I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Look at the difference thus far between Afghanistan and Iraq. In the first place, we drained the swamp. In the second, we've made the swamp.
Josh, nothing gets by you.
Is the swamp drained in Afghanistan?
David provides a good outline for a "Flood the Zone Friday" blitz with that post.
David is a great guy. Some of David Hale's acolytes left some of their literature in my yard and David (Neiwart) gave me some very good advice on how to handle it. I really appreciated his help on that.
I need to shoot him a few bucks and download the Rush, Newspeak,... pdf file.
My email to Josh:
Um, Josh,
Could you explain to me how we've "drained the swamp" in Afghanistan when the Taliban is on the comeback trail, heroin the is cash crop and al-Qaedi is living happily in the frontier regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan? I seem to recall that President Flightsuit said that we were going to get UBL "dead or alive." We've upped our troop commitment to Afghanistan by a factor of 3 since the "hot war" was supposedly over, but there is no government in Kabul that even controls the western suburbs of the city.
If this isn't a swamp, then I don't know my Iraqs when I see them. If you think that AQ isn't happily planning its next operation in this part of the world, I want a referral to the doctor that put you on whatever you are taking right now.
Melanie
Melanie - well-said.
I will note that we did kinda drain the swamp. We just let the swamp reform. And this is why I don't believe in the "drain the swamp" crap--all we do is create the conditions for new swamps.
We drained the swamp of the innocent civilians - we kicked their asses good!
Unfortunately, we were (supposedly) after the mosquitos, and they're swarmin'!
The peaceniks were right - the chickenhawks were wrong.
...all we do is create the conditions for new swamps.
NTodd, it sounds so reasonable.
But, obviously, the Bushies aren't reasonable.
02:00 AM Jan. 04, 2002 PT
"In an online report, a University of New Hampshire professor charges that the U.S. military has killed more than 4,000 civilians in Afghanistan and that the U.S. media have largely ignored the toll of the war on terrorism. "
This was the last tally of civilian deaths in Afghanistan I could find.
Notice the date. Does anyone know how many people have been killed there?
Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Is a Theocrat And a Moron to Boot
The man who wants the ten commandments displayed in public buildings had this to say in January of this year.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore warned a religious audience Tuesday night of "great consequences" when America turns away from God and suggested the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might be an example.
Moore, in Washington to accept an honorary doctorate in divinity from the National Clergy Council and Methodist Episcopal Church USA, implied a parallel between the attacks and what he contends has been a 40-year legal erosion of several religious rights, including his own right to display the Ten Commandments in court.
He pointed out similarities between the devastation and the biblical words of Isaiah, who had forecast a "day of great slaughter, when the towers fall." He compared that forecast to the attack on the World Trade Center's twin towers.
"How many of you remember Americans running to get gas masks because (of) some bearded man in Afghanistan?" Moore asked during his address at Georgetown University. "Fear struck this country
. . . You see, there are consequences when we turn away from our source of our strength."
The remarks on the 2001 attacks came near the end of the chief justice's speech, which lasted about 30 minutes. Up to then, he had largely discussed his political fight to return prayer to school and the commandments to the public square, using animal analogies and rhyming poems to outline his case.
In 2001, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was widely criticized when he said on evangelist Pat Robertson's TV show that pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals and civil liberties groups have secularized the nation and helped the Sept. 11 attacks happen. Moore wasn't that specific, but he strongly hinted at a causal relationship between the attacks and what he contends is the gradual removal of righteousness from society.
The man's unfit for a judgeship. I'm not anti-religion. I am anti-moron.
Question a Clinton-hater and you find someone who hates one or more of the following:
1) Colored people
2) The poor
3) Women
4) Homosexuals
If I am wrong, educate me. But this has been my experience.
EssJay, is hate, all by itself, always a bad thing? Aren't there things that we must all hate?
Hate Nazis? No controversy there.
Hate terrorists? I wish more people did!
I'm not a Clinton-hater (I voted for him twice) but I certainly see that a lot of people hated him, and I see much the same volume of hatred for W. I don't know if it's genuinely-felt hatred, or payback hatred, or politically-savvy hatred, or what.
So what about hate? Is it always bad?
Re: Draining the swamp
You folks who are jumping on Josh for his "draining the swamp" remark completely miss his point, which is that the Bushies pursued one strategy in Afghanistan, only to completely reverse course in Iraq. It makes no sense at all.
Besides, we *did* drain the Afghan swamp for a little while, before Bush decided that our resources would be better spent fighting a war for Halliburton.
-D.
sure, we drained the swamp... and we dumped the water in Iraq.
and by "we" i mean Bush.
Niewert's posts and writings are occaisionally too strident for me, but he hits the nail substantially on the head here. One of the better Orcinus posts.
I came out of the hardware store today to discover someone--someone old, by the look of the handwriting--objected to my "Support Our Troops: Impeach Bush Now!" bumper sticker and left a note under my windshield wiper. "A Righteous and Successful War: A Great President."
