(09-14-2009 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for what to do, IMO there are two rules for dealing effectively with Arabs and Iranians:
1. Respect them and their way of life.
2. Demand that they respect you and yours.

Does "Arabs and Iranians" equate to Muslims in general? For example, would this hold true of Indonesian Muslims, French, American?

In that context I was referring specifically to the Middle East (and tried several different wordings before settling on that), but I think it wouldn't be a bad approach for dealing with anyone.

Shrub pretty much disrespected the rest of the world.
Now Obama is pretty much disrespecting ourselves to them.

I'm actually sorry I threw that in there about "those who hate America". While I think it's a fascinating topic and appreciate the discussion so far, I thought the original topic was pretty interesting too and I'm bummed it's probably going to get short shrift.

Anyway, I generally agree with Owl 69's points.

I'm by no means saying our actions have justified 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, but that we need to understand we've acted in ways that have pissed people off, and that they do have some valid grievances against us. I feel like ignoring those points will simply lead to more of the same.

The only major thing I'd like to add to Owl 69 is that we've propped up a kleptocracy of princes in Saudi Arabia. The people of SA have been oppressed and repressed and had no opportunity to share in the immense wealth of their natural resources, while the US has been protecting the ruling family from internal and external threats. Clearly Bin Laden is a cold-blooded hypocrite exploiting the angry underclass, but some of that anger he expolits comes from a real and understandable place. It's worth remembering when considering the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

I still find this article from shortly after 9/11 to be a worthwhile read: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011105/klare .

(09-14-2009 06:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not.

Well said.

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world".

In some ways, I think it would be great if people DID focus on it -- if they could do so holistically and objectively, instead of selectively and with the foregone conclusion that the US is evil. I'll stack up the way the United States treats the rest of the world against the way any other major power in human history has treated other nations. In the entire history of mankind, no other country has ever given so many of its own lives for the freedom of others, or been a more consistent champion of liberty and progress, than the United States has in past 100 years. None of this is to claim perfection, or even anything remotely close to perfection. But it is to claim that, by the standards of human history, Americans have given and still give far more light than darkness to the world. And a couple centuries from now, when current apologist fads have joined their more murderous sibling "isms" in the dustbin of history, and the distance of time allows a greater measure of judgment, historians will write with admiration that the world's most powerful country was also its freest, its most inventive, and its most generous.

I agree, although I think it's dangerous to look at it from too great a distance. If you save 10 babies from burning buildings and kick one guy in the nuts, you're going to end up with someone out there looking to make you cough blood -- despite all the good you've done.

(09-14-2009 07:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I agree, although I think it's dangerous to look at it from too great a distance.

Certainly a fair point. After all, it's not the actions of historians that we're really worried about

(09-14-2009 06:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not.

Well said.

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world".

In some ways, I think it would be great if people DID focus on it -- if they could do so holistically and objectively, instead of selectively and with the foregone conclusion that the US is evil. I'll stack up the way the United States treats the rest of the world against the way any other major power in human history has treated other nations. In the entire history of mankind, no other country has ever given so many of its own lives for the freedom of others, or been a more consistent champion of liberty and progress, than the United States has in past 100 years. None of this is to claim perfection, or even anything remotely close to perfection. But it is to claim that, by the standards of human history, Americans have given and still give far more light than darkness to the world. And a couple centuries from now, when current apologist fads have joined their more murderous sibling "isms" in the dustbin of history, and the distance of time allows a greater measure of judgment, historians will write with admiration that the world's most powerful country was also its freest, its most inventive, and its most generous.

Even better said.

The fascination with some in looking for our flaws is perhaps based on an expectation of what we aspire to be in our idealogy as opposed to what we achieve in our practicality and humanity.

Far from perfect yes. But again imagine the course of the 20th century without U.S. involvement in world affairs, either militarily or from a humanitarian standpoint.

Collective guilt is understandable, I suppose. However, it will not solve problems and will not only fail to change the past, but will stand in the way of good that could be done when perfection is demanded in the future. Certainly none of the ideologies we've combatted over the last century have been prone to the amounts of sometimes paralyzing introspection and self-loathing we tend to heap on ourselves.

If we have 'earned' the 'hatred' of others, then would 'hatred' of the more despotic and corrupt be justified on our part? Is isolationism a proper response? Or would an ability to still reach out and take part in world affairs be reckoned as virtue? Would the courage to continue to act despite opposition, hatred and jealousy, because not everyone outside of our borders views us as the opposition or with hatred or jealousy, be a better way of dealing with our own imperfection?

