Harping on a non-event is getting pretty boring. Political acts are staged? - wow big revelation!

David, I'm not sure if you remember Bob Montgomery, Eisenhower's coach for television, and the first 'media consultant' to the White House, later anti-Communist with HUAC. Organized, feel-good events are the norm, not the exception. In the age of visual consumerism, getting the message across and pulling the heartstrings is paramount.

David,

OF course it was staged, this is what they do for political events. Do you think they'd put their theatrics on hold for one the most important events of the year?

This Bush administration has taken theatrics, rhetoric and lying to an unprecedented level (though I acknowledge the democrats are hardly better). That you would be surprised at the HUG, is amazing to me.

What's really frightening to me is the twisted way in which you take aim at anyone who criticizes a military family. That's not patriotism, that's anti-democratic. People like yourself create such an intimidating atmosphere for people who disagree with you. Younger people in particular, are unlikely to develop opinions in opposition to those like your own, simply because they take the route of least resistence (Attitudes, opinions liek your own are common in highschools... I work there..).

Just because soldiers died fighting for the bush administration doesn't mean they were not infallible people, or misguided etc (it doesnt even mean they weren't horrible people). They are simply people, like any other American.

Your attitudes are so scary.. I bet your of the same group of people that called Michael Moore Anti-American because he criticized American Foreign policy and the Bush Administration. You don't tolerate descent in your America?

To me David, this is the brand of Patriotism your selling:
"Bush knows best, and by God I'll stand by my president-- And YOU will too, or so help me God...! God Bless America!! God Bless America!! God Bless America!!"

David, why should you really even care what Chris Matthews thinks? You think it was a nice and touching moment, why not just leave it at that? I mean, is this a major story or something? What's the angle? People on the left are evil? Can I ask any more questions? One? Two? Three?

Actually, like so may things I suppose how we perceive the hug depends on the perspective from which we want to see it.

Those opposed to the war don't want that hug to be representative of the situation in Iraq.

Those for the war, see the hug as hopeful, and as reinforcing their beliefs that America is exporting happiness and freedom.

However, my political beliefs aside, I am very suspect of anything that goes on at a state of the union address. This is not a time for unplanned conversations and spontaneity.

Everything is staged at huge political events, which Matthews has covered and been around for nearly 30 years. So if his stating the obvious makes him the ass of makes his "bias" apparant, so be it.

Secondly, Malkin has a huge grudge against Matthews for when he tore her up into bits over Swift Boats last summer.

So maybe you need to pin the tail elsewhere on this one...

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash

In the first place Mr Berlin, Matthews did not "tear her into shreads." He just completely had a meltdown on air, and shouted her down, insisting on putting statements in her mouth that had nothing to do with anything she said.

She was there to talk about immigration policy, which is her area of expertise. Matthews insisted on making bogus arguments on behalf of the Bush administration about the swift boat vets that they wouldn't have made.

Then he insisted on treating Malkin as an administration spokesman saying those things, which is several kinds of stupid in that she's never been a member of the administration nor any kind of Republican partisan. Indeed, she's just as critical of Bush immigration policy as she is of the Clinton legacy.

It was a disgraceful and loutish display on Matthews' part, a low moment in his career. She'd be absolutely justified in disliking him.

Also, not absolutely everything is 100% staged. Clinton was considerably worse with this, notably the poignant moment making the little monument on the beach with stones that had been carefully placed there for him to "find."

That's pretty cheesy, but scripting a hug from the mom of a dead soldier would be magnitudes of order worse. Just putting them physically together like that amounts to leading a horse to water. However, there's every obvious reason why they would be only too happy to drink, without having to force it.

In other words, putting them together like that, a simple hug like this was an obvious and natural gesture that wouldn't have needed to be forced.

Matthews basically took Malkin to task for spreading unverified rumors under the guise of "accusations have been made..." Malkin basically insinuated that Kerry had shot himself on purpose in Vietnam, which, without hard evidence, is slander of the highest order (to say the least). I applaud Matthews for attempting to put an end to this Witch Trial school of "journalism."

Secondly, it's simply beyond humorous to suggest that Clinton staged things more than Bush. This is the staged presidency: Bush in the Iraq Thansgiving, Bush on the Carrier: Mission Accomplished... and on and on. It's style over substance under the impression of substance.

Obviously this works for a majority of the American people, but it doesn't do it for me. Give me Slick Willie and Monica and the rest any day of the week.

