October 21, 2006

Thank God for George W. Bush

"W" has taken it in the teeth for his war on Iraq, but, to be fair, let's look at Saddam's Hussein's rap sheet:

- He surrounded himself with lackeys so stupid and/or cowed that he never heard any criticism of even his cruelest or most idiotic decisions,
- He literally believed that God was "on his side" and that rationalized any actions he took, no matter how heinous, against those who worshipped a different god,
- His party controlled the media, so they fed his people a steady diet of misinformation about how great he was and how evil his enemies were,
- He rigged elections to ensure he stayed in power while still seeming democratic; winning with results that turned out to be statistically almost impossible. His cronies in government (including members of his family) ignored, overrode, and silenced any complaints about the voting process,
- He had no concept of "civil rights": he spied on his own people when it suited him and stifled free speech when it bothered him, and kept his country in a perpetual state of high alert that was very close to martial law,
- He unilaterally branded those he even suspected of treachery "enemies of the state" and had them arrested without any due process or charges,
- He had these "enemies" thrown into gulags and tortured until they confessed, or just tortured to scare his other "enemies", real or imagined,
- He amassed a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that, if unleashed, could decimate any country he decided was his enemy, which was an ever-growing list,
- He squandered his country's riches on wars and on pampering his rich friends, at the cost of his people's education, health, and well-being,
- He drove his people to war to expand his empire, killing thousands of his own soldiers in the name of "safety" for his people,
- On his order, over three thousand Americans have died in Iraq.

So I say, thank God for men like George W. Bush, who are willing to say to tyrants like this: No, sir, this will not stand. I will do anything in my power to depose you and bring freedom to your people and safety to the world.

"The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit." -- George Bush, 2003

Thank God. If only there were more men like that.


--

I know some of you are tired of me making political posts. I am, too. Really. But I don't think I have the luxury of ignoring politics any more. We are on the verge of losing our country, and I refuse to stay silent because I might alienate some people by yelling about it. It's time to yell about it. On October 18th, two days after my birthday, Bush signed a law throwing habeas corpus to the winds, and explicitly ALLOWING Americans to torture their unlawful prisoners: "enemy combatants" which *he* is allowed to define.

Maybe his Secret Service will read this and decide *I* am an enemy combatant that needs to be silenced. They could; there is nothing to stop them. Their jackboots could kick in my door some night, haul me off without charging me with any particular crime, torture me until I tell them whatever they want to hear, and then trumpet to the world how successful they are at eliminating terrorists like me.

In eighteen days we have a chance to elect a majority in both the house and senate who will oppose Bush for the next two years, and stop this insanity. I am urging you to do what you can. Even just showing up and watching for voter fraud would help. Take a laptop to your polling place and blog what you see. We've had the last two national elections stolen from us, and if we let it happen again _we_ are to blame.

This is the *real* national emergency. Compare the number of Americans who have died for no reason in Iraq (2,279), by Bush's order, to the number who died in the 9/11 attacks (2,973). What are we doing? How is this worth it? Why are our priorities so far out of whack?

Why are we giving up our civil liberties, spending trillions on wars, and sacrificing our kids' lives at Bush's behest? Every year more Americans die of cancer (190x), AIDS (4x), heart disease (309x), and car accidents (20x) than died in 9/11. What are we so afraid of? Why are we willing to spend trillions to depose a puffed-up dictator on the other side of the world but not a couple million to educate our kids in music and art?

We have let the fear of violence against us turn us into animals. We're so frightened by those images of jets crashing into skyscrapers that we've forgotten that being the victim of a terrorist attack is, in fact, among the least likely of the bad things that can happen to us. We have to stop.

175 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the alternative? It's not like the Democrats were anti-PATRIOT act.

At least with GOP you get tax cuts, which like it or not have significantly contributed to the competitiveness of the US economy. Of course some have been badly thought out/implemented (like the famous Hummer tax credit), but in general they are worthwhile.

Note: I'm not a US citizen or resident. I can't vote in this election, just my 2 cents on this.

October 21, 2006 7:00 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

There are many, many Democrats who oppose Bush's acts of insanity, and many more hoping to be elected in 18 days.

And the US economy was actually much stronger under Bill Clinton. It's ironic that Republicans fall back on the "well, at least we're good for your wallet" argument when our best years have been under Democrats (since Reagan).

October 21, 2006 7:08 AM

 
Blogger Jack said...

I think it's really great that you write these political posts, Wil. People need to be challenged to think about their political opinions; even on blogs about Mac development.

It's too easy to stay uninformed (or worse, misinformed) about the political environment.

October 21, 2006 7:24 AM

 
Anonymous Imperfect said...

Fucking A, sir.

Were I an American I would certainly be voting the bastards out.

As a neighbor to your north however, I'm just happy to have people like yourself using the media power you have to effect change.

Perhaps a win this year will also grant a win in two years, and your government can finally return from the brink of insanity and criminality.

It's really upsetting for me to love Americans but hate America, you know?

October 21, 2006 7:29 AM

 
Blogger jay said...

Well said.

I have to vote on a Diebold machine, and am wondering what will happen if I cause a scene by demanding a paper ballot.

October 21, 2006 7:30 AM

 
Anonymous Torsten said...

You know how annoying this is? I would vote against Bush and the Republican Party as soon as I could, but living in germany, I can't. This is not fair, after all, in the current globalised world, decisions made in the US have huge impacts on life in any country. But all I can hope to do for or against these laws is elect people who might try to to hinder Bush at being as bad as he could be.

October 21, 2006 7:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great post Wil. Keep on writing political posts!

October 21, 2006 7:47 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kudos. Excellent post.

October 21, 2006 7:56 AM

 
Blogger Trekkie said...

Thanks, glad to see there are more sane people out there.

October 21, 2006 7:59 AM

 
Anonymous Marco said...

Amen to that. And while we are at it, why not assign some blame to the other side of your political spectrum as well? After all, really, it's all about the shade of shite that comes out of the system; American non-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do have their precedents in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Venezuela, Colombia, the Caucasus, South-East Asia and then some. Republicans and Democrats alike - if they get any chance at defending your corporations' interests in the province, they do not waver.

Nevertheless, Will, I respect your use of the goodwill you've amassed with software writing for pointing out some of the wrongdoings of your current regime.

Cheers,

Marco

October 21, 2006 8:03 AM

 
Blogger Paul Davidson said...

Everything you say there is true, Will — except that you're not going to find your solution in the voting booth. The Republicans and Democrats are practically the same party — anyone who's not American can see that plain as day. Every election, the "two" parties and the media play the same game: take an extremely narrow range of opinions, which may differ slightly on how to fight useless wars and how to waste the people's money, and present them as political opposites.

Majoritarianism is a con game, and all your voting districts are gerrymandered anyway — to the point where only a handful of seats out of hundreds are ever a contest in any election. One vote never counts, and Caesar can throw bread to more government-dependent, clueless voters than you can hope to reach by blogging (though I applaud your efforts and spirit).

October 21, 2006 8:20 AM

 
Blogger Robert Padbury said...

I wasn't afraid of George W Bush until I read this book. After reading it, I am astounded at the atrocities this man has done (some I wasn't even aware of).

October 21, 2006 8:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What you guys need is Jed Bartlett. Now THAT was a president.

Seriously. Aaron Sorkin for President.

John

October 21, 2006 8:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The sooner America collapses of its own dead weight, the better off the rest of the world will be.

October 21, 2006 9:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Republicans and Democrats are practically the same party"

I really get tired of this statement.

The Bush party has brought the country so far from a moderate or centrist type of government it's scary.

Bush/Cheny isn't your dad's republican party.

October 21, 2006 9:47 AM

 
Anonymous Coty said...

Wil,

Don't stop the posts. In fact, do try to keep them coming at a steady clip. Otherwise, how will we know when they do come cart you off for this one?

Fortunately, given the ineptness of this administration's handling of just about everything, you probably needn't worry. Though I'm sure they would like to lock you up, I doubt they'd really get around to it.

Plus, they probably won't pick up on the irony of the lead in, so you're probably safe. In fact, if they don't read any further (and we know W. isn't a reader), you might just get added to a "friends" list.

October 21, 2006 10:05 AM

 
Anonymous David Chartier said...

Wil - thank you. Keep these posts coming.

October 21, 2006 10:14 AM

 
Anonymous Arden said...

Hear, hear! Now if we could just do something about this Governator in my state.

October 21, 2006 10:27 AM

 
Blogger Kevin Hoctor said...

Keep the posts coming Wil!

No matter how screwed up your political views are, dialog is always important. ;->

If you think that any one president has helped or hurt the economy in the last 50 years or so then you really don't understand ecomomics. We are in a world ecomomy and what drives our ecomony is fear. When people are afraid of what will happen, the ecomomy goes down, when they are not it goes up.

Clinton did nothing to help the ecomony, in fact he did very little at all while in office except to remain benign and pretend that his national health care program (or any government run operation of that size) could work. Bill was just lucky to be in office at the right time during the ramp up of the internet.

If you want to do something to help our country: pray for the end of world conflict and push congress to eliminate the IRS (www.fairtax.org). Worry less about being a Democrat or Republican and (Robert) don't believe everything you read. Do your own research.

October 21, 2006 10:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you really don't understand ecomomics. We are in a world ecomomy and what drives our ecomony is fear. When people are afraid of what will happen, the ecomomy goes down, when they are not it goes up...Bill was just lucky to be in office at the right time during the ramp up of the internet.


Humor, right?

I'm laughing.

October 21, 2006 10:42 AM

 
Blogger Ryos said...

We are fortunate to live across an ocean from the insanity of terrorism.

Consider Israel, the other nation everyone loves to hate. I've talked to people who've spent time in Israel; they say that they rarely met anyone who had not lost a family member to a terrorist attack. That's anecdotal evidence, but even if exaggerated, speaks volumes of the danger they face from their mad neighbors.

So yeah, we over here aren't that likely to die by terrorism. Nor, I doubt, would we ever become so, even if we blithely ignored their existence and happily allowed them to keep on killing a few of us here and there with bombs and planes. Heck, even if they got nuclear weapons (like from, say, pakistan), they could probably only take out like five of our cities, right? No big loss.

Oh, wait. On second thought, no. You can call Bush all the names you like, but please, don't ever say our soldiers are dying for nothing because it's not true.

Shifting gears, I'm tired of people blaming only Bush for whatever new laws they don't like. He may instigate and push for them, of course, but they have to go through the house and senate before reaching his desk for final approval. You can't just blame the man; blame the whole house.

If the new law is as bad as you say, then obviously it's unconstitutional and would never hold up in court. Put your money where your mouth is and really challenge it, where it would have a chance of getting struck down. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people to help and support you along the way.

This is America, after all.

October 21, 2006 10:43 AM

 
Anonymous Doug said...

So, coty, "we know W. isn't a reader". Do we? See US News from August of this year.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17bushbooks.htm
This report has him at 60 books in the first 7 to 7.5 months of this year.

October 21, 2006 10:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if I believe the 2-party system is fundamentally flawed?

Sure, Bush has done some horrible things -- I won't try to defend any of them -- but Clinton did some bad things, too. (They did a *great* job of sweeping mistakes like Somalia under the rug at election time.)

If I vote for a third-party candidate, I get accused of handing the election to the republicans. If I vote for a big-2 candidate, I'm voting for somebody I don't want in office just because I'm afraid the other big-2 candidate would be worse, and sure enough, he ends up being a slightly-less-bad jerk in office.

How do I place a vote against the system?

Since, as you point out, we are no longer free, perhaps revolution is the only remaining answer.

October 21, 2006 10:53 AM

 
Blogger The Doc said...

Excellent post.

I wish many Bushites would read this and have it sink in.

October 21, 2006 11:00 AM

 
Blogger Mongo Nikol said...

And why is it anyone believes voting for someone you don't know-slash-have never met-slash-are unconnected to is the answer?

Voting for strangers to represent you is like inviting strangers into your home and giving them the keys and the charge cards...on faith.

Bad faith consequences bad resutls.

Be stupid and vote for strangers, or be smart and vote for changers.

October 21, 2006 11:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

.So, coty, "we know W. isn't a reader". Do we? See US News from August of this year.


From same article...
"But portraying Bush as a voracious reader is part of an ongoing White House campaign to restore what a senior adviser calls "gravitas" to the Bush persona."

Me-skeptical.

October 21, 2006 11:06 AM

 
Anonymous Doug said...

Wil,

When you say that the economy was stronger under Clinton, I am not sure I understand how you are measuring this. While I agree that on the day Clinton left office the economy was still humming (sorry for the Monica reference) right along, do you discount some of this credit since we now know it was a bubble?

Bush inherited this bubble -- which burst. Does he get stuck with this bad stat? Doesn't he get some credit for essentially starting off in negative territory? The burst would have happened even if Gore was elected.

911. 911 was a big hit to our economy. A major financial center was hit. We lost our national sense of safety within our shores. We lost many business leaders--which hurt the future of the economy.

So, given that the last stock market records we experienced were during a recognized unsustainable environment and given the hit our economy took as a result of 911, I think it is amazing that we are where we are at. We are setting new records for the DOW -- this time based on real earnings. Unemployment is at 4.6%.

Anybody have an adjustable mortgage? If you do then you are well aware of the Fed raising the Prime Rate this last year. Why do they do that? To keep in check an economy they perceive as getting too exuberant. I'm not saying the Fed is always correct in reading their crystal ball, but that is what they do.

The economy is very complex and can't be explained in a paragraph, but let me give you a few ideas to think about. Let's stick with an ecosystem we are all familiar with -- the Mac and iPod. The iPod is purely a luxury item. If times were tough, the iPod sales would drop off substantially. How about Delicious Library? Unless you are a Mom and Pop video store and you are using it to track rentals I don't see how this program is anything but a fun luxury toy. I've heard more than once from the developer of this program that sales are through the roof. Maybe Wil could track this guy down and verify this rumor. :)

October 21, 2006 11:50 AM

 
Anonymous johnideal said...

All very well put.

Additionally, I'm glad to see that there are others who have been so moved by the political state of the nation to write about it on their blog, even if politics may not be the immediate focus of it.

Keep it up.

October 21, 2006 11:56 AM

 
Blogger kissfan said...

This is great, Wil. Thanks.

October 21, 2006 11:58 AM

 
Anonymous doug said...


From same article...
"But portraying Bush as a voracious reader is part of an ongoing White House campaign to restore what a senior adviser calls "gravitas" to the Bush persona."

Me-skeptical.


I don't see that quote in this story.

Even if the above quote comes from a different story -- it doesn't matter. The original assertion that I was disproving was that "we know W. isn't a reader".


Here is the whole story.

"Bush's reading list: heavy on bios and baseball

By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted 8/17/06

George W. Bush a bookworm? White House aides say it's so. The born-again president's literary interests start with the predictable, such as his daily readings from the Bible. But he also enjoys books about Abraham Lincoln, his political hero, and, of course, yarns about baseball-in a past life, he was, after all, the managing partner of the Texas Rangers. Staffers say the president is actually engaged in an informal contest with White House senior adviser Karl Rove to see who can read more books this year. The latest score card has Bush ahead 60-50.A sampling of the president's reading list so far this year, according to White House aides:
Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar by Edvard Radzinsky
American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin (a biography of Robert Oppenheimer, an inventor of the atomic bomb)
Clemente: The Passion and Grace of Baseball's Last Hero by David Maraniss (about the late all-star Pittsburgh Pirates right fielder)
Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power by Richard Carwardine
Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural by Ronald C. White Jr.
Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women by Geraldine Brooks
Polio: An American Story by David Oshinsky (discussing how polio affected the United States in the mid-20th century)
The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth by Leigh Montville
The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History by John M. Barry
Salt: A World History by Mark Kurlansky
The Stranger by Albert Camus"

October 21, 2006 12:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You could have easily voted by absentee paper ballot in the time it took you to write this blog post. Why didn't you vote already?

October 21, 2006 12:15 PM

 
Anonymous Larry said...

So if it's no big deal to you that nearly 3,000 people died in a little terrorist attack (and there certainly wasn't any good reason for that) because so many more people die of diseases and car accidents and whatnot, why does it matter to you that fewer than that have died, in your words, "for no reason" in Iraq?

Keep in mind that the soldiers who have died in Iraq voluntarily placed themseleves in harm's way. The people who died in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 had every reason to believe that they would live to see another day.

October 21, 2006 12:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
At least with GOP you get tax cuts, which like it or not have significantly contributed to the competitiveness of the US economy.


No, the GOP doesn't give us tax cuts. Tax cuts are when you lower taxes and lower spending. The GOP gives us tax deferments. They lower taxes, increase spending and take out loans to make up the difference.

GWB is the biggest spender this country has ever had as president. The myth that Republicans are for smaller government and less spending, and that Democrats are for larger government and more spending should be thoroughly shattered after seeing the contrast between Bush II and Clinton.

The GOP is sending us towards insolvency. Watch out in the next few years when the dollar takes a real hit, interest rates see a real rise, the housing market completely collapses, and China stops propping up up our economy so we can buy their products. It's going to be a mess.

The most terrible this is that while lashing out against Democrats for supposedly wanting a "nanny" state, the GOP has given us a Military-Church state. Our economic policies are geared toward increasing corporate profits, not standard of living. Our social policies are driven by Christian zealots eager to legislate their fictitious belief system on the rest of us. Our foreign policy is trying desperately to keep American dominance alive for the sake of the dollar and military contractors. Worse, we have completely lost track of the true meaning of freedom.

Everyone who wants to understand what has really happened in America since WWII, and everyone who considers themselves a Republican, should read as much Eisenhower as possible, especially his Farewell Address where he warns against the perils of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Some Quotes:
A bankrupt America is a defenseless America.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

-Justin

October 21, 2006 12:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The initial comment about tax cuts is the sort of ignorant tripe that really irritates the hell out of me.

The man started an unjust war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, for crying out loud, and you talk about how great it is for people to have more cash in their pockets. WTF is wrong with you?

October 21, 2006 12:34 PM

 
Anonymous Andre said...

Wil, I'm glad your saying something.
People like you, are a real patriot, not just for a country, but for all of us who wish for freedom and civil rights.

Don't let anyone stop you.

October 21, 2006 1:27 PM

 
Blogger victor said...

