Quote from Rush Limbaugh's appearance on CBS evening news... - Page 3 - 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 09-12-2006, 08:18 AM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,997
Local Time: 02:59 PM
A different perspective, by Keith Olbermann

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 10:21 AM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport


wonders for us so far? What attitude is it that you believe would be more successful in this struggle? He should be a pollyanna? We should send it all to the United Nations, perhaps? Denounce Israel?



the administration has been nothing but lollypop smacking Pollyannas when it has come to Iraq, and even Afghanistan. they've been remakably un-self critical when it comes to their manifest failures in the prosecution of their own stated goals in the GWOT. THAT is something that would do wonders for us. there was NO post-war plan for Iraq. we walked away from Afghanistan, and especially the Tora Bora mountains, because a foolish invasion of Iraq had to fit an electoral time table.

you're also ignoring the fact that Bush's most recent rhetoric flies in the face of everything he's said the past 5 years. that Afghanistan was a success. that they would greet us as liberators. that we've turned a corner. that we are in the last throes. that we've killed Al-Qaeda's #2. over and over and over. that, finally, we've got Hussein. that the Mission is Accomplished. that, not to worry, just go shopping. and keep buying your SUVs. don't think, but if you don't vote for us, you'll die.

what, Westport, has Bush asked you to sacrafice?



Quote:
So people want to kill us on a mass scale. You have an appreciation thread saying that you love what this fledgling country is based on but is naive to the thought that all that we have can't be easily be wiped away, and assumes that our country, our short history, values and ideals will always be here no matter how many planes fly into our buildings or how many suitcases go off in our cities. Can we assume that no matter what occurs we will always have these freedoms and rights?

you have thoroughly missed my point. i agree, 100%, that there are people who want to kill us, and kill us by the thousands, and if you go back and read the thread, you'll note that i am well aware that my head is first on the chopping block for being gay, and not a day goes by that i am not grateful to live in the West, despite the manifest flaws of this country and the fact that there are people in this country who are just a few baby steps to the left of the Taliban who would gladly have me killed, or jailed, or re-educated. and what's great is that they can hold those beliefs and call me anything they choose, and i can yell right back at them.

the difference, Westport, is that i think there are many, many better ways of "fighting" this war, and rah-rah patriotism, wars of stupidity, jingoistic "with-us-or-against-us" language is precisely the wrong way to go about battling this enemy.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 06:16 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
A different perspective, by Keith Olbermann
Olbermann is the Left's version of Limbaugh. Both are political hacks who allow absolutely no debate on either of their programs. Shameless.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 06:48 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


Olbermann is the Left's version of Limbaugh. Both are political hacks who allow absolutely no debate on either of their programs. Shameless.
I very much agree with you on this. They are both hacks.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 06:50 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


Olbermann is the Left's version of Limbaugh. Both are political hacks who allow absolutely no debate on either of their programs. Shameless.
Neither of them said anything particularly outrageous. Limbaugh is correct that there are far too many legislators who care more about protecting terrorists than Americans. The lessons that conservatives learned on 9/11 are far more extensive than the lessons that liberals learned that day.

Conservatives already knew that there were Islamic Jihadists who do nothing with their lives other than kill innocent people and thump the Koran. But eight months of negligence on behalf of the Bush administration was too much. They are just as responsible as the Clinton administration for allowing vermin in holy robes to kill civilians. Bush was warned when he first stepped foot in the Oval Office. I am ashamed that Clinton was condemned for attacking Al Qaida training camps before this incident. I don't condemn Clinton personally for making a split decision on whether or not to kill Osama bin Laden at the risk of killing women and children.

However, the political cowardice of the Clinton administration was soft on the fanatics from the so-called religion of peace. One WTC bombing, 2 embassy bombings, the killings in Somalia, the USS Cole - responded by nothing but diplomacy and broken promises. The Able Danger cover up was one of the most politically corrupt moves on behalf of President Clinton. While Bush had eight months of negligence on national security, Clinton had eight years to fight back.

It seems that all the liberals learned was that Osama bin Laden was a dirty rat on 9/11. To this day, many believe that the War on Terror is essentially over once we find him. It doesn't matter that hateful sects of a highly questionable religion run amuck, calling for the destruction of America, Israel, and Europe. Rather than face the fact that fundamentalist Islam had barrels of blood on its hands to begin with, they blame America for stirring up the Muslim world. They bargain against the NSA wiretapping that hurts nobody except those planning terrorist attacks, they plea for anyone but Arabs to be searched at our airports, and they don't acknowledge that this is NOT a war against one nation, but an ideology that vows to convert or kill.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:03 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Limbaugh is correct that there are far too many legislators who care more about protecting terrorists than Americans.
Evidence would be nice, too bad neither of you can come up with any.

