Today on Blogcritics
Home » Bush Lies

Bush Lies

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

That’s right. George Dubya Bush is a straight-up liar. Prevaricator. Fabricator. Forked-tongue person. He fibs, deceives, embellishes, tells tales, stretches the truth. HE LIES.

When are people going to finally get it into their heads that he hasn’t lied only once: The Resident has a long history of duping people to get what he wants. He got the White House. He got his “war.” He got his police state. He got the better (?) part of the nation to go along with the idea that the Sept. 11 attacks had something to do with Saddam Hussein to the tune of billions of dollars. And he’s well on the way to getting more and more power for his empire. Is he lying about, say, the Valerie Plame brouhaha? I don’t know. But I do know that he has lied so much that his word is not to be trusted. Shrub long ago gave up his right to a benefit of the doubt, as far as I’m concerned.

If you support the White House squatter, the leader of the league of lying liars, that’s your business. But at least support him with your eyes wide open: Bush lies. And if you need a recounting of the Terrorist-in-Thief’s mendacities, check out Susie Madrak at Open Source Politics. She, unlike Bush, has the stones to tell the truth.

Powered by

About NR Davis

  • Dawn

    You forgot dissembler.

    I am under the impression that our entire body of politicians are a bunch of no good liars.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    Can’t disagree with that. Not one bit.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    “you’d be a damned fool to think otherwise”

    I should’ve stopped reading when the Open Source person resorted to a cheap insult–of me and a majority of the voting electorate.

    Education funding increases have outstripped inflation by 50% since before I was born. Funding is NOT the issue.

    The above-stated attitude is among the chief reasons that the GOP will do something I never thought I’d see: celebrate 10 years as the majority party in the House.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    I understand your feeling about the insult. I do question, however, “majority of the voting electorate.”

  • Vox Populi

    Only one problem: Her posting is filled with lies. Bush was not AWOL from the National Guard, never said that Iraq was an imminent threat (in fact, he went out of his way to say they were not) and never tied Saddam Hussein to 9/11 (although he did tie him to Al-Qaeda, which has proven true). Bush has increased funding for education. The fact that you disagree with his policies on the environment, which continues to improve doesn’t make them lies. The tax cut has brought about increased consumer spending and layoffs are declining month by month. Yes, the recession that started under Bill Clinton has ended thanks to the Bush policies and the economy is growing.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    :)

    I’ll just “listen” from here on in.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    Majority of the voting electorate:

    Senate – GOP

    House – GOP

    President – all else aside, 50% approval has been about his LOW water mark for some time, whatever the reasons.

    Madrak insinuates that I am a damned fool because I don’t agree that W. is a lying anti-Christ. Well, the majority of the American people, even ones that don’t especially like his policies, still seem to think him a decent guy, in numbers greater than the numbers of people who approve of his policies.

    How is it not the majority of the voting electorate?

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    Shrub’s popularity is hovering around 49 – 50% the last I saw. That is not a majority (50% plus one), unless one factors in an error margin that might push the figure upward. As I’ve said, I give the man no benefits of the doubt. Infinitely bitten, always shy.

    But let’s say a majority of the people think him decent. Well, a majority is no proof of correctness. A majority once was OK with anti-misegenation laws. A majority once supported — either openly or tacitly — the oppression of people under law on the basis of gender and melanin. A majority once thought the planet to be flat.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis
  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    You questioned the use of “majority of the voting electorate.” That’s all my response covered. Bringing in the significance of majorities is irrelevant.

    Approval ratings rise and fall, and W’s are at 50 at their LOWEST ebb, according to one poll (there may be others, but the ones I’ve seen suggest that 50 is aberrantly low) that used methods that skewed its results (too many dems, not enough likely voters, e.g., and my statement specifically referred to VOTING electorate).

    Taking an optimal snapshot to mask his sustained popularity might be fun, but it is a bit disingenuous to extrapolate therefrom that my statement was somehow dubious. If he falls below 50 on a consistent basis, that could change as pertains to approval.

    Yet even if that happens, many people who don’t approve of him overall still think well of him as a person, so Madrak’s condemnation would still, most likely, apply to the majority of the voting electorate.

  • http://www.unproductivity.com Tom Johnson

    “Police state” – please. By the way I see this phrase being thrown around, it’s obvious no one in America today understands what that even means. You have the right to do anything you did before Bush came into office. There is no police state but what is in your mind.