If I read it correctly, all of these points you mention apply to Bush... don't they?

For a moment I thought you were in the loony side! Phew!

October 21, 2006 1:27 PM

 
Anonymous Mike said...

Wil,

We have the unfortunate luxury of having front-row seats as America adapts to the icky realities of global asymmetric warfare.

History may prove the title of your post to be correct. Ironic perhaps, but possible.

I'm not going to change many minds here, but it may give some of your readers reason to momentarily rethink the context of their animosity toward GWB.

Here we go....

If W was such a deceitful guy, he likely would have planted some fake devices in the Iraqi countryside, and arranged a photo op with men and women in space suits carting the nuclear validation of his pre-emptive foreign policy away for safe keeping.

But it didn't happen that way. In fact, there is a ton of "evidence" that the WMD Myth might turn out to be a myth itself. Just for grins, Google "John Shaw WMD" sometime.

Here's why I'm open to that possibility that the whole WMD fiasco, and subsequent free-fall of the president's popularity is grounded in intentional misinformation:

When W was running for president, he told a reporter one time that he likes to be "Misunderestmated".

Since he's the same guy whether he is wearing his Commander-in-Chief hat or his Political Candidate hat, it seems reasonable on the surface that he would judo-esquely leverage his negative public perception to meet his difficult policy objectives.

I believe that since I didn't lose a leg or a loved one in the desert, my opinion regarding the Iraq war really doesn't count that much. That being said, there are a bunch of details that just don't jive with the conventional wisdom about the war and its justification, especially given the under-reported DOCEX findings.

In closing, perhaps the best thing that could come out of the "W as tyrant" point of view that you and so many others seem to share would be a mass influx of folks rallying 'round the 2nd Ammendment, because a well-armed populace is true tyranny's worst nightmare.


--Mike

October 21, 2006 1:39 PM

 
Blogger DJN said...

Ben Franklin said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

October 21, 2006 1:51 PM

 
Blogger DJN said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 21, 2006 1:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush ROCKS!!!

He is doing an awesome job as president. I want to see you do a better job running the worlds most powerful country. Has he made mistakes? Sure, are they as bad as you make them out to be? NO!!! You have no idea what it takes to make the decisions he has to make.

Bush is doing a GREAT job as president! There is no better person to have at the helm of our country.

October 21, 2006 1:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Doug

All I can say is, the fact that you choose to parse seemingly irrelevant little opinions, instead of focusing on the simple fact that we have in office a man that is inadequate to the job is, well, a sign of the times.

And a sad one at that. The arguments about changing the staff over at the high political offices is not about what has come before, it is about what is happening now.

Another reason for change is that people are attempting to legislate morality from a religious standpoint to secure votes, instead of simply focusing on boring social issues.

People like you are the biggest cork in the asshole of progress. You have to move on, when something does not work, you try something new, period.

It is also very important for you philosophical neophytes (condescending tone added) to understand something regarding this "the other side is just as worse, there is no choice" argument:

-Yes the system is flawed.
-Yes corporate influence has always been there.

But the person elected DOES make a difference.

No reasonable person could argue that electing Gore (insert anyone's name you like) instead of Bush would have made a huge difference in the last 6 years of millions of peoples lives.

My point is not wether the difference is better or worse, but rather that there is, in fact, a difference.

Anyhow, thank you Wil for bringing attention to the fact that yes, each person can make a difference for the future of this country and the world.

Go make it.

October 21, 2006 2:06 PM

 
Anonymous SJLinNYC said...

Larry said:
Keep in mind that the soldiers who have died in Iraq voluntarily placed themseleves in harm's way.

This is only true of the men and women who enlisted after 9/11. Many who had done so prior to that day probably believed they'd never see a day's combat, and that being in the armed services was a good way to pay for college.

As a survivor of the 9/11 attacks in New York City, I am sickened by what George W. Bush and his rubber-stamp Republican cronies have done in the name of keeping this country safe. "They hate us for our freedom," he used to say of the terrorists. Well, this week, George Bush took away a huge portion of the freedom granted by the Constitution, and they still hate us. Way to go, George. In my book, that means the terrorists won.

October 21, 2006 2:39 PM

 
Blogger njyo said...

As much as I agree on your post, Wil. I do not agree with the two points you blaim Saddam for: WMD and poor education. Those are both not true for Iraq, but highly urgent for the US.

I do hope that the US citizens will finally bring a change since we in Europe obviously are still just a flock of sheep re-chanting what "the leader of the free world" sings.

October 21, 2006 2:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want more posts about shirts!

October 21, 2006 2:55 PM

 
Blogger Phil Aaronson said...

Vote loggerhead. If the president is Republican, vote a Democrat in for Congress. If the president is a Democrat, vote Republican for Congress.

October 21, 2006 3:16 PM

 
Blogger The Nog said...

And the US economy was actually much stronger under Bill Clinton.

This isn't true. In fact, factors like unemployment reached record lows, but these things don't get reported as enthusiastically by the press as they were under the Clinton years. Ahem.

These political posts really turn me off. I'm sick of Democrats anyway; they want everyone to forget they voted to go to war just like the Republicans did. "How dare Republicans use scaremongering tactics by telling everyone we're still not safe from terrorism! Oh, and by the way, we're still not safe from terrorism, but it's not being hypocritical to tell you that!"

As for the "torture" stuff, that's just an emotionally loaded word Bush haters use for coerced interrogation which includes lame things like sleep deprivation. Ooh, the horror of making someone stay up late so that they tell us about future terror attacks.

Without coerced interrogation, we wouldn't have a Brooklyn Bridge, as there was a terror attack thwarted based on information gained during such interrogation.

Blech!

October 21, 2006 4:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You poeple in Europe should be thanking us every time your in trouble you need us (U.S.) to get you out of it we should back off and let you fend for your self good luck....everyone else remember this quote

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

October 21, 2006 8:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please make more posts like this, Wil. Really.

October 21, 2006 8:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watching the blogs it’s pretty amazing. As we all know we are a few days away from mid term elections. There is a lot of talk about “how bad the Bush administration” is and how
badly they are running things and how much better the Democrats or anybody but Bush
is gonna loose if the democrats get it to congress etc. etc. etc….

News flash, Bush isn’t up for re-election, duh!!!. So then I got to thinking what’s this really about? Let’s flood the Internet with pointless deceptive talk that makes the government look like a bunch of dorks that they really are, right Dem’s?- political party of corporate distrust? Just remember, if either our Government or our corporate structure goes down, we all lose, game over!

Just then I start thinking, ok I know how to respond to the rhetoric and then someone like Justin comes along (Justin I’m not picking on you in particular) you actually bring up a good viewpoint, but in reality I could go on and on and on why you are wrong, and your truth’s are skewed, but then what’s the point? You would do the same, wouldn’t you?

So get to the point! The point is, that political battles can only be won when you actually compare your “facts” against my facts and we actually verify one or the other. Until then
all is vanity as Ecclesiastics says. You aren’t going to take the physical time to bring out
all your sources nor am I so there is no point. None of us has that much time. I go by experience, if it works, I will measure, plan and hopefully fix. If not, I will dissect as best as I can like everyone else. Ultimately it’s up to everyone to decide who is right and who is blowing smoke.

Well, I could go on and on, but again I would rather list the real reason I’m posting. I love the war in Iraq and here’s why….

10> It’s brought a nasty unpopular war to a bunch of nasty unpopular people e.g. Taliban,
and Al-Qaeda- on their soil instead of ours. Places an Exclamation point after 9/11! For those who lost loved ones regardless of what others may think.

9> The best of the best are over there and they are fighting on your behalf whether you like it or not. If you don’t like it, then pray to Jesus to make it stop. Don’t believe in Him? Bummer! Your loss ;)
8> We took the lead on removing a dysfunctional family (Iraq) Whether it was WMD or his complete world class arrogance toward us and the world, he’s gone and his days are numbered thank you very much.
7> Our security has improved and is much better than before 9/11
6> We have galvanized the world. We know who is with us and who is not. It’s nice to know who your enemy’s are and who your allies are. Nothing worse than not being able to tell which side is on which. I don’t agree with dems/liberals at all, but you know what? They are my balance I know which side they are on, and I love them for that and I love them because they are American! They may hate me and what I stand for, but I can say I love them because I know deep down most of them love America too ;) psssst...Note to Neo cons~ it’s really hard to hate someone when they say they love you don’t you think? Big grin!!
5> War economy’s are better than non-war economy’s (I might be wrong on that), it’s just what I’ve heard and war seems like it spawns new technology which is also a positive. Please spare me on the selfish American talk. I get it.
4> Every year Al-Qaeda did something during the Clinton Administration to us here WTC 93’ for example and abroad USS Cole etc.., this stopped and has been centralized to Iraq and Afghanistan for the most part.
3> It really pisses off the liberal base that we even have a war. I like watching my lib buddies get their edges a bit tinged once in a while. Makes for good Neo fodder.
2> like # 6 it galvanizes a nation, again, if you smell like a lib, look like a lib, typically you are one whether you like the title or not, so just let er’ fly cause I’m sure your responses are gonna be a doozy.

And the number one reason I like the war in Iraq, we have Iran surrounded who is everyone’s real source of embarrassment and is betting that the US and the US public can’t stomach the pain of war so they are ramping up Syria and the whole jihad thang so we all believe it’s ol GW’s fault that we are in this thing and that he just want’s the oil etc. etc.. Notice how smug the Iranian leader is lately? Is it me or do all Muslim leaders excel over American arrogance? Gee I thought we were the most arrogant nation on earth- I rather liked being number one at something. Saddam and the Iranians have got us beat hands down in that department, and what makes matters even worse…. Most anti war Neo’s believe it! Come on, you gotta love it! ;)

October 21, 2006 8:40 PM

 
Anonymous N. said...

ALERT: Gratuitous Ad hominem.

Wil Shipley=Chicken Little

You won't be leading me to Foxy Loxy with your early-60's-sitcom-hysterics and smarter-than-thou-preening.

Wil Shipley!=policy wonk

Shut up and code.

October 21, 2006 8:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the war in Iraq and here’s why….

Why are you here then?

The army needs you there.


Fuckin chickehawk.

October 21, 2006 9:32 PM

 
Anonymous james said...

Wow, there's a whole bunch of neocon republicans posting here.

October 21, 2006 9:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good. I think you're right, Wil, that it is just too important right now to refrain from posting about this stuff.

I usually agree with the many who say (here and elsewhere) that US politicians as a class are dysfunctional creeps in the main, and that there is not a huge difference between the professional Democrat politicians and professional Republican politicians. To generalize (accurately), they're a lot more like each other than they are like anybody you would want to know or invite to dinner.

That said, GEORGE W BUSH IS SOMETHING UNIQUE, ABHORRENT AND VERY VERY DANGEROUS. This guy totally changes the equation.

He is a stupid, stupid man. I don't mean his policies are stupid (although his stupidity is reflected there as well), but I mean it in the more clinical sense. As in: sit him down with a few elementary schoolers and set them on a few problems of basic logic, action and consequence, mathematics, or reading comprehension. Guess who comes in last.

He's a religious zealot, who substitutes the weird convictions of his own interpretation of Christianity for logic when making policy decisions.

But there are lots of losers like this in the world, and some of them even become presidents (look at Iran). What makes Bush Jr. so uniquely dangerous is that he has, on the wings of the 9/11 attacks, unexpectedly been handed an unprecedented opportunity to damage the United States of America (I am not even considering any other part of the world here).

When an overzealous imbecile gains the presidency and starts to radically reshape the United States government, it would normally actually be stopped. We have systems in place, flawed though they be, that typically prevent things like: making people disappear, gulags, negating constitutional rights, and hurling young Americans in to an idiotic war that never, from the very outset, had any possible outcome that could be called a victory.

But GWB has pushed the envelope much, much farther than anybody else has ever been able to do, on the basis of being the stupidest US president in history, *and* happening to come along at one of the most critical moments in US history.

Bush has done a lot more to harm the United States and its citizens in the past few years than any jerkoff terrorist ever has, or could. He needs to be stopped, and the first step is electing those who oppose him. This election, for the most part, the means voting for Democrats.

October 21, 2006 11:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will, as a political columnist you make a great software developer.

Please, stick to what you know. The world has enough armchair strategists already, especially ones who seem singularly informed by Michael Moore movies and Sorkin-era episodes of The West Wing.

Be honest: if people showed as much cynicism towards your blog and as you show towards politics then you'd be in trouble. It would be obvious just what sort of stunt this exercise is. (Perhaps you've done the math and determined that there are more sales of Delicious Library to be had from first-time-voter liberals than red necks?)

BTW, comparing Saddam to Bush? It may well garner you the attention you clearly need but normally it would just be DUMB. Since you seem to be reasonably intelligent, it's safe to conclude that such a comparison is needlessly argumentative if not malicious.

October 21, 2006 11:54 PM

 
Anonymous Peter said...

Amen, brother. Amen.

October 22, 2006 12:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While the parallels you draw between Saddam Hussein and George Bush are, for the most point, valid (in kind, if not always by degree), I believe that Hussein was a secular leader, who eschewed God, and not a messianic demagogue, as you suggest.

October 22, 2006 1:07 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Ryos: Oh, wait. On second thought, no. You can call Bush all the names you like, but please, don't ever say our soldiers are dying for nothing because it's not true.

Yes, it is. I'm sorry, it's a horrible thought, but Iraq didn't start this war. They didn't attack us. The only mission we've accomplished by invading Iraq is convincing millions more muslims that we really are xenophobes. We are LESS safe today than when we started this war, according to the American government's own statistics.

I specifically said in my post that if we elect a Democratic congress and senate we can block Bush -- note that he controls both houses, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about. The fact his fellow partymembers are in collusion with him doesn't make him less evil or less personally culpable.

Larry: So if it's no big deal to you that nearly 3,000 people died in a little terrorist attack (and there certainly wasn't any good reason for that)...

Way to intentionally misinterpret my argument. I didn't say it's not a big deal when thousands of people die. I'm saying it's not a good trade to give up everything we care about, and sacrifice thousands of more lives, in the name of stopping this attack that's already happened, even though we're not actually taking any actions that will lessen terror attacks, and in fact we are only exacerbating the situation.

The Nog: As for the "torture" stuff, that's just an emotionally loaded word Bush haters use for coerced interrogation which includes lame things like sleep deprivation. Ooh, the horror of making someone stay up late so that they tell us about future terror attacks.

You obviously haven't read the bill or paid any attention to what's actually happened in the gulags we run. The bill allows us to inflict "serious pain" on prisoners who we have charged with no crimes. Don't talk about things you haven't researched, it merely propagates evil.

If we ONLY tortured the actual evil terrorists, well, maybe you could justify it. But how do you know who's a terrorist ahead of time? We have NEVER given a blank check to a government to torture its people and had it be used in a responsible manner.

The first reported case of death by torture by Americans was in The New York Times in 2003 by Carlotta Gall. The military had announced the prisoner died of a heart attack, but when Gall actually saw the death certificate, written in English and issued by the military, it said the cause of death was homicide. The "heart attack" came after he had been beaten so often on this legs that they had "basically been pulpified," according to the coroner. (from Molly Ivins)

Sleep deprivation? I don't think this causes your legs to be pulpified.

You tell me what we got out of stacking naked Iraqis in prison and sexually assaulting them and posing in front of them at Abu Ghraib. That's not the exception, it's the rule. We can't, as a people, torture our prisoners, because we are supposed to be the good guys. If we give this up, what's our justification again? What are we protecting?

Without coerced interrogation, we wouldn't have a Brooklyn Bridge, as there was a terror attack thwarted based on information gained during such interrogation.

This is such an illogical statement it boggles my mind. Who told you this? The same government that told you that it had accomplished its mission in Iraq? That Iraq had WMDs? That it was ok to torture?

If you're this naive, I actually have some shares in the Brooklyn bridge I'd like to sell you.

Anonymous: Please, stick to what you know.

You're right, I shouldn't exercise my right to participate in the political process. I mistakenly believed this was the foundation of democracy, but clearly I'm an idiot -- I need to leave this to the experts, who have completely fucked over our country.

Honestly, at this point just about anyone, no matter how ill-informed, could do a better job running the country than GWB and his clownies.

-W

October 22, 2006 1:14 AM

 
Anonymous Pościel Wełniana said...

Very internesting point of view, although I don't agree in few matters.

October 22, 2006 1:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will, you are building a strawman.

Nobody is saying you are not allowed to express your point of view.

But there are better places for it than a blog normally reserved for SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, especially Cocoa and ObjC development.

You are not being persecuted. You are not being howled down. You have simply been called on an obvious stunt.

You have shown previously that you do not handle contradiction or correction too well and are generally intolerant of other people's views.

As a marketing tool, this is crass and obvious. Get back to your day job and improve Delicious Library so that it runs in real time and offers better functionality for international customers.

October 22, 2006 1:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will, you are building a strawman.

Nobody is saying you are not allowed to express your point of view.

But there are better places for it than a blog normally reserved for SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, especially Cocoa and ObjC development.

You are not being persecuted. You are not being howled down. You have simply been called on an obvious stunt.

You have shown previously that you do not handle contradiction or correction too well and are generally intolerant of other people's views.

As a marketing tool, this is crass and obvious. Get back to your day job and improve Delicious Library so that it runs in real time and offers better functionality for international customers.

October 22, 2006 1:35 AM

 
Blogger Rory Prior said...

Great post Will :) Hopefully you've got paper ballots in your state.

October 22, 2006 6:20 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Anonymous troll:

I'm not sure how you decided what my blog was "reserved for." Have you read my entries on, uh, "Ray" (the movie), my kittens, depression... just general crap?

How can it be a crass marketing ploy for me to alienate 49% of Americans by posting my political beliefs so strongly? What exactly do I have to gain from this?

It's obvious you are just trying to get me mad when you call me crass, insult my program, and say I'm over-sensitive to criticism in the same post. You should have picked one.

It's funny, because I have plenty of flaws, and you're obviously rooting for them, but you don't know me well enough to pick at the right ones to actually bug me. Why don't you tell me how fat my momma is and how ugly my girlfriend is while you're at it?

Why are you here if you hate reading what I write so much? It's just making you angry. Go do something you like.