Sydney: "You don't tolerate descent in your America? "

Is that your misspelling of dissent, or some other play on words?

You come on billing yourself as an educator but can't proofread?

FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for Pres. Bush.

It's hard to get worked up about what an opinion guy says, and that's what Matthews is, especially when the opinion is offered within minutes of the event. I'm betting that Matthews wouldn't have even made the assertion if he had more than an hour to think about it. People as props? In a SOTU address? No way!

What the heck, though. Let's have the Malkin-Matthews cage match.

My money's on Chris. Bro's from Philly.

SFC Ski,

Your right about my spelling. I always need help in that area. On the other hand, I use spell checks when I care to get it right. Its horrible that I might teach your children, isn't it?

-- "FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for Pres. Bush."

Oh is that so? You know the troops do ya? Remarkable. My apologies again, I was under the impression they either served in Iraq or they went to jail. Not that jail time would be the worst of it. No, facing an American public that ridicules conscientious objectors and calls them cowards, thats the real kicker.

But apparently I'm mistaken. They're all their fighting and Dying for Bush.

And for the record, though I agree with Chris Mathews' remarks regarding the staged hug, I realize he's an idiot.

Arn't all the T.V. pundits these days? They too are hired for style rather than substance. You'd be a fool to not observe them from a safe critical distance.

On Malking from my THE WILD-EYED RIGHT IS LOSING THEIR COOL AND BECOMING UNHINGED (opens in new window):

Michelle Malkin got on Hardball last Thursday and started throwing "self-inflicted" around, the subtext being that Kerry shot himself to get the award.

Matthews didn't want this implication to remain nebulous and asked Malkin: "What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you're saying? " Malkin then started playing dodge ball, refusing to commit herself while repeating the phrase "self-inflicted."

FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting because of Pres. Bush.

What's really frightening to me is the twisted way in which you take aim at anyone who criticizes a military family. That's not patriotism, that's anti-democratic.

You're right Sydney, I do take aim at these people for critisizing a military family. Especially one whose sign died serving this country.

Now, you can disagree with what I've said, which is certainly your right, but please don't go shoveling this ridiculous "anti-democratic" garbage. This whole process is perfectly democratic. I've said what I think, you disagree.

I think, at least here in the United States, we call that "free speech."

Now, if I were trying to threaten someone, to force them into silence or to intimidate them, you know, like the insurgents are trying to do in Iraq, THAT would be anti-democratic. Are you seeing this difference here?

What I'm giving you is a heartfelt opinion whereas the insurgents are just plain killing people. Opinion vs. violence.

Right?

Thanks for your comments.

David

Oops! Meant "son", not "sign." Talk about needing to proofread...

David

I hear you David,

But my point is that if a military family did choose to partake in this sort of highly-charged rhetorical theatrics, then we also have a right to be critical of her actions.

My condolences to the family for their sacrifice, truly. But that doesn't mean that the family can do no wrong from hear on out. Chris Mathews had a right to take aim at her, and personally I might have done the same.

Also, I wanted to point out that there does exist, in my opinion, a culture of intimidation whereby dissent is met with feirce and often frightening opposition in America.

I understand your opinion, but that's where mine differs. I got to say blogging is useful democratic excersise.... (and it's improving my spelling too)

Also,

I do see the difference between using violence (as is the case in Iraq) to intimidate, and using verbal intimidation (as I think is the case here).

However, both can be very powerfull. Let's put an end to both.

Yes, Sydney, I do know some of the troops, I am an active duty service member in the US Army. It is painfully obvious you don't know any.

I take exception to your use of the false and outdated view of the military as a place for those with no other choice. If you arre goingto start of withthis sort of atitude, it is going to be difficult for me to give any other opinions you have much credence, educate yourself, or ask questions, but don't come off as knowing something that you don't.

Oddly Sydney, I don't see anything so wrong with 'intimidating' terrorists, especially if that gets them to change their behavior. I know you'd rather nurture and hug them, but that just lets them get close enough to stab you in the back.

Dave

SFC Ski,

I'll tell you straght out. I know three members of the military. Two in service, one finished. The two in service are my age (24) and joined the army to get an education. They dislike Bush and his motives for war. It is their view that they had no choice but to go to war, that was the terms of getting their education.