    And whenever someone starts resorting to the childish names, like “Shrub,” you lose all credibility – and not just with me, with all readers other than the very small contingent that already feel the way you do. When will people learn that you aren’t going to influence anyone when you stoop to such pedantic levels as that? Really, aren’t we mature enough to simply use his name? Most mature people will read this and come to the same conclusion that I did: that the writer is a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and your ability to influence anyone but those who feel exactly as you do goes right down the toilet. No matter how much you hate someone, if you show respect to them, you will find that you have influenced not only the people you already had on your side, but you may influence people who weren’t. And isn’t that your only purpose in writing this to begin with?

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    Harper’s = subject change, and a fictional one at that.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    Bush was never officially declared AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard: he just never reported for duty after training.

    Yes, he did declare Iraq an imminent threat to national security if it did not comply with UN resolutions. Bush did go out of his way to avoid specifically tying Saddam to 9/11. However, the public somehow managed to create this relationship on their own and neither Bush nor his administration ever made any attempt to disabuse the American people of that notion — until — when was it? — last week.

    According to economists, the recession began about six months into Bush’s term; and ended, I believe, last November. In light of that analysis, you can make the case that we were headed into recession under Clinton; but you can’t state that the recession *started* under Clinton.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    Bush bashing, eh Natalie?

    Liar, lies or not, whether we like it or not, the fact remains that he is our currently elected President (which I suppose could also go for debate with the whole Florida thing), and that he has our men and women soldiers over in a hazardous place at the moment.

    I say we vote with our feet in the next election and work to get him campaigned out of office. No second term!

    I must admit that I don’t really see what character assassinating our currently elected President during this tumultuous time really gains? Does this have some sort of cleansing effect on some folks?

    And no, I didn’t — and wouldn’t — vote for Bush. I remember what it was like when senior was in office.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    And let me add that regarding comment #11: Tom, I totally agree with you.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    “Shrub?”

    heck, if it’s good enough with molly ivins (who’s been closely following the his exploits for years), then it’s good enough for me.

    yea, he’s our president, our troops are over there, etc.

    well, some of us (who are all apparently “whining”, “america-hatera”, “fuzzy-headed”, …insert your favorite liberal stereotype here) never wanted them there in the first place.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    People have used nicknames for pols for centuries. Come on, now. Terrorist? Thief? These are things I believe he is in fact. Jerry is a milkman. Jennifer is an actor. George is a terrorist, thief, and liar. Not insults, truth.

    Yes, we would disagree on his status as “president.” He is not my president, never was.

    My purpose in posting this was merely to link to the OSP article, which, in my opinion, states something that is obvious. Where did I say: “Turn away from Bush?” I didn’t. I wrote, if you support him, that’s your business, but do so with your eyes open. It never entered my imagination that I would persuade anyone of anything, not through this posting. If someone were to be persuaded, that would be icing on the proverbial cake, but it was not my intent. And I do my damnedest NOT to lie.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    “in my opinion, states something that is obvious”

    well, the kind of shrill rhetoric in the article is not “obvious” to the majority of the present electorate, slavish and irrelevant adherence to the lawless yokels of the florida supreme court notwithstanding.

    i read left-leaning sources that transcend the kind of “any electorate that disagrees with me is not a valid electorate” rants that remind me of mickey suslov, so i know they exist.

  • Sean H.

    Reading these posts it is apparent many people believe that the earth has been made flat. And President Bush must be to blame, right?

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    lol

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    or….if bush, cheney, and rumsfeld keep repeating “the earth is flat”, well then, goddammit, it’s flat!

  • voxxy

    Sorry, san, but the economists have placed the beginning of the recession in the summer of 2000, while the president was one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and the ending in 2001, when the president was George W. Bush.

    Read the State of the Union message from last January. It specifically states that Iraq is NOT an imminent threat but must be prevented from becoming one.

  • John Mudd

    Bush lies quite a bit, and he cloaks everything in secrecy. His White House, unlike the Reagan White House, is filled with insiders that have been with him or his father, who I like to call Secrecy, Sr. (and “One Term, Sr.), from the very beginning.

    What is about to happen to One Term, Jr., though, is similar to what happened to the king of presidential liars – Richard Nixon.