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

The lessons that conservatives learned on 9/11 are far more extensive than the lessons that liberals learned that day.
And what have you learned, gather from this post not much.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:10 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Neither of them said anything particularly outrageous. Limbaugh is correct that there are far too many legislators who care more about protecting terrorists than Americans. The lessons that conservatives learned on 9/11 are far more extensive than the lessons that liberals learned that day.

Conservatives already knew that there were Islamic Jihadists who do nothing with their lives other than kill innocent people and thump the Koran. But eight months of negligence on behalf of the Bush administration was too much. They are just as responsible as the Clinton administration for allowing vermin in holy robes to kill civilians. Bush was warned when he first stepped foot in the Oval Office. I am ashamed that Clinton was condemned for attacking Al Qaida training camps before this incident. I don't condemn Clinton personally for making a split decision on whether or not to kill Osama bin Laden at the risk of killing women and children.

However, the political cowardice of the Clinton administration was soft on the fanatics from the so-called religion of peace. One WTC bombing, 2 embassy bombings, the killings in Somalia, the USS Cole - responded by nothing but diplomacy and broken promises. The Able Danger cover up was one of the most politically corrupt moves on behalf of President Clinton. While Bush had eight months of negligence on national security, Clinton had eight years to fight back.

It seems that all the liberals learned was that Osama bin Laden was a dirty rat on 9/11. To this day, many believe that the War on Terror is essentially over once we find him. It doesn't matter that hateful sects of a highly questionable religion run amuck, calling for the destruction of America, Israel, and Europe. Rather than face the fact that fundamentalist Islam had barrels of blood on its hands to begin with, they blame America for stirring up the Muslim world. They bargain against the NSA wiretapping that hurts nobody except those planning terrorist attacks, they plea for anyone but Arabs to be searched at our airports, and they don't acknowledge that this is NOT a war against one nation, but an ideology that vows to convert or kill.
What an awesome post! Especially the part about many believeing that the war on terror ends with the capture of Bin Laden.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:22 PM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


What an awesome post! Especially the part about many believeing that the war on terror ends with the capture of Bin Laden.
Who really believes this?

I think so much emphasis is put on Bin Laden because of Bush's "promises" about him, but no one really believes it ends with his capture.

Ya'll really need to try harder.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:23 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:59 PM
I'll just say this, if your idea of hashing out the problems inside the war on terrorism come down to a simple apeing of the tired old liberal vs conservative fluff, then you've not only lost the plot, you are just as bad as any of the people you rail against.

If this were any kind of simple issue or right vs wrong or black and white, and who dropped the ball and who didn't, then the distinctions would have made themselves clear many moons ago. They are however, not.

If anything we have all been wrong and have dropped the ball on numerous occassions to a degree, the problems of Americans dealing with terrorism did not start in 1993, but it sure makes a nice thumbnail sketch of baggin' on Slick Willie. What was the Reagan response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut? "Get out of Dodge!". Carter's plan to rescue the Iranian hostages was a disaster, Bush 41 allowed Hussein to thumb his nose at us and it was this former director of the CIA's intelligence agencies that didn't know jack about Ramzi Yousef and the blind sheik until a few weeks after Clinton's was inaugurated (sp?) and they blew up the bomb in the garage of the WTC. Then Clinton was as soft as soft cold be, we didn't even respond to a DIRECT attack on the US military, then again neither did Reagan. There was also an embassy bombing in Beirut in 83 as well, if memory serves.

I didn't even have to bring up who funded the mujahideen, Iran contra or who helped equip Hussein to fight the Iranians, oh wait...I guess I just did. Yes, Clinton sat on his ass and literally did nothing and Reagan/Bush did some quite interesthing things as well. Are they all nuts? Doves or hawks? LIberal, conservative, this shit is as comlicated and nuanced as many of you already know.

What is a solution?
Well I could only offer that we know two apporaches that simply don't f'ing work. The cowboy 'bomb some shit, anything' approach and the do-nothing 'law enforcement only' approach. All sides are guilty of something.

