Kevin's Watch

He may not have said either of those things but Moore has said some equally imflammatory and offensive things his own self.

How about this one:

Moore wrote:Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They
did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they
did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New
York, DC, and the planes destination of California -- these were places
that voted AGAINST Bush!

Or how about this timeless classic:

Moore wrote:"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

Mike's had his share of doozies!

Yep, he says a lot of dumb things. I still don't get that first quote, I assume he's talking about 9/11... the second one though, I agree with. Ignorance and xenophobia are virtues in this country (the US). Republicans love to bash "the intellectual elite", "ivory tower eggheads" and whatnot. To paraphrase a comic strip I saw recently, "If being an elitist means not being the dumbest motherf***er in the room, then I'll be an elitist." I don't want my next door neighbor to be President, I want someone who has a brain ;)

Are we having fun yet? :)

I'm not much of a Kerry fan, but mostly it's his personality (or lack thereof). I'm worried we have another Al Gore on our hands. During the primary season I rooted for Wesley Clark, whom I found eloquent, enlightened, and considers force a last resort, despite being a four star general. Unfortunately he's not a politician (another plus in my book). I liked Dean but considered him unelectable. But, as usual, the Democratic party picked the most boring, monotone candidate. But he's infinitely preferable to me than the Mayberry Machiavelli we've got now.

Wow, I dared take a long weekend and look what happens! Michael Moore?!? Gemme a break. Yeah, I'd like to shut him up, but only so I can here somebody speak the truth instead. Michael Moorcock writes better fiction, guys. As for Dick Cheney's tax returns, that's his money, and I notice nobody offered to sent their own return money (or their $3-500 refund) to the public school fund either. As for Osama's family, my understanding is the US government let Charles Manson's family go home, too. And Adolf Hitler's. And please don't even bother telling me you're a Republican and then spout off that liberal drivel; it insults my intelligence. And yes, I admit I would vote for Andy Griffith before I would vote for the 21st century JFK, but I'm actually gonna do an amazing thing and vote for the guy who I want in office, George W. Bush.

Tranquil Hegemony wrote:I'm not much of a Kerry fan, but mostly it's his personality (or lack thereof). I'm worried we have another Al Gore on our hands. During the primary season I rooted for Wesley Clark, whom I found eloquent, enlightened, and considers force a last resort, despite being a four star general. Unfortunately he's not a politician (another plus in my book). I liked Dean but considered him unelectable. But, as usual, the Democratic party picked the most boring, monotone candidate. But he's infinitely preferable to me than the Mayberry Machiavelli we've got now.

Dan, I thnk that T.H.'s point is that HE, I, and even the guy who thinks Kerry is a "douche bag" do indeed WANT Kerry to be president. And given Bush's stunning record of malfeasance and shortcomings too numerous to detail at length, it is difficult for anyone to understand WHY you want Bush to be elected. Maybe I missed it, but you say you are happy to vote for him, we jst haven't heard an accounting of why such a vote could in good conscience be cast.

My vote is decided by the necessity of getting rid of Bush.

I saw an election sticker the other day that I liked:
"Redefeat George W. Bush."
Ever notice we're so busy with a war now that we don't have time to clean up the voting system? How convenient. That should have been Congress's first priority after the travesty we called an election. There was plenty of time to fix it before 9/11.

Bush seems to be hoping that we won't notice while he and his friends turn our wilderness, on which the health of our atmosphere is based, into another Middle-East type wasteland.

dANdeLION wrote:And please don't even bother telling me you're a Republican and then spout off that liberal drivel; it insults my intelligence.

If that was directed at me, rest assured I'm a registered Democrat, and proud to be a liberal. I don't agree with them 100% of the time though. For example, I think the "war on drugs" is a hideous failure; anything less dangerous than alcohol (like marijuana) should be legalized and regulated (which would actually make it MORE expensive and HARDER to get by kids) and real drug abuse should be treated like a medical problem, not a criminal one.

The "war on terror" has the same basic problem: they're abstract "wars" based on idealism, rather than pragmatism. Maybe police action really is the best way to combat terrorism. Kicking the ass out of countries that had nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with 9/11 just creates MORE TERRORISTS. Osama bin Laden is laughing his ass off right now. He probably has more recruits than he knows what to do with.

Switching tracks now: here are my favorite Bush bumper stickers so far:

Bush/Orwell '04
Bush/Satan '04

hehe ;)

dANdeLION wrote: but I'm actually gonna do an amazing thing and vote for the guy who I want in office, George W. Bush.

Why on earth would you do that ? Unless you either don't live in the US or are planning to move out of the country and live in one that is trying to take over America !

A Gunslinger wrote:...you say you are happy to vote for him, we jst haven't heard an accounting of why such a vote could in good conscience be cast.

Well, consider this instead. You have given me no evidence whatsoever to vote against him. What you write is an amalgem of opinion, spin-doctoring, liberal press diatribe, democratic party line, and whatever else you may cite as a source that I may have missed; but none of it is evidence. On the other hand, I have the evidence of Saddam in jail, 40-something of the card deck either dead or imprisoned, the 'occupation' and eventual liberation of Iraq ahead of our two previous successful attempts of this (Germany and Japan) and finally actual tax cuts (my money back in my pocket) as opposed to welfare assistance (20-50% of my money available if I want to beg).