Seriously, this isn't a democratic place. It's my blog. I get to write what I like. Them's the rules. The lucky thing is, you can have a blog, too. You can have three if you'd like. You're king there. Go! Go be king!

Leave me be. It helps you none to try to take me down a peg.

-W

October 22, 2006 7:23 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the war in Iraq and here’s why….

Why are you here then?

The army needs you there.


Fuckin chickehawk.
-----
Is that the best you can do? call me a chickehawk? Gee, so personal, so meaningful I'm so offended...NOT. Well you fall under my #3 reason then. BTW, they probably could use me over in Iraq, but I'm too old, sorry your turn ;)

October 22, 2006 7:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What would you cry babies be writing about had the insurgency not taken place? Do you really think a country can be changed overnight? Give me a break.

There are groups of people (maniacs) that if given a nuclear explosive they take it and use it first chance they get. I for one appreciate tough non-traditional and yes very possibly inhumane approaches against these bastards. Tough times call for desperate measures. Innocent people are and will likely continue to suffer in our tough stance, but this is absolutely necessary considering the worse-case scenario for my country, my neighbors, and my family.

Keep generalizing and not for one minute taking into consideration all the evil that can result of a passive stance against people that believe their god wants them to destroy America.

I'm not a Republic and will never be and no I haven't been brain washed to what you would call Republican scare tactics. Please see what's occurring throughout the world and then keep crying like a baby because there are things to cry about.

October 22, 2006 9:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love you. :)

October 22, 2006 10:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, give me a break, Wil. My grandfather did time for protesting WW I, and I sure don't see anyone tossing Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore in jail. How far down the list do you think you are? The truth of the matter is, you have NO FEAR at ALL of being tossed in jail for blogging about how much you despise GWB.

If GWB were even as much of an authoritarian as FDR, every Muslim in the United States would be behind bars, or at least a fence at the Santa Ana racetrack.

Frankly, you're not doing any good with overblown fantasies of someone coming to take you away for calling Bush a fascist. Clinton had two people arrested for heckling him; does that make him the second coming of Mussolini?

Your buddy Al Gore was a big fan of the Clipper chip, does that mean that he was hoping to create an American Stasi if he got elected?

What drives me up the wall as a Libertarian, is the way that liberals pretend that only republicans encroach on our rights, and that the democrats are somehow going to make everything right. The record simply doesn't support that contention. Count up the democrats who voted for the patriot act, for christ's sake. (Not to mention their tireless efforts to disarm the public, lest we get too uppity when they're in charge.)

Oh, and as for the economy, to give a president credit for an economic recovery is like give a flea credit for the dog. Governments do not help economies; at best, they can refrain from adding to the damage they do to an economy long enough for the market to work around their interference.

We had a period of prosperity during the Clinton administration thanks to the legislative deadlock of different parties holding the white house and the congress. We had a similar period of prosperity when Reagan was in office for the same reason.

-jcr

October 22, 2006 12:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@jcr

Sounds like a good reason to vote Democratic this time around.

October 22, 2006 1:20 PM

 
Anonymous John Muir said...

I'm not American or Democrat or Republican, but I do have to say this:

Nuclear terrorism is the real risk waiting in the wings.

The USSR were never mad enough to "start world war III". But non governmental groups like terrorists don't have coordinates on a map to assure their destruction in retaliation. Barely plausible deniability such as surrounded Iran and Syria's involvement in this year's Lebanese war is also threatening to have a hand in this. There is whether we like it or not a new cold war emerging right now and both sides will have nuclear weapons. Moscow never had a Palestine to trip the trigger. How extreme are the beheadings and suicide bombs we see today? And how covert is the ease of movement such terrorist celebrities as bin Laden have right across Afghanistan and on through the Middle East?

I opposed the Iraq war before the invasion even happened. It has done no good at all, and at huge cost. But I don't sit back and think tomorrow will be safer than today either. Far from it.

We have some pretty huge problems and potential wars lying ahead of us this century. The less bone headed leadership like the Bush administration the better. But isolationism will ultimately be the cause of the biggest disasters. We have to keep our eyes open.

October 22, 2006 1:32 PM

 
Anonymous lis said...

It's true. Voting is terribly important. Unfortunately, the Dems COULD have filibustered the Military Commissions act and chose not to. Pelosi has already stated that Bush will not be impeached if Democrats take the house. So, sure, Bush will have a harder time in office if Dems take the house in this election but it only helps so much. What else are we going to do?

It's a damn good blog, though.

October 22, 2006 1:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deadlock in government is the best you can hope for if you vote for either of the major parties. Personally, I support the people who come completely out of the blue like Jesse Ventura, who can occasionally get into office and scare the crap out of the Ruling Party.

Political parties are an unfortunate phenomenon which our constitution didn't really anticipate. The plan was that we were supposed to actually know who we were voting to send to the electoral college, and trust them to choose the best person for the job.

-jcr

October 22, 2006 2:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and one other thing about voting.. Pay attention to local and state elections, and primaries, too. Kansas' evolution fracas was an example that shows that it doesn't really take a lot of people to get a nut on a school board and make your state a laughing stock around the world.

IIRC, the LaRouchies managed to snag the democratic nomination for a member of their cult for a statewide office in Illinois, and there was also the time that David Duke the nazi got the republican nomination for governor of louisiana. In both cases, (and the McGovern nomination, for that matter), a small, highly motivated pack of whackos caught a major party napping.

-jcr

October 22, 2006 2:12 PM

 
Anonymous Damien Sorresso said...

elosi has already stated that Bush will not be impeached if Democrats take the house.

What'd be hilarious is, if the Democrats take the House, they draw up article of impeachment anyway. Then when asked, Pelosi can just say, "I lied to get what I wanted. Surely the president can understand that."

October 22, 2006 2:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wil,
I appreciate your opinion, but you are missing a real understanding of history.
First, there are always insurgencies in invaded/conquered/freed countries. We faced more than a decade of this in Germany after WWII. There is still anti-Northerner sentiment in the American South (since the Yankees maliciously abused the Southerners they conquered during Reconstruction).

Real life takes place on a timscale that is many orders of magnitude larger than programming.

As for the alleged torture bill, we already surrender all those rights during a plain ol' traffic stop (you just have the right to sue afterward, if you survive). At some point you must trust the government you elect, or unelect them.

I'm sad that you do not know about the America of WWII or WWI. Do some research on how people HAD to live in order to be safe. And then notice that, today, we have more and more freedoms than those folks did.

The fascists of this age are the Radical Liberals.

October 22, 2006 3:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an out-and-out lie. There hasn't been anything like an insurgency in Germany after the liberation at the end of WW II.

"The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. "

Golo Mann, "The History of Germany Since 1789"

October 22, 2006 4:06 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

SADLY, IT'S INTERNATIONAL CAPS LOCK DAY, SO YOU GUYS HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ME YELLING IN MY RESPONSE.

- THERE ARE OFTEN INSURGENCIES AFTER A WAR, BUT IN PLACES WHERE WE ACTUALLY SPEND SOME DOLLARS RECONSTRUCTING THE LOSING SIDE, WE END UP WITH BETTER FRIENDS THAN EVER. SEE THE SOUTH (ALTHOUGH WE SHOULD HAVE LET THEM "WIN" AND JUST LEAVE OUR DAMN COUNTRY), JAPAN, ETC.

- GWB IGNORED HIS OWN STATE DEPARTMENT'S DETAILED PLANS FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND LET THE MILITARY "HANDLE" THE AFTERMATH OF THE WAR. THIS IS LIKE LETTING YOUR DOBERMAN HANDLE PUTTING STITCHES IN THE NEIGHBOR'S CAT AFTER HE MAULS IT.

- YES, WE ARE AT RISK FROM NUCLEAR ATTACKS. HOWEVER, IT'S IDIOTIC TO THINK WE'RE SAFER BY MAKING MORE ENEMIES. WE HAVE RALLIED MUSLIM EXTREMISTS BY THIS ILL-ADVISED WAR IN IRAQ, MOVING AGAINST A NATION THAT REALLY HAD NO LIKELIHOOD OF ATTACKING US.

I PROPOSE A SIMPLE, RADICAL SOLUTION TO NOT GETTING NUKED, WHICH I CALL, "STOP MAKING ENEMIES." IT WORKS BOTH ON THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD NUKE US *AND* ON THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WHO USED TO BE OUR ALLIES, AND WOULD WORK WITH US TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ATTACKS LONG BEFORE THEY BECAME VIABLE OPTIONS FOR TINPOTS.

OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO PRE-EMPTIVELY INVADE EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AS THEY GET NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, IN ORDER TO FEEL SAFE AT NIGHT? I SOMEHOW DOUBT THAT WILL WORK.

- JCR: YOU ARE ONE CRAZY DUDE. DAMN.

October 22, 2006 4:26 PM

 
Blogger Chicken Blood said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 22, 2006 8:02 PM

 
Blogger Chicken Blood said...

- He literally believed that God was "on his side" and that rationalized any actions he took, no matter how heinous, against those who worshipped a different god,

Unlike Bush, Hussein was very much a secularist who occasionally used religios dogma to his political advantage. Otherwise, the rest of your list is spot-on.

October 22, 2006 8:03 PM

 
Anonymous Andre said...

- YES, WE ARE AT RISK FROM NUCLEAR ATTACKS. HOWEVER, IT'S IDIOTIC TO THINK WE'RE SAFER BY MAKING MORE ENEMIES. WE HAVE RALLIED MUSLIM EXTREMISTS BY THIS ILL-ADVISED WAR IN IRAQ, MOVING AGAINST A NATION THAT REALLY HAD NO LIKELIHOOD OF ATTACKING US.

This is basically how I think. Unfortunately, its much harder (mentally) to make friends than enemies.

October 22, 2006 8:37 PM

 
Anonymous Andre said...

Actually, I meant this one:

I PROPOSE A SIMPLE, RADICAL SOLUTION TO NOT GETTING NUKED, WHICH I CALL, "STOP MAKING ENEMIES." IT WORKS BOTH ON THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD NUKE US *AND* ON THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WHO USED TO BE OUR ALLIES, AND WOULD WORK WITH US TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ATTACKS LONG BEFORE THEY BECAME VIABLE OPTIONS FOR TINPOTS.


I agree with this spot-on.

October 22, 2006 8:39 PM

 
Anonymous alex Deich said...

as fun as that was, I think you should stick to code pimping.

October 22, 2006 9:15 PM

 
Anonymous Jeremy said...

There are groups of people (maniacs) that if given a nuclear explosive they take it and use it first chance they get.

So far, the only "group" that's done that is the United States.

But if you mean "group" as in "non-state political or paramilitary group", there's never been one of those with the financial means to build or sustain a nuclear weapon. The "nuclear threat" issue is about as credible as the threat of invaders from Mars.

October 23, 2006 2:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10> It’s brought a nasty unpopular war to a bunch of nasty unpopular people e.g. Taliban,
and Al-Qaeda- on their soil instead of ours. Places an Exclamation point after 9/11! For those who lost loved ones regardless of what others may think.


I don't think many people, here or otherwise, have argued that the afghan war was unjustified. Many have argued that Bush & company screwed that one up by not using enough troops. Iraq is entirely different issue beecause it had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It is a war of pure greed. #10 makes no sense - you love Iraq War because it's the Afghan War... Afghanistan != Iraq.

9> The best of the best are over there and they are fighting on your behalf whether you like it or not. If you don’t like it, then pray to Jesus to make it stop. Don’t believe in Him? Bummer! Your loss ;)

The fact they are fighting and dying on our behalf for a war that is illegal, unnecessary, and wrong is what bothers most people with regard to this war. Yes, we don't like it - but we're not going to pray about it we're going to protest and vote.

8> We took the lead on removing a dysfunctional family (Iraq) Whether it was WMD or his complete world class arrogance toward us and the world, he’s gone and his days are numbered thank you very much.

Arrogance to US global domination is justification for war now? Look, I'm not saying Iraq under Saddam was a good place but if it were in Africa do you really think we would have done this? There are lots of bad countires in the world, N. Korea comes to mind - but you don't see us going to war with them...

7> Our security has improved and is much better than before 9/11

Hear about the NIE report? Pwnt

6> We have galvanized the world. We know who is with us and who is not. It’s nice to know who your enemy’s are and who your allies are. Nothing worse than not being able to tell which side is on which. I don’t agree with dems/liberals at all, but you know what? They are my balance I know which side they are on, and I love them for that and I love them because they are American! They may hate me and what I stand for, but I can say I love them because I know deep down most of them love America too ;) psssst...Note to Neo cons~ it’s really hard to hate someone when they say they love you don’t you think? Big grin!!

We are galvanizing world opinion towards fear and militarization in reponse to US world aggression. If you're a country that fears the US you know you have no chance of winning a conventional war against us so you're only option for survival is to develop Nuclear weapons because then maybe we'll be too afraid to attack you. Our aggression is causing a worldwide nuclear arms race - not good for anybody.

5> War economy’s are better than non-war economy’s (I might be wrong on that), it’s just what I’ve heard and war seems like it spawns new technology which is also a positive. Please spare me on the selfish American talk. I get it.

It is true that investment into the military-industrial complex during the Cold War spawned much of American technological dominance. But you can invest public money in technology research without a war and there are studies that argue so much govt spending on the military reduces money that could enter the economy.

4> Every year Al-Qaeda did something during the Clinton Administration to us here WTC 93’ for example and abroad USS Cole etc.., this stopped and has been centralized to Iraq and Afghanistan for the most part.

Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Maybe it's providing a nice buffer now - because all their attacks are there - but in the long run it still seems like a net loss. Seems to me like we should be doing things that make it less likely people want to commit terrorist acts against us instead of spurring them on.

3> It really pisses off the liberal base that we even have a war. I like watching my lib buddies get their edges a bit tinged once in a while. Makes for good Neo fodder.

Yeah, the deaths of several thousand American troops and an untold number of Iraqi people is totally worth being able to see your "lib buddies get their edges a bit tinged."

2> like # 6 it galvanizes a nation, again, if you smell like a lib, look like a lib, typically you are one whether you like the title or not, so just let er’ fly cause I’m sure your responses are gonna be a doozy.

I guess this is just trolling - probably this whole post is - guess I just can't help myself. I must really "smell like a lib." At least that means I don't smell like shit! Ooooooo.

And I didn't quite understand the rambling in the #1 point. Something about Iran and arrogance. Sounded like one of the above points

October 23, 2006 7:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that's some good commentary, I don't agree with it but unlike the normal responses that are received, it wasn't personal. Thank you! Regarding your 1st comment, I wasn't suggesting that Iraq = afganistan, they are both completely different and were initiated for different reasons but they are one in that they are a fight on the war on terrorism or at least that is how I understand it. My comment on number 3 was obviously misunderstood like many of the others, but then I expected that. It's unfortuneate that anybody has to die period, I agree but freedom isn't free and sometimes a bully has to be put in his place. You say the war was because of greed, I would like to see some empiricle evidence on that but I don't think Wil let's people post tags on here does he?
Thanks for your comments anyway.

October 23, 2006 8:57 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

I really don't understand Christian conservatives. I'm actually a big fan of Christ's teachings... Christ was a liberal, people. He was a hippie. He hung out with prostitutes and lepers and he told everyone that the way you treat the lowest people is how you'll be judged.

He didn't say, "Hey, give tax breaks to your rich friends and pretend you're lowering taxes for everyone," or "attack nations that have strategic resources you want and lie about it."

I'm pretty sure God himself said, "Thou shalt not kill." I think it was on a big list he had of things you really, really shouldn't do. Like, he wanted to make it clear, so he boiled down the entire book to ten things you really need to avoid.

I don't understand how there's wiggle room. If you're telling me I should pray to your god to end war, why don't you just listen to him yourself?

THOU. SHALT. NOT. KILL.

It's pretty straightforward, I think. You'll note he doesn't say, "* (unless they are BAD people)".

October 23, 2006 10:34 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspired by your commentary, I looked up the law on Thomas. I'm not sure how static its URLs are, so I'll just link to the search page: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.+3930:

I'm intentionally not addressing the vast majority of what you say. All I am dealing with in this post is your concern that jackbooted thugs will be kicking down your door. To wit:

`Sec. 948a. Definitions
`In this chapter:
...
`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
...
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

I make the bold assumption that you are a citizen of the US, Mr. Shipley. If that is indeed the case, you should be safe for the time being, at least. Even if you're an unlawful combatant they can't send you to the tribunal under this law.

October 23, 2006 10:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I really don't understand Christian conservatives. I'm actually a big fan of Christ's teachings... Christ was a liberal, people. He was a hippie. He hung out with prostitutes and lepers and he told everyone that the way you treat the lowest people is how you'll be judged."

Well I'm glad you like Christ's teachings, but I think that's where you might want to stop. Christ wasn't locked into an Ideology, he was neither a "hippie" , "liberal" or "conservative. And hung out with the crew you mentioned only briefly because he is an accepting God and didn't want to alienate anyone from reaching the Kingdom of Heaven. Your comment about thou shall not Kill is way out of context. Your Bible is dusty, go read it again. This is why you don't understand Christians, but your not alone ;)

October 23, 2006 10:51 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

I am informed by http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/aliens-or-citizens-van-erp-peter-van.html that the version you are looking at is the Senate version, and when the House version was reconciled with it (and signed into law) the language changed to the much more permissive House version:

“(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”

--

I, for one, welcome our new fascist overlords.

-W

October 23, 2006 10:53 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Why is it that 100% of the crazy Republicans who post here can't spell or punctuate worth a damn? You can call this an ad-hominem attack if you'd like, but, seriously, you're the ones with the learning disabilities.

Or, possibly I should say "your the one's with the learning disabilities."

October 23, 2006 10:57 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wil, this has been one of your best posts so far. Really, I like it.

And .... you might want to look for and watch "Loose change 2" on Google Video .. some very interesting questions raised there.

Well worth watching!

October 23, 2006 11:07 AM

 
Anonymous Andre said...

THOU. SHALT. NOT. KILL.

It's pretty straightforward, I think. You'll note he doesn't say, "* (unless they are BAD people)".

Wil, I've taken this up with Christians before and the answer is that you've been interpreting it wrong. The true interpretation is "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER."

See, murdering is unjust, killing is. You just have to interpret "correctly..."