"A Surplus of Cheap Peruvian Blue Flake" was all I could imagine. Still, there's a host of people willing to suspend disbelief. I have to imagine that's what organized religion is all about.
So what about hate? Is it always bad?
Some people hate the police. Some people hate the criminals. Just two sides of the same coin? You tell us.
Cheney and Halliburton sittin' in a tree. Then they were joined be the dasterdly GOP. First came 9/11. Then came the fear. Then we all watched our 401k's up and disappear.
Thank god these assholes will be out in little more then a year!
Hmm. One of Josh's weaknesses is always going for the clever turn of phrase and not the clearheaded analysis. Another is always trying to be the "butch" liberal on the block--he's so contrarian he usually wants to disagree with even the people who agree with him. The "draining the swamp" comment is typical Josh. It sounds cool, until you think about it and realize it's kind of dopey. That swamp is NOT drained, and by making the clever-sounding but question-begging remark, Josh just makes everyone wonder what the hell he meant by it and not ponder his otherwise cogent analysis.
I really do think JM has one of the sharpest minds out there, but sometimes he just writes too much like a freaking grad student.
Hmm. One of Josh's weaknesses is always going for the clever turn of phrase and not the clearheaded analysis. Another is always trying to be the "butch" liberal on the block--he's so contrarian he usually wants to disagree with even the people who agree with him. The "draining the swamp" comment is typical Josh. It sounds cool, until you think about it and realize it's kind of dopey. That swamp is NOT drained, and by making the clever-sounding but question-begging remark, Josh just makes everyone wonder what the hell he meant by it and not ponder his otherwise cogent analysis.
I really do think JM has one of the sharpest minds out there, but sometimes he just writes too much like a freaking grad student.
I esp. like Lowry's opening line about "a few lunatics" accusing Clinton of murder. Excuse me, weren't a "few" of those "lunatics" the Wall Street Journal, who printed and offered for sale a wall-size chart detailing all the horrid crimes of Bill and Hitlery, including somehow causing two teen-aged dopers in Arkansas to get run over by a train?
Thumb, it seems that there is a tacit list of entities that are "acceptable" to hate.
So, it's OK to hate Saddam, OK to hate W, OK to hate Nazis, etc.
Hatred is cool, when it is directed against the acceptable targets.
EssJay listed some of the "unacceptable" targets of hatred. There are many more he didn't list.
I bicycled past a "peace plaza" today, and I wondered about the motivations and premises of the people who put it up.
They hated hate. so they thought.
They hoped our enemies would see for themselves how unhateful and peaceful we are, and would choose not to attack us.
But it's a lie; we hate, and we abhor peace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Aug23.html
OT, but excuse me while I laugh my ass off.
We deposed a tyrant. So, naturally, what we need to do is start signing the paychecks of those people who were instrumental in his tyranny, and asking them to go back to their old jobs.
I am sooooo fucking sick of being right. Now I know what Cassandra and Jeremiah felt like.
While not disclosing how they check the operatives, U.S. officials said they believed some agents remained "fairly untainted" by Hussein's government. But they said they recognized the potential pitfalls in relying on an instrument loathed by most Iraqis and renowned across the Arab world for its casual use of torture, fear, intimidation, rape and imprisonment.
Unbelievable.
We all hate W, right?
He's a venal, dishonest, drunken, tooted-up, born with silver spoon in mouth, stupid, vengeful, shallow, IvyLeagueLegacy hater of the poor.
And that makes him legitimately hateable. Viscerally, gut-level, pheromonically, anti-particularly repulsively nastily hateable!
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
The month after month cable TV trashing of Clinton was unlike anything in our history. No accusation against him, however bizarre, was deemed unworthy of "discussion." The maniacal rantings of his accusers were frightening to behold.
Comparing "Bush-hating" to "Clinton-hating" is like comparing ant piss to the water spilled over Niagara Falls.
Is the swamp drained in Afghanistan?
I think Josh was commenting on the administrations shifting theology of the War on Terror. If the administration actually submitted to at least some semblance of the scientific method for its foreign policy, we could expect to make certain predictions in advance of invasions that would demonstrate their success or failure. When an act and its exact opposite are both described as absolute successes by the administration, it only demonstrates that we all are suffering under the ministrations of a bunch of pinheads and nitwits in DC.
[I just remembered that I lifted this whole meme from Josh Marshall]
Of course if you want to look at this hate issue from a spiritual point of view, if we waste our present moment on hate then those who propagate evil... win.
Nah, he's too stupid to hate. He's just a really bad president, and the country has suffered serious damage because of his incompetence. Can't hate a clown.
Shy, you propose that hate is a waste of spirit, a waste of the present moment, a propagation of evil ... ?
Then is hatred always bad, even when we unanimously hate Nazis?
Questioner, I'm cool with that.
