Bush reads Camus

[John Smith]

They are weak in the eyes of Americans when it comes to fighting terror.

 

 

At this point I will take weak over dumb any time. Simply killing anyone who we think oposes us is not going to work. There are root causes for terrorism in the world, and that is what should be attacked. For instance in Israel the original root cause was the total displacement of a population, thi sissue is still unresolved 58 years later. In the mid-east one root cause for violence against American's is our unwavering support of Israel and anything they do. Another side cause was our bases in Saudi Arabia. Another cause is our invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation who pose no threat to us. I could go on and on. The so called bleeding heart approach is to negotiate and resolve these issues. The conservaive stance is to simply kill any one who is agianst us and anyone who gets killed as collateral damage must be guilty to, otherwise they would not have lived so near people who hate us. Imagine using this logic in the US? Way back in 1978 we would have locked up all the residents of Sommerdale avenue as well as anyone on the stree behind sommerdale and anyone who was an acquaintance of Mr Gacy, afterall if they didn't stop what was going on they must have approved or supported it? Great logic there. ANyhow the republicans like to toss around the phrase cut and run as if that has anything to do with the actual ideas put forth by dems, nope republicans like their sloganeering and want to stick wth the current strategy of stay and lose.

[Atticus]

At this point I will take weak over dumb any time. Simply killing anyone who we think oposes us is not going to work. There are root causes for terrorism in the world, and that is what should be attacked. For instance in Israel the original root cause was the total displacement of a population, thi sissue is still unresolved 58 years later. In the mid-east one root cause for violence against American's is our unwavering support of Israel and anything they do. Another side cause was our bases in Saudi Arabia. Another cause is our invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation who pose no threat to us. I could go on and on. The so called bleeding heart approach is to negotiate and resolve these issues. The conservaive stance is to simply kill any one who is agianst us and anyone who gets killed as collateral damage must be guilty to, otherwise they would not have lived so near people who hate us. Imagine using this logic in the US? Way back in 1978 we would have locked up all the residents of Sommerdale avenue as well as anyone on the stree behind sommerdale and anyone who was an acquaintance of Mr Gacy, afterall if they didn't stop what was going on they must have approved or supported it? Great logic there. ANyhow the republicans like to toss around the phrase cut and run as if that has anything to do with the actual ideas put forth by dems, nope republicans like their sloganeering and want to stick wth the current strategy of stay and lose.

 

what is the democrats' strategy at this point with regard to terrorism and foreign relations in general (other than "Bush bad")? I think you make valid points about the tunnelvision of both sides (bleeding hearts vs. kill 'em all). So who around has the right balance, in your opinion?

[tugmoose]

God, when did this turn into the Newshour on PBS?

 

(I know, I know: Then why am I wasting my time here? A: It's not my time, it's company time! Cha-ching!)

[bjorn_skurj]

Here's a reasonable approach:

 

Killing Won

[Atticus]

I personally think he is a man of reasonable intelligence who holds deeply flawed ideas about policy and governance--if he were a true moron, he'd be a lot less scary.

 

Funny, but if a few adjectives ("considerable" instead of "reasonable") and nouns ("she" for "he" etc.) were switched around, that's exactly how I describe Hillary Clinton. I am by no means a Bush apologist. I think he's made some profound mistakes. I just get tired of the conspiracy theories and downright hatred. We are in an unprecedented time in our nation's history, and the monday-morning quarterbacking too quickly turns from reasoned and valid objection or criticism to frighteningly treasonous vitriol.

[MrRain422]

treasonous

 

There it is.

[cryptique]

There it is.

Yeah, that pretty much keeps me from taking anything else he says the least bit seriously.

[Atticus]

There it is.

 

please elaborate. Is Bush treasonous?

 

If that was another attempt at accusing me of thinking that anyone who hates Bush is treasonous, then I have obviously not stated my position clearly enough. I think it's fantastic that people are able to call bush a moron, and not have to worry about suffering consequences as a result. I think it's fine that people completely disagree with his track record--I have many problems with the man as well. But how is anyone contributing to the solution to our problems by calling Bush Hitler or stating that he should be executed, etc.? what does that accomplish?

[MrRain422]

How is it treasonous?

 

I'm of the view that expressing one's personal viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous, is never treasonous. I believe strongly in free speech, and our right to criticize our government. Also, the vast, vast, vast majority of people who think that every single thing that Bush has done has been horrible have never compared him to Hitler. You're lumping a huge group of people together based on the statements of very few.

 

Personally, I think accusing other Americans of being treasonous for having a differing viewpoint is far more dangerous than anything that anyone can say about the President. But I wouldn't even call that treasonous.

[Atticus]

How is it treasonous?

 

I'm of the view that expressing one's personal viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous, is never treasonous. I believe strongly in free speech, and our right to criticize our government. Also, the vast, vast, vast majority of people who think that every single thing that Bush has done has been horrible have never compared him to Hitler. You're lumping a huge group of people together based on the statements of very few.

 

Personally, I think accusing other Americans of being treasonous for having a differing viewpoint is far more dangerous than anything that anyone can say about the President. But I wouldn't even call that treasonous.