I have no doubt we've made tons of mistakes. But that doesn't mean that every time we're accused of a mistake, or that the opposition cries foul, that we've erred.

(09-14-2009 07:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I agree, although I think it's dangerous to look at it from too great a distance. If you save 10 babies from burning buildings and kick one guy in the nuts, you're going to end up with someone out there looking to make you cough blood -- despite all the good you've done.

Need to add to this a bit.

Often the same act that looks to us, through our western eyes, like saving 10 babies from burning buildings looks to them, through their eastern eyes, like a firm swift kick in the nuts.

That's where the real problems start. Liberating Muslim women is but one obvious example. Building schools is another.

(09-14-2009 07:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 06:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not.

Well said.

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world".

In some ways, I think it would be great if people DID focus on it -- if they could do so holistically and objectively, instead of selectively and with the foregone conclusion that the US is evil. I'll stack up the way the United States treats the rest of the world against the way any other major power in human history has treated other nations. In the entire history of mankind, no other country has ever given so many of its own lives for the freedom of others, or been a more consistent champion of liberty and progress, than the United States has in past 100 years. None of this is to claim perfection, or even anything remotely close to perfection. But it is to claim that, by the standards of human history, Americans have given and still give far more light than darkness to the world. And a couple centuries from now, when current apologist fads have joined their more murderous sibling "isms" in the dustbin of history, and the distance of time allows a greater measure of judgment, historians will write with admiration that the world's most powerful country was also its freest, its most inventive, and its most generous.

I agree, although I think it's dangerous to look at it from too great a distance. If you save 10 babies from burning buildings and kick one guy in the nuts, you're going to end up with someone out there looking to make you cough blood -- despite all the good you've done.

Fair point. But in general, we eventually stand up to the nut-kickers here as well (Civil War, Civil Rights Movement).

Dealing with the excesses (Abu Ghraib, etc) is fine. Demonizing those whose intentions were good ("the Bush Crime Family" as I've heard on the radio) is not. Abraham Lincoln would likely have been run out of Washingon on the rails he split if the actions he took during the Civil War occurred today. I tend to see the Lincoln in the monument.

(09-14-2009 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 07:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I agree, although I think it's dangerous to look at it from too great a distance. If you save 10 babies from burning buildings and kick one guy in the nuts, you're going to end up with someone out there looking to make you cough blood -- despite all the good you've done.

Need to add to this a bit.

Often the same act that looks to us, through our western eyes, like saving 10 babies from burning buildings looks to them, through their eastern eyes, like a firm swift kick in the nuts.

That's where the real problems start. Liberating Muslim women is but one obvious example. Building schools is another.

Building schools that benefit the majority, but offend the minority in power is a kick (even if they don't pay for it).

Should I suspend my judgement of what's good because the Taliban has a different definition? Even if others are hurt be their version? I'm convinced my version is better, although there are no doubt many here who wouldn't see a difference or would not agree with me.

Funding health care for all, by increasng taxation on those who have more . . . . . is that also a kick? What if that action also ultimately lowers the overall health care that's been available to others?

I suspect you'd say both.

Not answering, just

When can we do enough so that we won't feel guilty?

Is there anyone we won't feel guilty about kicking in the nuts? The Taliban? Our big, bad capitalists? Executives who take bonuses while workers are laid off and the company is losing money?

I don't think we necessarily suspend doing what we believe is right because the Muslim world disagrees.
But we do need to be aware that they disagree, and also understand that their reaction will be based on what they believe, not what we believe.

Suppose we assume hypothetically that our insistence that the veils come off their women is what caused 9/11 (and I don't think this is that far-fetched, particularly if we consider veils as surrogate for a number of similar issues). Do we:
1. Insist that their women take off their veils and be shocked when the WTC falls, or
2. Stop insisting that their women take off their veils because we are afraid of provoking them, or
3. Insist that their women take off their veils and anticipate and prepare for the 9/11 attacks in response, or
4. Do something else.

I don't claim to have the answer. But I think I do understand the question. And that's more than i can say for the folks in Washington.

(09-14-2009 07:45 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 07:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 06:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not.

Well said.

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world".