October 23, 2006 11:21 AM

 
Anonymous Jonathan said...

Re: my above post.

Note the sections I cited. My argument wasn't based on whether or not we can be declared unlawful combatants. All versions of the law I have checked bear the following items:

948a. (3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Even if you and I are unlawful combatants at the whim of the executive we're still not aliens. It still takes a bit more effort than that to strip citizenship.

October 23, 2006 11:22 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Jonathan -- I couldn't follow your link (it just came up blank), but am eager to follow up on this.

October 23, 2006 11:24 AM

 
Anonymous Jonathan said...

Yes, Thomas search results seem to be in short-lived caches. Just go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search (by bill number) for S.3930 and H.R.6166. This should get you 4 senate results and 2 house results. S.3930.ENR (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) appears to have the version of 948a (1) (A) that you cited.

October 23, 2006 11:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Military Commissions Act (MCA) effectively neutralizes a little document known as the Constitution.

Without habeas corpus, you are at the mercy of King George (or whoever may follow him, assuming he allows such). The MCA doesn't suspend, it abolishes habeas corpus from citizens of the United States.

This effectively cancels out those little 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights, which have no meaning if you can't actually challenge why you've been arrested or put away.

Along with that, the MCA allows "interpretation" of the Geneva Convention -- which is a nice way of saying our torture is "justified".

I wish our President was as interested in promoting democracy here as he is foisting it on others with the barrel of a gun.

Shame on everyone in Congress that voted for this act. Each person that voted on it (whatever your party) should be thrown out as having failed in their duty to protect and defend the Constitution.

October 23, 2006 12:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Defining Jesus as a 'liberal' is really kind of taking a simplistic (and your own biased) view of things.

From my research the term 'kill' is wrongly translated from the original Hebrew. It should be 'murder'.

The bible also states that killers (murderers) should themselves be killed. God is really not very friendly to those that take the lives and property of others.

You might think that Jesus hung around some of the less desirables not to advocate that lifestyle put to persuade them to take a different course.

So you shouldn't really get into a theological discussion without doing years and years of research into theology, ancient languages and symbols and the like.

You wouldn't just jump to conclusions without doing any hard research would you, Wil? Maybe take into account all sides before you speak. You wouldn't use opinions and biases as fact would you, Wil? Maybe you should 'read' some history. You wouldn't want to be accused of not being a 'reader'.

Just because you believe something so deep inside yourself is true and you have some evidence which you believe is true doesn't actually make it true. Opinions and strong beliefs and good ideas don't necessarily make things factual. And just because someone is or is not a reader doesn't make them any more or less able to make decisions based on information that is presented to them.

----

I like your passion. Take it and do good things. Start a charity to help solve some of the problems you list and use your passion to recruit the smartest doctors and researchers to solve the problem. Be the Jerry Lewis of your causes. Nothing in your that you list is within the realm of government to solve. The realm of government is to protect it's citizens so that they themselves can be free to determine how they live their lives.

The great thing about our country is that each one of us has the freedom to change the world. If you don't like something you can use your resources to change it. The less the government is directly involved the better.

'You' think AIDS is important, 'you' think that heart disease is important. 'You' should solve these problems. 'I' have other problems that 'I' want to solve. Don't ascribe your beliefs to my beliefs and try to coerce money and resource from me by the force of government to solve 'your' problems. Should we work together, yes, should we be concerened with great causes, yes, should we force other people help, no. Your are obviously good at making great things and selling them. Did you use government pressure to force people to buy your products? Probably not. Do the same for the causes you believe in and stop thinking that government is required.

----

To somehow gloss over with simplistic word play the differences between GWB and Saddam Hussein, the lives lost on 9/11 and the lives being lost in Iraq is to be about as disengenuous as you can get. Car accidents versus marines? You know the differences, you are smart and understand the scope and magnitude of the differences, yet you use little literary trickeries to gloss over those differences to make yourself look like a 'progressive' thinker. It really comes across as cheap political hackery.

----

To me, you have really moved into the realm of zealotry and care more about your political ideas and goals than if they are really valid. Or you have decided that you are so right that the goals and opinions of other people are not valid.

With regard to global warming, no one really has a definitive answer. No one agrees. No matter how much you say it, there is no consensus. We don't know if there is a problem, we don't know what causes the problem and we don't know how to solve it. So don't pretend that you know all the answers and if we only did what you said the problem would be solved.

----

I was a lefty, way left. I started listening and reading and researching more and more and as I delved in I became aware that most of what I believed was so far from the truth that I became really really pissed at myself for listening to only one side.

October 23, 2006 12:59 PM

 
Anonymous Joe Brell said...

Let's look at it this way, if Bill Clinton was the worst the Democrats could put forward for President and George W. Bush is the worst the Republicans can put forth for President.

Then anybody with just an ounce of common sense would never vote another Republican in office ever again.

October 23, 2006 1:28 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

No matter how much you say it, there is no consensus.

I'm not sure how you define "consensus." Are you looking for 100% agreement among everyone who ever thought about looking at the world? Then, yes, you're right.

Are you looking at, say, peer-reviewed, published articles on the topic? Well, then, yes, there is a consensus. 100% of them agree that global warming is real, is man-made, and is a problem.

So, right there I'm calling BS on your 'research'.

I admit I'm not bible scholar. Even a simple application of logic says that if you shouldn't kill, but you should kill people that kill, well, we've got a problem, because once you've killed then you're allowed to be killed, and we have an endless cycle of killing. Which, hey, is what's happening in real life, and kind of the point I'm driving at. (You say murder, they say it was justified, you kill them, they say that's murder, you say it was justified, they kill you.)

You are certainly right I shouldn't argue scripture, though, because religious zealots really don't give a shit what's written; they'll twist it to mean whatever they want.

Oh, it says, "Thou shalt not kill?" Must be a translation error. Wait, I thought the Bible was protected by some God spell so it magically couldn't be mistranslated or have mistakes? You're saying it is NOT? Well, then how do we know there haven't been OTHER mistakes in the last 2,000 years of copying and translations and revisions? How do we know the original authors got it right, especially seeing as how their interpretations don't even jibe very well? Was there a spell on them, but not on us? When did it expire?

You think I'm a super-lefty because I don't like killing random people and granting our unelected president the right to torture anyone he chooses? Yah, I'm pretty fringe, all right.

I supported the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban. So did the rest of the world. So did Afghanistan! If we'd simply stuck with that, we'd be heroes, AND we'd have a lot less terrorism. The lesson would have been, "Hey, mess with the U.S., we will seriously fuck your shit up."

But now the message is, "Hey, mess with the U.S., and we'll attack a bunch of other people who worship the same god as you but aren't really related to you in any other way, thus completely proving your point and driving your membership WAY up and in no way actually harming your extremist group!"

Wow! Take THAT, you terrorists! I think you've learned YOUR lesson!

I even supported the war on Iraq when it was first proposed, because I believed Bush's lies, all that crap about WMDs and Saddam threatening peace throughout the world. I thought we'd go in and do some good. I thought we'd treat the people of Iraq fairly and help them rebuild their country after it was raped by a dictator for all those years. I thought we'd be the good guys.

I trusted our government. Now I feel like a giant chump. I won't make that mistake again.

I'm much more centrist than you imagine. It's just that, in this climate (both political and meteorological) it's time to start yelling. Things have gotten REALLY bad.

So call me extreme, insult my 'reading', add spurious quotes in the 'middle' of your responses, whatever. It's easy to point fingers and call someone a zealot when he believes strongly in concepts like "right" and "wrong".

Wave your arms and tell me the world is more complex for grown-ups than I understand, if that helps you sleep at night. It doesn't take a damn poly-sci major to see that we dove headfirst into a giant turd when we invaded Iraq, especially in light of the British occupation of Iraq lo those many years ago, and how well that went for them.

My conscience is clear because I'm calling for an end to lunacy. I don't pick fights I think I can win, I pick fights I think need to be won.

October 23, 2006 1:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only way to fix Iraq right now is to hand it back to Saddam or create another potentially worse Regieme. That's the only way Iraq will curtail it's violence in the short term and the current administration is going to have to do something before 2008.

I don't believe it's a coincidence that the Saddam trial verdict is being read two days before the mid-term elections.

And with this administration I really don't believe in coincidences at all.

October 23, 2006 2:35 PM

 
Anonymous Andre said...

Even a simple application of logic says that if you shouldn't kill, but you should kill people that kill, well, we've got a problem, because once you've killed then you're allowed to be killed, and we have an endless cycle of killing. Which, hey, is what's happening in real life, and kind of the point I'm driving at.

Oh, it says, "Thou shalt not kill?" Must be a translation error. Wait, I thought the Bible was protected by some God spell so it magically couldn't be mistranslated or have mistakes?

Yea, thats basically whats wrong with religion in the first place. It seems like people always try to find loopholes in thier beleif system to justify something.

Kinda like smoking pot during Ramadan because alcohol is not allowed.

Kind of like the constitution vs. patriot act/military commisons act, etc....

October 23, 2006 2:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couple quick things...

It's unfortuneate that anybody has to die period, I agree but freedom isn't free and sometimes a bully has to be put in his place.

The idea that "a bully has to be put in his place" is an important one. We are the bully to most of the world.

Iraq is an illegal war under international law - namely the UN charter. Bush wants to expand our nuclear arsenal in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty we signed. We are breaking the Geneva convention with our torture practices.

We are the bullies and this is the root problem. Young muslim men join these extremist groups because they see them as the only forces against US aggression in their homeland.

9/11 and the Iraq War are all symptoms of US imperialism. New metal detectors at airports and restrictions on civil liberties will not end terrorist threats.

To somehow gloss over with simplistic word play the differences between GWB and Saddam Hussein, the lives lost on 9/11 and the lives being lost in Iraq is to be about as disengenuous as you can get. Car accidents versus marines? You know the differences, you are smart and understand the scope and magnitude of the differences, yet you use little literary trickeries to gloss over those differences to make yourself look like a 'progressive' thinker. It really comes across as cheap political hackery.

You're right, the comparison of GWB to Saddam is not fair - Bush was/is a much bigger threat to world peace than Saddam could ever have hoped to be. Lives lost in 9/11 and lives lost in Iraq are different. Those who died in Iraq died because of the lies and greed of our leaders - not the senseless violence of a terrorist attack.

Also, I think you fail to understand Wil's excellent point about the relative death toll of 9/11 to other domestic problems. I don't have numbers with me - but Bush has cut funding for almost all forms government regulation of private industry during his administration - organizations like the EPA and OSHA and because of this oversite of corporations is at an all-time low. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year from things that are very, very preventable and no one covers it because it doesn't happen all at once.

9/11 was terrible because those deaths were all preventable and unnecessary but that doesn't make other preventable and unnecessary deaths any less terrible. This is the point.

You might not accept this as a valid source - but you might want to read Ralph Nader's "The Good Fight." As much as people see him as a crazy leftist these days thanks to his Green Party presidental runs - I don't think anyone can dispute his record as a advocate for consumer rights and workplace safety. I think we can all agree that "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a vital and important book regardless of political party.

October 23, 2006 2:52 PM

 
Anonymous Joshua Monroe said...

OOO...
OOOO...
I have a good joke too!
The Republicans have total control of the gas prices in this country and prices are just low right now because they want to get elected again.
All that stuff about supply and demand and that B.S. known as economics is wrong.

October 23, 2006 4:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq is an illegal war under international law - namely the UN charter.

Wow. Yeah, keep those dictators in power, good plan. Keeps the 'peace' doesn't it? Don't worry about the quality of their shit hole or how they get hauled off and killed because they showed an ankle or lost a soccer game or spoke badly about a leader. That's not important. That's just a cultural difference and we shouldn't worry about that.

We are the bullies and this is the root problem.

Really? I thought that shit-hole countries that oppress their people through threats, terror, starvation and mind control were to blame. I guess without us everything would be jelly beans and fairy tales. Call all those shit-holes and tell them to send our $, food, clothing and technology back.

Their countries are not poor and shitty because we are rich. They are poor and shitty because they live in totalitarian states with shit bag leaders who can think of nothing better to do than blame everyone else for their problems while they hang out in their golden palaces.

Bush was/is a much bigger threat to world peace than Saddam could ever have hoped to be.

And we should just ignore the tyrants and let him be free to crush the lives of millions of people for the purpose of 'peace'. Great. The absence of war doesn't mean there is a greater peace in the world. A friend of mine from Romania that lived during the reign of Coucescu has a little different philosophy.

Also, I think you fail to understand Wil's excellent point about the relative death toll of 9/11 to other domestic problems.

I understood it perfectly. It shocks me that you can even put car accidents in the same context as an act of war. I think you are really smart enough to understand the difference but are either being disingenuous or letting your ideology get in the way.

There is a distinct difference between someone dying in a car accident and getting blown up by a terrorist. If the car accident was the fault of the manufacturer or another person, they can sue. That is why we pay taxes, to ensure that we have a way to legally reconcile such situations. If the people that committed the terrorist acts were US citizens they would have been tried like any other criminal, but probably a lot more harshly.

Because they were foreign terrorists with connections to governments that fund them and their activities we have a responsibility and obligation, yes, obligation to destroy them to ensure our safety.


9/11 was terrible because those deaths were all preventable and unnecessary but that doesn't make other preventable and unnecessary deaths any less terrible. This is the point.


And I think your point is completely off base.

Ralph Nader

Did good things and then went off the deep end.

Even a simple application of logic says that if you shouldn't kill, but you should kill people that kill, well, we've got a problem, because once you've killed then you're allowed to be killed, and we have an endless cycle of killing. Which, hey, is what's happening in real life, and kind of the point I'm driving at.

If you are 4 years old or value life in a relative way you could apply silly circular logic like that. I think you probably understand the difference between murder. The difference moral and legal. If someone is murdered, their killer can be killed. That second killing is a legal or moral killing thus it is not subject to the murder rule. 

Yea, thats basically whats wrong with religion in the first place. It seems like people always try to find loopholes in thier beleif system to justify something.

That's not the problem with religion, it is the human condition.

The only way to fix Iraq right now is to hand it back to Saddam or create another potentially worse Regieme. That's the only way Iraq will curtail it's violence in the short term and the current administration is going to have to do something before 2008.

You think people are dying now. Just wait until that happens. What happened in Vietnam when we pulled out and left Pol Pot alone? A senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousand of people. But I guess that was OK because we were at 'peace'. Once again we could have gone all out and destroyed a horrible tyranny but the 'peace' movement allowed the destruction of millions of lives and have kept that part of the world in turmoil. Look at Japan and South Korea. We did that. That is our style of doing things. Western democracy and capitalism.

And with this administration I really don't believe in coincidences at all.

Zealot and conspiracy theorist. How original. Yeah, this administration is really rare, I mean they are the only ones ever to even come close to having any problems.
Wow. Yeah, keep those dictators in power, good plan. Keeps the 'peace' doesn't it? Don't worry about the quality of their shit hole or how they get hauled off and killed because they showed an ankle or lost a soccer game or spoke badly about a leader. That's not important. That's just a cultural difference and we shouldn't worry about that.

We are the bullies and this is the root problem.

Really? I thought that shit-hole countries that oppress their people through threats, terror, starvation and mind control were to blame. I guess without us everything would be jelly beans and fairy tales. Call all those shit-holes and tell them to send our $, food, clothing and technology back.

Their countries are not poor and shitty because we are rich. They are poor and shitty because they live in totalitarian states with shit bag leaders who can think of nothing better to do than blame everyone else for their problems while they hang out in their golden palaces.

Bush was/is a much bigger threat to world peace than Saddam could ever have hoped to be.

And we should just ignore the tyrants and let him be free to crush the lives of millions of people for the purpose of 'peace'. Great. The absence of war doesn't mean there is a greater peace in the world. A friend of mine from Romania that lived during the reign of Coucescu has a little different philosophy.

Also, I think you fail to understand Wil's excellent point about the relative death toll of 9/11 to other domestic problems.

I understood it perfectly. It shocks me that you can even put car accidents in the same context as an act of war. I think you are really smart enough to understand the difference but are either being disingenuous or letting your ideology get in the way.

There is a distinct difference between someone dying in a car accident and getting blown up by a terrorist. If the car accident was the fault of the manufacturer or another person, they can sue. That is why we pay taxes, to ensure that we have a way to legally reconcile such situations. If the people that committed the terrorist acts were US citizens they would have been tried like any other criminal, but probably a lot more harshly.

Because they were foreign terrorists with connections to governments that fund them and their activities we have a responsibility and obligation, yes, obligation to destroy them to ensure our safety.


9/11 was terrible because those deaths were all preventable and unnecessary but that doesn't make other preventable and unnecessary deaths any less terrible. This is the point.


And I think your point is completely off base.

Ralph Nader

Did good things and then went off the deep end.

Even a simple application of logic says that if you shouldn't kill, but you should kill people that kill, well, we've got a problem, because once you've killed then you're allowed to be killed, and we have an endless cycle of killing. Which, hey, is what's happening in real life, and kind of the point I'm driving at.

If you are 4 years old or value life in a relative way you could apply silly circular logic like that. I think you probably understand the difference between murder. The difference moral and legal. If someone is murdered, their killer can be killed. That second killing is a legal or moral killing thus it is not subject to the murder rule. 

Yea, thats basically whats wrong with religion in the first place. It seems like people always try to find loopholes in thier beleif system to justify something.

That's not the problem with religion, it is the human condition.

The only way to fix Iraq right now is to hand it back to Saddam or create another potentially worse Regieme. That's the only way Iraq will curtail it's violence in the short term and the current administration is going to have to do something before 2008.

You think people are dying now. Just wait until that happens. What happened in Vietnam when we pulled out and left Pol Pot alone? A senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousand of people. But I guess that was OK because we were at 'peace'. Once again we could have gone all out and destroyed a horrible tyranny but the 'peace' movement allowed the destruction of millions of lives and have kept that part of the world in turmoil. Look at Japan and South Korea. We did that. That is our style of doing things. Western democracy and capitalism.

And with this administration I really don't believe in coincidences at all.

Zealot and conspiracy theorist. How original. Yeah, this administration is really rare, I mean they are the only ones ever to even come close to having any problems.