 

then perhaps I should rephrase. I was using the phrase "frighteningly treasonous" to infer that some of what I'ver heard elected officials state (not posters on this forum) comes frighteningly close to treason. Those people are in positions of power, and people pay attention to what they say. I think they should be careful to stick to policy and alternative solutions, rather than mimicking the likes of chavez, etc.

 

But if any of you felt that I was accusing you of treason or "treasonous" behavior, then I humbly apologize. I have yet to see anything on this board that I equate with treason. Ill-willed possibly, but certainly not treason.

 

--Neil

[cryptique]

If that was another attempt at accusing me of thinking that anyone who hates Bush is treasonous, then I have obviously not stated my position clearly enough. I think it's fantastic that people are able to call bush a moron, and not have to worry about suffering consequences as a result. I think it's fine that people completely disagree with his track record--I have many problems with the man as well. But how is anyone contributing to the solution to our problems by calling Bush Hitler or stating that he should be executed, etc.? what does that accomplish?

Hey, you're the one who used the word "treasonous." What does that accomplish?

 

edit: OK, explanation came after I started this post. I'd like to see an example of what those elected officials said that you think rises to the level of treason, however.

[MrRain422]

Give me an example of something an elected official has said that has was treasonous.

[Atticus]

for feck's sake, I said "frighteningly close to treasonous." I have not accused anyone of committing treason. It's becoming readily apparent that none of you cares one bit about an actual dialogue with me on this--especially cryptique, whose opinions of me have been unequivocably stated--so what's the point...

 

Bush bad.

 

Bush bad.

 

Bush bad.

 

I see a new, brighter world coming already...

[MrRain422]

Funny, but if a few adjectives ("considerable" instead of "reasonable") and nouns ("she" for "he" etc.) were switched around, that's exactly how I describe Hillary Clinton. I am by no means a Bush apologist. I think he's made some profound mistakes. I just get tired of the conspiracy theories and downright hatred. We are in an unprecedented time in our nation's history, and the monday-morning quarterbacking too quickly turns from reasoned and valid objection or criticism to frighteningly treasonous vitriol.

 

 

I'm sorry, I just can't imagine how someone saying anything could border on treason. Regardless, you didn't say close to treason in this post, you said treason.

 

I apologize for asking you to back up your statements. I've learned my lesson. It won't happen again.

Edited August 22, 2006 by MrRain422

[cryptique]

You're right, Bush is bad.

 

Please provide an example of something that an elected official said that is "frighteningly close to treasonous." It's becoming readily apparent that you don't care one bit about an actual dialogue with anyone on this.

[Atticus]

Treason:

 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

 

I will have to do some googling to find an example to illustrate what I mean, I don't keep them in a drawer. The kind of thing I'm referring to in general is those who, instead of stating something along the lines of "this war is wrong, we should end it"--which I don't find to be treasonous in the least bit--resort to blaming Bush for terrorism or seem to want our military efforts to fail in order to bring about the ruin of Bush...

 

I can clearly see that that specific word causes a lot of emotion, so I will try to be more careful with the adjectives. the reactions I'm getting to my post show me that what I was trying to say was completely misinterpreted--for which I take the blame as a result of not being more mindful of my choice of words. I was trying to make a point, and instead of discussing that point, this whole thread has moved to a debate on treason. that's not what I intended, nor am I running around accusing folks of treason.

[Atticus]

Christ some of you people are mean spirited. I made a poor choice of words, for which I've clarified and apologized (if that hasn't been enough, here: I should have used a phrase or term other than "treasonous," I will try and be more careful in the future), and yet the attacks continue. This (experience) is a first for me on VC. what a shame.

[MrRain422]

You have not been attacked. We asked for clarification and examples that might prove your point.

[Atticus]

You have not been attacked

 

Really? Oh, my bad.

[John Smith]

what is the democrats' strategy at this point with regard to terrorism and foreign relations in general (other than "Bush bad")? I think you make valid points about the tunnelvision of both sides (bleeding hearts vs. kill 'em all). So who around has the right balance, in your opinion?

 

I tend to like Murtha's plan to withdraw over the horizon so to speak. Perhaps we can pull to a friendly nation sucxh as KJuwait and keep our sea power in the region. Then we can watch Iraq incubate and develop. We have already shown that we can quickly dispose of an unfriendly government so pulling back and seeing if the grand vision of democracy takes hold or not will not cost us any more Ameircan blood or dollars. Additionally if Iraq every truely becomes the terrorist threat it was sold as, then we can move quickly to bring the chaos back that exists there now. That will free up resources for the true war on terror because what we have in Iraq is nationalist and an almost balkens like situation playing out. We have Kurds, Sunni's and Shiites who were thrown together back at the end of WWI in a balkens like fashion and they have been held to gether by one disctor or another over the last century. Once theat strong central dictaorship was removed the vaccuum had to be filled with something and we are seeing what that is.