    The plot’s actually very similar to Watergate, and it’ll probably unravel as such.

    Whether W. is impeached or removed, or not, he’s still toast in 2004 with this just now unraveling on the horizon.

    Looks like republicans need a new nominee. Hey Arnold, how about running for the Republican nomination? I’m certain that Arnold could negotiate free trade agreements much better than W. has, and he could probably create more jobs, too. He would undoubtedly terminate unemployment and terrorists, too.

    Hey Orrin, what’s taking you so long with that amendment? Republicans need a real nominee in 2004 instead of this oligarchic liberal liar that’s in there now.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    “..You have the right to do anything you did before Bush came into office.” (11)

    Sure.

    Except that now you might be thrown in jail and held incommunicado for an unspecified (and potentially unlimited) time.

    Interested parties should take a close look at the details of the "Patriot" Act, as well as how it is being applied in ways that the framers had not intended. It started like this:

    “A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months. Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn’t abusing the law…”

    “Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. Prosecutors aren’t apologizing." 9/15/03 article

    Then there’s Patriot II in the wings …

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    Voxxy, where are you getting your information? The most recent recession began in March 2001 and ended, not last November as I originally stated, but that same year, in November. In March 2001, George Walker Bush was president; Clinton had retired.

    Two sources:

    Chicago Sun Times

    The Washington Post

    And on Iraq as an imminent threat:

    From the SOTU, January 2003: “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

    That’s the only use of the word “imminent” in the address and it’s not negated. Indeed, Bush says that “terrorists [implication: al Qaeda] and tyrants [implication: Saddam] [do not] announce their intentions.” The overwhelming message in this statement is that terrorists and tyrants act “suddenly”, that they don’t fit the standard definition of “imminent threat”, ergo they by their mere existence pose an imminent threat.

    Q.E.D., voxxy.

  • http://www.martinlitho.com Ralph Del Rio

    Many of the people posting here are truly out of touch with mainstream society and that’s OK. I am like that on some isues as well. But this whole thing about ‘Bush Lies’ is silly.
    We are going to have to kill the terrorists “by any means necessary”.
    As a real moderate I understand that we do have some relationships abroad that need to be checked. Our troops are our heroes; many of them will die protecting us and our children. God Bless them and thank you. Saddam raped his people for 30 years, used WMD, threatened us and its neighbors and he’s on the record supporting the 9/11 attacks. Which was more than enough justification for us to act as we are. The middle east is full of ancestors who missed out on the the beauties of the 18th century. It’s very basic. You are either Pro-terrorism or Anti-Terrorism. This terrorism war will include Iran very shortly. It is the head of the snake and Hamas and the like must be dismantled which means Syria will feel alot of pressure as well.

    …and the Valerie Plame brouhaha is all about anonymous sources and Joseph Wilson is an admitted left of center, supports Kerry and he probably has ambitions to run for office as well.
    He published his wifes name in a Who’s Who. And barked a diatribe at Rove in July. It smells. It’s election year politics as usual and will fade away.

  • http://introverting.typepad.com/weblog/ brian

    Yes, we would disagree on his status as “president.” He is not my president, never was.

    Really? When did you surrender your U.S. citizenship?

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    Ralph Del Rio: If Benelux invades the United States and a faction of Americans forms to resist the occupation of this country, using violent attacks to discomfit and promote the expulsion of Benelux forces, and you support them, are you pro-terrorist or anti-terrorist?

    When you do it, it’s always resistance or defense or fighting a war; when they do it, it’s terrorism. In a war, both sides break every rule in the book and then the winners get to prosecute the losers for war crimes.

    Natalie’s comment should be thoroughly considered: support this administration if you wish but don’t be blind and swallow the rhetoric whole. Your statement that “you’re either pro-terrorism or anti-terrorism” is such an oversimplification of the global issues before us that it’s painfully obvious you’re incapable of doing any critical thinking on this subject.

    And you better hope we don’t engage in full-scale military conflict with Iran. Their armed forces haven’t been crippled by sanctions and inspections for over a decade. We go into Iran and this low-casualty ass-kicking parade will end right quick.

    Head of the snake? What with that and the axis of evil, I feel like I’m living in a biblical metaphor instead of a civilized nation.