October 23, 2006 5:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought we'd treat the people of Iraq fairly and help them rebuild their country after it was raped by a dictator for all those years. I thought we'd be the good guys.

My brother was there. We are the good guys. It is a shame that there are so many bad guys and a lot of people no longer see us as the good guys. If the world was truly concerned about Iraq they would support us and our efforts. But, they are not, they are concerned about appeasing their ideological and financial interests while they point their fingers at us and blame us. It is easy to do nothing.

You are certainly right I shouldn't argue scripture, though, because religious zealots really don't give a shit what's written; they'll twist it to mean whatever they want.

I'm an atheist, I don't subscribe to the religion, but if you are going to use it I think you should probably have some kind of basic understanding of which you speak. I wouldn't pretend to understand the symbols and history of Islam and say Mohammed was a terrorist or hippie or whatever. People paint pictures to satisfy their own arguments. Jesus had long hair and wore sandals, promoted peace, sounds like a hippie from Berkeley. He must be a liberal.

Yeah, those darn religious zealots, just like those environmental zealots and one world government conspiracy nuts and WTO anti-capitalist freak-show demonstrators. How about those atheist communist dictators that killed millions, good thing they weren't religious zealots.

So call me extreme, insult my 'reading', add spurious quotes in the 'middle' of your responses, whatever. It's easy to point fingers and call someone a zealot when he believes strongly in concepts like "right" and "wrong".

Your ideas of right and wrong. I think we should have invaded Iraq purely on the premise that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical dictator that killed and terrorized his people. We were right to invade Iraq, we had just cause. Just like we should overthrow the governments of all those other shit holes that continue to terrorize and slaughter endless amounts of people and suck endless amounts of our resources. A few well placed killings might free the world. To bad so many people are dying needlessly while the world stands around and watches in the name of peace.

I think when you put yourself out there and insult and mock other people you should expect a little bit back.

unelected president

This is where I get zealot and conspiracy theorist. As much as you repeat it, it doesn't make it true.

I voted for Clinton twice and then Gore. He lost, I complained, then I got over it. Then I soon realized that we were very very fortunate.

October 23, 2006 5:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dang, I think I have a new found respect for atheists! well said!
Hey Wil, do us Neo cons get a prize if we strt splln corrrrectly?

October 23, 2006 6:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you looking at, say, peer-reviewed, published articles on the topic? Well, then, yes, there is a consensus. 100% of them agree that global warming is real, is man-made, and is a problem.

If you are talking about the research article from Science Magazine that says that 100% of 928 peer-reviewed articles state that global warming is man made than you are right. But what happened to the others? 100% is a very convenient number, doesn't leave a lot of room for error. You would have thought they would have pick 98% or something to as not to appear suspicious.

I think most reasonable people would see that as a bogus article with questionable research methods. You have to look at all the research, not just the stuff that generates a consensus. It if you take some time and stop listening to Al Gore for a minute you can see for yourself that there is actually very little consensus with regards to climate change, global warming, the causes, and the solutions.

October 23, 2006 6:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. Yeah, keep those dictators in power, good plan. Keeps the 'peace' doesn't it? Don't worry about the quality of their shit hole or how they get hauled off and killed because they showed an ankle or lost a soccer game or spoke badly about a leader. That's not important. That's just a cultural difference and we shouldn't worry about that.

Suggesting that we follow international laws and advocating that oppressive dictators stay in power is not the same thing. I never suggested that it's "just a cultural difference." So far you're just making stuff up

I thought that shit-hole countries that oppress their people through threats, terror, starvation and mind control were to blame. I guess without us everything would be jelly beans and fairy tales. Call all those shit-holes and tell them to send our $, food, clothing and technology back. Their countries are not poor and shitty because we are rich. They are poor and shitty because they live in totalitarian states with shit bag leaders who can think of nothing better to do than blame everyone else for their problems while they hang out in their golden palaces.

It is true that we are not the root of all the world's evils - but before you start singing the praises of all things American I suggest you take a long hard look at the history of American foreign policy. Many of the shit-hole totalitarian states you're talking about are or have at one time been completely supported by the US government - many of them are that way because of us. You're right, we should tell them to send back our money and technology - we should never have sent it too them in the first place.
Our government has never cared about freedom, democracy, or human rights in foreign countries. We supported Saddam until it no longer suited us. We supported dictators in Chile, Nigeria, Indonesia, Cuba (before Castro), El Salvador, Nicaragua, and many others. In many cases we helped these dictators overthrow democratically elected governments simply because we wanted leaders friendly to American interests. And you're wrong - many of these nations are poor and shitty because we are rich. We support a brutal puppet government, government lets US companies walk in and exploit the local population and environment.
Even if these countries manage to get back on the right path through a revolution or something they are still screwed because of years of debt accumulated though dealings with the IMF and World Bank, both of which claim to offer developing nations loans for infrastructure building while essentially robbing them dry - both are also essentially US controlled organizations. Not to mention the WTO and it's agenda of removing a nation's ability to control it's economic regulation of industry...

And we should just ignore the tyrants and let him be free to crush the lives of millions of people for the purpose of 'peace'. Great. The absence of war doesn't mean there is a greater peace in the world. A friend of mine from Romania that lived during the reign of Coucescu has a little different philosophy.

You're right, the absence of war doesn't mean world peace but that does not mean the inverse is true. It does not mean that massive build up of nuclear weapons by the US or any nation is a good thing for world peace. It does not mean that war can lead to peace - that is absolutely Orwellian idea. Yes, there are a lot of bad countries out there - but are you suggesting that we go to war with all of them? No one has suggested we should "ignore tyrants" - that is a ridiculous idea. And do you honestly believe this is why we are in Iraq? If that were true why are we not in Darfur? The point is there are ways of dealing with oppression through international law and the US has the political power to push the international community to do the right thing. We don't do that because we're not interested in the right thing. We couldn't get the international community to support us in Iraq because it was the wrong thing.

I understood it perfectly. It shocks me that you can even put car accidents in the same context as an act of war. I think you are really smart enough to understand the difference but are either being disingenuous or letting your ideology get in the way. There is a distinct difference between someone dying in a car accident and getting blown up by a terrorist. If the car accident was the fault of the manufacturer or another person, they can sue. That is why we pay taxes, to ensure that we have a way to legally reconcile such situations. If the people that committed the terrorist acts were US citizens they would have been tried like any other criminal, but probably a lot more harshly.

You again bring up this idea that we are only talking about car accidents - this is false. We're talking about medical malpractice, workplace safety, consumer rights, public health and many other things. Tens of thousands of lives on a yearly basis and yet they are cutting funding. The difference between a car accident and getting blown up by a terrorist is you are about as like to get blown up by a terrorist as you are to get struck by lightening. No I'm not saying that we need to spend millions of dollars on lightening protection - but the point is that the government is single-mindedly focused on terrorism while simultaneously doing nothing about tens of thousands of preventable deaths that occur yearly. And I should perhaps also point out that the problems I'm discussing are problems where we already have laws that are supposed to protect us - these laws are simply being broken or ignored by corporations and our government. Does this mean we should do nothing about terrorism? No, of course not - but it's a good point and something the public should think about.

Because they were foreign terrorists with connections to governments that fund them and their activities we have a responsibility and obligation, yes, obligation to destroy them to ensure our safety.

You don't see me arguing against that. No one here has said that Afghanistan was wrong but you seem to have forgotten that Iraq had no connection to 9/11. They were not funding them and by your own logic we do not have an obligation to destroy them.

October 23, 2006 8:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more thing in addition to my last post. It should be noted that US imperalist foreign policies supporting corrupt dictatorships have existed in both Republican and Democrat administrations for essentially the past century. Republicans are far worse - but Democrats should not get a free pass here either. The two party system is pretty fundamentally flawed because we have a choice between semi-bad and very bad. My basic policy is vote Democrat if the Republicans have any chance at winning - otherwise try to vote Green.

October 23, 2006 8:34 PM

 
Blogger qwondre said...

lis said...

It's true. Voting is terribly important. Unfortunately, the Dems COULD have filibustered the Military Commissions act and chose not to. Pelosi has already stated that Bush will not be impeached if Democrats take the house. So, sure, Bush will have a harder time in office if Dems take the house in this election but it only helps so much. What else are we going to do?

It's a damn good blog, though.

October 22, 2006 1:43 PM

October 23, 2006 8:49 PM

 
Blogger qwondre said...

"lis said...

It's true. Voting is terribly important. Unfortunately, the Dems COULD have filibustered the Military Commissions act and chose not to. Pelosi has already stated that Bush will not be impeached if Democrats take the house. So, sure, Bush will have a harder time in office if Dems take the house in this election but it only helps so much. What else are we going to do?

It's a damn good blog, though."

October 22, 2006 1:43 PM

I agree with "lis", and someone else later made a comment that everybody that voted for the damn Military Commissions Act should be thrown out.
Would it make any difference if the Dems win a voice in this government? I would hope so, at least until the corrupting power of power does what it does.

I have been against this "premptive war" before Bush(The TERROR President) ever started it and once that he was reelected(?) I asked at an online site if we were approaching a civil war. At the time, I was thinking of the warring sides as the religous right neocon wing-nuts versus the lazy, godless liberals. Now, with same-sex marrage and right-to-life issues somewhat sidelined, it IS all about Iraq- not terror. The effort of this administration to equate the two as one is not working as well as it has for them in the past. At least I hope not. With two weeks left to go until the midterm elections, inciting fear in the general populace has worked so well for them in the last couple of elections. They may not need to ramp up the terror, they still have Diebold.

October 23, 2006 9:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good luck Wil Shipley. Please continue to have your opinion. whatever I, we, care ,like, dislike or don't care.

October 24, 2006 1:02 AM

 
Anonymous Johan said...

Quote:
“4> Every year Al-Qaeda did something during the Clinton Administration to us here WTC 93’ for example and abroad USS Cole etc.., this stopped and has been centralized to Iraq and Afghanistan for the most part.”

I did a little research and counted 16 terrorattacks post 9/11, Bali, London and Madrid beeing the most notable ones, if you look at a WORLD map, that’s a map depicting ALL the worlds countries and not just North America, you’ll see that none of those places are actually anywhere near Iraq and Afganistan.

Quote:
“6> We have galvanized the world. We know who is with us and who is not. It’s nice to know who your enemy’s are and who your allies are. Nothing worse than not being able to tell which side is on which.”

I take it you are among those who wet themselves when Bush is talking about peolpe beeing either against you or with you, thus reducing and simplifying this conflict to beeing black and white, eliminating all room for thought and dialogue. That is a very anti-intellectual and dangerous opinion if you, like me, holds peace, freedom and democracy dear. Ah, i forgot, war is good for the economy, althougt the economy wasn’t exactly blossoming after 9/11 was it? And i hear it’s really bad in Iraq. War has a positive effect on the economy because it increases federal spending, causing a snowball effect (more jobs, in turn increasing private spending etc). Personally i think reconstructing New Orleans, improving schools and healtcare would be a better way to stimulate the economy, who knows how many clever inventions that would see the light of day from that.

Quote:
“9> The best of the best are over there and they are fighting on your behalf whether you like it or not. If you don’t like it, then pray to Jesus to make it stop. Don’t believe in Him? Bummer! Your loss ;)”

Have you actually understood the message of jesus? i.e. as brought forward in the sermon on the mount “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Now i don’t believe in Jesus in that Jesus was God’s embodiment on earth since i don’t believe in any God, but i do believe in the good of man, and beeing a humanist, i think Jesus was a wise man, real or not.

Quote:
“Is that the best you can do? call me a chickehawk? Gee, so personal, so meaningful I'm so offended...NOT. Well you fall under my #3 reason then. BTW, they probably could use me over in Iraq, but I'm too old, sorry your turn ;)”

Pretty hard to get personal when you are posting anonymously, so as long as we don’t know your name we’ll stick to chickehawk. Not that i want to though as i think getting personal reduces the chances of carrying a constructive dialogue.
Also, isn’t it interresting how right-wing people always tends to be the ones asking people to “shut up”? And last, two quotes from a great american...

“Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

Keep posting Will. Thank you for a great software and most imortantly for speaking out on things that matter!

October 24, 2006 7:24 AM

 
Blogger Eric Jasso said...

Well said, Wil. Don't stop the poli posts...we NEED them. Our country needs them. If your words spurn even one to action they will not have been in vain.

Fight the power, Homeboy.

October 24, 2006 9:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am urging you to do what you can. Even just showing up and watching for voter fraud would help. Take a laptop to your polling place and blog what you see.

I agree, watch those Democrats closely.

------
Like some other cities, Milwaukee has a history of illegal vote-buying. On Election Day 2000, Democrat workers in Milwaukee gave homeless men packs of cigarettes in exchange for absentee votes. A television station captured the Democrat workers in the act of giving packs of cigarettes to homeless men at City Hall in Milwaukee. One of the individuals involved, wealthy New York socialite and major Democrat donor Connie Milstein, originally told reporters that she was helping homeless men vote at the behest of the Gore campaign. Milstein later backed away from that statement, saying she regretted her actions and “acted alone” in Milwaukee without the help or direction of Democrat or Gore campaign staffers. In May 2001, Milstein agreed not to contest a civil complaint charging her with 10 violations of state election law and paid a $5,000 fine. (339)

In 2002, Democrat Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle’s campaign held a bingo party at a home for the mentally ill and reportedly used quarters as bingo prizes and kringle and soft drinks to induce residents of the facility to cast absentee ballots. Wisconsin state law forbids candidates and parties from providing anything worth more than $1 to lure someone to vote. While no charges were filed in the case, it was revealed that at least two votes were cast at the bingo and kringle party.
------

We've had the last two national elections stolen from us, and if we let it happen again _we_ are to blame.

It really is hard to take you seriously when you put on the tinfoil hat.

October 24, 2006 10:30 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

It really is hard to take you seriously when you put on the tinfoil hat.

Yah, you post about purported voter fraud on the part of the Democrats, it's fine, I post about it on the part of the Republicans, I'm crazy.

Let's see: "My brother has decided that I'm president and you are not, case closed." That seems, uh, not corrupt.

October 24, 2006 10:53 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I listed a couple of instances so that hopefully people don't blindly follow your regurgitated myths and conspiracy theories.

October 24, 2006 1:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I'm far from a fan of Bush & Co. (and I was hopeful once there) I seriously doubt things would be any better with a Democrat majority in Congress. They would just mess up a whole load of other things... all would continue to blame each other for this or that, would focus the majority of their time on trying digging up dirt on the other guy (so they can get re-elected), but basically make no useful changes. It's all pretty pathetic really.

It's a lot like the Windows OS. When you first install it, it seems ok, runs fairly well, etc. but over time it starts to degrade, get slower, etc. and at some point you just have to wipe the disk and reinstall it from scratch. I wish we had a button for that for Congress.

October 25, 2006 6:01 AM

 
Anonymous Lightchaser said...

You know, I really liked this post, and maybe I like you more for sharing my political views, LOL. But it amazes me that despite the volumes of anti-Bush literature I read in newspapers and on the internet, he still got elected! And he's still an extremely popular leader for a large section of Americans who believe he is doing 'God's work' and ridding this world of Antichrists galore. Either they're being brainwashed or drugged (maybe it's in your water), or their political awareness is just really, really low.

One of the things I really appreciate is how you've tackled dissenting opinions in these comments. For the record, I'm in firm agreement with what you've said. No matter how emotional one might get about it, the soldiers are dying for nothing. Now if that realisation (one can only hope it seeps through) doesn't wake the populace to the evils of the Bush regime, nothing else can.

October 25, 2006 10:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“did a little research and counted 16 terror attacks post 9/11, Bali, London and Madrid being the most notable ones, if you look at a WORLD map, that’s a map depicting ALL the worlds countries and not just North America, you’ll see that none of those places are actually anywhere near Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Good for you, I actually forgot about those, but where are the majority of our troops? Are they in London, Bali, Madrid? no, they are in Afghanistan and Iraq. That was the point and more importantly they are over there, not here. And Pre 9/11 we weren’t at war with them, it took 9/11 to wake us up to that factoid. And BTW, I did say “for the most part” since we are into splitting hairs.

“I take it you are among those who wet themselves when Bush is talking about people being either against you or with you, thus reducing and simplifying this conflict to being black and white, eliminating all room for thought and dialogue. That is a very anti-intellectual and dangerous opinion if you, like me, holds peace, freedom and democracy dear. Ah, i forgot, war is good for the economy, although the economy wasn’t exactly blossoming after 9/11 was it? And i hear it’s really bad in Iraq. War has a positive effect on the economy because it increases federal spending, causing a snowball effect (more jobs, in turn increasing private spending etc). Personally i think reconstructing New Orleans, improving schools and healthcare would be a better way to stimulate the economy, who knows how many clever inventions that would see the light of day from that.”

BTW, I took it upon myself to correct your spelling since it bugs Wil to no end, hope you don’t mind. Us Neo cons can’t spell worth a darn so spell check is a new fangled device you mount on your word processor and, whammy, if that ain’t nice ;) Anyway, regarding your comments, I do actually agree with a lot of what you say, I would much rather see New Orleans be the subject of our economic booms and technology instead of Iraq and Afghanistan. But what good is New Orleans, if it’s not there. E.g Nuked? I know, I know, not going to happen and I seldom wet myself over anything, except my wife maybe ;).

“Have you actually understood the message of Jesus? i.e. as brought forward in the sermon on the mount “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Now i don’t believe in Jesus in that Jesus was God’s embodiment on earth since i don’t believe in any God, but i do believe in the good of man, and being a humanist, i think Jesus was a wise man, real or not.”

Now this one really blew up my skirt (figuratively speaking). Since you are a humanist, and quoting the Bible you may have learned that the Bible is more than one page long. That being said, just like Wil, you take out of context the meaning of “Blessed are the peacemakers” and incorrectly applying it to this discussion. Now Wil himself has called me a republican, Christian Zealot, and another responder a Chickehawk and I only found this blog a few days ago. I said that to say this, if you are really interested
I would take this part offline with you and you and I could bang it out. But since it’s getting pretty Gestapo like around here (can’t express what I really think without being flamed and called names) I will reserve comment. Frankly I really don’t care about the name calling but this post wasn’t about the Bible so it’s technically off subject.