In some ways, I think it would be great if people DID focus on it -- if they could do so holistically and objectively, instead of selectively and with the foregone conclusion that the US is evil. I'll stack up the way the United States treats the rest of the world against the way any other major power in human history has treated other nations. In the entire history of mankind, no other country has ever given so many of its own lives for the freedom of others, or been a more consistent champion of liberty and progress, than the United States has in past 100 years. None of this is to claim perfection, or even anything remotely close to perfection. But it is to claim that, by the standards of human history, Americans have given and still give far more light than darkness to the world. And a couple centuries from now, when current apologist fads have joined their more murderous sibling "isms" in the dustbin of history, and the distance of time allows a greater measure of judgment, historians will write with admiration that the world's most powerful country was also its freest, its most inventive, and its most generous.

I agree, although I think it's dangerous to look at it from too great a distance. If you save 10 babies from burning buildings and kick one guy in the nuts, you're going to end up with someone out there looking to make you cough blood -- despite all the good you've done.

Fair point. But in general, we eventually stand up to the nut-kickers here as well (Civil War, Civil Rights Movement).

Dealing with the excesses (Abu Ghraib, etc) is fine. Demonizing those whose intentions were good ("the Bush Crime Family" as I've heard on the radio) is not. Abraham Lincoln would likely have been run out of Washingon on the rails he split if the actions he took during the Civil War occurred today. I tend to see the Lincoln in the monument.

I stand by my original comment, which was that statement like Bush's "they hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other" is simplistic and wrong: some of the hatred comes from the way we treat them. In fact I think that statement is wrong to the point of being dangerous.
While I don't think Bush's intentions were good, I also don't see how that's demonizing him.

My thoughts when I heard Shrub say this--and same thoughts still today:

They don't "hate" our freedoms, but they don't want our freedoms either.
And they sure as h#ll don't want us cramming our freedoms down their throats.
That's not all of them, of course; but it does include the ones who would become terrorists.

(09-14-2009 07:54 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Is there anyone we won't feel guilty about kicking in the nuts? ... Our big, bad capitalists? Executives who take bonuses while workers are laid off and the company is losing money?

The executives can say they earned the bonuses because they savedorcreated a lot of jobs to keep the layoffs from being even greater, and that the company's deficit would be even bigger without their efforts.

CEO, company, not much different from CEO, country.

JOwl
I capitalize for emphasis, not for yelling. That is what exclamation points are for. I'm sorry if you don't like my style of typing.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd take my comments in context rather than pick out certain words or phrases and debate them. I have no need or desire to convince you to my position.

If someone says that the reason there was no rebuttal was that there was no need (implying that the speech was without controversy)... and fails to mention that the likely REASON there was no need was the pre-emptive complaints... then I am correct in pointing that out. I am not (as you implied) comparing pre-speech complaints to a rebuttal. I also feel justified in mentioning that just because THIS speech wasn't controversial doesn't mean the next one won't be... Disagree if you like. Though certainly not a guarantee, history is on my side.

If you ask me why I feel some way, I am happy to explain myself.... however... I have no need to have you agree with my feelings. You obviously don't and I suspect nothing short of a tragic event actually happening will convince you... and by then it will be a pointless argument.

Quote:This slippery-slope argument of what might happen in 20yrs just doesn't do anything for me. If the president abuses such a forum, let's deal with it then.

I've yet to hear one person tell my why this speech was necessary at all. Having a President broadcast a speech into the classrooms is technology that has been around for decades. Why is it NOW that we suddenly think this is something we absolutely have to do?

You are free to raise your children as you see fit... and if you want to wait until things happen (like this speech or 9/11... I'm still trying to figure out how you equate THOSE two) and THEN address them with your children after the fact, then go ahead. I prefer a different approach. The difference between YOUR philosophy and MINE in this instance is that THE GOVERNMENT has taken my right away... for absolutely no obvious purpose. I'll get unnecessarily political here for a moment and say that the state has no right to take freedoms from one person or persons (including the freedom to introduce my child to politics when I choose) without an over-riding benefit to society as a whole... and I have been shown no benefit whatsoever.

On a personal basis... The problem ISN'T the children of involved parents... REGARDLESS of how they choose to parent... It's the children of UNINVOLVED parents who are letting the state raise their children... At a time when teachers and parents are struggling to teach their children to OBEY authority figures... it isn't a good time to introduce the concept of questioning your government. In 10 years, THOSE children's opinions and votes will have been shaped by the state... and years of being told

Quote:Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

while ours will have been shaped by the critical thought processes we taught them... and they will be cancelling out our children's votes... or worse yet, realize that they have been lied to and become antagonists.