I've embraced my hatred of El Residente, as it galvinizes me to speak out against him, and work toward ensuring he is thrown out of office in '04.
And there's nothing irrational about hating a guy who's all for gutting education, sending our own off to their deaths while his friends profit off of the chaos, removing every obstacle to corporations out to rape the environment for profit, and yet somehow unable to give a coherent, unscripted press conference.
I think identifying that which is evil or bad is important so that we do not ourselves become those things. So rather then hate I simply recognize them and then try to be happy I'm not that thing. Don't get me wrong, I still get pissed off but I don't let it fester into hate because any festering hate, even if rooted in a just cause, may result in violence. Hate breeds violence.
I think my virulent hatred of the Dumbass Unelected Fraud is entirely rational.
"Can't hate a clown.
pie | 08.23.03 - 11:53 pm | #"
Well, as a kid I was irrationally afraid of clowns. Hated seeing them at the circus, couldn't watch Bozo--was it the red hair? that bulbous nose? Nightmares! All the time. Toothy grins. Garishly painted faces!
Omigod. I remember that!
I'm deathly afraid of clowns.
Clowns=Bush
Momm-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Q —
"Hate," like "love," is such an elastic word that your binary good/bad question is meaningless. "I love my child; I love my partner; I love fresh peaches." Even if each of those statements is true, that doesn't mean (one hopes) that peach-love involves the same emotions and actions as child-love.
Do you have a point, or are you just trolling?
Shy, are you completely comfortable with simply being happy that you are not Mohammed Atta? I mean, if there was ever a hateable soul, it was Atta, right? And isn't violence the appropriate tool against the Attas?
I have no problem, no compunction against hating Atta. Yet many Americans seem to hate W more than Atta(?) I don't understand how individual purity from strong feelings makes us safer, or more divine. We can strive for spiritual purity, as long as we live, which may be not very long, if the Atta's have their way.
As we’ve blogged previously, we’re entirely comfortable with being Bush-haters (Marshall is absolutely right that the current meme is obscuring that hatred of Bush is largely over policy, whereas Clinton-hatred was primarily a personal thing).
We actually see good signs in the increasing use of this trope by the right, going back to Brooks' piece in the Weakly Standing.
Behind all the pieces so far ... Lowry's, York's, Brooks's ... is a sense of uncertainty: That’s not what we believed liberals were supposed to act like. Aren’t they all like that hippie teacher in Beavis and Butt-head?. In fact, Brooks was up front about this, to his credit.
This, conservatives have assured themselves, wasn’t supposed to happen. So they deal with it by drawing specious equations between their own Clinton-hatred, even as they flail away at revising history to make it seem less mainstream than it actually was, and what they see us doing now.
It's so much fun to see conservatives at a loss to understand the world. If we can take that sense of control away, we can yet grind them into the sand of history.
Pie, he's not a clown. Don't dismiss him. He's a slimy, spoiled rich-boy who's never had to pay his own way, or had to answer for his incompetance as a businessman (if you want to call sleazing your way into being a millionaire incompetant - he got what he wanted, right? Some call that an entrepenurial success-story).
If he's a few million short of a billion, he's astute enough to surround himself with people that can make up the difference. While it's fun to make fun of his inability to master his mother tongue, he's got that weasely, alpha male cunning sort of intelligence, which is actually more dangerous than say, PhD in Egyptology intelligence.
jupiter, I'm responding to those who posit hate as alw
Jack Handey said it best about clowns:
“To me, clowns aren’t funny. In fact, they’re kind of scary. I’ve wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.”
Hey Shaw Kenawe-
Are you sure that was a circus your folks took you to when you were a kid? Coulda been a GOP convention, those GOP chicks wear a lotta make-up.
Questioner,
Atta is dead, no?
many Americans seem to hate W more than Atta
like who?
jupiter, I'm responding to those who posit hate as always negative and unproductive. I thought I was appropriately on-topic with Atrios's original post.
We see from "SullyWatch" that hate is often justified, and these are the kinds of arguments I was looking for. Give SullyWatch credit for admitting that hate is often appropriate, and not rejected by the left.
ChrisL, go to www.bartcop.com, as the easiest example, and see that W is hated more than Atta. It's undeniable!
SullyWatch -
It's true, they really lose their steam when liberals stand up to them. There've been too many "let's achieve a balanced discourse" liberals letting these bullies just walk all over every point they might have to make.
The time has come for viciousness. Viciousness ("with a capital V", as O'Really would put it) tempered with a bludgeoning of the truth.
And name-calling. We need some good, catch-phrase names and slogans to use repeat ad infinitum back to the echo chamber.
"Shy, are you completely comfortable with simply being happy that you are not Mohammed Atta?"
YES
"I mean, if there was ever a hateable soul, it was Atta, right? And isn't violence the appropriate tool against the Attas?"