“Pretty hard to get personal when you are posting anonymously, so as long as we don’t know your name we’ll stick to chickehawk. Not that i want to though as i think getting personal reduces the chances of carrying a constructive dialogue.
Also, isn’t it interesting how right-wing people always tends to be the ones asking people to “shut up”? And last, two quotes from a great American...”

Yes, but I’m obviously not the only one posting anonymously cause I’m sure everyone knows your going to make it personal. I have noticed that about Lib’s for years. Gotta make it personal. I don’t get it ~ it’s kind of like just punching the person without warning and saying I don’t agree with you as you watch them get off the floor….Sorry, doesn’t fly with me. For that reason I actually agree with your comment ~

“ I think getting personal reduces the chances of carrying a constructive dialogue.” Amen brother!!!:)

BTW, the Bible speaks about humanism quite a bit. You should check it out. And… I wasn’t the one saying “shut up”, that was the work of another poster. Thanks for your commentary.

October 25, 2006 10:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“And he's still an extremely popular leader for a large section of Americans who believe he is doing 'God's work' and ridding this world of Antichrists galore. Either they're being brainwashed or drugged (maybe it's in your water), or their political awareness is just really, really low.”

So does that mean America’s political awareness was at an all time high when we elected Clinton in Office? If getting a dress dirty in the Whitehouse and then lying about it publicly on primetime TV is your idea of high Political awareness, then does anybody around here have a curb drain I can hide in?

“No matter how emotional one might get about it, the soldiers are dying for nothing.”

How does it feel to have just insulted 140,000+ fellow countryman & women who are over their right now? Please, please , Invite us when you actually have the guts to do that in front of their faces, I gotta see this!

It’s getting pretty thick in here…..sorry

October 25, 2006 11:27 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Jesus I'm tired of idiotic Republicans mentioning that Clinton got a fucking blowjob in office. Is this REALLY your idea of evil? A blowjob? Because if so, I must be Hitlet. Give it a rest, please.

Bush has wiped out between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqis in this war. This is no longer a war, it's genocide. He's competing with some of the all-time greats. And you're worried because a president got his rocks off? You DEFINE "knee-jerk", friend.

How does it feel to have just insulted 140,000+ fellow countryman & women who are over their right now? Please, please , Invite us when you actually have the guts to do that in front of their faces, I gotta see this!

Imagine a doctor says to a patient, "I'm sorry, you have leukemia; if you don't get a bone marrow transplant you will die for no good reason."

Is that a fucking insult? No. It's the truth. It's the only way to help. I'm trying to help our people in Iraq.

Do you honestly, HONESTLY think it would be better for them to be dead and ignorant than it would be for us to say, "I'm sorry, this war has no point; let's bring you home?" Oh, wait, I forgot, Republicans can't ever say they are sorry, because AMERICA IS ALWAYS RIGHT, BECAUSE WE ARE DESCENDED FROM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

Please, please, if you think it's a just war, get your ass over there and fight in their place, you fucking coward. You talk pretty big about how I shouldn't insult them, but your insistence that they stay over there dying for no reason while you stuff your face with pork rinds safely back home is the biggest insult possible.

Let me know when you go to one of the moms of the dead boys and explain to her what her son died for. Then I'll listen to you.

October 25, 2006 12:49 PM

 
Anonymous jokke h. said...

I just finished watching a documentary of Iraqs reconstruction. I feel so angry, so disappointed, and so sorry about this fucked up world we are living in. 20 billion dollars smoked by the temporal US regiment in 14 months with total irresponsibility, and a viewer gets to watch how a little child dies and is put in a card board box by the father to take her away. All this because the hospital doesn't have the very basic equipment and medicins. Because there are so much more important things in this world than humanity. Yeah.

October 25, 2006 1:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Jesus I'm tired of idiotic Republicans mentioning that Clinton got a fucking blowjob in office. Is this REALLY your idea of evil? A blowjob? Because if so, I must be Hitlet. Give it a rest, please.”

You know Wil, you’re really your own worst enemy. Now I’m an idiotic republican, Christian Zealot, chickehawk, fucking coward. You just can’t get enough of the insults can you? What does this say about you?

I’m not particularly worried about the blowjob my friend, He disgraced the office of POTUS by lying about it on prime time tv…. Or did you miss that tidbit?

“I'm trying to help our people in Iraq.”

Oh really? With insults?, yeah that goes along way. Hi, I’m Wil Shitley, I’m here in Iraq today with our troops, just north of Bagdad with battalion xyz , and I’m here with commander Teatherly. Commander, how are you today? Commander: fine thanks. Well, I want to let you know that I run this really cool blog back in the country your working for and I’m trying to help you and your men out by telling you that your boys here are really dying for nothing. Ooops there goes another! Yeah, we all think you’re a bunch of idiotic Neo class Christian zealot fucking cowards. How’s that sit with ya commander?

I will be sure to save these brilliant posts for them when they come home and watch their faces.

Oh, and BTW Wil, I’m sorry it had to come to this. There I said I was sorry. That’s twice in one day ;)

Oh, yeah I almost forgot, you misspelled Hitler. I thought you didn’t make mistakes? What goes around, comes around.

October 25, 2006 3:45 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

OH MY GOD! I MISTYPED HITLER!

You are right, I've gotten my come-uppance. Damn. I knew living the crazy lifestyle I do would catch up to me eventually.

Yeah, we all think you’re a bunch of idiotic Neo class Christian zealot fucking cowards.

No, I called *you* a coward. Our troops have bravely volunteered to defend our great country from external threats, and you've decided to squander their lives so we can keep our oil supply flowing, AND insinuate that I'm not a patriot because I'm calling you on it.

You want to know what I'd say to our troops? That's a fair question, and I'll tell you, "Hello, brave men and women. I am in awe of you. I am in awe that you volunteered to serve our country, to place yourselves in harm's way to protect the rest of us, and to protect the very idea of America. And I am sorry, deeply sorry, that we have, as a nation, placed you in harm's way, this time, for no good reason. That the desires of greedy men have come before good sense or morality, and that we have mired you in a battle that we cannot win, because we are trying to liberate a country that now hates us. Because of the failures of our state department, we have alienated and slaughtered the Iraqi people instead of reconstruction their country, and squandered the goodwill we earned when you valiantly saved them from their old dictator.

"It is time for us to leave, so that more of you don't die in the name of saving George Bush's pride. We have put you into an untenable position, and we are deeply sorry, and we will get you out as soon as possible."

You just can’t get enough of the insults can you? What does this say about you?

Nothing -- the insults were about you, not me. i think they're self-explanatory.

October 25, 2006 4:49 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

reconstruction -> reconstructing

October 25, 2006 4:59 PM

 
Anonymous Andre said...

I’m not particularly worried about the blowjob my friend, He disgraced the office of POTUS by lying about it on prime time tv…. Or did you miss that tidbit?
And all of the misserable failures (read:idiocy) of G.W don't pay insult to the office?

Which is worse: a) starting a war based on false pretence, causing increasing world-wide political instablity, the death of close to 3 thousand more americans, at least 30 thousand (in the Presidents' own words) dead Iraqi's or b) getting a blow job and lying about it?

If you pick b, no cookie for you.

October 26, 2006 5:00 AM

 
Blogger Incredibly Fat Man said...

Kevin Hoctor, thanks for your intelligent comments. I came post and them almost didn't because the comments are filled with "yeah, bush is teh suxor!' I'm no fan of Bush and the habeas corpus issue really is a tragedy but some the "facts" being stated here are just ridiculously uninformed.

October 26, 2006 6:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wil,

“OH MY GOD! I MISTYPED HITLER!

You are right, I've gotten my come-uppance. Damn. I knew living the crazy lifestyle I do would catch up to me eventually.”

It does that doesn’t it? I hate when that happens. You see, when you’re excited, those little fingers just get going a little too fast and sometimes we make mistakes. It’s a rather human thang.

“No, I called *you* a coward. Our troops have bravely volunteered to defend our great country from external threats, and you've decided to squander their lives so we can keep our oil supply flowing, AND insinuate that I'm not a patriot because I'm calling you on it.”

Yep, your right, I can’t even compare with the guys and gals out their placing their lives on the line, for a good reason (I believe) or No reason (you believe).
The fact is, they are great people either way. I just choose to support them no matter what the politics are back here. (I’m not insinuating that you are not supporting them)

Wil, I don’t know you that well to call into question your patriotic tendencies, and we have gotten way off topic and on the wrong foot with each other. Tell ya what, I put out the ol’ olive branch because obviously this conversation isn’t providing any progress and just going deeper into a hole either of us don’t want to actually go.

Fine, you don’t like us Neo cons and I can say the same for the libs, but if you could actually deal in facts I will try as well. I said it in my original post that you can bring your facts and I can bring my facts and unless we can verify, there is no point. So let’s start with something simple: The greed of the war

Let’s assume you are correct that it’s all about the oil money. That President Bush’s intentions are cruel, inhumane, wasteful etc, etc..

What references and evidence that you could provide that would warrant such a claim? Are they possible to verify, say in a court of law? and how?

Hopeful you are in a good mood today I got your email address today so I can take this offline if you would rather go that route. Just let know.

Jay- (Now you have a name)


Ps. Andre, I want that cookie ;)

October 26, 2006 10:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wil:

I haven't read all the comments, so maybe someone already pointed this out. Bin Laden was the religious extremist. Hussein was a member of Ba'ath, which was pretty much about secular control of the government, I think. In fact, his government was the only one in the region that didn't rule under Sharia law. (Interestingly, as a result of our interference, sharia law ia part of the new, improved Iraq, so gay men can be murdered for existing, women who have been raped can be murdered by their relatives for bringing disgrace, etc.) Which points out, of course, that Bush is really even more extreme in some ways.

Oh, I didn't see the original reference to Hitler, but as long as you're using Hitler as a reference to nazism and therefore fascism, hey, hey, USA...

October 27, 2006 2:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush has wiped out between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqis in this war. This is no longer a war, it's genocide.

Nut.

October 27, 2006 7:33 PM

 
Anonymous Ollie said...

Dear potential American voter, remember as resident of a world super power your vote represents you and many people around the world whose nations (often distressingly) look to the US for leadership and example... or worse. Even if it's the first time you have done so, consider us aliens for a moment before you selfishly throw away your valuable privilege. Thank you from Australia.

October 27, 2006 8:15 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Nut.

I know. It's easiest to think that, isn't it? "This guy thinks our president has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? I cannot accept that. That is entirely out of the range of my experience. He simply MUST be wrong."

In this case, I'm a crazy lunatic who reads the Washington Post. THOSE NUTTERS!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

October 28, 2006 1:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All you warmongers are going to love it when you get your next civil war.

You don't care about your fellow man. You hate and fear him.

October 28, 2006 6:25 AM

 
Anonymous Joshua Monroe said...

Sounds like everyone here has been hitting the Michel Moore propaganda a little hard.

October 28, 2006 9:47 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will, is there any chance you could divert yourself from schoolboy politics long enough to actually improve Delicious Library?

And yeah, thank you from Australia...

October 28, 2006 4:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wil,

Well I guess your silence as to my earlier post was a testament that A> you don’t give a hoot B> Your still thinking about it or C> your posted reference to the 600K deaths is an attempt to bring evidence. Maybe it’s D> none of the above, I don’t know.

Since your going on another topic let’s look at what you did present,

“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html”

Andre, give Wil that cookie, he presented something ;)

Ok,

I have a few issues with this article:

1> An epidemiologist is someone who studies diseases not necessarily a census expert. So I think we might be stretching it a bit there. I’m not an epidemiologist so if anybody knows one have them pipe up and explain how they actually do their census.

2> They said this was “an estimate” and a “random survey” so there again I’m leery of the accuracy. A few comments posted under this article bring this up as being questionable.
3> “Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.”

Well, there goes the 600K stat right there, I mean if we are going to be technical. There’s also other reasons per the article people died but they don’t list those. Another comment brings this out as well.
4> One noteable comment on his article said “It ignores every other facet of the war and throws out unjustified suppositions based on shoddy scientific assumptions. How do you explain the death certificates whose dates are subsequent to the invasion?” bringing into question a lot of things of how they came up with this.

I would trust this site far more: http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx since it explains each death, when it occurred, what the surrounding circumstances were and breaks down civilian vs Military, Iraq vs Afganistan etc.

Good try though Wil, give you an B for effort. But an OpEd isn’t really evidence. This article was made to sell stories and make the Washington Post $ (which BTW) I realize is more conservative than say the NY Times but none the less in it for greed ;)

Good point Ollie- Gday mate!

-Jay-

October 28, 2006 5:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well,

Isn't this interesting, and by a media outlet I didn't expect...Slate. Guess who owns Slate? Washington Post ;)

The Lancet's Slant
EPIDEMIOLOGY MEETS MORAL IDIOCY.

http://www.slate.com/id/2151607/?nav=ais

If you can't trust the media, than dag nabbit, who can ya trust!

How does the saying go? "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways" Hmmmmmmmm I think maybe the post and slate ought to talk with each other before they write these things. ;)

-Jay-

October 28, 2006 5:51 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Will, is there any chance you could divert yourself from schoolboy politics long enough to actually improve Delicious Library?

I find it strange that someone in Australia is more worried about a media cataloging app than whether civilians can be rounded up and tortured.

Please don't fret your pretty head, though -- unbelievably, posting one response a day on my blog does NOT absorb all of my time, and in fact I work on Delicious Library 2 every day.

Sounds like everyone here has been hitting the Michel Moore propaganda a little hard.

Yes, conservatives just love to point at him, huh. "Hey, look at the loud fat man! He's a commonist! Everyone who cares about this planet must be listening to his crazy stories!"

I don't like Michael Moore and I don't watch his films. I find him annoying and very often don't agree with his politics. (For example, I don't think car companies "owe" it to a town to keep an unprofitable plant open. The citizens of that town really should have considered why they felt they should be paid so much to do labor that was cheaper elsewhere.)

--

Honestly, if the figure is 40,000 or 400,000 or 800,000, it's still a fucking massacre. What is wrong with you guys? 40,000 is still more than 10x the number who died in 9/11, and yet we don't even talk about it.

Is it because they are brown, or because they worship a different god than you? How can you sit there and say, "Well, we liberated them from Saddam!" and ignore what we've fucking done to them since we've taken over? It's unconscionable.

I am not going to pretend there are easy solutions to the quagmire we're in now. The ramifications from this mistake will be punishing all of us for years.

BUT WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS CLEARLY NOT WORKING. We could do *anything* else and it'd probably be better.

Like, hey, we could pull out the military, and take the trillions of dollars and put it into, I dunno, rebuilding their infrastructure and hiring and equipping a competent civilian government.

October 28, 2006 6:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Honestly, if the figure is 40,000 or 400,000 or 800,000, it's still a fucking massacre. What is wrong with you guys? 40,000 is still more than 10x the number who died in 9/11, and yet we don't even talk about it.”

Well, I’m curious then, when both democrats and republicans in the absolute rare instance they were actually in agreement about anything decided to go to war in Iraq,
Were you expecting only a 3000 casualty war? Tit for tat type thing? You killed 3000 of our people, so it’s only fair to kill 3000 of your people?

In Gulf One we lost 148 they lost 100,000k

Vietnam we lost around 58,000 and they lost including Cambodians approx 3,000,000

Wars are typically not even kill ratios. I’m not sure massacre is the word I would use to describe US killing them, however, I would agree that these people bent on suicide bombing the Iraq citizens is a massacre. But of course that’s Bush’s fault, right?

On a side note, hug a vietnam vet would ya- They were the ones getting spit on when they returned. Let's hope our boys in Gulf 2 don't face the same fate.


-Jay

October 28, 2006 8:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"On a side note, hug a vietnam vet would ya- They were the ones getting spit on when they returned. "

I wish this urban myth would go away.A couple of incidents become the whole "truth".

The real spitting on is the congress defunding the VA, denying agent orange, PTS, etc etc.

And as far as authorizing the war, congress approved Bush using force as a LAST resort.

Like all other laws passed in the last 6 years the prez does what he wants via signng orders.

October 28, 2006 9:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh,and Jay, linking to Hitchens (writing at Slate), who admits he knows nothing about statistics but it feels wrong to him, is like going to Rush about info on parkinsons.

October 28, 2006 10:00 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

The president LIED about the intelligence he had when he convinced us to go to war. I simply can't blame anyone for decisions they make given bad information.

It's funny that all those wars you mention except gulf war 1 are now considered huge failures in every way, national tragedies, even. Yet you're pointing to them as touchtones as if they are the new standard in conflict.

"Hey, look, if some nation is minding its own business, not threatening us at all, and we decide to invade it, they should just expect to lose 100x the people we do! Come on! Be reasonable!"

-W

October 29, 2006 1:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish this urban myth would go away.A couple of incidents become the whole "truth".

No I agree, it was just a few incidents, but it wasn’t a myth. In the mid 70’s I lived in the SF bay area and watched it happen. I still remember the tone of the media and the public as a whole. I couldn’t understand why they acted like they hated our troops. I have talked to several Vietnam vets and they are always shocked when I thank them for their service.

“And as far as authorizing the war, congress approved Bush using force as a LAST resort.

Like all other laws passed in the last 6 years the prez does what he wants via signng orders.” (More misspellings- you people , just kidding ;) )

Opinion only here, but I think you give the Executive branch of the government a little too much power, there are two other branches, hence checks and balances, the only thing he signs typically is brought to him from the house and senate- he doesn’t just create these bills as you insinuate.


Oh,and Jay, linking to Hitchens (writing at Slate), who admits he knows nothing about statistics but it feels wrong to him, is like going to Rush about info on parkinsons.”

I agree with that sediment as well…. when you put it that way, but notice the disparity that supports the scientific study and the other strikes it down. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t trust the MEDIA at all. I used to work in a TV station. MOST of these people, not all, are not the brightest crayon in the crayola box, and they are there because of ratings. If Ratings are bad, people lose their jobs so there is the unfortunate side affect that promotes sensationalism to sell stories which was my point in the first place. If you listen to Rush, (which it sounds like you do since you mention Him) he phrases it as the media is selling a “product”…same thing.

…..

“The president LIED about the intelligence he had when he convinced us to go to war. I simply can't blame anyone for decisions they make given bad information.”

