Blogcritics: Comments on Bush Lies

Comment by Ralph Del Rio

Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:59:30 EDT

As the Beatles once said, "And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right where I belong I'm right where I belong. See the people standing there who disagree and never win and wonder why they don't get into my door."

Comment by san

Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:44:00 EDT

I'm afraid it's a lot about religion on the anti-terrorist side, too. I can't get too secular. On religion, I don't think you're right and they're wrong. I don't think they're right and you're wrong. I think you're both wrong.

Comment by Ralph Del Rio

Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:25:03 EDT

San thanks for your comments. If Benelux ever invaded the U.S. That is the Benelux that protects copyrights and trademarks. Now that would make a great Monthy Python movie. Armed with pocket protectors, petitions and applications to protect their ideas. The constituency that would be most upset would be the employees of Microsoft zapping them with their latest PDA winning the argument that email is a legitimate document. Also, the Terrorism War is very biblical. It's all about religion to the terrorists so do not get too secular because eventually you would have to pick a side. And when the Iran chapter of ths Terrorism War unfolds it 'will' include a civil war as part of the mix.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:03:46 EDT

I also think it is all of Canada, but there has been s quawking of late. I want to be sure before making an unequivocal statement.

Comment by san

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:51:26 EDT

Natalie: I *think* it's all of Canada by national law. If it's just a couple of provinces, the remaining Canadian provinces likely accept the legality of the marriages.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:39:09 EDT

Nat, I understand what you're saying, but there is a difference between acts I consider repugnant. Rape is different from murder, both suck. War is different from terrorism, both suck. Fighting between two people is different from a riot, both suck. I didn't say war was better or worse than terrorism, just that they're different. I'll let others provide relative values for them.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:10:20 EDT

Given the choice between the philosophies of Winston Churchill and Edwin Starr, I'll take the baby-faced Brit. Sorry, Ed.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:06:05 EDT

Hi, Phillip. Whatever part of Canada (or whatever country) we choose depends on whether GLBT can marry legally there. As to your bolded statement, I disagree as a pacifist. Violence is violence; it is all the same to me -- terrorism. I will not call what went on in Iraq "war." But whatever one chooses to call it, IMO, it is all good for absolutely nothing in the short term and, particularly, in the long term.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:51:55 EDT

Natalie, 'twil be a shame to see you go, but fortunately you can still show up here at BC once you're settled in at your new digs. My wife is from the eastern part of the great frozen north, but my personal experience would make me lean toward the western half as being well, more hospitable and beautiful. Brian, your comment is another example of something I said once before on another post, which is that <pick a label>s accuse conservatives of being overly simplistic by nature, while overly simplifying complex issues when it suits them. Both sides do it, so it seems pretty strange that only conservatives bear the mislabelling. To the issue at hand, I would tend to think of terrorism as something that is done by non-governmental organizations or possibly covertly by governments themselves. When it is done by a government, it's war, not terrorism. So in my view, individual suicide bombers are terrorists, the kamikaze pilots of Japan were not. Political groups that hijack planes and fly them into buildings are terrorists, a military response against those political groups is not. And so on. Whether or not civilians are the primary intended target may also be a factor, but generally I think that is a common correlation, not a condition of the label. That is, terrorist groups happen to often target civilians for whatever reason, while governments tend to target military groups for whatever reason, but not always in either case. Here is why I think that the distinction is important: When a government will own up to sponsorship of war-like activities, a different set of options becomes available. The rules of war apply, and one can largely end the threat by striking decisively at the government or waging some sort of political compromise or plain-old surrendering. So when the Axis powers are at war with the Allied powers, we know who the enemies are, and it is war. We can fight both militarily politically and we can win or lose on a relatively predictable pattern. When you are engaged against an NGO, whether they primarily target civilians or not, things are far more difficult. There is generally no single point of negotiation or contact, so you can't usually wage peace except by complete capitulation to all demands, which is not usually an option for what I hope are obvious reasons. American's first real target in this "War on Terror (tm)" was almost straightforward, because the NGO had taken up residence as a government. That much was clearly documented and undeniable. However, it was still odd, because the government was there largely against the will of the Afghani people. It was almost a traditional war, except slightly more complex because of that factor. Similarly, action against Iraq was only slightly less clear in that it was clearly documented and undeniable that the regime in Iraq was financing terrorism in Palestine, and since it was a government regime, it should have been straightforward war. Except that (1) some people missed Bush's point about the "War on Terror (tm)" encompassing all terrorism, not just terrorism directed against the U.S. and (2) again, the regime was in place largely against the will of the Iraqi people. So in both cases, America waged wars as close to "normal" as war can even be (not very), and in both cases America won. Are the actions of those fighting against US troops in Iraq now terrorism, or guerilla warfare? I'd be inclined to use the latter label, since at least some of those involved are members of the former regime, though they have probably been joined and/or financed by foreign nationals. I could go on, and might in other comments, but basically according to my definition, the only way that America or any other national government can commit terrorism is secretly. That doesn't mean war is good and terrorism is bad - they're both bad. It does, however, mean that one is more easily justified than the other. People fight. Political groups commit terrorism. Governments wage war. P.S. I've been posting a lot of long comments lately, I should be making these posts.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:22:37 EDT