The critical thinker will hear that quote and say... what they say is important because they make policy... so I need to make sure I agree with them... while the "indoctrinated" will say... We need to listen to what they say because they are in charge. Hence you think I'm a right-wing conservative just arguing against Obama... I'd say that many religions discourage critical thinking... and MANY religious zealots are on the right, not the left. I don't hear many preachers speaking in OBVIOUSLY detrimental tones... yet obviously many people interpret them that way...

While I have some comfort that high school and college professors will encourage critical thought and ask their students to "question authority"... I have no such faith in our elementary schools.... the target of this particular speech. Parents are telling them to listen and obey... Teachers are telling them to listen and obey... but the government is telling them to listen and question?? You go ahead and deal with your 1st grader on that if you choose. I'll wait.

(09-14-2009 08:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 07:45 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 07:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 06:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I believe those who 'hate us' are going to 'hate us' whether we feel guilty or not, or whether we actually deserve it or not.

Well said.

(09-14-2009 02:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm just not quite on board with the need for us to focus on "the way we treat the rest of the world".

In some ways, I think it would be great if people DID focus on it -- if they could do so holistically and objectively, instead of selectively and with the foregone conclusion that the US is evil. I'll stack up the way the United States treats the rest of the world against the way any other major power in human history has treated other nations. In the entire history of mankind, no other country has ever given so many of its own lives for the freedom of others, or been a more consistent champion of liberty and progress, than the United States has in past 100 years. None of this is to claim perfection, or even anything remotely close to perfection. But it is to claim that, by the standards of human history, Americans have given and still give far more light than darkness to the world. And a couple centuries from now, when current apologist fads have joined their more murderous sibling "isms" in the dustbin of history, and the distance of time allows a greater measure of judgment, historians will write with admiration that the world's most powerful country was also its freest, its most inventive, and its most generous.

I agree, although I think it's dangerous to look at it from too great a distance. If you save 10 babies from burning buildings and kick one guy in the nuts, you're going to end up with someone out there looking to make you cough blood -- despite all the good you've done.

Fair point. But in general, we eventually stand up to the nut-kickers here as well (Civil War, Civil Rights Movement).

Dealing with the excesses (Abu Ghraib, etc) is fine. Demonizing those whose intentions were good ("the Bush Crime Family" as I've heard on the radio) is not. Abraham Lincoln would likely have been run out of Washingon on the rails he split if the actions he took during the Civil War occurred today. I tend to see the Lincoln in the monument.

I stand by my original comment, which was that statement like Bush's "they hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other" is simplistic and wrong: some of the hatred comes from the way we treat them. In fact I think that statement is wrong to the point of being dangerous.
While I don't think Bush's intentions were good, I also don't see how that's demonizing him.

Hmm. I was trying to find common ground. But don't agree with most of this.

1. I think that in general, the Muslim world does not care for, desire or want Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech. The extent that they allow Freedom to Vote is limited to the constraints they put on Freedom or Religion and Freedom of Speech. And we've seen that Freedom of Assembly is as welcome in Iran as it was in Tiannamen Square. When Bush said what he said, he was talking about the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

I do not think he was wrong. Not one bit. It may have been blunt, direct and politically incorrect, but I think he was dead on target.

Was it dangerous to say that? I guess if the fear is offending liberal Muslims or people who are afraid of antagonizing the Muslims on the right, maybe so.

Are our Freedoms and the Bill of Rights inalienable or not? That a government can deny them doesn't make them correct in their actions because that is their culture.

And exactly WHAT in the way we treat them is responsible for hatred? Propping up the Shah took place in the 1950's. What demands were we making prior to 9/11? Asking Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions?

2. I understand that many on the left think Bush was wrong on any number of issues. I do not understand the thought that his intentions were bad. I do not understand those on the extreme left who use phrases like "the Bush Crime Family" in reference to the last administration.

I do not agree with the current administration on many subjects. I do however believe that the President's intentions are good. I just don't believe they are good for everyone, and I do think they are misguided in some instances. I do not think their plans will be in the best interests of the country in the long term. But I think they are sincere in their beliefs. I think that in their pursuit of their beliefs they would be willing to abrogate our rights and freedoms to whatever extent they deem necessary to achieve 'the common good'. That makes them potentially dangerous, but not evil.