  • Eric Olsen

    San, the Benelux invasion analogy does not hold: Saddam ‘s Iraq was held together by terror, obviously was not supported by any but a tiny percentage of the population, was illegitimate in every way. We have no need to be “liberated” – Iraq had every need.

    And some things really are that simple – such as the war on terror.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    My analogy is really an oversimpflication, too; but I had to put Ralph in the mind of his own country, his own culture, invaded by outsiders. There’s no way — right now, at least (wink) — to make the U.S. a candidate for liberation without a hypothetical.

    I think my point holds, though. I’m not suggesting that Iraq was fond of Saddam; I’m suggesting that post-invasion “terrorism” is not so easily defined. Perpetrating acts of “terror” in Iraq now, I suggest that there are Ba’ath loyalists, third-party (extranational) groups, common brigands, and Iraqi patriots defending their country against what they see as a foreign occupying military force. The latter group is hardly terrorist, even if you believe they are woefully misguided.

    The problem behind the “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric is in defining terrorism. Sure, objectively, we’re all “anti-terrorist”. But, subjectively, one man’s terrorism is another man’s revolution.

    What is terrorism? Violence or threat of violence as coercion of a government or social system? Then many actions in wartime are terrorism. Likewise, Bush’s threats to use force against Iraq were terrorism. But it’s not that simple, is it?

    Is terrorism better defined as threat of violence or violence against civilian targets in order to coerce that society or government of those civilians? Then the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima was terrorism. Again, not that simple.

    What then *is* terrorism? But I don’t care what you think. Because I have my own definition of terrorism and it’s just as good as yours. Say we each choose to act on our own ethics: who’s the terrorist? Well, of course, I am to you and you are to me.

    Is Palestine terrorizing Israel? Is Israel terrorizing Palestine? Depends on whether or not you should have been a doctor. (And that’s a gross oversimplification, too, because Israelis and Jews in general are far from unified behind the IDF’s stance.)

    It’s much easier to define terrorism on the local front. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh probably did not think his actions were terroristic — or if he did, he thought they were justified in his struggle against the American government. But McVeigh had a whole laundry list of avenues by which to register his discontent. Not so the patriotic Iraqi who hated Saddam but does not wish to be occupied by American military forces. It’s illegal in Iraq to demonstrate against the occupation government or coalition military forces. You can get arrested for that.

    Were the infamous attacks of 9/11 terrorism? In my opinion, yes. Justified? To some, I’m sure. Do we politically and economically oppress some cultures? Perhaps. To what extent? Hard to tell. Does our oppression of other cultures justify terrorism to break our hold on them? Depends on where you hang your hat.

    “Terrorism” versus “acts of war or revolution” is so relative to one’s own experience that it is a thoroughly worthless measure by which to establish foreign policy.

    The word “terrorism” used to have a better-defined, though still subjective, meaning. I appropriate and mangle Dylan Thomas, “A terrorist is someone whom you don’t like who does the same things you do.”

  • Eric Olsen

    A terrorist is someone who purposely targets innocents – civilians – with violence in order to achieve political gain. As such i wouldn’t necessarily label those who are attacking American forces in Iraq as terrorists, but they are certainly enemy combatants who need to be killed or otherwise neutralized.

    We didn’t invade Iraq – we drove a dangerous totalitarian dictator from power and are now in the process of helping to set up civil society and democracy. We don’t “want” Iraq, have no intention of staying a moment longer than is necessary to ensure that a new government can succeed.

    Empathy and the ability to understand where opposing players are coming from is fine, even noble, but we cannot be afraid to make moral judgments and to act upon them. We cannot allow sympathy or understanding of those who wish only our death and destruction to inhibit action required to stop them carrying out these wishes.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    “A terrorist is someone who purposely targets innocents – civilians – with violence in order to achieve political gain.” That certainly calls Hiroshima into question.

    “As such i wouldn’t necessarily label those who are attacking American forces in Iraq as terrorists, but they are certainly enemy combatants who need to be killed or otherwise neutralized.”

    Whether or not I agree with the above is not relevant. Your logic is eminently sound.

    “We didn’t invade Iraq…” Oh yes we did. You can however say that we invaded Iraq to drive a dangerous totalitarian dictator from power. But we went outside the boundaries set by the UN; we went against the international community; we invaded. “Invade”, like “liberal”, is not necessarily a bad word.