The older one who is done his service, is appreciative of the fact that he made a career of the army. He is currently retired and looking for work in Australia. He has no plans of returning to America ("not even to visit is brother"). He is extremely cynical of the politics of war. He's very bitter that his freinds have lost their lives in Iraq (the first war). So he has mixed feelings with regards to his service.

In any case, I also know of ex patriots in Canada who are waiting to be deported back here. The Canadian gov't is granting them asylum currently and likely will continue to do so until such time as they are granted Canadian citizenship. However, if they are deported they face long sentences.

So anyway, that's not as much experience as you have obviously. But from that perspective, from their perspective, and from the obvious conclusions that one can make about the complex nature of war politics, I think its fair of me to say that some of those troops are fighting for their lives, not for George Bush. Moreover, that it is not an outdated view to say that there is little choice with regards to what/who your fighting for. Anyway, its my opinion, it is NOT a shot a those in service. I understand your opinion.

Dave,

You completely misunderstood what I was writing about. Perhaps it's because the discussion was carried over from earlier comments. In any case, I was simply saying that it is not good to "intimidate" people who choose dissent as a means of changing Public policy. In other words, we should not be so quick to call anyone who opposes the war or GWB, UN-AMERICAN.

I have no problem with the idea of fighting terrorism. However, I am one of those people who feel Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and that we've only created many many more terrorists by invading Iraq.

I do see the difference between using violence (as is the case in Iraq) to intimidate, and using verbal intimidation (as I think is the case here).

Sydney,

Me, a peon, calling Chris Matthews, one of the biggest names in cable news a "Big Giant Ass" is intimidating? :-D

Forgive me for laughing, but if what I wrote is truly intimidating, then we are all in a heck of a lot of trouble, because this is nothing.

Thanks,

David

Dave: "this is nothing."

Agreed.

Insert Obligatory Shakespeare reference here: Much ado about nothing

Sydney, the opinions of a few disaffected deserters ( I am one of those who subscribe to the idea that they made the commitment, and reaped the bennies only to cut and run when it was time to do their part, that's me though), and a disillusioned vet are not the best basis for a picture of the US military. I can understand how the one soldier could react so strongly and negatively to the US as a whle after being in Iraq or Afghanistan, the experiences some vets have had will cause them to totally change their outlook on everything they knew before through the prism of their war experiences. If you were to talk to other soldiers, you'd find that almost all of them know and believe in what they are fighting for.

When you were referring to going to war or jail, I took it as the old slur used against soldiers in years past, not in the context of those deserters you mentioned.

"(Attitudes, opinions liek [sic] your own are common in highschools [sic]... I work there..)."

"I bet your [sic] of the same group of people that called Michael Moore Anti-American because he criticized American Foreign policy and the Bush Administration. You don't tolerate descent [sic] in your America?"

You work in a school? As what? A janitor?

Hopefully not as an English teacher... :-/

-- "FYI, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for Pres. Bush."

"Oh is that so? You know the troops do ya?"

Uh, he IS one...

"My money's on Chris. Bro's from Philly."

LOL!

And he reminds his meager audience of this fact about every 15 seconds...

"I got [sic] to say blogging is useful democratic excersise [sic].... (and it's improving my spelling too)"

Not really...

Sydney, I have no problem with dissent, and I agree that there's no reason to call people un-american just for opposing the war. Everyone has a right to do that. I do oppose dissembling, and the vast majority of the war opposition is using lies and deception as their primary weapon, from the basic concealment of their reasons for opposing the war to misrepresenting and distorting actual events to serve their interests.

And yeah, yeah, I know - "Bush lied about the WMDs". So? They keep saying this, and in addtion to not being true, it's also just not relevant. The fact that there was bad intelligence on WMDs when we first went into Iraq is completely irrelevant to the situation there now and the reasons we're there.

Anyway, let me address another topic in your post. You mention that you know 3 people who were in the military, one who is alienated from the service and has left the US and two who deserted and went to Canada. Do you realize that these people are overwhelmingly not representative of those currently serving in the Armed Forces as well as veterans as a whole? I hear these anecdotal stories from the left about all these disaffected soldiers, yet when it comes down to numbers the actual count is incredibly tiny and in most cases the deserters are people who had major personal problems coping in the service regardless of the war. Last I checked there were about 6 deserters in Canada as compared to the 30,000 plus during Vietnam.