I believe Bush had no choice but to fight in Afghanistan. I believe that Saddam Hussein brought the Iraqi War on himself through his own deception and subterfuge, because until we found out he was playing a shell game, it not only was his intention to have all of us believe he had WMD's, most of the world was worried he had them. He had used them on his own people.

What do you think Bush's intentions were, if not good? what were his goals, that were not misguided but bad?

If you disagree with the steps the U.S. government took with regard to torture or civil liberties, that's understandable (and easier in hindsight, not the year or two following the destruction of the WTC). Lincoln had his critics for actions he took during the Civil War as well.

But are you suggesting that in the absence of 9/11, the U.S. government would've taken any of the steps that we're now debating at best (or demanding criminal prosecution for at worst)?

Do you think the government's motivation was anything OTHER than preventing another terrorist attack? That Bush (or Cheney) planned in 2000 to have to set up extraordinary measures?

I don't think you're demonizing Bush for disagreeing with him or believing he made mistakes.

But to the extent that someone (not necessarily you) believes his intentions were bad, I think that is making him out to be something he was not. And as to those on the far left who like to refer to "the Bush crime family" . . . yes that's demonizing him.

Which is worse, torture inflicted in the name of national defense (that as much as I can tell, stopped short of any permanent damage), suspsension of habeas corpus (a la President Lincoln), or authorizing assassination attempts on foreign leaders (as we did in the Kennedy administration)?

(and for the record, no, I'm not a fan of any of the three examples)

Since 9/11 there have been terrorist plots and terrorist attacks in Spain, France and elsewhere. There has not been another attack carried out on U.S. soil, although there were planned attempts. If that was part of the intent, is that intent still "not good", even if you think, or can reasonably argue that the Administration was wrong in the way they carried it out?

I am not going to get in this discussion much as I have to deal with like matters with liberal professors on campus daily. I mainly just want to tell Gerlach how much I appreciate him. While Bush's economic program ( or lack thereof) was a disaster, many liberals demonizing of him was a disgrace. They took away his common humanity. We conservatives have to make sure we don't do the same thing to Obama( per the Glenn Becks of this world). Gerlach it seems to me to strikes just the right balance in attacking Obama's ( and others') policies in a hardhitting heroic way, but not demonizing Obama personally. In fact I sort of like Obama and his family personally. Strangely, they are a good example of our much ballyhooed " family values". But if most people understood what that church of his and ACORN were ( and are) up to they would croke!

(09-15-2009 02:05 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-14-2009 08:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I stand by my original comment, which was that statement like Bush's "they hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other" is simplistic and wrong: some of the hatred comes from the way we treat them. In fact I think that statement is wrong to the point of being dangerous.
While I don't think Bush's intentions were good, I also don't see how that's demonizing him.

1. I think that in general, the Muslim world does not care for, desire or want Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech.
I do not think he was wrong. Not one bit. It may have been blunt, direct and politically incorrect, but I think he was dead on target.
Was it dangerous to say that? I guess if the fear is offending liberal Muslims or people who are afraid of antagonizing the Muslims on the right, maybe so.
2. I understand that many on the left think Bush was wrong on any number of issues.
I do not agree with the current administration on many subjects. I do however believe that the President's intentions are good. I just don't believe they are good for everyone, and I do think they are misguided in some instances. I do not think their plans will be in the best interests of the country in the long term. But I think they are sincere in their beliefs. I think that in their pursuit of their beliefs they would be willing to abrogate our rights and freedoms to whatever extent they deem necessary to achieve 'the common good'. That makes them potentially dangerous, but not evil.

I think the statement in question was more stupid than dangerous. I doubt seriously that it motivated even one more terrorist to do us harm. But I think "hate" was a poor choice of words, because it implies more than I think is true. I think it captures some of the unreality of the last administration. Suppose Shrub had said instead, "they don't want our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other - but we're going to cram them down their throats anyway because we know what's best for them"? How would that have played?

Substitute "health care reform" for the freedoms, and you have something very much akin to what democrat congresspersons were saying about town hall meetings.

I think American politics has become far too much about getting your way, and in that context doing the right thing is almost an afterthought.

I don't necessarily agree that either Shrub's or Obama's intentions are inherently evil. But I do believe that both are more committed to getting their way ideologically than to doing what's best for America. If you believe that either of their ideological visions is appropriate, I suppose that you will tend to lionize the one whose vision you believe, and necessarily demonize the other. I see a lot of that going on, both ways.