That’s a strong accusation Wil, was it that he lied or he received bad intelligence which the intelligence community has already admitted to? I think that could be the reason why the intelligence community had a major re-org done to it as well. I think it was a mistake more than a lie. Seems to me I recall that we received info and that was disinformation intentionally placed in the Intelligence community and they caught wind of it too late. I will do some research on that cause I remember all the hoopla about it but don’t remember all the details.

“It's funny that all those wars you mention except gulf war 1 are now considered huge failures in every way, national tragedies, even. Yet you're pointing to them as touchtones as if they are the new standard in conflict.”

Um, I don’t look at them as touchtones, maybe in your circles they are National tragedies but then I look at things different than you all together. I look at the glass half full, not half empty (in regards to the Administration) and I don’t look at any war we have had as a national tragedy. Pearl Harbor and 9/11, Katrina I would deem as national tragedies and If we didn’t start the revolutionary war for example you might be speaking another language or paying taxes to Queen Elizabeth for instance. I’m sure that would really float everyone’s boat! ;)

"Hey, look, if some nation is minding its own business, not threatening us at all, and we decide to invade it, they should just expect to lose 100x the people we do! Come on! Be reasonable!"

Iraq was minding it’s own business? If that were really true we wouldn’t be over there right now, period. Look we gave that goof 14 opportunities to back down from November 2002 to April 2003 and he said F-U. And let us not forget how he was starving his own people (oil for food ) and invading neighbors (Kuwait) BTW, He owed Kuwait 14 Billion before Gulf I and considered Kuwait his own and tried to take it as we all know. Wikipedia has some interesting factoids, some of which if true I would not be too happy about Concerning Bush Sr..

The real question is why you appear to be defending a person who brought on a very bad situation because he was a world class MOFO? And, I’m trying to be reasonable….really, I am 

What makes me scratch my head is if there were another super power out there that defeated their enemies by 100x as you say, I think I would stay clear of them on a perpetual basis. Sadaam knew this about us, yet he still pushed
forward and tripped our trigger. He didn’t have to. Sounds more like a death wish to me. Nobody was pointing a gun to his head, until of course we found him in that hole.

-Jay-

October 29, 2006 9:23 AM

 
Anonymous Silver said...

I find it extremely hard to believe that a great nation like the United States with the resources it has available could actually have made intelligence errors of the size of those that preceded the war. Certainly, there would have been some concern about what particular facilities were for, but not to the level of an imminent threat. Simply, the people of the United States who do the actual work in these facilities are too good to make those kinds of mistakes without there being disagreement from collegues.

On the other hand, I find it entirely believable that those in power could suppress certain intelligence simply to advance their own agenda.

As for Saddam. It is not a matter of defending a bad person, it is simply realising that interferring would have made the problem worse, rather than better. Sometimes the best solution to a problem is time and non-interferrence. Saddam had mellowed a fair bit, and was no longer as bad as he once was. Additionally, as he got older, and his grip on power waned, it became far more likely that the Iraqis themselves would be able to mount a rebellion of their own. Such a rebellion would have been far more effective in bringing liberation to Iraqis than this ill conceived war.

October 29, 2006 3:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Silver,

you might want to check out:
http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html
Before you stand firm on your intitial comments. It's not about the policy makers according to the commission, it was and is how the intelligence community gathers and distributes classified data to the policy makers.

Regarding you last comment, we may never know if it would have been better to "leave it alone"- You might be right in your assumption.

-Jay-

October 29, 2006 4:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wil,

The "stop making enemies" policy has been a cornerstone of the Libertarian platform for as long as I can remember. Nevertheless, there are indeed people in the world who will decide that we are THEIR enemies, if we won't get with the program (be it joining their religion, ensuring racial purity, burning any books or cartoons that they they don't like, what have you.) When faced with an implacable enemy, the best thing you can possibly do is kill him before he kills you.

YMMV, but I maintain that it's very important not only to retaliate when attacked, but also to maintain the means to fight at all times, lest we be caught unprepared as we were at the beginnings of World Wars one and two. The major lesson I take from the holocaust is that when someone states their intention to kill you, then you'd better take them seriously.

-jcr

October 29, 2006 4:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Either war is obsolete or men are."
- Buckminster Fuller

October 30, 2006 5:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Opinion only here, but I think you give the Executive branch of the government a little too much power, there are two other branches, hence checks and balances, the only thing he signs typically is brought to him from the house and senate- he doesn’t just create these bills as you insinuate.

Yes, the other branches are important - hence the point of this entire post - kick out the republicans in this year's mid-term elections.

...

I look at the glass half full, not half empty (in regards to the Administration) and I don’t look at any war we have had as a national tragedy. Pearl Harbor and 9/11, Katrina I would deem as national tragedies and If we didn’t start the revolutionary war for example you might be speaking another language or paying taxes to Queen Elizabeth for instance. I’m sure that would really float everyone’s boat! ;)

I really don't see how any sane person can argue that disagreeing with the Iraq War or the Vietnam War in someway implies disagreement with the Revolutionary War. It's a ridiculous idea.

The real question is why you appear to be defending a person who brought on a very bad situation because he was a world class MOFO? And, I’m trying to be reasonable….really, I am 

Arguing that the Iraq War is wrong is not the same thing as defending Saddam. There are many countries across the global with corrupt and cruel dictators - many of whom are US supported (as Saddam was in the 1980s). We don't attack them for one of two reasons...

Either they don't have anything we want - their countries don't have a third to half of the Middle East's oil reserves under their feet...

OR they have already agreed to all our demands. They've joined the WTO, they've accepted loans from the IMF and are hopelessly in our debt - they have sold out their population and natural resources to our corporations.

If you were trying to be reasonable you would make reasonable comparisons.

Trying to imply that people who disagree with you on Iraq would rather have us speak another language or pay taxes to the Queen is not reasonable. Disagreement and debate is good but you aren't arguing if Iraq is the correct course for the nation you're essentially just dismissing all other viewpoints as un-American and hence evil.

Arguing that if you don't agree with Iraq you are defending Saddam is also not reasonable. No one here has said that Saddam was a good guy - just that this war and the way it has been executed is/was the wrong way of dealing with the problems Saddam presented to the world.

Be reasonable - listen to the other side and encourage thoughtful debate - don't just regurgitate Rush Limbaugh's talking points.

October 30, 2006 12:23 PM

 
Anonymous Ted T. said...

Wil,

Great post, but you are actually far too kind to Bush. The number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is much higher than the (2,279) you state: the total is in fact 2,814 according to today's NY Times:

Times (AP) article


We will surpass the Sept. 11th total soon -- and of course it always bears repeating that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11th.

And if we go past US soldiers to the Iraqi civilians killed -- according to the recent Lancet/Johns Hopkins study, we have directly killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians through US air strikes alone. G.W. Bush will go down in history as having been guilty of crimes against humanity. One hopes he will be tried for them some day.

Ted

October 30, 2006 12:27 PM

 
Anonymous joeybladb said...

Pray the American people use their brains this election, instead of being swayed by cheap emotional propaganda and rhetoric as they have in the past 6 years.

Pray also that the elections are not as rigged as I suspect them to be.

October 30, 2006 3:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Yes, the other branches are important - hence the point of this entire post - kick out the republicans in this year's mid-term elections.”

Um, I was kind of thinking the opposite actually ;)


“I really don't see how any sane person can argue that disagreeing with the Iraq War or the Vietnam War in someway implies disagreement with the Revolutionary War. It's a ridiculous idea.”

Who said I was sane? Who’s the dirty rat? No seriously, I was being facetious
Because Wil was insinuating that most wars “are considered huge failures” like somehow war is not in vogue or something. I think it’s insane to think that our wars have been national tragedies. A few of you have made it pretty clear that you think that Iraq is a national tragedy.

What happens if democracy takes place? Take out the insurgency for instance in your mix of calculations. If there weren’t suicide bombings everyday on your television, would you still say this is a national tragedy? So who’s the “real” enemy here?. It points to the insurgents.
I understand why the Iraqi’s want us out of there; I would too just to avoid the pain and loss.

What are you going to say in several months when our troops start marching home without what many think is a greedy oil grab? I know what you will say, you will say we did it behind the scenes, thus, creating additional skepticism about our government of course which will lead back to Bush once again.

“Trying to imply that people who disagree with you on Iraq would rather have us speak another language or pay taxes to the Queen is not reasonable. Disagreement and debate is good but you aren't arguing if Iraq is the correct course for the nation you're essentially just dismissing all other viewpoints as un-American and hence evil.”

No “un-American” and “evil” those are your words. I’m not implying anybody here is evil or un-American, if you read higher in the posts I even mention that I would not question Wil’s patriotic tendencies. Maybe you have been listening to other things but I agree with you that debate is good, but let’s keep it in the confines of things we can actually prove and not media rhetoric only. Again, I was being facetious about speaking another language, If it bodes well will you I will refrain from facetiousness moving forward.


“Arguing that the Iraq War is wrong is not the same thing as defending Saddam. There are many countries across the global with corrupt and cruel dictators - many of whom are US supported (as Saddam was in the 1980s).”

I know, I have seen the list recently in Parade magazine and saw it briefly at the start of the war. The main difference was and is, that non- of them look to be acquiring WMD (Whether he did or not- and BTW I don’t believe he had them after reading the commission on WMD- I site the reference above) he gave the appearance by his lack of letting our inspectors in there on a regular basis and secondly because he knew we would/could cripple his nation, and he decided, you know what? F’em because he was worried he would look weak to other Arab nations. If I was an Iraqi, that would have horrified me. So yes, there are several dictators far worse than Saddam but non that would thumb a nose at a world power. Well….most wouldn’t -There is this crazy North Korean however …… He’s displaying the same blind arrogance as Saddam, but that’s another subject.

“If you were trying to be reasonable you would make reasonable comparisons.”

Your right, I would, but since your sense of reason is different than mine, it’s gonna seem warped to you no matter what I say. I’m just happy to be here ;)

“Be reasonable - listen to the other side and encourage thoughtful debate - don't just regurgitate Rush Limbaugh's talking points.”

Well considering I haven’t listened to Rush in over 9months because of an employment change, I will take that as a very high compliment indeed that I’m following along with Rush Limbaugh’s “talking points”.

Anytime one can be mentioned in the same breath as him, that’s saying a lot. Unfortunately, I’m not anywhere that good or as articulate as he and from the sounds of your post you had no intentions of that being a compliment.

Kind of a bummer actually ;( Just the same, it’s nice to know there is some open dialog and I really do try and listen. If we were all “yes” men and women it would be a rather boring blog don’t you think?

…..

“G.W. Bush will go down in history as having been guilty of crimes against humanity. One hopes he will be tried for them some day.”

And so can we try you for false accusations Ted if he is found correct?

Hmmm….

-Jay-

October 30, 2006 3:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How come that New York City won't go for
GWB?

Guess they don't understand the terrorist
threat ...

October 30, 2006 11:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Jay

"The fact is, they are great people either way. I just choose to support them no matter what the politics are back here."

In your world "support" means allowing them to get killed for oil, a genocidal errand, or "no matter" what the reason presented to you.

You think they are such "great people" that you approve of whatever their mission without ever questioning the basis on which they were sent. They matter so much to you that you generously allow their young blood spill in some foreign land, unquestioningly, so that you can appear patriotic.

You, Jay, the noble idiot will never have the intellect and courage to be the one to stand up for those poor brave souls who are dying at the hands of bad decisions by made by lesser men.

It is people like you that make me so disappointed with this country and our people.

If, with one question, you can save just one of their lives how could you possibly not consider asking it?

Blind, by choice. Your cowardice, hides behind your illusion of principle.

=============================

Do not worry Mrs. Smith, even if your son died in a war sold to you on a pack of lies, there were a lot of assholes here at home that supported him all the way to the end.

=============================

October 31, 2006 1:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happens if democracy takes place? Take out the insurgency for instance in your mix of calculations. If there weren’t suicide bombings everyday on your television, would you still say this is a national tragedy? So who’s the “real” enemy here?. It points to the insurgents. I understand why the Iraqi’s want us out of there; I would too just to avoid the pain and loss.

Here is what you are essentially saying... "If everything went great in Iraq would you call it a national tragedy?"

You can't just "take out the insurgency." You're just ignoring the problem. It's like saying, "World War II wouldn't have been so bad if you take the Germans out of the mix."

But to me this is sort of besides the point. The Iraq War is a tragedy not just because of the senseless loss of life - but because of the reasons those lives have been lost. It's a tragedy when our elected officials go to war on lies. And even if you disagree with me that it was lie - I say it's still a tragedy if we went to war over flimsy intelligence - if we went to war over a mistake. Maybe that makes it more of a tragedy because tragedy implies misfortune, not intentional malice.

What are you going to say in several months when our troops start marching home without what many think is a greedy oil grab? I know what you will say, you will say we did it behind the scenes, thus, creating additional skepticism about our government of course which will lead back to Bush once again.

If you think that the troops will be home in "several months" you must be attempting to be facetious again. I don't think this mess is going to clear up in several months - especially with Bush still in office.

But regardless of that - you seem to imply that I think the troops are going to come home carrying barrels of Iraqi oil and that when that doesn't happen it'll somehow prove that the Iraq War was not about oil.

This war for oil isn't so we can just pillage the oil fields for free oil - it's so we can install a US-friendly government that will promise to supply us with oil at affordable prices. We are securing that Iraqi oil fields will supply US oil companies above all others.

There is this concept of peak oil - that now or in the near future world oil production will it an all-time peak - and that after this point oil production will begin to decline. By installing a US-friendly government in Iraq - we ensure US supply of oil - cementing our position as the world's dominant power.

So yes, there are several dictators far worse than Saddam but non that would thumb a nose at a world power. Well….most wouldn’t -There is this crazy North Korean however …… He’s displaying the same blind arrogance as Saddam, but that’s another subject.

I do not believe that thumbing their nose at us is an act of war. I guess that is just an idealogical difference that we probably won't ever agree on.

And by the way, we thumb our nose at the rest of the world almost daily - does this justify war against us? We violate the UN charter, the Geneva convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We refuse to join the rest of the world in support of the Kyoto Protocols. We oppose UN human rights proposals. If anything - we are the most arrogant country in the world - the greatest threat to world peace - a rogue nation, a failed state.

But I'm going off on a rant now - probably off topic. And I doubt any of those words will make any difference to you anyway. You'll probably call me a blame-America-first liberal and then talk about how much worse other countries in the world are - failing to see how American policies contribute to these things.

And it's depressing because these should not be partisan issues. the Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans when it comes to this stuff.

When it comes down it to it - you should not trust the government. In an earlier post you said you were an optimist when it came to this administration. You seem to trust the government when they tell you this war is not for oil but to "liberate" the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. All I'm saying is - question this stuff.

Maybe you think that the War is right even if it is for oil - that Iraqis will be better off selling their oil to us under a US-backed "democracy" and that we'll have a good supply of oil well into the future - everybody wins and that all the death was worth it.

I can understand that argument because at the end of the day I do think that Bush and his cronies are doing what they think will benefit the country most in the long run. That the ends justify the means.

I disagree - two wrongs don't make right - but that's a separate discussion entirely.

October 31, 2006 6:53 AM

 
Anonymous Ted T. said...

"“G.W. Bush will go down in history as having been guilty of crimes against humanity. One hopes he will be tried for them some day.”

And so can we try you for false accusations Ted if he is found correct?

Hmmm….

-Jay-"
Jay, go threaten someone else, preferably someone as stupid as you. George W. Bush is demonstratively guilty of Crimes Against Humanity. His own administration has admitted to 30,000 to 40,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Whether his or Lancet's numbers are closer to the truth doesn't change a thing. Although I am certainly a lot more willing to trust Lancet over Bush. Other studies will be done soon enough.

Considering we went to war against Iraq under false pretenses, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. are war criminals in the deaths of those civilians. (Not to mention the kidnapping and torture of innocent Canadian and German citizens amongst others). The only practical question is whether any future US government will be enlightened enough to send them for trial to The Hage.

This sort of stuff isn't an idle threat -- Henry Kissinger for one can't travel to Europe as he will likely be arrested for war crimes (the bombing of Camobodia), and it wouldn't be any different for Nixon if he were still alive. Chile's Pinochet was arrested in the UK, and only escaped trial by claiming senility and infirmity. Had he been caught in Spain he wouldn't have been so lucky.

GWB won't be doing much traveling once he leaves office.

October 31, 2006 10:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the @jay poster

“You think they are such "great people" that you approve of whatever their mission without ever questioning the basis on which they were sent.”

What part of war on terror do you not understand? Which one of the 14 resolutions to the UN charter do you not grasp? I have questioned much about both wars (Afghanistan & Iraq) and am still learning, so unless you can provide some empirical evidence contrary, not just rhetoric that’s been piped into your mind by anti-war propaganda, you can leave my questioning to it’s own resolve thank you very much.

“You, Jay, the noble idiot will never have the intellect and courage to be the one to stand up for those poor brave souls who are dying at the hands of bad decisions by made by lesser men.”

You know, I was following along with anticipation that you might have a brain, but then you went and did the ol’ liberal “I can’t think of anything intelligent to say at the moment so I’m gonna resort to name calling, dude or dudette, if you wanna go round and round with insults, I’m your huckleberry.

“It is people like you that make me so disappointed with this country and our people.”

Like I have said and several of your buddies above have indicated, personal attacks do not stimulate good intellectual arguments. They only exuberate issues you can’t win.

“Blind, by choice. Your cowardice, hides behind your illusion of principle.”

Well, a good 50+ percent believe pretty close to me that it’s you who are the coward and your hiding behind the elite media rhetoric and basically being lazy, cause when you think of it, which is harder? A> Going off and fighting the war on Terror, or B> simply criticizing it? Like Andre said above, you don’t get a cookie if you pick “B”.

Sorry to disappoint you.

……






To the poster on October 31, 2006 6:53 AM (at least provide a fictitious name) so I can address you by a name instead of a time and date. Thanks


Well done. Now that was some of the best commentary so far.

“You can't just "take out the insurgency." You're just ignoring the problem. It's like saying, "World War II wouldn't have been so bad if you take the Germans out of the mix."