I think my time would be better spent getting to the root of the problem that causes people to be violent then simply killing them, washing my hands, and blindly thinking the problem has been solved. For example, if we paraded both Osama and Saddam's head son the same spike on CNN or Fox tonight for all the world to see America's and the worlds problems would still not be solved.
Spudboy RULES!
My dad's an irrational Clinton-hater, but I don't think he's bigoted against anyone, except some mild racism and some discomfort with gay people.
But a lot of his friends are military types who whisper all kinds of bullshit about Clinton and his nefarious deeds, not all the ones he was smeared with, but the other ones, and "there's all kinds of stuff you don't know about, honey. Trust me, he's a bad man."
I think I've confronted him with, "If they really had something on him, why didn't they use it?" but we were probably on our fourth Martini, so I don't remember what he said.
Shy, what have you done in the last 23 months to "get to the root of what caused Atta to be violent?"
What do you think motivated Atta? What do you think the US should do to demotivate future Attas?
(For the record, I think the solution is to kill all the Attas, before they kill us.)
(But that would be a _hateful_ thing to write.)
I think my time would be better spent getting to the root of the problem that causes people to be violent then simply killing them, washing my hands, and blindly thinking the problem has been solved.
I agree with Shy. Hatred is a problem insofar as it blinds us to the history and causes of the object of our hatred. Just think of America's youth today, who know from Hollywood that the Nazi Party was deeply evil, yet have no visceral reaction to (nor understating of) fascism and its roots.
I should have also said that if it were the heads of say the Board of Directors from say, oh, I don't know, the Carlyle Group maybe then some of the worlds problems would be solved. But still, they're all just whack-a-mole money junkies that will continue to thrive until our current system of classist global operations are fundamentally changed for the better and unified.
You can't kill all the Attas. This is the Classic Palestinian Dilemma.
So, Young Republican, you reject Bush-hatred? You reject Nazi-hatred?
Shy wrote: "our current system of classist global operations are fundamentally changed for the better and unified"
So, Shy, you'd eliminate class differences; and fundamentally change capitalism; and retreat from globalism?
Do you really expect to be taken seriously? What the heck do you think you are talking about?
Re: Bush hatred vs. Clinton hatred:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Aug11.html
What have I been doing? I've been living my life in the best way I know how and volunteering in my community, protesting, donating money to what I believe to be just causes, lobbying my local government on issues I believe in...
I find these things to be more satisfying, (although time consuming), then killing an entire group of people.
Yes, YR, we can kill all the Attas. We killed all the Axis enemies. The Israelis could kill all the Palestinian terrorists, if they were inclined to. Much of Israel's problems were minor while the PLO (now the PA) were exiled to Tunisia a decade ago.
For the record, I think the solution is to kill all the Attas, before they kill us
So, Leading Question-er, where do you think the Attas are, and in what way should they be killed? Should we kill the Attas living in countries next door to the Attas, just in case they might be Attas?
But Shy, what did you really mean when you wrote "our current system of classist global operations are fundamentally changed for the better and unified"?
I mean, it sounds like a bunch of dogmatic bullshit! Can you explain it a bit more for us?
The Questioner whines away with his unanswerable question. We know his type. I think that if I were to meet him, I'd politely edge out of earshot.
What Ehrenstein was about with "Spudboy", however, eludes me.
"Are you sure that was a circus your folks took you to when you were a kid? Coulda been a GOP convention, those GOP chicks wear a lotta make-up."
Oh Jeebus, is that what it was? That explains why I have a visceral fear of clowns AND Republicans!
bad Jim, what meaning do you ascribe to doctrinaire crap like "current system of classist global operations are fundamentally changed for the better and unified?"
Isn't there a point at which you'll admit that one of your advocates is blowing smoke out their ass?
(Channeling w00t)
Questioner blowing smoke:
(_)?(_)
I'm saying that corporations need to be held accountable and shouldn't recieve welfare before an army widow . I'm saying that we have to look at class gap globally because like it our not the resources of this planet were not put here to be doled out to the highest bidder. I'm saying the chasm has to shrink between the haves and the have nots. If that's dogma so be it but, at least it's not a hateful excuse to kill.
You want unanswerable questions? I recommend "Bowling for Columbine." MM (the richest Marxist in the USA) is expert at asking unanswerable questions, and making other people look stupid trying to respond to them.
I despise this movie, yet I honestly do strongly recommend it. Unlike most of you Atrios-acolytes, I welcome inputs from opposing points of view, and enjoy challenges.
You'd think these guys would realize that we don't march in lock step. Hell, I don't belong to an organized party ? I'm a Democrat!
Questioner-
I would have thought you'd have like Bowling for Columbine, ther was lots of killing in it.
Shy, you should be happy that white-collar jobs are being rapidly exported from the USA to China and India. This is rapidly leveling the standard of living among billions of people. Poor people are becoming rich, rich people are getting their deserved come-uppance.