My problem is that I don't believe either of their ideological visions to be anywhere even remotely close to where we need to be going. To the extent that each is more interested in pursuing a disastrous ideological course than in doing what is needed, I think that makes both at least extremely dangerous, if not necessarily evil.

(09-15-2009 02:05 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Do you think the government's motivation was anything OTHER than preventing another terrorist attack? That Bush (or Cheney) planned in 2000 to have to set up extraordinary measures?

I don't think you're demonizing Bush for disagreeing with him or believing he made mistakes.

But to the extent that someone (not necessarily you) believes his intentions were bad, I think that is making him out to be something he was not. And as to those on the far left who like to refer to "the Bush crime family" . . . yes that's demonizing him.

Which is worse, torture inflicted in the name of national defense (that

IMO, the left felt anger and frustration over the way the 2000 election was decided. This transformed into personal attacks on Bush and Cheney for the entire eight years and is still being exhibited in the efforts to hurt them in any way possible, regardless of consequences to others and to the nation. All I heard from the left at the time was that the war was about oil, it was about putting money in the pockets of his rich friends or Halliburton, it was about doing it for his daddy, etc. All we heard was either about his stupidity or his evil genius, whatever was convenient. There was no respect shown the presidency then. Now they wonder why Obama doesn't get respect to the extent they would like. You reap what you sow.

(09-15-2009 07:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Suppose Shrub had said instead, "they don't want our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other - but we're going to cram them down their throats anyway because we know what's best for them"? How would that have played?

Substitute "health care reform" for the freedoms, and you have something very much akin to what democrat congresspersons were saying about town hall meetings.

Bingo. During the mortgage crisis, the mortgage lenders who asked people to sign on the dotted line ASAP, don't bother to read it, just trust us, we'll fill in the blanks later, and I promise that you afford it were the villains.

Now Congress is doing the same thing to the American people and they are supposed to be the heroes.

(09-15-2009 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-15-2009 02:05 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Do you think the government's motivation was anything OTHER than preventing another terrorist attack? That Bush (or Cheney) planned in 2000 to have to set up extraordinary measures?

I don't think you're demonizing Bush for disagreeing with him or believing he made mistakes.

But to the extent that someone (not necessarily you) believes his intentions were bad, I think that is making him out to be something he was not. And as to those on the far left who like to refer to "the Bush crime family" . . . yes that's demonizing him.

Which is worse, torture inflicted in the name of national defense (that

IMO, the left felt anger and frustration over the way the 2000 election was decided. This transformed into personal attacks on Bush and Cheney for the entire eight years and is still being exhibited in the efforts to hurt them in any way possible, regardless of consequences to others and to the nation. All I heard from the left at the time was that the war was about oil, it was about putting money in the pockets of his rich friends or Halliburton, it was about doing it for his daddy, etc. All we heard was either about his stupidity or his evil genius, whatever was convenient. There was no respect shown the presidency then. Now they wonder why Obama doesn't get respect to the extent they would like. You reap what you sow.

I won't say that it started with the Dems treatment of Bush, any more than it started with the Republicans treatment of Clinton. Or any number of incidents before it. Sure, it feels worse now, but this is hardly new stuff. I guess what's newer is the instantaneous feel, and the filter that isn't there any more in terms of "news" delivery (for better or worse). Those with power will do what they feel necessary to keep their power or grow their power. That is a truism of all time.

Isn't a large part of the "Muslum" problem one of relative hypocricies?

What I mean is... We insist that they allow their people (especially women) more freedoms... and stop barbaric punishments (like stoning rape VICTIMS or homosexuals) or be put on lists of 'bad" countries with economic sanctions... now obviously, we insist on many other things as well... but these are some of the more aggregious ones... further, when they send their children here for school, they decide they like McDonalds and open a franchise... All things they don't like... all things western. If you want to call that "our freedom"... then yes... they don't like our freedoms... and they CERTAINLY don't like us trying to force our freedoms on them...

So what are we supposed to do?? Simply let them stone rape victims, or cut the heads off of people for drawing pictures of Allah?

I wonder how that would come out in a poll? If we would leave them alone and let them brutalize women and dissidents... I doubt it... I wonder if they would actually leave us alone if we truly left them alone... given that Allah says their way to paradise is to eliminate us, I doubt it...

I guess what I'm asking... would those who think we should "butt out" of their business be okay with them doing as they wish?

On some levels, I think so... but on others... I don't know how we could.