Bush 1, Skerry 0.

Tranquil Hegemony wrote:

dANdeLION wrote:And please don't even bother telling me you're a Republican and then spout off that liberal drivel; it insults my intelligence.

If that was directed at me,

It wasn't.

You want evidence, huh. I have to leave for a long drive so I'm just gonna keep this to two outright illegal acts committed by the Bush administration.

1. The outing of the undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, merely to discredit her husband Amb. Joe Wilson, who had to balls to investigate Bush's claims that Saddam bought uranium oxide from Niger. A claim we all know now was false and based on forged documents. Revealing an undercover CIA agent's identity is a felony. It might even be treason. A "senior administration official" called six (6) reporters before Robert Novak agreed to publish it. Valerie Plame wasn't just undercover, she was a "NOC" (No Official Cover). That's Mission: Impossible stuff, dude. There's a traitor in the White House.

2. Lying to Congress about the true cost of the Medicare bill, and threatening to fire a White House staffer if he made the true cost public. This bill (a gigantic giveaway to huge corporations) would never have passed if the true cost had been known.

Lies and retribution; the standard operating procedure of the Bush White House.

Tranquil wrote:The "war on terror" has the same basic problem: they're abstract "wars" based on idealism, rather than pragmatism. Maybe police action really is the best way to combat terrorism. Kicking the ass out of countries that had nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with 9/11 just creates MORE TERRORISTS

On this point we agree. "War on Terror" is the PC term for the war against militant radical Islam and that is not an abstract target just a politically sensitive one.

Police action or treating Terrorists as individual criminals has not made a dent in terrorism in the past (9/11 as case in point. Prior to 9/11 terrorism had always been treated as a criminal action rather than a military one). What leads you to believe that this approach will be any more effective going forward? If the militant jihadist is willing to die for his cause what fear does arrest and prosecution hold?

Additionally, If terrorism is dealt with as a police action what is to prevent nations from waging an assymetrical campaign against the west via terrorism? Nations must realize that support of terrorism is untenable and that there will be severe repurcussions for those countries who engage in or condone this behavior. There must be motivation for nations to root out and eliminate terrorists within their own borders. The carrot has not worked so we need to see if the stick will.

IMHO, Iraq was not only a morally justifiable war but it serves a tremendous strategic purpose as well. If, (Note I used the word "if") we can establish a democratic nation in Iraq (I still believe this can be accomplished) we will have created a bulwark against terrorism in the middle east. How uncomfortable will the Saudi monarchs the Syrian despot and the Iranian mullahs be with a functioning democracy on their borders? How long will the ME leaders be able to hold their populations down when the masses see true freedom just across the border? Why do the vast majority of terrorists come from non-western, non-democratic, non-capitalistic societies? Is it purely coincidence?

tranquil wrote:1. The outing of the undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, merely to discredit her husband Amb. Joe Wilson, who had to balls to investigate Bush's claims that Saddam bought uranium oxide from Niger. A claim we all know now was false and based on forged documents. Revealing an undercover CIA agent's identity is a felony. It might even be treason. A "senior administration official" called six (6) reporters before Robert Novak agreed to publish it. Valerie Plame wasn't just undercover, she was a "NOC" (No Official Cover). That's Mission: Impossible stuff, dude. There's a traitor in the White House.

The following in response from Mr. Novak himself on October 1, 2003:

Novak wrote:WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.

<snip> (edited for length and clarity)

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

The medicare issue is another story and one that concerns me. If proven, there is no excuse for this behavior and one must pay the consequences for their actions.

Our city had two hospitals go bankrupt and close when the Medicare bill passed. The Oregon Health Plan, formerly a model health plan for other states, followed suit. The hospital I work for, one of the two major ones in the area, had started building a new hospital complex in an unserved area, and now it's politicking desperately to stay afloat.

Those Medicare "planners" have no concept of consequences.

dANdeLION wrote: ahead of our two previous successful attempts of this (Germany)

Uhhh dAN, the Russians accomplished most of that.

Novak wrote:The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

Last I heard, the FBI was subpoenaing the phone records for Air Force One as part of their investigation of the leak. (Yes, it really is spelled "subpoenaing", I had to look it up ;) They sure seem to think there's a leak in the White House. Novak is lying. And if he isn't, then he's the leak and should be arrested. (Although you might have to be a government employee for it to actually be a crime... but I don't care. Arrest him anyway!)

Brinn wrote:Police action or treating Terrorists as individual criminals has not made a dent in terrorism in the past (9/11 as case in point. Prior to 9/11 terrorism had always been treated as a criminal action rather than a military one). What leads you to believe that this approach will be any more effective going forward? If the militant jihadist is willing to die for his cause what fear does arrest and prosecution hold?