It's important not to make the mistake of thinking that your personal experiences are characteristic of the norm. The fact that all the military people you know are anti-war does not extrapolate to any kind of greater truth.

And BTW, there's really no excuse for deserting a volunteer military, and it looks as if ultimately the Canadian courts are going to agree with me.

Dave

RJ,

In fact I am English teacher. Perhaps, you'd do a better job teaching the kids how to spell. That is to say, I don't doubt that YOUR English studies consisted of spelling lessons mainly. It has served you very well, but apparently your lacking a critical element to your education. I'll just say, I don't give a fuck how I spell on here, nor is correct spelling a priority in my teaching. You should try participating in the discussion rather than pointing out spelling mistakes.

David,

Again I understand what you are saying but I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I understand that in a literal sense your comments about Chris Mathews are not intimidating. But in a collective sense, when a large majority of people create an atmosphere that suggests it is sacrilegious to make any criticism of families serving in the war in Iraq, it is not good. You contribute to this atmosphere , granted in a small way, when you say that CM is a 'giant ass' for sliming a military family. My point is, military or not, that family's actions at the state of the union are fair game for criticism. It is nonsense in my opinion to suggest otherwise. I only objected to the fact that you suggested Chris Mathews shouldn't have criticized a family who lost a family member while serving the country. Anyway, like you said, this point was a small one but I've spent a few posts trying to make myself understood. Not sure if the problem is my poor writing or careless reading.

Dave,

Fair enough. I concede defeat regarding the issue of the military servicemen. I suppose I don't know many of them. Perhaps all of you are right in saying that they are fighting a war they believe in. However, let me just say that there are articles and reports that say otherwise ( I couldn't remember the names so I didn't mention them earlier). Anyway, I agree that the 3 people I know are nothing as compared to the experience SFC Ski would have.

Ideologically we are worlds apart. I don't believe that GWB didn't know there was weapons of mass destruction, I don't believe that pre-emptive attacks are warranted in any case, and I don't believe in American unilateral military action. I do believe military use should be saved for the most extreme scenarios. In my opinion soft power and money are far more effective tools and they leave fewer emotional scares in the end. So I have to say, I just don't agree with much of what your saying though I'll respect your opinion.

Last thing... to all the participants at Blog-Critics.com let's acknowledge where we are comming from; You are all very conservative, though some of you like to suggest your somewhere in between. This is a conservative forum.

Dave, thanks for letting us watch you burst a bloodvessel over some marginal non-event.

You should be proud, though, that you are one of 7 people worldwide who watch Chris Matthews.

And you're one of 2 (out of those 7!) people who get so riled about it.


"It must really suck to be you."


PS: Carry on! Doctors are standing by.

I'm surprised that the Right hasn't gone apeshit over the lesbian implications of the hug.

I wonder if the gals are headin' for Hell for fuckin' up the sactity of marriage with their little tryst?

And, uh "Big Giant Ass" --- um, is that Biblically allowed?

Isn't that prohibited by one of the GOP's "Thou Shalt Not..." thingies?

Sydney: Fair enough. I concede defeat regarding the issue of the military servicemen. I suppose I don't know many of them. Perhaps all of you are right in saying that they are fighting a war they believe in.

Now I didn't say that, exactly. I said they aren't deserting in meaningful numbers and seem to overwhelmingly support the government. Most of that is probably just the mindset of being in the military and following orders and having a positive outlook on life. It really does take a personal event that shakes your foundational beliefs to get you out of that perspective. Most participants in this war haven't had a faith destroying experience. If anything, quite the opposite.

Sydney: However, let me just say that there are articles and reports that say otherwise ( I couldn't remember the names so I didn't mention them earlier).

There are articles and reports which say that Bush had the WTC bombed to create an excuse for starting the war. Anyone with an agenda can find a couple of tidbits to string together to make an argument for an article. Look at Michael Moore. He took all sorts of unrelated data, sort of threw it together so it looked related and got an academy award nomination.

Sydney: Ideologically we are worlds apart. I don't believe that GWB didn't know there was weapons of mass destruction,

Neither of us really knows whether he knew or did not know. The difference isn't one of ideology, it's one of optimism. With no evidence to make the choice between mistake and deception, having a positive attitude I choose to believe it was a mistake. Having a negative attitude you choose to believe it was deliberate.

Sydney: I don't believe that pre-emptive attacks are warranted in any case, and I don't believe in American unilateral military action. I do believe military use should be saved for the most extreme scenarios.