If the chasm has to shrink by ME losing MY income, I'm against it. How about you?
If the chasm has to shrink by ME losing MY income, I'm against it. How about you?
I have no problem whatsoever with you losing your income.
Let's wrap it up. I asked about hatred: when is it justified; is it always evil?
We've enacted laws in the USA against specific hatreds, but we all admit to hate (except Shy.)
I gave examples of uncontestedly justified hatred (we all hate Nazis) and I gave examples of contemporarily acceptable hatred (of W).
My conclusion is: I hate all of you.
"kill all the Attas, before they kill us"
And how will we do this, Questioner?
It's your solution. Please, do elaborate. I'd like to know how you think this can be accomplished.
And anyway, aren't "all the Attas" already dead? If, by definition, a suicide terrorist pilot that flies a plane full of civilians into a building is an Atta, wouldn't it be fair to say that killing all the Attas would be a bit redundant, since they're already dead?
Do you really think that by killing all you enemies or keeping Bush and his kind in power you'll retain your job and income? What is it exactly that you do? Hey wait a minute, are you Bill O'Reily?
Oh no! Is he/she/it going away?
I *hate* that.
There's a lot of Bush-bashing going on - Smirk, Chimp, codpiece, aWol - and other angry appellations like "moronic brownshirt fuck." With respect to the defective-in-chief, I'd like to see more about the prep-school cheerleader and the "rancher" who's as skittish around horses as the AG is around calico cats.
There's a difference between derision and hate. There's a difference between saying "into the duck pit" (would somebody please explain that one to me?) and saying that someone should be shot or blown up. One can also distinguish between gibbering idiots and gibbetted idolaters.
Neiwert's right. Zizka's right. TNH is right. We don't have to make up stuff about these guys - the reality tends to be worse than we suspect.
Maybe we could get ahead of these guys if we did hate them and made stuff up. But, being liberals, we're too fond of sex, drugs and rock & roll, not to mention peace, love & understanding.
badJim, if you're fond of understanding, understand this: "current system of classist global operations are fundamentally changed for the better and unified"
Well, I'm a peaceful, sensible kind of hater myself. Sort of a crying clown kind of hater, where the clown (symbol of mirth) has an ironically sad expression, and little tears coming from its overbig, wet eyes as it hangs in a gaudy frame in the hallway, by your grandma's bathroom door. I'm like that, but with being a nice person, and hating W.
And I don't find it necessary to lie to justify it. That's the sad/hateful part of it all.
[Explainer] I used to post in Slate's The Fray as Spudboy. That's where I first met David E.
I probably should have mentioned in my piece that Josh Marshall has said much the same thing, from a different direction. But it was long enough as it was.
Thank you, "Spudboy" - an Idaho thing, presumably? You're doing great work. We're all in your debt.
Now if someone would only explain the duckpit, I'd go to bed content.
Who can control themselves from hating at one point or another, other than a saint? That is not what is behind the strong criticisms of Bush, as David Neiwert makes clear.
Tristero is absolutely right that there is a separation between Bush-hatred and legitimate criticism of Bush. The Demos need to steer away from hatred and toward constructive proposals.
E.g., how exactly do we solve the problem of unemployment. So far, I've heard a) Shorter work week = higher head count, and b) control immigration. Any other suggestions?
Monica ... you want nicknames, catch-phrases ... see what we do to Sullivan (at least when he’s not on vacation).
Questioner, you can't kill an ideology. You can kill its subscribers, but for every one you kill, two more can spring up, just like the brooms in The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
I read an excerpt from the memoirs of the brother of the 20th hijacker, Moussassoi, or whatever his name is. It was very illuminating. The story of his recruitment and the change in his personality was very much like the stories of cult recruitment that were common in the '70s.
I grew up in the '70s in DC, and the Moonies were very active there (which is why I'm horrified at the close ties between the GOP and Reverend Moon). Cults were the bogeyman then, and we were always reminded of how cults operated and how to avoid getting sucked in.
I think it's important to fight fire with fire, and conventional war just isn't the appropriate tool for defeating al Qaeda, et al. These organizations have no more to do with Islam than the Nashville Church has to do with Christianity.
I think it is more effective to look at root causes. They aren't so much poverty as loneliness and disconnection and those damn schools.
Children have to be taught to hate. But they can be taught effectively. Have you ever seen Tomorrow, the World? Yeah, it's WWII propaganda, but it's also a really disturbing flick about a Hitler Youth who gets adopted by American relatives and the havoc he wreaks. The kid had originated the role on stage, so he was scary brilliant.
I think there's a thread of similarity between Germany in the '30s and the Arab world now, in that there's an idea of victimization, a sense that a once-great civilization has been brought to its knees by people who must now be destroyed.
One positive aspect of Saddam's rule was that it was aggressively secular, and women were afforded equal opportunity to jobs, education, etc. And though Iraq's illiteracy rate is rather high, the people who are educated are incredibly well educated, and advanced degrees are common.