brian: "'Financial and occupational wherewithal'? Bah. If you want to go, then go. The rest is just excuses." Bull. It costs money to get there. It costs money to survive once there. Before one can present oneself at the border of another country, one must have a way to support oneself and one's family. Check the entrance standards for individual nations. Brian, I have two kids to support. Most immediately, my father died three weeks ago and I am helping my mother settle family affairs, a sad and time-consuming set of tasks. If I could have just upped and left, I would have done so long ago. I have responsibilities and obligations, whether you accept that or not. Believe me, I am more anxious to be gone than you are to have me gone.

Comment by TDavid

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:17:34 EDT

Canada? My sister has lived there for 15 years, married to a nice Canadian gentleman. Canada is certainly not without problems either, politically or otherwise, and equality? Riiight. Their dollar is weak, the socialized medical and insurance structure -- depending on who you talk to -- is badly in need of repair, and they have the controversial French-speaking part of the nation that most Canadians don't even like. They do have hockey though.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:12:11 EDT

TDavid: I already said that the destination looks like Canada, at this point.

Comment by JR

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:51:09 EDT

Re: Hiroshima. In a speech from the White House on August 9, 1945, President Truman said: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction." As it turns out, the Japanese Supreme War Council had held a meeting before the Emperor on June 20, 1945; Hirohito declared for peace. By July 13, the Americans had solid evidence of the Japanese desire to end the war. The sticking point was "unconditional surrender". The definition of that was unclear; it seems that the U.S. was in any case going to allow the Emperor retain his throne. At Potsdam on July 17, Truman learned from Stalin that the Soviets would enter the war on Japan on August 15, which would surely finish the Japanese. Truman also heard from Churchill that the Japanese were seeking peace through the Soviets. The Potsdam Declaration of July 26 called for Japan's unconditional surrender. The Japanese rejected this on July 28. Truman clearly did not want the Soviets involved in the war at that point. On August 3, Truman received a new report that the Japanese were seeking peace; his concern was that they would sue for peace through the Soviet Union. Back on July 21, Truman had approved the order to use the atomic bomb. In his diary, Truman claims to have ordered that the bomb be used on military targets, not cities. It's not clear the order made it down to the generals. Truman may not have known that Hiroshima was a city; a rather significant intelligence lapse if that's the case. By the time of his speech, of course, the second bomb had already been dropped on Nagasaki. The Soviets had entered the war the previous day and began their offensive on Manchuria. The next day, the U.S. dropped warning leaflets on Nagasaki. Mistakes were made. Evidently, though, there was more at stake than the just invasion of Japan. There was a LOT of debate among military personel as well as the scientists (i.e. everybody who knew about the Bomb) over whether and how to use it. In fact, it's not clear that an invasion of Japan would have happened even without the A-bomb. However if an Allied landing did occur, the American POWs already in Japan would likely have been massacred immediately.

Comment by TDavid

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:43:36 EDT

Natalie - for the life of me I cannot figure out where a better place would be to live than the USA. Obviously, I'm biased, but I too would love to hear what better place you think would be to live where you will enjoy more "equality"? America is certainly not without problems, but where do you think would be better to live? I don't even think outer space has equality.

Comment by debbie

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:32:50 EDT

Don't be too quick to judge here is the latest news from HindustanTimes.com Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq Associated Press Kuwait City, October 2 Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday. The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested. The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when. Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment. Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Al-Badran met on Tuesday with Sheik Nawwaf and discussed cooperation between the two countries in security matters. His visit is the first by an Iraqi interior minister to Kuwait since 1990.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:07:21 EDT

When the U.S. commits terrorism: It's a difficult matter. You have to look at the situation we were in. We had to "end a war the enemy refused to end." You have to understand the position we were in. It's complicated, not easy. When someone the U.S. disagrees with commits terrorism: Are you pro- or anti-terrorism? Violence against innocents is always wrong. There is nothing complicated about it. They deserve no sympathy nor consideration of their aims. When it comes to our own country's violence, we are supposed to think, consider, weigh the pressures acting upon us, be open-minded, be realistic about the limited options. But any entity declared an enemy of the U.S.: Don't think, don't consider, don't weigh the pressures acting upon that entitity, don't be open minded (you freakin' liberal!), don't be realistic about the limited options. As far as I can tell, the reason that the U.S. does not (currently) commit terrorism is because the U.S. possesses technology that can target military targets and "shock and awe" (i.e. kill and maim) thousands of innocents only as an apparent side effect. Because the real "terrorists" often lack that option to achieve their goals, they are terrorists.