In a bygone era when we could count on our allies around the world not to have been subverted by greed, fear and hidden agendas I'd agree with you that unilateral, preemptive action would be undesirable. But that's not the situation today. And when you have to take a stand for what's right and no one will stand with you, then you take the stand alone.

Sydney: Last thing... to all the participants at Blog-Critics.com let's acknowledge where we are comming from; You are all very conservative, though some of you like to suggest your somewhere in between. This is a conservative forum.

I haven't really seen too many extreme conservatives here. I'm a Classical Liberal and seem not to be too out of step.

Dave

So, you saw Farenheit 9/11 Dave?

Hello, i was bored so i read all of your guy's messages, and i just wanna say, Sydney, i frikin applaud you.

Scott: So, you saw Farenheit 9/11 Dave?

Indeed I did. Saw it when it first came out, before all the controversy had time to brew. For anyone well informed about the events surrounding 9/11 the misrepresentations, events taken out of sequence and correlation of events which were actually unrelated was blatantly transparent.

dave

Dave,
I find it interesting to hear how people define themselves in terms of their political ideologies. I'm not really that familiar with the perspective of a "classical liberal". Anyhow I suppose I'm quite far left of the 'classic liberal' and am certainly not alone (though on this site it would seem I am).

~~"There are articles and reports which say that Bush had the WTC bombed to create an excuse for starting the war."

I agree with you there. I think anyone who believes in these crackpot conspiracies is seriously deluded. However, it is clear that the Bush team had plans of reforming the middle-east via military action, before they came to office. This much is in writing (and these are the documents I was referring to written by Cheany and his crew.. Forget the name of them). 9/11 was, in my opinion and excuse to begin this process. George Bush believes in this process, he believes it is in his moral authority to undergo a transformation of middle-eastern culture. And in accordance with said documents, these actions are also in the interest of the American people as the middle east is an untapped economic resource for America.

However, had they wanted to fight terrorism they would have taken aim at countries that have well known terrorism networks (Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc..). Secondly, it would have been more effective had they used multi-lateral and covert operations rather than military action which simply creates more terrorists.

~~ "In a bygone era when we could count on our allies around the world not to have been subverted by greed, fear and hidden agendas I'd agree with you that unilateral, preemptive action would be undesirable."

I think this is really naive and paranoid on your part (sorry. Not to be offensive, but it is my opinion). To suggest that Canada, France, Germany, and all the other countries who were opposed to the invasion,
were simply corrupted and motivated by greed, is to ignore the fact that 90% of the world was opposed to a pre-emptive strike on a country that seemingly had nothing to do with 9/11 (obviously 90% is just an approximation, but the unprecedented protests world wide were an indication of where people stood--Poles in Canada suggest close to 80% percent were opposed to the war in Iraq. Even here in America the majority were opposed at the time of the invasion). Since the invasion, Americans have seen the war as a means of freeing the Iraq people, which has nothing to do with the reasons for invasion. Granted I think we have to stick around and provide security now.

Might I also point out that those countries that you suggest were corrupted by greed and political motivations, simply acted on the will of their people. Most of these 'corrupted allies' had no problem assisting in Afghanistan where military action seemed justified. I think Americans have to face the fact that the rest of the world thinks America is abusing its power and acting illegally. We have to get beyond this idea that we've been betrayed by our allies, and acknowledge that our allies feel we betrayed them. Clearly this is the view they hold.

So... I know we're off the Chris Mathews topic, but reply with comments if you like. Its been cool to hear where we differ in opinion.

Nobody Important,

Thanks. Nice to hear for once that I'm not crazy. But, if your being ironic or sarcastic as is the fashion among bloggers than.. umm... oh well...

Scott and Dave,

I saw 9/11 and though I think Michael Moore is a master film-maker and rhetorician, clearly he's not reliable source for politics. He uses rhetorical devices purposefully and in a very calculated manner. He felt his means justified his ends (creating a liberal movement to overturn the election). Mind, the GWB clips needed very little manipulating. I think Bush incriminates himself most of the time because he uses rhetoric in a more obvious and outrageous way than Moore. It always looks so clumsy and ridiculous (Inviting the media in to watch him chop wood and ride around in a pickup ~~ the working man's president etc.., ~~ the "axis of evil".. all that crap).

