to the United Nations; for this reason President Clinton twice used force in the Balkans (in Bosnia in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999) without Security Council authority.“1

President Bush’s most vituperative critic, Ted Kennedy, voted to allow all necessary force in Kosovo. Yet, when it came to Bush’s proposed military action in Iraq Kennedy said, "UN inspectors are on the ground and making progress, and their work should continue…."

When the first American soldier was killed in Bosnia in February 1996, Democrat Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont said, “the American people were going to have accept more casualties.” Senator Leahy’s attitude now is very different. He is not as glib about military casualties in Iraq as he was about military casualties in Bosnia. About Iraq Leahy said, “We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.”


Democrat New York Congressman Charles Rangel is an excellent example of the hypocrisy of the Iraq war critics. During an interview with Sean Hannity he said, “There are a lot of bums in the world and we shouldn’t go after them without the approval of the international community.” Yet, Rangel approved Clinton’s military involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo without UN authorization.

What about the media? Their hypocrisy is just as apparent.


At least George Bush went to the UN to ask for assistance. However, Clinton’s team purposely excluded the UN from the Balkans. Yet, there were no New York Times editorials condemning Clinton for not seeking the approval of the UN. Not one major TV network had someone like Scott Ritter claiming Bush should be impeached because the action in Kosovo violated international law.


What about the entertainers whose vitriolic remarks about President Bush are common? What disparagements did Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Janeane Garofalo make about Clinton?


None. As Garofalo said, “ It wasn’t hip to protest then.”


The remarks by Republicans and conservatives criticizing Clinton’s policies in the Balkans were very different from those who criticize President Bush. When President Clinton wanted to send 20,000 troops to Bosnia, the Republican leader in the Senate, Robert Dole, said that although he does not agree with Clinton, "we have one president at a time. He's the commander-in-chief.2

What a difference between Bob Dole and Senator Robert Byrd, who said of President Bush and the pending invasion of Iraq, “This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine…The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening…appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter….”

Democratic Party politicians like Kennedy and Daschle, editors like Howell Raines, entertainer/activists like Susan Sarandon need to be tell us why they were not opposed to sending Americans to die in the Balkans when there was no threat whatsoever to America. Yet, they are so vehemently opposed to sending troops to Iraq where there was clearly a threat – if even only a remote one. Is it simply a matter of politics? Is the real reason NOW condemn’s the Iraq invasion more a function the president’s opinion of abortion than it is foreign policy? What do you think?

The president’s critics need to answer this question for the sake of the American people.

ENDNOTES:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/bo...l?pagewanted=3

[2] http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N60/dole.60w.html

[/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 11:08 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,258
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I think it's a good letter. I don't think his music or comments about U2 have anything to do with this letter.
No kidding. How do either of those things have any correlation to the whole topic of Mellencamp's letter?

I didn't know he didn't like U2 until now...but if he doesn't like them...*shrugs*. His opinion. At least he doesn't repeatedly let us know he doesn't like them, unlike some people I could mention *cough, cough...HENRY ROLLINS...cough, cough*.

And haven't we heard some people on this very board making comments about the whole "greatest band in the world" bit that U2 uttered?

Also, I like his music, personally. He's got some great songs.

But anywho, back to the letter...verte76, pub crawler, and anitram are making good arguments.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 10-23-2003, 03:10 AM   #23
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]
FrontPageMagazine.com
[/Q]
Er, it probably should be mentioned that Front Page Magazine is essentially another townhall.com or worldnetdaily, i.e. a site filled with commentary Rush Limbaugh could have written.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 10-23-2003, 06:50 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


Er, it probably should be mentioned that Front Page Magazine is essentially another townhall.com or worldnetdaily, i.e. a site filled with commentary Rush Limbaugh could have written.
Excellent Job Old Chap!!!! It is a tactic I would use 100% in any debate go for the source!

I will now deflect and say...Rush Limbaugh did not right it though, nice try.

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-23-2003, 11:06 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:33 PM
My main criticism of Bush's policy on Iraq isn't really that he did it without the U.N. After all France was doing business with Iraq. I've heard reliable reports of French weapons in Iraq, a violation of the embargo. Like I said he should have used the appalling human rights situation in Iraq the way they used Milosevic's appalling human rights record against him. This was quite effective. I supported those wars because I thought Milosevic was another Hitler. People here did indeed use the human rights argument against Saddam. Unfortunately Bush didn't--he relied on the much weaker WMD argument.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 12:25 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
who is john cougar and how come he has changed his name over the decades from-
John Cougar
to
John Cougar Mellancamp
to
John Mellencamp...
and why the hell are his writings being cited on a U2 message board ?.
He makes crap music.

thank u-
dB9
Maybe you should ask Bono or the Edge about that namething,..
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 03:35 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 03:33 PM
This adminstration is going to have to answer all the questions that John Mellencamp and other's have brought up here in this forum and aroung the world. They won't be able to say it's a liberal agenda or a left wing conspiracy. They (the republicans) opened that door when the millions that were spent on white water never produced anything. This adminstration is going to have to prove and or deny 1 of 2 things: This entire Iraqi invasion was pre-determined and a forgone conclusion to begin with or convince the voting public that they were duped by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. and they were too stupid to catch it. Either way the "so called" reports are going to be subpoened and the White House will have to answer. This isn't the ranting's of a "liberal". I have the right to know just what motivates my government to do what it does.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 04:08 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:33 PM
You are indeed forgetting one very important thing. The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans. It will be pinned on the CIA as a failure insulating the White House if it indeed turns into some kind of crisis. As it is now.....I suggest you start by asking why your congress gave Bush the authority to wage war. They had to give him permission. Maybe they did not ask enouhg questions. Not a single actions the President took could not have been taken without the support of Democrats like Lieberman, Kerry, Clinton....shall I name more who voted to give the President the power to wage war?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-27-2003, 08:56 AM   #29
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:33 AM
How is that really important Dread? Unless it is of more importance for one to have a party to blame or a particular politician. That's buck passing. Can these discussions not go on without it resorting to "Ha! YOUR party [insert party/and or poli's name here] supported this" Who cares. It's a bit pedantic imo. (not saying this is your point though, lol) What matters is the royal fuck up this operation has become. It was successful in getting rid of Saddam and I'd think everyone is pretty tickled pink over that. Now there is the clean up and that should be the most important thing as there's still too many lives being lost. I am not so naive as to start giving ignorant blame in matters which are way out of my league, by criticising the administration or the military and so on. But these people are as experienced as I am naive.
While I'm rambling incoherantly, may as well add the quote Anitram posted from Wolfowitz is a bit tricky. No one's life is worth losing but if anyone was going to undertake this operation it was going to be with the loss of some life. It was unfortunately inevitable. The catch is it was always going to be worthwhile to finally step up and help Iraq. The UN weren't going to do it. America is damned no matter what it does.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-27-2003, 10:18 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:33 PM
The Red Cross was attacked in Baghdad today. A report in my ISP's news said that 34 were killed, and the attacks are getting worse. They're escalating. This is a mess. It's really sad. I hate it that this is going on.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com