I think we need to quit treating the Middle East as some kind of backwater and engage them. Show them some respect.
Hiya Kaffir. Why'd you change your name to The Questioner?
It's been my experience that the "Bush-hating" I've seen and heard is virtually always policy-related, and the Clinton-hating I've seen and heard is virtually always personal. With very few exceptions, my acquaintances *hate* Clinton, yet can't name three things he did as President. Yet my "Bush-hating" acquaintances, of which there are many more, always point to things Bush has done as President. A few do really hate the man, and they come across as irrational and unconstructive - just like my conservative acquaintances who hate Clinton.
That's just my personal experience, though. Maybe I'm not hanging out with the right people. 
E.g., how exactly do we solve the problem of unemployment.
We could elect a Democrat, for starters.
So, Young Republican, you reject Bush-hatred? You reject Nazi-hatred?
Obviously not. I reject unfounded, unresearched, reflexive Bush-hatred and Nazi-hatred. Ignorance of opinion--even if correct--is still ignorance.
---
Questioner, you can't kill an ideology. You can kill its subscribers, but for every one you kill, two more can spring up, just like the brooms in The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Exactly. This is the Palestinian Dilemma. Terrorists are not organized under a state apparatus, unlike a military in a conventional war. Questioner's flawed analogy to the Axis in WWII demonstrates his lack of thoughtful reasoning about this new threat to our nation.
Bravo, Hamletta. I understood about a third of it, but: more like this, please.
Probably like quite a few contributors to this hate/nothate thread, I was brought up in a sincere Christian environment during my formative years. I've been an agnostic for a LONG time, but some of the "love thy neighbor as thyself" "love thine enemy" stuff stuck pretty tight - - as least *as regards the way I actually behave in face-to-face relations*.
But having said that, and also while agreeing generally that W-antipathy is much more related to what W does than Clinton-hatred ever was to any policy action Big Dog took, I nevertheless have developed a powerful, visceral, personal dislike for Bush, and for many of the crew around him.
How can I separate these people, as people, from what they do? Don't actions make the man, or woman? Leaving aside the chasm between their general political and social views and mine, a great part of my hot personal dislike is outrage at, and contempt for, their lying, their obvious arrogance toward ordinary members of the public and toward the rest of the world.
Part of it comes from a deep, seeping fear, I don't mind admitting. They have so much power - - and of all dangerous things, the power-wielder who's absolutely confident he's right is the most dangerous. We've got a year and a half to to with these walking time-bombs...
Some of the early posts in this discussion mentioned Josh Marshall. IMO he's the author of one of the best short explanations of the current administration's mindset and world-view. It focuses on Dick Cheney, but applies to them all, as far as I can see, and applies not just to Iraq (which hadn't gone down yet when the article was written last Jan.) but to just about everything they do, especially if you add the fundamentalist religiosity to the mix. It's in Washington Monthly on line, at http://
www.washingtonmonthly.com...1.marshall.html
God, how I wish Bush was a clown...
I can't love him as myself, I just can't. I can't put up a conceptual wall between what he's doing to the world, to the country, to the freedoms people have struggled for long and hard, and Bush-as-himself who'd probably have been nice and harmless as a small-town car salesman/amiable dad-&-husband/Rotarian/whatever. It's past that, way past that.
So... The Questioner comes here, asks leading questions until one person answers the way he wants you to "I admit I hate". He then proceeds to spout the far worse drivel of "I hate all of you. I say kill the haters". And then leaves, as if he's shown he's morally superior to everyone else.
If that's not circular logic, and a sure sign of an unhinged mind, I don't know what is... reading this thread was like seeing a slow motion train wreck. Here it comes... it's oh so obviously going to happen... BAM! Argghhhh! What a sensless waste of human life.
Tristero:Kinda late after the thread, but if you see this, eventually A will be needeed, in some way. Technology and the market will ensure that.
In any case, there is a huge difference in levels of "bush-hatred" as you can compare it to Clinton-hatred. See, the Bush criticism is much much more policy driven than the Clinton-hatred ever was. There was the health care thing, which was rather sleezy, but fair (politically) I guess. But what else was there?
What are we after Bush about? Doing nothing for the economy, abandoning the war on terrorism for the gain of his buddies. Policy things, for the most part. There is, the credibilty based attacks, of course. The fact that Bush is not a moral person comes into play.
The only real ad homnin attack is really the Bush is dumb theme. And is that even CLOSE to accusing Bush of being a rapist and a murderer? Not even in the same game.
Questioner:I saw BfC..I'm not a MM fan, not at all. In fact I have a lot of the same problems with him as you do. However, BfC was great, as it broke through simple politics and got to the sociatal roots of the issue. Something which is not done even close to enough in my mind.