As far as Moore goes, I think he should tone it down and be more reasonable. Maybe comment on social issues rather than overtly political ones.

Sorry to bombard this forum with posts. Forgive me!

But I remembered the article I've been referring to and it important that people read this;
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

I think that it should be essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what Liberals are so opposed to with regards to the Conservative idea of Foreign Policy. To me this document is a display of the incredible heights of American governmental arrogance and evidence of the sort of policy that has turned the world so violently against us. Do people think that the rest of the world doesn't read these documents? For crying out loud!, they read it more than we do!

Americans deserve better representation than this!

Sydney: I'm not really that familiar with the perspective of a "classical liberal". Anyhow I suppose I'm quite far left of the 'classic liberal' and am certainly not alone (though on this site it would seem I am).

Classical liberals are those who still follow the liberal philosophy of the late 1700s an early 1800s - when Liberalism originated as a political movement. Modern Liberals come out of that tradition, but have come under the influence of socialism. The Democrat party includes both Classical and Modern Liberals and a mix of the two, but the Republican party also includes Classical Liberals - in fact they dominated the party until relatively recently.

Sydney: it is clear that the Bush team had plans of reforming the middle-east via military action, before they came to office.

Every president has a Middle East policy. Bush's is a bit more proactive than some.

Sydney: However, had they wanted to fight terrorism they would have taken aim at countries that have well known terrorism networks (Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc..). Secondly, it would have been more effective had they used multi-lateral and covert operations rather than military action which simply creates more terrorists.

I think it's abundantly clear that our covert resources were in no way capable of having sufficient impact in the countries you mention without the cooperation of their governments to implement the kind of change we needed. Certainly Bush's approach is proving to be far more effective than anything we tried in the past, and the covert route was the main one in the past.

Sydney: I think this is really naive and paranoid on your part (sorry. Not to be offensive, but it is my opinion). To suggest that Canada, France, Germany, and all the other countries who were opposed to the invasion, were simply corrupted and motivated by greed,

This is incontrovertibly true of France. Canada is just pacifistic and not to be relied on under any circumstances, and Germany has too many internal problems to commit to anything like this. Nothing would have brought them into the fray, so it was either go it alone or not do it. Eventually someone HAS to take responsibility.

Sydney: is to ignore the fact that 90% of the world was opposed to a pre-emptive strike on a country that seemingly had nothing to do with 9/11 (obviously 90% is just an approximation, but the unprecedented protests world wide were an indication of where people stood--Poles in Canada suggest close to 80% percent were opposed to the war in Iraq. Even here in America the majority were opposed at the time of the invasion).

If 90% of the people in the world are idiots and fools does that mean we should listen to them just because they are numerous? Huge numbers of people believe that killing female children is a good idea. Does that make it right?

Sydney: Might I also point out that those countries that you suggest were corrupted by greed and political motivations, simply acted on the will of their people. Most of these 'corrupted allies' had no problem assisting in Afghanistan where military action seemed justified. I think Americans have to face the fact that the rest of the world thinks America is abusing its power and acting illegally. We have to get beyond this idea that we've been betrayed by our allies, and acknowledge that our allies feel we betrayed them. Clearly this is the view they hold.

Might I suggest that they were embarassed by their impotence and prior involvement in creating the disastrous situation in Iraq and reacted with hostility when America took responsibility that they were unwilling to shoulder?

Sydney: As far as Moore goes, I think he should tone it down and be more reasonable. Maybe comment on social issues rather than overtly political ones.

That appears to be where he's going with his next picture, which is about HMOs, which we can all agree suck.

Dave

Dave,

~~"Canada is just pacifistic and not to be relied on under any circumstances"

Except if your a pacifist, in which case you rely on them completely. Besides, who says Canada is strictly pacifist? They have fought in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Afghanistan, and have been supporters of most all of the UN peace keeping missions.

~~"If 90% of the people in the world are idiots and fools does that mean we should listen to them just because they are numerous? Huge numbers of people believe that killing female children is a good idea. Does that make it right?"

When 90% of the world believes a war is unjust, moreover, when these people represent a reasonable objective perspective (they are outsiders looking in on the conflict), we might do well to step back and seriously consider other options. Maybe look at what causes the anti-American sentiment which leads to terrorism (i.e. aggressive foreign policy, cultural imperialism) and speculate what might actually remedy the problem.