Comment by brian

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:03:23 EDT

...when I have the financial and occupational wherewithal to move to another country, which is the plan. "Financial and occupational wherewithal"? Bah. If you want to go, then go. The rest is just excuses. If you'll just present yourself at 490 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, I'm certain a diplomatic officer there will be glad to accept your irrevocable oath of renunciation. Well, what are you waiting for? Shoo! Shoo!

Comment by san

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:44:50 EDT

Phil: I used the phrases "I believe" and "I think" liberally -- which I feel are quite adequate to establish my statements as my position and not an assertion of fact. I would further argue that it is typical of politicians, including Bush, to issue statements of clarification when they are misinterpreted by the press. In this case, it is telling that he did not do that. And he did not directly contradict the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat. Rather, he stated that Iraq by its very nature would not meet the traditional definition of an imminent threat because its actions would be "sudden". If an "imminent threat" isn't likely become critical "suddenly" then what, exactly, is it? Thus my conclusion that the paragraph in question proposes a new definition of "imminent threat", or the criteria by which we determine a first-strike is justified.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:21:41 EDT

Chris: Any country in which GLBT people can legally marry the person of their choice. Right now, it looks like Canada.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:20:05 EDT

San: Many things, primary of which is it promises equality to all and does not deliver.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:47:08 EDT

Wow, san, I'm amazed. In #39, you've managed to turn words Bush didn't say, that he actually deliberately contradicted, into something for which we can still blame Bush and claim that 'Bush lied.' All this even though if he had said it (which he didn't), it would have been a matter of opinion, neither a lie or a fact. So now it isn't enough that we watch the words we say. It isn't enough that we deliberately say XYZ, which is opposite of ABC. If other people decide that ABC is true, we are response to go to each and every one of them to somehow change their opinion to XYZ, and shout loudly from the housetops that XYZ is true, just like we already said. If we don't, obviously we're lying abou ABC. I'm glad I'm not in politics. The lies of the lying liars who twist politicians' words into the opposite of what they're saying just boggle my mind. On the atom bomb: War sucks. Big bombs that kill lots of people suck. Having an entire nation of people mostly dedicated to the proposition that God Himself had commanded them to kill Americans sucks. Having too many people crammed into too small of a space and nowhere else to go but war sucks. Big bombs that kill lots of people really suck. War really sucks. There is no good resolution to any war, just resolutions that are less awful to contemplate than the possible alternatives.

Comment by san

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:44:04 EDT

"Their entire culture was set up around militarism and a religious exaltation of the emperor." I'd suggest reading Black Rain by Ibuse for what may be a more insightful perspective of the common Japanese during the war years. "BUT they STILL didn't give up after Hiroshima and it took another bomb to finally get their attention." It's been suggested, and certainly can't be completely invalidated, that their failure to surrender after Hiroshima was because they were struck numb. At first they thought it was some kind of fuel-oil bomb. Then they figured there was no way we actually had *two* of those monster weapons.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:10:33 EDT

One other factor that doesnt always get enough attention: in keeping with its obligations, the USSR declared war on August 8 and quickly moved against the Empire (e.g. taking the Kurile Islands). Fear of possible Red Army occupation and Soviet domination also contributed to the timing. As North Korea indicates, the avoidance of a Communist North and a partition was a pretty good outcome for the Japanese.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:03:01 EDT

I went to Hiroshima on an academic trip to Japan and was terribly troubled by the reality of the bombing, its aftermath, which continues to this day as people exposed die of cancer and whatnot - the final casualty toll has yet to be taken. But as everyone has said: it's a very difficult matter. By that time Japan appeared irrational: we were winning, there was no hope of them reaching their goals or even forcing a draw. They were going to lose and yet they - like an entire nation of kamikazes - repeatedly declared their intention to fight to the last man. Their entire culture was set up around militarism and a religious exaltation of the emperor. It takes one hell of a blow to shake a nation out of that kind of mass delusion. I still think we could have used the bomb on a relatively unpopulated area first as a demonstration of will, BUT they STILL didn't give up after Hiroshima and it took another bomb to finally get their attention. It's one of the most horrifying, difficult twists of fate in human history. The other thing it accomplished, though, is that the world saw what the bomb was capable of, not that that helps the 200K.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:31:16 EDT

What justifies killing 200,000 people in a week? I don't know but apparently Truman thought he did. this was definitely a very complex issue. if you read accounts of conflicts with the japanese during that war you will see that they would just not stop. some of the battles for islands, more or less piles of sand (or ash, as the case may be), were just brutal. if the battle moved onto the island of japan proper, the number would have been insane. that doesn't make me like the decision...just glad i didn't have to make it. check out donald miller's The Story of World War II for some gruesome first-hand accounts.