In any case, my mind is always open to those on all sides. It is just that the Bush administration, and by proxy all their supporters, do not make coherent arguments. Increase demand by slashing taxes to the rich and putting more burden on working people? Ooookay.
Even the things I support, such as cleaning up Afghanastan I can't support because Bush can't do them.
I think that is what annoys me the most. The Bush supporters, even in ideology, will not admit that this adminstration is simply incompetent. It's not too late, then can start a grassroots effort to get another nominee for 2004.
That I see absolutly no talk or mention of this on the conservative side, leads me to belive that it is a lost cause, one not worth listening to. Frankly, I'll continue to have policy based debates with us liberals and moderates, thank you very much. The conservatives can get in the game any time they want to.
--"Irrational Bush hatred is limited to the far corners of the internet. Irrational Clinton hatred launched the careers of a thousand pundits and dominated the political discourse by politicians, journalists, and pundits alike for years."
That is just about the most insane thing I've ever read on this little site.
Hate is a very human thing, but along with the Buddhists, I believe that hate (even hate of manifestly abhorrent people) clouds the vision and gets in the way of exercising virtue effectively. But, because I'm human, I still wind up hating sometimes. That said, it hardly seems worthwhile hating such an unimaginably small man as George W. Bush.
My "hatred" for Bush is first and foremost rooted in his illegitimacy as president. He bullied and elbowed his way through the courts, sent goons from DeLay's office to shout down the vote counters, and then used the Supremes to wrest the White House away from the real winner. This I will never forgive. Not only did he steal the election, but he stole my faith in our system.
He might have salved the wound had he made even a pro forma attempt to govern from the middle. But he has ignored the absence of a mandate and governed from the hard right.
I won't list all the other items like lying us into a war or bankrupting our grandchildren or.... I could go on!
So, Questioner, no, I don't hate him for being a "venal, dishonest, drunken, tooted-up, born with silver spoon in mouth, stupid, vengeful, shallow, IvyLeagueLegacy hater of the poor," although I wouldn't quibble with your assessment.
The Anonymous who denied that Clinton hating was a major media cottage industry during the 90's is not me.
I, on the other hand was awake during the 90's and saw for myself the development of Clinton-hating evolve into a kind of article of faith among the political opposition. It's part and parcel with the Right's tendency to demonize their opposition rather than address the issues on their substance. The most recent example, other than the new "Bush-hate" meme is how the principled opponents to the Iraq war were branded traitors with out respoect to the specific issues that they raised.
On the general topic of hate: first - It seems clear that "Questioner" is/was a troll. That said, I too was raised in a Christian church, but as I matured I became an atheist. My values remain fundementally Christian and the chief value in that system of morals is to love your neighbor. This love is correctly characterized as "Charity", an unconditional positive regard. So this is something that gujides me and leaves little room for hate.
Of course I am human and far from perfect, so I sometimes allow hate to infect my mind. It is bad when it happens and I recognize that and try to control it. Hate is unquestionably bad. just like Fear and Envy, Hate is a negative emotion that drives people apart and fuels conflict. We have enough rational reasons for conflict in this world to allow netgative emotions to add to the count.
Yes, Hate is always bad. No, it is not necessary to hate the Nazis to recognize that they werte a threat that had to be dealt with militarily.
Yes, it is impossible to kill everyone who might be a threat to us; and Yes, we should be working to find peaceful ways to negate these threats.
"Kiki & Herb perform a Coup de Théatre off-Broadway in extended run"?
That's just wrong.
"We don't have to make up stuff about these guys - the reality tends to be worse than we suspect."
'zactly. To paraphrase Willis Goldbeck and James Warner Bellah (scriptwriters "Liberty Valance"), print the truth not the legend.
Albeit not easy these days as most mass-media journalists all wanna be scriptwriters.
I think there's a difference between hatred and anger. Bush makes me incredibly angry sometimes, but to me the word "hatred" means that if you had someone tied up in your basement, you'd like nothing better than to apply the hot poker. That seems extreme, I guess, but those of you who've come face to face with Klansmen, neoNazis, rapists and gaybashers know that it's less uncommon an emotion than one might think. So I wouldn't say that I hate Bush, or anyone, really. But I do know that if a Nazi were coming after me, I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself. Ditto for Atta or whomever.
Evolutionary biologists and some philosophers suggest that the thing that hurts like nothing else is betrayal. You trust someone to do the right thing and they take advantage of that trust to cheat you out of what you think you deserve. That is what I feel when I think about Bush, DeLay, Rove, Rumsfeld, Lott, and the rest of them. Think about election 2000: we played by the rules, and they didn't. Or the Texas redistricting thing. Or the complaints about the judicial filibusters. That's where the fury comes from.
But I don't think it's hatred. Or spiteful. Just defensive fury.
excellent point, Melissa.