It is also important to note that a lot of these objecting citizens come from countries with more effective democracies than America (less corporate influence over policy, far less media rhetoric, and more democratic systems of government) . The Scandinavian countries and Canada, to name a few. We would do well to stop and take some notes.

Also, Germany and Canada prepared a report that was meant to liaise in negations between the UN and America after 9/11. This report was designed to create common ground on which a multi-lateral attack on terrorism could be mounted. America refused the proposal without even reading it. To me that's a sign of arrogance, especially when so many lives have been lost as a result. Now America is asking for help in shouldering the cost of war. These countries are reluctant but have agreed to front some cash for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The temptation to teach us (America) a lesson is enormous though.


In any case I see we are still worlds apart. I disagree with the Ideological premises you found your arguments on. We have entirely different visions of what America's role in the world should be, and how it's power should be used. I suspect that if you read http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf you would find very little wrong with it. I, on the other hand, think it is incredibly arrogant and unethical. If you do read the introduction, try to put yourself in the shoes of the citizens of other countries. Imagine the outrage!

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -- John F. Kennedy

"That appears to be where he's going with his next picture, which is about HMOs, which we can all agree suck."

I'm a lone voice who is pro-HMO. What's the alternative? Socialized medicine?

THe concept of the HMO shold really be brought into another thread, doncha think? ( I should start a blog just so I can post, another reason)

As to the matter at hand; "Canada is just pacifistic and not to be relied on under any circumstances"
Actually, if you look at the performance of the Canadian army in Afghanistan, they were no slackers, in fact by at least one account, a Canadian Army sniper is credited with the longest range kill ever. The Canadian Army is woefully underfunded because of its government, but its soldiers are damn good.

I would never belittle the skill or bravery of a Canadian soldier. But I do question the guts of the Canadian people, and especially their gov't.

BTW, I have an HMO. Works fine for me!

The cost is rather high, but would be even higher were it not for the inherent cost-minimizing efforts of HMO's in general.

PPO's offer more choice, but cost more. My employer offers both. I chose the one which was cheaper. And, as I said, I have no complaints.

Now, my PCP is a jackass. And his office is in chaos. But, thankfully, my HMO will allow me to find a new PCP should I request it.

Anyway, the Pats won, so I'm happy. Bread and circuses, et al...

Dave,

with regards to this ,/a>, you said " I skimmed it. It's relatively free of ideology. It's just a proposal for how to improve the military, one I'm not qualified to really agree or disagree with."

You have to go back and read this article a little more closely. It is splitting at the seems with ideology. And it is ideology in relation to foreign policy, more so, than to military. This document is the framework for American foreign policy written by members of teh bush team before they got into power. This document, more than domestic affairs was to be the blueprint to the Bush legacy.

"I would never belittle the skill or bravery of a Canadian soldier. But I do question the guts of the Canadian people, and especially their gov't."

This is such typical ignorant bullshit. Quit the arrogant macho talk for a minute and realize that not everyone agrees with the American perspective. Quite the opposite, people strongly dislike America's beliefs that the Military is the means to all ends. This has nothing to do with "guts", it has to do with whats ethical. Canadians don't believe it's right to march into another country and kill it's civillians, even if our govenment says they're doing it to "free" the Iraqi people (bullshit).

Quit reducing things to such simplictic views. We, Americans, are only a small factor in the equation. The rest of the world should have a say as to wether we're allowed to go around blowing up countries whenever it serves our economic or ideological purposes. I mean this is grade 2 stuff here... ADMIT THAT AMERICANS ARE NOT SUPERIOR TO THE REST OF THE WORLD!

Just because Canadians realize this does'nt mean they're gutless. The difference is that they see military action as a last resort to international conflicts.

Sydney writes:

"As far as Moore goes, I think he should tone it down and be more reasonable. Maybe comment on social issues rather than overtly political ones."

Reply: You're in luck! His next documentary will be a broadside of the American health care system generally and, specifically, pharmaceutical companies and their business practices.

Cheers,

Ron

Ron,

That's good to hear. Whether you like Moore or loath him, at least he'll provoke analysis of the discourse surrounding what everyone agrees is a major problem in America: The uncomfortable relationship between private enterprise and public services.

Sydney, you're not alone, not even on BC. I'd guess there are a lot of people reading and applauding you. I'm one of many.

Thanks for your responses.

(Nice job on the patience, too. I prefer to mock them and threaten their pets.)