Great points, Brinn. I've been driving all day so I only have enough energy to tackle this one part. Maybe I'll get to the rest later :)

I don't know that police action would work any better. Certainly not the kind we engaged in before 9/11. And I think we were doing a pretty good job in Afganistan before Georgy Boy got all distracted. I saw on the news today that he keeps the pistol Saddam had when we captured him. Oh, he wasn't obsessed...

Anyway - no, arrest and prosecution wouldn't be a deterrent. Why does it need to be? They're willing to die for their cause, there is no deterrent for them. Was the war in Iraq a deterrent? Hell no. Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, not deterred. That was our #1 priority. Iraq could have waited. Saddam was not a threat to the United States. He was a schoolyard bully and the Middle East was his playground. A third-rate, two-bit dictator, of which there are dozens in this world just as bad as he. I'm glad we got him. But I don't know if it was worth 700 soldier's lives (and counting) and the animosity of the world.

There was another dictator, at least as bad as Saddam, worse in my opinion because he wasn't insane. Slobodon Milosovich. Did we invade Serbia? No. We averted a humanitarian crisis with minimal loss of American lives, pretty low collateral damage (there were some "oopses" though - sorry China), and in the end the Serbian people took care of their own. They suffered one too many rigged elections, took to the streets, and took their country back. And it's still not all roses and sunshine over there - but Slobo is rotting in the Hague and the Serbs can be proud of what they acheived.

But Bush seems to think democracy can be forced on a country at the end of a gun. I say they have to want it badly enough to take it for themselves. Otherwise it will never succeed. And America needs to lead by example, not by force. But instead of taking the moral high ground, we stooped to our enemy's level. Throwing out the Geneva Conventions, abusing and torturing prisoners, lying to our own citizens while taking away their civil rights all in the name of safety. WTF is going on? I want us to be the good guys, not this attempt to out-psycho the psychos.

I hope some of that made sense. I'm about to pass out.

dANdeLION wrote:
You have given me no evidence whatsoever to vote against him. What you write is an amalgem of opinion, spin-doctoring, liberal press diatribe, democratic party line, and whatever else you may cite as a source that I may have missed; but none of it is evidence. On the other hand, I have the evidence of Saddam in jail, 40-something of the card deck either dead or imprisoned, the 'occupation' and eventual liberation of Iraq ahead of our two previous successful attempts of this (Germany and Japan) and finally actual tax cuts (my money back in my pocket) as opposed to welfare assistance (20-50% of my money available if I want to beg).

Bush 1, Skerry 0.

The facts I report come not from the left-leaning equivalent of Hannity, Fox news or any of that. As Brinn would likely tell you, my opinions are basd on ongoing and holistic review of many sources, and are not made in a vaccuum. You Ad Hominen attacking of my position here is not warranted. For the future please recall that merely saying a thing does not make it true. If that were the case, then Nixon would have finished his second term, Clinton would never had been impeached, and Ari Fleischer could sleep at night instead of screaming "Mommy forgive me!" into his pillow at night just before he wets the bed. I kid, but you get the point, I hope.

Where you see Iraq as a success, I look a little deeper and see a different story. The conflict in Iraq was not a necessary to undertake as part of the larger"WAR on Terror". Bush, rather than making the unpopular, but naturally more accurate comparison to Viet Nam, likes to campare it to WW II. Well Saddam was no way as relevant on the world stage as Hitler, and was more thug than threat to humanity. In fact, comparing this to WWII is not only insulting to Vets of WWII, it would only be accurate if in reaction to Japan and Germany, we invaded the Congo.

As a result of Iraq, we are reviled in world opinion, in debt up to our ears, have undercut our efforts in Afghanistan (the true front on the so-called WoT), and have given Osama the greatest recruitment toll he ever could have desired. If it weren't so laughably dismal, I'd send Bush and his group of goons little propeller beanies to wear.

Kerry has a greater understanding and appreciation of war and how our nations sits within the context of world affairs. Vote for him and we get our dignity back.

Here's something I agree with Brinn on--that a democratic Iraq would be an excellent thing. Toppling Saddam Hussein is one of the things that should have happened in the 1st Gulf War--we would not be in this mess now if we had finished the job then.

But what concerns me about the current war is the potpourri of reasons we were given for its instigation. First, it was that Saddam Hussein was helping terrorists, and possibly hiding Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Then it was WMD--which I won't start on, because it's possible that Intelligence honestly failed. Then it was liberation of an Oppressed People and Establishing Democracy. All of these are excellent goals--rooting out terror, protecting the Middle East, establishing a bulwark of elected government against totalitarian regimes. But each "reason" for war was spun at us (by Ari Fleischer AND the "liberal" media) as the previous one collapsed--as though the Administration had to keep grabbing new curtains to cover itself up each time another was ripped away.

I don't know if the Administration was dishonest, or if they just weren't very well organized. Either way, it doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence.

On a completely different note, I'd like to point out that while abstention from voting can be seen as a protest against the paucity of the system, there are a lot of peope in the world willing to die for the right to choose their own leaders. We live in a democracy. If we don't like our options, we have the right, and the ability--to change them.