  • Eric Olsen

    “liberal” is an excellent word – “Liberal” is more spotty

  • Eric Olsen

    San, also, I appreciate your civility, makes everything so much easier.

    Re Hiroshima: I am not altogether comfortable with the fact that we killed tens of thousands of civilans, but it was a time of war, the Japanese refused to give up, vowed to fight to the last man. The key word here being “political” I think – we bombed not for political gain but to end a war the enemy refused to end.

    Again, I am not without reservation about it, but I do believe it saved many American lives in time of war.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    Eric, I can argue that winning a war is ultimately for political gain; but I won’t. Not about World War II, anyway.

    Personally, I will stand against the bombing of Hiroshima. But I wouldn’t classify it as terrorism, either. It was… something else. It could by a certain rule set be called terrorism — that, however, is a stretch.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    San (#25), I’m amazed that you quoted the proof-text that Bush never claimed Iraq’s threat was imminent in your attempt to demonstrate that Bush claimed Iraq’s threat was imminent. It’s like Bizarro-world or something! ;-)

    Anyway, you quoted Bush as saying, “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

    You gave your own reading, let me give what I think is the more logical one, sentence by sentence.

    1. Some say we must wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat.
    2. Based on history, do we think that by the time Al Queda or Hussein is ready to strike, they’re going to warn us by saying, “Hey! We’re an imminent threat now?”
    3. If we wait until Iraq has become an imminent threat, it will be too late.
    4. Hussein is crazy, aggressive, and hates us, and we’d be crazy and stupid to think otherwise, or to wait until he became an imminent threat.

    I don’t know anyone who heard that speech and thought that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. The whole thrust of the speech was that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat but that we needed to act immediately anyway.

    Agree or disagree, that’s fine. But saying that Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat is simply mischaracterization.

    On Hiroshima, I just can’t possibly form an opinion. Mathematically speaking, experts and pundits generally seem to agree that fewer lives were lost as a result of those horrible events. But wow. I can’t exactly say I would have supported it then, and I can’t say I support it now, and I certainly wouldn’t support anything like it again under any set of circumstances I can envision.

    So I guess I’m against it, except that I keep thinking about how many more people, including civilians would have died otherwise.

    What a great topic, san, very interesting!

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    “When did you surrender your U.S. citizenship?”

    I have renounced it publicly on many occasions. Any paperwork to that effect will be filed when I have the financial and occupational wherewithal to move to another country, which is the plan.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    What countries are under consideration? I am not endorsing your departure, though I suppose I’d lobby for it in exchange for pecuniary consideration.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    PW: “Agree or disagree, that’s fine. But saying that Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat is simply mischaracterization.”

    I don’t think so. I think Bush’s implication was that Iraq by its very nature was an imminent threat — just not an imminent threat in the way the term has heretofore been applied in national defense. Essentially, he redefined “imminent threat”.

    Indeed most newspaper headlines about the SOTU address ran “Bush Declares Iraq Imminent Threat.” That was the weight and weft of the address. Yet he did not say quote Iraq is an imminent threat unquote, although by implication that is exactly the thought he put in American minds. Again, he did nothing to disabuse the American people of this notion. With headlines west and east reporting that he called Iraq an imminent threat, why did Bush not deny that interpretation in a timely manner? The answer is obvious: the desired effect was achieved.

    I believe that the SOTU address was pointed to establishing Iraq as an imminent threat to the American public without providing a specific statement to that effect that could be held against the executive office.

    Casualty figures for a land invasion of Japan vary wildly over the period before and after the bombings. 200,000 Japanese, most of them civilian, were put to death in two attacks. What justifies killing 200,000 people in a week? I don’t know but apparently Truman thought he did.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    Natalie: what about America is so broken that it cannot be repaired?

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    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.

  • Eric Olsen

    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.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    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.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    “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.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    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.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

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

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

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

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    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.

  • http://introverting.typepad.com/weblog/ brian

    …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!

  • http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/ Brian Flemming

    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.

  • debbie

    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.

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    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.

  • JR

    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.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

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

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    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.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    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.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    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 ™” 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 ™” 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.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    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.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

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

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    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.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    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.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    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.

  • http://www.martinlitho.com Ralph Del Rio

    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.

  • http://www.sanfordmay.com san

    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.

  • http://www.martinlitho.com Ralph Del Rio

    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.”