Then we have a moment where maybe, possibly, some unity between America and it's allies and heaven forbid, the middle east exists. A chance to get REAL about prosecuting terrorism and having ME countries prosecute them and what do we do?
Cowboy up! Fucking mindless. It's as if, Clinton's approach wasn't workign so we have to take the neo-conservative 'revamp the whole region' approach. There is no sanity in politics because the solutions require people to LITERALLY change their minds.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:26 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


Olbermann is the Left's version of Limbaugh. Both are political hacks who allow absolutely no debate on either of their programs. Shameless.


eh ... more like Bill O'Reilly. only with less marketing and merchandising. Olbermann has yet to turn himself into a brand.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:31 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:59 PM
you know what's striking me about the turn debate has taken on FYM? how anti-Islamic it is becoming. some of us are painting them all with the same brush, which is a perfect reflection of what the Bush strategy has been over the past two weeks: pitch this as a clash of civilizations.

i am genuinely concerned about the following comments:

[q]vermin in holy robes[/q]

[q]hey plea for anyone but Arabs to be searched at our airports, [/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:43 PM   #42
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
I'll just say this, if your idea of hashing out the problems inside the war on terrorism come down to a simple apeing of the tired old liberal vs conservative fluff, then you've not only lost the plot, you are just as bad as any of the people you rail against.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:56 PM   #43
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Neither of them said anything particularly outrageous. Limbaugh is correct that there are far too many legislators who care more about protecting terrorists than Americans. The lessons that conservatives learned on 9/11 are far more extensive than the lessons that liberals learned that day.

Conservatives already knew that there were Islamic Jihadists who do nothing with their lives other than kill innocent people and thump the Koran. But eight months of negligence on behalf of the Bush administration was too much. They are just as responsible as the Clinton administration for allowing vermin in holy robes to kill civilians. Bush was warned when he first stepped foot in the Oval Office. I am ashamed that Clinton was condemned for attacking Al Qaida training camps before this incident. I don't condemn Clinton personally for making a split decision on whether or not to kill Osama bin Laden at the risk of killing women and children.

However, the political cowardice of the Clinton administration was soft on the fanatics from the so-called religion of peace. One WTC bombing, 2 embassy bombings, the killings in Somalia, the USS Cole - responded by nothing but diplomacy and broken promises. The Able Danger cover up was one of the most politically corrupt moves on behalf of President Clinton. While Bush had eight months of negligence on national security, Clinton had eight years to fight back.

It seems that all the liberals learned was that Osama bin Laden was a dirty rat on 9/11. To this day, many believe that the War on Terror is essentially over once we find him. It doesn't matter that hateful sects of a highly questionable religion run amuck, calling for the destruction of America, Israel, and Europe. Rather than face the fact that fundamentalist Islam had barrels of blood on its hands to begin with, they blame America for stirring up the Muslim world. They bargain against the NSA wiretapping that hurts nobody except those planning terrorist attacks, they plea for anyone but Arabs to be searched at our airports, and they don't acknowledge that this is NOT a war against one nation, but an ideology that vows to convert or kill.
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 07:59 PM   #44
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


If this were any kind of simple issue or right vs wrong or black and white, and who dropped the ball and who didn't, then the distinctions would have made themselves clear many moons ago. They are however, not.

If anything we have all been wrong and have dropped the ball on numerous occassions to a degree, the problems of Americans dealing with terrorism did not start in 1993, but it sure makes a nice thumbnail sketch of baggin' on Slick Willie. What was the Reagan response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut? "Get out of Dodge!". Carter's plan to rescue the Iranian hostages was a disaster, Bush 41 allowed Hussein to thumb his nose at us and it was this former director of the CIA's intelligence agencies that didn't know jack about Ramzi Yousef and the blind sheik until a few weeks after Clinton's was inaugurated (sp?) and they blew up the bomb in the garage of the WTC. Then Clinton was as soft as soft cold be, we didn't even respond to a DIRECT attack on the US military, then again neither did Reagan. There was also an embassy bombing in Beirut in 83 as well, if memory serves.

I didn't even have to bring up who funded the mujahideen, Iran contra or who helped equip Hussein to fight the Iranians, oh wait...I guess I just did. Yes, Clinton sat on his ass and literally did nothing and Reagan/Bush did some quite interesthing things as well. Are they all nuts? Doves or hawks? LIberal, conservative, this shit is as comlicated and nuanced as many of you already know.

What is a solution?
Well I could only offer that we know two apporaches that simply don't f'ing work. The cowboy 'bomb some shit, anything' approach and the do-nothing 'law enforcement only' approach. All sides are guilty of something.