I agree and I realize that. Wouldn’t the war be going quite a bit different if we could though? Ok, I’m dreaming. A lot of you aren’t reading the whole post however, or your glossing over it too quickly. I will admit this is getting pretty long as of 150+ posts but I pointed out earlier that the insurgency (at least from the reports I’m seeing) is mainly caused by foreigners. So why can’t we shutdown the borders to Iraq for instance for an extended period?. They have done it on several occasions. This won’t halt, but I bet it would drop the daily fatality rates and suicide bombing down greatly. I don’t live there; you tell me why they don’t?

“It's a tragedy when our elected officials go to war on lies. And even if you disagree with me that it was lie - I say it's still a tragedy if we went to war over flimsy intelligence”

Well, I don’t entirely disagree with you here, but let’s make one distinction; it wasn’t President Bush who lied. Read the link on the WMD above. The commission clearly points out that it was the intelligence community’s error but of course it’s easier to point to the executive cause “he’s in charge”, “he should have known” which is bunk. The nice thing is it’s being rectified to a certain degree with intelligence reforms. “Another words, hopefully it will never again occur.

Unlike for example what happened in Vietnam, when President Johnson fabricated a lie to deceive the American public into believing that innocent people were being killed in villages along with the North Vietnam Water skirmish which actually was an accident. Now that was a lie! He had the correct intelligence and yet he chose to deceive. I don’t buy Bush did the same.

I also agree with you that it’s a tragedy if we went to war for the sole purpose that Saddam has WMD. I think there was a few other actions that led to this that weren’t OIL related.

“This war for oil isn't so we can just pillage the oil fields for free oil - it's so we can install a US-friendly government that will promise to supply us with oil at affordable prices. We are securing that Iraqi oil fields will supply US oil companies above all others.”

Really? What makes you say that? Post a few links on that, I would be curious where you’re getting that. See, I’m open ;)

“By installing a US-friendly government in Iraq - we ensure US supply of oil - cementing our position as the world's dominant power.”

Like we need to remind people that we are a world power, oh please. If anything it’s to establish a democracy in the area. I would even buy so we can keep IRAN at bay before that one.

“I do not believe that thumbing their nose at us is an act of war. I guess that is just an ideological difference that we probably won't ever agree on.”

I guess your not a big proponent of probable cause either, right?

“And by the way, we thumb our nose at the rest of the world almost daily - does this justify war against us? We violate the UN charter, the Geneva convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We refuse to join the rest of the world in support of the Kyoto Protocols. We oppose UN human rights proposals. If anything - we are the most arrogant country in the world - the greatest threat to world peace - a rogue nation, a failed state.”

I would love to take this offline, too juicy to get into here and my response (Sorry everyone) is already too long.

Again, thanks for your commentary

Good job~ mr/ms October 31, 2006 6:53 AM ;)

-Jay-

October 31, 2006 11:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Jay, go threaten someone else, preferably someone as stupid as you.”

Now Ted,

As ol President Reagan used to say, “There ya go again”

You just can’t keep away from the insults can you? Is it in the DNA, the water or your ideology as a whole?

I wasn’t threatening you personally, and because I disagree
with your ideology doesn’t make one stupid. I might have an IQ
lower than you, but that shouldn’t mean I can’t contribute.

And Ted,

“(Not to mention the kidnapping and torture of innocent Canadian and German citizens amongst others). The only practical question is whether any future US government will be enlightened enough to send them for trial to The Hage.

This sort of stuff isn't an idle threat -- Henry Kissinger for one can't travel to Europe as he will likely be arrested for war crimes (the bombing of Camobodia), and it wouldn't be any different for Nixon if he were still alive. Chile's Pinochet was arrested in the UK, and only escaped trial by claiming senility and infirmity. Had he been caught in Spain he wouldn't have been so lucky.

GWB won't be doing much traveling once he leaves office.”

This is what makes great movies, you should be a writer for Universal.

-Jay-

October 31, 2006 11:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster on October 31, 2006 6:53 AM (at least provide a fictitious name) so I can address you by a name instead of a time and date. Thanks

Yeah, I regret not posting with a name sooner - I just keep thinking these will be one-off posts and that I won't be tempted to keep responding ... or maybe that at some point Wil will just throw us all off his blog in an attempt to reclaim it from an argument that probably has no end. But at any rate, the name is Ben.

I will admit this is getting pretty long as of 150+ posts but I pointed out earlier that the insurgency (at least from the reports I’m seeing) is mainly caused by foreigners. So why can’t we shutdown the borders to Iraq for instance for an extended period?. They have done it on several occasions. This won’t halt, but I bet it would drop the daily fatality rates and suicide bombing down greatly. I don’t live there; you tell me why they don’t?

There are clearly a lot of things that have been totally mis-handled in the reconstruction effort over there. Effectively closing down the borders would probably be a good thing.

If you're interested in that topic, I just recently read Bob Woodward's new book State of Denial and it provides a very, very detailed look at the failures of our reconstruction efforts.

And while I don't agree with Woodward's analysis (he blames Rumsfeld for most of the administrations mistakes while painting Bush as a kind of dimwitted but well-meaning leader) it seems like a very even handed, accurate account of the mistakes made during reconstruction.

I think maybe we have lost the meaning of each other respective points with regard to this insurgency argument...

I think you were trying to say originally that people would not call Iraq a tragedy if the insurgency wasn't so bad. I was kind of trying to make two points: arguments like that don't add value because it's a completely hypothetical and that Iraq would still be a tragedy because it is War based on deception. I think we both can agree that it would be a good thing to stop or limit the insurgency.

Also, I think fundamental to our disagreement is our view of the insurgency. You have said the insurgency is the "real" enemy, essentially saying that the insurgency is the problem. I view the insurgency as a symptom of a much larger problem - the larger problem being unjust and imperial US foreign policies.

Arab terrorists don't hate us because of our freedom - as is so commonly repeated - but because of what our foreign policies to do their countries and their people. And I want to make it clear - that this in no way justifies their terrible actions. Murder and acts of terrorism are never justified. But until we deal with the root causes of their they will keep fighting us.


... let’s make one distinction; it wasn’t President Bush who lied. Read the link on the WMD above. The commission clearly points out that it was the intelligence community’s error but of course it’s easier to point to the executive cause “he’s in charge”, “he should have known” which is bunk.

I have heard of the WMD Commission and its report and I'm not really sold on it's conclusions. The WMD commission was appointed solely by the President with no congressional oversight - so I'm automatically doubtful.

And if you believe Woodward, there were various pieces of intelligence that could be seen as supporting the WMD conclusion - but also according to Woodward many of the intelligence reports were unverified and very flimsy. Woodward seemed to argue that Bush & company didn't ask enough questions, didn't work hard enough to confirm these reports.

I disagree, I think they had some weak evidence so they ran with it and worked as hard as they could to exaggerate it. I think they were looking for every excuse possible to attack Iraq and if a few faulty intelligence reports helped then so be it.

Unlike for example what happened in Vietnam, when President Johnson fabricated a lie to deceive the American public into believing that innocent people were being killed in villages along with the North Vietnam Water skirmish which actually was an accident. Now that was a lie! He had the correct intelligence and yet he chose to deceive. I don’t buy Bush did the same.

Totally right about Johnson, you won't hear me defending the Vietnam war. I was actually considering writing about that in an earlier post to convince you that the government is capable of such lies.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this argument so agree to disagree?

Really? What makes you say that? Post a few links on that, I would be curious where you’re getting that. See, I’m open ;)

You really need sources to prove that any government that comes to power in Iraq is going to be US-friendly? And if you accept that the Iraqi government will be US friendly it just stands to reason that they will give the bulk of their oil contracts to US companies. You will probably disagree, but I don't think this is a big conspiracy theory here. If you want sources, just look for wall street forecasts about US companies getting oil contracts once the Iraqi government gets it's act together.

Like we need to remind people that we are a world power, oh please. If anything it’s to establish a democracy in the area. I would even buy so we can keep IRAN at bay before that one.

I think you ignored that little paragraph in my last post about the concept of peak oil. The idea is that world oil production has/will soon peak and eventually decline. The important concept being the decline in oil production that will cause mass disruption to the world economy - because as well all know - basically the whole world - or at least the western world - is heavily dependent on oil.

People who believe in peak oil believe that during this time you're going to see a new series of wars over the world's remaining supply of oil.

Now I'm not a complete believer in all things peak oil - some of it is a bit too simplistic, some of it a bit to conspiracy theoryish... but the basic concept seems relatively sound and the importance to our discussion is not really if the peak oil concept is correct or not - but if Bush & company believe it.

Because if they do - then it is vital to ensure a longterm supply of oil. It's not about reminding other countries of our status as a world power - it's about maintaining that status.

I guess your not a big proponent of probable cause either, right?

Probable cause allows a police office to make an arrest, perform a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant (straight from wikipedia) It does not allow a police office to convict and sentence a person - a jury does that and the US is not, and should not be, the judge, jury and executioner of the world.

- Ben

October 31, 2006 2:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ben,

I think everyone from this blog can take a lesson from your demeanor and professional attitude. Non- attacking and just giving the facts man! I likely ;)

"I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this argument so agree to disagree?"

Agreed!

I know I'm going to get FLAME mail for this, but since you are the first really intelligent voice I have heard here it will be worth it, please email me when you have time. I have a few other off topic questions I want to pick your brain on and it would be too long to post. Thank you so much for your commentary!!!!

al1 at emailaccount.com

Thanks

-Jay-

November 01, 2006 12:37 PM

 
Anonymous atma said...

I live in a country were the average person thinks of W G. Bush as a total incompetent person who acts like tedy bear for major oil companies.
Most people here believe that 11th sept was an inside job, for us gov to make sure that they will find no resistance at all from inside at the war against IRAQ (which was the primary target - iraq no Afghanistan).
It may be conspiracy theories although most people believe them in Greece.
Oh another thing, most people here were supporting Saddam and not the USA (still today they think of the USA as a foreigner that went to Middle East in order to get the oil).
I can't prove anything, it's not the entire picture for sure, but you can see were exactly this government brought the country.
USA is the most hated nation, due to their foreign policy.

Best Regards from Greece :-)

November 01, 2006 4:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The democrats all, unanimously, supported the war and the PATRIOT act.

The claim that there are "many" who oppose it is silly-- the sure like to speachify against george bush when the votes were cast, they did not show the backbone then.

The only way the US will ever get off the path to tyranny is if people start voting Libertarian.

Libertarians actually oppose the war, oppose the war on drugs, support gay rights, etc. Libertarians are what democrats claim to be but never have the guts to be.

The democrat and reupublican parties are just two wings of the eternal-war-on-people party. The onyl differences between them is in who to kill and when.

November 01, 2006 4:26 PM

 
Blogger Gustaf said...

Its funny--and then, when you think about it, really sad--that Bush can be accused of many of the same things on Saddam's rap sheet.

November 01, 2006 8:03 PM

 
Blogger Leon said...

There's a similar problem in Australia about the homogenity of political parties. The thing is, people fundamentally want to do the right thing. We as a species like to think everything we do has a reason and a justification. In politics, everyone makes a lot of hot air, (161 comments and counting), but nothing ever moves because people are convinced they are right. If you manage to find a way to convince people they are wrong, they will either disregard it if its not strong enough proof, or pull out of the thing entirely. You can't really convert.

All anyone knows is, the world is pretty screwed up, its not their fault, and they aren't in a position to really do anything about it.

A wise fictional man once said, "Election is a very poor way to choose a king. The other ways are worse, of course, but it is still a very bad way."

I think it's dead on. It's obvious the system is faulty. There isn't an obvious way of fixing it. Completely rebuilding it is out of the question. All that needs to happen is the right person in the right place at the right time, but I don't think there are any more right people left in the world.

As a Uni student, there would be plenty of people who would say 'protest' and 'rise up', but that kind of shit hasn't worked since the 60s and it sure as hell isn't going to work again. The world seems to have slid into apathy and greed and religion and all the other evils.

So I say, write software. Because Wil, there's a hell of a lot in the world that you don't have control over. But when you're building new worlds from an empty screen, you do.

Speaking of which, I like Delicious Library. It's everything a good Mac application should be. I only wish you'd release something new. Something enormous. A killer app. Because I know you and your pals have more than enough skill and talent.

November 01, 2006 10:51 PM

 
Blogger glassonion said...

I completely agree that Bush is not only the worst President in U.S. History but also the least intelligent . He has made up words because of his limited intelligence. He fabricates a large percentage of the threats we supposedly face as a nation. His puppet "Penis" Cheney is a very real threat to this country, should he suceed him in 2008.I call him "Penis" because it is Politically Correct. A Dick by any other name. Wake Up America and see the real enemy..How much more spying on American Citizens are we going to tolerate? How many more Rights are you willing to Lose? Bush started a war in the Middle East that we will never win..I lived in Turkey in the late 60's and I know for a fact that we will never be safe from the assaults to come! The Muslim resolve will not be broken. We pissed them off and they WILL NOT STOP even when we get our troops home..It is truly a war of wills and the American Will is not as strong,Viet Nam was a Vacation compared to the can of worms the Bush Regime opened.. Starting with the 1st "WEED" Planted in Washington.. How many of you Republican Fools will try to send Jeb the Joke to the White House? I say we send a Bush Hog Instead!! One Thing is funny is when it comes to scandals, The Democrats usually involves sex w 1 person. Rebublicans want to screw everyone. For Instance Kennedy /Monroe, Clinton/Lewinski (even Eisenhower fooled around)as opposed to Nixon/Watergate,Bush/Iraq/Afgahnistan
Rough times ahead from now on. How many of our children are we willing to bury? Me, Not a One!

November 01, 2006 11:42 PM

 
Anonymous Tony said...

Fantastic! Excellent!
I've often been rather apathetic about politics in this country, hoping to get out when I can. Your post, among other events in recent months, has changed my opinion. Leaving is not the solution, the problem needs to be reconciled. It may be sad that I can't find anyone in politics that is truly worth voting for, beyond putting a leash on Bush, but it has to be done and the status quo in that sense can not be altered just yet.

November 06, 2006 10:28 AM

 
Blogger clt510 said...

Will, I think you have made the same mistake than many others have. You have chosen to take the word of partisans on one side of the spectrum rather than RTFM yourself or in general do your own research.

Would you accept the word of a brain-dead reporter on what features the Mac OS X system has or how easy/hard it is to program? Or how about a lackey for PC magazine on the relative merits of Windows XP versus Mac OS X?

The law you are railing against does not say what you (or your sources) say it does. What it does is set clear limits, for the first time, on what is and what is not acceptable interrogation methods. Naturally, we may disagree with where the line should be, but there needs to be one. The only really objectionable provision is the automatic amnesty for interrogator for egregious behavior prior to this law. (It shouldn't be automatic.)

As for habeas corpus...you simply don't know what you're talking about. POWs (aka "detainees") never have had automatic habeas corpus rights or the right to challenge their internment in a court of law. This law is simply affirming that prior existing condition.

If there are problems (e.g., identifying who is a POW), it is created by the terrorists who choose not to follow international law. Nor does the law even apply to American citizens, residents or even to illegal aliens captured on American territory.

It only applies to people captured as a result of the application of military force for which there was prior congressional authorization on foreign soil. And even then, the special tribunal rules must be invoked on a case-by-case basis by the POTUS.

As for your comment on "And the US economy was actually much stronger under Bill Clinton". You meant to say, I'm sure, "And the US economy was actually much stronger under Bill Clinton and Republican majorities in the House and Senate." Frankly, this is just a silly argument. If you want a (somewhat) comparable situation. Bush + Republican majorities = Carter + Democratic majorities.

Different times. No 9/11. No post-internet bubble burst. No energy shortages. The two scenarios are worlds apart.

I don't mind you commenting on politics from time to time, but I wish you'd do your own research and use the same quality of intellectual standards you use for your programming. That includes 1) RTFM ) recognize when you are getting a partisan account of the facts, 3) question all accounts, do your own research, arrive at your own conclusions.

I'm not crying any tears over the Republican setbacks...they were long overdue. I just strongly disagree with you about the reasons they were needed.

November 14, 2006 10:04 AM

 
Blogger Dont Call Me Beautiful said...

I'm a 17 year old high school girl, and I'm probably the only one who'll ever tell you that you're my new favorite person.

This kind of stuff makes me happy.

January 12, 2007 6:17 PM

 
Blogger Infinity said...

I'm going on 17 and I sort of agree. Bush is against torture, which is great. But I can't applaud that. Call me selfish, but there are people all throughout America who are suffering under the American government, residents of ghettos and projects, young homeowners, victims of gentrification, unemployed, you know it all.

Plus, I don't think I like being in a country that is a leader in ANY kind of elimination. Maybe it can't be helped.

January 15, 2007 1:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

U rock my socks off

January 15, 2007 1:28 PM

 
Blogger Brent Roos said...

And the US economy was actually much stronger under Bill Clinton

Of course because under Clinton unemployment was under 4.5% and the stock market reached all-time highs, right.

WRONG. Please stop spreading your propaganda based upon lies and ignorance.

I bet YOU wish you were Monica Lewinsky, so YOU could give 'ol Bill a BJ too.

Am I right or what?

January 20, 2007 7:29 PM

 
Blogger musicwriter said...

If Hillary Clinton gets elected president, what will Bill be known as...the First Man?

January 20, 2007 7:53 PM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

I bet YOU wish you were Monica Lewinsky, so YOU could give 'ol Bill a BJ too.

Wow, that's some intelligent debate, sir. I congratulate you for helping disprove the notion that Republicans are all reactionary assholes.

Honestly, the best you can do is that the man had oral sex? That's your complaint? Bush kills 3,000 Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and you're all, "Well, at least he didn't get a hummer in the oval office!"

January 20, 2007 8:29 PM

 
Blogger Aukcje said...

Thanks for this very good article ... Can i translate this and insert on my site in Poland? ... Thanks
Aukcje

January 30, 2007 10:48 AM

 
Blogger Wil Shipley said...

Aukcje: Fine with me!

January 31, 2007 4:15 AM

 
Anonymous P2P said...

Very internesting point of view, although I don't agree in few matters.

March 20, 2007 10:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not Coucescu, it's Ceausescu (as in: Nicolae Ceausescu) or Ceausesco.

April 15, 2007 10:48 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home