Meanwhile... Lucianne's little boy has joined in with a 17-paragraph whine about Clinton-haters vs. Bush-haters, just in case anyone doubted that the whole criticism of Bush is irrational hatred thing is anything more than the latest ploy by the right to get the left to just shut up. Jonah's column, which was, of course, a little light on particulars about what exactly Bush-haters have to say (although the comparisons to Hitler seem to be hitting a nerve), was in my morning paper, a page or two before Dick Morris' latest Hillary's going to run! I swear it!!. (Casualties in Iraq have moved all the way back to page A-14, by the way.)
Personally, I think Bush is a horror on every level and if anybody wants to call that hatred, have at it. It's just another attempt by these immoral bastards to stick the left with the tab for the sins the right commits/committed/plan to commit and turn offense into defense. Turning the other cheek doesn't work with these guys.
Oh! A link for Jonah's ME, TOO! column -
http://www.townhall.com/columnis.../jonahgoldberg/
Honestly, are these guys really idealogues or are they just lazy?
"Turning the other cheek doesn't work with these guys."
But bitch-slapping DOES!
I have no problem bitch-slapping a Republican, but I don't do it out of hatred. I think it is as good for them as it is for me. I think that they (stupid wingers) call it "tough love".
As is often the case when I bitch and moan about this stuff, but it seems to be yet more continuation of pundits preaching to the choir on the subject of Bush or otherwise neocon activity in contrast to actual truths on the matter.
Until we can get these facts to the public by means of a medium that ensures exposure, we can expect nothing but failure.
Books don't mean much because the right won't buy'em, and rightwing controled organizations, publications, news outlets, forums, etc, won't review them except to smear and distort the content knowing full-well that nobody in their audience will buy the books to fact-check them against what they had said about it.
leftwing, liberal, or moderate websites, blogs, etc are only monitored for the purposes of taking things out of context. The same thing can be said of some moderate rightwing blogs and forums. But because the middle won't check the facts unless forced upon them, they will always react with an emotional foundation which is to hate and be intolerant towards that which they perceive to be counter to their best interests. This is one of the 14 characteristics of fascism, make them think they are under attack by the left and they will usually beleive it rather than show the objectivity to check it out before judging.
Be well.
MYOB'
.
Someone was asking what a "duckpit" was. I am not totally sure I am right, but isn't it where the culprit is thrown into a pit full of ducks and the ducks peck at him - since ducks pecking really doesn't hurt much at first, it can become torturous after awhile, somewhat like the chinese water torture?
I'm with you on the bitch-slapping, David - but, please, not Jonah Goldberg. He'll go get his mom.
While not disclosing how they check the operatives, U.S. officials said they believed some agents remained "fairly untainted" by Hussein's government.
I guess this means that the ones who pulled out fingernails with pliers are O.K., but the ones who poured burning acid down the throats of children aren't?
Irrational Bush hatred is limited to the far corners of the internet.
Eschaton is in a far corner of the internet?
The Byron York thing is amazing. It's really disturbing that he's been on the Newshour recently.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082.../
dh082203.shtml
On the PBS Newshour's fourth of July political analysis segment Byron York gave the following casualty numbers.
"It's been 63 days since the president declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. In that time, 27 Americans have been killed in action, to add to the about 100 Americans who were killed in action in the war itself. These are terrible calculations to make because these are real people dying."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/p...3/sy_07-
04.html
[that's 63 days, 27 dead]
On August 22, York again appeared on the Newshour and updated his numerical breakdown of American casualties in Iraq.
"Just so you know I think it has been about 110 days since the president declared an end to major hostilities; I think about 60 Americans have died as a result of hostile action in Iraq. So the war itself, I think was, what, twenty-five, twenty-six days, and maybe ninety or a hundred. So I think the president could argue that, especially if the number of Americans being killed is going down, which is very, very important. He could argue that it is getting better".
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/p...03/oy_8-
22.html
That's 47 more days, 33 more deaths, this is an upward trend. Based on Mr.York's own figures the number of Americans being killed is going up. If the president were to say the number of Americans being killed is going down when the number is, in reality going up, he would not be telling the truth, which is very, very important.
It's also interesting to note that the total number of casualties mentioned by Mr.York is 150 to 160 because he apparently only counts Americans killed in action.
A look at U.S. daily casualties in Iraq- Associated Press, 8/23/2003
As of Saturday, Aug. 23, 273 U.S. soldiers have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq, according to the military. The British government has reported 48 deaths. Denmark's military has reported one death.
On or since May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 135 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, according to the latest military figures.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/...sualties:
.shtml
There have been 322 confirmed coalition deaths in the war as of August 24, 2003. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/...ces/casualties/
There's nothing irrational about my hatred of Bush.
It's not hatred. It's rage, the wounded disbelief then outrage at betrayal. Did you read the arguments of the dissenting four supreme court justices?
I am appalled that liberals would sink so low as to compare President Bush to Hitler, even in jest!
Republicans at their worst would never stoop to such despicable slander!
It must be Hitlery's doing!
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