 

Should we pull out and what is going on continues then we could possibly be seeing the break up of Iraq. I would suspect that Turkey might take a chunk, or perhaps the Kurds will hold their own against the Turks. I suspect that Iran willl take a chunk and the remained will be a new nation. That is a possibility. President Bush laments the breakup of Iraq as being a bad thing, but thus far he has been wrong on nearly every judgement he has made in the mid east, so what would make him suddenly be right now? All in all though my speculation is just that, but is no less valid than the presidents speculation. Though of course his comes courtesy of the Project for a new American Century, and mine is rpetty much speculation based on history, which does tend to repeat itself.

 

By the way, in regards to another thread, yes Bush has committed treason. He swore to uphold the constitution and he has actively worked to no uphold the contitution, whether it is by warrentless searches or by usurping power that is no where to be found in the constituion, or disregarding laws and court decisions he finds distasteful to his political ideology (Signing statements are abig issue for me. There is nothing in the constitution which says the president may make law. Yet bush with nearly every law passed by congress ( A pliant submissive congress) has reinterpreted the law in his own fashion.

 

I got a call once froma republican fundraiser before the 2004 election. He was shocked when I articulated those points to him. He stammered soemthing about me being a registered republican and I told him that may be true but I am no ideologue and fully believe that Bush should be in Prison along with a majority of his administration. Needless to say I did not give any money and funny thing the local Republican county chair called me a few weeks later asking me to be a committee man. I turned him down too as I had decided long before that election that I was a full fledged independent.

[anodyne]

Christ some of you people are mean spirited. I made a poor choice of words, for which I've clarified and apologized (if that hasn't been enough, here: I should have used a phrase or term other than "treasonous," I will try and be more careful in the future), and yet the attacks continue. This (experience) is a first for me on VC. what a shame.

you also lowered the bar considerably by calling someone a piece of shit.

 

conservative radical wingnut ann coulter has a book titled treason. some in her clique like to throw that word around. violating the constitution is a much more severe form of treason than having some solidarity or sympathy for aspects of people labeled "enemy". of course, a member of this president's administration has already labeled me a member of a terrorist organization, so who am i to talk about treason?

[cryptique]

Christ some of you people are mean spirited. I made a poor choice of words, for which I've clarified and apologized (if that hasn't been enough, here: I should have used a phrase or term other than "treasonous," I will try and be more careful in the future), and yet the attacks continue. This (experience) is a first for me on VC. what a shame.

I think maybe that dictionary of yours could be put to better use in looking up the word "attack."

 

So far, the closest thing to actual attacks I've seen in this thread are these:

 

How original. Bashing the president's intellect. Again.

 

[...]

 

but it's easy to re-churn these tired, hackneyed jokes, rather than to give the man the befefit of the doubt. I'm sure that increasing your smug quotient is reward enough for most of you. God forbid you delve into any substantive and studied criticism of his policies or politics. That would take some effort.

You can, you smart-ass POS, but I've got better things to do with my time.

You claim you're being attacked, but you're the only one I see doing any attacking. If you really want a reasoned debate on something, try not calling people pieces of shit. I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever someone does that to me, it makes me considerably less enthusiastic about devoting any time or effort into addressing that person's arguments.

 

How's that search for "frighteningly close to treason"-ous utterings of elected officials going?

[Atticus]

you also lowered the bar considerably by calling someone a piece of shit.

 

Would gladly do it again in light of the content and spirit behind the prompting post.

 

conservative radical wingnut ann coulter has a book titled treason. some in her clique like to throw that word around. violating the constitution is a much more severe form of treason than having some solidarity or sympathy for aspects of people labeled "enemy". of course, a member of this president's administration has already labeled me a member of a terrorist organization, so who am i to talk about treason?

 

where is there a blanket "violating the constitution" provision in the Consitution's definition of treason?

 

and thanks for the link to the article. I find the underlying story appalling. Makes me feel a little better about my own word-choice blunder. Thank God Cryptique was there to let me know that I don't fit his mold of permitted thought/existence.

[Atticus]

I think maybe that dictionary of yours could be put to better use in looking up the word "attack."

 

So far, the closest thing to actual attacks I've seen in this thread are these:

You claim you're being attacked, but you're the only one I see doing any attacking.

 

then I suggest you find a mirror, and quick.

 

and as to quotes bordering on treason, I've already explained ad nauseum my poor choice of words, and if you think I'm about to give you more fodder to rip me a new one, then I implore you to hold your breath. You're the most discourteous and smug poster I've ever encountered on this board, and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from addressing me in the future, unless it consists of an apology.

[anodyne]

the president takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. violating that oath is a high crime (as in high crimes and misdemeanors). the warrantless wiretapping is a blatent violation of the fourth amendment, and the federal courts have said so. that was a violation of the constitution AND a violation of the oath -- AND THAT'S JUST ONE SMALL EXAMPLE of what these plutocrats have done.

 

i'm NOT saying bush is hitler, or hitler-like, or anything of the sort, but he certainly fits the definition of a fascist in his insistence that only article II of the constitution matters, with article II section II as the supreme portion. that's far closer to treason than any patriotic question of the incompetent boob severely damaging our country and our democratic institutions with impunity.