__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 09:36 PM   #45
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



the administration has been nothing but lollypop smacking Pollyannas when it has come to Iraq, and even Afghanistan. they've been remakably un-self critical when it comes to their manifest failures in the prosecution of their own stated goals in the GWOT. THAT is something that would do wonders for us. there was NO post-war plan for Iraq. we walked away from Afghanistan, and especially the Tora Bora mountains, because a foolish invasion of Iraq had to fit an electoral time table.

you're also ignoring the fact that Bush's most recent rhetoric flies in the face of everything he's said the past 5 years. that Afghanistan was a success. that they would greet us as liberators. that we've turned a corner. that we are in the last throes. that we've killed Al-Qaeda's #2. over and over and over. that, finally, we've got Hussein. that the Mission is Accomplished. that, not to worry, just go shopping. and keep buying your SUVs. don't think, but if you don't vote for us, you'll die.

And you have thoroughly missed my point. i agree, 100%, that there are people who want to kill us, and kill us by the thousands, and if you go back and read the thread, you'll note that i am well aware that my head is first on the chopping block for being gay, and not a day goes by that i am not grateful to live in the West, despite the manifest flaws of this country and the fact that there are people in this country who are just a few baby steps to the left of the Taliban who would gladly have me killed, or jailed, or re-educated. and what's great is that they can hold those beliefs and call me anything they choose, and i can yell right back at them.

the difference, Westport, is that i think there are many, many better ways of "fighting" this war, and rah-rah patriotism, wars of stupidity, jingoistic "with-us-or-against-us" language is precisely the wrong way to go about battling this enemy.



Long day but I wanted to respond to your post.

We'll obviously have to agree to disagree and we're beginning to talk in circles but I see varying shades of gray on how both liberals and conservatives are dealing with this challenge.

I don't believe that there is not a right or wrong way to be fighting this enemy but I do believe it is us against them. To state we are/were wrong or right in our actions, one actually must know the outcome and the outcome if things had been done differently. In another post, I'll discuss how I believe how we could have done things better.

But there is nothing in your argument that addresses how we should go about changing their hatred of Jews or their stated goals of killing millions of Americans and their stated objectives of the annihilation of Israel. Are we not to believe them?

---

And you have thoroughly missed my point. They don't want to kill us by the thousands they want to kill us and Jews by the millions. There are quite a few thousands in just one million. -that would be an attack over 300 times worse than 9/11. Big difference there. And yes, I prefer that in our dealing with a group of lunatics we deal with them on a number of different levels, in a number of different ways.

You might not like the way Bush communicates his tough talk message but I prefer that we do talk tough. It is better that they believe him to be the bad cop....someone on edge. I prefer that we let them know that if they fuck with us; that if they do attack us...there's going to be hell to pay and they're going to feel pain. If you're the neighborhood bully, you're a lot less likely to beat up me and/or my gay friend if I have my parents talk to his parents but if that doesn't work...at some point I want to have a big stick in our hands or let the bully know that he'll get a punch in the nose if he continues to attack us.

--

You are ignoring my question. At what point do YOU believe that it is a war worth fighting for? If there is a dirty bomb in Kansas City will you say that we should have done something different? Will you say then that it is not a war to fight? If it had been a nuclear suitcase on 9/11 and millions were dead would it then have been a war worth fighting for ( and not just in a military way)? And shouldn't we responding if that's about to happen? If they had access to portable nuclear technology then...don't you believe they would have used it at that time? Won't they when they acquire it? Do you believe, do you KNOW that it won't happen? Do you really belive that conservatives are really the big bad boogeyman by actually talking about this? Or is that not a real possibility? What is that you've seen that tells you that they are not that crazy? I am not at all confident that it won't happen in my children's lifetimes or mine for that matter. Can you tell my kids that it won't?

That's your American right.

And I disagree that because you're gay, you'll be first on the chopping block. They're not interested in making those distinctions. It didn't happen that way on 9/11. Maybe at some point if they start going door to door.

And just suppose millions die in Israel by the hands of Iran? What would be YOUR response? What should our response be? Or is that not our problem? Should we not be worried about Iran? They are talking about the destruction of Israel. They don't really mean it, do they?

Iran has the marks of Germany at the start of WWII but unlike Germany, technology today can deliver the equivalent of those WWII deaths in 10 minutes. And that technology can be traded, sold and flown to another country or terrorist on a moments notice. But that's really not our problem. The truth of the matter is that 99% of the planet doesn't remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was sixty one years ago. And I don't want another one. But I believe that there are those inside radical Islam that do.

And if someday during lunch, there is a bright flash in downtown Los Angeles, I know that I don't want my last thought to be that we should have been more aggressive with these groups. I think of that when I'm at the mall in D.C., in New York, in Boston, in Chicago, San Francisco...

Do you really believe that this will go away and that we won't face any of these problems if there is a Decrocrat in the White House? I believe very little will change.

And if I may quote Robert Evans, "There are three sides to every story: Your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying."
__________________

__________________
Westport 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 02:59 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